Page 1

The Dialectic of Deceit Subversion Strategies for the construction of a New World Order by S.P. Ward (Ph.D.)


“Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental acts of the day. But a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers (administrations); too plainly proves a deliberate systematic plan of reducing us to slavery.� - Thomas Jefferson.


"The champions of Socialism call themselves progressives, but they recommend a system which is characterized by rigid observance of routine and by a resistance to every kind of improvement. They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty. They call themselves democrats, but they yearn for dictatorship. They call themselves revolutionaries, but they want to make the government omnipotent. They promise the blessings of the Garden of Eden, but they plan to transform the world into a gigantic post office. Every man but one a subordinate clerk in a bureau. What an alluring utopia! What a noble cause to fight!" -Ludwig Von Mises.


Foreword Defining terms and aims This book will identify and analyse the philosophical principles, political ideologies and strategies that have influenced geopolitics since the beginning of the 20th century up until the present time. The political blocs will be characterised as being engaged in a struggle, either for or against dominance








psychological imperatives within the human psyche itself and manifest as a nisus towards either collectivism or individualism. Collectivism, philosophically speaking, is a progressive imperative to merge nation states into larger blocs, logically leading to the formation of a one world government; whereas individualism can be defined as a desire to maintain the stasis and integrity of the nation state through primarily local government control. Whereas collectivism strives to emphasise and increase the power of the state, individualism seeks to limit its power and emphasises the importance of personal liberty as the just context for any government power. In the 20th century, this struggle was generally characterised geopolitically as a Cold War between two superpowers in the US and the USSR. In Western terms, it was defined as a war between Capitalism versus Communism, Freedom versus Tyranny, Good against Evil, or more generally a war of West versus East. This struggle, then, was defined as a 4

need to protect the US from the dangers of the Communist imperative for the sake of liberty and for “God and country”. In respect to the USSR, an atheist political perspective sought hegemony by striving to implement collectivism internationally via the ideology of Marxist-Leninism. It propagated such ideas, whilst advancing strategies designed to subvert the cultural and political values of the West. A value system steeped in the principles of Classical Liberalism. Classical Liberalism sought to secure the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and the effects of urbanisation in 18th and 19th century Europe. This philosophical perspective advocated the virtues of civil liberties within a framework of limited government power under the rule of law, a belief in laissez-faire economics and free market enterprise. As a philosophical perspective, it found its zenith in the values of the United States, at least as originally conceived by the Founders and Framers of the Constitution. As a secular republic, Classical Liberalism was adhered to by the US at least until the beginnings of the 20 th century. The characteristic of this being the emphasis on avoiding “foreign entanglements”, as Jefferson put it, and a limitation on any trade treaties that sought political or military alliances that did not practise basic commerce and serve the national interest. As the Federal governments of the 20th and 21 st centuries (up until the present time) erred from these values, the US, it can be reasonably claimed, is no longer adhering to Constitutionalism, nor the virtues of Classical Liberalism, at least in the full sense. Whilst Classical Liberalism only emerged as a coherent ideology by the end of the 18th century, it still had its origins in the ideas of Enlightenment thinkers such as Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean-Baptiste 5

Say and Thomas Malthus. 1 These specific thinkers clearly influenced US Constitutionalism. They drew on a psychological understanding of individual liberty and the contradictory theories of natural law and utilitarianism. Another common feature amongst these thinkers was a general distrust of all but the most minimal forms of government and (responding to Thomas Hobbes’ theories) the idea that government had been created by individuals to protect themselves from each other. Distinct from these values were the political values of the USSR, which espoused the ideology of Marxist-Leninism. The perspective originated from the ideas of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, as written in the “Communist Manifesto” (1848). The ideas were later mapped out in a multi-volume work called “Das Kapital” (1867), where the ideology drew

Its economic perspective became more fully formulated under the ideas of David Ricardo (18 April 1772 – 11 September 1823) an English political economist. His most famous work being “Principles of Political Economy and Taxation” (1817) where he outlines his own labour theory of value. His labour theory of value required: 1

1. Both sectors have the same wage rate and the same profit rate. 2. The capital employed in production is made up of wages only. 3. The period of production has the same length for both goods.

Ricardo himself realised that the second and third assumptions were quite unrealistic and hence admitted two exceptions to his labour theory of value: 1. That production periods may differ. 2. That the two production processes may employ instruments and equipment as capital and not just wages, and in very different proportions.

Ricardo’s writings fascinated a number of early socialists in the 1820s, who thought his value theory had radical implications. They argued that, in view of labour theory of value, labour produces the entire product, and the profits capitalists get are a result of exploitations of workers. Besides Karl Marx, the socialist response was led by Thomas Hodgskin, William Thompson, John Francis Bray and Percy Ravenstone. 6

on the work of Hegel and particularly his ideas on dialectic. 2 Hegel understood the progression of history in terms of an evolution of “Geist” or “Spirit”, a term which corresponded to the equivalent of a God, with both transcendent and immanent qualities. Dialectic, a philosophical process, was thought to reveal itself in historical events as a thesis (a paradigm or world view) of Geist’s thought and, therefore, history was a manifestation of its own dialectic self-development. The hypothesis (or thesis) was thought to give rise to an opposing antithesis. This in turn, was thought to produce an inevitable conflict between thesis and antithesis, manifest in the events of history as a war. The result of the conflict between the two eventually gave rise to a synthesis, which thence produced the new hypothesis to be challenged by a new progression in perpetuity.

Marx inverted Hegel’s theory and applied the model to social classes, whilst still proposing the inevitability of conflict (or revolution) in a so called “dialectical materialism”. He stated that Feudalism was a conflict between landowner and peasant, where the result was a middle class which came to dominate. To achieve egalitarianism, therefore, the rise of the bourgeoisie necessarily had to be challenged by the worker.

In this

theory, the middle class inevitably lose the battle with the worker, but since there will be only one class remaining, there will no longer be a need for class conflict. Social peace would then reign. In this, however, Marx The philosophical history of dialectic as a process is rich and has been understood in a variety of ways. Its chief features find their most notable summary in the methodology of Plato in his Phaedrus (265c-266b). A method consisting of two different procedures best designated “division” (diairesis) and “collection” (synagoge). These different analytic procedures manifest naturally in the process of individualism and collectivism. Philosophical imperatives that underlie political theorising and the nisus towards state building, be it expressed either as nationalism or internationalism. 2


did not predict the rise of the “apparatchik” (or the government bureaucrat) or a political leader that any revolt of the proletariat inevitably would bring. Distinct from free market Capitalism, Marx proposed his own more uniform labour theory of value. A theory that the value of any goods or services is the sum total of the value of the labour that goes into it.3 He did The basic claim is that the value of a commodity can be objectively measured by the average number of labour hours required to produce that commodity. For example, if a pair of shoes usually takes twice as long to produce as a pair of trousers, then shoes are twice as valuable as trousers. In the long run, then, the competitive price of shoes will be twice the price of trousers, regardless of the value of the physical inputs. 3

Although the labour theory of value is demonstrably false, it prevailed among classical economists throughout the mid nineteenth and 20th centuries. It originated with Adam Smith who flirted with it in his classic defence of capitalism, “The Wealth of Nations” (1776). David Ricardo later systematised it in his “Principles of Political Economy” (1817), a text still studied by generations of free-market economic students to this day. Whilst the labour theory of value was not unique to Marx, he did attempt to turn the theory in a new direction, against those who championed capitalism. In this, he argued that the theory could explain the value of all commodities, including the commodity that workers sell to capitalists for a wage. Marx called this commodity “labour power.” Labour power was conceived as the worker’s capacity to produce goods and services. Marx, using principles of classical economics, explained that the value of labour power must depend on the number of labour hours it takes society, on average, to feed, clothe, and shelter a worker, so that he or she has the capacity to work. In other words, the long-run wage workers receive will depend on the number of labour hours it takes to produce a person who is fit for work. For example, suppose seven hours of labour are needed to feed, clothe, and protect a worker each day so that the worker is fit for work the following morning. If one labour hour equalled one pound, the correct wage should be seven pounds per day. Marx then asked a dangerous question: if all goods and services in a capitalist society tend to be sold at prices (and wages) that reflect their true value (measured by labour hours), how can it be that capitalists enjoy profits? How do capitalists manage to squeeze out an excess between total revenue and total costs? Capitalists, he answered, must enjoy a privileged and powerful position as owners of the means of production and are therefore able to ruthlessly exploit workers. Although the capitalist pays workers the correct wage (Marx was vague here) the capitalist makes workers work more hours than are needed to create the worker’s labour power. If the capitalist pays each worker seven pounds per day, he can require workers to work, say, twelve hours per day. This was a fairly typical workday during Marx’s time. Hence, if one labour 8

not recognise, however, that capitalists deserved compensation for any use of land, machines, or for organising the means of production. He advocated chiefly that profit was tantamount to theft from the worker. Consequently, he felt that property should be in the hands of the working class, via a state government controlled by the workers. What Marx failed to consider in his theory was that the purchase or creation of capital goods is a risk, and that in order for such capital to be created and maintained, the owner of the risked capital would need to be compensated. He also failed to see that the most efficient investment of capital was best done by individuals who had a personal stake in that investment. The Soviet interpretation, in any case, had a government filled with bureaucrats who supposedly represented the will of the workers. Such bureaucrats are seldom the best judge of where capital should be risked for the good of the workers. They also tend to act out of their own self-interest. Even by Marx argument, then, the old problems remain. Marxism in various forms has been tried in many countries; most notably in Russia, and more broadly the Soviet Union collective and China under Mao Zedong. In every case, Marxism failed to provide goods and services sufficient to supply the population’s needs. It negated the competitive hour equals one pound, workers produce twelve pounds’ worth of products for the capitalist but are paid only seven. The bottom line then is capitalists extract “surplus value” from the workers and enjoy monetary profits. Although Marx tried to use the labour theory of value against capitalism, he unintentionally demonstrated the weakness of the theory’s assumptions. He was correct when he claimed that classical economists failed to explain capitalist profits, but he also failed. By the end of the 19th century his theory had been largely rejected except by political ideologues. Mainstream economists, however, came to believe that capitalists do not earn profits by exploiting workers. Instead, they earn profits by forgoing current consumption, by taking risks, and by organising production. 9

model of free market capitalism and stifled growth. As a consequence, famines raged and long lines were commonplace. In the end, this failed system forced Communist regimes to revert to some form of market economy. A summary of the two opposing ideologies of Classical Liberalism and Marxism can be offered. Classical Liberalism asserts that “social systems” are homeostatic (selfregulating) mechanisms. “System” being the key word here, and with the necessary tweaking to formulate policies, encapsulates the “greatest good for the greatest number”. A maxim determined and legislated by the people’s representatives within an ideal (bourgeois) “liberal democratic” framework. Marxists, however, are critical of the entire liberal democratic framework (as understood in the classical sense) because they do not believe that bourgeois representatives can actually represent the “class interests” of the majority, which usually entails satisfying the desires of the proletariat. Classical Liberals believe in seeking reforms in a gradual, incremental and “consensus-building” manner. Classical Marxists, on the other hand, do not believe in changing the system from within. Instead, they advocate a comprehensive, revolutionary approach: an overthrowing of the present order, along with the entire power structure that supports it, ideally through proletarian-led social revolutions. Classical Liberalism is, therefore, based on the basic assumption that “consensus” is a good/value towards which each person must strive, whereas “conflict” is inherent (even desirable) in the Marxist dialectic framework. This “struggle” is an endemic feature of Socialism.


The ideal political system for a Classical Liberal is “representative democracy” led by “enlightened intellectuals”. Whereas Marxists propose a “classless, stateless, property-less, communitarian political system” founded on a theoretically temporary “socialist” platform, which for them embodies “the highest form of democracy”. 4

The subversion of the Marxist ideal A distinction can be made between Marxist-Leninism as it was practised in Russia, and the classical kind dreamt up by Karl Marx himself, and personified by Antonie Pannekoek or Rosa Luxemburg. The former, it can be argued, resulted only in a subversion that facilitated political totalitarianism. The advocates of pure Marxism upheld the view that above all else the workers must control the means of production; whereas Lenin’s perspective, or at least his more generally held and consistent view (and one put into practise after the October Revolution of October 1917) took

The democracy that Marxists aim to achieve is a workers’ democracy, also known as the dictatorship of the proletariat. This would consist of political power being held by the working class (the majority demographic of society) and state power wielded in their interests. Marxists also hold that a workers’ democracy (the dictatorship of the proletariat) is only a temporary and transitional form necessary prior to the establishment of a communist society. Under a truly communist society, the class of proletariat would disappear, along with the state, to form a classless and stateless society. 4

A key concept with Leninism and Trotskyism is democratic centralism. The democratic aspect of this organisational method describes the freedom of members of the political party to discuss and debate matters of policy and direction. Once the decision of the party is made by majority vote, however, all members are expected to uphold that decision; this latter aspect represents centralism. As Lenin described it, democratic centralism consisted of “freedom of discussion, unity of action”. 11

power away from the Soviet Factory Councils. 5 This perspective and practise was no mere deviation either. It was not simply brought on by social, economic or political circumstance, for this approach represented Lenin’s earlier position. The rather libertarian views of Lenin’s works in April 1917, the “April Theses” and the “State and Revolution” publication, then, should rightly be viewed as a deviation, or at worst a deception of his true view. They were written as no more than an attempt to garner popular support to spark the revolution, in order to seize state power. Once the Soviets had been disempowered, therefore, Lenin sought to mould the workers into an idea of what the state thought The form of Marxist Socialism advocated by Luxemburg was closer to pure Marxism than Marxist-Leninism, inasmuch as she wanted workers’ co-operatives to remain at the heart of all state decision making. Both types still sought to implement Marxist ideology through essentially militant revolutionary activism however, and in this championed subversive activity to undermine existing institutions through populist uprisings. More generally, then, revolutionary Marxism should be rejected wholesale as a dangerous ideology that propagates violence to achieve its political ends. In practise, this has only ever achieved state centred democratic authoritarianism, in spite of its clams to be an ongoing process to a stateless Communist utopia of peace. Key to this too is the emphasis placed on people power, or the power afforded to the mob, rather than the rule of law. As Luxemburg’s final words testify: 5

“The leadership has failed. Even so, the leadership can and must be recreated from the masses and out of the masses. The masses are the decisive element, they are the rock on which the final victory of the revolution will be built. The masses were on the heights; they have developed this 'defeat' into one of the historical defeats which are the pride and strength of international Socialism. And that is why the future victory will bloom from this 'defeat'. 'Order reigns in Berlin!' You stupid henchmen! Your 'order' is built on sand. Tomorrow the revolution will already 'raise itself with a rattle' and announce with fanfare, to your terror: I was, I am, I shall be!”-Luxemburg, “Order reigns in Berlin”“Collected Works” 4, p. 536, the Rosa Luxemburg Internet Archive.

The US like the Soviet revolution implemented a secession from monarchical rule. Whilst both sought political independence, the US post-revolutionary measures outlined in the Constitution sought to limit rather than increase government power. The distinction drew on a 3-tier separation of powers that limited government authoritarianism. 12

they should be, rather than the true view of Marx that the workers would determine and embody the will of the state. The general feature of Marxist-Leninism can be characterised by the utilisation of a labour army under the control of a single leader. In this, however, unlike Luxemburg, Lenin decreed that the leadership must assume dictatorial powers over the workers and accept unquestioning submission to a single will. In practise, generally, this was justified as embodying the will of the people. Thence, in the interests of Socialism, workers must unquestioningly obey the will of the leader of the labour process. Leninism, therefore, essentially justified as moral, “democratic Socialism” to satisfy the people, when in fact the classical and popular theory had been subverted into political totalitarianism. 6

In the years after the October Revolution, Lenin and Trotsky gradually took power away from the workers councils in favour of party control. The reasons for this have been variously explained but can be summed up in Trotsky’s claim that the party cannot be expected to subject itself to all the “moods and whims” of the soviets. Socialists justifying the measure claim the disempowerment of the soviets was intended as a temporary measure, but the workers councils never regained any decision-making power/authority in the following 60 plus years of “Soviet” rule (regardless of external and internal developments) and it is doubtful that the CPSU ever had the intention of reforming the system towards a workers’ democracy at any point. This was a general feature too of other Marxist-Leninist countries in which soviets were prevented from playing a significant role. In this, Bakunin asserted that “if you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself.” 6

On the other hand, the ideal was supposed to be a government by direct democracy controlled by elected soviets or workers’ councils. This “Soviet government” as Lenin described it was supposed to be the manifestation of the Marxist ‘democratic dictatorship of the proletariat’. As political organisations, the soviets would supposedly consist of representatives of factory workers’ and trade union committees, but would exclude capitalists, as a social class, in order to ensure the establishment of a proletarian government, by and for the working class and the peasants. This ideal however was not adhered to with the disempowerment of the soviets, and neither did it seek a representative voice for the wealth owning capitalist class. Lenin garnered popular support for the political disenfranchisement of the Russian capitalist social classes in his “The State and the Revolution”; a view generally out of 13

As Lenin and Trotsky proceeded with the militarisation of labour, the subordination of the worker to an individual authority was further strengthened with the claim that this system, more than any other, assured “the best utilisation of human resources”. Totalitarian management was justified as essentially rational for the good of the worker; for if it was not the case that an ultimate reason must rule, the individual would fall short of their full potential.

keeping with his political theory and how it was put into practice. In chapter five he describes: “...the dictatorship of the proletariat — i.e. the organisation of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of crushing the oppressors.... An immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the rich: and suppression by force, i.e. exclusion from democracy, for the exploiters and oppressors of the people — this is the change which democracy undergoes during the ‘transition’ from capitalism to Communism.” See Christopher Hill, “Lenin and the Russian Revolution” (1971) Penguin Books: London (p. 86). Soviet constitutionalism was then supposed to be a collective government formed by the proletariat, the opposite of the government form of dictatorship of capital (privately owned means of production) practiced in bourgeois democracies. With the disempowerment of the soviets however a totalitarian government was affected. This stranglehold was increased when the Leninist Vanguard party became the single party of choice. In “The State and Revolution” model Lenin’s party would have been but one of many political parties competing for elected power. Nevertheless, the circumstances of the Red vs. White Russian Civil War, the terrorism supposedly inflicted by opposing political parties, and the aid that they provided to the White Armies’ counterrevolution, led to the Bolshevik government’s banning of all other parties. Thus, the Vanguard party became the sole, legal political party in Russia. Lenin did not regard such political suppression as philosophically inherent to the dictatorship of the proletariat; yet the Stalinists retrospectively claimed that such factional suppression originated in the Leninist perspective. Tyranny was therefore more generally justified as: “Democracy for the vast majority of the people, and suppression by force, i.e. exclusion from democracy, of the exploiters and oppressors of the people — this is the change democracy undergoes during the transition from capitalism to Communism.” — Lenin, “ The State and Revolution”, Collected Works, Vol. 25, (p.461–462). 14

In this, then, state tyranny became justified as nothing other than the rule of reason as a guarantor of liberty. At the same time, any free expression and organisation by the people was destroyed “in the interests of Socialism”. A term redefined by Lenin and Trotsky, who then proceeded to create a totalitarian regime, which was transformed by Stalin into a dictatorship and continued mass slaughter on a horrific scale. It could be claimed that Lenin achieved his aim of gaining state control ultimately with the propagation of lies to garner popular support. He jettisoned the basic premise of Marxism but continued to label his own ideology as “Marxist Socialism”. In reality, it was implemented more or less immediately as a subversion of pure Marxism, and initiated a lie to justify state totalitarianism, simply in order to get things done. This quality of deception, however, is not one confined only to the history of the Marxist-Leninist model. It is endemic within any number of political models that have more generally used rhetoric as a tool to maintain and increase their hold on power. In this, rhetoric is a euphemism for deceit, even in those so called “free states” that claim to be “democratic”, simply because they claim they permit “free choice” or “free speech”, when they propagate only political correctness. Here rhetoric, rather than being a virtue tantamount to liberty, and a prime constitutional virtue, is an evil that perpetuates control. It propagates lies to persuade the people and deceptively justifies endeavours to procure popular support for political power.7 In this, more generally, “deception” A distinction can be drawn between politics as a rhetorical enterprise and the enterprise of dialectic. Generally, politicians utilise rhetoric as a deceit to deflect criticism, justify and defend their actions, or protect their undeclared interests. They use rhetoric to initiate unpopular policies, to further their agenda and perpetuate their grip on power, just as the Sophists in Ancient Greece did. More broadly, they utilise rhetoric in order to make the “weaker case appear the stronger and the stronger case 7


has interlaced the whole ethos of the ploys and strategies practised by politicians, governments and corporations in their struggle for state and world domination throughout the course of history. In the use of disinformation and propaganda over the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries particularly, it has been prevalent, and is one increasingly used to control the thoughts of the general populace.

The subversion of Classical Liberalism The political propagation of Marxism in the former USSR was initially presided over by Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks, who sought a the weaker�. This method, however, may more broadly be termed dialectic, inasmuch as it uses a discursive method pertaining to speech to establish the persuasiveness of one’s opinion. It is not the superior philosophical method that Plato distinguished as a truth facilitator and which qualified philosophers as fit to rule. A practise the Founders may well have had in mind in their pursuit of Constitutional truth founded in the love of God. Even to this day politicians follow the rhetorical ploys of the Sophists and use rhetoric to argue one side of a case in defence of a position, rather than the merits or weaknesses of both to elucidate knowledge and the truth pertaining to a particular issue. In this, however, they seek to be persuasive only for the furtherance of their own interests and that of their Party, even if it is also sometimes contrarily claimed to be in the interest of the people. Deceptive practise in this sense cannot be viewed as a virtue, nor a benefit, if the people wish to be educated as to the real or true nature of an issue to make an informed voting decision. Aristotle believed both rhetoric and dialectic are universal verbal arts, not limited to any specific subject matter. It could generate discourse and demonstrations on any question that might arise. The arguments of dialectic, differ from those of rhetoric: as dialectic derives its arguments from logical premises founded on universal opinion, whereas rhetoric is based on particular opinions. In contrast, Zeno the Stoic offered the opposite view to Aristotle and Plato and viewed dialectic as an enslaver and not a liberator. He suggested that while dialectic is a closed fist, rhetoric is an open hand (Cicero, De Oratore 113). Dialectic is a thing of closed logic, of minor and major premises, leading to irrefutable conclusions. Rhetoric, however, is a signal toward facilitating decisions in the spaces left open before and after logic. This rather implies dialectic is the product of a more absolutist, rigid and dogmatic mind, whilst rhetoric is indicative of a more flexible and open-minded approach, even if it may lack logical rigour. 16

collectivised union of republics under centralised state control. Its “Communist” form of rule claimed to espouse Marxist “Socialism” but in reality, offered only an alternative form of authoritarian rule that developed fairly rapidly into totalitarianism and thence to dictatorship. 8 From this base, Lenin then sought to propagate the aims and values of Marxist-Leninism internationally. This was done by trying to facilitate a global revolution, in order to achieve world Socialism, and ultimately, it was claimed, a “stateless” world Communism. 9 This initially was to be achieved by imploring the “workers of the world to unite”. They sought to overthrow their capitalist exploiters by seeking to educate the workers about the inherent inequality endemic within the system. 10 Lenin’s concern to implement global revolution was, however, rather like Marx’s vision before him, fundamentally misconceived. Its misconception

Totalitarianism is an extreme version of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism primarily differs from totalitarianism in that some social and economic institutions exist that are not under government control. Sondrol, P. C. (2009). "Totalitarian and Authoritarian Dictators: A Comparison of Fidel Castro and Alfredo Stroessner". Journal of Latin American Studies 23 (3): 599. I view Leninist rule as totalitarian whereas he himself described it as the manifestation of the Marxist ‘democratic dictatorship of the proletariat’. Isaac Deutscher, 1954. The Prophet Armed: Trotsky 1879-1921, OUP. 8

World revolution is the Marxist concept of overthrowing capitalism in all countries through the conscious revolutionary action of the organised working class. These revolutions would not necessarily occur simultaneously, but only where and when local conditions allowed a revolutionary party to successfully replace bourgeois ownership and rule and install a workers’ state based on social ownership of the means of production. In most Marxist schools, such as Trotskyism, the essentially international character of the class struggle and its global scope were critical elements and a chief explanation for the failure of Socialism to take root in one or other particular capitalist country. 9

“Everywhere we issue the call for a world workers’ revolution. Russia will become mighty and abundant if she abandons all dejection and all phrasemaking, if, with clenched teeth, she musters all her forces and strains every nerve and muscle, if she realises that salvation lies only along the road of world socialist revolution upon which we have set out.” Lenin. (LCW, Vol. 27, pp. 160-1.) 10


was based on a philosophical presumption based in Hegel’s dialectic that war proceeded any synthesis of thesis and antithesis: in Marxist terms, that revolution was an inevitable and natural progression of the antithetical class structures of the proletariat and bourgeoisie inherent within the capitalist system itself. Communism was viewed as the ultimate and natural outcome, and Marxist Leninism a superior political manifestation of the dialectic progression. In this sense, then, it was philosophically justified as a superior system: a system of the future, as was the man who practised it. This natural progression, however, was one which at the time failed to materialise in the near term. 11 By the end of the First World War, it was clear that the Marxist-Leninist presupposition of a natural and inevitable revolution occurring in any number of capitalist-based nations was largely misconceived. The so called “natural” and “inevitable” progression to global revolution had stalled. The so called “exploited workers” were even prepared to continue to fight to protect the old system that supposedly enslaved them in the name of “patriotism” and “freedom”. War had clearly not facilitated revolution. Indeed, such a threat only strengthened the proletariats’ zeal. The exploitative nature of capitalism, then, was itself insufficient to simply guarantee social unrest. Revolutions were only going to occur if 11

24th January 1918: “We are far from having completed even the transitional period from capitalism to Socialism. We have never cherished the hope that we could finish it without the aid of the international proletariat. We never had any illusions on that score. The final victory of Socialism in a single country is of course impossible. Our contingent of workers and peasants which is upholding Soviet power is one of the contingents of the great world army, which at present has been split by the world war, but which is striving for unity. We can now see clearly how far the development of the Revolution will go. The Russian began it - the German, the Frenchman and the Englishman will finish it, and Socialism will be victorious.” (LCW, Vol. 26, pp. 46572.). 18

supplementary tactics were used. Something more than simply an intellectual argument and a political slogan for the “workers of the world to unite” was required to kick start the process. 12 Aware of this deficiency, it was conceived by the Communist intelligentsia of the 1920s and 1930s to initiate additional strategies to further the likelihood of revolution. This was to be achieved in two spheres reflecting both hot war and cold war strategies. The hot war strategy naturally involved military action particularly in the Middle East and the Asian continent in such places as Korea and Vietnam. The cold war strategy involved spreading Marxist-Leninist propaganda and disinformation strategies against the West. As well as a series of cultural attack strategies sought to undermine political and social institutions. With this two-pronged attack bringing military and psychological operations into play by the Socialist Internationale, the Soviet Union sought to increase and expand its military influence around the world, whilst simultaneously undermining the presumed inferior and archaic values of a Western system steeped in the values of Classical Liberalism.

The continuing influence of revolutionary Socialism today Too often today it is thought that the threat posed by revolutionary Socialism has decreased, due to the collapse of the former Soviet Union. In the face of historical evidence to the contrary, the advocates of this ideology, rather than abandoning it as a failed system, continued to champion it, justifying all that was required were additional tactics to spark revolution and ultimately its successful implementation around the world. This reveals the extent of the Marxists’ dogmatic obsession to the cause, which even today is displayed in a belligerent, almost fanatical conviction by politically correct activists that they and they alone are correct. This sometimes eludes rational legitimacy. A criticism they invariably foist on other’s and are particularly concerned to promote as a critique against religion, in spite of their own near hysterically religious political ideological fanaticism. 12


But this fails to consider that Communism as an ideology is still prevalent in various regimes around the world, and that Cultural Marxist strategies have, nevertheless, continued to shape and influence the values of Western societies, even unto the present day, in a self-sustaining “liberal progressivism”. Whilst this progressivism is evolving, the fundamental principles which inform it, collectivism and statism, still characterise its essentially Socialist imperative. Today the effect of Socialist strategies on the West can be seen most readily in the cultural and political spheres, where there is an on-going tendency towards embracing “left wing”, so called “progressive” values. The popularisation of left leaning policy within the political arena generally owes much to previous Marxist-Leninist strategies and exhibits a self-sustaining tautology; an effect which is both increasing the emphasis culturally on the need for political correctness, and which also influences the entire political spectrum of popular party politics in search of the popular vote. Within this also remains an emphasis on the importance of absolute centralised state control, and a general nisus towards collectivism. Evident in this shift also is the importance of disinformation and propaganda characterised here as a dialectic of deceit. Whilst it cannot be claimed that such deceit originated entirely from the Left, it can certainly be claimed that deceit strategies were increased during the Second World War’s extensive use of propaganda and further increased during the Cold War. Such strategies were used on both sides. Today, assisted with disinformation and propaganda tactics of their own, our governments invariable strive to achieve the opposite of their professed agenda and motives in exactly the same way the Soviets and National Socialists initially did. Thus, in respect to Western Liberalism, for example, a collectivist tendency conversely claims to seek greater 20

universalism for greater numbers of people, and thus more freedom, true democracy and liberty, but which invariably results in the opposite, i.e. greater statism and centralisation in the hands of an oligarchy, or tyrannical few. This too is generally justified in the idea of the “left wing” being equated with “progressivism”, and the importance of perpetual “change” as being good and necessary, whilst invariably it achieves only stagnation,







authoritarianism, or at best perpetual chaos. An inevitable inversion of Hegel’s dialectic, as he conceived it, manifest in the material world. Another example of this inversion of objectives has been in the increasing tendency by Western governments to justify the so called “liberal”, “progressive” or “politically correct” value system, using the virtues of “human rights”. This has been justified to uphold “equality” and

humanitarian values, which are claimed to be universal and therefore good. In this, however, human rights are too often equated with “minority” and not universal “Human Rights”. In society, this has been exploited for political advantage. The approach has largely undermined the rights of many individuals, in favour of the implementation of legal rights exploited for the advantage of some ethnic minority, who then claim to be disadvantaged in respect to the majority, but more often than not seek advantage over them. Positive discrimination laws for example claim to be concerned with achieving equality for all, but rarely work this way in practise. In fact, this approach requires the impeding of general rights for any so called “privileged” individual, in preference to the rights of minorities. This approach merely tends to perpetuate inequality and generally promotes racial stereotyping in any case. It more generally has been used to further political advantage and promotes civil and social dissent.


Another flaw in this claim for universalism has been reflected in more powerful, centralised and authoritarian state control, justified “in order to get things done”. This has been exercised by a political elite to the detriment of the majority of people but justified as a benefit for the people. This has also contributed to undermining, broadly speaking, the weakening of localism, the legitimacy of nation state democracy, and in the case of the European Union, for example, a general move away from national governments’ law-making powers, in favour of a single supranational authority. This tendency towards supranational government has had an adverse effect from the one desired. Its de-emphasis on localism has entailed a subsequent loss of freedom and power for many individuals in the decision-making process at the national and local level. It has championed a dogmatic and rather belligerent attitude at the supranational level to the advantage of those that may sometimes seek advantage only for themselves. In this, supranational government produces politicians that are often unconcerned with the specific and particular requirements needed at the national and local level. They generally tend to negate the value and welfare of individuals and their specific local and national requirements. They do this in favour of a more uniform, bureaucratic, but inflexible and rigid monolithic approach. An inclination towards centralised power is favoured because it tends to increase their own decision-making processes and importance in any case.13 A distinction can be drawn between democratic nation states and the United States. Whilst being a representative democracy it should be distinguished as a republic and has been characterised as “rule under the law”, rather than “rule by the mob”. More accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly through town hall meetings, or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who then make policy decisions on their behalf. But even this approach is being undermined by a Deep State shadow government and the imposition of that elite exerting influence on the President’s authoritarian Executive powers. 13


The decline in Western values due to the effects of this increasing statism, characterised today falsely as a new “liberalism” (a fusion of socialist and corporate values) can be identified not only in Europe, but also in respect to the United States. Here increasing state interference, state bureaucracy, along with centralised control, is undermining limited federalism as a macro political model of representative democracy. 14 This antiThe Founding Fathers were altogether fearful of pure democracy. In this they represented the Greek concerns of Plato. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies “…have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths” (Federalist No. 10). By popular usage, however, the word “democracy” came to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense, the United States might generally and broadly be called a representative “democracy” as an ideal (or more ideally and constitutionally a Republic) but increasingly it is run as an oligarchy or a plutocracy. Anarchists are against the State but are not against political organisation or “governance”, so long as it is self-government utilising direct democracy. The mode of political organisation preferred by anarchists, in general, is federalism or confederalism. However, the anarchist definition of federalism tends to differ from the definition of federalism assumed by pro-state political scientists. 14

The following is a summary of effective federalism from section I.5 of “An Anarchist FAQ”: “The social and political structure of anarchy is similar to that of the economic structure, i.e. it is based on a voluntary federation of decentralised, directly democratic policy-making bodies. These are the neighbourhood and community assemblies and their confederations. In these grassroots political units, the concept of “selfmanagement” becomes that of “self-government”, a form of municipal organisation in which people take back control of their living places from the bureaucratic state and the capitalist class whose interests it serves....The key to that change, from the anarchist standpoint, is the creation of a network of participatory communities based on self-government through direct, face-to-face democracy in grassroots neighbourhood and community assemblies [meetings for discussion, debate, and decision making]...Since not all issues are local, the neighbourhood and community assemblies will also elect mandated and recallable delegates to the larger-scale units of self-government in order to address issues affecting larger areas, such as urban districts, the city or town as a whole, the county, the bio-region, and ultimately the entire planet. Thus, the assemblies will confederate at several levels in order to develop and co-ordinate common policies to deal with common problems. This need for cooperation does not imply a centralised body. To exercise your autonomy by joining self-managing organisations and, therefore, agreeing to abide by the decisions you 23

constitutional form of political governance is exacerbating an increasing tendency to authoritarianism, and also facilitating what might be termed “crony capitalism”, or more precisely “corporate Socialism”. Corporate Socialism has been variously termed “corporate fascism” or “fascialism” as a hybrid term and is largely an inevitable progression towards increased authoritarianism based on its tendency to champion the interests of the government and the corporations that increasingly rule over them. This generally undermines localism and individualism. In respect to Europe, this tendency is also increasingly leading to the development of centralised government powers: the assimilation of nation states into a “federalised” bloc, governed by technocrats, tsars or commissioners, who are not necessarily men of

virtue. Such

representatives have no true democratically elected mandate from the people, being appointed as third parties by politicians themselves. This in effect is a self-sustaining oligarchy. Such a scenario is increasingly leading towards a form of rule comparable with the old Soviet model of administration. It appears to be rapidly progressing toward state authoritarianism and even totalitarianism.

help make is not a denial of that autonomy (unlike joining a hierarchical structure, where you forsake autonomy within the organisation). In a centralised system, we must stress, power rests at the top and the role of those below is simply to obey (it matters not if those with the power are elected or not, the principle is the same). In a federal system, power is not delegated into the hands of a few (obviously a federal government or state is a centralised system). Decisions in a federal system are made at the base of the organisation and flow upwards so ensuring that power remains decentralised in the hands of all. Working together to solve common problems and organise common efforts to reach common goals is not centralisation, and those who confuse the two make a serious error- they fail to understand the different relations of authority each generates and confuse obedience with co-operation.” Anarchist Writers. "I.5 What could the social structure of anarchy look like?" An Anarchist FAQ. 24







collectivism has led to an increase in administration and a tendency to impose centralised control, in order to manage the collective effectively. Centralised control has encouraged a nisus towards further federal bloc authoritarianism and increasing totalitarianism. It appears to be a universal, almost inevitable feature of collectivism; the goal of which might ultimately seek a one world government, but which will, whatever the outcome, culminate in the development of at least some kind of new world order, possibly of several new autonomous federal super states, in the main utilising the influences of corporatism and Socialism in some form of hybrid synthesis before one world government eventually occurs.

The emergence of Corporate Socialism Corporate Socialism may be defined as “crony capitalism”, a subversion of free market capitalism, as it “privatises gains and socialises losses”, thereby destroying competition by encouraging cartels and monopolies. 15 This condition erodes democratic values best served by a limited government, a free market laissez-faire economic model, and equal justice under the law. It hinders higher standards of living, and generally increases state intervention to serve and resolve issues in its own interests. It further degrades the traditional distinctions between political parties, as it incorporates a cross party, overarching fusion of left and right political values, and therefore erodes democratic legitimacy, dominating and determining the agenda.

In political discourse, the phrase “privatising profits and socialising losses” refers to speculators benefitting privately from profits, but not taking losses, by pushing the losses onto society at large, particularly via the government. 15


Corporate Socialism in truth offers an anti-democratic agenda, seeking to dissipate constructive dialectic debate through bureaucratic resolutions. This in turn tends to favour a domineering administration to meet its red tape ends.16 Civic and political movements, therefore, must call for a reasonable separation of corporate and state power. 17 The conflict of continuing competitiveness in the marketplace is deemed of benefit, just as the conflict of dialectic debate is deemed of benefit for any healthy state of governance. Any dissipation of this does not necessary signify a healthy resolution if all parties have only sought to impose an agenda that is essentially the same, without true debate or discussion even occurring. Whilst critics of the process might find it a wasteful and meaningless waste of government resources and time, it is nevertheless a vital and important process that ensures the legitimacy of any legitimate and democratic parliamentary system. It serves to prevent democracy from devolving into totalitarianism, or the end game of a dictatorship. As in any conflict, the process has its benefits and drawbacks. The conflict of war, for example, whilst in some respects is destructive is also ultimately productive, and from the schism between the conflicting interests of nations in both the political and economic spheres is encouraged a new beginning of productive growth. Even the process of war itself generates increased technological progress. The mark of civilisation, however, is order and the various pros of conflict have therefore been productively re contextualised as competitiveness in the civilised arena. Competitiveness accentuates the cons in productive or entertaining pursuits in order to ensure mankind’s peaceful advancement and progression. The cons however are contextualised in physical pursuits such as sports, political debate or economic and corporate competition. Arguments too should mean not physical conflict, but constructive political debate in the parliamentary theatre. 16

The solution requires a laissez-faire economic model, which opposes crony capitalism and government favours, viewing them as incompatible with a truly free competitive market. The model casts the problem of government intervention, or “investments”, as an avoidable aberration. Government favouritism or “crony capitalism” is then in fact "crony Socialism". It advocates increasing state intervention; although it is in fact not confined to one single political party. 17

Historically speaking, "Corporatism” is the modern equivalent of “mercantilism” rather than a form of genuine free trade in the sense of commerce. In the 16th to 18th centuries, government control of foreign trade became of paramount importance for ensuring the military security of any given country. Laissez-faire economics arose as an antidote to this middle man of government and derided the view that the only way to run a profitable business was to have help from government officials. However, even if the initial regulation was well-intentioned (to curb actual abuses), and even if the initial lobbying by corporations was well-intentioned (to reduce illogical regulations) the marriage of business and government generally tends to stifle competition period; a collusive and ultimately corrupting marriage that results in a phenomenon known as “regulatory capture”. 26

The emergence of Corporate Socialism became most prevalent with the ending of the Cold War, and the bilateral stalemate between the Soviet Union and the US. It characterised an increasing tendency to seek multinational agreements to achieve global solutions. The United States presumed it was now free to assume the pax Americana liberal democratisation of its enemies, largely unchallenged by the nuclear threat of a now “reformed” and greatly weakened Russia. The increasing cooperation, politically and economically, led to a growing sense of optimism and an indefatigable self-belief in the merits of Western capitalism. With the rise of corporatism, however, a commensurate decline occurred in the responsibilities of good government, along with a justification that encouraged the US to act internationally, rather than simply nationally. This progression continues today and is both corrupting and selfsustaining. The growing military interventionism of the US most notably arose after its initial response to the rise of Japanese Imperialism and European Fascism after the Second World War. It arose in response to the spread of Communism in the Korean peninsula and Vietnam and the Soviet threat during the Cold War. This continued in an attempt to spread its influence as the sole superpower after the collapse of the Soviet collective in 1989. The continued emphasis on military action has in recent years shifted to a pre-emptive policy justified more generally because the US is considered the protector of freedom and the “world’s police”. It justifies such endeavours and excursions for the benefit of others in the name of “democracy”, “peace” and “liberty”. In reality, however, it too often seeks 27

military intervention simply to further its own hegemony and to sustain its economic, military and political power. The attitude is highly unconstitutional but is claimed to be in the “national interest�. On the one hand, its military interventions advantage the industrial military complex, but exacerbate US national weakness, due to the drain on its resources in fighting such endeavours. On the other, it necessitates further wars in turn to serve the corporate interest of the militaryindustrial complex to offset the economic deficit. This, then, is a military run economy. It is a corrupt progression, but one which increasingly requires perpetual wars to offset the deficit it affects, as it serves to maintain and propagate its influence. Another factor in play here is the nisus towards centralised government (under the rubric of federalism) in other regions of the world: the EU Russia and China, who are simultaneously emerging (or re-emerging) as potential military and economic super powers in their own right. This development is undermining the United States’ position as the prime global superpower and is in turn exacerbating its own tendency to global militarism to maintain advantage. It is now no longer the sole authority for determining what constitutes good government, nor is it considered to be the sole arbiter for justifying who polices the world correctly, at least as far as emerging or re-emerging superpowers are concerned. This in turn affects a US response to counterbalance such developments, which in turn exacerbates the likelihood of an escalating tendency to militarism worldwide.

An overview of the chief geopolitical powers and their associated ideologies


To date the global map can be broadly split into a number of distinct military and political powers. These being: • The US power. • The EU power. • The Russian power.

• The Chinese power.

• The Islamic power. These powers have distinct ideologies and associated strategic concerns. They make various alliances with one or more nations for their own mutual advantage. They all share the common imperative of seeking hegemony to further their aims. Transcending any political or military alliances that might be proposed or formed by these powers, is what might be termed the influence of the international corporations. These exhibit not simply national, but multinational or supranational global concerns. In respect to the United States power, it can be seen to be influenced by two competing strategies, neither of which is in sympathy with the Founding Father’s values and what might be termed “Constitutional America”. These notably are: The US unipolar view 29

This advocates that US interests and its world view should be primary and that its cultural values should likewise be propagated around the world. Such advocates are the Neo-Conservatives: former Trotskyites such as Irving Kristol, who argue that the United States needs to move toward a foreign policy of “global unilateralism”. But that would be difficult, he has claimed, as long as America remains “an imperial power with no imperial self-definition.” The new international cause of Neo Conservativism, then, has in the 21st century been an attempt to shape this self-definition, thereby getting Americans ready to accept a policy of global unilateralism.

The US multipolar view This seeks to establish a more general “Western” global hegemony. It might be more readily identified as the “Anglo-American” or “EuroAmerican” project, which incorporates European countries in a collective of strategic and military alliances. These Western nations themselves, however, increasingly appear to be influenced by a multi-national elite of individuals with massive corporate interests, that likewise override, or at least influence, the governments. This power for simplicity can simply be referred to as “The Syndicate”. In respect to the Russian-Chinese bloc, formerly the Sino-Soviet bloc, progression has in recent years been characterised by an increasingly apparent military and economic collaboration to offset US strategic influence and alliances. This represents a public healing of the Sino-Soviet split, which occurred on the collapse of the Soviet Union. A supposedly “reformed” Communism in China is increasingly aligning itself with an emerging Russian Imperialism, a type of neo fascism, or what could 30

alternatively be termed neo-Eurasianism, which poses a new geopolitical threat. Neo-Eurasianism advocates increasing alliances with an expanding militaristic China and the Muslim world against what is perceived as the perils of decadent Western liberalism. The alliance is viewed as ruling within specified spheres of influence as a preventative antidote. It is distinguished as distinct from Imperialism and empire building by its most vocal advocates, such as Aleksandr Dugin, and is claimed to be multipolar in its approach. Stripped of the intellectual rhetoric, however, it logically appears to justify Russian and Chinese expansionism. It is characteristic and commensurate in its methods and aims with centralised control and the empire building of the past. Finally, the Islamic bloc seeks to impose a politico-theological rule around the world. Its aim seeks the imposition of sharia law as opposed to democratic rule. It ultimately seeks to initiate a global caliphate. Its network of organisations and nations are united by virtue of their common religious ideal, which is to propagate the absolute belief system of Islam. Some sects are currently involved in the propagation of global terrorism to perpetuate this aim. Others use cultural and propaganda strategies to Islamise nations piecemeal. All of these power blocs are driven by hegemonic concerns and all are implementing strategies in order to achieve dominance, or control, via temporary alliances, or through individual and competing strategies, based on furthering their own broad objectives and self -interest. Due to these competing concerns, it might be thought the solution should be that all nations are safely incorporated into a deeper global political 31

union, sharing similar ideals, or indeed ultimately that they should make reparations to implement a one world government for “peaceful� purposes. Yet paradoxically, whilst this seemingly lofty ambition seeks a peaceful solution, to weaken or nullify any imperial or hegemonic ambitions of individual nations, or even emerging power blocs, it may itself ultimately result only in conflict itself; for the present progression exacerbates a tendency towards increasing statism in governments at a federal level. It, therefore, magnifies the likelihood of civil unrest through this centralisation of power, and increases the chance of conflict internally and/or between federal blocs as their authoritarianism increases, and their economic and geopolitical interests grow, or are challenged. The imperative to assimilate nations in a supranational federalism, therefore, is more likely to increase rather than decrease the likelihood of war. Federal blocs wield greater power than individual nations; larger empires are more dangerous than smaller countries, and more likely to seek authoritarian hegemony to further their own interests and concerns. Whilst ultimately, even if such conflicts are eventually resolved, a one world government would be self-defeating. The idea strangles nation state democracies, destroys constitutions, weakens civil liberties, initiates increased authoritarianism and totalitarianism and arrests any growth, which ultimately relies on the healthy element of free market competition and commerce. Uniformity and ultimate assimilation with other nations, in any as yet unconfirmed future political bloc, is ultimately self-destructive and represents the end of any constitutional arrangements as they are presently, let alone traditionally, understood. Increasing federalism and assimilation of federal blocs into a single global body (required in order to 32

work as an effective functioning government, free of increasing bureaucracy and red tape) requires not only the end of the nation state as it is presently understood (a safeguard for particular cultures), but the end of constitutionally limited government and the end of liberty in the traditional sense.

Free trade agreements, corporatism and the ruse of increased statism It is a truism that free trade agreements should not necessitate political unions if they really are “free” and simply concerned with “trade”. Yet how often has the European Union (a political organisation) made the opposing claim? In doing so, it has demonstrated the real and political nature of such agreements. Too often the political body has been conflated with the virtues of the single market, or simultaneously been spoken of in terms of continued trade necessitating membership with it. As if free trade agreements can only be implemented by the continued existence of the body politic, and only by virtue of it can free trade agreements even be carried out. It has not always been the case! It has often been the case, however, that the imposition of the political body (in this case the EU) has been justified by way of economic arguments, and by way of free trade agreements, before it is then claimed such agreements cannot continue to exist without the political body. This, however, is a plain subterfuge, which seeks to ensure continued compliance to it; a revealed deceit in respect to the European Free Trade Agreement, which existed long before the EU. Yet the long-term future of countries such as Norway, Iceland, Lichtenstein and Switzerland, who partake of such an 33

agreement outside the EU, is often conceived (by the Europhiles at any rate) as one where eventual assimilation into the EU body politic will and must occur; at least given enough coercion and time. It too often presumes such a political progression is not only desirable but is simply inevitable. At the least, such countries are treated as satellites of the EU, just as Poland was by the Soviet Union.

The same progression similarly appears to be ensuing in respect to the USA, Canada and Mexico according to some “conspiracy” theorists. This manifests in the supposedly benign North American Free Trade Agreement; a precursor to what may yet be another political union: a North American Union, with its own denominated currency. This possible future scenario is eerily reminiscent of the former “Common Market”, which was the precursor to the political amalgamation of nations into what was at first the “European Economic Community”, then the “European Community”, and finally the politically centred, supranational “European Union”. Another feature of this progression is the increasing power and influence of the corporations. Increasingly corporations are global. If governments, therefore, continue to submit to corporatism, they will move increasingly towards an authoritarian plutocracy, more characteristic of global totalitarianism. The development of corporate Socialism, then, can be characterised essentially as a gradual one. A move which entails a form of authoritarianism, that could ultimately induce totalitarianism, not just nationally but globally. With its internationalist imperative, therefore, this progression is more akin to Leninist “socialist democracy”, or


alternatively a full-blown form of global fascism. 18 Whilst the claim might be that the Socialist aim is to produce social egalitarianism through the redistribution of wealth, and the maintenance of social welfare programmes (an emphasis apparent in the past Obama administration) this effectively only increases state power, whilst disempowering an increasingly impoverished multitude, by keeping them on state run welfare programmes. This further increases the disparity between a decreasing number of rich and an increasing number of poor. A self-defeating model, which destroys the middle-class wealth-creators, and ultimately induces increased economic stagnation. The original fascist concern with the state was one that claimed to act (like the socialists) primarily out of an interest to improve the welfare of the people. This was to be ultimately achieved by the merging of the individual personality into the state identity. This state-centric concern, however, invariable served only the interests of those that controlled it

Both Socialism and fascism, it is to be noted, share the common characteristic of increased statism and totalitarianism. However, whereas Leninist Socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Whereas Socialism nationalised property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest�-that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. However, even with this distinction borne in mind for fascism, a few industries were still, nevertheless, operated entirely by the state. Whereas Socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations intact, but it still yet planned all economic activities via government policy and control. In doing all this, paradoxically both Socialism and fascism subverted the marketplace and stagnated economies in an ideological system that sought to cure it of all its ills. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions. The increasing rise of corporate power and its fusion with government was and still is to this day an increasingly dangerous progression. The control of the private Federal Reserve Bank and other central private banks are at least the most public face of this influence around the world. 18


and not the masses assimilated to it, who were viewed as little more than tools, slaves, or servants of the state. Modern corporatism’s concern is similar, since it again claims to act out of a concern for the benefit of the people, but effectively encourages them to be slave consumers to maintain the real interests of the minority 1% that thence wield wealth and telling political control. 19 In both models, individuals are increasingly defined in terms of their utility to the state, but in this determined context increasingly disempowered. Both forms engender increasing statism in any case, which is self-sustaining, both economically and politically, and this by default entails ultimately more authoritarianism, implemented by the corporations and the government. Both forms are largely driven or heavily influenced by the military industrial complex and its anti-constitutional Critics of capitalism (including Marxists and anarchists) often assert that “crony capitalism” is the inevitable result of any capitalist system. Jane Jacobs described it as a natural consequence of collusion between those managing power and trade, while Noam Chomsky “Black Faces in Limousines: A Conversation with Noam Chomsky” from June 5, 2009. Here it is argued that the word “crony” is superfluous when describing capitalism, since businesses make money and money inevitably leads to political power. 19

As a consequence of their huge financial advantage, corporations will inevitably use their power to influence governments. To stem the influence requires campaign finance reform in such nations as the United States, in order to prevent the economic power, the corporations wield being used to unduly influence political power. These measures to date have been deemed largely ineffective by many anti-capitalists however, who claim capitalist societies’ state policies naturally assure that more resources flow to the rich than to the poor; for example, in the form of transfer payments. Such a criticism however ignores the notion of “trickle down” economics (characterised as “Reaganomics” during the Reagan era) or at best it is viewed as largely ineffective. In this, the term “corporate welfare” too is widely used to describe the bestowal of favourable treatment to particular corporations by the government, whilst the poor continue to suffer. One of the most commonly raised criticisms being that the capitalist system enables large corporations to “privatise profits and socialise losses”. Any attempted synthesis of corporatism and Socialism to offset such deficiencies for the multitude is, however, in this interpretation, ultimately futile. 36

agenda. Both effectively represent the antithesis of a constitutional libertarianism: an ideology that seeks to limit the power of authoritarian institutions, champion free markets, and protect the constitutional rights of citizens’ rights in a republic. A republic, which according to its original edicts, should ideally care for its people, and mind its own borders and business.

Irrespective of whether today’s corporate Socialism (fascialism) is an oxymoron, any attempted hybrid should be seen as ultimately futile and self-defeating. It engenders increasing centralisation that culminates in a debilitating economic and political totalitarianism. Collectivism as an inherent feature of this process signifies: •

increased federalism and less localism,

the capitulation of nation state democracies,

the impairing of our unique living cultures,

the diminishing of individualism and human rights,

the manipulation of free market capitalism by an increasingly empowered, but corrupt cartel.

It engenders all this in the interests of a corporate government agenda- a single party politic (or at least a bi or tri party politic with the same agenda) and hence ultimately an authoritarian and progressively totalitarian form of government utterly opposed to the values of Classical Liberalism. Meanwhile, it simultaneous impedes genuine free market competition in the interests of increasing manipulation and control.

The consequences of progressivism: increased statism and global war


At the turn of the 21st century, advocates of Socialism who championed a new world order generally presumed that the Communist ideology of the Cold War had been reformed and superseded by a more ‘democratised’ notion of government in Russia and China. This reform was vouchsafed by increasing ‘international’ cooperation (or a compliance to US unipolarity) and until recently was a continuation of the Perestroika era. They were supposedly “reformed” largely through adherence to open market economics and the rise of multi-national corporations. However, in respect to these two regimes, their so called “democratic” reforms have been merely cosmetic. In China, the political system still rests in the hands of a Communist mono party system of rule. In Russia, this is achieved by the “silovarchy”. The oligarchs of the Yeltsin years have simply been superseded by a cohort of executives largely from the security services and law enforcement agencies. These “siloviki” form the new vanguard of President Putin’s administration as it exists today and are not democratically elected. 20 The ongoing development of the silovarchy and its increasing autocratic and imperialistic strain has proven any assumption of democratised reform as misplaced. More generally, the nisus towards developing federal

There are five Kremlin associates managing companies with combined assets presently exceeding more than one third of GDP. Various minor siloviki serve on company boards and exert private influence and control. Industrial and financial capital has merged with the secret police network to produce what has been notably termed a “silovarchy”. A regime which in many respects is still comparable with the Leninist inspired old order of the pre-Perestroika Soviet Union. It is so because political power resides in the hands of a corrupt and dangerous few; also, because it uses an authoritarian police-state power structure to impose and maintain state control, whilst further utilising deceit in its concern to control the public mind. At the current time of writing Russia is increasingly being recognised as an anti US imperialistic autocracy. 20


blocs, both in terms of the popular ideology of Neo-Eurasianism, a kind of National Socialist or National Bolshevik Imperialism, and in terms of its parallel in the Eurasian Union specifically, reveals an increasing tendency to champion a democratic deficit. Indeed, such a progression can only result in the end of any fledgling democracy and the continuance of a Soviet style hegemony that will only continue to gain traction and quite possibly emerge as some new form of Russian ruled authoritarian collective. In this, multi-polarity reveals itself essentially as Russian hegemony. Danger signs are flashing also in the European Union, the vanguard of “supranational federalism”.21 A misnomer for centralised control and political authoritarianism. An anti-democratic project; for the further development of such a model is itself leading to the end of any effective inter-governmental decision-making powers. “Democratic federalism”, therefore, equates to a centralised, authoritarian regime, which overrides national concerns or interests. The unelected EU Commission is the embodiment of authoritarianism. Whilst the qualified majority voting process effectively undermines nation states that oppose majority views, isolating and ignoring them in See Kelemen, R. Daniel. (2007). “Built to Last? The Durability of EU Federalism?” In Making History: State of the European Union, Vol. 8, edited by Sophie Meunier and Kate McNamara, Oxford University Press, p. 52. J.H.Weiler (2003) Chapter 2, “Federalism without Constitutionalism: Europe's Sonderweg”. The federal vision: legitimacy and levels of governance in the United States and the European Union. Oxford University Press. “Europe has charted its own brand of constitutional federalism. It works. Why fix it?” “How the [ECJ] court made a federation of the EU” Josselin, Jean Michel; Marciano, Alain also their “The political economy of European federalism” Series: Public Economics and Social Choice. Centre for Research in Economics and Management, University of Rennes 1, University of Caen. p. 12. WP 2006–07. Also, Thomas Risse and Tanja A. Börzel, “The European Union as an Emerging Federal System”, Jean Monnet Center at NYU School of Law. 21


favour of an EU centric majority rule. National government decision making powers are increasingly being nullified, or they are simply outvoted in a QMV voting process that favours only the interests of a pro EU government agenda. Generally, European government is leading to an autonomous, quasi authoritarian regime that is inducing political, economic, social and cultural problems at the national level. In the US, increasing federalism undermines state legislative powers and policy. An increasingly centralised power structure is being imposed. The three tier separation of powers originally conceived as a republic (with the necessary checks and balances) is being undermined via excessive Presidential Executive Orders, rather than Constitutional procedures carried out through the House of Representatives and in the Senate. Presidential mandates increasingly appear to be taking precedence in a manner more befitting of an autocracy than a constitutionally limited republic. Private organisations such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Federal Reserve, are also exerting too much influence and power.

Any nisus to hegemony is essentially a dialectic process that seeks assimilation of disparate parts into a synthesis. In this, conflict is exacerbated as a necessary part of the process to syncretise competing hegemonic concerns. Competing hegemonic concerns resist global synthesis and seek specific control and dominance of their own. This feature of the progression invites conflict and war. Unlike the Roman model of military occupation and empire building that permitted the occupied lands to continue to practise their own cultural values, norms and mores, the modern powers seek to assimilate nations by imposing a cultural model more reflective of their own values. In this, for 40

example, a Chinese occupation of Tibet or Taiwan seeks to modify said

culture and assimilate it into a model more akin to itself. This tendency is also reflected by the US power, as it imposes a military occupation on more than 130 nations. It still attempts a cultural assimilation (an Americanisation if you will) of those non-Westernised nation states to propagate and strengthen its own grip on power. Both military and cultural strategies exhibit themselves in the natural imperative to control and rule.

In this case, a US model of governance would be considered to be the ideal role model, which determines what a successful or civilised government should be. But in this, its desire to assimilate culturally merely mirrors more closely the agenda of the former Communists (Soviet and Chinese) in an enforced cultural programme. It is uncharacteristically reflective too of the international concerns of the Marxist-Leninist view. In this similarity, moreover, it also reflects a dialectic progression, inasmuch as it ultimately strives to assimilate through cultural and economic dominance. Consequently, it rather invites conflict with any other than those countries that do not share its broadly liberal based value system. Generally, it is becoming increasingly clear that one feature of political “progressivism” is the likelihood of increasing conflict. Even the assimilation of member states with comparable “European” values invites this, as they are sufficiently distinct culturally and, in some cases, politically to warrant dissent. Furthermore, any marriage of the corporations with government invites power struggles between national governments and the corporations. A scenario itself that invites social and civil


as the


becomes increasingly

impoverished and disenfranchised. 41


In this general tendency, a schism is becoming apparent between governments such as Russia and China on the one hand, who practise a “socialist” model, where the state largely governs the corporations, and the more Westernised model, where corporations increasingly seek to impose control over governments. Benito Mussolini once defined corporate fascism as state control of the corporations, where even the individual is merged into a state identity. The current situation in the West, however, is increasingly one where corporations








governments, and thence control the individual. The influence of the Federal Reserve Bank, or Goldman Sachs (private concerns) in this respect are notable. Generally, constitutional law under private corporations such as these are increasingly being hijacked or ignored as an irrelevance. This again exacerbates, both in respect of corporations and state, an increasingly anti-democratic authoritarianism in order to maintain control: a feature in respect to competing power blocs that again increases the likelihood of war. The nisus towards federalism is hailed as a necessary part of progressive globalisation; a process of international integration arising from the interchange of world views, products, ideas, and other aspects of culture. 22

The term globalisation has been used increasingly since the mid-1980s and especially since the mid-1990s. In 2000, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) identified four basic aspects of globalisation: trade and transactions, capital and investment movements, migration and movement of people and the dissemination of knowledge; “Globalisation: Threats or Opportunity.” 12th April 2000: IMF Publications. 22

Joseph Nye, co-founder of the international relations theory of neoliberalism, argues that globalism refers to any description and explanation of a world characterised by 42

It is often proclaimed as a guarantor for peace, but it can inevitably produce only another world war based on the present progression. 23 This form of top heavy government too by its nature increasingly undermines individual liberties and exacerbates civil conflict at the national level, as it ignores the democratic will of the people.

The assumption by globalists is that that there are mutually compatible features which will facilitate an increasing cooperation and assimilation, based on the presumed reform of, for example, former Communist regimes, or sharia-based governments. This is a false assumption. Any implementation of a global agenda will more likely only lead to an increased authoritarianism to consolidate bloc perspectives and practises. This in turn will only increase not lessen the chance of war between nations, or civilisations, but also result in internal populist uprisings if authoritarianism






theocratic regimes and nations evolving towards corporate Socialism, or some form of federal corporatism, will exacerbate the likelihood of global conflict as the progression continues.

The lessons of history Any further understanding requires an acceptance that our current

networks of connections that span multi-continental distances; while globalisation specifically refers to the increase or decline in the degree of this network. Globalism can have at least two different and opposing meanings. One meaning is the attitude or policy of placing the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations. Another is viewing the entire world as a proper sphere for one nation to project political influence. In his 2005 book “The Collapse of Globalism and the Reinvention of the World�, the political philosopher John Ralston Saul argues that, far from being an inevitable force, globalisation is already breaking up into contradictory pieces, and that citizens are even now beginning to reassert their national interests in both positive and destructive ways. 23


interpretation of recent history is one that has been increasingly steeped in a revisionist perspective; an interpretation less indebted to empirical data and fact finding and one rather more concerned with propagating a biased consensus for political reasons. Whilst “History” they say “is written by the winners”, it is a history that for some is increasingly making no concession to any objective and empirical understanding of the past. It is steeped only in an ideological agenda. George Santayana once famously wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” The reader is urged to remember that those ill prepared to understand their own history, by recourse to the sober truth of arguments, facts and statistics are inevitably doomed to repeat once more the same mistakes of ideological conviction and political extremism now foisted upon them.24 In respect to all of this too, it is worth repeating the wise words of John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton that might well provide an antidote to political extremism:

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” In this, then, the ideological imperative towards “progressivism” termed today as “globalisation” (an aim lauded in order to emphasise the mutual benefits of cooperation and unity) is more likely to culminate in “globalism”: an ancient notion of control and capitulation by a single power force that has at its heart the championing of its own, very specific, hegemonic interest. In this, “globalism” suggests an Imperialist ethos and imperative, which has its

roots spread throughout the course of human history. At its base lie three

A similar sense is given by George Orwell when he states “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” 24


axioms: power, control and Empire. 25 Any further analysis in respect to 2oth and 21st century political history requires an analysis of the degree to which the Leninist ideals of state authoritarianism and global Communism have been transferred to, or at least continue to influence, the post- Cold War regimes in both the East and the West. It will further necessitate a general analysis of the dissipation of the constitutionally based form of government in the United States, and the manner in which federalism and corporatism have subverted its principles and values as a constitutionally based secular republic. It will necessitate an analysis of the influence of Cultural Marxist ideology on the US, and how this has affected its general mind-set, values and long-term goals. It will finally require an appraisal of any immediate or long-term problems that might arise between nations, based on their differing notions of what “globalisation� entails, the problem of dwindling resources, and in the light of increasing authoritarian regimes, what post conflict scenarios are entailed.

Closing remarks and summary Generally, globalisation (like globalism) implies a nisus to uniformity, or at least the assimilation of conflicting ideas in group think. This is attained through a resolution (through either discussion or war) of differing issues by various nations, in order to achieve a coherent strategy of progression. Some scholars place the origins of globalisation in modern times, based on the fact that in the late 19th century and early 20th century the connectedness of the world's economies and cultures grew very fast. Yet others trace its history long before the European age of discovery and voyages to the New World. Some trace its origins to the third millennium BCE; see Frank, Andre Gunder. (1998). Re Orient: Global economy in the Asian age. Berkeley: University of California Press. 25


One power’s interests, however, are usually severely undermined by an increasing tendency to authoritarianism by another power. As such, it amplifies the tendency to federal hegemony by one or more of the emerging federal blocs, exacerbating conflict, rather than ensuring peace and cooperation. War is necessitated as a means to perpetuate, maintain and increase corporate and economic power and to sustain hegemony in the face of dissent. A process achieved via the growth of the industrial military complex.

