Popper’s falsificationist methodology holds that scientific theories are characterized by entailing predictions that future observations might reveal to be false. When theories are falsified by such observations, scientists can respond by revising the theory, or by rejecting the theory in favor of a rival….
Encyclopedia of Philosophy
What does a correct prediction about enemy strategy tell us? It reveals the enemy’s bag of tricks. It allows us to see behind his curtain of deception. For example, in the case of KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn’s successful strategic predictions about the collapse of communism, we learn that the Communist Party [of the] Soviet Union decided to advance its cause by “playing possum” (i.e., a tactic of pretending to be dead, employed by opossums). Golitsyn’s prediction was successful because the Soviet Union collapsed in the manner foretold, attended by presentational inconsistencies he anticipated (i.e., that changes in the Soviet bloc would be introduced from above and the nuclear arsenal would remain intact).
Upon his defection in 1961, Golitsyn told the CIA that the Sino-Soviet split (which began in December 1960) was a ruse for luring the West into building China into a superpower. His successful prediction in this regard, was that once China was built up, China would suddenly unite with Russia and form a partnership described by Golitsyn as “one clenched fist.” That this has happened, exactly as Golitsyn described, is no longer debatable. The only question that remains is whether the strategy of playing possum (which partially succeeded), and the strategy of luring the West into building up China (which succeeded absolutely), will bring the entire world under communist control. Please note: The execution of a bold maneuver does not guarantee success. As Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke explained, “No plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first encounter with the main enemy forces. Only the layman believes that in the course of a campaign he sees the consistent implementation of an original thought that has been considered in advance in every detail and retained to the end.”
Many laymen, on reading Golitsyn’s account of the Soviet “long-range strategy,” become demoralized because they imagine the success of the deception translates directly into ultimate success. Yet, an opossum may attempt to fool a predator by playing dead only to have the predator eat him alive. And it would serve the opossum right.
We forget that a deception of this kind carries risks; and this includes all the unintended consequences of an outward show of impotence (i.e., the continued existence and eastward expansion of NATO, the election of Donald Trump in 2016, the revolt and open resistance of Ukraine, etc.). With these setbacks, how does Moscow play out its deception? After all, every deception has an expiration date. Eventually someone will rip off your mask if you have not chosen that moment for yourself. Here is Moscow’s dilemma.
In the West, of course, our strategists have been scrambling to cope with the reality of emerging threats – from Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China. They have yet to see the grand design, remaining blind to the trap they have fallen into. The game is not fully understood. Golitsyn’s successful predictions are still ignored, and this is a problem. If they want to understand the game, our strategists must read Golitsyn.
It is a sad fact that our Sovietologists were deceived back in 1991. As creatures of the Shopping Mall Regime, our Sovietologists followed the dictates of economic optimism. In this respect, Golitsyn’s warnings about communist deception fell on deaf ears for reasons outlined a century earlier by a German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche. Denouncing the “economic optimism” of the liberals, Nietzsche warned of a universal tyranny by way of socialism. He explained that Western man was becoming a comfort-loving, weak-minded, inwardly slavish herd animal (i.e., the Last Man). It is strangely appropriate, in this context, that the most famous Sovietologist to emerge out of the “collapse of communism” was Francis Fukuyama, who attempted to refute Nietzsche, depicting the German philosopher as a cruel advocate of inequality. In accepting the “collapse of communism,” however, Fukuyama proved Nietzsche’s point; for surely, it must be acknowledged, that as a Sovietologist Fukuyama should have read Anatoliy Golitsyn’s book, New Lies for Old. But he either did not read Golitsyn, or he was too weak-minded to entertain Golitsyn’s dark insights. Fukuyama’s embrace of communism’s collapse, and his assault on Nietzsche, came in the form of a book titled, The End of History and the Last Man. In a chapter titled “Men Without Chests,” Fukuyama gloried in his own concavity. “It is difficult to follow Nietzsche very far down the road that he takes,” wrote Fukuyama. By characterizing Nietzsche as “an open opponent of democracy,” Fukuyama evaded the question of Last Man’s weak and deluded condition. More than that, Fukuyama proved to be an example of Last Man. He was not merely the last Sovietologist. He was Last Man as Sovietologist.
