Counter-Currents
You can buy Kerry R. Bolton’s book Generation ’68 here.
2,706 words
Kerry R. Bolton
Generation ’68: The Elite Revolution and Its Legacy
Allentown, Penn.: Antelope Hill, 2023
A Left-wing freakout took place among students across the world in 1968, most prominently in France, where student protesters occupied universities and factories, clashed with police, and chanted the names of prominent Communists and Leftists: “Marx! Mao! Marcuse!” France’s trade unions went on strikes in sympathy, and the event remains the largest general strike in French history. The protests were so intense that France’s then-President, Charles de Gaulle, briefly left the country.
The aftershocks of the 1968 protests continue to reverberate, both in France and in other places — with negative outcomes. Kerry Bolton, a white advocate from New Zealand, has published an outstanding book about the origins, supporters, and significance of the 1968 protests, the ideology of which has now become mainstream across the Western world.
The 1968 protests did not materialize out of the thin air. In fact, the ‘68ers were supported by the same establishment they claimed to oppose. The same sort of mixture of wealthy establishment financiers and idealists that we see among the ‘68ers first appeared in the early twentieth century, when the Jewish banker Jacob Schiff, who had emigrated from Germany but was based in the United States, funded the Japanese during the Russo-Japanese War and provided money with which to indoctrinate Russian prisoners-of-war who were being held by the Japanese with anti-Tsarist propaganda.[1]
Working alongside Schiff to bankroll Leftist aims were other financiers and Wall Street executives. These aims included organizing and funding the anti-white National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), financing Leon Trotsky, and providing loans to the Bolsheviks. This network also funded Woodrow Wilson, and was sympathetic to Zionism.
Leftists selling poison
Although there are many Jews named throughout Bolton’s book, the 1968 protest movement wasn’t entirely a Jewish movement. Instead, it represented a systematic ideology based on the idea of an inclusive economy, where every person is a consumer and anything — no matter how dangerous, disruptive, or damaging — is for sale. Bolton calls this the Liberal International Order. This system relies on non-white and Leftist/mattoid violence to achieve the aims of those at its top. The ideology is ultimately nihilistic and supports white genocide.
The ideology of the ‘68ers, who soon came to be called the New Left, sells poison in the name of idealistic rebellion. Jennifer Bilek, a feminist and environmentalist, pointed this out in relation to its most serious and foolish manifestation: transgenderism. Bilek writes:
Transgenderism, a purported civil rights movement, now intersects at every juncture of the global marketplace. It is hard to remember it came out of the medical industrial complex as a term for the most intense body dysphoria. Children are being prescribed puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, sterilized, and groomed into lifelong medical patients and consumers in more than 50 U.S. gender clinics that weren’t here ten years ago.
Selling poisons such as transgenderism is not new. Edward Bernays, Jew who was the pioneer of public relations, once paid a group of attractive women involved in a “woman’s rights march” in 1928 to light up cigarettes in front of reporters’ cameras. This stunt helped to expand the market for cigarettes — and its associated health problems.
The Cold War
By the early 1940s, Leftists had successfully followed the Fabian Society’s strategy across the English-speaking world and captured many of the major cultural institutions. One of them was the London School of Economics. “The LSE,” writes Bolton, “has educated policymakers and executives throughout the world, playing a leading role in the creation of our rootless managerial and intellectual global bureaucracy” (p. 34). The LSE was founded and funded by bankers in London and on Wall Street. Students and alumni of the LSE supported the ’68 protests and went on to shape future political movements, such as Tony Blair’s New Labour Party.
An organization which ended up going into the ‘68ers mix was the National Student Association. Key leaders of the New Left, such as Tom Hayden, were involved in the NSA in the late 1950s and early ‘60s. It grew out of a group of two dozen students who were selected by the CIA to attend the Soviet-sponsored Prague World Youth Congress in 1946. The purpose of this effort was to promote the American liberal order in Eastern Europe and oppose the Soviet Union. Soon thereafter the NSA became a CIA-funded asset, although this remained a secret until a Leftist magazine, Ramparts, exposed the connection in 1967.
