“Once a Decisive Majority Believes in Global Warming, Capitalism Is Finished.”

 

The Emperor's New Clothes

 

The headline is a quote from an April 2015 article titled “Green Is the New Red” by U.S. geopolitical analyst J. R. Nyquist. Oh yes indeed, science has been replaced (not for the first time in history) by pseudo-science, rational thinking by emotion, and objective truth by yet another incarnation of the Great Lie. To declare a thing real or not real, the established methodical process of verification or falsification is no longer needed. Instead, a mere “democratic majority” (whatever ignorant or deluded), a societal “consensus”, suffices to determine what is the case and what isn’t. To hell with all those petty, old-fashioned concerns and calls for irrefutable proof! After all, reality is fluid, and everything is part of a process of evolution anyway. If virtually everybody “knows” from deep within that something is true (because it just feels so true), how can it ever be otherwise?

We are on an ultra-dangerous path into yet another era of complete totalitarianism. Truth (whether scientific or spiritual) doesn’t count anymore. We believe – with our guts – in the sacred well-being of, above all, trees and animals, in “carbon foot-prints” and an “impending climate apocalypse”, which can only be averted by immediate drastic measures on a global scale. Man has caused, by his industrialised civilisation, a near-irreversible heating of the earth, we’re told. And so he needs to be stopped, by whatever means necessary. If he has to adopt a stone-age-type of existence, so be it. If a certain percentage of the world population has to go, let them go. Doesn’t this remind us of the great mass killers in history, of the terrible likes of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao or Pol Pot?

l

And what about the scientific credentials of those who propagate this now-fashionable idea of “anthropogenic global warming” (that is certainly no “theory” in the scientific sense, not even an hypothesis)? Could it be that these people are not so much authorities in the field, but pursuing a perfidious and destructive agenda (dressed up as “science”, but being in fact a monstrous ideological cult) to kill off not only wealth and prosperity, but any and every aspect of freedom and individual choice, to begin with? And hasn’t this climate change bandwagon all the hallmarks of an aggressive revolutionary movement, that cleverly links unfounded claims about the earth’s atmosphere with all-out socialist/communist demands to radically restructure society? Please, watch British Channel 4’s groundbreaking documentary of 2007, The Great Global Warming Swindle, and watch it to the end, before you continue reading:

 

So, let’s summarise the major proponents – whether individuals or organisations – of this new climate change “orthodoxy”, that one-sidedly and dictatorially (as well as ridiculously) mandates, “The science is settled; the debate is over”:

(1) Al Gore. Albert Arnold Gore Jr., “left-of-centre moderate” Vice President of the United States under President Bill Clinton from 1993 through 2001, the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate in the 2000 U.S. Presidential elections and Nobel Peace Prize laureate of 2007, together with the UN’s IPCC, “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change”, is no scientist, in whatever field. “Earth balancer” and “inconvenient truther” Al Gore is merely a politician and a political progagandist. More precisely, like all “Greens”, he is in fact a Marxist radical, in the guise of a “well-meaning environmentalist” and establishment Democrat. His New-Age-flavoured “climate activism” is simply designed to bring down the U.S. (in fact, any Western) economy as thoroughly as possible. And wasn’t his family (and wasn’t Al Gore himself) closely linked to and supported by the late Occidental Petroleum chairman and Soviet agent Armand Hammer?

(2) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC was founded within the framework of the United Nations in November of 1988 as an outgrowth, more or less, of the 1985-established Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases. The timing is significant, as this was the height of Gorbachev’s deceptive perestroika campaign. By “perestroika” – engl., restructuring – the communist world meant the restructuring (in Obama-speak, “fundamental transformation”) not of itself, but of the West, which duly came to pass. It is important to realise that the IPCC, though it has been sold to the public as a scientific institute, is in fact a mere political body, to be more precise: like all UN-affiliated organisations, an instrument for the Revolution. Take the IPCC’s chairman from 2002 to 2015, Rajendra Pachauri. The man has no clue whatsoever about climate science; in fact, he is a railroad engineer! He backed his organisation’s deliberate scientific “misconduct” (read: forgeries) designed to dupe the world into believing in a fairy-tale called “anthropogenic global warming”. Also Pachauri’s predecessors Robert Watson (United Kingdom) and Bert Bolin (Sweden), though from the field, had been acting rather as rabid propagandists than scientists, pushing forward an ever-more-monstrous eco-totalitarian agenda that they based on the never-proved (in fact, long-disproved) assumption of human CO2 emissions causing the earth’s climate to spin out of control. From the 1992 Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro to the 1997 Kyoto Protocols to the 2015 Paris Climate Accord, the only thing that has grown exponentially has been an ever-wilder hysteria (so typical of revolutionary movements) that, by now, doesn’t take a no any more. “Climate sceptics”, who are even termed “heretics”, are being threatened and intimidated, while the majority of politicians and corporate leaders have been persuaded of the reality of “climate change” and have given up their resistance to the radical demands of the “climate protectionists”. Our youth, from kindergarten to university, has meanwhile been indoctrinated in the new religion of “climate change” for easily 25 years. Let’s get out of nuclear energy as well as oil and gas and switch to solar- and wind energy! Let’s prohibit all privately owned cars and restrict aerial transport to those who really need it, which is us! Let’s make veganism mandatory (at least, for the masses)! Let’s massively de-industrialise our economies and create a much more livable world guided by a new, fashionable primitivist tribalism! Let’s take (whatever is left) from the rich countries and give it to those once known as “developing countries”, whom we have forbidden to develop, without actually lifting them up out of their poverty. It’s the perfect recipe for an Orwellian – worse: Huxleyan – police communism, where to question the guidelines coming out of the United Nations (or, ultimately, out of Moscow and Beijing) qualifies for insanity!

(3) Mikhail Gorbachev. The uninformed reader may be perplexed: What, in the world, does this wonderful, wonderful man, who brought down communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, have to do with eco-communism? Two severe flaws with such an objection: First, Gorbachev isn’t a “wonderful man”, but has been and will be to his last breath a die-hard Marxist-Leninist. Secondly, his function was precisely to choreograph a fake collapse of communism in order to deceive and put to sleep the West and prepare it for convergence with the communist world, on communist terms. And isn’t it interesting that he founded, in 1993, an environmental organisation by name of Green Cross International? Obviously, the “post”-Soviets were very much interested in getting the global warming charade going in the countries of the West. Already in Gorbachev’s programmatic (and quite revealing) book of 1987, Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World, we can read the following (taken from page 137):

But the Soviet Union alone cannot resolve all these issues. And we are not ashamed to repeat this, calling for international cooperation. We say with full responsibility, casting away the false considerations of “prestige,” that all of us in the present-day world are coming to depend more and more on one another and are becoming increasingly necessary to one another. And since such realities exist in the world and since we know that we in this world are, on the whole, now linked by the same destiny, that we live on the same planet, use its resources and see that they are not limitless and need to be saved, and nature and the environment need to be conserved, then such a reality holds for all of us. The necessity of effective, fair, international procedures and mechanisms which would ensure rational utilization of our planet’s resources as the property of all mankind becomes ever more pressing.

The Soviet deceivers’ main argument, in general, was interdependence. The world’s problems, in whatever field, can’t be solved by individual nation states any more; hence, the need for ever-closer cooperation. In part, like with the international crime epidemic, they themselves created those problems; in other fields, like with the revolutionary sorcerer’s wand of “global warming”, they invented them. The West should never ever have reacted to those deceptive invitations and should have left the communist world to stew in its own juice until a real break with communism and real decommunisation would have taken place!

(4) The Green political parties. It should be mentioned at first that environmental protection, forest conservation, the creation of national parks etc. had been around at least for a century before the crazed and drug-ridden 60s’ radicals, mainly in the latter half of the seventies, suddenly discovered their own affinity with Rousseauan nature romanticism, or so it seemed, and a new cult of smallness and primitiveness, which they made greatly fashionable. However, if one takes a more thorough look at the various protagonists in these parties – and most blatantly in Germany – one can see that just a few years prior to their being “Greens”, hardly anyone of them had had anything to do with environmental causes at all. Instead, they had been fierce Maoists, Trotzkyites, adorers of Ho Chi Minh and radical feminists, fighting, quite militantly, the “reactionary”, “fascist”, “patriarchal”, “imperialist” state, ironically at the time governed by social-democrat Helmut Schmidt. So, who were these people advertising themselves as “socially minded, ecological, direct-democratic and non-violent”, but whose “social justice” meant in fact socialist redistribution of wealth, whose “pacifism” was one-sidedly against U.S. military presence in Europe, and whose “environmentalism” was essentially inspired by a rabid and fanatical anti-industrial, anti-modernist and finally anti-civilisation attitude, sometimes with esoteric overtones? 

Petra Kelly

(a) Petra Kelly (1947 – 1992; originally, Petra Lehmann). After her parents’ separation, when young Petra was seven years old, her mother got remarried to an American military officer by name of John E. Kelly, and the new family moved to the United States in 1959. Petra Kelly attended High School first in Columbus, Ga., then in Hampton, Va., after which she enrolled at American University, Washington, D. C., from where she graduated with a B.A. in political science in 1970. She then returned to Europe and continued studying at the University of Amsterdam for one further year. Already in her years in the U.S., she had been politically active, campaigning for 1968 Democratic presidential candidates Robert Kennedy and, after RFK’s assassination, Hubert Humphrey, as well as against the Vietnam War. In the 1970s, she worked at the European Commission in Brussels, remaining a political activist at the same time. She was a member, until 1979, of the Social Democratic Party of Germany and then was a founding member and first chairwoman of the Green Party in Germany. By speaking out in favour of the (reform-communist) opposition in East Germany, she increasingly isolated herself in her own party and was eyed with suspicion by the Honecker regime in the East. She died under strange circumstances in 1992, together with her friend and party colleague Gert Bastian, a former high-ranking military officer in the West German Bundeswehr with likely East-German StaSi connections, in what was said to have been a murder/suicide committed by Bastian. The leading luminous figure of the German Greens was no more.

Otto Schily

(b) Otto Schily (born 1932). From upperclass background, Otto Schily was educated along the lines of Rudolf Steiner’s Anthroposophy (he still remains a confessing anthroposophist to this day). He studied law and political science and became a lawyer specialising in representing leftwing radicals of the infamous Red Army Faction milieu. Schily was personally befriended with Germany’s revolutionary icon at the time, Rudi Dutschke. He was an influential founding member of the German Greens in 1980, but switched to the Social Democrats in 1989, for whom he then held the post of Federal Minister of the Interior during the years of the Red-Green coalition government under Gerd Schröder and Joschka Fischer from 1998 till 2005. Unlike in his early years as a pro-communist lawyer, in his function as Minister of the Interior he appeared fairly rigid and somewhat closer to conservative positions.

Fischer, Joschka

(c) Joschka Fischer (born 1948). Fischer, the son, suitably, of a butcher, matches perfectly the profile of a communist misfit. He dropped out of gymnasium age 17, then out of a photography apprenticeship one year later. Beginning in 1967, age 19, Fischer was already active in the radical student movement of the day, including the so-called APO (extra-parliamentary opposition). He worked jobs in Marxist book-stores and publishing houses, attended (as a guest auditor) university lectures by Frankfurt School icon Theodor Adorno and second-generation Critical Theorist Jürgen Habermas. He was also working as a taxi driver for a number of years. In 1969, he attended a PLO meeting in Algiers. In 1971 he took a job at the car manufacturer Opel with the intent to mobilise Opel workers for the revolution. His plan failed and he was fired on the spot. Until 1976, he was part of the radical-left-militant group Revolutionary Struggle and took part in street clashes, in which several police men were, in part, heavily injured. Then came the atrocities of 1977 (German Autumn), in which the Red Army Faction terrorists assassinated West-German Attorney-General Siegfried Buback and President of the Confederation of German Employers’ Associations, Hanns Martin Schleyer. Also, there was a spectacular plane hijacking in an attempt to blackmail the German government into releasing a group of imprisoned RAF terrorists. Chancellor Schmidt stood firm, and so, parked on a runway on the airport of Mogadishu, Somalia, and after an odyssee through the Arab world, in which the plane’s captain was killed, that plane was stormed by German GSG-9 special units who were able to save all passengers; only one hijacker survived. Joschka Fischer claims, not very convincingly, that the year 1977 led him to change his mind and leave behind his former militancy. However, he did not change his revolutionary attitudes at all. Even before he joined the Frankfurt Greens in 1982, Joschka Fischer formed, together with French-German radical Daniel Cohn-Bendit (the leader of the 1968 Paris student riots and known in France as Dany le Rouge), a platform they called Arbeitskreis Realpolitik. With their concept of revolutionary realism (one could also say: mature, pragmatic Leninism) they then invaded the Frankfurt Greens, and within a year Joschka Fischer had a seat in the German Bundestag in Bonn. From 1985 till 1994 he was Minister for the Environment and Energy in the state of Hesse and from 1998 till 2005 German Foreign Minister and Vice Chancellor. What a career! Today, Joschka Fischer, who was once known for wearing jeans, woollen jumpers and sports shoes, is a “distinguished” elder statesman, living the high life and meanwhile in his fifth marriage.

DCB 2

(d) Daniel Cohn-Bendit (born 1945; a.k.a. Dany le Rouge). Cohn-Bendit’s career as an anarcho-Marxist radical started not in Germany, but in France, and so right at birth, as already Cohn-Bendit’s father was a Trotzkyite. Suitably, young Daniel attended, beginning at the age of 13, a model progressive “reform-pedagogical” school (founded in 1910), the Odenwaldschule outside Heppenheim/Bergstraße, Germany, which practised radical anti-authoritarianism, where students and teachers addressed each other on a first-name basis and all teaching was guided by a strict rejection of any idea of “education”; rather, the school saw itself as an “enabler” for the student to “become himself”. One of Cohn-Bendit’s teachers was the German communist Ernest Jouhy (in fact: Ernst Jablonski), who after the death of Cohn-Bendit’s father in 1959 became his personal mentor. Given such family- and educational background, it is no wonder that Daniel Cohn-Bendit became a full-blown (self-professed) anarchist! After graduation from the Odenwaldschule in 1965, Cohn-Bendit returned to France, where he enrolled at the newly founded University of Paris-Nanterre, of course in sociology. Cohn-Bendit immediately joined a Marxist-anarchist group on campus and was soon to acquire, in the year 1968, public notoriety far beyond the confines of his university. This unruly, rebellious kid of meanwhile 23 years (who nevertheless knew his revolutionary tactics) suddenly was the iconic leader of a student- and then nationwide revolutionary movement that effectively threw political France into a severe crisis. The University of Paris-Nanterre, which the revolutionaries had turned into a battle field, had to be closed. On time for Karl Marx’s 150th birthday, May 5, 1968, street clashes followed. The Sorbonne was then closed, too. Prominent communist writers and intellectuals threw their support behind the revolutionary movement. A week later, 20,000 students were marching in the streets of Paris. The police had little choice but to dissolve those manifestations by using force (the action lies in the reaction!). As a consequence, student unions, part of the university teachers’ associations as well as the trade unions agreed to declare a general strike across France, which was indeed followed by 7 to 10 million French. Cohn-Bendit even went as far as calling for the toppling of the national government under President Charles de Gaulle and the establishment of a Soviet republic along anarcho-syndicalist lines! What a madness! At a manifestation of radicals in Berlin on May 21, Cohn-Bendit demanded the French Tricolour (which is itself the banner of the French Revolution) to be torn apart and replaced by the Red Banner! The following day, the French government announced a refusal of entry for Daniel Cohn-Bendit, whose citizenship is not French, but German. In response to this decision, the Paris students were chanting, “We are all German Jews!” Being a true revolutionary, Cohn-Bendit tried to enter France nonetheless at a border crossing near Saarbrücken, accompanied by several hundreds of like-minded radicals. Massive numbers of German border police and French Republican Guard made sure he couldn’t get in. And so Cohn-Bendit simply slipped into France illegally, where he happily joined his fellow revolutionaries! In the following weeks, he lost his influence over the movement to Maoist groups and eventually left for Frankfurt/Main, Germany, where he became part of the radical “Sponti” movement there. Taking some vacation from his revolutionary activities, he spent part of the summer in Italy, together with beautiful French actress Marie-France Pisier! One can’t make this up: Cohn-Bendit, an adventurer of the first order (for which quite a few people actually loved and admired him). But of course he remained a dangerous revolutionary communist! He attended sociological lectures by Adorno and Habermas at the University of Frankfurt; expressed his support for the Baader-Meinhof terrorist group, later known as Red Army Faction, whom he visited in their prison cells; founded himself a group, “Revolutionary Struggle”, that sought to infiltrate trade unions (Joschka Fischer was part of that group); ran a communist bookstore; supported the squatting of empty buildings; worked in leftwing kindergartens; had a leftwing-alternative newspaper; fought against nuclear energy. Finally, with his “Arbeitskreis Realpolitik”, he and Joschka Fischer managed to gain control of the still-embryonic Frankfurt Greens. In 1985, Fischer became Minister for the Environment in the state of Hesse, with Cohn-Bendit serving as his advisor. From 1989 till 1997, Cohn-Bendit was the head of a newly formed Office for Multicultural Affairs in Frankfurt’s city government, eventually designating Frankfurt as a “sanctuary city”. After that, he became a “European politician only”, running alternately for the German and French Greens in the European Parliament. Between 2002 and 2014, he was even the European Greens’ co-chair. Had Cohn-Bendit ever been an “environmentalist” prior to his days as a “Green” politican? Nope. He was and is as red as it can get, even though he has won himself the respected reputation of a “non-violent” communist. In recent years, Cohn-Bendit, now 74 years old, has even become a fairly popular media figure. No doubt, his revolutionary activism has not kept him from becoming a wealthy man: Praise to the Revolution! – Below is a recording of a late-night open-end talk show of June 13, 1978 produced by (Red) Austrian Broadcasting, in which Daniel Cohn-Bendit and his co-revolutionary Rudi Dutschke were invited on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the May 1968 revolution. The other guests were Kurt Sontheimer, a partly sympathising political scientist and himself a member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, and, as the only conservative in the discussion, Matthias Walden, a leading German journalist both in television and newspaper publishing. The debate was hosted by an Austrian leftist par excellence, Günter Nenning, who several years later became a key figure in the establishment of the Austrian Greens. Even readers who don’t know any German are recommended to have a glimpse into this three-hour talk, just to watch the body language and the overall tone of the debate, which was absolutely conspiratorial, with exception of course of Matthias Walden. Cohn-Bendit and Dutschke were dominating the discussion from beginning to end, revolutionary style, greatly enabled by their host and fellow leftist Günter Nenning. In other words: The whole thing was a farce!                             

 

Jürgen Trittin 1986

(e) Jürgen Trittin (born 1954). Jürgen Trittin is another example of a hardcore-leftist having turned “environmentalist”. From bourgeois family background, Trittin had a fairly comfortable start in life. His father (born 1923), who had been towards the end of the war an SS Obersturmführer, frankly explained to his son the mass killings of the Shoah perpetrated by Hitler’s regime. The son took his father’s confessions to his heart – and became a Maoist communist. After graduating in social sciences, Trittin, through his wife, joined the Greens as early as 1980, rose through the ranks of the Greens in Lower Saxony and then nationwide, and held the post, from 1998 till 2005, of Federal Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. Under his tenure, Germany decided for gradually closing all of its nuclear power plants (“Atomausstieg”). As the Greens are against fossil-fuel-based energy and even hydro-electricity too, what they pursue is an overall “Energiewende”, stubbornly ignoring the fact that an industrial nation such as Germany can’t be run on solar and wind energy alone. But then, our “crazed” Greens aren’t so much naïve than walking in the footsteps of Pol Pot’s agrarian communism, it seems… Further proof that these “former” sixties’ radicals have perfectly kept their communist convictions (and tactics), whether as now-respected social democrats or as respected Greens, can be found in a brief segment of a 90-minute documentary aired by Germany’s ARD television on July 26, 2011, titled Sozialdemokraten: 18 Monate unter Genossen (i.e., Social Democrats: 18 Months Among Comrades). In a lecture setting, Jürgen Trittin speaks to a small group of leading social democrats, including their chairman at the time, Sigmar Gabriel. Analysing Sigmar Gabriel’s speech at the SPD’s party conference of November 2009, Trittin relates to a particular passage where Gabriel had said, “The political centre is not defined by income- or professional groups, and by the way also not by certain political views to which one would have to adapt. The political centre of Willy Brandt was something entirely different. It was no distinct place, but it was the prerogative of interpretation [Deutungshoheit] in society.” – “Prerogative of interpretation,” Trittin continues, “that’s the key term in this speech, and that means something entirely different than mere majority appeal. Rather, it goes back to Antonio Gramsci’s term of Hegemony. (Sigmar Gabriel nods silently.) The remark comes indeed as a bombshell: Antonio Gramsci (1891 – 1937) was not only one of the founders of the Communist Party of Italy in 1921, he has also become famous as the author of the so-named Prison Notebooks, in which he advocates a clandestine type of cultural warfare against the established order to eventually gain across-the-board control over the hearts and minds of a society. German revolutionary of the ’60s, Rudi Dutschke, echoed that sentiment when he called for a “long march through the institutions” – which is precisely what those sixties’ radicals, both in America and Europe, have put into practice: they polished up their appearance, abandoned for the most part their revolutionary rhetoric and indeed became acceptable for ever greater portions of the electorate. The key word here, as always with communism, is deception, plain and simple.

DIETER KUNZELMANN

(f) Hans-Christian Ströbele (born 1939). Like Otto Schily, Hans-Christian Ströbele was in the seventies a lawyer for members of the communist terrorist group Red Army Faction (RAF), among them one of their key figures, Andreas Baader. Ströbele publicly referred to these terrorists, in communist fashion, as “comrades” and was even convicted for supporting a criminal association. In other words, his role seems to have exceeded the limits of a mere sympathetic lawyer. In 1969, Ströbele had co-founded the so-named Socialist Lawyers’ Collective (in operation till 1979) which sought to offer legal support for leftwing activists. He also was one of the founders in 1978/79 of the far-left/sponti newspaper taz. From 1970 till 1975, Ströbele was a member of the Social Democratic Party, until he was expelled due to his closeness to the RAF. In 1978, he co-founded a so-named Alternative Liste für Demokratie und Umweltschutz, which was the forerunner of the Berlin Greens. What a miraculous change of mind with all those Marxist radicals: By the end of the 1970s, they had suddenly all become concerned with the environment! Later, as a Green MP, Ströbele took on the role of criticising Joschka Fischer from the left (which was quite a joke, as there are no “moderates” among Greens).

Also other German “Greens” (they are Reds) such as Fritz Kuhn, Reinhard Bütikofer, Bärbel Höhn, Renate Künast, Claudia Roth or Krista Sager, all share those same radical views. Being Marxist revolutionaries, they oppose everything that could make a society strong and prosperous, which perfectly gives them away, in the final analysis, as what they really are: anti-civilisation; anti-man!  

(1) They are against nuclear energy, but by their fictitious non-argument of “anthropogenic global warming” they are also against coal, oil, natural gas, diesel and petrol, or the burning of timber, not to forget: they greatly dislike hydroelectric power plants, as well (making sure that their countries depend ever more on energy imports from brotherly Russia).

(2) By their supposed environmentalism, which is mere anticapitalism under a Green label, they must protect, no matter what, forests and deers and fishes all over the world. As a consequence, they’ve already greatly harmed the timber- and fishing industries. On the other hand, which illustrates the hypocrisy of it all, the gruesome reality that their cherished (laughably inefficient) wind-mills are killing birds and bats (as well as insects) by the truck-loads (and, believe it or not, are heating up the atmosphere) and that their equally cherished (and equally laughably inefficient) photovoltaic technology creates a hell of a lot of environmental problems with regard to the production, maintenance and especially disposal of solar panels, doesn’t seem to bother our left-leaning press.

(3) Greens, who are in fact Reds, are of course fiercely inimical to any form of individualism, self-responsibility or (God forbid) self-reliance. They are Marxist collectivists who view individualism as a “sin” against the community, a crime, an anti-social pathology (which needs to be treated accordingly and brings us back to the good old days of Soviet political psychiatry).

(4) They call for astronomical taxes for the wealthy (their darling being a property tax) and a guaranteed minimum wage for the have-nots. If they could, they would most happily determine a maximum living space per person to live in, one car per family (or, even better, zero cars at all) and would like to see a general atmosphere of “self-restraint” and “sharing” in society.

(5) As Marxists (of whatever shade), they are anti-authority and of course anti-God (unless they themselves represent that authority, as “new gods”). Insofar, they also fight any and every aspect of traditional society, especially the role of the father, on whom rests the well-being and stability of a society. Hence, away with him! To those ends, they aggressively propagate feminism and female careerism, divorce, birth control and abortion, promiscuity and libertinage, homosexuality and “gender mainstreaming”, as well as widespread drug abuse. Although they otherwise don’t care about religion (their own ideology is already a “religion” in its own right), they applaud the idea of women priests. It’s all of a piece: Down with patriarchy! As a consequence, children grow up virtually fatherless (and mostly in day care institutions), handicapped for life.

(6) However, it goes deeper (and gets more sinistre) still. As Marxists, they hate Christ. And so, every measure, every strange alliance even, that helps to weaken or ridicule or finally check-mate Christendom, is greatly welcome. Thus, the Red/Green Left’s otherwise incomprehensible alliance with Islam. Marxist feminists march alongside Muslim women with headscarfs, and not a word about the oppression of women in Islam anymore. It’s a temporary, tactical alliance eager to destroy Christianity.

(7) Our Green Reds famously pose as pacifists, despite their notorious sympathies for and connections with terrorists and totalitarian regimes. They are militants, of course, not pacifists – but they certainly want to bring their own countries’ militaries down as far as possible, serving as a convenient fifth column for still-Soviet Russia, communist China and the rest of the never-abolished communist world bloc.

(8) Greens are communist internationalists. They despise such sentiments as patriotism or love of country. To them, the nation state is a bourgeois, patriarchal, imperialist leftover of an old, obsolete world. And they need to get fully rid of it in order to establish their internationalised paradise on earth. Therefore their attacks against any idea of national borders and systematic attempts to undermine national sovereignty altogether, whether via international treaties, refugee waves or what not. Lenin is anti-state. So are his followers. And: They’ve been celebrating “Earth Day” every April 22 ever since April 22, 1970, which was Lenin’s 100th birthday!!!

(5) Foundations, Think Tanks and NGOsAs a rule of thumb, as of today, if an organisation promotes this “Green” stuff, it always can be found promoting the Red stuff, too (as in AOC’s hilarious “Green New Deal”)! The fact, for one example, that a co-founder of Green Peace (Patrick Moore) left the organisation in the mid 1980s because it had been taken over by extremists, says it all. Which applies of course to such niceties as the Club of Rome, Global 2000 or meanwhile even the WWF. Scratch the surface of any of these honourable initiatives, and you will find some insidious communist influence somewhere embedded in them.

l

(6) A Strange Hymn to a New World under Eco-Pagan Communism (recorded as early as 1991)

In closing, this author would like to present – of all the Jacques Cousteaus, Hans Hasses and David Attenboroughs – a maybe unexpected “eco-celebrity” to illustrate the omnipresence of communism in all those colourful, rainbowish movements. The celebrity in question is German punk diva Nina Hagen. Why Nina Hagen? This will need a little explanation.

Catharina “Nina” Hagen was born in East Berlin in March of 1955 as the daughter of GDR-actress Eva-Maria Hagen and script writer Hans Oliva-Hagen. Her parents separated when Nina was four. When she was ten, in 1965, her mother got to know West-German communist chanconnier Wolf Biermann, who had settled in the GDR back in 1953 as a sixteen-year-old and was now about to enter a new phase in his life as the communist authorities imposed a total stage ban on him, which lasted till his expulsion in 1976. From 1965 till 1972, Eva-Maria Hagen and Wolf Biermann were living together as a couple, with young Nina absorbing the artistic influence from this prominent stepfather of hers. Nina Hagen wanted first to become an actress like her mother. Due to “politically unreliable” Wolf Biermann’s presence in her life, she was not given that chance. Nina Hagen instead underwent an education as a “Schlagersänger” and was soon to be heard by East Germans with slightly audacious songs such as “Du hast den Farbfilm vergessen”. Nina Hagen, despite being partly sabotaged by the state because of Biermann, was nevertheless communist nobility. And so it is no wonder that, following Biermann over into the West at the turn from 1976 to 1977 (first to London, then to West Berlin), she quickly became a sharp critic in West Germany not of communism, but of capitalism (and of the Christian religion!!!) in the guise of a “punk” singer, who produced quite “un-punklike” intellectual lyrics and solely worked with excellent musicians. Strange enough, Nina Hagen, with great precision, reinvented herself several times in the following years, suddenly “believing in UFOs”, then in Hinduism and finally in a globalised type of eco-communism. On her 1991 album Street, there is a more than suspicious Rap piece titled “Nina 4 President”, which would have perfectly fitted the Obama campaign of 2008! Here is the title, followed by the lyrics as text (with bold print by this author):

   

Nina 4 President:

Countdown…
Ten to zero,
Nina for president, vote your hero!
All for one, one for all,
united we stand, divided we fall
All for one, one for all,
united we stand, divided we fall
My name is Nina, ich bin ein Berliner,
I run for president, a new world government,
The new world’s government is a screen,
we call it green dream, we will get the planet clean,
1991 is the time, open up your mind and listen to the rhyme,
we need some unity in every community,
get down, here’s the opportunity,
we need a leader, to speak up on the issues,
those who take offence, sorry if we dissed you
it’s critical, in the political arena,
the rhymes i wrote, yeah, to vote for Nina!
I say aloud, time’s run out, we bleed,
the poor and hungry are in need,
they need to eat, ??
food, and we are being rude,
to eat a holy cow is to eat another dude,
it will put your karma in the worst of moods,
I’m not telling lies, but this is why the rainforest… dies
Countdown…
Ten to zero,
Nina for president, vote your hero!
Countdown…
Ten to zero,
Nina for president, vote your hero!
You’re ready to join?
and dare to share?
Come on, be fair,
let me say it live, on the air,
unification is the hardest combination,
one love, one love nation…
We’re never gonna see, solar peace campaign,
to fight world pollution and stop acid rain,
South Africa, to the Berlin Wall, all negativity, must fall,
So in this election, make your selection,
We need a new leader, Vote for Nina!
No more fakes, no more mistakes,
this movement is sweeter than a million cakes
People have to know, that many politicians,
are under only private superstitious missions,
I always really wanted to tell you this,
Do you really know what Religion is?
Religion is to help, one another,
to love and to share, like a good mother,
now if you are a muslim,
or a jew, a christian, a buddhist, or a hindu,
a yogi, a flower, or a guru, your love is to god,
and he loves you…??
All for one, one for all,
united we stand, divided we fall
All for one, one for all,
united we stand, divided we fall
Countdown…
Ten to zero,
Nina for president, vote your hero!
Countdown…
Ten to zero,
Nina for president, vote your hero
Ok, No more torture, we’re going to be free
Stop messing around with atomic ENERGY
Love life, and peace, can only begin,
if you know in your heart, sun shines from within,
love all your brothers, and love all your sisters
love all the Misses and love all the Misters.
Don’t be shy when sharing your money,
be like the bees, sharing all your honey,
test my notion, the perfect peace potion,
can be found in the wake of the green seas motion,
The long, rocking swerve, the mighty blue ocean,
if you love peace, the perfect peace potion,
then we will find it with the sweet sea creatures
the spine of a dolphin is a built-in feature,
you will learn much peace with the whale as your teacher:
Good Morning, MC Shan, very nice to meet you!
You’re ready to join?
and dare to share?
Come on, be fair,
let me say it live, on the air,
unification is the hardest combination,
one love, one love nation…
All for one, one for all,
united we stand, divided we fall
All for one, one for all,
united we stand, divided we fall
Countdown…
Ten to zero,
Nina for president, vote your hero!
Countdown…
Ten to zero,
Nina for president, vote your hero
Okay
Nina for President,
Is this ok?
Okay.
l
l
What brutal confirmation that the communists have always been far ahead of us! This song has the whole programme of New-Age-flavoured eco-communism in it, and it was written almost thirty years ago! For those who might doubt that Nina Hagen (or Wolf Biermann, for that matter) could have been (and could still be) in bed, so to speak, with the Soviet strategists, listen to this veritable ode to Mikhail Gorbachev of 1989 titled Mikhail, Mikhail, written by Wolf Biermann.
l
And so, the question must be: Has this insane Global Warming hysteria already become a fait accompli for the Revolution? Until 2016, one would have said, “Probably.” But there is Donald Trump. And he has courageously stood up against the manipulators and has made it very clear that he doesn’t believe in “Global Warming”, for which they hate him even more. Donald Trump, a Russian stooge? He is the communists’ worst nightmare!!! And he might well be the last line of defence against worldwide communist tyranny. God bless him, God protect him, and may God keep and save the United States of America – without which the rest of the so-far-non-communist world will inevitably perish, even though the brainwashed Europeans stubbornly think that Russia is the way to go. Good luck, one can only say, with that…
l
____________________________________________________________________________________
l
l
Postscript: A few more “gems” underscoring the madness of it all
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
© The Contemplative Observer 2019
l
l
l
l

Open Letter to the Descendants of the People of Russia (English Text)

festive-casual-clothes-russian-empire-1

 

First, my dear readers, I would like to apologise for having no command of the Russian language whatsoever. On the other hand, I do not know of native Russian speakers who could help me with translating this text into a fine and proper Russian version. Thus, I decided to rely on Google Translate. Hopefully, the result will be sufficiently comprehensible.

As for myself, I’m simply a private individual who was born and lives in the non-communist part of the world and who is greatly concerned about the world’s political development, to which the so-called Russian Federation is evidently a major factor, if not the decisive factor.

These lines are not directed at the Russian political system and its representatives (although it’s all about them), but at the silent majority of what once was the Russian people and what has been transformed, over a full century, into a sad caricature of its former self. I do not mean this in a derogatory sense, but on the contrary – having Slavic roots myself – as pointing to the monstrous work of cultural and spiritual devastation brought upon Russia by the Bolshevists and their political heirs to this very day.

Indeed, the Russian people –  in fact, all nations living on the territory of the “former” Soviet Union – have not yet had a true opportunity for grief work with regard to everything that has been done to them ever since that infamous year of 1917, when a well-organised clique of political fanatics and, yes, criminals grabbed power in Russia with the declared goal of erecting a radically new society so much more cruel and merciless than everything the world had ever seen. They justified their diabolical terror and mass killings as historically necessary for establishing their new “promised land” of eventual communism, a place however that doesn’t exist and in which, if one reads their texts closely, they didn’t even believe themselves. Sure enough, all they achieved was to turn everything on its head, to cripple the economy, to create an omnipresent climate of fear (and a giant mountain of corpses) and to effectively destroy Russia’s great religious tradition.

