WP: According to common perception, a revolution was initiated in Poland in 1989 with historical significance and global consequences. There is copious evidence that this allegedly anti-communist revolt, which swept through Eastern Europe, was indeed planned by Soviet secret services and served the long-term strategy of perestroika. In Poland’s case the deception was facilitated by a secret agreement between the communist party, leaders of the Solidarity movement and the Catholic hierarchy – and we still see the consequences of this arrangement. What is your opinion of the Eastern European revolutions? Is it reasonable to claim that the Eastern part of the continent was truly freed then?

JEFF NYQUIST: My opinion is that the East European revolutions were planned, far in advance, by the KGB and a secret section of the Communist Party Soviet Union, in keeping with a grand strategy worked out in the late 1950s by a committee of Soviet strategists led by Leonid Brezhnev (which included Nikolai Mironov, a KGB general and advocate of Sun Tzu’s “Art of War”). The evolution of the strategy coincided with the realization that the Stalinist system could not survive without carefully prepared reforms led by agents of the secret police, including a controlled dissident movement that would be accepted by the West. It must be admitted, of course, that a certain degree of freedom was granted by these revolutions. At the same time, new control mechanisms were worked out for strategically vital sectors of business and government. From the perspective of Moscow, there would be a period of disorganization and setbacks, followed by the mature development of new control mechanisms, leading to a smoother and more effective system.

WP: Another small incident took place in August 1991 in Moscow. Bearing in mind the subsequent reign of Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin, are we dealing with the continuation of Soviet communism or with a process of genuine democratisation? How did the changes in Soviet Union in the last 17 years influence international political scene?

JEFF NYQUIST: The August 1991 coup in Moscow was a staged event, orchestrated from behind the scenes, and so was the break-up of the Soviet Union. With a few minor exceptions, the old Communist Party bosses remained in control of the former Soviet Republics. In countries like Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, secret structures, operating through agent networks, supplanted decaying overt structures of control. Eventually a way was created for a more overt transfer of control to reliable KGB functionaries whose presence at the top was needed to raise the moral of frustrated cadres that were nearing demoralization. While Yeltsin performed the functions of a clown whose purpose was to discredit capitalism and Western-style democracy in Russia, Putin’s function is to reawaken and reorient the system toward a more efficient style of totalitarianism.

WP: In the face of the revolutionary changes happening in South America, should we speak of a rebirth of Marxism or is it merely a continuation of old trends, ever present on that continent in the twentieth century? Is the old idea of convergence between the socialist and capitalist systems taking a new shape on South American continent or is a completely new phenomenon?

JEFF NYQUIST: The revolutionary changes in South American are due to Marxist-Leninist cadres. I do not believe that socialism and capitalism are converging. Does a lion converge when it devours a lamb? The ideological categories of “socialism” and “capitalism” are confusing terms, used in the simplifying formulas of ideology. What is actually happening has to do with grand strategy and a struggle for global dominance. The “former” Communist Bloc is drawing new countries into its orbit (especially oil-rich countries like Venezuela and Iran). Hatred of the United States and envy of the propertied classes of society are used to fuel anti-American political movements. Russia and China, working together in Latin America, have formed alliances and are moving large numbers of weapons to bolster regimes that will function as allies in a future conflict.

WP: What in your view are the consequences of the emerging economic and military might of the communist China?

JEFF NYQUIST: Moscow is assisting China’s development of military power because the two countries plan to coordinate military operations in a future war against an economically crippled United States. According to leaks from the Communist hierarchy in Beijing, China wants to take control of new lands in Australia and North America for purposes of mass colonization to alleviate China’s overpopulation problem (and the impending collapse of China’s eco-system). Moscow will get Alaska and parts of Canada in this operation while China takes possession the lower 48 states, with various Third World countries invited in for “looting rights.” This conquest will be facilitated by certain events, which the Russians and Chinese have long anticipated. In the not-too-distant future a financial crisis will begin. This crisis will lead to social and political chaos in the United States, resulting in the effective neutralization of American security forces, opening the way to terrorist diversionary operations and strategic decapitation. Once the United States is without leaders and thoroughly helpless, biological and “clean” nuclear weapons can be used to exterminate the U.S. population so that the country cannot revive or become an obstacle to Sino-Russian ambitions again.

WP: Later this year, some of us will commiserate the ninetieth anniversary of the Bolshevik revolution. Do you believe that communism is dead and buried (which seems to be the generally accepted view)? Or do you believe that the Bolshevik’s heritage is still playing a strong part in political practice today?

JEFF NYQUIST: Marxism has always been a minority sect. When the smallness of this sect is brought to our attention, we automatically scoff at its insignificance. Such scoffing was an error in 1917 and it remains an error today. A small band of organized criminals can achieve great things. They are not constrained by morality. They are not constrained by respect for culture or tradition or the majority. They can break rules and bypass obstacles that other political players wouldn’t dream of doing. Marxism exists and will continue to exist as a minority belief system. It appeals to neurotic, envy-ridden souls, as well as to political psychopaths. Its criminal usefulness has been demonstrated, again and again. Communism is not dead and buried, because the Communists themselves did not die off. Their change of heart, like the changing of a tiger’s stripes, is a soothing fiction.

WP: Józef Mackiewicz, a great Polish writer and anti-communist thinker, wrote in 1962:

Great is the capacity of human nature to adapt to circumstances. Yet political realism ought not to deprive people of their imagination because it will cease to be realistic. A comparison of customs and manners prevailing in the world in 1912 with those of today, can give us a measure, although only in approximate terms, of what we could “reasonably” expect to have to accept in year 2012!

What is your point of view in this matter? What do the next five years have in store for us?

JEFF NYQUIST: I think the next five years will bring devastating changes. New perspectives, along with a new intellectual vantage point, will appear in Europe and North America. The errors of egalitarianism, materialism and scientism will be corrected. A spiritual and intellectual rebirth of European civilization will occur.

1 Comment To "Jeff Nyquist answers the questions of the Editors of Wydawnictwo Podziemne"

#1 Comment By Serge Kabud On 4 December 09 @ 7:42