The pernicious effect of Soviet propaganda.

By Ted Belman

The Goldberg File is written by Jonah Golberg and published by the NRO. I have extracted a certain segment of this week’s issue dealing with the pernicious effect of Soviet propaganda.  Arafat and Abbas were schooled in Soviet methodology which they put to good use in their efforts to establish a new reality in their war against Israel.  To Israel’s chagrin, they have been successful beyond their wildest dreams.

[..] Lots of people have noted that Vladimir Putin is using the KGB playbook in his effort to carve up Ukraine. That involves not only lying, but manipulating events in such a way so as to make it easier for others to believe the lies. Anne Applebaum describes the techniques very well. Lots of people have discussed how Russia Today is a pigpen for Russian propagandists providing a useful slop trough for modern-day useful idiots.

But what hasn’t been discussed is what all of this talk about “KGB tactics” suggests about the past, and our understanding of it. Anyone roughly my age or older (“Ah yes, you are the measure of man!” — The Couch) probably remembers how the Soviets and their defenders used to bend and manipulate logic, facts, and truth to make it seem like there was a plausible case that the Soviet Union had the better economic and social model. But what is less well-remembered among older folks and completely unknown to most younger folks is the damage done by the Soviets to our understanding of the world.

For instance, the Soviets are the foremost authors the idea that “Zionism equals racism.” They championed this idea without any regard for the truth, never mind any concern about the evils of racism — the Soviet regime was remarkably racist (as was Marx himself, and their fight against racism was entirely tactical). Many of the old-guard Palestinian leadership were weaned on Soviet propaganda. Mahmoud Abbas has a Ph.D. from Moscow’s Patrice Lumumba University (stop laughing!). His thesis: “The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism.” The Soviets — and other Communist regimes — cultivated front groups who spread lies about how the American government created AIDS, distributed crack in inner cities, and countless other stories that still survive in America and abroad as vague half-truths, urban legends, and secrets “no one wants you to know.” Not everyone who spread this stuff was a paid propagandist. Many didn’t even know anyone was pulling their strings, and if they did know, many wouldn’t care because they assumed the Communists were the good guys.

And those are just the crazy left-wingers. Countless liberals still embrace various ideas that are the diluted legacy of Soviet and Marxist slander. As I argue (I’d even say demonstrate) in Liberal Fascism, the whole idea that Communism and fascism have absolutely no common intellectual heritage or other meaningful similarities is wholly a product of Soviet (and at times Nazi) propaganda (that the Putinistas are trotting out the “we’re a popular front against fascists” talking point is quite revealing). Stalin’s theory of social fascism was a propaganda tool. It didn’t become any less of one because a lot of decent, mainstream liberals bought into it. To the contrary, it proved how successful that propaganda effort was.

The Soviet legacy in Africa is especially dismaying because their deceit poisoned the minds of some of the best and brightest and probably delayed development by at least a generation. (When I briefly lived in Prague, you could still find African students and intellectuals who took the whole raft of Soviet propaganda very seriously.)

Anyway, I wrote about this in the Corner five years ago when Obama said that nuclear weapons were the Cold War’s “most dangerous legacy.” I said nukes aren’t the most dangerous legacy, the half-life of Soviet lies are:

Some might say the military-industrial complex or the national-security state. But not me. To me, the most obvious dangerous legacy of the Cold War would have to be the damage the Soviets did to the world. I don’t mean the millions they murdered; those dead do not threaten us now, even if they should haunt us.

I mean the relentless distortion of the truth, the psychological violence they visited on the West and the World via their useful idiots and their agents. I’m thinking not merely of the intellectual corruption of the American Left (which even folks like Richard Rorty had to concede), but the corruption of reformers and their movements around the globe. Soviet propaganda still contaminates, while nuclear fallout does not. Lies about America, the West, and the nature of democratic capitalism live on throughout the third world and in radioactive pockets on American campuses.

