On a Defense Against the Dark Arts

We begin our discussion betraying a contempt for the lettered mountebanks who arrogantly assert that on November 9, 1989, our very “Western” history witnessed the collapse of “Communism.”[1]  Righteous Germans, on both sides of the East/West conflict, began tearing down the “Berlin Wall”—a poignant symbol of totalitarian power within the Soviet political system and its collectivist regime Western historians and social scientists insisted was on the verge of complete collapse.  It was a cause for celebration everywhere in Western Civilization.  The nations of the world were enjoying a relatively peaceful period in global affairs.  Stock exchanges were peaking.  And, while everyone who was anyone was raking in the money produced by all those questionable investments, no one had given any thought to the dynamics of the moment—how the “Wild West” had beat the living tar out of the Bolshevik Ideal and hadn’t even looked back to wonder whether that reprehensible victim of circumstance might have survived the onslaught of “Imperial Capitalism.”

Bolshevism was dead—or so it seemed.  This begs the question: Had anyone given any thought to the possibility that the Mensheviks[2] may have survived a very long season of ideological discontent?  By all accounts, the disintegrating Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was proof that the hated bourgeoisie had, at last, triumphed over the proletariat and there was no one left standing to champion the common laborer.  Indeed, it seemed so.  On May 5, 1981, just eight years before, President Ronald Regan had fired 11,000 Air Traffic Controllers who had been on strike seeking an increase in wages and benefits.  It was quite a spectacle!  The following October, the Federal Labor Relations Authority decertified PATCO, their union.  Corporate America was rejoicing!  The on-going denigration of unionized labor had been officially sanctioned by the government of the United States of America, destroying the livelihoods and economic well-being of over 11,000 American families and there would be no end to the pogroms against labor in the years to come.  Did these people know something the rest of us might have overlooked as we withstood the trauma that accompanied the shock and awe of so thorough a western triumph?

You see, at the time, American labor institutions were important to the “West’s” social, economic, and political strategy of “comparative politics”—valuable implements of ideological propaganda and flashy foreign policy that allowed the creation of hundreds of memes useful in disseminating a thoroughly capitalistic agenda for the planetary governance of all humankind.  It was competition at its intellectual zenith; a coup of international proportions; a bloodless revolution; a putsch of extraordinary significance!  Ah, but once the Soviet Union had destroyed itself[3] in the inexplicability of an unforeseen and unfathomably swift social, economic, and political collapse, everything was different!  Our western oligarchs thought the event flow an opportunity to begin their systematic divestiture of a democratic ethos.  Now that “the enemy” had been vanquished, their agenda for a new regime wasn’t the clandestine plotting of a shadow government; no.  During this period of political evolution, the planetary ruling elite were all jockeying to take advantage of the moment!  There would be a “New World Order” organized along the lines of an “Old World” neo-feudal hierarchy dominated by self-proclaimed imperators of yet another hegemony, proving the ancient adage to be true—that there is nothing “new” under the sun! 

The Premise

In recent times, the United States with its entire national government apparatus—from the President on down to our local town supervisor—is openly despised, dismissed, and, eventually, discarded as a public institution of trust as millions of people turn to the alternative media for the “truth” of what is going on in the world.  The response of that apparatus was to attempt to disenfranchise the masses even further by a feeble and juvenile attempt to discredit those very alternative news sources—something they should have thought through as their corporate-controlled Main Stream Media had been caught in a perennial season of lies, deceit, and subterfuge now approaching epic proportions.  With “whistleblowers” safely interned in jails for several years and anyone who thought anything about the massive corruption of this so-called democratic government to be an area of inquiry that was no longer beneficial to explore, the ruling elite changed their tactics from subtle manipulation to in-your-face, outrageous double-speak and unfathomably immature behavior, engaging in activities that smacked of desperation.  It would seem, they no longer thought that their cool-headed logicians and clever dogmatists were the formidable foes they thought we might “think” them to be. What had gone wrong?  Why were our oligarchs and their feckless minions behaving like frightened children in the dark of night?

Well, it was because the “night” had gotten very dark, indeed.  In the placid scheme of things; in the ruthless objectification and exploitation of human nature for reckless profit, the opposing Oligarchies had suddenly realized that they had not “won” the Cold War.

The symptomology of sedition is not thoroughly understood

Not long ago, by modern historical methods of estimation, a fellow by the name of Anatoliy Golitsyn believed that western governments did not thoroughly understand the nature of the threat from “International Communism” [Read: Trotsky’s Menshevism].  He approached western authorities and passed off drafts of his book, “The New Lies for Old” and encouraged them to study the information. Western officials, who became aware of the views expressed in his book, especially the more controversial issues such as the Sino-Soviet split, rejected them out of hand.  Through the years—into the decade of the 1990’s—it was becoming clear to Golitsyn, that there could be no reasonable hope that his analysis of the intentions of the Communist Movement would ever be considered serious in official circles.  In 1995, Golitsyn wrote another book entitled “The Perestroika Deception.”  In it he explains the deceitful, clandestine intent behind a “Leninist strategy” which former Communist apparatchiks are—to this day—pursuing behind a façade of “fake news,” “fake reform,” and “fake progress toward democracy.”  Golitsyn asserts that the objective of this new long-range strategy is the ultimate destruction of the “nation state,” replacing it with huge regional collectives organized as “Super-states” and very similar in appearance and operational characteristics as the European Union—which should give us pause to consider what we’re all observing at this time.  These regional “Super-states” will become the foundation of a “New World Order” organized under a regime of collectivist, totalitarian, “Soviet”-style Government.

Golitsyn had made a number of assertions attempting to describe “the mind of Lenin” to an unassuming and ignorant western audience of self-indulgent “specialists” in anything that they declared themselves to be. In 1994, author Mark Riebling, carried out a methodical analysis of Golitsyn's predictions as he had laid them out in his book, “The New Lies for Old.”  He discovered that Golitsyn had accurately foreseen over 94% of the predictions outlined in his book, The New Lies for Old, when he compared them with the event flows unfolding in the modern world.  Such an extraordinary accomplishment put all of Golitsyn’s detractors to shame.  Sadly, though the textbook-like strategy for world domination by International Communists had been exposed, the undeniable accuracy of his claims continued to be mired in controversy. 

Intelligence Aficionados ignored his warnings and Western Governments and their political policy-makers and social planners argued the validity of Golitsyn’s point of view.  Even after the fact, when British representative to the European Union, Nigel Farage, stated that: “A ‘United States of Europe’ will mean the end of democracy,” the pundits continued to couch their banter as right-minded thinking. They believed that Communism had died on November 9, 1989 (when the Berlin Wall was breached and then later torn down).  Of course, the unsettling frequency of Golitsyn’s prophetic admonitions manifesting had proved that it had not.

As far back as the 1960’s, when the now infamous Bilderberg Group was being formed, there were international politicians that seemed to agree with Golitsyn’s assessment more formally outlined in his first book, The New Lies for Old.  They formed the “Presenti Group” named after Carlo Presenti, a wealthy and influential Italian industrialist.  This gathering of influential international celebrities later became known as the Pinay Circle.  At one of the meetings, David Rockefeller—a member at the time—wrote in his memoirs:

“Maître Violet, who had close connections with Deuxième Bureau of the Service des Renseignements (the French CIA), provided lengthy background briefings. Using an overhead projector, Violet displayed transparency after transparency filled with data [supposedly] documenting Soviet infiltration of governments and supporting his belief that the threat of global Communist victory was quite real.”[4] 

Later, Philippe Thyraud de Vosjoli, an important officer in the French intelligence, would attest to this suspicion in his memoirs. 

But now, ask yourself these questions:  You are the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; you are the formidable bastion of Communist ideology and you own 15% of the world’s land mass and 6% of the planetary population.[5]  So, faced with a looming financial crisis, you’re going to just throw in the towel and give it all up?  Is that what the United States did during its most recent financial crisis?  Is that what the European Union did when faced with similar circumstances?

The Golitsyn Controversy[6]

I may sound “Pro-Golitsyn” in my narrative and, over time, I’ve been castigated by people claiming to be “in-the-know” about, what I’m categorizing as, the “Golitsyn Controversy” but let me elaborate on my personal opinion just a bit before you make a judgement.  There are a lot of people who think that Anatoliy Golitsyn was a highly-trained, skilled fabricator whose “information” misled James Angleton, then head of the Special Operations Division of the CIA.  At the time, Allen Dulles was the director of the CIA. He had commissioned Lieutenant General James Doolittle to assess the CIA 's covert intelligence-collecting capabilities.  General Doolittle determined that the CIA could in no way compete with the KGB.  We’ve heard this acronym before, haven’t we? The “KGB”—Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti—which translated to English means: “The Committee for State Security”—of the CCCP, a Russian acronym expressed, in Cyrillic, as the Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Респу́блик or as, we English-speaking peoples know it: The USSR—The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  To this challenge Dulles appointed James Jesus Angleton to become first chief of the CIA's newly created Counter-Intelligence Staff.

Now, wouldn’t you agree that—given the gravity of the situational analysis in General Doolittle’s report—Dulles would have picked his very best Intelligence Officer for this role and the difficult task of orchestrating a “counter-intelligence” response to KGB meddling in the affairs of the United States?  Everyone who actually knew James Angleton thought very highly of him and always described him as a consummate Intelligence Analyst of singular capacity, possessing great skill in his area of expertise.  Reclusive and secretive by nature, he seemed to be the best man for the job.  His associates thought him the consummate skeptic. A contemporary at the CIA, Tom Braden, recalled that Angleton always had an aura of secrecy about him.  It was something that made him stand out—even among other obsessively secretive Intelligence officers.  Angleton preferred to work alone spending countless hours of his time protecting the security of CIA operations through diligent research and a plodding, thorough analysis of available information.  So much for a short synopsis of James Jesus Angleton.  Keep these aspects of his persona in mind as you read on.

Anatoliy Golitsyn made his debut by defecting to the “West” in 1961.  At the time, Golitsyn was a high-ranking member of the “Soviet” staff at the USSR’s embassy in Helsinki, Finland.  Now, try to understand what I’m saying here:  upon his arrival in the United States, Golitsyn demanded that he be interviewed by James Jesus Angleton.  He claimed that no one in the CIA either knew enough or was intelligent enough to question him. Imagine that?  He knew who James Angleton was now didn’t he?  Yes, he did.  Despite Angleton’s proclivity for secrecy, his reclusive demeanor and inclination for maintaining a muted, restrained, and rather subdued professional presence within the CIA, Anatoliy Golitsyn knew who he was and what James Angleton was all about.  His “demand” could be interpreted as a personal determination of the value of Angleton’s skill and organizational influence. One would have to really know a great deal about someone’s background to make such an outrageously imperious and thoroughly antagonistic statement to one’s “handlers”—after all, we’re assuming that Golitsyn’s defection was sincere and not an exploitation of some counter-intelligence spoof.  I find this piece of information fascinating.

Angleton told a Senate Investigative Committee that Golitsyn possessed a remarkable ability for analytical judgment and thought that, as a trained historian with a photographic memory, Golitsyn was, without question, one of the best scholars that he had ever met.  Angleton cited snippets from his interviews with Golitsyn that illuminated Golitsyn’s intellectual grasp of historical events, their dates, and significance.  This “academic proficiency” resulted in Golitsyn stating—what he believed to be—fact with a remarkable, almost uncanny precision, separating formative, existential evidence from conjecture in every case. 

So, in the final analysis of circumstance—which is all that any of us have to employ in our determinations—Angleton was, is now, and will forever be, a man of substance, a patriot, a consummate intelligence analyst who, from every historical account, possessed an almost mysterious ability to judge another’s nature and intellectual competence.  Our brief historic account shows that Angleton was no fool and had determined that Golitsyn was a “genuine defector” despite the fact that Angleton had always believed all defectors were disingenuous and couldn’t be trusted. Golitsyn offered Angleton more than just names, secret policies, and true Soviet intentions.  He described the actual workings of the KGB in incredible detail and demonstrated how he could use such metadata to discover the hidden objectives of Soviet Intelligence, in general, allowing him to estimate outcomes accurately in advance. Impressive!

Sometime in the mid-1960’s, Angleton became convinced that the CIA had been penetrated by a "mole" working for the KGB.  At that time, Clare Edward Petty was a member of the ultra-secret Special Investigation Group (SIG).  Angleton directed him to carry out a study into the possibility that a Soviet spy existed in the higher levels of the CIA.  He recommended that he start his inquiry by investigating David Edmund Murphy.  He posited that this might be a logical place to start as Anatoliy Golitsyn had insinuated, in a discussion, that Murphy might have been recruited as a spy when working in Berlin in the 1950s.  Angleton felt his suspicions were justified in that Murphy spoke fluent Russian and married a woman who had previously lived in the Soviet Union.  In closing his inquiry, Petty eventually produced a twenty-five-page report that concluded that there was a "probability" that Murphy was innocent.  Angleton rejected this determination. 

He then directed Petty to investigate Tennant Bagley, who had been the case-officer dealing with Yuri Nosenko, a KGB Defector whom Bagley had identified as a double agent to the Warren Commission investigating the assassination of President Kennedy.  Mr. Petty spent a year investigating Bagley.  We have to understand that Bagley was one of Angleton's strongest supporters.  In a 250-page report, Petty made the determination that "[Bagley] …was a candidate to whom we should pay serious attention."  However, James Angleton wouldn’t accept the conclusion of his thorough and detailed analysis of material evidence rejecting his report saying that he couldn’t believe Bagley was a Soviet spy.

What is going on here?  On the one hand, we have this fellow—James Jesus Angleton—who is the quintessential skeptic—running the counter-intelligence division of the CIA and engaging in the exhaustive analysis and evaluation of intelligence minutiae on a daily basis and, on the other hand, we discover that, in examining the insight and precise detail of Petty’s exhaustive reports, he simply makes a speculative judgement that he “feels” justifies his rejection of his suppositions.   Granted, my rather opinionated analysis is brief and lacking a suitable historic provenance to support its ideation but the reader can find the same details that I used in this essay by reading the same citations identified in the footnotes.

Clare Petty continued to search for the Soviet mole. Astonishingly, he reached the conclusion that it was James Jesus Angleton who had penetrated the CIA and that he was in league with Anatoliy Golitsyn who, he believed, was not an authentic defector!  At that point in his investigation, he realized that he had been threading the facts of his discovery from the point of view that Golitsyn was genuine.  He began to reconsider everything he had learned.  He arrived at the chilling conclusion that Golitsyn was sent to exploit Angleton!  Golitsyn did, after all, demand to be interviewed by Angleton at the very onset of his defection.  I don’t know about you but the red disaster lights and critical alarm bells are going off in my head at that thought!  Danger!  Danger, Will Robinson!

We have to look at this aspect of the historical context from Petty’s point of view.  In a hierarchical and militaristic organizational society—of which the Intelligence Service forms the upper echelons of power and authority—an intelligence operative, regardless of rank, would still be governed by an information compartmentalization protocol. That operative would have to be “given” the authority to access compartmentalized information.  You can’t just walk into Langley and say: “Look here, I’m James Bond and I want to see this classified document!”  However, in the early “heady” days of the OSS (Office of Strategic Services) which later became the CIA,[7] the organizational infrastructure of the agency was too loose and too dependent upon operatives who put an awful lot of emphasis on personality, political and social mobility, gutsy heroics, and an almost psychopathic paranoia leading to the diminution of the analytics that are so important to the detailed and thorough evaluation of material evidence that demonstrates the reality with which everyone is actually dealing.  Experience is important.  Insight is important.  Discernment is Important.  But, all those intangible capacities cannot communicate, with any degree of certainty, an actual existential threat if there is no material evidence to corroborate and confirm all of the speculation.  In other words, theoretical musing is useful, yes, but only to the extent that such a theory can be substantiated by evidence considered in “proof of fact.”

Petty had accumulated a mountain of such evidence. You see, in the early days during World War I, we had this “thing” our historians call “The Bolshevik Revolution.”   The Bolsheviks were people who believed in and adhered to the philosophical teachings of Vladimir Lenin. Lenin wanted Russia to withdraw its support in the War against Germany.  The Europeans, fearing the Bolsheviks would eventually gain access to all that military hardware and ordinance shipped to Russia under the Tsarist regime decided upon an Allied military intervention to (1) prevent the German or Bolshevik capture of Allied material stockpiles in Arkhangel, (2) mount an attack helping the Czechoslovak Legions stranded on the Trans-Siberian Railway, and (3) resurrect the Eastern Front by defeating the Bolshevik army with help from the Czechoslovak Legions using an insurgency of anti-Bolshevik forces comprised, primarily, of local citizens.[8]  The West gave the Bolsheviks a nose-bleed.  It created a lot of blowback for the West in that, after the Bolsheviks succeeded in driving all of the foreign adventurers out of Russia, the Bolshevik leadership determined that the survival of the “Communist” (Marxist/Leninist) cause could only be guaranteed through the imposition of a ferocious police state and the “Cheka” (the Secret Police) was created to impose a ruthless state security regime.

