The Sea Change We Didn’t Notice Until Now

English Ships in a Storm

Johan van der Hagen: English Ships in a Storm, 1714. Oil on canvas, National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, London.


… You know, if you get up in the morning – I want to study our present system by which we are living and what we are facing, especially the younger people, not us poor whiteheads perhaps – if you get up in the morning and head out the door to work, and you find the front gate is gone, and your mail-box is gone, and the lamp-post you used to walk by is gone, you say, “Well, what the –”, I mean “Who has taken away my front gate? Where is the mail-box? And where has the lamp-post gone anyway?” In other words: We are used to small things; we are creatures of localised habits. And we see it immediately, the moment a thing has changed: “Where are my cornflakes?” You know, “Where is that lamp-post?” “What did they do with the mail-box?” But, the other characteristic of our character is – i.e., the other characteristic of our mode of living is – that any vast change, any all-embracing change not immediately affecting our localised habits – our home locale, our community, our job, our friends, our city, our state, our government even – any such sea-change: we don’t notice it, until it becomes an accomplished fact! And then we say, “Oh! That’s what it is!” We don’t notice it because it doesn’t affect us and affect our localised habits. And with very few exceptions, we are creatures of localised habits. Now, the most choking element about a sea-change is that you are helpless when it comes. It’s a fait accompli. It’s done. And you have to live with it. Towards the final stamping of that new change, bit by bit, piece by piece, element by element, you begin to have a queasy feeling that there is something happening you don’t know. You know there is something big affecting everybody, affecting us all, it’s a vast, encompassing change, and then you suddenly – everybody says, “This is the way it is now. This is going to be the way it’s going to be.” And then you’re faced with that fait accompli … (Fr. Malachi Martin: “Global Conflict of Life and Anti-Life Forces”; speech given at a 1991 Human Life International conference.)

O divine art of subtlety and secrecy! Through you we learn to be invisible, through you inaudible; and hence we can hold the enemy’s fate in our hands. (Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Chapter 5: Weak Points and Strong; par. 9)

Let us get down to work, to slower, more cautious, more persevering and persistent work! (Lenin. New Times and Old Mistakes in a New Guise, 1921.)

 (Sun Tzu, The Art of War; l

We’re nearing the end of a long road, that is to say: the end of a long dead-end road. Over the course of a full century, not only has mankind gone through catastrophes and traumas quite unprecedented in history, both by their nature and scale. There has also been going on, in addition to all the traumatising, a much more subtle (and perfidious) process of a deliberate and systematic reshaping of people’s attitudes, beliefs, and even perceptions. The hearts and minds of whole nations until recently considering themselves free, have for several generations in a row nevertheless been “scientifically” re-conditioned, re-wired, Pavlovian-style, into monstrous caricatures of what they had once been. What is at work is a through-and-through revolutionary force (already controlling more than half of the planet) that’s inspired by gnosticism, equipped with exact strategy, operating by way of stealth as well as using intimidation and brute force, and fiercely determined to smash Christian civilisation (in fact, any civilisation) once and for all.

That force, that fanatical cult – widely known as “communism” (though sailing under a variety of banners) – represents an enemy so formidable and deadly that one might have expected (and wished) the whole of humanity to unite against it, across continents, faiths and races. However, the deceptive nature and the insidious mode of operation of this enemy of mankind makes it infinitely difficult to identify it, in the first place (even to understand its goals), to keep track of it, and to properly and effectively respond to its manifold moves and stratagems. To adequately fight such an enemy, to defend against such a threat, naturally requires the same level of strategic grasp, despite the vast difference in mentality. What’s more, free societies are inevitably open societies and can thus easily be subverted, infiltrated and manipulated. President John F. Kennedy described well the dilemma of such asymmetrical warfare in his legendary April 27, 1961 speech, The President and the Press (given, notoriously, weeks after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion against Fidel Castro’s communist regime in Cuba, to which outcome a number of indiscretions on the part of the American press had considerably contributed):

… Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired. If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger”, then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent. It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions – by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labour leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence, on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumour is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match. Nevertheless, every democracy recognises the necessary restraints of national security – and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion. […] And I hope that every group in America – unions and businessmen and public officials at every level – will ask the same question of their endeavours, and subject their actions to the same exacting test. And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations. Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war … 

A “cold and secret war”, fought with great patience and discipline by an enemy who understands the strategic concept of long-term gradualism: Undermine the bourgeoisie! Wear it out! Change it subtly, bit by bit, from within, until it will indeed beg for communism (or even better: adopt communism unknowingly)!

Our generation of today bears little to no resemblance with earlier generations. It is safe to assume that these ancestors of ours would turn in their graves (possibly they do), could they see what has happened to their countries – to a world, a culture, a civilisation, that they had helped build.

This author, born in the first half of the 1960s, still has experienced, mostly as a child and youth, the final years of an entirely different world (which the revolution of the late sixties and seventies did away with). Everybody of his age, or older, has. So, let’s take a look back on how things were then, and what things are like now.

What first comes to mind is the authority parents, relatives, teachers and even neighbours had over children. One simply didn’t object; or protest; or address adults (let alone complete strangers) on a first-name basis (or even try to argue with them or school them). It was called respect, and obedience, and decent conduct – all of which have been subsumed by the Left under their deadly label of “poisonous pedadgogy”, the real poison properly so called having been their own widely advertised (and widely accepted) “anti-authoritarian education” (the term nicely echoing Frankfurt School member Theodor Adorno’s 1950 book, The Authoritarian Personality).  The irony of it all is that the forces pushing this dismantling of traditional society in the West have been and still are, ultimately, those ultra-authoritarian (nay: ultra-totalitarian) communist regimes (they are still all communist) in Moscow, Beijing and elsewhere throughout the communist world (that never imploded), the rationale being that a one-sided collapse of order and decency in the societies of the West would give predatory world communism a huge advantage in its “struggle” against so-called bourgeois capitalism. And it wasn’t just obedience, that used to be held in high regard, but along with it a kind of humbleness and truly childlike innocence, that have mysteriously disappeared when we look at the present situation. Children then understood and accepted that they didn’t have to be in the centre of everybody’s attention 24/7. They also were made to acknowledge that what adults were talking about was not always comprehensible to the still-developing and imperfect mind of a child. Furthermore, there was no “family parliament” in place, where parents treat their children as if they were grown-ups too, placing an amount of responsibility and decision-making on their children’s shoulders that is entirely inappropriate, as it overwhelms a child’s limited capacity of discernment, let alone prudence. At the time, it was crystal-clear to everyone that as long as children are still children, it’s the parents’ duty and responsibility (and therefore their right) to make decisions on behalf of their children – otherwise, what are adults there for, in the first place (being adults and parents). Today, to exercise parental authority even in a very mild and non-physical manner, might be easily denounced as “abusive”. To say “no” and stick to it, as overly “oppressive”. The disastrous fruits of decades of such ill-advised (and irresponsible) pedagogy, we can see in the young generation of today. Infinitely spoilt, ever-demanding, used to always have their way, they represent a generation of full-scale tyrants (already, in many cases, before they even enter school). Such disobedient, respectless and totally pretentious youth now sadly turns out as ideal cannon-fodder for the revolution. Everything that they’ve ever been granted, they have taken for granted. Their egos are as tall as Mount Everest, never mind that – courtesy of decades of revolutionary education – there isn’t all that much there inside their heads. Minimise knowledge and understanding; maximise brutality and ruthlessness! Our ever-politically-correct parent generations of recent decades have bred a frightening new generation of – dare we say? – monsters!

