Introduction and Organization of Material
The first essays in this new section are 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.
New Essay Coming on 22 July
Further Reflections on Diana West's Critics
Perhaps I'd like to say, "Leave the lady alone." But then, Diana West's attackers make so many interesting mistakes -- regarding dead Communists and a conservatism that has nothing to conserve, and professors who attempt to defend civilization with not-so-noble lies. And now, with the latest attack against Mrs. West appearing on the American Thinker site, subtly framed with the mistaken assumption that playing the Hitler card signifies an automatic shutdown of an argument centered on Communist subversion, we only have to point out that political racism is not always the most dangerous thing on earth. In fact, all falsifications are dangerous, especially falsifications that even now mask the role that Moscow has played in our history. If, in this context, the evolution of American conservatism has been a negative process since the mid-1980s, then perhaps we are learning, with the scandalous attacks on Mrs. West, something new about ourselves.
be sure not to miss it
A brief note per (above). Click on the pic above
to watch a video about raising money for Trevor's
documentary film project. This is a very important
outreach for us all. Please be generous.
Is Moscow Abandoning the Nationalists at home
and the Rebels in Ukraine?
Commentary for 14 July 2014
The Russian-backed rebellion in Eastern Ukraine hasn’t done well in recent weeks. The anti-Kiev separatists have suffered setback after setback, defeat after defeat (and still, there is no Russian invasion). What could Moscow be thinking? Polls show that Russia’s image has been damaged throughout the world after the annexation of Crimea. In Eastern Ukraine Moscow’s surrogates have lost popular support.
On July 11 The Jamestown Foundation published a piece by military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer who says the pro-Russian uprising in Donbas is about to collapse, with rebel forces evacuating Slavyansk. The informal analysis of the situation, supposedly given by Russian geopolitical analyst Alexander Dugin, is almost identical: “Putin has a sun side and a moon side. The sun side is the one that annexed Crimea while the moon side betrays the children of Slavyansk.” Accompanying this analysis is a story which says that Dugin has been fired from his position as head of the Department of Sociology and International Relations at Moscow State University. According to HungarianAmbience.com, “[Dugin] was removed from the university for political reasons, because certain circles didn’t like his views on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.”
As a Russian nationalist, of course, Dugin wants the Ukrainian nationalists “eliminated.” And this is what he has publicly advocated. This sort of thing was fine while Moscow was riding high on anti-American propaganda in the wake of the heady Crimea annexation. But things have settled down. People have sobered up (well, not literally). Given that Moscow is looking at defeat in Eastern Ukraine, dismissing Dugin makes sense. It is only obvious that Ukraine must be won back with smiles, negotiations, and the usual backroom deals. And so it follows as night follows day that a prominent nationalist loudmouth should be gagged and put at arm’s length for a few weeks or years (depending how the political situation plays out).
On June 27, in a blog post at VK.com, Dugin wrote: “Dean Vladimir Ivanovich Dobrenkov, Russian patriot, also left his post. What liberals and Atlanticists fought for after so many years, has occurred.” Dugin then referred to his belief in the new Russia, and his opposition to the Ukrainian Nazis “and their extermination of civilians.” He also derided liberalism, the West, and American hegemony, saying his political views were too hot to handle. That is why his post at the university was being taken by Vladimir Zhirinovsky (don’t laugh, please). “I knew what I was doing,” Dugin wrote without irony, “starting a frontal attack on the sixth [sic] column in the Russian government. I knew what to expect when I chose to support the new Russia. I knew what I was doing when I named a number of workers who, in my opinion, are responsible for the failure of our politics and ideology in Russia and Ukraine.” Dugin went on to say that he was never giving up, and would not lay down his arms. “I will fight on, as before, as always.”
But there is a problem with this story, as all stories out of Russia. In case after case, ideologically important “events” have two sides: (a) they happened; and (b) they did not happen. And so, as if readers are given the option to believe whichever version pleases them, we read at News.ru that Moscow State University officially denies the story of Dugin’s dismissal. It simply never happened, says MSU.
Once again, and this must be underscored: In Russia all important events have at least two versions (or several). This does not signify a contradiction in the normal sense. This signifies the reader’s choice as to which version to believe. Those who believe that Putin is a strong nationalist will assert that Dugin’s dismissal could not have happened. Those who believe Putin intends to eschew militant nationalism will believe that Dugin has been fired. The actual truth of what happened does not matter. Everything in Russia is predicated on what the individual observer wants to be true, regardless of the actual truth. As Anna Politkovskaya explained shortly before her death: “What matters [in Russia] is not solving the problems, but controlling what gets reported on television; not reality but virtuality; censorship as a way of not having to tackle difficult matters. The downside is that ubiquitous censorship and constant duplicity mean you have no visible opposition with which to debate the issues on a daily bases.” [p. 122, A Russian Diary] After all, how can we debate an issue when there are two (or several) different versions of what happened? Analysis cannot advance in a field of non-fact. What is observed is a flexible and multifaceted illusion, amenable to any number of perspectives. The whole thing is ideologically open-ended, and leaves the Kremlin with all options intact.
In her Russian Diary, Politkovskaya further explained Russian politics in a way that also brings the emerging situation of America politics into better focus:
This whole system of thieving judges, rigged elections, presidents who have only contempt for the needs of their people, can operate only if nobody protests. That is the Kremlin’s secret weapon and the most striking feature of life in Russia today! That is the secret … apathy, rooted in an almost universal certainty among the populace that the state authorities will fix everything, including elections, to their own advantage. It is a vicious circle. People react only when something affects them personally…. Until then, if my hut is out of harm’s way, why worry? We have emerged from socialism as thoroughly self-centered people.
The socialist ethic leaves its mark on every country that dabbles with it. American politics is beginning to read a bit like Russian politics; from the controversy over Obama’s computer-facsimile birth certificate to Global Warming. In every case there are two versions of reality (take your pick). Each man will believe what pleases him best. Why trouble yourself to learn the actual truth? Since reality itself has the consistency of oatmeal, the most reputable school of thought takes the position of absolute selfishness. If my hut is out of harm’s way, leave me out of it. If someone like Ann Barnhardt has made a principled stand, that’s her tough luck. If the country is being systematically disarmed, who cares? It’s not my responsibility. The idea that the country will be blown apart by a nuclear bombardment is merely a crackpot idea. Besides, there's no money in such thinking. The foundation of everything is being destroyed, yet the powerful and the celebrated pretend like it’s no big deal. Why not side with the powerful and the celebrated? To borrow a phrase from Karl Kraus, America (like Russia before it) has become “a research laboratory for the destruction of mankind.” (Every monkey, in turn, must see, hear, and speak no evil.)
Enter the false savior of the hour, as ambiguous as other attending phenomena. This is a pesonality Thomas Molnar calls “the counter-revolutionary hero.” Such a figure always comes and “is not a new type.” He reoccurs from time to time, and we can readily identify him. The style and thought of this person are a contradiction, as in the dual reality depicted by Moscow today. His thoughts are at variance with the way in which he must advance. He is practical, and so he continues the revolution. He ascribes to it while claiming to oppose it. It is what the Communists call “Bonapartism,” and Americans call the Republican Party. Here is something with two faces. Believe in whichever face you want. The truth doesn’t matter. (For in truth, there is no facing whatever.)
