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 (pp. 237-8)
In parts I-III [links at end of page] 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. 154)
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” [Fight against Right]. 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.
This is a rather prophetic lecture, if you ask me, by Don McAlvany on the false demise of Communism. It was recorded 25 years ago, in 1990, shortly following the fall of the Berlin Wall, which marked the beginning of the Weidervereinigung des Deutschlands (Reunification of Germany).
What I find particularly fascinating about McAlvany’s presentation are his references to KGB defector Anatoliy Golytsin’s book New Lies for Old. I have written previously (see here) about Anatoliy’s Golytsin’s startlingly accurate predictions concerning Soviet plans to deceive the West into believing Communism was dead, and that the Soviet Union was a thing of the past. Golytsin went on to write his second book entitled The Perestroika Deception in 1995.
Most of Golytsin’s predictions have proven true in hindsight. In 1984, when New Lies for Old first hit the bookshelves, Golytsin predicted that the Berlin Wall would be torn down in order to fool the West into believing that the Soviet Union was shattered. What makes Golytsin’s prediction even more eye-opening is the fact he had written the manuscript years before New Lies for Old reached publication.
The Soviets were masters at disinformation and deception. The sophistication of their subversive techniques are breathtaking in scope and audacity. Many in the West have failed to grasp the incredible lengths the Soviets and the KGB were willing to go to in order to deceive and subvert their enemies—namely, the United States and the entire Western world.
Many of the strategies and tactics employed by the Soviets—such as the dialectical and the “two steps forward, one step” back strategies—are foreign to many Western minds. But a thorough understanding of these strategies is paramount if one hopes to counter them. (You might’ve noticed I’ve switched to the present tense. I’ll get to that.)
Take the dialectical strategy, for example. Without getting into a dissertation on Marxist dialectics, the dialectical strategy entails the manipulation of friend and foe alike—playing both sides of the fence, so to speak. Communists are known for setting up “false opposition” groups in order to control and herd their opposition. Vladimir I. Lenin once said, “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” Leading the opposition requires infiltration, also referred to as “controlled opposition.”
Communists are willing to take “one step back” in order to “move two steps forward”; giving a false impression they are in a position of weakness; when, in fact, they are strong. Such a strategy can provide an opportunity to offer “concessions” to the enemy—but only “concessions” that provide the ability to move “two steps forward.” The goal is to goad the enemy into offering real concessions (i.e. compromise), while only offering token concessions that have no real lasting consequences on the long-range strategy of crushing the enemy.
“We advance through retreat … when we are weak, we boast of strength. and when we are strong, we feign weakness.”
—V.I. Lenin
The strategy of feigning weakness in order to lull the enemy into complacency is a rather Machiavellian concept; but it also is derived from the ancient Chinese military philosopher Sun Tzu’s maxims on war.
… Amid the turmoil and tumult of battle, there may be seeming disorder and yet no real disorder at all; amid confusion and chaos, your array may be without head or tail, yet it will be proof against defeat…. Simulated disorder postulates perfect discipline, simulated fear postulates courage; simulated weakness postulates strength….Hiding order beneath the cloak of disorder is simply a question of subdivision; concealing courage under a show of timidity presupposes a fund of latent energy; masking strength with weakness is to be effected by tactical dispositions….Thus one who is skillful at keeping the enemy on the move maintains deceitful appearances, according to which the enemy will act. He sacrifices something, that the enemy may snatch at it…. [“two steps forward, one step back”] By holding out baits, he keeps him on the march; then with a body of picked men he lies in wait for him.
—Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Back in February of 2014, I had the opportunity to sit down with world-renown researcher Trevor Loudon, author of the book Barack Obama and the Enemy Within. He relayed a story to me that left me incredulous, and it ties right into the whole Soviet strategy of feigning weakness.
