Will the Real Russian Puppet Please Stand Up?!
Commentary for 26 October 2016
I flatly state that Marx was consciously an intellectual swindler for the purpose of maintaining an ideology that would permit him to support violent action against human beings with a show of moral indignation.
– Eric Voegelin, Autobiographical Reflections, [pp. 48]
Those who are familiar with the workings of the Communists are aware that the United States is in jeopardy. They are not fearful if the people of the country awake to the danger. But the enemies of civilization, both those in the Communist party and those on the fringe, who are playing with fire in their support of Communist theories, are at work to effect the overthrow of the government. They are working cleverly, insidiously, and are willing to take plenty of time to accomplish their ends, but their main purpose, the goal toward which they are striving, is the destruction of church, home, and the state in America and the raising of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, controlled by Zinoviev and his gang in Moscow, to take the place of the government of the United States.
– R.M. Witney, Reds In America, 1924, [p. 54]
Back in 1924 radicals and Russian agents were working to replace the United States Government with a cabal “controlled by Zinoviev and his gang in Moscow….” Today that gang is nominally controlled by Vladimir Putin. And according to Hillary Clinton, speaking during the last presidential debate, Donald Trump is Putin’s guy. She called the Republican candidate for president a “Russian puppet.” In reply Mr. Trump said to Clinton, “No, you’re the Russian puppet.”
The two presidential candidates are accusing each other of being controlled by that same “gang in Moscow” that Whitney was referring to. This is surprising on many levels; first, subversion by Russian communists supposedly died out with the Cold War. Of course, this is a ridiculous myth. There are communists everywhere. They are in the government. They simply refrain from properly labeling themselves. As for the death of communism, nothing like this ever dies unless someone kills its. And nobody killed communism. The communists simply announced that they were going away. Nobody was actually interested in where they went.
According to researcher Trevor Loudon, some of them went to work at the White House. They had names like Bill and Hillary and Barack. And now they want to retain control of the White House for another four years – or preferably, forever. In terms of the deception which allows them to tread this path, it now becomes necessary for them to accuse their domestic opponents of being “Russian puppets.” Of course, Mr. Trump does not have the character of a puppet, and he has yet to help Russia in any tangible way. Furthermore, not only was Hillary Clinton allegedly a communist in her younger days – according to her former associate, Mr. Larry Nichols – she learned at the feet of Saul Alinsky (a man who worked for the advancement of the communist cause). Yet this same woman accuses her opponent of being a Russian puppet. She sounds, in fact, like an anti-communist caricature.
What we find, in this instance, is the apparent abandonment of a political/strategic line of operation in favor of a new line of operation. What occasions this extraordinary shift? The woman who led the “Russian reset,” who gave Russia access to 20 percent of America’s uranium – who exported sensitive technology to Russia – now does a backflip in the air and shapeshifts into Joseph McCarthy.
How are we to understand this?
Napoleon’s Military Maxim 20 states that “the line of operation should not be abandoned; but it is one of the most skillful maneuvers in war, to know how to change it, when circumstances authorize or render this necessary. An army which changes skillfully its line of operation deceives the enemy, who becomes ignorant where to look for its rear, or upon what weak points it is assailable.”
I believe that Mrs. Clinton’s newfound concern about Russian puppets in high office is a “skillful” maneuver of this kind; one that, indeed, “deceives the enemy”; for in this case the real Russian puppet is Mrs. Clinton. The Russians surely have enough dirt to destroy her career if they wanted to. Then ask yourself why they have refrained from destroying her? Why would the U.S. media, which has been notorious for its decline into cultural Marxism, and for selling itself to Moscow in the days of I.F. Stone and Walter Duranty, be so visibly on Mrs. Clinton’s side?
Given her reckless indiscretions, her many scandals and illegalities, the Russians must have more blackmail on her than anyone. After all, the Russian special services are the best in the world. And if you think Hillary Clinton is a powerful woman, think again. She must bend to the demands of her blackmailers. She does not seek political office out of strength, but out of fearful necessity. Her only path, given so many crimes, is to attain the safety of office. In this matter her blackmailers are eager to help. What good is she to them if she doesn't hold office? So Moscow gives her as much help as possible. In return, her regime must become an American version of the Germany Democratic Republic; that is, a state completely subservient to Russian interests.
Therefore it is imperative that Clinton accuse Trump of being Russia’s puppet. Only in this way can she distance herself from her own unstated program. The greater psychopaths in Moscow, who puppet the little psychopaths in Washington, cannot be altogether pleased at this desperate misdirection; so they have mobilized their navy and have put their citizens on alert. Nuclear world war might break out at any moment.