Has the "Bonapartist" system in Russia, like the Republican Party in America, reached the point of negating itself? Or are we witnessing yet another clever façade -- another matryoshka doll? To be sure, the Kremlin faces defeat in Eastern Ukraine. Felgenhauer says, “As a last step short of direct intervention, the Russian air force could be preparing for a covert action over Donbas to support the rebels….” He then hints that Russian air intervention could begin “next week” unless there is a ceasefire. Or is it a repeat of the Bay of Pigs? – with the Russians playing the American role, and the Ukrainians as the Cubans? Or is the crisis going to escalate in keeping with escalations on other fronts?
It’s going to be an interesting summer.
Note After the 4 July Weekend
Readers may be interested my appearance on Tru-News
The Coming Man
Commentary for 30 June 2014
It was Aristotle who reminded us, in his Metaphysics, that “our ancestors in the remotest ages” portrayed the sun, moon and planetary bodies as gods. These ancestors believed “that the divine encompasses the whole of nature.” Myths were propagated by our ancestors, said Aristotle, “for the persuasion of the multitude” to certain and specific social and legal practices.
A famous persuader and myth-maker of the last century, named Adolf Hitler, wrote a book titled Mein Kampf, in which he postulated the theory (read myth) of the Jews as “enemies of the Aryan race.” He would later confide to his Valet, Heinz Linge, that the Jews were not really “a race” but represented a state of mind or idea (i.e., an opposing myth).
We tend to think of a myth as something old, belonging to primitive people. Savages and barbarians believe in myths, we say to ourselves (while we believe in science!). The Vikings founded their society on myths, as did the ancient Germans, Romans, Greeks and Celts. Yet we are no different today. Communism and National Socialism were myths as well. Both of these, in turn, despised the myth of democracy. In the Second World War, the three myths of the modern world – Communism, Nazism and Democracy – fought against each other.
We are fools if we think this war ended, once and for all time, in 1945. Wars which are fought over ideas (read myths) are merely interrupted by periods of peace. Their continuance is assured by that same law of cause and effect which triggered them in the first place. Related to this, the Russian ideologist and Kremlin metaphysician Alexander Dugin, made a remarkable confession in his book, The Fourth Political Theory. He complained that his own National Bolshevik Party had disintegrated into “hooliganism … and later started to serve the anti-Russian Orange ultra-liberal powers, fed by the West….”
Here we find a remarkable admission of an experiment gone wrong, where agents of Moscow (i.e., Dugin and his associates) attempted to hijack National Socialists under the banner of National Bolshevism only to have it blow up in their faces. Sadly for Moscow, National Socialism was never easy to control. Outright Marxism, which triumphs in the media and in universities, seems to win its greatest victories by infiltration, subversion and by false advertising. It always finds itself attempting one of two things: (1) either pretending to reform itself while joining with Western liberals; or (2) pretending to Nazify itself, and unite with the National Socialists. Both strategies run into a fundamental problem. Pretense either ends in your becoming the thing you are pretending to be, or you are inevitably unmasked as a pretender. Here we find the limits of deception and a point of departure for the next world war.
There is reason to think that Europe is beginning to move toward an amended form of National Socialism, which will not be exclusively German. This new formation will almost certainly be triggered by the eruption of militant Islam on the European continent and the final bankruptcy of Left-liberal multiculturalism. The incompatibility of Islam with European culture must, in the course of time, serve as a political stimulant. This awakening, of course, does not necessarily signify a return to orthodox Hitlerism.
It is somewhat known that the KGB infiltrated and took over the Nazi International after World War II, especially since leading Nazis officials like Martin Bormann and Heinrich Muller were probably Soviet agents (see Kilzer’s book, Hitler’s Traitor). But here a revived instrument may easily metastasize to the horror of Moscow’s spymasters. We still do not know exactly how the Germans outwitted the Russians during the crucial period of 1989-90, since the Russians were hardly working to unite Germany for the benefit of the Germans. If the German intelligence and military structures were as ignorant as they have always pretended, why did they come out ahead? And if the intelligence services warned the Christian Democrats against promoting Angela Merkel to head the German government, and the Christian Democrats ignored the intelligence service warnings, may we ask why?
Nationalism has a life of its own. Marxism has never been able to mobilize what Hitler called “the broad masses” because it is an ideology of class division. In truth, classes do not make world war on one another. Nations make world war on one another. The truth of this is self-evident in history. Stalin turned to nationalism after the German invasion of 1941. Putin is turning to nationalism, even now, because he believes war is coming and he has learned from Stalin. The majority will not fight for abstract ideas like Marxism, unless those ideas are sentimentally and mythically attached to a nation. And so Dugin has been hard at work. He must arouse the Bolshevik spirit in Russia while flirting with the European Right; that is, he must make a false alignment appear natural. As it happens, he is treading a path that was anticipated by someone else.
On the afternoon of 30 April, 1945, when Adolf Hitler told Heinz Linge that he was going to shoot himself and that Linge was expected to burn his remains, the hapless valet asked the Fuhrer, “What now will we fight for?” Hitler’s last quotable answer was, “The coming man.” This enigmatic reply, which seems quite vague, was actually concise. Previously Hitler had stated his reason for fighting to the end in Berlin. He said that historians would not be kind to him in the years immediately following the war. But in the further future he would be viewed differently. He suggested, in brief, that Communism and democracy were bound to fail. (Such a prediction is easy to make, since all human institutions fail.)
In five centuries our descendants might well conclude that Hitler was the shrewdest totalitarian of them all. Actually, he was a “political architect,” and it may be no accident that today’s Russian politicians often use architecture as a metaphor. This in itself says something, since Hitler trained himself to be an architect, and was involved in many architectural projects. In fact, the entire Third Reich was an architectural project.
It may be said that Hitler’s design was faulty. Yet he was a shrewd man, as noted above. And his predictions were often fulfilled. He knew there would be others who came after him. He knew the victorious powers in World War II would come to blows and perhaps, one day, destroy each other. That day may be about to dawn, though we hope it has not.
Given what is happening to us now, we might ask what “other” myths might arise in our time. Perhaps something entirely new will appear tomorrow. Yet, history never gives us something entirely new. Our heritage and our traditions offer a rich soil for inspiration. If history repeats itself, and if old ideas are bound to return, the coming man will inevitably appear – either as the second coming of George Washington, or the second coming of Adolf Hitler.
Versus the Suicidal
Commentary for 23 June 2014
It appears we are witnessing a diversionary operation targetting the U.S. border with Mexico (flooding it with people). Anyone with strategic sense should be alarmed at the way this is progressing. It is an objective fact, like it or not, that somebody has gone to a lot of expense to mess with our border. And now the border patrol has to switch personnel from Arizona to Texas. But the main drug pathways into the U.S. come through Arizona. And as we know all too well, these are the same pathways marked out by Moscow for smuggling WMDs past our security services. So there is reason for concern, especially as Russia has resumed its heightened state of alert, with further troop mobilizations and exercises. At the same time, Iraq is being lost to some kind of terrorist blitzkrieg. It is all very disconcerting, though Washington continues with its usual silliness. While the enemy maneuvers on every front, our leaders in Washington are like blind kittens -- helpless and doomed. They do not know what they are doing, failing to recognize the leathal threat that is building.
