textfiles/magazines/ZIGZAG/zigzag12.txt

Subject: ZIG-ZAG 1.2
From: pmsc13sg@smucs1.umassd.edu (Stephen Grossman)
Message-ID: <C67Dvz.MKv@umassd.edu>
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 16:59:58 GMT
Lines: 425

================================================================================
ZIG-ZAG                             1.2                           Apr.29, 1993

TRACKING THE MARXIST DIALECTICAL STRATEGY OF ADVANCE-RETREAT-ADVANCE OR 
UNITY-SPLIT-UNITY IN INTERNATIONAL REVOLUTION

STEPHEN GROSSMAN                   WEEKLY?                            INTERNET  
================================================================================

	This is the origin of the Marxist dialectic and evidence that Marxists 
recognize theory as a cause and explanation of war and revolution:
	"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class 
struggles....Communists everywhere support every[!] revolutionary movement 
against the existing social and political order of things....The Communists 
fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the 
momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, 
they also represent and take care of the future of the movement....In Germany 
they fight with[!] the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way....
But they _never cease_, for a single instant, to instil into the working class 
the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between 
bourgeoisie and proletariat in order that the German workers use, as so many 
weapons[!] against the bourgeoisie, the social and political conditions that 
the bourgeoisie must necessarily[!] introduce along with[!] its supremacy, and 
in order that after the fall of the reactionary classes in Germany the fight 
against the bourgeoisie itself may immediately begin."[Marx, _Communist 
Manifesto_, 1848]
	Pragmatists consider each political event as isolated (e.g., 
nationalism and revolution in Vietnam, Nicaragua, Chile, El Salvador, 
Colombia, East Europe, China and the Soviet Union), thus disabling themselves 
from learning from the past and planning for the future. Marxists consider 
each political event as an _incomplete part of a definite process_ extending 
from the past, through the present, to the future. Pragmatists try to end 
conflict but Marxists _need_ conflict for _progress_ to the next stage in 
revolution. 
	
	On CNN (11:30 a.m., EDT, Apr.13, 1993), former Stanford Univ. English 
professor, H. Bruce Franklin, discussed the recent controversy over the Soviet 
document on U.S. Vietnam War POWS. [ZIG-ZAG failed to learn his [current 
professional status]
	Franklin edited _The Essential Stalin_, a 1972 collection of writings, 
some of which were used in _ZIG-ZAG 1.1_. Identifying himself as a Communist, 
he says "I used to think of Joseph Stalin as a tyrant and butcher who 
jailed and killed millions....But, to about a billion people today, Stalin is 
the opposite of what we in the capitalist world have been programmed to 
believe....If we are to understand Stalin at all, and evaluate him from the 
point of view of either of the two major opposing classes, we must see him, 
like all historical figures, as a being created by his times and containing 
the contradictions of those times....In 1952, the Soviet Union was the second 
greatest industrial, scientific, and military power in the world....Everybody 
but the Trotskyites, and even some of them, would have to admit that the 
situation for the Communist world revolution was incomparably advanced in 1953 
over what it had been in the early or mid 1920s. From a Communist point of 
view, Stalin was certainly one of the greatest of revolutionary leaders.... 
[Soviet Communism] went far enough to pass the baton to a fresher 
runner, the workers and peasants of China, who, studying and emulating Stalin, 
have already gone even further..."
	An advocate of Marxist mass murder is respectfully interviewed by a 
leading news organization on other actions of Marxists.
		
	Gorbachev, the former proconsul of the Soviet province of the 
Marxist Empire, spoke at a U.S. celebration for Thomas Jefferson. [CNN, Apr.13, 
1992]
	 Marx was a collectivist who advocated mass murder and whose students 
committed mass murder. Thomas Jefferson applied the individualist political 
philosophy of John Locke to practical reality, helping to create the United 
States.

