Bombs Away
18 December 2004




If you leap into a well...

...Providence is not bound to fetch you out.

Recent Interviews With Foreign Language Journalists

In recent months J.R. Nyquist has been interviewed by Brazilian and Polish writers. First, Midia Sem Mascara's interview last October; second, an interview by Dariusz Rohnka, author of Fatalna Fikcja [The Fatal Fiction]. 

Mídia Sem Mascara: The United States is currently under great tension as Nov. 2 gets closer. In your opinion, which candidate -- John Kerry or George W. Bush -- would be the most suitable to deal with America's enemies?

JRN: The United States is in a difficult position because the media, the system of higher learning, the intelligence bureaucracy and most politicians do not understand the threat America is facing. This threat involves the coordination of organized crime, drug trafficking, traditional intelligence operations, subversion, disinformation, propaganda, terrorism, the manipulation of raw material supplies (i.e., metals and oil), attacks on information systems, the proliferation of WMDs to North Korea and Iran and clever financial sabotage operations directed against hedge funds (or employing hedge funds as a mechanism to stimulate a general financial crash). All these elements can be tied to think tanks at the "strategic centers" of Russia and China. The alliances between leading international crime syndicates and Russian-Chinese intelligence are generally ignored by U.S. policy-makers. The fact is, the infiltration of the U.S. political system began decades ago, and this has helped forestall U.S. counter-measures. The use of bribery and blackmail by foreign intelligence services and associated mafias is an ongoing phenomenon which cannot be fully appreciated or measured at this time. As to which U.S. presidential candidate is best to cope with this multidimensional threat, the melancholy answer is that neither is very well equipped -- though President Bush has shown a certain instinctive grasp of the situation, leading him to bold offensive actions that tend to throw the terrorists, criminals and rogue state elements off balance. Senator John Kerry, on his side, shows a certain lack of strategic judgment in his opposition to National Missile Defense and nuclear modernization. One good thing about Kerry is the promise he has made to add two divisions to the United States Army. This is desperately needed. But Kerry's problem is a problem stemming from his fuzzy-leftist tendencies; a basic nihilism and atrophy of instinct, moral sense as well as common sense. This is abundantly evident if we look at his voting record as a Senator, which by some assessments is the most "left" voting record in the U.S. Senate. Bush over Kerry is the only possible answer with regard to this question. 

Mídia Sem Mascara: In your most recent article ("Talking up the Russia Threat"), you mentioned President Putin's revival of the KGB. Sometimes, reading your articles, we are reminded of Anatoliy Golitsyn's warnings. What is the role of Anatoliy Golitsyn on your analysis and articles? Do you believe, given what is happening today in Russia and China, that we can fully accept Anatoliy Golitsyn's statements as factually accurate?

JRN: Golitsyn wrote a book in 1984 titled New Lies for Old. In that book he predicted the collapse of the communist bloc. He said this collapse would be deceptive and it would be orchestrated from above. There can be no doubt on this point: the long-range strategy of the communist bloc is real, and not a paranoid fiction. We know about it from defectors like the Czech general, Jan Sejna. It wasn't only Golitsyn who warned the West. We have heard similar statements, as well, from Vladimir Rezun and Col. Stanislav Lunev. The communist bloc strategy is predicated on the development of deceptive changes (perestroika) in communist bloc countries. These changes began in the late 1980s, as foretold by Golitsyn in his 1984 book. And these changes were, as he predicted, directed from the Kremlin according to a well-worked out plan. Without an understanding of Soviet clandestine methods -- methods that were developed over a period of seventy years -- it is impossible to understand the grand sweep of Russian and Chinese moves today. This kind of strategy is alien to Western thinknig. In essence, despite the changes that occurred in 1989-91, the old communist bloc still exists. Only the label has been removed, and the iron hand now fits inside a velvet glove. These communist countries are weak countries, predicated on terror, oppression and war. They can only hope to succeed against America and the West by deceptive means, by the pretense of peace and democratic reform. In reality, they are building their military power in secret, working with criminal groups and terror groups through intermediaries. They seek to economically cripple the United States, diplomatically isolate America and destroy the foundations of American military power. All of this is made possible by a broad-based, long range deception strategy. If they achieve their objectives the world will belong to the communists who continue to consolidate their grip in Africa, South America, Europe and Asia. Golitysn's predictive methodology successfully anticipated the changes in Eastern Europe; he foretold the advent of the Russia-China alliance and the present campaign against "American imperialism." We can ill-afford to ignore this methodology when it has successfully anticipated so many crucial developments. Even if Golitsyn has made mistakes, his basic approach is an invaluable tool for understanding the grand strategy of Russia and China, and whoever ignores Golitsyn's warnings is making a potentially grave error. 

