This week on Update Brazil, hosted by geopolitical analyst Jeff Nyquist and Brazilian conservative Allan L. Dos Santos, author and researcher Trevor Loudon sat down with Jeff and Allan to discuss some of the background on the communist infiltration of the U.S. government, the recent rise of the Russian “bear” on the world stage, and the rise of communism in South America.
It is not uncommon for people like Allan, Jeff, Trevor, and others (myself included), who try and warn Americans and Westerners about the rise of communism and socialism around the world—including the United States, Central America, South America, Africa, etc.—to be labeled “conspiracy theorists” and “red scare wackjobs.” From my own experience, this sort of ad hominem typically comes from people who are, for the most part, completely ignorant of the history of communism and Marxist ideology; or are themselves socialists, communists or “fellow travelers” (i.e. sympathizers).
The prevailing view since the late 80s and early 90s that communism collapsed following the fall of the Berlin Wall becomes “problematic” when one takes a long, hard look at the role Russia and China are currently playing on the world stage.
For example, Russia, under the leadership of Vladimir Putin, is making some ominous moves eerily similar to the bad old days of the Soviet Union. Not only has Putin begun to flex Russia’s military muscle in Ukraine and Syria as of late, but the signs of Putin’s desire to return the former Soviet Union back to its “glory days” stretches back to the time he first grabbed hold of the reins of power. Putin has publicly statedthat “the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century.” While some leftist sources will sometimes try and downplay Putin’s lamenting the fall of the Soviet Union, Putin’s actions toward trying to rehabilitate the old USSR should give one pause.
In 2000, Vladimir Putin asked the Russian Parliament to reinstate the national anthem of the Soviet Union, originally written for Josef Stalin.
In 2014, Vladimir Putin renamed an elite police unit after the notorious Felix Dzerzhinsky (see video below); considered the founder of the KGB (now the FSB), and the first head of the feared Bolshevik secret police force known as the Cheka. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin appointed Dzerzhinsky as Commissar of the Internal Affairs and head of the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution (Cheka)in December 1917.
In an interview with Novaia Zhizn on 14 July 1918, Dzerzhinsky justified the use of terror:
We stand for organized terror – this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Soviet Government and of the new order of life.
We judge quickly. In most cases only a day passes between the apprehension of the criminal and his sentence. When confronted with evidence criminals in almost every case confess; and what argument can have greater weight than a criminal’s own confession. (The Bolsheviks, Volume II: How the Soviets Seize Power, by John D. Loscher, pp. 549-550.)
If you visit the official website of the Russian Federal Security Forces (i.e. fsb.ru), there is a link to a list of former FSB “leaders.” The very first leader mentioned is Felix Dzerzhinsky. The list also contains such cringe-worthy figures as Genrikh Yagoda, Nikolai Yezhov, Lavrentiy Beria, Yuri Andropov, among others. Also included in the list is Vladimir Putin, who was a former KGB officer and “director of FSB Russia” fromJuly 1998 to August 1999.
The statue of Felix Dzerzhinsky, the former head of the Soviet secret police on “Dzerzhinsky Square.”
For many years a statue of Felix Dzerzhinsky stood prominently in front of the notorious Lubyanka building, the headquarters of the KGB. The statue was such a dominant feature that Lubyanka Square was nicknamed “Dzerzhinsky Square.” The statue was toppled with a crane by protesters, in 1991, following the collapse of the coup against the then-Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev.
The toppling of Dzerzhinsky’s statue has not been without controversy in Russia. There have long been calls by some to restore the statue to its plinth. In June 2015, Radio Free Europereported the statue may be “inching back” to its old KGB headquarters:
On June 11, the Moscow City Election Commission ruled to allow a referendum on restoring the statue to the site — a concession the commission had previously declined to make.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there have been numerous calls from the Communist Party and powerful noncommunist politicians such as former Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov to restore the statue to its pedestal.
In an upcoming article, I will be digging deeper into what is known as the dialectical strategy. Dialectics is a very important concept to understand when it comes to radical left-wing strategy and tactics, and is something many Americans and Westerners fail to grasp. In a nutshell, the dialectical strategy could be described as two opposing forces (e.g. left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative, nationalist vs. internationalist, etc.) which appear to be diametrically opposed to one another; but are, in fact, working in concert to bring about a predetermined outcome. Jeff Nyquist calls it the “scissors strategy”—controlling both the far-right and far-left simultaneously. The target is being cut from both the right and left blades, so to speak—all under the control of “one hand.” Another analogy that could used to describe the dialectical strategy is the wings of a bird. While the right and left wings can operate independently of one another, they are still connected to the same body; which, in turn, is controlled by one brain.
It is not uncommon for communists to hold diametrically opposed positions on various social, economic or cultural issues concurrently. This is dialectics in practice: two seemingly opposing positions are working toward the same predetermined end (i.e. international socialism).
