By Christopher Story
June 19, 2019 Anno Domini
Excerpt: The European Union Collective: Enemy of Its Member States, pg. XXXIX (1997)
Lenin was most exacting of the language and style of agitation and propaganda. He demanded that the language of articles and books should be impeccable…. Before him, history had not known a politician who made such effective use of the spoken word in the interests of the revolutionary transformation of society’ [from ‘Lenin on Language’, Raduga Publishers, Moscow, 1983]. However, typically, Lenin did not encourage such exactitude in order to clarify matters: on the contrary, he was exacting in his use of language in order to obfuscate – and to create a means of communicating with those whom he called ‘the interested’ (the revolutionaries), while still using ordinary, everyday language, to which the Tsarist censors could hardly object. By the use of this dialectical means of communication, which contained hidden meanings, the ‘enemy’ could be charmed, deluded, misled and lied to, while the interested’ could simultaneously be instructed as required by the strategists.
Among vehicles used for the issuance of Kremlin directives, one of the most widely employed outside the ‘former’ Soviet Bloc has been ‘World Marxist Review’, in which language is used with Leninist care. Another crucial source of information on the continuing Revolution is the Russian Foreign Ministry’s journal ‘International
Affairs’, also written in Lenin’s ‘two-faced’ language, which provides detailed continuing insights into Soviet revolutionary policy, tactics, strategy and intentions: if Western analysts were aware of Lenin’s ‘special way of writing’, and were prepared to spend the necessary time reading and analysing ‘International Affairs’, they would be able to acquire Golitsyn-like expertise in interpreting events and predicting the likely course of Soviet tactics or strategy. One reason for Western blindness is ignorance about Lenin’s ‘Aesopian language’.
So the Leninists’ ‘Aesopian language’, alluded to in this work, requires some brief explanation. In the Preface to the Russian Edition of ‘Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism’ [26th April 1917], Lenin wrote: ‘I was not only forced to confine myself strictly to an exclusively theoretical, mainly economic analysis of facts, but to formulate a few necessary observations on politics with extreme caution, by hints, in that Aesopian language – in that cursed Aesopian language – to which Tsarism compelled all revolutionaries to have recourse whenever they took up their pens to write a “legal” work’ [i.e., a work which would not be censored or banned by the Tsarist authorities as illegal -Ed.]. Following this passage, Lenin appended a Note, which reads as follows: “Aesopian”, after the Greek fable writer, Aesop, was the term applied to the allusive and roundabout style adopted in “legal” publications by revolutionaries in order to evade the censorship’.
That this method of communication has been used by the Leninists ever since is obvious from the language of double-meanings used by Gorbachev, Kozyrev and other contemporary Leninists – ‘perestroika’ being the most conspicuous case in point. The Soviets encouraged the West to believe that ‘perestroika’ meant ‘restructuring’, as in ‘restructuring of the economy’; which it did. But ‘perestroika’ also meant something entirely different to ‘the interested’; and its second meaning was quite legitimate: to Gorbachev’s ‘interested’, ‘perestroika’ meant ‘re-formation’, as in ‘military formation’: so that its hidden meaning was ‘we are ‘re-forming’, in order more effectively to prevail over all who are opposed to Communism. That this was the case was made clear by Carl Bloice, the Kremlin correspondent of the CPUSA’s ‘People’s Weekly World’ [see page 62]. Citing Lenin, he wrote in May 1991 that the Soviet Leninists were engaged in ‘drawing back in order to make better preparations for a new offensive’.
And now we have Modernism.
Here is some Aesop from Putin;
“Russian President Vladimir Putin has likened communism to Christianity and Vladimir Lenin’s mausoleum in Moscow’s Red Square to the veneration of the relics of saints.
‘Maybe I’ll say something that someone might dislike, but that’s the way I see it’ Putin said in an interview for the documentary Valaam, an excerpt of which was broadcast on Russia 1.
‘First of all, faith has always accompanied us, becoming stronger every time our country, our people, have been through hard times. There were those years of militant atheism when priests were eradicated, churches destroyed, but at the same time a new religion was being created. Communist ideology is very similar to Christianity, in fact: freedom, equality, brotherhood, justice – everything is laid out in the Holy Scripture, it’s all there. And the code of the builder of communism? This is sublimation, it’s just such a primitive excerpt from the Bible, nothing new was invented.”
Putin went further by comparing the Communists’ attitude to the Bolshevik leader Lenin to the veneration of saints in Christianity. ‘Look, Lenin was put in a mausoleum. How is this different from the relics of saints for Orthodox Christians and just for Christians? When they say that there’s no such tradition in Christianity, well, how come, go to Athos and take a look, there are relics of the saints there, and we have holy relics here.’ Putin concluded.”
Although he is not so skilled in cloaking as Lenin, as we see from this bald admission;
Interview Newsweek 25/1/2016
Putin said, referring to the KGB. “I was not, as you know, a party member by necessity,” he said. “I liked Communist and socialist ideas very much and I like them still.”
In contrast, Pope Leo XIII is is very explicit as regards Putin and his like!
QUOD APOSTOLICI MUNERIS – ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII ON SOCIALISM.
“You understand, venerable brethren, that We speak of that sect of men who, under various and almost barbarous names, are called socialists, communists, or nihilists, and who, spread over all the world, and bound together by the closest ties in a wicked confederacy, no longer seek the shelter of secret meetings, but, openly and boldly marching forth in the light of day, strive to bring to a head what they have long been planning – the overthrow of all civil society whatsoever.
Surely these are they who, as the sacred Scriptures testify, ‘Defile the flesh, despise dominion and blaspheme majesty. (Jude 1:8)’ They leave nothing untouched or whole which by both human and divine laws has been wisely decreed for the health and beauty of life.”
I pray some take the time to realize what this speech said and meant , Mr Story gave us loads of information I Thank you for posted the two utubes on his talks it was needed for those who want truth , I remember I read a few years back that there plan was 85% complete is that correct or us it more ,are biggest mistake is we let the enemy in or opened the door to Lucifer when he knocked and say Hello , I am sure for many it’s getting more sad to watch this evil in progress knowing all we should do is what She said Mary pray pray pray , as I always state keep going Fitz expose the phony Webb sites God Bless RL
Sent from my iPad
Well if you want a contemporary example, then this speech from the lunatic Aleister Crowley disciple Alexander Dugin
I urge all to read this carefully, because it sums up the Perestroika Deception;
Roughly distilled, it amounts to this:
“The withering away of the state, the precondition for the classless society, could not be entertained as a possibility until the encirclement of socialism by capitalism had been changed to the encirclement of capitalism by socialism. That is to say, until those conditions had been established which would assure world-wide Soviet domination.”
Yossif Stalin: Report to the 18th Party Congress, CPSU, March 10, 1939; published in: Communist International Magazine, special issue, XIV, 520 ff, 1939; cited by Louis F. Budenz: The Techniques of Communism, 1954, page 12)
Russian defector Mr Anatoliy Golitsyn – ‘New Lies for Old’ 1984;
‘Before long, the communist strategists might be persuaded that the balance had swung irreversibly in their favour. In that event they might well decide on a Sino-Soviet ‘reconciliation.’ The element of apparent duality in Soviet and Chinese policies will disappear. The hitherto concealed coordination between them will become visible and predominant. The scissors strategy would give way to the strategy of ‘one clenched fist.’ At that point the shift in the political and military balance would be plain for all to see.’
and in ultimate perspective this;