Predicting World War 3

Predicting World War III – Part 3 (The Counter-Revolutionary Trigger)

Commentary of 3 February 2014

By J.R. Nyquist

There has not been a civil war in America since 1865. What could possibly cause Americans to turn against each other today? We have previously mentioned economic collapse as trigger for a civil war. A trigger, however, is not the real cause. The trigger is merely a mechanism for igniting a conflagration which has long been prepared.

The preparation is found in the class warfare rhetoric of today. It is found in the unbalanced racial politics, in the precise formulations of feminism. In many ways, these are carefully constructed instruments with which to divide the people of America; specifically, to divide women from men, blacks from whites, poor from rich, liberal from conservative, etc.

To divide America into two or more hostile camps is one of the objectives of the Communists. The attempt at division is pro-forma. A good strategist always attempts to divide his enemy’s forces so he can defeat them in detail, or turn them against each other. By making Americans believe that there is a struggle for power ongoing between men and women, blacks and whites, rich and poor, and by focusing the energies and emotions of women, blacks and the poor toward a final victory over a supposed oppressive and ugly capitalist system, a useful power-base can be formed with which to take control of America. This power base excoriates the man, the white race, and the rich. Such becomes “the enemy” of all others.

This is, to be sure, only a basic overview of the enemy’s strategic architecture with regard to American domestic politics. Firmly resting upon the fissures of sex, race and economic status, there are many additional nuances and complexities to be considered. The final objective of the strategy is to own the world. The means for achieving this objective is to defeat the United States.

The intermediate objectives for achieving U.S. defeat may be enumerated as follows:

• Make the Americans stupid – Disorient the people of the United States and other Western countries. Establish a set of myths useful from the standpoint of the long-range strategy. Examples of such myths: Josef Stalin is our “Uncle Joe,” a man we can trust; the Cold War was triggered by paranoid anti-Communists; Senator McCarthy blacklisted innocent people; President Kennedy was killed by Big Business and the CIA; the Vietnam War was fought on account of corporate greed; Russia and China are irreconcilable enemies who will not be able to combine their forces against the United States; the Soviet Union collapsed for economic reasons; Russia is America’s ally in the War on Terror.
• Infiltrate the U.S. financial system – Financial control through organized crime and drug trafficking. To this end the Eastern Bloc began infiltrating organized crime in the 1950s and, in 1960, began a narcotics offensive against the West which would generate billions of dollars in illicit money which banks could not resist laundering. In this way, a portal was opened into the heart of the capitalist financial structures in order to facilitate future economic and financial sabotage.
• Promote bankruptcy and economic breakdown – The promotion of a cradle-to-grave welfare state as a means to bankrupt the United States Treasury (i.e., the Cloward-Piven Strategy). Welfare simultaneously demoralizes the workforce as it bankrupts the government.
• Elect a stealth Communist president – As an organizer for the Communist Party explained during a meeting I attended more than thirty years ago, the stealth Communist president will one day exploit a future financial collapse to effect a transition from “the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie” to the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
• Exploit the counter-revolution – Some strategists believe that a counter-revolutionary or right wing reaction is unavoidable. It is therefore necessary, from the standpoint of sound strategy, to send infiltrators into the right wing. Having a finger in every pie and an agent network in every organization, the Communists are not afraid of encouraging counter-revolution, secession, or civil war in the wake of financial collapse. After all, the reactionaries and right wing elements must be drawn out so that they can be purged or, if necessary, turned into puppet allies. Already Putin is posturing as a Christian who opposes feminism and homosexuality. This has fooled many “conservatives” in the West, and is an intentional ploy which further serves to disorient the West.
• Take away the nuclear button – The strategists in Moscow do not forget that the neutralization of the U.S. nuclear deterrent is the most important of all intermediate objectives. This can be achieved in one of four ways: (1) cutting off nuclear forces funding by Congress; (2) administratively unplugging the weapons through executive orders issued by Obama, (3) it may be accomplished through a general financial collapse, or (4) a first strike.

Marshal Sokolovskiy’s Soviet Military Strategy explained that the “U.S. imperialists,” should they unleash another world war, are destined to be smashed by Soviet rockets. Thus, reading between the lines, we find it is the counter-revolutionaries who start World War III by resisting the socialist takeover of Washington. This latter interpretation becomes obvious when we consider the long-range plan as described by Konstantin Katushev, Secretary of the Soviet Central Committee in 1967:

It’s more likely ... that a progressive regime will emerge [in the United States] because, in spite of their power, the governing bureaucratic and industrial elite, and the media, are fundamentally liberal in their outlook and ashamed of their failure to solve basic national problems.