The CIA’s strategy to fund the NSA was based on the idea that Leftist organizations could be shaped along anti-Soviet lines. The CIA also realized that it could fund other “student associations” abroad through NSA-affiliated sub-groups. This funding allowed New Left thought to spread from American universities to Europe and elsewhere. Bolton writes:
It is no real mystery . . . how and why the 1968 student riots quickly spread from the US to Europe and into the Soviet bloc. A liberal-democratic internationale of students had been rigorously planned and funded for twenty years. It was no more mystery, and no more spontaneous, than the color revolutions across Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe, organized and funded by the same interests. (p. 47)
Many of the activists involved with the NSA knew they were beholden to the CIA. They justified it by claiming that the CIA was “liberal and progressive,” while the FBI was “reactionary and authoritarian.” Tom Hayden, one of the top New Leftist activists of the time, pointed to the fact that the FBI had investigated him to make the claim that he was in fact an anti-establishment martyr. Such investigations were not limited to the Left, however, and also extended to Right-wing organizations such as the John Birch Society and individuals such as Merwin K. Hart and Gerald L. K. Smith.
Feminism
You can buy Kerry Bolton’s Artists of the Right here.
Feminist icon Gloria Steinem likewise had CIA connections. She worked for the Independent Research Service (IRS), which was a CIA front group, and ran the IRS’ press bureau at the 1959 Vienna Youth Festival. She later justified her actions by insisting that the CIA had been opposed to the anti-Communist crusader, Senator Joe McCarthy.
It is very likely that Steinem’s meteoric rise to the status of a feminist icon was due to her CIA connections, and through that to Wall Street establishment figures. Feminism, however, grew into a nagging problem for the New Left. Bolton writes that “[f]eminists became an important, albeit disruptive, component of the New Left” (p. 64). Many of the New Left’s most violent terrorists were women. Feminists also used the New Left’s adoption of the Maoist technique of the “struggle session” to berate male Leftists by accusing them of being part of the “white male patriarchy.” Tom Hayden called these sessions a form of torture.
This new, more aggressive form of feminism was first enabled by Herbert Marcuse when he declared that women are an oppressed revolutionary class. Marcuse further claimed that the definitions of “female” and “feminine” are “socially conditioned.” This eventually led to today’s LGBT movement, which has, “. . . ironically, caused deep rifts within the feminist movement, with old-line feminists now finding accord with conservatives in rejecting transgenderism as an affront to women” (p. 65).
The Port Huron Statement
The New Left’s 1962 manifesto, the Port Huron Statement, was not as radical as has been claimed. In fact, it was very much in line with what the American Jacobins Woodrow Wilson wanted in his Fourteen Points and Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted in his Atlantic Charter. The Port Huron Statement was also closely aligned with the values of the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations.
The manifesto envisions a world free of starvation, terror, and war. It looks good on paper, but in practice the ideals behind it have dragged America into wars in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yugoslavia, and elsewhere that were of very little benefit to Americans. The Port Huron Statement also endorses international banking schemes as well as spreading industrialization to other countries, thereby sending American jobs abroad, as of course ended up happening in subsequent decades. The Port Huron Statement is also anti-Soviet, stating:
Conventional discussion [about Cold War issues], to be sure, sometimes corresponds with realities: especially the attacks on the Soviet failure to establish democratic institutions, the irresponsibility of Soviet military policy, the phony Soviet equation of centralized, bureaucratic planning with the “triumph of true socialism”; and the numerous small and large denials of human dignity rationalized inadequately by appeals to history, posterity, or the “imperatives of revolution”.
Race riots
The most lasting damage inflicted on white Americans in the 1960s was the “civil rights” revolution. The mainstream narrative about it is that a band of plucky sub-Saharans, along with a few liberal whites and Jews, got together to fight the American South’s establishment, and that justice triumphed against the odds.
The reality was quite different, however. In fact, the “civil rights” movement had been supported by the American establishment since long before the 1960s. Wall Street financiers had already established the NAACP in 1909, and in the early 1960s the billionaire, then-Governor of New York, and future Vice President Nelson Rockefeller[2] was financially supporting the sub-Saharan Saint, the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. Rockefeller even provided King’s bail money when he was (justly) imprisoned in Birmingham, Alabama.
