April 2014      Columns, Interviews and Research


Introduction and Organization of Material

The previous week's essays are now to be found in the essay section listed in order, with links. To read in order, begin with Predicting World War III, the Lions and Foxes, the Prodigies and Lionesses, and so on.... Each new installment will appear below prior to being archived in the Essay Section.


Divide and Conquer

Commentary for 21 April 2014

I recently asked a Polish journalist friend his ideas regarding the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. He gave me a five point answer: (1) The Ukrainians are fighting against Russia’s corrupt version of so-called capitalism; (2) Russia is trying to portray Ukraine as a non-state; (3) Putin is rebuilding the former Soviet Union’s empire, extending Moscow’s influence over specific economic sectors; (4) Moscow’s ultimate goal is to completely push the United States out of Europe, using a new anti-American ideology; (5) Meanwhile, Moscow relies heavily on the West’s readiness to compromise on everything and anything to preserve their access to Russian markets.

There is truth in what my Polish friend says. The key point, above all, is the intention to push the United States out of Europe. This was a Soviet goal prior to 1991, and it remains unchanged to this day. In part, the threat of war in Ukraine is being used to produce a split in Europe. Talk of economic sanctions also has the same effect. While some politicians may wish to support Ukrainian sovereignty, as the United States and Britain are obligated to do in accordance with the Budapest Memorandum, other politicians think it ridiculous to sacrifice their own constituents’ economic interests for a country that has been under Russia’s thumb for centuries. Furthermore, a case is being made that Washington is responsible for stirring up trouble in Ukraine, and that Europe’s interests are more closely aligned with Russia’s. Arguably, this is the immediate objective of Moscow’s push into Crimea: To split Europe, split NATO, isolate America from Europe; and to demonstrate Europe’s need for what Russian officials call – “a new security architecture.”

Perhaps the incident most damaging in this regard, in terms of Moscow driving a wedge between America and Europe, came at the publishing of a phone conversation between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, which occurred prior to the overthrow of Ukrainian President Yanukovych. From Moscow’s point of view, this conversation between Nuland and Pyatt was made to order. It gives the impression that American officials were orchestrating the opposition in Ukraine from behind the scenes. Below is an excerpt from the Nuland-Pyatt conversation:

Nuland: What do you think?

Pyatt: I think we’re in play. The Klitschko piece is obviously the complicated electron here. Especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister and you’ve seen some of my notes on the troubles in the marriage right now so we’re trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this stuff. But I think your argument to him, which you’ll need to make, I think that’s the next phone call you want to set up, is exactly the one you made to Yats [Arseniy Yatseniuk]. And I’m glad you sort of put him on the spot on where he fits in this scenario. And I’m very glad that he said what he said in response.

Nuland: Good. So I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t think it’s a good idea.

Pyatt: Yeah, I mean I guess … in terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I’m just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok and his guys and I’m sure that’s part of what Yanukovych is calculating on all this.

Given the power and influence of KGB structures in the former Soviet Republic of Ukraine, it is unlikely that these Naïve American diplomats had any idea what they were doing. They certainly did not consider their phones were tapped. In fact, their every whisper was known to the bosses in Moscow. Such helpless creatures do not orchestrate the overthrowing of presidents. Ukrainian intelligence officials have publicly stated their finding that President Yanukovych did not flee to Russia voluntarily, but that he was kidnapped by the Russian GRU and taken to Russia as a prisoner/puppet.

If this sounds absurd it is only because the reader is unfamiliar with Russia’s political method: that is, provocation. If the Ukrainian Revolution is a Russian provocation, undertaken with the object of splitting NATO, then we should expect to find evidence that the Russians created the Ukrainian Revolution themselves. We should expect to see a crack forming in NATO; for the Russians would never undertake a provocation unless they considered it likely to succeed. So it shouldn’t surprise us when Assistant Secretary of State Nuland tells Ambassador Pyatt (in their recorded conversation) about doing an end run around the European Union through the United Nations. Upon mentioning this, Nuland says: “So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and, you know, fuck the EU.”

I would apologize for repeating Nuland’s obscenity, except it is the statement of a high-ranking U.S. State Department official; as such, it evidences a real and growing divide between American and European officials in relation to the Ukraine crisis. Nuland was obviously upset with EU officials. To use that sort of language, even in private, cannot signify a healthy relationship. The Russian intelligence officials who (most probably) recorded Nuland’s remarks could only congratulate themselves.

Returning to my Polish friend’s thoughts, he offered a general warning against self-appointed Russia experts. This warning would naturally implicate me, though I cannot claim to be such an expert. According to my friend, anyone who talks about a military confrontation with Russia is playing into Russia’s hands. “They are provocateurs,” my friend said. “Their cry happens to be manna from heaven for Russian propaganda, which [makes] every effort to portray [the] West as full of warmongers and irresponsible cowboys.” These provocateurs may be trying to sell books, or they might be writing a blog – as I am doing now. But they are playing into Russian propaganda. It is what the Kremlin wants. For if the West begins to demonize Russia as a country, the Russian people will line up behind the Kremlin bosses. In that case, the dictatorship in Russia will be strengthened instead of weakened.

“The Western press never supported the real opposition in Russia,” my friend noted. This also applies to Ukraine where freedom activists have fought a lonely battle. Even the supposedly free states of Poland and the Czech Republic are not entirely free of pro-Russian neo-Communist forces (largely in control of the economy, bureaucracy, and government). Of course, in all of this, the Western media pays no attention. The West has merely exported cheap and stupid entertainment into Poland and other “former” East Bloc countries, ignoring the ongoing struggle waged by Moscow to retain a degree of control. And so we have been fooled about the fall of Communism. We have not defeated the Soviet empire. As my friend stated: “It is worthy to remember that whatever Ukraine achieved was against the political will of the Western experts and politicians.” He further added, “Russia is not going to wage war against Europe or [the] United States. It is only exploiting intellectual poverty and strategic weakness … or relying on the West’s inclination to compromise.”

I am not sure why he says, “Russia is not going to wage war….” Such a war seems perfectly inevitable to me – and I am neither a provocateur, nor a warmonger. Yet it is nonetheless alarming when, of a sudden, Russia’s useful idiots in the West are taking a more belligerent position against Russia than the conservatives. No doubt, it is the Left’s concern for homosexual rights that partly motivates them. Or are we cynical enough to believe the whole homosexual issue is a red herring – a weapon with which to split the Right into two hostile camps? Isn’t this the reason that economic conservatives and religious conservatives are annoyed at each other and no longer work together as they once did? And if we consider how the victorious Left has bankrupted America, and how this bankruptcy facilitates American disarmament, shouldn’t we regard the whole political direction of Left and Right as advantageous to Moscow?

If anyone realizes the true significance of the campaign for homosexual rights, or the campaign to stop global warming, or the struggle for feminism, as anything but an orchestrated war of strategic sabotage against the defense potential of the West, then they have understood nothing, and are strategic imbeciles. Furthermore, the point of all this sabotage – which was originally envisioned by the Communists – is not to make fools for the sake of fooling. When the intermediate step is to weaken military capability, the final step is to wage war; and when you wage war, you want the other side to be blamed for the immediate outbreak of hostilities.

Previously the Kremlin wanted everyone to rate them as harmless. Why should Vladimir Putin now, purposely, excite alarm while posturing as a defender of “conservative” or “traditional” values? The ingenuity of this bait-and-switch should be obvious. Everyone is disoriented at one and the same time. Of course, again, the Russian strategy is to split NATO as well as the conservative movement. What does it matter if the Left suddenly wants to demonize Putin? Let them do so! By all means! Yet this strategy must involve a very real danger. When we think back to President Obama’s desire to commit military aggression in Syria last fall, and how this was avoided through the reluctance of our admirals and legislators, we may get a better sense of what Russia now wants to provoke. They want us to be the aggressors, justifying some kind of armed response. Again, this suggests a desire to wage war.

There is a law of unintended consequences at work in history which makes war inevitable. According to sound strategic principles, statesmen should only wage war when they are sure to win, and victory is relatively bloodless. Yet history shows us wars in which tens of millions have died amid universal ruin and economic collapse. Only if we admit that men miscalculate, and situations easily get out of control, can we explain the facts of history. In this context it is not the Swedes who are intentionally provoking a split in Europe by warning of Russian war preparations against Sweden. At this juncture, all who warn of Russian military intentions are not provocateurs. Official reports of Russian preparations to invade Sweden involve the valid observation of a very real phenomenon; for the Russian strategists always dream of war, prepare for war, and believe in war. Russia has attacked and swallowed its neighbors again and again. How else did Russia become the largest country on earth? Certainly this did not happen by a peaceful process. Anyone who thinks so, quite frankly, is ignorant of history. The danger from Russia is not imaginary, and Russia’s past emphasis on information warfare does not signify a neglecting of kinetic warfare. The Kremlin attacks its enemies on every level, using every possible avenue – economic, informational, religious, sociological, cultural and even parapsychological. But always, and above all, the Russians believe that military power is the foundation of all. Without military power their information warfare can be nothing more than a childish series of pranks. Only when backed by military power is information warfare truly effective; for you cannot use information warfare as a force multiplier unless you have forces to multiply.  


Betrayal by Leaders

Commentary for 14 April 2014

In his 2008 book, The Failure Factory, Bill Gertz detailed the nuclear apostasy of Air Force general George Lee Butler, former chief of the U.S. Strategic Command. Incredibly, Gen. Butler subverted U.S. deterrence policy vis-à-vis Russia and bragged about it later. When Gen. Butler retired in 1994 he confessed to being a nuclear pacifist. Rather than seeking to uphold America’s nuclear deterrent, Gen. Butler hated the “self-serving profit interests of the military-industrial complex.” As he put it, the United States had been “in a messianic pursuit of a demonized enemy.” He was not alone in this opinion. Many politicians and pundits, especially from the Left, have expressed a similar view. However, Butler was in a special position. He could weaken U.S. nuclear capabilities and – in his own words – “end the madness” of nuclear deterrence. This carries with it a belief that Russia’s leaders were not seeking global dominion, even though high-level defectors from the East Bloc said that Russia’s leaders were seeking exactly this. Gen. Butler, believing in the benevolent intentions of Russia’s leaders, confessed to the following actions: “…I did what I could to cancel all of the strategic nuclear modernization programs in my jurisdiction, which totaled $40 billion. I canceled every single one of them.” As it turns out, America’s nuclear lion was a blind kitten. “If I’d had my way and I’d been there a while longer,” said Butler, “I would have worked to reduce [our nuclear arsenal] to zero.” (Read in full Butler’s Speech and joint statement with Gen. Goodpaster.) Forget the stereotype of the cigar-chomping Strategic Air Command warmonger from the sixties who wants to nuke Moscow. The stereotype is a lie. There are no such American generals. There never were. According to Gertz, “Butler is typical of a U.S. officer corps that has remained disdainful of the concepts of patriotism, love of country, and the idea that liberty and freedom and the American way of life are worth fighting for and ultimately worth dying for.” [p. 160]

Is Gertz insulting our valiant officer corps? Or is his assessment realistic?