In terms of America's foreign policy the fatal interplay between the Marxist, liberal, and neo-conservative elements cannot be denied. Here is a nation-killing combination. In terms of exploiting liberalism, the leading Marxist politicians have never been doctrinaire followers of a fixed theory. They believe in tactical flexibility. They will use Nazism if they have to, mobilizing Europe in a xenophobic moment of frenzy once "Islamist" WMD's have been used against American or West European cities. Lenin once wrote, "There is no Marxist dogma." Mao never believed in strict Marxism either, and Stalin adjusted it to suit his strategic needs. One might say, by way of humor, that all these figures were neo-conservatives -- except that they adhered to a principle which neo-conservatives adhere to only sporadically. Real Communists believe in homicidal self-aggrandizement. Neo-cons perform mass murder only for democracy (which makes it okay). What about America's national interest? What about defending our shores against Russia and China? Even George W. Bush couldn't do that much. He had to fight for democracy in the Middle East, stripping our defenses at home. It was impractical, and thousands died so that Iraq -- at long last -- could become a satellite of Iran. And we paid billions for it. I do not know the full history of the Bush Administration's neo-conservatism, so what I next say may be taken with a grain of salt. If ideology may be regarded as justifying certain political instincts or predispositions, what instinct does neo-conservatism justify? Political suicide? Karl Marx was clearly a malignant narcissist if not a sociopath, perhaps even a psychopath. But those neo-conservatives who once were Marxists are best regarded as disillusioned former true believers -- soft in more than one sense. They were dupes of Marxism, and turned away from it. Yet their conversion from Marxism occurred because of their will to believe in some form of ideological truth. In essence, they wanted to believe in a Tooth Fairy, even though the Commie Fairy had seriously disappointed them. So here we are.... The Marxist Obama is in the White House, and the neo-conservatives paved his way in the name of democracy.
Real Marxism is crime on the grandest possible scale, and its theory is merely the First Crime in a series of crimes against decency and truth. It is an intellectual swindle which opens a career path toward absolute power. The true-believing neo-conservative is not dangerous in the same sense as the Marxist leader. The neo-con is dangerous because he dupes himself. With notable exceptions, the danger comes from the fact that the neo-con actually believes in the nonsense he spouts. He also remains unconscious of his real motives, which are invariably projected onto his enemy. It is a sad fact that most of humanity will not apply itself to serious thought, and the percentage of "thoughtful" persons near the top of the political pyramid has been diminishing since the nineteenth century. What we have instead of serious thought today, is thoughtless political prattle which almost always offends common sense and good taste at the same time, and leads to the ridiculous politics we see around us. More often than not our national leaders cannot be relied upon to identify the national interest if you put a gun to their head and counted backwards from one hundred. They are simply incapable of thinking past a tangle of pseudo-religious imperatives in the guise of political principle. Most people are confused by abstract ideas, though civilization stands or falls on account of these ideas. I think we have reached a place where almost nobody in a position of power is able to understand the ideas and "science" on which our civilization is actually based, knowing nothing of antiquity and its political technology (upon which the Founders relied). Instead, our leaders and media pundits are obsessed with abstract ideas that are self-defeating. An assessment of human limitations nowhere enters into neo-conservative theories or actions, and so they cannot avoid overseas adventures, budget deficits, or that brand of compassionate conservatism (which signifies the ultimate intellectual bankruptcy of civilization itself).
The Marxist leader is more practical than his dupe, intending to plunder the targeted economy. The neo-con aggrandizes himself psychologically, sincerely believing that he is on the side of the angels. These muddled people are, to borrow Churchill's expression, "Sheep in sheep's clothing." They cannot defeat a real enemy, as they represent in national strategy what the New Dealers represented in economics; that is, cheap idealism, cheap slogans, and a regime in which the results are the reverse of what is intended. In this respect we might account Woodrow Wilson the first neo-con president, especially with regard to his "war to end all wars." We know how well that worked. (After this comes the War Against Poverty, the War Against Drugs, and now the War Against Terror.)
The waste which may be attributed to these people cannot be measured in billions but must be accounted in trillions. The liberal and the neo-conservative are going to screw everything up, and the Marxists (or a revived wolf pack of Nazis) are going to put them against the wall when the system goes into anarchy (which must eventually happen). The real Marxist has instincts, even if they are homicidal. Those instincts are insane but nonetheless partake of operational coherence -- especially in terms of seizing power. On the other side we find the liberal and the neo-con are artists of political suicide -- with infinite creativity applied to slowly doing themselves in. The reason we cannot bring democracy to Iraq is, fundamentally, because democracy is not a panacea even for ourselves. As Robert Michels proved in his book, Political Parties, "Democracy is just another way of organizing oligarchy." And what kind of oligarchy, indeed! Look at the kind of people who are elevated into power!
The Founding Fathers and the ancient philosophers did not believe in democracy. What they believed in was "checks and balances." The element of democracy in a constitution is merely meant as a check on the power of the rich, or the power of the Executive. To lionize democracy as the end-all and be-all is the same as lionizing monarchy, or advocating the unchecked power of the patricians. This advocacy demoralizes society and corrupts that class of persons designated as all powerful in the state. Therefore, under democracy, we can observe what Diana West has called the "death of the grownup." The demos is the Nero of our time, spoiled by power and voting for whatever benefit or entitlement it wants. But you'd better not say anything against universal democracy, universal peace and other stupidities.
Tracing the pedigree of neo-conservatism takes us into a psychological wasteland. We are talking about a type of person who gravitates toward certain beliefs. The liberal (and the neo-con) communicates the spirit of true belief in all that he says and does; that is, he propagates the propriety and even the necessity of believing in the political equivalent of the Tooth Fairy. And you can knock every tooth out of his head, yet he will faithfully set those teeth beneath his pillow expecting a reward in the morning. But I'm afraid in the morning he will be toothless and penniless.
Serves him right.
Empire of Lies, Part IV
Exploiting the Dialectic of Right and Left
Commentary for 16 June 2014
Individuals marked primarily by Class I (Combinations) residues are the “Foxes” of Machiavelli. They live by their wits; they put their reliance on fraud, deceit, and shrewdness. They do not have strong attachment to family, church, nation, and traditions (though they may exploit these attachments in others). They live in the present, taking little thought of the future, and are always ready for change, novelty, and adventure. In economic affairs, they incline toward speculation, promotion, innovation. They are not adept, as a rule, in the use of force. They are inventive and chance-taking.
- James Burnham, The Machiavellians (p. 237-8)
In parts I-III we have seen how the Empire of Lies advances on all fronts, at home and abroad. Big Government Socialism is, of course, the heart of modernity’s Big Lie, where God is dead and unchecked political power forms the basis of a monstrous new religion disguised as “science.” This new religion rises up on every side. Its adherents dominate the media, education, government and the arts. This religion decries the wickedness of all who eschew social conscience, and who advance the “dismal science” of economic principle, or who adhere to God and country.
The new religion curses the following: the nation state, traditional folkways, market economics, and the liberty toward which these organic formations tend. In place of the old God they have put forward a number of candidates: first among these (1) the people; (2) the proletariat; (3) non-whites; (4) women; (5) the planet; (6) and homosexuals. Each of these false Gods, depicted as the crucified victims of a wicked capitalist patriarchy, are set up in honored pity; as hero-victims whose plight justifies the Great Revolution.