For those sceptical of the above assertions, I shall appeal to the power of deductive reasoning, coupled with the mountainous weight of empirical and historical evidence. In providing this evidence, I shall also urge the reader to be mindful of the use of strategic disinformation that seeks to encourage incredulity, and therefore invites not activism in the face of an imminent threat, but lethargy. For the systematic effort to disseminate false information to the opposition, and to distort or withhold information, so as to misrepresent the true situation, and the reality of long range hegemonic objectives, is one of the prime features of the process itself. Such strategies seek to induce the coma of compliance within individuals. Such strategies are designed to confuse, pacify and distract individuals from harbouring any notions that might seek to question or thwart increasingly authoritarian aims to quell any dissent. Indeed, it is through the use of such disinformation strategies that the total subjugation of the mind, and thence the control of the free-thinking individual, is sought. As a consequence, the control of countries and ultimately the world is attained. The ultimate goal of a totalitarian hegemony, by one or other parties, can thence be achieved, implemented with the acceptance of a 46

compliant populace. It will become clear that the very nature of the strategies adopted are in themselves intended to be subversive; for they have been designed to confuse, deceive, and progressively influence the minds of individuals towards the acceptance of a gradually more dictatorial, unconstitutional, anti-conservative state of governance; a form of rule that will make no concessions to the rights of the individual, of liberty, democracy, or indeed ultimately the welfare of the people as a whole. In implementing progressive change, it is clear Western nation state democracies have largely been shifted to the Left, both politically and culturally. This has been no more apparent than in the United Kingdom where the political parties of the Right continue to be nudged towards changing their classically liberal, traditionally conservative policies in the name of “political correctness”. This shift has involved the acceptance of a cultural and political nihilism as the norm. A nihilism that has lessened meaningful party-political debate, encouraged the art of vilification and scorn, confined and dissuaded individualism, and sought to stifle original creativity in thoughts, words and deeds. The result implements a far more restrictive notion of what is best in terms of the “greater good”. Activists and ideologues working for the achievement of more covert collectivist aims have largely been induced to the cause, in the most part unwittingly, in the name of “progressivism”, or “change”. These are false notions of “democracy”, “egalitarianism”, “social justice” and “peace”, which in reality produce only the opposite. The programme of progression was until recently being introduced largely unnoticed by the populace, who have been sleep-walking into danger. 47

Recently, however, a growing political movement has brought awareness. A counter- revolutionary strategy has arisen, that seeks to awaken the general public to the measures largely being enforced in the name of globalisation. It seeks to educate them as to the dangers of its consequences. Here, what might be termed more generally the “Constitutionalist” or “Liberty” movement, has sought to highlight the dangers of what the full implementation of federalism and its policies will achieve if left unopposed: a nisus that strives towards assimilation, but exacerbates only increased statism and conflict and a loss of freedom for the individual. This progression can only result in the further suppression of individualism and by default the individual, and with this not the integrity of the nation state, but the erosion of it. Ultimately, if hegemony is achieved by one or other conflicting parties, it can only lead to the end of independent, democratic, self-determining nation states. This entails the dissipation of national cultures, their diversity and uniqueness, at least as they are presently understood. 26 Since the mid twentieth century a programme of strategic political disinformation operations have been in place. These fulfil the Today's world population is divided into some 200 nations. Some nations are more culturally homogeneous than others; especially large nations like Brazil, China, and India, although they may consist of culturally different regions. Other culturally similar areas belong politically to different nations: for example, Africa. Culture provides moral standards about how to be a good individual and a useful group member; it defines the ethos of the individual and the group as a "moral circle". It inspires symbols, heroes, rituals, laws, religions, taboos, and all kinds of practices but at its core remain values that change at a far slower rate than the practices. In our increasingly globalised world most of us can belong to many groups at the same time. But to really get things done, we still need to cherish and maintain individualism in order to cooperate effectively with members of other groups and cultures. Skills in cooperation across cultures are vital for our common survival. The stagnation or decay of culture and the death of millions of individuals has been the legacy of the Communist experiment that imposed a cultural uniformity of oppressive and monolithic proportions. 26


internationalist agenda. Its purpose has been to create favourable conditions for the implementation of a long-term socio-fascist bloc policy.27 The effective countermeasures to statism, notably by advocates of libertarianism or constitutionalism, have largely been stifled. Such popular movements have been discredited as extremist and politically incorrect, or the mumblings of old and out of touch individuals, who do not grasp the full significance and issues of the contemporary political debate. This has also been achieved by appealing to “international cooperation”; a deceitful term in truth for “international assimilation” or “international capitulation” of nation states by federal blocs. Such strategies have also been implemented through organisations such as the United Nations, the Council on Foreign Relations and the European Union project, to secure strategic gains for the increasing development of the federal blocs, and perhaps ultimately (if a unilateralism is achieved) the eventual assimilation of these blocs into a one world government. Counter to this has been the Western model embodied most notably by “Socio-fascism” for lack of a more euphonic word, is a synthesis of Socialism and Corporatism hereto referred to as fascialism, or corporate-Socialism in its more benign form. Socio-fascism might be characterised as an increasingly more authoritarian US, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and European government policy. Socialism refers to a system whereby the government controls key industries and properties ostensibly in exchange for an implied guarantee of a certain amount of economic security. It does not necessarily imply social “welfare”, although it has come to mean that in many countries. The most common perks are government-subsidised health care and state pensions. Fascism here refers to a cosy relationship between government and certain politically-favoured, politically-connected corporations. It is sometimes hard to distinguish big business from government since business leaders may hold office or “own” candidates, while government leaders may be major stockholders or former executives of big business. Historically, in Mussolini's Fascist Italy, and in most Asian governments, they have been relatively tolerant of small businesses, although they might be attacked if they got too big and started competing with politically-protected corporations. The Euro-American model, on the other hand, is now increasingly hostile to small businesses in general. The more authoritarian form of Socio-fascism might be distinguished by its increasingly totalitarian tendency and its concern to influence culture, society and the individual as a whole. 27


the United States, at least in its original conception. This sought to be a role model of how free nations of the world might develop independently. The original conception was of one of a constitutional based republic: a model, which at its heart sought to champion the virtues of individualism, liberty and free market capitalism. Such a model par excellence has unfortunately become subverted through increasing statism itself; indicative in the Obama administration of an authoritarian ethos in the increased use of Executive Orders. It has in any case been continually eroded over the course of the twentieth and twenty first centuries by unconstitutional subversives or “insiders� within Democratic and Republican administrations. 28 Subversion has occurred largely through increasing federalism and cultural Marxist influence. This might be traced through the history of Communism. It sought to achieve its global political objectives through ideological subversion and to this end subverted the United States. It infiltrated US society at all levels: via education, healthcare, the IRS, CIA As an antidote to the excessive statism of a Communist model, or the increasing Federalism exhibited in the US in recent decades, as in European nation states via the EU Commission, I propose not the rejection of statism wholesale, which can result only in anarchy, but minarchism. 28

Minarchists argue that the state has no authority to use its monopoly of force to interfere with free transactions between people and views the state's sole responsibility as ensuring that contracts between private individuals and property are protected, through a system of law courts and enforcement. Generally, Minarchists believe a laissez-faire approach to the economy is most likely to lead to economic prosperity. This too can best be exemplified by a more stringent concern to follow the constitutional amendments as they were originally conceived, and a concern to implement the principles and theories of Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian School of economics. Friedrich Hayek, on the other hand, stated that a freely competitive, laissez-faire banking industry tends to be endogenously destabilising and pro-cyclical, claiming central banking control was inescapable. However, new legal limitations in respect to Quantitative Easing and more transparency needs to be imposed as an emergency measure. A discussion of the advantages of the Misesian model, as well as its problems, will take us beyond the scope of this present work. 50

and FBI; through to the judicial and political spheres of influence in Senate and Congress. The recognition of the dangers such a cultural and political programme of subversion could yield led to the McCarthy hearings of the 1950s.


It also led to the House Committee on Un-

In the view of a few conservative latter-day authors, such as commentators William Norman Grigg and Medford Stanton Evans, McCarthy's place in history should be revaluated. Many scholars, including some generally regarded as conservative, have opposed these views. See Horowitz, David (July 8, 2003). "The Trouble with 'Treason". FrontPage Magazine. Also, Rabinowitz, Dorothy (July 7, 2003). "A Conspiracy So Vast". The Wall Street Journal. 29

Other authors and historians, including Arthur Herman, assert that new evidence— in the form of Venona-decrypted Soviet messages, Soviet espionage data now opened to the West, and newly released transcripts of closed hearings before McCarthy’s subcommittee largely vindicates McCarthy. It shows many of his identifications of Communists were correct and that the scale of Soviet espionage activity in the United States during the 1940s and 1950s was far larger than many scholars at the time suspected. After reviewing evidence from Venona and other sources, historian John Earl Haynes concluded that, of the 159-people identified on lists used, or referenced by McCarthy, evidence was substantial that only nine had aided Soviet espionage efforts. He suggested that a majority of those on the lists could legitimately have been considered security risks, but that a substantial minority could not. Among those implicated in files later made public from the Venona project and Soviet sources however were Cedric Belfrage, Frank Coe, Lauchlin Currie, Harold Glasser, David Karr, Mary Jane Keeney, and Leonard Mins. These viewpoints are considered revisionist by many scholars. Challenging efforts aimed at the “rehabilitation” of McCarthy, Haynes argues that McCarthy’s attempts to “make anti-Communism a partisan weapon” actually “threatened [the post-War] antiCommunist consensus”, thereby ultimately harming anti-Communist efforts more than helping them. Diplomat George Kennan however drew on his State Department experience to provide the view that “The penetration of the American governmental services by members or agents (conscious or otherwise) of the American Communist Party in the late 1930s was not just a figment of the imagination ... it really existed; and it assumed proportions which, while never overwhelming, were also not trivial.” Kennan wrote that under the Roosevelt administration: “warnings which should have been heeded fell too often on deaf or incredulous ears.” William Bennett, former Reagan Administration Secretary of Education, summed up this perspective in his “America: The Last Best Hope” (2007): “The cause of anti-Communism, which united millions of Americans and which gained the support of Democrats, Republicans and independents, was undermined by 51

American Activities and the Subversive Activities Control Board. 30 Whilst these investigations were largely ridiculed at the time, it is now known (through released intelligence information) that many of the accusations once claimed to be false have now been shown to be true. In addition to this infiltration, the loss of what might be termed “Constitutional America” has been further exacerbated by an expansive centralisation of its government powers out of all proportion to the needs of its citizens; through the privatisation and corruption of its monetary system;

through the abandonment of its gold standard, and through the use of fractional reserve banking practise. Political subversion has largely been achieved through the development of unconstitutional institutions (such as the Council on Foreign Relations) in wielding too much political influence on government, as well as through the implementation of perverse banking practise: facilitated by the unconstitutional private bank Sen. Joe McCarthy ... McCarthy addressed a real problem: disloyal elements within the U.S. government. But his approach to this real problem was to cause untold grief to the country he claimed to love ... Worst of all, McCarthy besmirched the honourable cause of anti-Communism. He discredited legitimate efforts to counter Soviet subversion of American institutions.” McCarthy’s hearings are often incorrectly conflated with the hearings of the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC). HUAC is best known for the investigation of Alger Hiss and for its investigation of the Hollywood film industry, which led to the blacklisting of hundreds of actors, writers, and directors. HUAC was a House committee, and as such had no formal connection with McCarthy, who served in the Senate, although the existence of the HUAC thrived in part as a result of McCarthy’s activities. HUAC was active for 29 years. 30

Similarly, the Subversive Activities Control Board (SACB) was a five-member committee established by the McCarran Internal Security Act, which had a mandate, similar to HUAC and inspired by McCarthy, sought to locate “subversives”, or those sympathetic to the Communists. They were accused of promoting the establishment of a “totalitarian dictatorship” in the United States. Truman vetoed the act, sending Congress a lengthy veto message in which he criticised specific provisions as “the greatest danger to freedom of speech, press, and assembly since the Alien and Sedition Laws of 1798”. He called it a “mockery of the Bill of Rights” and a “long step toward totalitarianism”. His veto was overridden. SACB was active for 22 years. 52

of the Federal Reserve, the manipulation of the markets and the money supply more generally.

Increasingly the new liberalism is a state-centric authoritarian approach to








unknowingly, by a generation culturally and politically conditioned by the strategies of Cultural Marxism. The present generation reflect this trend and are increasingly more comfortable with anti-constitutional aims that undermine individualism and Classical Liberalism. This manifests in multiple ways: from the subversion of the justice system, the demeaning of the Police, the values of the family and the worth of religion to name but a few aspects. Political correctness, paradoxically, was an ethos that its adherents originally claimed championed the individual and to this end moral relativism and an enhancement of community values, but in reality, it originated as a political strategy designed to subvert communities and institutions and degrade traditional values and culture for revolutionary purposes. It sought to supposedly dispense with authoritarian figures and dissipate their power, only to ultimately perpetuate and enhance authoritarian power once a compliant populace had been laid low by the cultural pessimism it induced.

In this, the disinformation strategies that have been foisted upon successive generations are clearly ones that propagate untruths and lies. They are strategies that seek to employ scurrilous semantics to achieve the subversion of a nation’s constitutional principles and a subversion of their moral character. A language of lies that provokes weakness in the individual, rather than empowerment and a continual “change for the sake of change� ethos, which results only in social, cultural, economic and political instability. 53

The implementation of the cultural, social and political strategies actually degrades that which it claims to champion. The features of authoritarianism are disguised under the façade of egalitarianism and perpetuate poverty with the redistribution of wealth. Their successful implementation can result ultimately only in economic stagnation and the destruction of the middle class. Such strategies destroy, rather than sustain the virtues of entrepreneurship. They undermine the virtues of individualism, for personal betterment and society as a whole. In this too, such strategies represent a subterfuge, and in its essence and at their heart reside many secrets. Whilst disinformation and half realised truths are the material that maintains the deception, and which promulgates, knowingly or otherwise, the “dialectic of deceit”.31

R. Weaver (1970, 1985) believes that the limitations of dialectic can be overcome (and its advantages maintained) through the use of rhetoric as a complement to dialectic. He defines the activity as “truth plus its artful presentation”, which suggests it takes a “dialectically secured position” and shows “its relationship to the world of prudential conduct” (Foss, Foss, & Trapp, 1985, p. 56). My sense similarly supposes a complement, where the fundamentally rigorous methodology of dialectic is grounded in reason and may be embellished by emotionally appealing rhetoric in the political arena. Political rhetoric therefore, of the kind in which Lenin was a deceitful master, was grounded in reason but also appealed to popular support. It was one where rational dialectic as political strategy bolstered any deficiencies that might be revealed simply by emotive rhetoric. It was one where rhetoric supplemented the knowledge gained through dialectic, with an appreciation of the character of the audience. This mutual interaction supposes satisfying rhetoric requires a good grasp of dialectic, and further brings successful communication to any purely theoretical understanding. It does not however necessitate that dialectic is “truth”, but merely connotes a more rigorous understanding. Neither does it suppose that rhetoric alone is singularly a deceit, but only that it is less likely to provide a less satisfying medium of persuasion to any audience that is fully aware of the cogency of the arguments. 31


The Dialectic of Deceit Subversion Strategies for the construction of a New World Order


Contents Foreword…………………………………………………………………………….. Introduction: a general overview of the current state of play………

Russian strategies Chapter 1: Cultural Marxism: the nisus to corruption……………….………… Chapter 2: Communist Strategies: infiltrating the West…………………. Chapter 3: Anatoly Golitsyn and the Perestroika deception ……………. Chapter 4: The Enemy Within………………………………….….. Chapter 5: The Dangerous Bear: neo-Eurasianism awakens Russian Imperialism…………….……………..

Chinese strategies Chapter 6: Sun Tsu and the Ancient Art of War…………………………… Chapter 7: Sun Tsu and the Art of Modern War……………………….

Chapter 8 Sun Tsu and the Subversive Art via Business …………… Chapter 9: Sun Tsu and the Art of Hacking……………………………. Chapter 10: Sun Tsu and the Art of Soft Hegemony……………..

US strategies Chapter 11 The UN subversion of Constitutional America….. Chapter 12: The Neo-con Project for the New American Century… Chapter 13: Radical rules and the agents of change……………… Chapter 14: Corporate Socialism swathed in Red, White and Blue…………….. Chapter 15: The dangers of “Free Trade” deals……………… 56

EU strategies Chapter 16: The National Socialist roots of the European Union………. Chapter 17: The Euro-Communist infiltration……………………………… Chapter 18: The EU Corporate Socialist synthesis…………. Chapter 19: Eurocracy and the demise of “European” Culture…….. Chapter 20: Eurocracy and the end of National Liberty………………

Islamic strategies Chapter 21: The real war on terror……………………………………….. Chapter 22: Cultural Jihad……………………………………………….. Chapter 23: Chapter 24: Chapter 25:

Temporary alliances Chapter 26: The Socialist-Islamic/ “Red Green” alliance………….. Chapter 27: The Pre-Perestroika Sino-Soviet split……………………. Chapter 28: Sino-Russian relations in an unstable world…………….. Chapter 29: The Euro-American front………………………. Chapter 30: Multipolar problems in a Unipolar world………………………….

Possible future conflicts Chapter 31: China versus Japan……………………………………… Chapter 32: The US versus China………………………………………………


Chapter 33: The US versus Russia……………………………………………… Chapter 34: The EU versus Russia…………………………………………..

Chapter 35: The EU versus the US…………………………………….. Chapter 36: Russia versus China……………………………………………..

Possible future scenarios Chapter 37: Paradigmatic conflicts and the global collapse…………… Chapter 38: World War 3 or a clash of civilisations……………….. Chapter 39: Utopia and Dystopia in a transhumanist world…………….

Conclusion: Reaffirming Constitutional virtues through Faith, Freedom and Justice………..

Index and Bibliography……………………………………………………………..


A general overview of the current state of play The world today can be divided into five distinct blocs today: the US, Russian, Chinese, European and Islamic. All of these blocs are striving for hegemony and their aim is to control the planet. They sometimes seek to form temporary alliances with each other to achieve this supremacism or come into conflict with each other as a consequence. The agents that personify these concerns can be identified as forming alliances with others that broadly break into three projects at the present time. These being: 1. The ruling elite of Russia and China, and particularly the secret services of these two countries. 2. The “Western” elite, as represented particularly by the UK government, the European Union, the US Democratic and NeoConservative political movements, the United Nations, Bilderberg Club, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. 3. The Muslim Brotherhood and the religious and political leaders of several other Islamic organisations and states. 32 Concerning the three projects, alliances between them are sometimes formed. Thus, an alliance has presently been formed between the Leftist concerns of the “Western Project” and Islam, even though both present different concerns. The Western being essentially Liberal in ethos, whilst See O. de Carvalho, “The USA and the New World Order: a debate between O. de Carvalho and A. Dugin.” 32


Islam is fundamentally conservative. The conflicting concerns of the three projects, however, ensure only “temporary” alliances can be formed. The conflicting imperatives of the alliances in themselves also appear to be at odds with their prime imperatives to hegemony. The implication, then, is that the very nature of any progression for power entails the inevitable features of dominance, submission, unity and division that invariably lead to war. Considering the five blocs, they also appear to present the inversion of what they claim their objectives are. Thus, the Russian bloc seeks to define itself in national and regional interests, but in reality, seeks geopolitical advantage for more global concerns. For example, the Russian involvement in Ukraine is cast in terms of the “repatriation” of the Crimean people back to the Fatherland, or the protection of its loyal Russian speaking peoples from the fascist extremists of Ukraine. Its official aim, it claims, is peace and the protection of its homeland and culture within defined borders. Its true agenda, however, is a neoImperialism that strives to ignore the integrity of borders (other than in any alliance, of what it terms in neo-Eurasian circles, “frontiers”) and a general ethos of expansionism to offset the perceived threat of “liberalism”. 33 In this, then, the concern is to take control of the Heartland, as Mackinder, details, in order to control the world. 34 The Chinese bloc’s concerns often proclaim only a concern for trade and It is not simply a case of being misreported. The inversion or deceit objectives are too often detailed and made public themselves. These are part of wider philosophical and geopolitical concerns by the proponents themselves in their own written papers. They cannot and should not simply be dismissed as propaganda, but they elicit propaganda nevertheless. 33

Another example is Russia’s military presence in its client state of Syria to defeat Isis and preserve the democratically elected leadership of President Assad. In this it claims to act to preserve “nation state democracy”, but merely seeks to usurp and rule it. 34


capitalism for business and peaceful aims, whilst it continues its military expansion in the South Pacific region. Thus, it adopts a benign “quiet” strategy as Sun Tsu advised, while it continues to build military bases on artificial islands in the South China sea. It also seeks to claim regions of the East China sea, specifically the Senkaku Islands, and continues to make claims on Taiwan and Tibet to further future territorial claims. The US bloc speaks explicitly of its national interest but tends to adopt multilateralism in military strategy. It speaks of the “International Community” or “Family of Free nations”, but more often than not these terms act as a subterfuge to further its own hegemony or “national interest”. The European Union bloc seeks expansionism in order to continue its project to stretch from the Atlantic to the Urals and quite possibly extend via Turkey into the Middle East. Its current concerns for expanding the Eurozone requires an economic model of continued expansion for growth as the differing GDPs of its member states are being forced into a political equalisation that is causing stagnation. An EU army also appears to be overriding national armies and Nato, in order to (so President Juncker claims) protect “EU values”. Nation state populism in this is something that

is currently being spoken of as “dangerous” and a threat to European peace. The “Western” Project progresses happily enough when the US allies with the EU or Anglosphere due to its shared Corporate Socialist imperatives. Thus, the Bush regimes and the Obama regime, being of the Left, can ally happily to further global governance and further their individual projects in turn, as their common objective is a one world, Socialist government. The alliance becomes shakier however when the US administration does not share the EU’s Socialist values and UN objectives and adopts a less 61

global and more Constitutional, and therefore national stance. The Trump administration, for example, is not part of the Corporate Socialist “Western” project in the ideological sense. It shirks the globalist idea of the merging into one Euro-US-Anglosphere power bloc controlled by a Corporate Socialist elite. It favours the strengthening of nation state democracy. It favoured Brexit in this and downplays international free trade deals such as TTIP and TPP to further these ends. It sees the Corporate Socialist progression more generally as anti-Constitutional (in terms of the US) and anti-democratic in respect to nation state democracy in Europe. The Corporate Socialist progression, more generally, is best viewed as seeking to establish a totalitarian technocracy, largely through the implementation of UN mandates in the US and in Europe. An imperative the current Trump administration would not support to Make America great again. Concerning the Islamic bloc, conflicts of interest between national governments and the overarching goal of a global caliphate are always ultimately resolved in favour of the supremacy of the faith. Islamoglobalism exists only as a politico-religious ideal, but it enjoys authority founded upon Qur’anic edicts and sharia law that transcends one or more Islamic governments that might dispute some of its interpretations of what that entails.35 Its proselytising imperative seeks to convert the world to Islam and this requires global submission in order to achieve ultimately an enforced, but Islamised peace. Dhimmitude for those that refuse this ethos is tantamount to enslavement without the due recognition of equal rights for non-believers. Sharia law is tantamount to the imposition of a retributive and not a reformative penology. The divine imperative has also been afforded to imperial powers in their most bombastic moments in their claims that “God is on our side”. 35


The strategic analyses of the five blocs reflects some shared concerns, which can be classified and grouped according to their present alliances. A Russian-Chinese alliance emphasises geopolitical and military concerns, whilst justifying and glossing over these with a proclaimed peaceful economic agenda; the Western alliance emphasises the economic and liberal progressive view, whilst not being entirely unconscious of the military advantages; while Islam stresses politico-theocratic concerns, whilst yet funding these in the military arena. There is overlap in the arms respect that denotes a tendency to conflict and hot war. The distinctive groups reflect this common characteristic, but in turn a different ruling class. •

Originating from the Communist nomenklatura, 36 the SinoRussian “elite” comprises of bureaucrats, intelligence service agents and military officers.

Originating from capitalism, the Western bloc consists of financiers: corporation executives and international bankers that fund the corporate military complex.

The Islamic bloc consists of the Umma: the community of interpreters of the religious texts. Even though Muslim countries show great variety in their domestic situations, the structure of their ruling power comprises essentially of a “theocratic oligarchy” with a common aim to Islamise the

The nomenklatura were a category of people within the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries who held various key administrative positions in all spheres of those countries' activity: government, industry, agriculture, education, etc. Their positions were granted only with the approval of the Communist party of each country or region. Critics of Stalin, such as Milovan Đilas, critically defined them as a new class. Trotskyism uses the term “caste” rather than “class”, because it sees the Soviet Union as a degenerated workers' state, not a new class society. Later developments in Trotsky's theories, notably Tony Cliff's theory of State Capitalism, refers to the nomenklatura as a new class. 36



Saudi Arabians with Salafist influence whilst proposing opposition to the Islamic terrorists of Isis or Al Qaeda for example, too often are revealed as covertly supporting these very terrorist organisations themselves and originating their concerns ideologically as well as financially. In the long term, however, it seems unlikely that clashes between Sunni and Shia will abate, even with the successful achievement of a global caliphate. Disputes between Muslim factions are rife and invariably the likelihood is they will continue to have hot war disputes on the nature of their differing religious perspectives of what “authentic� Islam entails. Internal conflict greatly undermines their efficacy to rule the planet in anything other than demographic terms.

Some common characteristics that help form the current three temporary Projects The three current power projects formed by the blocs are temporary, as they ultimately have their own desire to rule and achieve hegemony. Conflicting and competing ideas of what constitute these blocs might even result in small scale disputes and local battles within themselves. Presently, however, these three projects form temporary alliances which can be generally classified. Their powers being limited respectively by the ideological, economic and the technical capabilities they possess. Broadly speaking, as Professor Olavo de Carvalho has similarly expressed (op. cit.) the contemporary world is involved in a struggle for power between three distinct classes, which presently correspond to the three projects. He terms these as: “the military, the bankers and the 64

preachers”.37 They share common characteristic and a common ethos overall, as all three are concerned with increased state control, less individualism and localism, and with the expansion of their own respective power base on the world stage. Presently, in the “Russian-Chinese” alliance, there is a common characteristic, inasmuch as a both share an enduring preference for state focused apparatchiks. In this preference, the elite power structures of the former Communist Russia and the present Communist China are effectively unchanged and have been ever since their respective revolutions. By contrast, the Western globalist elite projects a unipolar and multipolar strategy. This is susceptible to a dialectic characterisation in its unipolar universalism and multi-lateralism. It tends to speak in this of “internationalism” and the “international community”, suggesting it does not simply represent one national interest, one particular State, or one particular government, but represents the “family of nations”. However, US unipolar hegemonic concerns are clearly to the fore in initiating action. Furthermore, it tends to manipulate its partners to maintain its own agenda as the presiding super power. This imbalance will most likely lead to the demise of temporary alliances in the future. The Euro American or “Western” alliance may give way if its economic power dwindles. The increased likelihood of conflict to maintain one or other power. This has already been apparent in the first part of the 21 st century in respect to the US and the overseas wars waged for vital resources and to further geopolitical advantage in the Middle East, as well as to stimulate its production of arms by the corporate-military complex. Olavo de Carvalho, “The USA and the New World Order: a debate between O. de Carvalho and A. Dugin.” 37


The role of the corporations to date have exerted a powerful influence here. As a rule of thumb, if corporate interests collide with those of a nation, it does not hesitate to turn against that nation for its own interests. This is the case too even in respect to its allies, and in respect even to the United States and its relations with the West. Corporations are prepared to subjugate and manipulate any one nation in order to achieve and further their own interests, usually cast in profit margin terms and an extension of power, which gives the impression of being increasingly fascistic. At present, they are revealed not as nationalists, as of old, but as a global force that transcends national politics, they yet seek to influence and control particular governments to further their specific concerns. 38 The Islamo-globalists serve principally the general interests of all Muslim states, united in the ethos of a common faith. Divergences arising from clashes of national interest (for example, between Iran and Saudi Arabia) have not ultimately undermined the unity of the long-term theocratic project, nor the world mission to convert all to Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood is a political unifier and facilitator of the process. It is a global organisation, which governs some countries, and in others provides opposition. The extent of its influence is far reaching in the Islamic world and stands as a bridge between the ethos of the faith and the political sphere. It is also a propagator of Islamic terrorism itself and has consequently been determined as a terrorist organisation in particular The US dollar is presently the global reserve currency and has much to do with the present corporations and powerful institutions advantaging US political concerns on the international stage. There is however a general shift away from the dollar as the global reserve currency of late, which may signify a decline of the US nation’s status as the primary world power. Corporate interests inevitably will curtail its influence in the future if they continue to favour a Chinese market and continue to pursue (in their search for increased profits) a policy of shipping jobs and manufacturing overseas. This will be commensurate with a progressive rise in China’s military and political influence. 38


countries around the world.

The common characteristic they share purveys a rather hypocritical deceit The three temporary projects reflect a rather hypocritical self-projection in their negative propaganda speeches: an attitude suggesting that the fate of the world in any opposing camp is in great peril and run by power mad ideologues bent on world domination. The dialectic debates, arguments and rhetoric to justify their positions are continuously shifting and evolving. The present Russian-Chinese perspective has characterised the Western block as: •

A global expansion of American national power. The material manifestation of the “open society” liberal ideology: an idea evinced by Karl Popper in “The Open Society and its Enemies”. A shrine for the values of the Enlightenment: a materialistic and rationalist mentality, and in Russia’s case the prime enemy of Russian Orthodox spirituality.

On the other hand, Western globalism declares that its enemies are broadly: Islamist “terrorism”: An enemy distinct from Islam. The term denotes “rogue” organisations such as ISIL (ISIS) or AlQaeda from orthodox Islamic beliefs. Russian Eurasianism: a quasi- fascistic, neo Imperialism that has territorial ambitions realised by primarily militaristic means and curtailed presently by exerting economic sanctions on Russia. It is notable here that the US-European alliance in no way castigates 67

wholesale the Islamic block, even though its core beliefs and practises under the sharia exhibit a certain uniformity. This is particularly so in respect to oil rich and powerful countries such as Salafist influenced Saudi Arabia, even when its own human rights record is poor. This is a rather hypocritical stance when the West generally proclaims it has a concern for human rights, and often invokes this ethos in order to distinguish it as a more moral and beneficent agent. The hypocrisy is sustained by a concern to maintain friendly relations for its own economic advantage and maintaining the petro dollar as the world’s reserve currency. In this, then, the West seeks an artificial distinction. It distinguishes Islam from Islamism for pragmatic purposes, deeming the former as a peaceful friend and the latter as a perversion of Islamic beliefs on the way to extinction. It emphasises the latter’s inhumane “fundamentalism”, whilst notably it ignores the atrocities and barbarism perpetuated in sharia ruled countries, if they provide economic advantage, even if these also fund terrorism in turn. To strengthen and justify this rather artificial distinction, it suggests there is a Westernised, democratic, friendly, rather liberal Islam, not in keeping with Islam’s more conservative anti liberal religious tenets. These distinctions, however, do not stand up to stringent examination. Rather out of character with its atheist leanings, a general Left-wing strategy exists to maintain an alliance with Islam on the basis that: “my enemies’ enemy is my friend”. In this strategy, Socialists rather contrarily conflate the ideological spokesmen of “Islamist” terrorism with the advocates of the “Christian Right”, who are often branded as religious extremists or “right wing fascists” themselves. In this, they hypocritically claim, the latter is just as perverse as the former, because it too is a kind of religious fascism, when in fact Christianity is chiefly one of its main victims. It then rather contrarily proposes support for the Islamic strain, 68

treating its activists, who are sometimes terrorists, or at least engaged in some kind of similar cultural war, as “victims”, whose human rights must be maintained. They facilitate in this support continued immigration of Muslims to strengthen the alliance. This is done in the name of open borders and the supposed virtues of multi-culturalism. They largely fail to stem the perpetuation of terrorism and even justify it by clinging to the idea of equal rights for all and a “citizens of the world” ideal. They blur the distinction between Islam and Islamism in this and propagate the virtues of unending immigration with a no borders ideal to further their own egalitarian, no borders, revolutionary cause. A cause once steeped in the values of the globalist Communist cause, which sought to trigger revolutionary uprisings in nation states. As Socialism’s strategy appears to be in some kind of temporary alliance with Islam, they commonly evoke charges of racism and xenophobia against those who voice dissent against Islamic sharia more generally. They do this in the name of tolerance and diversity and a concern with equal rights that seeks to shame or shout down opposition, even if sharia is antithetical to human rights and liberal democracy in turn. This attitude reveals the temporary nature of the alliance between the Left and Islam as one which is ultimately self-defeating, as their mutual aims and objectives in the long term are antagonistic and utterly opposed to each other: the Left having a general proclivity to values such as egalitarianism, human rights, women’s emancipation and a gay and lesbian favouritism, whereas Islam imposes the opposite value system and upholds it in the general principles of the sharia. Russia and China are rarely presented in the mainstream media as an official alliance, at least in respect to the Western governments’ “official” view. This, in spite of their increasingly apparent economic and militarily 69

coordinated strategies. The John Birch Society, and more generally Sovietologists (such as Christopher Story) tend to focus on Russia’s formerly Communist leanings and often see a collective and coordinated Sino-Russian threat. This is viewed as being part of an ongoing deception in a struggle for global control, due to sympathetic and still live ideological leanings. The more popular view, however, presently focuses on Russia alone; perceiving it as a danger due to its increasingly nationalistic, neoImperialistic stance. In this, the Left leaning advocates like to label it a “fascist” threat: this “official” view being evident in the past remarks by Hillary Clinton and others in the past Obama administration, who equate fascism exclusively with the Right to further party political advantage. The view is also widely supported amongst foreign delegates and Commission officials in the European Union hierarchy. China, on the other hand (specifically since the Nixon era) is generally presented as an ally of the West. This is for the same economic and financial reasons the West tolerates Saudi Arabia. In the worst case, China is usually portrayed as a somewhat dangerous free trade competitor. An emphasis on its economic success and its reforms is often made, in spite of its so called “reforms” still being avowedly Communist and its record on human rights and local geo-political occupations, particularly in respect to Tibet and Taiwan and the Senkaku/Daioyoudo Island confrontations, being of concern. The Islamic bloc generally describes its “Western” enemy in terms that reveal its proclivity to hate any that are unbelievers. It presents the enemy as the natural heir to the Crusades and sometimes as the personification of modern materialism, immorality, perversion and hedonism. This in spite of the Crusades historically being a response to Islamic empire building in Europe for more than 450 years before military action 70

occurred. Notably, the generous collaboration of Russia and China with terrorist groups is the reason why these two countries are generally absent from the Islamic ideological discourse of the “non-believer”, “enemy” or “infidel” (kaffar) that tends to focus exclusively on the West. This way, irreconcilable theoretical incompatibilities are circumvented. It enables also a covert temporary alliance to be discerned in both Neo-Eurasian and Islamic circles to work against the West. The current claims of Russia to be attacking Isis appear to be born more out of the fact that these terrorists were largely funded by the Obama administration in an attempt to expunge Assad in Syria. More generally, the alliance between the Left and Islam has been justified by some theoreticians of the Caliphate, who allege that Socialism, once triumphant in the world, will need a religion. This religion will be Islam. Whereas Islam will need an economic model and this will be found in Socialism. The general alliance between Socialism and Islam to further their aims can best be summarised by the Communist Leonid Brezhnev who stated: “Under the banner of Islam the liberation struggle can be deployed.” The atheist leanings of the Communist concern might well have provided a necessary vacuum to justify the religious “deficit” and further an alliance that is still perpetuated in Socialist activism today. This appears to be a banner taken up by the Western Socialists, rather than the Russians or the Chinese Communists, at least overtly. The current emphasis on the Russian Orthodox Church by the Neo-Eurasianists reflects a Russian Christian nationalism, which tends to undermine any enduring alliance


with Islam.39

Features of the Russian deception The Russians, since Perestroika, have presented themselves as an ally of the United States in the “fight against Islamist terrorism”, but at the same time they have provided weapons and all sorts of support to many terrorist organisations around the world and to the anti-American regimes of Iran, Venezuela, etc. This commensurately weakens any western alliance, as they adopt a divide and conquer strategy to further their own objectives. Wedded to this are not just political or military concerns however, but corporate concern for arms manufacturing. This rather transcends the concerns of one or other political power. In this concern to maintain perpetual but limited war, Islam too plays its part. As an invisible subversive, it often applies psychological attacks upon the US and Russia, propagating (for example) the idea that the attack on the World Trade Centre was the work of the American government itself, or even of Israel. This provides a political and military advantage in the Middle East. They might even suggest that this psychological attack originated from Russia to pit Russia against the USA. Much of this

The Russian Orthodox slant is not necessarily to be viewed as a universalism, or one that requires enforced or widespread global acceptance should Neo Eurasianism or Russia (if that is the ideology it adopts) triumph, as multiplicity is claimed to be favoured. However, anomalies in respect to the philosophical principles of NeoEurasianism tend to suggest the Orthodox Christian slant is incompatible on points of principle with it in any case: a rather anti-Christian ethic taints Neo-Eurasianism’s alleged spiritual Orthodoxy, which appears to find better sympathy with Islam’s politico-religious revolutionary ethos in any case. 39


disinformation is currently flourishing in the Middle East however and is notably disseminated in materials originating from Saudi Arabia that has proven links to the financing of the event. Shifting the blame is a common feature of all strategies. One chief complaint by Russia is that she was “corrupted” by Boris Yeltsin’s liberal reforms, as inspired by America, as if before she had lived an entirely moral and pure life, unsullied by the corruption of the Communist regimes. The historical record of the Soviet government does not support this, as it has essentially lived from theft and extortion since its inception, without ever having to account for it. At the same time, it generally subverted its own population through corrupt institutionalised political practise, and thus provided an immoral role model itself. After the official dissolution of the Soviet regime, the beneficiaries (the oligarchs) who were the members of the nomenklatura themselves, suddenly became billionaires, without severing their ties to the old state apparatus, particularly to the former KGB. Russia’s attitude by its intellectuals and indeed the general populace, therefore, displays amnesia in respect to its own corrupt practises, or at least seeks to shift the blame to the West as part of its general psychological strategy to undermine and hamper it in turn. Memory loss and shifting the blame is often tolerated when money is involved, an asset that tends to blind any sense of moral purpose. This tends to be a universal characteristic of the imperative to hegemony. For example, soon after the USSR was officially dissolved, no investigation of Soviet crimes was launched, or called for, by the European, Russian or American agents of influence. Nobody was ever punished for the murder of at least ten million civilians in the old regime, nor for the creation of the 73

most efficient machinery of state terror known to mankind in the KGB. This could be justified by claiming that the new glasnost and Perestroika required an open-hearted approach to nurture trust in the interests of peace. That it was not politically prudent at the time to adopt such a critical response, but it has readily been seized upon by some to merely shift the blame for the chaos and corruption that followed. Thus, whereas Russia’s complaint is often that they were corrupted by American capitalism itself, the United States seeks to claim that corruption was not simply caused by the new system of free enterprise, but by the fact that the first to benefit from it were the former corrupt and murdering oligarchs themselves. Such oligarchs later sought refuge in the West as the enemies of Russia, but cannot readily be claimed to have been mere initiators of a Western strategy to corrupt, as they were already corrupt Russians themselves. Shifting the blame conveniently seeks to rewrite history and fails to assess the bigger historical cause. Whilst corrupt capitalism and Western liberalism can be blamed as subversive, it can just as readily be claimed that it was Russia’s fault by a historical justification that it was she who provided the template for the strategy of corruption (via Cultural Marxism) in the first place. Since the 1930s Stalin’s government, aware that the strength of America resided in “its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life”, unleashed a widespread operation to undermine America’s political and social values with a series of sustained strategies. The strategies of Cultural Marxism, were in the words of one of its original conceivers Willi Münzenberg, designed to “make the West so corrupt it stinks”. The aim was always (and still is for Socialists) to further the revolutionary cause. 74

The purchase of agents, the involvement of high-level officers in espionage and shady businesses, the intense propaganda campaigns to debilitate the moral beliefs of a targeted populace, as well as the general infiltration of the education system, judiciary and media, all ended up producing results that impaired Western values. This was particularly so from the 1960s onwards, when American society was radically modified by the counterculture youth movement carrying these values to a new generation: a youth that eventually grew into office and exerted power and influence in the institutions in turn. The strategic impact upon the post-Soviet Russia then, was in effect a boomerang it initially threw at the West decades before. It gives them no justification for sincerely claiming the moral high ground today. Soviet action also gave a global dimension to drug trafficking from the 1950s onwards.40 Therefore, when Russia complains that after the fall of Communism she was invaded by “Western drug culture”, an argument can be raised that she is simply reaping what she herself sowed in a blowback effect. In any case, nothing of this vast corrupting action is a thing of the past. Nowadays there are more Russian spies in the United States than during the Cold War. China too shows evidence that the apparent liberalisation of its economy was only a cover-up for the consolidation of a more covert totalitarian regime. It does this whilst adopting the “weak look” advocated by Sun Tsu, their most influential Chinese military strategist. It thus tries to appear benign, whilst rather conversely increasingly amassing its military power.


See Red Cocaine: The Drugging of America and the West, by Joseph D. Douglass. 75

The Russian critique of the Western liberal rationale According to Neo-Eurasian doctrine, as espoused by Professor Aleksandr Dugin, liberal globalism and its values are Russia’s deadly enemy. Such values are encapsulated most notably in the United States. Consequently, the US is identified as the primary source of all Russia’s and indeed “Western” civilisation’s woes. The face of liberalism that Professor Dugin sees in America is essentially that of the “open society” advocated by Karl Popper. This is how he summarises the idea: “Popper developed a fundamental typology for our subject. According to him, the history of humanity and the history of ideas divide themselves in two (unequal) halves. On the one hand, there are the partisans of the ‘open society,’ which represents in his view the form of normal existence of rational individuals (so are for him all men), who base their conduct upon reasoning and the supposedly free personal will. The sum of such individuals must logically form the ‘open society,’ essentially ‘non -totalitarian, since it lacks any unifying idea or value system of a collectivist nature, be it supraindividual or non-individual. The ‘open society’ is open precisely because it ignores all ‘teleologies’, all ‘absolutes,’ all established typological differences; therefore, it ignores all limits that emanate from the non-individual and non-rational domain. On the other hand, there are the enemies of the open society. Here Popper includes Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, the medieval Schoolmen, as well as the German philosophy of Schlegel, Fichte, and above all of Hegel and Marx.”

Neo-Eurasianists, like Dugin, are rather like the old National Bolsheviks. Although they accept Popper’s dualist view, and are in agreement with his open society classification, they nevertheless consider themselves to be its


resolute enemies.41 They oppose its philosophical foundations, just as they oppose any model that espouses the primacy of the individual, the value of rational reasoning, progressive social liberalism, or representative liberal democracy more generally. In this, they offer free criticism of the Cartesian-Kantian world view and advocate a supposed “multipolar” world view. This, however, in practise and ethos reveals a preference for a primarily Russian-centric “Eurasian” empire: an imperialism that in truth is no more than a ruse to facilitate Russian hegemony and ultimately global control.

As for the West’s project: “Nowadays, it is evident that the World State conceived as a World Market is not a distant or chimerical perspective, because that liberal doctrine [Popper’s] is little by little becoming the governing idea of our civilisation. And this presupposes the final destruction of nations, as vestiges of a bygone era, as the last hurdle to the irresistible expansion of globalisation . . . The globalist doctrine is the perfect and finished expression of the ‘open society’ model.”

In Dugin’s view, then, liberal globalism must not be tolerated. It is the project that must be nullified, or as he claims “liquidated”, inasmuch as its essential raison d’etre is to establish the Popperian model of the “open society” throughout the world, destroying national sovereignties and every metaphysical or moral principle that opposes it along the way. Liberalism here signifies the end of nations and all forms of traditionalism and orthodox spirituality. It seeks to replace them with a globally Although abandoned by the Russian group as a name, the term is still used to refer to a loose federation of National Bolshevik organisations spread across much of Europe and even has branches in Venezuela and Bolivia. Of these the most important is in Russia, with the others being less so (although the Parti Communautaire National-Européen has been associated with the group). 41









materialism and relativistic subjectivism that supposedly inspires and yet corrupts any good religious sensibility. Whilst it is not a false perspective in respect to the mentality of the Western elite, whose aims are certainly inspired by this reading of Popperian ideals, a number of caveats need to be raised. First, the description cannot in any way be applied to Constitutional America. In this, the United States is a nation where global Popperianism is a recent phenomenon, and whilst such a critique might well fit with the US in its policy and actions in recent times, it has little to do with its original and guiding principles. The “United States”, whilst being the controller of the Western globalist project, is yet ironically also its prime victim. More specifically, “Constitutional America”, a nation that should trade peacefully by the rules of commerce and by ideally minding its own business free of “foreign entanglements”, is one being similarly corrupted by the Corporatists and its international agenda in turn. It too is in the sight hairs of what might be termed the RINO


neo Conservatives that justify and promote a US

unipolar hegemony around the world. More generally, “Western Globalism” is not just the preserver of the American Dream, based on laissez faire economic capitalism, but a danger to it. They pose a specific threat to American Constitutionalism in the traditional sense and seek to destroy it, just as the Neo-Eurasianists seek to destroy liberalism wholesale, because its original values and tenets have been corrupted and

“Republican In Name Only” and thus emphasising the Left wing Trotskyism of the neo Conservative movement. 42


altered and are now something largely misunderstood. 43 Here, however, a problem arises and can be posed with a question: why would the essentially “Corporate Socialist”, or “Western Project”, as it is termed, necessarily want to debilitate Russia, if it is in some sense compatible with its own “democratised” Socialist ideals? This stems from the fact that they should both be sympathetic to the Socialist ideal in some sense and both, therefore, should be seeking the common objective of one world government. In this perspective, therefore, Obama and Putin should not have been enemies or competitors, but rather international

The Neo-Eurasian view generally identifies modern Liberalism as a threat across the board and fails to distinguish any productive or beneficial ethos in the philosophy of Classical Liberalism. In this, it rather tends to conflate the two. It identifies more generally “Liberalism” with the ideals of the West, and as originating and following only a perverse progression from its inception; its prime concern always having been to establish a New World Order. Liberalism is viewed as a genuine cultural, political and socially subversive threat. Here a synthesis of national governments occurs to ultimately produce a fascio-socialist Left leaning power bloc that ultimately will strive to initiate, on Dugin’s view, a Liberal/Western/ US hegemony and even a one world government. Neo-Conservativism might be characterised as the desire of supposedly “right wing fundamentalists” to establish this new order, characterised as a US hegemony, but it fails to appreciate the Trotskyite roots of such a movement. The imperative of the project is clear in the Project for the New American Century think tank’s document of the nineties. See here. 43

Concerning the military struggle, Dugin himself tends to prefer to view it as a geopolitical struggle of Atlanticism, a Sea Power, striving to initiate global control over the opposing Land Powers. Russia is conceived as a bastion of traditional orthodox Christian values, whilst he contrarily emphasises the virtues of collectivism, a socialist ethos and a “civilisational” protectionism that knows no borders to counteract the West. He similarly casts the clash of civilisations in broadly Marxist-Leninist terms as a conflict of consciousness between the East and West. He claims his own 4th Political Theory is unique, being a genuine “fascist fascism”, but it constantly reveals its influences and debt to National Bolshevik and Marxist-Leninist theory in many respects. Both Russian and US projects have been concerned to critique the other, as socialists or fascists, but entail very much two sides of the same statist federalism that desires the advancement of global objectives. They generally both share the same nisus, which generally undermines American constitutional values and principles. 79

collaborators that were inevitably striving to achieve a common goal. 44 It is clear in this that Dugin and the Kremlin’s concern is a preservation of the Russian nation, as much as a propagation of its national interests on the world stage. But in this, Neo-Eurasianism is frankly an ideology of Russian hegemony, differing little from the traditional Russian Imperialism or the Russia-centric Soviet regimes of the past. It then marks itself out as a “Western” enemy. The Western globalist project might not appear to differ markedly from the Neo-Eurasianists in their common concern for power, nor in a century long legacy of purveying a socialist ethos and value system, but their hegemonic concerns clearly undermine their tendency to be natural allies. The current antagonisms in play between Russia and the US over the Ukraine or Syria highlight this. A happier bedfellow as always has been the EU, which has largely supported the anti-Russian stance and has felt thwarted by their own objective to secure Ukraine within its expanding collective. On face value, it appears President Trump’s more conservative approach MAGA approach has more in common with Russia’s nationalistic values and concerns, but the extent of any understanding being brokered here could be simply being used to further their own advantage, cause political dissent at home, but need not necessitate mutual advantage.

The use of false labels Inherent within any criticism are the multiple names used to classify the

This theory tends to downplay conflicting national interests and the efforts of one, or other, power bloc as it seeks to destroy the sovereignty, politico-military power and the economy of any “nation” that opposes the Corporate Socialist imperative. 44


enemy and critique competing powers. Hence, Russia and its neoEurasianism is variously termed an emerging “National Bolshevism”, or a “fascist fascism”, a Nazi threat, or a re-emerging Communism. In these pejoratives, distortions and lies are often used to further political advantage for the competitor. It is best, therefore, to summarise the philosophical principles and concerns, rather than various, sometimes conflicting pejoratives that are too hastily thrown around. The concern might only be a deceptive tactic to further their own ideological cause and too often has little to do with the truth. Philosophical principles need to be laid bare and definitions need not be assumed as valid until the rigour of the classification has been tested appropriately. This is befitting of the dialectic process as practised originally by Socrates and Plato. At least a more rigorous perspective can be postulated. The Western project conflicts in its essentials with Russian NeoEurasianism, not just in its philosophical paradigms, but in their competing desire to implement hegemony. The concern for Russia is to foster a renaissance of Russian Imperialism in some sense: a kind of Russian empire in the old sense, where the Russian “nation” is to be expanded to preserve its civilising and virtuous values. Russia, then, will oversee its empire with power centralised in Moscow, rather than Washington. It will seek a renaissance of the nation and in this “Russian Spring”, a rebirth of its values, which it yet will propagate in other lands: Georgia, Crimea and Ukraine being recent examples, in a kind of Russian neo Imperialism; a competing and conflicting imperative (it is claimed) very much at odds with the US unipolar or multilateral concern, even though both share the same imperative to rule. In respect to Russia, the Neo-Eurasianists wish to claim Russia does not 81

seek global control; any supposed empire building being merely an attempt to limit Western liberalism and its global imposition. It claims it is not like the old Soviet model and has shunned the economic and social ideas of Marxist Leninism, as determined by its dialectic materialist model. Nevertheless, whatever the political origins of its current imperative, whether it be of the left or the right, its manifest attitude clearly represents an impediment to US hegemony and thereby exacerbates conflict. In this dialectic, definitions are important, but definitions are clearly used to further political advantage for competing projects and to justify themselves as being concerned with what is good. In this, power grabs are often bolstered with the claim of occupying the moral high ground, even if much of the claim serves self-interested ends and beggars the opponent. Whilst the Russian Neo-Eurasian imperative may be variously defined as right or left, equally it is clear Western globalism is only “liberal� in the modern Leftist sense. In this, however, the term more generally is often no more than a synonym for Socialism. This is distinct from the Classical Liberalism that birthed paleo-conservativism, and which came to characterise it in turn. Definitions evolve and change. The dialectic of deceit is an on-going and evolving examination of the validity of terms. The Western globalist project is a fusion of corporatism with social liberalism. It has implemented and propagated its cultural values from the intellectual paradigms of Cultural Marxism: an irony, as such ideas originated from Soviet Marxists themselves and were then given form by the Frankfurt School, which sought to dethrone Western capitalism and transform Western culture for revolutionary purposes. Today the Progressive idea of Liberalism fuses these cultural values with 82

capitalist model once conceived as Communism’s enemy. This does not entail capitalism in the traditional sense, but crony capitalism in the corporate sense. It represents a subversion of true capitalism in the economic sphere, whereas Cultural Marxism subverted Constitutional America’s traditional values in the social, cultural, religious and moral spheres.45 The educators of these values taught the Baby Boomer generation, who then sought to implement the values into the political social and economic spheres in turn, and the effects are now being felt. 46 Dugin’s neo-Eurasianism opposes the Popperian “open society” as an abstract ideological model, but it is also a geo-political strategy. It critiques the Popperian view, but it does so only to impose a totalitarian Greater Russian empire in its own right. Once the rhetoric is stripped away and the chief philosophical principles are laid bare, it essentially represents a danger to freedom and liberty no less dictatorial and dangerous in its scope than the “Western” Liberal Progressivism it opposes. Indeed, it mirrors the US-European global strategy, inasmuch as it seeks to perpetuate and bolster Russian supra-nationalism though a geo political Russian controlled Neo-Imperialism. In this, it is comparable in its essential imperative with Neo-Conservativism. Whilst it might claim to justify multipolarity it seeks fundamentally unipolarity. It seeks as

Crony capitalism provides a much more developed use of so called “free trade” agreements and advantages the international corporate power structures, but its emphasis on centralised federal government, along with its tendency to collectivism remains. Intrinsic to this progression, the subverting ethos remains. 45

“Western Globalism” then is not simply liberal-capitalism, in the sense of Classical Liberalism, but rather a “socialist corporatism” with global ambitions. It seeks to deconstruct nation states and amalgamate them within a supranational politicocorporate empire, or at least nullify their national and economic powers to such an extent that they serve the interests of the Syndicate. This entails strategies in the social, cultural, economic and political spheres. 46


Mackinder conceived a concern for unipolarity by virtue of a desire to “control the Heartland and thus the world”. In this, therefore, both seek to maximise their power advantage and help their respective nations to attain global control. 47

By the 18th century, the Russian Empire extended its control to the Pacific, forming a common border with the Qing Empire. Bolshevik leaders effectively re-established a polity with roughly the same extent as that empire by 1921. This propagated an internationalist ideology. Lenin in particular asserted the right to limited selfdetermination for national minorities within the new territory. In 1923, the policy of "Indigenisation" sought to support non-Russians and develop their national cultures within a socialist framework. Never formally revoked, it stopped being implemented after 1932. After World War II, the Soviet Union installed socialist regimes based on those it had installed in 1919–20 in the old Tsarist Empire in areas its forces occupied in Eastern Europe. The Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China supported post–World War II Communist movements in foreign nations and colonies to advance their own State determined political and cultural interests. 47

Trotsky, and others, believed that the revolution could only succeed in Russia as part of a world revolution. Lenin wrote extensively on the matter and famously declared that Imperialism was the highest stage of capitalism. However, after Lenin's death, Joseph Stalin established ‘Socialism in one country' for the Soviet Union, creating the model of inward looking Stalinist states purged of the earlier Internationalist elements. The internationalist tendencies of the early revolution would be abandoned in favour of a Soviet Nationalism, according to the political and cultural edicts of the General Line. This was to strengthen Soviet culture but resorted to Leninist internationalism in its later years. See the Hungarian and Polish insurgencies. PostStalin Leninist Internationalism fully re-emerged as an imperative within the framework of a client state in competition with the Americans during the Khrushchev era onwards. With the beginning of the new era in the late 1950s, the post Stalin period called the "Thaw", the new political leader Nikita Khrushchev put even more pressure on the Soviet-American relations. This started a new wave of anti -imperialist propaganda. In his 1960 UN speech, he announced the continuation of the war on imperialism, stating that soon the people of different countries would come together and overthrow their imperialist leaders. Although the Soviet Union declared itself “anti- imperialist”, critics argue that it exhibited tendencies common to historic empires itself anyway. Other scholars have claimed that the Soviet Union was a hybrid entity containing elements common to both multinational empires and nation states. It has also been argued that the USSR practiced colonialism, just as other imperial powers did, and the Soviet Union was simply carrying on the old Russian tradition of expansionism and control whatever their personal and public critique of it. See Caroe, O. (1953). "Soviet Colonialism in Central Asia". Foreign Affairs 32 (1): 135– 144. Piers Brendon, ‘’The 84

Putin’s claims The idea of sympathetic ideological political concerns is pre-emptied in respect to Russia and the Socialists of the West in Vladimir Putin’s remarks that: “Any fourth-grade history student knows that Socialism has failed in every country, at every time in history. President Obama’s administration are either idiots or deliberately trying to destroy their own country.” Here the critique of Socialism is one that undermines the possibility of collusion between seemingly competing powers, just because they might be conveniently labelled as socialists or “former Communists”. It is, furthermore, pre-emptied by the remark by Putin that: “Anyone who does not regret the passing of the Soviet Union has no heart. Anyone who wants it restored has no brains.” This quote is suggestive of the limitations of Russian Communism, but not necessarily an abandonment of totalitarian government, or an empire building agenda that might focus a nation to implement more imperialist concerns in a modern context. 48 It is a quote that does not entirely negate

Decline and Fall of the British Empire, 1781-1997’’ (2008) and Wiliam L Langer, The Diplomacy of Imperialism: 1890-1902 (2nd ed. 1950) pp 67-100. Mao Zedong once argued that the Soviet Union had itself become an imperialist power while it yet maintained a socialist façade. Moreover, the ideas of imperialism were widely spread in action on the higher levels of government. Non-Russian Marxists within the Russian Federation and later the USSR, like Sultan Galiev and Vasyl Shakhrai, considered the Soviet regime effectively no more than a renewed version of the old Russian imperialism and colonialism. Neo Eurasians such as Dugin deny that they are advocates of Russian Imperialism suggestive of a Stalinist or Soviet type. Dugin in particular has renounced Soviet Imperialism and has also distinguished “true empire” from Imperialism, as has Julius Evola and numerous New Right authors he is in synch with. In his essay “Main 48


Principles of Eurasian Policy”, Dugin asserts that there are three basic types of policy in modern Russia: Soviet, pro-Western (liberal), and Eurasian. He criticises the Soviet and Liberal types while advocating the Eurasian policy of a Greater Russia as: “ original patriotic pragmatism free from any dogmatics – be it Soviet or liberal.” The Soviet pattern is viewed as an obsolete ideology that exploits nostalgia and inertia. It lacks a sober analysis of the new international situation and the real development of world economic trends. It should be clear from Dugin’s analysis of different forms that his own viewpoint is not simply the USSR model, as he explicitly rejects and critiques it. Moreover, for Dugin at any rate, a Eurasian Union does not equate simply to the idea of empire in the traditional sense. For a good overview of this concept, see Alain de Benoist‘s ―The Idea of Empire. Unlike domineering and imperialistic states, the Eurasian Union envisioned by Dugin supposedly grants a partial level of self-government to regions within a federalist system. Its geo-political deployment however ensures (as Mackinder’s model shows) that the Eurasian bloc or “Russian” bloc as he sometimes terms it interchangeably, will effectively rule anyway. See my dissertation “Analysing Aleksandr Dugin: the strategies of a dangerous doyen” (2014). Here the deployment ensures that those “who rule East Europe command the Heartland; and those who rule the Heartland command the World Island; and those who rule the World Island command the World”. A quote Dugin himself is fond of and often paraphrases. The undoubted strategic unity in Eurasian federalism is supposed to be accompanied by ethnic plurality, by the emphasis on the judicial element of the rights of the peoples, and the idea of “diffuse” non-borders. A nebulous concept, that raises all kinds of social, political and legal problems. The strategic control of the space of the Eurasian Union is supposedly ensured by the unity of management and federal strategic districts, in whose composition various formations can enter – from ethno-cultural to territorial. The immediate differentiation of territories at several levels will supposedly add “flexibility, adaptability and plurality” to the system of administrative management, in combination with rigid centralism in the strategic sphere. (See Main Principles of Eurasian Policy). The reality however appears to be a recipe for chaos and a Russia centric totalitarianism to maintain international order. One of a similar set of problems that faced Lenin and in turn Stalin that caused them to disempower the Soviets (workers councils) and function in an increasingly totalitarian, autocratic way. Of course, it must also be remembered that Dugin‘s vision needs to be differentiated in any case from the professed policies of the present Russian state, which (at this present time) cannot be said to totally represent Neo-Eurasian goals, despite the influence of its ideas and their acknowledgement by Putin that they inform and give vision to the Russian people. Furthermore, while Dugin currently supports Putin, it is clear that he does not uncritically accept all of the policies of his government. The annexation of Crimea being a notable exception and his call for a war in Ukraine. A sound analysis of Dugin‘s proposed policies however will not equate them universally with those of the present Russian government, as some of his critics have erroneously done, but they do have broadly compatible ideals as to the necessity of Russia 86

the acceptance of a modified form of supra-state Russia-centric rule either, should it be implemented in the future “Eurasia”. Clearly the newly acquired taste for emphasising Russian nationalism is the divisive factor that distinguishes Western liberal global Socialism from Russian Neo-Eurasianism, or a re-emerging National Bolshevism. The tendency to nationalism and traditionalism here merely masks a nisus to empire building that worries the West and impedes its global strategy to rule in turn. A concern the West, however, oddly feels is less prevalent in a Communist country such as China. Mitigating factors in respect to its political ideology, due to its economic developments and its apparently enthusiastic shift towards Western capitalism, seem to hold too much sway presently on Western sensibilities. Of late the depth of its true threat is beginning to be recognised, prompting increased military actions in turn. In all of this, it is clear that Constitutional America, if this can still be said to exert real power on any US government, should have nothing to do with globalism or empire building period. 49 As a counter strategy to fight such

expanding its global political and economic influence and nurturing a reborn and fervently growing nationalism. Dugin, however, in this sense, is more openly enthusiastic about the virtues of military intervention, even than his idol Putin. Early on the United States expressed its opposition to Imperialism, at least in a form distinct from its views of its “Manifest Destiny”, in policies such as the Monroe Doctrine. Beginning in the late 19th and early 20th century, policies such as Theodore Roosevelt’s interventionism in Central America and Woodrow Wilson’s mission to “make the world safe for democracy” were often backed by military force, but more often implemented behind the scenes, consistent with the general notion of a discreet hegemony and a justifiable civilising imperium reflective of the British Empire. 49

In 1898, Americans who opposed Imperialism created the Anti-Imperialist League to oppose the US annexation of the Philippines and Cuba as this concern became more apparent. One year later, a war erupted in the Philippines causing business, labour 87

concerns, American nationalism, within the limitations outlined by its Constitution, is a powerful antidote. It provides resistance to the Federal leaning, corporate socialist perspective, which has been very much undermining its Constitutional Republic. Constitutionalism forbade military intervention overseas, except in the most extraordinary and threatening circumstances to its own independence. It did this to safeguard the nation and to maintain the welfare of its people in freedom. The ethic should be heeded today, more than ever. It provides a healthy antidote to the Neo-Conservative, US hegemonic imperialism that too often in recent decades has sought pre-emptive attack with disingenuous justification to further hegemonic power ploys around the world.50 In all and government leaders in the US to condemn America's occupation in the Philippines as they also denounced them for causing the deaths of many Filipinos. American foreign policy was later denounced as a “racket” by Smedley Butler, an American General. He famously quipped, “Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.” Post-World War Two, the US and Soviet Union put aside common interests in fighting the global conflict when they both became competing superpowers. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States did not diminish its global ability to project force and became a "hyper-power". A system of “uni-polarity” thence came to define international politics, with the United States at the centre. Since the Vietnam War the Weinberger-Powell Principle has been most obviously flouted in respect of the Iraq War. Imperialism in the United States has also taken an internal form, that is completely distinct from both its modern form of political and financial hegemony. This internal form is also distinct from the United States’ formation of colonies abroad. Through the treatment of its indigenous peoples during Westward expansion, the United States took on the form of an imperial power prior to any attempts at external imperialism. An internal form of empire that could be referred to as “internal colonialism”. See Howe, Stephen (2002). Empire- A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. p. 59. President Reagan once wrote that four principles should apply for any military action: 50

(1) The United States should not commit its forces unless the cause is vital to the national interest. (2) If the decision is made to commit forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win and there must be clearly 88

of this it is wise to remember that the United States should, in the words of George Washington’s Farewell Address, be ever wary of the dangers of foreign entanglements. 51 defined and realistic objectives. (3) Before committing troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause for and the actions necessarily have the support of the American people and Congress. (4) Even after all these other tests are met, troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available. Reagan then was certainly no warmongering Republican, Neo-Con, nor a man eager to go to war. He exhibited a sober, more constitutionally oriented sensibility in any military dealings.

A large part of Washington’s Farewell Address focused on foreign relations and the dangers of permanent alliances between the United States and other nations; the danger of so called “foreign entanglements”. This issue dominated national politics during the French Revolutionary Wars between France and Britain. Federalists favoured Britain and the Jeffersonian Republicans favoured France. They wanted the U.S. to honour the 1778 Treaty of Alliance, which established the Franco-American alliance to aid France. Washington had avoided American involvement in the conflict by issuing the Proclamation of Neutrality, which in turn led to the Neutrality Act of 1794. 51

In his Farewell Address Washington made reference to proper behaviour based upon religious doctrine and morality, and then advocated a policy of good faith and justice towards all nations, urging the American people to avoid long-term friendly relations or rivalries with any. He argued these attachments would only foster animosity toward others and cloud the government's better judgment. He argued that longstanding poor relations would lead to unnecessary wars, due to a tendency to blow minor offenses out of all proportion when committed by nations viewed as enemies. He continued by claiming that alliances are likely to draw the United States into wars which have no justification and no benefit to the country beyond simply defending the favoured nation. Washington continued his warning on alliances claiming that they often lead to poor relations with nations who feel that they are not being treated as well as America's allies, and this in turn threatens to influence the American government into making decisions based upon the will of their allies, rather than considering the will and good of their own people. In this speech, Washington makes an extended reference to the dangers of foreign nations who would seek to influence the American people and government. He says that he believes both friendly nations and enemy nations would try to influence the government to do their will and it would only be “real patriots”, those who ignored popular opinion and resisted the influence of friendly nations, who would thus act in the best interests of the country. Washington’s experience with foreign interference helped shape his opinion, when in 1793 the French ambassador Edmond-Charles Genêt organised demonstrations in 89

“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world.” Here the emphasis on the dangers of “permanent” alliances is clear. The inaugural pledge of Thomas Jefferson was clearer: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nationsentangling alliances with none.” More than just ideological differences prevail however. Neo-Eurasianists view Russia as a bastion of “spirituality and tradition.” They view Russia as having a divine imperative to castigate the United States for its decadent and corrupt propagation of Western “liberal” values. The enemy now is no longer simply capitalism, but is extended to moral corruption and culture, a far too generalised criticism, and a hypocrisy in any case when, as in the Stalin era, contemporary Russia is still a den of corruption support of France, funded soldiers to attack Spanish lands, and commissioned privateers to seize British ships. His mobilisation of supporters to sway American opinion in favour of an alliance with France crossed the line and he was ordered to leave. Washington urges the American people to take advantage of their isolated position in the world. He argues that it makes no sense for the American people to wage war on European soil when their isolated position allows them to remain neutral and focus on their own affairs. As a result, Washington argues, the country should avoid permanent alliances with all nations, although he does not dispute that temporary alliances during times of extreme danger may be necessary. In this respect, he does say current treaties should be honoured, but not extended. This rather invites a contradiction; for despite his claim that current alliances should be honoured, Washington had in fact through the Proclamation of Neutrality not honoured the Treaty of Alliance, which promised aid in case the French were ever attacked by the British. Washington wraps up his foreign policy stance by advocating trade with all nations, but states trade links should be established naturally (a possible allusion to commerce rather than mercantilism). He emphasises that the role of the government should be limited to ensuring stable trade, defending the rights of American merchants, and any provisions necessary to fulfil the conventional rules of trade. 90

and is still prepared to kill any that criticise it. The vanguard of this critique against the West today is Russia Today, the Kremlin funded propaganda news channel, which strives to present Russia as the bearer of innocence and peace, national in scope, and focused only on defensive concerns that belie its hegemonic motives. In this, it is the West that is typically portrayed as the source of all Russia’s woes, but this attitude worryingly echoes the attitudes of the past. Attitudes reflective of their nineteenth century intellectuals such as Dostoyevsky, who at that time also saw the West as the “source of all evils” and announced that in the following century, Russia would teach the world the meaning of “true” orthodox Christianity. This ethos is reflected very much in the current mission of Aleksandr Dugin. Much of that ostentatious attitude fed by a belligerent national ego that is the baggage of Imperialism is again being voiced in the NeoEurasian ideas of the nationalistic Russian youth. A new generation seeking an identity stripped from them, not simply by the fall of the Soviet Union, but by decadent Western capitalism and the corrupt liberalism it affords. The result of such an attitude in the past however, was that national arrogance simply bred a fertile seed bed antithetical to its aim. It propagated a corrupt, immoral, Communist materialism in Russia herself. But whereas revolutionary Russian Communism promised to bring the world the dream of peace, prosperity, and the freedom of an international utopian ideal, all it nurtured in the Soviet system was a totalitarian nightmare and death to the many who still confessed an adherence to religious belief. In this too, the global revolution had failed to ignite in the western world in the way the revolutionaries believed it ought. Other strategies were therefore required that involved more than simply the barrel of a gun.


Chapter One “Cultural Marxism”: the nisus to corruption “One can rightfully speak of a cultural revolution, since the protest is directed toward the whole cultural establishment, including the morality of existing society…there is one thing we can say with complete assurance: the traditional idea of revolution and the traditional strategy of revolution has ended. These ideas are old fashioned… What we must undertake is a type of diffuse and dispersed disintegration of the system.” - Herbert Marcuse.