Undoubtedly there are patriotic officers in the armed forces. But please consider who gets promoted. Our leaders have been educated to think of themselves as “citizens of the world.” This attitude is taught in our major universities, and it is rewarded with promotion. Socialism, internationalism, feminism, and environmentalism are the chief idols of our time. If you get a higher degree, this is part of what you learn. God and country are no longer in the educational mainstream today. And why would we expect the nation to be protected or valued when today’s teachings denigrate the nation as racist, imperialist, and genocidal? As these words are written, the fate of a desert tortoise in Nevada is more important to our Federal Government than a rancher whose hard work and dedication make it possible to buy beef at the store. Think of the insanity of today’s policy-makers. Is Gen. Butler the exception, or is he the rule? Our leaders believe in global warming even while the earth is cooling. They believe in homosexual marriage even as the legal system has made marriage into an unenforceable contract. They believe in unilateral disarmament even as Russia and China continue to arm. Their ideas have been upside-down for many years; and we have accepted these ideas without serious protest. Very soon it will be understood that these ideas constitute a danger to our national survival.  

That it is somehow “messianic” to maintain the nuclear balance, to check the power of an avowed enemy, is something which has to be explained in greater detail. Furthermore, the characterization of the Soviet Union as “an evil empire” is not demonization. One cannot demonize what is already demonic. Such would be akin to freezing an iceberg. The thing is what it is. Nothing we say about it may add to its character. We have either accurately described it, or we have not. If our leaders’ past characterization of the Soviet Union has at any time proven to be an exaggeration, let someone bravely provide the proof. An empire that murdered between 65 and 100 million people during the previous century must, in all fairness, be judged evil. Otherwise, when might we apply the term “evil”? Shall we say the Soviet Union was not evil? Is that the position we want to embrace? It is, indeed, the position – by implication – of Gen. Butler. He apparently believed the Soviet government was not a criminal gang that butchered tens of millions of innocent people. And such a government, with nuclear weapons, was no occasion for alarm. What alarmed the good general? It was Pentagon contractors making money by building weapons.

Let us make a comparison, if we dare. Hitler was a grandiose narcissist with paranoid delusions whose murderous brutality led to more than 55 million deaths during World War II. Yet the Soviet Communist leaders, in their turn, were also grandiose narcissists with paranoid delusions whose murderous brutality led to over 65 million deaths. Were we correct to worry about Hitler acquiring a nuclear weapon and incorrect to worry about Stalin acquiring one? And who were Khrushchev and Brezhnev if not Stalin’s henchmen? Anyone like Gen. Butler who thinks our containment of the Soviet Bloc was “the messianic pursuit of a demonized enemy” ought to write a detailed explanation; for I cannot think that such a person is anything but a mental defective; and I cannot believe his explanation would be anything more than an evasion of fact and a parody of logic. The real question which will baffle future historians for centuries to come: How can we explain a mental defective at the head of America’s Strategic Command? Now there is a question upon which a great work of sociology may be premised.

It is my personal conclusion that the threat to our civilization does not primarily stem from the Russian or Chinese strategists. The likes of these have always existed, and have always been dealt with. The primary threat to civilization is from the knuckleheads who share Gen. Butler’s values and ideas, and who rule our civilization from on high; for it is not that the Russian or Chinese strategists are so brilliant but that ours have proven so very unequal to the task of preservation and defense. The West, after all, has greater economic power than Russia. We have better technology and more people. It is only our inept leaders who have leveled the playing field. The Russian and Chinese leaders follow the ancient art of statecraft as laid down in the classics of Sun Tzu and Machiavelli; but our strategists follow the ideas of pop songs, or the slogans of pot-addled dreamers. Instead of being inspired by past examples of greatness set by Washington and Lincoln, or by William Pitt and the Duke of Wellington, we have such lamentable figures as might play clowns in a circus; personalities of no account raised to the highest offices by election or by appointment. Such figures are no more capable of writing a detailed explanation of their views than Gen. Butler; for all that Gen. Butler has done is present his conclusions, without any close reasoning to justify them. What we find, indeed, is the gullible credulity and unwitting suicidal ideation of a degenerate liberal. We find no analysis of any merit; no brilliant insights. “Modern liberalism, for most liberals,” wrote James Burnham, “is not a consciously understood set of rational beliefs, but a bundle of unexamined prejudices and conjoined sentiments.” [p. 145, Suicide of the West]

Despite Gen. Butler’s belief in the futility of nuclear weapons, a great crisis now begins to envelop Europe. For the first time since the supposed end of the Cold War we hear leading figures publicly fretting about the possible outbreak of World War III. We also hear comparisons to 1938 and the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. Oh yes, Putin is being compared with Hitler. One man is demonized and blamed for everything. The true nature of the problem, however, was known to those of us who never believed in the promise of Yeltsin’s democracy or Putin’s reforms. We knew how Russia was secretly organized beneath the surface because we carefully studied the testimony of intelligence defectors before and after 1991. The secret of Russia’s true leadership was best explained by former Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk during a broadcast of Shuster Live more than two years ago. According to Kravchuk, “Putin and Medvedev do not determine the future of Russia and the world. Another group determines policy.” The other guests of the television program, including the host, listened attentively to Kravchuk’s remarkable explanation of Moscow’s inner workings. Nobody jumped up to contradict him. He spoke carefully, in a calm voice, sometimes smiling as he spoke. Kravchuk warned that the Ukrainian government was mistaken if it believed in building friendly relations with Moscow. “Russia is ruled not by one or two individuals but by a group of people,” Kravchuk explained. “Russia has not yet identified the names [of these people], but this is a real fact.”

The former Ukrainian president, also a former Soviet insider, said that Ukraine’s policy had been based on an illusion during the entire period of its independence. “It doesn’t matter if we call Russia good or bad. It is what it is,” he said. “Russia will not change her approach. And it is hardly a democratic approach. One group has been in charge for a long time, there is no real competition between political parties [in Russia], and there are no competing views within civil society.”

As noted long ago by KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn, the Soviet Union (after the death of Stalin) came to be governed by a “collective leadership.” This arrangement guaranteed strategic continuity and adherence to what Golitsyn called “the long-range policy.” What Kravchuk understood, and the West needs to understand today, may be best summarized by Golitsyn: “The settlement of the issue of Stalinism, together with the establishment of collective leadership in this sense … effectively removed the grounds for genuine factionalism, power struggles, and succession problems in the leadership of the bloc communist parties. Thenceforward these phenomena were available to be used as the subjects of disinformation operations in support of long-range policy….” What we are up against is not the momentary whim of one man. We are up against a carefully conceived policy which does not change (as Kravchuk suggested). It is a policy which will not accept the independence of Ukraine or the continued existence of NATO. One of the chief objectives of the long-range policy was outlined by Golitsyn as follows: “The isolation of the United States from its allies and the promotion of united action with socialists in Western Europe and Japan, with a view to securing the dissolution of NATO and the United States-Japan security pact....” [p. 90, New Lies for Old.]

Moscow’s collective leadership and its determination to destroy the United States as a global power is something that leaders like Gen. Butler can never accept as real. Those who point to the testimony of former KGB or Soviet officials (in this regard) are deemed “paranoid,” while the visible activities of the Kremlin are dismissed as “defensive.” The secret leadership group in Moscow is going to smash Ukrainian independence, just as they will smash the pro-freedom protestors in Moscow. These are merely preliminary steps to changing Europe’s alignment. Employing an arsenal of lies which appeal to all shades of political opinion in the West, the Russian strategists will activate their agents of influence throughout the world. They will wear down all opposition and create a favorable political environment through which further conquests might be enabled by the threat of force. They need not rely on the Left alone to advance their strategy. They can rely on conservatives who are ready to make common cause with Moscow against those Leftists who formerly eschewed anti-Communism. What is lost in the meantime? Whole regions, whole countries – even continents will be absorbed by the revived Soviet Bloc.  

Of course, the Kremlin policy is utterly mad. Even with the help of useful fools like Gen. Butler, Moscow’s strategists are bound to fail (in the long run) – especially in Europe; for the natural instincts of sensible people are bound to awaken. However grim the situation may look, however horrific the military disasters to come, the circus clowns will be forced from the stage. Fear of death has a way of focusing the mind, and the threat of enslavement rallies many whose timidity would otherwise be assumed. It does not matter that these people are “late to the party.” As war grows closer, more observers will see the situation for what it is. Shortly before her death last year, a Russian historian wrote to me as follows: “Moscow is performing substantial war preparations. Training both military and civil defense [personnel] including the Moscow Metro, every day; medicine is in full readiness for [the coming] emergency….”

What we see today has been a long time in coming. Our disarmament has been a project more than sixty years in the making. It has required, for its success, a new generation of American “leaders.” These have betrayed the good cause, here and abroad. As the late Jonas Savimbi said before his death while fighting Communism in Africa, “It is better to be America’s enemy than America’s friend; for if you are America’s enemy you may be bought. But if you are America’s friend you most certainly will be sold.” Such is the nature of our elite today, and is what must change if we are to survive – and it will change. It must change.


When Conservatives Go Wrong

Commentary for 7 April 2014

Blaise Pascal wrote that man was full of error. “This error is natural,” he explained, “without grace, ineffaceable. Nothing shows him the truth; everything deceives him.” Along similar lines, Frederick the Great said, “Man is made for error; it enters his mind naturally, and he discovers a few truths only with the greatest effort.” Conservatives are especially guilty in this regard when it comes to the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, Russia, and Communism. To understand the complex underlying realities, one must first discover the deceptive quality of the thing itself. A Communist is a human being with the power of a person. Like other political humans, he does not change his beliefs at the drop of a hat. He does not give up and become a capitalist. On the other hand, it is entirely natural for a Communist to become a pretend capitalist. Lenin did so in the 1920s, while Stalin joined with capitalism in the early 1940s. There was “peaceful coexistence” in the 1950s under Khrushchev, Détente under Brezhnev, and perestroika under Gorbachev. And today, in Moscow, Vladimir Putin pretends to be a Christian. Who is simple enough to believe in this latest deception? Of all people, Patrick J. Buchanan, who has written a column titled, IS GOD NOW ON RUSSIA’S SIDE?

In this column Buchanan quotes from a speech given by President Putin. “Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values,” the Russian dictator wrote. “Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan. This is the path to degradation.” Buchanan then asks if we have heard any Western leader “talk like that lately?” Of course, we have not. Buchanan then concludes, “In the culture war for the future of mankind, Putin is planting Russia’s flag firmly on the side of traditional Christianity.” Alas! This would certainly be the case, if words were always used to signify reality. But Russian dictators lie so promiscuously, so profusely, that we cannot take their utterances at face value. 

