Apr

9

Alger Hiss, from Gary Rogan

April 9, 2012 |

This is a review of the new book Alger Hiss: Why he Chose Treason relying on relatively newly declassified historical evidence about the Soviet spy Alger Hiss who was instrumental to the creation of the United Nations as well as several New Deal policies.

To those who doubt that the US can be controlled by a conspiracy, especially foreign-controlled, this should shed some light on what is actually possible in the real, not imaginary world of nefarious and anonymous Wizards of Oz. This also sheds light on how no amount of evidence no matter how obvious and undeniable will convince the left that there is treason in their ranks and in fact they themselves are involved in it.

"Why exactly were the intellectual elite so determined that Hiss was innocent? His accuser, Time magazine senior editor Whittaker Chambers – originally Hiss’s Soviet handler and author of the classic “Witness” – presented compelling written evidence. However, the intelligentsia were intent on supporting one of their own. They ignored the facts, a willful blindness that helped contribute to a polarization still in place in our country today.

Thirty years of intelligence analysis gives Shelton the expertise to approach the story from many different angles, especially:

* Her persuasive argument that communism and fascism are not polar opposites, as has so long been claimed, but highly similar ideologies.

* How Hiss’s central role at the Yalta Conference and the founding of the United Nations are examples of the significance of Soviet intelligence recruitment of high-level Americans who could influence U.S. foreign policy in their favor.

* Why the silence surrounding the implications of Hiss’s espionage continues—and why apologists fear that smearing his name would undercut New Deal policies and the United Nations. Shelton doesn’t just detail the body of evidence pointing to Hiss’s guilt; she suggests new layers of meaning in light of the current political landscape.

Today, the importance of understanding Hiss’s ideological commitment has never been more vital. His advocacy of collectivism and internationalism still resonate among the political elite, making this book an important and timely analysis of American thought at this critical juncture in our country’s life.

Stefan Jovanovich writes: 

It is a measure of our European bias that the discussions about betrayal by the State Department always focus on the part of the globe where the spies did no damage and ignore the part where the damage was immense. Regardless of what Stalin learned from his spies, the boundaries in Europe were going to be what they were. The Russians lost more men fighting the Battle of Berlin alone - nearly a million casualties - than the American and British armies lost on all front - North Africa, the Balkans, Italy, France, the Lowlands and Germany itself. The Patton speech in the movie is great theater, but it is complete nonsense. By 1946 the U.S. had 1 1/2 divisions east of the Rhine; the Russians had over 100.

Where the spies did immense damage was in the East. By persuading Truman that the Kuomintang had "lost China", they enabled the Chinese Communists to win. 2 expensive Asian wars later, we are still paying the price of that betrayal.

Gary Rogan replies:

My main point was that some spies are more than spies. When a spy is able to affect major wide ranging policies he has partially subjugated the country he is working against instead of just supplying the information about troop movements, etc.

My observation today is that essentially NONE of the foreign policy initiatives of the United States benefit the United States as a whole. It is also my belief that if you consider the interests of a few financial oligarchs, Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, and the cause of "global governance" in approximately this order you will figure out what steps the US is likely to take in any given situation.

For instance, Libya was easy: the head of the country was a personal enemy of the Saudi King, and "global governance" would benefit, so it was a decision to invade for no real American interest of any kind.

Syria is harder, because there Saudi and Russian interests conflict with each other and also with "global governance". Iran is really hard, since there Saudi interests are semi-ambiguous and conflict with both Russia and China. Removing the missile shield from Poland is easy since it benefits Russia.

Whether assisting the oil industry in Brazil, looking for some probably long dead murderous warlord in the middle of Africa, choosing what to do or not to do in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, giving some Alaskan islands to Russia, or doing anything anywhere else in the world there is no longer any discernible "American Interest" of ANY kind, misguided or otherwise the I can see. It's always what benefits one of the other major players.

 


Comments

Name

Email

Website

Speak your mind

Archives

Resources & Links

Search