Jump to content


Photo

ORIGINS OF THE FOURTH WORLD WAR


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#21 Guest_Wallis_*

Guest_Wallis_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 June 2006 - 06:49 PM

When I attended Officer Training School, I did a book report on General Sir John Hackett's book The Third World War: August 1985. It had rave reviews in the media, and there was a chorus of folks who went around crying: "Yea, verily."

"How disappointing" that this war or anything like it materialized. Same with any other depiction of a hypothetical Fourth World War. It does not mean that human beings should "bury their heads in the sand" and hope that nothing will happen. But one must also use the tools of analysis and international relations to conduct a logical critique of the real world.

While you may be correct in your assessment in the amount of energy it would take to scorch the Earth literally, I have some faith in the scientific assessment of the aftermath of a nuclear exchange that will create the nuclear winter that will reduce the human population significantly. To a point where the survivors will have wished that they had perished. To a point where the survivors will question why such a war was started in the first place. What was gained? Absolutely nothing.

What is the first rule in in warfare? Winning a war where no one dies. What with all of the armament, pounding on the chest, right now, WWIV is more of a psychological war to see who will blink first. Next to that, it is ensuring that the borders of a nation do not change and the people within are kept under control. The breakup of the Soviet Union into various states was "horrifying" to the Russian elite. It is understandable that they want to reunionize even more than President Lincoln refused to allow a breakup of the U.S. And China is more fragile than the West believes. Always has been; always will be. A breakup of its country back to the old status quo of two or three nations would be absolutely disasterous for them; and a war of any kind will simply hasten that inevitable breakup.

#22 Shawna11

Shawna11

    Member

  • Admin
  • 810 posts

Posted 16 June 2006 - 01:51 AM

Wallis,
Have you actually read the book? Are you basing your assessment of it on the "reviews given here" rather than on the book itself?
Nyquist does indeed address the arguments you make.


Please answer the question. Origins of the Fourth World War addresses the points you're making. If you find fault with specific arguments JRN makes, please expound upon them here.

Wallis: ". . . one must also use the tools of analysis and international relations to conduct a logical critique of the real world."


That is precisely what JRN does in his book.

#23 Guest_Wallis_*

Guest_Wallis_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 June 2006 - 05:30 AM

No, I have not yet read the book. Try finding anything of interest here is a real chore, and my current finances are not up to funding a two-month's wait from Amazon through the mail, not to mention the $18 list price.

Admitedly, I am basing my comments, as neutral as I am attempting to be here, on the comments made previously. Generally, if the author is indeed using the tools I afore mentioned, and still generate the previous comments about the book, then I remain in a skeptical mode at this time. If he has indeed utilized these tools, I feel that he has glossed over much of reality to feed current and popular conspiratorial theories (see Mark A. Laughlin's review comments below).

Interesting still is that no one has bothered posting any reviews of the book on Amazon.com.

I have researched for reviews on the book, and what I have found were blatant advertisements to promote the book, much as I might have done for my own. Then we have Mark A. Laughlin's review; it is obvious that he is in "bed" with such expressed "dark-side" views. Democracy can't support or protect . . . my ass! Just fringe sentiment within the US to bring it down and create something even worse. And then we have Chuck Missler who adds a touch of Christian-like religious touches into his review, which smacks of a growing desire on the Western population for an "end-all" apocalypse. But then with my background that qualifies me as a theologian would bring down the "heavens and earth" around my shoulders when I counsel that people should abandon the mythological and deal solely with the realities of human nature, history, and current human events.

All I'm saying is this: as a political analyst and a military intelligence officer for many years, I have come to the conclusion that no sane person and no sane government wants war. Not even the kooky North Koreans with whom I have come to know very well or Iran or the PRC or Russia. Everyone wants a piece of the pie, and they will attempt within bounds to grab as much as they can; but in this current age, no governement is that suicidal where it will risk its survival. Saddam tried to play it cool. Had he listened to the Russians, he'd still be in power.

And it is so "funny" to read that the US (meaning the brains that are running the government and keeping it safe) is so "stupid" as to be duped when a few fellows run around the world with all the truth in their hot little hands. I cannot help as to decide who is more stupid or has been more duped.

#24 Shawna11

Shawna11

    Member

  • Admin
  • 810 posts

Posted 16 June 2006 - 12:05 PM

No, I have not yet read the book. Try finding anything of interest here is a real chore, and my current finances are not up to funding a two-month's wait from Amazon through the mail, not to mention the $18 list price.


I got mine for $5 from World Net Daily. They still have copies, the last I checked.

. . . people should abandon the mythological and deal solely with the realities of human nature, history, and current human events.


I really do think you'll find, once you've read the book, that JRN has done exactly this.

#25 Guest_Wallis_*

Guest_Wallis_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 June 2006 - 07:01 PM

I will say this: NyQuist has probably piqued the imagination and interest of many people, and for some he might be ringing alarm bells. Fine. No problem. But from the limited number of reviews of the book and the tone of the reviews, I'm not going to run out and buy it right now, simply because of my financial situation. Maybe next year.

The PRC and North Korea were my primary "targets of interest" for decades. While my peers and superiors were crying out in alarm that war was imminent, I painstakingly constructed an argument as to why war was not imminent and how to keep war from breaking out. And, guess what? I have been right on.

I'm not trying to toot my own horn, but in conjunction with creating hypothetical scenarios of the breakout of war, one needs to also create scenarios that will prevent war and at the same time build international relationships that promote harmony (as well as humans can get along) and a continued peace.

#26 bm_cali

bm_cali

    Member

  • Admin
  • 3,905 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Francisco hinterlands, USA
  • Interests:Winning the next world war. General curmudgeon-ship.

Posted 20 June 2006 - 05:16 PM

When I attended Officer Training School, I did a book report on General Sir John Hackett's book The Third World War: August 1985. It had rave reviews in the media, and there was a chorus of folks who went around crying: "Yea, verily."

"How disappointing" that this war or anything like it materialized. Same with any other depiction of a hypothetical Fourth World War. It does not mean that human beings should "bury their heads in the sand" and hope that nothing will happen. But one must also use the tools of analysis and international relations to conduct a logical critique of the real world.


You must be of the pacifist ilk. It is clear that you have an ideological opposition to war. Whereas, I have no ideology one way or the other. War, to me, is like picking up the dog excrement, or pulling weeds. An unpleasant but sometimes necessary task. It is best to take all emotion and sentimentalism out of the matter of war. War is an inevitable conquence of human nature. Man cannot be perfected on Earth, Man is fallen and fundamentally flawed. Read Burke for more of this ....

While you may be correct in your assessment in the amount of energy it would take to scorch the Earth literally, I have some faith in the scientific assessment of the aftermath of a nuclear exchange that will create the nuclear winter that will reduce the human population significantly. To a point where the survivors will have wished that they had perished. To a point where the survivors will question why such a war was started in the first place. What was gained? Absolutely nothing.


How old are you? The reason I ask is, this is a highly classical view, obviously born of the fiction of MAD. The MAD fiction served as a convenient excuse for being geopolitically naive and for embracing the wishful thinking that all future pretenders to global conquest would end up feeling the sick feeling we innately empathic Americans felt after we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One cannot underestimate the degree to which our winning of the WW2 WMD race resulted in a persistent guilt complex. And, being the way we Americans always are, we assume that any future Atomic Napolean will be prevented by the prospect of experiencing the sick feeling and guilt, from ever using the beastly weapon. One other statement you made, regarding the now discredited "nuclear winter" idea, marks you as someone who either heard, or received the notion of, the physicist turned quack, Carl Sagan. Nothing like the liberal mass media to take a good man and convince him that fame and fortune merits quack boobery.

What is the first rule in in warfare? Winning a war where no one dies.


Alas, here, you have marked yourself as yet another who seeks the permanent death of the ideas of Von Clausewitz. Such ideas are always the lurking dark cloud that points out the silliness of humanistic, globalist utopianism. Be it the League of Nations, the UN or some future ship of intellectual fools, the need to discredit one of the two men who ever wrote truly great and honest things about war, is a seeming necessity for the modernist utopian. I digress. The first rule of warfare is to utterly destroy the enemies means of making war and to take away his supports. There is no other rule.

What with all of the armament, pounding on the chest, right now, WWIV is more of a psychological war to see who will blink first. Next to that, it is ensuring that the borders of a nation do not change and the people within are kept under control. The breakup of the Soviet Union into various states was "horrifying" to the Russian elite. It is understandable that they want to reunionize even more than President Lincoln refused to allow a breakup of the U.S. And China is more fragile than the West believes. Always has been; always will be. A breakup of its country back to the old status quo of two or three nations would be absolutely disasterous for them; and a war of any kind will simply hasten that inevitable breakup.


China is part of a new Axis. So is Russia and others. What part of this do you not comprehend? It really is that simple. Alas, you are in kind with the crowd who counseled appeasement during the UK's disasterous failures to prepare for WW2. Some people never learn.

#27 Guest_Wallis_*

Guest_Wallis_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 June 2006 - 06:44 PM

Nope. Missed on all accounts bm_cali. I quoted Sun Tzu. Not a pacifist by a long shot. Been in two hot wars. Been a military intelligence analyst and a international relations specialist for more than two decades.

I have asked a friend to send me the book. I will read it, and then I will formulate further comments.

I will say this: I do not jump quickly to conclusions that there is an axis of any kind and lump particular nations into one "side" or another, that certain leaders have created a collusion with a single design and are fully cooperating with each other towards an end goal. Didn't work in WWII. Didn't work in Korea. Didn't work in Vietnam. Didn't work in Gulf War I or II. In each case, each participating nation in the conflict had its own agenda that often did not coincide hand-in-glove with so-called allies.

There are definitely adversaries, and each of them require thorough study and watching. I, for one, do not view the world in simplistic terms but try to look for all the ramifications behind surface developments, actions, published statements, covert operations, et. al.

All I am saying is that to lump Russia, the PRC, North Korea, and others into an axis bent on combining their military forces into a concentrated attack upon the United States (and other Western nations) is an over simplification of real-world events, agendas, and goals.

Oh, BTW, I'm 57.

#28 bm_cali

bm_cali

    Member

  • Admin
  • 3,905 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Francisco hinterlands, USA
  • Interests:Winning the next world war. General curmudgeon-ship.

Posted 20 June 2006 - 08:02 PM

Yes by all means, read the book.

Obviously Allies and Axis are models. But deny it though you may, the SCO is the most dangerous Axis to ever arise.

I would expect the SCO to demonstrate the highest level of coordination ever shown. Its leaders are substantially more sophisticated than Stalin and Hitler were. They are far less likely to stab each others' backs in the midst of war against the West. After that, who knows.

Nope. Missed on all accounts bm_cali. I quoted Sun Tzu. Not a pacifist by a long shot. Been in two hot wars. Been a military intelligence analyst and a international relations specialist for more than two decades.

I have asked a friend to send me the book. I will read it, and then I will formulate further comments.

I will say this: I do not jump quickly to conclusions that there is an axis of any kind and lump particular nations into one "side" or another, that certain leaders have created a collusion with a single design and are fully cooperating with each other towards an end goal. Didn't work in WWII. Didn't work in Korea. Didn't work in Vietnam. Didn't work in Gulf War I or II. In each case, each participating nation in the conflict had its own agenda that often did not coincide hand-in-glove with so-called allies.

There are definitely adversaries, and each of them require thorough study and watching. I, for one, do not view the world in simplistic terms but try to look for all the ramifications behind surface developments, actions, published statements, covert operations, et. al.

All I am saying is that to lump Russia, the PRC, North Korea, and others into an axis bent on combining their military forces into a concentrated attack upon the United States (and other Western nations) is an over simplification of real-world events, agendas, and goals.

Oh, BTW, I'm 57.



#29 Guest_jaxxen_*

Guest_jaxxen_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 June 2006 - 08:12 PM

Nope. Missed on all accounts bm_cali. I quoted Sun Tzu. Not a pacifist by a long shot. Been in two hot wars. Been a military intelligence analyst and a international relations specialist for more than two decades.

I have asked a friend to send me the book. I will read it, and then I will formulate further comments.

Welcome to the forum, Wallis. I look forward to reading your analysis. From someone with your background, it should be most interesting. I recently bought and read Nyquist's Origins Of the Fourth World War myself. I read it with a very open mind, but was very disappointed with it, and unconvinced by his basic thesis that the communists are intending a nuclear first strike.

Anatoliy Golitsyn made it pretty clear that "The Final Phase" was about political convergence with the non-communist world - not nuclear obliteration. (Although the Russkies being the cunning devils they are will continue to keep open that option should they choose to utilise it).

However, one must ask the question, why do they need to? Many of their goals are already being achieved. There's now a unified Europe that is fast becoming a totalitarian state, as are many Western countries. The USA has already isolated itself from a lot of the world, thanks to the war in Iraq. Mass immigration of third world non-whites will continue to divide and weaken the West.

The next phase of the KGB plan will be economic. But I doubt very much that they're in any hurry for that. The priority at the moment is to see China's continued economic, military and technological progress.

#30 bm_cali

bm_cali

    Member

  • Admin
  • 3,905 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Francisco hinterlands, USA
  • Interests:Winning the next world war. General curmudgeon-ship.

Posted 20 June 2006 - 09:43 PM

The reason why the anti Western groups hate the West is due to our liberalism. Even at the worst case level of Western socialist populism (e.g. the "tyranny" of political correctness) it is still, at its root, a fundamentally bourgeois, liberal, intellectual thing. So long as any element of Western civilization exists, including these sorts of weak areas, those who hate us will seek our liquidation.

Your views remind me strongly of those of both America Firsters as well as Brown Shirts, during the late 1930s. It would appear that you are into a sort of self loathing - e.g. "the West is already evil / communist / etc" - and in your view, therefore, we are "just as bad as" our enemies. This is dangerous territory to get into. It can corrupt your mind.

Welcome to the forum, Wallis. I look forward to reading your analysis. From someone with your background, it should be most interesting. I recently bought and read Nyquist's Origins Of the Fourth World War myself. I read it with a very open mind, but was very disappointed with it, and unconvinced by his basic thesis that the communists are intending a nuclear first strike.

Anatoliy Golitsyn made it pretty clear that "The Final Phase" was about political convergence with the non-communist world - not nuclear obliteration. (Although the Russkies being the cunning devils they are will continue to keep open that option should they choose to utilise it).

However, one must ask the question, why do they need to? Many of their goals are already being achieved. There's now a unified Europe that is fast becoming a totalitarian state, as are many Western countries. The USA has already isolated itself from a lot of the world, thanks to the war in Iraq. Mass immigration of third world non-whites will continue to divide and weaken the West.

The next phase of the KGB plan will be economic. But I doubt very much that they're in any hurry for that. The priority at the moment is to see China's continued economic, military and technological progress.



#31 Guest_Wallis_*

Guest_Wallis_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 June 2006 - 12:19 AM

Define liberalism?

Could you possibly mean Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religious Worship, Freedom of Public Assembly, and the lot?

Of course the despots of the world would be against such ideas. One loses complete control when the masses are allowed to think for themselves!

Jaxxen reiterates the essential question: why do they need to?

One only needs to look at the PRC to understand how they have evolved from a form of Communism to a form of Capitalism that has tremendously transformed their nation into the 21st Century. And let us not forget how the PRC milks the West for technology, commerce, and trade. The West is really a golden goose for these people. And no one wants to kill the golden goose in hopes of getting all the golden eggs at one time.

#32 Guest_Wallis_*

Guest_Wallis_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 June 2006 - 12:40 AM

I would like to see how American Firsters, a concept supporting isolationism, closure of immigration, autarky (if it can be implemented painlessly), and other actions intended to preserve a traditional cultural identity, etc., ties into anything that has been posted here.

If anything, regardless of how one views a book and the opinions relating to, I have seen the complete opposite of the term being bandied about (American Firsters). No post thus far has even suggested that America revert back to 19th Century political thinking.

#33 Shawna11

Shawna11

    Member

  • Admin
  • 810 posts

Posted 21 June 2006 - 02:10 AM

from Jaxxen: "However, one must ask the question, why do they need to? Many of their goals are already being achieved. There's now a unified Europe that is fast becoming a totalitarian state, as are many Western countries. The USA has already isolated itself from a lot of the world, thanks to the war in Iraq. Mass immigration of third world non-whites will continue to divide and weaken the West. . .
The next phase of the KGB plan will be economic.



They "need to," in part, because WMD not only exist, but are proliferating.

from Origins of the Fourth World War: "In an age of mass destruction aggressive military action has built-in advantages. When weapons can depopulate entire continents, a first strike may be the last and only strike--winner take all. Circumstance itself therefore dictates an ideology of attack, an ideology of palpable objectives like those advocated by Hitler in Mein Kampf. In other words, the voice of history itself becomes perverted and favors the monster, the devourer, and the preemptive imperialist. Whereas in the First World War the weakness of offensive arms led to a repudiation of imperialism and militarism, in the Fourth World War the weakness of defensive arms will dictate that every ideology become imperial, or perish . . ." p. 240

"When presented with a well-reasoned proof for the inevitability of a world nuclear war, our composure disappears and emotion creeps into our counterargument. Rationalizations, dishonest dismissals, hunchbacked and limping bits of fact appear throughout. . . One finds, as a standard quip, that nobody is stupid enough to start a nuclear war, that nobody wants to die, that it is unhealthy to think about such things, that only fools study the subject, and only fearful neurotics predicate themselves upon it. Each of these responses refuses to say anything sensible about the reality of nuclear rockets: their purpose, their irrevocable existence, their seductive power over the minds of would-be atomic Napoleons. Nobody seems to notice that all the arguments against the inevitability of nuclear war are patently false and ridiculous: that many men are quite stupid enough to start a nuclear war, or intelligent enough, as the case may be. So feeble is our age of doubt that we no longer think it conceivable that some men are willing to die for their beliefs, and are willing to murder for them. . ." p. 83


The very way Jaxxen's statement is worded (i.e., "Many of their goals are already being achieved . . .The next phase of the KGB plan will be economic") implies a series of goals--but, one must ask, leading toward what ultimate end? What will "political convergence" look like--and to what extent will mere "convergence" satisfy a totalitarian system?

from Wallis: "One only needs to look at the PRC to understand how they have evolved from a form of Communism to a form of Capitalism that has tremendously transformed their nation into the 21st Century. And let us not forget how the PRC milks the West for technology, commerce, and trade. The West is really a golden goose for these people. And no one wants to kill the golden goose in hopes of getting all the golden eggs at one time.


This is essentially a materialist view of history in its assumption that geopolitics can be boiled down to economic concerns. This is not, as a rule, why men fight wars--or, for that matter, try to avoid them.

"Whatever starts wars,"says Chesterton in The Everlasting Man, "the thing that sustains them is something in the soul, something that is akin to religion. It is what men feel about life and about death. A man near to death is dealing directly with an absolute . . . " (pp. 140-141) People wage war either out of hatred for the foe and what he represents, or out of love for all they wish to defend--or both. "There is a religious war when two worlds meet; that is, when two visions of the world meet; or in more modern language, when two moral atmospheres meet. What is the one man's breath is the other man's poison; and it is vain of giving pestilence a place in the sun." (p.142)

Russia and China will not "kill the golden goose" in order to "get all the eggs at once." Hatred, envy, humiliation, thwarted national pride, and a sense of grievance care little for golden eggs. And what you call an "evolution" from "a form of communism to a form of capitalism," Golitsyn would call a long-range strategic deception to milk, subvert, and emasculate the West--but merely as an end in itself, as Jaxxen seems to imply? The writings of Sokolovskiy and Sidorenko make it clear that mere "convergence" has never been Russia's ultimate aim, and that Russia was quite convinced it could win a nuclear war--in fact, it considered worldwide nuclear war as simply a "continuation of politics."

#34 WmWallace

WmWallace

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 2,977 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 June 2006 - 04:48 PM

Wallis,

Welcome to TFP Forum!

For someone who has not yet read Origins of the Fourth World War, and for someone who doesn’t know Jeff Nyquist personally, you have been discrediting your own position and view without realizing it.

You have said in this thread that you are not one to jump quickly to conclusions, that you’re trying to be as neutral as you can be, and that you don't think simplistically. Yet, you’ve inferred some sort of selfish, money-grubbing motivation behind Nyquist’s book and have commented on matters found therein without even having read the book.

For the many here who have read JRN's book, and especially for those of us who know Jeff personally – which is not in any way a prerequisite to opine about the matters in his book, that is, if you've read the book – you have discredited yourself to a very large degree; you have jumped to conclusions and you have not been as neutral as you can be; you've prejudged and have exhibited a strong, one-sided bias (not to mention a discourteous, unjustified, personal slight toward JRN and his motivations).

Just a suggestion: why don’t you read the book first before advocating your position? After all, if you’re going to opine in the thread about Origins of the Fourth World War, isn’t it only common sense that you first know the matter? To not do so only belittles your own arguments.

It’s more than fine to disagree (and you’re welcomed to do so) with the premise of TFP and to voice your opinions in a civil way. But, if you want to add some basic credibility to your position and view, I think you should – at least – read the book first.

WW

#35 Shawna11

Shawna11

    Member

  • Admin
  • 810 posts

Posted 21 June 2006 - 08:29 PM

Wallis: I do not jump to the conclusion that . . . certain leaders have created a collusion with a single design and are fully cooperating with each other towards an end goal.


When you have read OFWW, I think you will find that this is not really what JRN is asserting.

#36 Guest_Wallis_*

Guest_Wallis_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 June 2006 - 01:12 AM

Thank you.

As I await the arrival of the book, I hope that you will all understand that I am bouncing off the reviews not only posted by members here but those that are available on the Internet as well.

If my remarks were interpreted in such a way as to even remotely suggest that Mr. Nyquist is just trying to make money on a book, well, all I can say is that really comes from the left-field bleachers. If I really thought that, I'm man enough to just come out and state that. So, please, erase from your minds any such doubts that I would think such.

I am hoping to learn something from the future reading of this book. It may obviously re-tailor my earlier posts. My intent, however, was not an attack or refutation of the book but rather was an observation off other people's posts.

#37 WmWallace

WmWallace

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 2,977 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 June 2006 - 06:26 AM

Wallis,

Thanks for the clarification and please excuse my own jumping to conclusions about your fuller meaning and intent. Admittedly, I haven't been able to keep up with all the posts here lately so I might not have gotten a better understanding of your posts.

#38 Guest_jaxxen_*

Guest_jaxxen_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 July 2006 - 02:05 AM

The reason why the anti Western groups hate the West is due to our liberalism. Even at the worst case level of Western socialist populism (e.g. the "tyranny" of political correctness) it is still, at its root, a fundamentally bourgeois, liberal, intellectual thing. So long as any element of Western civilization exists, including these sorts of weak areas, those who hate us will seek our liquidation.

Or so your theory goes. In reality, the KGB are not motivated by a hatred of the West, rather their motivation is of course the fanatical ideology they believe in - socialism. And it isn't necessary to utterly destroy the West in order to advance their goal of a socialist New World Order.

Your views remind me strongly of those of both America Firsters as well as Brown Shirts, during the late 1930s. It would appear that you are into a sort of self loathing - e.g. "the West is already evil / communist / etc" - and in your view, therefore, we are "just as bad as" our enemies. This is dangerous territory to get into. It can corrupt your mind.

It would appear that casting aspersions and leaping to conclusions are favourite exercises of yours. You did it with Wallis and now you're doing it with me. For your information, I don't even know what an American Firster is, let alone have any knowledge of Brown Shirts in the 1930s, unless you're referring to Hitler's SA.

It so happens that I am Australian born and bred and not all that familiar with American political history.

No, I am not into any "self-loathing" and I do not believe we are "as bad as the Communists", but I am under no delusions about the decline of Western civilisation and I can see very clearly how we in the West continue to move down the socialist path in many ways. Interestingly, J.R. Nyquist (whom you seem to be such an admirer of) rages a great deal in his book about the decline of the West. One could even be tempted to think he is the one into the self-loathing.


They "need to," in part, because WMD not only exist, but are proliferating.