Buchanan appears ignorant of all this, and of the post-Soviet reality. Like nearly all pundits, he has not read much or thought deeply on the subject of Russia. Like many famous names from earlier decades, Buchanan has become a fellow traveler and “useful idiot.” The “useful idiot” is someone who unwittingly promotes Russian propaganda under the naïve assumption that Moscow is a force for good. But Moscow is not a force for good. Russia is a regime based upon lies, and Buchanan has fallen for those lies. How is this possible? Buchanan belongs to the conservatives, a group that has fragmented and degenerated over the years. William F. Buckley may have been the representative figure for this fragmenting and degenerating tendency. It was Buckley who initiated a split along the lines of conservatives versus conservative anti-Semites, where Buchanan (among others) figured as an anti-Semite in Buckley’s reckoning. Perhaps Buckley detected Buchanan’s ambivalence with regard to Hitlerism; for Buchanan later expressed the view that America provoked Japan prior to Pearl Harbor, and that the war against Hitler was tragic and futile. This same analysis is now applied, by Buchanan, to Putin and Russia. Buchanan believes the West is pushing Russia toward World War III. He does not see Russia’s side of the game at all.  Russia is defending Christendom, he says. Russia is defending all those values that America has left behind, like marriage and the sanctity of family. Buchanan forgets that Putin himself is recently divorced, that Russia was the first country in history to allow abortion under all circumstances, having the highest number of abortions per female of child-bearing age as of 2010. Buchanan also forgets that Russia is a major center of international organized crime, prostitution and drug trafficking. As reported by CNN, child porn is legal in Russia, which has served as a haven for pedophiles. Moscow is not some shining City of God, as Buchanan implies. It is the metropolis of deception. Moscow supports Communist revolutionaries in Africa and Latin America to this very day.

Like a Cold War Leftist, Buchanan has no strategic foresight, no sense of how the KGB actually operates, how “active measures” work, or how deeply the West has been penetrated by Russian agent networks. He does not know that the Cold War never ended, and that many defectors have publicly said as much. He has somehow forgotten that Russia is the only country that can destroy the United States in less than an hour. Why has it retained this capability, and why has it allied itself with Red China? He does not think to question. In believing the reality of Soviet collapse, he has confused presentation with fact, appearance with essence. A name is not a thing, but a tag. Removing the Soviet tag was not a collapse. It was a switch. One name was put in place of another, but the underlying reality remained the same. How did he miss this? Here, in terms of Buchanan’s analysis, we are confronted with a surprisingly materialistic understanding of the world. As Buchanan envisions it, there is no ghost in the machine -- no teleology or ideology in the Great Beast. He does not consider the soul of the thing, but concentrates his attention on the outward appearances. For him, discernment has become impossible because he doesn’t know how to detect the telltales of spirit. It is all the madness of Newtonian clockwork with Buchanan, whose Christian faith has not interpenetrated his secular intellect. The inward reality of Communism, the religious meaning of the thing, was always beyond his reckoning. For him the Communist tag was all – a tag without an underlying reality. Therefore, when the tag was removed he was unable to track the further machinations of the thing itself. For Buchanan, there was never a Communist heart or soul to consider. Communism, as a belief system, was mere epiphenomena. Real Communism was an outward appearance, with no inward significance. Having no spiritual discernment he could not visualize the unrepentant heart of the Soviet elite. He could not and cannot see that Moscow’s lies have evolved in order to swallow the Right as well as the Left. He cannot see that evil is always of the inward parts and not a function of outward expressions. Therefore, Buchanan has been sucked in by Putin’s rhetoric. He has fallen for new lies which have replaced the old ones.

As for our internal corruption, does anyone remember that the homosexual and radical feminist movements were led by Communists who were allied with Moscow? But no, it is impossible that anyone intended the sexual revolution. It is impossible that some enemy was attempting to weaken our morals for some strategic purpose. Thanks to Freud we have come to believe in the unconscious to such an extent we have ceased believing in conscious intentions altogether – especially Communist or Russian intentions. Although numerous defectors have attempted to warn us of Moscow’s long-range design, and recent defectors continue to warn us, we are unready to believe that we have such an enemy; that is to say, an enemy with a long-range plan of murderous intent. An actual long-range plan would signify political continuity. Such continuity is unimaginable to people who haven't read history. Again, I say, Buchanan doesn't realize there is a soul in the Russian machine. And souls are possessed of intentionality. Therefore, if we were paying attention to the signals which actions represent, we would see that Lenin remains unburied. We would see that Russia and China were arming when America was shifting to a "war against terror." We would see that Russia is still supporting Communist regimes and insurgencies in Africa and Latin America. A purely nationalist Russia would have had no reason to do any if these things. Only if the Soviet core had remained beneath a "change of signposts" could the observed behaviors be explained. Buchanan has forgotten that the Soviet Strategic Rocket Forces remain in place, only with "Russian Federation" affixed in place of Soviet Union. The exchange of one tag for another was superficial; the Communists had performed this trick before, under Lenin’s New Economic Policy, in the 1920s. Now history repeats itself. We have documents from Soviet archives (in the hands of Vladimir Bukovsky) showing that the "collapse" of Communism was part of a plan (exactly as KGB Major Anatoliy Golitsyn had said). We have testimony from other former KGB officers like Victor Kalashnikov and Konstantin Preobrazhensky and Sergei Tretyakov, who have warned of continued Russian subversion. Preobrazhensky not only has warned that conservative religion has become a key vehicle for Russian subversion, but he also insists that Russia’s capitalist "oligarchs" were KGB stooges who were simply elevated to billionaire status by State Security. Furthermore, whatever extent the fake collapse went awry, we learn that the hidden Communist core has continued to adhere to their old objectives. That is absolutely certain from what we see today. The Russian policy has been a Soviet policy from day one. Subversion and revolution, war preparations and anti-American propaganda have continued even while Putin was shaking George Bush's hand and trying to be helpful after 9/11. Even George W. Bush no longer believes in Putin's sincerity or honesty, as evidenced in Bush's memoirs where he recounts his own naïveté in dealing with the Russian dictator. But as someone once said, “A sucker is born every minute.” Today Patrick Buchanan is the sucker. I only hope he will awaken to the truth in time to lend a hand.


Further War Preparations?

Commentary for 1 April 2014

On 26 March the Daily Mail reported the following headline: “Kim Jong-Un has told his military chiefs to prepare for war with South Korea in 2015, claims Seoul media.” Of course, the North Korean dictator is always threatening war. This is the first report, however, which alleges a definite timetable (in terms of a specified year for attack). What is noteworthy about this date is how it agrees with Chinese authorities. In an August 2005 speech by former Chinese Defense Minister Chi Haotian, titled The War Is Approaching Us, we read, “…only with the power that is capable of totally extinguishing Japan and crippling the United States can we win peace; otherwise the Taiwan problem cannot be prolonged for more than 10 years, and there will be war within 10 years!” Gen. Chi delivered an even more terrifying speech before elite Party cadres titled, War Is Not Far from US and Is the Midwife of the Chinese Century. Chi concluded this particular speech with the following note: “The central committee [of the Chinese Communist Party] believes, as long as we resolve the United States problem at one blow, our domestic problems will all be readily solved. Therefore, our military battle preparations appear to aim at Taiwan, but in fact [are] aimed at the United States, and the preparation is far beyond the scope of attacking aircraft carriers or satellites.”

In a similar vein we may wonder whether Russia’s current “battle preparations” only appear to aim at Ukraine, “but in fact are aimed at the United States….” This should be of some concern, especially as the leadership of the United States proves so unwary. Before plumbing the depths of this unwariness, however, there is the delicate question of reader morale. Last week a reader suggested I write a more hopeful, uplifting message. I certainly would like to oblige. So here it is: If there is any truth in my words then there is, by definition, hope as well. In all things, at all times, to speak the most difficult truth requires the greatest possible faith; and those that have no such faith, cannot have truth, cannot have hope, and cannot have a future. This is all that needs be said on the subject of “hopeful messages.”

Returning to our subject: What Russia and China are doing, what they are preparing, is now done in plain sight. The full court deception is over. And yet, throughout it all, our society remains committed to suicidal ideologies and myths (like global warming, feminism, multiculturalism, socialism, and world peace). We ignore the real danger out there, assuming that we are somehow invulnerable. Our leaders, experts and pundits know what is popular, what is expected, and what makes money. To think outside these parameters is career-ending. Therefore our pundits and experts do not recognize the enemy strategy (which is denigrated as nothing of the kind). They do not connect fact with fact, or grasp the underlying telltale. Of many particulars they are aware, but they cannot see the trap into which civilization has fallen. The liberal-bourgeois order was flawed at its inception by the relentless logic of democracy, by the anarchy of political parties, by the demagogy of politicians, by a belief in progress, and by the leveling power of equality. Society has become soft, feminine – incoherent to the point of disintegration. This is not merely the work of recent decades, but of recent centuries.

Incoherency to the point of disintegration is exemplified by the following: In reacting to Russia’s threatened invasion of Ukraine, President Obama said: “Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors, not out of strength but out of weakness.” Perhaps that is why nobody in Europe can do anything about the Russian annexation of Crimea. As a corollary of Obama’s formulation, Europe is unable to stop Russia because Europe is so very strong (in comparison with Russia). As for being a mere regional power, we must then ask what Russia’s ICBMs signify. And what is signified by Jens Stoltenberg becoming NATO’s next Secretary-General. A former prime minister of Norway, Mr. Stoltenberg is best known for activism with regard to “climate change.” And what of his past leadership of the Workers’ Youth League, and his frequent meetings with a KGB officer from the Soviet Embassy which had given Stoltenberg the code name “Steklov”?  

Of course, why would anyone object to meeting with a KGB officer working undercover as a Soviet diplomat? I am told such people bathe regularly, can hold up their side of the conversation, and sometimes bring money to the table. There is no more harm in Mr. Stoltenberg’s background than in the Heritage Foundation recycling James Carafano’s National Interest piece, 5 Reasons Why We’re Not in Danger of Another Cold War. [This assumes, of course, that the previous Cold War actually ended.] Not only does Carafano agree with Obama that Russia is not a global power, he says Russia is “no Evil Empire,” not a global competitor, not engaged in an ideological conflict, not a resurrected USSR, and nothing to do with America’s real problems.

The beliefs which now dominate our society, control our schools, and elect our politicians – all derive from the Communist Left (which long ago pledged itself to the supposedly defunct Soviet Union). This includes the current fashionable status of homosexuality. (It is not that homosexuality is something the proletarian revolution embraces in theory, but rather as strategy – which has been entirely missed by non-strategists.) If Communism actually died in 1991, how come it seems to be winning today? How come the Soviet Union is suddenly coming back to life? Taking their eyes off the ball, too many pundits failed to see the defense implications of environmentalism, feminism and homosexual activism (just as Republicans failed to see the long-term danger of Nixon’s opening to China). Therefore, the military mobilizations we see today coincide not only with outright disarmament in the West, but with a long-term campaign of sabotage against the survival instinct itself. What, in the final analysis, do feminism and homosexuality ultimately signify if not an attack on instinct?

Righteous and Unrighteous Power

Commentary for 24 March 2014

India in 1962 offers a distant mirror of the present time. Think of Crimea today as if it were Tibet in 1959. A conflict arises after the invasion and annexation of territory. The aggressor’s position is subjected to active subversion, yet the aggressor’s ongoing military buildup is not taken seriously. His aggression is not matched with equal force. A military clash follows in which the aggressor defeats and punishes the interference of democracy.     

The recently revealed “TOP SECRET” Indian Defense Review of the 1962 Chinese military attack on India begins, appropriately, with a quote from Sun Tzu about knowing yourself and knowing your enemy. The review describes preliminary signs of a Chinese push towards India in terms of “aggressive Chinese action at LONGJU in NEFA in August, 1959, and at KONGKALA in LADAKH in October, 1959.” The Indian generals recognized that “these two incidents vividly heralded that the might of CHINA had arrived in TIBET….” Truth be told, India was giving aid and comfort to the oppressed Tibetan people. China could not tolerate this situation for long, and was determined to teach India a lesson.