Russia, from its end, supports Hillary’s accusation against Trump. By many subtle winks and nods, the Russians have implied that Trump is their man. The leading clown of Russia’ s “democratic” circus, Vladimir Zhirinovksy, said in a recent interview, “Americans voting for a president on Nov. 8 must realize that they are voting for peace on Planet Earth if they vote for Trump. But if they vote for Hillary it’s war…. There will be Hiroshimas and Nagasakis everywhere.”
One has to be a simpleton to accept this pronouncement at face value. The looniest politician in Moscow blows kisses at Trump. Is that really supposed to help Mr. Trump? And do Americans like being threatened by Russians? If Trump is a puppet of the Kremlin, then they have given him away. They have bungled their puppetry!
On the other hand, through all of this, they have helped to maintain Clinton’s cover.
And why shouldn’t they help Mrs. Clinton? Russia is in the puppet business, turning flesh and bone into wood and string. The businessman who deals with Russia becomes a puppet. The diplomat who signs treaties with Moscow becomes a puppet. Global warming advocates are puppets. Radical feminists are puppets. Pro-Putin conservatives are puppets. Nazis are puppets. Islamic terrorists are puppets. There are so many puppets in so many places that it’s hard to say where the Russian puppet show ends and reality begins.
Americans have yet to understand the danger. But if they ever caught on, Mrs. Clinton would have to flee the country. Or if the FBI caught sight of her puppet strings – what then? Hillary Clinton would be on the run, and she would not be alone. Another Russian puppet has been in the White House more than seven years now. And he proposed to get rid of all America’s nuclear weapons. He also brought many Russian puppets with him into government, into management – at CIA, at NSA and the Pentagon. They are in the State Department. They are in the Justice Department.
Yes, yes, they are all communists. As Eric Voegelin maintained, these true disciples of Karl Marx yearn “to support violent action against human beings with a show of moral indignation.” Psychopaths always seek victims. Their quest for destruction and revenge is absolute. Hillary Clinton, Saul Alinsky, Karl Marx – they are all cut from the same cloth. They share the same drives – animated by rage and envy, by self-aggrandizement and solipsism. As Russia is the “motherland” of politicized psychopathy it is no wonder that the most extreme violence imaginable is expressed under the guise of Russian (i.e., Soviet) military science. In Marshal V.D. Sokolovskiy’s Soviet Military Strategy we read, “A modern war … will be nuclear, and will be the most destructive war in the history of mankind. The methods of conducting such a war will differ basically from those of past wars, including World War II.” (p. 427, Rand Translation.)
As the conspiracy of the Communists reaches its final climax, exposure and unmasking becomes a very real possibility. Therefore, the Russian missiles must be ready. These alone guarantee that Russia’s puppets will remain safely in power. And if the FBI should move against the traitors, Obama would find it expedient to bomb Syria. When World War III begins, FBI headquarters will be the first Russian target.
It is necessary, now, that Obama and Clinton maintain an ever-ready fiction; that they might go to war with Russia tomorrow. For in this fiction they have a weapon with which to beat down all domestic opposition. It does not matter that America has no interests in Syria. It does not matter that Obama and Clinton have worked to weaken the U.S. military. It only matters that they are in office when the war starts. It only matters that all emergency powers belong to them.
And what about nuclear war?
Nuclear war satisfies the psychopath’s urge to kill on a grand scale. According to Sokolovskiy’s text, “These aims can be achieved by massive nuclear strikes of the Strategic Missile Troops and the Long Range Air Forces against the most important countries of the enemy coalition, against the regions and targets which form the basis for the enemy’s military and economic power, and against his troop formations.”
The situation is perfectly clear. Clinton calling Trump a “Russian puppet” is the signature event of the 2016 presidential election. It tells us how far the creeping red frontier has advanced.
Commentary for 16 October 2016
The final warp and woof of Moscow’s strategic tapestry is now coming into view. As John Dziak pointed out in his essay, “Soviet Deception: The Organizational and Operational Tradition,” the key Russian strategic concepts include: Proniknovenniye (Penetration), Provokatsiya (Provocation), Fabrikatsiya (Fabrication), Diversiya (Diversion), agent po vliyaniyu/agent vliyaniye (agent of influence), Dezinformatsiya (Disinformation), Kombinatsiya (Combination).
