The Empire of Lies, Part II:
The Lie at the Foundation of Today’s Right
Commentary for 26 May 2014
You might wonder why the Soviet Union and the Communist International never thought of infiltrating the American Right. But then, what if they did? In fact, they must have done so, because the Communists always infiltrate and subvert their enemies, and the American Right is the heart of the capitalist camp. So it is inconceivable that they did not infiltrate the Right; and that means they are here, right now, in our midst (because the Communists never really went away, despite what happened from 1989-90). This last point is not to be made in polite society, and few are well-informed enough to know something of its validity. For 99 out of 100 persons, it is preferable to believe a lie. As a former British MP once said within my hearing; “Reagan and Thatcher saved the West from socialism.” But a former Russian GRU colonel, sitting across the table, whispered in my ear, “But America is the Marxist paradise.”
In the Empire of Lies conservatism has become an outlaying province, long ago colonized by the enemy. And the proof is not far to find. The “conservative” Kissinger went to China, then the “conservative” Nixon went to China, and the “conservative” Reagan traded with China, and now China has destroyed our exports, and our industry, and now our currency. And the conservatives called this “free trade.” They quoted Milton Friedman. But here, on this small blog, we know the Cold War never ended and Milton Friedman was wrong. We know that China was engaged in a strategy about which Deng Xiaoping said “the capitalists know nothing.” And we may testify, if no one else dares, that the “conservatives” helped the Communists in China and Russia more than anyone else. And if the world thinks we are crazy for saying this, we may reply that the world itself is mad. Meanwhile, there has not been one article I know of about Communist infiltration of the Right. Neither has anyone spoken publicly on this subject. It is a non-subject, about which silence speaks volumes.
To what do we owe this silence? Subversion has its own sociology of knowledge, where the victims of subversion prefer silence. They prefer not knowing. Silence makes sense, and public men will cling to it when the alternative is unpleasant. Ridiculous, you say? Common sense, I reply. Under our shopping mall regime convenience is king, and subversion is a very inconvenient topic. We are all implicated in taking this position, on a daily basis. The duty to ask certain questions and perform certain checks, has gone out of us. We are too busy being entertained. We also know there is personal risk if we poke the hornets' nest. Senator Joseph McCarthy did so and was condemned.
The enemy, on the other side, has a much easier job. Recent trends run in favor of subversion and corruption. To be an agent of influence, to guide politicians and pundits in the “right” direction, one merely makes use of human weakness. The elite staff of the KGB are ready with professional guidance. Those who wish to combat subversion simply don't have the resources, or the sociological high ground. The Right itself will never guess what is happening, believing that only liberals are susceptible to this sort of thing.
To show how utterly naïve the Right has been with regard to the above points, the reader is invited to conduct a google search by inserting the words “communist infiltration of” – which will turn up writings on the communist infiltration of nearly everything; except you cannot find anything on the Communist infiltration of the Right, or of Right Wing organizations. We nowhere meet with the Right Wing equivalent of Alger Hiss or Harry Dexter White on the Republican side of the isle. Yet the non-discovery or non-appearance of infiltrators in this case is not proof that the Right is pristine. In fact, the ongoing and ever-troubling failure of the Right to stem the socialist tide, and its political Balkanization into mutually antagonistic subgroups, argues for the fact that operatives were long ago dispatched to infiltrate, and have already succeeded. Today it may be said that the Right is yet misled in the same way Roosevelt’s administration was misled by Soviet agents like Harry Hopkins, Alger Hiss, and Harry Dexter White; for this is the method of the Communist, who has already infiltrated and occupied the Left; therefore, it is only logical that Communism would have embarked upon a project to do the same to the Right. In fact, we have every reason to believe it would succeed spectacularly on the Right; for nobody has yet raised a murmur of suspicion.
There is a problem, however, in identifying who the agents of influence would be. Since the infiltrators of the Right would talk and act like anti-Communists, at least to some extent, how could we distinguish them as agents of influence? But come to think of it, we have another problem altogether at this late hour, that since so many on the Right sound like Leftists already, and effectively advance the Leftist agenda in so many areas, how do we distinguish the useful idiots from conscious subversives?
I conceive that the Communist infiltrator of the Right would be an instigator whose subtle misdirection is the first of its kind. We are not talking about a mere tag-along. We are talking about those who are the seeming originators of the most damaging policies and themes. For example, Henry Kissinger and those he mentored and nurtured must rank high among our suspects; and we must include those pundits who currently take a pro-Moscow line, or who support trade with China, or who use Joseph McCarthy’s name as a term of abuse. But here the list would include almost everyone on the Right, revealing to what extent the Right is a fiction.