For example, the radical left may support gay rights in one country, while opposing gay rights in another country. The Bolsheviks legalized homosexuality; but Stalin banned it. (Interestingly, the homosexual movement was ostensibly started in the United States by Henry “Harry” Hay, an unabashed communist.)
Trevor Loudon and Jeff Nyquist point out that Vladimir Putin is cultivating France’s Front National,Germany’s PEGIDA movement (typically referred to as a “far-right” or “extreme nationalist” organization by Western media), and anti-Islamic blocs in Italy and the Netherlands. While Putin is seen in the West as fighting radical Islam, he is simultaneously funding radical Islam. The Russians have always supported radical Islam against the West since the 1920s, Loudon explains.
Westerners, particularly on the right, see things through the prism of national or economic interests, while nations like Russia and China have long-term strategic goals heavily rooted in ideology. Russia, China and Iran do not think in terms of election cycles. Jeff Nyquist points out the Russians spent a lot of time in Afghanistan infiltrating Islamic groups to increase their hold over radical Islam. Putin clamps down on radical Islam within Russia; but outside of Russia, he will arm ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.
Trevor Loudon mentioned a Lithuanian article from the Center for East European Studies that makes a convincing case Russia may have started ISIS. Once again, this seems like insanity to those who are unfamiliar with dialectical strategy and KGB-inspired tactics. A number of right-leaning people wholeheartedly believe Vladimir Putin is a defender of Christianity, and that he is actively fighting against Islamic terrorism. While Putin certainly has cozy a relationship with the Russian Church, the Russian Orthodox Church has been controlled by the KGB since the days of the early revolution. The Russian Church has been a state church since Lenin and Stalin took it over.
The KGB-inspired strategy of provokatsiya (provocation), which simply means “taking control of your enemies in secret and encouraging them to do things that discredit them and help you,” was employed, for example, to suppress Chechen nationalists and separatists during the Chechen conflict. By facilitating and strengthening jihadist elements in Chechnya, Russia could link Chechen independence with groups like al-Qaeda, and Islamic terror in general—all under the rubric of the “War on Terror.” These sort of tactics have long been employed by the Russians against internal and external opposition, going all the way back to Tsarist Russia.
An insurgency often times employs guerrilla warfare tactics—sabotage, sniping, long-range ambushes, hit-and-run, etc.—to harass and harangue a superior military force. The goal is to demoralize and slowly weaken the enemy’s resolve and will to fight … keep the enemy on their heels—”death by a thousand cuts.” But it is vital for any insurgency to win over the hearts and minds of the people. When a guerrilla movement engages in extreme acts of violence, or is seen as incompetent or corrupt, they risk losing the support of the citizenry.
What happened in the Sunni Triangle during the Iraq War is a prime example of an insurgency losing the support of the people. Al-Qaeda linked jihadis began engaging in horrific acts of violence against Iraqi citizens in areas they had taken over in central Iraq. While the Iraqi Sunnis were certainly no fans of American or coalition forces, they turned against the al-Qaeda linked groups because of their barbarism and extremism (see Enlightenment Councils).
The provokatsiya strategy directly and indirectly encourages and fosters extremism for its own ends.
When I met up with Trevor Loudon in Indianapolis back in 2013, he shared an incredulous story with me that he also mentions in this week’s installment of Update Brazil. According to Loudon, a friend of his received training at Lenin’s Institute for Higher Learning during the 1980s when the Soviets were bogged down in Afghanistan. He had infiltrated the New Zealand Communist Party while working for New Zealand’s security services. Communists from around the world were complaining the Afghan quagmire was bad for their prestige. They were embarrassed that the mighty Soviet Union was getting beat up by a ragtag band of Afghan tribal fighters. Soviet officials in Moscow countered by saying, “Don’t worry, this is our strategy … we went into Afghanistan to lose.”
Trevor told me that the Soviets believed they needed their own “Vietnam.” As incredible as this may seem to many Americans and Westerners, the strategy is based largely on Sun Tzu’s maxim to appear weak; when, in fact, you are strong. The goal is to entice and lull the enemy into complacency. As Loudon puts it: “Russia lost in Afghanistan, but gained the disarmament of the West.” This should come as no surprise to anyone who has studied Russian history. The Soviets were more than willing to kill millions of their own people in order to forward a long-term geopolitical strategy or goal.
When it comes to the insidious influence of communism and socialism within the United States, one need look no farther than our very own president, Barack Hussein Obama. His close connections with known communists, socialists and fellow travelers are well-documented, and have been meticulously researchedby the likes of Trevor Loudon, and others. Obama comes from a “pro-Soviet background,” as Trevor Loudon points out. Some of Obama’s close connections to left-wing radicals include Frank Marshall Davis (see more here), Alice Palmer, Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod, and many others. Barack Obama haspublicly admitted Frank Marshall Davis was a mentor; he had a huge influence on Obama’s worldview as a young man. This is particularly disturbing, considering Frank Marshall Davis was a hardcore communist with a 600-page FBI file. Had war ever broken out between the United States and the Soviet Union, Frank Marshall Davis was to be immediately arrested, due to the fact he was listed so high on the security index. Furthermore, Davis decided to embrace communism, even after learning of the monstrous crimes against humanity committed by the likes of Josef Stalin.
