Surprise makes it possible to inflict heavy losses upon the enemy in short periods of time, to paralyze his will, and to deprive him of the possibility of offering organized resistance. Surprise is achieved in the following ways: by using various types of methods of combat; by misleading the enemy as to one’s own intentions; by safeguarding the security of operational plans; by decisive action and skillful maneuver; by unexpected use of nuclear weapons; and by using means and methods with which the enemy is unfamiliar.Soviet Dictionary of Basic Military Terms
On 16 October of last year, during a presentation at a forum in Shenzhen, Chinese sociologist Li Yi made the following statement: “It turns out that China is going to overtake the United States….” He explained that COVID-19 was “a test” that is “bad for Europe and America” but “beneficial for China and North Korea.” Then Li spoke of China being “ahead of schedule” in terms of overtaking the United States. “The U.S. will not survive,” he predicted. “We have gained absolute superiority over the U.S. military in the Bohai Sea, the Yellow Sea, and the Taiwan Strait, and we are expanding our military at a rate unprecedented in human history.” He added that, for several years running, China has launched a new fleet every year the size of the French Navy. This rate of naval production will continue for the next decade. Then he said, “As long as 1.4 billion Chinese people eat, sleep, defecate, and urinate every day … we will drive the U.S. to its death.”
Chinese Defense Minister Chi Haotian delivered a secret speech before an elite group of Communist Party cadres nearly twenty years ago. The speech contains references to a future Chinese biological attack on America. “It is indeed brutal to kill one or two hundred million Americans,” said Chi. “But that is the only path that will secure a Chinese century in which the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] leads the world. We, as revolutionary humanitarians, do not want deaths. But if history confronts us with a choice between deaths of Chinese and those of Americans, we’d have to pick the latter….”
General Chi’s speech outlined China’s overpopulation problem, China’s shortage of clean water, and China’s other environmental problems. China needs unpolluted land, noted General Chi. But where can this be found? All nearby lands are insufficient. Only America has the rich land that is needed. “We must prepare ourselves for two scenarios,” said Chi. “If our biological weapons succeed in a surprise attack, the Chinese people will be able to keep their losses to a minimum in the fight against the United States. If, however, the attack fails and triggers a nuclear retaliation from the United States, China would perhaps suffer a catastrophe in which more than half its population would perish. That is why we need to be ready with air defense systems for our big and medium-sized cities. Whatever the case may be, we can only move forward fearlessly….” [italics added]
The key concept in General Chi’s speech is that of “surprise attack.” In August 1998 a journalist asked GRU defector Stanislav Lunev what Russian strategists thought was the most decisive factor in war. Lunev unhesitatingly answered, “Surprise.” In his book On War, Carl von Clausewitz wrote that surprise was integral to the “general endeavour to attain a relative superiority….” Surprise, added Clausewitz, “lies more or less at the foundation of all undertakings, for without it the preponderance at the decisive point is not properly conceivable.” In terms of strategic undertakings, surprise consists in two things: Secrecy and rapidity. That which invalidates a surprise, said Clausewitz, is “effeminacy” and “loose principles.” It is also true that “effeminacy” and “loose principles” makes a society more vulnerable to surprise attack.
According to Lunev, communist bloc generals believe that surprise is the decisive factor in war. The nature of the surprise that confronts us now, was predicted years ago by three communist bloc defectors. These defectors have proved to be the prophets of the post-Soviet era. Sadly, America has ignored these defector warnings. To briefly summarize: two of these defectors predicted the fall of the Warsaw Pact (Soviet alliance) before it happened, warning that the collapse would be a ruse. One of these defectors specifically warned that after this ruse had played out, Russia and China would emerge with a military preponderance of force and would begin dictating to the West. This is the scenario that now begins to unfold. [See, especially New Lies for Old pp. 345-345 and We Will Bury You, pp. 100-120, as well as Spetsnaz, in which the current “preparatory period,” prior to the outbreak world war, is described. Remarkably, this description refers to the deployment of a “rapidly spreading” viral pandemic.]
The reason all this defector testimony and its attending literature has been ignored or ridiculed during last three decades, is because communist subversion has been effective at demoralizing our society. It is no accident that we now accept our own “effeminacy” and “loose principles” as a kind of “enlightenment.” Only in this context can we correctly interpret the frightening military developments now underway. Currently, our enemies know that we are incapable of correctly reading their strategic texts. They know that we routinely exaggerate our own military prowess even as we belittle their military buildup. All this is a consequence of a corruption that elevates feminine values where masculine values ought to predominate, together with a slackness that combines indifference, self-indulgence, and moral indecision.