It was not enough that the liberal establishment ignored Golitsyn, as Fukuyama did. Books like Thomas Mangold’s Cold Warrior appeared, lampooning the KGB defector and his CIA sponsor (James Angleton) as mentally ill. Thus began the practice, so annoying to Angleton’s admirers, of emphasizing the spymaster’s middle name – Jesus. Angleton was presented by his critics as James Jesus Angleton, which subtly recast him as a messianic lunatic.
Golitsyn’s predictions first appeared in a 1982 manuscript that was published as a book in 1984. Golitsyn warned of a coming Soviet leader who would liberalize the Soviet Union. He said the Communist Party would appear to give up its monopoly of power. He warned that anticommunism would then disappear from politics along with Western vigilance. Behind the scenes, he explained, the Communist Party would rule Russia and the former “Soviet republics” through its agents in government and business, and through the KGB. Fooled from the outset, our dysfunctional intelligence community did not foresee the collapse of communism as Golitsyn did.[i]
The fraudulent nature of communism’s collapse should be obvious today. Put the open war preparations of Moscow and Beijing side by side with the the lack of preparedness in Europe, Australia, and North America. Even more decisive, the truth of Golitsyn’s thesis is affirmed by witnesses on the ground, especially in Romania, Poland, and Czechia (not to mention the regularized fraud of Vladimir Putin). We now know that the 1989 revolutions in Eastern Europe were ordered from Moscow and prepared in advance by the KGB and its sister services.[ii] Why did the CIA fail to detect this? As noted above, Americans have come to favor comfort above truth. That is one explanation. But there is more. Imagine a sophisticated mechanism of subversion and blackmail applied by communist bloc agents of influence. Imagine a criminal espionage network involving money laundering, drug trafficking, and sex parties. In this context, when we examine the writings of Whitney Webb, in One Nation Under Blackmail, we find all sorts of “connections” between major players – from Henry Kissinger and Armand Hammer to Robert Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein (the pedophile blackmailer). Think of all the billionaires and politicians who traveled on Jeffrey Epstein’s private jet (the “Lolita Express”), or who visited “Lolita Island.”[iii] In Webb’s writings we find a decisive pivot-point in the year 1991. We find Jeffrey Epstein involved in Ponzi schemes, and at the root of the Bear Stearns collapse of 2008 – exactly when the Russians were pulling the rug out from under Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Webb says that Robert Maxwell, the father of Epstein’s partner in pedophilic blackmail (Ghislaine Maxwell), had set up a maze of shell companies using Soviet money. Here we find linkages with KGB agent Armand Hammer, who sponsored the Senate careers of Al Gore and Joseph Biden. We see Epstein visiting Bill Clinton’s White House in the mid-1990s (along with a host of Chinese businessmen, who helped finance Clinton’s 1996 presidential campaign). With sex and greed as lures, big fish were reeled in. The pernicious amorality of heedless ambition is readily compromised. Ill-gotten gains are sweet, but blackmail inevitably follows. The rest is history – and the falsification of history. Here we see the intersecting and parallel lines of a vast conspiracy. What these lines signify, of course, is a spiderweb made by human spiders. The political formation behind these spiders is never really identified by Ms. Webb. Failing to show the spiders’ true allegiance, Webb cannot explain the strategy that is playing out.[iv] The explanation, of course, can be found in the writings of Golitsyn.