 

Having killed off the hated “old classes”, their objective was to create a new type of human being: the “Soviet man”. But, let’s be honest, what were (and still are) the features of this unprecedented creature? It is a creature determined by either suffering under or exerting raw, unmitigated power. With no moral or spiritual authority and certainly no checks and balances left, the Soviet state was now the new god, all-powerful, omnipresent and next to omniscient. And everyone had to decide for himself whether he wanted to be on the side of the powerless or on the side of the criminal perpetrators. Those who dared stand up against this juggernaut, notoriously ended up – as “enemies of the people”, that is: of the Party – in political psychiatry or the Gulag.

And has there changed much since the official Soviet days? You know better than I! Quite obviously, they simply reorganised their forces and erected an impressive Potyemkin façade, by which they were able to simultaneously deceive (and put to sleep) an unprepared West and frustrate any desire for freedom and democracy at home. And who still longs for Western-style democracy and market economics after the late Yegor Gaidar’s “shock therapy”? Not to mention the fact that the West is now in a more than deplorable position itself, having been undermined for decades by the steady poison of Gramscian cultural Marxism – the irony being that open communist oppression along Stalinist lines at least left some layers of inward resistance to the system while the process in the West has all but destroyed people’s hearts and minds from within! The world faces a dilemma of monumental proportions: the “post-communist” world has remained as communist as ever (with Russia still being the state of Lenin), while the formerly free world has arrived on the brink of a communist revolution of its own!

All these advances of communism were solely made possible by a deadly combination of lies, deceit, theft, intimidation and murder (which are the only things communism has proven to be good at).

What does this leave us with? It doesn’t seem as if the West, weakened and confused and hollowed out, still has any capacity left to rescue the populations that are unchangedly imprisoned under “reformed” communism. If things continue along this fatal trajectory, we might even come to a point where the nations of the West could look to the populations still living under communism (not their criminal leadership) for help. But how should such a miracle be possible? How can the oppressed (and imprisoned) ever save the imminently threatened? In any case, a solid breakthrough against the men of the Red Star, who are now preparing for ultimate world conquest, will not come about until a great and glorious true renaissance of the Faith has occurred.

And, if one thinks about it, whether such a genuine religious revival (as opposed to the current Eurasian propaganda in Russia and the ever-growing pro-Putin crowd in the West) takes place on this side of the fence or that side, is but a secondary question…

 

A Russian version of this text, generated with Google Translate, can be found here.

 

 

 

© The Contemplative Observer 2019

 

 

Открытое письмо потомкам народа России

festive-casual-clothes-russian-empire-1

 

(Автоматический перевод с английского на русский через Google Translate.)

 

Во-первых, мои дорогие читатели, я хотел бы извиниться за то, что не знал русского языка вообще. С другой стороны, я не знаю носителей русского языка, которые могли бы помочь мне перевести этот текст в хорошую и правильную русскую версию. Таким образом, я решил положиться на Google Translate. Надеюсь, результат будет достаточно приемлемым.

Что касается меня, я просто частное лицо, которое родилось и живет в некоммунистической части мира и которое очень обеспокоено политическим развитием мира, для которого так называемая Российская Федерация, очевидно, является основным фактором, если не решающий фактор.

Эти строки направлены не на российскую политическую систему и ее представителей (хотя это все о них), но на молчаливое большинство того, что когда-то было русским народом и что превратилось за целое столетие в печальную карикатуру его бывшая личность. Я не имею в виду это в уничижительном смысле, а напротив – имея собственные славянские корни – как указание на чудовищную работу культурного и духовного опустошения, принесенную в Россию большевиками и их политическими наследниками по сей день.

Действительно, русский народ – фактически все народы, проживающие на территории “бывшего” Советского Союза – еще не имели реальной возможности скорбеть о том, что было сделано с тех пор, как этот печально известный 1917 год Когда хорошо организованная клика политических фанатиков и, да, преступники захватили власть в России с объявленной целью создать радикально новое общество, гораздо более жестокое и беспощадное, чем все, что мир когда-либо видел. Они оправдывали свой дьявольский террор и массовые убийства как исторически необходимые для создания своей новой «земли обетованной» возможного коммунизма, места, которое, однако, не существует и в котором, если кто-то внимательно читает их тексты, они даже не верят себе. Конечно, все, чего они достигли, – это повернуть все с ног на голову, нанести ущерб экономике, создать вездесущий климат страха (и гигантскую гору трупов) и эффективно разрушить великую религиозную традицию России.

 

Убив ненавистных «старых классов», их целью было создать новый тип человека: «советский человек». Но, давайте будем честными, каковы были (и остаются) черты этого беспрецедентного существа? Это существо, определяемое либо страданием под действием необузданной силы, либо проявлением его. Без морального или духовного авторитета и, конечно, без сдержек и противовесов, Советское государство стало теперь новым богом, всемогущим, вездесущим и почти всеведущим. И каждый должен был решить для себя, хочет ли он быть на стороне бессильных или на стороне преступников. Те, кто осмелился выступить против этого джаггернаута, как известно, оказались «врагами народа», то есть партии, в политической психиатрии или в ГУЛАГе.

И сильно ли изменилось со времен официальных советских дней? Ты знаешь лучше меня! Совершенно очевидно, что они просто реорганизовали свои силы и построили впечатляющий Потемкинский фасад, благодаря которому они смогли одновременно обмануть (и усыпить) неподготовленный Запад и сорвать любое стремление к свободе и демократии у себя дома. И кто еще жаждет демократии в западном стиле и рыночной экономики после «шоковой терапии» покойного Егора Гайдара? Не говоря уже о том, что Запад сейчас находится в более чем плачевном положении, будучи десятилетиями подорванным устойчивым ядом граммского культурного марксизма – ирония в том, что открытое коммунистическое угнетение по сталинским линиям, по крайней мере, оставило некоторые слои внутреннего сопротивления. к системе, в то время как процесс на Западе почти уничтожил сердца и умы людей изнутри! Мир сталкивается с дилеммой монументальных масштабов: «посткоммунистический» мир остался таким же коммунистическим, как и прежде (Россия по-прежнему остается государством Ленина), в то время как ранее свободный мир оказался на грани собственной коммунистической революции!

Все эти успехи коммунизма стали возможными исключительно благодаря смертельной комбинации лжи, обмана, воровства, запугивания и убийства (это единственные вещи, в которых коммунизм доказал свою эффективность).

Что это оставляет нам с? Похоже, что Запад, ослабленный, растерянный и опустошенный, все еще не имеет возможности спасти население, которое неизменно находится в тюрьме в результате «реформированного» коммунизма. Если все пойдет по этой роковой траектории, мы могли бы даже прийти к точке, когда народы Запада могут обратиться за помощью к населению, все еще живущему при коммунизме (а не к их криминальному руководству). Но как такое чудо возможно? Как угнетенные (и заключенные в тюрьму) могут когда-либо спасти грозящую угрозу? В любом случае, серьезный прорыв против людей Красной Звезды, которые сейчас готовятся к окончательному завоеванию мира, не произойдет, пока не произойдет великое и славное истинное возрождение Веры.

И, если задуматься, происходит ли такое подлинное религиозное возрождение (в отличие от нынешней евразийской пропаганды в России и постоянно растущей пропутинской толпы на Западе) на этой или другой стороне забора, но второстепенный вопрос …

 

Оригинальная английская версия этого текста может быть найдена здесь.

 

 

 

© Созерцательный наблюдатель 2019

 

 

The Fake Nationalism in “Post-Communist” Russia & Eastern Europe: A Deprogramming Exercise for Western Conservatives with the Slightest Intellectual Integrity Left…

RUSSIA-POLITICS-RELIGION

 

IN LIEU OF AN INTRODUCTION… 

(Bold emphases added)

“The communist strategists are now poised to enter the final, offensive phase of the long-range policy, entailing a joint struggle for the complete triumph of communism. Given the multiplicity of [communist] parties in power [throughout the world], the close links between them, and the opportunities they have had to broaden their bases and build up experienced cadres, the communist strategists are equipped, in pursuing their policy, to engage in maneuvers and strategems beyond the imagination of Marx or the practical reach of Lenin and unthinkable to Stalin.” (Anatoliy Golitsyn. New Lies for Old: The Communist Strategy of Deception and Disinformation. Dodd & Mead, New York 1984. p. 327.)

“The great majority of the predictions both in ‘New Lies for Old’ and in my subsequent Memoranda to the CIA have proved accurate both in substance and in detail. The question arises: why were these predictions correct and why did Western experts fail to predict these developments? The answer lies in the different methods of analysis. The new method takes into account the adoption by the leaders of the Communist Bloc in the period 1958 to 1960 of a long-range strategy of which ‘perestroika’ is the logical culmination.” (Anatoliy Golitsyn. The Perestroika Deception: The World’s Slide Towards the Second October Revolution – Memoranda to the Central Intelligence Agency. Edward Harle Ltd., London, New York 1995. p. 11. Memorandum of March 1989.)

“[Political scientist Francis] Fukuyama [author of the grossly erroneous 1992 bestseller, The End of History and the Last Man] is mistaken when he writes of the death of Communist ideology and the end of the struggle between two systems. For Communists, ideology is not dead. It is embodied in Soviet and Chinese strategy. – The new challenge and threat arises, not from old-fashioned appeals to Marxism-Leninism by conventional Communist Parties, but from the political mobilisation of powerful Communist states seeking to secure the world victory of Communism through the strategy of convergence. – Convergence is not, as Fukuyama claims, a thing of the past, but a Communist blue-print for the future. – The Soviet Union and China are not going to follow a path that most of Asia has followed, nor is the Soviet Union going to revert to Slavophile nationalism. The Soviet and Chinese leaders have made their choice. – They believe they are in the vanguard and they believe in victory. They have a comprehensive agenda for new social, political and economic structures for Communism and the West as was clearly revealed in Sakharov’s essay, ‘Sakharov Speaks’. – The struggle is not over: it has entered a new and sharper phase. The next decade will not be a decade of boredom. History will continue and the possibility of large-scale conflict with the Communist system may well increase.” (Anatoliy Golitsyn. The Perestroika Deception. p. 95. Memorandum of March 1990, addressing Francis Fukuyma’s 1989 article published in The National Interest, “The End of History?”.)

“THE ‘MULTI-PARTY SYSTEM’ [in the then-USSR as well as in today’s ‘post-Soviet’ Russia] IS A FABRICATED INSTRUMENT OF THE KGB: The basic weapon in the Soviet political armoury is the KGB with its 5 or 6 million secret agents inside the USSR. Together, the Party and the KGB have fabricated controlled political opposition in the main cities of the USSR and in the national Republics. Together they have chosen and trained the organisers, leaders and activists of the new ‘democratic’, ‘non-Communist’, ‘nationalist’ and ‘independent’ organisations which are mushrooming under the Soviet ‘multi-Party system’. Even non-democratic groups like the anti-Semitic ‘Pamyat’ movement are creatures of the regime. Gorbachev is not the creator of a true multi-Party system: he is not a Soviet Stolypin intent on saving Russia through capitalism. – He is a Leninist, chosen and trained by the Soviet strategists to engineer the defeat of the United States and the West generally through the use of false, controlled democracy and a specious capitalism. The young Communists and KGB secret agents who form the core of the ‘multi-Party system’ are not genuine, ardent democrats bent on overturning the principles of the Bolshevik Revolution. They are still dedicated, disciplined revolutionaries and committed enemies of Western democracy who, on the instructions of the Party, are acting as ‘democrats’, ‘non-Communists’ and ‘nationalists’ in order to carry out the final assault on the capitalist West in accordance with the non-violent pattern of the Second October Revolution. – Scratch these new, instant Soviet ‘democrats’, ‘anti-Communists’ and ‘nationalists’ who have sprouted out of nowhere, and underneath will be found secret Party members or KGB agents. The West will pay dearly for its failure to understand that ‘perestroika’ is not a denial of Leninism but a radical, creative and effective application of the tactic described by Lenin in Left-wing Communism – an Infantile Disorder’. In this document, Lenin wrote that true revolutionaries should not be afraid to discard revolutionary phraseology and adopt right-wing tactics to carry out a revolutionary policy. – After the Second World War the victorious allies correctly applied a denazification programme to eliminate former Nazis and their influence from the institutions and political life of the new Germany. No equivalent decommunisation programme  has been applied in the USSR or Eastern Europe. The Soviet Party, the KGB and the armed forces with their political commissars remain intact. – Yet the West is eager to proclaim and believe in the death of Communism and the evaporation of Communist influence virtually overnight. This over-hasty optimism is destined to end in disillusionment.” (Anatoliy Golitsyn. The Perestroika Deception. pp. 123, 124. Memorandum of September-November 1990.)

“The global role of the United States is being eroded as the partnership with Gorbachev develops. Germany and Japan are going their own way in offering massive economic aid to and cooperation with the USSR and China. Dr Kissinger was right when he said: ‘While the West is celebrating, its underlying cohesion is hollowed out’. Stronger language should be used to describe the situation than the remark of Dr Kissinger. For the American-European alliance is in a critical state of confusion and disarray. The Bush Administration committed a grievous error in deciding to encourage contacts with the emerging ‘democratic’ and ‘non-Communist’ opposition in the USSR in the persons of Yeltsin, President of the Russian Republic, Popov, the Mayor of Moscow, and others. This policy is dangerous in that it encourages genuine American democrats, Republicans and those of other political persuasions, oblivious of Soviet strategy, to walk into a well-laid Soviet trap. – It is tantamount to an invitation to the Soviets to invade the United States with their political army which, under cover of ‘democracy’ and ‘nationalism’, is intent on spreading its radical ideas on political reform of the American system, the redistribution of wealth and changes in US political and military arrangements.” (Anatoliy Golitsyn. The Perestroika Deception. pp. 124, 125. Memorandum of September-November 1990.) 

“Although [German Chancellor of the day, Helmut] Kohl dismisses the idea, the comparison between Lenin’s negotiation and exploitation of the 1922 Treaty of Rapallo with the Germans and the present Soviet strategy with regard to the economic collaboration offered by Kohl and his Foreign Minister, Genscher, is close and compelling. – What Kohl fails to realise is that the Soviet strategists aim to use Germany’s economic and technological might to convert the USSR into the dominant power in a united Europe. Chancellor Kohl has his eyes on the next election. But Gorbachev and the strategists are thinking further ahead. It was no accident that Gorbachev referred to reunited Germany’s right not only to participate in NATO but to join whatever alliance Germany preferred. What he had in mind was the possibility that a future Germany under a Social Democratic Government would switch to political alliance with the USSR. Domination of a united Europe by a Soviet-German political and economic partnership would be a significant achievement for the second round of the October World Socialist Revolution.” (Anatoliy Golitsyn. The Perestroika Deception. p. 125. Memorandum of September-November 1990.) 

“Who called the shots in the USSR before the ‘coup’ [i.e., the fake and abortive operetta coup against Gorbachev in August of 1991] and who introduced the ‘reforms’? Gorbachev and his ‘liberals’? NO, the Party and its strategists. – Who is calling the shots now and who proposed the coup to replace Gorbachev? The ‘hardliners’, the Minister of Defence and the Chief of the KGB? NO, the Party and its strategists.” (Anatoliy Golitsyn. The Perestroika Deception. p. 137. Memorandum of August 19, 1991.)

“Similarly, current and future Western aid for Russia will fail to deflect the Russian leaders from their long-term objectives of world hegemony which they will continue to pursue in concert with the Communist Chinese. – While US policymakers are mobilising massive Western support for Russia and building up optimistic expectations of the future for democracy there, the same Soviet strategists as before are quietly carrying out their strategy. As this analyst has argued in previous Memoranda and publicly in ‘New Lies for Old’, the late Academician Sakharov under the guise of a ‘dissident’ was used as an unofficial mouthpiece of the former Soviet régime before being officially ‘rehabilitated’ and lionised under Gorbachev’s ‘perestroika’.In the late 1960s he went some way towards expressing publicly the essence of Soviet strategy, though without revealing that the developments he foresaw were deliberately planned. He predicted that in the period 1968 to 1980 ‘a growing ideological struggle in the socialist countries between Stalinist and Maoist forces on the one hand and the realistic forces of leftist Leninist Communists (and leftist Westerners) on the other will lead… in the Soviet Union… first to a multi-Party system and acute ideological struggle and discussions and then to the ideological victory of the (Leninist) realists, affirming the policy of increasing peaceful coexistence, strengthening democracy and expanding economic reforms’. – The period 1972 to 1985 would be characterised by pressure from the progressive forces in the West combining with pressure from the example of the socialist countries to implement a programme of convergence with socialism, ‘i.e. social progress, peaceful coexistence and collaboration with socialism on a world scale and changes in the structure of ownership. This phase includes an expanded role for the intelligentsia and an attack on the forces of racism and militarism’. In 1972 to 1990, ‘the Soviet Union and the United States, having overcome their alienation, solve the problem of saving the poorer half of the world… At the same time disarmament will proceed’. In 1980 to 2000, ‘socialist convergence will reduce differences in social structure, promote intellectual freedom, science and economic progress, and lead to the creation of a World Government and the smoothing of national contradictions.’ – All Sakharov’s main predictions have so far been fulfilled with the exception of Russian-American partnership in solving the problem of the poorer half of the world and the creation of a World Government. What Sakharov, like the present Russian leaders, clearly had in mind was East-West convergence on socialist terms leading to World Government dominated by the Russians and the Chinese. – But ignoring the long-term strategy behind the developments in Russia, US policymakers have plunged into partnership with the so-called ‘Russian reformers’ without realising where this partnership is intended by them to lead. – Sakharov foresaw World Government by the year 2000. The question may indeed be on the agenda within the next seven years. Within that period, if present trends continue, Russia, with Western help, may well be on the road to a technological revolution surpassing the Chinese Communist ‘economic miracle’ without loss of political control by the present governing élite of ‘realistic Leninists’. – A campaign for a new system of World Government will be launched at Summit level and will be accompanied by pressure from below, the active use of agents of influence and secret assassinations of leaders who are seen as obstacles. The campaign will come as a surprise to the US Administration. In the ensuing negotiations, the US President of the day will find himself facing combined pressure from the Russians and the Chinese. The Chinese will by then have adopted a ‘reformed’, pseudo-democratic system. In the course of the negotiations the Russians and the Chinese will begin to reveal their true colours, their fundamental antagonism to the free world and the threat they represent to it. The US policy of partnership with Russia will be exposed as bankrupt. Internally in the United States this will lead to divisions, recriminations and a search for scapegoats. Externally, the reputation of the United States as the leader of the free world will be irreparably damaged and its alliances, particularly with countries like Japan which have been pressured into helping the Russians out, will be jeopardised. – The US President will find himself without the finest armed services in the world. Reformed and cut back by budget reductions based on mistaken assessments of long-term threats, the services will be equipped for handling regional conflicts but will be unprepared for global confrontation. – US intelligence and counter-intelligence, if they survive, will have lost any remaining effectiveness from continuing financial pressure and a campaign of revisionist allegations like those that the CIA and the FBI were involved respectively in the assassinations of President Kennedy and Dr Martin Luther King. – Too late it will be realised that there have been no equivalent reductions in the power and effectiveness of the Russian and Chinese armed forces or their intelligence and security services. A real swing in the balance of power in favour of a Sino-Soviet alliance vis-à-vis the free world will have taken place giving the Russian and Chinese a preponderant share in setting up the new World Government system and leaving the West with little choice but to compete with them in designing the New World Social Order. If the Russian leaders continue to demonstrate to the Russian people that they can successfully extract Western aid and contribute to signs of economic progress, the Russian people will follow them and, like the Chinese, will end up laughing with their leaders at the folly of the West. (Anatoliy Golitsyn: The Perestroika Deception. pp. 165-167. Memorandum of April 30, 1993.)

In my letter of 12 October 1993 I referred to the military/nationalist option 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. 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 government might be military or nationalist. Certain indications that this is envisaged, are apparent. – It should be remembered, too, that the emergence of ‘perestroika’ in Russia was accompanied by the tightening of military and political control in China, starting with the Tienanmen Square episode. Far from being coincidental, this was the result of a joint Sino-Soviet decision – confirmed during Gorbachev’s visit immediately ahead of the Tienanmen Square provocation – that, while one main pillar of the Leninist world was engaged in ‘perestroika’, the other should be held under firm control. Similarly, the introduction of a Chinese version of ‘perestroika’, which may be expected in China after the death of Deng, would be a probable reason for a tightening of control in Russia. – Since an outright military or nationalist government might prejudice the flow of Western aid and the continued ‘cooperation’ with the West which furthers the strategists’ interests, it is more likely that the Kremlin strategists will opt for a hybrid solution involving, for example, a new President and Commander-in-Chief with a military background and a ‘reformist’ Prime Minister, in the context of overtly tighter KGB control. The President would be presented as a guarantee of Russian stability while the Prime Minister’s task would be to ensure the continued flow of Western aid and the continuation of cooperative operations. The transition might be brought about, for example, by the resignation of Yeltsin on health grounds and/or through elections, due anyway in 1996, for which the strategists would have chosen and groomed their presidential candidate. In this way, ‘legitimacy’ could be preserved and the election could be used as further ‘proof’ that democracy, cherished by the West, was ‘working’ in Russia (albeit in step with increasing authoritarianism).” (Anatoliy Golitsyn: The Perestroika Deception. p. 229. Memorandum of February 1, 1995.)

 

LOST IN THE KREMLIN’S LABYRINTH OF LIES

Patrick Buchanan, the “paleoconservative” and Catholic, wonders whether God is now on Russia’s side. Ann Coulter, eloquent but shallow icon of contemporary American “conservatism”, has discovered her own soft spot for Russia: she is now a cutting-edge Kremlin apologist, calling for making Russia America’s sister country. Michael Savage, ever-resolute and self-assured “right-wing” talkshow host, blames the United States rather than Russia of being the aggressor in Ukraine. Even Diana West, author of The Death of the Grown-UpAmerican Betrayal and The Red Thread, cannot let go of her mistaken sympathy for the faux-nationalist (in fact, Leninist) Orban regime in Hungary.

Do any of these people still know what they are talking about – let alone care about the consequences of spreading such misguided opinions? The great Soviet defector and unmatched expert on communist strategy, Anatoliy Golitsyn – who accurately predicted the whole of the deceptive “liberalisation from above” in the communist world, desperately trying to explain that communism was about to launch a deadly, Leninist, 360° offensive against the West – might just as well have never existed. His precious expertise and dire warnings (which could have saved the free world), widely ignored or outright dismissed, are now buried deep under multiple layers of communist-induced disorientation and confusion.

The United States is no longer “just” a country utterly divided along partisan lines (courtesy, greatly, of the Great Polariser; pardon me: the Great Community Organiser). Worse, the conservative camp has lost any internal cohesion and thus effectiveness, to begin with. Everybody appears now to be at sixes and sevens, and despite the growing belligerence and hostile rhetoric of both Russia and China (which are now officially allied), hardly anyone appears to have understood that we have reached, literally, on the brink of Communist World October. 

The ancient-Chinese military theorist Sun Tzu comes to mind, who taught in his treatise, The Art of War

All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him. (Chapter I: Laying Plans, par. 18-20.)

Surely, America finds herself in an unprecedented state of disorder. And surely, the enemy she thought was gone by the end of 1991 hadn’t gone away at all and has now reemerged from his hiding. But is there any widespread alarm? Has there been any substantial reckoning taking place? People are irritated, nervous, maybe concerned, some even scared. But, for the most part, they cannot see the elephant in the room threatening like never before their very existence, both from the inside and from the outside: COMMUNISM.

 

THE GRIM REALITIES

The Soviet Union never “collapsed” (neither was there any equivalent to the Nuremberg trials in post-Nazi Germany); it merely relabelled itself as the so-called Commonwealth of Independent States. Its once all-powerful Communist Party, along with the various communist mass organisations, simply acquired “new forms”. Present-day Russia’s apparent multi-party system is a sham. So is its alleged “capitalism”, that is in fact run – good old central-planning-style – by trusted Party and intelligence cadres.

In the same way, also Moscow’s “former” satellite states in Eastern Europe adopted the appearance-only of “democracy” and “free-market capitalism”. In reality, however, also they are still controlled by the old (now semi-visible) communist nomenklatura, and very little has changed in substance. The old authoritarianism hasn’t gone away, and economic prosperity, let alone bourgeois societal conditions, haven’t arrived even after three long decades of alleged “post-communism”. Instead, these countries have been ruthlessly living off the investments, credits and subsidies from Western Europe (not the least via their membership, since 2004/2007/2013, in the European Union), exporting at the same time their own astronomical unemployment (and state-organised crime!) over to the West, thus stabilising their own countries and immensely destabilising the countries of Western Europe (as well as other nations of the free world, including the United States, Canada or Australia). As for their deceptive membership in NATO, which is nothing but a frivolous joke, the West will soon be in for a cruel surprise, once war begins.     

But the theatrics of change thirty years ago were in no way restricted to Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. The whole of the world communist bloc, with very few exceptions such as North Korea or Cuba, followed the same pattern in perfect coordination (though, partly, with delays in time so to maintain the illusion of a Sino-Soviet split, a dialectical scissors strategy, which has been of vital importance for the success of the overall longrange strategy of the communist bloc, launched in the early 1960s).

As one looks at the People’s Republic of China today, one can see religious persecution at new heights, whether against Christians, Buddhists or Muslims. The long-continued spurious rift between Beijing and Moscow has given way to an overt, aggressively anti-Western alliance (with both powers having tremendously modernised their militaries). A dystopian “social-credit system” is now being built up, by which the state will ultimately be able to enforce the “right communist behaviour” (as well as patterns of consumption) upon every single Chinese citizen, the “soft way”. Hence, Western conceptions for a number of decades of China “no longer being really communist” and “having switched to capitalism” must now be acknowledged as having been suicidal illusions. In addition, both Russia and China are working 24/7 throughout the world to snatch allies away from the United States, the latter of which they intend to completely isolate. Worse, they are already engaged in an asymmetrical and truly unrestricted war against the free world, with Western politicians lacking the courage to fully call them out and sever all diplomatic and trade relations whatsoever.

Even communist East Germany hasn’t gone under, but is alive and well as a massively enlarged reunited Germany (which is no exaggeration). Formally, the GDR (East Germany) was dissolved and joined the FRG (West Germany); de facto, its old communist cadres took over the whole! By now, there is no conservative force left in Germany (and the nationalist AfD isn’t a conservative party either, and a possible candidate for being communist-controlled pseudo-opposition). Chancellor Angela Merkel (once an activist in East Germany’s communist youth organisation, FDJ) has transformed the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) into yet another left-wing party and Germany into a country of across-the-board socialist unity (which had been the name of East Germany’s communist party). Her policies (like those of her Red-Green predecessors in charge between 1998 and 2005) have turned out, in so many ways, as disastrous for Germany.

Yet, the Germans have failed to vote her out. Neither is there any serious competitor left within her party to topple her. In fact, she already passed on the party chairmanship to a younger CDU politician of her liking (Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer), albeit without stepping down as chancellor, which she will continue to be until the next parliamentary elections in October of 2021, by which she will have been in power for an unbelievable sixteen years, as long as her CDU mentor, Helmut Kohl. Present-day Germany openly calls Russia its “strategic partner” and appears to ever more lose interest in being a reliable part of the NATO alliance. Given Germany’s powerful position within the European Union, Gorbachev and Shevardnadze’s maxim of thirty years ago of a “Common European Home from the Atlantic to Vladivostok” (meaning, an all-communist Eurasia) is ever more coming into sight. As one recalls then-Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld’s illusory courting, after 9/11, of the East European countries, who had recently joined NATO in 1999, as the “new Europe”, one must clearly see that such a new Europe doesn’t exist.

The same people, in those countries, who were under pressure in the days of official communism, are under pressure now. The old nomenkaturists have passed on power to their sons and daughters, which is standard procedure in communist countries, overtly or covertly communist, with the new generation of faux-democrats and “oligarchs” being much trickier, as many of them have studied at Western universities, where they had plenty of opportunity to learn the bourgeois ways, without ever turning bourgeois themselves (in line with Lenin’s recommendation that, in order to be successful, revolutionaries have to temporarily adopt the ways and language and style of the enemy).

Conventional wisdom, which is no wisdom at all, holds that, well, these countries need more time to catch up economically and politically and there is nothing one can do about the fact that they still have to get communism out of their blood stream, but they eventually will. No, they won’t. Genuine anti-communist opposition had long been killed off before “perestroika” entered the scene. Instead, controlled opposition, well-construed pseudo-pluralism and what Anatoliy Golitsyn termed a new “state of the whole people” made sure the communists would not lose control.

And what did the communists have in mind when advertising “perestroika” (i.e., restructuring), in the first place? The restructuring not of their own system, but of the Western mind (which is why Gorbachev’s 1987 propaganda book Perestroika, in the German edition, had the revealing subtitle: “Die zweite russische Revolution – Eine neue Politik für Europa und die Welt”, thus: The Second Russian Revolution: A New Policy for Europe and the World; not for the Soviet Union and the communist bloc). The idea was to implement – chiefly, for the sake of credibility – minor, cosmetic changes in their own socialist system, but aggressively push for substantial changes in the political system of the West so to finally bring about convergence of both systems, yet strictly on their own, communist terms!

One key element of which process being certainly the necessity of turning around the balance of military power in their favour, which by now they have achieved; and they make no secret about it. In other words, they have over all those decades been following a two-tier strategy that involves two seemingly opposing approaches, which are meant to dialectically back and even enhance each other: Sun Tzu’s strategic philosophy of winning without a fight (i.e., by deception, disinformation and subterfuge, by weakening and wearing out the enemy) and Clausewitz’s classic military theory of applying overwhelming military force. Especially American analyst J. R. Nyquist has always emphasised that at the end of the day the deceiver will have to put his cards on the table and reveal his true intentions – which is where open warfare begins (unless, of course, the West by then is so weakened that it would simply have to sit down at the negotitating table and sign its own unconditional surrender). Given Russia and China’s aggressive moves during the last ten, twenty years, one can see that they have been thoroughly preparing this eventual switch from deception to open military blackmail, if not outright hot war. Indeed, Putin already used the language of cooperation-blackmail in his March 1, 2018 state of the nation address. He presented video animations of Russia’s newest super-weapons, against which the United States supposedly has no means of defence (U.S. experts take these claims seriously). Here’s what Putin said (bold print by this author): 

It is actually surprising that despite all the problems with the economy, finances and the defence industry, Russia has remained a major nuclear power. No, nobody really wanted to talk to us about the core of the problem, and nobody wanted to listen to us. So listen now! […] Sooner or later, other armies will also have the technology, the weapons, even the most advanced ones. But this does not worry us, since we already have it and will have even better armaments in the future. […] It was our duty to inform our partners of what I said here today under the international commitments Russia had subscribed to. When the time comes, foreign and defence ministry experts will have many opportunities to discuss all these matters with them, if of course our partners so desire. […] Now we have to be aware of this reality and be sure that everything I have said today is not a bluff ‒ and it is not a bluff, believe me ‒ and to give it a thought and dismiss those who live in the past and are unable to look into the future, to stop rocking the boat we are all in and which is called the Earth. […] There is no need to create more threats to the world. Instead, let us sit down at the negotiating table and devise together a new and relevant system of international security and sustainable development for human civilisation. We have been saying this all along. All these proposals are still valid. Russia is ready for this. […] We are interested in normal and constructive cooperation with the United States and the European Union. We hope that common sense will prevail and our partners will opt for honest and equal work together. 

Which means we have reached at the agonising end point of the communists’ longterm strategy. With most if not all their pawns in place, they have now officially opened the cruel process of checkmating the United States (and thus the whole of the free world), at long last: via nuclear blackmail and simultaneously via fuelling the greatest constitutional crisis in U.S. history. It’s all of a piece. 

But let us once again look at the “new democracies” of Eastern Europe (that are now all represented in what Anatoliy Golitsyn predicted to be an all-European socialist parliament). It all began thirty years ago (actually, much earlier than that), when (groomed, false-opposition) personages (intellectuals or union leaders) led those East-bloc countries into a new, promising democratic future, or so it seemed. Václav Havel in Czechoslovakia, however, was indebted to and controlled by the Czech intelligence service StB. He made sure there was no effective break with the communist past (coincidentally, Havel died on a Dec. 18, Stalin’s birthday, by Gregorian calendar).

Solidarnosc

In Poland, the allegedly independent labour union Solidarność, including its leader Lech Wałęsa, was an all-out creation by the communist state, with even one out of five Communist Party Central Committee members being members of Solidarność at the same time. And hadn’t the Solidarność movement started out of the Lenin Shipyards at Gdańsk? And wasn’t its logo a clearly socialist-revolutionary design? Not to mention the name Solidarity itself, which is a classic communist maxim. As for those who still believe Woodstock-Pope John Paul II was an anti-communist who fought the Polish Communist Party, well, the communists seemed to have no problem in allowing him to visit Poland as Pope in 1979, 1983 and 1987 (he later returned twice in 1991, in 1995, 1997, 1999 and 2002). According to the pedestrian view, the Pope’s first Poland visit in 1979 triggered the foundation of Solidarność one year later (based all on the erroneous conception that the Pope as well as Solidarność were the “good ones”) . Yet, why would the communist regime let him in again twice in the period, Oct. 1982 to April 1989, during which Solidarność was prohibited? Let us have a look at what lifelong Leninist and master deceiver Mikhail Gorbachev had to say, in retrospect, about the role of John Paul II in helping “bring down” the very ideology of which Comrade Gorbachev himself was a key figure and remains so to his last breath:

There was a meeting with Cardinal Casaroli and he conveyed to me the warmest greetings of the pope and conveyed to me the pope’s sympathies for our reforms, for the democratic transformations that were going on in our country. By the way, when I met with the pope, he repeated all this himself and said: “I criticized communism but, I want you to know, that I also criticized all the vices of capitalism. It is necessary to reach a freedom, a democracy, a society that respects human beings as the supreme value. It is necessary to give people the ability to choose, including the ability to choose their religion.” And in this regard, we had taken some steps, which he supported. And he supported them in his letter. Later in the conversation the subject of Europe came up, that it was very important that under the influence of perestroika there were changes in the positions of the Soviet leadership and that these changes were very positive for Central and Eastern Europe, which was very important. And then I heard a phrase that was later quite often heard. He said that “in the future, Europe will be able to breathe with both lungs,” meaning that when such changes were happening in the Soviet Union, in Eastern Europe, then there is the possibility of rapprochement, of overcoming schisms, which is very important for our continent. Generally speaking, you know, this was the sense of the situation: the approval of our perestroika reforms and an explanation of his views on communism and on capitalism. By the way, fairly recently he suddenly said that he is concerned that, having been given the chance to rebuild their countries, their governments, many countries of Central Europe have again run up against materialism, but a different sort — market-oriented. And the spiritual essence was being put on the back burner and continues to languish there. […] Now we will say that the pope was simply an extraordinary man. And one of the most extraordinary qualities of the pope was that he was a devoted servant of the Church of Christ. And, finally, as the head of state of the Vatican, he did a lot, using his opportunities along these lines, he did a lot to prepare for the end of the Cold War, for the coming together of peoples. He did a lot to remove people from the danger of a nuclear conflict. He was a man who used his high position — I’ll speak bluntly — in the best possible way. He was [a man] who did not put political calculation at the center, but who made his judgments about the world, about situations, about nature, about the environment, based on the right to life, to a worthy life for people and on the responsibility of those people for what is gong on in the world. I think that there has never been such an outstanding defender of the poor, the oppressed, the downtrodden in various cases and in various situations, either historically speaking or in terms of ongoing conflicts. He was a humanist. Really. A Humanist with a capital H, maybe the first humanist in world history. [Keep in mind that communists like to call themselves “humanists”!]

