- I remember Solzhenitsyn's very unpopular address delivered
at Harvard in 1978. Nixon did not complete his second term in 1976 as
he should have and Spiro Agnew did not become the 38th President. Jimmy
Carter, another CFR minion, was president and anti-communism was out of
style -- this despite the fact that the anti-communists were right in every
issue.
-
- (For example, Alger Hiss, who assisted at the giveaway
of Eastern Europe at Yalta and helped design the security counsel of the
UN which gave the Soviet Union, Britain and the US veto power over anything
the General Assembly decides was himself after all a communist agent of
the GRU as verified by decrypted Soviet cables as disclosed in 1996.
-
- Or, the fact that Robert Oppenheimer who led the development
of the atomic bomb and in was awarded by President Lyndon Johnson the AEC
Fermi award, was in fact confirmed as a communist mole and spy by former
KGB general Pavel Sudoplatov, with Sudoplatov naming Enrico Fermi and Leo
Szilard as communist atom spies as well. The Rosenbergs too were confirmed
as guilty.
-
- But most damning of all was the fact that Gen. George
C. Marshall and Sec of State Dean Acheson were shown to be communist agents
working subversion against the free world -- Marshall being responsible
for the loss of mainland China to the murderous and enslaving bloody communist
revolution which led to the murder and degradation of the entire Chinese
middle class and the most complete enslavement of the human mind and destruction
of an organic historical culture. Remember, the communist movement has
always been Zionist Jew led, even Zhou En-lai was an agent of the City
of London.
-
- Senator McCarthy, another great and good defender whom
the American people allowed to be ripped apart by a lawyer's effective
but totally dishonest trick which robbed McCarthy of his standing in public
opinion as managed by a conspiratorial elite controlling the media and
high authority positions in critical institutions and working tirelessly
to enslave Americans under their ruling-class dictation.
-
- McCarthy, in his book, Retreat from Victory, linked
Dean Acheson and Marshall to "a conspiracy on a scale so immense as
to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man. A conspiracy
of infamy so black that, when it is finally exposed, its principles shall
be forever deserving of the maledictions of all honest men."
-
- Read McCarthy on Marshal's treason and the power of the
conspiracy in government in this long excerpt from Retreat from Victory:
- http://www.realnews247.com/america%27s_retreat%20_from_victory.htm
-
-
- Read it while you can, but before you do, it is even
more important, that you read the prophetic words of Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn
-- words that were also attacked, rejected and blacklisted by the Zionist
"better red than dead" monopoly-media opinion molders of the
time.
-
- Solzhenitsyn describes the degradation of our society
that clearly has been the work of deliberate cultural sabotage by communists
who are themselves agents of world-enslaving Jewish international finance
of Zionist global empire.
-
- Excerpt from Solzhenitsyn's second address to Harvard
6-8-1978
-
- Source
- http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/solzhenitsyn/harvard1978.html
-
- The Western world has lost its civil courage, both as
a whole and separately, in each country, each government, each political
party and of course in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is
particularly noticeable among the ruling groups and the intellectual elite,
causing an impression of loss of courage by the entire society. Of course
there are many courageous individuals but they have no determining influence
on public life.
-
-
- Political and intellectual bureaucrats show depression,
passivity and perplexity in their actions and in their statements and even
more so in theoretical reflections to explain how realistic, reasonable
as well as intellectually and even morally warranted it is to base state
policies on weakness and cowardice. And decline in courage is ironically
emphasized by occasional explosions of anger and inflexibility on the part
of the same bureaucrats when dealing with weak governments and weak countries,
not supported by anyone, or with currents which cannot offer any resistance.
But they get tongue-tied and paralyzed when they deal with powerful governments
and threatening forces, with aggressors and international terrorists. Should
one point out that from ancient times decline in courage has been considered
the beginning of the end?
-
- Well-Being
-
- When the modern Western States were created, the following
principle was proclaimed: governments are meant to serve man, and man lives
to be free to pursue happiness. (See, for example, the American Declaration).