The weave is thus translated if we juxtapose the following proper and improper nouns: Barack Obama (Proniknovenniye), Aleppo, Syria (Provokatsiya), Donald Trump/Russian stooge (Fabrikatsiya), Russian hackers (Diversiya), Hillary Clinton (agent po vliyaniyu/agent vliyaniye), CNN/New York Times/Washington Post, et alia (Dezinformatsiya), the result of the 2016 presidential election in all the above (Kombinatsiya).
The weave itself may be grasped with reference to scandal and counter-scandal. But do not mistake the tertiary diversiya for the primary provokatsiya. Next, interject the prospect of nuclear war into the mix. Friday’s ABC News headline says, Russian television Warns of Nuclear War Amid US Tensions. The Sunday Express says, Nuclear war ‘IMMINENT’ as Russia tells citizens to find out where the closest bunkers are. A few days ago the governor of St. Petersburg announced a possible bread ration of 300 grams per person for 20 days (while sheltered underground) in the event of war with America.
Can we take any of this seriously?
Last 15 June Haaretz presented the following headline: Russia ‘Mobilizing for War’ Warns Canadian Intelligence Report. One may ask, at this point: How many warnings of this kind are needed before someone, somewhere, accepts the threat from Russia as real? Of course one might say, quite simply, that there is no reason to be alarmed. States are “rational actors” and they never do irrational things – especially involving their military forces.
This is nonsense, of course. History tells another story altogether. Human beings are not the “rational actors” of social science theory. Human beings are only partly rational. They are also irrational. We would not have had World War I or World War II if this were not so. Or, as a GRU defector once said about his bosses in Moscow, “These are not normal people. These are crazy persons.”
But they are not the only crazy persons.
While I was visiting with the Brazilian philosopher, Olavo de Carvalho, last month, he gifted me a fascinating little volume by Harry Redner titled, The Malign Masters. The book suggests that the unifying undercurrent of the last hundred years of Western philosophy has been solipsism, which may be defined as: “A theory in philosophy that your own existence is the only thing that is real or that can be known.”
Insofar as America is infected with solipsism, we are also crazy persons. The essence of our narcissism is possibly a derivation of our solipsism. And our awareness does not extend to things outside our “bubble.” It follows, as well, that we have no regard for history or posterity. Everything is about us.
The real world, outside the solipsistic bubble, must never be fully acknowledged. The solipsist is only comfortable when placed at the center of his universe. That he is subjectively at the center of his own life is insufficient. This is not grandiose enough for him. His most hated enemy, therefore, is the person who blasphemes against his divinity – against the Great God Me, the God of the Imagined Self, who is not the God of the True Self, the real and objective God.
But I digress.
Solipsism is the thread by which our culture of narcissism holds together. It conditions our obliviousness in advance of our oblivion, our disregard of duty, our disrespect of truth – our laziness in the face of the enemy. And it is this enemy, like the dread dawning of a malign sun, who now plays out his endgame – an Armageddon (as it were); but not the Armageddon of second-hand Isaiahs or un-swallowed Jonahs. It is the endgame as understood by a true chess master. At this late hour the middle game is finished and many pieces have been taken off the board. Checkmate now stands in prospect.
Look at how this unfolds. We are told that Russia is trying to interfere with the U.S. elections. We are told that Moscow favors Donald Trump and disfavors Hillary Clinton. And why would the Russians so readily signal their favor and disfavor? Since when do Russian chess masters admit their real intentions?
To believe every lie, to swallow all fish bait – that has been our legacy.
Perusing Wikileaks emails from the Democratic Party, one glimpses the truth. It is not Trump who has actively subverted the Catholic Church, “buckling up and doubling down” in relation to “wet works” (i.e., assassinations) three days before the death of a Supreme Court justice. It is the Democrats themselves and Hillary’s fellows who have worked to change the American system into a socialist dictatorship; “conspiring” to make the American people “ignorant and compliant’; bemoaning Donald Trump’s campaign as the breakdown of that very compliance.
If we study Hillary Clinton’s life and background we will find that she was, in her younger days, a radical, a Marxist, a disciple of Saul Alinsky. There is no evidence that she changed her ideology. It is important, in our analysis, not to confuse publicly stated positions with privately held convictions. Hillary Clinton is not going to tell us her real thoughts. Such a confession would get her hanged instead of elected. Keeping this in mind as we examine her history, there is no evidence of a conversion to anti-communism or patriotism. All indications suggest that she remains what she was. According to former Clinton insider Larry Nichols, “We are at [watching] a velvet or silent coup. It’s been going on for years. There’s been a slow subtle takeover of our form of government, starting years and years ago, but it is coming to an end.”
Yes, as I said, it is the endgame.