It was Soviet Marshal Zhakarov who came to the Czech Communists in late 1967 and added to this picture, saying that the Warsaw Pact countries must do everything possible to recruit “high-level agents of influence” in the American government. Such agents signify an attempt to take over United States from within. There is no question this has been part of their strategy for the last half century.

Since Obama was elected President of the United States, some people feel this takeover has already occurred. Ann Barnhardt is one such person. She is a self-described counter-revolutionary who says “the Republic no longer exists.” She says that we are currently living under a tyranny which cannot be reformed. Instead of talking about the foxes pushing out the lions, Barnhardt says that the government has been taken over by “psychopaths.” She does not distinguish between good politicians and bad politicians. She does not distinguish between good voters and bad voters. If you are voting, you are automatically bad; that is to say, you are giving legitimacy to wickedness. As a counter-revolutionary Barnhardt does not see the complexities of people or situations. She does not diagnose the malady of the elite so as to discover some ground of innocence. She operates at a high level of generalization, dispensing with nuances. Such an approach may lack intellectual precision, but from the standpoint of counter-revolution, it is flawless rhetoric. Her words have strategic virtue instead of intellectual virtue. She is not simply observing phenomenon. She is attempting to become a phenomenon. 

Those who play the political game talk differently than those who observe it from afar. One of the virtues of Diana West’s book, American Betrayal, is the way in which she navigates the nuances of the American elite during World War II. She is describing, and seeking to understand, the failure of our elite. This failure was but a foretaste of the failures we see today. Something in the character of Western “silver spooners” made them ready victims of Communist subversion. It wasn’t that they were “psychopaths.” A British writer recently made the following comments on this topic in an article titled The Slaughtering of Sacred Cows (American Betrayal Revisited):

Roosevelt was not better than the silver spooners in the UK – if anything, he was worse. A friend of the President’s called George Earle III, who had at one time been governor of Pennsylvania, had a meeting with Roosevelt in 1944. He was warned beforehand by Joe Levy of the New York Times that Harry Hopkins had the President’s ear, and ‘the whole atmosphere over there is pink.’

Returning to Vilfredo Pareto’s work on the circulation of elites, the foxes (Class I elites) have replaced the lions (Class II elites) in Washington and the Pentagon. A pink tendency, therefore, is only natural. We know from experience that the foxes will go with the latest fashion – and pink has been fashionable for many decades. To be pink is not to be condemned, for pink it is merely a color. Of course, to condemn the elite does not help us understand them. It may, however, help someone to defeat them (if that is the intention). The counter-revolutionary spirit seeks to condemn in advance of a policy of eradication. It is no accident that Barnhardt calls for a “hard reset.” Such language reveals something about the intention of the speaker.  

Machiavelli wrote that if princes expect to prosper they must be both lions and foxes. He said they must be lions to drive away the wolves and foxes to avoid traps. But it is rare to find the lion and fox combined in one person. In wealthy, successful societies the elite begins (over time) to consist almost exclusively of foxes. Lions are effectively sidelined as they are perceived as a disruptive influence. Peaceful negotiation becomes the imperative. Fighting and confrontation is seen as negative. The foxes believe their way is best, that all conflicts can be resolved by negotiation and cunning – without the use of force.

In World War II the lion character may be seen in the person of General Patton, who was temporarily sidelined after the Sicily campaign in 1943. I believe they would have permanently dispensed with Patton’s services if they did not need him during the Battle of Normandy; for the lion is eccentric, bold, and irritating to the fox. The lion confronts issues and adversaries. It is useful to note that the composition of the enemy elite (i.e., the German elite) during World War II was heavily mixed with lions. Hitler was both lion and fox. Many of his generals possessed lion-like qualities. Germany differed from England and America in the following way: a significant portion of the elite manhood of Germany passed through the Studentenverbindung, a special form of fixed-stance fencing in which sharp blades were used. These often inflicted deep facial and/or cranial wounds. Such scars were honored, and showed the extent to which the lion’s character was valued in pre-war Germany. The more liberal elites of the West had, in the meanwhile, drifted toward effeminacy as outlets for manly virtue were less and less in evidence. The brutal character of the lion is not fully compatible with the character of the liberal. It is no accident, therefore, that the rise of liberalism in the West signified the rise of the foxes and a rising hatred of the lion. This development, with all its fateful consequences, brought us to a situation in which the necessary admixture of lion and fox within the elite was no longer possible. England went to war against Germany because of Nazism, in part. But English liberalism was at war with Germany long before the appearance of Nazism. The fox must push out the lion.