As the decades wore on, the “Cheka” evolved into the notorious NKVD (People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs) and then, after World War II, the NKVD “morphed” into the MGB (Ministerstvo Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti which, translated to English, means the Ministry for State Security).  I say morphed into the MGB because the MGB was the Soviet Union’s first “true” Intelligence Service and it continued to progress in greater sophistication until, in 1953, it was reorganized into the KGB.   During this time, the United States did not have a coherent, unified Intelligence Agency.  In fact, prior to the formation of the OSS in World War II, American intelligence was conducted on an ad-hoc basis by different departments within the executive branch.  Each department set up its own division to either gather intelligence information or execute a covert operation.   There was no comprehensive set of goals and objectives, no direction, coordination, or control within these eclectic subordinate divisions.  The FBI was actually the only agency within the Federal Government with any experience in the acquisition and disposition of such information and they were bound, by law, to remain focused on domestic operations.  So, you can see that the KGB had the jump on anything that the West was engaged in.  Inasmuch as Great Britain, France, and the United States had actually attacked Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution, they were considered by the Government of the Russian Communist regime to be enemies of the state—their assistance against the Wehrmacht during World War II notwithstanding.  

During the formation of the OSS, a more-sophisticated and militant KGB—the product of having had decades to evolve and mature from its origin in the “Cheka”—might have determined the insertion of intelligence “moles” to be of paramount importance to the survival of the Communist State.  In fact, in 1949, Kim Philby, now known to be a double agent and high-ranking officer in the KGB, was invited by the Government of the United States to come to America and help “set up” the CIA![9]  He had already compromised the British intelligence service “MI6.”  Doesn’t anyone understand the significance of such an opportunity?  Philby had a “once-in-a-lifetime” shot at thoroughly compromising America’s nascent intelligence organization with every manner of penetration available at the time—rigging the entire apparatus of America’s state security paradigm with moles, double agents, and “sleeper spies,” as well as advanced “snooping” technology.  What?  You think he passed that opportunity up, do you?  Of course, you don’t.

 In Clare Petty’s case, he mused that the next step in the development of a successful penetration of American Intelligence had to be the exploitation of an operative of influence and organizational power.  Just such a fellow was our own James Jesus Angleton.[10]  Golitsyn might have been dispatched as an agent of influence—a convincing persona able to manipulate Angleton to provide him with access to classified information overriding the “need-to-know” protocols that governed compartmentalized information. It may have been the case that in demonstrating the previously unknown techniques and operational protocols of the KGB, Golitsyn might have given Angleton the idea that, in knowing such actionable intelligence, the CIA could then use it to penetrate and control other services.  Quite possibly, Petty’s analysis—that Angleton was a mole, but he needed Golitsyn to have a basis on which to act—might actually have been the case. We’ll really never know because, to this day, the activities of Angleton are still classified.  So, if Petty’s determination is correct, what you have is two people of converging interests (Golitsyn and Angleton), engaged in a collaborative relationship, meticulously plodding through reams and reams of classified information so that—within their minds—the unknown could be known but to them alone; exclusively.  Petty surmised that, given the material evidence available and, using practical reasoning, Golitsyn was a double agent dispatched to “activate” Angleton—a persona known to the KGB as a brilliant intelligence analyst…in charge of counterintelligence and, hence, my suspicions that he had been “profiled” by Philby.  Yeah, go figure.  Madonna mia![11]

Now, as you contemplate all of this information, intellectually digesting all of the nuance and transience, bear in mind that during the epic decades between the Bolshevik Revolution and the end of World War II, you had this fellow Leon Trotsky traveling all over the planet organizing the “Communist International.”  Forget the fact that Joseph Stalin had him executed.  Trotsky had sided with the Mensheviks against Lenin (a Bolshevik) who wanted a very much smaller, more rigidly disciplined Communist Party.  Trotsky disagreed believing that the “Party” should be much larger and loosely organized.  Trotsky actually came up with the idea of a “Supreme Soviet” (or “Council of Workers”).  The Bolsheviks turned against him, arrested, and tried him for supporting armed rebellion. The authorities sentenced him to exile in Siberia.  On the journey there, he escaped and (somehow) made his way to London.  From there he launched an international campaign to advance the Communist cause throughout the nations of the world.  His ideas and philosophy had a particular influence on the development of America’s “Liberal Left” which, over the next couple of decades into the late 1940’s attracted the attention of Federal authorities. People from “god-knows-where” were showing up in the public group think as architects of a new, important socio-political resolution to the more classical regime of hereditary aristocracy and that resolution was the political world view of Karl Marx as modified by the ideology of Vladimir Lenin; Communism.

In 1953, Senator Joe McCarthy came to national prominence when he opened an investigation into the possibility that Communist agents had penetrated the U.S. Army Signal Corps.[12]  Expanding his investigation, he later claimed that some 200 or so State Department employees were members of the Communist Party.  He produced a list that was unceremoniously dismissed by then-Secretary of State Dean Acheson.  McCarthy adamantly accused the State Department of harboring Communists and Communist sympathizers who, he explained, were shaping the foreign policy of the United States.  The Senate voted to censure McCarthy in 1954 and nothing was ever done to either disprove his claims or react to any possibility that some of the information gathered might be a genuine indication that a subversion of our national government was underway.

In 1956 Nikita Khrushchev, then “Soviet” Premier made this statement to the innumerate nations of the world around him:

“About the capitalist states, it doesn't depend on you whether or not we exist. If you don't like us, don't accept our invitations, and don't invite us to come to see you. Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!” [Wikipedia]

By 1964, the stage was set.  Three whole decades of unbridled arrogance, intellectual vacuity, and morally reprehensible social policy had its effect.  Western intelligence aficionados were complacently convinced that the effectiveness of their agencies could be enhanced, amended, and amplified through the practice of “acquisition” (You know…like the way corporations expand their “presence” by buying up other companies).  They actively recruited Soviet and Eastern European agents dangling the amenities of their “Capitalist Cultures” as carrots to be had for a price.  The price to be paid was treachery.  Who on Earth would trust anyone given to the idea of “selling out” their heritage, family, and homeland for a “percentage?”  You see, the reason why corporations fail so miserably when they use this “expansion” technique is because they unwittingly acquire the inherent weaknesses of the companies that they overrun.  Very often, their management infrastructure is completely unprepared to deal with such inherent weaknesses.  Moreover, you never discover any attempt to ask themselves what had made the target acquisition so “attractive” in the first place?[13]  So too is it the same with acquiring a “foreign agent.”  He or she brings with them all of the weaknesses that had dominated their intrinsic worth and had relegated their careers to positions of weakness in which treachery became a more attractive option than integrity and self-reliance.  The doors to the “inner sanctums” of the Western Intelligence Community were thrown wide open.  The Intelligence Communities of Great Britain and the United States were compromised by the Cambridge Five, Portland Spy Ring, Ware Group, a “sleeper spy ring” in the US, the Silvermaster spy ring, and, of course, the machinations of “The Atomic Spies” (Klaus Fuchs, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and the like).  In France, Philippe Thyraud de Vosjoli, an important officer in the French intelligence system for 20 years, asserted in published memoirs that the SDECE (The Service de Documentation Extérieure et de Contre-Espionnage which translated to English means “External Documentation and Counter-Espionage Service”) had been deeply penetrated by the Soviet KGB in the 1950s [Wikipedia].    What were they thinking?  Did they actually believe that the KGB would just sit on its ass and “react” to the threat of existential annihilation? 

From 1975 through 1976 the, now-famous, Church Committee headed by Senator Frank Church (D-Idaho) conducted congressional hearings that probed widespread intelligence abuses by the FBI, CIA, IRS and NSA in the wake of the Watergate scandal.  The committee exposed how, under the guise of national security, these agencies spied on American citizens for political purposes during the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administrations.  The hearings focused on the FBI and the CIA.  The discovery of covert operations and of the various abuses fueled fears of greater Constitutional compromise.  For example, Senator Walter Mondale (D-Minn.) worried that the NSA "…could be used by any President, in the future, to spy upon American citizens, to quell rising political dissent.” [paraphrase] Oh, really?

To prevent these fears from materializing, the committee determined that oversight beyond that of the executive branch was necessary and the Intelligence Services were brought under the regimen of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978.[14]  This legislation created a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court empowered to issue warrants for domestic eavesdropping.  For decades now, the FISA court has operated in the shadows.  The subsequent defense and Intelligence Community cuts came later as an attempt to pare down the Intelligence Community’s power and influence on both domestic and foreign affairs.  As James Pavitt, a CIA Intelligence Officer, remarked in an interview with NBC reporter Chris Hansen:

"Two or three weeks before that first aircraft slammed in to the first tower in New York, there was a debate at CIA about the rebuilding of the clandestine service.[15] And I passionately argued to stay the course, to invest the money. In one instance, I threatened to resign, if we did not get the resources." [Emphasis Mine]

And, as Hansen’s article stated:

But money wasn't the only problem, according to the 9/11 Commission:

John F. Lehman (9/11 Commission Member, July 22, 2004): "There is a deep fundamental dysfunction in the way we go about our intelligence gathering and analysis."

A key question: Why hadn't the CIA done more to infiltrate Al Qaida? 

According to Hansen’s interview of Pavitt on “Dateline NBC,” 10/17/2004 9:05:42 PM ET, “…a 20-year-old oddball kid named John Walker Lindh from Marin County, California can join up with al Qaida and ultimately get a face-to-face meeting with Osama bin Laden—"[16]

Now, this discussion point doesn’t suggest that the CIA had weathered the political storm of the 1970’s and the Church Committee Investigation, does it?  No, I guess it doesn’t.  Sometime in the aftermath of the Carter Administration’s bumbling foreign policies, the CIA took a hit in the form of deep budget cuts that virtually decimated its “clandestine services.”  As an effective and powerful intelligence gathering community, the 9/11 terrorist attacks proved that, for all intents and purposes, the CIA was useless.  So much for the sacrifices made by dedicated intelligence officers and agents over the previous twenty years.  One “thing” led to another and, somehow, the agency lost all of its influence but, more importantly, it lost the “Public Trust.”

I’ll tell you what: I’d say that whether Golitsyn was a genuine defector or not, whether Angleton was a Soviet mole as Clare Petty’s inquiry suggested or whether he was just a patsy targeted for manipulation by Golitsyn, I’m certain that the KGB was pleased with the outcome of their massive, decades-long assault on the American socio-political system down through the period of years that marked the emergence of the Communist International and its fellow “travelers.”  Indeed, they had penetrated the American social perspective as well as its political system in ways that gave their agents valuable insight into the American Mind; its “Group think;” its Weltanschauung.  The agency was set adrift in a dangerous and hostile ocean of contentiousness we once called the Cold War and, in the minds of those whose responsibilities included counter-intelligence, their most exemplary effort left them powerless to resist the avalanche of contempt and disregard leveled at them by a feckless and self-indulgent, self-absorbed body politic corrupted by an alien “Globalist” view. What was the point of all the massive budget cuts?  Obviously to “de-fang” the watchdog and they did and ruthlessly so.   

Unfortunately, thirty years of obfuscating law, social mores, morality, and ethics among the oligarchies of the West (I won’t call them “Nation States”) has completely compromised their public acceptance of “the rules of evidence.”  No longer is anything stated in proof of fact—confirmed by material evidence—recognized by the western elite as a criterion on which they should act.  No response to the grand plan of the Communist International is forthcoming.  We determine the import of any claim with a “high,” “moderate,” or “low” degree of probability—like someone was weighing speculated risk factors of “likelihood.” An overcooked social conflict is churning above a conflagration of discord.  To preserve the status quo, every effort by anyone to stem the tide of corruption and seditious activity within the hallowed halls of western governments has been opposed; whistleblowers have been prosecuted, investigative agencies have been threatened with reprisals, and the common citizen is being tasered, beaten, arrested and confined, and sometimes even shot on the streets in broad daylight by a militarized authority posing as “law enforcement.” 

Western Civilization has been so contaminated by these adversarial elements of organizational change that the common folk no longer understand in which direction they should be focusing their misinformed, misdirected ignorance.  We have all the makings of a fine Swiss Cheese.  Holes everywhere, a peculiar taste, and an indeterminate shelf-life. 

What these observations underwrite is the speculation that our devolution into utter chaos could not have occurred without the careful planning and meticulous implementation of a human intervention the intent of which is to utterly destroy the fabric of our civilization from within.  Look at the news over the past thirty years or so.  We are being “buried” in an Information Avalanche of propaganda—none of it worth a tinker’s damn—while all the while, operatives within our own governments meticulously dismantle every social functionality imaginable.  We don’t have “Education” any longer; we have, instead, a regimen of indoctrination. We no longer have music and art; we have, instead, self-gratifying “opinion.”  We have no “science;” instead, we have a hostile, quarrelsome, and contentious theocracy.  Opposition to it is expressed as “heresy.”  Our laws no longer bridle the criminal, instead, they underwrite them and empower them!  Organized religions embody deviant profanation while their acolytes parrot scripture to the unassuming mind of the zealot.  Corporations are considered “people” and money is considered “speech.” Given this to be the case, is it any wonder why people can’t think anymore?  The momentum of this malevolent intrusion is so intense that we no longer consider options; we no longer examine risk.  Neither do we understand that, as human beings, we have Free Will to advance a cause on our own behalf.  Continually embroiled in wars of attrition, we are nothing more than cattle being herded into an abattoir where the “governing authorities” can deal with us more effectively. 

The Perestroika Deception

A great many people have always suspected that the way in which they have observed the universal collapse of Western Civilization had to have been the consequences of careful planning.  This is not a conspiracy.  The voting public would be right in thinking this but I venture to say that they would be surprised to learn that this disintegrating façade of Empire is not the result of agendas concocted at clandestine meetings of the super-rich and powerful.  Neither is it the result of rabid Zionist aspirations or the mad dog, deterministic intervention fostered by psychotic, self-righteous social planners who have systematically destroyed the foundations of our development through the acute compromise of the nuclear family, civil liberty, moral rectitude, and faith in our Creator.  It is not the malevolent imposition of “biological warfare” against the common folk—from their global spraying to the introduction of weaponized disease into the general population to the untested viability of genetically modified organisms that have every chance of destroying the biosphere upon which we all depend for life and sustenance.  No, the events and consequences we suggest as elements of the fall of Western Civilization were not engineered by the misfits who participated in its rapid obliteration.  But, if not them, then who?

A brief history of revelation

In a town called, Poltava, in the Ukraine, in 1926 the ordinary, humble birth of a male child marked a day of celebration for the family Golitsyn.  His parents named him Anatoliy—a name which, in its Greek derivative, means “sunrise.” He was thus brought up as a member of the post-revolutionary generation within the Communist Movement and from 1933 onward he lived in Moscow.  He joined the communist youth movement at the age of fifteen while he was attending military school and was awarded membership in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1945.  The following year, he joined the Soviet counterintelligence community.  Anatoliy Golitsyn studied Marxism-Leninism and later completed course work at the High Diplomatic School. Together with a friend, he drew up a proposal for the Soviet Central Committee that discussed the reorganization of Soviet Counterintelligence and introduced his elder comrades to the concept of “activist-style” intelligence work.

As a bona fide Communist party member, he witnessed the power struggles inside Soviet government reflected in the seemingly endless purges so obvious to western observers.  During the late 1950’s and into the 1960’s he participated in designing and constructing a new long-range policy for the Soviet Empire. The Intelligence community was being reorganized to play its part in it.  During this evolutionary activity, he served as a senior analyst and specialist on NATO. Later, he was transferred to Finland. There, as vice-consul in the Soviet embassy in Helsinki, he studied counterintelligence issues until December 1961, having become disillusioned with the “Soviet System,” when, he claimed, he broke away—intellectually—from the regime.  The heavy-handed response of the Soviet government against the “Hungarian Revolt,” aggravated his already growing disaffection with the collectivist system of social organization.  You see? Do you understand?  Golitsyn wasn’t a “Leninist;” he was a true Marxist. He believed in the “rule of the Proletariat” which may be the reason why the oppressive response to the Hungarian Revolt seemed so unnecessary to him. Hungary—in the depths of its rebellion against Soviet-imposed policies and suffering economic collapse brought on by “central committee” tomfoolery that had destroyed the discretionary income of every Hungarian worker—wanted to become a neutral nation state.  What was the “Soviet” system doing?  Hadn’t they already negotiated a similar treaty with Austria? 

According to Golitsyn’s account, when the Soviet Government adopted a new, belligerent communist policy toward the West that took the form of an organized and coordinated sedition, he decided to defect to the West.  If, conceptually, Marxist/Leninist Communism couldn’t stand on its own principles, why bother underwriting it as speculative ideology?  Anatoliy Golitsyn believed he was obligated to warn appropriate authorities of the nation state that had granted him asylum.  He sought to inform the highest authorities in the U.S. government of the political perils awaiting them.  These threats were the consequence of Soviet Intelligence mastering the psychology of western politics (herein described in general terms) along with harnessing its associated organizational resources. It was a “deep state” plan to undermine the various initiatives and institutions of the West as western leaders wrestled with the oblique diplomacy of the communist bloc [the impasse created by “misdirection”].  When he began working on a book entitled “The New Lies for Old,” wherein he detailed the characteristics and nature of this new long-range policy, he sincerely believed that western governments did not thoroughly understand the nature of the threat from “International Communism.”  They still don’t!