With all the blindness and corruption in our midst, we should not lapse into hopeless pessimism. It is easy to imagine that this web of corruption and subversion forms an unbreakable chain that binds our society to a self-destructive path; but mechanisms of this kind do not always work as the designers might hope. And people, especially those with criminal propensities, will try and break their chains. Some will threaten to blab. Others will leave the organization. In this context, one thinks back to all those oligarchs in Russia who fall out of windows or whose planes fall out of the sky. Think, also, of those who have committed suicide in the vicinity of Bill and Hillary Clinton. The number of suicides is so laughably improbable, someone coined the term “Arkancide” as a joke. The Urban Dictionary humorously defines Arkancide as, “When you attempt to testify against Hillary Clinton and your house explodes.” The number of suicides, plane crashes, and gunshot victims linked to Bill and Hillary is more than a suggestive statistical outlier. In the memoirs of some Clinton associates we read about the “boys on the tracks” murder (of Don Henry and Kevin Ives). Then there was the death of Treasury Secretary Ron Brown, who was under investigation by the Office of Independent Counsel. According to Brown’s mistress, after the Treasury Secretary threatened to take Clinton down with him, Brown was dispatched to Dubrovnik Croatia where he died in a plane crash. According to medical personnel involved in processing the bodies from the crash, an apparent .45-caliber bullet-hole was discovered in Ron Brown’s head. The x-rays showed a cloud of debris consistent with the fragmenting of a bullet inside the brain. One of the pathologists on the AFIP team, Lt. Col. Steven Cogswell (USAF), was silenced on this matter when a gag order was placed on him. Related to this case, in November 1998, I met Petty Officer Kathleen Janoski while waiting to do a television interview in Washington, D.C. She was the Navy medical photographer who found the .45 caliber hole in Brown’s head while inspecting bodies from the Dubrovnik crash. She told me the White House dispatched a U.S. Navy captain to confiscate the x-rays that showed the .45 caliber hole. Meanwhile, the military pathologists wanted to conduct an autopsy on Ron Brown, but were overruled by the White House. Such was the death of a cabinet secretary under Clinton. Then there was the death of White House Counsel Vince Foster, who was found dead of a gunshot wound at Fort Marcy Park. His death was ruled a suicide. Then there is the case of former Clinton White House intern Mary Mahoney, gunned down in a Starbucks; and the head of security for Clinton’s 1992 campaign headquarters, Jerry Parks, gunned down after leaving a Mexican restaurant in Little Rock (Parks allegedly had dirt on the Clintons). Then there was Clinton fundraiser Edward Willey, who died of a gunshot wound in the woods (whose wife, Kathleen Willey, was threatened after she charged that Clinton had sexually assaulted her). Another statistical outlier was Clinton’s National Finance Co-chairman C. Victor Raiser II, who died in a plane crash. Of more recent vintage, Clinton campaign worker Seth Rich was gunned down in an assassination-style attack while walking at night in his neighborhood. Rich’s murder was not a robbery as his wallet, credit cards and cell phone were not taken. Some believe Rich had given Julian Assange the damning internal DNC emails the Russians supposedly hacked (on Trump’s instructions). And then, of course, we come to the “suicide” of Jeffrey Epstein, the pedophile who flew former President Bill Clinton on so many trips. How do you hang yourself with bedsheets while you are in jail, in an observation cell with windows, and the subject of a suicide watch? After an investigation of the matter, Attorney General William Barr said it was “a perfect storm of screwups.” But then, how is it a screwup when two cameras malfunction in front of Epstein’s cell? This is not a screwup, and it is not “a perfect storm of screwups.” No. It’s a competent hitman who has covered his tracks.[v]
Many people say these deaths are not sinister. Please ask yourself: How many of your friends and work colleagues have committed suicide? How many of your associates have been blown away by gunfire? How many of your colleagues have died in plane crashes? I have one friend who died by falling off a balcony many years ago. Aside from that, I just cannot think of a single suspicious death among my acquaintances, let alone a dozen deaths. You can mock all this as “conspiracy theory,” but I have not presented a theory. I have presented facts. And I have presented Golitsyn’s strategic predictions. And with those predictions we would expect to see a vast spiderweb, and anomalous deaths; for spiders will protect their web, and sometimes get entangled in it themselves. And so we find that the closer you get to the spiderweb, the more at risk you are. When we match this up with the assassinated journalists, politicians, and businessmen in Russia, we hit upon the core of the spiderweb, where the deepest secrets are protected. The common denominator here is the Soviet and Chinese long-range strategy. Of course, the deception machinery requires a lot of killing. Some people know too much, or threaten to say too much, and must be dealt with.
How does this play out in terms of Russian and Chinese strategy? Can they defeat America with such tactics? To answer this question, imagine that you are one of the spiders. Imagine you are the king of spiders – the President of the United States. Imagine you were a socialist youth who traveled behind the iron curtain from December 1969 through January 1970. Imagine you met with intelligence officials who promised to help your career when you returned to the United States. Imagine you agreed to be their ally, their friend. Imagine 29 years have passed and, indeed, they helped your career – from Governor of a small state to President of all the states; and so, you find yourself seated across from the President of Russia. For years he has been badgering you to stop America’s nuclear weapons production (which you did), and to keep the ABM Treaty in place so America will not have ballistic missile defenses. But more than that, he wants you to exploit the “the collapse of communism” by pulling America’s troops out of Europe, out of NATO.
