 |
| Praça Vermelha, em Moscovo (9 de Maio de 2014). |
 |
| Nicolai Yegorovich Makarov |
 |
| Ver aqui |
«On May 3, 2012, Russian Chief of General Staff Nikolai Makarov warned that Russia would deploy its strategic nuclear rockets in Kaliningrad Oblast, potentially to destroy the U.S. antiballistic missile defense system, planned for Europe. Makarov went even further, warning of a possible preemptive nuclear attack. “A decision to use destructive force preemptively will be taken if the situation worsens,” Makarov said.
The planned U.S. missile defense system to protect Europe from a nuclear missile attack has caused much friction between the Russia and United States. Russia considers the antiballistic missile system an encroachment on its traditional “sphere of influence” and a threat to its national security, seeing as it could neutralize Russia’s nuclear deterrence of Europe. In the event of a war, this would give the U.S. and NATO a considerable advantage; the U.S. or NATO would be able to launch a preemptive strike on Russia without having to fear nuclear retaliation. As a result, Russia views the system as an indication the U.S. and NATO intend to go to war with Russia.
The U.S., on the other hand, has repeatedly stated that its intention is not to deter a missile launch from Russia, but from either Iran or North Korea. The U.S. and its NATO partners, including Britain, Poland, and the Czech Republic, are committed to its deployment, while Russia fiercely opposes it. Neither side will budge — that is up until now.
“This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility,” President Barack Obama privately told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, at the Nuclear Security Summit, in Seoul, South Korea, on March 26, 2012. Medvedev replied, “I understand you. I transmit this information to Vladimir [Putin], and I stand with you.” Vladimir Putin was not the only person Obama’s “private message” was transmitted to. Unbeknownst to Obama or Medvedev, their conversation was recorded and broadcast live via an open microphone and camera.
“Reset,” New START Treaty, the acceptance of Russian surveillance flights over the U.S., Russian troops training in Colorado, and “flexibility” over missile defense; over the last four years President Obama has gone forward with convergence toward Russia. The U.S. may have stopped fighting the Cold War, but Russia has not.
In February 2012, Vladimir Putin, praised the work of Soviet-era KGB spies for having stolen U.S. nuclear secrets to develop their own bombs. “You know, when the [United] States already had nuclear weapons and the Soviet Union was only building them, ‘we got a significant amount of information through Soviet foreign intelligence channels,’” Putin said, according to Itar-Tass. Putin continued, “They were carrying the information away not on microfilm, but literally in suitcases. Suitcases!”
Today, Russia possesses a total of 12,987 nuclear warheads. This is more than the amount owned by the United States and the rest of the world combined. Despite its nuclear supremacy, Russia has an even far more formidable weapon in its military arsenal.
EMP
Since 1963, the Soviet Union has conducted an array of tests with non-nuclear EMP weapons for potential use against the U.S. in a first strike attack. EMP, or electromagnetic pulse, is a burst of electromagnetic radiation capable of destroying all electrical power, radio waves, and digital signals over a wide area. The burst of electromagnetic radiation moves instantaneously, making ordinary surge protectors useless and would neutralize all electrical equipment, such as computers, laptops, television sets, landline telephones, cellular phones, air conditioners, refrigerators, electric stoves, microwaves, automobiles, airplanes, trains, ATM machines, hospital equipment, computer-run waterways and sewage systems.
Although all nuclear weapons can also be EMP weapons, not all EMP weapons are nuclear weapons. A nuclear bomb detonated at a high enough altitude has the same capability as an EMP of destroying all electrical power, radio waves, and digital signals over a wide area. A non-nuclear EMP weapon does not produce the destructive blast of a nuclear weapon; rather it only emits the burst of electromagnetic radiation, which is relatively harmless to the human body especially from the intended altitude of detonation. The radiation does not result in any damage to man-made or natural structures.
Nevertheless, an EMP attack could shut down the entire U.S. power grid, Wall Street, the banking system, airports, and hospitals. People living on pacemakers and other hospital equipment would die. The lack of refrigeration and running trucks would spoil U.S. food reserves and supermarket goods, resulting in mass starvation. According to Dr. Lowell Wood, Ph.D., an astrophysicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and who worked on the Strategic Defense Imitative (SDI) in the Reagan administration, an EMP attack could “literally destroy the American nation and might cause the deaths of 90% of its people and set us back a century or more in time as far as our ability to function as a nation.”
In 2001, Congress established the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack. In its first report, released in 2004, the EMP Commission reported that “China and Russia have considered limited nuclear attack options that, unlike their Cold War plans, employ EMP as the primary or sole means of attack.”
Although the number of Russian nuclear weapons has been greatly reduced since the fall of the USSR, Russia’s EMP arsenal is believed to be “at its maximum Cold War strength,” according to retired U.S. Army Colonel Dan Dickerson, who has served as an advisor to the UN, NATO, and Interpol on terrorism and intelligence planning.
In a May 2012 article in The Journal of Counter Terrorism & Homeland Security International, Col. Dickerson wrote, “Russia and China have conducted extensive research into their [EMP] development and possible deployment against the U.S.” In May 1999, Congressman Roscoe G. Barlett (R-Md.) relayed the following:
We met with three of our Russian counterparts on the Duma International Affairs Committee, including its chairman, Vladimir Lukin, and senior Communist Party member Aleksandr Shabonov. The Russians chastised the United States for military aggression in the Balkans and warned Russia was not helpless to oppose Operation Allied Force. Lukin said, “If we really wanted to hurt you with no fear of retaliation, we would launch an SLBM [submarine launched ballistic missile] and detonate a single nuclear warhead at high altitude over the United States and shut down your power grid and communications for six months or so.” Shabonov added, “And if one weapon wouldn’t do it, we have some spares.”
Similar threats has been reiterated by the Russian military. In 2004, Russian Major General Vladimir Belous wrote:
Space-based and ground facilities of the information-reconnaissance system, without which the missile defense system will prove to be “blind,” are especially vulnerable in this sense. During a crisis situation period, “space” mines can be inserted into space. They are dispersed in orbit around enemy objects and, detonating on command from Earth, disable them at the necessary moment. The ‘blinding’ of enemy territory by disabling his electronic power network also is possible. American specialists determined that in case a large nuclear charge were detonated at an altitude of hundreds of kilometers above the geographic center of the United States, the state of Nebraska, a powerful electromagnetic pulse will disable electronic power system on the territory of the entire country for a certain time.
While the threat of a Russian-launched EMP attack against the United States is real, Russia might very well launch one by way of one of its proxies, or surrogate states.
Satellite States
Dr. Peter Vincent Fry, a former CIA nuclear weapons analyst and staff director of the EMP Commission, stated in 2004 that a group of Russian nuclear scientists had informed him that they had already handed the technology for a “super-EMP” to Iran and North Korea and that Russian scientists have assisted the North Koreans in developing their own EMP weapon.