The Soviet effort to foster wars of national liberation, to poison the minds of the “Bandung Generation,” to deracinate cultures from their own indigenous building blocks of democracy, to destroy non-Marxist competitors interested in reform, to create evil and despotic regimes that are seen as “authentic” because they represent the “true will” of their subjugated and beaten down peoples: these seem to me to amount to the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War. Not least because it was those sorts of efforts that gave birth to North Korea in the first place.

Not mentioned in this abstract is the use of terror. Terror is a tool not only to intimidate your target but also to get world recognition for your cause. Arafat instigated plane hijackings and airport attacks throughout the seventies. Abbas was instigator of the Munich massacre which murdered 11 Israeli athletes at the Olympics in 1972.

Without regard to such atrocities or perhaps because of them, Arafat was invited to speak at the United Nations in 1974. Its been downhill for Israel since then. The torrent of lies and misinformation, spread by useful idiots, antisemites, NGO’s and Muslim leaders, particularly Arafat and Abbas and their minions, aided and abetted by the UN, the EU, the US and leftists, including Israeli leftists, have subjected Israel to a perfect storm.

Israel was not up to the challenge posed by these forces and still isn’t. Part of the reason for their success is that Israel has been AWOL. She refuses to take the initiative and go on the offense. Her posture is defensive when offense is needed. She constantly apologizes when no apology is called for. She begs for negotiations and even pays exorbitantly for them. She violates her own red lines time and again. She fails to make maximalist demands and acts like she doesn’t have a winning case. She is intimidated by the threat of riots on the temple mount and elsewhere and so concedes her rights and the rights of Jews without even a fight. She fails to uphold the law when it comes to the Arabs and allows thousands of illegal Arab homes to be built. Even in cases where she has been granted demolition orders, she doesn’t enforce them. She failed to take notice of the African migrants that were infiltrating her borders until there were 70,000 of them. She tolerates outrageous activities of left wing NGO’s aimed at undermining the state. She tolerates the gross interference in her affairs by European countries who finance these NGO’s and finance the illegal Arab construction in violation of the Oslo Accords. Although she annexed land on the east side of Jerusalem she doesn’t act like the sovereign there. Instead she takes orders from Washington as to what she can built there.

Unfortunately the list is endless. Get off the floor and fight.

May 3, 2014 | 10 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

10 Comments / 10 Comments

  1. How many are THEY?
    In any case, you understand that the majority is not always correct in their opinion?

    Have you considered not insulting people in this forum?
    It is your assumption that I consume drugs and have a sugar dependency. These are very American addictions. In fact I do not consume coffee, and use only artificial sweeteners in drinks.

  2. @ mrg3105:

    “But, if you ever go to Israel or Mauritius, I would suggest you prudently use he, lest you insult anyone’s intelligence.”

    Been to Israel, and I used she.

    Nobody seemed to mind. In fact, THEY used she also in reference to the country. No ‘insult’ to intelligence or anything else.

    Haven’t been to Mauritius yet, but my dollar to your donut says that they would see it just the same.

    Have you considered switching to decaf?

  3. I’m not sure why you don’t answer the question and rather choose to debate the undeniable.

    So let me rephrase it for you.
    I don’t care!
    What IS, is what I say IS.

    In Israel everyone knows the country’s name is masculine, and in English the name is masculine. Look up any of the hundreds of baby name websites.
    I wasn’t at the convention that decreed all countries are ‘she’, and no one asked me, so…I don’t care.

    I don’t know what Ted understands. I have never discussed this with him.
    For your satisfaction, “there is an exception to every rule”, so perhaps Israel is it.

    Israel is a he, and “ignorance is bliss”.

    Perhaps you are American, so its ok for you to have a name of your country gender-changed, but its not ok for me.

    But, if you ever go to Israel or Mauritius, I would suggest you prudently use he, lest you insult anyone’s intelligence.

