Mankind is entering a period of the greatest scientific and technological revolution, resulting from mastery of nuclear energy and the conquest of space…. These developments will largely determine the nature of a future war….

Soviet Military Strategy

😷

In the two decades following the Second World War a revolution in military affairs occurred. In that period, Russia and America developed the H-bomb, and Russia launched the first man-made satellite, named “Sputnik.” These advances prefigured the coming deployment of thousands of intercontinental rockets armed with thermonuclear warheads.

Recognizing the need for a strategic overhaul, Soviet dictator Nikita S. Khrushchev set up a committee of top Soviet strategists under Leonid Brezhnev. The role of Brezhnev was crucial, because of Brezhnev’s interest in strategy, and his friendships with key strategic thinkers, leading to his political rise after Khrushchev’’s mysterious “retirement” — announced, perhaps prophylactically, within a year of President John Kennedy’s death, and 20 days after the Warren Commission final report omitted mention of Soviet involvement.

According to information provided by Czech defector Jan Sejna, the Brezhnev committee had four subcommittees under it, each headed by a Soviet strategist: Marshal V.D. Sokolovskiy (military); Dmitry Ustinov (military industry); Boris Ponomarev (foreign affairs); and KGB General Nikolai Mironov (intelligence).

The Brezhnev committee developed the following strategic “directions”: (1) The Soviet military would prepare to fight and win an all-arms nuclear-biological war against the “imperialist powers”; (2) all economic and scientific means would be rallied to build weapons of mass destruction, a national blast and fallout shelter system, including underground mines, factories and scientific “cities” in the Ural’s industrial region; (3) the foreign policy of the country would be flexible and pragmatic, focused on pushing arms control treaties that would limit American strategic defenses, biological weaponry, and offensive nuclear capabilities; (4) the communist bloc’s military, industrial and diplomatic efforts would meet with success only if the West could be persuaded that communism had “collapsed” in the Soviet sphere. This part of the “long-range strategy” required a reorganization of the KGB into an “outer” shell of personnel, having no knowledge of the strategy or its directing principles, and an highly secretive “inner” KGB responsible for organizing serial deceptions.

KGB General Mironov’s subcommittee recommended the following long-range deception operations, requiring the accomplishment of several tasks: (1) Penetrate the intelligence services of the West with “moles”; Convince Western intelligence services of the authenticity of fake intelligence offered by “dangles” and thereby gain promotions for “purveyors of a false disarming narrative” by penetration agents who will inevitably become the leading figures in Western intelligence; (3) while taking control of the intelligence game on the ground, promote the idea that “ideology is dead” in the communist bloc; (4) promote the idea of an “ideological” split between Moscow and Beijing so that the West will “play the China card”; that is, blindly rush in and build China into an industrial and technological giant to counter the USSR; (5) promote fake dissident groups and dissident celebrities in the Soviet Union and its satellites; (6) establish controlled opposition movements in bloc countries; (7) prepare to organize, through agents in the dissident movements, anti-communist revolutions throughout bloc; (8) promote the idea that a future Soviet leader is, in fact, a “liberal reformer”; (9) break up the Warsaw Pact and collapse the Soviet Union in a “controlled” fashion; (10) groom stealth communists as candidates for high office in America and Western Europe. These would present themselves as “moderates,” but would operate as “penetration” agents dedicated to facilitating critical aspects of the strategy; namely, economic sabotage and reduction or diversion of U.S. military resources.

The complexity of the intelligence strategy is impossible to overstate. Yet it’s overarching concept is simple and consistent with past communist practices. Those who carry out the “final phase” of the strategy were instructed not to worry about losses in the course of a “grand maneuver.” The modus operandi was to follow the example of Dzerzhinsky’s Trust operation, which facilitated Lenin’s New Economic Policy and opened the Soviet Union to Western investment in the 1920s.

Because the West is blind with regard to Soviet plans, the economic optimism of the free market would naturally compel all shades of political opinion to accept the “collapse of communism” as genuine. A mad rush for markets would follow, though most of the invested monies would be lost.

The capitalists, under this dynamic, could not act with prudence. They would swallow the bait and find themselves on the sharp end of a hook — seduced by their Bolshevik enemy into arrangements that would compromise them and their commercial system. (A similar deception game was already unfolding vis-a-vis China.) Meanwhile, conservative pundits would be loathe to admit they’d been duped about winning the Cold War. Protecting their reputations, America’s leading conservatives would be first in line to keep the deception going — despite an ever-growing body of unexplained facts (for example, the continuing advance of communism in Africa and Latin America). Anyone who dared to question the triumphalist narrative would be ostracized as an alarmist.

There is much more to this picture, having to do with joint KGB and military intelligence operations, ideological subversion, terrorism, national liberation movements, organized crime and drug trafficking. Because these operations involve strategic directions of the Soviet military and the KGB, it is best to outline them separately.

The long-range strategy called for increased training for leaders of revolutionary movements — in civilian, military and intelligence areas of expertise. As noted by Joseph Douglass, “The founding of Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow is an example of one of the early measures taken to modernize Soviet revolutionary leadership training.”

The Russians also decided to set up terrorist training camps. This training took place under the umbrella of supporting “national liberation” movements connected with the Comintern’s previous decolonization policy.

As part of the sustained “liberation” offensive in Latin America (especially Colombia), the Soviets and their Czech allies became involved with international drug and narcotics trafficking. According to Douglass,

Drugs were incorporated into the strategy for waging revolutionary warfare as a political and intelligence weapon for deployment against ‘bourgeois societies’ and as a mechanism for recruiting agents of influence around the world.

In advance of the drug trafficking offensive, Soviet intelligence infiltrated organized crime. The KGB also established “Soviet Bloc sponsored and controlled organized crime syndicates throughout the world,” Douglass explained.

Organized crime, drug trafficking and the attendant money laundering proved to be the most profitable strategic direction of all. Here was an irresistible combination for infiltrating the banks, for acquiring intelligence on political corruption, for control of dirty cops, dishonest intelligence operators, and businessmen. This was a factor in the rise of the Clintons, a major factor in the Afghan wars, the Contra War in Nicaragua, and the wars of Pablo Escobar and the FARC. Terrorists could be funded by such operations.

The related strategic directions of sabotage, diversionary operations, and terrorist “armies” could now be fed with supplies of illicit cash (laundered by banks and protected by dirty politicians). According to Jan Sejna, “The network for this activity was to be in place by 1972.” The Soviet decision to enter organized crime occurred in 1955, and became part of the long-range strategy in subsequent years.