	In a _NYT_ essay (May 7, 1992), "Neo-Bolsheviks of the I.M.F.," Georgy 
Arbatov, director of the Institute of U.S. and Canada of the Russian Academy of 
Sciences, gave Americans advice about giving money to the Soviet Marxists. 
	Arbatov is of the most important officials of Marxist disinformation. 
He and his U.S.A. Institute pose as serious scholars to convince unprincipled 
Pragmatists that there are good guys and bad guys in the Soviet Union and that 
he wants to help Americans help the good guys defeat the bad guys. The U.S. 
need merely appease the bad guys to defeat them and Arbotov will provide the 
high level contacts for journalists, scholars, and other influentiual 
Americans who may change U.S. foreign policy to a...progressive direction. 
	"One of his specialities is the 'unguarded moment,' in which he 
confides to his foreign visitors that his is a difficult, uphill struggle, but 
that he is beginning to make some progress in making reasonable men out of he 
gargoyles on the Central Committee....To suggest that Arbatov is [a Marxist] 
agent whose purpose is to probe for weaknesses and areas of [Pragmatist] 
indecision and irresolution is, at best, a serious social gaffe if obvious 
fascist calumny....As Kkrushchev himself[!] put it, in repudiating the 
idea that he had spoken out of turn to the late Senator Hubert Humphrey in 1958 
on the subject of Chinese communes: 'The mere suggestion that I might have had 
confidential contact with a man who boasts of having spent twenty years 
fighting communism can only give rise to laughter. Anyone who understands 
anything at all about politics, to say nothing of Marxism-Leninism, will 
rrealize that a confidential talk with Mr. Humphrey about the policies of 
communist parties and relations with our best friends, the leaders of the 
Communist Party of China, is inconceivable." [_The New KGB_, William Corson & 
Robert Crowley, 1986; a superior history; the Khrushchev comment quoted from 
_Current Soviet Policies_, V.3, Jan.1959-Leo Gruliow, p.206]
	"It is not uncommon for disclosures in the communist press about 
dissension  in the communist world to be backed up by off-the-record remarks by 
communist leaders and officials to their Western counterparts and friends.... 
In the preface to his book _The Soviet Bloc: Unity and Conflict_. Zbigniew 
Brzezinski wrote, 'I am also grateful to several officials of various communist 
states, for their willingness to discuss matters they should not have discussed 
with me.' No explanation is offered in the book of the reasons why 
communist officials should have been willing to speak frankly to a prominent 
anticommunist scholar and citizen of the leading 'imperialist' power, nor is 
any reference made in the book to the possibilities of disinformation. But if 
the existence of a disinformation program is taken into account, together with 
the controls over the communist officials in contact with foreigners, the 
explanation for these indiscretions is obvious." [Anatoliy Golitsyn, _New Lies 
for Old, 1984, p.100]
	Brzezinski is a Pragmatic, unsystematic anticommunist, who mindlessly 
responds to crises without policy, like any brute animal. He is respected by 
major news media as an expert on Marxism. His competence consists of memorizing 
vast amounts of concrete information which he is unable or unwilling to 
understand by means of a unifying principle. The philosophy of Pragmatism is a 
principled[!] opposition to principles. In application as a foreign policy 
advisor he can only compromise one concrete situation with another. He is the 
perfect "useful idiot" of Lenin and of any Marxist who considers concrete 
situations only within a systematic, "long-range bloc policy."

	"Russia fired an unarmed long-range nuclear test missile on Dec.20 to 
test its potential for commercial space launchings....electronic data from the 
4000-mile test had been coded by Moscow, in violation of the unratified 
strategic arms reduction treaty, but that the test appeared to have been for 
peaceful purposes." ["Russia Warns U.S., Then Launches Missile," _NYT_, Jan.22, 
1992]
	U.S. defense officials claim the missile is unarmed and peaceful 
despite coded test data. Pragmatists, who reject absolutes for compromise,
would lie about a dangerous missile to protect, not the U.S., but their desire 
to compromise with the enemy. Pragmatists in the U.S. govt. claimed 
that satellites could detect all the Soviet missiles needed to verify an arms 
treaty. They evaded the virtual certainty that the Soviet military hid
missiles from the satellites.

	"President [i.e., dictator] Boris N. Yeltsin of Russia [i.e., the 
dialectically and temporarily split Soviet Union]...says his government intends 
to stop targeting American cities with long-range nuclear missiles." ["Russia 
to Stop Targeting U.S. Cities," _NYT_, Jan.27, 1992]
	Soviet Marxists must be so busy with ending communism that they are too 
tired to send a few computer commands to the missiles; either that, or they 
intend war.