The chief aims of the Frankfurt School Classical Marxist theory always supposed that, given appropriate circumstances, oppressed workers in any capitalist society would ultimately choose to revolt against their land-owning task masters, the Bourgeoisie. This was a natural and inevitable reaction to the injustices of their predicament. Tired of their exploitation, revolution was but an inevitable and natural expression of the workers’ right to be recognised as the true wealth creators. It was further assumed to be an attractive progression, as the workers were supposed to become the rightful 92

beneficiaries of any revolution. They would be placed at the apex of power and ultimately usher in the “paradise” of Communism. It was surprising (for the Marxists) therefore that when such opportunities for revolt presented themselves, particularly during the build up to the First World War, the workers failed to respond in the way predicted.52 No such revolution occurred. Yet, as a consequence of this,

The October Revolution of 1917 in Russia sparked a revolutionary wave of socialist and Communist uprisings across Europe, most notably the German Revolution, the Hungarian Revolution, Biennio Rosso and the revolutionary war in Finland with the short lived Finnish Socialist Workers’ Republic, which made large gains and met with considerable success in the early stages. With the prospect of world revolution so close at hand, Marxists were dominated by a feeling of overwhelming optimism, which in the end proved to be premature. The European revolutions were crushed one by one, until eventually the Russian revolutionaries remained. Since they had been relying on the idea that an underdeveloped and agrarian country like Russia would be able to build Socialism with help from successful revolutionary governments in the more industrialised parts of Europe, they found themselves in a crisis once it became clear that no such help would arrive. 52

After those events and up until the present day, the international situation never came quite so close to a Marxist world revolution again. As fascism grew in Europe in the 1930s, instead of immediate revolution, the Comintern opted for a Popular Front with liberal capitalists against fascism; then, at the height of World War II in 1943, the Comintern was disbanded on the request of the Soviet Union’s Western allies. A new upsurge of revolutionary feeling swept across Europe in the aftermath of World War II, though it was not as strong as the one triggered by World War I, which resulted in a failed Communist revolution in Germany and a “successful” one (70 years) in Russia. Communist parties in countries such as Greece, France, and Italy had acquired significant prestige and public support due to their activity as leaders of anti-fascist resistance movements during the war; as such, they also enjoyed considerable success at the polls and regularly finished second in elections in the late 1940s. However, none managed to finish first and form a government. Communist parties in Eastern Europe, meanwhile, though they did win elections at around the same time, did so under circumstances regarded by some as mere show elections. Revolts across the world in the 1960s and early 1970s, coupled with the Chinese Cultural Revolution, the establishment of the New Left together with the Civil Rights Movement, the militancy of the Black Panther Party and similar armed/insurrectionary “Liberation Front” groups around the globe, and even a resurgence in the labour movement once again made it seem to some that a Socialist world revolution was possible and imminent. Thus, there was a common expression, “The East is Red, and the West is Ready”. 93

the Marxist intellectuals and revolutionaries did not then seek to question the value of their own theory in the light of its failure. Instead they blamed the “ruling class”, which they claimed had bought off the workers by giving them “rights”, and “blinded” them with a “false consciousness”. These factors, they claimed, had led them to support their country’s national governments and perpetuated their loyalty to liberal democracy, rather than the international Communist cause; an attitude that speaks volumes about the Marxist intellectuals’ stubborn dogmatism. A number of Marxist intellectuals resolved to address the revolutionary deficit by focusing on society’s cultural “superstructure”, rather than on the economic base. The Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci also contributed much towards the founding of this new “cultural” Marxism, in its embryonic period at any rate. Gramsci is famous for his theory that cultural hegemony was the means to achieve class dominance. In his view, before any political revolution was possible, a new “Communist man” had to be created through a changed mindset to change culture. This led to a concern by Marxist intellectuals, most notably in the fields of education and media, to influence people’s sensibilities. To rid them of the supposed “false class

However, this radical spirit ebbed by the mid1970s, and in 1980s and 1990s there was a return to right-wing, economically conservative ideologies (spearheaded, among other examples, by Thatcherism in the United Kingdom and Reaganomics in the United States) and also free-market reforms in China and in Vietnam. With the fall of the Berlin Wall a new strategy for the Soviet regime was required and Gorbachev was on hand to provide the public face of it. Within Marxist theory, Lenin's concept of the labour aristocracy and his description of imperialism, and Trotsky’s theories regarding the deformed workers' state, offer several explanations as to why the world revolution has not occurred up to the present day. Many groups, however, such as the Progressive Labour Party (United States) still explicitly pursue the goal of worldwide Communist revolution, calling it the truest expression of proletarian internationalism. 94

consciousness” and fervent patriotic nationalism that had previously plagued them, and thus far prevented them from realising their predicament and exploitation by the upper classes. If, therefore, Western civilisation was to be rid of its false sensibilities, and revolution achieved, it was necessary for the civilisation of the West to undergo a radical and profound cultural change. This process took the form of a relentless and destructive war, a nihilism of morals and religious values, and was to be achieved not solely by economic or military means, but to be cast in terms of a “long march through the institutions”, as Gramsci put it. 53 A slow attack strategy was therefore envisioned, which promoted a methodical disintegration, but achieved for ideological purposes. 54 In addition to Gramsci, a small group of separate intellectuals can be identified as prime movers. They devised concepts, strategies, and objectives which, whether by coincidence or design, align closely with what Britain and the United States presently sees unfolding in contemporary society. Whilst it might be argued, as many in Right wing circles presently do, that this is a consequence specifically of a deliberate and conscious on-going campaign to methodically corrupt Western values by the radical Left, this does not take into consideration the infiltration of

Antonio Gramsci worked for the Communist International during 1923-24 in Moscow and Vienna. He was later imprisoned in one of Mussolini’s jails where he wrote his famous “Prison Notebooks.” This led to a focus on the efforts of intellectuals in the fields of education and the society’s institutions, including the government, the judiciary, the military, the schools and the media to shift sensibilities and values. In this he also concluded that so long as the workers had a Christian soul, they would not respond to revolutionary appeals. 53

The essential nature of Antonio Gramsci’s revolutionary strategy is reflected in Charles A. Reich’s “The Greening of America”: 54

“There is a revolution coming. It will not be like revolutions in the past. It will originate with the individual and the culture, and it will change the political structure as its final act. It will not require violence to succeed, and it cannot be successfully resisted by violence. This is revolution of the New Generation.” 95

Left wing norms and values into the mainstream Right’s sensibilities also, which have notably shifted to the Left over time. This has been necessitated due to the astonishing success of this strategy. A process which has modified the mainstream consciousness of the Baby Boomers, as much as the Left wing 5th column activists that strove within their midst. It has, in any case, necessitated an acceptance of its popular appeal, simply to guarantee party political survival. At the risk of inviting ridicule, it can at least be argued that the main protagonists sowed the seeds that have propagated a change in Western values more generally, at least since its inception and development in America. As such, these norms and values might well have evolved and grown independently of a school whose time and influence has passed, but whose legacy nevertheless has spread throughout the whole of Western civilisation and influenced its attitudes and major institutions both nationally and globally in radical and disturbing ways.

The Communist imperative underlying the Frankfurt School The ‘Frankfurt School’ turned the cultural revolutionary strategy into a reality. It was started at the University bearing its name by Marxists in the Institut für Sozialforschung in 1923. The movement it initiated (popularly known later as ‘Cultural Marxism’) was a radical social and political perspective that has transformed the very nature, attitudes, behaviour and language of Western civilisation. Today it is more commonly known as ‘Political Correctness’, or in other circles as ‘Critical Theory’. How then did the Frankfurt School come about, and what were the chief 96

ideas that motivated it? As has been noted, in the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution, it was widely believed by Marxists that the workers would continue to rise up in other countries across Europe. Marx and Engels themselves had already stated their belief that Britain was the most likely country for an imminent revolution. It was one of the chief reasons for Marx situating there. However, widespread revolution failed to occur. After the Russian revolution and the founding of the Soviet collective, towards the end of 1922, the Communist International (Comintern) began to consider what were the reasons for this apparent revolutionary deficiency, and they sought to address it. On Lenin’s initiative, a meeting was organised at the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow to discern and address the problem, and to suggest various trigger mechanisms to incite it. At this meeting were two key figures, one of whom would later form what would become the kernel of the “Frankfurt School”. Georg Lukacs, was a Hungarian aristocrat and Communist activist. 55 The Georg Lukács (1885–1971) a literary theorist and philosopher was widely viewed as one of the founders of “Western Marxism”. Lukács is best known for his pre-World War II writings in literary theory, aesthetic theory and Marxist philosophy. Today, his most widely read works are the “Theory of the Novel” (1916) and “History and Class Consciousness” (1923). In “History and Class Consciousness”, Lukács laid out a wideranging critique of the phenomenon of “reification” in capitalism and formulated a vision of Marxism as a self-conscious transformation of society. This text became an important reference point both for “Critical Theory” and for many currents of countercultural thought. Even though his later work could not capture the imagination of the intellectual public as much as his earlier writings, Lukács remained a prolific writer and an influential theorist in his later career and published hundreds of articles on literary theory and aesthetics, not to mention numerous books, including two massive works on aesthetics and ontology. 55


fervency of his radical views can be expressed best in his own words: “I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution to the cultural contradictions of the epoch.... Such a worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.” His attitude was typical of those who represented the forces of revolutionary Marxism at that time, and who attended the meeting in 1923 which founded the school. It was Lukacs who proposed the concept of inducing ‘cultural pessimism’, in order to increase the state of hopelessness and alienation in the people of the West, as a necessary prerequisite for revolution. .

Willi Münzenberg was a notable secondary influence, envisioned the strategy in order to: “…organise the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilisation stink. Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat.” Furthermore, this strategy should make: “These people have the belief they are actually doing this themselves. This belief must be preserved at any price.” 56 With the death of Lenin in 1924, the theories of Münzenberg and Lukacs became viewed by Stalin as ‘revisionist’ to the true Communist cause. In fear of their lives, therefore, both sought to flee from Stalin’s influence. Münzenberg fled to the south of France, where on Stalin’s orders a NKVD Wilford, Hugh, “The Mighty Wurlitzer: How the CIA Played America”, Harvard University Press, 2008; pp. 12-13. 56


assassination squad eventually found and lynched him. Lukacs fled to Germany, where he was able to organise the Communist-oriented sociologists into a group that established the beginnings of the school. 57

In light of the First World War and the Russian Revolution of 1917, Lukács rethought his ideas. He became a committed Marxist and joined the fledgling Communist Party of Hungary in 1918. As part of the government of the short-lived Hungarian Soviet Republic, Lukács was made People's Commissar for Education and Culture (he was deputy to the Commissar for Education Zsigmond Kunfi). 57

During the Hungarian Soviet Republic, Lukacs was a Commissar of the Fifth Division of the Hungarian Red Army, in which capacity he ordered the execution of eight persons in Poroszlo, in May 1919, after the Fifth Division were beaten in battle. After the Hungarian Soviet Republic was defeated, Lukacs fled from Hungary to Vienna. He was arrested but was saved from extradition due to a group of writers, two of which included Thomas and Heinrich Mann. During his time in Vienna, in the 1920s, Lukacs befriended other Left Communists who were working, or in exile there, including Victor Serge, Adolf Joffe and Antonio Gramsci. Lukacs began to develop Leninist ideas in his “History and Class Consciousness” (1923). Although these essays display signs of what Lenin referred to as “ultraleftism”, they provided Leninism with a substantive philosophical basis. In July 1924 Grigory Zinoviev attacked this book along with the work of Karl Korsch at the Fifth Comintern Congress. In 1924, shortly after Lenin's death, Lukacs published the short study “Lenin: A Study in the Unity of His Thought”. In 1925, he also published a critical review of Nikolai Bukharin's manual of historical materialism. As a Hungarian exile, he remained active on the left wing of Hungarian Communist Party and was opposed to the Moscow-backed programme of Bela Kun. His 'Blum theses' of 1928 called for the overthrow of the counter-revolutionary regime of Admiral Horthy in Hungary by a strategy similar to the Popular Fronts that arose in the 1930s. He advocated a “democratic dictatorship” of the proletariat and peasantry as a transitional stage leading to the dictatorship of the proletariat. After this strategy was condemned by the Comintern, he retreated from active politics into theoretical work. In 1930, while residing in Vienna, Lukacs was summoned to Moscow. This coincided with the signing of a Viennese police order for his expulsion. Leaving their children to attend their studies, he and his wife ventured to Moscow in March 1930. Soon after, Lukács was prevented from leaving and assigned to work alongside David Riazanov at the Marx-Engels Institute. Lukacs and his wife were not permitted to leave the Soviet Union until after the Second World War. During Stalin’s Great Purge, he was sent into internal exile in Tashkent for a time, where he and Johannes Becher became friends. He survived the purges of the Great Terror, which claimed the lives of an estimated 80% of the Hungarian immigrants in the Soviet Union. There is much debate among historians concerning the extent to which he accepted Stalinism. 99

To further the advance of their revolutionary aims, without any recommendations for any post-revolutionary solutions, the Frankfurt School outlined the following strategies: 1. The creation of racialism offences. 2. Continual change to create confusion. 3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children. 4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority. 5. Huge immigration to destroy identity. 6. The promotion of excessive drinking. 7. Emptying of churches. 8. An unreliable legal system, with bias against the victims of crime. 9. Dependency on the state, or state benefits. 10. Control and dumbing down of the media. 11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family. The above list developed into initiates of the Soviets in a more extensive list that was presented to The House of Representatives on Thursday 10, 1963.58 Among some of the 45 objectives (many of which today have been successfully implemented) were: 3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength. 4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war. 6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination. 7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N. 11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the

The list of Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34A35 January 10, 1963. See also “The Naked Communist” by Cleon Skousen. 58


world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centres compete with each other, as they are now doing in the Congo). 12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party. 13. Do away with all loyalty oaths. 15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States. 16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights. 17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for Socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks. 18. Gain control of all student newspapers. 19. Use student riots to ferment public protests against programmes or organisations which are under Communist attack. 20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions. 21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures. 22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. For example, an American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.” 23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.” 24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press. 25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. 26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.” 101

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch”. 28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools, on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state”. 29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, oldfashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis. 30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man”. 31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history, on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture”. Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over. 32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programmes, mental health clinics, etc. 33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus. 34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities. 35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI. 36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions. 37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business. 38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioural problems as psychiatric disorders, which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat]. 39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist or “Liberal” goals. 102

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. 41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents. 42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use united force to solve economic, political or social problems. 45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike. 59 There is little credible reason for believing individuals such as Lukacs and Münzenberg somehow rejected the chief principle of Communist ideology simply because their writings had been criticised by the 5 th Comintern and they were forced to flee in fear of their lives as Jews. Trained in Germany, and already an important literary theorist, Lukacs became a Communist during World War I, writing as he joined the party: “Who will save us from Western civilisation?” He believed too that for the new Marxist culture to emerge, the existing culture must be destroyed and to this principle he remained true throughout his life. Consider for example his later work, which developed the idea of ‘Revolution and Eros’, where sexual instinct was used as an instrument for psychological destruction.

Microfilm: California State University at San Jose Clark Library, Government Floor Phone (408)924-2770 Microfilm Call Number: J 11. R5. Congressional Record, Vol. 109 88th Congress, 1st Session Appendix Pages A1-A2842 Jan. 9-May 7, 1963 Reel 12. 59


“The abandonment of the soul’s uniqueness solves the problem of ‘unleashing’ the diabolic forces lurking in all the violence which are needed to create a revolution.” 60 In this goal then, Lukacs’ views remained fundamentally unchanged. His chief distinction from Stalin was the more Marxist-Leninist agenda that he sought to initiate, which was international in scope, and very much transcended the limitations of the more inward looking, national focus of the Stalinist regime and the General Line. In this sense then, Lukacs and Münzenberg were not so much disillusioned Communists who fled Stalin, but viewed themselves more as pure Communists, who were being true to Lenin’s international mission. They were in this respect, however, just as much Soviet enemies as Trotsky was in their opposition to the Nationalism of the General Line: i.e. the official state interpretation of Marxist-Leninist theory as approved by Stalin. 61 As an activist and intellectual, Lukacs was well-suited to the international task of corrupting Western civilisation from within. He had been one of the Commissars of Culture that had been influential in the Hungarian revolution in Budapest in 1919. He had experience of revolutionary change, and the measures required in order to effect transition based on this alone. As Deputy Commissar for Culture in the Bolshevik Bela Kun regime, his theories had been put into practise in what became known as

See “History and Class Consciousness”, which gained him recognition as the leading Marxist theorist since Karl Marx. 60

61 Lukacs has

been described as the preeminent Marxist intellectual of the Stalinist era, though assessing his legacy can be difficult. He seemed to both support Stalinism as the embodiment of Marxist thought, and yet also championed a return to pre-Stalinist Marxism. See Leszek Kołakowski ([1981], 2008), Main Currents of Marxism, Vol. 3: The Breakdown, W. W. Norton & Company, Ch VII: "György Lukács: Reason in the Service of Dogma, W.W. Norton & Co. Such apparent contradictions also arise in considering the legacy of Ilya Ehrenberg. 104

“Cultural Terrorism”. Part of this terrorism required instituting a radical sex education programme in Hungarian schools. Hungarian children were instructed in free love, sexual intercourse, the archaic nature of middle-class family codes, the out-datedness of monogamy, and the irrelevance of religion, which it was thought deprived men of all pleasures. Women, too, were called to rebel against the sexual mores of the time. Lukacs’ campaign of “Cultural Terrorism” was, it might be argued, merely a precursor to what Cultural Marxism would later bring to Western schools. Clearly too, he viewed the ideas and aims established in that new Soviet regime largely as a success, as he sought to continue and develop similar ideas in the later German school. 62 Whilst modern historians often criticise the brevity of the Budapest experiment, linking it to Lukacs’ orders mandating sex education in the schools, easy access to contraception, and the loosening of divorce laws, all of which shocked Hungary’s Roman Catholic population at the time, it is evident that Lukacs himself did not consider them a failure. Clearly, the Frankfurt School itself would not have been initiated if he had. Notably too, the brevity of the regime did not lead him to question the correctness of Marxism’s fundamental principles in any deep sense, when the Soviet regime itself was rejected by the Hungarians. This says much as to his The Hungarian Soviet Republic or Hungarian Republic of was a short-lived independent Communist state established in Hungary in the aftermath of World War I. It was the successor of the Hungarian Democratic Republic but lasted only from 21 March until 1 August 1919. The state was led by Bela Kun and was not recognised by France, the UK or the US. It was the second socialist state in the world to be formed after the October Revolution in Russia brought the Bolsheviks to power. The Hungarian Republic of Councils had military conflicts with the Kingdom of Romania, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and the evolving Czechoslovakia. It collapsed when Romanian forces occupied Budapest, after which the Kingdom of Hungary was re-established. 62


radical and extreme commitment to revolutionary ideological theory. Once established in Germany (in 1922) he did not seek to abandon his Communist influenced ideas in founding the Frankfurt School, but encouraged by his revolutionary aims in previous regimes, sought to develop and advance them. He in fact chaired the first meeting of the Institute for Social Research with Marxist sociologists and intellectuals. The Communist aims were more fully realised over the next decade at any rate, when the Institute worked out what was to become the most successful psychological warfare operation to date against the capitalist West. The parallels between Cultural Marxism and classical Marxism can be briefly drawn. Cultural Marxism and economic Marxism share what William Lind has termed “the single-factor explanation of history”.63 In other words, Classical Marxism argues that all of history and the societies which arose were causally determined by those that owned the means of production. In this, Cultural Marxism propounds that history: •

Is wholly explained by which groups – defined by sex, race and sexual normality or abnormality – have power over which other groups.

Cultural Marxism shares with its classical counterpart the vision of a “classless society”, i.e. a society not merely of equal opportunity, but of equal condition. This vision however contradicts human nature, because people are different and as societies prove, as well as the law of the jungle, they end up unequal, regardless of the starting point. Society will not align

See “Political Correctness: a short history of an ideology” Chapter One, by William Lind. 63


with this ideal unless forced, inevitably in violent acts. To maintain it requires force also, by a constraining government power, and this quickly devolves into a tyranny which is self-defeating. This tendency highlights the dangers of both variants of Marxism, inasmuch as they both seek confrontation and conflict to effect revolutionary change and invite a violent repressive and ultimately liberty confining objective. 64 Another parallel is that both varieties declare certain groups virtuous and others evil in an a priori sense. That is assumed without regard for any analysis of the actual behaviour of individuals. Classical Marxism defines workers and peasants as virtuous and the bourgeoisie (the middle class, and other owners of capital) as essentially evil. In the same way, Cultural Marxism defines blacks, Asians, Feminist women, homosexuals and some additional minority groups as virtuous, since they are recognised as the downtrodden or exploited underclass and white men, of the middle class, as in some sense evil due to their “privileged” status. Cultural Marxism, however, displays in this a prejudice in itself. It does not want to recognise, for example, the virtues of non-Feminist women who seek only traditional values and feel empowered by their role as mother and housewife. Moreover, as another general example, they tend to define blacks who reject their views as merely thinkers who think like whites, because they are confused, or are paid off, or exploited by the whites in some way. The pejorative being that they are mere “Uncle Toms”.

The dogmatism of politically correct thinking today is very much due to the inculcation of what might be termed “Cultural Marxist” ideas. The nature of the conditioning can be seen especially in the actions of the Police where minority rights are given preferential treatment even to the extent of them turning a blind eye to those that break the law. A recent example occurred in the UK where 1400 primarily white teenage girls were abused and raped by perpetrators of the “Asian” community, whilst the Police failed to react due to it being deemed politically incorrect. Action was not taken for fear of charges of “racism” being levied by the perpetrators against them. 64


Another common feature is in their means. Economic Marxists obtained power, expropriated the property of the bourgeoisie, and handed it to the state as the “representative” of the workers and the peasants. Cultural Marxists, when they gain power also expropriate, or lay penalties on those who disagree with them, whereas they hypocritically give privileges to the groups they favour in a prejudiced fashion themselves. This is most notable in affirmative action policy as an example, or positive discrimination of blacks as opposed to whites, irrespective of the merits and abilities of the individual. Finally, both varieties employ a method of analysis designed to show the correctness of their ideology in every situation. For classical Marxists, the analysis is economic. Whereas, for Cultural Marxists, the analysis is linguistic: and is achieved by deconstruction. Deconstruction “proves” that any “text” (past or present) illustrates the oppression of blacks, women, homosexuals, etc. by reading that meaning into words of the text, irrespective of the actual meaning, or the historical context. Both methods are biased in this respect, and myopic in their treatment of history, as they are viewed through the prism of a “single explanatory theory”. It generally involves twisting the evidence to fit preordained conclusions, but they lend a “scientific” air to the conclusions, in order to lend them credibility for political purposes. These parallels are unsurprising. They exist because Cultural Marxism is directly derived from classical Marxism, being in this a variant of it. The Frankfurt School maintained its Communist imperative, even with a variety of different personnel throughout its German incarnation. Carl Grünberg, the Institute’s director from 1923-1929, was an avowed 108

Marxist, although the Institute did not claim to have any official party affiliations. Even in the 1930s, when Communism became very much a distrusted ideology, Max Horkheimer assumed control and still pushed the basis of the Institute’s research more forcibly towards Marxist and Freudian theory. Ultimately, with the rise of Hitler, the institute was closed and its Jewish members, in fear for their lives, were once more forced to flee, this time by various routes to the United States. They subsequently found work variously in the universities of Columbia, Princeton, Brandeis, and Berkeley. The beginnings of the mainstream Left-wing radicalisation of university campuses, it might be claimed, was largely initiated by these influential intellectuals, although their racial and religious backgrounds held little sway over their ideological allegiances. 65

Laying the foundations of the Frankfurt School in the United States Having fled the Hitler regime, members of the former Frankfurt School set about conducting numerous studies on the beliefs, attitudes and values they believed lay behind the rise of National Socialism in Germany. It included among its members the 1960s guru of the New Left Herbert Marcuse, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Erich Fromm, Leo Lowenthal, and Jurgen Habermas. The Frankfurt School’s studies combined Marxist analysis with Freudian psychoanalysis to form the basis of “Critical Theory”. This theory was The presence of Jews in the School is clear. This does not necessarily mean that only Jews were cultural Marxists or acted to further Jewish supremacism. See my dissertation “De Natura Judaica” for full details of the arguments to disprove their presence as being motivated by a specific or exclusively “Jewish” (as opposed to a Communist) concern. 65


essentially destructive, inasmuch as it was a nihilistic critique of the main elements of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention and conservatism.


The Frankfurt School (in its US incarnation) still sought

to induce the phenomenon of cultural pessimism as a prime revolutionary imperative. It continued to propagate the view that as long as an individual believed that reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of alienation considered necessary to provoke revolution. Their task, therefore, was as swiftly as possible to undermine the Western legacy. Nationalism was downplayed as a fascistic concern, Anti patriotic activities, draft dodging, individual needs in terms of free love as sexual liberation were encouraged. These sought to undermine the power of political, filial and religious groupings. They called for the most negative destructive criticism of every sphere of life. Once established, they quickly set about implementing it. Their aim was to de-stabilize society, bringing down what they saw as the ‘oppressive’ order, through a counter-cultural revolutionary paradigm. This was put into practice in the social arena, most notably in the counterculture movement of the 1960s. Their policies, they hoped, would spread via the idealistic and rebellious youth in search of a new identity, and who were keen to reject their parent’s traditional middle class, more conservative values. They thus opposed the restricting authority figures that opposed being liberated and or having new (and by assumption) fulfilling experiences in turn. They sought to exacerbate the innate and inherent adolescent tendency. They sought to foment rebelliousness, These criticisms were reflected in such works as Erich Fromm’s “Escape from Freedom” and “The Dogma of Christ”, Wilhelm’s Reich’s “The Mass Psychology of Fascism” and Theodor Adorno’s “The Authoritarian Personality”. 66


disorder, free expression, free sex and drug use, to shift or “awaken” a more liberating and by implication “liberal” or “progressive” mode of thinking and acting. This translated ultimately into political activism and would entail ‘continuing the work of Marxists by other means’. It is to be noted that the early work of this school in the US was rather given a free pass, because it justified a concern with research to better avoid the dangerous political phenomenon of what was generally termed “fascism” but focused on the still perceived dangerous threat of German “National Socialism” proceeding the Second World War. It is to be noted that, particularly today, a great conflation occurs between these two political movements, along with the erroneous and rather naïve mainstream view that National Socialism was fascism and was a purely far Right wing political movement. But it is a conflation largely encouraged by the members of what might be termed the “US Frankfurt School” and is now commonly used as a convenient smear of anyone who does not conform to “Politically Correct” Left-wing values. 67 Whatever the rights or wrong of this particular interpretation, and the laudable concern for quelling the dangers of an uprising of “fascism” in the United States, the concern also masked the inculcation of the equally dangerous ideas of Marxist–Leninism as a justifiable and moral ideological cure. In this respect, then, it was very much a value laden strategy of deceit. The justification to quash any fascist tendencies can be cited from numerous works, but “The Authoritarian Personality” is a most notable See Jonah Goldberg “Liberal Fascism” for detailed arguments as to the Left- wing Progressive values of National Socialism, which has successfully today been portrayed as an exclusively Right-wing political extremism. 67


example. Published in 1950, it substantially influenced American psychologists and social scientists. Its prevalent idea was propounded as an antidote to the presence in a society of Christianity, capitalism and the patriarchal-authoritarian family that created a character prone to racial prejudice and “German fascism”. “The Authoritarian Personality” became a handbook for a national campaign in this respect. It stood as a guideline against any kind of prejudice or discrimination, based on the theory that if these evils were not eradicated, US fascism would take hold, and a US Holocaust might similarly occur. But these laudable concerns, in turn, provided a basis for the fundamentally Communist strategy to take root in the ideology of a supposed measured and reasonable “Political Correctness”, whose true aims were less moderate, honest and sincere.

Political activism and the Cultural Marxists Critical Theorists recognised that traditional beliefs and the existing social structure would have to be destroyed and replaced with new paradigm that would become as much a part of elementary consciousness as the old view. To bring this about they spread their ideas primarily via the universities to spread a grass roots youth movement. The extent of their influence until that point had largely remained unnoticed but became most apparent when the Vietnam War and the laudable and initially peaceful Black Civil Rights movement opened up the way for violent political demonstrations on a previously unprecedented scale in the mid to late 1960s. In turn, the students (initially campaigning for peace) became increasingly influenced by revolutionary ideas, spread by types such as Herbert Marcuse, who coined the term “Make Love not War”, but who was in turn a prominent member of the Frankfurt School 112

hypocritically advocating political as well as cultural and social “revolutionary” strategy that justified any means to achieve its ideological aims. Marcuse’s “Great Refusal” provided a rejection of all basic Western concepts. His ideas encouraged an embrace of sexual liberation, and the merits of feminism and the black revolution. One element of his thesis was that university students, ghetto blacks, the alienated, the asocial, and the Third World could take the place of the disaffected “proletariat” of the Marxist vision and fight for the future revolution. A concern also put into effect in the radical “Community Organising” methodology of Saul Alinsky.

The activists for peace and freedom, the new generation that had very much also been influenced by the Beatnik culture of the 1950s, found the ideas of Marcuse particularly appealing. Indeed, it would not be an exaggeration to term Marcuse the Chief Guru of the 1960s counter-culture revolution, as his ideas greatly influenced them. But in this sense his views did not promulgate anything other than a rigid and dogmatic ideology in itself. It herded many into a particularly rigid way of thinking and justifying violent and extreme revolutionary ideological thinking. The implementation of Marcuse’s concept of ‘repressive tolerance’ in practice, a view that promoted: “tolerance for movements from the left, but intolerance for movements from the right” was a good example of the political indoctrination that his ideas sought to impose. Essentially in this Marcuse’s view was that: “Certain things cannot be said; certain ideas cannot be expressed; certain policies cannot be proposed; certain behaviour cannot be permitted without making tolerance an instrument for the continuation of servitude.” 113

The postmodern ‘deconstruction and revision’ of the history of Western civilisation (now prevalent in our universities) has much of its roots in this “Critical Theory”/ “Political Correctness” perspective. In “Political Correctness”, with its leaning towards absolute, or extreme and dogmatic relativism, language has been reshaped and the ability to speak critically, especially against Cultural Marxist values themselves, severely curtailed. In this, Cultural Marxism is proven to be a self-protective and selfsustaining world view.68 Marcuse was the chief guru of the Frankfurt School in terms of the origins of Political Correctness, because he was the most prominent link to the counter-culture movement. In this prime and quite public role, his objective was clear: “One can rightfully speak of a cultural revolution, since the protest is directed toward the whole cultural establishment, including morality of existing society.” This ethos gained popular acceptance amongst the young, chiefly because when addressing the general public as William Lind notes: “…contemporary advocates of Political Correctness – or Cultural An approach which has only recently come under attack by Keith Windschuttle, in ‘Killing of History’, where he severely criticises the rush to ‘relativism’. A view which has largely supplanted the pursuit of truth as a goal in historical study. 68

George G. Iggers’ also in “Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenge” reminds us of the now famous line by Hayden White, a postmodernist: “Historical narratives…are verbal fictions, the contents of which are more invented than found.” In this he quotes other postmodernists, mostly non- historians, who: “…reinforce the proposition that truth and reality are primarily authoritarian weapons of our times.”


Marxism, as it might just as easily be called – present their beliefs with appealing simplicity as merely a commitment to being “sensitive” to other people and embracing values such as “tolerance” and “diversity.” He rightly notes, however, that the reality is different as: “Political Correctness is the use of culture as a sharp weapon to enforce new norms and to stigmatize those who dissent from the new dispensation; to stigmatize those who insist on values that will impede the new "PC" regime: free speech and free and objective intellectual inquiry.”

Key to this “Political Correctness”, or “Critical Theory”, was the imaginative element, which was lacking empirical credibility. “Its tenets would never be subject to experimental evidence. The pure logic of their thoughts would be incontrovertible. As a precursor to today’s ‘postmodernism’ in the intellectual academic community …it recognized that disinterested scientific research was impossible in a society in which men were themselves not yet autonomous…the researcher was always part of the social object he was attempting to study.”69 “Critical Theory” rejected the ideal of Western civilisation founded since the Enlightenment: namely the importance of determining the validity of theory by reason and experimental evidence. Only the superior mind was able to fashion the ‘truth’ from observation of the empirical evidence in any case, so testing hypotheses against everyday experience for the Everyman was superfluous. The approach, assisted by the concept of ‘deconstruction’, thus led to the fashion for historical revisionism informed by an ideological imperative, and the vogue in universities’ to Martin Jay, “The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923-1950” (p81), University of California Press, 1973. 69


develop various ‘isms’ departments reflective of the ethos. The approach tended to syncretism and was reflective too of the Marxist collective attitude. The combination of multi-disciplines by Social Studies or Humanities departments in American and British universities from the 1960s onwards has been reflective of this. As a grand scheme, primarily intended to openly deny the intrinsic worth of “white”, heterosexual “privileged males” and do down their “privileged” status, the Critical Theorists also opened the door to the racial and sexual antagonisms of the Trotskyites and which Stalin considered exacerbated racial and social tensions at home. It was Leon Trotsky who believed that oppressed blacks could be the vanguard of a Communist revolution in North America. He denounced white workers who were prejudiced against blacks and instructed them to unite with the blacks in revolution. Trotsky’s ideas were adopted by many of the student leaders of the 1960s counter-culture movement, who as a consequence attempted to elevate the black revolutionaries to positions of leadership within their own movements. The political imperative became clearer with an encouragement of black only states, the rise of black separatism and the encouraging of black only states seceding from the Union. A stated US Communist aim since the 1930s.

The student revolutionaries of the 1960s were also strongly influenced by the ideas of Marcuse, who advocated that university students, ghetto blacks, the alienated, the asocial, and the Third World could take the place of the proletariat in the New Age revolution. In his book, “An Essay on Liberation”, Marcuse proclaimed these goals as a radical trans-valuation of values; the relaxation of taboos, cultural subversion; Critical Theory; characterised by a linguistic rebellion. All this would amount to a 116

methodical reversal of meaning. As for racial conflict, white men were deemed guilty and blacks were deemed the most natural agents of an effective rebellion against the injustice of their social status and in extreme cases even their very existence.

Some other key figures of the school Wilhelm Reich was another important figure in the movement to achieve the objectives of the Frankfurt School. In his 1933 book entitled “The Mass Psychology of Fascism”, he explained that the Frankfurt School departed from the Marxist sociology that set “Bourgeois” against “Proletariat”. Instead, the battle would be between “reactionary” and “revolutionary” characters. His “The Sexual Revolution” became the precursor of what was to come in the 1960s. His “sex-economic” sociology was an effort to synthesise Freudian psychology with Marx’s economic theory. Reich’s theory was expressed best in his words: “The authoritarian family is the authoritarian state in miniature. Man’s authoritarian character structure is basically produced by the embedding of sexual inhibitions and fear in the living substance of sexual impulses. Familial imperialism is ideologically reproduced in national imperialism…the authoritarian family…is a factor where reactionary ideology and reactionary structures are produced.” Wilhelm Reich’s theory, when coupled with Georg Lukacs’ sex education programme in Hungary and Marcuse’s theory of liberating the powerful, primeval force of sex from its civilized restraints, can be seen as forming the imperative for the American and UK’s education drive for sex education at kindergarten today. These theories can be seen as the reason for justifying the negation of the traditional paternal family roles, while emphasising the importance of external state authoritarianism in helping


to shape values.70 Reich’s theory encompassed other assertions, which seem to have permeated the Western education system generally and can be summarised with attacks on: •

The organised “religious mysticism” of Christianity as an element of the authoritarian family that led to Fascism.

The patriarchal power in and outside of man. Revolutionary sexual politics would mean the complete collapse of

authoritarian ideology. Birth control facilitated this revolution. A revolution that could be justified with the view that Man was fundamentally a “sexual animal”. 71 Like Wilhelm Reich, Erich Fromm was a social psychologist of the Frankfurt School who came to America in the 1930s. His book “Escape from Freedom”, published in 1941, was an ideological companion to Reich’s work and asserted that early capitalism created a social order which bred a sadomasochistic and authoritarian character, of which Martin Luther and Adolf Hitler were prime examples. He asserted the authoritarian character experiences only domination or submission and for them: “differences, whether sex or race, to him are necessarily of superiority or inferiority.” He asserted that the same capitalistic social order resulted in Calvin’s “Theory of Predestination”, which reflected the principle that all men were naturally unequal, an idea that essentially informed National Socialist ideology.

A view outlined by Marcuse in his sexual theory in “Eros and Civilisation” published in 1955. 70

Reich’s “The Mass Psychology of Fascism” was in its ninth printing as of 1991 and is widely available today. 71


“Positive Freedom” implies that there is no higher power than the unique individual self; that man is the centre and purpose of life; that the growth and realisation of man’s individuality is an end that can never be subordinated to purposes which are supposed to have a greater dignity. It failed to sufficiently emphasise the rise of the dictator as representative of hubris and egotism and the dangers of excessive individualism unchecked by the Republican rule of law. Fromm made the real meaning of this “Positive Freedom” clear in another of his many books, “The Dogma of Christ”, wherein he describes a revolutionary character (such as himself) as the man who has freed himself from the ties of blood and soil, from his mother and father, and even from any special loyalties to state, race, party or religion. In this, although he appears to be advocating a wholesale cultural, political and social anarchy, he makes his revolutionary intent very clear: “We might define revolution in a psychological sense, saying that a revolution is a political movement led by people with revolutionary characters, and attracting people with revolutionary characters.” A goal reputedly espoused by Hitler himself however: “It is not Germany that will turn Bolshevist but Bolshevism that will become a sort of National Socialism. Besides, there is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where Jewish Marxists are. I have always made allowance for this circumstance and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois SocialDemocrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communist always will.” 72

Hermann Rauschning in “Hitler Speaks” (1940) pp. 131-132. also known as “The Voice of Destruction”, the quotes' authenticity is disputed. 72


Theodor Adorno, another Marxist revolutionary and member of the Frankfurt School, came to America in the 1930s. Along with others, Adorno authored the seminal book “The Authoritarian Personality”, which was published in 1950. Adorno’s book was inspired by the same kind of dangerous theoretical assertions revealed in the works of Wilhelm Reich, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. There was such a thing as an authoritarian character that was the opposite of the desired revolutionary character. This authoritarian character was a product of capitalism, Christianity, conservatism, the patriarchal family and sexual repression. In Germany, this combination induced prejudice, anti-Semitism and fascism. It so happened that most Americans were products of capitalism, Christianity, conservatism, the patriarchal family and observed sexual conservatism in their youth. So, Adorno and other members of the Frankfurt School had a golden opportunity to insert Georg Lukacs’ and Antonio Gramsci’s strategy in an American mindset primed by post war “anti-fascist”







personalities” among Americans would trigger a responsive acceptance still fearful of the influences of Hitler and the “Nazi” regime. It would enable the Cultural Marxists to exploit this to force the “scientifically planned re-education” of Americans with the excuse that it was being done in order to eradicate prejudice, racial hatred, xenophobia and above all the perils of fascism. Noble ideals that may well have masked a more sinister purpose. This scientifically-planned re-education would become the master plan for the transformation of America’s system of fundamental values into their opposite: a system of revolutionary values replete with Marxist-Leninist values. American education would then be 120

radically transformed and in the more traditional sense undermined. School children would become replicas of the Frankfurt School revolutionary characters and thence would be created a new American child, ideally reflective of Gramsci’s “new man” or the Marxian “Everyman”. This can be confirmed by noting that “The Authoritarian Personality” was the key text to influence Benjamin Bloom’s “Taxonomy of Educational Objectives” of 1964; proposals that have guided the education cartel thereafter in respect to the United States, even up until the present time with the idea of Common Core. Another one of the most important contributors to these strategies to bring about new thinking was Betty Friedan. Through her book “The Feminine Mystique”, Friedan became the mother of the modern feminist movement in America. She was not a member of the Frankfurt School, but she was still strongly influenced by it. Her work provides a useful case study of how the Marxist roots of Political Correctness spread to other intellectual circles and propagated generally in society. Friedan devoted almost a full chapter of her book to Abraham Maslow’s theory of self-actualisation. Maslow was a social psychologist who in his early years did research on female dominance and sexuality. Maslow was a friend of Herbert Marcuse at Bandeis University and had met Erich Fromm in 1936. He was strongly impressed by Fromm’s Frankfurt School ideology. He wrote an article, The Authoritarian Character Structure, published in 1944, that reflected the personality theory of Critical Theory. Maslow was also impressed with the work of Wilhelm Reich, who was another Frankfurt School originator of personality theory. The significance of the historical roots of Political Correctness cannot be 121

fully appreciated unless Friedan’s revolutionary theory of sex roles is viewed for what it really was: a manifestation of the social revolutionary process begun by Karl Marx. Friedan’s reliance on Abraham Maslow’s reflection of Frankfurt School ideology being simply one indicator. Other indicators include the correspondence of Friedan’s revolution in sex roles with Georg Lukacs’ annihilation of old values and the creation of new ones, and with Herbert Marcuse’s trans-valuation of values. The idea of transforming a patriarchy into a matriarchy (which is what a sex-role inversion is designed to do) can be connected directly to Friedrich Engels’ book “The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State”. First published in 1884, this book popularised the now-accepted feminist belief that deep-rooted discrimination against the oppressed female sex was a function of patriarchy. Even a partial breakdown of parental authority in the family, therefore, might tend to increase the readiness of a coming generation to accept social change. To bring this about, the ‘authoritarian personality’ was to be thought of as a product of the patriarchal family, and consequently highly dangerous, whilst matriarchy was an antidote to this dangerous authoritarianism and so called “repressive” social structure. The belief that matriarchy was the solution to patriarchy also flowed from Marx’s “The German Ideology”, published in 1845. In this work, Marx advanced the idea that wives and children were the first property of the patriarchal male. This critique of the family as the basic unit of society became one of the chief axioms of ‘Critical Theory’: the necessity of breaking down the contemporary family and its repressive patriarchal structure. They thus sought to accomplish it by means of an attack on the traditional nuclear family structure, and against the masculine gender 122

specifically as the perceived lynchpin. The Frankfurt School’s androgyny theory was another element which originated from these ideas.

What else is corrupting and dangerous about Cultural Marxism? When addressing the general public, advocates of Political Correctness, or Cultural Marxism, present their beliefs attractively. They use words such as “tolerance” and “diversity,” asking: “Why can’t we all just get along?” The reality is different, however, as Raymod V Raehn asserts: “Political Correctness is not at all about “being nice,” unless one thinks gulags are nice places. Political Correctness is Marxism, with all that implies: loss of freedom of expression, thought control, inversion of the traditional social order and, ultimately, a totalitarian state. If anything, the Cultural Marxism created by the Frankfurt School is more horrifying than the old, economic Marxism that ruined Russia. At least the economic Marxists did not exalt sexual perversion and attempt to create a matriarchy, as the Frankfurt School and its descendants have done.”

Amongst many of the common themes that can clearly be detected, one of the key strategies to incite cultural and revolutionary change was the attack on the nuclear family. Important to this was the promotion of Freud’s idea of ‘pan-sexualism’: the search for pleasure; the exploitation of the differences between the sexes (which would lead to the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women and a massive increase in the divorce rate from the 60’s onwards) and the rather perverse (traditionalists would claim) re-education of children to sexual awareness at an earlier age. To further their aims strategy involved an: • Attack on the authority of the father, by denying the specific roles of 123

father and mother, and stripping from families their rights to be the primary educators of their own children. • The abolishing any differences in the education of boys and girls. • The abolishing all forms of male exclusivity in tasks. • The constant declaration of women as an ‘oppressed class’ and men as ‘oppressors’: the “all men are abusers and rapists” mentality of much 1960s and 70s feminist theory. Considering both the political activism and the psychological dimension, the Frankfurt School advocated two types of revolution, both political and cultural. The latter was viewed as a long-term process of gradual psychological erosion of the family. It required influencing behaviour patterns through re-education, media, sex and popular culture. The former appeared to be a process of infiltration utilising other methods and means, which appear to complement the community strategies of Saul Alinsky in “Rules for Radicals”, a manual also designed to incite revolutionary change. The strategy popularly promoted by Marcuse was implemented under the guise of ‘women’s liberation’ but more generally resulted in women becoming liberated only from housework orientated tasks into a world of work that left less time for child nurturing and domestic duties. Propagated also more generally by the New Left movement of the 1960s under the claim of female emancipation it actively sought to break up the traditional roles of the family and delivered women into the chattels of one parenthood and the slavery of work that its financial demands create. Their claim proposed transforming the nuclear family into a femaledominated liberated structure, but more commonly resulted in divorce. This was in keeping with its original aim of deconstruction rather than reconstruction and explains why single parent families of women were viewed most favourably irrespective of a shift in acceptable values.


The view was mirrored also in 1933 by Wilhelm Reich who wrote in “The Mass Psychology of Fascism” that matriarchy was the only genuine family type of ‘natural society’. Eric Fromm was also an active advocate of this kind of matriarchal theory. Masculinity and femininity, he claimed, were not reflections of ‘essential’ sexual differences, as the Romantics had previously believed, but were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in the greater part only socially determined.

The evolution of “Critical Theory” Critical Theory incorporated sub-theories, which themselves were intended to revolutionise specific elements of the existing culture. These included “matriarchal theory”, “androgyny theory”, “personality theory”, “authority theory”, “family theory”, “sexuality theory”, “racial theory”, “legal theory” and “literary theory”. These theories, it could be claimed, were used as inculcation strategies to overthrow the prevailing social order, and usher in a cultural, social and ultimately political revolution. To achieve this revolution in values, the Critical Theorists recognised that traditional beliefs and the existing social structure would have to be replaced. The patriarchal social structure would be replaced with matriarchy; the belief that men and women are different and have different roles would be replaced with a less gender specific idea of roles; whilst the belief that heterosexuality is normal would be superseded with the belief that homosexuality and gender fluidity are “normal”. 73 The introduction of gay marriage laws recently around the world in part stems from the legacy of this strategy. Whilst equal rights is to be encouraged, preference for such ceremonies when civil ceremonies already exist and provide all the legal protections needed could be viewed as merely an attempt to corrupt the institution of the Church. The education of the virtues of gay marriage and gender fluidity in schools is an education strategy to “normalise” and remove the “stigma” of homosexuality and transgender stigma it is claimed. It is in fact being taught at Primary school level as 73


The teaching of homosexuality to children An example of this particular strategy is clear in the recent push for the rights for gay couples to marry in church in the US and UK. But it is also being taught to primary school children as the marriage lifestyle of choice. This then is not simply about “equality” for homosexuals, but about enforcing gay values as superior or more preferable to heterosexual relationships, which are too often branded as inherently exploitative and consequently authoritarian and dangerous. Whilst the championing of gay marriage seems counterproductive to the idea of an attack on the institution of marriage more generally, the attack on the exploitative nature of relationships between a man and woman, is part of the more general


towards attacking

the traditional



specifically.74 For example, King & king tells the story of a queen who wants to arrange a marriage for her son. Many princesses are presented to him, but eventually he falls in love with the brother of one of them. They are then married and become King and King. In the sequel, King & king & family, the newly-wedded Kings find a little girl in the jungle and adopt her. The preference choice here is clear and is largely presented not simply as part of a push to educate children as to the superiority of gay marriage as a more preferable life style choice. Education on the virtues of gender fluidity also appears to be sowing gender identity confusion amongst children at an early age. Whether this is in fact deliberate, or merely a self-fulfilling prophecy by a generation that has been inculcated with Cultural Marxist values is open to debate. In some instances, political radicals still seek to implement the strategy knowingly. In this “the issue is not the issue. The issue is always the revolution.” For others, however, it is simply a natural and inevitable progression towards the annihilation of their traditional values and culture, caused by their own hands as a result of their education into the progressive values justified in the name of “equality” and “justice”. 74


a lifestyle choice, or a concern for the right to be gay and marry, but a superior preference in the light of the inherently exploitative nature of the traditional (it might be added formerly Christian) family structure. It is backed up by the pressure on teachers to conform to teaching the superiority and morality of accepting such choices. According to a ComRes poll of teachers, 61 per cent of primary school teachers in the UK are concerned that expressing support for traditional marriage could damage a teacher’s career, while 19 per cent think that it is right that a teacher faces disciplinary action for refusing to teach about the virtues of samesex marriage in preference to what might be termed the traditional kind. In any case, irrespective of the arguments that could be made in terms of equal rights, the impact of this “education” programme will only exacerbate demographic decline and sexual identity confusion amongst the young.75 Straight sex couples are experiencing marked declines in marriage, co habitation and consequently family numbers all across Europe and the US already. The gay strategy, popularised and preferred by the media and liberal progressives today, will oversee a tendency to decrease demographic numbers amongst Westerners generally. It appears to be promoting what was even disparagingly called a “synthetic” baby industry by two notable homosexuals Dolce and Gabbana. 76

The Cultural Marxist attack on Christianity


It is an increasing phenomenon and assessed by the Tavistock Clinic.

In an interview in the 16 March 2015 issue of Italian magazine Panorama, Stefano Gabbana and Domenico Dolce aroused controversy when they remarked, “We oppose gay adoptions. The only family is the traditional one.” They also criticised in vitro fertilisation and surrogate parents by saying, “No chemical offspring and rented uterus: life has a natural flow, there are things that should not be changed. “Since the comments were made by two gay men in an industry often seen as gay-friendly, reactions were especially harsh. 76


Classical Marxist theory has always been one that very much propagated the idea of “religion” as perpetuating a false class consciousness. Thus, religious sensibilities needed to be destroyed to awaken a true awareness of the exploitative predicament which the workers were in. This accomplished, the desire for revolutionary fervour would arise in the masses. Lukacs, on first glance, appears to represent a departure from this however. in his claim that revolutionary change would require a: “religious power which is capable of filling the entire soul; a power that was not however an atheism but characterised as a primitive Christianity.” In this, however, he still realised that any political movement capable of bringing Bolshevism to the West would necessitate a change in religious values that needed to be “demonic”, and his approach to achieve this was very much envisioned as a deconstruction, or impairment of the Christian faith which predominated, or more precisely an uncivilised paganisation of it, or at least a deconstruction of its Western theological perspective. But in this endeavour, Lukacs also very much appealed to the superiority of Communist atheism in his suggestion that this “messianic” political movement could only succeed when the individual believed that his or her actions are determined not by “a personal destiny, but the destiny of the community”. Revolution too necessitated a world where the people must ultimately come to believe they had “been abandoned by God”.

One reason for Bolshevism arising in Russia, for Lukacs, was because the nation was dominated by a peculiar gnostic form of Christianity. This faith perspective was typified by Dostoyevsky. The model for this new man was conceived as being comparable with Alyosha Karamazov, the character in his “Brothers Karamazov” novel, who willingly gave over his personal identity to a holy man, and thus ceased to be “unique, pure, and therefore 128

abstract” according to Lukacs. The abandonment of the soul’s uniqueness solved the problem of “the diabolic forces lurking in all violence”, which must be unleashed in order to create revolution. In this context, Lukacs cited the Grand Inquisitor section of the novel, noting that the Inquisitor, who is interrogating Jesus, has somehow resolved the issue of good and evil: for once man understood his alienation from God, then any act in the service of the “destiny of the community” could be justified. This theme justifies immoral acts too as: “neither crime nor madness....” are anything more than “objectifications of transcendental homelessness”. 77 One of the chief developments from the Frankfurt School theory was the Values Clarification paradigm. This concept was pioneered in California in the 1960s by psychologists William Coulson, Carl Rogers and the aforementioned Abraham Maslow. It was based on a ‘humanistic’ psychology, in which patients were regarded as the sole judge of their actions and moral behaviour. Having pioneered the technique of Values Clarification, the psychologists introduced it into schools and other institutions, such as convents and seminaries, but with disastrous results. Churches emptied, worshippers lost their faith, and generally there was sustained decline in the belief in God. The chief tenet of Values Clarification theory emphasised the importance of moral relativism, in which there is no absolute right or wrong, and no necessity to believe in the absolutes values of religion wholesale. In

According to an eyewitness, during meetings of the Hungarian Soviet leadership in 1919 when drawing up lists for the firing squad, Lukacs would often quote the Grand Inquisitor: 77

“And we who, for their happiness, have taken their sins upon ourselves, we stand before you and say, 'Judge us if you can and if you dare.' ” 129

respect to the education system, its influence assisted in undermining teacher authority, as they were encouraged to be seen not as educators with knowledge, but simply less authoritarian facilitators to help confirm the personal views of the pupils, which were considered to be of equal, or even more importance. Naturally parental authority too was affected due to this approach in the nuclear family. An argument could be made that the high rise in teenage pregnancy and promiscuity today, as well as teacher- pupil promiscuity can be identified with the cause of this breakdown in values and role structures that was caused specifically by Values Clarification theory. In VCT it is urged that children should be free to choose their own values, whereas the teacher must merely ‘facilitate’ and bring forth these ideas, avoiding all moralising or criticising themselves. In this, however, there is not enough emphasis placed on the productive merit of learning to act within the context of limited boundaries, nor the benefits of an authority figure being recognised as such due to superior ability. This same system has now been introduced to the vulnerable minds of infants, juniors and adolescents, who would benefit from more stringent guidelines on behaviour through more ‘authoritarian’ figures, with a clearer set of principles, the underlying philosophy which Values Clarification acts contrary to. In one sense, however, and paradoxically, VCT does promulgate absolutism itself in its “absolute” insistence on the virtues of relativism. This is a form of nihilism however; for it holds that even for teachers to promote virtues such as honesty, justice, or chastity constitutes an essential indoctrination of children, and in this sense ‘violates’ their rights to moral freedom as the ultimate determinant of what must be considered 130

virtuous. In this it considers “freedom� to be an absolute measure of how to behave and interact yet does not recognise the need for traditional norms and mores to facilitate this. It does not recognise that freedom actually requires context under the control of traditional customs and laws to produce productive behaviour, interaction and understanding, but this concern for absolute freedom rather invites chaos. VCT then fails to recognise that whilst individual freedom is to be encouraged, it can be productive only under the guidance of the law. Thus, like its Marxist originator, it promulgates rule by the mob in terms of an absolute freedom for the people, but in doing so ultimately tends to authoritarianism, to curb the tendency to anarchism that this necessarily invites. In this too it rather tends to an authoritarianism and dogmatism itself to impose its ideas upon others and lacks the measured balanced response for a society free under the guidelines of the law, or specifically the Constitutional framework of the US republic. Its approach initially tends to deconstruct the value of the authority figure and in this, role models and conformity to learn how to behave moderately too are deconstructed. It tends in fact to a nihilistic anarchism portrayed as a right to absolute freedom that can result only in chaos. It then tends to insist on an absolute implementation of its ideas that is rather self-defeating, and on a larger scale tends to exacerbate authoritarians and ideological dogmatism in itself. Values Clarification advocates the virtues of moral relativism, but it does so in an absolute sense that tends to brook no refusal in the name of equality and the dangers of authoritarian structures. It is considered by religious believers to be dangerous and corrupting in itself however, for it determines moral standards and behaviour purely through a subjective prism that tends to rather impair authority and moral values entirely. With its emphasis on absolute subjectivism as the measure of what is correct, VCT it could be claimed, actually destroys moral standards in 131

favour of an increasingly dogmatic and stubbornly inflexible absolute relativism in turn. VCT rather tends to an anti-religious stance in as much as it views an absolute adherence to moral values rather than a moral relativism to be dangerous. It is hardly surprising therefore that its most stringent critics has been those of religious faith, most notably Catholics and Muslims. These followers of the absolute moral standards of their religion generally believe the theory has severely undermined the efficacy of the state education system in Britain and is morally corrupting in a more widespread social sense. This is seen as a moral subversion, and in schools has led to the replacement of religious instruction, or religious education, with the PSHE syllabus. It therefore dispenses with morality and religion in favour of a more political orientated value system. This loss of a concern in the value of teaching religion as a core part of the curriculum, has generally encouraged the popularity of independent schools, with more emphasis on religious education than state schools. This has had a detrimental effect however on community cohesion in multicultural societies. For example, the growing number of Islamic schools to counteract the tendency has only led to further fragmentation of British society and culture; encouraging a less integrated society and a more fundamentalist approach in respect to religiously orientated values to offset the tendency of moral relativism, which it views more generally as being subversive, morally corrupting and a threat to its own values. Values Clarification sets up a ‘moral relativism’ versus ’religious absolutism’ scenario, but it has been implementing this too in a dogmatic sense, that could be a precursor to cultural conflict. This entails both an erosion of religious values, as taught in the state school system, whilst 132

simultaneous causing those with religious values to seek independent schools who are (by the exclusivity of their approach to a single religion) propagating the rise of a more fundamentalist approach. The ultimate end propagates a decline in constitutionalism and secularism (in the general sense of what makes a good citizen) and the further fracturing and disintegration of culture and society. At the heart of the ‘absolute relativism’ reflective in the Frankfurt School lies the idea of ‘sensitivity’ training, popular most notably in the approaches of some state school comprehensives in the early seventies in the UK. Here teachers were told not to teach, but to ‘facilitate’, and actively encouraged to invoke emotions such as crying and wailing as a catharsis (an approach now also reportedly encouraged in the Admiralty training of the US Navy according to Breitbart). Classrooms then became “centres of self-examination”, where children endlessly talked about their own subjective feelings, rather than being taught facts which were viewed as an “enforcement” by “repressive”, “authoritarian” figures. This technique was designed to convince children they were the sole authority in their own lives. Its promotion has led further to the decline in educational standards generally and behaviour problems in classrooms, both in Britain and in the United States. It is clear the Frankfurt School approach is no more than absolute relativism in disguise. It promotes a psychological agenda that could propagate extreme political perspectives. Its strict adherence to relativism in truth promotes social and cultural chaos. Its mask of liberalism and freedom in thought and actions, for some of its more politically extreme proponents, is no more than a disguise for revolutionary aims and they are very dogmatic in their pursuit of this.


The solution one might think requires an emphasis on the teaching of the uniqueness of each world religion appreciated in their particular national and cultural context: a less dogmatic relativism, with an appreciation of all faiths and viewpoints that respect these national identifiers. This fails to recognise the multiple difficulties presented in a multicultural predominantly liberal western society however. PSHE or citizenship studies in this might be seen as a secular solution to heal division and strengthen national identity. This is inevitable and necessary in a multicultural society where division invites unrest. The problem remains, however, of how the pastoral value of a religion can be retained for believers who view it as more than simply a subject to be studied. How the beneficial norms and values of a single faith school are to be tolerated without it falling into extremism itself as a reaction to living in a multicultural society. How the absolute values of a religion can be effectively transferred to the multi faith set up, without an impairment or loss of norms and values communicated by moral relativism that has led to such cultural disintegration.

The propagation of Cultural Marxist strategy as a global ideal The “humanist” Julian Huxley, the head of UNESCO 78 in 1947, “UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy” claimed to offer a solution to the difficulties of religion and the problem of its “dogmatic” values. He envisioned developing a new religion as part of a blueprint for a future New World Order. He called for a single “new” spirituality: a synthesis of Buddhist materialist-pantheism, Liberalised “pantheistic” (or paganised Christianity), a Gnosticism, and other occult traditions — one language, and one way of thinking. Huxley observed: 78

The United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation. 134

“The task before to help the emergence of a single world culture with its own philosophy and background of ideas and with its own broad purpose.” Huxley spoke of two opposing worldviews: one founded on supernatural creation and the other on atheist evolutionism. Both were confronting each other from the West and the East. In describing them he said: “You may categorise the two philosophies as...individualism versus collectivism or as the American versus the Russian...or as capitalism versus Communism, or as Christianity versus Marxism.” Yet in this he too fundamentally believed a new global order could be brought about through the implementation of Hegel’s dialectic process very much as the Marxists did: “Can these opposites be reconciled; this antithesis be resolved in a higher synthesis? I believe...this can happen...through the inexorable dialectic of evolution.” In this he criticises the shortcomings of Marx. “In pursuing this aim, we must eschew dogma - whether it be theological dogma or Marxist dogma.... East and West will not agree on a basis of the future if they merely hurl at each other the fixed ideas of the past. For that is what dogmas are - the crystallizations of some dominant system of thought of a particular epoch. A dogma may of course crystallize tried and valid experience; but if it be dogma, it does so in a way which is rigid, uncompromising and intolerant.... If we are to achieve progress, we must learn to uncrystallize our dogmas.” (p. 61) Huxley appears reasonable and his language conveys this when he outlines the condition of advance as these: “global unity of mankind’s noetic organisation or system of awareness, but a high degree of variety within that unity; love, with goodwill and full co-operation; personal integration and internal harmony; and increasing knowledge.”

But Huxley also states that the agency would advocate:


“the ultimate need for world political unity” and would condition: “all peoples with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to world organisation.” In this UNESCO: “can do a great deal to lay the foundations on which world political unity can later be built.” President Bush, perhaps to win UN favour for military action in Iraq, called for the U.S. to re-join UNESCO. This despite US membership having been terminated in 1984, when it was discovered that large portions of the UNESCO budget, mostly extracted from U.S. taxpayers, was being diverted to Soviet fronts, terrorist organisations and supported the lavish tastes of the UNESCO Director-General, Senegalese leftist Amadou-Mahtar M’Bow. 79 Hillary Clinton became the first sitting Secretary of State to visit UNESCO in 2011, where she helped launch a partnership laudably promoting education for women and girls. At the time, however, UNESCO was attempting to implement a “New World Information Order”, in which the world's journalists would be required to pass an ideological litmus test in order to practice their craft. This pointed to education within more ideologically restricted boundaries


freedom of thought and


Theoretically, if a journalist failed, the UNESCO Commissars could revoke a journalist’s license. They could also face fines and possible criminal charges. This would have fulfilled a central plank of the Marcuse’s mandate for controlling freedom of speech. A concern reflected in “The Communist

After an almost twenty-year absence from the organisation, the United States rejoined UNESCO in October 2003. In announcing that the U.S. would re-join President George W. Bush stated: “As a symbol of our commitment to human dignity, the United States will return to UNESCO. 79


Manifesto”, which calls for “public ownership of the means of communication.” It was prescient of Ronald Reagan, therefore, on terminating U.S. membership, when he asserted UNESCO: “extraneously politicized virtually every subject it deals with. It has exhibited a hostility toward the basic institutions of a free society, especially a free market and a free press.” It appears even to this day that UNESCO has not adequately reformed. Indeed, these ideological concerns appear to be have been part of the reason for its inception. In the 1950s former Communist Joseph Z. Kornfeder expressed the opinion that UNESCO was more or less comparable to a Communist Party agitation and propaganda department. He stated that such a party apparatus: “handles the strategy and method of getting at the public mind, young and old.” Huxley would appoint within it a collection of “former” Communists and fellow globalists. 80 The UN too has clearly evolved but has its origin in a Left wing international ideology. It was founded at the San Francisco Conference in 1945, as the war was coming to an end. The Secretary-General at the UN conference was one Alger Hiss. Hiss helped draft the UN Charter. As Director of the State Department's Office of Special Political Affairs, Hiss appointed the members of the U.S. delegation to the UN. At the Yalta Conference in the Soviet Union, in February, 1945, where much of this was arranged and where central Europe was secretly deeded to Stalin, Hiss stood at the dying Roosevelt's side. 80

Alger Hiss was accused of being a Soviet spy and recent evidence largely substantiates his guilt. In 1996, shortly after his death, a collection of Venona decrypts was declassified. One of the messages, dated March 30, 1945, refers to an American with the code name Ales. According to the message, Ales was a Soviet agent working in the State Department, who accompanied President Roosevelt to the 1945 Yalta Conference and then flew to Moscow, both of which Hiss did. The message goes on to indicate that Ales met with Andrei Vyshinsky, the Commissar for Foreign Affairs, and was commended for his aid to the Soviets. Analysts at the National Security Agency have gone on record asserting that Ales could only have been Alger Hiss. He was convicted 137

Further features of the fundamentally Cultural Marxist leanings of UNESCO also came to light in Hamburg, Germany in 1964, when Huxley chaired a UNESCO sponsored conference called the “International Symposium on Health, Education, Sex Education and Education for Home and Family living”. In this the agenda was laid out for sex education. In “UNESCO: Its Purpose and Philosophy” (pp 46): Huxley states: “It will be one of the major tasks of the philosophy division of UNESCO to stimulate...the quest for a restatement of morality that shall be in harmony with modern knowledge and adapted to the fresh functions imposed by ethics by the world today.” The conference concluded: “Sex education should begin at an early age.”81 The dialectic strategy at the heart of the cultural war and the influence of group conditioning on the mind of the individual Dialectic has a long, proud history originating as it does in Ancient Greece and most notably in the Socratic dialogues of Plato. It might be defined as a logical method which teaches the rules and modes of reasoning to

of perjury and imprisoned for lying under oath about his Communist activities. No doubt that was why, at the first London Conference in 1946, a couple of years before he was exposed, Hiss arranged for the Soviets to run UN military activities and for the United States to run UN financial activities, which meant in effect that the Soviet Union won the right to run the UN and the Americans won the right to pay for it. It is important to note that Alger Hiss was just one of many covert Soviet UN operatives. This is but one example of the corrupting influence being brought to bear on the US nation’s sensibilities. But it doesn’t simply stop at a change of values. Through its “World Heritage" subsidiary, UNESCO has already taken over control of such U.S. landmarks as the Statue of Liberty, Yellowstone National Park, Independence Hall, and other essential parcels of sovereign U.S. property. A portion of the admission to these symbols of American freedom now goes directly to UNESCO. US citizens therefore need to ask their elected members of Congress exactly how this happened. 81


establish a position or perspective philosophically. Although there are a number of forms of dialectic, even in the Platonic tradition, simply stated the Socratic dialectic (or heuristic) could refer to a ‘position’ versus its ‘opposition’ or ‘thesis’ versus ‘antithesis’ and the attempt to destroy the counterclaim through the critical power of reasoning. But this could equally be viewed as a dichotomy between a ‘truth' versus a ‘falsehood’. If, then, the thesis is correct it could be argued logically that the antithesis is not simply opposite, but incorrect. This parallels its relevance, as virtue as a truth is good, whereas a false claim is in some sense not just lacking in reason, but bad. Hegel appealed to the development of this methodology (as did Plato) by seeking a synthesis from the thesis and antithesis dichotomy to affect a process and evolution of thought. For Huxley and the Cultural Marxists of the New Left, it resulted in moral relativism. A “new truth”, but this as a consequence, it could equally be argued, involves a merging of truth and falsehood. The so called “synthesis”, or “consensus”, to use the favoured vernacular of what are today alternatively termed “Liberal Progressives”, becomes a corruption of the truth, inasmuch as it harbours within it the contrary and, as a consequence, inconsistent idea. Its value as a truth, therefore, is in equal measure a composite of good and evil. Dialectics (dialectical materialism) is the methodology that lies at the heart of both classical and cultural Marxism. It originated as an alternative system to address the equalities and social injustices of capitalism. Its proponents sought to justify the destruction of Western capitalism and Western culture by a transformation of Western consciousness and an abolition of the old order and class structures.


Today the strategy to achieve its original remit has become more diffuse and assimilated into mainstream society, whilst its revolutionary imperative is one rather forgotten by all but the most politically extreme. Its continuity may well result in social and cultural disintegration, revolution and war nevertheless. In its modern manifestations, it has chiefly been absorbed into the heart of what modern Western culture is. It occurs at many levels and in many disciplines. It is even propagated in the guise of Transnational Progressive New Age philosophies that are used by extremists on occasion to invite confusion of basic moral standards, or ideally recruit through its popularisation an army of useful idiots: fellow travellers who act unwittingly in a war against the West's traditional Judaeo-Christian based worldview and capitalism’s supposedly corrupt values. In this “group dynamics”, or the “consensus process”, also plays an important part and reflects Hegel’s dialectic, one of the chief tenets that also supported the Communist perspective. Applied to psycho political behaviour and belief modification strategy it can be compared to a kind of brain washing similarly used with great success by Vietnamese Communists against American POWs, and by Chinese Communists against dissidents under Mao’s regime in the 1940s, 50s and 60s. The modern techniques are similarly being using in media spheres as disinformation and propaganda to elicit particular attitudes and perspectives amongst its targeted audience today.

In a more general

sense, it is used in the mainstream media to inculcate values now considered characteristic of what modern progressive western thinking should properly entail. The success of its propagation has been successfully spread by the key 140

strategy of the programme that requires a uniform group consensus. In this, the knowledge that all individuals have an inherent fear of being alienated from the group is utilised to ensure its success. Concerning conditioning of individuals in groups, be they political, social, or otherwise, skilful change-agents (facilitators) psychologically manipulate the fear of alienation from the group, to control selected targets towards a pre-planned conclusion, which induces them to compromise both conscience, position and morals which they might ordinarily hold and value. There are three steps in this process. Physical torture, shock ‘therapy’ and mind-altering drugs. Today, however, emotional pain, intimidation, and fear are used to precipitate compliance by way of psychological bullying such as sadistic ridicule, character assassination, destructive criticism, labelling, and spreading lies. Until compliance has been achieved, psychopolitics remains the preferred method.

There are four stages necessary for the “consensus process” to achieve success. These are: •

Using diverse fringe and minority groups who feel alienated and disenchanted by mainstream society’s treatment of them.

Examples could be targeting the homosexual community, atheists, Satanists, Wiccans, or Muslims. Those, fuelled by resentment and envy, who carry perceived persecution complexes are ideal for recruitment for causing social conflict. Alternatively, easily malleable subjects may be used. These are usually young impressionable solitary students on their first foray away from parental influence, who are searching for a new identity. They are receptive too because self-identity at this stage in life often involves rejecting their parent’s values. These types are generally passionately idealistic, but relatively uneducated and inexperienced, both 141

in terms of life, history and lack a broad understanding of all perspectives on politics. They are however intelligent and idealistic and therefore malleable and receptive to indoctrination of a particular intellectual perspective. They can be easily swayed by a facilitator, usually a Marxist Professor, or charismatic campus activist, who can reason one perspective without a strong counter-argument.