If the elite of America have pushed out the lions, then we will not find our lions in the elite. Our future lions will come from outside the elite; that is to say, from outside the existing power structures. It should also be admitted that these structures are, in the long run, doomed to fall. The elite of any country cannot be fully man without being partly lion. Anyone with sense can see that effeminacy has taken us by the throat. Effeminacy rules from the White House and the board room. The lower classes are free to maintain their manhood, and their brutal lion-like instincts. The elite are not so free. Those who aspire to money or office cannot be men in the full sense; for real men are excluded from the liberal club as they are non-liberal by nature. To further clarify the point, today’s conservatives are themselves merely liberals who are slightly behind-hand. They also avoid the masculine fault (so ascribed): They are in terror of being unmasked as bigots, bloody reactionaries, or homophobes.

There is a psychological angle to all of this. The rising tide of elite effeminacy is like a disease carrying the entire system into dysfunction. As men cultivate their female side women have been cultivating their male side. While men become foxes, the women are free to become lions. This perversion of human nature accelerates the disintegration of family life and leads to pandemic narcissism – a narcissism in which the “projection of the shadow” confronts the passive-aggressive man with the slogan, “I am woman, hear me roar.” This “projection of the [sexual] shadow” is not merely the result of revolutionary politics usurping the place of religion. It is, in its own right, an identity disorder (like feminism and homosexuality) in which the rejection of the true self leads to the passionate embrace of a false self. Here the male projects his anima (female side) and the female projects her animus (male side). This pathology draws the entire culture into a collective madness unequaled in world history.

The upper and middle class manhood, so essential for the persistence of society, has been thoroughly undermined in the West. This coincides with the phenomenon of the political lioness who, as women, is allowed to say things that would end the career of any man who said the same. As an example, following 9/11, columnist Ann Coulter advocated a war to replace radical Islam with Christianity. When she was rebuked by the staff of National Review Online she replied that they were “sissy boys.” Here the sentiment of the Christian soldier is found on the lips of a woman, while the “conservative” knights of National Review shriveled at the prospect of a Holy Crusade. Likewise we find Ann Barnhardt, yet another lioness, advocating the use of thermonuclear weapons against Mecca and Medina.

Like Coulter, Barnhardt is ready to make war on the West’s enemies. She famously burned a Koran by wrapping it in bacon. Afterwards, when a Muslim threatened to kill her, she gave the would-be assassin directions to her house, with advice on the best flights to take from London to Denver, and begged the assassin to wear body armor because she had acquired new armor-piercing rifle ammunition that she wanted to try out.   

Few men of the upper-middle class today would prove so bold, or risk the consequences of saying or doing what Ann Coulter and Ann Barnhardt have said and done. A man who said the like would be unemployed, cast out, and unmanned by the resulting social ostracism. In his penury he would find neither mate nor career, nor recognition for bravery, nor congratulations for his wisdom. He would not be invited to speak before paying audiences. He would not be paid at all. He would be marginalized as a crazy person. This is because nobody presently trusts the judgment of the male lion, though the nation cries out for testosterone. Under the regime of reverse sexuality, only woman is allowed to roar.  

Barnhardt has earned a special distinction, and is unlike any of the other would-be counter-revolutionary lions of the day. In declaring a tax strike against the federal government she has made a personal sacrifice. She has lost a lucrative career, a home, and financial security. Our federal tax dollars, she says, are used to promote infanticide and contraception. Cooperating with the system is to violate God's law. We are, she adds, “subsidizing our own destruction.” Barnhardt also says: “There is no authority you can appeal to [in order] to redress these grievances.” Therefore we must liquidate “everyone and everything in Washington D.C.”

Barnhardt’s declaration of war on the federal government is as guileless as it is genuine. There is nothing of the fox here, and everything of the lion. She is perfectly serious, being motivated by profound convictions. This peerless rectitude, unheard of in an era of venal self-promotion, gives her a special claim on the attention of her countrymen. Her spiritual and ethical approach allows her to see further into the future than the foxes who presently govern us. At one of her talks she was asked about the country splitting into two factions, with the red states breaking away from blue states on the East and West coasts. The questioner, in effect, wanted to know why civil war would be necessary. Why wouldn’t the red states be content with the blue states staying separate? Because, said Barnhardt, we cannot allow the blue states to hold the Pacific ports through which Chinese troops will be brought in to smash the red states. (This answer is proof that Barnhardt is indeed a lion.)