The socialist is said to weep, as Jesus wept. But this same crocodile, with row upon row of sharp teeth, will distill its tears however it may; yet these are crocodile tears all the same, shed so as to lure more victims. The socialist crocodile promises that the lion will lie down with the lamb, and he promises prosperity; but his policy (in the end) delivers the exact opposite. The lamb, of course, will be eaten by the crocodile.
It was Eric Voegelin who once likened our new political religion to Gnosticism as a “type of thinking that claims absolute cognitive mastery of reality. Relying as it does on a claim to gnosis, Gnosticism considers its knowledge not subject to criticism.” First comes political speculation (of the revolutionary kind). Next, this speculation is turned into action and policy – in order to bring Heaven on Earth. In doing this, wrote Voegelin, the Gnostics reject traditional religion and the Kingdom of God, replacing it with a political kingdom on earth. In trying to build such a kingdom the poor fools Immanentize the Eschaton. Voegelin wrote:
All gnostic movements are involved in the project of abolishing the constitution of being, with its origin in the divine, transcendent being, and replacing it with a world-immanent order of being, the perfection of which lies in the realm of human action. This is a matter of so altering the structure of the world, which is perceived as inadequate, that a new, satisfying world arises.
But the world, says Voegelin, “remains as it is given to us, and it is not within man’s power to change its structure.” Thus, the bearded man in the dress cannot become a woman. A tribal creature cannot, in any true sense, become a global citizen. And a fool is not equal to the wise. Whatever liberal or socialist principles you champion, the structure of the world is given. Your "ideas" cannot change what is. Voegelin wrote:
In order … to make [change] appear possible, every gnostic intellectual who drafts a program to change the world must first construct a world picture from which those essential features of the constitution of being that would make the program appear hopeless and foolish have been eliminated.
In other words, he builds lies upon lies. Thus is built the Empire of Lies, which is predicated on a new religion of lies. According to Voegelin, "we may speak, then, of the pneumopathological condition of a thinker who, in his revolt against the world as it has been created by God, arbitrarily omits an element of reality in order to create a fantasy of a new world.” In order to achieve this, the deceiver must have a large following of dupes. Thus the Empire of Lies is simultaneously an Empire of Stupidity – or a confederation of dunces, as it were. To view this with a sharper eye, consider Robert Musil’s 1937 lecture titled “On Stupidity,” which holds that people don’t want to appear too clever since this is a sign of stupidity. Doubtless the average man believes in his own cleverness, but keeps it hidden while someone playing a public role (like your favorite politician) “says or has said about himself that he is inordinately clever, inspired, dignified, gracious, chosen by God, and destined for History.” In this way the most foolish, brutal, even idiotic megalomaniac appropriates to himself wisdom, virtue, courage, nobility, etc. And since the masses hate to show how clever they really are, the masses are obliged to go along with the aforesaid megalomaniac.
Look at the man (or woman) who is leading your country today; then consider the people who voted for him, and who revere him no matter what he does. A new religion has taken hold indeed: an Empire of Lies, an Empire of Deceptions, an Empire of ready dupes. We are now supposed to think that things would have gone right if the Indians had pushed the European settlers into the sea. We are supposed to believe that California, in all truth, belongs to Mexico. We are supposed to eliminate the automobile, because the automobile is melting the icecaps and destroying the habitat of the Polar Bear. Everything about our past, and who we are, must cease to matter. We ourselves must cease to exist. That is the wisdom of the hour. This is how we immanentize the Eschaton, bringing on the winepress of the wrath of God while stupidly believing we have heralded the New Jerusalem.
Of course, you may trot out that nonsense about Communism being dead. Or you may trot out the nonsense about Nazism being dead. If socialism (national or international) looks dead to you, it is nonetheless coming for you. From the demonic Karl Marx to the paranoiac Stalin we moderns have descended to the pernicious Obama and the duplicitous Putin (not to mention the disastrous leaders of Germany, France, Italy, Britain, etc.). What began in a bold revolutionary manifesto under Marx now crawls or drags itself toward us, by way of subterfuge, under the auspices of false advertising. The old demagogy having died, it is now necessary for the socialists to lie about their real objectives. The new socialist “hero” is identified with the very objects (and beliefs) he intends to destroy – as Obama pretends to defend capitalism and America while Putin pretends to defend Orthodox Christianity and Russia. The destructive power of their respective deceptions now lies in the dialectic of manipulating both Left and Right. For this is the synthesis to which their thesis and antithesis tend: abject nihilism, total leveling, and contempt for humanity. (To paraphrase Little Red Riding Hood’s reaction: “My grandma, what big teeth you have!” -- set in two rows, dialectically positioned for chewing.)
No image better depicts the heart and soul of today’s wolfish vanguard than that of Obama chewing gum at the Normandy commemoration on 6 June 2014. In the case of Putin, take any image you care from the violence in eastern Ukraine. Both men self-advertise as non-socialist, or non-Communist. Trevor Loudon has amply demonstrated Obama’s Communist and socialist ties. The KGB officer in the Kremlin needs no further proof of his socialist credentials than that of his own answer to a Cuban journalist some years ago when asked if he was a Communist. “Call me a pot,” he said, “but heat me not.” It is now part of the formula of Communist power to deny any adherence to Communism.
Enter, stage, Right, in Europe – a nationalist resurgence. We cannot call it “conservative” in the economic sense, or in the strictly cultural sense. At moments we fear it may be “conservative” in the National Socialist sense, which would signify no kind of conservatism at all. Once upon a time the political compass of the Left pointed to Moscow. Today the political compass of the European Right also points to Moscow. German researcher Torsten Mann, author of Weltoktober, recently wrote to me about the political shift ongoing in Europe. He began his explanation with a long quote from the Czechoslovak Communist defector, Jan Sejna:
Europe was the principal area in which to reduce US influence in the free world. The Russians planned to play upon the nationalists, bourgeois prejudices of the leading European countries in order to convince them that Europe must strive to become a distinct entity, separate from the United States. This mood must reach beyond any debate on the political union of Europe as envisaged in the Treaty of Rome. The first casualty of this new nationalism would be the NATO alliance. The withdrawal of US forces might be postponed by separate treaties with Germany and Great Britain, but in the end the Russians expected the Americans to retire completely. The Russians predicted that this withdrawal would have a profoundly disturbing effect on the United States, and would greatly encourage the growth of isolationism. (We Will Bury You p.154f)
Then he proceeded to put Sejna’s message into perspective:
Sejna wrote this in 1982 and of course this statement is based on the strategic plan as he knew it in 1968. This quote proves to me that there is a decades old sub-strategy with which the Soviets wanted to get control over Europe using a rightist approach. Probably they realized that they wouldn't be able to convince the European peoples to revoke the transatlantic alliance by using only a leftist approach. As I told you last time, I'm convinced that the European Union was a Soviet project from the beginning. The EU is the implementation of Gorbachev's "Common European Home" and Vitaly Shurkin is the chief witness for this and it corresponds to the fact that the current European Union is leftist to the core. But Sejna wrote also that the Soviets weren't sure in which direction the masses would turn once the United States slipped into depression. [Konstantin] Katushev said that the society might also "swing violently to the right.” I think this is also true for Europe. Not knowing which path society would take in the end, it is absolutely logical to develop a twofold approach, that means to prepare not only a leftist political echelon but also a rightist one and use them dialectically. Let the leftist echelon begin the political offensive, wait for the defensive reaction of the conservative European citizens who are … disgusted by the socialist subversion of their society and then, before any real authentic opposition takes form, offer them a controlled rightist political alternative that promises a solution for the problems which were caused by the leftist approach such as moral corruption, immigration, loss of national sovereignty, economic ruin etc. Once the public is utterly disgusted the controlled rightist opposition steps in, gets popularity and takes power. This rightist opposition addresses the problems and solves some of them (or maybe even intensifies them, e.g. ethnic tensions) creating a smokescreen of popularity that helps to hide the hidden agenda which is still advanced further. The ultimate goal would be the cancellation of the transatlantic alliance and rapprochement between Western Europe and Russia. Communists always work dialectically.
It's an undeniable fact that Europe is haunted by many problems and it seems to me that our current political elite, both our "conservatives" and our socialists, do not even try to solve them. For example, there is the problem of immigration. Europe is importing criminals in large quantities who are committing welfare fraud, burglaries and violent crimes … and no one really seems to care about it. The exceptionally high rate of Muslim criminality in Germany is deliberately covered up by the media and politicians. Then of course Europe has huge financial problems that are not addressed in a sensible way. Instead they are aggravated deliberately it seems. Germany is artificially made energy-dependent on other states. We are especially dependent on Russian gas and there are rumors that we have become dependent on Russian nuclear-energy also. Large parts of our industry went to Eastern Europe and Red-China long ago, leaving many unemployed skilled workers behind. Only a very small perverted minority in Germany is keen on gay marriages and "gender mainstreaming" and so on, but our politicians, including our "conservatives,” make a main political topic out of it. People get disgusted with such things and this is the very moment when Russian propaganda steps in and offers an alternative to the predominant "liberal western decadence.” Alexander Dugin [the Russian ideologist] is promoting this, and our so called "rightist" and conservatives fall for it. Compare this to the success of Alex Jones in the U.S. If there was someone like Ronald Reagan today, Jones would not be able to deceive so many people. Our Western conservatives are corrupted and this is the breeding ground for Russian controlled pseudo-conservatives who pursue a hidden Soviet agenda. So why are our traditional conservatives corrupted? Andrei Sakharov wrote in 1968 in his manifesto, "Reflections on Progress, Peaceful Coexistence, and Intellectual Freedom," that the Western peoples should be reeducated to change their "psychological attitude" towards a socialist mindset. This is exactly what has happened. In Germany it is called "Kampf gegen Rechts.” In the U.S. it is implemented by way of "political correctness.” This psycho-political assault undermined support for real conservative politicians one or two decades ago and the resulting gap is now being filled by Russian controlled pseudo-conservatives.
Furthermore, the current advance of the European right should be seen against the background of [several] overall geopolitical developments. In the East, Putin’s "Eurasian Union" is taking form while Russia and China are signing an energy-deal excluding the use of U.S.-Dollars. It seems the western gold reserves drain off towards Red China and Russia while the economic recovery in America seems to be fragile. Kevin Freeman warns that the expected attack against the U.S.-Dollar is accelerating and therefore maybe we will see another financial crash like the one in 2008 soon. This could be the very moment when Russia and China together with the other BRICS-states announce the introduction of a new gold-backed reserve currency. If anything like this happens and if Russia demands gold-backed currency for oil and gas, the political temptation to orient the European Union eastwards could become irresistible. In other words, the Russians could resort to some kind of cooperation-blackmail, demanding political concessions for deliveries of energy. In my view, the "rightists" who are on the advance right now are suitable collaborators for the Kremlin's "Eurasian" ambitions.
There are so many gems in Torsten Mann’s analysis that, with his permission, I have presented it in full. Please read it, and reread it. In a subsequent post, Torsten further stated that the corruption of the West is exactly what the Soviets sought in the first place. He quoted Sejna once more: “The main strategic purpose of Phase Three, 'The Period of Dynamic Social Change', was, in the words of the Soviet directive, 'to smash the hope of false democracy' and bring about the total demoralization of the West." (We Will Bury You p.107) He then commented as follows:
This is exactly what we experience nowadays, the total demoralization of our Western societies, certainly caused by hidden communist structures and which the Soviet strategists (e.g. Dugin) still exploit for furthering their strategy. I always try to encourage my fellow countrymen to read Sejna's book. It is breathtaking to see how the history of the last three decades corresponds to the Soviet’s strategic plans which were revealed by Sejna in 1982. Unfortunately most of my fellow countrymen refuse to take notice and admit that there has been some kind of communist coordination behind events. And therefore I have to agree, as you once wrote, the public is indeed stupid.
Now we return, once more, to the problem of stupidity – to the aforementioned confederation of dunces who form the main constituency of the Empire of Lies. The whole thing comes together, I suppose, in the understanding that the political strategist in pursuit of raw power doesn’t really believe in anything to begin with. If he talks like a socialist during the past year we may find him spouting conservatism next year. Therefore, we have to keep an eye out. We have to watch what people do and avoid being fooled by what they allegedly “believe.” You cannot measure a person’s belief. You cannot taste it. You cannot photograph it. But if an evil politician is allowed to fool you, and if he gets power over Europe or America, there may be plenty of death and devastation to objectively measure.
We must never forget that the attending lust for power behind all these phenomena originates in the desire to reorder the universe; that is, to challenge God or become a god. The core motivation is therefore always revolutionary in essence, even if it wears a “conservative” mask.
The Empire of Lies, Part III
The Corruption of Eloquence
Commentary for 9 June 2014
In A Dialogue Concerning Oratory: Or the Causes of Corrupt Eloquence, the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus relayed the observation of an orator on Rome’s descent into entertainment culture during the first century AD: “The causes of the decay of eloquence are by no means difficult to be traced,” the orator explained. “The true causes [of the decay] are, the dissipation of our young men, the inattention of parents, the ignorance of those who pretend to give instruction, and the total neglect of ancient discipline.”
Ancient discipline, of course, was morally serious. It was passionate in that seriousness. Near the beginning of the first century the Roman historian Titus Livy mourned “the dark dawning of our modern day,” and noted: “In these later years wealth has brought avarice in its train, and the unlimited command of pleasures has created in men a passion for ruining themselves and everything else through self-indulgence and licentiousness.” [Click here to read full essay]
Joe Douglass, Rest in Peace
30 May 1935 to 23 May 2014
Joseph D. Douglass, Jr., died on 23 May 2014 at his home in Pompano Beach, Florida. Dr. Douglass was an author, teacher and internationally recognized authority on U.S.-Soviet relations and Soviet strategy during the Cold War. He was born on 30 May 1935 in Rocky River, Ohio, the son of Joseph Douglass, Sr., a patent attorney, and Clara Douglass. He graduated from Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, where he was also awarded a Ph.D. in electrical engineering. Dr. Douglass taught at Cornell and at John Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, and at the Navy Postgraduate School. He also worked at the Advanced Research Projects Agency, now renamed the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Dr. Douglass is best known for two books that he wrote following years of debriefing Jan Sejna, the highest ranking Communist Bloc defector to the United States during the Cold War. The books were, Red Cocaine: The Drugging of America, and Betrayed (which focused on the fate of U.S. MIAs and POWs who fought in Vietnam and Korea). Dr. Douglass’s other books include, Soviet Military Strategy in Europe, Conventional War and Escalation: The Soviet View, CBW: The Poor Man’s Atomic Bomb, Decision-Making in Communist Countries: An Inside View, Why the Soviets Violate Arms Control Treaties, The Soviet Theater Nuclear Offensive, and America the Vulnerable: The Threat of Chemical/Biological Warfare. Some of these books have been tagged as “best sellers” by the U.S. Government Printing Office. Dr. Douglass’s papers, research and writings have been donated to Patrick Henry College, Purcellville, Virginia. While at Cornell, Dr. Douglass founded a men’s triple quartet singing group known as The Sherwoods. This group performed in the U.S. and abroad entertaining U.S. troops at USOs and military bases. He also sang with the Paul Hill Chorale in Washington, D.C. Dr. Douglass was an avid outdoorsman who loved to climb mountains, hike and scuba dive. He also loved the theater, classic movies, cooking, and good conversation. He was a member of the Columbia Baptist Church, Falls Church, Virginia, and of the Prince of Peace Lutheran Church, Shenandoah Valley, Virginia. Dr. Douglass is survived by his widow, Roberta Gilbert Douglass, M.D., and two children, Jeffrey Douglass and Gail Douglass. A memorial service for Dr. Douglass will be held at 3:30 pm on 7 June at John Knox Village Chapel, 651 SW 6th St., Pompano Beach, Florida.