A traditional social or cultural issue around which conflict can be created is necessary.

For example, the Boy Scouts can be labelled as being sexist, or Christmas can be vilified as being too exclusive and therefore intolerant and prejudiced to others. Traditional marriage in church could be argued as being prejudiced against gays, etc. 82 These can be demonised and pressure brought to bear to alter, dismantle or diversify said institutions. •

The predetermined outcome.

Cultural values can be reshaped through the implementation of a more restrictive mode of language. Christmas parades need to be successfully recast as a “Festival of Lights” or “Winter Holiday” or “Happy Holiday” parade more inclusive of other diverse groups. These in some instances are renamed, so as not to cause “offence” to other religious and ethnic minority groups. They invariably don’t if they are confident of the worth of their own values. Notably other religions that may be in the minority in a Western nation are hypocritically championed and protected in the The argument here relies on the claim that homosexual civil marriage is acceptable, as it affords equal rights under the law, but marriage specifically in church is a corruption of the orthodox values of the Church that teaches the biblical perspective that homosexuality is a sin. It relies also on the claim that civil lawsuits will be brought by gay couples, since its legalisation is against churches in court action in the name of homophobia and discrimination laws. 82


name of tolerance and inclusivity to further the destruction of the host nation’s majority faith. Shaming of the national religion works hand in hand with this via media and through 5th column infiltrators in the institution of the Church itself. This is not simply a question of rebranding or renaming however. It is a strategy that seeks to undermine traditional Western culture. In the United States, for example, Christianity has been banned from government, as well as from schools and increasingly from public areas such as the White House lawn. In Britain, Christians have lost their jobs for praying for work colleagues who were sick or upset, for wearing crosses, preaching in public, distributing leaflets, or even inviting people to attend Church. They have been found guilty for not wishing to accommodate those who by the tenets of their faith were considered to be engaging in a sinful act, their children have been harassed and even suspended for daring to express their Christian beliefs in any way at school. Even non-compliance, and not an actual act, has led to criminal prosecution for non-conformity: such as refusal to bake a same sex marriage cake because it is deemed as sinful. In the West generally, antiChristian bigotry has become so bad that John Gibson observed: “There is this kind of casual and accepted bias against Christians and Christian symbols.” 83 Marxists in the past and present concur: “We have battled in America since the century's turn to bring to “The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday is Worse Than You Thought”, John Gibson. 83


nothing...all Christian influences and we are succeeding. You must work until officials of city, county, and state will not think twice before they pounce upon religious groups as public enemies. (there must) be a foaming hatred of religion...a belief that Christian practice is vicious, bad, insanity causing, publicly hated and intolerable.”84

As Linda Kimball relates in her web article: Hegel's dialectic: erasing Christianity through the psycho-political 'consensus process': “John Gibson asked a Eugene, Oregon city manager why he had banned Christmas trees. His politically correct mind-conformed response, “Well, because they're Christian.” This manager and countless scores of other Americans testify to the enormous success thus far achieved by psycho political operatives… they now serve their new masters evil desires by mindlessly destroying the source of both their liberties and their human worth — Christianity.” Another attack strategy is that Christianity has nothing to do with either the founding of the US as a nation, or with the rights and freedoms associated more generally with the West. Notably an alliance with Islam is predominant. The enemy then ideologically is Christianity, not because atheism is superior, or its values are archaic and irrelevant, or even immoral or unfair in some sense that Islam isn’t, but because Christianity is the foundation on which Western civilisation is based, whereas Islam is oriental rather than occidental. Even in this respect, as Linda Kimball notes (op.cit.), Huxley, with his synthetic approach, unwittingly confesses the truth in stating of the two opposing philosophies: “You may categorise the two philosophies as...East versus West or individualism versus collectivism or Christianity versus Marxism.” The synthetic “evolution”, then, is in fact a subversion of Christianity’s 84

Red Communist Textbook on Psycho-politics. 144

fundamental values. This is the real agenda, which is based on the destruction of Western values to the Marxist cause. It is but one strategy towards destroying Western civilisation.

The New Age movement and its legacy today Cultural Marxism was a destructive criticism of the primary elements of culture that inspired the 1960s counter-culture revolution. A revolution that inspired and originated the so called “New Age” social revolutionary movement. As the name implies, this supposedly “new” spiritual awakening, or “Aquarian Age” movement was in fact neither “new” nor “spiritual”. It was in fact chiefly fuelled by drugs, sex and social uprisings that often-triggered violence. It thus should be exposed as a fraud, which exacerbated a dangerous, self-destructive, self-harming tendency, both in the individual and more broadly in society as a whole. The reality of this, however, was irrelevant to its advocates such as Dr Timothy Leary and the Cultural Marxists, as it was an effort to transform the prevailing culture into an inverted, or opposite kind of culture merely as a prelude to social revolution. In this the prescribed practice to “turn on, tune in and drop out” was a recommendation whose actual social and psychological consequence to achieve less and harm oneself with intoxicants was of secondary concern. The issue here was in any case not entirely the professed concern. The issue was always about revolution in a political and social sense as much as a transformation of the values of the individual to a newer way of “seeing” and “being”.


Now that these young idealists are the adult elite, and in positions of power, those raised and conditioned with Marcusean values are seeking to complete their work by continuously changing the institutions they themselves lead and largely define. They do this today in the name of change, progress and improvement, but the incitement to continual change often takes the form of a deconstruction of traditional values in the name of a more “politically correct” legacy. The present short-term legacy of the 60’s constitutes an attack on every institution and tradition that has been built up over the preceding two centuries or more. For many of the present generation, this attack need not even necessarily be conscious, as it is a self-fulfilling prophesy: those conditioned by the values of Cultural Marxism are now simply affirming its values as a consequence of their own liberal influences, experiences and upbringing. The torch that is passed by their parents to a new generation is however a cumulative process, strengthening the values of progressive liberalism and the deconstruction of once cherished traditions and values. Whilst progressivism itself has a history and is hailed by some of its “Conservative” (better termed Liberal or neo Conservative) admirers as the new traditionalism, this ideology and the process it implements is not in truth “conservative”. It does not “preserve” in any real sense, nor is it productive. It is progressive, not simply as an evolution building upon the traditions of the past, but one that at least in part contains a nihilism that destroys social and political stability, just as it destroys traditional values. The epithet of “Conservativism” that today promotes such values is, therefore, diametrically opposed to what it purports to be. Conservativism in this sense having adopted the mantle of progressivism from the Left is assisting in its own demise. Any accumulative progression towards further liberalism heralds decay and harbours destruction in the name of a 146

perpetual, but ultimately destructive change. The nature of the cultural revolution requires perpetual change. This reveals its fundamentally subversive value system, as well as its dangers; as ultimately the ethos wants nothing permanent or lasting to endure, save the destructive act itself. It has a psychological application also, which is fundamentally dangerous and destructive. This was evident in the work of Dr. Timothy Leary as an example, who sought to justify drug practice as a radical transformation of consciousness with beneficial effects, but who resorted to the use of dangerous hallucinogens to initiate it. It provides the reader with an alternative glimpse into the scrambled thinking induced by the Frankfurt School, whose values he supported, and which sought to continually challenge the perimeters of reason and push the boundaries of sanity itself. In all of this, however, the alternative strategy never loses sight of the fundamental goal. Thus, in Leary’s own account of the work of the Harvard University Psychedelic Drug Project “Flashback” for example, he cites a conversation that he had with Aldous Huxley: “These brain drugs, mass produced in the laboratories, will bring about vast changes in society. This will happen with or without you or me. All we can do is spread the word. The obstacle to this evolution, Timothy, is the Bible.” Leary then went on: “We had run up against the Judeo-Christian commitment to one God, one religion, one reality, that has cursed Europe for centuries and America since our founding days. Drugs that open the mind to multiple realities inevitably lead to a polytheistic view of the universe. We sensed that the time for a new humanist religion based on intelligence, good-natured pluralism and scientific paganism had arrived.” 147

The Marxist attack specifically on the Judeo-Christian tradition is again evident. One of the directors of the Authoritarian Personality project, R. Nevitt Sanford, played a pivotal role in the use of psychedelic drugs to deconstruct, but supposedly “revolutionise” the mind. In 1965, he wrote in a book issued by the publishing arm of the UK’s Tavistock Institute: “The nation, seems to be fascinated by our 40,000 or so drug addicts who are seen as alarmingly wayward people who must be curbed at all costs by expensive police activity. Only an uneasy Puritanism could support the practice of focusing on the drug addicts (rather than our 5 million alcoholics) and treating them as a police problem instead of a medical one, while suppressing harmless drugs such as marijuana and peyote along with the dangerous ones.” The leading champions of today’s drug lobby are largely influenced, unwittingly or otherwise, in their arguments for legalisation by Dr. Sanford’s ethos and work. One example being George Soros; the atheist and multi-billionaire, who chose as one of his first domestic programmes, to fund efforts to challenge the United States $37-billion-a-year war on drugs. The Soros-backed Lindesmith Centre also serves as a leading voice for Americans who want to decriminalise drug use. Russell Brand the Marxist multi-millionaire comedian and activist also champions a similar cause as a “social justice” activist. Another arm of the strategy was implemented by Adorno, who was to become head of a ‘music studies’ unit. In his “Theory of Modern Music”, he promoted the prospect of unleashing atonal and other popular music as a weapon to destroy society. Here, degenerate forms of music could be used to promote mental illness and bring about the deconstruction of 148

values. He said the US could be brought to its knees by the use of radio and television to promote a “culture of pessimism and despair”. By the late 1930s he (together with Horkheimer) had emigrated to Hollywood. The expansion of violent films and video-games flooding the market are now strongly reflective of the School’s aims. The increasing rise in suicide rates amongst the young increasingly appears to be due to a popularised culture of violence and the fashion of ‘satanised music’ propagates and glamorises the worthlessness and dark side of life. Theatre workshops that visit schools also promote dark values and horrific enactments in the name of alternative drama. Another manifestation of Cultural Marxism has been its influence on sexual values. The sexual revolution as it was popularly termed was very much engineered, not just by the pill, but by a concern to deconstruct stereotypical gender roles. In her booklet “Sex & Social Engineering” (Family Education Trust, 1994) Valerie Riches observed how, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, there were intensive parliamentary campaigns taking place emanating from a number of Marxist orientated organisations in the field of birth control (i.e., contraception, abortion and sterilisation). From an analysis of their annual reports, it became apparent that a comparatively small number of people were involved to a surprising degree in orchestrating an array of interactive pressure groups. This network was not only linked by personnel, but by funds, ideology and sometimes addresses. It was also backed by vested interests and supported by grants in some cases by government departments. One example being Liberty and the association of Deputy Leader of the Marxist inspired Labour Party Harriet Harman.


At the heart of the network in the late sixties and seventies was the Family Planning Association (FPA) which was inter-connected with a power structure with enormous influence and which extended into population control, birth control, sexual and family law reforms, sex and health education. It also extended to publishing houses, medical, educational and research establishments, women’s organisations and marriage guidance. In fact, any area where influence could be exerted. It also appeared to have great influence over various media and government departments. The fact that sex education was to be the vehicle for Cultural Marxist ideas and values is apparent based on the Harriet Harman example of her agenda and activities at that time. The international dimension becomes apparent in a book entitled “The SIECUS Circle: A Humanist Revolution”, which identifies the chief aims of the SIECUS network (set up in 1964) and how no time was lost in social engineering by means of sex education in schools internationally. Its first executive director was Mary Calderone, who was also closely linked to Planned Parenthood, the American equivalent of the British FPA. According to The SIECUS Circle, Calderone supported sentiments and theories put forward by Rudolph Dreikus: such as the merging or reversing of the sexes or sex roles, liberating children from their families and the abolition of the family ‘as we know it’. The agenda originated from Marcuse again and his ideas of “polymorphous perversity”. That people should be encouraged to have sex every which way they could, with whatever, or whoever they wanted. The only consideration was “if it felt good”. Marcuse encouraged this approach arguing in his book “Eros and Civilisation” that by freeing sex from absolutely any restraints, we could elevate the pleasure principle over the


reality principle, and thus create a society with no work, only play. 85

“Corrupt the young, get them interested solely in sex via pornography, take them away from religion. Make them superficial and weak.” This shocking objective appears as the first rule in “Rules of Revolution” the standard manual of how to achieve civil and social fragmentation to incite revolution given to activists in the Soviet Union and East Germany before the end of the Cold War. Compare again also the list of 45 goals that were presented in The House of Representatives on Thursday 10 1963. Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963, which was a list of 45 strategies released from Kremlin records via KGB defectors: 85

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. It fits in more generally with the professed third of the 11 objectives of cultural Marxism, which was: 3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children. This dovetailed with the 11th objective: Encouraging the breakdown of the traditional family. Whether this strategy is conscious and deliberately ongoing is open to debate, but it was a strategy used at that time to apparently undermine Western civilisation. It is interesting that both Communist China and Russia today are far more conservative in their values concerning such attitudes than in the West suggesting Western compliance. Many conspiracy theorists today have claimed that the increasing move to globalism is also seeking to achieve the implementation of a One World Government using a fusion of corporatist and socialist/ progressive strategies and objectives to collapse national state democracies and reshape or weaken their individual and unique cultures. The strategies are either similar to, or simply a furtherance of, those strategies used during the Cold War. This process, then, seeks to impose cultural universalism. This might be a crank theory, but even disputing it as crank reasoning, the “Cultural Marxist” values have been passed on from the Baby Boomer “love and do what thou will” generation to the next. If it is not an ongoing, or deliberate process, it is selffulfilling and self-perpetuating. It appears CM strategies and relativist values are rather like a virus, that has infected Western society and continues to grow and degrade, even if the original objective to cause revolution might now have transmuted to something justified as entirely different and “progressive”. It might be added that the “battle between the sexes” and the emphasis that men are essentially corrupters, or exploiters of, women and more generally the whole militant feminist “men are monsters” mentality was another strategy to cause a change in cultural values, in order to break down the relationship between the sexes and the nuclear family, Here “feminism” is not necessarily a cause concerned with equality for 151

In his book “The Closing of the American Mind”, Alan Bloom observed how Marcusean theory appealed to university students in the sixties with this combination of Marx and Freud. In “Eros and Civilisation” and “One Dimensional Man”, Marcuse promised that the overcoming of capitalism and its false consciousness would result in a society where the greatest satisfactions would be sexual. Rock music, because it touches the same chord in the young, would be a medium for such expression. Free sexual expression, anarchism, and the mining of the irrational unconscious would give free rein to the individual to incite the ongoing revolution.

The legacy of Political Correctness in today’s universities Classical Marxist ideology is now part of the core curriculum in most University campuses and deemed a part of mainstream education, an unthinkable situation in the 1950s. Its counterpart, Cultural Marxism, has been absorbed among the student fraternity, where its values are championed and popularised as fashionable and progressive. It appeals to the often naïve, utopian idealism of the young student, who still hangs the requisite poster of Lenin or Che Guevera on the wall. It is reinforced by the Professors, who propagate a largely Left leaning political view, in the main derived from their own sympathies to liberal progressivism as students themselves in the 60s and 70s. Paradoxically, whilst economic Marxist theory has been largely publicly discredited by politicians and economists as a practise, or so we are encouraged to believe (for the Socialist Keynesian and not the Austrian women, a laudable concern admirably championed first by the Suffragettes who sought the vote, but a strategy of filial and patriarchal subversion. 152

Misean School is still largely championed), its values and ideas are still studied, taught and propagated within academic circles as the preeminent theory. Whilst this need not justify its viability, it does help it persist as a historical idea. On the other hand, the values of Cultural Marxism continue to be perpetuated as current, modern and progressive, even though the origins of the ideas originate from 19th century paradigms. They continue to be rapidly absorbed into the mainstream consciousness of each successive generation. The value system is still implemented as an on-going imperative and as a requirement for “tolerant” thinking, as it increasingly petrifies and becomes more dogmatic. The medium has changed, but the message is the same: a society of radical egalitarianism needs to be enforced, and this can best be achieved through the power of the state.

On a growing number of university campuses, the freedom to articulate and discuss ideas – a principle that has been the cornerstone of higher education since the time of Plato and Aristotle– is rapidly being eroded. One example has been the call to demolish historical status of figures deemed politically incorrect, such as Ceil Rhodes or Horatio Nelson. Another example cited could be the trend for hundreds (sometimes thousands) of copies of conservative student newspapers to be publicly burned. In many cases, activism has taken place to initiate pressure with the tacit support of faculty and administrators. The perpetrators are rarely disciplined. More widespread trends tend to vilify Christian groups on campus as dogmatic, exclusive, racist, supremacist or intolerant. It is evident the more widespread tendency is to brand grassroots conservative movements as xenophobic bigots and a subversive threat to mainstream, supposedly “moderate”, “tolerant” thinking, simply if they oppose 153

political objectives that ordinarily would themselves be branded extreme. While it would be easy to dismiss such demonstrations of intolerance in the campus setting as mere student pranks, these incidents are the manifestation of a more pervasive and insidious trend that has as its goal the more general destruction of the truly liberal arts tradition that has helped create and sustain Western culture. Though some pundits have claimed that the prevalence of the ideological intolerance has been exaggerated, the opposite is closer to the truth. Political Correctness has become so deeply ingrained in higher education that many campuses are now dominated by an intimidating atmosphere. An increasing number of students and faculty members fear that their intellectual pursuit of truth will offend the Grand Inquisitors of Political Correctness and they will be targeted often violently because of it. The techniques of Political Correctness are now well known: attack the curriculum in the name of “tolerance and diversity”, impose restrictive and vaguely worded “speech codes” and campaign for the provision of “safe

spaces” to provide forums and workshops for mandatory “sensitivity training” courses for freshers. A programme of group bullying is little more than a psychological effort at ideological indoctrination by groups in a close private setting.

The need for academic reform The two pillars that have traditionally sustained the liberal arts are (a) academic freedom and (b) freedom of speech. If the freedom to pursue the truth and to write and speak freely are eroded, authentic scholarship becomes severely hampered. Whilst these ideals justified and sustained 154

the propagation of Marxist ideology in academia, progressive liberal values today too often seek to curtail these open principles the more its own values are established. It acts, therefore, in a contrary way to any that oppose its own ideology and values in a self-sustaining and increasing absolutism of what is deemed acceptable. The two chief principles mentioned have been routinely abrogated by the establishment of speech codes, “sensitivity” classes, and a general atmosphere of intimidation on campus for those that harbour different beliefs and values that do not support the political agenda. For example, younger more right-wing professors who have not received tenure, must not only be careful of what they say, but of what they publish. Ideological university administrators in the 1990s in the US created an environment dominated by suspicion that has become far more intense than anything spawned during the McCarthy era. 86 Joseph McCarthy was one of the most vilified American politicians of the last century. New information, however, including half-century-old FBI recordings of Soviet embassy conversations, now show a large percentage of his accusations were correct. This is based on information obtained from studies of old Soviet files in Moscow, and also the Venona Files: FBI recordings of Soviet embassy communications between 1944-48. Although he had many weaknesses, almost every charge he brought has been substantiated and cast a clearer light on the stealing of atomic secrets and the influencing of U.S. foreign policy. His substantiated charges suggest a vast spy network exerting considerable influence. Of the lists compiled, a key one consisted of 108 names from a House Appropriations Committee report, of persons declared as “security risks” in the State Department. This was known as the Lee List. The House committee chairman complained the State wasn’t bothering to do anything about the suspects. Details of the list and its accusations were presented at the conference. 86

The Tydings Committee, which had investigated McCarthy’s charges of Communists in government exonerated everybody. Among the accused it stated categorically that there was no evidence against Owen Lattimore, a man McCarthy said was a major figure in the Communist conspiracy. Lattimore had been Roosevelt’s key advisor on China policy. Yet Evans showed evidence from 5,000 pages of FBI files on him released only a few years ago to the public. Evidence before the committee showed that Lattimore had supported Soviet policy at every turn, even declaring that the Stalin purge trials in Russia, “sound like democracy to me.” Lattimore compared 155

The most tragic victims of this age of Political Correctness are the students themselves, who rather than absorbing the history and cultural achievements of the past, are subject to an immersion into an ideologically biased historical revisionism. Much of this revisionism centres on arguments to foster a hatred or shame of country. Ideas in respect to the US can be readily given. Examples such as the false belief that: •

The burning of witches in Salem were encouraged by the values of the “Founding Fathers”.

That the Founding Fathers were atheists or even Satanists.

That the Founding Fathers as American “colonialists” encouraged slavery.

That the North American Indians were wiped out in a preplanned genocide by the “white man”, etc.

Similar subverting ideas in Britain focus on the evils of the British empire as the most heinous example of human rights abuse and imperial exploitation in human history period, when it was in fact one of the most

concentration camps to the Tennessee Valley Authority, and later urged Washington to abandon China to Communism and to withdraw from Korea. FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover, who had fed information to McCarthy, broke with him afterwards, fearing McCarthy would prejudice FBI sources of information for its criminal prosecutions. Although most of McCarthy’s cases involved actual spies and general “security risks”, the more important and specific issue was that of Communist influence over American foreign policy. In this Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt’s closest advisor who lived in the White House, had regular contact with Soviet intelligence. He helped bring about the disastrous Yalta and Pottsdam agreements. The Morganthau Plan, to prevent German reconstruction and starve the Germans to make them desperate enough to go Communist, was also the product of two agents: Laughlin Currie and Harry Dexter White, whose strategies influenced the Treasury Department. The abandonment of Chiang Kai-shek by denying military support was the product of “China Hands” led by John Stewart Service, John Patton Davies and Lattimore. Other major spy networks at the time existed in England, the Burgess Maclean group for example, which infiltrated Washington as well as London. 156

humane empires that civilised barbaric and murderous regimes and even implemented the practise of democratic government and the right to vote.87 88 Such ideas easily take root in the young minds of impressionable idealists As Lenin himself was aware: “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.” This coupled with his claim that: “A lie told often enough becomes the truth” neatly characterises the process of ideological indoctrination. As substantiated and advocated even by Ceil Rhodes, the so called “white colonialist supremacist” and the object of hatred and enfant terrible of current radical activists at Oxford , who claimed: 87

“I do not go so far as the member for Victoria West, who would not give the black man a vote. … If the whites maintain their position as the supreme race, the day may come when we shall be thankful that we have the natives with us in their proper position.” It is to be noted here that under Rhodes’ protectorate blacks and people of mixed race had greater political rights than the other provinces as a legacy of British rule, inasmuch as this province had a property and education-based franchise. Whilst this view focuses on the faults to induce cultural pessimism (consider Tony Blair who during the bicentenary of Britain's abolition of the slave trade in 1807 emphasised the “deep sorrow” for imperial transgression) taken as a whole the British empire was a liberal empire in the classical sense. It was very much a force for good in its moral and therefore “civilising” influence. It was founded on principles enunciated by Edmund Burke, who maintained that colonial government was a trust. It should be exercised for the benefit of subject peoples, who would eventually attain their natural right to self-rule, which many of them later did unopposed during Queen Elizabeth II’s reign. As Burke famously declared: 88

“The British Empire must be governed on a plan of freedom, for it will be governed by no other.” More or less sincerely, Britons reiterated this claim over the next two centuries. The (Conservative) Primrose League took as its motto, Imperium et Libertas. In 1921, Lloyd George told the imperial conference that the British Empire was unique because “Liberty is its binding principle.” Whitehall mandarins said that the evolution of empire into a commonwealth after WW2 completed the process, whereby colonial territories in increasing numbers were encouraged to develop political independence. 157

Because academia provides a relatively secluded and reified intellectual environment, which encourages group formation and validation by groups, the political ideological bias can sometimes remain unchallenged by lone individuals who possess a more tempered voice. When critics of Political Correctness complain, liberal groups are usually quick to mobilise, shame and ridicule them as intolerant, racist or politically extreme. The psychological bullying and intimidation continues as a progressively imbalanced and increasingly intolerant perspective itself. Ultimately, the most direct method of defeating the radicals that use Political Correctness to silence dissent is simply to not be intimidated. Individual acts of defiance, however, often entail serious risks: students can face proceedings that are humiliating and demoralising, while departments can lose their bids to receive tenure from similar thinking sources that require and expect compliance and support of the now acceptable and mainstream values. But every act of resistance causes a ripple, encouraging others to stand up against the ideological intimidation. Perhaps the strongest force for true academic reform is to reawaken the true spirit of the Academy and particularly the one set by Plato’s Socrates. This involves engaging in a dialectic debate to win the war of ideas through philosophical argument. This more than anything can be more persuasive than a mere appeal to sometimes vacuous and meaningless slogans such as “People over profits” or “Workers of the world unite”. But it faces a formidable obstacle when hostile shock troops provide fierce opposition with strategies that involve distraction, belittlement, scaremongering and talking over the opposition. If all that fails physical assaults usually occur. More than anything the radical Marxist activist is not known for civilised behaviour or keeping polite society. 158

As Edmund Burke reminds us “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” For generations, higher education has been treated with too much respect and awe. It has represented itself as the foundation of our faith in the liberating power of the liberal arts. But in the face of Political Correctness it is time for faculties to temper its respect with a more critical sensibility befitting of its own more esteemed and lengthy past. It is necessary to undertake a more direct effort to call academia to account. It is time for good men and women to demand that higher education live up to its best traditions and eschew the tyranny of the “PC General Line”.

The need for a reaffirmation of our Western legacy The people of the United States, Canada, Australia and Western Europe (what might be termed the “Anglo-sphere”) have now largely been converted to the values of Cultural Marxism. Its nihilistic aims and goals have been perpetuated with a subtle shift in language, and the resultant change has added to the mainstream view that this can be justified as normal. The changes have been ongoing since the 1940s and reflect a spectrum of political parties and movements which differ in name, but which espouse the same philosophical perspective and principles. Cultural Marxism has certainly changed its terminology over the decades, but its overarching imperative remains. It has sought to respond to its different target audiences, but it does so simply to further its own subversive ends. Whilst the language may alter, its essential ethos of “revolution” or radical “transformation” or the need for “change” endures. In this Cultural Marxism has cannibalised terms largely unopposed, appearing sympathetic to traditional ideas with the use of terms such as “Liberal” (rather than Classical Liberal) as it merged and then 159

transformed mainstream consciousness to left wing radicalism. For example, to propagate their ideals, their language began to match more closely the liberal vocabulary of a New Deal, rather than the Marxist or radical language of the original. “Education for tolerance”, rather than “praxis for revolutionary change” became the ostensible goal of their research. In this, however, they cleverly merged their language with the mainstream “liberal” thought in America, attaining popularism, whilst still vehemently maintaining their ‘Marxist’ objective of “revolutionary” change. How often was this in evidence with the mantra “The children of the revolution” proclaimed by the idealistic dreamers of the 60s. They were thence indoctrinated into the cause with drugs, rock music and radical political activism. Irrespective today of whether the goal still aspires to a Communist objective, as the original activists most certainly did, the result still seeks to instil values in a misplaced and misjudged deconstructive idealism that is largely nihilistic in its concern to destroy previous traditions and values. Liberalism calls for “freedom” in thought and expression, along with tolerance and diversity at all costs, but it often unintentionally provokes anarchy as chaos, rather than freedom under the rule of law. In this sense, it invites a clash between opposing cultures and their conflicting norms and values, particular in respect to those with more orthodox religious sensibilities. The extent of the strategies has been a horrifying success, exhibiting an adjustment in values that once would have been viewed as perverse, but which now are increasingly seen as normal and acceptable. This has prompted an escalating degradation. Violence and ugliness in daily life is accepted without precedent, but in this the goal has been lost. For rather than Cultural Marxism prompting rejection, revolt and revolution, it 160

appears to have inspired only a lethargic acceptance that this is the way things have always been, must be and will probably always be. An acceptance of an increasingly apparent decline and an increasing tolerance of our impoverished civilisation continues and in turn feds more cultural pessimism. It has enforced not growth, but a decline, befitting of its nihilistic ethos. Stagnation instead of productive change, coupled with a corruption of moral values, exacerbate only further civilisational decline. The mass media plays its part, sating the public with a constant stream of violent images, immoral films, disturbing stories and shocking entertainment programmes. This is justified with the claim it is “art” which reflects the “reality” of life. Criticism is largely subverted, managed, or censored as it continues. More powerful figures steeped in its values from childhood largely turn a deaf ear or ridicule the extent of its influence. The internet as a forum to voice protest itself is managed by interested political parties and attack groups eager to claim theirs is the majority view. Critics who deviate are disparaged or mocked as prudish or paid trolls. Others that voice “politically incorrect” opinions are largely censored and blocked from expressing any view that represents nonconformity. Our own streets are home to criminal gangs, who are ruled by an increasingly hamstrung Police force, confused by conflicting and contrary laws, and who find themselves in the absurd position of protecting the rights of the law breaker and terrorists as “individuals” with “special needs”. They now appear forced to act in the interests of the abusers’ “human rights”, rather than being concerned with protecting the majority of law abiding citizens from any crimes inflicted upon them. Drug crime is rife, and increasingly the movement by the radicals to decriminalise drug use is pushed as the solution; its causes best resolved by making it readily available they claim, in order to “normalise” and “lessen” the vilification associated with its use. 161

Children spend large periods of time in front of violent virtual reality computer games. Torture and death as entertainment spectacles is normalised and commonplace. Watershed regulations to shield them from adult themes are increasingly flouted. Darkness and subliminal political messages are communicated both in school theatre groups and in-home entertainment. Music no longer inspires or elevates but attacks the senses with dissonance. The arts are increasingly ugly or created to shock or devalue our emotional reactions. Architecture is ugly, our personal appearance is becoming increasingly ugly with tattoos, body piercings and cosmetic alterations. These are encouraged to such an extent that it no longer becomes aesthetically shocking, but the norm. Our attitude more generally is encouraged to be violent, angry, or disparaging, as a fashionable pose towards other people in our now increasingly dangerous “communities”. Nevertheless, there is no reason why our current moral-cultural situation has to inevitably continue to decline. A rebirth of traditional and cultural values is yet still possible. It needs to be embraced via a reaffirmation of the several virtues, and this can be achieved by affirming the beautiful and the good. A concern to reaffirm our cultural heritage and the achievements of the past must become mainstream, rather than the values that perpetually seek to deconstruct and destroy. In this reaffirmation of the past, a new more productive future can be realised. Key to reaffirmation is a belief in the value of past achievements. “The optimistic belief”, as Michael Minnicino calls it, that: “one could compose music like Beethoven, paint like Rembrandt, study the universe like Plato and Nicolaus of Cusa, and change world


society without violence.� 89 It requires Western civilisation to turn its back on that period that arose at the start of the 20th century which has been the cause of so much human suffering. A tendency that manifest in war and can be characterised philosophically as a tendency to nihilism. A perspective that invokes largely a debilitating pessimism in the moral worth of Western culture. It requires in a very real sense, a counter-revolution to the progressive nihilism of Western liberalism. An inherent optimism in the worth of Western culture’s ability to recreate, affirm and communicate the eternal moral values once more. An affirmation of the Greek classical ideal can help in this. Prompting a reaffirmation of the Renaissance and Romantic legacies also, and which have represented the key cultural movements of Western civilisation. Such traditions notably entailed a spiritual elevation of the human soul, and signified periods for economic improvement and cultural, intellectual and spiritual growth. Entirely new movements that start at Year Zero and which promised a future vision of a better tomorrow have inevitably not always fared well. 90 But traditions that glorify the present by reference to 89

The Frankfurt School and Political Correctness, Fidelio Magazine, Winter 1992.

90 The term

Year Zero applied to the takeover of Cambodia in April 1975, by the Khmer Rouge. It has an analogy to the Year One of the French Revolutionary Calendar. During the French Revolution, after the abolition of the French monarchy (September 20, 1792), the National Convention instituted a new calendar and declared the beginning as Year I. The Khmer Rouge takeover of Phnom Penh was rapidly followed by a series of drastic revolutionary de-industrialisation policies that resulted in a death toll that vastly exceeded that of the French Reign of Terror. The idea behind Year Zero was that all culture and traditions within a society had to be completely destroyed, or discarded, and a new revolutionary culture would replace it. All history of a nation or people before Year Zero was deemed largely irrelevant and replaced. In Cambodia, so-called 163

its past history and build on its historical successes may perhaps fare better. In this, art must play its role, becoming not a catalyst for cultural pessimism, but a symbol to enrich and enhance. Characteristic of what might be termed “affirmative” art, is the importance of Beauty, which has significantly sought to combine the scientific with the religious. This represented a genuine synthesis. It was exemplified during the Classical and Renaissance movements most notably in beautiful architecture that was thought to represent the cosmos itself. The finest minds of our Western heritage have turned to the structures of the cosmos as a source of inspiration for artistic creativity. Great works of art provide (as icons) a portal through which the relationship between mankind as microcosm and macrocosm can be realised and contemplated. In this, art contextualises our place in the chain of being and was valued according to its ability to successfully achieve this. It has been compromised through an ideological, nonspiritual atheism that advocates nihilism, and it needs to be recontextualised and revalued once more. The bloody legacy bequeathed by the nihilistic values of the twentieth century needs to be reversed, and a rebirth of art as an expression of our spiritual force and enduring future, as well as our past achievements needs to be reaffirmed. The cultural shift away from these ideas that built the modern world was exacerbated by a desire for an alternative as well as a desire to destroy and rebuild. This prompted as much as anything a self-perpetuating ugliness. It was utilised in a formal political theory to popularise theories that were “New People” targeted teachers, artists, and intellectuals, who were especially singled out as potential subversives because of their past knowledge and many executed during the purges which accompanied it. 164

deliberately designed to weaken civilisation in such a way as to make people believe that creativity was not possible, that adherence to universal truth and order was evidence of authoritarianism, and that even reason itself was suspect. Whether the origins of the conspiracy to subvert endured as a conscious strategy can be debated and justified, but as a transformation the contemporary effects and decline are tangible. The new industries of radio, television, film, recorded music, advertising, and public opinion polling have communicated its values. The pervasive psychological hold of the media has been fostered to create the passivity and pessimism which shifted people’s sensibilities to a new mode of thinking.

Summary of Cultural Marxism’s achievements Cultural Marxism has almost come to characterise the values of mainstream “liberal” Western culture. Whilst for some it may be ignored, or even excused as a mere “conspiracy” (a term that justifies its perpetuation) for others it has taken on a life of its own. Its destructive influence is self-evident in the media, arts, and our social and political institutions. Even the law courts are hampered and debased by its influence, as it champions the human rights of the criminal and stifles the sentence. The judiciary, therefore, punishes those that are its victims in their reluctance to justly punish the perpetrator. The universities have now become overwhelmed by its influence. The student radicals of the 1960s have become institutionalised as academics and many even strive to fulfil the Troskyite “permanent revolution” that stifles free creativity and growth in the interests of promoting politically


correct disciplines. 91 This is no longer the academy of free speech and noble endeavour to further the boundaries of knowledge, but a PC indoctrination centre, to enable them to be “on the right side of history�. The reality today is that mankind is largely manifesting the ugly and not the beautiful due to an inherited psychological sickness fostered by a politically correct, cultural Marxist derived nihilism. This not only induces cultural pessimism but is encouraging a self-perpetuating decline in the worth of moral values once considered eternal, universal and natural. It further invites civilisational collapse for its own sake. In such situations, the record of history is unequivocal: either we create again through a reaffirmation of fundamental principles, or Western civilisation will collapse.

Students at the University of Virginia recently petitioned successfully to drop the requirement to read Homer, Chaucer, and other DEMS ("Dead European Males") because such writings were considered ethnocentric, phallocentric, and generally inferior to the "more relevant" female, or homosexual authors. As a case can be made that Plato and Shakespeare were themselves gay, it appears the arguments and reasoning of these radicals once again are based on an ideological, inaccurate, fallacious and incomplete reading of our chief literary figures, and more generally the importance and value of their achievements. 91


Chapter Two Communist strategies: infiltrating the West “Aiming at implacable revolution, the revolutionary may and frequently must live within society whilst frequently pretending to be completely different from what he really is, for he must penetrate everywhere, into all the higher and middle classes, into the houses of commerce, the churches and the houses of the aristocracy and into the worlds of the bureaucracy and literature and the military...” - Sergey Nerchayev, “The Revolutionary Catechism.”

Political aspects of the Communist ideology were implemented by agents acting as benign Western advocates of “democratic liberalism” soon after the Russian Revolution. The first protagonists originated as members of the Cheka, later the KGB, and their influence in the West became widespread, as Yuri Bezmenov, a former Soviet dissenter and KGB defector, up until the 1980s once explained.


The implementation of

Soviet strategies during the Cold War was a systematic and deliberate attempt to undermine the values of Western democracy and free-market capitalism, in order to achieve the ultimate ideal of global Communism. Yuri Bezmenov (aka Schuman, Tomas (1984). Love Letter to America. Los Angeles: NATA. (1985). No "Novosti" is Good News. Los Angeles: Almanac. (1985). Black is Beautiful, Communism is Not. Almanac (1986). 92


The reality of fulfilling their agenda most likely would have initiated the collapse of the nation state, the swift imposition of a totalitarian bloc, the liquidation or imprisonment and persecution of vast numbers of its citizens that opposed such a bloc and its edicts, and at least for those who accepted it, economic stagnation leading to widespread poverty in the name of egalitarianism, starvation and death. Though the socialists of various hues and even the hard-line Communists dismiss this today with the claim that the mistakes of the past would not be repeated in the future, the evidence of history undermines their claims, not only in the former Soviet Union, but in the present-day China, North Korea, Laos and some South American regimes, where human rights abuses were and still are rife.

The nature of the deception Any deceptive strategy has one fundamental aim: the art of manipulation. This requires making the enemy or opponent act in ways which they themselves do not fully comprehend. Here the opponent thinks they gain their own advantage, but in truth act to their enemies’ advantage. A deception, then, is a means of control, and in that gives the manipulator the upper hand. Deceit basically involves a subversion of the truth: fools are praised as intelligent and the intelligent berated as fools; the intelligent are made passive and the foolish are made active; idiots are utilised for useful purposes, whilst the wise are kept busily occupied in the useless. It is simply the strategy of subversion and manipulating minds into chosen actions, achieving compliance, passivity and ultimately submission until 168

ultimate victory is attained. In the 5th century before Christ’s birth, the Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu formulated the principle of subversion as follows: “All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.” ― Sun-Tzu: “The Art of War”. Key to any successful outcome, Sun Tzu recommended fulfilling the following objectives: 1. Cover with ridicule all the valid traditions in your opponent's country. 2. Implicate their leaders in criminal affairs and turn them over to the scorn of their populace at the right time. 3. Disrupt the work of their government by every means possible. 4. Do not shun the aid of the lowest and most despicable individuals of your enemy's country. 5. Spread disunity and dispute among the citizens. 6. Turn the young against the old. 7. Be generous with promises and rewards to collaborators and accomplices. Two thousand five hundred years later, this strategy was unsurprisingly mimicked by the Communist International for their radicals, activists and revolutionaries in a booklet called “Rules of Revolution”. The reason for the similarity is hardly surprising, if one realises that “The Art of War” was a standard manual of both the KGB and the East German military before the collapse of the Berlin Wall; as attested by Anatoly Golitsyn, the former 169

KGB Soviet defector, and other dissidents. 93 The details are as follows: 1. Corrupt the young, get them interested solely in sex, take them away from religion. Make them superficial and weak. 2. Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on about controversial issues of no importance. 3. Destroy people’s faith in their national leaders by holding the latter up for contempt, ridicule and disgrace. 4. Always preach democracy, but at the key moment seize power as fast and as ruthlessly as possible. 5. By encouraging government extravagances, destroy its credit, produce years of inflation with rising prices and cultivate discontent. 6. Incite unnecessary strikes in vital industries, encourage civil disorders and foster a lenient and soft attitude on the part of the government towards such disorders. 7. Cause breakdown of the old moral virtues supported by religion: honesty, sobriety, self-restraint, and finally belief in the pledged word.

Any comparison of the two lists reveals common concerns in the military, political and cultural spheres. Common to these strategies of subversion and usurpation can be seen a number of universal characteristics: such as the necessity of deceit, the necessity of violence and the necessity of immorality. In respect to the Communist list of objectives, the subversion strategies were attempted by those favourable to the political cause of Socialism,

Yevgenia Albats and Catherine A. Fitzpatrick. “The State Within a State: The KGB and Its Hold on Russia--Past, Present, and Future” (1994). See also Christopher Story’s interviews in respect to The Perestroika Deception. 93


which as Vladimir Lenin said: “is the goal of Communism”. In this, then, for the Soviets and Communists at least, the aim was to propagate revolution and, in respect to the Marxist-Leninists especially, to achieve Soviet hegemony in the West. The self-perpetuating Cultural Marxist strategy in the first and last of the seven objectives is evident. In this revolutionary strategy a change of values is sought and is to be spread like scattered seed to grow and slowly corrupt the good ground of the target nation’s moral values. For its originators, it was to be affected slowly and assimilated over a few generations, making the gradual, but persistent subversion of their cultures possible in a manner that mere economic disparity could not. It was to address the revolutionary deficit apparent in classical Marxist economic theory and entail the “slow march through the institutions” to subvert and undermine the basic structures and foundations of a nation before revolution was induced: a “war of position” to infiltrate institutions with influential intellectuals and people of power to create a set of new cultural values. 94 As a consequence of generational change, it was envisioned that the average citizen preoccupied with everyday life would not readily perceive the gradual process of subversion that was occurring until it was too late. In contrast, the military strategy represents the opposite of this: a violent sudden takeover against the wishes of the majority.95 Violent military strategy alone is disadvantaged, inasmuch as it has a tendency to promote awareness and vigilance if people become conscious Gramsci reportedly heard Munzenberg’s lectures, which may have influenced his own ideas and views. 94

Attesting to the violent aspect of the strategy, Marx asserted: “The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can only be achieved by a forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.” 95


such a possibility could or might occur. Hence, the necessity for a “sudden” takeover to maintain the element of surprise. But this “surprise element” did not exist during the extended period of the Cold War, and as a consequence, the appeal to other strategies was also an attempt to win an additional advantage by sidestepping vigilance. Cultural, political and economic subversion was therefore to be combined with military power. The advantage of the former being that cultural pessimism effectively softens the minds of the populace. It promotes despair, confusion and belief in the values of the nation, and this can be utilised to further (in the long term) a more effective and successful military takeover if the element of surprise has been lost. Incremental subversion effectively induces complacency in the face of any imminent takeover. A successful outcome for any military strategy, therefore, is not only greatly improved by the element of fear that any military show of strength might induce, but also seeks to spread confusion and weakness in moral values, promoting compliance and passivity and easy manipulation by leaders. Fear is achieved through a military show of strength, but confusion and weakness is also achieved through an erosion in confidence of the virtues and merits of one’s own values and beliefs. In this it can be seen that the general strategy contains, as one might expect in a Marxist dialectic equation, the two opposites of slow incremental change coupled with a quick conflict to achieve a result. A key component to achieve this success therefore involves the combination of opposites. A strategy recommended by the Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu when he asserted: “Appear weak when you are strong and strong when you are weak.”


In military tactics more generally, the strong look is useful to exploit the element of fear (as in the shock and awe tactics used in the US during the incursion in Iraq with night time air raids) to paralyse the enemy with fear. Yet the weak look is also a good tool for promoting a successful outcome, as it provides an element of confusion as to who the real enemy is and complacency in the face of any imminent danger. In terms of the past Soviet strategy, in the short to medium term, the strong look was implemented variously by the Red Square parades, the Cuban missile crisis, the belittling of the enemy (such as remarks about the US and John. F. Kennedy made by Kruschev).


Whereas the weak

look was simultaneously propagated as a strategy of stealth by Marxist intellectuals in the public sphere and intelligence agents and espionage generally in the offices of government and finance, who often played the victim card when their cover was close to being exposed. A fundamental part of the Soviet/ Communist strategy generally to incite revolution can be found in Vladimir Lenin’s statement that: “The most powerful enemy can be conquered only by exerting the utmost effort, and by thoroughly, carefully, attentively, and skilfully taking advantage of even the smallest rift of every antagonism of interest…among the various groups or types within the various countries.” “I remember President Kennedy once stated that the United States had the nuclear missile capacity to wipe out the Soviet Union two times over, while the Soviet Union had enough atomic weapons to wipe out the United States only once. When journalists asked me to comment I said jokingly, "Yes, I know what Kennedy claims, and he's quite right. But I'm not complaining. We're satisfied to be able to finish off the United States first time round. Once is quite enough. What good does it do to annihilate a country twice? We're not a bloodthirsty people." “Khrushchev Remembers: The Last Testament” (1974). 96

Whereas President Kennedy’s response to this can best be summed up by him in an extract from his Inaugural Address: “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.” 173

In this one can see the importance of the divide and conquer strategy. Dividing the people ensures they fight in quarrelling factions amongst themselves. Any weakness to the cause can be balanced with organised riots in the name of peace, equal rights and freedom. It enables any nation to be easily conquered from within, with the activists claiming the moral high ground sometimes with laudable causes that are merely subverted. Two examples of this can be given in reference to China and Cuba, but there are many throughout history. Mao’s aim to induce division and in fighting as a necessary step to revolution was comparatively simple. For centuries, the Chinese had been tillers of the soil, eking a meagre living from land they did not always own, and to which they paid reparations to landlords who generally held large holdings. Whilst the new regime promised reforms to agrarian workers, they were slow in coming, and thus the inequalities between rich and poor persisted. The Communist activists thus simply planted in the minds of the workers that the enemy of the people were the landlords, as they were the cause of their misery and exploitation. A similar process occurred during the regime of Batista, which by comparison to earlier regimes was relatively tolerant and still enabled Cubans to enjoy some of the highest standards of living and education in all of Latin and South America. Corruption in government existed but was no more pronounced than in many cities in the United States at that time. Castro focused on the corruption in government to incite the revolution. He focused on the Batistianos (the followers of Batista) as the cause of the people’s suffering and oppression. He promised agrarian reform to the poor, which focused their discontent upon the “Latifundista” (the landowners). This achieved, Castro set Cuban against Cuban, inciting 174

division and infighting, until the revolution occurred. Throughout this he was the “people’s champion” and the “liberator of the oppressed”, even in the West, until his declaration of being a life-long Communist was exposed by himself. Another aspect of any strategy for a successful takeover is the necessity to give an appearance of popular support. This in itself is a deception, as typically in many of the “popular” revolutions inspired by the Communists their actual presence and influence was no more than about 1 or 2% of the populace. As Lenin stated: “Communism must be built with non-Communist hands.” Here the true objectives of the Communists are hidden with the use of appealing slogans with pretended humanitarian goals. As Stalin explains: “The revolutionary accepts reform in order to use it as a cover for his illegal works.”

Examples of these popular slogans, used to mask the essentially deceptive nature of the true objectives, can be found in Communist regimes established in the past. In reference to China, the slogan used was “Land to the Tiller”, which championed the virtues and past injustices suffered by the agrarian workers, whilst yet still enacting reforms that ultimately destroyed their livelihood and lives. 97 In Cuba, the popular slogan was

In January 1958, Mao launched the Great Leap Forward, a plan intended as an alternative model for economic growth to the Soviet model focusing on heavy industry that was advocated by others in the party. Under this economic programme, the relatively small agricultural collectives which had been formed to date were rapidly merged into far larger people’s communes, and many of the peasants were ordered to work on massive infrastructure projects and on the production of iron and steel. Some private food production was banned; livestock and farm implements were brought under collective ownership. 97


“Fatherland or Death” (Patria O Muerte). Another used in Hati and Venezuela was “Venceremos”, which translated means: “We shall Overcome”. A popular slogan later used during the Civil Rights movement and other political movements of the 1960s. Initially peaceful movements in the USA, which became increasingly violent as they effectively became infiltrated by Communist radicals.

Propaganda and Disinformation The use of propaganda achieves a variety of influences upon the minds of the people. First it can be used to motivate and inspire the people to collective action, or further the acceptance of any long-term goals. It can also be used as a counter-effect: to induce fear, confusion and weakness in the minds of any perceived enemy. The recognition of these two opposite outcomes is evident in a statement by Hitler, where the twin elements of motivation and subversion are

Under the Great Leap Forward, Mao and other party leaders ordered the implementation of a variety of unproven and unscientific new agricultural techniques by the new communes. Combined with the diversion of labour to steel production and infrastructure projects, these projects combined with cyclical natural disasters led to an estimated 15% drop in grain production in 1959 followed by a further 10% decline in 1960 and no recovery in 1961. In an effort to win favour with their superiors and avoid being purged, each layer in the party hierarchy exaggerated the amount of grain produced under them. Based upon the false claims, party cadres were ordered to requisition a disproportionately high amount of the true harvest for state use, primarily in the cities and urban areas but also for export. The net result, which was compounded in some areas by drought and in others by floods, left rural peasants with little food for themselves and many millions starved to death in the largest famine known as the Great Chinese Famine. A similar set of circumstances occurred under Stalin in respect to the Ukraine and the Holodomor. The Chinese famine was a direct cause of the death of some 30 million peasants between 1959 and 1962. Further, many children who became emaciated and malnourished during years of hardship and struggle for survival died shortly after the Great Leap Forward came to an end in 1962. 176

implicit in the deceit: “ By the skilful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.”

In chapter six of “Mein Kampf”,98 Hitler reviewed the use of propaganda during World War I. In the course of his criticism of the German effort, he included comments on the function of propaganda in general. His statements offer insight into the methods used by the Party and provide a good definition of precisely what effective propaganda needs to be. “The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses’ attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be extended in this direction. The more modest its intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective it will be. And this is the best proof of the soundness or unsoundness of a propaganda campaign, and not success pleasing a few scholars or young aesthetes. The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. The fact that our bright boys do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are. Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf”, trans. Ralph Manheim. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1943 98


Once understood how necessary it is for propaganda to be adjusted to the broad mass, the following rule results: It is a mistake to make propaganda many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance. The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and, in the end, entirely cancelled out. Thus, we see that propaganda must follow a simple line and correspondingly the basic tactics must be psychologically sound... What, for example, would we say about a poster that was supposed to advertise a new soap and that described other soaps as 'good'? We would only shake our heads. Exactly the same applies to propaganda. It is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasise the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favours the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.” 99 There were several audiences for National Socialist propaganda. Germans were reminded of the struggle against foreign enemies and Jewish subversion. During periods preceding legislation, or executive measures against Jews, propaganda campaigns created an atmosphere tolerant of violence against Jews, particularly in 1935 (before the Nuremberg Race Laws of September) and in 1938 (prior to the barrage of anti-Semitic economic legislation following Kristallnacht). Propaganda also encouraged passivity and acceptance of the impending measures against Jews, as these appeared to depict the government as stepping in and “restoring order.” 99

Real and supposed discrimination against ethnic Germans in east European nations which had gained territory at Germany's expense following World War I, such as Czechoslovakia and Poland, was the subject of National Socialist propaganda. This propaganda sought to elicit political loyalty and race consciousness among the ethnic German populations. It also sought to mislead foreign governments (including the European Great Powers) that National Socialist Germany was making understandable and fair demands for concessions and annexations. Once the German campaign began against the Russians, German propaganda stressed to both civilians at home and to soldiers, police officers, and non-German auxiliaries serving in occupied territory themes linking Soviet Communism to European Jewry, presenting Germany as the defender of “Western” culture against the “Judeo178

Generally, propaganda is not concerned with communicating truth. It does not seek fairness, philosophical debate or a balanced, objective consideration of alternative points of view. Its purpose is only to influence and change behaviour for a desired political outcome. Its characteristic is fundamentally deceptive in its unwillingness to be open minded and, in order to be effective, the element of disinformation to mask its true objectives is intrinsic to it. The objectives of propaganda can be distinguished accordingly. These being: •

To influence people to overthrow the existing order and by this incite a revolution.

Bolshevik threat, and painting an apocalyptic picture of what would happen if the Soviets won the war. This was particularly the case after the catastrophic German defeat at Stalingrad in February 1943. These themes may have been instrumental in inducing terrified Germans as well as local collaborators to fight on until the very end. Films in particular played an important role in disseminating racial antisemitism, the superiority of German military power, and the intrinsic evil of the enemies as defined by National Socialist ideology. Films portrayed Jews as "subhuman" creatures infiltrating Aryan society. For example, The Eternal Jew (1940), directed by Fritz Hippler, portrayed Jews inaccurately as wandering lascivious cultural parasites, consumed by an unwholesome desire for sex and money. Some films, such as The Triumph of the Will (1935) by Leni Riefenstahl, glorified Hitler and the National Socialist movement. Two other Riefenstahl works, Festival of the Nations and Festival of Beauty (1938), depicted the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games and promoted national pride in the successes of the Hitler regime at the Olympics. Newspapers in Germany, above all Der StĂźrmer (The Attacker), printed cartoons that used anti-Semitic caricatures to depict Jews more generally in grossly inaccurate terms. After the Germans began World War II with the invasion of Poland in September 1939, the National Socialist regime employed propaganda to impress upon German civilians and soldiers that the Jews generally were racially subhuman and dangerous enemies of the Reich. The regime aimed to elicit support, or at least acquiescence, for policies aimed at removing Jews permanently from areas of Germany. 179

To make people endure the regime once it is established.

To pacify any perceived threat from those external to the regime that might object.

In these 3 concerns, propaganda is used to influence and make the audience act in predetermined ways. It seeks to modify behaviour and thus represents a kind of public conditioning or psychological brainwashing. Key to this is the deceptive nature of the propaganda, which often justifies itself as conveying humanitarian and virtuous concerns initially, broadly in line with the target audience’s concerns and fears. It does this to be persuasive and emphasise the cause as just and therefore popular and laudable as an endeavour. Once these sensibilities are captured, it can then effectively stir up the target audience to revolt against perceived injustices in its midst. It can then justify revolution, and any measures that might be introduced by the new regime that administers it as good, no matter how inhumane. In respect to the third objective, propaganda can be used to pacify any enemy or threat to its objectives from without. It achieves this again by making the cause appear humane and virtuous, often specifically by recourse to the enemy’s own history and values. An example of the deception can be seen in Mao: “We are not striving for the political and social Communism of Russia. Rather we prefer to think of what we are doing as something rather that Lincoln fought for in the Civil War: the liberation of slaves.”

Or by citing Fidel Castro: “I have said very clearly that we are not Communists. Our revolution is a humanistic one.” 180

With this deceptive statement, he was lauded by the world’s press as the “Saviour of Cuba”, or “the Robin Hood of the Sierra Maestra”, as he took from the rich to give to the poor. The nation’s press was quick to report that this was not a Communist revolution in any sense of the word, and that there were no Communists in positions of control. The only person in a position of power was Fidel Castro himself, but he was not only not Communist, but decidedly anti-Communist. The propaganda, the greater part of which was released by Left wing newspapers, books and magazines, sought to assure the world that there was no “infidel in Fidel”. After a successful revolutionary conquest, thanks in part largely to arms supplied from the United States, he later revealed his claim as a deception stating: “I am a Marxist-Leninist and I will be one until the last day of my life.” A necessary part of the strategy to incite revolution too is the element of hatred and discord: it seeks to stir up in the consciousness of the population to any other than the Communists, who are portrayed as the champions of the oppressed, and to be viewed as their liberators both politically, morally, socially and even spiritually. As Lenin remarked: “We can and must write in a language that sows in the masses hate, revulsion and scorn towards those who disagree with us.” It was resolved into a key strategy to neutralise the masses who might disagree with the Communist cause. One still utilised by Socialists today in political debates and activism in the following Communist Party directive of 1943: “Members and Front organisations must continually embarrass, discredit and degrade our critics. When obstructionists become too irritating label them as Fascist, Nazi or anti-Semitic. Constantly 181

associate those who oppose us with those names which already have a bad smell. The association will, after enough repetition, become fact in the public mind.” In the new Communist regime of China under Mao this worked well. The term “Landlord” became a pejorative and popularly used. The former government under Chiang Kai Shek was labelled as “an enemy of the people”, whereas the new government officers, the Communist Party officials, became known as “Grafters”. An equivalent translation of a term handed down into popular parlance today to denote anyone who works hard and honestly for a living. Those who refused to support the new values, or presented counter resistance, were prone to unexpected visits from roving guerrilla bands to quash any dissent. Similarly, in Cuba, any unenthusiastic about Castro’s reforms were branded “Batistiano”, “Batista followers”, or “Counter revolutionaries” and thus dangerous to the “just” and “good” cause. The next step of the Communist strategy is the most easily recognised, as it involves getting the masses active in demonstrations, so that these can be infiltrated and subverted to mob violence. Many peaceful campaigns and demonstrations, which it is the democratic right of citizens to partake in, are subverted to violence in this way by the radicals. As Lenin asserts: “Riots, demonstrations, street battles, detachments of a revolutionary army, such are the stages in the development of the popular uprising.” The official constitution and programmes of the Communist Party in 1923 also acknowledges this. “The Communist Party will educate and organise the working masses for mass strikes and mass demonstrations. It is through struggles that the working masses are prepared for the final conflict for power. As these strikes grow in number and intensity they acquire political character through the unavoidable collision and 182

open combat with the capitalistic state. Mass action culminates in armed insurrection and civil war.” As a psychological strategy, the subversion of orderly demonstrations into mob violence inevitably invites a response from the military, or police force, in order to restore law and order. The consequence then encourages the likelihood of future demonstrations and a violent response in return by thwarted and so called repressed protestors. This strategy to rub the police or military and the demonstrators against each other by infiltrating demonstrations increases violence and causes further conflict. It would fan the flames of violence on a large scale and ultimately trigger revolution.

Besides arming the protestors in demonstrations, allegedly


for their own protection, the Police’s approach and methods could be weakened by utilising the slur of “Police brutality” to strengthen their own hand. A method particularly used today. At the risk of labouring the point: in respect to Soviet Communism, propaganda was but one element in an all fronts attack on the West to achieve hegemony. Its objective was to induce a revolution through psychological subterfuge. Its goal being the collapse of nation states, and ultimately to achieve control under a Marxist-Leninist regime. This project was conceived as a global and not simply a one nation strategy. It sought, therefore, to incite global revolution and as a consequence global unrest. The military, political and cultural strategies were to be supplemented with the use of propaganda as a form of psychological warfare to influence the minds of the people. This even though they were often seen by the Soviets as an enemy. In terms of the Soviets then, this

A 1964 Communist pamphlet taken from the Viet-Kong stated: “Get the people out into the streets. Quarrels should be provoked. Youth groups are to be armed with knives and clubs, allegedly to protect themselves in a manufactured tension.” 100


was less about liberation and more about subversion of a perceived people deemed a threat to bring about their designed downfall. The strategies designed are in some respects still utilised by Socialists today, to further their own particular political aims and further their global open borders anti-nation agenda. The values in this respect are rather a self-inflicted self-destruction, mistakenly considered to be of virtue and benefit. Bezmenov’s four stages of subversion Yuri Bezmenov, a former KGB agent and Soviet dissident, identified four stages in ‘ideological subversion’ or ‘psychological warfare’ to undermine the target. These were: 1) DEMORALISATION 2) DESTABILISATION 3) CRISIS 4) NORMALISATION The four stages of progression entail various strategies for the successful subversion of any country. They can be achieved by pursuing certain specific targets and methods to achieve the desired results.

Demoralisation This involves destroying the internal dialogue of a society, its belief systems, morality, ethics, values, etc. to create subterfuge and confusion. To achieve this, subversion agents or moles are placed within the proper positions in society and the true patriots (what might be termed the paleo184

conservatives, classical liberals, libertarians and even soft socialists) are identified, ridiculed, smeared and marginalised. Ultimately, they will be liquidated, if the proposed revolution successfully takes hold. 101 One historic example concerning the manner in which such individuals were found and located was in Vietnam, where the Communists had effectively used informants and activists to identify American sympathisers who did not support the Marxist cause. Using activists from barbers to taxi cab drivers, they would accumulate lists of specific individuals. This is why ten thousand US supporters were then able to be dragged out of their villages at night, taken to remote areas and shot. The sense of potency and capability of the enemy thus creates the important adjunct to demoralisation: intimidation and fear. US Army advisers could never understand how the Communists were able to so effectively assassinate their political rivals with such success, until these infiltration strategies were identified. Clearly in this knowledge is power to combat any such imbalance.

Sergey Nerchayev in the “Revolutionary Catechism” even outlined the order of executions that must occur for a successful outcome in any revolutionary strategy. 101

First: “Those that are especially inimical to the revolutionary organisation must be destroyed through violent and sudden deaths, robbing the opposition of the cleverest and most energetic.” Whilst in the second group are: “Those to be temporarily spared so that by a series of monstrous acts, they may drive the people into inevitable revolt.” The third are “…the brutes in high positions, distinguished neither by their cleverness nor by their energy, while enjoying rights, influences and power, they must be exploited in every way.” Fourth are: “ambitious liberals and office holders” used to create disorder in the state. Fifth are “doctrinaire conspirators, revolutionists who cut a great figure on paper”. These are not that important in reality. They will also be executed as some of these may grow into genuine counter-revolutionaries later. The sixth class are various women too numerous to mention. 185

So too, another important factor in demoralisation occurs, as noted previously, through a direct attack on a country’s primary religion. The aim is to undermine faith in God with the strategy that it no longer should be seen as righteous and productive to society. This is specifically to undermine the strength and sense of purposive unity drawn from its moral values. A defining feature of Marxist-Leninist subversion strategy often focused, and still does to this day, on subverting such beliefs and undermining or indoctrinating religious communities with counterproductive principles, politicised dogma, or indeed Marxist-Leninist or Socialist or “Liberal Progressive” dogma, even if it is counterproductive to the faith. It is to be noted that the primary concern here is the specific undermining of moral values to make the individual confused and weak. Thus, entire communities and hence the greater part of the nation, become vulnerable to attack. Moral values were often embodied in the national religion of a particular country and in America particularly in the heart of communities. As a consequence, churches became the primary target. In the case of the West generally, irrespective of whether the nation advocates secularism, the primary target is Christianity, as this represents the bedrock of moral values in a national sense. The aim then was to induce moral weakness, both through distraction and perversion, away from the primarily Christian ideals and morals that strengthen an individual’s character and, through a direct attack on the institutions themselves, to cause social dissent, confusion, disunity and ultimately conflict. This can occur by a continuous attack on the credibility and standing of a country more generally- its historic traditions and past contribution, and its place or


current standing and importance in the world. 102

Destabilisation The KGB once established a well-coordinated recruiting drive in all forms of education, entertainment and journalistic resources within a society. These resources would focus on those who suffer from self-importance, greed, psychopathology and narcissism as character flaws. It would also focus on people who were the personnel of the key institutions they sought to weaken. Consequently, this would include some academic professors, actors, reporters, government officials, teachers, those with media influence, and business leaders. Today liberal progressive individuals, particularly media figures, are often used as an important lever in the developmental stage of a social rebellion. Many are “useful idiots” in this sense, as they are themselves to be ultimately imprisoned or liquidated. The “useful idiots” (as they have been termed): the actors, civil rights workers, the union organisers and the community organisers as examples, are usually dispensed with as a priority, in spite of their former sympathies, as they quickly become disenchanted once they see the reality and results of the revolution and its violent consequences. As the former liberal idealists for the cause, they tend to become its most vehement critics. In Stalin’s day, poets and writers were often considered the first targets for the death squad as they were the most vehement and influential political threat. It takes between 15 to 30 years of exposure to radicalism (Marxist102 As

evinced by Mr Peskov’s remarks in September 2013 that Britain was “just a small island no one listens to” in respect to the Syrian Crisis and its proposed peace negotiations. 187

Leninism, or the various values of Cultural Marxism) with no rebuttal to implement destabilisation. In two generations of influence, the malleable minds of successive generations become pliant and easily accepting of the principles. Compliance was to be achieved principally as indoctrination, primarily through the education system. In this, as Bezmenov notes, many of the chief agents in control of the education system (particularly in the teacher’s unions and in important professorial and school posts) are invariably left-wing educators, and many who were political activists themselves deliberately sought to subvert the traditional system for ideological and political ends or alter it so that it aligned more closely to their own political principles. Of course, not all did this consciously or deliberately in support of the cause. Some may have been aware of the ideology but had a misplaced sense of its ultimate consequences. But for those who were fully aware subversives, influence by a few figures in strategic positions was usually sufficient. Today the influence of values is largely self-perpetuating and progressively evolving towards an increasing deconstruction of traditional values, even if it is not consciously deliberate as a revolutionary objective. In respect to activists and ideologues, those who have been demoralised, ideologically







disinformation strategy are often beyond reason and cannot accept facts even when they are self-evident. This is particularly true in respect to their hatred or disdain for the prime values of their own Constitution. It is a sad indictment of the extent of their own conditioning that they seek to undermine the importance of it, when it is necessary in order to retain and protect their own freedoms. In this scrambled set of values, they work against liberty in the name of freedom from it and thus promote their own 188

self destruction. In respect to the media, the courts, appointees, and even normal citizens, do not realise they are effectively working against their own nation and self-interest. Hatred for their own nation is often justified to themselves as a higher, more moral aim. 103 All manner of extreme or ludicrous arguments will be accepted or justified in a self-perpetuating attack. Most notably, the claim by one radical leftist who sought to berate David Horowitz at the end of his presentation at the University of California, San Diego on May 19, 2010, that the Founding Fathers were akin to Nazi tyrants who sought to establish dictatorships through guerrilla warfare. 104 Crisis In the psychological sense crisis approximates to a disparity between the ideologue’s actual well-being and their world view. It is manifest as a complex that strives to justify their ideology and the consequences of it, even at the expense of their own personal safety. A crisis point occurs if they justify their own death, or the death of others on the basis of ideological values. Suicide bombers and other terrorists prepared to sacrifice their own lives have reached this stage. On the national scale crisis is reached when mob violence, induced by the subversion of once peaceful demonstrations, escalate into riots. The forces of law and order are then usually overrun. This requires mob violence on a mass scale. It tends to become an escalating self-perpetuating phenomenon, fed by the police, that seeks to impose law and order, but exacerbates more virulent counter force reactions from the protestors. As was the case with Owen Jones, a self-professed “Democratic Socialist�, who embarrassed at the accusation attempted to laugh it off. 103


See the confrontation here. 189

This continues until one of the opposing forces is victorious. Once the law and order forces have been subjugated, it is easy to justify the need for emergency measures in any proposed take-over. A compliant populace, and not just those militant and ideologically indoctrinated who are working for the cause, will largely accept this. Particularly if it is justified as:

Normalisation Normalisation is an irony that does not literally convey its true meaning. Normalisation in military terms, means the forced acceptance of a coup when the revolution is complete, and all resistance has been eliminated. In Czechoslovakia in 1968, for example, “normalisation” was achieved once Soviet tanks had occupied the streets. In respect to the revolutionaries, it involves a shift towards imposing a government with values commensurate with those still loyal activists who induced the crisis in the first place. The apparent crisis, the revolution, terrorism, or civil war, will then be apparently resolved in a peaceful cessation. The country’s government will have been effectively taken over by the enemy, and a resolution achieved by “compromise”. The crisis in this respect is manufactured to enable the enemy to take over and is therefore indicative of their true motive, usurpation. The process need not necessarily involve a military take-over to achieve similar results. The modern manifestation is evident in respect to the increasingly federalist “revolution” that strives to peacefully impose more government power. This process, however, is still one that is implemented via a “manufactured” crisis, which can lead to civil unrest to justify the 190

imposition of increased martial law, and thence an increasingly totalitarian form of control.


In this respect, any form of counter-

revolutionary strategy cannot be successfully achieved by violence, as this merely exacerbates the possibility of increasingly authoritarian measures being imposed in the name of “security” by the increasingly federalised government. The weapons of the counter revolutionary strategists to combat increasing totalitarianism have then to be: •


intelligent debate and the appeal to reason,

a respect for past traditions that once made a country and its people confident, content, productive, proud, strong and civilised.

The counter revolutionary differs from the revolutionary activist in realising violence cannot achieve productive results in the long term, and that a modification of the existing regime needs to be met by peaceful discussion and not violent or military means.

Let’s examine the four stages in more specific detail and the extent of their influence more generally today.

DEMORALISATION This process has little to do with espionage in the sense of a James Bond style subterfuge. It is rather more like psychological warfare; a sustained propaganda attack, often carried out through media and news outlets, or on the internet. These “active measures”, as they were once termed by the

A strategy also currently being used by the left leaning government of the Obama administration. As once articulated by Obama’s former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s statement that: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” 105


KGB, were envisaged as the first phase to implement ideological subversion. A tactic that would ultimately bring a strong nation to its knees. The diverse tactics of “active measures” were implemented by coordinated operatives working internally and externally. In the past, many were simply KGB operatives working externally, as Bezmenov testifies, based on his personal experiences. External operatives usually worked with foreign delegations, such as the ones Bezmenov helped organise in Moscow and in India. After a certain period of befriending and moulding the minds of foreigners, Bezmenov had to provide his KGB supervisor with a “psychological assessment” of the target individual (or group) and then pass them over to other “professionals” for further processing and recruitment. Some of the internal operatives on US soil were systematically exposed during the so called “witch trials” of the McCarthy era. After the increasing vilification of such measures through negative propaganda, deep inspection of radicals was curtailed. Recent research, however, has proven the extent of the McCarthy investigations to be largely correct.106 Since the end of the Cold War they have been considerably relaxed with the view the Soviet threat was over. They have thus underestimated the ongoing nature of the subversion strategy from Leftists at home. With the relaxed attitude and the post Perestroika “partnerships”, many spies, subversives and ideologues still sought to infiltrate institutions to further Russian hegemony. Some maintained pro-Communist allegiances The full extent of the investigations hailed as wild accusations and the charges against specific individuals by McCarthy such as Alger Hiss have now been proven in the main entirely correct. See here. 106


and continue to do so. FSB spies (as will be shown in a later chapter) are prevalent and active in America and Europe today. Some of these activists were exposed to pro Marxist-Leninist and Communist ideals at childhood, or in their formative adult years. Others have been ideologically indoctrinated for the furtherance of Russian imperialist ambitions, or simply seek to amass information for intelligence purposes against the perceived threat of a “Liberal” enemy called “the West”. It may be noted that many of the strategic measures listed so far have also been adapted and used to further pro Federalist, pro globalist aims today. The strategies still entail the use of propaganda; the use of “diplomats of influence”; international forums to bring an atmosphere of legitimacy and respectability to a federal, state-centred or globalist agenda, even if it is not specifically portrayed as Marxist-Leninist or Communist in ideology, or is viewed as something more akin to Corporate Socialism. The use of provoking and manipulating mass demonstrations and assemblies to affect and further such aims; the use of community agitation methods of the Alinskyite type; the spreading of propaganda, rumours and disinformation in the local and global media news networks; as well as the financing of groups of subversives and radicals, etc. by influential foundations such as Tides and the Open Society Institute, and by such Liberal Progressive figures as Georg Soros, further their own hegemonic objectives. The strategies utilised by the Communists during the Cold War are not then specific nor exclusive to them but have been variously adapted both in the West and East to further the current agendas for hegemony. Other tactics, such as sabotage, character assassination and vilification of those resistant to subversion, terrorism and even the murder of citizens abroad, are undertaken to achieve advantage, stem intelligence leaks, or to induce 193

the psychological effect of ‘paralysing with fear’ the opposition’s patriots, both at home and abroad. It takes several decades to demoralise a nation and ‘re-educate’ a generation. To achieve this effectively, it is imperative that any basic national values, particularly constitutional values, are weakened and eliminated. In the absence of any strong or consistent national ideology, the task of subversion then becomes easier. To bring this about, a multiplicity of contrary ideas and ideologies and values generally critical of the national ideology, its political values, identity and culture are encouraged and propagated. These do not necessarily have to be consistent or coordinated as long as they are anti nationalistic and nihilistic more generally. The chief qualifier is that they induce pessimism in the individual as to the worth of the home nation. Necessary for the success of the subversion process also must be the idea of the opposing worthwhile cause; for example, civil rights, a campaign for nuclear disarmament, peace march, etc. The nation then becomes receptive (either passively or actively) to the ideas of the subversive who often utilises these good causes for their own ends and can then be prepared to accept a change or modification accordingly during their involvement. By way of a philosophical critique, the principle of “liberal democracy” is often used, because it is one which emphasises freedom individually and ideologically. It is open to championing tolerance, and often strives to promote openness via an acceptance of multiple ideologies, faiths and value systems. These aims appear laudable, even if they are not all necessarily conducive to national values and a Western nation’s security (sharia law or militancy being examples). But the tendency is to try and justify them anyway, in the name of being “liberal”, openminded, in the 194

name of freedom of speech and tolerance. Liberalism in this sense can readily be exploited or subverted to other more extreme causes as an ideological weapon. Clearly many would be recruits would not readily work for a cause if it were presented openly as seeking to promote anarchy: the breakdown of law and order; a chaotic reign of terror; mob rule or perpetual rioting leading to revolution and death. Nor would any cause readily find support if it had the declared aim to overthrow a “democratically” elected President, or a political party who were working to improve the nation for the benefit of its citizens, even if they had variable success. In this, the cause of revolution could not be popularised in a “democratic” nation, logically speaking if it was clear it would not be of benefit in some sense. But with political parties of any ideology the claim always is that it will be of benefit in some sense. The qualifier is only in the manner in which violence is often justified as a means to an end. For those seeking genuine subversion of a perceived enemy, therefore, it is usually necessary to clothe its aims in a language that promotes tolerance and openness, so that less extreme hard-line recruits are attracted to its cause in the name of higher sounding ideals such as “egalitarianism” and “diversity”. This tendency to promote in the name of “liberal democracy” as an example, promotes popularism, but can easily be subverted, but is clearly lacking in the true goal which requires and inevitably leads to a totalitarian regime. In this the people are often hoodwinked in the name of a supposed absolute freedom by being given too much carte blanche power to determine outcomes that too often generally only lead to disorder, chaos and war. Democracy in this more absolute sense is tantamount to Communism in its motivational sense as 195

an ideology expressing the people’s wishes. It is a dangerous measure for good


sound government however.

It invariable leads


totalitarianism in Communist regimes to restore order by the unruly mob struggling with divisive and conflicting ideas and what is for the best. The Founding Fathers too were aware of its dangers as they considered “democracy” too readily encouraged a “rule of the mob”, rather than a “rule of the law” mentality. The principles enshrined in a constitutional republic. The shortfall of “liberal democracy” too in this respect is its tendency to accept unequivocally that “change” is in principle always a good thing, if it is progressive, because to be progressive is a natural and inevitable corollary of liberty. This is irrespective of the consequences. Associated here is the tendency to accept even bad ideas as unequivocally good, simply because they are labelled “progressive”. They are liberal and “liberating” in some ethical and more moral sense and therefore good without question. In this, progressivism tends to be accepted too readily and its pitfalls and problems overlooked. The advantage of the conservative approach is then one that seeks to preserve and limit this tendency. The Feudal system up until the Meiji Period (1868-1912) in Japan understood this tendency of western thinking well. Continued isolation (permitting only limited trade as per its requirements) was largely a desire and recognition to limit the subversive influence that the gaijin (outsider) culture could exert on the traditions of its own culture. Even today this approach has been more steadfastly observed than in the West, with the maintenance of a visa system and stricter controls for residency, alien cards, etc. A very different approach to the liberal multiculturalism imposed in Europe, that has sought to “enrich” communities with an 196

appeal to a non-visa, open border approach in the name of “freedom”, “vibrancy” and “diversity”, but which in spite of its advantages also brought cultural alienation and disparity. Multiculturalism is the starkest example of the dangers of embracing liberalism and its progressive ethos. This has not simply been a misconceived strategy. It has been a deliberate strategy by socialists in order to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, as Andrew Neather, a former Labour adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett in the UK made clear. Whilst the benefits of multiculturalism are generally championed and recognised in modern western societies too little attention until recently has been aid to the problems it invokes. More generally also, the implementation of the multiculturalism strategy in Europe and United States has been used as an effective leverage in order to weaken the integrity of national identities, thus facilitating an easier transition to a collectivised, supranational identity. It is therefore an important lever in the march of global progressivism. The aim it could be argued has been to weaken or dissipate national culture through the strategy of multiculturalism and immigrant influx, and to silence any moral dissent to such a strategy, even if it is clear it is detrimental. This is a modern example of how a nation subverts itself, or is subverted by activists opposed to national values and supportive of supranational values. It is achieved more generally by appealing to the values of political correctness (Cultural Marxism’s modern manifestation as Liberal Progressivism). It involves a multi-cultural approach, that respects cultural diversity, rather than national assimilation. It justifies criminality in the creation of “Sanctuary Cities” as an example. In the US the idea of “sanctuary cities” seek to protect illegal immigrants, who are generally deemed “vulnerable” and “law abiding” rather than “illegals” and therefore criminals, in the name of “tolerance” and 197

“diversity”. It seeks to interpret the values of America in a specific way as primarily welcoming to all if they are deemed immigrants, irrespective of whether they are illegal or not. It invokes false economic arguments as to the benefits of their right to stay, whilst continuing the attack strategy of demoralisation to weaken the work ethic of the indigenous population by branding them “lazy” or “work shy”, even in the face of rising unemployment, social fragmentation and murder. 107 Since its inception, the United States has largely managed to assimilate immigrant influx over successive generations with a remarkable degree of success. This has been mainly due to its strong national identity, fostered by an adherence to Constitutional values. The approach has been an assimilation that has yet managed to achieve a more uni-cultural, rather than multi-cultural national identity. Immigrant traditions and cultures from the mother country were largely absorbed and “Americanised” in a manner markedly different from the countries of Europe, where cultural fragmentation and ghettos of various ethnicities and nationalities has occurred and largely been encouraged. This American success story, however, is now being derailed also, by the increasing numbers and the amount of the inflow. It appears it is now unable to assimilate successfully. Assimilation generally takes a generation to achieve successfully at any rate. Problems have also been exacerbated by the gradual decline in emphasis on the importance of Constitutional values. Commensurately, Liberal Progressivism has sought to ridicule the values of the Constitution as irrelevant to modern needs and sensibilities, whilst seeking to enforce its own notions of open borders and humanitarian, peaceful Liberalism in increasingly dogmatic terms. The counter-productive effect has been a Note Boris Johnson, a “Conservative” and a former Mayor of London who has on numerous occasions spoken of the benefits of increased immigrant numbers in contrast to his vilification of the British. 107


vilification and castigation not of the minority and ethnic populace as a consequence of this, but a marginalisation and critique too often of the majority to offset perceived injustices. There has been too much willingness to embrace dangerous consequences of an unknown, post Constitutional future. A future based on the unproven assumption that multiculturalism and the virtues of Corporate Socialism more generally are conducive to the good. 108 Racial and ethnic relations is a key target area to induce demoralisation and social tensions. Encouraging mass immigration would then be a useful trigger mechanism to invoke revolution if such an end was deliberately sought. It might be deliberately sought for ideological or religious reasons by groups unhappy with the target nation’s values. For example, by those who seek the usurpation of nation state democracy in favour of the imposition of sharia law. This usurpation could be achieved by mass immigration, either by the continual acceptance of a Muslim demographic from various cultures to trigger a sift to sharia inclined values, or via a dissipation of national values through multicultural fragmentation. It is to be noted, in Communist regimes, that racial groups are not free to practise their cultural values freely as they do in Britain, on the European continent, or in the United States. Actually, there are not too many “capitalist� countries where ethnic minorities have it as good as in the USA period, which is one of the least discriminating in the world. But With the increased and uncontrolled number from south of its borders, immigrant assimilation both in terms of infrastructure and as a cultural phenomenon has become increasingly difficult to accommodate in the US. Whilst the strain on infrastructure upon the US is clearly not as great as that experienced by smaller countries such as Britain, the cultural assimilation clearly requires at least one or two generations to be successfully achieved, but in the meantime yet exacerbates social problems because of this, often exacerbating social problems, inducing resentment and increased conflict between different ethnic communities, etc. 108


whilst equality is always a laudable ethos, a host nation’s culture should not be undermined or sacrificed on the altar of political correctness simply to accommodate a new and alien population’s needs, wishes or demands. Neither should they be given preferential treatment in respect to the indigenous because they are deemed a minority culture and therefore vulnerable. In contrast, the Communist “solution” for racial problems has been one written in blood: for they simply murder those who are different (see the Chinese attitude to Tibet). Stalin

played with whole populations of

ethnics as he saw fit- “ resettling” Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians in Siberia, relocating Crimean Tartars and moving Koreans from the Far East to the Kazakhstan deserts to justify “national” Soviet imperatives. Ultimately, it is the mark of a civilised and tolerant society to overcome these shifts in population, in the face of increasing demographic pressures, with the implementation of sensible immigration policy and secure borders: for a drowning nation cannot help a sinking boat. To date the expansion of the European Union with its “open borders” ideal to encourage assimilation and population movements (perhaps ultimately to establish a new European demos for its new European state) has proven both unpopular and unsustainable. The result has by design or accident caused only increased social and economic difficulties.

Demoralisation by undermining religion Marx uttered the now famous claim that “religion” was “the opiate of the people”.109 Yet Communism and its numerous apparently less threatening

This is probably the best-known quotation by Karl Marx, the German economist and Communist political philosopher. The original German text, in Critique of Hegel's 109


socialist offshoots, is itself more akin to a religion, rather than a prima facie rigorous socio-economic canon of facts. In this, the ideology is a faith of antireligion, but it is ideologically based nevertheless. It is also comparable not simply with atheism, but nihilism. 110 Its similarities align in the vehemence of its activist worshippers, and the passion with which its radical disciples are prepared to go to any lengths to implement their subversive agenda. Indeed, lacking the freedom to engage entirely in an overt proselytising mission, as the atheist might, their often-covert subterfuge only appears to increase their zeal. All the radical subversion activists or professed political groups have to do, therefore, is to identify any weakness, where a nation's beliefs and principles could be eroded and substituted, and then slowly but consistently undermine these areas by sending agents to influence and propagate new ideas to encourage selfdestructive tendencies. The subversion of religion can then be effectively undertaken






trivialisation of its credo or belief system, and/ or its sacred canon of literature. In the past, the Communists thought this could be advanced by political radicals through the development and proliferation of various anti-Christian movements and cults. Its modern manifestation becomes evident in the Cultural Marxist values that have progressively developed from the hippy and counter culture values propagated amongst the 60s youth. Today it has manifested as modern teenage or youth movements such as the “Suicide Girls”, “Emo”, or “Vampire Freak” type cults that link Philosophy of Right, 1843 is: “Die Religion ist das Opium des Volkes”. This has been translated variously as 'religion is the opiate of the masses' or in a version which German scholars prefer 'religion is the opium of the people'. The context the phrase appears in reads: Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opiate of the people.” As Michael Bakunin the Russian revolutionary anarchist stated: “In this revolution we will have to awaken the Devil in the people, to stir up the basest passions. Our mission is to destroy not edify. The passion of destruction is a creative passion.” 110


suicide and glamour with Goth music, etc. Many recent teenage hangings in South Wales and around the British Isles have been linked with such an association between what is termed death metal, occultism and a glamorised approach to music, sex, fashion, death and the worthlessness of life in recent years. These tendencies can develop in later teenage years (if not censored or exposed) into Satanic or Occult cults, involving a direct attack on the physical properties of churches, the desecration of graves and the practise of blood rituals and ritual sacrifice at its most extreme. This furthered by the fad for New Age or Pagan worship, again popularised in the counter culture revolution of the 60s. Young minds can be further conditioned through exposure to disturbing and perverse live drama often with Satanic or perverse undertones or images by so called “alternative� theatre workshops that are invariable hives for Marxist political activity. Such workshops travel to schools through funding grants invariably provided by Liberal governments. The strategy of commercialising churches and ministers via television advertising and the promotion of excessive financial solicitation campaigns is another effective subversion strategy. Financial solicitation and repetitive bullying tactics provides a useful psychological basis to destroy the reputation of the church, but it also reinforces the association that the worshipper is morally corrupt if they do not contribute. It reinforces an association with the Church more universally as being concerned not with spiritual, but worldly matters. Worshippers response then is an encouragement not to have to give contributions and a voluntary tithe to their churches is sufficient. Commercialisation and thus financial competitiveness between churches 202

is encouraged as a subversion strategy. The outward emphasis in the United States is that success and popularity is commensurate with financial prosperity. Therefore, if a church is wealthy, it is indicative of the strength of its ministry and the value of its faith. This is in fact an inversion of what should be the case in a spiritual ministry. It assists subversion, as it makes religion dependent on the success of ministers or religious leaders as salesmen. It also assists in their corruption and keeps them off message, as they focus on the business promotion of the ministry. It sends a message to the spiritually minded that the church leader, pastor, elder, etc. do not in themselves necessarily have to be truly moral, but good business men. Or that financial success equates to spirituality in some sense. Faith focused people too as a consequence are turned off by the commercialisation of organised religion, and this effectively empties regular churches in the medium to long term. It encourages withdrawal and the practice of personal religion, and the shunning of church participation and involvement. Unfortunately, the evident corruption of the churches and the leaning towards commercialisation through media outlets (such the television evangelism in the U.S.) helps reinforce the Marxist critique to any potential coverts searching for humanistic alternatives. This once occurred via RIA Novosti and via operatives in the former KGB, and by Marxists generally via the propagation of leaflets of a Marxist nature left in churches. Commercialisation generally enforces the notion that religion is indeed the “opiate of the people”, and merely another profit institution orientated towards the so called ‘capitalist exploitation’ of the masses. The result of demoralisation can only be described as a “death wish”, as Soviet dissident

Igor Shafarevich,

“Socialism as a Historical

Phenomenon” (YMCA Press, Paris, 1977) wrote. In analysing the past 203

civilisations of Egypt, Maya, Mohenjo-Dara, Babylon, etc., his thesis concluded that these civilisations died because the people rejected their religion in favour of exclusively social values. Thus Socialism, according to Shafarevich, may be a manifestation of an inborn human instinct to nihilism, and if left unrestrained lead to spiritual and cultural death, and ultimately the inevitable extinction of civilisation. Socialism, then, achieves the opposite of its stated aim: to aid mankind’s virtuous development.

Demoralisation indoctrination





With the collapse of the Soviet regime some might feel that the nature of revolutionary activism, once implemented as a conscious militant strategy, has been largely consigned to the dustbin of history. How often has one heard the claim that “Communism is dead”, or that the US won the Cold War? However, such views are naïve, and do not take into account the fact that Communist ideology still exists in any number of regimes around the world; that believers still persist and seek to influence; that the number of such radicals need not even be very great to cause chaos. Furthermore, denying the persistence of such subversive influences fails to acknowledge the self–perpetuating nature of their ideological influence on subsequent generations; the principle objectives that such values inevitably encourage; let alone the continuing influence of internal radicals within a target nation’s midst in a rebranded form. Revolutionary objectives today may not in many cases even be conscious or desired by the many who espouse mainstream left-wing values. Socialists are not Communist revolutionaries they might claim, although 204

“Marx” the author of the “Communist Manifesto” will often be claimed as still being a great influence. 111 In this, however, the imperative remains The original ten planks of the Communist Manifesto can be seen in the shaping of US policy. These were: 111

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also, the Bureau of Land Management. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. Misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. Typically termed "paying your fair share". 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. Termed Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. Termed government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986). Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process. 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. Termed the Federal Reserve which is a credit/debt system nationally organised by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State. Termed in the US the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. Termed corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture. As well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations. 8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture. Termed in the US the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920's, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and Executive order 11000. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country. Termed in the US the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 205

effectively unchanged. It still seeks to implement itself naturally as a progression, as Marx himself believed, in any capitalist society involving a division of rich and poor. Its ethos too remains in terms of a class struggle for supremacy by an exploited underclass. In this essentially divisive world view, the twin claims of “exploitation” and “class struggle” support the numerous strands of modern left-wing political thought. Upon these universal values, the whole spectrum of the Left rests, and as a self-fulfilling prophesy justifies itself in the name of egalitarianism and human or social and civil rights. Yet whilst the championing of the poor and downtrodden will always remain a humanitarian and laudable ideal, the methods to provide a solution differ from the conservative or truly capitalist view. For attacking the wealth creators in the name of equality undermines the ability to help the poor. The claim that the nature of capitalistic society is essentially exploitative leads as a natural consequence to addressing such injustices in terms of a class struggle, which justifies a vilification of the rich wealth creators as a consequence, and the need for an uprising from the working class against them. But simply put it is an ethos of biting the hand that feeds you. This remains the essential fault of any truly left-wing school of thought, irrespective of its outward branding. It is an ethos that fails to address adequately how poverty can be alleviated by destroying the class of wealth creators and delivering power into the hands of the poor. A process which in any case only too quickly results in a new plutocracy of “oppressors” emerging after any revolution occurs. 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136. 10. Free education for all children in state or government schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc. People are being taxed to support what we call 'public' schools, which train the young to work for the communal debt system. Also termed the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based "Education". 206

A primary means to influence individuals is through education. State education particularly has been a prime focus in the process of radicalisation and remains so as a breeding ground to this day. The Marxist-Leninist concept of education emphasised the importance of inculcating government values with an emphasis on the benefits to society as a whole, rather than the individual character. A value continued today in any Socialist state-centric education system. The aim is universal mindthink, without encouraging diversity of individual ideas, or individualism. State education induces a more ready-made political conformity, and thus makes it compliant to the whims of authoritarianism. This is achieved through exposure to ideological brainwashing, encouraging a lack of individual initiative in its concern to “educate the masses”, thus promulgating a lagging behind in the development of outstanding individual achievement. The shift to this is evident to a degree in the “Common Core” programme in the US today. The Soviet development for such an approach abroad was initially achieved in KGB strategy with an emphasis on student exchanges, whereby students and professors were encouraged to go to Moscow and were exposed to ideological conditioning. This was prevalent even before the Cold War. It continued throughout the Cold War, as Communist Party US records and former Communist Party members in the US make clear112 but it was also particularly encouraged in the 80s too, after the thawing of relations between East and West, and even during the immediate post-Soviet “collapse”. Outreach programmes often extended abroad to influence thinking. However, it was not we are led to believe the See Leonard Patterson’s remarks and statements concerning his training and indoctrination in G. Edward Griffin Hidden Agenda, Vol. 4 - Anarchy USA from 36.0. 112


kind of exchange David Cameron the British Prime Minister was subject to or influenced by in the 1980s. 113 From the 60s onwards, the flooding of campus bookstores with Marxist literature occurred. The infiltration of schools and universities by radicals, leftists, and simply “agitators” some functioning unknowingly under the direct guidance of KGB Agents became common-place. Today in schools it is furthered by the Common Core agenda and recommendations from UN derived “liberal” influences. The present agenda appears to focus on sex education for children at an early age. 114 The Cultural Marxist progression in the minds of academics today has now made much of the foreign infiltration in universities less necessary. There has been internalised subversion, as the values are propagated as a natural progression which is generationally sustained. 115 113

See David Cameron’s KGB contact as a youth.


See one example here.

A modern example of such activism being Christine Blower, who has a history of far-left agitation and in 1999 was accused by the NUT’s then General Secretary, Doug McAvoy, of ‘using the union as a means of pursuing an extreme left-wing agenda’. In the 2000 London Assembly elections, Blower stood as a candidate for the ‘London Socialist Alliance ‘, a group made up of members of the Socialist Workers Party, the Communist Party of Great Britain, the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, the League for a Revolutionary Communist International, and the Socialist Party of England and Wales (formerly Militant Tendency). NUT President Gill Goodswen likewise came with the endorsement of the Campaign for a Democratic and Fighting Union and encouraged far-leftists to join the Labour Party and ‘reclaim its grassroots’. Goodswen’s predecessor Bill Greenshields is also in the Communist Party and is editor of Communist Review magazine. During his time as president, Greenshields called for the forced nationalisation of Britain’s private schools, and he continues to agitate within the NUT for the radical leftist agenda. 115

The NUT’s national executive is likewise full of far-leftists. In April 2010, Socialist Worker, newspaper of the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party (SWP), proudly announced ‘Left gains in NUT elections’ and reported: "The left made gains in elections to the national executive committee of the National Union of Teachers (NUT) last week. Faces include Socialist Teachers Alliance (STA) members Anne Lemon from North Somerset and Nick Wigmore from Lancashire. 208

Typically, the process of radicalisation has remained the same. Numerous “student” newspapers and magazines are staffed with pro Communist or Socialist sympathisers. Study groups and “workshops” for the dissemination of Marxist propaganda and Communist ideology are formed, even if the purpose is not always recognisably political. The construction of “safe spaces” help to popularise the ideas along with the “immersion method” where potential activists are subjected to prolonged and extensive indoctrination. Initially the programming requires a discussion of universal values and social problems, rather than specific political ideology. The political slant often only becomes evident later, reinforcing the claim made that such groups are an expression of “alternative” ideas and aims. The result generally is political bias, combined with a high degree of antipatriotism and a distorted revisionist view of history. Pier group pressure is also used. In this sense, it adopts programmes typical of the indoctrination patterns used by religious cults to recruit, enforce and popularise their ideas. The influence manifests in a dialectic struggle between two contrary forces, both of which are destructive to constitutional rule. The first force seeks in the classic revolutionary sense to destroy an institution. The contrary force seeks to strengthen it, and therefore induces a more authoritarian state structure. In this sense, Socialism as a state focused ideology exacerbates a clash of two opposing forces: a nihilism and an Existing STA national executive members re-elected include Nick Grant and Dave Harvey in Outer London, Alex Kenny in Inner London and Roger King in Birmingham. Nick Grant, co-founder of the Anti-Academies Alliance, is a long-standing SWP member and claims in a Socialist Review magazine article that ‘education workers globally and at all levels [are] being proletarianised at a rate of knots.’ 209

authoritarianism. The duality exacerbates conflict in itself. The two contrary forces of Socialism may be viewed as naturally subversive, inasmuch as they invite both anarchy, or at best mob rule, in the name of democracy. This consequently leads to dictatorship. Both forces endanger individual liberties in favour of sheer anarchy in respect to the nihilistic force, inviting as a counter response government-centric military control characteristic of a Police State. A Police State is inevitable in order to restore and maintain order and control the civil unrest caused by the conflict. A less drastic progression for Socialism advances incrementally. It generally entails less localism and increasingly promotes more federalism. The subversive forces increasingly prevail today in the: 1. Judicial and Law-enforcement system. 2. Public organisations and institutions dealing with individuals, groups and classes in society. 3. Security and defence. 4. Internal political parties and groups. 5. Foreign policy formulating bodies both governmental and nongovernmental (“think-tanks,” academia, etc).

In the area of “Law and Order”, the subversion lies in the promotion of the “legalistic” approach over the “moral”. This is evident in the indoctrination of several generations of lawyers and law-makers who have graduated from “liberal” “humanistic” (that is leftist socialist) schools and universities, having been in an environment of sustained exposure to the socialist ideology. The moral relativism of Cultural Marxism (otherwise termed political correctness) has already created naturally evolving 210

objectives that have turned the judicial system on its head. Influenced by the ideology of political correctness, this strategy most evidently encourages courts to treat the criminals as the “underprivileged” who are “victims” of the “cruel” British society. Simultaneously the lawabiding citizens become punished by a lack of appropriate action against the perpetrators of the crimes. This adds further to the sense of injustice and disempowerment for the law-abiding individuals, who used as taxpayers, must in any case provide for the victims comparatively comfortable life in prison, shorter sentence than should be expected, or even a life outside on restricted benefits.116 The result is as predictable as it is desirable for the conscious subversives seeking to impose a more authoritarian state-centric regime: mistrust by the population towards their own judicial and law-enforcement system that appears to be disintegrating. A lack of faith in its ability to deal with crime; fear and compliance leads inevitably to people demanding harsher punishments and stricter more authoritarian controls to address crime as a consequence. If this is deemed ineffective, the people will tend to revolution to change the existing system in any case. By encouraging the importance of an individual’s desires over their obligations (private, financial, moral, patriotic etc.) the radical subversive achieves another consequence: a society composed of irresponsible individuals, each one “doing his or her own thing” and acting not according to perceived dysfunctional laws, but by their own desires according to the “law of jungle.” To demoralise the protection forces, it is enough to teach children of the trendy or fashionable “anti-system” stance: to view the police as “pigs” and


See here for another shocking example. 211

“fascists” for a decade or weaken police agencies watching over radicals by encouraging the protection of their “civil rights”, even if they are a direct threat to civilians. This was a common approach in the 60s and 70s when it was claimed suspect and stop and search laws were deemed as “oppressive” or “racist” against those criminals breaking the law. This could also be furthered in the staging of campaigns to discredit “investigation” of the “wrongdoings” of the police, their supposed “brutality” in attempting arrests, etc. when they are often simply doing their job. 117 An emphasis on bureaucracy, rather than a local police presence, will also help to debilitate the police. In due course, a situation could be implemented where the majority of civilians are virtually without civil laws, or protection from murderers, criminals, etc. through increasing red tape and paper work. Thus, with a corroded faith in the ability of the police and civil authorities to protect adequately, in the case of terrorist attack or a major civil disturbance, widespread demoralisation can be attained.

Demoralisation can be focused in areas such as family life, health services, interracial relations, population control and distribution and labour relations. In this respect, cultural Marxist ideology, propagated in various indigenous “social theories” has greatly contributed to the disintegration of the nuclear family. This objective has a long history. The destruction of the family was even an aim of classical Marxist theory. The Soviet example is rather revealing. In the struggle for the 'final victory of Communism’ subversion sought to substitute the concept of loyalty to As a consequence, it is to be noted the new Police state will impose far more stringent policing that verges on terroristic militarism to offset any dissent nurtured towards them during this pre-revolutionary period. 117


one’s people and one’s country with a political concept of loyalty to the state. The state that gives everything conversely can also take everything away, including personal freedom. Those deemed as “enemies of the state” because they believed in contrary, politically incorrect views, and who sought to practise these views, were simply executed. Socialism then, with its state-centric approach (branded today as liberal progressivism) is by nature subversive to human affections; the bonding and reciprocal relationships of an individual to another in productive human contact formed by relationships is replaced by the primacy of an abstract construct and contextualised only in political and not humanitarian terms as the “needs of the state”. It is alienating because of this and brings about only a negation of altruism in real terms as a result. It does not foster a concern for one’s fellow human beings as individuals, but only fosters a concern for the abstract “collective” and by reference to this the needs of the state. The subversion of individual identity becomes a feature and the value of a human life too. The emphasis on state benefits and the selfish expectation that “the state will provide” also subverts the character, impairing a sense of personal achievement, productivity and purpose. It undermines individual identity and promotes dependency. It contextualises individuals within limited and strict perimeters. It imposes a false egalitarianism based on state remuneration, rather than strengthens the virtues of free market capitalism and personal endeavour. State benefits as a socialist concept itself








individualism. It creates a “nanny state” lethargism, which in turn provokes an anger towards those that encourage individual success and employment as “corrupt capitalists exploiting the system” because they have more. 213

A similar myth is being promoted in the U.S. about “affordable health care”, which is claimed to be necessary for the well- being of all. In this respect, the tendency of U.S. bureaucrats is to enlarge the state-run “Obamacare”, despite the US having two alternatives already in Medicade and Medicare. This strategy has in fact even been criticised as a ClowardPiven strategy to overload the system with dysfunctional bureaucracy, red tape and financial demands that cannot be met. It has in many respects been implemented chaotically and deliberately by some radicals, flying in the face of the fact that socialised health care is sub-standard and less efficient than privately owned and operated medical facilities within a properly functioning free market system.118 Very briefly, the taking away of private land is one of the prime objectives of radical strategy. This is because the farmer is often a greater patriot and more community minded than an affluent dweller in a large congested city. The farmer will tend to fight an invader because of his stronger territorial instinct to protect his land, and indeed his neighbours. “Underprivileged” or urbanised masses on the other hand, are less The Left-wing radical Cloward-Piven strategy was conceived in the 60s initially to instigate manufactured crises and attacks. The strategy sought to pack welfare rolls with beneficiaries, flooding government with impossible demands in order to create a profound political and financial crisis and thus create a pretext for major reform at the national level. 118

“By crisis we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g. riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest, which either generate institutional disruption, or being unrecognised bring unrecognized disruption to public attention.” The collapse of the welfare rolls would cause riots on the streets by those on benefits and incapable of work it was hoped, thus triggering revolution. Later they extended the strategy into housing with Wade Rathke, who was mentored by Richard Cloward, and later extended the strategy of subversion into Acorn and voting fraud. Thereby, “…increasing and intensifying the evils and miseries of the people until at last their patience is exhausted and they are driven to a general uprising.” 214

territorial and more likely to rent property by choice or necessity. Alienation of people from privately-owned land and property is therefore a priority. It also provides useful destruction to communities if those not owning, but renting property continue to do so, and if this is encouraged as much as possible. It provides more transient populations with less loyalty to community values and or pride in the locale. Also, the likelihood of strong community networks is diminished. Property maintenance generally in high rental areas is also reduced, because of lack of ownership, thereby turning areas into run down squalid regions. All this strengthens demoralisation and lessens community spirit. Another hotbed area of radical activity has always been the labour unions. The subversive attitude here is more easily identified. Morality is weakened. After all what sort of morality encourages nurses to leave sick and dying patients in hospital beds and walk out to strike for more pay? What makes unionised firemen ignore emergencies, or teachers keep children at home for days at a time? How moral is a campaign for increased pay or conditions for a miner if it is justified by beating up a fellow co- worker or vilifying them as a “scab”? The bargaining process in labour unions in many instances is no longer motivated by the laudable desire to improve working conditions and wages for the working class. In many cases it is not bargaining at all—it is blackmail and implemented through psychological intimidation. The “Flying Pickets” of the 70s were a prime example in Britain. This kind of activism is achieved in much the same way a military superpower might exert the influence of fear through a threat. And in the process of the unlimited growth of union power, and the Closed Shop, taken over as they have been since the 50s by Socialist values, the worker loses the only 215

relevant and real freedom he has in his country: the freedom to choose, to work or not to work and for how much. If an individual prefers to work without representation, or for lower pay (and it must be his or her free individual choice) they often are no longer able even to do so.

DESTABILISATION In the classic strategy, the efforts of subversion come down to the “essentials”: the internal power structures of a target nation; the nation’s foreign relations; the economy and the “social fabric”. If the preceding stage of demoralisation is successful, a subversive no longer has to bother about the further indoctrination of ideas or in communicating ideological principles. The country is already in a state of divisiveness and confusion, and this helps to bring society into a state of destabilisation. The period of time to affect this transition depends on the maturity of a nation and its ability to mobilise resistance. An internal subversion of a country does not necessarily even have to be prey to an external military threat. A progression towards totalitarianism affected by internal subversion agents is enough of a threat in itself. This process may be characterised as: •

The desire of the population to bring to power politicians and parties who are charismatic, rather than ones beneficial or constitutionally mindful.

These figures inevitably fail to act in a manner befitting of a good President, but renege on their promises to the nation and do not keep their vows. They act like good caretakers and promise more “change” and “security”-not in the genuine sense of keeping citizens safe from external and foreign enemies, but rather by offering bribes such as job “security”, 216

“free” social services, etc. provided entirely by the state. These agents of change generally try to subvert free market capitalism and embrace an essentially socialist system of government dependency. They may be motivated to make many unachievable promises to increase their popularity and power. They may even act out of a misconceived desire to help the people themselves in calling for more equality. But by concentrating the on short-term solutions and “improvements”, irresponsible politicians often simply procrastinate about the more serious and imminent problems of economic degradation and cultural decay. In this they ultimately must face an inevitable “moment of truth”. Generally, political careerism and the something for nothing mentality distracts from the reality of a nation’s predicament. It hastens the day when the nation will have to pay a much higher price for the larger problems of bringing the country back to economic, political and social stability. A restoration of moral values is required or ultimately the result will be a breakdown in society. Demoralised and enfeebled, the working class and poor tend to seek the easiest short-term solutions to social ills. In this respect, state socialism seems to them to be the best and most straightforward answer to address their needs. The solution is considered to rest with government and so more power is afforded it. Traditional national institutions no longer appear efficient and calls to have them replaced or improved by artificially created Think Tanks, Quangos (Quasi-Autonomous so called “NonGovernmental” Organisations), Committees, so called government aligned non-profit charities and Enquiry Boards is deemed necessary or simply accepted to ensure success. More political power is justified in order to justify change. He activists being portrayed as Organisations 217

which increasingly mirror totalitarian structures of power become more and more “responsive” to the rule of radicalised agents and have an increasing role in shaping public opinion in turn. The activists being deemed as specialists and experts. Technocratic rule in the 30s is in this respect a good example. Many claimed to be apolitical experts, but had covert political agendas and sought to influence opinion to sustain their power as they became increasingly corrupt. Commensurate with these developments the free market process- increasingly yielded to the principles of a “planned economy” and to justify this, the supposed virtues of increased federalisation or centralisation of government powers increasingly took hold. With the final destruction of the free bargaining process, the predominant economic power moves into the hands of the state, or in the case of the US, the Federal government, which functions more and more in step with the corporations, mega-monopolies, cartels and increasingly militant and politicised labour unions. The separation of powers principle no longer governs the judicial, legislative and executive lines, but rather is replaced by








unaccountable political agencies that run the country for their own purposes.

At the national level (in the realm of foreign relations) those that encourage supranational government increasingly seek to propagate the idea that those countries who oppose it risk further and further isolationism. In respect to the subversion of the US, and the arising of the EU as a political power, compatriot nations may now look with a mixture of fear and horror on the possibility of any future security, feeling they have been abandoned by the protections and economic securities that a NATO agreement once guaranteed. A necessary part of implementing new 218

supranational power blocs is the undermining of old military alliances such as NATO. The emergence of the EU army not only hastens this but poses an increasing threat to nations unprepared to abide by its collectivist values within the Union itself.

CRISIS In a classic revolutionary scenario, radicals and sleeper agents will spring into action, trying to seize power as quickly and ruthlessly as possible. If all the previous stages of subversion have been successfully completed by that time, the majority of citizens will be so totally confused that they may even welcome some ‘strong’ leaders to save them from the anarchy and conflict that ensues. The modern scenario tends towards an advantage to implement a coup and then further increasing totalitarianism. The subversives are usually quick to take advantage. In some cases, they may even be the very leaders themselves, who have been elected, but who seek revolution to implement a mandate that gives them unlimited “emergency” powers. A danger they themselves have largely engineered. A forceful change of a nation’s system in the classic revolutionary sense is ordinarily achieved through a civil war, or some such military struggle. However, in the modern manifestation of subversion, a country would not necessarily have to experience a military coup for the old order to be overthrown. In the present process of subversion at any rate, drastic revolutionary change need not even necessarily have to occur for federal totalitarianism to be established. Change can be imposed incrementally by supposedly legal means, and rather than a drastic revolution, a slowmotion coup d’état, via the implementation of Presidential Executive 219

orders, could be achieved. This latter approach still entails all the familiar attributes of a tyranny but will be affected differently according to the values of those in power. In an old fashioned Communist takeover, affected by a government free of corporate influence, institutes such as vital industries would ordinarily have had to become state owned, the reduction of the “private sector� of the economy would be reduced to the bare minimum, the redistribution of wealth, the loss of private property ownership and a massive propaganda campaign by the newly installed government would justify the reforms that they would want to be implemented. In a modern authoritarian progression, however, corporations would clearly continue to hold the reign of power. The government would be largely accountable to them, and work in conjunction with them, and government agenda and policy would clearly be implemented in their best interests, irrespective of the detrimental impact upon the nation’s people. A fascist, essentially corporate socialist state of governance would exist, totally unconcerned with individualism and free market principles, but only with the utility of any individual in terms of their service to the state.

NORMALISATION A constitutional nation like the US, with its Second Amendment right to bear arms, would certainly resist any form of revolutionary take over. The chances of usurpation would certainly be implemented more successfully incrementally than via any forced takeover. In either revolutionary scenario, however, there would inevitably arise pockets of resistance after any enforced takeover became apparent, consisting of the enemy classes and counter-revolutionaries, who would physically attempt to resist the new regime. 220

Incremental change in this respect can be justified far more easily as a democratic process than could a violent and sudden military coup. It can be justified more easily as the “will of the people”, even if the end result of totalitarianism entails the same. In an enforced takeover, some would take up arms and flee. Reforms of the security agencies, (Police and military) by the new government would lead to a situation of ‘split loyalties’ among law enforcement officers and render the majority of the population unprotected. At this point, to avoid bloodshed, the subversives would seek to establish a move to normality, but it might not necessarily be a success. The enforced normality (a term borrowed from the Soviet propaganda of 1968 during the invasion of Czechoslovakia) would in any case most likely require stringent and brutal enforcement. Subversion by stealth and incremental revolution, affected via “democratic” means, would be far easier to justify, and far more likely to succeed.


Chapter Three Anatoly Golitsyn and the Perestroika Deception Historical background Golitsyn was originally a KGB officer working under diplomatic cover at the Soviet embassy in Helsinki. He defected to the CIA in December 1961 and proved to be one of the most influential defectors of the Cold War. His fame rested chiefly on his controversial claims that the collapse of the Soviet Union was in fact a subterfuge to achieve the control of the West by stealth. Credibility was added to his claim, as he successfully identified many Soviet spies active in the West.119 Under the sponsorship of the CIA’s Counter-intelligence Staff, he was resettled in Florida, and encouraged to visit









Soviet agents such as Hugh Hambleton, Georges Pacques, and Elsie Mai, a Finn inside the local British consulate and extensive penetration of the Service de Documentation ExtĂŠrieure et de Contre-Espionnage (SDECE) in France with a spy ring code-named SAPPHIRE. 119


countermeasures. 120 Golitsyn was to become controversial because the believers in his theory, including James Jesus Angleton, gave him unprecedented access to operational files in a search for moles, and the subsequent investigations disadvantaged the careers of several intelligence professionals, including Peter Karlow, David Murphy, and Alexander Sogolow, who all came under suspicion. But this also raised the possibility that Golitsyn himself was a spy. It was highlighted by Golitsyn’s claim that the KGB would dispatch false defectors to try and discredit him, which led to the lengthy interrogation of Yuri Nosenko in 1964. After his daughter died in 1974, Golitsyn contemplated suicide, but then pursued his claim for a Communist /Soviet takeover by stealth with even greater vigour. To add credibility to his claim, he proceeded to denounce Courtney Young and Guy Liddell of MI5 and Harold Shergold of the Secret Intelligence Service as Soviet moles. He sought to expose Oleg Penkovsky, whom he claimed had been KGB from the beginning. He also identified Isaiah Berlin, Sir Rudolf Peierls, and Victor Rothschild as British VENONA spies and named Averell Harriman and the veteran CIA case officer George Kisevalter as long-term KGB agents. Furthermore, he named the Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire’s deputy chief as a spy, code-named GARMASH, and insisted Dmitri Polyakov (TOP HAT) and Aleksei Kulak (FEDORA) had been deliberately planted on the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

See “The New American” for detailed data on Golitsyn along with countless articles and reports on the ramifications too numerous to list. 120


Golitsyn’s predictions of strategy fulfilled Originally from the Ukraine, Golitsyn had met Stalin and Georgi Malenkov in 1952 as a 26-year-old lieutenant. He had undergone a selfproclaimed political transformation when Nikita Khrushchev exposed Stalin’s crimes in February 1956. Two years later, after a spell in a counterintelligence section dealing with the United States, he participated in the abduction in Vienna of Tremmel, the leader of an émigré organisation, and in 1960 was posted to Helsinki, whence he eventually defected in 1961.

Before his defection to the West, Golitsyn served as a member of the KGB’s Department D, which dealt with long-range disinformation. Department D was subordinate only to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and was Golitsyn asserted: “given access to the executive branches of government and to departments of the Central Committee to enable it to prepare and carry out operations that required the approval or support of the party leadership.” Upon his defection in 1961, he wrote a series of memorandums to the CIA about Soviet disinformation strategies. Later, and with the permission of the CIA, he published his writings and predictions in 1984 as “ New Lies for Old”. Author Mark Riebling, in his 1994 book “ Wedge: The Secret War between the CIA and the FBI”, concluded after a careful analysis of Golitsyn’s predictions, that out of 148 predictions, by 1993 139 had been verified as true. This works out as “an accuracy rating of 94%.” With a deep understanding of Soviet strategy, Golitsyn essentially postulated that the Soviet collapse was in fact part of a long term planned strategy of deception being used to undermine the West. The aim ultimately was the propagation of Marxist-Leninist ideology and to 224

facilitate global Communism by stealth. In respect to predictions that added credibility to his claims, he correctly predicted the future “collapse” of Communism and the liberalisation of Eastern Europe. A claim he made 5 years prior to the events taking place: “‘Liberalisation’ in Eastern Europe would probably involve the return to power in Czechoslovakia of Dubcek and his associates. If it should be extended to East Germany, demolition of the Berlin Wall might even be contemplated.” He continued: “Western acceptance of the new ‘liberalisation’ as genuine would create favourable conditions for the fulfilment of Communist strategy for the United States, Western Europe, and even, perhaps, Japan.”

With regard to the Sino-Soviet split, Golitsyn also wrote: “Sino-Soviet differences are also the product of joint Sino-Soviet disinformation.” He elaborated further: “The disinformation programme is an integrated whole. The Chinese have played an important part in every operation.”

The Eastern bloc intelligence agencies, the KGB and the Chinese, collaborated with one another, but fabricated a Sino-Soviet “split”. Disinformation was leaked to strengthen this deception and used to develop the strategy. “Duality in Sino-Soviet polemics is used to mask the nature of the goals and the degree of coordination in the Communist effort to achieve them.”


If Golitsyn’s claims are accepted as relevant today, recent developments toward mutual cooperation have been no more than part of an on- going deception and a coordinated effort to seize power by both Russia and China: the goal being to quash US dominance. His claims would give, for example, the 2001 formation of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) a new significance, along with other military manoeuvres and trade deals that have recently developed. 121 These public agreements it could be claimed now reveal their true intentions, but if this were the case, the necessity of deception, and the deception of a split for decades, hardly appears to be necessary or relevant. The present Sino-Russian alliance in respect Golitsyn’s claims On Tuesday, August 22, 2012, China Daily, the official state-newspaper of the Communist Party of China,

reported a visit by Chinese State

Recent developments in the Sino-Russian alliance include a $400 billion deal to export gas to China, a $24.5 billion currency swap agreement, opening up Chinese participation in infrastructure projects: from an initially apprehensive reaction to 121

China’s economic rise, Putin’s Russia has made a dramatic public confirmation of its relationship with China after sanctions were imposed by the Europeans and Americans. In ‘A “Soft Alliance”? Russia-China Relations After the Ukraine Crisis, author Alexander Gabuev discusses how Putin sees in its Asian pivot a way to strengthen the most vulnerable parts of its economy: dependence on the European energy market, dependence on Western capital markets, and dependence on technologies. Gabuev further explores the change in the relationship between the two powers. According to the brief, the danger for the EU in this Eastern rapprochement lies in the fortification of the Russian economy against sanctions, and in an increased assertiveness for China. Gabuev sees two possible options for an EU response: 1. Seek to isolate Russia further by developing sanctions with the US against third country companies that do business with sanctioned Russian entities. 2. Create other options for Russia by allowing Japan and South Korea not to uphold the sanctions regime.


Councillor Dai Bingguo to Russia, where he met with the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. 122 According to China Daily, both sides promised: “to further promote their comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination.” It continued: “Lavrov said the Russia-China strategic partnership is irreversible, which not only serve the fundamental interests of both countries, but also conduce to peace and stability in the world.” In September 2012, the Sino-Russian “strategic partnership” was expressed at a higher level, as Chinese President Hu Jintao journeyed to Vladivostok, Russia, where he was the honoured guest of President Vladimir Putin, who hosted the 2012 meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). China’s Xinhua News

reported on

September 7 Hu’s comments that he would like to have a thorough exchange of views with Putin on how to promote a comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination between them. He expected to cover also a variety of regional and international issues. It emphasised the warm relations with Hu’s comment: “I am also looking forward to a successful APEC meeting to be presided by President Putin.” Putin reciprocated saying Russian-Chinese relations had “..reached a very high level thanks to the personal contribution of Hu”, who would be invited to be the first speaker at the APEC leaders’ meeting.

Gabuev (op.cit.) echoes Lavrov’s comments concerning the Sino-Russian relationship as “irreversible” when he writes: 122

“The longer Russia is forced to orient itself towards China, the more important the consequences will be. Some key elements such as arms deals and Chinese control over key resource deposits may become irreversible and have a lasting effect on Russia, European interests, and global security – even after Putin has left office.” 227

The China-Russia strategic partnership has developed steadily in recent years, despite the deteriorating relationship of Russia with the EU and the US. The two countries have further boosted strategic and political mutual trust as Western trust has declined rapidly. They have enhanced their trade and economic cooperation, particularly in energy deals, and increasingly coordinated more closely on major world and regional issues.123 The self-evidently growing alliance between Moscow and Beijing on a wide variety of issues concerning military, technology, science, trade, education and geo- politics confirms, at least according to the believers in the Golitsyn claims, the subterfuge of the “supposed” Sino-Soviet split. It fails however (in its concern to advocate a “Grand Strategy”) to take into account the changing face of international relations over the past 40 years. It champions instead international relations as necessitated by a predetermined design, and the cause as a deceit extending back into the Soviet past. In this, it rather fails to accept the influence of exterior influences today, beyond its control and objectives, and rather views the strategy as entirely deliberate and deterministic in nature and outcome. It champions a continuum thesis, but often tends to ignore confirmation of facts as a longer term devious strategy, rather than it being the result of

Russia and Communist China are forging ever closer bonds in an attempt to see off perceived threats from the West. This need not necessarily be indicative of a hidden strategy or long term hegemonic goals since the end of the Cold War. In 2012 the two countries signed a £16bn deal aimed at deepening economic cooperation, with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in Moscow attending the commemorative rally. The plans also included a giant free trade zone and new Chinese investment in struggling Russian banks – as well as £2.5bn to help build a new rail line from Moscow to the Russian city of Kazan. 123

In a further sign of Moscow's eastward shift, China and Russia held joint naval exercises in May 2015 in the eastern Mediterranean and Chinese soldiers were expected to take part in Russia’ military parade. "Today China is our strategic and key partner," Mr Putin said. 228

past objectives that have in some sense become self-fulfilling and independent of the agents that originally sought to impose them. Such objectives are thought neither to have been relinquished, nor apparently changed, nor largely thwarted since the Cold War. Failure to accept the interpretation largely leads to the charge of being anti patriotic, and criticism as a prevarication, or even collusion to Communist ideals in the face of an increasing danger.

What are the merits of the case? The strength against the Golitsyn thesis rests in the claim that Russia is no-longer supposed to be a Communist country, and even if Russia is a threat to Western hegemony currently, as it appears to be, it need not be indicative of past long term ideological objectives being current. But this is a weak claim in itself, the advocates of Golitsyn argue, as Russia admits to sharing a “strategic partnership” which is “irreversible” with China. This along with increasingly evident agreements, they state, is not simply indicative of common concerns and intentions forged out of current necessity, but indicative of longer term shared ideological objectives, apparently unrelinquished since their shared Communist past. The goal of these aims, they claim, have yet to be fully accomplished or realised, but will be, unless resistance to the Communist threat occurs. This, in spite of the Russian intelligentsia’s and Putin’s specific criticism of Socialism and the Soviet Union as a failed regime specifically, especially in recent times. These recent claims against their past are in turn a mere subterfuge, the “Golitsynites” claim, to further the “Grand Strategy”, and are in any case not consistent with other claims and actions celebrating their Soviet glory years of late. Nor do they satisfactorily explain the collective sadness and nostalgia they hold for those times since losing their important status as a nation.


Soviet reveries are held by a new generation largely unfamiliar with any lived experience of the Soviet era today. The growing admiration for a rose tinted Soviet past strengthens the Russia China alliance today: a country that further remains under mono Communist Party rule. This alliance, Golitsynites claim, is therefore suggestive of Russia being fundamentally Communist also, and once its facades and name changing is stripped away, the collapse of Russian Communism can be seen for what it is: an elaborate deception. Yet this theory is too reliant on a guilt by association argument. That is not to say it is not persuasive, and a mountain of evidence appears to support its plausibility, but it rather reasons deductively based on a priori premises, and interprets evidence based on the initial plausibility of Golitsyn’s claim, rather than citing facts objectively based on currently known albeit “official” interpretations. So too, it rather requires the continuity of the ideology of Communism being widespread and a significant force, rather than focusing on any changing objective that might develop over time. Focusing on any common imperative, rather than the ideological window dressing, or the names appended to it, strengthens what appears to be in the light of NeoEurasian right wing supposedly “conservative” and nationalist leanings an unlikely claim. Yet it does not detract from the nisus of authoritarianism and hegemony, suggesting both belong to a much wider circle than simply a “Communist” threat, but one which can be described more generally as the threat of global totalitarianism. 124

In all of this too, the “guilt by association” thesis is rather a weak claim, inasmuch as it would thus logically suppose the “Grand Strategy” is supported by every nation that has any association with any Communist influence or regime. But the US as an example cannot simply be considered a secret Communist regime by virtue of its mere dealings with China or because Communist Socialist or Liberal activists simply exist as US citizens or within tiers of government. Whilst the Sovietologist and Communist conspiracy theorists might say the infiltration of Communist sympathisers under 124


The similarities and common concerns of the two increasingly allied governments raises the very valid question of what sort of “stability in the world” could Russia and China be working towards? Surely not a “world revolution” culminating in a totalitarian “one-world Communist government” as was once commonly dreamt of by all Soviet dictators from Lenin to Gorbachev and China’s Mao Zedong? After all, the Soviet Union collapsed, “Communism” is supposed to be dead. Isn’t such a claim a preposterous fantasy? That view would itself be naïve however, considering the persistent presence and activism of Communist fronts at the grass roots level, parading openly, and still working under all manner of names today. It would also be naïve considering the increasing influence of “former” Marxist Socialists fronting various names in any number of Western governments around the world today.

Even accepting the collapse of the Soviet Union as a military super power, and its demise as a threat to the “Capitalist” model of the West, a model they themselves by no means rejected with the imposition (even in Lenin’s time) of a “partial state capitalism”, Socialism still persists, and is popular and widespread. Its agents of influence still exert power today in Russia too. There is still the Communist presence of China to consider as an emerging and new super power threat in itself, both economically and

various name fronts to further the collective agenda is not disputed, the threat rather instils a paranoia and concern for any that may not be accepting of the claim but simply hold Left wing views or oppose the theorists’ definition of what constitutes the right wing. The problem of dealing with such Left-wing agents is often justified as required in order to eradicate the threat of a one nation Communist State. But the question of the eradication of all that is Left wing in the name of a threat by political association simply appears to be a call to implement a Right wing one party Republic in turn. 231

militarily. There are, in any case, a significant number of rogue regimes in the world still sympathetic to Communist tenets: from Venezuela, North Korea, Laos, Cuba and Vietnam that defy the rather myopic claim that “Communism is dead” with the fall of the Berlin Wall. 125 Whatever the merits or weaknesses of Golitsyn’s claim, China’s contemporary alliance with a Russian nation shunned by the West, due to its stance on Ukraine and its effective annexation of Crimea, reflects a shifting balance in the global power hierarchy. It is indicative not just of the need to establish global relations and forge alliances in a competitive world market, but rests in an acknowledgement of an emerging new presence in China. One which is quite prepared to see itself as independent of the current Western interpretation of political events in respect to Russia. Whether China acts for its own purposes and benefit in this, or because of shared ideological values, or even a shared secret strategy with Russia, cannot be known. More pertinent, however, is whether an increasingly dangerous Sino-Russian alliance exits presently, which might lead to political totalitarianism and war against the West in the future.

The Perestroika Deception According to Anatoliy Golitsyn, “Glasnost”, “Perestroika” and the reforms Irrespective of the titles given to these various political ideologies the philosophical principles underlying them endure, and it is these anomalies, protected and impeded within a Constitutional framework that need to be recognised as a danger. Full blown statism, or totalitarianism, arises as a manifestation of the imperative of authoritarianism, encouraged by increasing federalism and nisus towards coalescing undemocratic supranational blocs into supranational governments without the people’s consent or via a balanced separation of powers. This is a threat to the stability of the nation state, whether it be termed a republic or a less Constitutionally termed “representative democracy”. 125


and upheavals witnessed in the “former” Soviet Bloc represented controlled events, which form part of a long term “Grand Strategy” rehearsed and planned decades before. In support he argues in “ The Perestroika Deception” that the chief personalities on the stage of the so-called “former” Soviet Union are all still secret members of the Communist Party. The FSB officers are mostly former KGB, the members of the huge Komsomol network (numbering over 50 million, or members of the nomenklatura, or at a lower level the vigilantes, “druzhiny”) being still used for staged demonstrations, televised provocations, and street events. As Golitsyn wrote on page 19 of “ The Perestroika Deception”: “Lenin advised the Communists that they must be prepared to “resort to all sorts of stratagems, manoeuvres, illegal methods, evasions and subterfuge” to achieve their objectives. This advice was given on the eve of his reintroduction of limited capitalism in Russia, in his work “Left Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder”. ... Another speech of Lenin’s ... in July 1921 is again highly relevant to understanding “Perestroika”. “Our only strategy at present” wrote Lenin, “is to become stronger and, therefore, wiser, more reasonable, more opportunistic. The more opportunistic, the sooner will you again assemble the masses round you. When we have won over the masses by our reasonable approach, we shall then apply offensive tactics in the strictest sense of the word.”

An examination of the prominent Russian figures today reveals they have long Communist Party/ KGB or Komsomol backgrounds. Whilst this in itself need not be a surprise (for where else would personnel be found in the aftermath of a collapsed regime) what is of concern was the professed total “mass conversion” of them to the Western value system. The endless talk of “democracy” and their “sudden” acceptance of 233

capitalism as genuine was never adequately analysed, nor their sudden change of sensibilities assessed. We were simply expected to accept, with the collapse of the former regime, that our enemies had suddenly become our friends. That they had seen the error of their ways, and largely experienced (due to the collapse) a sudden realisation that the system and ideology that the majority had largely been indoctrinated into for generations was nothing more than a sham: a hoax, an elaborate charade dreamt up by Karl Marx and perpetrated and perpetuated by a dictatorial, self-centred, but fundamentally deluded government elite.

They had


Scratch these new, instant Soviet “democrats” “anti-Communists” and “nationalists” who have sprouted out of nowhere, and underneath will be found secret Party members or KGB agents”. This quote of Golitsyn reiterated from an interview by Christopher Story in the New American is like similar claims, which are often voiced by the pro Golitsyn clan, who support the truth of his “Grand Strategy” claim. But it tends again to be a “guilt by association” line of reasoning. The same can be said of the “founders” of the Coal and Steel Community by virtue of many of them being former Nazis during the war. A line of reasoning similarly used to tarnish the admittedly corrupt reputation of the later political bloc, now known as the European Union. 126

Whilst the long-term objectives of the former Nazis bear remarkable similarities to the initial plans for such a political and economic union in the 1930’s (termed the Europaische Wirtshaftsgemeinschaft or “European Economic Community”, endorsed by Ribbentrop, and approved in 1943) the real issue is the extent to which its personnel were still influenced and, as a consequence, formulated policy, based on their former and very recent political sympathies. Are we really supposed to think that immediately after the war they suddenly again experienced a mass conversion and repented and thence purged themselves of an ideology and political movement so many were prepared to die for? Are we to suppose their past sympathies played no part in the formulation of their policy? It would seem highly unlikely. The chief personnel consisted of: Walter Hallstein: a trained “Nazi Leadership Officer”. He promoted National Socialism in German Universities and via the Law. Hallstein became the First President of the European Commission in 1957. Paul Henri Spaak: who openly rejected democracies in favour of fascist powers. He warned the Allies not to attack Germany through Belgium. He became another “Founding Father” of the European Union. Walter Funk: a Minister under Goebbels at the Nazi Propaganda Ministry, and who was also Reich Economics Minister. He was responsible for dispossessing Jews of their property. He wrote the economic blueprint for a united Europe adopted by the 234

effectively all experienced a Damascene conversion on mass and repented the errors of their false world view. In accepting at face value, the sudden conversion of these Leninist revolutionary







simultaneously accepted as genuine the supposedly “false” Sino-Soviet split: the keystone upon which the entire deception is built, at least according to Golitsyn and his believers. In short, for believers in this theory, the “former” Soviet Union, and the East European countries, are all being run by people who are steeped in the “dialectical modus operandi of Lenin” as Christopher Story puts it (op.cit.). These politicians and activists for the strategy are promoting revolutionary strategy and a Socialist Marxist international agenda even to this day. They are working collectively towards the establishment of a one world Socialist government by stealth. They are, it is claimed, whether all of them be fully conscious of it or not.

Even if this claim is disputed, the more general claim that the hegemonic concerns of the delineated projects (the European, the American, the Chinese, the Russian and the Islamic) do not seek absolute control cannot be easily disputed. This appears by virtue of their development towards authoritarianism and collectivism. In this, any Russian-Chinese alliance would be strengthened, even if not by purposive design, by virtue of the progressive shift of economic and financial power toward the East

European Union. He was employed in the Lower Saxony Education Ministry from 1957 to 1960 and was an associate of Adenauer. Hans Josef Globke was responsible for drafting the Nuremburg Race Laws. He became Director of the German Chancellor’s Office from 1953 to 1963. This was when the European Economic Community was first officially spoken of and created. 235

generally, and an alliance that has a natural antipathy towards unilateral Western power. Any proposed progression towards a Eurasian model, as proposed by the neo-Eurasianists envisages an alliance with China to combat this, and an expansion into Europe in order to take “control of the Heartland and thus the world”, as Mackinder formulates.

A Euro-American alliance would be furthered not just in economic terms, but also facilitated by liberalisation. NATO presently provides a US military dominance, which may well be offset or counterbalanced by the new, emerging EU army of the future. In any future US EU merger, NAFTA and TTIP trade deals would facilitate an increasingly converging alliance. The expanding EU project would represent a threat however to US unipolarity, particularly if the EU continues to capitalise on the resources of Africa and the US evolves into a North American Union. Bipolarity would tend to hamper any future peaceful merger. The already established infrastructure of the United Nations already provides the architecture to easily implement a one world government, once rogue nations comply to economic and military pressures. Any Muslim hegemony would be by stealth, and via a demographic infiltration of countries and governments, rather than an increasingly powerful economic or military strategy, which is largely limited to terrorism and guerrilla warfare. But this is as effective as any pre-Cold War Communist subversion. The Muslim Brotherhood network has in any case made its imperative to achieve the global dominance by Islam clear in its strategy entitled “The Project”. The development of any one of these competing projects towards hegemony effectively signifies alliances will be temporary. Alliances 236

would collapse, as totalitarianism increases and absolute hegemony is sought. Ultimate victory exacerbates war. The implementation of an overarching totalitarian regime would most likely require the successful merger of presently competing projects into a synthesis by forced coercion in any case. Their disparate values and perspectives make this impossible to initiate peacefully.

It is difficult to assess the strategies or changing future events that might result in a one world government. Nor is it clear how it will be successfully achieved without a major global conflagration initiated due to competing interests. Perhaps the real and imminent threat of an annihilation of mankind might itself be a sufficient warning for the competing powers not to coalesce, and in this be a sufficient reason to put aside their individual interests by forging a new global alliance or total synthesis. Such agreements, however, would only be temporary. Concessions to perpetrate a particular advantage for one or more of the blocs’ in their striving for power would inevitably lead to betrayal and war. Whatever the outcome, a New World Order will most likely emerge, however variously that might be defined.

The prospect of an end synthesis of two diametrically opposed paradigms in one world government has philosophically always been recognised by Communists, cast as it was in terms of a Hegelian / Marxist dialectic progression. This entailed the conflict between successive and competing opposites, in order to achieve a specific and intended outcome. This has always required war as a historic inevitability. Irrespective of the validity of this dialectic progression, as one faction generally proposes a Socialist revolutionary model, it should be taken as a modus operandi and characteristic feature that rather tends to initiate the likelihood of it as a 237

self-fulfilling prophesy in any case.

Deceit, lies and dialectic Before Mr Gorbachev sought to implement his post-Leninist strategy of Perestroika to supposedly “democratise” Russia and shoehorn it back into an alliance with the West, he achieved a major breakthrough by convincing the former British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, that he was someone she could do friendly business with. This was done by personal contact and initially through Oleg Gordievsky, a dispatched defector, whose function was to reassure the British government that Gorbachev was genuine in his concerns and aims. As Christopher Story recounts in an interview in the New American,


this was very much a case of Lady Thatcher mistaking the “style” of Gorbachev’s charm offensive for the substance of what was the reality. In her autobiography, “The Downing Street Years”, Lady Thatcher even admits to this herself. As Story recounts: “As he cast his spell [over Mrs. Thatcher], Gorbachev unlocked the key to the control of the Western mind — and to the restructuring of the entire world. The West followed Lady Thatcher's prompting, mistaking the style for the substance. The disastrous consequences of this millennial error are now crowding in upon Western civilisation, threatening its very survival.” For Story, The John Birch Society, and other believers of Golitsyn, the purpose of Perestroika culminated in a “Break with the Past” strategy that was meant to mask a deeper agenda. Perestroika and Glasnost were designed to convince the gullible West that Communism was dead, that the Soviet Union has collapsed, and that we were suddenly just good 127

See the interview here. 238

friends, not enemies anymore. 128 The reality for Story and Golitsyn, however, was that this was fundamentally a deceit. After the West had been convinced of the discontinuity anomaly, with the overtures of freedom and transparency that Glasnost entailed, many were eager to tear down the Berlin Wall. 129 Only Ronald Reagan himself prevaricated, and for good cause, as it meant not only suspending suspicions, in the face of attested sudden change, but conceding to never ending “cooperation”. With this always comes the inevitable sting in the tail: the obligation to compromise, and with it the beginnings, perhaps, of a new battle for political supremacy, and a new tussle in the ongoing battle of ideas. Cooperation of course masks danger, if one is not dealing with a genuinely reformed Russia. It becomes a deception itself, which masks the agenda of an enemy still bent on domination and control. For the Soviets, cooperation certainly signified an attempt to dominate This alleged deception was duly inscribed in the Joint Declaration of Twenty-Two States, signed by Western and Warsaw Pact leaders on November 19, 1990. The Declaration asserted that the signatories were “no longer adversaries.” 128

While “glasnost” is associated with freedom of speech, the main goal of this policy was to supposedly make the country’s management more transparent and open to debate, thus circumventing the narrow circle of apparatchiks who previously exercised complete control. Through reviewing the past, or by opening up the censored literature in the libraries and a providing more freedom of speech in the media, a radical change occurred quickly. Control of speech and suppression of government criticism had always been the past feature of the Soviet system. 129

In the late 1980s, the Soviet government came under increased criticism, as did Leninist ideology (which Gorbachev had attempted to preserve as the foundation for reform), and members of the Soviet population were more outspoken in their view that the Soviet government had failed. Glasnost did indeed provide freedom of expression, far beyond what Gorbachev had intended, and changed citizens’ views of government and what they expected from it. This played a key role in the collapse. 239

and control, and for those that resisted, ultimately the prospect of annihilation. During the Cold War, “cooperation” often resulted in decisions being made in some cat and mouse strategy, and not all decisions were palatable, or even freely made. After the collapse of the Wall, however, one assumes as a fundamental that freewill characterised cooperation, and cooperation, against one’s own interest, entailed deception or coercion in some sense. The coercion quality of the post-Cold War “cooperation”, for Story, was made more explicit when Gorbachev himself delivered his “end of the Cold War” speech in the United States at Fulton, Missouri. This he claimed was suggestive that true reform (or even the will to reform) had not genuinely occurred. An irony for Story, as it was here that Churchill had delivered a speech announcing Stalin’s imposition of “an Iron Curtain” across the centre of Europe. The Gorbachev speech was sinister, he claims, inasmuch as it carried with it a whole sheaf of “conditions” for Soviet “cooperation”. It also carried a sting in the tail if cooperation was not forthcoming, with more than a few threats that world war would result if the West failed to comply. Gorbachev’s Fulton speech contained the broad directives with which the West was required to comply and is cast by Story very much as an ultimatum. “If the required cooperation did not materialise, then this "window of opportunity" would close, and would not be likely to recur in our lifetime — so that the consequences for humanity could be grave in the extreme. The threatening tone was blatant, and the West proceeded to comply.”

The deception feature can be made clear by something Mikhail Gorbachev once wrote:


“The works of Lenin and his ideals of Socialism remained for us an inexhaustible source of dialectical creative thought, theoretical wealth and political sagacity… Turning to Lenin has greatly stimulated the Party and society in their search to find explanations and answers to the questions that have arisen… The Leninist period is indeed very important. It is instructive that it proved the strength of Marxist-Leninist dialectics, the conclusions of which are based on an analysis of the actual historical situation. Many of us realised even long before the Plenary Meeting that everything pertaining to the economy, culture, democracy, foreign policy – all spheres – had to be reappraised.” - Mikhail Gorbachev, “Perestroika: New Thinking for My Country and the World”, Perennial Library 1988, p. 11-12. With these words, Story claims, the Soviet President, a man hailed as chiefly responsible for bringing the tyranny of Soviet Communism to an end, reveals the true nature of his strategy. Yet does it really, as “Golitsynites” claim, prove a continuing allegiance to Marxist-Leninist values? Certainly, in a later speech, Mr Gorbachev makes clear in referring to Perestroika (a term meaning reconstruction) that the mission was not to end the Marxist-Leninist ideas but ensure their propagation. “In Perestroika too …We are not going to change Soviet power, of course, or abandon its fundamental principles, but we acknowledge the need for changes that will strengthen Socialism…. The essence of ‘Perestroika’ is that it… revives the Leninist concept of socialist construction both in theory and in practice.” It is supported in a speech he once made to a large group of Russian students on 15th November 1989, where Gorbachev reputedly asserted: “We are for a Lenin who is alive! In building our future we are basing ourselves upon the gigantic intellectual and moral potential of the socialist idea linked with the theory of Marxism-Leninism. We see no rational grounds to give up the spiritual richness contained in Marxism. Through restructuring [Perestroika], we want to give Socialism a second wind and unveil in all its plenitude the vast humanist potential of the socialist system.” Further: 241

“In order to achieve this, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union returns to the origins and principles of the Bolshevik Revolution, to the Leninist ideas about the construction of a new society…. Our Party was and remains the Party of Lenin…. In short, we are for a Lenin who is alive.” In brief Gorbachev summarises: “We must seek these answers guided by the spirit of Leninism, the style of Lenin’s thinking, and the method of dialectical cognition.”

This “method of dialectical cognition” is a Hegelian dialectic, a philosophical theory, but one applied by Marx and Lenin in social, economic and material terms. In this, it yet displays Hegelian features, as a process that mirrors the progressive evolutionary stages of the history of human civilisations and the inevitability, determined within this historical process, of the necessity of war.

The dialectic progression A brief example of the process, which Gorbachev considered as Marxist Leninist and manifest in future historical events may be given. 1. First there arises a thesis. For example, the perception of an institutionalised East-West confrontation, with the growing threat of nuclear annihilation and the building of a nuclear arsenal. This displays an indifference towards the environment. 2. From this thesis is then contrived, or arises, an antithesis. A sudden end to the perception of East-West confrontation; the destruction of ‘the idea’ of the enemy, with the apparent unspoken, reversible and thus false 242

renunciation of the threat of a tyranny. This results in the dismantling of the nuclear arsenal, and a new global emphasis on protecting the environment. 3. The process then seeks to conclude in a synthesis. The construction of a New World Collective. A New World Socialist Order, predominantly along the lines specified by Mikhail Gorbachev in his Fulton, Missouri, speech on 6th May 1992, and also in his Oslo Nobel Peace Prize speech in June 1992.130 Thesis: Leninism- expansionism- no borders- aims for a classless society with production in the hands of the chiefly agrarian populace: it strives for an equality of states and induces it through a global revolution. The antithesis is Stalinism: the rigid maintenance of territorial borders, and a paradigm that aims to turn the USSR into an industrial power with production under centralised government control. Its antiegalitarian view and increasing statism strives for a national Soviet government and culture. It seeks to induce this naturally through a series of national revolutions. The synthesis therefore entails conflict, convergence and the construction of a new “Grand Strategy” under Khrushchev, Mao Tse-Tung, Shelepin and other unified Communist leaders. This was presented in 1961 as the Third-Party Programme: a further step towards a New Socialist World Order. 130

Another example of the dialectical thinking process for the Soviet mind would be: Thesis: Implementation of the Third-Party Programme (1961-1985) to “build Communism” under Kruschev and World Communist Party Leaders at the 81st Party Congress. This entailed the development of the long-term strategy, covertly waging espionage, drugs offensives, arms / terrorism, criminal offensives, GRU military terror offensives, etc. This was reinforced with its antithesis: a cultural attack (Cultural Marxism/ Frankfurt School subversion values) as an internal but in plain sight strategy of its primary and attested objectives. Its synthesis and culmination might be termed the “Fourth Party Programme” under Gorbachev (1986-the present) that sought to propagate the initiation of collapse with Perestroika restructuring and glasnost and a reaching out to the West. Synthesis: after the Cold War conflict, the faux “democratisation” of states occurred whilst maintaining “state-controlled capitalism” under a political, police state-controlled elite. Continuing the progression as applied to Europe with the aim of achieving collectivism from the “Atlantic to the Urals” as some political leaders such as even David Cameron have voiced hopes of: Thesis: the development of the European Union a supranational collective of democratic states from the Atlantic to the Urals. Antithesis: the development of national movements to perpetuate nationalism. Synthesis: after conflict (political, economic and cultural), arises the convergence into a Federal European Super State 243

Here is but one example then of the three phases that signify the on-going historical progression to a Socialist New World Order. Irrespective of its Marxist-Leninist origins, it might still be utilised as a projected interpretation of future events, or at least as far as Gorbachev was concerned. Furthermore, it contains within it a deceit itself; for the antithesis is not spontaneous, but rather contrived, in order to bring about the desired end result of its stated aim as a synthesis. It supposes, furthermore, the acceptance of a change or modification to one or other of the conflicting elements (the thesis and antithesis) at least in order to be fully resolved into a stable synthesis. The synthesis represents itself not as a truthful paradigm in any case, as it harbours within its very nature an element of the preceding paradigm. It, therefore, contains contradiction and conflict, which inevitably undermines its truthful integrity.

Specific to Golitsyn and Story’s Soviet deception thesis, is the importance of who instigated the offer of peace initially. In this the inducement to end the Cold War was very much instigated by the Soviets. In this, as Story states, the Berlin Wall collapsed into the West, not vice versa. Neither was it through overtures from orchestrated from the White House, but through the instigation of

Perestroika and Glasnost strategies

implemented from the Kremlin. This resulted in a pressurised response from the White House to acquiesce to the Soviet initiative. An initiative suddenly proffered in the name of democracy and peace, for the benefit of its citizens, their desire to embrace capitalism, and the freedom and values of the West. An initiative that assumed peace overture had to be accepted by the West lest the West itself be shown to be the perpetuators and perpetrators of War and not the Soviets. Marxist-Leninism had been (a new European Soviet) or if conflict results in failure, the construction of some sort of alternative supranational New World Order. 244

jettisoned due to an “apparent collapse”, but in reality, sought only the furtherance of its own ideology, as Mr Gorbachev’s statements appear to make clear. At the heart of it too, rests the deceit to effect transitional change, not simple as a destruction of the old order (USSR), but to bring about a new world order, that leans towards an increasing synthesis or convergence of existing opposing parts. A conclusion that represents a supposedly benign “socialist” synthesis, and a peaceful utopia, as a resolution, but in seeking it results only in war, conflict and enforced totalitarianism; if the nature of its elements remains fundamentally unchanged, or indeed, as a result of its synthesising nisus to implement an enforced modification or change. The deceit implicit in such a process can be detected in Gorbachev’s own claim in London in 2000 that the EU was now “…the New European Soviet.” His later assertions discount that he was to be held as “the man who ended Communism” but prove only that his concern was simply to propagate it in the West. The question then is: Was this propagation of formerly Marxist-Leninist ideology to be evolved into a new form? Certainly, the prospect of Marxist-Leninist Socialism evolving into a new Western Liberalism appears to have been downplayed by Gorbachev himself. “I am a Communist, a committed Communist. For some, that may be a fantasy. But for me, it is my own goal.”- Gorbachev 1989. And in 1990: “I am now, just as I have always been, a committed Communist.” In November 1987: “We are moving towards a new world, the world of Communism. We shall never turn off that road.” 245

“I’m not hiding in the woodwork. I’m involved in a different political role…. I have not abandoned links with the past.” – Gorbachev on Larry King Live, 6th November 1993.

The conclusion of the process (the synthesis) can be viewed as part of the “dialectic of deceit”. It gains credence from Golitsyn’s and Story’s claims that Stalin’s blueprint, published as a treatise in 1942, detailed the process of convergence. A convergence resulting not in peace, freedom and liberty, but in fact the very opposite: “Divide the world into regional groups as a transitional stage of world government. Populations will more readily abandon their national loyalties to a vague regional loyalty than they will for a world authority. Later, the regions can be brought together all the way into a single world dictatorship.”

Here again the general historical progression is an ebb and flow susceptible to a dialectic categorisation: from the current move towards synthesis with its no border proclamation of freedom, arises the Leninist thesis of expansionism; and from that, the Stalinist anti-thesis of maintaining strict territorial boundaries, which will once again, as an ongoing process, seek after conflict (post war) the synthesis and resolution of collectivism: a centralised yet expansive global totalitarianism. This will be progressive until the agenda of globalism is achieved and all forms of civilised statehood wither and die. In the Marxist-Leninist terminology, this is the nature of the term “revolution”: periodicity, a continual cyclic momentum, and one that strives to undermine stable, just, moral and enduring societies and limited government through a continual incitement (or agitation) to change. In this, there will be no place for anti-Communists, or “anti- Socialists” when the global agenda has been achieved. But neither (by the analysis of 246

history to date) is there any indicator that the end utopia of Communism, a proclaimed ideal of non-state peace and egalitarianism, is actually achievable. The end aim of Communism appears only to have implemented an ever-increasing federalism, which in itself exacerbates war. The progression appears to be developing towards zonal totalitarian super states, as Stalin himself anticipated. Yet its proclaimed end of peace appears, even accepting the dialectic model, to necessitate perpetual revolution or conflict.

The historical progression towards a dialectic synthesis Key to the progression is the reconciliation of opposites into a synthesis. This can be characterised more generally as a struggle between the conflicting paradigms of nationalism and internationalism. This distinction of opposites can be paralleled even within the context of Soviet Communism itself. It can be paralleled as a synthesis of the Leninist and Stalinist strategies capable of a thesis and anti-thesis distinction by recourse to history. In the Stalinist strategy, control was achieved via repression and territorial boundaries were strictly maintained. In the Leninist strategy, however, a desire for liberation, revolutionary uprising and expansion was encouraged. Under the Leninist strategy, all territorial boundaries were to be viewed as temporary, subject to change, and ultimately expendable. National borders were considered of no importance. Whereas the Stalinist strategy represented its anti-thesis with tightly controlled territorial borders and an emphasis on the national. The difference between the two paradigms would have been consistent with Stalin’s assertion that the success of the Communist state was not reliant upon the success of a world-wide revolution (the Leninist and 247

Trotskyite positions) but of a “nationalist” revolution arising naturally and inevitably in each capitalist state, before becoming amalgamated into the Russian collective. In this, the final synthesis requires an incorporation of both

nationalism and internationalism. President Putin’s


concerning Russia then is entirely consistent: “Russia has de facto become a country without borders.” 143 Equally impermanent in the progression are all institutions, structures, positions, names, agreements, ideas and values not in sympathy with the idea of global revolution. The issue is never about the issue, the issue is always about the revolution. Free thought, traditional norms, religious values and morality are disposable. The synthetic perspective requires inevitably only one value: the global revolution. Morality in this context is therefore defined as anything that furthers this progression. “Morality is that which serves a new Communist society.” – .VI Lenin, ‘Collected Works’, Volume XVII, p 321-323.

As the raison d’ etre of Communism, the global revolution undermines all values, institutions and structures that are not sympathetic to its aim. Many existing institutions, therefore, are destined either for modification or abolition. But this strategy applies in other projects too. Consider the EU as an example, where particular region states such as the UK, have been incrementally changed in an on-going, ever expanding process, since its joining the European Collective in the 1970s. The Communist synthesis of Stalinist and Leninist elements is reflected in the EU. It can be defined as centralised statism, veering towards the imposition of an authoritarian state. One which incorporates the paradox of internal open borders, naturally reflected in the EU Schengen policy. 248

This ideal was championed by Boris Yeltsin also, an ardent Leninist, who declared that Russia itself should join the European Union: and become part of the “full European state”. A view supported also by Klaus Kinkel, the German Foreign Minister, a protege of that pro-Soviet, Pan-German Hans-Dietrich Genscher, who preceded him as Foreign Minister. In May 1996, he asserted that it was: “very important that Russia is integrated into a new European state as part of its security architecture.”

The dangers of a Socialist collective Why must one suppose the synthesis of regional states into a Socialist collective should result in a totalitarian state, or even a brutal dictatorship? The Russian word for “collective” (kollectiv) as Kassof, “The Soviet Youth Programme”, Cambridge: Harvard University Press (page 45) details refers to the peer group, and one which operates in a manner alien to the Western notion of an altruistic community of states working in a constitutionally orientated union with the necessary checks and balances to limit the powers of the President, the Federal government and its executive and legislative branches: the type of model that has successfully been implemented in the United States. It is as Kassof writes: “The peer group – or, to use the Soviet term, the collective – [which] is the setting for group pressure…. The task of the collective is to instil… habits of collectivism – that is, to discourage “egoistic striving” and to foster an acceptance of group control over values, attitudes and behaviour, not only during the formative years, but throughout adult life as well.”


The striving for collectivism exhibits the same characteristics of group control for EU nations also. Here the end of “egoistic striving” entails a subjugation of the will of the individual state in preference to “group control” by a supranational body. The unelected Commission acts as the peer group. This combination of opposites is a distinctive feature, and characteristic of the former Soviet Union and its domination by the Kremlin, at least in some respects. The claim is that it is of benefit to the group, but it is one which invariable is determined by a power group that speaks on behalf of the collective. This is usually spoken of in terms of “solidarity” for the group, but usually entails control by a single political body that transcends them. Here the “acceptance of group control” signifies the end of the individual will, and an end to individual striving, or in this case national governments, to instil the correct “values, attitudes and behaviour” for the whole. Politically speaking, any who dissent are generally quashed in the interests of the group to maintain the so-called “solidarity” of the liberal agenda: a claim that appears a genuine oxymoron. In both the Russian and EU notions of collectivism too, the goal is to strive for an anti-politics in the real sense, as it entails an end to dialectic (or debate) for the furtherance of the “collective”, as determined by the supra national independent oligarchy’s own political aims. This is characterised by bureaucratic decision making, rather than legitimate debate, and an increasing tendency to spout PC truisms as dogma to close down opposing perspectives that might thwart their own highly self- determined concern to maintain power. For Marx and Hegel, the result of the progression towards collectivism is the end goal of synthesis; a desire to resolve the conflict of the thesis and the antithesis binary. Both recognise this as inducing war (economic, 250

cultural, political), rather than guaranteeing a peaceful coexistence. Whilst today peaceful co-existence could be accepted as a possibility by those who promote the values of freedom, diversity and individualism in the West, for the Marxist Socialist it is an impossibility. It cannot coexist, peacefully or otherwise, with people who disagree or dispute their agenda. Eventually too, those who oppose the ‘universal’ thought process which is to be imposed upon the whole world (starting with the mind-and language control programme of ‘political correctness’) will ultimately have to be disposed of. “The socialist society will be forced to apply the most resolute measures for a long time (including the liquidation of people who are especially dangerous to the socialist system) against people who are harmful and deliberately destructive… i.e., those who seek to undermine the socialist state and to re-establish the capitalist system.” – M. Rezunov, ‘Socialism or State Capitalism in the Soviet Union’, ‘Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo Sotsialisticheskoe Obshchestvo’ ‘The Soviet State and Socialist Society’, Leningrad, 1934, p12-18.

Whilst this might not necessarily conclude in genocide


those termed

“popularists” are certainly deemed a threat. Popularism being defined in increasingly narrow and authoritarian terms as any who oppose the collective

values of

the political




paradoxically in its higher echelons. As for freedom, the outcome of any synthesis is self-evident: as once the World is controlled by One Absolute Power, dissent will be prohibited. There will be no accepted alternative political power to challenge the Liberalism and its tolerance of gender fluidity in sexual identity and open borders immigration is in any case, overseeing and exacerbating a transformation and an end to established racial identities. 131


Absolute, Single Power. Tyranny will reign and there will be no safety net prevent any abuse of that power. Misplaced idealists who promote One World Governance for so called “humanitarian” and “egalitarian” reasons are oblivious to the danger. All those engaged in promoting regional global governance, as a precursor to further global collectivism, are assisting and accelerating the rush towards something akin to a One World Dictatorship. In the meantime, thesis, antithesis and synthesis continue to form the trinity of overt and covert collectivist thought and action: a legacy borne from the Socialist ideologies, which have influenced and shaped its institutions, culture, politics and society in turn. “The thing that exists [thesis], the opposite that arises from it [antithesis], and the higher stage that develops from their interaction or conflict [synthesis], govern all correct thinking and the proper interpretation of life and society…. That which retards Socialism is “reactionary” and is to be destroyed. That which advances Socialism is “progressive” and “liberating” and is to be encouraged and forwarded.” - Louis F. Budenz, ‘The Techniques of Communism’, Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, 1954, p.7-8.

Here Budenz, describes the National Communist Training School in the United States, and notes that students: “were indoctrinated in the Leninist morality that any means can be adopted to advance the cause. They were trained in the techniques of deception and concealment, and in how to impart this method of procedure to others so that it could be used in the courtroom, in the penetration of trade unions, and in the infiltration of other mass organisations.”


Such techniques (discouraging individualism in favour of a uniformity in group think)132 today encourage strategies to propagate the same collectivism today. “Liberal Progressivism” can be defined in the mantra “More Europe”, “Diversity is Strength” and in the calls for “Solidarity”, “Comradeship” and an end to “dangerous popularism” as Barosso (a former Maoist) spoke of during his Presidency. Its values strive to maintain Schengen and open borders in the name of peace equality and human rights, but its chief characteristic a stringent anti nationalism, which is progressing ultimately towards an authoritarian, single European state.

The Soviet convergence strategy According to Golitsyn, the deceit strategy promoted after the “collapse” of the Soviet Union was one of convergence. The Soviet purpose was to dismantle overt Communism, establish apparently “normal” relations with the West and remove travel restrictions, so that large numbers of their agents would be accepted. This would establish the subterfuge of “cooperation” to achieve advantage. It required pacifying any antagonistic stance, weakening the West’s military power, cooperating in security 132 Both

fascism and Marxist-Leninism as totalitarian ideologies encourage uniformity in group think. Both sought to create a new breed of man which required the individual to become submerged within a collective state identity. Lenin wanted to impose conditioned reflexes and thinking on the whole of society. As Orlandes Figes “A People’s Tragedy”, Penguin, p. 732-733 cites: “I want the masses to follow a Communistic pattern of thinking and reacting” Lenin explained. Do you mean you want to standardise the population of Russia, make them all behave in the same way?” he asked. “Exactly” replied Lenin. “Man can be corrected. Man can be made what we want him to be.” These are ideas similarly echoed by both Mussolini and Hitler. 253

arrangements and signing bilateral and multilateral treaties to further its own grip on power. Overtly however this strategy appears to have been jettisoned, particularly with the annexation of Crimea, the current Ukrainian crisis, and the shunning of Russia by the US-Euro alliance. The process of “convergence” between Russia and Europe currently seems impossible without significant geopolitical concessions. Whilst Putin might talk of the Eurasian Union and closer alliances with China, Russian academics speak of the Eurasian power occupying old Soviet territory. It can certainly not then be viewed as a covert operation that seeks to fool the West with smiles and handshakes into some kind of Socialist ruse. Stronger alliances and convergence economically and militarily between the US and the EU against Russia are more probable, as the likelihood of military conflict escalates in Ukraine. It is marked too by the strengthening Sino-Russian alliance as a counterweight to this alliance. The Leninist meaning of “convergence” was always taken by the West to mean Russia would “converge” with Europe. Today such a process would be one that more likely involves European states being forced to converge with it. Neo-Eurasian principles at the least seek the annexation of former Soviet states, but the leanings of the Visegrad states towards nationalism once more supports a move away from the European Union, leaving a vacuum for usurpation in its wake.133 The Visegrad Group, also called the Visegrad Four, or V4 is an alliance of four Central European states – Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia – for the purposes of furthering their European integration, as well as for advancing military, economic and energy cooperation with one another. The group used to be occasionally referred to as the Visegrád Triangle, due to the fact that it was originally an alliance of three states – the term has not been valid since 1993 but does continue to appear sometimes. 133


All contemporary collective political arrangements: the European Union; the North American Free Trade Area; as well as the new regional blocs like the South African Development Community, which has set Southern Africa on the road to integrated security, military and foreign policies, seek to usurp the nation state. All are devices designed to undermine it in order to replace it with supranational regional blocs, which could be viewed as the next components of a future world government. The destruction of national sovereignty is the paramount objective, since as long as nation states continue to exist, supranational government cannot be effective, and ultimately one world government cannot be established. The paradox here as always rests in the Marxist-Leninist idea that the state must wither and die and yet a stronger totalitarian state is to be constructed to oversee it nevertheless.


Chapter Four The Enemy Within “ Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach.” -Joseph Stalin.

On the collapse of the Soviet Union, the KGB was not dissolved. 134 It was simply renamed and modified with largely cosmetic changes occurring. The KGB is the Russian abbreviation for the Committee for State Security. Formed in 1954, it was able to take virtually any measures necessary to ensure that the USSR remained secure from internal and external threats. This meant spying on its own people, and suppression of ideological subversion at home and abroad. Its activities abroad were aimed at protecting Soviet interests and entailed the assassination of enemies of the USSR. Famous KGB assassinations include the killing of Dag Hammarskjold, the second UN Secretary General and Georgi Markov, who was notably killed by a ricin pellet fired from an umbrella. KGB agents are also alleged to have been behind the 1981 assassination attempt on the Polish Pope John Paul II. 134

The KGB was initially replaced, in 1991, by the Russian FSK (Federal Counterintelligence Service), but was reorganised by Yeltsin in 1995, and became the Russian FSB. The FSB is responsible for domestic security within Russia, and particularly for terrorism, surveillance, combating organised crime and border security. It employs more than 200,000 people (compared with around 30,000 employees of the FBI. Most of its employees are attested to be “border guards”, whilst around 60,000 are involved in the more ‘interesting’ aspects of FSB work. Since 2006, the FSB has had the power to assassinate terrorist suspects, both at home and abroad. It is believed to have engaged in a number of assassinations, mostly of Chechen militants, including Shamil Basayev in 2006. FSB agents have also been accused of the 2006 assassination of Alexander Litvenenko, who was poisoned using radioactive polonium in London.


These modifications were not representative of the momentous change that a full “collapse” should have heralded. Although the KGB did undergo a number of label changes this was nothing new, as all its security services had done so previously under new leadership. Cosmetic changes, therefore, did not signify anything particularly significant, reflective of such a momentous event. Indeed, it was largely indicative of a fairly typical pattern of simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Socialist Ship of State. Initially known as the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution, the Cheka was formed on December 20 th 1917 and led and controlled by largely murderous henchman. The various facades through the course of its history experienced change and different personnel, but the methods which informed its ethos as a security organisation largely endured. This too has been the case in respect to the current FSB, whilst its international operatives today work in the SVR.135 Since its inception, under the original control of Dzerzhinsky, this Russian led security agency has earned a fierce reputation that none of its successive manifestations during the Cold War sought to override or dispel. Sadists, murderers, rapists, and other criminals, usually with

The Russian SVR (Foreign Intelligence Service) is responsible for intelligence operations outside of Russia and shares this responsibility with Russian Military Intelligence (GRU). As well as intelligence and espionage work abroad, the SVR has a great deal of influence in the formation of Russian Foreign Policy. It provides the President with a daily briefing and makes recommendations to him about the best policy options. The SVR is heavily engaged in recruiting and placing spies abroad. It’s most notable spy ring (that has so far been discovered!) was the US-based spy ring including Anna Chapman, which was uncovered in summer 2010. 135

The SVR has a great deal of Russian state funding. It supplements this with income from various front companies – most notably, Aeroflot was used as a front company in the 1990s, although it is unlikely that this is still the case. 257

extensive prison records, constituted a fair proportion of its historic personnel. Today a growing number claim the murderous ethic continues and is still, as in the past, denied. 136 Research carried out by Olga Kryshtanovskaya for the Centre for the Study of the Elite (part of the Academy of Sciences) has revealed that four out of every five political leaders and state administrators in Russia either have been (or still are) members of the security services. The research implies a huge expansion of FSB influence in politics and business, particularly in recent years, reflective of the past Soviet regime. 137 Furthermore, the study, which analysed 1,061 top Kremlin, regional and corporate jobs, found that 78 percent of the Russian elite are what are known as “siloviki”, or former members of the KGB. Many of the officials concerned have been appointed under President Vladimir Putin - himself a former KGB chief. 138 It has long been suspected that the influence of the FSB was growing, but this empirical evidence has produced some surprising results. Among the presidential administration members of the government (deputies of both chambers of parliament, regional heads, as well as the boards of Russia’s top state corporations) four out of every five officials who formerly worked 136

See the following list of suspected murders under the Putin administration.

The FSB is the state security organisation in Russia. It is the organisation that developed from the FSK and previously the KGB. It concerns itself with the internal affairs of Russia. Its name is an acronym from the Russian Federal Security Services of the Russian Federation. Its headquarters today are based in Moscow. 137

One of the most famous Alumni of the KGB and FSB is, of course, Vladimir Putin. The Putin KGB career began in 1975 and, after 10 years based in Leningrad, he was transferred to Dresden in East German, where he was involved in trying to recruit agents. In 1998, Putin was appointed as head of the FSB by President Boris Yeltsin. He only remained in post for a year (before being appointed as Russian Prime Minister) but in that time, he undertook a large-scale re-organisation that placed many people friendly to him (former KGB) in key FSB posts. He retains a great deal of support from, and influence with Russian security services to this day. 138


for the KGB continue to work for one or more of its successor organisations. The research also shows how political and business elites are rapidly coalescing with key industrial figures, such as the Head of State. Olga Kryshtanovskaya reacted to her findings thus: “I was very shocked when I looked at the boards of major companies and realised there were lots of people who had completely unknown names, people who were not public but who were definitely, obvious siloviki.” Other experts in Russia and the West have also expressed concern at the apparent “resurrection” of the dreaded Soviet Secret Police in all but name. After all, for the past decade and a half these self-same experts have been pointing to the alleged demise of the KGB as the primary evidence that Russian Communism was dead. Today, state security personnel openly refer to themselves as “Chekists” in any case, as they openly celebrate a re-emerging enthusiasm for the Soviet legacy. After the August coup, the allegedly “liberal” Vadim Bakatan (who used to spread propaganda to the West whilst claiming to “explain” matters) was appointed head of the KGB. He replaced Vladimir Krychkov, whose strategy had called for his replacement to affect change. Bakatin was then allowed to function for 107 days before being removed in favour of Viktor Barannikov, who had previously served as a KGB apparatchik in the Caucasus, where he stirred up ethnic unrest. In his role as informer, Bakatin once described the KGB as: “an independent force with its own interests and, objectively, it has become an institution positioned above the highest powers and decision-making organs of the Union and the Republics.”


This statement contains important dis-information and is only partially correct. The Communist Party and the KGB, since the late 1950s, coalesced to such an extent that it was virtually impossible for the KGB to function without the oversight and participation of the Party, while the continuing existence of the Party largely owed its existence to the existence of the KGB. It was therefore a reciprocal relationship. 139

Lenin created the Cheka out of the remnants of the Ohkrana (the Department of State Police formed by Alexander II). This new organisation, which eventually evolved into the KGB, held broad responsibilities including espionage, the protection of Soviet secrets, and the isolation of the Soviet Union from Western goods, news, and ideas. 139

A strong admirer of the Jacobins, Lenin strongly believed in the use of terror and admired these most radical of French revolutionaries during the 1790 uprising. He first appointed Feliks Dzerzhinsky as the chairman of the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs, the NKVD. Its primary objective being to combat counter-revolution and sabotage throughout the nation. To do this more effectively, the Vecheka was formed as a subsidiary of the NKVD on December 20, 1917. Shortened to “Cheka” by the people, this organisation formed the original basis for the later KGB. Dzerzhinsky, a Polish nobleman who had served an eleven-year prison term resulting from his involvement in anti-Tsarist terrorism activities before the Russian Revolution, was Lenin’s immediate choice for Chairman. As Dzerzhinsky became used to his new position, he began to make changes to the Cheka’s format. In December 1920, the location of the Cheka’s headquarters was moved from St. Petersburg to the former offices of the All Russian Insurance Company in Moscow (a site in which it has remained, in one form or another, until this day). The organisation expanded from an investigative body to one that encompassed the powers of summary arrest (arrest without due cause), trial and execution. Eventually, the Cheka acquired the ability to incarcerate criminals in concentration camps. The Cheka was responsible for over 500,000 Russian deaths between its creation in 1917 and its renaming in 1922. One common practice became known as the “Red Terror.” Twenty to thirty hostages were selected from an agricultural community and were held until any surplus food that was grown there had been distributed to other areas in an effort to combat both famine and the capitalistic system. If the food was not distributed appropriately, these hostages were shot. Though this process and others like it were effective in spreading and maintaining Lenin’s ideology, they were not looked upon highly by the outside world. In order to improve economic relations with the West, the Cheka was eventually disbanded in a standard practise only to be replaced with the more positive sounding – but no less oppressive – State Political Administration (GPU). 260

By December 1991, Viktor Barannikov had been appointed to head of the new Security Ministry. It consisted, as of old, of four KGB elements: internal security, foreign espionage, border troops, and the Russian intelligence service. Legislation passed by the Russian Supreme Soviet in 1992 gave the KGB’s successors equivalent powers, until Barannikov was sacked just before Yeltsin’s KGB-planned attack on the Supreme Soviet in September







parliament, which was subsequently replaced by the Duma. 140 This “new” legislature consisted largely of obedient servants of the regime however, who were instructed to vote as ordered. For instance, the Duma voted 234 to 0 in August 1995 to impose sanctions on Croatia. In April 1995, the new Duma approved legislation, conferring powers on the further reorganised FSB, exercising powers which exceeded those evident even in the Stalin era. In December 1993, Yeltsin ostensibly dissolved the Security Ministry,

Originally, the GPU, still under the jurisdiction of the NKVD, operated with less absolute power than the Cheka had. However, with Lenin’s urging, Dzerzhinsky remained the Chairman of the GPU and over time it became just as powerful as it had been under the Cheka. With the adoption of the Soviet constitution in July 1923, the GPU underwent yet another name change, this time to the OGPU, or Unified State Political Administration. This new name implied the solidarity that Lenin was striving to achieve within his Communist state. The State Duma in Russia is the upper house of the Federal Assembly of Russia (parliament), the upper house being the Federation Council of Russia. Under Russia's 1993 constitution, there are 450 deputies of the State Duma (Article 95), each elected to a term of four years (Article 96); this was changed to a five-year term in late 2008. In previous elections of 1993, 1995, 1999 and 2003 one half of the deputies were elected by a system of proportional representation and one half were elected by plurality in single member districts. However, the 2007 Duma elections were carried out in a new format: all 450 deputies were elected by a system of proportional representation. Russian citizens at least 21 years old are eligible to run for the Duma (Article 97). 140


although in practice this procedure consisted of nothing more than the redistribution of the Ministry’s functions and facilities among several old and recently established security and law enforcement agencies. For a time at least 14 agencies with distinctly identifiable intelligence functions were known. Today the new FSB is far from being a shadow of its former self. On the contrary, it very much represents the fulcrum of power in today’s heavily sanctioned Russia. Another key to this Soviet legacy claim is the testimony that the organisation still runs gulag-style concentration camps. According to a report in the June 30, 1993 issue of the highly respected Swiss newspaper “Neue Zürcher Zeitung”, the Soviet gulag system remains. The February 11, 1993 “Neue Zürcher Zeitung” reported that the gulag system consists, as it did previously, of hundreds of known and dozens of unknown prison camps, containing between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 prisoners. Torture has continued, as well as the abuse of patients interned for psychiatric treatment. Judith Pallot, a Geography lecturer at Oxford University has reported that at least 120 “forest colonies” (forced labour camps) dating from the Stalin era are still being used to house tens of thousands of inmates even to this day. These however as she herself attests are “common criminals”, as opposed to the mix of political subversives that objected to Soviet tyranny in former years. Nevertheless, the camps are still difficult places to be, as Dr. Pallot also reports. Their location in the Perm region of the Northern Urals experiences an average yearly temperature in that region of about minus 1° C (c. 30.8° F), although during the long winter from October to


May temperatures fall as low as minus 40° C (c. -40° F).141 From the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 until the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the Cheka (and its later permutations: OGPU, NKVD, MGB, KGB) were considered the chief weapon of the Communist arm of the world revolution. Accepting this, therefore, it is of little surprise that Felix Dzerzhinsky, the first chief of the Cheka should claim that they stood for “organised terror” to implement economic and social change. In 1918, the programme of Soviet strategy became clear when Dzerzhinsky launched the campaign of arrests and executions known as the Red Terror. As “Krasnaya Gazeta”, the Bolshevik newspaper, expressed: Connected to this, the population in the once Soviet Georgia mysteriously declined from over 5 million to less than 3.8 million since Eduard Shevardnadze replaced the legitimately elected President Zviad Gamsakhurdia in March 1992. No explanation for this catastrophe was forthcoming and no indications of migration from Georgia to the West to explain it can be shown. Shevardnadze worked secretly with Moscow during this period, where he had an apartment. His job was to squeeze the last sign of resistance out of the Georgian people. As President (1993-2005) he presided over this evil by every means at his disposal. He induced famine, invasions of city residencies by country people (just as the Soviets did during the Bolshevik Revolution), withheld fuel, caused hyperinflation, ran drug operations, permitted beatings by the regime's special repression forces, and organised military activities, etc. This was after permitting Russia to establish numerous military bases throughout the territory. 141

As for the repression carried out by the Russians in Tajikistan, no one knows the true scale of the carnage that took place there to this day. Almost immediately after independence, Tajikistan was plunged into a civil war that saw various factions, allegedly backed by Russia and Iran, fighting one another. All but 25,000 of the more than 400,000 ethnic Russians, who were mostly employed in industry, fled to Russia. By 1997, the war had cooled down, and a central government began to take form, with peaceful elections in 1999. In 2010, there were concerns among Tajik officials that Islamic militarism in the east of the country too was on the rise. This followed the escape of 25 militants from a Tajik prison in August, an ambush that killed 28 Tajik soldiers in the Rasht Valley in September, and another ambush in the valley in October that killed 30 soldiers, followed by fighting outside Gharm that left 3 militants dead. To date, the country’s Interior Ministry asserts, the central government maintains full control over the country’s east, and the military operation in the Rasht Valley was concluded in November 2010. However, fighting erupted again in July 2012. 263

“We will make our hearts cruel, hard and immovable, so that no mercy will enter them, and so that they will not quiver at the sight of a sea of enemy blood.”

A history of blood and terror has been their trademark ever since. Obviously, the demise of such an organisation would be a cause for much rejoicing. Hence, when the KGB was ordered dissolved and its chairman, General Vladimir Kryuchkov was arrested in 1991, after attempting to overthrow the so called “reformer” Mikhail Gorbachev in the failed “August Coup”, many people in the West were only too willing to start celebrating the end of an evil empire. Based on the suspected murders bloodying the current Russian regime they have celebrated too soon.

Putin’s nostalgia and reverie for the past In 1999 Putin made an ominous speech for Security Organs Day, celebrating the accomplishments of Dzerzhinsky and the Cheka. He spoke volumes as to his true attitude about the Soviet past. An attitude reflected in 2002, when he implemented the following measures:

• He restored the Red Star, as Russia's official military emblem. • He restored the Red Banner as Russia’s military flag. • He restored the music of the old Soviet anthem, albeit with new words. • He attempted with Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov, to restore the giant statue of the mass murderer Dzerzhinsky to its former place of honour in Moscow's Lubyanka Square. Public opposition to the glorification of Dzerzhinsky temporarily stalled Putin’s plans for a statue. Nevertheless, Mr Putin did restore a smaller 264

bust of the murdering Chekist known as “Bloody Felix” to a pedestal at the infamous Lubyanka headquarters of the KGB/FSB. Furthermore, he has vehemently refused to have the embalmed body of Lenin removed. He has also spoken of it as being comparable to a sacred relic. “Many are saying that having Lenin’s Mausoleum runs counter to the tradition. But what runs counter to tradition?” Putin told a meeting with celebrities who campaigned for him in the March 2012 presidential election, according to the Kremlin website. “Just go to Kiev Pechersk Lavra or check out Pskov Monastery or Mount Athos. You’ll see the relics of saints there.”

Putin cited almost word-for-word the present-day leader of Russia’s Communist Party, Gennady Zyuganov, who was reported as saying: “this form of burying Lenin complies with Orthodox canons and traditions.”

In the current rebirth of Russian nationalism Putin often calls for a “return to our historic roots”, whilst justifying it because the people lack a strong, clear and common ideology to affirm their identity. “What happened after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dominant ideology?” Mr. Putin once asked his supporters. “We never got anything in its place”. Mr. Putin also remarked that the Communist Builder’s Code, a list of Communist moral principles dated 1961, borrowed a great deal from the Bible and the Qur’an. Putin’s support, however, has been in contrast to the public’s desire for removing Lenin’s body from the mausoleum, which is still growing. A survey by the Public Opinion Fund (taken in 2012) showed that the number of those supporting the idea of burying Lenin’s body had 265

increased by 10 percent over the past six years to 56 percent. Only 28 percent of respondents said Lenin’s body should remain in the mausoleum. While a new generation of youths might be persuaded by Romanticised notions of a Soviet regime in a barely lived past, at present enough still live to recall the horrors of it and the shared hopes of a postCold War liberating future. Any reasonable person should be able to see that Putin’s attitude is significant. The clues reveal that Vladimir Putin is not the “reformer” and the “democrat” he claims himself to be. His attitude and background provide many of the answers to his true aims and feelings, which have been voiced publicly. They reveal his values are more compatible with the old values of the past, irrespective of his proclaimed disdain for socialist, and by extension Marxist, economics. Even omitting the political values the feeling at least is that the cultural values were acceptable and gave the Russian people a sense of purpose. It seems self-evident that in the neo-Eurasian ideal his supporters hope for a rosy tinted new future that yet paradoxically has much in common with the authoritarian regimes of the past. Increasingly the youth might be persuaded that the new future is different, but sophistry cannot simply mask the core similarities. Whilst the economic ideology and language may well have changed, the objective for Russian hegemony in a pan Russian state-centric empire remains the same. What Putin’s real feelings about all this are one may never know. Although much can be gleaned from the personal account of Alexei Kondaurov, a former KGB general towards the defeated August Coup in August 22nd 1991 against Gorbachev. Feelings amongst chief proponents of the attempt harboured a good deal of ill feeling. Kondaurov’s information reveals something of the general mood and feelings at that time, which 266

might still reflect Putin’s private feelings to this day. His increasingly apparent, but still strategically hidden agenda, certainly implies a Russian hegemonic counter-strategy to the Euro-American alliance. It is open to debate whether this can be placed in its correct context, as either a restoration of Soviet aims, or as a genuine break with the past. Kondaurov described in the New American newspaper accounts of the events of that time. He details how he stood by the darkened window of his Moscow office and watched a jubilant crowd moving towards the KGB headquarters in Lubyanka Square. The coup against Gorbachev had just been defeated. The head of the KGB who had helped to orchestrate it had been arrested, and he was one of the few senior officers left in the building. The thronged masses appeared to be heading his way until the mob became distracted and angry as it focused on the statue of Dzerzhinsky, the former KGB assassinator in chief. A couple of men climbed up and slipped a rope around the neck of the statue, before it was yanked from its base by a crane. As it swayed in the air, Mr Kondaurov, who had served in the KGB since 1972, claims he felt betrayed: “by Gorbachev, by Yeltsin, by the impotent coup leaders I will prove to you that your victory will be short-lived.” Those feelings of betrayal and humiliation typified the feelings of many of the 500,000 other KGB operatives across Russia and beyond, including Vladimir Putin himself, whose resignation as a lieutenant-colonel in the service had been accepted only the day before. Eight years later, the KGB seem poised for revenge: a strategy supported by Putin just before he became president, when he told his ex-colleagues at the FSB: “A group of FSB operatives, dispatched under cover to work in the government of the Russian federation, is successfully fulfilling its task.” Over the first two terms of Putin's presidency that “group of FSB 267

operatives”, many of whom had associations to the KGB, consolidated political power and built a new sort of corporate state in the process. Now men from the FSB and its sister organisations control the Kremlin, the government, the media and large parts of the economy. They also run the military and security forces. The old henchmen appear to be running the Vanguard once more. If Olga Kryshtanovskaya’ s research at the Russian Academy of Sciences is correct, then, and there is little reason to doubt it, a quarter of the country's senior bureaucrats are siloviki or “power guys”, which includes members of the armed forces and other security services. This is not just limited to the FSB either. The proportion rises to three-quarters if people simply affiliated to the security services are included. They represent a homogeneous group, loyal to roots, ideas and values that go back to the Bolsheviks’ original Cheka. Neither is this simply a crazed assumption. As Mr. Putin himself has underlined the continuity and legacy asserting repeatedly: “There is no such thing as a former Chekist.” Today’s security bosses enjoy a combination of power and money without precedent in Russia’s history. The Soviet KGB and its pre-revolutionary ancestors did not care as much about money as they did for power and ideals, which was the imperative for their decision making. So too, it was the KGB that was a “combat division” of the Communist Party, and in this respect subordinate to it. As an outfit that was part intelligence organisation, part security agency, and part secret political police, therefore, it was often better informed, but it could not act independently of the Party’s authority; it could in fact only make “recommendations”. In the 1970s and 1980s it was not even allowed to spy on the party bosses 268

and had to act within Soviet laws; an indicator of the extent of the power of the Party tyranny. The KGB, however, provided a crucial service of surveillance and suppression that had developed by that time. Indeed, by the era of Brezhnev it was acting very much as a state within a state. Now, however, as the FSB, its power has only increased and is very much absolute and authoritarian, rather than diminished. It has effectively become the state itself. A fact emphasised by Kondaurov in his claim that apart from Putin: “There is nobody today who can say no to the FSB.” All important decisions in Russia, Olga Kryshtanovskaya claims, are now taken by this corrupt oligarchy: a group of men who served alongside Mr. Putin in the KGB, many of whom come from his home town of St Petersburg. This coterie may well decide the outcome of presidential elections and whoever eventually succeeds Mr. Putin as President. The elected candidate is very likely to be wedded to the organisational hierarchy run by the FSB. Of all the Soviet institutions, the KGB withstood Russia’s transformation to capitalism best. It appears to have emerged all the stronger in its new manifestation. As Kondaurov, who is now a member of parliament asserted: “Communist ideology has gone, but the methods and psychology of its secret police have remained.” Irrespective of whether this is indeed the vanguard of Communist deals or something entirely different, the “methods and psychology”, which inform it are still similar. These include the authoritarian aspect; the element of deceit; the violent subjugation of all that oppose its authority and its shaping of state decisions. These principles underlie an ethos that, irrespective of ideological names, continues to exert a dangerous and immoral power. This power imposes its will upon the people via the state 269

apparatus and is indicative of absolute authoritarianism. The deceit is particular characteristic. How otherwise could its organisation and ethos be sustained in a supposedly free democracy? Mr. Putin's ascent to the presidency are the result of a chain of events that have their deep roots in a history started a quarter of a century earlier. During that time, it was Yuri Andropov, a former head of the KGB, who was destined to succeed Leonid Brezhnev as general secretary of the Communist Party. Andropov’s attempts to reform the stagnating Soviet economy, in order to preserve its political system, served as a model for Mr. Putin. Early in his presidency, Mr. Putin unveiled a plaque at the Lubyanka headquarters that paid tribute to Andropov, whom he claimed was an “outstanding political figure.” Staffed by highly educated, pragmatic men, recruited in the 1960s and 1970s, the KGB was well aware of the serious problems endemic within the economy, caused in large part not only by an irrelevant and misconstrued Marxist ideology, but an antiquated dysfunctional state apparatus and hierarchy of bosses. Indeed, this promulgated the chief justification for “Perestroika”. Yet whilst Perestroika's reforms were meant to give the Soviet Union a new lease of life, they paradoxically threatened the KGB’s very existence. This led to the KGB mounting a coup against Gorbachev, which in standard interpretations at least, precipitated the Soviet collapse. 142 For advocates of the Golitsyn theory, the August Coup was merely a fake coup, implemented to give the false impression of a collapse in order to implement the “Grand Strategy” of Communism into the West, to Sovietise the European Union and subvert it from its agenda as a European Economic Community. Its manifestation as the Soviet style European Union is proof of this they claim, but the latter claim fails to account satisfactorily for the pre-existent agenda. The plan for a supranational European government and pan national state collective, appears to have been very much part of its agenda since its inception. The chief weakness of the Golitsyn claim remains: why is the left leaning Euro-American alliance in battle with the Russian 142


The defeat of the coup gave Russia a historic chance to liquidate the organisation. If Mr Gorbachev, or Mr Yeltsin, had been bold enough to dismantle the KGB during the autumn of 1991, it is unlikely that either would have been met with much resistance. The process that sought to achieve this, however, achieved not a dissipation of its power structure, but merely a division into interlinking parts. The First Chief Directorate, the elite branch in charge of espionage, was turned into a separate intelligence service. The rest of the agency was broken into multiple parts. Then, after a few months of talk about openness, a mantle of secrecy fell upon the FSB, as the man charged with trying to reform it, Vadim Bakatin, was ejected. His conclusion, delivered at a conference in 1993, was that although the myth about the KGB’s invincibility had collapsed, the agency itself carrying another name, was still very much alive. The new Ministry of Security continued to “delegate” the officers of the “active reserve” into state institutions and commercial firms. Soon old KGB officers themselves were staffing the tax police and customs services. These developments, as Boris Yeltsin himself admitted in 1993, resisted all attempts to re-organise the old KGB into a new format. The conclusion is that, whether by impotency or design, its corrupting presence and influence remains and the course of history worked in its Federation if both are supposedly left-leaning Marxist sympathisers who seek a mutual objective? Whilst Russia now claims to espouse conservative nationalism and the West more generally left leaning Liberal Progressivism, it can be still be asserted that their conflict rests in an increasing desire for absolute power. It is this that sets up a mutual conflict of interests. This imperative informs their actions and statecentric agenda, irrespective of the names attributed to their professed and changing ideologies. 271

favour. The very fact it resisted reform suggested, for the believers of the Golitsyn claim particularly, that the system of political police had been deliberately preserved; although it could have simply been resurrected itself, not as a preordained strategy, but simply by virtue of its former personnel being prevalent and thus employed due to their past experience within the new structure. Their allegiance to the old values because of this, or at least the desire for perpetuating their own self-interest would, however, have most likely remained. Mr. Yeltsin’s response, whilst notably allowing the agency to survive, was to try and circumnavigate it and decapitate its power and influence. In this, the KGB was cut off from the post-Soviet redistribution of assets. It was effectively upstaged and outwitted by a tiny group of opportunists who became known as the oligarchs. These oligarchs then grabbed most of the country’s natural resources and other privatised assets, whilst most of the KGB officers watched them get super-rich overnight. They on the other hand, largely remained cash-strapped and sometimes even unpaid. All this was very much to the KGB’s general annoyance and set the scene for death and murder of many of these oligarchs in later years. Some officers did well enough, but only by offering their services to the oligarchs. To protect themselves from rampant crime and racketeering, the oligarchs even tried to privatise parts of the organisation. Their large and costly security departments were staffed and run by ex-KGB officers. They also hired senior agency men as “consultants”. 143 The people who remained in the FSB were the “B-list” claimed Mark Galeotti, a British

Men such as Fillip Bobkov, the head of the Fifth Directorate (which dealt with dissidents), worked for a media magnate Vladimir Gusinsky. Mr Kondaurov, a former spokesman for the KGB, worked for Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who ran and largely owned Yukos. 143


analyst of the Russian special services. Lower-ranking staff worked as bodyguards to Russia’s new super rich elite. Andrei Lugovoi, the chief suspect in the murder in London of Alexander Litvinenko, once guarded Boris Berezovsky, an oligarch once facing arrest in Russia, who came to live in Britain, before dying in mysterious circumstances in 2013.144 Hundreds of private security firms staffed by KGB veterans then sprang up around the country and most of them, though not all, kept their ties to the old mob. According to Igor Goloshchapov, a former KGB special-forces commando, who is now a spokesman for almost 800,000 private security men: “In the 1990s we had one objective: to survive and preserve our skills. We did not consider ourselves to be separate from those who stayed in the FSB. We shared everything with them and we saw our work as just another form of serving the interests of the state. We knew that there would come a moment when we would be called upon.” On 23 March 2013 Berezovsky was found dead at his home, Titness Park, at Sunninghill, near Ascot in Berkshire. His body was found by a bodyguard in a locked bathroom, with a ligature around his neck. 144

When Berezovsky’s death became known, there was speculation by mainstream British news media that Moscow might be somehow involved. The Thames Valley Police classified his death as "unexplained" and launched a formal investigation into the circumstances behind it. Specialists in chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear materials were deployed to Berezovsky’s home as a "precaution". These specialists later "found nothing of concern". A post-mortem examination carried out by the Home Office found the cause of death was consistent with suicide by hanging and there was nothing pointing to a violent struggle. However, following an inquest into the death in March 2014 the coroner, Mr Peter Bedford, recorded an open verdict commenting, “I am not saying Mr Berezovsky took his own life, I am not saying Mr Berezovsky was unlawfully killed. What I am saying is that the burden of proof sets such a high standard it is impossible for me to say.” Despite his death in March 2013, Berezovsky's Interpol Red Notice continues to remain active. Recent Skripal poisonings in Salisbury by Novichok only strengthen the suspicions on other unresolved cases. 273

That moment came on New Year's Eve 1999, when Mr. Yeltsin resigned and, despite his views about the KGB, handed over the reins of power to Mr. Putin, the man he had put in charge of the FSB in 1998 and himself a former KGB operative. He was made Prime Minister a year later.

The strategies of Putin’s reign As Putin saw things, his first task was to restore the management of the country, consolidate political power and neutralise competing influences. These strategies focused on the oligarchs, regional governors, the media, parliament, opposition parties and non-governmental organisations. His former KGB comrades helped him with the task and the process is ongoing. The most politically active oligarchs, such as Mr. Berezovsky, who had helped Mr. Putin into power, and Mr. Gusinsky, were pushed out of the country, and their television channels were taken back into state hands. Mr. Khodorkovsky, Russia’s richest man, was more stubborn. Despite several warnings, he continued to support opposition parties, and NGOs, and refused to leave Russia. In 2003 the FSB arrested him, and after a show trial put him in prison. To deal with unruly regional governors, Mr. Putin appointed special envoys with powers of supervision and control. Most of them were KGB veterans. The governors lost their budgets and their seats in the upper house of the parliament. Later, the voters lost their right to elect them. All 274

the strategic decisions, according to Olga Kryshtanovskaya, continued to be made by the small group of people who have formed Mr. Putin's informal and newly resurrected Politburo ever since. They include presently two deputy heads of the presidential administration: Igor Sechin, who officially controls the flow of documents, but also oversees economic matters, and Viktor Ivanov, responsible for personnel in the Kremlin and beyond. There is also Nikolai Patrushev, the head of the FSB, and Sergei Ivanov, a former defence minister and now the first deputy prime minister. All are originally from St Petersburg, and all served in intelligence or counter-intelligence. That two of the most influential men, Mr Sechin and Viktor Ivanov, hold only fairly modest posts (each is a deputy head) and seldom appear in public. It was, after all, common Soviet practice to have a deputy, often linked to the KGB, who carried more weight than his notional boss. “These people feel more comfortable when they are in the shadows” explains Olga Kryshtanovskaya. In any event, each of these KGB veterans has a plethora of followers in other state institutions. One of Mr Patrushev's former deputies, also from the KGB, being the minister of the interior, in charge of the Police. Sergei Ivanov still commands authority within the army’s headquarters. Mr Sechin has close family ties to the minister of justice. The prosecution service, which in Soviet times at least nominally controlled the KGB’s work, has now become its instrument, along with the tax police. The political muscle of these men is backed by state companies with enormous financial resources. Mr Sechin, for example, is the chairman of Rosneft; Russia's largest state-run oil company. Viktor Ivanov heads the board of directors of Almaz-Antei; the country’s main producer of air275

defence rockets, and of Aeroflot, the national airline. Sergei Ivanov oversees the military-industrial complex and is in charge of the newly created aircraft-industry monopoly. But the siloviki reach into all areas of Russian life. They can be found not just in the law-enforcement agencies, but in the ministries of economy, transport, natural resources, telecoms and culture. Several KGB veterans occupy senior management posts in Gazprom, Russia's biggest company, and its pocket bank, Gazprombank (whose vice-president is the 26-yearold son of Sergei Ivanov). Alexei Gromov, Mr Putin’s trusted press secretary, sits on the board of Channel One; Russia's main television channel. The railway monopoly is headed by Vladimir Yakunin, a former diplomat who served at the United Nations in New York and is believed to have held a high rank in the KGB. Sergei Chemezov, Mr Putin’s old KGB friend from his days in Dresden (where the president worked from 1985 to 1990), is in charge of Rosoboronexport; a state arms agency that has grown on his watch into a vast conglomerate. Many officers of the active reserve have been inserted into Russia’s big companies, both private and state-controlled, where they draw a salary, whilst also remaining on the FSB payroll. “We must make sure that companies don't make decisions that are not in the interest of the state” one current FSB colonel explains. Being an active-reserve officer in a firm is, says another KGB veteran, a dream job: “You get a huge salary and you get to keep your FSB card.” One such active-reserve officer is the 26-yearold son of Mr Patrushev who was last year seconded from the FSB to Rosneft, where he is now advising Mr Sechin. After seven months at Rosneft, Mr Putin awarded Andrei Patrushev the Order of Honour, citing his professional successes and “many years of conscientious work”. 276

Rosneft was the main recipient of Yukos’s assets after the firm was destroyed. The attack on Yukos, which entered its decisive stage just as Mr Sechin was appointed to Rosneft, was the first and most blatant example of “property redistribution” towards the siloviki, but not the only one. Mikhail Gutseriev, the owner of Russneft, a fast-growing oil company, was forced to give up his business after being accused of illegal activities. For a time, he had refused, but as he explained, “they tightened the screws” and one state agency after another: the general prosecutor’s office, the tax police, the interior ministry, etc. began conducting checks on him. The transfer of financial wealth from the oligarchs to the siloviki was perhaps inevitable given the power structure. It certainly met with no objection from most Russians, who have little sympathy for “robber barons”. It even earned the siloviki a certain popularity. But lacking business acumen, whether they will make a success of managing their newly acquired assets is doubtful. Curiously, the concentration of such power and economic resources in the hands of a small group of siloviki, who identify themselves with the state, has not alienated people in the lower ranks of the security services. There is trickle-down of a sort: the salary of an average FSB operative has gone up several times over the past decade, and a bit of freelancing is tolerated. Besides, many Russians inside and outside the ranks believe that the transfer of assets from private hands to the siloviki is in the interests of the state. The rights of the siloviki, however, have nothing to do with the formal kind that are spelled out in laws or in the constitution. What they are claiming is a special mission to restore the power of the state, save Russia from 277

disintegration and frustrate the enemies that might weaken it by exerting absolute control. Such idealistic sentiments coexist with an opportunistic and cynical eagerness to seize the situation for personal or institutional gain. The security servicemen present themselves as a tight brotherhood entitled to break any laws for the sake of their mission. Their idealistic sounding language is laced with profanity, and their attitude is often combined with an everyday contempt for ordinary people. They are, however, loyal to each other. Competition to enter the service is intense. In the past, the KGB picked its recruits carefully. They were picked from various institutes and universities and were then trained in special KGB schools. Today the FSB Academy in Moscow attracts the children of senior siloviki; a vast new building that has doubled in size. This proliferates and encourages a camaraderie and a self-perpetuating interest and biased influence. Viktor Cherkesov, the head of Russia’s drug-control agency, who was still hunting dissidents in the late 1980’s, has summed up the FSB philosophy in an article that has become the manifesto of the siloviki: “We must understand that we are one whole. History ruled that the weight of supporting the Russian state should fall on our shoulders. I believe in our ability, when we feel danger, to put aside everything petty and to remain faithful to our oath.” As well as invoking secular patriotism, Russia’s security bosses can readily find allies among the priesthood. Next to the FSB building in Lubyanka Square stands the 17th-century church of the Holy Wisdom, “restored in August 2001 with zealous help from the FSB” says a plaque. Inside, freshly painted icons gleam with gold. “Thank God there is the FSB. All power is from God and so is theirs” incants Father Alexander, who leads the 278

service. A former KGB general agrees: “They really believe that they were chosen and are guided by God, and that even the high oil prices they have benefited from are God’s will.” Sergei Grigoryants, who has often been interrogated and twice imprisoned (for anti-Soviet propaganda) by the KGB, asserted that chiefs believe: “they are the only ones who have the real picture and understanding of the world.” This gives an exaggerated sense of the enemy, which justifies their very existence; for without enemies, what is their purpose? “They believe they can see enemies where ordinary people can’t” says Kryshtanovskaya. A sense of superiority that elevates them above counter strategists in the West and vouchsafes the ultimate success of their longrange goals. This however doesn’t instil complacency. “A few years ago, we succumbed to the illusion that we don't have enemies and we have paid dearly for that” Mr Putin told the FSB in 1999. It is a view shared by most KGB veterans and their successors. In this, the greatest danger comes from the West, they claim, whose aim is supposedly to weaken Russia and create disorder. “They want to make Russia dependent on their technologies” says a current FSB staffer who pleads anonymity. “They have flooded our market with their goods. Thank God we still have nuclear arms.” The siege mentality of the siloviki and their anti-Westernism has played well with the Russian public. Mr Goloshchapov, the private agents’ spokesman, expresses the mood this way:


“In Gorbachev’s time Russia was liked by the West and what did we get for it? We have surrendered everything: East Europe, Ukraine, Georgia. NATO has moved to our borders.” From this perspective, anyone who plays into the West’s hands at home is the internal enemy. In this category are the last free-thinking journalists, the last NGOs sponsored by the West, and the few liberal politicians who still share Western values. To sense the depth of these feelings, consider the response of one FSB officer to the killing of Anna Politkovskaya, a journalist whose books criticising Mr Putin and his brutal war in Chechnya are better known in the West, rather than inside Russia. “I don’t know who killed her, but her articles were beneficial to the Western press. She deserved what she got.” And so, by this token, did Litvinenko, the ex-KGB officer poisoned by polonium in London last year. In such a climate, the idea that Russia’s security services are entitled to deal ruthlessly with enemies of the state, wherever they may be, has gained wide spread acceptance and is supported by a new set of laws. Laws, it is claimed, designed to combat “extremism”. But such laws give the FSB and other agencies ample scope to pursue anyone who acts or speaks against the Kremlin, as independent analysts and journalists have found out. A lawyer who complained to the Constitutional Court about the FSB’s illegal tapping of his client’s telephone was accused of disclosing state secrets. Several scientists who collaborated with foreign firms are in jail for treason. Despite their connections to its old Soviet roots, today’s security bosses differ from their predecessors in one respect. They apparently do not want a return to a Communist economics or an end to capitalism, whose fruits they enjoy. Indeed, they have none of the ideological asceticism of their 280

forbearers. In any case, in a country where fear runs deep, attacking selected individuals does the job. Nevertheless, even accepting this, the concentration of such power and money in the hands of the security services does not bode well for a Russia that fought publicly to free itself from tyranny. The creation of enemies may smooth over clan disagreements and fuel a patriotism to make Russia strong, but it does not make the country more stable or prosperous. While the FSB reports on the ever-rising numbers of foreign spies, accuses scientists of treason and hails its “brotherhood” as the solution, Russia remains one of the most criminalised, corrupt and bureaucratic countries in the world. The rise to power of the KGB veterans should not have been surprising. In many ways (as Inna Solovyova a Russian cultural historian argues) it had to do with the qualities that Russians find appealing in their rulers. Qualities such as: firmness, reserve, authority and a degree of mystery. “The KGB fitted this description, or at least knew how to seem to fit it.” she claimed. In his book ‘Mafia State’, Luke Harding, the Moscow correspondent for The Guardian from to 2007 to 2011 (and a fierce critic of Russia) alleged that the FSB subjected him to continual psychological harassment, with the aim of either getting him to practice self-censorship in his reporting, or to quit the country entirely. He claimed that the FSB used techniques known as Zersetzung (literally “corrosion” or “undermining”) which were perfected by the East German Stasi in its Cold War days. 145 A technique practised to a higher degree by the state authorities in China. The Chinese Communist regime has set up numerous brainwashing centres all over China to detain, brainwash and torture Falun Gong practitioners, including the elderly and pregnant women. These facilities are euphemistically labelled “Legal Education 145


The assassination of detractors The near-unanimity with which the world concluded that Russia's security services were behind the poisoning of Aleksander Litvinenko suggests that the reputation of the KGB has not been erased by simply renaming it the FSB. There is plenty of historical evidence suggesting the organisation’s tactics towards critics has changed very little. After 1917, the Cheka (later the OGPU and the NKVD) terrorised Russians who fled abroad. Thousands settled in Paris in the 1920s living in constant fear of murders and kidnappings by Red agents. Propaganda from the Kremlin spread the message that no one was safe from its reach. Even seemingly







blackmailed or bribed into switching sides, and many were turned into agents of the Red Terror. One of the most poignant cases concerned the husband of Marina Tsvetaeva, one of the century’s greatest poets. Sergei Efron had been a commander in the counter-revolutionary White Army, but in the 1930s sickness in exile led him to accept an offer of safe passage back to Russia on condition that he take part in an NKVD plot to murder a Bolshevik

Training Centres” to deceive the public. Brainwashing is part of the official governmental structure of the Chinese Communist Party. Two examples being: 1. The “main responsibilities” procedural document of the brainwashing centre in Shouguang, Weifang, Shandong Province, clearly states: “Persecute Falun Gong to make them “transform” and renounce their faith. 2. According to the “Responsibilities of the Legal Training Centre of the City” document, made public by the Political and Legal Affairs Committee of Qingzhou in Weifang, Shandong Province, the centre's responsibilities have nothing to do with “legal training” and everything to do with “transforming” the minds of Falun Gong practitioners. 282

defector. He did so, but when he and Tsvetaeva were taken back to Moscow, he was arrested and shot, and Marina hung herself in despair. The KGB and its predecessors were careful to cover their tracks though, and always denied responsibility for crimes abroad, even when their culpability was clear. After all, they took 50 years to admit it was one of their agents who murdered Trotsky in 1940. The supposed claim of reform has been weakened most notably in the past few years, which has seen a dramatic increase in the number of politicians and journalists being murdered in Russia itself. Most of them, like the brave journalist and writer Anna Politkovskaya, infuriated the Kremlin by criticising it for corruption or human rights abuses. In virtually all cases, the Kremlin has used the state-controlled media to spread the message that it was not to blame: the usual strategy being to suggest the victims brought it on themselves, because they were mixed up in shady business dealings or espionage. In Politkovskaya's case, the counter claim was that she was assassinated by the CIA. But the Kremlin seem to repeat this blame shifting strategy often. For example, in the Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper, which has close links to the FSB, it was suggested Litvinenko too may have been poisoned by the Americans. The Moscow run RT was copiously fed with stories that the deed was done by enemies of Putin in order to discredit him in the eyes of the world. Why else, they claim, would the operation have been carried out with so many hallmarks of an FSB sting? Such a rhetorical question may suggest some desperation in the FSB’s PR department, but it is a commonly used strategy: the death of Berezovsky was also attributed to British spies by the Kremlin. The use of poison against political opponents is, however, a longstanding 283

KGB trademark. Politkovskaya was unsuccessfully poisoned, before she was finally shot; the anti-Kremlin Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko was left badly scarred after deadly dioxin was slipped into his food. Rumours abound too of a clandestine secret service division operating in Laboratory 12 or “Kamera” (the Room), which has been set up again. It having been originally set up in the 1920’s specifically to develop poisons that would not be detected in a standard autopsy. Whatever the truth, it is clear that Russian emigres in London have been frightened by the newfound assertiveness of the FSB, bolstered they believe, by a president who no longer wishes to curtail the service’s activities. The anti-Putin oligarch Boris Berezovsky became Litvinenko’s protector after Litvinenko blew the whistle on an alleged FSB plot to assassinate Berezovsky himself. In Litvinenko’s case, the protection seems to have failed. Berezovsky was then expected to look out for himself but came to an unfortunate end by supposedly hanging himself on 23 March 2013. The third London exile the Kremlin has named as its public enemy, Akhmed Zakayev, envoy of the pro-independence forces in Chechnya, has to date escaped assassination or “self- inflicted” harm. Mr Zakayev, a former actor and self-described separatist leader, has shown tremendous calm in the face of the fact that he has said in a recent interview with Intelnews in April 3, 2012 that he believed: “there are more Russian spies in Britain today than there were during the Cold War.”

The growing evidence suggests that the FSB is again employing some of its predecessor’s methods at home and abroad. Hardly surprising, since the operatives who were trained and promoted under the old regime, are now in all the new positions of power. The threat extends both at home and abroad, as the Federal Security Service is given a detachment of 284

agents to be assigned permanent duty in foreign states. Their task, it is claimed, is not to protect Russian diplomats from spies, but to work with local intelligence agencies in the “struggle against international crime.” A cover for Russian strategic operations. According to the explanatory memorandum to the bill FSB operatives are to dispatched to foreign states for up to six months: “to provide advice and guidance to their intelligence and law enforcement agencies in conducting operational, search and other special activities.” Such detachments were originally sent only to Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Kyrgyzstan, but will be expanded to other regions. The goal is to give them the opportunity to serve as permanent advisers. According to the memorandum, a group of 15 agents will be sent to each of the three countries, although the FSB would like to expand the list of states “in need of its help.” In 2007, a presidential decree granted the Interior Ministry the right to include 41 of its representatives in Russia’s diplomatic missions abroad. In 2009, it was decided that such officials would serve for three years at a time with the possibility of extending their stay by an additional year. At present, however, only about 10 interior officials are posted abroad. What’s more, only one is assigned per country as compared to the 15 FSB agents designated for each host state. But the FSB initiative differs fundamentally from the practice of the Interior Ministry and seems to be an attempt to revive the old Soviet custom of posting its secret police to the intelligence agencies of Eastern Europe. These advisers were sent to friendly countries officially from 1949 through to 1991 and could number up to several dozen people. Apparently, 285

the FSB officers are providing “practical advice� to these advisors and the intelligence agencies of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Kyrgyzstan. It might initially seem surprising that the Kremlin sees the FSB in that role, rather than the Foreign Intelligence Service. But back in the mid2000s, the FSB was given its own intelligence agencies for working in the former Soviet republics and so the decision is wholly in keeping with that rationale. It is widely known that the FSB performed much worse than the Investigative Committee during the peak of the 2011-12 protests. In response to this, Putin complained that the FSB was not providing enough information about opposition forces and the on-going changes in the political situation. As a consequence, the FSB countered by complaining that its powers were too limited. It thus provided the rationale for a request for broader authority. The Putin complaint being a ruse for implementation of the strategy according to some. A new law broadening the definition of treason was signed by Putin last year in what many view as support for strengthening FSB power. The law also made it much easier for the FSB to conduct surveillance and wiretapping. The current initiative to send permanent detachments of security officers to help the intelligence services of friendly regimes apparently falls under the same category. Apparently, it is better to let the FSB fight hostile forces in distant lands than it is in Russia.

