SECURITY AFFAIRS - YES THERE IS A MORAL EQUIVALENCE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00965R000302170031-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 8
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 27, 2012
• Sequence Number: 31
• Publication Date: April 1, 1986
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

ST -Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/27 : CIA-RDP90-00965R000302170031-8
ANSA
Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
1411 K Street, NW,
Suite 1002
Washington, D.C. 20005
Volume W, No. 4, April 1986
SECURITY
AFFAIRS
YES THERE IS A "MORAL EQUIVALENCE"
by Jim Guirard, Jr.
Ed. Note: Mr. Guirard is a governmen-
tal affairs consultant and a frequent con-
tributor to "Security Affairs':
The Reagan administration is much con-
cerned about people who speak and act as
though there were a "moral equivalence"
between the United States and the Soviet
Union. The President, Secretary of State
George Schultz and Defense Secretary
Caspar Weinberger have all addressed the
subject in recent months.
Unfortunately, their worry is not farfet-
ched. Last year, when the question "Do you
or do you not hold that the USSR and the
United States are morally equivalent?" was
put to the Oxford (England) Student Union,
the "nays" carried by only a slender
margin.
The same would probably result from a
poll of the leadership of certain radicaliz-
ed churches, certain university faculties and
certain elements of the media in this coun-
try ? those who former US Ambassador
Jeane Kirkpatrick has labeled the "Blame
America First" crowd.
In fact, one prominent journalist refus-
ed last year even to participate in a con-
ference co-sponsored by the state
Department and the Shavano Institute,
because he did not wish to lend his
presence to a debate whose conclusion
might be that such a moral equivalence did
NOT exist between the US and the USSR.
In the minds and pronouncements ot
such people, the American and Soviet arm-
ed forces are equally militaristic and war-
mongering. Our nuclear stockpiles are
equally threatening. The CIA and KGB are
equally sinister. The American liberation
of Grenada is equated to the Soviet so-
called "liberation" of Afghanistan. Any
evil the Soviets do, America is alleged to
have done as bad, or worse.
More than a few of these strange people
go even one step farther. They speak of
President Reagan as a "fascist" and of
Fidel Castro as a "progressive leader" ?
which suggests that Castroite tyranny is
morally SUPERIOR to American multi-
party democracy.
Even the language of politics has turned
to value-free terms ? the "superpowers,"
the "East-West conflict", Such labels imp-
ly that there is minimal moral distinction
betwe en the defenders and the repressors
of human rights and civil liberties in the
world. Virtually forgotten are such power-
ful phrases as President John F. Kennedy
used repeatedly to make the proper distinc-
tion ? "the Free World versus the Com-
munist World". Kennedy knew (and cared)
what the Berlin Wall was all about. He
knew (and cared) about what Fidel Castro
had in mind for Central and Latin America.
Of course, there is a powerful moral
equivalence afoot in the world of geo-
politics. But it most certainly is not bet-
ween communist tyranny and civil-
libertarian democracy. It is between the
mirror-image tyrannies of the "ultra-left"
(Leninis m, Stalinism, Castroism) and the
"ultra-right" (Nazism, fascism).
Many prominent liberal-intellectuals
would (and do!) strongly protest the draw-
ing of an equation between communism
and fascism. Some have even branded
President Reagan as evil for having dared
to call the Soviet Empire "evil". Such peo-
ple prefer to take comfort in the naive no-
tion that the rulers of the Empire
(Gorbachev, Castro, Mengistu, Qaddafi,
Ortega, et al) really do go around pro-
moting "liberation" and "social justice"
and "people's democracy" in the world.
But there are other, more objective ex-
perts who have drawn precisely such an
equation between the so-called "extremes"
of the imagined left-right "political spec-
trum". Here is a sampling of their conclu-
sions as to where the real moral
equivalence in today's world lies:
SUSAN SONTAG (liberal-intellectual
author and literary critic): "Not only is
fascism (and overt military rule) the pro-
bable destiny of all communist societies ?
especially when their populations are mov-
ed to revolt ? but communism is itself a
variant, the most successful variant, of
fascism."
ADOLF HITLER (National Socialist
dictator of Germany): "The petit bourgeois
Social Democrat and trade union boss will
never make a National Socialist, but the
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/27: CIA-RDP90-00965R000302170031-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/27: CIA-RDP90-00965R000302170031-8
communist always will.. .There is more
that unites us than divides us from
Bolshevism . . .above all the genuine
revolutionary spirit."
SENATOR DANIEL MOYNIHAN
(Democratic Senator from New York):
"The most brutal totalitarian regimes in the
world call themselves 'liberation
movements'. . .Yuri Andropov is 'a terrorist
in a system sustained by terror'."
JOSEPH SOBRAN (conservative col-
umnist): "On the subject of communism,
history has spoken in a shrill monotone.
Never mind the ideology: communism is
as communism does. Like every other
system, it deserves to be judged on its
record, not its promises. That record is
bloodier even than Nazism's."
ANDRE SAKHAROV (Russian dissi-
dent and Nobel Peace Prize winner, to
Soviet officials at 1978 trial of fellow dissi-
dent Anatoly Scharansky): "You are not
humans. You are fascists. Hear me, a
member of the Academy of Sciences. You
are FASCISTS."
BERNARD-HENRI LEVY (French in-
tellectual of the "New Philosophers" move-
ment): "I am the bastard child of an unholy
union between fascism and
Stalinism.. .The only revolution I know,
the one which may grant notoriety to this
century, is the Nazi plague and red
fascism."
PROF. A. JAMES GREGOR (author
of The Fascist Persuasion in Radical
Politics, Princeton Univ. Press, 1974):
". .. fascist and communist regimes are
subspecies of one and the same
species. . .1n substance, whatever distinc-
tions there are between 'fascist' and 'com-
munist' movements in terms of ideological
commitments ? they are singularly super-
ficial."
HARRY S. TRUMAN (Former Presi-
dent of the United States): "There is no dif-
ference in totalitarian or police states, call
them what you will: Nazi, fascist, com-
munist or Argentine Republics."
There are, indeed, many "moral
equivalents" in the world of international
politics. But these are AMONG the various
democratic systems, on the one hand, and
AMONG the various despotisms, on the
other.
Hitler and Stalin demonstrate the point
to perfection. Following their infamous
Friendship Pact of 1939-41 (which had been
preceded by several years of secret col-
laboration) those two socialist monsters
came to blows not because they were dif-
ferent but because they were inherently the
same. The moral equivalence they shared
was the brutal AMORALITY of tyrants
bent on world domination. Finally, they
fought each other to the death for the same
reasons mad dogs or Mafia bosses do ?
for power, for total control.
As Susan Sontag has observed, "Com-
munism is it self a variant, the most suc-
cessful variant, of fascism." The sooner
true liberals and true progressives
recognize this fact, the sooner they will
cease holding hands with the Gestapo-left.
Jim Guirard is a Washington lawyer/
lobbyist. During 1981 he was National
Affairs Director of the American Security
Council Foundation. Previously, he
served as AA to Democratic Senators
Allen Ellender and Russell Long.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/27: CIA-RDP90-00965R000302170031-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/27: CIA-RDP90-00965R000302170031-8
January 29, 1986
Dartmouth atuiew
Losing the Semantic War
by Jim Guirard
In a 1978 Senate speech, Senator Daniel
Patrick Moynihan warned of the dangers of "se-
mantic infiltration." He explained how simple
words and phrases are used by Soviet propagan-
dists ? and parroted by naive Western leaders and
journalists ? to distort our thinking about the polit-
ical systems which compete for our minds and
loyalties.
Moynihan observed that such watchwords as
"peace," "people," "democracy," and "liberation"
were once democratic symbols "which the anti-
democratic forces are somehow able to size." He
condemned our failure to combat the communist
rhetoric by which "the most brutal totalitarian
regimes in the world call themselves geberation
movements."
The Senator reminds us that words are the
primary tools by which the mind operates. False
words and concepts move men in false directions,
distracting from the truth. Repeat the false word
often enough, make certain the truthful alternative
is never clearly perceived, and you are able to
imprison people within their own minds.
According to political historian Robert Tucker,
Soviet dictator Josef Stalin felt that "of all monopo-
lies enjoyed by the state, none would be so crucial as
its monopoly on the definition of words. The ulti-
m 'Ate weapon of political control would be the dic-
tionary." Let Stalin choose the words by which you
think and Stalin will tell you what to think ?or not
to think.
Yet, the watchword factor remains so hidden.
so subtle, that even such experts of Soviet disinfor-
mation as Arnaud de Borchg,rave and Robert Moss
overiooked it in their bestseller novel "The Spike."
They failed to show how a news story too hot to be
"spiked" ? kept entirely out of the press ? can be
distorted by manipulation of a single theme word or
phrase. For instance, referring to Marxist terror-
ists as "progressive forces" or as a "patriotic front"
greatly legitimizes their cause.
Consider these further examples of the warped
semantics which distort the psychology of our con-
flict with Marxism - Leninism:
* Why do we foolishly refer to Soviet and Cuban
imperialism by so positive a word as "adventure"?
* In a world which despises colonialism, why do
we call Soviet colonies "satellites" and "client
states"?
* Why not challenge the fraud by which one -
party dictatorships call themselves "people's democ-
racies"?
* Why did we persist in referring to Iranian ter-
rorists who kidnapped our diplomats as "students"?
* Why do we label political prisoners in Poland
by such neutral terms as "detainees" and "inter-
nees"?
The deception is endless: The military dictator
of Poland is called a "martial law leader." One party
communist police states are called "socialist," the
same as multi - party civil - libertarian states as
Sweden, France, Greece, etc. Dialectical material-
ists, who say there is no God or abstract morality,
mask as "Christian Marxists." Slave laborers on the
Siberian pipeline are euphemistically labeled
"guest workers."
But perhaps the most obscene semantic perver-
sion of all is the insidious lie hidden within the
concept of ideological "far - left" vs. "far - right."
Language conditions us to see conflicting ideologies
in the left - right continuum. Thus, when we cor-
rectly recoil from the fascist evils of the ultra right.
we tend to sl;de mindlessly toward its apparetv
opposite, the ultra - left. Left is opposite right, nest
Das?
Such a windfall for communism: to he per-
ceived by so many naive souls as a propor moral
alternative to the fascism it really is. In light of this
misperception, how can a self - respecting progrt's-
sive rise up against what his vocabulary and his
mind's eye tell him is the opposite. the enemy, of
fascism? And why should civil - libertarians react
against the threat of enemies so apr,arently on
as "democratic" social ism. or "progres-
sive" fronts, or "liberation" movements?
These same human rights advocates would
surely answer a call to arms against the spectre of
world fascism. After all, who but the most craven
and pseudo of liberals would knowingly hold hands
with fascists? The tragic irony is that so many hon-
est liberals fail to realize that this is exactly what
they are doing ? however unintentionally.
Imagine what historic reversals an awakening
to this unsavory fact might make in prevailing lib-
eral attitudes on such divisive issues as Vietnam,
Central America, draft registration, the CIA, de-
fense spending, Radio Marti ... On and on goes the
list of issues over which so many "liberals" and "con-
servatives" fight each other tooth and nail, but on
OVER
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/27: CIA-RDP90-00965R000302170031-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/27: CIA-RDP90-00965R000302170031-8
which they could easily become natural allies ? if
only they could agree on who the communists are
and why they must be defeated.
In his famous 1978 speech at Harvard, Alex-
ander Solzhenitsyn wondered why so many Ameri-
cans seem to lack the willpower, the patriotic
resolve and the spirit of sacrifice to oppose the
Soviet plan for world domination. Such traits, he
should have realized, must be rooted in a clear per-
ception of what good it is we stand for and what evil
it is we are supposed to be mobilizing against.
At present, perverted semantics tend to deny us
this perception. We are confused not only about the
identity and ambitions of our enemies but, even
worse, about the propriety and justice of what we
ourselves stand for.
Such national confusion and its noncommitant
failure of national resolve expose us to terrible
danger of which the great British philosopher
Edmund Burke once warned: "All that is needed for
the forces of evil to win is for enough good men to do
nothing."
Dr. James Schlesinger may have described the
dilemma best. Contending that while most people
favor "good" and oppose "evil," they need to know
which is which. They need to know "who the fellows
are in the black hats." If we permit the communists
to choose the words and images by which the dis-
tinction is made, it is obvious who will be wearing
the black hat and who the halo.
Needed instead is a truth - in - labeling system
which begins to pull down the semantic masks
behind which the Gestapo - left has for so long hid-
den its ugly, soul - less face.
Perhaps then the truly liberal Left - which,
like the civil - libertarian Right supports such free-
doms as speech, press, assembly, religion, emigra-
tion, privacy, property, information, due process,
independent' unionism, and multi - party political
options ? will recognize the illiberal Left as the
vicious enemy it really is. (Susan Sontag calls it
"successful fascism . . . Fascism with a human
face.")
Perhaps then true liberals and progressives
will cease their unseemly search for ways of excus-
ing communism's inherent brutality toward human
beings and its rampant imperialism toward nations.
Reprinted with permission of the Washington
Inquirer.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/27: CIA-RDP90-00965R000302170031-8
_1_ I
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/27: CIA-RDP90-00965R000302170031-8
FE13. IS, 19.86,
LUFF
COMMERCIAL
Fascist-Left Sandinistas?
Editor, The Commercial:
Why do so many prominent "liberal" jour-
nalists, academics and churchmen continue to
hold hands with the patently iltibera/ dic-
tatorship in Nicaragua?
Could it be that the language of politics has
persuaded these good people that the Soviet-
sponsored Sandinistas are something other
than fascists? After all, the words and image
of the so-called "left-right political spectrum" ,
suggest that the ultra-left (communism) and
the ultra-right (fascism) are opposites. Left is
opposite right, n'est pas?
As a result of such nonthink, even Cuba!s
grisly Fidel Castro is able to parade about as
a "progressive," a "liberator" and an expo-
nent of "people's democracy." Never mind
that he presides over the most viciously il-
liberal (i.e. fascistic) regime in the hemi-
sphere.
In early 1982, distressed by communist
brutality in Poland, the renowned liberal-
intellectual Susan Sontag broke free of this
left-right nonthink, when she proclaimed: "Not
only is fascism (and overt military rule) the
probable destiny of all communist societies ?
especially when their populations are moved to
revolt ? but communism is itself a variant, the
most successful variant, of fascism. Fascism
with a human face."
The obvious need now is for all true liberals
to follow Miss Sontag's bold lead. They must
look behind the semantic masks which hide the
true face of the fascist-left in Nicaragua.
Perhaps then they 'will begin raising their
voices of morality and idealism against those
who (with massive help from Castro, the
Soviets, the PLO, Qaddafi, Khoumeini and
other assorted terrorists) have so cynically co-
opted and corrupted the democratic
Nicaraguan revolution of 1978-79.
Jim Guirard
Washington
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/27: CIA-RDP90-00965R000302170031-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/27: CIA-RDP90-00965R000302170031-8
VOLUME 4, NO.1, DEC., 1985 - JAN., 1988
Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
SECURITY
AFFAIRS
SOVIET NEO-NAZISM
by Jim Guirard
Ed. ,Vote: Mr. Guirard is a consultant in
,4'overnmental affairs, and a frequent con-
tributor to -Security Affairs':
Columnist Mary McGrory's autumn trip
to Moscow has prompted her to write
several articles which were, for her, un-
characteristically critical of the Soviet
Union.
Possibly the best of these is her Septem-
ber 29 essay, entitled "Refuseniks With
Nothing to Lose". In it, Ms. McGrory
harshly condemns state-sponsored anti-
Semitism in the USSR. She goes so far as
to report that persecuted Jews to whom she
spoke "all approve of the Reagan hard line"
toward the Soviets ? an astonishing admis-
sion for one of journalism's most unyield-
ing critics of the President's foreign policy.
If such official anti-Semitism as Mary
McGrory witnessed in the Soviet Union
were afoot in any non-communist country,
it would almost automatically be branded
"neo-Nazi". But, of course, such sharp-
edged labeling is almost reserved for anti-
Semitism of the "ultra-right" variety.
Imagine the Soviets' consternation if
Mary McGrory turned to such truth-in-
labeling in describing their unrelenting
repression of Jewish citizens. It might even
shock them into suspending such criminal-
ity. Not wanting the venerable Mary
McGrory to begin promoting among her
liberal-intellectual peers the notion that
there is such a thing as "Soviet Nazism",
they might go as far as to stop treating Jews
in the fashion of fascism.
