William M. Briggs

Statistician to the Stars!

Category: Culture (page 1 of 262)

The best that has been thought and written and why these ideals are difficult to meet.

An Open Letter To Milo Yiannopoulos — From A Friend (Guest Post)

Dear Milo,

I’ve heard you are in a spot of bother, and I am sorry about that. Were the shoe on the foot of a Democrat, then I am sure there would cheering and the pederasty movement would have a well-deserved boost, and there would be public agitation to lower the age of consent.

Pederasty? Did I say that? I am very sorry to have brought this up. We usually don’t speak of such things, and when we do, we are too shy to condemn them. I know that you are gay, and had an incident of abuse or awakening, depending on your point of view, when you were a young teen.

That is the true story. Whoever introduced themselves to you then, in whatever circumstances, is a criminal. You are, and I hate to say it, a victim. You aren’t a boo-hoo kind of victim, but what happened to you should not happen to a child. Full stop. The statute of limitations is likely up, and that is a pity. I don’t know if would do you any good to have this person have a modicum of justice, but it might, especially if another small boy or young man would be prevented from having to endure a similar ordeal. Whatever ink is spilled over you, dear Milo, this to me is the true story, and it ever will be.

When I grew up there were five little boys that I knew—all from different family circumstances, all of them, bright and smart and fun. One of them was my first official crush, and I must have been all of five years old, and so was he. There was a snow pile in the schoolyard, and we were king and queen of the mountain. The others I knew, too, and I even “dated” two of them, even though date is a chaste word. Once it was ice-skating and once it was a movie. We were always friends, but dating wasn’t in the cards, for what is now obvious reasons. But then it wasn’t obvious.

I learned later that when these little boys were little, they were visited upon by a friend, an older male, someone perhaps who was attracted to their brightness and wit.

They were funny boys. They knew what the convention was, and they tried to form attachments to girls. But they weren’t able to overcome what had happened. They felt that their lot in life was settled, that the map to their destiny was drawn by someone else, without their having a say in the matter.

Four of those little boys are now dead. Three died very young, one older but still young. One a suicide, and the others in situations that were brought on or complicated by The Disease. None of them married. None of them had children. They left their mothers behind, questioning, grieving, inconsolable, loving. Think of it: five families were prevented from being formed.

When I see you, and you are a wonderful human, I see the father and husband you could have been. What child would not love to be hoisted on your shoulders, and what woman would not blush from your attention?

I understand that the abuse happened, and that there is a direct line from the abuse to your “chosen” lifestyle—did you choose it, or did you think there was no other way? Or did that man so long ago set the course for you?

I get it. I honestly do. I know that I or you or anyone can’t snap our fingers and take you back to that age of innocence for a do-over, a second chance.

The balance of your life is your own. The course can be changed.


A Friend

Russia’s (Soft) War With The West, Part II — Guest Post by Ianto Watt

Let us digress a moment and consider, as Svechin would, just what this word ‘action’ means to us in our present situation. Let us consider the peculiar nature of the battlefield before we select our strategy. And let us look at it as a Russian would. After all, this is what Sun Tzu would do.

To begin with, we must first know ourselves, correct? And as any Russian would know, the purpose of knowledge is to lead to action. This impulse towards action is the basis of Russian intellectual life. It is at the core of all the great Russian actors and thinkers, from the time of Ivan the Terrible (in his Letter to Prince Kurbsky) through Solzhenitsyn in his work To the Rulers of Russia in our time. This impulse is best summed up in the expression Chto delat? That is, what is to be done?

Yes, that was the famous question of Lenin in his work of the same title. But he didn’t originate it. He stole it, like everything else he came near. He stole it from Nikolai Chernyshevsky in his novel of the same name in 1863. (Editor’s note: Chernyshevsky’s book has lately been in the news: “Chernyshevsky was one of the great destructive influences of the past century”.)