Aidan Courtright

Among all the (organised) revolutionary burning and looting following the George Floyd incident, there occurred a totally inconceivable act of mindless brutality on June 2, 2020, in Fall River, Massachusetts (the case has gained wide notoriety anyway). 82-year-old Air Force veteran and Trump supporter Charles Chase, standing at a roundabout, holding up a Trump sign and wearing a Trump cap, was approached, out of the blue, and violently attacked by 27-year-old leftist Aidan Courtright, who ripped the elderly man’s cardboard sign apart, knocked the Trump hat off his head, threw him to the ground and mercilessly kicked him so that Mr. Chase had to be treated in hospital. The victim later described the incident thus: “The guy when he came at me, I have never seen a horror story that the face was so filled with hate and anger as his was… I was just frozen.” Everybody would have been! Look at these dreadful eyes (that’s the Fall River police photo), full of cold hatred, despise, and contempt! A Red Samurai who has fully embraced the nihilistic programme of revolutionary destruction. This is the young generation we are looking at today, possibly to a far larger extent than we would like to admit: Beyond control; manifestly inaccessible to any sound argument; to be utterly afraid of. No wonder Mr. Chase told the Boston Herald, “I love this country … But what’s going on makes me want to cry. It’s so sad. I lived in the years of the Cold War and I see what’s happening now … This isn’t the America I served for.” An American patriot, heartbroken (and yet he has resumed his silent political activism, holding up signs, as before, in favour of an America he doesn’t want to see overthrown).

The communist organisers (including the Great Polariser Himself) have indeed done a terrifyingly great job in preparing kids – mind, in the midst of a free society! – for rejecting that same freedom and calling for tyranny. The link between the generations, that used to be the bridge for passing on the traditions of old, seems (for the most part) irreparably broken. Turning the young against the old is a cruel thing to do. But let us remember: Hitler did it. Lenin, Stalin, Mao and the rest of them did it. If you want a revolution to be successful (and to be irreversibly successful), you must drive a wedge between young and old. The inexperienced and gullible youth becomes your following. The older generation, your (and their) target. In such an environment, it is only a small step to fanaticised youngsters reporting (i.e., denouncing) their own parents to the new revolutionary authorities. Where loyalty and gratitude have gone out the window (whether towards one’s family or one’s country), all bets are off. If the family is but an anachronistic form of social organisation, why defend it? Why stand up for Mum and Dad? If your country is but an artificial, meaningless construct, nothing you can ever relate to, why defend it either? Why enlist in its military? Why bother about its history, its constitutional foundation, its accomplishments? You see: The youth of today has been sold a bill of goods that equates to total nihilism. But nature doesn’t accept a vacuum, anywhere. Neither does the human soul. Hence, such nihilism is but the precondition for a new set of “values”, a new “normal”, a radically new state of affairs. Our brainwashed kids running after the Left like crazy won’t understand the lie they’ve sold out to before it’s too late, before they are either dead or cruelly subjected to a new (and ultimate) Stalinism that will then control the whole world. If America falls, the whole world falls – to the men of the Red Star.

But it isn’t just the youth that’s been targeted for recruitment (breaking the bond between parents and children). It’s also been women who have been conditioned to hate men. Their own men. Their fathers, their bridegrooms, their husbands. All of a sudden, being a housewife was seen as degrading. Women should instead realise their full potential (whatever that means), they were told by their “good and caring” sister Betty Friedan. The politicians, media- and business people (most of them men at the time) didn’t quite see through (or simply didn’t care) from what ideological corner that attack had been launched. Friedan was a die-hard communist in an innocent housewife’s clothing, fooling and tricking an entire nation into abandoning its old family ways. Henceforth, “home, sweet home” was an empty home for most of the week. Children were increasingly kept in boarding schools or day care facilities, educated not so much by their own parents any more, but by strangers. While marriages started crumbling. Not just because of the plenty of temptation that a mixed men-women work place brought about. Having now careers and salaries of their own, women soon found out that basically they didn’t need their husbands any longer. They were now independent. They were free. They were, to use the Left’s favourite cliché: liberated! Who were the prime profiteers in all of this? Promiscuous bosses, for sure, but then also divorce attorneys, abortion providers, and – oh yes! – psychotherapists (one might add to the list young attractive men on distant shores willing to sell their special favours to the highest bidder). So, what has feminism given us, all of us, men, women and children alike? A complete and utter mess! But it was mere patriarchal propaganda, wasn’t it, that held that women in the old days were cherished and venerated as queens, while today they are mostly seen as – you get the point. That’s the thing about communism (of which feminism is merely one branch out of many): Whatever it touches, whatever it brings under its control, it makes cheap, interchangeable, and ultimately valueless. If you take personality and meaning out of people’s lives, what remains? A desert. But weren’t wives and mothers (known once as housewives or homemakers) living treasure chests of knowledge and skill, guarantors and arbiters of living tradition? Through them it was that the wisdom and culture of old was passed on to the next generation. What do we have now? Stressed and exhausted career women who would so much love to spend more time with their children (at least, so they say), who on their part spend most of their time with paid social engineers. Where is the glue, the binding element between the family members? It’s gone. Oh yes, let’s not forget the elderly, and we won’t: We visit them in their seniors’ homes a couple of times a year. And isn’t it better for them to live there than in the midst of this rough, ever-faster changing world, where everyone’s far too busy to look after Grandma and Grandpa on top of everything else, anyway?

The assault wasn’t limited – devastating enough! – to turning women and children into complete narcissists. It descended headlong into the demonic when it gave to the world that new hellish paradigm of “sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll”. Why wait for hell in the afterlife when you can have it in the here and now! The softening-up process began “innocuously” with Elvis the Pelvis in the fifties (in fact, earlier than that). The initiation, so to speak, was done by the Beatles, the Rolling Stones and dozens of other music groups in the sixties. Until, by the seventies, rock bands had begun to openly praise Satan in concert performances that carried all the hallmarks of Black Masses. What started in 1967 with the famous Summer of Love, was in fact a revolutionary explosion of unlimited promiscuousness and libertinage (“free love”, it was called). Following Timothy Leary’s seductive maxim, “Turn on, Tune in, Drop out!”, young people across America (and the West) decided to turn their backs on civilisation in its entirety and become modern-day Rousseauan savages ready to lose themselves (and their souls, it seemed) in random sexual activity, drug-induced hallucinations and the beautifully disinhibiting power of rock music. Who cares about such petty concerns as making a living any more? Of getting married, starting a family, getting on in life? What counts is the moment (which is why the triad of sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll should be extended by a fourth element: New-Age-style Eastern mysticism). Today, God knows what the percentage of Westerners is who believe in reincarnation (a Hindu concept first promoted in the West by Blavatsky’s Theosophical Society), not to think of the ever-growing number of people who simply believe nothing. But nihilism (as in atheistic communism) is a dangerous road to embark on: By not believing in God, one likewise doesn’t believe in anything else, be it family or country or even life itself. Nothing has value, or taste, let alone truth any more (which is why communism, in the final analysis, simply isn’t sustainable on the long run, even if it first destroys the whole planet; its programme simply has nothing to offer except death and destruction and tyranny). The experience of the moment was the new imperative, whatever the cost for body, mind and soul. Such hedonistic thinking has also given us a new way of doing commerce and consumption: People (not just governments) began to finance the expenditures of today with the prospective income of tomorrow. In other words, everybody was now sliding into debt.