And it cannot be accidental that the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. The CPUSA has ostensibly been and remains a pro-Moscow party. If you have faithfully listened to their affiliates and read their marginal notes, this is undeniable; and so, therefore, we must conclude that Moscow’s support for Trump is misdirection and diversiya.
According to John Bachtell, the national chair of the Communist Party USA, “This election will be a national referendum on racism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia and Islamophobia. The aim should be a landslide defeat of Trump and a decisive rejection of hate.”
Bachtell, writing in the People’s World, explained, “The election of Clinton as the first woman president would make history. A landslide would not end sexism, but it would represent a mighty blow just as the election of President Obama was a blow against racism. It would advance democracy.”
This is the way communists talk in the United States. But do not imagine this is what all communists sound like. Such people can also mimic conservatives. Regarding this, if you think Putin is a Christian or a nationalist, then you are sadly mistaken. One cannot take Russian or communist political pronouncements at face value. The Kremlin lies. And fools always repeat such lies.
Meanwhile, the communists have friends in high places, and the Russians have made use of these friends. According to Jerome Corsi, Hillary’s Campaign Chief [is] Linked to Money-Laundering in Russia. This comes as no surprise to those who understand the larger game. Cash is sent to support the Fifth Column here in the United States while technology and uranium flows to Russia. Each side works to strengthen the other. This manner of dealing is at the bottom of everything. This is how our politics works, and how it will continue to work until the outbreak of war.
As America has been weakened and subverted from within, as Russia and China have been strengthened, a general shift has taken place in the “balance of power.” At the moment, Russian officials are publicly saying (in so many words) that Russia is strong enough to take over Europe and defeat the United States in a war. And they are saying that Russian superiority is now irrevocable; for any attempt to restore the balance will trigger a violent Kremlin reaction. Even the positioning of a few interceptor rockets in Romania is sufficient to justify an invasion of Europe. “How can I make them understand,” Putin fumed. Yes, indeed, Russia is the greatest power in the world. Why should Moscow tolerate anyone putting defensive rockets in Romania?
The thing you need to know about nuclear war is that (1) its preparatory stage begins when Russia’s communist surrogates in Washington find themselves in an untenable position; (2) when Heaven and Earth must be moved to hide the alliance between the Fifth Columnists and their Russian sponsors through an outrageous diversionary campaign; (3) when this effort fails once and finally war becomes unavoidable.
In this latter case, if the public discovers that Clinton is allied with Russia; if they discover she is a saboteur of the nation’s defense; if they discover she is a closet revolutionary – then Russia may be compelled to use its present military superiority to crush any domestic uprising in the United States; for Russia's agents in America have conspired to make the American people “ignorant and compliant.” In fact, Russia’s nuclear missiles exist to preserve this compliance.
I therefore return to what was said at the beginning of this brief essay:
The final warp and woof of Moscow’s strategic tapestry is now coming into view. As John Dziak pointed out in the 1980s, Russia’s key strategic concepts include: Proniknovenniye (Penetration), Provokatsiya (Provocation), Fabrikatsiya (Fabrication), Diversiya (Diversion), agent po vliyaniyu/agent vliyaniye (agent of influence), Dezinformatsiya (Disinformation), Kombinatsiya (Combination).
If we juxtapose the following proper and improper nouns, by way of translation: Barack Obama (Proniknovenniye), Aleppo, Syria (Provokatsiya), Donald Trump/Russian stooge (Fabrikatsiya), Russian hackers (Diversiya), Hillary Clinton (agent po vliyaniyu/agent vliyaniye), CNN/New York Times/Washington Post, et alia (Dezinformatsiya), the result of the 2016 presidential election in all the above (Kombinatsiya).
Only in this manner, understood as parts of a larger whole, can the thing itself be understood.
* * * *
The Last Word
Commentary for 9 October 2016
By J.R. Nyquist
"The problem today is that people are so monstrously self-centered that they are incapable of viewing themselves as anything other than the sole [beneficiaries] and culmination of history when in fact we are all just bricks in the road of time that stretches in front of us. Everyone has been taught that every single person is born for earthly glory, fame and riches, and anything that falls short of that just can't be right and certainly can't be God's will. I have had, on more than one occasion, Christian people say to me with a completely straight face, 'What purpose can a person serve and what good can they do if they're dead?'"
To clarify Barnhardt’s statement, especially with regard to many of our elected officials: “What purpose can they serve, and what good can they do if they’re alive?” If the chief objective is to live, and to gain a high office, then what happens to the truth? For the politician must tell the voter what he wants to hear. In that event, if the politician lives and thrives and gains high office – what wins?