Ordinary whites in the South were completely cut off from the federal power structure at the time, and the establishment provided a great deal of support to the “civil rights” demonstrators. At a segregationist protest held at the University of Mississippi in 1962, for example, US law enforcement agents shot and killed French journalist Paul Guihard, who had planned on writing a sympathetic account of the white protesters. Another white man, Ray Gunter, was also killed. No officials were ever punished for these killings, and the violence came to be seen as a turning point against segregation. Likewise, the famous “Bloody Sunday” confrontation between the Alabama State Police and unarmed “civil rights” marchers at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma in 1965 was likewise a government-sponsored affair. The “civil rights” marchers were in fact flanked by US Army soldiers and were even provided with air support.
In the North, property developers used integration and “civil rights” laws to destroy white ethnic neighborhoods. Nelson Rockefeller used his position as New York state’s Governor to fund what became sub-Saharan and Puerto Rican street gangs, who then terrorized whites while fighting with each other over turf and resources. By the end of Rockefeller’s tenure as Governor, the state was nearly bankrupt and New York City had been overrun by criminal elements.
The populist revolts
There have been several revolts against the domination of the Wall Street establishment and its allies in the government in American history. One was Senator Joe McCarthy’s anti-Communist crusade. Then, in 1964, Barry Goldwater won the Republican nomination, thus undercutting the East Coast establishment’s hold on the party. Goldwater’s success sent the establishment into panic mode. “Psychologists” insisted he was “crazy,” and sub-Saharans were given a free hand to riot outside the venues where Goldwater spoke. He remained unintimidated, however, and voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which has become an illicit second constitution. He also pointed out that the liberal establishment’s policy in Vietnam was inconsistent and likely to end in defeat.
Goldwater’s run also changed politics in such a way that the two main political parties began to diverge. Bolton paraphrases what historian Carroll Quigley has said about the 1964 election being “. . . partly a struggle between the isolationism or nationalism of the petty bourgeoisie and the internationalism of Wall Street” (p. 171).
Paris in 1968 and beyond
You can buy Kerry Bolton’s The Tyranny of Human Rights here.
Given that the New Left was funded by the CIA as part of a strategy to defeat the Soviet Union by drawing anti-Soviet Leftists into the American establishment’s web, it naturally follows that the New Left was used against any American ally that opposed the interests of the US establishment. Throughout the 1960s, the French were a reluctant and troublesome NATO partner; as such, given the New Left’s CIA connections, the Paris 1968 protests could be seen as a CIA operation no different from later US-backed “color revolutions” around the world.
After having started out as street activists, many of the New Left’s main figures joined the establishment as they grew older. For example, Jerry Rubin, originally known for writing a vulgar New Left book called Do It!: Scenarios of the Revolution in 1970, became a stockbroker. Those who had become actual terrorists, such as the members of the Weather Underground, turned themselves in and suffered little, if any, punishment, for their deeds. Many became professors and other establishment professionals. Some kept asking questions, however, and in some cases even shifted to supporting the Right, such as Horst Mahler of the German terrorist group, the Red Army Faction. Mahler later joined the National Democratic Party and became a vocal opponent of Jewish subversion. He has served several prison sentences for his later activism, and naturally has been smeared by the establishment. Bolton writes:
Since his conversion to the right, Mahler’s life has been one of continual persecution, not for terrorism, but for thought crimes. His treatment at the hands of the establishment is a stark contrast to the positions maintained by the former German, British, and American left-wing extremists, who are often lauded for their “idealism.” (p. 411)
The same double standards were applied to sub-Saharan activists as well. Supporting Black Nationalism was, for a short time, a status symbol among the wealthy, and Black Panther members were sometimes honored in upper-class homes. But once these activists shifted from “civil rights” to supporting black self-sufficiency and separationism, these same establishment figures stopped funding them. This is unsurprising given that “civil rights” has merely ended with blacks becoming a different type of slave on a different type of plantation.
