A Note to Our Generals

The Chinese and Russian grand strategy of today evolved from the ideas of Soviet Marshal V.D. Sokolovskiy and KGB General N. Mironov in the late 1950s (working under a special committee led by L. Brezhnev). Conceived as a long range strategy that would carry into the twenty-first century, its military focus was centered on the decisive weapon of the next war: — strategic nuclear missiles. These could be safely employed only after a prolonged period of low intensity asymmetrical warfare aimed at disrupting the United States.

However we wish to interpret events of the last sixty years, a survey of Chinese and Russian defector testimony, together with known strategic writings, points to a carefully orchestrated “combination play” (envisioned by the Russian and Chinese strategists before the Sino-Soviet split in 1960, and re-envisioned in 1991-2 when they began their realignment).

The writings of J. Sejna, A. Golitsyn, S. Lunev and V. Suvorov suggest that this “combination play” would take the form of a strategic “sequence” which aims at the collapse the U.S. economy. This collapse would then be exploited politically. In the final phase, the resulting unstable political situation would open the U.S. to a surprise military attack.

The strategic sequence would also include civil unrest in the cities, an intensification of ideological differences, and growing popular dissatisfaction with the government. Two diversionary operations would run parallel to each other in this sequence; first, WMD gray terror attacks and a diversionary U.S. civil war scenario. The civil war scenario would be extremely useful for setting up a surprise attack on U.S. command and control, ICBM and bomber bases. (For example, enemy special forces troops could attack missile bases wearing U.S. military uniforms.)

The following five points suggest that the Sino-Russian “sequence” is now underway:

1) The Hong Kong protests, in which thousands of anti-CCP activists have been arrested or killed, appears to have been a planned provocation of the PRC Ministry of State Security in advance of the COVID-19 pandemic. The timing is highly suspicious.

2) The COVID-19 pandemic provides ideal cover for a mass military mobilization of the People’s Liberation Army. In fact, Chinese officials openly talk about “preparing for war.”

3) In this context we should ask whether the collapse of oil prices was part of a larger unseen collaboration — which has hurt the U.S. energy sector disproportionately, even as it has helped China acquire a massive supply of cheap oil in advance of a war.

4) Aside from a ballooning debt, there is the problem of shrinking U.S. tax revenues. How will the U.S. military maintain its military machine in the midst of an unprecedented cash crunch? How will the U.S. rebuild its nuclear deterrent, now nearing the end of its shelf life, when there is no money?

5) The riots and attending incendiary attacks on U.S. cities may be part of the enemy’s civil war scenario. If the domestic situation worsens, and the country divides into hostile camps, expect nuclear strikes against U.S. strategic assets.

The Meaning of Enmity

Social and political revolt erupted in the European and world periphery in the decade prior to World War I, beginning with the First Russian Revolution in 1905, followed by the Iranian revolution of 1906, the great Rumanian peasant revolt of 1907, the Young Turk rebellion of 1908, the Greek military revolt of 1909, the overthrow of the Portuguese monarchy and the beginning of the Mexican revolution in 1910, and the Chinese revolution in 1911.

Stanley G. Payne
The Spanish Civil War

What triggered the revolutions and civil wars of the last century? What triggered the first and second world wars? One thing triggered them: ENMITY.

What is enmity?

Enmity is ill will, hostility, antipathy, animosity, rancor — and, above all, it is hatred — not passive, but active. It is a hatred that fuels the cruelty of war. It is the meaning of war. It is the reason for war. It is the all-in-all of war.

Read more

Politics as the Negation of Science: The Case Against Anthony Fauci

…the annihilating recognition of our complete ignorance came down upon me like a sledge hammer….



Without an admission of ignorance, nothing can be learnt or discovered. But modern science, which has become an adjunct of the state, cannot admit its ignorance. Such an admission would destroy the authority of the “scientist” as state official. Therefore, when confronted with a new problem for which he is ill-equipped, the science bureaucrat pretends to be knowledgeable, and concocts a plausible discourse. (He has even been known to concoct “scientific” results that are anything but scientific.)

Read more

On the Shortness of Insight

Most human beings … complain about the meanness of nature, because we are born for a brief span of life, and because this spell of time … rushes by so swiftly and rapidly that with very few exceptions life ceases … just when we are getting ready for it.



Seneca complained that ancient Rome’s degradation stemmed from people’s preoccupations. To rush around, without careful thought, was a waste of one’s life. To live, he said, is to be alive to the truth — to take account of reality. The problem with preoccupation, with ambition and career, is the way ambitious and preoccupied people disregard truth. After many years, instead of growing wiser, the ambitious man resembles a fool. He has not stopped to take account of his surroundings, or his associations, or his country, or the truth about himself.

Read more

The Preparatory Period

Nuclear war … should not be thought of as a gigantic technical enterprise alone — as a launching of an enormous number of missiles with nuclear warheads…. Nuclear war is a … many-sided process, which … will involve economic, diplomatic and ideological forms of struggle. They will all serve the political aims of the war….

on War and Army, p. 12

The generals in Moscow and Beijing were educated under war-fighting principles antithetical to ours. Marxism-Leninism borrowed its military theory from Clausewitz; especially believing that “war is simply the continuation of politics by other means.” (Ibid, p.2) Though Americans will refuse to believe this, Russia’s strategists have long held that nuclear war is no exception to Clausewitz’s rule.

Read more