At first the Indian generals imagined they were threatened by a mere Chinese regiment near LADAKH.  Later the threat at LADAKH “was estimated to be over a division including armor….” The Indian Defense Review stated, “… the Chinese buildup … [was] three times … what it was in 1959, [while] ours was negligible due to shortage of logistics support.” Indian intelligence reports showed that Chinese strength was continually increasing from 1959 – 1962. The Indian side failed to ready itself, despite visible Chinese preparations. On 2 November 1961, less than a year before the Chinese launched their attack, the Indian Prime Minister’s office scheduled a meeting to discuss the situation. Present at this meeting were the Defense Minister, Foreign Secretary, and Chief of the Army Staff, and the Director of Intelligence Bureau [DIB]. According to the review, “It appears that the DIB was of the opinion that ‘the Chinese would not react to our establishing new posts and that they were NOT LIKELY TO USE FORCE AGAINST ANY OF OUR POSTS EVEN IF THEY WERE IN A POSITION TO DO SO.’ (in capitals for emphasis).”

The assessment of India’s Director of Intelligence Bureau was “contrary to the military intelligence appreciation, as brought out in the CONCLUSION of Army headquarters Annual Intelligence Review – China-Tibet, 1959-1960 (Annexure 9); which clearly indicated that the Chinese would resist by force any attempts to take back territory held by them.” The Indians were determined to shore up their border and prevent a further Chinese land-grab. They even envisioned a gradual pushback against the Chinese outposts. In the words of the report, “The [Indian] policy virtually intended the establishing of posts to dominate the Chinese positions in occupied areas of LADAKH. Thus, in effect, it could mean our eventual domination of the AKSAI CHIN Highway. In fact, Army Headquarters did reflect this in a letter in which it was stated ‘In pursuance of recent orders from Government, it was proposed to establish certain posts in AKSAI CHIN and in other parts of LADAKH….”

As it happened, Prime Minister Nehru of India had been warned of the danger of a military clash but refused to increase military spending and did not see any reason to prepare for war. The Chinese, on their side, were contemptuous of Indian weakness. How did the Indians dare to send agents into Tibet for purposes of subverting Communist rule? Did they imagine their own border was secure from China? Nehru believed that China wouldn’t risk an attack. Besides, a border clash might lead to assistance from the Americans or the Russians. Surely the Chinese didn’t want Nehru aligning himself with Moscow! (Or did they?) The poor Indian Prime Minister did not understand the Chinese, and he certainly did not understand the Russians. It is unsurprising, therefore, that in October 1962 the Indian Army suffered defeat at the hands of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army.

In those days the Chinese government was led by a psychopath named Mao Zedong. He is famous for causing more political murders than anyone in history. However we might applaud India’s pro-active approach to Chinese aggression against Tibet, we cannot applaud the assumption that righteousness is all-in-all sufficient. One might wish that India had prevailed over China in the region. But ask yourself: What is righteous indignation worth at the end of the day? In fact, you cannot stop an army without an opposing army. And all things being equal, the larger and better-equipped army wins the day. In 1939 and 1940 the world was given a demonstration of this principle; namely, that righteous weakness is worse than stupidity. Giving ultimatums to a dictator without sufficient military strength is criminally irresponsible in its own right. What does the statesman imagine? The wages of military weakness are well known. And so are the wages of economic vulnerability, energy dependence, and financial indebtedness.

I am very sorry to deny the existence of a political Santa Claus, or a non-aggression Easter Bunny, but the Allies only won World War II because they finally created superior military forces with which to stop the Germans and Japanese. The United States and NATO, after decades of weakening, are acting toward Russia today as the Indians acted in Tibet. They are pushing on Russia, subverting Russia’s position in Ukraine, without giving sufficient weight to the fact that Russia has the most modern nuclear forces on the planet and Europe is dependent on Russian natural gas. That is to say, we are threatening Russia with an unloaded gun; and that is dangerous, because Russia’s gun is loaded. As the example of India in 1962 shows, those who play at war without serious preparations are headed for defeat. In practical terms, we should have bombers in the air as Russia does. We should be matching them division for division. But we cannot do this because we believed in the “peace dividend” which we have spent. And we had conservative politicians like Newt Gingrich, who famously said, “I am a hawk. But I am a cheap hawk.”  

Take the concerns over Pentagon weakness expressed by South Korea as a case in point (see the 21 March Washington Times headline, S. Korea worries over Pentagon’s budget woes.) If the new Air Force tanker program is $1 billion over budget, where will the money come from when every penny is going to Obamacare? Meanwhile the U.S. Army is slated to become smaller than at any time since before World War II. Is this the vibrant U.S. military that Europe is depending on during a crisis? Is this the Air Force that will allow Japan to prevail over China?

The Ukraine situation is noteworthy for one reason: First and foremost, Russia is mobilizing for war in plain view. Russia has loaded bombers with nukes and is keeping bombers on patrol over the Arctic. Several weeks ago the Russians turned on their phased array radars (See The Russian Woodpecker Returns). Both of these moves are pre-war WW3 moves. At the same time Moscow is positioning troops on its western frontiers. So far NATO has sent a token number of aircraft and troops forward, but America has not put bombers on alert or nukes into the air. No equivalent of the Russian Woodpecker has been activated on the American side.

We should consider that in a mobilization of this kind (taking place in Russia) the Russians are looking to see if we are willing to match their deployments. So far our reaction is weak and therefore an encouragement to aggression. The top Russian generals will be very happy, saying to President Putin, “The Americans are asleep. We can do anything and they will do nothing.” Next Russia will send forces to the Caribbean (as announced). They will take every pre-war advantage they can without penalty. This process might go on for months, even years. Only when we move to bring the process to a halt, like the Indian government did in 1962 with China, will Russia be forced to attack. In that event, they will say we were the aggressors – mobilizing against them (as they were already mobilized "peacefully").  

We do not know ourselves, truly, and we do not know our enemy. Nothing is better testimony to that fact than the refusal of the Establishment to take notice of Robert Buchar’s documentary The Collapse of Communism: The Untold Story. Our experts never understood the Soviet Union or Red China. They do not understand the Russian Federation today. You cannot oppose the Russian leaders with mere righteous indignation. People whose ideology consists in a belief in their own righteousness do not know themselves and cannot know others. Sadly, military brinksmanship is a dangerous business for those who lack such knowledge.

In unpublished notes related to my book, Origins of the Fourth World War, I wrote an imaginary dialogue between a future military dictator of America (no longer the U.S.A.) and an unnamed journalistic “interlocutor.” At one point the journalist is shocked to discover that the dictator doesn’t believe in “human rights.” The dictator replies, “You speak as though a right existed, like a yappy little dog. If I violate your yappy little dog he may howl. But I don’t think he’ll bite. His claim of entitlement is only good as his teeth are sharp, but I think he has no teeth at all.”

Our belief in entitlement has corrupted us. We now assume the victory of freedom is automatic. We assume that dictators and “bad guys” always lose. Democracy is entitled to win. But the yappy, toothless, little dogs are not entitled to freedom because they lack nature’s prerequisite. And this is not some fault in nature, but is the way God made the world. If anyone should think this perverse, they should imagine a world in which the yappy dog has sway over everything – of a world in which the weak rule over the strong, and entitlement serves as a blank check upon ability; a world, in short, where the lamb eats the lion, where everything is decided by sheep in sheep’s clothing, and the more despicably weak and contemptible you are, the more honored you shall be.

Dear reader, I beg your pardon. You must forgive me, for I have forgotten that under the current ruling ideology we are assumed to be living in exactly such a world. It is a world of envy in which an empty narcissist is elevated on the basis of an absurd slogan so that we might say of him, as Nietzsche said of Wagner: “He is not a great man. He is an actor.” Here is the imposter phenomenon that so accurately characterizes our leadership class. Here is the real collapse of the West – the root cause of our financial, educational, political and moral woes. Stupidity is now sublime, wisdom vilified, and the future simply does not exist at all. As Soren Kierkegaard predicted almost two centuries ago, “No single individual … will be able to arrest the abstract power of levelling, for it is negatively something higher, and the age of chivalry is gone. No society or association can arrest that abstract power, simply because an association is itself in the service of the levelling process. Not even the individuality of the different nationalities can arrest it, for on a higher plane the abstract process is a negative representation of humanity pure and unalloyed.” [The Present Age, Harper Torchbooks, p. 55]


Is the Ukraine Crisis a Provocation?

Commentary for 17 March 2014

“There exists a widespread body of opinion that describes anti-Communism as an obsession of people who are not able to think in ‘sensible’ and ‘realistic’ categories,” wrote Josef Mackiewicz in The Triumph of Provocation; “they are, as it were, affected by an incurable disease, and it is therefore a waste of time to treat them. We can only dismiss them with a shrug of the shoulders.” And so, after the fall of the Soviet Union, there was no ground left for the anti-Communist to stand upon. His last foothold was destroyed. The Soviet Union was gone.

But was it really?

What if the Soviet Union continued to exist after 1991, hidden behind the façade of Russia’s “new” democracy? What if Russia and Ukraine are now working a “scissors strategy” against the West? Half the government officials in Ukraine are Soviet in character. This is well known! Half were educated in KGB schools or other hardcore Communist institutions (according to Boris Chykulay’s research). Is it possible they are no longer taking orders from Moscow? Whatever people in positions of responsibility in Ukraine may pretend, they all have a gun to their head, and they’ve always known it. And now the whole world sees the gun, cocked and ready to fire.  

The analyst scratches his head. How are we to understand a conflict between Russia and Ukraine? Has Ukrainian patriotism taken the Soviet structures by the throat? Has Moscow really lost control? This may be true, though we cannot be absolutely sure. Russia and the former Soviet countries are not “transparent” in their political or economic organization. This has been a source of frustration for Western businessmen and politicians for the past two decades. So at best, the situation remains unclear. Perhaps the Ukrainian underground has sufficient resources, and sufficient discipline, to play the Russians at their own game. Consider the recent protests in Moscow, with Russian citizens waving Ukrainian flags.  

But then we see the Russians sending loaded bombers into the Arctic. We see them mobilization political support from around the world. One has to ask: Are we dealing with a timetable here?

The mainstream pundits are shocked that the Cold War has restarted; meanwhile some of us concluded long ago that the Cold War never ended. The Soviet Communists continue to rule, using their KGB “sword and shield” from the shadows. They continue to support Communists abroad. After 1991 Moscow fueled the Communist military effort in Angola (against Jonas Savimbi) which won final victory in 2002. Even now the Russians continue to support the Angolan Communists (see, Surfing Russia’s Military Cooperation With Angola). Moscow also continues to support Communist Cuba’s takeover of Venezuela, and has helped to build up Nicaraguan military power (see, Russia plans to add military bases in Nicaragua, Venezuela, other countries). Then there is Russia’s alliance with Communist China (See Why a Russia-India-China alliance is an idea whose time has come.) Russia has been supporting the Communist cause in Africa, South America and Asia ever since 1991 without anyone in the West raising so much as a peep. So why are they doing it? Is it because they gave up Communism in 1991?

That would be funny, if true – and completely absurd.