Barnhardt’s audiences cannot be expected to follow her into financial ruin. Their financial ruin is guaranteed through another, larger process. Naturally, people recoil at her harsh statements of fact. They do not want to hear of tax strikes and the “liquidation of everyone and everything” in Washington D.C. They want a fast and easy solution to the national mess. Here we see the ingenuity of the gradualist revolutionary program. The people are being destroyed slowly, and do not feel their destruction. It seems that Barnhardt has felt this destruction in her bones. She rises up against it. She opposes and would strike out against it. But nobody follows.

One day, however, everyone will see what has happened. No words will then remain to perpetuate the deception. The bankruptcy of the foxes will herald the return of the lions. Counter-revolution will have its day. The war will come, and the world will be renewed in blood. This is the tragedy of our time. The counter-revolution will occur because counter-revolutionaries yet exist, and the revolution eventually calls them forth.

Regardless of the preparations made by the Communists, I do not know how the socialists will cope with the tomorrow's lions.

 Predicting World War III – Part Two

Commentary of 27 January 2014

Continuing our analysis from last week, we now must look at the U.S. domestic situation. The best overview, which largely remains current, is that offered by James Burnham in The Suicide of the West, p. 249:

During the current century the liberal ideology has gradually increased over the formation of public opinion within the United States, Britain, Italy and to a greater or less degree [in] nearly all the advanced Western nations; and at the same time liberals, or persons accepting the liberal ideas relating to the decisive issues of war and the social order, have come to occupy more and more of the key positions of government and social power. This has meant a basic shift in the governing 'mix' of Western civilization: the foxes have been getting rid of the lions; the lions, as one of them put it a few years ago, have been fading away....

Burnham is here referring to Vilfredo Pareto's sociological theory in which the balance between lions and foxes within the elite of society has been upset, with the foxes now taking complete control. This signals the society's decadence and decline. According to Burnham, liberalism is not only an ideology of decadence. It is the ideology of Western suicide. At the time of publishing the 1985 edition of his work, Burnham felt that the ruling politicians of both major U.S. political parties were foxes. They no longer have fixed beliefs or firm principles. They have cunning manuevers that require suppleness and flexibility. Burnham quoted V. Pareto about the debility which accrues when the "artistry and resourcefulness required for evolving ingenious expedients as substitutes for open resistance" prevail within an elite. When this occurs, said Pareto, the following may be observed:

Policies of the governing class are not planned too far ahead in time. Predominance of the combination instincts and enfeeblement of the sentiments of group-persistence [i.e., patriotism] result in maknig the governing class more satisfied with the present and less thoughtful of the future.... Material interests and interests of the present or near future come to prevail over the ideal interests of community or nation and interests of the distant future.... Some of these phenomena become observable in international relations as well.... Efforts are made to avoid conflicts with the powerful and the sword is rattled only before the weak.... [The] country is often unwittingly edged toward war by nursings of [disputes] which, it is expected, will never get out of control and turn into armed conflicts. Not seldom, however, a war will be forced upon [the] country by peoples who are not so far advanced in the evolution that leads to the predominance of [foxes]....

If we want to know what has happened to the Republican Party, or to the conservatives, or to National Review magazine, we need only consult Pareto. It is not a question of treason. It is a question of the foxes becoming culturally dominant on the Right as well as the Left. What is most important, however, for the present analysis, is Pareto's observation that foxes cannot plan ahead. Their thinking is always short term thinking. In the very next chapter of his book, Burnham begins by observing that U.S. foreign policy "has seldom been deliberately directed for any length of time toward clearly defined Grand Strategic Goals." Foxes do not follow long-range plans. They do not believe such plans are effective or even possible.

Other countries, however, are not led by foxes. They are often led by lions. If we look at various great nations throughout history, or if we look at Russia and China today, we will find Grand Strategy at the center of what they do. The absence of Grand Strategy is a key fact which many "experts" have not fully appreciated about the United States. America is not a country with a coherent or consistent strategy. America remains domestically focussed, even now. There is no strategic plan for America. Americans do not even have a clear idea of who their enemies are. In fact, our political system has become penetrated by enemy agents of influence whose politics effectively sabotage or misdirect U.S. strategy. This is evident from the detailed work of New Zealand researcher Trevor Loudon, especially in his book The Enemies Within: Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress. Loudon describes a complex array of Communist Front and fellow-traveling organizations which effectively support Communist subversion in the United States. Diana West's book, American Betrayal, shows how the Communists in fact subverted U.S. strategy during World War II. 

Therefore we can see that the politics of the fox, plus the politics of Communist subversion, has brought America to the crisis of today. The problem of U.S. domestic politics has everything to do with Communist strategy and Soviet planning. It is impossible to understand our present domestic crisis without understanding the Communist role. Many will wonder why Communism should be regarded as a threat since the Soviet threat has supposedly disappeared. After all, the remaining Communists are a small minority of the population. Why should we worry about them?

