44 / CHRONICLESnsatellites to intercept) . . . The SALTntalks were the culmination of the strategynof deception.nSuvorov writes in Inside the SovietnArmy:nThe Chief Directorate ofnStrategic Deception … is thenmost powerful Directorate innthe Soviet GeneralnStaff. . . . Nothing can benpublished in the USSR withoutna permit from its head, no filmncan appear without one, not ansingle troop movement can takenplace … no rocket-base, nonbarracks — even for the troops ofnthe KGB — can be built withoutnits agreement, nor can a singlenfactory, collective farm, pipe-linenor railway be constructednwithout its prior permission.nEverything in this huge countrynmust be done in such a waynthat the enemy always has anfalse impression of what is goingnon: in some fields achievementsnare deliberately concealed, innothers—as was done withnanti-missile defence—they arenexaggerated out of allnrecognition.nAt the SALT I talks, it was GeneralnOgarkov — now Marshal Ogarkov,nchief of the Soviet General Staff—whonstood next to Brezhnev in his capacitynas head of the Chief Directorate ofnStrategic Deception.nIf deception is the soul ofntotalitarianism’s strategy, its lifeblood isnits unrivaled, yet often underestimated,nability to attract men of talent and evenngenius with the same lure of woridlynsuccess that, in the West, attracts themnto business, medicine, or the practice ofnlaw. Those unwilling or unable to excelnin strategically relevant fields are definednas social rejects, failures. Similarly,nin the West, it is the abilities valued by anfree market that ensure success in life.nBut the most important difference isnthat, in a free society, freedom means,namong other things, the freedom not tondefend that society. By contrast, a totalitariannsociety entangles the individual’sn”pursuit of happiness” in a strategic aimnof global expansion, which it wants tonattain at the expense of all free, voluntarilynundefended societies on earth.nNot surprisingly, Suvorov sees thenINF Treaty as the latest Western fiasconin the ongoing contest of abilities. UntilnPresident Reagan’s conversion, remarkablynsimilar to that of President Kennedynin his day, there had existed anWestern consensus that nuclear weaponsnare necessary to offset Soviet conventionalnsuperiority: a standing army ofnfive million, another 55 in trained reserve,nand secret armaments factoriesnrunning around the clock to equipnevery one of them. Now, strategicndeception — possible only under totalitariannconditions of universal peacetimenmilitarization—will achieve its ultimatentriumph in the implementation of thentreaty.n”Is there hope?” I asked in an interviewnwith Suvorov published in Britain.nYes, thinks Suvorov, where therenis freedom there is always hope,nand I agree with him. For menhe is the embodiment of thatnhope, for a man who has stakednhis all on freedom in our time isna living miracle. He walksnamong us under sentence ofndeath. His words are muffled bynour indifference. He is thenultimate failure, and if onenRussian can admire another’snfailure, I admire his.nAndrei Navrozov is poetry editor ofnChronicles.nLetter FromnCanadanby figs GardnernNews From NowherenTalking recently to a Polish friend whonhas lived in both Canada and the UnitednStates, trying to explain the vitality ofnmy countrymen to him, I said finally,n”Unless you’re an American, you don’tnknow what being alive is” To which hengloomily replied, “And no one knowsnwhat death is till he moves to Canada.”nCanadians call it blandness andnseem to be proud of it, contrastingnthemselves — nice, quiet folks — withnthose awful, wild, violent Americans,nbut my friend told the grim truth:nCanada is just a bloody big morgue, anhome for nonconductors. Like corpsesnanywhere, they don’t respond to stimuli.nAsk a question—no answer. Send annnletter — no answer. Volunteer yournservices — no answer. For instance,nover the years, I have responded to adsnfor three conservative organizations—nno answers. I have heard it said thatnCanadians are repressed, but I doubt it.nTake the lid off and nothing happens,nthere’s nothing there. How many curiousntravelers must have groped, in anfog of words, to find something substantialnin a Canadian, something beyondnthe conventions of small talk andnthe cliches of the moment? Evennwhen a Canadian is drunk (all toonoften), nothing leaks out.nIt’s all because the British foundednCanada on a negation. After they hadnseized Quebec from the French, thenBritish declared (1763) a ProclamationnLine running along the Alleghenies,nbeyond which the American colonistsnwere not to settle or hunt or trade or innany way interfere with the Indians,nwhose function was to harvest furs fornLondon merchants. What they had innmind was straightforward, the sort ofnthing that would seem obvious to thenBritish governing class: eventual, gradual,ncontrolled settlement of new coloniesnbeyond the mountains. Definitelynnot the rambunctious American way:nDaniel Boone was beginning his adventuresnin what is now Kentucky justna couple of years later.nIn 1774, the British proclaimed thenQuebec Act, which gave to their newncolony all the area that later becamenthe Northwest Territory — Ohio, Indiana,nIllinois, Wisconsin, Michigan. Althoughnthe American colonies suspectedna hostile attempt to hem them in,nthe Crown had no such intention. Butnit was a different story after the War ofnIndependence; now the Act and thenProclamation Line suggested thatnCanada might indeed be used to constrainnthe U.S., to curb her power bynkeeping vast areas out of her grasp.nCanada’s role (and curse), in short,nwas to be a negative outpost of the OldnWorld in the New. This is the key tonunderstanding the place.nThe icing on the Canadian cakencame with the Loyalists who fled northnduring and after the war and becamenin large part the new ruling class. Nongroup of American emigres, not evennthe 60’s people who share some essentialncharacteristics with them, have hadnsuch a disastrous effect on Canada asnthe Loyalists. A sizable, powerfuln