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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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


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

EWG, 1942


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

SG 23

Top Secret!

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

1. The World Situation Five Years After Potsdam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Korea -—A Risky Gamble for Washington

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

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

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

4. The Political and Military Strength of the United States

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Has Germany an Obligation towards the United States?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. The Expellees (“Die Heimatvertriebenen”).

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

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

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

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

7. Weltanschauung and World Power Politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prospects for the Future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Completed: MADRID, Beginning of September 1950.

Distribution (Verteiler):
Dr. M
v. T., Bonn
Buenos Aires


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

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



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

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

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

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


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

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

Father Earth

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

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


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

Fischer und Cimoszewicz


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



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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Good-Bye Lenin, Filmplakat

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merkel schwarz-grün


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

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

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

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

Yascha Mounk’s answer:

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

One could call this the politics of fait accompli!

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

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

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

Merkel und Obama

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Willy Brandt-Haus 2


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

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

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


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











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

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

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


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

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

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



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

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

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

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






© The Contemplative Observer 2018





Christopher Story’s Prescient Warning to the Irish


Christopher Story, Fatima 2000 speech, Rahmen


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

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

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

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


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

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


Martin McGuinness (1950 - 2017)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OF COURSE NOT! Revolutionary communists never retire!

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

Gerry Adams


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

Gerry Adams hugging Enda Kelly

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




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










© The Contemplative Observer 2018



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

Ann Barnhardt, Rahmen


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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





Presented by The Contemplative Observer 2018



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


conservative cartoon


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



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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And so on and so forth.

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



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




© The Contemplative Observer 2018



Are Moscow and Beijing already Blackmailing the West into ‘Cooperation’ on Their Terms?

Putin, State of the Nation address 2018



Those familiar with the communist defector literature will immediately recognise the meaning, scope, depth and implications of the title of this article. They know, or should know, that the so-called “collapse of communism” in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe 25 plus years ago was but a theatrical play, a giant spectacle, designed to deceive and put to sleep a Western world that all-too-readily accepted the miraculous “changes” in the communist sphere at face value. They are perfectly aware that communism continued (also in the allegedly ever-more-“capitalist” People’s Republic of China), practically under the same personnel, with its same old objective of world revolution and as ruthless and determined as ever. Having educated themselves, they can see through the fog of disinformation. They won’t fall for the false smiles, dubious promises and treacherous invitations. They easily spot a Bolshevik even when he doesn’t speak his former Marxist-Leninist gibberish. Unlike our “all-wise” decision makers in business and politics, they aren’t impressed by expensive suits, silk neckties and Rolex watches (neither do they rejoice over Red China’s “economic miracle” that was only made possible by a gravely mistaken policy begun by the United States 45 years ago). They keep their focus instead on the empty shells, the imitators, the impostors inside these suits and are thoroughly appalled by their lack of culture, their brutishness and the demonic air surrounding them (the same applies for Red Chinese compared to, say, Chinese in Taiwan or Hong Kong). At the same time, they do not underestimate communist cunning and insidiousness. They can see, underneath the apparent small-talk and folksy fraternising, the cold-blooded chess player, the skilled strategist and manipulator, who is constantly analysing the situation, seeking advantage and, ultimately, control. Shielded and protected by such wisdom and understanding, they don’t engage in any exchange whatsoever with communists (or: “post-communists”), the very same way one doesn’t mix with criminals. They leave them alone, simply because they in turn want to be left alone by them. After all, if one doesn’t open up to their trickery, to their deceptive games, that always put one in a weak, even critical position: what can they do?!

This is what the West, the “bourgeoisie,” should have done. Keep away from communists – who are no less than the enemies of civilisation – and keep them out of your own sphere no matter what. Tragically, fatally and stupidly, the free world did the exact opposite, putting itself on a murderous path of self-annihilation that began with seemingly innocuous diplomatic recognition and has taken us all the way to being existentially threatened by communism. All because the Western elites had – naïvely or treasonously – been feeding this monster, continuously, decade after decade, until that monster – what irony! – felt strong enough to declare defeat. But it wasn’t defeated at all (after all: by whom?); rather, it embarked on a new scheme, more sophisticated and more deadly than any other deception in the history of communism: It took a second breath (both in the “former” USSR and in the “increasingly pragmatic” PRC) – that’s what the ruse of “collapsible communism” was all about -, restrengthening and even rejuvenating itself while being underground, in plain sight.

Below is a striking piece of evidence (and this whole article is mainly about Russia), one out of a myriad. It’s a Soviet post stamp of 1988, which was about the peak of Gorbachev’s deceptive perestroika campaign. Surprisingly, the stamp shows old-style Soviet propaganda images – Red Army soldiers marching forward under the Red banner and endless masses of socialist workers marching ahead, too, as if coming straight out of the stamp and towards the viewer – along with the frank admission, “Perestroika Continues the October (Revolution).” On the righthand side, we then read the maxims: “Acceleration. Democratisation. Openness.” So, Gorbachev’s alleged reform programme marked indeed the beginning of an utterly hostile political offensive followed by outright (“peaceful”) invasion right across enemy lines into the West, by which the free world  – “acceleration!” – was to be thoroughly overwhelmed, and it was!



The ever-appeasing and peace-loving West, mesmerised by the wonderful outcome of communism having abolished itself, swiftly celebrated its victory of the Cold War and all-too-gladly accepted the “post-communists” (who were still communists!) as their “friends” and “partners” – the calamitous story of ancient Troy revisited! This was then the beginning of the final chapter in this overall Greek tragedy. Meanwhile, thirty years later, the liberal idea of an “end of history” has turned out as a suicidal illusion. Instead of freedom and prosperity around the world, we are now facing the same old communist beast, well and alive and stronger than ever, getting ready for world victory.

But why “blackmail”? Communism can threaten the West (as it always did), but blackmail? Well, first, our (so-called) elites have during a period of three decades established close relations with the communist world, politically, economically and culturally, even to a degree where it’s no longer clear which is which and who belongs where and stands on what side. Having freed themselves of their “anti-Fascist protection rampart” in 1989, the communists effectively invaded the West, infiltrating, if not taking over, all spheres of Western society (including the criminal underworld). So, they’ve already entered, in a variety of ways, the enemy’s camp, gaining influence as well as precious insights. At the same time, they were quietly rebuilding and modernising their military, while encouraging the West to sign arms control treaties. The goal, naturally, was (and had always been) a solid reversal in the balance of military power. Once you’ve gained military superiority, you can dictate your terms upon an adversary who has only these two choices left: Red or dead (meaning, outright surrender or fighting a war that, by human reckoning, cannot be won).

Merriam Webster’s dictionary defines the act of blackmail as follows:

(1) a tribute anciently exacted on the Scottish border by plundering chiefs in exchange for immunity from pillage.

(2) extortion or coercion by threats especially of public exposure or criminal prosecution.

“… by threats especially of public exposure or criminal prosecution.” The definition does not explicitly name threats against the very life of a given victim, be it an individual or a whole country (or group of countries). Our utilitarian mindset shys away from this much more dangerous type of blackmail, in which the criminal is a political psychopath who demands nothing less than total submission on the part of his victim (which far exceeds the limits of mere “unconditional surrender”), threatening him with death in case he doesn’t obey. Being a totalitarian, he isn’t satisfied by ordinary territorial conquest. He wants to see his victim completely helpless, terrified, and yes: humiliated. He wants his all, first of all: his very soul! So, the means, the tool, the indispensable precondition in such political blackmail is overwhelming military superiority, while the threat involves nothing less than extermination. “Do as I wish, or else,” which is the essence of blackmail, taken to its utmost extreme. The great Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn used for this the term, “cooperation-blackmail.”

It goes without saying, however, that blackmail can only be effective as soon as the side that’s to be blackmailed knows it is being blackmailed. In normal life, that’s usually a given, but the communists somewhat overdid it with putting the West to sleep (claiming, back in 1989/91, they were no longer communists) so that now, despite their threats getting shriller and shriller, the West appears to remain comfortably asleep nonetheless. 



Already in 2011 (maybe much earlier than that), the West could have and should have woken up to the impending danger. On December 10th of that year, a prominent representative of the Russian Federation, though no longer in an official role, was honoured in Munich, Germany by Bavaria’s conservative, CSU-connected Hanns Seidel Foundation with their Franz-Josef-Strauß Award. In his acceptance speech, same de-facto representative (who was none other than Comrade Gorbachev) burst out, Khrushchev-style, into a wild and chaotic Leninist rant, in which he attacked the United States and NATO, declared the Western system of free market economics bankrupt, threatened World War III and simultaneously offered as a solution to avoid world war a “radical cure,” i.e., a new global order based, evidently, on communism (he didn’t use the word “communism,” of course). He greatly courted the Germans, addressing them as “my dear Germans” (after all, the unchanged Soviets have been working for decades, 24/7, to steer Germany away from the United States and break up the Atlantic Alliance), but finally even threatenend them with poverty and hunger, should they not obey. Gorbachev did not explicitly speak of Russia having acquired military superiority over the West, but the fact of the matter is: he threatened world war! So, it’s already an instance of “cooperation-blackmail.” This terrifying speech was only once broadcast by Bavarian Television later that day, but was otherwise completely swept under the rug (after all, who wants people to panic!). This author incidently stumbled upon it on YouTube at the time. The videos presenting this had only the second half of the speech as a recording of the original television broadcast, with Gorbachev speaking Russian and being simultaneously translated to German by an interpreter of Bavarian Television. The missing first half of the speech, as this author found out later through a massively streamlined official print version, wasn’t nearly as explosive, and so he meticulously translated to English what was on that video (0:33 – 19:55), in other words: what was actually said. Hold your breath, and keep in mind that Gorbachev is not a private observer, but speaks and acts on behalf of the still-existing USSR (the late British analyst Christopher Story even viewed the Gorbachev Foundation as a cloak for a secretly continuing COMINTERN – which, given Gorbachev’s new role ever since 1992, makes complete sense). Also, Gorbachev greatly confirms in this speech what German Chancellor Angela Merkel indicates, quite frequently so, when she speaks of Russia, in equal Leninist boldness, as being “Germany’s strategic partner” (history is repeating itself):    

[…] But now I’m also slowly asking myself: what’s this all about? For, what we can see is that the missile defence is meant as a defence against Russia. Everything else is just talk, or a wall of fog to cover the truth. Yes, and as a result, the Russian government said: We’re going to station means of defence, here and there, and we are ready to use weapons that guarantee our security. What does this mean? WORLD WAR III! And if Russia and the USA should again be at loggerheads, this IS World War III! This won’t be restricted to a local war! And we need to again clearly remember the lesson, you know: the Cold War was over, our partners were triumphing, and they wouldn’t see the forest for the trees any more, in the West, and especially in the USA. They wanted to build a new empire, with a super-super-super-power – to which I say: the Germans are a serious and reflecting nation, and they know well what is being said in the USA; and when they don’t react to it and sometimes nod, it means all this can’t be taken for serious: It’s the attempt to threaten Russia a bit; and there is still in Europe a bit of fear left towards Russia. Yet, we only wish to build and develop: No one has led more wars in the 20th century than us. So much we had to suffer, and, just as a sidenote: We had no plans after WWII to start military action against the USA. I know it. I MUST know it. And, suddenly, all this starts all over again. This reminds me of those 200 or 300 U.S. bases, spread all over the world, from the Cold War era; and have they been of any use to anybody? I have the impression that the evildoer of the system in which the West lives, and so with the consent of Washington, this radical market philosophy, all this hasn’t turned out positively. What have we got? Bubbles! One bubble after the other, and they all burst. And, one should understand at last that the solution can’t be an arms race, the militarisation of the world and the economy, because we’d keep on throwing money out the window. And former Finance Minister Waigel spoke of 10 billion DM or Dollar, of course it was Mark, Deutschmark, that he didn’t give to Gorbachev at that time. How much money are we simply throwing out the window! Eisenhower is again quoted these days, General and President Eisenhower. Yesterday I had again the idea to watch that movie: “FFF.” — No. — “JFK.” On the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. I like such films, and one should watch them from time to time just so to remain awake; if possible: wide-awake! And, Eisenhower, to come back to that, said that the military-industrial complex is a dangerous thing; and one should never lose control over it! He said that in a way as had never been said before. And I want to say: the man was right! The military-industrial complex in our grand countries, that’s those who set the tone, who exert pressure on politics. I know how our military-industrial complex is doing this, and it is still very critical of Gorbachev because of Perestroika and the freeing of the country from these military expenditures. But, these people have been accustomed to always ‘play the first fiddle,’ and I think that if an economy cannot provide for its people, it is an ill economy; AND SUCH AN ECONOMY MUST BE CURED, AND SO BY RADICAL MEANS! This was my idea, this was my approach. And I’m still repeating it today. But, no, what are they telling people? They are telling them things that make them afraid. Well, and now they’re arming up. But when one looks at the situation thoroughly, one can easily see that our government is acting correctly and appropriately, because – I just say: the devil take it – there is no system for executing global decisions in a world that is already global. We simply still lack such mechanisms, and I have heard with great interest that, as has been said by your Prime Minister, “we are ready to help, but not to throw money into a bottomless pit.” After all, IT WAS THE GERMANS who initiated the Euro, the European single currency, and therefore Germany carries also great responsibility, and Germany is big and strong, and thus carries an especially great responsibility, from which it cannot just steal away. But, this is also about the processes within the countries. Many have entered the EU in an expectation of having things for free, I think you know exactly what I mean. Yes, so quickly did they rush to the West and left the Warsaw Pact and COMECON, all up and away towards the West, and the West immediately welcomed them and quickly incorporated these new countries, which all entered suit the United Nations; and you yourselves have greatly furthered this development; thus: look who is talking! And, shouldn’t one be grateful to the Greeks for having established the fundaments of our civilisation? But, well, I believe we know exactly what we need to think of each other, and we must build a system for executing global decisions in a global world. And for this, NEW systems, NEW models are needed! Betting on super-profits, super-consumption, and the like, leads nowhere. That’s of no use! Now, we have a billionaire who owns a submarine. And now he wants to commission a second one. Is this going to give the man happiness? No! One should find a small submarine, torpedo his first one so to prevent the second one from being built; because no one needs this. Who needs this? And I ask you, my dear Germans: stand you also by your responsibility! You have initiated the Euro-zone, and as soon as the control mechanisms become effective, this system will be precisely what Europe and the world need! I think we should all really think about, together, how we can prevent a violent solution of the problems at hand, because when someone chooses force, this is the most dangerous thing that there is; and I repeat: we’re again in an arms race! It’s obviously about re-militarisation, not only militarisation of the economybut also of consciousness. WE ARE ILL; WE ALL NEED TO BE TREATED AND CURED! And Generals again become heroes; Generals who believe they had disarmed too much, one missile of many thousands, that’s too much. And here I ask myself: How do the Generals think? If one bets on solving problems militarily, then one commits a mistake, and I’d like to say this again, I’ve heard this, we just had in France an annual meeting, the annual Conference of the World Political Forum, that I brought into being several years ago, really a serious organisation; there it was said: to bet on force and strength isn’t efficient. The nations, and most politicians, condemn such an attitude. And at the end we came to the conclusion that wars do not solve problems, and in earlier days thinkers said that war is necessary, that war brings about a movement ahead etc. – No! War means a giant failure of politics. For what should one take up arms, aeroplanes, extremely destructive weapons? And why? Because the politicians got it wrong, because the politicians still lag behind the fast changes in the world. And, so to speak, the Russians, the Germans, the French, the Americans, the Japanese, and now also the Chinese, by the way, these nations are responsible for providing for the world a peaceful, positive perspective. And, also, it’s definitely wrong to believe one could hide away, one could sit out anything. No one can hide any more or sit anything out! Also small countries need contacts. I believe I have now strayed quite far from the Franz-Josef-Strauß Award, but I’m convinced that the one is closely connected to the other; connected to the legacy passed on to us by smart brains. I’d like to once again express my heartfelt thanks. You know, I speak at home, here in Germany, in Europe, in the world; I advocate cooperation and of course a deepening in the cooperation between Russia and Germany. Because, this means very, very much for the overall situation; it stabilises it, develops it towards a positive outcome, and the people who are demonstrating in Wall Street demand social justice and equality. And, as you can see, also in the EU, mistakes were made. But this isn’t yet the essential point I want to make. I have the impression that – of course we aren’t out of the old crisis yet, and there are already signs on the horizon for a new crisis, but – as LENIN calmed his comrades-in-arms, this was when the Soviet power came into being, when there was a chaotic situation in the country: “Yes, of course we have chaos, BUT FROM CHAOS SPRING UP NEW FORMS OF LIFE.“ And therefore, chaos IS a problem, a crisis IS a problem, all this isn’t easy, but there are always included opportunities that definitely should be made use of. And I wish the Germans a healthy New Year. And this time you will still have enough bratwursts and pork-knuckles for New Year’s Eve. WELL, AND AS FOR THE NEXT NEW YEAR’S EVE, WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT THAT, TOGETHER! And, I tell you quite frankly: it is for me a special, an emotional day. And regarding the accomplishments that I myself associate with my life – the German question, the destiny of Germany -, these were for me of determining importance. And I’m proud of what I could do. – Thank you very much! I’m wishing you good success!

What a ride! Quite visibly, the friendly mask has dropped. No more fine diplomacy, no more eagerness, like thirty years ago, to learn from the West the workings of free market economics. It turns out they had never been remotely interested in changing their system, in abandoning communism, in the first place. And here they are, threatening the West and singing eulogies at the supposed deathbed of capitalism. Anatoliy Golitsyn saw it all coming, because he knew their longrange strategy of world conquest, but hardly anyone took him seriously at a time when the West could still have changed course. Ever after the destruction of Joseph McCarthy (and then Angleton and Golitsyn) and certainly since the fake “collapse of communism” in 1989/91, the once well established knowledge of communism as the worst enemy of mankind had been gradually eroded and finally put aside. And so our present generation will have to suffer the consequences, ill-equipped as it is, to put it mildly, in every possible respect. The writing on the wall had been there for 34 long years, but it seems most people (including politicians, political scientists and intelligence “experts”) have never even heard of Anatoliy Golitsyn’s 1984 classic, New Lies for Old, let alone read it! Here is one brief quote taken from pp. 345, 346 of that book:

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” [Golitsyn had explained throughout the book that the so-called Sino-Soviet split beginning around 1962 was a temporary deception, a “scissors strategy,” as he called it]. 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 dictated by the communist bloc. The argument for accommodation with the overwhelming strength of communism would be virtually unanswerable.

Sound familiar??? This was published in early 1984, when the Soviet Union was still frozen under Chernenko’s Brezhnevist regime!

Only two months after Gorbachev’s speech, on February 27, 2012, Vladimir Putin (at the time acting “Prime Minister” for an interim period of four years) made also very threatening remarks regarding Russia’s acquired military strength (this was during “roundtable” defence talks of Russia’s military, held most symbolically in Sarov, the “birthplace” of the first Soviet atomic bomb). Here is what Putin said (unfortunately, the video source on YouTube is no longer there): 

We have more aces up our sleeve that would push our Western colleagues and partners to a more constructive dialogue than we have seen before. What do I mean by this? Just a few years ago, as I know, they used to speak of us among their fellow allies as follows: “Russia could tinker with its military as much as it wants, we are not the least interested in what’s happening there. All they have is rusted-out junk.” But this is not true. [Laughs.] Today, it’s a different game.

Mind: “… more aces up our sleeve that would push our Western colleagues and partners to a more constructive dialogue …,” and: “Today, it’s a different game.” This is all absolutely alarming! And it’s again the language of cooperation-blackmail. Even when he pronounces the phrase, “colleagues and partners,” he ostentatiously and most cynically clears his throat, demonstrating how much he hates all this fuss about “partnership,” when in reality the United States has remained Russia’s main enemy just like in the old Soviet days. Interestingly, one can see in that video that when Putin, with the greatest delight, says the words, “But this is not true. Today, it’s a different game,” the camera pans over to Dmitry Rogozin sitting in the audience, showing him with an agreeing, conspiratorial and most superior grin on his face. Rogozin (below, left) has been, until recently, in charge of Russia’s defence industry!


Oh yes, they are now openly laughing at the stupidity of the West, that naïvely fell for their lies about a collapse of communism and subsequent run-down Russian military. In reality, they have been arming up like hell, and – hello? – the emblem of the Russian armed forces is still the RED STAR!

Sukhoi Su-35


Then occurred, on Sept. 27, 2012, a probably unplanned slip of the tongue by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during an appearance on the American Charlie Rose Show (the exchange in question is from 48:59 till 49:27 of the video):

Rose: Do you have fears about the Arab Spring? As to what those governments might become?

Lavrov: Well, I think we are now in the Arab Autumn and –

Rose: Okay, do you have fears about the Arab Autumn, and where do you think it’s going?

Lavrov: Well, I hope it’s not going to the Nuclear Winter.

Rose (somewhat taken aback, but reacting extremely clever): What would lead it to a Nuclear Winter?  Iran getting a nuclear weapon, which is not an Arab country? What would lead to the Nuclear Winter?

Lavrov (trying to get away from his weird statement): Ah, this was a figure of speech, of course …

We then had, on March 16, 2014 – which was during the Ukrainian Maydan revolution and Russia’s basically unopposed annexation of the Crimean peninsula and incursions into the Donbass – another grim and very visual reminder of Russia’s military capabilities on Russian state-controlled television Rossiya-1, where Putin-protegé Dmitry Kiselyov, in his weekly prime-time news show, boasted:

Russia is the only country in the world that is realistically capable of turning the United States into radioactive ash, [adding:]

Even if people in all our command posts after an enemy atomic attack cannot be contacted, the system will automatically fire our missiles from mines and submarines in the right direction.

And he said it with an image of a huge atomic mushroom cloud behind him and the words, “into radioactive ash”!

Dmitry Kiselyov


These were only a few instances of open threats and first steps towards all-out nuclear blackmail that have taken place especially since Vladimir Putin succeeded Boris Yeltsin as President of Russia on New Year’s Eve of 1999. Putin’s succession indeed marked the beginning of a new, much more militaristic and much more confrontative phase, during which supposedly democratic Russia ever more clearly began to show its same old Soviet colours. For instance, Putin’s infamous “cabbage soup” comment made during a 5-hour international press conference on Valentine’s Day of 2008, may well be remembered for years to come. Relating to an OSCE delegation that had declined monitoring the 2008 Russian Presidential elections, as they thought it was all rigged anyway, Putin let them know, in all Stalinist brutality, that they should rather teach their wives how to cook cabbage soup. What did he mean by that? Well, in earlier days, well before Green eco-primitivists revolutionised our cuisine, cabbage soup (which certainly can be delicious if one has all the ingredients necessary) was viewed as a very basic dish, if not something for poor people or for a time of emergency or war (or for inmates of a Soviet concentration camp, for that matter)! The comment has several layers. First, and most obviously, it is a threat of war, poverty and hunger. Second, and somewhat more hidden, it is a mockery of Western societies that, after decades of aggressive feminism, are increasingly lacking women (resp., wives) who know how to cook and who will be able to adapt in a time of war. (Ironically, feminism is a brainchild and important tool of communism, meant to undermine the Western societies from within by destroying the family.)

In other words, we’ve been in a “new Cold War” for quite a number of years now. What finally seems to have been intended by Moscow as the ultimate, official game changer, was Vladimir Putin’s so-called State of the Nation address of 2018.



State of the Nation Address 2018, 6


Unlike the “Presidential Addresses to the Federal Assembly” of previous years, the address of 2018 (that was more of a presentation) took place not in the Kremlin’s St. George Hall, but in the more spacious Moscow Manege, which certainly allowed a wider stage and huge video walls to be installed. The speech wasn’t part of Putin’s so-called election campaign, but, especially as for its important second half, looked like an announcement, mainly directed at the West, communicating almost desperately, with all possible emphasis, more clearly and explicitly than ever before, a new international state of affairs (what Putin back in 2012 had spoken of as being now “a different game”). Obviously, the Russians (read: Soviets) had decided – 100th anniversary of the October Revolution and 200th birthday of Karl Marx! – that the time had come, finally, to wake up the still-dreaming Western world and let it realise that the tables have been turned on them and that it is Russia, and no longer the United States, that is now the leading military power in the world.

The recording of the event, as it is presented on RT’s YouTube channel, also gives the last five minutes before Putin enters the podium – which is great, because one can study, from up close, this sinister congregation of stone-faced, brutal KGB types. If this “people’s intelligentsia” seriously believes they and their proletarian comrades around the world can and will rule the planet, then this would certainly be the end of any civilisation, Christian or other. The following screenshots mercilessly illustrate for everybody who can see what is awaiting us. All-too-visibly, there is a devilish conspiratorial joy as well as great impatience and hunger for triumph in the air. Soon, they’re convinced, their hated “imperialist class enemy” will be slain …

State of the Nation Address 2018, 3

State of the Nation Address 2018, 2

State of the Nation Address 2018, 4

State of the Nation Address 2018, 5

State of the Nation Address 2018, 7

State of the Nation Address 2018, 15

State of the Nation Address 2018, 10

State of the Nation Address 2018, 11

State of the Nation Address 2018, 12

State of the Nation Address 2018, 13

State of the Nation Address 2018, 14


By the way, in these screenshots one can see a number of faces that are also known to us in the West. Picture No. 1 shows to the very right the Chief Rabbi of Russia, Berel Lazar. In picture No. 3, there is current Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, along with Patriarch Kirill of Moscow. Picture No. 4 shows Ramzan Kadyrov, the Kremlin’s man in Chechniya. Picture No. 6 has former Minister of Defence and close Putin buddy, Sergey Ivanov. Picture No. 9 shows Dmitry Rogozin, until recently Deputy Prime Minister in charge of Russia’s defence industry. – If one digs a bit deeper, one can identify in picture No. 7 three Deputy Prime Ministers, namely Olga Golodets, Dmitry Kozak and Vitaliy Mutko. – According to the offical Kremlin website, the event was attended by “Federation Council members, State Duma deputies, members of the Government, leaders of the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court, governors, speakers of the legislatures of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, the leaders of traditional religions, public figures, including the heads of regional civic chambers, as well as the leaders of major media outlets.” What a wonderful Potyemkin display of a “civil society” that does not exist! In fact, it comes closer to Lenin’s idea of a “state of the whole people,” that would transcend, or make superfluous, the former “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Insofar, “post-Soviet” Russia has indeed accomplished a tremendous leap forward along its revolutionary journey towards final world triumph (with Comrade Merkel’s Germany, it seems, not far lagging behind). 

Sure enough, Vladimir Putin opens his two-hour address with the following cryptic words (taken from RT’s simultaneous English translation, not the refurbished print version on the Kremlin’s website),

Citizens of Russia, members of the Federation Council and Deputies to the State Duma! My State of the Nation address today is special. We are at a turning point, we are at a crossroads, where the significance of our choices and the significance of every step we take is extremely important. That’s because they define the future of our country for decades. […]

The rest of the first one hour and twenty minutes is boring, Soviet-style elaborations on Russia’s economic and social progress etc. (as well as challenges still lying ahead), in other words: the usual clumsy imitation of a politician’s speech in the West. For a Russian audience, it’s certainly good enough. They don’t expect more as this is not a free, democratic society with free elections and politicians having to win people’s votes. It’s still a dictatorial system, thinly veiled as being something else, yet in fact no more than what several analysts have described as “democratism.” Putin, as well as his friends and comrades, are not politicians, but – as ever – political functionaries, or: apparatchiks! It’s still the state of Lenin, and they’re still all committed Marxist-Leninists. Therefore the ugliness, therefore the concentrated evil emanating from their eyes. They are out for slaying whatever remnants of the old ways may still have survived in the world (regardless of their ridiculous claims of being Russian “nationalists” and Russian “Orthodox Christians”). In a way, they are scythes (to cite National Bolshevist Eduard Limonov’s eccentric and greatly disturbing book, The Other Russia), walking scythes eager to do their murderous work of extermination …

At the 1:25:00 mark (i.e., for the remaining 35 minutes), Putin’s speech suddenly gets interesting, and those in the audience who may have taken a comfortable nap are again wide awake, as now comes the part everybody’s been waiting for. Putin presents, via video animations, a number of brandnew weapons soon to be deployed or already in the process of deployment: A superheavy, hypersonic super-longrange ICBM, termed RS-28 Sarmat with the capacity to carry warheads of up to 15 megatons TNT (which equates to approx. 1000 Hiroshima bombs!); a new unlimited-range cruise missile powered by a nuclear engine; an intercontinental unmanned, super-quiet, ultradeep-level highspeed submarine (a kind of super-torpedo) equipped with conventional or nuclear warheads (reaching the crazy level of possibly 100 megatons TNT, which would be double the 1961 Tsar bomb, the by far strongest nuclear detonation so far) able to destroy coastal or maritime targets, even whole coastal regions; hypersonic airbased missiles that can travel faster than Mach 10 and are able to perform evasion manoeuvres; a special warhead, based on plasma technology, that can travel at a speed of Mach 20 and supposedly can’t be intercepted; existing weaponry is being upgraded with laser technology. In other words, Russia has developed a new generation of veritable doomsday weapons, which is perfectly in line with their same old criminal-communist mentality (listen here to nuclear strategy expert, Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, assessing the frightening new state of affairs). Given this dramatic swing in the balance of military power, it is certainly no stretch to say that the long-cherished idea of “mutually assured destruction” (MAD) as a guarantee to prevent global conflict lies in shambles! As Putin presents these monstrously powerful weapons, his audience, including the women, is out of themselves with joy and “national pride.” But there is something much more sinister involved than mere national pride: They can’t wait to see America dead!

And here are the key passages of Putin’s speech during this presentation: 

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!

This was followed by standing ovations as the whole audience of intelligence, military and Party cadres immediately understood the message of cooperation-blackmail! It’s clear that they must first wake up the West to the imminent threat they pose to its very existence. Only then can full and overt cooperation-blackmail kick in and force the West either onto the battlefield or to the negotiating table. Yet, there would be little to negotiate over, as they will be in the position to impose their demands on a helpless free world that would then cease to be free.  And Putin emphasises:

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.

In other words, they will certainly not allow the U.S. to catch up again. And now he’s getting towards the heart of the issue:

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.

It’s now an either-or: Talk to us and accept global communism or be defeated militarily! Putin goes on:

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.

He couldn’t be any clearer: Don’t even think of trying to escape our overwhelming power! We are going to build this new communist future TOGETHER! And then:

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. 

‘Otherwise, well, the choice is yours!’ That’s the message. – Meanwhile, Russia, nay: the whole of the so-called Commonwealth of Independent States (which includes all “former” Soviet republics minus, for the moment, the Baltics, Ukraine and Georgia), has launched an initiative meant to bring home Russian students studying in Britain, but in fact anywhere in the West, in order  to get them out of their present “hostile,” “russophobic” environment. They are encouraged to help modernise Russia’s backward Far East instead, for which high salaries are promised. This is clearly an immediate pre-war measure! Mother Russia doesn’t want her own to be killed in the upcoming war of mass destruction that it is preparing (along with China and all other allies) against the West. 

By the way, much of what Putin talks about in his March 1, 2018 address can already be found in Gorbachev’s propaganda book of 1987, Perestroika (not to mention Golitsyn’s predictions, particularly in chapter 25, The Final Phase, of New Lies for Old). Here are two quotes from “Perestroika” (translated from the German edition by this author):

Despite all contradictions in today’s world, despite the variety of societal and political systems, and despite the different paths nations have taken in history, this world remains an undividable whole. We are all passengers on board of Ship Earth, and we must not allow it to be destroyed. There won’t be a second Noah’s Ark.

Time doesn’t stand still, and we must not let pass it in vain. We need to act. The world situation doesn’t allow us to wait for the most convenient moment: We need a constructive and comprehensive dialogue, and we need it now. Nothing else it is we are aiming at when we connect, via TV, Soviet and American cities, Soviet and American politicians and personalities of the public domain, as well as ordinary American and Soviet citizens. We let our media present the whole spectrum of Western positions, among them even the most conservative. We encourage contacts to people who represent other world views and other political convictions. In this way, we express our view that such practice is a step on the way towards a world acceptable for both sides.

And here, finally, is said RT video of Putin’s March 1, 2018 State of the Nation address. Do watch it thoroughly!


A few hours after his appearance in the Moscow Manege, as well as on the following day, Putin gave an altogether 90-minute exclusive interview to now-NBC News anchor Megyn Kelly (part 2 of the interview – mind! – was conducted in the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, which is essentially one big military base threatening all of Europe). Rather than getting grilled by Ms. Kelly, Putin most relaxedly played with her, displaying nothing but contempt and disgust for her country, the United States (while she on her part seemed to be mainly obsessed with investigating the “Trump-Russia collusion”). But then, what can one expect from interviewing these people: a pack of lies and insults from beginning to end! Do watch this too (and put on the function for English subtitles). It’s despicable – and, maybe, a remote echo of Khrushchev vs. Kennedy …




Well, dear reader, for sure we have entered perilous times. Having read and watched all this, maybe you would now want to take a silent walk on your own, or have a decent cup of tea (or both), and think it all over! Talk to your spouse (in case you have one), or a friend, or your parents! Inform them! It all looks as if we won’t have too much time left for practical precautions and for getting ourselves firmly rooted in Christ the Lord. And both is necessary.

In closing, this author would like to present an eerily prophetic quote taken from a memorandum that Soviet defector and author Anatoliy Golitsyn sent to the CIA on April 30, 1993. Golitsyn’s memoranda to the CIA, reaching from 1973 to 1995, have been published in 1995 in his second book, The Perestroika Deception: The World’s Slide Towards the Second October Revolution. On pages 165 – 167 of The Perestroika Deception, Golitsyn warns (bold print, as always, by this author):

[…] 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 Russians 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.




© The Contemplative Observer 2018



Two Hundred Years of Karl Marx – and We Haven’t Seen the Worst of It Yet …

Karl Marx in red

Indeed, we’ve come a long way since the world was still a place ruled by law, righteousness and faith. Everything, it seems, is now put upside down, inside out, back to front. Good is now evil, evil is good. The sick, the deranged, the criminal have become the new normal, and don’t you dare – reactionary dinosaur! – to question that new paradigm! Honesty, humility, decency, piety, cleanness, hard work, excellence, self-responsibility, wisdom, courage, heroism, chivalry, principledness, courtship, elegance, good conduct, kindness, attentiveness, gentleness, compassion, soft-spokenness, selflessness, fear of God, love of country, respect for the elderly, honouring marriage & family, holding up of tradition, self-restraint, even chastity (where it applies), all these core values and principles (one could also subsume them under the four cardinal virtues) have been thrown on the ash heap of history as if they had never been more than some temporary annoyance, some petty-bourgeois set of prejudices that were merely preventing humanity’s much-cited “evolutionary progress,” evolution of course implying that there’s nothing fixed or fundamental or immutable, let alone transcendent, in human existence. Everything is supposedly subject to the revolutionary dynamics of “change,” one key ingredient of the revolutionary programme thus being a merciless and murderous process of continuous elimination. Ultimately, it’s about the dignity of man and man’s eternal position of being the pride of God’s creation. Away with that dignity! Let’s transform man into some robotic biological entity, that comes from nowhere, that holds no higher aspirations than material satisfaction, that is happy being a tiny, little nothing within the greater whole of the collective! Let’s reduce man to an insect without consciousness and certainly without conscience.