The West’s reaction to russia’s military buildup
The proof that cultural decadence makes us vulnerable to a military surprise attack from abroad, may be found in the authoritative pronouncements of our mainstream media. The editorial board of the Washington Post, which embodies “effeminacy” and “loose principles,” presently suggests that Russian President Vladimir Putin is mobilizing his Army and Air Force against Ukraine because of “mounting public discontent over Russia’s stagnant economy,” and because Putin is embarrassed over President Biden calling him “a killer.” Polls show that his party’s popularity has sunk to “only 27 percent.” The mobilization of the Russian military on the border of Ukraine therefore has no military meaning; that is to say, the movement of troops, the deployment of air wings, the readying of tactical nuclear weapons, is not considered threatening at all. The editorial board of the Washington Post does not ask whether all this pressure on Ukraine is diversionary in a military sense or coordinated with ongoing Chinese war preparations in the Far East. The editorial board of the Washington Post dismisses Putin’s mobilization against Ukraine as “a familiar diversionary tactic.”
There is some dismay in Europe, however. NATO raised its alert level to “potential imminent crisis.” It is reported that U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III is attending NATO headquarters this week to discuss Russia’s ongoing war mobilization. Russia has begun a significant buildup of troops on Ukraine’s border. Military trains are said to be arriving from as far away as Siberia. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said there is little hope that war can be avoided. The only viable preventive measure, Zelenksy suggested, would be NATO membership for Ukraine. Countering this idea, the Russian News Agency TASS warned that admitting Ukraine to NATO would only exacerbate the crisis. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov explained that the poor oppressed people of eastern Ukraine’s breakaway republics would find NATO membership “deeply unacceptable.”
The Russian troop buildup, however, is not merely threatening to Ukraine. The buildup has been extended to NATO’s Achilles’ heel. On March 24 Daily Street News reported that “Tanks and other heavy armor” are “on-the-move in Grodno, Belarus, [heading] toward the borders of Poland and Lithuania.” Grodno is at the western-most road-hub leading to the Sawalki gap, considered to be “the most vulnerable stretch of land in Europe.” It is the ideal staging area for a Russian/Belarussian invasion of Poland and Lithuania. As reported by Time Magazine, “If Moscow gained control of the [Sawalki] corridor the Baltic States would, catastrophically, be cut off from other NATO allies.”
Contrary to the general pattern, Poland remains vigilant with its dozen-plus combat brigades. However, in the event of full-scale war, Poland’s Army could not withstand a determined Russian assault for more than a few days. With help from NATO’s rapid reaction force, Polish resistance might last a full week. But if Russia’s allies in the Far East (China and North Korea) seriously threaten Taiwan or South Korea, there would probably be no American airborne divisions for Europe. Rapid reaction units from Italy, Spain and France would then have no chance of forming a defensible line before Russian divisions reached Europe’s soft, chocolate center – i.e., Germany. Help to Poland from neighboring Germany is not likely to enter the mix, as Germany has cultivated a supine military incapacity.
With America hard-pressed by China in the Far East, Europe’s best hope may be the French military, which is belatedly preparing for a major war on the European continent. As reported in The Economist, the French General Staff “quietly established [in January] ten working groups to examine the country’s readiness for high-intensity war.” Unfortunately, the French need years of peace to properly reorganize their military; and their first “full-scale divisional exercise” will not take place until 2023. The chance they will be surprised by a Russian attack in the interim, is more likely than not (unless Europe gives way to future Russian demands).
Yet there are more disturbing developments, reported two days ago. According to the 12 April edition of Ukraine Today, “Regulations ‘On the organization of urgent burial of bodies in wartime’ began appearing on websites in several Russian cities, underscoring the possibility that Russia is preparing for a large-scale invasion of Ukraine.” The Russian Interior Ministry is preparing to coordinate for the storage, identification, and documentation of the dead. In Cherepovets, local municipal authorities explained that these measures were being taken “in case of war.” City councils, throughout the Russian Federation, have been instructed to “prepare burial sites for those killed during the coming military campaign.” Similar regulations were previously adopted in “Chekhov, Sakhalin and Yekaterinburg.”