How did this come about? How did the Empire of Lies colonize the American Right? Below the reader will find a list of exploitations which Communist strategists may have worked toward in this regard:
(1) Use the Right to help the Left. – Communist infiltration of the Right effectively facilitates a deeper and more effective infiltration of the Left by softening the Right’s stand on various issues, and by conceding strategic ground.
(2) Compromise and entangle the capitalists. – Establish trade relations with Communist countries, especially China, effectively neutralizing the Right’s anti-Communism insofar as it compromises the very sources of Right Wing funding.
(3) Balkanize the Right. – Agents of influence, placed within the Right, can effectively divide the Right into small and mutually hostile camps. Rather than achieving consensus through ideological synthesis, each element is encouraged to attack the other, with no unity among the various constituent parts, and no chance to form a whole.
(4) Exploit neoconservatives on free trade. – Neoconservatives are useful idiots on the subject of free trade, which is a major element in Communist strategy. Also important, the neocon position on free trade makes the Republican Party susceptible to foreign military adventures by way of terrorist provocations.
(5) Make paleoconservatives into Moscow’s useful idiots. – Isolated and demoralized by the steady drift of all factions and parties to the Left, and by the advance of sexual immorality, paleocons inevitably fall prey to Moscow’s cynical pro-Christian, pro-conservative pose.
(6) Ally with the libertarians to divide the right and attack the U.S. military industrial complex. – The libertarians are the worst useful idiots when it comes to trading with the Communists, but unlike neocons they are defense budget minimalists. In terms of the culture war, libertarians have no problem with gay marriage – an issue which can now be used to divide the anti-socialist Right.
(7) Merge the populist Right with the Revolutionary Left. – Timothy McVeigh once said that the far Right and the far Left should unite because, after all, they are fighting the same enemy (i.e., the U.S. government). Opposed to free trade and a corporate elite that has sent millions of jobs overseas, the populist right has good reason to get behind a thorough house-cleaning. But if they do, there is bound to be a nasty surprise waiting for them.
(8) Use the conspiratorial Right to discredit anti-Communism and confuse students of Communism as to the actual enemy. – Besides establishing a crackpot form of anti-Communism, the conspiracists agitate against the same enemy that the Communists have marked out for destruction; namely, the capitalist “insiders.”
(9) Use the Left to provoke the Right into violence. – As the Left grows ever stronger, and the Right suffers from increasing incoherence, the time will come for a major provocation. When that moment arrives, there is no question which side will be annihilated.
(10) Smash the McCarthyists. – Do not allow anyone to get a McCarthy-type investigation going. This sort of thing has to be stopped from the get-go.
(11) Destroy the career of any writer or politician who strays from the purposes and programs listed above. – Successful strategies always aim at limiting your opponent’s options. In terms of informational warfare, you need to limit his thinking as well. Certain thoughts must not be allowed to take root in the public mind; and writers should be instinctively conditioned to avoid discussing the strategic implications of ideological positions.
The ideal candidates for infiltrating the Right would be Left Wing organizers who have a proven track record as writers or publicists, organizers or managers of people. Therefore, we may conclude that persons who have switched their allegiance from the Left to the Right would be, in fact, prime suspects. It is logical, in fact, that the infiltrator must begin on the Left to start with, in order to be considered a loyal agent. Where else would the raw material for infiltration come from?
Of course, it is always possible to win agents through blackmail, or by bribery. And there is always the possibility of false-flag recruitments (which are of limited value, to be sure). But to recruit these agents and to perform the necessary blackmail, you have to get a foothold. And this requires, to some extent, the employment of “former” Leftists in the camp of the Right. These would form the necessary foundation.
Conservatives tend to assume that the Leftists who defect to the Right are honest persons who have “seen the light.” They will also tend to assume that few will switch allegiance from Right to Left because there is no light to see – no valid reason to change in that direction. But there may be a more sinister explanation as to why more Leftists switch their allegiance to the Right. The plain fact is that people do not generally change their ideology or their religion. These are commitments made for life. The dearth of defections from Right to Left may, in fact, suggest that the Right does not have the equivalent of a Moscow Center, ordering Right Wing operatives to change allegiance as part of an infiltration mission. The Right does not infiltrate, as a matter of policy. Subversion is not part of the Right’s tradition in the United States or other Western countries. It is, however, a tradition in Russia – and of Communist parties worldwide.
The above hypothesis is a new one. It is necessary, of course, to test the hypothesis in order to see if it has merit. Using the guidelines above, I would challenge researchers to compile their own lists of suspects – then see what can be found. Ask yourself, seriously: Where do the problems on the Right originate? What is the background of the originators? Which Right Wing writers are attacking other Right Wing writers?
Reference books that inspired this essay
The Perestroika Deception, p. 85.
Henry Kissinger: Soviet Agent, by Frank A. Capell
The Rebuttal, by Diana West