The brutal consequences of this nihilistic ideology, this cult, this madness, are commonly known. History books provide us – if we only decided to take a proper look! – with plenty of testimony, and evidence, of the true underlying nature of socialism/communism (including the Marxist “heresies” of Hitlerian National Socialism or Mussolinian Fascism). That underlying nature is, beyond a shadow of a doubt: Satanic. Which is why it’s always been the Red banner, and the Red star, and the clenched fist, and the magic word in all of it: LIBERATION. However, “liberation,” the way the communists understand it, has nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with enslavement! In their inverted vocabulary, liberation simply means a devilish act of “breaking free,” of shedding all bonds and restrictions or mere sentimentalities so in order to create a totally new and totally empty space where man can finally be the master of his own destiny, unopposed by any God or pope or king or “reactionary patriarch” – the new patriarch, and god, in this glorious red dawn of course being the “all-wise,” “all-powerful” and “all-encompassing” Party (arrogantly calling itself “the vanguard”), that so much loves you that it all-too-often loves you to death. Or, let’s put it this way: Communist “liberation” is but the taking away of anything and everything that allows man to prosper. Throw him into such poverty, desperation and helplessness that he will ultimately have nowhere to turn except for the all-powerful STATE! In other words, communism has never been about empowerment, but always about disempowerment. It has never brought dignity and self-respect to human life, but has always taken them away. Whether the Bolsheviks, the Maoists, the Castros, Mugabe, Mandela, Chávez and Maduro, Lula da Silva and Rousseff, Obama, or the international “Green” movement: They’ve all brought, and are still bringing, their countries down not because their policies were a failure, but because these policies were precisely the very “success” communist revolutionaries are striving for! And don’t ever fall for their colourful phrases about “communist construction” (nowadays, it comes along more coyly as “sustainable development” or “social justice” and so forth) – it has never worked, it will never work, and it’s never been meant to work, in the first place. Communists have always and only proven to be the worst harbingers of death and destruction the world has ever seen – and they know it! 

And yet we have, today as ever, whole armies of true believers in communism, particularly in the West, where communist tyranny has not yet been (fully) established – while the cynical nomenklaturists of the East are simply following their same old programme of fully militarised world revolution. It’s a disease, a collective disorder, and certainly not rational at all, although greatly pushed by our Marxist-controlled education system. How emotion rather than sensible consideration is the main driver in the formation of the communist mindset, we can easily see as we take a closer look at the various protagonists of the communist “movement” (yes, they are constantly “on the move”: permanent revolution!): In most cases we find men and women from broken families or coming from overall desperate background (the former of which is true of Obama, although Obama was programmed and groomed from the cradle to be a first-class communist revolutionary), or people who have been so heavily spoilt by their parents that they grew into narcissistic monsters (like Marx, although Marx obviously underwent a curious transformation around the age of 19, that had nothing to do with his generous, ever-caring father and everything with the radical influences especially at the University of Berlin). In all cases (including “hereditary” communist leaders such as Kim Jong-un) one can observe a deep-seated sense of revenge, a sense of hatred – and a resulting lust for overthrow and destruction – that is so fundamental and absolute that one can indeed see in all of this the workings of the hater of haters, the Evil One. Communists, ultimately, seek to throw God out of heaven and put themselves in His place, which is why we can see in every single case of a communist society a completely preposterous cult of personality, in which the respective leader acquires indeed the position of a demigod; we saw that, most prominently, with the likes of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, the Kims, or Ceaușescu, but we’ve also seen it, more recently and somewhat “more discreetly,” with Obama. It’s all about absolute power and the deification of man, with the motive – at least from a psychological viewpoint – being little more than purest infantile rebellion!

But what about all those who aren’t communists, and they are certainly in the majority? Don’t they have a say in the direction their countries should take? Well, theoretically, they do. But we should be realistic here: Not being a communist doesn’t automatically mean you’re an anti-communist, right? Most people in the non-communist camp (and that sadly includes our garden-variety, “mainstream” conservatives) are just that: non-communists, i.e., self-complacent couch potatoes, live-and-let-live hedonists, all-inclusive, liberal-minded softheads. But where are the anti-communists, then? Those staunch, heroic defenders of freedom and human dignity? To make a long story short (few exceptions aside): They are gone, long since gone. Ever since Joseph McCarthy was smeared for all eternity (after all, the Red Scare was simply “paranoia”) and the Soviet Union plus satellites re-invented themselves, virtually overnight, as “friends” and “partners” of the West, anti-communism has seemingly become obsolete. With no ground left to stand on, it’s basically gone out of business. A clever chess move indeed: By making itself invisible, communism killed any anti-communist opposition, ironically both in its own sphere and in the West! So, the situation couldn’t be more asymmetrical. Anti-communists are now an “oddity,” a fringe minority stuck in the days of the Cold War, we are told. Well, given the fact that communism merely changed labels, not substance, present-day anti-communists aren’t odd or fringe at all, but they do certainly represent a tiny, little remnant (of people with “stones,” with guts, with spine). How desperate their situation is can be seen in the fact that even though they have their man in the White House and their party controls both houses of the U.S. Congress, still all of them are standing with their backs against the wall: a completely unprecedented state of affairs, that is almost comical, were it not so tragic. The explanation for this seeming paradox isn’t rocket science: the Left, as always, functions as a perfectly organised machine (and has already smelled triumph, which is why they won’t back down again). It’s been through such degree of strategy and organisation that revolutions were won in the past, and it’ll be through the same type of cunning and subterfuge that revolutions yet to come will be won in the future. While the rest (who think of themselves as “conservatives”) are confused and timid and – in many cases, we must assume – compromised.

But as bad – and foreboding – the political fight inside the United States really is (and it’s already full-blown revolution), things look even more terrifying when one watches the daily international news of 2018, and it’s been a gradual, ever-accelerating process over many years: Just think of the second Chechniya war (launched in 1999), certainly 9/11 (which changed everything), the Nordost-Theatre and Beslan tragedies, the bombings in London and Madrid, the assassinations of Politkovskaya, Litvinenko and so many others, the South-Ossetia and Abkhazia wars of 2008, the annexations of Crimea and the Donbass region in 2014, Europe’s great refugee crisis of 2015 (followed by even more terrorism) – in other words, we’ve been witnessing, beyond doubt, the unfolding of a script, a script of calculated escalation! Right now, there is not only an ever bolder Russia challenging the West, we can also see a renewed belligerence of a People’s Republic of China that has now, in obvious coordination with Moscow, entered a new phase of re-strengthening its totalitarianism and of projecting its power ever more aggressively into the whole of the Asian-Pacific region. The key to all this disturbing change in attitude (as if they were now all miraculously falling back into Stalinism, and they are) was openly given by Vladimir Putin on March 1, 2018 when delivering his annual so-called State of the Nation address. His boastful video presentation of supposed new super weapons, that would grant Russia a decisive strategic advantage vis-à-vis the United States, was insidiously linked with the advice the West should better accept the new realities and sit down with Russia and everyone else and find common ground in establishing a new international order (read: sign its own defeat and accept a new global communist system). This is outrageous and represents the very “cooperation-blackmail” that Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn warned against 29 years ago in one of his countless memoranda to the CIA, published in his second book, The Perestroika Deception: The World’s Slide Towards the Second October Revolution. Unless the Russians are bluffing – and this time it doesn’t seem like it -, they have just let the West know that they have reached overwhelming nuclear superiority and that they are determined not to allow the Americans to catch up ever again. The situation couldn’t be more alarming, especially if one factors in the reality that Russia is still the old revolutionary Soviet Union in everything but name and that it is firmly allied to the People’s Republic of China, that on its part has been rearming like crazy, as well. All those “pundits” who speak of a renewed Cold War are missing the point entirely. First, the Cold War never ended (just as communism in the Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe never ended), and second, what we are seeing now has very little to do with a continued or resumed Cold War, but looks more like a run-up for hot war, meaning: for World War III. All that Russia and China seem now to be looking out for is a credible justification (i.e., a pretext) for going to war, as naturally “evil, imperialist” America (that they intend to erase from the map as a nation and replace Americans with ChineseNO KIDDING!!!) needs to be blamed as the aggressor. Therefore, all the manoeuvring we can see involving North Korea, Syria, or Iran. Traps are being laid, ambushes prepared, and sooner or later they will manage to trick President Trump into making the one decisive wrong move that will hand them their long-sought-for moral high ground and carte blanche for conquering, as “liberators,” the whole of the so far non-communist world.

As, naturally, all this is about conquest, communist conquest on a planetary scale. Lenin made it very clear that there was no middle ground between communism and capitalism. Either it would be the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or the dictatorship of the proletariat (and of course he was convinced it would be the latter, as communists all the way back to Karl Marx have always viewed the eventual triumph of their diabolical cause as a matter of “historical inevitability”). Also, supposedly liberal Nikita Khrushchev reminded the West that when it came to fighting capitalism, the communists would still all be Stalinists! While alleged Mr. Democracy, Mikhail Gorbachev, warned those in the free world who erroneously believed that perestroika and glasnost would lead to a complete abolition of communism, that by the end of the day they would be “greatly disappointed.” All reforms would be carried out strictly within the framework of socialism, which was only taking a second breath. You see: Communists don’t close shop! Never! They only use various methods of deception and disinformation so to lead their enemy astray. In fact, they’ve put the West to sleep. No more image of the enemy! Hurrah! But the enemy was still there, in Moscow, in Beijing, as well as in all other “former” communist countries around the world. In all of this, the communists have shown enormous patience and also considerable flexibility and “opportunism.” But they needed that much time, and all the political trickery, in order to get stronger – militarily, economically, and politically. The key idea of it all has always been a firm and irreversible turning of the tables. Now they seem to think they are able to pull this off: World October is waiting around the corner. And it won’t be pretty …



© The Contemplative Observer 2018


Russia’s Pre-World-War-III Propaganda: Not for the Fainthearted


“Your grandchildren will live under communism. […] Capitalism is a worn-out mare while socialism is new, young, and full of teeming energy. […] Our firm conviction is that sooner or later capitalism will give way to socialism. No one can halt man’s forward movement, just as no one can prevent day following night. […] Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you. […] We will give up communism when crabs learn to sing.” – Nikita Khrushchev, November 18, 1956, speaking to Western diplomats at a reception at the Polish embassy in Moscow.

“In October 1917, we parted with the old world, rejecting it once and for all. We are moving towards a new world, the world of communism. We shall NEVER turn off that road.” – Mikhail Gorbachev, November 1987, 70th anniversary of the October Revolution (Christopher Story: The European Union Collective; Edward Harle, 2002; p. 19).

l“We see that confusion has arisen in some people’s minds: aren’t we retreating from the positions of socialism, especially when we introduce new and unaccustomed forms of economic management and public life, and aren’t we subjecting the Marxist-Leninist teaching itself to revision? … No, we are not retreating a single step from socialism, from Marxism-Leninism…” – Mikhail Gorbachev; Current Digest of the Soviet Press, 40, Nr. 7, 1988, pp. 3-4. (Christopher Story: The European Union Collective; Edward Harle 2002; p. 14)




Under normal circumstances and in a sound environment, the Russian word “pravda” is supposed to mean “truth”. However, in the devilish parallel universe of Soviet communism (that secretly continues even today), where black was white and white was black, “Pravda”, “Truth”, was the name of the official organ of the Communist Party Soviet Union. Truth, under communism, wasn’t the truth, but what the communist criminal leadership ordered it to be. And so the daily lies from the communist propaganda apparatus were being disseminated, boldly, under the banner of “Truth”. (George Orwell extensively portrayed such inverted semantics in his famous dystopian novel 1984, where traditional language is getting replaced by “newspeak”.)


Pravda, Dec. 1941, Red Square

December 1941, view over Manezhnaya Square, Moscow: A Red Army soldier reads the latest “Pravda” as Hitler’s armies have gathered on the Western outskirts of the city.



As with all the other “former” Soviet institutions in “post-Soviet” Russia, also “Pravda” was not shut down, but rather transformed. For a while, the newspaper continued under new foreign ownership until it was brought back in 1996 – after much manouevering and bullying, we can assume – to being the official organ of Gennady Zyuganov’s “post-Soviet” Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF), the most obvious continuation of the old CPSU among the fake party pluralism of the supposedly new Russia (premier Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn had most precisely predicted all these alleged changes, warning tirelessly that they would be only cosmetic, a grand deception designed to psychologically and militarily disarm the West).

But the much more important format of “Pravda” today, not connected with the CPRF, appears to be Pravda online, available meanwhile not just in English (and Russian anyway), but also in Italian and Portuguese. Like RT (Russia Today), the infamous English-speaking television channel, Pravda online too serves as an aggressive international media outlet that has nothing to do with reporting and everything to do with old-style Soviet propaganda targeted at the populations of the West.

Certainly, in the present situation of wildly deteriorating international relations, everybody can see and read in the daily news that Russia (read: the still-intact Soviet Union), along with communist China, once again has changed course and is now openly threatening Europe and the United States on a regular basis and at an ever-more brutal scale.

This article simply wants to provide a closer look into (increasing military provocations aside) what appears to have become all-out pre-war propaganda on the part of “Russia”, and so – pars pro toto – by the example of the rantings of Pravda online, along with statements and speeches by representatives of this supposedly “democratic” entity now known as the “Russian Federation”, that is no less Soviet-communist as its predecessor, the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic and the overall Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, respectively (the latter continuing – minus the Baltic states and, for the moment, Georgia, but still including Ukraine! – as the “Commonwealth of Independent States”).



Russia (in coordination with the other “ex-Soviet” republics and Red China) now is in the business of calculated gradual escalation. Ever since Vladimir Putin followed Boris Yeltsin as Russian President in late 1999, the previously displayed friendliness of Russia was being ever more replaced by a tough anti-Western and particularly anti-American stance all too well-known from the old days of the official Soviet Union. What had happened? It wasn’t the new figurehead of Putin instead of Yeltsin as such, that caused the change, but with Putin, who was selected for the job, Russia was plannedly leaving behind eight years of seeming democracy and seeming market economics. Not overnight, and not officially declared, but slowly. It’s been a more confusing variation of the end of the New Economic Policy of the 1920s. At the time, in 1929, Stalin put an end to this period of equally eight years of fake liberalisation, that was the model for the fake perestroika “reforms” under Gorbachev and Yeltsin and to this day. However, Stalin finished off the liberalisation within a few weeks and completely, whereas the pragmatic Leninists of today seem to have decided on a double-standard course for a while, i.e. to continue to extract from the West, as Western-style businessmen, valuable investments, credits, and know-how, while at the same time building up, gradually, an ever more threatening political and military posture vis-à-vis the West, the latter now plain for everyone to see.

Why has the West – again – fallen for the deception? Because it allowed itself to be guided by pure wishful thinking rather than sober analysis (apart from the sickening reality of communist agents and moles well-placed throughout the societies of the free world ever since the 1930s). So, here we are, confronting the same old world communist bloc, that’s now even greatly extended (just think of South Africa, the Congo, or most of Latin America) and much more powerful compared to 1991, while the West still has no clue what all the Sino-Russian sabre-rattling finally is all about. We stand on the brink of Communist World October and, absurdly, are not even aware of it.



After years of opening up to and cooperating with an apparently reformed and democratised new Russia, the West is now baffled over Russia’s renewed hostility that seems to come out of the blue. And not only is there neither willingness nor ability to go back, say, to Anatoliy Golitsyn and review the whole of the alleged collapse of communism in 1989/91, or to J. R. Nyquist and think about the deeper causes within the Western societies themselves that have brought them to this miserable point in history. There’s also hardly any time left for such an endeavour, as events are moving forward so enormously fast. The West now stands with its back against the wall, having opened itself in so many ways to political and military blackmail. Let’s face it: The communist bloc has effectively swung the balance of world power in its favour. And neither Comrade Obama, nor Comrade Merkel, nor any other of those insidious communist Trojan Horses installed in the West will do a thing to protect us, or save us (neither will the European “Far Right”, ironically an alliance of nationalist parties, which in fact are firmly in Moscow’s pocket). They will most cynically deliver us to the upcoming communist world state, with “enemies of the people” in the millions soon to find themselves in box-cars en route to the Gulag camps of Russia and, probably, Alaska.

Here now is that barabaric pre-war propaganda, in itself already asymmetrical warfare, as it hits a Western world restricted by civility, political correctness, and -–sadly – by decades of most suicidal pacifist indoctrination. Yet, before coming to a number of gems of Pravda-online propaganda mainly of September 2014, it may be useful to start with several shocking expressions by Vladimir Putin, by fake Mr. Democracy alias Mikhail Gorbachev, by 2008-2012 Russian President and now-Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and others, made roughly during the last decade.

• On November 11, 2002, Vladimir Putin, in a press conference following a meeting in Brussels, gave the following jaw-dropping reply to a French journalist who had dared ask about the possible use of heavy weaponry against civilians in Chechniya:

If you want to become an Islamic radical and have yourself circumcised, I invite you to come to Moscow. Our nation is multi-confessional, we have experts in the field. I would recommend that he who does the surgery does it so you’ll have nothing growing back afterward.

Leninistically bold, as always, but also the language of a thug. Whereby the sobering political reality of the Chechniya war is that it was a staged war controlled from both sides of the conflict by the Kremlin. For what ends, one could ask? To be able to show the West that they too have an “Islamic problem” and put themselves on the green tables with the political leaders of the West and tie them into ever deeper cross-border co-operation between all sorts of intelligence services and possibly police. Also, by this apparent “war against Islamic militants” they could distract attention from the fact that none other than Moscow has been the sole originator, ever since the 1960s, of international terrorism, including Arab/Islamic terrorism. In addition, it turns out, the Chechniya war – construed, but still real – served as a real-life exercise for the upcoming World War.

On February 10, 2007, Vladimir Putin attended the 43rd Munich Security Conference and delivered a speech that caused, for a short moment, a veritable earthquake in Western policy circles. The speech should have been taken as a wake-up call, but sadly the West soon went back to its cosy business-as-usual. Here are some excerpts of this outrageous speech, that was in fact an official starting shot for a renewal of the Cold War (bold print by this author):

[…] The unipolar world that had been proposed after the Cold War did not take place either. The history of humanity certainly has gone through unipolar periods and seen aspirations to world supremacy. And what hasn’t happened in world history? However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making. It is a world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within. And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority. Incidentally, Russia – we – are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves. […] We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this? In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according to so-called issues of political expediency, based on the current political climate. And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasise this – no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race. […] Madam Federal Chancellor already mentioned this. The combined GDP measured in purchasing power parity of countries such as India and China is already greater than that of the United States. And a similar calculation with the GDP of the BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China – surpasses the cumulative GDP of the EU. And according to experts this gap will only increase in the future. There is no reason to doubt that the economic potential of the new centres of global economic growth will inevitably be converted into political influence and will strengthen multipolarity. […] Did not our country have a peaceful transition to democracy? Indeed, we witnessed a peaceful transformation of the Soviet regime – a peaceful transformation! And what a regime! With what a number of weapons, including nuclear weapons! Why should we start bombing and shooting now at every available opportunity? Is it the case when without the threat of mutual destruction we do not have enough political culture, respect for democratic values and for the law? […] Plans to expand certain elements of the anti-missile defence system to Europe cannot help but disturb us. Who needs the next step of what would be, in this case, an inevitable arms race? I deeply doubt that Europeans themselves do. Missile weapons with a range of about five to eight thousand kilometres that really pose a threat to Europe do not exist in any of the so-called problem countries. And in the near future and prospects, this will not happen and is not even foreseeable. And any hypothetical launch of, for example, a North Korean rocket to American territory through western Europe obviously contradicts the laws of ballistics. As we say in Russia, it would be like using the right hand to reach the left ear. […] But what is happening at the same time? Simultaneously the so-called flexible frontline American bases with up to five thousand men in each. It turns out that NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders, and we continue to strictly fulfil the treaty [on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe] obligations and do not react to these actions at all. I think that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them. But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: “the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee”. Where are these guarantees? The stones and concrete blocks of the Berlin Wall have long been distributed as souvenirs. But we should not forget that the fall of the Berlin Wall was possible thanks to a historic choice – one that was also made by our people, the people of Russia – a choice in favour of democracy, freedom, openness and a sincere partnership with all the members of the big European family. And now they are trying to impose new dividing lines and walls on us – these walls may be virtual but they are nevertheless dividing, ones that cut through our continent. And is it possible that we will once again require many years and decades, as well as several generations of politicians, to dissemble and dismantle these new walls? […] In conclusion I would like to note the following. We very often – and personally, I very often – hear appeals by our partners, including our European partners, to the effect that Russia should play an increasingly active role in world affairs. In connection with this I would allow myself to make one small remark. It is hardly necessary to incite us to do so. Russia is a country with a history that spans more than a thousand years and has practically always used the privilege to carry out an independent foreign policy. We are not going to change this tradition today. At the same time, we are well aware of how the world has changed and we have a realistic sense of our own opportunities and potential. And of course we would like to interact with responsible and independent partners with whom we could work together in constructing a fair and democratic world order that would ensure security and prosperity not only for a select few, but for all.

The speech was all classic Soviet anti-Americanism. Confrontative, and completely upside-down in its deceptive argument: poor, peaceful, encircled Russia versus belligerent, expansionist United States and NATO. Regarding NATO’s extension into Eastern Europe, this wasn’t against Soviet strategic interests at all. On the contrary, it enabled the communists, along the lines of ancient Chinese theorist Sun Tzu, to “peacefully” enter the enemy’s camp. In other words, this Eastern European extension of NATO was the final nail in the organisation’s coffin, and made it indeed, to paraphrase Mao, into a paper tiger. As for the alleged multipolarity promoted by the Russians, it is in fact a tightly coordinated communist unipolarity controlled by them (and the Chinese), i.e. a communist world federation. Also, the mentioning of a “fair and democratic world order” ensuring “security and prosperity not only for a select few, but for all,” shows the Russians are determined to use the UN and other international organisations, including the IMF and the World Bank, to bring about drastic redistribution of wealth to the detriment of the Western nations and the United States in particular. In addition, one could view the remark also as a coded demand, again, for communism (prosperity for all)!

• A year later, exactly on Valentine’s Day 2008, Putin gave a big international press conference (that lasted, Soviet-style, for about five hours), his last press conference as President before he returned into that office in 2012. Adrian Blomfield wrote in his excellent February 15, 2008 article, “Vladimir Putin’s nuclear threat to the West”, for The Telegraph online (bold print by this author):

Vladimir Putin has delivered perhaps his most menacing tirade against the West yet, repeating threats to train nuclear missiles on Europe and warning of unspecified retaliation if Kosovo declared independence. Addressing his last press conference as Russian president, Mr Putin mounted a defiant display that demonstrated more emphatically than ever the widening gulf between Moscow and its former Cold War rivals. In a vintage performance, the former KGB spy laced almost five hours of invective with crude insults, threats and admonitions often expressed in the argot of the Russian street. Reserving his greatest ire for the United States, which he accused of harbouring a colonial mentality towards Russia, Mr Putin again said that Europe would pay the consequences for a Washington-backed plan to erect a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. “Our generals, our security council, consider these moves a threat to our national security,” he said. “We asked our partners to stop but no one listened to us. So if they continue we will have to react appropiately by retargeting our missiles.” Mr Putin also made similar threats against Ukraine if it joined Nato. The Russian leader – often accused of returning his country to a state of autocracy – portrayed his nuclear threat as an act of democratic generosity, saying he was acting in the interests of Europeans who opposed American military expansionism. […] He told Western observers who refused to monitor the forthcoming election, widely seen as a sham, that they should “rather teach their own wives how to cook cabbage soup.”

Note Putin’s sinistre “recommendation”  to the West their wives should learn how to cook cabbage soup! The message: prepare for poverty and hunger, because we are going to crush you. And the cabbage soup comment even contains an additional element: the Western societies, by decades of communist/feminist indoctrination, will be completely HELPLESS; with men unable or unwilling to fight, and women who know nothing about the basic necessities of survival in a time of crisis or war!!!

• Nov. 23, 2011: Then-President of the Russian Federation, Dmitri Medvedev, surprised the West with an official public announcement, formally addressed to the people of Russia, but of course really directed to the United States and the West, starting out with the alleged U.S. threat against Russia by trying to build up a missile defence in Eastern Europe much more moderate, by the way, than the Bush-43 administration had had in mind. However, these arguments by Russia seem to be but excuses (every aggressor in history had his version of things, nothing new) for coming up with their deadly alternative: cooperate, on our communist terms – or else! Obviously, the unchanged Soviets feel now strong enough to launch the last final chapter of their world revolution. In other words, either the West agrees to submit to a world communist federation, complete of course with brutal purges and mass killing worldwide akin to Lenin & Dzerzhinksy’s Red Terror that followed the Bolshevist rise to power, or that brutal end will come about anyway, albeit preceded by war as a means of the revolution, and certainly the worst war the world has ever seen; and the Russian generals, unlike Western militaries, have always seen nuclear war as leadable and winnable, apart from the fact that, according to Czech top defector Jan Šejna, the military doctrine of the communist bloc has always been oriented along exclusively offensive lines; of course, they knew the West would never attack them (full-length video source here; German subtitles translated into English by this author):


To the citizens of Russia!

Today I speak to you regarding the situation of the missile defence systems of the NATO states in Europe.

Russia’s relations to the USA and to NATO in the field of missile defence have a long and complicated history. When U.S. President Barack Obama in September 2009 cancelled his predecessors’ plans for the erection of a missile defence system in Europe, we welcomed this as a positive step. This decision paved for us the way towards finalising the important New START Treaty, that was signed recently and that clarifies the interconnection between strategic offensive weapons and missile defence. Let me again say that this was a great accomplishment.

Later, however, the USA began implementing a new plan that foresaw the creation of a missile defence system in gradual steps. Especially this is being viewed by Russia with some concern. Ultimately, this would lead to the stationing of U.S. missiles and military near Russia’s borders and in the surrounding waters.

One year ago, at the summit of the NATO-Russia Council in Lisbon, I suggested the development of a joint and sectoral missile defence system in Europe, in which each country should be responsible for one particular sector. Furthermore, we were ready to discuss additional modifications of such a system so to allow for the wishes of our NATO partners.

Our sole aim was to keep up the fundamental principle that Europe does not need new dividing lines, but rather a common security space with full-fledged and legally defined Russian participation. It is my conviction that in this way Russia and NATO would create the unique opportunity for building a genuine strategic partnership. We must replace in our relations, friction and confrontation by the principles of equality, undivided security, mutual trust, and predictability.

Unfortunately, the USA and other NATO allies have not shown enough readiness to go in that direction. Instead of showing the readiness to listen to and understand our concerns over the European missile defence system, they merely repeat that the plans are not directed against Russia and that therefore there is no reason for concern. This is the position of executive force, but representatives of some countries say openly that the whole system is directed against Russia. Yet, our requests for laying this down in the form of clear legal obligations were strongly rejected.

We hold a reasonable position. We are ready to discuss the status and content of such obligations, but our colleagues should understand that these obligations must be filled with substance instead of being empty words. They must not be formulated as promises and assurances but as specific military-technical criteria that would allow Russia to evaluate how far the actions of the USA and of NATO in the field of missile defence are congruent with their declarations, whether our interests are violated, and to what degree the strategic nuclear balance is still intact. This is the fundament of today’s security situation.

We will not participate in a programme that could in short term, say, within five, six, or eight years, weaken our nuclear deterrence ability. The European missile defence programme is already underway, and, regrettably, the works are progressing fast, in Poland, Turkey, Romania, and Spain. We are being confronted with a fait accompli.

Of course, we will continue the dialogue about this topic, with the USA and with NATO. I had an exchange over this with President Obama during our latest meeting and again made very clear at that opportunity our concerns. There is still time to come to an agreement. Russia has the political will to conclude the agreements necessary in this area, agreements that would open a new chapter in our relations with the USA and with NATO. If our partners show a sincere and responsible attitude towards Russia’s legitimate security interests, I am sure we will be able to find an agreement.

But if one demands from us “to cooperate” or even to act against our own interests, it will be difficult to find common ground. In that case, we would be forced to react differently. We will decide about our steps according to the factual course of events, stage after stage as the missile defence programme will be implemented.

In this context, I have made the following decisions:

First: I decree that the Ministry of Defence immediately put in combat readiness the radar system near Kaliningrad for the early warning of missile attacks.

Second: As a primary measure, the protection for Russia’s strategic nuclear weapons will be increased under the programme for the development of our air- and space defence.

Third: The new ballistic strategic missiles, that have been commissioned by the Strategic Missile Troups and the Navy, will be equipped with advanced systems for the penetration of missile defence as well as with new, highly effective warheads.

Fourth: I have given order to the armed forces to put together a catalogue of measures by which, if necessary, the data material and control systems of missile defence systems can be rendered useless.

These measures will be adequate, effective, and cost-efficient.

Fifth: In case the measures given above should prove insufficient, the Russian Federation will station modern offensive weapons in the West and the South of the country that guarantee our ability to incapacitate every part of the U.S. missile defence in Europe. One step in this process will be the stationing of Iskander missiles in the area of Kaliningrad.

Further measures against the missile defence system in Europe shall be developed and applied, as needed.

Should the situation still continue to develop not in Russia’s favour, we reserve to us to terminate further disarmament- and arms control measures.

Because of the close relation between strategic offensive- and defence weapons, there could furthermore arise conditions for an exit from the new START Treaty, and this option is written into the treaty. Yet, let me emphasise that we do not stand back from a continued dialogue with the USA and with NATO over missile defence and practical cooperation in this field. We are ready for this.

But, this can only be achieved via the fundament of a clear legal basis for cooperation, that would secure that our legitimate interests and concerns are met.

We are open for dialogue and hope for a reasonable and constructive approach from the side of our partners in the West.


The phrase about the incapacitation of “every part of the U.S. missile defence in Europe” is certainly outrageous and shocking, as such U.S. installations are not only in “former” Warsaw Pact states Poland and Romania, but also in Western-European Spain and in traditional NATO-country Turkey! The Soviets are gearing up for war, they raise their nuclear forces to combat readiness – and what’s the reaction of the “Reset”/”Overload” Obama White House? Basically none. No substantial response to this increasing military posture. Let them prepare for war, or even open war against us; we want peace, at any price. It goes without saying that under such asymmetrical political conditions, what is a “reasonable and constructive approach” will be one-sidedly defined by the Russians. The West, greatly facilitated by a de-facto communist U.S. Administration, has become the victim of communist military blackmail. However, as the Soviets might deem all-out war against the non-communist world (and particularly Europe and the United States) indispensable for establishing their new communist world society, this isn’t merely a return to the Cold War, but a run-up to hot war!

• The next notable outburst was by Comrade Gorbachev, and so, again, in Munich, Germany, on December 10, 2011. The conservative, CSU-affiliated Hanns Seidel Foundation had chosen him for that year’s prestigious Franz Josef Strauß Award (which shows how deeply the Germans are still hypnotised by Gorbachev’s alleged “charisma”). Gorbachev’s acceptance speech was quite an eye-opener. So much so that the German (and overall Western) media must have decided not to give it too much publicity. Here is about the second half of the speech (translated by this author from the Russian-German simultaneous interpretation on Bavarian Television; bold print by this author):

Gorbatschow, Franz-Josef-Strauss-Preis, 10. 12. 2011, 6

[…] But now I’m also slowly asking myself: what’s this all about? For, what we can see is that the missile defence is meant as a defence against Russia. Everything else is just talk, or a wall of fog to cover the truth. Yes, and as a result, the Russian government said: We’re going to station means of defence, here and there, and we are ready to use weapons that guarantee our security. What does this mean? WORLD WAR III! And if Russia and the USA should again be at loggerheads, this IS World War III! This won’t be restricted to a local war! And we need to again clearly remember the lesson, you know: the Cold War was over; our partners were triumphing, and they wouldn’t see the forest for the trees any more, in the West, and especially in the USA. They wanted to build a new empire, with a super-super-super-power – to which I say: the Germans are a serious and reflecting nation, and they know well what is being said in the USA; and when they don’t react to it and sometimes nod, it means all this can’t be taken for serious: It’s the attempt to threaten Russia a bit; and there is still in Europe a bit of fear left towards Russia. Yet, we only wish to build and develop: No one has led more wars in the 20th century than us. So much we had to suffer, and, just as a sidenote: We had no plans after WWII to start military action against the USA. I know it. I MUST know it. And, suddenly, all this starts all over again. This reminds me of those 200 or 300 U.S. bases, spread all over the world, from the Cold War era; and have they been of any use to anybody? I have the impression that the evildoer of the system in which the West lives, and so with the consent of Washington, this radical market philosophy, all this hasn’t turned out positively. What have we got? Bubbles! One bubble after the other, and they all burst. And, one should understand at last that the solution can’t be an arms race, the militarisation of the world and the economy, because we’d keep on throwing money out the window. And former Finance Minister Waigel spoke of 10 billion DM or Dollar, of course it was Mark, Deutschmark, that he didn’t give to Gorbachev at that time. How much money are we simply throwing out the window! Eisenhower is again quoted these days, General and President Eisenhower. Yesterday I had again the idea to watch that movie: “FFF”. – No. – “JFK”. On the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. I like such films, and one should watch them from time to time just so to remain awake; if possible: wide-awake! And, Eisenhower, to come back to that, said that the military-industrial complex is a dangerous thing; and one should never lose control over it! He said that in a way as had never been said before. And I want to say: the man was right! The military-industrial complex in our grand countries, that’s those who set the tone, who exert pressure on politics. I know how our military-industrial complex is doing this, and it is still very critical of Gorbachev because of Perestroika and the freeing of the country from these military expenditures. But, these people have been accustomed to always “play the first fiddle”, and I think that if an economy cannot provide for its people, it is an ill economy; AND SUCH AN ECONOMY MUST BE CURED, AND SO BY RADICAL MEANS! This was my idea, this was my approach. And I’m still repeating it today. But, no, what are they telling people? They are telling them things that make them afraid. Well, and now they’re arming up. But when one looks at the situation thoroughly, one can easily see that our government is acting correctly and appropriately, because – I just say: the devil take it – there is no system for executing global decisions in a world that is already global. We simply still lack such mechanisms, and I have heard with great interest that, as has been said by your Prime Minister, “we are ready to help, but not to throw money into a bottomless pit.” After all, IT WAS THE GERMANS who initiated the Euro, the European single currency, and therefore Germany carries also great responsibility, and Germany is big and strong, and thus carries an especially great responsibility, from which it cannot just steal away. But, this is also about the processes within the countries. Many have entered the EU in an expectation of having things for free, I think you know exactly what I mean. Yes, so quickly did they rush to the West and left the Warsaw Pact and COMECON, all up and away towards the West, and the West immediately welcomed them and quickly incorporated these new countries, which all entered suit the United Nations; and you yourselves have greatly furthered this development; thus: look who is talking! And, shouldn’t one be grateful to the Greeks for having established the fundaments of our civilisation? But, well, I believe we know exactly what we need to think of each other, and we must build a system for executing global decisions in a global world. And for this, NEW systems, NEW models are needed! Betting on super-profits, super-consumption, and the like, leads nowhere. That’s of no use! Now, we have a billionaire who owns a submarine. And now he wants to commission a second one. Is this going to give the man happiness? No! One should find a small submarine, torpedo his first one in order to prevent the second one from being built; because no one needs this. Who needs this? And I ask you, my dear Germans: stand you also by your responsibility! You have initiated the Euro-zone, and as soon as the control mechanisms become effective, this system will be precisely what Europe and the world need! I think we should all really think about, together, how we can prevent a violent solution of the problems at hand, because when someone chooses force, this is the most dangerous thing that there is; and I repeat: we’re again in an arms race! It’s obviously about re-militarisation, not only militarisation of the economy, but also of consciousness. WE ARE ILL; WE ALL NEED TO BE TREATED AND CURED! And Generals again become heroes; Generals who believe they had disarmed too much, one missile of many thousands, that’s too much. And here I ask myself: How do the Generals think? If one bets on solving problems militarily, then one commits a mistake, and I’d like to say this again, I’ve heard this, we just had in France an annual meeting, the annual conference of the World Political Forum, that I brought into being several years ago, really a serious organisation; there it was said: to bet on force and strength isn’t efficient. The nations, and most politicians, condemn such an attitude. And at the end we came to the conclusion that wars do not solve problems, and in earlier days thinkers said that war is necessary, that war brings about a movement ahead etc. – No! War means a giant failure of politics. For what should one take up arms, aeroplanes, extremely destructive weapons? And why? Because the politicians got it wrong, because the politicians still lag behind the fast changes in the world. And, so to speak, the Russians, the Germans, the French, the Americans, the Japanese, and now also the Chinese, by the way, these nations are responsible for providing for the world a peaceful, positive perspective. And, also, it’s definitely wrong to believe one could hide away, one could sit out anything. No one can hide any more or sit anything out! Also small countries need contacts. I believe I have now strayed quite far from the Franz-Josef-Strauß Award, but I’m convinced that the one is closely connected to the other; connected to the legacy passed on to us by smart brains. I’d like to once again express my heartfelt thanks. You know, I speak at home, here in Germany, in Europe, in the world; I advocate cooperation and of course a deepening in the cooperation between Russia and Germany. Because, this means very, very much for the overall situation; it stabilises it, develops it towards a positive outcome, and the people who are demonstrating in Wall Street demand social justice and equality. And, as you can see, also in the EU, mistakes were made. But this isn’t yet the essential point I want to make. I have the impression that – of course we aren’t out of the old crisis yet, and there are already signs on the horizon for a new crisis, but – as LENIN calmed his comrades-in-arms, this was when the Soviet power came into being, when there was a chaotic situation in the country: “Yes, of course we have chaos, BUT FROM CHAOS SPRING UP NEW FORMS OF LIFE“. And therefore, chaos IS a problem, a crisis IS a problem, all this isn’t easy, but there are always included opportunities that definitely should be made use of. And I wish the Germans a healthy New Year. And this time you will still have enough bratwursts and pork-knuckles for New Year’s Eve. WELL, AND AS FOR THE NEXT NEW YEAR’S EVE, WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT THAT, TOGETHER! And, I tell you quite frankly: it is for me a special, an emotional day. And regarding the accomplishments that I myself associate with my life – the German question, the destiny of Germany – these were for me of determining importance. And I’m proud of what I could do. – Thank you very much! I’m wishing you good success!

