The minute the KGB was back in power, the idea that the United States was trying to destroy Russia, that America was enemy number one, [comes] back again.

Yevgenia Albats [i]

Imaginative oblivion deforms consciousness. The confusion of language in the wake of the millennial movements is the syndrome of a disorder that has grown in contemporary Western society to the proportions of an established … state of unconsciousness – not to forget the global extension of the disorder [to the East] through the power dynamics of Western ecumenism.

Eric Voegelin [ii]

In both East and West, communist ideas permeate church, state, and culture. Communism is a philosophy, a series of party organizations, a movement, an octopus made up of countless front groups, which has hijacked and perverted political groups across the globe. Intellectually, communism represents a revolt against classical wisdom and middle-class values. It was also a revolt against Christian civilization. In the Encyclical of Pope Pius XI on Atheistic Communism we read, “This modern revolution … has actually broken out or threatens everywhere, and it exceeds in amplitude and violence anything yet experienced in the preceding persecutions launched against the Church. Entire peoples find themselves in danger….”[iii]

The characteristic effects of communist doctrine, as described by Pope Pius XI, are clearly visible today in the institutions of many countries. False fronts, like the Russian Federation and the World Economic Forum, push collectivist narratives that degrade and diminish the individual. As Pope Pius XI said, communism “strips man of his liberty, robs human personality of all its dignity, and removes all the moral restraints that check the eruptions of blind impulse.” He added that,

such a doctrine logically makes of marriage and the family a purely artificial and civil institution…. Communism is particularly characterized by the rejection of any link that binds woman to the family and the home, and her emancipation is proclaimed as a basic principle. She is withdrawn from the family and the care of her children, to be thrust instead into public life and collective production under the same conditions as man. The care of home and children then devolves upon the collectivity. Finally, the right of education is denied to parents….[iv]

Here is the essence of communism. And its core principles have become common practice in East and West. Both East and West are caught in a downward spiral, having absorbed a fatal poison. The result is a “race to the bottom.” Look at birthrates in Russia and the West. As childlessness accelerates, each generation has fewer and fewer people. If the attitudes and doctrines that have produced this demographic collapse are not reversed, and if these doctrines remain unquestioned, mankind will die out. Yet this is only one dimension of the problem; for communism is an orientation which negatively affects morality, economy, culture, and government.  

Presently there is confusion about communism in conservative circles. In terms of the war in Ukraine, some conservatives have decided that the “former” KGB officer Vladimir Putin represents traditional or Christian values (or, at least, he is not as wicked as Presidents Biden and Zelenskyy). With despair, many conservatives look at a leftist Pope in Rome, and leftist politicians in the West, as the most blameworthy malefactors. The alienated conservative no longer locates the head of the octopus in Moscow or Beijing. For example, conservatives tend to identify the World Economic Forum, or George Soros, or corporate America, as the head of the octopus – as if Marxism-Leninism and Moscow Center had never existed. They imagine the events of 1991 erased the entire communist organization in Russia, and its intimate ties to all other communist organizations, as if by magic. Thanks to Russian disinformation and active measures, conservative rage is almost entirely focused on personalities and organizations closer to home, or to imaginary conspirators, or intermittently to the “Chinese threat” (as if to exclude Russia and the rest of the bloc countries from the larger equation). Our conservatives do not see the World Economic Forum as a communist front, or the dubious George Soros as an immigrant from the communist bloc. Sometimes they are diverted by belief in an Illuminati conspiracy (which leads them away from an examination of real communist organizations).

The documented connections of Joseph Biden to KGB agent Armand Hammer,[v] or his work with communist fronts like the Council for a Livable World, are never mentioned by major conservative pundits. We ought to ask how Biden’s Soviet and communist connections can be reconciled with his support for Ukraine. Some have said that Biden has “dragged his feet” in supporting Ukraine’s war effort. Not one American tank was sent to Ukraine in the first year of the war. Biden denied Ukraine’s initial request for HIMAR rocket artillery. And no fighter aircraft have been sent to Ukraine (yet). As time drags on, however, Biden is compelled to do what America’s allies and popular feeling dictates. One must remember how the Democrats bashed Trump for being a “Russian puppet.” In this context, a bribed politician might offer condolences to his patron by saying, “You did not pay me well enough to cut my own throat.”

Except for the choice of opting out, an agent of influence is not a maker of strategy. He receives “friendly suggestions” from collegial bodies staffed by Russian and Chinese policymakers. Our conservatives have not realized how this works. Change agents are stooges, obliged to paint by the numbers – to abide by ridiculous left-wing narratives. The strategy of the communist bloc was crafted in the late 1950s. Since that time the bloc’s strategy has been continuously amended and updated, a process that depends on Moscow and Beijing. The communist agents within the American Democratic Party (and the Republican Party) are constantly asking for patience. “We do not have the power to do what you ask,” they explain to their Russian and Chinese colleagues. “We are obliged to win elections.”

We caught a glimpse of this sort of thing when President Barrack Obama, speaking privately with Russian President Medvedev in March 2012, failed to notice that an open microphone was nearby. Believing he was alone with the Russian leader, Obama said, “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” The Russian president leaned closer to Obama and spoke in English, “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.” Obama placed his left hand gently on Medvedev’s right wrist. This was strangely intimate for two presidents engaged in a formal meeting.[vi]

People have forgotten how close and friendly Obama was with Russia. His policy was called the “Russian Reset.” It included such gifts as the Uranium One deal. Then there was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s aggressive work to raise investment capital for Russia’s Skolkovo project.[vii] But then, in 2012-13 the Democrats did an abrupt about-face – changing from Russia’s little helpers to Russia’s nominal enemies. This about-face must have been insincere on the part of Obama and Clinton. For both American leaders were on the hook to Russia, having compromised themselves in the past. As a youth Obama was mentored by a card carrying Communist, Frank Marshall Davis. Hillary also had extensive connections with pro-Soviet communists and socialists in her early career. Imagine what the KGB files on Obama and Clinton have to say.

If we look at an event timeline, to find when the Obama Administration switched from a pro-Russian to an anti-Russian stance, we find a curious incident three months after Obama’s gaff with Medvedev on the open mic. We find that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a two-hour private meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in St. Petersburg on 29 June 2012. After that meeting, Lavrov became provocative. The circumstances of the Clinton-Lavrov meeting were related by U.S. Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul:

[Russian Foreign Minister] Lavrov took Clinton’s elbow and steered her to a small room for a private chat. Because Lavrov speaks flawless English, no translators were needed. For the next two hours or so, they spoke alone…. None of us in Clinton’s delegation were happy…. We wanted to hear the conversation. We wanted to offer guidance and support to the secretary as needed.[viii]

This meeting between Clinton and Lavrov was not scheduled. It was not witnessed. Why would Secretary of State Hillary Clinton need to speak with the Russian Foreign Minister alone, in secret – hidden away from the eyes of fellow Americans? McFaul was disturbed and puzzled by this. After this private meeting Clinton and Lavrov sat down to dinner, seemingly satisfied with their conversation. But then Lavrov began to provoke the Americans, complaining about U.S. policy in front of everyone. This was a dinner party, not a television performance. Lavrov called Clinton’s press spokesperson, Victoria Nuland, the “Minister of Disinformation.” He accused Ambassador McFaul of being “undiplomatic.” In short, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov intentionally insulted and poked the Americans. And this, after a very special, intimate, private conversation with Hillary Clinton. Later, when speaking to the press, Lavrov curiously described his meeting with Clinton as “one of the most productive” ever. He jokingly said that Hillary Clinton had changed her position.[ix] Everyone assumed he was talking about the Syrian Civil War. What if Lavrov was pointedly reminding Clinton that she must adopt an anti-Russian stance? Was his rudeness at dinner an attempt to facilitate this switch? Was Hillary – a Saul Alinsky acolyte and pro-Marxist activist – given new marching orders by Moscow Center? Two days later, in Geneva, Lavrov and Clinton began to quarrel publicly over Syria. Had it all been prearranged?

McFaul described Lavrov as uncharacteristically exuberant after the St. Petersburg meeting. He also said that Hillary Clinton was “churning.” He wrote, “I had the impression that she did not like what she had heard from Lavrov in their one-on-one.” But this does not make sense. Hillary was the Secretary of State of the more powerful country. Why wasn’t Lavrov churning? Why wasn’t Hillary exuberant? After all, she had all the power in the relationship. How could it have been the other way around?

McFaul wondered what kind of game Lavrov was playing. In the coming days, a joint communique was released by Russia and America in Geneva, regarding Syria, “It soon became apparent that Lavrov and Clinton were interpreting the communique very differently.” Here was the beginning of the post-Cold War split between Russia and America. It occurred within weeks of Obama’s chummy and obsequious comments to President Medvedev caught on the hot mic. What was going on here? Had Russia come up with a plan to cover the Obama administration’s tracks? If so, then the time had come for the Democrats to play a different game; that is, to play-act the role of Russia’s enemies. McFaul wrote, “In forty-eight hours, we had gone from ‘the best meeting ever’ between Clinton and Lavrov in St. Petersburg to sparring again in Geneva.”[x]

To go from the Russian reset and the Uranium One Deal to the denunciation of Putin as a criminal, requires more of an explanation than the Syrian Civil War; for the invasion of Georgia did not produce this change in the Democrats, neither did Putin’s brutality in Chechnya. The assassination of Alexander Litvinenko and the assassination of Anna Politkovskaya in 2006, did not register with these “bleeding heart” liberals at all. The about-face regarding Russia, and the subsequent accusations leveled against Donald Trump, only happened after Obama was caught on a hot mic in South Korea.

There were also future strategic moves to consider. The long-range communist deception strategy had come a long way. Moscow and Beijing were looking to the future, to open warfare with the West. The time had come to think of their “friends” in the Democratic Party. How could these friends be protected in time of war? After all, having powerful “friends” in Washington would be more important during a war than in peacetime. Only one method of protection would work. The leading Democrats, who were keen on the Russian reset under Obama, needed to reposition themselves as anti-Russian. By doing this, they could not be attacked from the right as “unpatriotic.” Rather, they could accuse the right of being unpatriotic, especially if Putin presented himself as a Christian nationalist, winning adherents among American conservatives (like Patrick Buchanan). Coincidentally, Putin began to make conservative noises after Lavrov’s meeting with Clinton.

The strategy here should be obvious. In the event of war between Russia and the United States, the party sympathizing with the Russian side might be suppressed as “the Party of Treason.” If they denounced Putin, the Democrats would be free from suspicion, even though they had been Russia’s biggest helpers all along. If negotiations took place after a war, America’s ruling Democrats could make significant concessions to Russia at the negotiating table. Here the scissor’s strategy would reach its mature stage.

With the Euromaidan Revolution in 2014, followed by the Russian annexation of Crimea, the stage was set. To be sure, Obama would take no serious action against Moscow. In fact, he never sent any weapons to Ukraine. But Obama and Clinton would make anti-Russian noises. In 2016 they would accuse Donald Trump of being a Russian puppet. Obviously, when Russia’s armies moved into Ukraine everyone thought the fighting would be over within days or weeks. Here we find a classic case of the Democrats becoming Russia’s “controlled opposition” in the Great Game. Biden did little to help Ukraine in the first critical weeks of the war. Unfortunately for Russia, the Ukrainians fought well and inflicted heavy Russian casualties. Because of Ukraine’s battlefield success, President Biden would find himself in difficult position. Biden delayed sending heavy weapons to Ukraine for as long as he dared. He delayed sending tanks and aircraft. Thanks to Russia’s deception strategy, however, his own party had been shifted into the anti-Russian camp. Here the Kremlin built a trap for the West and fell into it themselves.      

It’s Communism, Stupid

Most observers have made the war in Ukraine about Vladimir Putin and his “paranoia.” They would prefer to say that Putin is in the traditional Russian imperial mold rather than in the communist mold. They have not understood that the communist mold is extremely flexible, even as communist tactics are flexible. It should be recalled that Stalin even aligned himself with Hitler, going against the sentiments of his own followers. How was this explained at the time? Stalin said that the main enemy of socialism was capitalism. Hitler was not a capitalist. The French and British were. Therefore, Stalin would side with Hitler. Later it became strategically necessary for Stalin to align himself with the West. Fascism once again became a term of abuse.

The tactical flexibility of the communists often requires that communists deny they are communists. Since 1991 communists around the world began calling themselves social democrats and even democrats. This is especially true in the former Soviet Union.