As the “world bourgeoisie” accepted the liberalization of the Soviet Union and the collapse of communism as genuine, the Russian and Chinese strategists organized a diversionary terrorist operation. The Soviet GRU defector, Victor Suvorov described it as follows:

[Widespread terrorist and sabotage operations in advance of World War III] are known officially in the GRU as the “preparatory period,” and unofficially as the “overture.” The overture is a series of large and small 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 the attention of the enemy’s armies and police forces to a huge number of different targets, each of which may be the object of the next attack.

The overture is carried out by agents of the secret services … and by mercenaries recruited by intermediaries. The principal method employed at this stage is “gray terror,” that is, a kind of terror which is not conducted in the name of the Soviet Union. The Soviet secret services do not at this stage leave their visiting cards, or leave other people’s cards. The terror 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.

We should not be surprised to learn that KGB/FSB defector Alexander Litvinenko pointed to Putin as the true sponsor of al Qaeda in an interview with a Polish newspaper (which will be posted tomorrow on this site). The following year Litvinenko was fatally poisoned with radioactive polonium 210 by agents of the Russian special services.

This overview touches on the broad sweep of events leading up to the COVID-19 biological attack. If anyone doubts the existence of a long-range Sino-Soviet strategy to defeat the West, and if anyone doubts that COVID-19 is part of that strategy, they have only to reference Russia’s support for China at this time. This support comes in the form of a disinformation campaign against the West. Why would elements of the Russian state-controlled media, Iran and China all suggest that COVID-19 is an American biological weapon? No telltale could tell us more.

Russia, Iran and China are led by persons who want to destroy the United States of America. You can deny it all you want, but the evidence is staring you in the face. The timing of the COVID-19 outbreak is more than suspicious. Too many details suggest that an attack has begun. But the West continues to sleep. It is said we are “fighting a virus.”

Oh no. Something else is coming for us; something that is much larger and more deadly,

Footnotes and Links

A Translation from the Russian of V. D. Sokolovskii with Analysis and Annotation by H. Dinerstein, L. Gouré and T. Wolfe — https://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R416.html

Joseph D. Douglass, Jr., Red Cocaine: The Drugging of America and the West, p. 47 and pp. 17-18, https://portalconservador.com/livros/Joseph-Douglass-Red-Cocaine-The-Drugging-of-America-and-the-West.pdf

“Anatoliy Golitsyn: The Key to Understanding Today’s World Situation” — https://thecontemplativeobserver.wordpress.com/tag/new-lies-for-old/

Viktor Suvorov, Spetsnaz, https://books.google.com/books/about/Spetsnaz.html?id=LVI2AAAACAAJ&source=kp_book_description

Kremlin disinformation — https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/18/russian-media-spreading-covid-19-disinformation

Kremlin disinformation narrative — https://euvsdisinfo.eu/report/the-coronavirus-is-part-of-a-us-war-against-russia-and-china/

78 thoughts on “The Sino-Soviet Long-Range Strategy: From Sputnik to World War III”

  1. Question is now, how soon? Weeks? Months? Longer?
    What is your thought on the timing now?

      1. A simple question: If Chinese troops don’t end up on American soil, if this virus is never proven to be lab engineered, if World War III does not actually break out in the next two years (or further yet, your personal lifetime); if America perseveres through these challenging times — what will be the tangible value of the fear and suspicion you have publicly sewn for so many decades?

      2. Thank you for framing a question that proves, beyond any doubt, that I am sincere in what I write; and being sincere, and being human, I fully realize the terrible consequences of being wrong. But those terrible consequences do not include “sewing fear and suspicion” because — if you have read my first book — you will see that the sociology of late capitalism and its market optimism prevent seeds of suspicion and fear from taking root; unless, that is, I am right, and the communists actually bring down the market system and launch a wholesale attack on the West. In that event, and that event only, will my words resonate. At any rate, my object is not to sew suspicion and fear; but to demonstrate an important political truth; namely, that we should know who our enemies and friends are. If I am wrong, my words will have no meaningful effect. Nobody in authority will credit me, and the public will find my writings too dark and unpalatable. If I am right, however, these writings will be useful and might even save lives. So it boils down to this: Either I am a pathetic deluded fool and alarmist who is justly dismissed as a crackpot, or I have partly understood the truth of our situation. I know perfectly well what awaits me if I am wrong or if I am right. Neither outcome is good for me, personally. This, by the way, is why nobody has been so bold as to second my analysis. There is literally nothing in it for me, except either ridicule (if I’m wrong) or death (if I’m right). If my writings are true, the enemy will not let me live. If my writings are false I will remain a sorry outcast, as decency requires. It may surprise you to know that the Russians invited me to Moscow and St. Petersburg a few years ago. They promised me tempting goodies. Can you imagine taking cognizance of a person who only has a few thousand readers? — who would never be given a hearing on TV or any mainstream venue … unless…. Well, it makes one think, doesn’t it? More than 30 years ago, when I was writing The Origins of the Fourth World War, it became quite clear that nobody else would ever write such a book; that it would never pay the electric bill, and respectable people (like yourself) would offer the kind of rebuke you just now offered (in the form of your question). Yet I thank you, because you didn’t merely think the rebuke in silence — as everyone else. You gave it to me directly, as I’ve always wanted it. A confrontation of this kind is of great importance. It is a marker I have been waiting to see. For three decades, since working through the WMD problem, I have been surrounded by an embarrassed silence. No critics have been willing to publicly notice my thesis. That is the kind of pariah I have been. Being beneath notice, one is not even a human being let alone a writer of forbidden thoughts. And yes, these are the most forbidden of thoughts. Naturally, being a practical person, I could have given up my pariah status at any time. But I have a conscience. An orphaned truth, like a baby, was crawling toward a deep well. Could I, in good conscience, watch and say nothing as disaster approached? I therefore felt obligated, despite the tedium of the subject, the ill regard of respectable people like yourself, and the poor remuneration. My obligation — my duty — ends when I behold that sweet proof of being wrong. Can you offer such proof? I wish you would. You, and everyone who thinks like you, have never even attempted to frame an argument against me, or delve into the defector literature to see if I’m wrong. Not one honest argument in more than two decades — yet I do thank you for noticing my little lemonade stand. To reiterate: — you are mistaken in thinking a “nobody” like me can sew fear and suspicion in a country of 330 million. Perhaps if I were on Fox News or writing for the New York Times. But mine is a tiny blog. A powerful system based on market optimism is proof against infinitesimal phenomena. Not to fear, you are perfectly safe from my dangerous “paranoia.” My conclusions are so ugly, and so far outside the mainstream, that my thesis will only be accepted if events prove me right. In that case, the snarling question you ask of me — blows back on you! What will be the tangible value of your scoffing naïveté when the second wave of the virus proves far more deadly, when it strikes North America instead of Asia or Europe, when our fleets and nuclear forces are neutralized by bombing, and at the pandemics end, when Chinese troops appear on the West coast? What apology would you dare to offer then?