Now all of these men have a unique outlook on life, and each has his own proposed solution to the crisis of the day. Yet each of these men, in classic Russian fashion, calls out for action. And in the typical Russian way, each of them has a universal view of their proposed solution. As George Young puts it in his brilliant work The Russian Cosmists, the defining characteristic of Russian philosophy is “the tendency to view every –ology as an opportunity for an –urgy, every discussion of ‘what is’ as an invitation to consider ‘how to accomplish what ought to be'” (p 24).

Young further notes the Russian tendency towards ‘the Totalitarian cast of mind’ that infects them all. Why is that? Because they all have a tendency ‘to place the good of the whole community above the freedom of the individual’. I know, that sounds ridiculous to ascribe to a man like Solzhenitsyn, eh? But consider that even he would say that there is a way that is true, and that to depart from that path is to invite evil. And evil knows no bounds, as he well knew. Read his address from 1983, Godlessness, the First Step to the Gulag if you want to see my point.

The logical conclusion for any thinking Russian then is that mankind must embrace the correct path. All of mankind. Because, after all, the Russian mind, whether religious (Solovyev), intellectual (Berdyaev), bolshevik (Lenin) or scientific (Fedorov) believes that the fate of the world rests in the hands of Russia. Therefore, any true solution must be of Russian origin. And, quite obviously then, of Russian implementation. This is the only way to a total solution. To universal peace, to Cosmic One-ness, to Sobornost. And as Young has observed, that would make it a totalitarian proposition, correct? Not that Solzhenitsyn would impose it on anyone. But the verdict Young renders about the philosophical nature of the proposition is correct. The solution must be global, or it is not really a solution. And only Russia can be the source of this solution, Komrade.

What does this have to do with the question of strategy? Well, we’re getting there, OK? We had to do this little exercise in order to understand how the Russian mind is going to look at the proposed battle. The proposed action. We have to know how he thinks in order to predict how he will judge the peculiar nature of the opportunity at hand. And so the way a Russian thinks, and the solutions he proposes (and will seek to impose) must, by definition, be global in nature. Remember that famous byword from the bygone days of détente? Co-existence, anyone? In the words of that famous Sicilian philosopher Anthony Soprano; fuggedaboutit!

Let’s get down to work. Let’s examine the situation the Russian Grandmasters were facing in the late 1950’s, and see what the strategic choices were in the particular situation they were in. To begin with, we must state, again, that these men saw the confrontation with the West as global in nature. Only one side would win, and the other side would succumb, militarily, politically, economically. And, religiously. Remember, every Russian leader since Tsar Alexis has been perfectly willing to manipulate the Church for his own purposes, even if he claims to be a believer. Khrushchev included, although he was no believer.

So then, if the confrontation is to be a global one (as both the Empire and the Empire-in-Waiting seek to capture the entire world), the strategy must be able to be applied on a global scale. Now if the strategy of (non-nuclear) annihilation is chosen, this would work to the detriment of The Land People, as Mackinder and Dugin clearly see, and I agree. How would Russia be able to project power into North or South America or Africa without a naval force equal to or greater than the navy of the Sea People, Imperial Rome? Even if the Bosporus were in Russian hands, Gibraltar is not. And besides, where is this wished-for fleet of Russian warships? The only thing remotely close to this is her admittedly strong hunter-killer submarine force, but this doesn’t project power, it only stops the other side from projecting power.

If the nature of the battle is to be global in scope, how can the strategy of annihilation be effective, short of the nuclear war scenario that neither side wanted? After all, both sides operate on the principle that no man destroys what he hopes to inherit. Ask the interrogators of Christian Rakovsky if this is true.

I think it is clear that under the military circumstances of the late 1950’s and even through today, Russia alone is not able to wage a conventional war of annihilation on a global scale, although this is becoming more feasible in Europe today, given the state of NATO preparations.

What about allies? Does Russia have any allies that could help her achieve world hegemony through open aggression? Yes, there was the Warsaw Pact, but that too was unable to project its power outside of Europe. And China in the late 1950’s was in no shape to conduct anything other than Asian land wars. She had no navy to speak of, and her only ace was the massive size of the People’s Liberation Army. But that ace was more of a joker in most hands, as Mao wasn’t currently in the mood to make hay just to achieve Russian domination. After all, Uncle Joe had failed to back him up in Korea. And so, Svechin would have said such a plan was unrealistic, even if the war was to proceed in stages (Europe first, etc). Not if you wanted to capture things intact. And the Politburo of 1953 knew all of this as well, in spite of Uncle Joe’s demands. Which is why he had to go.