 

THE REAL GORBACHEV

This is the same Gorbachev who in his through-and-through Leninist programmatic book of 1987, Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World, wrote things like this (complemented by comments by this author in orange colour and square brackets and with bold print emphases also by this author):

We openly say that we reject the hegemony-seeking aspirations and global claims of the United States [the usual Soviet cliché of “evil, imperialist America”!]. We do not like certain aspects of American politics and way of life [feel the contempt!?]. But we respect the right of the people of the United States, as well as that of any other people, to live according to their own rules and laws, customs and tastes [how gracious, but one can clearly hear the communists’ disdain for “American decadence”]. […] We have no ill intent toward the American people. We are willing and ready to cooperate in all areas. [However, that “willingness to cooperate” precisely represented an aggressive and most hostile diplomatic offensive aimed at the ultimate defeat of the United States!]. […] Time slips past and must not be wasted. We have to act. The situation does not allow us to wait for the ideal moment: constructive and wide-ranging dialogue is needed today. That is what we intend when we arrange television links between Soviet and American cities, between Soviet and American politicians and public figures, between ordinary Americans and Soviet citizens. We have our media present the full spectrum of Western positions, including the most conservative of them. We encourage contacts with exponents of different outlooks and political convictions. In this way we express our understanding that this practice helps us to move toward a mutually acceptable world. [The West should have said: We’re not convinced. And why all the hurry? Keep your “mutually acceptable world” for yourselves. We are not interested! – Instead, PM Thatcher and Pres. Reagan euphorically, and most irresponsibly, chose to embrace the Russian Bear…] (pp. 12, 13.)

I think one thing should be borne in mind when studying the origins and essence of perestroika in the USSR. Perestroika is no whim on the part of some ambitious individuals or a group of leaders [a veiled admission that perestroika had been planned much earlier, in fact in the late 1950s.]. If it were, no exhortations, plenary meetings or even a party congress could have rallied the people to the work which we are now doing and which involves more and more Soviet people each day [keep in mind: “more Soviet people” means in reality “more Party people”]. Perestroika is an urgent necessity arising from the profound processes of development in our socialist society [the phrase, “profound processes of development in our socialist society” is a clear red flag, as it reveals Marxist-Leninist evolutionary thought, plain and simple]. The society is ripe for change [says the Party!]. (p. 17.)

[…] the Soviet Union is a young state without analogues in history or in the modern world. Over the past seven decades – a short span in the history of human civilization – our country has traveled a path equal to centuries. One of the mightiest powers in the world rose up to replace the backward semi-colonial and semi-feudal Russian Empire. Huge productive forces, a powerful intellectual potential, a highly advanced culture, a unique community of over one hundred nations and nationalities, and firm social protection for 280 million people on a territory forming one sixth of the Earth –  such are our great and indisputable achievements and Soviet people are justly proud of them. [So much for the fairy tale of  Gorbachev, the “democrat”, who did away with communism…] (p. 18.)

[But wait for this:] The works of Lenin and his ideals of socialism remained for us an inexhaustible source of dialectical creative thought, theoretical wealth and political sagacity. His very image is an undying example of lofty moral strength, all-round spiritual culture and selfless devotion to the cause of the people and to socialism. Lenin lives on in the minds and hearts of millions of people. Breaking down all the barriers erected by scholastics and dogmatists, an interest in Lenin’s legacy  and a thirst to know him more extensively in the original grew as negative phenomena in society accumulated. [Perestroika was a Leninist offensive, and Russia continues to be the state of Lenin even today, with the evil state founder’s corpse still exhibited in his mausoleum on Red Square!] (p. 25.)

To put an end to all the rumours and speculations that abound in the West about this, I would like to point out once again that we are conducting all our reforms in accordance with the socialist choice. We are looking within socialism, rather than outside it, for the answers to all the questions that arise. We assess our successes and errors alike by socialist standards. Those who hope that we shall move away from the socialist path will be greatly disappointed. Every part of our program of perestroika – and the program as a whole, for that matter – is fully based on the principle of more socialism and more democracy. (p. 36.)

We will proceed toward better socialism rather than away from it. We are saying this honestly, without trying to fool our own people or the world. Any hopes that we will begin to build a different, non-socialist society and go over to the other camp are unrealistic and futile. Those in the West who expect us to give up socialism will be disappointed. It is high time they understood this, and, even more importantly, proceeded from that understanding in practical relations with the Soviet Union. (p. 37.)

It is true to say that post-revolutionary development underwent difficult stages, largely due to the rude meddling of imperialist forces in our internal affairs; policy mistakes and miscalculations also occurred. Nevertheless, the Soviet Union progressed, and a society has been created in which people have confidence in their future. And if truth is the guide, any objective observer must admit that Soviet history is in general a history of indisputable progress, despite all the losses, setbacks and failures. We advanced in the absence of roads, literally and figuratively: we would sometimes go astray and make mistakes, and more than enough blood was shed and sweat lost along our path. But we stubbornly marched on and never thought of retreating, of giving up the ground we had gained, or of questioning our socialist choice. (p. 38.) [This is not Hr. Hitler speaking, but Nobel Peace laureate, Mikhail Gorbachev!]

Fourteen out of fifteen Soviet citizens living in the USSR today were born after the Revolution. And we are still being urged to give up socialism. Why should the Soviet people, who have grown and gained in strength under socialism, abandon that system? We will spare no effort to develop and strengthen socialism. I think that a minimum of the new system’s potential has been tapped so far. (p. 42.)

We have no reason to speak about the October Revolution and socialism in a low voice, as though ashamed of them. Our successes are immense and indisputable. But we see the past in its entirety and complexity. Our most tremendous achievements do not prevent us from seeing contradictions in the development of our society, our errors and omissions. And our ideology is critical and revolutionary by nature. (p. 42.)

At the same time, we realize that improving socialism is not a spontaneous process, but a job requiring tremendous attention, a truthful and unbiased analysis of problems, and a resolute rejection of anything outdated. We have come to see that half-hearted measures will not work here. We must act on a wide front, consistently and energetically, without failing to take the boldest steps. (p. 44.)

It may seem that our current perestroika could be called a “revolution from above.” True, the perestroika drive started on the Communist Party’s initiative, and the Party leads it. The Party is strong and bold enough to work out a new policy. It has proved capable of heading and launching the process of renewal of society. (p. 55.)

It is a distinctive feature and strength of perestroika that it is simultaneously a revolution “from above” and “from below.” This is one of the most reliable guarantees of its success and irreversibility. We will persistently seek to ensure that the masses, the “people below,” attain all their democratic rights and learn to use them in a habitual, competent and responsible manner. Life convincingly confirms that at sharp turns of history, in revolutionary situations, the people demonstrate a remarkable ability to listen, understand and respond if they are told the truth. This is exactly how Lenin acted at even the most trying moments after the October Revolution and during the Civil War, when he went to the people and talked to them frankly. This is why it is so important that perestroika maintains a high level of political and labor energy amongst the masses. (p. 57.) [This is the arrogant attitude of communism in a nutshell: The vanguard (i.e., the Party) knows best, and the people simply need to “listen”…]

When asked if we are not pushing it too hard, we reply: no, we are not. There is no reasonable alternative to a dynamic, revolutionary perestroika. Its alternative is continued stagnation. Upon the success of perestroika depends the future of socialism and the future of peace. The stakes are too high. Time dictates to us a revolutionary choice and we have made it. We will not retreat from perestroika but will carry it through. (p. 58.)

The main task is to get the whole of society involved in the process of restructuring. Socialism in our society is developing on its own basis. We are not suggesting that perestroika should be carried out with a different people, party, science, literature, and so on. This is not so. We are carrying it out together, through a nationwide effort. The entire intellectual potential must be brought into play. I can see from my own experience that all of us are changing in the course of perestroika. It would be unfair to deny someone the right to experience their own perestroika, to act differently today from how he did yesterday, to proceed today from a realization of the situation and the goals which have been put forward by our time. (p. 65.) [Quite frank: Perestroika was not a change in ideology at all, but solely the full mobilisation of all resources (first of all, deception and disinformation), with the aim of strengthening socialism and ultimately defeating the much-hated capitalist class enemy, whereby “intellectual potential” doesn’t necessarily mean the intelligentsia, as the West would understand it, but the “creative” potential within the intelligence services. What’s more, Gorbachev’s emphasis of everybody’s right to his own perestroika can, beyond doubt, only mean one thing: that Party and intelligence cadres should think about which new appearance they wanted to “shape-shift” into, leaving behind the communist label and becoming appearance-only nationalists, social democrats, conservatives, old-style Stalinists, democrats, whatever they would like to choose.]

Truth is the main thing. Lenin said: More light! Let the Party know everything! As never before, we need no dark corners where mold can reappear and where everything against which we have started a resolute struggle could start accumulating. That’s why there must be some more light. (p. 75.) [This was the real meaning of “glasnost”, i.e., opening: more transparency NOT for the people, but for those in power! Which makes complete sense: for a daring political experiment such as introducing fake democracy, the state needs to have established across-the-board control over the population.]

To uphold the fundamental values of socialism is a tradition of our press. Any fact, whether it is the burning issue of today or some unfortunate event of the past, may become the subject of analysis by the press. What values you defend, whether the people’s destiny and future are of concern to you is what matters the most. It so happens, sometimes, that an author brings a sensational fact, a topical fact, out in a newspaper and begins to dance around it, imposing on others his own ideas and likes. In my opinion, any honest, open talk, even if it arouses doubts, should be welcomed. But if you try to fit somebody else’s suit on us, beware! Glasnost is aimed at strengthening our society. And we have a lot to assert. Only those whom socialist democracy and our demands for responsibility prevent from satisfying their personal ambitions, which are, anyway, far removed from the people’s interests, can doubt this. (p. 79.) [This amounts to a brutal rejection and renunciation of any real freedom of speech or freedom of the press. The whole meaning of the operation was to change appearances, not substance. The Soviet Union or “post-Soviet Russia”, whether under Gorbachev, Yeltsin or Putin, were never meant to enjoy Western-style liberties. Instead, people were clearly warned to make sure they would stay in line!]

Socialism and public ownership, on which it is based, hold out virtually unlimited possibilities for progressive economic processes. For this, however, we must each time find the most effective forms of socialist ownership and of the organization of the economy. Of prime importance in this respect is for the people to be the true master of production, rather than a master only in name. For without it, individual workers or collectives are not interested, nor can they be interested, in the final results of their work. (p. 83.) [All these desperate argumentative contortions can hardly veil the obvious fact that perestroika and all that followed never ever had in mind a switch to free market economics. Instead, it was all about “optimising” socialism, making it more effective, especially as for its external political offensive that took the West by complete surprise.]

The situation now stands as follows: There are many people who are calling for stronger centralism. Balance sheets, proportions, the need for incomes, to correspond to the mass of commodities and volume of services, structural policies, state finances, defense – all these require a firm centralized principle. All our republics and all our peoples should feel that they are placed in equal conditions and have equal opportunities for development. In this lies the guarantee of Soviet society’s stability. That is why we do not want to weaken the role of the center, because otherwise we would lose the advantages of the planned economy. (p. 89) [This is really a comical paragraph. It shows, first, how little the communists understand about economics, but it also reveals their stubborn holding on to central planning, because, well, they would otherwise have to let go of central planning… Quite funny indeed! And proof that perestroika was never meant to do away with the communist system! One could of course ask what Gorbachev, or his ghostwriters, mean by the “advantages of the planned economy” which they would lose should they give up the centre. Economically, there are none, and the communists know this all too well. It can only mean one thing: to retain total power over the people, which is essentially what communism has been about ever since its inception: to keep the people in a state of constant fear as well as helplessness.]

And on and on it goes…

??????????????????????????????

As a powerful illustration of how Mikhail Gorbachev has shed since 1991 the polished Gucci style he was famous for at the time and adopted the much more authentic look (and expression) of a true revolutionary (which he had always been), examine the photograph above that was taken on November 9, 2009 on the occasion of the 20-year celebrations of the fall of the Berlin Wall; beside him, one can see German Chancellor Angela Merkel (former East-German Communist Youth functionary) and Lech Wałęsa, leader of the controlled “anti-communist” labour union Solidarność and for a while Polish President (like Gorbachev, with a proletarian cap): What an image of all-communist harmony! This strange (and frightening) metamorphosis, this absolute disconnect between the Gorbachev of the 1980s (who mesmerised particularly Margaret Thatcher by his “style”) and the Gorbachev in more recent years (who shows himself openly as the aggressive Leninist that he really is), should make us shudder: The communists, with Gorbachev at the helm, had merely put on a mask of friendliness and bourgeois civility. That mask has now dropped, and what we can see – if we dare open our eyes – is the same old communist beast, eager as ever to devour us all!

And yet, even today, most of Germany lays her, in any case questionable, reunification at the feet not of her late – widely disgraced – former Chancellor Helmut Kohl, but at the feet of unchanged Gorbie Superstar! History, especially when choreographed by communists, can sometimes be quite cruel indeed…

 

REGAINING SANITY & COMMON SENSE

There are essentially three books (two of them extensively quoted in the introduction to this article) that suffice to understand that the alleged collapse of communism was a thoroughly coordinated (and long pre-meditated) deception operation, in fact the greatest deception operation in all of human history: Anatoliy Golitsyn’s two epic works, New Lies for Old and The Perestroika Deception, as well as Christopher Story’s just as epic The European Union Collective (actually, Christopher Story had been the editor of Golitsyn’s The Perestroika Deception). In addition, there is a one-hour interview of 2003 with Christopher Story on YouTube, in which he brilliantly explains how this colossal scheme was put into practice, and why it has been so successful:

All those who still parrot the official narrative of “collapsible communism”, whether with regard to the Soviet Union, to Eastern Europe or other places in the “former” world communist bloc, should better think twice – finally! – and should start looking at the ever-mounting (indeed overwhelming) evidence to the contrary. Just as Anatoliy Golitsyn had predicted (and then analysed in real-time), there was no break with the communist past. Not in the USSR, not in the satellite states of communist Eastern Europe, nor anywhere else.

The West should, at long last, ask itself some uncomfortable questions: Has the European Union’s extension into Eastern Europe really lifted up the East, or has it brought down the West? Has the representation of these (unchangedly communist) countries in all EU institutions not transformed the latter from being more ore less left-leaning into being de-facto communist? Has the move of the Schengen border, by which Western Europe had initially been meant to protect itself towards the East, away from the Western European countries and deep into East European territory, been really such a good idea? Why has there not been a fierce warning by the West Europeans to the (Leninist) states of the East that, should they not immediately stop the massive (state-controlled) criminal activity out of their territory into Western Europe, they would be kicked out of the EU? Is there anything that the Western utopians seeking to establish a borderless Great Europe (if not Pan-Eurasia!) will not deliberately ignore and sacrifice on the altar of their reckless project of “European integration”? Has there anybody in the West paid serious attention to the ominous fact that quite soon after the alleged “collapse of communism” a massive wave of communist nostalgia was flooding the East? And why, for heaven’s sake, could nobody foresee the easily foreseeable, namely that by establishing “freedom of settlement” for everybody throughout this massively enlarged “Europe”, millions and millions from the enormously impoverished countries of Eastern Europe would literally invade Western Europe, not only bringing down wages and putting additional burden on the Western European countries’ social-, healthcare- and education systems, but carrying with them the very attitudes and manners (or lack thereof) those barbarised communist societies had been so notoriously infamous for? Has there anybody ever given any thought to the irritating fact that not only had there been in Eastern Europe no de-communisation whatsoever on the political level (which would have been vitally necessary in order to enable these countries to have a genuine fresh start), but that the populations enslaved under those communist tyrannies for decades were never decommunised either? Importing them, so to speak, into the West was a fatal thing to do! Certainly, they were thirsting for a higher standard of living, which is more than understandable, given the dull conditions under which they had been forced to exist for so many years, but were they also thirsting for cultivating the qualities that are indispensable for being successful in a free (or relatively free) market society? With the benefit of retrospect, one must say: Not quite. Self-responsibility, self-initiative, let alone self-reliance had been foreign categories to them, as in their parallel universe the all-powerful state – in other words: the collective – was looking after anything and everything. Unlearning the virtues of discipline, hard work, courage, inventiveness, entrepreneurship and risk-taking was definitely much easier than accepting the challenge of relearning them anew! As with all other things in life, falling is always easier than getting back up. This fundamental truth was not being considered by the Western politicians, whether out of naïveté or simply inferior motives. Helmut Kohl, for one example, who wanted to write history whatever the cost, later admitted that he had underestimated the rift that had separated East- and West Germany. A shy admission, but an admission nonetheless.

What applies to Western Europe, applies to the West at large. Handing over huge sums of money and technology to and engaging in joint ventures with the “self-imploded” Soviets was nothing but financing the West’s own destruction. Signing, with a smile, all kinds of disarmament treaties with them was just as suicidal, as communism has always viewed treaties as mere scraps of paper that can be torn apart whenever it suits them. As a consequence, again and again, the West had to learn that it was disarming unilaterally! But as the “collapse of communism” had been prematurely carved in stone, no more debate or consideration was possible. The thing was quickly turning into a fait accompli for the communists. By their apparent breaking up of the Soviet Union into fifteen, of Czechoslovakia in two, of Yugoslavia in meanwhile six, they have also mutliplied their seats in all international organisations. In 1997, an extended G7 (called G8) was formed in order to include Russia. In 2002, a NATO-Russia Council was founded; in 2012, the Russian Federation was even accepted in the WTO. While the Eastern European states, now in NATO, were simultaneously holding military manoeuvres with the Russians. The same process of gaining of weight can be seen with the People’s Republic of China. As for the OSCE (formerly, CSCE), Russian representatives have frequently said that they viewed this organisation as a “net they had thrown over Western Europe”. It’s been a gradual, but systematic process of turning around the balance of power, across the board.

 

NATIONALISM AS A DECEPTION

The communists have “played the nationalist card” before. Stalin, allied with Britain and the United States against the axis powers, was wise enough to apparently dissolve the Comintern, admit greater freedom of religious practice, commission a first-ever national anthem for the Soviet Union (by its melody, still in place today) and emphasise Russian patriotism (even though the USSR was, by definition, a supra-national entity). Consequently, WWII was named (and is still named today) “the Great Patriotic War”. However, religious suppression again grew by the late 1940s, went haywire under Khrushchev from the late 1950s till his removal in 1964 and was again intensified beginning in the mid 1970s. The communist revolutionary method is based on the strategic use of the dialectical principle, and so periods of seeming relaxation are always followed by periods of ideological hardening and persecution. Also, communism, following vastly the precepts of Lenin, is infinitely flexible and opportunistic and allows, to a certain degree, for national characteristics to modify the underlying (nevertheless sacrosanct) doctrine of Marxism-Leninism – which is why communism in China out of necessity shows different aspects and qualities than, e.g., communism in Cuba. The revolution always mimics the local tradition, using it against itself. Hence, Mao’s “Red Book”, Gaddafi’s “Green Book” or Castro’s “Caribbean Communism”.

In this latest grand operetta of apparent “post-communism” we have been seeing these communist states simply acquiring “national characteristics” along Leninist lines. The Polish communists were suddenly friends not only with Wałęsa’s Solidarność movement, but even with the Catholic Church (all greatly supported by Polish Pope Karol Wojtyła’s intense political activism and with Gorbachev leading the way). Poland’s transition to “post-communist democracy” was, like in most other satellite states, miraculously smooth and bloodless. An improbable nationwide coming together had achieved the impossible, and the communists voluntarily closed shop. That’s how it was sold to the West, and the West bought it all at face value.

In a way, one can’t blame all those conspiracy theorists who firmly believe in an international (Masonic etc.) cabal intent on bringing about a “New World Order”, as accepting the profane and pedestrian reality of Western politicians being that stupid is just too much for them to take in. Sun Tzu taught one should know the enemy as well as oneself. Sadly, the “geniuses” in the Western countries’ halls of power seem to know neither. And so the tragedy began to unfold, with the Western public naïvely celebrating Gorbachev almost like a saviour. In reality, he was a masterful Leninist who perfectly knew how to play on the West’s hopes and fears. He didn’t bring peace. He didn’t bring democracy and free markets to the countries of the communist bloc. He merely strengthened the communist system (and said so in his book, Perestroika), preparing the West for eventual defeat. His Gorbachev Foundation and Green Cross International have greatly served to influence the West towards ever greater convergence with the “former” communist bloc (on communist terms) and to push, along with Greenpeace, the United Nations and all other eco-leftwing entities, radical restructuring of the economies of the West along eco-communist lines. Gorbachev, like his comrades, has never been a friend of the West, but a dangerous, dangerous enemy. Interestingly, he still keeps commenting on international developments, ever defending the official Russian government under Vladimir Putin (even using the exact same verbiage). He regularly “warns” the West of a new arms race and World War III. However, Gorbachev’s “warnings” are in fact threats. All he does, as the “respected elder statesman” that he is in the eyes of the West, is underscore the official Russian line, giving it seemingly greater credibility. But he is not an independent private citizen, but is serving communist strategy to his last breath. In other words, they are playing role plays.

As one looks at the other satellites, the patterns of transition were similar, even though modified according to any given country’s own history. In Czechoslovakia, the (controlled) opposition group Charta 77 came to the forefront. Hungary was even using the apparance of emerging monarchist tendencies, with Hungary’s Gorbachev, the “reform communist” Imre Pozsgay, holding with ever-ambitious Archduke Otto von Habsburg (who had his own Pan-Europa agenda in mind) a much-advertised “Paneuropan Picnic” outside Sopron near the Hungarian-Austrian border. Hundreds of East-German would-be runaways indeed came, were supposedly given food and some Deutschmarks and were eventually allowed out into the West. Big drama, big confusion, the scheduled speeches and cultural programme had to be dropped – it indeed looked like a spontaneous event. In reality, all these incidents had been carefully crafted by the communists so to present to television viewers in the West convincing images of a growing deterioration of the communist bloc. Yet, there was no deterioration. There was only a controlled scene change. By the way, communist Hungary finally and officially opened its borders on Sept. 11, 1989, a date that since 2001 has lived in infamy and that marks – believe it or not – the birthday of “Iron Felix” Dzerzhinsky, founder and head of the dreaded Cheka, the initial Soviet secret police, which was brutally executing Lenin’s Red Terror against the people of Russia. In addition, Sept. 11 is also the death day of Nikita Khrushchev, under whose watch the new Leninist longrange strategy of deception was formulated and launched. (Below: Invitation leaflet for the Paneuropean Picnic.)

Paneuropa Picknick. Original

It is interesting that the career of present-day Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who was a communist activist in his youth, has always been accompanied by figures from the old communist Hungary. The above-mentioned Imre Pozsgay (1933 – 2016), for one, a life-long communist, has been time and again an advisor to Prime Minister Orbán. (Below: upper row, left to right: Péter Boross, Minister of Civilian Intelligence Services in 1990, Minister of the Interior from 1990 till 1993 and Hungarian Prime Minister from 1993 to 1994; Viktor Orbán; Imre Pozsgay.) 

Orbán, Pozsgay 

As one looks at the image below, one might think this is the Sicilian mafia. However, this is again Péter Boross and Viktor Orbán alongside János Áder, since 2012 Hungary’s State President. The occasion was the funeral of Gyula Horn (1932 – 2013), high-profile Hungarian communist until 1989 and instant-“socialist” after 1989, serving as Hungary’s Prime Minister from 1994 till 1998.

Boross, Orbán, Áder

Viktor Orbán’s completely over-the-top nationalism perfectly matches the faux Russian nationalism of disciplined Chekist Vladimir Putin. And the two are great friends, as well! Putin frankly calls Hungary Russia’s most important ally in Europe.

Putin, Orban 3

Orbán’s attacks against Brussels, against George Soros and certainly against immigration are more than just bombastic spectacle. Hungary, which formed in February 1991 together with Poland and then-Czechoslovakia the so-called Visegrád Group, is seamlessly pursuing, like its meanwhile three good old socialist brother states (that include Slovakia), an unchanged East Bloc policy, which in the new situation is designed to make sure that these countries only benefit from their membership in the European Union. What’s more, their behaviour during the 2015 so-called “refugee crisis” gave these four countries completely away, as they outright refused (and still refuse) to take any significant numbers of people in. In other words, they do not regard themselves as part of the EU or the West at all! Given the fact that this immense wave of migration (that hasn’t stopped even now) represents a clandestine Russian operation aimed at destabilising Western Europe, and Western Europe only, it becomes clear that these unchanged East-bloc countries, based on their fictitious nationalism, won’t allow these people from Africa and Asia in. After all, the migration crisis is designed to hit solely the West! And: They are, under whatever pretext, silently or not so silently leaving the EU, not formally, but factually, moving back into the same East-European communist sphere they came from!  

Starting with Sept. 4, 1989, Communist East Germany saw a growing movement on its own territory of civil rights activists, dissidents and reform communists gathering especially in Leipzig’s St. Nicholas Church for weekly political demonstrations. These so-called Monday demonstrations at first were in no way demanding the abolition of the socialist system or even reunification with capitalist West Germany. What people were mostly calling for was a reform of the system, freedom to travel, freedom of speech, the dissolution of the hated State Security (mostly called “StaSi”) and better life conditions. In fact, these activists were solely envisioning a better, more just and purer socialism in a continuedly separate East Germany! Without Helmut Kohl’s maximum pressure for swift reunification, East Germany would certainly not have joined West Germany all by itself. Such fast reunification not having been planned by the communists at all, they quickly adapted their strategy to the new situation and basically took over the whole, which – if one thinks about it – has been quite an accomplishment, sarcastically speaking. Also, the communists were hoping that after their fake “dissolution” of the Warsaw Pact military alliance, NATO would follow suit and truly dissolve. This did not come to pass. What did the communists do? They followed the good old maxim, “If you can’t beat them, join them!”, which, before the 1990s were over (as for the satellite states and even three “post-Soviet” republics), they did.

As for Putin’s purported nationalism (or even “Christian faith”), it’s rather easy to debunk. The man has been a lifelong loyal Soviet intelligence cadre, and most likely not only of the KGB, but also of the military intelligence service GRU. He once called the dissolution of the Soviet Union “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century.” When asked about his alleged “Christendom” and whether he believes in a higher being (at Larry King Live in Sept. 2000), he evades and then comes up with a classic communist answer: “I believe in man.” He says he has kept his Communist Party membership card to this day and that he has always liked communist and socialist ideas and still likes them. He absurdly compares the “moral code of communism” (we know what that is!) with the Bible. He accuses Lenin – from the standpoint of a faithful Leninist – of having placed a time bomb under the Russian state by drawing administrative borders along ethnic lines (which sounds like an allusion to the Donbass question, but also like clever disinformation, as if Moscow were not in control, still, of pretty much all of the “former” Soviet republics). He tells OSCE observers, who had decided to skip monitoring Russian elections as they realised they would be rigged anyway, to better go home and tell their wives how to make cabbage soup. The late Anna Politkovskaya (almost certainly murdered at Putin’s instruction and in fact on his birthday) had dared ridicule him and his colleagues in her book, Putin’s Russia, where she described their funny contortions in trying to make the sign of the cross! Putin paid her back posthumously, saying, approximately, she had done more harm to Russia by her death than while she was alive. Though one should not personalise too much in all matters Soviet or “post-Soviet”, as these people are all quite uniformly in Lenin’s mind, it is nonetheless true that after Putin had succeeded Yeltsin, the old Soviet anthem was immediately readopted and Russia’s military districts were redrawn the way they had been under Stalin in WWII. There was a distinct change toward greater militarisation, nationalistic indoctrination and even official re-Stalinisation. Russia was obviously getting prepared, slowly but surely, for war. And sure enough, if one thinks about it, the “overture” to World War III was started on September 11, 2001. Ever since, the world appears to have been descending into ever-greater chaos, disorientation and helplessness, while the war threats coming out of Moscow and Beijing have become louder and louder. And it’s still communist world revolution which drives them, and not nationalism. After all, Lenin is fiercely anti-state and thus anti-nation. But it seems hardly anyone will find out of this crazy hall of mirrors before full-scale war has been set in motion. So help us God!

 

 

 

 

© The Contemplative Observer 2019

  

  

A Critical Look Back on 2018

 

Rearview, circular II

 

The passed year of 2018, which marked Karl Marx’s 200th birthday, was indeed significant. From the perspective of the world revolution, it had to be. After all, communism, at its heart, is a deeply metaphysical cult, a counter-religion, with its own “god” (the Party, but ultimately the devil), its own “gospel” (so-called class struggle, behind which hides an overall and total struggle against God) and its own “saints” (from Babeuf to Marx & Engels to Lenin & Stalin to Béla Kun to Rosa Luxemburg & Karl Liebknecht to Antonio Gramsci to the Franfurt Schoolers to Sukarno to Ho Chi Minh to Nehru to Nasser to Kim Il-Sung to Mao to Arafat to Fidel Castro to Allende to Pol Pot to Mandela to the more recent incarnations: Gerry Adams, Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn).

Indeed, communists have always paid the greatest attention to their “jubilees”, which they celebrate with quasi-religious fervour. The Second International, for instance, which was really the first Socialist International, was formed on July 14, 1889, the exact day of the centenary of the Storming of the Bastille, which had sparked off the French Revolution a century earlier. The Bolshevist Revolution in Russia, which toppled Alexander Kerensky’s Provisional Government in November 1917 (or October, respectively, by old-style Julian calender count) happened to anticipate Karl Marx’s one hundredth birthday by only six months. Also the infamous May riots in 1968 France occurred perfectly on time for Karl Marx’s 150th birthday, while at the same time in communist Czechoslovakia the Prague Spring operetta was launched as a dress rehearsal for the larger deception programme to be implemented by Gorbachev twenty years later. Also, Lenin’s hundredth birthday, April 22, 1970, was used by a Democratic Senator (and for a while, Governor) of Wisconsin named Gaylord Nelson to announce ever-since-celebrated Earth Day, which greatly illustrates the intimate connection between environmentalism and the Revolution (that by now is no secret any longer). Gorbachev’s proclamation of “Perestroika” happened in 1987, the 70th anniversary of the 1917 October Revolution, while the removal of the Iron Curtain (and “collapse of communism” in the Eastern European satellite states) “coincided”, quite cynically, with the bicentenary of the French Revolution (that was, in France, pompously, and certainly unashamedly, celebrated by then-French President, and devoted socialist, François Mitterand). Ever since Vladimir Putin succeeded Boris Yeltsin at the turn from 1999 to 2000, “post-communist” Russia has been again officially celebrating on every December 20th the foundation of the Bolshevists’ deadly secret police and instrument of Lenin’s Red Terror, the Cheka, which was the forerunner of the KGB (meanwhile renamed FSB). Also, Putin’s “Russia” has reintroduced the old Soviet anthem of 1944 as well as the annual military parades on Moscow’s Red Square, commemorating Stalin’s victory over Hitler in 1945 (from Moscow’s perspective, Germany’s unconditional surrender took place on May 9th, 1945). Even Barack Obama appears quite conscious of certain historical dates in the communist calendar: His second election campaign of 2012 was officially launched on May 5th, Karl Marx’s birthday, and was running on the prominent communist maxim, “Forward”. Not to mention the 9/11 terror attacks, which had been so obviously choreographed not by some Muslim fanatics, but ultimately by Moscow; September 11 being both the birthday of “Iron Felix” Dzerzhinsky, the head of the Cheka, and the death day of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, under whose watch, in the late 1950s, the new Leninist longrange strategy was worked out.

In addition, one might take note of a seeming habit on the part of the communists to open new chapters in their revolutionary “journey” towards the end of any given decade (and thus at the beginning of a new decade). The French Revolution began in 1789. There was the Revolution of 1848 (which was also the year Marx and Engels published their Communist Manifesto). The Bolsheviks took over Russia in late 1917, while the monarchies in Germany and Austria fell in late 1918 and Béla Kun erected his diabolical, but short-lived, reign in Hungary in 1919. Mao came to power in China in 1949. The Castros in Cuba, in 1959. The German Social Democrats under Willy Brandt formed Germany’s first left-wing government after World War II in 1969, followed by the Austrian Socialists under Bruno Kreisky capturing the seats of power in their country in 1970. There was also a quite prominent full-blown communist revolution in Chile in 1970 under Salvador Allende, who was only overthrown by General Pinochet in 1973. What’s more, the years 1968/69 saw the climax of the sixties’ revolution, both in Europe and in America. In 1979, the (clearly Soviet-controlled) Mullah regime took power in Iran. 1989 was the year of the fake “collapse” of communism, which was in fact the official start of a 360° offensive against the West. 1999/2000 was the beginning of the neo-Stalinist regime under Putin in Russia. While Comrade Obama was inaugurated as the first communist President of the United States – recognised as such by hardly anyone at the time – in 2009 (sure enough, he and his revolutionary cohorts haven’t gone away at all since the election of Donald Trump, but have instead launched an even wilder attack on the American Republic through their across-the-board “Resistance”).