“Soviet Intelligence” is not “Russian Intelligence.”  “Soviet” Intelligence has no territorial boundaries, no allegiances, no guiding philosophical Weltanschauung to confine its activity to the laws of probability.  It is a universal human construct of counter-revolutionary thought.  It does not subscribe to Marxist/Leninist ideology. It is social, economic, and political Collectivism.  It leverages all revolutionary ideology and dynamic dialog (for example a Hegelian Dialectic; something Marx despised) to gain a foothold in the planetary population’s “Group Think.”  It subscribes to the confiscation of wealth by any means.  It represents the quintessential “Collectivist Regime.” Its participating constituency does not believe in Capitalism but then, neither do they believe in Marxist/Leninist “Communism;” they are the notorious “Collectivists” that author and philosopher Ayn Rand warned us about. 

This Intelligence Community does not encourage alliances with anyone; it simply is! Within the world of “Soviet” Intelligence, people explore the wisdom of separation.  They believe that they are human and think the rest of us as nothing more than animals.[17]  This is the “belligerent communist policy” to which Golitsyn referred in his work.  It doesn’t matter if he was, in fact, a double-agent.  In either case—whether he was a double agent or whether he was not—he had to tell the truth about what it was that he claimed to know.  If he was, in fact, a double agent, he had to tell the truth about what he claimed to know otherwise his “disinformation” campaign might very well have been exposed.  “Disinformation” only works as a ploy if it is buried inside the truth. Clare Petty thought that Golitsyn may have been after the unrestricted access to classified information—which his partnership with James Angleton provided.  Looking at this case from that point of view, we can understand it as a classic case of “misdirection”—a favorite clandestine activity of the KGB by all historical accounts.   If he was not, in fact a double agent—if he was a genuine defector—then he would have had to have told the truth about what he claimed to know, otherwise the socio-political construct that he was trying to protect (and for his own safety) would have been exposed to a malignant sedition; which it has.

Before we continue, I would like the reader to understand that we have been given a glimpse into the mindset of the consummate subversive.  In the work of Anatoliy Golitsyn, we have been given the keys to a secret vault within which lies a diabolical plan for the conquest and eventual universal enslavement of humankind.  It doesn’t matter “what” we might think that he really was. We can confirm everything that he said—everything that author Mark Riebling discovered in his research of Golitsyn’s material—by making simple comparisons between the socio-economic and political architecture of what we knew to be the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the present socio-economic and political architecture of modern-day America and Europe.  There are chilling similarities that should be viewed as warnings of a morbid and malevolent future for humankind.  

Capitalism requires “capital”

As we entered the decade of the “90’s,” American corporate businesses began a big push for outsourcing.  Here at home hundreds of thousands of “jobs” have gone overseas, and our corporate moguls have been investing titanic amounts of western capital in foreign countries where labor could be bought for “pennies on the dollar.”  Outsourcing became the primary tool of social engineering as it applied to the destruction of the American Labor Movement as expressed in its numerous labor unions. Accountability toward the very human social values of safety, quality assurance, and just compensation was flushed down the toilet of human greed.  To their credit, the Western Oligarchs had prepared the communal attitude of the American working class to accept this barbaric assault upon the human condition years before in the 1987 movie “Wall Street” where tycoon Gordon Gekko had advised us all that “Greed is good!”  Granted, he was just a character, played by a competent actor, in a movie of questionable social relevance but that performance became a milestone in the evolutionary mindset of an entire nation…which was, at the time, the most powerful nation on Earth!

Our laborers seemed to have survived the onslaught of bad judgment, abysmal living standards, disintegrating family values, poverty, and even financial deprivation—all associated with their stubborn yet thoroughly implausible belief in “The American Dream”—that precept, I can assure you, only existed as an afterthought in the mind of historian James Truslow Adams who popularized the term in his 1931 book Epic of America. 

Yet, all of that wasn’t quite enough for our storied industrialists.  By the year 2000, their bankers had successfully leveraged huge money flows from millions of small investors who had put their trust in the stock exchanges, government bonds, savings banks, and derivatives.  By 2008, as we all know, the joyride of the American bourgeoisie came to a rather banal end with the collapse of major banking institutions and the real estate market.  Outright grand larceny and fraud was taking place beneath the callously disinterested eyes of the Federal Government’s Department of Justice.  Nothing was done; greed was good, after all.  So, from this we know that this debacle was actually planned, well in advance of the order of events that we all know as:[18] 

1. The financial crisis of 2007–2008,
2. the global financial crisis, and the 
3. 2008 financial crisis.

The financial tomfoolery we all witnessed wiped out the last vestiges of the American middle class reducing anyone who had no off-shore investment to a penniless beggar who would never know the ethos of just compensation in this lifetime!  A human being whose financial portfolio is nothing more than a written revelation of debt cannot be considered successful.  Debt is not a “tool” of the debtor.  Debt is a “tool of manipulation” ruthlessly imposed by the creditor.  Our oligarchs celebrated their successes by lavishing themselves with unbridled, in-your-face opulence.  Gone were the days of the discreet investor who kept his net worth close to his vest; a thoroughly Machiavellian interpretation of an ethos that had proven useful to the landed aristocracy down through the ages.  They rigged the markets.  They rigged the Health Care System.  They rigged the Educational System.  They rigged legislation.  They rigged commerce.  They rigged the media.  And, not to be out-done, they finally focused their billions and billions of “plunder” on dismantling their own democratic political infrastructure.  Why did they do this?  Well, because, as Gordon Gekko had taught us years before: “Greed is good.” It most certainly would seem to be something one could aspire to in any case; greed that is.

To rationalize all of the larceny, governments raised taxes and still, revenues continued to drop in most states.[19]  In consideration of the downward trend in tax revenue, the IRS announced late in 2016 that they would be closing their Fresno, California claims processing center.[20]  According to the IRS:

“…around 3,000 center employees will lose their jobs. The IRS will work to reassign some of those willing to move to one of the nation’s two surviving processing centers. It did not say when the first round of layoffs would take place.”

Did any of you notice the ominous reference to “the nation’s two surviving processing centers?”  It would appear that our government is experiencing a contraction in capability and it would seem to be associated with a dramatic down-turn in revenues.  Incidentally, this has been going on for quite some time but it’s not just the IRS.[21]  The Department of Defense has lost trillions of dollars to who knows what.[22]  I suppose that we could soothe ourselves by trying to convince our devastated mindset that it all went to “Black Budgets”—that would justify the diversion of such vast sums of capital from the Federal Budget.  But, we all know that such was not the case.  This “evaporating national treasure” was the work of planned larceny on a scale that, fifty years ago, would have led to someone being charged with espionage and treason and hung from the neck until dead.

So, we can look at this gigantic vacuum cleaner we all glibly refer to as “The Government,” and wonder: “What the hell is going on?”  How can any nation tolerate both a dramatic loss in tax revenue and grand larceny on a monumental scale and still keep the façade of “Empire” going?  Well, it can’t and, if you peruse the media—for all of its faults—you soon learn that it’s not.  Our military is crumbling beneath the weight of foreign adventurism.  Our National Health Care system is folding beneath the rapidly increasing number of people who can’t afford to pay the huge fees and expenses to the pharmaceutical industry, incorporated hospitals, and heavily insured practitioners.  Our utility industry is going broke selling expensive energy to people who can’t afford to buy it[23] and our cities are going bankrupt.[24]

You can identify a pattern if you look into this inquiry close enough.  In the lexicon of Bolshevik ideology, this pattern is categorized as “weakness and evolution.”  It is a practical observation made when the economic engines of our capitalist empire no longer function to enrich our oligarchs who then maintain that accumulated wealth as the “flow of money” through the money/power grid—the M1 money supply they call it.  You see, in order for “money” to produce wealth at the extravagant levels required to sustain our hedonistic society, the money must be kept moving—it must have velocity. 

“M1 is a metric for the money supply of a country and includes physical money—both paper and coin—as well as checking accounts, demand deposits and negotiable order of withdrawal (NOW) accounts.  The most liquid portions of the money supply are measured by M1 because it contains currency and assets that can be converted to cash quickly. "Near money" and "near, near money," which fall under M2 and M3, cannot be converted to currency as quickly.” [Investopedia]

The common folk use the M1 money supply to pay their bills, purchase food and clothing, fuel, and medical care.  For every dollar paid to a working-class stiff, about seven dollars are generated. 

“For example, money put into Pell Grants so more kids can go to college is an investment that will create lasting wealth for our entire nation when those kids graduate and become a productive part of the economy. Our experience with the GI Bill indicates every dollar spent will return at least seven dollars – and maybe as much as fifty dollars – back to government coffers in the form of income taxes from more productive and higher-paid workers.”[25] 

But, this kind of practical reasoning did not seem to influence our western oligarchs, corporate masters, and their managing directors.  Grand Larceny—and I mean “really grand larceny” on a human scale never before conceived by the mind of humankind—seems to have established itself as an ethos for the accumulation of wealth. 

The façade of Empire can no longer withstand the brutality of “the new barbarians” sacking the shining city on the hill. Our economy grows weaker.  Our government, less effective, has become bridled by corporate corruption and individual self-interest.  The working masses have no time to consider the consequences of our arrested development as a functioning society of human beings. And now, the entire “System of Fraud” would seem to be breaking down around the inattentive ears and obscured vision of the ruling elite.  “Things” are just not going the way they’ve planned!  As the elite cry foul and blame a foreign power for everything that is now in the process of being taken from them—from the cruel usury of their payday loans to the oil fields of the middle east—western oligarchs have been thrown into a spiral of failure from which, their behavior would seem to suggest, there is no return.  What has happened?  What created this mess, anyway?

The Façade of Strength

Most people believe that the present “fascist-like” security state that has become the organizational society of United States of America and, in large part, Britain and the European Union began on September 11, 2001 but that’s not entirely true.  That day—September 11, 2001—was the day or “time segment” if you prefer, when the socio-political conditions of our modern era reached a “critical mass,” so-to-speak.  By September 11, 2001, we had thought ourselves quite a clever people, having destroyed communism and all.  There seemed to be no opposition to our irresponsible program of Imperial expansion.  We had successfully ushered in an era of “funny money” on the 15th of August, 1971, convincing Richard M. Nixon to trash the gold standard.[26] That agenda had been in the making since Franklin D. Roosevelt had declared that “gold” could no longer be “owned” by the common folk in any other form except “jewelry” or collector’s pieces—then viewed as “assets” and not money.[27]

Public planners had successfully re-engineered the complexion of our social collaboration such that it no longer underwrote the single-income family.[28]  In an article in the Ottawa Globe and Mail, Neil Reynolds gave this assessment:

“Mr. Nixon’s embrace of paper money, says Llewellyn Rockwell Jr. (founder of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and onetime congressional chief of staff for Ron Paul, the libertarian candidate for the Republican presidential nomination), sabotaged “the great American wealth-building machine.”

Another seminal change to western culture came in the form of deviations from the standards that governed the existing education system.  Sometime in the 1960’s and prior to 1980, a new paradigm was introduced under the careful guidance of shadowy organizations such as the Trilateral Commission.[29],[30] Previous to this period, Western Civilization’s educational system had been one that embraced—what can be called—a classical arrangement of critical thinking, philosophical exposition, History, and moral and ethical examination as well as science and mathematics.  After 1980, we witnessed the systematic denigration of that regimen until, by the year 2000, the educational system had become one whose principles taught rote dogma, arbitrary decision-making regimes reinforced by coercion, meaningless ritual, and really bad science.  “Bullying” had always been a problem within the human condition but these changes created an environment where continual savagery was practiced by those students for whom the drone of propaganda and social conditioning had very little value.[31]  You see, the educational system no longer “taught” comparative philosophy, morals, and ethics.  There were no “tenets” of acceptable behavior being defined through the mechanism of practical reasoning.  Practical reasoning requires a critical thinker.  Instead, the social conditioning cultivated unquestioning obedience, indiscretion, and Darwinian-like thinking that seemed to be a parody of Darwin’s most important observation of Natural Selection: the “Survival of the fittest.”[32]  The chaos that these conditions produced were only eclipsed by the worrisome evolution of the classic bully into a modern, machine-like bastard who would only stop in their aggression if, having had enough, their peers beat them into a neutral orientation.

This reprehensible montage of vulgar deportment soon began to reflect public opinion as an entire generation grew to adulthood within this system of “enterprise,” exhibiting a nihilistic pathology of intellectual vacuity.[33]  The social order began to collapse in stages that took the form of endless conflict, violence, crime, and financial deprivation.  During this period, human dependency grew at an alarming rate while traditional values such as self-sufficiency waned in significance. Racial and ethnic discrimination was significantly amplified.  Gender discrimination became a social conflict, as human characteristics that were germane to our biology seemed unalterable in any “natural” way that the human mind might conceive.  Sexual orientation became a public struggle for “freedom and liberty;” its proponents embroiled in a brawl to define its importance as something other than a “thing” that is understood as a gratifying experience.  All of this did little to clarify the dilemmas relevant to the human condition; instead, it created chaos.  With the chaos came intolerance.  With intolerance came violence.  With the violence came an authoritarian response.  With the authoritarian response came social resistance.  With social resistance came obsessive and unnecessary coercive brutality and with the advent of brutality, the fledgling “police state”—so long an objective of the ruling elite—began to take shape.

Considering these observations to be, somehow, associated with each other, one would naturally assume that these conditions had been imposed through the malevolence of a hidden agenda and, indeed, they were! Our planetary ruling elite had intentionally disabled the western mindset making it more pliable and subject to exploitation and a manipulation that would prove more amenable to their plans for the integration of whole societies into a global regime of domination.  That regime would be subject to their will through a highly centralized, feudal system of governance.[34]  Emboldened by their ambitions, empowered by reason of their wealth and power, the western oligarchs—seeing no apparent opposition to their agenda for a “New World Order”—merrily marched along their manufactured event flow in the confidence that their unique position, subject to elements of the human condition not readily available to the vast majority of human beings, would make them “movers and shakers” of the progress of humankind.[35]  They reasoned that they were virtually unopposable, unstoppable, and undefeatable.[36]   How little did they expect to become nauseatingly aware of the circumstance that, in fact, they were operating within the confines of a well-planned prohibition that would soon challenge their ascendency and completely unravel their strategies for world domination.[37] 

In order to succeed, a strategy must be founded on fact, truth, and material evidence; there can be no fabrication or speculation.[38]  Strategies only work on material reality as it is experienced by the general public, that is, a strategy must become apparent to everyone as its elements are the thoughts that create causal events which then result in the manifestation of the desired modifications to that very reality; in other words, “the effects.” Since their agenda can now be understood to be one created based on a complete fabrication (that communism had been defeated), they would soon learn that their strategy for world domination was invalid.  

The realization of this troubling point of view would come, at first, in the form of confusion.  For example, the western oligarchs possessed the largest military-industrial complex on the planet but, for reasons that escaped their understanding, that complex couldn’t build reliable fighter craft, combat ships, tanks, trucks, weaponry, or logistical systems.  Try as they may, the efficiencies so long a prevalent feature of any military system now seemed inaccessible.  They began to lose wars.[39]  Opposing regimes seemed to have the capacity to erect uncommon technologies in their defensive arrays that completely neutralized any integrated system of military might the western alliances might construct.[40]

Imposed programs of martial violence require highly-trained personnel who can overcome their moral and ethical conditioning—learned from childhood—to project a level of inhuman brutality upon those identified as “enemy combatants.”  Their social conditioning had trained them to make important distinctions between the character and behavioral nature of an unarmed civilian and that of an armed combatant.  Social planners employed such adaptation to condition the mindset of the common citizen against a very primordial and continually present notion of self-preservation.  With this “instinct” in check, the common citizen becomes more manageable, pliant, and passive.  Blowing an enemy ammunition dump to smithereens accommodates this conditioning; massacring everyone attending a wedding or funeral does not.[41]  The result of this incongruity in experiential exposure to manufactured violence produced millions of returning veterans burdened with PTSD syndrome.[42],[43]  Most of the men and women of the “cadre,” with any degree of combat experience, were now becoming irrelevant by reason of their deteriorating psychological condition brought about by the pathology of post-traumatic stress.  To their imperial warlords, they were useless, burned out, demoralized human beings and the elite viewed them as a monetary burden in their financial plans.  These “heroes” of the republic—now disposable assets—were abandoned through the mechanism of the government’s fiscal budget.

The Monopolization of American Agriculture

On the domestic front, the money managers for the elite had destroyed agriculture by industrializing an uncompromisingly natural process of Nature.  Beginning in 1971, the government, led by then Secretary of Agriculture, Earl Butz,[44] all of the Land Grant Colleges for Agriculture, and Congress, began a program of “supply-side management” that eventually led to the destruction of small family farms, homesteads, and ranches, and their local markets.  Their argument against maintaining the nation’s rural economy and regional markets as a small-scale family farming-dominated agricultural base was that “family farming” wasn’t an “efficient” business model.  They often cited government programs that paid farmers “not to plant” specific crops calling such programs wasteful and unimaginatively ridiculous in their intent and execution.    Agricultural aficionados from the Government, land grant colleges, and agricultural industries continuously used the corporate “factory farm” as a model of such “efficiency” although their assertion of efficiency was often mired in numbing quantitative analysis that, upon proper investigation, disclosed a business model in which the investments of “shareholders” were never really rewarded with anything more than the promise of “reasonable profit.”  In an article published by the Union of Concerned Scientists in September of 2018 we read:

“From its mid-20th century beginnings, industrial agriculture has been sold to the public as a technological miracle. Its efficiency, we were told, would allow food production to keep pace with a rapidly growing global population, while its economies of scale would ensure that farming remained a profitable business.