If the war cannot be waged with a strategy of annihilation (if the desire was to capture a productive and intact West), Chto delat? What is to be done? It would seem clear to me, if not also to a few Russian Imperialists, that a shift in strategy had to take place. And the only other choice, according to Svechin, is a war of attrition.

But such a war of a thousand cuts cannot be executed on a global scale using standard military means. We’re talking here about guerilla war at the very least. And when one ponders the scale that would be necessary to conduct such a war on the West, its intelligence services and supply lines would need to be so massive in scope that it would seem to be more impossible than a war of annihilation. After all, it’s one thing to convince a Vietnamese that he should throw off his colonial overlords (whether French or American). It’s quite another to convince a Western European or a North American of this ‘need’ in the late 1950’s. And even if it were to be tried (and it was, in Italy, Angola, Central America, West Germany, etc. and even in the US with the Black Power movement), it would take so long to gain traction that it would exhaust the resources of the central planners in the Kremlin. But there would be a use for these exercises in the short run, if they were only a feint.

Here is where Golitsyn comes in, again. As he related to the CIA (and anyone else who would listen) upon his defection in 1961, there was indeed a new strategy for conquering the West. This was a Russian plan, dressed up as Communism. Out with the old Bonapartism of Uncle Joe, and in with the new solidarity of the re-invigorated Comintern. This plan foresaw that there were numerous other fronts that could be attacked in a non-military fashion that would eventually render the West helpless against the East. And the key to all of this is the same strategy a fellow named Lucifer has chosen for the past few hundred years: convince people you don’t exist. It’s quite effective you know. Have you seen anyone in the confession line lately? Has anyone seen you there lately?

Anyway, all you have to do to accomplish this goal of convincing people you don’t exist is to get them to look at themselves. That is, to take their eye off the ball. The ball, of course, being the enemy. And there are plenty of ways to do this. Educationally, intellectually, culturally, economically, religiously, musically, medically, the list can go on and on. The key, however, is to begin to ratchet down the direct external threat of the militarized USSR, while simultaneously engaging the western military in small nationalistic wars of liberation around the globe that sap her strength and eventually, her resolve. I won’t bother to repeat the litany of these. You already know it by heart.

Simultaneously with this brush-fire war tactic (which was never designed to be supremely victorious, and which never cost any Russian lives) was the tactic of supposedly opening up, in small ways, the Iron Curtain that imposed a uniformity of choice in all the areas mentioned above. Again, educationally, intellectually, culturally, economically, religiously, musically, etc. This was supposedly possible because of the cracks in the solidarity of the Communist movement, in China, Yugoslavia, Roumania, Albania, etc.

Now any objective observer of the West over the past 50 years or so must admit to one fact: that in all the areas mentioned above that constitute the Western social fabric, there has been an enormous change in the outlook of the people. There is no solidarity in the West. There is no unity of belief, and therefore there can be no uniformity of will. The Empire has been fractured, into a hundred different squabbling parts. Each part sees itself as the center of things, and demands the appropriate perceived share of the public attention and policy largesse. And each of these sectors has it’s own opposite faction vying for attention and funding. In other words, the very thing we were led to perceive in the Soviet Bloc (fragmentation and dissipation) has been in turn visited upon us. Why? Because we no longer viewed the East as the common and unifying enemy of our own civilization. And why did this happen? Because we no longer were unified in our own beliefs. And why was that? Well, we forgot what we believed. We just got busy, you know, with other things. Yoga, football, television, jogging, music, politics, the internet, video games, cooking, you name it, we did it.

Yes, I am sure there are those who will say, ‘Look, it just happened to turn out that way, it’s all a random occurrence.’ And if you believe randomness and chance are real things (as most people do), then this is a perfectly acceptable outlook. Plus, it comes with a bonus; you don’t have to do anything about it, right? It’s not your fault. It’s not anybody’s fault. It just happened that way.