      3. You downplay the effect a voice like yours, of which there are very many of course, differing in respectability, can have on the hundreds of millions of minds around you. Never mind the elites whose attention you so humbly reject in your supposedly selfless defense of the truth baby. They will likely never back your theories. But the average person seeking direction outside of the spiritual realm will always turn to a human voice eventually. Through your beautiful use of words and knowledge, you paint a compelling story that is easy to grasp. It’s what has kept me reading so long even while rolling my eyes. I have to fight back the fear that could easily overtake me if I were to believe the same awful things you believe humanity could be in store for, while ignoring the wonderful things. You downplay this effect in order to justify the practice of acute finger pointing at very generalized groups (socialists, feminists, atheists). “Market optimism prevents seeds of fear from taking root” is a bewildering statement on its own. By speaking in such definitive terms you paint a lovely mural with very rich colors, but undoubtedly it’s a surrealist image. Exciting to imagine but ultimately not rooted in familiar reality.

        Since you did end with a question, I will answer it. Because I too like to paint with words, my apology would probably sound something like this: Forgive me mother, father and all known others, mortal and divine – that I have believed, from everything I have seen and felt over my lifetime, that we were capable of more. I’m sorry I believed there was an answer to the madness and terror in this life, which didn’t require destroying my deepest most heartfelt inspirations in order to sustain. I apologize for ignoring the voices and the signs of the chosen prophets, and doubting that our destructive history is not in fact history, but is the present, future, always and forever. I am sorry I believed for so long that there was a God who was on my side, who wanted me to be free of this suffering and fear. Finally knowing that’s not true, I will gladly welcome the peace of death and whatever may come beyond.

      4. A surprisingly honest answer. I am disappointed that you avoid any reference to your own responsibility — that is, your duty as a man (assuming you are not a woman, in which case your fears are understandable). You seem to complain that the world (as I present it) is not fair, that you don’t want to believe in scary monsters — like Hitler, Stalin or Xi Jinping. But I can assure you, the scary monsters are real and men are supposed to face such monsters head-on (as in St. George and the dragon). Your preference, it seems, is to retreat behind a beautiful utopian vision of life, and a good God who wouldn’t let anything bad happen to good people — as if the Book of Job were a cruel Joke or the crucifixion of Christ something other than the ultimate signifier of faith. Taken in full, your apology is not an apology, but a ready curse against God should you collapse in fear. Your sentiments are those of Epicurus. Suffering of any kind is the only evil you recognize. Thus I am evil in your eyes, because I write about dangerous enemies (and this overwhelms you with fear). Better to die and be done with life than suffer the unpleasantness of war and struggle. If Disneyland closes, you are ready with a cyanid capsule and a Walter P38. In response I only have one word for you, if you are a man and not a woman: — DESERTER.

        As for fear, General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson famously said, “Never take counsel of your fears.” The idea that reality is only real if it is “familiar,” of course, is intrinsic to your normalcy bias. You certainly know that Auschwitz and Treblinka were real places where many people were unjustly imprisoned and lost their lives. You know that hundreds of thousands of women and children were burnt to death in Hamburg, Dresden, Hiroshima, Tokyo and Hiroshima; that Pol Pot exterminated a quarter of Cambodia. You don’t want to believe this has anything to do with you; but you are part of this history. And you have a responsibility to history — to yourself, your parents, and your children.

        It must be pleasant, indeed, to think only pleasant thoughts. It is unjust, perhaps, for you to despise someone who attempts to confront the issues of the dark side. Your philosophy explains why you disbelieve my analysis. It is not an matter of truth for you. It is about feeling good.

      5. Terry,
        I’m truly not trying to engage in a spat with you, but the predictions I read here aren’t spun out of thin air. They’re based on first person accounts, primary sources from Communist operatives, and objective recitals of a good hundred years of observed behavior. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of Communism (and I barely fit that mold) sees our enemy for who and what they are. Look at history, man. When has there ever been a time in the earth’s existence that we’ve been free of tyrants hell bent on taking over the world? And who in the world fits the bill now more than China and Russia WITH the means to do it?

        I don’t fault anyone for not believing what’s posted here, but the fear-monger label doesn’t fit.

      6. Once again your words are beautiful and could easily persuade readers that they hold some valuable profundity. But after enough time, enough atrocities, this righteous battle men are supposedly fighting becomes a chosen torture. Perhaps I am a deserter who refuses to lay down and die for this putrid battle between man and man. Perhaps the one final freedom I have is the freedom to lay down my arms and die for what I believe. Perhaps deserters are the evil ones, who spit in the face of this eternal battle you claim we are all responsible for fighting. If that’s the case then I willingly embrace the evil of peace, as Jesus did. At what point is the violence we have been through as a species going to teach us to change our direction? At what point do we refuse to destroy each other, even at risk of being physically dominated, so that humanity might possibly evolve its awful nature? Or is violence our nature? And if so, why do I not have the right to refuse to kill? Are pacifists deserters? Was Jesus a deserter because he refused to fight? Or was he an example of how we could all live better?

        Jeff I believe in scary monsters. History is full of them. They are there and undeniable. But does that mean the only response is suspicion and violence? The only way forward is war? The only way to speak is in definite terms and ominous warnings? The only way to be brave is to be ready to kill? It sounds like the only way to show strength is with bigger weapons and battle-readiness. If that is the case then Jesus was the weakest coward in all of history.

      8. *A few minor edits. My apologies for any inconvenience.