As it happens, we are not dealing with the Russian Federation. No, no, no, no. This so-called Russian Federation is a façade behind which the Communist Party Soviet Union can win the confidence of its enemies – all the better to arrange their destruction. The words of Josef Mackiewicz hold true today as these words held true when he wrote them more than thirty years ago. It is a cardinal mistake, wrote Mackiewicz, to identify the Soviet Union with old Russia. And that is exactly what we’ve been encouraged to do. The events of 1989 were a provocation. The events of 1991 were a provocation. The events of 2014 are a provocation. “international Communism, with its headquarters in Moscow, is not ‘imperialism’ within the ordinary meaning of the word but an effort to dominate the globe, the whole world, all nations, in order to force on that world the totalitarian Communist system,” wrote Mackiewicz. If we do not understand this, we understand nothing. Lenin has not been buried, the Communists in Africa are receiving Russian a Chinese military supplies as these words are being written. The Latin American Communists are also receiving assistance from Moscow. When Putin visited Cuba a few years back he was asked whether he was a Communist. He said, “Call me a pot, but heat me not.”

What kind of politician gives that kind of answer to a straightforward question? “International Communism in its present form is a kind of psychological PESTILENCE,” wrote Mackiewicz, “and no national or economic factors have anything to do with this. Freedom, true freedom, can come only with the overthrow of Communism, with the destruction of the system, regardless of the language it uses.” It is of no account that the KGB is called FSB, or the USSR is called the Commonwealth of Independent States, or that Putin prefers to be called a Pot – but heat him not. Putin is a Communist and the Russian Federation is a Communist formation. The ruling structures in the former Soviet Union are Communist, their goal is still Communist, their methods are still Commuinst. The hapless counter-revolutionaries in America, facing the prospects of a domestic Communist imposition, have no idea what they are dealing with. Even if they know Putin is a dictator, they can hardly be expected to grasp the Communist trap into which they have all fallen.

So Russia has invaded Crimea? So Russia is loading 30 nuclear bombers in Voronezh? So Russia is positioning forces in Belarus? So Russia is uniting with China, India, Iran, North Korea, Vietnam, Venezuela, Nicaragua, South Africa, Angola, Congo, Brazil, Bolivia, and Ecuador? What do you suppose it all means?

One clenched fist is what it means. The Communists are pulling together their forces, pushing for dominance in the open, knowing that the West is too weak to offer serious resistance.

Do we imagine that Communism’s faked death – this 22-year deception – was for laughs? Do we expect a naked Communist to pop out of a cake and say, “Ha, ha, we were Communist all along! Wasn’t our deception amazing?” Or does the deception end more realistically, with a drawn gun or a missile barrage? It is time, as well, to bring down the Western financial system, crash the U.S. dollar, crash the Western markets. Will Russian and Chinese gold be used to break Western paper currencies? We are already hearing about the supposed collapse of China’s “shadow banking system” as the Chinese premier publicly warns that we must prepare for “a wave of bankruptcies.” Are we starting to see the forest for the trees here?

As I wrote to a friend this past week, it is too soon to say anything wise about Ukraine. The politics of the country is mired in the Byzantine jockeying for power of a Soviet republic when one set of minions has been purged in favor of another set, with the added complication of public unrest. Perhaps we're seeing the mobilization of a backup strategy in which the Russian army now enters the game following the failure of “Soviet structures” that were supposed to keep the country in good order. And yet, there is some indication that everything here was foreseen long ago. It is no accident, for example, that Transnistria was formed as a Pro-Russian enclave between Moldavia and Ukraine (similar in purpose to the Abkhazian and Ossetian enclaves in Georgia). Also part of the design was the full military union between Belarus and Russia (signed by Boris Yeltsin in 1999). Then there is the maintenance of a Russian fleet in the Black Sea. For what possible purpose was this fleet, with all its attending expense, maintained? Such a setup could not have been haphazard, but as I would suggest, every element is part of a design; that is, to maintain a semi-circle of military positions around Ukraine (with Transnistria to the southwest, Minsk to the north, Sevastopol to the south and Russia itself to the East). In all this the Russians have clearly shown their determination to hold Ukraine firmly in their grip whether or not their agent networks in Kiev maintain strict control of the government. Ukraine is surrounded and may be cut off at any moment. The preparations for a double envelopment of the country were laid down in 1991 when Ukraine was ostensibly given independence. This merely shows in what spirit, and with what intentions, “independence” was granted in the first place.   

Since the Kiev government has largely been a charade since 1991, and the politics of Ukraine has been the politics of Russian intrigue and machination, it is no wonder that Putin insists that Ukraine isn't "a real country." The collapse of the Soviet Union itself was a charade which we have so thoroughly bought into that, in our naïveté, we have somehow come to think of Ukraine as something that can and must be defended – though we have not the means, neither have we made any serious preparations. We are now caught off guard. We want to help the Ukrainian people. We want to help the Ukrainian puppet state break away from its KGB ventriloquist. And perhaps, indeed, the history of the failed agent provocateurs in Kiev is not so strange; for the history of agent provocateurs is noteworthy for its "Bloody Sundays" and March Revolutions. It is entirely possible that fake revolutions can turn real, for as the fairy tale teaches: even Pinocchio wanted to be a real boy.

So we wait upon events, perhaps knowing the whole thing was designed as a provocation. And even if it’s not a provocation, it is still a provocation; for Moscow cannot help using it as such, and we cannot help fooling ourselves.


Mutual Assured Commitment

Commentary of 10 March 2014

“Ignore Russian and Chinese strategic designs against the United States at your peril.” 
– Anatoliy Golitsyn, 1993 Memorandum to the CIA

The Japan Times headline for 8 March reads, China signals tougher stand on territorial rows. It says that China is spending more money on high-tech weapons and higher military readiness. Another article, from Foreign Policy, titled The Black Box of China’s Military, claims, “Beijing is spending hundreds of billions of dollars on defense, but no one quite knows what they’re up to.” Experts are said to believe that China spends much more on its military than the amounts officially stated. According to the article, “The biggest hole in U.S. understanding of the Chinese military appears to be in how it makes decisions.” One official is quoted as saying, “We have pretty much zero insight into how the PLA [People’s Liberation Army] makes decisions.”  

This confession signals our strategic bankruptcy. The famous Chinese strategist, Sun Tzu, once said, “If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.” This prompts me to ask: Which U.S. policy-makers actually know themselves, or know their own country? Who speaks honestly and realistically on this subject? And which statesman, failing to know what is immediate to him, is able to accurately assess distant objects? Shall we, perhaps, point to the strategic wisdom of Hillary Clinton or John Kerry? What of the prowess of Barack Obama? In 2008 the supposedly clueless Alaskan “soccer mom,” Gov. Sarah Palin, said that Senator Obama had reacted to the Russian 2008 invasion of Georgia with “indecision and moral equivalence – the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.” Of course, expert opinion branded Palin as an ignoramus for making this statement.

As servants of a public that craves fiction, our leaders (with few exceptions) have become purveyors of political fantasy. Since 1991 we have been fed a diet of lies about Russia and China which, though soothing to the business community, have placed America in a position of strategic inferiority. “False and naïve assumptions about Russian and Chinese ‘progress towards democracy’ and about their ‘friendship towards the United States’ threaten defense policy,” wrote KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn in 1995. “The threat is not just associated with reduced military budgets but also with the matter of priorities. US involvement in regional and local conflicts … on the basis that ‘the Cold War is over,’ and in fighting drug cartels in Latin America, distracts attention from the real strategic threat from Russia and China.” [The Perestroika Deception, p. 231]

As a nation, as a civilization, we have fallen for a trap. We have believed the Russian lies, and now we must pay the price. “Be extremely subtle,” wrote Sun Tzu, “even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness.” And what should we think, now that silence has been broken in Ukraine? What shall we say when the mystery of China is revealed? “Speed is the essence of war,” wrote Sun Tzu. “Take advantage of the enemy’s unpreparedness; travel by unexpected routes and strike him where he has taken no precautions.”

How, then, should we read current events?

The problem of starting World War III (for Russia and China) is the problem of two untrustworthy partners committing to a military offensive at the same time. Both partners have to move together, in coordinated fashion. If one commits and the other hesitates, the side which commits too early can find itself isolated and outgunned by the civilized world. Therefore, in the matter of two powers starting a war together, the way forward is through Mutual Assured Commitment. As of today, 10 March 2014, if Russia is planning to push deeper into Ukraine, then China and/or North Korea must make trouble in the Far East. As Russia gradually commits, China must commit. If one partner goes too far without the other, the one partner risks abandonment along an irrevocable path. And therefore, in order to build trust upon trust, they must go together or not at all.

So we are left to consider the present military crisis between China and Japan as a necessary prologue, along with the Russian 2008 incursion into Georgia. All such prologues may be part of a carefully constructed sequence. Georgia was a dress rehearsal for Ukraine as Ukraine is most assuredly the prologue to something larger. In the Far East, the conflict over the disputed Senkaku Islands is absurd unless viewed as the prologue to an outbreak of war in the Pacific, which would include a war between North and South Korea. In relation to the Sino-Russian long-range strategy, KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn wrote the following paragraph in his February 1993 memorandum to the CIA:

The United States does not understand the real nature of relations between the Russian and Communist Chinese leaders. Washington believes that a genuine improvement took place in relations in the 1980s between the Chinese and … [Russians]. I see these contacts as evidence that ‘perestroika’ in Russia did not take the Chinese by surprise, that they have a complete understanding of the realities behind it and the their strategic cooperation with the Russians continues as it has done since the late 1950s though now with open acknowledgement of their good relations. The United States views the Russian sale of complete factories and new weapons systems to the Chinese as dictated by Russian desire to ease their current economic difficulties. To my way of thinking it amounts to the deliberate transfer of advanced technology to an old and trusted ally.

As tensions rise in Europe, tensions must also rise in the Pacific. This will be the sign that Russia and China are entering the phase of “one clenched fist.” The days immediately ahead are momentous. The Russians will either attempt to frighten Europe into creating new European security structures with which to replace NATO, or failing in this attempt, they will invade Eastern Ukraine, Odessa, or even Western Ukraine. It is unlikely that the Kremlin will back down and free the Ukrainians from their Soviet shackles. Freedom, after all, is a disease that kills autocratic rule inch by inch, year by year. If Ukraine is infected today, Russia will be infected with the disease tomorrow. But disease is a two-way street.

The Russian leaders do everything on the basis of carefully constructed policies. They generally do not like improvisation. They rely, as ever, on secret armies – agent networks – deeply imbedded in the U.S. and Western Europe (and in Ukraine as well). As Sun Tzu explained, “Of all those in the army close to the commander none is more intimate than the secret agent; of all rewards none more liberal than those given to secret agents; of all matters none is more confidential than those relating to secret operations.” According to Sun Tzu, “Secret operations are the essential in war; upon them the army relies to make its every move.”



Mobilizing for World War III

Commentary of 3 March 2014 

"The jealous and intolerant eye of the Kremlin can distinguish, in the end, only vassals and enemies, and the neighbors of Russia, if they do not wish to be one, must reconcile themselves to being the other." 
– George F. Kennan

I began this series of commentaries on 20 January with the title “Predicting World War III.” In that first piece, I related how a group of well-known Russian astrologers, shamans and parapsychologists had predicted the beginning of World War III for March 2014. And here we are, at the outset of a serious crisis that might easily escalate to world war. A reader of this blog recently noted, “Either this thing has gotten away from Moscow, or Moscow has much bigger plans in store dead ahead."