But too often, something crucial was left out of this story: the price tag.

In fact, our industrialized food and agriculture system comes with steep costs, many of which are picked up by taxpayers, rural communities, farmers themselves, other business sectors, and future generations. When we include these “externalities” in our reckoning, we can see that this system is not a cost-effective, healthful, or sustainable way to produce the food we need.”[45],[46]

As family farms were driven into bankruptcy by commodities market speculation and industry manipulation, America’s traditional agronomy, consisting of small, privately owned, diversified farms, homesteads, and ranches together with their local markets were destroyed and replaced with “confined animal feeding operations” (CAFOs), or monoculture agribusiness operations, incorporating financially bankrupt family farm holdings into gigantic corporate collectives.  Factory farms became the new model for commodities production.[47]  Nobody bothered to point out that the reason the Federal Government had been paying family farmers “not to plant” was because this model was producing record surpluses driving down the price of most commodities to the extent that the commodities exchanges weren’t making any money in the trade of these important crops in the market place and farmers began to experience the “law of diminishing returns” in the management of their operations to the extent that they began to struggle financially. 

There is something definitely wrong with this picture.  If food security is important to our National Security, why would anyone want to dismantle a model that produced huge surpluses?  After all, with such surpluses, the petroleum industry would have been able to produce all of the ethanol that they could possibly need without threatening the nation’s “balance” of global influence.[48]  Commodities prices would have stabilized as grain crops began to be diverted, once again, to the production of ethanol-based fuels enhanced by gasoline creating greater demand for grain crops, greater “petroleum independence,” and a subsequent rise in prices paid to farmers for their crops.  Farm subsidies might not have been necessary but the nation bought into the transformation of American Agriculture with the implementation of, what they called: “Precision Agriculture”[49] or industrialized, corporate farming.  

In the Soviet Union, agriculture had, long ago, been “collectivized” in a similar manner.  It was thought that the “economies of scale” would lower the cost of producing food and, therefore, provide affordable commodities to the general population.  It didn’t work.  They experienced a continual string of failures and subsequent food shortages until 1991 when the Russian Government began encouraging the implementation of small-scale farming alongside the huge state-run kolkhozes.[50],[51],[52]

Despite the obvious failures associated with “factory farming,”[53] the opposition toward small-scale, sustainable agriculture continued until, sometime in the 1980’s, commodities speculators began marketing grains to huge chemical consortiums for the production of ethanol which is an additive in gasoline.[54]  There was “more money to be made” in fuel but this created global food shortages and threatened the balance of power among competing nation states in the global food marketplace.[55],[56] 

Even though small-scale, sustainable agriculture is on the mend and continues to expand across the world each year,[57] the damage done by industrialized farming—very similar in its appearance and functionality to the huge collective farms of modern communist states—has permanently damaged provisional markets for years to come.[58]  In the event of a national crisis, there aren’t enough farmers left to feed the country and without the “logistics” that now support the huge corporate collective farms in the U.S., they would not be able to produce food products and other commodities in sufficient supply[59] to empower the government’s long-term political and economic objectives. 

Apparently, they never saw it coming!

Once again, and in a most thoughtless and irresponsible manner imaginable, our social engineers have run us into an abyss from which there would seem to be no plausible escape.  The severity of our problems with the economy, labor markets, manufacturing, military adventurism, education, and agriculture—when the geo-political shenanigans of the global oligarchies are taken into account—would seem to suggest that the West is being “herded” into a socio-economic and political “abattoir” where our adversaries might deal with us more effectively.  In other words—what I’m trying to say is, we are being led into a trap!  That’s an observation based on the anecdotal documentation that I have just, herein, cited profusely as well as the sophisticated material evidence offered by Anatoliy Golitsyn. Try to remember what the established state infrastructure of the old Soviet Union actually looked like.  Research its history.  Someone is imposing that infrastructure upon the nations of Western Civilization. Technically, the collectivist state of the old USSR was, in time, proven to be an abysmal failure.  Why would anyone want to resurrect it then and on a global scale?[60]

If we don’t know to where we are going, is it very likely that we will reach our destination shrouded, as it is, in mystery? You see, our oligarchs, thinking that they had vanquished communism on November 9, 1989, were left with the impression that they would have an easier time of it if they made all of their choices in isolation; behind the closed doors of their privileged gatherings and secret meetings.  They wanted to avoid the hard work required to cultivate a sense of unity and collective purpose in their general populations.  They wanted an Imperial Class System akin to the feudal aristocracies of old Europe.  But, they did not understand that a malicious hierarchy of the incompetent was being imposed upon them through the mechanism of human greed.  These clandestine interlopers prefer to direct the affairs of humankind from the shadows of their self-imposed isolation.  They remain isolated to this day—not because they prefer the solitude of their separation but because their evolution, as a ruling class, has engendered an intense hatred of their own humanity. 

Successful aristocracies endured for centuries because there was an order of dominion.  The Renaissance aristocrats looked after the general welfare of their people and the people returned all that hard work with their love, devotion, loyalty, and industry.  It made them prosperous and their masters wealthy beyond imagination.  But, something went horridly wrong at the dawn of the Great Enlightenment.  The aristocracy began to think of themselves as a people entitled to the wealth and prosperity of their people instead of the competent managers of that wealth—ensuring its equitable distribution would fortify their kingdom’s vitality for centuries to come.  Abuses ensued; they became greedy and, as Gordon Gekko pointed out to all of us in a rather frank display of unwarranted arrogance, “Greed is Good!”

Collectivist planners knew this.  They understood the mindset of western oligarchs far more accurately and with a deeper philosophical understanding than those oligarchs had known themselves! Soviet seditionists understood that they could use natural human greed as an incentive.  Through unfathomable guile, meticulous Mensheviks would entice the oligarchs of Western Civilization to follow innumerable and indeterminate paths to perdition.   They had laid out and planned the implementation of these expeditions far, far in advance of those developments that the oligarchs of the West had put into place to underwrite their malevolent intentions.  Consider the historical account detailing the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; it was a very well planned and meticulously engineered transfer of power—a bloodless coup. 

Now, considering the historical character and ritual political preferences of the Marxist/Leninist movement—that it was very “Bolshevik” in nature, and that we all know the Communist regimes of Russia and China accounted for some 80 million human deaths in the twentieth century.  Wouldn’t you agree that the peaceful transition of the Soviet Union to the Commonwealth of Independent States is somewhat miraculous?  I submit that the entire exercise was a “test run.”  They now know for certain that their calculus for social, economic, and political subversion actually works because they tried it all out on themselves before they made the final push to “bury the West” in an onslaught of subversive predation.  Don’t confuse the modern Russian state with the International Menshevik Movement as expressed by Leon Trotsky or the Bolshevik Collectivist “Fourth Party Plan” as detailed by Golitsyn.   Menshevism is a communist political ideology opposed to the “Bolshevism” of Vladimir Lenin.  The former Russian state was clearly Bolshevik in nature, economic orientation, social conditioning, and political framework.  International Communists don’t consider themselves the citizenry of any nation in particular.  They are the real globalists!  Modern Russia will be every bit a target of opportunity as is the United States, Great Britain, and The European Union and all of the reforms instituted by its new parliamentarian government will be undermined as well. 

When we witnessed our presidential candidates, Congressmen and women, Senators, and Government representatives screaming “foul”—accusing Russia of seditious activities that had played a part in altering the political futures of our country and its people, we all thought it an infantile display of desperation. No evidence supporting such an outrageous claim has ever been produced.  But, knowing what I’ve just told you in this essay, we all now can describe that “infantile display” as the sudden realization that they had been “played” with an exquisite and formidable precision and had lost their stake in this very serious game of thrones and the Russian Government had nothing to do with it!  Because no one will acknowledge the claims of Anatoliy Golitsyn, no one knows what to call “it” and no one can quite put their finger on the source of the sedition.

So, with what, exactly, are we dealing?  We have to understand that the cast of characters with whom we are all dealing upon this “Globalist” stage have always been, are now, and will be the Communist International.  And, what, exactly, is a Communist anyway (as opposed to, say, a Marxist)?  I don’t believe that the majority of common folk within Western Civilization really understand what a “Communist” actually is!  The best way that I can represent the ideation of Communism as a socio-economic and political movement and Collectivists as that movement’s loyal following is by quoting J.R. Nyquist from a commentary of his entitled: The Psychopath Under the Bed.  He explains:

“Communism, as I noted earlier, has always been about looting. It has always been infused with envy. The Communists steal and lie and kill. This is the history of Communism – in Russia, in China, in Cuba, in Venezuela, etc., etc. It is not a testimony to their anti-communism that the KGB operatives in charge of the CPSU’s money have enriched themselves.”

The following passage from a book by Viktor Suvorov entitled “The Liberators: My Life in the Soviet Army” would seem to substantiate Nyquist’s rather blunt and contemptuous opinion of Collectivists and Communism.  Early in Suvorov’s military career, he had gotten himself into some trouble and, as a disciplinary measure, was sentenced to a period of time in the “Glasshouse”—think of a common military reformatory here in the West for comparison.  Part of his duties entailed very menial labor, in this case, he and other men from the Glasshouse had been tasked to clean a cesspool that serviced the sewage system for a group of country homes that were made available to the Soviet High Command and their family members.

…from page 28

“This heavenly place where we had landed was called the ‘Country-house of the High Command of the Warsaw Treaty Army,’ otherwise known as ‘Project No. 12.’  This country house was kept in case any member of the Warsaw Treaty High Command suddenly felt the urge to have a rest on the outskirts of ancient Kiev, Russia’s former capital city.”

…Suvorov goes on to say:

“…No. 12 came to be occupied by the Military District Commander’s wife.  In country house No. 23 resided his only daughter, while the Commander himself lived with whores in his personal country house. (The organization supplying leading personnel with prostitutes is officially named ‘The Song and Dance Ensemble of Kiev Military District.’)  Such organizations are in existence for all military districts, fleets, groups of troops, as well as for all other organizations of high standing.”

…Suvorov then gives it all away:

“Among the inmates themselves, the Warsaw country house was known by that one very bad word, ‘Communism.’  It is difficult to say why it had been so christened – perhaps it was owing to the placard at the entrance, or maybe owing to the fairy-tale beauty and charm of the natural surroundings.  Then again, perhaps it was because, here, mystery and fascination were so tightly interlaced with the daily humiliation of people, or else it was simply because, organically speaking, beauty and shit are so very closely related!  And, when it came to shit, there was enough here for everyone.”

Anyone who might imagine that an equitable form of governance can be engendered by the kind of universal attitude expressed, encouraged, and empowered under “Soviet Communism,” would be considered, by reasonable people, to be intellectually disabled and psychologically delusional.  Try to understand how Suvorov and his comrades were thinking! 

…from Page 29

“Is the cesspool deep? asks an Uzbek military engineer.”

“It reaches to the center of the Earth.”

“But it could easily be connected to the town sewage system by a pipe!”

“You fool, do you really believe that an Army General would defecate in the same sewer as you?  You are still not old enough to have that honor.  This system has been devised for the sake of safety, otherwise some secret paper could fall in and what then?  The enemy is ever watchful and uses all possible channels open to him.  That is why a closed circuit has been devised here, to avoid the drain of information!”

Think of the meticulous complexity of purpose, objectives, and effort imposed by Soviet planners that would distort a normal human’s common sense in such a fashion as to manifest itself as the cockamamie rationalizations of this common soldier.  Imagine the social discipline and brutal coercion required, at every level of organizational control, that would permit the indoctrination of the human condition into such a bizarre and alien belief system!  The thought process that originated in the minds of these men can only be described as oblique.  No, Nyquist is being kind; he is advancing an equitable and rather obliging assessment of the “Communist mindset”—the mind of Lenin.  Wouldn’t you agree? 

In the West, the “managing bureaucracy” has become the quintessential “pain-in-the-ass.”  Their belief system is illusory—a panoply of linguistically structured thought that has become increasingly incoherent as their assertions become, more and more, the focus and enquiry of common sense objectivity. They have labored to create virtual enclosures fabricated by their words instead of ideals supported by rational judgment, imprisoning anyone who might view the world through the prism of discernment.  The Justice System dispenses judicial travesty.  Law enforcement encourages social barbarism.  Politicians prosper through the application of deception, pretense, cheating, misrepresentation, fraud, trickery, and backhanded double-dealing. The very attempt to embrace deceit destroys their raison d’être and renders their identity—as it is defined by their constant pontification—obsolete, unnecessary, and wholly incompatible with any natural instinct for survival.  What was going on in the Soviet Union just prior to its “engineered” collapse?  Are any of you making the connection that Viktor Suvorov made yet? 

You may recall that Bishop Josef Butler was reported to have explained that “Everything is what it is, and not another thing.” That “Things and actions are what they are, and the consequences of them will be what they will be: why then should we desire to be deceived?”  It must be one or the other.  The truth is that the depravity of this so-called “Deep State” cannot be sustained.  It is based entirely on a fabrication—the creation of a virtual world; a closed universe of ideological bullshit from which an order of insanity projects its supremacy.   The principals of this egregious distortion of our body politic are parasites and can only survive for as long as our planetary population can cope with their wickedness and stupidity.  And, from an historic perspective, what were the leaders of “Soviet Communism” demonstrating in their behavior; their deportment towards the consciousness that describes our awareness?  Were they underwriting the imposition of a dystopia for some obscure metaphysical reason that none of the rest of us could possibly hope to understand?  Or, had they discovered the actual viability of human stupidity as a mechanism for advancing their rather despotic point of view?  You know…that humankind can be compelled to accept the supposition of a feckless and fatuous ideology of hierarchical, totalitarian, domination of the human will for no other reason than that it has been proposed.

Communism is not Collectivism and vice versa[61] 

To understand just how oblique the tenets of this ideological imposition actually are, we have to first determine the blatant differences between—what Karl Marx implied that Communism” was and what Ayn Rand described as “Collectivism.”  You will see that the two are not the same “thing.”  You will also understand that the panorama of world events unfolding on this “Globalist” Stage as well as the consequences of their occasion, actually define the latter.

According to the dictionary (any dictionary), Communism is a political theory derived from the work of Karl Marx, advocating class struggle that ultimately leads to the construction of a rigidly managed society in which all property is publicly owned (in common) and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

 Collectivism is a socio-economic and political theory that emphasizes the supremacy of a “collective” rather than an “individual” identity, advocating collective control especially over production and distribution of wealth as it is generated by a society’s goods and services. Within the context of “Collectivism,” labor is not considered an element of “collective control;” rather, it is employed as a tool used to manage policy implementation. 

If you study Marx in any capacity, you will eventually see, after thoughtful consideration, that Communism advances the cause of what Marx called, “the Proletariat” or the worker (the poorest class of human presence)—the individual that actually contributes to the wealth of his or her socio-economic and political order.  Property is “owned” by the general public; the community of the Proletariat.  People must work or produce something that can be considered a token of their value as members of this human community. From this engine of productivity, the common worker is then allowed to procure whatever it is that he needs.  It is a paradigm that offers a way out of the pit of despair and poverty through the acceptance of community values (as they are defined by the ideology) and collaborative effort.  Julius Martov, the Menshevik, thought this way.  Leon Trotsky thought this way.  Vladimir Lenin did not think this way.

Vladimir Lenin believed that the “Communist Party” of Russia should be kept small, exclusive, tightly controlled, and—generally—inaccessible to the “common worker” or, in Marxist terms, the Proletariat. During the Menshevik uprisings against the “Bolsheviks” (who followed the teachings and ideological rationale of Vladimir Lenin), these “Marxist” Communists (Mensheviks and other “left-wing” revolutionaries), were considered belligerents by the ruling Bolshevik government.  The “Menshevik uprisings” against the Bolsheviks were a series of rebellions against the Bolshevik ideology that put “the Communist Party” above the “Proletariat” as a rigidly controlled “collectivist” organization maintaining brutal, totalitarian control over socio-economic and political policy that ultimately engendered the “Soviet State.”    These uprisings started soon after the October Revolution and continued through the Russian Civil War lasting for the first few years of “Soviet” rule. [Wikipedia]

What does the term “Soviet” imply?  The On-line Etymology Dictionary defines this concept as a cognition to mean:

soviet (n.) 1917, from Russian sovet "governing council," literally "council," from Old Russian suvetu "assembly," from su "with" (from *su(n)- "with, together," from PIE *ksun- "with") + vetu "counsel." The whole is a loan-translation of Greek symboulion "council of advisers." As an adjective from 1918.

The actual Russian word for this cognition is “sovet” or, in old Russian “Suvetu.”  The word we are more familiar with is “Soviet.”  Think on this: if Bolshevik revolutionaries already had a Russian word “sovet” which meant “governing council” (Focus!  It means Vladimir Lenin’s ideation that the “Party” would form a “governing council” and not “the rule of the Proletariat” which is how Marx viewed a more “parliamentarian” form of government.), then why would they modify the word “sovet” into “Soviet?”  The answer is that they didn’t.  During the existence of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Russians were still spelling the word Sovetskih or “sovet.” It was the academicians of Western Civilization who created the word “Soviet.”  As we can see from the definition, even this bastardized spelling of the word “sovet” still means government by a council of advisors.  It does not encompass any notion of the “rule of the Proletariat.”  The strange spelling is the result of Western academicians attempting to encode the word as they heard a Russian speaking it: “Sov-yetʹ”—it’s how Slavic people articulate an “e” at times.  The actual spelling (in Cyrillic) of the phrase “governing council” is руководящий совет.  The word “cobet” means “council.”  The Russian word руководящий means “governing.”