An ex-Communist friend of Trevor’s from New Zealand actually attended Lenin’s Institute for Higher Learning in Moscow. Promising members of the Communist Party, from all over the world, were sometimes offered the opportunity to travel to Russia for further training at the International Lenin Institute, where they learned things like racial agitation, trade union building, every facet of Russian history (albeit selective Russian history)—even training in explosive devices, small arms and guerrilla warfare tactics. Trevor’s friend said that a Soviet official at the Moscow institute told the students the reason the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan was that the Soviet Union needed “their own Vietnam.”
Yes, you read that correctly.
But, if you ever listen to former Soviet officials speak about the Russian experience in Afghanistan, they often times make the comparison to the U.S. military involvement in Vietnam. According to Trevor’s friend, it was all done to feign weakness and lull the West into thinking the Soviet Union wasn’t the military force they purported themselves to be. The fact of the matter is the Soviets could’ve wiped Afghanistan off the map, had they so chosen to do so.
As I drove home from my meeting with Trevor, I could scarcely believe what he had told me. But I began to ponder my own knowledge of Soviet history. The more I thought about what Trevor had told me, the less incredible it seemed.
For example, in the late 30s, the Soviet regime under Josef Stalin was systematically liquidating thousands of Russian citizens every single day. It was known as the “Great Purge.” Stalin’s depraved and blood-thirsty executioner, Lavrenti Beria, oversaw the murder of millions of Russians, and even participated on countless occasions in the executions of his own people.
After war broke out between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, there were numerous incidents of Soviet units being ordered to attack German positions and strongholds in suicidal frontal assaults that resulted in horrific casualties, often numbering in the hundreds or thousands. There are accounts of the dog tags being stripped from the dead in order to cover up the crimes of the Soviet regime. Rarely has there been an example in history of a nation that treated its own war dead with such utter contempt.
So, as I thought more and more about what Trevor had told me, it started to seem quite plausible—if not to be expected from such a morally bankrupt regime. When President Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an “evil empire,” it was not unwarranted hyperbole. For it is not possible, in words, to describe the horrors and terrors that have been visited upon the Russian people under the Soviet system—and, more than likely, are still being visited upon the Russian people … albeit not at the astonishing levels as was experienced during Stalin’s merciless and bloody reign.
As Don McAlvany points out in his lecture, there had been six periods of “glasnost” dating back to the 20s prior to 1990. During all of the so-called glasnost periods, the United States and the West were duped into believing the Soviets were changing their tune—only to watch the Soviets return to their oppressive and tyrannical ways after securing concessions from the United States. The old dialectical doctrine of “two steps forward, one step back” has proved wildly successful against the United States and its allies, helping to further the Russian strategy for international rule and subversion.
The Soviets (i.e. Communists) employ long-range strategies. Like a master chess player, they think ten steps ahead. Stalin’s henchman Lavrenti Beria said in the early 50s, “Capitalism’s short-term view can never envisage the lengths across which we can plan.” Sadly, the United States has never really formulated long-term strategic goals to counter such threats.
Golytsin predicted the Soviets would put a “happy face” on Communism by calling for “democratic reforms” in Russia, and in the former Soviet republics and Eastern Bloc countries.
Many in the West viewed the chummy meetings between Mikhail Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan as a clear sign the Cold War was over, and that Soviet-style Communism had been defeated. Talk of glasnost (“openness” or “publicity”) and perestroika (i.e. restructuring, remaking, reforming, regrouping) filled the airwaves and Western press at the time.
Did Mikhail Gorbachev ever renounce Communism? Was he really a reformer who only wished to move Russia toward “democracy”?
During the 70th anniversary of the Marxist revolution [in October 1987], Gorbachev reaffirmed his country’s expansionist desires: “In October of 1917, we parted with the Old World, rejecting it once and for all. We are moving toward a New World, the World of Communism. We shall never turn off that road.”
