Archive through March 31, 2002

Sepulchritude Forum: The Absinthe Forum Archive Thru March 2002: Ordinaire wins:Archive through March 31, 2002
By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 09:22 am: Edit

Maybe Dave Gilmour and Roger Waters were in the pay of the Soviets?

Maybe their crucial role in the collapse of the East German government and subsequent re-unification and massive Western cash investment into former communist Eastern Europe was all part of Soviet game plan as outlined by Golitsyn.


By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 09:16 am: Edit


It's not about any nation wanting to ally itself with Russia. You seem hung up on this Russian domination thing. Neither is it about "this is our ideology folks now come and join us". People in the West are becoming less free, more civil liberties are being eroded and those who run our governments are becoming more cliquish and less accountable. It is about the West pumping money into 'former' communist countries. It is about communism merging with the West slowly and with stealth (the name 'communism' may as well be relegated to the history books). To outsiders the current economy of Russia doesn't look attractive but the economy of the West sure as hell does.

If you keep looking at Russia as your 'opponent' in this then you're looking in the wrong places, look a bit closer to home. Unless you believe that that sort of thing just could never, ever, ever happen to the USA.


By Arj on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 07:58 am: Edit

Hobgoblin, Pink Floyd was directly responsible for the fall of the Berlin wall, after The Wall was smuggled into East Germany. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

By Arj on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 07:55 am: Edit

Right Hob, But that ideology is not going to be spread in Asia by a country that is fighting multiple wars to keep what land it has. The Russians aren't going to get their former Asian friends to identify with that ideology. Instead, nationalism and religious identity are on the rise on Russia's borders, not any proletarian identity the communists wish to foster. Do you really think the Chechens, other muslim groups, and Chinese are going to be swayed by the world-movement of some underground Russian communists? No, they see Russia as the sick man of Asia and will exploit its weakness rather than ally themselves with it. The Chinese are already moving into eastern Russia. Vladivostok and the surrounding region will be China before too long, and that conquest will look a lot like the US conquest of Texas.

If anything, Golitsyn's view of this communist strategy makes more sense in Europe. Nationalistic identity is breaking down there with the EU (although Italy, Spain, UK may be pulling back at the moment). The Russian communists may see an opening in the socialist super-state that seems to be developing there. And their strategy post- 9/11 certainly is to join with the rest of Europe. Too bad. England, Germany, France and the others were great countries that were worth fighting for. They still are. It's amazing how they are willing to chuck it for the EU socialist bureaucracy.

Blackjack, whatever you believe the strategy here was, that was the effect in the USSR according to Gorbachev. They did the math and realized they could not win.

By _Blackjack on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 07:23 am: Edit

I always foung the post-hoc hypothesis that the arms race was really a secret Republican master-plan to bankrupt the Soviets rather like playing chicken on the assumtion that the other guy's car gets worse gas milage than yours...

By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 07:13 am: Edit

I don't think it's a case of the Russians grabbing land. Afterall most interpretations of Marxism (warped or otherwise) take an international rather than a national view on things and they also take a very long-term view indeed. It's about the spread of an ideology or system of government rather than any spread of national boundaries. It's not about the USSR, or any other nation controlling the world, but about a system of government controlling the world. The giving up of Eastern European satellite states as well as most states in the USSR was (according to Golitsyn) an intentional part a communist long-game plan. Why did Gorbachev really dismantle the perceived Soviet control on eastern Europe and the USSR? Did he (a dedicated communist) really want to throw in the towel? And why did nobody within the Soviet Communist Party or military realy try to stop him? To see the spread of 'communism' as simply the spread of any nation's boundaries shows a great misunderstanding of what is involved.

(Or perhaps they were all just sick of listening to crappy music and wanted to buy some Pink Floyd CDs)

By Don_Walsh on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 07:11 am: Edit

Golitsyn wasn't postulating a theory. He was the highest ranking defector from KGB ever, and he was elucidating what he knew about their grand strategies.

Which is not to say that between his defection and the collapse, a lot of water went under the bridge. Maybe such a deception was planned but meanwhile was overtaken by events.

Sorry, I don't see Pat B. as much of a master of the present, much less a Futurist. Even in the 80s Pat was always a bit too shrill for my tastes, and he certainly hasn't mellowed any since.