	Mao is the clearest among the major strategists of Marxist dialectics:
	"In each thing there is a struggle between its new and old aspects, and 
this gives rise to a series of struggles with many twists and turns....It is 
always so in the world, the new displacing the old, the old being superseded by 
the new, the old being eliminated to make way for the new, and the new 
emerging out of the old....each of the two contradictory aspects [of a thing] 
transforms itself into its opposite....no contradictory aspect [of a thing] can 
exist in isiolation. Without its opposite aspect each loses the condition for 
its existence....without life there could be no death....without "above" there 
would be no "below"....to consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat...is 
in fact to prepare the conditions for abolishing this dictatorship and 
advancing to the higher stage when all state systems are eliminated....these 
opposites are at the same time complimentary....War and peace...transform 
themselves into each other....struggle [is] universal and absolute, but 
the...forms of struggle differ according to the differences in the nature of 
the contradictions...the [Chinese nationalist] Kuomintang, which played a 
certain role in modern Chinese history, became a counterrevolutionary party 
after 1927....[contradiction] is a universal truth for all times and all 
countries, which admits of no exception..." [Mao, _On Contradictions_, 1937]
	The 30-year Soviet military build-up contradicted the weak Marxist 
economy and developed into chaos and stagnation. Restructuring (perstroika) and 
publicity for socialism (glasnost) contradicted the chaos and stagnation and 
developed into the bogeyman of the Soviet "Coup" for Pragmatist and 
traditionalist class enemies. The Movement for Democratic Reform contradicted 
the "coup" and developed into the dialectically temporary splits of the Soviet 
Union. The splits have been partially contradicted by the Commonwealth of 
Independent States.
	The "Coup" is less a deception than a moment in the revolutionary 
process. The military build-up also encouraged suspicion which was defused by a 
dialectical split between "conservatives" and "liberals." This encouraged 
compromise-seeking Pragmatists among the class enemies (especially the "main 
enemy," the U.S.) to aid the "liberals" before the "conservatives" could 
"restart" the Cold War. The resulting aid, trade, lower military spending among 
imperialists and increased openness for active measures (subversion) will 
enable Marxists and the revolutionary process to unify in a larger, more 
dangerous way. Pragmatists will, once again, evade the past and future for the 
eternal present and the dialectical process of unity-split-bigger unity will 
continue to its end of world communism.

	Historian Anatoliy Golitsyn was Stalin's KGB archive researcher in the 
early 1950s. Stalin was pleased with the success of past _active measures_ or 
political influence operations such as the Far Eastern Republic, the 
Brest-Litovsk Treaty, and The Trust but disliked their Pragmatism, their being 
merely a short-range response to crises. He wanted a systematic policy of 
Marxist internationalism to take advantage of the post-WW2 opportunities for 
increased subversion. Accordingly, Golitsyn prepared a history of past active 
measures which Stalin used as a guide for the "long-range bloc policy," a 
strikingly successful policy of phony, superficial, and/or temporary splits 
among Marxists which included the "end" of communism in the Soviet Union and 
eastern Europe as well as the 1991 Soviet "coup." In _New Lies For Old_ [Dodd, 
NYC, 1984], Golitsyn describes six glasnosts, summarized below:
	Lenin's (and later, Stalin's) NEW ECONOMIC POLICY (1921-9) was a 
return to profits, peasant farms, business, real money, and debt payments. 
Diplomats and spies claimed peaceful co-existence. Underground journals were 
encouraged to contact Westerners. Capitalist nations gave loans, commodities, 
engineers, and factories. Lenin then nationalized business, banished foreign 
investors, restarted censorship, and repressed dissidents.
	Stalin's CONSTITUTION (1936-7) was a legal[!] guarantee of freedom of 
speech, press, assembly, and voting. Diplomats and spies talked Pragmatism and 
management. Marxists became respectable politicians. Roosevelt gave loans and 
trade. The Great Terror and the Nazi-Soviet Pact followed.
	UNCLE JOE (1941-5) promised democracy. religious freedom, and an end 
to international subversion. Spies and diplomats persuaded the Pragmatist 
Roosevelt to provoke Germany and Japan into war. Stalin got $11 billion in 
Lend-lease and acceptance of demands for eastern Europe, some Japanese islands,
 and China. He invaded Czechoslovakia, Iran, and Greece.
	Krushchev's DESTALINIZATION (1956-9) was a condemnation of Stalin (his 
style, not substance) and a promise of private farms and industry and profits 
for Americans. Clergymen, artists, and intellectuals got some freedom. 
"Research institutes" became "news" sources for Western journalists. False 
missile telemetry data hid Soviet superiority. There were dissident arrasts, 
the Berlin Wall, and nuclear missiles in Cuba.
	Brezhnev's DETENTE (1970-5) was a stress on peaceful technology and a 
denunciation od world domination. The Helsinki accords legalized[!] dissent. 
Nixon gave loans, wheat, and technology. "Dovish" Soviet "diplomats" asked for 
American compromises [Pragmatism] to weaken Soviet "hawks." The U.S. revealed 
SALT verification methods, allowing soviets to show and hide their nuclear 
missiles and evaluate our Intelligence. The CIA learned that the Soviets 
rejected Mutually Assured Destruction for a nuclear war-fighting and 
war-winning strategy. Carter evades this. Brezhnev arrested dissidents, closed 
underground journals and invaded Afghanistan.
	Gorbachev's REVOLUTION (1983-?) was a concern with civilian neds, 
trade, and Western loans. Farms and business got some freedom. American 
musicians and TV visit. "Unofficial" journals and "research institutes" 
provide "news" for American journalists. Military cuts hide reorganization and 
better weapons. Europe praises Gorbachev. He arms South American Marxists who 
invade El Salvador and Peru.
	[Golitsyn's description stops in 1983-4]