        Once again your words are beautiful and could easily persuade readers that they hold some valuable profundity. But after enough time, enough atrocities, this righteous battle men are supposedly fighting becomes a chosen torture. Perhaps I am a deserter who refuses to lay down my life for this putrid battle between man and man. Or perhaps the one final freedom I have is the freedom to lay down my arms and die for what I believe. Perhaps deserters are the evil ones, who spit in the face of this eternal battle you claim we are all responsible for fighting. If that’s the case then I willingly embrace the evil of peace, as Jesus did. At what point is the violence we have been through as a species going to teach us to change our direction? At what point do we refuse to destroy each other, even at risk of being physically dominated, so that humanity might possibly evolve its awful nature? Or is violence our ultimate nature? And even if so, why do I not have the right to refuse to kill? Are pacifists deserters? Was Jesus a deserter because he refused to fight? Or was he an example of how we could all live better?

        Jeff I believe in scary monsters. History is full of them. They are there and undeniable. But does that mean the only response is suspicion and violence? The only way forward is war? The only way to speak is in definite terms and ominous warnings? The only way to be brave is to be ready to kill? It sounds like the only way to show strength is with bigger weapons and battle-readiness. If that is the case then Jesus was the weakest coward in all of history.

      9. It’s funny how you will utilize the lessons of Christianity to convince men to wage war, but never to make peace.

      10. I fight for peace every time I form a sentence. There is an ancient saying: “If you want peace, prepare for war.” Here is wisdom that preserves the peace. If we are vigilant, enemies will not practice their treachery and violence on us. If we adopted your philosophy (which we partly have), we would surely suffer war, oppression, perhaps even annihilation. If we are destroyed it will be from unpreparedness and want of vigilance. You have completely misunderstood the spirit with which I have entered into these writings. I only want my country to be protected. All your accusations are hurled against me, as if I am cause of the problem. What kind of moral compass do you actually have? Where is your concern for the lives that will be lost? For the loss of freedom? You have no words for the totalitarian states and their criminal leaders. Not one word from you. What evil spirit inhabits your body I know not; yet it gives off foul gasses in the form of “thoughts.”

      11. Thank you for reiterating my point. Your ancient sayings and historical parallels have served for millennia to keep paving the same bloody road. A road of which Jesus himself never laid a single brick, mind you. Yet zealots like yourself have wielded his name, generation after generation, slitting each other’s throats all the while claiming to be men of peace. Your beautiful words and ancient pictures have become YOUR new religion. You fail to know the men who exist around you, flightily writing us off as some unknown evil. How easy it is then to continue this path, for you have stopped imagining something different is possible. Call me what you will but I am best served to urge others to walk this path no longer.

      14. I am not expert in Hungarian politics. Watching Orban give public talks and speeches, however, I noticed his almost casual use of Marxist-Leninist abstractions and even dialectical ways of framing issues. This astonished me when I first noticed it. Perhaps Orban’s “friendship” with Vladimir Putin might be something more than an affinity between nationalist politicians. Communism has always had to pilfer themes from nationalism in order to govern. Hitler’s contribution to socialist theory in this regard is not generally appreciated; though communist leaders like Xi Jinping have a genuine interest in Hitler’s mixing of nationalism with socialism. In many countries the abstractions of Marx and Lenin have lost what little traction they had with the masses. Meanwhile, nationalism will always recur as a phenomenon through which communists can govern. Today, for example, China has wedded great Han chauvinism with communism. Even Putin has brought forward nationalist themes, as did Stalin during the Great Patriotic War. All communist politicians are politicians in the end, and they adapt to circumstances as they must. But if you listen carefully to what leaders like Orban and Putin say, you will hear a Marxist-Leninist inflection in the pattern of their so-called nationalism. There is something off about this. In the end, they are not thinking of their nation. They merely give lip service to it. The state which they lead is opposed to the interests of the people, and destructive of the national culture. As with Hitler’s government, they will readily sacrifice the nation for the sake of their own power. The criminal nature of these regimes, their atheistic cynicism and materialism, cannot but damage the nation. I don’t trust Orban because his pattern of speech is that of a communist apparatchik. If he picked up this way of talking under the communist regime, he nonetheless retains it — unable to free his own mind. How could such a person be trusted? Ah, yes, but Moscow is doubly sure to trust him.

      15. The comment I am posting is for Terry George. Evidently, in order to make sure that the situation does not get out of control, the reply function was disabled on Mr. George’s posts.

        “The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.” George Orwell

        I do believe Mr. George that you should take to heart Mr. Orwell’s statement.

      16. Just came across this story online, it seems to fit in with the Red Chinese trying to attempt something 18 months or so ago in getting viruses into the US.
        [In late November 2018, just over a year before the first coronavirus case was identified in Wuhan, China, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents at Detroit Metro Airport stopped a Chinese biologist with three vials labeled “Antibodies” in his luggage.
        The biologist told the agents that a colleague in China had asked him to deliver the vials to a researcher at a U.S. institute. After examining the vials, however, customs agents came to an alarming conclusion.
        “Inspection of the writing on the vials and the stated recipient led inspection personnel to believe the materials contained within the vials may be viable Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) materials,” says an unclassified FBI tactical intelligence report obtained by Yahoo News.]

      18. The economy must be prevented from righting itself. If we are deprived of the financial means to rearm, we will remain helpless as they begin to deploy their new weapons.

  2. Litvinenko’s fate sure contained a calling card didn’t it?
    A message clearly delivered.

  3. Jeff, I am not sure if you can comment, the other night, me and some Hong Kong people had a skype conversation and things do seem to be dire in Hong Kong, there is speculation that Hong Kong could be very well going through an early reunification and it seems, the Hong Kong Democratic Party, the Civic Party and other Political Parties within the Hong Kong Democracy Movement and Hong Kong Independence Movement are now staying silent also there is speculation that Hong Kong could very well be part of Mainland China very soon, some people believe it may very well be this year.

    Also in regards to Article 23 in Hong Kong, there is no resistance to it after what people have seen what happened last year in Hong Kong when people who opposed the Chinese Communist Party were either disappeared, found dead wrapped up in a plastic bag or the Protesters including their parents and relatives were disappeared, there is now fear in Hong Kong, that the Ministry of State Security is active in Hong Kong and people do indeed fear that the Ministry of State Security are now tracking Hong Kong’s telecommunication and internet, in the upcoming document which I hope to finish soon and send it to you, I cover why it is a terrible idea in Hong Kong to use internet forums and instant messenger services like Telegram to coordinate the Hong Kong Protest. From what I was told, the Ministry of State Security had been hacking Hong Kong’s telecommunication network to track the Protesters and at the same time tracking the internet forums and instant messenger services used by the Protesters, it seems that Hong Kong has no more autonomy and is now another Mainland Chinese city.