Now at last during past decades technical and social progress has permitted
the realization of such aspirations: the welfare state. Every citizen has
been granted the desired freedom and material goods in such quantity and
of such quality as to guarantee in theory the achievement of happiness,
in the morally inferior sense which has come into being during those same
decades.
-
-
- In the process, however, one psychological detail has
been overlooked: the constant desire to have still more things and a still
better life and the struggle to obtain them imprints many Western faces
with worry and even depression, though it is customary to conceal such
feelings. Active and tense competition permeates all human thoughts without
opening a way to free spiritual development.
-
-
- The individual's independence from many types of state
pressure has been guaranteed; the majority of people have been granted
well-being to an extent their fathers and grandfathers could not even dream
about; it has become possible to raise young people according to these
ideals, leading them to physical splendor, happiness, possession of material
goods, money and leisure, to an almost unlimited freedom of enjoyment.
So who should now renounce all this, why and for what should one risk one's
precious life in defense of common values, and particularly in such nebulous
cases when the security of one's nation must be defended in a distant country?
-
- Even biology knows that habitual extreme safety and well-being
are not advantageous for a living organism. Today, well-being in the life
of Western society has begun to reveal its pernicious mask.
-
- Legalistic Life
-
- Western society has given itself the organization best
suited to its purposes, based, I would say, on the letter of the law. The
limits of human rights and righteousness are determined by a system of
laws; such limits are very broad. People in the West have acquired considerable
skill in using, interpreting and manipulating law, even though laws tend
to be too complicated for an average person to understand without the help
of an expert. Any conflict is solved according to the letter of the law
and this is considered to be the supreme solution. If one is right from
a legal point of view, nothing more is required, nobody may mention that
one could still not be entirely right, and urge self-restraint, a willingness
to renounce such legal rights, sacrifice and selfless risk: it would sound
simply absurd. One almost never sees voluntary self-restraint. Everybody
operates at the extreme limit of those legal frames. An oil company is
legally blameless when it purchases an invention of a new type of energy
in order to prevent its use. A food product manufacturer is legally blameless
when he poisons his produce to make it last longer: after all, people are
free not to buy it.
-
-
- I have spent all my life under a communist regime and
I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible
one indeed. But a society with no other scale but the legal one is not
quite worthy of man either. A society which is based on the letter of the
law and never reaches any higher is taking very scarce advantage of the
high level of human possibilities. The letter of the law is too cold and
formal to have a beneficial influence on society. Whenever the tissue of
life is woven of legalistic relations, there is an atmosphere of moral
mediocrity, paralyzing man's noblest impulses.
-
- And it will be simply impossible to stand through the
trials of this threatening century with only the support of a legalistic
structure.
-
- The Direction of Freedom
-
- In today's Western society, the inequality has been revealed
of freedom for good deeds and freedom for evil deeds. A statesman who wants
to achieve something important and highly constructive for his country
has to move cautiously and even timidly; there are thousands of hasty and
irresponsible critics around him, parliament and the press keep rebuffing
him. As he moves ahead, he has to prove that every single step of his is
well-founded and absolutely flawless. Actually an outstanding and particularly
gifted person who has unusual and unexpected initiatives in mind hardly
gets a chance to assert himself; from the very beginning, dozens of traps
will be set out for him. Thus mediocrity triumphs with the excuse of restrictions
imposed by democracy.
-
- It is feasible and easy everywhere to undermine administrative
power and, in fact, it has been drastically weakened in all Western countries.
The defense of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society
as a whole defenseless against certain individuals. It is time, in the
West, to defend not so much human rights as human obligations.
-
- Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted
boundless space. Society appears to have little defense against the abyss
of human decadence, such as, for example, misuse of liberty for moral violence
against young people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime and horror.
It is considered to be part of freedom and theoretically counter-balanced
by the young people's right not to look or not to accept. Life organized
legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the
corrosion of evil.