Yes, things have gotten away from Russia, and bigger plans are in store. This is obvious from the Russian military invasion of Crimea. At this point, why should the Kremlin worry about an open display of violence against innocent people? The military balance has already shifted in Russia’s favor, with China preparing for war against Japan in the Far East. In truth our military readiness is not what it should be. (See End of American Military Dominance: Hagel announces steep U.S. defense cuts in aircraft, ships, troops, weapons.) 

America has been fighting a war against terrorism for the last twelve years. We have been diverted and misdirected. Our military policy has shifted away from preparing against a major adversary and we are not ready. Furthermore, which European country is prepared to fight Russia? Only Ukraine is preparing to fight, and Ukraine is hopelessly outgunned.

The famous KGB defector, Anatoliy Golitsyn, warned of Moscow’s long range strategy in 1984 with the following paragraph: “The dialectic of this [Kremlin] offensive consists of a calculated shift from the old, discredited Soviet practice to a new, ‘liberalized’ model, with a social democratic façade, to realize the communist planners’ strategy for establishing a United Europe. At the beginning they introduced a variation of the 1968 Czechoslovakian ‘democratization.’ At a later phase they will shift to a variation of the Czechoslovakian takeover of 1948.” [p. 349, New Lies for Old]

It appears we are nearing the later phase. The strategists in Moscow know that the revolt in Ukraine must be put down, despite what the world thinks. They believe the balance of power has shifted, and they can act with impunity. Of course, they are afraid that a “great unraveling” of their strategy might occur if they do not press hard against Kiev. Aside from Russian propaganda, those who say the West is behind the Ukrainian freedom movement do not know the West, and they do not know Ukraine. Such a misunderstanding, worst of all, belittles the courage and political work of Ukrainian patriots. The best of them understand that there cannot be full freedom in Ukraine without freedom in Russia.

So the real fight is political. The real fight is for the heart of Russia. The criminals who rule Russia have survived by killing and murdering. They will lose power only when the Russian people fully awaken. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn once said the path of murder is the path of the lie. And now we see the murderers at work, and we are going to be treated to a parade of lies. Watch and see if the Western media begins to identify the Ukrainian patriotic cause with anti-Semitism. Such is the rhetoric of a country that is preparing to smash Ukraine.

And yes, the danger of war is growing. According to Ukrainian officials, Russian troops have occupied Crimea. The Fox News headline reads: Ukraine accuses Russia of ‘military invasion’ as gunmen seize airports. Although Russian officials deny or make no comment when asked about this invasion, Ukrainian Interior Minister Arsen Avakov has publicly stated, “I can only describe this as a military invasion and occupation.” According to CNN, Ukraine mobilizes troops after Russia’s ‘declaration of war’ – with the following text: “Kiev mobilized troops and called up military reservists in a rapidly escalating crisis that has raised fears of a conflict.”

Meanwhile, Russian 20th and 48th armies are making preparations to invade Eastern Ukraine. At the same time, Secretary of State John Kerry is headed to Kiev, and claims that several foreign powers are considering economic sanctions against Russia. “All of them,” said Kerry, “every single one of them are prepared to go to the hilt in order to isolate Russia with respect to this invasion. They’re prepared to put sanctions in place, they’re prepared to isolate Russia economically.”

Let’s not be too hasty, however. One must consider the many cards Russia has yet to play: U.S. troops depend on Russia for their supply line in Afghanistan. Germany depends on Russian natural gas for winter heating. Sanctions may not be practical. And then, there is the China Front. In January the Russian Deputy Defense Minister Pavel Popov warned that a US-China-Japan Pacific War was “just weeks away.”

One cannot rule out a massive and coordinated offensive by Russia and China, or an escalation of grey terror with a nuclear attack on New York. Any number of moves may be indicated. It is hard to say exactly how this will be played.

I will end with a quote from KGB Major Golitsyn: “Before long, the communist strategists might be persuaded that the balance [of power] had swung irreversibly in their favor. In that event they might well decide on a Sino-Soviet ‘reconciliation.’ The scissors strategy would give way to the strategy of ‘one clenched fist.’ At that point the shift in the political and military balance would be plain for all to see.” [p. 346]


The Hidden USSR

Commentary of 24 February 2014

Last week Tennent “Pete” Bagley passed away. He was an important person in CIA history, especially in terms of the unraveling of American intelligence which began in the 1960s – an unraveling that brings us to the present crisis which is playing itself out in Kiev and Washington. As of today, a war has broken out in Eastern Europe between “the hidden Soviet Union,” as Boris Chykulay calls it, and the Ukrainian people. It is a war that has reached critical mass, with far-reaching ramifications.

Here is a joke: What has happened in Kiev should have already happened in Washington; but then, Ukrainians have learned the secret of successful counter-revolution by living under Soviet rule for many decades. The United States has only been under Soviet rule a few years.

Even if my joke (above) involves a slight exaggeration, American socialism (like Soviet socialism) is nonetheless a corrupt bureaucratic system where government leaders are unaccountable even as private property and personal freedoms are unprotected. In Russia the socialist system had an additional feature: It made use of an old Tsarist institution – the secret police. The KGB of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics relied on Tsarist methods of controlled opposition and networks of secret agents, many of whom pretended to be enemies of the government.

Because of the KGB’s ability to infiltrate Moscow's opposition, all revolutions or political changes in former East Bloc countries are a puzzle. We can never be sure who has actually won until we see, after time has passed, whether power has really changed hands; that is, whether the old Communist elite remains in charge of the army and police, the media and economic system, and key government posts. The analysis here is simple to do, but nobody in the West tries doing it. There is no career advancement in such analysis, especially in Western countries where the powers-that-be hear what they want to hear, and blot out the rest. Bad news isn’t really marketable under the shopping mall regime. The moneyed classes want to invest in the newly liberated countries of the “former” Soviet empire. The appeal to greed has already won them over – end of discussion.   

Therefore, the Soviet Empire remains intact through the operation of hidden structures. KGB-controlled opposition was the story in 1989 and 1991. It has always been the untold story. It will continue to be untold until the hidden Soviet Union is taken down, at long last. I have spoken to schoolmates of Vaclav Havel who described him as the perfect instrument of the Communist state – as a fake dissident and a man who could be trusted by the KGB. In 1992 a Fighting Solidarity leader told me that Lech Walesa was a long-time stooge of the Polish secret police. Since that time Walesa’s secret police codename (BOLEK) has been published (See “Interview with Historian Slawomir Cenckiewicz: ‘Positive Proof’ Lech Walesa was a Communist Spy”).

So let us fast-forward to the present: What has been happening in Ukraine? Who is on Moscow’s team in Kiev? Most of the parliament, for starters; Yulia Tymoshenko in particular; the heads of the security services and military, excepting all those who are secretly working with the Ukrainian underground. (To know that there is a powerful underground movement, with its own tentacles burrowed into Moscow, is not mere optimism. It is the way of the world. The Ukrainians were Soviets, and as such they had access to the same game the Russians were playing on them. This must never be forgotten. One only has to think of Golitsyn's work, or the work of Viktor Suvorov. Ukrainians have experience, access, and a motivation for playing the Russians at their own game. Consequently, understanding what is actually happening in Ukraine is a delicate and difficult challenge, requiring careful analysis and detailed knowledge.)

The Kremlin has many weapons, many agents, and many deceptions at its command. A former socialist country must, in itself, resemble a “wilderness of mirrors.” The Communists like to confuse the political process in every country. This also applies to Germany, part of which was also a “Communist Country” (i.e., the German Democratic Republic). If we hear that (the conservative) German Chancellor Angela Merkel is now eager to meet with former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, who has recently been let out of prison, we must first reckon with Merkel’s Communist past before we reckon with Tymoshenko’s role as Moscow’s little helper; for both women have a peculiar relationship to Moscow which extends far back in time.

A German journalist recently wrote to me about Merkel, saying that German intelligence attempted to warn the Christian Democrats that Merkel was “a dangerous person.” But the Christian Democrats didn’t listen, and now Germany is more dependent on Russian natural gas than ever before. As for the situation in Ukraine today, with the dramatic and apparent collapse of the Yanukovych government, I had the chance to speak with Ukrainian activist Boris Chykulay , who explained the situation as follows: “Instinctively people know that they fight against a hidden USSR. You can see this in all the cities now with the fall of so many Lenin monuments.”

Chykulay is proposing a lustration law which would prevent “former” Communists from holding public office in Ukraine. As the Wikipedia explains, “Lustration is the government process regulating the participation of former communists, especially informants of the communist secret police, in successor political appointee positions or in civil service positions … after the fall of the various European Communist states….” Lustration would be an important tool in restricting Communist access to power in Ukraine, paving the way for a fresh start. As Chykulay explained, “We need lustration law to limit the influence of the KGB … [and all remaining Soviet structures].” To fix what is wrong with Ukraine, noted Chykulay, the Ukrainians need to wipe away the hidden Soviet Republic at work beneath the surface of Ukrainian politics.

“The problem we now face,” Chykulay said, “is that Putin merely says goodbye to Mafiosi Yanukovych. Now he starts to work with normal agents.” As another activist added, the politicians who are now coming forward to direct affairs are former Soviet Komsomol leaders (now in parliament), the most committed Communists of the old system. These are not democrats by any stretch of the imagination. According to Chykulay, these “normal Soviet agents” are telling the Maidan protestors to go home. The revolution has been won. “They are trying to keep the old system, without any result, without any changes, they want to close the case,” he explained. “Russia will try to control Ukraine through its old network; through Yulia Tymoshenko and others. She said, ‘Dear Ukrainians, I won’t let the government hurt you anymore.’ So you see, they already describe the Ukrainian government as something separate from the Ukrainian people. She doesn’t say the Ukrainians have any part in the government. They want to save the hidden Soviet structures. The Ukrainians are therefore told, in all seriousness, ‘you won’t be attacked.’”

Is there danger of Ukraine coming under direct attack? Could the Russians intervene with troops?

“Yes, Western Ukraine is a potential target,” Chykulay replied. “They will say the people in Lviv are fascists, and they will depict the Ukrainians as right wing extremists.” The Kremlin has, indeed, threatened to invade any former Soviet country where the rights of the local Russian-speaking minority are not respected. The case of Georgia in 2008 is a prime example. The only problem with carrying out such a military strike has to do with the reliability of the Russian troops and the reaction of Europe.

War is the last resort, of course. The Kremlin has many devices, and many tricks to play before things reach such an extremity. According to Chykulay, “This organization [the KGB] always has everything under control. They first kill this guy, then the next. In this way they stop the progress of the opposition. Then they cut the forest in another direction. Of course, they have things under control. They feel in control, but they are losing control beneath the surface. The internet leaves them at a loss.”

There is a cautious optimism on the part of Ukrainian activists. Previous attempts at freedom have been thwarted, it is true, but Maidan has good tactics and refuses to be fooled by Kremlin stooges. A Ukrainian analyst explained it thus: “As it happens, the people will not accept the leaders’ attempts to wiggle out. This morning Maidan had a massive meeting about Tymoshenko. They called it an ‘action meeting’ which was held against the return of Tymoshenko to politics. If she comes back, they said, the gangster clan will take over and nothing will change. They are demanding a total reset.”