“We are for a Lenin who is alive! In building our future we are basing ourselves upon the gigantic intellectual and moral potential of the socialist idea linked with the theory of Marxism-Leninism. We see no rational grounds to give up the spiritual[sic!!!]richness contained in Marxism.Through restructuring [i.e. ‘perestroika’], we want to give socialism a second wind and unveil in all its plenitude [meaning: globally!] the vast humanist potential of the socialist system.” – “In order to achieve this, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union returnsto the origins and principles of the Bolshevik Revolution, to the Leninist ideas about the construction of a new society… Our Party was and remainsthe Party of Lenin… In short, we are for a Lenin who is alive.” – “We must seek these answers guided by the spirit of Leninism, the style of Lenin’s thinking, and the method of dialectical cognition.”
—Mikhail Gorbachev, speaking to a group of Russian students, Nov. 15, 1989
“Gentlemen, Comrades, do not be concerned about all that you hear about ‘glasnost’ and ‘perestroika’ and democracy in the coming years. These are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant change within the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans, and to let them fall asleep.”
—Mikhail Gorbachev, early in his tenure, speaking before the Politburo
The Party has made “specific decisions on how to update our political system”. – “Thus we shall give a fresh impetus to our revolutionary restructuring. We shall maintain our quiet [i.e. Leninist] creativity and daring in an efficient and responsible fashion in a Leninist Bolshevik manner.”
—Mikhail Gorbachev, speaking at the 27th CPSU Congress, March 1986
“Adopting a bold, realistic, mobilising and inspiring strategy, one that is Leninist in spirit, the struggle for the triumph of Communist ideals, of peace and progress, the 27th Congress of the CPSU expresses the Party’s firm determination to honourably follow our great road, and open up new vistas for the creative energy and revolutionary initiative of the… people’s intelligentsia. The Congress calls on all Soviet people to dedicate all their strength, knowledge, ability, and creative enthusiasm to the great goals of Communist construction, and to worthily continue Lenin’s victorious revolutionary cause, the cause of the October Revolution!”
—Mikhail Gorbachev, closing address to the 27th CPSU Congress, March 6, 1986
“Perestroika is a revolutionary process for it is a leap forward in the development of socialism, in the realization of its crucial characteristics.”
—Mikhail Gorbachev: ‘Perestroika’, 1987
“What is meant [by the term ‘revolution from above’] is profound and essentially revolutionary changes implemented on the initiative of the authorities themselves but necessitated by objective changes in the situation. It may seem that our current perestroika could be called ‘revolution from above’. True, the perestroika drive started on the Communist Party’s initiative, and the Party leads it. I spoke frankly about it at the meeting with Party activists in Khabarovsk [already!!!] in the summer of 1986. We began at the top of the pyramid and went down to its base, as it were. Yes, the Party leadership started it. The highest Party and state bodies elaborated and adopted the program. True, perestroika is not a spontaneous but a governed process.”
—Mikhail Gorbachev: “Perestroika,” 1987
“We openly confess that we refuse the hegemonial endeavours and globalist claims of the United States. We are not pleased by some aspects of American policy and of the American Way of Life. But we respect the right of the American people, just as the right of all other peoples, to live along its own rules and laws, its own morals and inclinations.”
—Mikhail Gorbachev: “Perestroika,” 1987
“Those who hope that we shall move away from the socialist path will be greatly disappointed.”
—Mikhail Gorbachev: “Perestroika,” 1987
“We see that confusion has arisen in some people’s minds: aren’t we retreating from the positions of socialism, especially when we introduce new and unaccustomed forms of economic management and public life, and aren’t we subjecting the Marxist-Leninist teaching itself to revision? … No, we are not retreating a single step from socialism, from Marxism-Leninism …”
—Mikhail Gorbachev, 1988
Many in the West are also of the belief that the KGB no longer exists. But nothing could be farther from the truth. While no longer called the KGB, the secretive security agency merely restructured (i.e. perestroika), and is now known as the FSB (Russian Federal Security Forces). The FSB is still headquartered in the infamous Lubyanka building in Moscow. The FSB is the KGB.