The financial power of the FSB Russian President Vladimir Putin announced his pleasure at Russia’s assumption of the presidency of the Group of Twenty (G20) nations in 286

2013. His

“strategic agenda for the G20 in 2013” was loaded with

favourable references to the FSB. The FSB acronym in Putin’s “strategic agenda” was, however, not a reference to the dreaded Russian security service but a reference to the Financial Stability Board, a new institution created by the G20 leaders in 2009, ostensibly to deal with the on- going economic crisis. Nevertheless, the “coincidence” of choosing a name for these new, global financial police with the same acronym as the Putin’s security services agency is an odd coincidence. The G20’s FSB is a shadowy financial power that is headquartered inside another even more secretive global financial powerbase- the Bank for International Settlements (BIS)- in Basel, Switzerland. Despite repeated appeals to accountability and transparency in the FSB Charter, the FSB — like the BIS and the Central Banks whose heads compose the Plenary that governs the FSB — operates mysteriously outside the controls of the U.S. Congress, national parliaments, or any constitutional constraints. At the time of writing, Putin’s FSB regime is represented in the BIS/FSB by: Deputy Minister of Finance Sergey Storchak; First Deputy Chairman of

the Central Bank of the Russian Federation Alexey Ulyukaev; and Head of Russia’s Federal Financial Markets Service Dmitry Pankin. Communist China is represented on the BIS/FSB by: Vice Minister of Finance Li Yong; Governor of the People’s Bank of China Zhou Xiaochuan; and Chairman of the China Banking Regulatory Commission Shang Fulin. The United States is represented on the BIS/FSB by: Under Secretary for International Affairs Department of the Treasury Lael Brainard; Governor 287

of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Daniel K Tarullo; and Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission Elisse B. Walter. Messrs. Brainard and Tarullo are both members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the premier globalist organisation pushing, for much of the past century, for one-world government through global economic, political, and social “convergence” of the Communist and socialist nations with the United States. The BIS/FSB’s member institutions include the central banks of the G20, as well as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, the European Central Bank (ECB), the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and several International standardsetting bodies and other groupings, such as the Committee on the Global Financial System (CGFS), which is also headquartered with the BIS in Basel and is chaired by William C Dudley (CFR), president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

The cooperative push by both the Russian FSB and global banking Insiders’ FSB for what they call “International Financial Architecture Reform” has in common the effort to transform the International Monetary Fund into a global Federal Reserve, with vast new powers. This cooperative effort mystifies many observers, and the question presents itself: “How could these seemingly opposite forces be working for a common goal?” Those who are stumped by this seemingly incongruous collaboration, however, are obviously not familiar with the history of the IMF and the 1944 United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference at Bretton Woods that produced the IMF, the World Bank, and much of the current “architecture” that is responsible for the current economic chaos implemented since the Second World War. 288

The key architects of that UN Bretton Woods conference were Harry Dexter White, a top Soviet agent in the US Treasury Department and Fabian Socialist John Maynard Keynes. The first Secretary of the IMF was Virginius Frank Coe, who was also a Communist agent, a member of the infamous Silvermaster Cell, one of the many NKVD/KGB cells that had infiltrated top levels of the federal government. Then as now, Moscow’s KGB/FSB agents can count on the support of their CFR comrades in the U.S. government and the U.S. banking/business sectors. Both the KGB/FSB and the Insiders of the BIS/FSB share a mutual interest in establishing a global corporate socialist regime of international financial control unconstrained by market competition, or national governments. The KGB-FSB continuity is not only restricted to intelligence; it also includes all of the traditional KGB activities: active measures, disinformation, propaganda, assassination, espionage and terrorism. The evidence is vast and has often been detailed assiduously and with great attention to detail in the publication “The New American” of The John Birch Society, amongst various other websites and publications too numerous to list.

The FSB Islamist terrorist link The modern terrorism phenomenon, which was launched by the Soviet KGB in the 1960s and 1970s, is continuing today under the auspices of the Russian FSB. The main difference today is that the Kremlin strategists have determined that it will be far more effective for them to run their terror operations as deniable assets under the cover and banner of so called “Islamist” fronts.


There is another major difference; for while Putin and the Russian Politburo continue to use terrorism as a form of asymmetric warfare against the West, Western leaders have, at least until the Ukraine crisis, maintained a charade by pretending it wasn’t happening at all. In fact, up until Ukraine, they insisted Putin and his comrades were largely trusted “allies” and combined with the Western alliance in the war against terrorism. In this respect, until Ukraine, the Obama administration continued the course set by George W. Bush in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. In a “Joint Declaration on a New Relationship Between the United States and Russia” Presidents Bush and Putin said on May 24, 2002, that our countries had “embarked upon the path of new relations for the twentyfirst century” and were “committed to developing a relationship based on friendship,







predictability.” They further declared: “We are achieving a new strategic relationship. The era in which the United States and Russia saw each other as an enemy or strategic threat has ended. We are partners and we will cooperate to advance stability, security, and economic integration, and to jointly counter global challenges and to help resolve regional conflicts.”

It must be noted that this kind of deceit has been practised before. Few may recall that several years before he was faced with the unpleasant task of announcing traitor Robert Hannsen’s “exceptionally grave” betrayals to the FSB, Bill Clinton’s FBI Director Louis Freeh was singing the praises of the FSB claque running Russia. On July 4, 1994, Freeh was in Moscow opening the FBI’s first legal attaché office in Russia and joined Russian Interior Minister Viktor Yerin in signing a protocol for close cooperation between the FBI and FSB. 290

“We can honestly say that our two nations have more in common than ever before.... We are united in purpose and in spirit” declared the Socialist Freeh. FSB boss Sergei Stepashin was even happier. “Together, we’re invincible” he effused. Clinton’s Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke was only slightly less giddy about the new relationship: “We are in a new phase of foreign policy” he excitedly declared. “The FBI is moving to the forefront of this new foreign policy.” Mr. Holbrooke, a director and leading light at the globalist Council on Foreign Relations, later became a key adviser to the Obama administration and its chief mover regarding Afghanistan and Pakistan. He served until he died from complications of an aortic dissection on December 13, 2010. Further evidence might give pause and give credence to a new interpretation. Subterfuge, death and denials The murder by polonium of KGB-FSB defector Alexander Litvinenko in London and the murders of journalist Anna Politkovskaya, special forces operative Movladi Baisarov, central bank official Andrei Kozlov and exFSB general Anatoly Trofimov, to name but a few, are sending a clear message to everyone that the FSB is now firmly in control of the Kremlin and is continuing its legacy of murder. 146

Andrei Kozlov was shot dead in Moscow. On the evening of the 23 November, the defected, former FSB-agent and well-known Putin-critic Alexander Litvinenko died in London apparently after being poisoned with polonium 210. On 2 March defence journalist Ivan Safranov from the business-daily Kommersant, who had been investigating Russian arms sales to Syria and Iran, died after “falling” from a window in his fifth-floor apartment. The return of contract killings in (and outside of) today’s Russia may not resemble the “wild West years” in the early 1990’s, where killing your business opponent was a more or less commonly used way to settle business scores. Still, the killings of dissident voices are a visible symbol of the instability and lawlessness in today’s Russia. Or, if there is a government hand involved, a sign of a growing authoritarianism, where government-controlled death squads liquidate critics of the regime. Indeed, the killings could be a result of the Duma decision in 146


In 1991, Litvinenko was promoted to the Central Staff of the Federal Counterintelligence Service, specialising in counter-terrorist activities and infiltration of organised crime. He was awarded the title of “MUR veteran”








investigation department. Litvinenko also saw active military service in many of the so-called “hot spots” of the former USSR and Russia. During the

First Chechen War, Litvinenko planted several FSB agents in

Chechnya. Although he was often named a “Russian spy” by Western press for propaganda reasons, throughout his career he was not an intelligence agent and did not deal with secrets beyond information on operations against organised criminal groups. Litvinenko met the late Boris Berezovsky in 1994, when he took part in investigations into an assassination attempt on the oligarch. He later began to moonlight for Berezovsky and was responsible for the oligarch’s security. Litvinenko’s employment under Berezovsky and other security services personnel was illegal, but the state tolerated it in order to retain staff who were at the time underpaid. Thus, Litvinenko’s employment for the controversial businessman and others was not investigated. Often such inquiries in Russia were selective and targeted only at those who had stepped out of line. In 1997 Litvinenko was promoted to the FSB Directorate of Analysis and Suppression of Criminal Groups, with the title of senior operational officer and deputy head of the Seventh Section. According to Dimitri Simes, the Directorate was viewed as much a part of organised crime as it was law

June 2006 to give the FSB authority to kill without trial “terrorists and extremists” inside and outside Russia, defining “extremists” in such broad terms that most opposition-activities more or less falls within it. 292

enforcement. According to Litvinenko’s widow Marina, while her husband was employed in the FSB he discovered numerous links amongst the members of the top brass of Russian law enforcement agencies and Russian mafia groups, such as the Solntsevo gang. Berezovsky arranged a meeting for him with FSB Director Mikhail Barsukov and Deputy Director of Internal affairs Ovchinnikov to discuss the alleged corruption problems, with no result. This led him to the conclusion that the entire system was corrupt. In December 1997, Litvinenko claimed he received an order to kill Berezovsky. He did not inform his part-time employer until 20 March 1998. According to his widow, on 25 July 1998, the day on which Vladimir Putin replaced Nikolay Kovalyov as the Director of the Federal Security Service, Berezovsky introduced Litvinenko to Putin. Berezovsky claimed that he had helped Putin to take the Director’s position. According to his widow, Litvinenko reported to Putin the corruption in the FSB, but Putin was unimpressed. According to Litvinenko, Putin was involved with a corrupt military General in the Russian army when Putin was a Deputy for Economic Affairs to the Mayor of St. Petersburg. Litvenenko was doing an investigation into the General and Uzbek drug barons and believed that Putin tried to stall the investigation in order to save his reputation. On 13 November 1998, Berezovsky wrote an open letter to Putin accusing heads of the Directorate of Analysis and Suppression of Criminal Groups: Major-General Yevgeny Khokholkov, N. Stepanov, A. Kamyshnikov and N. Yenin of ordering his assassination. Four days later Litvinenko and four other officers appeared together in a press conference at the Russian news agency Interfax. All officers worked for both FSB in the Directorate of Analysis and Suppression of Criminal 293

Groups and for Boris Berezovsky. They repeated the allegation made by Berezovsky. The officers also claimed they were ordered to kill Mikhail Trepashkin, who was also present at the press conference, and to kidnap a brother of the businessman Umar Dzhabrailov. In 2007, Sergey Dorenko provided The Associated Press and The Wall Street Journal with a complete copy of an April 1998 interview he conducted for ORT television station with Litvinenko and his fellow employees. The interview, of which only excerpts were shown in 1998, shows the FSB officers, who were disguised in masks or dark glasses, claiming that their bosses had ordered them to kill, kidnap or frame prominent Russian politicians and businesspeople. Jim Heintz of the Associated Press claimed that although Berezovsky does not appear in the interview, he has an influence in it, given that the officers worked for him. The interview was taped by Dorenko, a Russian journalist, who was an employee of ORT, owned in part by Berezovsky. After holding the press conference, Litvinenko was dismissed from the FSB. Later, in an interview with Yelena Tregubova, Putin said that he personally ordered the dismissal of Litvinenko, stating: “I fired Litvinenko and disbanded his unit ...because FSB officers should not stage press conferences. This is not their job. And they should not make internal scandals public.” Litvinenko also believed that Putin was behind his arrest. He is on record as saying: “Putin had the power to decide whether to pass my file to the prosecutors or not. He always hated me. And there was a bonus for him: by throwing me to the wolves he distanced himself from Boris [Berezovsky] in the eyes of FSB’s generals.” In October 2000, in violation of an order not to leave Moscow, Litvinenko 294

and his family travelled to Turkey, possibly via the Ukraine. While in Turkey, Litvinenko applied for asylum at the United States Embassy in Ankara, but his application was denied. Henry Plater-Zyberk noted that the denial may have been based on possible American opinions that Litvinenko’s knowledge was of little benefit, and that furthermore he might create problems. With the help of Alexander Goldfarb, Litvinenko then bought air tickets for the Istanbul-London-Moscow flight, and asked for political asylum at Heathrow Airport during the transit stop on 1 November 2000. Political asylum was granted on 14 May 2001, not because of his knowledge on intelligence matters, but rather on humanitarian grounds. While in London he became a journalist for the separatist Chechenpress and worked as a controversial author. He also joined Berezovsky in campaigning against Putin’s government. In October 2006 he became a naturalised British citizen with residence in Whitehaven. On 27 October 2007, the Daily Mail, citing “diplomatic and intelligence sources” stated that Mr Litvinenko was paid about £2,000 per month by MI6 at the time of his murder. John Scarlett, the head of MI6 (who was once based in Moscow) was allegedly personally involved in recruiting him. The Independent stated that whilst cooperation of Litvinenko with MI6 will likely never be confirmed, an MI6 retainer for Litvinenko suggests systematic cooperation, because MI6 usually makes irregular payments to exiles in exchange for information. Litvinenko’s widow Marina has admitted that her husband cooperated with the British MI6 and MI5, working as a consultant and helping the agencies to combat Russian organised crime in Europe. In February 2012, Litvinenko's father Valter apologised for what he called 295

his personal “slander campaign” against the Russian government.Before the confession by Marina Litvinenko, he had publicly blamed the Russian security services for his son’s death. In an interview Valter Litvinenko said that if he had known at the time that his son was a British intelligence agent, he would not have made such accusations. Former FSB officer

Mikhail Trepashkin stated that in 2002 he had

warned Litvinenko that an FSB unit was assigned to assassinate him. In spite of this, Litvinenko often travelled overseas with no security arrangements, and freely mingled with the Russian community in the United Kingdom. He often received journalists at his home. In January 2007, Polish newspaper Dziennik revealed that a target with a photo of Litvinenko on it was used for shooting practice by the Vityaz Training Centre in Balashikha in October 2002. The centre, run by Sergey Lyusyuk, is not affiliated with the government, and trains bodyguards, debt collectors and private security forces, although in November 2006 the centre was used by the Vityaz for a qualification examination due to their own centre being under renovation. The targets, which Lyusyuk says were bought in the Olympic Market, were also photographed when the chairman of the Federation Council of Russia Sergei Mironov visited the centre and met Lyusyuk on 7 November 2006. When asked why the photographs of Mironov’s visit were removed from the centre's website, Lyusyuk stated: “Those Poles are up to something.” He added that Mironov didn't see the targets and knew nothing about them. According to Julia Svetlichnaya, a Russian doctoral candidate at the University of Westminster’s Centre for the Study of Democracy, Litvinenko told her that he was planning to blackmail or sell sensitive information on a wide range of people, including oligarchs, allegedly corrupt officials and figures within the Kremlin hierarchy, in which he 296

would extort £10,000 per instance to have him stop publication of the alleged documents. Svetlichnaya noted that Litvinenko didn’t have a steady income and was certain he could obtain the necessary files for this purpose. According to The Observer, Litvinenko’s alleged threats and access to FSB materials might have turned him into an enemy of big business as well as the Kremlin. In 2002 Litvinenko was convicted in absentia in Russia, and given a three and a half year jail sentence for charges of corruption. Litvinenko regularly told people about his theories relating to the power structures in Russia, and would bombard his contacts with information relating to his theories. In a report for the Conflict Studies Research Centre, Henry Plater-Zyberk, a lecturer at the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom and Russian politics expert, described Litvinenko as a one-man disinformation bureau, who was at first guided by Berezovsky, but later disseminated “intelligence” in possible pursuit of attention for himself. Plater-Zyberk notes that Litvinenko made numerous accusations without presenting any evidence to give credence to his claims, and these claims which became increasingly outlandish were often accepted by the British media without question. In this respect, according to Michael Mainville, Litvinenko knew the basis to a successful conspiracy theory is that they should be based upon an absence of proof, and that the more outlandish the claim, the harder it is to disprove. This has led to some political analysts dismissing his claims as those of a fantasist. They may have been accepted seriously for British propaganda in turn. An example of his supposed fantasies was when Litvinenko accused the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General-Staff of the Russian armed 297

forces of having organised the 1999 Armenian parliament shooting that killed Prime Minister of Armenia Vazgen Sargsyan and seven members of parliament, ostensibly to derail the peace process, which would have resolved the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Of this he offered no evidence to support the accusation. The Russian embassy in Armenia denied any such involvement and described Litvinenko's accusation as an attempt to harm

relations between Armenia and Russia by people against the

democratic reforms in Russia. Another claim was when Litvinenko alleged that agents from the FSB coordinated the 1999 Russian apartment bombings that killed more than 300 people, whereas Russian officials blamed the explosions on Islamic terrorists. In a 2003 interview with the Australian

SBS TV network, aired on

Dateline, Litvinenko claimed that two of the Chechen terrorists involved in the 2002 Moscow theatre siege- whom he named “Abdul the Bloody” and “Abu Bakar”- were working for the FSB, and that the agency manipulated the rebels into staging the attack. Litvinenko said: “When they tried to find Abdul the Bloody and Abu Bakar among the dead terrorists, they weren't there. The FSB got its agents out. So the FSB agents among Chechens organised the whole thing on FSB orders, and those agents were released.” This echoed similar claims made by Mikhail Trepashkin. This leading role of an FSB agent Khanpasha Terkibaev (Abu Bakar) was also described by Anna Politkovskaya, Ivan Rybkin and Alexander Khinshtein. In the beginning of April 2003 Litvinenko gave the Terkibaev file to Sergei Yushenkov when he visited London, who in turn passed it to Anna Politkovskaya. A few days later Yushenkov was assassinated. Terkibaev was later killed in Chechnya. According to speaker of the Russian State 298

Duma Ivan Rybkin: “The authorities failed to keep Terkibaev out of public view, and that is why he was killed. I know how angry people were, because they knew Terkibaev had authorisation from presidential administration.” Concerning the Beslan school hostage crisis, Litvinenko suggested in September 2004 that the Russian secret services must have been aware of the plot beforehand, and therefore that they must have themselves organised the attack as a false flag operation. He spoke in an interview before his death with Chechenpress news agency, and said that because the hostage takers had previously been in FSB custody for committing terrorist attacks, it is inconceivable that they would have been released and still been able to carry out attacks independently. He said that they would only have been freed if they were of use to the FSB, and that even if they were freed without being turned into FSB assets, they would be under a strict surveillance regime that would not have allowed them to carry out the Beslan attack unnoticed. Ella Kesayeva, co-chair of the group

Voice of Beslan, formalised

Litvinenko's argument in a November 2008 article in Novaya Gazeta. She noted the large number of hostage takers who were in government custody not long before attacking the school and came to the same conclusion that Beslan was a false flag attack. Litvinenko stated that “all the bloodiest terrorists of the world” were connected to FSB, including

Carlos Ramírez, Yassir Arafat, Saddam

Hussein, Abdullah Öcalan, Wadie Haddad of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, George Hawi, who led the Communist Party of Lebanon, Ezekias Papaioannou from Cyprus, Sean Garland from Ireland, and many others. He said that all of them were trained, funded, and provided 299

with weapons, explosives and counterfeit documents in order to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide, and that each act of terrorism made by these people was carried out according to the task and under the rigid control of the KGB of the USSR. Litvinenko said that:

“the centre of global terrorism is not in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan or the Chechen Republic. The terrorism infection creeps away worldwide from the cabinets of the Lubyanka Square and the Kremlin.” In a July 2005 interview with the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita, Litvinenko alleged that Ayman al-Zawahiri, a prominent leader of alQaeda, was trained for half a year by the FSB in Dagestan in 1997 and called him “an old agent of the FSB”. Litvinenko said that after this training al-Zawahiri: “was transferred to Afghanistan, where he had never been before and where, following the recommendation of his Lubyanka chiefs, he at once ... penetrated the milieu of Osama bin Laden and soon became his assistant in al-Qaeda.” Former KGB officer and writer Konstantin Preobrazhenskiy supported this claim and said that Litvinenko: “was responsible for securing the secrecy of Al-Zawahiri's arrival in Russia; he was trained by FSB instructors in Dagestan, Northern Caucasus, in 1996–1997…At that time, Litvinenko was the Head of the Subdivision for Internationally Wanted Terrorists of the First Department of the Operative-Inquiry Directorate of the FSB AntiTerrorist Department. He was ordered to undertake the delicate mission of securing Al-Zawahiri from unintentional disclosure by the Russian police. Though Al-Zawahiri had been brought to Russia by the FSB using a false passport, it was still possible for the police to learn about his arrival and report to Moscow for verification. Such a process could disclose Al-Zawahiri as an FSB collaborator. In order to prevent this, Litvinenko visited a group of highly placed police officers to notify them in advance.” According to FSB spokesman Sergei Ignatchenko, al-Zawahiri was 300

arrested by Russian authorities in Dagestan in December 1996 and released in May 1997. When asked in an interview who he thought the originator of the 2005 bombings in London was, Litvinenko responded saying: “You know, I have spoken about it earlier and I shall say now, that I know only one organisation which has made terrorism the main tool of solving political problems. It is the Russian special services.” According to Litvinenko, the 2005 controversy over the publication in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten of editorial cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad was also orchestrated by the FSB as a deliberate strategy to punish

Denmark for its refusal to extradite

Chechen separatists. Two weeks before his poisoning, Alexander Litvinenko accused Vladimir Putin of ordering the assassination of Russian journalist


Politkovskaya. He also stated that a former presidential candidate, Irina Hakamada, warned Politkovskaya about threats to her life coming from the Russian president. 147 Litvinenko advised Politkovskaya to escape from The Russian investigative journalist Anna Politkovskaya went to pick up the grocery bags in her car parked outside the communal apartment building in the centre of Moscow where she lived before she was shot dead by an unknown gunman. Politkovskaya was found in the elevator together with a discarded Makarov pistol and four bullets. Grainy CCTV footages from the building show a man clad in black wearing a baseball cap following her into the building, shortly before her killing. 147

Deputy Prosecutor Vyacheslav Rosinsky said that one of the theories the investigation team was following was that the murder was “linked to the victim’s social or professional duties”. Anna Politkovskaya, who worked for the bi-weekly Novaya Gazeta with around 100.000 readers, surely had many enemies. Over the years of her journalistic work on Chechnya she had lived with harassment, intimidation and many death threats. On her own account, she had been held in a prisoner hole in Chechnya by the Russian military, threatened with rape and execution by Russian soldiers, attempted to be killed by poisoned tea on her way to Beslan in southern Russia during the hostagesituation on a public school on 1 September 2004 – which ended with officially 331 killed, over half of them children taken hostage by Chechen terrorists on their first day 301

Russia immediately. Hakamada denied her involvement in passing any specific threats and said that she warned Politkovskaya only in general terms more than a year earlier. It remains unclear if Litvinenko ever referred to an earlier statement made by Boris Berezovsky who claimed that former Deputy Prime Minister of Russia

Boris Nemtsov received word from Hakamada that Putin

threatened her and like-minded colleagues in person. According to Berezovsky, Putin uttered that Hakamada and her colleagues “will take it in the head immediately, literally, not figuratively” if they “open the mouth” about the Russian apartment bombings. Litvinenko, FSB deputy chief General Anatoly Trofimov said to him: “Don’t go to Italy, there are many KGB agents among the politicians. Romano Prodi is our man there.” Romano Prodi being the Italian centre-left leader, former Prime Minister of Italy and the former President of the European Commission. The conversation with Trofimov took place in 2000, after the Prodi-KGB scandal broke out in October 1999, due to information about Prodi provided by Vasili Mitrokhin. In April 2006, a British Member of the European Parliament for London, Gerard Batten of the

United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP)

demanded an inquiry into the allegations. According to Brussels-based

of school – and was labelled an “enemy of the state” on national television. Her calm persona in the face of such threats revealed a woman of willpower, integrity and incorruptibility. She would not give in to intimidation, even if the source at that time were the Russian ministry of defence. This strength of character – and her writings on Chechnya, Russian governmental corruption and her extremely critical line towards the Russian president – probably led to her death. Whether by coincidence or as if it was some sort of morbid birthday present, she was killed on 7 October, the birthday of Vladimir Putin. 302

newspaper, The EU Reporter on 3 April 2006: “Another high-level source, a former KGB operative in London, has confirmed the story.”

On 26 April 2006, Batten repeated his call for a parliamentary inquiry, revealing that “former senior members of the KGB are willing to testify in such an investigation, under the right conditions.” He added: “It is not acceptable that this situation is unresolved, given the importance of Russia's relations with the European Union.” On 22 January 2007, the BBC and ITV News released documents and video footage from February 2006, in which Litvinenko himself repeated his statements about Prodi. A report by the Conflict Studies Research Centre of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom from May 2007 notes that Trofimov was never the head of the FSB, did not oversee intelligence operations, had never worked in the intelligence directorate of the KGB, neither its successor the SVR, nor had he worked in the counterintelligence department of the intelligence services. In fact, he had never worked in Italy. This therefore made it difficult to understand how Trofimov would have had knowledge about such a recruitment. Henry Plater-Zyberk, the co-author of the report, suggested that Trofimov was “conveniently dead” so “could neither confirm nor deny the story”. He noted Litvinenko's history of making accusations without evidence to back them up. Shortly before his death, Litvinenko tipped off Spanish authorities on several organised crime bosses with links to Spain. During a meeting in May 2006, he allegedly provided security officials with information on the locations, roles, and activities of several Russian mafia figures with ties to Spain. These included Izguilov, Zahkar Kalashov and Tariel Oniani. In his book “ Gang from Lubyanka”, Litvinenko alleged that Vladimir 303

Putin during his time at the FSB was personally involved in protecting the drug trafficking from Afghanistan organised by Abdul Rashid Dostum. In December 2003, Russian authorities confiscated over 4000 copies of the book. Litvinenko commented on a new law that: “Russia has the right to carry out pre-emptive strikes on militant bases abroad” and explained that these “pre-emptive strikes may involve anything except nuclear weapons.” Litvinenko also said: “You know who they mean when they say “terrorist bases abroad”? They mean us, Zakayev and Boris and me.” He also said that: “It was considered in our service that poison is an easier weapon than a pistol.” He referred to a secret laboratory in Moscow that still continued the development of deadly poisons, as of the old practise, and which was originated in the 1920s by the state security apparatchiks at that time On 1 November 2006, Litvinenko suddenly fell ill and was hospitalised. His illness was later attributed to poisoning with radionuclide polonium210 after the Health Protection Agency found significant amounts of the rare and highly toxic element in his body. 148 148 Comparisons have been made to the alleged 2004 poisoning of

Viktor Yushchenko. Also the alleged 2003 poisoning of Yuri Shchekochikhin and the fatal 1978 poisoning of the journalist Georgi Markov. The incident with Litvinenko has also attracted comparisons to the poisoning by radioactive (unconfirmed) thallium of KGB defector Nikolay Khokhlov and journalist Shchekochikhin of Novaya Gazeta. The Novaya Gazeta interview was with the former and coincidentally prepared by Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya, later found shot dead in her apartment building. Like Litvinenko, Shchekochikhin had investigated the Russian apartment bombings. He was also a member of the Kovalev Commission that hired Litvinenko's friend Mikhail Trepashkin as legal counsel. KGB defector and British agent Oleg Gordievsky believes the murders of Zelimkhan Yandarbiev, Shchekochikhin, Politkovskaya and Litvinenko show that the FSB has returned to the practice of political assassinations, which were conducted in the past by the Thirteenth KGB Department. His death has also drawn comparisons with Roman Tsepov, who was responsible for personal protection of Anatoly Sobchak and 304

In interviews, Litvinenko stated that he met with two former KGB agents early on the day he fell ill: Dmitry Kovtun and Andrei Lugovoi. Though both denied any wrongdoing, a leaked US diplomatic cable revealed that Kovtun had left polonium traces in the house and car he had used in Hamburg. The men also introduced Litvinenko to a tall, thin man of central Asian appearance called Vladislav Sokolenko, whom Lugovoi said was a business partner. 149 Later, Litvinenko had lunch at Itsu, a sushi restaurant in Piccadilly in London, with an Italian acquaintance and nuclear waste expert, Mario Scaramella, to whom he made the allegations regarding Italy’s Prime Minister

Romano Prodi. Scaramella, attached to the


Commission investigating KGB penetration of Italian politics, claimed to have information on the assassination of Anna Politkovskaya, who was killed at her Moscow apartment in October 2006. In Litvinenko’s last known public statement, he indicated that he believed it was Scaramella who poisoned him. Marina Litvinenko, widow of the deceased, accused Moscow of orchestrating the murder. Though she believes the order did not come from Putin himself, she does believe it was done at the behest of the authorities and announced that she will refuse to provide evidence to any Russian investigation out of fear that it would be misused or misrepresented. On 24 November a posthumous statement was released, in which Putin, and who died in Russia in 2004 from poisoning by an unknown radioactive substance. Lugovoi was a former bodyguard of Russian ex-Acting Prime-minister Yegor Gaidar (who also suffered from a mysterious illness in November 2006). 149


Litvinenko directly accused Vladimir Putin of poisoning him. Litvinenko's friend Alex Goldfarb, the chairman of Boris Berezovsky's Civil Liberties Fund, claimed Litvinenko had dictated it to him three days earlier. However, Andrei Nekrasov said his friend Litvinenko and Litvinenko's lawyer composed the statement in Russian on 21 November and translated it to English. Part of the statement read as follows: “…as I lie here I can distinctly hear the beating of wings of the angel of death. I may be able to give him the slip but I have to say my legs do not run as fast as I would like. I think, therefore, that this may be the time to say one or two things to the person responsible for my present condition. You may succeed in silencing me but that silence comes at a price. You have shown yourself to be as barbaric and ruthless as your most hostile critics have claimed. You have shown yourself to have no respect for life, liberty or any civilised value. You have shown yourself to be unworthy of your office, to be unworthy of the trust of civilised men and women. You may succeed in silencing one man but the howl of protest from around the world will reverberate, Mr Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life. May God forgive you for what you have done, not only to me but to beloved Russia and its people.” - Alexander Litvinenko, 21 November 2006. Putin disputed the authenticity of this note while attending a Russia-EU summit in Helsinki. He claimed it was being used for political purposes. William Dunkerley, in a briefing from May 2007 for a round table, which discussed Litvinenko's case and the way it was handled by the Russian and Western media, also called into question its authenticity, noting that the statement did not read like a statement made on one's deathbed. It was typed in English, a language which Litvinenko was far from proficient in, with the signature and date being handwritten. Goldfarb later stated that Litvinenko instructed him to write a note “in good English” in which Putin was to be accused of his poisoning. Goldfarb also stated that he read the note to Litvinenko in English and Russian, getting Litvinenko to agree 306

with every word of it before he voluntarily signed it. Thus, there are three conflicting media claims regarding who authored Litvinenko's deathbed statement: (1) It was dictated by Litvinenko himself. (2) It was composed by Litvinenko's lawyer. (3) It was written by Alexander Goldfarb. His autopsy took place on 1 December at the Royal London Hospital’s institute of pathology. It was attended by three physicians, including one chosen by the family and one from the Foreign Office. The police treated his death as a murder investigation. One reason for his murder was given in a BBC interview broadcast on 16 December 2006, where Yuri Shvets said that Litvinenko had created a report investigating the activities of an unnamed senior Kremlin official on behalf of a British company looking to invest millions of dollars in a project in Russia. He said the dossier was so incriminating about the official that it was likely that Litvinenko was murdered out of spite. He alleged that Litvinenko had shown the dossier to another business associate, Andrei Lugovoi, who had worked for the KGB and later the FSB. Shvets alleged that Lugovoi is still an FSB informant and he had spread copies of the dossier to members of the spy service. He said he was interviewed about

the allegations


Scotland Yard detectives

investigating Litvinenko's murder. Shvets has also doubted Litvinenko’s capacity to perform honest unbiased due diligence. Concerning the propaganda, British media noted that the poisoning and 307

death of Litvinenko was not widely covered in the Russian news media. Other authors, including William Dunkerley of American University in Moscow, have called these reports into question. Mary Dejevsky, the chief editorial writer of The Independent, claimed the view the British public had of Litvinenko's illness and death was essentially dictated by Berezovsky, who funded an expertly conducted publicity campaign. On 20 January 2007, British police announced that they had identified the man they believe had poisoned Alexander Litvinenko. The suspected killer was captured on cameras at Heathrow as he flew into Britain to carry out the murder. The man in question was introduced to Litvinenko as “Vladislav”. As of 26 January 2007, British officials said police had solved the murder of Litvinenko. They stated they had discovered a “hot” teapot at London's Millennium Hotel with an off-the-charts reading for polonium-210, the radioactive material used in the killing. In addition, a senior official said investigators had concluded the murder of Litvinenko was most likely: “a state-sponsored assassination orchestrated by Russian security services.” The Police want to charge former Russian spy Andrei Lugovoi, who met Litvinenko on 1 November 2006, the day officials believe the lethal dose of polonium-210 was administered. On the same day, The Guardian reported that the British government was preparing an extradition request asking that Andrei Lugovoi be returned to the UK to stand trial for Litvinenko's murder. On 22 May 2007 the Crown Prosecution Service called for the extradition of Russian citizen Andrei Lugovoi to the UK on charges of murder. Lugovoi dismissed the claims against him as “politically motivated” and said he did not kill Litvinenko. A British police investigation resulted in several suspects for the murder, 308

but in May 2007 the British

Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken

Macdonald, announced that his government would seek to extradite Andrei Lugovoi, the chief suspect in the case, from Russia. On 28 May 2007, the British Foreign Office officially submitted a request to the Government of Russia for the extradition of Lugovoi to the UK. On 2 October 2011, The Sunday Times published an article wherein the chief prosecutor who investigated the murder of Litvinenko, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, publicly spoke of his suspicion that the murder was a “state directed execution” carried out by Russia. Until that time, British public officials had stopped short of directly accusing Russia of involvement in the poisoning. However, “It had all the hallmarks of a state directed execution, committed on the streets of London by a foreign government” Macdonald added. Many publications in Russian media suggested that the death of Litvinenko was connected to Boris Berezovsky, who has now himself died in mysterious circumstances.164 Former FSB chief Nikolay Kovalyov, for whom Litvinenko worked, said that the incident: “looks like the hand of Boris Berezovsky. I am sure that no kind of intelligence services participated.” This involvement of Berezovsky was alleged by numerous Russian television shows. Kremlin supporters saw it as a conspiracy to smear Russian government’s reputation by engineering a spectacular murder of a Russian dissident abroad. After Litvinenko’s death, traces of polonium-210 were found in an office of Berezovsky. Litvinenko had visited Berezovsky’s office as well as many other places in the hours after his poisoning. The British Health 309

Protection Agency made extensive efforts to ensure that locations Litvinenko visited and anyone who had contact with him after his poisoning were not placed at risk. Russian prosecutors were not allowed to investigate the office. Russian authorities at the time were also unable to question Berezovsky. The Foreign Ministry complained that Britain was obstructing its attempt to send prosecutors to London to interview more than 100 people, including Berezovsky. On 5 July 2007, Russia officially declined to extradite Lugovoi, citing Article 61 of the Constitution of Russia that prohibits extradition of citizens. Russia has said that they could take on the case themselves if Britain provided evidence against Lugovoi, but Britain has not handed over any evidence. The head of the investigating committee at the General Prosecutor's Office said Russia has not yet received any evidence from Britain on Lugovoi. “We have not received any evidence from London of Lugovoi's guilt, and those documents we have are full of blank spaces and contradictions.� However, the British ambassador to Russia, Anne Pringle, claimed that London has already submitted sufficient evidence to have him extradited. On 13 October 2011 Dr. Andrew Reed, the

Coroner of St. Pancras,

announced that he would hold an inquest into Litvinenko's death, which would include the examination of all existing theories about the murder, including possible complicity by the Russian government. The inquest was held by Sir Robert Owen, a High Court judge acting as the coroner. The inquest, originally scheduled to start on 1 May 2013, was subject to a series of pre-hearings: firstly, the coroner agreed that a group 310

representing Russian state prosecutors be accepted as a party to the inquest process; secondly, the British Government submitted a Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate. Under Public Interest Immunity (PII) claims, the information at the disposal of the UK government relating to Russian state involvement, as well as how much British intelligence services could have done to prevent the death, would be excluded from the inquest. On 12 July 2013, Sir Robert, who had previously agreed to exclude certain material from the inquest on the grounds its disclosure could be damaging to national security, announced that the British Government refused the request he had made earlier in June to replace the inquest with a public inquiry, which would have powers to consider secret evidence. After the hearing Alex Goldfarb said: “There's some sort of collusion behind the scenes with Her Majesty's government and the Kremlin to obstruct justice�. Elena Tsirlina, Mrs Litvinenko's solicitor, concurred with him. In May 2007 Marina Litvinenko registered a complaint against the Russian Federation in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg accusing them of violating her husband's right to life and failing to conduct a full investigation. The news of this came just a few days after Russian President Dmitry Medvedev paid a visit to Silicon Valley, California, to improve U.S.-Russian relations and announce a new cooperative partnership in the field of computer technology. This news came around the same time as Chinese Communists had been accused of attempting to infiltrate the Canadian government; just days after President Hu Jintao visited the Canadian capital in Ottawa. The 10 individuals under custody have yet to be found guilty of any federal or espionage crimes, as these claims still remain mere allegations. 311

The spies amongst us A notable Soviet mole in the FBI, codenamed “Ramon Garcia”, has done incalculable damage to the United States’ security, selling Top Secret information to the Soviet GRU (military intelligence) and KGB and to the KGB’s Russian successor agency (the FSB) and its foreign arm- the SVR. His arrest by the FBI on February 20, 2001 and the subsequent press conference statement by FBI Director Louis J. Freeh, announced that Soviet-Russian spy “Ramon” was actually one of the FBI’s top counterintelligence specialists, Robert Philip Hanssen. According to Director Freeh: “Hanssen provided to the former Soviet Union and subsequently to Russia substantial volumes of highly classified information that he acquired during his job responsibilities in counterintelligence. In return, he received large sums of money and other remuneration. The complaint alleges that he received over $600,000.” Freeh noted the “full extent of the damage done is yet unknown”, but characterised it as being “exceptionally grave”. Hanssen was charged with the federal grand jury indictment that he: “…did knowingly and unlawfully combine, confederate, and agree with other persons … including officers of the KGB/SVR, to knowingly and unlawfully communicate, deliver, and transmit to foreign governments, specifically the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and its successor, the Russian Federation … documents and information relating to the national defence of the United States.” He did this with the knowledge that the same: “…would be used to the injury of the United States.” Freeh said that the information he is alleged to have provided: “compromised numerous human sources, technical operations, 312

counterintelligence investigations.”






In other words, there was blood on Hanssen’s hands. He had said Freeh: “disclosed the identity of two KGB officials who … had been recruited by the U.S. Government.” Both agents, Freeh noted, were arrested, tried, and executed after they had returned to Russia. Subsequent reports indicate Hanssen may have been responsible for the deaths of two additional defectors. The capture of this top-level mole was largely forgotten a few months later, however, when the far more important September 11 terrorist attacks captivated world attention. This was both ironic and tragic since the 9/11 attacks should have been viewed (and should be viewed now) in the context of the enormous national security compromises revealed in the Hanssen espionage fiasco. All of the context and connections of the Hanssen-Russia-al-Qaeda-9/11 nexus are (as yet) still not known, but the evidence and information available thus far indicates that the much-lamented intelligence failures that left America vulnerable have been vastly compounded by even greater misdirection of US and UK intelligence in the “War on Terror”. Specifically, in reference to the misdirection of intelligence away from the consideration of evidence that the 9/11 al-Qaeda attacks were a strategic operation, at least in part sponsored by Russia. The policy “experts”, think tanks, universities, and major media were virtually unanimous in praising Vladimir Putin for being the first world leader to express condolences and support during the tragedy. Even up until the annexation of Crimea and after several years of steady marching 313

toward a renewed form of totalitarian style, national governance, the Putin-Medvedev regime in Moscow still viewed Russia as an indispensable partner in the global battle against radical Islam. Dr. Michael A. McFaul of the Carnegie Endowment (and a frequent media go-to expert on Russia) is typical of the dominant mindset. He writes, on the Carnegie website: “On September 11th, Putin did not hesitate to call his new friend, George W. Bush, to communicate his full support for the United States and the American people. Putin did not let a decade of unfulfilled expectations in U.S.-Russian relations colour his rhetorical response. While some leaders and people around the world believe that the United States “got what it deserved” on September 11th, Putin expressed sympathy as a leader of a country that also has suffered from acts of terrorism.” The following Monday, September 24th, Putin announced a five-point plan to support the American war against terrorism. “The potential to build a new foundation for Russian-American relations is great and we must not allow this “window of opportunity” to be wasted. Leaders in both countries must lead. They must act boldly, abandon business as usual, take chances, and use this moment to map the path to a new future.” Dr. McFaul later became the senior director for Russia on the Obama administration’s National Security Council. Besides the Kremlin’s increasingly tyrannical rule, many continue to share Dr. McFaul’s illusions. Whereas others view Putin’s 9/11 condolences and offers of support in much the same vein as they would the Mafia godfather who sends flowers to the funeral of the rival he’s just murdered. One of the important early bits of information that leaked out to link Hanssen, Putin, and 9/11 concerned references to Hanssen’s alleged 314

delivery of copies of the FBI’s enhanced version of the controversial PROMIS computer software to the FSB. The Russians then, reportedly, provided a copy of the software to Osama bin Laden. They thus facilitated al-Qaeda’s money laundering and other activities, as well as enabling alQaeda to monitor and evade U.S. law enforcement, intelligence, and military efforts to kill or capture them. Developed in the 1980s by Inslaw, Inc. as a powerful case-management, people-tracking programme for the U.S. Justice Department, the PROMIS (Prosecutors Management Information Systems) software has been the source of continuing litigation and investigation. In 1985, Inslaw launched a suit against Justice, claiming that the Justice Department had defrauded it of millions of dollars in licensing and service fees. Inslaw charged, moreover, that the government had illegally converted PROMIS into a covert intelligence tool, which it sold to other governments, with a Trojan horse trap door, in order to spy on them. In 2001, a number of stories in the Washington Times, Washington Post, and Fox News, reported that PROMIS-derived software (provided to the Soviets by Hanssen) had found its way to bin Laden. An October 16 Fox News report, for instance, provided an exchange to that effect between anchor Brit Hume and correspondent Carl Cameron. Cameron reported Hanssen sold the Russians an extremely sensitive piece of U.S. technology and the indications are that they, in turn, sold it to bin Laden’s al-Qaeda. Fox News learned that government officials suspected Osama bin Laden may have had highly sophisticated U.S. government software, that has been used by several governments, including the United States, for classified intelligence and law enforcement information in the past. As a senior agent in the FBI’s counterterrorism bureau, sources say 315

Hanssen was tasked with helping allies like Germany and Britain with the installation and use of their versions of the software. Since 9/11 however numerous countries are tightening their cyber security. Germany stopped using PROMIS software. Great Britain too closed it down. Whilst to date, Canada has actually investigated potential tampering with its PROMIS programmes and Israel has still continued to use it sporadically. In its case against Hanssen, the U.S. government did not mention PROMIS directly, but government sources say PROMIS-derived software programmes were at the heart of the case. The lengthy FBI affidavit supporting the criminal complaint notes that Hanssen made extensive unauthorised use of the FBI’s Automated Case Support (ACS) system, reportedly a PROMIS derivative, to obtain information for the KGB/SVR and to monitor the FBI’s search for the Soviet mole (Hanssen) within the bureau. The affidavit does not explicitly say that Hanssen gave a copy of the ACS software to his Soviet/Russian co-conspirators, but it does say he gave them 26 computer disks and more than 6,000 pages of documents in the 27 letters and 33 packages he delivered to them over the years. Among the highly sensitive software programmes that may have been included in those deliveries are the FBI’s Field Office Information Management Systems (FOIMS) and the Community On-Line Intelligence Systems (COINS), both reportedly PROMIS derivatives. In the aforementioned FBI affidavit, the government goes as far as saying Hanssen gave the KGB/SVR “an official technical document describing COINS-II” which was, said the document: “the then-current version of the United






Intelligence System’ which constituted a classified Community-wide intranet.” It is not likely the government will confirm or refute the Hanssen316

PROMIS-Russia-bin Laden theory, or provide documents to publicly settle the matter. However, quite apart from that important issue, the Hanssen case exposes the dangers that exemplify our relations with Russia as it relates to national security and terrorism. The federal indictment of Robert Hanssen charges that the 25-year FBI veteran: “did knowingly and unlawfully combine, confederate, and agree with other persons … including officers of the KGB/SVR, to knowingly and unlawfully communicate, deliver, and transmit to foreign governments, specifically the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and its successor, the Russian Federation … documents and information relating to the national defence of the United States” with the knowledge that the same “would be used to the injury of the United States.”

“It was further a part of the conspiracy,” claims the indictment: “that the defendant HANSSEN’s espionage relationship with the USSR was converted into an espionage relationship with the Russian Federation after the USSR dissolved and the Russian Federation came into existence.” Robert Hanssen began his betrayal of the United States by providing crucial American secrets to the Soviet GRU and KGB, which Vladimir Putin and much of the current crop of Russian leaders then worked for. Hanssen ended his treasonous career conspiring with the Russian FSB/SVR, which Putin and company of course run and oversee. The Hanssen case is far from being the only example of covert operatives working for Russia. In 1996, five years before Hanssen’s arrest, FBI special agent Earl Edwin Pitts was arrested for selling secrets to the former Soviet Union and Russia specifically. In 1994, CIA counterintelligence agent 317

Aldrich Hazen Ames was arrested for his ongoing espionage for the KGB and FSB/SVR. Ames’ nine-year career of betrayal resulted in devastating intelligence and national security losses for the United States. 150 In June 2001, less than three months before 9/11, U.S. Army Colonel George Trofimoff, a military intelligence analyst, was convicted of spying for the Soviet Union and Russia over a 25-year period. Unfortunately, Robert Hanssen and the Aldrich Ames case, will not be the last. Meanwhile continued infiltration has progressed, as can be proved with relatively recent events. One major incident illustrating infiltration was when the U.S. Department of Justice announced on Monday, June 28, 2010 that 11 individuals had been charged for espionage and conspiracy on behalf of the Russian government. Ten out of the 11 conspirators have been arrested and detained; the other still remains at large. The Russian conspirators were identified as Anna Chapman, Mikail Semenko, Christopher R. Metsos, Richard Murphy, Cynthia Murphy, Donald Howard Heathfield, Tracey Lee Ann Foley, Michael Zottoli, Patricia Mills, Juan Lazaro, and Vicky Pelaez. The charges against these individuals were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, located in Brooklyn. Amit KachhiaPatel and Maria L. Ricci, both FBI special agents currently assigned to the Counterintelligence Division within the FBI’s New York Field Office, brought up the charges to the Court. According to the documented

Former Director of Central Intelligence James R. Woolsey called Ames a "serial killer", comparing him to the betrayer of American independence, Benedict Arnold. According to Earley, Ames was responsible for the execution of at least 10 double agents in the USSR. Ames even tipped off Moscow in the mid-1980s that the CIA had tapped a major underground telephone cable in the city with a miniaturised recording device, like the sea pods the US Navy was using to tap Soviet naval cables. 150


charges, the FBI had been conducting a multi-year investigation on a network of U.S.-based covert Russian operatives working for the SVR. Working undercover and through the use of other lawful authorised surveillance, the FBI ascertained a great deal of information from the Russian agents, all of whom resided in various cities throughout the United States. According to FBI investigations, the Russian agents’ SVR mission was to: “become sufficiently ‘Americanized’ such that they can gather information about the United States for Russia, and successfully recruit sources who are in, or are able to infiltrate, the United States policy-making circles.”

The FBI decrypted the SVR orders sent by Moscow Centre (MC), which read as follows: “You were sent to USA for long-term service trip. Your education, bank accounts, car, house etc. — all these serve one goal: fulfil your main mission, i.e. to search and develop ties in policymaking circles in US and send intels [intelligence reports] to Centre.”

The FBI court documents also stated that:

“ to further the aims of the conspiracy, Moscow Centre arranged for the defendants clandestinely to communicate with the Russian Federation.”

The methods of communication included the use of ad-hoc wireless networks, between two or more laptop computers; radiograms, through short-wave radio transmissions; and steganography, a process by which images, found on public Internet websites, are embedded with encrypted messages that can only be spotted and decrypted by a specially made SVRprovided software, which is unavailable to the general public. 319

In the case of SVR conspirators Vicky Pelaez and Christopher Metsos, they occasionally met with officials from the Russian government, based out of either the Permanents Russian Mission to the United Nations in Manhattan, Washington D.C., or an undisclosed South American country. Pelaez and Metsos would then, at such place and time, receive further instructions and large payments of money, which were then distributed to the other SVR conspirators to pay them and help cover expenses. Shockingly, one SVR conspirator, Donald Howard Heathfield, who operated out of Boston in 2004, reportedly met with an unidentified U.S. government employee with regard to nuclear weapons. Heathfield, reported in an encrypted message to MC, dated December 3, 2004, that he had made contact with an individual in the U.S. government who works on strategic operations of nuclear weapon deployment. The conspirator informed his superiors that his conversations with this government individual were in regards to research on: “small yield high penetration nuclear weapons recently authorized by US Congress (nuclear ‘bunker-buster’ warheads).” In another decrypted message, dated April 2006, the spies were tasked to gather information on U.S. policies in regards to online anti-terrorist cyber-security, Central Asia, military problems and “Western estimation of [Russian] foreign policy.” The Boston-based SVR conspirators relayed information back to MC concerning the change in administrative leadership in the CIA following the election of President Obama. They: “received in private conversation with [name omitted], former legislative counsel for US Congress, specialist in [information omitted], member faculty of economics of [information omitted]. Has contacts within Congress and policymakers in Washington.” 320

Also requested by MC, prior to President Obama’s visit to Russia in 2009, was information on: “…the U.S. position with respects to a new Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty, Afghanistan, and Iran’s nuclear programme.” MC asked its operatives to “try to outline their [the United States’] views and most important Obama’s goals which he expects to achieve during [the] summit in July.” It would be interesting to know which members of Congress, Washington policymakers, and former high-ranking national security officials the SVR operatives were in contact with and the content they were able to transmit back to Russia.

Is Edward Snowden a Russian Spy? In the three years since Edward Snowden landed in Moscow, his relationship with his FSB hosts has been a source of much speculation and controversy. The American IT contractor, who worked for the CIA and NSA until he fled Hawaii with more than a million purloined secret files, has not left Russia since he arrived at Sheremetyevo airport on 23 June 2013 on a flight from Hong Kong. Snowden landed in Moscow with the permission of the Russian government, whose representatives he met during his sojourn in Hong Kong. A stay that lasted more than three weeks. He became so friendly with them that he actually celebrated his 30th birthday at the Russian consulate! On the run from prosecution in the USA, Snowden received asylum from Vladimir Putin fairly swiftly. Although Snowden once indicated he would like a pardon from President Barack Obama before he left office in January 2017, there was no indication that would happen. The White House explained clearly that it considered Snowden to be a criminal, so 321

any pardon would not be forthcoming. The comments by President Trump further give him no cause for hope, as he claimed he considered him a “criminal” who deserved to be “executed”. This raises the messy question of Snowden’s ties with the Kremlin. To anybody acquainted with the world of espionage, particularly when it involves Russians, Snowden is a defector and his collaboration with Moscow’s security agencies after three years is now indubitable. But the chain of events signifies much as to whether he had earlier connections. Connections he denies. Snowden left his job in Hawaii with the National Security Agency in May 2013, he appeared at Hong Kong’s Mira Hotel on June 1, having made off with more than a million classified intelligence documents belonging to the American government. A few days later, Snowden appeared on camera to announce that he was lifting the top-secret mask off NSA, America’s biggest and most secretive intelligence service. Yet significant questions remain. Where was Snowden from 21 to 31 May 2013? His whereabouts in that period are unknown. Why did he choose to repeatedly visit the Russian consulate in Hong Kong, even celebrating his 30th birthday there? What did those visits have to do with his departure for Moscow on June 23rd? Finally, why has Snowden never left Russia, three years after his arrival, when he is free to do so with his Russian passport? These issues have taken centre stage in the German parliament’s special committee of inquiry into NSA activities. In this, the issue is whether Snowden is really the impromptu whistle blower he claims to be. It is odd that anyone who claims to support press freedom and personal liberty would take extended refuge in Russia, where the population is much more tightly watched by the intelligence services than in any Western country in the world and where journalists who oppose the regime are harassed 322

and even murdered. Hans-Georg Maassen, director of Germany’s domestic intelligence service (the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution or BfV) has waded into this controversy by stating that Snowden is probably not who he pretends to be. “This would be an espionage operation joined with an operation for disinformation and influence” he stated: “In order to drive a wedge between the USA and its closest allies, especially Germany.” That Snowden is in fact a Russian agent then “has a high degree of plausibility” Maassen believes. Predictably, Snowden’s defenders have pretended outrage at the BfV director’s statements, although he has made them before. In one interview alongside Gerhard Schindler, director of Germany’s Foreign Intelligence Service or BND, Maassen explained that it was likely that the American

“whistle blower” was in reality a Kremlin agent whose actual agenda was harming his own country’s worldwide security partnerships for Putin’s benefit. That the Snowden Operation has been very effective as disinformation against Western democracies goes without saying, irrespective of pre-planned culpability, but of his status being a spy, rather than simply a purveyor of secrets he considered wrong is open to debate. The proper espionage term for Edward Snowden is “defector”, meaning an employee of an intelligence service who takes up residence in another country whose spies are not friends. Since 1917, every single Western intelligence defector to Moscow has cooperated with the Kremlin on the grounds of quid pro quo. There is no known case of a defector not collaborating with the KGB or its successors. If you want sanctuary, you will tell the Russians everything you know. That is how the spy game works. Likewise, any Russian intelligence officer who wants sanctuary in the United States will be required to collaborate with American spy 323

services, including extended debriefings by multiple intelligence agencies. Are we really supposed to believe, therefore, that Vladimir Putin, former KGB colonel, is more charitable? “Of course,” Snowden is collaborating with Russian intelligence, explained Oleg Kalugin, an expert witness here.


The fact Snowden’s

new life revolves around the Federal Security Service, Putin’s powerful FSB, regardless of the question of him being a planted operative, supports it. “The FSB are now his hosts, and they are taking care of him” he explained: “Whatever he had access to in his former days at NSA, I believe he shared all of it with the Russians and they are very grateful.” To anybody familiar with how Russia works, there can be no doubt that Snowden has been an agent of the Kremlin at least starting from his arrival in Moscow three years ago. Whether he was recruited by the Russian intelligence before that is likely too, however, as it would be highly abnormal for the FSB to grant sanctuary to an American defector they have never met so quickly. Nevertheless, it remains an open question, and a very important one. The critical question from a counterintelligence viewpoint then is: When did Snowden go over to the Russians? That answer will elaborate a great deal about Snowden’s true motives, and those of his collaborators and coconspirators. Wikileaks has admitted the Russians told Snowden to leave Hong Kong and go to Russia. Bob Baer, however, the famous CIA operations officer and media gadfly, believes Snowden went over to the Russians back in 2007, when he was serving in Geneva as an IT worker on a CIA contract. A legend in global spy circles, Major General Kalugin is the former head of foreign counterintelligence for the KGB’s elite First Chief Directorate. During the Cold War, Kalugin recruited moles inside American intelligence just like Edward Snowden. 151


That seems plausible, indeed it’s the most obvious place to look, given known Russian intelligence tradecraft, but there are other possibilities too. Some have asked questions about the “ethical hacker” course Snowden took in New Delhi in 2010 and that seems a story that needs investigation, given India’s long-time reputation as a playground for Russian intelligence. What can be dismissed out of hand is the claim by Snowden that, while staying in Hong Kong a year ago, he simply met up with Russian spies, (“diplomats”) at their consulate and all of a sudden decided to hop on a plane to Moscow. Espionage simply does not work that way. Those who know the Russian “special services” understand that such a scenario is so implausible that it can be ruled out altogether. The Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) would not allow American intelligence personnel they’ve just met to simply jump on a flight to Moscow and automatically be given safe harbour. The risks are too great. Deciding to work with a possible defector, particularly one from your main adversary, is a big step in and of itself, since both sides play sneaky operational games. The SVR, like any competent intelligence service, needs to establish how credible the defector is. This requires name checks, internet searches, cross checking secret databases and those of the friendly services, to see if they have a profile already and the exact organisation they claim to work for, just in case Snowden is a US spy. The story Snowden is telling then seems implausible. Extensive background checks and maybe even polygraphs (note plural) would also usually be ordered. In short, you need to initiate a full and detailed security check to avoid being deceived into accepting a spy into your midst.


Letting Edward Snowden move to Moscow should have been a major decision for the Kremlin and it was one with huge political ramifications. It was taken very quickly and easily however. Such a decision was not made by a mid-grade SVR officer in Hong Kong, neither would the choice ordinarily have been made quickly by the Russians, particularly under a president who understands counterintelligence very well. The reality suggests Edward Snowden’s relationship with Russian intelligence, whatever it exactly is, appears to have predated his arrival in Moscow on June 23, 2013, at least based on the speed of their acceptance. His connections with them then had a more extensive history than he claims. It cannot be ruled out, however, that the SVR, or possibly GRU initially dealt with Snowden in some kind of false-flag operation, masking their true identity for a time and gleaning information from him without him being fully aware. Whatever the case, experts who are acquainted with Russia’s “special services” understand that the official narrative that he just hopped on a plane and was given sanctuary in Moscow cannot be true. That Snowden has collaborated with the Kremlin since June 2013 is not open to question. He also appears to be something of a spokesman for them. Since joining Twitter last year, he has pontificated on a wide range of issues. Experts in the Kremlin’s powerful intelligence apparatus, the “special services,” would have no doubt that collaboration is a matter of simple quid pro quo. Any Western intelligence official who receives sanctuary in Russia will share what he knows with his hosts: there is no choice in that matter, unless they are to be released. Snowden, however, insists he is no collaborator. The official story is that Snowden arrived in Moscow with none of the classified documents he stole from NSA, and he refused to 326

share secrets with Russian intelligence. The question, then, is why would they keep him at all? They are hardly philanthropists. According to Wikileaks, which told Snowden to flee to Moscow, the defector was approached by Russian spies after his arrival in their country, but he still refused to spill secrets. Russia then is portrayed as merely offering a safe sanctuary from the threat of execution by the folks back home. But since Wikileaks itself is now more or less openly a front for the Kremlin, with its head Julian Assange mouthing pro-Putin propaganda, there’s little reason to take its claims about Snowden seriously, particularly given Assange’s role in getting the American to Moscow in the first place. Snowden now has only one last use: as a spy he was always a bargaining chip no more no less. To pretend he is somehow a “whistle blower” and a martyr as he does is ridiculous. When his cover was blown he ran too easily to his home base: Russia. Snowden criticises US moral standing, but harbours among FSB /KGB killers thinking they will look after him because they are his protectors? History, however, is littered with stories of what happens to people in his position. He is a fool if he thinks this time it will be any different. Indeed, Snowden’s recent tepid criticism via Twitter of Russia’s draconian new laws on domestic surveillance hardly helps his case. Indeed, his hosts finally allowing their American collaborator to tweet negatively about Russia may simply be another sign that the defector has outlived his usefulness.

The implications for Russia So where does all this leave Russia? In what direction is Russia and Russian politics developing in its relations to the West? Is it towards stability, prosperity and democracy? Clearly not. It is indicative rather of 327

a reversion of the democratic landmarks apparently secured by Yeltsin. Whilst the political ideology of Communism in Marxist economic terms might well have been jettisoned, the authoritarian state hierarchy and imperatives constructed by Lenin and Stalin during the Soviet era persist. Authoritarianism continues, public elections of governors have been replaced by central appointments by the President. New election laws that make it much harder for small political parties to get permission to

participate in national elections have also been introduced, along with a heightening of the threshold from five to seven percent. The justice system has been reigned in under Kremlin control (most notably in the widely debated Yukos case) and a strict Non-Government Agency NGO-law has been introduced, which has caused severe trouble especially for nonRussian NGO’s. What consequences will these developments have for Russian foreign policy? Is the new, powerful and self-conscious Russia a friend of the West, a partner in trade and politics, or (as has been shown of late in regards to Syria, Crimea and Ukraine) an uncooperative force, which simply wants things its own way? Is it, as appears increasingly apparent, revealing once more its own hegemonic ambitions? Or is its concern to appeal to a global understanding of what constitutes responsible government against Euro-American war mongering? Is it indeed once more becoming a foe of the West, or has it been ever thus? According to Lilia Shevtsova, a well-renowned analyst from the Carnegie Endowment in Moscow the: “Russian System is a specific type of governance structure whose characteristics include paternalism, the state domineering over the individual, isolation from the outside world, and ambitions to be a great power. The heart of the system was the all-powerful leader, above the law and a law unto him-self, concentrating in his hands 328

all powers, without a balancing accountability, and limiting all other institutions to auxiliary, administrative functions. The Russian System then does not need fixed rules to play its game; it rather needed fixers.” For Shevtsova, the use of the word “system” at least as far as the outward appearance goes may not be the most appropriate way of describing Putin’s Russia. System, when discussing the “political system” of Russia, more or less implies a rule bound, rational management of the state, which in democratic states would also involve an elite, but with some sort of accountability to the public. For Shevtsova, it increasingly appears to be a “regime”, which contains some sort of arbitrariness within it. As such it is a “system” only in the more qualified sense: where the accountability of the regime to the public is weak, but where a long term strategic rationale, or operations to protect its own interests abroad remains tantamount. This, at any rate, is the picture presented by its critics in the West. It is a character that (as of old) seeks to mask its more resolute and longrange goals: aims that still seek to influence and dominate the world. This seems far more apt considering its extensive powers and the sustaining ideology of its political leaders, that indeed has been evidenced by a nostalgia for the past, both in respect to the Soviet Union and Russian Imperialism, and in any respect, represents a regime recalcitrant in its true nature to any form of true constitutional reform, or genuine democratic change. Putin’s “managed democracy” is an autocratic system of power, where all matters of importance (be they of domestic or foreign policy concern) are decided upon by a small number of powerful bureaucrats surrounding him. The Kremlin is based upon a closed matrix of private, corporate, organisational and national interests. Russia is still a market-based society, where property rights are generally accepted, even if they are 329

prone to turf wars between competing clans and well-connected business groups. The “rule of law” in Russia at least in high-profile cases is a matter of “telephone justice”, that is, rulings decided outside and not necessarily inside the court system. Even if Putin has secured high federal control over policies being implemented in Russia, stability is tied closely to him, rather than to the institution of the presidency. The reason for this is first and foremost Putin’s deliberate erosion of all public institutions outside of the Kremlin: the Federal Council, the Duma, the courts and the major parties are very much under his control. Secondly, it is because of his policy of division of power between the two major clans within the Kremlin: the so-called “siloviki”, representatives from the security services and the armed forces, and the “liberal-technocrats”, the powerful bureaucrats with strong ties to business. These render Putin the only possible mediator. In this set up neither Sergei Ivanov, representing the siloviki-fraction, nor Dmitri Medvedev, representing the liberal-technocrats, are likely to be able to control members of the opposing clan. Each of the candidates seem unacceptable to the other, rendering the possibility of a turf war between the clans highly likely. Without Putin as powerbroker, therefore, the two clans are likely to end up in open conflict. This largely makes Putin the power broker.


Chapter Five The Dangerous Bear: Neo-Eurasianism awakens Russian Imperialism Russia is still essentially an autocratic regime and its pivot to the Right should not be viewed as true reform. Deception is an essential part of any totalitarian strategy. It was a central part of the communist and fascist regimes of the 1930’s through propaganda. It remains so today. Such regimes have never been interested in any compromise, nor have they valued the worth of the individual in any sense, other than of what service they could be in perpetuating the power and control of the state. This being accepted, the so called “reforms� in Russia have largely been cosmetic. It has involved only a superficial change of names, but it has not involved an end to the fundamentally authoritarian ethos that has largely characterised its 20th century history. It has not involved a destruction of the state-controlled KGB. It has merely been a continuation and a rebranding of the old power structures as the FSB and SVR. The perpetuation of these centres of power have ensured the maintenance of Russian authoritarianism at home, and perpetrated deceptive dealings abroad.


The deception that is Russian conservativism When the Soviet Union collapsed, the Russian people searched for a new sense of national identity via western capitalism, whilst the political leaders in charge continued to impose their own political objectives, often for personal and usually corrupt ends. The proceeding oligarchy that arose can be characterised by one feature that has endured, irrespective of the Soviet collapse: the desire to maintain control via the absolute exertion of state power. This oligarchy made billionaires of many overnight, but the new regime that sought to address its corruption has proven no less corrupt in turn. In the new kleptocracy that succeeded the oligarchs, Putin claimed he sought to impose a radical “conservativism” and appealed to traditional Russian values rooted in the past. This is claimed to be a reflection of the “will of the people”. This it is claimed is “democratic”. Yet in truth it was not succeeded, for only a corrupt regime and murderous power structure remained. Putin’s regime supposedly represents the best that a “conservative” democratised regime has to offer. But the implementation of absolute state objectives can only induce an egocentric power hierarchy, corrupted by its own sense of power in turn. Lately it has been manifest in a desire to expand beyond its own borders, as it seeks to formulate an authoritarian Russia centric, pan neo-Eurasianism abroad. 152

152 The movement is sometimes called the “Greater Russia” movement and is described

as a political aspiration of pan-Russian “nationalists” to reclaim some or all of the territories of the other republics of the former Communist regime and territories of the former Russian Empire. It seeks to amalgamate them into a single Russian state. Expanding the Russian state to include Belarus is an important topic in Russian political affairs today, as well as the political aspirations of Russian nationalists, especially in Moldova and Ukraine. Aleksandr Dugin visiting South Ossetia in 2008 summed up this ethic thus: “Our troops will occupy the Georgian capital Tbilisi, the entire country, and perhaps even Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula, which is historically part of Russia, anyway.” 332

Russian nationalism is not conservative but hubristic Powerful politicians can too often foster within the populace a powerful sense of what might be termed national hubris. In Russia for too long, their national identity has been determined only by such tyrants. If those in charge are hubristic, the people defined by the state too become influenced. It induces a nationalistic narcissism and one that is dissatisfied to merely take a patriotic pride in its own achievements at home. Nationalistic hubris produces not a notion of proud exceptionalism, if it is untempered by a government unlimited in its power, it fosters only national egocentrism. This is a national illness, a malady in the minds and hearts of the people. A situation that was in evidence most markedly in National Socialist Germany. In this, the achievements of the individual and individualism are not prized in a proud and productive moral patriotism, only an inflated sense of supremacism is fostered. This is communicated via the corrupt state leaders and the political objectives they themselves define, pursue and project. It expresses itself in an everexpanding militarism and ultimately a desire to impose its own identity upon the identities of others. This is irrespective of their desires, simply Ossetian president Eduard Kokoity is a Eurasianist and argues that South Ossetia never left the Russian Empire and should be part of Russia. Since the late 1990s, Eurasianism has gained some following also in Turkey among imperialist minded nationalist circles. The most prominent figure who is associated with Dugin is Doğu Perinçek, the leader of the Workers’ Party. Some have suggested that the ultra-nationalist and secular elite that are also affiliated with the members of the Turkish military, who have come under close scrutiny with the Ergenekon coup case, have close ideological and political ties to the neo-Eurasianists. In this “nationalism” is to be seen far more in terms of Imperialism or empire building, rather than simply a tendency to favour nation state democracy. 333

because the leaders believe themselves superior in some fundamental sense. War generally occurs as the nation is enthused to believe their call. We can at least see the resurgence of this objective in recent events in respect to the Ukraine and the struggle for Russia and the Euro-American alliance to also exert control. It is evident too in the annexation of Crimea, which Russia proclaims to be representative of those people who hold fundamentally “Russian” and not Ukrainian values. The call is something of an oxymoron however, as it is claimed to be a patriotic claim to reunite with the Russian “Motherland”. An idea similarly voiced by Hitler in his reclamation of the Sudentenland, with the claim they were truly German. This struggle for the Ukraine reveals the struggle for hegemony by Russia, the EU and the US generally. It can be characterised by the same selfcentred objective for power; although they all



their objectives are in the interests of the people of that besieged land. The power claim is an inevitable cause of increasing statism and a symptom of the increasingly authoritarian rule in all cases. The Russian imposition is justified as a need to protect Ukrainians against the threat of neo Nazism threatening the safety of the country but are termed by US democrats as “fascists” in turn. Whereas the US justifies its imposition as a protection of Ukrainian democracy from undue Russian influence, but seeks to further its own unilateral geo-political influence in turn. Neo Eurasianists claim the Ukraine in some sense represents a buffer zone to shield Russia from the corrupting threat of western liberalism personified by the US, but it downplays its own dangerous and corrupting imperialistic tendencies in turn. The “corrupting” Liberalism seeks to ultimately “destroy” Russian culture and Russian civilisation, whilst it 334

takes no responsibility for having subverted the West with the values of cultural Marxism which it originated in turn.