Readers may suppose that communism no longer exists in Russia, that Russia’s rulers are nationalists. People may debate this point, but the Communist Party is the second largest political party in Russia today. The United Russia Party, which is the largest party, is full of “former” communists. It should be obvious that both the leading parties in Russia are one party. This fiction of two parties, with the smaller being overtly communist, is a classic communist deception.  More significantly, the old communist elite of the USSR governs the country and dominates its institutions under non-communist slogans, behind the façade of the “oligarchs.” Western liberals portray Putin as an empty “grey man,” corrupted by power. But he has surrounded himself with people who either share a Marxist-Leninist perspective (like Igor Sechin), or worked for the KGB, or both.

I was just listening to Jonathan Fink, of the Silicon Curtain Podcast, interviewing Mark Galeotti, who said “Putin’s autocracy is not Stalinism.” And this much is true. Such statements, however, are nuanced nothings. Going through expert interviews you will hear these nuanced nothings repeated, one after another. It is not surprising, therefore, when Galeotti says that Russia’s actions have defied the predictions of analysts for many years. One might ask what the predictive value of a nuanced nothing might be. Most analysts are clueless regarding Russia’s real rulers. They somehow missed Moscow’s support for communist regimes around the globe. They somehow missed Russia’s support for North Korea and the CCP in China. Once we understand that the communists are still running Russia, Putin’s policies and actions become understandable, and sometimes predictable.

It was KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn who predicted the collapse of communism in 1984. He said it would be part of a deception strategy. He said that the communists would give up power in Russia, but they would remain in control behind the scenes. In Golitsyn’s second book, The Perestroika Deception, published in 1995, we read of a “military/nationalist option [for Russia] as the third course upon which the Kremlin strategists might embark in future to adjust the style and leadership of a new government if, for example, Yeltsin was considered to have exhausted his usefulness in extracting concessions from the West.” Golitsyn presciently added, “In this context, the Chechnyan ‘crisis’ can be seen not as a likely cause of a military coup, but as a possible planned prelude to a change of government. The new [post-Yeltsin Russian] government might be military or nationalist. Certain indicators that this is envisaged, are apparent.”[xi]

Golitsyn therefore predicted the nature of the post-Yeltsin regime in Russia, and how it would present itself to the world. A renewed Chechnyan “crisis” did indeed occur in 1999, and prefigured Yeltsin stepping down in favor of KGB Lt. Col. Putin. How could Golitsyn have guessed the circumstances of Yeltsin’s resignation so accurately? How did he guess the nature of the coming regime? While all the other pundits and analysts were wrong, Golitsyn was right again. Yet almost everyone ignored him.

One of Golitsyn’s suggestions was that any risky strategy, like Gorbachev’s perestroika in 1989, would obligate China to “play it safe.” As one bloc country takes a chance, the other must retrench. Even as Moscow let communist regimes fall in Eastern Europe in 1989, Beijing smashed the protesters in Tiananmen Square. Consider, by way of analogy, what is done in cataract surgery. You do not operate on both eyes at the same time. This is why the Chinese refrained from blockading Taiwan last year, even as they prepared to carry out a blockade. The action would only take place once Russia had secured Ukraine. By the end of last summer, however, the Russian offensive had failed. The Ukrainians were successfully counterattacking. China did not start a war in the Far East because that would be doing cataract surgery in both eyes at once. And so, Golitsyn’s rule of thumb proved right as China drew back from war at the end of summer 2022.  

Golitsyn predicted, before anyone else, that Russia and China would never become capitalist democracies. When most pundits expressed optimism about the changes in Russia and capitalism in China, Golitsyn was issuing warnings. The capitalist dalliances of Moscow and Beijing were part of a communist strategy, he said. There was no change of heart in either country.

In 1995 Golitsyn wrote, “The US military should pull back from partnership with both the Russian and the Chinese armed forces and should revert to regarding them as their long-term adversaries rather than unwittingly helping them to implement their strategy.”[xii] This is what our policymakers are only now realizing. But it was foreseen, decades ago, by a man who was denounced by the media as “paranoid.”

Belling the Cat

Deception is intrinsic to communism, and as the communist movement gains more and more control in various countries, wearing its many disguises, one deception will be piled on another. The strategists in Moscow and Beijing, who represent the movement at its highest organizational levels, do not want people in the West to use the “c” word. This would complicate their plans. There is a KGB proverb that says, “A cat with a bell cannot catch mice.”

And so, the cats have been catching mice. Communism is being taught to school children, right now, across America. Only, this education does not call itself communist. Once again, there is no bell on the cat. Communist ideas without the communist label are now accepted as “mainstream” ideas. Anything opposing these ideas is labeled “extremist” or racist or sexist. So, America has a growing Marxist element inside of it while anticommunism has been marginalized. The bell has been taken off the cat.

The Marxist element in our society has been rising to prominence through academia, entering government service through the bureaucracy, appearing in electoral politics, and is dominant within the boards of many corporations. One might say that we are all Marxists now. The telltale is that anti-communists are not welcome anywhere. In fact, conspiracy ideology has replaced anti-communism on the right. Only last week, I was roundly cursed by callers on a conservative talk radio show for saying that the threat to this country is coming from the communists. A far-right caller said I was a “McCarthyite.” Another caller said I was “a dinosaur.”

Communist strategy aims at something called “convergence.” This means that the narratives of the right are being reshaped so that right and left can be merged. This is more than taking the bell off the cat. It effectively puts the mice directly in the cat’s food bowl. Many years ago, I noticed the first indications of the right-left convergence when conspiracy theories accepted by the right began matching up with leftist conspiracy theories. The enemy, in both cases, was capitalism and the “evil rich” (who allegedly control everything that happens).[xiii] This matchup was not an accident. It is a long-term, carefully orchestrated, strategy that Golitsyn warned us about.

The Politics of the Last Man

Meanwhile, mainstream liberalism and neo-conservatism (i.e., the vast middle ground of politics) have been out to lunch. While there are thoughtful pundits in the center, they have not been thoughtful enough. For many years they have been spoon-fed false information. Specifically, our centrists have bought into four disinformation themes of the communist long-range deception policy: (1) China and Russia are enemies; (2) Russia is no longer our enemy; (3) China is our trading partner; (4) America is the only superpower. What we come to find out today, is that Russia and China are allies, Russia is our enemy, China is our enemy and has been using trade as a weapon against us, and America is not the only superpower.

It should be emphasized, in this context, that a shift has occurred in the nuclear balance of power. Russia and China have more nuclear weapons than America has, and they are presently threatening us with a nuclear war. Russia and China have new nuclear warhead types, and new strategic missiles. America has been lagging far behind.

Why did our liberals and neocons, so dominant in our halls of power, allow this to happen?

If we look at matters sociologically, there has always been a problem with the liberals and neoconservatives. It may be argued that they are part of the “race to the bottom,” like the Marxists. The problem with liberalism and neo-conservatism comes down to the question of what the world would look like if liberals and neocons won all their wars, defeated all the anti-liberal regimes, and Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history” arrived. Would enmity between man and man be at an end? Would small “d” democracy prevail on every side? Would mankind then create the ultimate ecumenic empire, embracing a secular faith – with all men as brothers belonging to the same tribe?

To imagine this market hedonist’s happily-ever-after, in political terms, is the favored tendency of non-socialists who believe in “progress.” Many are those who believe life on Earth will get better and better, until everything has been perfected through the advance of science. But those who have read history, especially modern history, know this is not how history reads. Those who have read the ancient Greeks and Romans know that history is cyclical, that nations rise and fall. There cannot be a liberal “end of history.”   

If an intelligent person stops for a moment, and thinks more carefully about the prevailing political narratives, he may begin to see that several frauds have been perpetrated. Liberalism is false, socialism is false, scientism is false, and globalism is false. It is disturbing to see that liberalism is, little by little, turning into totalitarian socialism.

How can this be explained?

Joseph Pieper’s little tract, Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power, says that tyranny is established using two methods. The first method is brute force, the second method involves “cajoling, wheedling, and flattery.” Pieper wrote, “The common element in all of this is the degeneration of language into an instrument of rape. It does contain violence, albeit in latent form.”[xiv]

Pieper explained that the degradation of man through acts of physical violence begin almost imperceptibly “when the word loses its dignity.”[xv] Our very contact with reality depends on the rightness of our words. To discourse dishonestly, to confuse the issues at hand, is to move from reality into madness. It is to betray freedom, to overturn reason, and level everything.

The situation is made doubly difficult by mass media and instantaneous communications. Pieper said that people might be “entirely knowledgeable about a thousand details and nevertheless, because of ignorance regarding the core of the matter, remain without basic insight.” Arnold Gehlen described this condition in terms of a “fundamental ignorance, created by technology and nourished by information.”[xvi] Because of this, noted Pieper, “authentic reality is taken over by a fictitious reality”; that is to say, a pseudo-reality. The public is then reduced “to a state where people are not only unable to find out about the truth but also become unable even to search for the truth because they are satisfied with deception and trickery that have determined their convictions….”[xvii] One only has to think of Sean Hannity saying that “Reagan won the Cold War,” or Vladimir Putin showing George W. Bush his Christian cross.   

We like to fool ourselves, and we prefer fantasy to reality. Democracy is considered desirable, of course. But nobody thinks critically enough to ask whether it is desirable to have an ignorant majority voting for practiced liars who talk nonsense. Such a system is more accurately described as an ochlocracy (i.e., mob rule). This form of government is about acquiring power by flattering the public. “What the world really wants is flattery,” wrote Pieper, “and it does not matter how much of it is a lie….”[xviii] What happens, then, to the dignity of man? What happens to freedom?

This sickness, which began many years ago, is getting worse by the day. Our liberals and neoconservatives have been infected with this sickness. Somewhere at the root of their thinking, they have assumed that humanity is headed for “the end of history.” Our liberals and neoconservatives have now merged with a new generation, raised in comfort and ignorance of history. This generation has been taught that the “end of history” is made possible by the emancipation of man through universal equality. But, as Thomas Sowell has pointed out, nobody knows what equality is. Furthermore, nobody knows how to establish it.[xix] But that is not going to stop our utopian idealists. The plan, we are told, is to make everyone equal; and those who have the power to make everyone equal will make themselves more than equal.

Where do our politicians, with their flattery and their doctrine of equality, think they are headed? Is this not akin to Henry Adams’s allegory of the train that is going faster and faster down the track? As there is no way to slow the train down, it must either jump the track in a catastrophic derailment or smash up at the end of the line. Our politicians think they are headed to the top as they say what “the people” want to hear. But truly, they are racing to the bottom. A thoughtful man would feel ashamed to affirm what these pandering politicians affirm. Only a criminal poseur would talk as they do. But people keep voting for these poseurs. And this is how the slide into socialism works. The politicians offer us goodies, saying we can afford it; and we vote for them as the debt ceiling rises. Nobody dares tell the truth.

As egalitarian socialism advances, scarcity advances, universal bankruptcy gets closer and closer. Meanwhile, liberalism imagines a world of commerce, where a rising tide lifts all boats. Here we see liberalism and socialism side-by-side – two ideologies that encompass the conceits of Nietzsche’s last man: “The earth has become small, and on it there hoppeth the last man who maketh everything small. His species is ineradicable like that of the ground flea; the last man liveth longest.”[xx] But then we find, a few paragraphs later, that the last man likes to drug himself: “A little poison now and then: that maketh pleasant dreams. And much poison at last for a pleasant death.” To alter our consciousness, to deform it further, seems to be our inclination. One might say that political correctness is the ultimate miracle drug, promising to eradicate war by eliminating racial and ethnic differences, turning all religions into one religion. And so, there is no reason to fight wars because everyone looks and thinks and worships like everyone else.

Here is where we go wrong; for last man is the very last – with the specifics of his humanity removed. It is a case of mass suicide; for man cannot thrive without concrete relationships, symbols, and meaningful stories. The homogenizers of humanity do not understand what they are proposing when they try to make the world as one. This inverted parody of Hitlerism is apparent when we examine its effects. Humanity is to be one race, one folk, one sex, and one set of leaders (one Führer). It is remarkable how false ideologies borrow from each another, sharing structural similarities. Let us consider where all this nonsense leads. Instead of the intellectual straitjacket of National Socialism, we have the intellectual straitjacket of political correctness. The Nazis of the 1930s could never define the term “race” even as it was central to their racism. Today’s cultural elite is unable to define the word “woman” even as they claim to be feminists and genderists.[xxi]

And how did this arrogant and ignorant elite of ours come into existence? If Nietzsche were here, he might say that a dyspeptic modernity vomited them into reality. These people are a milieu of the half-digested, half-baked, and half-educated. In the West, we do not have “survival of the fittest,” but the elevation of these “many-too-many” hyperactive nobodies – “men of straw,” as T.S. Eliot called them. They do not know history and they have no common sense; and they are dangerous because their vision of how things ought to be involves overturning everything that is. “Let us reinvent the wheel,” one hears them say. “Its circular shape is simply too bourgeois.” And if humanity will not bend to their silly ideals, then humanity will be broken down and remade in their image.