Would you do what the Russian President asks? Or would you realize how dangerous it might be to accommodate him? Put yourself in the place of such an American president. Do you dare give your “friends” everything they want? Or do you give them just enough to keep them from playing their blackmail card? Perhaps they remind you, through a third party, that they have compromising information on you. “Look,” they tell you, “We can keep this material out of the media. We are here to help.” Does that compel you to pull out of Europe? Or do you lack the power to carry out such a policy?
If you are smart, of course, you realize that it’s your funeral if you give them everything they want. And it also might be your funeral if you give them nothing. You want to keep the wolf from the door without burning the house down. And yes, the wolf wants the house to burn because of those tasty little piggies – the West European democracies. How scrumptious they are! One should also remember that an American president has a nuclear button of his own. How do you blackmail someone who can nuke you? There is a problem here, which must be worked out. And Moscow dares not expose their White House “friend” because Moscow would be exposing many other “friends” at the same time.
Consider, then, a transcript of the last meeting between Boris Yeltsin and Bill Clinton, in Istanbul Turkey, 19 November 1999, starting on page 3 of the declassified transcript from the Clinton Presidential Library (https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/57569):
CLINTON [to Boris Yeltsin]: I signed no such law [abrogating the ABM Treaty]. People in Congress don’t like the ABM Treaty. If Congress had its way, they would undermine the treaty. I’m trying to uphold it. But we need a national missile defense to protect against rogue states. We can’t have a national missile defense that works without changing the ABM Treaty. But I want to do this cooperatively. I want to persuade you that this is good for both of us. The primary purpose is to protect against terrorists and rogue states. It would be ineffective against Russia. The system we’re looking at would operate against just 20 missiles. And, Boris I want to figure out how to share the benefits. For all I know, in twenty years terrorists could have access to nuclear weapons. I know your people don’t agree with me, but I’m not trying to overthrow the ABM Treaty. We’re still trying to discover what’s technically possible with national missile defense, but there are people in America who want to throw over the ABM Treaty. I have made no decisions yet.
YELTSIN: Bill, Bill. I got your note. It went into all these things in incredible detail. I read it and was satisfied. I’ve not yet ceased to believe in you.
I ask you one thing. Just give Europe to Russia. The U.S. is not in Europe. Europe should be the business of Europeans. Russia is half European and half Asian. [Italics added]
CLINTON: So you want Asia, too?
YELTSIN: Sure, sure, Bill. Eventually, we will have to agree on all of this.
CLINTON: I don’t think the Europeans would like this very much.
YELTSIN: Not all. But I am a European. I live in Moscow. Moscow is in Europe and I like it. You can take all the other states and provide security for them. I will take Europe and provide them security. Well, not I. Russia will….
Bill, I am serious. Give Europe to Europe itself. Europe never felt as close to Russia as it does now. We have no difference of opinion with Europe, except maybe on Afghanistan and Pakistan – which, by the way, is training Chechens. These are bandits….
We have the power in Russia to protect all of Europe, including those with missiles. We’ll make all the appropriate treaties with China.
[End of Excerpt]
This could not have been the first time Clinton heard the refrain, “Just give Europe to Russia.” Gorbachev continually harped on “the one common European home.” Does anyone ever ask what this “common European home” signifies? Russia’s plans for Europe come out in this transcript. The plan does not appear in the mouth of Vladimir Putin, but in the mouth of Boris Yeltsin. This is exactly what Golitsyn meant by saying that the “collapse of communism” would be a ruse. Moscow employed a new strategy, as described by Kremlin advisor Georgy Arbatov in December 1988. “We are taking away the image of your enemy,” he said. This was the strategic maneuver Golitsyn had predicted. And they executed that maneuver. Of course, the execution of a strategic maneuver is always messy – with unexpected twists and turns. But they did it, and they lived with it, and now they are forced to improvise – to mobilize armies and threaten the West with nuclear war. They took the deception as far as they could. Bill Clinton and his successors could not eliminate NATO. They could not give Europe to Russia. As Clinton said, Europe would not like it – and would not go along.