Meanwhile, Washington refuses to back NATO membership for Ukraine. This belies Biden’s declared hostility to Putin, who must have smiled at Biden’s threat to launch a punitive cyberattack on Russia last month. Nobody is taking Mr. Biden’s threat seriously. After all, Biden began his career as the political creature of the famous KGB agent and billionaire, Armand Hammer. According to Trevor Loudon’s background dossier on the 46th President, Biden has long been intimately connected with the “little known but highly influential Council for a Livable World (CLW).” According to Loudon, “CLW has worked consistently to disarm the United States to the benefit of Moscow throughout its entire history.” The CLW was founded in 1962 by Hungarian socialist Leo Szilard, formerly “an enthusiastic supporter of Bela Kun’s communist regime” (which briefly took power in Hungary toward the end of the First World War). Given this background, Joe Biden’s bellicose posturing cannot be taken seriously. In fact, nothing Joe Biden says can be taken seriously on any subject. In this he shares the “effeminacy” and “loose principles” of the Washington Post editorial board.
In little more than a week President Vladimir Putin will be delivering a major speech. Putin is expected to make a statement about Russia’s intentions toward Ukraine. Of course, Putin’s strategic gameboard includes more than Eastern Europe. China is also mobilizing for war. Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, U.S. Army Ret., who currently holds the Pershing Chair in Strategic Studies at the Center for European Policy Analysis, believes that the Russian troop buildup against Ukraine is diversionary. He says that the Russian deployment coincides with “a stream of disinformation” from “Moscow Masha.” He thinks that Donbas is not the target of the Russian military buildup. But then, mistaking an operational diversion for a strategic diversion, Hodges myopically opines that “All this movement of Russian forces is most likely a diversionary maneuver to strike and capture the water canal connecting Crimea to the Dnieper River….”
Effeminacy and the bomb
Why do we not have a better sense of what is happening? Once again, everything leads back to the West’s “effeminacy” and “loose principles.” The West is caught up in trivia. Always in search of new ways to misperceive dangerous developments that are unfolding before our eyes, we cannot discern what our enemy is after. He is after Donbas, or he is after Taiwan, or he is after a “water canal.” What difference, after all, does a water canal signify in the greater scheme of things? Indeed, our unprincipled tendency to regard only what is immediate, only what grabs our attention, diverts us from the wider context (which we have lost track of altogether). Our effeminacy tends toward our anti-anxiety drug of choice; that is, false optimism via bad analysis (and even worse policy).
According to GRU defector Viktor Suvorov, Russian military theorists have long believed in “the axe theory.” It is the theory that says you use your most terrible weapon first if a major war is coming. This was an idea drilled into Russian generals educated in Soviet military schools. If we remember what Clausewitz said: surprise consists in secrecy and rapidity. Yet surprise may also be a product of self-deception, myopia, or an undiagnosed neurotic condition. You tell yourself, over-and-over again, that something is impossible. Thenceforth, you refuse to believe your own intelligence reports. That undiagnosed neurotic condition now becomes the enemy’s helpmate. He prepares an all-arms nuclear offensive in broad daylight, while you worry about a “water canal” in Ukraine.
“The axe theory” of Russia’s generals stands opposed to the West’s theory of gradual escalation to a nuclear conflict. As a former Soviet military officer, Suvorov tells us that the West’s escalation theory is dangerous, and he explains why. According to Suvorov, “By using his most deadly weapon at the beginning of the fight, your enemy saves his strength.” A face-off between nuclear powers, said Suvorov, is like a gunfight in the Old West. Why slap a gunslinger in the face when he might just shoot you with his gun? Do you really think he would escalate by throwing a custard pie at you? What if you pulled your gun and shot him? Why should he give you that chance? “Of course,” wrote Suvorov, “he won’t wait for you when it comes to saving his own life. He will shoot first.” But the generals and politicians of the West do not believe in “the axe theory.” They do not believe the Russians and Chinese intend to use their most terrible weapons first. The generals and politicians of the West believe in a theory of gradual escalation to nuclear war. “Clearly,” wrote Suvorov, “the theory [of gradual escalation] is too fatally dangerous to serve as a basis for secret military planning.”