Liberalism was once thought to be the best hope of mankind. Freedom was the thing. But the question always was – freedom to do what? Carl Schmitt, the political theorist, said liberalism was not entirely serious; for politics, he explained, “presupposes the real existence of an enemy and therefore coexistence with another political entity.”[xxii] Here is where the whole liberal project runs aground. To defend against enemies, a society must build military structures under a unified command. This necessarily limits the freedom of the individual, who now has a duty to defend his kith and kin. Contrary to this, liberalism has come to suggest that all enmities are illusory, that mankind can form a global economic system where we can all get rich together. All we need to do is form a globalist commonwealth for the enrichment of all.  

Whatever criticisms we might offer regarding Carl Schmitt’s political ideas,[xxiii] we must nonetheless grapple with his core argument: “A world state which embraces the entire globe and all of humanity cannot exist. The political world is a pluriverse, not a universe.”[xxiv] A political entity, he said, “cannot by its very nature be universal in the sense of embracing all of humanity and the entire world.”[xxv] Therefore, we have borders. We need borders. We must have borders!

But the liberal says no.

Presently we are playing a fraudulent game with ourselves. We embrace diversity and call it anti-racism. We embrace equality and call it anti-sexism. But here in America we have embraced our own very special, inverted, kind of racism and sexism. All cultures are allowed to exist except American culture, which must make way for the immigrant and the minority. This is called “multiculturalism,” which is in fact the denial of the larger culture. All sexes are also allowed to exist, except for male and female. Instead of the crazy project of making “Soviet man,” or the “master race,” we find ourselves erasing man (and woman) altogether. A man whose culture is every culture, has no culture. A man whose nation is all nations, has no nation. A woman who is not a woman, or a man who is not a man, is a neuter. What are these newly constituted types, then? They are nothing but poor sorry defenseless things suffering from an identity disorder.

“Let him be puddy in our hands,” say the social engineers.

Lessons of the Ukraine War

Going back Thucydides and Tacitus, we find that men are always fighting with each other. War is part of human nature, and it cannot be amended. Those who say that war is senseless, who feel the loss of war most deeply, should not confuse the heartbreak and loss of war with meaninglessness. For life and death and struggle are full of heartbreak; yet this heartbreak is not meaningless. As much as we dread war, it is integral to the human experience. Just the same, a prolonged period of peace is often enervating. Look at all the neurotics we have today. Look at the insanity all around us. People imagine that nationalism causes war. Yet if all men belonged to the same nation, they would divide themselves into factions only to fight a civil war.

The idea that there is an “end of history” has obsessed us. The aspiring “masters of mankind” have used this idea as a lullaby. And because of our desire for sweets, and for “good news,” we have been lulled to sleep. We were told that the “end of history” signifies an “end to wars.” But this can never be and has never been. The doors of the Temple of Janus are rarely closed. Nearly all God’s creatures engage in combat of one kind or another. The males of many species fight over females, or fight over territory. Animals prey on one another. They rob each other’s nests. They lock horns. Animals are constantly dueling with one another. “War,” said Clausewitz famously, “is nothing but a duel on an extensive scale.”[xxvi]

History is not edifying for pacifists. It does not conform to their ideal. When those people out yonder come for your property, or your life, or your liberty, what are you going to do? The only thing to do, under the circumstances, is to fight. In this context, the ongoing war in Ukraine is one in which the Ukrainian people are asserting their national identity in the face of Russia’s claim that there are no Ukrainians. The Russian propaganda would have you believe that Ukrainians are dying for nothing, that they have been tricked into fighting a “proxy war.” But no, that’s not it at all. The Russian Army came for the Ukrainians. The Russians invaded them and bombed them. Moscow wanted to take their liberty from them and plunder their economy. The Ukrainians are not fighting a proxy war. They are fighting for themselves. They are genuinely fighting for their country – not for America, not for NATO, not for an ideology. And their success on the battlefield is telling. As good as communists are at subversion and deception, the communists are miserable warriors. This is because warfare is not based on deception as Sun Tzu claimed. Warfare is about honor and is based on fighting, as Clausewitz claimed. And while there are ruses and feints, there must be battling. If everything is a ruse and a feint, there is no victory. If you cannot stand up in battle, you will be defeated.   

Here we encounter one of those ironies of inversion where Russia, as an aspiring ecumenical power, is pushing for the unification of East European man by seeking to eradicate a specific human type (i.e., the Ukrainian). To the extent that all humans belong to a tribe, there is no universal man. To some extent, we all belong to a type. We speak a certain language. We have a certain appearance. We think in a certain way. And a violation of our type is always deeply felt (unless, of course, we are deracinated liberals or socialists).

Vladimir Putin would have us believe that “Ukraine is not a real country.” And in this matter, he is very much like the bureaucrats of the European Union. The European Union wants to do away with nations and replace them with this empty idea called “Europe.” And so, it is ironic that “Europe,” with a twinge of instinct peeking out, is backing the cause of Ukrainian independence. If they imagine that “European values” are at stake in Ukraine, they should think a second time. Ask the Ukrainian soldiers whether they are fighting for European values or their homeland.

Eric Voegelin’s statement that “Imaginative oblivion deforms consciousness” is of the utmost importance in this context. A war to preserve one’s integrity, to preserve one’s dignity as a specific kind of person, breaks the spell of deformed consciousness. The wider the war, the wider will be the correction to our deformed consciousness. The West and the East have been under a utopian spell. Ukraine, bursting upward from the middle, is not a utopia. It is a battlefield full of wreckage. The Ukrainians are fighting for something so dear, so precious, that they are willing to suffer blast after blast. They are not trying to get rich. They are not lying to the world about some promised political golden age. They are fighting for their dignity.  

Ukraine had a Revolution of Dignity in 2014. It was modest. It was heartfelt. The Ukrainian people said, “Give us a government that is less corrupt. Give us a government that does not beat our children in the street. Give us a government that does not rob us at every turn.” Here was a revolution, for the first time in over a hundred years, that did not promise the “end of history.” Rather the opposite. By choosing to drop the Soviet names of cities and towns, by pulling down Lenin’s statues across the land, by rejecting Moscow’s stooges in the ruling parties, the Ukrainian people opted to enter history instead of proclaiming its “end.”

 Ellis Sandoz wrote: “In an unbroken chain of speculations since the High Middle Ages, the End of history has been proclaimed in a wide spectrum of sectarian, Gnostic, alchemic, apocalyptic, and ideological moods.”[xxvii] A vain quest for peace and prosperity, whether taken up by Marxists in the East or by liberals in the West, has turned us against ourselves. The politics of utopia, or the “end of history,” was a false kind of politics. And Ukraine has avoided this falsity by fighting for itself, for its land, for its existence as a nation. While Western liberals and socialists are embarrassed to defend their own respective national causes, and their own borders, the Ukrainians are showing them how it ought to be done.  

No More Nuclear Blackmail

Doom-chatting with leftist comedian Samantha Bee, exiled Russian journalist Masha Gessen expressed fear of nuclear war. But more than fear of nuclear war, said Gessen, Russians are afraid to disagree with “that enormous force” which is their government. When asked what Russian TV is like, Masha Gessen said, “You turn on the TV and it is war all the time, like on the main Russian state channel. It is a bunch of middle-aged men talking about turning the world to dust…. They love this Putin quote that they repeat on almost every show [from] 2018 when Putin was talking about the possibility of a nuclear strike, and was asked ‘but it will destroy the world’ and he said, ‘Yeah, we will go straight to heaven and they will just croak.’”[xxviii]

What is intriguing, in this instance, is that Gessen’s fear of nuclear war does not dissuade her from supporting Ukraine. She is a liberal and a lesbian, and nuclear war scares her, but she wants Ukraine to win the war. She wants Ukraine and Russia to be free. So, her position is not “peace at any price.” And that marks a very interesting change of attitude on the part of liberal leftists. We have not seen anything like it since 1945. If Ukraine has inspired this kind of thinking, then the West owes a great deal to Ukraine.

One of the most knowledgeable observers when it comes to Putin, Gessen has correctly characterized the Russian Federation as a revived Soviet Union led by a solipsistic dictator who is living in a bubble. As a Russian, she knows that communism was an evil system. She is tired of totalitarian lies, and of the softer authoritarian version of the old system. She knows that Moscow did not change in 1991, deep down. The old system managed to preserve itself behind the façade of the Russian Federation; yet even so, she shows us that this system has declined into a mindless machine led by a stupid man. This flies directly in the face of those who have described Putin as a genius.

Gessen’s book on Putin describes a meeting she had with the Russian dictator in 2012. As a journalist she was called to the Kremlin along with her employer, so that Putin could demand her reinstatement after she had been fired as editor of a magazine that supported endangered species. As it happened, Putin liked the magazine, though he was oblivious that Gessen had written a book against him, and his staff had apparently been afraid to tell him. In his remarks at the meeting, Putin blithely recounted the manifold frauds of his regime as necessary for the greater good. The moment Gessen tried to explain her disagreement, the dictator declared the meeting over without listening to a word, saying he had “enough experience with this,” and coldly left. “What had I learned?” asked Gessen. “That the person I had described in this book – shallow, self-involved, not terribly perceptive, and apparently very poorly informed – was indeed the person running Russia, to the extent Russia was being run.”[xxix]

One could make the same charge against President Biden, to be sure. And this suggests that there is, indeed, “a race to the bottom” in the West as well as the East. Only the West is not as far along as Russia on the path of disintegration. What is alarming is that both sides lack insight into larger problems. What is unexpected, and unpredicted by anyone, is the vitality of the Ukrainian nation. Literally, Ukraine is in the process of being born. It is a new power, which an unnamed renegade KGB analyst foresaw more than a decade ago; and this new power has derailed the long-range strategy of Russia and China. The only question now is whether the Kremlin will resort to nuclear war.

Everything here depends on the fortitude and relative insanity of Russia’s ruling elite. As Col. Stanislav Lunev once told me, “These are not human beings. These are crazy persons.” So all bets are off. Are Moscow’s kleptocrats willing to push the button? Do they have enough Bolshevik ice in their veins to flatten the United States and Europe? Could they survive, physically, in their bunkers?

Maybe we are about to find out.

Notes and Links


[ii] Eric Voegelin, Order and History: In Search of Order, Volume V (Columbia and London: University of Missouri Press, 2000), p. 59.


[iv] Ibid.  




[viii] Michael McFaul, From Cold War to Hot Peace: An American Ambassador in Putin’s Russia (Kindle Edition), p. 339 out of 429.

[ix] Ibid, p. 340.

[x] Ibid, p. 342.

[xi] Anatoliy Golitsyn, The Perestroika Deception: The World’s Slide Toward the Second October Revolution (London & New York: Edward Harle, 1995), p. 229.

[xii] Ibid, p. 231.

[xiii] It is rarely pointed out that the “evil rich” make everything you eat, wear, sit on, and enjoy. But right wing conspiracy theorists will tell you that the “malefactors of great wealth” are conspiring to pauperize you. If that has been the case these many decades, it is the most incompetent conspiracy in history.

[xiv] Joseph Pieper trans. Lothar Krauth, Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1992), p. 32.

[xv] Ibid, p. 33.

[xvi] Ibid, p. 34.

[xvii] Ibid, pp. 34-35.

[xviii] Ibid, p. 26.

[xix] Thomas Sowell, The Quest for Cosmic Justice (Audible audio book).

[xx] Nietzsche trans. Thomas Common, Thus Spake Zarathustra (New York: Random House), p. 11.

[xxi] See the Daily Wire documentary, What is a Woman? by Matt Walsh. According to the rising left-liberal ideology in the West, experts do not know what a woman is. Gender, for them, is arbitrarily assigned by doctors at birth. Experts suggest that this assignment must be questioned. Or as a therapist told Walsh, “Genitalia does not equal gender.” Walsh facetiously asked the therapist, “With the fluidity of these things, how do I know if I’m a woman? I like scented candles. I’ve watched sex in the city.” The therapist then replied, “That question right there – that question, when it’s asked with a lot of curiosity – is the beginning of a lot of people’s … gender identity development journeys.” Walsh then asked, “What is a woman?” The therapist, who is obviously a woman, bizarrely explained, “I am not a woman, so I cannot answer that.”