And so, 2018 being the bicentenary of the birth of the “prophet” of communism, one should expect major events (as well as culminating processes) to have taken place in the course of this passed year, and there were plenty. Here’s a selection (that does not necessarily follow a chronological order):

For the People’s Republic of China, 2018 was a year of great strife, strategic expansion and ideological “rejuvenation”. The ruthless erection of military bases in the international waters of the South China Sea represents an unprecedented breach not only of international diplomacy, but of international law, to begin with. Communist China bullies and threatens the whole of the East-Asian-Pacific region (all the way to Australia and New Zealand) and simply doesn’t care about Western protests any longer. Such behaviour, of course, signifies an actor who feels strong enough to openly challenge the (once-)leading world power of the United States. China makes no secret of its determination to make the 21st century the “Chinese century” (masking all the while the deeper dimension of communist world revolution, that includes also Russia as well as the whole of the “former” world communist bloc). The trade war with America just continues; so do the permanent, full-scale industrial espionage, organised sabotage as well as strategic infiltration. But, given their close and quite irreversible entanglement with this criminal regime, that has grown into a veritable monster (greatly facilitated 45 years ago by none other than Henry Kissinger), America and the West are no longer in the position to categorically confront China. Rather, whatever aggressive rhetoric comes out of the White House, they have to appease. In other words – and this is true of China and Russia – the free world increasingly stands with its back against the wall (without so much, even, as a truly Catholic Church in place that would warn against communism – instead, the Conciliar church, that is no longer Catholic, promotes it). Russia and China know all this, which is why their ever-growing belligerence has long surpassed that of the darkest days of the Cold War, that in fact has never ended, though Francis Fukuyama still seems to hold on even now to his erroneous pipe dream of an “End of History”. The PRC is home (if one call it that) to 1.4 billion people, i.e. almost one fifth of the entire world population and roughly four and half times the population of the United States (that, in turn, already has around 3.8 million ethnic Chinese, which is slightly more than 1% of the U.S. population). Such staggering population numbers – along with China soon to  overtake the U.S. as the leading economy in the world and provided a necessary modernisation of China’s military, which has been underway for quite some time – suggest not only the serious possibility of China (along with Russia) defeating the United States on the battlefield, but even of exterminating the whole of the U.S. population and replacing it with Chinese! Sure enough, for all those in the West who have been celebrating a more “pragmatic”, “no longer really communist” China for the last three decades, the day of reckoning has come. China is as ideologically charged as ever, with President Xi Jingping having assumed the same powers as were once held by Chairman Mao. The most merciless religious persecution is back, an unexpected déjà-vu of Mao’s Cultural Revolution. This time, the communist state keeps an estimated one million Uyghurs in reeducation camps, while their mosques have now Chinese red flags planted on them. As for Christians, state authorities check out their apartments and force them to take down images of Christ or Christian saints and replace them with pictures of President Xi! With non-compromising underground Catholics having been thrown under the bus by Rome, a great tragedy is looming, that will most likely be kept from the eyes of the West. At the same time, China is in the process of implementing a completely dystopian system of social control (known as “social credit system”) by way of electronically keeping track of every citizen’s (or company’s) patterns of behaviour and consumption. There’s no doubt that this is what the communists have in store for all of us, if we remain indifferent and passive enough to let it happen. As a matter of course, Karl Marx’s 200th birthday was prominently celebrated by the Chinese regime.

Marx 200, Peking

 

But one shouldn’t forget about “Russia”, which has remained the same old murderous Soviet Union in everything but name. Russia (in fact, the whole of the “Commonwealth of Independent States”, which equates basically to the whole territory of the former USSR) is still the beacon of the world revolution – even though it has taken on the guise of Russian nationalism, even traditional Russian Christendom, which is but a pack of lies, sadly all too readily believed by conservatives in the West. The leadership is as communist as it can get and as threatening as the Soviet Union has ever been. The supposed “changes” introduced by Gorbachev and perpetuated by Yeltsin and Putin have been merely cosmetic. They are all still Soviets, with the same old Soviet hatred and despise of “decadent, imperialist America”. No genuine bourgeois state of affairs has ever been reestablished either in the “former” Soviet Union or in any of its “former” satellite states. It’s been the boldest and most consequential charade in all of human history. Like China, also Russia is working day and night to undermine the West wherever it can (and grab whatever territory it sees fit, knowing that all the West can do is throw up its arms in shock and helplessness and impose “sanctions”). At the same time, the Russian Federation has greatly modernised its military, which includes a whole array of actual super-weapons, even doomsday weapons, the likes of which the United States has suicidally decided, over the last couple of decades, not to build. As a consequence, Russia and China have now successfully reversed the balance of military power in their favour, and one shouldn’t take their claims as mere bluff. In an address to the nation given on March 1, 2018, Vladimir Putin presented Russia’s brandnew weapon systems as animated videos and called upon the U.S. to accept the new facts and come to the negotiating table so to bring forth a new international order (the terms of which would of course be dictated by the communists). So it is no exaggeration to say that the world has now – 200th birthday of Karl Marx! – indeed arrived at a scenario desperately warned of by Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn 35 long years ago, namely a scenario of “cooperation-blackmail”, in which a communist bloc that would have acquired overwhelming military superiority would be able to force its tyrannical system of Marxism-Leninism upon a completely unprepared Western world. And the Russian Armed Forces’ recent military drill in September this year, Vostok-2018, which involved three hundred thousand men (and 900 tanks), speak a fairly clear language. Watch Putin’s speech, that has simultaneous English interpretation, on the video embedded below, beginning at the 1:25:00 mark (which is where it starts getting interesting):     

 

Zyuganov Marx 200

By the way, also in “Russia”, Karl Marx’s 200th birthday was officially celebrated, and so by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation led by Gennady Zyuganov (who is at excellent terms with Vladimir Putin), the CPRF simply being the most blatant and obvious successor of the old Communist Party Soviet Union, as in fact all other parties that now constitute Russia’s new “democratic pluralism” are mere branches of the CPSU, too!

 

 

 

The overall picture gets even more disturbing as one looks at the United Nations, where indeed a former President of the Socialist International (António Guterres of Portugal) now holds the post of Secretary General. His insidious initiatives (apart from the UN’s deadly “Global Warming” scheme), the “Global Compact on Refugees” and especially the “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration”, meanwhile signed by most countries of the world (but allegedly not legally binding!), represent a literal sword of Damocles hanging over the nations of the West, endangering their very existence as nations on the long run – which is the key goal of Marxism (and of Theosophy): Destroy the Christian world!

German Chancellor Angela Merkel (like Barack Obama, a more-than-obvious communist Trojan Horse) has lost her chairmanship of the CDU, but remains Chancellor nonetheless. She never liked the party, but only used it as a stepping stone to power. In other words, she will certainly not step down as Chancellor, but will complete her present term all the way till 2021, destroying ever further, along with her socialistic colleague in France, President Emmanuel Macron, any remaining European nationhood in exchange for an all-powerful European super-state that will soon have a unified European army (which would certainly kill NATO), centralised taxation and all other features known from the old days of the USSR. The final death knell will then be – as of yet unimaginable for West Europeans – a merger with the unchanged Soviet Union, including all its former republics, which would realise the communists’ long-desired goal of a “Common European Home from the Atlantic to Vladivostok”, read: an all-communist Eurasia!

Where does this leave America, or Japan, or Australia and New Zealand – or Britain (should Brexit indeed become a reality)? In a position of utmost isolation! The revolutionary madness in the United States – led and organised by the Democratic Party, that is now in fact the Communist Party – will sooner or later overthrow any constitutional government whatsoever and erect a brutal communist tyranny, with already-communist California leading the way (while hardcore Leninist Jeremy Corbyn is patiently waiting for his chance to become British Prime Minister). President Trump, despite all his good intentions, will hardly be able to stem the revolutionary tide that threatens America both from without and from within. We are witnessing, in real time, the falling apart of the entire post-WW-II international order. God help us all…

___________________________________

 

As some final sources this author would highly recommend, here are two one-hour-plus discussions of December 29, 2017 and November 15, 2018 respectively, involving J. R. Nyquist and Benjamin Baruch, titled “Road to World War III” and “The Path to Armageddon”. They are not pleasant…

 

 

Nyquist, New Tactics of Global War

The two gentlemen have also written a book together that is quite profound and should be of interest to anybody who cares about what is going on in the world: The New Tactics of Global War is available via amazon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

© The Contemplative Observer 2018

 

 

        

Has Today’s Unified Germany Become, De Facto, a Socialist One-Party State?

geeintes-deutschland

 

THE GREAT COMMUNIST DECEPTION OF 1989/91

It was in September of 1989, when Moscow’s East European satellite regimes were already crumbling at suspiciously neat four-to-six-week intervals and a possible reunification of the two German states came into sight, that British Prime Minister of the day, Margaret Thatcher, reminded then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev at a lunch meeting in the Kremlin:

We do not want a united Germany. This would lead to a change to postwar borders, and we cannot allow that because such a development would undermine the whole international situation and could endanger our security.

Events steamrolled the nations of Western Europe, including Britain, nonetheless, giving way — ultimately — not so much to renewed pan-Germanism, but to a reunified Germany as a jumping-board for Moscow to get hold of the entire European continent and to strategically isolate the United States in the process. It was exactly this intent that was repeatedly expressed in those days by Gorbachev as well as Shevardnadze in their demand for a “Common European Home from the Atlantic to Vladivostok” and a new system of “collective security” for Europe; in other words, they were, and still are, dreaming of and working towards an all-communist Eurasia.

As no one in the West seemed to be aware of the root cause of the events of 1989, which was simply communist longrange strategy in action as explained and foretold in detail by top Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn long before 1989, things suddenly took on new and completely unopposed dynamics, both in Europe and in the world. After all, according to the general consensus, communism had “died”.

The European Community became a considerably tighter European Union. U.S.-Soviet relations were being ever more extended. The United Nations too began to ever more vigorously push for international “harmonisation”, using mainly their insidious schemes of “anthropogenic global warming” and “sustainable development”. And, almost over night, “ex”-communists from “formerly communist” Eastern Europe and then the “former” Soviet Union itself came flooding the West as instant-“democrats”, instant-“entrepreneurs”, as artists, athletes and certainly crime lords and prostitutes in the millions. Not to forget the newly founded Gorbachev Foundation (according to Christopher Story, in fact the International Department of the CPSU and as such even the former Comintern in disguise), that soon was to put up its headquarters at the Presidio in San Francisco, influencing the United States’ elites ever since. Finally, there was the gradual emergence of yet another spectre: that of Islamist terrorism; like all terrorism worldwide, a creation by Moscow and Beijing (which sadly applies also for the terror attacks on 9/11).

No doubt Moscow had intended a dissolution of NATO in exchange for their fictitious dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. This did not come to pass, although communism has meanwhile succeeded in turning NATO, to paraphrase Mao Zedong, into a paper tiger. Furthermore, they had envisioned a German reunification at a distinctly later date and only on the basis of being a neutral, socialist state. In this they failed as well, for the moment, though Gorbachev clearly stated at the time that the communists would hug (Western) Europe to death.

But, and this is the special thing about communism, they kept on pushing and deceiving and manipulating as they had always done in the past, being flexible in their day-to-day approach, but at the same time relentlessly focussed on their final objective of complete communist world dominion. Communists can be aptly compared to a crazed fanatical cult: their false concept has long discredited itself by endless misery, starvation, terror and death in the dozens and dozens of millions; their “economic theory” never worked once and never will; and yet, they won’t let go of their “sacred” goal of world revolution. The late British analyst Christopher Story once nailed it in an interview conducted by Bill McIlhaney: “They’re all out of their own minds and are instead in Lenin’s mind; which is not a very nice place to be.” This makes communists so dangerous, as they are — few individual exceptions aside, who sometimes do abandon their madness — simply immune to reality, let alone truth! It’s a collective mental disorder or, as the Romanian pastor Richard Wurmbrand termed it, collective demonic possession (and he knew what he was talking about after many years of cruel internment and torture in the prisons of communist Romania: he saw from up close the outright Satanic dimension of so-called communism).

Ironically, within the boundaries of their bizarre belief system, the communists function very rationally and methodically and with great vigour, discipline and patience. Their view on historical processes, determined by the illusion of evolutionary “progress”, has led them to believe that not only was such progress the natural dialectical outcome of societal antagonisms, but even that through the skilled application of (construed) dialectics the progress of their revolution could be accelerated: Hegelian dialectics as a sorcerer’s wand to shape world history; to be more precise, to bring down human civilisation as quickly and completely as possible, and so under the anti-Christian banner of the Cult of Man.

And despite all this, and despite all the experience and historical record witnessed by the non-communist world ever since the October Revolution of 1917, it was naïvely decided in 1989 that maybe the communists were now indeed capable of changing and letting go of their idiotic ideology, and maybe their “reforms” under Gorbachev were sincere. They were not. Of course not. Communists don’t just abandon their communism and join their eternal enemy, the “imperialist capitalist oppressor”, in allegedly exploiting and oppressing the “international working class”. And neither was the ruling Party nomenklatura toppled and executed. They stayed in power as before, only with a new democratic/free-market mask on their same old rotten faces. It was all brilliant deception, and mysteriously world communism after its alleged demise even quickened its expansion, mainly in Africa and Latin America, but also, through a constant shift to the left of the political climate, in the industrialised world.

Gorbachev was constantly making clear at every opportunity, and also in his 1987 book Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World, that they, the communists, would never turn off the road of communism, that they were merely about to “reform” their system within the ideological framework of Marxism-Leninism, and that “perestroika” was a word with many meanings, but was meant basically to be a revolution, a second Russian Revolution that was also to transform the whole world.

“Perestroika” even had an historical precursor, after which it was modelled: Lenin’s so-called New Economic Policy (NEP), introduced in 1921. In both cases the West was lulled into believing that communist ideology was weakening and that the country was returning to sound economics and a free and democratic society. And, sure enough, in both cases the Soviet state made great leaps forward, so to speak, all achieved by lies and deception, and was able to compensate its own economic malaise and technological backwardness by loads of money and knowhow magically streaming in, or as Lenin had brutally put it: The capitalists would sell the communists the very rope on which they, the capitalists, would end up hanging.

But the West was so drunk with having supposedly won the Cold War (and the communists were of course nourishing those illusions) and with seeing in front of it breathtaking, wide vistas of unprecedented economic opportunities, that the lie of “collapsible communism” was indeed prematurely carved in stone and no additional thought given to the underlying script of the events of 1989/91. Duped and deprived of its image of the enemy, the free world jubilantly embarked on a dead-end road to certain suicide, with iconic master of ceremonies Gorbachev all too readily showing the way.  

 

THE GERMAN SITUATION PRIOR TO THE FALL OF THE BERLIN WALL

Ever since its formal foundation in 1949 and even by constitutional obligation, the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) had sought to overcome the political division into two German states. Yet, never would it have crossed the minds of Adenauer, Erhard or Kiesinger to sacrifice West Germany’s being a free society under the rule of law and strict checks and balances so in order to reach common ground with the communist East. On the contrary, the FRG didn’t even recognise the communist “German Democratic Republic” as a sovereign state, referring to it solely as the “Soviet Occupied Zone”, and rigorously claimed representation for all of Germany, East and West.

At least until 1972, when Moscow-friendly social democrat Willy Brandt (post-war Germany’s first socialist chancellor, who was also heavily involved with the Socialist International) set up with the East Germans the infamous Grundlagenvertrag (Basic Treaty), by which West Germany effectively granted East Germany full political recognition, along with the prospect of Wandel durch Annäherung (Change through Rapprochement), which sounded a bit like convergence on communist terms, given Willy Brandt’s great sympathies for the USSR (and that’s precisely what came to pass not only in the seventies under social democrat Chancellors Willy Brandt and Helmut Schmidt, but also in the eighties under conservative Chancellor Helmut Kohl). 

 

GOLITSYN’S WARNINGS — SUICIDALLY THROWN TO THE WIND…

The following paragraphs are taken from pages 165–167 of Anatoliy Golitsyn’s second book, The Perestroika Deception: The World’s Slide Towards the Second October Revolution — Memoranda to the Central Intelligence Agency (London, New York: Edward Harle Ltd., 1995). They are part of an April 30, 1993 memorandum titled “A Warning of the Perils of Partnership With Russian ‘Reformers’ and ‘Democrats'”. Golitsyn, born in 1926, had been living, ever since his defection from the Soviet KGB to the West in December of 1961, under witness protection in the United States. His profound knowledge of a pan-communist grand strategic longterm design to deceive the West mainly by a soon-to-unfold ruse of collapsible communism was greatly welcomed by chief of CIA counterintelligence, James Angleton. However, both Angleton and Golitsyn were later purged in 1974/75, when then-CIA Director William Colby effectively decapitated the CIA counterintelligence. Discredited and ostracised, Anatoliy Golitsyn nonetheless kept sending memoranda to the respective Directors of Central Intelligence, analysing current developments and warning ever more desperately of a nearing grand deception on the part of the communist bloc that would play on Western hopes for peace as well as expectations of commercial profit and simply remove the image of the enemy from the eyes of the West. In 1984, he then published his first book, New Lies for Old: The Communist Strategy of Deception and Disinformation (New York: Dodd & Mead), a veritable reference work that outlined the whole strategy of defeating the West by lies, subversion and subterfuge. As events began unfolding in 1989, Golitsyn was assessing in real-time what he had already been predicting with eerie accuracy throughout the sixties and seventies and, publicly, in New Lies for Old, giving clues as to what the communists were really up to and what the West should do to counter this much more dangerous phase of the revolution. Finally, in 1995, after the publication of The Perestroika Deception, Golitsyn gave up on his attempts to get his warnings across. He allegedly passed in late 2008, ironically weeks after the election of America’s first communist president. Here is that quote, that can’t be presented often enough (bold print by author Anatoliy Golitsyn/editor Christopher Story):  

Similarly, current and future Western aid for Russia will fail to deflect the Russian leaders from their long-term objectives of world hegemony which they will continue to pursue in concert with the Communist Chinese.

While US policymakers are mobilising massive Western support for Russia and building up optimistic expectations of the future for democracy there, the same Soviet strategists as before are quietly carrying out their strategy. As this analyst has argued in previous Memoranda and publicly in “New Lies for Old”, the late Academician Sakharov under the guise of a “dissident” was used as an unofficial mouthpiece of the former Soviet régime before being officially “rehabilitated” and lionised under Gorbachev’s “perestroika”. In the late 1960s he went some way towards expressing publicly the essence of Soviet strategy, though without revealing that the developments he foresaw were deliberately planned. He predicted that in the period 1968 to 1980 “a growing ideological struggle in the socialist countries between Stalinist and Maoist forces on the one hand and the realistic forces of leftist Leninist Communists (and leftist Westerners) on the other will lead… in the Soviet Union… first to a multi-Party system and acute ideological struggle and discussions and then to the ideological victory of the (Leninist) realists, affirming the policy of increasing peaceful coexistence, strengthening democracy and expanding economic reforms”.

The period 1972 to 1985 would be characterised by pressure from the progressive forces in the West combining with pressure from the example of the socialist countries to implement a programme of convergence with socialism, “i.e. social progress, peaceful coexistence and collaboration with socialism on a world scale and changes in the structure of ownership. This phase includes an expanded role for the intelligentsia and an attack on the forces of racism and militarism”. In 1972 to 1990, “the Soviet Union and the United States, having overcome their alienation, solve the problem of saving the poorer half of the world… At the same time disarmament will proceed”. In 1980 to 2000, “socialist convergence will reduce differences in social structure, promote intellectual freedom, science and economic progress, and lead to the creation of a World Government and the smoothing of national contradictions”.

All Sakharov’s main predictions have so far been fulfilled with the exception of Russian-American partnership in solving the problem of the poorer half of the world and the creation of a World Government. What Sakharov, like the present Russian leaders, clearly had in mind was East-West convergence on socialist terms leading to World Government dominated by the Russians and the Chinese.

But ignoring the long-term strategy behind the developments in Russia, US policymakers have plunged into partnership with the so-called “Russian reformers” without realising where this partnership is intended by them to lead.*

Sakharov foresaw World Government by the year 2000. The question may indeed be on the agenda within the next seven years. Within that period, if present trends continue, Russia, with Western help, may well be on the road to a technological revolution surpassing the Chinese Communist “economic miracle” without loss of political control by the present governing élite of “realistic Leninists”.

A campaign for a new system of World Government will be launched at Summit level and will be accompanied by pressure from below, the active use of agents of influence and secret assassinations of leaders who are seen as obstacles. The campaign will come as a surprise to the US Administration. In the ensuing negotiations, the US President of the day will find himself facing combined pressure from the Russians and the Chinese. The Chinese will by then have adopted a “reformed”, pseudo-democratic system. In the course of the negotiations the Russians and the Chinese will begin to reveal their true colours, their fundamental antagonism to the free world and the threat they represent to it. The US policy of partnership with Russia will be exposed as bankrupt. Internally in the United States this will lead to divisions, recriminations and a search for scapegoats. Externally, the reputation of the United States as the leader of the free world will be irreparably damaged and its alliances, particularly with countries like Japan which have been pressured into helping the Russians out, will be jeopardised.

The US President will find himself without the finest armed services in the world. Reformed and cut back by budget reductions based on mistaken assessments of long-term threats, the services will be equipped for handling regional conflicts but will be unprepared for global confrontation.

US intelligence and counter-intelligence, if they survive, will have lost any remaining effectiveness from continuing financial pressure and a campaign of revisionist allegations like those that the CIA and the FBI were involved respectively in the assassinations of President Kennedy and Dr Martin Luther King.

Too late it will be realised that there have been no equivalent reductions in the power and effectiveness of the Russian and Chinese armed forces or their intelligence and security services. A real swing in the balance of power in favour of a Sino-Soviet alliance vis-à-vis the free world will have taken place giving the Russian and Chinese a preponderant share in setting up the new World Government system and leaving the West with little choice but to compete with them in designing the New World Social Order. If the Russian leaders continue to demonstrate to the Russian people that they can successfully extract Western aid and contribute to signs of economic progress, the Russian people will follow them and, like the Chinese, will end up laughing with their leaders at the folly of the West.

* Note by editor Christopher Story: Penetration en masse by the “ex-“Soviet Republics of the international institutions  — the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, prospectively even the European Union — will survive the de facto extinguishing of the national Republics’ false political “independence”. The model for this is the UN membership of Byelorussia and Ukraine despite thier inclusion within the USSR. On 13 December 1994, “The Independent”, London, reminded its readers that “three months ago, Yevgeniy Primakov, the head of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, said in Moscow that, apart from the three Baltic Republics, the other 12 former Republics which belonged to the Soviet Union would largely reunite”.  

This was the strategic situation around the time of the German reunification and the overall “collapse of communism”. The suspiciously peaceful and smooth “collapse” was in reality a globally coordinated operation, as not only did communism seemingly go out of business in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, also Red China appeared to become ever more “pragmatically capitalist”, while — Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam aside — all other former communist countries around the world, including such places as Mongolia, Albania or Ethiopia, were now allegedly “free democracies” run by instant-“social democrats”, if not, in some cases, by faux instant-“nationalists”. Voilà! Communism had miraculously “evolved”, all by itself, into democratic, capitalist “post-communism”, with basically the same personnel leading the way towards “brighter days”, to a new, glorious dawn that was going to be as red as communism had ever been. But neither Presidents Reagan and Bush the Elder nor Prime Minister Thatcher nor Chancellor Kohl had been sufficiently cautioned by their advisors and intelligence experts. There are several reasons for this flat-out strategic blunder, but in any case — sadly, tragically and suicidally — the West was caught completely off guard. All lines of defence had failed. No one could see the elephant in the room. Gorbachev and his propagandists had successfully mesmerised them all.

 

GERMANY’S OWN LONG-TERM STRATEGY — IN COMPETITION WITH THE SINO-SOVIET GRAND DESIGN

Seen in retrospect, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl’s rapid push for immediate German unity was nothing but a catastrophic miscalculation. Eager to make use of what he saw as a brief window of opportunity for achieving a reunification of the two German states and certainly determined to immortalise himself as the architect of such unity, Kohl neither questioned the readiness of East-Germans to virtually overnight adapt to free market conditions (having lived for fourty years under socialist central planning) nor did he really care about the willingness (or unwillingness) of his fellow West Germans to take on the colossal burden of financing the urgent modernisation of East Germany’s outdated and unprofitable industries as well as hopelessly run-down infrastructure.

 

Kohl, a studied historian (but by no means an intellectual giant nor even an outstanding orator) and often referred to as “Adenauer’s grandson” (he indeed had throughout his political career a picture of Konrad Adenauer on his work desk), had his eyes fixed on “greater things”, whatever the cost. The late British analyst Christopher Story (“The European Union Collective”) was even convinced that both Adenauer (sometimes apostrophised as the “Old Fox”) and later Kohl (who was anything but a staunch conservative) were pursuing a continuing pan-German project “by other means” in an attempt to retroactively win World War II, without swastika or Nazi rhetoric or so much as a Führer. As early as 1942 (i.e., before Stalingrad and thus at a time when the war didn’t necessarily look lost for Germany yet), there was issued a strategy paper authored by Germany’s leading economists and industrialists focussing on an alternative way of getting hold of all of Europe, should the war indeed get lost: namely, by gradually setting up an economic, even political federation of all European nations, all of course under the control of Germany, all the way to a single European currency and a tightly centralised policy in all economic fields. Sound familiar? And guess what: The title of that 1942 paper was Europäische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft (i.e., European Economic Community)!

EWG, 1942

 

And, sure enough, after the end of the war, the old Nazi networks, that had never been effectively rooted out by “denazification”, were happily working on their same old project of a unified (German-controlled) Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. Here is, in full, a September 1950 (!) German secret memorandum of 23 book pages (known as the “Madrid Circular”), that was sent from a Madrid-based German geopolitical think-tank to other German planning departments, but was intercepted by Western intelligence (source: T.H. Tetens. Germany Plots with the Kremlin. New York: Henry Schuman, 1953. pp. 209-232. – Free PDF: part 1/2; part 2/2). For those who prefer to skip this document, this author’s elaborations continue further below:

SG 23

Top Secret!

The War in Korea and World Political Possibilities for Germany and Europe

1. The World Situation Five Years After Potsdam

The war in Korea has brought the world political situation to a climax with such momentum that we must reckon seriously with the possibility of a third world war. The repercussions and the impact of the Korea conflict are unforeseeable at the moment and no predictions can be made as to the possible turn of events.

Certain political and military factors stand out: Russia has used the five years’ interval since the end of the war to strengthen her military preparedness in an extraordinary manner, whereas the United States and the western coalition have neglected their military establishment. Among the unknown imponderables are the following: secret weapons, new tactics, planning for sabotage, extent of future destruction, choice of theaters of war, and of neutral zones.

The critical world situation compels unemotional and painstaking pondering of all these factors which, in a favorable or unfavorable manner, might influence the future of Germany and Europe. The war in Korea can bring great opportunities to Germany if she follows a prudent foreign policy; in fact, Germany has already gained many advantages thanks to the present war situation. Nonetheless, there is the danger that through false steps or through the chain reaction of events, the whole of Europe will be swamped by a tidal wave of unimaginable destruction. Such an event must be prevented at all cost. Everything today depends on a far-sighted, subtle and quick-shifting policy which must constantly bear in mind not only the future of Germany, but the destiny of Europe as a whole. We must, by all means, prevent a development whereby Europe will be destroyed between the Russian and the American millstones.

2. The Role of Germany and Europe in the Present Crisis

Not merely Germany, but the whole of Europe has been bled white and is not now in a position to act as a decisive factor in world politics. The aim of German policy, and that of Europe as a whole, must be to remain neutral in any new world conflict no matter the circumstances. This is especially important for Germany for she still has a long way to go until she can regain her political freedom and her economic strength to the fullest extent. Germany has exploited the tension between the East and the West to the utmost and she must continue her efforts in that direction. She must endeavor to influence discreetly the shaping of the future. Not only is it decisive how Germany acts in her own interest, but she in turn is also greatly affected by the policies of the other European powers. England and France today are perhaps more dependent on the United States than the still occupied West German Republic.

Europe, on the one hand, is today in an unenviable strategic position, but, on the other hand, it enjoys the advantage of being the geopolitical center astride the Soviet colossus and the U.S.A. Present circumstances make it therefore necessary for Europe to be on guard against both sides in order to avoid being swallowed up by one of the two colossi. The dollar imperialism is certainly in no way less aggressive or reckless than communism. The British and French, although former “allies” and “victors” feel the impact of that arrogant dollar diplomacy to a greater extent than we Germans whose sympathy they (USA) hope to gain.

Today Western Europe is relegated to the role of a satellite acting on behalf of America. Schuman in France, and Bevin in England, dance to the tune of the piper in Washington. Europe is being used as the playground for the impudent and shameless dollar diplomacy. Thanks to their solid political education, middle class and labor in Germany have been able to grasp the whole situation in time. Occasionally there arises in France and England resentment against the United States also, but, unfortunately, it is too often linked with attacks against Germany.

During the forthcoming months, Germany’s foreign policy must be geared to a subtler exploitation of the conflict between the eastern and western blocs. Our aim in the immediate future must be to regain full sovereignty for Western Germany which will eventually result in the restoration of freedom of action to the whole of Europe. With accelerated speed we are approaching the point at which we must liberate Europe from American control. It is Germany’s task to take the lead in this campaign. It is up to us to determine the method and the timing.

There is the danger that France or England — perhaps even both jointly — will return to an independent policy. One or the other of these powers might come to an agreement with Russia and, in either case, this would be at the expense of Germany and the United States. Such a possibility must be avoided at all cost. Germany must remain the decisive factor in European politics and it is up to her to give the word at the right time.

German foreign policy must be directed with a view to steering Europe clear from another world conflict. Conditions for such policy are favorable. The European nations long for peace. The self-interests of France and England categorically demand that a new holocaust must be avoided. The interests of the Vatican run along the same lines. Our paramount attention must be devoted to the preservation of German strength and its native potential (“Erhaltung der deutschen Substanz”). World political events could take such a turn that a situation may emerge in which Russia, North America and a great part of Asia may become the battleground for a third world war, whereas Europe might be spared. Were Russia to give a guarantee to the European countries that she would abstain from attacking them, then the whole of Europe could take a neutral stand in the event of a conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union. The prevalent mood in every country of Europe is against war, and in England broad masses of the people are convinced that the next war will be one provoked by America. If, therefore, we were to succeed in obtaining from Russia a guarantee that she would respect the neutrality of Europe, then the United States could be confronted with a similar demand, and the war could thus be confined to the territories of both great victorious powers and their vassals. In this manner, German strength (deutsche Substanz) and the resources of Europe would be safeguarded against annihilation. Such an outlook may seem fantastic at the moment, but the policy recommended (“realpolitische Zielsetzung”) is the only realistic one which should be followed by Europe today. A war of exhaustion between Russia and America, in which Europe could be spared, would automatically result in the upsurge of a third power bloc. If the continent of Europe succeeds in preserving its strength, it would thus regain the leadership in the world. There are reliable reports that such a policy would have the quiet but vigorous support of the Vatican. It is entirely to the interest of the Roman Catholic Church to see to it that the Orthodox Slavs (“schismatisches Slaventum”) and the predominant Protestant North American continent, must be weakened for a long time to come.

In view of the present world political situation (“realpolitische Lage”), the policy of orientation towards the West has lost all meaning or sense. A conscious policy of neutrality, going hand in hand with close economic cooperation with the East, would, from a long range point of view, supersede a merely pro-Soviet orientation. The former would finally bring about our freedom, while the last would keep us in the status of vassals.

We must not forget that Germany has always considered orientation towards the West as a policy of expediency or one to be pursued only under pressure of circumstances. Such was the case in Napoleon’s time, after 1918, and also after 1945. All of our great national leaders have constantly counseled the long-range policy of close cooperation with the East; thus, Frederick the Great, Count von Stein, Bismarck, von Seeckt, Brockdorff-Rentzau, and, in the past 30 years, all our leading geopoliticians. By the end of 1940, Hitler’s policy had run into a blind alley (“Zwangslage”), and the hard decision had to be made to ensure by means of the sword access to the gigantic sources of raw materials in the East, which Russia would never have delivered voluntarily, and without which we never could expect to force a showdown against the Anglo-American bloc.

Our present policy must be to overcome the consequences of our previous mistakes. An emasculated Germany should never allow itself to be used as a spearhead in an attack against the Russian colossus. This would be an insane act (“Wahnsinnsexperiment”) and would spell our final doom, whereas Germany as the exponent of European neutrality could gain far-reaching concessions from the Soviets. As we have pointed out again and again, the Russians have no desire whatsoever to burden themselves with all the difficulties and complex problems of Europe; they would consider a neutral and well-intentioned Europe, exerting its influence also on the Arab world and Latin America, as the best solution.

We must not let ourselves become befogged by Washington’s stupid and meaningless slogans about the “Struggle of Democracy versus Communism.” The so-called American democracy does not deserve the sacrifice of the bones of even a single German soldier.In the age of regimented and militarized economy, the babbling about democracy and so-called “free enterprise” is such nonsense that we need not squander a single moment in refuting this American propaganda swindle.

What Germany needs in the future is not democracy but a system of statecraft similar to that of the Soviet dictatorship which would enable the political and military elite in Germany to organize the industrial capacity of Europe and the military qualities of the German people for the revival of the German race and the re-establishment of Europe as the power center in the world.

3. Korea -—A Risky Gamble for Washington

American intervention in Korea is dangerous playing with fire. It could easily become the beginning of a third world war. Up to now Moscow has shown great restraint but it is difficult to guess what is shaping up behind the facade of the accelerated “peace offensive.” The Americans have staked their whole prestige on the gamble in Korea. Even if the Americans should succeed in maintaining a foothold on the southern tip of the peninsula* (* According to this, the memorandum was evidently prepared before the Inchon landing by MacArthur in mid-September, 1950.) for an undetermined period of time, they would find it difficult to pull out of the Korean adventure without damage to their prestige. After committing herself to intervention, the United States would not be able to pull out; she would have to show the world her determination to bring about her world order. From the military-strategic point of view, the Korean undertaking entails the greatest risk. Were war with Russia to break out tomorrow, then the Yankees (“Amis”) would find themselves caught in the Korean mousetrap. However, from the political point of view, the Korean intervention — camouflaged as a U. N. undertaking — is a very bold move: it isolated Russia and at one stroke created a world coalition of the United Nations against Communism. If the Korean conflict were to expand tomorrow into a world war, then fifty nations would automatically be lined up on the side of the United States against the Soviet bloc. An extraordinarily clever feat!

There is, however, one doubtful element in American planning: do the interests of all countries, great and small, the European as well as the Asian, conform with those of the United States? There are indications that the British have supported United States policy in Korea only halfheartedly. If the Americans are thrown out of Korea, then British prestige in the whole of Asia would suffer; but even if the Yankees should prove victorious, then the hatred of all Asia would be roused with the same intensity against the British as against the Americans. The British view with great distaste the clumsy hand of Washington meddling in their Asiatic affairs. London remembers with great bitterness the noisy pro-Indian propaganda carried on in the United States during the war. London realizes that not Russia but the United States must be blamed as the gravedigger of the British Empire. The United States entered the world war supposedly to save England, but worked with great zeal to junk the British Empire.

The motives for the American adventure in Korea are still shrouded in mystery, but this much is known: Washington waited long for a good opportunity to put its economy on a war footing and to accelerate her mobilization with full speed. The effects of this step on world economy and its political consequences become clearer and clearer day by day: in the course of total mobilization for war, not much will be left of “democracy.”