Mídia Sem Mascara: Why does the Western intelligence community, especially the American CIA, ignore such important and grave Communist strategies? Why do you think the West so easily accepted the "fall of Communism" that occurred in 1989-91? Why is the West so susceptible to deceptions like those orchestrated by Moscow? 

JRN: The intelligence community in the U.S. doesn't exist in a vacuum. It exists in a cultural milieu that is permeated by misguided liberalism and a superficial media-generated version of reality that American consumers (including intelligence professionals) take in as their mothers' milk. We are the creatures of our culture. Few can escape the powerful clichés and images that are generated by television, radio and the mainstream press. In addition, intelligence professionals have degrees from leading universities and leading universities are centers of radical anti-Western thought. The poison is imbibed thoughtlessly, almost without the subject realizing what is happening, and that is because the subject is ignorant from the outset (as a student). It must be admitted, though few are ready to admit the seriousness of the crisis, that education in America has collapsed in terms of the teaching of history and philosophy (the two most critical subjects for understanding politics), and the present market culture simply promotes confused ideas through fashionable crazes. There is also another problem that commercial culture exacerbates: People feel a profound need to belong, and thus a kind of mob mentality takes over. If a person wants to advance his career it is necessary for him to belong to the "in-crowd." Therefore the criteria for thinking is not truth and logic, but group-dynamics and trendy "duckspeak." As Gustav le Bon showed in his famous study of crowd behavior, the "psychological crowd" possesses a low critical intelligence, and accepts the most idiotic nonsense as truth. It doesn't make the least difference if the individual is highly intelligent, if his emotional need to belong is active he will be reduced to idiocy. Now let's look at the specific example you mention: With regard to the "fall of communism," the thing that fell was a word -- the word "communism." And you can see how easily words can be dispensed with as organizations and methods are adapted to new conditions. Yes, overtly Stalinist structures have been swept aside in favor of subtle Bonapartist structures, in the sense of a soft-totalitarianism which aims at a greater effectiveness. It is important to acknowledge that the malevolent essence of the totalitarian structures remain, despite superficial appearances. The great relief felt in West, especially among conservative elites, is perfectly understandable in this context. The conservatives felt embattled on the Cold War issue because the liberals had begun to reject the communist threat as a serious issue in the early 1980s (if not earlier). The hedonist party in America long ago voiced the opinion that conservative anti-communists were more dangerous than communists and more likely to trigger a world war. One only has to look at the liberal propaganda against President Ronald Reagan in the mid-1980s. In light of these attitudes, the supposed fall of communism was uncritically accepted by the American right because the Republicans could not resist claiming a victory, because the conservatives felt tremendous relief that the controversy over communism was finally put to rest, and because the business community was eager to reduce defense spending and enjoy an era of rapid growth founded on the "peace dividend." If we closely consider the psychological mechanism behind all totalitarian deceptions (but especially the deception under discussion), they are very powerful. And this is nothing new. The West was fooled by Lenin's NEP in the 1920s, by Stalin's "liberal" Constitution in the 30s and his dissolution of the Commintern in the 40s, by Khrushchev's "secret" speech denouncing Stalin in 1956, by Brezhnev's Detente, by Gorbachev's perestroika and Yeltsin's supposed "democracy." The deceptions of totalitarian regimes are constant, and the lies are always believed by the West. Only with time are Western leaders disillusioned. It must be understood, above all, that the totalitarian ruler is always re-inventing himself. And yes, there are changes in such regimes, and sometimes these changes bring greater freedom for a time, but the criminal nature of the regime always remains. During moments of liberal flowering the names of the regime's enemies are listed, and the inevitable contraction occurs. Putin is presently rounding up selected enemies. Eventually he will initiate purges on a grand scale. This is the pattern, and we should expect nothing else. 

Mídia Sem Mascara: Why do you think the United States invaded Iraq? Is it a strategy to get closer to China? Was it a wise move? Were the reasons presented to the public for invading Iraq the real ones?