[xxii] Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2007), p. 53.

[xxiii] Carl Schmitt joined the Nazi Party.

[xxiv] Schmitt, p. 53.

[xxv] Ibid.

[xxvi] From the very first page of Clausewitz’s book, On War.

[xxvii] Ellis Sandoz, The Voegelinian Revolution: A Biographical Introduction, Second Edition (London and New York: Transaction Publishers, 2000), p. 239.


[xxix] Masha Gessen, The Man Without a Face: The Unlike Rise of Vladimir Putin (New York: Riverhead Books, 2012), p. 304.

Quarterly Subscription (to support the site)


Buy Jeff’s books at

Obituary of Carroll E. Nyquist

Carroll Emmanuel Nyquist was born on 2 July 1931 in Chicago Heights, Illinois to Victor and Marie Nyquist as the first of two children. He passed away on 10 May 2023 in Petoskey, Michigan. A private memorial service for the family will be held at the Nyquist residence in Petoskey on Friday, 19 May at 2 pm.

Carroll’s father, Vic Nyquist, was an Evangelical Covenant minister. As a boy, Carroll lived in Minneapolis Minnesota, Denver Colorado, and Turlock California. He was an excellent student in school, attending several universities. He received a degree in theology from North Park College and an MA in film production from UCLA. His dream was to serve God by making Christian films.

On 30 June 1956 Carroll married Marion Lindgren, the daughter of the Rev. Earl Lindgren. They were married at the Evangelical Covenant Church in Inglewood, California. They then moved to Elgin, Illinois so that Carroll could begin his career in Chicago as a film editor. While working in Chicago, his talents came to the attention of filmmaker Henry Ushijima, who employed him in documentary film projects. Among his projects, Carroll worked on films about the Chicago police Dept. and was executive producer of a television documentary about the Youth International Party (YIP).

Carroll’s dream was to start his own production company and, after working freelance on various projects, including work with Billy Graham’s Campus Crusade for Christ, Carroll formed Johnson-Nyquist Productions with his business partner Dave Johnson in 1968. Among their many documentary and commercial film projects, Carroll and Dave were contracted by the United States Information Agency to do all on-the-ground filming of the Apollo astronauts during training and after-mission quarantine from 1969-1972.

Carroll and his partner Dave set up their offices in Northridge California, moving their business to Orange County in 1978 when they began working on film and television projects with tennis coach Vic Braden. Johnson-Nyquist produced Braden’s short-lived television series, Vic’s Vacant Lot, which ran from 1982-1984 with 26 episodes airing on ESPN and rerun on Nickelodeon until May 1985.

Carroll retired from Johnson-Nyquist Productions in 1991 to teach film and video production at Biola University during the 1990s. In 1999 he and his wife Marion moved to beautiful Mckinleyville, on California’s north coast. After the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were hit by terrorists on 11 September 2001, Carroll served as a Federal Officer for TSA at the Department of Homeland Security, working at the Eureka/Arcata airport in Mckinleyville. He retired from Federal service at the age of 83, in 2014.

Carroll enjoyed boating and water-skiing, and was a dedicated long-distance bicyclist. In November 2020, at the age of 89, Carroll and his wife moved to Petoskey, Michigan to be closer to his sons, who became his caregivers. Carroll was a longtime member of the Presbyterian Church. He is survived by his wife, Marion, his sons Jeffrey and Gregory, his daughter Jill, and his sister Caroline. He was loved and will be greatly missed.

155 thoughts on “The Unraveling of East and West

    1. Joseph Haydn (1732- 1809): Symphony No. 26 in D Minor, Hoboken 1/26, “Lamentatione”: 2. Adagio.

      Austro-Hungarian Haydn Orchestra. Ádám Fischer, conductor. (2006)

  1. Jeff, just finished the book you co-authored “The New Tactics of Global War”. At the end are some of your essays and the one that I’m curious to ask about is “Green is the New Red”. I’ve heard you touch on environmentalism in interviews and weekly radio shows and how Mikhail Gorbachev furthered this movement right here in the US through the organization Green Cross International. Can you expand a bit about this organization in regards to “the big lie” also touched on in the book?

    The late Rosa Koire wrote a book that parallels some of this information. Perhaps you’ve read it? It’s entitled “Behind the Green Mask: UN Agenda 21”.

      1. One last comment on books. I’m an avid reader and recently emailed you to ask how one can get a copy of your book “Origins of the Fourth World War”. Is it still available for purchase on your older website?

      2. Forgive my ignorance, so do I go to the PayPal link at the end of this current article and click there to order? Or is that something separate? (And I’m here in the States, not overseas)

      3. It is recommended that you use PayPal directly and send payment with noting that you are ordering the book. It is $25 as including postage. And be sure to include your address.

      4. Yes, and thank you. I did figure out the PayPal thing earlier this morning and have ordered the book.

      5. Eco-Bobby is scary, especially as Kennedy blends legitimate concerns with left-wing narratives and conspiracy theories. He takes up theories regarding his father and uncle’s deaths — theories that originated with the KGB. This is also problematic. One must never mix disinformation with good information. Yet this is done all the time by too many people. Kennedy’s campaign probably won’t go anywhere, but if it does, watch out for the curve balls.

  2. With regard to the overall cultural impoverishment and decline – and indeed generational shift that has happened in the West during the last couple of decades, not to mention the cultural devastations in the communist world -, I came across something interesting earlier today. As it’s Pentecost, I was searching for some suitable spiritual music by Johann Sebastian Bach and found, among his vast oeuvre of Cantatas, a few written for the precise purpose of celebrating Pentecost, including the Cantata BWV 34, “O ewiges Feuer, o Ursprung der Liebe”. The recording I first listened to was of a performance of 2009 (i.e., of 14 long years ago) by the choir and orchestra of the J.S. Bachstiftung, St. Gallen, Switzerland (who are first-class Bach interpreters), and as I listened and watched, I realised that the audience in that church was almost entirely composed of people over the age of 70. It almost looked like a performance at a seniors’ home. No young people there! Virtually none! (The same phenomenon can be found with performances of the exquisite Netherlands Bach Society.)

    1. There seems to be a problem with the link to this YouTube video. One needs to copy the link from the line, “Watch on YouTube”, to be able to watch it there. Sorry about that.

    2. Thanks to my father–a jazz musician and vocalist–Bach was an important part of my life when I was growing up. I typically practiced Bach “transcriptions” on four or five different instruments–he would assign me a single bar to practice during the week. I needed to demonstrate total competence during our grueling Saturday morning lessons behind a locked door–and only then would the session end. For recreation, I was allowed to play Schubert piano sonatas.

      Yes, it kept me out of trouble, my parents’ intention.

      1. There is hardly any other composer who gives one a comparable degree of musical intelligence and exactitude (even though over the years I’ve come to appreciate Bach’s contemporary Handel just as much).

        And this is the kind of jazz I used to listen to – first-hand, in the flesh, actually across the restaurant table! – back in 1980s’ Vienna. Guitarist (and singer) Karl Ratzer, born on Independence Day of 1950 (can you believe it!), spent most of the ’70s in the States but got homesick and came back, inspiring several generations of new jazz musicians over here. His style is clearly “gypsiesque”, following in the footsteps of Django Reinhardt (Ratzer belongs to the Romani tribe), funky, at times Latin-coloured, has a heavy groove – as well as much love & romance! – and a strong dose of Viennese melancholy in it, as well. I’ll never forget those evenings – nay: nights! – at Vienna’s America Latina jazz club (which no longer exists today)…

  3. I’m not one to quote Pope’s or even care what they say, but the quote you used from Pius XI (published in 1937!) regarding Communism’s attack on the family, home, and the role of women was incredibly prescient and relevant to the war on the family we have experienced here in the US post-WW2 through today. The only hope for any culture’s long term survival is men and women taking their rightful roles as husband & wife, mother & father. When those foundations are destroyed there is no amount of military or economic might that can sustain a nation. May God have mercy on the US and the West to return their Christian roots and by His Grace rebuild our family structure!

    1. There is also a Papal encyclical about socialism/communism by Leo XIII, written as early as 1878. Here is the opening paragraph:

      “At the very beginning of Our pontificate, as the nature of Our apostolic office demanded, we hastened to point out in an encyclical letter addressed to you, venerable brethren, the deadly plague that is creeping into the very fibres of human society and leading it on to the verge of destruction; at the same time We pointed out also the most effectual remedies by which society might be restored and might escape from the very serious dangers which threaten it. But the evils which We then deplored have so rapidly increased that We are again compelled to address you, as though we heard the voice of the prophet ringing in Our ears: “Cry, cease not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet.”[Isa. 58:1.] You understand, venerable brethren, that We speak of that sect of men who, under various and almost barbarous names, are called socialists, communists, or nihilists, and who, spread over all the world, and bound together by the closest ties in a wicked confederacy, no longer seek the shelter of secret meetings, but, openly and boldly marching forth in the light of day, strive to bring to a head what they have long been planning – the overthrow of all civil society whatsoever.”

    2. Yes. This statement by Pope Pius has the virtue of clarity, and shows quite clearly where the attack on the family has been coming from these many years. It cannot be a coincidence that our society has accidentally ended up where it has.

  4. Jeff, I am so sorry for your loss. Prayers for you, your Mom and your whole family.

      1. I read the other day, where something like eight or nine thousand Chinese men had been processed crossing the border in one or two weeks, can’t remember. I’ve heard a report that these Chinese are paying up to $35k to cartels to get them across, whereas Ed Calderon has said the average Mexican pays around $5k to $8k, sometimes a really high amount will be around $15k.

        They are coming, and I can’t imagine they would take very long to get in place to wherever they are assigned, do whatever Intel gathering they must do, come up with their plans for what they are to do, and be ready for whatever is the signal to go.

        What did everyone make of the Chinese ambassador to the U.S. giving his message to the Chinese living over here to think about the Motherland, that the Motherland thinks about them, and to visit the Motherland often?

        I think this was quite possibly some kind of coded language, or language with more than one level of meaning, as just a plain reading it really didn’t make sense.

      2. Especially the American born of Chinese ancestry. I know of some who think of China as that strange country “over there”. Even many immigrants can’t become U.S. citizens and Americanized fast enough, even to the point that after meeting and marrying a Chinese born spouse, they insist on speaking English at home. Yet China still considers them as “Chinese”.

        Is Xi Jin Ping just like Putin, in a solipsistic bubble?

  5. Those we love don’t go away, they walk beside us. My deepest condolences to you and your family.

  6. “The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.” ~ Proverbs 22:7.

    I submit that our “capitalist” elites in the West are crypto communists (as Whittaker Chambers proposed many moons ago) and have never been deceived by Russian and Chinese strategy, but rather have been happy to let it do much of their dirty work for them in destroying the institutions of western society to smooth the way for the presently emerging totalitarian dystopia in the West.

  7. I keep hearing from intelligent people that this is not because of the Soviets, but because of the death wish of people and societies and that it has always been this way. Societies have always gone down because they want communism and now it is the same again. And there are also books about it, I only have to read them. Why don’t people want to understand who their enemies are?

    1. Why don’t people want to understand who their enemies are? Willful ignorance and cognitive dissonance. If people acknowledged who the enemy was then they would have to make some painful and uncomfortable decisions and we Americans have been far too comfortable for far too long to make those decisions. If people would really wake up then they would see that America as founded is no longer in business, it just doesn’t exist anymore, and that would be too painful and confusing thing for most Americans to consider. It’s just easier to follow entertainment and whatever social thing is popular and just “feel” like we are making a difference by hitting the “like” or “follow” button of whatever social media platform we’re on. That’s just my opinion.

  8. My condolences, Jeff. I will pray for the repose of your father’s soul.

  9. Jorge Bergoglio alias “Pope Francis” isn’t the first communist pope by any means. Already Paul VI (1963 – 1978), the second pope of the Second Vatican Council of 1962-1965 (which by some “progressive” cardinals at the time was indeed boldly admitted to have been the French Revolution, even the October Revolution, within the Roman Catholic Church), was a long-time personal friend of the leader of the Communist Party of Italy, Palmiro Togliatti! This was the pope who, during his speech before the UN General Assembly in New York on Oct. 4, 1965, most happily praised the socialistic United Nations in the following scandalous, utopian-communist gibberish:

    “You are establishing here a system of solidarity that will ensure that lofty civilizing goals receive unanimous and orderly support from the whole family of nations, for the good of each and all. This is the finest aspect of the United Nations Organization, its very genuine human side. This is the ideal that mankind dreams of during its pilgrimage through time; this is the greatest hope of the world. We would even venture to say that it is the reflection of the plan of God – a transcendent plan full of love – for the progress of human society on earth, a reflection in which we can see the Gospel message turning from something heavenly to something earthly.”