-
- And what shall we say about the dark realm of criminality
as such? Legal frames (especially in the United States) are broad enough
to encourage not only individual freedom but also certain individual crimes.
The culprit can go unpunished or obtain undeserved leniency with the support
of thousands of public defenders. When a government starts an earnest fight
against terrorism, public opinion immediately accuses it of violating the
terrorists' civil rights. There are many such cases.
-
- Such a tilt of freedom in the direction of evil has come
about gradually but it was evidently born primarily out of a humanistic
and benevolent concept according to which there is no evil inherent to
human nature; the world belongs to mankind and all the defects of life
are caused by wrong social systems which must be corrected. Strangely enough,
though the best social conditions have been achieved in the West, there
still is criminality and there even is considerably more of it than in
the pauper and lawless Soviet society. (There is a huge number of prisoners
in our camps which are termed criminals, but most of them never committed
any crime; they merely tried to defend themselves against a lawless state
resorting to means outside of a legal framework).
-
- The Direction of the Press
-
- The press too, of course, enjoys the widest freedom.
(I shall be using the word press to include all media). But what sort of
use does it make of this freedom?
-
- Here again, the main concern is not to infringe the letter
of the law. There is no moral responsibility for deformation or disproportion.
What sort of responsibility does a journalist have to his readers, or to
history? If they have misled public opinion or the government by inaccurate
information or wrong conclusions, do we know of any cases of public recognition
and rectification of such mistakes by the same journalist or the same newspaper?
No, it does not happen, because it would damage sales. A nation may be
the victim of such a mistake, but the journalist always gets away with
it. One may safely assume that he will start writing the opposite with
renewed self-assurance.
-
- Because instant and credible information has to be given,
it becomes necessary to resort to guesswork, rumors and suppositions to
fill in the voids, and none of them will ever be rectified, they will stay
on in the readers' memory. How many hasty, immature, superficial and misleading
judgments are expressed every day, confusing readers, without any verification.
The press can both simulate public opinion and miseducate it. Thus we may
see terrorists heroized, or secret matters, pertaining to one's nation's
defense, publicly revealed, or we may witness shameless intrusion on the
privacy of well-known people under the slogan: "everyone is entitled
to know everything." But this is a false slogan, characteristic of
a false era: people also have the right not to know, and it is a much more
valuable one. The right not to have their divine souls stuffed with gossip,
nonsense, vain talk. A person who works and leads a meaningful life does
not need this excessive burdening flow of information.
-
- Hastiness and superficiality are the psychic disease
of the 20th century and more than anywhere else this disease is reflected
in the press. In-depth analysis of a problem is anathema to the press.
It stops at sensational formulas.
-
- Such as it is, however, the press has become the greatest
power within the Western countries, more powerful than the legislature,
the executive and the judiciary. One would then like to ask: by what law
has it been elected and to whom is it responsible? In the communist East
a journalist is frankly appointed as a state official. But who has granted
Western journalists their power, for how long a time and with what prerogatives?
-
-
- There is yet another surprise for someone coming from
the East where the press is rigorously unified: one gradually discovers
a common trend of preferences within the Western press as a whole. It is
a fashion; there are generally accepted patterns of judgment and there
may be common corporate interests, the sum effect being not competition
but unification. Enormous freedom exists for the press, but not for the
readership because newspapers mostly give enough stress and emphasis to
those opinions which do not too openly contradict their own and the general
trend.
-
- A Fashion in Thinking
-
- Without any censorship, in the West fashionable trends
of thought and ideas are carefully separated from those which are not fashionable;
nothing is forbidden, but what is not fashionable will hardly ever find
its way into periodicals or books or be heard in colleges. Legally your
researchers are free, but they are conditioned by the fashion of the day.
There is no open violence such as in the East; however, a selection dictated
by fashion and the need to match mass standards frequently prevent independent-minded
people from giving their contribution to public life.