What an uninterrupted flow of Leninist revolutionary energy! Hopping back and forth between deceptive arguments and open threats, Gorbachev – like Putin at the 43rd Munich Security Conference in February 2007 – paints a grim scenario of renewed Cold War, arms race, and even looming World War III, all the while blaming the United States as the aggressor (which is totally ridiculous by any standards, and particularly as at that time Soviet plant Obama had already been “President” of the United States for almost three years). But Gorbachev also mocks the United States, alluding to the U.S.’s strategic blunder following the false premise of a victory of the Cold War. He exploits the ongoing economic crisis, saying capitalism has failed and the world needs “new models”; what he means is the West should adopt communism. Finally, he even threatens the poor, unexpecting Germans with poverty and hunger, letting them know that they will have to cooperate with Russia. This represents, as the late British analyst Christopher Story put it, the instance of collaboration-blackmail. But the West seems now caught in this trap, particularly the Germans. The communists have successfully turned the tables on us, and are now laughing at us, mercilessly.

• February 27, 2012. During “roundtable” defense talks of Russia’s military elite most symbolically held in Sarov, the “birthplace” of the first Soviet atomic bomb, then Prime Minister Vladimir Putin made the following eye-opening remarks about Russia’s military power vis-à-vis the West (video source here, resp. section starts at 0:34):

We have more aces up our sleeve that would push our Western colleagues and partners to a more constructive dialogue than we have seen before. What do I mean by this? Just a few years ago, as I know, they used to speak of us among their fellow allies as follows: “Russia could tinker with its military as much as it wants, we are not the least interested in what’s happening there. All they have is rusted-out junk.” But this is not true. [Laughs.] Today, it’s a different game. [Watch the agreeing, conspiratorial, superior grin on the face of Vice Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin in the audience, as Putin says, “But this is not true.” Rogozin – below: left -–certainly knows, as he is in charge of Russia’s defence industry!]


In other words, the West, having naïvely fallen during the last 25 years for the calculated disinformation projected by “Russia” regarding an allegedly run-down Russian military, is now being laughed at for its stupidity. Still-communist Russia and communist China, along with their numerous allies around the world, now represent a combined military power so great and formidable that they can easily face down and defeat the West. Also, note the insidious expression that these aces Russia’s got up its sleeve (read: achieved military superiority!) will push the West to a “more constructive dialogue” than before: in plain English, this foreshadows a scenario of military blackmail that will force the so-far-non-communist world to accept global communist tyranny!     

• May 2, 2012: The nuclear threats keep coming. This time, it’s the chief of the Russian General Staff of the day, Nikolai Makarov, threatening pre-emptive strikes against the planned American anti-missile sites in Poland and elsewhere in Eastern Europe. The general said i.a.,

Taking into account a missile-defense system’s destabilizing nature, that is, the creation of an illusion that a disarming strike can be launched with impunity, a decision on pre-emptive use of the attack weapons available will be made when the situation worsens.

Any alarm about this in the power centres of the West? Apparently no. Only polite diplomatic assurances to the Russians that Obama’s “Phased Adaptive Approach” programme – a massively cut-down version of the initial anti-missile project envisioned by President George W. Bush – does not, and cannot, threaten Russia, or – absurdly – Russian ICBMs on their way to the United States.

On Sept. 27, 2012, Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, towards the end of an interview on the American Charlie Rose Show, made a more than ominous remark regarding the Middle East situation as it then stood in autumn of 2012, including Syria, Iran, and the so-called Arab Spring. Here is that crucial exchange between Charlie Rose and Sergey Lavrov (it’s from 48:59 till 49:27 in the video), including two screenshots showing Sergey Lavrov’s facial expressions at the two critical moments during that exchange:

Rose: Do you have fears about the Arab Spring? As to what those governments might become?

Lavrov: Well, I think we are now in the Arab Autumn and –

Rose: Okay, do you have fears about the Arab Autumn, and where do you think it’s going?

Lavrov: Well, I hope it’s not going to the Nuclear Winter.

Lavrov after having completed the words, “Nuclear Winter.” Look at his eyes, look at his expression, here on the snapshot or directly on the video: It was a massive, diabolical threat, a hint, maybe unplanned, to a Russian first-strike nuclear attack – and not a diplomatic expression of concern with regard to Iran or the Middle East in general.


Rose (somewhat taken aback, but reacting extremely clever): What would lead it to a Nuclear Winter?

Lavrov in the moment when Rose asks, “What would lead it to a Nuclear Winter?” Look at his triumphant face! The West is completely in the dark about what’s coming, and they smile – or rather grin – at us, with the most devilish amusement!


Rose (continuing): Iran getting a nuclear weapon – which is not an Arab country? What would lead to the Nuclear Winter?

Lavrov (trying to get away from his weird statement): Ah, this was a figure of speech, of course …

• March 16, 2014: In his weekly prime-time news show on state-controlled Russian television, Rossiya-1, controversial news-anchor and Putin-protegé, Dmitry Kiselyov, commented on the ongoing Russian annexation of Crimea and the subsequent economic sanctions under preparation by the West, threatening:

Russia is the only country in the world that is realistically capable of turning the United States into radioactive ash, [adding,]

Even if people in all our command posts after an enemy atomic attack cannot be contacted, the system will automatically fire our missiles from mines and submarines in the right direction.

Not enough with that, one could see on the screen behind him the image of a huge atomic mushroom cloud, along with the words, “into radioactive ash”! – Charming…

Dmitry Kiselyov

• April 6, 2014: Pravda Online (Harun Yahya): “Isolated Russia” Although Russia has annexed Crimea, Hitler-style, in March 2014, and is now trying to get hold of the critical industrial centres of Eastern Ukraine (and, furtheron, of all of Ukraine as well as of all former Soviet republics), the aggressor, according to the well-oiled Soviet propaganda machine, is NATO and the United States (while the Soviet Cold-War counterpart allegedly no longer exists). Some excerpts from this article (bold-print by this author):

“Why is NATO expanding? We can’t see real reasons for that. We all know that the competitor who is the reason behind the establishment of NATO no longer exists.” These words belong to Sergey Yastrzhembsky, the presidential aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin back in 2004. Yastrzhembsky felt the need to make these remarks because NATO seemed to be expanding by incorporating former Soviet states while seemingly isolating Russia in the process. Surely there are reasons that make Russia’s concerns well-grounded. It is fair to say that the goodwill and conciliatory efforts by Russia under the leadership of Putin in the aftermath of the Cold War were not reciprocated in kind, on the part of the US and the EU countries. The process, which first began and included former Soviet states into NATO and the EU, was exacerbated with the Syrian civil war and became an undeniable rift with the Ukrainian crisis. The Western world seems to be pursuing an agenda to isolate Russia, which brings to mind the possibility of a revival of the Cold War mentality. […]

The current Ukrainian crisis is a clear proof of this new policy of isolation. The importance of Ukraine as an ally for Russia is clear and the actions of the USA and the EU in pretending not to understand that, while at the same time working to isolate Russia and forming friendships with former Russian allies, could be seen as an effort to divide the world into two poles. The Western world is perfectly aware of Ukraine’s position as an old friend, a trade partner and a defensive bulwark in the Black Sea for Russia, and should have been perfectly capable of foreseeing the reaction of Russia to such behavior. Realizing this fact the EU should encourage and extend a helping hand to Russia in its integration with the West. Regarding the issue of Ukraine and Crimea, the policy of isolation of Russia is completely wrong and unacceptable. I’ve been repeating one important fact for a long time: Putin is a wise and approachable leader with a good deal of foresight. He has made important strides in his country and is open to negotiation and reconciliation. The Russian people are also a very decent and loving people: Therefore, no one can condone leaving these beautiful people and a good leader isolated and pushing them into a mindset of insecurity and fear.  [And so on, and so forth.]

• August 10, 2014: Vladimir Zhirinovsky at it again. In an appearance on the Russian television channel Russiya 24, the infamous Vice Speaker of the Russian State Duma, head of Russia’s fake “Liberal Democratic Party”, and – according to the late former Mayor of Leningrad/St. Petersburg and Putin-mentor, Anatoliy Sobchak  a KGB operative, commented upon the current situation in Ukraine (he himself is said to be actively supporting Russian separatists in the Donbass region). Here are some of his as ever astonishing remarks (based on the Russian-English translation via Google Translate):

Ukraine’s fate is already sealed, Zhirinovsky says, decided upon in Moscow. Europe may be in for some catastrophic consequences. The Baltics and Poland are doomed, they will be swept away. Russia will have to preemptively carpet-bomb these countries so to neutralise all NATO missile launchers and planes. Europe will beg for an agreement with Russia to avoid another May 1945.

Of course, much of Zhirinovsky’s rantings can’t be taken for serious. He serves as a probe, internally to test the degree of discontent within Russia, but then also externally to not only confuse or frighten the West, but equally test whether there might be some awakening in the free world about the communist longrange strategy. Also, his job is to make the official Russian leadership (i.e., Putin) look good so that the West gladly assembles around the Kremlin. Yet, not everything Zhirinovsky says is “ultranationalist” madness. But hardly ever his wild attacks are considered in the West as perhaps being very much an expression of true Russian strategy (which was frequently emphasised by the late British political analyst, Christopher Story). And so the Russians find out again and again that the West remains firm asleep.

August 29, 2014: Speaking to young people at the pro-Kremlin (quasi-Komsomol) Seliger 2014 National Youth Forum outside Moscow, Vladimir Putin commented on the situation in Ukraine and beyond, reminding the West of Russia’s nuclear potential and of better accepting the current restoration process of the old USSR:

Russia is far from being involved in any large-scale conflicts. We don’t want that and don’t plan on it. But naturally, we should always be ready to repel any aggression towards Russia…. Russia’s partners…. should understand it’s best not to mess with us…. Thank God, I think no one is thinking of unleashing a large-scale conflict with Russia. I want to remind you that Russia is one of the leading nuclear powers.


• Sept. 2, 2014: Pravda Online (Lyuba Lulko): “Europe Makes One Step Towards Russia, Away From USA” – This article boasts about the powerful position in EU politics of German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, who was once a communist cadre in the GDR and now very obviously serves as a communist mole in unified Germany in order to bring about a unified communist Eurasia under the control of Moscow. It seems things are going very well for Soviet communism as far as the European Union is concerned. (Bold-print by this author.)

Elections to the governing bodies of the EU finished, and it was the word of German Chancellor Angela Merkel that played the crucial role in the elections. What prompted her to opt for the Polish PM Donald Tusk and Italian FM Federico Mogerini? During the summit, Poroshenko was hysterically lobbying new sanctions against Russia, but his voice was not heard. […]

However, EU leaders, except for President of Lithuania Dalia Grybauskaite, were restrained in their assessments of the “invasion” and decided not to provide “military-technical” support to Ukraine. As for the price, as Obama said Moscow would have to pay, four member countries of the EU – the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Cyprus – disagreed with the decision to expand the sanctions. Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico said: “I reserve the right to veto the sanctions, should they cause damage to national interests of Slovakia,” said the Slovak leader.

After the discussion of the Ukrainian crisis, the leaders of 28 countries proceeded to the elections of the administrative board. The appointment of Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Federica Mogerini as the new EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security appears to be an important move. She will replace Catherine Ashton – the main adviser to Petro Poroshenko. This was a victory of Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, who came into conflict on the issue with the already elected European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and representatives of Poland and the Baltic countries. All of them did not want to see a Russian ‘dove’ on the key post. However, according to the Italian press, Angela Merkel’s support of the candidate played a crucial role in the election. Federica Mogerini, 41, is a diplomat with 20 years of experience, first as a political scientist, then a curator of peace settlement in the Middle East, Iraq and Afghanistan. In her interview for the Carrera [sic!] de la Sera, she said that Europe faces two challenges – escalation of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and the return of foreign fighters to Europe from the Middle East. Mogerini believes that the President of Ukraine “violates obligations and goes against the interests of his people.” Yet, “the only way to resolve the conflict in Ukraine is diplomacy and not a military solution, which simply does not exist.” Ukraine can choose association with the EU, but it is important neither to harm nor to threaten Russia, the Italian official believes.

The position of the President of the European Council – the highest political body of the EU – previously taken by Dutchman Herman Van Rompuy, will now belong to Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk. Tusk is the founder and leader of the liberal party Civic Platform (CP) that has won the parliamentary elections twice. Tusk has been leading the government of Poland for seven years. He is a historian by education, an activist of Solidarity. Again, CP is a part of the bloc of right-centrist people’s parties of the European Parliament, along with CDU/CSU of Chancellor Angela Merkel. Euronews noticed that it was Merkel who persuaded Tusk to take the post. According to the German press, the Polish prime minister “is easy to grow” for Frau Chancellor. In a nutshell, he has always done and will do what Merkel says. “The EU position on the Ukrainian conflict must be bold, but not radical,” Tusk said on Saturday. He further announced that he would seek unity of the Union in this case. […]

Here is another point of view. “In my opinion, the choice (for Russia) is more positive than negative,” – Pyotr Isgenderov, a senior fellow at the Institute of Slavic Studies told Pravda.Ru. – Donald Tusk, against the backdrop of the Polish political landscape, is the most pro-Russian figure, given sentiments at the Polish political elite. Tusk has always been a counterweight to the party of Kaczynski brothers Law and Justice. He has always advocated the development of cooperation with Russia, especially economic and trade cooperation. In addition, Tusk had a fairly balanced position in relation to the tragedy of Lech Kaczynski’s aircraft, Russian-led politics on post-Soviet space, and other “very painful issues for the Russian-Polish relations. Thus, the figure of Donald Tusk is rather neutral, especially in this volatile political field in Poland. In his new position, he will most likely stand up for the preservation and restoration of trade and economic relations between the EU and Russia.” […]

More moderate forces take the lead at the EU under the guidance of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who calls on all parties to the Ukrainian crisis to negotiate,” concluded the expert. […]”

• Sept. 2, 2014: Pravda Online: “Russia to Change Its Military Doctrine in Light of NATO’s Growing Aggression” – As if Soviet-Russia had ever been training its military for anything else but attack …

[…] The present military doctrine of the Russian Federation was adopted four years ago – in 2010. In the conclusive part of the document, it was said that its provisions could be altered against the background of changing nature of military dangers and military threats. Since that time, the situation has changed considerably.

“I have no doubt that the expansion of NATO and steps to move military infrastructure of NATO member countries closer to the borders of Russia will remain one of external military threats to the Russian Federation,” said [Deputy Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, Mikhail] Popov.

In addition, he said, the trend of the United States and NATO members to increase their strategic offensive potential had become a lot stronger. […]

• Sept. 3, 2014: Pravda Online: “Russia Names Its Prime Enemy” – More of the same, yet more in detail …

Russia is changing its military doctrine due to the expansion of NATO, the missile defense problem and the situation in Ukraine and around it. The current doctrine, the provisions of which can be adjusted given the changing nature of military dangers and threats, was adopted in 2010.

Since then, the military-political situation in the world has changed dramatically. The new version of the document is to be ready by the end of the year. Experts believe that the language of the current version of the doctrine is too diplomatic due to Russia’s unjustified expectations regarding the partnership with the United States and NATO. Now, when relations with the West have become extremely strained, Russia must clearly identify where threats come from, what they are and at what stage they can materialize.

The news about the preparation of the new doctrine was announced by Deputy Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Mikhail Popov in an interview with RIA Novosti. The information appeared on the eve of the NATO summit, to be held on September 4-5 in Wales. […]

Chief Editor of National Defense Magazine, a member of the Public Council of the Ministry of Defense, Igor Korotchenko, said that the current version of the Russian doctrine contains too abstract, subtle and diplomatic formulations. “We had illusions about partnership with NATO and the United States, so the formulations that were adopted four years ago, are abstract,” he said.

Now illusions are gone. Korotchenko does not doubt that at the coming NATO summit in Wales, Russia will be proclaimed as the prime enemy of the Alliance. Afterwards, the alliance will continue moving its military infrastructure closer to Russian borders. NATO bases will appear in Poland and Baltic countries. “NATO forces will be permanently deployed in the Baltic States. This is obviously the time for the Russian military doctrine to clearly designate the enemy, proceeding from who sees Russia as the prime enemy. This will be a response to the decision of the NATO summit in Scotland,” said the expert. […]

Chief editor of Russia in Global Affairs, chairman of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, Fyodor Lukyanov, believes that the designation of enemy in the doctrine is quite logical. “It is clear that the relationship between Russia and the West have mentally returned to the cold war. Both sides see each other as a potential enemy. One shall probably expect remilitarization of Europe,” Lukyanov told Expert Online. […]

Noteworthy, in the current doctrine, it is indicated that Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction against Russia or its allies. Russia can also use nuclear weapons in response to large-scale aggression with the use of conventional weapons, when the existence of the Russian state is endangered.

“The alliance, which is going to march to the East, is 4.5 times bigger and stronger than Russia in terms of both manpower and military equipment. We should consider how to deter NATO, eliminate disparities and prevent the threat of war in Europe, in particular, with the use of tactical nuclear weapons.” […]

“Experience shows that the reliability of some of our Western partners is a temporary phenomenon, and it is associated, unfortunately, very closely with the political situation,” said Popov. According to him, effective functioning of the military-industrial complex of the country is one of the most important factors in the ability of the army to protect the state, which is possible only under the conditions of technological independence in the field of arms production.

• Sept. 5, 2014: Pravda Online (Gaither Stewart): “Putin’s Restraint” – This is a quite sinistre piece of anti-Western rage (written by an American communist):

President Putin’s matter-of-fact statement over last weekend that, “If I wanted to I could take Kiev in two weeks”, following his mid-week reminder of Russia’s sometimes forgotten nuclear capacity, was most certainly startling to European Union leaders gathered in Bruxelles to shuffle around EU functions in such way that the bureaucrats – who have made non-elected careers in Bruxelles running as much as possible the lives of Europeans – can keep their jobs.

Putin’s softly spoken words plastered across newspaper headlines shook them out of their reveries. They had hoped the Ukrainian problem would just go away. Now they don’t know what to do. Several countries – members – Slovakia, Hungary and Cyprus oppose sending arms to the Chocolate King Poroshenko’s forces getting whipped by the “separatists-terrorists” in the Southeast Donbas and losing huge quantities of military hardware and yesterday losing also the Luhansk airport. No one in fact is really sincere about the whole US idea of sanctions. Europe, afflicted by uncertainty about its own identity and the centrifugal forces at work to tear it apart (anti-Europeanists, the secession referendum in Scotland this month, similar movements in Cataluna [sic!] and the Basque country) has the nerve to give Russia seven days to withdraw its troops from inside Ukraine (which Russia denies) to which Putin responds laconically that “it’s impossible to foresee when the crisis will end.” Putin has repeated a paraphrased version of US East European policymaker Nuland’s words to the EU: “Fuck off!” Merkel is meanwhile really pissed with the Kremlin but can’t do much about it, and probably would not even if she could: half of Russia’s foreign trade is with her Germany.

Restraint? I firmly believe Russia could take back Kiev in much less than two weeks. Maybe overnight. The Ukrainian army might even join in with Russian forces. And the Nazi-Fascist militias? What would they do? Oh, they would fight a bit, but would be overwhelmed by events and quickly melt away. The US/NATO would face exactly the same situation as when Russia quietly took over the Crimea.

But, as Putin intimates in the conditional tense, ” … if he wanted to,” why should he? That is what he is saying. Why should he? He knows. Russians will drink Russian beer instead of Heinekens and wait. Let Poroshenko’s ragged army and any Westerners who join in walk straight into Russia’s arms. The US/NATO has already suffered defeat after defeat in Ukraine: Crimea, the Donbas, Novorossiya, the ignominy of a banana republic political clique trying to manage to stay afloat in Kiev and ridiculously requesting admission into the European Union and NATO. In whose name, anyway, one wonders? The Bandera-Nazi militia whom every Russian and most Ukrainians detest?

While Putin waits patiently, right on Ukraine’s eastern borders, if one even exists, which I doubt. Let NATO or their proxies walk into another Stalingrad.

In this chiefly verbal conflict for everyone except those doing the fighting in southeastern Ukraine, Europe plays the roll of patsy for both the US and Russia. Obama in Washington can incite Europe to violent words and sanctions and expressions of solidarity for which it then must pay the bill. Russia can direct its political maneuvering, its solidarity with the Ukrainian people, its opposition to the US-backed puppet government in Kiev, and direct its counter-sanctions against a vulnerable Europe still in the throes of economic crisis.

Putin’s restraint. Russia’s patience. America’s unknowing.

• Sept. 5, 2014: Pravda Online: “Gorbachev on Ukraine: Terrifying Massacre in Store for Europe” – Gorbachev is no “peace angel” concerned about the well-being of Europe etc.; he has been, and still is, a key figure in the revolution and works in close alignment with the official Russian leadership. His “concerns” in reality are threats!

To resolve the conflict in Ukraine, it is highly important to resume the dialogue between Moscow and Washington, as “their role and responsibility is special,” first president of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev believes. Earlier, Gorbachev stated that Europe may face “terrifying massacre” because of the current crisis in Ukraine. According to him, “too much is at stake; dangers and risks are too high.”

Mikhail Gorbachev has recently finished working on a new book, which is going to be published soon. The book, titled “After the Kremlin,” is devoted to events in Russia and the world over the past two decades. In the epilogue to the book, Gorbachev wrote that the deep cause of what is currently happening in Ukraine was the failure of perestroika and “opportunistic dissolution of the USSR.” Gorbachev blamed the then Russian administration for that.

“At the same time, I must remind you, the Ukrainian leadership sabotaged the process of transformation of the Union – both before the August 1991 coup and after it, despite the fact that the majority of republics had coordinated the text of the Union Treaty,” said Gorbachev. […]

Mikhail Gorbachev earlier said that Europe may eventually face “terrifying massacre,” should the conflict in Ukraine spread to Europe. Gorbachev supports the policy of the Russian administration as far as the Ukrainian crisis is concerned.

In an interview with the Russian News Service, Gorbachev stressed out that the Russian Federation must not interfere in the conflict in Ukraine, “If our country interferes, it may trigger the fire that the whole world will not be able to extinguish,” he said. […]

As for Russia’s move to reunite with the Crimea, Mikhail Gorbachev said that it was a move “to correct the mistake of the USSR”.

• Sept. 8, 2014: Pravda Online: “Medvedev: Russia Will React Asymmetrically to All Sanctions”

[…] “We understand that at first, there are economic sanctions, and then political ones follow in response, and political things are always asymmetrical. This is bigger than restriction of supplies, as it may break security in the world. I hope that our Western partners do not want it, and there are no crazy people among those, who make decisions,” said Medvedev. […]

However, the prime minister said, sanctions could be advantageous to the countries, against which they were imposed. As an example, Medvedev referred to the People’s Republic of China, against which sanctions were imposed in 1989.

“The sanctions against China are very similar to those that were imposed on us. Now let’s see: did China’s economy begin to develop worse after that? None. Did the Chinese deviate from the course that was set exactly at the end of the 80s? No. Are they a successful economy? Without a doubt. This is an economy, which will soon become the first in the world. Did they change the social order, did they feel punished? No. They just mobilized internal resources, in a way not to cut the country from the outside world. To a certain extent, the People’s Republic of China took advantage of those sanctions,” said Medvedev.

As Medvedev said in the interview, Russia could have taken responsive measures before, but the government had the position not to respond to the actions of the West. According to him, the decision on the embargo on food supplies was taken after consultations and could be adjusted in the interests of Russian companies.

It was not us who started it. We wanted to respond earlier, but it was the position of the president – not to respond to those actions. When there were several waves of sanctions, we had to make a decision. What is important: this is a political decision that the vast majority of the population of our country supports,” said Medvedev.

As the head of the government said, the decision on responsive measures was not spontaneous – it came after consultations with experts in the field of foreign trade and economy. Speaking about the damage to Russian business and protection of interests of Russian companies, Medvedev said that for business, the measures taken were force majeure, but doing it in a softer way was impossible. […]

At the same time, Medvedev said, if Russia’s Western partners “come to their senses” and shelve sanctions, the Russian authorities will also waive restrictions. “I hope that by that time, our suppliers will be able to take the right place on the market,” he said.

Medvedev analyzed the situation in Ukraine from the point of view of economy. He emphasized that the burden of reconstruction of destroyed regions will lie on the Kiev authorities, and it is already clear that the burden will not be easy. […]

Russia’s turn to the Asia-Pacific region emerged due to the need to diversify trade flows, said Medvedev. […]

“We need to trade, receive investments, work with China, India, Vietnam, with other major and not very major players of the region. Therefore, this turn came on time, but it was not because of the sanctions and the political situation – it was because we had to diversify trade flows,” says Medvedev.

“I do not see any problems here, if we are going to make sound decisions,” he replied to the question of whether Russia was going to fall into dependence on China.

“China is the largest trade partner of the United States of America. There are many discussions going on about it there, but no one calls independence of the United States into question,” said Medvedev.

Should the West impose new sanctions against Russia in energy or financial sector, Moscow will have to respond asymmetrically, for example, banning flights over the territory of the Russian Federation, said Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. […]

According to him, if Western carriers are forced to fly out of Russian airspace, it may lead to the bankruptcy of many airlines, especially those that already balance on the brink of survival. “But that is a bad story. We would like our partners to realize that at some point. Sanctions do not build peace in Ukraine,” Medvedev said. […]”

• Sept. 15, 2014: Pravda Online (Andrey Mikhailov): “Can Russia Counter USA’s Prompt Global Strike?” The usual mix of exaggerated American military capabilites on the one hand, and proud boasting over Russia’s indeed amazingly modernised weapons systems.

Deputy Defense Minister of Russia Yuri Borisov said that Russia may create its own prompt global strike system. The plans would be implemented on the basis of the defensive doctrine of arms development. As can be understood, this could be a response to US developments on the subject. Can Prompt Global Strike be a threat to Russia and what can Russia do to counter the US system?

To a certain extent, Russian officials have already given answers to these questions. “Russia can and will be forced to do it, but we will develop systems to counter these new types of weapons, because the basic doctrine of our country is the defensive doctrine, and we are not going to change it,” said Borisov after a meeting devoted to the state program for arms development in 2016-2025 years. He stressed out that all decisions of the Russian authorities in the sphere of arms should not be perceived as an arms race.

Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia, Sergei Ryabkov, in an interview with the Kommersant newspaper said: “The development of the prompt global strike system in the United States may lead to a conflict with apocalyptic consequences.” […]

In response to the statements about the prompt global strike from the United States, Russia started, for example, developing a new generation of combat rail missile systems. Under the conditions of the vast territory of our country, such complexes would be very hard to target and destroy. Hiding a “combat train” on the vast territory of Russia is a piece of cake, even if they can supposedly see everything from space. […]

Russia de facto has ballistic missiles and hypersonic cruise missiles. The recent launch of Bulava missile from strategic missile submarine the Vladimir Monomakh showed that Russian warheads are not less accurate than American ones.

Russia has protection from all ballistic and cruise missile of the PGS in its present form. We have, for example, S-300PMU-2 “Favorit,” let alone S-400 that are already capable of striking targets moving at the speed of up to 4,500 meters per second. There are other systems too.

In general, this American dream is doomed to fail. When it comes to effective military developments, Russia and the USA go “head to head.”

When Reagan was in power, some American money bags profited from SDI. During Obama’s presidency, they profit from PGS.

United States President Ronald Reagan was called the father of “Star Wars” that was a subject of much controversy, but then quietly disappeared. There was a lot of PR that proved to be big nothing. Barack Obama may give birth to PGS that may also go up in smoke after some time. […]

The SDI program scared Soviet military and political leaders, and the Soviet Union was seriously drawn into an arms race in this area, despite Gorbachev’s pacifism. In 1987, it became known that the Soviet Union was also working on a similar program. A few years later, the country ceased to exist. The subject of Star Wars faded out soon afterwards. The former “empire of evil” stopped its existence without any space battles.

• Sept. 16, 2014: Pravda Online (Nicolas Bonnal): “Why Western Capitalism Misses Good Old Times of Yeltsin” Here is an example of complete upside-down rhetoric, equally laughable and absurd:

If there is nowadays so much western hatred against Vladimir Putin, why was there so much adoration and backing for Yeltsin in the nineties?

We have to recall some facts about western freedom, democracy and voodoo economics. For the post-soviet age was characterized by a steep decline of the western way of life. The fear of communism and a strong red army had so far prevented savage capitalists and market bolshevists inspired by utopia’s gurus like Hayek or Friedman to destroy the acquisitions made in the West during the Keynesian age. I already underlined this point here; and so did Naomi Klein in her stressful opus on shock therapy:

When the Cold War was in full swing and the Soviet Union was intact, the people of the world could choose (at least theoretically) which ideology they wanted to consume; there were the two poles, and there was much in between.

But Hayek in his mediocre book The Way to Serfdom has accomplished the intellectual deed to compare social protection with serfdom and social-democracy with Nazism (chapter 12).

The connection between socialism and nationalism in Germany was close from the beginning. It is significant that the most important ancestors of National-Socialism are at the same time acknowledged fathers of socialism.


In the name of this brilliant demonstration everything could then be destroyed in England, America and elsewhere (Russia, Latin America and so on). And Thatcher dared to compare in England the coal miners to the Argentinean colonels. And the Wicked Witch of the West always cherished infamous dictator Pinochet while she wanted to drop a nuclear bomb on Cordoba, Argentina.

The golden age was gone with Soviet Union and the neo-liberal agents presented their bill: destroy social warfare, give to the cronies all the national industries, multiply the debt.

The social-democrats submitted in Europe; Trotsky already had pointed in 1924 that they always grovel to America.

Of course such peaceful agenda had to be enforced. As we know western democracies adore enforcing law, peace, and economic freedom. It is their semantic obsession since 1918, to enforce, and they never hesitate to use ruthless violence in Iraq or elsewhere.

The agenda began in Chile and Argentina with dictators well considered by the anglo-Saxon elite then it extended elsewhere including a Russia abandoned then to her sad fate by Gorbachev and clearly betrayed by Yeltsin. It is now extended to continental Europe, a rich area so far spared by the growing evil of “economic freedom”.

Naomi Klein has explained the contents of this dreadful and enduring agenda (forty years of enforcement!). She tells us about the market Bolsheviks:

Stiglitz called Russia’s reformers “market Bolsheviks” for their fondness for cataclysmic revolution. However, where the original Bolsheviks fully intended to build their centrally planned state in the ashes of the old, the market Bolsheviks believed in a kind of magic: if the optimal conditions for profit making were created, the country would rebuild itself, no planning required. (It was a faith that would re-emerge, a decade later, in Iraq.)

We may remind that while the West demonizes Putin, it kindly and warmly backed Yeltsin during his “economic reforms”. As we know economic reform is a euphemism meaning pillage and enforcement of democracy. Adds Klein:

The majority of the Western press also sided with Yeltsin against the entire parliament, whose members were dismissed as “communist hardliners” trying to roll back democratic reforms. They suffered, according to the New York Times Moscow bureau chief, from “a Soviet mentality suspicious of reform, ignorant of democracy, disdainful of intellectuals”.

There is nothing new under the sun. But this is what Yeltsin did with the blessing of western economists and diplomats:

Yeltsin called in five thousand soldiers, dozens of tanks and armoured personnel carriers, helicopters and elite shock troops armed with automatic machine guns – all to defend Russia’s new capitalist economy from the grave threat of democracy.

Naomi Klein marks remarkably the following point:

Finally, on the morning of October 4, 1993, Yeltsin fulfilled his long-prescribed destiny and became Russia’s very own Pinochet, unleashing a series of violent events with unmistakable echoes of the coup in Chile exactly twenty years earlier.

The destruction and looting of Russia and the extermination of the poorest part of its population were decided in Washington. So discovered lately megalomaniac and imprudent Professor Sachs, one of the masters of the shock therapy:

Sachs now sees that there was something else at work: many of Washington’s power brokers were still fighting the Cold War. They saw Russia’s economic collapse as a geopolitical victory, the decisive one that ensured U.S. supremacy.

The American elite were ready to wreak vengeance on all Russians. Russia lost ten million habitants which is a kind of genocide, isn’t it? Nobody knows exactly the balance of these terrible years (not finished in Ukraine for instance).

Is this an exaggeration? Read Klein and other commentators:

“The years of criminal capitalism have killed off 10 percent of our population.” Russia’s population is indeed in dramatic decline – the country is losing roughly 700,000 people a year. Between 1992, the first full year of shock therapy, and 2006, Russia’s population shrank by 6.6 million. Three decades ago, André Gunder Frank, the dissident Chicago economist, wrote a letter to Milton Friedman accusing him of “economic genocide.” Many Russians describe the slow disappearance of their fellow citizens in similar terms today.

Next question: why are we betrayed by our elite in Europe these days? The answer is found in Latin America were the students of the so-called Catholic universities betrayed their country. These Catholics who were not Christians were formatted and turned into hostile elite in the famous university of Chicago. This fact was subtly labelled by a Chilean politician a transfer of ideology. For our elite is not our elite anymore.

Juan Gabriel Valdés, Chile’s foreign minister in the 1990s, described the process of training hundreds of Chilean economists in Chicago School orthodoxy as “a striking example of an organized transfer of ideology from the United States to a country within its direct sphere of influence . . .”

In France now, since the fall of Gaullism, all leaders are chosen among the Young leaders selected from their twenties by American embassy and US agencies. When a servant like that comes to power, he is ready to privatize anything, half the pensions, bomb Libya, rediscover Mars and atomize Russia. Uncle Sam just has to ask him!

These unhappy days, sanctions are taken to debilitate Russia and prepare another coup – like in unfortunate Ukraine. The putsch’s agents can use Gene Sharp’s methodology, the guide for the orange revolutions, and the goal is to eliminate Vladimir Putin in order to re-establish a Russia militarily submitted to corporate America – like in the good old times of Yeltsin.

• Sept. 18, 2014: Pravda Online: “Will Russia Revise Its Cooperation with European Union?” – It’s very obvious: All recent moves by Russia to reorient much of its trade and commerce towards Asia, particularly China, must have been thoroughly premeditated and coordinated in time with its growing military posture in Ukraine and beyond. 

“The EU should look at the relationships with Russia from a different angle and abandon the concept of strategic partnership with the country,” the European Parliament says, Interfax reports.