The CIA’s strategy
The Port Huron Statement gives the sense that it was written by precocious, yet still juvenile minds. One passage, for example, begins with: “When we were kids the United States was . . .” Nevertheless, William Penn would have agreed with most of it. In fact, the Port Huron Statement’s anti-Soviet statements are entirely in line with Penn’s anti-Ottoman ideas as presented in his Essay Towards the Present and Future Peace of Europe, which encouraged Europe to form a parliament both to facilitate commerce and guard
. . . against the Inroads of the Turk, in their most Prosperous Fortune. For it had been impossible for the Port, to have prevailed so often, and so far from Christendom, but by the Carelessness, or Willful Connivence, if not Aid, of some Christian Princes. And for the same Reason, why no Christian Monarch will adventure to oppose, or break such an Union, the Grand Seignior will find himself obliged to concur, for the Security of what he holds in Europe . . .
The question therefore arises: In the context of the Cold War, was the CIA’s plan to counter the Soviet Union by creating an anti-Soviet Left justified or not? Given that the Soviet Union was a very dangerous enemy, creating a Leftist diversion was a stroke of genius. But this strategy also came with a cost. If the Soviet Union was a malignant cancer, the New Left was a form of chemotherapy which killed the cancer only slightly faster than the patient himself. The Soviet Union is gone, but the New Left’s harmful side effects remain.
Notes
[1] “Woke capital”’s first victory came during the Taft administration (1909-1913), when judge William Cather Hook was nominated for the Supreme Court. As a supporter of segregation and Theodore Roosevelt’s anti-trust measures, his nomination was resisted by the NAACP, which was then almost entirely funded and led by ethnonationalist Jews. The attack and displacement of old-stock American whites was in full swing as early as 1912.
[2] Nelson Rockefeller (1909-1979) was the wealthy scion of John D. Rockefeller, the founder of Standard Oil. A lifetime member of the American political establishment, Rockefeller did everything he could to harm the interests of white Americans through his globalist economic ideas and his support for “civil rights.” Bo Gritz, in his book Called to Serve, raises the possibility that the anti-Nixon coup of 1974 could have been planned with the intention of allowing Rockefeller to become President, first by replacing Nixon’s Vice President with Ford, then replacing Nixon with Ford, and finally, replacing Ford with Rockefeller. Two assassination attempts that were made on Ford in September 1975 failed, however.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.
- Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.
- Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.
- Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.
- Paywall members can “like” comments.
- Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.
14 comments
Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed and thoughtful review.
The engaging book Pursuit of the Millennium: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages by Norman Cohn was an important influence on the soixante-huitards.
Ironic, really. Cohn (who had a Jewish father) intended his work as a “never again” cautionary tale. He would not have been happy with its popularity amongst sixties’ radicals; especially its influence on Situationist stalwarts Guy Debord and Raoul Vaneigem, who convinced themselves that the medieval anarcho-mystical movements had anticipated their own project.
Some thoughts…
Why, if the Soviet Union was the primary enemy, did the US intelligence establishment support leftist movements (per the book and review)? Why didn’t they instead support rightwing anti-communist movements?
A friend with some NATO experience during the Cold War pointed out that World War II discredited the nationalist right. So there was little foundation (organizational, philosophical) for mobilizing the Right for the struggle against communism (with obvious exceptions such as the anti-Castro Cubans).
During the 1960s, communist superpowers (Soviet Union, Red China) were dominating the landmass of Eurasia and projecting power worldwide via “national liberation movements.” Insurgent victories in Indochina, Cuba and Algeria, and the inability of the United States to gain a decision in Vietnam, made it appear that the communism was the wave of the future. And you had the various leftist (and communist front) protest movements operating in the First World which dominated the streets and campuses: Ban the Bomb, Civil Rights, Students for a Democratic Society.
The impact of communist agitprop during this era might have been sufficient to give the communists metapolitical dominance. Therefore, the Western establishment believed it could present a resistance to communism only by adapting the enemy’s zeitgeist.
Then again, it could just be that the inner “game” of the Cold War was not one of communism versus anti-communism. Instead it was two competing elites, each with their own version of the same egalitarian and ultimately globalist vision. The collapse of communism in the 1990s removed the mask from liberalism.
All this bears more consideration…
The CIA has done lots of remarkably boneheaded stuff in the past; one could write a novel about it. In general, the Deep State (of which the CIA is the wetwork branch) was remarkably slow in recognizing that Communism was a threat. In the beginning, they were helping the darlings. This stuff didn’t become uncool until Joseph McCarthy raised holy hell about it and getting too close to the Deep State. Then it wasn’t until the 1970s and 198os that they really started to get serious about opposing Communism, even though they were still doing more boneheaded things like letting South Vietnam and Rhodesia twist in the wind. I’ve heard the conflict between Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, and the Deep State dildocracy described as an inter-leftist civil war, which seems fitting to me.