Untruth, corruption, and treason.
Untruth preserves the political careerist. He advances up the ladder, step by step. Watch him carefully. If he had died as an infant, society would have been blessed. But he lives, and advances. And the Devil has his soul. He must follow a path ordained by Hell. Or else he must fall martyr to some unwelcomed truth.
Recently General Mark A Milley, U.S. Army Chief of Staff stated: “While the Army is reducing end-strength, we made a deliberate decision to prioritize readiness.” (In other words, we are exceptionally ready; but our forces are shrinking in size.)
Milley does not explain the situation in clear language. He uses the term "reducing end-strength." He makes a virtue of readiness and obfuscation. But how ready is a force too small to prevail? It is a funny kind of readiness. And yet General Milley lives and advances.
Milley might ask: “What purpose can a person serve and what good can they do if they’re not promoted to the rank of general?” And what a general! For then, perhaps, many brave men would not die from a readiness to be ambushed by a superior enemy.
On 5 October General Milley said, “I want to be clear to those who wish to do us harm … the United States military – despite all of our challenges, despite our [operational] tempo, despite everything we have been doing – we will stop you and we will beat you harder than you have ever been beaten before. Make no mistake about that.”
But Milley is the one who is making a mistake. For despite his readiness, he is unready. He is not prepared. He is outnumbered.
He makes the same noise that Napoleon III made in 1870, before Sedan. It is the same noise that Col. Custer made before the Little Bighorn. The U.S. Army is small, and it is outnumbered, and it has a peculiar chief with a peculiar name. nonetheless, the country craves reassurance at a time of growing national weakness. And the general will give reassurance if he gives nothing else. We do not want to admit we are weak. We want to continue the pleasant business of denying Russia’s strength, and China’s military preparations.
General Milley quoted the Russian Ambassador to Britain as follows: “The Established world order is undergoing a foundational shakeup…. Russia can now fight a conventional war in Europe and win.” Oh yes, that is what the Russians are saying. Even as these words are written, U.S. President Barack Obama pushes for war in Syria.
Why does he do this?
You ought to know. You ought to have been paying better attention. Obama opposed the war in Iraq. Why does he want a war in Syria? Why does he provoke a war with Russia? The Russian government has said they will go to nuclear war if the U.S. attacks Syria. They have told this to the Russian people. They held a massive civil defense exercise last week. They are getting ready for nuclear war.
Why does Obama push for war?
Obama says that a humanitarian catastrophe is unfolding in Syria. Therefore we must bomb Syria and go to war with Russia. In this way Obama prevents a loss of life – by causing a nuclear war in which millions die. This is necessary to save thousands in Aleppo.
The sanctimonious press nods in agreement. They were never masters of logic. What is logic good for anyway?
Civic courage is not something they understand. One person takes a hit for telling the truth. Then another takes a hit. This does not help one's career. And they live for their careers, and so they have always lived on their knees (to a lie).
“What purpose can a person serve and what good can they do if they're dead?” Thus the question was put to Ann Barnhardt. Yes, indeed. If they stood for the truth, if they fought for their country, if they did something heroic and important – what possible good might come?
That safe, rational world – without feeling, without love, without patriotism, without passion – is cowardly, and in the end this cowardice brings retreat. It results in the promotion of anti-generals, anti-patriots, who are very much alive, and have climbed into high office. They cannot reflect the sentiments of dead heroes. They are the opposite of heroes. Inwardly hollow, out-of-order, full of lies. Drunk on ideology and socialism. They worship an idol made in their own hollow likeness. These fragmented beings, made of hot air and cardboard, are at odds with themselves, unable to make sense of anything – they are our leaders, our pundits, our professors. Yes, and we have applauded them. We have made love to their Gold Calf.
In his book on Nietzsche, Erich Heller wrote: “The only truly unfathomable faculty of man is love.” But he did not mean the kind of love that meanly clings to life. He meant the kind that heroically clings to truth. This truth is grounded in propriety, in goodness; and not, as Heller warned, in that plebian betrayal of truth which modern intellectuals tend to favor, especially in their “sniggering suspicion of the absence of meaning in anything that evades definition or experimental proof….” It is our disregard for what is noble that damns us. It is our disregard for truth.
Again, the question posed to Ann Barnhardt: What purpose can a person serve and what good can they do if they're dead?
By this question we are to understand that the truth is irrelevant. But in reality, it is death that is irrelevant. What matters is our faithfulness to truth while we live.