	"What does the history of the development of the international 
Communist movement demonstrate?....that, like everything 
else, the international working-class movement tends to divide itself in 
two....It is precisely throught his struggle of opposites that Marxism-Leninism 
and the international working class movement have developed....Unity, struggle 
or even splits, and a new unity on a new basis-such is the dialectics of the 
development of the international working-class movement....proletarian unity 
has been consolidated and has developed through struggle against opportunism, 
revisionism and splittism. The struggle for unity is inseparably connected with 
the struggle for principle....The international proletariat can have 
organizational cohesion and unity of action only when it has theoretical and 
political unity." [_Hong-ki_, Communist Party of China theoretical journal; 
quoted in _NYT_, Feb.7, 1964]
	The Pragmatist _NYT_ denies any relationship between theory any
practice.

	"Soviet Reformists Decide To Create Opposition Group-Shevardnadze As 
Leader" [_NYT_, July 2, 1991]
	"[R]eforms...are...a necessary and legitimate respite...when...it 
becomes obvious that sufficient strength is lacking for the revolutionary 
accomplishment of this or that transition....reformist path...of flanking 
movements...The revolutionary parties must complete their education. They have 
learned how to attack. Now they have to realize that this knowledge must be 
supplemented with the knowledge [of] how to retreat properly....To carry on a 
war for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie....is not [it] 
ridiculous in the extreme....to refuse beforehand ever to move in zigzags[!] 
ever to retrace our steps, ever to abandon the course once selected and to try 
others?" [Lenin, quoted by Stalin, _Foundations of Leninism_, 1924]
	....with revolutionary tactics under the conditions of bourgeoisie 
rule, reforms are naturally transformed into an instrument for disintegrating 
that rule,...for strengthening the revolution....The revolutionary will accept 
a reform in order to use it as an aid in combining legal work with illegal work 
and to intensify, under its cover the illegal work for the revolutionary 
preparation of the masses for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie....reform 
emanates FROM the proletarian power, it strengtens the proletarian power, it 
procures for it a necessary respite, its purpose is to disintegrate, not the 
revolution, but the non-proletarian classes. Under such conditions a reform is 
thus [dialectically] transformed into its opposite....substituting for 
offensive tactics the tactics of temporary retreat [Stalin, _Foundations of 
Leninism_, 1924]

	"[At Vietnam's] Institute of Marxism-Leninism....because of the 
declining standing of Marx and Lenin...the institute...took out a kind of 
DIALECTICAL insurance....the name of Ho Chi Minh was added to the school's 
title." [_NYT_, Apr.27, 1993, p.A4]
	The _NYT_ occasionally but briefly recognizes a theory-practice 
connection.

      	Addicts feel desperate without drugs.	
	Pragmatists feel desperate without short-range, isolated events.
	The first statement is a practical application of the theory in the 
second statement.