The only way to start a full-scale war with a nuclear adversary, and win, is to begin with nuclear strikes. It makes no sense to provoke the whole world’s hostility by invading Ukraine or Taiwan. Yet our strategists expect Russia to damage its international position for the meager prize of Ukraine. They also think China would make itself a pariah for the sake of acquiring Taiwan! Here we see small-minded strategists projecting their own lack of imagination onto their enemy. Unfortunately, this will never do. Returning to our theme, a strategy of modest aggression is not only the worst strategy Russia and China could pursue; there would be no element of surprise in doing something everyone expects. If the Russians and Chinese appear to be preparing for war, respectively, against Ukraine and Taiwan, it is axiomatic that they are preparing to attack something much more substantial. Need we repeat the words of Sun Tzu?
All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe that we are away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder and crush him.
A little further on in the text, Sun Tzu wrote, “In all fighting, the direct method may be used for joining battle, but indirect methods will be needed in order to secure victory.” The Russians have a special word of their own: Maskirovka. As John Dziak explained, “The Russian language and Soviet operational practice provide a rich and highly developed vocabulary dating back to tsarist antecedents and up through almost seven decades of the Soviet party-state.” Strategic deception, noted Dziak, “whether military or political, has been an integral feature of the Slavic tradition.” This is famously seen in Potemkin’s notorious “villages,” and through Russian expressions such as pokazukha (bull) and ochkovtiratel’stvo (eyewash). The idea that the Russians, let alone the Chinese, are going to do something predictable – without recourse to misdirection and diversionary operations – does not belong to serious military thought. Remember what we learned at the beginning of this essay: The most decisive military factor in our time is surprise. Just because we are too effeminate and loose in our principles to effect surprise, does not mean that our enemies are equally incapable.
The purpose of strategic deception is not a harmless prank. It is not undertaken so that a naked Russian girl can pop out of a cake during a birthday party. So here is the equivalent of our naked girl: China and Russia agreed, last January, to develop a joint Ballistic Missile Early Warning system (see China Gets A BMEWS). This signals the onset of an open Sino-Russian military alliance. Yet even now, three months later, this fact is ignored. It follows, then, that the military combination of Russia and China will prove to be the most shattering strategic surprise of all. In his 1973 Memorandum to the CIA, KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn explained the ultimate military significance of end-game Sino-Russian cooperation: “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 countries’ sources of retaliation and to paralyze, at least for a short period, their physical ability to take a decision on retaliation.” [p. 171.]
(What? You were expecting a naked girl to pop out of a cake?)
It is widely believed in the West that nuclear war is unwinnable, and that nuclear weapons will destroy the planet. This is untrue. In fact, if hydrogen bombs are used in airburst attacks there is practically no fallout at all. If such bombs are used against deep bunkers, short-term fallout will descend in a cone-shaped pattern downwind from the target. Within that cone-shaped field every plant and animal above ground will die from the short-term fallout. However, this radiation will dissipate within 13-18 days. The resulting destruction, however terrible, will be limited and temporary. As an American expert on nuclear war, Peter Vincent Pry, stated in his book, Nuclear Wars: Exchanges and Outcomes, “Delayed fallout will not, contrary to popular belief, gradually kill billions of people everywhere in the world. Indeed, the world population has already been exposed to delayed fallout such as would result from a medium nuclear war due to atmospheric testing [of dirty atomic bombs] … during the 1950s and 1960s….” [See page 194.]
War is terrible and always entails destruction; yet the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (a.k.a. MAD) exaggerates the effect of nuclear weapons. The Russian and Chinese generals, sometimes described as “psychopaths” by defectors, know that these weapons are destructive. But they also know these weapons would not end all life on earth. In this matter they are well informed. The founder of the People’s Republic of China, Mao Zedong, made a famous speech during a visit to Moscow in 1957. “I’m not afraid of nuclear war,” said Mao. “There are 2.7 billion people in the world; it doesn’t matter if some are killed. China has a population of 600 million; even if half of them are killed, there are still 300 million people left. I am not afraid of anyone.” Mao said it was natural that a Third World War would kill more people than all previous wars put together. He also famously said, “The atomic bomb is a paper tiger.”