How much love there was for Russia back then. How much trust. And yet, Yeltsin was the same as Putin. He was grabbing for Europe the same as Putin does now. Only Yeltsin did it with a smile as Putin is doing it with armies and by threatening nuclear war. It was clever of Yeltsin to reassure his friend Bill, “I’ve not yet ceased to believe in you.” But underneath, the Kremlin realized its mistake. Even if Clinton had wanted to give Europe to Russia, it was a bridge too far. And everyone who cared about the security of the West would have smelled a rat.
The Russians then turned to their Islamic friends, to their Chechen alibi, and to the terror attacks of 9/11/01. This operation successfully diverted American military and intelligence resources into Iraq and Afghanistan. This took the spotlight off Russia and China. The ill-preparedness and fiscal exhaustion of the West owes much to the aftermath of 9/11. Meanwhile, Whitney Webb is right to say that America is riddled with dirty characters who have mixed organized crime with intelligence work. But not knowing Golitsyn’s writings, she lacks the key to understanding how this all fits together. The corruption agenda is the agenda of Russia and China – of the communist bloc and the communist world movement (which has come to disguise itself behind non-communist slogans and causes). Subversion is best carried out in a corrupt state. Subversion is easier where officials can be bought and elections stolen.
Since this is our situation, the best solution is an offer of amnesty. Let our corrupt leaders come forward and tell the truth. Let them unburden themselves. Give them thirty days to turn themselves in. If not, we will hang them. See who comes forward. See how quickly the spiderweb collapses. Naturally we would not allow such people to hold high office again. The point is, to learn the truth, to have the details, to unravel the enemy’s networks here in the West.
A few weeks ago, Mr. Wang of Lude Media said that the Chinese communist leaders thought Biden was their guy when he first assumed office. But now they do not see him that way. If Beijing says to Biden, “Give us America,” Biden is forced to say, “America would not like that.” This is the same as when Yeltsin asked for Europe. Clinton said Europe would not like it. “Oh yes,” he might have said, “You helped my career. You repaid my friendship; but you did not pay me enough to commit suicide.”
With this in mind, we might ask whether the relationship between Moscow and their corrupt Western partners has broken down. And yes, there has been a partial breakdown. To what extent, we cannot exactly say. On the way to socialist paradise everyone has discovered something more fundamental than Marxist theory. They have discovered national interest. They have also discovered personal survival. Here we find a flaw in Russia’s long-range strategy. Deception and subterfuge have natural limits. You can trick someone only so far. The day comes when you ask for Europe, and they refuse you. What happens then? As Machiavelli explained long ago, fraud must be attended by force. The day dawns when the instrument of deception breaks down and must be supplemented with another instrument – an instrument we are all being openly threatened with.
That instrument is the hydrogen bomb.
Jimmy From Brooklin Interview 19
Cold War History – The JFK Assassination
Friends and Enemies
Links and Notes
[i] Mark Riebling wrote, “CIA’s top leadership acknowledged that it had fallen short in predicting Gorbachev’s reforms, but could provide no real excuse. ‘Who would have thought that just five years ago we would stand where we are today?’ Robert Gates told Congress in late 1991. ‘Talk about humbling experiences.’ Gates could have said: Our reporting was poor because our Moscow network was rolled up, coincidentally or not, precisely as Gorbachev was coming into power.” CIA Director Robert Gates told Congress that the CIA had no crystal ball, but was only there to help Congress “think through the problem….” But as Riebling explained, there was someone who “had predicted glasnost and perestroika, in detail, even before Gorbachev came to power. This person’s analysis of events in the communist world had even been provided to the Agency on a regular basis. But the American intelligence community had chosen not to listen – and the roots of that willful deafness could be traced back, ultimately, thirty years, to a series of developments that caused a clash of mind-sets between CIA and FBI.” According to Riebling, “In 1982, KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn had submitted a top-secret manuscript to CIA. In it, he foresaw that [the] leadership of the USSR would by 1986 ‘or earlier’ fall to ‘a younger man with a more liberal image,’ who would initiate changes that would have been beyond the imagination of Marx or the practical reach of Lenin and unthinkable to Stalin.’ The coming liberalization, Golitsyn said, ‘would be spectacular and impressive.’” Riebling added, “Golitsyn provided an entire chapter of such predictions, containing 194 distinct auguries. Of these, 46 were not falsifiable at the time this book went to press…. Yet of Golitsyn’s falsifiable predictions, 139 out of 148 were fulfilled by the end of 1993 – an accuracy rate of nearly 94 percent.” Quoted from, Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1994), pp. 407-408.