As Ambassador Max Kampelman has
often suggested, the Soviets will change
their barbaric ways only once it is clearly
to their "advantage" to do so. In this case,
as long as they can torment and persecute
Jews and other minorities and still not be
regarded as Hitlerites, it apparently re-
mains to their advantage to continue do-
ing just that.
Of course, if President Reagan were to
brand the Soviets "neo-Nazi", the odds are
overwhelming that the liberal-intellectuals
in the press and in academia would jump
down his throat. They would castigate and
berate him just as they did when he called
the Soviet communism "evil" ? and just
as they condemned their own compatriot
Susan Sontag in 1982 when she charged
that communism is nothing but "a variant,
the most successful variant, of fascism".
Naturally, the Soviets would find great
advantage in such media attacks on the
President and, consequently, would find no
urgent need to abandon their brutal perse-
cution of Soviet Jews. But if Mary
McGrory and other such high-profile
liberals were to originate the charge of
"neo-Nazism", the consequences to the
Soviets would appear most threatening,
indeed.
To escape the onus of the dreaded "neo-
Nazi" label and, thus, to abort the prospect
of an activist brand of liberal anticom-
munism, they might well find great advan-
tage in changing their viciously illiberal ?
i.e., fascistic ? practices toward the Jews
of the Empire.
As might be expected, the "charming and
charismatic" new Soviet boss. Mikhail
Gorbachev. denies that there is any anti-
Semitism whatever in his people's para-
dise ?
? just as he denies Soviet imperialism and
colonialism in Afghanistan:
? just as he bristles at the charge that there
are thousands of political prisoners in his
Gulag;
? just as he scoffs at the suggestion that the
Soviets have for years been working on
a major "Starsky Warsky" program of
their own.
Having traveled to Moscow and hav-
ing taken the time to look beneath all
these transparent lies, Mary McGrory
has discovered who the Soviets really
are. Let us see now if she will travel that
one additional step and (like Susan Son-
tag) call them what they are .
Ironically, if Max Kampleman's anal-
ysis is correct, it might be Mary
McGrory's unexpected use of the harsh
label which finally causes them ? in
their own self-interest ? to begin chang-
ing their Nazi-like ways.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/27: CIA-RDP90-00965R000302170031-8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/27: CIA-RDP90-00965R000302170031-8
JIM GUIRARD, JR.
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS CONSULTANT
SUITE 419
1730 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
[phone]
Mr.William J. Casey
The Director
Central Intelligence
Washington, D. C. 20505
Dear M___Gerstvy-1-1e. afie:
September 24, 1986
I have read with interest and approval the report of your
having equated Soviet communism with Nazism.
As you will note from the attached op-ed essays of mine, the
moral equivalence" between ultra-left and ultra-right is one of my
favorite themes. In them, you may find quotations from scholars
and experts of various description, which will help you sustain
your argument.
Also attached to this letter are several lapel pins of my own
design, each of which features the symbol of a hammer and sycle, an
equal sign and a swastika -- as well as verbal representations of
related themes.
While some may criticize your remarks as "name-calling," you
have all the information and all the rationale needed to sustain it
as nothing more nor less than an exercise in truth-in-labeling.
With continued good wis emain,
ely
/417.
Jim Guirard
attachments
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/27: CIA-RDP90-00965R000302170031-8
,1 1 11,1 1 1 LI 1 11 1 LI LI 11 1 111:11,11:11111 I ,1111111J1.1 ILI III1 1 1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/27: CIA-RDP90-00965R000302170031-8
It
Central Intelligence Agency
Washington, D.C.
[phone]
George V. Lauder
Director, Public Affairs
15 October 1986
Mr. Jim Guirard, Jr.
Suite 419
1730 Rhode Island Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Dear Mr. Guirard:
Director Casey has asked me to ik you
for your letter of 24 September and for the ,
lapel pins. He appreciates your support.
Sincerely,
s,
V. Lauder
Director, Public Affairs
DCl/PAO/GVLauder:blg/27676/15 Oct 86
Distribution
Orig - Addressee
1 - ER 86-4312x
f - PAO Chron
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/27 : CIA-RDP90-00965R000302170031-8