    2. In forcing Hong Kong into full control by the CCP, it will backlash and destroy the economy of China. A lot of the big money in Hong Kong left in the early 2000s. I would think that if the big money that is still in Hong Kong sees what is coming, much of that will leave too, and the Asian and world markets will pull money out of investments which will drastically effect the Red Chinese. They may gain control of Hong Kong and in the process be dropping themselves through the hangman’s trap door.

  4. Mr Nyquist

    It may be a bit off topic, but have you considered that the whole “Jewish question”, who has been saturating the thought process of some parts of the Political Right for over a century now, might be an information operation by the Soviets? A sort of wild goose chase to mask their own actions. I’m talking to people who could be loosely associated with the Alt-Right and they are refusing to see the dangers posed by Russia and China in current times. Regarding the COVID-19 situation, they believe that George Soros and others are responsible for this attack “on Trump, Putin, Iran and China”. It’s the Jews of course. I believe that antisemitism is extremely destructive to the Right and very convenient for the Sino-Soviet push against the West. Isn’t it conceivable that international Communism is not only fanning the flames of Western antisemitism but also the origin of large parts of it? And along with the destruction of Israel, couldn’t presenting a convenient scapegoat and smoke screen be a central goal of the tactic?
    At this point I would like to coin the phrase “Wild Jew Chase”.
    Thank you so much for all your work.

    1. The Russian special services learned the uses of antisemitism and conspiracy theories from the Tsar’s secret police. They infiltrated the Nazi’s thoroughly. They took control of the Nazi diaspora after Hitler’s death. The leading Nazi theorist after 1945 was an American named Francis Parker Yockey. He worked with the KGB in the 1950s. You will notice the reception I received on Alex Jones, where the host objected to the idea that Russia was an enemy country. Jones is into the same conspiracy theories the KGB likes to promote on the right, and he has been associated with people like Webster Tarpley, a Communist theoretician who was active in the LaRouche movement — a right wing front controlled by the communists.

    2. Arthur, to provide additional background. the Chinese people have always been great admirers of the Jewish people for the long suffering and ability to bounce back thru suffering. I heard this many years ago that if you went into a Chinese bookstore, there would be many books proclaiming their admiration and respect to the Jews. Also there is much in everyway a parallel in the structures of the family from both the Jewish and Chinese cultures.

      Also, to root this in a deeper argument, the Hebrews were chosen by God for an intimate purpose of knowing His laws and being blessed in that purpose as they fulfilled it for themselves and given out to the world. Jews down thru history have provided keen insights for the financial markets as well as in the courtrooms of Kings and entertainment, etc. Modern state of Israel has been on the cutting edge of great technological inventions.
      This particular anointing of the Joseph and Daniel leadership God has given to the Jewish people as a whole which is why you see them in leadership roles around the globe, which eventually puts the communist system at enmity against the modern state of Israel. Two opposing world views.

  5. Late spring, you say. I take it that means around June 1st onwards? Is there *anyone* in
    the upper echelons of the federal government or military command who is being made
    aware of your warning, or could be through *someone’s* effort, someone with some
    sway in getting through to crucial people? At least so our military/intelligence resources
    will be put on notice to increase their surveillance and keep their guard up? Someone with
    real connections has to try. I’m afraid if a ‘lowly schmoe’ like me were to write, say, the
    White House chief of staff, no matter how convincingly, it would just end up being cast
    aside as an ordinary citizen’s paranoia. But I sure don’t want to take the chance that this
    could happen.

  6. I used to dismiss you as a conspiracy nut that just couldn’t let go of the Cold War. I would love to continue to believe that because it’s so comforting but it’s getting harder to dismiss you. This virus arose in Wuhan a city with one of the few level 4 bio weapons labs in the world. It’s genetic make up is very odd it has HIV genes that’s like you or I having genes from a turtle. It’s not going to happen unless somebody made it happen.

  7. Your recent posts give me indigestion, primarily because I believe you are right (although I am a nobody so my opinions do not matter much). My livestock guardian dogs bark a lot because their hearing is much better than mine; they are usually barking at the predators lurking at a distance waiting to tear my sheep to bits. Perhaps your hearing is a bit better than most, and the people who berate you have bad hearing but don’t know it.

    As for timing of an attack on North America, might the virus dictate that? If it doesn’t take off in Russia, perhaps late spring would make sense, but it does take off in Russia, it would not be logical to initiate WW3 while your population is sick and dying in large numbers. If the virus is insignificant in Russia, I would be highly suspicious that they have perhaps released it, and added an antidote to their annual flu shot, and they better attack quick before revenge is taken by other nations. If they are acting in concert with China, China had better be mostly recovered as well, unless their military is inoculated, wouldn’t you say?

    1. The virus seems to be aimed at the infirm and elderly. Watch to see if Russia manages this to shed its old pensioners with the least fuss. If so, the real attack is to come, and will function differently.

  8. I am a pharmacist. China’s threat to withhold antibiotics has the entire pharmacist community in terror as you know almost all antibiotics are made in China. This virus is an RNA virus. RNA is less stable than DNA so the virus can change rapidly. Drugs that work now may be in affective in short order.. Zithromax is used along with chloroquine because it has antibacterial activity the danger is that bacteria take advantage of the damaged done by the. virus to invite themselves to dinner.

    1. Interesting to hear about China cutting us off from viral medicines. A despicable threat which reveals the malice of Beijing. Your points about the instability of the virus is a big question and a potential opening for the introduction of a pre-made killer strain. This is what I am presently concerned about.

      1. 38 years as a pharmacist here.
        Yes, a “pre-made killer strain” with plausible deniability and the media’s cover could certainly be next. Or something different entirely. Is the “Kung Flu” part weapon, part battlefield preparation?
        Italy has seen 40 different strains. The lack of detailed information on each and ever single change seen in the virus during it’s journey is as concerning as it was with other pathogens, more actually since this may be the first truly weaponized virus released upon the global population, a fact conveniently denied publicly by everyone but the Russian Chinese Iranian axis, who blame America for a bio weapon.