Okay, where am I going with all of this?  I’ve been alluding to the supposition that it is the residue of the Menshevik movement, the International Communists, that have been implementing, operating, and controlling the progress of this sedition of Western Civilization.  Well, yes, that which can be called a “fifth column” of political and social seditionists are believers in and practitioners of the ideology of Leon Trotsky.  They are the “fellow travelers” of the International Communist movement.[62],[63]  But they are not the controllers; they are the marionettes of those within the Bolshevik residue who spent years amassing outrageous wealth in the tradition of the planet’s corporate oligarchies and went “underground” after the so-called “collapse” of the Soviet Union. What I’m trying to point out is that our lettered scholars misinterpreted the actual “connotation” behind the word “sovet” or “Soviet.”  What we didn’t understand then and still don’t understand to this day is that we were dealing with an “organizational society;” a giant, nuclear-armed corporation—in “Russian,” a “korporatsiya”—where the workers were slaved out to the will of elitists who maintain their domination and control through the mechanism of enforced violence, brutal, inhuman, malevolent programs of indoctrination, and an on-going regimen for the constant eradication of individual initiative.  The “Soviet” is not a Communist in the “Marxist” sense but a Collectivist in the “Leninist” sense.  The Proletariat never had a “say” in anything that was decided by the ruling hierarchy. They were the Russian version of “corporate moguls” run amok.  As Ayn Rand classified them, they were Collectivists—what’s mine is mine; what’s yours is mine—understand?

This was the “mind” of Lenin.  This is what Anatoliy Golitsyn was desperately trying to reveal to us.  Look at how the “Soviet” was organized.  Socially, it was organized along the same lines as the Hindu Caste System of India. They had the “Priests of Leninist Ideology” at the very top (safeguarding “the [Holy] Party”)—the “council of advisors” commanding unquestioning obedience and loyalty from everyone below them, next came the “Warriors” which is why so many of the elite were always seen in uniform.  Then came the civilian administrators and their peasants, and, at the bottom of the hierarchy, there were the common laborers—the cobblers, street-sweepers, latrine cleaners and the like.  Good god, dear reader!  Go back and read the excerpt from Suvorov’s book, The Liberators: My Life in the Soviet Army!  No!  Better yet, buy a copy of the book!

Think to yourself: who is actually running everything in the West today?  Yeah, corporations.  How are they run…right…by a “council of advisors?” Go figure.  And, these “advisors” can make horrendous mistakes and still get paid because they have had the law of the land re-written to remove their accountability…just…like…the members of the old “Soviet” Politburo.  What’s more is that they’ve had “laws” passed that institutionalized their status as “a person” within our “group think.”  They have made themselves “Holy”—a creation of The One Infinite Creator!    Their economic instrument of choice, money, has been categorized by our Supreme Court as equivalent to speech and, boy, can they “talk” it up!  So, in the intellectual chaos of it all, governments of the West have been reconfigured and reorganized to represent the “Soviet” model, casting aside the once contemporary intellectual supremacy of our thoroughly Greek “Δημοκρατία” (“Democratia”) or Democracy.  Why do you think the European Union is so hell-bent on utterly destroying Greece?  Greece is being systematically destroyed to obliterate the “origin” of the very notion of “Democracy” in the mind of the planetary population.  Granted, having a “Democracy” does not necessarily translate to the supreme rule of the Proletariat, true, but under such a political and social regimen, the little guy can, at least, get a word in edge-wise. There are hundreds of stories in the news today that describe the abject stupidity of a corporate culture wherein its leadership continually makes bad decisions, destroys organizational effectiveness and productivity, its diminution threatening the Nation’s security and general welfare, and there is absolutely no accountability.  What have we read about the so-called members of “the Communist Party” of the Soviet Politburo?  Yeah, they didn’t give a tinker’s damn either.  They always got paid. 

It was the laborer who starved to death under that regime and not the government apparatchik.[64]  The common laborer always suffered because “the people” had not met the goals and objectives of the “Party” as it executed one ridiculous five-year plan after another.  Tell me: What are we in the West doing now?  That’s right, managing everything using a misunderstood tool of technical proficiency, project management.  Everywhere that I’ve worked in both government and private industry, they are continually attempting to manage an event flow using project management.  The projects inevitably lose their momentum and miss their goals costing millions upon millions of dollars and why?  Well, because there is never any accountability, what is more, there’s never an alternate plan!  The people running the road show, making horrible decisions that result in organizational failure, don’t think they should be held accountable.  It’s the worker who is responsible for failure.  It is the worker who fails to pull a rabbit out of his hat and not the management that comes up with the obfuscating, oblique, incomprehensibly stupid idea that doesn’t make any sense in the first place!   

So, you’re asking yourself, why did the Leninist apparatchiks of the old Soviet Union use the word “Soviet” to describe their paradigm instead of the word, “korporatsiya?”  Well, because the ideation that is behind the meaning of the word “corporation” derives its interpretation from the Latin word, “corpus,” which translated to English means, body, or a "body of people."

“During the time of Emperor Justinian (527–565), Roman law recognized a range of corporate entities under the names such as: universitas, corpus or collegium.  These organizational societies included the state itself (the populus Romanus), municipalities, and such private associations as sponsors of a religious cult, burial clubs, political groups, and guilds of craftsmen or traders. Such bodies commonly had the right to own property and make contracts, to receive gifts and legacies, to sue and be sued, and, in general, to perform legal acts through representatives. Private associations were granted designated privileges and liberties by the emperor.” [Wikipedia]

You see, the word “corporation” is an invention of Western Civilization and describes an organizational society that is formed, through consensus, to have a particular purpose.  The connotation behind the word “Soviet” actually means rule by the consent of a governing “council of advisors” and their history shows that they never really had to have a purpose defined as an objective of productivity.  A “Soviet” is something different.  As a business model, a corporation is, in large part, successful at enriching the “owners” or, at the very least, achieving a set of objectives that ultimately benefits its participants (stock holders, management, and workers).  True, over time, many “corporations” failed and were dissolved but the model continued to exhibit a powerful influence upon commerce in the West because it could be managed in such a fashion as to underwrite speculation that was based on rational, practical reasoning. 

The “Soviet” was not such an organizational model. It continued to operate, exclusively, as a “board of directors” with each director managing an aspect of “Soviet” society in the form of a set of pre-determined objectives entrusted to the Proletariat to carry out.  The “Soviet” never created the Soviet Economy; they controlled it.  The Proletariat created the Economy, however anemic it may have been by virtue of the continual interference from their asinine ruling elite.   In the early days of the Industrial Revolution, corporations were formed to formalize a division of labor such that difficult goals and objectives could be reached.  Today, most corporations have, as their only objective, the generation of profit—in the form of money—such that the managing directors of this organizational model are rewarded regardless of the extent to which their participation may have been detrimental to those same corporate goals and objectives. 

This is how the “Soviet” operated.  No matter how much their cockamamie decision-making processes resulted in abject failure, they got paid and the Proletariat financed everything with the proceeds of their labor.  The Proletariat suffered economic devastation, starvation, and bankruptcy, death and destruction, dissolution, and deprivation.  In contemporary western culture who is suffering the same?  Yes, the working class.  J.R. Nyquist is right, the history of “Communism” is one that describes the apex of human suffering on this planet.  What is happening all over Western Civilization at this time?  Am I to believe that the western corporate model that governed the prosperity of Western Civilization for nearly three thousand years has stopped, in full force?  Or, has it been maliciously tampered with—hijacked; altered in its theoretical construct to reflect the organizational principles of a Leninist ideological hegemony?  Entitlement.  I’d say the latter because it’s no conspiracy, western corporate culture is on a rampage and it is costing the “Proletariat” trillions of Dollars, Euros, and Pounds! Hey!  If it quacks like a god damned duck and it waddles like one, it’s a duck!  Okay? God bless you Reverend Butler for laying it all out for us so many years ago!  It is what it is and not another thing!  Think on it!

The mind of the vacuous “traveler”

Another dead giveaway that Anatoliy Golitsyn was telling the truth is in the behavior and deportment of western politicians toward their voting electorate.  It has become rude and overbearing, inconsiderate and nonsensical.  I’m not going to name names.  It’s not necessary.  I’ll describe, instead, my observations because I’m confident that all of you are seeing the same thing.  For all practical intents and purposes, we no longer have “culture” in the strict classical sense.    We have, instead, an event flow that doesn’t seem to conform to any trend or empathy that anyone can say is consistent with our biological prerequisite to survive as a species of intelligent life.  Our progress, if you can call it that, is governed by an infinitely logarithmic calculus.  We know that we are all riding a “downhill trend.”  We can sense the diminution of our estate but we can’t identify the root cause of this effect.  We know that the decline of civilization and the ruination of the human condition augurs a foreboding future but, for some reason we can’t be certain of, we are powerless to confront the issue choosing, instead, to stand on the shoulder of the road to perdition and just watch our world without disintegrate.

Our philosophers and logicians discuss the reality apparent to them in terms that are given over to abstract, theoretical logic instead of Logos and practical reasoning.  They see that the “education” of the young has been compromised by the imposition of paradigms of indoctrination, memes of coercion, and the ideological hegemony of an insane, over-educated, and increasingly nonsensical “lettered aristocracy.”  They uniformly agree to a common definition of an antagonistic, hedonistic, irrational culture of the crazies, as “popular culture”—implying that the common folk had something to do with its emergence on the world stage.  Everyone knows the music is not music, the art is not art, the science is not science; they are aware that Health Care Systems do not promote good health or that “Welfare Programs” do not engender wellbeing for the “entitlement” class.  We are all patently aware that our politicians and bureaucrats are, ofttimes, liars and callous and surreptitious predators who target the innocent and the helpless while at the same time, safeguarding the criminal adventurism of their feckless overlords.

And, we do nothing.  We continue to “play our role.”  We vote.  We shop. We consume.  We believe! The world without continues in its decline and we “hope” for a better life in a bright and wonderful future—the tomorrow of all tomorrows when everyone agrees to stop acting like an ass hole and adapts to the rationalization that all is one; that we are all human and that we share life with an abundance of life.  It is not delusional to suggest that the action of one can have a profound effect upon the lives of the many.  We are seeing that hypothesis substantiated every day of our lives!  While somewhat religious in nature, such a declaration can no longer be given over to the realm of the hypothetical.  It is happening.  Humankind has polluted a living Earth to the extent that its vitality can no longer be sustained.  The Biosphere is dying.  The frogs and bees are dying.  We are dying.  We are recycling our trash to make more trash to recycle!  We are modifying the organic infrastructure of living things because we can!  We are prosecuting horrific wars of attrition in which great destruction, death, and human suffering are visited upon our fellows and we say that is good for “business.” In a universe replete with common sense, do these perspectives make much sense?  No, I guess they don’t.  We are approaching a choice point and History shows that each time such a nexus is realized, time-and-time-again, the human collective develops an immunity to such reckless intrusion and reacts—in no deferential way—to the continual affliction by destroying the source of the contagion. 

Oswald Spengler’s philosophical suppositions established the construction of an abstract model illustrating that each organizational society, of which the human mindset is aware, is actually born, matures, declines, and then dissolves (or dies)—through self-annihilation—as each of its cultural characteristics goes through a formative development stage, which is then followed by a decadent period known as “Civilization.”  Oh, mercy me!  The “culture period” makes up the “organic” “Spring and Summer” of a civilization and is when the civilization is inspired by its own art and religion. 

The art and religion of this “organic” period of human development is, itself, the product of nuance and experiential investigation, yes, but, in these early stages, human awareness always implements such serendipity in a spirit of celebration; it is a celebration of the life that can be found teaming about the consciousness of the people who are driven into the discipline of a desire for self-expression.  Autumn and Winter make up the Civilization phase, in which the society becomes a mechanistic and monstrous machine the control of which eventually slips from our hands as our organizational society becomes irrelevant to the changing world without.  The creativity seen in the earlier cultural period slowly fades away as the human condition congeals becoming an overpopulated, uninspired metropolitan morass of conflict and controversy that then establishes itself as an ideological hegemony that accelerates our descent into the abyss of ignorance and dark, foreboding malevolence. Once there, countless ages pass before a new ideation, for a conceptualization of an order of governance, is permitted to percolate from the depths of that primitive cognition into the mindset of the communal group think.  It starts as a paradigm of governance that brings an obvious “good” to the people and they give it form and substance.  Spengler’s iconic process then repeats itself. 

You think about Spengler’s model because at this stage of contemporary civilization, we are chafing at our harassment and loathe the constant interference as the governing elite have become nothing more than parasites clinging to our human condition.   We can see that, submerged in their depravity, they are unable to fathom that the rest of us are alive and that we understand it is only a matter of time before we express our survival in terms of a relentless and overpowering universal purification of that human condition. That “purge” will amplify a common understanding wherein “the other” offers a differing world view predicated upon individual experience and not from what thought might be imposed through any meme or enforced through any program of coercion.  How Gestalt!  According to Spengler’s model, we are presently in the Late Autumn/Early Winter of this decline into the Abyss of ignorance. 

Life styles are becoming more primitive and utilitarian.  Our social congress has become meaningless.  We think in terms of fashion and trends.  What is “fashionable;” what is “trending?”  On the positive side of this observation, people are returning to the land to homestead and cultivate small diminutive farms that thrive on organic, sustainable agriculture; they aspire to simplify their life experience.  These are the seminal communities that will foster the next generation of “cultural evolution” that follow “The Fall.”  On the negative side of this “trend,” in the cities, life is becoming more brutish.  Barbarous gangs pillage, kill, and assault the sensibilities of the remnant of humanity that call themselves “cosmopolitan.”  Violence begets violence and so it goes.  Our cities are disintegrating and those that cannot homestead or farm either die or organize themselves into itinerant bands of barbarians and pillage “the other” for their survival until the violence that they promulgate is unceremoniously extinguished by the violence of those who have learned how to “manage” their place in the Universe.  Rural communities form alliances and establish the rule of the clan.  The nihilistic culture of depravity and violence is opposed by the very same people who move back into a natural relationship with their planet.  As before, the cities die, the people in them either go back to the land or die with their crumbling architecture.  The cycle of renewal is re-established and life goes on.

It is at this precise time in the decline of Western Civilization that a competing regime would have the best opportunity to establish itself and so, we have this nest of collectivists penetrating every aspect of our lives.  The same “double-speak,” “dumb-speak,” and moronic deportment exhibited by the constituents of the “Soviet” is now bubbling up from the depths of human ignorance within the context of our own “democratic idealism.”  On Tuesday, November 8, 2016, Donald Trump was elected President of the United States in an election upset that left over-confident subversives, who had rigged their own primaries, traumatically shocked into a state of abysmal mindlessness, realizing—to their horror—that their seditious machinations, confidently expressed as a repugnant ideological hegemony, had been put in check by an unknown, unidentifiable opposition that has not yet revealed itself or the nature of its apparent power and influence. Now, here we all are—witnesses to the residue of the Communist International and their petulant insistence that our beingness must be “remanufactured” to conform to the specifications of their disturbing hallucination; fifth column operatives funded by corrupt oligarchies and the international drug cartel, emboldened by a depraved and ineffectual intelligence community, their rhetoric of reprehensible duplicity and dark, brooding malevolence submerged in an ocean of vacuity.  What mischief!  To quote Ray Bradbury, “Something wicked this way comes!”  Humankind is at a crossroads; we approach a choice point of unimaginable significance!  At the event horizon of our decision, we will either seal the fate of a species on the brink of extinction or act to overcome our own stupidity to then thrive as the living things that the Cosmos meant us all to be. 

What does the future hold?

We can understand the abysmally depressing reality that our current estate is dangerously close to collapsing around us. The mountebanks of our political class do nothing constructive and boil our brains with abstruse issues and the vagaries of their indiscriminate arguments which they assert as having weight and consequence; “talkin’ shit,” as they say, claiming a capacity for retribution that has, as of yet, not been made too apparent to our adversaries. The truth is that these overbearing, condescending swindlers are now caught in the sophisticated “information combine” that was implemented by a nefarious adversary using their very own “corporate-controlled” media as a dissemination tool of the disinformation that has led to their deception!  The scorpion is being compelled to sting itself to death.  The U.S. is getting “kicked in the ass” by its own propaganda mills which now have been totally discredited in the minds of the people whose cooperation they desperately need to overcome this epoch revolution!    The population will never discern the “truth” behind the childish bantering of our elite. They’ve all been caught with their pants down and now, they’ve realized they’re not so clever after all; they’re trying to reconnoiter and come ‘round the flank of the fifth column but it’s too late.  They’re all doomed.

What will happen to them?

