Prodigies and Lionesses
(The Counter-Revolutionary Trigger)
Commentary of 3 February 2014
By J.R. Nyquist
There has not been a civil war in America since 1865. What could possibly cause Americans to turn against each other today? We have previously mentioned economic collapse as trigger for a civil war. A trigger, however, is not the real cause. The trigger is merely a mechanism for igniting a conflagration which has long been prepared.
The preparation is found in the class warfare rhetoric of today. It is found in the unbalanced racial politics, in the precise formulations of feminism. In many ways, these are carefully constructed instruments with which to divide the people of America; specifically, to divide women from men, blacks from whites, poor from rich, liberal from conservative, etc.
To divide America into two or more hostile camps is one of the objectives of the Communists. The attempt at division is pro-forma. A good strategist always attempts to divide his enemy’s forces so he can defeat them in detail, or turn them against each other. By making Americans believe that there is a struggle for power ongoing between men and women, blacks and whites, rich and poor, and by focusing the energies and emotions of women, blacks and the poor toward a final victory over a supposed oppressive and ugly capitalist system, a useful power-base can be formed with which to take control of America. This power base excoriates the man, the white race, and the rich. Such becomes “the enemy” of all others.
This is, to be sure, only a basic overview of the enemy’s strategic architecture with regard to American domestic politics. Firmly resting upon the fissures of sex, race and economic status, there are many additional nuances and complexities to be considered. The final objective of the strategy is to own the world. The means for achieving this objective is to defeat the United States.
The intermediate objectives for achieving U.S. defeat may be enumerated as follows:
- Make the Americans stupid – Disorient the people of the United States and other Western countries. Establish a set of myths useful from the standpoint of the long-range strategy. Examples of such myths: Josef Stalin is our “Uncle Joe,” a man we can trust; the Cold War was triggered by paranoid anti-Communists; Senator McCarthy blacklisted innocent people; President Kennedy was killed by Big Business and the CIA; the Vietnam War was fought on account of corporate greed; Russia and China are irreconcilable enemies who will not be able to combine their forces against the United States; the Soviet Union collapsed for economic reasons; Russia is America’s ally in the War on Terror.
- Infiltrate the U.S. financial system – Financial control through organized crime and drug trafficking. To this end the Eastern Bloc began infiltrating organized crime in the 1950s and, in 1960, began a narcotics offensive against the West which would generate billions of dollars in illicit money which banks could not resist laundering. In this way, a portal was opened into the heart of the capitalist financial structures in order to facilitate future economic and financial sabotage.
- Promote bankruptcy and economic breakdown – The promotion of a cradle-to-grave welfare state as a means to bankrupt the United States Treasury (i.e., the Cloward-Piven Strategy). Welfare simultaneously demoralizes the workforce as it bankrupts the government.
- Elect a stealth Communist president – As an organizer for the Communist Party explained during a meeting I attended more than thirty years ago, the stealth Communist president will one day exploit a future financial collapse to effect a transition from “the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie” to the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
- Exploit the counter-revolution – Some strategists believe that a counter-revolutionary or right wing reaction is unavoidable. It is therefore necessary, from the standpoint of sound strategy, to send infiltrators into the right wing. Having a finger in every pie and an agent network in every organization, the Communists are not afraid of encouraging counter-revolution, secession, or civil war in the wake of financial collapse. After all, the reactionaries and right wing elements must be drawn out so that they can be purged or, if necessary, turned into puppet allies. Already Putin is posturing as a Christian who opposes feminism and homosexuality. This has fooled many “conservatives” in the West, and is an intentional ploy which further serves to disorient the West.
- Take away the nuclear button – The strategists in Moscow do not forget that the neutralization of the U.S. nuclear deterrent is the most important of all intermediate objectives. This can be achieved in one of four ways: (1) cutting off nuclear forces funding by Congress; (2) administratively unplugging the weapons through executive orders issued by Obama, (3) it may be accomplished through a general financial collapse, or (4) a first strike.
Marshal Sokolovskiy’s Soviet Military Strategy explained that the “U.S. imperialists,” should they unleash another world war, are destined to be smashed by Soviet rockets. Thus, reading between the lines, we find it is the counter-revolutionaries who start World War III by resisting the socialist takeover of Washington. This latter interpretation becomes obvious when we consider the long-range plan as described by Konstantin Katushev, Secretary of the Soviet Central Committee in 1967:
It’s more likely ... that a progressive regime will emerge [in the United States] because, in spite of their power, the governing bureaucratic and industrial elite, and the media, are fundamentally liberal in their outlook and ashamed of their failure to solve basic national problems.
It was Soviet Marshal Zhakarov who came to the Czech Communists in late 1967 and added to this picture, saying that the Warsaw Pact countries must do everything possible to recruit “high-level agents of influence” in the American government. Such agents signify an attempt to take over United States from within. There is no question this has been part of their strategy for the last half century.