[ii] See Andrei Codrescu’s book, The Hole in the Flag. Or read Robert Buchar’s book, And Reality Be Damned.
[iii] The name “Lolita,” in this instance, is derived from a 1955 novel of that name by Russian-American novelist Vladimir Nabokov. It is the story of a man’s obsession with a 12-year-old girl.
[iv] Whitney Webb, One Nation Under Blackmail, Vol. 2, is the one that deserves special attention. Those familiar with the history of communist subversion and methods will begin to suspect a solid chain, held by a coven of spiders in Moscow.
[v] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_body_count_conspiracy_theory
238 responses to “What Do Golitsyn’s Correct Predictions Tell Us?”
I listen to Ben Davidson’s reports on Suspicious0bservers and I believe it was yesterday he made a point of calling a Russian scientist that he referred to as “our friend”. I was a little suspicious but thought maybe my pro Putin radar was on overdrive. Well, this morning he gave Martin Armstrong a shout out. People are falling like dominoes but I will try and stay positive.
Let them fall if they will. As long as you don’t. I know it’s just a movie, but did you ever see the 13th Warrior? In the last battle scene at the end, as the numerically overwhelming enemy force is approaching the few defenders -who (mistakenly) thought they had just lost their strong, valiant leader, Bullvye- one of the defenders says, “I wish Bullvye were here”, to which another, as he prepares to receive the coming horde, says “It’s a small matter.”
It’s a small matter if most of those dominoes fall. We know what’s right, and must face it whenever, however it comes.
Oh yes. A sucker is born every minute, as they say. And yes, they are falling like dominoes. There is nothing new in any of this.
It seems to me that this sort of “ground prep” sabotage has been going on for awhile now. I don’t know about in Europe, but it has been taking place in America for at least a couple years, has it not, with food processing plants, herds of cattle, oil refineries, chicken houses, etc, etc burning down or somehow being heavily damaged. Of course the Key Bridge destruction in Maryland was a big blow.
More recently, I have read of a munitions factory in Pennsylvania burning, followed by, I believe, Britain’s *only* munitions factory.
With European politics so heavily influenced by Russia, this seems to be the heavy threat against Europe Jeff has warned about to neutralize them, or am I mistaken?
I always thought that the proof of supporting Ukraine is whether or not the weapons and supplies actually arrive there.
In my thinking, there are so many working with/for the Communist blocs, that logistic information on the goods can be conveyed so that sabatoge of warehouses and means of supply could be undertaken to prevent the support from ever getting to Ukraine.
This article probably is intended to instill fear to further undermine support for Ukraine, as well as further blind people to the deeper reasons for sabatoge.
This response was in reply to the article Perseus shared. Don’t know how it got separated from his post.
Spetznaz and local CP agents saboteurs, and cyber warfare also.
The numbers of communists must be so increasingly large that none can fathom. Brainwashed and perverted fanatics willing to do any and every evil, including murder and terrorism.
Also, there are many empty vessels who can serve the Marxist cause, such as these morons on American college campuses railing against Israel, many of whom don’t even seem to know what in the world they are even talking about.
Promise them enough money to support their drug habits and pay for their I phones, and it seems like they can easily be led to do anything.
I agree the sabotage has been occurring for a while, I have just never seen an article describing potential plans inside European nations. It is the kind of thing that should startle every European citizen, the kind of thing that states unequivocally that another nation is at war with you, it’s amazing how blasé the reaction is from European authorities.
It seems a lot of European political leaders are compromised by or working with the Marxists.
If “Eurocommunism”, and united front tactics were potent at the time New Lies for Old was published, I can only imagine how much further entrenched and influential the Communists are now.
The Russians are cutting Ukraine’s supplies, even if their agents of influence cannot safely do so using political chicanery.
That’s what I’ve been thinking was probably happening.
Sad.
I found this person who does a reading of New Lies for Old if someone finds it easier or more convenient to listen to the book.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kDl-5kn82E4
Dear Jeff,
Thanks for all you’re doing to expose the conjob that Communism was, is and continues to be. We might as well call it CONmunism. Like the heavy handed tyrannical soul crushing oligarchical society they want to foist on the whole world is ever going to “wither away”! Sure it will! When donkeys fly! (Or pigs, or both!)