	Maj. Gen. Oleg Kalugin, the allegedly dissident KGB officer who 
allegedly favors the end of communism and who allegedly retired was a recent 
topic of discussion. Former U.S. govt. Intelligence specialist Herbert 
Romerstein suggested, among other possibilities, that Kalugin's dissent was a 
deception and that he wanted to penetrate the democratic movement. Former FBI 
counterintelligence agent James Nolan "noted that [he] was part of the KGB's 
political branch while in Washington, the section responsible for 
disinformation and active measures, and for recruiting influential Americans as 
spies or agents[1]. Gen. Kalugin, speaking to reporters in Moscow, said "that 
while in Washington he worked closely with several journalists, including Max 
Frankel, now the executive editor of the _New York Times_, the late columnist 
Walter Lippman, Carl Rowan, now a columnist with the _Washington Post_, and 
Stephen rosenfeld, deputy editorial page editor and columnist at the _Post_. 
[_Washington Times_, Jun 19, 1990]
	"Appearing nonstop on radio and television talk shows from Los Angeles 
to New York, Mr.[!] Kalugin is helping Cable News Network promote its book on 
the collapse of the Soviet Union. He is also addressing foreign policy groups., 
trying to find a publisher for his memoirs, arranging televsion and movie 
projects...his teammate[!] on the tour, Stuart R. Loory, vice-president of 
CNN[!]...came to know him well[!] when [Kalugin] served undercover as a press 
officer in the Soviet embassy in Washington in the 1960s....Mr. Kalugin has 
also landed a lucrative consulting contract for a joint British-American 
television series on the KGB and the [CIA]. He is poised to sign another 
contract with the William Morris Agency to represent his own book...and to 
arrange speaking engagements and television and movie projects in the United
States." After his alleged dissidence, Kalugin "was officially denounced, 
stripped of his military rank and pension and charged with the crime of 
disclosing state secrets. He left the Communist Party, became a local 
celebrity, ran for and won[!} a seat in the Soviet Parliament-now disbanded-and 
plans to run again for local office. Last year he served as a consultant to a 
film on a fictional KGB-inspired [have they no shame?!] coup that was released 
in the former Soviet Union, and he is helping to launch a new Russian magazine 
called _Red Archives_ that will publish political commentary, fiction, and 
previously secret [they have no shame] govt. documents. His military privileges 
and nearly worthless KGB pension of 700 rubles a month were restored by 
President[!] Mikhail S. Gorbachev..." [_NYT_, Jan.20, 1992]
	This is a very well-constructed "cover" but for a "disinformation 
and active measures" specialist who "worked closely with" influential American 
journalists, any reward wouldn't be enough. Why should the Soviet Marxists 
launch their missiles when we'll allow their agents access to American 
opinion-makers? They'll talk us into surrender.
	
	_Problems of Communism_, a United States Information Agency journal is 
ceasing publication. "[It] is regarded by journalists and scholars as one of 
the foremost journals of analysis about Communism." [_NYT_, May 31, 1992]
	Some analyses in _Zig-Zag_ are inspired by _Problems of Communism_. The 
decrease in competent anti-communist research is one effect of the Marxist 
dialectic-splits among the class enemy. 

	"...Foreign Minister Andrei Y. Kozyrev...said hard-line Communists 
often allied themselves with nationalist movements to obscure their true 
goals." [_NYT_, May 25, 1992]
	This is classic Marxist strategy. See Vietnam, El Salvador, and 
Nicaragua. Anti-communists failed to sufficiently stress this in debate with 
Marxists and their sympathizers over the last several decades .

	"At the peak of detente, the Soviet Communist Party issued secret 
instructions to supply arms to a militant Palestinian guerilla group for use 
against Israelis and Americans, a Russian official said...the party secretly 
financed foreign Marxist parties and terrorist movements..." [_NYT_, May 26, 
1992]
	This is for short-range Pragmatists who will think that 
Marxists are compromising their values by revealing past evil. But these are 
_old_ lies. At the time, however, anti-communists who made these claims were 
ignored and ridiculed. Pragmatists who were short-range in the past are still
short-range, still claiming the enemy is in the past.