So why is that a reason? You have offered no explanation.

And yes, it is entirely possible that there will one day be a nuclear war (I'm thinking more likely Israel and the Muslims). But this doesn't in any way mean that the Russians are actually planning a nuclear first strike.

The very way Jaxxen's statement is worded (i.e., "Many of their goals are already being achieved . . .The next phase of the KGB plan will be economic") implies a series of goals--but, one must ask, leading toward what ultimate end? What will "political convergence" look like--and to what extent will mere "convergence" satisfy a totalitarian system?

But totalitarianism is not an end in itself. Rather it is but one way to implement and maintain socialism. In reality socialism comes in many different shades of red and pink, and the Soviet strategists knew full well that totalitarianism couldn't possibly work everywhere in the world, least of all in the liberal West. One lesson you should have learned from Golitsyn (and I assume you've read him) is that Communist strategy is highly dynamic - constantly changing and being revised to suit any given situation.

Lenin wrote that the ultimate battle between capitalism and communism was "the battle to win men's minds". And that is precisely one reason for perestroika. Just as in Orwell's 1984 where Big Brother wanted to be loved by the people, so too do the Soviet strategists want the West to come to love socialism. And very few will love socialism if it blows up the USA with nuclear missiles (and cops a massive pounding in return).

In my copy of Golitsyn's New Lies For Old, Larry H. Abraham writes in the prologue (written in 1990) -

The events of the past year and a half do not mean that the Soviet Union is "lulling" the West to sleep in order to hit us with a surprise military attack. This approach has never been a serious part of Soviet strategy, and it certainly isn't now. I have been speaking and writing for years - often to the consternation of many conservatives - about the phony threat of Soviet military might. I have said over and over again - and repeat here - that the real threat was never fallout, but sellout.


Now it's probably fair to say that the neo-cons for all their flaws, seem to have a deep suspicion of both the Russians and Chinese and don't look likely to sell-out too much to them. But the neo-cons will not be in charge of the USA forever (and they have certainly done their own share of damage). But just remember, your next president could well be Hellary Clinton. :o

Russia and China will not "kill the golden goose" in order to "get all the eggs at once." Hatred, envy, humiliation, thwarted national pride, and a sense of grievance care little for golden eggs. And what you call an "evolution" from "a form of communism to a form of capitalism," Golitsyn would call a long-range strategic deception to milk, subvert, and emasculate the West--but merely as an end in itself, as Jaxxen seems to imply? The writings of Sokolovskiy and Sidorenko make it clear that mere "convergence" has never been Russia's ultimate aim, and that Russia was quite convinced it could win a nuclear war--in fact, it considered worldwide nuclear war as simply a "continuation of politics."

Nikita Kruschev was also convinced Russia could win a nuclear war and he shouted it from the rooftops. Yet, he never launched the missiles. And if a surprise nuclear strike was really the primary objective of the Russians, then why the hell haven't they done just that? What the hell are they waiting for?

Subverting the West certainly isn't an end in itself. The ultimate goal of the KGB strategists remains the same as it has always been - the implementation of a New World Socialist Order, using such international bodies as the United Nations.

So bm_cali, Shawna, and others here like you, I suggest you relax, take a big, deep breath. Put your feet up. Maybe take a Valium. Because the Russians aren't going to hit you with their missiles any time soon, and I doubt very much they ever will.

Those skilled in the art of warfare subdue their enemies without battle - Sun Tzu

#39 Shawna11

Shawna11

    Member

  • Admin
  • 810 posts

Posted 05 July 2006 - 02:54 AM

("Shawna11") They "need to," in part, because WMD not only exist, but are proliferating.
Jaxxen: So why is that a reason? You have offered no explanation.
And yes, it is entirely possible that there will one day be a nuclear war (I'm thinking more likely Israel and the Muslims). But this doesn't in any way mean that the Russians are actually planning a nuclear first strike.


I find this argument disingenuous. Practically the entire book, which you say you have read, makes an exhaustive case for (1) the inevitability of nuclear war in general, due to the existence and proliferation of WMD, and (2) the likelihood that the Russians are planning (and have been planning all along) to wage it. Many of his columns, excerpts of which are regularly posted here, also "explain" this position.