A little while back, I visited the official FSB website (fsb.ru). I used Google translation services to translate the pages. One link titled “Our Leaders” lists the names of such notorious figures as Felix Dzerzhinsky, Yakov Peters, Genrikh Yagoda, Nikolai Yezhov, Lavrenti Beria, Yuri Andropov … and Vladimir Putin. Remember, the official FSB website lists these individuals as their “leaders.” It doesn’t look like anything has changed to me, as far as the old KGB is concerned, except for the name.
One of the main goals of the Soviets was to eliminate NATO. With the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and the dialectical application of their “two steps forward, one step” back strategy, Moscow hoped to gain concessions from the United States—namely, the dissolution of NATO. But the United States was resistant to the idea of breaking apart the NATO alliance. So, like the saying goes, “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em”—NATO, that is. Once again … infiltrate and take over from within.
“Russian membership of the Council of Europe will open up intensified new cooperation between Russia and Europe and will assist us in reaching our objectives of achieving membership of the European Union and of NATO.”
—Then Russian Foreign Minister, Andrei Kozyrev, after Russia’s admission to the Council of Europe by February 8, 1996
Perhaps one of the most important predictions Anatoliy Golytsin made was his repeated insistence that the purpose of all these subversive tactics was “the establishment of a neutral, socialist Europe” (New Lies for Old, pg. 334).
Enter the European Union.
“The collective security model … should pave the way for a gradual evolutionary synthesis of several processes: integration within the CIS [Commonwealth of Independent States] and the EU [European Union], strengthening and increasing the role of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, transforming NATO [and] working together to prevent or resolve conflicts.”
—Yuriy Ushakov, Director of the Directorate for European Cooperation at the Russian Foreign Ministry, in International Affairs, Vol. 4, #5 (1995): “Europe: Towards a New Security Model”
Of particular note in the above quote is the reference to “transforming NATO.”
For those who may still be of the opinion that talk of a “one-world government” (i.e. “new world order”) is strictly relegated to the realm of crackpots and so-called “conspiracy theorists,” consider the words of the unelected full-time President of the EU, Herman Van Rompuy, who has openly referenced the agenda for “global governance” on more than one occasion. Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky has referred to the European Union as a “pale version of the Soviet Union.”
In 2009, Van Rompuy said:
“2009 is also the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen, is another step towards the global management of our planet.”
Van Rompuy has also stated his desire to work closely with Russia in order to further the agenda of global governance:
“By working together, the EU and Russia can make a decisive contribution to global governance … to global economic governance in the G8 and the G20.”
The ongoing conflict in Ukraine shows the “Russian Bear” still has its claws. Just today there was a report Russia was reviewing the “legality” of Baltic states’ independence. The level of disinformation coming from Putin’s state-run media machine has reached fever pitch within Russia. The Russian people are being fed a steady and constant diet of hyper-nationalistic and intensely anti-American rhetoric; it resembles a war-time footing.
Ex-Communist turned vocal anti-Communist, Dr. Bella V. Dodd (1904-1969), author of the book School of Darkness, pointed out there are three concepts that are important to differentiate concerning Communism, i.e., the Communist Conspiracy (i.e. “world conspiracy”), the Communist Party (political arm), and the Communist Movement (“social action,” i.e. praxis).
At the heart of Communism lies conspiracy. In order to subvert and deceive, conspiracy is a vital and necessary component. Communists are taught to lie … the predetermined ends always justify the means. Period.
The one thing Communists and their ilk cannot withstand is their strategy and process being exposed. Communism is a form of psychological warfare (i.e. psyops) based on deception. Psyops only work if the party who is being deceived and manipulated is unaware of the tactics being employed against them. In essence, it’s a mind game. This is why it absolutely crucial to understand the dialectic process when it comes to Marxism-Leninism, if one wishes to have any success at countering such subversive and deceitful tactics.
Unfortunately, for many Americans and Westerners, it is still inconceivable that such a conspiracy is, and has been, employed against them. As one long-time and well-known researcher on Russian (i.e. Communist) strategy and tactics, J.R. Nyquist, recently wrote:
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.”