So now we are back to the core question; could all of this have been something more than random ‘chance’? Could it have been planned and then executed in such a manner as to produce exactly what we see today? Where the East is rather unified, and the West is distracted, dissipated, even degenerated? Which, of course, is exactly what the Golitsyn plan predicted would happen, once the West became convinced that the exact opposite was happening within the Soviet world?

Now before you answer this, let’s look at one other man. A man who was said to prove that Golitsyn was a liar, and that we should not listen to him. A man who is the true Sinon of our day. This man’s name is Yuri Nosenko.

You can read the bio yourself, I won’t bore you with the details. Here’s the gist of it: Nosenko was a KGB Captain/Major/Colonel (take your pick) who defected to the West after Golitsyn did, and claimed that Golitsyn was a KGB mole. Nosenko said Golitsyn’s task was to mislead the West about actual Soviet intentions. Nosenko was disbelieved by the CIA but believed by the FBI. Nosenko was interrogated for over 1,200 days, and eventually ruled to be a genuine defector. But only after he had torn the Western intelligence community apart, and which sparked an incredible series of witch hunts within the CIA and FBI.

But to my mind, that’s not the point at all. To me, it makes absolutely no sense to believe Nosenko, because in essence, he was screaming at the top of his lung ‘look out for that man over there (Golitsyn), because he’s NOT dangerous’! Do you see my point? If Golitsyn was a mole who was sent to sell the story that the KGB had concocted a mis-direction ploy about a faux mis-direction ploy, that would have to mean only one thing. And that would be that if the West were to respond to the faux mis-direction ploy, then it would be harmful to the West. Isn’t that the supposed reason for Nosenko defecting? To warn the West of the danger of listening to Golitsyn?

Yes, I know, Nosenko said his main reason for defecting was personal, as he feared being recalled to Moscow. But it was later affirmed that he lied about this and numerous other things, so why were we so willing to buy this part of his story? But here is the real point; what harm could the West have suffered by listening to Golitsyn? What would be the cost of watching with vigilant suspicion every element of the Soviet ballet that would be played out over the next 30 years, ending with the disappearance of the Soviet world itself, exactly as Golitsyn predicted? How would it have harmed us? In what way?

Yes, I know, it might have interfered with the cross-cultural exchanges that helped bring about the downfall of the Evil Empire, as the Left would have it. Or it would have made no difference in the arms race that Reagan embarked upon that finally cratered the USSR, as the Right would have it. But neither of these two excuses deals with the fact that this entire scenario was predicted in 1961, at the height of perceived Soviet power. The plot of this play was already written, and both of these perceptions were part of the plan, each designed to appeal to both factions of the West. The real reason Nosenko was sent to deceive us was to forestall the collapse of the linchpin of the KGB’s plan.

And what was that? It was the need to keep us convinced of the continuing schism within the Communist world, especially as it related to the ‘Sino-Soviet Split’. Because, just as Lenin had fooled the West with his New Economic Policy in 1921, the chess masters of the Kremlin foresaw that the Soviet world would need two things to keep their side alive in the decades to come. The first was a massive infusion of Western money, trade and aid. The second was that the West must be continuously convinced that Russia couldn’t possibly catch up to the military might of the West in 1964, when Nosenko ‘defected’.

So it happened. We made our grand opening to the East when the idiot Emperor Nixon went to China, supposedly to continue weaning the Red Dragon away from the orbit of Moscow. To what effect today? Is China any more friendly to us? It certainly is richer. It certainly is stronger. And it all came at the expense of the citizens of the Empire. And is China still ‘estranged’ from Moscow?

Now we have two giants to contend with instead of one since we refused to believe Golitsyn. And these two behemoths seem to be in league with each other. Whaddya know! Whooda thunk it? And I don’t care what color you say the Dragon is, it is still a dragon. Do you know what dragons eat? Ask Cadwaladr if it matters which dragon won? Then tell me the Anglish haven’t stolen my island. Never mind, you have to be Welsh (and drunk) to understand that. Let’s get to the end, eh?