The horrifying legacy of the so-called sexual revolution also includes a state of affairs where adolescent girls find no value in preserving their virginity till marriage, but on the contrary can’t wait to get rid of it at the first opportunity, as if it were a stain! Teenage girls, for the last fifty years, have been tricked into becoming whores, and teenage boys into becoming whoremongers (the rap music genre is eloquent proof of this). Who needs courtship any more? Girls just need to be “layed”, and they want it that way, anyway, right? That’s the new state of affairs. Combined with the feminist programme of female careerism and egotism, a general hardening of people’s hearts, and a collapse in religious education, the result has been what? Systematic contraception (as a means of family “planning”) and abortions in the millions. In other words, we’ve adopted a “culture” of death, rather than life. In this overall atmosphere of worthlessness and filth, it is no wonder that tattoos, body piercings, and even worse forms of self-mutilation, have long become mainstream. Think about it: Until sixty years ago, the only people tattoed were (apart from indigenous tribes here and there) sailors, maybe truckers, and certainly criminals. Other than that, nobody had his skin tattoed. Nobody. The revolution also opened up a new pathway into dirty language. Watch a movie from the fifties, and then watch a movie of today! It’s heartbreaking what they have done. There are now movies where you get hardly a sentence without one of these four-letter-words!

Women are no longer women. Men are no longer men. Children are no longer children. In politics, we now have spineless opportunists (and outright traitors) rather than statesmen. In the judiciary, willing accomplices of the revolution. In academia, ideologues who prefer peddling the one or other Great Lie. In journalism and book publishing, well: let’s forget about them. In art, childish clowns. In commerce, people without conscience, who are even willing to sell out their own country as long as it serves them. In finance, witch doctors. In medicine, men and women totally absorbed with their own grandeur. In teaching, social engineers determined to bring about a “new world”. In churches, shameless hypocrites and downright wolves in sheep’s clothing. – While the rainbow flag, soon to be replaced by the Red Banner, is flying over it all…

Shall we dare ask these terrible questions: Have we completely lost our minds? Worse, are we still human? Are we still worthy of God’s grace? Are all those Frankensteinian fantasies by transhumanists and other dystopian freaks (including the communists) not the logical continuation of a path we’ve been on for more than half a century?

Perhaps, communist revolution and destruction is precisely what we deserve, if one thinks of communism as a Divine tool of punishment. Perhaps we should first and foremost repent





© The Contemplative Observer 2020



Fundamental Transformation

U.S. protests 2020


It’s happening. Right before our very eyes. The final chapter of the World Revolution, by communists referred to as “World October”, is upon us!

As the countries of the West are still struggling to contain the Chinese-orchestrated pandemic and are desperately trying to get their grounded economies back running, the spiral of calculated escalation has moved on to the next stage: the instigation of chaos (possibly, civil war) as a means to bring down the rule of law and government itself. These are not spontaneous protests against a “systemic racism” that doesn’t even exist (certainly not in the United States). This is a coordinated attack on nothing less than the constitutional foundations of the American Republic, carried out by Moscow/Beijing-directed communists (sailing under whatever banner) and reminiscent of every communist revolution in history (including the French Revolution, by the way).

With so much at stake – it’s now a matter of life or death! – one would expect the U.S. federal government (as well as state- and local governments) to act swiftly and rigorously to protect the country and its citizenry from otherwise certain destruction.

But not so. The President appears to be isolated in his wanting to stamp out the flames of insurrection with full force (and has meanwhile retracted). He is surrounded by appeasers and worse, while a new, revolutionary spirit has taken hold of the land, that goes way beyond mere appeasement (mind, appeasement to anarcho-communists): a spirit of flat-out submission. America appears to have lost, virtually overnight, its pride and self-esteem, and instead kneels down before political radicals intent on creating a communist America. If one takes into account that quite a number of states, and big cities, are under the control of Democrat politicians who are in fact (like former President Obama) communists, it becomes clear why these people support the burning and looting and even call for defunding, if not abolishing, the police and opening the prisons: Both more-than-obvious revolutionary demands designed to bring about total collapse, a reign of terror (and/or civil war), and ultimately a military invasion by China and Russia.

We are now witnessing an America in its death-throes. The “land of the free and the home of the brave”, that has so greatly inspired (and attracted) so many people from all over the world, that great experiment of “government of the people, by the people, for the people”, that “shining city on a hill”, is in mortal danger (and with it, the whole of the free world, if not to say: Christian civilisation altogether). Once a bright and hopeful place “from sea to shining sea”, it is today threatened, particularly from those same shores, by a generation that no longer identifies with America; that believes in the hoax of anthropogenic global warming; that believes in an inflated socialist nanny state; in “economic redistribution” (read: expropriation, and it’s coming); ultimately, in Marx and Engels and all the rest of them. With several generations in a row indoctrinated in schools and universities by Marxist infiltrators, there has occurred a silent, gradual, but nonetheless colossal, paradigm shift.

And no sufficient alarm, even now. At least, about whence the attack is coming. After all, an overwhelming majority (including, sadly, America’s political and economic elite) swallowed the bait of “collapsible communism” and of the “great investment prospects in the East” thirty years ago. America’s suspected “victory of the Cold War” was prematurely carved in stone; Gorbachev, and then Yeltsin, were hailed as honest democrats (rather than understood as unchanged communists). America and the West got quickly caught up in the overall lie of a “defunkt USSR” and a “defunkt” communist bloc. Nothing could have been further from the truth. The communist world even massively expanded its global influence post-1991, precisely because the West saw no communist threat any more! (Enter: South Africa; Venezuela; Nicaragua; the Congo; Nepal – not to mention the EEC’s odd transformation into a much more centralised political union, only weeks after the “demise” of the Soviet Union). One who certainly must have been in the know was President Clinton, a man far less “moderate” than it seemed. Both his predecessor and his successor, the two Bushes, appeared to conveniently see and hear no evil. In fact, Bush the Younger even notoriously said at his first meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin – less than three months prior to the Moscow-directed false-flag attack of 9/11 – that he had been able “to get a sense of his [i.e., Putin’s] soul.” Bush the Father, on Christmas Day 1991 when Gorbachev declared the Soviet Union dissolved, celebrated the event as “a victory for democracy and freedom”. How wrong he was! It’s been a continuous process of sinking ever deeper into an ocean of lies and deceit. And here we are: The communists, Barack Obama not the least among them, had been organising and preparing for this present moment for a long time. Their vision of “fundamentally transforming the United States” (as expressed by Obama in a campaign speech shortly before the 2008 presidential election) has more than ever become a very realistic possibility.

Unmatched Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn warned in his 1984 reference work, New Lies for Old:

The communist bloc, with its recent accretions in Africa and South-East Asia, is already strong. European-backed Soviet influence and American-backed Chinese influence could lead to new Third World acquisitions at an accelerating pace. Before long, the communist strategists might be persuaded that the balance had swung irreversibly in their favor. In that event they might well decide on a Sino-Soviet “reconciliation.” The scissors strategy [i.e., the fake Sino-Soviet split that began after 1960] would give way to the strategy of “one clenched fist.”