4. The Political and Military Strength of the United States

Reliable observers in the United States have pictured the present state of affairs in that country as follows:

The United States economy is not ready for war. Stockpiling of essential raw materials has only been pursued to a moderate extent. From the military point of view, the United States is not in best trim. Its armed forces are limited and extremely expensive; units ready for combat are barely available; the machinery of the various military services is luxurious and marked by squander and misadministration. The United States is by no means ready for war and has not even entered the phase of secret mobilization. Washington politics show all signs of confusion. There is no real planning, nothing has been thoroughly studied nor has anything been organized from a longrange point of view. According to reports received from the States, the Yankees (“Amis”) have a lot to learn. Even in leading military circles there are abysmal illusions in regard to Russia’s economic and military strength.

The United States can consider itself very lucky if the war remains confined to Korea. Should Russia desire war, then this would be a most opportune moment for it. Some incident or other could easily be brought about; but for Europe it would be a catastrophe. Today the Yankees (“Amis”) have political headaches in every nook and cranny of the world. They are not only trapped in Korea, but they are also worried by the uncertain and hectic developments in China, Japan, Iran, Germany, Yugoslavia, Turkey and Africa. There are deep-rooted differences with Great Britain and France and, above all, the Russian bear is poised to spring at any moment.

The cowboys in the arena of world politics have gorged themselves in all respects. Although they can throw billions of dollars around, they do not possess top-notch statesmen, planners, military leaders, scientists, nor a people willing to make sacrifices and capable of accomplishing great historic feats. They do not even have an attractive ideal. The crux of American miscalculation is the belief that allies can be bought with dollars. Alliances are not cemented with ideologies but rest squarely on common interests. Alliances too are respected as long as interests remain mutual. But America’s interests do not run parallel with those of Asia or Europe, not even with those of Britain or Latin America. The slogan which stirs the world today is the word “anticapitalism.”

The American people, who were untouched by the destructive course of two world wars, are constantly plagued by a guilty conscience. They are bothered by a gnawing doubt as to whether they always make the right decisions. Too often have they miscalculated and, when something goes wrong, they easily fall victim to a hangover. Great decisions can only be made by a well-prepared people with strong nerves. This is the real reason why Americans have an inferiority complex when dealing with us Germans. The Amis in Germany realize that we Germans possess worthier qualities. No wonder then that high-ranking American officers in Germany and in Washington long for German rearmament. They would certainly feel much better if Germany would, within a short time, put 50 to 80 divisions at their disposal.

The higher the difficulties pile up for the Americans, the more favorable become our prospects for successfully overcoming our defeat. The Yankees are willing to pay a high price for our help. This is clear from all confidential reports which we have obtained from circles close to the American High Commissioner.

5. Has Germany an Obligation towards the United States?

Germany has emerged from the cold war as the chief beneficiary. That is our great asset in the ledger of the 5-year period since Potsdam. For the first time in the history of nations it has been proven that clever propaganda, especially when it is camouflaged and directed through other channels,* (* Cf. our confidential report of May 1948: “The Vatican as a political factor in the cold war.” ) accomplishes far more than the mightiest army or the best diplomatic service of a smoothly-functioning state. It is a great mistake to assume that Western Germany recuperated so quickly thanks to America’s sympathetic concern for us. We repeatedly encounter, especially as expressed by some politicians in Bonn, the idiotic opinion: “But the Americans have put us back on our feet, should we therefore not show our gratitude?” To this our answer is as follows: The Americans put us back on our feet, not purely for altruistic reasons but for their selfish interests and on the basis of clever calculation. It must not be our worry but theirs if in the last resort their calculations prove to be abysmally stupid. We are not wholly innocent in the shift of America’s postwar policy. For us the war has never stopped and, as is well known, in war every ruse is permissible. We cannot repeat too often that Germany never has ceased to carry on the war with political weapons and propaganda, with economic sabotage and other means. In order to protect Germany against total destruction of its military and economic potentials, as planned at Yalta, we blueprinted a bold plan and created a flexible and smoothly-working organization which, at the end of the war, provided the pre condition for all the gains that by necessity emerged for Germany out of the chaos of the postwar period. All our calculations at that time were not fulfilled without a hitch. Some of our expectations proved faulty. We had to sail around dangerous cliffs and the German people had to suffer for a while even under conditions deliberately created by ourselves. It even seemed at times as though every effort was in vain and that all our hopes had to be given up. Today, however, five years after Potsdam, we can look back with pride on our accomplishments.

Future historians will one day reveal the great vision with which responsible leaders of the Third Reich created with confident determination those measures which subsequently smashed the united front of the enemy and made Germany again a much-desired partner in a new politico-strategic alliance. And all this was accomplished at the time when German leaders had to go through the severe crisis of the oncoming defeat. By no means did the political and military leadership of the Third Reich skid into the catastrophe in an irrational manner as so many blockheads and ignoramuses often tell us. The various phases and consequences of the so-called “collapse” (“Zusammenbruch”) were thoroughly studied and planned by the most capable experts (“faehigsten Koepfen”). Nothing occurred by chance; everything was carefully planned. The result of this planning was that, already a few months after Potsdam, the condition of the victors went on the rocks.

The decision for a Western or Eastern orientation was influenced by the factors of Realpolitik. In the light of conditions prevailing in 1945, we could expect from only the West — or rather from the United States — moderate conditions for an armistice, measures of relief, and a sympathetic understanding. Only in America did there exist at that time a small but influential group who had not fallen victim to the hate and revenge outcry of the Jewish triumvirate Rosenfeld *-Morgenthau-Baruch (* The name “Rosenfeld” refers to the late President Roosevelt. It was frequently used by the Nazis, who tried to show in their propaganda that the President was a descendant of a Dutch Jewish family. ), but had maintained in a well-concealed but consistent manner throughout the war its sympathy for Germany.

The machinery which we had prepared so carefully in advance had consciously brought about conditions and situations which after the collapse confronted America’s political leaders with the choice of accepting chaos and Bolshevism throughout Germany, or adopting a constructive program that would save Germany and the whole of Europe. Such a plan and such a bold program could only be successfully carried out by a politically well-trained people as the Germans. The twelve years of intense political schooling now proved to have been of paramount importance. When we take into consideration under what tremendous difficulties and dangers the organization had to work in an underground manner and directed from abroad without any protection or backing by any state, carefully watched and persecuted by agents of a revengeful enemy, then the successful outcome seems like a miracle. In order to bring the Americans back to reason and away from Potsdam, we organized chaotic conditions in a thorough and systematic manner (“haben wir mit gruendlicher Systematik das Chaos organisiert”). It was a subtle political resistance, seemingly unorganized and seldom visible, but nonetheless having a deadly effect. The peasants were delivering almost next to nothing to the cities; no coal was brought up from the pits, the wheels of industry were not turning, the people came near to starvation; the monetary systems were disintegrating — there remained nothing for the Yankees to do but to give in and scrap the Potsdam program. Soon thereafter the Western Zone received food supplies, local self-government, extensive economic help, credits for currency reform and, finally, broad political self-determination. Today we are on the last stage towards complete sovereignty.

Through superb planning and disciplined use of the political weapon of quiet resistance, the German people have brought to naught the plans for revenge of the victors. By forcing the Americans to give in, the first broad cracks were caused in the Yalta and Potsdam agreements. As a consequence, not only did the front of our enemies break wide apart, but the Soviets too were forced to abandon their mad program of destruction in Eastern Germany. Thus it was proven that the excellent political skill and remote control of a welltrained people can score such great successes even after total military defeat as have never before been recorded in history. This could only have been achieved by the leaders of the Third Reich through superb planning in the realm of psychological and political warfare within the United States before and even during the war.

Just as Clausewitz declared that war is merely an extension of action by other means, so the German people continued the war after the “collapse” by propaganda and other means. Despite sacrifice and hardship, the German people won this political war along the whole front. It is our great asset in the ledger of geopolitical schooling and planning that five years after Potsdam, the aims of our enemies have been abandoned, Germany’s strength has been preserved, and the Fatherland can look forward to a revival rich in possibilities.

The revival of Germany was not a gift of the Americans but exclusively the result of our own farsighted planning. The first overwhelming success of this planning was achieved through our wellorganized anti-Morgenthau campaign. We thereby succeeded in undermining Roosevelt’s plans of revenge against Germany and created total confusion in Washington. By keeping Germany industrially strong and by gaining the support of influential senators and representatives in the American Congress for our propaganda against the dismantling of large industrial enterprises, we finally succeeded in preserving Germany as the leading industrial power in the heart of Europe. Thus the plans of Potsdam and Yalta came to naught and the period of the cold war began which developed into a struggle between the East and the West on the decisive question as to who should exploit German industry and within whose orbit Germany’s industrial potential should be incorporated. In this way, Germany gained valuable time for further maneuvering. Thus, without a doubt, the correctness of our earliest planning was proved, which anticipated that orientation towards the West would open up great possibilities for the speedy overcoming of our military defeat. In 1945, orientation towards the East would have been totally wrong. It could only have stirred up the West against us and, in view of the deep-rooted hatred of the Russians at that time against everything German, it would have brought common action of our enemies against us and would have spelled “finis” to all our aspirations. Thanks, however, to our correct decisions, the situation has changed entirely today. We are now once again in the position to influence the turn of events — today we are again making history.

Five years after Potsdam, the Yankees are stuck deep in the mud; they are now seeking the advice of our generals whom they formerly called criminals; they come pleading for our help against Russia. That of which we could never convince the world, namely: the injustice of the policy of revenge, was finally accomplished by the Americans themselves who, speculating on German help, have propounded the necessity for a revision of policy toward Germany. They have even convinced the French and the English of this.

The helplessness of the Americans in the midst of this chaotic situation has caused such confusion that, barely five years after Potsdam, we have obtained as much as — according to the most optimistic calculations — we had hoped to attain in only ten to fifteen years.

6. The Expellees (“Die Heimatvertriebenen”).

The millions of expellees have to be regarded as a valuable trumpcard in our policy towards the restoration of German power. When our enemies were drunk with victory, they did not recognize the danger of their short-sighted policy of revenge which might one day arise from the banishment of millions of people. The expulsion of 10 million German racial comrades (“Volksdeutschen”) was a blessing for the Reich. The expellees strengthened the biological substance of our race (“verstaerkten die deutsche Volkssubstanz”) and from the beginning they became a valuable asset to our propaganda. The expellees, discontented with their fate, infused a strong political dynamism in our demands. Very soon we were able to drown out the noisy propaganda about German “crimes” with our counter accusation about the heinous misdeeds (“zum Himmelschreiende Unrecht”) committed against 10 million German racial comrades. Today the existence of many millions of expellees constantly troubles the guilty conscience of our enemies. Without the pressing problem of the expellees it would certainly not have been so easy to set American relief work in motion on behalf of Germany. The refugees from the East constitute a valuable factor in our coming negotiations with Russia, especially if we will one day demand the return of the stolen territories in the East, or if we should insist on adequate compensation in the West.

Those Eastern refugees who settle overseas usually turn out to be good missionaries for our Germandom abroad. They constitute, even in countries far away, an asset for the German race, especially if they stay together in close settlements.

The distress of the refugees has created a common political ground among all Germans, regardless of political affiliation. The demand for the restitution of the stolen German territories keeps our political agitation alive. The militant elements among the refugees are working according to the best traditions of National Socialism, whereas the broad masses among the expellees are kept close together in welldisciplined homeland organizations (“landsmannschaftlichen Organisationen”).

If the enemy would have kept our racial comrades after the war as second-class citizens, or even as defranchised subjects in Poland, in Czechoslovakia and in other regions, it would be far more difficult for us today to bring the territorial issue of the east on the agenda again. The expulsion of millions of our racial comrades provides us with a heaven-sent opportunity to exacerbate the problem of the bleeding border (“blutende Grenze”) and to hammer constantly for its revision.

7. Weltanschauung and World Power Politics

The great historical accomplishment which overshadows every other deed of Adolf Hitler was his decision, carried out with iron energy, to condition the German people into fighting for their great world political task. The necessity to educate a whole nation for total war had been recognized long before Hitler, but Hitler was the first one who tackled the tremendously difficult problem of getting a firm hold on the people and of organizing them into a unified movement on the basis of National Socialism.

The training which the German nation received during the twelve years of National Socialist leadership has created a firm basis on which German world politics will be able to carry on again in the future. The National Socialist Weltanschauung furnishes the intellectual potential (“geistiges Potential”) in the struggle for world supremacy.

The future of the world will be decided by the conquering force of a political ideology. “Democracy” is a wishy-washy term which has found no ear among the German people, notwithstanding the efforts made by the Americans for re-education. No German is willing to fight and die for democracy. The German people, well-trainedand steeled under national socialist leadership, are dominated by two sovereign ideas: the concept of a German Reich, and Germany’s mission of leadership in the world (“deutsche Fuehrermission in der Welt”). These two ideas have given our people a powerful driving force for the dynamic execution of their world mission. The mystical element and the religious tradition embodied in the concept of the Reich, sparks our political mission and is especially attractive within the Catholic world.* (* Obviously, this refers to the thousand-year history of the “Holy Roman Empire.” There were times when the secular power of the Empire and the spiritual power of the Church interpenetrated each other.)

Even after the collapse, the National Socialist Party continued to work in a camouflaged way (“getarnt”) in dozens of seemingly innocuous societies and groups, in order to keep alive and undiluted the national outlook of the German people. In the same way as many small brooks go toward making a mighty stream, the various nationalistic and radical groups in the Zonen-Reich carried out, almost without exception, worth-while and powerful propaganda. Each of these groups had its special task and had to adjust its work in line with certain situations and circumstances. However, it was of chief importance to direct the underlying trend of the patriotic propaganda towards the same goal. The more diverse and unconnected these groups appeared on the surface, the less they were apt to arouse suspicion (of the Occupying authorities) that they were directed and influenced by a central organization.

We have placed our confidential agents, observers, and representatives for special assignments in all groups and parties-even among Communist organizations and their fronts. The greater the number of organizations controlled and influenced by us, the more effective will be the results of our work.

The discontinuation of the Nationalist-Socialist press after the collapse deprived us of the most important weapon for national indoctrination. Secret circular letters and leaflets reach only a limited number of party comrades who, in most cases, already knew the directives to be followed and propagated in given situations. The victors had tried to suppress every expression of national feeling. They filled the editorial offices of the licensed newspapers with Jews and traitors. Nonetheless, there were some periodicals which-first abroad and then in the Zonen-Reich-did their best to fight courageously and frankly, sometimes in a cleverly camouflaged manner, for the national interests of Germany.

Praiseworthy work was accomplished by the German press in South and North America. In the past few years some papers in the English and American Zones achieved excellent results in line with our great national aim. The political articles in Die Zeit of Hamburg, and the intelligent advice given by the paper on delicate domestic problems deeply influenced the political thinking of the German people.

In Argentina, Der Weg and the Freie Presse have striven in an extraordinary manner to create a distinct political approach among Germans abroad, as well as in the Zonen-Reich.

The German press in North America, especially the New York Staats Zeitung, proved of great value in battling the hate-psychosis and in its efforts to re-establish close German-American relations. There are also numerous small papers in the United States which, in the midst of the most intense German hate-wave, interceded bravely and fought with unbelievable courage for the resurrection of a united fatherland.

It was most difficult for the German press to deal delicately with the events of July 20, 1944. The less these events are discussed, the better it will be for Germany’s future. A split among the German people on this question would prove disastrous. There are many angles which obviously cannot as yet be discussed openly. There were thousands who had reason, or were even ordered to protect themselves by camouflaging as “anti-Nazis” (“Hitlergegner”). Persons who were at that time reported as having been shot are still among the living today. Let us also bear in mind that Dr. Ley’s statement about the “blue-blooded swine” * (* This term “blue-blooded swine” was used by Dr. Ley in an inciting speech and refers to those aristocratic circles which were supposedly involved in the plot against Hitler’s life on July 20, 1944.) served the definite purpose of deceiving the enemy. Our leaders must see to it that the ever-recurring discussions about the events of the 20th of July be either stopped or, if possible, passed over lightly. Previous directives remained valid; no information whatsoever should be revealed about the background of that affair.

The convulsive effects of the military defeat have not broken the German spirit. The national tradition is carefully fostered among the youth and the veterans. The biological substance of the German people remained unshaken in its foundation. Our people are ready to be called upon for historic decisions. A nation which has lost two world wars in the short span of 30 years but is already again conscious of its future tasks, can never be defeated. National training and political schooling have conditioned the German people as a first-class instrument for the execution of world politics on a grand style. No other people on earth has such political maturity, fanatical faith, ironclad willpower and flexibility in tactics — not merely to overcome defeat but also to start again from scratch. German tradition and belief in a world mission uplifts the whole German nation. Everyone feels within his deepest consciousness that the great national task — the struggle for world domination — will ultimately be crowned with victory.

The Wehrhoheit  ( “Wehrhoheit” is the German term describing a country’s exclusive prerogativeto determine the size and disposition of its armed forces.) is the chief characteristic of the independence of a state and the freedom of its actions. A nation which has lost its Wehrhoheit is no longer free. After the first world war the victor permitted the Reich a limited Wehrmacht, but our whole national struggle up to 1935 centered around the question of the re-establishment of a German Wehrhoheit. Only then, when we shall again be able to determine in unhampered freedom whether and to what extent we shall rearm ourselves, and when and against whom we may use our armed forces, will we have regained our Wehrhoheit.

We, in all probability, will have attained Wehrhoheit as a result of German rearmament, which will not only be permitted but even urgently desired by the Western powers. The problem of the reestablishment of a German Wehrmacht is a delicate one and requires great cleverness and astute statesmanlike minds in order to make the correct decisions at the right time.

Germany must concentrate all its efforts on regaining her Wehrhoheit. Washington’s obstinate efforts to rearm the West German Federal Republic and to make it a strong military partner, within or outside the Atlantic Pact, come as no surprise. In previous circular letters we have frequently mentioned the plans of influential American circles who, even in the midst of war, opposed Roosevelt’s policy of revenge and who strongly advocated the preservation of a mighty Germany as a bulwark against the East. The turn of historic events has, however, shown that all the hopes which German leadership placed in the friendly intentions of these personalities in the United States were grossly exaggerated. The systematically whipped up hatred toward Germany incited the American people so thoroughly that those personalities — high ranking military, church leaders, politicians, and captains of finance — who were working for a policy of reconciliation, could express their views only with the utmost circumspection and execute it through time-consuming detours.

The American policy of reconciliation with Germany was very advantageous because it gave us a breathing spell at the very beginning; it was precisely this policy which smashed the allied front. Moscow’s goal was the annihilation of the German power-potential — military, political and economic — for good. Yalta proclaimed the aim of a brutal peace Diktat which left the vanquished no hope of revival. To our great misfortune three influential men in commanding positions in the West advocated the same idea of annihilation: Roosevelt, Morgenthau and Baruch. These men were joined by the German-hater Churchill. Only Roosevelt’s death opened the way to those forces who advocated a positive or, at least, a more moderate program towards Germany, and whose blueprints for a postwar world were entirely opposed to those of Roosevelt. These circles recognized in the Russian victory a strengthening of Communism, and they feared its complications and the shattering effects it entailed for the capitalistic system. These considerations resulted in a plan — first formulated secretly in Washington and later openly discussed, aiming at the creation of a united Europe as a bulwark against Russia with the proviso that a strengthened and rearmed Germany be incorporated in such a combination. What the Americans therefore now expect from us are combat units and the manufacture of war material. That is why Washington, right from the beginning, was not in favor of dismantling the German war potential.

What consequences can be expected for Germany from Washington’s present policy? At first we gained great advantages from America’s policy. The Morgenthau plan was never really executed; instead, the Americans endeavored to make Western Germany a strong economic, and now even a military bulwark against the East. The help we obtained from America after the war — and this for egotistic and not for altruistic reasons — will bring us to a point where its further acceptance might create great danger for Germany. We are now approaching this point with giant strides. The Americans fondly hope that we will one day repay with our blood all the benefits we received from them. They want us to sign a pact whereby we, as mercenaries and vassals, will back American power politics. The West German Republic cannot and must never give its consent to such a tieup, which is already proscribed by our exposed geographic position (“exponierte geopolitische Lage”). The American plan would make Germany the spearhead of an attack at the heart of Russia. Germany would thereby become the battlefield in a war of annihilation from which nothing would be spared of the German biological substance. A German statesman who would lend his help to such a criminal act would thus stamp himself automatically as a traitor of the German people. However long we may continue to milk the Americans of millions of dollars, there must come the inevitable moment when we shall have to make it crystal-clear to them that we are not willing to join the fight against Russia for American interests. There probably is no danger that we shall become hated by the Yankees for this because they are businessmen and understand very well that we will act only in accordance with our own interests.

How should Germany proceed diplomatically in the present situation? It is openly stated in Washington that Europe cannot be defended without German help. The Americans are becoming insistent and we must give them some hope, but we must at the same time point to the fact that the German people are hesitant and not inclined to defend Europe so long as Germany is treated as a defeated nation. By constantly squeezing concessions out of the victors, we can best prepare the way towards the re-establishment of our Wehrhoheit. During the coming weeks and months we must extract the utmost in concessions. We will therefore not be able to avoid making promises. It is of the greatest importance for the resumption of Germany’s respected standing in the world to fight for the re-establishment of German honor. We have to undo the shame of the judgments motivated by revenge (Nuremberg War Crimes Trial, etc.), which the victors executed on the military and civic leaders of the Third Reich. The offerings which the Americans could make in this respect would cost them nothing. To save a few dozen brave men from the gallows and to free a few hundred from the prisons, should not prove too difficult to accomplish if the Bonn Government would take a resolute stand. To obtain such a token of friendship from the Yankees, we could even give them some promises. But there is a difference between mere promises and such commitments as would bind us irrevocably. We must ultimately remain free in our decisions towards all sides, even if we are obliged for reasons of expediency to agree formally to such obligations. We should reap all advantages but never commit ourselves. The Yankees need us today more urgently than ever before. Clever political tactics today could bring about the conditions for the definite acknowledgment of our Wehrhoheit but it must not lead so far that, in case of a showdown, we would have to pull Washington’s chestnuts out of the fire. We must pursue Realpolitik, i.e., our honor must be restored and we must regain freedom.

Prospects for the Future

The international unrest and the tension between the East and the West have greatly facilitated execution of our plans up till now. The surprising and rapid revival of the German economy and the debate on the Schuman Plan have, however, prematurely focused the attention of the world on a resurrected Germany. The war in Korea served as a desired diversion. The fact that the Americans would now like us to join them in the defense of Europe and become their ally will thereby enhance our bargaining power with the Russians. The Americans have lost the peace, the cold war, and their entire future, but they are not as yet aware of it. After the failure of their amateurish policies in Asia, the Americans will one day experience a far more painful and devastating smashup in Europe (“einen noch weit peinlicheren Kladderadatsch in Europa”). The outcome will be as we predicted as long ago as 1944: they will rouse the whole world against them. Those dollar-diplomats and cowboys are too untalented to cope with the problem of world politics (Weltpolitik). Their silly chatter that American troops are in Germany for the purpose of protecting occidental Kultur is so idiotic that it could not make the slightest impression even on the most humble stableboy in Germany. We should grab a few more billions from the Yankees’ huge dollar-chest and then kick them out (eines Tages an die frische Luft setzen), or simply hand them over to the Russians. A few little hints and threats would perhaps make them scram in time (zum rechtzeitigen Abzug bewegen).

The first phase of our policy of disruption (Sprengungspolitik) is behind us. America’s financial assistance can never bring about a permanent solution; on the contrary, it will cause enfeeblement and lead to general corruption. These unpleasant by-products are becoming visible in France and Britain to an ever-increasing greater degree than in truncated Germany. The dollar-diplomats behave as though they were the true lords in the salons of Europe. Germany lost her sovereignty as a consequence of the military defeat. Paris and London, however, sold their birthright for a mess of pottage (“verkauften ihr Hausrecht gegen Dollaranleihen”).

The struggle against American bossing (Bevormundung) of Europe will become Germany’s main task in the future. We must not merely strive to shake off the shackles with which Washington has bound us, and labor to regain our freedom of action in the East, but we must also prepare the whole of Europe for our future mission in the world. A well-filled breadbasket, sufficient sources of raw material and the necessary geopolitical space for strategic maneuvering (“Ausweichmoeglichkeiten im geopolitischen Raum”) will one day prove more than ever before to be the most important factors in deciding Europe’s struggle for world mastery.

The strategy of breaking the chains of our enthrallment (Fesselnsprengen) is sometimes more daring and dangerous than the most dashing feat in war. We could, for instance, visualize that through secret negotiations with Moscow a situation would be brought about whereby the Yankees could overnight be eliminated as a power factor in Europe. Such a scheme of course always contains an element of grave danger. Not that such a plan would be impossible of execution, but there is always the question how far the Russians are to be trusted.

Other schemes would be preferable from a long-range point of view. We are passing through an interim period of a profound change in international power relations. Everywhere there emerges the desire for a new order and an outspoken aversion against dollar diplomacy. In this extended transitory period, it should prove possible for Germany to build up a new political bloc (“neue politische Einheit”) out of Europe, Africa and Latin America (“Iberoamerika”). The economic advantages and the political possibilities in such a new power combination would put the United States against the wall. It would then depend entirely on our diplomatic and propaganda finesses when and how we would take over an America enfeebled by its foreign and domestic policies. Such a plan would have the advantage of preventing a third world war fought between United States capitalism and the Soviet bloc — a war which would have the most destructive consequences for the Western world. Such a design would still guarantee for some time the preservation of the resources of the Western world and then, greatly strengthened, we will enter — under Germanic leadership — the phase of a final showdown, between the white race and the slavic world. In the event of such a showdown, we must endeavor to bring to our side the Arab bloc and as many of the Asiatic peoples as possible. Germany is in the fortunate position of not having aroused the hatred of Asia. There we can step in as the leading spokesman for the underdog.

The tenacious work of enlightenment carried out by Germany and Italy in the Arab world is now bearing fruit. Anti-British and anti-American resentment is gaining momentum in the entire Middle East. Britain will not long be able to keep its hold on the Suez Canal, nor maintain her influence in Iran and the rest of the Middle East. The coming revolt of the Arab world will prove another setback for the amateurish world planners in Washington.

A correct evaluation of the Russian problem is important for Germany’s future. World War II clearly proved that Germany was not in a position to mobilize the necessary manpower and the tremendous economic reserves to deal the knockout blow which would have destroyed the Slav world forever. Our surprising successes in the Polish and Western campaigns lured our political and military leaders into the belief that they could quickly overrun the Russian armies. And it was demonstrated anew how foolish it was to disregard the wise admonition of Bismarck who, throughout his life, warned us against making Russia our enemy. It will require the greatest diplomatic efforts to lull Moscow’s profound distrust of us. The cold war has fortunately relegated the memory of Germany’s march into Russia to the background far more quickly than we could ever have hoped. But we must not deceive ourselves: Moscow will not forget the Second World War so quickly.

The present power position of the Slavic world is a geopolitical reality which we must accept, at least for the time being. Germany’s future policy should be the quiet penetration of Europe and must aim at consolidating our spheres of interest in Africa and Latin America.* (* The German memorandum employs the phrase “unsere Interessensphäre in Afrika und Lateinamerika,” whereas in fact the Germans have not as yet any spheres of interest in these continents. Nonetheless, in their geopolitical speculations they have already made an “Anschluss” with Europe and other continents.) We should avoid as far as possible dangerous propaganda ventures with the expellees which might antagonize the East. Russia may one day be willing to yield or negotiate, but we must never let it come to a struggle for prestige.

Germany’s industry will regain its previous position: the markets in East and Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in Africa. China and the rest of Southeast Asia offer us a great future. There we can  eliminate the British and Americans from competition, especially if we conduct our negotiations with the Soviets in a smart way. Our increasing economic power and ability to elbow our way politically, must be employed alternately. A prudent and undeviating policy will make it possible to establish some day a new political order in the world which will supersede the present colossi — the United States and the U.S.S.R.

Though we are powerless at present, we have nonetheless never permitted ourselves to be disarmed spiritually and scientifically. German scholars are working unremittingly in Germany as well as abroad on great scientific plans for the future. Favorable circumstances enabled us to keep alive the great research organization of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute through a change of name. First-class scientists are working in the fields of interplanetary navigation (“Raumschiffahrt”), chemistry and on cosmic rays. Our scientists, unhampered in their work, have sufficient time and are planning day and night for Germany’s future. It is the German spirit (“Geist”) that creates modern weapons and that will bring surprising changes in the present relationship of forces.

Economic difficulties will one day plunge the United States down from its present dizzy heights. Such a catastrophe can be brought about through crafty manipulations and through artificially engendered crises. Such maneuvers are routine measures which have already been employed in international power struggle and will be used again and again as long as economic rivals fight for power positions and markets in the world.

It is quite conceivable that America, weakened by a depression, will one day seek support from a resurrected Germany. Such a prospect would open tremendous possibilities for the future power position of a bloc introducing a new order in the world.

This must be our program: be constantly on the alert, evaluate future developments correctly, and miss no opportunities. It is the duty of a vanquished nation to learn from its defeat, to work with unremitting courage and with ever-increasing determination and endurance, and be prepared for a great world political task.

All these possibilities would come to naught if a new world war were to lay Europe waste. It must therefore be our supreme duty to place ourselves in the vanguard of the struggle to keep Europe out of any future war. If we succeed in this, we will surely gain the trust of the people and undisputed leadership in Europe, not excluding Britain. In such a roundabout way we would be able to establish the foundation for future world leadership. The world is longing today for the millennium. In the role of champion for peace, we would gain stature in world public opinion and create for ourselves an unshakable moral position. The propaganda against German “militarism” would subside entirely, old charges would be forgotten and Europe would then be willing to follow German leadership. Such a policy can be pursued successfully, especially in view of the present attitude of the Vatican. The Pope is a realist in politics (“ist Realpolitiker genug”) and knows well enough that, in the age of the Atom bomb, there is too much at stake for the Church and for Europe as a whole.

The Atlantic partners will always be able to find an opportunity to evade their obligations by pointing out that the provocative behavior of the United States has foolishly brought about a conflict for which the Russians cannot be charged as the aggressor and, therefore, all contractual obligations to help become void.

We must do everything possible in accordance with the directives and suggestions given above in order to influence in our favor the political attitude of all groups affiliated with us in Europe, Latin America and the United States. It should also be possible to make it clear to the German element in America what Germany’s fate would be were a new world war to annihilate the substance of our race or if a victorious Russia were to upset or delay for a long time our plans for the future.

Completed: MADRID, Beginning of September 1950.

Distribution (Verteiler):
Dr. M
v. T., Bonn
Rom
Barcelona
Buenos Aires
Z.A. 

 

In other words, if Germany isn’t red, it’s solidly and unchangedly deep-brown. Either way, it’s socialist — and Teutonically megalomaniac. So what we have, according to T.H. Tetens’ (and certainly Christopher Story’s) findings, is a pragmatic collaboration between Berlin and Moscow that at the same time is a bitter rivalry. What these two powers certainly share is — beside a great sympathy for socialist collectivism — a fierce anti-Americanism, regardless of Germany’s supposed commitment to NATO and despite Russia claiming, since the days of “perestroika”, to be friends with the West.

However, is that assessment of a continuing call it Nazi, call it Pan-German strategy still valid today? Hasn’t Moscow outmanoeuvred Bonn/Berlin? What has become of Kohl’s ambition to be the celebrated father of German unity? Was it a wise decision to take in sixteen-plus million East-German communists (so to speak), who then immediately started worming their way into the former West-German structures (the most prominent example to this day being: Angela Merkel)? Clearly, something has gone severely wrong for West Germany and Kohl’s (inherited) pan-German project, despite the “European integration process” having come indeed very close to exterminating every aspect of the inidividual European nation state. As, the decisive question really has to be: who is in the driving seat? Is the EU geopolitical monstrosity still a pan-German endeavour, or has it been hijacked by the (unchanged) Soviets?

 

THE HARD LEFT TAKES OVER, HIJACKING PANGERMANISM FOR THE GOALS OF THE WORLD REVOLUTION

Well, Helmut Kohl’s chancellorship came to a close, after 16 long years, in 1998, when his CDU/FDP (conservative/liberal-democrat) coalition lost the Bundestag election. The new government was henceforth, for the next seven years, a coalition of the social democrats under Gerhard “Ja-ich-bin-Marxist“-turned-“Genosse-der-Bosse” Schröder and the Green watermelons (you know: heavily red on the inside…) under former far-left street-fighter Joseph “Joschka” Fischer. Also, the former East-German Socialist Unity Party (SED), that had essentially carried on as “Party of Democratic Socialism” (PDS), though always under the watchful eyes of the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution), had meanwhile reached over 5% of the vote and thus 36 out of 669 seats. Despite new Chancellor Gerd Schröder’s much-advertised “pragmatism”, the election outcome meant a dramatic shift to the left, and much farther to the left than under Willy Brandt roughly 30 years earlier.

What’s more, following the lost 1998 election, Helmut Kohl stepped down as CDU party chairman and was succeeded by Wolfgang Schäuble; Schäuble chose as his general secretary “Kohls Mädchen” Angela Merkel, who had already been since 1991 a member of Kohl’s cabinet, first as Minister for Women and Youth, then as Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. Merkel was now only one step away from the party leadership. Then came that memorable November 1999, when Helmut Kohl, since 1998 the party’s honorary chairman, was suddenly confronted with a party funding scandal which then also damaged the new party chairman Wolfgang Schäuble. Kohl stepped down as honorary chairman in early December. On December 22, Angela Merkel, who had only been general secretary for one year, attacked Kohl (and indirectly party chairman Schäuble) in a guest article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, calling on the party to “learn to walk; it must dare to take up the struggle with political adversaries even without its old warhorse, as Helmut Kohl often liked to call himself. Like a pubescent youth, it must break away from the parental home and go its own way.” In other words, Merkel now felt strong enough to reach out for the party sceptre herself and to mercilessly knock the old guard off their pedestals, by which she fulfilled Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn’s prediction made in 1990 about communist “cuckoo-egg” politics:

Optimistic expectations of long-term Western dividends from Western support for ‘perestroika’ are doomed to disappointment. Present Soviet-Western cooperation is only temporary: the East-West alliance is only tactical. Soviet-style democracy is ‘cuckoo-egg democracy’. When the chick hatches, it will display its true antagonistic nature and seek to dominate the nest.

Helmut Kohl’s “eternal crown-prince” and still-party chairman Wolfgang Schäuble proved unable to fight back and, as he was drawn into the widening donation scandal himself, stepped down on February 16, 2000.