"When a weapon of mass destruction is created, you cannot make it go away. Governments will mass-produce the weapon. Terrorists will eventually acquire it. The proliferation of mass destruction weaponry resembles a form of cancer. It grows with time, promising grief to vital parts of the body (threatening the entire system)." {from JRN's 6/23 column, "Refusing to Face Reality"}

JRN, from his book: "I am convinced that the ideologies of mass destruction have entered into matrimony with the weapons of mass destruction, and their progeny will be nuclear world war. Perhaps this book is one of the last paranoid gasps before the greatest age of peace the world has yet known. Perhaps I am crazy. But again, what if I am right? After all, ours is a world with fifty or sixty thousand hydrogen bombs kept in constant readiness. Could it be that I am on to something? And in the final analysis, isn't a flat and peaceful future more dubious than a round thermonuclear one?" p. 93

Jaxxen: "So bm_cali, Shawna, and others here like you, I suggest you relax, take a big, deep breath. Put your feet up. Maybe take a Valium. Because the Russians aren't going to hit you with their missiles any time soon, and I doubt very much they ever will."

I find it interesting that JRN here displays a far greater willingness to question his conclusions than you are to reconsider yours. And he doesn't treat his critics with the flippancy that you show to us here.

Jaxxen: "But totalitarianism is not an end in itself. Rather it is but one way to implement and maintain socialism. In reality socialism comes in many different shades of red and pink, and the Soviet strategists knew full well that totalitarianism couldn't possibly work everywhere in the world, least of all in the liberal West. One lesson you should have learned from Golitsyn (and I assume you've read him) is that Communist strategy is highly dynamic - constantly changing and being revised to suit any given situation."

Communist strategy is "highly dynamic--constantly changing and being revised to suit any given situation." Communist aims are not.

And I would argue that totalitarianism is the "end in itself," not socialism. In the chapter "Critique Left," JRN cites Marx's "unconcealed contempt for humanity and for the communist parrots of 'that class s**t," as well as his " 'limitless ambition and love of power' " (quoting the report of a Prussian spy made to the government). Did Stalin really care whether or not people "loved socialism"? Did Khruschev worry whether or not Americans would "love socialism" when he thundered, "We will bury you!"?

Jaxxen: "Nikita Kruschev was also convinced Russia could win a nuclear war and he shouted it from the rooftops. Yet, he never launched the missiles. And if a surprise nuclear strike was really the primary objective of the Russians, then why the hell haven't they done just that? What the hell are they waiting for?"

The "it hasn't happened yet, so it probably never will," argument is not a very compelling one. They could be "waiting" for all sorts of things: for a U.S. economic collapse, for left-wing governments to be in place in certain South/Central American nations, for a certain level of U.S. disarmament or for our troops to be spread even thinner than they already are, for a nuclear strike by a terrorist proxy on American soil . . . Time is on their side, not ours; they don't need to rush.

#40 Guest_Minuteman_*

Guest_Minuteman_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 July 2006 - 03:20 PM

At the risk of entering a fray where I don't belong...

All warfare is based on deception.

Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.

Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him

If he is taking his ease, give him no rest.

If his forces are united, separate them.

To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence.


I believe these proverbs of war, as documented by the legendary Sun Tzu, have much applicability to the Final Phase strategies as hypothesized by Golitsyn, Nyquist and this forum. Why, you ask Jaxxen, have the Russians not acted in a warrior-like fashion toward the US in the past when they have been quite capable for decades? Perhaps the absolutely ingenious strategy is to wait... to implement an incredible plan of internal deception, infiltration and degradation within the societal structure of their supreme enemies; that is the United States. Would it not be a much easier series of battles if you were only conquering half of the population?

Should you question the veracity of this strategic methodology, I suggest that you do your homework; review the historic protracted and deliberate fall of moral truth, foundational structures and societal values within the US. It would be incredibly naïve and enormously ignorant to not trace the origin(s) of such a monumental alteration of contemporary society. These historical truths may not be countered; they are what they are despite one’s ability toward cynicism. Russia has not been inactive, to say the least.