  9. As for timing of a military move, I’d look to the weather in Europe. The Chicoms and Russians will want to work together—Russia to take over Europe while the Chicoms the U.S. and mopping up take the Philippines, Taiwan and Japan. If.there’s a late spring with much snow and rain, causing the ground to be quite muddy, the Russians may wait until mid to late summer to make their move, because they want the ground to be dry and hard enough to support their tanks so their tanks won’t be confined to roads where they can more easily be blocked and defeated. Europe had a late spring last year, what’s it like so far this year?

      1. Is their ambition limited to Ukraine? Or will they want to go to the Atlantic, an ambition they’ve had for a long time? Europe is already nervous but so far hasn’t done anything significant to rearm to defend themselves. If the Russians stop with retaking Ukraine, will the rest of Europe wake up and rearm? Or would it be better for the Russians to try to go all way while Europe is largely undefended?

      3. Exactly. That’s where the Chicom/Soviet cooperation comes to play. I expect that the Soviets will nuke some of our major cities, as well as target our military assets such as our land-based missiles, army and air force. Even after such a devastating attack, there’s the possibility that we can come back, and that’s where the Chicoms come into the picture, putting boots on the ground to finish us off. As a result, the Soviets will have a free hand in Europe. At least those are the plans as I understand it. The Chicoms want Lebensraum, and we have plenty of it.

  10. As to when for a military move, I’d look at the weather in Europe. The Chicoms and Russians will want to coordinate their attacks—Russia to take over Europe while at the same time the Chicoms invade California. If Europe has a late spring with much snow and rain, the Russians will want to wait until mid-summer until the fields are dry and hard enough to support their tanks. That’s so that their tanks won’t be confined to roads where they can be more easily blocked and defeated. Europe had a late spring last year, what’s it like so far this year?

    1. Sorry, there was a glitch, and I didn’t realize my previous message got posted. You can remove the second attempt.

  11. Life in Europe has already turned into a brutal Soviet reality insofar as all inns, bars cafés and restaurants, as well as all cultural institutions (as well as sports and recreational places) are closed. The rich, diverse and happy life is gone. And quite a number of us wonder whether those now-closed reminders of our earlier life might, by whatever course of events, REMAIN closed!

  12. According to Claire Berlinski’s newsletter, Russian, Chinese and Cuban military and medical teams are now in Italy. This is getting SCARY!

  13. Is your imagination so tainted by humanity’s history of violence that you really can’t picture anything different than what we have now? To consider practical aspects of socialism which could provide a stable foundation for American life (universal health care for one), does not immediately make us the USSR. To consider revisiting our military budget in order to decide if the resources are being best used to actually protect America from modern threats, does not immediately ensure our destruction. Simply discussing the dire reality of the situation we’re in does not make us part of the Communist Bloc. But the way you speak, for me to make these statements, automatically equates me with Stalin and paints me as your evil enemy. This is your failing. You have lost sight of the grey area between the very worst that we can be, and the very best. This grey area is where I can imagine something better. You cannot, and so you promote your own extremism of division and suspicion with beautiful words and stories, hoping to expose some divine Communist conspiracy.

    Since I do not directly address our enemies you assume I ignore them. You make it sound like I wouldn’t fight for this country just because I’m not itching for a fight. Would you agree that being too eager to fight is what has brought us to where we are? Maybe a bit of prudence, as you so often promote, within our military ranks, could make clear that America is fully aware of its military might? Our place as the world’s superpower didn’t come overnight and I don’t believe it will disappear overnight. If I’m naive then you’re paranoid, but I would wager it’s somewhere in the middle.

    1. Sorry to interject: Here somebody desperately tries to make an argument out of vague hopes and a stubborn refusal to acknowledge the facts. Has he ever read Anatoliy Golitsyn’s groundbreaking two books? Has he ever taken it upon himself to read a whole number of other communist defectors? And has he ever closely watched the development in both Russia and China (as well as in the rest of the still-intact communist world bloc) ever since the alleged collapse of communism 30 years ago? The development there has been more than alarming – and even U.S. Generals have meanwhile publicly said so. J.R. Nyquist, though he might now seem like a lone voice in the wilderness, isn’t alone at all. His analysis is founded on the expertise of the best of the best, and his own expertise should be seen on par with theirs, apart from the fact that Mr. Nyquist isn’t just an extremely sharp mind (and a profound scholar), but at the same time a man of great intuition (and certainly impeccable integrity). You are arguing with a giant, albeit a giant so humble that he engages in this kind of exchange, very much like a dedicated high school teacher who patiently tries to illuminate his students. I would suggest: better learn from him (whatever painful his insights may be) than needlessly and senselessly argue with him. This is our present-day malaise: Everybody thinks he is entitled to have an opinion. But without proper knowledge and exact understanding, what are such “opinions” worth, in the end?

    2. My imagination is “tainted,” you say, by the violence of human history? Or am I merely a realist — the proverbial “adult in the room”? It might be useful to consider the ancient historians in this context (and why they have been valued for centuries). When we read Plutarch’s Lives, Thucydides and Tacitus, the letters of Cicero, and the life of Julius Caesar, we see the reality of human nature and its tragic limitations, not some utopian claptrap about making a better world through positive thinking. Excellence does not consist in dreaming of an excellent world. Wisdom consists in knowing how difficult the smallest problems in history are, and how it is not a story in which all problems are solved or even can be solved. To believe in a grand socialist solution to the basic problem of existence is to remain a child. The problem with your way of thinking is not that you are Stalin, but that your childishness enables the Stalins of the world to get away with their crimes. The history of politics and war, as told by the ancients, is something alien to your progressivism and scientism. Because progress and equality were the mother’s milk of your education, you have turned against the masculine acceptance of reality as some kind of “original sin” instead of a virtue. This is the substance of your insinuations and straw man arguments above. Your thinking is steeped in utopian illusions about progress and equality for everyone — about the world always getting better and better.
      What you are implying, perhaps without realizing it, is that those with second thoughts about your socialist paradise are the real problem. If only we didn’t exist, all violence and injustice would cease. Since I am a primary representative of those who resist, the cunning observer might espy Stalin’s classic solution: “No man, no problem.”
      You would like to claim the moral high-ground. But you can’t. Your ideological co-religionists killed 100 million people in the twentieth century, and they will kill even more in the present century; but you don’t really care, and refuse to denounce it. And when my arguments confront you with the choice of being on the side of the innocent victims of socialism — of Tiananmen Square and Pol Pot’s genocide — you don’t dare say a word against the communists. Your condemnation is reserved for the person who speaks and writes on behalf of the past AND future victims of socialism. For this you have nothing but scorn. Your silence on the crimes of the totalitarian socialists, who are the primary oppressors of the last century, gives you away. Your commitment is to the revolutionary left. You pretend disinterest in the war between totalitarianism and freedom, so you are not on the side of freedom. You will say nothing in favor of your country, and nothing against your country’s enemies. Under the circumstance, your silence is an endorsement of the latter. You see, there is a moral choice here. You have one chance to be on the side of the oppressed — of the millions dying in the Chinese the-education camps, of the thousands kidnapped and murdered in Hong Kong. You take issue with me. I’m the evil that has to be eradicated to make way for your better world.
      You roll your eyes at me — as you admit — because socialism is your religion. For the victory of socialism there must be killing; or didn’t you know that? Of course, you will list the crimes of capitalism, of all human history. With this reference we might understand that you know more than you let on.

