Cold War, 1980
|Date||1947 - 26 September 1991|
|Interest of||Theodore Achilles, Gordon Barrass, Simon Bracey-Lane, John Gaddis, Melvin Goodman, George Kennan, Our Hidden History, Paix et Liberté, Frances Stonor Saunders, Giles Scott-Smith, Pelle Neroth Taylor|
|Description||The official narrative had 2 diametrically opposed systems locked in combat with one another since soon after WW2. Each of the "superpowers" and its team of allies needed to outdo each other by creating ever more and deadlier weapons, creating a kind of perpetual war for perpetual peace, with the warring parties engaging mainly in covert/proxy wars. Deep state interests blossomed in the climate of fear and paranoia.|
The Cold War was a polarising perspective that divided the world into two spheres of influence, each dominated by a "superpower" (the USA and the USSR). This was used in the 1950s and beyond to justify increased military expenditures in many countries, including those not at war.
The official narrative was of diametrically opposed systems locked in combat with one another since soon after WW2. In the blue corner, the US led NATO, in the red corner, the USSR led Warsaw Pact. Both of these so-called "superpowers" (and their allies) were locked in an arms race, needing to outdo each other by creating ever more and deadlier weapons of war and/or effective defenses against the other superpower's new weapons. National Security therefore meant that the welfare of citizens could not be the top priority.
The rapid fall of communist governments in the nations of Eastern Europe around 1989 and subsequent end of the USSR brought the cold war to a sharp and - for Western policy analysts at least, unexpectedly rapid end.
The cold war was undoubtedly real in the minds of many people, and the basic ideology behind it was more or less unquestioned by the commercially-controlled media. However, an examination of some of the less explored corners of history - for example, Operation Gladio and the activities of certain members of Le Cercle - would reveal that the notion of two ideologically opposed superpowers locked in opposition was a convenient yarn to spin for both the US and the USSR governments. Anthony Sutton has exposed that these 'enemies' did engage in more mutual assistance than was publicly admitted.
Social scientist G. William Domhoff named Robert A. Lovett as an "architect of the Cold War" in his 1970 book, The Higher Circles: The Governing Class in America.
For a brief period after the end of the cold war, there was talk of a "peace dividend", i.e. a sharp decrease in military spending and a consequent increase in spending, worldwide, of benefit to humanity. This might logically have been presumed, if the military expenditures during the cold war were really a response to a communist threat. However, the exact opposite actually occurred - military spending increased, most notably after the "war on terror" was launched with the 9/11 attacks.
Echoing as it does the illusion that is 21st century party politics, the simplistic narrative of the Cold War polarised thought into an us/them, left/right perspective, narrowing thought and discourse about possible political systems. Many nation states, particularly in Africa chose not to align themselves with either "superpower". In the USA, the Soviet military threat was vastly exaggerated, so the need to maintain "parity" with the enemy was a fiction, albeit widely believed.
Mutually Assured Destruction
In his farewell speech as US President, the first commander of NATO, Dwight Eisenhower notably warned that "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex." This was not successfully guarded against, and the M.A.D. policy (Mutually Assured Destruction) presented no obstacle to the spiralling of military budgets (and hence profits) of the military contractors. The perpetual threat of nuclear destruction (which remains to this day) is a form of strategy of tension which can be exploited to render people more submissive.
- Full article: National Security
- Full article: National Security
The ensuing climate of fear and paranoia provided a toxic environment in which the clandestine intelligence agencies thrived and the deep state using proxy wars to rapidly extend their power. Doctrines of "national security" were developed and refined to cloak wrongdoing and obscure the deep political significance of events.
On 26 December 1991, Russia formally recognised the end of the Soviet Union, which is treated as the close of the Cold War.
- Full article: “Peace dividend”
- Full article: “Peace dividend”
The "Peace dividend" was a promoted improvement in living due to a conclusion of the cold war, which turned out to be vaporware. In practice, military expenditures went up, not down, exposing the truth of the importance of permanent war to the deep state and the MICC.
Cold War II
- Full article: Cold War II
- Full article: Cold War II
Cold War II is a 21st century phenomenon promoted by deep state milieu such as the Integrity Initiative. In Europe and the Americas this is manifested by Russophobic reporting of world events, and possible by the used of false flag attacks to try to assist in this process (e.g. the Skripal Affair.