Since Obama was elected President of the United States, some people feel this takeover has already occurred. Ann Barnhardt is one such person. She is a self-described counter-revolutionary who says “the Republic no longer exists.” She says that we are currently living under a tyranny which cannot be reformed. Instead of talking about the foxes pushing out the lions, Barnhardt says that the government has been taken over by “psychopaths.” She does not distinguish between good politicians and bad politicians. She does not distinguish between good voters and bad voters. If you are voting, you are automatically bad; that is to say, you are giving legitimacy to wickedness. As a counter-revolutionary Barnhardt does not see the complexities of people or situations. She does not diagnose the malady of the elite so as to discover some ground of innocence. She operates at a high level of generalization, dispensing with nuances. Such an approach may lack intellectual precision, but from the standpoint of counter-revolution, it is flawless rhetoric. Her words have strategic virtue instead of intellectual virtue. She is not simply observing phenomenon. She is attempting to become a phenomenon.
Those who play the political game talk differently than those who observe it from afar. One of the virtues of Diana West’s book, American Betrayal, is the way in which she navigates the nuances of the American elite during World War II. She is describing, and seeking to understand, the failure of our elite. This failure was but a foretaste of the failures we see today. Something in the character of Western “silver spooners” made them ready victims of Communist subversion. It wasn’t that they were “psychopaths.” A British writer recently made the following comments on this topic in an article titled The Slaughtering of Sacred Cows (American Betrayal Revisited):
Roosevelt was not better than the silver spooners in the UK – if anything, he was worse. A friend of the President’s called George Earle III, who had at one time been governor of Pennsylvania, had a meeting with Roosevelt in 1944. He was warned beforehand by Joe Levy of the New York Times that Harry Hopkins had the President’s ear, and ‘the whole atmosphere over there is pink.’
Returning to Vilfredo Pareto’s work on the circulation of elites, the foxes (Class I elites) have replaced the lions (Class II elites) in Washington and the Pentagon. A pink tendency, therefore, is only natural. We know from experience that the foxes will go with the latest fashion – and pink has been fashionable for many decades. But the lions are those who will stand against fashion. In this context, Barnhardt is a lion. It is no accident she calls for a “hard reset.” And who dares argue with her? Yet how can she, with only bravery, defeat the foxes? How can she prevail against the color pink?
Machiavelli wrote that if princes expect to prosper they must be both lions and foxes. He said they must be lions to drive away the wolves and foxes to avoid traps. But it is rare to find the lion and fox combined in one person. In wealthy, successful societies the elite begins (over time) to consist almost exclusively of foxes. Lions are effectively sidelined as they are perceived as a disruptive influence. Peaceful negotiation becomes the imperative. Fighting and confrontation is seen as negative. The foxes believe their way is best, that all conflicts can be resolved by negotiation and cunning – without the use of force.
In World War II the lion character may be seen in the person of General Patton, who was temporarily sidelined after the Sicily campaign in 1943. I believe they would have permanently dispensed with Patton’s services if they did not need him during the Battle of Normandy; for the lion is eccentric, bold, and irritating to the fox. The lion confronts issues and adversaries. It is useful to note that the composition of the enemy elite (i.e., the German elite) during World War II was heavily mixed with lions. Hitler was both lion and fox. Many of his generals possessed lion-like qualities. Germany differed from England and America in the following way: a significant portion of the elite manhood of Germany passed through the Studentenverbindung, a special form of fixed-stance fencing in which sharp blades were used. These often inflicted deep facial and/or cranial wounds. Such scars were honored, and showed the extent to which the lion’s character was valued in pre-war Germany. The more liberal elites of the West had, in the meanwhile, drifted toward effeminacy as outlets for manly virtue were less and less in evidence. The brutal character of the lion is not fully compatible with the character of the liberal. It is no accident, therefore, that the rise of liberalism in the West signified the rise of the foxes and a rising hatred of the lion. This development, with all its fateful consequences, brought us to a situation in which the necessary admixture of lion and fox within the elite was no longer possible. England went to war against Germany because of Nazism, in part. But English liberalism was at war with Germany long before the appearance of Nazism. The fox must push out the lion.
If the elite of America have pushed out the lions, then we will not find our lions in the elite. Our future lions will come from outside the elite; that is to say, from outside the existing power structures. It should also be admitted that these structures are, in the long run, doomed to fall. The elite of any country cannot be fully man without being partly lion. Anyone with sense can see that effeminacy has taken us by the throat. Effeminacy rules from the White House and the board room. The lower classes are free to maintain their manhood, and their brutal lion-like instincts. The elite are not so free. Those who aspire to money or office cannot be men in the full sense; for real men are excluded from the liberal club as they are non-liberal by nature. To further clarify the point, today’s conservatives are themselves merely liberals who are slightly behind-hand. They also avoid the masculine fault (so ascribed): They are in terror of being unmasked as bigots, bloody reactionaries, or homophobes.