The misunderstandings here are many, and cannot be dispelled without considerable effort. It must be understood that Communists are committed, organized, and all pervasive in the halls of power. Furthermore, Moscow remains -- along with China -- a chief strategic partner of the American Communists. We must not forget Moscow's support for Communist regimes and parties around the world. You may argue that Moscow is no longer oriented toward Communism, but you cannot argue that Moscow is not presently supporting the Communists in Africa, Latin America and Asia. It follows as the night follows the day that Moscow presently supports the Communists here in the United States.

Readers can hardly grasp the extent to which the events of the past 25 years have been, in so many instances, predicted by Soviet Bloc defectors on the basis of knowledge they had regarding Soviet strategic plans. Anyone with knowledge of such plans from the 1960s, 70s and 80s was bound to produce remarkably prescient snapshots of the future -- a future which is now our past. And this is exactly what we find in the defector literature. Even the collapse of the Soviet Union has been mentioned as part of the Soviet long-range strategy.

In 1967 Gen. Jan Sejna, then chief of staff to Communist Czechoslovakia's Minister of Defense, was told of the Soviet long-range Strategic Plan. He wrote about it in a book titled We will Bury You, which I quoted in last week's installment. The Soviet Plan was comprehensive and involved all the important countries of the world. Sejna was told, for example, that Yugoslavia would be "broken up along ethnic lines" after Tito's death (which is exactly what happened). He was also told that the U.S. economy would somehow be "disrupted" by the Soviet Union. Soviet strategist Konstantin Katushev briefed the Czech leaders on the plan, saying that America was politically volatile. "It can move to either extreme." Katushev continued with the following clarifying remark.

as we've seen in the McCarthy period and the Vietnam War. If we can impose on the U.S.A. the external restraints proposed in our Plan, and seriously disrupt the American economy, the working and lower middle classes will suffer the consequences and they will turn on the society that has failed them. They will be ready for revolution.

This must be understood: The goal of the Communist is revolution, and his method is economic disruption. Again, I should ask readers to listen to my interview with Kevin Freeman if they think the crash of 2008 could not have been caused by a foreign power. See also Freeman's book, Secret Weapon: How Economic Terrorism Brought Down the U.S. Stock Market and Why It Can Happen Again. The Russians have long since studied the weaknesses of the U.S. economic and social systems. It is absurd to think that such a system, so ready of access, could not be disrupted by a creative enemy.

The Russians also realized, back in the 1960s, that the United States might turn to the far right instead of to the left. With that possibilty in mind the Russians have infiltrated various American far right movements and organizations, going so far as sponsoring a kind of right wing Marxism. If you hear about Alex Jones or other pundits of a like-mind getting funding through Soviet-allied sources (like Lyndon Larouche) then you should be on your guard. In fact, Cliff Kincaid has already discussed this connection with the host of Cross-Talk.

The most likely scenario is, of course, a left wing takeover through the Democratic Party. This is the political party which the Communists sought to infiltrate and capture many decades ago. The extent of their success cannot be exactly measured. But there is plenty of reason to worry. We are only now asking ourselves what would happen if the Democrats turn out to be Bolsheviks who have crafted a way of using minority politics and illegal voting practices to build a one party state. In that event, a revolutionary situation might well be in the making; for if the middle class cannot find adequate representation for the redress of grievances, there is bound to be an internal upheaval. If the Communists successfully disarm the United States in advance, and if Russian and/or Chinese missiles and troops can be used to "support" today's "transitional liberal and progressive government" in an attempt to sweep aside the U.S. Constitution in favor of a Soviet type of system, then we have come to the true end of the Final Phase of the long-range strategy without the least occasion for an all-out nuclear war. The problem remains, of course, that millions of people within the United States would not accept this situation.

Some observers say that the Americans are finished and no longer capable of functioning as free citizens. Others believe a revolution most certainly will occur when the middle class "wakes up." In 1967 the Soviet strategists believed that America was "a volatile society." They currently suppose that civil war could break out in the United States. The trigger for civil war, of course, is economic collapse. We see, of course, the high levels of indebtedness. We see that the financial situation cannot continue to move along the same lines as today. The intelligent observer knows that something has to give way. Fundamental change is coming, one way or another. But as we have seen, the management of the system has fallen to foxes instead of lions; and foxes do not think very far ahead. They manipulate from month to month, holding the financial system together through a series of artful frauds.

This brings us to the analysis of Ann Barnhardt, who in every respect presents the face of the outcast lion. She gives voice to everything that is out of fashion, yet obviously true. What she says is impossible, and what she proposes is outlandish in the eyes of all foxes. Yet there has never been another way out of our situation than that which is stated by the lion.