JRN: In games of mixed chance and skill the ultimate usefulness of a move is found in the outcome. As it stands, we have no idea of the ultimate outcome. Here is the thing your readers should reflect upon: The decision to invade Iraq was unique to President Bush's character. This president has strategic instincts superior to most politicians. He knows that aggressive action knocks an enemy off balance. The United States is at a distinct disadvantage against totalitarian states when it refuses to use its conventional military strength against them. This reluctance led President Ford and President Carter to grief (especially Carter), and President Reagan was also fairly timid (despite his rhetoric). Dictators therefore have a tendency to regard America as a "paper tiger." By acting against Iraq the president threw all the rogue states into confusion and panic. Russia was so frightened by the decisiveness of President Bush that Putin abandoned Saddam Hussein by offering to overthrow him after acknowledging intelligence that Saddam was preparing a major terror strike against the United States. President Bush did not take the Kremlin's bait and refused to allow the Russians to replace Saddam with a more pliable KGB puppet. President Bush boldly struck the dictator, frightening Libya into concessions and forcing North Korea to huff and puff itself into a state of political exhaustion. Syria and Iran have been flanked. The U.S. position, in terms of striking down the worst rogue regimes, has been enhanced. Now the ball is in Moscow's court and we see the desperate maneuver the Kremlin is attempting, with this sly post-Beslan mobilization and the coded declaration of war against the United States. Sadly, the U.S. is effectively blind in terms of intelligence collection and analysis, and nobody in the White House took Putin's code words seriously. While it is true that a massive amount of data is collected by U.S. satellites, the real intelligence game is played out by human agents on the ground and by analysts. And this is where the U.S. has been completely outmaneuvered, penetrated, spoofed, tricked and misled. There is only the dimmest awareness of a Russian/Chinese combination threat. Furthermore, threats from smaller countries are misunderstood because they are analyzed out of context. The former CIA director, George Tenet, recently admitted that he initially thought Iraq had WMDs. If you read the CIA reports and analysis going back several years this was the official conclusion. How is the President of the United States to blame for misinformation from the CIA? To further confuse the public's mind, the CIA (through leaks) has attempted to blame President Bush for their mistakes! This is the real story. If you read Laurie Mylorie's account, Bush Vs. the Beltway, the picture comes into focus. The fact is, Bush and his vice president had a better intuitive grasp of Saddam's relationship to al Qaeda than the CIA. President Bush strongly suspected Saddam was involved in 9/11. And I don't think Bush was wrong. When the leading American expert on Iraq thinks the CIA was hopelessly ignorant on Iraq, that Saddam was closely working with al Qaeda, then we must conclude that the CIA has made a pudding. As for an imperialist economic motive for war: Business people here in the U.S. were quite gloomy about the idea of war with Iraq in the months leading up to the invasion. Everyone realized that Iraq's oil production would be disrupted for two to three years, and that is real pain for America's economy. Everyone I talked to in the investment community in early 2003 knew that there would be a negative economic impact from the impending war, and a negative fiscal impact on the U.S. federal budget. Only ignorant observers uncritically accept the propaganda that the U.S. invaded Iraq to grab oil. As it happens, the U.S. was -- at the time -- far more dependent on Venezuelan oil and the crisis in Venezuela was ripe for U.S. intervention in early 2003 -- but the United States continues to ignore the emerging communist regime in Venezuela. If the U.S. is motivated to take oil, then why has Hugo Chavez remained in power? Critics of the U.S. are very selective in their world view, and prefer to ignore facts that are inconvenient to their thesis. To understand President Bush's rhetoric in early 2003 you have to understand the conflict within the U.S. intelligence community, and the intellectual laziness of that community together with the undercurrent of belief within the White House that Saddam was working with al Qaeda, plus the strategic location of Iraq as a point where Syria and Iran could be split [and for safeguarding Saudi security]. 

Mídia Sem Mascara: So, in your understanding is "internationalism" an inevitable political trend in which all countries need to grow together, driven into each others' arms by long range weapons of mass destruction? Am I correct?

JRN: Internationalism has many causes. It is animated, on the one hand, by the rationalist idealism of the cosmopolitan spirit. This is a spirit entirely cut off from tradition. It's rootless quality leads it into the error of imagining that all men are brothers, all disputes can be negotiated peacefully, and free trade will solve humanity's economic problems. There are also socialist internationalists, who believe in the construction of a socialist world state. There are arms control internationalists who seek to limit the spread of WMDs. All these cross-currents of internationalism work in various ways, cooperating to form international bodies for the regulation of human affairs. These bodies routinely fail to perform their function because they are rooted in abstractions that do not motivate the people of the world, even if they animate a few bureaucrats and intellectuals. We live in a world of nation states, and these hold the power to make war or actualize agreements. Economic internationalism, by way of free trade, is inevitable only so long as the present economic order lasts and continues to rationalize its operations. When the next world war comes, when the nations fall into their next great quarrel, the greater the interdependence of the nations, the greater the calamity. Economics can hold countries together for many decades, but not forever. The United Nations will disintegrate at the outset of the next world war just as the League of Nations disintegrated at the outset of the Second World War.

Mídia Sem Mascara: Let me insist a little bit more here regarding the United Nations and, in particular, John Birch Society conspiracy theories. Edward Griffin, in his books The Fearful Master and The Creature of Jekyll Island, cites a long list of Americans working as Soviet spies involved in the creation of UN, IMF, World Bank and other organizations (Harry Dexter White and Alger Hiss, for example). Why were the Russians so eager to mold and control the United Nations if it is a "weak organization" as you claim?