      1. By considering some socialist dedication of resources to fundamental human needs, I do not seek a “grand socialist solution”. I simply acknowledge that a Capitalist dog-eat-dog world likely produces as much suffering as the Communist world you fear, and that there is likely a middle ground that produces less suffering than each. You run my consideration to the end zone and declare that because I would not defend the free market with my life, I am a soft tool of the hard Communist agenda. You’re wrong of course, but this still allows you to paint me as the other whose voice is inspired by evil. I do not dwell on the historical atrocities of Communism/Fascism because I assume they are common knowledge as The Exact Thing we humans are trying to avoid repeating throughout history. We know them well and they are not forgotten. The current state of China is a totalitarian prison for billions. Their Communist doctrine has stripped the most basic freedoms from most of its citizenry. Does this fact allow China to build a more stable country and combat threats that may come? Of course it does. Does admitting this fact mean I would support establishing a similar totalitarian prison in America, for stability? Absolutely not. But will I ignore the fact that certain socialized institutions could help America survive against these countless and enormous threats? I won’t, even at risk of being labeled the enemy by someone as wise and learned as you. I also won’t harp on the past miseries of Communism because, unlike what you’d like to believe about educational institutions in America, they were etched well into my memory.

        I roll my eyes at you because you speak in such absolutes, which make you sound like a prophet, not an educator. I take issue with you because you could probably resonate with a lot more people, effectively making your points of concern and enlightening the ignorant, without speaking down to those who may not see in stark black or white.

        Imagining a better world doesn’t mean I see it always getting better or need it to be perfect. It means I have seen enough good in those around me that I believe there is a more powerful force than the evil which has historically held the reigns of society. And I believe the modern world provides a unique opportunity for good to finally seize them if we show compassion, strength and reason in our national political discourse. Which is what I see in one candidate alone, Bernie Sanders.

      3. Ok let’s get you up on a debate stage next to Bernie and see who sounds like the crazy old coot warning of doomsday and pandering off of people’s fears.

      4. Yeah, sure, I’m crazy — while Bernie convinces the dupes that car exhaust is going to drown us all with rising ocean levels. That has been the real hysteria of the current generation. Don’t lie and pretend that everybody is afraid of a nuclear-biological war. Do you know anyone presently building a fallout shelter? For that matter, our strategic deterrent has received a fraction of the concern poured over the “global warming” hoax, which you are obligated to parrot. You won’t catch me pandering to those fears. As for the destruction of our country by a foreign attack — I suppose you still haven’t noticed that the first wave of the attack has already begun. When you see the end coming, I hope you will think seriously about the way in which your ideas — your kind of thinking — contributed to our destruction; for if I’m right, your style of thought has made a significant contribution to our destruction. Your style of thought — in the tradition of Lenin’s “useful idiots,” has distracted the country from the one genuine thing that has kept us alive these many years; namely, our nuclear deterrent. I want to congratulate you, especially since our nuclear deterrent is long past it’s expiration date, with no new warheads in prospect for five years. Of course, you would not suppose the timing of COVID-19 had anything to do with that. Nah! I didn’t think so; — Bully for you!

      5. Alright. When I’m burning from radiation or starving in a concrete cell I’ll be regretting not having enough money to own a plot of land let alone a home to live in let alone a bomb shelter for thermonuclear war. I’ll be sure to regret spending a little time trying to offer a counter viewpoint to a cross-generational compatriot whose viewpoint, in my opinion, ensures the regular frequency of these worthless wars. You don’t see war as a failure of society, apparently. Just another pending event like the Olympics. That’s a pitiful and antiquated view that will have us all dead in the end, but it doesn’t stop you from emasculating men for not thirsting to die in a pointless fight. If men like you don’t kill the world now, there can be a better future when they gradually die off and their more intelligent children second guess following in their footsteps.

      6. I will ignore your spurious accusations. Men like me? Kill the world? It’s fools of various kinds who disarmed us — first psychologically, then in real terms. It is sad not to know the basis of your own existence. It is shameful for a man to misunderstand life and the world, to berate an elder who tries to pass this understanding along.

      7. I’ve spent enough time fending off shame from men calling themselves Christians trying to pass along what they call knowledge. I’m just lucky enough to have learned it’s baloney before I hit forty.

      8. I can see you have not read much history, so you do not have the benefit of the vicarious experience of others. Being under 40, and living in a comfortable country, you do not have a lot of personal experience. You think you know all you need to know to make pronouncements like the one above. It seems you don’t want to face the realities of life. That is fine, because you will learn regardless, because life’s lessons are ongoing. You will experience larger history in a very intense way. This is how souls are educated, through trials and tribulations. Wisdom consists in knowing how things really are, and having foresight. It also requires courage to see the truth.

    3. “The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.” George Orwell
      You evidently have stocked up on ink, both liquid and digital.

  14. Some fantastic comments here. A brilliant read. Thanks to all contributors.

  16. Jeff, TG simply denies the total depravity of the human condition. His worldview doesn’t allow him to envision the scenarios that are planned for us by our enemies. No amount of evidence is enough. He sees evil being conquered by reason and compassion which will usher in this utopian future. In his mind, Jesus was a pacifist, completely ignoring Jesus’ instructions to his disciples to arm themselves (Luke 22:36). Until Jesus returns and restores this world, evil will continue to reside in the heart of every human being and many will chose to embrace it as has been the case since Cain slew Abel. Someone once said that Satan’s greatest victory was convincing the world he doesn’t exist. Indeed.

  18. Terry George:

    While you find Jeff’s frightful commentary of little value (or not helpful in getting us all to a better place and a better world), I find your wish for humanity to “evolve its awful nature” more than a little frightening as well.