Predicting World War III – Part One

Commentary of 20 January 2014

A friend in Europe reminded me that on 24 March 2011 a group of “well-known Russian astrologers, shamans and parapsychologists gathered to discuss forecasts for the near and distant future.” Since almost nothing of importance in Russia occurs without the state or the FSB having a “finger in the pie” (so to speak) it is worth taking notice of Russian predictions – whatever the source. Readers are directed to the 2011 Pravda.ru article titled Third World War to Begin during Winter Games in 2014. A wise man once said, “Never make predictions, especially about the future.” Indeed, the article contains predictions that obviously did not come true. Anyone who monitors major predictions about the future will find a very poor track record in 99 out of 100 cases. What is most curious, however, is that “participants” of the aforementioned 2011 meeting offered up a date for the beginning of World War III that already has some of us jittery.

According to the article war supposedly begins in March 2014, during or shortly after the Olympic Games in Sochi. Since there have been bombings in Russia, and since Russia has threatened to take unspecified actions against Saudi Arabia if terrorists bomb the Sochi games, there may be reason to worry. We know that supposed Islamist terror bombings in Russia have, in the past, been carried out by the FSB along with other “false flag” operations. We know that Saudi Arabia is the key to the West’s oil lifeline. Is Russia setting up a pretext for war?

In the case of the assembled astrologers and parapsychologists in Russia, how did they arrive at the March 2014 date for the start of World War III? The best predictions are often made by those who have sources on “the inside.” If an astrologer is trying to boost himself, wouldn’t it be prudent to have friends in the special services or General Staff? After all, such predictions would greatly strengthen the livelihood of any self-respecting astrologer or parapsychologist. Therefore we may ask if the Russian astrologers are merely reflecting an open secret within Russia’s ruling circles. As it happens, an answer to this question is ready at hand. I received a note from a practicing non-Russian astrologer about the March 2014 time frame for World War III. Apparently, in the lore of astrology, March 2014 looks rather frightening. My notion of “insider information” is therefore unsupported.

So when is the next world war going to start?

Let us turn to someone who made 148 falsifiable predictions in his 1984 book and got roughly 94 percent of them right. I am referring to KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn. His predictions were based on strategic insight, years of study, and personal knowledge. In a 1978 memorandum to the CIA Golitsyn warned that America and NATO were in grave danger because the Soviet Union had adopted a long range strategy that the West knew nothing about. According to Golitsyn, “… a trap is being laid by the Communist policymakers which will be exploited when the USSR carries out a deceptive liberalization of its regime….” Written in 1978, more than a decade before the revolutions that swept through Eastern Europe, Golitsyn’s warning was scoffed at. “With few exceptions,” the editors of Golitsyn’s 1984 book affirmed, “those Western officials who were aware of the views expressed in the manuscript [of Golitsyn], especially on the Sino-Soviet split, rejected them. In fact, over the years it became increasingly clear to the author that there was no reasonable hope of his analysis of communist affairs being seriously considered in Western official circles.”

While Nancy Reagan consulted astrologers, the White House and intelligence community weren’t touching Golitsyn with a ten foot pole. In fact, the poor man was defamed in publication after publication. The accuracy of his predictions was vociferously denied. And here we are, twenty years after the liberalization of the Soviet Bloc, with a KGB officer nominally in charge of Russia. If anyone cares to notice, the liberalization was false indeed if only because Russia has not been liberalized. Even the former satellite countries exist in a curious state between liberalization and ongoing control by hidden communist “structures.” What did this liberalization accomplish in the end? If anyone cares to notice, NATO has been gradually disarming while President Barack Obama is working to shrink the U.S. nuclear arsenal to a fraction of its current size. And why is this important? In a 1973 memorandum to the CIA Golitsyn wrote: “One can also expect a concealed Communist offensive through their agents of influence … in order further to undermine the establishment, especially the Pentagon, the so-called ‘military-industrial complex’ and the American Special Services; and further to reduce the authority of the President in the military field and to reduce expenditure on defense….” The further weakening of the United States, wrote Golitsyn, will lead to Communist Bloc military “superiority over the West through secret Sino-Soviet cooperation….”

The result of such superiority is not hard to guess. According to Golitsyn’s 1973 memorandum, “The Soviet and Chinese rocket strike units and strategic bombers will make a surprise raid on Pearl Harbor lines on the main government and military headquarters of the leading Western countries and on their missile sites. The main idea will be to knock out the primary Western sources of retaliation and to paralyze, at least for a short period, their physical ability to take a decision on retaliation.” Golitsyn further wrote: “Although, of course, this vision of a surprise attack on the West is … speculation, it is [my] belief that it is definitely in the realm of possibility, given that it has been the subject of study by the KGB, and should in any case be prepared for….”