At that point the shift in the political and military balance would be plain for all to see. Convergence [of East and West] would not be between two equal parties, but would be on terms dictated by the communist bloc. The argument for accommodation with the overwhelming strength of communism would be virtually unanswerable. Pressures would build up for changes in the American political and economic system on the lines indicated in Sakharov’s treatise. Traditional conservatives would be isolated and driven toward extremism. They might become the victims of a new McCarthyism of the left. The Soviet dissidents who are now extolled as heroes of the resistance to Soviet communism would play an active part in arguing for convergence. Their present supporters would be confronted with a choice of forsaking their idols or acknowledging the legitimacy of the new Soviet regime. […]

In the new worldwide communist federation the present different brands of communism would disappear, to be replaced by a uniform, rigorous brand of Leninism. The process would be painful. Concessions made in the name of economic and political reform would be withdrawn. Religious and intellectual dissent would be suppressed. Nationalism and all other forms of genuine opposition would be crushed. Those who had taken advantage of détente to establish friendly Western contacts would be rebuked or persecuted like those Soviet officers who worked with the allies during the Second World War. In new communist states – for example, in France, Italy, and the Third World – the “alienated classes” would be reeducated. Show trials of “imperialist agents” would be staged. Action would be taken against nationalist and social democratic leaders, party activists, former civil servants, officers, and priests. The last vestiges of private enterprise and ownership would be obliterated. Nationalization of industry, finance, and agriculture would be completed. In fact, all the totalitarian features familiar from the early stages of the Soviet revolution and the postwar Stalinist years in Eastern Europe might be expected to reappear, especially in those countries newly won for communism. Unchallenged and unchallengeable, a true communist monolith would dominate the world.

Also in 1984, Yuri Bezmenov, another interesting Soviet defector, reminded America of nearing disaster:

The next stage [after years and decades of  (1) demoralisation and  (2) destabilisation], of course, is crisis. It may take only up to six weeks to bring a country to the verge of crisis, you can see it in Central America now. – And after crisis, with a violent change of power structure and economy, you have, so-called, the period of ‘normalisation’; it may last indefinitely. ‘Normalisation’ is a cynical expression borrowed from Soviet propaganda: when the Soviet tanks moved into Czechoslovakia in ’68, Comrade Brezhnev said, ‘Now the situation in brotherly Czechoslovakia is normalised.’ This is what will happen in the United States if you allow all these schmucks to bring the country to crisis, to promise people all kind of goodies and the paradise on earth, to destabilise your economy, to eliminate the priniciple of free market competition, and to put a big-brother government in Washington, DC,  with benevolent dictators like Walter Mondale who will promise looots of things, never mind whether the promises are fulfilled or not; he will go to Moscow to kiss the bottoms of new generation of Soviet assassins, never mind, he will create false illusions that the situation is under control. Situation is not under control. Situation is disgustingly out of control! Most of the American politicians, media, and educational system trains another generation of people who think they are living at a peace time. False! United States is in a state of war; undeclared, total war against the basic principles and the foundations of this system! And the initiator of this war is not Comrade Andropov, of course. It’s the system; however ridiculous it may sound: the World Communist System, or the World Communist Conspiracy! Whether I scare some people or not, I don’t give a hoot; if you are not scared by now, nothing can scare you! – But, you don’t have to be paranoid about it. – What actually happens now that, unlike myself, you have literally several years to live on, unless the United States wake up. The time bomb is ticking. With every second – tick, tick – the disaster is coming closer and closer. Unlike myself, you will have nowhere to defect to – unless you want to live in Antarctica with penguins. This is it; this is the last country of freedom and possibility. 

J. R. Nyquist, who in this author’s opinion is America’s most profound political analyst today, wrote in his 1998 groundbreaking book, Origins of the Fourth World War:

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.

And what are the various analysts and commentators saying today, as the situation is ever more spiralling out of control?

J. R. Nyquist (To the Americans Who Are on Their Knees, June 4, 2020):

We are near the end of the Republic. A revolution has begun and no decisive counter-revolutionary actions have been ordered. Why has this happened? Because we have been psychologically and linguistically disarmed.

For example: — The oath of allegiance of federal officials is to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic; but if we refuse to acknowledge the existence of enemies, if we cannot name our enemies, no defense will be possible. And this is the one thing, above all, that has been forbidden: We are not allowed to name our enemies.

Trevor Loudon (Cities Burn, but None Dare Call It Communist Insurrection, June 6, 2020):

In the past few days, several cities have seen chaotic rioting. Cars and buildings have been torched, looting is rampant and even the Third Police Precinct in Minneapolis was burned as officers abandoned the building. More is to come.

The protests ostensibly began because of the death of George Floyd during an arrest. Systemic racism and police brutality, leftist pundits argue, is to blame.

Some leftists are claiming, as they did during the Occupy Wall Street movement, that the protests have been hijacked by a violent element intent on discrediting the movement.

Conservative commentators, on the other hand, speak of frustration and rage, of a reaction to the claustrophobia of weeks on end lockdown.

They all miss the mark.

The violence since the police-involved death of George Floyd in Minneapolis is a communist-inspired insurrection — nothing more, nothing less.

Cliff Kincaid (The Law and Order President Is Failing America, June 11, 2020):

Millions of people depending on Trump’s Twitter feed for the blunt truth are now getting a lot of empty threats.

As this column is being written, Trump has sent out another “Law and Order” Tweet demanding that the authorities in Washington State and the city of Seattle restore law and order. In defiance, they told him to return to his White House bunker. Trump looks weak.

Trump threatened to restore law and order through the Insurrection Act and when his own Secretary of Defense Mark Esper undercut him, he backed off. Who is in charge anyway? Now, Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark A. Milley has in effect denounced Trump for including him in that photo-op in front of the church. Why does Milley still have a job? This seems like a “Seven Days in May” scenario where the top brass revolt against their Commander-in-Chief.

In the movie, the president wins. In real life, who knows?

Tucker Carlson, Fox News, June 5, 2020: The Cultural Revolution has come to America (8 min.):


Glenn Beck, June 11, 2020: CULTURAL REVOLUTION: America’s new religious devotion to race wars, division & silencing dissenters:


But you can also take it straight from the horse’s mouth:


What does this all leave us with? Communism is about to have its great and murderous day of harvest. Two things we should now focus on: On the spiritual level: repentance and prayer. On the practical level: preparation. The rest we have to leave up to our God and Lord, in Whose hands only our entire fate rests (for better or worse). Psalm 34 may give us the strength and unwavering faith necessary for the days ahead: 

I will bless the Lord at all times: his praise shall continually be in my mouth. My soul shall make her boast in the Lord: the humble shall hear thereof, and be glad. O magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt his name together. I sought the Lord, and he heard me, and delivered me from all my fears. They looked unto him, and were lightened: and their faces were not ashamed. This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles. The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them. O taste and see that the Lord is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him. O fear the Lord, ye his saints: for there is no want to them that fear him. The young lions do lack, and suffer hunger: but they that seek the Lord shall not want any good thing. Come, ye children, hearken unto me: I will teach you the fear of the LordWhat man is he that desireth life, and loveth many days, that he may see good? Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile. Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it. The eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry. The face of the Lord is against them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth. The righteous cry, and the Lord heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles. The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit. Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the Lord delivereth him out of them all. He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken. Evil shall slay the wicked: and they that hate the righteous shall be desolate. The Lord redeemeth the soul of his servants: and none of them that trust in him shall be desolate.




Compiled by the Contemplative Observer 2020



SARS-Coronavirus 2: Humanity’s Crown of Thorns?

Aelbrecht-Bouts-Christ Crowned with Thorns_T636806648794340364

Aelbert Bouts (1451/54 – 1549): Christ Crowned with Thorns, 1495.


