By Benton K. Partin, Brigadier General, United States Air Force (Ret)
In the development of major weapon systems, it may take 10 years from the definition of a requirement until the weapon system becomes an effective and integral part of our force structure. If the system remains in the force structure for a nominal 20 to 30 years, then in what operational scenarios will that weapon system be expected to perform 10 to 40 years in the future? It is those potential operational scenarios that determine many specifics in the definition of the requirement.
What kind of crystal ball is used to foresee 30 to 40 years ahead in such detail? In my 31 years in the Air Force - (25 spent in Research and Development from the laboratory to the Office of the Secretary of the Defense) - 1 have never seen but two bases for such extrapolation. One is the evolution of technology whose extrapolation is a sophisticated science itself, and the other is the Program of the Communist International Adopted at Its 6th Congress in Moscow on September 1, 1928. [Reference: The Communist International 1919-1943 Documents. The Communist International 1919-1943 Documents, Jane DeGrasse, ed., Volume 11, 1923-1928, London, Oxford University Press, 1960.]
It is the almost universal ignorance in the non-communist world of the latter basis for extrapolation that makes massive subversion and disinformation almost unrecognizable. In such complex matters, it is often difficult to differentiate between ignorance, incompetence and treason. In the short term, the apparent difference may be only a matter of intent - but quite often - predictable intent.
World Congress Of Communist / Socialists Parties
During the late 1940s, 50s and early 60s, I thought I knew everything there was to know about the brew of Communism / Bolshevism / Socialism / Globalism / illuminism / Nazism / Fascism / Marxism / Leninism / Maoism / Babeuvism / Jacobinism / Occultism / Central Banking / Humanism / H.G. Well's "Z" Society / New World Order / World Order / etc., etc.
However, it was only after I studied the program documents of the Executive Committee Communist International (ECCI) did I have any basis for a reliable prediction of the future course of world events that were being orchestrated by that brew as a program for total world conquest with the end objective being World Communism as they define it - or if you prefer - the euphemisms Globalism, World Order, New World Order, New Economic World Order, etc.
At no point in its 250 year evolution has the program for global communist conquest been as completely structured, defined, adopted and published as in the program documents of the Third International's Sixth Party Congress held in Moscow in 1928. It was a world congress for the Communist / Socialist leadership from all over the world. There were 532 delegates of which 25 (20 voting) were from the USA. The World Congress was a precursor to the United Nations.
Defined Program or Ambiguous Conspiracy
They called it a "Program". Is it a conspiracy? Yes - in part. But it is an open conspiracy. The 1928 Program states: - "communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their aims can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all the existing social conditions."
If we recognize a threat as only a "conspiracy," how can we develop a program to counter that "conspiracy" unless we can reliably and predictably define the program of that "conspiracy" I have developed programs for new weapons and programs for weapons to counter other new weapons, but I would be at a total loss to conceptualize a program to counter a conspiracy, unless I could first define its program, track its progress and refine its predictability.
We deny ourselves the potential of recognizing, developing and orchestrating effective counteraction when we define a threat only as a "conspiracy" without understanding, in a predictable way, its program toward its ultimate objective. When people go to a theater to see a play, they are given a program, not a plan, not a conspiracy and not a piece of propaganda. The Communist World uses the term program in much the same way a theater uses the term program.
The Program of the Third International was orchestrated from 1919 to 1943 by an almost Pentagon size organization, staffed with people from all over the world, headquartered in Moscow and called the COMINTERN. After World War II the name was changed to COMINFORM. In the mid 1950s, the name was changed again to the International Department, but is now called the GORBACHEV FOUNDATION, with new branches in several target countries. [Note: The Gorbachev Foundation is reported to be building a new " 1 kilometer square" office complex in Moscow.]
It is The Program of the Third International and the extrapolation of technology that offers the only sound basis I have ever found for the long term extrapolation of military hardware requirements.
For example: the program states that in World Communism: - "Instead of destroying countless lives and untold wealth in class wars and national wars mankind will use all its energies in the struggle with the forces of nature... ", i.e., this is the program basis for the present massive, global environmental front at the expense of defense preparedness and ultimately national sovereignty.
The program also states that: -"once having abolished private property in the means of production and made them public property, world communism will replace the spontaneous forces of the world market, planless sway of competition, the blind operation of social production, by the socially planned regulation of production". For this we now have the World Trade Organization and the present consolidations toward global cartels for the production and distribution of goods and services. The Diamond Cartel leadership has funded much of the Communist led ANC takeover in South Africa (led by now deceased KGB Colonel "Joe Slovo").
The Sino-Soviet Conflict Hoax
In 1957, as the Special Assistant for Advance Weapons Concepts in the Air Force Systems Command Headquarters, I started the Focused Energy Weapons Program. In 1958, I participated in a series of budget briefings in the Pentagon, in which I was defending the Focused Energy Weapons Program budget. In that series of briefings, I was shocked to see certain force structure assumptions based on the high risk hypothesis that there was a genuine and irreversible Sino-Soviet conflict,
What shocked me was the long term national risk. Two hypothesis could readily be made. One, the Sino-Soviet split was genuine and irreversible, or two, the Sino-Soviet split was either a hoax or was reversible. Force requirements would vary greatly between these two hypothesis, depending on the threat. At that time, I considered three levels of threat:
Case I: Dual Threat - Communist China and Russia would team up if either were directly involved with the U.S. and its allies in a major conflict.
Case II: Either Threat - Either China or the Soviet Union would remain neutral if the other was involved in a major conflict with the U. S. and its allies.
Case III: Either Allied Threat - Either Soviet or Chinese forces would join the U.S. and its allies in a major conflict with the other.
The risks involved here can easily be seen. If the assumption is made that the Sino-Soviet split is real and irreversible, and years ahead there is a confrontation by a Dual Threat, then the U. S. would be placed at extreme - if not fatal - risk. It would be like passing at the crest of a hill on a busy single lane highway. Much would be placed at risk for little possible gain. Neither the legitimacy of the Sino-Soviet split nor its irreversibility could be assured with sufficient confidence to not consider it a potential hoax. We are now those Years ahead and we are confronted by a Case I Dual Threat plus an expanded communist controlled world. The naive liberal and leftist solution is to surrender by "convergence" into their global scheme.
I continued collecting information on the Sino-Soviet split for another decade. While attending the Air War College in 1967, 1 had the opportunity to review the 1928 Program of the Communist International. I concluded that the Sino-Soviet conflict, as a hoax, was one of the highest payoff strategies of the entire communist world movement in its then 200 plus year history. I then wrote a thoroughly documented 155 page report on the Sino-Soviet split hoax entitled: Sino-Soviet Conflict, Competition and Cooperation: Risks In Force Structure Planning. The proposed wide distribution of the report was turned down by the approving group because one member was a propagandist for the legitimacy of the split. Several hundred copies were unofficially distributed to key senior leaders.
In that report. written 30 years ago, I listed 50 advantages to the implementation of the 1928 program if the West could be convinced of the legitimacy and irreversibility of the Sino-Soviet split. The first ten of those advantages to implementing the World Communist Program were as follows:
"1. It justified a major reduction in Free World forces and, at the same time, justifies a high level of defense preparedness for both Russia and China." [It resulted in an inversion of the balance of power in the world.]
"2. It induced a complacent, do nothing, if not indifferent attitude toward the critical military balance of power." [It became politically incorrect to even question the Sino-Soviet conflict's legitimacy.]
"3. It justified a more aggressive Soviet program in 'competition' with China in Asia, Africa and South America." [They were both involved in the generation and support of communist "Wars of National Liberation".]
"4. The 'peaceful coexistence' role of the U.S.S.R. and the supposedly more aggressive role of China complement each other in reducing the Free World. For example: one approach worked better in Syria and the other approach worked better in Tibet." [That performance has been repeated many times.]
"5. The Sino-Soviet split helped get the U.S. committed in a big way, but not too big for Russia and China, in a land war in Southeast Asia - supported by both Russia and China." [While we were dissipating Forces in Vietnam they were consolidating power in the Middle East and North Africa.]
"6. The alleged breakup of the world communist monolith into supposedly 'loose and pluralistic grouping(s) of communist states,' justifies for many the disintegration of the Free World Alliances buildup over many years, for containing communism. 'Polycentrism in the East breeds polycentrism in the West.' [30 years later, we have a new rendition in Perestroika and a communist world push for a "comprehensive" UN controlled security system under a communist dominated UN. Effort to move NATO into East Europe is part of the dialectic for a new "European Soviet".]
"7. The split justifies a repolarization of the world struggle along specious and phoney lines, i.e., The basic conflict is not between the U.S. and Russia, nor even between the U.S. und China. It is between Soviet Communism and Chinese Communism [Disinformation.]
"8. The Sino-Soviet split has been used to justify a weakening of NATO, i.e., "it may have outlived its usefulness." [The central push is now for former Soviet Union countries to come into new groupings in the move toward a "comprehensive" security system extending from the "Atlantic to Vladivostok".]
"9. The Sino-Soviet split hoax, along with the war in Vietnam, has been used to force the isolation of America on the international scene." [The U.S.A. almost stood alone in opposing a second five-year term for Boutros-Ghali as Secretary General of the United Nations.]
"10. The Sino-Soviet split and the resulting reapproachment between East and West European countries has contributed to the rise of nationalism in East Europe and a weakening of the West European coalition." [Orchestrated for convergence.]