By Arj on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 06:16 am: Edit

Golitsyn certainly has an interesting theory there. But I think the Russians are going to have a hard time keeping what they have in the next century, and will not be in a position to grab more no matter how much their economy improves. Their population is shrinking while all around them, the muslim countries and China are growing and looking at the wide rich unpopulated lands in Russian Asia. If you haven't seen it already, Pat Buchanan's book, The Death of the West, is a great read. He thinks the Russians will lose most of their land east of the Urals in this century. The Europeans, including the Russians, need to start making babies again.

By Don_Walsh on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 03:30 am: Edit

Who said anything about a nuclear strike?

Anyway Golitsyn made his comments to Angleton in the 60s and his book was published in the 70s.

FWIW Angleton also vescerally believed that the Sino-Soviet split (in the 50s) was a grand strategic deception.

While I am an unabashed Angletonophile, I do regard both of these as unlikely.

I was merely reminding Ari of the need to remain critical and alert and open minded, rather than awarding Ronnie R. any "grails" or patting Schulz on the back for being a White Knight. Maybe, maybe not. We will only know in the fullness of time.

By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 03:25 am: Edit


Golitsyn's idea that the communists still control the USSR is reasonable and the money now being pumped into Eastern Europe from the West backs up his ideas for the reasons behind the phoney Soviet collapse.

But the problem with Golitsyn's idea is that under these circumstances why would the Soviets want to launch a nuclear attack on the West? If Western 'democracies' are now moving towards elite, unnacountable cliques running our societies (and this is happenning) and civil and personal liberties being eroded (and this also is happening) then why launch an attack (and within the next decade!)? Why not just let things progress in the direction they are heading and there may be no need for a nuclear strike?


By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, March 31, 2002 - 02:56 am: Edit

Double post

By Don_Walsh on Saturday, March 30, 2002 - 03:42 pm: Edit

There is a fly in the ointment regarding the collapse of the evil empire. I submit two words to you, Ari, for you to ponder and study. Put them together, read his book, maybe you know his significance and history already, but he will trouble your sleep if you don't, and it is serious mistake to dismiss him out of hand.



Have fun!

By Don_Walsh on Saturday, March 30, 2002 - 03:37 pm: Edit

Nah, I was a Beltway Bandit and defense journalist during that period.

I did live in Rosslyn for awhile, which is as close as I ever got to working for State.

I did have some dealing with the DS, formerly called SY, out in their outside the Beltway training facility and security-engineering operation.

By Arj on Saturday, March 30, 2002 - 08:42 am: Edit

The men of Camelot were flawed, just like the men of the Reagan years. Both were on a quest for something good. But Reagan actually got his grail in 1989 and 1991. George Shultz made a pretty good knight of the round table. I respectfully stand by the analogy. By the way, were you a FSO?

By Don_Walsh on Friday, March 29, 2002 - 03:36 pm: Edit

After the Reagan "Camelot" who can blame me for decamping to Morgan la Fee's keep and joining the Forces of Darkness here in Bangkok? (the year was '89)


By Don_Walsh on Friday, March 29, 2002 - 03:32 pm: Edit

I lived in NOVA during this alleged Camelot, and believe me, it wasn't. The Great Communicator was mostly a puppet. Some of his handlers were good, some were not. Some were friends; most were not. I don't think Nancy was any Gwen, and there was no Lancelot. There were a lot of surly and unworthy Knights at that Round Table though, some that were jumped up clowns and fall guys like Ollie North, others that were lightweights and fall guys like Poindexter (attempted suicide by Valium?) and some were old bad guys being retreaded like Richard Secord and Richard Armitage -- now Colin Powell's #2 at State, for God's sake. No, better leave God out of any conversation involving him, less'n it be in the form of "goddamned".

And I say all this as a lifelong Republican. Cmon! Camelot? I used to drink with the Hill crowd at the Capitol Hill Club and Bullfeathers, and it was always more like Saturday night feeding time at the hog trough than Camelot.

Or do you mean the Monty Python version?


By _Blackjack on Friday, March 29, 2002 - 03:12 pm: Edit


The Reagan years were my Camelot.

Yeah, shame about the middle class, tho...

By Arj on Friday, March 29, 2002 - 02:36 pm: Edit

You're not far off. Boris and Gorbachev covered for Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley on occasion in the '70s. Gorby was never able to get some of the make-up off his forehead. Now you know the rest of the story...

By Admin on Friday, March 29, 2002 - 01:37 pm: Edit

Hob, looked the same from over here to some of us too.