And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him. But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your childrenFor, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us. For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry? (Luke 23:27-31, KJV)


Christ Himself is the green wood here (which doesn’t burn that easily). We are the dry wood, waiting to be consumed by the flames of unseen hate and destruction. Thus, Christ’s passion will become our passion. His crown of thorns (a.k.a. Corona Christi) will be ours. And isn’t it peculiar that this huge crisis particularly the free world finds itself in by seeing no alternative to locking down its economies, that this crisis has been caused by a new (almost certainly engineered) viral pathogen that belongs to the family of Corona viruses? Whether we are aware of it or not, whether we like it or not, we are on the way to our own Golgotha, to our own crucifixion. Again, there will be no mercy or help from worldly entities, nor will there be help coming from the priesthood, which chose fifty-plus years ago – akin to Iscariot – to follow the world rather than Christ. Again, there will be unspeakable agony and suffering, not to speak of humiliation and ridicule. And again, the criminals will have free rein, while the saintly will be brutally ploughed under. It’s coming, and the pandemic (that hasn’t originated from a “seafood market”, but from the Wuhan Institute of Virology) is only the beginning.

Exactly a century ago, the world saw clearer than ever before what this revolutionary ideology of atheistic, egalitarian communism was capable of. The communists, in their insane class hatred, viewed the “old classes” as mere stumbling blocks that had to be eliminated by use of the fiercest terror imaginable in order to give way for “socialist progress”. The diabolical cruelties committed by the Bolshevists even surpassed the worst crimes against humanity during the French Revolution. Here are, pars pro toto, some accounts of the nightmare that occurred at the time:

In fact, each Che-Ka [i.e., local secret police, imposing the Red Terror on the population] seems to have had its speciality in torture. Kharkov, for instance, under Saenko, went in primarily for scalpings and hand flayings; and in Voronezh the person to be tortured was first stripped naked, and then thrust into a nail-studded barrel, and rolled about in it, or else branded on the forehead with a five-pointed star, or, if a member of the clergy, “crowned” with barbed wire. As for the Che-Kas of Tsaritsin and Kamishin, it was their custom to saw their victims’ bones apart, whilst Poltava and Kremenchoug made it their special rule to impale clergy (once, on the latter place, where a ruffian named Grishka was in command, eighteen monks were transfixed in a single day). Also, inhabitants have testified that Grishka would burn at the stake any peasant who had been prominent in a rebellion, and sit on a chair to enjoy the spectacle. The Che-Ka of Ekaterinoslav, again, went in for crucifixion and death by stoning, and the Che-Ka of Odessa for putting officers to death by chaining them to planks, and slowly, very slowly, pushing them into furnaces, or else tearing their bodies on a capstan wheel, or else immersing them in a boiler of water heated to simmering point, and then flinging them into the sea, before finally consigning them to the flames again. [Sergey Petrovich Melgounov. The Red Terror in Russia. First published in 1924. London-New York: Edward Harle Ltd., 2008. p. 95.]

In this district [i.e., in Tambov Province] the peasants had a particular veneration for an ikon of the Vishinskaya Madonna; and when influenza broke out in the district, a solemn procession was held in the ikon’s honour, and a celebrating of Mass. And, on the Bolshevists seizing both ikon and clergy, and the peasants learning later that the Che-Ka had insulted the ikon, and “dragged it about the floor”, they set forth to “rescue Our Lady”, with women and children and the aged and everyone else joining the throng. And then the Che-Ka turned machine-guns upon them, and mowed them down in rows as, “with terrible eyes which saw nothing”, they moved forward over the bodies of dying and dead, and mothers, flinging themselves before their children, cried: “O Holy Virgin and Defender, bless us as gladly we lay down our lives for thee!” [Ibid., p. 74.]

The carp enjoys being seethed in cream, and the bourgeois being slain by a Power which is stern, and ready to kill him… Even though our souls may revolt from the task, let us use strong measures, and bring the bourgeoisie to their senses, seeing that we need but shoot a few dozen of the fools, of the wastrels, and make the rest clean the streets, and set their womenfolk to scour out Red Guard barracks (though even this is too great an honour for them!), for the bourgeoisie to realise that our Government is a Government come to stay, and that it is useless to look for help from Englishmen or Hottentots. [Ibid., p. 27., taken from a Bolshevist newspaper article.]

As we now look over to present-day communist China (or even Russia, which too has remained communist), we can see the same type of blood-chilling cruelty as in the old days under Lenin, Stalin, or Mao. Nothing has changed. Only the perceptions in the West have been manipulated. After all, communism “died” in 1989/91 – allegedly. In reality, the “collapse of communism” was a long-premeditated manoeuvre, executed with the greatest exactitude and in perfect coordination throughout the communist bloc. The West was duped and put to sleep; the societies within the communist countries were cynically betrayed. But the time has now come to recover from the illusion of Russia and China being the West’s friends. In fact, they have remained its deadliest enemies, working as ever towards communist world dominion. What is happening at present, including the long process during the last two, even three decades that has led to the current state of affairs, doesn’t need much explanation any more. Everybody can now see the threats and the attempts to blackmail and coerce the West. We have entered the early stages of World War III, with Russia and China, alleged rivals since the “Sino-Soviet split” of the 1960s, now having “reconciled” and switched to a joint, overt policy of “one clenched fist”, which was all exactly predicted by premier Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn in his 1984 reference work, New Lies for Old: The Communist Strategy of Deception and Disinformation. Golitsyn wrote:

Its [i.e., the Sino-Soviet split’s] overall objective can be defined briefly as the exploitation of the scissors strategy to hasten the achievement of long-range communist goals. Duality in Sino-Soviet polemics is used to mask the nature of the goals and the degree of coordination in the communist effort to achieve them. The feigned disunity of the communist world promotes real disunity in the noncommunist world. Each blade of the communist pair of scissors makes the other more effective. The militancy of one nation helps the activist detente diplomacy of the other. Mutual charges of hegemonism help to create the right climate for one or the other to negotiate agreements with the West. False alignments, formed with third parties by each side against the other, make it easier to achieve specific communist goals, such as the acquistion of advanced technology or the negotiation of arms control agreements or communist penetration of the Arab and African states. In Western eyes the military, political, economic, and ideological threat from world communism appears diminished. In consequence Western determination to resist the advance of communism is undermined. At a later stage the communist strategists are left with the option of terminating the split and adopting the strategy of “one clenched fist”. [p. 182.]

There are a number of strategic options at the disposal of the communist strategists that can be used in various combinations to achieve their ultimate objectives. It would be impossible to list them all but five likely interconnected options are as follows:

• A closer alignment of an independent socialist Europe with the Soviet bloc and a parrallel alignment of the United States with China. Japan, depending on whether it remains conservative or moves toward socialism, might join either combination.

• A joint drive by the Soviet bloc and a socialist Europe to seek allies in the Third World against the United States and China.

• In the military field, an intensive effort to achieve US nuclear disarmament.

• In the ideological and political field, East-West convergence on communist terms.

• The creation of a world federation of  communist states.

In each of these the scissors strategy will play its part; probably, as the final stroke, the scissors blades will close. The element of apparent duality in Soviet and Chinese policies will disappear. The hitherto concealed coordination between them will become visible and predominant. The Soviets and the Chinese will be officially reconciled. Thus the scissors strategy will develop logically into the “strategy of one clenched fist” to provide the foundation and driving force of a communist world federation. [p. 337 f.]


After successful use of the scissors strategy in the early stages of the final phase of policy to assist communist strategy in Europe and the Third World and over disarmament, a Sino-Soviet reconciliation could be expected. It is contemplated and implied by the long-range policy and by strategic disinformation on the split.