The European Parliament, at a plenary session in Strasbourg on Thursday, adopted the resolution about the state of affairs in Ukraine and the relations between the EU and Russia. The European Parliament called on the EU and its member states not to lift sanctions imposed against Russia if Moscow does not meet the requirements to de-escalate the Ukrainian crisis. According to European MPs, the EU must be prepared to impose new restrictive measures, such as exclude Russia from Russia cooperation in the nuclear field and from the system of international settlements SWIFT.

As stated in the resolution, any EU sanctions against Russia should be elaborated in a way not to let the Kremlin-associated businesses bypass them. MEPs call on the EU to closely monitor such forms of cooperation as the exchange of shareholdings and joint ventures. The European Parliament supports the decisions of the NATO summit to strengthen collective security in accordance with Article 5 of the Washington Treaty – about the strengthening of the eastern periphery of the alliance. The European Parliament called on the EU to consider gas storage systems, pipeline connections and reverse pipelines as strategic objects.

The Parliament urged the European Union to cancel the planned agreements with Russia in the energy sector, including in relation to the South Stream project. According to MEPs, one should strengthen energy independence and resistance to external pressure to create a fully functioning gas market in Europe. They also welcomed the decision of the French government to suspend the supply of Mistral helicopter carriers to Russia and called upon other countries to take a similar stance on the export of goods, especially weapons and dual-use goods.

The European Parliament “strongly condemns the Russian Federation for waging the unannounced hybrid war against Ukraine by using Russian regular armed forces and by supporting illegal armed groups.” The document contains the previously announced position on the illegitimacy of the Crimean referendum to become a part of Russia and its non-recognition by EU countries. At the same time, the European Parliament welcome ceasefire in the east of Ukraine and Kiev’s move to grant a special status to certain territories of Luhansk and Donetsk regions.

European lawmakers highlight the key role of the OSCE in addressing the Ukrainian crisis, demanding OSCE observers should be immediately deployed on the entire part of the Ukrainian-Russian border, which is now controlled by opponents of the Ukrainian authorities. They note the importance of establishing a national dialogue in Ukraine, avoiding propaganda and hate speech.

Welcoming the simultaneous ratification of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, the by European Parliament and the Verkhovna Rada, MEPs expressed regret in connection with emergency measures and pressure from Russia. They also said that the text of the agreement “can not be changed.”

According to MEPs, the European Commission should monitor the influence of economic measures of Russia against the EU and increase the currently allocated amount of 125 million euros to compensate European farmers and actively explore the markets of third countries.

The European Parliament also expressed regret that the militias in eastern Ukraine had not given an international access to experts to the crash site of the Malaysian airliner, calling all parties to immediately provide access for the experts.

“Russia does not show pressure on the West by means of sanctions. Instead, Russia is being guided by the interests of its own development,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said at a meeting of the State Council.

“Protective measures were not prompted by the wish to punish some of the partners,” he said. “God will judge them, it’s their decision,” he said. “We, first of all, think about our own interests and development objectives,” said the president.

Putin also noted that a number of Western countries allowed themselves to cross out the principles of the WTO by imposing sanctions on Russia. “The introduction of restrictions against Russia is nothing but rejection of the basic principles of the WTO of some of our partners,” he said. “It violates the principle of equality of conditions for all countries to access markets of goods and services and ignores most favored nation treatment in trade, as well as the principle of fair and free competition,” the president said.

“This is all politicized, without complying with WTO rules,” he said. “In fact, a group of Western countries unilaterally crossed out these and other principles and rules of the WTO for Russia, which is among six largest economies in the world,” said Putin.

In the next two years, to improve the competitiveness of the real sector of the Russian economy, one would have to do the amount of work, the implementation of which would take years before, Vladimir Putin said.

“I want to emphasize that over the next year or two, it is necessary to make a real breakthrough in enhancing the competitiveness of the Russian real sector – to do the work that would take, perhaps, years before,” Putin said at the meeting of the State Council on the development of domestic business.

• Sept. 19, 2014: Pravda Online: “Russia to Be Disconnected from the Internet?” This article is the height of boldness and hypocrisy, but also demonstrates that Russian war preparations are very real: First, it’s been the communist bloc, whether Russia or China, that is the No. 1 perpetrator of systematic internet crime, whether espionage or sabotage. Yet, they worry about their internet safety. But of course it’ll be greatly about control, surveillance, restriction, and even disconnect of the Russian internet for the war time soon to come.

The issue of security of the Russian segment of the Internet will be a topic for discussion at the meeting of the Russian Security Council, with the participation of President Vladimir Putin and several high-ranking officials. The meeting will take place next week. According to various reports, the officials will make a number of decisions regulating the use of the Internet in Russia, providing for the ability to cut the Russian Internet, known as Runet, from the outside world, in case of emergency.

Officials at the Ministry for Communications, the Vedomosti newspaper wrote, will inform the president on the results of July tests that showed the vulnerability of the Russian segment of the world wide web.

This is not a question of disconnecting Russia from the international network, yet, Russian operators will need to set up their equipment in a way to be able to disconnect the Russian Internet from the global network quickly in case of emergency, the newspaper wrote. As for the state of emergency, it goes about both military actions and large-scale riots in the country.

In addition, the government reportedly discusses a possibility to empower the state with the function to administer domains. Currently this is a function of a public organization – the Coordination Center for the National Domain of the Internet.

The purpose of the possible measure is not to isolate Russia from the outside world, but to protect the country, should the USA, for example, decide to disconnect Russia from the system of IP-addresses. It will be possible to avoid this threat, if Russia has a local regulator to distribute IP-addresses inside the country, rather than the ICANN, controlled by the United States government. This requires operators to set up “mirrors” that will be able to receive user requests and forward them to specific domain names.

Russian IT specialists have already discussed such an opportunity and said that it would be hard, but possible to do. This will require a connection with a country, where there is no such prohibition. Any CIS country, for example, could become a donor of the free Internet in this case.

The president’s press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, strongly refuted the above-mentioned media reports. “Of course, disconnecting Russia from the global Internet is out of the question,” he said. However, he added, “our partners in the United States and in Europe have been quite unpredictable lately.” “In Russia, we must think how to ensure our national security.” He confirmed that Russia was developing measures in the field of information security.

Meanwhile, representatives of the Coordination Center for the National Domain of the Internet said that they were prepared for Russia’s possible disconnection from the global network. “The infrastructure of national domains that has been built over 20 years, will withstand any attack,” the press service of the center told ITAR-TASS.

The head of the League of Safer Internet, Denis Davydov, said that the changes would be prepared in case Russia was going to be cut off from the Internet from the outside. There is such a possibility, the expert said, although he preferred not to comment on how high such a probability could be.

According to him, ICANN international corporation, which manages all domain names, IP-addresses of the Internet and regulates global address Internet space, still remains under the supervision of the US Department of Commerce.

Rumors of tightening control over the Russian segment of the Internet appeared in spring, against the backdrop of deteriorating relations with the West. It was said that a work group of the presidential administration was developing a new three-level system of data transfer to ensure all traffic of regional and local operators goes only through networks of Russian national operators. It was also said that placing DNS-servers of .ru .rf domains outside Russia would be prohibited. However, press secretary of the Russian president, Dmitry Peskov, said that he had never heard of the existence of such a work group.

In early September, State Duma deputies appealed to the government with a request to prepare a “plan of civil defense,” should Russia be disconnected from the Internet, to prevent damage to banking and commercial organizations, the work of which is based on the world wide web.

• Sept. 22, 2014: Pravda Online (John Anthony Robles II): “The Lunacy of Sanctions and the Psychosis of US Exceptionalism”  – This one is a gem:

The Insanity of Sanctions and the “Secret” U.S. Dirty War on Russia

Sanctions, sanctions and more sanctions! Every day we are subjected to an onslaught of stories and reports about how western countries, Europe, certain Asian countries and their master across the Atlantic are imposing new and ever more expanded and devious sanctions against Russia, its leaders, its businesses, industries, entire segments of the financial sector and other parts of the Russian world, even Japan has jumped on the sanctions wagon to show “support” for the hegemon across the Pacific, yet no one stops to question or stand up and say “Wait! All of these sanctions are based on lies.”

From the onslaught of the US campaign to steal Ukraine, Russia has been forced to deal with almost every imaginable threat to its own security and safety and has had to watch as a brotherly nation succumbed to the Machiavellian manipulations of the entire US/NATO/CIA arsenal of instruments used to destroy nations. If that is not enough Russia has had to watch as it is actually blamed for the destabilization of its neighbor and the fratricidal war unleashed on the populace by geopolitical strategists from across the Atlantic, who remain untouched despite documented proof of their involvement in everything from the Maidan to suspicious events surrounding the downing of Malaysian Flight MH-17.

Everything the West has done to destroy Ukraine and force it into being another NATO/US client state has been illegal from the outset. Yet their campaign continues with impunity and we see it every day with: accusations against Russia based on fantasy and social media posts; anti-Russian sentiment and war hysteria pummeled onto the masses 24 hours a day 7 days a week; the continuing US/NATO/EU/CIA support for fascist neo-nazis who were armed, trained and unleashed on their own people for the sole reasons that they speak Russian and are pro-Russia; endless false reports of Russian troops and the invasion of an invisible Russian army led by President Vladimir Putin, when nothing of the sort exists or has existed.

We also see, even on certain Russian media the direct effects of the manipulations of a 5th column, long implanted and protected even at the highest levels, with endless quotes demonizing Russia and President Putin delivered without context or counter argument, by NATO warmongers such as Anders Fogh Rasmussen and US warmonger Barack Hussein Obama, who won a Nobel Peace Prize but continues to destabilize the entire planet with reckless military expansion and threaten every country with annihilation if it does not toe the US line.

For those who talk about history and say we must not forget it or allow it to be re-written we might recall exactly what really transpired in Ukraine. Let us recall how the Maidan was provoked by the huge net of civil society manipulation apparatus brought to you by USAID, the (Pierre) Omidyar Network, George Soros’ International Renaissance Foundation and the US Congress’ National Endowment for Democracy, all spreading the myth of some abstract European dream and demonization of Russia and its President Vladimir Putin to provoke civil unrest.

Let us remember the direct interference by the US and its officials into the affairs of the sovereign country of Ukraine, the organizing of an armed coup d’état, the over-throwing of its democratically elected president and the open installation of a post-coup puppet government leading to the holding of a sham election which brought to power another US puppet who is currently making the rounds on his knees begging Obama and NATO for weapons to continue killing his own people.

If that is not enough we can recall the blacker side of the entire Ukrainian fiasco, events which no one wants to talk about and the world seems to want to bury and pretend they never happened, such as the junta’s snipers on the Maidan, the burning alive of what may have been over a hundred people in Odessa, the slaughter of innocent civilians in Mariupol, the use of illegal weapons and tactics by Ukrainian nazis in their fratricidal punitive war against the people of NovoRossiya who refused to recognize as legitimate the US installed neo-nazi regime, the shooting down of a passenger jet full of innocent civilians in an Operation Northwoods type pretext for war, the thousands dead in the completely illegal punitive war waged by the junta against civilians and backed 100% by the US/CIA/NATO, NATO’s interference and direct meddling in the affairs of Ukraine, the over 400 CIA/Greystone mercenaries operating in Ukraine and on and on.

Even the over 5 billion dollars in stolen Russian gas might be reason to ponder the legitimacy of the US backed puppet government in Kiev, or the fact that the son of the US Vice President is now enjoying a high post in a “Ukrainian” energy concern, but no one in the West wants to know about that, all the sheep want to hear is how President Vladimir Putin is at fault and how Russia must pay the price.

Knowing all of that then you might also feel the rise of bile and a bit nauseous as I do every time you hear the words sanctions with regard to Russia because in all reality and in a sane world the neighborhood of nations ought to be screaming for sanctions to be waged against America, if not for overthrowing governments and destroying nations at will then at least to force it to abide by international law as the rest of the world is forced to do.

If you doubt what I am saying ask yourself this: Why did the European Union impose new sanctions on Russia AFTER Russian President Vladimir Putin brokered a real peace in the Donbass? Does this make sense? Of course not. The sanctions are a way to save the failing western economies and attempt to destroy Russian led economic influence and the rise of the BRICS and the Eurasian Economic Union. Ukraine is just a pretext my friends.

Possible World Peace Destroyed by One Rogue Nation

In an ideal civilized world living in harmony with all of its multi-faceted cultures and peoples there must be agreement on key moral principles and clearly defined guidelines, rules and laws which govern the relations between all the members of the family of nations, and which perhaps more importantly are followed by all countries equally and without interpretation or deviation.

We could be living in such a world, where peace, mutual respect and civilized behavior defined the relations between all of the members of the family of nations as there do exist organizations like the United Nations and countless treaties, conventions and international laws that are supposed to govern and lay down the framework for the actions of all nations, but as we have seen when one nation (the US) becomes rogue (for lack of a better term) and determines unilaterally that it can twist, interpret or outright ignore the laws and standards that the rest of the world lives by and the family of nations fails to react accordingly, the entire balance of the civilized world is sent into a dangerous schism of instability, diminished security and even outright war.

Although the West gives lip service to peace the only real goal of the US with regard to peace, which of course runs second to Full Spectrum Dominance and the establishment of the US as the only global hegemon, is establishing the Pax Americana. Yet this can in no way be a substitute for real and lasting peace worldwide because the Pax Americana only benefits the western world, meaning the US and its client states.

Russian Humanitarian Assistance vs. US Barbaric Interventions

To liken the peaceful referendum in Crimea (where the people themselves chose to reunite with Russia), the Russian assistance to refugees fleeing the punitive war Kiev sought to punish them with for not recognizing the illegal junta and the now three humanitarian convoys that Russia has sent to assist in alleviating the humanitarian catastrophe the fault for which lies completely with Kiev and its US masters, to some sort of Russian annexation, aggression or invasion, is to turn truth on its head and make an abomination of the facts on the ground.

In reality what the US has done in Ukraine, under the guise of “democracy” is barbaric. But then again what the US has done everywhere else it has laid its bloody hands on is also barbaric, also under the guise of bringing democracy or under the all-encompassing modicum of “humanitarian intervention”.

Starting with Yugoslavia the US has invaded, destroyed and decimated country after country and population after population in a shameful barbaric attempt at establishing global US hegemony by force. This was the openly stated doctrine after 9-11 and was the plan drawn up before 9-11 by the neo-conservative think tank the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) which needed a mass casualty event such as 9-11 to serve as the catalyst for global military interventionism.

From Yugoslavia to Somalia, from Iraq to Afghanistan, from Yemen to Libya, and now in Ukraine, the US has intervened under various false pretexts and the result is always the same, destroyed states and massive casualties, up to 3.3 million now in Iraq alone. For each of these countries the US should have been sanctioned and stopped but the world is passive, subservient or just plain scared that they will be next. Russia and China stopped the US invasion of Syria and what they did to Ukraine is the answer to that.

The US can not tolerate any power challenging them in their doctrine of Full Spectrum Dominance and any possible challenger must be destroyed. The US, in their self-anointed role as “masters of the world”, deluded by their own belief in their own exceptionalism, continue to commit atrocities and destroy peoples and states worldwide, and they remain unchallenged. They sell their aggressive wars to the people as “humanitarian interventions” or “democracy” operations, but the reality is that all of the recent US aggressive wars have been and continue to be illegal acts and crimes against humanity and peace.

If you aggressively invade a country for territory or any other reason it is illegal, if you do the same for ideological reasons or because you are against the president or government it is also illegal. Even the pretext of preventive war was denied at the Nuremburg trials, therefore there can be no justification whatsoever for aggressive war. And that is exactly what the US has been engaged in time and time again.

As for real humanitarian intervention a country for example with vested territorial, strategic, monetary, resource or other interests should in no way be allowed to engage in the practice or be part of a UN sanctioned mission. And I say UN sanctioned because any legal humanitarian intervention must meet the standards and have the backing of the United Nations. No country can do so unilaterally.

As for the Russian “intervention” in Ukraine, it has been of a completely humanitarian nature without a military component, unlike in South Ossetia where Russian citizens were being killed for 3 days by (again US backed) Georgian Forces, before Russia moved in and put a very quick and decisive stop to it.

Countries “Humanely” Destroyed by the United States

The following is a list of countries where the US has organized coup d’états, supported revolutions, overthrown governments, invaded, annexed, supported groups or forces who overthrew or attempted to overthrow governments or outright executed the leaders. Again all of these “interventions” were illegal.

Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Argentina, Bolivia, Bosnia, Brazil, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guam, Guatemala, Haiti, Hawaii, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Korea, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Macedonia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Russia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, USSR, Venezuela, Vietnam, Virgin Islands, Yemen, Yugoslavia and Zaire (Congo).

The US War on Journalism and the Subversion of the Media

The current US war on the media started in the wake of the events of 9-11. The US and its security bodies waged an unprecedented campaign of silencing and destroying anyone who questioned 9-11 or the illegal rise to power of George Bush and the neocons. It continued with implanted journalists in Afghanistan and Iraq and further against anyone who exposed any of the war crimes the US was guilty of in those countries.

That war has continued unabated and has effectively killed investigative journalism worldwide and turned almost all of the world’s English language media (and others) into mere echo chambers for the US Government.

The manipulation of the media by the US is important because it serves to allow for the continued funding of the illegal wars and continues to protect those guilty of war crimes, subverting the US Government, involved in 9-11 and those who effectively committed a coup in the US in the wake of 9-11. It is also important as it serves to convince the world that the US is unbeatable and all powerful, when in fact this is far from the case.

The US manipulation of the media in selling their aggressive wars as somehow humanitarian turns the meaning of that word on its head and as the American people somehow believe it and equate mass casualty aggressive invasions with the word “humanitarian” it is therefore understandable why when Russia delivers humanitarian aid western reporters are looking for weapons in the trucks and the western media is calling it an act of aggression and infringement on sovereignty. Yet when the US armed and backed ISIL in Syria that was an infringement on the sovereignty of the country and an act of aggression, but it is ludicrous to say the same when Russia, with an agreement with the Ukrainian authorities, delivered humanitarian aid to the people of Donbass.

Sometimes it seems to be an almost useless fight to try to bring the truth to the American people and the world given the way they have been lied to and convinced of their own exceptionalism but the truth must be known and in the end it is only the truth that will set us all free from tyranny. Even simple readers from the West have been conditioned to attack the messenger for the message and try to discredit anyone who shows them the illegality of their leaders, I am sure I will be attacked for what I have written here but if one person sees the truth then the effort was worth it.

Russia continues to seek a peaceful diplomatic settlement to all crises in the world yet the US/NATO in its self-appointed role as the world’s “interventionist” continues to seek only military solutions, even to the Ebola virus. This rampant militarism and the expansion of NATO as the Pentagon’s worldwide strike force are what can only be called “modern barbarism”. There can be no justification for aggressive war and the concept of “preventive” war is also illegitimate, therefore those who would wage such “endless wars” under any pretext can only be described as barbaric, and for the sake of all of us, they must be stopped.

• Sept. 23, 2014: Pravda Online (Sayeed Gafurov/Yuri Kondratyev): “ISIS Starts New Era in the History of Mankind” (Interview with the head of the Center for Strategic Studies “Russia – the Islamic World”, writer, and publicist, Shamil Sultanov) – One needn’t read too much between the lines to realize that there are obviously deep ties between ISIS and communism resp. ISIS and the still-intact USSR.

The head of the Center for Strategic Studies “Russia – the Islamic World”, writer and publicist Shamil Sultanov, spoke about the origins and organization of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in an interview with Pravda.Ru.

“How do you assess Obama’s program to use Air Force against the Islamist forces on the territories of Iraq and Syria?”

“I think that this is a very interesting and challenging turn in international politics. Barack Obama came to power against the backdrop of the breaking line of the previous course of the US administration in the Middle East. Now the Americans largely return to the ideology, the essence of which lies in the fact that Islamic fundamentalism is a universal threat, around which Iran, Arab and European countries, the United States and others must unite. The only difference is that instead of Al Qaeda the threat is the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.”

“US presidents are very dependent on their parties. Do you think that this step is connected with elections?”

“Yes. You are absolutely right. In November, a third of the Senate will be elected along with the whole House of Representatives and one-third of US governors. Many surveys suggest that Republicans may take control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Now they control the Congress. If they take over the Senate, then the remaining two years for Barack Obama, even in a personal sense, will turn into 24 months of quiet suffering, nightmares, political abuse, and so on. Naturally, he does not want this. He feels responsible to the party, to the forces that brought him to power.”

“I believe that the next president will be a Republican, a young, aggressive, and very rigidly opposed to Russia and the Islamic world. This will be the person who will have to challenge Putin. Obama was following recommendations. Back when he first became president, General Jones was appointed his national security adviser. I talked to him several times and concluded that Jones was simply recommended by certain people. And Obama could not refuse those recommendations.”

“It is America that destroyed all the worst enemies of fundamentalism. Colonel Gaddafi was opposed to fundamentalism, Saddam Hussein was a Baathist, who, despite playing with political Islam, was still strongly against radical Islam. Hosni Mubarak was an opponent of fundamentalism …”

“Fundamentalists strive to revive the Ummah – a human form, a phenomenon, a community, which, in their view, was lost. For them, it is important to return to the basic social form, the Ummah, rather than to a particular type of clothing, hairstyles, rituals, etc. Let’s look at current realities. ISIS leaders act by canons of Marxism. Ideology is a process to implement a common cause, which involves millions of people. This is not just a matter of class interests that some ideologues express. This is a mass movement of millions. They formulated the ideology and attracted people. The Islamic State serves as the common cause, which these fundamentalists speak of. They also say that this is the goal for all Muslims. They say to others – come here and build the state with us. Muslims from many countries of the world listen and go there together with their families, their children and they try to revive the Ummah.”

“Are there any people from Russia?”

“Yes, the Tatars and the Chechens. Tatarstan is a developed, rich republic, but people traveled to the north-western province of Pakistan, where they began to live by the laws of Islam. Why? One of the main contradictions of the modern world is that people lose the sense of the meaning in life. Many can only say that they live for the sake of children. Why do Muslims go there? A Muslim is convinced that the fate of his children and his own fate is predetermined by the will of God. He, unlike atheists, can not say “I live for the sake of children.” Good, satisfied life, oil and other benefits do not mean anything, when it turns out that the amount of money that you have in your pocket, does not define the meaning of your life. Money is a universal equivalent of material being. But at some point, people have to ask themselves – what is it all for?”

The problem is that our modern civilization is a civilization of zombies, a civilization of machines. Muslims and other believers feel this at a much greater extent than atheists. We are dominated by absolute automatism, the wish to copy everything. Young people copy so-called styles, fashions and so on, millionaires copy billionaires, everyone tries to copy everyone. This is universal automatism.”

“A human being, if he or she is a believer, an intellectual, has to learn their fate, because their destiny is a unique thing. Ghazali said that the number of ways to Allah equals the number of people. Every person has their own way.”

“I’m not defending fundamentalists, although I share some fundamental ideas. Saddam was an atheist. After Saddam lost in 2003, too many people took to the streets. Saddam had nine secret services – a huge number of qualified, highly intelligent professionals. They say that ISIS consists of fundamentalists, supporters of al-Qaeda and so on. ISIS was created by employees of Saddam’s secret services. They became disillusioned in their atheism and turned to Islam. The basic designers, creators of the organizational system of the Islamic State were employees of Saddam’s party intelligence that was controlling everyone. Then they took part in the fight against the Shiite government of al-Maliki, because they viewed his government as a puppet one.”

“When the uprising against Assad began in Syria, those guys thought that it was time to join in and solve the classic problem between Baghdad and Damascus. This is how they found themselves in Syria. Now they control approximately 30 percent of the Syrian territory.”

In ISIS, I see actions of very clever strategists of Saddam’s security forces. In contrast to what is happening in Libya, Mali or Niger, they establish relations with the underground Baath party in Iraq. They interact with the Sufis. In Iraq, there is the Naqshbandi army, the largest Sufi order. Thanks to ISIS, the relationship grows stronger. ISIS finances certain military operations.”

“And what about Christians? They kick them out. Christians, under Sharia, have a full set of rights and guarantees. Yet, in ISIS, they lose all those rights.”

“This is how it works. People come and attempt to establish a new ideology, a new form of state. They have a certain model, three options for Christians. The first one – Christians retain their independence and remain Christians. They only pay a special tax. In Ummah, everything is built on principles of justice. This tax exempts Christians from a variety of other taxes. For example, a Christian pays this tax, but does not pay other taxes that every Muslim pays. The second option – they convert to Islam. The third option – if you do not want to accept anything of the above, you can leave.”

“The Islamic State is a very complex phenomenon. There were intelligence services from at least four other countries: Syria, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States that took part in its creation. They needed this organization because al-Maliki started acting stubbornly after the April elections. The Islamic State went on the offensive, Mosul was captured, Iraqi troops fled. Baghdad was surrounded, a terrible blow was struck on al-Maliki, and three weeks later he resigned.”

“Is al-Maliki an enemy of the United States?”

“Al-Maliki is a protege, a puppet of the United States. Sometimes, though, a puppet may start wagging its master. We know this by the example of Hamid Karzai. Further, various relationships may develop. Sunni tribes of Iraq support ISIS. The main point is that there is an underlying movement, which already has tens or hundreds of thousands of people. And they will act. The Americans may create a coalition of 15-20 countries and they will defeat them, albeit temporarily.”

“As a result of air strikes, it is impossible to win absolute victory. They will go up to the mountains, and a long guerrilla war will start. The idea has been planted. This is the idea to ​​return to the Islamic State, the Caliphate, which carries a certain meaning, which the modern world does not have. About 1.5-2 years ago, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant had the population of 10-12 thousand people. Today, this is a 80-85 thousand-strong organization. They have the world’s best infantry and best weapons. All secular regimes in the Middle East – from Algeria to Saudi Arabia – tremble with fear.

“Is it a good thing?”

Yes, it is, because the time of world revolution is drawing near. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates call themselves the Islamic State, but then suddenly a fundamentalist Islamic State appears that is directed primarily against them. ISIS has about 10,000 Saudis – they are fundamentalist jihadists from Saudi Arabia. They already say that their prime goal is to topple the rotten and corrupt regime in Saudi Arabia.”

“Ultimately, we are entering a very interesting period. This is not a geopolitical or a global economic period – this is an ideological period. Once again, we are entering the period of ideological wars. Religious wars are one of the most acute forms of ideological war. Ideological wars always last till the end.

• Sept. 24, 2014: Pravda Online: “Ukraine May Soon Produce Three New Chernobyl Disasters with USA’s Help” – It is more than doubtful, as claimed by Pravda online, that the nuclear fuel rods Ukraine now receives from Westinghouse represent a “security risk.” Here is a Financial Times article that deals with the issue. (By the way, the initial Chernobyl disaster of 1986 was very much “produced” by the Soviet Union and was most likely not even an accident, but a deliberately contrived event meant to enable a large-scale, real-life nuclear-war exercise and at the same time scare the hell out of the West Europeans over their own nuclear power plants so that they would shift to Russian gas instead – which duly happened…) 

“Ukraine allowed the shipments of modernized nuclear fuel made by US-based company Westinghouse to nuclear power plants of the country, first deputy chairman of the State Nuclear Regulatory Inspectorate of Ukraine,” Mikhail Gashev said.

According to ITAR-TASS, the official signed three key documents on September 17: the positive expertise on modernized fuel made by Westinghouse, expert conclusion and permission to import Westinghouse’s modernized fuel to Ukraine.

According to experts’ estimates, the use of US-made fuel at Ukrainian nuclear power plants that were built on the Soviet model, may lead to nuclear accidents.

Russian nuclear scientists warn that the use of US-made fuel blocks at Ukrainian nuclear power plants may lead to new “Chernobyls.”

“Replacing Russian nuclear fuel with American fuel is an explosive idea of Ukraine’s leadership. Europe may face three new Chernobyl disasters,” Professor at the Northern (Arctic) Federal University named after Lomonosov, Vladimir Kuznetsov said.

• Sept. 24, 2014: Pravda Online (Dmitry Sudakov): “Sanctions? Don’t Make My Iskanders Laugh” – As one can see, the Anti-American propaganda is in full gear.

In Moscow, anyone can now express their indignation over the actions of the West by wearing a designer T-shirt with a patriotic print. In the center of Moscow, near the monument to Alexander Pushkin, a project was launched to exchange T-shirts with foreign symbols for T-shirts with patriotic slogans. One can exchange their shirts free of charge.

Right opposite the monument to the great poet, a variety of T-shirts is displayed on a table with a samovar on top. On the shirts, one can see mischievous inscriptions and meaningful prints: “Sanctions? Don’t make my Iskanders laugh.” On the shirt, there is an image of Iskander missile systems and the text of the Russian national anthem against the background of St. Basil’s Cathedral.

Designer Anastasia Zadorina said that her company produced 30,000 such T-shirts: “All of them are fashionable, nice and fun. ‘Trendy answer – no to sanctions’ – this is how our action is called,” she said.

The action attracts public attention. Men exchange their shirts right in the street. Writer Oleg Roy chose a shirt with the image of a pioneer tie around the collar and slogan “We have our own fun without your Coca-Cola.”

Actress Olga Kabo wore a T-shirt saying “Topol is not afraid of sanctions” with an image of the renowned mobile strategic complex. The actress is certain that Russia is going in the right direction. “We will win because we are big and strong.” The actress hopes that international confrontation will end soon. “Two such creative countries as Russia and Ukraine must be together,” she said.

An organizer of the action said that the point of the action was to show the whole world that Russia was not afraid of sanctions. Organizers are ready to give away T-shirts without asking anything in return, so that people can express their patriotic position. As for the fate of the T-shirts with foreign symbols on them, designers will utilize them and possibly create an art object, vesti.ru reports.

The action is sponsored by two Russian companies. The bus of the action will move from one place to another in Moscow. The event will last for two weeks in Moscow, and the bus will set off for a journey across Russian regions, including the Crimea. A special part of the action will be conducted on September 29 at Moscow’s Vnukovo Airport, where patriotic T-shirts will be handed out to passengers.

• Sept. 25, 2014: Pravda Online (Paul Craig Roberts): “Washington’s War Against Russia” – This article shows very clearly that the goal is to break up NATO and to drive Europe away from the United States right into Moscow’s arms, if not immediate preparation for large-scale war anyway. 

The new sanctions against Russia announced by Washington and Europe do not make sense as merely economic measures. I would be surprised if Russian oil and military industries were dependent on European capital markets in a meaningful way. Such a dependence would indicate a failure in Russian strategic thinking. The Russian companies should be able to secure adequate financing from Russian Banks or from the Russian government. If foreign loans are needed, Russia can borrow from China.

If critical Russian industries are dependent on European capital markets, the sanctions will help Russia by forcing an end to this debilitating dependence. Russia should not be dependent on the West in any way.

The real question is the purpose of the sanctions. My conclusion is that the purpose of the sanctions is to break up and undermine Europe’s economic and political relations with Russia. When international relations are intentionally undermined, war can be the result. Washington will continue to push sanctions against Russia until Russia shows Europe that there is a heavy cost of serving as Washington’s tool.

Russia needs to break up this process of ever more sanctions in order to derail the drive toward war. In my opinion this is easy for Russia to do. Russia can tell Europe that since you do not like our oil companies, you must not like our gas company, so we are turning off the gas. Or Russia can tell Europe, we don’t sell natural gas to NATO members, or Russia can say we will continue to sell you gas, but you must pay in rubles, not in dollars. This would have the additional benefit of increasing the demand for rubles in exchange markets, thus making it harder for speculators and the US government to drive down the ruble.

The real danger to Russia is a continuation of its low-key, moderate response to the sanctions. This is a response that encourages more sanctions. To stop the sanctions, Russia needs to show Europe that the sanctions have serious costs for Europe.

A Russian response to Washington would be to stop selling to the US the Russian rocket engines on which the US satellite program is dependent. This could leave the US without rockets for its satellites for six years between the period 2016 and 2022.

Possibly the Russian government is worried about losing the earnings from gas and rocket engine sales. However, Europe cannot do without the gas and would quickly abandon its participation in the sanctions, so no gas revenues would be lost. The Americans are going to develop their own rocket engine anyhow, so the Russian sales of rocket engines to the US have at most about 6 more years. But the US with an impaired satellite program for six years would mean a great relief to the entire world from the American spy program. It would also make difficult US military aggression against Russia during the period.

Russian President Putin and his government have been very low-key and unprovocative in responding to the sanctions and to the trouble that Washington continues to cause for Russia in Ukraine. The low-key Russian behavior can be understood as a strategy for undermining Washington’s use of Europe against Russia by presenting a non-threatening face to Europe. However, another explanation is the presence inside Russia of a fifth column that represents Washington’s interest and constrains the power of the Russian government.

Strelkov describes the American fifth column here: http://slavyangrad.org/2014/09/12/we-will-not-allow-for-russia-to-be-ripped-asunder-and-ruined/

Saker describes the two power groups inside Russia as the Eurasian Sovereignists who stand behind Putin and an independent Russia and the Atlantic Integrationists, the fifth column that works to incorporate Russia in Europe under US hegemony or, failing that, to help Washington break up the Russian Federation into several weaker countries that are too weak to constrain Washington’s use of power. http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com.br/2014/09/strelkov-from-swimming-with-piranhas-to.html

Russia’s Atlantic Integrationists share the Brzezinski and Wolfowitz doctrines with Washington. These doctrines are the basis for US foreign policy. The doctrines define the goal of US foreign policy in terms of preventing the rise of other countries, such as Russia and China, that could limit Washington’s hegemony.

Washington is in a position to exploit the tensions between these two Russian power groups. Washington’s fifth column is not best positioned to prevail. However, Washington can at least count on the struggle causing dissent within the Eurasian Sovereignists over Putin’s low-key response to Western provocations. Some of this dissent can be seen in Strelkov’s defense of Russia and more can be seen here: http://slavyangrad.org/2014/09/13/the-new-round-of-sanctions-the-pre-war-period/#more-3665

Russia, thinking the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, opened herself to the West. Russian governments trusted the West, and as a result of Russia’s gullibility, the West was able to purchase numerous allies among the Russian elites. Depending on the alignment of the media, these compromised elites are capable of assassinating Putin and attempting a coup.

One would think that by now Putin’s government would recognize the danger and arrest the main elements of the fifth column, followed by trial and execution for treason, in order that Russia can stand united against the Western Threat. If Putin does not take this step, it means either than Putin does not recognize the extent of the threat or that his government lacks the power to protect Russia from the internal threat.

It is clear that Putin has not achieved any respite for his government from the West’s propaganda and economic assault by refusing to defend the Donbass area from Ukrainian attack and by pressuring the Donetsk Republic into a ceasefire when its military forces were on the verge of a major defeat of the disintegrating Ukrainian army. All Putin has achieved is to open himself to criticism among his supporters for betraying the Russians in eastern and southern Ukraine.

The European politicians and elites are so deeply in Washington’s pocket that Putin has little chance of courting Europe with a Russian show of good will. I have never believed that this strategy could work, although I would be pleased if it did. Only a direct threat todeprive Europe of energy has a chance of producing within Europe a foreign policy independent of Washington. I do not think Europe can survive a cutoff of the Russian natural gas. Europe would abandon sanctions in order to guarantee the flow of gas. If Washington’s hold on Europe is so powerful that Europe is willing to endure a major disruption of its energy supply as the price of its vassalage, Russia will know to cease its futile attempts at diplomacy and to prepare for war.

If China sits on the sidelines, China will be the next isolated target and will receive the same treatment.

Washington intends to defeat both countries, either through internal dissent or through war.

Nothing said by Obama or any member of his government or any influential voice in Congress has signaled any pullback in Washington’s drive for hegemony over the world.

The US economy is now dependent on looting and plunder, and Washington’s hegemony is essential to this corrupted form of capitalism.

• Sept. 26, 2014: Pravda Online: “Russia Readies to Arrest Foreign Property and Revise WTO Membership Terms” – This piece is very enlightenening (and alarming) as it seems to foreshadow the final end to all Western investments in Russia (and probably beyond), akin to what happened in 1929 when Stalin, after eight years of brilliant NEP deception, brought the fake liberalisation to an abrupt halt and confiscated all foreign property. (In contrast, the current Western sanctions, mainly aimed at inidividual Russian “oligarchs”, have only brought about a freeze of these assets, and not their confiscation!)

The Russian authorities develop a legal base to be able to arrest property of foreign states and entities and receive compensations for seized property of Russian citizens on the territory of foreign states.

Deputies of the State Duma received bill №607554-6, which stipulated amendments to the federal law “On compensations for the violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time.” […]

• Sept. 29, 2014: Pravda Online: “Russian FM Lavrov Blames the West for Global Chaos” 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, speaking at the 69th UN General Assembly on Saturday, September 27, cracked down on the United States for its foreign policy and spoke very strongly about the actions of the Ukrainian authorities in connection with the events in the Donbass.

In particular, the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry stated that the Western alliance led by the United States was acting on the international arena contrary to the principle of sovereign equality of all member states of the UN.

“Contradiction between the need for collective action in the interests of elaborating appropriate responses to common challenges and the wish of a number of states to dominate and revive the archaic bloc-like thinking based on the barrack discipline and flawed ‘friend or foe’ logic has been manifesting itself stronger and stronger. The Western alliance led by the United States, while advocating democracy, the rule of law and human rights in individual countries, acts with directly opposite positions on the international arena, rejecting the democratic principle of the UN Charter for sovereign equality of states and trying to decide for all what is good, and what is evil,” said Lavrov.

According to him, many actions of the West in international politics are motivated by the wish to create chaos in the world. “Highly powerful blows have been struck on the stability of the international system: the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, the invasion of Iraq, the attack on Libya, the failure in Afghanistan. It was only intensive diplomatic efforts that prevented the aggression against Syria in 2013. Involuntarily, it brings up an impression that the only purpose of various ‘color revolutions’ and other projects to change undesirable regimes is to provoke chaos and instability.”

“Washington has openly declared its right to use military force unilaterally and anywhere – to defend its own interests. Military intervention has become a norm, even though all military operations that the United States has conducted during the recent years, ended deplorably,” Lavrov said, Interfax reports.

“Today, Ukraine has become a victim of such arrogant policy. The state of affairs in the country bared deep, systemic flaws in the existing architecture of the Euro-Atlantic alliance,” the Russian minister said.

“The West aims to vertically structure mankind to its own standards that are far from being harmless. Having proclaimed victory in the ‘cold war’ and ‘the end of history,’ the United States and the EU are committed to expanding their geopolitical space, without taking account of the balance of legitimate interests of all peoples of Europe,” said Lavrov.

“Western partners ignored many of our warnings about the inadmissibility of violating the principles of the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act. They repeatedly evaded serious work together to create common space of equal and indivisible security and cooperation in the area from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Russia’s proposal to develop the European Security Treaty was rejected,” he said.

Lavrov also commented on the deterioration of relations between Russia and NATO.

NATO’s instant switch to hostile rhetoric, to curtailing cooperation with Russia, even to the detriment of interests of the West, to building up military infrastructure at the Russian border has exposed the incapability of the alliance to change its genetic code that had been programmed during the ‘Cold War’ era,” he said.

The Russian Foreign Minister called for the UN to proclaim, in a special declaration, the principle of non-interference in the affairs of sovereign states and non-recognition of coup d’etat as a method of change of power.

Why not adopting a declaration of the General Assembly about non-interference in internal affairs of sovereign states, about non-recognition of coup d’etat as a method of change of power? It’s about time one should completely exclude attempts of illegal pressure of one state on another in the field of international communication. The pointless and counterproductive nature of unilateral sanctions became evident on the example of the American embargo against Cuba,” Lavrov said.

“The struggle against terrorists in Syria must be conducted only in cooperation with the government of the Arab republic,” Lavrov said.

“The struggle against terrorists on the territory of Syria must be built in cooperation with the Syrian government that clearly stated its readiness for it,” said the Russian minister.

He noted that a key challenge of the world community was “solid opposition to the terrorists, who are trying to gain control of increasingly vast areas in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan.”

“This objective can not be sacrificed to ideological schemes or an aspiration to settle personal scores. Terrorists, whatever slogans they use to cover themselves up, must remain outside the law,” said the minister.

“The threat of terrorism requires a comprehensive approach, if we want to eradicate its causes, rather than be doomed to reacting to symptoms. ISIS is only a part of the problem,” said the Minister.

“We offer, under the auspices of the UN Security Council, to arrange an in-depth study of the threats of extremism and terrorism in the Middle East and Central Asia in their entirety. A comprehensive approach involves the consideration of long-standing conflicts and above all – the Arab-Israeli conflict,” Lavrov said.

The Minister noted that the unresolved Palestinian issue remains one of the main factors of instability in the region for decades, helping extremists recruit more and more new jihadists, said the Minister.

“The perpetrators of all crimes in Ukraine must be identified and brought to justice, otherwise it is difficult to rely on reconciliation,” Lavrov said, speaking at the 69th session of the UN General Assembly.

“Attempts to distort the truth, hide facts behind the unfounded allegations were made at all stages of the Ukrainian crisis,” said the Minister.

“Nothing is being done to identify and punish those responsible for the bloody events on the Maidan in February, for massive killings in Odessa, Mariupol and other regions of Ukraine,” Lavrov said. “The extent of the terrible humanitarian disaster caused by the actions of the Ukrainian army in the south-east of the country is being diminished deliberately. New horrifying facts have been recently revealed, when mass graves near Donetsk were discovered. Contrary to Resolution 2166 of the UN Security Council, independent investigation into the collapse of the Malaysian airliner over Ukraine is being protracted. The perpetrators of all these crimes must be identified and brought to justice, otherwise it is difficult to rely on national reconciliation in Ukraine.”

Lavrov said that Russia was interested in restoring peace in Ukraine. The minister believes that a military solution can not resolve the conflict.

“We are convinced that with goodwill and refusal to support the ‘party of war’ in Kiev that tries to push the Ukrainian people into the abyss of a national catastrophe, a way out of the crisis is within reach,” said Lavrov.

According to him, “a way to the political settlement is known: in April, the Kiev authorities undertook to immediately start a national dialogue involving all regions and political forces in Ukraine to implement the constitutional reform.”

“Implementing this commitment would let all Ukrainians agree on how to live in accordance with their traditions and culture. It would let Ukraine return to its role of a link between different parts of European space, which, of course, implies the preservation and respect for its non-aligned neutral status by all,” said the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry.

Lavrov also said that the choice of the Crimean population in favor of self-determination was absolutely free. “The United States and the European Union supported the coup in Ukraine, started to blindly justify any act of the self-proclaimed Kiev authorities to violently suppress the part of the Ukrainian people, who rejected attempts to impose anti-constitutional orders and wanted to defend rights for their native language, culture and history,” noted the minister.

“It was an aggressive attack on the rights that pushed those living in the Crimea to take their destiny into their own hands and make a choice in favor of self-determination,” Lavrov said. “It was a completely free choice, whatever those primarily responsible for the internal conflict in Ukraine may invent.”

“Russia is ready to find a compromise in the resolution of any complex problem in an equal conversation,” Lavrov said.

“We have always been and will be open to discuss most difficult questions, no matter how insolvable they may seem at first,” said the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry.

“One needs to be honest: no one has a monopoly on truth, and no one is capable of adjusting global and regional processes to their needs,” said the minister.

On Saturday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to discuss the situation in Ukraine and the deteriorating situation in Iraq and Syria in connection with the growth of the terrorist threat of the Islamic State group, ITAR-TASS reports.

“Sergei Lavrov stressed out the need for unconditional and full implementation of the whole complex of agreements reached by the tripartite Contact Group in Minsk on September 5. The UN Secretary-General reiterated the readiness of contribute to the regulation of the Ukrainian crisis,” officials at the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

In turn, Ban Ki-moon called on Moscow to ensure sustainable cease-fire regime in the east of Ukraine, as well as strengthen cooperation with partners on the Syrian issue.

• Oct. 24, 2014: At the annual several-day “discussion forum” – read: Soviet propaganda event – called Valdai Discussion Club, held this year in Sochi, Russia, the final panel discussion featured Russian President Vladimir Putin, former French Foreign Minister and Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, and former Austrian Chancellor, Wolfgang Schüssel. Schüssel (speaking in the video from 1:00:35 till 1:14:13), stressed the need for international diplomacy in the Ukraine crisis and made i.a. the following naïve remarks,

I’m a born optimist, I tell you frankly. A pessimist has a harder life and de facto not really a good life. An optimist has always the hope that something can be better […],

even daring to school the Russian bear later in his 14-minute improvised speech, which visibly caused great amazement in the audience mainly made up of the usual stone-faced KGB types, as if they were saying to themselves: This political nobody wants to challenge us?

If diplomacy and political means are not successful, then you have either sanctions, economic sanctions, or – even worse – military actions. So it’s better to have economic sanctions than military actions between us.


Yet, in his insidious – and threatening – reply, agent of the world revolution Vladimir Putin just scoffed at Mr. Schüssel’s typically bourgeois prejudice of civilised consensus politics:

First of all I’d like to say that I generally agree with what Wolfgang has just said and with what Dominique said. I fully side with them, on everything. But I would like to clarify a few things. Dominique has described the Ukrainian crisis as the reason for the deterioration of international relations that we are seeing. But the crisis in Ukraine, while it has contributed to that trend, it was not initial reason. It was itself a result of this disbalance in international relations in the global architecture. As for the reasons of that, our colleagues have spoken about that at length, but I do see this disbalance in international relations as the main, the prime reason for these developments. We will talk about elections, or energy supplies, to Ukraine and to Europe, if you wish, we will discuss all that lateron. But first I would like to react to Wolfgang’s words that he is an optimist: Some people are also pessimists. I’ve already told you this old joke, it’s a bit harsh, but I still want to tell you: There is this joke about a pessimist and an optimist: A pessimist drinks some cognac and says, “Hmm, it smells like a cockroach,” and an optimist catches a cockroach and says, “Hmm, smells like brandy.” I would prefer to be a pessimist drinking brandy than an optimist smelling cockroaches – even though, of course, optimists say they usually have a better time in life. […]

Finally, during the Soviet-style Q&A session, Putin at some point in his monologues (1:24:24) issued the following grim warning towards the United States:

[…] And I keep thinking back to what people used to say about that in ancient times, if you remember this aphorism: “What Jupiter is entitled to do, an ox is not.” But we cannot agree to that. We cannot agree to those rules, and an ox might not be entitled to something like that, BUT LET ME TELL YOU: THE BEAR IS NOT ASKING ANYONE FOR PERMISSION! […]
In other words, Russia, i.e. the Soviet Union, – backed by its overwhelming military and political might and ready for World October – intends to do whatever it wants, and it will! 



It’s more than evident the world has reached on the brink of WWIII. Greatly emboldened by the fact that the once-great United States is under the control of one of them (not to speak of the current “leadership” in Germany and the EU), the Soviet strategists have unleashed a degree of anti-American, anti-Western, and overall anti-capitalist propaganda that even surpasses the usual communist propaganda of the official Soviet days of old. No doubt Moscow (along with Beijing) is seeking war, as war might be needed to establish a “new era” of all-unified world communism (and we shouldn’t rule out the possibility that the crisis in Ukraine could be a staged event, a provocation, a construed internal crisis within the “former” Soviet Union, a cloak under which they might be mobilising large numbers of military in preparation for war against Western Europe).

The communists won’t care how many millions, or billions, will get killed in their upcoming “World October”. Communism has sufficiently proved, and even admitted, ever since 1917, that it views mass killings on whatever numerical scale as a mere statistical matter. Moral, to them, is what serves the revolution, period. The ruthlessness of this deadly ideology, this anti-religion, that in itself is so religiously fanatical that it stubbornly refuses to acknowledge all the failures, all the sufferings, all the deaths it has brought upon mankind, represents a distinctly new phenomenon in world history. If they deemed it preferable – say, their monstrous project of Heaven on Earth finally fails – to wipe out all of mankind instead, or to destroy the whole planet (if that were technically possible), they would do it, without batting an eye.





Compiled by the Contemplative Observer




Conchita Wurst and His Following: A Glimpse into the Mindset of the Homosexualist Movement


Bearded homosexual transvestite Thomas Neuwirth, better known under his alias “Conchita Wurst”, who won for Austria on May 10, 2014 that year’s Eurovision Song Contest in Copenhagen, Denmark with his revolutionary battle song, “Rise like a Phoenix!” Isn’ this a thinly veiled inverted Christ?


Although the homosexualist movement (yes, it’s an -ism!) already has a decade-long history widely portrayed regarding its nature, psychology, as well as aims, a veritable groundbreaking event that occurred just recently necessitates yet another look at this, call it: collective monstrosity in the making.

That groundbreaking event was this year’s Eurovision Song Contest, which is otherwise a completely meaningless annual pop-music competition meant to propagate resp. celebrate, ever since its inception in 1956: “European unity”.



The 1950s were the period in which the groundwork of today’s European Union was laid. First, in 1949, the Council of Europe was established, which has continued till today, and is no EU entity in the strict sense of the word, but more of a “ceremonial” institution promoting exchange in a general sense, and, beside economic progress, also “social progress”. After the horrible experience of World War II, this Council of Europe was greatly envisioned by both Britain and the United States to be a means to bring about a somewhat united, peaceful  (and definitely non-communist) Europe. And so, this institution remained until 1990 a strictly Western European club, apart from NATO country Turkey, which had been a member ever since 1949. By 1977, all Western European states had joined (except the four littlle principalities of Liechtenstein, San Marino, Andorra, and Monaco, that were to follow later). 1989 marked the entry of Finland, the only Scandinavian country closely aligned – largely against its own will – to Moscow. Which was already the harbinger for everything else to follow. As, in 1990, the first two communist satellites – brandnew democratic, so it seemed – joined the Council: the GDR via German reunification, and Hungary. And so it went on, with the gradual entry of ALL “former” communist East European satellite states, and even of the whole of the “former” USSR except for “international pariah” Belarus and the five Central Asian Soviet republics. A formerly Western diplomatic institution was “peacefully” entered by the communist enemy, simply by posing as “no-longer-communist”!

Later, in 1951, the European Community for Coal and Steel was founded. This was already the later-to-be European Union in its embryonic stage, the driving forces being no longer Britain or the U.S., but Germany and France, combining along with Italy and the Benelux-countries their economic forces and taking the post-war rebuilding into their own hands, which so far had been chiefly enabled by the U.S. Marshall Plan. With the “Wirtschaftswunder” having made enormous progress, 1957 was the year when the famous Treaty of Rome was signed, which marked the beginning of the then-so-called European Economic Community (according to the late British analyst, Christopher Story, all this was little more than the continuation of pan-German longterm geopolitics by other means, with Chancellor Adenauer, famously apostrophised as the “Old Fox”, implementing peacefully what Nazi Germany had failed to accomplish by military conquest). 1958-founded Euratom, the European Atomic Energy Community, complemented these efforts, as it opened up for joined planning in nuclear energy policies. With the Treaty of Maastricht then, the EC became an EU in 1992, and in 1995 three new member states joined, the “neutrals”, Sweden, Finland, and Austria. At the same time, the preparations and negotiations were in full swing for an eventual grand eastward-enlargement deep into the “formerly” communist sphere of Eastern Europe (as a matter of fact, during the 1980s, the European Community had been quietly redirected from being a Franco-German-dominated Western-European project to becoming a so-called “transmission belt” for Moscow’s expansionist objectives.) And so it was on May 1, 2004 (International Workers’ Day; what insidious choreography!) that the European Union of 15 member states was enlarged by another 10 countries, namely Malta and Cyprus, but then also 8 “former” communist states: the “former” Soviet republics Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia (i.e. the Baltic states); Poland; former Czechoslovakia split in two as Czechia and Slovakia; Hungary; and former-Yugoslav Slovenia (four, later-to-be five, more “ex-Yugoslavias” still being waiting-listed). These 8 new communist members were followed in 2007 by Romania and Bulgaria (which of course became members by January 1 of that year, not on May 1; the symbolism had been useful only ONCE). With the beginning of 2013, Croatia entered the EU as member state no. 28. What hasn’t yet joined (and will most likely never join, given the current developments that increasingly look like immediate WWIII preparations), is the four ex-Yugoslav states of Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, and Montenegro; further, Albania; and of course the Soviet Union proper (minus the Baltics), now posing as the “independent” successor states: Moldova; Ukraine; Belarus; Russia; Georgia; Armenia; Azerbaijan; and the central-Asian republics of Kazakhstan; Turkmenistan; Uzbekistan; Tajikistan; and Kirgiztan (which mirrors Lenin’s deceptive principle of “Separation Precedes Federation”, as the end goal of this is certainly the termination of the individual Western European nation state and the creation of a joint communist Eurasian bloc from the Atlantic to Vladivostok, and finally a Communist World Federation). By now, if one takes the pre-1989/91 borders, former Western Europe has most suicidally taken in six out of seven official East European communist satellites (the GDR; Poland; the ČSSR; Hungary; Romania; and Bulgaria; what’s missing is only Albania); plus roughly a quarter of formally bloc-free socialist Yugoslavia (Slovenia and Croatia); plus three Soviet republics (the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania). Thus, a formerly non-communist Western Europe, mostly part of the NATO alliance, had been gradually turned away from the United States and towards a supposedly “post-Soviet” Russia. No doubt the day of reckoning will be bitter once the West-Europeans realise that their ‘glorious’ eastward-enlargement was in fact a Soviet westward-enlargement threatening to swallow every bit of Western Europe, including private property, self-determination, freedom, dignity, and – in many cases, we should expect – the very right to physical existence. They will be enslaved, just as all the other nations worldwide taken over by communism ever since 1917. – Below: Brussels. To the right: the Royal Museums with the Triumphal Arch and the Cinquantenaire Park. In the upper left-hand corner: the European Quarter, with the EU’s power centre, the Berlaymont Building (named after an Augustinian nun convent that once had been situated on this estate), seat of the European Commission and working place for some 2,700 Eurocrats (it opened in 1967, but was again vacated from 1991 till 2004 because of asbestos removal works and overall renovation): clearly, it’s got the layout of a bent (or, broken) cross, an old Satanic symbol, used by the occult underground in pre-medieval and medieval times, revived by Pope Paul VI, and in no way abandoned by any of his successors to this day. – As we look on the photographs below: is this strange architectural design simply coincidence? (Click to enlarge!) 

 EU-Kommission, Brüssel

 Berlaymont Building


In the same manner, also the Eurovision Song Contest, initially founded in 1956 as ‘Grand Prix Eurovision de la Chanson Européenne’, has been slowly turned, during the last 20 years, into an ever-more communist-dominated ‘transmission belt’, welcoming not only new countries well before they actually joined the European Union, but even two thirds of the “former” Soviet Union proper (i.e. all Cis-Ural republics as opposed to the five in Central Asia). Long before the alleged ‘changes’ of 1989, ‘bloc-free’ Titoist Yugoslavia and Soviet-controlled Finland first participated as early as 1961. (Still-Kemalist, but also Islamic, Turkey first joined in 1975, suggesting a slow re-definition of ‘Europe’). But, finally, not long after the staged fake “collapse” of communism in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union in 1989/91, also the Eurovision Song Contest became literally invaded by all those communist countries, that had allegedly transformed overnight into ‘respectable democracies’ and ‘free market economies’ (with basically the same personnel in charge as before, with central economic planning continuing, with no substantial break with the communist past at all, and with their populations remaining as envious and hostile towards the West as ever). The first “post-communist” states to participate in the Eurovision Song Contest were Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and the “former” ESTONIAN SSR in 1993 (note that all these countries didn’t join the European Union before 2004). In 1994 followed the “former” LITHUANIAN SSR, the “former” RUSSIAN SFSR, and Poland. In 2001, the “former” LATVIAN SSR. In 2003, the “former” UKRAINIAN SSR. In 2004, even the “former” BELORUSSIAN SSR, and “once”-paleo-communist Albania. In 2005, Bulgaria and the “former” MOLDAVIAN SSR. In 2006, the “former” ARMENIAN SSR. In 2007, Czechia and the GEORGIAN SSR. And in 2008, the AZERI SSR (which is, by its pre-communist history, yet another Islamic country). So, the Eurovision Song Contest no longer is held among non-communist nations, neither is it held among (once-)Christian nations. ‘Europe’ is now an all-inclusive and all-encompassing entity, readily embracing the aggressive and hostile revolutionary movements, so to speak, of communism and Islam. Although the communists had already been increasingly part of the Eurovision Contest from 1993, it wasn’t until 2001 that one of them (the post-Yugoslavias aside), namely Estonia, won the Contest. After this first victory, the communist countries have been winning the Eurovision Song Contests at an amazingly accelerating rate – which wasn’t too difficult for them, simply because by their breaking up their former unions they had multiplied their number from 9 to 28 (!), the “former” USSR (15), the “former” satellites (minus East Germany, but plus the ČSSR divided into Czechia and Slovakia, so again: 7), and the successor states of “former” socialist Yugoslavia (6). If one even counts reunified Germany (which hasn’t wiped out the old communist GDR, but merely embraced it and adopted its socialism for the whole of Germany) as a socialist country, they are 29. Add socialistic Austria, and they are 30. Add the four socialist Scandinavian countries, and they are 34. Subtract the 5 Central Asian Soviet republics, and they’re still 29! Interestingly, at the same time, classic Western European countries who had previously won the Song Contest quite often (and of which leftist Sweden is NOT a part) – such as Ireland, the U.K., France, Luxemburg, or the Netherlands – have no longer come out as winner since at least the 1990s: Ireland (7 wins in total) last won the Contest in 1996, 18 long years ago! The U.K. (5 wins), in 1997. France, the homeland of the original “chanson” (5 wins), in 1977 (!). Luxemburg (5 wins), in 1983. And the Netherlands (4 wins), in 1975, almost 40 years ago! Clearly, there is a pattern here! Back to the communist countries: They already won their next Eurovision Song Contest in 2002, which was Latvia. In 2004 followed Ukraine. In 2007, Serbia. In 2008, Russia (!). And in 2011, Azerbaijan. (One should add that the Contest is always hosted by the country that had won in the previous year.) What is so significant, also, about these sudden communist-hosted Eurovision Song Contests, is the fact that right with their first own Contest, which was held in 2002 in the Estonian capital of Tallinn, a new custom appears to have been adopted: From that year of 2002 on, each Song Contest was now presented under a particular maxim, which had never been the case in the first 46 years of this annual event. As one goes through the maxims used in those 13 Song Contests starting with 2002, one can immediately see that most, if not all of them are communist-collectivist paroles (some even in the form of commands, and those that sound fairly innocent too seem to contain some insidious double meaning), in other words: the Eurovision Song Contest has been utilised by communism. Here are those 13 maxims (as they are partly in use also with the UN), given along with the host city & country in that particular year: 2002, Tallinn, Estonia: “Rendezvous: A Modern Fairytale”. 2003: Riga, Latvia:”Magical”. 2004: Istanbul, Turkey: “Under the Same Sky”. 2005: Kiev, Ukraine: “Awakening”. 2006: Athens, Greece: “Feel the Rhythm!” 2007: Helsinki, Finland: “True Fantasy” (sic!). 2008: Belgrade, Serbia: “Confluence of Sound”. 2009: Moscow, Russian Federation: “Firebird”. 2010: Oslo, Norway: “Share the Moment!”. 2011: Düsseldorf, Germany: “Feel Your Heartbeat!” 2012: Baku, Azerbaijan: “Light Your Fire!” 2013: Malmö, Sweden: “WE ARE ONE”. 2014: Copenhagen, Denmark: “JOIN US!” (the latter, in retrospect, appearing like an invitation to join the homosexuals and transvestites, as indeed a representative of that movement won). As for the coming 2015 Eurovision Song Contest, which will be hosted by Austria (as Austria won this year), the motto could easily be, “We Are Unstoppable!” (to be explained later).



Eurovision 2014 logo 

Well, what precisely happened on May 10, 2014, in Copenhagen, Denmark, and why should this event be viewed as groundbreaking?  The fact that a transvestite won wasn’t new. Already at the 1998 Song Contest at Birmingham, England, a male-born, “surgically reassigned” transsexual had won the Contest for Israel, which already then triggered hefty discussions. As for the song that won this year, one couldn’t even say that it was unique (nor justifies the singer’s mediocre voice, that is most recognisably a man’s voice, such hysterical outbreaks). The piece seemed rather to be a poor imitation of James Bond theme-songs, painfully lacking their uniqueness in class and style.ll


The English lyrics of the song weren’t so breathtaking either. “Rise like a Phoenix” (studio version here; live version from Copenhagen here) seems to describe the genesis of a homosexual outcast, complete with his identity problems, and his seeking of “retribution, rather than vengeance”. But there are also the disturbing lines, “You were warned / Once I’m transformed / Once I’m reborn / You know I will rise like a Phoenix / But you’re my flame.” These are threatening, terrorising words, that could equally be spoken by a communist madman announcing he’s going to set the whole world on fire by triggering a thermonuclear holocaust. At the same time, these words fit the ‘transformation’ and ‘rebirth’ that’s taken place in the communist bloc, which during the passed 20, 25 years seemingly abolished its communism only to come out on top now, bullying, threatening, and blackmailing an incredibly weakened West like never before. Ironically, the still-communist sphere was rejecting this performance on the grounds of their alleged rejection of homosexuality and perversion (never mind that they are at the same time the world’s No. 1 exporter of porn, but also of prostitutes, and pedophilia; so, their sudden Re-Christianisation is a ruse, comparable to what Stalin did during WWII in an attempt to gain greater support in his war against Hitler both from the Western Allies and from the Soviet population): and sure enough, also today it’s a mere dialectical game to make the (unchanged) Soviet criminal state look moral and decent as opposed to a Western world sunk into decadence and depravity after many decades of Gramscian/Frankfurt School subversion known as Cultural Marxism. (View an half-hour interview conducted with “Conchita Wurst” in Dublin, Ireland, in November 2013 here. You might feel, as does this author, that “Conchita Wurst” may well have already been ‘selected’ as winner back then. And do have a look into the comment section: you’ll be looking right into an abyss of heavy, communist pre-WWIII propaganda of the worst imaginable kind, filling probably 80% of that comment page. They threaten to set Europe on fire; homosexuals should be killed, they say, or be given psychiatric treatment; Europe is dead; Russia will triumph, etc. etc. This author has placed quite a number of comments there too, tearing off these communist propagandists the mask of “rightful indignation”, but also confronting some Western feel-good dreamers with the insanity of their admiration for this strange new “star”. Do have a look! This author’s YouTube name is Contemplatix, and his emblem is a Gothic rose window on black ground). Notably, Thomas “Tom” Neuwirth alias “Conchita Wurst” was pushed, promoted, and groomed – back home in Austria – by people who are all, in various ways, part of the Left or even the extreme hard Left (with the whole country, after his victory, seemingly feeling obliged to render their congratulations to him, even so-called conservatives, as by now everybody is afraid to fall behind the fast-forward-moving zeitgeist, that doesn’t tolerate any more those who say: tolerating everything is madness). So, at least, we found out that it’s the lyrics that carry a very distinct and dangerous message. But people don’t normally listen so much to lyrics but go with the music (had they e.g. ever thoroughly listened to John Lennon’s alleged peace song, “Imagine”, they would have been abhorred and appalled, as it is in fact the most brutal hymn to  a world without God ever written in human history). So, why then was this candidate for Austria made winner and celebrated almost like some messiah? First, one should acknowledge his considerable “charisma”, maybe not so much as a singer on stage, but more as an interviewee and “public figure”. This “charisma” appears to be the result, first, of a huge narcissism, by which he is able to convince people that he is special. It may also be the result of a powerful hypnotism, whether congenital or learned. But the most important feature in his appearance, the most revolutionary, the most uncommon, the most unheard-of detail is the fact that he appears not just as a “tranny”, but as a tranny with a beard.

Conchita, rote Rosen

Without beard, he would simply be an extremely gifted illusionist able to make even straight men, it seems, feel attracted to him. His whole behaviour is astoundingly feminine. But there’s this beard. And it confuses people. But they seem to have no idea as for: WHY this beard? There may be more than one explanation for it, but certainly there’s a sociopolitical angle, and there’s nearly as certainly a metaphysical one, as well. First, a female appearance with a full beard doesn’t normally exist. It’s a hybrid, an artificial invention, and certainly a provocation to the more “old-fashioned”, soon “outdated” generation. But there’s more to it. It confuses the minds particularly of the young, who are now being told by the new societal consensus that this is “normal” and “natural” – though clearly it isn’t – as everyone is free, they say, to define or redefine his (so-called) personality, his sexual orientation, his way of dressing, or even his physical gender. The message being: you are free to choose whatever you want, to be what you want, to do what you want, as long as nobody gets harmed (‘harm’, of course, understood in a very narrow sense). It’s a softer and more acceptable version of infamous English Satanist Aleister Crowley’s anarchistic and nihilistic imperative, “Do what thou wilt, shalt be the whole of the law.” In other words, everything is allowed, nothing is bad, or evil, or to be rejected (rejection of our new, beautiful multi-coloured world under the banner of the rainbow is now: bigotry). The fact that the homosexual movement shares its emblem, which is the rainbow, with several other quite influential movements, may give us an additional clue as to how all this fits together. For, which are those movements that equally hold up the rainbow? It’s first of all the New Age movement! It’s the Peace movement. And it’s also the Eco-movement. So, is there a merger going on here? Are they all driven by a similar, if not the same ideology? As for the New Age, it is a prolongation of Helena Blavatsky’s so-called “Theosophy”, a completely confused as well as confusing pseudo-mysticism, intent on doing away with Christendom once and for all. (And weren’t Marx, and Darwin, and Freud in that same business too?) As for the Peace movement, it promotes the utopian chimera of a world without war, and has thus become a perfect tool for the world communist bloc (that is definitely not disarming) to create pressure from below in the societies of the West to push their governments towards radical disarmament (Lenin used to call these wilful helpers in the bourgeois societies who are in fact bringing their societies down, “useful idiots”). And then, there’s the Eco-movement. This branch is particularly interesting as it combines aspects from communism (or even is communism simply with a “Green” label) with aspects from the psychedelic world of Theosophy (remember that the theosophical offspring of Anthroposophy – that is taught to this day in the Waldorf schools, even though they deny it – is a deeply “mystical”-ecological doctrine, that even constituted a separate wing within Hitler’s Nazi Party, indeed called the “Green” wing, Hitler and his comrades being theosophical occultists). So, does this mean that we could be facing a multiple-headed beast, one time peacenik, one time New Age “visionary”, one time eco-wizard, and yet another time “gay”, all of them promising via their rainbow emblem some sort or other of miraculous transformation? There’s no question that the revolution (in the widest sense of its destructive nature, beyond all ideological window-dressing) is a chameleon. It wants to dissolve the old order so to finally throw mankind into a deep, black hole of nothingness, plain and simple. For that, it had to shatter the ancient hierarchical institutions of the Monarchy and of the Papacy, the former left over merely as a tamed-down “representative” royal sentimentality, the latter by now distorted, banalised, and “democratised” to the point of non-existence. Also it needed to erase the traditional family, that is the backbone of any traditional society, which it did by attacking and undermining the authority of the father and husband, in other words of the patriarchal head of the family, and by instilling into the minds of the women a desire to get out of the house and “manifest themselves” in the career world, increasingly abandoning husband and children in the process. The revolution is extremely flexible. So was Lenin. Indeed, one of his core strategic “beliefs” was opportunistic “pragmatism”. The rainbow could well represent the insidious promise of the snake towards Eve in the Garden of Eden. It could represent the tempting knowledge of good and evil. Become gods! Become all-knowing! Become creators! (That is why New Age/communist figure Barbara Marx Hubbard speaks of becoming “co-creators”.) It’s pure Satanism, whether conscious, semi-conscious, or un-conscious. Marx, and Blavatsky, and Steiner, and Montessori, and Gandhi, and Darwin, and Freud, and Crowley anyway: all birds of a feather? Most probably! But the much more devastating aspect to this beard is something that has nothing to do with transgenderism, or homosexuality (other than confusing and denigrating the one by means of the other): it creates – especially in combination with his young, even face, and the long, dark hair – the impression of another “Christ”! This is the real horror about this “Conchita Wurst”, and mind that ‘conchita’ in Spanish slang means ‘little pussy’, and ‘Wurst’, meaning sausage, is clearly a sexual allusion too (he himself circumvents admitting the scandalousness of this “name” by saying that the name “Conchita”, that indeed exists as a Christian name too, was brought to his attention by a friend from Cuba (!), and that by “Wurst” he merely means that it is “wurst” – meaning it doesn’t matter – what gender you belong to or feel you belong to; in other words, he himself does NOT admit the obvious sexual allusions in ‘Conchita’ and ‘Wurst’, the latter, meaning sausage, definitely implying: ‘penis’). So, we have a most excentric, homosexual “Christ” figure named Little-Pussy Cock!!! Can the denigrating of Christ get any more despicable and shocking than this? This “Conchita Wurst” victory may well mark the beginning of the maddest and bloodiest religious persecution the world has ever seen (his battle-cry, when receiving the Eurovision Song Contest trophy, “We are unstoppable!”, could have been already a chilling foretaste of what’s to come). And mind that this winner came from the Austrian capital Vienna, that is not only known for its former beauty and elegance (those days are long passed), but in more recent times ALSO for having become a center for international Satanism, with their annual HIV charity gala named “Life Ball” (that uses the HIV issue only as a pretext) carrying all the hallmarks not only of actually propagating homosexuality, but also of celebrating the devil! In addition, “Conchita Wurst” during his performance at the Eurovision Song Contest visibly spread out his arms horizontally, forming with his body the shape of a cross, thus mimicking as well as mocking the Crucifixion (one can see this clearly in the picture placed at the beginning of this article). So, obviously, we’re dealing here with a Satanic phemonenon (and wasn’t there also in the lyrics of “Rise like a Phoenix” the strange passage that seemed to be alluding to Christ’s Ascension: “I rise up to the sky / You threw me down but / I’m gonna fly!”). And, indeed, there’s in circulation a weird distorted ikon, that shows Christ’s face replaced by that of anti-Christ Conchita Wurst (this author apologises for presenting this blasphemy, but he deemed it necessary to show it so to illustrate the scope and depth of this “Conchitamania”, but also to underline that some people appear to have understood the deeper, devilish meaning of this “Christ-like” Conchita Wurst character):

Conchita Ikone


Some more questions regarding “Conchita Wurst” (without intending to sound too much as a conspiracy theorist): “Wurst’s” particular beard style has an eery similarity with what can be seen in ancient Babylonian reliefs.




His facial features (including his make-up style) would greatly fit in the Babylonian context too. Also, he wears in this video (Make-Up for Everyone”) ear-rings in the form of owls (see picture above). The owl, as the symbol of the Roman goddess of wisdom, Minerva (but already a prominent symbol in Babylonian times), was also used by Adam Weishaupt (who strongly introduced Egyptian-Babylonian elements into Freemasonry) as a secret code of recognition for his conspiratorial Illuminati network. – In other words, “Conchita Wurst” could be a veritable end-time Babylonian Antichrist!

Plus, the more one reflects upon this Tom Neuwirth alias “Conchita Wurst”, the more one might come to the conclusion that he must have been thoroughly trained somewhere over some period of time (and these are practical considerations):

1. His English is astoundingly good. One can only wonder where he’s got it from, because normally you don’t get this level of English from your ordinary Austrian school, not even “Gymnasium”, and even university graduates in Anglistics often have a poorer English than “Conchita Wurst”. From what is known of his biography, he never lived in the English-speaking world; neither of his parents is from the English-speaking world, nor are they, e.g., teachers; in fact, his parents run an ordinary inn in the Styrian countryside. Nothing cosmopolitan there.