Report Conclusions - (written 30 years ago!)
"1. For military force structure planning purposes, the Sino-Soviet conflict must be considered a hoax so as to reduce, if not minimize, long-term national risk."
"2. There is sufficient documented evidence available to severely challenge the popularly held view that the Sino-Soviet split is genuine, deep and irreversible."
From all the arguments and evidence supporting the hypothesis of a genuine split, there are at least as good arguments, and perhaps more consistently reliable information which supports the idea that the popular view of the Sino-Soviet split is specious, misleading and a masterful deception."
"4. The Sino-Soviet split payoff to the communist world, even as a highly advertised genuine conflict, is so great that both Russia and China would be foolish not to exacerbate it for the eyes and ears of the Free World."
"5. The Sino-Soviet split, as a hoax, is one the highest payoff operations of the entire world communist movement since its very beginning."
"6. The Sino-Soviet split payoff to the Communist World, as a hoax, is sufficiently great to make the deception a major foundation - - if not cornerstone of Sino-Soviet foreign policy. Almost no expense or inconvenience would be too great to assure the continued Western faith that the split is genuine."
"7. In the Free World, the Sino-Soviet split thesis offers something to everyone. Almost everyone wishes to believe it. Disbelief creates too many problems in required actions. Therefore, there is a natural propensity to reject any idea that the Sino-Soviet split is not genuine. Moreover, with all the affirming publicity, much stemming from within the Sino-Soviet Camp, we are well conditioned to believe it in much the same way Pavlov's dogs responded to the bells."
"8. The 1928 Program of The Communist International tempered by personality factors, historical necessity, and opportunism, provides a consistent, coherent, reasonably predictably model of understanding of the world socialist movement and Sino-Soviet relations. The popularly held model of Sino-Soviet conflict understanding is inconsistent, incoherent, and unreliable as a basis for prediction and expectation."
"9. Part of the foundation on which the Sino-Soviet split thesis is built, is in fact specified as part of the 1928 COMINTERN Program."
"10. The Future of a free and independent United States and Free World depends to a considerable extent on an accurate understanding of the alleged Sino-Soviet conflict and taking appropriate courses of action."
"11. Assuming as true the model of understanding of the Sino-Soviet split and the world revolutionary processes, hypothesized, developed, and tested in this paper, we should expect the following.."
Predictions - (made in 1967 - 30 years ago)"a. Secret Sino-Soviet cooperation in the democratic penetration, subversion, economic warfare and - in the more backward countries - externally supported flagrant aggression and orchestration of wars of national liberation." [Proven by time.]
"b. Continued efforts of communist forces to expand the war in Southeast Asia to increase U.S. commitments." [Proven by time.]
"c. That India will either move peacefully and reliably into the Marxist camp or the liberation struggle will soon move into the violent phase." [Moved toward the Marxist camp.]
"d. The Marxist world will soon exercise hegemony over the Moslem Middle East." [Mostly done.]
"e. A gradual increase in the numbers of Wars of National Liberation in the more advanced 'semi-colonial' countries." [Done. In Canada the conflict thesis is French Separatist, in the U.S.A. it is racial, in Ireland it is Protestant vs. Catholic, in Rwanda it is tribal, Tutsi (mostly Christian) versus Hutu (mostly Animist).]
"f. A continued, but reduced, public exacerbation of the Sino-Soviet split thesis by both Russia and China until they are ready for a major showdown with the U.S." [Proven by time.]
"g. An increased level of urban guerrilla warfare and arson in the U.S. in concert with increased violence in South Vietnam and increase pressure against mobilization." [Watts, D.C., TET, Tricontinental Congress, etc.]
"h. A globally coordinated attempt by the Marxist world to over saturate U.S. commitments, to force a U.S. back down in Southeast Asia, with tactical nuclear weapons if necessary." [Dunkirk type evacuation, Tricontinental Congress success.]
"i. The above sequence fulfillment would be regarded as the completion of another step - in the struggle for world domination - that was basically programmed in the 1920's."
Report Conclusions Continued
"12. The strategy of deterrence and massive retaliation tended to ignore the gradual revolutionary processes of wars of national liberation, as they were originally planned and are still being conducted - with some refinements."
"13. The strategy of flexible response reacts to wars of national liberation after they have reached the violent phase, and after they have undergone many years of previolent preparation. A more applicable strategy is needed."
"14. Although there are many causes on which the pre-violent phase of wars of national liberation feed - and if causes do not exist they are created - however, under the 1928 Program hypothesis, it is orthodox, doctrinary and practical that the liberation forces require and are provided, external assistance from the Marxist world."