The communist bloc, with its accretions in Africa and South-East Asia, is already strong. European-backed Soviet influence and American-backed Chinese influence could lead to new Third World acquistions at an accelerating pace. Before long, the communist strategists might be persuaded that the balance had swung irreversibly in their favor. In that event they might well decide on a Sino-Soviet “reconciliation.” The scissors strategy would give way to the strategy of “one clenched fist.” At that point the shift in the political and military balance would be plain for all to see. Convergence would not be between two equal parties, but would be on terms dicated by the communist bloc. The argument for accommodation with the overwhelming strength of communism would be virtually unanswerable. Pressures would build up for changes in the American political and economic system on the lines indicated in Sakharov’s treatise. Traditional conservatives would be isolated and driven toward extremism. They might become the victims of a new McCarthyism of the left. The Soviet dissidents who are now extolled as heroes of the resistance to Soviet communism would play an active part in arguing for convergence. Their present supporters would be confronted with a choice of forsaking their idols or acknowledging the legitimacy of the new Soviet regime.

The Worldwide Communist Federation:

Integration of the communist bloc would follow the lines envisaged by Lenin when the Third Communist International was founded. That is to say, the Soviet Union and China would not absorb one another or other communist states. All the countries of the European and Asiatic communist zones, together with new communist states in Europe and the Third World, would join a supranational economic and political communist federation. Soviet-Albanian, Soviet-Yugoslav, and Soviet-Romanian disputes and differences would be resolved in the wake, or possibly in advance of, Sino-Soviet reconciliation. The political, economic, military, diplomatic, and ideological cooperation between all the communist states, at present partially concealed, would become clearly visible. There might even be public acknowledgement that the splits and disputes were long-term disinformation operations that had successfully deceived the “imperialist” powers. The effect on Western morale can be imagined.

In the new worldwide communist federation the present different brands of communism would disappear, to be replaced by a uniform, rigorous brand of Leninism. The process would be painful. Concessions made in the name of economic and political reform would be withdrawn. Religious and intellectual dissent would be suppressed. Nationalism and all other forms of genuine opposition would be crushed. Those who had taken advantage of detente to establish friendly Western contacts would be rebuked or persecuted like those Soviet officers who worked with the allies during the Second World War. In new communist states – for example, in France, Italy, and the Third World – the “alienated classes” would be reeducated. Show trials of “imperialist agents” would be staged. Action would be taken against nationalist and social democratic leaders, party activists, former civil servants, officers, and priests. The last vestiges of private enterprise and ownership would be obliterated. Nationalization of industry, finance, and agriculture would be completed. In fact, all the totalitarian features familiar from the early stages of the Soviet revolution and the postwar Stalinist years in Eastern Europe might be expected to reappear, especially in those countries newly won for communism. Unchallenged and unchallengeable, a true communist monolith would dominate the world. [pp. 345-347.]

And here is what outstanding American geopolitical analyst J. R. Nyquist wrote more than twenty years ago in his immensely prophetic 1998 book, Origins of the Fourth World War (Chapter 16: War and Its Aftermath, Note Nr. 2, p. 213):

Numerous are the pigs, squealing and wallowing, grunting and snorting, enjoying these, our last days – like the last days of Sodom and Gomorrah. And who will deny that we deserve what is coming? For aren’t we all Benedict Arnolds – hiding, keeping our mouths shut, blending into the crowd?

Who me?

Yes, YOU. All of you. Benedict Arnolds. Selling your country for a few years of fun. Traitors, betrayers, Judases! The fact of nuclear war has been before your eyes for fifty years. But you did not want to acknowledge your responsibility, your citizenship; you did not want to exert any effort, make any sacrifices, give up any so-called “freedom.” So you became traitors.

“I didn’t know,” is what you’ll say when the missile war begins. But it was your responsibility to know. The fact is: You didn’t want to know. The fact is: You wanted to collect your thirty years of peace and plenty, so you betrayed your country.

The same author, in a co-authored book of 2015 titled, The New Tactics of Global War: Reflections on the Changing Balance of Power in the Final Days of Peace (that was written in the form of a conversation between the three authors), stated this:

… I don’t see this going on for another 10 years. At the most, it might last another six years. Yet history is full of surprises. Things could keep crawling along as they have, or there could be a sudden explosion. But once we enter the phase of economic collapse, things will begin to happen automatically. The Russians and Chinese are committed to following their plan, because if they do not follow it, their own governments are at risk of falling. When the world begins to crumble they won’t be able to cope without a war. To be honest, I thought this was going to unfold in the wake of the 2008 crash. But an economic collapse did not occur at the time. We held it off. [p. 134.]

As things stand, the West cannot ignore any longer the decades of strategic blunder that have taken it to the brink of virtual extinction. Henry Kissinger, the duplicitous architect of the strengthening of communist China, is already in his late nineties, but as sharp as ever. Somebody should have the courage to confront him over the devastating consequences of  his China policies fourty-plus years ago (as, in fact, everything points to Kissinger having worked for the other side).

Notre Dame fire

The more traditionally-minded Catholics immediately took the fire of Notre Dame de Paris last year (arson or not) as a powerful sign, as a warning. It was only the most prominent event in a long series of horrifying attacks against churches throughout France, but it made headlines all over the world. That ominous evening, groups of faithful were standing on the banks of the river Seine, singing with the utmost devotion Marian hymns! Secularised France had a brief moment that showed its real, pre-revolutionary heritage. And those engaged in such singing and praying, staring at the foremost important Catholic church after St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome standing in flames, seemed to grasp the apocalyptic meaning of it. Yes, we have entered the apocalypse. And the merciless barbarians in Moscow and Beijing, who are experts in mass extermination and enslavement, have now opened their long-desired “World October”. Suitably, April 22, 2020 will be their evil icon Vladimir Lenin’s 150th birthday. It all fits together perfectly. Quite symbolically, the most prominent relic that was stored in Notre Dame cathedral, Christ’s crown of thorns, was saved! Obviously, it will still play a role in the events soon to come, and it remains a sign not only of Christ’s passion, but of the nearing passion of Christendom as a whole (or whatever is left of it).

These were this author’s brief reflections on where we stand, written on Good Friday of 2020 Anno Domini. We have only entered this terrible tunnel of darkness, that will lead us beyond doubt to full-scale tribulation and chastisement – and, according to prophecy, to a deluge of fire. May this fire, when it comes, cleanse our souls and send the men of the Red Star, unless they convert, back where they came from: to the bottomless pit of hell…

As for Americans who have kept an ability to “read” celestial signs, please don’t ignore the two total solar eclipses over the North American continent of August 21, 2017 and April 8, 2024. Together, they form the shape of a cross, or an X, that seems to “cross out” the United States. And isn’t a total solar eclipse, too, a sign of the Passion of Christ, with the sun’s corona mirroring the Corona Christi?

American eclipses, 2017 and 2024

As, remember, the communist goal has always been primarily the total annihilation of America, without which the whole of the rest of the world would have to submit to a Soviet-Chinese communist diktat. At the same time, America as a society being the “great obstacle” for communist world victory, it is also as a territory a treasure second to none which the communists desire to possess.

Let us pray, and let us repent! With Christ crucified on this Good Friday, we should look reality in the eye and prepare for what may or may not turn out as our own crucifixion. Which shouldn’t keep us from being prepared and willing to fight. In the end, however, what counts is to be prepared to return to one’s Creator and to His heavenly kingdom. As, only there we will be able to encounter truly a Church without spot or wrinkle: the Mystical Body of Christ properly so called.

In closing, may the following from the Book of Revelation (Rev. 21:1-8) serve us as a source of hope and encouragement:

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.





© The Contemplative Observer 2020



The Real Elephant in the Room of Misogyny: Feminism Itself!

