War of Words

The terminology we use is important. Words possess real power. Language can destroy or build, tear down or uplift, divide or unite, disenfranchise or empower, and demoralize or inspire. 

The enemies of humanity have devoted an extreme amount of time and financial resources to hijacking, manipulating, misusing, canceling, and altering language. By this means, they have denounced patriots as traitors and trumpeted traitors as patriots, blamed the guiltless for their own crimes while making themselves appear innocent, and made good seem evil and evil seem good. 

In 2018, Benjamin R. Dierker, writing for The Federalist, put out a piece discussing the effort to mold language to push the anti-Freedom agenda and fundamentally transform society: 

“Word games take many forms, and honest people must call it out . . . Underlying each tactic is misuse of words. 

“This isn’t innocent linguistic drift or slang; it is a conscious effort to reshape society. The schemes include redefining words for personal gain, using modifiers to alter the meaning of a word, replacing technical words with colloquial ones, and creating new words. Each of these is a bullying tactic, which distort effective discourse. 

“It starts with misusing words or defining them based on circumstance rather than objective meaning. The entire purpose of defined language is to hold constant meaning so others can understand. Situational use starts to condition how people feel about words, building up a new connotation. 

“The classic example is the word “liberal,” which the far-left co-opted. It was adopted because of its positive connotation, and used as a cover for imposing greater leftist control under the guise of liberty. In reality, there is nothing liberal about failing to protect life, burdening individuals with regulations and taxes, or forcing individuals to provide services to others. This is no accidental misnomer, but strategic messaging to influence people. Who doesn’t want to support a policy that is “progressive,” “pro-choice,” or “affordable”? 

“When the word cannot be flipped, other words are sometimes added to suggest a new meaning. In the case of firearms, the new popular phrase is “assault rifle.” Webster’s Dictionary was happy to update its definition to help nudge society in the right direction. The effect is a stronger connotation, which plays on people’s emotion and visceral reactions to the phrase. . . . 

“Wholly disassociating words from their accepted meaning opened an entirely new realm of possibility for leftists. By separating gender from sex, linguistic activists tore the very fabric of mutual understanding, and created a new class of victims, and by definition, a new class of offenders. Pronouns, the simplest way to identify another party, are now subject to feelings. 

“Defining words on subjective views defeats the purpose of language, because it creates an endless guessing game, and empowers the other party to choose when to reward and when to punish the speaker. By sabotaging the accepted unity of sex and gender, dozens of new pronouns sprang into existence. 

“New words do not harm discourse, unless they are thrust upon people and enforced through speech codes. Controlling how people speak is the implicit goal of this movement, which combined with anti-hate-speech activism seeks to empower the Left as the arbiters of morality and to punish those who wrongfully use language—ironically, achieved by abusing language themselves.” 

We can all inherently see how dangerous it is to subject words to feelings and substitute the rule of law with the rule of men – madmen. The inmates are running the asylum, but they got into that position by first getting into your mind and changing your thoughts, vocabulary, and forms of expression. To break their spell, you must take back the English language, learn how to effectively communicate, discard the ludicrous definitions and linguistic straitjacket they have imposed on public discourse, and speak truth regardless of whether it is politically incorrect, socially accepted, or considered “offensive” by the social engineers and their brainwashed followers. 

We now analyze other examples of the intentional linguistic distortions that have been used so regularly by the controlled press, Hollywood, academia, activists, and politicians that they have warped popular culture and indoctrinated millions. 

The anti-gun radicals are busy in Congress, the courts, and media denouncing our natural, God-given, constitutionally-explicit right to keep and bear arms as at attack on the right of life. Yet, these same anti-gun activists are generally pro-abortion, which is a blatant and brutal attack on the right of life. The hypocrisy is stunning! 

To establish the hypocrisy, I quote from Democrat Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal. During debate on an assault weapons ban currently in Congress, Jayapal whined

“Mr. Chairman, my colleague across the aisle said we have the right to defend ourselves. What about our right to live? . . . [An assault weapons ban] is a ban that the majority of Americans support . . . Today, I dare my Republican colleagues to stop looking away. Stop ignoring the tragedy that is faced by people across this country . . . It is our duty to stop these killings . . . So, for every person who says I have a right to defend, I say to you, we have a right to life. And your right to defend with a weapon of war does not obliterate our right to live.” 

This is the same demonic traitor who previously Tweeted

“Today, a right-wing Supreme Court overturned the right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade. 

“As one of the one in four women in this country who has had an abortion — I am outraged. . . . 

“Pregnant people no longer have the personal freedom to make decisions about our own bodies with a doctor or loved one. Instead, those decisions will be made for us by politicians.” 

Do you see the vicious hypocrisy that a politician who wants to dictate how we defend ourselves complains that politicians are meddling with her “right” to kill kids? “I am outraged” that this wicked traitor hasn’t been, along with her Marxist comrades infesting our government, taken and strung up by the People for being oath-breakers and fighting so hard to trample the rights declared sacrosanct in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. Despicable. 

These types of depraved baby killers have repeated ad nauseum the scientifically-disproven notion that babies are “clumps of cells” in the womb to ease their consciences about murdering them. They institutionally slaughter babies by the tens of millions, but come out in rage and indignation against guns; that is, against inanimate objects that are neither good nor evil, but are mere tools that can be used by good or evil people for good or evil purposes. 

There is no mention by the rights-devouring jackals of the inconvenient fact that guns are used by innocent Americans between 2 and 3 million times a year in self-defense against criminals. A great example just happened in Indiana on July 17 when the 22-year-old Elisjsha Dicken, who was constitutionally carrying a firearm in a pathetic gun-free mall defended himself, his girlfriend, and a room full of people, against a would-be mass murderer. 

Which of the would-be victims in the mall that day will dare come out and denounce this young man or wish the government had stripped him of his firearm? Was the gun the bad guy in this scenario? Was is the good guy? Neither. Elisjsha, using a gun, saved countless lives. He was the good guy. The perpetrator, also using a gun, wanted to murder dozens. He was the bad guy. The gun, therefore, is neutral and has no inherent moral standing. It depends how it is used. 

Abortion, however, is nearly always elective (i.e. medically unnecessary) and, thus, is predominantly evil. Not only can we justly attach a moral stigma to baby-murder, but the practice is a clear violation of the right of life we all are meant, by our Creator, to enjoy. The Declaration of Independence confirms that the right of life is one of the things our forefathers fought the War for Independence about. 

Since 1776, it has been one of the express purposes of the U.S. government to defend the right of life of the People. Yet, the abortion activists screech that their “rights” are being violated when we attempt to prevent them from killing kids. In truth, they are the ones violating the right of life. It is not a violation of one’s free will to prevent them from taking the life of an innocent human being. 

To further ease their screaming consciences about snuffing out the lives of defenseless babies, however, these radicals label their atrocities “pro-choice” and pretend that they are the real victims of oppression. They claim this disgusting act is a “right.” Yet, we can’t have both the right to life and the “right” to abortion because the two are contradictions. Only one is a right; the other is an abomination. 

These baby killers have also said the despicable act is “liberating.” It takes serious mental gymnastics to believe that killing an innocent, precious child is “liberating.” The Satanic Temple has taken it a step further, however, elevating baby-murder to a “sacrament” and arguing it is a religious rite protected by the First Amendment. Not only is this the epitome of blasphemy, but it is a perversion of rule of law, the law of nature, and American-style republicanism. 

Another term that should make you bristle is “government money.” The government has no money. In the first place, government is an agent of the People. They are elected and are accountable to us, not the other way around. That they may tax fairly and equally is constitutionally-established. But they have perverted this delegated power to tax and oversee money by establishing a privately-owned, foreign-controlled “national” bank deceptively called the Federal Reserve that prints and manipulates currency at will and by instituting graduated taxation straight out of The Communist Manifesto. The name “Federal Reserve” is another of those word manipulations since the Federal Reserve is not part of the federal government and since it has zero reserves. 

The U.S. government, which the Federal Reserve has openly said it is not accountable to, is, with the central bank, the most fiscally irresponsible entity in existence and the United States now sits at nearly $31 trillion in the hole. Andrew Jackson fought and defeated this banker cabal in his day because he saw how dangerous it was to American sovereignty, prosperity, and Freedom. Jackson was a Jeffersonian in principle. The great Thomas Jefferson had previously opposed Hamilton’s Anglophile national bank scheme and warned that banks and reckless spending would plunge the nation into bondage: 

“And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale” (Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, May 28, 1816). 

We also err when we talk of the U.S. dollar as “money.” It is not money. It is fiat paper currency backed by nothing but false hope and empty promises. It is not backed by gold or silver as the U.S. Constitution requires. Our economy is a house of cards that is beginning to implode because it is based on paper instead of something of substance. Thomas Jefferson said of paper money: 

“The bankruptcies in London have recommenced with new force. There is no saying where this fire will end. Perhaps in the general conflagration of all their paper. If not now, it must ere long. With only 20 millions of coin, and three or four hundred million of circulating paper, public and private, nothing is necessary but a general panic, produced either by failures, invasion or any other cause, and the whole visionary fabric vanishes into air and shews that paper is poverty, that it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself” (Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, May 27, 1788). 

The Father of our Country, George Washington, was also opposed to fictitious paper money, telling Thomas Jefferson in a letter: 

“Some other States are, in my opinion, falling into very foolish & wicked plans of emitting paper money. I cannot however give up my hopes & expectations that we shall ere long adopt a more liberal system of policy. What circumstances will lead, or what misfortunes will compel us to it, is more than can be told without the spirit of prophecy” (George Washington to Thomas Jefferson, August 1, 1786). 

A short six months later, General Washington wrote even more bluntly to Jabez Bowen: 

“Paper money has had the effect in your State that it ever will have, to ruin commerce—oppress the honest, and open a door to every species of fraud and injustice” (George Washinton to Jabez Bowen, January, January 9, 1787). 

Despite the death spiral our ghost of an economy is in, the current regime continues to say all is well and that we have the strongest economy on record. What a lie! Everyone knows this is false. Everyone sees the massive price increases at the grocery store. Everyone feels the stab of inflation at the pumps. Everyone knows it is a lie, yet the lies persist and the People accept it; grudgingly, to be sure, but they accept it nonetheless and refuse to rise up against the tyrants who have hijacked our nation

Among the many lies told by our government and media is the whopper that vaccines are “safe and effective.” Everyone who has taken the time to study the matter knows that no vaccine is safe, that vaccines have never eradicated any disease, and that the damage done by vaccines to humanity in the form of cancer, brain damage, autism, allergies, miscarriages, Sudden Instant Death Syndrome (SIDS), kidney failure, autoimmune disorders, heart attacks, and so forth, is nothing short of deliberate genocide. Vaccine science is Satanic science. This vaccination voodoo is complete and utter hokum. 

To cite only six excellent researchers who have exposed the corruption of the vaccine industry and the grave danger of vaccines, see Dr. Suzanne Humphries and her excellent book Dissolving Illusions, Dr. Judy Mikovits and her book Ending Plague, Dr. Sheri Tenpenny, Dr. Joseph Mercola, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, and Dr. Thomas Cowan and his book Vaccines, Autoimmunity, and the Changing Nature of Childhood Illness as well as the research of the Weston A. Price Foundation to which he belongs. 

The Coronahoax was the ultimate in gaslighting and deception. First, the Trump government said “two weeks to stop the spread.” Never forget it was a Republican regime that locked down America and started the mass vaccine genocide program. Then the regime and state governments used the momentum to shut down the country, destroy travel, derail the economy, smash the middle class, curtail religious Liberty, suspend the Constitution, unconstitutionally expand the size of government, convince people to inhibit their oxygen by strapping ineffective masks over their faces, and terrify millions into getting an experimental vaccine that has since terminated the lives of tens of thousands of people and crippled countless more. If you take nothing else out of this article, take away a healthy skepticism of Big Pharma, the medical-industrial complex, and doctors generally. 

Two other common refrains are, first, that “you can be whatever you want to be” and, second, that “you are perfect just the way you are.” Both of these cheerful slogans are false and dangerous. Society has pushed the first one into the realm of mental illness. Transgenderism is a mental illness and it is symptomatic of the idea that we can be whatever we want to be. If we are a woman, we can be a man. If we are a man, we can be a woman. If we are a human, we can be a cat. Facts are fluid in minds that have accepted “you can be whatever you want to be” as doctrine instead of accepting the truth that men are men and women are women and that can never change regardless of all the cosmetic surgeries and hormone pills a person takes. 

The second is wishful thinking. Is a morbidly obese person “perfect just the way they are”? Is “every body beautiful”? No! While beauty is subjective, doctors, nutritionists, and scientists can indeed objectively state that obesity is dangerous and unhealthy and that being fit and eating right is better for longevity, productiveness, health, and happiness. What is beautiful about blubber? What is attractive about laziness and uncleanness? A few extra pounds – who really cares? But living a slovenly, sedentary, comatose life is unhealthy, unproductive, unattractive, soul-sapping, and damaging to everyone. 

Eating white refined sugar, regularly drinking soda, drinking alcohol, smoking, drinking psychoactive coffee, doing drugs, consuming GMO food, staring at a screen all day long, exposing yourself to harmful radiation, watching porn, sleeping around, cohabitating – these are all objectively damaging. If you are lazy, fat, unhealthy, sedentary, uneducated, uninvolved in society, undeveloped in your communication skills, immodest in your dress and language, and so forth, you are not “perfect just the way you are” and you need to shape up. 

See https://www.facebook.com/TraditionalWest/

Another big lie is to call the horde of illegal invaders rushing across our southern border “undocumented aliens.” To be here without documents is, by definition. to be here illegally. To commit an illegal act means you have violated some law (whether that law is just is another matter). It means, legally speaking, you are a criminal. Why, then, do people allow the enemy to restrict their language – which is an essential part of their power as a free individual – and induce them to use insufficient words that downplay the seriousness of this crime? 

Religious leader Elder Neal A. Maxwell once made a statement that applies to everything covered so far in this article and everything below. He observed truthfully: 

“The more what is politically correct seeks to replace what God has declared correct, the more ineffective approaches to human problems there will be, all reminding us of C. S. Lewis’s metaphor about those who run around with fire extinguishers in times of flood. For instance, there are increasing numbers of victims of violence and crime, yet special attention is paid to the rights of criminals. Accompanying an ever increasing addiction to pornography are loud alarms against censorship. Rising illegitimacy destroys families and threatens the funding capacities of governments; nevertheless, chastity and fidelity are mocked. These and other consequences produce a harsh cacophony. When Nero fiddled as Rome burned, at least he made a little music! I have no hesitancy, brothers and sisters, in stating that unless checked, permissiveness, by the end of its journey, will cause humanity to stare in mute disbelief at its awful consequences. 

“Ironically, as some people become harder, they use softer words to describe dark deeds. This, too, is part of being sedated by secularism!” (Elder Neal A. Maxwell, “Becometh as a Child,” General Conference, April, 1996). 

Yes, the act of mutilating language beyond recognition and sense will aid us on our journey to hell and destruction. This is by design by the enemy of mankind and his willing minions which are strategically embedded in society. 

The enemy loves to use buzz words to smear patriotic opposition to their Satanic schemes. Favorite smears include: Anti-Semite; Nazi; Fascist; racist; imperialist; jingoist; isolationist; nationalist; white supremacist; Christo-Fascist; KKK; homophobic; transphobic; bigot; intolerant; religious extremist; right-wing extremist; and domestic terrorist. 

If you criticize communism, you are immediately labeled an “anti-Semite” and a “Nazi” (perhaps Shakespeare’s paraphrase “methinks thou dost protest too much” is applicable here; also, read what Winston Churchill said about who runs communism here). If you oppose the scourge of black crime in America, they call you a “racist” instead of a realist. If you oppose illegal immigration and drugs and sex slavers flooding across our southern border, they call you “racist” and claim you’re not compassionate – as if keeping the border wide open and encouraging people to make the long trek up to the States along which they will be raped, abused, kidnapped, extorted, or killed by drug cartels is “compassionate.” If you oppose foreign wars, they call you an “isolationist.” If you support intervention to stop criminal regimes abroad, they call you an “imperialist.” If you love America, they call you a “nationalist” – as if putting your country first a bad thing! If you oppose men or women betraying their biology, going against nature, and copulating with the same gender on either scientific or religious grounds, they call you “homophobic” and “hateful.” If you dare suggest that universal morality or, worse, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, have a place at the table in public discourse, schools, media, entertainment, or the halls of government, they call you a “religious extremist,” a “bigot,” or a “Christo-Fascist.” If you refuse to accept, embrace, and bow before the throne of evil, perversion, and collectivist tyranny, you are called “intolerant,” a “right-wing extremist,” or a “domestic terrorist.” So be it! 

Wear the labels proudly, fellow freeman. Wear them as a badge of honor and as proof that your resistance to tyranny is having an effect. Don’t cower before the mindless mob. Don’t be afraid of outlandish and idiotic slurs like “racist” and “Nazi.” If opposing statism makes you a “Nazi,” so be it! Either rebuff the word-manipulators and their overused, tired, absurd smears or embrace them with the knowledge they have no meaning to intelligent people. 

Heretofore, all of my criticisms have been leveled specifically at the Western language manglers. However, the East mastered the art of deception long before we did. KGB-trained dictator Vladimir Putin could teach a master class on manipulation. Russians have a history of always lying and deceiving. It’s part of their culture – political and otherwise. From Potemkin villages to Soviet forgery factories to Putin’s famous doublespeak, Russia is the ultimate master of manipulation and many of the destructive word and thought trends in America were imported from Russia by Soviet moles and agents of subversion. 

And that’s what this all boils down to – communism. People often prefer the more ambiguous term “globalism,” but the agenda of the “globalists” is a savage form of socialism and corporatism patterned off of Bolshevistic communism in the Soviet Union. Lenin called the Western counterpart “state capitalism.” Whatever you call it, the Eastern and Western proponents are disciples of Karl Marx and the greater conspiracy that Marx was only one part of, which was once known as the Order of Illuminati.  

J. Edgar Hoover once said that communists are the “masters of deceit” and wrote a book of the same title. In it, he said that recognizing communist trickery is one of the keys to thwarting communism. He explained: 

“Communism is at war with America. The United States is a vast battlefield. A school, a labor union, a civic group, a government official, a private citizen — all are important in the never-ending struggle for power. 

“The whole nation, to the communists, is a gigantic checker- board. The communist high command is constantly moving, jumping, switching, and retreating to get communist members in positions of influence. They are outnumbered; they know that. That is why they must depend on skill, maneuvering, and deception. . . . 

“The strength of this inner circle, the real backbone of communist striking power, lies not in numbers but in organized deception. Following Lenin’s teachings, the Party is a small, compact, and highly mobile group that can strike quickly with great fury, often achieving objectives unwarranted by its numbers. Today’s membership is hard, well trained, and disciplined. The weak, fainthearted, and skeptical have been purged. Those who remain faithful to the Party are dedicated to the communist revolution” (Hoover, Masters of Deceit, 95, 97). 

Join my Gab group World War Truth here: https://gab.com/groups/66508

Organized deception, organized crime, organized evil – that’s what faces us. We have no united front against communism. We are disorganized and the communists take advantage of our lethargy, divisions, and ignorance to push us around and prompt us to destroy each other. Hijacking our language, and, thus, our minds, was crucial in this process. The communists could have never gained such stunning success without first having tapped into and manipulated our minds and psyches. They did it by gradually changing our language, by using media to make certain terms and ideas taboo, and by smearing all opposition with the absurd labels noted earlier. 

The brainwashing (a Chinese term for communist indoctrination) of our population has been wildly successful, though millions of us are still grounded in truth and have the gift of discernment. A large section of our country, however, has been so propagandized that they now believe sex and gender are social constructs! 

Earlier this month, Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary changed part of their definition of “female” to read: “having a gender identity that is the opposite of male.” Now, gender isn’t grounded in reality, biology, or science, it’s whatever you want it to be. Remember, “you can be whatever you want to be” – just as long as whatever fantasy you’ve concocted for yourself doesn’t lead you to oppose the relentless assault on Faith, Family, and Freedom by the communist conspiracy

Choose to dissent from the crowd. Rise above the smears by ignoring them or embracing them. Let them call you a “Nazi” or a “racist” or an “extremist”; what does it matter what a communist calls you? These criminals have wrecked our nation and world, destroyed the global economy, set loose plagues and pushed vaccine genocide, have broken up our families, have snapped the American mind with lies and deceit, and are now trying to disarm us so they can unleash an orgy of death, destruction, and misery that will surpass the darkest days of the Soviet Union or Maoist China. Now is the time to heed John Adams’ plea: 

“Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write. Let every order and degree among the people rouse their attention and animate their resolution. Let them all become attentive to the grounds and principles of government, ecclesiastical and civil. Let us study the law of nature; search into the spirit of the British constitution; read the histories of ancient ages; contemplate the great examples of Greece and Rome; set before us the conduct of our own British ancestors, who have defended for us the inherent rights of mankind against foreign and domestic tyrants and usurpers, against arbitrary kings and cruel priests, in short, against the gates of earth and hell. . . .  

“In a word, let every sluice of knowledge be opened and set a-flowing” (John Adams, “A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law,” 1765). 

When we open the spigots of knowledge, learning, refinement, and education, we place ourselves in a position to effectively and articulately resist tyranny, to see through the fog of war, to discern between fact and fiction, and to persuade others to reject error and stand for truth boldly in the face of criticism. Let us be men of deep learning, sound principles, and moral rectitude. Let us pierce the web of lies and seize the truth. Let us win this war of words that we may win the battle for the American mind and, thus, effect another American Revolution that will open a golden age for humanity. 

Zack Strong, 
July 23, 2022

The Greatest Battle in the History of the World

On June 22, 1941, the greatest military undertaking in world history began. On that awesome day, the liberating forces of the Third Reich fired the first salvo against the communist world conspiracy and its base of operations in occupied Soviet Russia. The strike was a preemptive attack against Joseph Stalin’s gargantuan Red Army which was amassed on the border and preparing to invade and subjugate all of mainland Europe. 

Though ultimately unsuccessful, this epic military strike, known as Operation Barbarossa, was, to date, the world’s worthiest attempt at ridding mankind of the communist cancer. Today, I pay tribute to the Third Reich’s armed forces – the most multicultural and international fighting force ever assembled – that invaded the Satanic Soviet Union and attempted to liberate Europe. 

Before I get started, and before you jump to too many wrong conclusions about how I’m a “conspiracy theorist” or a “Nazi sympathizer,” I want to share some of the relevant sources I’ve gleaned information from over the years and which I recommend to you: 

  • Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War? by Viktor Suvorov 
  • Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II by Viktor Suvorov 
  • Stalin’s War of Extermination by Joachim Hoffmann 
  • 1939 – The War that Had Man Fathers by Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof 
  • The Myth of German Villainy by Benton L. Bradberry 
  • The Artist Within the Warlord: An Adolf Hitler You’ve Never Known edited by Carolyn Yeager and Wilhelm Kriessman 
  • Hitler’s Revolution: Ideology, Social Programs, Foreign Affairs by Richard Tedor 
  • Mein Side of the Story: Key World War II Addresses of Adolf Hitler edited by M.S. King 
  • The Bad War: The Truth Never Taught about World War 2 by M.S. King 
  • The Eastern Front: Memoirs of a Waffen SS Volunteer, 1941-1945 by Leon Degrelle 
  • The Ruling Elite: Death, Destruction, and Domination by Deanna Spingola 
  • Witness to History series by Mike Walsh 
  • The Origins of The Second World War by A.J.P. Taylor 
  • Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947 by Thomas Goodrich 
  • Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World by Pat Buchanan 
  • The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945 by Richard Steigmann-Gall 
  • The Nameless War by Captain Ramsay 
  • Hitler: Democrat by Leon Degrelle 
  • Who started World War II? Truth for a War-Torn World by Udo Walendy 
  • How Britain Initiated Both World Wars by Nick Kollerstrom 
  • Stalin’s War: A New History of World War II by Sean McMeekin 
  • Communism in Germany: The Truth About the Communist Conspiracy on the Eve of the National Revolution by Adolf Ehrt 
  • What the World Rejected: Hitler’s Peace Offers 1933-1940 by Friedrich Stieve 
  • Institute for Historical Review – ihr.org 
  • Society for Dissemination of Historical Fact – sdh-fact.com 
  • The Barnes Review – barnesreview.org 
  • The Impartial Truth – impartialtruth.com 
  • “Hitler’s War: What the Historians Neglect to Mention” – Documentary 
  • “The Greatest Story Never Told” – thegreateststorynevertold.tv 

Many other sources could be listed, but you get the point: I haven’t just pulled my ideas out of thin air. They are grounded in fact, are backed up by tangible evidence, or are logical deductions from my perspective as one who has done deep study on world conspiracy, who has lived in Russia, and who has intensely examined both sides of World War II for some twenty-five years. If you are concerned with something I have written, send me a message and I’ll show you where to find the pertinent information. 

Now, on to the main event. On June 22nd, eighty-one years ago, Europe was imperiled by the Soviet Union. On September 3, 1939, because of Germany’s attack on Poland incited by Poland’s slaughter and abuse of thousands of ethnic Germans on “Polish” territory stolen in the Versailles Treaty, Britain and France had declared war on Germany and French forces had marched into and occupied a small section of German territory. In 1940, Hitler retaliated. As all of this was happening, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin was licking his chops in the Kremlin and building up his army for a surprise attack on Europe’s backside. 

Stalin invaded Poland in mid-September, 1939. He next invaded Finland in late 1939. He took over the Baltics in 1940 and marched into Bessarabia and Bukovina the same year. Communist agents fomented revolutions and coups throughout the Balkans, used moles (Harry Hopkins, Harry Dexter White, Alger Hiss, et al.) to manipulate FDR and maneuver the United States into war with Japan and, thus, Germany, and generally added fuel to the fires raging in Europe and Asia. Between September 1939 and June 1941, while actually invading nations and moving the Soviet border closer to Western Europe, Red Army troops and supplies were being massed and staged near the German-Soviet border in Poland. 

The scale of the Soviet buildup was staggering. Never has a nation amassed so much armor, so many soldiers, so many paratroopers, and so many weapons. This unprecedented buildup along the border wasn’t for defense; that’s preposterous! Soviet intelligence Viktor Suvorov has thoroughly debunked the myth that the Soviet Union was staged in defensive positions. He proves conclusively in his books Icebreaker and Chief Culprit that Stalin was preparing to attack, that the Red Army was lined up in attack formation, and that the invasion was perhaps as little as two weeks from commencing when Hitler thankfully preempted it. 

In chapter nine of Icebreaker, titled “Why the Security Zone was Dismantled on the Eve of War,” Suvorov explained how the Soviets had torn down their defenses and erected means for a rapid offensive in the West when they were preempted on June 22, 1941: 

“A country which is preparing its defence deploys its army deep inside its own territory, and not on its very frontier. The object is to prevent the enemy from destroying the main defending forces with one surprise attack. A defending side will normally build a security zone in the frontier areas in plenty of time; a zone where the terrain has been saturated with traps, engineered defences, obstacles and minefields. The defending side will deliberately avoid constructing anything related to industry or transport in this zone; nor will it keep any heavy military formations or large quantities of supplies there. On the contrary, timely preparations will have been made to blow up all bridges, tunnels and roads in this zone. 

“Once inside the security zone, the aggressor loses speed of movement, and his troops sustain losses before they even encounter the main forces of the defender. . . . 

“In the autumn of 1939, the Soviet Union had a great stroke of luck. Under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, it annexed new territories between 200 and 300 kilometres deep. The security zone that had already been set up thus grew considerably in depth. Nature herself could have created these new territories for the express purpose of equipping it as a security zone. They had forests, hills, bogs, deep rivers with marshy banks and, in the western Ukraine, fast-flowing mountain rivers between steep banks. In short ‘the terrain favoured defence and the creation of defence obstacles.’ (Marshal of the Soviet Union A. Eremenko, V Nachale Voiny, Moscow Nauka 1964, p. 71) As if that were not enough, the network of roads was still at a primitive stage of development. Of 6,696 miles of railway lines, only 2,008 had double tracks, but the capacity of even these was limited. It would have been quite easy, were the need to arise, to make these railway lines quite unusable. . . . 

“The element of surprise – so advantageous to the Germans in June 1941 – could have been reduced had the main Soviet forces been kept away from the actual frontiers. Empty territory, even without any technical defence installations, would have served as a security zone after its own fashion, by allowing the main forces time to get ready for action. But, according to the official Soviet account, 

““The armies . . . were to deploy directly along the state frontier . . . in spite of the fact that its geographical outline was entirely disadvantageous to defence. Even those security zones stipulated in our pre-war directives had not been technically prepared,” (htoriya Velikoi Otechestvennoi Voiny, Voenizdat 1961, Vol. 2, p. 49). . . . 

“The construction of railways was accompanied by the building of motor highways running directly to the frontier towns of Peremyshl’, Brest-Litovsk and Yavarov. When preparations are being made for a defensive war, ‘belt’ roads are built running parallel with the front, so that troops may be moved from passive sectors to those under threat. These ‘belt’ roads are built deep in the rear; the frontier regions themselves are left as far as possible without roads or bridges. But the Red Army built both railways and motor highways running from east to west, directly to the front. This is done when preparations are being made to advance, so that reserves can be transferred rapidly from within the country to the state frontier, and so that the troops can subsequently be supplied when they have crossed the frontier. 

“‘The network of motor highways in western Byelorussia and the western Ukraine,’ recalls Marshal Zhukov, ‘was in a very bad condition. Many bridges were unable to bear the weight of medium tanks or artillery.’ (Vospominaniya i Razmyshleniya, p. 207) The situation should have delighted Zhukov: the supports of these rickety bridges could have been knocked down; anti-tank mines could have been laid on the banks, snipers posted in the undergrowth, and anti-tank guns put in place. Instead, Zhukov was furiously building roads, and replacing old bridges with new ones, so that tanks and artillery could use them. 

“The NKVD and Lavrenty Pavlovich Beria in person gave the Red Army enormous help in this mighty work. The term ‘the construction organizations of the NKVD’ is often encountered in Soviet sources. (Air Chief Marshal A. A. Novikov, V Nebe Leningrada, Nauka 1970, p. 65) But we now know whom the NKVD used as manpower. Why else were so many labour-camp prisoners held in the frontier zone, particularly on the eve of the war? . . . . 

“On the eve of the war, the Soviet railway troops did not prepare the rails for removal or demolition. They did not transport their supplies away from the frontier zones. On the contrary, they stockpiled rails, collapsible bridges, building material and coal in considerable quantities directly on the frontier. It was right there that the German Army captured all these stocks. German documents give evidence of this, as indeed do Soviet sources. Starinov, who was head of the Department for Defence Obstacles and Mining in the Engineering Directorate of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army, described the Brest-Litovsk frontier railway station on 21 June 1941. ‘Near the railway tracks,’ he wrote, ‘the sun shone down upon mountains of coal and heaps of brand-new rails beside the tracks. The rails sparkled in the sunshine. Everything breathed tranquillity.’ (Miny Zhdut Svoego Chasa, p. 190). . . . 

“Practically all the Soviet engineering and railway troops were gathered on the western frontiers. Sapper units and units belonging to those divisions, corps and armies which were concentrated on the frontier itself, as well as other units from other formations which had begun to move up to the border, were all operating in the frontier zone before the war began. The Soviet sappers were busy 

““preparing the departure positions from which the offensive would begin; laying down roads for columns to move along; surmounting and erecting engineered defences, creating tactical and strategic camouflage, ensuring that the infantry and tanks which formed part of the assault groups interacted properly; protecting forced river crossings . . .” (Sovietskie Vooruzhennye Sily, Voenizdat 1978, p. 255) 

“Let not the words ‘erecting engineered defences’ mislead the reader. By the time that the decisive attack on the Finnish Mannerheim Line began, Soviet sappers had also built several sectors consisting of engineered defence obstacles similar to the Finnish ones. Before going into battle, the newly arrived Soviet troops were put through these defences, which had been put there for training purposes. After that, they went over to the real attack. 

“With all due respect to the German Army, it must be admitted that it was catastrophically unprepared for a serious war. The impression is given that the German General Staff simply did not know that winter occurs on occasions in Russia, or that the roads were somewhat different from German ones. The oil used to lubricate German weapons congealed in the intense cold, and consequently they did not work. The German Blitzkrieg was unable to move with the same rapidity over Russian roads as it had over French ones. Hitler knew that he had to make war in Russia; if German industry was producing arms which were only suitable for use in Western Europe and Africa, who can say that Germany was ready for war with the USSR? 

“Hitler was lucky, however: Zhukov, Meretskov and Beria had obligingly compensated for the defects in German military planning by building roads and laying down great stockpiles of rails, collapsible bridges and building materials just where the enemy could capture them. What would have happened to Hitler’s army had a powerful programme of self-defence been put into effect, with bridges blown up, rolling stock and rails evacuated, all stores destroyed and the roads wrecked, flooded, turned into marshes and mined? The German Blitzkrieg would have skidded to a halt long before it reached Moscow. 

“It was not, of course, for Hitler’s benefit that Meretskov, Zhukov and Beria had built roads and railways and stockpiled supplies. It was to let the Soviet ‘liberation’ army loose on Europe, with speed and with nothing in its path, and to keep it supplied in the course of its surprise offensive. On the eve of the war, no one in the Red Army was thinking about defensive obstacles. Everyone had his mind on overcoming such obstacles on enemy territory. That is why, under cover of a TASS announcement of 13 June 1939, some Soviet marshals and leading experts on obstacle clearing made their secret appearance on the western frontier.  

“Marshal of the Soviet Union G. Kulik, who had secretly arrived in Byelorussia, discussed the situation with Colonel Starinov. ‘Let’s have mine-detectors, sappers and trawl equipment!’ he demanded (Miny Zhdut Svoego Chasa, p. 179) The Marshal was thinking about German territory. All the mines on Soviet territory had already been rendered harmless, and all the obstacles dismantled. ‘You have not named your branch correctly,’ the Marshal went on to tell him. ‘To be in accordance with our doctrine you should call it the branch for the clearance of obstacles and mines. Once we would have thought otherwise, and harped on defence, defence . . . but enough of that!’ (Ibid, quoted by Starinov) The same problem worried General of the Army Dimitri Grigoryevich Pavlov, the commander of the Special Western Military District. He noted angrily that insufficient attention was being paid to obstacle removal. The Red Army had learnt from its experience in the Finnish security zone, and was carefully preparing itself to surmount the German defences. If only the Soviet marshals had known that the war would begin for them on 21 June, and not as planned in July, then no resources for dismantling mines would have been needed at all. 

“The German Army broke its own rules and did exactly the same thing. It removed the mines, razed the defences to the ground and concentrated its troops directly on a frontier which had no defensive zone whatever. At the beginning of June, German troops began to remove the barbed wire from the frontier. Marshal of the Soviet Union Kirill Sirnionovich Moskalenko considered this incontrovertible evidence that they would soon begin an aggression. (Ha Yugo-Zapadnom Napravleny, Nauka 1960, p. 24) 

“But of course the Red Army did the same thing very shortly afterwards. The full flower of military engineering thought, including Professor Dimitri Mikhailovich Karbyshev – then a lieutenant-general of engineering troops — came from Moscow to meet on the western frontier. As he left Moscow at the beginning of June, he told his friends that the war had already begun and arranged to meet them in the ‘place of victory.’ Once he had arrived on the western frontier, he became feverishly busy. He attended exercises in fording water-defence obstacles, and in surmounting anti-tank obstacles with the latest T-34 tanks, neither of which are needed in defensive warfare. On 21 June, he went over to the 10th Army. But ‘before this,’ his biographer tells us, ‘Karbyshev, accompanied by V. I. Kuznetsov, officer commanding the 3rd Army and Colonel N. A. Ivanov, commandant of the Grodnensk UR [Ukreplyonnyi Raion – fortified region] visited the frontier detachment. On the Augustow-Seino road along the frontier, our barbed-wire entanglements were still in place in the morning, but by the time they passed them again on their return journey, the barriers appeared to have been removed.’ (E. Reshin, General Karbyshev, Izd. DOSAAF 1971, p. 204) 

“Interestingly, neither the officer commanding the 3rd Army, who had to wage war there, nor the commandant of the fortified zone which in theory was intended for defence, nor the most senior expert from Moscow, who knew that the war had already begun, reacted in the slightest to these measures. On the contrary, the removal of the obstacles coincided with their visit. 

“Can we imagine the commander of a Soviet frontier sub-unit, an NKVD lieutenant, removing the barbed wire on his own volition? If he were to give such an order, would not his subordinates regard the order as ‘clearly criminal’? The lieutenant did give such an order, though, and his subordinates carried it out at the gallop; evidently an order had been received from Lieutenant-General I. A. Bogdanov, the head of the NKVD frontier troops in Byelorussia. Bogdanov clearly realized that war was approaching; on 18 June he took the decision to evacuate the families of servicemen. (Dozornye Zapadnykh Rubezhei, Izd. Polit Literatury Ukrainy, Kiev 1972, p. 101) 

“It is hardly possible that Bogdanov could have decided to evacuate frontier troops’ families and, at the same time, to cut the wire, without the knowledge of Lavrenty Pavlovich Beria, the People’s Commissar of Internal Affairs and General Commissar for State Security. It is hardly possible that Beria could have made this decision by himself either. Nor did he do so. Beria worked in full co-operation with Zhukov. Above them, Stalin must have co-ordinated the actions of the army and the NKVD. The military and the Chekists were acting in coordination. What is more, they were all in full agreement on essentials, on places and on times. 

“We are assured that the Red Army suffered its first defeats because it was unprepared for war. This is nonsense. If it had not prepared itself for war, then the barbed wire would have been left intact, if only on the frontier. This would at least have gained a little time for the army sub-units to bring their weaponry to readiness, and may have averted the fearful catastrophes that followed. 

“The Chekists certainly did not remove the barbed wire on the frontier in order to allow the German Army to take advantage of the gaps they had opened up. The barbed wire was taken away for other purposes. Try to imagine a situation where, for whatever reason, the German assault had been delayed. What would the Chekists on the frontier have done? Would they have eliminated the frontier barriers, kept the frontier open, and begun again to erect defensive obstacles? Certainly not. There can be only one alternative to this thesis. The Chekists cut the wire in order to allow the ‘liberation army’ to pass over the enemy’s territory, without hindrance, in exactly the same way as they had done before the ‘liberation’ of Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Bessarabia and Bukovina. Now Germany’s turn had come.” 

This is a lengthy and somewhat technical rundown of what to some may appear less obvious details pointing to a Soviet invasion. However, these crucial facts, added to all the other corroborating evidence, make an airtight case. I urge you to investigate Suvorov’s writings and those of other authors like Joachim Hoffmann and Sean McMeekin. I now provide more evidence as I explained it in the pages of my book A Century of Red

“Days after the non-aggression pact was announced, the Comintern was issued instructions from the highest communist authority. A portion of the Kremlin’s instructions stated that the agenda of the Comintern had not changed, and clarified that “the purpose of the Comintern is to bring about a world revolution.” The instructions explained that world revolution must be brought about through a “prolonged war, as expounded in the writings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin.” More to the point, it stated that a pact between the Soviet Union and England and France was fruitless because it would not lead to the outbreak of war. However, the Comintern was told that a pact with Germany in which the USSR feigned neutrality would allow Germany to “carry through with her plans.” Thus, the instructions concluded, the goal of the communist conspiracy was to “assist Germany in a sufficient degree so that she will begin a war and to take measures to insure that this war will drag on.” 

“Throughout 1939, the Soviet regime had been in covert communication with Britain and France. Britain and France had proposed to Stalin mutual assistance pacts aimed at destroying Germany. Stalin knew that Britain and France secretly planned on attacking Germany if Hitler invaded Poland (the wording of the proposed pacts was so vague that almost any action Hitler took anywhere in Europe could have been defined as an act of aggression, thus calling on the allied nations to strike). Whereas Hitler wagered that a pact with Stalin would prevent such a war, Stalin knew better. As always, he used his inside information to create the conditions that would best benefit the communist world revolution. 

“Though Hitler was becoming desperate enough to attempt an invasion without an agreement of Soviet neutrality, he fretted over pulling his nation into a major war. He repeatedly stated that, as a decorated veteran himself, he wanted nothing to do with another European war, and that he wanted to preserve his people from the ravages such a conflict would inflict. Hitler was smart enough to know that war would not benefit Germany. 

“Out of all the nations of Europe in 1939, the quickly rising German Reich had the most to lose. England and France likewise had little to gain, and, as history would prove, lost a great deal of their power because of the war. Stalin’s Soviet empire, on the other hand, had the most to gain by facilitating a European war. Thus, encouraging Germany to attack Poland, and facilitating with oil and supplies a continuance of the war against Britain and France that would result, became a major priority for the communists. 

“In a speech whose authenticity is often debated, but which fits the known details of the communist strategy precisely, and which is further supported by documents found in the Soviet archives in the 1990s, Stalin stood before the Politburo in Moscow on August 19th and revealed his plan for setting off war in Europe. Note the date. This speech took place four days before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed, and on the same day that Molotov invited Ribbentrop to Moscow for talks. 

“In this momentous speech, Stalin stated that if the USSR concluded a pact with Britain and France, Germany would stand down and seek a solution to the Polish problem through other means rather than war. He bluntly observed that a lack of war would be “dangerous” for the communist state. On the other hand, he said that if the Soviets signed a pact with Germany, Hitler would invade Poland and the intervention of Britain and France would be “unavoidable.” Stalin then said that if such a European war was initiated, the non-aggression pact would give the Soviet Union the opportunity to remain neutral and wait for the “opportune time . . . to enter the war.” 

“The dictator went on to say that peacetime is never good for communism. Specifically, he stated that in peace communism “is never strong enough . . . to seize power.” Only a major war, he argued, could bring about the avowed Bolshevik goal of world domination. 

“Additionally, Stalin said that in the event Germany was defeated in the upcoming war he intended to facilitate between her, Britain, and France, the Sovietization of Germany would be inevitable. He observed that if this communist takeover of Germany resulted from Germany’s quick defeat at the hands of Britain and France, these nations would intervene and prevent it. Thus, Stalin concluded, the Soviet Union’s goal was that “Germany should carry out the war as long as possible.” He repeated that it was “essential” that the war last as long as possible with neither side achieving victory. A third time he said that it was “in the interest of the USSR . . . that a war breaks out between the Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc.” 

“Stalin observed that a war of this sort would weaken Britain and France, to say nothing of Germany. Why did Stalin want a weakened Europe? Why was it in his interest to have another continental war? The answer is so simple, and so ominous, that most historians refuse to acknowledge it. The reason Stalin wanted a war between the European powers was because he plotted to invade and communize Europe when he felt that they were too weak to put up effective resistance. 

“Thus, as Viktor Suvorov theorized, Stalin used Hitler as his “icebreaker” to smash Britain and France into pieces, and pave a path for the Soviet tanks to roll down, subjugating the whole of Europe. To quote Suvorov, Stalin’s cunning was “in knowing how to divide his adversaries and then knock their heads together.”” 

All of this is crucial because if you admit the idea that the mass-murdering, sadistic, Bolshevik warlord Joseph Stalin was on the verge of invading and occupying the whole of Europe, you can appreciate Hitler’s decision to strike first. Hitler is reported to have said in 1941: 

“If I see an opponent bringing a rifle to his shoulder, then I am not going to wait for him to pull the trigger. Instead, I am determined to pull it before he does.” 

I couldn’t agree with the principle more. If a thug on the street runs at you with a machete, you have every legitimate right to pull out your Glock and drop him before he gets within striking distance. That is defensive, not offensive. And so it was in June of ‘41. 

The visible part of the banner behind Hitler at his first landmark speech as Chancellor of Germany reads “Marxism must die.”

Whatever you may think of Hitler and the Third Reich, Stalin and the Soviet Union were unfathomably, unquestionably, irrefutably worse. It would have been an unmitigated, unparalleled disaster if Western Europe had fallen under Soviet domination. The only reason it did not is because Germany stood in the gap and spilled her blood to prevent it. I praise the international force, led by Germany, that combined to participate in the heroic assault against communism. 

When Hitler’s forces finally struck the Soviet leviathan, he issued a proclamation stating the reasons for the attack and recounting the history of the First World War and the intervening period up to that time. Among other points, he explained: 

“The German people have never had hostile feelings toward the peoples of Russia. During the last two decades, however, the Jewish-Bolshevist rulers in Moscow have attempted to set not only Germany, but all of Europe, aflame. Germany has never attempted to spread its National Socialist worldview to Russia. Rather, the Jewish-Bolshevist rulers in Moscow have constantly attempted to subject us and the other European peoples to their rule. They have attempted this not only intellectually, but above all through military means. 

“The results of their efforts, in every nation, were only chaos, misery, and starvation.” 

This is historically unimpeachable. The Bolsheviks were, on the whole, foreign-born Jews who followed in the footsteps of their prophet Karl Marx, a fellow Jew from a long line of rabbis. They were funded largely by Jewish bankers in the West. These ravenous Judeo-Bolsheviks used the Soviet apparatus to slaughter tens of millions of people throughout Asia and Eastern Europe and, in truth, the larger world. They promised paradise, but delivered hell on earth – rampant immorality, homosexuality, transgenderism, no-fault divorce, abortion-on-demand, destroyed families, eviscerated faith, drug use, plunder, famine, forced labor in the GULAG, slavery, fear, misery, rapine, and genocide. 

These horrors were spread from Russia to Ukraine, the Baltics, Spain, and beyond. Stalin’s agents had also attempted to overthrow the Weimar Republic of Germany, which was itself Marxist and one of the most horrendous examples of a failed and debauched state in recorded history. Luckily, Hitler came to power in 1933 and moved swiftly to stamp out these revolutionaries with their fire bombings, assassinations, lying newspapers, anti-German propaganda, and cultural degradation. The well-known book burnings were conducted to burn transgenderism, homosexuality, and Marxism generally, out of German culture. I would to God that we would have such a cultural awakening in America and move to shut down the smut theaters, libelous media outlets, and treasonous political parties like Hitler did! 

The communists are relentless, however. They never surrender – they either conquer or are crushed. Cockroaches don’t retreat because you become annoyed that they infest your house. They only disappear when you eradicate them. Hitler knew this and stepped forward to lead an international coalition to thwart the communist world revolution. 

“Death to Marxism”

In July 1936, for instance, when the Soviets and their agents started the Spanish Civil War and went on a rampage that left half a million Spaniards dead, Hitler came to the rescue and, with General Francisco Franco, preserved Spain from becoming a Bolshevik colony. In November of that year, Germany joined together with Japan in the Anti-Comintern Pact (Italy joined the Pact in 1937). 

The Comintern is short for Communist International and was the wing of the communist conspiracy directing all revolutionary activities throughout the globe. They were tasked with creating revolutions in every non-communist nation and bringing them into the Soviet fold. Germany and Japan knew this was a grave threat to humanity and moved to stop the advance of communism. Part of the Anti-Comintern Pact read: 

“The Imperial Government of Japan and the Government of Germany, 

“In cognizance of the fact that the object of the Communistic International (the so-called Komintern) is the disintegration of, and the commission of violence against, existing States by the exercise of all means at its command, 

“Believing that the toleration of interference by the Communistic International in the internal affairs of nations not only endangers their internal peace and social welfare, but threatens the general peace of the world, 

“Desiring to co-operate for defense against communistic disintegration, have agreed as follows.” 

Thereafter followed three articles in which Germany and Japan agreed to cooperate together and coordinate efforts of defense against international communist subversion and to work with other nations, like Spain, “whose internal peace is menaced by the disintegrating work of the Communistic International.” 

In 1941, it was not a smaller state like Spain that was threatened by Soviet expansion, but all of Europe. In the spirit of the Anti-Comintern Pact, Hitler moved against Bolshevik Russia. I continue quoting from Hitler’s war proclamation: 

“It was, therefore, difficult for me in August 1939 to send my minister to Moscow to attempt to work against Britain’s plans to encircle Germany. I did it only because of my sense of responsibility to the German people, above all in the hope of reaching a lasting understanding and perhaps avoiding the sacrifice that would otherwise be demanded of us. . . . 

“. . . even during our march into Poland, in violation of the treaty, the Soviet rulers suddenly claimed Lithuania. . . . 

“The victory on Poland, gained exclusively by German troops, gave me the occasion to extend a new offer of peace to the Western powers. It was rejected by the international and Jewish warmongers. . . . 

“. . . Russia justified its attempts to subject not only Finland, but also the Baltic states, by the sudden false and absurd claim that it was protecting them from a foreign threat, or that it was acting to prevent that threat. Only Germany could have been meant. No other power could enter the Baltic Sea, or wage war there. . . . 

“Consistent with the so-called friendship treaty, Germany removed its troops far from its eastern border in spring 1940. Russian forces were already moving in, and in numbers that could only be seen as a clear threat to Germany. 

“According to a statement by Molotov, there were already 22 Russian divisions in the Baltic states in spring 1940. 

“Although the Russian government always claimed that the troops were there at the request of the people who lived there, their purpose could only be seen as a demonstration aimed at Germany. 

“As our soldiers attacked French-British forces in the west, the extent of the Russian advance on our eastern front grew ever more threatening. 

“In August 1940, I concluded that, given the increasing number of powerful Bolshevist divisions, it was no longer in the interests of the Reich to leave the eastern provinces, so often devastated by war, unprotected. 

“. . . Both England and Soviet Russia wanted to prolong this war as long as possible in order to weaken all of Europe and plunge it into ever greater impotence. 

“Russia’s threatened attack on Rumania was intended not only to take over an important element in the economic life not only of Germany, but of Europe as whole, or at least to destroy it. . . . 

“The result was an increase in Soviet Russian activity against the Reich, above all the immediate beginning of efforts to subvert the new Rumanian state and an attempt to use propaganda to eliminate the Bulgarian government. 

“With the help of confused and immature people, the Rumanian Legion succeeded in organizing a coup that removed General Antonescu and plunged the nation into chaos. . . . 

“Immediately after this enterprise collapsed, there was a new increase in Russian troops along the German eastern border. Increasing numbers of tank and parachute divisions threatened the German border. The German army, and the German homeland, know that until a few weeks ago, there was not a single German tank or motorized division on our eastern border. 

“If anyone needed final proof of the carefully hidden coalition between England and Soviet Russia, the conflict in Yugoslavia provided it. While I was making a last attempt to keep peace in the Balkans, and in agreement with the Duce invited Yugoslavia to join the Three Power Pact, England and Soviet Russia organized a coup that toppled the government that was ready for such an agreement. 

“The German people can now be told that the Serbian coup against Germany was under both the English and Soviet Russian flags. Since we were silent, the Soviet Russian government went a step further. Not only did they organize a Putsch, but signed a treaty of friendship with their new lackeys a few days later that was intended to strengthen Serbia’s resistance to peace in the Balkans, and turn it against Germany. It was no platonic effort, either. 

“Moscow demanded that the Serbian army mobilize. 

“Since I still believed that it was better not to speak, the rulers of the Kremlin took a further step. 

“The German government now possesses documents that prove that, to bring Serbia into the battle, Russia promised to provide it with weapons, airplanes, ammunition, and other war material through Salonika. 

“That happened at almost the same moment that I was giving the Japanese Foreign Minister Dr. Matsuoka the advice to maintain good relations with Russia, in the hope of maintaining peace. 

“Only the rapid breakthrough of our incomparable divisions into Skopje and the capture of Salonika prevented the realization of this Soviet Russian-Anglo-Saxon plot. Serbian air force officers, however, fled to Russia and were immediately welcomed as allies. 

“Only the victory of the Axis powers in the Balkans frustrated the plan of involving Germany in battle in the southeast for months, allowing the Soviet Russian armies to complete their march and increase their readiness for action. Together with England, and with the hoped for American supplies, they would have been ready to strangle and defeat the German Reich and Italy. 

“Thus Moscow not only broke our treaty of friendship, but betrayed it! 

“They did all this while the powers in the Kremlin, to the very last minute, hypocritically attempted to favor peace and friendship, just as they had with Finland or Rumania. 

“I was forced by circumstances to keep silent in the past. Now the moment has come when further silence would be not only a sin, but a crime against the German people, against all Europe. 

“Today, about 160 Russian divisions stand at our border. There have been steady border violations for weeks, and not only on our border, but in the far north, and also in Rumania. Russian pilots make a habit of ignoring the border, perhaps to show us that they already feel as if they are in control. 

“During the night of 17-18 June, Russian patrols again crossed the German border and could only be repelled after a long battle. 

“Now the hour has come when it is necessary to respond to his plot by Jewish-Anglo-Saxon warmongers and the Jewish rulers of Moscow’s Bolshevist headquarters. 

“German people! 

“At this moment, an attack unprecedented in the history of the world in its extent and size has begun. With Finnish comrades, the victors of Narvik stand by the Arctic Sea. German divisions, under the command of the conqueror of Norway, together with the heroes of Finland’s freedom and their marshal, defend Finnish soil. On the Eastern Front, German formations extend from East Prussia to the Carpathians. From the banks of the Pruth River, from the lower Danube to the Black Sea, German and Romanian soldiers are united under state leader Antonescu. 

“The purpose of this front is no longer the protection of the individual nations, but rather the safety of Europe, and therefore the salvation of everyone. 

“I have therefore decided today once again to put the fate of Germany and the future of the German Reich and our people in the hands of our soldiers. 

“May God help us in this battle.” 

Dear reader, this is not the lying ranting of a madman, but historical truth verifiable by anyone with the intellectual honesty to do the leg work. This is the real history. This is why Hitler preemptively invaded the Soviet Union; not for “living space” or imperialist ambition, but to save Europe from communist conquest. 

In October 1941, Hitler made another address concerning the war in Soviet Russia. It was one of the most memorable speeches he ever gave. He spelled out the struggle thus: 

“This was the most difficult decision of my whole life for every such step opened up the gate behind which secrets are hidden so that posterity will know how it came about and how it happened. Thus one can only rely on one’s conscience, the confidence of one’s people, one’s own weapons and what one asks of the Almighty. Not that He supports inaction but He blesses him who is himself ready and willing to fight and make sacrifices for his existence. 

“On June 22, in the morning, the greatest battle in the history of the world started. Since then something like three and a half months have elapsed and here I say this: 

“Everything since then has proceeded according to plan. During the whole period the initiative has not been taken even for a second out of the hand of our leadership. Up to the present day every action has developed just as much according to plan as formerly in the east against Poland and then against the west and finally against the Balkans. 

“But I must say one thing at this point: We have not been wrong in our plans. We have also not been mistaken about the efficiency and bravery of the German soldier. Nor have we been mistaken about the quality of our weapons. 

“We have not been mistaken about the smooth working of the whole organization at the front and extending over a gigantic area in the rear. Neither have we been mistaken about the German homeland. 

“We have, however, been mistaken about one thing. We had no idea how gigantic the preparations of this enemy were against Germany and Europe and how immeasurably great was the danger, how by the skin of our teeth we have escaped the destruction not only of Germany but also of Europe. . . . 

“Her power had been assembled against Europe, of which unfortunately most had no idea and many even today have no idea. This would have been a second storm of Ghengis Khan. That this danger was averted we owe in the first place to the bravery, endurance and sacrifice of the German soldiers and also the sacrifice of those who marched with us. 

“For the first time something like a European awakening passed through this continent. In the north, Finland is fighting, a true nation of heroes, for in her wide spaces she relies on her own strength, her bravery and tenacity. 

“In the south, Rumania is fighting. It has recuperated with astonishing speed from one of the most difficult crises that may befall a country and the people are led by a man at once brave and quick at making decisions. 

“This embraces the whole width of this battlefield from the Arctic Ocean to the Black Sea. Our German soldiers are now fighting in these areas and with them in their ranks Finns, Italians, Hungarians, Rumanians, Slovaks, Croats and Spaniards are now going into battle. Belgians, Netherlanders, Danes, Norwegians and even Frenchmen have joined. . . . 

“They are fighting on a front of gigantic length, and against an enemy who, I must say, does not consist of human beings but of animals or beasts. We have seen now what Bolshevism can make of human beings. 

“We cannot bring to the people at home the pictures we have at our disposal. They are the most sinister that human brains can imagine The enemy is fighting with a bestial lust of blood on the one hand and out of cowardice and fear of his commissars on the other hand. 

“Our soldiers have come to know the land after twenty-five years of Bolshevist rule. Those who went there and, in their hearts or bodies, have something of a communistic outlook in the narrowest sense of the term, have returned cured of this idea. 

“The pictures of this paradise of workers and peasants as I have always described it will be confirmed by five or six million soldiers after the end of this war. They will be witnesses upon whom I can call. They have marched through the streets of this paradise. 

“It is a single armaments factory against Europe at the expense of the standard of living of the people. Our soldiers have won victories against this cruel, bestial opponent, against this opponent with the mighty armaments.” 

Hitler saw himself as Europe’s defender. He compared the Soviets to Genghis Khan, the Mongolian warlord who slaughtered his way to an expansive empire. This is a worthy comparison when you consider the brutal way that Khan and his Asiatic hordes hacked to pieces tens of millions of people, raped European women, and plundered the continent. This is precisely what the Soviet Union did in 1944-1945, which you can read about in gory, graphic, stomach-turning detail in Thomas Goodrich’s books Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947 and Summer, 1945: Germany, Japan and the Harvest of Hate

It is also no exaggeration to call Soviet Russia “a single armaments factory against Europe.” The Bolshevik gangsters didn’t care about the Russian peasants. They used the people as expendable slave labor to build arms factories to produce weapons, tanks, and bombers. Behind closed doors, away from the prying eyes of the West, inside the barbed wire borders of the Soviet Empire, the Bolsheviks built up the most staggeringly large military in world history. They produced tens of thousands of tanks – no one knows the precise number – including what were then the best tanks in existence. They churned out rifles that still flood the world today. They produced revolutionary new weapons for waging wars of conquest in the name of the Marxist world revolution. 

In a private conversation that was secretly recorded between Hitler and the Finnish General Mannerheim in 1942, Hitler revealed that his armed forces had already destroyed 34,000 Soviet tanks. Can you even fathom that number? Today, the United States has 6,600 tanks, Russia has at least 12,000, China has around 6,000, and NATO, excluding the United States, has about 6,000. To put this into context, the combined number of tanks of NATO, the United States, Russia, and China in 2022, is still thousands less than the number produced by the Soviet Union before 1941. 

This huge arsenal of weapons was controlled by the world’s greatest mass-murderers up to that time – a cult of criminals who had literally sworn to overthrow and conquer every nation on earth by violent revolution. It was against this deadly war machine that the Germans waged mortal combat on behalf of Europe and the world. 

The Germans threw three million men, three thousand tanks, and nearly as many aircraft, into Operation Barbarossa. Because they caught the Red Army in their preparations for offensive warfare, the Red Army was ill-prepared to defend itself and was pushed back in epic defeat. Millions were captured or killed and the Germans raced across Poland, Belarus, and Soviet Russia. Many predicted a swift victory. However, at least two things went wrong: 1) The weather – especially the mud – bogged down German forces; and 2) American Lend-Lease aid started flooding in. 

Of the first point, famed Belgian politician and Waffen SS volunteer Leon Degrelle wrote: 

“Whoever does not understand the importance of mud in the Russian problem can not understand what took place for four years on the Eastern Front in Europe. The Russian mud is not only the wealth through which the steppe returns to life: it constitutes also a territorial defense more effective than even snow and ice. 

“It is still possible to triumph over the cold, to move ahead in 40 degree-below-zero weather. The Russian mud is sure of its sway. Nothing prevails over it, neither man nor matter. It dominates the steppes for several months out of the year. The autumn and the spring belong to it. And even in the summer months, when the fiery sun flattens out and cracks open the fields, cloudbursts flood them every three weeks. The mud is extraordinarily sticky because the soil is permeated with oily residues. The entire region is swimming in oil. The water does not flow, it stagnates; the dirt clings to the feet of man and beast. . . . 

“Our legion had arrived in the Ukraine just in time to fight-or more exactly to struggle-against that enemy. 

“A struggle without glory; an exhausting struggle; a struggle bewildering and disgusting, but one which gave courage to thousands of Soviet soldiers, thrown in all directions by the waves of German tanks which had roared through two or three weeks earlier. 

“At first they, like the French in June 1940, had believed that all was lost. Everything indicated it. They were afraid, so they went into hiding. Then the rains came. From the poplar groves and the thatched roofs of the isbas in which they’d hidden, the partisans could observe that those marvelous troops of the Reich, who had so much impressed them, were no longer invincible: their trucks were beaten, their tanks were beaten. They heard the drivers, powerless, swear at their engines. Motorcycle drivers unable to free their trapped machines wept with rage. Little by little, the fugitive Soviets regained their confidence. 

“Thus it was that the resistance sprang from the respite given by the mud, reinforced by the spectacle of the German Army’s vulnerability, unthinkable only weeks before, when its long armored columns gleamed in the sun. The mud was a weapon. The snow would be another. Stalin could count on these unexpected allies. Nothing else decisive would take place for six months. Six months of reprieve, after his shoulders had almost been pinned to the mat . . . . It would be enough, until May of 1942, to contain the forces of the Reich which, overwhelmed by the elements, wanted no more than to hibernate in peace. The partisans were already organizing behind the German divisions, harassing them like mosquitos in a swamp, striking quickly, leaving quickly, immediately after the sting. 

“We had dreamed of dazzling battles. Now we were to know the real war, the war against weariness, the war of the treacherous, sucking mire, of sickening living conditions, of endless marches, of nights of driving rain and howling winds” (Leon Degrelle, Campaign in Russia: The Waffen SS on the Eastern Front, 17-18). 

More than the Soviet forces stopped the Germans, mother nature did. The wastes of Russia did what Stalin’s army could not. It gave Stalin a chance to regroup and launch counterattacks. 

Concerning Lend-Lease, a program overseen by Soviet mole and FDR confidant Harry Hopkins, let me relay the opinion of a Red Army tanker I talked with in Ramenskoye, Russia in 2007. He gave it as his opinion that Russia would have lost the war without American aid, including U.S. tanks. This old man operated an American tank against the Germans and explained to me that American supplies saved Soviet Russia. 

This is difficult to dispute when you consider the massive quantity of supplies we gave to Russia and which Russia has never repaid. This deal with the Devil costing us billions of dollars, gave Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union, and assured a future global holocaust of communist destruction. One source explained how extensive Lend-Lease help to the Soviets was: 

“By the end of June 1944 the United States had sent to the Soviets under lend-lease more than 11,000 planes; over 6,000 tanks and tank destroyers; and 300,000 trucks and other military vehicles. 

“Many of the planes have been flown directly from the United States to the Soviet Union over the northern route via Alaska and Siberia, others were crated and shipped to the Persian Gulf, where they were assembled and flown into Russia. 

“We have also sent to the Soviets about 350 locomotives, 1,640 flat cars, and close to half a million tons of rails and accessories, axles, and wheels, all for the improvement of the railways feeding the Red armies on the Eastern Front. For the armies themselves we have sent miles of field telephone wire, thousands of telephones, and many thousands of tons of explosives. And we have also provided machine tools and other equipment to help the Russians manufacture their own planes, guns, shells, and bombs. 

“We have supplied our allies with large quantities of food. The Soviet Union alone has received some 3,000,000 tons.” 

It should cause shame and sadness to well up inside every American heart to know that our forefathers saved Stalin and the Soviet Union! This is a monstrous black mark on our legacy. It was a dastardly act. We sentenced millions to slavery and death because we involved ourselves in a fight that was not ours. We ensured the victory of communism and the Sovietizing of European culture and politics. We guaranteed that China would later turn Red, that terrorism would spread, that militant Islam would rise, that Russia would stand opposed to us with the most fearsome arsenal of nuclear weapons on the planet, and so on. All of these horrors came because we got involved and because we supported the wrong side. 

Had we either stayed out of the fight or leapt into the fray on Germany’s side and fought against the communists and helped save Europe, history would have been vastly different. German troops marched into battle with the slogan “God With Us” on their belt buckles. Their first act in liberated territory was to open Christian churches after years of brutal anti-Christian Soviet oppression. Hitler promised to restore autonomy to the nations when the war ended. They also promised to modernize the East and expand German-style Liberty with its emphasis on merit, its respect of families and God, its protection of private property, its hostility toward Masonry, corporatism, and Marxism, into those God-forsaken territories. They could have annihilated communism in Europe had we not interfered. The blame for the Cold War and all its horrors rests with us, our traitorous president FDR, and the complicit communist cronies in the Kremlin. 

I wish to quote from Leon Degrelle again. He sat in Belgium on June 22, 1941, going about his business as usual when he heard an announcement on the radio that changed his life forever. He recounted the story this way: 

“22 June 1941 began like all the beautiful Sundays of summer. I was absent-mindedly turning the dial of my radio, when suddenly some words brought me up short: the troops of the Third Reich had crossed the Euro- pean border of the USSR. 

“The campaign in Poland in 1939, the campaign in Norway, the campaign in the Netherlands, in Belgium and France in 1940, the campaign in Yugoslavia and in Greece in the spring of 1941 had only been preliminary operations or blunders. The real war, in which the future of Europe and of the world would be decided, had just begun. This was no longer a war over frontiers or interests. This was a war of religions. And, like all religious wars, it would be unrelenting. 

“Before engaging its tanks in the steppes, the Reich had resorted to evasion, like a watchful cat. 

“In 1939 National Socialist Germany was carrying out a program without precedent. It had rebuilt itself in the midst of such lightning bolts, in the thundering and blinding flashes of such cataclysms, that all Europe and all the world felt the tremors. If all his enemies to the West swooped down on the Rhineland and the Ruhr, and if, at the same time, the Soviets expanded toward East Prussia and Berlin, Hitler seriously risked strangulation. He liked to say, over and over, that Kaiser Wilhelm II had lost the First World War by not having succeeded in avoiding a war on two fronts. He was going to do better. But we were to see, one day, side by side, gawking at the ruins of the Reich Chancellery in Berlin, not only Scots and muzhiks, but Blacks from Harlem and Kirghiz tribesmen from the deserts of Asia. . . . 

“Stalin had, like Hitler, played very skillfully. He had every interest in let- ting the plutocratic democracies and National Socialism exhaust each other, for he was the enemy of both. The more virulently they sapped each other’s strength, the better Communism could in the final account facilitate its task. Stalin carried out his game with Asiatic cunning, the leader of an international gang, sure of his men. He could even ostensibly ally himself with the Third Reich: over the entire world, Communist discipline was absolute. 

“The effects of that extraordinary solidarity promptly made themselves felt. Britain and France had made it a world war after Hitler invaded Poland. When Stalin did the same thing 15 days later, no one in the Allied chancelleries took the risk of reacting.

“Thus the Soviet leader was able to stab a vacillating Poland in the back with complete impunity, and annex over a third of that unhappy country. Britain and France, so solicitous of Poland’s territorial integrity before, neglected to declare war on the USSR. 

“That moral and military abdication gave an unshakeable confidence to the Communist bands spread throughout Europe. The democracies were afraid of Stalin! They had recoiled before him! What had been intolerable from Hitler had been tolerated coming from the Soviets! 

“The “democracies” dispensed with morality, principle, and their own self-respect for fear of consolidating Stalin’s alliance with Germany. They feared also the sabotage which the Communist parties throughout Europe were preparing or had already carried out. As always a short-sighted self- interest had prevailed over all other considerations. 

“In reality, the alleged “just war” had lasted only fifteen days. From September of 1939, the Allies had only one idea: not to offend the USSR, to begin a reconciliation with Stalin, in spite of his aggression against their Polish allies. 

“Stalin was able to multiply his demands, to put an end to the independence of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, to snatch Bessarabia from the Rumanians. One single thing was important to the Allies: to enable the Russians to change sides. In less than two years, that would be achieved. . . . 

“The Nazi lemon had been squeezed dry. The hour had come to squeeze a second lemon: the democratic lemon. We know what kind of juice that lemon finally gave to the Soviets in 1945: the occupation of territories in- habited by two hundred million Europeans and Asians, the Red Army established in Thuringia, on the Elbe, at the gates of Luebeck, at Petsamo, in Manchuria, in Korea, in the Kurile Islands! 

“The Yugoslav turn-about, the stated claims of Molotov on the Balkans, the military preparations of the Soviets during the spring of 1941; all these left Hitler no doubt about the ambitions of the USSR. The longer he waited, the more likely he would be attacked. In order to concentrate his forces in the East, he temporarily abandoned his plan to invade England. He tried, by various means, to find a peaceful settlement to the conflict be- tween Germany and the United Kingdom. It was too late for that. The British were no longer disposed to cancel the match; once begun, it could no longer be stopped. . . . 

“England, isolated from Europe by the sea and with its principal riches scattered over distant lands, could not sense exactly the importance of the duel. It reacted by thinking more about its immediate interest— the relief of its island— than about what the fate of Europe would be were the Soviets one day victorious. 

“By contrast, for us— the peoples of the European continent— that struggle was a decisive struggle. 

“If National Socialist Germany triumphed, it would be the master, in the East, of a tremendous area for expansion, right on its border, tied to it directly by means of railroads, rivers and canals, open to its genius for organization and production. The Greater German Reich, in complete rebirth, endowed with a remarkable social structure, enriched by those fabulous lands, extending in one block from the North Sea to the Volga, would have such power, would have such force of attraction, would offer to the twenty peoples crowded onto the old continent such possibilities for progress that those territories would constitute the point of departure for the indispensable European federation, wished for by Napoleon, contemplated by Renan, sung of by Victor Hugo. 

“If, on the contrary, the Soviets prevailed, who in Europe would resist them once the enormous German bastion was dismantled? Poland, drained of its blood? The chaotic Balkans, submerged, decayed, occupied, tamed? A depopulated France, having only speeches to oppose two hundred million muzhiks and the Bolshevik ideology, swollen with its victory? Greece, Italy, talkative and charming, with their poor peoples, squatting in the sun like lizards? The jigsaw puzzle of the small European nations, the residues of a thousand years of civil war, each incapable of paying for more than a hundred tanks? The Soviets defeating the Reich— that would be Stalin mounting the body of a Europe which, its powers of resistance exhausted, was ready to be raped” (Degrelle, Campaign in Russia, 7-10). 

Europe was raped so brutally by the Soviets and their American and British allies that she has never recovered. Please fix this in your mind – it was not Hitler who raped Europe, it was Stalin, FDR, and the Allies. The Allies bombed millions to death, destroyed Europe’s cities from the air, plunged Europe into chaos and suffering, unleashed the horrors of death camps on the Rhine and gangrapes by the millions in the East, and obliterated the one Christian nation on the continent that was truly anti-Marxist, anti-Mason, anti-Satanism, and which had the capacity, character, and spirit the resist the Soviets. 

Operation Barbarossa, though it failed, preserved Europe for several additional years and ultimately prevented the total Soviet conquest of Europe all the way to the English Channel. Thank God for the Germans! Thank God for the numerous other European, Arab, African, and Asian volunteers – including over a million liberated Russians and 150,000 Jews – who joined the Third Reich’s armed attempt to rid Europe of Bolshevism. Thank God for Hitler’s strength to do the hard thing and fight the Dragon. 

If none of this sounds politically correct, good. Political correctness is a disease imported to America by the Soviets. The “history” you were taught by your history teacher in school is as fraudulent as “Oswald killed Kennedy,” “FDR didn’t know about Pearl Harbor in advance,” “the Twin Towers were brought down by jet fuel,” “Nixon was not a crook,” “Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman,” “Epstein killed himself,” “abortion is healthcare,” “two weeks to stop the spread,” “vaccines are safe and effective,” and “Joe Biden won the 2020 election.” 

Dear reader, the wrong side won World War II. I will stand by that statement until they put me in the ground. America’s involvement – brought about by FDR and his Soviet advisors – was unconstitutional, immoral, and evil. Germany was not the villain Jew-controlled Hollywood and Establishment-controlled media make her out to be. Hitler was not guilty of a fraction of the heinous lies heaped upon his name.  

You read those books I listed above. You do the leg work. You look up the sources. If you do, you will find that I have not lied and I am not deceived. Those who believe and parrot the Allied myths about World War II are grossly deceived and have, through their deception, been persuaded to demonize the only good guys in the fight and support the side that plunged the world in war and which still, at this very moment in world, has its bloody hands on the levers of financial, political, military, social, and religious power. 

The Illuminati-communist conspiracy birthed on May 1, 1776, spawned Bolshevism, Fabian Socialism, and the various isms that have raped, plundered, abused, enslaved, degraded, and savaged our world. They are the ones responsible for hoodwinking the peoples of the world through their control over media, Hollywood, academia, and schooling. They have robbed the wealth of nations and are the ones behind the inflationary crisis that will continue to spiral out of control. This “they” has a name – it is Satanic communism. 

Satanic communism is the ideology promulgated by the myriad organs of this conspiracy, including, but not limited to: The Council on Foreign Relations; the Trilateral Commission; the World Economic Forum; the United Nations; NATO; Club Bilderberg; the Club of Rome; the Committee of 300; the Black Nobility; the Order of Skull and Bones; Freemasonry; the Society of Jesus (Jesuits); the World Federalist Movement; the Theosophical Society; Share International; B’nai B’rith; the Anti-Defamation League; the Southern Poverty Law Center; Black Lives Matter; Alphabet Inc.; Open Society Foundations; the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; the Rockefeller Foundation; the Ford Foundation; Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation; the Commonwealth of Independent States; Aspen Institute; the World Trade Organization; the International Monetary Fund; the Federal Reserve; the Bank of International Settlements; the New Development Bank; BlackRock; Kabbalism; and so on. 

Many of these damnable organizations would not exist today had Operation Barbarossa succeeded in 1941 and the others would be far less powerful. China would have been an American ally because the Soviet Union would not have been there to turn China Red. That one blessing alone would have markedly changed the world. As it was, millions of German bodies littered the Russian steppes, millions more rotted in bombed out cities at home, and the progress of a great nation was crushed simply because a cult of communist criminals seeks world control. 

Europeans, never forget the brave Germans who died to liberate you or to keep you free from Bolshevik bondage. Never forget their sacrifices on the hellish Eastern front fighting Stalin’s hordes. Never forget. 

June 29, 2022,
Zack Strong

Enough and to Spare

An insidious myth has been propagated throughout the world – the myth of overpopulation and the scarcity of earth’s resources. Both points of this monstrous myth are flagrantly false. The earth is not overpopulated and our planet’s resources are not finite. 

The website https://overpopulationisamyth.com/ debunks the overpopulation hokum through and through. I won’t rehash all of their terrific information. Suffice it to say, however, that overcrowding, not overpopulation, is the real problem. Cities are indeed overcrowded. For the life of me, I don’t understand the appeal of large cities with their corruption, concrete impersonality, decadence, smog, high prices, high crime, unbearable traffic, turmoil, and leftist politics. 

Yet, according to 2018 U.N. estimates, 55% of people worldwide live in cities. That number is expected to rise to 68% soon. In North America, 82% of people supposedly live in cities. 74% of Europeans do likewise. The number is 50% in Asia. 

People have lost their connection to the land and soil. They no longer know how to produce their own food or have their own homes and property. Instead, they’re dependent and nearly helpless, living in cities that can’t sustain themselves and in metropolises that can’t offer more than overcrowding, noise, commotion, rampant disease and crime and immorality, and learned helplessness. 

There is so much land available to live on and to farm! No one should be without. Yet, the problem is that people have willingly congregated in cities where there is no possibility of self-sufficiency and staying close to the soil. They’ve urbanized themselves. They became statistics when they joined the jumbled mass of city-dwellers. 

But why should everyone live in cities? There’s so much more space available. I often get pushback on technicalities from people, but a fact you can look up is that the world’s population could all live in Texas. The density wouldn’t be desirable, but they roughly could fit. Think, then, of how much land truly exists in this world of ours! 

So much for not having enough space. Let’s talk about resources. It’s common to say that earth’s resources are finite and that eventually they will run out. This is a malicious falsehood supported by no facts and spread by genocidal social engineers who are actively trying to vaccinate, sterilize, poison, and starve us into extinction. It’s the type of perverse thinking, drawing from pop culture, that led the Mad Titan Thanos to exterminate half of the universe in the name of making life better for the survivors. While Thanos may have said it’s “simple calculus,” his math and logic, to say nothing of morality, could not have been more incorrect.

Before his passing, Professor Julian L. Simon wrote

“And why do they believe that commodities will grow more scarce? For many people, the idea that resources are finite is at the source of this belief. But the idea of finiteness is a prejudice and it is not supported by available facts. 

“Incredible as it may seem, the term “finite” is not only inappropriate, it is downright misleading when applied to natural resources. The mathematical definition of “finite” is quite different from a useful economic definition. . . . 

“The first auto‐ engine parts made of silicon and carbon (water‐ pump seal rings) are being installed in Volkswagens. Engines could soon be made of silicon carbide, cutting weight and emissions in addition to replacing metals. 

“Palladium instead of platinum can now be used in auto‐ exhaust emission systems. Ceramics engineering is exploding with new knowledge, putting an end to past generations’ worries about running out of metals. 

“Organic plastics can now be blended with glass to yield a material as strong as concrete, but flexible and much lighter. And a feasible way to make heat‐ resistant plastics using gallium chloride has been found. Plastics are now made only from fossil fuels or the oils from plants grown in fields. But researchers have recently found ways to convert agricultural products, like potatoes and corn, into direct sources of plastics by inserting plastic‐ producing genes into them. 

“In light of these developments, concern about running out of commodities seems ever less sensible. Just as the number of points in a one‐ inch line can never be counted, the quantity of natural resources that might be available to us, and the quantity of services that they can give us, can never be known.” 

A prejudice not supported by facts is right! Consider oil, for instance. Will we ever run out? All the “experts” said we would – and many still say we will. Yet, amazingly, oil deposits that were once depleted have now refilled naturally! It’s as if the earth pumps it out in as high a quantity as we need it.  

Let’s be clear – there are no natural oil shortages. The earth has given us more than we can use. There is, though, a man-made agenda to shut down the global economy and turn humanity into serfs in a high-tech feudal system. The conspirators in this global plot have turned down, and sometimes off entirely, the oil spigots. 

Alaska could be producing unimaginably more oil than it currently does. What about the Keystone Pipeline shut down by Beijing Biden? What about the Gulf of Mexico where the oil deposits continue refilling themselves as if by magic? Venezuela, Israel, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Saudia Arabia, UAE, Nigeria, Russia, China, and other nations, are loaded with black gold. The world is gushing with oil and can’t possibly run out any time soon unless it is through deliberate tampering and greed. 

Beyond basic facts about the replenishing nature of earth’s resources, there’s another source I feel to turn to. Scoffers scoff, but truth is truth. In 1834, the Lord Jesus Christ gave a revelation wherein He shattered the myth that the earth has limited resources. He stated: 

“It is wisdom in me; therefore, a commandment I give unto you, that ye shall organize yourselves and appoint every man his stewardship; 

“That every man may give an account unto me of the stewardship which is appointed unto him. 

“For it is expedient that I, the Lord, should make every man accountable, as a steward over earthly blessings, which I have made and prepared for my creatures. 

“I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, my very handiwork; and all things therein are mine. 

“And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine. 

“But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low. 

“For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves. 

“Therefore, if any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment” (Doctrine and Covenants 104:11-18). 

According to the Lord, the earth has “enough and to spare.” The earth is the Lord’s and it was built to sustain the Father’s children during their mortal tests. There was no galactic oversight. God didn’t forget to give us enough resources to live. Such an idea is preposterous. The truth is that “the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare.” 

What, then, causes starvation, thirst, homelessness, want, and need? The answer is simple: Unrighteousness. In the revelation just cited, the Savior said that all things must be done “in mine own way.” If we follow the Lord’s way, His Gospel, the “poor shall be exalted.” 

The Gospel of Jesus Christ works by changing people from the inside out. It doesn’t say, we’ll give you a new car and a great house, but, rather, it teaches you to be industrious and thrifty and faithful. It doesn’t offer welfare trucks driving the streets to hand out food; that’s the task of the individual Christian disciple who is inspired by His Savior’s example. It doesn’t dictate x amount of land for each person, but relies upon the goodness and compassion of people to share, help, and lift each other. 

Ezra Taft Benson once observed

“The Lord works from the inside out. The world works from the outside in. The world would take people out of the slums. Christ takes the slums out of people, and then they take themselves out of the slums. The world would mold men by changing their environment. Christ changes men, who then change their environment. The world would shape human behavior, but Christ can change human nature. . . . 

“Yes, Christ changes men, and changed men can change the world. 

“Men changed for Christ will be captained by Christ. Like Paul they will be asking, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” (Acts 9:6.) Peter stated, they will “follow his steps.” (1 Pet. 2:21.) John said they will “walk, even as he walked.” (1 Jn. 2:6.) 

“Finally, men captained by Christ will be consumed in Christ. To paraphrase President Harold B. Lee, they set fire in others because they are on fire.” 

The world’s resources may seem finite, but only because people lack the infinite love of Christ. There’s no reason that people in India and Africa – and some in our own homeland – need to die of hunger. Only a sin-sick world would allow that. Only wicked governments would put a cap on valuable resources, all in the name of “saving the environment,” while people perish as a result. Only corruption would criminalize free enterprise, individual ingenuity, and personal stewardship over resources, thus suffocating free will, personal charity, and an opportunity to serve. 

In the revelation above, the Lord spoke of every man being “accountable” and having a “stewardship” over earthly things. This is a reference to the sacred importance of personal property. The Lord’s system is not a utopian collectivist scheme. It doesn’t rely on government forcing people to share. It doesn’t take away private property, but is based upon it. 

The Lord’s system is called the “law of consecration.” To consecrate may be defined as “to make or declare sacred; set apart or dedicate to the service of a deity.” Under the Lord’s system, the individual voluntarily sets apart a portion of his surplus to the Lord’s Church and to his fellow members of this system. 

What he gives up is his choice. The bishop or authority can’t force him to consecrate more or less. Whatever the individual retains is his stewardship and he is accountable for it directly to God. This could be a large tract of land intended for farming. It could be the wise use of a talent God has given the person. Whatever it is, it’s an individual, not a collective, stewardship. Yet, there are collective dividends and the Church may help those who fall on hard times or who need extra help. 

In this sort of system, everyone’s needs are met. It’s all voluntary. Each family owns its own property or has its own stewardship. Each is autonomous, yet enjoys the benefits of unity and collective strength. The system incentivizes and rewards hard work. It allows for growth and ingenuity. It doesn’t shackle man’s innate cleverness or ability to innovate. Here, the individual and individual family matters and is not merely a cog in a collective machine ruled from on high. It’s a beautiful, inspired system! 

The Devil has counterfeited the Lord’s system, however. Incapable of ingenuity of his own, Satan twists and mauls what Jesus gives in its pristine manner. Instead of the law of consecration, Satan has offered us communism and socialism. The communists, atheists that they are, have in fact sometimes said that they are the true heirs of New Testament teachings. After all, don’t we read in Acts chapter 4: 

“And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 

“And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 

“Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 

“And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need” (Acts 4:32-35). 

Those of limited light and narrow understanding think this means that everyone gave up their right to own and manage their own property. Not so. They merely dedicated, or consecrated, everything they didn’t need for their own upkeep, to the Lord and to the support of their fellow believers. But, you say, what about Ananias and Sapphira? Didn’t God smite them for holding back their property? No. He enacted justice upon them for lying and for setting their hearts upon riches – the very thing that the Redeemer had taught was the root of all evil. 

The Lord is eager to give all of us a stewardship. He wants us to be accountable directly to Him. He wants us to have our Independence and our autonomy. He wants us to voluntarily show Him how little value we place on the material world and how much more we love Him and our fellow man. He wants to know what sacrifices we are willing to make – how much we’re willing to truly put on the altar of discipleship. 

This system of consecration is designed to enhance feelings of love and service and to make us more Christlike towards others. It’s designed to make us faithful to Him as little children are to their parents. It’s meant to raise the poor and lower the rich until all have their just needs and wants met. But this voluntary system only works when the Gospel of Christ has penetrated the heart and cleansed it of greed, unjust ambition, selfishness, vainglory, pride, and covetousness.

Worldly people will never implement it. Churches decked in gold will never inspire their followers to consecration. In a word, fake Christians can never achieve the Zion-like beauty of the consecrated life. The greatest need, therefore, is for society to repent and turn to Christ. Repentance is the only remedy we possess that can save us from ourselves. 

The Savior Jesus Christ stands with open arms to forgive and uplift, to cleanse and crown, both nations and individuals. And, before long, He will stand here again upon the earth and beckon all to live the law of consecration and enjoy the bounties of the earth He created. Truly, there’s enough and to spare in the earth and in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. When we finally have enough and to spare of His love and goodness in our hearts, we will have enough and to spare of everything else. 

Zack Strong, 
March 23, 2022

More Russian Lies

On December 29, 2021, I published a 15,000-word article detailing some of the lies Russia has been telling about the disaster situation they caused in Ukraine. I honed in on three key facts; namely, that communism never fell in Russia and that the hardliners are still pursuing the same old agenda, that Russia is not surrounded by NATO, and that Russia is the aggressor. Today, I want to expand my analysis and cite several more of Russia’s deceptions that are hoodwinking people high and low in the West. 

First, I want to give a quick overview of the last eight years. In 2014, Russia backed a coup that deposed the Ukrainian president while pretending to support him – then blamed it on NATO. Using this as a pretext, Russian supporters in Donetsk and Luhansk – the region known as Donbass – declared independence. This was of course supported by Russian troops and mercenaries. Russian soldiers simultaneously stole Crimea, which Putin then annexed. Leonid Ragozin called the annexation a “masterclass in political manipulation,” stating: 

“Putin succeeded in using a revolution that could have spelt the end of his regime to his advantage by forcing Russia’s entire population into binge watching daily episodes of an endless series about Ukraine burning in hellfire.” 

The endless streaming of malicious propaganda against Ukraine continues today with Ukraine being depicted as an illegitimate vassal state of NATO or the United States – a state that is literally perpetuating “genocide,” a claim Putin has now made more than once and is using as a justification for Russian intervention in Ukraine. 

Going back to 2014, however, I would be remiss if I didn’t note that a total of 5% of Ukraine was stolen and placed under outright or de facto Russian control. Russia has since granted almost 1 million Ukrainians in these stolen territories Russian passports and citizenship, partially to convert the area in Russia proper and make claims of “defending” its people more tenable (which is the reason Russia has engaged in mass settler colonialism throughout its former satellites states) and partially to reverse bad demographic trends. As Ukraine has justly fought back against these Russian-supported separatists and their Kremlin controllers, some 14,000 people on both sides have perished. 

A few days ago, as alleged Ukrainian saboteurs were being caught crossing into Russia and a supposed bombing attempt was being thwarted by Luhansk authorities, the Russian Duma approved a proposal to recognize Luhansk and Donetsk as independent states. On February 21, Putin approved the proposal. One of the stunning things about this move is that Luhansk and Donetsk claim control over territory that they actually don’t control and which is controlled by Ukraine. What if Ukraine decides to exert its control over its own territory in these falsely claimed areas? Will Putin call this an “invasion” or “aggression” and go to war to “defend” the newly independent states? 

Perhaps the point is mute because as incredible as it is to steal a nation’s territory and then recognize the territories’ “independence,” the old KGB tactician took it a step farther. Immediately upon recognizing the so-called “independence” of Luhansk and Donetsk, Putin ordered Russian troops into the region to “maintain peace.” Is this how you treat an “independent” state, by occupying it with your soldiers? Can it truly be called “independent” when, on day one, a foreign military under the command of a foreign dictator enters and takes over? Hardly! 

This is conquest by any other name and I’m losing my mind watching Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, and others justifying this invasion. Now, because of these latest developments, any Ukrainian action against the separatists in what is rightfully Ukrainian territory will risk the chance of engaging Russian forces and igniting a larger war. If that happens, remember it was Vladimir Putin who made it so. Glenn Beck has a mostly-accurate segment from his show on this news which a follower of one of my Facebook pages sent to me this morning and which I commend to you. 

Numerous sources are now reporting 10,000 Russian troops have already entered Donbass, though reports are a little hazy. Whether boots are actually on the ground yet or not (they’ve been there for eight years in one form or another, so why wouldn’t be), the Red Tsar’s decree exists and will be acted upon sooner or later. KGB dictator Putin, after sending in troops, requested the Duma to grant him authorization to use military force outside of Russian territory.  

The false narrative that Russia is the “savior” has again been repeated and fortified by the events. And the gullible fools in the West remain oblivious to the fact that Russia has orchestrated this entire episode using classic Soviet tactics of subversion, deception, and manipulation. 

Now, let’s proceed with Russia’s lies about Ukraine and NATO and the tactics they’ve used to steal part of Ukraine for themselves. The first thing that comes to mind is Vladimir Putin’s fatalist, alarmist, and, frankly, psychotic, rhetoric. First, he has continuously lied about NATO aggression, expansionism, and threatening Russia’s borders. I’m no supporter of NATO, but I’m also not a friend of lies and distortions. I dispensed with this absurdity in my “Russia Lies” article mentioned earlier, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of states bordering Russia are not NATO members, including Ukraine.  

Another fact is that the only states bordering Russia that are in any way hostile and which also contain NATO forces are those, like Estonia, which invited NATO forces to be stationed there AFTER Russia engaged in hybrid-warfare against them. It’s essential you understand the old communist shtick of proclaiming innocence in all things while blaming the enemy for the exact same things you are in reality doing or planning to do. Trained in KGB subversion tactics, Russia plays the victim card masterfully. But Russia isn’t a victim of anything except its own communist regime’s tyranny and conquest ambitions. 

Since I’ve been closely studying Russia, not a year has gone by that some Russian leader or general hasn’t threatened NATO or the United States with nuclear war. It’s a sick compulsion. If anyone in the West ritualistically threatened Russia or China with nuclear war, we’d rightly call him a lunatic. Vladimir Putin is a lunatic. I cite but three examples of his nuclear rhetoric. 

Last week, while in France, Putin fumed at his audience, warning them how quickly he would drop atom bombs on their heads in the event of NATO interfering in Ukraine: 

“Do you understand it or not, that if Ukraine joins Nato and attempts to bring Crimea back by military means, the European countries will be automatically pulled into a war conflict with Russia? 

“Of course, Russia and Nato [military] potentials are incomparable. We understand it. But we also understand that Russia is one of the leading nuclear states. 

“There will be no winners, and you will be pulled into this conflict against your will.” 

“You won’t even have time to blink your eye when you execute Article 5.” 

Imagine if doddering Biden said he would strike third-party nations with nuclear weapons if any of their allies attacked, say, Canada. That’s essentially the situation. That’s what Putin is saying. If NATO dares to help a smaller nation who has been attacked by Russia defend itself against further Russian aggression, then Russia will drop nuclear weapons all over Europe. Think of how maniacally insane that is! 

But this isn’t the first, and I doubt it will be the last, time that Putin has made such threats. In 2018, he again played the victim card, but still managed to voice his willingness – in seconds – to order a nuclear strike: 

“Our strategy of nuclear weapons use doesn’t envision a preemptive strike. Our concept is a launch under attack. 

“Only when we become convinced that there is an incoming attack on the territory of Russia, and that happens within seconds, only after that we would launch a retaliatory strike.” 

It should be noted that the nation that fires nuclear missiles second will be in better shape than the one that fires first, nullifying any idea Putin may have intended to convey about Russia’s benevolence.   

Finally, in a 2014 military document, Russia made a statement that puts Putin’s threats – most of which I haven’t included here – in better context: 

“The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened.” 

Putin would be willing not only to launch missiles if missiles were headed for Russia, which is understandable, but he is formally, on paper, prepared to launch nukes even in a conventional war or “in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation.” It should be alarming, then, to hear Putin so frequently accuse NATO of aggression and of threatening Russia. 

What’s more, Putin has taken to accusing Ukraine of literal genocide in Donbass. He said that, in Russia’s analysis, what’s happening “constitutes genocide.” Apart from the larger and more obvious false claims of the Allies against Germany, search the Katyn Forest Massacre. For years, the massacre of 10,000 Polish officers was blamed on Germany. Germany denied it, but no one listened. Only later was it confirmed that the Russians had perpetrated the slaughter and then blamed it on Germany – the world Elites’ favorite scapegoat. 

Back to Russia and Ukraine. Using the claims of “genocide” and imminent invasion as a pretext, the Russian-backed rebel authority of Luhansk, Leonid Pasechnik, and of neighboring Donetsk, ordered an immediate evacuation of all residents to Russian territory and called all able-bodied man to arms. In my Red Alert newsletter of February 19, I said: “Perhaps he’s clearing the area for Russian armor and troops to occupy the area or make an offensive.” 

Two days later, my prediction came true as Putin ordered Russian military into the area to “maintain peace.” “Maintain peace,” in Putin speak, is the same as “normalize” in Soviet speak; that is, to put down all dissent and take control of an area. Russia loves to create pretexts to send in troops as “liberators.” Think of Afghanistan, Syria, Georgia, Crimea, Armenia, and so forth. The Soviets said it’s impossible for communists to be the aggressors because they’re always fighting the true oppressors of humanity – capitalists, Christians, etc. Russia is carrying forward the same ridiculous claims today. 

Tellingly, the evacuation order was pre-recorded on February 16, but released only February 18. In the video, they use the word “today,” though that is an apparent fabrication. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported: 

“Videos of Russia-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine ordering an “emergency” evacuation posted on February 18 were actually filmed on February 16, an analysis by RFE/RL’s Russian Service of metadata from the messaging app Telegram shows. 

“In the video posted online and on Telegram on February 18, Denis Pushilin, the de-facto head of the separatist-occupied Donetsk region, claimed an increase in the number of Ukrainian military personnel and weapons along the line of contact. 

“He ordered the evacuation, claiming that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was soon to give an order to “invade the territory” of separatist-controlled areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk region. 

“A leader in the separatist-controlled Luhansk region issued a similar call based on similar claims. 

“An investigation by RFE/RL’s Russia Service shows that the videos were actually made on February 16, indicating that the sudden evacuation was actually preplanned.” 

Remember the United States warning of a Russian false-flag event? Could this be it? Russia and the separatists alike are claiming that Ukraine is currently shelling Donbass, committing “genocide,” and is preparing to invade. Recall and apply what I said about Putin blaming the enemy for the very things he’s doing or planning to do. 

Oleksiy Danilov, Ukraine’s top security chief, responded to the allegations simply: “There are no orders to liberate our territories by force.” I love that he said “our territories,” because the Donbass is rightfully Ukrainian sovereign territory which was broken off by Russia, which now uses any Ukrainian move in the area to claim “aggression” and “genocide.” 

In an interview with Dr. Lada L. Roslysky, the founder of the Black Trident Defense Group out of Kiev, Molly Gambhir of WION news asked about Russia’s claims that five Ukrainian saboteurs had been killed in a firefight while trying to sneak into Russia. She gave a great comment: 

“We’ve become quite cynical to these types of claims because they’re false claims. What is on the Ukrainian territory is the Russian armed forces. And Russian weaponry is already in Ukraine and they have been there for eight years. We are completely surrounded. And when we are listening to the Kremlin, we should always look into it like a reverse mirror: What the Kremlin claims is what the Kremlin is actually doing.” 

I’ve been saying the same thing for years. Communists are incapable of telling the truth. Even when they tell the truth, they lie – because they tell it out of context or to suit an agenda by which telling an unsavory truth will harm their geopolitical adversaries. Putin, the schooled KGB master he is, used these types of doublespeak and reverse reality tactics constantly. 

As noted above, Russia has now sent potentially 10,000 troops into Donbass. What I didn’t write then, because the situation is so fluid that it changes and updates every hour, is that the Russian Duma have now, only after the fact, unanimously approved Putin’s “request” to send troops into foreign territory. Such is the sham dictatorship posing as a “democracy” that is Russia. If you know anything about how Stalin ruled the Soviet Union by fiat, you see its shades in Putin’s Russia. 

One of the lies Putin has been peddling about the situation is that Ukraine is the aggressor and doesn’t want peace. What of the Minsk Accords? What of the Budapest Memorandum? What of Ukraine’s various peace proposals? Russia never followed either the Minsk Accords or Budapest Memorandum, so why should they play nice when Ukraine asks for peace? 

In “Russia Lies,” I talked about the Minsk Accords and the ways Russia has violated them from the beginning. But what of the Budapest Memorandum signed in 1994? In it, the United States, UK, and Russia pledged to “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and to refrain from force or violence. It also stripped Ukraine of its massive stockpile of nuclear weapons – its only real deterrent to Russian aggression. Sadly, Russia didn’t abide by the Budapest Memorandum just as it ignored the Minsk Accords. Ukraine’s claims against Russia are just and Russia’s claims are just . . . garbage. 

Part of Putin’s underlying motivation for invading Ukraine is the notion that Ukraine never really existed, but has always been part of Russia. Historically, this claim has legs, though it’s not so cut-and-dry. The name Russia originated in the name “Rus,” which was historically located in Ukraine. Ukraine, not modern Russia, was the birthplace of the Russian people, Russian Orthodoxy, etc. The center of power shifted, however, to Moscow. The state of “Ukraine” as we know it today only came into existence in 1991. Yet, Ukraine – especially Western Ukraine – is home to peoples who have always resented Russia and who speak a different language. Some of these are Cossacks who have always had a tense relationship with Russia. 

I share this truncated view of Ukrainian history to give context to a comment Putin made that gives us a bird’s eye view of his rationale. I quote from a surprisingly good Yahoo!News article

“In a speech announcing his decision, Putin said that “Ukraine for us is not just a neighboring country. It is an integral part of our own history, culture, spiritual space,” according to a translation provided by The New York Times. He also claimed that Ukraine has “never had a tradition of genuine statehood” and that “[m]odern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia, more precisely Bolshevik communist Russia,” according to Reuters. Therefore, Putin claimed, “decommunization” should have entailed the re-incorporation of Ukraine into Russia. “We are ready to show you what real decommunization means for Ukraine,” Putin said.” 

If Putin wants to “decommunize” something, he should start by ordering his military to remove the hammers and sickles from their equipment, by changing the music of Russia’s national anthem (which is the Soviet anthem tune and was handpicked by Putin), and then by resigning from the Russian government. He is, after all, a KGB mafioso. 

The rest of his comment is somewhat revealing in its implications. Ukraine wasn’t the only state created by Soviet Russia. The Baltic states were created by Russia. The “stans” were engineered by Russia, too. Extending Putin’s logic, does Russia, then, have a right to incorporate – whether by hook or cook – these now independent nations back into Russia? If Putin can simply dismiss Ukraine’s sovereignty and conquer their nation by saying Russia created them, then why can’t he do the same for Estonia or Tajikistan or Palestine (the PLO was created wholly by Soviet intelligence, and their current president, Mahmoud Abbas, was trained in Soviet Russia, as was Egyptian-born Yasser Arafat. Iran’s Ayatollah was KGB-trained, too, in case anyone was curious. So were the Iraqi Republican Guard, which became the leaders of ISIS). 

Putin’s logic is, of course, intellectually bankrupt. What kind of world would this be if any nation that ever created another nation could simply take it back and claim it as their own? Most of the geopolitical map of Africa, though preexisting in their various tribal entities, was drawn up by European states – France, England, Italy, etc. Does Putin think they should be able to take them back? They created their distinctive borders and nation-states, after all. 

Let’s pull this article back to reality. Here’s another Russian lie. Russia swore that its annual military drills in Belarus would end when scheduled (February 20) and that Russian troops would head home. When a limited number of Russian troops seemingly did go home, many in the West cheered and said NATO was wrong and Russia followed through on its word. They spoke too soon. 

It turns out that Russia’s “partial withdrawal” and ending of drills was a fiction. Belarus has announced that Russian troops will remain “indefinitely” in Belarus – to defend Belarus, of course. 30,000 are there now with a large amount of tanks, jets, and equipment. And, so, Russian troops are not only along Ukraine’s border, but are moving into the newly “independent” states in Donbass. 

Where are all the “conservatives” and media talking heads who cheered Putin’s integrity now? They’re making excuses, dodging reality, blaming NATO, or buying claims of “genocide” which, naturally, justify the “unexpected” change of plans. Can’t we finally admit Putin lied? And can’t we also acknowledge Russia’s contradictory claims – first there was no mass buildup up of troops, then the troops were being withdrawn? It’s one lie on top of another. 

Some are justifying everything that’s happened over the past eight years by the fact that, on the whole, the people of Donbass are happy to be either independent or Russian citizens. In a normal situation, I approve and applaud the right of self-determination. However, that’s not what happened here. None of this was organic. It was all orchestrated by the Kremlin. 

Let’s do a little comparison. If Chinese troops moved into San Francisco and occupied it, and the high Asian population there cheered, would that be justified? Would it be justified if the Asians there had a referendum and voted to become part of China? 

If that’s an absurd example, let’s use one closer to home. Much of the current Western United States was inhabited by Mexicans or Spanish-speakers before the territory fell into U.S. hands. Would they be justified, then, in passing referendums to join Mexico and break off from the United States? What if Mexican mercenaries or drug cartels entered Arizona, or Texas, or California, and sealed off a section of territory, declaring it to be independent and no longer under Washington’s control?  

Just for emphasis, let’s use a third example. Would the American Indians be justified in rising up to reclaim some of their lands? They already possess “nations” that aren’t really part of the United States. What if they decided they wanted some of their traditional lands back and sent out their braves to, by force of arms, cut off a slice of, say, Virginia. What if the people of that area agreed that the Indians should probably have that territory? What if they were even happy about it? Would that be justified? 

Would any of this be justified? Of course not! None of these are organic movements. Each example I’ve used employs force and compulsion. Such is the case in Ukraine. The people of Donbass, in a time of peace, didn’t simply vote to leave Ukraine. If they had, I’d support them. However, they were aided by foreign mercenaries and troops to force a separation. This separation has been contested by the power rightfully controlling that jurisdiction. 14,000 people have died as a result and war continues to rock the area. 

The foreign mercenaries and troops, of course, were Russians. They were sent there with the deliberate purpose of breaking off Donbass from the rest of Ukraine as part of a long-term strategy of consuming Ukraine piecemeal. Recall that Russia outright stole and annexed Crimea. In all, Russian troops aided local rebels in cutting off 5% of Ukraine’s total territory and enforcing the separation, later hastily voted on, at the point of the sword. None of this is justifiable. It’s invasion and conquest by any other name. And if it happened to us, we’d go to war and wouldn’t allow it. But when Ukraine fights back or dares raise any complaints about their illicitly stolen territory and population, stolen through force of arms by a foreign enemy, Russia accuses them of “genocide,” expansion, and aggression. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious and if so many gullible people weren’t going along with the narrative. 

The most disgustingly asinine and repugnant comment I’ve heard so far regarding Putin’s order to send troops into Ukraine was made on The American Journal radio show, a branch of InfoWars. Most of what Alex Jones and the various other co-hosts say is correct. However, just as they did in 2014, they’ve chosen the wrong side in the Ukraine situation. To wit, the imbecilic comment I refer to was made today, February 22, by Harrison Smith and said: 

“Thank God, thank God, somebody is standing up against the imperialist war hawks that now run this country and have occupied the American government. It’s not me. It’s not me they’re at war with, that Russia’s at war with. It’s not the American People that Russia’s at war with. It is the despicable and detestable cabal that runs our country. So, good riddance to them; good luck Russia. I don’t know, maybe, you know, when Texas breaks away, Russia will be there to declare us a sovereign state – a sovereign, breakaway, independent nation. I don’t know, it might be nice.” 

I’ve rarely heard anything so stupidly ignorant and so blatantly treasonous as this blather. I’d fire Harrison Smith immediately, if I were Alex Jones. The only thing despicable here is the idea that an American would welcome Russian troops into America. If Russian troops come into my community, it’s an act of war and I’ll open fire. I’m sick of Russian aggression, Russian hypocrisy, and Russian lies. We have enough of that in America – we don’t need to deal with it from a foreign, paganized, communist nation like by a KGB agent who has said the (fake) fall of the USSR is “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” Click the hyperlink to watch a forty-two-minute presentation on my Liberty Wolf podcast about the fake fall of communism. It’s crucial to understand this deception. 

The final myth I want to bust is that Russia and Putin stand in opposition to the Western New World Order. This is utterly absurd. Let’s start with a fun fact. There’s been plenty of news, especially from the alternative media, about Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum. Alex Jones, in particular, has been rightly ranting every day about the WEF’s admitted influence throughout the world and how numerous world leaders, such as Justin Trudeau are devotees and trainees of the WEF. What about Putin? Did you know that Vladimir Putin, the so-called savior from the new World Order, is a member of the World Economic Forum and Davos group and that he has been attending their forums for years? Surprised? 

In January 2021, Klaus Schwab personally introduced Dictator Putin for a speech at the Davos summit in Switzerland, eagerly stating: “Mr. President, the world is waiting to hear from you.” What did Putin say to the world? You can watch his address here and read the official transcript here. But here’s how Putin began: 

“I have been to Davos many times, attending the events organised by Mr. Schwab, even back in the 1990s. Klaus just recalled that we met in 1992. Indeed, during my time in St Petersburg, I visited this important forum many times. I would like to thank you for this opportunity today to convey my point of view to the expert community that gathers at this world-renowned platform thanks to the efforts of Mr. Schwab.” 

In the talk, Putin parroted the same propaganda we hear from our overlords here in the West. He played his part, bashing the United States, putting down free enterprise, and touting Russia’s great accomplishments for the world, but, if you pay attention, he also praised the World Bank, applauded the global COVID-19 response, pushed vaccines and called for a mass vaccination program in developing countries, called for international coordination to save the climate, referred to the hoax of “global warming” as a “critical problem” that required international “cooperation” to solve, and so forth. I don’t like the term “globalist,” but if anyone is a “globalist,” it is Putin. 

Isn’t it interesting that the ostensibly anti-New World Order Putin is so friendly with the very organs of world government and that he has so many decades of experience working with them? He considers them “experts” and is on a first-name basis with “Klaus.” If the Alex Joneses of society rip on Trudeau for being a WEF stooge, why don’t they also condemn Putin for being on the same side? To bash one but not the other for the very same connections is hypocrisy. 

Why would Putin be hobnobbing with Klaus Schwab – the architect of the Great Reset – and the world financial Elite that hold sway in the West if he was truly their enemy and opposed their agenda? Why would Putin be implementing WEF, Davos, and U.N. policies in Russia if he was opposed to this cabal? The fact is, of course, he’s playing for the same team. When will people understand that the cabal that threatens us is an international cabal and has its agents in every nation? 

A Breitbart headline from yesterday tells it all: “Russia Presides over U.N. Security Council Meeting on Russian Aggression.” The article states: 

“Ukraine requested an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council (UNSC) on Monday night in response to Russia’s military incursion. 

“The rotating presidency of the UNSC happens to be held by Russia at the moment.” 

Russia is ensconced in global governance. Communists are the true “globalists.” Their entire program, which Putin was trained in and adheres to, is internationalist and seeks world hegemony with its partner in crime, Red China. There’s no shady, underhanded, thieving, corrupt, conspiratorial, murderous, genocidal thing you can imagine that Russia – both in the Soviet era and today – haven’t engaged in. 

From abortion to transgenderism to political correctness to the psychopolitics of medicine to mass surveillance, most of the ills that plague the West first came from Russia. Trust me, as one who lived in Russia for two years and spent my time talking with average folks and observing, it is a crass, violent, and degenerate society. I talked about this at length in “Russia – Bastion of Traditionalism?” 

I’m of course speaking collectively and not individually; there are some great Russians with beautiful souls. But their parasitic system, which exists in the West, too, has left deep scars on Russian society and Russia has been used for a century as a base of operations against humanity. Those raised in this culture of communist corruption and perfidy are among the foremost of those who, though they are perpetrating horrors, are now seen, because of mass deception, as liberators, saviors, and heroes. 

Why would Putin allow this state of affairs to continue in his country if he was truly against it? Why wouldn’t he use his dictatorial powers and mass wealth to curb the corruption, stop the global disinformation campaigns, or stop his nation’s cyberattacks on other countries? Why did his operatives help the Democrats in their false “collusion” narrative against Donald Trump? Why would he send his people to arrest his political opposition or poison dissidents? Would an honest, Christian man, as Putin alleges he is, do these things? 

Putin has gone along with the Western Elite’s machinations at nearly every turn. He was the first to support George W. Bush’s “war on terror” after 9/11. He went along with COVID-19 scaremongering and locked his country down. He then mass-produced vaccines and delivered them all over the world. He supports the ludicrous “global warming” hoax. Russia has been a host of numerous transhumanist conferences and, in fact, is home to billionaire Dmitry Itskov’s “2045” project. These transhumanists plot to subjugate mankind and fuse us to machines in some sick mirror of the Matrix.  

Why would Putin allow these transhumanist conferences in his country if he was so opposed to their goals? Why would he participate with the World Economic Forum for thirty years? Why would he have assassinated dissidents, jailed his biggest political rival, and rigged elections if he was such a good statesman? Why would he have invaded and intervened in nations from Georgia to Ukraine to Armenia to Kazakhstan to Syria if he was such a peace-loving man?  

Is Vladimir Putin not smart enough to see the agenda of the transhumanists and world economic Elite? Is he to narrow-minded not to comprehend the great conspiracies swirling around him? Of course he knows their agenda! He’s part of the conspiracy! The only difference is that he wants to be the one leading it and doesn’t want to play second fiddle to anyone. 

These types of questions and observations could be made ad nauseum. The same questions could be asked of Putin’s closest ally, the Chinese dictator Xi Jinping. His Davos 2022 speech, which openly calls for more globalization, may be read here. All of these dictators, whether Putin in Moscow or Xi in Beijing or Biden in Washington or Trudeau in Ottawa, belong to the same clubs and share the same ideals. That they squabble about lesser things is tangential. None of them actually care about Ukraine. It’s a pawn in a larger scheme whose stakes are the world. But the game must be played the right way to fool the pawns and to get them to go along, for, without them, the Elite have no power. 

Most of the big names that dominate the news are Illuminati-communists or their puppets and belong to the same occult conspiracy. Whether in the East or the West, they’re Marxist-Leninists in principle and believe in the almighty state. They are the high priests of Lucifer and will, together, each playing his part, eventually damn humanity. 

Zack Strong 
February 23, 2022 

Russia Lies

*I wrote and published this article as installment number forty-three of my Red Alert Newsletter. Because I deem it of higher-than-usual importance, I have decided to share it here as well. I encourage you to visit Red Alert and consider subscribing. Wait until January, however, when I will be lowering the subscription price and changing up the format. Until then, please share this article and thank you for your support!*

You may call this article a rebuttal to the Russophiles out there and to the misguided pundits in our camp. Specifically, two weeks ago, I heard Alex Jones in one instance, and Jeff Rense and Mitchell Henderson in the other instance, say that Russia is the victim in the Ukraine debacle and that NATO is the one pushing us to war. This is sheer insanity and an inversion of reality!

To all those who see Russia as the picked-on, besieged, blameless little victim, please understand three facts: 1) The “collapse” of the Soviet Union was a strategic ruse, world communism is stronger than ever and is pursuing its age-old goal of world domination, and Russia and China are still spearheading the agenda on the ground; 2) Russia is not “surrounded” and hemmed in by NATO; and 3) Russia, not NATO, is the aggressor in Ukraine and started that conflict. 

1. The Contrived Collapse of Communism 

In 1989, the Berlin Wall was allowed to “fall.” The Kremlin gave orders to its agents in East Germany to open the borders and not stop people from crossing. They simply stood down. It was all on purpose; a stage production. 

In 1991, the Soviet regime once again stood down its forces, lowered the Soviet flag, and allowed the Soviet Union to change its name. It even faked a weak military coup in which we’re supposed to believe that the Soviet military and intelligence services were so inept that they couldn’t arrest Gorbachev or even Yeltsin, the latter standing up on a tank in public in a dramatic moment to denounce the “hardliners.” It was good acting in a well-crafted ruse. 

It was a contrived “collapse” – a psyop with few rivals in human history. It was precisely the type of big lie the West wanted to hear and which they eagerly gobbled up. Yet, political theater is not reality and wishful thinking doesn’t change the truth on the ground. And the truth is that the Soviets, which are part of a larger and ongoing conspiracy against mankind, pre-planned this “collapse” years in advance as part of a mass deception to lull the West into complacency in preparation for the final death blow. 

For more details and analysis of the fake “fall” of the Soviet Union, see the relevant chapters in my books A Century of Red and Red Gadiantons. Here, I want to touch upon just several of the compelling points against the “collapse” narrative. 

First, think of human nature and history. Where in the annals of history has a mighty, tyrannical regime ever given up its power without a struggle? Where have people who were entirely stripped of their Liberty ever regained their Freedom without bloodshed or an uprising? Cite me one example except for the Soviet “collapse” in 1991. You can’t do it. It’s never happened before and it will never happen. This is because of human nature and the near universal lust to dominate and control other people, wealth, and power. 

Yet, the controlled press, and the communist world, want us to believe that the impossible happened in 1991 – that the greatest mass-murdering oppressors in world history suddenly had a change of heart, relinquished their design of world domination, folded their sprawling system of psychological, espionage, and subversion operations, gave up their power and control over the world’s most fearsome stockpile of weapons, and restored Freedom and sovereignty to the Soviet peoples. If you believe that, I have a bridge on Jupiter to sell you! 

Why should we even be tempted to believe the communists suddenly changed their minds and beat their swords into ploughshares? Hadn’t the mass-murdering Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev said on September 17, 1955: “[I]f anyone believes that our smiles involve abandonment of the teaching of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, he deceives himself poorly. Those who wait for that must wait until a shrimp learns to whistle”? And hadn’t the early Soviet leaders foretold of a day when they’d stage a deception and show of peace in order to trick the West before the final victory? 

In 1930, Soviet bureaucrat Dmitri Z. Manuilsky told the students at the Lenin School of Political Warfare: 

“War to the hilt between communism and capitalism is inevitable. Today, of course, we are not strong enough to attack. Our time will come in 20 to 30 years. To win, we shall need the element of surprise. The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep. So we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard-of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends. As soon as their guard is down, we shall smash them with our clenched fist.” 

Here you have a Soviet leaders openly speaking of a generational plan to simulate peace and make “unheard-of concessions,” all while preparing to deal the final death blow to the West. Lenin and others also spoke openly about the need to hoodwink the West into accepting, funding, and befriending Soviet Russia by pretending to be peace-loving and democratic. It’s all a lie, ladies and gentlemen! If you think the Soviet masterminds discarded their plan to fake “the most spectacular peace movement on record,” you’re a sucker and don’t know anything about how the world truly works. 

Feigning weakness while preparing to strike is an ageless tactic which the Soviets adopted and perfected. The Reds in both Russia and China have used the method to throw the off West, regroup, gain concessions (usually in the form of financing and trade), and prepare for further aggression. This is what the period of “Détente” during the Cold War was all about. This is what Mao did whenever his Chinese bandits began to lose ground to Chiang Kai-shek. While pretending to desire peace and sending envoys to engage in vain peace talks and sign agreements that he knew he would later break, he was busy regrouping, repositioning, rearming, and preparing for new offensives. Communists have used this stratagem ad nauseum. 

The Soviet defector, Anatoliy Golitsyn, an intelligence operative, warned the West that the Soviets used Détente as a ruse and that they were preparing an even greater performance to fool us – the “fall” of the Soviet Union. That’s right, Soviet intelligence agents like Golitsyn warned us years in advance of the fake “fall” of the Soviet Union. This is the second great evidence against its veracity. 

If Golitsyn was full of it, how did most of what he predicted on a range of topics come true? Why, if he was really as crazy as some say, did his prediction about the fraudulent “collapse” of the USSR come true? He wasn’t a dreamer; he was a truth-teller. And the truth is that the West has been conned again by the masters of deceit who have tricked us repeatedly. 

In his book New Lies for Old, Golitsyn essentially said the Soviet conspirators would deceive us by rebranding the Soviet Union the same way that Coke redesigns its cans and commercials yet still serves you the same disgusting poison purporting to be soda. The book must be read as a whole and quoting parts of it is insufficient. However, I’ve drawn out a several segments to give the flavor of his observations regarding Soviet strategic deception. Remember, you’re reading the personal witness of a former Soviet intelligence officer who knew whereof he spoke: 

“The launching of a strategic disinformation program in 1958 invalidated the conventional methodology of Western students of communist affairs. A carefully controlled flood of information was released through the whole range of sources under communist control. As in the NEP period in the 1920s, this flood of information confused and distorted Western views on the situation in the communist world. Western analysts, lacking the ability to acquire inside information on communist strategic thinking, planning, and methods of operation, gratefully accepted the new stream of information at face value. Without their knowing it, their conventional methods of analysis were invalidated and turned back on them by the communist strategists. Because of the deliberate projection by these strategists of a false image of the dissolution of communist unity, the noncommunist world ignored or undervalued open and significant evidence pointing to bloc cooperation from 1957 onward on a new footing of equality and commitment to fundamental ideological principles and long-term policy objectives. The new dispensation allows for variation in domestic and international tactics and provides unlimited opportunities for joint efforts between bloc countries to misrepresent the true state of relations between them whenever this should be to their mutual advantage. Unnoticed by the West, communist ideology was freed from its Stalinist straitjacket and revived on Leninist lines. The change was successfully misrepresented as the spontaneous replacement of ideology by nationalism as the driving force behind the communist world. 

“Noncommunist studies came increasingly to be based on information emanating from communist sources. While observers in the noncommunist world sometimes showed some awareness that information was reaching them through channels under communist control, there was virtually no recognition of the fact that the information had been specially prepared behind the Iron Curtain for their benefit. The political role of the intelligence services was ignored, and since the evidence of planning and coordination in the activities of the bloc was also overlooked, the growth of internal opposition movements and the eruption of disputes between communist states and parties were wrongly seen as spontaneous developments. 

“. . . The evidence of evolution and splits in the communist world was so overwhelming in volume and so convincing in character that none could continue to question its validity. Acceptance in particular of the Sino-Soviet split as a reality became the common basis for all noncommunist attempts to analyze present and future policies and trends in the communist world. As a result Western perception of offensive communist intentions was blunted and the evidence of coordination in the execution of worldwide communist strategies was discounted. 

“Because strategic disinformation was not recognized as such, Western views on internal developments in the communist world came increasingly to be shaped and determined by the communist strategists in the interests of their own long-range policy. In the Soviet Union the dropping of the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” and the introduction of market-orientated enterprises and other measures of economic reform seemed to presage a reversion toward capitalism. The gradual rise in living standards seemed to be taking the edge off the Soviet appetite for revolutionary change, generating new pressures on the regime to allow greater freedom and improve the supply of consumer goods. Apparent differences in the Soviet leadership between the liberal reformers and conservative ideologists on how to grapple with these pressures and reconcile the need for progress with lip service to ideology confirmed Western belief in the recurrence of power struggles, mainly behind the scenes but sometimes in the open, as in the case of Khrushchev’s dismissal. When the liberals appeared to have the upper hand, expectations were aroused of increasing cooperation between the Soviet Union and the West. Moderation in Soviet propaganda and expressions of interest in peaceful coexistence and businesslike negotiations seemed genuine, especially when compared with the implacable hostility of the Chinese. Occasional aggressive Soviet actions were attributable to the survival within the leadership of a group of die-hard Stalinists who had to be appeased from time to time by the liberal reformers. If the Stalinists were once more to regain control, detente would be reversed and there might be a Sino-Soviet reconciliation. The West therefore had an interest in strengthening the hand of liberal reformers. Provided they survived, there were prospects of an improvement in relations owing to the existence of common interests between the Soviets and the West in avoiding nuclear conflict and confronting Chinese militancy. In the long run the technological revolution offered prospects of a gradual narrowing of the gulf between the communist and non-communist systems. 

“Such were the arguments of the 1960s. Despite the revival of neo-Stalinism toward the end of the decade, the arguments survived and gained weight until the later 1970s. 

“The apparent opening up of cracks between the communist states was assessed as an encouraging development. The emergence of a range of different brands of communism seemed to show how ideology had lost its binding force. The rivalries between the communist states appeared rooted in traditional national sentiment. . . . 

“To sum up, the apparent loss of revolutionary ardor, the apparent disunity in the bloc and movement, the apparent preoccupation of the communist states with fratricidal struggles, and the advent of détente all pointed to the same conclusion: The Cold War was over. The new situation seemed to demand accommodation and a positive response to communism rather than the old forms of resistance and containment. . . . 

“The abandonment by the West of concerted policies toward the communist world led to changes in Western diplomatic practice. Personal contacts—including confidential talks—negotiations, and understandings between leading communist and noncommunist statesmen, even if initiated by the communist side, were welcomed in the West. A unilateral approach to relations with communist countries became the norm. General de Gaulle’s visit to Moscow in 1966 revived talk of the Franco-Russian alliance of the 1890s and the Franco-Soviet pact of the 1930s. The United States agreed to conducting the SALT negotiations with the Soviet Union on a bilateral basis. Regular bilateral political consultations between the Soviets and the French and Italian governments became accepted practice. In West Germany the argument for an opening to the East gathered strength and found expression in Chancellor Brandt’s Ost politik in the early 1970s. The Western response to China’s détente diplomacy appeared not to be concerted. There were conspicuous examples of failure to consult; for example, the Japanese were not warned by the Americans of the Nixon-Kissinger initiative in China in 1971; President Giscard d’Estaing gave his allies little or no notice of his meeting with Brezhnev in Warsaw in May 1980. 

“The widening of the range of the contacts between communist diplomats and politicians in the noncommunist world was as warmly greeted as the widening of Western contacts with the communist world. 

“With the advent of detente Western business interests pressed for the expansion of trade with communist countries. . . . 

“Detente and disinformation on communist “evolution” provided grounds for socialist parties to view with greater favor the formation of united fronts with communist parties. Apart from improving the chances of socialists’ gaining power, united fronts looked like a promising device for influencing communist parties to move closer to social democracy and further from the Soviet Union. . . . 

“Opposition to communism in principle became unfashionable. The basic differences between democracy and communism were lost from sight. It was considered more rewarding to seek out common interests through increasing East-West scientific, cultural, and sporting exchanges that, it was thought, would contribute to the liberalization of communist regimes. In the 1960s anticommunist writers virtually lost their admission tickets to the communications media; their attitude was deemed inimical to détente. . . . 

“The success of the communist disinformation program has engendered a state of crisis in Western assessments of communist affairs and therefore a crisis in Western policy toward the communist world. The meaning of developments in the communist bloc is misunderstood and the intentions behind communist actions are misinterpreted. Enemies are accepted and treated as though they were allies of the West. The Soviet military threat is recognized, but the strategic political threat is not comprehended and is therefore underestimated. Communist political offensives, in the form of détente diplomacy and disarmament negotiations, are seen as indications of communist moderation. Communist strategy, instead of being blocked, is unwittingly assisted by Western policies. . . . 

“. . . the communist strategists are now poised to enter into the final, offensive phase of the long-range policy, entailing a joint struggle for the complete triumph of communism. Given the multiplicity of parties in power, the close links between them, and the opportunities they have had to broaden their bases and build up experienced cadres, the communist strategists are equipped, in pursuing their policy, to engage in maneuvers and strategems beyond the imagination of Marx or the practical reach of Lenin and unthinkable to Stalin. Among such previously unthinkable strategems are the introduction of false liberalization in Eastern Europe and, probably, in the Soviet Union and the exhibition of spurious independence on the part of the regimes in Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. . . . 

“If in a reasonable time “liberalization” can be successfully achieved in Poland and elsewhere, it will serve to revitalize the communist regimes concerned. The activities of the false opposition will further confuse and undermine the genuine opposition in the communist world. Externally, the role of dissidents will be to persuade the West that the “liberalization” is spontaneous and not controlled. “Liberalization” will create conditions for establishing solidarity between trade unions and intellectuals in the communist and noncommunist worlds. In time such alliances will generate new forms of pressure against Western “militarism,” “racism,” and “military-industrial complexes” and in favor of disarmament and the kind of structural changes in the West predicted in Sakharov’s writings. . . . 

“The promotion of the former KGB chief [Andropov], who was responsible for the preparation of the false liberalization strategy in the USSR, indicates that this factor was decisive in his selection and further points to the imminent advent of such “liberalization” in the near future. 

“The rise of Andropov fits into a familiar pattern whereby the former security chief becomes the party leader in order to secure the important shift in the realization of the strategy. Kadar, who introduced the so-called “liberalization” in Hungary; Hua Kuo-feng, under whom China shifted to “capitalist pragmatism”; and Kania, who initiated the Polish “renewal” and recognized Solidarity—all had been former security chiefs. This pattern reflects the crucial role of the security services in the “liberalization” of communist regimes. . . . 

“. . . the “liberalization” will not be limited to the USSR, but will be expanded to Eastern Europe and particularly to Poland. . . .  

“The coming offensive of the communist strategists will pursue the following objectives: 

“• The establishment of a model government for Western Europe, which will facilitate the inclusion of the so-called Eurocommunist parties into government coalitions with socialists and the trade unions. 

“• The dissolution of NATO and the Warsaw Pacts, the neutralization of Western Europe, and the Finlandization of Western Europe in general, through the advocacy of European collective security. 

“• The provision of a broader basis and impetus for expansion of the antimilitary movement by a more active involvement of Catholics and other believers in the West, thereby forcing the United States into a disadvantageous disarmament. 

“• Influencing the 1984 United States presidential election in favor of candidates who are more likely to deal with the leaders of the “liberalized” regimes in the USSR and East Europe and are more inclined to sacrifice the US military posture. 

“The dialectic of this offensive consists of a calculated shift from the old, discredited Soviet practice to a new, “liberalized” model, with a social democratic facade, to realize the communist planners’ strategy for establishing a United Europe. At the beginning they introduced a variation of the 1968 Czechoslovakian “democratization.” At a later phase they will shift to a variation of the Czechoslovakian takeover of 1948. 

 “Developments have accurately confirmed the prediction that the communist strategists would undertake the political initiative on disarmament, particularly against West Germany. The trip of Gro-myko to Bonn, the invitation of social democratic opposition leaders to Moscow, and the statements of Andropov on missile concessions (made to influence the West German elections) are all clear indications of such a political initiative. As expected, the communist initiative revealed that its main target was the socialist parties. It also showed that there are elements in their leadership who are vulnerable to such an initiative, especially those in the West German social democratic party who have anti-NATO and anti US views, or who like Brandt and Sweden’s social democrat Palme are ready to embrace Rapacki’s idea of a nuclear-free zone in Central Europe. The initiative increased also the pressure on the US for concessions to the USSR. In the opinion of the author, however, the communist initiative has not yet reached its peak. How will the Western German social democrats respond when the communist regimes begin their “liberalization” by making concessions on human rights, such as easing emigration, granting amnesty for the dissidents, or removing the Berlin wall? One can expect that Soviet agents of influence in Western Europe, drawing on these developments, will become active. It is more than likely that these cosmetic steps will be taken as genuine by the West and will trigger a reunification and neutralization of West Germany and further the collapse of NATO. The pressure on the United States for concessions on disarmament and accommodation with the Soviets will increase. During this period there might be an extensive display of the fictional struggle for power in the Soviet leadership. One cannot exclude that at the next party congress or earlier, Andropov will be replaced by a younger leader with a more liberal image who will continue the so-called “liberalization” more intensively.” 

Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear knows this is the truth. You can see the various predictions that have come true. And you can see, without me needing to explain it, how it ties into the present situation. 

Lastly, the communist leaders have admitted their deception – we just haven’t paid attention. Mikhail Gorbachev, who presided over Glasnost (reeopening) and Perestroika (restructuring), for instance, wrote at length about the deception. He laughed at the West’s ignorance in assuming these programs meant the end of communism. In his book Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World, he wrote exactly what this Soviet-engineered “new thinking” is all about: 

“The life-giving impetus of our great Revolution was too powerful for the Party and people to reconcile themselves to phenomena that were threatening to squander its gains. The works of Lenin and his ideals of socialism remained for us an inexhaustible source of dialectical creative thought, theoretical wealth and political sagacity. His very image is an undying example of lofty moral strength, all-round spiritual culture and selfless devotion to the cause of the people and to socialism. Lenin lives on in the minds and hearts of millions of people. Breaking down all the barriers erected by scholastics and dogmatists, an interest in Lenin’s legacy and a thirst to know him more extensively in the original grew as negative phenomena in society accumulated. 

“Turning to Lenin has greatly stimulated the Party and society in their search to find explanations and answers to the questions that have arisen. . . . 

“The concept of restructuring with all the problems involved had been evolving gradually. Way back before the April Plenary Meeting a group of Party and state leaders had begun a comprehensive analysis of the state of the economy. Their analysis then became the basis for the documents of perestroika. Using the recommendations of scientists and experts, our entire potential, all the best that social thought had created, we elaborated the basic ideas and drafted a policy which we subsequently began to implement. . . . 

“I have long appreciated a remarkable formula advanced by Lenin: socialism is the living creativity of the masses. Socialism is not an a priori theoretical scheme, in keeping with which society is divided into two groups: those who give instructions and those who follow them. I am very much against such a simplified and mechanical understanding of socialism. 

“People, human beings with all their creative diversity, are the makers of history. So the initial task of restructuring—an indispensable condition, necessary if it is to be successful—is to “wake up” those people who have “fallen asleep” and make them truly active and concerned, to ensure that everyone feels as the is the master of the country, of his enterprise, office, or institute. This is the main thing. . . . 

“In the West, Lenin is often portrayed as an advocate of authoritarian methods of administration. This is a sign of total ignorance of Lenin’s ideas and, not infrequently, of their deliberate distortion. In effect, according to Lenin, socialism and democracy are indivisible. By gaining democratic freedoms the working masses come to power. It is also only in conditions of expanding democracy that they can consolidate and realize that power. There is another remarkably true idea of Lenin’s: the broader the scope of the work and the deeper the reform, the greater the need to increase the interest in it and convince millions and millions of people of its necessity. This means that if we have set out for a radical and all-round restructuring, we must also unfold the entire potential of democracy. . . . 

“Perestroika means overcoming the stagnation process, breaking down the braking mechanism, creating a dependable and effective mechanism for the acceleration of social and economic progress and giving it greater dynamism. 

“Perestroika means mass initiative. It is the comprehensive development of democracy, socialist self-government, encouragement of initiative and creative endeavor, improved order and discipline, more glasnost, criticism and self-criticism in all spheres of our society. It is utmost respect for the individual and consideration for personal dignity. 

“Perestroika is the all-round intensification of the Soviet economy, the revival and development of the principles of democratic centralism in running the national economy, the universal introduction of economic methods, the renunciation of management by injunction and by administrative methods, and the overall encouragement of innovation and socialist enterprise. 

“Perestroika means a resolute shift to scientific methods, an ability to provide a solid scientific basis for every new initiative. It means the combination of the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution with a planned economy. 

“Perestroika means priority development of the social sphere aimed at ever better satisfaction of the Soviet people’s requirements for good living and working conditions, for good rest and recreation, education and health care. It means unceasing concern for cultural and spiritual wealth, for the culture of every individual and society as a whole. 

“Perestroika means the elimination from society of the distortions of socialist ethics, the consistent implementation of the principles of social justice. It means the unity of words and deeds, rights and duties. It is the elevation of honest, highly-qualified labor, the overcoming of leveling tendencies in pay and consumerism. 

“This is how we see perestroika today. . . . 

“. . . The essence of perestroika lies in the fact that it unites socialism with democracy and revives the Leninist concept of socialist construction both in theory and in practice. Such is the essence of perestroika, which accounts for its genuine revolutionary spirit and its all-embracing scope. . . . 

“Perestroika is closely connected with socialism as a system. That side of the matter is being widely discussed, especially abroad, and our talk about perestroika won’t be entirely clear if we don’t touch upon that aspect. 

“Does perestroika mean that we are giving up socialism or at least some of its foundations? Some ask this question with hope, others with misgiving. . . . 

“To put an end to all the rumors and speculations that abound in the West about this, I would like to point out once again that we are conducting all our reforms in accordance with the socialist choice. We are looking within socialism, rather than outside it, for the answers to all the questions that arise. We assess our successes and errors alike by socialist standards. Those who hope that we shall move away from the socialist path will be greatly disappointed. Every part of our program of perestroika—and the program as a whole, for that matter—is fully based on the principle of more socialism and more democracy. . . . 

“More socialism means more democracy, openness and collectivism in everyday life, more culture and humanism in production, social and personal relations among people, more dignity and self-respect for the individual.” 

After reading this, only a fool can believe the Soviets’ “restructuring” and “openness” were anything other than ploys to trick the easily-deceived ignoramuses in the West – those who don’t know a single thing about what communism is, what it wants, and how it operates. 

I remind you that this admission of strategic deception was written in 1987, showing how pre-planned and contrived this Soviet-engineered Leninist revival really is. It should make people step back and reconsider the media lies they were fed when the Soviet dictator who presided over and instituted “Perestroika” and the Soviet “collapse” admits in writing that the entire purpose was to have “more socialism” in the world, “more collectivism in everyday life,” and to revitalize Leninism! Remind me again how “communism is dead. . .” 

The Soviets have always self-evaluated and have changed tactics when necessary. They’re pragmatists. For these Satanic conspirators, the ends justify the means. They’ll present any false face, wear any outward disguise, make any high-minded promise, and do any underhanded and wicked act to achieve their goal. And what is their goal? The crest of the USSR tells us plainer than words can – a hammer and sickle over the globe. 

As noted earlier, this “collapse” was pre-planned. Early on, the Soviets planned to launch “the most spectacular peace movement on record” and give “unheard-of concessions” to the “stupid and decadent” West. This was always in the cards. Gorbachev was simply the one installed to make it happen. And who told him to make it happen? That’s the real kicker. 

It may surprise many to know that Mikhail Gorbachev did not concoct this plan. Neither did his political predecessors. Rather, all of these were operating on orders from a higher source. The source? Satan. You can choose to roll your eyes or discount the Devil’s existence or the extent of his influence, but I testify that Satan actively governs the nations and is very hands-on in the work of global oppression. But Satan is cunning – he doesn’t come in his own name, nor does he appear in a ball of fire with a gleaming pitchfork. Rather, he appears as an angel of light, the light-bearer, and a friend of humanity and progress. 

The name Lord Maitreya is not known to many people, but it is known to the world Elite. Lord Maitreya is the leader of a group of disembodied evil spirits known as the Hierarchy or Brotherhood. Their followers are occultists. They’re found at the United Nations, in governments, in militaries, in private organizations, etc. 

I call forth merely one corroborating account from a former U.S. diplomat named Wayne S. Peterson. He says that one of the Ascended Masters of Wisdom, which is what the members of the Hierarchy are called, appeared to him and he was instructed by him and was taught of Lord Maitreya. On one particular diplomatic trip, Peterson spoke of being introduced to a large group of world leaders whom, he was told, all knew of Lord Maitreya. His account reads: 

“The monarch then explained that everyone in the room knew Maitreya and was cooperating with his mission, although their identities must be kept secret until Maitreya himself comes forward and speaks openly to the world. 

“There was one individual, however, who made it clear he had no problem with the public knowing he had met the Christ. His name was Mikhail Gorbachev. . . . 

“I was not surprised to learn this about Mr. Gorbachev, since I had heard much earlier of his involvement with Maitreya from a Pentagon official. I had also heard, from people I place much confidence in, that Mrs. Gorbachev had been to India several times to see the Avatar Sai Baba . . . From the freedom and openness [Gorbachev] introduced to the Soviet Union, it appeared obvious to me that he was being influenced by the Christ. Eventually, we will hear more of this story and how the Soviet empire collapsed. 

“What I appreciate about this story is story is the sure knowledge that the Masters have already undertaken the task of offering important world leaders a role in the coming global changes and of preparing them for the Day of Declaration. These leaders, who are undoubtedly disciples of the Masters, will be working to promote the goals of the Spiritual Hierarchy” (Wayne S. Peterson, Extraordinary Times, Extraordinary Beings: Experiences of an American Diplomat with Maitreya and the Masters of Wisdom, 99-100). 

Mass-murdering Soviet dictator Gorbachev was a follower of Lord Maitreya and was operating on his orders when he “collapsed” the Soviet Union! Numerous other household names could be placed on the list of Maitreya’s followers. Satan, parading as an angel of light, actively appears to the world Elite, giving them instructions for how to usher in a one-world government and one-world occult religion. The Apostle John wasn’t lying when he said the Dragon, Satan, is the one who empowers the beast system that is to seize control of the world and overcome the saints (Revelation 13). 

Dear reader, communism is not dead. The Soviet Union did not fall. It’s planned “collapse” was political theater choreographed by demons and acted out by skilled conmen. Russia today is every bit as much on the dark side as the USSR was. It pretends to be a bastion of traditionalism and Christianity, but, having lived there, I can put that myth to rest with zero hesitation. 

Vladimir Putin, a KGB operative and one of the conmen mentioned, has cleverly played his part, deceiving the nations. Putin openly lamented the dissolution of the Soviet Union as the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the last century, has invaded multiple nations, tampers in American society and politics, threatens NATO with nuclear war as a matter of habit, holds Europe hostage through their dependence on Russia’s natural gas, is allied with Iran, Turkey, China, and other tyrannical regimes, oppresses his own people, kills or imprisons his political opposition, and is a fake “Christian” who targets real Christian churches and leads gullible conservatives by the nose with polished rhetoric about his supposed faith and principles. 

Those who believe Russia is an innocent victim, the democratic defender of picked-on peoples, or think Russia gets a bad rap, don’t have any clue and are blind to reality. They want Russia to be one of the good guys. They want Putin to be a true opponent to the New World Order. They want Russia to be a revivalist nation and a safe haven for Western values. But all of this is wishful thinking unsupported by facts. If only people would finally admit that the Soviet Union did not “collapse,” but faked its “fall” in order to fool the West and lull us to sleep in preparation for the final battle for communist world domination, the long-awaited “World October,” perhaps the scales would fall from their eyes and the truth would have a chance to enter their minds. 

2. Russia is NOT Surrounded by NATO 

One of the most prevalent and poppycock deceptions I see floating around is that poor ol’ Russia is surrounded by a threatening and hostile NATO. Have the people who repeat this stupidity looked at a map recently? Have they bothered to count Russia’s allies? Have they studied geopolitics for five minutes? I know geography isn’t most people’s strongest area, but I hope I can convince you that it’s an important factor in correctly analyzing world events. 

When you look at a map, you realize that Russia is by far the largest nation on earth and is bordered by the following: 

Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, China, and North Korea. Russia also shares sea “borders” with Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Iran, Turkmenistan, Japan, and the United States. The part of Russia that borders Poland is a small parcel called Kaliningrad and is not attached to Russia proper.  

Let’s look at these countries more closely. Japan, North Korea, China, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Iran, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Finland are not NATO members. By my count, that’s eleven –the majority. Of the other ten that are NATO members, four of them – the United States, Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey – only share water “borders,” and one, Poland, doesn’t touch Russia proper. That’s hardly “surrounded” by NATO. 

“But, but, but,” people splutter, “look at a map – NATO is hemming Russia in on its western flank!” Really? Hemming them in how? And from what? If Russia has no ambitions to expand westward, what is everyone so worried about? A major portion of the western border is the Ukraine – a country which Russia invaded in 2014 and is gradually consuming and turning into Russia proper. The other major part of the border is the extremely close ally Belarus.  

Let’s talk about Belarus. Russia routinely conducts military war games in Belarus and in November conducted a snap combat drill there with its paratroopers. Unless I’m mistaken, isn’t that a provocation to NATO? But we must ask, why has Belarus been in the news lately? That’s right, because Russia has been using it to conduct hybrid-warfare operations against Poland and Western Europe. The specific action is to allow illegal immigrants to flood across Belarus’s border in an attempt to overload Europe and create humanitarian crises. Interestingly, the capital of Belarus is Minsk where the Minsk Accords were signed regarding Ukraine. Perhaps Russia’s and Belarus’s duplicity towards Poland should cast a shadow of doubt over their constant cries that NATO is violating the Minsk Accords in Ukraine (a falsehood we’ll discuss below). 

Russia could easily use Belarus and Ukraine as buffer states, but, instead, they invade the one and use the other to stage operations against Poland and to house their soldiers. So, who is really provoking whom? 

Not counting Poland, which only touches tiny Kaliningrad and doesn’t border traditional Russian territory, Russia only borders the small Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and the Scandinavian nations of Finland and Norway. Finland isn’t in NATO, but the others are. Let’s ask: Is Norway a threat? Hardly. Are the Baltic nations going to invade Russia anytime soon? Nope. Yes, Estonia does have NATO troops – which were invited in after Russia conducted sabotage operations against the nation and tried to orchestrate a coup. Again, how can anyone with honesty say NATO surrounds Russia or that Russia lives in fear of NATO aggression? 

Let’s talk about Turkey and Iran. Turkey, though a member of NATO, is a de facto ally of Russia. Yes, Turkey is nationalistic and would love to return to its Ottoman glory days and generally plays to gain its own advantages, but it knows the realities on the ground and has curried favor with Russia. Ankara is also heavily dependent upon Russian oil and natural gas, importing approximately 50% of its gas from its northern neighbor. When push comes to shove, I highly doubt Turkey will be in NATO’s camp. They have too much to lose by ticking off Russia and too little to gain by standing should-to-shoulder with NATO during a conflict. 

Additionally, in 2018, Russia, Turkey, and Iran held a joint summit, cementing their friendship and strengthening ties and pulling Turkey farther away from NATO. The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies observed at the time: 

“Several threats have brought Iran, Turkey, and Russia together: the war in Syria; terrorism and extremism; and, to an extent, Kurdish separatism (Russia shares Ankara’s and Tehran’s concerns about this). Crucially, US pressure of varying degrees on each of the three powers serves as glue to promote their cooperation in resisting the liberal world order. The three seek to remake the world order as they no longer benefit sufficiently from post-Cold War arrangements. Each wants new space for balancing. . . . 

“Significantly, the Russian, Turkish, and Iranian peoples all have a similar historical experience of anti-imperialist struggle. They believe “Eurasia” can provide an alternative to the West’s cultural, historical, political, and economic dominance. 

“More importantly for smaller countries, the three also advance the concept of “regional ownership,” which prioritizes bilateral cooperation in regional problems without the involvement of third parties. In this way, Turkey and Russia pursued a shared vision in the Black Sea and cooperated in the South Caucasus following the Second Karabakh War. Efforts were made in Libya as well, and similar ideas were expressed (at least rhetorically) about the recent crisis between Israel and the Hamas organization. 

“Iran has similar aspirations to Russia when it comes to the Caspian Sea. No foreign powers are allowed into the region, and smaller states with access to the Sea have to acknowledge Tehran’s and Moscow’s vital energy and security interests. 

“The trio’s aspiration to sideline the West is visible in concrete initiatives. The Astana Talks are nothing but an attempt to advance an alternative vision to the Syrian problem. Similar attempts were made in the South Caucasus, when Turkey and Iran proposed and supported the idea of creating a regional pact on security and cooperation that has no place for the West. 

“Russia has long aspired to better ties with Turkey and Iran. Even in the Soviet period, Moscow periodically attempted to advance a form of cooperation with those two countries that would exclude the West. Both states gradually emerged as pillars of Russia’s post-Soviet aspirations to construct a more active foreign policy in the Middle East and remold the existing world order. . . . 

“This trend of finding common ground without formal obligations is characteristic of the post-unipolar world. Russia and China officially refuse to have an alliance—indeed, they claim an alliance would undermine their purportedly benevolent intentions toward one another. While much of this is just rhetoric to conceal the absence of any common cultural or otherwise important features necessary for a geopolitical alliance, this behavior is part of an emerging trend in which Eurasian states prefer maneuverability to the shackles of formal obligations. 

“For Russia, intensive cooperation with Turkey and Iran is beneficial inasmuch as it provides leverage over the West and allows Moscow to solve critical problems in the Black Sea, Caucasus, and Caspian regions, as well as Syria. With that said, it is doubtful how much Russia wants Turkey to completely sever its ties with NATO. In a way, Turkey’s position as a member of the alliance—one that generates continuous intra-alliance tensions—benefits Russia more than an unshackled Turkey would. The latter scenario would ease NATO’s internal problems and perhaps even diminish Turkey’s importance in Russia’s geopolitical calculus. 

“As far as Iran is concerned, Russia seeks to render the Islamic Republic dependent on its diplomatic clout. A long-term solution to Iran’s nuclear stalemate is the Kremlin’s least desired scenario. While it would allow Russian companies to penetrate Iran’s market, that market would also be opened up to more competitive Western enterprises. A closer interaction beyond the partnership is also not an option for Russia.” 

In this analysis, Ankara plays for itself and is opportunistic. Be that as it may, the analysis also acknowledged that Turkey’s ties with Russia and Iran help “sideline” NATO’s agenda. Additionally, if we think of opportunism, then what I noted earlier about Turkey’s reliance on Russian energy is valid. However you slice it, Turkey isn’t a threat to Russia. 

Indeed, since 2018, the three-way relationship has grown stronger. Even as Turkey and Iran both rise in respective power, they gravitate towards Russia, which is also reasserting itself. Like moons in the solar system, they find larger bodies to orbit. Russia doesn’t need to worry about its Turkish and Iranian borders in the slightest (as a fun side note, the Iranian Ayatollah was trained by the KGB and is little more than a Russian puppet). 

What about the Baltic states? When the Soviets faked their “collapse,” they left behind members of the nomenklatura – the Soviet elite class – to take over. Sometimes, these agents feigned to be members of opposition or nationalist parties. In all cases, however, “former” communist members of the Kremlin-beholden nomenklatura came to power in the Soviet satellites. This includes Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. 

That said, the people in these three states largely hate Russia and remember being conquered and oppressed by the Soviet regime. Estonia particularly is staunchly anti-Russia. Of the trio, Lithuania is the weakest link. Russia, in fact, operates a railway that runs through Belarus, through Lithuania’s capital Vilnius (which I visited and is a nice city), and on to Kaliningrad. Russia also holds Lithuania’s economic fate in its hands by holding the threat of banning its exports or cutting of its gas supplies if it does not comply with its policies. This is not an idle threat; it’s happened before. 

As a result of the legitimate, grassroots opposition to its schemes, Russia plans to forcibly conquer the Baltics again. In January, the Center for European Policy Analysis wrote about Russia’s hybrid-warfare campaign against Estonia: 

“Russia uses considerably different weapons in its hybrid war against Estonia than against Ukraine or Belarus. The Kremlin’s efforts against Estonia are focused primarily on the country’s less-integrated Russian speakers and Estonia’s highly digitalized society. Russia backs these up with a steady military buildup and show of force in its Western Military District, which includes the Kaliningrad exclave to the west and borders Estonia to the east. Other tactics, such as massive money laundering through Nordic banks based in Estonia, are part of a much wider Russian pattern of using the West’s weaknesses to its own advantage. Massive flows of Russian money to European and off-shore banks – most of which are likely laundered considering the obscurity of the schemes and actors – serve not only the purpose of fulfilling the financial and personal interests of Russia’s leaders and oligarchs, but also of feeding corruption and manipulating Western countries. 

“Russia’s non-conventional actions against Estonia have a long history, stretching back at least as far as a failed coup d’état attempt in Tallinn organized by the Soviet Union on December 1, 1924. Fifteen years later, the Soviet occupation and annexation of the Baltic countries in 1939-1940 finds echoes in Russia’s seizure of Crimea in 2014. 

“The restoration of Estonia’s independence in August 1991 began a new battle in the Kremlin’s hybrid warfare against the country. Despite then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin’s generally democratic sympathies, Russia tried mightily to thwart the Baltics’ natural ambition to reunite with Europe and the trans-Atlantic community. The Kremlin repeatedly and falsely accused Estonia, since the early 1990s, on totally false grounds, of ethnic cleansing, “apartheid in white gloves” and the glorification of fascism. . . . 

“While Russia is bulking up its military muscle on all fronts, its Western Military District has once again become, as in the Cold War, a clear priority. Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave is increasingly militarized, including weapons of blackmail such as Iskander missile systems and likely tactical nuclear weapons, meant to put its unfriendly neighbors on notice. The Baltic states are virtually doubly covered by Russian A2/AD (Anti-Access and Area Denial) protective domes from Kaliningrad, as well as the Leningrad and Pskov oblasts. The Russian navy (Baltic fleet) and air force are very active in or above the Baltic Sea, often violating the maritime boundaries and air space of other countries, including Estonia, and bedeviling ships and aircraft of NATO countries. 

“Russia has recently conducted large snap exercises to gauge its combat readiness close to NATO territory. It also holds regular strategic-level exercises in its western reaches, including some with Belarus. The next large exercise will be Zapad 2021, probably in September. 

“As opposition protests continue in Belarus, formally an ally of Russia, President Aliaksandr Lukashenka may soon have no choice but to submit to certain demands from the Kremlin in order to maintain his grip on power, even including deployment of Russian forces to and use of air bases in Belarus. That would set alarm bells ringing for NATO and the Baltics, because the roughly 65-mile (105-kilometer) distance from southeastern Kaliningrad to northwestern Belarus happens to be the Lithuanian-Polish border across the Suwalki Gap. 

“With Russian troops at both ends, they would need only to cover a small stretch to meet in the middle and cut the Baltics off from their NATO and EU neighbors. Far from de-escalating, the Kremlin considers such military threats an effective political and psychological weapon against the West. The logic of a possible Russian aggression against the Baltic states is not necessarily, if at all, linked to them or the security situation in the Baltic and Nordic regions. It is about Russia willing to weaken and undermine NATO, and eventually use the opportunity to attack the weakest point in the Alliance’s posture. . . . 

“. . . Russia’s willingness to sow strife among Estonia’s ethnic and linguistic groups, helps explain the Estonian government’s decision in 2007 to move a “liberator” statue of a Red Army soldier from the city center of Tallinn to a nearby cemetery. It also helps explain the protests, riots, and Russian cyberattacks that followed the decision. 

“The events of the spring of 2007 revealed some truths about Estonian society, including that its Russian speakers were far from integrated into society, that official Russian propaganda could influence Estonia’s Russian minority, and that Russia would not hesitate to meddle in Estonia’s internal affairs given a chance. . . . 

“The result was shows of support from Estonia’s allies and the international community while Russia refused to cooperate in the investigation and denied vehemently any state-level involvement. This practice of ‘plausible deniability’ is by now very well established – Russia continues to deny its direct role in e.g. the Ukrainian Donbas. 

“The Russian government pretended that it retaliated against Estonia by severely cutting the oil and other goods it sent through Estonian ports, mainly Muuga and Tallinn, ostensibly in retaliation for moving the soldier memorial. Later, it became clear that the redirection of much of Russia’s maritime exports to the Russian ports of Ust-Luga and Primorsk, in the Gulf of Finland, was related not to the “Bronze Soldier” but to the business interests of members of President Putin’s inner circle. 

“The spring 2007 cyberattacks were a kind of turning point. Russia showed that it was willing and able to wage hybrid warfare, while Estonia became the first country to mount a successful cyber defense despite facing a massive, surprise attack and lacking much experience in the field. Estonia soon became home to NATO’s Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (CCD CoE), which had been planned before the 2007 attacks but gained some urgency because of them. . . . 

“Russia’s principal tools of hybrid warfare against Estonia are undoubtedly its state-owned and specialized propaganda and disinformation channels. These include, as in the case of most other Western countries, the RT (formerly Russia Today) TV channel and the Sputnik news agency, news website, and radio broadcast (formerly Voice of Russia and RIA Novosti). These two Kremlin “news” brands, with nearly global reach and budgets that exceed the BBC’s, are Russia’s inverted versions of CNN and Voice of America/Radio Liberty. Just as the Moscow-led Eurasian Economic Union and the Collective Security Treaty Organization pretend to be analogs of and responses to the European Union and NATO. 

“Estonia has a fairly large non-ethnic Estonian, mainly Russian-speaking minority, who make up about 27% of the population. That, together with its history and its border with Russia, makes Estonia an attractive target especially for other Russian state-owned TV channels. . . . 

“The fight against Russian hybrid warfare, including propaganda and disinformation, is inherently asymmetric because Western governments cannot adopt Russia’s behavior and tactics, and the openness of Western democratic societies makes them more hospitable to bad-faith actors and more vulnerable to misinformation than Russia’s controlled information space. Western countries have to help their citizens become more aware of Russia’s aims and hybrid tools, including its subversive propaganda and disinformation. 

“Finally, Russia’s money laundering and export of corruption undermine Western countries and societies. It makes little sense or impact to counter only Russia’s efforts in cyberspace and the media, or to try to limit European dependence on Russian energy without rooting out Russian money laundering and corruption.” 

Russia gripes about the NATO “threat” in the Baltics, yet remains silent about its own subversion operations against the Baltic states! Whenever you hear someone say that NATO’s troops in Estonia threaten Russia, ask them about Russia’s 2007 operations that precipitated Estonia begging for a NATO presence. 

Finally, I quote from a NATO document titled “Russia’s top five myths about NATO.” Number 1 on the list is the proposition that “NATO is trying to encircle Russia.” The document offers this rebuttal: 

“Fact: This claim ignores the facts of geography. Russia’s land border is just over 20,000 kilometres long. Of that, 1,215 kilometres, or less than one-sixteenth, face current NATO members. 

“Claims that NATO is building bases around Russia are similarly groundless. Outside the territory of NATO nations, NATO only maintains a significant military presence in three places: Kosovo, Afghanistan, and at sea off the Horn of Africa. All three operations are carried out under United Nations mandate, and thus carry the approval of Russia, along with all other Security Council members. Before Russia’s aggressive actions against Ukraine began, Russia provided logistical support to the Afghan mission, and cooperated directly with the counter-piracy operation, showing clearly that Russia viewed them as a benefit, not a threat. 

“NATO has partnership relationships with many countries in Europe and Asia, as can be seen from this interactive map. Such partnerships, which are requested by the partners in question, focus exclusively on issues agreed with them, such as disaster preparedness and relief, transparency, armed forces reform, and counter-terrorism. These partnerships cannot legitimately be considered a threat to Russia, or to any other country in the region, let alone an attempt at encirclement.” 

As I began, geography is important. A simple look at the map is enough to convince any right-thinking person that Moscow is lying – as usual. Even when Moscow tells the truth, it still lies, because it only tells the truth to further its agenda and harm the West. Communists are the master deceivers. Don’t buy their lie about NATO encirclement. 

3. Russia is the Aggressor in Ukraine 

In the not-too-distant past, Soviet Russia invaded and occupied Ukraine. Stalin’s henchmen later perpetrated a mass genocide against the Ukrainian people known as the Holodomor. Perhaps as many as 12 million perished due to forced famine and Satanic savagery. It was a real holocaust. 

From the days of the Soviet occupation and the Holodomor, Russia has variously waged open or covert war against Ukrainians. Contrary to polls which claim that Ukrainians love Russia, most of the Ukrainians I met when I lived in Russia (I lived with two Ukrainians for half a year during my two-year stay) and when I twice visited Ukraine, weren’t terribly fond of Russia. Of course, Ukrainians in Eastern Ukraine hold a more favorable view, but Western Ukrainians are fiercely nationalistic and despise Russian aggression. 

When the Soviet Union faked its “collapse” and withdrew from Ukraine, it fully intended to reclaim the state at a future date. They left behind caches of weapons and a significant population. Russia has at times dictated Ukrainian policy by influencing its governmental leaders. In 2014, it all boiled over into the current conflict. Just what happened in 2014? 

Perhaps we’d better jump backward to 2013. In late 2013 to early 2014, Russia manipulated legitimately rising dissent among Ukrainians towards their government (I saw protestors camped in tents outside the presidential residence during my visits in 2007 and 2008). They used the situation to carry out a fake coup and install a new regime – similar to the fake “fall” of the Soviet government. Just like in the latter instance, Ukrainian security forces and intelligence services stood down and allowed the scripted event to play out on international TV. 

When this scam was underway, Alex Jones and many of the biggest names in the conspiracy world alleged, based on a fake story that was never verified on the ground, that the United States or its proxies gave $5 Billion to foment war and bring about regime change in Ukraine. It was a rumor with no legs from the beginning. Thankfully, at least a few credible researchers, such as Joel Skousen, debunked the notion. 

Credit where credit is due: Joel Skousen was one of the only analysts to correctly say at the time that Russia, not NATO, was behind the phony coup. Before Skousen published his analysis pegging Russia as the guilty party, I had been online telling folks that Russia was behind it and that Ukraine is Russia’s sphere of influence and NATO has virtually no power there. It was refreshing to be vindicated by one whose name carries some weight. Since then, I’ve had some disagreements with Mr. Skousen, but I’ll address those at a later date. 

The bottom line is that Russia manipulated genuine dissent and carried out regime change. In the confusion, Putin marched into Crimea and annexed it. In a 2020 National Security Report by Jonathan Cosgrove titled “The Russian Invasion of the Crimean Peninsula 2014-2015,” we get this excellent summary of the Crimean invasion and annexation: 

“In early 2014, the Russian Federation responded to the culminating Euromaidan movement in Ukraine by invading, occupying, and annexing Crimea. Acting without markings and accompanied by official denials from the Kremlin, Russian forces isolated and occupied Ukrainian political and military sites on the peninsula. Russia’s actions sparked a crisis much larger than that in Ukraine, with US leaders considering military responses, including “increasing military exercises, forward deploying additional military equipment and personnel, and increasing [US] naval, air, and ground presence,”1 all amid aggressive nuclear posturing from Moscow. Viewing Ukraine as a stage for its confrontation with the United States and Europe, Russia, in addition to the invasion, advanced nuclear messaging and threats meant to deter any intervention on behalf of Ukraine. . . .  

“Even before Euromaidan, the autonomous Verkhovna Rada of Crimea (Supreme Council of Crimea) expressed opposition to association with the EU, and Russian NGOs in Crimea began advocating for the peninsula to hold a revised legal status relative to Ukraine and Russia. In response to Euromaidan, the Supreme Council expressed its support for the Yanukovych government, urging him to declare a state of emergency, and pro-Russian groups staged rallies in Simferopol supporting Ukrainian entry into the Eurasian Customs Union.61 However, Crimean support for Russia was not unanimous. The Muslim Crimean Tatar population and leadership opposed Russian activities on the peninsula, favored continued unity with Ukraine and association with the EU, and persistently protested and warned that Russia would annex the region—opposition that would later see the Crimean Tatar community oppressed under Russian occupation. 

“As Euromaidan progressed, signals and measures around Crimea increased. These included public discussion of separatism and secession by local officials and Russian television broadcasts, meetings between local and Russian officials, the distribution of Russian passports, the spread of claims that a new government in Kyiv would threaten ethnic-Russian populations and restrict use of the Russian language (some Russian NGOs even citing the threat of “genocide”), the mobilization of “self-defense units” and Cossacks to patrol streets and erect checkpoints, and official deliberation and actions of local officials toward separatism and appeals to Russia. 

“Although Russia clearly made preparations for a potential invasion and annexation, its decision to invade Crimea was directly responsive to the fall of the Yanukovych government. Recounting the events in a 2015 propaganda film, Putin said that on February 23 (one day after Yanukovych was officially removed from office) he “was speaking with colleagues and said, ‘Frankly, this is our historical territory and Russian people live there, they were in danger, and we cannot abandon them.’ . . . We never thought about severing Crimea from Ukraine until the moment that these events began, the government overthrow.”64 However, the Kremlin has alternatively said that the course of action was broached in December 2013, when the head of the Supreme Council of Crimea visited Moscow and said that, should Yanukovych fall, Crimea would be prepared “to join Russia.” 

“On February 22, the same day Yanukovych was officially removed from office, Spetsnaz of the Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) were sent to Crimea to secure strategic Russian facilities. The next day, Russia announced new embargoes against food from Ukraine, but the military apparatus was also put in motion. Convoys of Russian military vehicles began approaching Crimea through the Russian city of Novorossiysk, the Russian 45th Airborne Special Forces and six Mi-8 helicopters were airlifted into Anapa near Crimea, and additional strategic airlift Il-76 aircraft were redeployed to the city. Russian armored personnel carriers also moved out from the base into the city, and pro-Russian protests in Sevastopol asserted that they had elected a new city leader—Russian citizen Aleksei Chaly. Russian members of parliament later arrived to offer Russian citizenship and passports, promising that should Crimea ask to join Russia, it would be addressed swiftly. On February 25, the Black Sea Fleet was put on alert, Russian troops arrived in the Crimean city of Yalta, and Gazprom announced it might increase gas prices for Ukraine. 

“On February 26, while Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov reiterated a position of “principled non-intervention” in Ukraine,67 Putin ordered snap military exercises in western Russia, and a landing ship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet arrived in Sevastopol carrying two hundred special operations forces. On February 27, the border between mainland Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula was blocked by checkpoints, and fifty Russian special operators disguised as local self-defense forces took control of the Supreme Council of Crimea and other administrative buildings in Simferopol, erecting Russian flags above the buildings. Under armed occupation, the Crimean regional government was dissolved and reformed and passed a measure approving a referendum on the status of Crimea seeking greater autonomy from Ukraine. The ports in Sevastopol were blockaded, with Ukrainian Navy and Coast Guard vessels surrounded. Russian fighter jets were put on standby. Later that night, unmarked special operators surrounded Belbek air base, and convoys of Russian transport and attack helicopters moved into Ukrainian airspace over Crimea the next morning. The new Ukrainian government officially summonsed Russia’s diplomatic representation to explain the military movements, but responses were delayed. Major troop landings and movements between Sevastopol and Simferopol continued through February 28, including the seizure of Simferopol Airport), which in turn facilitated the insertion of more Russian forces. . . . 

“On March 1, the Federal Assembly of Russia approved Putin’s request to use force in Ukraine to protect Russian interests, allowing for Russian forces to be utilized until the political situation in Ukraine normalized. That same day, Russian forces erected roadblocks and began digging trenches at the border with mainland Ukraine near Armyansk, secured control of the Kerch ferry port on the Ukrainian side of the Kerch Strait, and in Feodosiya besieged a Ukrainian base and blockaded the port with a Russian warship. On March 2, more Russian forces and vehicles traveled from Sevastopol to Simferopol, and Russian forces posted guards at the gates of a Ukrainian army base in Perevalne. Meanwhile the Federal Assembly began debating a law that would oblige the government to consider the annexation of any adjacent and predominantly Russian region that votes to join the country, and in a phone call with President Obama, Putin denied that Russia had used any force in Ukraine but said that if force were used, it would be a response to provocations by Ukraine. 

“On March 3 the blockade and besieging of Ukrainian army and naval forces on the Crimean Peninsula escalated as Russian forces presented an ultimatum: denounce the new government in Kyiv and swear allegiance to the new Crimean government or be forced to submit. Russia denied the reports, and the Russian envoy to the United Nations (UN) claimed that Yanukovych (at the time still recognized by Russia as president of Ukraine) asked Putin in writing for the use of force in Ukraine. Russian ships and flagged tugboats continued to box in Ukrainian naval forces on the peninsula, and armed Russian troops took up posts outside Ukrainian bases in Sevastopol and Simferopol. The influx of Russian military hardware into the peninsula continued with the arrival of ten combat helicopters and ten strategic lift aircraft. Meanwhile pro-Russian demonstrators in eastern mainland Ukraine began occupying government buildings in protest of the new pro-Western administration in Kyiv, and Putin announced that he had allegedly ordered Russian forces exercising near the Ukrainian border to return to base. 

“As the immobilization of Ukrainian forces continued and mobile phone service in areas of the country was disrupted, Putin denied on March 4 that the forces besieging Ukrainian troops in Crimea were Russian, instead identifying them as local self-defense forces. Russia’s ambassador to the UN displayed a photocopied letter allegedly signed by former president Yanukovych the same day, telling reporters it justified the movement of Russian forces into the peninsula. On March 6, the Supreme Council of Crimea, under new leadership, accelerated the time frame for the referendum on the status of Crimea and changed the question: rather than voting on greater autonomy from Ukraine, residents of Crimea would vote on accession to the Russian Federation, despite members of the body being barred from entering to participate in the vote. Russian lawmakers responded to the vote with promises to receive Crimea if the peninsula voted to leave in the referendum, as Russian military hardware continued to flow into the region and the first public ceremony swore in once-Ukrainian military personnel as members of the “Military Forces of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.” The sealing off of Ukrainian forces also continued, including the mixed use of soldiers and civilians armed with sticks and clubs to set up machine gun posts along a Ukrainian army landing strip in Saki, and the last military airstrip on the peninsula was under Russian control soon after, on March 9. That same day, Russian forces crossed into portions of mainland Ukraine adjacent to Crimea to set up minefields across the narrow corridor connecting the peninsula to the mainland. Ukrainian anti-aircraft forces in Yevpatoria were surrounded and ordered to surrender or face attack, and Russian troops captured a missile depot in Chornomorske. 

“The Supreme Council of Crimea declared the peninsula’s independence from Ukraine on March 11, as the Russian Foreign Ministry pointed to the secession of Kosovo from Serbia as legitimizing precedent for the impending referendum. . . . 

“The day after the referendum, Russia recognized Crimea as a sovereign state, and Crimean officials issued an appeal to be admitted into the Russian Federation with the status of a republic. An initial reunification treaty was signed the next day on March 18. Soldiers and demonstrators then stormed Ukrainian military bases across Crimea, including Ukraine’s naval headquarters in Sevastopol, killing an officer and arresting a Ukrainian admiral. Ukraine authorized soldiers to use their weapons defensively in response but later announced the withdrawal of its troops from the peninsula and the country’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth of Independent States.” 

When you consult these facts, you understand that Russia’s entire narrative about Ukraine is a pack of lies, distortions, and more lies. Russia initiated the conflict, plain and simple. Russian military forces entered Ukraine; Ukrainian military did not enter Russia. Ukrainian territory was stolen and gained by Russia; Ukraine took no land from its northern neighbor nor attempted to. Ukraine’s government was overthrown; Russia’s was strengthened. Ukraine was put on a defensive footing in its own nation, with hostile foreign mercenaries lurking about and snipers shooting at people; Russia doesn’t have to worry about Ukrainian troops, mercenaries, or snipers snooping around southern Russia. Some 100,000 Russian troops and hardware are amassed on the Ukrainian border; Ukraine has no predatory buildup of troops on Russia’s border. We could go on like this for a while. 

When a crisis happens, it’s good to ask “Cui bono?” or, in other words, “Who benefited?” Not always, but often, you will arrive at the proper conclusion by asking this simple question. And when we apply it to the Ukraine situation, we find only one actor that benefited – Russia. I think any intelligent person must admit that Russia began the conflict in 2013-2014 – not NATO. 

Some compare Putin’s annexation of Ukraine to Hitler’s so-called annexation of Austria or Czechoslovakia or his liberation of Danzig. There are, however, only superficial similarities. In Austria, the local government called for a national vote on joining Germany. In a legitimate vote, 98% of the Austrian people elected to do so. Nothing comparable happened in Crimea. In fact, the vaunted referendum was, as you’ve just seen described above, quite underhanded and contrived. There’s almost no comparison between Hitler’s anti-Marxist Germany and Putin’s KGB-controlled Russia. But I digress. 

What of the Minsk Accords that briefly brought about a cessation of fighting? Russia, ever pretending to be the white knight, claims that it has abided by the ceasefire (even while claiming it has no fighting men there – a clear contradiction) and that Ukraine – backed by NATO – has violated it, thus escalating the situation and portending war. Naturally, this is another Russian lie that their lapdogs in the West lap up. 

Writing for CEPA, Kurt Volker debunked Russia’s bunkum about the Minsk Accords. It’s hard not to quote the entire article, it’s so good. But here are a few paragraphs and snippets covering Voker’s nine points: 

“1. There are two Minsk Agreements, not just one. The first “Minsk Protocol” was signed on September 5, 2014. It mainly consists of a commitment to a ceasefire along the existing line of contact, which Russia never respected. By February 2015, fighting had intensified to a level that led to renewed calls for a ceasefire, and ultimately led to the second Minsk Agreement, signed on February 12, 2015. Even after this agreement, Russian-led forces kept fighting and took the town of Debaltseve six days later. The two agreements are cumulative, building on each other, rather than the second replacing the first. This is important in understanding the importance, reflected in the first agreement, of an immediate ceasefire and full monitoring by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), including on the Ukraine-Russia border, as fundamental to the subsequent package of agreements. 

“2. Russia is a Party to the Minsk Agreements. The original Minsk signatories are Russia, Ukraine, and the OSCE. Russia is a protagonist in the war in Ukraine and is fully obliged to follow the deal’s terms. Despite that, however, Russia untruthfully claims not to be a party and only a facilitator — and that the real agreements are between Ukraine and the so-called “separatists,” who call themselves the Luhansk and Donetsk Peoples’ Republics (LPR and DPR), but are in fact Russian supplied and directed. 

“3. The LPR and DPR are not recognized as legitimate entities under the Minsk Agreements. The signatures of the leaders of the so-called Luhansk and Donetsk Peoples’ Republics were added after they had already been signed by Ukraine, Russia, and the OSCE. They were not among the original signatories, and indeed Ukraine would not have signed had their signatures been part of the deal. There is nothing in the content or format of the Agreement that legitimizes these entities and they should not be treated as negotiating partners in any sense. Russia alone controls the forces occupying parts of eastern Ukraine. 

“4. Russia is in violation of the Minsk Agreements. The deals require a ceasefire, withdrawal of foreign military forces, disbanding of illegal armed groups, and returning control of the Ukrainian side of the international border with Russia to Ukraine, all of this under OSCE supervision. Russia has done none of this. . . .  

“5. Russian-led forces prevent the OSCE from accomplishing its mission in Donbas as spelled out in the Minsk Agreements. It is an unstated irony in Vienna — understood by every single diplomatic mission and member of the international staff — that Russia approves the mandate of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) in Ukraine when it votes in Vienna, but then blocks implementation of that same mission on the ground in Ukraine. . . .  

“6. Ukraine has implemented as much of Minsk as can reasonably be done while Russia still occupies its territory . . . The Minsk Agreements do not require Ukraine to grant autonomy to Donbas, or to become a federalized state. It is Russia’s unique interpretation that the measures passed by Ukraine are somehow insufficient, even though the agreements do not specify what details should be included, and Ukraine has already complied with what is actually specified to the degree it can. 

“What is lacking in Ukraine’s passage of these political measures is not the legislation per se, but implementation — which Russia itself prevents by continuing to occupy the territory. For example, international legal norms would never recognize the results of elections held under conditions of occupation, yet that is exactly what Russia seeks by demanding local elections before it relinquishes control. . . . 

“7. Some form of neutral peacekeeping or policing force could help bridge between Russian control and Ukrainian control of the occupied territory – but Russia has rejected such proposals. Because of the impossibility of Ukraine implementing political measures while Russia still occupies its territory, the United States — as well as Ukraine, with support from others —proposed deployment of an UN-mandated peacekeeping force to Donbas, so that Russian forces could withdraw, and an UN-backed force could deploy, without an immediate hand-over to Ukrainian control . . . Russia, however, has consistently rejected such proposals, even labeling an UN-supported peacekeeping force a “military takeover” of the region, when of course it is Russia that has actually taken over the region militarily and unilaterally.  

“8. The US diplomatic role is essential. . . . 

“9. The only way to end the war is to change Russia’s calculations. Whether it is peacekeeping or police forces to provide local security; elections under international supervision; creating humanitarian corridors respected by all sides; unfettered freedom of movement for the OSCE’s SMM; or other ideas still to be explored, there is nothing preventing implementation of the Minsk Agreements other than Russia’s continued occupation. As soon as Russia chooses to end the war, the rest follows in swift order.” 

I implore you, dear reader, to stop believing Russia’s lies! As the aggressor, Russia spins everything to justify its behavior as defensive or noble or humanitarian. In fact, what they’re doing is invading and taking over a sovereign nation – a nation it has oppressed for a century. Ironically, it is Russia that most frequently brings up the Minsk Accords. I say we indulge them and take them to task about their repeated violations of the Accords. 

Furthermore, in December 2015, after the Minsk Accords were signed, Russia conducted cyberattacks against Ukraine, causing mass power outages affecting 230,0000 Ukrainians. It was the first time that cyberattacks had been used to take down a power grid – the very scenario the world Elite are currently warning about/threatening. They say it will be a cyber “pandemic” dwarfing the Coronahoax. 

An article gives us the scoop on the 2015 cyberattacks on Ukraine: 

“The attackers were especially clever and thought of everything, even launching a telephone denial-of-service attack against customer call centers to prevent customers from calling in to report the outage. 

“A cybersecurity expert from Dragos Security quoted in this 2016 Wired article, said the hack “was brilliant” and that “in terms of sophistication…what makes sophistication is logistics and planning and operations and…what’s going on during the length of it. And this was highly sophisticated.” He added: “What sophisticated actors do is they put concerted effort into even unlikely scenarios to make sure they’re covering all aspects of what could go wrong,” he says.  

“Per Kaspersky, BlackEnergy – the Trojan used in the Ukraine attack – began circulating in 2014. It was deployed specifically to conduct DDoS attacks, cyber espionage and information destruction attacks – and especially companies in the energy industry and those that use SCADA systems. 

“The attack on the Ukranian power grid is still considered one of the worst intrusions ever. And the case may not be closed just yet… 

“As stated upfront, almost immediately following the attack the Ukrainian government blamed Russia. Until very recently, no one has been officially accused. 

“On October 15, 2020, a federal grand jury in Pittsburgh (PA) returned an indictment charging six hackers, all of whom were residents and nationals of the Russian Federation (Russia) and officers in Unit 74455 of the Russian Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU), a military intelligence agency of the General Staff of the Armed Forces, also known as “Sandworm”.  

“The very same group may also be responsible for another massive attack, NotPetya, which caused nearly $1 billion in losses. 

“Sandworm may also be responsible for a series of cyber attacks intended to impact the now delayed 2020 Summer Olympics in Tokyo.” 

Russia, China, Iran, and their allies, run extensive cyberattack and cyberhacking operations against the West and against anyone who gets in their way. You can be sure that Russia and China will strike the United States before or at the outset of any future war, eviscerating our grid. In fact, Army Secretary Christine Warmouth recently warned that any war in Taiwan would lead to cyberattacks here at home that will specifically target critical infrastructure, transportation, and the power grid. 

An EMP strike would do similar damage to a massive cyberattack and would blast us back to the 1800s. The world Elite may also perpetrate a false-flag grid attack or terrorist attack, blaming it on Iran or another actor and justifying a war. Regardless, this incestuous, Satanic global cabal is the one responsible for the fractious fissures in society, is the one playing the nations off each other, and is the impetus behind the misery, wars, depressions, and plagues we’re forced to endure. 

Comparing our own fragile U.S. grid to Ukraine’s, a 2016 Wired article informed us: 

“The power wasn’t out long in Ukraine: just one to six hours for all the areas hit. But more than two months after the attack, the control centers are still not fully operational, according to a recent US report. Ukrainian and US computer security experts involved in the investigation say the attackers overwrote firmware on critical devices at 16 of the substations, leaving them unresponsive to any remote commands from operators. The power is on, but workers still have to control the breakers manually. 

“That’s actually a better outcome than what might occur in the US, experts say, since many power grid control systems here don’t have manual backup functionality, which means that if attackers were to sabotage automated systems here, it could be much harder for workers to restore power.” 

Brace yourself for a coming grid-down event. It’s coming. It’s going to be deliberate. And it’s going to rock society to its foundations. I again digress, but recommend you read two articles I’ve written on survival and preparedness, found here and here

Finally, setting aside Russia’s myriad violations of the Minsk Accords, I want to make one final point regarding Russian aggression. People are making a big hoopla about Republican Senator Roger Wicker’s comment saying a nuclear preemptive strike against Russia is on the table. Specifically, the Mississippi senator said: 

“Military action could mean that we stand off with our ships in the Black Sea, and we rain destruction on Russian military capability. It could mean that. It could mean that we participate, and I would not rule that out, I would not rule out American troops on the ground. We don’t rule out first use nuclear action.” 

While I admit it was a rash comment – and a strategically idiotic thing to say since no intelligent person telegraphs his plans to the enemy – this is the same exact thing Russia does constantly. Where is the ire from the pundits when Russia insanely threatens nuclear war on a routine basis? In every year of my life since I began studying communist Russia, Russia has threatened NATO or the United States with nuclear war. Russian generals, politicians both retired and current, and even KGB dictator Putin himself, have all incessantly threatened us with nuclear war. In 2015, Russia threatened little ol’ Denmark with nuclear war! Russia’s nuclear warnings are so frequent that Pentagon weapons expert Mark Schneider has said: “Threatening people with nuclear weapons is Russia’s national sport.” 

Russia isn’t the only one that dishes out nuclear threats like insults in a rap battle. China does as well. In January of 2021, China threatened Taiwan and the United States with “war” and “annihilation.” In June, Red China again threatened the U.S. Army and U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) with “total annihilation” if they dared defend Taiwan from their planned invasion. In August, China threatened “all-out war” against the United States and to “wipe out” U.S. forces if U.S. troops were confirmed to be stationed on Taiwan, which they now are in limited numbers. In September, the regime threatened Australia with nuclear war for joining the AUKUS alliance. And so on. 

The only reason most people don’t know about these maniacal threats from Russia and China is because the complicit, turncoat media doesn’t report on them. Yet, they exist and are the ultimate provocations from nations pretending to be innocent of aggression. Not two weeks ago, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov warned that Russia may deploy tactical nuclear weapons to Europe if NATO didn’t end its alleged eastward expansion – i.e. in Ukraine. Russia says it won’t deploy them, however, if NATO stops its so-called “aggression.” This psychotic, criminal behavior is like the mob threatening to burn down your store if you don’t pay them a percentage of your profits. They are the aggressors and no one can deny that. 

As I close this point and wrap up my article, I feel that a bleak warning from a Soviet bio-chemical weapons expert turned is in order. Igor Shaffid converted to Christianity from communism and wrote an intriguing book called Inside the Red Zone. He talked about the demonic nature of communism and how Satan is using Russia and China as weapons in his war against humanity. Heed his warning: 

“Anti-Christian regimes know that faith can protect a free will and a sound mind. That is why Lenin feared religious belief. Religion was not an opposition to his communist ideology; locking up a church door was effective enough, but faith rooted in the heart spread like wildfire, and that worried him. How could he get a society to worship him if they loved God more? This is why he called them “believers” and strove hard to stop those who preached the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. Religion is never a threat, but relationship is. Lenin knew that people’s minds founded in faith and dedicated to Christ Jesus would be hard to conquer. . . . “Mind control is a great terror weapon bludgeoning today’s churches . . . Phony religious leaders use similar tactics to control assemblages within churches, as did . . . Stalin. “The worst mistake a Christian can make is in believing that all churches are safe zones. Not so. In Soviet Russia the government used churches to validate their constitution’s “freedom of religion,” using pastors hired by the KGB as a guise to fool the people. True believers were beaten and imprisoned, and few citizens were made aware of this. “The numerous false doctrines spreading across the world, and the extra-biblical, esoteric experiences that are introduced with these “new” revelations are a great preparatory tool for mass mind manipulation. This kind of seduction works well because feelings are involved. Forming an anti-christ government cannot be accomplished without mind control, and the church is the first to be targeted. . . . 

“. . . When the nations fight against the antichrist army, they won’t be reverting to outdated sabers and cannons. Nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare are the advanced weapons of this age, and it would not seem plausible that these weapons would be ignored during the great tribulation time. . . . 

“We should never become complacent. There are enough WMDs developed now to destroy this world, but Satan has not yet succeeded in his mission. There is unfinished business between him and God, and he plans on taking as many onto his side as he can. 

“How can he effectively get humankind to bow before him? Force and bullying hasn’t worked too well in the past, but he knows his most ingenious plan will work, and he has been perfecting it and bringing it to completion for hundreds of years. Deceptive love, false promises of peace, and mind control are his greatest tools in this plan. How does he accomplish this deception? By fooling people, of course, into thinking they can live in a good and peaceful world without wars or famine or terrorism. His devoted followers have pushed his deceptive agenda by participating in elite societies, clubs and orders – all of these different groups united secretly to bring about this socialistic new world order. . . . 

“When Satan’s real mask is removed at the end of time, then he will be exposed for what he is, the father of lies. Many nations will become confused and start fighting against him during the Battle of Armageddon. Satan’s evil that prompted humankind to develop the WMD will come in handy for him to destroy God’s creation. He knows that an ungodly nation that harbors nuclear/biological/chemical weapons, such as Russia, China, and North Korea, are excellent candidates for using this weaponry as a “power” to horsewhip other nations under their submission. I remember all too well in the Soviet army how I reveled in the fact that my country had so much power over all the other nations. Let us not be naïve; those thoughts are still alive in the Russian Federation. That is why the Russian military recently started refreshing its new generation of ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles), which have been lying in stockpiles for years, and have been placing them inside strategic controlled areas. Those that fight to do away with weapons of mass destruction will not succeed, because no one nation will give up its place for power – and the Day of Wrath will come, and nuclear war will be inevitable” (Igor V. Shafhid, Inside the Red Zone: Physical and Spiritual Preparedness Against Weapons of Mass Destruction, 83-85, 160-163). 

Yes, nuclear war is inevitable. I doubt it will happen as a result of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, which I believe will happen some time before the final nuclear struggle. I believe that struggle will break out in Asia, either as a result of war in Taiwan or on the Korean Peninsula. At any rate, the world is a powder keg and your insane not to quickly prepare for world war and societal collapse. It’s coming, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow. 

In summation, Russia is engaged in an epic propaganda campaign to justify its hostility against Ukraine and NATO. In the first place, we must acknowledge that the “fall” of the Soviet Union was a ruse and that the communist conspiracy still rules in Moscow and throughout the world and that Russia and China will be used to expand this evil empire across the entire globe. Second, we must dismiss the lie that NATO surrounds Russia and is hemming them in, causing them to react to us. It’s the other way around – NATO’s moves are in reaction to Russian aggression and hybrid warfare against the Baltics states and Ukraine. Third, we must never lose sight of the fact that it was Russia which invaded Crimea, occupied it, and annexed it. It was Russian mercenaries who initiated war against Ukraine. And it is Russian forces which are now amassed on Ukraine’s border which have again brought Ukraine to the front of the news cycle. When war comes, it won’t be NATO’s fault – it will be KGB dictator Vladimir Putin’s fault.

Zack Strong,
December 29, 2021

The Ongoing Bolshevik Revolution

On Independence Day, 2020, I wrote a piece titled “The Ongoing American Revolution” outlining our People’s continuing struggle for Freedom and self-rule. Today, on the 104th anniversary of the Bolshevik coup d’état in Russia, I turn the tables and discuss the enemy’s ongoing war for world domination. 

On October 25, 1917, with financial support from ideological comrades and Jewish compatriots in the West, an international cadre of communist criminals seized control of the organs of power in Russia. Led by the career criminal Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, better known by his underworld alias “Lenin,” this vicious cabal of drugged-up, immoral, angry, atheistic, mostly Jewish revolutionaries, set up their base of operations in Russia. The formation of the Soviet Union was a huge step in a generations-old conspiracy that continues to operate at the present time.

In a 1920 article “Zionism versus Bolshevism,” Sir Winston Churchill correctly identified the primary moving force behind the Bolshevik Revolution: 

“The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire. 

“There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews, it is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd) or of Krassin or Radek — all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.” 

There are two major points to be drawn from these rather blunt observations. First, Jews have played a pivotal role in communism from the beginning. Their influence was palpable and overt during the Bolshevik coup of 1917. More recent research has shown that Lenin was likely part Jewish and every scholar knows he spoke Yiddish and was married to a Jewess. But even if you want to discount him, the vast majority of his comrades in communist leadership positions were Jews. From Trotsky to Zinoviev and Kaganovich to Yagoda, and Kamenev to Sverdlov, Jews dominated the Soviet state apparatus, controlled the infamous secret police, and operated the dreadful GULAG.

So prominent were Jews in the early communist movement that a Russian satirist once mused: “Eleven anarchists were executed at the city jail; fifteen of them were Jews” (Anna Geifman, Thou Shalt Kill: Revolutionary Terrorism in Russia, 1894-1917, 34). No credible historian can deny the essential role Jews, and Jewish money, played in the Bolshevik Revolution and in the operation of the Soviet Union.  

Indeed, every communist movement in essentially every country of note has been led by Jews. Churchill named four of them – Leon Trotsky, Bela Kun, Rosa Luxemburg, and Emma Goldman. Others could be added, including the Soviet advisors who worked intimately with Mao Tse-tung in setting up Red China. The Israeli press has openly lauded them. So has the Chinese press. Wherever communism rears its demonic head, Jews are lurking nearby. 

Today, many of the powerful members in the world conspiracy – Soros, Kissinger, the Rothschilds, Zuckerberg, Bloomberg, Adelson, Strauss-Kahn, Kantor, Rosenberg, Greenblatt, etc. – are of the same ethnicity. You find them infesting the U.S. government from the Supreme Court to Congress to the president’s cabinet. More importantly, they dominate the media, the internet, Hollywood, Disney, the porn industry, banking, money lending, Wall Street, and other cultural institutions, financial bodies, and values-shaping mechanisms. Jewish organizations, such as the ruthless ADL, which is a branch of the Jewish Masonic order B’nai B’rith, are some of the chief organizers of BLM and Antifa riots and other anti-American spectacles (you’ll recall that Antifa was created by Jewish communists in Germany under orders of Stalin and operated as an armed wing of the Communist Party). 

Maybe most damning of all, Judeo-Bolshevism gave life to feminism, which has obliterated the family unit, fulfilling another of Marx’s infamous goals – the abolition of the family. The most famous feminists, like Betty Friedan, were card-carrying members of the Communist Party USA. Many of them, like Friedan (real name Bettye Naomi Goldstein), were also Jews. Gloria Steinem, Andrea Dworkin, and Robin Morgan may be added to the list. In fact, for a time in the early days, the majority of Communist Party USA members were women – radical feminists. Red feminism plunged the knife into the heart of the traditional, patriarchal American family, foreshadowing the fall of America we’re living through. 

The LGBT movement, which has joined in the assault on morality, marriage, and family, is also, you guessed it, a communist front with many Jews playing prominent roles. Henry “Harry” Hay, a card-carrying member of the CPUSA, created the first homosexual organization in the United States – the Mattachine Society. He also created or influenced the Radical Faeries and the pedophile group North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). 

Jews were crucial in normalizing homosexuality throughout the Western world. Cross-dressing and homosexual Bolsheviks were not uncommon in Soviet Russia. Jews also transformed Weimar Germany into the most degenerate hellhole on earth until Hitler banned their filth. Throughout the 20th Century, Jewish activists were influential in forming homosexual advocacy groups. Jews created the international, D.C.-based “World Congress of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Jews” or “The World Congress: Keshet Ga’avah,” in 1980. 

More recently, it was Jewish influence which got homosexual marriage recognized in the United States, just as it was Jewish influence which banned God from schools in the past. I quote from the Jewish Chronicle

“On 26 June 2013, the Supreme Court struck down the federal bar on same-sex marriage. At the centre of the landmark case were a Jewish couple – Edie Windsor and Thea Spyer – and their suit was pursued by a Jewish lawyer, Robbie Kaplan. Two years later, and two days before the 46th anniversary of the Stonewall riots, the Supreme Court legalised gay marriage throughout the United States. In both cases, the three Jewish justices – Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan – were critical in delivering the 5-4 rulings.” 

The porn industry, which plagues the world, is also totally dominated by Jews. From the beginning, the biggest pornographers have nearly all been Jewish. The “Walt Disney of Porn,” Reuben Sturman, who controlled porn in America several decades back, was, obviously, a Jew. The prominent pornographic websites are Jewish-controlled. Anyone who has encountered this scourge as I unfortunately have knows how destructive it is and how it’s one of the many things greasing the skids of the advancing New World Order. 

Yes, cultural Marxism in all its forms is a Judeo-communist invention. It’s sometimes attributed to the Frankfurt School which fled Hitler’s Germany in exile. But the entire “school” was comprised of Jewish Marxists. They set up shop in the United States and have used U.S. resources to spread their cultural corruption around the word, destroying morality, families, and civilizations.

The second point we should take form Churchill’s words is the most important; namely, that the communist conspiracy did not begin in 1917 or even with Karl Marx. Rather, the communist cabal can be traced back to “Spartacus-Weishaupt.” The Weishaupt here referred to was Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Order of Illuminati on May 1, 1776. “Spartacus” was his secret codename. I find it intriguing that Churchill, who later was seduced to the very dark side he condemned earlier in his life, had the wherewithal to link communism and Illuminism. This is the real key! 

Communism didn’t spring out of Marx’s mad mind. It didn’t come from The Communist Manifesto. Its origin reaches farther back. It may be of interest to the reader, however, to learn that Marx was hired by a secret society to write his Manifesto. The group was called the League of the Just. In 1836, this League had split form an earlier group on the continent called the League of Outlaws. Follow this group back and you eventually discover the Jacobins who fomented the French Revolution and the Order of Illuminati which puppeteered the whole thing. 

In 1847, the League of the Just asked Marx to write a document expressing its goals and beliefs. Using the Zionist Moses Hess’s earlier writings as an inspiration (Hess is the man who converted Marx to communism and a major mover in the Zionist movement), Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote their Manifesto. The League then changed its name to the Communist League and published The Communist Manifesto in February 1848. 

Down through the decades, the Communist League fomented chaos and engaged in criminality, changing its name many times. Eventually, it called itself the Social Democratic Workers’ Party. This organization was headed by the same Lenin mentioned earlier. Lenin caused a split between his more radical faction, which he called Bolsheviks, and the less radical – though also revolutionary – sect known as Mensheviks. It was the Mensheviks who led the abortive 1905 revolution in Russia. It was Lenin’s Bolsheviks, joined by many Mensheviks including Trotsky, who led the Bolshevik coup that enslaved Russia in 1917. 

As Churchill noted, Nesta Webster is one of the great thinkers who has linked the Illuminati to communism. In her book World Revolution, she wrote: 

“Reduced to a simple formula the aims of the Illuminati may be summarized in the following six points: 

1. Abolition of Monarchy and all ordered Government. 
2. Abolition of private property. 
3. Abolition of inheritance. 
4. Abolition of patriotism. 
5. Abolition of the family (i.e. of marriage and all morality, and the institution of the communal education of children). 
6. Abolition of all religion. 

“Now it will surely be admitted that the above forms a programme hitherto unprecedented in the history of civilization. Communistic theories had been held by isolated thinkers or groups of thinkers since the days of Plato, but no one, as far as we know, had ever yet seriously proposed to destroy everything for which civilization stands. Moreover, when, as we shall see, the plan of Illuminism as codified by the above six points has continued up to the present day to form the exact programme of the World Revolution, how can we doubt that the whole movement originated with the Illuminati or with secret influences at work behind them?” (Nesta Webster, World Revolution: The Plot Against Civilisation, 22-23). 

What learned person can read these aims and then deny that communism and Illuminism are one and the same and that this plan is being doggedly pursued and is near fulfillment in our day? 

Sometimes people split hairs and fall into the trap of trying to separate the Western branch of socialists from the Eastern communists. This is a fool’s errand since both branches are attached to the same tree. The Illuminati is that tree. Truth be told, even the Order of Illuminati is an appendage of a larger fusion of evil that may simply be termed the Church of the Devil or Babylon the Great. However, it is the branch of branches – and the most luscious fruit it has yet produced is communism. 

You can trace the worst elements of East and West – the Bolsheviks and the Fabian Socialists respectively – back to Karl Marx and the League of the Just; that is, to the Illuminati. The founders of Fabianism were diehard Marxists who knew Marx personally. Marx was actively involved in the Socialist Leagues that became popular in the West. The Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, obviously, were his adherents, too. It was they, with Fabian-banker-Skull & Bones-CFR-Committee of 300 help, who later toppled Russia. 

These same forces then started World War II which destroyed Europe, eliminated the anti-communist states of Germany, Japan, and Italy, led to the creation of the United Nations and European Union, and set the stage for the fall of China. It was because of intrigue by Western members of the conspiracy that Eastern communists were able to conquer China, turning it into the biggest communist base camp. Read about the tragic betrayal of China here

The two groups are incestuous and cannot honestly be separated. Yes, each wing of the conspiracy would rather be in charge and absolutely will mobilize militarily against the other when it sees an opportunity, but both believe in the same ideology, push the same plan, serve the same Dark Master, and achieve the same devastating results. 

The opening scene of “The Dark Knight” illustrates the relationship of the great power centers – the United States, Russia, and China – to each other. You’ll recall that the scene depicted a bank heist. After each member of the Joker’s crew completed his task, his partner turned to him and shot him. The Joker had given each member the same instruction. In the end, the Joker shot his final accomplish and was the last man standing with the stolen loot. 

Satan is the Joker in this analogy and his accomplices are the hijacked governments of Russia, China, and the United States – among others. In his frenzied march toward world domination, Satan intends on playing his dupes off against each other. If he has to eliminate one, two, or all three of them after they’ve assisted him in his great goal, so be it so long as he stands supreme with the loot at the end of the day. 

Said otherwise, regardless of which side wins the fast-approaching world war, the Illumined internationalists believe their agents will be in charge. Their agents control the governments of Russia, China, and the United States. They control Israel, Iran, and Turkey. They control Britain, France, and Germany. They control every nation on earth to greater or lesser extent. They control international finance, the media, most churches, most universities and schools, and many of the biggest corporations. Again, I say, if some part of the force – even a whole nation or continent – must be sacrificed for the Order to finally seize total power, so be it. 

Let me be very clear about this. It’s not “the Jews” or “the Russians” or any other race, nationality, or ethnicity that is the enemy. Satan is the enemy along with all those who have elected to serve him. This includes a highly disproportionate number of Jews, as shown above, but it also includes so-called Christians, Muslims, Hindus, agnostics, atheists, pagans, occultists, New Agers, Theosophists, Luciferians, and so on. 

The Jews, once they’re cleansed by fire in the Battle of Armageddon, have a prophetic destiny to play as part of the House of Israel. Israel is crucial in the Lord’s Plan. This Israel isn’t the physical land of Israel or the Zionist state, but those who have come into the covenant of Jesus Christ by faith, repentance, and baptism by proper Priesthood authority. I want it firmly fixed in your mind that I don’t condemn the members of any race or religion out of hand. But I do rebuke and condemn the communists and Luciferians of any creed, race, religion, and nation who labor to destroy Faith, Families, and Freedom. 

I heartily endorse a quote by Ezra Taft Benson. He admonished: 

“We must not become confused over side issues. Our enemy is not the Catholic, not the Protestant, not the Negro, not the white man, not the Jew, not the Gentile, not employers, not employees, not the wealthy, not the poor, not the worker, and not the employer. Our mortal enemies are the Satanic Communists and those who prepare the path for them” (Ezra Taft Benson, “A Race Against Time,” BYU address, December 10, 1963). 

The same psychopaths who set up the Soviet Union and Red China are the ones who infest our government today. The ones who murdered 150+ million human beings with bullets, famine, and forced labor, are the ones now telling you to take your vaccines, drink your fluoridated water, eat your GMO food, muzzle your face with oxygen-inhibiting masks, close your business, silence your “racist” and “anti-Semitic” speech, kneel before your Black Lives Matter masters, profess your “white guilt,” accept tranny admirals in the military, give up your self-defense weapons, accept a stolen election, and submit to totalitarian rule of your life. Are we stupid enough to follow these pied pipers to the gallows and stick our neck in the noose? 

If people only realized that the hell we see being unleashed today is being carried out by the same nefarious figures who created the Order of Illuminati, fomented the French Revolution, started WWI, overthrew Russia, carried out unequalled reigns of terror the horrors of which would shock the average person into incoherence, initiated WWII and framed the anti-communists, concocted the UN, trumped up the Cold War, waged numerous hot wars, assassinated Kennedy, gave us feminism and LGBT, killed hundreds of millions of babies in human sacrifice called “abortion,” destroyed the patriarchal family, fomented racial division beyond anything seen in the past, took down the Twin Towers on 9/11, released a bioweapon to scare humanity into accepting a vaccine that is itself a far worse bioweapon, and so much more, we could finally awaken to our awful situation and fight back. 

I now quote a few fitting lines from my introduction to my book A Century of Red

“[H]onesty and integrity demand that we expose conspiracy and haul the wicked acts of evil men into the light of truth. Only by doing this – that is, by admitting and accepting the truth about international conspiracy and exposing it for the world to see – can we begin to heal our global wounds. 

“Healing any malady requires a knowledge of its root cause. Without this knowledge, all efforts to heal the problem will ultimately fail. A medicine might treat the outward symptoms of a disease, but unless it is targeted at the underlying cause of the symptoms, the virus will continue to live and spread. Society must acknowledge and directly address conspiracy. If we do not, our problems will grow worse with each passing year no matter who is in the White House, no matter how much money we throw at the problem, and no matter how sincerely we wish the pain would stop. We will either root out the cancerous conspiracies that have entrenched themselves in every corner of our Republic, or they will destroy us.” 

It may be too late and too little to avoid the collapse of America and world cataclysm, but many millions have been jolted awake by the birth pangs of the New World Order. The one-world communist state is here. It’s not fully implemented yet, but it’s in its endgame and is forming fearfully fast all around us. The Bolshevik world revolution is in full swing. The communist conspiracy has never been more powerful and prevalent.

To end, I quote a man who has been hotly demonized, yet whose voice of warning about Satanic communism was piercingly poignant and whose words deserve to be heard: 

“Bolshevism, which is in reality an attack on the world of the spirit, pretends to be intellectual itself. Where circumstances demand, it comes as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. But underneath the false mask which it here and there assumes, there are always the satanic forces of world destruction. And where it has had the opportunity of practising its theories it has created “The Paradise of the Workers and Peasants,” in the shape of a fearful desert of starving and hungering people. If we are to take the word of its doctrine then we find a terrible contradiction between its theory and its practice. Its theory is glowing and grandiose but it carries poison in its attractive gloss. Over against this, what we have from it in reality is terrible and forbidding. This is shown in the millions of sacrifices which have been made in honour of it, through executions with the sword, the axe or the hangman’s rope or hunger. . . .  

“. . . [Bolshevism is a] world disease . . .  

“Murder of individuals, murder of hostages and mass murder are the favourite means applied by Bolshevism to get rid of all opposition to its propaganda. . . .  

“We have thus before our eyes a full picture of this fearful and harrowing mass terrorisation which is only approximately paralleled by even the most bloodcurdling examples of war or revolution that are recorded in the history of the world. This is the actual system of bloodshed and terror and death which is carried out by hysterical and criminal political maniacs who would have it copied in every country and among every people with the same terrorising practices, in so far as they might find the possibility of doing so. . . .  

“Bolshevism is the declared enemy of all nations and of all religions and of all human civilisation. The World Revolution is now, as always, its acknowledged and proclaimed goal” (Joseph Goebbels, speech, September 13, 1935, “Communism With the Mask Off”). 

Rise, dear reader, in defense of our Faith, Families, and Freedom! Rise in resistance to the one-world police state! Rise in defiance of Satanic communism! 

Zack Strong, 
October 24, 2021 

Christian Love is an Obstacle

In their 2018 exposé, Forbidden Facts shockingly revealed:

“Did you know that the origin of Valentine’s Day comes from a red plot to weaken Western defenses on a predictable day, to aid with an invasion? It is not a coincidence that we are giving RED roses on this holiday!”

Valentine’s Day is a Bolshevik conspiracy! . . . Or is it? Communist plots are a dime a dozen and enemy agents really do lurk around every corner. Fortunately, though, Valentine’s Day is not one of their schemes. Cupid was not commissioned by the Kremlin; you don’t have to fear the sweet sting of his arrow. Forbidden Facts was simply practicing its satirical skills. However, this satire hits closer to home than the authors are likely aware. The communists actually do have a plot to crush the very notion of love and replace it with unrestrained hatred.

The Soviet chief of “education,” Anatoly Lunacharsky, gave piercing insight into the communist mentality when he raved:

“We hate Christians and Christianity. Even the best of them must be considered our worst enemies. Christian love is an obstacle to the development of the revolution. Down with love of one’s neighbor! What we want is hate. . . . Only then can we conquer the universe” (W. Cleon Skousen, The Naked Communist, 308).

To hate is what the Soviets actively taught their subjects to do. They used schools as indoctrination centers. In these brainwashing factories, Christians were depicted by their Judeo-Bolshevik overlords as dangerous radicals and threats to justice, peace, and unity. The controlled press also kept up a constant barrage of virulent anti-Christian diatribes.

Lunarcharsky was not alone in his Satanic sentiments. In the Congressional Record, we find this blunt quotation from Bolshevik dictator Vladimir Lenin: “We must hate – hatred is the basis of communism” (Introduced into the Congressional Record April 12, 1933 by Senator Arthur R. Robinson, 1539). Lenin is also said to have remarked: “Children must be taught to hate their parents if they are not communists.”

Lenin was a sadist. He was cruel and brutal. He relished the suffering of his fellow human beings. He forced them into starvation, cannibalism, concentration camps, slavery, and the killing fields all to further his Marxist agenda of world domination. We have this anecdote from socialist Bertrand Russell who visited Lenin in Moscow:

“When I put a question to him about socialism in agriculture, he explained with glee how he had incited the poorer peasants against the richer ones, ‘and they soon hanged them from the nearest tree – ha! ha! ha!’ His guffaw at the thought of those massacred made my blood run cold” (Richard Pipes, A Concise History of the Russian Revolution, 209).

Hatred for others and a glaring lack of compassion for suffering are common traits among the communists. Stalin was particularly devoid of compassion and love toward others. He once described his thought process for murdering his associates:

“When I have to say good-bye to someone, I picture this person on all fours and he becomes disgusting. Sometimes I feel attached to a person who should be removed for the good of the cause. What do you think I do? I imagine this person s***ting, exhaling stench, farting, vomiting – and I don’t feel sorry for this person. The sooner he stops stinking on this earth, the better. And I cross this person out of my heart” (Richard Wurmbrand, Marx & Satan, 52).

“Callous disregard” for others is too light a description. Rather, “Satanic hatred” is perhaps more apt. When we cross others out of our hearts and cease to love them, anything and everything cruel and degrading becomes possible.

The Jewish Soviet propagandist Ilya Ehrenburg learned his craft well from Lenin, Lunacharsky, and Stalin. During World War II, he wrote a screed titled “Убей!” or “Kill!” It was distributed to the rapacious Red Army hordes on the front lines in 1942. In it, Ehrenberg encouraged the troops with similar thoughts to those voiced by Stalin:

“Germans are not humans. Henceforth, the word ‘German’ is the most horrible curse. Henceforth, the word ‘German’ unloads a gun. We have nothing to say. We will not get excited. We will kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day . . . If you cannot kill a German with a bullet, then kill him with your bayonet. If your part of the front is quiet and there is no fighting, then kill a German in the meantime . . . If you have already killed a German, then kill another one – there is nothing more amusing to us than a heap of German corpses. Don’t count the days, don’t count the kilometers. Count only one thing: the number of Germans you have killed. Kill the Germans! – This is what the old woman asks. Kill the Germans! – This is what the child cries for. Kill the Germans! – This is what your motherland demands . . . Kill!”

As recently as 2018, the Israeli news outlet Haaretz had the audacity to call this murderous order “poetry.” The poetry of hell, perhaps. It was, to any normal person, a command to destroy human life, to cross love out of one’s soul, to act like a devil.

A Soviet poster calling on everyone to kill Germans.

Having lived in Russia from 2006-2008, I can personally attest that foreigners are routinely cursed at with the term “Немцы!” or “Germans!” Ehrenberg’s foul words not only enticed the Red Army of the Second World War to gangrape two million German women and brutally murder millions of other innocent Germans, but still wield influence over many in the modern Russian generation.

What we’re dealing with in all of these examples is not mere disdain, but pathological, violent, savage hatred. Remember, “hatred is the basis of communism,” according to Lenin. But why did the Bolsheviks hate their enemies so virulently – virulently enough to murder them to the tune of 160 million or more? And why are they so enraged to this day that they’re willing to start wars, release plagues, crash economies, murder their opposition, and repress billions of souls? I mention but two reasons.

First, and most importantly, communists then as now are filled with demonic hatred because they have rejected God. “God is love,” as John told us (1 John 4:8). To reject Him is to reject His attributes such as love, mercy, and compassion. Many high-level communists are not only atheists and Darwinistic humanists, they’re outright Satanists. They’re literal anti-Christs – high priests to their Dark Master. They know God exists and they resent Him and wish to crush Him and His followers.

Now and then, communists admitted their true affiliation. Karl Marx, the Jewish Satanist, wrote, “I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above” (Wurmbrand, Marx & Satan, 7). A Soviet general once told a captive Christian priest one of the most intriguing things I’ve ever read. He said: “We are Satan’s elite, but you, are you God’s elite?” (Wurmbrand, Marx & Satan, 74). When the Bolshevik savages tortured Christians, they sometimes branded them with pentagrams or forced them to deny Christ before killing them. Why would communists make these hapless Christians deny a being they don’t believe exists? Is it perhaps that they do know He exists, but that they hate Him and, on orders from the Dragon, make war against His followers? (Revelation 12:17)

The second reason why communists are so filled with hatred is that many of them are Jews. This is not “anti-Semitism,” it’s historical fact. Karl Marx, the author of The Communist Manifesto, was a Jew. Marx was converted to communism by the Jew Moses Hess, who was an early founder of Zionism. Hess also converted Engels from Christianity to communism. Lenin was part-Jewish, was married to a Jewess, and spoke Yiddish. Stalin was married to a Jewess. Most of the early Bolshevik higher-ups, from Trotsky to Radek to Zinoviev, were Jews or married to Jewesses. Even in foreign lands, from Spain to Hungary to Mexico to Germany, Jews led local communist movements and uprisings. And of course these radicals received significant funding from Jewish bankers and businessmen abroad (synagogues around the world also raised money to support the Bolshevik coup in 1917). Again, this isn’t a smear; it’s a statistic.

Don’t doubt for one moment that the Jewish upbringing of the early Soviet leaders didn’t play a major role in their enduring hatred of Christians. It absolutely did. They particularly hated the Christian tsars and the Russian Orthodox Church because Jews had been, in the distant past, relegated to second-class status within the Russian Empire. This had changed, however, and Jews were allowed to enter normal professions within the Empire, often coming to totally dominate many sectors long before the Soviet days. In fact, so ironclad was their control that organic pogroms sometimes erupted for the ruthless way Jews took advantage of non-Jews. Their grievances, therefore, were ancient history and largely unfounded. Indeed, it was the average Russian peasant who had a real grievance against the minority Jewish population that came to power over them.

The Bolshevik leaders were mostly Jews, yes, but predominantly secular or Satanic Jews; that is, non-practicing. But they grew up in the materialistic, eye-for-an-eye Jewish culture and some certainly imbibed Judaism’s occult teachings found in the Kabbalah and Talmud. If you have never researched the anti-Christ nature of the Babylonian Talmud and the Kabbalah (specifically, see Sabbatean Kabbalism), do so. Those Jews who divorced themselves totally from their religious roots adopted either Gnosticism (founded by the Jew Simon the Sorcerer) or communism as their religion, their purpose, their mission. The promise of a worldwide communist state became their desired utopia – their new “promised land.”

These amoral Judeo-Marxists ran the infamous GULAG. They headed the Soviet intelligence apparatus. They dominated in leading positions within the bureaucracy and leadership organs. For many of them, their newfound power was used to exact what they considered “revenge” against Christians for the way Christians had supposedly treated them for centuries.

Nuns and priests were singled out for horrific defilement, sexual abuse, torture, and slaughter. Christians were stripped of their churches, which were often turned into museums promoting atheism and paganism after they had been looted of all valuables. A favorite Bolshevik method of tortuous murder was crucifixion – a form of mockery against the Christian population. Christian scriptures were taken and bastardized by the Soviets. For instance, the Lord’s Prayer was rewritten as a worship of the USSR with words like: “Our Party which rulest in the Soviet Union, Hallowed be thy name.” Nothing was too crass, blasphemous, or evil for this lot of vengeful Soviet Jews.

Whether because of cultural revenge or because of spiritual sickness, the fact is that the communists made a concerted effort to preach hate and crush love. They hated “Christian love” and recognized it as a legitimate obstacle to their global revolution. Instead of love and happiness, communists sought the misery of all mankind. They were like their father the Devil, who was a murderer and liar from the beginning (John 8:44). Because they were anti-Christ, they were also inevitably anti-love and opposed to all the goodness, geniality, selflessness, mercy, and honor that flows from the loving heart.

When we reject the radiant allure of love and wholesome relationships, we begin the tragic trek towards godlessness and communist thinking. Society is slipping into the Marxist morass because it is forgetting how to love. Our hearts are growing cold. We’re becoming numb towards others and even towards things of beautify, light, and truth.

This Valentine’s Day is the perfect opportunity to take a gut check and evaluate how well we qualify as the Savior’s disciples. He said: “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another” (John 13:35). Yes, Valentine’s Day is the perfect time to recommit to love of God and love of one’s neighbor. It’s the perfect time to rekindle the flame in our relationships and to extend the hand of friendship to strangers, mercy to those who have offended us, and love to all we meet.

According to the legends, Emperor Claudius Gothicus of Rome outlawed marriage because he needed soldiers, but married people were often excused from military service. A Christian named Valentinus, or Valentine, supposedly disobeyed the emperor’s edict, secretly marrying couples and promoting the institution of marriage, the ideal of chastity, and the virtue of Christian love. For his rebellious deed, Valentine was executed on February 14 in the year 269 A.D. In later centuries, the mythological character Cupid (aka Eros) and various pagan traditions were blended with the story of “Saint” Valentine to produce Valentine’s Day.

The story of Valentine performing secret marriages may well indeed be embellished. We have very little actual, verifiable information about this man or the reasons for his martyrdom. Several accounts do, however, tell of one Christian named Valentine who was arrested and murdered in Rome. Regardless of the reasons or the particulars, the Catholic Church made Valentine’s Day, though unknown by that name until centuries later, a formal celebration in 496 A.D.

In that year, Pope Gelasius I ordained this holiday. The reasons he did so are obscured by rumors and myths. One of the prevalent theories, though likely only partially true, is that Valentine’s Day was created to offset the Roman pagan holiday of Lupercalia. The Feast of Lupercalia was in part a fertility festival. During this three-day revelry, the Luperci, priests of Lupus, the she-wolf that legend says nurtured Rome’s founders Romulus and Remus, performed ritual animal sacrifices promoting both fertility and purification.

This article was never meant to be an exhaustive history, so, in essence, we can say that Valentine’s Day is a melange of Catholic religious veneration, Roman paganism, and more modern effusions of love by Chaucer and others. Consumerism has shaped the holiday in its own image, turning it into a day to spend money on chocolates, flowers, fancy dinners, jewelry, and sappy movies. Modern hedonists also use the holiday to promote their amoral ways, transforming love into lust.

This Valentine’s Day, set back the Adversary’s agenda by remembering to love. To love is not to lust or use others for your own amusement. Love is a Christlike quality. Love is the most powerful force in the galaxy because “love is of God” and “God is love” (1 John 4:7-8). We need this power more now than ever before.

Love changes people. Love uplifts. Love animates. Love lets light into the soul. Love casts out fear and pumps courage through the veins. Love motivates us to self-sacrifice for that which we love – for our Faith, our Families, and our Freedom.

As the wise Professor Dumbledore once said, we are often protected by our ability to love. Love is the most powerful kind of magic in existence; the prime motivating force in the universe. God loved us so He sent His Son Jesus Christ (John 3:16-18). Christ loved us and laid down His life for us. Each drop of His holy blood is a drop of divine love that can heal, cleanse, and save.

Without love, we’re nothing as individuals or societies. Without love, we walk in darkness. Without love, life is bland, undesirable, and a constant drudgery that leads us into the downward spiral of selfishness. Without love, we have no chance of defeating communism, the rising tide of societal filth, or the machinations of the Evil One. To the Devil, Christian love is the supreme obstacle. If we have this pristine love in our souls, he has no power over us.

Dear reader, we need love! This Valentine’s Day, let’s let love into our lives. Said otherwise, this holiday, let’s let God into our hearts. When we love God, He loves us and manifests Himself to us in a million beneficial ways (John 14:21, 23). Let’s love God. Let’s love our spouses and families. Let’s love our neighbors. Let’s love truth, beauty, light, success, virtue, honor, righteousness, and Liberty. In a word, let’s love life and live in love!

Zack Strong,

February 13, 2021

Introducing . . . Red Alert

UPDATE: In January 2022, I changed Red Alert to once-a-month and lowered the price to $12.15 yearly.

This January, I launched a subscription-based newsletter called Red Alert. Red Alert is an anti-communist, anti-corruption, anti-conspiracy report issued once weekly. It discusses both the current and historical intrigues and machinations of the global communist conspiracy and its myriad of front groups. This article is written to inform you about Red Alert and encourage you to subscribe and join the growing Red Alert family at https://redalertnewsletter.com/.

What do you get when you subscribe to Red Alert? Is it worth $35 a year? Only you can decide the latter question, but let me explain the first. Each newsletter contains six elements:

1) A primary, long-form article that dives deeply into a specific topic. That topic may shine the spotlight on an historical event related to the origin, rise, and legacy of communism, such as the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, or may cover current events that tie into the machinations of global communism, such as the Great Reset or the communist coup that toppled President Donald Trump. So far, I’ve covered only current events, though I plan to start introducing historical flashbacks soon. The four published issues of Red Alert have been titled: “What is Communism?” “Communist Coup,” “Weaponized Racism,” and “America Will Never be a Socialist Country – or Will She?”

2) An update on the advance of cultural Marxism. In particular, I deal with the feminist and LGBT assault on families, the home, and traditional moral values. In Red Alert No. 1, for instance, I talked about feminist Jessa Crispin who laments that today’s feminists are not radical enough for her anti-family agenda. She raged that the Coronahoax lockdowns have brought women back into the home instead of at the office or workplace where they belong. She called for the destruction of the institution of marriage, the overthrow of the “patriarchy,” and so on.

3) A section on recent updates from Putin’s Russia. For instance, in Red Alert No. 2, I covered the Russian roll-out of the terrible new ICBM, the RS-28 Sarmat, or Satan 2. I noted the Russians’ boast that the Satan 2 could supposedly destroy an area the size of Texas or France.

4) A section on Chinese schemes and international moves. For example, in Red Alert No. 3, I discussed China’s irrational rage at Taiwan’s introduction of a new passport that made it very clear Taiwan is a separate nation. The Reds called this impudence “seccessionism.” Additionally, in response to a planned diplomatic trip to Taiwan by former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Kelly Craft, Beijing threatened both Taiwan and the United States with a war of “annihilation.” Yes, literally.

5) A recommendation of a book or other information source. I usually share an excerpt from the books I recommend to give you the flavor of the content. As one example, in Red Alert No. 2, I recommended Unrestricted Warfare by the Chinese military colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui. This book outlines the unconventional tactics, from terrorism to cyber warfare to information warfare, that China uses to attack its enemies – primarily the United States.

6) A sourced quote from a communist, ex-communist, or ideological comrade, usually relevant to the topic of the main article in each issue. To wit, in Red Alert No. 3, I quoted Marxist professor Kamau Kambon who said in a public forum: “We have to exterminate white people.”

Altogether, through four issues, I’ve presented over 28,000 words worth of information – an average of 7,000 words per issue! These are not pithy, haphazardly-thrown-together articles. They’re detailed, in-depth pieces that try to really show you how the topic fits into the overall Satanic scheme against our Faith, Families, and Freedom.

And that’s what faces humanity – a Satanic conspiracy. The time for mincing words is past. We must either acknowledge that we’re under full-scale assault by a demonic adversary hell-bent on destroying everything good in life, or we will lose. Red Alert seeks to educate and intellectually arm you for this struggle. While providing a wealth of details, quotes, and sources, the most important aspect of my analysis is that I really show you the broad principles and big-picture perspective that are necessary to comprehend in order to make sense of the individual moving parts.

A craftsman might be an expert in woodworking, but that doesn’t mean he knows how to build a house; it doesn’t mean he has the full blueprint. By analogy, you can find people who understand specific aspects of conspiracy better than I do or who have more expertise about a certain thing, such as James Perloff on the Council on Foreign Relations or G. Edward Griffin on the Federal Reserve cartel. But, in my self-confident opinion, there aren’t many people who understand the big picture as well as I do; who see how these disparate parts connect together into one whole; who truly understand the nature of this is spiritual warfare.

To me, comprehending the big picture is the key. If you’re an expert on the Rothschild dynasty, but don’t have a clue how the Rothschild fortune has been used to mold world events or to which end it is mobilized, your knowledge amounts to little more than a set of fun factoids. But if you know that the Rothschilds are Sabbatean Kabbalists who have united their fortune with the wealth of other occult-minded families and entities, such as the Order of Illuminati or the Warburgs, and use it to lead humanity headlong into a one-world state crowned by a one-world Luciferian religion, then all those “factoids” have real value.

The key to it all, in my opinion, is knowing that Satan is the head of the conspiracy against mankind. His top echelon of earthly high priests worship him. He personally gives them instructions and they follow his blueprint for the conquest of the globe. The ideas and institutions of communism have proven to be their chief weapon in this fight. This becomes easier to comprehend when you understand that communism is actually the dogma formulated by Adam Weishaupt and pushed forward by the Order of Illuminati. As I’ve written in this newsletter:

“The Communist League, under that name, came into existence in 1847 less than a year prior to the publication of The Communist Manifesto. But the organization, the “secret society,” existed long before. The previous name it went by was the League of the Just, sometimes rendered League of Just Men. If you trace the pedigree of this secret society, you go back to the League of Outlaws, among others, and eventually arrive at the Order of Illuminati. Yes, the Communist League is a direct descendant of the Illuminati!

“When you realize that communism is Illuminism – the identical ideology of the Bavarian Illuminati – it unlocks your comprehension of the global conspiracy network. From this movement, founded in 1776 by Adam Weishaupt and expanded to include international bankers, certain sects of Freemasons, and radical Jews in 1782, has sprung nearly all the organizations that currently assist one another in suppressing Freedom around the globe: The communists; Fabian Socialists; Bilderburgers; Committee of 300; Council on Foreign Relations; Club of Rome; United Nations; BRICS; etc.”

And again, I’ve explained:

“Karl Marx was hired to write The Communist Manifesto by a shadowy group known as the League of the Just. The League of the Just was an Illuminati front group; or, perhaps you could say, an offshoot from the Illuminati. The League changed its name to the Communist League and published Marx’s Manifesto. The group went through various name changes until Lenin came to head the group and used it, with Western money, to overthrow Russia and create the Soviet Union. As this group was evolving and growing in Eastern Europe, Marx launched another movement that remained largely in the West – the Socialist International. Out of the Socialist International sprang Fabian Socialism, which is the particular brand of socialism that has wrapped its tentacles around the United States.

“When you look at mainstream socialism, then, you find that it is the brainchild of Karl Marx and the Illuminati offshoot the League of the Just. Thus, both communism and socialism come from the same source. Both philosophies preach the same principles: World government; domination by the state; abolition or state control of private property; the creation of a welfare state; etc. That socialism works by less invasive means to come to power is of no consequence. Both socialism and communism have the same impact on Liberty.”

It is these types of powerful links and connections I draw in Red Alert. One may study and write about communism his entire life (and many have) and not realize that the entire scheme was concocted decades before Marx by the Illuminati. Subscribers to my newsletter get this sort of information right from the start. Having this umbrella of information to work under is invaluable and helps put the more minute details into proper perspective.

In addition to the weekly newsletter, I upload a video report each week as part of the subscription package. In this Sit-Rep, or situation report, I talk about sometimes random and sometimes specific things. These videos are less focused and more extemporaneous. In the future, I’d like to develop my format and setting to make it into a more professional production. I’ve heard from more than one subscriber that they love this feature as much, if not more, than the actual newsletter.

Finally, on the last week of every month, I plan to host a live online event. I haven’t hammered out the specifics yet, such as which platform I’ll use or how precisely I’ll conduct them, but I envision these events as a way to connect more with my audience. Whether it’s a live chat, a Zoom conference, or a teleconference call, I want to develop stronger relationships and connections with like-minded patriots, answer questions if any arise, and discuss these topics more deeply.

Now that you know what you get when you subscribe to Red Alert, you can decide whether it is worth $35/year to you. To me, information is power. I thirst for knowledge. I always want to dig beneath the surface and understand why things happen. I want to understand my enemy so I know how to defeat him and safeguard my family. People who fall into the same category will likely find Red Alert a useful resource.

I close by sharing a paragraph from Red Alert No. 2 which sets the stakes of the vicious struggle we’re in. After reading it, decide whether subscribing to Red Alert would help you in the fight:

“America has been sliding into the abyss for decades, but now, because a large number of Americans were beginning to wake up, the enemy has been forced into the open. The global cabal has brazenly stolen the presidency and the Senate. They’ve locked down the nation and shut down our economy. And they openly say they’ll remake the Supreme Court, add new Democratic states to the Union, take our firearms, promote godless cultural programs, institute anti-white schemes like reparations, herd us into cities to be easily controlled, crush our sovereignty by tethering us to international communist bodies like the U.N. and treaties like the Paris Climate Accords, crack down as never before on free speech and silence America-firsters, forcibly vaccinate people with a dangerous bio-weapon and arrest anyone who refuses to be a human guinea pig, foist a Chinese-style social credit system upon us, and so much more. They will move toward their goal of world order rapidly now. We must unite against this hostile takeover – this communist coup!”

Zack Strong,

January 26, 2021

A Deception that Will Live in Infamy

The deadly attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 was a quintessential false-flag event known about ahead of time and permitted to unfold by the evil Establishment that rules in Washington, D.C. Despite the lies of court historians and biased talking heads on the radio, FDR absolutely did have foreknowledge of the Japanese attack on our military men in Hawaii and allowed it to happen to fulfill his sick desire to thrust our nation into a war that our People did not want to be involved in. This is conspiracy fact, not conspiracy theory. This article will not dive too deeply into the mass of material proving foreknowledge, though I will reference the basics and refer you to some excellent sources. I will, rather, focus on two of the reasons the Japanese felt they needed to fight back against U.S. aggression in order to safeguard their nation.

The late Robert B. Stinnett wrote in his foundational book Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor that not only did President Franklin D. Roosevelt have foreknowledge of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but he was part of a small group who initiated an 8-point plan to provoke war with Japan. Stinnett outlined the plan in great detail, including this overview:

“Lieutenant Commander McCollum’s five-page memorandum of October 1940 (hereafter referred to as the eight-action memo) pull forward a startling plan—a plan intended to engineer a situation that would mobilize a reluctant America into joining Britain’s struggle against the German armed forces then overrunning Europe. Its eight actions called for virtually inciting a Japanese attack on American ground, air, and naval forces in Hawaii, as well as on British and Dutch colonial outposts in the Pacific region.

“Opinion polls in the summer of 1940 indicated that a majority of Americans did not want the country involved in Europe’s wars. Yet FDR’s military and Stale Department leaders agreed that a victorious Nazi Germany would threaten the national security of the United States. They fell that Americans needed a call to action.

“McCollum would be an essential part of this plan. His code name was F-2. He oversaw the routing of communications intelligence to FDR from early 1940 to December 7, 1941, and provided the President with intelligence reports on Japanese military and diplomatic strategy. Every intercepted and decoded Japanese military and diplomatic report destined for the White House went through the Far East Asia section of ONI, which he oversaw. The section served as a clearinghouse for all categories of intelligence reports, not only on Japan but on all the other nations of eastern Asia.

“Each report prepared by McCollum for the President was based on radio intercepts gathered and decoded by a worldwide network of American military cryptographers and radio intercept operators. McCollum’s office was an element of Station US. a secret American cryptographic center located at the main naval headquarters at 18th Street and Constitution Avenue N.W. about four blocks from the White House.

“Few people in America’s government or military knew as much about Japan’s activities and intentions as Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum. He felt that war with Japan was inevitable and that the United States should provoke it at a time which suited US interests. In his October 1940 memorandum McCollum advocated eight actions that he predicted would lead to a Japanese attack on the United States:

“A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore.

B. Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies [now Indonesia].

C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang Kai-shek.

D. Send a division of long-range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore.

E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient.

F. Keep the main strength of the US Fleet, now in the Pacific, in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands.

G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil.

H. Completely embargo all trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire” (Robert B. Stinnett, Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor, 7-8).

Look carefully at these recommendations and think of the audacity – the pure evil – of concocting such a plan; a plan that would deliberately drag tens of millions of people to the hell of war. Each move was calculated to hem in the Japanese in the Pacific, hurt the Japanese economy, isolate Japan from her allies and resources, aid Japan’s enemies at a time of war (which itself is a violation of international law and an act of war), and place American servicemen directly in harm’s way as a sort of bait or sacrifice.

Of point four of FDR’s perverse plan, Stinnett wrote:

“Roosevelt’s “fingerprints” can be found on each of McCollum’s proposals. One of the most shocking was Action D, the deliberate deployment of American warships within or adjacent to the territorial waters of Japan.11 During secret White House meetings, Roosevelt personally took charge of Action D. He called the provocations “pop-up” cruises. “I just want them to keep popping up here and there and keep the Japs guessing. I don’t mind losing one or two cruisers, but do not take a chance on losing five or six.” Admiral Husband Kimmel, the Pacific Fleet commander, objected to the pop-up cruises, saying: “It is ill-advised and will result in war if we make this move.” . . . .

“From March through July 1941, White House records show that FDR ignored international law and dispatched naval task groups into Japanese waters on three such pop-up cruises. . . .

“Action D was very risky and could have resulted in a loss of American lives approaching that of Pearl Harbor. In the end, however, no shots were fired during the cruises. It would take not just one, but all eight of McCollum’s proposals to accomplish that” (Stinnett, Day of Deceit, 9-10).

To read all about FDR’s duplicity in deliberately and willfully provoking Japan in such a way as to bring an attack on American military men, read Day of Deceit by Robert Stinnett. Additionally, read Operation Snow: How a Soviet Mole in FDR’s White House Triggered Pearl Harbor by John Koster. Also, read James Perloff’s superb research in his “Pearl Harbor: Roosevelt’s 9/11.” Finally, see these links for additional information to explore: Link 1, Link 2, Link 3, Link 4, Link 5, Link 6.

I now cover two of the reasons the Japanese themselves gave for opposing, and ultimately attacking, the United States: 1) U.S. economic warfare against Japan; and 2) the imminent threat of communism.

U.S. Economic Warfare Against Japan

In his book Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan Before Pearl Harbor, author Edward S. Miller presented evidence leading the careful reader to a straightforward thesis: The United States compelled Japan to war through economic strangulation. Miller began his book by contextualizing Japan’s decision to go to war:

“The judgment of history is that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and launched the Pacific War to thwart American resistance to its designs of imperial conquest in East Asia. U.S. opposition included diplomatic pressure, military preparations, and, above all, economic sanctions. Historians have emphasized the de facto embargo of oil as the most deadly sanction because Japan’s navy and army depended on U.S. exports of fuel, a situation the military leaders effectively in control of Japanese policy perceived as an intolerable weakness. But the U.S. action of 26 July 1941 was not just a trade embargo. It was an emasculation of Japan’s laboriously accumulated international money reserves, imposed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt by invoking an obscure 1917 law, the Trading with the Enemy Act.

“I propose that the most devastating American action against Japan was the financial freeze. Money mattered. In 1941 war had congealed the financial systems of other great powers, rendering their currencies inconvertible. Abroad, the yen itself was illiquid, that is, not acceptable for payments outside the Japanese Empire. The United States stood in the extraordinary position of controlling nearly all the world’s negotiable money resources. It applied its extraordinary power to “bankrupt” Japan.

“Bankruptcy is a condition imposed by a court of law to compel settlement of debts. A bankrupt person of company that is judged insolvent lacks sufficient assets to pay. A sovereign nation, however, is not subject to a court’s jurisdiction, and in any case, on 25 July 1941, Japan held ample liquid assets – dollars in U.S. banks and gold bars in Tokyo vaults – to purchase vital imports and service its relatively small international debts. Japan was not insolvent, then or later. Only 26 July, however, a stroke of the pen rendered it illiquid. The freeze isolated Japan economically from the outside world, voiding its monetary assets, both sums on hand or obtainable in the future. Consent to buy strategic good in the United States, or in any country that exported for dollars, was withheld by the United States in conjunction with parallel freezes by the British and Dutch empires. Japan’s commercial sphere shriveled to the “yen bloc” of its colonies and conquered regions in East Asia. . . .

““Bankrupt” and “impoverished” are terms often used interchangeably. Japan’s international illiquidity would, beyond doubt, have impoverished the nation within a couple of years. The U.S. freeze presented Japan with three choices: suffer economic impoverishment, accede to American demands to yield its territorial conquests, or go to war against the United States and its allies” (Miller, Bankrupting the Enemy, 1-2).

personal.psu.edu.

This information is not new. Every historian admits these basic facts. We know that FDR intentionally crippled Japan’s economy. We know FDR slapped Japan with costly sanctions. We know FDR cut off Japan from its money supply and from international trade. We know that FDR applied pressure on Asian nations to not do business with Japan. What court historians taken for granted, however, is the reason FDR took these provocative steps. They couch it as a last-ditch effort to stop Japan’s murderous aggression. In reality, these policies purposefully provoked war between nations whose peoples had no bone to pick with each other in order to meet sinister ends that will be noted later.

Japanese writers at the time pointed to the intolerable political and economic pressure applied on Japan by the United States and Britain as prominent reasons why the war eventually happened. Along with relentless economic warfare, the United States leveled endless propaganda against the Empire of the Rising Sun – propaganda which is mindlessly repeated by politicians, school teachers, the media, Hollywood, and Establishment historians even today.

In the early 20th Century, Japan was far and away the most technologically, economically, and militarily advanced Asian nation. They projected a vision of an independent Asia that looked beyond traditional racial and ethnic hostilities and promoted the greater good of the entire region. They created the aptly-named Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere to promote their vision of an Asia free from Western intervention and free from economic strangulation. In short, they desired a unified Asian brotherhood of economically and politically independent nations.

This course of action naturally led Japan into the arms of Hitler’s Germany which promoted a similar, albeit European version, of the same goal. The two nations shared a very similar ideological outlook. They believed in nationalism, self-determination, and the end of the internationalist Establishment’s chokehold on world affairs and the global economy. They also believed that their position of power in their regions – each being the most advanced nation in their individual spheres – gave them the responsibility to led out in overthrowing those forces which oppressed them and in establishing regional peace and stability.

To strengthen their respective efforts, Germany, Japan, and Italy concluded the Tripartite Pact on September 27, 1940. This followed their signing of the Anti-Comintern Pact, which will be discussed in the next section. The Japanese writer Nobumasa Suyetsugu explained the goal of the Tripartite Pact and why the West’s objections to it were totally unfounded. In November 1940, he wrote:

“[T]he Japanese-German-Italian pact is not directed against any other particular Power, nor is it to be construed in any way as having been concluded for the purpose of waging war against any one particular Power. . . .

“Then what has brought about this agreement? It is the outcome of mutual ideological antagonism between those Powers which seeks to maintain the old political, economic and other structures and those which are dissatisfied with the injustice of the old order and are determined to bring about a fundamental reform in the existing international and national structures. Recent intensification of this antagonism has been so great that it finally lead to the conclusion of the treaty in question as nothing but a natural outcome. The Powers upholding the old order virtually formed a league of their own, and, in order to preserve what they have, they kept opposing the rightful claims of the nations hitherto treated unfairly in international affairs. Consistent efforts were made to bring political and economic pressure to bear upon the latter countries. Finding their positions intolerable under the series of pressures, the reformist Powers felt that the only way of survival and future growth for them was in a firm combination on the basis of their ideological similarities. What actually has developed into the three Power pact, therefore, is the result of forced circumstances and was a historical necessity. . . .

“As has been mentioned, the special feature of the treaty is its ideological aspect . . . Heretofore, alliances and treaties have been based chiefly on the interests of the participants. When those interests faded the agreements were conveniently forgotten or openly discarded. Present treaty, of course, embodies the interests of the three signatories, but its fundamental spirit lies in the unity of thought and ideology. Therefore, it may be applied in complete disregard of the material interests of the participating parties as the occasion demands. Its overwhelming power and influence lie in the very fact that it was not signed for temporary gains or effects, but was conceived rather with a definite conception of human life and of the world and how men and nations should live therein . . . It is a concrete expression of the irrepressible demands inherent in the peoples of the three countries. . . .

“If the Japanese-German-Italian combination harboured any intention to bring the entire world under its control after the fashion of the Anglo-American Powers, which established and now are trying to maintain financial hegemony over the world, the mutual antagonism between the two groups inevitably would become stronger, regardless of the peaceful attitude of the former. That would mean merely replacing one kind of world hegemony for another. Happily, however, the objective of the tripartite pact, with its ideological origin, is not so aggressive as to attempt to bring the world within its grasp. It opposes emulating the Faults of the old order. The Pact has as its chief objective the establishment of the most natural geographic, economic and racial spheres and the liberation of the peoples of these respective regions from the shackles of controlling influences which heretofore have preyed on them from the outside. One cannot but be struck by the similarity between the present treaty and the position of the United States, which is doing its utmost to create solidarity among the nations of the American continents on the basis of Pan-Americanism and the Monroe Doctrine, although there is an admitted difference in the fundamental ideas. No one openly attacks the Monroe Doctrine as such, and it follows logically that there is no reason why the aims of the tripartite agreement should be made the butt of adverse criticism. As the pact envisions the establishment of a sphere of common prosperity in Greater East Asia, as well as the establishment of a new order in Europe under Germany and Italy, it would be well for its critics to postpone their unwarranted attacks until after they have exhausted their verbal ammunition against the Monroe Doctrine, lest their arguments sound hollow with inconsistency.

“It is regrettable that the world at present is wholly lacking in stability. War is the general order of things and peace is merely an ideal. Even in time of peace, there is hardly any sense of security among mankind and most nations prepare feverishly for the next war. Such conditions are suicidal for humanity. It would be good and well if peace and well-being could be secured for mankind. This can never be, however, until the old order of politics, entrenched as it is in financial control of the world and directed solely toward the continuation of such control, has been eradicated, because it constitutes the fundamental cause of world unrest. To do away with this old structure and restore world peace on a new and lasting foundation is the ultimate purpose of the three Power pact.

“Let us now consider the situation in Greater East Asia, whose people comprise more than half of the total world population. The Western plutocracies have forced their influence upon them and have caused them to suffer through the exercise of financial control. Under such conditions there never can be stability in East Asia. Without stability in East Asia, there can be no security for Asia at large and, consequently, the world in general cannot become tranquil . . . Properly speaking, territorial sovereignty should belong to the people who have inhabited the land for a long time. Seeds of trouble are sown when this sovereignty is usurped by outsiders . . . Unless these causes of trouble are removed, the chaotic condition of the world can never be remedied. . . .

“The Greater East Asia sphere of common prosperity, whose establishment we earnestly espouse, means nothing more than the restoration of the lands, peoples and sovereignties inherent to East Asia to their original and therefore natural status . . . Unfortunately, until recently its fulfilment has been prevented by various political, economic and diplomatic factors. But with the world turning toward an epochal change, the long pent-up demand has taken a practical turn. It is the role of the Japanese-German-Italian Treaty to mould and give definite shape to the aspirations of these peoples of East Asia for their satisfaction” (Nobamasu Suyetsugu, “The Three Power Pact,” in Joshua Blakeney, ed., Japan Bites Back: Documents Contextualizing Pearl Harbor, 216-223).

Please note that the Japanese viewed – mostly correctly, I might add – that the West’s economic interventionism in Asia had shackled the native nations. This was particularly true in China where Britain and the United States had launched unnecessary and highly immoral wars to force the Chinese regime to capitulate to their economic demands. Other nations had similarly caved to Western pressure and existed as mere vassal states at the start of the Second World War.

Additionally, Japan blasted the blatant distortions and lies about the purposes of their treaties with Germany. Japan, like Germany, sought to promote regional independence from internationalist forces – bankers, corporations, the Soviets, etc. They wanted Asia for Asians without outside interference, just as Germany wanted Europe for Europeans without foreign interference. Had the West – and the United States in particular – not foisted itself upon Asia and tried to check Japan’s Pan-Asianist efforts, it may have never felt the necessity of joining forces with Germany for survival.

As it turns out, FDR wanted Japan and Germany linked so that by initiating war against Japan, an excuse might be found to join the war against Germany which had scrupulously avoided and tolerated FDR’s provocations in order to avoid such a devastating conflict. This is called the “back door to war” strategy and has been copiously documented, despite Establishment cries of “false!” One of those to document FDR’s brazen path to world war was historian Charles C. Tansill who wrote Back Door to War: The Roosevelt Foreign Policy, 1933-1941. I leave you to do your own research and continue with the Japanese perspective on these tragic events.

In a lengthy article titled “Genesis of the Pacific War,” a Japanese writer confirmed the nature and aim of the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy:

“[B]y the terms of Article III of which the three Powers undertook to “assist one another with all political, economic and military means, if one of the High Contracting Parties should be attacked by a Power not at present involved in the European war or in the Sino-Japanese conflict.” From this stipulation, one can clearly see that the three Powers did not wish to have any third Power intervene either in the European war or in the China affair. The then Foreign Minister Yosuke Matsuoka referring to the Tripartite Axis Pact said that “Japan does not challenge any country.” The Foreign Office spokesman affirmed: “It is a pact to end wars, not to start them.” Regarding the allegation of the United States that the Tripartite Pact was solely directed against it, Yosuke Matsuoka in his statement of October 10, 1940, made clear its implications, so far as Japan was concerned, in the following words:

““Japan wishes earnestly to bring about an all-around peace in China at the earliest possible date. No other people have been more eager than the Japanese to see peace restored between Japan and China. As a matter of fact Japan has been and is actually bending every effort to that end. The conclusion of this pact with Germany and Italy is in a way another attempt to achieve the same end . . . I might add that the Tripartite Pact has not been entered into with the intention of directing it “against” the United States, but it is, I should say, directed, if at all, “for” the United States. To state frankly, the parties to the pact wish earnestly that such a powerful nation as the United States in particular and all other nations at present remaining neutral will not be involved in the European war, or come by any chance into conflict with Japan because of the China affair or otherwise. Such an eventuality, with all the possibility of bringing an awful catastrophe upon humanity, is enough to make one shudder if one stops to imagine the consequences. In short, the pact is a pact of peace.”

“President Roosevelt, however, in his fireside chat on December 29, 1940, assailed the Tripartite Pact in scathing terms. He persisted that “the three totalitarian Powers have, by the pact of September 27, 1940, joined together in the threat that if the United States interfered with or blocked their expansion programme, a programme aimed at world control, they will united in military action against the United States”” (“Genesis of the Pacific War,” in Joshua Blakeney, ed., Japan Bites Back, 310-312).

Truly, the Tripartite Pact would have proved a benefit to the United States had we remained neutral. The Axis powers would have obliterated the Soviet Union, prevented China from turning communist, and secured both Europe and Asia as safe zones outside the control of international bankers and fraudsters. As it turns out, our leaders were part of the internationalist cabal and chose a radically different course. The author listed just a few of FDR’s provocations and efforts to undermine genuine stability and peace in Asia:

“On November 30, 1940, Wang Ching-wei and General Nobuyuki Abe, Japanese special envoy to Nanking, signed a treaty of basic relations between China and Japan. Four documents initialled, giving Japan the right to station troops in North China and Inner Mongolia “for defence against Communist activities” and naval units in China, besides making it obligatory on Japan to co-operate with China in the development of China’s resources, especially minerals “required for national defence.” In a joint declaration issued by Nanking, Tokyo, and Hsinking, Wang Ching-wei recognized the independence of Manchoukuo; Japan agreed to surrender its extra-territorial rights, as well as its concessions in China in consideration of China opening its territory to the domicile and business of Japanese subjects; China undertook to pay compensation for “damages to the rights and interests” of Japanese subjects caused by the hostilities; and Japan undertook to withdraw all its troops from China, except those in North China and Inner Mongolia, within two years from the date when general peace was restored and a state of war had ceased to exist. President Roosevelt, in order to advertize that this Sino-Japanese Basic Treaty could not prove a deterrent to the intervention of the United States in the affairs of East Asia, granted a new loan of $100,000,000 to Chiang Kai-shek. . . .

“The United States Government, in addition to intensifying its assistance to Chiang Kai-shek against Japan and embargoing the export of raw materials to Japan, started the building of a “two-ocean” Navy. . . .

“Evidently President Roosevelt believed that if the supply of oil to Japan were cut off the war was inevitable. And two days afterwards, on July 26, 1941, he issued an order “freezing” all Japanese assets in the United States, thus stopping all trade relations with Japan, including the sale of oil. The Army Department announced on the same day that all troops under the Hawaiian Command had been ordered to be placed “on a training and precautionary alert status” at once. It was also announced that the President had created a new Army Command known as the U.S. Army Forces in the Far East. It would include 75,000 American troops and about 180,000 Filipino armed forces. Obviously President Roosevelt decided in favour of a war with Japan at the time when he issued the freezing order . . . Concurrently with the freezing of Japanese assets in America, the British Empire and the Dutch administration in Batavia took similar actions against Japan in their respective zones. Thus eighty per cent. of the export and import trade of this country was brought to a standstill at a moment’s notice . . . It needs no amplification to assert that this excessive Anglo-American move virtually amounts to the strangulation of the whole Japanese nation” (Blakeney, ed., Japan Bites Back, 312-314, 322-323).

Largely because of these provocations and acts of economic sabotage, Japan lashed out against America, turning FDR’s political-economic war into a shooting war. Pursuant to the Tripartite Pact, Hitler declared war against the United States on December 11. In his remarkable speech, Hitler stated:

“I cannot be insulted by Roosevelt for I consider him mad just as Wilson was. I don’t need to mention what this man has done for years in the same way against Japan. First he incites war then falsifies the causes, then odiously wraps himself in a cloak of Christian hypocrisy and slowly but surely leads mankind to war, not without calling God to witness the honesty of his attack – in the approved manner of an old Freemason. I think you have all found it a relief that now, at last, one State has been the first to take the step of protest against his historically unique and shame less ill-treatment of truth, and of right – which protest this man has desired and about which he cannot complain. The fact that the Japanese Government, which has been negotiating for years with this man, has at last become tired of being mocked by him in such an unworthy way, fills us all, the German people, and think, all other decent people in the world, with deep satisfaction. . . .

“As a consequence of the further extension of President Roosevelt’s policy, which is aimed at unrestricted world domination and dictatorship the U.S.A. together with England have not hesitated from using any means to dispute the rights of the German, Italian and Japanese nations to the basis of their natural existence. The Governments of the U.S.A. and of England have therefore resisted, not only now but also for all time, every just understanding meant to bring about a better New Order in the world. Since the beginning of the war the American President, Roosevelt, has been guilty of a series of the worst crimes against international law; illegal seizure of ships and other property of German and Italian nationals were coupled with the threat to, and looting of, those who were deprived of their liberty by being interned. Roosevelt’s ever increasing attacks finally went so far that he ordered the American Navy to attack everywhere ships under the German and Italian flags, and to sink them – this in gross violation of international law. American ministers boasted of having destroyed German submarines in this criminal way. German and Italian merchantships were attacked by American cruisers, captured and their crews imprisoned. With no attempt at an official denial there has now been revealed in America President Roosevelt’s plan by which, at the latest in 1943, Germany and Italy were to be attacked in Europe by military means. In this way the sincere efforts of Germany and Italy to prevent an extension of the war and to maintain relations with the U.S.A. in spite of the unbearable provocations which have been carried on for years by President Roosevelt, have been frustrated. Germany and Italy have been finally compelled, in view of this, and in loyalty to the Tri-Partite act, to carry on the struggle against the U.S.A. and England jointly and side by side with Japan for the defense and thus for the maintenance of the liberty and independence of their nations and empires.”

To recap, one of the two major reasons why the Japanese felt compelled to strike the United States at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, was to end the U.S. stranglehold on Japan’s economy and resources. FDR deliberately undercut Japan’s resources – most importantly, steel and oil – and cut off Japan from her international monetary assets. These acts of economic warfare compelled Japan to either submit to internationalist political demands, allow their nation to be bankrupted and economically impoverished, or fight for a chance of survival. They chose, as any respectable nation would, to fight rather than slavishly submit to a hostile foreign power.

The Threat of Communism

I’ve covered the communist origins of World War II in my various writings and podcasts for years, such as in chapter eleven of my book A Century of Red, in my article “Victory Day – For Whom?” and in my Liberty Wolf podcast episode titled “Who Really Started World War II?” The Reds and their Western allies on Wall Street, in banking, and in government from London to Washington, prodded and provoked and manipulated events in Europe, Asia, and America until they sparked a global conflagration that furthered their agenda of world revolution. After overthrowing the Russian government, this international cabal used the Soviet Union – and the resources that poured into it from Western sympathizers and co-conspirators in the “capitalist” world – as a base of operations. From this base, they launched coups, wars, and uprisings in Spain, Hungary, Germany, Mexico, China, and beyond. It is the Soviet thrust into China that particularly concerns us today.

In his September 1938 article “Japan’s Continental Policy,” Katsuji Inahara explained that Japan was deeply worried about the encroachments of communism into China and the Asian mainland. It was, he said, their #1 foreign policy concern. Peace and stability on the mainland – especially with China and Russia – was paramount to the Japanese leaders and strategists. He thus reasoned:

“Many factors determine a nation’s foreign policy, of which the most fundamental is probably its geographical position. . . .

“. . . it should be easy to understand from Japan’s proximity to the mainland of Asia why she is so vitally interested in what takes place there. Willingly or not, she is bound to see to it that no strong foreign Power should dominate the mainland in order to ensure her own peace, or even her very existence. Therefore Japan cannot remain indifferent to the conditions prevailing in Russia and China and to the activities of these two countries . . . The governing factor in the relations between Japan and the mainland of Asia has always been the problem of security, and must always be so. . . .

“It was for no other reason than to ensure her national safety that Japan fought China in 1894-5 and Russia in 1904-5. Indeed, it is impossible to find any outstanding event in Japan’s foreign policy that has not been affected by this fundamental attitude of hers towards the mainland. Far back under the Czars the ideal of Russia’s empire builders was the control of Eastern Asia; and although no newly instituted form of government ever went to such lengths in the overthrowing of the established order as the Soviet regime, the present government of Russia has not abandoned for one moment its interest in the Far East, despite declarations to the contrary made in the early stages of its accession to power. True, with replacement of Czarist diplomats by Soviet commissars, the methods may have changed, but the aim and substance of Russian diplomacy still remain the same. Not only that, but it would seem that Russian ideals have gathered a much greater momentum than under the Czars, so that the present dream of the Soviet in East Asia appears to be much more ambitious than that of Czarist Russia. For it is that of a Communist China, with its huge population of 400,000,000, accepting the direction of Moscow in carrying out its policies in the Far east.

“In the final analysis the present Sino-Japanese conflict springs from the twin root of Chinese Nationalism and Russian Communism. In the early stages of the Soviet rule, Moscow adopted what is known as the “Asia detour” policy, the purpose of which was to strike at Western Imperialism out in Asia. The first object of the Red machinations was Great Britain, as witness the virulent anti-British campaign in China in 1925-27. The extent to which Moscow was behind the Kuomintang in its anti-British agitation is shown by the fact that the party’s slogan was the denunciation of the exploitation of China by Western capitalism raised to a higher and more violent form than had ever been known before. It was by Moscow’s aid that Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalist army were able, in 1926, to advance as far as the Yangtze Valley . . . The retreat of the British brought particular joy to the Chinese, for it was certainly an epoch-making event in the annals of China’s foreign relations, and so quite easily they succumbed to the dangerous illusion that, since such a powerful country as Great Britain had submitted to their threats of coercion, they could easily extort what they wanted from less powerful countries by similar methods.

“And so Japan became the next object of attack. . . .

“It is true that there was a rift in the Soviet-Nationalist combination in April, 1928, when Chiang Kai-shek staged a coup against the Left wing of the Kuomintang, the effect of which was to send Borodin and this comrades scurrying back to Moscow. Nevertheless, the Soviet ferment had already had enough time to permeate no small section of the Chinese people, so much indeed that it had taken practical shape in the formation of Chinese Communist armies. These Red forces Chiang Kai-shek had to tackle, but only with little success. For the Communist armies, under native leaders but assisted by Russian advisers, moved northward and established contact with the Soviet forces in Outer Mongolia, which, in fact, if not in name, is Soviet territory.

“Despite the temporary setback following on Chiang’s coup, Moscow, never wavered in its faith in Communist China. It knew how to bide its time, until the coveted opportunity arrived at last in December, 1936, in the shape of the Sian episode . . . as a result of the episode, the Soviet-Nationalist entente was reestablished. The common front on which this reunion was achieved was expressed by the slogan “Fight Japan!” . . . Prior to the Russo-Japanese war Russia had been able to hoodwink the world by means of a secret treaty of alliance signed with China on the strength of which she flooded Manchuria with Russian troops. Now the same thing had come to pass again, though on a much larger scale . . . Moreover, just as her apprehensions regarding Czarist Russia drove Japan to enter into an alliance with Great Britain in 1902, so the danger of Soviet aggression drove her to see an anti-Comintern pact with Germany in November, 1937.

“The present Sino-Japanese conflict started on July 7, 1937, when Chinese forces, at Marco Polo Bridge near Peking, made an attack on the Japanese troops stationed there in accordance with the Boxer protocol. . . .

“The war aim of Japan in the current conflict is the establishment of peace on the mainland and security in East Asia. . . .

“The peace and safety – security in one word – of a nation signifies something more than the mere preservation of its homeland or even of its territories beyond the seas from external attack. This is only the beginning of security. Real security must also include the maintenance of its economic interests so that it may be able to feed its people. . . .

“Geographical and political necessity as well as historical association impels Japan to take due note of whatever happens on the continent of Asia. She has always to be on the watch against anything inimical to her existence that might arise there. Thus, in the final analysis, she has either to help shape events on the mainland or else herself become the passive victim of those events. . . .

“When the Japanese talk of national safety in relation to the continent of Asia, they more usually have Russia in mind than China as a possible menace. “While the Communist creed and Communist propaganda,” observes a writer, “served to imbue Japan with deep distrust of Soviet Russia, it was not until 1929 that Russia once more loomed up as a serious military menace and to arouse Japanese anxiety on the score of national defence.” When Manchoukuo came into existence, the Japanese people thought that an effective dam against Russian inroads into this part of Asia had been set up. In thinking so, however, they were mistaken, for the march of events was such that the tableland of Mongolia, theoretically Chinese territory, was turned into a Russian province by means of Red activities. . . .

“. . . to all intents and purposes, Outer Mongolia is now Soviet territory, if not in name. And since a Power that controls Sinkiang and Mongolia also controls China, the Soviet domination of Mongolia constitutes a serious menace to the security of the Japanese position not only in Manchuria, but in Eastern Asia in general. Russia who was obliged to retreat beyond the Amur in Manchuria is now again casting a covetous eye upon it and Japan’s position there from across the Mongolian deserts. . . .

“What would happen if the stabilizing influence of Japan were to be withdrawn from Eastern Asia? In that event, Russia would be left the sole dominant Power in this part of the world. There would be nothing to check the Sovietization of China and finally of the whole of Asia, supposing that Russia does not forego her present policy of Red penetration. It would be difficult to see what benefit Britain or any other capitalist country would derive, if such a thing should come to pass. Japan, brought to her knees, would no longer be in a position to exert her influence as the one Power ready to check the extension of the Soviet system to East Asia. The present conflict in China is not solely between Japan and that country. It is in many respects a conflict between Capitalism and Communism. Could it be seriously maintained that the cause of real democracy is advanced by aiding and abetting Communism? Again, it should be borne in mind that any war between major capitalist Powers would only serve to benefit Communist Russia. . . .

“Germany and Japan have long been recognized as bulwarks against the advance of Communism in Europe and Asia. The pact signed between the two Powers in November, 1937, is directed against the machinations of the Comintern. . . .

“The issue of maintaining peace and prosperity in Eastern Asia is a vital one for this country, since its security largely and directly depends upon it. It is necessary, therefore, that Japan should fight for it when such becomes unavoidable” (Katsuji Inahara, “Japan’s Continental Policy,” in Blakeney, ed., Japan Bite Back, 85-92, 95, 162-164, 174-177).

What has been called the “revenge of geography” is a pressing reality for Japan. If you glance at a map, you find that the Korean Peninsula sticks out from the Asian mainland like an arm reaching towards Japan. In fact, the distance between Korean and Japanese territory is only about 31 miles at the narrowest point of the Korean Strait. The distance between Russia’s and Japan’s closest disputed islands today is so meager that you can stand on Japanese soil and view the Russian-held islands across the water. And, depending on which disputed point you judge by, Japan is a mere 400 miles from Chinese-claimed territory. In the 1930s and 40s, the distances were indeed longer, but still sufficiently close for Japan to keep their eyes riveted on the continent.

Think about it in context. If the Soviet Union and hostile China sat mere miles from the American mainland, would we go about our merry lives ignoring the threat, or would we be hypervigilant? Perhaps modern Americans would ignore the threat, as they’ve done with Cuba, but rational people would not – especially when their families and civilization are targeted for destruction. Rather, they would move to secure their borders, project strength outward, and reach out to stabilize their surroundings when necessary.

As pointed out earlier by one of the Japanese writers cited, the Japanese viewed their role in East Asia in a similar manner as Americans have traditionally viewed the Americas. Just as we issued the Monroe Doctrine for the legitimate protection of our own interests and to make this hemisphere one of Freedom and peace, so, too, did Japan declare a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere and seek to thwart the advance of communism, liberate Asian nations from Western domination, and stabilize the region in order to protect the interests of all involved.

Japan has always been embroiled in controversy in Asia because of its proximity to the mainland. However, the rise of communism endowed the conflict with a greater sense of urgency and danger. Communism is the most murderous and treacherous system in world history. Nothing has ever equaled it in brutality and destructiveness. More people have been raped, pillaged, enslaved, dehumanized, and slaughtered by the Reds than by any other group or combination of groups in all of human history. Thus, when Japan saw communist banners being raised practically along its borders, it had to act decisively.

The Bolsheviks were smart and went after China first, knowing that the successful conquest of that great people would be sufficient to turn the rest of Asia Red. China had been beaten down, humiliated, and impoverished by the West. The Bolsheviks therefore agitated and stirred up hatred for the West among the Chinese populace. They promised the peasants a paradise if they would support the revolution. Ironically, it was only with the help of the hated West that China ultimately went communist, as I outlined in my article “The Great Betrayal – How China Turned Red.”

Before China descended into the hell of Maoist Marxism, however, Japan recognized the danger and attempted to thwart the plot. As Japan moved into China to safeguard the region against the communists, the international press – controlled by socialists and communists – excoriated Japan and claimed they were acting in unwarranted aggression. They also fabricated “atrocities,” just like they did against Germany. As always, communists flip the narrative and project their own guilt on their enemies and opponents.

The Soviets waged a war of subversion, deception, and insurrection in China for decades before it finally succumbed, with crucial U.S. intervention and support, in 1949. During the struggle, communists controlled large swaths of China. One Japanese writer, writing in 1937, noted the massive communist infiltration into the Chinese government:

“Who governs China today? This may seem a strange question, but, none the less, it is an important one, since the answer to it will explain, as nothing else will, the genesis and true meaning of the present conflict. The answer that most people would make to the question is that General Chiang Kai-shek governs China, for to all appearances he reigns supreme at Nanking. But, as is so often the case, appearances are deceptive. As a matter of fact, it is not he, but the extremist elements of the Kuomintang Party allied to the Communists that actually hold the reins of power both at Nanking and all over the country.

“To give a brief historical summary, it was some twenty-five years ago that Sun Yat-sen administered the final push to the tottering structure of the Chinese Empire. Thus the National Party entered into power, but it experienced grave difficulties in coping with powerful warlords. In its emergency, the Kremlin came to its assistance. This was in 1927.

“Evidently Russia saw here a supreme opportunity of bolshevizing China, or, at the least, of throwing out of gear the international machinery working there. . . .

“With the aid of Russian men and money the National Party was able to overcome its opponents, but when Chiang Kai-shek felt that he and his party were well entrenched in power he broke away from his Communist associates, including Borodin and Galen (Bluecher), who had been serving him as supreme political and military adviser respectively. Thus, for the time being the bond between Nanking and Moscow was severed.

“It was very soon destined to be renewed, however. The Seventh World Congress of the Comintern held at Moscow in 1935 decided upon a reorganization of its methods. Propaganda in favor of direct revolution was abandoned and in its place the more indirect method of rallying the radicals and socialists in various countries into a People’s Front, which would seize control of their respective governments and thus eventually consummate the revolution. Moreover, Poland and Japan were singled out as the two countries against which special efforts should be made. The Chinese Communists carried out thoroughly the instructions received, and began to win the people of China to their side by means of the slogan, “Fight Japan!” . . . .

“Since the mainspring of this combination is complete anti-Japanism, it is not difficult to realize how it is that the little incident in Lukouchiao has been so quickly magnified into the conflict of the present scale” (“The Sino-Japanese Conflict: A Short Survey,” in Joshua Blakeney, ed., Japan Bites Back, 43-45).

Almost inevitably when you research deeply into modern conflicts, you find communists lurking somewhere near. Their Red fingers have been in everything from world wars to national uprisings to local strikes to assassinations to drug pushing. Their subversive movement is of course aimed at all nations. However, in the 20th Century, three nations gave them a particular headache and nearly derailed their conspiracy altogether. I speak of Germany, Japan, and Italy.

Isn’t it curious that these three nations – the three which openly entered into an anti-communist pact and swore to fight the spread of communism – are the three which are most heatedly attacked, smeared, and held up as the epitome of evil in the controlled press, Hollywood, and centers of indoctrination we call schools and universities? On November 25, 1936, Germany and Japan, followed later by Italy, concluded the Anti-Comintern Pact. The Comintern was the international wing of the communist conspiracy. On orders from Moscow, it directed the revolutionary activities in individual countries throughout the world using homegrown communists advised and aided by Soviets.

Understanding this subversive machinery and the dire threat it posed, Germany and Japan signed the Anti-Comintern Pact which read in part:

“The Imperial Government of Japan and the Government of Germany,

“In cognizance of the fact that the object of the Communistic International (the so-called Komintern) is the disintegration of, and the commission of violence against, existing States by the exercise of all means at its command,

“Believing that the toleration of interference by the Communistic International in the internal affairs of nations not only endangers their internal peace and social welfare, but threatens the general peace of the world,

“Desiring to co-operate for defense against communistic disintegration, have agreed as follows.”

Among the things Germany and Japan agreed to were to “keep each other informed” of the Comintern’s activities, carry out defensive measures “in close co-operation,” and to “jointly” help other states “whose internal peace is menaced by the disintegrating work of the Communistic International.” It boggles the mind why a nation like the United States would not approve of such a treaty and give their blessing to Germany, Japan, and, later, Italy. Is it not in our best interest for the communist conspiracy to forever go out of existence? Do we not claim to be the chief rivals of the communists?

Sadly, in the run-up to World War II, a Marxist named Franklin Delano Roosevelt ruled in the White House instead of a true patriot who actually gave a damn about his country. FDR – Wall Street’s man – loved mass-murderer Joseph Stalin, affectionately calling him “Uncle Joe.” FDR’s administration made the United States the first major nation to recognize the barbaric Soviet regime of robbers and revolutionaries as a “legitimate” government, thus giving a massive boost to the Soviet economy and prestige. FDR surrounded himself by known Soviet moles, such as his closest adviser Harry Hopkins, Alger Hiss, and Harry Dexter White who helped trigger Pearl Harbor, as well as rabid Zionist agitators like Henry Morgenthau, Jr. and Bernard Baruch. FDR was the biggest traitor to ever sit in the White House and the world suffered greatly because of his influence.

Adolf Hitler was likely the most virulently anti-communist head of state in history. His National Socialist movement won favor with the German people precisely because of their anti-communist platform. Hitler banished communists, Freemasons, international bankers, occultists, and other such criminals from his country when he came to power in 1933. After six years of constant anti-Germany agitation, internationalist forces – led by Zionists and Soviet communists in Britain, France, Russia, Poland, and, yes, the United States – again plunged Germany into a war that she did not wish to fight.

As Germany defended herself against the Western powers, the Soviet Union gleefully prepared an invasion of its own, scheduled for 1941. Stalin planned to crush Germany and become sole hegemon of the continent. Knowing of the scheme, Hitler preempted him by launching Operation Barbarossa. Stalin knew that Hitler would attack when threatened, but he believed he would be the first on the trigger. Fortunately for the world, Hitler struck first – catching the Soviet Union off guard and routing them all the way back to the suburbs of Moscow.

Why am I talking about the German-Soviet war in an article about Pearl Harbor? Simple: FDR pushed his provocations against Japan into overdrive after Germany struck the USSR. FDR wanted to spark a war with Japan to have an excuse to fight Japan’s ally, Germany, and save his beloved Soviet comrades from the jaws of defeat. You will recall that it was in the summer of 1941, just after the Germans hit the Soviets and were well on their way to victory, that FDR froze Japan’s economic assets, bankrupted their nation, and made war inevitable.

Soviet spies and agitators in America, including in FDR’s administration, harangued the president to quickly get in the war and save America’s Soviet “ally.” Incomprehensibly, FDR sent billions of dollars worth of equipment to Soviet Russia via the Lend-Lease program. When I lived in Russia, I personally spoke with a Red Army tanker who fought in the war who shared his conviction that without American tanks and materiel, the USSR would have crumbled. I believe he is right. To our eternal shame, the United States saved the Soviet Union – we saved Joseph Stalin and his murderous gangsters from justice!

In order to save the communist mass murderers, FDR sacrificed over two-thousand American lives at Pearl Harbor. He waged economic warfare against Japan and backed communist operations in Asia until Japan, feeling the hurt of bankruptcy and the looming threat of communism on their frontier, felt it had no other option but to retaliate with force. This is the real story of why the Japanese struck Pearl Harbor that fateful day 79 years ago.

I believe the evidence forces us to acknowledge the truthfulness of Emperor Hirohito’s December 8, 1941 declaration of war. He affirmed:

“To insure the solidity of these ages and contribute to world peace is the far-sighted policy which was formulated by our great, illustrious, imperial grandsire and our great imperial sire’s experience, and which we lay constantly to heart; to cultivate friendship among nations and to enjoy prosperity in common with all nations – has always been the guiding principle of our empire’s foreign policy.

“It has been unavoidable and far from our wishes that our empire has been brought to cross swords with America and Britain.

“More than four years have passed since China, failing to comprehend the true intentions of our empire, and recklessly causing trouble, disturbed the peace of East Asia and compelled our empire to take up arms.

“Although there has been re-established the National government of China, with which Japan has effected neighborly intercourse and co-operation, the regime which has survived at Chungking, relying upon American and British protection still continues its opposition.

“Eager for the realization of their inordinate ambitions to dominate the Orient, both America and Britain, supporting the Chungking regime, have aggravated disturbances in East Asia. Moreover, these two powers, inducing other countries to follow suit, increased military preparations on all sides of our empire to challenge us. They have obstructed by every means our peaceful commerce and finally resorted to direct severance of economic relations, menacing gravely the existence of our empire.

“Patiently have we waited and long have we endured in the hope that our government might retrieve the situation in peace.

“But our adversaries, showing not the least spirit of conciliation, have unduly delayed a settlement, and in the meantime they have intensified the economic and political pressure to compel thereby our empire to submission.

“This turn of affairs would, if left unchecked, not only nullify our empire’s efforts of many years for the sake of the stabilization of East Asia, but also endanger the very existence of our nation.

“The situation being such as it is our empire, for its existence and self-defense, has no other recourse but to appeal to arms and to crush every obstacle in its path.”

While I’m truly saddened at the loss of so many fine American men at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and honor them for their willingness to sacrifice for their country, I cannot condemn and blame Japan – a nation which we had harassed and waged economic war against for years. Those men did not need to die at Pearl Harbor. FDR sacrificed them on the altar of the global communist conspiracy. All of the pain and loss and tragedy must be laid at FDR’s feet and at the feet of those in America who voted for FDR and turned a blind eye to his treasonous treachery.

Remember Pearl Harbor and honor the men we lost. But also remember who was responsible. Remember that FDR and his fellow communists at home and abroad coordinated their plans to pressure Japan into attacking us so that we could fight Germany and save the Soviet butchers from defeat. The court historians have tried to conceal this damning information for eight decades, but now you know the truth. Make it count.

Zack Strong,

December 7, 2020

They Did Set At Defiance the Law

We are now six days into the general election of 2020 and one thing is undeniably clear: A concerted effort is underway to steal the election and set at defiance the law of the land and the will of the American People. On November 3, President Trump was easily winning reelection – and then, right on schedule, massive manipulation, ballot-stuffing, and outright fraud kicked it, swinging the election barely in favor of doddering Joe Biden.

Though the Lügenpresse has called the election for Biden and is ludicrously calling him “president-elect,” it’s not a done deal. Several states have not even finished counting their ballots yet (for instance, thousands of military ballots), others have announced recounts, and numerous lawsuits are in the works. If the legal challenges, vote audits, and recounts are even halfway honest, President Trump will be reelected as per the will of the American People, which I assume the Electoral College will then ratify. The Electoral College may overturn the fraudulent popular vote anyway.

This article will cover the eerie parallels between the election theft we’re witnessing firsthand, the rampant division that exists in our society, and the forces behind it, and scriptural examples of the very same things. My regular readers are aware that I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Much of what I write draws from the unique insights in our teachings. I’ve written a number of articles, here, here, here, here, and here, on our beliefs, history, and doctrine for anyone genuinely interested in learning them from non-hostile sources.

In one of our sacred, revealed texts, The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, which is a companion scripture to the Holy Bible, we learn about God’s dealings with the ancient Israelite inhabitants of the Americas – the predecessors of many of our Indian tribes. Along with Gospel doctrine, we learn of these peoples’ societal system, their political intrigues, and the existence of a Satanic secret society that eventually toppled their nation.

One of the most fascinating themes covered in this holy book is the political divisions that cropped up. These fissures often manifested themselves in turbulent elections that boiled over into civil wars and violent uprisings. These clashes were often fomented by a furtive criminal cabal. Because of the stark parallels to what we are witnessing right now in America, I turn to The Book of Mormon for wisdom and insight.

I highlight five passages from the scriptural record of the Nephite people. I will cite each passage and then discuss them collectively at the end. The first passage tells of an election in 87 B.C. The Nephite people had previously been subject to kings. The final king, named Mosiah, abolished the rule of kings and instituted a system of self-rule and rule of law. The law was administered by judges elected by the people. After a mere five years of self-government, a certain faction wished to resurrect the monarchy. A special election was held. The following passage explains the incident:

“Now this Amlici had, by his cunning, drawn away much people after him; even so much that they began to be very powerful; and they began to endeavor to establish Amlici to be a king over the people.

“Now this was alarming to the people of the church, and also to all those who had not been drawn away after the persuasions of Amlici; for they knew that according to their law that such things must be established by the voice of the people.

“Therefore, if it were possible that Amlici should gain the voice of the people, he, being a wicked man, would deprive them of their rights and privileges of the church; for it was his intent to destroy the church of God.

“And it came to pass that the people assembled themselves together throughout all the land, every man according to his mind, whether it were for or against Amlici, in separate bodies, having much dispute and wonderful contentions one with another.

“And thus they did assemble themselves together to cast in their voices concerning the matter; and they were laid before the judges.

“And it came to pass that the voice of the people came against Amlici, that he was not made king over the people.

“Now this did cause much joy in the hearts of those who were against him; but Amlici did stir up those who were in his favor to anger against those who were not in his favor.

“And it came to pass that they gathered themselves together, and did consecrate Amlici to be their king.

“Now when Amlici was made king over them he commanded them that they should take up arms against their brethren; and this he did that he might subject them to him” (Alma 2:2-10).

A brief civil war ensued in which Amlici’s followers invited the Nephites’ arch enemies, a people known as the Lamanites, into their land to help them suppress those who opposed monarchy. The Nephite freemen prevailed, however, and preserved their system of self-rule.

Our second story occurred around 73 B.C. during the run up to a major war. There existed a criminal genius named Amalickiah who plotted to establish himself as king over the entire land – king of both the Nephites and Lamanites. When his attempts to enthrone himself over the Nephites was thwarted by a patriotic military chieftain named Moroni, he fled with a core group of supporters to the Lamanites. By flattering the king, Amalickiah was granted command of the Lamanite army. The Lamanite king issued a proclamation that his people should mobilize under Amalickiah’s command and invade the Nephites. Remembering past defeats, half of the army quit and retreated to a secure location, refusing to fight for the king.

The king charged Amalackiah with bringing the dissenters to heel. Through a cunning plan, Amalickiah turned over command of his loyalist army to the half that had dissented, thus pacifying them. In exchange for stepping down as chief commander of the military, all he desired was the number two post. Not coincidentally, the number two man automatically became the chief commander if the commander happened to die. Amalickiah thus had his servants secretly, and “by degrees,” administer poison to the commander (Alma 47:18). When he died, Amalickiah became the chief military leader of the newly unified army.

Amalickiah then turned his diabolical servants on the Lamanite king. They murdered the king as the army approached the capital city, stabbing him to death. When Amalickiah’s forces came upon the scene, “Amalickiah pretended to be wroth, and said: Whosoever loved the king, let him go forth, and pursue his servants that they may be slain” (Alma 47:27). He blamed the assassination on the king’s guards who had fled the scene after the assassination. When the guards saw the enraged army approaching, they fled to the Nephites for protection.

With his military, Amalickiah took control of the capital city and palace. After convincing the widowed queen that the king’s own guards had carried out the murder, which he did by producing the same servants who murdered him as witnesses that the guards supposedly murdered their king, Amalickiah married the queen and became king, thus completing the cunning coup.

Immediately, Amalickiah put together a propaganda network to induce Lamanites with feelings of hatred against the Nephites. The scripture notes:

“And now it came to pass that, as soon as Amalickiah had obtained the kingdom he began to inspire the hearts of the Lamanites against the people of Nephi; yea, he did appoint men to speak unto the Lamanites from their towers, against the Nephites.

“And thus he did inspire their hearts against the Nephites, insomuch that in the latter end of the nineteenth year of the reign of the judges, he having accomplished his designs thus far, yea, having been made king over the Lamanites, he sought also to reign over all the land, yea, and all the people who were in the land, the Nephites as well as the Lamanites.

“Therefore he had accomplished his design, for he had hardened the hearts of the Lamanites and blinded their minds, and stirred them up to anger, insomuch that he had gathered together a numerous host to go to battle against the Nephites.

“For he was determined, because of the greatness of the number of his people, to overpower the Nephites and to bring them into bondage” (Alma 48:1-4).

Having rule of the army and the Lamanite kingdom, King Amalickiah waged a bloody war against the Nephites that lasted for years before Amalickiah was killed and the Lamanite forces were driven back by Captain Moroni.

The third scriptural excerpt discusses another election, this time around 52 B.C. Under the Nephite system, the leader was known as the “chief judge.” This was a rough equivalent to our president. The chief judge was voted upon in a general election, with the son of the late chief judge often assuming the post. In our present case, three sons of the late chief judge vied for the judgeship. Here is an account of what happened:

“[Pahoran, Paanchi, and Pacumeni] did cause three divisions among the people.

“Nevertheless, it came to pass that Pahoran was appointed by the voice of the people to be chief judge and a governor over the people of Nephi.

“And it came to pass that Pacumeni, when he saw that he could not obtain the judgment-seat, he did unite with the voice of the people.

“But behold, Paanchi, and that part of the people that were desirous that he should be their governor, was exceedingly wroth; therefore, he was about to flatter away those people to rise up in rebellion against their brethren.

“And it came to pass as he was about to do this, behold, he was taken, and was tried according to the voice of the people, and condemned unto death; for he had raised up in rebellion and sought to destroy the liberty of the people.

“Now when those people who were desirous that he should be their governor saw that he was condemned unto death, therefore they were angry, and behold, they sent forth one Kishkumen, even to the judgment-seat of Pahoran, and murdered Pahoran as he sat upon the judgment-seat.

“And he was pursued by the servants of Pahoran; but behold, so speedy was the flight of Kishkumen that no man could overtake him.

“And he went unto those that sent him, and they all entered into a covenant, yea, swearing by their everlasting Maker, that they would tell no man that Kishkumen had murdered Pahoran” (Helaman 1:4-11).

Kishkumen and his co-conspirators created an oath-bound secret society later called the Gadianton Robbers. The inspired text says this clique of criminals existed “to murder, and to rob, and to gain power” (Helaman 2:8). Their goal was to usurp power in the government by fraud. From their positions in the government, they could then plunder society and live parasitically off the labor of the people like communists in every age. The Gadiantons, as we will talk about more later, were a murder cult that threatened the very fabric of Nephite society and, in the end, were responsible for their entire overthrow as a civilization.

The fourth passage speaks of a time around 30 A.D. when the cultural and religious divide had become so great in Nephite society that a group of very vicious people had managed to get themselves elected to sensitive positions in the government – especially to judgeships. They had perverted many of the laws, were intent on destroying the free system of self-rule, and were actively undermining the moral foundation of the society. These conniving conspirators were denounced by Christian prophets. As a result, some of the prophets were taken, secretly tried, and put to death illegally without the consent of the chief judge of the land. The relevant passage in this case informs us:

“Now there were many of those who testified of the things pertaining to Christ who testified boldly, who were taken and put to death secretly by the judges, that the knowledge of their death came not unto the governor of the land until after their death.

“Now behold, this was contrary to the laws of the land, that any man should be put to death except they had power from the governor of the land—

“Therefore a complaint came up unto the land of Zarahemla, to the governor of the land, against these judges who had condemned the prophets of the Lord unto death, not according to the law.

“Now it came to pass that they were taken and brought up before the judge, to be judged of the crime which they had done, according to the law which had been given by the people.

“Now it came to pass that those judges had many friends and kindreds; and the remainder, yea, even almost all the lawyers and the high priests, did gather themselves together, and unite with the kindreds of those judges who were to be tried according to the law.

“And they did enter into a covenant one with another, yea, even into that covenant which was given by them of old, which covenant was given and administered by the devil, to combine against all righteousness.

“Therefore they did combine against the people of the Lord, and enter into a covenant to destroy them, and to deliver those who were guilty of murder from the grasp of justice, which was about to be administered according to the law.

“And they did set at defiance the law and the rights of their country; and they did covenant one with another to destroy the governor, and to establish a king over the land, that the land should no more be at liberty but should be subject unto kings” (3 Nephi 6:23-30).

These murderous conspirators carried out their plan with relative success. They murdered the chief judge, freed their imprisoned cohorts, and established a king. However, they were not powerful enough for their monarchy to control the entire civilization. Nephite society broke down into tribes, each establishing their own laws as they saw fit. The scripture notes that though these peoples were divided on most points and had separated into tribes, “they were united in the hatred of those who had entered into a covenant to destroy the government” (3 Nephi 7:11). Yet, the conspirators retained their own despotic kingdom and the society remained divided until later events, which we will not discuss here, led to the overthrow of the conspiratorial sect and eventually brought the Nephites together again.

Finally, in the fifth history, we learn about the secret society, known as the Gadianton Robbers, that infested and ultimately overthrew the Nephite nation. This excerpt explains the groups origin and purpose:

“And it came to pass that in the sixty and sixth year of the reign of the judges, behold, Cezoram was murdered by an unknown hand as he sat upon the judgment-seat. And it came to pass that in the same year, that his son, who had been appointed by the people in his stead, was also murdered. And thus ended the sixty and sixth year.

“And in the commencement of the sixty and seventh year the people began to grow exceedingly wicked again.

“For behold, the Lord had blessed them so long with the riches of the world that they had not been stirred up to anger, to wars, nor to bloodshed; therefore they began to set their hearts upon their riches; yea, they began to seek to get gain that they might be lifted up one above another; therefore they began to commit secret murders, and to rob and to plunder, that they might get gain.

“And now behold, those murderers and plunderers were a band who had been formed by Kishkumen and Gadianton. And now it had come to pass that there were many, even among the Nephites, of Gadianton’s band. But behold, they were more numerous among the more wicked part of the Lamanites. And they were called Gadianton’s robbers and murderers.

“And it was they who did murder the chief judge Cezoram, and his son, while in the judgment-seat; and behold, they were not found.

“And now it came to pass that when the Lamanites found that there were robbers among them they were exceedingly sorrowful; and they did use every means in their power to destroy them off the face of the earth.

“But behold, Satan did stir up the hearts of the more part of the Nephites, insomuch that they did unite with those bands of robbers, and did enter into their covenants and their oaths, that they would protect and preserve one another in whatsoever difficult circumstances they should be placed, that they should not suffer for their murders, and their plunderings, and their stealings.

“And it came to pass that they did have their signs, yea, their secret signs, and their secret words; and this that they might distinguish a brother who had entered into the covenant, that whatsoever wickedness his brother should do he should not be injured by his brother, nor by those who did belong to his band, who had taken this covenant.

“And thus they might murder, and plunder, and steal, and commit whoredoms and all manner of wickedness, contrary to the laws of their country and also the laws of their God.

“And whosoever of those who belonged to their band should reveal unto the world of their wickedness and their abominations, should be tried, not according to the laws of their country, but according to the laws of their wickedness, which had been given by Gadianton and Kishkumen. . . .

“. . . behold [the secret oaths and covenants] were put into the heart of Gadianton by that same being who did entice our first parents to partake of the forbidden fruit—

“Yea, that same being who did plot with Cain, that if he would murder his brother Abel it should not be known unto the world. And he did plot with Cain and his followers from that time forth. . . .

“Yea, it is that same being who put it into the heart of Gadianton to still carry on the work of darkness, and of secret murder; and he has brought it forth from the beginning of man even down to this time.

“And behold, it is he who is the author of all sin. And behold, he doth carry on his works of darkness and secret murder, and doth hand down their plots, and their oaths, and their covenants, and their plans of awful wickedness, from generation to generation according as he can get hold upon the hearts of the children of men” (Helaman 6:15-24, 26-27, 29-30).

Combined with the earlier passage cited, we can define the Gadianton cabal as a murder cult. It was an oath-bound Satanic society whose purpose was to plunder, allow its members to escape the jaws of justice for their wickedness and crimes, and, ultimately, to come to total power of society by infiltrating and capturing the reins of government. Satan was the founder of this violent clique. He handed down secret oaths and covenants, along with key words and signs to distinguish members, similar to those found in Freemasonry. The Gadiantons outwardly posed as normal members of society, but moved about in the shadows perpetrating fraud, whoredoms, blasphemy, plunder, and murder. Gadiantonism turned out to be a terminal cancer in Nephite society, as is any similar conspiracy in any society.

Let’s now compare these stunning historical parallels to what we’re witnessing in America in 2020. If you’ve been carefully paying attention to the news, little commentary is needed on my part for you to see the intersections. We’ll move one through five and make brief connections.

1. In the case of Amlici and his ballot petition to change the form of the Nephite government, we can see shades of the choice Americans faced in the November election. The choice Americans faced was not really between two people or parties, but between two philosophies: Americanism and communism. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris represented socialism on the ballot. In fact, Biden was often depicted in political cartoons as a Trojan Horse for the Marxists (i.e. Gadiantons) in our midst. With Biden, you don’t only get a career criminal with dementia, but a gaggle of raving radicals such as homosexual Pete Buttigieg and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Representing the Americanist ideology on the ballot, despite his multitude of flaws, was President Donald Trump. If it turns out, as I suspect it will, that President Trump will win his legal challenges and be sworn in for four more years, what will Biden and his gang of criminals do? Will they, like Amlici, break off from the rest of society and declare their man the true leader? Will Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and other communist insurrectionists force a civil war because the will of the People thwarts their quest for power? Time will tell. The parallel between Amlici’s story and the ongoing debacle are too powerful to ignore.

2. In the story of Amalickiah’s intrigues on his path to power, we have hints of what could happen to Joe Biden if the corrupt courts certify his election theft and he becomes president. In this analogy, Kamala Harris is a less intelligent version of Amalickiah. Might she or her backers, “by degrees,” do away with Biden and become president herself? As in Amalickiah’s case, our second-in-command automatically becomes president if something happens to the president. Bumbling Biden’s mental and physical health is so appalling that he could drop dead at any moment. Or the powers-that-be could off him at any moment to pave the way for Harris, a rabid demagogue with the most liberal voting record in the Senate. One thing is certain, whether from natural causes of by being secretly assassinated by insiders, Joe Biden would not survive a full term. Likely, he would not even survive 2021 – if he even makes it that far.

Also, recall that Amalickiah put his propagandists on the towers to brainwash and deceive his people. The controlled media today is engaged in a massive psy-op to confuse and deceive the American People. They are trying to convince us that Joe Biden won the election, that all the voter fraud we see is a “conspiracy theory,” that the good guys are really the enemy, and so forth. As in yesteryear, so today, the real enemy always employs the power of the press to rape the minds of those they wish to oppress. The rape of the American mind has been ongoing for decades, but 2020 has taken it to an unprecedented level, first with the Coronahoax hysteria and now with the election theft cover-up.

3. The story of Pahoran’s election in which his brother Paanchi disputed the results and attempted to revolt depicts a situation that is increasingly likely in our day. In the past, when one side lost an election, they conceded and went away in peace. Today, both sides are becoming increasingly Paanchi-like in their desire to contest elections, litigate, and hold grudges. For instance, Hillary Clinton’s camp complained, erroneously, for nearly four years that the election was stolen from them and even urged Biden to never concede the election to Donald Trump under any circumstances. It’s easy for me to imagine a situation in which one side refuses to concede an election, thus undermining the Union. It’s happened before and it can most certainly happen again.

Likewise, recall that when Paanchi’s unhinged followers learned that Paanchi had been arrested for his attempt to split the society, they sent an assassin to murder the newly elected chief judge. When others were predicting that President Trump could be assassinated, I predicted rather that the Elite would use all their powers of mind manipulation, lawsuits, and election shenanigans to oust him and only resort to assassination or war in the event that Donald Trump was reelected. Today, President Trump’s reelection bid is very much in play, despite what the controlled press claims. If the courts at last give President Trump the victory the People have tried to give him, which I predict they will, then the chances for another Kishkumen to be sent to cut short his time in office will be very likely.

4. In the story of the cabal of judges, elites, and high priests who conspired to kill the chief judge and establish a monarchy, there are also shades of today’s situation. In the face of obvious voter fraud, corrupt judges are attempting to stop the lawsuits challenging the fraud. The Elite and their media are mobilizing their forces to preemptively declare Joe Biden the winner and to discredit President Trump’s legitimate claims of fraud and cheating. They are attempting to set at defiance the law of the land – U.S. Constitution – and crush the rights of our People.

If, however, this cabal does not succeed and is exposed, as happened around 30 A.D., they will retaliate with violence before allowing their schemes to fall flat. Tyrants don’t give away their power; and Liberty is never won except at the price of blood. Expect the enemy to unleash their Marxist hordes to Burn, Loot, and Murder and create a chaotic situation that can be manipulated in order to bring themselves to full power. Even if the courts hand Biden the election, you should still expect the communists to launch campaigns of violence that will shatter our Republic – including a coming world war with Russia and China they have meticulously planned to initiate for decades.

5. Finally, in the information given about the ancient band of Gadianton conspirators, we see the exact parallel to the group of conspirators that exists today. The Gadiantons were a murder cult that existed to plunder and dominate others. Today’s communists, whom I have called Red Gadiantons and written extensively about, share the same philosophy, strategy, and origin as the Gadiantons. Satan inspired their modern creation just as he brought the Gadianton Robbers into existence to vex the Nephites.

I’ve written and explained how the Order of Illuminati founded on May 1, 1776 was the forerunner and direct progenitor of the communist conspiracy. This is a thoroughly Satanic movement with oaths, secret signs, extralegal governments, and extralegal tribunals. It is a conspiracy that employs assassination, murder, plunder, war, coups, rapine, mass mind manipulation, and slavery. The election fraud we are witnessing on such a grand scale right before our eyes is only the latest in the conspiracy’s moves against humanity.

Whether or not you believe in the scriptural accounts I’ve shared today, you must believe in the voter fraud occurring. You must realize that it’s a massive, multi-state, methodical effort to oust Donald Trump and crush the hopes of the American People for a return to national greatness. Stealing the election will help the powers-that-be drag the United States down once and for all at this critical juncture when real leaders are necessary. If the courts wink at the fraud and allow Biden to be coronated, it will forever split this nation in two. It will pave the way for our government to be overrun jackals who essentially admit they are avowed Marxists.

The communist conspiracy is in its endgame. The final pieces are being moved into place before the death blow is launched against our People. The fact that they have to so blatantly steal an election while the whole world watches is proof that they’re not happy with the millions of Americans who still resist their schemes and detest their usurped power. They’ll do anything they need to do, they’ll pull any Gadiantonesque trick they need to pull, in order to come to full power over us and finally snuff the life out of our Faith, Families, and Freedom. How we respond to Bolshevik Biden’s attempted theft of the election says a whole lot about which side you are truly on – America’s or the communists’. Choose wisely unless you want history to repeat.

November 9, 2020