The Empire of Lies, Part II:
The Lie at the Foundation of Today’s Right
Commentary for 26 May 2014
You might wonder why the Soviet Union and the Communist International never thought of infiltrating the American Right. But then, what if they did? In fact, they must have done so, because the Communists always infiltrate and subvert their enemies, and the American Right is the heart of the capitalist camp. So it is inconceivable that they did not infiltrate the Right; and that means they are here, right now, in our midst (because the Communists never really went away, despite what happened from 1989-90). This last point is not to be made in polite society, and few are well-informed enough to know something of its validity. For 99 out of 100 persons, it is preferable to believe a lie. As a former British MP once said within my hearing; “Reagan and Thatcher saved the West from socialism.” But a former Russian GRU colonel, sitting across the table, whispered in my ear, “But America is the Marxist paradise.” [Click here to read full essay.]
The Empire of Lies, Part I
Commentary for 19 May 2014
I conducted three interviews in recent days about the struggle for freedom in Ukraine, Venezuela and Romania. From writer and political analyst Sammy Eppel, I learned how the Communists are coping with powerful opposition forces in Venezuela. I also spoke, once again, with Ukrainian activist Boris Chykulay who updated me on events in Ukraine and offered his analysis; and I interviewed Anca-Marie Cernea, who was kind enough to explain the Ukraine crisis as seen from Romania – a country which struggles, even now, to break its old Communist shackles.
But first, before offering choice bits from these interviews, I would like to touch upon the anti-Ukrainian and anti-American propaganda put out by the Russian media. The lies which flood the Russian air waves are beyond anything we have seen in recent years. Russian television viewers are exposed to a mind-bending barrage of distortions which are effectively preparing the country for war. As a recent article on the Economist.com has pointed out, “Russians have been subjected to an intense, aggressive and blunt disinformation campaign in which they were bombarded by images of violence, chaos and fascism in Ukraine, sinister plotting by the West and evidence of Russia’s strength and nobility in response.” Since these words were written Russian broadcasts have grown even coarser and more routine. It is worth remembering, as well, how Kremlin media czar Dmitry Kiselyov, on Russian TV Channel 1, spoke of why Obama’s hair might turn gray after phoning President Putin. “Russia is the only country in the world that really can turn the USA into radioactive ash,” said Kiselyov. Such braggadocio coupled with sly allusions to Obama’s weakness, does indeed suggest that Russia’s intention is to invade Eastern Ukraine. Why else would such nonsense appear on Russian TV? The need for public support in any aggressive military confrontation is well understood in the Kremlin, and fully appreciated by the Russian generals.
As Soviet strategic literature has always taught, the most important pre-war preparation is the psychological preparation of the populace. In Chapter 7 of Marshal V.D. Sokolovskii’s classic text, Soviet Military Strategy, we read that “victory in war is quite unthinkable without thorough and timely preparation of the country and armed forces.” Sokolovskii’s text further states, “The political preparation of the morale of the people is of decisive importance … since the use of weapons of mass destruction in a war imposes exceptionally high and unprecedented demands on the political morale of the population.” It therefore goes without saying that the population must be taught “love of the motherland.” At the same time, the United States must be blamed for plotting Russia’s destruction. As the text of Soviet Military Strategy explains, “Hatred of the enemy should arouse the desire to destroy the armed forces and military-industrial potential of the aggressor and achieve complete victory in a just war.”
Given increasing tensions in Eastern Europe, I asked Romanian writer and analyst Anca-Maria Cernea to comment on Russia’s strategic jockeying along the Ukraine-Romania border region. I further asked if Romanians are afraid of Russia. In response, she described the Russian position in Transnistria, which “is mostly inhabited by ethnic Russians, and extremely militarized.” In addition, noted Cernea, “The 14th Russian Army is stationed there, although over the last two decades the Russian government repeatedly promised to withdraw it. Transnistria is a kind of Russian-controlled enclave, a para-state, obviously following the same scenario as Abkhazia [in relation to Georgia], South Ossetia, and Nagorno-Karabakh.” Cernea underscored the fact that “these mechanisms were already working long before Putin came to power in Russia. Furthermore, provocations in Transnistria claimed hundreds of lives in the 1990s.”
The fact that Transnistria was historically Ukrainian territory has not caused the slightest embarrassment for Moscow; neither has NATO demanded an explanation for Russia’s continued military presence there. In fact, the Russian invasion of Crimea was not the first instance of Moscow taking a chunk out of Ukraine. And for those who think Russian rule isn’t such a bad thing, we should consider the plight of ethnic Romanians living in Transnistria, described by Cernea as follows: “their existence is an uninterrupted sequence of terror and humiliation….”
As Cernea points out, it is in Romania’s interest, as it must be in the world’s interest, “that Russia does not manage to rebuild the Soviet Empire and its sphere of influence. Russia without Ukraine cannot be an empire. It is in Romania’s vital interest that our neighbors manage to repel the Russian invasion. [Also], Romania needs Ukraine in the EU … not in the Eurasian Union or whatever name they choose for the new Russian empire.”
“Recently,” she continued, “in the Russian Duma, Vladimir Zhirinovsky addressed a proposal to Poland, Hungary and Romania to take back parts of Ukraine that had historically belonged to our countries. In spite of the fact that all of these three countries are now governed by politicians connected with Moscow in different ways, their official response was negative. They all affirmed they supported Ukraine’s territorial integrity.”
Offers to divvy up Ukrainian territory do not stop there. Russian commandos, united with local criminal gangs, have stirred up separatists in Eastern Ukraine. There has been killing, and there is more to come. On Sunday I spoke with Researcher and lustration advocate Boris Chykulay, who explained the mentality of Russia’s leaders in the following way: “These guys in the Russian government don’t think about the future. They were poor boys once, and they know what poverty is. So they are ready to fight against the whole world and do not think about consequences. The sanctions for them are nothing. They are playing a game, and sanctions are something they accept. To save private property, or some tradition, normal people will shrink from war. But these people in Russia don’t even care if Moscow is reduced to the size of a village by sanctions. They live as if they’re in a dramatic film, as if on a drug. This is the way it was under the Soviet Union, and it’s still like that.”