Frauentag Poster


Ever since the days of the French Revolution, and certainly since Marx and Engels published their gruesome Communist Manifesto, the world has been haunted by a completely new and unprecedented battle cry for “liberation”. First, it was the French bourgeoisie that, abetted and intoxicated (they used the word “enlightened”) by the likes of Rousseau, Voltaire and the Encyclopédistes, decided the time had come to shake off the “yoke” of monarchical rule and open a new republican chapter in history which should be guided by the principles of fierce atheism (pre-revolutionary France had been known as the pinnacle of Catholic civilisation!) and revolutionary fraternity (and had Babeuf’s 1796 “Conspiracy of Equals” been successful, there would have been installed full-blown communism already then, with private property abolished and all power in the hands of the state, as was to become reality in Russia more than a century later). Marx and Engels then told the “workers of all countries” they should unite for revolution as they had no country anyway, in other words: they had nothing to lose. Again, like with Babeuf, the institution of private property was castigated as the means by which the exploitative capitalist was keeping the working class enslaved, oppressed and in bondage. The promise by Marx and Engels was a radically new society, free and liberated (the history of communism later was to prove that claim to be false as communism in fact created the worst oppression, misery and enslavement the world had ever seen). Other strains of the revolutionary phenomenon sprung up in relatively short succession, all likewise sailing under the banner of “liberation”. However, their conception of “liberation” had nothing to do with freedom. Rather, they used the term as a perfidious euphemism for one goal only: to crush the old order in its complete entirety! The whole undertaking could be summed up as “Divide! Disrupt! Destroy!” A positive and constructive vision was just not there, and quite a few among the revolutionaries frankly admitted that there was no intention to build (other than tyranny), but solely to destroy. What were those other “movements” (you see: they are always “on the move”) that were promising liberation to whatever societal group? They were the early sufragettes demanding voting rights for women. They were the so-called civil rights activists of the sixties who purportedly had set out to correct the wrongs of racial segregation, but in reality – Martin Luther King Jr. included – were stirring the flames of rebellion and revenge. They were the anticolonial Marxist “liberators” who led their countries into unspeakable poverty and hopelessness. They were also the much more radical second-wave feminists, who declared total war on the whole of “patriarchal” history and instilled hatred in women against men. They were, in more recent decades, the homosexuals, who weren’t content with overcoming discrimination against them, but sought to force their inverted outlook upon what they saw as hetero-dominated tyranny (to be replaced, ironically, by homosexual tyranny). Even children weren’t exempt from the revolutionary attack: They were, by the vehicle of “anti-authoritarian education”, turned into undisciplined, unruly and respectless egotistic narcissists, in other words: into easy cannon-fodder for the Revolution. It’s been, basically, the age-old trick of “Divide and Conquer” that’s been played on every single nation in the world in order to bring it down and ultimately take it over. What has happened to an ever-growing number of countries is no less than total cultural extinction. Only such terrible nothingness is the basis for the destructors to come in and gain power. Theirs are no morals, but solely “revolutionary morals”; they have no conscience other than a strictly “revolutionary conscience”. Whether they act on the front of “workers’ liberation”, “women’s liberation”, “sexual liberation”, “gay liberation”, “colonial liberation” or even “children’s liberation” (which is where pedophilia comes in, ultimately), they are all part of the same devilish project of societal destruction meant to give way to all-encompassing totalitarianism.

The bulk of leading feminists were actually communists, which shows them to have been a mere subdivision, so to speak, of the overall communist attack against traditional society. Clara Zetkin (1857 – 1933) was a prominent German communist (and close comrade of Rosa Luxemburg). Also English sufragette Emmeline Pankhurst (1858 – 1928) was travelling political circles quite far to the left. French “existentialist” Simone de Beauvoir (1908 – 1986), author of the notorious The Second Sex, was of course a heavy Marxist, like her comrade and lover Jean-Paul Sartre. The popess of American second-wave feminism, Betty Friedan (1921 – 2006), author of the bestseller The Feminine Mystique, had once been a member of the Young Communist League and a journalist writing for far-left newspapers (an instance she later thoroughly hid from the public eye, presenting herself instead as basically apolitical). Friedan promoted (like all feminists) the legalisation of abortion, argued curiously pro freedom for pornography based on freedom of expression, while cleverly bringing the radical ideas of feminism into the mainstream of society by appearing reasonable and somewhat moderate. There was made a sympathetic documentary in the mid seventies titled Some American Feminists. The film simply lets the feminist protagonists speak. The result is a highly interesting time document worthy of examination:


The half dozen of New York feminists presented in this documentary are Rita Mae Brown (* 1944); Margo Jefferson (* 1947); Kate Millet (1934 – 2017); Lila Karp (1933 – 2008); Ti-Grace Atkinson (* 1938); and of course their great inspiration and icon, Betty Friedan (1921 – 2006).

They talk about feminism being a revolution for radical change, in fact: the revolution per se. They describe their undertaking in the same terms as Marxist revolutionaries describe theirs in that they speak of a “struggle”. They arrogantly claim to be speaking on behalf of the interests of all women, not just in the U.S. but throughout the world – the exact same way as communists have always claimed to represent the whole of the international “proletariat”. With equal boldness, they denounce the whole of human history as an error, a situation of permanent gross injustice, in which men have ruthlessly oppressed and exploited women, emotionally, sexually and economically. They speak of their revolutionary “anger”, that has built up over generations of women since time immemorial and that drives them to do something, at long last, about the “female condition” – anger, envy, jealousy and sheer hatred being also the familiar motives of communists around the world. And so they identify men as “the enemy”, along with the whole of government as well as the multi-national corporations (sound familiar?). They are concerned about “reactionary forces” eager to kill the feminist cause. The more militant among them refuse to get engaged in heterosexual relationships altogether (stubbornly withholding any form of love from men one could ever think of) and propagate instead  “a political lesbianism” as “the true feminism” in practice. They scoff at traditional womanhood as a “male mythology”. They view the family home as a place that keeps women imprisoned as in “a comfortable concentration camp”, a place so boring and depressing it will never give them the opportunity to fulfil their potential. And so women need to be “liberated” – by them, the proud and prescient vanguard academics that have all the answers. It’s always the same technique: The revolutionary propagandist (whether classical communist, “civil rights activist”, or feminist) creates a narrative of oppression, hammers that narrative into people’s brains, and eventually wins them over for the Revolution.

Today, feminism seems like old hat (after all, we now have the LGBTQ revolution, that finishes off any concept of the sexes, to begin with). But the destructive ideas of feminism, that are fiercely opposed to traditional womanhood (and to a traditional relationship between the sexes), have brought about a firm and quite irreversible sea change, a completely new state of affairs. Women have now been successfully kicked out of their homes (and have become almost like men, which is why feminism, having destroyed the “feminine mystique” properly so called, should be renamed into masculinism). As for the children of these wonderfully autonomous and emancipated women (whose marriages don’t last very long these days, if they get married at all), they are being looked after (and oftentimes indoctrinated) by strangers, in nurseries, kindergartens and all-day schools. In other words, the family unit, which represents the backbone of any functional society, has been all but destroyed. We are now all living as widely atomised individuals (men, women, children alike), condemned – one might say – to drift ever deeper into a truly Orwellian state of complete alienation, isolation and endless despair. Well done, Simone de Beauvoir! Well done, Betty Friedan! Well done, all you treacherous “liberators”! You’ve indeed done a hell of a job!





© The Contemplative Observer 2020



A 21st-Century Christmas Dream

Freyung, Christkindlmarkt


I’ve never been much of a dreamer in my life, although once my teachers said so (who cares about them). I think I’m more a philosopher, not in the academic sense, but still a sort of reflecting mind: watching, contemplating, and – like all thirsting souls – longing. And, by God, there’s a lot to long for, spiritually speaking, in our present day.