By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, March 29, 2002 - 01:31 pm: Edit


Thanks to you I now have the image of Boris Yeltsin stood on top of a tank in Red Square with an electric guitar playing 'The Wind of Change' stuck in my mind. Although I still can't figure out how Boris managed to stay sober enough to climb on top of a tank and stay there without falling off (perhaps Paul, George and Ringo were there behind him holding him up).

On Reagan and Kennedy I suppose both Reagan and Kennedy were alike in their support for McCarthyism. I certainly wouldn't have liked to have been a fellow actor of Ronald Reagan.

But seriously Arj, from the other side of the Atlantic the image we saw of Ronald Reagan was a dozy old buffer who liked to give an over-exaggerated salute to his troops. This along with his 'empire of evil' comments and his 'we start bombing now' remarks about the USSR made him just appear to us as a bumbling old fool.


By Arj on Friday, March 29, 2002 - 12:28 pm: Edit

Baz, about a year ago, a book of Reagan's personal writings was published. I would recommend it. He was anything but old school. He had been a Democrat, but gave that up and became one of the visionaries of a new Republicanism. This was revolutionary in a period dominated by FDR wannabes. You're right that he was slipping at the end, but I'm sure you won't want to be judged by your elderly years. He was a vital, strong man, not just the old guy you remember, and a deeper thinker than you would believe.

By the way, how's that death penalty case going?

By Arj on Friday, March 29, 2002 - 12:22 pm: Edit

History isn't so simple. There are many causes for any given change. Western counter-culture was a force in the East. They saw the West wasn't as bad as they'd been told, and wasn't the enemy. The West certainly had better music. I lived with a dozen Eastern block refugees in 1991 and they said as much, and actually knew more than I about Western music. Believe me, rock got over the iron curtain and made a difference. We couldn't have had any better propaganda. And the USSR was brutal, corrupt and couldn't provide since the beginning. What tipped it over the edge was the counter-culture of rock and revived Catholic-inspired nationalism in Poland, not to mention that Reagan scared the bejesus out of them.

As for Kennedy and Reagan, neither were "cunts" and they both could lead. Show some respect for your betters. Reagan's 1984 election returns were the best ever: every state but Minnesotta and DC. His legacy lives on in the current administration, not to mention Clinton's and Mr. Blair's republican-light policies. The record shows, the Gipper could lead.

By Baz on Friday, March 29, 2002 - 12:20 pm: Edit

I can agree with that. Reagan was an old school, the ends justify the means, confused, old man. I never thought much of him.

By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, March 29, 2002 - 11:47 am: Edit


And there was me thinking that 'communist' USSR fell apart because of its corruption, its brutality and its failure to provide adequately for its people. When in reality it fell apart because all its young people wanted was a copy of "The Yellow Submarine". Just think, if the Russian leadership had figured this out they could have issued free Beatles anthologies to all their young people and they would still be in power today.

As for your hero Ronnie Reagan, I bet he was jealous as hell that the shere scale of Kennedy's covert operations made his own look puny by comparison.

Given the choice between Reagan and Kennedy I'd admire Kennedy any day. They may both have been cunts but Kennedy was a cunt who could lead.


By Arj on Friday, March 29, 2002 - 10:15 am: Edit

I never said he was a dove. And it's not a matter of pulling us out as it is not getting us in. The forces he put into Vietnam were small. The build-up occurred gradually under LBJ throughout the mid-1960s, for political reasons. Even McNamara conceded privately early on that this was an unwinnable war. JFK would have been stronger than LBJ and wouldn't have caved to the politics for an unwinnable war. You'd may as well blame Eisenhower as JFK, it was chiefly LBJ's fault. And covert ops are not a mass draft. You're comparing apples with oranges.

Never said 'Nam caused the success of rock. Rock was very popular before 'Nam. You need to read more carefully. I said the Beatles got off to a bigger start because of the assassination. And I hope you don't underestimate the Beatles' influence as well as JFK's.

"As for rock and roll being responsible for the fall of communism, I really don't think so."

It was a huge factor in undermining the communist system. The rock "movement" changed the East as much as the West, if not moreso. The young generation loved the Beatles much more than papa Joe.

Evidently, you like JFK more than I. Nixon or Goldwater would have been better. If you're implying that I'm a believer in Camelot, you're mistaken. The Reagan years were my Camelot.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation