Things fall apart, the center cannot hold

Let no man deceive you with vain words

27 December 2004 

Theme for the Show: Things That Make Me Crazy. 

I’m a registered Libertarian, and this is surprising because: (1) Much of my hate mail comes from Libertarians who misunderstand my thinking; (2) I don’t like the anarchistic aspects of Libertarianism. I don't approve of the so-called Left Libertarians like Justin Raimondo or the rationalistic Libertarians like Lew Rockwell. I’m rooted in history, and history tells us that weak central governments court disaster. In fact, the original central government of the United States under the Articles of Confederation was weak, and that is why it was replaced. There were too many problems stemming from this weakness. Therefore, I am closer to the Federalists in my political views – to Washington, Adams and Fisher Ames – than I am to the anti-Federalists. I believe in a competent central government, but not the bloated bureaucratic nightmare we have now. The Republicans talk about smaller government, yet they have not delivered on this promise. The reforms of the 1990s were appreciated, to be sure, but the bureaucracy is still out of control. The Education Department, with its three billion or greater budget, is a disgrace. It shouldn’t exist. State sponsored education in the United States is a disaster: (1) The curriculum has increasingly tended to political correctness, multiculturalism, socialism and Martin Luther King worship. Yes, the one hero the kids learn to respect – and the only one these days – is Martin Luther King. The guy had good points, to be sure, but he was not a proper minister of the gospel, he plagiarized his Ph.D. thesis, he leaned to the Left and we can see what became of the movement for civil rights in this country by looking at Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton. If these men represent the legacy of Dr. King, then its time to question the legacy. Yet this is the man – the only man – we honor with a national holiday. Not George Washington, the founder of our country. Not Lincoln, who restored the Union. No, not these. Today our school children know nothing of George Washington, the man who made America possible. It is, in fact, unlikely that anyone can understand the vitality of our institutions and the spirit that animated their founding without reference to Washington’s career as a statesman and a general. This is the key to my indictment of government education in the U.S. The Education Department of the Federal government should be dissolved, the time servers should be sent into the private sector to push mop buckets in the early A.M. Besides the political correctness of modern education, there is the failure to teach children how to see, how to read and how to reason.

When Washington was President there were, as I recall, three departments of government: The War Department, the State Department and the Treasury. Today there are, I think approximately 14 departments – though I have honestly lost track with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security there may be 15. However that may be, if the country could get by with less than five departments of government at a time when poverty was greater, living conditions more miserable and the Indians more ready to attack the odd white straggler, then what are we doing with such a huge establishment in Washington that employs so many hundreds of thousands of individuals. What on earth are they doing, all these people, that we so desperately need to spend a quarter to a third of the nation’s wealth is squandered on it year by year?

The bloated federal government has the following ill affects: (1) It causes high taxation which hurts the country’s competitiveness; (2) the bureaucracies create red tape, they generate legal busy work that costs billions more, and regulations that stifle initiative and free enterprise; (3) the staff of the Federal Government has the beginnings of a totalitarian mentality. The policies that result are increasingly insane, increasingly threaten our liberty, and are irritating for the sheer stupidity and blindness that animates every corpuscle of this Leviathan.

The state governments also suffer from similar pathological bloating. So, I’m a visceral Libertarian but I nonetheless hate the anarchism and rationalism of most Libertarian intellectuals. I would be a Republican, of course, if the Republicans were serious about cutting back the bureaucracy, or courageous enough to fight political correctness. But they are weak. All too weak. 

So why do I get hate mail from Libertarians? 

Let me read something from Natan Sharansky’s excellent memoir: The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny, page XIII: When Sharansky was let out of prison in the USSR and went to Israel, one of Israel's prominent journalists wrote: "The Prisoner of Zion's struggle for freedom is only now beginning." About this Sharansky wrote: "I was shocked. For nine years in a KGB prison, I had been struggling and praying ... to start a new life ... [in a] democratic state."

What makes me angry is the fact that so many on the right and the left think like the journalist whose rhetoric shocked Sharansky. They have some rationalistic, utopian notion of what a free country should look like. They see their country and conclude that it isn’t free – because it isn’t perfectly free, since the state of freedom is always imperfect when compared with utopian ideals. 

I get this criticism, again and again: that I am a defender of a fascist administration; that I am a defender of an imperialist war; that I am not a friend of freedom, but a friend of George Bush’s tyranny. I am told that America is a bad influence on the world, that American power should be cut back or cut down. A close friend recently complained that I was blindly patriotic. The reason for this statement? My friend feels that the U.S. government had a hand in 9/11. There is so much confusion out there, and such a lack of moral clarity. I understand the faults of the American political system, I have written extensively on our moral decline, on our market hedonism and intellectual decadence. But what should I then propose, if not the continuance of America as the world’s most powerful, wealthiest and happiest society? Should I propose that China or Russia or the European Union take America’s place in the world because they are morally superior to us? Or should I propose that America lose its place in the world because – despite our moral superiority to the European and the Asians – we are not perfect?

This would be called sacrificing a realizable good for a utopian ideal.

Program Notes for 18 October 2004

Everyone ought to have an interest in this: How can you tell the good guys from the bad guys. Right now we’re in the midst of a presidential election. The partisans of the one side or the other want to say that their candidate is the good guy, while the other fellow is deplorable.

Last week we talked about traitors and the relationship between extreme narcissism and treason. Okay, how to you recognize a narcissistic personality? How do you detect treason or underhanded behavior? How do your recognize goodness or badness, up close or at a distance?

Once a month or so I have lunch with a clinical psychologist, a lady with more than 50 years of experience with troubled people. The amazing thing I’ve learned from her, is that otherwise intelligent people don’t use sufficient care or caution when forming relationships. As our world continues down the path of moral anarchy and social disorder, the need for caution – in personal contacts – becomes increasingly significant. Furthermore, in the totalitarian world the distinction between “good” and “bad” has been formalized; the agent provocateur, the false friend sent by the secret police to infiltrate or inform, is a commonplace throughout the “former” communist bloc – and is an emerging reality in countries like Venezuela and South Africa where the communists are consolidating their grip.

Last Friday I spoke with my friend, Jan Lamprecht, who is trapped inside a country governed by the ANC communists. He has already been interrogated and threatened about his emails and the content of his Web site. But the most shocking and terrible thing he told me, the thing that my friends in Eastern Europe have described again and again, is the sudden and seemingly fortuitous appearance of false friends popping up at the right moment. The problem for him was how to tell the good guys from the bad guys. 

The key to this question, I think, is found in the following insight: The bad guys in our world tend to be narcissists (i.e., pathologically selfish individuals), because the soul-destroying effects of bad behavior tend to strip the person down to a mere shell of selfishness. In an emerging totalitarian dictatorship the narcissist easily becomes the informer, an agent of the secret police, a betrayer of friends and relatives. The simulation of loyalty, love and friendship, which in itself is a monstrous thing, is one of the narcissists many masks. But how can you tell the approach of a genuine friend from a false friend? That is the problem faced by those who live in communist-ruled countries, or those caught in a clandestine spider web.

Here are some observations, from my own limited experience, some rules of thumb:

(1)   A false friend is not really interested in you. Every false friend is interested in taking something from you – getting something out of you. A false friend is not really interested in what you are all about.

(2)   “A man of words and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds.” A false friend makes promises easily, is full of pleasant words and high praise. But in the long term a false friend is only superficially supportive. Now, in terms of secret agents, in the world of espionage, beware of those who are overly interested in your money situation or your sexual feelings. Sex and money are tools for recruiting and compromising people. We are all vulnerable at two moments in life: When we have lost our financial footing, and when we are without a life partner. Intelligence services specialize in striking at these vulnerabilities. Also, be very careful when people offer you assistance, especially when they want you to do something in exchange for that assistance. They might want a piece of information. They might want your bank account number, your address, the details of another person’s life. They might even want to give you information. But information can be blow up in your face. 

(3)   False friends are seductive in an exaggerated way. They are overly familiar, almost to the point of disrespect. There is something incorrect in their terms of endearment. It is not the normal awkwardness of a person who is struggling against the fear that sometimes attends strong feelings, but the falseness of a performer who doesn’t have any real feelings at all. It is easier to say “I love you” when you feel nothing than to say “I love you” when there’s a lump in your throat. The false friend doesn’t have a lump in his throat.

(4)   All narcissists are false friends, whether or not they are agents of the secret police. Even when they are breaking through their narcissism, backsliding is to be expected. They can be warm and genuine one day, and suddenly retreat into a manipulative pattern the next. Narcissism is, once again, a key thing. And so it pays to understand what narcissism is, and observe its many symptoms.

The narcissist has a number of characteristics, and these vary because each case is individual. Now, to some extent, we all have a little narcissist inside screaming to get out. So don’t be too alarmed if, as a human being, you have a few of these traits. But here are some red flag items: (1) The narcissist rarely accepts responsibility for things that go wrong, and often blames others for his problems; therefore it follows that (2) Narcissists rarely apologize; (3) The narcissist exaggerates his own importance, sometimes by bragging, or by inserting himself into situations inappropriately; (4) Narcissists are manipulative, often demanding or expecting things from other people they have no right to get (5) Narcissists think they are above the rules. This is because they see themselves as “special.” (6) Narcissists do not know themselves, and therefore do not really know anyone else. Their knowledge of people is shallow and often cynical, having to do with a mechanical understanding of the faults or desires of others. (7) Narcissists deny their own feelings, as feelings are quite often inconvenient, directing us to give ourselves to others. (8) A narcissist is always trying to throw up an image, usually a false or exaggerated image of himself. (9) Narcissists do not usually possess genuine humility. Their feelings about themselves, their attachment to ego, makes them fragile and sometimes touchy. It’s almost like they are a balloon that alternately inflates and deflates, with appropriately obnoxious effects coming and going. Now, perhaps the most interesting symptom of narcissism, which is not shared by all narcissists: (10) sexual promiscuity, which is very telling in the context of our Culture of Narcissism.

The Sexual Revolution, and the advance of promiscuity have a definite relation to the growing narcissism of our time. Sex can be a very destructive force. According to Dr. Alexander Lowen, M.D., “Narcissists use sex as a substitute for love and intimacy.” Why do they do this? Because, as Dr. Lowen explains, “Narcissists have a fear of intimacy because it requires an exposure of the self.” You see, the narcissist uses sex in an impersonal way. It is a kind of darkness in which he hides – a darkness that mimics real intimacy, even mocks it. The traitor and the narcissist always hides – from himself and others. Instead of revealing his true intentions, he presents a variety of masks or images to the world. As Dr. Lowen explains, “One can’t be intimate and hide behind a mask or image.”

It is ironic, and of great interest, that intimacy is not the same as physical closeness. Standing next to someone on a bus is not intimacy. Lying in the same bed with someone is not intimacy. Sex can be a mechanical act, without love or feeling. Lowen tells us that “Narcissists may use sexual closeness as a way to avoid true intimacy, for the darkness and the proximity are obstacles to seeing the other person. As a result, sex becomes a mechanical act between two bodies while the feelings are aroused by and focused on fantasy partners.” (p. 123)

This is an intriguing remark, striking at the heart of a growing pathology in Western society. And I cannot help noticing that it is liberals and leftist who generally wink at sexual promiscuity and virulently sabotage every cultural, legal and psychological mechanism of sexual restraint. Could it be that the underlying psychology of the modern left is not merely a byproduct of economic hedonism, but narcissism and fear of intimacy?

Look at the two presidential candidates in the last debate. Both were asked to talk about the significant women in their lives. The result was fascinating: Bush spoke glowingly of his wife, Kerry avoided talking about his wife and actually began to talk about Bush’s wife. I am not entirely certain of what Kerry was doing, but a red flag should be posted here. In this instance the man who was less articulate spoke about his wife, while the glib man, the smooth man, would not talk about his wife but chose instead to praise President Bush’s wife. This is very odd.

The narcissist is not a fully aware human being. Every narcissist spends a great deal of time immersed in fantasy. His fantasies are often ego-aggrandizing distortions of reality, sometimes they are remarkably grotesque. Anyone who dares to puncture the cocoon of illusion surrounding a narcissist had better be ready for heavy return fire.

The Narcissist is, in many instances, a bungler and an incompetent. He or she is an ineffective personality. This is because we dearly need to know reality, and to face the truth, if we are to be effective human beings. Awareness, it seems, is a function of time and distance. The narcissist is in a great hurry, and he has no respect for distance. Have you ever thought to yourself: “I need to step back and get some perspective”? Have you ever said to a friend, “You’re too close to this situation. You need some distance.”

To see a thing properly, we often need to see it from a distance before we see it up close. There is a fascinating passage in Nietzche’s Twilight of the Idols that is one of the great passages in philosophical literature, and you don’t have to agree with anything else Nietzsche says, but this is a real gem: Writing about education in Germany in the 1880s, which very much describes our educational situation today, he says: “I shall straightaway set down the three tasks for the sake of which one requires educators. One has to learn to see, one has to learn to think, one has to learn to speak and write: the end in all three is a noble culture.