2. He speaks with a confusingly convincing North-German accent when speaking German, without ever having lived in Germany, supposedly.

3. He is very eloquent, in German of course more than in English. And he is full with the kind of “polished”/over-the-top irony and sarcasm typical of homosexual/transvestite “divas”: very sharp, very aggressive (but he is only 25).

4. He is so absolutely self-assured as if he had already been born as a world star. For a kid from an ordinary middle-class family in the Austrian countryside, this doesn’t quite make sense.

5. His tranny-type of talking style is so perfect that one wonders whether he has been to drama school! Yet, no evidence for this either.

All that can be found about his school education (he was born in November of 1988) is that he completed the School of Fashion at Graz, Styria, in 2011 when he was 22 and a half. However, there are several alternative ways of attending this school. There is a 5-year course usually meant for 14-to-19-year-olds (and ending with the so-called Abitur or Matura, which allows them, in case, to proceed to university). There is a 3-year course, obviously lower profile, meant for 14-to-17-year-olds (not ending with the Abitur or Matura). And there is a 2-year course for 18+ year-olds who already have the Matura from somewhere else (mostly from a so-called Gymnasium, the European version of Anglosaxon High School, roughly), so these students would then complete by the age of either 20 or 21. He completed at not quite 23.

And again, unfortunately, we do not know how many years he was to fashion school, or whether he had attended/completed ‘Gymnasium’ prior to that. In either case, there is at least a gap of 2 years, where one can only wonder what he was doing (apart from playing music, which wasn’t a professional full-time activity in the beginning, and even in his music career there is a gap of 4 years between 2007 and 2011, maybe because he went to fashion school).

His career as a musician (which is at the same time his career as an increasingly public figure) goes back to the year 2006 when he was 18 (or less, because he was born in November): He had an appearance, still as a (gayish) boy, not as a transvestite, at a television casting-show named “Starmania” broadcast by Austrian television, and came out second! (In case he did attend and complete “Gymnasium”, he couldn’t have completed it earlier than 2007! But he was already doing music, including a prominent appearance on television, so it seems unlikely, though not impossible, that he actually completed Gymnasium.)

The following year, 2007 (he is now 19, or less), he sets up a gayish boy-band together with three others (presumably all homosexuals as well; the four also live together in a shared flat). The band is named, “jetzt anders!” (approx. ‘different now!’). [He had had his homosexual “outing” the year before, in 2006, he says.

In 2011, age 22 and a half, he completes his fashion school at Graz (yet, we do not know whether he had been there for a 2-, 3- or 5-year course). In the same year he obviously moves to Vienna, where he has been living ever since. Also in 2011, he has his great comeback on the television screen, this time already ‘transformed’ into his present alter ego, “Conchita Wurst”, for which he even gives a fictional “biography” (born in Colombia, later in Germany, finally in Austria). There are only three single recordings of his: “Unbreakable” (2011); “That’s What I Am” (2012); and what got him the Eurovision Song Contest victory, “Rise like a Phoenix” (2014).

Nothing more can be found out from Wikipedia, or “Conchita Wurst’s” own website, or from his YouTube channel. This is all we know. Not very much, given the manic euphoria that catapulted him, seemingly overnight, to the heights of international stardom (he even received congratulatory messages from Cher, Lady Gaga, and whoever else).

So the question isn’t over the top really: Could he have been trained, for a while, as a communist agent of subversion somewhere, perhaps in Moscow’s still-operating now-so-called “Russian University for People’s Friendship” (former infamous Patrice Lumumba University for People’s Friendship, which trained whole generations of communist subversives and terrorists, including e.g. PLO-leader Yassir Arafat)? There are just too many unanswered questions about this sudden star (and given his sinistre mission, this secrecy may be for a reason; a secrecy, by the way, that is somewhat reminiscent of that surrounding another “meteor from outer space”: the Manchurian President in the White House in Washington D.C.).l

And here are the 13 abominable countries – all but one, Western countries – that gave their maximum 12 points to “Conchita Wurst” [although the half jury/half public voting system showed strange contradictions in some countries: in the U.K., for one example, the public would have voted for Poland as No. 1, while the U.K.’s jury put Poland last]:

(1) Once-decent Britain. (2) Once-wholeheartedly-Catholic Ireland. (3) Once-beautifully-Catholic Italy. (4) Once-exquisitely-Catholic Spain. (5) Once-seriously-Catholic Portugal. (6) The once-commitedly-Catholic Netherlands. (7) Once-deeply-conservative Greece. (8) Once-conservative Switzerland. (9) Once-decent Belgium. (10) Once-reserved Sweden. (11) Once-traditional Finland. (12) Once-old-fashioned Israel. And  (13) still-socialist Slovenia. [With once-conservative-Catholic Austria, now a madhouse, making it all happen by sending this underworldly creature to Copenhagen, in the first place.]

As this author at some point looked into this “Conchita Wurst’s” YouTube channel, he at first saw a header saying in German,

Die Wurst hat kein Ende [meaning: The Wurst (sausage) has no end].

What an expression of pride, even hubris (as well as lasciviousness)! And so this author posted within the discussion page of that YouTube channel,

Apropos “Die Wurst hat kein Ende.” Es gibt auch das herzige Sprichwort: “Alles hat ein Ende, und die Wurst hat zwei.” Man könnte auch sagen: “Hochmut kommt vor dem Fall.” Und dies, weiß Gott, keine Böswilligkeit. [meaning: Apropos, “The Wurst (sausage) has no end.” There is also the lovely German saying, “Alles hat ein Ende, und die Wurst hat zwei,” approx., “Everything’s got an end, and the Wurst’s got two.” One could also say, “Pride comes before a fall.” And this, certainly, without evil intent.

This author then looked at the other comments and messages posted on that discussion page (mostly laudings anyway) and suddenly stopped and just couldn’t believe what had been written there by a YouTube user named andiamo24 (translated from German into English, bold emphasis by this author):

Dear Conchita. I wish you all the necessary strength so to prevail over assaults and discriminations. Go your own way and take us all with you on a wonderful journey with you as the lead-diva. You are wonderful in what you are doing, never allow yourself to be talked into anything else. Believe in the good, for there are so many people out there who believe in you. Be hugged. ♥

This author then couldn’t help writing a reply note to this madness (his YouTube user name is Contemplatix), which subsequently triggered a quite lengthy “exchange” back and forth, to which even an American friend of this author’s contributed two separate pieces of his own considerations – he is an eminent conservative cultural philosopher as well as political analyst, but shouldn’t be drawn into this by his clear name. Here is also the original YouTube discussion page; you need to click, “newest first”, so to be able to view the comments in their chronological order. As of the time of writing, that dialogue was still publicly there. And now it’s here too! Read the following carefully. It shows not only how stubbornly unrepentant these people are in all their confusion, but also how arrogant, how blinded, how audacious, insulting and hostile to everybody who doesn’t share their sick, upside-down views, or who even dares to come up with well-founded criticism. Here is that extremely revealing exchange (the two pieces by this author’s American philosopher-friend are marked dark-green – we are indeed confronted with a tidal wave of civilisatory destruction):

Contemplatix: and take us all with you on a wonderful journey with you as the lead-diva.” What? We had this before. At the time, the slogan went, “Führer, befiehl! Wir folgen!” (Führer, command! We follow!) – As the matter is now acquiring such a dynamic, this comparison is certainly legitimate. Is there still anybody thinking?

andiamo24: Well, I find it much more unbelievable to hear this comparison over and over again, which is slowly but surely a lame comparison. Shouldn’t one simply recognise the fact that Conchita has brought the LGBT community again greater attention? My God, always these discussions about what happened 60 [sic!] years ago. I can’t hear it anymore. And this doesn’t belong here anyway. Should I have offended you by using the word, “Steuer-Diva” (lead-diva), I want to apologise. Calm down again …

andiamo24: And regarding your [other] question: YES, I do think, but I’m not always willing to dig up those old rags and ever iron them anew. Period.

Contemplatix: But precisely this is the problem. It is only because of the disappearance of all historical perspective – that is so carelessly declared obsolete here – that totalitarianism, in whatever form, can make its appearance ever and ever again.

andiamo24: I’m very sorry, but you’ve clearly lost your marbles. For what reason are you visiting the page of Conchita Wurst, in the first place? So to attack? You are so very miserable! And I strongly reject all such comparisons, because those who are supposed to understand will understand.

Contemplatix: Which provides us with the proof of what your purported “tolerance” is all about. If you people could, you’d probably shoot down anyone disagreeing with your weird ideas without batting an eye, and so under the banner of “Tolerance”. Congratulations, and good night!

andiamo24: You’re wrong! But no matter what argument I come up with, you will always find a point that you twist and portray differently from how it was meant. By the same token, I could claim that your last remarks and comments were deliberately designed to evoke such a reaction so to show to the ordinary people that we are not that tolerant in the end, because we do not hold a position like yours. Clever approach, but miserably put into practice.

Contemplatix: Last night, I still contacted a friend of mine in America and told him of our little and quite telling exchange – the man is a cultural philosopher in the widest sense and a publicist -, and this was his calm and measured response, that I present here in German translation (which he didn’t ask for). [Here is of course the English original.]

American friend: It is impossible for andiamo24 to understand. Since she doesn’t know what a man is, or what a woman is, or what the two sexes are for, or that the path of regeneration is sacred — that marriage is a sacrament — there is no reason possible to her. There is only degradation as a cause. This is the damnation she pronounces on herself while assuming that your statement reflects intolerance. The idea that tolerating everything is a virtue, is in itself vicious. Alles hat ein Ende, und die Wurst hat kein Ende — das ist nicht möglich. Nicht möglich. [Everything’s got and end, and the Wurst’s got no end — this is not possible. Not possible.]

andiamo24: And from this we’re supposed to learn???? What finally came to my mind this morning when I was on my way to work: Tolerance doesn’t mean to share everybody else’s opinion, the tolerance we are talking about is the tolerance vis-à-vis e.g. homosexuals, transgenders, transidents, lesbians, bisexuals, blacks, whites etc., and if I’m not tolerant in your eyes just because I want to embark on this wonderful journey with Conchita as the “lead-diva”, then so be it. You form your opinion, and I form mine. I wish you continued success… And pray, pray for brain …

Contemplatix: “War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.” (George Orwell, 1984). – You people are confused; confused and blinded, all of you.

andiamo24: I think you’re here to proselytize.

When this author was then expressedly asked by his American friend to post the following, he first hesitated, and wrote to him: “I’m sorry I won’t go back to that Satanic comment section. This andiamo24 just posted, ’I think you come here to proselytize.’  I’ll leave them alone. I’m sorry. It’s pearls before swine anyway.” The American friend’s laconic answer was: “The proselytizing is all hers, and yes, she is a swine.” This author then still did the German translation of his American friend’s excellent elaborations and posted them on that YouTube discussion page. Below is the English original:

Letter from America to andiamo24: I notice in my dictionary that the definition of the word ‘intolerance’ has been changed to mean ‘bigotry.’ But it is not bigotry if we find murder intolerable. It is also not bigotry if we find sexual deviancy and perversion intolerable. It is prudence, and it is healthy instinct, to do so. 

I would want to ask this andiamo24 if she would feel right exposing a ten-year-old boy to ‘the wonderful’ Conchita Wurst. (And why is he so wonderful?) Something as wonderful as a sexually confused young man, who adopts the personality of a woman, could not possibly signify a contagion of perversity — except that this perversity is so seductive. And so, we ought to wonder, if a young boy instinctively finds Conchita Wurst’s personality disturbing would andiamo24 find this boy’s reaction ‘intolerable.’ Or then, what if the boy decided to become a woman because Conchita’s charisma is truly overpowering? What if all boys found Conchita irresistible and became just like her? Let us say that the glorification of Conchita — who is wonderfully powerful — converts all humans to the glamorous path of transgender-ism. In that case you will have achieved the destruction of the human race, which would then die out, the last old Queen dying alone and without an audience. As each individual decides to break the great chain of being which makes the human race possible, andiamo24 must applaud. Well, she is already applauding. She already champions our extinction, our condemnation, under the banner of tolerance. And she calls it ‘wonderful.’ 

But in reality it is vicious. For a person who embraces the destruction of their own kind, and the denigration of the ontologically given (i.e. sexually), is a monster, corrupt to the core, poisonous even to herself. And if our posterity survives our present flirtation with death (with the negation of our posterity), they will abhor the likes of andiamo24 as they would a murderer. And they would be justified to condemn so unwholesome a progenitor (or non-progenitor), marveling that humanity survived, that Europe survived. But then it won’t survive, will it? Because the Muslims and the Russians are hovering in Europe’s doorway, ready to take possession as all of Europe stands in thrall to a man who adopts the personality of a woman. 

What I say here is not bigotry. What I say is prudence, and prudence is one of the four cardinal virtues. And here, without any doubt, intolerance becomes a necessary adjunct.



Although this article was meant to deal solely with the “Conchita Wurst” phenomenon, this author would like to analyse another major “gay” event that just took place on May 31, 2014 in the Austrian capital, Vienna, and that was closely linked, this year, to the new “star”, who comes from Austria. In fact, it’s an annual event, first set up in 1993, and somewhat a revolutionary work in progress: the so-called “Life Ball”, one of the largest and most prominent HIV-charity galas worldwide. The organisers take pride in having collected some 20 million Euro in donations since 1993. Also, the event has had, from the start, a most prominent location in the city centre: the Rathausplatz between the Vienna Burgtheater and the Vienna City Hall for the public performances, and the City Hall itself for the ball proper. In other words: the event is hosted by none other than the Vienna city commune resp. the Vienna Mayor (Vienna has been under firm Socialist control ever since the fall of the monarchy in 1918, with exception of four years of Social-Christian government from 1934 till 1938 and the infamous seven years of the National-Socialist ‘interlude’ from 1938 till 1945). – Below: Upper end (West): the Vienna City Hall vis-à-vis the Vienna Burgtheater (bottom end, i.e. East), with the Rathausplatz in between. Right along the Burgtheater, you can see the famous Ringstraße crossing from left to right. Click to enlarge!

Yet, not only the location is prominent. This annual HIV-gala has increasingly gained, over these last 21 years, the stature of an international top event, with film actors, pop musicians, and other celebrities from the U.S. and elsewhere (Sharon Stone and Whoopi Goldberg for two examples), but also political figures like former U.S. President Bill Clinton (on behalf of his globalistic Clinton Foundation) flying in every year, whether as special guests or as active participants. Exclusive fashion shows by top fashion designers from around the world are presented (all, of course, with a certain gayish touch). There are splendid performances by classical ballets, orchestras, renowned opera singers, pop singers, or modern dance formations. All of them contributing for free to these quite glamorous (and certainly shrill) galas, and to the ‘good cause’ of fighting HIV by promoting homosexuality (that is the obvious paradox about this strange event). Whereby the first two hours, starting at dusk, are open-air performance in front of the City Hall (in some years, heavily disturbed by rainfall or thunderstorms), with tens of thousands of ordinary folk, young and old, gathering, eager ‘to be part of it’. This public performance is broadcast by Austrian television. The rest of the night is the Ball proper inside the City Hall building, with its old, historical assembly halls literally transformed into little, highly sensual fantasy lands (pictures to be shown further below).

Also, it is interesting to see how this so-called Life Ball, which uses the HIV issue merely as a pretext for intense pro-homosexual propaganda, has long surpassed by its prominence an old and well-established conservative Vienna Ball, the Opera Ball, which of course is held every year in the ball season (i.e., within the time of Carnival). The Opera Ball – an elegant, bourgeois institution – had been facing for decades furious demonstrations and literal riots by far-left, “autonomous” groups (one time, at least, the event had to be cancelled because of this). Also, an increasing number of cheap, even vulgar “celebrities” has been invading it since the 1990s, effectively ruining the ball’s former reputation of exclusiveness and distinction. In other words, while the conservative format of ‘yesteryear’ is in decline, the homosexual new format is getting bigger and bigger each year!

This year, in 2014, the Life Ball organisers and their socialist helpers (certainly emboldened by “Conchita Wurst’s” Song Contest victory, that must have been agreed upon in advance) went one decisive step further by making transgenderism the central theme in their advertisings. The “Fellini of photography”, American David LaChapelle, known for his both erotic and subversive kitsch-pop surrealism and a homosexual himself, designed this year’s Life Ball’s advertising poster, that at the same time informs of an exhibition in Vienna’s ‘Galerie OstLicht’ titled, “Once in the Garden”, where LaChapelle’s work is presented from June till September 2014. The advertising poster, that shows American ‘transgender model’, Carmen Carrera (born Christopher Roman), one time as a female, one time as a trans-sexual, comes indeed as quite a shock, not only by its adult explicitness which has nothing to do in the public square, but also as it continues the path of deliberate gender confusion begun by “Conchita Wurst”. And its title (which is not visible in the version below) says it all: “I am Adam. I am Eve. I am me.” In other words: Male, female, or anything in between: So what! Anything goes! And it should be tolerated, respected, accepted, celebrated, if not followed.

Life Ball Plakat

The reader is requested, please, to NOT view this as a careless violation of decency. This scandal must be known internationally, as it is right now omnipresent in the streets of Vienna (including bus stops and underground stations) probably for months to come, with young children (as intended) already getting disturbed and confused, and parents, educators, paediatricians, and child psychiatrists bewildered, stunned, and beside themselves as to how this can be, and no authority or regulatory body seemingly responsible, as it is argued that this is a piece of art, advertising an art exhibition, and so, on the grounds of artistic license, it can’t be forbidden. But of course, as one can clearly see, the poster is mainly an advertising for the Life Ball, with a little added pointer to LaChapelle’s exhibition at the bottom (they must have expected the public outrage and might have carefully chosen this sly trick of hiding behind an advertising for an art exhibition, which so conveniently grants them legal immunity). For readers who know German, the never-ending list of complaints against this advertising poster can be read here. (It seems, after the Spanish, the French, the Brazilians, or the Venezuelans, now also the Austrians can’t take it any more and begin standing up.) Two of these complaints, one by a child psychiatrist, another by a kindergarten nurse, are given below in English translation:


Dear Mr. Keszler,

I’m taken aback by and I’m concerned over the poster draft for the 2014 Life Ball. As a child- and youth psychiatrist, I deal on a daily basis with children and youngsters who do not know the borders of intimacy and who often misunderstand the difference between a sexuality without love and one as part of a love relationship. Exposing oneself before others is part of this unawareness of boundaries. Many children, adolescents, and, I think, also adults suffer when others do not respect these limits of pudency and intimacy. My staff and I are working daily towards conveying this awareness to young people and towards repairing what has been destroyed earlier. This poster is disrespectful particularly of the weakest in society. From Conchita Wurst we heard that tolerance ends where someone else is harmed or could be harmed. Many children and adolescents do not have, through their particular life experience, the sense of distance and the ability to reflect necessary to properly deal with such explicit art. They would definitely be harmed by it. The self-exposure before others in public as an instrument of a misread understanding of tolerance must not invalidate the necessary mindfulness in dealing with each other in society. And tolerance must not be reduced to the freedom of sexual orientation. Tolerance is needed towards our children and especially those who didn’t have a very easy start in life. Tolerance is needed also towards ailing and desperate individuals, whatever the cause for their misfortune. For the purpose of keeping mindfulness and tolerance in the societal intercourse, this poster should be removed from the public square!

Prim. Dr. Michael J. Merl

Department for Child- and Youth Psychiatry, Landes-Frauen- u. Kinderklinik Linz (Austria)



Dear ladies and gentlemen,

I am a kindergarten pedagogue, and quite often I’m on the move with our children on public transport. Yet, I find it unacceptable that as of late these provocative Life Ball posters can be seen almost everywhere, even broadcast on the gewista info-screens in the underground system. Children between the age of 3 and 6 need not view an “Eve with breasts and penis” shown publicly. As the children were very confused and also putting questions to their parents, many parents became quite upset! With all due tolerance for homosexuality, we nevertheless owe our children a great responsibility, especially in our present time, and being a watchdog for these matters, you should protect our children’s vulnerable souls from such advertising!

I request your response before we pass this on to the media.




Yet, the cowardly decision by the Austrian “Werberat”, responsible i.a. for dealing with complaints against certain advertisings, was this (click to enlarge):


[English translation:]


„I am Adam. I am Eve. I am me.“

The two subjects in question represent an advertising for the art exhibition of an artist active on an international scale, which will take place in Vienna from June 2 till September 7, 2014. The Austrian Advertising Council (Werberat) assumes that the advertising for this exhibition is supported by a sponsoring from the Life Ball organisation.

For this reason, the Austrian Advertising Council (Werberat), according to its rules of procedure (Art. 2 (4)), cannot give a statement in this matter, as the mentioned advertising belongs in the domain of Art and Culture.

For further complaints and criticism, the office of the Life Ball organisation will be gladly available under presse@lifeball.org.


The way the Life Ball is promoted by Austrian television (that too is in the grip of the Socialists) borders to madness. There’s just been “Conchita” on all channels for weeks, and now, again, this annual celebration of sexual disorientation and perversion! And the way and the extent to which it is promoted and highlighted can only be compared to a royal wedding elsewhere! They seemingly can’t get enough of it, and the whole city, if not the whole country, is confronted year after year by this same insane hype, whether people like it or not (and we should assume that most people don’t, but what to do when the cultural Marxists are in charge everywhere). Above is the insert (it’s rather a little trailer) used by Austrian television as the opening of the 2014 Life Ball broadcast. Again, actual nude photography is used, though not as distinctly recognisable, showing two models with somewhat Maori-style body paintings on them and in a very provocative pose. As the motto for this year’s Life Ball was, “Im Garten der Lüste” (In the Garden of Earthly Delights), one can see here, like with the poster by David LaChapelle, as the key motif: Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, though the Garden is now redefined, in revolutionary manner, as a “Garden of Earthly [meaning: Sensual] Delights”, as an hedonistic paradise! The explanation given for choosing this motto was they had been ‘inspired’ by 16th-century painter Hieronymus Bosch’s famous tryptich, “The Garden of Earthly Delights” (Museo Nacional del Prado, Madrid, Spain), where, they hold, all those different fantastical creatures live peacefully beside each other: their hedonistic socialist-Utopian misinterpretation! (Click to enlarge!)

In reality, Hieronymus Bosch’s famous work, which has nothing to do with praising lustiness at all, consists of a (chronological) sequence of three separate paintings, a fact deliberately ignored by these godless and sexually fixated fanatics. There’s first The Garden of Eden to the left, showing Adam and Eve in their still-paradisical state of innocence. There’s second The Garden of Earthly Delights (which is only the middle section), in which humanity, after its Fall, appears to engage in all sorts of pleasure, including, it seems, sensual pleasure. And, third, to the right, The Musical Hell, suggesting a Day of Judgment situation on the earth’s surface and several layers of hell underneath! The whole tryptich, viewed in context, is rather a most moral warning, a monition, a spiritual teaching lesson! Ironically, and tellingly, the Life Ball propagandists, who adopted this theme as their 2014 maxim, and all their ‘learned’ advisors (as well as Marxist art historians, such as communist East Germany’s Wilhelm Fraenger, whom they seemingly follow), are so blind as to not understand its meaning and instead to misinterpret the middle piece as an encouragement for their wicked practices (they have no idea how Hieronymus Bosch is laughing at them from his grave). At the same time, rejecting there ever was a true Garden of Eden and there ever will be a Day of Judgment, all they perceive is this garden of lust in the here and now, which they view as their Garden of Eden, without realising they’re already welcoming to their lives a foretaste of hell (which, even if they go through great emotional and perhaps physical sufferings, they’re much too proud as to ever admit: because they are caught, like the atheistic socialists and communists, in a mindset of rebellion).

Here, just at the moment of the Life Ball’s opening, is a first view from the Vienna Burgtheater across the Rathausplatz over to the Vienna City Hall building, which hosts the scandalous event and is most magically illuminated in ever-changing shades and colours throughout the evening. The Vienna City Hall, in German Wiener ‘Rathaus’, is a neo-Gothic building of the second half of the 19th century, and, as one can see, it’s fairly representative architecture. It was built – among a whole number of other monumental architectural structures such as the Burgtheater, the State Opera, the Houses of Parliament, the New Hofburg, pompous Ministerial buildings, and luxury hotels – after the demolition of the old city walls, alongside the newly laid-out ‘Ringstraße’.


After the special guests and ‘celebrities’ have arrived, striding over the Red Carpet as if for the Academy Awards, the grandiose performances start with the intonation of an actual Life Ball Fanfare (!) first played in 2006 and written by Slovak-Hungarian composer Béla Fischer. The elegant fanfare remotely resembles the style of the modern Leoš Janáček or even John Williams’ Superman and Star Wars themes (you see: glamour everywhere; they get it all!).


Here is a view down from the Council Hall’s clock tower over the square: Sigmund Freud, who was Viennese, may have well seen in this configuration of lights on the ground an erected male genital, complete with giant testicles; and that’s probably how it was meant.


The first piece of performance was then a sequence from the overture to Christoph Willibald Gluck’s opera, “Iphigénie en Aulide”, accompanied by a most extravagant dancing choreography. Of course. This is the Vienna Life Ball!


Below you can see the ‘debutants’ (as if this was the distinguished Opera Ball, which the Life Ball is about to replace sooner or later) striding in: 99 heterosexual couples, with one homosexual couple in front (mirroring the 99:1 ratio of heteros vs. homos, which is cute, as this Life Ball event by its prominence seems to imply the exact opposite, as if homosexuals were a 99% majority, rather than a 1% minority). The costumes are visibly foolish, but befitting the nature of the occurence. All under the watchful eyes and auspices of Thomas Schäfer-Elmayer, head of the (once-)prestigious Elmayer Dance School, the leading dance school in the city of Waltz, that has been introducing young people into the adult world of etiquette and refined dance ever since 1919. What he is doing here? Well, he has widely broken with the conservative tradition established by his ancestors, for which he has received much criticism from Vienna conservatives, and given in to the ‘necessities’ and whims of our democratised, nihilistic era. And he even seems to be proud of it. 


The following performance was taken from Mozart’s early opera, “Apollo et Hyazinthus”, with American star soprano Jennifer O’Loughlin and German bass René Pape as the exquisite voices. Everything here is of course reinterpreted and re-designed so to fit the sensualistic and homosexualist ’cause’.


The act that followed was the ‘debutants’ throwing at each other’s WHITE costumes, Hindu style, colour-powders, mainly red, as if describing an act of defloration! Very disturbing!


Shortly after, Thomas Schäfer-Elmayer solemnly exclaimed, as every year, “Alles LEBEN!” (All Life!) – rather than “Alles Walzer!”, which he says at the Opera Ball. What an irony: the propagandists of non-procreation and sexual misery posing as advocates for LIFE, as expressed in the name of the event, in the first place. What twisted view of the meaning of ‘life’, which for them mostly consists in looking around for their next ‘kick’ (and, in case they do catch HIV at some point, in struggling to SURVIVE). Also note that ‘ball’, in the sexualised world of the ‘gay’ community, has a quite sexual double meaning too! So, ‘life ball’ is already quite audacious in that sense. The funny thing this year was that Mr. Schäfer-Elmayer closed his eyes for a moment (not twinkling) just after he had pronounced, ‘Alles Leben’. Isn’t that astounding? He well knows about the shamefulness of it all, to which he so shamefully renders his prestige. Instead of continuing to be, like his forefathers, a non-compromising advocate for true life only, and for assisting the young in becoming decent, well-mannered adults, who will eventually find for themselves a future husband or wife and have children, he has switched sides and is now a miserable advocate for death and civilisatory destruction. History is repeating itself. 75, 80 years ago, people were molded into one under the sign of the swastika. Today, they’re falling into pretty much the same trap, this time under the misleading banner of the rainbow (which, horribly, applies even to the once-Roman Catholic Church; as a consequence, no reaction or protest against the Life Ball’s perversions and blasphemies from, say, Cardinal Schönborn, who is a Freemason’s son and most likely a Freemason himself, and, as rumour has it, a well-concealed practising homosexual; and he isn’t the only one).


From then on, the event was moderated by two Austrian film and comedy stars, Manuel Rubey and Thomas Stipsits. However, before their formal moderation, the two were enacting a highly blasphemous and provocative sketch, one being Adam, the other one, Eve.


Here is the English translation of this scandal, which is in fact purest and most aggressive anti-religious propaganda. The style of the script very obviously follows the Tamino-Papageno dualism in Mozart’s deeply MASONIC opera, The Magic Flute, with Manuel Rubey (as Eve) speaking in High German and Thomas Stipsits (as Adam) in Viennese dialect. Take note that again the Garden of Eden is being redefined as a “Garden of Earthly Delights”, the motto for this 2014 Life Ball. Also, the utterly ‘humanistic’-Masonic lingo of the Magic Flute is used in this dialogue as well:


Adam: I’m so alone here!

Eve: Who’s speaking here?

A: Yes, it’s me!

E: Who is ‘me’?


A: Yes, I am me. Who are you?

E: I am me too.

A: Where are you ?

E: Strange. I thought I’d be alone here in the Garden of Earthly Delights.


A: I thought the same. But lovely to have company. Hello!

E: Hello!

A: I’m Adam.

E: Eve. My pleasure.

A: Mine too. And what are you doing, then?

E: What do you mean?

A: Job. Hobbies.

E: I like flowers.

A: That’s cool. I very much like gardening too.

E: Have you created all this?

A: Yes. That is to say, I mean, the boss helped a little bit. Good job! Thank you! And, Eve, what are we going to do now?

E: Well, we’re supposed to love each other and multiply.

A: Good! That isn’t so difficult, after all. I mean, when I look at you: you really look good! So, I’ve already fallen in love, a bit.

E: Moo. You’re a charmeur.

A: Thank you. They rightfully call me the Casanova of the Garden of Earthly Delights.

E: Who calls you that?

A: Well, I call myself that way.

E: Moo –

The two, who are not homosexuals, approach each other and exchange a long French kiss, shown by the camera in close-up. The crowd is out of itself. – This even tops Madonna and Britney Spears! Sorry about presenting this indecency!


A: Mmhh. You taste somewhat like –

E: Human?

A: Yes, like human! I don’t taste any colour of skin either. Not even sexual orientation!

E: Account balance?

A: Can’t taste that either! But: I think you aren’t alone.

E: What do you mean? Mentally?

A: No, I mean there are more of your kind.

E: Oh yes, look, there are many more here, for instance …

(Switch to a different camera angle that shows the whole square in front of the Vienna City Hall. Crowd is cheering.)

A: Do they all taste like human?

E: I think so, most of them. Well, some taste rather a bit like crackerbarrel (Stammtisch). [Scornful laughter in the crowd.]

A: Are they here as well?

E: I don’t think so. These types don’t watch this. They rather rail against it.

A: But, don’t you think that they also want to be loved? [sic!!!]

E: I think so. Love is the bloom growing everywhere. [Repeating in English:] Love is the bloom growing everywhere!

Stipsits: And precisely this is the motto for the LIFE BALL 2014!!! [Crowd cheering like mad.]

Rubey: When he comes out here, a wonderful good evening –

Stipsits: The velcro is jammed –


Rubey: – here on the City Hall Square (Rathausplatz), dear humans and at home in front of your TV-sets. – Thomas Stipsits –

Stipsits: – and Manuel Rubey!

Rubey: We are privileged to guide you a little bit through this evening. Welcome at the Life Ball 2014! Welcome in the GARDEN OF EARTHLY DELIGHTS!


Stipsits: Also from my side. – As is tradition, this splendid and speciose garden will be opened by the city father and host of the Vienna City Hall. Please welcome now the quasi-head-gardener of the Garden of Earthly Delights: Dr. Michael Häupl!


Do read the following carefully! The Austrian Socialists, like their comrades in the United States or elsewhere, are completely backing the homosexualist madness, knowing full well that it is a powerful tool in bringing down even the last remains of traditional society. Note also that this is an ‘old-style’ Austrian Socialist, born in 1949, who shows no inclination whatsoever to polish up his manners and speaking style, but on the contrary proudly presents himself as the proletarian that he is. The fact that he holds a Doctor degree in Biology obviously has had no effect on his proletarian-revolutionary stance.l

Dr. Michael Häupl, Mayor of the City of Vienna (Social Democratic Party of Austria; prior to 1991 named Socialist Party of Austria):

Dear friends! Dear Viennese! Welcome here in the City Hall Square. For 22 years, from this square, from this festival, has been sent out a message of solidarity with AIDS-patients, of non-marginalisation, of tolerance, of respect, of a living together within society. And for that, dear Gery Keszler, I want to thank you once again. It’s really great, and we are indeed proud of you. [Crowd is cheering.] But today I also want to thank most heartily Conchita Wurscht. [Crowd breaking out in ecstatic jubilations.] The message that went out to the world from that Song Contest, this is how we are looking forward to see the world in the future. Thank you, thank you, thank you so much! [Crowd cheers.] Of course I’d like to wish you for tonight, ladies and gentlemen, a joyful evening. That goes without saying. But I also would want to wish you a thoughful evening at the same time. Because from this festivity goes out also a political message. [sic!!!] And we should be equally aware of that on this evening. Have a wonderful, and thoughtful, evening. Thank you very much.

The next music performance was by American pop singer, Candice Glover, the song title being – what a surprise – “Lust for Life”. Take note of the wild, ecstatic, and quite obscene overall presentation. Clearly, this isn’t about a noble enlightenment of people’s minds and hearts regarding fighting HIV or learning ‘tolerance’, but the worst possible regression into darkness and decadence. History is very much repeating itself. Though this time it won’t be Germanic tribes, but Russian armies to put a devastating end to this eccentric year-round carnival.


As a classical contrast, the Orchestra of the Vienna Academy, conducted by Austrian organist and composer Martin Haselböck, played from Smetana’s Comic Opera, The Bartered Bride, the Finale of the First Act: Polka (this most beautiful and witty comic opera can be viewed in full as a 1998 live recording from the Sandler’s Wells Theatre, London, here; highly recommendable, and NOTHING to do with despicable sodomitic practices!!!). It is more than doubtful that Smetana would have agreed with having his most delicate music performed at a political event promoting homosexuality (the same applies to Gluck and Mozart). Smetana himself was definitely a great and lifelong admirer of femininity, and during his lifetime, 1824 to 1884, all this steamy activity of today would have brought these people straight into jail, without exception. 


André Heller’s extravagant creation, The Dragon of Unconditional Love (???), made up of 2,000 narcissi, with an half-undressed male ‘ballerina’ posing on top. (For those who don’t know: Nazi Germany held very similar ‘corsos’ too, though not with a homosexual, but with a Germanic bent, that even included – same thing – nude figures standing on top of such carnivalistic waggons.) 


And then, look at this: Martin Haselböck, while conducting the Orchestra of the Vienna Academy, for a short moment forms his left hand indeed to a Cornuta, i.e. to the devil’s horns. Isn’t that quite unusual? A conductor in the midst of a wonderful and lovely piece by Smetana flashing – consciously or not – the sign of the devil? It all fits together though, as the Life Ball is actually a Satanic enterprise.


At some point, during all these outlandish ‘gay’ activities, the camera takes a pan over the nightly Inner City of Vienna, as if to remind viewers it is still there: The Karlskirche to the far right; the Neue Hofburg in the foreground; and to the far left: the majestic dome of the Michaelertrakt of the Hofburg. Second picture: the characteristic tower of St. Stephen’s Cathedral; further to the right: the slim tower of the Michaelerkirche; and in the foreground: the Burgtheater, one of the premier straight theatres in the German-speaking sphere.


Finally, Gery Keszler, founder and chief organiser of the Life Ball (some call him “Mr. Life Ball”) is interviewed. As the conversation between him and Manuel Rubey carries on, they suddenly agree that “Conchita Wurst’s” victory in Copenhagen marks the beginning of a new year count! And Manuel Rubey blasphemously says: “B.C.” and after. So, the meaning of “B.C.” has now changed from “Before Christ” to “Before Conchita”! These may well be the last “peaceful” harbingers of a most murderous religious persecution soon to come, whether by the hands of these completely out-of-touch homosexual Bolsheviks, or by the ‘law and order’ Bolsheviks in the Kremlin. Communism is about to take over, no doubt about it!


