Corruption of Judicial System

[PeacefulWarrior]

More theories from Skousen's site (anyone know anything about the stuff his is talking about?):

Did you know?
The Russians are building tremendous new nuclear/biological and chemical weapons systems--all with the assistance of US technology transfers. They are deploying on average, 3 new Topol-M 6th generation ballistic missiles per month. We built our last MX over 10 years ago, and are disarming unilaterally. Further, the Russian are building huge underground nuclear bunkers and weapons production facilities in the Ural Mountains, clearly intended to function during a nuclear war. The US intelligence community (under both Republican and Democratic administrations) knows this and are actively covering for the Russians, so the American people won't become alarmed.

Both Republican and Democratic administrations have been supplying the Chinese with high technology weapons systems for years, knowing that they, in turn, are supplying other enemies (Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, North Korea) as well. Both Russia and China continue to protest against any US anti-ballistic missile system, even though such systems are purely defensive. It doesn't take a genius to understand that ABM systems only threaten someone who intends to launch ballistic missiles someday.

President Clinton directed our military to absorb a nuclear first strike rather than "launch on warning" (our only true deterrent to a first strike) and to prepare to "retaliate" afterward. That first strike will take down all command and control, all bombers (since none are on alert), most missiles, and all satellite and submarine communications.

According to the House Armed Services Committee, the following reductions have taken place during the Clinton Administration: Strategic and General Purpose Forces from 1990 to 1997: B-52 Bombers have gone from 220 to 56. B-1 Bombers from 90 to 60; Strategic Defense Interceptor Aircraft from 36 to 0; and Army Divisions (1990 to 1997) have gone from 18 Active down to 10. Reserve divisions have gone from 10 to 8. Army Brigades (1990 to 1997) have declined from 8 Active to 3 and Reserve brigades have gone down from 27 to 18.

Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief attempts to track the insider moves underlying the major stories you hear each week. The WAB is not a primary news source--but rather, the best source of news analysis. Joel's purpose and strong point is to help you see how world and national events are shaping up in accordance with the secret agendas of men and groups who control government. The World Affairs Brief puts together the probable set of intentions and motives of the power elite by inductively cataloging their specific actions over time.


What will you do about it?

What is the risk to you and your family if there is a major terrorist attack on a U.S. city with chemical or biological weapons? What will you do?


Did you know the US, by policy, will not retaliate on warning of a nuclear attack --effectively removing any deterrent? Are you prepared if the "unthinkable" happens—nuclear war?

Have you considered what you will do if an economic crisis threatens your pensions, investments and other so-called "guaranteed" income?

What about a major earthquake or other natural disaster suddenly upsetting the natural social order for months at a time? Could you get out of harm's way if massive social unrest erupts in the wake of a crisis?

What about your home? Do you have extra tanks of potable water should public water supplies be cut off or contaminated? Would you know how to collect and filter your own water if none was available for a long time?

Joel Skousen is a world-renowned expert in home security and Constitutional law. Joel, who publishes a weekly comprehensive analysis of world affairs, is also the author of books on home security, law, and government. His latest two books, The Secure Home and Strategic Relocation--North American Guide to Safe Places, address the myriad economic, biological, and political threats that face families living in today's complex world. The books also serve as guides for families wishing to relocate to a more secure area and become self-sufficient. In addition, Joel is available to consult privately with individuals to design high security residences and retreats, or to develop contingency plans for emergency situations.


Please email the Webmaster if you have any questions or problems with the website. You can reach Joel Skousen at his email, Joel@JoelSkousen.com, if you have any questions about his work.



fides quaerens intellectum

[PeacefulWarrior]

Don't know that I agree with everything in here, but some of the stuff has to be true...and it's scary:


Corruption of Judicial System
Growing Window of Vulnerability
More World Affairs

World Affairs Brief, December 21, 2001
Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted.
Cite source as Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief (http://www.joelskousen.com).

SPECIAL REPORT: CORRUPTION OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM

Of the three branches of the federal government, the most important, in terms of preserving liberty, is the federal judiciary. It was designed to be the ultimate bulwark against injustice. The final resolutions of all controversies in law and government in America, no matter how small, are eventually determined by judges. Judges are supposed to enforce the limitations on lawmaking power upon the other two branches as dictated by the Constitution. They do not have the power to make law, but to strike down unconstitutional legislation and edicts of the executive branch.

Of the three branches, the judiciary is supposed to be the most impartial and the least political, since its members are not directly elected by the people. Sadly, almost all constitutional safeguards and restraints on judicial misconduct are now dead. For decades, until just this year, Federal judges were nominated, unconstitutionally, by the American Bar Association (ABA), an organization controlled by a committee of left-leaning, anti-constitutional attorneys. As of this year, nominations once again publicly come from the President, but the ABA still maintains its control through key allies in the Bush Justice Department. Judges are confirmed by the Senate in a very politicized process as well, also controlled by the ABA. The result is that, regardless of the party in power, the vast majority of judges who are confirmed are strongly liberal. Although a small percentage of judges are conservative, these judges have a reliable track record of taking orders from higher judges when necessary--thus, their conservative leanings are easily overridden. Despite increasing public evidence of judicial misconduct, Congress has refused to invoke the constitutional remedy of impeachment to remove a judge, at least for many, many years. State watchdog agencies remove, on average, only 10 judges a year, compared to the approximately 10,000 cases of alleged abuse reported annually--and most abuse is never even reported.

There are two types of corruption with judges: individual corruption and systematic, or institutionalized, corruption. The only type you will ever see evidenced in the media is the individual or "rogue" type of corruption. The Powers That Be want you to believe that the judicial system is above reproach, an honored profession, and that only an isolated judge here and there would be caught taking a personal bribe, or bending the law to protect crime. The same is true regarding the woefully corrupt police system: the establishment only admits to the occasional rogue cop, never to systematic corruption. But strangely, even rogue judges--blight that they are on the sterling reputation of the courts--usually receive only a token slap on the hands, and they almost never serve jail time. This is because the bribe they were caught taking is usually only the tip of the iceberg, if they are part of a broader conspiracy to protect government illegal operations. The PTB in the Justice Department work overtime to make sure the systematic corruption and collusion of these judges is kept hidden so as not to expose the broader and deeper conspiracy for government control--of which judges form an integral part. The judges who do get harsh punishment, sadly, are usually the rare few who obstinately refuse to go along with the systematic corruption of the judicial system, and these are set up in some form of sting operation to remove them "for cause." Significantly, there have been almost no defectors from the judicial ranks who have admitted to the institutionalized corruption in the system. That's because these judges know exactly what kinds of penalties and threats they would face if they did so.

One of the most significant ways in which judges aid and abet the conspiracy within government is to participate in the "take down" of federal agents and military personnel who get cold feet about illegal activities. When the CIA or FBI wants to silence an agent who is threatening to expose corruption within the dark side of government, they almost always set him up for prosecution by giving him orders to carry out a secret operation that, like many before, is illegal and corrupt. Only this time, instead of ensuring that the operation is protected, the agency anonymously calls the police and has the agent compromised and arrested. In the ensuing legal proceeding, presided over by one of "their" judges, they disavow any relationship with the accused.

The two most common illegal practices used by federal judges to assist in the prosecution (and conviction) of the defector are: 1) deny as inadmissible the introduction of crucial evidence pointing to the accused's employment as a government agent, and 2) give carefully crafted, prejudiced instructions to the jury, dictating a narrow course of action that can only end in a guilty verdict. At least one defector from the high ranks of the CIA has detailed the system of payoffs the government makes to judges through gambling casinos and foreign banks. Such details, plus many more specific stories of federal criminal activity, are found in Rodney Stich's blockbuster book, Defrauding America (1-800-247-7389). I have mentioned this book numerous times before in my briefs because it is perhaps the most complete catalog of government crimes and cover-ups presented in a single volume. It obviates the need to read a dozen other books. This is one that should be in every library. Many of you complain about how hard it is to convince your friends that a conspiracy really exists. Hand them this book, and if they have even half an honest heart, they will come away shaken. If they don't believe Stich's documentation, they won't believe until the thugs are at their door. Stich's exposé not perfect, but at least he has done independent verification of the stories that no other author has done.

THE INEVITABLE RESULTS OF FEDERAL CORRUPTION

Most of my readers have never experienced corruption similar to the dark stories detailed by Stich and his cadre of courageous government defectors. So you feel detached, maybe even safe. "Why would I ever be a target?" you say. I'll tell you why: the inevitable result of corruption at the top is that systematic growth of corruption at the state and local level follows--simply because emerging criminal minds find out that there is a massive protection racket above them which will guarantee them immunity, if they play long. There is nothing like the promise of immunity to foster criminal growth. In better times, it was always the threat of federal prosecution that kept state and local rings from growing into national syndicates. Now that the feds are the biggest national syndicate in drugs, prostitution, money laundering, and war, the little bad guys have every incentive to join the big boys--for bigger profits and less risk.

I want to concentrate on local and state collusion with federal criminal acts because this type of corruption is becoming a very real threat to each of us personally--even if you don't stick your neck out for conservative causes. I'm going to detail two stories for you. There are hundreds like them and the list is growing daily. They are tragic, hopeless stories of innocent people suddenly caught up in the jaws of the dark side of government, where there is no escape. In each case the victim or his survivors seek redress through the courts, and in each and every case, justice is denied--not once, but tens of times as appeals are made from the bottom to the top of our supposed constitutional system. What is startling about these particular stories is that they name names. And the names of those who reveal themselves to be on the side of government collusion are often people who pretend to be conservatives politicians, or judges. It shakes your faith in the system.

People have faith in the legal system today because these corrupt judges are smart enough to play the part of noble judge most of the time. They know that if they rule according to law most of the time, they can cover up the exceptions--with a little help from their friends up the ladder. These cover-ups can take many forms. One of the prominent ways to conceal flagrant violations of law is for a judge to seal the court records so the public is denied access to the facts. Colluding appeals courts often rule on a sensitive case without recording a written justification (which should never be allowed in our constitutional republic). Sometimes judges write an opinion and then have it depublished or declared ineligible as future court precedent. There is also an unwritten incestuous relationship between judges and attorneys. Young attorneys quickly learn that judges and big law firms control the turf and if you go against what the local legal power players want, you can get blackballed for life--and never win another case. In my first example, from the book A Case of Injustice (published by Palatine Press), you will see this attorney control system at its worst.

EXAMPLE 1: ANNE MORROW in "A CASE OF INJUSTICE"

This is a dramatic and powerful account of one feisty Texas businesswoman who wouldn't quit. I don't know why she is alive today, except by the grace of God. The powers arrayed against her were and still are ruthless. This real live story is set in south Texas, an area of the US which in the 1980s became an alternate source of drug importation for the CIA and other competing drug lords--after south Florida became too hot, politically.

Anne Morrow had married into one of the first families of Dallas--the Parrino family. She had political connections and money. Life was good. After the death of her husband, she ran a successful gift shop and, in 1984, decided to expand her business down into Corpus Christi. Like any normal unsuspecting business person, she entered into a standard lease for space at a new shopping center owned by one A. C. Gilmore--a seedy, unkempt king of the florist trade in south Texas (her first mistake). Readers of the book will note that as her account unfolds, Anne makes a series of little errors in judgment, each compounding her involvement in future bad situations, and each error accompanied by those subtle nervous feelings of conscience that forewarn of trouble. She doesn't heed the little warning signs, being positive and upbeat. This mistake is made by most people basking in the illusions of "good times." For Anne, it wouldn't take long for her experiences to shatter these illusions, a hard lesson in learning to listen better to these small warning signs.

After the absentee landlord failed to fulfill certain verbal agreements dealing with the critical issue of signage, Anne tried to sue for breach of contract. During her initial investigation she found out the seedy landlord had altered the lease document in order to justify his breach--an obvious and outright act of criminal fraud. Gotcha!--or so she thought. Little did she know, the seedy, overweight A.C. Gilmore was protected by a corrupt local judicial system, intrinsically linked with local law firms. Gilmore was in fact involved in the drug trade, and was using his investments in shopping centers and other legitimate businesses to launder the profits. How many of us do business with companies every day (sometimes national chains) who appear legitimate but which may be fronts for money laundering operations or secret government operations? You may never know, but it's a much bigger problem than you think. Even major airlines and banks are involved.

The truth about a company's linkage with organized government crime may only surface if you have a significant legal problem with them and find out, in your quest for a resolution, that this particular business is beyond the law. Most front businesses are smart enough to not make a major issue of small legal matters--they settle quickly to keep their profile low. But A.C. Gilmore was a slob--he didn't care how he handled the situation because he knew he was working for people bigger than even the state of Texas. He also had local judges in his pocket and was confident they would cover for whatever he did. He was right.

This slowly started to dawn on Anne as she engaged one attorney after another in Corpus Christi. In each case, they turned from friendly one day to sour and distant the next and started giving her the run around about why they couldn't represent her, or why she didn't have a case. Somebody was turning these lawyers against her. She couldn't believe a louse like Gilmore could have this much power. Could he be buying them off? She had a near air-tight case and no attorney would take it. Convinced that Gilmore couldnn't control all 650 lawyers in town, she kept trying. A private investigator stepped forward one day and offered to help--suspiciously, without charge. He and other connected politicians steered her towards an attorney who did agree to take her case--and then proceeded to sabotage it in a major way. He was talking to all her adversaries and acting on their behalf--a clear violation of attorney responsibility. When she threatened to charge him for misconduct to the Texas Bar Association, he just laughed. He was protected.

One of the keys to this story is her documentation of dealings with these attorneys. For those who distrust attorneys, this book will justify your every suspicion. It wasn't that everyone was involved personally with A.C. Gilmore. He wasn't paying them off. Most of these attorneys didn't even recognize the name of Gilmore when she initially presented her case to them. But then the following day, someone would get to these attorneys and their demeanor would change. None had the principles to blow the whistle on those applying pressure. They all folded and turned on her--every one, without exception. This means that there is an informal control system that shadows the legal profession--even in small communities. Individual lawyers never see it or know it exists until they start to handle a case that threatens some higher power. Then the phone calls come; subtle threats or warnings are uttered. Names are dropped. Potential consequences are hinted at. Lawyers are ladder-climbers in the profession. Most value their position in the legal pecking order more than their sense of justice. This is telling...and chilling.

But the good ol' boys underestimated Anne Morrow's determination. She finally went to the local elected officials with her case. Friendly at first, they too turned on her, or actively attempted to steer her into the arms of other vultures. She then went to the county prosecutor to request that he file criminal charges. He refused to even see her--ever! He had already been alerted. She bypassed him and got the same treatment from deputy prosecutors. She then went to the grand jury direct but the foreman informed her they could do nothing without the prosecutor's approval (not true). She went to the county commission--same story. When she proceeded to the Sheriff's office, she initially did get an admission from them that the area is full of corruption. They welcomed her case, and promised to pursue it in order to clean up the county. However, within a month the investigation was shut down and they treated her like dirt.

Anne then turned to the State of Texas and charged the county prosecutor with prosecutorial misconduct. A major investigation by the Texas state Prosecutorial Council began. At first the investigators were on her side. But once again, after all the incriminating evidence was gathered and presented to the State Legislature, orders came down from "above the State" to kill it. The Council was disbanded for good. Over the course of the next 10 years or so, she took her story to the FBI (in many different states), to Congressmen, Senators, and others, pulling every political string she had. Same story--everyone protected the surly A.C. Gilmore. Anne's description of the hostility she received at the hands of the FBI, even as she went from one state to another, tells volumes about how completely the dark side controls this once-sterling agency of justice.

It was obvious to me, after reading halfway through her story, that A.C. Gilmore had more power than a simple south Texas drug lord. He had risen from a nobody to a multi-millionaire in less than 3 years. You can do that as a local drug lord, but you don't get the protection of the state of Texas, the FBI, and members of Congress unless you are working for the feds. In this case I presume A.C. Gilmore was working for the CIA drug pipeline.

Certainly, not all of the players who stonewalled Anne's case were guilty of direct conspiracy, or even had knowledge of the underlying conspiracy. But one thing was certainly happening: people with federal power at a very high level were calling down to the State level and telling them to shut down Anne Morrow's case--probably in the name of "national security," that ubiquitous cover that stops anyone from asking further questions. Everyone stupidly snaps-to and salutes, "Yes, sir!" Anne was also surveilled throughout this ordeal--and not by mafia thugs. She was shadowed and watched by clean cut federal agent types, and still is today to a lesser degree. That takes a lot of expensive resources, even for the dark side of government

Anne Morrow still fights on. She wants closure, but she will never get it--not, at least, in terms of ultimate justice. I have tried to console her with the thought that she has done us all a great service simply by putting up the valiant fight, and having the courage to name names and document the extent of collusion and criminal behavior of the entire justice system. Her book can do much to wake up sleeping America. But the media isn't about to help. The 4th estate, which should have been sympathetic to this case of extreme prejudice toward a woman businessperson, has scorned and betrayed her. We can only make her sacrifice meaningful if we buy the book, read her story and pass it on. Order A Case of Injustice online at www.palatinepress.com. It's available as a hardcopy, or half price as an E-book download to your computer. It's a must read.

What good will it do? Plenty. All of us, even conservatives, need to have our illusions of honesty and goodness on the part of local government shattered. It is true that not every town is as bad as Corpus Christi, Houston, Denver, Chicago, SF, NY, or LA, but every city is being worked on and is under pressure, and every city is slipping ever closer into the federal grasp. Read on for another sobering example.

EXAMPLE 2: JUDICIAL CORRUPTION PROTECTS A GROWING POLICE STATE

The following is by John Morgan Duty. In his youth he documented some incidents of rogue police officers who beat up on some of youth. Over the years he started to see a pattern of systematic abuse, that can only happen when the judicial system tolerates abuse and covers for it. He documents a train of increasing abuse in the essay, Lest we forget Micheal Arnold [www.jail4judges.org] , which I have excerpted with comments below.

"Come with me and travel a road 30 years long. Arrive in the POLICE STATE you thought couldn't happen...(When) I met Constance Flaum [mother of the victim, Michael Arnold] my entire standard of comparison was about to be changed in a most profound way. What little respect I had left for the police was to evaporate. On March 27th, 1998, 22 officers of the Lennox Sheriffs' office [LA county, California] and Highway Patrol committed the singularly most heinous crime, of which I am aware.

"In the wee hours of that fateful morning, about 3:05am, 22 ...armored, sheriffs and highway patrolmen opened fire with 9mm pistols, shotguns, and at least one AR-15 assault riffle, loosing 250 rounds of ammunition in a sleeping community. Rounds of ammo found their way into several homes in the community, one coming to rest in the pillow that was under the head of a sleeping child... When the siege was over, 150 bullets had screamed through the neighborhood, 165 bullets had taken down one unarmed man, 62 bullets grazed him, 106 projectiles penetrated Mike's body and 55 were 'kill shots.'

"When the military style assault was over, the police went door to door demanding the citizens tell them what they had seen and heard. They instructed the citizenry to stay in the house, away from the windows and remain there until the scene was secured. [Citizens should never comply with these kinds of demands.] Then the police searched the dead man's new white Lincoln Towncar to find out who they had just killed, only to discover they had made one of their famous mistakes. It seems they had just massacred a young, highly successful, local businessman known for his genteel nature and philanthropy. Mike Arnold was so kindhearted he was known as that guy who carried around his blind pooch in his arms and collected stuffed animals. He never owned a gun in his life.

"He did, however, keep an air pistol or two because he managed property and occasionally had to scare away a rodent or snake. Realizing what they had just done, the adrenaline pumped cops huddled and came up with a quick but feeble plan. One of the cops got into the car and moved it down the street nearly to the corner and a couple of the other cops retrieved a high-pressure hose from the meat packing company across the street.

"They rinsed the torn flesh and blood down into the gutter. They then moved the car back to its original position, placing it between the dead man's body and the street. They opened the trunk and upon finding the air pistol, they placed it in the mutilated hand of the victim in an attempt to make the man look as if he were armed when they shot him. Interestingly, the hand in which they placed the gun had been shot three times.

"Two shots went completely through the hand and the third severed the tendons, making it impossible for the victim to have held anything. The other interesting point of consideration was that the gun had not one scratch on it so how did the bullet pass through the hand and not the handle of the pistol? At this point I am asking myself what kind of explanation did the police try to offer to cover up their crime? It went something like this according to the story in the newspaper. 'Unidentified suicidal freeway sniper killed in shootout with police.'

"Apparently the news reporter didn't bother to investigate or interview anyone on the scene or he would have found out that when the police stopped Mike, they ordered him out of the car. With hands in the air as commanded, they told him to keep his hands up and to step backwards toward them. He was in complete compliance with the police especially since everybody knows how deadly the California Highway Patrol can be. His fatal mistake was to turn ever so slightly to the left to get a look at who was barking orders, at which point one of the psychopaths ripped off a shot that tore Mike's face off. Statements the police spokesman made on TV alleged that, 'Michael Arnold had been armed with two handguns from which he fired multiple rounds at the police, endangering the community.'

"THE FACTS

1) ONLY one gun was produced into evidence -- a BB-Gun

2) The make and model of BB gun placed in Michael's hand was not capable of firing 'multiple rounds' nor was it possible for an air pistol to leave the gunpowder residue found on Michael's hands. This proves that the shooters moved him.

3) The very first shot blew Michael's brains out thus rendering him incapable of holding anything.

4) Three bullets passed completely through his hand shattering his arm and shoulder bones, and severed tendons required for gripping.

5) Though bloody, the BB pistol didn't have a single scratch on it according to the coroner.

6) Trajectory experts concluded the 'kill zone' was in the middle of the street and not on the sidewalk where the coroner examined the body some 7 hours after the murder took place.

7) All 165 bullets entered Michael's body front to back and left to right putting the car directly between them. Though an excess of 250 rounds were fired, only one bullet hit the car. Unlikely or impossible?

When the car was moved to the corner of the street to allow the police to rinse down the scene they backed over the gutter drain. As the blood and flesh was hosed down the drain, DNA and blood was splattered into the wheel wells and undercarriage of the car. Undeniable proof of evidence tampering.

9) Experts, eyewitnesses, and incontestable forensic evidence corroborated all offering of facts. All of the facts and evidence was either refused or ignored by: 1) The LA County Sheriff 2) LA County Board of Supervisors 3) The California State Attorney 4) Governor Gray Davis 5) EVERY Senator and Congressperson from the state of California 6) The United States Senate and House of Reps 7) The FBI The US Attorney General 9) The US Dept. of Justice 10) President of the United States." [End of JMD quote]

The list of official government accomplices to the cover-up matches what Anne Morrow found. Morrow's experience is not unique. The problem is nation-wide.

Sadly, the lesson from these two examples is that the Constitution is only a paper document now, enforced selectively as a suitable cover to make evil government officials look benign while they engage in gross violations of law that are kept hidden. Believe me, judges are violating people's fundamental rights in every state of the union, though some states are much worse than others. Judges would never dare do this, with court reporters recording their words, if they were not confident their illegal actions would be covered for by higher judicial authority at the federal level. This is my message. Our liberties are in grave danger because our ultimate recourse to the courts is now effectively blocked by corrupt judges in collusion with the evil powers that control this nation. It isn't absolute control, and all judges are not involved directly, but too many judges and attorneys assent by their silence, and that is how liberty dies.

Table of Contents


2002-2006:  The West's Growing Window of Vulnerability

by Joel M. Skousen,

Editor World Affairs Brief

http://www.joelskousen.com

For the last thirty years the West--and the US in particular--has engaged in de facto unilateral disarmament vis-à-vis the twin Communist threats of Russia and China.  Ostensibly, the original official policy was conditioned upon a series of multilateral and verifiable disarmament agreements with the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact states--but these agreements have, in fact, been neither.  Instead, the West has acted unilaterally to disarm while China and the Soviet Union (and its successor, the Commonwealth of Independent States) have either refused to signs such agreements or have violated them repeatedly.

In response to these violations, the US has engaged in a policy of denial that Russia and China are strategic threats, choosing instead to focus on the much smaller threats from minor rogue nations--all of which are client states of the "Big Two" Communist powers.  In addition, both Republican and Democratic administrations in the US have engaged in a systematic covering operation for Russian and Chinese hostile intentions by:

a) minimizing the perception of Chinese and Russian aggression against other nations (Korea, Laos, Vietnam, Tibet, Chechnya),

b) downplaying or hiding from public disclosure Chinese and Russian violations of arms agreements,

c) amending arms treaties or making secret side agreements formalizing the legitimacy of violations,

d) facilitating military technology transfers to both China and Russia as if they were allies or "strategic partners,"

e) encouraging or allowing the Russians to build compensatory modernized missile systems, presumably so they won't feel insecure about proposed US missile defense systems.

IS THERE A CREDIBLE THREAT TODAY?

One of the most egregious deceptions perpetrated upon the public today is that Russian military might has collapsed.  Actually, Russia still presents a very real threat, with a military that is continually being updated and strengthened.  However, to perpetrate the theory of their own military weakness, Russia has removed from public view the major portions of ongoing weapons modernization programs and allowed Western arms control inspectors to see only old, outdated weapons systems that Russia needs to replace anyway.  Then, feigning poverty, they have induced the West to pay for the modernization.  Never mind that Russia always seems to have the funds to develop new and expensive high tech weapons for sale to client rogue nations.  

Western inspectors have never been allowed into any of the major underground storage and manufacturing depots scattered around the CIS--only the old ones built early in the Cold War which are hardly serviceable.  Instead of making realistic approximations of Russian military assets based upon a clear pattern of obscuration and cheating, virtually every official US and British source of intelligence lists Russian and CIS military assets today as if they were abiding by arms control treaties.  In other words, the numbers of nuclear warheads and missiles in official records are listed to match what they are supposed to be, according to treaty--not what they really are (which no one knows for certain).

Russia is in the completion stage of two huge underground military-industrial complexes and numerous other interconnected bunker developments throughout Russia (e.g.: the Sherapovo bunker site, south of Moscow).  The  Yamantau Mountain underground complex in the Beloretsk area of the southern Ural mountains is estimated to be the size of the Washington DC metro area, and the Yavinsky Mountain complex is slightly smaller.  Although Russia claims both these sites to be mining projects, the multiple standard sized rail lines entering hardened entrances at each complex suggest otherwise.  Why would Russia refuse to let US inspectors inside if they were only mining operations?   When the New York Times ran a front page article in 1996 on these facilities, the CIA responded by excusing them as "defensive," even though they admittedly have never been inside. Clearly this is another example of US agencies being directed by higher authority to downplay any evidence that Russia is still a threat.  Private military analysts, myself included, suspect that these huge underground complexes are housing complete nuclear, biological and chemical warfare factories capable of surviving nuclear retaliation and maintaining Russia's production capacity during a nuclear war.  Russia clearly intends to start and win a nuclear conflict, despite all the wishful thinking by disarmament experts to the contrary.

THE MYTH OF RUSSIAN DISARMAMENT

While Russia feigns poverty and purposefully keeps major sectors of the economy in shambles, huge amounts of Western loans and aid are secretly being funneled into growing weapons programs.   According to Pentagon analyst  Frank C. Spinney,  "Since 1991, Congress has authorized nearly $2 billion to assist Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan with the safe and secure storage, transportation, and dismantlement of nuclear and chemical weapons (The Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program for Soviet Weapons Dismantlement).  The United States also arranged to purchase 500 metric tons of enriched uranium from dismantled warheads to keep it out of circulation. The warhead materials are to be blended down and made into reactor fuel. The deal, however, has run into difficulties due to haggling over the price the United States would pay for the uranium and due to financial pressures stemming from the privatization of the government corporation charged with implementing the deal, the United States Enrichment Corporation. Critics say the US aid is freeing up money for Moscow to continue its strategic nuclear buildup, which includes two new long-range missile systems and a new class of missile submarines."  Notice that when it comes to Russian compliance some snag always emerges that keeps them from complying--and yet the money keeps flowing.

 

Here is a recent assessment of the disarmament boondoggle by J. R. Nyquist, author of Origins of the Fourth World War:  "Recently, it was pointed out by Colin McMahon, of the Chicago Tribune, that the United States is probably paying for the modernization of Russia's nuclear weapons industry.  Meanwhile, our own nuclear-weapons production capability is – according to Senator Fred Thompson – beginning to crumble.  At a secret 'nuclear city' in Russia there is a $640 million structure built for housing plutonium from dismantled Russian nukes.  American tax dollars paid for this structure.  According to McMahon, some experts contend the US has been 'hoodwinked into financing an upgrade of Russia's weapons complex.' As it turns out, US observers are not allowed to see what is going on at the Russian facility where the $640 million was spent.  This would not be the first instance of America unwittingly financing Russian weapons programs. American dollars sent to Russia have been diverted, and many of these diversions have probably benefited Russian military programs. In recent years, the United States has spent nearly $5 billion in Russia."

What is particularly disturbing is that the US is responsible for its own arms race.  The US gave the secrets of the atom bomb to Russia during the Lend-Lease period of WWII as documented in the diaries of Major George Jordan, the Lend-Lease officer who objected and was overruled by the FDR White House.  The US also provided the nuclear material for Russia's first bomb.  In the 1970s, the US facilitated the transfer of sensitive military technology to improve the range and accuracy of Soviet missiles.  Sadly, the American people never realized why we had to build anti-missile systems against these weapons--or how our enemies got them.  

The excuse used at the time for American complicity regarding these transfers was that Russia was too weak to be a threat.  When it became strong due to Western assistance--and very dangerous--we were then told we must appease the Russians because they are a nuclear threat.  Brilliant deduction!  The same rationale is being repeated with China.  Within 10 years or less, China will be a predatory  power that both the West and Russia will come to the same brilliant conclusion after it's too late. It is no secret among Pentagon experts that both Russia and China still adhere to the military doctrine of using a massive nuclear pre-emptive strike on the West as the opening salvo in the next war.  Russia begins each military exercise with such a simulated nuclear strike, according to reliable Russian military defectors.

Interestingly enough, if the US believes that Russia is no longer a threat, then why does the Pentagon's Monterey Language School still continue to train more Russian language specialists than any other language by far?   Why, if the US really believes that only rogue nations are a threat did the US install the newest Globus-2 tracking system in Norway--a site suitable only for tracking Russian missiles?  Obviously, while the US government is assuring the world of Russia's peaceful intentions and specifically excluding a Russian strike from its defensive assumptions, they are planning for something much more ominous.  

THE SHAM OF CONVENTIONAL FORCES REDUCTION

Americans are pacified about the US disarmament policy by their own government's falsification of estimates regarding Russian nuclear and conventional forces.  I've already mentioned the fact that Russia's true numbers of nuclear weapons and warheads is beyond knowing, so US policy makers are told to assume that Russia is in compliance (a fool's paradise).  Putin, in a recent interview taken a week after his meeting with President Bush, made these candid remarks about the futility of an ABM system: "We will be unable to monitor one another and see how many missiles we have decommissioned . . and when we have unscrewed a warhead, see whether we have placed it nearby or destroyed it...there will be no control. What we unscrew today, we can install tomorrow."   Absolutely true, and every starry-eyed arms controller knows this but refuses to talk about it, so strong is the ideological tenacity to which they adhere to the cause.

Disarmament of conventional forces has also been downplayed unrealistically.  The Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE) required that the Soviets would reduce their ground forces west of the Urals (an important loophole) to one-third of their mid-1988 levels by the end of 1994.  Their armored forces would be reduced from 40,400 tanks and 138 reserve motor rifle divisions to 13,000 tanks and 50 divisions.  There were also reciprocal "flank" provisions in which Russia and NATO agreed not to permit concentrations of their own armed forces on their flanks to the north and south.

Before the implementation of the CFE treaty, the Russians were allowed (and encouraged) to withdraw 70,000 pieces of heavy armor and artillery beyond the Ural mountains so they would not be calculated in the CFE provisions.  So, with all the equalizing of numbers supposedly mandated by the CFE, keep in mind that Russia has stockpiled a huge number of modern tanks and mobile artillery in depots east of the Ural mountains which can be brought back into operation quickly during war.  

Even with these loopholes and concessions granted, the Russians have never fully implemented their side of the CFE.  For example, in 1996 Latvia protested the US approval of Moscow's plan to increase the number of armored personnel carriers in the flank region of Latvia from 400 to 600, when Latvia only had 15 such vehicles.  The Latvian protest went unheeded by the US.  Last year, Poland protested the buildup of tactical nuclear stockpiles in the Kaliningrad Oblast--another violation of the flank agreement.  The Clinton administration refused to pressure Russia to back down and instead entered into a side agreement making the violation acceptable.  

As the Center for Security Policy reported in 1995, "Russia will formally violate the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty.  That it would do so comes as no surprise; Moscow has failed fully to draw down the thousands of battle tanks, armored vehicles and heavy artillery pieces it is obliged to remove from the northern and southern flank regions and has telegraphed its intention not to do so for months. Russian Defense Minister Pavel Grachev did so again quite pointedly yesterday, announcing that 'compliance [with the CFE accord] will fully violate our country's system of security both in the south and in the north.' Evidently, the Kremlin believes it must retain 1,100 tanks, 3,000 armored vehicles and 2,100 artillery pieces in its Western region in order to intimidate -- and, if necessary, to fight -- adversaries at home (e.g., the Chechens) and abroad (e.g., the Baltic States, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey).

"The Clinton Administration has responded to this strategically portentous and politically sensitive Russian recalcitrance by essentially capitulating. It has agreed to support an adjustment to the CFE Treaty that would enable Moscow to keep the tanks and artillery pieces it wants along the flanks. Washington has, to date, agreed nearly to double the number of armored vehicles the Russians are allowed to have in the region (i.e., 1,000 armored personnel carriers, etc. versus the 580 it is permitted to have and in contrast to the 3,000 the Kremlin currently seeks).   When the CFE Treaty was signed on November 19 [1994] the Soviets had 20,700 tanks remaining in the Atlantic-to-Urals region. That leaves 7,550 Soviet tanks to be destroyed under the treaty's requirements."   Still, these numbers do not include the 70,000 pieces Russia has stockpiled east of the Urals.  To date, the Russians have only destroyed a few hundred of the oldest tanks.  Other armored vehicles have been sold to neighboring client states, and thus are still available to enforce Russian foreign policy.

Another chronic disinformation ploy is to claim the Russian air force lacks sufficient fuel to maintain pilot readiness.  A typical quote from the Pentagon proclaims, "The most acute problem in the Russian Air Force is lack of training resources, specifically lack of fuel. Flying hours have been kept to the minimum for years, which erodes besides the pilot skills also the readiness of the whole system."  This is ludicrous.  Russia is awash in oil resources and doesn't lack for refineries.  The country is a huge exporter of oil and fuel products.   If Russian officials are limiting the fuel available for flying time, it is because they have chosen to do so, for reasons of promulgating an image of weakness.

RUSSIAN MILITARY POWER VS. NATO

As of late 1990 (prior to the CFE) here is a typical view of NATO vs. Soviet conventional forces according to Soviet Military Power.  Note that there was an approximate 2:1 Soviet advantage in quantity of land based weapons:

                                                               NATO:                   WARSAW PACT:

Divisions                                               46                            90

Tanks                                                     23,000                     53,000

Armored Combat Vehicles  30,000                     53,000

Artillery                                                 19,000                     39,000

Combat Aircraft                                    5,500                       8,500

Helicopters                                            1,700                       1,600

Carrier Groups                                      15                            0

Military Ships                                       1,300                       1,500

Armored Divisions                              41                            79

Manpower                                             1.85 million            5.3 million                                                              

Here is a current view of the West vs. East comparison after CFE including Russian Ural stockpiles, normally omitted from conventional assessments for political reasons.   There still is a 2:1 Russian bloc advantage in conventional land-based weaponry.   The two sides are at least comparable in nuclear forces.

               

CONVENTIONAL FORCES:

US/NATO
RUSSIA/CIS

Divisions
11/19 = 30
50/20 = 70

Tanks  
4,000/16,000 = 20,000
43,000/7,000 = 50,000

Armored Combat Vehicles
5,000/24,000 = 29,000
40,000/15,000 = 55,000

Artillery                                
2,500/16,000 = 18,500
33,000/15,000 = 45,000

Combat Aircraft    
600/1,000 = 1,600
4,500/1,600 = 5,100

Helicopters
300/1,700 = 2,000
2,300/1,600 = 3,900

Carrier Groups      
6/3 = 9
1

Military Ships
300/600 = 900
1,200

STRATEGIC NUCLEAR FORCES:

US/NATO
RUSSIA/CIS

Nuclear Missile Subs
18/39
13

Nuclear Attack Subs
52/45
38

Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles
550, MX out in 2002
756 known, and growing

Sub Launched Missiles
432/640
412

Nuclear Bombers
115/204  
85/20

Total Nuclear Warheads    
6,500/550
9,000 est.

TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS
2,000 or less
20,000 or more


AN ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT OF US/NATO VS. RUSSIAN MILITARY POWER

One cannot simply tally up total forces and come to a predictable outcome based upon quantity.  Quantity does matter, but it is only one of several factors to consider.  Quality of weapons systems are a factor.  Some high tech weapons are worth 10 conventional types.  But quality is overplayed by the Americans.  Smart weapons are ten to twenty times more costly than conventional weapons and thus are deployed in vastly smaller quantities.  None of the Western nations has the unlimited budget to field both quality and massive quantity.  In addition, high tech weapons have never been tested against a determined enemy possessing both quality weapons and overwhelming numbers.  The recent US experiments in clean, surgical stand-off warfare against Iraq and Serbia were not good real-world examples of military prowess.  Neither Iraq nor Serbia had the will or capability to fight back in a meaningful manner.  Yet even so, in both mini-wars, US stockpiles of smart weapons were drawn down to dangerously low levels.  In many cases the stockpiles have not been rebuilt.  Up against a Russian attack, with an adversary capable of throwing tens of thousands of armored weapons into the conflict, the US and NATO simply don't have enough smart weapons to disable even one-third of the potential threat.

Tactics are another major factor.   The US and NATO have ceded the advantage in tactical NBC weapons to the Russians.  The US developed and then declined to deploy the neutron bomb, capable of killing large numbers of people without destroying cities--a major battlefield advantage if faced with overwhelming numbers of enemy troops.  The US has also decommissioned and is destroying almost all its biological, chemical and tactical nuclear stockpiles. Meanwhile, the Russians have deployed the neutron bomb, are maintaining huge stockpiles of other tactical nuclear weapons, and continue to build (in violation of all treaties) stockpiles of modern chemical and biological weapons. Even though treaties have been signed agreeing to reductions of tactical nuclear weapons, these treaties required the Russians only to warehouse their stockpiles.  

In terms of morale and combat readiness, both East and West have serious shortcomings.  The Russians are purposefully allowing their troop levels to drop while maintaining unusually high levels of NCOs and officers.  Some analysts believe this is indicative of feigning weakness while holding on to the leadership capability to rapidly assimilate new recruits in a war.  In the West, NATO would be hard-pressed to field 4 divisions within a reasonable time. US forces are overplayed and understaffed as well.  Morale is at rock bottom in US units.  The US has been enforcing tenuous and unpopular peacekeeping operations abroad that have little bearing on American security interests and have been unpopular with US troops.   Politicians, knowing the fragility of American tolerance for these foreign entanglements,  have skewed military tactics to avoid (and sometimes cover up) getting Americans killed, leaving the false impression that military operations can be done with little risk of bloodshed--another fool's paradise.   Meanwhile, political correctness has invaded all aspects of American military training.  Irritating sensitivity training has caused racial sensitivities to heighten rather than lessen.  Preferential treatment for women in the military--forcing the use of double standards in training--also saps the morale out of mixed forces.   Pay and benefits have now become the sole motivators in recruitment efforts, and it isn't working.  The quality of retention is suffering along with quantity.   When politicians destroy the moral and patriotic basis for military service, good people leave and unprincipled mercenaries fill in the vacuum.



THE NUCLEAR FACTOR

The one factor that can unbalance all others is the nuclear factor.  Nuclear considerations dominate because only nuclear weapons have the potential to change the balance of power so quickly.  Of course, the mere possession of  nuclear weapons does not equate to deterrence if it is apparent that a nation lacks the political will to use them.   Communist leaders do not lack the ruthlessness to do so.   The Russians are so sure of the inevitability of a nuclear war that they have made substantial preparations to survive such a circumstance, including a huge underground hardened military support system and civilian shelter system.  

In contrast,  US and NATO allies are particularly unprotected and left vulnerable to nuclear attack.  In addition, the US has engaged in several unwise policies that actually encourage a Russian pre-emptive nuclear strike:

1) There are no longer any nuclear bombers on alert that can get airborne in time to escape a nuclear first strike.

2) Driven by naive notions of Russian disarmament and an inordinate fear of accidental launch, the US military today lives under the ominous and suicidal restrictions of a top secret Presidential Decision Directive (PDD-60) mandating that the US military absorb a nuclear first strike and not launch on warning.  This has not been rescinded by President Bush.

3)  The US has agreed to keep half of its ballistic missile submarine fleet (SSBN) in port at any time, ensuring the Russians' ability to eliminate half our capacity in a single blow.  These two ports at Bangor (Seattle), Washington and King's Bay, Georgia are guaranteed first strike targets.  Similarly the nation's B-1 bomber force is being consolidated into 2 bases instead of the current 5.  

4)  There exist no nuclear fallout shelters in the US intended to protect the general population.  The government has built numerous large scale underground shelters to protect military and high ranking civilians from attack--which is telling.

The Russians know all of this, and wonder privately how or if the US could be so naive, especially regarding PDD-60.   This order to absorb a nuclear first strike is like telling the Russians, "Look, you're going to have a free shot, so you'd better give us all you have on the first try, before we retaliate."   Retaliate with what?  If an enemy knew they could strike without the fear of launch on warning--a powerful deterrent--they would make sure to hit the US with everything necessary to ensure that any retaliation would be limited.  Russian forces can easily handle a limited retaliation, given their level of sheltering.  Launch on warning is a powerful deterrent specifically because of the time delay it takes missiles to arrive on target.  The US could launch its own silo-based missiles before the Russian missiles arrive on target.  With a knowledge of which Russian facilities had already launched weapons, US missiles could be retargeted to attack those Russian missiles or facilities that are still vulnerable.  When the Russian missiles finally arrived, many of their targets would be empty.  Thus, launch on warning actually gives an advantage to the side that launches second--not first.

Without a policy to launch on warning, two and a half legs of the US strategic triad (nuclear missiles, bombers, half of SSBNs) would be taken out all at once in a first strike.  The remaining SSBNs could easily be neutralized and cut off from command by a Russian EMP strike (multiple high altitude nuclear explosions producing electromagnetic pulses that destroy electrical connections below) combined with anti-satellite attacks.  EMP could destroy ELF low frequency communications and satellite systems used to direct submarine operations.  Without communications and authorization to launch missiles, our SSBNs would become isolated and ineffective.

The US has a massive superiority in aircraft carrier task forces.  But with today's high tech satellite surveillance systems, it is nearly impossible to hide these forces even on the open seas in bad weather.  One nuclear salvo could take out these forces in minutes.   The US navy currently has no effective ABM system to counter a nuclear strike on its carriers.  The Aegis system could potentially be modified to that purpose, but changes to the speed and range of the Aegis missiles would be substantial and costly.

ANALYSIS OF CURRENT US STRATEGY

The US strategy has left the nation blatantly vulnerable to a Russian pre-emptive strike during the 2002 to 2006 time frame--what is fast becoming a large window of vulnerability.  

The US is accelerating its unilateral disarmament by decommissioning the powerful MX ICBM in 2002. The MX is a crucial factor in the balance of nuclear deterrence for several reasons.

1) It is our only missile armed with 10 MIRVed warheads, each capable of hitting and destroying hardened Russian and Chinese targets.  

2) It is our most modern and accurate missile.

3) Even though only 50 MX missiles exists, with 10 warheads on each missile that's a loss of 500 potential targets--a huge loss in deterrence capability.  

4) With PDD-60 still governing our military's nuclear response, the loss of all 50 MX missiles frees up at least 250 Russian warheads to target other US facilities.  This is because the Russians would have to blanket a hardened MX silo with at least 5 ground burst weapons in order to ensure a kill.  

This unilateral move comes at a time when Russia is not only NOT disarming but is building and deploying 3 new SS-27 (Topol-M) ICBMs per quarter--and there could be more in production in underground factories.  Putin is openly threatening to place 3 warheads on this new 6th generation ICBM (rumored to possess ABM jamming capabilities and maneuvering warheads), even though the START II treaty only allows Russia one warhead per missile.  In fact, Putin's threat is disinformation for the media.  Both he and US intelligence know that Russia has already begun mounting multiple warheads on the Topols as of last year.   An SS-27 missile test with multiple warhead separation has even been recorded by space based sensors.  

What is also little known is that President Clinton already offered Russia the 3-warhead option as part of his deal to gain Russia's permission to build an ABM system--as if we needed Russia's permission to defend ourselves.  What was particularly egregious was Clinton's reasoning.  He said his offer was to assure Russia that they would have sufficient nuclear power to overwhelm the puny 100 missile interceptor system being planned at the time.  Here is an American president supposedly building an Anti-Ballistic Missile system to protect the American people and then offering to make an agreement with our largest potential nuclear enemy to render the system ineffective!  Thus, it was entirely predictable that Putin's defense minister would openly deride the US ABM system by saying exactly that--that by mounting 3 warheads on Russia's planned 500 SS-27s, Russia could overwhelm the US defense system.  

As if that weren't enough, Russian defense ministry spokesmen announced, after a test launch of an SS-19 ICBM this week, that Russia may not dismantle the SS-19s after all, in spite of prior promises to do so.   This is not surprising since Russia is and has been in violation of virtually every single disarmament agreement signed.  Strangely, the US not only never protests these violations, but insists on abiding by the agreements itself unilaterally.

As I have said before in prior World Affairs Briefs, our leaders aren't simply stupid, naive, or even suicidal.  These tactics of covering for Russian violations and war preparations indicate that US globalist leaders have some sort of ulterior motives not in accord with US sovereign interests.  These motives are instead tied, in my opinion, to global intentions of undermining US sovereignty and military might.  What better way to do that than create the conditions of US vulnerability whereby Russia is induced to finally destroy the one obstacle in Communism's long dream of world hegemony--the US military?  

OTHER UNTIMELY MOVES THAT WILL UNDERMINE US MILITARY STRENGTH

As Russia and China build for a two-ocean war of supremacy against the US, Sec. of Defense Rumsfield recently announced to Congress that as a matter of US military policy and strategy, the US will no longer prepare to wage two major wars simultaneously.   This is a tacit admission that the Bush campaign pledge to rebuild the American military does not involve a strategy for preparing against the greatest known threats--Russia and China--which would require preparing for the inevitable larger war to come.  

Rumsfield's stated intention of allocating almost the entire $8 billion in defense budget increases towards pay and amenities for service men is indicative that the Bush administration's increased spending will not be sufficient or timely enough to protect the US during this hastening window of vulnerability.  Thus, currently deployed weapons systems will not be maintained or increased in quantity due to the high cost of fielding the next generation of high tech weapons beginning in 2006-2010.  Ammunition and cruise missile stocks have yet to be replenished from the Serbia campaign.  

WHY 2002 TO 2006 IS SO DANGEROUS

With the continued downsizing of conventional forces and disarmament of strategic nuclear forces, the US has knowingly or unknowingly left itself dangerously exposed to Russia's nuclear option from 2002 to 2006.   Considering the quantities of conventional forces held in reserve by both Russia and China, the West would be hard–pressed even under existing favorable circumstances to field a sufficient quantity of smart munitions to fight a full scale, two ocean war during that period.  If such a war were preceded by a nuclear pre-emptive strike against the West, the resulting diminution of Western military power would be almost fatal.  I suspect strongly that the Russians intend to use the nuclear option on the US and Britain, and then attempt to blackmail Europe into submission.  If Europe fails to succumb, Russia will procede with an attack on Europe with tactical nuclear weapons and a massive quantity of conventional forces once Europe's compliment of the high tech weapons are eliminated or used up.  China, currently in a mutually supportive role with Russia, will use their advantage (in quantity of armed forces) to occupy vast territories, while Russia supplements China's limited naval transport capabilities.  

CONCLUSIONS:

the US is making a huge strategic mistake by downsizing and disarming strategic forces before new weapons systems are deployed to shore up the deterrence factor.  It's a mistake to disarm in any case, given the massive amount of Russian and Chinese violations of arm control agreements.   Even relying on small numbers of high tech equipment, without sufficient ammunition stocks to field a much larger threat, is very unwise, but disarming in the face of Russia's increased motivation to use the nuclear option is suicidal.  Sadly, it appears as if the United State's illusory days as the world's only super power are numbered.    

The window of US/NATO vulnerability will begin to open in 2002 after the MX missiles are destroyed.  The intention of the US to leap forward in time and field a whole new generation of high tech weaponry after 2006, coupled with the threat of a vigorous multi-tiered ABM system before 2007, almost guarantees that the Russians will see the necessity to strike before that time frame.  No single issue incites Russian or Chinese fears more than the specter of an ABM system that will potentially limit their planned first strike strategy.  Their opposition to this purely defensive system is clear evidence of eventual hostile intentions--all other excuses about its potential for creating an arms race are pure propaganda.  Russia is already in an arms race, building a new force of ICBMs, and the West is helping out with a steady flow of loans and joint venture military technology.  

The picture I paint is grim and holds little hope at this late stage for reversal. As Serbian-American Petar Makara said recently, "false hope will keep the victim immobilized when action is the only real hope left."   To a world accustomed to living in illusions of peace and hope, this projected Russian nuclear strike is unthinkable, therefore the public will continue to prefer paralysis to action.  

Furthermore, the West naively thinks that everyone is rational like themselves and that no modern nation would knowingly plan to destroy our marvelous way of life, since it would affect the perpetrator himself.  Sadly, these illusions of hope are reminiscent of the 1930s.  Most fail to remember that real evil rises up from time to time as men's consciences grow dull and they become resistant to the warning signs--and even anxious to disbelieve.  It's only been a little more than a half a century since the world succumbed to the same illusions of peace and prosperity that led to WWII.  It is my warning to the world that we are entering a similar but even more deceptive period which will sweep us into WWIII, to be followed by a total restructuring of the New World Order--which will destroy in one final motion what remains of national sovereignty and individual liberty.  

Naturally, the resulting form of government will still be called democracy and the "rule of law"--but the law will have become a vehicle of oppression and there will be no retreat allowed back to individual, family, or national sovereignty.  The EU, NAFTA, and the WTO are administrative precursors to this control system, which should be actively resisted.  But the real chains of international police power are only capable of being forged when people are suffering under the exigencies of war and cease to worry about rights and limited government in their quest for survival.  That's why, as Helmut Kohl cryptically hinted at his speech in Leuven, Belgium in 1996, "The only alternative to European integration is war."  As an insider, Kohl knows that war--what the world considers unthinkable--may soon become a tragic reality.

.

Table of Contents


fides quaerens intellectum