- Full article: “Russian Propaganda”
- Full article: “Russian Propaganda”
The agents of the Deep state are paid millions of pounds to warn people about "Russian Propaganda" - a charge that has been levelled against this website (by PropOrNot) notwithstanding the fact that it has no known connection with Russia. This appears to be a projection of misinformation (and political subversion) by the Integrity Initiative.
|Vietnam War||The Vietnam War was a proxy war lead by US that occurred in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia from December 1956 to the fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975. Millions of people were killed, mostly Vietnamese. JFK was assassinated soon after declaring his intent to withdraw US troops. The war helped the CIA to refine its methods of illegal drug trafficking, torture and the like.|
|1950||“JIC-502 intelligence report titled “Implications of Soviet Possession of Atomic Weapons” drafted in Jan 20th 1950,
turned out not to be an intelligence report at all but rather a sales pitch, claiming that a nuclear-armed Soviet Union had introducedthe notion that “a tremendous military advantage would be gained by the power that struck first and succeeded in carrying through an effective surprise attack.”
|1989||“In one sense MI6 and MI5 have got it right, are, in fact, a brilliant success. Faced with their biggest crisis of the post-war period, the end of the Red Menace which justified the budgets,
the careers and the gongs, they have emerged with budgets renewed, new agendas approved; untouched by the politicians, unsupervised by anyone, still - we are not supposed to laugh - still accountable to the Crown not Parliament ( i.e. to no-one). Both MI6 and MI5 have reacted to the new conditions post Cold War in thoroughly competent, even creative ways. Needing something something to justify the budget, MI6 picked the international drug trade. Far as I know, since MI6 joined the 'war against drugs' the price of cocaine and heroin in the UK at street level has halved: it is now cheaper to get off your face, as they say in Hull, on smack than it is on alcohol. And didn't I read a few months ago that MI6 had persuaded Clare Short to task them to provide her with early warning of coups in the developing world? An honest-to-goodness license to do anything, anywhere. Only a Labour government, timid and ignorant, would fall for a proposal as preposterous as that one. MI5 hardly paused for breath after losing the KGB 'threat' contained in the Soviet Embassy and its Trade Mission, before acquiring the domestic terrorism franchise from the Met Special Branch and beginning the process of hyping up the animal rights and green activists as a new terrorist threat.(And they are getting a new definition of terrorism run through the Houses of Parliament to support it.) Of course, only the politicians and some of the media - the handful who are paying any attention at all - take the talk of the war on drugs seriously. MI6 don't, I am sure; any more than they seriously intend to provide Clare Short with an early warning of coups in the Third World. At the higher levels of MI6, MI5 and all the rest they must be chortling in the senior dining rooms at the incredible gullibility of the British political class - and this present lot in particular.”
|Theodore Achilles||“I don't think there has ever been any serious danger of an all out Soviet armed attack west of the East German-West German frontier. The danger has been, and still is, that the Russians can resort to the same tactics they were using after the war, subversion and political blackmail backed by the threat of force--intimidating European Governments with the fear of Soviet force.”||Theodore Achilles|
|Madeleine Albright||“President Clinton and I first met Putin before that
when he was kind of acting president at, this was an APEC meeting in New Zealand, and at that stage Putin was trying to be very ingratiating and trying to make new friends - he was still cold - and the issue about him is he is very smart and in these meetings.
He did not have talking points and he took notes himself. He also is somebody I have to describe this because, they actually did kind of a jazz concert for President Clinton and President Clinton's driving around and Putin was sitting there like this..no rhythm whatsoever.. and and (sic), but the thing that is interesting is how smart he really is and directed he was.
The thing that I speak to more is something that happened before, that in 91 when the Soviet Union had fallen apart I was running a think-tank and I was asked to participate in a big survey of all of Europe after the end of the Cold War, and we had questionnaires and focus groups and things like that, and the focus group I'll never forget, is one outside of Moscow where this man stands up and says "I'm so embarrassed we used to be a superpower and now we're Bangladesh with missiles". And what I think happened I write it not so easy not so difficult to really deduce this, is Putin identified himself with that person who felt that the dignity and the grandeur of Russia had been lost and he has is bound anddetermined to restore that in every single way.”