    I think history shows that when Mankind attempts to change its nature by taking some Great Leap Forward, many people are crushed from the landing. We are very good at evolving our killing machines, but in attempting to change our natures into more peaceful and loving creatures, we are truly barbaric along the way. Not surprisingly, we never seem to arrive at that elusive goal.

    I believe there is coming a time, perhaps born out of the cries of war-weary survivors of the holocaust Jeff warns about, where many who think as yourself – well-intentioned souls who want to bring to the world the peace of a Christ of your own making – will through war and violence attempt to build a new world that is devoid of war and violence. When you say “we must have peace” what you really mean is “we must have the absence of opposition to our grand project of perfecting Man”. In claiming that you have the spirit of Christ on your side, and therefore His authority, you will sideline (eliminate) those who are impediments to the birthing of this new world, and in doing so, ironically, you will have sided with the spirit of Antichrist.

    1. Why can’t peace simply mean peace? Why can’t men disagree but not kill? Why can’t we heal the historical grievances that have always been caused by the powerful overtaking the weak? You make it sound like we’re hopeless to do anything about our violent history. It’s odd that even today, with everything that is possible, peace somehow is not. I call B.S.

      1. I know. You have a magic wand that makes men “nice,” and turns them all into little girls. I bet you get all tingly just thinking about it.

  19. There is a film I watched recently named ‘The Platform’. I believe it’s a Spanish film that explores the ideas of different levels of wealth and power in society in an artistic thought provoking way. Terry George I have enjoyed reading your rebukes, but the truth of human kind, as depicted in the film I mentioned let alone in the many years of recorded history is that man will always take what he needs if he needs it, whether that is an individual man or a nation. Even if you are slightly hungry, you want to be the guys on top not the guys below, I don’t see myself as a profound speaker or writer but more of someone who sees humanity for what it is through the common sense of things. Do you not see this is the reality of our species despite your hope that we would somehow improve or evolve from our primitive selves?

  20. I think that TG may misunderstand ( perhaps giving him too much benefit of the doubt ) that Jeff is in favor of war. I think Jeff is an astute observer of human nature and history. So Jeff is not judging war one way or the other – he is simply noting that it is a recurring theme in the human story. And the same with human nature – just noting that there is a propensity for evil which comes forth in some individuals. In some ( Saddam, Hitler, Stalin ) it seems to spring forth with almost supernatural force – a dark force. I think the Bible says, the heart of man is desperately wicked – who can know it ?
    Certainly there are some very holy people – I’ve met some – and many good people. But as long as humanity consists of various types we must always protect the good and innocent against the bad people. As they say in law enforcement – the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Just hope my prepping strategy proves appropriate. Blessed Virgin Mary, pray for us !
    Go Jeff !

  21. Terry George asks, “Why can’t peace simply mean peace?” The answer is that not everyone wants peace. He asks again, “Why can’t men disagree but not kill?” Because people with no conscience will not take “No, I disagree” for an answer. “Why can’t we heal the historical grievances that have always been cauased by the powerful overtaking the weak?” Because the worst in society are attracted to power the way a moth is attracted to a light. It’s the same whether we talk about the street mugger taking power by robbing, the businessman who sells out his country the better to oppress his workers with substandard wages, the corrupt government official (the swamp, deep state) who uses his position to push his pet goals often even in disobedience to what is expected of him, and the law-maker making laws to benefit himself and/or his allies no matter how unjust they might be. We have examples of these and more already in our country, what more do you want?

    Unfortunately, the only thing these people listen to is force equal to or superior than their own. Force includes the threat of violence or actual violence.

    So what is your answer to these people? How will you get them to listen to you when they see no benefit to themselves to do so? How will you convince them not to hurt other people without the use of force?

    How will you deal with countries when they are ruled by psychopaths who want war and conquest?

    This is the world we live in.

    In closing, the majority of people want justice. In fact, in the Bible we are commanded to work for justice. Micah 6:8 the word for “justice” in the Hebrew language indicates judicial, civic justice, not just personal piety. So do you condemn us when we recognize that some people will listen only to force, therefore we need to be prepared to use force if necessary to stop unjust actors? Do you condemn the country for preparing forces to try to stop psychopaths who rule nations from taking over and oppressing the whole world?

    1. No, I don’t condemn America for having the most powerful military in the world. I have never called for the dissolution of the armed forces. I am a gun owner and appreciate that right very much. The need to protect oneself and enjoy personal safety is a staple of human existence. I disagree though, that in a world where the necessities to live are abundant and available to all, crime and violence will still be as rampant. The typical mugger does not rob for fun, he robs out of necessity or fear. The corrupt politician uses legislation to enrich himself out of greed and lust for power. If money did not equal power, like it does in our current society, there would be less incentive to be corrupt. If food, water, shelter and medicine were widely available to every American, historical rates of violence would plummet. The way to stop psychopaths is to prohibit them from gaining power in the first place. When one can make endless amounts of money by using America’s system, then enter into politics and use that money to gain power, then use that power to make more money, of course we will have a constant flow of psychopaths in positions of leadership. This system has become a money machine for the immoral, yet it is defended by the Right until they are out of breath. Why is it defended so staunchly? Because of the terrifying specter of this Grand Communist Consipiracy Jeff is so sure is coming to our shores. Let our fear of the worst help us accept the second worst on a daily basis. Let our fear of the unknown damn us to this unstoppable history of violence. I simply don’t buy this approach. It implies our violence is permanent and unshakeable, eternally pitting us against each other in an existence of pain and suffering. It means essentially that this violence is the purpose of life that we all must endure and still be thankful for. It is cruel so therefore God is cruel. If the point of this life is constant misery and disharmony then I reject it and would gladly die for the prospect of peace, because this is what my God of love sent his son to Earth to demonstrate. I believe there was a reason for that demonstration. I believe fear and necessity drive most violence in this world, and through compassion and grace we can change the direction of society for the better. Not through intimidation and fear, which will only perpetuate our obviously violent history. There will always be bad people in the world doing bad things for bad reasons. We as a country are well prepared for this, but could still be better prepared. If acquiring money did not equate to acquiring power, we would have less dangerous people in power. To reduce the amount of power money holds, we have to share the resources that we all need to live. It’s as simple as that. Until we accept this as a nation, we are always under threat of destruction.

Comments are now closed.