	An essential bibliography:
	_Communist Manifesto_-Marx, 1848.
	"'Left-Wing' Communism-an Infantile Disorder"-Lenin, 1920.
	"Problems of Leninism"-Stalin, 1924.
	_On Contradiction_-Mao, 1937.
	"The Difficult, Devious, and Dangerous Dialectic"-Fred Schwarz, in his 
_You Can Trust the Communists (To Be Communists), Prentice-Hall, NYC, 1960; 
this is the best understanding of the Marxist strategy of dialectical 
revolution (besides mine).
	"On the Philosophy of Contradictions: the Sino-Soviet Dispute as a Case 
Study in Communist Conflict Thinking"-George Damien, _Orbis_ 11:4, Winter 1968.
	"The Dialectical Structure of the Chinese Great Proletarian Cultural 
Revolution"-George Damien, _Orbis_ 14:1, Spring 1970.
	various monographs, articles by Peter Tang, Richard Wraga, and Natalie 
Grant of the (defunct) Research Institute on the Sino-Soviet Bloc; Boston Univ.
	_New Lies For Old_-Anatoliy Golitsyn, Dodd, NYC, 1984.
	_International Affairs_(Moscow)-theoretical[!] foreign policy journal 
of the Central Committee of the CPSU.

	A systematic philosophy is needed to understand and counter Marxism. 
Pragmatism? A Pragmatist jumps off a cliff and says, "So far, so good!"

	"[Pragmatists] are interested in the superficial manifesatations of 
Communist organization, but they are not interested in the philosophic credo 
from which they draw their motivating forces, their basic strategy, and their 
confidence in the future....The superficial manifestations are inseparably 
related to its underlying philosophic concept....Dialectical Materialism is the 
philosophy of Karl Marx that he formulated by taking the dialectic of hegel, 
marrying it to the materialism of Feurbach, abstracting from it the concept of 
progress in terms of the conflict of contradictory, interacting forces called 
the Thesis and the Antithesis culminating at a critical nodal point where one 
overthrows the other, giving rise to the Synthesis, applying it to the history 
of social development, and deriving therefroman essentially revolutionary 
concept of social change....Since [Marxists] believe this completely, their 
convictions are undisturbed by any evidence to the contrary that may appear day 
by day. They stand above the changing scene of daily ebb and flow and see the 
currents and tides of history. The idea that their faith can be shattered by 
anything they see at present is naive to the point of imbalance."  [the last 
comment about "imbalance is an ad hominem fallacy. Schwarz, while excellent, 
for the most part in using philosophy to understand Marxist revolution, doesn't 
[explicitly] understand the Pragmatist rejection of theory] When the 
Communistrs listen to our arguments based on present circumstances and 
conditions, they must certainly be amazed, for their whole program rests on the 
future....THe Communist goal is fixed and changeless, but their direction of 
advance reverses itself from time to time. They approach their goal by going 
directly away from it a considerable portion of time....If we judge where the 
Communists are going by the direction in which they are moving, we will 
obviously be deceived....The Communists, however, think and act dialectically, 
They realize it is dialectical to approach their goal by going directly way 
from it....[They] have no absolutes. their dialectical relativity gives them a 
total strategic mobility. They may adopt the...ideology...of any group. They 
become all things to all men....[In condemning his rival, Bukharin, Stalin 
[writes," but it is very doubtful whether his theoretical views can be classed 
as fully Marxian, for their is something scholastic [consistent] in him (he has 
never studied, and, I think he has never fully understood dialectics)." 
[Schwarz, "The Difficult, Devious, and Dangerous Dialectic"; Stalin is quoted 
from _Problems of Leninism_]
	
	"The intellectuals are ignorant of philosphy's role in history-because 
of history....they do not look for system or causality....What they do not 
grasp is the power of wider abstractions in man's life, such as men's view of 
reality, of knowledge, of values." [_Leonard Peikoff, _Ominous Parallels_, 
Stein, NYC, 1982]
	
	"If you understand the dominant philosophy of a society, you can 
predict its course." [Ayn Rand, "Is Atlas Shrugging?" in _Capitalism, the 
Unknown Ideal_, Signet, NYC, 1967]

********************************************************************************
Beyond and back of the wind,                   |            Stephen Grossman
Little birds fly into the sea,                 |            pmsc13sg@umassd.edu
Morning light shine on me.                     |
                                               |
[Marianne Faithfull & Wally Baderou]           |
********************************************************************************