|Klaas Bruinsma||“Who is to say that Abbas, Bruinsma and "the Hakkelaar" weren't used as pawns in a game much larger than they were, much as Mink Kok seems to have been used time and again? They are allowed to flourish a little bit, receive a little protection, a little legal aid, and when their time is up some rival gang takes them out and that one gets the protection when necessary. It's entirely possible. But where would the manipulation of these mafia groups come from? Most likely CIA Gladio/"stay behind" networks, which, during the Cold War, revolved around Prince Bernhard and individuals as Bib van Lanschot and Cees van den Heuvel.”||Joël van der Reijden|
|Zbigniew Brzezinski||“Eurasia is home to most of the world's politically assertive and dynamic states. All the historical pretenders to global power originated in Eurasia. The world's most populous aspirants to regional hegemony, China and India, are in Eurasia, as are all the potential political or economic challengers to American primacy. After the United States, the next six largest economies and military spenders are there, as are all but one of the world's overt nuclear powers, and all but one of the covert ones. Eurasia accounts for 75 percent of the world's population, 60 percent of its GNP, and 75 percent of its energy resources. Collectively, Eurasia's potential power overshadows even America's.”||Zbigniew Brzezinski|
|Zbigniew Brzezinski||“Eurasia is the world's axial supercontinent. A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the world's three most economically productive regions, Western Europe and East Asia. A glance at the map also suggests that a country dominant in Eurasia would almost automatically control the Middle East and Africa. With Eurasia now serving as the decisive geopolitical chessboard, it no longer suffices to fashion one policy for Europe and another for Asia. What happens with the distribution of power on the Eurasian landmass will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy[…].”||Zbigniew Brzezinski|
|Document:Psychological Warfare for the West: Interdoc and Youth Politics in the 1960s||“Psychological warfare has two sides: The build-up of moral strength within one's own side and the undermining of the morale of the opposing side.”||Cees van den Heuvel||1959|
|Document:Psychological Warfare for the West: Interdoc and Youth Politics in the 1960s||“We say to the leaders of the capitalist states: Let us try out in practice whose system is better, let us compete without war... The main thing is to keep to the positions of ideological struggle, without resorting to arms in order to prove that one is right... We believe that ultimately that system will be victorious on the globe which will offer the nations greater opportunities for improving their material and spiritual life.”||Nikita Khrushchev||1959|
|Eastern Europe||“The great risk is that of explosion. Prediction is notoriously difficult, and in Eastern Europe more than anywhere. But on a sober assessment one can see a serious possibility of some kind of an explosion of popular discontent in four out of the six East European states over the next few years: Romania, Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. (Some analysts would add the GDR). No one can predict what course such an explosion would take, nor how the Soviet Union would react to it. A direct military intervention could spell the end of 'perestroika' not just in the country concerned but in the Soviet Union itself.”||1989|
|Le Cercle||“Formed in the Fifties, Cercle was intended to cement Franco-German relations, as a buffer to Soviet aggression during the Cold War. Down the years, however, it has become much more, advocating right-wing causes round the world and growing into a confidential talking shop for about 70 politicians, businessmen, polemicists and personnel from the diplomatic and security services. Members are invited to attend its meetings; they cannot ask to be admitted, and as a condition of attending they agree to keep all sessions secret. It meets twice a year, once in Washington DC in the autumn and once in the early part of the year in an "overseas" venue.”||Chris Blackhurst||28 June 1997|
|Le Cercle/Exposure||“For instance, in the late 1970s Le Cercle supported NATO's decision to station new medium-range nuclear weapons — Cruise and Pershing II missiles — in Britain, Germany, Belgium and Holland targeted against the USSR. Le Cercle helped to discredit the European peace protest movement which emerged against the backdrop of the nuclearization of Europe through aggressive counter-intelligence, provocations and disinformation.”||Ekaterina Blinova||8 August 2015|
|Pietro Quaroni||“We are going through a bad stage in the cold war — all wars have their bad stages. But in all wars when one is going through a bad stage one should concentrate first and foremost on the core of the problem; and the core for us is what is left of Western Europe.|
In a war which has a good chance of remaining cold, the internal front is the most important. If the internal condition of our Society is as Dr. Mueller describes it — and I think he is right — it is very difficult to hold out if we cannot manage to cure the sickness at the root.
Having got so far, have we the duty or the power, as a group, to do something to compel our governments, let us say, to get on the path to fundamental reforms, the kind of reforms which could give back to our countries their internal dynamism? For my part, I think it should be done and I would like to do it.
But we must take into account that if we set ourselves on this road, our group cannot avoid getting involved in internal politics, which up to now we have avoided doing.<a href="#cite_note-6"></a><a href="#cite_note-7"></a>”
|Strategy of tension||“Ultimately, Interdoc’s value comes from it being a remarkable example of the way European security services sought to engage with and manipulate the public sphere, initially out of serious concerns for the effects of peaceful coexistence on Western ideological solidity, and eventually as a means to secure a strategic advantage in the Cold War.”||Giles Scott-Smith||2011|
|Document:Electronic Espionage - A Memoir||interview||August 1972||Perry Fellwock|
|Document:Psychological Warfare for the West: Interdoc and Youth Politics in the 1960s||book excerpt||2011||Giles Scott-Smith||A book chapter covering Interdoc's activities in the international student/youth field during the 1960s.|
|Document:Sins of Statecraft - The War on Terror Exposed||paper||29 July 2006||Brian Bogart|
|Document:The Spectacle of The False Flag||book||1 March 2015||Eric Wilson|
|File:Rogue Agents (3rd edition, 2011, full).pdf||book||2011||David Teacher||A book about the activities of the covert European groupings responsible for the realisation of the European Union between the end of World War II and the mid 1990's.|
|File:Rogue Agents (4th edition, 2015, full).pdf||book||2014||David Teacher||A book about the activities of the covert European groupings responsible for the realisation of the European Union between the end of World War II and the mid 1990's|
|File:Rogue Agents - the Cercle and the 6I in the Private Cold War 1951 - 1991 by David Teacher (5th edn, 2017).pdf||book||2017||David Teacher||A book about the activities of the covert European groupings responsible for the realisation of the European Union between the end of World War II and the mid 1990's.|
- ↑ http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/676
- ↑ Domhoff, G.W. The Higher Circles: The Governing Class in America; Random House; New York; 1970, page 252.
- ↑ https://www.historyonthenet.com/the-cold-war-timeline-2