Відповіді

• 2009.08.21 | старий пес

  А я усе чекав, коли з'являться у цій справі жиди і хохли.

• 2009.08.21 | Мірко

  Цікаво!

• 2009.08.23 | Сергій Кабуд

  нарешті і Стратфор почав розуміти хоч щось про кремлядь(л)

  Secret Takeovers by J. R. Nyquist
  08.14.2009
  
  переклад
  http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.financialsense.com%2Fstormwatch%2Fgeo%2Fpastanalysis%2F2009%2F0814.html&sl=en&tl=uk&history_state0=
  
  
  Last month George Friedman of STRATFOR.com wrote something of special interest. According to Friedman, on July 17 a crowd near Tehran University was heard chanting “Death to Russia!” This particular crowd contained “elements” hostile to Iranian President Ahmadinejad. At the same time, another crowd supporting the Iranian president was shouting “Death to America.” This remarkable exchange reveals a situation where the supporters of dictatorship in Iran denounce America while those who seek freedom denounce Russia.
  
  Strange as it sounds, Iran is a microcosm that reflects the global macrocosm. Russia has penetrated Iran, just as Russia has penetrated so many other countries. When the Iranian president, like the president of Venezuela or the dictator of North Korea, requires advice and assistance, he travels to Moscow. At Moscow he is “refreshed” by his Russian handlers.
  
  The Russian state is constantly recruiting secret agents in business, finance and government. They recruit Muslims as well as Christians, Hindus as well as Buddhists. Once Russian agents become sufficiently strong within a government or a religion, an unseen takeover occurs. In the case of democratic countries, the takeover enters a critical stage when the public attempts to resist. That is the point at which force is used against thousands of human beings at once.
  
  Take what happened to Czechoslovakia after World War II as a textbook case. Moscow’s agents within the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia were able to take control of the country. Under Klement Gottwald, the Communists allayed public fear of “Soviets and socialism.” What they promised, instead, was a “democratic national revolution” that would preserve Czech freedom. After a strong electoral showing, Gottwald was invited to become the country’s prime minister. Of course, he was an agent of the Kremlin. When the popularity of Gottwald’s government declined prior to the scheduled elections of May 1948, the Communists engineered a coup d’etat. This was made possible by purging non-Communist elements from the National Police Force.
  
  In full control of the coercive means, Gottwald mobilized his followers. The Communists armed themselves and took over the capital, threatening with violence anyone who opposed them. The police broke up anti-government demonstrations. The country was disarmed and helpless, lacking an independent and patriotic defense force. Only two things had to happen for the Kremlin’s agents to establish a dictatorship: (1) win one election; (2) purge the security forces of anyone who would challenge their illegal actions.
  
  More recently, this pattern was repeated in Venezuela under the leadership of Hugo Chavez, whose “Bolivarian” movement promised a “democratic national revolution.” Operating under left-populist colors Chavez gradually made changes within the army and police forces. Chavez grew so powerful that he could push his opposition aside, rig national and local elections, and travel to Beijing where he openly declared his allegiance to Communism. “I am a Maoist,” he told the Chinese. He then traveled to Moscow where he made similar pronouncements of ideological solidarity – despite the fact that Russia is supposedly non-Communist. By January 2007 Venezuela’s National Assembly gave Chavez the power to enact laws by decree (what the Communists called an “acceleration” of the march toward socialism). The Russians are presently sending boatloads of armaments to Venezuela, having conducted joint air and naval exercises with Chavez’s military.
  
  If democracies can become Communist dictatorships, then clerical regimes – where the clerics are Russian agents – reveal yet another pattern of takeover and control. What we see in Iran is an Islamic republic on the outside, but a Russian-style dictatorship on the inside. The methods of the Iranian government are Bolshevik methods. Mobilizing impressive mobs on the street is a Communist tactic; and so are rigged elections. As Stalin once explained to his secretary, Boris Bazhanov: “I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this – who will count the votes, and how.” This is Iran today, and the fact that Ahmadinejad scurries back and forth between Tehran and Moscow is proof of his subservience. Many leaders from the “Third World” who visit Moscow are either recruited there, or recruited beforehand. They are compromised by special operations, or they corrupt already, or they are given psychoactive “friendship” drugs – or what the Russians call “the little pills.”
  
  So we shouldn’t be surprised if the Iranian people suddenly grasp who has taken their country by the throat. They look at their leaders and see the puppet-strings running back to the Kremlin. In most countries, through the last half century, the strings are rarely visible. In Mexico, for example, one rarely meets with people who understand that the KGB long ago penetrated and dominated the ruling party. And here in America, where we are so open and vulnerable to foreign influence, have we grasped what has happened to our own system?
  
  What happened to Czechoslovakia and Venezuela can happen in America. Perhaps it has already begun to happen. I would like to end this column by quoting from a high-level Soviet Bloc defector named Jan Sejna, who explained: “Soviet ambitions towards the United States were aimed at the extinction of Capitalism and the ‘socialization’ of America…. The main strategic goals on the road to their fulfillment were: the withdrawal of the U.S.A. from Europe and Asia; the removal of Latin America from the United States’ sphere of influence and its incorporation into the Socialist bloc; the destruction of the United States influence in the developing world; the reduction of American military power to a state of strategic inferiority; the advent to power in Washington of a transitional and progressive government; and the collapse of the American economy.”