JRN: The Soviet Union sought to dominate the U.N., especially its military bureaucracy, from the outset. In 1945 nobody knew how far the West's internationalists would go in weakening British and American sovereignty. The Soviets wanted to encourage this weakening and the surrender of U.S. power to international bodies (using agents of influence like Hiss and White in the process). Meanwhile, the Kremlin would never concede anything to an international body themselves. If the U.S. agreed to hand over its nuclear arsenal to the United Nations, the Russians would merely pretend to do the same. In this way the Russians could use internationalism to advance their own imperial schemes. One might view the United Nations as a means to sabotage the United States. As such, it hasn't been terribly effective since Americans refused to put their trust in the U.N. In terms of practical advantages, the U.N. headquarters in New York has served the communist bloc as an ideal nest for spies in the midst of America's financial capital.

Mídia Sem Mascara: Are you aware of Lev Navrozov's writings regarding super weapons? What do you think of Navrozov's warnings? Won't this have a big affect on the dynamics of the next world war described in your book? 

JRN:  I am aware of Lev Navrozov's work. I had dinner with Lev in New York six years ago, and he has a remarkable sense of Moscow's dark side. Significantly, Lev writes about super weapons in order to warn us about the decisive weapons of the next war. It must be understood that Russia is determined to develop such weapons, while America has become lax and confused about military-technical issues. Lev understands that the "zone of militarism," which includes Russia and China, isn't run along consumerist lines. The East is not like the West. Militarist states know that they will never produce the kind of prosperity known to Western countries. But a decisive weapon can be developed in secret, and the balance of power can be changed very quickly. The presently modified totalitarian systems of Russia and China are unwilling to adopt Western models in full. And why should they when a super weapon might make Western economic and political structures "obsolete."

Mídia Sem Mascara: You recently said that "something has to be done to wake a sleepwalking nation." So, as a geopolitical analyst and scholar, what advice would you give to the American leaders? (intellectuals, politicians, and businessmen) to wake America? Are the American conservatives taking the right course of action? Is there any politician or political party in America that we can rely on?

JRN: Perhaps I am too pessimistic in my assessment of present trends, but I don't see America's political leaders asking the right questions. Without asking the right questions they will never find the right answers. Certainly, I may be mistaken in my views on Russia and China. On the other hand, the evidence is strong enough that a debate should be taking place. Questions should be asked, and nobody in government seems to be looking at the very serious strategic-economic-diplomatic combination developing against the United States today. I would have greater confidence in President George W. Bush if he publicly expressed doubts about Russian intentions and announced plans for restricting trade with China. Such statements would be extremely effective in limiting Russia's future moves (and China's potential for troublemaking). As it is, a naive attitude prevails in the Bush administration. It is an attitude reminiscent of 1938. President Bush is committed to eliminating six thousand U.S. nuclear warheads during the next few years. The Russians have no obligation to eliminate any part of their nuclear arsenal. Meanwhile, China is in the midst of a nuclear buildup. This is a very alarming development, not to mention the way Russia and China use criminal groups and terrorists as allies and proxies.

As for the American "conservatives" (so-called), I am disappointed. Narrowly focused on "cultural" or economic issues, these writers and thinkers have entirely forgotten that thousands of nuclear-armed missiles are aimed at the country, and they have irresponsibly refused to discuss realistic civil defense. In fact, the conservative intellectuals in this country, despite their lip service to "tradition," are creatures of consumerism and market hedonism. I often suspect that these people do not know themselves, and do not recognize the rottenness of their own milieu.

Mídia Sem Mascara: But isn't America founded on a solid Christian culture? I mean, to ask the right questions, isn't it necessary first to bring back a minimum Christian mindset that could properly deal with foreign threats? After all, aren't the Russians and Chinese seeking to weaken American through its culture, as Antonio Gramsci once advocated? In Brazil, for instance, almost all of the Catholic leaders are Liberation Theology followers, i.e., communists. The ruling communist party, Workers' Party (PT), was forged by these Catholic leaders, and now Protestant leaders are also being co-opted by the communists. 

JRN: Yes, the "crisis of modernity" has everything to do with the disintegration of the Christian faith -- Catholic and Protestant. The corruption of doctrine, the corruption of time-honored rules and ideas, was allowed to advance decade after decade. Materialist thinkers have yet to acknowledge the negative power of modernity's de-spiritualization. Decade after decade secular leveling advanced. At times it seemed that we were successfully coping, adapting and learning. But the leveling of the soul, the shrinking of the West's soul, has already occurred. To understand the pace of change, I was born in 1958 and my generation absorbed many of the old ideals, though we did not always live by them. Those born after 1980, however, have absorbed almost nothing of the old ideals. The churches have failed to bring Christian thinking to today's young people. Secular entertainment and secular schools have shoved religion aside. In light of such profound spiritual change there is no way, no possible way, that our civilization can long avoid a period of destructive wars and political upheavals. My work has been to envision the specific causes of the coming destructive wars, knowing full well that the real cause (i.e., the deeper underlying cause) is spiritual and not political. The West will be forced to learn a bitter lesson. For the present, the leading pundits deny what is coming. They deny history, arguing that modern man is somehow exempt from history's pattern. But we are not exempt and we will suffer the same fate as those who, in previous history, followed this very path. Our technology cannot save us. In fact, it only assures that our destruction will be swifter, more efficient and thorough.
Mídia Sem Mascara: Speaking of religion, we know that Europe is under a slow but sure Islamicization process. Do you think Europe is going to become an Islamic continent in the future? And what about America? Wouldn't America be the next step in this Islamic expansion? Does the spread of Islam have something to do with Russia and China, or is it an independent development?