-
-
- There is a dangerous tendency to form a herd, shutting
off successful development. I have received letters in America from highly
intelligent persons, maybe a teacher in a faraway small college who could
do much for the renewal and salvation of his country, but his country cannot
hear him because the media are not interested in him. This gives birth
to strong mass prejudices, blindness, which is most dangerous in our dynamic
era. There is, for instance, a self-deluding interpretation of the contemporary
world situation. It works as a sort of petrified armor around people's
minds. Human voices from 17 countries of Eastern Europe and Eastern Asia
cannot pierce it. It will only be broken by the pitiless crowbar of events.
-
- I have mentioned a few trends of Western life which surprise
and shock a new arrival to this world. The purpose and scope of this speech
will not allow me to continue such a review, to look into the influence
of these Western characteristics on important aspects on [the] nation's
life, such as elementary education, advanced education in [?...]
-
- Socialism
-
- It is almost universally recognized that the West shows
all the world a way to successful economic development, even though in
the past years it has been strongly disturbed by chaotic inflation. However,
many people living in the West are dissatisfied with their own society.
They despise it or accuse it of not being up to the level of maturity attained
by mankind. A number of such critics turn to socialism, which is a false
and dangerous current.
-
-
- I hope that no one present will suspect me of offering
my personal criticism of the Western system to present socialism as an
alternative. Having experienced applied socialism in a country where the
alternative has been realized, I certainly will not speak for it. The well-known
Soviet mathematician Shafarevich, a member of the Soviet Academy of Science,
has written a brilliant book under the title Socialism; it is a profound
analysis showing that socialism of any type and shade leads to a total
destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death.
Shafarevich's book was published in France almost two years ago and so
far no one has been found to refute it. It will shortly be published in
English in the United States.
-
- Not a Model
-
- But should someone ask me whether I would indicate the
West such as it is today as a model to my country, frankly I would have
to answer negatively. No, I could not recommend your society in its present
state as an ideal for the transformation of ours. Through intense suffering
our country has now achieved a spiritual development of such intensity
that the Western system in its present state of spiritual exhaustion does
not look attractive. Even those characteristics of your life which I have
just mentioned are extremely saddening.
-
- A fact which cannot be disputed is the weakening of human
beings in the West while in the East they are becoming firmer and stronger.
Six decades for our people and three decades for the people of Eastern
Europe; during that time we have been through a spiritual training far
in advance of Western experience. Life's complexity and mortal weight have
produced stronger, deeper and more interesting characters than those produced
by standardized Western well-being. Therefore if our society were to be
transformed into yours, it would mean an improvement in certain aspects,
but also a change for the worse on some particularly significant scores.
It is true, no doubt, that a society cannot remain in an abyss of lawlessness,
as is the case in our country. But it is also demeaning for it to elect
such mechanical legalistic smoothness as you have. After the suffering
of decades of violence and oppression, the human soul longs for things
higher, warmer and purer than those offered by today's mass living habits,
introduced by the revolting invasion of publicity, by TV stupor and by
intolerable music.
-
- All this is visible to observers from all the worlds
of our planet. The Western way of life is less and less likely to become
the leading model.
-
- There are meaningful warnings that history gives a threatened
or perishing society. Such are, for instance, the decadence of art, or
a lack of great statesmen. There are open and evident warnings, too. The
center of your democracy and of your culture is left without electric power
for a few hours only, and all of a sudden crowds of American citizens start
looting and creating havoc. The smooth surface film must be very thin,
then, the social system quite unstable and unhealthy.
-
- But the fight for our planet, physical and spiritual,
a fight of cosmic proportions, is not a vague matter of the future; it
has already started. The forces of Evil have begun their decisive offensive,
you can feel their pressure, and yet your screens and publications are
full of prescribed smiles and raised glasses. What is the joy about?