  4. @ mrg3105:

    “I don’t care about either the literary or the diplomatic perspectives. The country is named after the People, and the People are named after its forefathers, who were collectively known as Israel, and all three were males.”

    Well, yes, “forefathers” (of ANY country) do tend to be males. (Fancy that.)

    What you (or for that matter, what I) “CARE,” however, about the literary or diplomatic perspectives is quite beside the point; I’m simply telling you what IS.

    It doesn’t matter whether the forefathers of Israel were named Avraham, Yitzhak & Ya’akov — or Wynken, Blynken & Nod — or Larry, Curly & Mo. You won’t find in print any reference to the country of Israel (or any other country) as “he.” (Guaranteed, or your money back.)

    As far as the world of literary convention is concerned, the patriarchs might as well have all been named Flopsy, Mopsy & Cottontail. Ted apparently understands this, even if PresentCompany does not, so he used the term she (in re Israel) in his final paragraph above.

    If you wanna use he when referring to Israel in public, mazal tov — go for it — but don’t feign shock when folks look at you a bissele cockeyed at first.

    “When we discuss a ship, I’ll refer to it as a ‘she’.”

    Promise? — Even if its owners’ names are Stan & Ollie?

  5. “Don’ gitcher bloomers in a wad” – whatever…
    I don’t care about either the literary or the diplomatic perspectives.
    The country is named after the People, and the People are named after its forefathers, who were collectively known as Israel, and all three were males.

    When we discuss a ship, I’ll refer to it as a ‘she’.

  6. @ mrg3105:

    “Israel is a masculine name, not a ‘she’.”

    Don’ gitcher bloomers in a wad.

    From a literary and diplomatic perspective, a country is ALWAYS viewed as “she.”

    — It has nothing to do with the country’s name.

    One never speaks of a country as “he.”

    It’s always either “she,” or (occasionally) “it.”

    Same as a ship.

  7. Israel is a masculine name, not a “she”.

    I’m not sure why Soviet propaganda techniques are being dragged out now? Is Israel a looser that blames what others do as a way of evading taking responsibility?

  8. @ Salomon Benzimra:

    “A good start to demolish the Soviet-promoted falsehoods would be to revisit and rescind UNGA Resolution 3236 of Nov. 1974, and all its building blocks and later ramifications.”

    On reflection, although less overtly incendiary than UNGA 3379 [“Zionism is racism”], UNGA 3236 [inalienable right of return, sovereignty, etc] does seem to have been (and to BE) far more harmful.

  9. This is a wake-up call for Israel to get to the root of the disinformation problem – a problem that has haunted her since the late 1960s and which she never confronted head on.

    A good start to demolish the Soviet-promoted falsehoods would be to revisit and rescind UNGA Resolution 3236 of Nov. 1974, and all its building blocks and later ramifications.

  10. “The pernicious effect of Soviet propaganda. Arafat and Abbas were schooled in Soviet methodology which they put to good use in their efforts to establish a new reality in their war against Israel. To Israel’s chagrin, they have been successful beyond their wildest dreams.”

    Apropos of this, and in light of the Kerry ‘apartheid’ remarks, it might be useful to note that “The ‘Apartheid’ Israel Charge Began with the Soviet Union…”

    “The history of the false analogy between ‘apartheid’ and Israel is a rather dismal one. It was promoted by the Soviet Union in the 1970s as a way to isolate Israel and cultivate communist allies in the Arab world. This was the era of the infamous “Zionism is racism” UN resolution — rescinded in 1991 — and the effort to associate Israel with apartheid and colonialism was a systematic one, aimed at harming not only Israel but also the U.S.

    “Among the first to use the analogy at the United Nations was Idi Amin, the bloody dictator of Uganda, who compared Israel to apartheid South Africa in a speech to the UN General Assembly. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the American ambassador to the UN at the time, recognized that the Soviet-backed effort was a direct threat to American strategic interests and marshaled the support of the Ford administration- to come to Israel’s defense…”

    MORE HERE.