By design, the little people have no dog in this fight.  We commoners are assets not people in the minds of these New-Age Patricians regardless of which side they are on in this epic struggle for the hearts and minds of the planetary population.  We will suffer great hardships as the Bolsheviks narrow their focus to the few remaining untenable arrangements that must be fashioned with the blood and sacrifice of the innocent.  The western intelligentsia—a class of educated people who critique and guide the shaping of “culture and politics” in Western Civilization are, in reality, Trotskyites!  Mensheviks! Their political and economic theories most often include a “rule of the Proletariat,” the principle of “worldwide revolution,” an “open society,” or the “organizational collectivism” that author Ayn Rand often warned us would be our downfall—that fetish for the uncompromisingly arrogant notions of entitlement the cost of which is always born by the less fortunate and dispossessed. They are a boneheaded bunch and committed to the task of giving the Communist International a helping hand having never considered the lessons of our history as J.R. Nyquist illuminated the truth of it in his commentary, herein quoted. Now can you see how these Bolshevik Collectivists subtly influence the feckless dedication to Menshevism our “Liberal Left” and Progressive activists engage?  Single-payer National Health Care isn’t a Marxist regime.  It’s just common sense.  In a capitalistic model of economic and financial development, there will be “haves” and “have nots.”  To help the management class control a productive production paradigm the society, as a whole, needs a healthy working class. Unions are not an evil of Communist idealism.  They are organizations that hold the objectivization and subsequent exploitation of the working class in check—after all, “Greed is good.”  And, indeed, if our ruling elite are going to continue to think this way then the workers will have to be permitted to protect their own interests in the economy [custodiat te…protect yourself!].   

In considering the consequences of their actions, the western oligarchs have little to look forward to in this war of ideals.  Whether they are Traditionalist Conservatives, “Liberals,” Progressives, Communist Sympathizers, or Menshevik Revolutionaries, the method of political purification practiced by the Bolsheviks is the mechanism of “The Great Purge.”  It is an unholy terror imposed upon both the ruling elite and the general population alike to ensure a consistent, predictable, and manageable political outcome.  It will involve industrial-scale elimination of the adversaries of the International Communist Party; religious, racial, and ethnic cleansing on a monumental scale.  Oligarchs, their government officials, repression authorities, and their military will suffer widespread disenfranchisement, death, and destruction.  How can I say this?  Well, it’s because they’ve done it in the past, are doing it now, and will, most predictably do it in the future.  Trust me when I say this: millions of people—the oligarchs included—will die at the hands of the Bolshevik practitioners during the “purges” to come.  The material wealth of rich and poor alike will be confiscated and secured as assets to fund further “Soviet” expansion and the world will never be the same again.[65]  Spengler wasn’t day dreaming; he was thinking!

Advice that is often ignored

If Western Oligarchs cannot come to a self-realization that they’ve “been had,”—and, believe me, they won’t because the Menshevik Revolutionaries are now guiding the thought flow of their gullible political associates who do not understand that they are not in control—then they stand to lose everything that they and their families have ever gained through every effort conceivable.  The tighter they turn “the screw” the less control over their destiny they will have.  This is part of the enemy’s plan.  It is how the “Fourth Party Plan” was designed and intended to work.  Western oligarchs should stop trying to convince themselves that their lettered academics are superbly qualified to provide them with all the answers.  Their “lettered” academics are part of the problem—they all believe in some aspect of Marxism from the point of view that Leon Trotsky expressed to the malleable minds of college students the world around.  Reality is demonstrating—in the most painful way imaginable—that these people do not have the upper hand.  To gain the upper-hand, they will have to master practical reasoning or find themselves dominating the progress of political disintegration as they preside over a “Bonfire of the Vanities.”  What, did you think that movie wholly irrelevant then?

“History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives.”

Abba Eban, December 16, 1970

Altered Mental states

I assert that there is a “Fourth Party Plan”[66] underway and I’m not offended that no one will take me seriously.  I am not a lettered academic from a storied university that has produced entire generations of intellectual charlatans and rueful swindlers of the public trust. I’ll concede that many intelligent and rational people graduate from these certification programs as well but I never see them percolating into positions of prominence within the educational or political system.  Our western leadership somehow always promotes the idiot to his or her next higher level of incompetence.[67]  Now, some may say that statement smacks of jealousy; that it’s rude, hateful, and uncalled for.  They would be wrong.  In my waning years, I have found that my fondest aspirations have been fulfilled and my most poignant desires gratified by circumstance.  I’m hard on the “university system” because it incessantly promotes blowhards such as the imbeciles that “hypothesized” our nation’s current foreign policy utilizing theoretical reasoning and speculative logic—an act that “played” our Nation right into the hands of our adversary.  These people are continually defending their position by employing gratuitous skepticism as though it were a tactical nuclear weapon and they’ve all been unceremoniously swindled by the Communist International. 

Cloaked behind the “bad-ass” mentality of an “International Bully” is the unpredictable inadequacy of ignorance; we live in fear. Our oligarchs, their minions in the bureaucracy of Government, their social engineers and professional “educationalists,” and their psychologically unhinged diplomats are often referred to with a colorful allegory.[68]  We hear the common folk say: “Look, the Emperor has no clothes!”  This is a metaphor for cognitive dissonance, a condition of confusion.  The oligarch doesn’t realize that he or she might even have a problem!  And, as our over-confident professional politicians have learned to their horror, if you are not completely aware that you have a problem then how in the hell can you call for help?[69]

In closing this discussion, I will leave you with this bit of “news.”  On August 8th, 2017, the journalist Juliana Pogosova, of the Russian News Agency Pravda, wrote:

“The Eurasian Economic Union, which incorporates Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan, as well as close military cooperation between Russia and Armenia clearly confirms the desire to revive Soviet traditions on post-Soviet space. The USSR could not survive, but scenarios of its possible reincarnation will continue to excite historians and social scientists for a very long time.”[70] [Emphasis mine]

I guess, we must be getting close to “zero hour”—huh?  Are all of you “excited?” 

APPENDIX

What is that which I call “The Fourth Party Plan?”

In my essay, On a Defense Against the Dark Arts, I refer to conspiracy fact summarized as “The Fourth Party Plan.” What is “The Fourth Party Plan? In his book The Perestroika Deception, author Anatoliy Golitsyn elaborates on the long-term objectives of a Marxist/Leninist Strategy, originally conceived by the Soviet Communist Party and expanded, elaborated, and ultimately implemented over a period of about eighty years.

According to Golitsyn, International Communists (under the direction of the Soviet State) developed three (3) Grand Strategies

Many Russians pride themselves as masters in the game of chess and this is because, as an “ethnic” community with a long and ancient history, they have been cultivated, as a people, to appreciate any hypothesis for its “strategy;” how its principle ideation is either constructed or orchestrated by a well-thought-out, comprehensive “design.”  Golitsyn tells us that Communist Party apparatchiks, under the Soviet Regime—starting with Lenin—often referred to this preferential intellectual approach to suppositional problem-solving as “…'the general line', which guides the course ofthe Party's actions over a period of twenty to thirty yearsin the pursuit of its unchanging Communist objectives.”[71]

So, from this we can understand that Soviet planners have been socially cultivated and intellectually educated and trained to think in the “long-term;” to consider the nature of their inquiry to be one that is immutable—that will manifest a somewhat predictable and enduring character that can be manipulated and/or exploited to achieve really grand outcomes underwriting the expectations of their collectivist aspirations.

Golitsyn instructs: “As in military strategy, Soviet political strategyis flexible, elasticas to timing, contains avariety of options and takes full account ofrisksand possible losses.The feature of strategy which distinguishes it from policy is that it contains withinitself a secret, concealed or deceptive manoeuvre[sic]designed to take the adversary by surprise and thus secure victory for the strategy.” [Read: The Communist Party’s strategy is planned, organized, and orchestrated to intentionally provoke the emotional response of “shock and awe” in the minds of whomever they consider to be their adversary—the notion that the adversary “never saw it coming;” a “masterful” chess move.]

From the very beginning—well before the October 1917 Revolution—Soviet Communists had been busy constructing three grand strategies. Golitsyn elaborates that these strategies had, as their quintessential goal an almost “messianic obsession” with first “…seizing power in Russia, [then employing both the country’s material and human resources in] achieving the world-wide victory of Communism and [once the victory had been secured] building atotalitarian, egalitarian society.” [but that totalitarian society would be managed as a technocracy run by collectivist elitists who would use ruthless coercion and brutal human cruelty to ensure the population’s compliance with the plan]

THE FIRST GRAND STRATEGY

Golitsyn tells us: “Thefirst grand strategywas developed by Lenin. Its objective was the overthrow of the Tsarist regime by a workers' revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the Communist Party in Russia. It took roughly twenty years to accomplish its objective through the revolution of October 1917. Inachieving victory, Lenin took advantage of three main factors in the situation:

1. The Russian defeat in the First World War against Germanyand the consequent hunger and discontent prevalent among the Russian peasants and soldiers.
2. The financial help given by the German General Staff to the opposition political parties in Russia includingthe Communist Party. The German generals reasonedthat these parties would overthrowthe Tsar and that Russia would then leave the war. They went so far as to facilitate the return to Russia via Germany of Lenin and his colleagues from their exile in Switzerland.  Lenin, however, did not sell out to the Germans. Once his Party had assumed power, he did everything possibleto promote revolution inGermany and came close to success in 1918-19. Thehelp the Germansgave Lenin showedhow little they understood his strategic intentions: they paid dearlyfor their miscalculations.
3. The weakness and misconceptions of Alexander Kerensky, the last Prime Minister of the democratic Provisional Government   of Russia. The Russiangenerals, concerned about the disintegration ofthe Russian army and the increasing influence of the Communist Party, began to prepare for amilitary-backed regime in orderto forestall a Communist coup. Kerensky, himself a socialist, turned against the generals and made common cause with the Left in whichthe Communists were becoming dominant. This openedthe way to the Communist takeover in October 1917.

Asked about this subjectin a conversation with the Author in 1962, Kerensky admitted that his move was agrave miscalculation.  He said that he had viewedthe Communists as just another Party and had underestimated theirorganization and strength.  He conceded that he had failed to grasptheir strategy.

The essenceof the specialmanoeuvre [sic] in this first Communist grand strategy for seizingpower in Russia was the organization of an army uprising or coup  d'etat by the minority CommunistParty led by Lenin.”[72] [Emphasis mine]

Lenin knew of Karl Haushofer who was an adherent of Halford Mackinder—the geopolitical scholar who had advanced the “World Island” or “Heartland” theory of human global political governance.[73],[74]  This is a rather fascinating fact as the construction of “The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” bears too much resemblance to the Heartland Theory to be coincidence.

THE SECOND GRAND STRATEGY

Again, according to Golitsyn, “The two main objectives of the second grand strategy, developedby Lenin after taking power, were:

1. To promote socialism (Communism) in Russia.
2. To foment world-wide Communist revolution.”[75]

The strategy was implemented in five (5) distinctphases:

During the first phase, Lenin implemented the strategy by employing a tactic that he called:  'war Communism.'  War Communism, as an ideation, was two-pronged; he launched an attack on the foundations of the Russian Tsarist regime while, at the same time, setting into motion a full-frontal attack on the capitalist world abroad through its social, political, and economic institutions. 

Sometime during the year 1919, Lenin set up the “Communist International” or Comintern (as it was known to its fellow travelers) to function as the international political organization for any of the Communist Parties in western countries.  He failed in this endeavor but nearly a decade later, Leon Trotsky would succeed in establishing this organizational society which then became a formidable opponent of capitalism in the West, influencing both its culture and politics. 

According to Golitsyn: “Lenin implemented tactical readjustments within the strategy. In an effort to revive the Soviet economy,he introduced a limited form of Party-controlled capitalism under the 'New Economic Policy' or NEP which offered new incentives for production. Through the NEP he succeeded in obtaining economic aid and increased trade, credits and technology from Western industrialists.  In practice, the NEP servedto strengthen the socialist base in Russia.

Exploiting the contradictions betweendefeated Germany and the victorious Western allies, Lenin succeeded in negotiating the Rapallo Treaty with Germany.  Secret militarycollaboration ensued between the Soviets andthe Germans under General von Seeckt.  Thus, the German generalsmade another grave miscalculation through their failureto appreciate Lenin'sideology and anti-Western strategy.

The help they gave the Sovietsin laying the foundations of their military industry worked to Germany'sdetriment in the Second World War.  In addition, Lenin planneda number of political reforms to make the Communist model more attractive to other countries,[76] but his efforts were negated byhis illness and his death.” [Emphasis mine]

The third phase was carried out by Lenin’s heirs and assigns.  Stalin very much engaged a continuation of Lenin’s “Second Grand Strategy” but replaced the New Economic Policy with a ruthless program of modernization of Soviet industry and collectivization of Soviet Agriculture. Tocope with mountingdiscontent and the abysmal organizational failure associated with managed economies, he employed “mass repression” establishing his own “personal dictatorship” supported by a ferocious police state.

Stalin’s ultimate intention being that of expanding his socialist empire, in the fourth phase heexploited the rift between the great powers of western Europe signing the Nazi-Soviet Pacts with Germany (who would soon be at war with Great Britain) gaining control of the Baltic States.  After the German Invasion (Operation Barbarossa) he began collaborating with the United States and Great Britain enjoying generous military aid that proved to be a significant fact in allowing his country to recover from the devastating losses that it had suffered in the attack.  He always down played Communist Ideology in an effort to disguise expansionist strategies to his western collaborators.  Golitsyn explains: “He achieved this by playing down Communist ideology,by presenting himself as a nationalist leader, by making minor but highly visible,deceptive concessions to the Russian Orthodox Church, and by his dissolution of the Comintern.”[77]

Golitsyn, himself, was witness to this exploitation while serving in the Soviet Union’s counterintelligence community.  Stalin exploited the allied victory over Germany andJapan in such a fashion as to create an opportunity to further develop the Communist world both in Eastern Europe and in Asia.  The Soviet General Staff were all ordered to “…give priority to the Chinese Communist Army.”[78]  This clandestine aid to the Chinese Communists was a major influence on the regional balance of power allowing the Maoists to wrest political and military control, in China, from the Kuomintang (Chiang Kai-shek’s “Nationalist Government”).

“In addition to the Japanese arms captured by the Soviets in Manchuria, large quantities of Soviet arms and ammunition, including American weapons received by the Soviet Union from the United States during the war, were secretly shipped by train to China between 1946 and 1949.”[79]

These covert operations were very successful and, together with their East European operatives, Soviet Intelligence operatives helped bring the countries of Eastern Europe into the Soviet Communist Block.  Golitsyn muses:

“With the benefit of hindsight, it is reasonable to say that PresidentRoosevelt underrated Stalin's strategicdesigns, trusted him too readily and was too naive in his belief that Stalin's appetitecouldbe controlled. The underestimation of Stalin'sstrategy proved very costly to the West.”

The “special maneuver” at this stage of The Second Communist Grand Strategy contributed to the victory over Germany and Japan, and paved the way for Soviet expansion into post-war Eastern Europe.  The expansion of Communism had always been Stalin's objective.

During the fifth and final phase of The Second Grand Strategy, a brutal Sovietizationof Democracies in Eastern Europe took place.  In engendered disgruntlement throughout the Soviet Union and its satellite nations.  The inefficiency of industry and agriculture that had been monopolized under the Soviet collectivist regime led to wide-spread hunger throughout the Soviet Empire.  Stalin doubled-down on his mass repression but it no longer seemed to work and dissatisfaction with his regime manifested in the Communist Leadership itself!  Golitsyn explains:

“By 1952, Stalin had abandoned the strategy [of mass repression].  He was by now a frightened manpreoccupied with preserving his personalpower through the elimination of all potentialrivals.  The whole Communistsystemwas in the depths of crisis.  A revolutionary situation pervadedthe Soviet Empire,threatening an explosion atany moment.  The Party's revelations of Stalin's crimes added fuel to the flames.  Open revoltsbroke out in Poland and Hungary.

Had the United States and its allies intervened inHungary, the divided and paralyzed Soviet leadership  would have been unableto respond  effectively.   Such was the estimate of the then Chairmanof the KGB, General Ivan Serov.  Given US and allied intervention, the revolt would have spread in all probability to the USSR and other Communist states. Agoldenopportunity to rid the world of Communism once and for all was lost.”[80]

Regardless of Stalin’s ham-fisted handling of the population, continually terrorizing them into submission, his behavior demonstrates the effectiveness of “mis-direction” and disinformation campaigns.  Sun Tsu, the famous strategist of ancient Chinese history once said: “All Warfare Is Based Upon Deception.  He elaborates on deception instructing:

Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable;

When using our forces, we must seem inactive;

When we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away;

When far away, we must make him believe we are near.”[81]

Now then, reflect on the history of the spread of Communism in the 19th, 20th, and 21st Centuries. International Communist Leaders have followed this maxim with great precision, often times, wresting the control of victimized nations right out from under the noses of self-aggrandizing western mountebanks.  We are also made aware of the viability of Mackinder’s theory of “The Heartland” when he said in 1919:

"Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;

who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;

who rules the World-Island commands the world."[82]

[Emphasis mine]

Given the fact that Golitsyn warned us that International Communism would impose its “World Order” upon the global population through the mechanism of the “Super State,” and that the European Union is, at present, the only “Super State” apparent to us.  Are we to believe that western democracies actually have control and influence over the East European nations now struggling with a protracted immigration problem that threatens their national sovereignty?