This is the way in which communist leaders think. It is not a scandal when they make such pronouncements to each other in private. They know that nuclear weapons will not kill the planet or result in the extermination of the human race. They do not care if hundreds of millions die. On the other hand, the “effeminacy” and “loose principles” of American generals and politicians, who no longer have a realistic appreciation of nuclear weapons, has led the entire West to a state of psychological disarmament. Everyone believes, erroneously, that nuclear war is too terrible to contemplate. Therefore, not contemplating such a war, they are thoroughly unprepared for the kind of war their enemy is planning to fight. Our leaders have broken the first rule of warfare by consulting their fears. Here is “effeminacy” in action.
Consider, as Exhibit A, President William J. Clinton’s NSC Presidential Decision Directive 60 of November 1997 (still in effect today), which states: “The new … policy [is] that the U.S. will not rely on ‘launch on warning’ but will maintain the capability to respond promptly to any attack, thus complicating an adversary’s calculations. However, the new guidance eliminates previous Cold War rhetoric including references to ‘winning a protracted nuclear war.’” In other words, it is the policy of the United States to lose a protracted nuclear war; namely, by absorbing a full-on first strike and then to retaliate with whatever remains – if anything remains. This strategy might make sense if America had a large nuclear arsenal, with plenty of redundancy. But that is no longer the case. This strategy might also make sense if America had developed a solid system of blast and fallout shelters, with stores of food, water and fuel for the entire population. But we never built civil defense for our country. We did not want the expense of such an elaborate preparation. Our strategy of non-defense, in fact, was a logical adjunct to a culture of denial; that is, a culture of “effeminacy” and “loose principles.” Among those loose principles was our neglect of effective intelligence, effective counterintelligence, and societal vigilance. America’s schools never taught American children about the evils of communism. Instead, we let the communists take over our public schools and dictate the curriculum. We let communists, portraying themselves as Democrats, run for public office; and we let Republicans sell us out with detrimental free trade policies. The Chinese and Russians now have a government of their choosing in Washington.
when two chinese colonels are laughing at you
The political situation of the United States is far gone, and so is the country’s military situation. To put it bluntly, we are presently vulnerable to a mass missile strike from China, North Korea, and Russia. Looking at the incapable Mr. Biden, the United States is already pre-decapitated. You can paint whatever Happy Face you want on it, but fraudulent optimism will not stop a Russian or Chinese missile when deterrence finally fails. And yes, deterrence is about to fail. The signs are visible on every side. Our nuclear missiles are overaged and rotting. We will not have new replacement missiles or warheads until 2029.
To underscore our cluelessness and our unreadiness: The Chinese hit us with a biological weapon last year and what did we do? We denied that the virus was from a Chinese weapons lab. We denied that they unleashed it on purpose. Denial, as the joke says, is not a river in Egypt. We look to Europe and see Russia mobilizing. We look to the Far East and we see China mobilizing. Our “effeminacy” and “loose principles” have given our enemies a green light for further antics. Look at the communist-led riots in the United States last year. During the summer, communist-led mobs pulled down statues of our nation’s heroes and founders, but there was no counter-reaction. When the election outcome was questioned last January, and people protested in Washington, a provocation took place. The entire focus of the FBI was not against the communist subversives who rioted all summer, who burned and looted and killed. The focus was on patriotic Americans concerned about an accurate vote count.
We no longer know who we are. We no longer know who our enemies are. As the Chinese colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui have slyly stated in their book, Unrestricted Warfare, “[W]hen the Iron Curtain … suddenly collapsed, [Cold War thinking] lost its effectiveness. The times of clearly drawn sides are over. Who are our enemies? Who are our friends? These used to be paramount questions in regard to revolution and counterrevolution. Suddenly the answers have become complicated, confusing and hard to get hold of. A country that yesterday was an adversary is in the process of becoming a current partner today. While a country that once was an ally will perhaps be met on the battlefield at the next outbreak of war.”
Qiao and Wang are communists. They do not believe that the “times of clearly drawn sides are over.” As officers in the People’s Liberation Army, they are on the side of Marxist revolution. The confusion they describe is not theirs. The confusion they describe belongs entirely to the West. And knowing their book will be read in the West, they are not about to clarify the situation in plain terms. Let the West stew in confusion. Qiao and Wang therefore write of a “massive troop drawdown” in “every major nation” following the end of the Cold War. According to Qiao and Wang, “countries that formerly were pitted against each other are now anxious to enjoy the peace dividend. Little do these [Western] commentators realize that this factor is just the tip of the iceberg.”