Martin A. Lee and Bruce Shlain in their Acid Dreams: The CIA, LSD, and the Sixties Rebellion, claim that the CIA promoted the use of the psychedelic LSD during the Cold War, thereby unintentionally (or intentionally?) jump-starting a big part of the 1960s counterculture.
It could be argued that from the perspective of the 1950s (when MK-Ultra commenced) that nobody saw the implications of what became the psychedelic movement. America, after all, was in Eisenhower times, button-downed and grey-flanneled. Perhaps Lee and Shlain are exaggerating the role of the CIA in the ensuing mayhem of the 1960s. Perhaps it all happened organically. Perhaps other forces were at work.
Again, all this era bears more examination.
Question: how can the Dissident Right use these revelations to advance the cause?
Martin A. Lee and Bruce Shlain in their Acid Dreams: The CIA, LSD, and the Sixties Rebellion,
And also see Poisoner in Chief: Sidney Gottlieb and the CIA Search for Mind Control, by Stephen Kinzer. Highly recommended.
Yes.
Early on the far-Right in the United States, led by Senator Joseph McCarthy appreciated that Communism was a threat of internal subversion more than overseas aggression or even atomic tonnage.
The first thing that Sen. McCarthy did was crash the Sen. Raymond E. Baldwin (chairman of a subcommittee of the Armed Services committee) hearings to expose that waving the bloody shirt over alleged German atrocites was at best a “Roman Holiday” in McCarthy’s words, one that undermined anti-Communism both at home and abroad. Baldwin retreated back to Connecticut with his tail between his legs.
It did not take long for it to become public that much of this war-crimes crapola was in reality based on extreme torture ─ and there had been a coverup of real crimes like the butchery of Polish PoWs by the Soviets at the Katyn forest. McCarthy was on a roll.
Even the young Democrat Sen. Jack Kennedy in his Pulitzer-prize winning Profiles in Courage (1956) credited the late Sen. Robert A. Taft, the son of the former President and Supreme Court Chief Justice, with having an unpopular but courageous and principled stance that the Nuremberg War Crime Trials amounted to ex post facto law and Victor’s Justice.
Sen. Kennedy appreciated that this unpopular stance probably cost “Mr. Republican” his party’s nomination for President in 1948, although I am sure that the younger Taft’s name being attached to some questionable “Right to Work” anti-Labor legislation had as much to do with it.
The idea that Communism was really about a burgeoning internal threat answers the question as to why the usual suspects had been so keen to send limitless Lend-lease aid to the Soviets during the war, and essentially sending the plans for the Fat Man atomic bomb to Russia via Jewish spies like the Rosenbergs. General Groves, who directed the Manhattan Project during the war, did not believe that the Russians would be able to duplicate the 1945 technical feat of an atomic bomb for a couple of decades. But then the Soviets did it in 1949.
General Groves probably thought of Jewish immigrants as nothing more than “propositional” Americans or huddled masses yearning to be free. If any Jews had Communist sympathies, well they were just overly exuberant that somebody was fighting the Genocidal Nazis.
Jews were always suspect in Rightwing circles for Communist sympathies, but something big changed that. In fact, the elites of the WASP establishment were also by World War II similarly enthralled to extreme Liberal and Internationalist ideas for some reason. Uncle Joe could do no wrong.
Even if the United States was committed to defending South Korea against North Korean Communist aggression, the idea of letting General MacArthur win more than a stalemate with his UN-mandated “Police Action” was unthinkable. The wise guys of the Truman Administration were not any less convinced of this when Red China sent massive legions crashing into Korea while frostbitten Yanks were enjoying a well-earned Thanksgiving Day meal in their foxholes.
McCarthy just did not have the goods to prove this kind of subversion, however, and eventually it caught up with him when he could not show his cards. That would have to wait decades, for example, until the Venona decrypts were made public.