THE THIRD GRAND STRATEGY

By the time that Stalin died and Khrushchev came to power, the leaders of the International Communist Movement were all aware of the damage that had been done to the Communist Cause.  Their industry and agriculture were in crisis.  They agreed that radical changesin Communist strategies were urgently needed.  In 1959, the major players began formulating a new grandstrategy for Communism called “The Third Grand Strategy.”

Golitsyn tells us that: “According to the chief of theKGB Institute at the time, Mao Tse-Tung gave up all but one of his leading positions inChina in 1959 inorder to concentrate on the development of this strategy:

Thoroughgoing research was conducted into the historical experience of the Communist Parties.  Consultations took place between the Soviet and Chinese leaders.  Khrushchev and Shelepin visitedChina, where Khrushchev met Mao and Deng Xiao-ping.  Shelepin studied the experience of the Chinese Ministryof Public Security indealing with political opposition.

Following these consultations and research, the new, third grand strategy for the Bloc was adopted and launched in the period between 1958 and 1960.  Its principalarchitects were Mao and Khrushchev.  The strategy was long-range incharacter and covered the whole Communist Bloc.  It tookinto account not only the political, economic and militarypotential of the Bloc countries but also, for the first time in their history,the political potentialof their intelligence and security services including the KGB.”[83]

Alexander Nikolayevich Shelepin was a politician and security and intelligence officer in the post-Stalinist Soviet State.  A member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, he served as First Deputy Prime Minister, as a full member of the Politburo and as the Chairman of the KGB from December 1958 to November 1961.  It is not a coincidence that he was involved in the all of the planning going on between Khrushchev and Mao.  His contribution came in the form of identifying and detailing the use of “controlled opposition,” in the execution the tactics of the Third Grand Strategy.  Golitsyn explains:

“As with the previous two grand strategies, the third was designed to last for a generation. Ageneration's delay was neededforStalin's victims and their jailers to pass away before the final phase of the strategy could safely be introduced.”[84]

The primary objectives of The Third Grand Strategy are:

1. To abolishStalinist practices, inparticular the use of mass repression, and to introduce otherchanges needed for recovery from the crisisof the rnid-1950s.
2. To restore Lenin'sstyle of collegial leadership within the Communist Parties and genuine fraternal relations betweenthem.
3. To prepare for and introducein the final phase of the strategy economic and political restructuring and democratization of the USSR and other Communist countries. This is the originof the economic reform in Hungaryand China over the past several decades and of 'perestroika' in the USSR. Similar innovations tothoseintroduced in Hungary and China may be expected throughoutthe Communist Bloc.
4. The build-upof the military potential oftheCommunist Bloc as a whole. 
5. The adoption of a Leninist style of activistdiplomacy directed against the 'main enemy' countries(i.e.the United States, Britain,France, West Germany and Japan) and the use of deceptive negotiations, alliances and other agreements along the lines of the Treaty of Rapallo.
6. The use of the intelligence potentialof the Communist countries and especially theKGB to undermineand destabilize the capitalist world and its institutions through permanent political and psychological warfare.
7. The use against the West ofthepolitical potential of the Communist countries, theCommunist Parties of the non-Communist world and national liberation and anti-war movements.

Think about these strategic objectives and then think about the foreign policy initiatives of the West with their oblique diplomacy and perpetual wars of intervention and attrition; consider the  block-headed diplomatic initiatives that seem to fail at the outset.  All these elements have been employed, manipulated, and their consequences exploited to advance the principal objectives of the Third Grand Strategy in foreign affairs. 

Western governments continually focus on “nations of great import.”  Their “importance” is weighed according to the political, economic, financial, and military ambitions of the West.  Small diminutive nations of the third world are often slapped up against the wall and brutally oppressed to force them in line with these contemptible diplomatic and/or military objectives.  For example, in 2002, Karl Rove, a political advisor to President Bush remarked in a meeting of the minds:

“Every 10 years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small, crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business!”[85] 

Compare this “naïve” conceptualization of a complex foreign policy issue to what Golitsyn was telling us the International Communist Movement was undertaking as a global governance regime.  International Communists have debilitated the once hegemonic influence of the Western nations in the modern world, shifting the balance of power in favor of the Peoples Republic of China and their allies in the post-Soviet world, the BRICS nations. The West is rapidly losing ground what with all of its pseudo-imperial characterizations of the adversary, the plethora of sanctions intended to destroy the economies of these competing nations, and the imposition of an ideological hegemony of “entitlement”—that in the West, moneyed interests are entitled to run the world as they see fit with no input from the victims of their outrageous myopia.  The International Communists are, at present, exploiting the manifestation of this “new world order” creating an alternative banking and financial system, organizing military alliances with formally non-communist countries, and launching a powerful new diplomatic initiative that has resulted in a gradual diminution of political, economic, and military power which is being leveraged to appropriate the final conquest of capitalism through the convergence, on Communist terms, of the capitalist and Communist systems (Democratic Socialism?  Oh, really?).[86]

In my essay, On a Defense Against the Dark Arts, I make a reference to Khrushchev's notorious remark, reported as 'we shall bury you.'  Golitsyn wrote that “…it was a slip of the tongue; but it was made at the time when the strategy was adopted and it expressed the true aim of the strategy.  Acceptance of this aim was accompanied by a 'joke' popular in bureaucratic circles at the time and attributed to Suslov, one of the top Communist strategists: 'Comrades, should we really take over the whole capitalist world? Wouldn't itbe better to leave at least one capitalist state like the United States so that itcouldfeed us?'”[87]

CONVERGENCE THROUGH TACTICAL CHANGES AND DISINFORMATION: The Fourth Communist Party Plan

Golitsyn warned us that: “In working out their new strategy, the Communist strategists took due note of the contribution that unwitting Western support had made to the successful execution of the first and second grand strategies.  They concluded that unwitting Western support would be essential for the fulfilment of their strategy of convergence.  They set about procuring it through a long-range program of deceptive tactical readjustments in the ideological, political, and economic spheres and through disinformation calculated tocreatethe grand illusion that the Communist countries were moving closer to the Western model.”[88]

Disinformation themes prevalent during the construction of this final putsch were that:

1. Communist ideology was dead,
2. the Communist Bloc had disintegrated into a collection of disparate national regimes and,
3. the European Communist Parties were evolving from Leninist into conventional political parties under the device of Euro-Communism.[89]

Golitsyn explained that: “The purpose of the disinformation was to conceal from Western governments the degree of coordination between the Communist governments and Parties in the pursuit of their long-term objectives and, by suggesting that the demise of ideology provided a basis for more constructive relations with the West, to engage the West in unwitting support for Communist strategy.

Then there was disinformation about 'compromisers' and 'hardliners' in the USSR and about 'pragmatists' and 'dogmatists' in China under Mao and Deng.[90] Under Khrushchev and Brezhnev, the purpose was to promote the first détente with the United States and Western Europe and to extract concessions in the course of the SALT negotiations.  In the Chinese case, the objects include détente with the United States and procuring Western technology for China.”[91]

He goes on to point out that: “Now, the purpose of the intensified disinformation on 'conservative' resistance to Gorbachev's reforms and on the Yeltsin affair is to win Western support for further arguments in favor of convergence and to widen the gap between genuine conservatives and liberals in the United States.[92] [Emphasis mine]

The rationale of this disinformation is that that there are two sorts of people: those who recognize change and seek to promote it, and those who oppose it— the implication being that those who oppose it are 'enemies of progress and peace', 'cold warriors', etc.  This was the explanation given by Gorbachev to the prominent Soviet expert Marshall Shulman at a White House reception.

Gorbachev added that 'we have both kinds of people in both our countries'.  In this way Gorbachev gave evidence of his intention to project and promote Soviet strategy through influential American intellectuals.  There are indications that the dismissal of Yeltsin as head of the Moscow Party organization was prearranged, timed and publicized by giving Mr. Dan Rather permission to interview him on the subject, on the Central Broadcasting System (CBS) one month in advance of Gorbachev's visit to the United States.  The purpose of that specific disinformation was further to exaggerate the alleged pressure being brought to bear on Gorbachev by Soviet 'conservatives' (to whom Gorbachev was under latent pressure to defer), to highlight the role of both Soviet and American conservatives as obstacles to reform and 'progress' and to create favorable conditions for an alliance between Soviet and American liberals for the intended purpose of the 'restructuring' of both societies.”[93]

It would appear that this goal, planned for execution some thirty years ago, is now coming to fruition.[94]

[1] Office of the Historian; Fall of Communism in Eastern Europe, 1989 , https://history.state.gov/milestones/1989-1992/fall-of-communism

[2] At the 2nd Congress of the RSDLP in August 1903, Lenin and Martov disagreed, first about which persons should be in the editorial committee of the party newspaper Iskra, and then about the definition of a "party member" in the future party statute.  Lenin's formulation required the party member to be a member of one of the party's organizations, whereas Martov's only stated that he should work under the guidance of a party organization. Although the difference in definitions was small, with Lenin's being slightly more exclusive, it was indicative of what became an essential difference between the philosophies of the two emerging factions: Lenin argued for a small party of professional revolutionaries with a large fringe of non-party sympathizers and supporters, whereas Martov believed it was better to have a large party of activists with broad representation. [Wikipedia; Emphasis mine]

Martov's proposal was accepted by the majority of the delegates (28 votes to 23). However, after seven delegates stormed out of the Congress – five of them representatives of the Jewish Bund who left in protest about their own federalist proposal being defeated – Lenin's supporters won a slight majority, which was reflected in the composition of the Central Committee and the other central Party organs elected at the Congress. That was also the reason behind the naming of the factions. (It was later hypothesized that Lenin had purposely offended some of the delegates in order to have them leave the meeting in protest, giving him a majority.  However, Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were united in voting against the Bundist proposal, which lost (41 to 5). Despite the outcome of the congress, the following years saw the Mensheviks gathering considerable support among regular social democrats and effectively building up a parallel party organization.  [Wikipedia; emphasis mine]

[3] Please pay attention to the manner in which I represent the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[4] Part 4: Ceaseless Propaganda, Outright Lies and Distorted Facts; Elizabeth Gould and Paul Fitzgerald, Veterans Today, September 4, 2017]

[5] Census of the Soviet Union 1989

286,730,819 = Roughly 6% of the planet’s population

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Census_(1989)

Estimated global population 1989

5,240,735,117

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/

Geographical size of the Soviet Union

8,650,000 square miles = Roughly 15% of the planet’s land mass

https://www.britannica.com/place/Soviet-Union

Total land mass of the Earth                              

57,308,738

https://www.google.com/search?q=land+mass+of+the+planet&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1

[6] This discussion was developed from information gathered from a citation on James Jesus Angleton and Anatoliy Golitsyn in Spartacus Educational http://spartacus-educational.com/SSangleton.htm and  http://spartacus-educational.com/SSgolitsin.htm.

7] Bear in mind that the “authorities” chose to call the earlier implementation of a fledgling dedicated Intelligence organization “The Office of Strategic Services.”  It then evolved into the “Central Intelligence Agency.”  So, they seem to be engaging a journey from “I don’t know, whatever we need…” to a mission of centralized intelligence gathering as the intelligence community within the United States matured.  This left people like Petty subject to a great deal of speculation in that, during any “managed change,” Murphy’s Law is in play and anything that can happen will happen.

[8] Wikipedia; Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War

[9]Rosenbaum, Ron; Kim Philby and the Age of Paranoia, (The New York Times: July 10, 1994)

In September 1949, the Philbys arrived in the United States. Officially, his post was that of First Secretary to the British Embassy; in reality, he served as chief British intelligence representative in Washington. His office oversaw a large amount of urgent and top-secret communications between the United States and London. Philby was also responsible for liaising with the CIA and promoting "more aggressive Anglo-American intelligence operations."  A leading figure within the CIA was Philby's wary former colleague, James Jesus Angleton, with whom he once again found himself working closely. Angleton remained suspicious of Philby but lunched with him every week in Washington. [Wikipedia; Kim Philby]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Philby

Pearson, Richard; SOVIET SPY KIM PHILBY, 76, DIES IN U.S.S.R., ([Washington Post: May 12, 1988). “From 1949 to 1951, he held the immensely sensitive post of first secretary of the British Embassy in Washington. Among his duties was directing liaison between the British intelligence services and the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Central Intelligence Agency.” 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1988/05/12/soviet-spy-kim-philby-76-dies-in-ussr/ca054532-057c-4288-884d-cb8c78940103/?utm_term=.31b460314bf2

[10] Op. Cit.; Wikipedia; Kim Philby, “James Jesus Angleton lunched with Philby every week.”  Author’s Note: okay, I’m speculating that Philby had channeled a detailed and very descriptive profile (a “dossier” and not a “legend”) on James Jesus Angleton to his superiors that eventually wound up on Golitsyn’s desk in Helsinki ten years later!  Go figure.  But now, go to this web site and view the factual information presented: https://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2010/08/15/socialist-party-of-america-releases-the-names-of-70-democrat-members-of-congress-who-are-members-of-their-caucus/

Given this information, should we still consider all of the actors benign—having no ulterior motives that are part of a hidden agenda?

[11] An Italian-American expletive roughly translated as “Mary mother of God!” but it actually means: “Good Grief!”

[12] Think about it.  If you were an enemy agent, what would be of paramount importance to your “information gathering?”  Okay, look at it this way, what was the most important thing to understand about NAZI communications to the people at Bletchley Park, U.K. during World War II?  That’s right; code-breaking.  How do the people in a Signal Corps communicate?  Why, in code of course!

[13] As an example: “In 1953, White purchased the Autocar Company. From 1951 until 1977, White Motors also distributed Freightliner trucks.  This took place under an agreement with Freightliner's parent, Consolidated Freightways.  White manufactured trucks under its own brands—White,  Autocar, and Western Star—as well, leading to the company becoming known as the "Big Four" through to the mid-1970s.  The Sterling nameplate, unused by White as long as the company owned it, went to Freightliner after the companies' split; it was used from 1997 to 2008, by Daimler Trucks.

Sales dropped during the 1960s, and White tried merging with White Consolidated Industries, the company that once made sewing machines; the federal government blocked this deal. The company opened plants in Virginia and Utah, since they did not have unions, but this did not help.  Semon E. "Bunkie" Knudsen, former president of Ford Motor Company, made the company successful for a time, but the decline continued. Later, the federal government approved a merger with White Consolidated, which feared being hurt by White Motor's troubles.  Mergers with Daimler and Renault were also considered.  Production was somewhat limited as White did not have a lighter range (13,330 units built in 1978), leading to several attempts at linking up with various European manufacturers.

By 1980, White was insolvent. Volvo AB acquired the US assets of the company in 1981, while two energy-related companies based in Calgary, Alberta, Bow Valley Resource Services, and NovaCorp, an Alberta corporation, purchased the Canadian assets, including the Kelowna, British Columbia, plant, and the Western Star nameplate and product range.

A former White subsidiary, White Farm Equipment, produced farm tractors until 2001. As of 2006, the only products made under the White name are a series of corn planters (made by AGCO) and garden tractors (made by MTD Products).” [Wikipedia]

[14] It doesn’t seem to have worked very well. Refer to the “Devon Nunes memo” (Dated: February 2, 2018 and “Grassley-Graham memo” (Dated February 10, 2018).

[15] Had Angleton’s old department been dismantled then?

[16] Hansen, Chris; Dateline NBC, October 1, 2004. An interview with James Pavitt.

[17]  We have to be very careful when we are selecting examples that cite viperous “hate speech” in propaganda, for example, Menachem Begin, has been quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk’s, "Begin and the Beasts," New Statesman, June 25, 1982, as parroting a quote many attribute to Rabbi Kook the Older:

“Our race is the Master Race. We Jews are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves.” (Prime Minister of Israel Menachem Begin, in a speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, “Begin and the ‘Beasts’,” New Statesman, June 25, 1982.)

However, according to the BEGIN CENTER DIARY, a blog that supports the primary MENACHEM BEGIN HERITAGE CENTER site (see this posting http://begincenterdiary.blogspot.com/2009/05/correcting-misquotation-reputedly-by.html), from that referenced speech before the Knesset, the closest thing that they could find to the citation given by Amnon Kapeliouk was this:

“In the context of talking about defending the children of Israel from terror attacks, he said the following:

“The children of Israel will happily go to school and joyfully return home, just like the children in Washington, in Moscow, and in Peking, in Paris and in Rome, in Oslo, in Stockholm and in Copenhagen. The fate of… Jewish children has been different from all the children of the world throughout the generations. No more. We will defend our children. If the hand of any two-footed animal is raised against them, that hand will be cut off, and our children will grow up in joy in the homes of their parents.

But, here there are Katyushas, missiles and artillery shells day and night, with the sole intention of murdering our women and children. There are military targets in the Galilee. What a characteristic phenomenon, they are protected, completely immune to these terrorists. Only at the civilian population, only to shed our blood, just to kill our children, our wives, our sisters, our elderly.”

He clearly wasn’t characterizing ‘Palestinians’ as two-legged/footed beasts/animals, only those who would murder innocent children.”