    Tellingly, his death in August 1978 was publicly mourned by the Italian communists, in paid newspaper ads and on posters disseminated in the streets of Rome and surrounding cities, in the following terms:

    “The Communists of Rome and Provincia express sorrow and condolences for the death of Paul VI Bishop of Rome and remember him not only for his passionate effort and elevated humanity with which he worked for the peace and progress of the peoples, by promoting dialogue, understanding and possible agreements among men of different faiths and ideals, but also for his constant concern for the moral and material restoration of Rome.”


  10. This essay is excellent. Answers some of my questions. Alex Jones said something that I was realizing, that the tactics are communist, but fascism describes the systems that are controlling the world order. China and Russia both pivoted away from destroying capitalism to controlling it; they found out that they needed the money.

    Still wondering if expanding NATO after Baker told Yeltsin that wouldn’t happen, if that was part of the deception or American awareness about the Russian threat. Not all presidents post USSR fall were blatantly Marxist, but certainly globalist dupes.

    The WEF is a front, but they are using corporations and individuals with great wealth to destroy national sovereignty. That’s fascism: governments and corporations extinguishing freedom. I’m not against corporations Mr. Nyquist but I think a plan along the lines of the movie The Dirty Dozen is in order next time they are in a Davos chateau.

    The real tragedy is that governmental officials use other people’s money to engage in wars that are senseless deceptions, massacring innocent human life as part of a trick to surreptitiously gain allies.

    So do China and America fight a hot war? Much of our ammunition is depleted. Not to worry as Biden and his controllers would never fight any communist country as that would be tantamount to killing their own cause. And they need China’s support during our next civil war.

    Thanks to your work, we see through their lies.

    For Clinton, Obama, Putin, Zelenskyy, Xi, and all of their lieutenants, death by hanging followed by a bullet to the head is too good a death for these murderers. But we will see.

      1. I do not understand why we, the attacked “extremist, right wing, fascists,” are not pounding them as the true fascists—just like they did up until they took power under Emperor O. Turning it around works for me every time.

        The war on communism in this country has been minimal, left to the defensive minded spooks of the past, in the Deep State when it was the deep state of the American Way.

        Reading James Rosen’s book on John Mitchell and enjoying the radical tears:

        Nixon, Mitchell and Hoover “set into motion a plan to discredit, divide and setback the movement…Infiltration and sabotage were carried out by a variety of police agencies, including the FBI, the Nixon-Mitchell team, military intelligence and local red squads…In the last period they have inflicted some serious blows which have set back the struggle,” said Bill Ayers.

        The Strong Man, Rosen, p. 82

        And, “In Mitchell’s rise to power, Ayers saw ‘one more step in…a kind of impending American fascism’.” Ibid

        Being on the outside looking in, those radicals and their present day offspring cried,” FASCISTS!”

        Now they are on the inside and looking out. Who are the fascists now? I wonder if John Kerry has any more war medals he can toss over the gate onto the White House lawn, or are imperialism, secrecy, domestic spying, lying about the government’s actions, all okay today to those holier than thou former seditionists?

      2. That is what happens when communists get inside the government. The people who were defending freedom against subversion, using the FBI to stop communism in decades past, were called fascists by the left back in the 1960s and 70s, Now that Marxists dominate the Justice Department, and give marching orders to the FBI, conservative Christians are labeled dangerous “extremists” and “racists” who must be contained. The fact is, communism leads to total social control — to a police state. You cannot let these people have control of the state’s coercive power. They will abuse that power every time. People who think they have all the answers, like any group of fanatics, believe they are morally entitled to exercise unlimited power. This in itself makes them dangerous.

      3. Apparently he went back and got those medals. Did you see him at the coronation of King Charles…wearing them on his suit coat???

    1. Zelensky? You don’t have to “like” him or approve of his progressivist views. But is it a crime to defend your country against invasion? (Unless you have evidence that he is a quisling who actually is selling out Ukraine.) I don’t understand why Zelensky was included in the rogue’s gallery listed at the end of the comment.

      1. Yes, Deborah. I don’t understand why Zelenskyy was included in the list. He stood up against the communists in Ukraine and he stood up to Moscow. In fact, the communists want to kill him. He is on their death list. The problem we have, and what this essay touches on, is the fact that people who are left of center are not all communists. We must be more nuanced in evaluating those who do not see things exactly as we do, but who may be on our side in the coming battles.

      2. I learned that billions in aid were embezzled, high ranking officials were lavishly shopping in Paris, and expensive cars have been purchased while “lowly” citizens are being killed. I didn’t know that Z took action against the embezzlers, and he therefore should not be on any real or imagined lists.

  11. Well, I read thru the blog once and then came to the beautiful tribute to your father. Your excellent, diligent labor in making ruthless geopolitical truths and realities clear and understandable has taken a backseat to something even more true and important; what it looks like – in light of all eternity- to live and love well thru this momentary vapor of time we call life.

    I am so sorry for your and your family members’ deep loss. What a beautiful heritage you come from and what a priceless legacy he left to you all. May you all individually find and encounter His deep grace and comfort, as you move forward together in this time of loss. Bless you.

  12. I’ll be praying for you and your family and Carroll’s soul. He lived a great and long life. God bless you all.

  13. Hello Jeff :

    Sorry about your dad. As they say in the Catholic tradition :

    Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord. And may perpetual light shine upon him.

    And also, have a good Memorial Day.

  14. Hi Mr Nyquist, sorry to bother… I’d like to publish here in Brazil your article text “China X West, part II”… I got in contact with CEDET about a month… the company responsible in publishing your two books here in Brazil… Would you be willing to allow? Thanks and keep the good work. Alexandre

    1. Does that article appear in a book that is being sold in Brazil? If not, then you can make your own translation. If it is later published in another book, they might ask you to take it down. If you do translate anything I’ve written, please provide a link to the original in English.

      1. Im from Brazil

        your arrengment is THE uplifting. has to be shouted

        Im insisting with the editors and company that publish your others two books here

    2. Im from Brazil. Im trying to convince the editors and company of your others two books here. Till now, no interest.

      To me, the consistency of your arrangement is THE uplifting

      has to be shouted

  15. Communism is a religion. Satanism is disguise. The Great Leader as Pope, the state as the church, the party as the clergy.
    Sorry about your father.

  16. I often wonder what percentage of the US population has the intellect, attention span, and reading comprehension skills necessary to appreciate how incredibly brilliant and informative your articles are.
    I expect there is also a very large number that stop reading as soon as something doesn’t fit their narrative.

    1. I agree. It seems that we lack any curiosity of world events and we don’t have the critical thinking skills anymore to be able to think past the quickest, easiest answer provided by the politicians

    2. It is unfortunate when people stop reading a text because it challenges their assumptions. When I read Lenin, for example, or Nietzsche, I must set aside my own assumptions and enter into their thought process. There is often a feeling of revulsion at first, but then you discover that these people have insights (along with their more problematic ideas). Understanding what they got right and wrong, or what you got right or wrong, is the important thing.

      It is hard to acknowledge that people who think differently (especially enemies) have interesting thoughts. My background is as a strategist, primarily, and strategists want to know what the enemy is thinking. And this is a process that has implications for knowing oneself, in clarifying one’s own thoughts. Enemies are teachers. Today, however, someone who disagrees with us is often dismissed without any attempt to understand them. Every idea that is believed, has the power of a person behind it. What can we learn from that person? In terms of the wars that have been fought, and will be fought, it is best not to make one’s enemy into a caricature. In terms of people who think differently, it’s important not to write them off as an enemy when they are honestly trying to open our eyes.

    3. It is very important not to underestimate the number of Americans who do not read because they can not read. The reading wars have been going on for closing in on a century in this country, and except for sporadic victories, generally short lived, the status quo of bad reading instruction continues. Robin Eubanks, author of Credentialed to Destroy, analyzes the reasons for this, and they are not simple ignorance of how to teach reading effectively; the are concerted and deliberate. A semi-literate population is far easier to manipulate and control, and this in tandem with the leaching of content from the curriculum, and its replacement with indoctrination, actually results in the dulling of intelligence. Further, it is not simply an ability to read fluently that is necessary to create an effective reader; there is also the need for an information base, a background, that can make sense of all the references that are made in any reasonably complex text. And of course, such a background itself comes from broad reading, where knowledge builds upon knowledge, and the intellectual exercise involved develops the ability to analyze, assess, and synthesize. This, not any content-less foray into teaching “critical thinking” in the abstract, is the way a powerful and discriminating mind is created.

      In the early sixties, a team of researchers went to the USSR to investigate how Soviet science and technology education had allowed the Soviets to outstrip us in the space race with the launch of Sputnik. However, the study came up with some unexpected results. It turned out that not only was science and math instruction superior to their American counterparts, but humanities instruction also left ours in the dust. All the classics of Russian literature were studied by the end of secondary school, athough naturally through a Marxist-Leninist lens. (All, that is, but Dostoevsky, whom it was impossible to relegate to dialectical materialist interpretation.) The researchers published their findings in What Ivan Knows that Johnny Doesn’t. It includes some side by side pages of the curricula of the various grades in U.S. schools compared with their counterparts in the USSR. Quite sobering.

      1. I knew a kid whose father pulled him out of high school, where he was failing, and enrolled him in college, where he thrived, when he was 15. He found the college milieu invigorating and not enervating like high school. That was a couple of decades ago.

        Would he have lost his motivation to study had he stayed in high school?

      2. I wonder if the school and curriculums that the researches were allowed to visit was for the children of the politically reliable and not what the average Russian child was allowed to learn.

      3. In the Soviet Union serious students relied on a system of private tutoring. Just as much of food grown in the USSR was from private plots, the country could only survive because of an informal market economy that was allowed to exist.

      4. It was the same for us in East Germany as it was in the Soviet Union until 1989. We learned a lot at school, especially mathematics, German, chemistry, physics, biology, geography, and so on. Today, students in 4th grade can’t even read. But they have sex education and climate lie teaching. It is intentional. The West is dumbing down, the Eastern Bloc is becoming the new ruler. Germany was once the land of poets and thinkers. I was born at the beginning of 1949, so I have already experienced a lot.

  17. What do you say to it Jeff? In the Swiss Express newspaper, for which T. Mann also writes an article from time to time, the following is written in issue 50 and 51: Communist China was created on the drawing board and was a project of high finance, like Rothschild and Rockefeller. Rockefeller is also said to have played a decisive role in building the Soviet Union. I quote: “The red communist dragon we are currently dealing with is a thoroughly artificial construct and as such the result of a successful “experiment” initiated and carried out by high finance. China is a kind of golem that would never have appeared on the world stage in this form if it had not enjoyed the massive financial and material support of these wealthy circles – which have also been intervening in politics from behind the scenes in the West for decades, slowly but steadily shaping the world to their will.” China is a child of high finance.

    1. This is a serious misunderstanding of communist China. Mao used to lecture on the subject of manipulating rich people and land owners. There is a book which touches on this, titled, “The Subersion of the Innocents.” It quotes from a book that discusses Mao’s lectures, titled “The Yenan Way.”

      1. Thanks Jeff, that’s exactly what I wanted to hear from you. I know what they write is not true, but your confirmation and judgment was important to me.


    2. Heike, I’m sorry. I was out of line. I thought you had been reading this blog for awhile, and it seemed you were pushing the idea that the Rockefellers and Rothschilds were behind Communism in China, like a lot of trolls on so-called Conservative sites.

      1. Hello GREYKNIGHT, no problem, I know about it. I lived in the GDR the Soviets 40 years, I never want them again!!! We had to learn Russian, I don’t like the language! I read all Jeff’s texts, even his old site, all translated with Deepl saved and printed. I love Jeff’s lyrics. But I wanted his confirmation that what they write is nonsense. Here everyone thinks it’s “high finance”, of Russians at least 95% think communism went down. They don’t want to hear that it was a lie. We have here a so-called right-wing party, the AFD, which is completely on Russia’s side. It’s unbelievable what’s going on here. I think it’s even worse than you guys. .