"15. The World Socialist Movement has progressed to the point where the advantages accruing from the Sino-Soviet split thesis will start to diminish. Under the 1928 Program hypothesis, world socialist solidarity will then become more popularly acclaimed. [Proven by time - the chiefs of state have already hugged and kissed in public in the treachery of the Leninist/Gramscian Perestroika deception.]
Sino-Soviet Split - A Disinformation Program!When KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn published his book New Lies For Old in 1984, I could ascribe considerable confidence to it because the chapter on the Sino-Soviet split was in total agreement with my research and analysis of the same subject at the Air War College 17 years before. Golitsyn called the Sino-Soviet split a DISINFORMATION PROGRAM - I called it a HOAX.
We both identified it as a high payoff Sino-Soviet strategy. What is so amazing is - that to my knowledge - our own senior intelligence people have never deduced the Sino-Soviet split as a disinformation program or a hoax - at least not for publication. With the new intelligence monopoly being set up under challengeable leadership, it will become even more politically incorrect to call it what it really is. He who controls the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) controls future capabilities.
In Golitsyn's 1995 book, The Perestroika Deception, he concludes that the Sino-Soviet split is the main Soviet disinformation program on which all other disinformation programs depend.
Complex as it may seem, the Sino-Soviet split dialectic is rather simple and straightforward when compared to the dialectics involved in the U.S. "winning the Cold War," the "disappearance of the Soviet threat," the "disintegration of the Soviet empire," and the "democitization of the former Soviet Union" (now ruled by former communists, ex-communists, non-communists and communists).
If at the end of World War II, all of the Chiefs of State in Eastern and Western Europe were former Nazis, ex-Nazis, and Nazis, would anyone believe that we had won World War II??
Alexander Solzhenitsyn Sees Another Big Lie
Alexander Solzhenitsyn has been back in the "former Soviet Union" long enough to have a good appreciation of its true state of affairs. According to a 1-4-97 Op-Ed page article by Solzhenitsyn, he contends that western observers do not focus on "Russia's overall condition and the forces at work in that country but on the latest developments, such as elections to the Duma, the firing of Alexander Lebed and Boris Yeltsin's heart surgery. Any broad, deep view of what's happening gets lost."
Solzhenitsyn continues. "As far as I can judge, two strongly held opinions are widely shared in the west: that during the last few years democracy has unquestionably been established in Russia, albeit one under a dangerously weak national Government, and that effective economic reforms have been adapted to foster the creation of a free market, to which the way is now open."
"Both views are mistaken."
"All that really exists is the Government hierarchy, from the President and national Government on down."
World Commonwealth of Independent States and Globalization
The Sino-Soviet split has now played a major role in the relative ascendancy of communist world power and a diminution of the free world and its alliances. The communist world goal was to have a World Commonwealth of Independent Socialist States by the year 2000. The "former Soviet Union" now calls itself the Commonwealth of Independent States or CIS. The United Nations is a CIS. A commonwealth is a loose federation. What follows the Commonwealth of Independent States has been in preparation for decades:
1. Global cartels for the production and distribution of goods and services. [Some multinational corporations were established originally for that purpose.]
2. A world socialist division of labor. [Certain production is already being shifted from the U.S.A. in the move toward global "interdependence".]
3. A global security system. [We now have extensive official cooperation among policing and intelligence services between the free world and the communist/former communist world.]
4. A global military system under the UN (in the UN Charter). According to the program, no indigenous forces would be required to go against their own people in a UN police keeping operation. Thus if the French Separatist movement in Canada or the racial tension in the U.S.A. became violent, a UN peace keeping operation would have to use non-indigenous forces. [This is probably the ultimate reason for the large number of foreign troops undergoing UN police action training in the USA.]
5. A global judiciary system.
6. A global environmental control with population reduction.
7. A global banking system. [IMF and World Bank.]
8. A global anti-crime and anti-terrorism organization. There is considerable evidence that counterterrorist sting operations and terrorist acts are being instigated to deliberately justify repressive legislation and expand policestate-like powers - but that is the way the dialectic works.
9. A global this and a global that Globalism.
Withering Away Of The StateThen we are to have a "withering away of the state?" This does not mean doing away with government, but the establishment of a top down global system of regional government, i.e., a world without nations ... a world without nationalities ... a world without boundaries. This is by their definition COMMUNISM. It is also the New World Order and Globalism. In the past, world communist leadership would say they have been "building socialism," "building democracy" or "building communism." They used these words almost interchangeably. Now they use Peace, Globalism and New World Order for the same purposes.
ActionI would encourage all readers to do everything possible, with sacrificial time and resources, to work as they have never worked before, to assure that our next president and our next elected Congress supports our Constitution, understands, and are concerned about more important issues than just term limits, balanced budgets and alternative life styles. Don't wait until November to vote - start now in the candidate selection and nomination process.
Leave a Reply.