During that exchange, the camera took a view over the colourful crowd. Here are a few shots:

ThenThen spokel

Then spoke the 42nd President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton (remember: the one who paved by his liberal policies the way for current Stalinist in Chief, Barack Hussein Obama). And he spoke well, as ever, on the great and noble cause of ‘fighting’ HIV, at the same time by his mere presence greatly endorsing the homosexualist revolution – which, self-evidently, adds to the problem of HIV rather than anything else. And, as one can see, it’s Marxists amongst themselves…


This was succeeded by a so-called Style Contest for participants in especially extravagant costumes.


After this, a glossy fashion show began, presented by seven different top international fashion houses: Lanvin, Viktor & Rolf, Givenchy, Vivienne Westwood, Etro, Dsquared2, and Jean Paul Gaultier. The first show, by Lanvin, was especially remarkable, as it used for its presentation the Black Mass scene from Stanley Kubrick’s last film, Eyes Wide Shut, complete with the original soundtrack. German actor Ben Becker acted as the Red Pope.


Something has been going heavily wrong within the world of fashion for a long time. It seems to have turned into a breeding ground not only for homosexuals, but also for Satanism. Probably the two go hand in hand anyway. (As for Lanvin, this was the sick and diabolical ‘visiting card’ for their Spring/Summer 2012 collection.) Coming back to Eyes Wide Shut, it is quite ironic to have such a presentation in Vienna, because the script for Eyes Wide Shut is based on Arthur Schnitzler’s so-called Dream Novel, or Dream Story. Schnitzler was Viennese, and his Dream Story, written in the mid 1920s, plays in the Vienna of the Fin de Siecle. Isn’t this a strange symbolism? A case of ‘chickens coming home to roost’?

Although not all acts and performances during this Life Ball opening were presented here in this review, one last bit is definitely missing, and it was indeed the final act on that evening. The newly coronated “Queen of Austria”, Thomas “Tom” Neuwirth alias “Conchita Wurst” appeared on the stage, at last – all’s well that end’s well… -, howling yet another time his disgusting “Rise like a Phoenix”.


The estimated 40,000 that were gathered on the Rathausplatz were cheering and screaming like indeed ‘transformed’. The cross-dressing anti-Jesus at the height of his popularity, so far. This was then the end of the television broadcast.

Yet, one additional point: namely, a look at the interior of the City Hall. The assembly halls and session rooms had been significantly ‘transformed’ as well, as you can easily see in the pictures below. Imagine: the City Hall, the seat of the Vienna City Commune, of Vienna’s communal government, perverted into a (high-luxury) playing ground for the crazed disciples of the rainbow, along with their Masonic VIP-advocates and ‘politically correct’ do-gooders …




And so, dear reader, what we have in front of our eyes and what we are in – all of us – is the strange and bitter fruit of a world without God. As religion disappears, so disappear authority, and conscience, and any moral compass whatsoever. Yet, without these, no civilisation can ever exist! Somebody should have told Marx, and Darwin, and Freud, and all the other ‘liberators’. But, probably, they knew all too well …





1. The reader is greatly recommended to listen to a truly prophetic sermon of 1979 by the German traditionalist Catholic priest, Fr. Hans Milch (1924 – 1987), an ally of Archbishop Lefebvre, titled “The Imminent Fall of Europe – The Church: Sole Authority for Possible Rescue” (click on the picture below for part 1/3). In this so important 30-minute-sermon, Fr. Milch analyses with great historico-cultural depth the origins of our present disorientation and emptiness and of the triumph of the trivial and outright evil. The video presents both the original German audio and a thorough English translation done by this author, as inserted text.


2. Also, do watch a most magnificent sermon of the late 1980s by American Dominican preacher Fr. John F. O’Connor (born July 18, 1929 in Cook County, IL – passed away on Dec. 7, 2006 in Alpharetta, GA), titled “The Reign of the Antichrist” (part 1/9). What this priest is preaching in that sermon, he had thoroughly researched. He gives plenty of sources, and he isn’t too optimistic regarding the fate of this world. Part of his sermon are also considerations on the so-called “Gay Movement”. As the Marxist-progressivist post-Conciliar Catholic Church (that has been massively infiltrated not only by Marxists, but also by organised homosexual networks) vigorously persecutes and silences such priests who dare speak the truth, and because Fr. O’Connor actually named his very Superior as being a member of the so-called Gay Rights movement and a homosexual himself and said that this Superior was actually barring young men from joining the Dominicans unless they accepted homosexuality as okay, he was indeed asked to seek psychiatric help (!), was suspended in June 1989, and finally dismissed from the Dominican Order, that had been his life for 40 years, in mid 1991. There was even a much more dangerous side to it all, as Fr. O’Connor had sought the advice and assistance of a Canon Lawyer by name of Fr. Alfred Kunz so to investigate the links between a notorious satanic pedophile cult and the Catholic priesthood. Several years later, in 1998, Fr. Kunz was brutally killed in what can only be termed a ritual murder. – So sadly, at the relatively young age of 62, Fr. O’Connor, who had been such a valuable and courageous priest, was sent away, never to be heard of as a priest ever again. He moved to his sister’s house in Alpharetta, GA, where he henceforth was living as a private man until he passed away, age 77, in December of 2006. Fr. O’Connor’s mortal remains are interred in the O’Connors’ family grave at Mount Carmel Cemetery, Hillside, Cook County, IL. (Here is a detailed article on the late preacher, titled: Fr. John O’Connor – A Life of Faith, Devotion, and Courage.)


Here is the passage of Fr. O’Connor’s sermon that deals with the homosexualist movement:

The Catholic Church has also been thoroughly infiltrated by homosexuals. Just recently, Father Enrique Rueda came out with this text [The Homosexual Network: Private Lives and Public Policy, orig. 1982, Devin-Adair Pub. 1986] documenting the infiltration of every facet of our society by the so-called gay liberation movement. And he has devoted two entire chapters to the infiltration of churches in general and the Catholic Church in particular. And this information he drew from the publications of the so-called gay liberation movement itself. He went right to their offices, into their headquarters. Apparently they thought he was going to join them, and they gave him all this information by which he has documented how our Church in America has been thoroughly infiltrated by homosexuals. This is why there are so many law suits against priests for child abuse, actual abuse of boys. Last summer it was 50, this summer it rose to 134 civil suits against priests who have been sexually abusing children. And Father Rueda says not only priests but perhaps even bishops have been drawn in to this homosexual ring. Their whole purpose, they know they’re not gonna get the Pope to come out and approve of sodomy, but they think that by infiltrating the clergy they can neutralise the Church’s teaching, just as the modernists did with the pill. You ask most Catholics today, “What’s the Church’s teaching on contraception?” Well, they’re really not sure; it’s been so compromised by the modernists. Well, this is what the homos want here in America. They want to be accepted. They want their lifestyle accepted as a normal, ordinary, everyday, alternate lifestyle. They know the only way they can achieve that goal is by infiltrating the Catholic Church, which is the greatest obstacle to their acceptance. Father Rueda points out how the homosexuals have infiltrated religious orders: the Jesuits; they’ve infiltrated the Franciscans; the Christian Brothers; and of course the Dominicans. When I was in the seminary in the early 1950s, my Superior in the seminary said at that time, “We were being inundated by homosexuals.” And he was doing his best to weed them out. He wrote a letter pleading with our Major Superior to help him; the letter was never answered. So he wrote a letter to our Provincial Council, pleading with them for help to weed out these homosexuals; they never answered his letter. I’m afraid that we’ve been so taken over by Communists at this time, they rejoiced to have us infiltrated by homosexuals. They are so strong in my province they have succeeded in electing one of their own as our Major Superior. Donald J. Goergen is mentioned three times in this book by Father Rueda as one of the national leaders of the homosexual movement and infiltration in America today. Two years ago, he was elected the Major Superior of the Central Dominican Province. That shows you how strong the homosexuals are in the Dominican order.  It’s so bad today that a good boy can’t even get in my province. I’ve talked to some of the finest young men I have ever met, who were turned away from our Novitiate; they wouldn’t let them in. Now, if you want to become a Dominican in the central part of America today, you’ve got to be a feminist, or at least you’ve got to approve of homosexuality as an alternate lifestyle.

3. In addition, here are two sequences taken from recordings with the eminent late Fr. Malachi Martin. First, a brief paragraph from an interview conducted by Canadian Bernard Janzen in Fr. Martin’s apartment in New York City in early 1990, titled “The Storm Breaks”. The selected stretch from part 4/5 (starting at minute 6:39) is about the homosexualist onslaught and how it should be dealt with spiritually, but isn’t:

You know, one main failure there, this is the [?], Bernard, is this: When Jesus left us, visibly, He didn’t give us armies, He didn’t promise empires, He promised we’ll be hated, by the way, He promised the whole world to be against us, but He said, ‘You have one thing, you have a spiritual weapon: My Grace.’ The one thing the bishops have not used is their spiritual weapon, the Grace at their disposal. Let me give you an example. Recently, in the last four weeks [on December 10, 1989], St. Patrick’s Cathedral was desecrated by the homosexual organisations. They invaded it, they interrupted the Mass, they broke the Host into pieces and threw it on the ground, they were insulting, and they had blackouts which were blasphemous. Cardinal John O’Connor purified the church, canonically, but he never once, never once, decided to use the spiritual weapon of consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. What he should have done, what many advised, was that he consecrate the homosexual community of New York to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart, asking for Grace they be converted, because the only power we have is that Grace! They haven’t used that Grace! They have not used that Grace! They have not used their spiritual weapon. And therefore the spiritual weapon is lying dormant. And we are at sixes and sevens, we don’t know what to think. We are just hurt. And we want to be Americans, and we want to be like everybody else, and we want to be at peace with everybody.” – B.J.: “Catholics have joined the world, in other words.” – Fr. Martin: “That’s right, that’s right. That’s the bill of goods sold: You’ve got to be part of it. Otherwise: why be fanatic. You’re not American, you’re not Canadian, you’re not good citizens. You’ve got to be part of it, that’s the bill of goods that’s been sold by one Archangelic intelligence.

[The whole audio-recordings Bernard Janzen did with Fr. Malachi Martin back in the 1990s can be ordered, individually or as a complete collection of some 22 CDs, from Bernard Janzen’s Triumph Communications. – There’s also an excellent article titled, “Houses of Sand: In Defence of Fr. Malachi Martin”, in which Bernard Janzen examines the various smear campaigns and ad-hominem attacks conducted against this outstanding theologian and priest, both during his life time and even post-mortem.]

4. Another among Fr. Martin’s so many public appearances and interviews (many of them on YouTube) was a very instructive talk at a Human Life International conference in the year 1991, that he titled, “Global Conflict of Life and Anti-Life Forces” (part 1/6). Do listen to it! It fits well into the topic discussed in this article. As a foretaste, here is one grandiose, as well as shattering, passage from that talk, transcribed by this author (question-marks indicate words this author just couldn’t pick up from the audio; Italics and bold print by this author, according to Fr. Martin’s own spoken emphases):

Now, the [?] and the tragedy of our position – and, by the way, I’m not a lugubrious character or very sad or a pessimist, so, these things I’m laying out to you I thought I should do because we’ve been talking for these three days intensely about details, and I want you to see the woods of the trees, having gone through all the details. The [?] and the tragedy of our situation is only heightened by our own apparent helplessness. And that becomes more saddening and frustrating when we realise that literally millions, possibly billions, of human beings – I sound like Carl Sagan: ‘billions and billions’ -, but, possibly billions of human beings, at the present moment, LOVE LIFE, are pro-life! But all of us are caught; we’re in a systemic community of nations which is anti-life, which has elected to be pro-death, as a system. And we cannot get out of it. So, we’re caught up in the demonic energy of ‘The Great Death Wish’. That is precisely the terrain on which we are working. And this includes our beloved America, unfortunately, where in the short space of, what, 18 years [since abortion had been legalised in the U.S. in 1973], 25 million have been done to cruel death by men and women self-righteously and blindly claiming to belong to the order of healers, but who ruthlessly and cheerfully and efficiently spend their time tearing little human limbs, cracking crania like walnuts on Thanksgiving night, scavaging the remains for ‘commodification’, what a horrible thought: commercial commodification of babies’ bodies; and for ‘export-import’! And all this sophisticated skullduggery is sanctioned and condoned by two main blocs of people: first of all, our legislators, who are the representatives of the people, who most unconscionably and for the sake of their own advancement have literally abused and prostituted the power that God the Father gave them. ‘You would have no power over Me,’ Jesus said to Pilate, this amoral coward, ‘unless it were given to you from above.’ And then Jesus immediately added the second bloc of people involved in condoning and sanctioning; and He said, ‘You would have no power unless it were given to you from above; therefore, those who delivered Me into your power have the greater sin.’ And these, oh we know them, my friends, we know them all! Uncomfortably, embarrassingly, bewilderingly, we know them all! It’s a seemingly endless list of ‘cultured’, established, educated people; you know, our ‘supremely wise men’, our [?], our sociologists, the leaders in both great major political parties, the party hacks and the ward heelers, and a numerous gaggle of social commentators and trend-setters; by the way: respectable and respected people; trusted people; people who are in good standing in the community; well-paid, well-fed, well-housed, well-dressed people; all those who have made the slaughter of the innocents an integral element of our American life, of the ‘politically correct and socially acceptable American person’, the PCASAAP; politically correct and socially acceptable person. Just remember to add to that list, by the way, you know, the usual list of the politically correct and socially acceptable American person, you know: racial quotas reverse discrimination, [?], same-sex parents, homosexual marriages, fetal experimentation; add to that now: abortion, as an integral element to American life, as integral as the Bill of Rights, in the minds of those who are pro-abortion. And let’s [?], by the way – amongst ourselves, at least – to include in their establishment-list the eminent and sometimes reverent mugwumps, with their sitting on the fence of opportunity with their mug, their rumps on one side facing their oath of office to implement the solemn dogmatic doctrine of the Church, and their faces peering anxiously on the other side, while they temporise with anodyne nothings and dialogue amicably and consultations wisely, because they will not keep their solemn oath for fear they might be called bigots and fanatics, for fear they might not be invited to the dinner [?] of the great and take their place at the green top tables of power. My friends, how they yearn to be politically acceptable and socially correct! How they yearn! God bless them. To all of them, from the immunity of God’s Eternity, the greatest innocent, Jesus, and all the slaughtered innocents, say in unison: ‘You made this lethal legislation possible!’ What a terrible accusation. ‘You made our murder legal! You continue to make this abomination viable! The greatest sin is yours! You are the authors of this abomination! You are collaborators and co-operators in the Great Death Wish!’ They won’t hear it until eternity. But imagine being swamped in front of the Throne of Jesus, at your particular judgment, by oceans of babies claiming, ‘You killed us! You made it legal!’ God help them. And please, let me ask you, en passant, not to assume, because sometimes we do (?)-ly assume that this Great Death Wish is aimed at the death of the body, of millions of bodies, that too, but its purpose is its authors and its chief author, that liar and murderer from the beginning, that Jesus contemned so much, Lucifer, the purpose is to ensure the death in the soul of mankind. The specific and ultimate aim of all death-dealing, including abortion and euthanasia and contraception, the abortifacients, the specific aim is to eliminate the Holy Trinity from our midst in the family of man, by making fatherhood and motherhood just alternative life-styles, by trivialising that God-founded troika of husband, wife, and child, into just one more socially adjustable arrangement, by reducing sonhood to penis-possession and daughterhood to vaginal freedom, and married love to pleasurable mating habits. By in total effect, that’s eliminating the prototypes that God set up: the Fatherhood of God in Heaven, the Sonhood of Jesus, the Motherhood and the Daughterhood of Mary, and the Godliness of the Holy Family in Nazareth. THAT is the aim! Not just the killing of bodies! And with that comes the death of the supernatural life of God in our midst.

5. And here are the gruesome, but top-notch assessments by the late British geopolitical analyst and Sovietologist, Christopher Story, given at the “Fatima: 2000” World Peace Bishops’ Conference at Hamilton, ON, Canada, Oct. 11 – 18, 1999. The 50-minute talk by Christopher Story was titled, “Lenin’s Satanic World Revolution” (click here). A must-see!




 © The Contemplative Observer 2014



Toby Westerman Can’t, or Won’t, See the Forest for the Trees!


A Sad Example of a Supposedly Alternative Kremlinologist Who – even Now! – Refuses to Take into Account Any Continued Existence Whatsoever of a Communist Grand Design Aimed – still! – at Total Control over the Whole World. Instead, He Personalises (as if It Was All about Putin and Not about the Same Old World Revolutionary Steam Locomotive), and Adds Up Fact after Fact, Claiming to Be “Connecting the Dots”, Which Finally He Isn’t, as He Lacks – or Dismisses – the Indispensable Frame of Reference Necessary for Putting 2 and 2 together, Meaning a Solid Understanding – and Acknowledgment! – of Communist Longterm Deception Strategy as Laid out by Premier Soviet Defector Anatoliy Golitsyn. 


 I still just see a bunch of trees







“Subtle! Subtle! / They become formless. / Mysterious! Mysterious! / They become soundless. / Therefore, they are the masters of the enemy’s fate.

Sun Tzu, 6th century B.C.: “The Art of War”


“No parliament can in any circumstances be for Communists an arena of struggle for reforms… The only question can be that of utilising bourgeois state institutions for their own destruction.”

Lenin *


“Our only strategy at present is to become stronger and, therefore, wiser, more reasonable, more opportunistic. The more opportunistic, the sooner will you again assemble the masses around you. When we have won over the masses by our reasonable approach, we shall then apply offensive tactics in the strictest sense of the word.

Lenin *


“The withering away of the state, the precondition for the classless society, could not be entertained as a possibility until the encirclement of socialism by capitalism had been changed to the encirclement of capitalism by socialism. That is to say, until those conditions had been established which would assure world-wide Soviet domination.”

Stalin, 1939 *


“The point is that the Communist goal is fixed and changeless – it never varies one iota from their objective of world domination, but if we judge them only by the direction in which they seem to be going, we shall be deceived.”

Yelena Bonner, wife of Soviet nuclear physicist and leading figure of the controlled “dissident movement”, Andrei Sakharov *                                                                                                                           


“Capitalism’s short-term view can never envisage the lengths across which we can plan.”

Lavrentii Beria, early 1950s *


There is no wall between socialism and Communism. These are not two divergent types of society, but merely two phases of one and the same social formation, distinguished the one from the other by the degree of their maturity. The transition from socialism to Communism consequently constitutes a gradual process. Communism grows up out of socialism as its direct prolongation. In the very bosom of socialist society its germs and roots spring up. These shoots of the future, developing on socialist soil, will lead… to a consolidation of Communism. Naturally, the entry into a higher phase of the new society cannot be pinned down to a specific calendar date, but it will be accomplished without abrupt change.” – “From the fact that the transition from socialism to Communism will take place by degrees, it does not follow that this is a slow process. On the contrary, the transition is distinguished by a particularly high rate of development in all areas of social life… ending with the uplift of the culture and the conscious awareness of people.”

“Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism”, 1960 *


“Unlike in present United States, there will be no place for dissent in future Marxist-Leninist America. Here you can get popular like Daniel Ellsberg and filthy rich like Jane Fonda for being ‘dissident’, for criticising your Pentagon. In future, these people will be simply squashed like cock-croaches; nobody is going to pay them nothing for their beautiful, noble ideas of equality! This they don’t understand, and it will be greatest shock for them, of course. The demoralisation process in the United States is basically complete already. For the last 25 years – actually, it’s overfulfilled because demoralisation now reaches such areas where previously not even Comrade Andropov and all his experts would even dream of such a tremendous success. Most of it is done by Americans to Americans, thanks to lack of moral standards. As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter any more. A person who was demoralised, is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him. Even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures, even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him concentration camp, he will refuse to believe it – until he is going to receive a kick in his fat bottom. When the military-boot crashes his balls, then he will understand, but not before that. That’s the tragic of the situation of demoralisation.”

Soviet defector of 1970, Yuri Bezmenov, 1984 (interview conducted by G. Edward Griffin; therein: minutes 1:12:20 till 1:14:02)


“Gentlemen, Comrades, do not be concerned about all that you hear about ‘glasnost’ and ‘perestroika’ and democracy in the coming years. These are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant change within the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans, and to let them fall asleep.

Mikhail Gorbachev, early in his tenure, speaking before the Politburo *


The Party has made “specific decisions on how to update our political system”. – “Thus we shall give a fresh impetus to our revolutionary restructuring. We shall maintain our quiet [i.e. Leninist] creativity and daring in an efficient and responsible fashion in a Leninist Bolshevik manner.”

Mikhail Gorbachev, speaking at the 27th CPSU Congress, March 1986 *


“Adopting a bold, realistic, mobilising and inspiring strategy, one that is Leninist in spirit, the struggle for the triumph of Communist ideals, of peace and progress, the 27th Congress of the CPSU expresses the Party’s firm determination to honourably follow our great road, and open up new vistas for the creative energy and revolutionary initiative of the… people’s intelligentsia. The Congress calls on all Soviet people to dedicate all their strength, knowledge, ability, and creative enthusiasm to the great goals of Communist construction, and to worthily continue Lenin’s victorious revolutionary cause, the cause of the October Revolution!”

Mikhail Gorbachev, closing address to the 27th CPSU Congress, March 6, 1986 *


“Perestroika is a revolutionary process for it is a leap forward in the development of socialism, in the realisation of its crucial characteristics.”

Mikhail Gorbachev: ‘Perestroika’, 1987


“What is meant [by the term ‘revolution from above’] is profound and essentially revolutionary changes implemented on the initiative of the authorities themselves but necessitated by objective changes in the situation. It may seem that our current perestroika could be called ‘revolution from above’. True, the perestroika drive started on the Communist Party’s initiative, and the Party leads it. I spoke frankly about it at the meeting with Party activists in Khabarovsk [already!!!] in the summer of 1986. We began at the top of the pyramid and went down to its base, as it were. Yes, the Party leadership started it. The highest Party and state bodies elaborated and adopted the program. True, perestroika is not a spontaneous but a governed process.

Mikhail Gorbachev: ‘Perestroika’, 1987


“We openly confess that we refuse the hegemonial endeavours and globalist claims of the United States. We are not pleased by some aspects of American policy and of the American Way of Life. But we respect the right of the American people, just as the right of all other peoples, to live along its own rules and laws, its own morals and inclinations.”

Mikhail Gorbachev: ‘Perestroika’, 1987


“Those who hope that we shall move away from the socialist path will be greatly disappointed.”

Mikhail Gorbachev: ‘Perestroika’, 1987 *


“We are moving towards a new world, the world of Communism. We shall never turn off that road.”

Mikhail Gorbachev, 1987 *


“We see that confusion has arisen in some people’s minds: aren’t we retreating from the positions of socialism, especially when we introduce new and unaccustomed forms of economic management and public life, and aren’t we subjecting the Marxist-Leninist teaching itself to revision? … No, we are not retreating a single step from socialism, from Marxism-Leninism…

Mikhail Gorbachev, 1988 * 


“The image of the enemy that is being eroded has been … absolutely vital for the foreign and military policy of the United States and its allies. The destruction of this stereotype … is Gorbachev’s weapon.

Georgi Arbatov, 1988 *


We are for a Lenin who is alive! In building our future we are basing ourselves upon the gigantic intellectual and moral potential of the socialist idea linked with the theory of Marxism-Leninism. We see no rational grounds to give up the spiritual [sic!!!] richness contained in Marxism. Through restructuring [i.e. ‘perestroika’], we want to give socialism a second wind and unveil in all its plenitude [meaning: globally!] the vast humanist potential of the socialist system.” – “In order to achieve this, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union returns to the origins and principles of the Bolshevik Revolution, to the Leninist ideas about the construction of a new society… Our Party was and remains the Party of Lenin… In short, we are for a Lenin who is alive.” – “We must seek these answers guided by the spirit of Leninism, the style of Lenin’s thinking, and the method of dialectical cognition.

Mikhail Gorbachev, speaking to a group of Russian students, Nov. 15, 1989 *


“In a democratic state, a changeover to a multiparty system is inevitable. Various political parties are gradually being formed [out of the CPSU] in our country. At the same time, a fundamental renewal of the CPSU is inevitable… First, it is necessary to organisationally codify all the platforms that exist in the CPSU and to give every Communist time for political self-determination The Party should divest itself of all state functions. A parliamentary-type Party will emerge. Only this kind of Party, provided that there is a mighty renewal [of the CPSU]… will be able to be a leading Party and to win elections for one or another of its factions. With the development of democratic movements in the country and the further radicalisation of restructuring, it will be possible for this alliance to become the vanguard of society in actual fact. This will provide a broad social base for the renewal of society … [and to] erect a barrier against attacks by the conseratives, and guarantee the irreversibility of restructuring.”

Boris Yeltsin, speaking at the 28th CPSU Congress on July 6, 1990 *


“Now, about the Party itself. Allow me to formulate three conditions necessary for the Party to fully demonstrate its viability and actually attain its vanguard potential. In the first place, to this end it must, resolutely and without delay, restructure all its work and reorganise all its structures on the basis of the new Statutes and the Congress’s Programme Statement, so that under the new conditions, it can effectively perform its role as the vanguard party. We must do everything to firmly establish in the CPSU the power of the Party masses behind an all-encompassing democracy, comradeship, openness, glasnost and criticism. Secondly, when there are various views and even platforms on a number of questions of policy and practical activity, the majority must have respect for the minority. And thirdly, Comrades, we must study, learn, and improve our culture. If we embark on this path, it will be easier to interact and have contacts with other forces. The Central Committee and I will do all we can to help the Republic Communist Parties gain their new independent status as soon as possible, a status that will lead not to a fragmentation of Communists and nations but to a new internationalist unity of the CPSU on a common ideological basis. Let us prove that the CPSU, as it restructures itself, is capable of living up to these expectations… and then it will become a truly vanguard party whose power lies not in giving orders but in influencing people.”

Mikhail Gorbachev, speaking to the 28th CPSU Congress, July 13, 1990 *


“He [Gorbachev] isn’t a Leninist any more.” – “I don’t think we have been deceived; at least, I hope we haven’t.”

Margaret Thatcher, July 1991, in a personal conversation with Christopher Story *


Gorbachev’s ‘Perestroika’ was exactly modelled after Lenin’s ‘New Economic Policy’ of the 1920s. And the West fell for the same lies TWICE:

“GORBACHEV OFFERS PARTY A CHARTER THAT DROPS ICONS – HARD-LINERS CRITICIZED – Opening a 2-Day Meeting, He Challenges Even Sanctity of Marxism-Leninism” (Headline of The New York Times, July 26, 1991) *

“LENIN ABANDONS STATE OWNERSHIP AS SOVIET POLICY – Official Decree Retains Control of Only a Few of the Big National Industries – TO LEASE TO INDIVIDUALS – Payments for Postal, Railroads and Other Public Services Are Re-established” (Headline of The New York Times, August 13, 1921) *


“I think that the idea of a Common European Home, the building of a united Europe, and I would like to underline today, of Great Europe, the building of Great Europe, great, united Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals, from the Atlantic to Vladivostok, including all our territory, most probably a European-American space, a united humanitarian space: this project is inevitable. I am sure that we will come to building a united military space, as well. To say more precisely: we will build a united Europe, whose security will be based on the principles of collective security. Precisely, collective security.”

Soviet foreign secretary of the day, Eduard Shevardnadze, on November 19, 1991, interviewed on a Moscow television programme along with NATO Secretary General of the day, Lord Robertson *


“Our vision of the European space from the Atlantic to the Urals is not that of a closed system. Since it includes the Soviet Union, which reaches to the shores of the Pacific, it goes beyond nominal geographical boundaries.”

Mikhail Gorbachev in his prepared Nobel Peace Prize speech in Oslo in June 1992, when the Soviet Union had already been ‘disbanded’ by him half a year earlier!!! *


“I dare say that the European process has already acquired elements of irreversibility. In such a context, in the process of creating a new Europeself-determination of sovereign nations will be realised in a completely different manner.

Mikhail Gorbachev, in the same speech in June 1992; nota bene: speaking for the Yeltsin regime to which, allegedly, he was in opposition! *


“There was a brilliantly planned and executed, large-scale, unprecedented provocation in which the roles were scripted for the intelligent and the stupid, all of whom consciously or unconsciously played their parts.”

Lt-General Aleksandr Lebed, commenting in retrospect three years after, on the fake August coup of August 1991, as was published by ITAR-TASS on August 19, 1994 *


“One thing, I think, needs to be said here: And that is that the KGB and the GRU, Soviet intelligence, cannot exist without the Communist Party. The Communist Party and the KGB share the same bloodstream. They are the same entity. This was made clear by the head of the KGB, Alexander Shelepin, in 1961, when he made a very important speech, pointing out that the Party lives inside the structures of the KGB, and the KGB lives inside the Party. Now, I want to emphasise that at the outset because a number of books have appeared recently, suggesting the thesis that, you know, the Party disappeared, Communism died, the Soviet Union collapsed, but for some reason the KGB and the “Organs”, as they call it, continued.” – “The simile that I like to use, you know, is: the dog, the front of the dog, the head and the front legs fell off, and the back legs of the dog carry on walking. This is of course absolutely absurd!”

Christopher Story, 1995 (interview conducted by Bill McIlhaney; therein: minutes 3:41 till 7:28)


“They write that I am the mafia’s godfather. [But] it was Vladimir Lenin who was the real organiser of the mafia and who set up the criminal state.

Otari Kvantrishvili, a Georgian mafia ‘leader’, who was later murdered; published in April 1994 in Komsomolskaya Pravda. *


“One tries to make Westerners believe that the mafiya is the product of post-Communism, whereas in reality it is organised, controlled and staffed by the KGB.

Algirdas Katkus, then Vice-President of ‘newly independent’ Lithuania in an interview for the French publication Libre Journal: ‘Un pays sacrifie’; Number 26, page 29; Paris 1995 *


“The collective security model… should pave the way for a gradual evolutionary synthesis of several processes: integration within the CIS and the EU, strengthening and increasing the role of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, transforming NATO [and] working together to prevent or resolve conflicts.”

Yuriy Ushakov, Director of the Directorate for European Cooperation at the Russian Foreign Ministry, in International Affairs, Vol. 4, #5 (1995): ‘Europe: Towards a New Security Model’ * 


“Russian membership of the Council of Europe will open up intensified new cooperation between Russia and Europe and will assist us in reaching our objectives of achieving membership of the European Union and of NATO.

Then Russian Foreign Minister, Andrei Kozyrev, after Russia’s admission to the Council of Europe by February 8, 1996


Vladimir Zhirinovskiy is “just the probe they use to measure the depth of dissatisfaction in Russia.” [But Zhirinovskiy also acts as a ‘probe’ to test whether Soviet strategy has possibly been understood by Western observers, which to the satisfaction of the strategists just never happens to be the case: the West continues to be sound asleep.]

Mikhail Poltoranin, then head of the ‘Federal Information Centre’, Jan. 13, 1994, ITAR-TASS * 


Vladimir Zhirinovskiy also did his work well. He was in good shape and did his best to show everybody present [at the Council of Europe, in Strasbourg] what a wild and horrible person he is. Russia, he said, is the most democratic state in the world, unlike any member of the Council of Europe – for instance, the Germans, who are harming the Turks, the Turks who are suppressing the Kurds, and so on. Having succeeded in frightening the gentle Europeans [indicating how much the Leninists despise the compliant European ‘useful idiots’; Christopher Story] he concluded by saying that he personally would be happy if Russia were refused admission – as, in that case, he (Zhirinovskiy) would win the Presidential elections by a still larger margin.” [This is how the Soviets dialectically make the West call for what the Soviets want: In this case, ‘Yeltsin must be supported so to prevent a dictator Zhirinovskiy’, and money kept flowing …] 

Vladimir Lukin, formerly Russia’s Ambassador to the United States and Chairmain of the State Duma Committee of Foreign Affairs: International Affairs, Volume 42, Number 2, 1996: “Russia’s Entry to the Council of Europe” * 


“Ukrainian Comrades [should] not be involved in political infighting in their country [but] strengthen their ranks [and] set up primary organisations based on the CPSU platform [!!!].” – “The most powerful branches of the Union of USSR Officers operate in the units of the 43rd Missile Army, in Crimea, Dnepropetrovsk, Odessa, Kharkov, and Kiev.”

From a 1996 secret resolution addressing the work in the Ukrainian Armed Forces, published on March 19, 1996 (more than 4 years after the alleged dissolution of the USSR!!!!!) by the US Foreign Broadcast Information Service, FBIS: FBIS-SOV-96-054; page 44 *

(Quotes marked with ‘*’ are all taken from Christopher Story’s book, “The European Union Collective”)




It is quite amazing – and frightening – to see how, these days, intellectual discernment & sincerity have come down to virtually zero. Not that we could afford such laxness, opportunism, or plain incompetence in a time when the fate and destiny of the whole of humankind is at stake. We can’t. Yet, as Moscow and Beijing are now gearing up their joint efforts towards a new world unified under communism, not only the Pravdaesque mainstream media in the West, but even supposedly staunch conservatives and alternative columnists appear to be firmly immune, still, against the hard realities right in front of their noses. The “spectre of communism” has never left the scene, the USSR was never dissolved but simply relabelled, and yet these “useful idiots” (Lenin’s phrase) keep parrotting Soviet disinformation, some of them even praising the unchanged Evil Empire as the future centre of gravity of a renewed Christian civilisation. Can madness get any more absurd than that?

If one reads premier communist defector Anatoliy Golitsyn, one can see how skilled the Soviet apparat always has been and still is in planting in the Western mind false hopes and illusory expectations. As a consequence, the fictitious dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and of the Soviet Union itself was naïvely hailed by the West as the dawning of a new, democratic era throughout the world, worse: the West was convinced it had won the Cold War! In reality, however, this greatest deception operation in the history of mankind simply removed from the sleepy Western eyes the image of the enemy, and the image only, opening up formerly unthinkable new prospects for the communist bloc to modernise and solidify its economies and militaries. Tragically, whilst Russia and China were growing stronger and stronger, the West, disabled to see reality for what it was, was missing out on the ever more imminent threat to its very existence.

Deception has never ceased to be at the heart of everything the communist bloc does and never will, but there has taken place recently an alarming change in rhetoric and action on the part of Moscow and Beijing that can only be characterised as a seismic shift, at least in terms of appearance, for all that really happened was that the communists are now moving on, in their revolutionary strategy, from projecting weakness and internal division (the latter a.k.a. the “scissors strategy”) and from allegedly seeking good and friendly relations with the West to an open display of their actual strength and unity as well as their unchanged hostile revolutionary intentions. Anatoliy Golitsyn perfectly foresaw our present situation, that isn’t even recognised by most today, on page 328 of his 1984 book, New Lies for Old (bold print by this author):

“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 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.” – “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. Concession 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.



Dear reader, we have now reached exactly there! Golitsyn was right. He didn’t want to be right, as his reason to defect in the first place was to try and warn, and eventually save the West from the impending danger. Sadly – by a mixture of communist infiltration and systemic arrogance, we can assume – his top-notch assessments were dismissed by the majority in American intelligence, and, just as Golitsyn had also predicted, a number of false defectors (Yuri Nosenko as the most prominent) soon followed him and succeeded in getting him branded as unstable and paranoid. But Golitsyn’s first book, New Lies for Old, published in1984, isn’t the manic rage of a paranoid madman, but a thorough, scholarly work for readers with the necessary background in political science and strategy. And here is how Golitsyn most meticulously explained his dilemma in the closing part of the foreword to his second book of 1995, The Perestroika Deception: The World’s Slide Towards the Second October Revolution – Memoranda to the Central Intelligence Agency; Edward Harle Ltd., London-New York (bold print by this author): 

“[…] Since the Central Intelligence Agency did not react to my Memoranda, I decided to publish them and asked the CIA to declassify them for the purpose. The Agency agreed. Several considerations forced me to take my decision.