Yet, sometimes I do dream; not day-dream, but dream. And so, here’s what I recently dreamt in this Advent season of 2019 after an exhausting and quite chaotic day, which forced me into bed early. Or was it a dream? Anyway, here is my story.

I was wandering through my city like invisible. No interaction with anyone. People were busy buying stuff for Christmas: the only collective bliss left for a culture that had lost its inner core and meaning. A brass band, placed on a podium overlooking a Christmas market, was playing traditional Christmas carols. Hardly anyone paid attention. Instead, dozens of young careerists, working for banks or law firms nearby, had gathered, “after-hour”, to have hot punch by the gallons: the advent not of Christ, but of solid intoxication. A double-decker bus passed by, painted all over with seductive nudes: advertising the city’s top-end brothel, famous particularly with the Russian mob that now literally “owns” this once-exquisite European place of history. Church bells rang, but again: for whom or what? For the glory of God Almighty certainly, but their once-authoritative sound had no effect on people any more. Teenagers, on their own or in small groups, could be seen crossing the square, probably coming from school, each one of them heavily immersed in their smart phones, detached from reality. A Catholic priest was having a most casual chat with the people at the stall of Caritas Socialis. His whole body language resembled more that of a politician than that of a man of God. The freezing cold didn’t keep people from carrying their silly shopping bags parroting the latest Global Warming slogan. Weren’t they all made of carbon dioxide themselves? I entered the market area. This was indeed the most traditional of all Christmas markets in town. And people appeared to love it for that. There were beeswax candles for sale, along with the most delicious honey compositions. One could buy roasted chestnuts and potatoe pancakes. There were of course stalls selling Christmas bakery and Christmas tree balls. Others offered organic bread, cheese and what not. Various handicrafts stalls had the most delicate items on display produced in the country’s various provinces. It was lovely, it was picturesque, one could eat and drink and enjoy oneself, and certainly find decent Christmas presents. And yet, something was missing. The longer I looked at the scene, despite the elegantly dressed people and the many fine shops, the more I felt that this was nothing but a monstrous Potemkin façade, an empty shell, a sweet and nicely draped package without content. A crowd of young Italians (they always come in crowds) entered the scene: happy as ever, singing, dancing, joking. It’s that particular Mediterranean mood for which the whole world loves them. But did they emanate any last bit of their once-famous Italian Catholicity? A militant cyclist nearly hit a pedestrian, even shouting at the old lady, as in this place cyclists “are king”. Soon after, the idyllic sounds of the brass band got cut through by several police sirens (over here they still use the less unnerving ascending fourth). In no time, a dozen or so of policemen filled the market, nervously looking for something or somebody. No announcement was made, no measures were taken. Eventually, they left back into the night, probably searching for terrorists or mafiyas or drug dealers somewhere else.

It wasn’t till now that I realised an old, bearded man standing in a corner, all by himself (and it wasn’t some Santa Claus). I went over to him and looked into a face so bright and shining, so beautiful and naturally aristocratic that I instinctively fell down to kiss his hand, the way they still do in the orient today and as was commonplace also in the Christian lands until a century ago. He wouldn’t allow me to kiss his hand, which felt strange, as I thought maybe I wasn’t sincere and humble enough. Nevertheless, the old man was friendly, and in his eyes I could now see tears over tears. I wondered what could have hurt him so deeply, but then the old wise man began to speak, and he spoke with wisdom and authority:

“What you see, my dear son, are the fruits of apostasy. People’s shopping bags are bursting with everything this material world has to offer, but their hearts are empty and cold. They claim to be celebrating the birth of the Lord, if at all, and yet their minds are completely absorbed with worldly things. They think of their scheduled skiing holidays in the Alps or a far-distance journey to the Maldives; of their numerous invitations and festivities, that are purely secular; of organising this and organising that. But the churches stand empty, and better they remained empty, for honesty’s sake, as your churchmen of today have become a disgrace. They no longer believe. They have abandoned their Christian faith and have embraced, like Ischariot, the world. No wonder, people stay away. These men have nothing to give and nothing to transmit. This is more than just a crisis, it is the very tragedy foretold by prophets and saints thousands of years ago. Mankind will be cleansed, and God only knows by which means He will cleanse it. In any case, the arch-enemy has entered the walls of Christianity a long time ago, patiently waiting for his great and murderous moment. But people only see what the arch-enemy allows them to see. Yet, this is, whatever real, a distraction. After all, he has not only infiltrated and perverted Christendom, he has done the same with all other religions, too. And so, my son, great hardship is coming. Hardship and suffering and death. But it will all be, like in Biblical times, for the sake of bringing man back to his Heavenly Father. Of course, not every prodigal son indeed returns. Man has been endowed, for better or worse, with free will. There is Divine Grace, but there is also man’s need to repent and to wholeheartedly change his ways.”

At this point, the old wise man took me and transferred me, in the twinkling of an eye, to faraway Moscow. He continued:

“Look around! Isn’t this here a different world? A world so fundamentally godless that it can play at will with the appearance-only of faith? But their leaders do not believe in God. They unchangedly believe in their own evil prophets, Marx and Lenin, and are unchangedly committed to their same old project of conquering the world for communism. Watch them carefully: the way they move, the way they speak. In their arrogance and hubris, they are convinced they have mastered the art of perfect imitation. But, my son, everyone who can see should be able to detect the duplicity in everything they do. Sadly, the Western nations are struck, even now, with utter blindness. First, they have allowed themselves to be put to sleep. Now, they refuse to wake up. But the days of comfortable numbness are about to come to an end. The final awakening, when it happens, will be terrible. Many will go insane straight away. Most, however, will be completely helpless.”

The saintly old man disappeared, leaving me behind in the middle of Red Square. A group of people had lined up in front of the Lenin Mausoleum, like pilgrims, eager to enter their sinister holy of holies. The terrifying Red Star on Spasskaya Tower silently confirmed what the man had just said. There was a strange Christmas tree right in front of the GUM department store, cut back to the exact shape of a cone. I then had a look into this alleged temple of new Russian capitalism. What I saw struck me: there, they had a Christmas tree mounted by a giant communist Red Star, like the ones on top of the Kremlin towers outside! Somebody passed by, spotting me as a foreigner, and said in English (with a heavy Russian accent, which he didn’t even try to hide), while he pointed to that Red Star on top of the Christmas tree: “WELCOME TO RUSSIAN-ORTHODOX MOTHER RUSSIA!” – laughing mad and crazy like a whole armada of gruesome demons.

Moscow, Russia, December 4, 2018: Christmas tree and decorations at the GUM department store on Moscow Red Square

As I woke up, I still had the terrible laughter in my ears, while I cried and cried and cried. Is this indeed our future, as the old man had indicated? Will they indeed slay the rest of the world without mercy, the one way or the other? Given the fact that they are still communists, we’d better get prepared for the worst, remembering the old Latin word: “Si vis pacem, para bellum.” If you want peace, prepare for war. As otherwise, the sole alternatives would be: red or dead…

Merry Christmas!





© The Contemplative Observer 2019   



“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?


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.


(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.


(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.


(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:

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
Ten to zero,
Nina for president, vote your hero!
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
Ten to zero,
Nina for president, vote your hero!
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
Ten to zero,
Nina for president, vote your hero!
Ten to zero,
Nina for president, vote your hero
Nina for President,
Is this ok?
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.
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…
Postscript: A few more “gems” underscoring the madness of it all
© The Contemplative Observer 2019

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



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



(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…




(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.)



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 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).


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”!]



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…



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.



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