The shortcomings of Neo-Eurasianism The Russian critique of the threat the US poses, is now given a philosophical and political voice in the ideology of neo-Eurasianism. In this it defines “Liberalism” as a corrupting influence wholesale, without fully acknowledging its virtues. Whilst Liberal Progressivism is indeed a subversive danger, the Russian critique rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of what classical liberalism entails, and the values that Constitutional America defines. In this, it fails to acknowledge any moral and political value in the more conservative orientated Liberalism of the kind we might term “old school” or “traditional” or “classical”. Neo Eurasianism as a movement is itself deeply dangerous, both in its objectives and specific ideology. It represents a danger to nation state democracy and the preservation of world peace, as much as a subversion of Christian principles and constitutional government. It uses terms like “conservativism” and “nationalism” to garner approval. Its true face, however, has more in common with state-centric Leftist ideologies of the past. Its philosophical leanings praise Chaos as a credible objective. It has an anti-Logos, immoral, almost satanic taint in the measures it proposes to achieve this. It furthermore views pre-emptive war as a Russian virtue and a show of strength against any that might pose a danger to its own rather skewed world view. It sows confusion amongst some conservative intelligentsia of the West, who find its use of nationalist terminology appealing. But it is not one it necessarily sincerely espouses. In this, conservatives see something 335

attractive in its nationalist tendencies, even though it was in fact formed out of the National Bolshevik party. It has found currency amongst some conservatives largely because it has passed itself off by recourse to the intellectuals of what has been termed “the far Right” or “alt Right” in Europe. Its national Bolshevik roots, however, along with its leanings to Leftism, statism and a “true fascist fascism”, betray very different, dangerous and contrasting concerns.

Radical statism conservativism





Too many self-proclaimed “Right wing” intellectuals in Europe and America today are themselves no more than purveyors of totalitarian thought systems of a fascistic type. They show themselves not as genuine conservatives, but as statists, just as the Socialists are. They have in this a common concern, and so of course extend a hand to the “former” National Bolsheviks in Russia, who now call themselves “Right wing” neoEurasianists. But in all senses these comrades for the cause are collectivists, espousing a dangerous totalitarianism at odds with what true “conservativism” and “constitutionalism” should entail. They purvey, therefore, a virulent statism, if not an overt racial supremacism, that too readily seeks power beyond its own “national” borders. In this blurring of Left and Right, the two ideologies of fascism and communism meet, but are claimed to be “conservative” and “democratic” in Putin’s regime. But a similar claim could be made of the systems of government in the EU and corporate socialist America. They share the common objective of increasingly state-centric rule. They are revealed as sharing a common objective inclined to increasing totalitarianism and in this authoritarian state power. 336

In appealing to the

terms “nationalism” and “conservativism” these

war mongering statists hope to sow confusion in the minds of at least some American conservatives who should ordinarily espouse the truly traditional values of a constitutional republic. It might very well be the case that Neo-Eurasianism is in truth a mere ruse for pan European totalitarianism. It certainly advocates reclaiming the territories of the former Soviet Union and beyond. It cannot, therefore, be truly “nationalistic” or “conservative” in the proper sense. It would in fact have more in common with Marxist, Fascist and National Socialist ideologies that more suitably fit into a Left leaning government-centric ideology of empire, and which seek further expansion of power with an expansionist, open borders progression. The use of the term “conservative” and “nationalist” appears to have caused confusion in certain conservative circles and amongst certain conservative intellectuals, such as William Lind, who speaking of the American conservatives asserts: “Conditioned for decades to see Russia and the Soviet Union as synonymous, they still view post-communist Russia as a threat. They forget that Tsarist Russia was the most conservative great power, a bastion of Christian monarchy loathed by revolutionaries, Jacobins, and democrats. Joseph de Maistre was not alone among 19th-century conservatives in finding refuge and hope in Russia. Under President Vladimir Putin, Russia is emerging once more as the leading conservative power. As we witnessed in Russia’s rescue of President Obama from the corner into which he had painted himself on Syria, the Kremlin is today, as the New York Times reports, “Establishing Russia’s role in world affairs not based on the dated Cold War paradigm but rather on its different outlook, which 337

favours state sovereignty and status quo stability over the spread of Western-style democracy.” But in this Lind shows a total confusion that betrays his own supposedly conservative values. He reveals in his praise for Russian “conservativism” his true preference for an absolute, state centred ideology, that based on his own writings and comments, appears to favour a leaning towards fascism and/or an admiration for National Socialism, rather than the true values that vouchsafe the liberty of the individual in a constitutional republic. 153 “Blinded by their worship of the clay god “Democracy,” Washington elites cannot perceive the importance of what Putin did, but conservatives should. Russia can be an effective ally against Fourth Generation entities, and conservatives prefer states


stateless anarchy. Russia’s new-old conservatism is evident not only This is no more evident than in his mentioning too of Joseph de Maistre, who advocated an absolute and dictatorial theocratic control. In 1819 Maistre published “On the Pope” the most complete exposition of his authoritarian conception of his authoritarian political system of rule. It represents the summation of his argument espoused in his “Considerations on France” (1797), where he claimed that France had a divine mission as the principal instrument of implementing good and evil on Earth. In this then harbours the corrupting notion of national supremacism and a pan national Imperialism. 153

According to Maistre, any attempt to justify government on rational grounds will only lead to unresolvable arguments about the legitimacy and expediency of any existing government, and that this, in turn, will only lead to violence and chaos. He therefore did not advocate democratic debate or discussion, but authoritarian and divinely sanctioned rule by the Pope. He argued that the legitimacy of government must be based on compelling but non-rational grounds, which its subjects must not be allowed to question. Maistre therefore promulgated an absolute, class ridden, authoritarian theocracy harbouring an inbuilt notion of supremacism. He argued that authority in politics should derive ultimately from God and religion, a noble and virtuous ideal, but one that is easily corrupted by a human being, if the absolute power of Europe lies as he wished, in the hands of one individual determining religious authority. In this the Pope was no more than an authoritarian dictator championing his authority by virtue of reference to a greater power whose Mind and plan none can claim to fully comprehend. 338

in its foreign policy but at home as well.” Of course, conservatives “prefer states to stateless anarchy”, but true “conservatives” should not seek to champion statism and the absolute power of the state over the individual at any cost. In this, Lind completely ignores the dangers of Neo-Eurasianism. He also downplays the dangers of Russian statism more generally, and the state centred ideology of the Socialist or Fascist kind that ensures that the individual is no more than a cog in the machine, valued only by the degree to which the state can control and make use of them. He lauds Putin as a true “old” style conservative, but conspicuously fails to cast this in classical terms. He fails to view the “new” Russian style conservativism as what it actually is: an oligarchy and a state-centric authoritarian kleptocracy that has more in common with the old dictatorships of the past. Indeed, in his call for those worshippers of “democracy” to drop their prejudices and realise the values of Putin’s achievement, he notably forgets that the US is not even supposed to be a “democracy” in the strict sense. He is quite happy to sacrifice the freedoms and personal liberty vouchsafed in a constitutional republic in his conflation of this in the name of appeasement. In this too, he not only ignores Constitutionalism, he also ignores the true conservatives and Constitutionalists who still wish to act and live by that measure.

Delimiting government power is true conservativism The Founding Fathers sought to effectively limit the power of the state from becoming all-consuming and all determining of the individual, just as they were generally distrustful of the chaotic rule of the mob that democracy entailed. Both Putin and Obama have displayed ignorance of 339

the need to limit federal power, however, motivated as they were in their administrations by their distrust of the good sense and moral worth of their citizens. In their striving for an increasingly federal-centric government,






Executive Orders and authoritarianism. Lind ignores the fact that “conservativism” in the GOP now has little to do with true “conservativism” in the constitutional sense but has morphed into a horrifying parody of what constitutes and safeguards freedom. He champions instead a federal centric, Left wing, faux conservativism; a neo Conservativism one feels, that has little to do with the true values of the Constitution, and has increasingly more in common with the oligarchic, state-centred authoritarian dictatorships of old. It is little wonder either, considering the founders of this neo Conservativism were formerly sympathetic Trotskyists. In this, then, Lind lauds the fundamentally Socialist/Communist/Fascist imperative in its strengthening of the state and the merits of an absolute leader when he calls the state-centric corrupt oligarchy that rules the Russian government as: “Putin’s greatest achievement, and the reason for his popularity within the country, is that he saved and strengthened the Russian state.” In this, Lind fails to grasp the fundamental: that increased statism destroys individual liberties, rather than facilitating and protecting them. A danger the Founding Fathers were constantly mindful of and sought to guard against with “eternal vigilance”. Statism and authoritarianism, however, along with an increase in nationalistic hubris of the debilitating and dangerous kind, is all too evident in Putin’s state-centric FSB led 340

government. It is to the detriment and benefit of the people. It is a rule that holds no tolerance for any who speak against its dictatorial rule. Those that do object are quite simply murdered, or at least this is the claim. In this “new/old style conservativism”, there appears to be little distinction between the dangerous regimes of the Soviet past, ruled over by a malevolent KGB. The freedom of speech guaranteed in the US Constitution’s first amendment is one that is determined only by those who agree with the President and the oligarchy in charge. Indeed, the FSB now appears to be simply no more than an extension of the former KGB’s rule of terror and the dictators of the Soviet regime often find journalists and media workers that express dissent to be primary targets, or so we are told in the West. In its current, increasingly Federal-centric form in the US too, and in its supranational non-democratic, unelected form in the Commission of the EU, these increasingly technocratic, federalised oligarchies represent a real danger to individual liberties and constitutional freedom under the rule of law. But there can be no true freedom for the individual under the rule of law in any state determined by the will of an elected President who determines policy by the issuing of unconstitutional Executive Orders, just as there can be no true freedom in an EU supranational government that enforces legislation by the edict of an unelected EU President and an unelected EU Commission.

Lind is swayed by Russian Romanticism Lind indulges in the reverie that Russia now increasingly shares for the past. He views this as a love for the ideals and hopes of the 19th century, 341

rather than a nostalgia many Russian youth now also feel for the horrific Soviet regime of the relatively recent past: a view they hold because they have no experience of its trials. Concerning the Romantic view, however, Lind fails to understand that the “conservativism” of those past intellectuals, of the kind such as Dostoyevsky championed, propagated not a beneficial nationalism, but a virulent and arrogant Imperialism. This Imperialism might well have its roots in a subverted, hubristic form of nationalism, but it certainly is not born of the healthy patriotism that can be fostered in a nation state democracy comfortable with its own achievements. This hubris exacerbates Imperialist tendencies as of old. It is reflective of a rather arrogant Russian supremacism. The Russian Romantic view also harboured within it a virulent antiSemitism (Dostoyevsky himself despised Jews) in favour of a championing of the indigenous race and a desire to build this into the hub of a pan Russian empire that wields control. The modern equivalent of this hubris that tends to trigger empire building can be detected in the annexation of Crimea by Russia and is now championed by an increasingly vocal new Eurasian intelligentsia within the Kremlin’s ranks who speak in increasingly arrogant terms. Today they too espouse the necessity to expand and reclaim the Russian empire for Russia’s own interests and supposedly more broadly for the interests of the civilised, world. The war being played out right now between Russia and the West on the battleground of the Ukraine, and exemplified by Putin himself, is not merely a geopolitical tussle for supremacy. It is a historical and psychological battle. It is one that has been acted out for centuries and is indicative of the conflicting elements of an almost schizophrenic Russian national identity that has fought for dominance in the Russian soul itself. The tussle of East and West exhibits the schism between the desire for a Russian identity (both national and supranational) and which similarly 342

struggles in contextualising its own identity as both a European and an Asian power. The Russian struggle found its political expression in both Imperialism and later in Communism, with its international and national manifestations. It found its expression too most evidently in the Russian literature of the 19th Century that can be crystallised in the question that has troubled some of its greatest literary figures: What is the source and what should the limits be of Russia’s national greatness? Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy were the two literary giants of the Romantic era who wrestled with this question the most, but in so far as Putin is the leader who makes the decisions today, his choice has been decidedly Dostoevskyian in nature. Dostoevsky’s Romantic vision saw Russia as fulfilling a special mission in the world. This was to create a pan-Slavic Christian empire with Russia at its helm. This messianic vision stemmed from the fact that Dostoevsky thought Russia was the most spiritually developed of all the nations in the world; a nation destined to unite and lead the others, irrespective of their wishes. Russia’s mission, he said in 1881, was: “the general unification of all the people of all tribes of the great Aryan race.” This imperialist, collectivist, racially centred thinking was anathema to Tolstoy, who believed that every nation has its own unique traditions, none better or worse than the others. In this, Tolstoy was still a patriot who loved his people, as is so clearly demonstrated in “War and Peace” for example, but he was not an imperialist, or a racist, in the Dostoyevskian sense. He believed in the unique genius and dignity of every culture as any decent humanitarian should. This was no more in evidence than in his capacity to uncover the truth of each one of his characters, irrespective of 343

what their nationality was.154 Now, amidst all the cultural, social, spiritual, economic and political turmoil following the fall of the Soviet Union, an increasing number of Russians have clung to the more comforting pan European messianic vision of Dostoevsky, rather than Tolstoy’s vision of universal humanity delineated by national borders. In this, Tolstoy’s vision is less popular. It is too rational, too much harboured in common-sense and individualism and too subtle for the taste of a nation shorn of its super power Soviet status in the world. In this new world, Russia is eager to rediscover its “real” identity and supposed greatness once more, whatever road to ruin that might lead them along. In this Russia confirms, as it has throughout its history, a self-destructive nihilism in its desire to redefine and determine precisely what its own national identity is. After the tragedies of twentieth century Russian history and the perceived humiliations of the past 40 years in particular, many ordinary Russians are once again seeking to reaffirm the value of their national worth. They wish to redefine and reaffirm their self-believed superiority among the family of nations once more. In this concern, Putin plays to precisely that sector of the population most easily influenced and led astray. He rarely quotes Tolstoy in his speeches, yet often quotes Russian messianic philosophers, who were themselves influenced by Dostoevsky’s own brand of passionate Orthodox Christian nationalism. Putin, who has called the fall of the Soviet Union “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century”, still sees the fall of the Soviet Union as a

In his “Sevastopol Tales” for example, which were inspired by his own experiences as a Russian soldier fighting against the combined forces of the Turks, French and British in the Crimean War of the 1850s, Tolstoy celebrated the humanity of all his characters, irrespective of their different ethnicities or distinctive nationalities. 154


“genuine tragedy” at least in terms of the loss of Russia’s cultural and national identity. If you listen to him speak about Russians in Ukraine (“we are brothers in arms”, “we must restore Russia’s historical unity”, etc.) one is simply hearing the voice of Dostoevsky and the pan national Russian intellectual movement once again reborn. None of this is to suggest that if Dostoevsky could be reborn he would immediately recognise his own ideas in the words and actions of Mr Putin. As is so often the case with a political leader focused only on his own perspective of what needs to be accomplished in the “interests” of a nation, Putin has taken only those aspects of Dostoevsky’s message that he finds congenial to his purpose. This was typical too of Hitler in his selective interpretation of the philosophy of Nietzsche, who whatever his early sympathies for Wagnerian nationalism and anti-Semitism, was still no embryonic, pan European German National Socialist, even in his realisation of the Ubermensch. Dostoevsky’s genius lay in his creation of some of the world’s finest literature, whatever the merits of his own racial and pan Russian political ideals. Ultimately too, he believed in Christian love and humility. This supposedly informed the civilising influence that characterised Russian Imperialism. It is only narcissism and hubris projected into authoritarian political visions then, that can be said to destroy and subvert such ideals to evil and destructive ends. In this, however, Dostoyevsky at least believed in the power of truth, not the power of militarism. He didn’t trust the mechanisms of the state, nor the deceptive strategies that sought the perpetuation of political power by brute force. A concern that distrusted any anti-Christian perpetuation of human suffering, or its implement via state control, as was the case in the Soviet Union. A tendency that appears to have dissipated, but nevertheless has been sustained, and could even reassert itself in just as much of a new, horrible and dangerous form under 345

the new Eurasianists. The problem too is that Dostoevsky, for all his depth and humanity, was also naively utopian. He believed the Christian empire could be created by God-fearing leaders who embodied the so called “Russian values” of kindliness and humility. He tended (unlike Tolstoy) not to see these as universal, as much as national. But in any case, these are virtues that a former KGB agent, and a man strongly suspected of sanctioning multiple murders, is not capable of naturally exhibiting, let alone being readily concerned with. In this Putin, unlike Dostoevsky, is more than capable of recognising that no society has ever been successfully built exclusively on the Christian principles of selfless love. He is a political realist, not a Romantic idealist. If we are to believe the propaganda out of the West at any rate, Putin sits upon the shoulders of Dostoyevsky like a cruel child beating







misunderstood bear. He cynical beats it with a stick, propelling the Russian bear forward on some supposed Romantic but dangerous quest, but always for his own political and pragmatic purposes. In this rush to hegemony, however, it is not just Russia that poses the undeniable threat, as Lind notes correctly: “In his own Times op-ed on Syria, Putin wrote, “It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s longterm interest? I doubt it.” Sen. Robert A. Taft and Russell Kirk also doubted it.” Here there can be no doubt that it is an increasing authoritarian and selfreferencing federal centred statism justifies what is supposedly in the “long- term” US interest. It is this that determines the exercise of military 346

action. But the justification for war is here increasingly more concerned only in establishing the supremacy of its own power, irrespective of what the fall-out might be for the American people and the welfare of the nation as a whole. In this government-centric expansion of power, war is too readily embarked upon and too easily justified by a debased idea of American exceptionalism. Whereas the last truly justified existential threat that America faced was the Cold War (the moral justification for military action to quash the Communist threat in Vietnam and Korea can be debated) the last war that justified military action by the terms of the Constitution (and one which represented a genuine and clear existential threat) was the Second World War. Presupposing that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was not a false flag operation, that war alone can be termed a “good war” and one waged not in a pre-emptive fashion, as too many have been at the tail end of the 20th and the start of the 21st centuries. These pre-emptive wars justified by the Neo-Conservative Leftist imperative have been justified only to champion an ill-defined perpetuation of state power and US unilateralism. Lind however then makes a far too Russia-phillic statement for an American conservative when he claims: “Moscow appears to understand better than Washington that the driving foreign-policy requirement of the 21st century is the preservation of the state in the face of Fourth Generation war waged by non-state entities, such as those fighting on the rebels’ side in Syria. Russia has rightly upbraided Washington for destroying states, including Iraq and Libya.” Moscow has not understood “better” than Washington in any respect to this. It has too often interfered in the sovereign rights of states to escape the blame. Russian authoritarianism justified the invasion of Ukraine, 347

Georgia, Afghanistan, Moldova, and Chechnya in the last 20 years alone. It has interfered in the internal affairs of each of these sovereign nations on behalf of separatists. The interference, whilst not destroying states (and the US ultimately does seek to turn so called “failed states” into supposed democracies) still seeks to rule them, or effectively influence them to such an extent that they cannot be deemed fully functioning, or truly independent in their own right. The imperative to war is too clearly apparent in Russia’s provision of military arms to nations to perpetuate conflict for their own interests. This is not limited by any means solely to them, or just the Islamic states, the US and China are just as much to blame, but they cannot be viewed as occupying a moral high ground. There are no good guys in this strategic tussle for hegemony and world power. It would take too long to detail the history of this here. Let it suffice to say all these powers have supplied arms both directly to Hezbollah and Hamas and indirectly to ISIS: a fledgling Islamic state founded on a literal reading of the Islamic religious texts, whatever the Western media might want its audience to think to the contrary. Russia itself has been a perpetuator of the Syrian conflict in its fulfilment and supply of munitions to Assad’s regime in Syria. 155 It has launched

Two of the biggest sources of the militants’ weaponry are supplies wrested from the Syrian army, which possesses a significant stock of Soviet- and Russian-made arms that is still being replenished, and supplies captured in Iraq, many of which were made in America. Conflict Armament Research claim almost 20 percent of the cartridges catalogued could be traced to U.S. manufacturers. Additionally, the report points out that the Islamic State appears to use “significant quantities” of ammunition manufactured in Russia under the Wolf brand and distributed by the U.S. to allied states in the Middle East. 155

Between them, China, Russia, the now-defunct Soviet Union, the U.S. and Serbia provided more than 80 percent of the ammunition in the sample collected, according 348

direct military action against ISIS of late, whilst notably the US has prevaricated and armed militants it considers will oust the Assad regime. But beyond all this lies the increasing threat of Russia directly around the globe. This is too clearly evident in the ideological ethos it harbours: an increasingly championed idea of a Russian Spring that its government and people turn to as a solution to bolster and justify a moral claim to act to influence the affairs of others.

A few remarks on Lind’s excellent work on the dangers of Political Correctness Whatever one thinks of Lind’s view of Russia, and there is much to be said against it, what can be said in his favour is his unswerving concern to highlight the ever pervasive and growing dogmatism and dangers of cultural Marxism and its modern manifestation “political correctness”. This he rightly addresses as one of the most corrupting and subversive influences of the 20th century. He has courageously championed the critics to rally against its perils and dangers, mapping out as he has, its insidious impairment of the virtues of Western civilisation. In this, he also acknowledges that Putin recognises the dangers of it and its subversive influence on Russian culture and society. He quotes in reference to an article in the Financial Times: “Vladimir Putin called on Russians to strengthen a new national identity based on conservative and traditional values such as the Orthodox church yesterday, warning that the west was facing a moral crisis… Mr. Putin said Russia should avoid the example of

to a New York Times analysis of the report. Chinese arms are especially difficult to trace in this because Chinese arms sales are generally not transparent in any way. 349

European countries that were ‘going away from their roots’ by legalising gay marriage and excessive ‘political correctness.’ People in many European countries are ashamed and are afraid of talking about their religious convictions,” Putin is quoted as saying, with religious holidays “being taken away or called something else, shamefully hiding the essence of the holiday.” “We need to respect the rights of minorities to be different,” he added, “but the rights of the majority should not be in question.” American conservatives can only dream of an American president saying such things. Should we not cheer a Russian president who dares to defy political correctness?” Of course, we should, but in this Lind carefully fails to note that such a movement was championed as a revolutionary strategy by the Marxists themselves. These strategies were championed by the Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries Lukac and Munzenberg and formulated as a revolutionary attack strategy against the values of “Western” civilisation in order to make it so corrupt it would “stink”. A strategy that he himself recognises in his own video movie. A strategy he himself admits was modelled on the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow and which was formulated in the ideas of the Frankfurt School financed and implemented by Felix Weil. This Institut, which was originally to be named the Institute for Marxism, was not only steeped in the Ideas of Marx, but based and facilitated by Soviet imperatives. It sought to address not only a solution to the revolutionary deficit as perceived by Gramsci, by implementing a “long march through the institutions”, but also sought to induce that revolution in order to propagate the values of Marxist–Leninism in the West. Ultimately it sought to initiate the world revolution of Socialism that Lenin and other Communists like him advocated. The Russians, then, are 350

merely reaping what they themselves have sown and now deem as such a subversive threat. They cannot propagate subversion and expect themselves to be free of responsibility, nor can they chastise the West and expect themselves to remain morally beyond reproach, when they first threw the boomerang. Unless they seek only to blame its origin on the Jewish revolutionaries. Similarly. in the Russia of today, the nationalism and Russian Orthodoxy espoused in a new rebirth of its faith sits rather uneasily with the Neo Eurasian philosophical ideas that claim to be Christian, but yet too often evoke its antithesis. Christian morality and religious pacifism in this appears to be contradicted by a political ideology that narrates an antiChristian, almost satanic perversion, in its appeal to Chaos and the nihilism of Heidegger. “The world has turned upside down” opines Lind. Indeed, it has. But it is a world of values not sincere or guaranteed as moral or virtuous by any unconstitutional government, be they American or Russian, that conveniently








unconstitutional acts of war. Conservativism here holds little meaning, particularly when it is recontextualised in the light of a post-Communist “statism”







authoritarianism that increasingly infects its ranks. “America, condemning and even attacking other countries to push “democracy” and Jacobinical definitions of human rights, is becoming the leader of the international Left. Russia is reasserting her historic role as leader of the international Right. This is a reversal of historic importance. American foreign policy should be based on America’s interests, not on affinity for any foreign power”.


In today’s world titles mean little in respect of either the Left or what is too often falsely termed the Right. Statism itself is the purveyor of an increasingly absolute and autonomous military interventionism. In this, neither Western Leftism purveyed through the false “conservativism” of the RINOs or the neo Conservatives in the GOP or the “liberal” Conservatives in Britain, can claim to hold anything approaching a moral high ground. Neither can the Russian “Right” that couches its conservativism in a Neo-Eurasian movement that betrays its roots in National Bolshevism and calls for a genuine “fascist fascism”. Autocratic government and a desire for hegemony too often informs and applies to both Russia and the US in respect to what prompts military action. When authoritarian corporate state power seeks only the expansion and perpetuation of its own power, primarily for its own self-interests, the runes for war have been cast. Party political principles are then jettisoned or become extreme, the value of a human life is forgotten and rather than enforcing good and limited government within national boundaries, for the interests of the country and above all its people, the rumble of war begins. Russia’s so called new conservativism is simply old school totalitarianism Putin is sometimes described as a revanchist, seeking to recreate the Soviet Union. This is a useful but inaccurate pejorative; for whilst Putin and many of his comrades may have once been “Communists”, they are easily able to throw off this term in respect to themselves today: by simply appealing to the West’s acceptance of history, the Soviet collapse, and their view that they have moved on from Communism, or in more simplistic terms, that “Communism is dead”. Putin’s own public statements send rather confused and conflicting messages in respect to the ideology of Marxist-Leninism, but generally he 352

seeks to give the impression the former ideology was a foolish Socialism that no one of sense would want to implement again in today’s modern world.156 In this, he claims to represent free market capitalism and conservativism, a view distinct from the Liberal Progressive “Socialism” that even the Obama regime sought in some modern form to implement. They have therefore sought a traditional approach, it is claimed, which its advocates and admirers eagerly call “Russian conservativism”. This term seeks to pacify the critic’s voice with the claim that it a moderate ideology, that seeks only to cherish Russian culture and the traditions of the past to forge a stronger nation. It finds admirers in the West who term themselves “conservative” and who are eager to find an antidote to the failed and corrupting values of a Western Liberalism that ironically owes much to the influence of Cultural Marxist schools of thought that are progressively degrading Western civilisation. In respect to Russian “conservativism”, and its more formal philosophical and political expression, neo-Eurasianism, its true nature can be discerned in its roots, which go back to Czarist émigrés interacting with fascist thinkers in between-the-wars in France and Germany. Any cursory analysis of this new movement, therefore, reveals it is simply more of the same totalitarian-centred statism, characteristic of the old fascist and Soviet regimes. Its most public and well-known exponent has of course been the prolific geo-political and metaphysical Russian theorist Aleksandr Dugin, who is now seen as the public face of an increasingly influential mindset.


As Putin asserted:

“Any fourth-grade history student knows Socialism has failed in every country, at every time in history. President Obama and his fellow Democrats are either idiots or deliberately trying to destroy their own economy.” 353

Dugin’s Neo-Eurasian strategies Born in 1962, Dugin was admitted to the Moscow Aviation Institute in 1979, but then was expelled because of his involvement with mystic neoNazi groups. He then spent the Eighties hanging around monarchist and ultra-right-wing circles, before joining for a time Gennady Ziuganov’s Communist Party of the Russian Federation. 157 After this he became a founder and chief ideologue of the Eurasianist National Bolshevik Party (NBP) in 1994. National Socialism, it will be recalled, was an abbreviation for National Socialist Workers Party. National Bolshevism, therefore, put itself forth as an ideology that relates to National Socialism in much the same way as Bolshevism related to workers union rights via Socialist marches and militantism. This open self-identification with National Socialism is also shown clearly in the NBP flag, which looks remarkably similar to a Nazi flag, with a red background surrounding a white circle, except that the black swastika at the center is replaced by a black hammer and sickle. Dugin ran for the Duma on the NBP ticket in 1995, but got only 1 percent of the vote. Switching tactics, he abandoned the effort to build his own splinter party and instead adopted the more productive strategy of becoming the ideas man for all the bigger parties, including Putin’s United Russia, Ziuganov’s CPRF, and Vladimir Zhirinovsky’s ultranationalist Liberal Democratic Party of Russia. In this role, he gained much more success. The core idea of Dugin’s Eurasianism is that “liberalism” (by which he

CPRF, a neo-Stalinist group partially descended from, but not to be confused with, the previously ruling Communist Party of the Soviet Union, CPSU. 157


means the entire Western value system) represents an assault on the traditional hierarchical organisation of the world. In this, he echoes the ideas of National Socialist theorists Karl Haushofer, Rudolf Hess, Carl Schmitt and Arthur Moeller van der Bruck. Dugin says that this liberal threat is not new but is the ideology of the historic maritime power of “Atlanticism”. This “Sea Power” has conspired to subvert more conservative, land-based societies since ancient times. Accordingly, he envisages the entire history of the world as a continuous battle between the conservative, spiritual “Land Power” and the progressive, materialistic “Sea Power”. These two factions having been manifest as a struggle throughout history: from Rome v. Carthage, to Russia v the Anglo Saxon “Atlantic Order” today. If Russia is to win this fight against the subversive maritime power, therefore, it must unite around itself all the continental powers, including Germany, Central and Eastern Europe, the former Soviet republics, Turkey, Iran, and Korea, in order to form a grand Eurasian land bloc. This will be strong enough to control the heartland, and thus nullify, or as he terms it “annihilate” the encroaching morally, spiritually, culturally and politically corrupt West. In order to achieve this, Eurasia will need a defining ideology and for this purpose Dugin has developed his supposedly new “Fourth Political Theory” combining all the so-called merits of Communism, National Socialism, Ecological theory and Traditionalism in a syncretic mix. He does, therefore, very much allow it to appeal to the adherents of a wide and diverse anti-establishment audience. Given a free choice he would adopt Communism’s opposition to free enterprise. He would also drop the Marxist commitment to technological progress, a liberal-derived capitalist driven ideal in any case. He favours instead a demagogic appeal to Ecology, to stop the advance of industry and modernisation and by 355

extension Traditionalism, which inspires a rationale for stopping liberal thought. The rest is plucked from National Socialism: ranging from legal theories justifying unlimited state power and the elimination of individual rights, to the need for populations to be “rooted” in the soil, and even bizarre gnostic occult ideas about the secret origins of the “Aryan” race. The open devotion to National Socialism is deeply worrying. In his writings, he celebrates the Waffen SS, murderers of millions of Russians during the war, as an ideal organisation. He also approves of the most extreme crimes of Communism, going so far as to endorse the appalling 1937 purges that killed, among numerous other talented and loyal Soviet citizens, nearly the entire leadership of the Red Army. Dugin asserts what Russia needs is a: “genuine, true, radically revolutionary and consistent, fascist fascism.” On the other hand, “Liberalism, is an absolute evil...Only a global crusade against the U.S., the West, globalisation, and their political-ideological expression, liberalism, is capable of becoming an adequate response... The American empire should be destroyed.” Without Ukraine, Dugin’s fascist Eurasian Union project is impossible, and sooner or later Russia itself would have to capitulate and join the West, leaving only a few despised and doomed islands of “tyranny” around the globe to face his perceived threat. If the Ukraine is trampled underfoot, however, the Eurasianists’ programme could gain momentum, and a new Iron Curtain could rise, imprisoning a large percentage of humanity under a Russia-centric totalitarian power. This would effectively trigger another Cold War and both Eastern and Western civilisations more generally would be placed in the shadow of a potential future nuclear war. The 20th century saw three great power confrontations. Two of them 356

turned into total war. If the West is to risk the possibility of another it will have to develop a counter strategy to the projected strategy of Eurasianism, by recourse to Ukraine. It would need to ensure Russia’s power play is nipped in the bud. Russia in turn sees Western Liberalism as the corrupting ideology of the epoch and US incursions into Ukraine a direct challenge to their geo-political integrity.

The extent of neo-Eurasianism as an influential force Rather than rejecting totalitarian ideologies, Neo-Eurasianism calls upon politicians of the twenty-first century to draw what is useful from both Fascism and Stalinism. One of Dugin’s major works in this respect, “The Foundations of Geopolitics”, outlines the strategy and additionally follows rather worryingly the ideas of Carl Schmitt, a leading political theorist of the National Socialist era and the espouser of the Grossraume concept to justify political empires. Yet if Eurasianism was simply limited to Dugin, it would not be of such concern. It could be dismissed as having a limited influence upon the Kremlin and Putin in turn. It could be dismissed as the rantings of a dangerous but brilliant academic, but one limited in his political influence. Dugin, however, is not the only champion of the Neo Eurasian philosophy. It has its foremost advocates amongst others in the Putin administration, who though less cerebral and innovative, are nevertheless more pragmatic and influential. Dugin’s power is limited in and of itself, even if he does exert influence over an emerging, but easily disillusioned youth movement in both the East and West. A more influential figure for Eurasian and Ukrainian policy in the Kremlin is Sergei Glazyev, an economist who like Dugin tends to combine radical nationalism with nostalgia for Bolshevism. He was a member of the Communist Party and a Communist deputy in the Russian parliament 357

before co-founding a far-Right party called Rodina, or “Motherland”. In 2005 some of its deputies signed a petition to the Russian prosecutor general asking that all Jewish organisations be banned from Russia.

There are other figures too in what is known as Izborsky Club. Founder and president of the Izborsky Club, Aleksandr Prokhanov, was a former high-level Soviet propagandist. In 1991 Prokhanov wrote the “Word to the People” manifesto for the coup that attempted to restore Stalinist hardliners to power. Following the failure of the coup, Prokhanov joined the radical ultranationalist opposition, which he has boosted through his publication of the anti-Semitic newspaper “Den” (The Day) and when this was banned, following the failure of the 1993 Soviet-restorationist coup, he continued through the publication of an extremist “red/brown” (Communist/Nazi) newspaper “Zavtra” best translated as “Tomorrow”. Prokhanov’s 2012 book, “The Tread of the Russian Triumph”, is a fictionalised treatise on Russian history promoting the author’s “Fifth Empire” doctrine, stating that the currently emerging Eurasian Union will become the absolutist geopolitical giant that finally realises the vision of the Khanate, Muscovy, the Romanov Empire, and the USSR. Other powerful members of the Izborsky Club have included Zavtra’s editor-in-chief, Aleksandr Nagorny; Putin’s Eurasian Union policy architect, Sergei Glazeyev; economic policymakers Aleksandr Ageyev, Sergei Bachikov, and Andrei Kobyakov; military hardliner Leonid Ivashov; pan-Slavist soldier of fortune and Zavtra military editor Vladislav Shurigin; oligarchs Oleg Rozanov, Yuri Lastochkin, and Aleksandr Notin; police major general and former head of Russian Interpol Vladimir Ovchinsky; the co-chairman of the reactionary “Great Fatherland Party”, Nikolai Starikov; the Kremlin’s Islamic-world strategy coordinator, 358

Shamil Sultanov; the author of the bestseller “Why America Will Perish”, Oleg Platonov; leading TV news anchors Mikhail Leontev and Maksim Shevchenko; film director and Russian Orthodox priest Ivan Okhlobystin; Russian Orthodox Church Supreme Council member Archmandrite Tikhon; along with Eurasianist ideologues Aleksandr Dugin, Valeri Korovin, Andrei Fursov, and Vladimir Kucherenko.

These individuals have been the prime movers behind the Kremlin’s drive toward war and empire. A glance at their publications should dispel any notion that Russia’s ongoing step-by-step invasion of Ukraine is being undertaken for purposes limited to taking control of just a few more provinces. These people are quite open about the fact that their plans are much more expansive in nature than that. For example, Dugin’s chief lieutenant, Korovin, has just come out with a book entitled “The End of the Ukrainian Project”. In this he asserts: “The destruction of residual Ukrainian statehood is predetermined.” He adds in a recent post that, contrary to the EuroAmerican leaders’ belief that: “there is no military solution to the problem, this problem has only a military force solution, and that will be to sweep Ukraine.” The Izborsky Club’s agenda goes far beyond Ukraine. Kucherenko (aka Kalashnikov) outlines the next stage. Russia lost the Third World War (the Cold War), he says in a recent article published by the club, but: “the Fourth World War is possible. It will be a war for the redivision of the world... And in the final stage, some strong country, the United States, in the first place, and then perhaps China, will be subjected to military strikes.” The Eurasian imperialism requires unification, not only of Eastern and Central Europe under Kremlin leadership, but of the Middle East as well. 359

As Fursov writes: “We war with America on two fronts: Syria and Ukraine.” The president of the club Prokhanov recently travelled to Tehran, where he spent five hours seeking convergence with Iranian hardliner and former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He published some of this discussion: “I want to tell you, Mr. Prokhanov: ‘Welcome!’ I am very glad to meet you. Two and a half years ago we met in Moscow in the circle of thinkers in Russia, and I have very good memories of that meeting. I have great respect for you. I think in many fundamental issues we have with you a single view. We are with you on one front, acting in the same direction.” To which Prokhanov knowingly replied: “I am your warrior, Mr. Ahmadinejad.” Prokhanov’s trip to Teheran was done in company with club member and retired general Leonid Ivashov and Russian defence minister Sergei Shoigu who, while there, signed a military-cooperation pact with Iran. According to Ivashov: “a step was taken in the direction of cooperation on the economy and arms technology, at least for such defensive systems as the S300 and S-400. Probably we will deliver them.” But the most important country that the new Eurasianists need to conquer to fulfil their vision is not Ukraine or Iran, but the hearts and minds of the Russian people. In this, the Izborsky Club’s recent publication of a defence of the regime of Joseph Stalin could not be more revealing. “There is a political order out to debunk Stalin’s role, and thus 360

discredit the very great victory” the club’s statement says: “In the case of Ukraine, we see what this historic diversion brought. It began with the idea of claiming “Stalinist famine” to subsequently establish monuments of this “crime” in Ukraine, and ended up abandoning of our heroic history. Then there are the lies about the number of the repressed — the cornerstone of the denigration of the figure of Stalin. The historical fact is that from 1921 to February 1, 1954, just 3,777,380 people were convicted of political crimes, and that in 34 years! It is well known that not all of them were innocent “lambs of God.” It has long been proven far more people were sent to the “‘American Gulag.” The Stalin period must be weighed against the factual side of his achievements. Stalin’s achievements in the economy — thousands of businesses across the country, industrialisation, the annual decline in prices of products and goods, Stalin’s achievements in geopolitics — the return of the territories “cut off” earlier from the Russian Empire was unprecedented in the history of the growing power of the USSR. In the field of culture — the heyday of cinema, architecture, fine arts and literature. Stalin’s achievements in science and technology were unprecedented: Soviet planes, tanks, cars were not inferior to world standards, and surpassed them. Our country developed its nuclear weapons and its engineering industry. . .. Supreme Commander Stalin is our monument of Victory.” This shows the club’s true allegiances and how the old ethos of totalitarianism can exert itself, irrespective of the title or name attached. Whilst Aleksandr Dugin may claim his “Fourth Political Theory” is new and designed to evolve beyond the problems and deficiencies of the past, the distinctions are essentially academic when it represents nothing more than a synthesis of old and failed paradigms. Indeed, Stalinism characterises best what neo-Eurasianism actually entails. The supposedly “new” philosophy is in truth simply the totalitarianism of the past, and it harbours within it all the old dangers and failed principles that create the opportunity for a dogmatic and cruel leader to seize control. Chief amongst these is the dangerous influence on the minds of the people: for


it was Stalin, after all (as the original “National Bolshevik”) who understood, that to control and channel any political ideology a mass hysteria and group control was required. This guarantees the successful imposition of totalitarian collectivism and this in turn requires the manipulation of the tribal instinct in a virulent and nihilistic “national” Socialism. Russians would do well to think about the dangers of this, before they enraptured by ideas of a national renaissance. The strategies of the Izborsky Club have been tried before and failed.

Neo- Eurasianism: a synthesis of the old totalitarian ideas

The National Bolshevism of the early years involved thinkers like the Ukrainian Bolshevik Karl Radek and the National Socialist Otto Strasser. Strasser dabbled with the idea of merging Bolshevism with National Socialist ideology. Some Left-wing members of Hitler’s military even described themselves as National Bolsheviks as well as National Socialists. Recognition of these sympathetic elements were even made by Hitler himself when he reputedly asserted: “There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, revolutionary feeling . . . I have always made allowance for this circumstance and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the Party at once. The petit bourgeois Social Democrat and the trade-union boss will never be a National Socialist, but the Communist always will.”

The idea then that Communism and National Socialism are opposites is more of a utilitarian, rather than an ideological idea. It is a rationalisation that as Jonah Goldberg asserts: “…allows the Left to cut around the historical tumor of National Socialism and fascism and say, “that has nothing to do with us”. But the simple fact is that the hard Left has always endorsed or at least 362

sympathized with national-socialist countries. What do you think Cuba is? It’s nationalistic and it’s socialistic. Venezuela under Chávez and now Maduro is nationalist and socialist. Nicaragua in the 1980s, etc., etc. Read a speech by any socialist dictator and swap out the word “socialize” for “nationalize”: The meaning of the sentences doesn’t change one iota. Nationalized health care is socialized medicine. Even Obama’s weak-tea socialistic rhetoric is usually dolled up in the rhetoric of nationalism, even militaristic nationalism. Let’s all be like SEAL Team Six! Let’s make this a “Sputnik Moment.” Most of the Left in the U.S. didn’t really hate the German national-socialists until Stalin told them to. That the useful idiots thought Stalin’s command to turn on his one-time Nazi ally was rooted in deep ideological conviction just proves the depths of their idiocy. After all, it’s not like the Left suddenly turned on Stalin when he embraced nationalism wholeheartedly and talked of fighting the Nazis as part of the “Great Patriotic War for Mother Russia.” If one takes into consideration Goldberg’s view, one of the greatest lies of the past sixty years has been the propagation by the Socialists (the Leninists, the Fabian and Cultural Marxists) that National Socialism was in fact an exclusively “Right-wing” ideology. It has been a strategy that the proponents of the so called “Left” have used to vilify the so called “Right” by awakening memories of the Second World War. The strategy of the Marxists has been successfully used to nullify and muzzle any advocates of true conservativism, who might veer from the supposedly centre ground of their acclaimed

“moderate” socialist politics, whilst the

proponents of true conservativism, what might better be termed Constitutionalists, have been ruthlessly smeared with the tar of fascism, racism and political extremism. To uncover the truth is to strike at the heart of all post-war disinformation strategy as it relates to European history. It helps identify the source of political extremism and one state European tyrannical rule as a cause, not of a classical Left Right distinction, but of a collectivist/ statist mentality. 363

A view utterly opposed to the true ideals of free-market capitalism, constitutionally limited government, liberty and individual rights. It is to strike at the neck which supports the body of tyranny, and which links National Socialist ideology to the other heads of the Hydra snake: Fascism, Socialism, Bolshevism, Marxist-Leninism, Trotskyism and Stalinism. Whilst many of a Leftist/Marxist persuasion even to this day would vehemently dispute the facts, labelling Fascism and its close cousin, the anti-Semitic, xenophobic National Socialism, as an extreme “Right wing� ideology, this claim is a mere deception for utilitarian purposes. It is born of a need for political popularism. It would not be incorrect to say the philosophical universal of totalitarian statism is at the least a common feature of both. In this, the uniting feature of Communism and National Socialism shared a universal principle as a form of revolutionary statism, the former differing only in the latter’s affirmation of patriotism to country. Here, the ethos of individualism, small government and free market capitalism, were the antithesis of state assimilation, one party rule and government-controlled capitalism. I let history speak for itself only with the following quotes from the chief proponents, and the reflection that any new Eurasian progression, or for that matter a Corporate Socialist progression to a European supranational government (lacking a true democratic mandate) of the kind currently developing as the EU, or indeed a continued Federalisation of the US away from its constitutional mandate, can ultimately bring only totalitarianism, tyranny, war and death. First Benito Mussolini, a former Socialist, on Fascism:


“Against individualism, the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual in so far as he coincides with the State, which is the conscience and universal will of man in his historical existence. It is opposed to Classical Liberalism, which arose from the necessity of reacting against absolutism, and which brought its historical purpose to an end when the State was transformed into the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the interests of the particular individual; Fascism reaffirms the State as the true reality of the individual. And if liberty is to be the attribute of the real man, and not of that abstract puppet envisaged by individualistic Liberalism, Fascism is for liberty. And for the only liberty which can be a real thing, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. Therefore, for the Fascist, everything is in the State, and nothing human or spiritual exists, much less has value, outside the State. In this sense Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State, the synthesis and unity of all values, interprets, develops and gives strength to the whole life of the people.” Benito Mussolini 1932- Lecture and excerpt from an article on Fascism which Mussolini wrote (with the help of Giovanni Gentile) for the Enciclopedia Italiana. Now Hitler: “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” “I am a Socialist…and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow.” – Hitler to Otto Strasser 1930. “You cannot be a true nationalist without also being a socialist; you others cannot be true socialists without also being nationalists. To be a nationalist means loving one’s own people more than all others, and the worker to be sure, so that it can hold its own among them. If this people is to hold its own against the rest of the world, it must wish and work for the health of each member, to see that things go as well as possible for each individual, and therefore the whole. But then I am a socialist! And I cannot be a socialist without working to be sure that my people can defend itself from attacks by other 365

peoples, and to secure its foundations for life, without working for the greatness of my people, thereby also being a nationalist. The strength and significance of my people is the foundation for the prosperity of the individual.Therefore, you are National Socialists.”– Hitler Tatsachen und Lügen um Hitler (Munich: Franz Eher, 1932).

The Fabian Left-wing ideology championed by GB Shaw unerringly mirrored the Nazi doctrine of eugenics. First his comments on the extermination of the socially incompatible: “The notion that persons should be safe from extermination as long as they do not commit wilful murder, or levy war against the Crown, or kidnap, or throw vitriol, is not only to limit social responsibility unnecessarily, and to privilege the large range of intolerable misconduct that lies outside them, but to divert attention from the essential justification for extermination, which is always incorrigible social incompatibility and nothing else.”- “On the Rocks” (1933), Preface. Second his use of gas chambers: “We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment. A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.” -Lecture to the Eugenics Education Society, Reported in The Daily Express, March 4, 1910. Killing those unfit to live: “The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way. Is it any wonder that some of us are driven to prescribe the lethal chamber as the solution for the hard cases which are at present made the excuse for dragging all the other cases down to their level, and the 366

only solution that will create a sense of full social responsibility in modern populations?” Prefaces (London: Constable and Co., 1934), p. 296. And a final quote on his attitude to Hitler recorded in a newspaper article dated 11/24/33: “Still calling himself a good Socialist and a democrat, George Bernard Shaw sang praises of Chancellor Hitler and dictators generally in the annual Fabian lecture tonight. He aroused loud laughter when he said Herr Hitler’s face was a clue to his greatness. But he ignored the laughs and tried to convince his Socialist audience with all the seriousness of a lay preacher in his voice and gestures.”

“The permanent expression of that face of Hitler is intense resentment. That is an expression every statesman ought to have. Our own statesmen look too pleased, too comfortable, too courteous in surroundings that should make them boil with rage.” Finally: “Describing Chancellor Hitler as “a very remarkable, very able man” Mr Shaw said he had the genius to realise “Germany had been kicked long enough.” “Wouldn’t you all be Nazi in England”, he asked, “if you were in the same place, if a vicious treaty had been imposed on you by foreign powers and if you had been told you could not carry a dagger but you would be allowed to carry a popgun?” Chancellor Hitler’s greatest failing, according to Mr Shaw, is his “bad biology and bogus ethnology”, in not realising the dangers of an inbred race and the advantages of mass (sic) fertilisation.” “Instead of exterminating the Jews”, Mr Shaw continued, “he should have said, ‘I will tolerate Jews to any extent as long as no Jew marries a Jewess.’ That is how he could build up a strong, solid German people.” Oswald Mosley, the British Fascist and admirer of Mussolini and Hitler, 367

was a former Labourite as well as a onetime disenchanted Conservative. His views on politics, Fascism and a European super state earned him comparison as a proto British Hitler. His views may be summarised thus: “I am not, and never have been, a man of the right. My position was on the left and is now in the centre of politics.” “Fascism was an explosion against intolerable conditions, against remediable wrongs which the old world failed to remedy. It was a movement to secure national renaissance by people who felt themselves threatened with decline into decadence and death and were determined to live and live greatly.”- Oswald Mosley excerpts from “My Life” 1968. “The National Socialist creed says to our countrymen, ‘If you love our country you are national, and if you love our people you are socialist’.” - Quoted from “Tomorrow we Live”- 1938, the manifesto of the British Union Party. “Our aim was Europe a Nation, our faith European Socialism.” -Oswold Mosley 1951.

The old Socialist mantra of the Left/Right paradigm is dead. Fascism and Communism are but two faces of the same statist coin. Statism is the enemy of liberty and democracy. The new opposition is the same as it has always been and can be expressed in the new term that acknowledges the synthesis: Fascialism. There now exists the choice between Fascialism (EU Statism/ Corporate Socialism) versus Individualism or more ideally Constitutionalism expressed in its ideal form as a nation state republic. This is a choice between state-controlled tyranny or liberty and constitutionally limited government. Alternatively, it can be identified as a








Internationalism (international Socialism). In the light of this, it is particularly galling to witness the present 368

vilification by the EU, or Russia, and so many in the mainstream press, who label all political parties that display opposition to their state collective aims as “extreme right” or “far right” fascists. In the use of this term, they often invoke a smear association also with the term “nationalist”, “extreme populist” and “Right wing” by extension. They do this to procure their own Socialist state-centric political agenda. This is furthered with a shaming associated with the Holocaust. One has, however, only to consider the utterances of Mussolini and Hitler to realise this association is a mere subterfuge. It is a subterfuge that has no recourse to a moral ethic for the championing of personal human rights. For it is their ultimate aspiration to seek a supposed utopia where the individual and any notion of individual identity protected under Constitutional law is to be ultimately suppressed, recontextualised and revalued only in their utility to the needs of the state. Individual identity thence becomes submerged in the name of statism, for the political agenda of the supra national state. In this they promote a supra-national socialist fascism: a national fascism writ large and one far more compatible with the ideals and aims of a Communist/ Socialist model than any brand of true constitutionalism, with its emphasis on individualism, liberty, small government, nation state democracy and free market capitalism.

The game plan to dominate Europe Aleksandr Dugin has already published his own game plan for domination of Europe in a plan he terms “the Russian Spring”. It is presented as one of three scenarios for resolution of the current Ukrainian crisis. The other two, in which the Kremlin prevaricates in the face of Western pressure, 369

could result in thermonuclear war or at least complete global chaos. Considering this, Dugin’s strategy for the Russian Spring can be summarised by his followers in ten points. This has now been taken down from his Facebook page, but it gives a clear indication of the pragmatic and real-world intentions of the movement and how dangerous it really is. It has in any case been recorded in translation by Robert Zubrin (March 10, 2014 10:38 PM) in the National Review. 1. Kiev takes a waiting position, concentrates its troops on the border with the Crimea, and threatens, but takes no direct action. The U.S. strongly pressures Russia, freezing accounts, and actively wages a propaganda war, but they and NATO avoid direct clashes. Kiev receives substantial support from the West but focuses on domestic issues. The border with Russia is closed. The referendum in the Crimea on whether to join Russia passes with minimal problems. The vast majority are for joining Russia. No country recognises the referendum except Russia. Russia raises the question of retaliation if it does not receive Crimea into Russia. Both chambers of the Duma promptly ratify the annexation. Crimea is returned to Russia. Russian forces enter. The West in turn exerts strong pressure on Russia. Militants in the North Caucasus and the 5 th Column in Moscow are activated. Putin is supported by everyone. His popularity among the people increases. This helps him cope with internal challenges. 2. In eastern Ukraine, Kiev starts to take tough punitive measures. There is a straight nationalist dictatorship. Individuals attempt to attack Crimea or commit acts of sabotage. They start taking revenge on Russians and the Russian-speaking east and south for the loss of Crimea. This leads to the onset of resistance. The second phase of Ukrainian drama begins: envisioned as the Battle for a “New Russia”. People wake up and act quickly. Ukraine establishes a state of emergency, in connection with what is defined as “Muscovite aggression.” The last traces of democracy are abolished. Elections are held in May in wartime. 3. The nationalists arrange a series of terrorist attacks in Russia. In Russia itself, the regime evolves, and starts to clean out the 5 th Column. 4. In Novorossia, resistance increases and gradually moves to the phase of direct rebellion against the Kiev henchmen. There is a bloody civil war. Russia deploys a massive effective support structure; symmetrically the 370

West supports Kiev. At a certain moment, in response to the sabotage in Russia and bloody actions of the nationalists and the repressive apparatus of Kiev against civilians and the east of Ukraine, Russia sends its troops into the east. The West threatens nuclear war. This is the existential moment for Putin, but he cannot stop. Going hard (possibly with heavy losses), Novorossia is liberated. The Left-bank Ukraine is conquered, with its border along the Dnieper. A new government is founded: for example, Ukraine or Novorossia, or a version of Crimea under Russian control may be repeated. 5. The Right-bank Ukraine, which does not recognise secession (as Yugoslavia under Milosevic and later Serbia against Kosovo), forms a new de facto Ukraine-2 state. NATO bases are immediately located on its territory, stopping the possibility of Russian move to Kiev. 6. The new nationalistic Ukrainian government quickly comes to a crisis. Direct clashes begin between ethnic groups (Ruthenians, Hungarians, Poles, Romanians, other minorities) and on political grounds (power loss blamed for half the territories of Ukraine). The state weakens. The process of new secessions begins. 7. Russia does not stop there, but carries activity into Europe, acting as

the main element of the European “Conservative” Revolution. Europe starts to crack: Some countries are behind the U.S., but more often begin to listen to Russia. Against the background of the financial crisis, Russia’s position becomes more attractive. Russia takes on the role of protectorate for multipolarity, continentalism, and new “conservatism” of Dugin’s new political theory. 8. In Western Ukraine, Ukraine-2, a pro-European (pro-German) political force comes to power that begins to soften anti-Russian policy and moves away from the U.S. 9. Across Europe, the de-Americanisation process begins. An autonomous European armed force is created independent of NATO on the basis of the German Armed Forces and the French. 10. Finally a new great Continental Association is formed, as a confederation of Europe and Eurasia, the European Union and the Eurasian Union. Russian, Ukrainians and Europeans are on one side of the barricades, the Americans on the other. American hegemony and dominance of the dollar as well as domination of Atlanticism, liberalism and the financial oligarchy comes to an end. A new page in world history begins. The Slavs are reunited not against Europe, but with Europe in the 371

framework of a multipolar polycentric world stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok.

The Satanic cult of the new Eurasianism In order to be united “from Lisbon to Vladivostok” Eurasia will need a defining ideology, which Dugin’s “Fourth Political Theory” is supposed to fulfil. This has a politic0-philosophical dimension in its synthesis of Communism, National Socialism, Ecologism, Traditionalism, but also offers








Christian/Satanic occult mysticism. This presumably is an attempt to satisfy the adherents of all of these diverse anti-liberal cults in an attempt to make it popular and to swell its ranks. In this rather eclectic embrace of numerous belief systems, he also professes a fondness for occultism and Christian Cabbalism, neo-Platonic philosophy and Eastern religions, presumably to capture the Islamic influence as a political force. His metaphysical ideas betray him, however, not as a friend to Islam, but as essentially anti-Islamic. In this he is not simply the Russian Orthodox Christian he claims to be, but an admirer of Heideggerean inspired nihilism. An appeal he takes further with an almost morbid and subversive obsession with cannibalism, the anti-Christ and the supposed virtues of self-immolation, slaughter and death. In purely philosophical terms, Dugin’s existential and metaphysical concerns lead him to posit an active nihilism. His appeal to the virtues of Chaos to resolve the decay of Logos and cure the malady of Being is a solution originating from the prime concern of Heidegger’s that a fundamental confusion between Logos and Being has haunted western civilisation since its inception. In this, Dugin’s choice of Chaos as a solution is positively anti-Christian. His language often appears not 372

simply to seek Logos’ salvation, but to elevate Chaos as the prime principle itself. His appeal to Chaos, rather than his Christian faith that emphasises the eternal value of Logos, represents in some very frightening sense a direct insult to centuries of Christian and Islamic scholarship. What Russia needs claims Dugin is a “genuine, true, radically revolutionary and consistent, fascist fascism.” Whereas Liberalism “is an absolute evil” and “should be destroyed.” To achieve this Dugin’s Eurasianism intends to become a popular “mass movement” but appears radically at odds in its corrupt spiritual philosophy with the belief system he proclaims as a Christian and the canon of the Orthodox Church. His Christian faith appears to be a mere pose to further its subversion not salvation. It even appears to be an active deceit to corrupt Christianity itself. His appeal to the metaphysics and geo-political creed of Chaos, rather than Logos, appears to be almost a Satanic affirmation of the kind he invents in his pre-occupation with the Anti-Christ symbolism of Rene Guenon and his concern with the “counter hierarchy”,158 an inversion of the philosophical tenets of rationality and order that have sustained and developed Western civilisation for centuries. It is not an exaggeration to 158

Rene Guenon p 325-326 “The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times”: “one can already see sketched out in various productions of indubitably ‘counter initiatic origin’, or inspiration the idea of an organisation, which would be like the counterpart, but by the same token also the counterfeit, of a tradition conception such as the Holy Empire and some such organisation must become the expression of this counter tradition in the social order, and for similar reasons the Anti-Christ must appear like something that could be called, using the language of the Hindu tradition, an inverted Chaktavarti…His time will certain no longer be the reign of quantity…it will be on the contrary be marked on the retet of a false spiritual restoration by a sort of reintroduction of quality in all things, but of quality inverted in respect to its normal and legitimate significance. After the egalitarianism of our times there will be again be a visibly established hierarchy, but an inverted hierarchy, indeed a real “counter hierarchy”, the summit of which will be occupied by the being who will in reality be situated nearer than any other being to the very bottom of the pit of Hell.” 373

say that Dugin’s intended goal, his primary imperative and end purpose, is a kind of self-inflicted Armageddon. He seeks to hasten the End of the World, and proclaims, as the Anti-Christ might, that this will be a productive and creative act of purging and salvation. The accomplishment of that end is dependent, he believes, on the implementation of his radical ideology in not just spiritual and philosophical terms, but in military terms also. His philosophical nihilism is encapsulated in his general call to kill. As Dugin has proclaimed in his book, “The Fourth Political Theory”: “The end times and the eschatological meaning of politics will not realise themselves on their own. We will wait for the end in vain. The end will never come if we wait for it, and it will never come if we do not. If the Fourth Political Practice is not able to realise the end of times, then it would be invalid. The end of days should come, but it will not come by itself. This is a task, it is not a certainty. It is an active metaphysics. It is a practice.” This desire to bring about the end of the world is not a new strain in his thought. It has been carefully considered for years. He cannot take refuge in the claim, therefore, that it is a proposition he conceived in haste, nor that he simply offers it for mere academic consideration. It is however fundamentally misconceived, and representative of a violent mind. It represents the prime premise of his philosophical ethos and shows a shocking perversion of his Christian faith. His appeal to Chaos represents an intellectual call to worship at the altar of Satan and a call for the immersion of Christ in a Chaos principle to supposedly resurrect it and create a new Chaos-God-Logos trinity. A bizarre notion, that calls into question his claim he finds something intrinsically evil and corrupt in the liberal values of Western culture: a culture which in its origins rests on a fundamentally Judeo-Christian tradition, which at least as 374

originally conceived founded and propagated his own faith. His further claim too is a deceit when he asserts that in the geographic region of the Western hemisphere resides the Anti-Christ. This again is taken from ideas that in

fact locate it in regions of the East and in some cases specifically Russia. 159 Dugin’s eschatological view borrows from Manicheanism, a dualistic form of Gnosticism, which views the world as a binary of spiritual forces: the forces of light battling with the material forces of evil. Into this cauldron, Dugin mixes Christian concepts, oft repeating the notion that the West is the realm of the “Antichrist” and Chaos and Death represent some perverse form of salvation, as Guenon emphasises, with a battleground of equally matched forces of good and evil. This is a divine enterprise as Dugin asserts: “The meaning of Russia is that through the Russian people will be realised the last thought of God, the thought of the End of the World. Death is the way to immortality. Love will begin when the world ends. We must long for it, like true Christians. We are uprooting the accursed Tree of Knowledge. With it will perish the Universe.” As O de Carvalho correctly states, Dugin’s reading of Guénon is a perversion. It is so because he never interpreted the East-West symbolism as a duality in the Manichean sense. As a scholar of the Islamic tradition also, he always took into consideration one of the most renowned ahadith: one in which the Islamic prophet pointing towards the East states: “The Antichrist will come from there.” In this, among the main centres of diffusion of “counter initiation” (as Guénon called them) none are located in the West (the claim made by Dugin); but as Professor Carvalho notes of Guenon’s view in his “The USA and the New World Order” debate with Dugin, there is one in Sudan, one in Nigeria, one in Syria, one in Iraq, one in Turkestan (inside the former USSR) and two in the Urals, well within Russian territory. Projected on a map, the Seven Towers form the exact contour of the constellation of Ursa Major: the Great Bear, and Russia’s national emblem. This represents, in traditional symbolism, the military class (Kshatriya) as a cyclical rebellion against spiritual authority. It adds further to his derogation (via the displacement of Logos with an emphasis on Chaos) of Islamic scholarship, Eastern religious theology and the whole Logocentric tradition of Christianity since the time of the New Testament’s identification in John (1 v1) of Christ with it. Generally, his theorising and his willingness to implement and encourage military action and responsible slaughter to kick start the End Times scenario signifies a disturbing portent of the future. 159


Dugin is keen to initiate this third, and final, age. As ever it is envisaged as a tripartite dialect progression: a view so beloved of the Bolshevik and Marxist intellectuals of the past. He writes in “The Metaphysics of National-Bolshevism”: “Beyond ‘rights’ and ‘lefts,’ there’s one and indivisible Revolution, in the dialectical triad ‘third Rome — Third Reich — third International.” The realm of national-bolshevism, the “Regnum”, their “Empire of the End”, is viewed as the perfect accomplishment of “the greatest Revolution of history”. It is considered both a continental and universal one. It is the: “angels’ return, the heroes’ resurrection, the heart’s uprising against the reason’s dictatorship. This last revolution is a concern of the acephal, the headless bearer of the cross, sickle and hammer, crowned by eternal sun fylfot. This “Empire of the End” is marked by the “dialectical triad” which combines “Third Rome — Third Reich — Third International.” All the expectations of historic Russian messianic delusions, combined with the Joachimite aims of National Socialism and Soviet Bolshevism supposedly find their highest expression in this new ideology. Its symbolic representation is found, for Dugin, in the occult symbol of the eightpointed “Star of Chaos” as an emblem and flag of the new Eurasianist movement. As James Heiser asserts in his “The American Empire Should Be Destroyed: Alexander Dugin and the Perils of Immanentized Eschatology”: “For Dugin, logos is replaced by chaos, and the very symbol of chaos magic is the symbol of Eurasia: ‘Logos has expired and we all will be buried under its ruins unless we make an appeal to chaos and its metaphysical principles, and use them as a basis for something new.’ Dugin dressed his discussion of logos in the language of Heidegger, but his terminology cannot be read outside of a 2,000-year-old Western, biblical tradition which associates the Logos with the Christ, and Dugin’s invocation of chaos against logos leads to certain inevitable conclusions regarding his doctrines.” 376

In short, Dugin’s Eurasianism is a cult of Chaos. Whilst he would not admit it himself logically too it is a cult of the anti-Christ. It is a dark project, which threatens not only the prospects for peace and stability in Ukraine and Russia, but the peace of the entire world. As to the implementation of its practise evil and bloody rituals appear to be his preferred choice. In his article “Responsibility to Kill” he pontificates on the ethics of war and during the course of battle enthuses: “We could freely use animal food only if we agree to eat human flesh, in any form symbolically or directly. There are African tribes on West Atlantic shores who breed human slaves to eat them. I find it perfectly reasonable and perfectly responsible. If we kill animals by our hands, contemplate them suffering and dying, cut off their skin and separate bones, touching their inner organs, or if we vividly imagine that act each time when we eat our meal, we are completely sane, and we could proceed eventually applying in wars the same attitude towards humans. In the war it is essential to take responsibility for the act of killing. The very similar responsibility is connected to the act of eating animal food. But animal signifies sentient, that presupposes suffering. Let us do it with full responsibility- eating as well as fighting in one word- the responsibility of killing, or abstain, it is a free choice.”

A chilling ethic that can only be justified by a man of evil in both the moral and intellectual spheres. The beginning of this process begins in the real world and with military action as appropriate. In 2008, before war broke out between Russia and Georgia, Dugin proclaimed: “Our troops will occupy the Georgian capital Tblisi, the entire country and perhaps Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula which historically belongs to Russia anyway.” It is clear, therefore, that the Eurasianists’ view requires capturing Ukraine as the next short-term objective in the longer-term quest for geopolitical and spiritual power. Without Ukraine, Dugin’s fascist 377

Eurasian Union project is hamstrung and sooner or later Russia itself would most probably have to join the West. With Ukraine under Russian control, however, the chances of a Eurasianist project succeeding are greatly increased. Full implementation of the strategy would usher in a new Russian empire, but with it a new totalitarianism that would imprison a large swathe of humanity in the grip of a Russian dictatorial power. This is viewed in some fundamental and spiritual sense as superior. Pragmatically, however, it would mean another Cold War, trillions of dollars wasted on accruing military arms, a need for increased nationalsecurity state at home, less personal freedom, repeated conflicts costing millions of lives abroad and more generally an increased risk of nuclear war.


The Dialectic of Deceit: subversion strategies for the construction of a New World Order  

The Dialectic of Deceit: subversion strategies for the construction of a New World Order

The Dialectic of Deceit: subversion strategies for the construction of a New World Order  

The Dialectic of Deceit: subversion strategies for the construction of a New World Order