First, the democracies of the United States and Western Europe are facing a dangerous situation and are vulnerable because their governments, the Vatican, the elite, the media, the industrialists, the financiers, the trade unions and, most important, the general public are blind to the dangers of the strategy of ‘perestroika’ and have failed to perceive the deployment of the Communist political potential of the renewed ‘democratic’ regimes against the West. The democracies could perish unless they are informed about the aggressive design of ‘perestroika’ against them.

Secondly, I could not imagine that American policymakers, and particularly the conservatives in both the Republican and Democratic parties, despite their long experience with Communist treachery, would not be able to grasp the new manoeuvres of the Communist strategists and would rush to commit the West to helping ‘perestroika’ which is so contrary to their interests.

It has been sad to observe the jubilation of American and West European conservatives who have been cheering ‘perestroika’ without realising that it is intended to bring about their own political and physical demise. Liberal support for ‘perestroika’ is understandable, but conservative support came as a surprise to me.

Thirdly, I was appalled that ‘perestroika’ was embraced and supported by the United States without any serious debate on the subject.

In the fourth place, I am appalled by the failure of American scholars to point out the relevance of Lenin’s New Economic Policy to understanding the aggressive, anti-Western design of ‘perestroika’ or to provide appropriate warning to policymakers, and their failure to distinguish between America’s true friends and its Leninist foes precisely because these foes are wearing the new ‘democratic’ uniform. Given the pressures they face, policymakers have no time to study the history of the period of Lenin’s New Economic Policy, or to remind themselves of Marxist-Leninist dialectics.

But how could such learned and distinguished scholars as S. Bilar and Z. Brzezinski have failed to warn them about the successes of the New Economic Policy, the mistakes made by the West in accepting it and Gorbachev’s repetition of Lenin’s strategy and its dangers for the West? What happened to their credentials as great scholars? Why was it left to Professor Norman Stone of Oxford University to detect and make the parallel in his article in the London ‘Daily Telegraph’ of 11th November 1989, and to express concern at the euphoria over Gorbachev? In his book, ‘The Grand Failure’, Brzezinski limited his description of Lenin’s New Economic Policy to three brief phases. He described the New Economic Policy as amounting to a reliance on the market mechanism and private initiative to stimulate economic recovery. In his words, it was probably ‘the most open and intellectually innovative phase’ in Soviet history.

For Brzezinski, the NEP is ‘a shorthand term for a period of experimentation, flexibility and moderation’ [see ‘The Grand Failure’, Charles Scribner and Sons, New York 1989, pages 18-19]. I am appalled by Brzezinski’s failure to explain the relevance of Lenin’s New Economic Policy to ‘perestroika’.

This failure is further illustrated by the following:

(a) S. Bialer, a former defector from the Central Committee apparatus of the Polish Communist Party, wrote a foreword to Gorbachev’s book, ‘Perestroika’, introducing it to the US public without inserting any warning about the parallel with the New Economic Policy and its dangers for the Western democracies.

(b) During his recent visit to Moscow, Z. Brzezinski, the former National Security Adviser in the Carter Administration, met leading Soviet strategists including Yakovlev, an expert on the manipulation of the Western media, and advised them on how to proceed with ‘perestroika’. Furthermore, Brzezinski delivered a lecture on the same subject to the Soviet diplomats at the High Diplomatic Academy!

In the fifth place, I am disappointed that Gordievsky, a recent KGB defector, did not help much to explain ‘perestroika’ as the final phase of Soviet long-range strategy, to describe its essence or to point out the deceptive nature of the changes and the strategic danger for the West. Gordievsky’s articles in ‘The Times’ of London of 27-28 February and 1 March 1990, contained a rather optimistic, if not laudatory, description of the ‘reforms’ initiated under Gorbachev and Yakovlev. I am puzzled that he should write so enthusiastically about them in the London ‘Times’. He might as well have published his comments in the Party newspaper ‘Pravda’ or in Korotich’s ‘Ogonek’. His assessment of ‘perestroika’ and its meaning for the West is in complete contradiction to that set out in my Memoranda to the Central Intelligence Agency. Further comment would be superfluous. I leave it to the reader to make his own judgment.

In the sixth place, misguided Western support for ‘perestroika’ at all levels, and especially among the Western media, is destabilising Western societies, their defence, their political processes and their alliances. It is immensely accelerating the successful execution of the Soviet strategic design against the West. In 1984 I thought that, in the event of Western resistance to Soviet strategy, the scenario of convergence between the two systems might take the next half century [see New Lies for Old, pages 365-6].

Now, however, because the West has committed itself to the support of ‘perestroika’ and because of the impact of the misguided and euphoric support for it in the Western media, convergence might take less than a decade. The sword of Damocles is hanging over the Western democracies, yet they are oblivious to it. I believe in truth and the power of ideas to convey the truth.

Therefore, I present my Memoranda to the public – convinced that they will help them to see the ‘perestroika’ changes, and their sequels, in the Communist world and beyond, in a more realistic light, and to recover from their blindness.

Anatoliy Golitsyn, United States, 1995″



It is entirely incomprehensible, given the (well-timed) renewed aggressiveness and threats from this now openly displayed Moscow-Beijing communist alliance, that supposed analysts and commentators stubbornly keep rationalising things to the effect that either “Russia” has a right to defend itself; just happens to be ruled by a bunch of power-ridden oligarchs who want the USSR back; should be applauded for showing strength and traditional Russian self-esteem; or whatever more outlandish distortions of reality are in circulation. Yet, what we are facing is the final mobilisation of the whole of the communist bloc towards slaying the West! Therefore the most unfriendly language, therefore all the military moves.

Because of this deplorable inaptitude across the board, because of these laughable non-assessments one can read everywhere (the shameful example to be introduced here being supposed political analyst Toby Westerman), this author sat down in late August 2013 and mailed a little reader’s comment to the traditional-Catholic website traditioninaction.org, where same Toby Westerman appears to be in the position of regular house Kremlinologist, so to speak (that comment by this author was then posted by TIA in their “What People Are Commenting” section on August 29, 2013):


Dear Mr. Guimarães,

With all due respect, after having read your contributor Toby Westerman’s articles on Russia and China for quite some time, I’ve come to the conclusion that although he desperately tries to figure out the writing on the wall, still he cannot identify WHY the “new Russia” so fatally resembles the old Soviet Union.

For, had he ever read – let alone: grasped – the two books by outstanding Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn, New Lies for Old (1984) and The Perestroika Deception (1995), as well as the late Christopher Story’s reference work, The European Union Collective (2002), he certainly would stop parroting the official Soviet line of deception of a “fall” of the USSR back in 1991.

The shocking reality – according to Golitsyn and Story and very easy to realise as soon as one really opens one’s eyes – is that there has been NO discontinuity in the Soviet/pan-communist project of Marxist-Leninist world revolution whatsoever. Indeed, the alleged “fall of communism” of 1989/91 in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union was the greatest lie ever sold, precisely to confuse and strategically disarm the United States and the West and to finally swing the balance of world power in favor of world communism, the latter of which we can now observe, real-time, as open cooperation-blackmail and WWIII-threats.

Golitsyn is THE key to understanding this (and no less a man than once-CIA counterintelligence expert James Jesus Angleton came to appreciate the enormous value of Golitsyn’s fully accurate assessments as well as predictions). As an introduction to this, I recently published on my blog, beside much more extensive treatises on the same topic, a compilation entitled Photographic Proof the USSR Still Exists. Do read it, everybody, and awaken to the grim fact that Perestroika and Glasnost were simply a giant propaganda and brainwashing offensive to psychologically overwhelm and manipulate the West and remove from its eyes the IMAGE of the enemy, and the image only! 

All the best for your further work, and may God the Lord have mercy on us, 

O.R., Europe


And here is Westerman’s slick, evasive, and arrogant response, very obviously meant to defend his personal position of “respectability” as a good-for-nothing “analyst”, rather than to defend truth (that is foreign to him), published on that website a few days later – never mind that the editors there seem to be light-years away from willing to have a look into Golitsyn’s unique expertise on their part (bold print by this author; posted by TIA in their “What People Are Commenting” section on Sept. 3, 2013 under the header, “My Approach on Russia”):

Last week, a reader from Europe, O.R., sent a criticism to TIA for publishing Mr. Westerman’s articles on our website. According to this reader, his articles supposedly are out-of-touch for not considering the works of Golitsyn and Story. These authors – Mr. O.R. argues – defend that the fall of USSR never really happened. It is just a maneuver to deceive the West. TIA sent the criticism to Mr. Westerman. Below is his response. The Editor.



Thanks for the opportunity to respond, and thanks to O.R. in Europe for his interest.
l l
I have read Golitsyn’s works as well as Story’s. They present a compelling case for a planned end to the USSR.
Planned or not, however, the USSR did collapse, and, while I find the reasoning of Golitsyn and Story to be a valid explanation for the Soviet Union’s demise, the “it was all planned” hypothesis will be difficult for many to accept. Conspiracy theories, even if valid, tend not to be trusted by many if not most readers.
ll l
My approach is to document what is happening now in Russia and with its allies. I seek to show the link between the present and the old Soviet Union, as well as Moscow’s efforts to construct a new Communist State, which would be more in line with Lenin’s original intentions. I have consistently pointed out that the rulers in Moscow are a spy elite which traces its origins to the bloody Cheka of the early days of Bolshevik Russia.
In the end, it matters little if the current rulers in Moscow are following a grand plan from an earlier period or are simply totalitarians determined to cook up a “new and improved” Soviet Union. The result is the same: a clear and immediate threat to humanity which many, even many conservatives, are unwilling to acknowledge.
I agree with O.R. as to the level of danger, but I also believe that the best course is to concentrate on Moscow’s present intentions and its links and identification with the Soviet past.
I hope this clarifies my approach
Best to all at TIA and to O.R. 
Toby Westerman
Because of this kind of analytical incompetence, mixed with dishonesty and probably financial considerations, whether on the part of politics, intelligence, or journalism, we have reached where we have reached. There appears to be neither clarity of thought nor courage left anywhere, and those few who are heroically explaining as true educators the intellectual as well as moral and spiritual shortcomings of the West that have led to the disaster at hand today, and who are able to most accurately analyse (in the fullest sense of the word) what Moscow, Beijing and allies are in fact up to, are being at best ignored, or otherwise ridiculed as hopeless relics of the Cold War era, resp. attacked as ‘McCarthyiites’ of yesteryear.
And so, as this author recently came across yet another jewel of Toby Westerman’s “at-face-value analytical depth”, he just couldn’t help using that article absurdly titled “Thanks, Putin – America Owes You a Debt of Gratitude” for a pars-pro-toto refutation (not an ad-hominem attack against Toby Westerman, whom this author doesn’t know and has no need of getting to know) of this comfortable general ‘consensus’ that, yes, things are bad, and Russia’s moves are disturbing, but we must wait and see and pray that this present Russian oligarchy under Putin will come to their senses in time, and maybe the upcoming midterm elections will give a boost to American conservatives, and maybe by January 20, 2017, Barack Obama and his Marxist friends will be history. These are DREAMS, it’s the stubborn refusal of reality, in fact putting one’s head in the sand!
What follows is Toby Westerman’s pointless article of March 17, 2014, just as it was posted on the TIA website, complete with illustrations, yet extended by a whole number of orange-coloured comments resp. rectifications, as well as added bold print, by this author:       



By Toby Westerman

America owes a debt of gratitude to Russian president Vladimir Putin [Westerman throughout is personalising developments as if we were confronted with some Putin, the “lonely Czar”, rather than with a disciplined, well-oiled collective leadership machinery; premier Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn, in contrast, always used the phrase, “the strategists”]. Before his Stalinist invasion of Ukrainian territory, few seemed concerned about Russia’s drive to modernize its military and Moscow’s ever tightening military alliance with China [the alliance, as shown by Golitsyn, had existed ever since 1957, despite all disinformation to the contrary, whereas recently that scissors strategy of disinformation merely gave way again to an overt display of their alliance, the switch from alleged Sino-Soviet split to “one clenched fist”; a mere change of appearance, not of fact]. After Putin’s military adventure in Crimea [it wasn’t an adventure, but a strategic chess move], a parade of experts, pundits, and talk show hosts are now talking about Putin’s goal of re-forming a new version of the Soviet Union, and some have even applied the term “communist” [rightfully so] to events in Russia. [Let’s see what ‘better’ and ‘deeper’ insight “expert” Westerman will provide us with …]

(INA Today readers, of course, have been informed of these and related matters for a decade and a half [having been fed half-truths and at-face-value “analyses”]).

Putin and the Plan [he keeps personalising the issue, proving his shortsightedness]

With this new awareness, a part of America’s news agencies is encouraging as vital a better understanding of the political oligarchy in Moscow and Beijing.

[Above:] An Eurasian Union is in motion to re-place the former USSR [the USSR has been all the while in place, through their internal structure of the “CIS” and with the CPSU still there behind the scenes; it’s simply coming out from its hiding and back to the forefront, that’s all; thus, not a “former” USSR is being replaced, but a temporarily covert USSR is now finally reappearing into plain sight; and that presently discussed “Eurasian Union” is only the preparation for what had been called for 25 years ago by Gorbachev and Shevardnadze as a “Common European Home from the Atlantic to Vladivostok”, that is a unified communist Eurasia including the whole of Western Europe!!! Western Europe, sooner rather than later, will be part of this extended Soviet Union, which by the end of the day will show that the so-called EU extension into the East was in fact a steady extension of Soviet influence over Western Europe, a Soviet Western extension! Also, they were boasting back then that the CSCE, now OSCE, was a net they’d thrown over Europe!!! Nothing of which, of course, Westerman dares to look at].

Putin is not merely a thug, a school yard bully or anything of the kind [they all are!!!]. He is a true believer in what he has referred to as “the cause” – Communism [otherwise he wouldn’t be President of the still-existing USSR!!!]. Various commentators, including talk show guru Rush Limbaugh, have stated this, but what is lacking is the realization that Putin is not alone in his desire to rebuild the Soviet Union. The restoration of the Soviet Union, in some version or other, has been the goal of the Moscow oligarchy since the collapse of USSR [For goodness sake, please stop talking of “oligarchs”; they are a political class, Bolshevist revolutionaries to the core; and we’re not seeing a “restoration” here, but a mere reemergence of something that had been kept hidden for 22 years, for reasons of strategy!].

While Russian president Boris Yeltsin, in 1992, was speaking to a joint session of the U.S. Congress and promising lasting peace and friendship, Russian spies continued to carry out Soviet-style deep penetration efforts against America and our allies [the main issue here is strategy, not the conventional spying business; and the problem of revolutionary moles in the Western structures, the most prominent and fatal one being Comrade Obama, is by far more crucial than spies: again, Westerman reveals he has no awareness of strategy and doesn’t even acknowledge the United States having been already in a post-revolutionary situation ever since Obama’s first election in 2008]. Yeltsin also took the first steps in forming what became under Putin, a “Union State” between Russia and the Stalinist pariah nation of Belarus. Where, it may be added, the KGB is still called the KGB [And so, what does this tell us??? Westerman fails in providing us with an explanation; which of course can only be that the “reforms” were only cosmetic, and done “more thoroughly” in the “once” RSFSR, now: Russian Federation, than in other Soviet republics. – Poor man: he simply can’t tell the forest for the trees!].

Putin continued and accelerated what Yeltsin had begun [Yeltsin had begun nothing. He merely was one element in the long chain of consecutive phases of their long-range strategy towards world communist domination; Westerman, go home, you haven’t understood a thing!]. The Russian army retained Soviet-era insignia and banners; Soviet Cold War spies, living and dead, were given special honors; the mass murderer, Josef Stalin, acquired a new coat of whitewash; even the cruiser Aurora, which is credited in Soviet lore for playing a key role in the Bolshevik overthrow of the Russian Provisional Government – which took power after the Tsar’s abdication – has again been given the pride of place it enjoyed in the Soviet era [this stretch is typical of Westerman: although he keeps listing mind-blowing fact after mind-blowing fact, which basically all prove a seamless continuity of the USSR all the way through the 1990s till today, he doesn’t and cannot come up with a coherent explanation or conclusion. He is registering, he is alarmed, yet he doesn’t understand, and so he leaves his readers with no clues about what these facts actually mean!].


The Role of the Ukraine

Russia and Ukraine share a common history that goes back over a thousand years [yet, the year 1917 marked, factually, a new year count, a radical new beginning akin to the French Revolution, which was the historical forerunner of the October Revolution]. Often, this shared history has been bloody and bitter, but similarities in language and culture [and particularly in their being two Socialist Soviet Republics of one and the same still-intact USSR!] make events in Ukraine immediate and vivid to the Russian people [a funny way of putting it; yet, we are not talking about a national question here, but about the USSR, along with all her allies around the world, prepping up for WWIII]. Ukraine was an important part of the Tsarist Empire and one of the original members of the USSR. In the Soviet era [he speaks of a “Soviet Era” as a thing of the past, yet the Soviet Union is still there, Mr. Westerman, and it isn’t being restored, but simply reemerging from its 22-year hiding], Ukraine was not only an important agricultural area, but also a center of industry.

Today, much of Russia’s natural gas exported to Europe goes through Ukrainian territory. Putin and the Moscow political oligarchy recognize that Ukraine is an important element in a new Soviet Union because of its historical ties to Russia [“historical ties to Russia” is typical Western-bourgeois sentimental babble; what communism once owns, it never lets go again, as simple as that! No need for well-measured historico-cultural findings. The only culture that is shared by post-revolutionary Moscow and post-revolutionary Kiev is Bolshevist, idiot!], its strategic location between Europe and Russia, its sheer size (the second largest nation in Europe [Ukraine ceased to be a “nation” many, many decades ago when it was forever subjected to communist rule during the years of the Red Terror; what we are dealing with is – still – an SSR, a Soviet Socialist Republic, not a nation!]), as well as its continued economic importance.

[Above:] Ousted president Viktor Yanukovych, disliked for his extreme pro-Russian, policies and corruption

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union [what a faithful servant of Soviet disinformation Westerman is: never once he questions the official version of a “collapse of the Soviet Union” as possibly having been a deception instead, a simple change of labels; he watches, and yet he cannot see!], Ukrainian leaders continued a generally pro-Moscow policy [there was no pro- or anti-Moscow “policy” on the part of the “Ukrainian leaders”, there was only joint strategic action behind the scenes; with some temporary allowance of an “Orange Revolution” feeding illusionary expectations mainly in the West]. Thousands of Russians migrated to Ukraine after the collapse of the Soviet Union, giving Moscow additional leverage in Ukraine’s affairs [even stronger influence than in official Soviet times? Come on! This is nonsense! Ukraine was and still is a firm part of the still-intact USSR, despite all the fuzz and “independence movement” going on! It’s deception!!!].

Of the post-Soviet [rather: still-Soviet!!!] Ukrainian leaders, none has labored more intently for Moscow than Viktor Yanukovych, who was first elected president in a rigged election in 2004. He was removed from office by another election in 2005, after mass demonstrations were carried out, known as the Orange Revolution. A split in the “Orange” movement allowed Yanukovych to be reelected in 2010, only to be deposed by mass protests in February 2014 because of his extreme pro-Russian policies, corruption, and generally tyrannical rule [and only an idiot would have ever thought that Yushchenko-style freedom and democracy would ever prevail in a Soviet Socialist Republic!!! There was also Vaclav Havel in Czechia; he was controlled. There was Lech Walesa in Poland; he was controlled too! They just move their chess pawns back and forth, advancing their strategy all the while; if they make mistakes, they take detours, that’s all].

The pro-freedom movement [more likely: the “pro-freedom provocation”, and weren’t these barricades really impressive???] that removed Yanukovych was not merely a localized rejection against Russian dominance and world-class corruption, but was, and continues to be, a direct threat to the existence of the Moscow political oligarchy [which is precisely what the Soviet strategists, whom you call “oligarchs”, want you, Westerman, and the West to believe!!!].


Moscow Fears a Revolution by Its Own People [Really?]

Putin’s desire to have Ukraine as a member of a nascent Soviet State [Putin is little more than a figure-head; he is not so much determining policies, but merely executing longrange strategy!] is second only to the knowledge that Moscow must suppress the pro-Western revolution that ousted Yanukovych. Moscow justifiably fears the contagion of the democratic spirit which is now evident in Ukraine [don’t say “evident”, say “apparent”, because all that you are describing is the mere surface of events, that you are unable to properly assess and interpret!].

For all the pro-Soviet propaganda and political manipulation after the collapse of the USSR [not again!], there still exists within the Russian people [the Russian people, the Russian culture irreversibly was consigned to the midden-heap of history by the Bolshevist Revolution; there is no longer a “Russian people”, there is only a Soviet “people”, which actually was the wording during the official USSR!], a desire for true human freedom [not true: they were “taught”, particularly by the calculated economic chaos under Yeltsin, that one cannot eat democracy. They do not long for freedom, whether political or economic, they long for stability, guaranteed minimum wages and pensions, and finally they long for Soviet greatness throughout the world!]. Moscow knows this, and lives in fear of it [which is why they are now most relaxedly laughing at NATO and the West??? Come on, Toby!].

[Above:] The people of Ukraine protest in the streets against the Putin invasion [personalisation again; here one should also perhaps throw in an important lesson every student of art history already learns in his first semester: to neatly discern between what his eyes can see and what his interpretative mind wants to see. What we actually see in the photograph to the right is a young man, surrounded by other young people draped in Ukrainian flags, who holds up a card-board sign saying, “Putin! Hands off Ukraine” in his one hand and a megaphone in the other. That is basically all that can be said about this photograph! Everything else is interpretation! When Westerman says the people of Ukraine protest, one could just as well speculate that probable Komsomol members are staging a protest, and so, if one chooses to interpret further, in a suspiciously calm manner!]

The unrest [resp., the probably staged “unrest”] recently unleashed on the streets of Kiev is the most significant reason for Moscow’s intervention [how does Westerman know? The reason for Moscow’s “intervention” much more likely is a mere playing out of strategy, and of mobilising the Soviet Army under a false pretext in an obvious preparation for World War]. The seriousness of this threat was made clear, ironically, by a political leader supposedly in opposition to Putin’s ruling party [surprisingly, here Westerman admits the existence of controlled or false opposition within the Russian State Duma, yet again without coming to the inevitable conclusion that some other force behind must be in control of all these apparent different parties, which is of course and always has been ever since 1992 the unchanged CPSU, that is operating from the shadows]. Communist Party Gennady Zyuganov declared with remarkable candor that “It is possible that in two years there will be a similar scenario in Russia,” if Moscow did not take action [Westerman parrotting a classic piece of misleading disinformation by Zyuganov, that implies that “Russia” is on the defensive, weak, and under pressure; yet, this is the classic “weak look” as taught by ancient Chinese strategic thinker Sun Tzu and frequently used by the Soviets to confuse the West about their real strength and their real intentions].

Moscow was extremely fearful of the “colored revolutions,” [they were either entirely in charge of them, or at least admitting them for some limited time!!!] inspired by the 2004 Orange Revolution and its spread to what Russia calls its “near abroad,” the States of the former Soviet Union [he never uses quotation marks, as he is a true believer in today’s “Russia” as a “former” instead of an unchanged Soviet Union]. Moscow’s spy services took action in cooperation with pro-Russian elements within the “near abroad” States to blunt the effects of that expression of human freedom [but what if the apparent roll-back is simply a removal of the illusion of post-Soviet “independence”???]. To a large extent, Moscow was successful [of course, it is; how can it not be, with Communists in control of all power centres also throughout the Western world, that in addition is by now completely unable to challenge a Russian-Chinese-led, read: all-out pan-Communist, military threat!!!].

After the overthrow of Yanukovych [“overthrow” is already an interpretation for which we do not have sufficient data to prove it, despite the dramatic protests against his opulent lifestyle; all that we can say is that Yanukovich disappeared], however, the same cold fear is again motivating Putin and the rest of Russia’s political class [come on: the ruling political class in the Kremlin is far from being afraid, whether of Kiev or the West!].

The [apparent] demonstrators in Kiev now were not merely [apparently] protesting a corrupt election. They rejected what would certainly become Ukraine’s merger with the new Soviet State, and the ousting of a loyal pro-Moscow figure [so it seemed]. The demonstrators [apparently] brazenly denounced the lies from both Yanukovych and his Russian masters. Putin had to make a bold move or risk not only a serious blow to his plans for a re-formed Soviet Union, but also face the wrath of his own people awakened by the cries of freedom coming from the streets of Kiev. [What a naїve look at events: Russia forced to react in the face of a freedom movement threatening to get out of control. Maybe we should feel sorry for the people in the Kremlin, given all the distress and crisis. Yet, what is getting ever clearer, and has been the much more plausible explanation all along, is that it’s again, like in 1989, 1991, or 1993, a well-planned and theatrically enacted provocation to distract the West’s attention from the ongoing military buildup almost certainly directed not against the still-communist Ukrainian SSR, but against the West!]

Although most of the world condemns his actions, Putin does have a loyal, and increasingly powerful, friend. In his confrontation with the West, Putin has a long cultivated ally. [Stop talking about “Putin”! The People’s Republic of China isn’t predominantly an ally of Putin, but of the (still-intact) USSR, and has been such, no matter what, since the late 1950s!]


An Old Moscow-Beijing Axis Recently Acknowledged

Some commentators have taken note of China’s support of Moscow’s invasion of Ukrainian territory, and the similarity of Russia’s land grab to China’s claim to the South China Sea, which is mineral rich and a vital corridor for world shipping. [Because these two communist great powers are engaged in a joint strategy, that requires joint, coordinated moves!]

Suddenly, some pundits are recognizing the common interests, methods, and close cooperation between Moscow and Beijing. [Oh yes! They call it: World Revolution!!!] This was not supposed to happen. [At least for those who naїvely believed in the authenticity of the alleged Sino-Soviet split!]

[Above:] Putin continues the Yeltsin/Jiang Zemin plans for a New World Order to replace US leadership. [He certainly continues Russian-Chinese cooperation towards a Russian-Chinese-controlled “New World Order”, yet that “New World Order” is intended to be a “New World Social Order”, i.e. communism everywhere in the world; also, this joint strategy leads much farther back than to Yeltsin and Jiang Zemin, but to Khrushchev and Mao Zedong, who commissioned the formulation of a joint communist longrange strategy of deception a.k.a. the “Shelepin Plan”. Anatoliy Golitsyn, when he defected over to the West in December of 1961, sacrificed for himself a privileged life in the Soviet structures so to let the West know of this deadly longrange strategy, even facing terrible ridicule and denigration in his new home country, the United States; he then sacrificed the greater part of his life in the West, i.e. at least until 1995, for continuingly warning and trying to educate Western decision-makers as for what lies ahead with most inevitable certainty, unless the West would in time awake to the communist bloc’s longrange scheme. The West “knew better”, and as a result we are now all awaiting indeed the second October Revolution. Westerman ignores all of this!]

After the collapse of the USSR, pundits in the U.S., of various political persuasions, speculated that fear of an increasingly powerful China would drive Russia to align with the West. These pundits, however, failed to acknowledge that Yeltsin’s Russia had, early on, began a policy of providing military assistance to China, providing technical aid, training for officers, and military hardware. [Westerman continues his line of “It started under Yeltsin”, which is pure nonsense. Moscow and Beijing had been tight allies ever since Khrushchev and Mao had sorted out any of their internal differences, adopting a split for outward consumption only, which soon was to lead the United States – by the mistaken, if not treacherous recommendations by then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger – to believe they could “contain” the USSR by opening up to, and building up as a great power, the People’s Republic of China. By this suicidal decision the groundwork was laid in selling the communists the rope by which to hang the hated capitalist world! Yet, not a word by Westerman about the Sino-Soviet split having been a long-term deception!] 

Moscow’s assistance to China has continued for years, unnoticed among the U.S. pundits, who still expect a U.S.-Russian alliance against China [also here, Westerman forgets to mention that the U.S.’s opening up to China in the early 1970s had in mind precisely the opposite: a U.S.-Chinese alliance against the Soviet Union. So, why has this expectation turned out as futile? Because both Moscow and Beijing were jointly fooling the United States and the West! Golitsyn called it the Scissors Strategy].

There also existed among U.S. policymakers and politicians the belief that the Chinese people would eventually emulate the example of Russia and rid themselves of their communist overlords [Amazing how many major flaws Westerman puts alongside each other in one short sentence: there is no Russian people any more, and bascially no longer a Chinese people either, only a “liberated” Soviet people, whether in the stil-intact USSR or in the PRC, and certainly did the Soviet people not rid itself of its communist oppressors in 1991, which was, like the events of 1989, the smoothest “fall” of a tyrannical system in the whole of human history! As a consequence, there’s no example for the people of “China” to emulate so to get rid of their tyrants, in the first place!] This confidence was so great that the U.S. exported much of its manufacturing capability to the Peoples Republic of China (PRC). Politicians hoped that industrialization and a new wealthy class would lead to the end of communist rule, and U.S. manufacturers saw great opportunity for quick profits from selling both to U.S. markets and satisfying a burgeoning consumer class. [Because they were duped, both politicians and industrialists, by communist lies and deception!]

In the meantime, millions of American workers permanently lost their jobs.

The American political leadership remained blind to the reality that none of their preconceptions were based on fact. Not only did Russia and China grow closer [they didn’t grow closer, but the strategic phase of projecting a split between them was slowly nearing its end], but in 1997, Yeltsin and then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin jointly declared a New World Order that would counter, and eventually replace, American leadership in the world. [Again, we’re talking about communist world revolution here, and by definition all communist parties, whether in communist states or in the West, are engaged in it: the goal is “Worldwide Democratic Peace”, i.e. global communist tyranny, or communist world domination! Whilst Westerman portrays it as some kind of conventional geopolitics!]

Putin again carried on and intensified what Yeltsin had begun [not begun, only continued]. Russian military aid to the PRC evolved into a full-scale military and naval alliance. Joint exercises are held involving ground, air, and sea forces of both nations. Moscow and Beijing are even considering a joint lunar base. As one military commentator on Fox News recently acknowledged, America is indeed facing a “Moscow-Beijing axis.” [And so a communist revolutionary axis determined to bring about infamous “World October”, doubt it not!!!]


Options? [No more options! America & the West now stand with their backs against the wall!]

To put the matter bluntly, neither the U.S., nor its European allies are ready to face Putin’s Russia [it isn’t “Russia”, but still the Soviet Union, and it belongs not to Putin, but to the Communist Party SU], an expanding China, and certainly not an alliance between Russia and China [at least, Westerman acknowledges this!]. Years of denial and self-deception have put us in a very dangerous position. Our options are limited, but they can be effective. [There are no more options, not to think of “effective” ones. The pan-communist bloc is now pushing forward, using its military superiority not only as a means of blackmail, but soon, it appears, as the very concrete means to win a global war and install communism throughout the world – no matter the casualties, and once and for all, they’re convinced! Yet, Westerman is playing down the scope and meaning of it all!]

To its credit, the E.U. is showing cooperation with the U.S. in placing some sanctions against Russia, and a political pact between the new Ukrainian government and the European Union is in the works. [At which the Soviets are simply laughing, knowing they’ve swung the balance of power irreversibly!]

There is, however, also the question of how much pressure the E.U. is able or willing to put on Russia. [Regarding the question of will, the two dominant countries in the EU, Germany and France, are ruled by an East-German communist apparatchik and a French socialist! The European Commission is headed by a “former” Maoist student leader at the University of Lisbon! Regarding their ability, well, the Russians certainly won’t lose time in making use of Europe’s energy dependence on Russia and of West European investments in Russia, before Europe could possibly free itself from this dilemma! – And, by the way, who was it, in the case of Germany, who set in motion Germany’s suicidal “Energiewende” back in the late 1990s, that was based on the green-communist lie of Anthropogenic Global Warming? It was the radical-left Red-Green Schröder-Fischer government, with their Minister for the Environment (also known as Germany’s “Salon Stalinist” No. 1), Jürgen Trittin! And who even further accelerated Germany’s exit from nuclear energy, merely two days after the Fukushima accident of March 11, 2011? The succeeding supposedly “conservative” coalition government of CDU/CSU and FDP, led by “former” East German Marxist-Leninist, Angela Merkel, who has remained in power to this day, meanwhile in a coalition with the Social Democrats! The West European countries are being crippled from within!!! – One more delicate aspect: What are former Chancellor Gerd Schröder (SPD) and former Vice Chancellor and Foreign Minister Joseph “Joschka” Fischer (Greens) doing today? Schröder is, beside his resumed profession as a lawyer, as well as a plethora of other splendidly payed activities, chairman of the board of the Nord Stream AG owned at 51% by the Russian gas giant Gazprom and engaged in building a submarine gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany; in other words, Schröder, a declared Marxist, functions as a lobbyist for Soviet-Russian expansionist interests! Joschka Fischer, on the other hand, once a Marxist-radical street fighter, too is involved with energy. He is i.a. a consultant with the German power supplier RWE and with the Austrian oil concern OMV. European energy dependence on Russia is key for the Soviet strategists, and comrades Schröder and Fischer, among many others, are helping the Russian bear in this strategic operation!] Unfortunately, unlike the period of the post-WWII Soviet threat, Europe is closely tied economically to Russia. The European Union gets one-third of its natural gas from Russia, and European financial institutions had heavily invested in Russia. Norway could assist Europe, as could the U.S., if unnecessary regulations were relaxed, but a change of suppliers would take time, increase costs, and the possibility of retaliation by Moscow would loom large. [So, what are the “effective options” then, Mr. Westerman?]

Although E.U. sanctions would be costly to Russia, Putin is betting that Russia can stand the pain, while Europe will not. [And you can bet he is right in his betting!]

[Above:] The US should back the anti-communist demonstrations like those in Caracas, Venezuela. [A U.S. under communist Obama will never support anti-communist protest movements! A pipedream!]

There is, however, another possibility for pressuring Moscow [really?], and it would not involve the vulnerable European economies. The United States could demonstrate its displeasure with Russian aggression and express its commitment to freedom by supporting pro-freedom manifestations in Moscow’s neo-communist allies in Latin America. [Which would certainly turn around the global balance of world power back to America’s favour in an instance! Does Westerman even think? The communisation of Latin America, by now, is almost complete. And before dreaming of supporting the conservative movements in these countries, one has to address the murderous fact that a second-generation Stalinist resides in the White House in Washington D.C.! As long as he and his comrades are in power, America won’t be able to do anything. In fact, as things stand now, America no longer exists! Not to mention the present Pope being an even more radical Marxist than his five preceding Conciliar Popes together! So, not even the Catholic Church will stand up against the world revolution; instead, it is part of it!]

The pro-Moscow governments in Latin America, Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua have recently hosted Russian bombers and warships. [You see: Kennedy was risking war over this. But where is the reaction now, under Obama? Nothing!] The intent is clear: turn Caribbean Latin American waters into a Russian lake. Moscow’s Latin friends, however, do have a problem: in each nation there are significant pro-democracy elements [fatally, supported by no one!].

It is our best interests to aid these pro-freedom groups [what is Westerman talking about, when he says, “Our best interest”? There is no such “We” any longer, as not the conservative parts of the U.S. population are in charge, and not even the military, but a hardcore-communist as President!], both from a moral and a strategic view. [The first moral obligation of truthful, conservative America should be to save itself from the communists presently in power at home! Then, they can think about moral obligations towards other nations. As for strategy, one can only ask what sort of “strategic thinking” Westerman has in mind, especially as he has no understanding of communist strategy whatsoever!]

Although the present administration would find this strategy distasteful, it is certainly open to the next U.S. President [there are almost 3 more years to go until January 20, 2017 – the year, by the way, of the centennial of the October Revolution. Does Mr. Westerman seriously believe that Moscow, Beijing, and their helpers around Obama will give the United States that much time, let alone a real chance, to take the country back??