      2. That is awful! So much deception everywhere. I’m blessed where I live, because I think many instinctively never trusted Russia or China. I credit that to God and the Bible still being important to a lot of people. I’ve noticed that the vast majority of people here who most readily realize the truth of what Jeff says, do so instinctively as I did when I stumbled upon his work, and are strong Christians, or even if they’re not, they have a certain reverence for God.

  18. It just seems you have addressed that question in different ways, in a lot of essays and comments, and I know this person has been a commenter for a long time.

  19. I’ve got a question that’s been forming in my mind. I watched an excellent documentary that the Contemplative Observer recommended to me on the Kennedy assassination. I actually watched it twice and plan to watch it again. The guy who made the documentary is a leftist German, and perhaps that is why he was able to interview some of the surviving (at the time it was made) Cuban G2 agents -including Escalante, who was the head of G2 when Kennedy was assassinated. They prove that it was Cuban G2 and KGB behind Kennedy’s assassination.

    Contemplative Observer, perha6you could share the link.

    Anyway, this got me more interested in Kennedy as pertained to his dealings with Communism.

    So, I’ve done a little digging, listening to speeches, the phone conversations between him and Eisenhower during the Cuban Missile Crisis. (I also have a copy of Ion Pacepas book Programmed to Kill, but haven’t gotten to it yet, as I still have a few books ahead of it to read).

    I also ordered a book by Lawrence Freedman, Kennedy’s Wars. I couldn’t resist going ahead and reading what Freedman wrote about the Cuban Missile Crisis.

    In reading what Freedman wrote, and listening to Kennedy’s phone conversations with Eisenhower during the Crisis, it seems to me that Kennedy did not know what to do. It actually seems he was intimidated by Kruschev. In fact, he was ready to remove the Jupiter missiles from Turkey, until his advisers told him they didn’t think Kruschev would insist on it, though he had mentioned it once.

    In the first phone conversation to Eisenhower, he asked Ike if he thought the Soviets would launch a nuclear attack if we wound up having to attack Cuba. Eisenhower said no. Kennedy said, “So you would be willing to risk that?”, to which Ike basically replied, What else can you do? You’ve got to do something.

    Another interesting thing, is that Kennedy and Excomm were so obsessed with not offending Kruschev, and giving him an out, that when discussing a blockade of Cuba, they kept scaling it down until it would only last for four days, and would be called a “quarantine”, since blockade might sound too harsh.


    It seems that even by that point, we were not willing, were not ready, and were not serious about defeating Communism.

    It even seems that we had lost our way morally, in that Kennedy truly thought Kruschev had a point about the Jupiter Missiles in Turkey being equal to Soviet missiles in Cuba.

    Freedman says Kennedy also thought it would seem like we were wimps (my words) yo our European allies for getting Soviet missiles out of Cuba, when Europeans lived with that threat everyday.

    It seems our leadership was already lost and confused during this crisis.

    1. Also, I watched footage on Kruschev meeting with VP Nixon. I think it was called the Kitchen Debate? Anyway, Kruschev clearly intimidated Nixon, and Nixon grinned like a clown through the whole thing, including when Kruschev insulted America, basically saying we were scared of the Soviets.

      At the height of the Cold War, I don’t think any of our top level leaders were that committed. They wanted life to go on as usual, even if it meant ignoring the Communist in the room.

      1. And also, how LBJ swept the knowledge that the KGB was behind the assassination under the rug. I think he was scared to do what needed to ge done.

        I think our leaders had already lost their way. Am I onto something?

      2. One more point. Golitsyn says that by 1960, (or thereabouts), we had lost our ability to properly analyze Communist developments.

        These were the men (JFK, LBJ, Nixon, etc) of that generation. The generation in which the massive rebellion against our traditions and heritage began. No coincidence to me, that when we turned our face against God, and Biblical principles, we lost our courage, our convictions, our discernment.

      3. LBJ has been described as a coward when dealing with the USSR and China. When he was in the Navy, I recall he went on a mission and cowered in the back of the boat the whole time. This is a story I recall reading, but it may not be true. Can anyone verify it?

      4. On the documentary, Rendezvous with Death, the FBI agent who had been on the Oswald’s trail to Mexico, and leading to Cuba when he was suddenly recalled and the investigation stopped (can’t remember his name), says that LBJ was scared to death. Maybe not exact wording, but that is the impression I got of what he said, but I think those were the exact words.

    2. Here is German director Wilfried Huismann’s superb 2006 documentary (English version) titled, Rendezvous With Death: Why John F. Kennedy Had to Die (picked from Mr. Huismann’s own YouTube channel). Given the amount of disinformation and false narratives in circulation, however, few will be willing to take a second look at what really happened, even though it’s never been a secret really:

  20. Jeff, I feel for your loss.
    I have regretted my father’s death a long time, 1973, at 41.

  21. Ukraine is fighting for her life, but that fight will affect the west as well. I don’t think it out of line to say that Ukraine is fighting for us as well. The war, however, is not a proxy war as Putin and other idiots wish to think.

  22. My condolences on your personal loss. I think that you owe much to your father for what you are today.

    Even though my main studies were in science and technology, I noticed even decades ago when I was a student that most of my fellow students were lost. They had no overarching understanding of the world. They were full of disconnected facts, many of which were false, but no way to evaluate or integrate those facts into true understanding.

    For me, that overarching framework comes from the Bible. It teaches a way of thinking that is based on history, action, function, and internal realities. Thinking along those lines gives guidance on how to evaluate new information in order to integrate it into understanding. It also helps to see relationships between seemingly disparate facts.

    In contrast to Western Philosophy based on the Greek and Latin sources based on form and exterior appearances. People who think this way can be fooled by false appearances, such as Putin claiming to be a social conservative, maybe even a Christian. They are also more easily led by propaganda. Most of my fellow students, and adults since graduation, think according to classical Greek philosophy (Plato, Aristotle, etc.).

    One doesn’t need to read widely to gain wisdom (critical thinking), one just needs a solid foundation. Most people lack that solid foundation.

    I studied science and technology. I also studied comparative religions. What I noticed is that most philosophical religions world wide use the same type of thinking used by classical western philosophy. Science on the other hand was based on Biblical thinking. When Kipling wrote “East is East, and West is West” England and much of the west was still dominated by Biblical thinking. But that has changed. Without that philosophical basis, how can we stop that race to the bottom?

  23. Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser was a Catholic priest and mystic who had a purported vision concerning the interpretation of The Book of Revelation. He lived in the 17th century, and he was a German if I understand correctly, or basically .

    He says the seven churches of Asia addressed by Christ via letters in the beginning of Revelation are seven periods of the Church. The fifth period, corresponding to the Letter to the Church of Sardis, begins (according to Holzhauser) in the early 1500s with the Protestant Reformation, and is marked or is characterized by the church being continually weakened and challenged, its clergy being continually or increasingly degenerated, culminating in the destruction of Rome.

    This has a perfect affinity with a certain remark by Pius XI (1923): “… the heresies begotten by the [Protestant] Reformation. It is in these heresies that we discover the beginnings of that apostasy of mankind from the Church, the sad and disastrous effects of which are deplored, even to the present hour, by every fair mind.” (Rerum omnium pertabationem #4, Jan. 26, 1923)

    This is all but completed (the disaster culminating in the destruction of Rome), for the Russians are about to overtly come for Rome to trample it underfoot and burn it down, they already prepared the way by infiltrating it (as is well documented) and making the Red Square in Moscow the underlying “See” behind Saint Peter’s Square.

    The sixth period of the Church, as suggested by several predictions alongside Holzhauser’s interpretation, begins with the coming of the Great Catholic Monarch/Pope, who will bring about the absolute triumph of the Catholic Church before all doubters. 

    His secular intervention will occur during an accumulated storm-and-confusion period, precisely corresponding overall to the assessment Mr. Nyquist makes for our own time and its “quickening”. The Catholic Monarch will reign supreme in both East and West. Just as Balaam, the Ishmaelite or Midianite Arab prophet of the Old Testament, was a true, if perverse, prophet, Muhammad as well. Just as Ishmael served and prepared the coming of Isaac (the son of the promise), so does Islam. Muslims expect the Catholic Monarch, as a matter of fact he is the centerpiece figure of their religion, they call him the Mahdi/the guided. René Guénon, perhaps the most influential sheikh of the 20th century, all but explicitly admitted the Great Catholic Monarch as understood by Catholic prophecies (whose validity he rigorously accepted) is the Mahdi. The fact Guénon held this position and was the member of a traditional Tariqh (an esoteric Muslim school, privy to doctrines the average Muslim doesn’t understand and is not supposed to ) is perfectly in line (as far as rhetoric signs go) with the fact Muhammad, his daughter Fatima and his successor Ali Ibn Abi Talib (married to Fatima) recieved from the Archangel Gabriel predictions about the future of the Muslim religion and its role alotted by Providence, predictions that were put down in writing and made available only to the descendants of Fatima down to at least the last of the Twelve Imams of her lineage.

    The Mahdi is said to be expected to be given the Sword of Muhammad, corresponding analogically to a literal sword placed in some Egypt Museum, which sword is called al-Ma’thur (whose etymology seems to be “preaching”). Thus the Quranic verses corresponding to Muhammad’s preaching are a kind of enigmatic house of cards and domino prepared by Providence to be unsealed and used in the hands of the prophesied coming ruler of Christianity. This is perfectly in line with the order of the Quran, its inner arrangement of parts or surahs, being conspicuously enigmatic and flying in the face of all attempted interpretation, and at the same time being (according to Muhammad) by no means the effect of a free human conventional choice. Islam will bring about the conversion of the many Eastern peoples connected with it by means of the unsealing of the Koran in association with the Catholic Monarch’s Holy Spirit gift of unveiling the contents of the Pentecostal-like tongues of fire (the contents of the Ark, namely, the contents of the sacred knowledge primitively endowed to man in paradise, the tongues correspond to the “names of animals” which were given to Adam to understand and name). This weighing in the Sword of Muhammad will coincide with the unleashing or loosing of the “four angels who are bound in the great river Euphrates” (Revelation 9:14), the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (bringing about antichrists, war, spiritual famine and Death or Hell), “who were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year” (Revelation 9:15), just like Noah’s Flood (the two events are intended to correspond analogically). Thus, the Islamic religion is the means Providence chose to seal the “Twelve Tribes of Israel”/mark the elect for election as in Revelation chapter seven, during the days of the Catholic Monarch.

    Once this process is carried out by the Catholic Monarch, according to Holzhauser, the Catholic Church will have increased to such overwhelming numbers that in Revelation 11:1 it is required one to measure its extent: “Arise, and measure the temple of God and the altar and them that adore therein.”

    Even though the Church will have increased; the ecliptic/obscuring process gradually started from before in Revelation 8:12 will reach its height finally in Revelation 11:7, when the Beast that “ascendeth out of the abyss” shall consolidate its power. The Greek for “abyss” etymologically means/suggests “high sea”, which in its turn suggests the ascent of the Beast is the consolidation of the total solar Eclipse, for the New Moon phase coincides with high tide, and the moon is a symbol for secular power. A dark/ecliptic secular power. Antichrist’s reign. R. C. Sproul, Protestant scholar, explained Nero was called “the Beast” in ancient Rome by many, and because of his evil behavior, and it is (if I am not mistaken) well know the number of the Beast form Revelation, 666, means in Hebrew “Neron Kaiser”. Apparently, a scholar named Ken Gentry says it has been documented by archaeological finds that a first century Hebrew spelling of Nero’s name provides us with precisely the value of 666, and still according to him (if I correctly understood) Jastrow’s lexicon of the Talmud contains this very spelling.

    A man whose spirit is in complete disorder. A murderer. One who revels in dishonoring his parents. A traitor. One in whose heart there is only scandal, and who, by ruling over men, will impress the heart of men with a taste of his own scandal. Every political degeneration must have an agent, so the maximum-crashing-down degeneration must have an agent as well. This is where all the shocking things that have increasingly confused people will have culminated at, until the mercy from above frees men from it.

    1. These interpretations, as interesting as they are, are always a question-mark. There are correspondences, similar situations, and likenesses to consider. But isn’t it metaphor, for spiritual states? And these can produce actual situations. Can we project an actual historical timeline with this? I do not think the spirit relates to time in a way we understand.

      1. To be sure, the Revelation passages a relative to symbols that transcend time and place; but this in and of itself doesn’t preclude it from being, just like the Gospels themselves, a story. The first verse of Revelation, as a matter of fact, states the text relates to future events.