What iceberg are they referring to? The decrease in military spending, together with the “peace dividend,” are but two consequences of the West’s “effeminacy” and “loose principles.” There are other factors, deeper and more far-reaching. As they deliver one backhanded compliment after another to the West’s technological prowess, these Chinese colonels are clearly saying that technology is a two-edged sword. Thus follows the cunning irony of Qiao and Wang when they write, “The era of ‘strong and brave soldiers who are heroic defenders of the nation’ has already passed. In a world where even ‘nuclear warfare’ will perhaps become obsolete military jargon, it is likely that a pasty-faced scholar wearing thick eyeglasses is better suited to be a modern soldier than is a strong young lowbrow with bulging biceps. The best evidence of this is perhaps the story that is circulating in Western military circles regarding a lieutenant who used a modem to bring a naval division to its knees. The contrast between today’s soldiers and the soldiers of earlier generations is as plain to see as the contrast which we have already noted between modern weapons and their precursors. This is because modern soldiers have gone through the severe test of an uninterrupted technological explosion … and perhaps the salutary influence of the worldwide pop culture; viz., rock and roll, discos, the World Cup, the NBA and Hollywood.”
This is a joke at our expense. The two Chinese colonels are laughing at us. They do not believe in the “salutary influence of … rock and roll….” To read this Chinese text properly, is to detect the mockery in it. These authors are soldiers. There can be no question that they believe in bravery and strength. Surely, they do not seriously believe that “‘nuclear warfare’ will perhaps become obsolete military jargon” that will give way to “a pasty-faced scholar wearing thick eyeglasses” … enduring the “severe test of an uninterrupted technological explosion … and the salutary [sic] influence of … pop culture … rock and roll … the NBA and Hollywood.”
Do you see their mockery?
Colonels Qiao and Wang grew up under Mao Zedong. They learned by heart The East is Red, every day, in elementary school. They romanticized the Long March and the anti-Japanese War, full of its hardships and privations. The idea that they seriously mean what they say, and are not writing ironically, is to miss the heart of their narrative. Chinese readers will understand, because Chinese literature is full of similar subtleties. These two Chinese colonels believe in “the axe theory.” It oozes from beneath their text. They do not believe in the “salutary influence of [American] pop culture,” except as something that prepares the way for a future Chinese surprise attack. In that sense, and only in that sense, is it “salutary” from a Chinese strategist’s point of view.
The Chinese and the Russians know all about the West’s “effeminacy” and “loose principles.” They know that we have forgotten about that most terrible weapon, the hydrogen bomb. The Chinese colonels are stating a deep sociological truth with their strategic irony. They are saying that technology has made Western man weaker, not stronger. It has made him more cowardly, not braver. Qiao and Wang became even more explicit when they stated: “Even though the new generation of soldiers born in the 70’s and 80’s has been trained using the ‘beast barracks’ style of training, popularized by West Point Military Academy, it is difficult for them to shed their gentle and frail natures rooted in the soil of contemporary society.”
These PLA colonels are hard men who are not about to give way to “a pasty-faced scholar wearing thick eyeglasses.” If that is who has taken over the Pentagon, however, they will not object. In fact, they are congratulating us. It really is funny, of course, as they wink at each another. Americans want comfort, convenience, and enjoyment. Okay. For how long? At what point does our increasingly silly existence result in a mass casualty event the likes of which the world has never seen?
What, in the end, does our online “culture” have to offer the military strategist? In terms of “effeminacy” and “loose principles,” is the online experience not an iteration of the same pop culture wasteland that rotted America’s brain in the 1980s? Rod Dreher, in his book The Benedict Option, made the following observation: “Online technology, in its various forms, is a phenomenon that by its very nature fragments and scatters our attention like nothing else, radically compromising our ability to make sense of the world, physiologically rewiring our brains and rendering us increasingly helpless against our impulses.” [Ch. 10, “Man and the Machine,” page 219.]
Oh yes, I am afraid the Chinese colonels were not honestly singing the praises of American pop culture, rock and roll, the NBA and Hollywood. They know that this is a culture that will not defend itself against nuclear weapons; that it is therefore vulnerable and almost certainly doomed. I once told a Russian military defector that almost all Americans think there is no point to building defenses against nuclear weapons. I will never forget his reaction. He visibly winced at the stupidity of it.