“Learning to see – habituating the eye to repose, to patience, to letting things come to it; learning to defer judgment, to investigate and comprehend the individual case in all its aspects. This is the first preliminary schooling in spirituality; not to react immediately to a stimulus, but to have the restraining, stock-taking instincts in one’s control. Learning to see, as I understand it, is almost what is called in unphilosophical language ‘strong will-power’: the essence of it is precisely not to ‘will,’ the ability to defer decision. All unspirituality, all vulgarity, is due to the incapacity to resist a stimulus – one has to react, one obeys every impulse.” He later says, with great psychological insight, “almost everything which we crudely name ‘vice’ is merely this physiological incapacity not to react.” He further states: “A practical application of having learned to see: one will have become slow, mistrustful, resistant as a learner in general.”

The Sexual Revolution, then, is a symptom of cultural collapse insofar as it represents an inability to “resist a stimulus.” Rushing into relationships here and there, jumping from one to the other, displays an impulsiveness and lack of restraint that destroys all chances at a real relationship, at real understanding of what is happening around us. As such it signifies a lack of strong willpower, as Nietzsche says. The narcissist, it turns out, is a weak person whose inner resources are underdeveloped. The promiscuity of the narcissist, then, is not only due to a fear of intimacy, but to the exhaustion of his spiritual resources. The vicious cycle of the promiscuous life-style, therefore, progressively diminishes the person – and it diminishes the society that encourages or tolerates promiscuity (or celebrates it on television or in movies).

Program Notes for 30 August 2004

Special guest Jani Allan will be joining us with a list of African dictators celebrated by the West despite their many crimes. 

Program Notes for 2 August 2004

Notes on survival of East Bloc secret structures and Kremlin strategy for neutralizing Western Europe:

KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn predicted the collapse of communism, saying it was part of a long-term policy worked out in the late 1950s and carefully organized by a generation of KGB specialists and high-level communist officials. The reasons for the long-range policy were twofold: to deal with external threats and internal threats; in other words, the plan proposed a unified solution to (1) the neutralization of Western hostility to Moscow and (2) the neutralization or takeover of the Kremlin’s domestic opposition. According to Golitsyn, writing in 1984, “Genuine opposition to the communist system in the Soviet Union in the period 1958-60, when the new long-range policy and the KGB’s new political role were being worked out, was deep-seated and intense. Dissatisfaction was widespread among workers, collective farmers, priests, and intellectuals. It was particularly strong among Ukrainians, Latvian, Lithuanian, and Jewish nationalists. The opposition rejected the Soviet regime in principle. Its members did not believe in the possibility of ‘evolution’; they firmly believed that freedom could come only through a new revolution, the overthrow of the regime, and the dissolution of the communist party. They did not call themselves dissidents nor were they described as such by the regime. They were known in KGB and party documents as ‘enemies of the people.’

   “The KGB was capable of preventing and neutralizing contacts between the West and genuine opponents of the regime, publication of material regarded as inimical to Soviet interests was effectively suppressed.” New Lies for Old, pp. 227-228.

The Kremlin long-range policy relied heavily on the institutional experience of the Soviet Union during the 1920s when the secret police dealt with foreign hostility and domestic opposition by creating “a false opposition movement known as the Trust, which it used to expose, confuse, and neutralize genuine internal and external opposition. By tricking émigrés and Western intelligence services in to supporting the Trust, they effectively isolated the genuine internal opposition from the outside world. Furthermore, the successful projection through the Trust of a false image of the Soviet regime in evolution toward a more conventional national European system helped the Soviet leaders to achieve their diplomatic aims, such as recognition by and closer relations with the major European powers and China, the acquisition of Western economic expertise, and, through the Treaty of Rapallo, the supply of aid by Germany.” New Lies for Old, P. 229.

The idea of creating a dissident movement under KGB control was central to the long-range policy. “The creation of a false, controlled opposition movement like the dissident movement serves internal and external strategic purposes. Internally it provides a vehicle for the eventual false liberalization of a communist regime; it provokes some would-be opposition elements to expose themselves to counteraction, and others are driven to conformity or despair.”

The long-range deception strategy had special aims in Europe. According to Golitsyn the East Bloc services were striving to converge Western Europe and Eastern Europe. In 1984 Golitsyn summarized Moscow’s goals as follows: “Prepare the ground, in coordination with bloc policy in general, for an eventual ‘liberation’ in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and a major drive to promote the dissolution of NATO and the Warsaw Pact and the withdrawal of the American military presence from a neutral, socialist Europe.” (p. 262) Since NATO proved more durable, the East Bloc strategy changed accordingly. In a 1995 memorandum to the CIA, Golitsyn wrote: “Given the continuing Russian influence and leverage in Eastern Europe, East European and eventually Russian involvement in NATO are in the long term Russian strategic interest in accordance with Sun Tzu’s principle of ‘entering the enemy’s camp unopposed.’ Though for different reasons, I share the view expressed by a writer in The New York Times of 11 January 1995 that East European membership would mean the ruin of NATO. The ruin of NATO is a long-term Russian objective, towards the achievement of which much progress has already been made.” (Perestroika Deception)

The infiltration of Western countries is a key concept in communist strategy. “More specific was Shelepin’s instruction to the Soviet intelligence service in 1959 to the effect that the service and its ‘illegals’ should prepare to carry out operations that would destabilize the main Western countries and create chaos, which could be exploited by the local communist parties to their advantage.” (p. 254)

Penetration of the West European countries was an essential goal in this strategy. Anyone who opposed or seriously threatened economic and political penetration of Western European countries (Holland, Belgium, Germany) would have to be dealt with.

East Bloc defector Jan Sejna on Holland (notes):

The Dutch government was so infiltrated, as far back as the 1960s, that Sejna recalled Marshal Grechko’s confidence that “Holland would declare herself neutral in any conflict with the East, and the Dutch armed forces would not only support this decision but would actively resist any attempt by the Western powers to use Dutch ports or cross Dutch territory.” (p. 128) This is despite Holland’s commitment to NATO.

East Bloc economic penetration of Western Europe (by two authors on KGB economic operations):

“Since the end of World War II the USSR has succeeded in building powerful economic dependencies and constituencies in other countries. The prosperity of the U.S. wheat farmer has become, increasingly, a function of decisions made in Moscow rather than in Washington. Their case is simply put: If we don’t sell them the wheat, the Canadians, Argentinians, or someone else will! Today all economic sanctions available to the U.S. government must be measured against their effect on many large American banks, which have, in quest of high returns, overextended themselves in granting credits to the USSR and her improvised satellites.” P. 329, The New KGB, by William Corson and Robert Crowley.