I enjoyed your talk with Jimmy. He’s been on this from the start. I first learned of Gramsci from him back in the days when I mistakenly scoffed at him (as in “Yeah there’s a red under every bed, right, Jimmy?”) At any rate, I wanted to pass along some links that might be helpful.
Also, I’ve read some of Xi Van Fleet’s posts on X. I hope she’s legit but she seems to be calling these useful idiot “protesters” coming out of the woodwork these days. Thanks again for keeping us posted (and, hopefully, sane)!
https://presentdangerchina.org/webinar-the-cultural-revolution-on-americas-campuses/
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/embracing-communist-china-was-washingtons-greatest-strategic-failure
Thanks Chris. The evidence is falling around us in heaps.
I read Van Fleet’s Mao’s America.
She doesn’t see the bigger picture. She regularly refers to the American Marxists, not linking them to an advancing, international Communist bloc.
While people are snared in the stories about KGB/FSB exceptional abilities of suppressing dissidents, China is very powerful with their own programs to kidnap, kill, smear dissidents.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-13/china-spy-secret-police-agent-tells-all-four-corners/103826708
This story is very fresh. We have talked a lot about Soviet/Russian dissidents but should make more spaces for Chinese ones.
Off-topic, but of interest: https://www.breitbart.com/asia/2024/05/13/report-employees-slaving-75-hours-week-chinese-fashion-giant-shein/
With Vice President Bush still in flight to Washington from Dallas,
discussions intensified about who was in charge.
“Constitutionally, gentlemen, you have the president, the vice president, and the secretary of state, in that order. And should the president decide he wants to transfer the helm to the vice president, he will do so. As of now I am in control, here in the White House, pending the return of the vice president and in close touch with him.”
–Secretary of State Alexander Haig
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13405909/Untold-story-day-Ronald-Reagan-shot-Unearthed-tapes-reveal-White-House-chaos-President-lay-unconscious-Soviet-nuclear-subs-neared-DC-no-one-control.html
Oh yes, the Al Haig moment during the wounding of President Reagan. Haig was an odd character — a handpicked Kissinger protege.
It’s too, bad that Jack Palance never had an opportunity to play the role of Haig, in a movie. Interesting that Bush was in Dallas, again.
Synchronicity is a thing.
Did VP Bush have anything to do with the assassination attempt on President Reagan?
I hope not. The only evidence people use is the fact that the would-be assassin’s family was linked to the Bush family. Such a fact is embarrassing to Bush, rather than incriminating. It would be incredibly stupid to use the crazy son of a friend to assassinate a president. Generally, you do not use crazy people to carry out important assignments — like assassinating a head of state. Crazy people, however, do exist. And they can be violent on their own.
Inside Russia on youtube has extensive description of the structures of Russian institutions that are all extensions of Soviet ministries. Notably the essay on Gazprom indicated that as far as in Andropov’s days Gazprom was already being created out of the Ministry of Gas ahead of the collapse. All the apparatchiks were slated thus to share bits of the ministries under corporate monickers with sorts of negotiation/auctions only open within the network and not to the public – let alone to foreign investors.
Further down processes of “hybrids” through complex PLO like networks of trades and banking seem to have been constructed but with still the same monster in control. Western naive liberal leftists are still persuaded that, say, the PLO was a genuine “spill out” guerrilla style executive “war-machine” (to take Deleuze’s language) that both ignored and transcended the top-down organizations of the fascistic Soviet…. So the PLO, instead of being suspected as a Soviet false-liberation front, it was seen as a genuine mean of revolution against capitalist mobilization institutions and yet “anti-Soviet”.
This kind of naivete or bad-faith cannot just be explained by hatred of “fascism”. It really is a post-Marxist concept of accepting a psychological scotomization, a sort of blind faith in the process due to depression or maladaptation to society and of the society’s own maladaptation with the times. This maladaptation is what allagedly caused the fall of the Roman empire with the rise of a general anguish/anxiety in the form of the widespread of acculturated superstitions and doom-gloom feelings – much like Occultic Germany in the 30s and prior the Russian revolution. We see the same today with the astonishing enforced popularity of Global Warming, self immolations for Palestine and covid derived suicides. An adaptation to a pathological society can only create pathological beings.