There are a number of factors that must be clarified before we continue our analysis of when World War III is likely to begin. First, we must reckon with the diversionary role played by Arab terrorism in advance of a nuclear attack on the United States. A pre-war diversionary phase, known within Soviet military circles as “Grey Terror,” was outlined by GRU defector Viktor Suvorov in Spetsnaz: The Inside Story of the Soviet Special Forces. On page 196 of the book, Suvorov defined Grey Terror as “a series of large and small [terrorist] operations the purpose of which is, before actual military operations begin, to weaken the enemy’s morale, create an atmosphere of suspicion, fear and uncertainty, and divert attention of the enemy’s armies and police forces to a huge number of different targets.” Suvorov further stated that Grey Terror is a kind of terror that is carried out “in the name of already existing extremist groups not connected in any way with the Soviet Union, or in the name of fictitious organizations.”

If alarm bells are not ringing in your head at this point in our discourse, then you haven’t been reading with sufficient attention. For here we have a GRU defector describing a diversionary strategy that precedes World War III. The book in which this description takes place was written 13 years before the spectacular terrorist attack of 9/11, which KGB defector Alexander Litvinenko hinted was a KGB operation. (Before his poisoning with polonium-210, Litvinenko also said that leading figures in al Qaeda were KGB agents – including Ayman al-Zawahri, the current chief of al Qaeda.) It is almost certainly not a coincidence that al Qaeda’s operations against the United States closely resemble Grey Terror. If we consider the Soviet role in creating and supporting international terrorism during the past half century, and the testimony of communist bloc defectors like Ion Pacepa, the purpose of the terror edifice comes sharply into focus.

In essence, if we are reading the situation correctly, the first act of war has already happened. It was accomplished through a covert mechanism so that the victim of the attack could not properly identify the true source of the attack. The question of when all-out war begins, however, is still not answered. In November 1999, while conversing with GRU defector Stanislav Lunev, I admitted to being puzzled by the exact mechanism of a Soviet surprise nuclear strike. How would they pull it off? Lunev said, “If you ever hear that Arab terrorists have attacked an American city with nuclear weapons, don’t believe it.” I asked Lunev why I should disbelieve such a thing. He replied: “Because it will be my people. It will be Spetsnaz.” I asked him what would happen after such a nuclear attack. He said that a period of weeks or months would elapse. “Then the rockets from Russia will arrive.” This last statement puzzled me a great deal at the time, but does not puzzle me today.

The United States government has sometimes (if not often) been manipulated by Russian agents of influence. Diana West has written a bestselling book to remind us of this fact. Time is always required for such agents to guide a nation’s policies toward national disadvantage. This would also be true for a country suffering a diversionary nuclear terror attack. Considering how easily we have been manipulated in the past, consider what a diversionary nuclear strike could accomplish if the right people were in the White House?

This leads me to consider another communist bloc defector. His name was Jan Sejna, and in 1982 he wrote the following words about Russia’s long-range strategy:

Soviet ambitions towards the United States were aimed at the extinction of Capitalism and the ‘socialization’ of America…. The main strategic goals on the road to their fulfillment were: the withdrawal of the U.S.A. from Europe and Asia; the removal of Latin America from the United States’ sphere of influence and its incorporation into the Socialist bloc; the destruction of United States influence in the developing world; the reduction of American military power to a state of inferiority; the advent to power in Washington of a transitional liberal and progressive government; and the collapse of the American economy.

Before a missile can be launched the U.S. political system will be infiltrated (see the work of Trevor Loudon) and the U.S. economy will be sabotaged (see the work of Kevin Freeman). We can also see there is no reason to attack the United States with nuclear weapons until most or all of these goals have been reached. For once these goals are accomplished the United States will be “ready for the oven.” In essence, the country will be disarmed and isolated. It will only be a matter of time before the country wakes up and attempts to change course. This is when Russia’s nuclear weapons prove useful. That is when you should expect a war to start.  

All of this does not render an exact date. Instead, it gives us markers on the road ahead. Through these markers we can track our progress. We can see where we are, and where we can expect to be as events unfold. The strange thing, of course, is that Socialist bloc defectors have been describing our future for decades. The reason they were able to do this is simple. Strategy works when there is no counter-strategy. The Great Game follows a pattern set by the side that holds the initiative. In the West our leaders have denied there is an enemy or an opposing strategy. They are readily diverted into the dead end policies of the present day.  The question that now cries out the for clarification has to do with domestic U.S. politics.