About the Russian media blitz, Chykulay said, “I don’t have a television because I hate Russian TV, and I have seen some short clips on the Internet, and I have relatives who watch Russian television. When I visit them I watch a bit, and see this propaganda. They are trying to make people into zombies with messages that begin early in the morning and continue until late at night. It is very hard to discuss these issues with those who watch and accept Russian television. I have a friend who is a film director who lived in Prague when I did, and in 2004 he went to Moscow where he was invited to produce a TV series. He did a number of series that were popular. He said that all scripts must go through the FSB/KGB. They will put notes on pages of the script, asking, “Where is the portrait of Putin? Where is the Russian flag? Where is the old war veteran?” They wanted naïve scripts, into which they could insert propaganda. They started doing this from early 2000. It’s a huge investment. It is more money than Google and Facebook put together. So you ask if they are afraid of sanctions. No, they have something bad in mind.”
Something bad is always on their mind, and Ukraine is not their only victim. During my Thursday interview with Venezuelan journalist and political analyst Sammy Eppel I caught a glimpse of America’s future – in the collapse of Venezuela at the hands of the Communists. Venezuela is being systematically destroyed, right here in the Western Hemisphere – under the very nose of the United States. “For Russia Venezuela is a big client for armaments,” said Eppel. “China has sent some weaponry, for example, trainer jets and pilots. For this the Chinese get oil in exchange. Right now Venezuela has agreed for the next ten years to give nearly half of its export production – one million barrels of oil a day – to China for which China has already paid. And that’s where the problem comes in. China got a fixed price, and a very good price, around half the going rate.”
After describing the process whereby the Communist’s stole elections in Venezuela using electronic voting machines, Eppel said, “I’m going to tell you how they will do it in this country [i.e., America]. The moment Chavez realized that electronic voting was the wave of the future, he established a company here in the United States. It is called Smartmatic, and it has 20 percent of the voting machines in this country under their control. This is a Venezuelan government company. That sort of thing should be prohibited. But they say, ‘No, this is just free enterprise.’ This is the company that has been running all the Venezuelan elections for the last 15 years, and they are going to be winning elections here, where elections are won or lost by 2 percent of the vote. So, mathematically you don’t have to manipulate very much.”
Across the board, wherever you look, the Empire of Lies is advancing. With military enclaves in places like Transnistria and colonies like Venezuela, and front companies like Smartmatic, one cannot help thinking that we are losing at a dangerous game because we haven’t yet admitted that the game is real. Well, it is real and we'd better wake up before it's too late.
Ideology vs. Truth
Commentary for 12 May 2014
There is a tendency, especially today, to reduce all political analysis to an ideological formula, and to judge everything according to this formula. Such a reduction is usually erroneous, even dangerous, when applied to a complicated world. It is, of course, easier to simplify everything in order to make it more comprehensible. But the world does not become simpler when we ideologically simplify. We become simpler – to the point of stupidity.
Most people ideologically simplify because they are distracted and have no time for political studies, or historical studies, so they adopt an ideological template. This allows them to quickly categorize all political phenomena into two categories: (1) that which agrees with their own ideological template; (2) and that which disagrees with their own ideological template. Here is a corrupt practice which says that if something disagrees with the adopted political ideology, it is wrong or evil. If it agrees, it is right and proper. In other words, under the auspices of ideological simplification we do not judge honestly. We judge by the yardstick of ideology, without fully realizing that ideology is not reality.
It is axiomatic, today, that everyone has an ideology. Even the denial of ideology is taken to be an ideology. People conceive of themselves as belonging to the Right or the Left. This division is further broken down into factions or sects. Someone recently asked what my political beliefs are. My answer is covered in the next few paragraphs.
James Burnham once wrote that politics is about three things: (1) It is about power; (2) it is about power; (3) and it is about power. In other words, Politics is about who holds political power, and whether power is concentrated or separated, legitimate or illegitimate. Of course, one might ask what is meant by the word “power.” The great cultural historian, Jacob Burckhardt once wrote that “power is evil.” In my view, this truth is the foundation of all political wisdom. Lord Acton was famous for writing, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” He also said, “Great men are almost always bad men.” Such is a dark truth, and very hard for political enthusiasts to swallow; for men want to believe in political heroes, and they want to believe in political salvation. But there is no such salvation as they commonly imagine – except in the limitation of power. Burckhardt was right to say that power is evil, and Lord Acton was right to say that power tends to corrupt. The teaching that follows, therefore, is that of the Founding Fathers; namely, to limit the power of the state and the corruption that flows from state power.
This principle of power as applied to the state also applies to the individual. To look at oneself and say that “I will do anything I want,” is to embark upon a path of self-destruction and demoralization. Such, however, is the animating spirit of our age (both for government and the individual). It is somehow imagined that propriety is a form of oppression from which the individual must be liberated; and so, on every side, a process of liberation has begun. Only it is a corrupting process, in which the subject of liberation becomes ever more degraded, ever more brutalized and decadent.
Governments that enjoy unlimited power over their people also become degraded and brutal. Consider the example of Hitler, whose brutality can be seen in blaming the German people for the failure of his aggressive military policies; or consider the example of Mao Zedong, the dictator of Communist China, who slept with different girls on different nights, wishing to give them whatever venereal diseases happened to be afflicting him at the time.
If politics is about power, as Burnham said, and power is evil, as Burckhardt said, then a relatively benign political system must be based on checks and balances. At the same time, a malignant political system typically idealizes the concentration of power (i.e., as with the Communist idea of “democratic centralism” or Hitler’s “Fuehrer principle”). Utopian projects are also dangerous: Egalitarian socialism because its partisans need unlimited power to bring about universal equality; Communism because absolute control over the economy requires a powerful police state; National Socialism because all power was concentrated in one man, Adolf Hitler. The concentration of power in the twentieth century brought about catastrophic wars, widespread enslavement in concentration camps, and economic deprivation.
Those who demand total power in the name of a cause (whatever it might be), are either dangerous fools or criminals. They are not to be trusted with power because they will use what power they have to get more, and they will continue to accumulate power without regard for the damage they do, or the people they hurt. The only persons who may be trusted with power are those that do not want it, who know that power is evil, and who feel that power is a burden and not an advantage.
There is a caveat to all this, however, which is not easy to reconcile. When a community is threatened with war, power must be concentrated in the hands of a commander-in-chief. This cannot be avoided because the principle of unity of command must be applied. Wars cannot be won without strategy, and strategy requires a commander who has the final say in all things. Here we catch a glimpse of why the war system coincides with totalitarian aspirations. War helps to justify the dictator, while peace makes him appear superfluous. Thus we have the basis for two forms of society: free society and totalitarian society.
To apply these precepts (outlined above) to a given political situation is not always easy. To take the case of Ukraine as an example, we can readily see that Russia has already invaded, infiltrated and broken off parts of Ukraine for annexation (adding land and power to itself). The Kremlin obviously hopes to subjugate the whole of Ukraine through a process of “divide and rule.” A majority of the Ukrainian people genuinely want their state to be inviolable and sovereign. They are tired of being governed by Soviet-type criminals. The cause of freedom has made significant gains, even if some of the newly ensconced “democratic” leaders are the secret creatures of Moscow. At the moment, these agents cannot carry out Moscow’s orders without giving themselves away. Freedom therefore has a chance, however small. Furthermore, a great protest movement is being planned for Russia on 18 May, in which countless people will demand that President Putin step down. Here we see a spontaneous movement of concerned citizens taking action to limit the power of a government which recognizes no check on its authority. Will the Kremlin lash out? Will hundreds die? Will thousands be arrested?