If you still find it hard to believe that the U.S.A. is already a “Marxist paradise,” and the world is moving toward global governance (i.e. worldwide socialism), I would encourage you to read the Communist Manifesto. Pay particular note to what has been referred to as the “10 planks of the Communist Manifesto” in Chapter Two. And then ask yourself, how many of these 10 points have already been implemented in the United States? I think, if you’re intellectually honest with yourself, the answer will shock you. And if it’s still too hard to digest and believe, just apply the scientific method: observe, make predictions, test your predictions, and then draw your own conclusion.
GW Bush said it was going to be a long war when the top enemy was al Qaeda. Defeat was realized until the rules of engagement and strategy were altered dynamically month by month beginning in 2009.
There is Russia and Ukraine as noted by the Institute for the Study of War.
Then there is the Baltic Balance as summarized by the Rand Corporation.
Non-state actors, like ISIS, are among the Pentagon’s top concerns, but so are hybrid wars in which nations like Russia support militia forces fighting on their behalf in Eastern Ukraine threaten national security interests, Dempsey writes.
“Hybrid conflicts also may be comprised of state and non-state actors working together toward shared objectives, employing a wide range of weapons such as we have witnessed in eastern Ukraine,” Dempsey writes. “Hybrid conflicts serve to increase ambiguity, complicate decision-making, and slow the coordination of effective responses. Due to these advantages to the aggressor, it is likely that this form of conflict will persist well into the future.”
Dempsey also warns that the “probability of U.S. involvement in interstate war with a major power is … low but growing.”
“We must be able to rapidly adapt to new threats while maintaining comparative advantage over traditional ones. Success will increasingly depend on how well our military instrument can support the other instruments of power and enable our network of allies and partners,” Dempsey writes.
The strategy also calls for greater agility, innovation and integration among military forces.
“[T]he 2015 strategy recognizes that success will increasingly depend on how well our military instrument supports the other instruments of national power and how it enables our network of allies and partners,” Dempsey said Wednesday.
The military will continue its pivot to the Pacific, Dempsey writes, but its presence in Europe, the Middle East, Latin America and Africa will evolve. The military must remain “globally engaged to shape the security environment,” he said Wednesday.
The Russian campaign in Ukraine has military strategists questioning if traditional U.S. military force as it is deployed globally is still — or enough of — a deterrence to hybrid and non-state threats like today’s terrorism. “If deterrence fails, at any given time, our military will be capable of defeating a regional adversary in a large-scale, multi-phased campaign while denying the objectives of – or imposing unacceptable costs on – another aggressor in a different region,” Dempsey writes.
The chairman also criticizes Beijing’s “aggressive land reclamation efforts” in the South China Sea where it is building military bases in on disputed islands. In the same region, on North Korea, “In time, they will threaten the U.S. homeland,” Dempsey writes, and mentions Pyongyang’s alleged hack of Sony’s computer network.
Dempsey scolds Iran, which is in the midst of negotiating a deal with Washington to limit its nuclear program, for being a “state-sponsor of terrorism that has undermined stability in many nations, including Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.”
Russia, Iran, North Korea and China, Dempsey writes, are not “believed to be seeking direct military conflict with the United States or our allies,” but the U.S. military needs to be prepared.
“Nonetheless, they each pose serious security concerns which the international community is working to collectively address by way of common policies, shared messages, and coordinated action,” Dempsey said.
Prepare for a long war. General Dempsey is retiring as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and will likely move on to academia. Meanwhile, on July 9, the Senate Armed Services will hold a confirmation hearing for General Joseph Dunford.
As General Dempsey is making his farewell rounds, his words speak to some liberation in saying what needs to be said in his swan song.
In a new National Military Strategy, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff warns the Pentagon to reorganize its global footprint to combat prolonged battles of terrorism and proxy wars.
The U.S. military needs to reorganize itself and prepare for war that has no end in sight with militant groups like the Islamic State and nations that use proxies to fight on their behalf, America’s top general warned Wednesday.