        AS is somewhat well known, the Fatima Center spokespeaple relate it, Sister Lucia told someone the Third Secret is relative to a chain of event which corresponds to Revelation chapters 8 to 13 [precisely those Holzhauser said relate to the Great Catholic Monarch], and some Gospel passages. Malachi Martin essentially explained, a number of times, the Third Secret is about the coming of a future pope and leader of Christianity, the coming of which according to Martin was evocative of the expression “the dawn of the magicians”, something to fill the heats of men with awe.

        Sister Lucia is said to have recieved the never-released Third Secret in 1917. She wrote it down form memory back in the forties. It is about a punishment beginning at the latest in 1960. This was confirmed [by that time the Second Vatican Council was already announced], about 1960, those responsible for the council were already hell-bent on making it what it became. Windswept House, novel by Malachi Martin, interestingly explains the duplicitous “Cardinal” Ratzinger [before becoming Benedict XVI], for all the latter’s alleged abiding by the Second Vatican Council and its validity, secretly acknowledged the language of the council was specious and ambiguous by design, and thereby aimed at certain political effects he [Ratzinger] resented, namely [as can be interpreted and seen], turning the externals of the Church into a docile political correctness/social justice communist front.

        The Third Secret, written by Sister Lucia at a time the Second World War was being waged [if I am not mistaken, and as subtly indicated in Windswept House], indicated Russia would bring about the total trampling upon and destruction of the very Church’s externals it was then infiltrating. In the 1960 meeting with acolytes held by John XXIII to unseal and discuss the Third Secret, according to Martin, it was said perhaps Sister Lucia let herself become too impressed with the Soviet troops/military presence in Spain, relatively close to her residence, during the Spanish Civil War. In other words, they expected the Russians would never occupy Rome or mark the Catholic Church for death. But isn’t it today, when one pays anough attention, exactly what the Russians postured themselves for? Have not the externals of the Church been used for demoralization and destabilization, as Bezmenov would say, and doesn’t it follow from this process (according to him), necessarily, that those used to demoralize and destabilize a nation are by that very fact mostly marked for death and seen by the KGB as a future nuisance or threat, when the time comes for “normalization”?

        The double lightning which famously hit the top of the dome of Saint Peter’s Basilica the day of Benedict XVI’s resignation announcement, evokes that Gospel statement: “It is consummated!” [in the Greek “Tetelestai”, τετελεστάι], because this expression in the Greek etymologically evokes the idea of repetition, double, like the number of lightnings; and at the same time evokes the Doom of the Temple of Jerusalem (that would be fulfilled in history), as the doom of Christ’s body. The double lightning means the Doom of an accursed city, its doom being written on a wall. “MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN”. MENE, God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end; TEKEL, you have been weighed … and found wanting; and UPHARSIN, your kingdom is divided and given to others. The repeated words “mene” etymologically mean “stricken, stricken”, which corresponds to the double lightning, just as modern Rome corresponds to the Babylon Kingdom the writing on the wall originally related to. The double strike means [among others] the doom comes first subtly, in the form of the corruption which makes the maintenance of the Kingdom untenable, then it comes overtly, thus giving the doom a double quality.

      2. Golitsyn talked about a “World October Revolution”, and about the neutralization of enemy countries [carried out by communists] by means of the prearranged killing of a percentage of the native population; more or less the way Bezmenov said pro-America Vietnamese public influencers of a certain city were killed in great numbers in a matter of a single night by the KGB, during the Vietnamese War.

        If that is the case [namely, the Russians planned revolutions in various places and the surgical killing of people in target countries], the Russians aren’t necessarily looking to occupy foreign countries by ordinary military exertion, nor it is likely the invasion of the Ukraine was exclusively (as opposed to hypothetically/contingently) looked upon as for the sake of immediate victory and not as a contingent diversion. As a matter of fact, a dollar crisis would be comparatively more unthinkable if Russia had not been sanctioned and China had not used this to highlight its BRICs posturing to rely on its own banking, and to rely on bilateral agreements to ditch the dollar. The longer the War quagmires, the more the pressure points on the American economy get tougher. According to Peter Schiff, the famous investor, since the Fed began its rate hikes the credit card debt/the overall economy debt got worse, and it continues to increase despite the hikes, which means more price hikes are coming in the pipeline. The risk of bank failure and debt default is greater. Mortgage securities are said to have serious overpriced values, the forced liquidation of such securities (which apparently are a big chunk of assets held by banks) are said to represent a serious threat to banks, they’d fail, and if the Fed bails out banks more the dollar inflation spikes even more. If the economy disrupts and inflation gets out of control, there is a chance the demand for dollars will seriously decrease, thus perhaps igniting a dollar crisis.

        The shambles in the wake of the dollar crisis would/might possibly be just what the Russia-China alliance is looking for in way of green-lighting the extermination of individuals in order to neutralize the Eurpean countries, and in order to green-light the setting up of revolutions in their territory. This seems to me quite clear in the case of Brazil. One of the two major trading partners of Brazil is the US, if the latter’s inflation gets out of control even more our exports purchasing power dirsruption might unleash unemployment, civil unrest, martial law and a coup d’etat. It is perhaps easier to picture this in the case of a comparatively unstable country like Brazil, but the Russians have had plenty of time to plan something like this in Europe, which is precisely what Golitsyn seemingly meant when he used the expression “World October Revolution”, for he said the major target countries in the eyes of communism were [if I remember correctly] the US, France, Germany and Japan. Emmanuel Macron’s seeming “chasing his ass in China” [Donald Trump’s words] would suggest French politicians are quite aware of the communist bargaining chips when it comes to communists say/means of action on each European country’s political stability.

      3. Economic difficulites are coming for all countries. This much is clear. The socialists and their policies, especially energy strangulation policies, are very destructive to economic wellbeing. Then you had the lockdowns during the pandemic (which was a Chinese communist idea). A lot of wealth was squandered, and many businesses destroyed. That much being said, there is economic damage inflicted on Russia and China, too. And this is where their strategy may not work. As communists, they believe economic science is capitalist “ideology,” and often disregard it. There have been communist officials who understand economics, but these are brushed aside when open conflict with the West appears likely. Xi Jinping, for example, does not understand or believe in “economics.” He has hurt his own economy with his blustering and bullying.
        The same can be said for Putin and his current advisors. Therefore, economic warfare against the U.S. could have crippling blowback for Moscow and Beijing. It is hard to say how this will play out. I would not be afraid of BRICS in terms of its damage to the U.S. economy. Russia, China, India, Brazil and South Africa, for example, are in much worse economic condition than we are here in the U.S. at the moment. Of course, things can change depending on Biden’s next catastrophic policy decision.

      4. The question is not if Putin will use nuclear weapons, but when will he use them?

        The only real military advantage Russia and China have is nuclear, both of their conventional militaries are unmotivated and technically inferior to ours, and in the case of China, untested in battle. Yes both of them together are numerically larger than ours (I include all of NATO here) and numbers alone add a certain level of quality, but is that enough to change the tide of battle against a technically superior foe?

        Is not the communist plan of battle to nuke our military and many of our largest cities as a sudden “Pearl Harbor attack” followed by the invasion of Chinese troops?

      5. It would be a waste of nuclear weapons to hit America’s cities, which already belong to the communists in many cases. Certain cities have strategic value, and must be hit because of industries located there; but overall, most nuclear weapons will be targeted on military bases, missile silos, command bunkers, naval facilities, and administrative centers (Washington D.C. and State capitals). The destruction of many large cities is not necessary. If they did this kind of attack they would be strengthening the country in some regions.

      6. Jeff, even your description of nuking only administrative centers (state capitals) and a few other strategic cities sounds like hitting 50–100 cities, which still sounds like many to me. Then how many of those cities would they not nuke because of the industries there that they might want to keep, such as Minneapolis/St. Paul where there are major food production facilities which they want to keep? But a city like Phoenix, AZ would be a prime target, as it sits astride major transportation arteries which would be minimally disrupted by air-burst nukes but has little industry to be useful. The same is true of L.A. as long as the nukes are away from the docks at Long Beach.

        One thought that I have is that any invasion will disrupt supply chains. Most cities are dependent on constant supplies, after which they’ll go hungry. In just a few days. Would the Chinese be willing to feed those cities? I don’t think so. In fact, would that be part of the plan, that starvation and riots take out much of the population?

        I agree with you, that removing many of those cities will actually strengthen the rest of us, those from smaller cities and towns where people are more likely to be armed, have hunting and military backgrounds and are ready to fight.

      7. That’s the point. It’s more disruptive to for China to leave most cities intact. Since the cities won’t be fed, they will be centers of unrest and trouble for the American side.

  24. Biden will fail Ukraine like Obama failed Libya, Syria, etc. in favor of FSB-controlled Russia and its proxies like Iran and Syria. Promises for weapons are made but then they are delayed or forgotten.

    1. It is interesting how Russia’s ally in Syria managed to hold on and crush the opposition. Very brutal. Very determined. Despite all we did, they won.

  25. I find that I often learn a lot when debating people with whom I disagree. Here I don’t talk of the formal debates, rather the private ones where I try to convince the other to my side. Such debates cannot be successful without understanding the other side. Listen to what he has to say. It may reveal holes in your understanding of your own side. He may bring up concepts you may not have thought of before. Of course, you must have pretty good understanding of your own side. And be ready to say “I don’t know, let me research this before answering.”

  26. Mr. Nyquist, are you familiar with Calderon? I think he’s honest. He’s got some good understanding of China’s influence with the cartels. Everyone here from America will find this video very interesting and informative, I believe.

      1. I’ve listened to two or three interviews of him so far. He was Mexican federal police. He is an honest man who saw a lot of Chinese presence in Mexico. He understands and says that China is at war with America. I don’t think he aware of the overarching Communist strategy, but he understands that China is at war with America. I’ll bet if he were to find your work, he would quickly realize even more what is behind it.

  27. So Sorry about your precious Dad…you were greatly blessed to have such a great Dad. I am sure the Lord is happy to have him home.
    May Gods peace and comfort fill you and your memories bless you.

    The Lord says, build homes, plant gardens, get married and have children (Jeremiah 29).
    The family is what made our nation great and that is why they have done all they could to tear the family apart.

    Keep your faith strong in the storm, don’t give into doubt. Be content where He has you, He is with us even if we don’t feel like He is. Hold on to your hope in Him, keep pressing through, you’re in His hands, He’s carrying us and our cares. Those that trust in Him will never be put to shame.

    Thanks Jeff!

  28. Jeff, I feel for your loss.

    In my live questions, I’ve warned a number of times of the active measure that Benjamin Fulford’s weekly reports represent. Here’s an expample from yesterday:

    “[…] This sort of waste and misdirection is true right across the whole spectrum of US government. For example, the US has 50 states that each have their own bureaucracy and can obstruct the nation as a whole.
    The WDS proposal is to reduce this to five administrative regions for the United States of North America:
    1. West Coast hippie land from Alaska to Northern California.
    2. Greater Texaco ranging from Southern California to Texas
    3. Dixieland from Louisiana to Virginia.
    4. The East Coast from Maryland up to Ontario (with special autonomy for French-speaking Quebec).
    5. The greater mid-West starts with Arkansas and includes Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba.

    This is just a taste of the sort of things that would become possible once the criminal, privately-owned USA INC is bankrupted and rebooted as the Republic of the United States of North America.
    There can be no doubt the American and Canadian people are sick and disgusted with their current KM puppet regimes.”

    KM is short for Khazarian Mafia. Full report:

    His reports are relevant because quite a few in the global Patriot/awakened communities follow him and make translations of his reports available. Each weekly report has a high information density and is usually quoting/summarizing the content of the provided source material falsely, enabling to constantly add to the active measure narrative.

    1. Thank you for bringing this up, ThomasfromGermany. I have been around people all focused on this “corporation” issue. I even contacted a real, professional, early American historian to get to the bottom of it. They quickly said it was conspiracy but gave a poorly sourced article from an Obama connected author, which would hold no water with these people– actually, me neither….

      Was exploring thru your footnotes yesterday and the video of footnote #1 had this video of a Russian journalist. (There are some real hidden pearls in your footnotes!),vid:tt-SgfaTX4o

      That’s one fearless woman!

      She mentioned the “corporation that runs Russia”, in context to the KGB, around the 5 minute mark. So is that where the conspiracy, that a “corporation” runs the United States comes from? So, it is just another invertion/projection from Russia, because a corporation really runs the inner workings of Russia? What was she saying there? Do you agree?