Author’s note: This is an example of how what someone actually says can be twisted into a lie and then promoted as the historical truth.  It is an example of how International Communists redirect a talking point to construct the boundaries of their “new reality” [Read: Kurt Goldstein].  The reference to a vitriolic quote by Begin seems to have come into the mindset of the curious investigator from out of nowhere. But, Begin seems to have been referring to horrifying incidents such as the Ma'alot massacre, May 15, 1974 and not any ideological or theocratic world view.  The quote offered by Amnon Kapeliouk projects an almost other-worldly character upon the personage of Menachem Begin.  In the actual quote attributed to him, he is projecting a tribal Weltanschauung (identifying with the notion of “tribalism” and the human values of its ideology that are relevant to the maintenance of the Jewish State) and not a “racist strategy” relevant to Zionism. In actuality, such controversial “Talmudic” effluent is attributed to people like Rabbi Ovadia Yosef.

“Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel,” he said in his weekly Saturday night sermon on the laws regarding the actions non-Jews are permitted to perform on Shabbat.” [Sephardi leader Yosef: Non-Jews exist to serve Jews; By Marcy Oster (Jewish Telegraphic Agency {JTA}: October 18, 2010] http://www.jta.org/2010/10/18/news-opinion/israel-middle-east/sephardi-leader-yosef-non-jews-exist-to-serve-jews

Author’s Note: Collectivist regimes create “activist-style” propaganda the fundamentals of which are visceral diatribes and treacherously conceived imagery that dehumanize their perceived opposition in the minds of the general public.  It is unwise to employ these tactics because they inevitably create what the US Central Intelligence Agency termed “blowback” in 1954 to describe the unintended consequences of its often-illegal covert operations in foreign countries.  Still International Communists (the Menshevik component of the “Fourth Party Plan”) are confident that they can “herd cats” competently to achieve their sordid political objectives.

[18] Charles Ferguson, Inside Job. (SONY PICTURES: 2010)

[19] Karen Pierog,  U.S. states stung by drop in April income tax revenue.  (Reuters News, Chicago: May 25, 2016).

[20] Tim Sheehan and Rory Appleton, IRS will shut down Fresno tax-processing center in 2021.  (The Fresno Bee, Fresno: September 14, 2016).

[21] Jack Moore, IRS budget woes, shrinking staff threaten to derail agency. (Federal News Radio, Washington, D.C.: February 7, 2013).

[22] Jamie Crawford, Audit reveals Army's trillion-dollar accounting gaffes. (CNN Politics: August 23, 2016).

[23] Jude Clemente, Americans Can't Afford Higher Electricity Prices.  (Forbes Magazine: November 24, 2014).

[24] Governing Magazine: Bankrupt Cities, Municipalities List and Map. (Last updated August 21, 2015)

[25] Thom Hartmann and Sam Sacks, Civics 101: Spending Vs. Investing.  (Op-Ed, The Daily Take: November 14, 2012). 

[26] Ron Rimkus, CFA, President Nixon: The Man Who Sold the World Fiat Money. (The CFA Institute, Enterprising Investor: March 13, 2013.

[27] Eric Rauchway, How Franklin Roosevelt Secretly Ended the Gold Standard. (Bloomberg News: March 21, 2013) 

[28] Neil Reynolds, The sad demise of the one-income family.  (The Globe and Mail, Ottawa: Sep. 10, 2012). 

[29] The Trilateral Commission is a non-governmental, non-partisan discussion group founded by David Rockefeller in July 1973, to foster closer cooperation among North America, Western Europe, and Japan. [Wikipedia].

[30] Michael Potash , American Education is being Deliberately Destroyed - But Why?  (RSN {Reader Supported News}: March 9, 2012).

[31] School Bullying is Nothing New, But Psychologists Identify New Ways to Prevent It (American Psychological Association: October 29, 2004)

[32] Herbert Spencer; best remembered for his doctrine of “social Darwinism,” in which the principles of evolution as discussed by Charles Darwin, including natural selection, apply to human societies, social classes, and individuals as well as to biological species developing over geologic time.  In Spencer’s time, social Darwinism was invoked to justify laissez-faire economics and the minimal state, which were thought to best promote unfettered competition between individuals and the gradual improvement of society through the “survival of the fittest,” a term that Spencer himself introduced.  Though a popular theory, in large part, it was determined through speculation using theoretical reasoning.  Darwin adopted this “term” in his “The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication” but, in truth, Spencer’s point of view was wholly arbitrary and had little to do with the assumptions drawn by Darwin’s scientific observations.  [Discussion developed from a citation in the Wikipedia]

[33] Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind: How higher education has failed democracy and impoverished the souls of today’s students. (Simon and Schuster, New York: 1987). 

[34] Foster Gamble, “Thrive” (2011).  “THRIVE is an unconventional documentary that lifts the veil on what's REALLY going on in our world by following the money upstream—uncovering the global consolidation of power in nearly every aspect of our lives.”

[35] President George H. W. Bush, “The New World Order Speech to Congress;” January 17, 1990.

[36] Glenn Greenwald, Wes Clark and the neocon dream.  (Salon: Nov 26, 2011).  The Neo-conservatives of the Bush Administration had come up with a “plan” to attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years starting with Iraq, moving on to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.  Of these cited, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and Somalia have been consumed in relentless wars of attrition.  Lebanon remains affiliated with Syria and Russia (and now Egypt and China) stepped into confront the western oligarchs in Syria.  For all practical intents, the Russian consortium has won.  Iran remains inviolable and has allied itself with Russia and China.  However, these plans for “regime change” have been continually carried over from administration to administration over the years.

[37] The father of Western modern strategic studies, Carl von Clausewitz, once defined military strategy as "the employment of battles to gain the end of war."  That’s not happening, is it?

[38]  Denise Harrison, Senior Consultant, Strategic Planning: Are Your Decisions Based on Facts or Opinions?  (Center for Simplified Strategic Planning, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI: 2015)

[39] Tom Streithorst, Why Does America Keep Losing Wars?  (Vice Magazine: April 8, 2015).  We must concede to this argument.  In over 15 years of continual combat, Afghanistan remains undefeated. It would seem, the will of the common people is intransigent.

[40] David Hambling, 4 Ways Russia's Military Is More Advanced Than You Might Think. (Popular Mechanics: Nov 25, 2015).

[41]  Lucy Draper, The Wedding That Became a Funeral: U.S. Still Silent One Year On From Deadly Yemen Drone Strike. (Newsweek Magazine: December 12, 2014)

[42] Tim Field, Symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). (http://bullyonline.org/old/stress/ptsd.htm: November 4, 2005).

[43] Terri Tanielian and Lisa H. Jaycox, Editors, Invisible Wounds of War Psychological and Cognitive Injuries, Their Consequences, and Services to Assist Recovery. (The RAND Corporation: 2008)

[44] From any practical point of view, Earl Lauer Butz was a “man in a suit” telling the “man in the field” he didn’t know a god damned thing about producing food.  Butz was a confirmed “collectivist” in the style of Ayn Rand’s quintessential contempt for it.

“Butz was already a controversial choice for a Cabinet post when President Richard Nixon nominated him to replace Clifford Hardin as Secretary of Agriculture, but it was not due to his off-color wit. Rather, a number of senators were disturbed by his unabashed connections to large agribusiness concerns.  Butz served on the boards of a number of these corporations, and when it came to smaller farms his philosophy was that they needed to grow and adapt if they wanted to remain relevant.”  [The Downfall Dictionary]

[45] Union of Concerned Scientists; Hidden Costs of Industrial Agriculture (Cambridge MA: 2018).

[46] Union of Concerned Scientists; Industrial Agriculture: The outdated, unsustainable system that dominates U.S. food production (Cambridge MA: 2018).

[47] Secretary Butts abolished a program that paid corn farmers to not plant all their land. (See Henry Wallace's "Ever-Normal Granary".) This program had attempted to prevent a national oversupply of corn and low corn prices. His mantra to farmers was "get big or get out” and he urged farmers to plant commodity crops like corn "from fencerow to fencerow." These policy shifts coincided with the rise of major agribusiness corporations, and the declining financial stability of the small family farm. [Wikipedia]

[48] Gustafson, Cole; History of Ethanol Production and Policy; (North Dakota State University: 2016).

“Ethanol use as a fuel continued after the tax was repealed, and fueled Henry Ford’s Model T in 1908. The first ethanol blended with gasoline for use as an octane booster occurred in the 1920s and 1930s, and was in high demand during World War II because of fuel shortages.”

[49] Rasmussen, Neal; From Precision Agriculture to Market Manipulation: A New Frontier in the Legal Community (Minnesota Journal of Law, University of Minnesota Law School, Science & Technology, Volume 17 | Issue 1 Article 9: 2-2016).

[50] “kolkhoz” is the Russian word for farming collective.

[51] Jonathan Benson, Russia's small-scale organic agriculture model may hold the key to feeding the world. (Natural News: September 29, 2012)

[52] Harry Donkers, Family Farming in Russian Regions, Small-Scale Agriculture and Food Supporting Russia’s Food Self-Sufficiency. (Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship Development: December, 2014)

[53] Union of Concerned Scientists, Industrial Agriculture: The outdated, unsustainable system that dominates U.S. food production.  (Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge MA: 2016)

[54] Huang, Wei-Cho, Tang, I-Ching; Bacterial and Yeast Cultures – Process Characteristics, Products, and Applications (ScienceDirect: 2007) 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/ethanol-fuel

[55]David J. Tenenbaum, Food vs. Fuel: Diversion of Crops Could Cause More Hunger. (National Institute of Health, Library of Medicine: June, 2008). 

[56] Author’s Note: Here we have a curious paradox: We have, on the one hand, an Agricultural Industry and a Federal Government telling us that the “corporate farming model” is more efficient and, on the other hand, environmentalists and scientists telling us that the “corporate farming model” is unsustainable and that the diversion of crops to ethanol production is endangering the food supply.  Where did the huge surplus crop production promised by the greater efficiencies of corporate farming go to?  It would seem that it never really existed.  The more one researches the historical elements of this “national policy phenomenon,” the more one begins to realize that there was never any “science” to its rationalization.  This was nothing more than a “leveraged buyout” of American Agriculture at every level of human transaction.

[57] Kendra Nordin, Organic farming continues to rise across the globe. (The Christian Science Monitor: February 17, 2015).

[58] Tejvan Pettinger, Problems of Agriculture – Market Failure.  (ECONOMICS: November 1, 2016) 

[59] Op. Cit., Union of Concerned Scientists; Industrial Agriculture: The outdated, unsustainable system that dominates U.S. food production.

“Monoculture farming relies heavily on chemical inputs such as synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. The fertilizers are needed because growing the same plant (and nothing else) in the same place year after year quickly depletes the nutrients that the plant relies on, and these nutrients have to be replenished somehow. The pesticides are needed because monoculture fields are highly attractive to certain weeds and insect pests.”

[60] Soviet Union to rise from ashes in 21st century; Juliana Pogosova (Pravda: 15.08.2017)

 [61] Discussion developed from citations in Wikipedia and from the work of Karl Marx in his seminal work Capital: Critique of Political Economy [In the original German, Das Kapital, Kritik der politischen Ökonomie ] and from the work of Thomas Sowell in his book entitled: Marxism: Philosophy and Economics (1985). In this essay, I am trying to make a distinction between “Marxism,” “Marxism/Leninism,” “Communism,” and “Collectivism” as we must first know with what we are actually dealing.

[62] In his commentary on Paul Kengor’s book, The Communist, Mark Hendrikson leaves us with a chilling assessment of American main stream politics:

“Nancy Pelosi’s starry-eyed adulation of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) chief Walter Bridges (and a member of the Central Committee of the CPUSA) and the strong ties of Obama insiders Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod to some of the same American communists who were allies and collaborators of Frank Marshall Davis.”

[63] Jackson, Gary P., Socialist Party of America Releases The Names of 70 Democrat Members Of Congress Who Are Members Of Their Caucus; (https://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2010/08/15/socialist-party-of-america-releases-the-names-of-70-democrat-members-of-congress-who-are-members-of-their-caucus/); (Our Time for Choosing: AUGUST 15, 2010)

[64] Russian famine of 1921–22; Soviet famine of 1932–33; Soviet famine of 1946–47.  The Great Famine started to grip China as early as 1958.  But Mao says that he was not really aware of it until he reached the village.  He had been sheltered in the relative stability of the capital. [Allison Griner; China's Great Famine: A mission to expose the truth; (HUMAN RIGHTS: 11 Jan 2016)]

[65] RT America: Communists propose confiscation of property to boost Russian economy, (February 14, 2018)

[66] See Appendix: What is that which I call “The Fourth Party Plan?”

[67] The Peter principle is a concept in management theory formulated by Laurence J. Peter and published in 1969. It states that the selection of a candidate for a position is based on the candidate's performance in their current role, rather than on abilities relevant to the intended role. Thus, employees only stop being promoted once they can no longer perform effectively, and "managers rise to the level of their incompetence." [Wikipedia]

[68] Anat Admati and Martin Hellwig, The Emperors of Banking Have No Clothes: Why have bankers and their lobbyists been so successful in stymieing efforts to rein in the financial sector? (The Globalist: March 19, 2013) 

[69] John Gall, Systemantics: The Underground Text of Systems Lore—How Systems Really Work and How They Fail. (The General Systemantics Press, Ann Arbor, MI: 1986).

[70] Juliana Pogosova, Soviet Union to rise from ashes in 21st century (Pravda: 08-15-2017) http://www.pravdareport.com/society/stories/15-08-2017/138418-ussr-0/

[71] Golitsyn, Anatoliy; The Perestroika Deception Memoranda to the CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, (EDWARD HARLE London & New York: 1998), pages 51-57.  Note: Golitsyn often made every attempt to explain “the mind of Lenin” which invariably influenced the way in which (1) the International Communist Movement was orchestrated, (2) the Soviet Union (as a political construct and organizational society) was constructed, and (3) how every Soviet leader, including Stalin, would think inasmuch as their “collectivist idealism” would provision their thought flow. International Communism is a “false narrative.”  It is neither socialist nor egalitarian but it is totalitarian in its nature.  These “so-called” Marxist/Leninist Communists, organized under the political paradigm which Vladimir Lenin insisted upon (that being a small, exclusive party of political elitists and intellectually technocratic apparatchiks), never championed the “Proletariat” but, instead, enslaved them, starved them into submission, and murdered them in the tens of millions.

[72] Ibid, page 51.

[73] Herwig, Holder H.; The Demon of Geopolitics, (Rowman & Littlefield: 2016), page 8. 

Note: The Author is referring to Weimar Munich, Germany. “In its seedy, crowded coffee and tea salons, such as the café Luitpold, the café Noris, and the café Stefanie sat the likes of Stefan Zweig, Henrik Ibsen, D.H. Lawrence, Stefan George, V.I. Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and Adolf Hitler.” 

[74] Crone, Gerald Roe; Halford Mackinder, BRITISH POLITICAL GEOGRAPHER, Encyclopedia Britannica (Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History )

[75] Op. Cit., Golitsyn, Anatoliy; The Perestroika Deception.

[76] The New Economic Program (NEP), oriented along the lines of a technocracy, is an example.  For a time, western industrialists were invited to Russia to participate in an industrial and agricultural modernization of a new “Communist Russia.”

[77] Op. Cit., Golitsyn, Anatoliy; The Perestroika Deception.  Discussion developed from Golitsyn’s excerpts.

[78] Gussack, Nevin; Golitsyn Vindicated?, (June 5, 2015), page 48.

[79] Ibid, page 48.

[80] Op. Cit., Golitsyn, Anatoliy; The Perestroika Deception.

[81] Griffith, Samuel B., Sun Tzu: The Art of War, [Translation], (Oxford University Press, London: 1963), page 41.

[82] Wikipedia.  A quote from Mackinder, Democratic Ideals and Reality, p. 150.

[83] Op. Cit., Golitsyn, Anatoliy; The Perestroika Deception.

[84] Ibid.

[85] Unger, Craig; Boss Rove: Inside Karl Rove’s Secret Kingdom of Power, (Scribner, New York: 2012), Chapter Five, Unintended Consequences, page 64.

[86] Op. Cit., Golitsyn, Anatoliy; The Perestroika Deception.  Note: Much of this discussion is taken directly from the words of Anatoliy Golitsyn and embellished for greater clarity with historical facts from other sources.  Although Golitsyn was very clear about everything he ever wrote, we must include current nuance to understand just how right he was in his assertions.

[87] Ibid.

[88] Ibid.

[89] Ibid.

[90] “It doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice.” Deng Xiaoping.

[91] Op. Cit., Golitsyn, Anatoliy; The Perestroika Deception. 

[92] Ibid.

[93] Ibid.

[94] See “Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country” (1991); “On the eve of retirement, Kirk and McCoy are charged with assassinating the Klingon High Chancellor and imprisoned. The Enterprise crew must help them escape to thwart a conspiracy aimed at sabotaging the last best hope for peace.   

Note: This movie appeared in cinemas all across the planet in 1991—the same year that The Fourth Communist Party Plan was set into motion.  Its storyline reflects the intellectual ideation of The Fourth Party Plan: that East and West would, somehow, overcome addled conservatism to come together (converge) in peace and become “one.”  It was a really good movie with superb acting and a hard-hitting storyline that kept you on the edge of your seat.  This raison d’être is now a part of the West’s group think—the fable indelibly burned into the psyche of millions of people.  But, it was also the sophisticated intrigue of Hollywood as it played into the hands of an international communist movement taking place across the Atlantic Ocean and in Asia and Indochina that was just too good to be true.

[IMDb Movie History: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102975/]