JRN: Islam is penetrating Europe through immigration.

It is penetrating America as well, but today's Western politicians do not see a problem. They see cheap labor. In other words, their thinking is driven by hedonistic calculation. This demonstrates a lack of historical understanding, as well as basic survival instinct. Our thinking today is also influenced by fundamental errors like atheism and materialism, and these are reflected in catastrophic policies. If there is no God, what difference does it make what religions are practiced within your commonwealth? If the meaning of life is material accumulation then cheap labor is an absolute good.
I do not believe that "liberalism" will continue much longer with this program of decay leading to the slow and final dissolution of the West (and the victory of Islam). The mechanisms of our civilization are too delicate. The economic mechanism is nearly compromised already, and the military mechanism -- under a regime of strategic misconception -- is bound to invite aggression from the leading Asiatic powers. I believe we are facing, in the not-too-distant future, a double catastrophe. This catastrophe will save the West from slow death by the immediate prospect of quick death.


Dariusz Rohnka interview follows:

Rohnka: What was the origin of the American anti-communist in the 1980s? Was it a common path for the young American in this time or rather a rare way of looking for the answer?

JRN: Americans in general are anti-communist. But there has been a qualitative change in this stance. In the 1950s Americans realized that communist spies had penetrated our institutions, and they were alarmed by these penetrations. But the alarm gradually faded. Communist subversion ceased being a national issue despite the fact that communist subversion advanced from strength to strength. After the culture shifted from print media (books, magazines and newspapers) to television, the public lost interest in communism. By 1980 Ronald Reagan appeared as a quaint old-fashioned anti-communist. He had been a film star, so he translated his Cold War message easily to television. And this worked until Gorbachev won Reagan's friendship with his "glasnost" and his "perestroika." During the Reagan years the main anti-communist youth movement was YAF (Young Americans for Freedom). This was an insignificant group, made up of a handful of "conservative" students. On a campus of 20,000 you might find ten to fifteen active YAF members. As a graduate student in political science at the University of California, I did not participate in YAF beyond attending one or two meetings, having learned that the leading YAF organizers smoked marijuana and one of the East European girls in the group repeated what I'd said about a left-wing professor to the professor. This was not encouraging. All in all, anti-communism was not a normal concern (and those concerned with it were not considered normal), and as far as I could see being anti-communist was never an answer to anything, and was more like a noose around my neck. But I accepted this noose. One might say I preferred to "hang with the truth." It was, at least in my case, the result of an unpleasant discovery. Far too many professors and graduate students were Marxists. They were not Soviet spies or agents of a foreign power. They were simply pro-socialists who hated capitalism and thought the Soviet Union was harmless. Some tended to believe Soviet propaganda while assuming that everything done by the U.S. government was "evil." They generally mocked the U.S. political system, disparaged American freedoms, despised the free market and secretly dreamt of revolution. Their animating spirit was thwarted ambition, resentment, envy and malice. Some communists I met were sincere idealists; but most were sour little souls inwardly wounded by their own cosmic unimportance. In my view, Karl Marx was a fraud and communism was a criminal enterprise from the outset. By 1987 I concluded that America's tolerance of communism within the educational establishment indicated a coming "time of troubles." 

Rohnka: Am I wrong if I see the American anti-communist today as a strange mix of consistent conservative attitudes and a touch of crazy conspiracy theory? I remember well my shock at reading that the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia had been masterminded by a small circle of New York Masonic strategists. How would you comment on this phenomenon, and what is your experience with people of such views?

JRN: The idea, on the part of conspiracists, that the Bolshevik Revolution was engineered by Masonic conspirators in New York, is the dirty step-child of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This theory is poisonous, ignorant and futile. The people in America who believe such theories are opponents of the U.S. government. They oppose the capitalists and unwittingly side with the communists, imagining that in doing so they are opposing THE CONSPIRACY. In reality, the Protocols and similar conspiracy nonsense was invented by Russian secret police officials for purposes of mass manipulation. And Russia continues to use this sort of thing world-wide. The Arab world along with most Islamic countries are in the grip of the Protocols, and the same can be said for our primitive anti-communists in America -- like the John Birch Society -- who have been convinced that there is a conspiracy "above communism" (i.e., capitalism). Grand conspiracy theory is, in fact, a contagious intellectual illness. 