The End or the Beginning?

Commentary of 12 January 2014

Some readers may have noticed that I'm no longer writing a regular column at Financial Sense Online. I was at Financial Sense for over 12 years after being at WorldNetDaily for little over two years. It is incredible that writing Origins of the Fourth World War led to over 14 years of column writing -- not counting my time at Newsmax. That is nearly 15 years of exploring important issues. To be honest, back in 1999 I didn't think the Republic would continue another 15 years. But here we are, with the old dispensation apparently in place.

Of course, the grand strategy of the Communist Bloc always envisioned a "transitional progressive president" whose reign would fortuitously coincide with a severe economic crisis. The testimony of defector Jan Sejna speaks to this, and we should examine it more closely -- which is something I failed to do when I wrote my book. It must be admitted that our enemy has proved strong-willed enough to defer his immediate nuclear gratification. And I had not reckoned on Obama. Somebody like that cannot be imagined, especially in the wake of 9/11 which so clearly inaugurated the period of Grey Terror. Who is this man? What is he doing? Every question leads to another question, which I intend to explore. Such an exploration was not possible while I was writing for Financial Sense. Now comes the freedom to delve deeper into forbidden subjects. 

This all relates to my past analysis which arguably remains valid. Russia and China continue to arm themselves. The United States continues to rot from within. Our economy grows weaker. Our military power is not what it was. Our society is increasing lax and narcissistic. The moral breakdown continues apace. But to return to the subject of the previous paragraph: There are some who say the last legally elected President of the United States was George W. Bush. That troubles me like nothing else because of a dream I had 30 years ago -- a vivid dream of the last president being the 43rd president. It was one of those uncanny dreams you never forget. 

At least two legal scholars of my acquaintance allege that Barack Obama is not a "natural born" citizen, even if he was born in Hawaii, because his father was a foreigner. Therefore, Obama cannot be president according to the Constitution (which requires that a president be "natural born"). I intend to explore this subject, and ask questions of these legal scholars.

There is also another burning subject I'd like to cover. Ann Barnhardt says that the U.S. economy is going to collapse. For that matter, Barnhardt hints at an impending civil war if people do not place a check upon corrupt and unconstrained government power. Unlike anyone else out there today, Miss Barnhardt has put her money where her mouth is. She has sacrificed her business and her personal security to make her case. She warns that time is running out. Such thoughts have also crossed my own mind, and cry out for further exploration. 

Health permitting, I intend to use this Website to ask questions and explore the subjects listed above. Look for something new every Sunday night.

As a brief postscript for those who haven't noticed, my commentaries have recently been posted on Diana West and Trevor Loudon's blogs.

Debating the Intelligence War

Commentary of 5 January 2014

A friend in Switzerland suggested I look at the Boiling Frog Post where they interviewed a National Security Agency whistleblower, Russ Tice. It is a story for those who fear government power, and especially U.S. federal power. Several years ago Tice claimed personal knowledge of NSA spying on U.S. military commanders and an aspiring senator who now sits in the White House. According to U.S. law such spying would be illegal unless there was the national security equivalent of probable cause (and as far as we know, there may have been such in the case of Senator Obama). The problem here, of course, is the limited focus of the Tice testimony. The United States government isn't the only entity engaged in spying on Americans. You can be sure the Russians and Chinese are also spying on Americans, and they are doing it with efficiency. After all, they are not compelled to follow the law.

Analyzing the sitution leads us to a rather peculiar and unsettling set of conclusions. Existing legal prohibitions against domestic spying may protect the privacy of millions of American citizens, but it simultaneously leaves them entirely unprotected from a worse threat; for they are wide open to spying by hostile foreign governments while the agents of these governments, if they happen to be American citizens, are legally protected against counter-espionage from U.S. agencies.

We think it is too dangerous for domestic organizations to look into our lives, since they will undoubtedly abuse the information obtained. But foreign intelligence services are obtaining this same information directly, from a variety of technical sources which we ourselves provide. It is safe to say, as well, that Americans are not really concerned about government spying. They are concerned about convenience, and they are bombarded by messages which prompt them to express shock and horror at NSA spying when in fact we know next to nothing about the secret war that is waged all around us.

I doubt that intelligence whistleblowers are intelligent enough to grasp the significance of the problem we face in this country. In the case of Mr. Snowden, like the case of Mr. Tice, he can run to Russia and spill national secrets to his heart's content while claiming the moral highground. Only he hasn't thought long enough, or deeply enough, about the actual situation.