The American left, especially the liberal media, have cuddled up to the racist revolutionary “Black Lives Matter” (BLM) movement. One of the more vocal BLM activists, Deray McKesson, was just awarded a teaching position at Yale Divinity School. The Obama Administration has rolled out the red carpet (no pun intended) for the BLM activists as well. Additionally, presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton recently held a meeting with BLM members. Disturbingly, people associated with “Black Lives Matter” have been workingwith radical elements in Moscow. BLM activists have also visited Palestine to work with Palestinian Jihad; who, in turn, are allied with the PLO—which was set up by the Soviets.
The old communist networks are still as active as they ever were. Nothing has changed. The only thing that has changed is the communists in Russia, and the West, no longer call themselves communists.
Hardcore Marxists and their fellow travelers long ago took over the press, media and public education in the United States, especially universities and colleges. If the unvarnished truth was ever reported regarding the insidious connections many people in government, education and the press have with the radical left, it is highly unlikely they would have ever accumulated the power and prestige they now enjoy in America. But true journalism, in the form of who, what, why, where, when and how, has now been replaced with advocacy masquerading as journalism. Trevor Loudon points to Prof Curtis D. MacDougall, who invented “advocacy journalism” in the 1940s and 1950s, as one of the main culprits in moving so many Americans toward the far-left-side of the political spectrum.
Allan L. Dos Santos, a Brazilian conservative activist and staunch anti-communist, says the Brazilian press also skews far to the left. It is interesting to note, too, that American mainstream media has imposed a virtual news blackout on the popular, non-violent uprising occurring in Brazil against their communist president, Dilma Rouseff. There have been massive protests numbering in the millions calling for the impeachment of Rouseff.
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the alleged collapse of communism, the rise of left-wing regimes in South America has only increased in both strength and numbers. Brazil’s former president Luíz Inácio Lula da Silva, known as Lula, helped set up the Sao Paulo Forum, which has been instrumental in socializing a large portion of South America. (Lula served as Brazil’s president from January 2003 to January 2011.)
The above image, sponsored by the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) and the Labour Party (PT), celebrates the 25th anniversary of the Sao Paulo Forum, founded in 1990 in Sao Paulo, Brazil. It features portraits of socialist and communist leaders like Hugo Chavez, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Daniel Ortega, Evo Morales, Dilma Rouseff, Raul Castro, Nicolás Maduro, and others. The caption reads: “Equality, equity, social justice, sustainable development and sovereignty, signs of change in our America.”
The screencap below shows the political influence member states of the Sao Paulo Forum are having in Central and South America.
Western pundits and analysts have long attempted to paint Lula as a “moderate.” In an interview with Alek Boyd several years ago, Brazilian professor and philosopher, Olavo de Carvalho, stated the following concerning how one can reconcile the notion Lula is a so-called “moderate” when, in fact, he helped set up the Sao Paulo Forum (Foro de Sao Paulo) at Fidel Castro’s personal request:
“… The legend of Lula, as a democrat and a moderate, only holds up thanks to the suppression of the most important fact of his political biography, the foundation of the São Paulo Forum. This suppression, in some cases, is fruit of genuine ignorance; but in others, it is a premeditated cover-up. Council of Foreign Relations’ expert on Brazilian issues, Kenneth Maxwell, even got to the point of openly denying the mere existence of the Forum, being confirmed in this by another expert on the subject, Luiz Felipe de Alencastro, also at a conference at the CFR. I do not need to emphasize the weight that CFR’s authority carries with opinion-makers in the United States. When such an institution denies the most proven and documented facts of the Latin American history of the last decades, few journalists will have the courage of taking the side of facts against the argument of authority carries with opinion-makers in the United States….”
In regard to Russian involvement in Central and South America, Jeff R. Nyquist points out the Russians are setting up military bases and academy structures in Nicaragua, deploying bombers and ships to Venezuela, and supporting revolution in Columbia through proxies.
Allan Dos Santos claims that both Brazilian politicians and individuals involved in the drug trade (“Red Command “) have been working together for a long time in Brazil. Dos Santos has also mentioned in previous installments of Update Brazil the heavy involvement of both Russia and China in Brazil, and the region as a whole.
Trevor Loudon believes things can change—and quickly—if we elect new leadership. There is a ground-swell of opposition at the grassroots level in both Brazil and Venezuela … and in the United States as well. But if Americans elect a Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, it might be time to start stocking up on food and building that “bomb shelter.”