“Businessmen, sometimes considered the intellectual superior of politicians and frequently characterized as shrewd and hardheaded, have somehow always led the list of easy gulls. Success in U.S. corporate life doesn’t mean that one will succeed in negotiations with the Soviets. If anything, the high-velocity American businesspeople are made more vulnerable by their reputation for ‘getting things done.’ When they go to a country where nothing ‘gets done’ until every conceivable political implication has been weighed on the scales of Marx (as amended0 and examined under the intense, searching lamp of the organs, it is no longer business. Associated with the hyper-attitudes are the numerous little disabling conceits having to do with image, prestige, imagined power, and ‘success.’” P. 329.

Program Notes for June 21

Today's special guest will be Jay Adams, student of cycle theory and the Iraq connections to 9/11. We will be discussing Egypt's apparent preparations to violate the 1979 demilitarization of the Sinai as well as Iran's defiant stand on nuclear weapons and revelations about Iran's sudden ICBM program. Some Iranians are openly boasting about a coming day of reckoning vs. America. Is the Middle East heading for war in 2005? What about Iran's sudden deployment of four combat divisions to the Iraqi border?

Program Notes for June 7

Remembering Ronald Reagan

 He made Establishment conservatism possible. He was outspoken in his anti-communism, he built up the military, and he gave some level of tax relief. But there were no sweeping reforms, the bureaucracy governed, the Democrats in Congress blocked him, he ended by signing treaties with the Soviet Union, paving the way for the Perestroika deception – the controlled collapse of communism. If Reagan had not accepted this deception, if he had not hugged Mr. Gorbachev, if he had not withdrawn the Pershing missiles from Europe after fighting so hard to put them there, our national survival would not be threatened today.

His larger failing was this: Reagan never seemed to understand the generational shift that was taking place in the 1980s. His optimism about young people was part of a pathological optimism that has become holy writ on the political right – celebrated by such figures as Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hannity. The deeper problems of the hour went unattended. The profound change in values begun in the 1960s was now to be inculcated in children at the earliest possible age. What was needed in our national life was a tough leadership, anti-liberal to the point of malice. But Reagan, in the end, was a type of liberal: a conservative liberal, but a liberal. Creeping permissiveness in the schools, in the family, a steady decline in test scores, rampant cheating and a transition from a literate culture to a semi-literate culture characterized the 1980s. Political correctness was then in its infancy on university campuses everywhere. By the end of Reagan’s second term academic freedom was dead. Marxism had triumphed. And Reagan was clueless. 

Today, America’s political leaders and corporate managers live in not-so-splendid isolation from the on-the-ground realities of those they are leading. The corporate bean counters convert human activity into numbers, use formulas to manipulate those numbers and imagine that they understand what is happening below. But they understand very little indeed. There is a difference between a manager and a leader. A manager sits in an office, far from the daily friction that tells the real story of business and politics. A leader is down with the troops, taking fire and seeing the lay of the land. Real leaders are trusted because they are in the trenches and are the first to take the hit in battle, to accept responsibility, to get the axe, to risk everything for the sake of those who depend on their decisions. With few exceptions, today’s managers are not leaders. They do not understand the businesses they run. Yes, they can suck more profit out of a company for a few years. But does that company have a future? Yes, they can make deals with the Chinese and East Europeans, but are those deals ultimately betrayals? Reagan is now lionized as a hero, and his ideas were good ideas as far as they went; but he did not save the country from social democracy. He did not save it from the decay of corruption, permissiveness and market hedonism. Instead, his optimism gave a green light for conservatives to acquire a piece of this moldering national pie.

Reagan did not want to appeal to people’s fears, or to negativity. He did not call for greater self-discipline or self-sacrifice. He was a political realist in knowing that these themes would not serve his party or his own ambition. He created a myth of renewal that led directly to Bill Clinton, who was the Democratic side of Reagan’s Republican coin.

The transvaluation of values, written about over 114 years ago by Friedrich Nietzsche was taking place in the 1980s. Between 1950 and 2000 the United States went from Ozzie and Harriet to Ozzie Osborne, from Jack Benny to Robin Williams, from General Eisenhower to Bill Clinton. Reagan was a stepping-stone in this progression. He was not to blame, he was not the cause of our national decline, but neither was he a hero who arrested that decline or turned back the clock.

Reagan promised us National Missile Defense more than 20 years ago. We still have no defense against ballistic missiles. Reagan promised us smaller government, but the government is bigger than ever. Reagan built up the U.S. military to unprecedented levels of strength, but his successors built the military down to the lowest strengths seen in half a century.

A good and decent president he might have been, but he did not thwart the long term Russian threat, or anticipate the emerging Chinese threat. He did not stand tall against Islamic terror, but compromised and retreated in Lebanon. His career was not as advertised. But those who are determined to deceive themselves will deceive themselves, and a price will be paid in the future. 

Program Notes for May 17

This week's program features special guest Honza Malina to talk about the 9/11 connection to the Eastern Bloc, and Milos Dolejsi's analysis of the collapse of communism. Honza will discuss detailed background information on the engineering of the controlled 1989 revolution that supposedly overthrew communism in Czechoslovakia. 

Program Repeat for May 3 and May 10

I was sick last week and this week am unable to do the show.

Notes for April 26 2004

I received an email from a Brazilian reader who objected to my column in Mídia Sem Máscara (http://www.midiasemmascara.org/). He complained that the U.S. considers itself the world's policeman. He said that President Bush -- a so-called defender of "democracy" -- has some explaining to do. Where are Saddam's weapons of mass destruction? Furthermore, all of President Bush's critics are not communists.

Here is my reply to him:

It is easy to find fault with America and its president. Even I find fault with America. For example, I never liked the decision to drop two atomic bombs on Japan in 1945. But seeing the situation in Iraq I realize that formal submission, obtained after the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, saved millions of Japanese lives as well as tens of thousands of American lives -- and allowed Gen. MacArthur to construct a foundation on which Japan could rebuild politically and economically.

Imagine if Japanese militants had resisted every step of the way in 1946 as Iraqi militants are resisting in 2004? What condition would Japan be in today? Would there be a stable government, would there be prosperity or starvation? Freedom or political oppression?

Today America has built a stable world economy. This great world system is threatened by "rogue states" with weapons of mass destruction. Where are Saddam's weapons of mass destruction? We know that he had such weapons. We know that he had an atomic bomb program. He used chemical weapons on his own people, and on the Iranians. He was a pariah who had invaded Iran and Kuwait, who killed an estimated 30,000 of his own citizens every year. He was a robber who used the oil for food program to line his own pockets. After 9/11 the United States had no way of knowing what the state of Saddam's weapons programs were. We did not trust his lies or his deceptions. President Bush asked the United Nations to act, to enforce its own resolutions against Saddam. The United Nations refused to do its duty, so there was nothing left for America to do. President Bush removed Saddam Hussein from power, at great cost to the United States, and at great political risk to himself.