The anti-Communist counter-revolution in Ukraine grows in power. Moscow sends its puppets into the meat-grinder. One is chewed up after another. Which will emerge as the new leader? Perhaps the controlled opposition game has exhausted its possibilities in Ukraine.

Time will tell.


The Lunatic and the Narcissist

Commentary of 18 February 2014

The Western world has gone mad. We find this madness in our political parties. We see it in the worker, in the CEO, in the teacher and the student. Madness has usurped the Constitution, submerged the U.S. federal budget, taken over the media and the corporations. This madness is reflected in a thing called “socialism,” and there is no easy cure, no pill or special therapy.  The disease must work its way through the body politic, which will either perish or recover its health.  

Those not infected with socialism – those who have noticed the raging epidemic around them – are bewildered. Should they believe their eyes? Has the country become a madhouse? Year after year, new grievances are invented and new laws are passed. The conservative politicians resist, but resistance appears futile; for if socialist measures do not slip through at the beginning, they will slip through in the end. If they cannot bankrupt the government now, they will bankrupt it tomorrow. If they cannot strangle industry and choke of productivity during the current legislative session, they will scheme toward the next. The conservative politician (if any yet exists) cannot prevent these people from making headway; for they are busy making mischief at all times – as champions of world peace, homosexual rights, abortion on demand, undocumented workers, feminism and diversity. Here the strategic method may be translated as follows: (1) in order to sabotage American military power, agitate for peace; (2) to demoralize society, sanctify abnormality; (3) to collapse the birthrate, promote infanticide; (4) to submerge national identity, flood the country with illegal aliens; (5) to destroy the family, degrade motherhood; (6) to divide and conquer, promote minority grievances.

Has any of this been understood? Has one columnist, one analyst, one social scientist listed these items while asking the decisive question – cui bono? That is to say, who benefits from these policies? And also, which side of the political spectrum originated all this? Could it be the Left, whose partisans once favored the Viet Cong and who opposed the Vietnam War not because they were pacifists, but because they wanted the Communists to win? I ask, again, cui bono? 

Let it suffice to say that America does not benefit from the six policies listed above. In plain truth, a rival foreign power benefits. And here is an objective truth which the strategist must affirm. Here is the decisive point of departure for national inquiry. Here is the main thing: Today’s social policy has become a strategic battlefield upon which our enemy plays at sabotage. Yet we allow it. We grow fat and watch it unfold. We have allowed ourselves to be intimidated by errant nonsense. The “conservative” of today resists amnesty for illegal aliens, but knows that he is on the losing side of the proposition. To enforce the borders of the United States is said to be racism. From listening to the political discourse of the day, it is clearly untenable to suggest that a visa should be required to enter the United States. Anyone who thinks in this way is a reactionary bigot. If the State of Arizona wants to enforce its border with Mexico, the socialist elite of the United States will decry the Nazism of the Arizona citizenry who complain that their hospital emergency rooms are clogged with indigent foreigners.

The madness of socialism must prevail. Equality means equality for all men, regardless of citizenship; regardless of whether they pay taxes or swear allegiance to the United States. Every foreigner is entitled to medical attention at the taxpayer’s expense. It does not matter that other countries do not perform this charity. We must now perform it until bankruptcy swallows us. The United States is (or was) the richest country in the world and must be punished accordingly. But again, I must ask the reader – cui bono?

It is no accident that the socialist wants to amnesty the illegal aliens. He is sure they will vote for socialism, for the eradication of the U.S. Constitution, and for the redistribution of wealth. For the same reason it is no accident that the socialist prefers American nuclear disarmament, for he prefers Russian nuclear dominance to U.S. dominance.  In all of this, as Le Bon said, socialism is indeed a mental state; but it is much more than a mental state, and much more than an ideology. As many thinkers have attested, socialism is a religion which imbues the soul with convictions about man and society. It everywhere uproots Christianity, establishing its supremacy either gradually or suddenly, by violent revolution or by subtle legislation, by education or entertainment. The socialist does not see any danger stemming from his beliefs. He does not recognize his ideology as the sociological malware of a hostile foreign empire. He does not see that socialism is slowly but surely destroying society. He only sees the tragic circumstances of human life down through the centuries, and believes he can do better.

How does the socialist presume to eliminate sorrow and make heaven on earth? In the last analysis he believes this can be achieved through the power of the state. He does not see that socialism is a “frightful system” tending toward “servitude, misery, and Caesarism….” By harping on the tragedies in our midst, and the injustices, and the environmental calamities about to befall, the socialist empowers government at every level to break free from checks and balances. To save the planet we cannot afford liberty. To save the planet we must have a government powerful enough to trample down the rich. And if this government can trample the rich, it will trample all who disagree with its dictates – especially (when their turn comes) the poor.

Worse than all of this, however, is socialism’s claim of being a scientific movement based on materialist philosophy. As Wikipedia tells us, “the theory of materialism holds that all things are composed of material, and that all emergent phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material properties and interactions.” We should not be surprised, therefore, if Marxian socialism denies life after death and the existence of God. As a materialist philosophy, socialism does not merely seek to impose economic controls on the free market, or to save the planet from global warming. Socialism seeks to eradicate “superstition.” The socialists should not be considered as faithful partners of Islam or Buddhism, Christianity or Judaism. All religions are destined for the socialist chopping block, despite the religious noises currently heard from the socialist camp and from Russia. The materialism of the socialist may be seen in the raw cynicism of Vladimir Putin, who when asked whether he believed in God made the following reply: “I believe in the power of man.” Those who think Russia is promoting Christianity or a new and enlightened spirituality, have yet to reckon with the true motives of the socialist camp. Materialism signifies the negation of man’s spirit, free will and responsibility. Socialism sees man’s appearance on earth as evolutionary happenstance. There is no Providence, no divine plan, no built-in meaning for the socialist. Reality is a ferocious chaos which the socialist state mirrors. More than half a century ago Carl Jung wrote the following passage about socialism in his book Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of Self,

…the present tendency to destroy all [spiritual] tradition or render it unconscious could interrupt the normal process of development for several hundred years and substitute an interlude of barbarism. Wherever the Marxist utopia prevails, this has already happened. But a predominantly scientific and technological education, such as is the usual thing nowadays, can also bring about a spiritual regression and a considerable increase of psychic dissociation. With hygiene and prosperity alone a man is still far from health, otherwise the most enlightened and most comfortable off among us would be the healthiest. But in regard to neuroses that is not the case at all, quite the contrary. Loss of roots and lack of tradition neuroticize the masses and prepare them for collective hysteria. Collective hysteria calls for collective therapy, which consists in [the] abolition of liberty and terrorization. Where rationalistic materialism holds sway, states tend to develop less into prisons than into lunatic asylums. (Page 181)

Being part of the socialist revolutionary matrix, materialism promotes a mass break with reality which can be readily observed. From the hysterical belief that man-made global warming has resulted in record-cold winters to the bizarre insistence that homosexuality is “normal,” the latter-day “progressive” stands convicted of lunacy. Yet the socialist is able to impose his delusions on the whole country, and to depress the economy. Yet the more significant depression is spiritual, deriving from de-spiritualization. As Jung explained, “The early Christian prophecy concerning Antichrist … omits to mention the corollary, the sinister reality of which is now being demonstrated before our eyes by the splitting of our world: the destruction of the God-image is followed by the annulment of the human personality.” (Page 109) Here lurks the cause of that malignant self-love which plagues us today. According to Sam Vaknin and Lidija Rangelovska,

…when the personality is rigid to the point of being unable to change in reaction to shifting circumstances we say that it is disordered. One has a personality disorder when one’s habits substitute for one’s identity. Such a person identifies with his environment, taking behavioral, emotional, and cognitive cues exclusively from it. His inner world is, in a manner of speaking, vacated, his True Self merely an apparition. (The Malignant Self, Kindle edition, Loc 818)

Such a person, say Vaknin and Rangelovska, “is incapable of loving and of living.” He is also incapable of deep insight into people and events. Dependent on cues from the environment which feed into his fragile persona, the narcissist is vulnerable to manipulation by a psychologically sophisticated enemy.  A neurotic of this type is obsessed with a false idea of life, being determined to follow a false path. If only superficial outward appearances conform to the accepted error, the narcissist will be unshakable in following this path to self-destruction. Here is a partial explanation as to why our leaders are unable to come to grips with the strategic realities of today.

The question next occurs: Might socialism be a direct result of narcissistic personality disorder, along with feminism and the “blessed” transgendered condition? A powerful argument can be made in the case of feminism. The feminist – as a woman trapped in a woman’s body – is at war with the authentically feminine. Grasping the mantle of masculinity, the indoctrinated feminist would make every heterosexual marriage into a homosexual coupling. Here the misconstrued feminine compels the masculine to surrender its dominant role, and social calamity must be the result.

Under the spell of a narcissist delusion the feminist denies the true self and adopts an impressive though false self-image which insulates the subject from the possibility of love or close relationships. (The narcissist, by the way, demands the surrender of the more flexible personalities around her. As they are flexible, as she is crazy, they would seem to have little choice.) In short, the feminist is disoreinted. To disorient an instinctive being with regard to its true nature is to make derangement the foundation of all. For what purpose is this derangement accomplished? It is to advance the cause of socialist revolution; but even more, it advances the cause of an external enemy that uses socialist revolutionaries as a Fifth Column.

The socialist conception of liberation requires a war against motherhood even more than it requires a war against the patriarchy; for the woman is more instinctual than the man. To break woman must be the first priority of the socialist revolution. The great advance of socialism in our society has therefore occurred by trampling down mom. Revolutionary feminism conceives woman as something disconnected from mother. Here the lesbian assumes the same role in the culture war as the panzer division assumed in the last world war. The sexual narcissist acquires an elevated status as embodying the denial and perversion of feminine nature as a force with which to overthrow manhood.

The masculinization of woman simultaneously effects the denigration of man and the disintegration of human personality. This process advances steadily, feeding upon itself. “The revolutionary finds that man and woman possess no nature,” wrote Thomas Molnar. Such is the dogma taught at every university. It is crucial to every socialist policy. Human nature does not exist, and must not be affirmed. The counter-revolutionary, however, awakens to the truth of the opposite proposition. As Molnar pointed out, “the counter-revolutionary finds a basically unchanging human nature because it is shaped once and for all by God, himself not an evolving force … but eternally the same.”

This leads us back to a central point: The revolutionary creed denies God and metaphysics. It denies the soul, the afterlife, and spirituality. It denies what is eternal – what Russell Kirk referred to as “the permanent things.” The revolutionary, on his side, is a believer in change, death, dissolution, impermanence. He seeks salvation in an imagined paradise on earth, with man transfigured into God. The vague and blurred horizon of the promised utopia lends grandeur and self-importance to the small-minded malevolence of a thwarted egotist who also happens to be a nihilist. (The latter condition accounting for the frustration of the former.) As Vaknin explains:

Pathological narcissism is a life-long pattern of traits and behaviors which signify infatuation and obsession with one’s self to the exclusion of all others and the egotistic and ruthless pursuit of one’s gratification, dominance, and ambition. As distinct from healthy narcissism, which we all possess, pathological narcissism is maladaptive, rigid, persisting, and causes significant distress and functional impairment. (The Malignant Self, Loc 894)

One might say that we live in the Age of the Narcissist under the Regime of the Lunatic, where the narcissist (through the exercise of power) becomes the lunatic.