Rohnka: What was the influence of Anatoliy Golitsyn on your political views, and could you imagine Jeffrey Nyquist's analysis without New Lies for Old?

JRN: Golitsyn indirectly influenced my political views. He influenced my perception of Soviet grand strategy, which then caused me to recognize certain weaknesses within the capitalist West. This led me to trace Western weakness to market hedonism, de-spiritualization and the baneful affects of television. Please note that Russia and China are weak powers when compared with America. But wealth and power are corrosive if the antidotes to corrosion are set aside. And I believe that's what the American people have done. America has developed a serious weakness as well as blindness, and the Russians are eager to take advantage of a developing situation. In fact, they have the sophistication to manipulate the U.S. in a variety of ways. I want to add, especially, that Golitsyn is not a god and his analysis is not 100 percent correct. There are many mysteries with regard to the inner workings of the "former" Soviet power structures. We do not understand how these structures work (in detail) because they are so secretive. We do not know what the principal players actually believe (in terms of ideological orientation). But one thing I am certain of, after watching their behavior for the past 15 years: Golitsyn is right in terms of the final tendency of Russian politics. Whatever the "changes" in the communist world signify, there has been a consistent effort to use these changes to detach America from Europe, to build a military alliance with China, to retool Soviet war industries, to use criminal organizations as allies in a secret war, to sabotage America's economic system via control of raw material inputs and the penetration of major banks, to ultimately isolate and destabilize the United States, and to destroy any chance of it rising from the ashes or using its nuclear arsenal. Following that, the power structures of Moscow and Beijing plan to split the world into spheres of influence, with lesser nations having a share in "looting rights." One might think of this process as a grand strategic proposition that never dies or surrenders. It simply adjusts itself to new conditions and new requirements. The inner nature of the leaders in Moscow has not changed (whatever their ideological pretensions), and this should be obvious because real change -- internal change -- rarely happen in this world. Whether Golitsyn's accurate predictions are due to his own previous involvement with KGB strategists, or to psycho-sociological intuition, he has correctly anticipated the overall direction of international affairs. My own thinking owes a great deal to his insights.

Rohnka: Let us look at the early 1960s. The Soviet spy named Golitsyn came to Washington. He comes over with a strategic revelation in his head, and he wants to speak with the first man in American policy -- the President of the United States. This is a problem, of course, because it is impossible for President Kennedy to meet with a Russian spy. Then Golitsyn meets Angleton, the chief of CIA counter-intelligence. For about 13 years Golitsyn and Angleton work together to convince the American establishment about the grand threat posed by Russian deception strategy. Their warning is not heeded. In 1974 Angleton is fired from the CIA, Golitsyn is pushed into the political wilderness. Don't you think this was the turning point in American defense history? Is there any coincidence that detente policy coincided with the government's rejection of the Golitsyn message?

JRN: The administration of President Nixon was a disaster in many respects. Nixon's detente policy, his opening to China, were naturally fatal to Golitsyn's message and Angleton's function as counter-intelligence chief. It may not be generally known in Poland, but a Polish intelligence defector, Michael Goleniewski, claimed that Nixon's national security advisor, Henry Kissinger, was a Soviet agent recruited by the GRU during the occupation of Germany in 1945. There were problems with Goleniewski's mental stability, to be sure, but the intelligence he provided had always been first rate. In the case of Kissinger, there are known facts that tend to confirm Goleniewski's claim. Books about Kissinger reveal that on more than one occasion, after becoming Secretary of State, he brought people into the State Department who were found to have communist ties. Kissinger's handling of Vietnam and the China opening are also suspect. His arms control treaties with the Soviet Union, as well as the unilateral destruction of America's biological weapons stockpiles cry out for explanation. These actions were carried out on his advice. The policies later advocated by Kissinger's deputies in later administrations (e.g., Lawrence Eagleburger, Brent Scowcroft and Alexander Haig) also raise alarm bells. But more significant than the possible penetration of the U.S. government by Soviet agent networks, we find that a kind of hedonism had begun to set into American thinking by 1975. Unpleasant thoughts, the necessity of hard choices, tough reforms in the intelligence community, were simply out of the question. An inner softness was, by then, dominant. Golitsyn's analysis and Angleton's fears were dismissed as "Cold War paranoia." Fear of Russian penetration, fear of Russian deception, was necessarily characterized as "mental illness." Here we see an example of "the sociology of knowledge" at work. Under certain cultural conditions, certain facts cannot be known because they are socially unacceptable. 