Where did Saddam's weapons go? They were either buried, removed to Syria or they were destroyed in the first Gulf War. We are not sure which answer is correct at this time. Those who want to condemn America and not the totalitarian dictator wish to use this issue, as if it reveals some kind of evil-doing on America's part. The United States has an imperfect intelligence system. Analysis of intelligence is not easy. That being said, the elimination of one of history's worst dictators is a good thing in itself. Anyone who argues against this good thing is taking the wrong side in an historical struggle. Those who malign the United States for its errors is aiding and abetting the world's dictators -- the real murderers of our age. And that really is inexcusable. It is laughable to harp on the speck in George Bush's eye while ignoring the log in the eye of the left and all the murderous dictatorships they support in the name of "social justice."

People make a great deal of the fact that America's example is imperfect. And yes, we live in an imperfect world and America is an imperfect country in that world. Social systems evolve according to circumstances. They aren't the result of utopian activists but political realists. And here is where the left shows itself utterly bankrupt.

The European political tradition of checks and balances (that is, mixed monarchy or mixed republican government) is the only known passage to an advanced, humane civilization.  This passage is not to heavenly bliss. It is the best that can been arrived at in this world, and it is worth defending against the radical barbarians of our time -- be they Islamists or socialists. Please notice the alternative passage, the passage to totalitarianism offered by the radicals: Here the masses are led from one protest against injustice to another, imagining that such protests are leading them, inch by inch, to liberation from "oppressive" forces. But the forces of protest are, in themselves, animated by a lust for power. They do not recognize a system of checks and balances. Rather, they use the very republican system to destroy republican institutions in favor of radical dictatorship.

The radical complaint that existing arrangements are imperfect is an evil rationale in the service of sinister ends. Radical complaints justify the destruction of our civilization, the eradication of healthy traditions, the leveling of excellence, the muzzling of dissent, the redistribution of wealth and the elimination of property rights for the sake of plunder.

The United States never wanted -- and still does not want -- to be the world's policeman. We find, however, that no safe alternative is at hand. If America withdraws from the world, radical states will attack their neighbors. The global economy would be disrupted. Tens of millions of human beings would starve to death. America's economy would be affected, and its ability to defend its own shores would be attenuated. Aggressive dictatorships would rise, and these would threaten America -- as they've done in the past.

Civilization is precarious. Who has stepped forward to defend civilization? Whose sons are dying in this cause? Whose wealth is being spent? You may call it imperialism if you want to hurl invective. But the alternative to America is China or Russia. The alternative to America is a world of tyranny and violence overtaking the peaceful pursuits of civil society. Those who think American is the great evil of our time know nothing about evil. In their ignorance they attack a country that has thanklessly held back the forces of barbarism -- Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Soviet Russia and now Islamic terror.

It is a kind of madness that snidely impugns the motives of the United States. It is the same madness that fuels the blindness and spiritual anarchism of our time.

A Polish journalist recently wrote to me describing the real problem with American policy today. Here is what he said.

Dear Jeff,

I have just red your newest column on Financial Sense Online. Your analysis of the position of the United States in the World seems rather pessimistic. The coalition in Iraq is in disarray, the Saudis are disloyal and are effectively raising the price of oil, the Russians play their game of deception using Western Europe to oppose the U.S., and the Bush's Administration does not defend itself against domestic critics, who are subsequently "amplified" abroad.

The sum of all this is a crisis situation which might change the course of the U.S. policy in the near future -- after the November elections. Looking at both presidential candidates (President Bush and senator Kerry) one has an impression that both could be heavily criticized for their attitudes, for their history, for their lack of the leadership. But the one who is criticized the most is the acting President, because he is held responsible for the "management" of the United States; and according to the inquiry into 9/11, that management was at times a mismanagement and the responsible U.S. institutions could not stand up to the terrorist threat in due time. The CIA warned but withheld information, the FBI couldn't compute the results of their own agents' whistle-blowing and even NORAD failed to warn about the hijacked aircraft headed for New York. The blame, right or wrong, is put on President Bush.

Observing from distant Poland, I would conclude, for Europe and for the World, it would be better if George W. Bush remained in the White House for the next term. John Kerry is unpredictable and seems to be a weak character. George W., at least, has the powerful backing of his Father and the whole Texan Clan, who are tough people and capable of leading America at a time of war. And now the war is expanding and dragging on, not only in Iraq. Getting somebody like Kerry, who is a "pre 9/11" politician with a - probably honorable - Vietnam war record but with a pacifist mind, would certainly lead to a general pull-out of the United States from the hotspots of the World. And if the U.S. pulled out, then the Russians, the Chinese, the Arabs and Moslems step in and dig into position.

If President Bush is to win the elections, then the pattern of U.S. domestic and foreign policies must be corrected. If not, then the second term of George W. Bush could become a disaster.

Best regards

DAVID M. DASTYCH

April 25, 2004  Sunday afternoon, 12:01 p.m. in Poland

This is what we must address. The fundamental problem is not American imperialism, but structural problems within American society that leave that society totally vulnerable. 

Program Notes for April 23 2004

Special guest, Keith Rice, presently writing a book titled "The Psychosis of Feminism." Readers are encouraged to check out the Web site of Daphne Patai, a woman's studies professor who suffers censure for her reasoned critique of feminism. 

Program Notes for April 9 2004

This program presents an overview of the terror situation as it relates to Russia's long range deception strategy. The focus is on the connections between al Qaeda and the "former" communist bloc, the significance of the terms "grey terror" and "pink terror," and Russia's use of organized crime as an "intermediary" in the support of terror. 

Program Notes for March 26 2004

Tonight's special guest is Phil Smith, co-inventor of the NukAlert key chain radiation meter (check out this very special product by going to http://www.knorad.com/). We will be discussing civil defense issues, FEMA's readiness/unreadiness, the technology involved in detecting nuclear material or weapons being smuggled into the U.S., and for those interested in related critical issues please visit http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/Dobbs_July01.htm and also see http://www.conflictsecurities.com/index.php.

Program Notes for March 19 2004

Special guest Shane Connor will be with us to discuss communist advances in Latin America: the latest from Chavez's emerging dictatorship in Venezuela, the fighting in Colombia and more. Shane will also discuss nuclear war survival and where to get essential equipment and supplies to protect your family. 

Program Notes for 12 March 2004

Richard Roberts will be our guest to talk about the Kerry campaign and related issues in the struggle between left and right.