 

Merkel made use of her position as a fairly recent and thus uncorrupted figure in the party and was elected CDU chairwoman on April 10, 2000 (one week after Helmut Kohl’s 70th birthday), receiving 897 out of 935 valid votes (a dream result of nearly 96%, reminiscent of the “other” Germany that had been Angela Merkel’s home for 36 years). Quite a few heavyweights inside the CDU, among them Friedrich Merz and Volker Rühe, as well as CSU-chairman Edmund Stoiber, weren’t especially happy with Angela Merkel ascending the CDU’s party-throne, and not just because of their own ambitions. Worse, the German intelligence service BND (Bundesnachrichtendienst) allegedly warned the CDU of Merkel as being dangerous (unfortunately, American geopolitical analyst J. R. Nyquist has never been able to extract from his contact in Germany the actual source of this claim). Sadly, according to that claim, those warnings were dismissed by the party. Elected party chairwoman, Merkel was now in the comfortable position of being able to prepare, slowly but surely, for her ultimate goal: the chancellorship.

While the CDU was making its most consequential — and most fatal! — personnel decision since its foundation after WWII, not only for the party itself, but even for the whole of Germany and beyond, the new Red-Green coalition government, that had only been sworn in in late October 1998, was already busy reshaping the country along revolutionary lines.

Father Earth

Among the three Green ministers in Gerd Schröder’s cabinet, all of which were “former” Marxist or Maoist radicals, it was especially Jürgen Trittin, in his position as Minister for the Environment and Nuclear Safety, who was rigorously pushing what the anti-nuclear/Green movement had been calling for ever since the seventies: a complete exit of Germany from nuclear energy (Atomausstieg), which soon was to be carved in stone as a gradual plan that should be complete around the year 2020. However, and in line with the eco-communist demands of the 1992 UN Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro (chaired by long-time UN figure and former Canadian oil manager Maurice Strong, who then in 1994 put together, with Gorbachev, the so-called Earth Charter), the anti-industrial sentiment of the German Greens also was against coal- and gas-fired power plants (thus the demand for an overall Energiewende, i.e., an energy transition), as they claimed (and still claim today) that the earth was threatened by a catastrophic rise of atmospheric temperatures (a.k.a. “Global Warming”) due to the industrial output of carbon dioxide, which they wrongly define as a pollutant and a major greenhouse gas. As the leading climatologists of the world (that is to say, those who haven’t sold out to the hysterical “climate change” bandwagon), have shown, this is not so; rather, the ups and downs in CO2 in the atmosphere merely follow the ups and downs in global temperature by a time lag of about 800 years. So, carbon dioxide — and thus man — is virtually irrelevant as a driver for the earth’s climate. What is relevant, however, are the cycles of increasing and decreasing sun activity. But this climate change madness has meanwhile grown into a widely accepted “orthodoxy”, with exception of such “heretical dinosaurs” as current U.S. President Donald Trump (who may well represent the very last obstacle for world communism to establish global dominion).

There were other signs, too, indicating that this German Red-Green coalition government was a communist Trojan horse working against the best interest of Germany. The infamous Hartz-IV laws, rather than creating incentives for the unemployed, arrested them in their dependence on the state. Schröder made no secret of his personal “sauna friendship” with Vladimir Putin, whom he even praised, ridiculously, as a “flawless democrat”. Also, Germany denied then-U.S. President George W. Bush, in 2003, troops for his war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, arguing there was no clear evidence Iraq had been involved in the 9/11 terror attacks. Finally, in 2005, the last year of its power, the coalition was shaken by a scandal easily of the magnitude of the 2015 “refugee crisis”. As turned out, the German Foreign Office headed by Joschka Fischer had ordered a whole number of German embassies in Eastern European countries, including “former” Soviet republics other than the Baltic states, to issue without further adue and without any financial background checks hundreds and hundreds of thousands of “tourist visas”. The German embassy in Kiev alone issued between 1999 and 2002 approx. 890,000 (!) tourist visa limited to three months. What became of these “tourists” who suddenly invaded Germany and the EU’s territory, remains a mystery to this day (though it is fairly obvious that most of them were part of the criminal underworld). The German Bundestag set up an investigation, but nothing came of it. Rather, Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer in those hearings boldly schooled the MPs of the conservative and liberal-democrat parties that the times of nation-state thinking were over anyway.

 

In this context, it may be worth mentioning that the first great EU eastward enlargement of 2004 (that incorporated eight “former” communist states, plus Malta and Cyprus) took effect not on January 1 or April 1 or July 1, but on May 1, International Workers’ Day, the high day of international communism: a rather broad hint to the fact that this supposed EU eastward enlargement was a clever Soviet westward enlargement, instead. Below: German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer and his Polish colleague Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz in comradely embrace in that night of April 30/May 1, 2004 right on the Oder bridge that connects the German town of Frankfurt/Oder and the Polish town of Słubice (which had been until the end of WWII German and part of Frankfurt). 

Fischer und Cimoszewicz

 

Given the recent SPD losses in various regional elections and ever stronger signs indicating Chancellor Gerd Schröder, after seven years of chancellorship, was getting tired and worn-out, Angela Merkel’s CDU was expected to easily win the snap elections set for September 18, 2005 and form a right-of-centre coalition with her declared favourite, the Free Democrats (FDP) under Guido Westerwelle. Opinion polls looked encouraging right until election day. But throughout that summer, it seemed Angela Merkel wasn’t really campaigning all that much. Was she trying to lose? Was she headed for a grand coalition with the social democrats, trying to exclude the FDP from power? The election results then came indeed as a big surprise: Both social democrats and CDU/CSU (who had stood equal in the 2002 election at 38.5%) had lost significantly, the SPD by 4.3 percentage points, while the “winning” CDU/CSU had dropped by 3.3 percentage points, as well. A CDU/CSU-FDP majority was missed, while Red-Green had lost its previous majority also. The only realistic option (apart from a theoretical far-left three-party coalition of Red-Green with Die Linke and a just as unlikely three-party coalition of CDU/CSU-FDP with the Greens) was a coalition of CDU/CSU with the SPD. And so the social democrats, though no longer the strongest party, stayed in government, and a substantial policy shift towards more conservatism did not come to pass. Here is the first round-table talk on election night with the six party chairmen, Angela Merkel (CDU), Edmund Stoiber (CSU), Gerhard Schröder (SPD), Guido Westerwelle (FDP), Lothar Bisky (Die Linke) and Joschka Fischer (Greens).

 

ANGELA MERKEL AND THE NEW ERA OF “NORMALISATION”

The first woman chancellor in the history of Germany quickly introduced a new style. A style that avoids the spectacular and bombastic (which her predecessor had been into), but that is nevertheless effective: a dry and calm resoluteness coupled with a good portion of secrecy (in other words: she does things the good old East-German way). Angela Merkel always holds her cards close to her chest, so much so that a whole nation of 80 million has been wondering for meanwhile 13 long years what she really thinks and how she really ticks! Her private life is just that: private and confidential. Maybe there isn’t much of a private life anyway: Merkel has no children; she and her husband Joachim Sauer live on the top floor of a 19-th-century apartment building right next to Berlin’s Pergamon Museum; brother Marcus lives and works as a theoretical physicist in the state of Hesse; her sister Irene, an occupational therapist, lives in Oranienburg outside Berlin; the father, Horst Kasner, passed in 2011; mother Herlind Kasner still lives in Templin, meanwhile age 90. Angela Merkel’s recreational pleasures are modest: she and her husband (who by his paleness still doesn’t seem to have arrived in the West to this day) own a little house in the Uckermark, not far from Templin, where Angela Merkel grew up;  otherwise, the two follow a strictly regular vacation routine every year that consists of a trip to the Italian island of Ischia for Easter, hiking holidays in the Vinschgau in South Tyrol in summer and a winter vacation (cross-country-, not downhill skiing) in the Swiss Engadin. Not to forget the couple’s supposed great love for opera music, especially Wagner, for which they regularly attend the Bayreuth Festival. However, there is no passion or love or warmness of the heart visible with these two “ex-” communists. It’s the exact brittleness and discreet coldness (even emptiness) — mixed with a great deal of petty-bourgeois, proletarian simplicity — the old GDR had been famous for.

So, this was now the new face of Germany: and although 35.2% of the valid votes (or 27.35% of the electorate) had chosen her, it still looked as if people didn’t quite know what to make of her. In any case, her whole meteoric rise — improbable as it was — was soon accepted as either the result of a chain of amazing coincidences or simply the product of relentless ambition and hard work. 

mauerfall-11But hadn’t there been a “first life” of Angela Merkel’s?  A first life of thirty-six years in communist East Germany the public knew almost nothing about? And why was Merkel (like her family, like the whole “former” GDR) so very silent about those years? Hadn’t they all been out of themselves with joy when on that historic night of November 9, 1989 the Berlin Wall “fell” (as a matter of fact, the Wall fell into the West)? Well, obviously many, if not most of them, weren’t. Here is a more than ominous video-clip about the lady who was really the first East-German to cross the border between the two German states on November 9, 1989. Annemarie Reffert (46 years old at the time), a medical doctor from Magdeburg, had heard at exactly 7:04 p.m. on East German radio Central Committee member and Secretary for Information Günter Schabowski’s announcement of an immediate, unconditional and permanent travel permission into the West for all citizens of the GDR. She made sure she had heard correctly by listening to the following news broadcasts, even double-checked with West-German television, took her 15-year-old daughter and off they went in their Wartburg passenger car  — out of mere curiosity — towards the main East-West-German border crossing of Helmstedt/Marienborn, only some 60 km from Magedeburg. By 9:25 p.m., the two had managed to convince the clueless East-German border officers that general travel permission had indeed been given, and so they carried on into West Germany, where they briefly circled through the quiet border town of Helmstedt and, being without any Western currency, soon returned to the East and home to Magdeburg. On their way back, again at the border, and this is why she has reached some prominence, Annemarie Reffert was briefly interviewed by a West-German camera-team. Here is that economic exchange (in the video below, from 1:55 to 2:17), that should make us think, as it is so symptomatic:

INTERVIEWER: Are you planning to “smell Western air”, so to speak, more often in the near future?

A. REFFERT: Yes, perhaps for visiting, just so to take a view of your way of life, but never for good. You know, you are an entirely different society, and I have no inclination to live with you. For visiting, yes.

 

What this cold and chillingly indifferent answer tells us is that East Germany was far from longing to join the West. The opposition within the GDR consisted chiefly of reform-communists who wanted to maintain (in accordance with Gorbachev’s intentions) a separate socialist East Germany on a more liberalised basis. A genuinely bourgeois-conservative political force was just not there after fourty years of rigid authoritarian communism.

This was Helmut Kohl’s unforgivable miscalculation! His enthusiastic promises to the impoverished East-Germans of soon-prosperous landscapes didn’t materialise as quickly and easily as people were expecting. And so the initial euphoria over a unified Germany (certainly much exaggerated by the West-German media) soon gave way to a great deal of frustration in the “new” German provinces, which then could be nicely exploited by the old communists now gone underground. As a result, just a few years after the fall of the Wall, a spooky GDR- and even Soviet nostalgia was on the rise (a development that went in parallel with that in the other “former” satellite countries). All kinds of GDR- and Soviet memorabilia, old GDR films, product brands, clothing, military items etc. were popular as never before. People were now ignoring the fact they had been living under a tyranny (which many of them didn’t bother, in the first place) and were instead romanticising the “cosy, socialist homeland” they had lost as the better Germany that should never have been dissolved. A number of movies were made, some of them tragicomedies, that in one way or the other idealised the GDR past. The boldest and most perfidious piece in this avalanche of retro-communist propaganda was probably the 2003 blockbuster film Good-Bye Lenin! that, seen in retrospect, almost prepared the ground for Angela Merkel’s chancellorship that began two years later.

Good-Bye Lenin, Filmplakat

Good-bye Lenin! is a witty, yet visibly tendentious, satire about a mother, school-teacher and convinced communist in East Berlin who a month before the fall of the Berlin Wall suffers a heart-attack and falls into an eight-month coma, by which she “misses” the implosion of the communist regime and the dramatic changes in East-German life in the months after. Her son, who had never been a friend of the communist oppression, but is very caring, gets instructed by the doctors as the mother awakes from her coma in June 1990 that all excitement and irritation would have to be thoroughly avoided. The mother is still weak and needs to stay in bed, and so the son, with the help of his sister, a new work colleague and even neighbours, creates for his mum the convincing illusion that the GDR is still alive and well and nothing has changed. In addition, during his many hospital visits, whilst his mother is still there, he falls in love with a charming Russian nurse! Together with his friend, he secretly attaches a video-recorder to his mum’s television, by which they play to her, exact to the second, at first old East-German news reels and finally self-made daily “evening news”, that even use authentic news footage, but with his colleague as the “news anchor” adding the necessary spin that explains all images away in the most absurd manner. The mother, ironically, swallows the charade. At some point, she becomes aware, from her window, of loads of West-German cars out in the street, but her son’s “news” programme finds an explanation for everything. The son is desperately searching for old East-German product packagings (such as pickle jars), assembles a group of neighbours for his mother’s birthday, who then sing the good old communist GDR songs and so on and so forth. His sister as well as the Russian nurse, with whom he is now in a romance, insist he should stop the illusion and tell his mother the truth. Finally, the nurse does so, without telling her boyfriend. The mother has another heart attack and soon dies, while her son is convinced his mother has passed in the comfort that her beloved socialist system was intact as ever, having produced for her a last “news” item in which Erich Honecker is succeeded by the son’s personal hero, East-German cosmonaut Sigmund Jähn, impersonated by a lookalike taxi driver, who opens the Wall, after which East Berlin gets happily flooded by the capitalists from the West who at long last have come to their senses! – Here is the official trailer:        

 

The film is not just reflecting an existing mood in former East Germany, but powerfully amplifies that longing back for the old communist days (as well as advertises GDR-style communism to the Western audience as something good and desirable). It was made by a West-German film-maker, but the Stalinist Left of the East and the liberal Left in the West have always been working hand-in-glove from both sides of the fence, even now as that fence has supposedly disappeared.

Now under Comrade Merkel (who seems to be determined to stay in power for the next hundred years), a strange and boring new normal has established itself in Germany, most likely the kind of “normalisation” the communist rule-book speaks about when it describes the final and ever-lasting triumph of communism. In this case, the transfer wasn’t brought about by violent revolution or an invasion of Soviet armies, but simply by bringing a decade-long gradual process to its logical conclusion. Only two years after Merkel’s election victory of 2005, the European Schengen space, that had initially defined a compound of West-European EU countries that had abolished their mutual border controls, but of course had continued controls towards the East, was ruthlessly and most irresponsibly extended by a cordon of “former” communist states. As a result, henceforth communist mafiyas and illegal immigrants alike could enter Western Europe completely free and unchecked. This deplorable state of affairs won’t be corrected either, as the European Union’s declared goal is a borderless, post-nation-state federation. However, extending the EU deep into “formerly” communist Eastern Europe has sealed the fate of Western Europe as it irreversibly opened the door to being swallowed, hugged to death, whatever expression one prefers, by Moscow — showing the way towards a unified, all-communist Eurasia from the Atlantic to Vladivostok. Sure enough, Angela Merkel frequently terms Russia “Germany’s strategic partner”, and no uproar anywhere, given the fact that Germany is a member, at least in theory, of the Western alliance.

As for Angela Merkel’s “conservatism” (after all, she’s been since 1990 part and since 2000 the leader of the Christian-Democratic Union), it appears almost non-existent. Think about it: This woman has been married twice, and although it is not really known why, she seems to have remained childless because she wished so. Not much is known about her first marriage, that was only brief, but it appears it was more a marriage of convenience so the two young people, Angela Kasner and Ulrich Merkel, could more easily obtain an apartment of their own (under communism, everything is strictly regulated). Since the mid 1980s, Angela Merkel (she has kept her first husband’s name to this day), has been together with her present husband, the quantum chemist Dr. Joachim Sauer, whom she knew from her work at the East-German Academy of Sciences. However, although being from 1990 onwards an increasingly prominent figure in Helmut Kohl’s conservative Christian Democratic Union, Angela Merkel only married Dr. Sauer on December 30, 1998, after she had been elected general secretary of the party on November 7, 1998 in the aftermath of the lost Bundestag election that year. In other words, also her second marriage was a mere pragmatic thing undertaken so to further her career as she was nearing the chairmanship of the party. What does that tell us about this “Christian” politician’s moral or religious framework? Is she a Christian, to begin with? Conveniently (which made her an attractive choice for Helmut Kohl to take her under his patronage), Angela Merkel was the daughter of a (Protestant) pastor. Yet, again, a closer look is necessary. Horst Kasner, born 1926, was a young West-German Lutheran pastor, who had just graduated and started a family. His first child Angela was still born in Hamburg in the summer of 1954, after which the whole family moved to East Germany, where Kasner had been offered a church post.  Horst Kasner wasn’t inimical to socialism. On the contrary, he developed a great ambition in somewhat trying to lead Christianity and socialism together. He called it “Church inside Socialism” (Kirche im Sozialismus). Others soon nick-named him “Red Kasner”. Indeed, Horst Kasner became known as a man with excellent connections to the GDR’s more progressive theologians and thus to the system itself. The first three years, he was still a regular pastor in the small village of Quitzow in north-western Brandenburg. In 1957, he was invited to build up a religious seminar and pastoral college outside Templin. The estate, known as Waldhof, that from 1958 also hosted a home for the mentally disabled, soon grew into a much-respected meeting place for intellectual discussion, beyond the narrow confines of the official state ideology. Horst Kasner could freely order books from the West and was also permitted to go on a number of journeys to the West. Another interesting fact is that Horst Kasner was closely involved with Clemens de Maizière and Klaus Gysi, the fathers of Lothar de Maizière and Gregor Gysi respectively, who were both to become important political figures around the time of the German reunification and after. Young Angela appears to have admired her charismatic father. Although she did not undergo the socialist DDR-Jugendweihe, but still the traditional Protestant confirmation, she was nonetheless a member of the communist youth organisation FDJ (Freie Deutsche Jugend) early on, which wasn’t compulsory and also unusual for pastors’ children to join. In school, she particularly excelled in maths and Russian, even won nation-wide Russian olympics and was soon thinking of studying physics. Unlike children of less socialist-minded pastors, who normally stayed out of the FDJ, Angela Kasner had no difficulty to be admitted to a university. Later, in her twenties, she even was a functionary in the FDJ. Here is a short clip from a 1991 interview with Angela Merkel conducted by the German television channel ARD (Merkel was already Minister for Family, Seniors, Women and Youth in the newly formed, first all-German cabinet Kohl IV at the time), in which she kind of answers the question about her membership and activism in the communist youth organisation FDJ:

 

Merkel says here: “I liked being in the FDJ, I have to say, as for a sub-activity within the FDJ, where one was also doing things — in seminar groups, among young people at the institute — that had little to do, basically, with the system and its ideology. That I want to admit. But otherwise it was also 70% opportunism, of course.”

As so often, the “admission” doesn’t clarify much at all. An alternative way of looking at this video is by turning off the audio so to be able to fully concentrate on Angela Merkel’s facial expressions. What one can see, at first, is the usual behaviour of liars: she is tensed; she searches for words; she looks down. Throughout the clip, she displays defiance, denial, evasion. The essence being: she was an activist in the communist party youth organisation, way beyond her own youth years, but not really a communist and never a member of the communist party itself. How credible is that? The absence of proof of her having been a party member doesn’t proof anything. So many secret files were destroyed in 1990, so much evidence simply disappeared overnight! A whole nation of communists had miraculously dissolved into thin air — and out of that new thin air, they act thick as thieves as ever before. Hardly anybody speaks out. Over the whole reality of former communist East Germany rests an impenetrable veil of secrecy.

And then there’s Angela Merkel’s claim that she chose physics as her field of study (as if people had been entirely free in communist countries to choose whatever they liked, which certainly wasn’t the case at all), because physics, she says, was the least politicised and ideologised of all. Which is funny, as following this logic, she should never ever have shown up in politics altogether.

With regard to Angela Merkel’s apparent Christian formation in a pastor’s household (though her father was fervently pro-socialist anyway and did in 1989/90 in no way favour a German reunification), Angela Merkel herself has nullified the naïve preconceptions about her growing up as a pastor’s daughter in the midst of a hostile atheist society:

One doesn’t become a believer simply by growing up in a parsonage. But of course I was thus imparted with some ethical principles. (Translation by this author. German source: Koelbl, Herlinde. Spuren der Macht: Die Verwandlung des Menschen durch das Amt. — Eine Langzeitstudie. München: Knesebek, 1999. p. 49. – Via: Reuth, Ralf Georg, and Günther Lachmann. Das erste Leben der Angela M. München: Piper, 2013. p. 65.)   

That’s a classic communist statement! Marxist-Leninists have no religion (other than their own faux-religion of dialectical materialism). And so, whenever they find it appropriate to conceal their atheism, or to send mixed messages, they talk about “ethics” (as opposed to religion). Angela Merkel was allowed by her Red Pastor father to join the communist youth movement, and that’s where she received her real formation. At home, she wasn’t surrounded by a pious atmosphere either, as her father was basically a socialist church politico.  

This author happened to have on his many journies also numerous conversations with people from Eastern Europe. And they possess, after decades of the most painful experience, a sharply trained eye for identifying communists; after all, they have lived under them. What these people — more than one — have told this author about what they think of Angela Merkel is stunning: They say there is no other way for Angela Merkel than being: KGB! That assumption, that “gut feeling”, would make perfect sense. Isn’t she the “teflon chancellor”, on whom nothing ever sticks? And hasn’t she been nick-named even, after the spider, the “black widow”, as she has left behind, without batting an eye, dozens of men with their careers destroyed, because they just happened to stand in her way up to the very top? The naïve would say she is yet another ruthless career politician who has learned her trade from her political mentor Helmut Kohl, who too was a power tactician par excellence.

But let’s listen to the account of a former CDU MP, also initially from the GDR, who has a lot to say about Angela Merkel and where Merkel has led both the party and Germany. Vera Lengsfeld, born 1952, wasn’t a lifelong enemy of the communist system; on the contrary: her father was a big gun in the GDR’s state security, she herself studied in Leipzig an academic field about as communist as it can get: history of the labour movement! After that, she went to Berlin to study philosophy, which in the GDR’s context only meant philosophy from the ideologically charged standpoint of Marxism-Leninism. Vera Lengsfeld also joined th GDR’s ruling communist party, the SED, age 23. Starting around 1981, now-Vera Wollenberger, she was part of all kinds of pacifist and other opposition groups (which, too, is unconvincing as for a possible change of heart, as most of these groups were simply “reform-communist”). Yet, by 1983, her activities appear to have annoyed the Party that much that she was thrown out. In January 1988 (less than two years before the fall of the Berlin Wall), Vera Wollenberger was still a committed communist, albeit a critical one, trying to remind the GDR authorities of the lack of freedom of speech in communist East Germany. Along with dozens of others, she had planned to show up at the annual official Lenin-Liebknecht-Luxemburg demonstration on January 15, with banners of Rosa-Luxemburg quotes that weren’t especially flattering in the light of the GDR’s communist reality. Vera Wollenberger was at first sentenced to six months imprisonment, but was then offered a two-year study term in Oxford, England, instead, from where she returned — supposedly for a visit and as a strange coincidence — on precisely November 9, 1989, the day the Berlin Wall fell. Vera Wollenberger immediately became politically active again, joined the East-German Greens and was elected, in March 1990, to the first “post-communist” People’s Chamber of the GDR, where she was deputy chairwoman in the committee for disarmament and defence until the German reunification entered into legal force and the GDR thereby ceased to exist on October 3, 1990. Vera Wollenberger was among those who were swiftly integrated into the new all-German Bundestag in Bonn, where she continued to be a representative for the Green Party (that is notoriously a far-leftwing party). Not before 1996, as she didn’t like the prospect of a Red-Red-Green three-party coalition of SPD, PDS (the former GDR communists now posing as the “Party of Democratic Socialism”) and her own party, the Greens, she switched to Helmut Kohl’s Christian-Democratic Union (CDU), keeping her formerly Green mandate in the Bundestag. From that time until 2005, Vera Wollenberger — after her divorce from her second husband in 1991, again Vera Lengsfeld — remained a member of the German Bundestag. Ironically, following the election that brought the CDU under Angela Merkel to power, Vera Lengsfeld lost her seat, never to return to the Bundestag again. In recent years, she has popped up in right-wing nationalist circles and has promoted a so-called Joint Declaration 2018 (Gemeinsame Erklärung 2018), in which the Merkel government is harshly criticised for its immigration policy. That petition was signed by over 160,000 Germans and was handed over to the German Bundestag, where in autumn there will be a brief hearing in the Bundestag. It is not quite clear whether Vera Lengsfeld, who once was a dedicated GDR communist and never renounced her communism really, is driven here by mere genuine concern or is engaged in “rightwing-Bolshevist” activism, by which the German population is intended to be ever further polarised.

Be that as it may, in the talk embedded below, Vera Lengsfeld shares a number of observations with regard to Angela Merkel that are both interesting and credible. Lengsfeld looks back on Angela Merkel’s phenomenal rise and recalls how suspiciously smoothly Merkel had risen through the ranks already in the last year of the old communist GDR; how she was immediately hired and then made speaker for the Democratic Awakening by Wolfgang Schnur (a dubious lawyer and church politico, who at the same time worked as an informant for the GDR’s infamous state security a.k.a. StaSi); how she soon after became a deputy speaker for the GDR’s last Prime Minister, Lothar de Maizière (also a lawyer, also a church politico and also a StaSi informant, who falsely claimed to have never met Angela Merkel before although he had been for years a close friend of Angela Merkel’s father, Horst Kasner); how, after Lothar de Maizière’s StaSi activity had become known, she was chosen instead by Chancellor Helmut Kohl as an East-German member in his first all-German cabinet starting in early 1991; how everybody who knew her was surprised she had ended up with the Christian Democrats, rather than with the Greens or the social democrats; how she fiercely hated the very party to whose leadership she now belonged; how she immediately pursued a hard-left feminist policy as Minister for Women and Youth and later, as Minister for the Environment, single-handedly signed international eco-agreements that were against the economic interests of Germany; how she coldly threw her mentor and the party’s honorary chairman Helmut Kohl as well as party chairman Wolfgang Schäuble under the bus and ruthlessly grabbed the party chairmanship for herself; how she pretended, from 2000 till her election victory in 2005, to be holding clear-cut libertarian free-market positions, which all of them she skipped after she became Chancellor, including those she could have easily pushed through against her coalition partner SPD; how her real favourite coalition partner has never been, as widely reported, the Free Democrats, but is in fact the Greens, with whom she has had no opportunity yet to form a coalition except for 2017/2018, for which the Liberal Democrats would have been needed too, who finally quit as they saw no prospect to realise any part of their political programme. Vera Lengsfeld also says that Merkel’s strange change of heart following the Fukushima nuclear accident in 2011, which led her to revoke the extension of operational lifetimes for German nuclear power-plants agreed upon the year before, was simply a concession to the Greens for a possible joint coalition government in the future. Below: Angela Merkel’s much-discussed black-green necklace that she wore ahead of the 2013 elections. It was widely understood as a political message to the effect that she indeed wanted to get rid of the Liberal Democrats and instead form a coalition with the Greens. The former came to pass: the LibDems for the first time in the history of the Federal Republic did not make it into the Bundestag. The latter, however, did not materialise, although CDU-CSU and Greens would have had a comfortable majority of 374 of 631 seats: after long hours of exploratory talks, the Greens quit, much to the regret of CDU-CSU — and Angela Merkel found herself again in a grand coalition with the social democrats.  

Merkel schwarz-grün

 

Merkel, says Vera Lengsfeld, has effectively killed the old Christian Democratic Union since she became Chancellor, that now exists solely in name, but has become yet another eco-socialist party, a party also where debate or democratic controversy have completely ceased to take place. Merkel controls the CDU with an iron grip, with all potential rivals long ousted or marginalised. Vera Lengsfeld even says that the German Bundestag has been reduced by Merkel to a mere rubberstamp parliament (apart from the depressing fact that 80% of the laws in EU member states are not made in those national parliaments but in Brussels). Lengsfeld says German MPs have been gently corrupted, bought, by a whole array of new parliamentary posts and functions, which has created much more frequent opportunities to travel and enjoy the good life of being a “busy” parliamentarian. The decisions, however, are made by Merkel’s government alone, with the parliament no longer observing its responsibility of controlling the government. Even with the new coalition partner FDP, from 2009 to 2013, there was no substantial change, says Lengsfeld. Also, the chaos during the 2015 “refugee” crisis could have easily resulted in total catastrophe, had there not been a tremendous amount of work done by private volunteers. Vera Lengsfeld also emphasises that the new coalition agreement between CDU/CSU and SPD for the term 2018-2022 is much more socialist than the last, as Merkel had no choice but to give the social democrats everything they wanted. During the mass immigration of 2015 (and ever since), asylum laws have been misused as if they were general immigration laws (less than 1% of “refugees” have been granted asylum status, but everyone was allowed in anyway); thus, says Lengsfeld, the rule of law in Germany has been critically undermined and is in danger of collapsing altogether. Also, the Dublin Regulation has been practically brushed aside, that foresees that no country should be obliged to accept an asylum seeker who has applied for asylum in another country (which means that by existing laws the EU’s and Angela Merkel’s intention to spread “refugees” across Europe far and wide, without member states being able to say no, is null and void). Lengsfeld also points out that Germany’s new so-called Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (Network Enforcement Act) is but the introduction of internet censorship against conservatives through the backdoor of averting “hate speech” and “fake news”, which, she says, is completely unconstitutional, as it puts an end to free speech for “right-wingers” (“right-wingers” meaning everyone who has simply maintained his common sense and who dares make statements based not on utopian beliefs, but on reality), while the left, even the radical left, can say and do whatever they want, as hateful leftwing propaganda (even intimidation) is not perceived as hate by the equally leftist mainstream, but as rightful indignation etc. Vera Lengsfeld says that while communist East Germany (where she comes from) needed paid personnel for surveying the population and that StaSi officers even had to make sure they kept their informants happy, by being friendly, handing them little presents etc., the situation now is that whole (invisible) armies of radicalised people engage in a culture of denuncation all for free, without any payment whatsoever. Lengsfeld mentions in this context, which is quite an irony, a woman who is at the forefront of this phenomenon, Anetta Kahane, who is also from the GDR, a radical leftist, daughter of a fierce GDR-communist and herself once an informant for the GDR’s state security during the years 1973 to 1982. Here is a quote from same lady, taken from an article of Der Tagesspiegel, dated July 15, 2015 and titled “Flüchtlinge in Deutschland: Es ist Zeit für einen neuen Aufbau Ost” (i.e., Refugees in Germany: It Is Time for a New ‘Aufbau Ost’ — Aufbau Ost was the term for West Germany’s gargantuan project of bringing East Germany gradually up to West-German standards); English translation by this author:

In the East [of Germany — i.e., in the former GDR], there are still, relative to the population, too few people who are part of visible minorities, who are e.g. black. And there is a structural change going on, whole areas are becoming depopulated….If I had a wish free, I would say: It is time for a second Wende [a term that refers to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent reunification of the two German states in 1989/90] and a new Aufbau Ost, infrastructurally, emotionally and culturally….One has to want this, one has to realise that in the East there is a greater lack of experience in dealing with foreigners and more resistance….[It has been] the greatest admission of bankruptcy on the part of German politics after the Wende [to have allowed for] one third of the German territory to remain white….Willy Brandt [West Germany’s Chancellor from 1969 to 1974, SPD party chairman till 1987 and President of the Socialist International from 1976 till 1992] spoke of the growing together of what belonged together, and meant the white Germans…This has triggered a nationalist boost. A couple of millions of others were downright forgotten. If that were now to come to an end, I would find that superb.     

These radical networks use character-assassination and pressuring people out of their jobs, without hesitation. People who not too long ago would have been under surveillance by the Verfassungsschutz are now the ones who are pressing for a draconic limitation of free speech, and all under the banner of “anti-Fascism”. Vera Lengsfeld concludes that the true and ultimate culture of denunciation wasn’t under the GDR, but has established itself nowand she says all this is the result of the Merkel years. Vera Lengsfeld warns that the Euro crisis is far from solved and Europe’s immigrant crisis isn’t over, but has just begun. The CDU/CSU-SPD coalition agreement supports French President Macron’s plan of redistribution of wealth from northern European to southern European states; it intends to let Germany pay for all of the EU’s losses due to Brexit and foresees even costlier contributions to various EU projects. With regard to the continuing influx of immigrants, the government seems to be planning to deceive the public, officially speaking of maximum 180,000 to 220,000 per year, but in fact allowing “family reunification”, by which the number of immigrants can be easily multiplied (especially as the term “core family” seems to be interpreted very generously, also with respect to second and third wives, although polygamy is prohibited in Germany, as well as child-wives, which suddenly has all become acceptable, even to the feminists). Whereby the joining relatives are not included in any official statistics at all and actual asylum seekers are not affected by this theoretical limitation of 180,000 to 220,000 per year. What’s more, says Lengsfeld, the EU’s Relocation and Resettlement programme will make sure that all this continuing immigration will be forced down everybody’s throats by all means necessary, including deception, and bringing these people in in a more “discreet” and less visible fashion than was the case in 2015. Vera Lengsfeld expects Germany’s social system to collapse as a result of these policies, overall national bankruptcy and eventual civil war (noting that there exists no historical precedence for such a political programme). She mentions the critical situation in Sweden, where certain areas have become ungovernable due to mass immigration, and believes that Germany is headed in the same direction. Vera Lengsfeld then points at the problem of Arabic clans infiltrating the Berlin police and at the common estimate that already a quarter of all personnel of the German military are Muslims (which raises urgent questions about actual loyalty), a development greatly pushed by Germany’s Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen. Lengsfeld says it is now declared policy to accept ever more Muslims not only in the military or the police, but even as border officers — with qualification standards being pushed down so to get them in. She mentions an interview of February 20, 2018, given on German television by (German-origin) Harvard political scientist Yascha Mounk, born 1982, in which the moderator asked (starting at 1:21; translation from the German by this author):

Where should one see the causes for this development? Why has the fundamental trust in established politics gone down so heavily?

Yascha Mounk’s answer:

The populists have been on the rise over many years, in many countries. This means one has to also look at things comparatively. And there are three causes that are very important: First, the economic stagnation, where despite the nation’s relatively good position many people feel they aren’t really much better off than their parents once were and their children might not be able to enjoy the same standard of living in the future. Second, that we are daring here a historically unique experiment, namely to transform a mono-ethnic, mono-cultural democracy into a multi-ethnic one. This can work, and I think it will work. But of course this implies a number of [social] dislocations. And third, that this anger, this fury against the political class gets concentrated through the internet, which makes it so much easier to drop hate comments, to engage in propaganda and also to get organised politically on behalf of extremist politicians.

