181 CHRONICLESn* Under the Brezhnev Doctrine, all Communist countriesnare off limits to any Western democratic influences. However,nunder the doctrine of Marxism-Leninism, the West andnnon-Marxist Third World are a free-fire zone for Sovietnpenetration and subversion.n* Why are “wars of national liberation” or “liberation”nmovements only legitimate against non-Marxist countries andnillegitimate and counterrevolutionary if directed against Sovietncolonies? A liberation movement in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,nor Poland, or by Kazakhs or Uzbeks is illegitimate, but thenMoscow-Cuba-Nicaragua Axis can marshal significant U.N.nsupport on freedom for Puerto Rico.n* Senator Alan Cranston and other Congressmen insist thatnno aid be given to El Salvador until the government starts tonnegotiate with the Communist guerrillas. Nothing is heardnabout stopping aid to Poland unless General Jaruzelski starts tonnegotiate with Lech Walesa and Solidarity. The El SalvadornCommunist guerrillas are legitimate for Cranston and his alliesnbecause they have the support of the Marxist-Leninists. Thencontras in Nicaragua have no such legitimacy because they arenfighting Marxist-Leninists. Imprisonment of Communist guerrillasnin El Salvador is a violation of human rights, while jailingnor killing Nicaraguan anti-Communists or sentencing critics ofnCastro’s dictatorship to 20 years in solitary is protecting anconstitutional regime.n* To call capitalism “the focus of evil in the modern world”nwould be sound Marxist analysis to be heard on any Americanncampus. But similarly to characterize Communism demonstratesnpolitical irresponsibility and a desire for an imperialistnwar.n* Why do “death squads” always signify right-wing terroristsnand “junta” right-wing militarists? Are there no left-wingn”death squads” or left-wing juntas?n* How come Marxist academics who claim they aren’tnCommunists always support Soviet foreign policy and arenalways against U.S. foreign policy? To cast doubt on Sovietngood faith is to be a cold warrior; to cast doubt on U.S. goodnfaith is understandable realism. If a summit is on the horizon,ncriticism of the Soviet Union for whatever reason meansnopposition to the summit. Criticism of the U.S., however,nmeans support for a summit.n* It is easy to ignore an open letter by 30 Soviet scientistsnand physicists now in the West who say the USSR isnresearching Star Wars; after all, they’re disaffected emigres, andnhow would they know what’s going on back in Russia?nHowever, the writings of any ex-CIA officer, like Philip Agee,nare always credible. The mere accusation of alleged CIAnwrongdoing, as in Bob Woodward’s latest book, is probativenevidence of guilt.n* The Soviet Union can, it seems, do anything: fromnshooting down a passenger airliner to using napalm or biologicalnwarfare against the Afghan freedom-fighters. Whatever thenatrocity, an immediate cry for understanding is heard in thenWest—“You know the Russians are paranoid about theirnborders” or “it was an act of self-defense” or “the CIA wasninvolved, you know.” However, the U.S. has no right to benparanoid about its borders, especially the Rio Grande, and itncertainly has no right of self-defense. When the U.S. bombsnLibya or successfully invades Grenada, we are bullies, terrorists,nimperialists, fascists, militarists, and warmongers. Theninhabitants of the Kremlin are paranoid: that’s why they had tonnnbuild the Berlin Wall. But that’s life among the paranoiacs.n* Reports of Soviet massacres in Afghanistan are, to the left,nalways false because the American media does not assignnpermanent correspondents or camera crews to the battleground.nSo the atrocities don’t exist because the reports comenfrom Afghan refugees who have no film anyway. On the othernhand, reports of atrocities by Nicaraguan contras are alwaysntrue because correspondents and camera crews are permanentlynassigned to the Sandinistas.n* No socialist country enjoys academic freedom, fornMarxism-Leninism precludes it. So where, as far as the Marxistnleft is concerned, is academic freedom endangered?: in thenUnited States, the only country in the world which allowsnacademic freedom to be used to subvert academic freedom.nHow many faculty protests were organized after a PENnCongress announced that the Soviet Union, Vietnam, andnTurkey are the three countries with the highest number ofnwriters or journalists in prison or some form of detention?n* Why are feminists as desperate about the allegedly lownstatus of women in our society as they are opposed to U.S.nforeign policy, so unconcerned about the status of women innsocialist societies, especially in the Soviet Union? How manynwomen are there in Communist politburos?n* Why is it that when we argue with Third Worldnintellectuals and their Western Marxist admirers on behalf ofndemocracy, as enshrined in the Bill of Rights or the Rights ofnMan or the British constitutional order or the efficiency of thenfree market, we are told that we should not try to impose onnAsian, Latin, or African peoples our Western political culturenbecause it is alien to their values? Yet it is perfectly proper tonhawk Marxism in the Third World, though Marx is as much innthe tradition of Western philosophy and political theory as arenLocke, Hume, Adam Smith, or James Madison.nHow are we going to stop this Third Marxist Invasion of thenAmerican university? (The first wave began in the 1930’s andncontinued through the mid-1950’s; the second began in 1968nand intensified in the 1980’s.) Academics of goodwill stood onnthe sidelines in spring 1968 and said the revolutionary whirlwindncouldn’t last and would blow itself out in a few days.nThey were wrong. As Professor Werner Dannhauser observed:n”I am a political scientist and the safest generalization aboutnthe predictions of political scientists is that they are alwaysnwrong.” The same, unfortunately, could be said of sociologistsnand other social scientists.nThe least we can do is encourage associations like thenUniversity Center for Rational Alternatives and Accuracy innAcademia to broaden their activities and to keep the spotiightnon the enemies of academic freedom. We cannot expect thenAAUP, the National Education Association, or even thenprofessional organizations in the social sciences and the humanitiesnto resist the Marxification process. They are trappednbecause any left extremist must be mantled by the ethics ofnacademic freedom. In practice, however, this does not covernconservatives whose sociopolitical positions are defined byncampus Marxists as racist, warmongering or counterrevolutionary.nAcademic freedom should not be a faculty comforter only;nits principles should also benefit students.nMoreover, alumni associations must be brought into thencampaign against the subversion of academic freedom. Obviously,nalumni who provide revenue for their alma mater have anstake and an interest in their university. They must be keptn