Program Notes for 5 March 2004

Tonight's guest will be Honza Malina to discuss communist manipulation of the Internet and how the secret creatures of the communist regime have infiltrated Microsoft. Jan Muhlfeit, formerly head of Microsoft for the Czech Republic, is a typical example of a "former" communist functionary. Honza will also discuss the statement of Vladimir Hucin that Mohammed Atta of 9/11 was trained as a terrorist by the Czech communists. 

Honza would like to share the story of Petr Cibulka's latest run-in with the Czech Interior Ministry. Petr's landlord, Petr Lukes, a "former" STB agent and owner of the multimillion dollar building company Cimex in the Czech Republic, is presently being held in a Florida jail on charges of fraud and embezzlement of Czech funds. (The Interior Ministry is using Petr's x-wife to harass Petr, attempting to force him out of a section of his own apartment.) The presence of secret communist structures in the Czech Republic is evident to those who know what they're looking at. Cibulka's landlord, Lukes, allegedly got loans from Czech banks to "buy" one of the largest Czech steel companies, Chomutov Steel. Lukes supposedly robbed this company of its assets and didn't pay his loan back to the bank. (The money to Lukes probably ended up in some Swiss account controled by a KGB front company, as is the practice of many Czech companies "bought" by former STB agents, one such example being that of Milo Marousek and his brother Jiri Marousek. Milo defected to the United States around 1968. In the U.S. he got involved with selling Soviet diamonds, which is not something a genuine East Bloc defector would be hired to do. After 1989 Marousek returned to Czechoslovakia to take possession of the Civic Building, a luxurious structure at the center of Prague that belonged to the Czechoslovak Communist Party. Milo Marousek took "under his wing" people like today's Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross, a man who was once a chairman of Prague's Czechoslovakian Socialist Youth. Gross was also involved with the communist railroad system as a railroad engineer. This was a job for trusted persons under the communist regime. Returning to the Marousek front: Marousek's brother Jiri "bought" a major machinery company called CDK Prague, involved in the building of nuclear-related systems. This company went broke in a matter of months, being purchased by Siemens in Germany. Foreign investments are always welcome in "former" communist countries, as foreign investors easily fall prey to scams that are built-in to the economic system.) 

The penetration of the Czech Republic by Russian agents is best explained by reference to the fact that not one Russian spy has been uncovered since the advent of "democracy" in the Czech Republic. President Vaclav Klaus is, supposedly, of Russian origin (his real name is said to be Pruzhinskiy). His Russian associate, Alexander Rebyonok, owns a luxury hotel in the spa town of Karlovy Vary and is suspected of being involved with the Russian Mafia. Obviously, the Russians are doing as they please inside the borders of this new NATO country. 

It should be pointed out that the Czech machinery company, Skoda Plzen is prosperous and supplies nuclear technology to states like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, India and Russia according to the Prague Post. This situation is so worrisome that the new Israeli ambassador the the Czech Republic, Rafael Gwir, intervened with regard to nuclear transfers to Iran. But spokesmen for Skoda Plzen brushed the Israelis off.

Program Notes for 27 February 2004

Tonight's guest will be Greg Nyquist, author of Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature and author of numerous articles on American present financial difficulties. Greg's latest article can be read at his site, http://homepage.mac.com/machiavel/Text/moralextern.html.

Program Notes for 20 February 2004

Tonight's guest will be Richard Roberts to discuss his unpublished book on cultural nihilism and his new essay on political correctness. Richard will present an essential outline of the "socialist" educational movement in America going back to its beginnings. 

Program Notes for February, Friday the 13th 2004

Tonight's special guest will be Ryan Mauro of www.worldthreats.com to discuss Saddam Hussein's ties to terrorism, 9/11 and Syria's support for terrorism. Ryan follows the news closely and gathers bits and pieces of information from a variety of sources. I will ask Ryan about Iraqi WMDs in Syria and Lebanon. As a side note, there has been some interesting developments related to the Kelly death in England. Plus, we will touch on Russia's role in shifting the balance of power in the Taiwan Straits and Russia's plans to build up its Navy.  

Program Notes for February 6 2004

Tonight's special guest is Honza Malina. He will be discussing the analysis of Miroslav Dolejsi on the November 17 1989 Revolution. 

Relevant quotes:

Until recently the world stood on a precipice; now it is falling off. Communism is raising its head. Ever more boldly and shamelessly it dispenses with its mask of ideological transformation. Its time, or so it would seem, has come.

Across the entire world the Communists openly define their political aims, their ideological roots and their enemy. They openly admit to allying themselves with the sinister system of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. More audaciously and more zealously they attack the deadly enemy – anti-Communism.

'The struggle against the anti-Communist smear campaign must expose its rotten class character and reactionary purpose' – it is possible to hear such words today at the heart of the old, allegedly civilized, Europe.

--Darius Rohnka  

And.... 

The last serious effort in the West’s 83-year-long struggle to apprehend and reverse the global advance of totalitarianism coincided, more or less, with President Reagan’s first term in office. At that time, it was still possible for a detached observer such as myself to find a common language with the day’s received wisdom on America’s foreign policy, if only because the context of the debate left blank some reasonably wide margins. Even in Washington, but certainly in London in those exciting years, to be marginalized for criticizing the political, military, or intelligence establishment for their myopia, their wishful thinking, and their overall inability to understand or to cope with the Soviet threat, did not mean to be summarily silenced. It meant being a dissident, with all the advantages of being part of a legitimate political and intellectual minority.

Then everything changed. President Bush’s first term in office coincided with the epochal restructuring of totalitarianism in Russia, a geopolitical hurricane that blew away all the trusty signposts upon which a wary West had had to rely for decades in the absence of any real knowledge or deep understanding of its enemy. Now the dissidents — even those far more audible, far more respected, and in my own view far more important than myself — would no longer be heard in the ensuing chorus of jubilant confusion. In fact, America’s new foreign policy of self-congratulation did not leave us any margin at all, because just about everybody in the universe now wished to become part of the happy mainstream of opinion. When, in November 1991, Lord Chalfont addressed the House of Commons with a plea to reconsider “Options for Change,” Britain’s bumbling way of inaugurating the New World Order and pocketing the Peace Dividend, he was reduced to quoting an article I had written in the Daily Telegraph in support of his claim that Russia “still has enormous military power.” I may be vain, but I am not an idiot, and when I saw that the defense of the realm hinged on a turn of my pen, I realized that the game was up.

--Andrei Navrozov

Program Notes January 30 2004

Guest Jay Adams of www.spiritoftruth.org will be on to discuss Russia's mid-February nuclear war exercises in the context of al Qaeda's threatened WMD strikes and a new internet virus coming out of Russia that some say could cause a worldwide denial of internet service for 12 days. 