Yascha Mounk had already said basically the same thing back in September 2015, which was at the height of the European “refugee” crisis, in an interview to the German weekly Der Spiegel. His key sentence here was even bolder. Yascha Mounk said (English translation by this author):

Above all, this is about more than a brief, xenophile summer fairytale. In Western Europe, an experiment is underway that is unique in the history of migration: Countries which have defined themselves as mono-ethnic, mono-cultural and mono-religious nations  must change their identity. We do not know whether it will work [!], we only know  that it must work. 

Vera Lengsfeld rightfully asks: What experiment? By whose decision? And who has ever asked us whether we want this “experiment”? And she goes one layer deeper yet and mentions the United Nations’ so-called Global Compact for Migration, that was signed by all UN member states (the U.S. under Pres. Trump has left the accord in late 2017), integrated into EU legislation and foresees, as Lengsfeld explains, under the pretext of compensating for Europe’s disastrously low birthrates, the resettlement of 60 million people, mainly from Africa, into Europe. She emphasises that that number of roughly 60 million can be constantly heard from all sides. Vera Lengsfeld says Angela Merkel would have loved to become UN Secretary General and now has her eyes fixed on the post of President of the European Commission (as Jean-Claude Juncker might soon step down); otherwise she would try to run yet another time in 2021 and stay in power until 2025 (Merkel would then be 71 and would have been Chancellor for unbelievable twenty years)! Lengsfeld says Merkel increased Germany’s payments to the UN single-handedly, without authorisation by the German Bundestag. With respect to these detailed written coalition agreements in today’s German politics, Vera Lengsfeld, who has been in the German Bundestag from 1990 till 2005, reminds her listeners that under Helmut Kohl or earlier there had not existed such a thing. The parties involved merely reached a general consensus over what they intended to do, while the actual decision-making was left to the course of the usually four years of joint governance. This allowed for necessary flexibility in government, while the present obsession with determining things all in advance effectively excludes the parliament from the legislative process, says Lengsfeld (in other words, the executive branch swallows the powers of the legislative branch, by which all Checks and Balances are annulled). Vera Lengsfeld also criticises Merkel’s current cabinet as a cabinet of incompetence. And she describes how the social democrats, as a party, still had enough vitality to resist Martin Schulz’s attempt, after he had lost the 2017 election, to simply transfer the chairmanship over to Andrea Nahles, which was then forestalled by commissioning, in accordance with the party’s statutes, a provisional chairman (Olaf Scholz); two months later, at an extraordinary party conference, Andrea Nahles was then formally elected the new party chairwoman (and so on April 22, Lenin’s birthday). In Angela Merkel’s CDU, says Lengsfeld, such courage to resist has long vanished. Finally, Vera Lengsfeld summarises that Angela Merkel, who had ended up in 1990 with the CDU rather accidentally and who had always hated this party, nevertheless managed to gain total control over it and to effectively destroy it, Lenin-style, so to be able to use it as a vehicle (essentially, as an empty shell) for her own political ends. One woman against this once-powerful men’s club of the CDU, and she alone prevailed. By Merkel’s work of destruction, says Lengsfeld, the CDU, the party that was the engine of success and the guarantor of the rule of law for the Federal Republic of Germany in the decades after WWII, is no more. Yet, without this force of political stability and economic prudence, asks Vera Lengsfeld with great concern, what will become of the Federal Republic of Germany in the future? 

 

And here is Angela Merkel giving her programmatic speech at the CDU’s 30th party conference of February 25/26, 2018 in Berlin. Watch how she adresses her party: This is power. And the party visibly obeys. Sure enough, the speech is followed by endless standing ovations that may have pleased even the likes of Stalin or Mao Zedong. 

 

Almost as a confirmation of the above, here is Gregor Gysi, since 1990 strongman of the communist SED’s successor party (that’s right: they simply carried on…), Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS), which was renamed in 2005 to Die Linke (The Left). Gysi, born 1948, has his own past as a party member of the SED since 1967, as a GDR lawyer working as a StaSi informant and who has certainly remained, along with his whole party, a committed Marxist-Leninist, even though The Left’s newest party programme only twice mentions Marx and only four times uses the word “communist”, and always in a strictly historical context. In this 25-minute interview, Gysi speaks about Angela Merkel. He is very much pleased, even amused, with the way she has these “slightly arrogant fellows” of the CDU, and even of the SPD, under her control. He looks back to the period when Angela Merkel became chairwoman of the party in early 2000 and concedes that what greatly came to her assistance was the crisis the party was in at the time (following the party donation scandal). He appreciates her “humility” and “politeness” that, says Gysi, contrast with her predecessors’ much greater presumptuousness etc. etc. — It all sounds like one East-German communist praising another…        

 

Here is another prominent conservative voice speaking out: Gertrud Höhler, born 1941, studied literature and art history. In her younger years still somewhat a liberal, she more and more turned to conservatism in the seventies and eighties. She worked at the universities of Mannheim and Paderborn as a lecturer and then professor of German philology and literature. In addition, she has been a communication consultant for various organisations, companies and political parties. In 1993, she quit her job at the university and has been ever since a publicist and public figure, much hated by the Left, but sadly also connecting herself now and then with actual nationalist groups (nationalism being not the business of patriotic conservatism). Despite these, if only sporadic, connections — and despite  a certain degree of vanity and feminist extravagance, which are both common among career women — Gertrud Höhler is worth listening to. On April 28, 2016, she gave a talk at the Bibliothek des Konservatismus (Library of Conservatism) in Berlin, titled “Regieren ohne Opposition: Wie verwundbar ist die Demokratie?” (i.e., Governing Without Opposition: How Vulnerable Is Democracy?). Gertrud Höhler’s talk is basically a philosophical discourse about values and the question of a natural (and thus workable) concept of man. At the same time, it is a very concrete analysis of the “Merkel phenomenon” and what it means for democracy and the rule of law, in Germany and beyond. The conclusions that logically follow from this analysis couldn’t be more sobering.

Prof. Höhler first takes a look at the Germany of the year 2016, that has already seen eleven years of Angela Merkel as Chancellor. She registers a gradual dissolution of the political centre in Germany. CDU and SPD, the two once-great people’s parties of whom everyone used to know what they stood for, have now frighteningly blended with each other. What’s more, says Höhler, Angela Merkel has led all other parties into a dilemma: while in opposition, they nevertheless appease, as they all seek to be part of a future government coalition with Merkel’s CDU (by which there is hardly any control function being exercised by the Bundestag vis-à-vis the Merkel government any more). As soon as they have an actual opportunity to engage in a coalition, however, they fear — with good reason — to get ever more reduced by Merkel in such a joint government, as Merkel’s manner of doing politics is quietly and quite shamelessly stealing political positions from other parties. As a result, those other parties, whether it’s the social democrats or the Greens or the liberal democrats, lose their own particular “brand”, their once-characteristic profile. Angela Merkel undermines them all. Also, what Merkel calls the “modernisation of the CDU” is but a departure from the value system of this once-conservative party. She has moved the CDU heavily to the left and has thus made politics into a business of fluid and random decision-making. No explanations are ever given, and hardly anyone still dares to ask questions anyway. An autocratic style of governance has taken root, with the autocrat being able to hold on to her power not due to some personal charisma (there is none), but due, solely, to consistent and continuous secretiveness. And it is precisely through such an aura of mystery that Angela Merkel acquires the position almost of a demigod, a position not unlike that of the totalitarian rulers of the communist world, where Angela Merkel comes from: she makes mistakes after mistakes and yet remains “infallible”. Nobody really knows where she is headed and why she is doing what she is doing, yet — the few remaining vestiges of genuine political discourse aside — there is no serious public debate. A general fatalism and cynical apathy and indifference have developed among Germans that all-too-fatally remind of the general powerlessness and agony under the Ulbricht and Honecker regimes in communist East Germany. German democracy is in danger of quietly going out the window — while the new formations on the political margins, that are eager to benefit from the growing discontent, won’t be able to be dealt with simply by calling them “populists”. The new reality, says Gertrud Höhler, is that elections won’t be decided in the political centre any more, but on the margins, and this trend hasn’t yet been properly understood. And even those margins are undergoing some curious changes, with politicians of The Left sometimes promoting right-wing positions and vice versa. Merkel, says Gertrud Höhler, is a virtuosa of political contradictions: her policies are usually presented as “without alternative”, yet she herself has always a number of options, or alternatives, to choose from: Angela Merkel, the queen of uncommented alternatives. Whereby Merkel’s secret of success is her utilitarian use of law and values. There are no fixed principles, everything’s flexible and arbitrary. Merkel’s silent authoritarianism is nothing less than a quiet coup d’etat. Gertrud Höhler mentions the Euro crisis, that has not been solved, but extended. She says the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) and all related policies have made out of formerly sovereign nations, colonised vasall states. Germany has destroyed a lot of trust and sympathy by this rigid, dictatorial financial regime. The austerity measures have not only arrested the economic development of these countries by easily a decade, but have unnecessarily humiliated these nations, who now hate Germany and are seeking revenge. “Might gives right” seems to be the new formula — but Germany has overreached herself. What’s worse, the problem isn’t solved at all. Gertrud Höhler believes that the only way out is that the financially strong countries leave the Euro, not the weak countries. Höhler cites Prof. Udo di Fabio, former German Constitutional Court judge, Director of the Institute for Public Law at the Rhenish Friedrich-Wilhelm University, Bonn, and political publicist: “The evil lies in the Euro.” The 2015 so-called refugee crisis has shown a number of serious law violations Angela Merkel got away with. In an opinion paper on the Immigration Crisis as a Federal Constitutional Problem dated January 8, 2016, Prof. di Fabio writes (translation by this author):    

The federal government is obliged, by constitutional law…, to resume effective controls of the federal borders if the common European system of border protection and immigration gets, temporarily or permanently, disturbed…. The Constitution does not guarantee protection for all people around the world by factual or legal immigration permission. Nor does such an unlimited legal obligation exist in European Law or International Law.

Compare this to Angela Merkel’s cold and dictatorial comment (or, as usual, non-comment) about her irresponsible and unlawful allowing of the 2015 so-called refugee crisis. She said:

I want to remind, for a start, of the fact that the images that went around the world were not the ones of my visit to the reception camp at Heidenau [Saxony; Merkel was confronted there with furious protests against her “welcome policy”]… but the ones showing citizens who on the morning after this decision were receiving people at the railway stations in Munich and elsewhere, who as a matter of course were offering help, many thousands of them. And at this point, the world said: This is really a beautiful gesture. And it came right from people’s hearts. And, quite honestly, I have to say that if we should now begin to have to apologise for showing in emergency situations a friendly face, then this is not my country. [Well, it isn’t and it never was…]       

 

She also boldly told her party colleagues in the Bundestag in late September of 2015, after heavy criticism from her own party CDU and its sister party CSU:

I don’t care whether the influx of refugees is my fault. In any case, they are now here.

One could call this the politics of fait accompli!

However, says Gertrud Höhler, Angela Merkel appears to have decided for a path of ruthless de-nationalisation no matter what. But, says Höhler, such utopian internationalism, or pan-Europeanism, is too much for people to handle. It stubbornly and most irresponsibly ignores their need for a homeland with which they are familiar. And also, says Höhler, what hubris to think one could ever “integrate “, just like that, the remotest cultures into a Western society! But this “masterplan” of forcing an impossible multi-nationalism (or multi-culturalism) upon people also harms the countries the immigrants have come from. Tricked into leaving for a questionable existence in Europe, these young people (most of them men) are increasingly missing back home in their own countries. In other words, all sides are losing and are getting traumatised — and all because of a geopolitical fantasy in which Germany seems to try to attain the position of a “humanitarian super power”. This mad activism, this unhinged “do-gooderism”, even goes beyond the mere issue of immigration. It goes after banking, after the automobile industry and certainly after the energy industry. These are now all “culprits”, and as such they are being ever more cut back, patronised and ultimately nationalised by the state. Angela Merkel, says Gertrud Höhler, uses “humanitarianism” as a cloak for what Höhler calls Risikopolitik (i.e., hazardous politics). Her course is directed against the interest and well-being of the people and is only continuing because the public is not getting informed. By her migration “deal” with Erdogan of Turkey, she has even emboldened Erdogan in his notorious despotic tendencies. Germany has become dangerously accustomed to Merkel’s abuses. Borders lie open; the societal fabric of old is about to fall apart; control has been lost, probably irreversibly; no accountability, and no reliability either. While Merkel continues to govern — nay: rule! —  unconcerned and unhindered, breaking daily the oath under which she was sworn in (translation by this author):

I swear that I will dedicate my strength to the well-being of the German people, increase its benefit, avert harm from it, preserve and defend the constitution and federal laws, thoroughly fulfil my duties and exercise justice toward everyone. So help me God.

And isn’t it interesting that this “ex-communist” geopolitician has on her work-desk a picture of “enlightened” 18th-century despot, German-born Catherine the Great, Empress of Russia, whose geopolitical concept was known under “New Russia”, a formula that, at least in name, has been adopted by current Russian (read: Soviet) President Vladimir Putin?

Merkel und Obama

Prof. Höhler’s assessment implicitly, but nevertheless precisely, describes Angela Merkel as a Leninist in action. As this is what Leninism is about: no fixed principles or values or even rules, but only this one goal: the advance and ultimate victory of the Revolution. Seen in this light, we understand that Merkel’s task is to prepare Germany and Western Europe, in coordination with her bosses in Moscow, for the most rigid communist tyranny. All this reminds one of the American situation, where Hillary Clinton, had she won the 2016 presidential election, would have followed the exact same path of national liquidation, completing the work of destruction begun by Comrade Barack Obama. Actually, Angela Merkel appears to be the German Obama, and the two seem to have been very much aware of this striking parallel in their respective missions. 

Communism is the cult of internationalism, of the erasal of national borders and of any national sovereignty or identity whatsoever. Lenin’s evil legacy is a world unified not in friendship or intercultural understanding, but in a state of all-encompassing amorphousness and emptiness. After all, the communists are the followers of the religion of the great nothing, whose only power consists in its ability to — like a black hole in space — swallow every aspect of human civilisation.  

 

But, are there signs also in other German political parties indicating a shift towards an undeclared one-party state? Yes, there are. On July 26, 2011, the German television channel ARD aired a 90-minute documentary titled Sozialdemokraten — 18 Monate unter Genossen (i.e., Social Democrats: 18 Months among Comrades). It was basically a portrait of that party from within, with countless interviews and film sequences made over a period of one and a half years. At precisely 30:22 till 33:34 running time (the video is linked further below), there is a brief segment filmed in April 2010 in Berlin at the left-leaning Hertie School of Governance’s award of their annual Speaker’s Prize, “Best Speaker of the Year” (the chosen winner, conservative Karl Theodor zu Guttenberg, however, refused the award). Within this segment, from 32:09 till 33:34, there are shown some comments towards a mainly Social Democrat audience, including their chairman, by German Green, Jürgen Trittin, who is generally held as being part of the “left wing” of the Green Party and by some, due to his arrogance, as a “salon Stalinist” – one could easily term him as well as the Al Gore of Germany; under the Red-Green Schröder/Fischer coalition government from 1998 till 2005, Trittin had “served” as Federal Minister for the Environment and in that function pushed forward Germany’s gradual “Atomausstieg”, i.e. complete exit from nuclear energy, by the year 2022 (his Comrades in “Russia” and Eastern Europe, on the contrary, keep building nuclear power plants, so why can’t Germany???). Trittin talks here, quite sportively and sympathetically, about the speech of Social Democratic Party Chairman Sigmar Gabriel, who is present in the audience, at the SPD’s Party Convention at Dresden on November 13, 2009, and Trittin makes a more than revealing point that illustrates the all-Marxist cooperation between Social Democrats and Greens, and what their programme really is, and always has been, about. Jürgen Trittin elaborates (translation by this author):

The next political speech is headlined, I quote: “Speech by the Chairman of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, Sigmar Gabriel, at the SPD’s Federal Party Convention at Dresden.” That speech was a success, but it turns out that these two hours also have their pitfalls. Because there are also some weak passages in them, if I may say that. 164 times the speaker pronounces the word “Comrade” [Genosse oder Genossin], thus on average once every 44 seconds. My teacher would have scored here: “Repetitive mistake”. One of the most-cited sentences of this speech goes: “The political centre is not defined by income- or professional groups, and by the way also not by certain political views to which one would have to adapt. The political centre of Willy Brandt was something entirely different. It was no distinct place, but it was the prerogative of interpretation [Deutungshoheit] in society.” Prerogative of interpretation, that’s the key term in this speech, and that means something entirely different than mere majority appeal. Rather, it goes back to Antonio Gramsci’s term of Hegemony.  [Sigmar Gabriel nods silently.]

Trittin’s “clarifying” remark comes indeed as a bomb-shell: Antonio Gramsci was the co-founder in the early 20th century of the Communist Party of Italy and has become famous for his strategic ideas quite contrary to classical Marxism, namely that first the cultural and spiritual base of a society needs to be destroyed before the revolution can be successful, an approach similar to that of the infamous Frankfurt School. It is interesting that a so-called “Green” politician, speaking to Reds, makes this conspiratorial reference to communist Gramsci and his idea of “hegemony”: it means no less than across-the-board domination of the political debate, more than that: of any political thinking whatsoever, in other words: effective tyranny that’s generally accepted by the population due to the strategistis’ recipe of gradualism. No doubt Angela Merkel is part of that strategic design.

There was one more stunning moment in this documentary where Andrea Nahles, who is today chairwoman of the social democrats, says with regard to her party’s (as well as the Greens’) endorsement of Joachim Gauck for Federal President of Germany in 2010 (57:50 – 58:02; translation again by this author):

And that’s how I would like to see things going in the future: that the SPD enables policies, but does not seek to dominate. This is not a bad course for the future, I think.

What a frank admission: It means, if one reads between the lines, that it is indeed secondary who is in government and who is in opposition, as all parties (maybe with exception of the liberal democrats and, more recently, the nationalists of the AfD) discreetly cooperate towards the same revolutionary goal anyway. — To watch this documentary, click on the picture below (again, the Trittin quote is 32:09 – 33:34; the Nahles quote is 57:50 – 58:02):

Willy Brandt-Haus 2

 

How desperate the German situation has become since 2005, when Angela Merkel became Chancellor, shows this half-hour satire that was aired in 2009 on the German TV channel ZDF at the instance of the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The programme’s title, Der schwarze Kanal kehrt zurück: Die Geschichte der DDR, wie sie wirklich war (The Return of the Black Channel: The History of the GDR as It Really Was), was of course an allusion to communist East Germany’s most deadly propaganda programme Der schwarze Kanal (The Black Channel), that was aired from 1960 till 1989, always with the infamous Karl-Eduard von Schnitzler. Here, in this clever 2009 satire, that was made as if it was a documentary, we “learn”…

…that the GDR’s rigid authoritarian system was actually fun and the strict collectivism merely took a general desire to conform into account “more consistently”. Mass rallies were actually popular with the people, but unliked by the leadership. The state security, by their correct and polite behaviour, had full support from the population. As a consequence, everybody wanted to work for the StaSi, for the sake of adventure. This huge reservoir of personnel has then been used, and is still used today, as organised “masses” at official state visits, by which the ordinary people could comfortably stay at home. GDR cosmonauts took part outside Moscow in the simulation of space flights, in  film studios that were also used by NASA [!]. Also, the widespread opinion that most GDR citizens were watching West-German television is a myth. No indication for that: people loved their East-German TV. In many cases, East-German shows were in fact providing West-German producers with ideas. Also, the notion that East Germany had full employment solely because people weren’t working enough is wrong: people didn’t work at all, Erich Honecker’s motto being: if the proletarian doesn’t want to work in a workers’ and peasants’ state, he shouldn’t be forced to work; it’s enough that everybody assumes that everybody else is working. The GDR economy: a giant alibi operation. Even the National People’s Army (NVA) was bluff, with inflatable tanks, fighter jets and missiles, as the GDR’s leadership was strictly pacifist. The Wall became necessary only to hide the fact that nobody was working and the country was unarmed, and meanwhile this technology is being exported into the whole world. While in the GDR 10% of the population were working for the StaSi, in West Germany it was one third. East-German rock bands active in the West caused significant damage for the West’s economy and were filling people’s heads with junk. The GDR leadership was absolutely convinced that sooner or later capitalism  would collapse. With Western loans flooding in, Erich Honecker finally had the brilliant idea of re-opening the Wall so to accelerate the ruin of West Germany. The events at the press conference with Günter Schabowski on the evening of November 9, 1989 were in fact a play written by Erich Honecker and dramatised by amateur actors. The West gets flooded with East Germans, people who don’t know each other from Adam hug and embrace each other, all because Erich Honecker wants it — while Helmut Kohl is eager to write history whatever the cost. Kohl buys the GDR: a financial fiasco for West Germany, that is now trapped. Erich Honecker leaves the scene, for Chile. His longterm plans still need to be kept secret for another twenty years. Shortly after his arrival, he receives an East-German visitor, a scientist by name of Erika, to whom he says: Today we will set the course of history. There will be written history today in our garden. Erich Honecker appears to be giving an order to this visitor, who is a former Free German Youth secretary. After Honecker’s driver has taken that lady to the airport, he realises she has lost a folder in his car. As he examines the content, he looks at a twenty-year plan titled “Catching Up without Overtaking”, that foresees a global financial crisis for 2008; omnipresent surveillance; all key positions in Germany will be held by East-Germans; big corporations will have been nationalised; banks will be put under state control; the victory of socialism will be imminent. For, the young woman from Honecker’s garden in Chile is today Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany.

This film satire was actually aired on the exact day of the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, on November 9, 2009 at 11:50 p.m., after meanwhile four years of Merkel! What does this tell us? First, satire, in order to be effective, always needs an element of truth. And second, satire comes in frequently as a last line of defence, when open debate has collapsed and tyranny approaches. The reader is encouraged to watch this even without knowing German: this is an extraordinary time document, perhaps one of the last attempts to wake up an asleep public to the ever-more obvious reality that Angela Merkel is a communist Trojan horse.        

 

As if to confirm what was to be aired later that day, Angela Merkel had arranged, somewhat aside from the great anniversary celebrations and not much publicised, for a more than symbolic event during the day: she met with die-hard Leninist and faux reformer Mikhail Gorbachev, communist puppet Lech Wałęsa, slightly suspicious once-GDR pastor and soon-to-be Federal President Joachim Gauck, Vera Lengsfeld, then-Federal Commissioner for the StaSi Records Marianne Birthler, lifelong communist chanconnier Wolf Biermann and a number of other people for what looked like a jolly Mayday parade that led them across the very bridge where twenty years earlier, according to official history, the first East-Berliners were allowed over into West Berlin. The irony is that this bridge, that hasn’t been renamed since the days of the GDR, is named Bösebrücke (though it’s sometimes also called Bornholmer Brücke), after a communist “martyr” who died in a Nazi concentration camp during WWII; hold your breath: “böse”, as an adjective, means EVIL. So, they were crossing, both in 1989 and 2009, the evil bridge!        

??????????????????????????????

??????????????????????????????

 

 

 

 

 

 

f??????????????????????????????

 

Five years later, at the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Wall, Wolf Biermann played an even more prominent role: the supposed “ex-“communist, who still sings his old communist songs and is still celebrated by the same people who celebrated him fifty years ago, was invited into the German parliament, the Bundestag, where he was to sing his 1968 song, Ermutigung (Encouragement).

However, as was to be expected, Comrade Biermann didn’t restrict himself to what he had been invited for, namely to sing, but felt entitled to give a 5-minute political speech, in which he attacked the representatives of The Left, who are basically the heirs to the old GDR’s Socialist Unity Party of Germany, as being the miserable remnant of the old brood of dragons, whom he, as a professional dragon slayer back in the days of the East-German communist regime, cannot possibly beat up, with heroic posture, as they are already beaten. When Biermann begins his little manifestation, President of the Bundestag Norbert Lammert (who was the one who single-handedly invited Biermann) interrupts him and reminds him of the Bundestag’s parliamentary rules, by which only elected representatives are allowed to give speeches. Biermann, lifelong communist rebel, simply gives back that he didn’t shut up in communist East Germany, nor would he do so at this present occasion. The parliament replied with wild applause (one can even see, which is a scandal all for itself, Angela Merkel joining in the general jubilations supporting Biermann making a mockery of the rules of procedure of the Bundestag). Biermann, the “ex-“communist communist, even lectures The Left that they aren’t left, nor right, but “reactionary”. After the performance of his song, Biermann receives personal congratulations from President Lammert for his silver wedding on that day of November 7, 2014 (he actually married his present wife two days before the fall of the Wall). Biermann makes clear, however, that what they really celebrate on this November 7th is the “great socialist October Revolution”. So much for “Biermann, the ex-communist”…

Who would have thought before the German reunification that one day old East-German communists would sit in the Bundestag (apart from the Greens) who would be attacked, from the floor, by an old East-German communist star chanconnier? An all-communist farce indeed! — If one keeps in mind the additional problem with German politics, namely that it is a Pan-German endeavour (though greatly undermined by Moscow), for which the so-called European Union is merely a cloak, one can get quite easily, and thoroughly, disgusted by political Germany altogether.             

 

Two years further ahead still, on November 15, 2016, Wolf Biermann turned 80. Three days after his birthday, on Friday, November 18, 2016, Biermann gave a birthday concert, at the invitation of Ullstein publishers, at the Berlin Ensemble theatre, which once had been communist icon Bertolt Brecht’s theatre in the early days of communist East Germany. The choice of location: a clear message in itself. Several high-profile politicians attended the event, among them also “Christian-Democrat” Chancellor Angela Merkel, accompanied by her equally East-German husband Prof. Joachim Sauer. Surprisingly, mostly invisible Prof. Sauer, who appears to be befriended with Wolf Biermann, gave the laudatory speech. Here are the only thirty seconds from that speech this author could find, whether as text or as audio (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcdkwdfz0GA). Translation and bold print, as always, by this author:  

When I watched in 2011, at the Böll Foundation, the film about the Cologne Concert [of 1976, after which Biermann was expelled from the GDR], when I also watched — while preparing my speech — Carsten Krüger’s film, Mensch Biermann [1977], I was speechless: “To this communist you were listening at the time?” I asked myself. “His songs were your sarcasm, your bold jokes, your cheerfulness, your lighthearted comfort, your encouragement?” I must have completely disregarded this side of Biermann’s at the time. 

Konzert zum 80. Geburtstag von Wolf BiermannYou see: These East-German (as well as Soviet) com-munists, who during the last thirty years have set themselves up in the power centres of the West, are most frivolously laughing at us! In an allegedly post-communist world, that is in reality, Gramsci-style, characterised by across-the-board communist dom-ination, a communist can be unashamedly communist without being recognised as such, because he doesn’t stick out any more against the overall backdrop of a society that has become thoroughly communist, too! And here they were, at Wolf Biermann’s birthday concert: Both, Prof. Sauer and Chancellor Merkel, dressed in ostentatious existentialist black — like two grinning apocalyptic crows heralding destruction — with Prof. Sauer indeed wearing a Mao suit!  

 

AFTERTHOUGHT

This article has been particularly painful to write. Not that this author were German, he isn’t. Yet, the fact that the destiny (or rather, fate) of the nations of Europe is now being determined by these two equally totalitarian powers is fairly disheartening, to put it mildly: a “post”-Nazi Germany, that has continued, ever after 1945, its same pan-German project of a German-controlled Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals, and a “post”-communist Russia, that has remained as Soviet as ever and has successfully wormed itself into the halls of power of Western Europe (and of the West in general), working on its ever-same goal of liquidating any nation state whatsoever, including proudly nationalist Germany. Thus, Germany and Russia, despite their shared socialist outlook, by the end of the day will be deadly rivals and enemies. Right now, they use each other, but both of them know too well that they cannot trust each other. The United States may have been, traditionally, the communists’ “main enemy”, their main obstacle and thus their main target (China & Russia even plan the complete depopulation of America!), but it is Germany who is the communists’ main rival for world domination!

What’s more, as communism has made itself widely “invisible”, there is no significant anti-communism left, whether in Europe or in the U.S. (although we might underestimate President Trump in this regard). After all, how can one fight an enemy, that allegedly isn’t there? It’s now all a “soft” tyranny, gradual and way more sophisticated. It’s no longer the openly oppressive “dictatorship of the proletariat”, but – as Anatoliy Golitsyn explained – an all-encompassing “state of the whole people”, that insidiously draws everybody in. Also, such Gramscian-Leninist approach avoids the emergence of martyrs to become recognised as martyrs. Instead, it’s a perfidious process of silent, Orwellian ostracisation of those reactionary dinosaurs who stubbornly oppose the collective; in earlier days one would have said: who refuse to submit to the “party line” – which is precisely what the term “political correctness” means and where it comes from.

Back in the old days of the overt, Stalinist model, anti-communists could still identify the threat, and even idealistic communists trapped in the rigid and painful tyranny of “real socialism” were able to point a finger at the sclerotic, heartless old men in the Politbureau. Had they not been “truthful” communists dreaming of a juster world, but wholehearted Christian believers, their outcry would have been pretty much the same.

Bettina Wegner’s “Kinder” (1976); a recording of 1978:      

 

 

 

 

 

© The Contemplative Observer 2018

 

 

 

 

Christopher Story’s Prescient Warning to the Irish

 

Christopher Story, Fatima 2000 speech, Rahmen

 

The late Christopher Story (1938 – 2010), for those who aren’t familiar with him and his extraordinary work, was one of the very few Western researchers and analysts to have mastered the art of deciphering Marxist-Leninist dialectics and thus pan-communist longrange strategy.

Via his newsletter Soviet Analyst and his website worldreports.org, Story represented basically a one-man intelligence think-tank and was highly respected, also in political circles, as a top-expert in all things communist and “post-communist”. He edited and published premier Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn’s second book of 1995, The Perestroika Deception: The World’s Slide Towards the ‘Second October Revolution’ – Memoranda to the Central Intelligence Agency, and wrote himself a true reference work, published in 2002, on the Leninist dimension of so-called European integration, titled The European Union Collective: Enemy of Its Member States – A Study in Russian and German Strategy to Complete Lenin’s World Revolution. Probably the best of Christopher Story’s video appearances is a top-notch interview of 2003 on the topic of same ‘perestroika’ deception, in which he explains how the communists in Moscow, Beijing and around the world have been able to pull off this greatest lie ever sold known as the “collapse of communism”. 

Why is this analyst, who wasn’t even Irish, relevant to the Irish question, or to the Northern Ireland “peace process”, if you will? Well, because he understood the workings of the revolution, that has always used deception and subterfuge, false labels and fronts to further an overall cause of societal destruction, that would otherwise be never accepted by anyone, anywhere.

In October 1999, Christopher Story – who was Anglican, but who personally knew the great Fr. Malachi Martin, whom he very much loved and admired – spoke at the Fatima 2000 World Peace Bishops’ Conference held in Hamilton, ON, Canada. The title of his talk was “Lenin’s Satanic World Revolution”. Following the embedded video is the transcript of a key passage (15:16-17:32) that relates to the true communist nature of Sinn Féin and its long-term icon Gerry Adams as well as the true dialectical meaning of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement as a preliminary step towards a unified, Leninist Ireland.

 

The dialectic, by the way, is central to the revolution, and in case you need a refresher on that, very briefly: the dialectic consists of the thesis, the antithesis and the synthesis. And if they don’t get – the synthesis, of course, being what they intend – and if they don’t get, achieve, their synthesis, then they start a new cycle. Perhaps the easiest example, contemporary example, of this is the situation in Northern Ireland. And I don’t suppose you see much stuff about Northern Ireland in the press here, but if you were to read the British press, you would see pictures of Gerry Adams, who is a Leninist par excellence, who speaks in Lenin’s special Aesopian language, “Aesopian” being Lenin’s own phrase for the language he invented, which contains double or triple meanings. But not only that, Gerry Adams looks like Lenin and has a beard like Lenin! He speaks like Lenin, behaves like Lenin and looks like Lenin. In other words, he passes the duck test: if it waddles like a duck, flies like a duck, swims like a duck and just behaves like a duck, it is a duck! So, as far as I’m concerned, Gerry Adams is a good example. Now, in the Northern Ireland context, the thesis is twenty-five years of bombings, maimings, we got 35,000 people in Northern Ireland who have suffered injury since this particular phase of the Troubles began. I don’t know how many dead, I think it’s well over four thousand. So, that’s the thesis. The antithesis is the sudden cessation and the absence of bombings and maimings. And the synthesis, or the intended synthesis, of course is a unified radicalised, Leninist Ireland. And what I say to people from southern Ireland is: It’s all very well you’re tacitly supporting this outrage, or this continuing outrage, but you don’t seem to understand that once they get their way in Northern Ireland, they have designs on you!

Those who cannot see the forest for the trees anymore, on both sides of the border, having become accustomed, over all those years and decades, to viewing Sinn Féin (and the IRA, with which it has always been intrinsically connected) as a force for good, should perhaps start to listen to what the Sinn Féin leaders (and not only them) actually say. At Sinn Féin’s last “Ard Fheis”, held in November of 2017 in Dublin, Gerry Adams, who was still Sinn Féin President at the time, opened his speech with the standard ritual of communist greetings (official transcript here; web-links as well as Irish-Gaelic-to-English translations in square brackets inserted into the quote below added by this author):

 

Martin McGuinness (1950 - 2017)

A special céad míle fáilte [hundred thousand welcome] to Friends of Sinn Féin USA and representatives of the North American Labour movement. Best wishes to the President of the Friends of Sinn Féin USA Jim Cullen, who is seriously ill. Fáilte [Welcome] also to Friends of Sinn Féin in Canada. Welcome also to our comrades from Cuba, Greece, Britain, from the Basque country, from GUE/NGL [European United Left/Nordic Green Left] and to all our foreign dignitaries and diplomats. Slán abhaile [Safe home] to the Cuban Ambassador Hermes [i.e., Hermes Herrera Hernández] and his bean chéile [wife] Ana. Solidarity greetings to the people of Palestine and the Gaza strip. Solidarity also to the people of Catalonia. Tá mo chuid cainte anocht ar son mo chara agus mo chomrádaí, agus ár gceannaire [My speech tonight is for my friend and comrade, and our leader], Martin McGuinness [see picture] agus do Bernie agus a clann atá linn anseo [and for Bernie (Martin McGuiness’ widow Bernadette) and her children, who are here]. We miss Martin. We miss all those comrades who died in the last year. And in the decades of conflict before that.