This needs to be hammered into Americans: – “Nuclear Winter” is a myth. “Fallout kills everything” is a myth. I quote again from Peter Vincent Pry: “Nuclear winter is the most recent attempt to prove that winning a nuclear war is impossible. A new apocalyptic theory was necessary from the viewpoint of the antinuclear and disarmament activists who originated and publicized nuclear winter because other theories of apocalypse, such as the fallout theory, had been discredited by the scientific community.” [p. 198] Pry goes on to quote physicist and Nobel Laureate Freeman Dyson, who said of the science behind the Nuclear Winter: “It’s an absolutely atrocious piece of science but I quite despair of setting the public record straight. I think I’m going to chicken out on this one. Who wants to be accused of being in favor of nuclear war?”
What is the old saying? “Meat for strong men, milk for babes.” The ruling American theory that nuclear war destroys everything is a rationalization for babes. It is a childish excuse to avoid an adult responsibility. And yes, America has avoided that responsibility for sixty years. The United States has no serious civil defense program. Our elected officials will not do anything to amend their negligence. Our wealthy elites will not do anything. The ignorant masses — well; they follow and imitate celebrities, who would not dare talk about civil defense (though we can certainly rely on them to advocate the integration of transexuals into the armed forces). As it stands right now, as we have no celebrity support for the life-and-death issues facing the country, we do not even bother protecting our electrical grid from an EMP attack. Thus, America’s belief in its military supremacy is a Big Lie advanced by people who prefer immediate gratification to long-term survival. However horrible the leaders of Russia and China are, they have nonetheless built civil defense for their own people. And what do we do in the West? We wait for our enemy to blow us up.
Is it any wonder that Russia and China are mobilizing for war? Last year, Xi Jinping warned the Chinese people that “the road ahead will not be smooth.” He spoke of reviving the spirit of the Korean War; of using “war to prevent war.” In 2021 President Xi said the Chinese military must be ready for war “at any second.” China’s Central Military Commission (CMC) has received emergency powers “to mobilize military and civilian resources in defense of [the] national interest, both at home and abroad.” Like Stalin in May of 1941, Xi is gathering state power into his own hands.
The 2020 Pentagon annual report on China, presented to Congress last year, made the following observations: (1) “The PRC [People’s Republic of China] has the largest navy in the world, with an overall battle force of approximately 350 ships and submarines including over 130 major surface combatants. In comparison the U.S. Navy’s battle force is approximately 293 ships as of early 2020.” (2) “The PRC has more than 1,250 ground launched ballistic missiles (GLBMs) and ground-launched cruise missiles (GLCMs) with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. The United States currently fields one type of conventional GLBM with a range of 70 to 300 kilometers and no GLCMs.” (3) The PRC has one of the world’s largest forces of advanced long-rang surface-to-air systems — including Russian-built S-400, S-300, and domestically produced systems — that constitute part of its robust and redundant integrated air defense system architecture.”
The report also referred to “the PLA’s staggering amounts [sic] of new military hardware….” The report underscored deficits in the Chinese force structure that will supposedly take 30 years to correct. But this report assumes that a war with China will not begin with a nuclear surprise attack in which many of America’s weapons systems are wiped out on day one. This report does not discuss the likelihood of a combined Chinese-Russian threat, which is apparently not under consideration. But this is exactly the threat we face, because China and Russia are the leading military powers of the “socialist camp.” This cannot be said too often. Yes, China and Russia are together. Why else are Myanmar anti-coup protesters burning Chinese and Russian flags? All over the world the Chinese and Russians are coordinating their strategic activity. Chinese and Russian troops have been sent to support the socialist regime in Venezuela. China and Russia are both coordinating with “socialist” Cuba and North Korea. Does anyone seriously believe the “socialist camp” is extinct?
After reading all these arguments, and seeing all this detail, the typical American response goes something like this: Why would China want to attack their number one customer? This question is a mistake. It assumes that the Chinese government is not communist, but capitalist. This assumes that the Chinese do not know how to count; for as Colonel Stanislav Lunev once explained, the Chinese and Russians will attack America once they have sucked America dry. Ask yourself: What does America now produce? What is our main export?
We export dollars.