Here’s the final clincher: when the USSR finally ‘fell’ on Dec. 25, 1991 (another fabulous coincidence, right?), where were the celebrations in the East? I have not found a single report of people gathering in the streets, toppling statues of Lenin, drinking champagne, singing, hugging, kissing, dancing, and most of all, thanking God for their deliverance from 74 years of tyranny and torture. Where were the mobs lynching all those KGB informers and enforcers? Where were the people? What is it they knew that our idiot savants in the West couldn’t (or wouldn’t) comprehend? This omission is still screaming in my ears 25 years later!

My friend, if our leaders are feckless, and seemingly blind to the coming maelstrom, what is to be done, Komrade? The time is growing short. The final Peace Offensive is about to begin as Vlad and Donald begin their dance. And while I expect a period of seeming good will between them, I don’t expect it to last. This may be the final act of this KGB-produced play. And so, I think the answer to Chto delat? is rather simple. If you can’t see the cat (let alone the bag), it’s finally time to open your eyes. Before he eats you.


Editor’s note: contemporary video about Golitsyn.

The Violent Rule America’s Campuses

Bang! Bang!

Bang! Bang!

Stream: The Violent Rule America’s Campuses.

Time for our News Quiz! How many were arrested and punished in Berkeley among those who rioted, vandalized, and violently beat a man with shovels, almost killing him, when the right-wing comedian Milo was to visit that campus?

Hint: the total was the same as the number of student militants menacingly brandishing automatic weapons who violently occupied Cornell’s Willard Straight Hall in 1969 in protest of Cornell’s “racist attitudes” and “irrelevant curriculum”.

Still not sure? Then here, at the risk of being too generous, is another hint. The number of violent actors arrested at Berkeley is the same as the number punished for their violent storming of the stage at the University of Wisconsin, Madison to prevent mild-mannered Ben Shapiro from speaking on the subject of decency, an event at which “Campus police watched but did nothing to stop the interruptions.” Violent students also blocked Shapiro from UCLA.

If you still don’t have it, the number you’re looking for is the usual count of those arrested, expelled, or otherwise punished for their use of violence to further political causes at colleges and universities all across this fair country. It is a number fewer than the fingers on your right hand to the left of your thumb.

No more clues. Unless you find the answer too distasteful to admit, you have at least an inkling of this circular figure.

Now that we have finished the first question, it is time for our—

—Political Science Quiz! Ready? What do we call those people in a society who are licensed or allowed to use violence?

No hints this time. We call these the people in charge.

Since the violent are in charge, and since folks regularly use violence on college campuses as a means of politics, and that this violence just as regularly goes unpunished or is countenanced, we can therefore say that there is an officially approved climate of violence on the majority of campuses in the United States.

It really is this simple. Violent students (and professors) are in charge, have been in charge, and will continue to be in charge as long as they are allowed to use violence.

Violence in and around universities is so commonplace that its presence is thought natural and necessary. Pepper sprayings, calls for muscle, assaults of speakers calling for free speech (another Berkeley incident), a brawl and students rushing the stage, students occupying by force various campus offices…

Go there to read the rest. Look over your shoulder first if you are on campus.

Editor’s edition: Berkeley activist: No, “fascists”” don’t have a right to speak in public

Russia’s (Soft) War With The West, Part I — Guest Post by Ianto Watt

The cat is out of the bag, although most people don’t realize that because most people still do not see the cat. Why? Simple. They couldn’t see the open bag, so why would they see the cat?

Now the bag is not simply a container. It was tied shut, right? So it should be considered primarily as a mask. A device meant to conceal its actual meaning or content. And the attempt to explain or divine the contents of the bag (before that cat emerges) is an attempt to understand something that is still mystical or hidden. I have a different approach to this need to know. An Alexandrian approach. Why try and untie that Gordian knot? Forget that, just cut the damn thing in two! Unfortunately, very few people agree with my approach. It’s not polite, you see.

So that still leaves the question of the bag, and who constructed it. And how they wove it. I have dealt with that in my book The Barbarian Bible whose subtitle should tell you something more: The True History of Man Since the Fall of Troy. I reject the common habit of dating everything from either the Fall of Jerusalem or the Fall of Rome. I contend that everything important goes back another thousand years to The Fall of Troy. Because that’s where the bag was first made. And where it’s power to deceive was first proven.

Now I further contend that this mesmerizing feat has been continued to the present day, and that the bag continues to exist, along with that damnable cat. But the cat doesn’t interest me that much, other than to say it is obviously not a desirable gift. I’m more interested in who packaged it. And it seems to me that if we knew who did that, we would know why they left it on our doorstep. And while we know who made that first wooden bag, we seem to be totally unable to understand the connection between them (the Greeks) and the marketing geniuses of today (the Greek-Orthodox Russians). And now we’re back to my observation that most people can’t even see the bag, let alone imagine what lies within.

So then, let’s look back at the past for a moment or two before we plunge ahead. Let’s remember that the whole point of the exercise of concealment was to convince the occupants of Troy that their enemies had simply melted away. It worked perfectly. Why? Because the gods understood human nature. Never forget the gods! And never forget Odysseus, the world’s greatest liar. And if you look it up, he was the grandson of Autolycus, the world’s greatest thief. And Autolycus was the son of Hermes, the trickster god. So both the gods and Odysseus, knowing the weakness of men, knew that the men of Troy longed for peace, at nearly any price. Anything but giving up Helen, that is. But the men of Troy didn’t understand that their willingness to believe the unbelievable would have devastating consequences. Which made them totally ripe for the picking. And so they were undone. And all of this was accomplished through deception, the theme of the New Testament of the pagan world. Welcome to Olympus.

Well then, what does this have to do with today? Everything, actually. Because a new bag has been constructed, and the weary men of the West (and their wimpy children who revel in stealing the wives of other men) are ready to believe anything that plays to their desire for an unearned peace. Anything that seemingly lets them keep their ill-got gain without a formal surrender. Without a repentance of their ways.

But now it’s time to shift gears. Time to understand how the bag is constructed. Because after all, if you make it look pretty and put a hefty price tag on it, you’ve already satisfied the requirements of half the occupants of the West. Yes, I’m looking at you, ladies. Think I’m kidding? Then tell me if most wine isn’t bought based on the attractiveness of the label? And who buys most wine today? So, am I a sexist? Absolutely, Helen. With good reason.

Let’s get back to the bag. Let’s understand something first. There are two strategies we can use to make the sale. One is brute force (a billion dollar ad campaign to sell an ugly bottle with an ugly label, even though the contents may be superb). The other choice is deception, where a beautiful bottle with an enchanting label is placed in a prime shelf position (with a little help from a ‘marketing incentive’ paid to the dealer), regardless of the quality of the contents.

In the military, these two strategic choices are distilled down to the following two categories: annihilation or attrition. Brute power versus deception and maneuver. And the foremost genius of understanding the difference in these two strategic approaches was Alexandr Svechin.

Alexandr Svechin was the genius behind reformed Russian military strategy today. Yes, he was executed by Stalin in 1938, for his supposedly rigid adherence to the choice of attrition over annihilation. After all, Uncle Joe wanted victories, big ones. Unfortunately Uncle Joe didn’t understand the reality of the battlefield. Because, of course, he didn’t have to do any of the actual fighting. But Svechin and his men did. And Svechin understood the difference between the desire and the ability to conduct a battle of annihilation. And what was this critical difference in how to approach your enemy? It’s actually quite simple, in concept. Each and every battle is to be approached according to the ‘peculiar’ circumstances that surround it. No prospective battle is exactly like a previous one, regardless of the academy’s insistence on preparing for the last war. And there is the key to understanding Vladimir Putin. He understands the nature of the battlefield. Just as Nikita Khrushchev did in 1959. And the West didn’t. And still doesn’t.

Svechin understood that each battle was a separate, individual specie. Each battle was different. And no matter how many men and tanks and howitzers you had, a creative and motivated enemy can defeat you. Just ask Consul Lucius Paullus how things went at The Battle of Cannae. Every element of every potential battle must be taken in to account before deciding on which strategy to pursue.

Svechin understood the root of the problem faced by the Russian armies. The root was this; the Red Army was not motivated by an offensive war. After all, the Russian people are defensive in nature. Not only that, the Red Army was not truly equipped for it. And lastly, it was not led by men who understood true leadership. Because, of course, the true leaders of the Red Army were the political officers that could over-rule any Army officer in any situation. This was the original Russian Roulette. These political officers took their orders from Uncle Joe, not Svechin and his officers on the front lines. The guns these political officers wore weren’t pointed at the enemy. Because of this, when Svechin recommended a war of attrition, he was seen as a ‘defeatist’ by the political leadership in Moscow. Never mind the fact that the tiny Finnish Army could and did kick the butts of the Red Army under his successors. And so Svechin paid the price of telling Joe the truth.

Yes, Svechin understood that Russia was dealing from a position of weakness. And that was the exact same position Khrushchev and his Politburo found themselves in in the late 1950’s. They led a nation bled white by WWII. Their economy was ready to collapse. Their erstwhile allies in the worldwide Comintern were ready to walk away from the leadership of Moscow. Their only strength lay in their possession of nuclear weapons that, if used, would have resulted in their own destruction. And so Khrushchev did what any intelligent criminal would do: he changed strategies. He switched from Wrath (open aggression, à la Korea) to Deception. From The Illiad to The Odyssey.

To add to the irony of this decade, Khrushchev officially rehabilitated Svechin as part of his de-Stalinization campaign right before he made his peace with all the other members of the Comintern, as he prepared to take down the West through a strategy of deceptive attrition. A strategy of a thousand cuts, versus the head-to-head battle Uncle Joe always seemed to think Russia could win. But Joe was an egomaniac, and the rest of the Politburo knew it. They also knew the actual status of Russia’s economy and army. And that’s why Joe had to go. Time for some poisoned borscht, eh? By the way, do you know who Joe’s personal cook was for over 15 years? And Lenin’s before that? It was Spiridon Putin. Vlad’s grandfather. Anyone who thinks Vladimir Putin simply materialized out of nowhere is whistling past the graveyard. Their own graveyard. This guy’s been groomed. The only question is, by whom? Perhaps our bag-maker can tell us?

So what does this have to do with Troy? Quite a lot, actually. Just as the men of Western Greece had been bled dry for ten years trying to take down Troy, the men of Moscow had tried to take down the West through overt aggression. But they couldn’t even keep in line what they had won in WWII. Berlin 1948. Korea 1950. East Germany 1953. Hungary 1956. Things weren’t working out so well, in spite of Sputnik and the Missile Gap.

Before we go further, the question has been raised. The question deserves to be answered. It is the question of whether or not a clan, tribe or nation can engage their enemy in a multi-generational battle, and win. But it’s not just that, is it? No, after all, the Punic Wars tell us this is true. So does the Reconquista, the 770 year battle to rid Spain of the Islamic Horde. The real question is this; can this aggression be centered on a deceptive ploy that never seems to see the light of day in the eyes of the enemy?

The answer, as so many people seem to believe (including our own ‘intelligence’ services), is an unqualified ‘No’. It’s impossible, according to them. Why is it impossible? Because someone, somewhere will blurt it out, either in a drunken state, or from pride, or under compulsion. And once that cat is out of the bag, the scheme is dead. Right? If men were logical, yes. But they aren’t.

Well, why do I say this? Because history teaches us otherwise. History tells us of many examples of men who refuse to see what is directly in front of them. Beginning at Troy, I contend. All the way to Yalta. And why would our day be any different? Has mankind changed any of his repetitive behaviour over these past three millennia? I think not. Not in the least. The only thing that has changed is that some men have seen the advantage of moving from wrath to deception as their operative principle of action. There’s that word again, my favourite one; action.

Older posts

© 2017 William M. Briggs

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