Rhonka: The 1980s were the years in which Solidarity took shape in Poland. Lech Walesa was the great hero. Threats of Soviet intervention, tanks on the streets, were very real at the time. Poland dreamed of freedom. Did you have any suspicions then that it could be some kind of political trick?

JRN: In America I heard various things from my Polish-American friends, but people were hopeful. I had no suspicions in the early 1980s. Americans liked the idea of a free Poland; and for them, Walesa was a hero. Nobody paid attention when Golitsyn warned against Solidarity in his 1984 book, New Lies for Old. He explained that the communists had moved to take Solidarity over and use it to introduce controlled changes. I watched the 1989 revolutions with skepticism. I looked for critical thinking from Western analysts. But there wasn't any. Everybody accepted the 1989-91 changes uncritically. No debate occurred. Golitsyn's name was mentioned, from time to time, as a curious footnote. Then several anti-Golitsyn books were published, smearing his name and slandering his ideas. Tom Mangold's Cold Warrior is one example. Mangold appeared on many talk shows. The public was told that Golitsyn was mentally unbalanced. His accurate predictions were not mentioned, and his reputation was destroyed.

Rohnka: Ronald Reagan personified the hope of anti-communists everywhere in the world. How could you explain that his presidency was chosen for implementing Soviet deception strategy? Was it the best timing or simply a coincidence?

JRN: If Moscow's strategists could trick Reagan then they could accomplish anything. Of course, Reagan was getting old and soft. So they took aim during the last years of his second term. After playing Cold War games, they flattered Reagan and built him up. They made concessions. This was a very effective tactical switch. As everyone knows, the great charm offensive worked and Reagan led the way -- along with Thatcher -- in accepting Gorbachev as "a man we can do business with." Afterwards no conservative dared question the changes in the communist bloc. The conservatives, in fact, were eager to claim victory. The whole process was incredibly self-serving, and the Republicans were shameless in their readiness to claim what they had no right to claim.

Rohnka: The false collapse of communism, the so-called "democratic revolutions" in countries like Poland, Hungary, East Germany, Romania, etc., were judged, in spite of the obvious facts, as real historical events by the establishments of Western Europe and the United States. Was this typical Western naiveté, the well-crafted work of agents of influence or a lucky outcome for Moscow?

JRN: People love to think of themselves as winners. Nothing is more flattering than the appearance of victory. The announced changes in Poland and Czechoslovakia and Romania brought a wave of relief. This was the political equivalent of a drug. Already the West was divided on the issue of communism, with the left arguing that communism was never a serious threat in the first place. Furthermore, the West by that time had become hedonistic in its responses, as I mentioned earlier.

Rohnka: Have you an unequivocal opinion about the goals and methods of Soviet strategy associated with the false collapse of communism? On the one hand we have unilateral disarmament of the Western alliance and intensive Russian rearmament behind the legend of rusting Soviet military equipment. Secondly, the convergence strategy is still alive, which means a progressive coming together of both political systems. Don't you think that, in the light of increasing leftist trends in the Western countries, that the military option will not be required?

JRN: This is an excellent question because it illustrates the difference between rationalistic thinking about history versus the empirical approach. The intention of any power, of course, is to win an easy victory. To win without fighting, as Sun Tzu said, "is excellence in warfare." But the process of subversion, the process of convergence, the process of deceptive change and corruption -- in the East as well as the West -- involves a moral and intellectual unraveling. Such a process necessarily leads to catastrophic violence, on an epic scale. You cannot derange a man's sense of what is, you cannot abolish the foundations of order itself, without unleashing anarchy in the soul which leads to abuse of the economic system, rampant criminality, revolutionary intrigue and social upheaval. The readiness to exploit such an upheaval is present in Russian and Chinese national strategy, even though they hope to win bloodless victories. Yes, they have managed remarkable changes within their own social systems -- the Chinese have achieved an economic revolution as Russia has achieved a mock political revolution within the CIS countries. But the breakdown of the global economic system, based as it is on American dominance, means total breakdown. It means international anarchy and dictatorial opportunism. It signifies the advent of another world war.

Rohnka: As I know you are very critical of social and political reality in the United States. In your book, Origins of the Fourth World War, you present a tragic picture of the moral and spiritual condition of your nation. What will be the future of America?

JRN: I believe that the dollar will continue to fall, an economic crisis will occur, the U.S. will become politically unstable and the communists (i.e., Moscow and Beijing) will exploit the situation strategically.

Rohnka: The Moscow putsch has a long, 15-year history. In the Soviet bloc there were no authentic democratic reforms during this period. The communists ruled as usual in almost every corner of this dolorous space. The West seems to have no interest in changing this situation. The West has its own problems: terrorism, drugs and organized crime -- with no time for secondary matters. In reality the West itself is the biggest problem. The traditional sense of freedom disappeared in something like a dark hole. Huge bureaucracy, unbelievable corruption, political correctness, total surveillance of its own citizens, unimaginable fiscal stringency indicate where things are headed. It is not freedom in the West, but slavery. A new Bolshevik face. What should be the answer of mankind or of a single man?