The Time Traveler's Lesson

Commentary of 10 February 2014

Imagine a time traveler from 2014, fallen from the sky in a space capsule, taken into custody by the FBI on February 10, 1964. The time traveler is brought to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover for interrogation. But Hoover finds the time-traveler’s story to be the most egregious nonsense he has ever heard. From Hoover’s perspective the time-traveler is obviously perpetrating a hoax, and nobody in Washington would judge any differently; for according to the time traveler America (in the future) will be led by a black man with an Arabic name mentored (as a youth) by a suspected Communist subversive named Frank Marshall Davis, whose file Hoover would dig out and read with the certain knowledge that no such person could mentor an American president.

When the time traveler explains that the leading social question of 2014 will be gay marriage, Hoover might readily ask, “Does NASA think this is funny, to play a practical joke on the FBI?” Neither would Hoover credit the time traveler’s claim that the national debt will be more than $17 trillion in 2014, or that Venezuela and Nicaragua will have been quietly taken over by Fidel Castro’s friends, that Zimbabwe, Angola, South Africa and the Congo will be in the hands of African Communists, that North Korea will possess nuclear weapons. None of this would be believable. None of it makes any sense to someone living in 1964.

When the time traveler finally reports that the United States will be reduced to a state of manufacturing inferiority to Red China, there would be an end to the interview. What self-respecting American official (in 1964) would allow himself to be abused so insolently?

Now let us imagine a time traveler from 2064 being taken into custody by the FBI today. Do you have any idea what kind of report would be given about our future? I can guarantee that a time traveler’s report from 2064 would so frighten and confound our current leadership in Washington that their reaction would be similar to Hoover’s reaction. They would assume a hoax, without further investigation or thought. No proof could possibly alter their conclusion. The unfortunate time traveler would become a permanent prisoner, muzzled until his dying day. Not only would our officials disbelieve him, they would act as if they had never heard his warnings.

What can we learn from this imaginative story of time travel? First, that truth is always inconvenient for men in power. It may also be said that truth and power, like love and power, do not mix well. It is a rare man, and a gifted man, who can hold power and credit an unpleasant truth at the same time. It is, in this context, a profound understatement to say that our leaders have no sense of history or foresight. They do not even possess, in themselves, the spiritual or intellectual prerequisites for higher wisdom of any kind. They are political foxes whose thinking is short-term, and whose wisdom is crudely flexible and oriented to the requirements of the day.    

The current dispensation is a madman’s nightmare in which all the worst signs are already manifested. Most people in 1964 would have rejected the kind of decadence that is routinely accepted as normal in 2014. We are no longer capable of realizing our dreadful position. The degeneration which we see around us, which has overtaken the United States in a few decades, may be viewed as the natural consequence of too much affluence. It may also be viewed as the product, in part, of the subversion of revolutionary intellectuals and “change agents.” Here we find weapons that are far more powerful than guns or howitzers, and far more effective than atomic bombs. The subversives and revolutionaries in our midst have succeeded in using legitimate issues as a front by which to smuggle revolution in the back way.

Let us be honest. The domestic victory of socialism was always merely a matter of time. All conservative self-congratulations on the “fall of Communism” prove the point. Our anti-Communists, anti-revolutionaries, anti-subversives never understood their enemy. They never understood themselves. A party whose policies are founded on self-deception and misunderstanding cannot hold onto power. The fact that the “conservative” Republican congress of 1999 was far more leftist than the Democratic Congress of 1980 demonstrates this fact in the most dramatic manner possible (See Tim Groseclose’s book, Left Turn). If today’s Republicans are more liberal than yesterday’s Democrats, then what is a Democrat today? And what will a Republican be in the future. The revolutionary momentum points to the answer: Tomorrow’s Republicans will be Communists.

As the socialist revolution in America nears its climax, the consequences will be felt by one and all, as described in Gustave Le Bon’s Psychology of Socialism:

Modern socialism is far more a mental state than a doctrine. What makes it so threatening is not the very insignificant changes which it has so far produced in the popular mind, but the already very great changes which it has caused in the mind of the directing classes. The modern bourgeoisie are no longer sure of their rights. Or rather they are not sure of anything, and they do not know how to defend anything. They listen to everything and tremble before the most pitiable windbags. They are incapable of firm will and discipline, of the community of hereditary sentiments, which are the cement of society and without which no human association has hitherto been able to exist….

Social upheavals always are begun from above, never from below. Was it the people who started our great [French] revolution? Not they indeed! They had never dreamed of such a thing. It was let loose by the nobility and the ruling class.

According to Le Bon, “Before the hour of its triumph, which will be quickly followed by that of its fall, socialism is destined to widen its influence, and no argument drawn from reason will be able to prevail against it….”

The immediate fate of the nation which shall first see the triumph of socialism may be traced in a few lines. The people will of course begin by despoiling and then shooting a few thousands of employers, capitalists and members of the wealthy class…. Intelligence and ability will be replaced by mediocrity. The equality of servitude will be established everywhere. The socialists’ dream being accomplished, eternal felicity should reign on earth and paradise descend.

Alas, no! It will be a hell, a terrible hell….

A man is not a socialist without hating some person or thing…. Servitude, misery, and Caesarism are the fatal precipices to which all the roads of the socialists lead. Nevertheless, the frightful system would appear to be inevitable.

Here we begin to glimpse the sociology of the counter-revolution. Socialism is defeated when the destructive work of the revolution is accomplished. When this happens, nobody will want to be associated with socialist slogans. Since this madness is not sustainable, it must collapse upon itself. The victory of counter-revolution, as unlikely and remote as it may seem at the present time, is inevitable. Whether that victory comes in ten years or fifty, it will come. Whether it is brought by persons now living or persons yet unborn, it will come. Whether it happens after an atomic war or prior to an atomic war, it will come. The revolutionary party is doomed because it bases itself upon false principles and the denial of human nature.

That which has always been true, and will always be true, cannot be denied forever and cannot be ultimately defeated. Even if the Russians and Chinese plow the rubble and harvest their pillage, they cannot profit from it. The embodiment of annihilation does not gain by annihilating. It merely exhausts itself upon the destroyed object and passes away. Man returns to himself, despite what happens. Feminism will be discarded, homosexual marriage will no longer be an issue, multiculturalism will remembered as an absurd craze. The ruins of so many cities will remind future generations that there is no safety in thinking oneself a “citizen of the world,” and there is no future in denying the eternal law.  Man may only build safely as he has built before.  



The End or the Beginning?

Special Note to Readers of My Columns at Financial Sense Online

Some readers may have noticed that I'm no longer writing a regular column at Financial Sense Online. I was at Financial Sense for over 12 years after being at WorldNetDaily for little over two years. It is incredible that writing Origins of the Fourth World War led to over 14 years of column writing -- not counting my time at Newsmax. That is nearly 15 years of exploring important issues. To be honest, back in 1999 I didn't think the Republic would continue another 15 years. But here we are, with the old dispensation apparently in place.

Of course, the grand strategy of the Communist Bloc always envisioned a "transitional progressive president" whose reign would fortuitously coincide with a severe economic crisis. The testimony of defector Jan Sejna speaks to this, and we should examine it more closely -- which is something I failed to do when I wrote my book. It must be admitted that our enemy has proved strong-willed enough to defer his immediate nuclear gratification. And I had not reckoned on Obama. Somebody like that cannot be imagined, especially in the wake of 9/11 which so clearly inaugurated the period of Grey Terror. Who is this man? What is he doing? Every question leads to another question, which I intend to explore. Such an exploration was not possible while I was writing for Financial Sense. Now comes the freedom to delve deeper into forbidden subjects. 

This all relates to my past analysis which arguably remains valid. Russia and China continue to arm themselves. The United States continues to rot from within. Our economy grows weaker. Our military power is not what it was. Our society is increasing lax and narcissistic. The moral breakdown continues apace. But to return to the subject of the previous paragraph: There are some who say the last legally elected President of the United States was George W. Bush. That troubles me like nothing else because of a dream I had 30 years ago -- a vivid dream of the last president being the 43rd president. It was one of those uncanny dreams you never forget. 

At least two legal scholars of my acquaintance allege that Barack Obama is not a "natural born" citizen, even if he was born in Hawaii, because his father was a foreigner. Therefore, Obama cannot be president according to the Constitution (which requires that a president be "natural born"). I intend to explore this subject, and ask questions of these legal scholars.

There is also another burning subject I'd like to cover. Ann Barnhardt says that the U.S. economy is going to collapse. For that matter, Barnhardt hints at an impending civil war if people do not place a check upon corrupt and unconstrained government power. Unlike anyone else out there today, Miss Barnhardt has put her money where her mouth is. She has sacrificed her business and her personal security to make her case. She warns that time is running out. Such thoughts have also crossed my own mind, and cry out for further exploration. 

Health permitting, I intend to use this Website to ask questions and explore the subjects listed above. Look for something new every Sunday night.

As a brief postscript for those who haven't noticed, my commentaries have recently been posted on Diana West and Trevor Loudon's blogs.


Debating the Intelligence War

Commentary of 5 January 2014

A friend in Switzerland suggested I look at the Boiling Frog Post where they interviewed a National Security Agency whistleblower, Russ Tice. It is a story for those who fear government power, and especially U.S. federal power. Several years ago Tice claimed personal knowledge of NSA spying on U.S. military commanders and an aspiring senator who now sits in the White House. According to U.S. law such spying would be illegal unless there was the national security equivalent of probable cause (and as far as we know, there may have been such in the case of Senator Obama). The problem here, of course, is the limited focus of the Tice testimony. The United States government isn't the only entity engaged in spying on Americans. You can be sure the Russians and Chinese are also spying on Americans, and they are doing it with efficiency. After all, they are not compelled to follow the law.

Analyzing the sitution leads us to a rather peculiar and unsettling set of conclusions. Existing legal prohibitions against domestic spying may protect the privacy of millions of American citizens, but it simultaneously leaves them entirely unprotected from a worse threat; for they are wide open to spying by hostile foreign governments while the agents of these governments, if they happen to be American citizens, are legally protected against counter-espionage from U.S. agencies.

We think it is too dangerous for domestic organizations to look into our lives, since they will undoubtedly abuse the information obtained. But foreign intelligence services are obtaining this same information directly, from a variety of technical sources which we ourselves provide. It is safe to say, as well, that Americans are not really concerned about government spying. They are concerned about convenience, and they are bombarded by messages which prompt them to express shock and horror at NSA spying when in fact we know next to nothing about the secret war that is waged all around us.

I doubt that intelligence whistleblowers are intelligent enough to grasp the significance of the problem we face in this country. In the case of Mr. Snowden, like the case of Mr. Tice, he can run to Russia and spill national secrets to his heart's content while claiming the moral highground. Only he hasn't thought long enough, or deeply enough, about the actual situation.

 Links and Resources


  Trevor Loudon
  New Zeal: Shining the Torch for Liberty 


For Philosophy, Government and Social Thought

Discussion Board on the Strategic Threat from Russia and China

Politically Incorrect Media

Nyquist's work translated into various languages


Above: The Decisive Weapon of the Next War

Below: Pearl Harbor and America's Unreadiness in 1941. Are we ready now?