To set an example for Russia, Ukraine must establish a model limited government. Furthermore, Kiev’s response to Russia’s paramilitary provocations must be carefully measured. Bloodshed must be kept to a minimum, yet the Russian infiltrators must be expelled (and this is best done by small sequential actions rather than all at once). In this confrontation, as well, it is unwise to make military or economic threats, but to welcome friendship with Russia’s people at every opportunity. It must be stressed that the Ukrainian and Russian peoples are brothers. Anyone who starts a war between these peoples, or who spreads hatred between them, is an enemy to both; for the real problem between Ukraine and Russia is the concentration of power in the Kremlin and the corruption that flows therefrom. It is this power and this corruption that now threatens the peace of Europe.
Strategic Possibilities and Dialectical Games
Commentary for 5 May 2014
NATO membership for Ukraine means death for Russia.
- Alexander Prokhanov
In the first stages of Zyuganov’s creation of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (not without some participation on my part, as well as Prokhanov…), efforts were made to interpret and conceptually appraise the presence of the national component in the Soviet worldview (National Bolshevism), but this initiative was abandoned by the leadership of the [Communist Party], which had occupied itself with some other matters…. However, on the level of rhetoric and first reactions, Russian Communists in all senses present themselves as confirmed national conservatives – sometimes even as ‘Orthodox Monarchists.’”
- Alexander Dugin, The Fourth Political Theory
Alexander Dugin, quoted above, is not an ideologist. He is a strategist. Before delving into what strategy is, or can be, let us first consider the situation in Ukraine. Either Russian troops will drive into Ukrainian territory after 9 May, or Russia will rely on secret agents within the Ukrainian government to re-establish (or maintain) indirect control of the country. This latter strategy, if successful, could give Moscow a fresh avenue for making mischief within the EU. The fact that Russian clandestine structures are already embedded throughout Europe is hardly acknowledged or fully appreciated by expert opinion. Europe’s energy dependence on Russia is acknowledged, of course, but this is trivial in comparison.
Moscow’s grand strategy has always been multi-dimensional. To achieve a goal, the Russians do not merely follow one line of approach. They follow several parallel and opposite lines of approach simultaneously. This makes it difficult for Western strategists and politicians to anticipate Russian moves. Again and Again, Russia baffles us. We remain mystified, failing to realize that Russia possesses clandestine instruments developed under the Soviet Union that are unmatched in sophistication. We have nothing that can compete with these. To give a brief overview, there is the economic and financial penetration of Europe by Russian businesses and front companies. There is the role played by Russian organized crime in terms of blackmail and money-laundering. There also exists, as during the Cold War, classic networks of secret agents engaged in infiltrating governments and influencing policy. With regard to all these elements, until the countries of Europe grasp the possibilities open to Russia’s clandestine forces there will never be a full appreciation of the way Moscow is likely to use its military forces in combination with diplomatic leverage.
It was Clausewitz who said that war is politics carried on by other (i.e., violent) means. It was Lenin who inverted this dictum, saying that politics is war carried on by other means. The Bolshevik Revolution was not merely a social and political revolution. It signified a revolution in strategic thinking that has never been fully appreciated. Victory may be achieved with a combination of military and non-military means. It may be achieved through economic sabotage, through information warfare, or even through the corruption of government, language and culture.
The famous words of the ancient Chinese strategist, Sun Tzu, may serve as the inspiration for a new and all-pervading strategic science. Here strategy becomes the ruling god of all, the first principle of government and the East’s answer to the constitutional politics of the West. Oh yes, even in its decadence, the United States is (at least partly) guided by its Constitution. The Russian Federation is guided by its long-range policy (based on Sun Tzu’s principles). “All warfare is based on deception,” wrote Sun Tzu. “Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe that we are away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.”
The brilliance of Sun Tzu lies in the fact that his dialectical approach to deception can be applied to any set of opposites. Thus we may rewrite Sun Tzu's words: “All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when you are a Communist, you must appear to practice capitalism (e.g. in Beijing); when you are a cynical atheist, you must appear as a Christian (e.g., Putin); when you are attacking an opponent through Islamic surrogates, you must appear to be attacked by these same surrogates (e.g., in Chechnya); when you possess strategic nuclear supremacy (as Russia does), you must appear as a mere regional power (because Obama says so). Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.”
The transposing of opposites from the dimension of time-space, to the ideological dimension of left-right, is only one of many permutations. If it was possible for Putin to have a Chechen alibi prior to the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9/11, it was also possible for him to have a Christian alibi (by jailing Pussy Riot) in the midst of the cultural breakdown of the United States. As Global Warming is used as a pretext to sabotage the economies of the West, it is pro-forma for Putin to declare that he believes in “global cooling.” Again, one might use the analogy of an alibi. Given these examples, we cannot take Moscow's stated intentions at face value. Does Moscow really want to annex Ukraine, or push Ukraine into Europe's open arms? Is Ukraine itself a poison vat, ready to spill into Europe? Again, Putin is making for himself an alibi: so that when Western culture turns gay, Putin will not be blamed; when global warming is found to be a hoax, Putin will not be blamed; when Ukraine is bailed out by the EU and proves the final straw that bankrupts Europe, Putin will not be blamed. (In fact, he will present himself as Europe's savior.)
Sun Tzu suggested that excellence in warfare consists in winning without fighting. To accomplish this you infiltrate the enemy camp and disrupt his plans through provocation, sabotage, and by sowing confusion; you prevent enemy factions from joining together; you demoralize the culture, spread irrational ideas among the intelligentsia, promote lawlessness and drunkenness among the working and professional classes. As Sun Tzu said, “In all fighting, direct methods may be used for joining battle, but indirect methods will be needed in order to secure victory.”
You must know your enemy's direction of march, but he must never learn yours. The best strategy is one that is unknown to others, and the most effective warrior is one who enters the enemy camp unrecognized. To accomplish any objective, depict yourself as one for whom the objective is inconceivable. Many might be capable of stopping you. But who would think they had to?
In Defense of Diana West
Commentary for 27 April 2014
There is great confusion in our political discourse today. “Former” Communists in Russia are sounding more and more like conservatives. The same might be said of “former” Communists in the United States. Everyone talks a good anti-Communist line. After all, Communism is dead, and only exists (we are told) as an artifact of college life. Most people are focused on Global Warming, multiculturalism or homosexual rights. Nobody seems to notice that Global Warming, multiculturalism and homosexual rights are artifacts of the supposedly “dead” religion (some of whose acolytes have become “conservatives”). Well, there are a few of us – a small minority – who see what is happening. As a member of this minority I feel as if a cold wilderness has swallowed me up. I do not feel represented by the big foundations, or the conservative “smart set.” And so, when Diana West’s American Betrayal was published, and received favorable attention, I was excited and hopeful. But then, predictably, the celebrity pundits of the alternative Left (i.e., the Republican Right) began to attack Wests book, starting with David Horowitz and Ronald Radosh. There had to be, in the greater scheme of things, an attempt to kill the book. It was getting too much attention, and God knows what would have happened if somebody had not intervened. [Click here to Read the full Essay]
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.
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.