JRN: I should correct a false impression that many people in Eastern Europe have about America. Knowing how the U.S. security system works and how police and security functions are executed (having been a security professional myself), the idea that there is "total surveillance" of American citizens is seriously mistaken. I remember being shocked, in 1988, when I asked a Czech waiter how he liked America. He said that it was just like Eastern Europe, only richer. This puzzled me, so I asked what he meant. He said that it was the same surveillance state that he'd left, only the CIA and FBI were "more efficient." Their cleverness, he said, consisted in the fact that they were watching everyone in such an inconspicuous way that nobody suspected they were being watched. This is a laughable instance of "mirror imaging." It is hard for East Europeans, I think, to realize how absolutely unsupervised Americans actually are. Our political culture insists that police surveillance of anyone -- excepting known criminals or spies -- is itself criminal. This view has been translated into law. It has escaped notice by many critics of America, but civil suits were successfully filed against FBI officials in the 1970s -- and the FBI lost in court. Before 9/11 it was illegal for the FBI to spy on American citizens unless legally authorized by a judge (who alone can authorize wiretaps). Furthermore, the FBI is a very small organization, incapable of watching more than a fraction of the crazies, Nazis, communists, Islamists, etc. Please note, FBI officials were forced to pay penalties and fines in the late 1970s because of surveillance conducted during anti-terrorist operations (versus the communist Weather Underground). Security officials in this country have lost their jobs over petty infractions. In 1974 the head of CIA counter-intelligence (James Angleton) was forced to resign because he was part of a scheme to open mail from the Soviet Union. All government officials in this country know the penalties. They know that the ACLU and the National Lawyers Guild (the legal arm of the Communist Party U.S.A.) are watching for violations. Security in this country was paralyzed for two decades. The attack of 9/11 occurred under a legal regime that safeguarded the spy, the saboteur and the criminal. We have many rights in this country, and a policeman's lot is not a happy one. The famous gangster Al Capone could not be prosecuted successfully for many years because he had rights that gave him the edge in court. Only when he was found guilty of a tax violation was he put in prison. Since 9/11 more sensible measures have been put in place, allowing the police and FBI to monitor suspects and keep files on subversive groups. For the past 20 years, before the World Trade Center attacks, it was illegal for the FBI or CIA to maintain files on subversive American groups based in the U.S.A. It should also be understood that the American intelligence services are run by university-educated liberals. George Tenet was such a man. These are people who think anti-Communism was a sick joke (and that communism is a meaningless term anyway). There is this impression out there, due to anti-American propaganda, that America is a right-wing country. But America is a country that has grown soft and slovenly during five decades of prosperity. Basically, the security regime remains lax. The people are too busy shopping and having fun. Everything here is predicated on work and consumption.

Now I will say a word about crazy legislation and bureaucracy in the United States. While the left is attacking the police and the intelligence services, the left simultaneously campaigns to take guns out of the hands of citizens through legislation. Environmental legislation deprives land-owners of their property rights. Laws for fighting drug cartels have been misused by lazy police officials to confiscate property, and entrapment was used in an attempt to recruit Randy Weaver to spy on Idaho Nazis -- which backfired when Federal officials opened fire on Weaver's family. The government is not all-powerful in this country, and Randy Weaver's acquittal could not have happened in a genuinely totalitarian country. While it is true that left wing crazies are given teaching positions at leading American universities, right wing crazies like Timothy McVeigh imagine that the deranged laws passed by Green Party activists and other leftist busy-bodies prove the existence of a Jewish-Masonic conspiracy. But the multiplication of resentful, deranged ideologues proves nothing. It is merely a symptom of a society that will not maintain its standards, traditions and intellectual integrity. A kind of anarchy reigns, and the result is an ideological free-for-all in which leftists can dictate certain environmental policies (like crippling the nation's timber industry in the Northwest), while right-wingers arm themselves for "Judgment Day" in the futile belief they are governed by ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government). It was Timothy McVeigh who once suggested to Ted Kaczynski (the "unabomber") that the far left and far right should come together since they had the same enemy. This very concept was adopted by Stalin in the 1930s. It is the concept of the Red-Brown alliance.

The problem with America is distraction, enervation, intellectual decline, fiscal irresponsibility, lax attitudes, materialism and permissiveness. At the same time, however, the strengths of America deserve to be listed. Europeans do not understand the kind of freedom and initiative that still exists in the United States. Freedom forces the average American into a kind of discipline, in terms of creative work. I believe that freedom is essential. But licentiousness must not be permitted. Civilization also depends on traditional values, belief in God and classical teachings. We must have balance, and we must return to aristocratic standards of culture.


Return to Main Page