Thus it seems that Fukuyama suffered the same disease. Since now the world could “evolve” blindly with an end of history and end of politics, a bit like a ant hill, everyone could safely go blind like an ant and go through the processes of “change”. This is a corollary to the neurosis Devereux described: because the sinner is punished for his sins, the punished now must believe that he has sinned. In essence, this is the mantra of the current Russian aggression against Ukraine. Indeed, since now being blind to the mystery of God is holy, God might as well be dead to us! as Nietzsche inferred correctly. Ergo, if we are being demoralized, it must be because we are losers and bad to the Earth that does not like us.
To wit, what conspiracy theorists fail to understand thus is the Greek Myth concept of “reverse-coïtus” between ill willed divinities and apprehensive victim-humans – except for the most foolish. These are imageries of forces of intrigue and power in the Greek power structure and diplomacy with Persia (Eg. Ceasar’s dream of sleeping with his mother was seen as a sign of his successful crossing the Rubicon and winning out Rome, and same with Oedipus tragedy being one of fulfilled and protected nationalism gone awry). Modernity and its barbarism has long viewed these myth with the sort of despise that a progressism advocacy ironically shares in concert with religious conservatives – both viewing such myths and dreams as coming out of weaker more naive victims or as inferiors in terms of messaging. Thus both sides now, left and right, seem to reject truth and vision, and instead embrace ideologically driven scotomization as empowering action – ie the dictator since he rejects the genius and dreams that would impede and make him second guess his action.
Thus, in the case of corporations coddling with China and Russia, the deception and perception is definitely there for whomever would pay attention to the myths as prophetic. Since it is not politically correct for Hitler as a vector to have direct oversight on corporations, and since it is not PC to see leftists interfere with said “corporate capitalist victims”, a reverse-coïtus of involving corporations in messing with government and other nations’ structures is created. The myth of the Sphinge or the Mohave belief that some monsters shaped partly with women features to impregnate men relate to this.
There we have corporations tricked and baited to penetrate Soviet and Chinese state institutions which now have only apparently turned inward and open to such in a reverse-coïtus. This deception plaid out well too when Gorbachev exposed the dysfunctions of Soviet life to the West, thus inviting “macho-help” without shame. However, like all sphyngian monsters and similar dangerous divinities, such associations prove dangerous and often fatal for the baited individual.
The lack of understanding of the kind of monsters we are dealing with is hubristic, much like the hubris of Era’s wife when she cheated with Zeus only to die as a result of receiving his lightning bolt. It is the same hubris that makes western leftists believe that the PLO or Palestinians are not instrumentalized, the same hubris is coming from conservatives or libertarians who think that such union can only be holy and proper like that of Mary conceiving with the Holy Spirit – notwithstanding that her son still had to pay dearly for it eventually a generation later and then some for Christianity at large.
Something in us has definitely stopped thinking regarding the dangerous forces on about, or smugly viewed thinking as “pessimistic” or “isolationist” weakness while getting millions in corruption money or from corrupt programs of “world communion”.
Ideology definitely scotomizes. Of course, it is spiritual blindness that has prepared everyone for their “walk on the dark side.”
For those who have not read “New Lies For Old” here is a link where you can get a pdf copy of the book.
https://archive.org/details/NewLiesForOld
Might Kennedy’s litigation against facebutt affect Net Neutrality legislation?
https://www.wnd.com/2024/05/democracy-name-rfk-jr-sues-zuckerberg-allegedly-censoring-campaign-video/
I do not know.
This whole debate about Net Neutrality seems to exclude common sense, as usual. It’s presented as a choice between a mix of good and bad, either way. The obvious solution is to regulate the detrimental aspects and leave the beneficial ones, alone. All we get to do is choose one extreme or another. That applies to everything across the board.
Jeff, really quick. I’m providing a link to Ryan McBeth’s recent video that illustrates “misattribution manipulation” and is a common Russian disinformation tactic. This is exactly the kind of propaganda the American public is exposed to day in, day out. Unbelievable.
https://open.substack.com/pub/ryanmcbeth/p/did-a-republican-rep-call-12-year?r=2owyko&utm_medium=ios
McBeth is pretty good. And he is giving a good example of the kind of things we are seeing today. Dishonesty from anonymous postings..