In addition to North Korea, Russian arms have also made their way to Nicaragua, bolstering the regime of communist Sandinista President Daniel Ortega. “The whole Nicaraguan Army and other power agencies use arms and vehicles mostly of the Soviet and Russian production. We do not return to a bare field in Nicaragua, but resume our relations on a very serious basis, both technological and human,” stated former Russian Prime Minister Sergei Stepashin, during a state visit to Nicaragua, in 2007.
In February 2010, Russian Foreign Minister Sergie Lavrov announced that Russia and Nicaragua would be preparing joint military exercises, similar to those conducted between Venezuela and Russia. “We have military and technical cooperation to jointly strengthen the potential of our army and police in fighting against drug trafficking and organized crime,” Ortega said. Russia also enjoys cozy relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Venezuela leader Hugo Chavez, a member of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, has referred to his government as a “Bolivarian revolution.” In his third presidential inauguration speech, in 2007, he said,
“Those of you who want to know what type of socialism I have planned for Venezuela should read Marx and Lenin.”
 |
Ver aqui
|
 |
| Ver aqui |
 |
| Ver aqui |
 |
| Ver aqui |
Russia has greatly increased its diplomatic relations and military ties with Chavez’s Venezuela. In 2005, Chavez signed an agreement with the Kremlin, in which Russia agreed to sell over $4.4 billion worth of arms to Venezuela. These arms included “10 Mi-35 combat helicopters, 3 Mi-26 heavy transport helicopters, 40 Mi-17 multi-role helicopters, 100 000 AK-103 rifles, and 24 Su-30MK combat aircraft,” according to Novosti.
In 2008, a fleet of Russian warships sailed to Latin America to conduct joint war games with the Venezuelan Navy. That same year Russia landed two Tu-160 strategic nuclear bombers on a Venezuelan air force base. “I’m going to fly one of those beasts,” Chavez joked. He explained that the two Tu-160s would be conducting maneuvers over Venezuelan and neutral airspace as part of a move towards a “multi-polar world.” Chavez continued, “The Yankee hegemony is finished.”
In 2010, Chavez visited Tehran, where he met with his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The two leaders pledged to strengthen their strategic relationship and denounced U.S. “imperialism.” Ahmadinejad said, “Iran and Venezuela are united to establish a new world order based on humanity and justice.”
In addition to giving Iran “super-EMP” technology, Russia has cooperated with Iran over military affairs. On November 13, 2011, The Washington Post reported that former Soviet weapons scientist Vyacheslav Danilenko was one of the “foreign experts” who worked on Iran’s nuclear program. The following month, Iran announced that it had shot down and captured a U.S. RQ-170 unmanned aerial vehicle, for which according to the Iranian media, it has already received requests from Russia and China to examine.
Back in June 2011, Iranian Brigadier General Amir-Ali Hajizadeh, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' aerospace unit, admitted to having shown Russia previous U.S. drones it had captured. “Russian experts requested to see these drones and they looked at both the downed drones and the models made by the Revolutionary Guards through reverse engineering,” General Amir-Ali Hajizadeh said.
Unlike Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela, Iran is not a revolutionary socialist or communist country, but it has been a strategic ally of Russia since the Iranian Revolution of 1979. On February 23, 1981, while delivering the “Report of the Central Committee of the CPSU” to the 26th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev acknowledged the 1979 Iranian Revolution as “essentially an anti-imperialist revolution.” Brezhnev went on to express his support for Iran and declared, “The banner of Islam may lead into struggle for liberation.” In the same speech, Brezhnev declared, “No one should have any doubts, comrades, that the CPSU will consistently continue the policy of promoting cooperation between the USSR and the newly-free counties, and consolidating the alliance of world socialism and the national liberation.”
This Soviet strategy remains true today, despite the alleged demise of the USSR. Rather than looking back at the words of such former Soviet leaders, the media has responded to Russia’s resurgent activities with sporadic headlines that read “New Cold War” or “The Cold War is Back.” This could not be any further from the truth.
“I don’t agree that the Cold War is back. It never ended,” said Andrei Lugovoi, a representative in the Duma, Russian parliament, in 2000. In 2007, Vladimir Putin reiterated the continuation of the Cold War by threatened the West with a “new spiral in the arms race.” In the eyes of Russia, the Cold War never ended; they are still fighting. In 1960, warning about the Soviet menace, Senator Barry Goldwater, in The Conscience of a Conservative, wrote, “Our enemies have understood the nature of the conflict, and we have not. They are determined to win the conflict, and we are not.” Goldwater’s words resonate today as Russia continues to fight the Cold War through the use of EMP weapons and its reliance on satellite states».
Christian Gomez («Russia´s Continued Cold War», in The New American, 02 July 2012).
«"Anti-fascism" protesters raged against the recent G20 Summit in Hamburg, Germany, burning cars, looting shops, and inevitably clashing with police. Such violent protests give an appearance that the participants in the summit are the conservatives, maintaining free market capitalism against the radical socialists in the streets.
The reality, however, is far different.
For decades, many of the wealthy globalists who favor worldwide socialism have directly or indirectly used street radicals to give a false impression that they themselves are supporters of “free” enterprise. It is no different with the political leaders of the G20 countries: They are not free market advocates, but rather they want “managed trade,” with themselves as the managers.
Among the chief opponents to President Trump at the summit was France's newly-elected president Emanuel Macron. He lectured Trump on the benefits of globalization, using his Apple iPhone as an example. Macron noted that the phone was designed in the United States, but it was made in China with some American-made parts, and then sold in Europe.
Cast by the compliant media as some sort of “centrist,” Macron is a former member of the Socialist Party, but he was employed by a Rothschild banking house as an international banker — a vivid illustration that Big Finance Capitalism cannot be assumed to be the enemy of socialism.
This is clearly demonstrated if one examines the history of the Bolshevik Revolution that brought communism to power in the short-lived Russian Republic in 1917. Several sources have gathered evidence for western “capitalists” backing the Bolsheviks (including Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin) in imposing a totalitarian system on the people of Russia. Antony Sutton, a scholar at Stanford, made the case for this in his book Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. Another important source was Arsene de Goulevitch, a general of the “White Russian Army.” (The White Russian Army failed to stop the Communist takeover of Russia in a civil war that dragged on for years.) In his book Czarism and the Revolution, Goulevitch wrote, “The main purveyors of funds for the revolution, however, were neither the crackpot Russian millionaires nor the armed bandits of Lenin. The ‘real’ money primarily came from certain British and American circles which for a long time past had lent their support to the Russian revolutionary cause.”
Even after the evil character of the Soviet system should have been clear to everyone, this help from Western investments continued. In his three-volume history, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, Antony Sutton used mostly State Department documents to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Western technology that kept the Soviet Union from disintegrating in its early years. One might recall the quotation attributed to Vladimir Lenin: “When it comes to hang the capitalists, they will compete with each other to sell us the rope at a lower price.”
Even national socialist Adolf Hitler was able to obtain financing from German industrialists, and even foreign sources as well, that helped him in his ascension to power in the 1930s. (Sutton has written of this as well, in his book Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler.)
The men in business suits, and women in expensive dresses at meetings such as the G20 may not look like leftist radicals, but they are generally ardent socialists in their own countries, favoring government controls over business, and global governance. However, compared to radicals overturning cars and smashing store windows, they appear to the average person as pillars of society and supporters of free enterprise.
James Kunen was a founder of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), an organization that evolved from the Intercollegiate Socialist Society. In his Strawberry Statement, written during the heyday of the radical '60s, he stated that Big Business sought to channel funds to the SDS as part of a dialectical process. He made his point with a fascinating story from his attempts to organize the SDS in college. “In the evening, I went up to the University to check out a strategy meeting. A kid was giving a report on the SDS convention. He said that at the convention men from Business International Roundtables, the meetings sponsored by Business International for their client groups and heads of government — tried to buy up a few radicals. These men are the world’s leading industrialists and they convene to decide how our lives are going to go. These are the boys who wrote the Alliance for Progress. They’re the left wing of the ruling class.… They offered to finance our demonstrations in Chicago. We were offered Esso (Rockefeller) money. They want us to make a lot of radical commotion so they can look more in the center as they move to the left.”
This should cause us to wonder about just who is financing the rising tide of riots we have seen in America in recent years.
It is important to remember that just because a man puts on a high-dollar suit and tie does not make him a conservative. He may be just as radical, and in some cases, even more so, than the protesters in the streets. U.S. government official Alger Hiss, for example, uncovered as a Soviet spy in 1948, had previously been viewed by most as a pillar of American society».
Steve Byas («G20 Summit: Socialists in the Streets, Socialists in Pinstripes», in The New American, 11 July 2017).
 |
Clique sobre a imagem para ampliar
|
 |
Mikhail Gorbachev e Fidel Castro
|
The Second October Revolution
or
The Communist Deception and "Convergence" Leading to World Government
Dispelling Disinformation
This is Part One of an interview by William F. Jasper, Senior Editor of THE NEW AMERICAN, with Christopher Story (left), editor of the London-based Soviet Analyst, an intelligence commentary, and editor of The Perestroika Deception by Anatoliy Golitsyn, the Soviet defector and famous author of New Lies for Old. The interview was conducted on August 16 1995 in the Presidio, San Francisco, outside the headquarters of the Gorbachev Foundation/USA. Part Two, Leninists Still Leading, and Part Three, Red March to Global Tyranny, are also available online, along with additional articles related to Anatoliy Golitsyn and Communist deception and convergence that we have linked to at the end of this article.
Q. Why did you start publishing Soviet Analyst, and how does that publication differ from other sources concerned with Soviet Russia, Communism, etc ?
A. Soviet Analyst had been published since 1972 by a group of people in London with long-established connections with the British Foreign Office. Around midsummer 1991, they approached me, knowing that I might be interested in buying the paper, and revealed that they wanted to sell it. Their reasoning was that "it was all over"; the Soviet Union was finished. Interestingly, they thought this well before the "August coup," which took place on August 19, 1991.
Since these people had Foreign Office connections, they had essentially reflected the Foreign Office line. At the time, the Foreign Office was busily recognizing the alleged political "independence" of the Soviet Republics, one by one, and generally appeared to be doing everything possible to reinforce the illusions of "change" which were being staged by the Soviet strategists in pursuit of their objectives. We have inherited old issues of Soviet Analyst going back to 1972, from which it is very clear that Soviet Analyst was an "arm' s length" vehicle for Foreign Office opinion about the Soviet Union. In acquiring this title, I saw an opportunity to counter disinformation about Soviet developments. We started publishing Soviet Analyst in November 1991, stressing the Soviets' Leninist use of strategic deception, and explaining it to our readers. We started from the assumption that there had been no true discontinuity. Hence Soviet Analyst differs from probably all other publications in that our analysis shows that the apparent "Break with the Past" is a deception, and that "perestroika" and post-"perestroika" represent further stages of the Leninist World Revolution.
Q. From Oxford to Stanford to the Rand Corporation to London, Paris and Berlin, there are hordes of Sovietologists and Soviet defectors who are busily informing the West about what is "really happening" in the so-called '"former" Soviet Union. You have singled out the work of the Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn. Why do you think he is unique?
A. Golitsyn is probably the most important Soviet defector ever to have reached the West. The reason for this is that he revealed the details of a long-range deception strategy of which the West previously had no knowledge. When debriefed, he emphasized, as he has done ever since, that because of his background of working within the "inner KGB" — a super-secret strategic planning department of which not even ordinary KGB officers were aware — he was uniquely qualified to inform the West about Soviet strategy. One of the superficial criticisms frequently made about Golitsyn is that he has been "out of the loop" since defecting to Finland with his wife and daughter in 1961, so how could he possibly know what was going on? People who say this reveal a failure to understand Golitsyn's significance, and what he has to offer the West.
In summary, Golitsyn's importance is that, unlike all other defectors, Golitsyn discusses and elaborates upon Soviet strategy. By contrast, defectors like Oleg Gordievsky discuss mundane matters concerning the manner of their "escape" from the Soviet Union, perhaps revealing valuable operational information in order to gain the confidence of (in Gordievsky's case) Britain's MI6, before inserting strategic disinformation in their output. Golitsyn is different. He has spent his years in the West explaining patiently that the Soviets follow Leninist strategic principles, and are engaged in a deadly long-term war against the West. The Soviet revolutionaries have followed Lenin's advice to "work by other means."
Q. If we examine Golitsyn's record since 1961, do we have reason to place faith in his analysis and his analytical methods?
A. At a superficial but easily explained level, Golitsyn's public fame derives from the fact that in 1980, he completed a work called New Lies for Old, which was in fact published in 1984. This book contained explicit predictions concerning the future course of Soviet strategy, which events subsequently proved to have been correct. In his recent book, published in 1994, entitled Wedge: The Secret War between the FBI and CIA, Mark Riebling explained that after carrying out a careful analysis of Golitsyn's predictions in New Lies for Old, he had found that out of a total of 148 falsifiable predictions, 139 had been verified by 1993 — "an accuracy rating of 94%." This achievement places Golitsyn in a league of his own, putting most other observers to shame.
Q. And the predictions he made concerned very significant, "earth-shattering" developments...
A. Golitsyn's main predictions included details of the forthcoming false liberalization of the whole of Eastern Europe, followed by similar developments in the Soviet Union. He predicted the removal of the Berlin Wall, the unification of Germany, the restructuring (if not abolition) of NATO. He even went so far as to specify that a "Break with the Past" process would start in East Germany, with the opening of its borders — as it turned out, to neighboring Communist countries. That was quite remarkable: Golitsyn knew that the process would start in East Germany; and it did.
Q. For 34 years, Golitsyn has remained in hiding. He has never been seen in public; his whereabouts are a closely guarded secret. Meanwhile, other defectors are conducting national tours, appearing on television, or writing in the press. I recently saw Yuri Svets on C-Span, hawking his new book dealing with his KGB activities while stationed in Washington. Is Golitsyn's secrecy a reflection of his prudence, or of paranoia?
A. Well, those who seek to discredit him routinely accuse him of paranoia. That is, of course, a mistake. Golitsyn was condemned to death in 1962, after Semichastniy, then head of the KGB, had formally asked the Party for its approval that he should be liquidated. A Soviet defector who I am advised is reliable, reported to me that he had seen a book on display in the Lubyanka [KGB headquarters] in Moscow, listing the names and details of Traitors to the Motherland, complete with photographs. Golitsyn features in this book, which states that those listed are to be reported or killed. Obviously, it is highly significant that, unlike KGB officers who have become prominent in the West such as the "two Olegs" — Oleg Gordievsky (who told Mrs. Thatcher how wonderful Gorbachev was) and KGB General Oleg Kalugin — Golitsyn remains under deep cover. It is significant that we don't know where he is, and that I have never spoken to him (he corresponds with me exclusively through intermediaries). If he can't present himself openly, and cannot live a normal life, there must be a reason for it.
The smear that he is paranoid does not provide a rational explanation. His books are not paranoid; they are written in moderate, carefully constructed language. To accept the lie that he is paranoid, it would be necessary to believe that a man who writes so carefully and rationally, nevertheless chooses to live in disguise, with a new identity and personality, out of direct contact with those he wishes to influence, and subjects himself to open-ended inconvenience in living out his paranoia. This scenario is manifestly absurd. In The Perestroika Deception, Golitsyn clearly acknowledges that his life is in danger. If this is so, it proves that he is a living threat to the Soviet strategists — since he has revealed the essence of their long-range strategy. Incidentally, Golitsyn explains that a strategy differs from a policy in the following respect: Whereas a policy is overt, a strategy contains within it a secret maneuver or dimension which is not revealed, the purpose of which is to ensure the realization of the strategy.
Q. And Golitsyn's moderate, careful predictions in New Lies for Old have been amply validated by the course of events in recent years, as we have seen.
A. Absolutely correct. New Lies for Old is an outstanding predictive document — which of course suggests that the sequel, The Perestroika Deception, provides further significant guidelines for understanding Soviet strategy today and how it will evolve in the future.
Q. Were you surprised when Golitsyn contacted you?
A. I was very surprised. What happened was that after we had been publishing Soviet Analyst — re-angled towards the truth — for six months, and explaing in successive issues that the Soviets were engaged in global strategic deception operations, I received a letter dated May 1992 from Anatoliy Golitsyn, enclosing a few pages from his Memoranda to the Central Intelligence Agency. The letter began as follows:
I have read few recent issues of Soviet Analyst with great interest. It seems to me that you have good grasp of Soviet strategy which probably causes them some concern .... I do not want to alarm you and I do not want to discourage you from [the] excellent courageous line you are taking in your publication. But I want to warn you on personal basis to be careful in your contacts.
I cite these extracts from the letter because it proves that Golitsyn approached me, not the other way around (I would not have known where to begin). This is important, in the light, for instance, of an article by William Satire which appeared on July 10th in the International Herald Tribune, which accused me of being an "acolyte," and also stated, as matters of fact, that "Anatoliy Golitsyn, the longtime Soviet defector ... tums out a newsletter in the United States, Soviet Analyst, and I am on his mailing list." This mis- or dis-information — Soviet Analyst is published by my firm — seems to have been intended to implicate Golitsyn in any mistakes which I might inadvertently make in successive issues of Soviet Analyst. The International Herald Tribune has since agreed to publish a letter from me containing an appropriate correction.
By trying to portray me as an "acolyte," Satire, who has "connections," sought to convey the impression that I am a "follower" of Golitsyn, who basically reproduces what he says and writes. But as I have explained, the defector approached me, not the other way around. The significance of all this is that Golitsyn is not alone in having reached the conclusion that the Soviet/Russian strategists and implementers are all Leninist revolutionaries. Golitsyn's enemies would like it to be thought that the only analyst who holds this view is Golitsyn himself, and that he is in a minority of one.
In his first letter to me, Golitsyn also wrote that "I think of sending you through my lawyer more extracts from my memos to CIA for possible publication in Soviet Analyst after this year's US presidential elections." I spent the summer and fall of 1992 wondering why he had made his decision to send me further Memoranda, dependent upon the outcome of the 1992 presidential election. After Clinton was elected, sure enough, we received a huge parcel (in early December 1992) containing well over 100 pages of his Memoranda to the CIA. It became apparent that Golitsyn felt that Clinton's election necessitated the publication of these Memoranda; and in his cover letter dated December 1992, he authorized me to quote from these documents in Soviet Analyst. In March 1993, it was agreed that I would edit the complete file of Memoranda to the CIA for publication. The Perestroika Deception is the consequence of our collaboration («Dispelling Disinformation», in The New American, 18 September 1995).
Leninists Still Leading
Q. According to Anatoliy Golitsyn, "glasnost, " "perestroika," and the reforms and upheavals we have been witnessing in the '[former" Soviet Bloc represent controlled events which form part of a "Grand Strategy" rehearsed and planned decades ago. Could you explain the meaning of the phrase "strategic deception ?"
A. Golitsyn makes clear throughout The Perestroika Deception that the personalities on the stage of the so-called "former" Soviet Union are all secret members of the Communist Party, KGB officers, members of the huge Komsomol network numbering over 50 million, or members of the nomenklatura — or, at a lower level, druzhiny (vigilantes), who are used for staged demonstrations, televised provocations, and street events. As Golitsyn writes on page 19 of The Perestroika Deception:
Lenin advised the Communists that they must be prepared to "resort to all sorts of stratagems, maneuvers, illegal methods, evasions and subterfuge" to achieve their objectives. This advice was given on the eve of his reintroduction of limited capitalism in Russia, in his work Left Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder.
... Another speech of Lenin's ... in July 1921 is again highly relevant to understanding "perestroika." "Our only strategy at present," wrote Lenin, "is to become stronger and, therefore, wiser, more reasonable, more opportunistic. The more opportunistic, the sooner will you again assemble the masses round you. When we have won over the masses by our reasonable approach, we shall then apply offensive tactics in the strictest sense of the word." |Emphasis in original.]
If you examine the backgrounds of prominent Russian figures, you will find that they have long Communist Party/ KGB or Komsomol pedigrees. Yet for some inexplicable reason, the Western media have accepted their sudden, orchestrated, mass "conversion" to Western-style norms of behavior, their endless talk of "democracy," and their acceptance of "capitalism," as genuine. "Scratch these new, instant Soviet "democrats," "anti-Communists," and "nationalists" who have sprouted out of nowhere, and underneath will be found secret Party members or KGB agents," Golitsyn writes on page 123 of his new book. In accepting at face value the "transformation" of these Leninist revolutionary Communists into "instant democrats," the West automatically accepts as genuine the false "Break with the Past" — the single lie upon which the entire deception is based.
In short, the "former" Soviet Union — and the East European countries as well — are all run by people who are steeped in the dialectical modus operandi of Lenin. Without exception, they are all active Leninist revolutionaries, working collectively towards the establishment of a world Communist government, which, by definition, will be a world dictatorship.
It is difficult for the West to understand the Leninist Hegelian dialectical method — the creation of competing or successive opposites in order to achieve an intended outcome. Equally difficult for us to comprehend is the fact that these Leninist revolutionaries plan their strategies over decades and generations. This extraordinary behavior is naturally alien to Western politicians, who can see no further than the next election. Western politicians usually react to events. Leninist revolutionaries create events, in order to control reactions to them and manipulate their outcomes.
Before Gorbachev — acting on the instructions of the Leninist strategic collective — embarked upon perestroika, he achieved a breakthrough by convincing the former British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, that he was someone she could do business with. This was done by personal contact, and through the intermediation of a dispatched defector, Oleg Gordievsky, his role being to reassure the British government that Gorbachev was "genuine." in her book The Downing Street Years, Lady Thatcher even admits that she mistook Gorbachev's style for the substance. I explain this in my introduction to Golitsyn's new book: "As he cast his spell [over Mrs. Thatcher], Gorbachev unlocked the key to the control of the Western mind — and to the restructuring of the entire world. The West followed Lady Thatcher's prompting, mistaking the style for the substance. The disastrous consequences of this millennial error are now crowding in upon Western civilization, threatening its very survival."
The purpose of perestroika, culminating in the "Break with the Past," has been to convince the gullible West that Communism is dead, that the Soviet Union has collapsed, and that we are friends, not enemies anymore — a lie which was duly embedded in the Joint Declaration of Twenty-Two States, signed by Western and Warsaw Pact leaders on November 19, 1990. The Declaration asserted that the signatories are "no longer adversaries," and represented the culmination of the deception which had been managed for Western public consumption by Gorbachev's close KGB associate, Georgi Arbatov. Since publishing an article in the June 1988 issue of Kommunist, in which he said that "the image of the enemy" was being eroded and was vanishing, Arbatov had repeated this message at every opportunity. Of course, as a trained Leninist revolutionary who followed Lenin's advice to his associates to use language deceptively, Arbatov meant that the enemy would continue to exist. It was only his image which was to "vanish."
The trick worked. The West foolishly and recklessly ignored Arbatov's repeated mention of the phrase "the image of the enemy," and jumped to the hazardous and unwarranted conclusion that the enemy himself was disappearing.
After the West had bought the discontinuity deception, it readily accepted its corollary — namely, that a peaceful future for all mankind could only be assured through open-ended "cooperation." But in fact lasting "cooperation" with these Leninist revolutionaries is impossible, since their purpose is to dominate, control, and destroy us. The "cooperation" theme forms only one element of an equation which can be summarized as "cooperation/blackmail." In other words, the secret Leninist revolutionaries have told the West to "cooperate — or else." The blackmail element of this evil equation was made explicit by Gorbachev when he delivered his sinister "end of the Cold War" speech at Fulton, Missouri, a theatrical occasion at the location where Winston Churchill had delivered his famous speech announcing that Stalin had imposed an Iron Curtain across the center of Europe. Gorbachev's speech was sinister because it contained a menu of "conditions" on the basis of which the Soviet Union would be willing to "cooperate" with the West, plus several more or less explicit threats of world war if we failed to cooperate as instructed.
Of course, the Western media failed completely to understand the significance of the speech — just as today it fails to alert us to the war preparations the Russians are conducting in close collaboration with the Communist Chinese; and just as it has failed to question why, as a Reuters report noted on August 13, 1995, the "former USSR" maintains "dozens of closed military cities." The fact is that the West does not know what goes on in the dozens of closed secret military and nuclear cities. The press should be asking how this squares with the rhetoric that the "former" Soviet Union is no longer an adversary or a threat.
Gorbachev's Fulton speech contained the directives of the secret Leninist revolutionaries, with which the West was required to comply. If the required cooperation did not materialize, then this "window of opportunity" would close, and would not be likely to recur in our lifetime — so that the consequences for humanity could be grave in the extreme. The threatening tone was blatant, and the West proceeded to comply.
Q. Describe the Soviet "convergence" strategy.
A. This is the central objective towards which the secret Leninist revolutionaries are working. Their purpose has been to dismantle overt Communism, to establish apparently "normal" relations with the West, to remove travel restrictions so that large numbers of their agents would be accepted into Western societies, and to "cooperate" with the West — in parallel with the West dropping its antagonistic stance, dismantling its military power, collectivizing its security arrangements, and signing bilateral and multilateral treaties and accords with the "former" Soviet Bloc.
But the West does not understand that these Leninist revolutionaries intend that "convergence" is to be achieved on their (Communist) terms, not on ours. The Leninist meaning of "convergence" is that the West is to "converge" towards the Communists, contrary to the naive belief of Western policy-makers and political establishments.
In New Lies for Old, Golitsyn explained the detailed preparations for "convergence," and predicted that it would form the central theme of the forthcoming false "liberalization." He pointed out that the most prominent agent of influence preparing the West for perestroika was the nuclear scientist and controlled "dissident" Andrei Sakharov. He was the primary advance salesman for "convergence."
Today, the West erroneously believes that open-ended cooperation with these "former" Communists will lead to a peaceful world. That is not their intention. Their purpose is to control the world. They are proceeding towards this objective by eroding national sovereignty in accordance with Lenin' s diktat that the state is to "wither away."
All contemporary collective political arrangements — the so-called European Union; the North American Free Trade Area; the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, an intergovernmental agreement requiring the pooling of military intelligence and other anti-state measures; and new regional blocs like the South African Development Community, which has set Southern Africa on the road to integrated security, military and foreign policies, and seeks to usurp national sovereignty in the region — all are devices designed to undermine the state in order to replace nations with regional blocs which are to be the components of a world government. The destruction of national sovereignty is the paramount objective, since as long as nation states continue to exist, world government cannot be established.
Q. How is it possible for the strategists to plan, execute, and maintain the internal coherence of such a massive, long-term global deception, while retaining essential control in the "former" Communist countries, and yet actually appear to relax many of the features of the police state, and introduce relaxation of restrictions on travel, allow 'Tree "publishing, and so forth?
A. The first part of the answer is that, as Golitsyn explains, the Leninist strategists are capable of planning and executing strategy over prolonged periods — that is to say, over decades and for periods of a generation or more. They refer openly to the strategy, without throwing any light on it, as "the general line." The apparatchik Viktor Chernomyrdin, speaking on the "Russia" TV Channel in December 1992, shortly after his appointment as Russian Premier, alluded deliberately to this "general line," asserting not only its existence but its inherent flexibility, without revealing its content, when he said: "My colleagues in the government who are working today will pursue this line. The planned line. The one which has been worked out .... Life makes amendments to our program, additions, perhaps changes. But we will keep to the basic line."
This, as indicated, was an explicit, authoritative affirmation of the existence of the established long-range strategy — one of the most important post-Gorbachev confirmations of the absolute accuracy of Golitsyn's analysis.
The Leninist strategists are capable of planning over decades. The West has no ability to plan beyond the next election, and little ability to do so even between elections. We have absolutely no concept of long-term strategy. In fact, we have no strategy at all; by which I mean, in the case of Britain, for example, a strategy for national survival, for the indefinite retention of our national sovereignty, or a strategy based upon any proper understanding of our country's inalienable national interests.
Not only do these Leninist strategists plan for the long-term, but they can operate long-term because they share the same collective purpose. As we have seen, the implementers of the strategy are professional secret Party members, KGB officers, and indoctrinated, purposeful revolutionary implementers of instructions. They are a disciplined, determined cadre. As Golitsyn told the CIA in March 1989, "the Soviet Party apparatus will become a true general staff of world revolution to be carried out through the strategy of 'perestroika.'"
Q. We have been told that the KGB was dissolved and is a shadow of its former self. How true is this?
A. The reverse is the case. The KGB has undergone a number of "label changes" since the "Break with the Past," as it had done under all Communist leaderships since Lenin first established the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution (Che-Ka's), instructing his murderous henchman, Dzerzhinsky, to open the jails and to recruit sadists, murderers, rapists, and other criminals into the ranks of the Che-Ka's.
Today, state security personnel proudly refer to themselves as Chekists. After the fake "August coup," Vadim Bakatin, allegedly a "liberal" who has more recently helped to "explain" matters for Western public consumption, was appointed head of the KGB in place of Vladimir Krychkov, whose strategy had called for the replacement of himself. Bakatin was allowed to function for precisely 107 days, before being removed in favor of Viktor Barannikov, who had previously served as a KGB gauleiter in the Caucasus, where he stirred up ethnic unrest.
In his new "helpful" role, Bakatin has described the KGB as "an independent force with its own interests and, objectively, it has become an institution positioned above the highest powers and decision-making organs of the Union and the Republics."
This statement, which has been widely quoted, contains important dis-information, and is only partially correct. The Communist Party and the KGB have, since the late 1950s, repenetrated each other, so that they "share the same bloodstream." It is impossible for the KGB to function without the oversight and participation of the Party, while the Party owes its existence (whether overt or underground) to the KGB ("the Organs").
Bakatin is unreliable and suspect, because in the above statement he promotes a primary deception theme, on which the "Grand Deception" itself depends — a theme which has been repeated by Western analysts. Because everyone knows that the KGB continues to function and has greater powers than ever, the strategists' apologists refer openly to this fact — but, crucially, stress that the KGB "acts alone." It does not. It acts in secret collaboration, as always, with the Communists, who direct its activities. By implying that "the Organs" are a power unto themselves, Soviet disinformation has "separated" the "democratists" from the KGB — leaving the field clear for the continuing deception that they are true democratic parliamentarians, whom the West must support to the hilt, in order to "preclude the return of Communism" — which, in reality, has been in control all along (in The New American, 02 October 1995).
Red March to Global Tiranny
Q. Can you explain the various "reforms" and "restructurings" of the KGB over the past few years?
A. Viktor Barannikov was appointed in December 1991 to head the new Security Ministry, consisting of four elements of the KGB: internal security, foreign espionage, border troops, and the Russian intelligence service.
Legislation passed by the Russian Supreme Soviet in 1992 gave the KGB's successors the powers deployed by the KGB under the "former" USSR. Then, one day ahead of Yeltsin's KGB-planned attack on the Supreme Soviet in September 1993, Barannikov was sacked. Yeltsin's barbarous attack destroyed the "democratist" parliament, which has been replaced by the Duma. This "new" legislature consists of obedient servants of the regime, who vote as ordered. For instance, the Duma voted 234 to 0 this summer to impose sanctions on Croatia. In April 1995, this Duma approved legislation conferring powers on the further reorganized Federal Security Service, powers which equal or exceed those of "the Organs" in the Stalin era.
In December 1993, Yeltsin ostensibly "disbanded" the Security Ministry, although in practice this procedure consisted of nothing more than the redistribution of the Ministry's functions and facilities among several old and recently established security and law enforcement agencies. For a time, at least 14 agencies with intelligence functions were identifiable by Western analysts.
In short, the KGB is far from being a shadow of its former self. On the contrary, with their penetration, manipulation, and direction of the so-called "Russian Mafia, in order to establish a form of "state-controlled capitalism," "the Organs," working to the Party's instructions, are the center of all power in the contemporary Soviet Union.
Q. Does the KGB still run gulag-style cocentration camps?
A. According to a report in the June 30, 1993 issue of the highly respected Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung, the Soviet gulag system remains. The February 11, 1993 Neue Zürcher Zeitung reported that the gulag system consists, as previously, of hundreds of known and dozens of unknown prison camps, containing between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 prisoners. Torture has continued, as well as the abuse of psychiatric treatment. The population in Soviet Georgia has mysteriously declined from over 5 million to less than 3.8 million since Eduard Shevardnadze replaced the legitimately elected President Zviad Gamsakhurdia in March 1992. No explanation for this catastrophe has been forthcoming, and there are no indications of migration from Georgia to the West on the scale implied. Shevardnadze works secretly and dialectically with Moscow, where he has an apartment. His job is to squeeze the last sign of resistance out of the brave Georgian people, and he is presiding over this evil by every means at his disposal: induced famine, invasions of city residencies by country people (as in the Bolshevik Revolution), withholding fuel, hyperinflation, drug operations, thuggery by the regime's special repression forces, and military activities — after "allowing" Russia to establish numerous military bases throughout the territory. As for the repression carried out by the Russians in Tajikistan, no one knows the scale of the carnage that has taken place there.
Q. What does Golitsyn mean in The Perestroika Deception by his warning that the West may yet experience its bloody feasts?
A. The secret Leninist revolutionaries covet the mad objective of world government. By definition, a world government must be a world dictatorship, which will seek to maintain total control. Its architects are seeking to eliminate all opposition to the establishment of world government by enlisting, through deception, the West's enthusiastic cooperation in its establishment. Conceivably, they may not succeed, in which case there will be bloodshed before the final purpose is achieved. But what is certain is that, if it is ever achieved, maintenance of a global dictatorship will prove an impossible task, even though access to weaponry by the population will be precluded; and in order to simplify this task the controllers may resort, as Stalin did, to the wholesale liquidation of millions of people. The Communists are responsible for perhaps 150-plus million deaths; and it is this image they have sought to erase from the West's consciousness with their talk of the elimination of the image of the enemy. They need to erase this image precisely because as long as it remains embedded in our memory, we will resist their schemes, including their plans to establish global control.
Q. The West has been assured time and time again that the Communist Party was suspended and has been greatly weakened in the Soviet Union. Please comment on Golitsyn's explanation in The Perestroika Deception that the reverse is the case.
A. At the 28th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) held in July 1990, Yeltsin and Gorbachev spelled out the task the Party now faced: In brief, it was to subdivide itself into factions spanning the entire political spectrum in order to establish the conditions for "democratism" — fake democracy.
Yeltsin's own resignation from the Communist Party at the 28th Party Congress in July 1990 coincided with the emergence of all those instant Soviet "democrats," "anti-Communists," and "nationalists" mentioned by Golitsyn in The Perestroika Deception. Communists were given the freedom to adopt whatever deceptive political label they liked. Some became Stalinists, others Social Democrats or Liberals. Some remained Communists. Others moved incongruously to the right, or adopted a nationalist stance. All these sudden political "changes of heart" were fake. Their purpose: to create the apparatus needed in order to play the game of "democratism" — an essential ingredient in the deception campaign to persuade the West that "Communism is dead" and had been succeeded by "democracy."
At the 28th Party Congress, Gorbachev also confirmed that the Communist Party was to be splintered when he stated that we must now prove in practice ... the idea of a broad coalition .... The Party must, resolutely and without delay, restructure all its work and reorganize all its structures on the basis of the new Statutes and the Congress' Program Statement, so that under the new conditions, it can effectively perform its role as the vanguard Party. We must do everything to firmly establish in the CPSU the power of the Party masses based on all-encompassing democracy, comradeship, openness, glasnost and criticism .... When there are various views and even platforms on a number of questions of policy and practical activity, the majority must show respect for the minority. We must study, learn and improve our [new] culture. If we embark on this path, it will be easier to interact and have contacts with other forces. The Central Committee and I as General Secretary will do all we can to help the Republic Communist Parties gain their new independent status as soon as possible — a status that will lead not to a fragmentation of Communists and nations, but to a new internationalist unity of the CPSU on a common ideological political basis.
Gorbachev revealed that the CPSU was to be restructured from top to bottom, enveloped in "democracy" — meaning that its new controlled factions and platforms were to compete amongst each other, thereby creating "democratism," the illusion of democracy — and that all Communists must "study, learn and improve our culture," meaning the new "culture" of democratism. As for the Republic Communist Parties and the Soviet republics themselves, "independence," of course, is false and strictly provisional, its purpose being, as Golitsyn warned the CIA in the fall of 1990, to open up scope for independent military action in the Republics. Hence the "post-Gorbachev" repression (and in some cases, genocide) in Georgia, Moldova, Tajikistan, Armenia, Nagorno-Karabach, and Ukraine.
After the "August coup," the Communist Party was "banned." The West rejoiced (forgetting that the Chinese and Cuban Communist Parties, for instance, remained in place), and jumped to the reckless conclusion that Communism had collapsed. The assumption, presumably, was that having been "banned," the Party could not be "unbanned." But of course, it was only "banned" for cosmetic purposes. Today, the existence of the CPSU is openly acknowledged by Soviet/Russian and Western Communist sources.
Q. Most Western analysts pay close attention to the personalities on the Soviet/Russian stage, seeking to analyze the conflicting statements of the various characters. They attach Western-style political labels to these actors — describing one personality as "liberal," another as "further to the left," others still as Communists, and others as "non"- or "anti-Communists." From what you have explained, isn't such analysts completely futlie, since none of these people are political powers in their own right? A. They are all servants of the revolution, and they cooperate closely while appearing to differ. They are not independent actors on the stage. To the extent that they may appear to differ genuinely on ephemeral matters, their differences are always of only passing significance; they have no possibility of ever achieving power in this environment which is so completely manipulated and controlled by the vast Communist Party network.
Q. Where, then, does the true locus of power lie?
A. Almost certainly, "the power above the state" is located in the Security Council, which is a continuation of the "Presidential Council" that existed under Gorbachev. Such an entity has existed since the Leninist state was first established, and it is to be found in other Communist states as well. Outside the Security Council, power resides within the cooperation network operative between the secret and overt Communist parties worldwide, since all participate fully in the implementation of the strategy to achieve world government through what Golitsyn refers to as the Second October Revolution ("Welt-oktober"). The closest cooperation exists between the Russian strategists and their Chinese counterparts.
Q. In New Lies for Old, Golitsyn explained that the Sino-Soviet "split" was .false, .forming part of a deception designed to persuade the West that the world Communist movement was disunited. What is the current position?
A. The Sino-Soviet "split" was indeed a classic Leninist dialectical deception which masked the continuing collaboration between the two most important and powerful Communist Parties in the world, in pursuit of the long-range strategy which was ratified, as Golitsyn explained in New Lies for Old, at the Eighty-One Party Congress held in Moscow in November 1960. It was at that Congress that the Communist parties agreed to collaborate over a period of decades in pursuit of the objective of "convergence" leading to world government.
Golitsyn is most frequently attacked for his assertion that the Sino-Soviet "split" was false, because this particular element of the deception strategy is the most sensitive of all. If the West were to become aware that in fact the Russians and Chinese have been working closely together all along, and are the closest of allies, it would recognize the grave danger it faces. But of course, we now have a facade which perpetuates the illusion of the "split."
The Tiananmen Square atrocity in June 1989 provided a clear signal to Chinese dissidents that political perestroika was not about to be permitted in China. Golitsyn explains in The Perestroika Deception that the core demonstrators who appear to have been controlled and carried banners supporting the Chinese Communist Party suddenly marched out of the Square in formation. The shooting started after they had left; those who were killed were true dissidents who had traveled to Beijing to join in the demonstrations.
The current spectacle is of "non"-Communism in Russia and overt Communism in China. This preserves the illusion of the "split," and has provided the backdrop against which the two countries are collaborating in a coordinated military buildup of ominous proportions. The Russian-Chinese military agreement of 1993 has been followed by further accords, and the scale of China's buildup is now causing serious alarm in Western defense circles, which still do not understand that the two countries are allies.
Q. What is Gorbachev's function today?
A. Photographs appearing recently in the Western press of the assembled Russian Security Council do not show Gorbachev. This is because, for Western public consumption purposes, Gorbachev resigned on Christmas Day 1991, and faded into the background. But in reality, Gorbachev moved sideways into an organization called the Gorbachev Foundation based in the Presidio, a former U.S. Army base in San Francisco overlooking the Golden Gate. The Gorbachev Foundation somehow took over the work of the International Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), which I have already shown to exist. The International Department, in turn, was the successor of Cominform and Comintern. Thus, the Gorbachev Foundation is a cover for the International Department — traditionally the most aggressive and devious enemy of the West within the Communist apparatus.
Q. You and I have today entered the American offices of the Gorbachev Foundation, which as this interview is being conducted is planning a high-profile "State of the World Forum" — an influence-peddling bonanza — to be held at the Fairmont Hotel in San Francisco (THE NEW AMERICAN'S report on this forum appears on pages 23-28 of this issue.) We are sitting outside this old Admiral's House on the shore of San Francisco Bay, and it seems incredible that this building could be the chief branch of the International Department in the West. How can this be?
A. Well, we have been examining some of the documents we picked up when we entered the Gorbachev Foundation's building a couple of hours ago. And you can see from these documents that George Bush, Lady Thatcher, James Baker III, George Shultz, Senator Alan Cranston, and other well-known figures are scheduled to attend this event. How is it possible for the dozen or so young idealists we saw in the Gorbachev Foundation's offices to have invited all these big shots to their meeting? The answer, of course, is that this office works with the Gorbachev Foundation, Moscow, based at 49 Leningradsky Prospekt, Moscow 125468, which directs Gorbachev's campaign to co-opt Western elites in support of the [secret Communist] strategy.
In The Perestroika Deception, Golitsyn explains how Gorbachev himself kick-started the process of influencing the American elite when he visited Washington in the late fall of 1987, ostensibly to sign a treaty. But the real purpose of the visit was to meet members of the American intelligentsia, whom he referred to as "the yeast of events." Translated, this means that once they had climbed aboard, there could be nothing stopping progress towards what Golitsyn calls the Second October Revolution via the "restructuring" of the Western mind so that it would accept, without questioning, the entire secret Leninist revolutionary program for achieving hegemony over the whole world. When the West finally wakes up to the fact that it has been deceived, the blackmail element of the "cooperation-blackmail" equation will be used mercilessly, and the West may be compelled to submit to the demands of the Soviet-Chinese alliance.
I have discovered that the Gorbachev Foundation/USA was registered initially with the California authorities as the Tamalpais Institute on April 10, 1991 — that is to say, over four months prior to the "August coup." This has been established from an examination of the entity's founding documents. Precisely one year later — on April 10, 1992 — the organization changed its name to the Gorbachev Foundation/ USA. I believe that the establishment, over four months ahead of the fake coup, of the shell which later became the Gorbachev Foundation/USA provides convincing evidence of forward planning — revealing that the coup was indeed false, and that Gorbachev had received his instructions from the strategists well in advance.
Gorbachev had in fact hinted on several occasions that the "Break with the Past" was imminent. On May 17, 1990, he remarked that "we have entered the last lap," and one year later, at a press conference with President Mitterrand on May 6, 1991, he said:
The dangers lie in the fact that someone, analysing at some private moment or other, this or that instance or episode, or even event, including a dramatic event, should not make hasty conclusions and cast doubt on all that has been acquired and what we have created in putting international relations onto new channels, onto new rails, entering, as all of us have said, a period of peaceful development.
In this classically Aesopian Leninist statement, Gorbachev said three revealing things. First, he hinted at continuing anxiety in Soviet strategic circles at the possibility that Moscow's devious Leninist strategy of "convergence" with the West on Communist terms, facilitated by the forthcoming false "Break with the Past," might be exposed by someone like Golitsyn in the West who had done his homework on the strategic deception tradition of Lenin. Second, Gorbachev predicted the forthcoming "August coup" ("a dramatic event"), which the Soviets had actually code-named "Golgotha." Third, the Soviet president affirmed Moscow's pride in having successfully redirected Western thinking so that it was now ripe for accepting the Soviet (Leninist) view of the world's stateless future.
Lady Thatcher, George Bush, and the other prominent personalities who will be participating at the Gorbachev Foundation's "State of the World Forum" have all along been prepared to overlook Gorbachev's Leninist pedigree, and are lending their prestige to the global campaign by the International Department of the CPSU's Central Committee to "restructure the world."
Without elaborating here, the technique being used by the International Department/Gorbachev Foundation is to assert the existence of hideous "global problems" — the environment, world health, global security, the global crime epidemic, terrorism — which are "too big" for nation-states to handle. Accordingly, "global structures" are required in order to address these problems; and the Gorbachev Foundation projects these "solutions" to the international elite. A "global justice system," for instance, would require a national legal system to be revised so as to enable anyone to be arrested anywhere, for any "offense," at any time. Another theme floated by Gorbachev is that wherever human rights abuses are taking place, the international community should have carte blanche to intervene across borders. Such an arrangement, naturally, would render such borders pointless.
All these initiatives are subtly aimed at doing away with the nation-state, which is the core objective originally enunciated by Lenin shortly after seizing power. The Gorbachev Foundation is one of the leading contemporary instruments working towards this objective. It is much more dangerous than its predecessors because it has successfully deceived the West that its intentions are entirely altruistic.
The location of the Gorbachev Foundation's office here in the Presidio is significant. This place used to be an important U.S. military base, until it was closed two years ago, on the ground that "the Cold War is over" and the enemy has "disappeared." So here is Gorbachev's organization, linked to the secret International Department, today's Comintern, directing the secret Communists' further penetration and mind-control activities in America. The fact that Lady Thatcher, George Bush, and other "pragmatic" members of "the Great and the Good" in the West are obediently trooping to San Francisco this month to be honored guests at a conference hosted by the International Department of the CPSU summarizes the pitiful condition of Western analysis, and reveals with stark clarity how advanced the Leninist revolutionaries' "global restructuring" and mind-control activities have progressed in the space of just a few short years. It also reveals the woefully inadequate intellectual capacity of the Western elite and its gullibility in the face of the Communists' relentless onslaught against the West (in The New American, 30 October 1995).
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário