• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

I sometimes get mail from people who refer to my “predictions.” It should be pointed out, however, that an examination of developing strategic threats is not the same thing as prediction. If you read this column, if you pay attention, you might see the vague outline of many probable futures; but precise prediction you will not find. What I examine are trends and tendencies in the overall strategic direction of Russia, China, the United States.

If present trends continue, if the character of our leadership remains as it is today, certain outcomes appear inevitable. This is not the same as prediction. It is analysis. Take the overall situation regarding Russian espionage as an example.

Watching the spy game in recent decades, it is only obvious that our side has been seriously penetrated by the Russian side. The Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen stories prove the point. It should be clear to everyone that the FBI and CIA have been penetrated, neutralized and compromised to an alarming degree. A former CIA director was recently called on the carpet for maintaining top secret files on his home computer (a computer that was used to access internet porn sites). Secret files were stolen out of the secretary of state’s office in broad daylight and in front of witnesses. The president of the United States was having phone sex with a White House intern over an unsecure phone. It is only obvious that America is wide open. Successful Russian and Chinese operations have been carried out. Worse still, there are no signs of a reversal, of a strong and serious attempt to change the lax counter-intelligence culture of our security services (which reflect the lax attitudes of our society in general).

Another area where present trends indicate future trouble is in the military balance. We are not developing new weapons as quickly as the Russians. In recent years the Russians have taken the lead in developing a new generation of conventional and strategic weapons. They have developed a new jet fighter, a new tank with advantageous close assault properties, a revolutionary new rifle-fired grenade, a new attack helicopter and the world’s best strategic missile – the road mobile SS-27. The list does not stop there. The United States, on its side, is not keeping pace. Regarding one of the most crucial weapon systems, America has never deployed a mobile ICBM. As breakthroughs in technology continue to make the oceans increasingly transparent, our failure to shift from submarine-based missiles to mobile ICBMs may prove fatal.

Recently, it was pointed out by Colin McMahon, of the Chicago Tribune, that the United States is probably paying for the modernization of Russia’s nuclear weapons industry. Meanwhile, our own nuclear-weapons production capability is – according to Senator Fred Thompson – beginning to crumble.

At a secret “nuclear city” in Russia there is a $640 million structure built for housing plutonium from dismantled Russian nukes. American tax dollars paid for this structure. According to McMahon, some experts contend the U.S. has been “hoodwinked into financing an upgrade of Russia’s weapons complex.” As it turns out, U.S. observers are not allowed to see what is going on at the Russian facility where the $640 was spent.

This would not be the first instance of America unwittingly financing Russian weapons programs. American dollars sent to Russia have been diverted, and many of these diversions have probably benefited Russian military programs. In recent years, the United States has spent nearly $5 billion in Russia. But Russia’s capabilities have not decreased. Moscow is modernizing, even as the Bush administration plans to unilaterally cut America’s nuclear arsenal by half or more.

One can predict, in general terms, that if trends like these continue our country will be lost. The logic here is quite simple: A national policy that is so impossibly stupid cannot survive in the long run.

I began writing “Origins of the Fourth World War” in 1987 because the first indications of present trends were then visible in the policies of the late Reagan administration. Seeing that a period of rapid U.S. disarmament would occur in the 1990s, and that Moscow would exploit the USSR’s impending collapse to modernize its forces, I drew a number of very logical conclusions. No crystal ball was required in 1987 to see where we were headed.

Consider arms-reduction treaties in general. America has signed many of these treaties with Moscow. It is all about the elimination of mass destruction weapons. For the past decade, Moscow has claimed poverty as an excuse for not elminating the weapons as promised. When the United States comes up with money for the elimination of the weapons, we are told that these weapons are so difficult to keep track of, from the Russian side, that no accurate accounting is possible.

Meanwhile, the Russians spend their own supposedly scarce resources to build nuclear-proof fortresses in the Urals, to build new and quieter submarines when they promised not to build submarines at all, and to build the most advanced ICBM in the world.

Actions speak louder than words and Moscow’s actions speak volumes about Moscow’s intentions. Anyone who does not understand this, who does not see the Russian-Chinese alliance for what it is, must be listed as a fool. It must be said, in this regard, that we are overrun with fools.

There are many methods of prediction available to man. One method is to see which way the fools are going. In the present situation one does not need dreams and visions, prophets and scriptures to see what the future promises. Dreams might be due to nightly indigestion and scriptural interpretations are only educated guess-work; but the direction taken by our Washington fools is a reliable indicator.

Can we make scientific predictions about the future?

Science relies on the precise measurement of regular movements. Scientists can predict with great accuracy the time of tomorrow’s sunrise, for example. They can predict what will happen when certain chemical compounds are brought together. However, scientific prediction is not possible when movements are irregular and complex variables are involved. There is no way to scientifically predict wars, economic collapse or revolutions – despite pseudo-scientific pretensions to the contrary.

There is another kind of prediction, however, which is based on strategic calculations. It is the prediction of an observer at a chess match. He sees the moves of both sides and watches as one player gradually pushes the other into a corner for the final checkmate. In many strategy games, an observer can accurately predict the outcome because one side’s position becomes hopeless.

In the Great Game between the world’s leading powers, one side has been dominant throughout. The Americans have enjoyed economic and technological advantages. At the same time, America has never understood its enemies. America’s leaders don’t fully understand the game. Regardless of a country’s strength, regardless of many powerful pieces on the board, if a player doesn’t know how to move – if he doesn’t know how to play the game properly – a competent player will finally take all his pieces and declare checkmate. This is a simple analogy, and some readers may object, but when you look at the things that keep happening to us – the loss of our nuclear weapons secrets to the Chinese, the many deals of the Clinton White House, the plans for unilateral disarmament, the advance of Marxism in American higher education, the failure to combat illegal immigration, the leftist sabotage of California’s power and timber industries (add fishing as well) – you begin to see a disturbing pattern. It is a pattern that suggests a delusional policy-making class, educated at universities that make people stupid.

Our society has absorbed many intellectual poisons. Our national consciousness has been drugged with lies and half truths. We have credited idiotic formulas, we have turned our back on the safe refuge of traditions – on the Founding Fathers, on the religion of our ancestors, on our European cultural heritage.

Now we are consumers, which is to say, we are nothing. I argue in my book that America is no longer a country. It is a picnic. Put a fence around it and you might call it an “amusement park.” Admission is even free if you jump the fence.

For anyone who reads history it is very easy to predict what comes after the amusement-park phase in American history. It is very easy to predict what happens to people who are no longer citizens, but consumers. Recently, I heard Pat Buchanan interviewed by Michael Savage. In that interview, Buchanan said that America was “finished” as a nation. Which method of prediction is Buchanan relying on? He is looking at present trends which cannot be reversed despite the best of efforts. The country is too busy shopping and having fun to make significant changes in the way things are done. We don’t want the aggravation and inconvenience. We don’t even want to hear the truth any longer.

Meanwhile, if you are paying attention to the Great Game, the opposing side just mumbled something like, “Pawn takes Queen.”

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.