Program Notes January 23 2004

Special guest Wade Queen, research editor for JRNyquist.com. Wade will discuss the latest developments in the War on Terror, rumors of bin Laden's capture, breaking scandals of the presidential race, possible nerve gas warheads being smuggled into Iraq from Iran, a possible American strike against Hezbollah in Lebanon and more. As discussed during the show:

What You Don't Know
About John Kerry
Communist connections
By Chuck Noe

Program Notes 16 January 2004

Special guest Jay Adams to discuss cycle theory, economic crashes and global war. [I typed wrong link previously, now corrected.] See Jay's site at www.spiritoftruth.org.

Program Notes 9 January 2004

Special guest Jan Malina to discuss documents on Czech communist preparations for controlled democracy in 1989. See document extracts.

Program Notes 2 January 2004

What would happen if the United States experienced an economic crisis, a financial collapse, like that experienced so recently by Argentina? How would Americans react? Would we unite behind our leaders or blame them? Would we come together, or be torn apart by ethnic and ideological divisions?

The authentic American culture that has bound Americans together for generations is no longer being perpetuated by parents and teachers in a reliable, steady fashion. Some of us fear that what binds us today is money. Perhaps the only reason our major cities aren’t burning and the races aren’t killing one another, or that rich and poor aren’t robbing one another, is that most everyone is enjoying prosperity. Take that prosperity away and what is left?

Robert Prechter, Jr. is one of those economic theorists who believe in repeating cycles of bust and boom. In his book, “At the Crest of the Tidal Wave,” he wrote of the future of the U.S. dollar: “Not only the widespread assumption of debt, but its issuance as well, are consequences of an overly optimistic mood. Those who lend are confident they will be paid back, just as those who borrow in good conscience are confident they will be able to service and pay back their debts. On both sides, that attitude reflects a belief that the economy will remain strong enough to complete the transaction.”

But what if the economy does not remain strong?

Debt is a worldwide phenomenon. Any decline in the world economy means default on a massive scale and global economic meltdown. As Prechter correctly explained, “The only thing holding today’s debt pyramid together is confidence, one of those amorphous mental states….”

Confidence can be eroded in a number of ways. And terrorism seems to be a leading candidate. We now hear of the approach of a major terrorists assault on America. It will involve weapons of mass destruction, and there are rumors of nuclear weapons to be used against major cities. If this were to happen, the United States would be thrown into chaos.

Who is ready to exploit this chaos?

Communism has long been predicated on the expectation of an economic crisis of unparalleled severity. Communists see this as key to the triumph of revolutionary socialism in the leading industrialized countries, including the United States. The high-level communist bloc defector, Jan Sejna, explained Moscow’s long range strategy and its relationship to a future economic crisis in the West. Here are some quotes from Sejna’s work:

“The satellite countries first heard of the Plan in the mid-1960s.” (P. 104)

“Phase One, ‘The Period of Preparation for Peaceful Co-existence’, was retrospective and covered the time from the 20^th Party Congress of 1956 to the 21^st Congress in 1959. Phase Two, ‘The Peaceful Co-existence Struggle’ (note the word ‘struggle’), was expected to last from 1960 to 1972, the year after the 24rth Party Congress. Phase Three was ‘The Period of Dynamic Social Change’, which it was hoped would dawn in 1995.” (P. 106)

“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. Our relationship with the United States would be the vital element in this phase. By fostering belief in our policy of friendship and co-operation with America, we planned to receive the greatest possible economic and technological help from the West, and at the same time convince the Capitalist countries that they had no need of military alliances.” (P. 107-08)

“To this end we envisaged that it might be necessary to dissolve the Warsaw Pact, in which event we had already prepared a web of bilateral defence arrangements to be supervised by secret committees of Comecon.” (P. 108)

“The Soviet view was that during Phase Three Capitalism would suffer an economic crisis that would bring Europe to its knees and stimulate the influence of ‘Progressive’ forces in European governments. Our planners believed we could discount the possibility of world war in this phase because the U.S.A. would have withdrawn its commitment to help its former allies. We could therefore foment local or regional wars in Europe in support of progressive movements – if its should be necessary.”

Dec. 26 Program Notes:

As discussed on last week's program (see notes below), the changes in Eastern Europe in 1989-90 were communist-directed and used to mislead Western officials and the public. Plans were laid for vast agent networks that would control the newly forming democracies of Eastern Europe. These networks would be hidden from Western eyes. 

To discuss this subject with us tonight, the show will feature Honza Malina, who works with Czech dissidents to get the word out to America and the West about ongoing communist structures in Europe. The Czech dissident network  has acquired documents from Czech archives outlining operations for preserving communist control throughout the period of "growing press freedom" and "democracy." This control involves secret agreements with dissident groups, control of major businesses as well as government agencies. Using Czech democracy as a "false front," these networks would facilitate the penetration of West European business and political organizations. 

In Germany, as well, the communists had plans for undermining the anti-communist Christian Democrats and their leader, Helmut Kohl. The political destruction of Kohl was the key to weakening NATO, building a Sovietized European Union while placing communists at the head of the German government. It is interesting to note that the woman who undermined German Chancellor Kohl and crippled the Christian Democrats was Angela Merkel, born in Hamburg after the Second World War. The details here are fascinating, since Merkel's father moved to the Russian-controlled zone at a time when Germans were eager to leave the Russian areas. Afterwards raised in communist East Germany, Angela was a good student who spoke fluent Russian. It is alleged that she won two national competitions in Russian poetry reading. She was also a member of the Communist Youth organization in East Germany, though Merkel later joined a dissident group with the name "Democratic Progress." According to Czech researcher Petr Cibulka, Democratic Progress was founded and controlled by Stasi, the East German secret police. 

After the unification of Germany and the "fall of communism," Merkel joined the Christian Democrats and quickly rose to a responsible position. (1) When a financial scandal erupted over alleged illegal campaign contributions to the Christian Democratic Union, Merkel distanced herself from Kohl and prepared the way for his downfall. (2)

Logically, Kohl was removed because he was pro-American and was committed to mopping up communist agent networks. He also would have fought hard and effectively against German Marxism (which is now on the rise). 

The Burbulis Committee:

Gennady Burbulis was in charge of a secret audit ordered by Boris Yeltsin in 1991. After the failed August coup of that year, Burbulis issued a secret report to Yeltsin. While Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev was begging the West for foreign assistance, the KGB was frantically transferring billions in currency and gold to various Western countries for the purpose of buying Western businesses to use as false fronts for subversion and sabotage. In addition, the Russians used communist funds to create at least 84 companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange. This economic network is growing, and operates in Austria, Sweden, Germany, France, the U.K., Belgium, Japan, Canada, the Philippines and the United States. (3)

According to the Burbulis Committee, the Communist Party Soviet Union (assisted by the KGB and GRU) transfered over $20 billion in assets to 7,000 bank accounts around the world between 1989 and 1991. The money was transported by Russian "diplomats" in diplomatic pouches. This operation was merely a small part of a much larger operation aiming at the penetration of key Western business sectors. The Burbulis Committee closed down its audit because the participants began to fear for their lives. 