Compare this to a video containing official communist greetings, in this case from the narco-terrorist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) to the Communist Party of Australia. It’s the exact same style, although here the communist message is entirely open and unconcealed:

 

In an excellent Daily Mail article dated May 3, 2014, Scottish-Irish journalist Kevin Toolis examined Gerry Adams’ revolutionary past (and present): “Can the Master of Duplicity Survive the Ghosts of Unquiet Dead? A Chilling Assessment of Gerry Adams by a Leading Chronicler of the Troubles”. Here is a section from that article (although this author would recommend to read the whole):

Adams’s life has been lived denying what everyone else involved in the Troubles believes – that he is the IRA. When asked directly about the IRA’s actions, Adams will defer responsibility to the hidden leadership of a political/paramilitary organisation, that many believe he himself still controls with a Stalinist grip.

To believe Adams’s denials you have to, like Alice in Wonderland, disbelieve in hundreds of other facts at the same time. That, aged 23, he was not released from jail in 1972 by the Government and flown by the RAF, along with five other IRA leaders, for secret talks with Home Secretary Willie Whitelaw. That he was not named as head of the IRA by the US government in the 1988 report Terrorist Group Profiles. And that the testimony of  convicted IRA men and women who say he was their terrorist commander in Belfast in the 1970s is also a lie.

Disturbingly, Adams can turn on the charm. He is a consummate media performer, rarely unsettled no matter how hostile the interviewer. Adams has mastered the art of high politics. But all this has come late in his career. Adams’s first real job, at 19, was as an IRA organiser within the IRA Belfast Brigade as the streets of Northern Ireland descended into civil war…..

Adams was an IRA prince who rose quickly through the ranks. Even among his republican contemporaries, Adams, a bookish loner, is remembered as a distant, controlling figure who resented any challenge to his authority.

This other Adams, colder, angrier, calculating and opaque, is never on public view. “Don’t be fooled by the mild and meek persona. The Gerry Adams I knew in the early 1970s was a very ruthless man,” said a former IRA figure who is too afraid to allow his name to be used. Killing Mrs McConville in 1972 was a lesson for other would-be informers. And nothing has really changed in republican areas, despite the peace process.

Although he is a southern Irish MP, Adams’s real heartland remains West Belfast, where he is regarded with a fanatical devotion by supporters and fear by former republicans. Dare to cross Sinn Fein/IRA by protesting about drunk “off-duty” IRA thugs murdering your brother – as the Catholic McCartney sisters did in 2005 – and you will discover how dangerous an enemy Adams can be. The McCartney sisters were forced out of their own homes.

In other words, Gerry Adams has been living, during all those years and right under everybody’s noses, as a revolutionary phantom. Perfectly double-faced, he could be seen as the embodiment of the lie of “collapsible communism”. In reality, he has continued his revolutionary programme “by other means”.

Also, this writer would like to present here two documentaries about Gerry Adams, one more critical, the other more sympathetic and including personal interviews with Gerry Adams. First, the critical one, titled “Gerry Adams: War, Peace and Politics”, aired not too long ago on the Irish television channel TV3:

 

The other documentary, one hour in length and way more friendly, was aired by BBC One Northern Ireland on June 28, 2010 and was simply titled “Adams”. Despite its widely uncritical lionisation of Gerry Adams, it nevertheless provides a few quite remarkable clues. Below is part 1/7:

 

In one interview segment, Gerry Adams makes a statement that clearly shows him as the Leninist dialectician that he is. He says (part 4/7; minute 1:06):

I increasingly believe in people and the sense that people are, broadly speaking, good. And then, secondly, I think that people respond to political conditions in which they live. So, if you want to change the way people think, then change the political conditions, and people will think differently in different conditions. 

Wow! He lays open the fact that the switch from conflict to apparent peace was – as indicated by analyst Christopher Story – but a tactical manoeuvre so to all the more efficiently further the revolutionary goal of ultimate takeover. What an admission!

Towards the end, the documentary asks, “Over fourty years now, we’ve watched the evolution of Gerry Adams, activist, leader, politician and peace negotiator. So, after all that time, who is Gerry Adams? Who really knows him?” Gerry Adams’ cool and telling answer is this:

People of West Belfast know me. You know, I’ve grown up with them and I’m part of them. The people who’ve bugged my phone, scrutinised my activities, they know me.

In other words, although he doesn’t say it too openly, he admits that he hasn’t changed at all! He has never convincingly apologised for his former “armed struggle” (as he simply has no regrets) and remains to this day a powerful, untiring and dangerous-as-ever agent of the world revolution.

Almost en passant, the programme closes with Gerry Adams saying (and note that he has meanwhile, officially, stepped down from Sinn Féin’s leadership):

I have no intention of retiring. You know, I have obviously toyed with the idea, and it’s great to have a break, and, you know, you can do normal things, but I have no intention of retiring.

OF COURSE NOT! Revolutionary communists never retire!

This is perhaps one of the pictures of Gerry Adams that allows one to pierce through his deceptive mask. It is a disturbing picture as it shows him as the cruel communist he has ever been.

Gerry Adams

 

So, the devastating conclusion – far from being rocket science, though many might prefer to keep their heads buried in the sand – is that Northern Ireland, along with its republican cause of reunion with the south, has been held hostage for half a century by a group of stone-cold Marxist revolutionaries, who couldn’t have cared less about the havoc and bloodshed they have brought upon the land. It’s been yet another case of superimposed communist “liberation struggle”, nothing to do with Irish identity or tradition or patriotism, let alone Catholicism. It’s been a foreign element that had been introduced into an old conflict. Which is what the revolution does, everywhere in the world: exploit conflict where there is conflict, and create conflict where there is none.

Gerry Adams hugging Enda Kelly

And this is the objective, symbolically communicated by Gerry Adams as he seemingly “hugs to death” then-Taoiseach (i. e., Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland) Enda Kenny, of the liberal-conservative party Fine Gael. This gesture couldn’t be more foreboding and it is perfectly in accordance with what Gorbachev indicated thirty years ago was the Soviet plan with regard to Western Europe: Hug them to death!

 

 

 

As Ireland goes, they say, so goes the Church. However, in our present inverted situation (where the official space of the Catholic Church is in the grip of the Enemy), one could rather speak of Ireland finally having caught up with the general, all-encompassing Great Apostasy. For this former exquisite bastion of Catholicism to have embraced same-sex “marriage” and even the slaughtering of the unborn means it has joined, at long last, the “respectable and politically correct” club of pagan nations around the world. A dreadful door has been pushed open, and the socialists and communists (finally led by deep-red Sinn Féin) will soon be marching through it, with great fanfare and triumph. It is no small thing to abandon one’s Divine Covenant, and by human reckoning the ramifications and consequences of this fatal step into the abyss might well turn out to be (possibly far beyond the shores of Ireland) terribly, terribly disastrous – while the stubborn “reactionaries” and “bigots” of Donegal (God bless them!) might still be devotedly singing, from the bottom of their hearts:

 

l

BE THOU MY VISION!

 

 

 

 

 

 

© The Contemplative Observer 2018

 

 

Ann Barnhardt’s Frightening Analysis of the (Continuing) Obama Revolution

Ann Barnhardt, Rahmen

 

American Catholic blogger Ann Barnhardt hardly needs an introduction. She has been enlightening so many of us over quite a number of years, laymen and, yes, churchmen alike. What this author wants to present here is but a short excerpt from a talk she gave back in 2012 about the disturbing similarities between the Vendée Genocide during the Reign of Terror of the French Revolution and what Barack Obama & company may have in store for America (and the West), even now, one should add, as they are seemingly out of power. Actually, the title of her talk was “The Vendée Genocide: The Proto-Marxist Model for War against the Church, Humanity and Freedom”. What follows is a transcript, done by this author, of the most thrilling passages. Ann Barnhardt’s 70-minute talk, in its entire length, covered much more than what is given here below, but nevertheless read these lines well and think about it: Are we already on the brink of the total destruction of two thousand years of Christian civilisation? – Ms. Barnhardt’s original videos of this talk of hers are embedded at the bottom of this post.  

… With Obama in there, they’ve overthrown the entire government. This is going to be the coup de grâce. Don’t kid yourself. This is it. They are not going to walk away. They have been gunning for this, literally, for centuries. Because if we fall, the entire world falls to these jackals. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO WALK AWAY, NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS…

Obama is the enemy, and he is trying to destroy this country! For the love of God, internet, WAKE THE HELL UP! …

You have to understand that Washington D.C., right now, is hopeless. The horse is dead. You stand over it and you beat it all you want, and you have, “Rah-rah! Cheer! Oh boy, the horse is gonna get up and run like Secretariat!” No, it’s not! It’s dead! You’ve got to get a new horse in, or there’s no hope! Sorry, I know that that’s bleak. And, “Oh, we’ve got to have hope!” You’ve got to have hope, but you can’t have hope in something that is impossible and futile. You have to refocus your energies and that hope and that faith into something that’s going to work! And that cesspool in Washington D.C., as it stands now, is not reformable, and it will never work. There’s going to have to be a hard reset. You’re gonna have to get all of those people out of there, every last one of them at the same time, and repopulate it from scratch! Sorry, but that’s the situation. It’s our fault because we let it get to this. We let it get to this, and now we’ve made this bed and by God we’re gonna have to sleep in it; not stand over the dead horse – and rah-rah! – and wave our flags. That’s not gonna work…

Here’s where, sadly, history begins to diverge. Do you think five out of six priests and bishops today are gonna stand and fight? Sadly, the answer is no. No. The church has been massively infiltrated by Marxism and recruited an enormous amount of homosexuals. This has led to a massive crisis of faith. These men, they’re not gonna stand…

It’s all playing out in exactly the same way. And the problem we have right now is the faithlessness of the Church. There are no men to stand and say: No. And if the clergy doesn’t stand, then the people won’t, the laity won’t. That’s what’s terrifying…

Compare this to the Vendée: The Vendée, where the people that were going to the churches and were telling the priests and the bishops, “You have to stand firm! We’re behind you! We’re with you! Do not compromise in the faith!” Now, you know what most people, especially Catholics, want, most Catholic women want? – Hi, Catholic women! – Yeah, I know you’re on the pill. And you want the free pill, don’t ya? You want the pill on your insurance policy. Never mind that that’s mortal sin! Oh, don’t worry about that! You want the pill. And so you’re just gonna say, “Fiddledeedee, I don’t care.” And you know what? You are going to lose your civilisation over this. I hope you’re happy! I hope you’re happy so that in not bringing any children into the world, you can have the standard of living that you want. I hope you’re happy when your entire civilisation collapses and you’re not living in the 4,000 square-foot house with the granite countertops anymore, honey! Yeah. It’s funny how these things all come back around…

 

Afterthought: What Ann Barnhardt is warning us against can be easily backed up by the testimony of the late Larry Grathwohl, who back in 1969 volunteered to infiltrate, for the FBI, the Weather Underground communist terrorist organisation of Mark Rudd, Obama buddies Bill Ayers & Bernadine Dohrn and others. Listen in the short video-clip below to Larry Grathwohl describing how he sat in the midst of these wild communist radicals who were actually contemplating the logistics of killing 25 million “uncorrectable” conservative Americans and of subjecting the rest, wherever necessary, to brutal communist re-education. Mr. Grathwohl’s 1976 book, Bringing Down America: An FBI Informer With the Weathermen, can be read here.

 

Finally, here is another mind-blowing piece to the puzzle of who Obama is and what his objectives are: The report of an American computer engineer who happened to be in Moscow in early 1992, where he was involved in a joint-venture project at the time. At a dinner party with his Russian counterparts, the host’s wife talked too much and revealed that there was a young communist politician in America – a “Soviet”, she said – who had been groomed from early on and who would soon be POTUS. She knew that young man’s whole biography, in detail, and even gave his first name as being “Barack”:

 

 

 

 

Presented by The Contemplative Observer 2018

 

 

J. R. Nyquist’s Prophetic Warning of 20 Years Ago

Sowjetplakat

 

Even in its supposed death throes the Soviet relic stands – its missiles poised, its leaders still dripping with Afghan blood, its espionage networks intact. We look on with amazement at this Antichrist; at this armored, low-built, cruel, tough, oriental animal that can drink the sewage of the most stagnant ponds while waiting upon its prey; not guided by economic rationalism or other Epicurean utilities, but by ancient, primitive, savage impulses. The Soviet ghost succeeds precisely because it is “the coldest of all cold monsters” in an age of lukewarmness; and grows because it devours whatever is on hand. How can we fail to marvel at a phenomenon so rich in contradiction – so twinkling with absurdity – as this empire against empires, this slavery in the name of emancipation? Consider its unaccountable feats: the establishment of a proletarian state in a land of peasants; literacy and industrialization through terror and hunger; military victory by shooting one’s own generals and by slaughtering one’s own soldiers; a black-market “communist” economy under a regime of criminal policemen; a backwardness first in space; the mightiest war machine of all time built by an economic “basket case”; and now, a democracy of totalitarian functionaries, a reformist policy that doesn’t bring reform, a surrendering of Eastern Europe, the coughing-up of many rockets and thermonuclear triggers so that the entire world might thereby be ensnared.

Every defeat, every step backward, every disaster in Soviet history seems miraculously transformed into success. How is this possible? We blink. We rub our eyes. We blink again. But the paradoxes continue. Our seers, sociologists, economists, and historians have never left off predicting the downfall of this curious monstrosity. In 1920 few experts thought the communist regime would last. Every respectable social theory, partnered with an infallible logic, told us that the Soviet Union crumbled in 1921, that it should have been wiped out by Hitler in 1941, that it passed away with the death of Stalin in 1953, and finally, that it went belly-up in 1991. How does one muster hostility against an adversary whose obituary has already been written? By every indication this adversary barely has a pulse, and drags out its existence like some wounded hulk. Thus does the Soviet death-rattle stretch through seven decades as the most tremendous last gasp in history. A few more such gasps and communism might endure for a thousand years. But nobody believes that another gasp is possible. To our way of thinking each gulp of air is the very last. Our only doubt comes during moments of immediate crisis, during Russia’s “elections”; and even then, after the crisis passes, the Soviet corpse is said to return to its traditional activity; that is, of decomposing, of being about to crumble, of coming apart at the seams. And even when the Communist Empire pronounces its own collapse with melodramatic flair, as with the advent of Mr. Yeltsin, a new Russian submarine nonetheless rolls off the stocks, with the muffled cries of Azerbaijan as background music. “That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain” is more than possible, especially in the Russian bureaucracy. That one may crumble and grow increasingly dangerous is also possible. But who is wise enough to know this?

During the 1940s Joseph A. Schumpeter characterized the typical American attitude toward Soviet Russia: “Let Russia swallow one or two more countries, what of it? Let her be well supplied with everything she needs and she will cease to frown. After twenty years the Russians will be just as democratic and pacific as are we – and think and feel just as do we. Besides, Stalin will be dead by then.”*

Each decade, however, has found us rolled back by communist takeovers in places like Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, China, Angola, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Tibet, Afghanistan, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and now, more recently, Zaire; and by the infallible progress of men like Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, and – dare we say? – Nelson Mandela. Soviet socialism ebbs and flows unlike anything we’ve seen before. Take for example the year 1941, when Hitler decimated the Red Army. Yet the Red Army rose phoenix-like out of the ashes. One recalls Lenin’s political and military disasters, like the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the Soviet invasion of Poland. We remember Khrushchev’s harebrained scheming, and his break with Maoist China. But each Soviet disaster is transformed, over time, into victory; e.g., the collapse of Brest-Litovsk, the communization of Poland, and finally, a new coziness with China. The Soviet talent for resurgence must be taken into account. To find a resilience as great as this, there is only the example set by the Romans after Cannae.** But is Russia, like Rome, destined for world empire? We cannot be sure. All we know is that Russia, whatever comparisons we incline to, proves to be a special entity following a law of development all its own. Perhaps Schumpeter was on to something when he wrote: “The Russian century once started may run its course almost of itself.”*** Why? Because Russian foreign policy has purpose, energy, style, depth; while American foreign policy is rambling, sentimental, and shallow. This gives tremendous advantage to Russia and very little to America. The American people want prosperity, not imperial burdens. At heart we are isolationists. Therefore, the most dangerous event of all is this recent and apparent collapse of the Soviet Empire. For should the Soviet Union, as phoenix, once again rise out of the ashes, we shall be compelled to rise out of ashes of our own.

* Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (New York: Harpor Torchbooks, 1975), p. 402.

** At Cannae Hannibal wiped out two Roman armies and killed nearly 60,000 men in a single day.

*** Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, p. 402 (see the last sentence of his footnote).

 

Quotation taken from J. R. Nyquist’s 257-page book Origins of the Fourth World War, Chula Vista, CA: Black Forest Press, 1998, Chapter 3: “East and West”, Note 2, pp. 31-33. Origins of the Fourth World War can be ordered directly from Mr. Nyquist’s website or via amazon.com (in the latter case, at astronomical prices).

Mr. Nyquist has also co-authored a number of books such as Back from the Dead: The Return of the Evil Empire (2014), Red Jihad: Moscow’s Final Solution for America and Israel (2016), and – best of all – The New Tactics of Global War: Reflections on the Changing Balance of Power in the Final Days of Peace (2015).  

J. R. Nyquist posts columns, at varying intervals, on his own websites, www.jrnyquist.blog and www.jrnyquist.com. He is also a non-regular guest on the Brazilian YouTube channel Terça Livre (under the title Update Brazil) and a weekly guest on the John Moore Radio Show (always on Wednesdays).

 

 

 

Presented by The Contemplative Observer 2018

 

 

What Is Conservatism, and What Isn’t? – An Examination

 

conservative cartoon

 

Readers who might expect here a scholarly, academic treatise on the topic given above will be disappointed. The author’s approach is rather an approach determined by common sense.

 

SOME GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

First, one should keep in mind the famous saying coined by ancient Roman playwright Terence, “Quot capita, tot sententiae ,” meaning: as many heads, so many opinions (or, judgments). This is nowhere truer than in the field of philosophy and political philosophy. Where there is no binding dogma and no absolute frame of reference, everybody has his own little, or not so little, version of the truth, and more often than not such “truths” collide with each other, exclude each other and even fight each other to the death. Indeed, the realm of ideas is a dangerous realm, where the greatest zeal can end in deserted lands and millions dead. The most staggering example in this regard has certainly been so-called communism. The devastating fruits of this ideology were neither an accident nor due to alleged aberrations from the “true gospel” of Karl Marx. The destruction, the mass killing, the misery had all been built into it right from the beginning. And even the many followers of communism who, for whatever unfortunate reasons, truly believed in their cause, as idealists, they were utterly and most monstrously wrong, too. In other words, right and wrong (ultimately: good and evil) aren’t fictions made up by some stubborn, unenlightened “bigots” (who, supposedly, “will never get it”), but are valid – even timelessly valid – categories by which to discern what to do and what not to do, both individually and as a society.

The word “conservatism” has only been around since the early 19th century. Which is significant. Its Latin root “conservare” means to preserve (or, transferred literally: to conserve). But why hadn’t there been a word like this before that time? The answer is a rather obvious one: the French Revolution, far beyond the borders of France, had changed everything. The old, eternal order, that had been resting since time immemorial on the thrones and altars, was suddenly under attack. The maxim “Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité!” was calling for a “new” humanity guided by new principles. Principles that fiercely rejected any monarchical claim or Papal authority. Down with the oppressors! Away with absolutes and hierarchies and that crooked set of superstitious beliefs known as Christendom! A fundamentally new civilisation was at hand, inspired by reason and brotherhood, equality and free thought and action. And the masses, as ever ignorant and gullible, were willing to follow those agitators and ultimately betrayed everything that represented the French nation, both in her essence and grandeur.

 

REFLECTIONS ON THE INSTITUTION OF MONARCHY 

There is a mystical bond (Americans might have a problem with this) between monarch and people, and its basis is known as “divine right”. Such right is in no way a one-way street. Rather it characterises a relationship of mutual rights and obligations. The monarch looks after his nation, and the nation is loyal to him, both sides being firmly subjected to the rule of God. In fact, the relationship goes far beyond mere necessities or mutual dependence. The two are actually bound together in a bond of love. If torn apart, both sides experience very deep and very real phantom pain. The dethroned monarch longs back for his people, and the orphaned people – at least, once it comes to its senses – begins wholeheartedly longing again for its beloved and cherished king or emperor. These are not empty myths, and certainly the rightful position of a monarch has nothing to do with that of a ruthless totalitarian dictator who imposes his random will upon a helpless people that is caught and imprisoned in a system known as tyranny. Monarchy (exceptions aside) is not tyranny, just as absolutism is not totalitarianism!

It was, of all authors and intellectuals, famous Soviet dissident and novelist Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918 – 2008) who most elegantly clarified this point. In November 1916: A Novel, one of Solzhenitsyn’s protagonists, a staunch monarchist of a medieval history professor by name of Olda Andozerskaya, wisely schools her pro-republican, pro-“social progress” discussion partners (indentations separating Andozerskaya’s elaborations from the rest, added by this author). Solzhenitsyn writes:

In educated Russian society, opinion is so slanted, leans so sharply to one side, that by no means every view may be expressed. A whole school of thought opposed to that particular slant is morally forbidden, not merely in lectures but in private conversation. And the more “liberated” the company, the more heavily this tacit prohibition weighs on it. Warned that “he’s a rightist, you know” – “no! a rightist?” – everyone recoils in horror. That man’s entitlement to live, to express opinions, is abruptly terminated. As though anyone could forego the use of his right hand, or buy only left-handed gloves. Only an innocent, charging in recklessly before he has found his feet, would lay about him as the colonel had today.

But it was because of him that Andozerskaya had plucked up her courage. In her academic milieu she lived under the constant pressure of this ban on thoughts unwelcome to “society.” She had to choose every word so carefully that she never dared speak her mind fully or directly. Vorotyntsev’s enviable freedom of expression had drawn her out. And with the company trickling away the risk was small: nothing could distract the eccentric engineer from his notebook, and his happy wife was not one of those suspicious-minded progressive ladies always spoiling for an argument. Flouting all the taboos, even the most inflexible (and foreseeing the colonel’s jubilation), she looked at each of them in turn through half-closed eyes and said laughingly,       

“You seem to have plumped for a republic in a hurry, gentlemen! How lightly you have rejected monarchy! Are you sure you aren’t just slaves to fashion? One person starts it, and the rest take up the parrot cry: the monarchy is the main obstacle to progress. And this is the distinctive characteristic by which we recognize ‘our side’: abuse of monarchy in the past, in the future, and at all times in the world’s history.”

Was she joking? Making fun of them? What wild nonsense was this? A professor of general history, in the twentieth century, defending … defending … not … “Au-toc-racy?” 

“That in particular. The slogan ‘Down with autocracy’ has blotted out the whole sky, clouded all minds. Autocracy is blamed for everything in Russia. But, historically, the word ‘autocrat’ means simply a ruler who does not pay tribute. A sovereign. It most certainly does not mean one who does just what he likes. True, he has plenary powers which he shares with no one, no other earthly authority limits him, he cannot be brought before any earthly tribunal, but he must answer to his own conscience and to God. And he must regard the limits imposed on his authority as sacrosanct, and observe them even more strictly than bounds drawn by a constitution.”

Obodovsky could not believe his ears. An educated person defending, loud and clear, the barbarous, benighted institution called autocracy? Surely the time was past when a single word could be said in its defense? In defense not just of monarchy in the abstract but of the Russian autocratic police state? Perhaps even of that particular Tsar. The mere thought of that incompetent nonentity of a Tsar so sickened Obodovsky that when their floating industrial exhibition was anchored off Constantinople, and the personnel were invited to a party by the Russian ambassador, that ragged, half-starved émigré refused to eat well for once so as not to have to drink the health of Nikolai II.

“But unlimited power is directed by the greed of timeserving courtiers and sycophants, not by conscience before God!” the engineer exclaimed. “Once it has deprived the people of freedom, autocracy grows stupid, becomes deaf, and cannot will what is for the general good, but only what is bad. At best it can only be rendered helpless by its own might. The history of all ruling houses, everywhere, and not just our own, is criminal!”

When Andozerskaya wanted to expound something seriously she always struck a characteristic pose, arching her small hands before her, and stroking one with the other.

“Yes, many peoples have been quick to raise their hands against their monarchs. And some have suffered irreparable loss. In Russia, where there is only a thin veneer of social awareness, it will be a long, long time before anyone thinks up anything better than monarchy.”

Obodovsky looked askance. Was she laughing at him? Trying to make a fool of him? “But look, monarchy means above all stagnation. How can anybody want his country to stagnate?”

“A cautious approach to the new, a conservative sentiment, does not mean stagnation. A farsighted monarch carries out reforms – but only those for which the time is ripe. He does not go at it mindlessly, as some republican governments do, maneuvering so as not to lose power. And it is the monarch who has the authority to carry out lasting and far-reaching reforms.”

“Are there any rational arguments in favor of monarchy in our age? Monarchy is a negation of equality. The negation of civic freedom!” 

“Why should it be?” Andozerskaya countered, unperturbed. “Both freedom and equality can perfectly well flourish under a monarchy.”

But she saw as yet no twitch of agreement on the colonel’s weather-beaten face. He was biding his time.

Wrinkling her small brow, summoning up all her strength (she wasn’t going to give way now that she’d started it), she spoke not in her oracular, professorial manner, but laying her sentences before them one by one, with the practiced skill of a housewife setting out polished knives on a tablecloth.         

“First, a firmly established line of succession saves a country from destructive rebellions. Second, with hereditary monarchy you don’t get periodic electoral turmoil, and political strife in the country is reduced. Republican elections weaken a government’s authority – they do not incline us to respect it: those who would govern have to truckle to us before the elections and work off their debt to us afterward. Whereas a monarch doesn’t have to make election promises. That’s number three. A monarch is able to strike an impartial balance. Monarchy is the spirit of national unity, whereas republics are inevitably torn by rivalries. That’s four. The personal power and prosperity of the monarch coincide with those of the country as a whole, and he is simply compelled to defend the national interest if only to survive. That’s five. For ethnically variegated multinational countries the monarch is the one binding force, the personification of unity. That’s six.”

She gave a little smile. The strong, broad-bladed table knives lay gleaming in parallel lines. She looked triumphantly at the colonel, expecting that he would no longer withhold his strong support. That they would now speak with one voice. But he remained silent, looking rather lost and uncertain of himself. Surely you agree with what I have just said? Why this hesitation? Out of place, isn’t it, in such a fine soldier, one of the few capable of command? Have I got something wrong? … Do you find it somehow funny? The roads you soldiers march along are not the only ones in life. There’s many a byroad, on the verge of many an abyss. Could a mountain cannon make its way along them? Or a packhorse? No, no, of course not! How could you possibly think so!

“How can you possibly count on its capacity for self-criticism?” the engineer cried. The thought of having to go over all his arguments again left him exhausted. “A monarch lives in a world of flattery. He is made to play the pitiful role of an idol. He lives in fear of subversion and conspiracy. What counselor can rely on logic to change the Tsar’s mind?”     

“To put your views across you have to change somebody’s mind – if not the monarch’s, that of your own party or those of a discordant public. Persuading a monarch is not the least bit more difficult and takes no longer than persuading the public. And would you deny that public opinion is often at the mercy of ignorance, passion, convenience, and vested interest? Don’t people try to flatter public opinion, and succeed all too well? Sycophancy has still more dangerous consequences in free politics than in absolute monarchies…”

What made her so attractive? That toss of the head and the self-assured glance that went with it? The taut line of the sensitive neck? The subtly seductive, melodious voice? If a packhorse couldn’t … how could anyone use that byroad? Nothing to it. Hold on to the folds of my dress. We’ll get through!

“And bowing to a monarch doesn’t go against the grain?” Obodovsky was trying to play on the most ordinary human feelings.   

“You always have to subordinate youself to somebody. If it’s a faceless and uninspiring electoral majority, why is that pleasanter? The Tsar himself is subordinate to the monarchy, even more than you are, he is its first servant.”

“But with a monarchy we are slaves! Do you like being a slave?” 

Andozerskaya proudly held her head at an unservile angle. “Monarchy does not make slaves of people; republics are more likely to depersonalize them. Whereas if you raise up an example of a man living only for the state, it ennobles the subject too.”

And so on and so forth.

The quote is meant to remind us of how far we have departed from what once was all but natural, and also logical. If one thinks about it, mass democracy, whether under a republic or under a constitutional monarchy, where the monarch is reduced to a mere figurehead, is the inevitable forerunner of communist collectivism. Which is why the communists never had a problem with the term “democracy,” even though “real socialism” has always been undemocratic without compromise (after all, it was the “dictatorship of the proletariat”, that either put dissenters against the wall or threw them into forced labour- and re-education camps). But democracy is the (or one very efficient) path, for them, to power! Hitler (who was also a socialist, albeit a “National Socialist”) didn’t come to power through violent revolution, but (like clear-as-the-blue-sky communist Obama) through “civilised” democratic elections. Once he was sworn in as Chancellor, it took less than a month for the Reichstag to go up in flames, a provocation by which the National Socialists were able to justify dissolving the German parliament altogether. The end result was then Hitler’s tyrannical one-party state. Democracy’s central idea “of one man, one vote,” from which everything else derives logically, is in fact a mere quantitative principle that fundamentally rejects differences in knowledge and qualification. Democracy denies hierarchy (which is why it MUST be not only laicist, but completely anti-God). So does socialism, which naturally flows out of democracy. Everything is the same. Everything is also, necessarily, equal (or neutral) in terms of morality. In fact, there is no longer a binding moral principle, no recognition of good and evil, in this system of democracy. As a consequence, insisting on distinction or superiority (let alone, the supremacy of God!) makes one “undemocratic”, “anti-social”, and ultimately an “enemy of the people”.

 

TRUE CONSERVATISM: THE ONLY BULWARK AGAINST THE REVOLUTION

The so-called Age of Enlightenment (what an upside-down phrase!), that came to its macabre fruition in the French Revolution, represented a unique and completely unprecedented game changer in all of human history. Everything that had previously been a matter of course and taken for granted, was now being questioned and fought against. The revolutionaries were well aware of their “historic mission” and so, following their proclamation of the French Republic in September of 1792, they did away not only with the Christian year count, but even with the Bibilical seven-day week and would have introduced a new system of decimal “hours”, “minutes” and “seconds”, had the nationwide implementation of such an insane plan not proven too expensive. 

Calendrier-republicain-debucourt2

Under the pretext of “Reason”, this process of not only democratisation, but also radical secularisation threw the Christian world into an even greater crisis – and a permanent crisis, at that – than had been the case with the Reformation 250 years earlier. A madness had taken hold of France and the occidental world – a madness not entirely unknown to those who understood the workings of the Enemy, but nonetheless a madness now so strong and powerful that neither thrones nor altars were safe any longer. By conquering France, once the pinnacle and crown jewel of the Catholic world, the revolution also showed it would be able to conquer any other country with ease.

Ever since this cataclysmic event, not just the Christian nations, but the whole world understood more and more clearly that they were now in a permanent state of war. Threatened in their very foundations, they knew they had to defend themselves against this apocalyptic onslaught. The idea of conservatism, not as some lame and diffuse nostalgia, but as a vital question of life or death, was born.

Tragically, this war has turned out, for the most part, as a war in which only one side has been fighting. It’s been a constant and gradual surrender by instalments on the part of the conservatives. Worse, after decades, even centuries, of the most aggressive subversion, conservatives of today have essentially shed the overall concept of conserving, preserving the values and traditions and beauties of old. Without knowing, in most cases, they have been molded into the new, revolutionary paradigm. The consequences are catastrophic. All courage, all resolve appear now to be gone – or so twisted and confused that they serve not the cause of conservatism, but the enemy.

We look, in our current political debate, at all kinds of people who – at times, frivolously – advertise themselves as “conservatives”. But are they? What is it that they defend? What is it that they stand for? Do they practise what they preach? At a time of permanent, unrestricted, asymmetrical war, that needs dedicated, sincere, but also competent and knowledgable warriors: are these people the ones, to paraphrase Comrade Obama, we’ve been waiting for?

It may be an attractive career to be a “conservative” media icon giving eloquent speeches peppered with the most entertaining polemics. But if such conservative heroines (or “paleo-conservative” living monuments) don’t even remotely understand that the Russian bear of today is still the same deep-red communist bear as ever, what then are these “public figures” ultimately good for? Especially as the damage they do is twofold: They cannot see the beast for what it is, number one, and instead praise it as the new hope for Christian civilisation, number two! Maybe these people should stop writing books and start reading books instead!

Let’s not mince words here – and today we MUST expect from a true, valuable conservative to be “holier than the pope”, because, well, just look what has been going on in Rome ever since Pius XII was succeeded by “good pope” John XXIII:

If you are an attractive woman, blessed with all the talents and favours one could ever wish for, and have passed 50 without being married or having children, even openly admitting you prefer the high life of New York City to anything else, you may be a brilliant conservative speaker, but you are not a conservative.

If you are a cherished and renowned paleo-conservative icon, and you lack the discernment to see through the Kremlin’s ever-same pack of lies, expecting from these unchanged Bolsheviks a new Christian era, you are not a conservative, you may have been one once upon a time, but a fool.

If you hectically jet back and forth between the continents as the most colourful “conservative” the world has ever seen, and don’t even think of getting your private life straight, you are not a conservative, but an infiltrator.

If you are one of those proud “fiscal conservatives”/social liberals who think that it’s all the economy, you are delusional. As, without a solid cultural and spiritual base, also the material riches of a society are ultimately doomed.

If you are the “flexible” type, always open to all sides of an argument, any argument, you may be a good mediator, perhaps a good diplomat, or “bipartisan” politician, yet by the end of the day, you’re not a principled conservative, but a spineless opportunist. 

If you are of high nobility and live the superficial and decadent life of ordinary jet set folk, you are not conservative (which you have a responsibility to be), but a disgrace.

If you are proud of your fancy cowboy hat and your nice selection of rifles, but otherwise live in the world of hard rock music and drink like a fish, you may be a good and strong Midwest hooligan, but you are not a conservative.

If you confuse patriotism (which is love of country) with nationalism (which is mere chauvinism), you are going to be the Kremlin’s next cannon fodder, and you might never even realise how you were deceived. Learn about country, learn about God, learn about yourself! Until then, don’t call yourself a conservative!

If you sacrifice your children, whether in the womb (which is murder) or by putting them in day care, so to have your wonderful and splendid career, I’m not interested in what you say or do in your profession, as both of us know perfectly well where your place as a mother should be. So how could you ever be as bold as to call yourself a conservative?

If you are a newspaper man, whatever your “conservative” credentials may be, and you uncritically parrot the latest left-wing slogan, or climate “theory”, or disarmament fantasy, you are not a conservative, but a useful idiot.

If you are an art museum director, whatever respected in the community, and what you exhibit is chaotic and meaningless “modern art”, that cannot inspire, but only confuse, you are not a conservative, but a wilful agent of the revolution.

If you are Pope, and you praise Karl Marx in your encyclicals, having always been a great admirer of the French Revolution, you are – despite your “conservative” appearance – a dangerous wolf in sheep’s clothing – and you know it!  

       

            

 

© The Contemplative Observer 2018