Where the McCarthyites went wrong, however, is that they incorrectly believed that they could gloss over the Jewish Question and count on a friendly press simply by enlisting Rightwing “anti-Communist” Jews to their cause ─ like Judge Irving R. Kaufman, who sentened the Rosenberg atom spies to the electric chair where they made quite a sizzle.
McCarthy needed a few anti-Communist Democrats on his new Subcommitee as aggressive legal counsel that would give him some bipartisan immunity to make a difference. Roy Cohn, who died of AIDS in 1986, had been part of the prosecution of the Rosenbergs, and he and a young Justice Department lawyer, Bobby Kennedy were McCarthy’s legal assistants.
Jews have a strong racial animosity to Russians, Poles, and Germans in that order. Some observant Jews never appreciated Communism even though Bolshevism was thoroughly Jewish. McCarthy probably genuinely believed ─ incorrectly, of course ─ that (((Roy Cohn))) as lead counsel would give him a pass with the you-know-whos. But I don’t think that assistant counsel RFK would have served any better as the lead, even with an Irish-Catholic animus to WASP religious subversion.
Both Jews and Catholics were cool with race-mixing, just maybe not homicidal atheism.
Anyway, after McCarthy’s Senate censure in late 1954, the God and Man at Yale (1951) guy, William F. Buckley fully Kosherized the new Conservative movement, thus ensuring its sterility.
The Right Wing, at least in the United States, became all about Big Government vs. Libertarianism, and they spent an incredible amount of political capital on weird sectarian issues like prayer in school or no-fault divorce, always taking a fall in favor of race-mixing and any kind of decisive anti-Communism.
This meshed in with President Kennedy’s plan to focus anti-Communism on foreign proxy “Brush Wars” like the insurgency in Indochina, and less on risky bipolar military confrontations with burgeoing nuclear powers (in spite of Kennedy’s earlier election call to rectify the so-called Missile Gap).
All we needed was McNamara’s Mutual-Assured Destruction and Good social Conservatives like Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan discouraging Negro illegitimacy (while blaming Whitey for it) and Jack Valenti adult-rating wholesome Hollywood product beaming into people’s living rooms.
I should not even have to mention that George Lincoln Rockwell analysing where Conservatism went wrong has been old hat since 1960 if one wants to pay attention to the history.
Anyway, I don’t agree with those White Nationalists who eschew the term Communist. Not much has really changed since the fifties. The Berlin Wall is down but it was always more about subversive Establishment elites than Soviet tanks. True, if the term is used to hide or to ignore the Jewish Question and Race, then it should be avoided. At least acknowledge the History. We did not get to here in a vacuum.
Cultural Bolshevism is what it is ─ and in essence what it has always been, with the JQ and Race being integral.
This is why I am also not in favor of avoiding the traditional Left-Right political spectrum. It says what it needs to say ─ and the Libertarians who have inverted it, for example, by putting Stalin and Hitler both onto the Left (as “big gubbamint” socialists) are the ones who are wrong. Ignorantly wrong.
Time to move beyond Rush Limbaugh (who subverted Reaganite politics with talk radio entertainment). Boomer or Zoomer, being a Grug is not a virtue. And it is not rocket science to be honest. Simply reinforce a few simple truths, and repeat.
After the Berlin Wall had joyfully come down, there was some talk about reaping a Peace Dividend, and actually making a raproachment with the Russians like we had with the Germans.
The Clintonistas supported the Department of Defense issuing the so-called Cold War Victory Medal, focusing less on military campaigns than upon the End of History, aka economic globalization.
But when the Shrub dynasty was back in power, they wasted no time downgrading the recognition of those who had served in the Armed Forces between September 2, 1945 and December 26, 1991. Armed Forces personnel were therefore not even allowed to wear the Cold War Victory Medal. Our people were now fighting an open-ended War on Islamo-Fascism or some such nonsense.
And with Globaloney there wasn’t going to be any Peace Dividend.
I rarely go to post-9/11 Memorial Day events and have written critical rants about the plastic-flagged holiday in the past, but if I do attend, the aforementioned is the most important miltary service medal for me.