Related to this movement of communist cash, the same thing happened with money belonging to the Czechoslovakian Communist Party. 

Operation Wedge

Honza Malina has the document numbers of papers relating to "Operation Wedge," which involved the infiltration of all right wing or independent political parties in Czechoslovakia by STB agents. The purpose of this operation was to disrupt any possibility of genuine or effective opposition to continuing communist rule during the period of false democracy following the Velvet Revolution. The document discusses methods for maintaining communist control during an anticipated period of increased press freedom and democracy. 

Notes:

(1) Merkel's rise to power -- http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1430_A_786565_1_A,00.html 

(2) Merkel's betrayal of Kohl -- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/683187.stm 

(3) Burbulis Web site -- http://lego70.tripod.com/rus/burbulis.htm 

Dec. 19 Program Notes:

Since the tragedy of 9/11 we know that America faces a grave threat. We know about bin Laden and al Qaeda. We know about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. What is not understood is that we face a much bigger enemy.  A more dangerous enemy, unsuspected by most of our leaders and the experts who advise them. 

Who is this enemy?

In 1984 a book was published with the title New Lies for Old. It was written by Soviet KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn. The book claimed that the Soviet Union had a secret long-term strategy to disarm and defeat the United States through a controlled collapse of the Soviet empire that would take place in the last decade of the twentieth century. In the book's most remarkable chapter, titled "The Final Phase," Golitsyn accurately described the future of the Soviet bloc. Communism would give up its monopoly of power in Russia, he explained, as apparent freedom and democracy would be introduced. The communist Warsaw Pact alliance would be dissolved. The Berlin Wall might be taken down and Germany united as "the key to progress toward a neutral, socialist Europe."

Controlled democratization and liberalization would be facilitated by communist agents within the dissident movements of Eastern Europe. As Golitsyn wrote, "the liberalization would be calculated and deceptive in that it would be introduced from above. It would be carried out by the party through its cells and individual members in government, the Supreme Soviet, the courts, and the electoral machinery and by the KGB through its agents among the intellectuals and scientists." (p. 339-340.)

Golitsyn's book has been dismissed as nonsense by CIA experts, pundits and journalists. "Yet of Golitsyn's falsifiable predictions, 139 out of 148 were fulfilled by the end of 1993 -- an accuracy rate of nearly 94 percent," according to Mark Riebling's history of the FBI and CIA titled Wedge. 

The correctness of Golitsyn's predictions have also been shown by researchers and journalists reporting on events in Eastern Europe. These include the stunning revelations of Andrei Codrescu about the 1989 Romanian Revolution, in his book The Hole in the Flag, as well as revelations by Polish author Darius Rohnka in his book Fatalna Fikcja ("The Fatal Fiction") and the works of Czech activist Petr Cibulka.

We also have the personal analysis of two GRU defectors. The famous spy and author, Viktor Rezun (a.k.a. Viktor Suvorov), told Christopher Story of Soviet Analyst that the collapse of the Soviet Union was undoubtedly a deception. When asked how Western intelligence could fail to see this deception, Rezun answered, "Because they are stupid." At the same time, GRU defector Stanislav Lunev has also suggested that the collapse of the Soviet Union must have been part of a strategic plan, although he says the plan went awry and led to the unintended derailment of Marxism-Leninism in the former bloc countries. However, he admits, this is no obstacle to Kremlin strategy, since Moscow's communist era objectives remain unchanged with KGB officer Vladimir Putin at the helm.

Evidence of a long range Soviet strategy of controlled democratization and fake collapse for the purpose of disarming the West also appears in the writings of the high level Czech defector Jan Sejna. In his 1982 book, We Will Bury You, Sejna wrote of a plan to “convince the Capitalist countries that they had no need of military alliances.” He added that, “To this end we envisaged that it might be necessary to dissolve the Warsaw Pact, in which event we had already prepared a web of bilateral defence arrangements, to be supervised by secret committees of Comecon.”

The evidence for strategic deception is rich and verifiable. It is not material invented by kooks, but solidly based in reality. Americans do not realize the extent to which the Chechen wars were Kremlin-inspired provocations, openly alluded to by Russia’s ranking Chechen official, Mufti Kadyrov. They do not realize the suspicious backgrounds of leading Chechen Muslims, or the fact that al Qaeda’s Number Two man spent several months in Russia only to be released under mysterious circumstances. Could it be a coincidence that terrorism expert Yossef Bodansky alleges that bin Laden’s acquired nuclear weapons via Chechnya, from Russian sources?

The pieces of the puzzle are in front of our eyes. But Americans will not believe their eyes. No matter how carefully the evidence is laid out, the public and American officials reject the idea of an ongoing Soviet deception strategy to bring America to its knees.

A few months before the attack on the World Trade Center, Fidel Castro visited Iran. He said that working together, they could bring down the United States. It is significant that Russia and China are now allied, and engage in regular joint military exercises. It is significant that communist dictators are emerging in Venezuela, Ecuador and Brazil. It is also significant that Europe is slipping into “socialist neutrality.”

The danger is very great. But Americans will not believe in this danger because we feel superior. We feel invulnerable. Why should anyone conspire to destroy America? The answer is simple. The answer is that inferior nation-states, like inferior persons, sometimes hate those who are superior.

Julien Benda once wrote: “Our age is the age of the intellectual organization of political hatreds.” Now ask yourself who the organizers of political hatred are, and which nations have been targeted? Today, the central targets of organized political hatred are Israel and the United States.

First you hate, then you dehumanize, then you kill. That is the formula for mass destruction warfare. You don’t begin a war by nuking enemy cities. You begin by organizing hatred against target populations. You dehumanize your target. When you have united a large enough mass behind you, and they are eager for blood, then you can unleash your weapons of mass destruction. The world will stand up and cheer, and you will be its new master.

Hatred is a powerful unifying force. In his book, “The True Believer,” Eric Hoffer wrote: “hatred is not always directed against those who wronged us.” In fact, it is often directed at the good, the superior and the fortunate. Seeing that someone is superior to ourselves, we sometimes think ill of our abilities and prospects. “Self contempt produces in man the most unjust and criminal passions,” wrote Hoffer, who explained that hatred is often “an expression of a desperate effort to suppress an awareness of our inadequacy, worthlessness, guilt and other shortcomings of the self.”

Return to Main Page