      Many well-meaning conservatives r caught up in this. They want you to watch multiple 2++ hours of presentations as they lay out the historical “proofs” America is a “corporation”. They tie it to the Doctrine of Lesser Magistrates, and they want to assemble peacefully to reorganize and refound the nation/individual states, or something. What their endpoint is and how they plan to get their “lawful” demands enacted when such a corrupted system has power, I’m not sure. I’ve never gotten past the first 10 minutes of their presentations. But, I am sure communist, invading tyrants will not be impressed with their “lawful” reorganzing of “wethepeople” government. Are you familiar with that whole movement, and is it just a conspiracy that is based on a projection from the real system in Russia?

      1. I am familiar with this movement which regards America as a corporation, and I find no truth or sense in what they say. As for Albats’s comments about Putin and “the corporation that runs Russia,” she is using the term loosely or metaphorically to describe the hidden entity which binds Russia’s semi-Soviet, semi-feudal system together. I am familiar with her writings and she is not a native English speaker, so I see no significance in her use of this word. She has never used this expression before, to my knowledge. More typically, the people who run Russia are refereed to as Siloviki, or Mafya, or the Communist Party Soviet Union underground, or the KGB state, depending on the observer. It is simply a special formation adopted by Moscow Center to carry out a massive deception operation. I do not think it is the inspiration of the “America is a corporation” people here in the U.S. The communists use many organizational formations to accomplish various maneuvers in different countries. No doubt they control many front companies and corporations. The word “perestroika,” which has been called Stalin’s favorite word,” signifies a “change in formation” in order to carry out a political action. What we see in Russia, and the West, are various communist fronts changing their formation to advance a particular strategy. The Communist Party USA, for example, has shrunk in size and no longer runs candidates for high office. As they largely control the Democratic Party, they elect their people as Democrats. My understanding is that corporations are recognized in law as legal individuals used by businessmen to avoid liability in certain situtions. The laws on corporations have been subject to abuse.

      2. Well, thank you for quickly clearing that up and taking the time to answer. You also provided some more granular nuggets as to how the inner framework of the beastly system works that I have not understood before. Thank you!

    2. I may be depriving myself of a valuable source of information, but I avoid sources that advertise using the terms “Khazar,” “Khazarian.” We know what they mean.

      1. Yes, Deborah. Those who refer to “Khazars” are pretty crazy, and folks are best served staying away from that sort of rhetoric.

    3. Fulford is another source of obvious Russian disinformation for patriots. He favorable quotes Col. Douglas Macgregor, he blends far-right anti-semitic themes with allegations of sexual misconduct on the part of world leaders. Any sensible conservative politician who dares oppose Russia is viciously attacked on his site. For example, he has attacked Italian Prime Minister Meloni is a “fascist who takes order from Satanists.” Bizarrely, he claims UK PM Sunak has been videotaped haveing sex with French President Macron. This sort of sensational trash, designed to draw readers, corrupts by way of titilating nonsense. Once you believe this sort of thing, you become unfit to absorb true information. You are then opened to further fantastic allegations because you are addicted to the sensationalism. Regular news then becomes too boring to tolerate.

  29. I would fight, but unfortunately the question is what to fight for? The only achievements are feminism, mass immigration, gay cult, gender, green-communist ideology, etc….
    Now that’s interesting. The fatted affluent neglected as well as soviet ideologically dumbed down gender states like D, A, NL and Japan don’t want to fight anymore. But Sweden, Switzerland, Finland and Poland on the other hand are willing to defend !!!!

    1. Interesting article.

      I wonder how much of the willingness of people to defending their country is connected to having a firearm in the house? For example, in my neighborhood, practically every house has at least one firearm, and it is either one that can be use for either defense only or one that can be used for both defense and hunting. Most houses have more than one firearm.

      Meanwhile countries with low ownership of firearms also have low willingness to fight to defend their countries—Japan is an example, where firearms ownership is strictly forbidden to the population. Germany is another such country. So where self-defense with firearms is strictly restricted, as in those countries, does that also translate into low willingness to defend the country from invasion?

      1. I am not a fan if this self-congratulatory reasoning. Japan has always had strict gun-control laws, and even knife-control laws. Yet no people has been more set on defending their country than the Japanese people in 1945. Their defense was so intense it amounted to “national suicide.” If the Emperor had not relented after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a million Americans would have died invading Japan along with several million Japanese. Being a country with low firearm ownership has nothing to do with the readiness to fight and die. Kamikaze planes, suicide boats, and a ten million strong national militia made Japan into an island fortress. Japan’s people were willing to sacrifice all.

        Now consider Americans and their firearm ownership. The people here are more intent on turning their guns on each other than on a foreign enemy. The left won’t fight China because it’s racist to fight Chinese, and China is a socialist country. They would prefer to use the army and police against patriots and Christians who threaten their abortion rights. At the same time the right won’t defend against Russia, because they wrongly believe Putin is a Christian nationalist. Americans believe in all these false narratives. None refers to duty or honor. These are all grievance narratives set up with certain scapegoats in mind. If this country had honor, the Marxist thugs who knocked down George Washington’s statues in 2020 would have been rounded up and imprisoned like the 1/6 folks. There would have been no place for them to hide. In fact, if we had a vigilant and armed citizenry Washington’s statues would have been protected. I fear that our gun owners are just a disoriented rabble. God only knows who they will put against the wall when the time comes. I expect to be among the victims because I hate the false conspiracy narratives that made Alex Jones rich and famous. I hate the thoughtless nonsense that passes for political discourse today. The most important weapon you have is not a gun or a rifle. It is your brain. But people don’t care to use their brains nowadays.

      2. Jeff, did you read the article in Die Welt linked to by Heike? I responded to that, where present attitudes were measured. Germany’s present attitude is that only 18% are ready to fight for their country. But today’s Japan is at 11%. In 1945 the Japanese people believed that Americans would come in and commit genocide, kill almost 100% of Japanese, which is why they were so ready to fight then.

      3. As far as self-congratulatory attitude, that’s only for this neighborhood. Before moving here, I lived in San Francisco, where even though open carry was legal (I checked), it was dangerous because of all the anti-gun nuts. So nobody dared. Only a few people actually owned guns. Open carry was dangerous, and concealed carry was almost impossible to get.

        I now live near a major city, but semi-rural, unincorporated, where gun ownership is taken for granted. A big difference in attitude. Concealed carry comes with citizenship and a driver’s license.

        Based on my experiences and watching the news, I think there is a big difference between the urban centers mostly run by traitors and where the statues were pulled down, and more rural areas where bussed in BLM and Antifa rioters were met by armed locals who made sure that everything stayed quiet.

      4. @JRNyquist: “I expect to be among the victims…” That’s a really bleak thing to say. Yet I hope that such a day never comes. Such a brilliant, wonderful light, so to speak, would be extinguished. Jeff, we need you, your ‘voice’, and your words, both now, and in the future. What you have to say will always be relevant.

      5. To be honest I don’t think it would take long to train citizenry in musketry and to serve as an effective militia.

        In world war two for example, Australia fought the Japanese in Kokoda with what was for a time Army Cadets and Dad’s army.

        What makes an army strong is the doctrine, the supply lines and the willingness to fight.

      6. Gun ownership in this country is more of a security blanket than a defensive tool. It takes training and dedicated practice just to be competent in operating a firearm and this does not include the mental conditioning that is needed to be able to defend oneself in a personal defense scenario. The overwhelming majority of gun owners never take their weapons out of it’s case and neglect formal training. It takes the Army and the Marine Corps several months of dedicated, expensive, and intense training to develop the few people that are actually capable of being infantry soldiers. Dave Gossman wrote in “On Killing” that during WW2, only 15-20% of the infantry soldiers that were engaged in combat actually fired their weapon at the enemy. Following WW2, the Army changed up their training and after doing so the number of infantry that fired their weapons in Vietnam and after was above 90%. The British also followed the same methodology and the results were that they rolled over the Argentinian Army during the Falklands War with the Argentinians being trained using older techniques.

        If China trains their soldiers using the same techniques that the US and British use, then the average gun owner doesn’t stand a chance of defending the nation. Contrary to public opinion concerning the military, only a small number of people are capable of doing what the military does. Also remember, that only about 10% of our military is involved in combat, the rest are support. Most people do not have the will to fight. Most would be compliant.

      7. I think your spot on, Nate. I read in a book about an engagement in the Korean War (Last Stand of Fox Company I think was the title). As the company was en route to the position they took up, their commanding officer, being a veteran of WW2, decided to test their shooting abilities on a rabbit that ran out in front of them. Their shooting was atrocious. He had them polish up on their neglected skills which probably helped save their lives during the trial ahead.

        Shooting well takes regular practice. I have a friend who was a shooting instructor in the Marine Corps. He put both of his sons through intense practice, making them shoot in the rain, shoot after running sprints, shoot from all kinds of positions, learn to shoot as they extended their weapon forward after drawing it.

        Two young men who worked for me were put through similar practice by their father who was in the military, and is a police captain.

        I myself used to shoot a brick of .22 bullets every weekend, and became really accurate. I would set up very small things to shoot at, and shoot with open sites from a good distance. I once shot a red headed wood pecker out of a large oak tree from about 75 or 80 yards with an open site 22. I let a long time go by without shooting, and the next time I picked up a rifle to practice, I was like those guys in Fox Company.

        One good thing I and a lot of buddies did in our teens and twenties, is have paintball wars a lot. We played in the woods in different locations throughout our area. I had a team, and we never lost. We always did the hard things, like crawl and creep for hours in our homemade “gillie suits”, or go through huge briar patches and come upon the other guys where they didn’t think to see us, or wade through creeks for a long ways to move to different areas. The other teams we played against always bought the best guns, and thousands of paintballs. One tactic I would use is for me and one of my guys to reveal ourselves and fore a few times, drawing them to pour lots of paintballs in our direction. But by the time we had drawn their fire, we were already disappearing into some brush, and moving away 20 yards or so to another location, and repeating the process, causing them to waste hundreds of paintballs.

        Some of those guys went on to join the Army, and served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and told me those days and nights were as good as any training they received in the Army.

        Another thing I find, is these guys who buy thousands and thousands of rounds of ammo, are being unrealistic. I tell them, if we are able to fight, we won’t be living in our houses, but will have to always be on the move, and you can’t carry all of that with you. Like my neighbor said: we only need to carry enough to get more.

        There are so many factors a lot of people haven’t thought about.

        Regular practice, in different conditions and positions is a must.

      8. I know I’m not the best shot, so I practice with an accurate air rifle on a range I set up in our back yard where the loudest noise is from the pellet hitting the bullet trap. My pellets at 15 yards with open sights are usually within a half inch of dead center, which I consider unacceptable. I come from a very anti-gun family, so no training when I was young.

        As for marines training, when my son returned from rifleman shooting training, I was very disappointed in what he had learned. This was before I set up my range in the back yard. So I took him to a range and taught him how to shoot. The next time he had live shooting with his platoon, he barely missed out on being the best shot. I am not impressed with the training given in the marines.

      9. Greyknight, shooting bullets is expensive. BBs are cheap and in an urban area one could probably set up a shooting range in their hallway. Any idea how well practice with a BB gun would translate into skill with a rifle?

  30. From 4 years, it’s unbelievable!!! Such a DRECK !!!!! To then claim that this stuff also comes from the USA. It is forgotten to mention that they are already longer communist infiltrated and that the enemy states have thought up all the crap to destroy the Western countries.

    So-called “drag queens” are also to be increasingly used for children.
    Fairy tale and read-aloud events by drag queens for children are no longer held only in libraries, but also in schools and kindergartens.

    The development of the last few years in the USA already makes clear what can be expected in Germany.

  31. I was an avid and appreciative follower of Vic Braden’s science-based tennis and watched all of his TV and video cassette offerings which probably included some or all of Carroll Nyquist’s Braden-tennis productions. A great collaboration of teacher and producer.

  32. “Many years ago, I noticed the first indications of the right-left convergence when conspiracy theories accepted by the right began matching up with leftist conspiracy theories.”

    Truth is only one.

  33. Condolences for the loss of your father, Jeff. What a fascinating and productive life Carroll Nyquist led! And thanks for this incredibly deep, insightful and well-researched article!

  34. Dear Mr Nyquist, I have a question for you, who do you think rules Russia ? Is it the Army, the KGB, the “underground” CPSU, the Chinese or something else ? During the 2011 intervention in Libya, Prez Medvedev agreed to the UN Resolution while PM Putin was against. If the Russian communists took a decision, why would the PM and the Prez disagree ? Hard to say who calls the shots in Moscow, but I would like to have your opinion on this..

Comments are now closed.