There is a psychological angle to all of this. The rising tide of elite effeminacy is like a disease carrying the entire system into dysfunction. As men cultivate their female side women have been cultivating their male side. While men become foxes, the women are free to become lions. This perversion of human nature accelerates the disintegration of family life and leads to pandemic narcissism – a narcissism in which the “projection of the shadow” confronts the passive-aggressive man with the slogan, “I am woman, hear me roar.” This “projection of the [sexual] shadow” is not merely the result of revolutionary politics usurping the place of religion. It is, in its own right, an identity disorder (like feminism and homosexuality) in which the rejection of the true self leads to the passionate embrace of a false self. Here the male projects his anima (female side) and the female projects her animus (male side). This pathology draws the entire culture into a collective madness unequaled in world history.
The upper and middle class manhood, so essential for the persistence of society, has been thoroughly undermined in the West. This coincides with the phenomenon of the political lioness who, as women, is allowed to say things that would end the career of any man who said the same. As an example, following 9/11, columnist Ann Coulter advocated a war to replace radical Islam with Christianity. When she was rebuked by the staff of National Review Online she replied that they were “sissy boys.” Here the sentiment of the Christian soldier is found on the lips of a woman, while the “conservative” knights of National Review shriveled at the prospect of a Holy Crusade. Likewise we find Ann Barnhardt, yet another lioness, advocating the use of thermonuclear weapons against Mecca and Medina.
Like Coulter, Barnhardt is ready to make war on the West’s enemies. She famously burned a Koran by wrapping it in bacon. Afterwards, when a Muslim threatened to kill her, she gave the would-be assassin directions to her house, with advice on the best flights to take from London to Denver, and begged the assassin to wear body armor because she had acquired new armor-piercing rifle ammunition that she wanted to try out.
Few men of the upper-middle class today would prove so bold, or risk the consequences of saying or doing what Ann Coulter and Ann Barnhardt have said and done. A man who said the like would be unemployed, cast out, and unmanned by the resulting social ostracism. In his penury he would find neither mate nor career, nor recognition for bravery, nor congratulations for his wisdom. He would not be invited to speak before paying audiences. He would not be paid at all. He would be marginalized as a crazy person. This is because nobody presently trusts the judgment of the male lion, though the nation cries out for testosterone. Under the regime of reverse sexuality, only woman is allowed to roar.
Barnhardt has earned a special distinction, and is unlike any of the other would-be counter-revolutionary lions of the day. In declaring a tax strike against the federal government she has made a personal sacrifice. She has lost a lucrative career, a home, and financial security. Our federal tax dollars, she says, are used to promote infanticide and contraception. Cooperating with the system is to violate God's law. We are, she adds, “subsidizing our own destruction.” Barnhardt also says: “There is no authority you can appeal to [in order] to redress these grievances.” Therefore we must liquidate “everyone and everything in Washington D.C.”
Barnhardt’s declaration of war on the federal government is as guileless as it is genuine. There is nothing of the fox here, and everything of the lion. She is perfectly serious, being motivated by profound convictions. This peerless rectitude, unheard of in an era of venal self-promotion, gives her a special claim on the attention of her countrymen. Her spiritual and ethical approach allows her to see further into the future than the foxes who presently govern us. At one of her talks she was asked about the country splitting into two factions, with the red states breaking away from blue states on the East and West coasts. The questioner, in effect, wanted to know why civil war would be necessary. Why wouldn’t the red states be content with the blue states staying separate? Because, said Barnhardt, we cannot allow the blue states to hold the Pacific ports through which Chinese troops will be brought in to smash the red states. (This answer is proof that Barnhardt is indeed a lion.)
Barnhardt’s audiences cannot be expected to follow her into financial ruin. Their financial ruin is guaranteed through another, larger process. Naturally, people recoil at her harsh statements of fact. They do not want to hear of tax strikes and the “liquidation of everyone and everything” in Washington D.C. They want a fast and easy solution to the national mess. Here we see the ingenuity of the gradualist revolutionary program. The people are being destroyed slowly, and do not feel their destruction. It seems that Barnhardt has felt this destruction in her bones. She rises up against it. She opposes and would strike out against it. But nobody follows.
One day, however, everyone will see what has happened. No words will then remain to perpetuate the deception. The bankruptcy of the foxes will herald the return of the lions. Counter-revolution will have its day. The war will come, and the world will be renewed in blood. This is the tragedy of our time. The counter-revolution will occur because counter-revolutionaries yet exist, and the revolution eventually calls them forth.
Regardless of the preparations made by the Communists, I do not know how the socialists will cope with the tomorrow's lions.