And when the dollar collapses – what happens? Look at how much money the U.S. Government is spending right now, especially during this lockdown. Our deficit spending has ballooned to such an extent that these debts will never be paid. They will be resolved, ultimately, through the devaluation of the dollar. And when that happens, America will be like an empty piggy bank. Think strategically now, if you can: Our manufacturing base has gone to China. Our political system is one of “effeminacy” and “loose principles.” Our nuclear arsenal is on its last legs. If a war hastens the demise of the dollar, so much the better for China. America will fall. China will be the global hegemon; – so what if they lose $1.1 trillion in U.S. treasuries. They will come out ahead as their own currency appreciates. Then China can devote her industrial sector to military production and to world conquest. Why trade with people when you can exact tribute from them? And for that matter, as China is overpopulated and cannot feed itself, let us remember the “wise” words of that “great” Chinese statesman, Defense Minister Chi Haotian:
“Why have we not updated our national anthem with something peaceful? Why did we not change the anthem’s theme of war? Instead … we clearly specified ‘March of the Volunteers’ is our national anthem. Thus [you] will understand why we constantly talk loudly about the ‘Taiwan issue’ but not the ‘American issue.’ We all know the principle of ‘doing one thing under the cover of another.’ If ordinary people can only see the small island of Taiwan in their eyes, then you as the elite of our country should be able to see the whole picture of our cause. Over these years, according to Comrade [Deng] Xiaoping’s arrangement, a large piece of our territory in the North has been given up to Russia; do you really think our Party Committee is a fool? To resolve the issue of America we must transcend conventions and restrictions. In history, when a country defeated another country or occupied another country, it could not kill all the people in the conquered land because back then you could not kill people effectively with sabers or long spears, or even with rifles or machine guns. Therefore, it was impossible to gain a stretch of land without keeping the people on that land. However, if we conquer America in this fashion, we would not be able to make many people migrate there. Only by using special means to ‘clean up’ America will we be able to lead the Chinese people there. This is the only choice left for us.”
To understand the evil of the Chinese communist regime, our eye must be ready to survey that wider canvas of history, smeared with blood, smug in its inhumanity – eternally recurring through the ages. An appropriate rebuke to this comes from Britain’s imperial poet, Rudyard Kipling, who titled his indictment – A Dead Statesman:
I could not dig: I dared not rob:
Therefore I lied to please the mob.
Now all my lies are proved untrue
And I must face the men I slew.
What tale shall serve me here among
Mine angry and defrauded young?
Imagine, if you can, a whole generation of children (in every country) murdered – not mown down by machine guns in Flanders fields, but massacred by the hundred million in their own homes; massacred in biological and nuclear attacks; killed without knowing why. I therefore end this essay with two reproaches: One for the totalitarian monsters in Beijing, Pyongyang and Moscow; and another for the negligent, unprincipled, effeminate leaders in Washington and Brussels; so, I end with this second short poem of Kipling’s, titled Common Form:
If any question why we died,
Tell them, because our fathers lied.
This is Part I of THE CRISIS
Special thanks to Barrett Moore for his assistance in the writing of this article.
Quarterly Subscription (Voluntary)
Links and Notes
Dictionary of Basic Military Terms (A Soviet View), trans. U.S. Air Force, Soviet Military Thought Series, no. 9 (Washington. D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1976), p. 35.
Carl von Clausewitz trans. Anatol Rapoport, On War (Penguin Classics), p. 269.
Viktor Suvorov, Inside the Soviet Army (New York: Berkley Books, 1982), p. 185.
Brian D. Dailey, Patrick J. Parker, editors, Soviet Strategic Deception (Lexington: Hoover Institution Press, 1987), p., 3. This is where Dziak’s contribution to the book begins.
Anatoliy Golitsyn, The Perestroika Deception: The World’s Slide Toward the Second October Revolution (London: Edward Harle, 1995), p. 171.
Peter Vincent Pry, Nuclear Wars: Exchanges and Outcome, the Strategic Nuclear Balance, Vol. II (New York: Taylor & Francis, 1990) , p. 194.
Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, Unrestricted Warfare (Kindle edition), Location 698.
U.S. General Hodges: Deployment of Russian troops to Donbas is only a distraction, the Kremlin is preparing for a different attack — https://uawire.org/u-s-general-hodges-deployment-of-russian-troops-to-donbas-is-only-a-distraction-the-kremlin-is-preparing-a-different-attack?fbclid=IwAR1VeF-1am5yGBBC_ET0MtTdJoHZWZXerDLvecJFs5FRaDpqfGjsv6rL7cQ