In what is likely his last significant strategy direction before retiring this summer, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at the Pentagon that “global disorder has trended upward while some of our comparative advantages have begun to erode,” since 2011, the last update to the National Military Strategy.
“We are more likely to face prolonged campaigns than conflicts that are resolved quickly… that control of escalation is becoming more difficult and more important… and that as a hedge against unpredictability with reduced resources, we may have to adjust our global posture,” Dempsey writes in the new military strategy.
Dempsey, the president’s senior military advisor, criticizes Russia, Iran, North Korea and China for aggressive military actions and warns that the rapidly changing global security environment might force the U.S. military to reorganize as it prepares for a busy future.
The military has been shrinking since 2012, when the Obama administration announced plans to pivot forces to the Asia-Pacific region as troops withdrew from Afghanistan and Iraq. But since then, Obama slowed the Afghanistan withdrawal as fighting continues there, and thousands of American military forces have found themselves back in the Middle East and North Africa conducting airstrikes, gathering intelligence and training and advising Iraqi soldiers that are battling ISIS. Since U.S. forces are not deployed to Iraq in a combat role, significantly fewer numbers are needed compared to the hundreds of thousands troops that were sent to Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade. Still, U.S. commanders have repeatedly said it will take decades to defeat ISIS, and a stronger nonmilitary effort to defeat the ideology that fuels Islamic extremist groups.
Non-state actors, like ISIS, are among the Pentagon’s top concerns, but so are hybrid wars in which nations like Russia support militia forces fighting on their behalf in Eastern Ukraine threaten national security interests, Dempsey writes.
“Hybrid conflicts also may be comprised of state and non-state actors working together toward shared objectives, employing a wide range of weapons such as we have witnessed in eastern Ukraine,” Dempsey writes. “Hybrid conflicts serve to increase ambiguity, complicate decision-making, and slow the coordination of effective responses. Due to these advantages to the aggressor, it is likely that this form of conflict will persist well into the future.”
Dempsey also warns that the “probability of U.S. involvement in interstate war with a major power is … low but growing.”
“We must be able to rapidly adapt to new threats while maintaining comparative advantage over traditional ones. Success will increasingly depend on how well our military instrument can support the other instruments of power and enable our network of allies and partners,” Dempsey writes.
The strategy also calls for greater agility, innovation and integration among military forces.
“[T]he 2015 strategy recognizes that success will increasingly depend on how well our military instrument supports the other instruments of national power and how it enables our network of allies and partners,” Dempsey said Wednesday.
The military will continue its pivot to the Pacific, Dempsey writes, but its presence in Europe, the Middle East, Latin America and Africa will evolve. The military must remain “globally engaged to shape the security environment,” he said Wednesday.
The Russian campaign in Ukraine has military strategists questioning if traditional U.S. military force as it is deployed globally is still — or enough of — a deterrence to hybrid and non-state threats like today’s terrorism. “If deterrence fails, at any given time, our military will be capable of defeating a regional adversary in a large-scale, multi-phased campaign while denying the objectives of – or imposing unacceptable costs on – another aggressor in a different region,” Dempsey writes.
The chairman also criticizes Beijing’s “aggressive land reclamation efforts” in the South China Sea where it is building military bases in on disputed islands. In the same region, on North Korea, “In time, they will threaten the U.S. homeland,” Dempsey writes, and mentions Pyongyang’s alleged hack of Sony’s computer network.
Dempsey scolds Iran, which is in the midst of negotiating a deal with Washington to limit its nuclear program, for being a “state-sponsor of terrorism that has undermined stability in many nations, including Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.”
Russia, Iran, North Korea and China, Dempsey writes, are not “believed to be seeking direct military conflict with the United States or our allies,” but the U.S. military needs to be prepared.
“Nonetheless, they each pose serious security concerns which the international community is working to collectively address by way of common policies, shared messages, and coordinated action,” Dempsey said.