-
- Shortsightedness
-
- Very well known representatives of your society, such
as George Kennan, say: we cannot apply moral criteria to politics. Thus
we mix good and evil, right and wrong and make space for the absolute triumph
of absolute Evil in the world. On the contrary, only moral criteria can
help the West against communism's well planned world strategy. There are
no other criteria. Practical or occasional considerations of any kind will
inevitably be swept away by strategy. After a certain level of the problem
has been reached, legalistic thinking induces paralysis; it prevents one
from seeing the size and meaning of events.
-
- In spite of the abundance of information, or maybe because
of it, the West has difficulties in understanding reality such as it is.
There have been naive predictions by some American experts who believed
that Angola would become the Soviet Union's Vietnam or that Cuban expeditions
in Africa would best be stopped by special U.S. courtesy to Cuba. Kennan's
advice to his own country -- to begin unilateral disarmament -- belongs
to the same category. If you only knew how the youngest of the Moscow Old
Square [1] officials laugh at your political wizards! As to Fidel Castro,
he frankly scorns the United States, sending his troops to distant adventures
from his country right next to yours.
-
- However, the most cruel mistake occurred with the failure
to understand the Vietnam war. Some people sincerely wanted all wars to
stop just as soon as possible; others believed that there should be room
for national, or communist, self-determination in Vietnam, or in Cambodia,
as we see today with particular clarity. But members of the U.S. anti-war
movement wound up being involved in the betrayal of Far Eastern nations,
in a genocide and in the suffering today imposed on 30 million people there.
Do those convinced pacifists hear the moans coming from there? Do they
understand their responsibility today? Or do they prefer not to hear? The
American Intelligentsia lost its [nerve] and as a consequence thereof danger
has come much closer to the United States. But there is no awareness of
this. Your shortsighted politicians who signed the hasty Vietnam capitulation
seemingly gave America a carefree breathing pause; however, a hundredfold
Vietnam now looms over you. That small Vietnam had been a warning and an
occasion to mobilize the nation's courage. But if a full-fledged America
suffered a real defeat from a small communist half-country, how can the
West hope to stand firm in the future?
-
- I have had occasion already to say that in the 20th century
democracy has not won any major war without help and protection from a
powerful continental ally whose philosophy and ideology it did not question.
In World War II against Hitler, instead of winning that war with its own
forces, which would certainly have been sufficient, Western democracy grew
and cultivated another enemy who would prove worse and more powerful yet,
as Hitler never had so many resources and so many people, nor did he offer
any attractive ideas, or have such a large number of supporters in the
West -- a potential fifth column -- as the Soviet Union. At present, some
Western voices already have spoken of obtaining protection from a third
power against aggression in the next world conflict, if there is one; in
this case the shield would be China. But I would not wish such an outcome
to any country in the world. First of all, it is again a doomed alliance
with Evil; also, it would grant the United States a respite, but when at
a later date China with its billion people would turn around armed with
American weapons, America itself would fall prey to a genocide similar
to the one perpetrated in Cambodia in our days.
-
- Loss of Willpower
-
- And yet -- no weapons, no matter how powerful, can help
the West until it overcomes its loss of willpower. In a state of psychological
weakness, weapons become a burden for the capitulating side. To defend
oneself, one must also be ready to die; there is little such readiness
in a society raised in the cult of material well-being. Nothing is left,
then, but concessions, attempts to gain time and betrayal. Thus at the
shameful Belgrade conference free Western diplomats in their weakness surrendered
the line where enslaved members of Helsinki Watchgroups are sacrificing
their lives.
-
- Western thinking has become conservative: the world situation
should stay as it is at any cost, there should be no changes. This debilitating
dream of a status quo is the symptom of a society which has come to the
end of its development. But one must be blind in order not to see that
oceans no longer belong to the West, while land under its domination keeps
shrinking. The two so-called world wars (they were by far not on a world
scale, not yet) have meant internal self-destruction of the small, progressive
West which has thus prepared its own end. The next war (which does not
have to be an atomic one and I do not believe it will) may well bury Western
civilization forever.
|