🙂
At what degree those “protesters” were supported/financed/manipulated by Castro’s and Mao Zedong’s intelligence services? I know that the KGB and Stasi were not guilty here, unlike the Western “peace, anti-nuclear and anti-missile movements” of 1970’s and early 1980’s, where the KGB and Stasi played very important role. Because for the “protesters” of 1968 Brezhnev was too dull. They liked much more cool guys, like Castro, Che Guevara, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, and later their most beloved icon comrade Pol Pot.
I wouldn’t discount Soviet influence entirely. The CPUSA, for example, received lots of funding from them back in the day. The “Active Measures” program had quite a long reach in general.
An interesting thing about the Weathermen is that they had ties to dozens of other radical groups, including lots of far-flung international connections. Meanwhile, these Weathermen were a few dirty hippies living in safe houses while on the run from the law, communicating with each other via pay phones and snail mail. How the hell did they make so many connections and stay in touch with everyone? It seems almost unimaginable, but leftists are very good at networking.
Ladislav Bittman, defector from the Czechoslovakian communist intelligence service, wrote that the Soviets contacted with American Left radicals not directly but through the Cubans.
A leading KGB official in 1968 accused Marcuse of being a CIA agent. It was reported on 5/31/1968 in the NY Times. Marcuse had worked during WWII as an OSS officer. (The OSS of course was a precursor of the CIA.) Marcuse was the preeminent theorist of the New Left. It does seem plausible that the power elite in the USA wanted to create their own leftism that was safe for capitalism. That way the energy of a rebellious zeitgeist could be channelled into something harmless to capitalist interests. A video about the New Left explores the real motives of this movement. At about 8:32 in this documentary, Marcuse’s role is discussed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XFEJCfwXEM
I think that’s pretty accurate. I grew up in communist Czechoslovakia and the regimes in Eastern Europe at the time had nothing in common with the Western liberal left. They were socially conservative regimes with a strong emphasis on patriotism. It was the capitalist West that supported anarchist dissidents. I have to laugh when Americans here write about “communists” and mean Western anti white liberals. Anti-communism is very damaging to our movement. It drives white nationalists into the arms of libertarians and turns them into tools of corporate domination.
The variety that the west got stuck with is different. Ordinary Marxism-Leninism prioritizes Socialist economics. On the other hand, cultural Marxism (which descends from the Frankfurt School) throws Socialist economics right out the window – that’s why Woke Capital loves it so much, because the rich get to keep all their goodies and exploitative business practices, and still come out smelling like roses while congratulating themselves for being so progressive. Cultural Marxism prioritizes creating social discontent, and therefore makes for a very effective subversion strategy.
From early experimentation (in the days of Lenin and Bela Kun), the Marxist-Leninists figured out that running subversion strategies on their own public doesn’t make sense once they were in control of a country. Therefore, they eventually got rid of the weird crap that characterized Bela Kun’s time and the early Lenin days. Wilhelm Reich was an observer and had front row seats to all that. It makes for some interesting reading.
On the other hand, our own Deep State is dumber than dirt, and doesn’t see a problem with destabilizing a country that they control.
Here we must take into account that the old Soviet KGB was not the equivalent of the CIA. The only equivalent of the CIA was its First Chief Directorate (PGU), which dealt with foreign intelligence, but also disinformation and active measures (political subversion against Western countries). Other KGB departments corresponded more or less to the FBI, the Secret Service, the NSA, the Immigration and Naturalization Border Patrol, the Coast Guard, and many other different American agencies. The KGB was VERY BIG.
And those KGB departments that were involved in counterintelligence and political police affairs, they were clearly against Marcuse, since his views were subversive for any established society, both in the West, and in the East. However the First Chief Directorate could well have propagated his views, but in the West only, to undermine Western societies. Yuri Bezmenov and William Lind have written a lot about this. To weaken and disintegrate the Western society, the KGB could well have used all this riffraff from the Frankfurt Schule, but it did not allow this ideology within the USSR itself.
By the way, a someway similar thing is happening in modern Russia now, which, on the one hand, pretends to defend the White race and traditional European values – this is for the Western public, particularly for the Right audience, and on the other hand, it fights Russian non-imperial nationalists at home. At the same time, Russia also publicly acts as a defender of the Third World and the Global South, while activists advocating greater autonomy for non-Russian minorities in Russia itself are severely persecuted. Typical Byzantine hypocrisy also, thousand ++ years old.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment