The Fake Nationalism in “Post-Communist” Russia & Eastern Europe: A Deprogramming Exercise for Western Conservatives with the Slightest Intellectual Integrity Left…




(Bold emphases added)

“The communist strategists are now poised to enter the final, offensive phase of the long-range policy, entailing a joint struggle for the complete triumph of communism. Given the multiplicity of [communist] parties in power [throughout the world], the close links between them, and the opportunities they have had to broaden their bases and build up experienced cadres, the communist strategists are equipped, in pursuing their policy, to engage in maneuvers and strategems beyond the imagination of Marx or the practical reach of Lenin and unthinkable to Stalin.” (Anatoliy Golitsyn. New Lies for Old: The Communist Strategy of Deception and Disinformation. Dodd & Mead, New York 1984. p. 327.)

“The great majority of the predictions both in ‘New Lies for Old’ and in my subsequent Memoranda to the CIA have proved accurate both in substance and in detail. The question arises: why were these predictions correct and why did Western experts fail to predict these developments? The answer lies in the different methods of analysis. The new method takes into account the adoption by the leaders of the Communist Bloc in the period 1958 to 1960 of a long-range strategy of which ‘perestroika’ is the logical culmination.” (Anatoliy Golitsyn. The Perestroika Deception: The World’s Slide Towards the Second October Revolution – Memoranda to the Central Intelligence Agency. Edward Harle Ltd., London, New York 1995. p. 11. Memorandum of March 1989.)

“[Political scientist Francis] Fukuyama [author of the grossly erroneous 1992 bestseller, The End of History and the Last Man] is mistaken when he writes of the death of Communist ideology and the end of the struggle between two systems. For Communists, ideology is not dead. It is embodied in Soviet and Chinese strategy. – The new challenge and threat arises, not from old-fashioned appeals to Marxism-Leninism by conventional Communist Parties, but from the political mobilisation of powerful Communist states seeking to secure the world victory of Communism through the strategy of convergence. – Convergence is not, as Fukuyama claims, a thing of the past, but a Communist blue-print for the future. – The Soviet Union and China are not going to follow a path that most of Asia has followed, nor is the Soviet Union going to revert to Slavophile nationalism. The Soviet and Chinese leaders have made their choice. – They believe they are in the vanguard and they believe in victory. They have a comprehensive agenda for new social, political and economic structures for Communism and the West as was clearly revealed in Sakharov’s essay, ‘Sakharov Speaks’. – The struggle is not over: it has entered a new and sharper phase. The next decade will not be a decade of boredom. History will continue and the possibility of large-scale conflict with the Communist system may well increase.” (Anatoliy Golitsyn. The Perestroika Deception. p. 95. Memorandum of March 1990, addressing Francis Fukuyma’s 1989 article published in The National Interest, “The End of History?”.)

“THE ‘MULTI-PARTY SYSTEM’ [in the then-USSR as well as in today’s ‘post-Soviet’ Russia] IS A FABRICATED INSTRUMENT OF THE KGB: The basic weapon in the Soviet political armoury is the KGB with its 5 or 6 million secret agents inside the USSR. Together, the Party and the KGB have fabricated controlled political opposition in the main cities of the USSR and in the national Republics. Together they have chosen and trained the organisers, leaders and activists of the new ‘democratic’, ‘non-Communist’, ‘nationalist’ and ‘independent’ organisations which are mushrooming under the Soviet ‘multi-Party system’. Even non-democratic groups like the anti-Semitic ‘Pamyat’ movement are creatures of the regime. Gorbachev is not the creator of a true multi-Party system: he is not a Soviet Stolypin intent on saving Russia through capitalism. – He is a Leninist, chosen and trained by the Soviet strategists to engineer the defeat of the United States and the West generally through the use of false, controlled democracy and a specious capitalism. The young Communists and KGB secret agents who form the core of the ‘multi-Party system’ are not genuine, ardent democrats bent on overturning the principles of the Bolshevik Revolution. They are still dedicated, disciplined revolutionaries and committed enemies of Western democracy who, on the instructions of the Party, are acting as ‘democrats’, ‘non-Communists’ and ‘nationalists’ in order to carry out the final assault on the capitalist West in accordance with the non-violent pattern of the Second October Revolution. – 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. The West will pay dearly for its failure to understand that ‘perestroika’ is not a denial of Leninism but a radical, creative and effective application of the tactic described by Lenin in Left-wing Communism – an Infantile Disorder’. In this document, Lenin wrote that true revolutionaries should not be afraid to discard revolutionary phraseology and adopt right-wing tactics to carry out a revolutionary policy. – After the Second World War the victorious allies correctly applied a denazification programme to eliminate former Nazis and their influence from the institutions and political life of the new Germany. No equivalent decommunisation programme  has been applied in the USSR or Eastern Europe. The Soviet Party, the KGB and the armed forces with their political commissars remain intact. – Yet the West is eager to proclaim and believe in the death of Communism and the evaporation of Communist influence virtually overnight. This over-hasty optimism is destined to end in disillusionment.” (Anatoliy Golitsyn. The Perestroika Deception. pp. 123, 124. Memorandum of September-November 1990.)

“The global role of the United States is being eroded as the partnership with Gorbachev develops. Germany and Japan are going their own way in offering massive economic aid to and cooperation with the USSR and China. Dr Kissinger was right when he said: ‘While the West is celebrating, its underlying cohesion is hollowed out’. Stronger language should be used to describe the situation than the remark of Dr Kissinger. For the American-European alliance is in a critical state of confusion and disarray. The Bush Administration committed a grievous error in deciding to encourage contacts with the emerging ‘democratic’ and ‘non-Communist’ opposition in the USSR in the persons of Yeltsin, President of the Russian Republic, Popov, the Mayor of Moscow, and others. This policy is dangerous in that it encourages genuine American democrats, Republicans and those of other political persuasions, oblivious of Soviet strategy, to walk into a well-laid Soviet trap. – It is tantamount to an invitation to the Soviets to invade the United States with their political army which, under cover of ‘democracy’ and ‘nationalism’, is intent on spreading its radical ideas on political reform of the American system, the redistribution of wealth and changes in US political and military arrangements.” (Anatoliy Golitsyn. The Perestroika Deception. pp. 124, 125. Memorandum of September-November 1990.) 

“Although [German Chancellor of the day, Helmut] Kohl dismisses the idea, the comparison between Lenin’s negotiation and exploitation of the 1922 Treaty of Rapallo with the Germans and the present Soviet strategy with regard to the economic collaboration offered by Kohl and his Foreign Minister, Genscher, is close and compelling. – What Kohl fails to realise is that the Soviet strategists aim to use Germany’s economic and technological might to convert the USSR into the dominant power in a united Europe. Chancellor Kohl has his eyes on the next election. But Gorbachev and the strategists are thinking further ahead. It was no accident that Gorbachev referred to reunited Germany’s right not only to participate in NATO but to join whatever alliance Germany preferred. What he had in mind was the possibility that a future Germany under a Social Democratic Government would switch to political alliance with the USSR. Domination of a united Europe by a Soviet-German political and economic partnership would be a significant achievement for the second round of the October World Socialist Revolution.” (Anatoliy Golitsyn. The Perestroika Deception. p. 125. Memorandum of September-November 1990.) 

“Who called the shots in the USSR before the ‘coup’ [i.e., the fake and abortive operetta coup against Gorbachev in August of 1991] and who introduced the ‘reforms’? Gorbachev and his ‘liberals’? NO, the Party and its strategists. – Who is calling the shots now and who proposed the coup to replace Gorbachev? The ‘hardliners’, the Minister of Defence and the Chief of the KGB? NO, the Party and its strategists.” (Anatoliy Golitsyn. The Perestroika Deception. p. 137. Memorandum of August 19, 1991.)

“Similarly, current and future Western aid for Russia will fail to deflect the Russian leaders from their long-term objectives of world hegemony which they will continue to pursue in concert with the Communist Chinese. – While US policymakers are mobilising massive Western support for Russia and building up optimistic expectations of the future for democracy there, the same Soviet strategists as before are quietly carrying out their strategy. As this analyst has argued in previous Memoranda and publicly in ‘New Lies for Old’, the late Academician Sakharov under the guise of a ‘dissident’ was used as an unofficial mouthpiece of the former Soviet régime before being officially ‘rehabilitated’ and lionised under Gorbachev’s ‘perestroika’.In the late 1960s he went some way towards expressing publicly the essence of Soviet strategy, though without revealing that the developments he foresaw were deliberately planned. He predicted that in the period 1968 to 1980 ‘a growing ideological struggle in the socialist countries between Stalinist and Maoist forces on the one hand and the realistic forces of leftist Leninist Communists (and leftist Westerners) on the other will lead… in the Soviet Union… first to a multi-Party system and acute ideological struggle and discussions and then to the ideological victory of the (Leninist) realists, affirming the policy of increasing peaceful coexistence, strengthening democracy and expanding economic reforms’. – The period 1972 to 1985 would be characterised by pressure from the progressive forces in the West combining with pressure from the example of the socialist countries to implement a programme of convergence with socialism, ‘i.e. social progress, peaceful coexistence and collaboration with socialism on a world scale and changes in the structure of ownership. This phase includes an expanded role for the intelligentsia and an attack on the forces of racism and militarism’. In 1972 to 1990, ‘the Soviet Union and the United States, having overcome their alienation, solve the problem of saving the poorer half of the world… At the same time disarmament will proceed’. In 1980 to 2000, ‘socialist convergence will reduce differences in social structure, promote intellectual freedom, science and economic progress, and lead to the creation of a World Government and the smoothing of national contradictions.’ – All Sakharov’s main predictions have so far been fulfilled with the exception of Russian-American partnership in solving the problem of the poorer half of the world and the creation of a World Government. What Sakharov, like the present Russian leaders, clearly had in mind was East-West convergence on socialist terms leading to World Government dominated by the Russians and the Chinese. – But ignoring the long-term strategy behind the developments in Russia, US policymakers have plunged into partnership with the so-called ‘Russian reformers’ without realising where this partnership is intended by them to lead. – Sakharov foresaw World Government by the year 2000. The question may indeed be on the agenda within the next seven years. Within that period, if present trends continue, Russia, with Western help, may well be on the road to a technological revolution surpassing the Chinese Communist ‘economic miracle’ without loss of political control by the present governing élite of ‘realistic Leninists’. – A campaign for a new system of World Government will be launched at Summit level and will be accompanied by pressure from below, the active use of agents of influence and secret assassinations of leaders who are seen as obstacles. The campaign will come as a surprise to the US Administration. In the ensuing negotiations, the US President of the day will find himself facing combined pressure from the Russians and the Chinese. The Chinese will by then have adopted a ‘reformed’, pseudo-democratic system. In the course of the negotiations the Russians and the Chinese will begin to reveal their true colours, their fundamental antagonism to the free world and the threat they represent to it. The US policy of partnership with Russia will be exposed as bankrupt. Internally in the United States this will lead to divisions, recriminations and a search for scapegoats. Externally, the reputation of the United States as the leader of the free world will be irreparably damaged and its alliances, particularly with countries like Japan which have been pressured into helping the Russians out, will be jeopardised. – The US President will find himself without the finest armed services in the world. Reformed and cut back by budget reductions based on mistaken assessments of long-term threats, the services will be equipped for handling regional conflicts but will be unprepared for global confrontation. – US intelligence and counter-intelligence, if they survive, will have lost any remaining effectiveness from continuing financial pressure and a campaign of revisionist allegations like those that the CIA and the FBI were involved respectively in the assassinations of President Kennedy and Dr Martin Luther King. – Too late it will be realised that there have been no equivalent reductions in the power and effectiveness of the Russian and Chinese armed forces or their intelligence and security services. A real swing in the balance of power in favour of a Sino-Soviet alliance vis-à-vis the free world will have taken place giving the Russian and Chinese a preponderant share in setting up the new World Government system and leaving the West with little choice but to compete with them in designing the New World Social Order. If the Russian leaders continue to demonstrate to the Russian people that they can successfully extract Western aid and contribute to signs of economic progress, the Russian people will follow them and, like the Chinese, will end up laughing with their leaders at the folly of the West. (Anatoliy Golitsyn: The Perestroika Deception. pp. 165-167. Memorandum of April 30, 1993.)

In my letter of 12 October 1993 I referred to the military/nationalist option as the third course upon which the Kremlin strategists might embark in future to adjust the style and leadership of a new government if, for example, Yeltsin was considered to have exhausted his usefulness in extracting concessions from the West. In this context, the Chechnyan ‘crisis’ can be seen not as a likely cause of a military coup, but as a possible planned prelude to a change of government. The new government might be military or nationalist. Certain indications that this is envisaged, are apparent. – It should be remembered, too, that the emergence of ‘perestroika’ in Russia was accompanied by the tightening of military and political control in China, starting with the Tienanmen Square episode. Far from being coincidental, this was the result of a joint Sino-Soviet decision – confirmed during Gorbachev’s visit immediately ahead of the Tienanmen Square provocation – that, while one main pillar of the Leninist world was engaged in ‘perestroika’, the other should be held under firm control. Similarly, the introduction of a Chinese version of ‘perestroika’, which may be expected in China after the death of Deng, would be a probable reason for a tightening of control in Russia. – Since an outright military or nationalist government might prejudice the flow of Western aid and the continued ‘cooperation’ with the West which furthers the strategists’ interests, it is more likely that the Kremlin strategists will opt for a hybrid solution involving, for example, a new President and Commander-in-Chief with a military background and a ‘reformist’ Prime Minister, in the context of overtly tighter KGB control. The President would be presented as a guarantee of Russian stability while the Prime Minister’s task would be to ensure the continued flow of Western aid and the continuation of cooperative operations. The transition might be brought about, for example, by the resignation of Yeltsin on health grounds and/or through elections, due anyway in 1996, for which the strategists would have chosen and groomed their presidential candidate. In this way, ‘legitimacy’ could be preserved and the election could be used as further ‘proof’ that democracy, cherished by the West, was ‘working’ in Russia (albeit in step with increasing authoritarianism).” (Anatoliy Golitsyn: The Perestroika Deception. p. 229. Memorandum of February 1, 1995.)



Patrick Buchanan, the “paleoconservative” and Catholic, wonders whether God is now on Russia’s side. Ann Coulter, eloquent but shallow icon of contemporary American “conservatism”, has discovered her own soft spot for Russia: she is now a cutting-edge Kremlin apologist, calling for making Russia America’s sister country. Michael Savage, ever-resolute and self-assured “right-wing” talkshow host, blames the United States rather than Russia of being the aggressor in Ukraine. Even Diana West, author of The Death of the Grown-UpAmerican Betrayal and The Red Thread, cannot let go of her mistaken sympathy for the faux-nationalist (in fact, Leninist) Orban regime in Hungary.

Do any of these people still know what they are talking about – let alone care about the consequences of spreading such misguided opinions? The great Soviet defector and unmatched expert on communist strategy, Anatoliy Golitsyn – who accurately predicted the whole of the deceptive “liberalisation from above” in the communist world, desperately trying to explain that communism was about to launch a deadly, Leninist, 360° offensive against the West – might just as well have never existed. His precious expertise and dire warnings (which could have saved the free world), widely ignored or outright dismissed, are now buried deep under multiple layers of communist-induced disorientation and confusion.

The United States is no longer “just” a country utterly divided along partisan lines (courtesy, greatly, of the Great Polariser; pardon me: the Great Community Organiser). Worse, the conservative camp has lost any internal cohesion and thus effectiveness, to begin with. Everybody appears now to be at sixes and sevens, and despite the growing belligerence and hostile rhetoric of both Russia and China (which are now officially allied), hardly anyone appears to have understood that we have reached, literally, on the brink of Communist World October. 

The ancient-Chinese military theorist Sun Tzu comes to mind, who taught in his treatise, The Art of War

All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him. (Chapter I: Laying Plans, par. 18-20.)

Surely, America finds herself in an unprecedented state of disorder. And surely, the enemy she thought was gone by the end of 1991 hadn’t gone away at all and has now reemerged from his hiding. But is there any widespread alarm? Has there been any substantial reckoning taking place? People are irritated, nervous, maybe concerned, some even scared. But, for the most part, they cannot see the elephant in the room threatening like never before their very existence, both from the inside and from the outside: COMMUNISM.



The Soviet Union never “collapsed” (neither was there any equivalent to the Nuremberg trials in post-Nazi Germany); it merely relabelled itself as the so-called Commonwealth of Independent States. Its once all-powerful Communist Party, along with the various communist mass organisations, simply acquired “new forms”. Present-day Russia’s apparent multi-party system is a sham. So is its alleged “capitalism”, that is in fact run – good old central-planning-style – by trusted Party and intelligence cadres.

In the same way, also Moscow’s “former” satellite states in Eastern Europe adopted the appearance-only of “democracy” and “free-market capitalism”. In reality, however, also they are still controlled by the old (now semi-visible) communist nomenklatura, and very little has changed in substance. The old authoritarianism hasn’t gone away, and economic prosperity, let alone bourgeois societal conditions, haven’t arrived even after three long decades of alleged “post-communism”. Instead, these countries have been ruthlessly living off the investments, credits and subsidies from Western Europe (not the least via their membership, since 2004/2007/2013, in the European Union), exporting at the same time their own astronomical unemployment (and state-organised crime!) over to the West, thus stabilising their own countries and immensely destabilising the countries of Western Europe (as well as other nations of the free world, including the United States, Canada or Australia). As for their deceptive membership in NATO, which is nothing but a frivolous joke, the West will soon be in for a cruel surprise, once war begins.     

But the theatrics of change thirty years ago were in no way restricted to Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. The whole of the world communist bloc, with very few exceptions such as North Korea or Cuba, followed the same pattern in perfect coordination (though, partly, with delays in time so to maintain the illusion of a Sino-Soviet split, a dialectical scissors strategy, which has been of vital importance for the success of the overall longrange strategy of the communist bloc, launched in the early 1960s).

As one looks at the People’s Republic of China today, one can see religious persecution at new heights, whether against Christians, Buddhists or Muslims. The long-continued spurious rift between Beijing and Moscow has given way to an overt, aggressively anti-Western alliance (with both powers having tremendously modernised their militaries). A dystopian “social-credit system” is now being built up, by which the state will ultimately be able to enforce the “right communist behaviour” (as well as patterns of consumption) upon every single Chinese citizen, the “soft way”. Hence, Western conceptions for a number of decades of China “no longer being really communist” and “having switched to capitalism” must now be acknowledged as having been suicidal illusions. In addition, both Russia and China are working 24/7 throughout the world to snatch allies away from the United States, the latter of which they intend to completely isolate. Worse, they are already engaged in an asymmetrical and truly unrestricted war against the free world, with Western politicians lacking the courage to fully call them out and sever all diplomatic and trade relations whatsoever.

Even communist East Germany hasn’t gone under, but is alive and well as a massively enlarged reunited Germany (which is no exaggeration). Formally, the GDR (East Germany) was dissolved and joined the FRG (West Germany); de facto, its old communist cadres took over the whole! By now, there is no conservative force left in Germany (and the nationalist AfD isn’t a conservative party either, and a possible candidate for being communist-controlled pseudo-opposition). Chancellor Angela Merkel (once an activist in East Germany’s communist youth organisation, FDJ) has transformed the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) into yet another left-wing party and Germany into a country of across-the-board socialist unity (which had been the name of East Germany’s communist party). Her policies (like those of her Red-Green predecessors in charge between 1998 and 2005) have turned out, in so many ways, as disastrous for Germany.

Yet, the Germans have failed to vote her out. Neither is there any serious competitor left within her party to topple her. In fact, she already passed on the party chairmanship to a younger CDU politician of her liking (Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer), albeit without stepping down as chancellor, which she will continue to be until the next parliamentary elections in October of 2021, by which she will have been in power for an unbelievable sixteen years, as long as her CDU mentor, Helmut Kohl. Present-day Germany openly calls Russia its “strategic partner” and appears to ever more lose interest in being a reliable part of the NATO alliance. Given Germany’s powerful position within the European Union, Gorbachev and Shevardnadze’s maxim of thirty years ago of a “Common European Home from the Atlantic to Vladivostok” (meaning, an all-communist Eurasia) is ever more coming into sight. As one recalls then-Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld’s illusory courting, after 9/11, of the East European countries, who had recently joined NATO in 1999, as the “new Europe”, one must clearly see that such a new Europe doesn’t exist.

The same people, in those countries, who were under pressure in the days of official communism, are under pressure now. The old nomenkaturists have passed on power to their sons and daughters, which is standard procedure in communist countries, overtly or covertly communist, with the new generation of faux-democrats and “oligarchs” being much trickier, as many of them have studied at Western universities, where they had plenty of opportunity to learn the bourgeois ways, without ever turning bourgeois themselves (in line with Lenin’s recommendation that, in order to be successful, revolutionaries have to temporarily adopt the ways and language and style of the enemy).

Conventional wisdom, which is no wisdom at all, holds that, well, these countries need more time to catch up economically and politically and there is nothing one can do about the fact that they still have to get communism out of their blood stream, but they eventually will. No, they won’t. Genuine anti-communist opposition had long been killed off before “perestroika” entered the scene. Instead, controlled opposition, well-construed pseudo-pluralism and what Anatoliy Golitsyn termed a new “state of the whole people” made sure the communists would not lose control.

And what did the communists have in mind when advertising “perestroika” (i.e., restructuring), in the first place? The restructuring not of their own system, but of the Western mind (which is why Gorbachev’s 1987 propaganda book Perestroika, in the German edition, had the revealing subtitle: “Die zweite russische Revolution – Eine neue Politik für Europa und die Welt”, thus: The Second Russian Revolution: A New Policy for Europe and the World; not for the Soviet Union and the communist bloc). The idea was to implement – chiefly, for the sake of credibility – minor, cosmetic changes in their own socialist system, but aggressively push for substantial changes in the political system of the West so to finally bring about convergence of both systems, yet strictly on their own, communist terms!

One key element of which process being certainly the necessity of turning around the balance of military power in their favour, which by now they have achieved; and they make no secret about it. In other words, they have over all those decades been following a two-tier strategy that involves two seemingly opposing approaches, which are meant to dialectically back and even enhance each other: Sun Tzu’s strategic philosophy of winning without a fight (i.e., by deception, disinformation and subterfuge, by weakening and wearing out the enemy) and Clausewitz’s classic military theory of applying overwhelming military force. Especially American analyst J. R. Nyquist has always emphasised that at the end of the day the deceiver will have to put his cards on the table and reveal his true intentions – which is where open warfare begins (unless, of course, the West by then is so weakened that it would simply have to sit down at the negotitating table and sign its own unconditional surrender). Given Russia and China’s aggressive moves during the last ten, twenty years, one can see that they have been thoroughly preparing this eventual switch from deception to open military blackmail, if not outright hot war. Indeed, Putin already used the language of cooperation-blackmail in his March 1, 2018 state of the nation address. He presented video animations of Russia’s newest super-weapons, against which the United States supposedly has no means of defence (U.S. experts take these claims seriously). Here’s what Putin said (bold print by this author): 

It is actually surprising that despite all the problems with the economy, finances and the defence industry, Russia has remained a major nuclear power. No, nobody really wanted to talk to us about the core of the problem, and nobody wanted to listen to us. So listen now! […] Sooner or later, other armies will also have the technology, the weapons, even the most advanced ones. But this does not worry us, since we already have it and will have even better armaments in the future. […] It was our duty to inform our partners of what I said here today under the international commitments Russia had subscribed to. When the time comes, foreign and defence ministry experts will have many opportunities to discuss all these matters with them, if of course our partners so desire. […] Now we have to be aware of this reality and be sure that everything I have said today is not a bluff ‒ and it is not a bluff, believe me ‒ and to give it a thought and dismiss those who live in the past and are unable to look into the future, to stop rocking the boat we are all in and which is called the Earth. […] There is no need to create more threats to the world. Instead, let us sit down at the negotiating table and devise together a new and relevant system of international security and sustainable development for human civilisation. We have been saying this all along. All these proposals are still valid. Russia is ready for this. […] We are interested in normal and constructive cooperation with the United States and the European Union. We hope that common sense will prevail and our partners will opt for honest and equal work together. 

Which means we have reached at the agonising end point of the communists’ longterm strategy. With most if not all their pawns in place, they have now officially opened the cruel process of checkmating the United States (and thus the whole of the free world), at long last: via nuclear blackmail and simultaneously via fuelling the greatest constitutional crisis in U.S. history. It’s all of a piece. 

But let us once again look at the “new democracies” of Eastern Europe (that are now all represented in what Anatoliy Golitsyn predicted to be an all-European socialist parliament). It all began thirty years ago (actually, much earlier than that), when (groomed, false-opposition) personages (intellectuals or union leaders) led those East-bloc countries into a new, promising democratic future, or so it seemed. Václav Havel in Czechoslovakia, however, was indebted to and controlled by the Czech intelligence service StB. He made sure there was no effective break with the communist past (coincidentally, Havel died on a Dec. 18, Stalin’s birthday, by Gregorian calendar).


In Poland, the allegedly independent labour union Solidarność, including its leader Lech Wałęsa, was an all-out creation by the communist state, with even one out of five Communist Party Central Committee members being members of Solidarność at the same time. And hadn’t the Solidarność movement started out of the Lenin Shipyards at Gdańsk? And wasn’t its logo a clearly socialist-revolutionary design? Not to mention the name Solidarity itself, which is a classic communist maxim. As for those who still believe Woodstock-Pope John Paul II was an anti-communist who fought the Polish Communist Party, well, the communists seemed to have no problem in allowing him to visit Poland as Pope in 1979, 1983 and 1987 (he later returned twice in 1991, in 1995, 1997, 1999 and 2002). According to the pedestrian view, the Pope’s first Poland visit in 1979 triggered the foundation of Solidarność one year later (based all on the erroneous conception that the Pope as well as Solidarność were the “good ones”) . Yet, why would the communist regime let him in again twice in the period, Oct. 1982 to April 1989, during which Solidarność was prohibited? Let us have a look at what lifelong Leninist and master deceiver Mikhail Gorbachev had to say, in retrospect, about the role of John Paul II in helping “bring down” the very ideology of which Comrade Gorbachev himself was a key figure and remains so to his last breath:

There was a meeting with Cardinal Casaroli and he conveyed to me the warmest greetings of the pope and conveyed to me the pope’s sympathies for our reforms, for the democratic transformations that were going on in our country. By the way, when I met with the pope, he repeated all this himself and said: “I criticized communism but, I want you to know, that I also criticized all the vices of capitalism. It is necessary to reach a freedom, a democracy, a society that respects human beings as the supreme value. It is necessary to give people the ability to choose, including the ability to choose their religion.” And in this regard, we had taken some steps, which he supported. And he supported them in his letter. Later in the conversation the subject of Europe came up, that it was very important that under the influence of perestroika there were changes in the positions of the Soviet leadership and that these changes were very positive for Central and Eastern Europe, which was very important. And then I heard a phrase that was later quite often heard. He said that “in the future, Europe will be able to breathe with both lungs,” meaning that when such changes were happening in the Soviet Union, in Eastern Europe, then there is the possibility of rapprochement, of overcoming schisms, which is very important for our continent. Generally speaking, you know, this was the sense of the situation: the approval of our perestroika reforms and an explanation of his views on communism and on capitalism. By the way, fairly recently he suddenly said that he is concerned that, having been given the chance to rebuild their countries, their governments, many countries of Central Europe have again run up against materialism, but a different sort — market-oriented. And the spiritual essence was being put on the back burner and continues to languish there. […] Now we will say that the pope was simply an extraordinary man. And one of the most extraordinary qualities of the pope was that he was a devoted servant of the Church of Christ. And, finally, as the head of state of the Vatican, he did a lot, using his opportunities along these lines, he did a lot to prepare for the end of the Cold War, for the coming together of peoples. He did a lot to remove people from the danger of a nuclear conflict. He was a man who used his high position — I’ll speak bluntly — in the best possible way. He was [a man] who did not put political calculation at the center, but who made his judgments about the world, about situations, about nature, about the environment, based on the right to life, to a worthy life for people and on the responsibility of those people for what is gong on in the world. I think that there has never been such an outstanding defender of the poor, the oppressed, the downtrodden in various cases and in various situations, either historically speaking or in terms of ongoing conflicts. He was a humanist. Really. A Humanist with a capital H, maybe the first humanist in world history. [Keep in mind that communists like to call themselves “humanists”!]



This is the same Gorbachev who in his through-and-through Leninist programmatic book of 1987, Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World, wrote things like this (complemented by comments by this author in orange colour and square brackets and with bold print emphases also by this author):

We openly say that we reject the hegemony-seeking aspirations and global claims of the United States [the usual Soviet cliché of “evil, imperialist America”!]. We do not like certain aspects of American politics and way of life [feel the contempt!?]. But we respect the right of the people of the United States, as well as that of any other people, to live according to their own rules and laws, customs and tastes [how gracious, but one can clearly hear the communists’ disdain for “American decadence”]. […] We have no ill intent toward the American people. We are willing and ready to cooperate in all areas. [However, that “willingness to cooperate” precisely represented an aggressive and most hostile diplomatic offensive aimed at the ultimate defeat of the United States!]. […] Time slips past and must not be wasted. We have to act. The situation does not allow us to wait for the ideal moment: constructive and wide-ranging dialogue is needed today. That is what we intend when we arrange television links between Soviet and American cities, between Soviet and American politicians and public figures, between ordinary Americans and Soviet citizens. We have our media present the full spectrum of Western positions, including the most conservative of them. We encourage contacts with exponents of different outlooks and political convictions. In this way we express our understanding that this practice helps us to move toward a mutually acceptable world. [The West should have said: We’re not convinced. And why all the hurry? Keep your “mutually acceptable world” for yourselves. We are not interested! – Instead, PM Thatcher and Pres. Reagan euphorically, and most irresponsibly, chose to embrace the Russian Bear…] (pp. 12, 13.)

I think one thing should be borne in mind when studying the origins and essence of perestroika in the USSR. Perestroika is no whim on the part of some ambitious individuals or a group of leaders [a veiled admission that perestroika had been planned much earlier, in fact in the late 1950s.]. If it were, no exhortations, plenary meetings or even a party congress could have rallied the people to the work which we are now doing and which involves more and more Soviet people each day [keep in mind: “more Soviet people” means in reality “more Party people”]. Perestroika is an urgent necessity arising from the profound processes of development in our socialist society [the phrase, “profound processes of development in our socialist society” is a clear red flag, as it reveals Marxist-Leninist evolutionary thought, plain and simple]. The society is ripe for change [says the Party!]. (p. 17.)

[…] the Soviet Union is a young state without analogues in history or in the modern world. Over the past seven decades – a short span in the history of human civilization – our country has traveled a path equal to centuries. One of the mightiest powers in the world rose up to replace the backward semi-colonial and semi-feudal Russian Empire. Huge productive forces, a powerful intellectual potential, a highly advanced culture, a unique community of over one hundred nations and nationalities, and firm social protection for 280 million people on a territory forming one sixth of the Earth –  such are our great and indisputable achievements and Soviet people are justly proud of them. [So much for the fairy tale of  Gorbachev, the “democrat”, who did away with communism…] (p. 18.)

[But wait for this:] The works of Lenin and his ideals of socialism remained for us an inexhaustible source of dialectical creative thought, theoretical wealth and political sagacity. His very image is an undying example of lofty moral strength, all-round spiritual culture and selfless devotion to the cause of the people and to socialism. Lenin lives on in the minds and hearts of millions of people. Breaking down all the barriers erected by scholastics and dogmatists, an interest in Lenin’s legacy  and a thirst to know him more extensively in the original grew as negative phenomena in society accumulated. [Perestroika was a Leninist offensive, and Russia continues to be the state of Lenin even today, with the evil state founder’s corpse still exhibited in his mausoleum on Red Square!] (p. 25.)

To put an end to all the rumours and speculations that abound in the West about this, I would like to point out once again that we are conducting all our reforms in accordance with the socialist choice. We are looking within socialism, rather than outside it, for the answers to all the questions that arise. We assess our successes and errors alike by socialist standards. Those who hope that we shall move away from the socialist path will be greatly disappointed. Every part of our program of perestroika – and the program as a whole, for that matter – is fully based on the principle of more socialism and more democracy. (p. 36.)

We will proceed toward better socialism rather than away from it. We are saying this honestly, without trying to fool our own people or the world. Any hopes that we will begin to build a different, non-socialist society and go over to the other camp are unrealistic and futile. Those in the West who expect us to give up socialism will be disappointed. It is high time they understood this, and, even more importantly, proceeded from that understanding in practical relations with the Soviet Union. (p. 37.)

It is true to say that post-revolutionary development underwent difficult stages, largely due to the rude meddling of imperialist forces in our internal affairs; policy mistakes and miscalculations also occurred. Nevertheless, the Soviet Union progressed, and a society has been created in which people have confidence in their future. And if truth is the guide, any objective observer must admit that Soviet history is in general a history of indisputable progress, despite all the losses, setbacks and failures. We advanced in the absence of roads, literally and figuratively: we would sometimes go astray and make mistakes, and more than enough blood was shed and sweat lost along our path. But we stubbornly marched on and never thought of retreating, of giving up the ground we had gained, or of questioning our socialist choice. (p. 38.) [This is not Hr. Hitler speaking, but Nobel Peace laureate, Mikhail Gorbachev!]

Fourteen out of fifteen Soviet citizens living in the USSR today were born after the Revolution. And we are still being urged to give up socialism. Why should the Soviet people, who have grown and gained in strength under socialism, abandon that system? We will spare no effort to develop and strengthen socialism. I think that a minimum of the new system’s potential has been tapped so far. (p. 42.)

We have no reason to speak about the October Revolution and socialism in a low voice, as though ashamed of them. Our successes are immense and indisputable. But we see the past in its entirety and complexity. Our most tremendous achievements do not prevent us from seeing contradictions in the development of our society, our errors and omissions. And our ideology is critical and revolutionary by nature. (p. 42.)

At the same time, we realize that improving socialism is not a spontaneous process, but a job requiring tremendous attention, a truthful and unbiased analysis of problems, and a resolute rejection of anything outdated. We have come to see that half-hearted measures will not work here. We must act on a wide front, consistently and energetically, without failing to take the boldest steps. (p. 44.)

It may seem that our current perestroika could be called a “revolution from above.” True, the perestroika drive started on the Communist Party’s initiative, and the Party leads it. The Party is strong and bold enough to work out a new policy. It has proved capable of heading and launching the process of renewal of society. (p. 55.)

It is a distinctive feature and strength of perestroika that it is simultaneously a revolution “from above” and “from below.” This is one of the most reliable guarantees of its success and irreversibility. We will persistently seek to ensure that the masses, the “people below,” attain all their democratic rights and learn to use them in a habitual, competent and responsible manner. Life convincingly confirms that at sharp turns of history, in revolutionary situations, the people demonstrate a remarkable ability to listen, understand and respond if they are told the truth. This is exactly how Lenin acted at even the most trying moments after the October Revolution and during the Civil War, when he went to the people and talked to them frankly. This is why it is so important that perestroika maintains a high level of political and labor energy amongst the masses. (p. 57.) [This is the arrogant attitude of communism in a nutshell: The vanguard (i.e., the Party) knows best, and the people simply need to “listen”…]

When asked if we are not pushing it too hard, we reply: no, we are not. There is no reasonable alternative to a dynamic, revolutionary perestroika. Its alternative is continued stagnation. Upon the success of perestroika depends the future of socialism and the future of peace. The stakes are too high. Time dictates to us a revolutionary choice and we have made it. We will not retreat from perestroika but will carry it through. (p. 58.)

The main task is to get the whole of society involved in the process of restructuring. Socialism in our society is developing on its own basis. We are not suggesting that perestroika should be carried out with a different people, party, science, literature, and so on. This is not so. We are carrying it out together, through a nationwide effort. The entire intellectual potential must be brought into play. I can see from my own experience that all of us are changing in the course of perestroika. It would be unfair to deny someone the right to experience their own perestroika, to act differently today from how he did yesterday, to proceed today from a realization of the situation and the goals which have been put forward by our time. (p. 65.) [Quite frank: Perestroika was not a change in ideology at all, but solely the full mobilisation of all resources (first of all, deception and disinformation), with the aim of strengthening socialism and ultimately defeating the much-hated capitalist class enemy, whereby “intellectual potential” doesn’t necessarily mean the intelligentsia, as the West would understand it, but the “creative” potential within the intelligence services. What’s more, Gorbachev’s emphasis of everybody’s right to his own perestroika can, beyond doubt, only mean one thing: that Party and intelligence cadres should think about which new appearance they wanted to “shape-shift” into, leaving behind the communist label and becoming appearance-only nationalists, social democrats, conservatives, old-style Stalinists, democrats, whatever they would like to choose.]

Truth is the main thing. Lenin said: More light! Let the Party know everything! As never before, we need no dark corners where mold can reappear and where everything against which we have started a resolute struggle could start accumulating. That’s why there must be some more light. (p. 75.) [This was the real meaning of “glasnost”, i.e., opening: more transparency NOT for the people, but for those in power! Which makes complete sense: for a daring political experiment such as introducing fake democracy, the state needs to have established across-the-board control over the population.]

To uphold the fundamental values of socialism is a tradition of our press. Any fact, whether it is the burning issue of today or some unfortunate event of the past, may become the subject of analysis by the press. What values you defend, whether the people’s destiny and future are of concern to you is what matters the most. It so happens, sometimes, that an author brings a sensational fact, a topical fact, out in a newspaper and begins to dance around it, imposing on others his own ideas and likes. In my opinion, any honest, open talk, even if it arouses doubts, should be welcomed. But if you try to fit somebody else’s suit on us, beware! Glasnost is aimed at strengthening our society. And we have a lot to assert. Only those whom socialist democracy and our demands for responsibility prevent from satisfying their personal ambitions, which are, anyway, far removed from the people’s interests, can doubt this. (p. 79.) [This amounts to a brutal rejection and renunciation of any real freedom of speech or freedom of the press. The whole meaning of the operation was to change appearances, not substance. The Soviet Union or “post-Soviet Russia”, whether under Gorbachev, Yeltsin or Putin, were never meant to enjoy Western-style liberties. Instead, people were clearly warned to make sure they would stay in line!]

Socialism and public ownership, on which it is based, hold out virtually unlimited possibilities for progressive economic processes. For this, however, we must each time find the most effective forms of socialist ownership and of the organization of the economy. Of prime importance in this respect is for the people to be the true master of production, rather than a master only in name. For without it, individual workers or collectives are not interested, nor can they be interested, in the final results of their work. (p. 83.) [All these desperate argumentative contortions can hardly veil the obvious fact that perestroika and all that followed never ever had in mind a switch to free market economics. Instead, it was all about “optimising” socialism, making it more effective, especially as for its external political offensive that took the West by complete surprise.]

The situation now stands as follows: There are many people who are calling for stronger centralism. Balance sheets, proportions, the need for incomes, to correspond to the mass of commodities and volume of services, structural policies, state finances, defense – all these require a firm centralized principle. All our republics and all our peoples should feel that they are placed in equal conditions and have equal opportunities for development. In this lies the guarantee of Soviet society’s stability. That is why we do not want to weaken the role of the center, because otherwise we would lose the advantages of the planned economy. (p. 89) [This is really a comical paragraph. It shows, first, how little the communists understand about economics, but it also reveals their stubborn holding on to central planning, because, well, they would otherwise have to let go of central planning… Quite funny indeed! And proof that perestroika was never meant to do away with the communist system! One could of course ask what Gorbachev, or his ghostwriters, mean by the “advantages of the planned economy” which they would lose should they give up the centre. Economically, there are none, and the communists know this all too well. It can only mean one thing: to retain total power over the people, which is essentially what communism has been about ever since its inception: to keep the people in a state of constant fear as well as helplessness.]

And on and on it goes…


As a powerful illustration of how Mikhail Gorbachev has shed since 1991 the polished Gucci style he was famous for at the time and adopted the much more authentic look (and expression) of a true revolutionary (which he had always been), examine the photograph above that was taken on November 9, 2009 on the occasion of the 20-year celebrations of the fall of the Berlin Wall; beside him, one can see German Chancellor Angela Merkel (former East-German Communist Youth functionary) and Lech Wałęsa, leader of the controlled “anti-communist” labour union Solidarność and for a while Polish President (like Gorbachev, with a proletarian cap): What an image of all-communist harmony! This strange (and frightening) metamorphosis, this absolute disconnect between the Gorbachev of the 1980s (who mesmerised particularly Margaret Thatcher by his “style”) and the Gorbachev in more recent years (who shows himself openly as the aggressive Leninist that he really is), should make us shudder: The communists, with Gorbachev at the helm, had merely put on a mask of friendliness and bourgeois civility. That mask has now dropped, and what we can see – if we dare open our eyes – is the same old communist beast, eager as ever to devour us all!

And yet, even today, most of Germany lays her, in any case questionable, reunification at the feet not of her late – widely disgraced – former Chancellor Helmut Kohl, but at the feet of unchanged Gorbie Superstar! History, especially when choreographed by communists, can sometimes be quite cruel indeed…



There are essentially three books (two of them extensively quoted in the introduction to this article) that suffice to understand that the alleged collapse of communism was a thoroughly coordinated (and long pre-meditated) deception operation, in fact the greatest deception operation in all of human history: Anatoliy Golitsyn’s two epic works, New Lies for Old and The Perestroika Deception, as well as Christopher Story’s just as epic The European Union Collective (actually, Christopher Story had been the editor of Golitsyn’s The Perestroika Deception). In addition, there is a one-hour interview of 2003 with Christopher Story on YouTube, in which he brilliantly explains how this colossal scheme was put into practice, and why it has been so successful:

All those who still parrot the official narrative of “collapsible communism”, whether with regard to the Soviet Union, to Eastern Europe or other places in the “former” world communist bloc, should better think twice – finally! – and should start looking at the ever-mounting (indeed overwhelming) evidence to the contrary. Just as Anatoliy Golitsyn had predicted (and then analysed in real-time), there was no break with the communist past. Not in the USSR, not in the satellite states of communist Eastern Europe, nor anywhere else.

The West should, at long last, ask itself some uncomfortable questions: Has the European Union’s extension into Eastern Europe really lifted up the East, or has it brought down the West? Has the representation of these (unchangedly communist) countries in all EU institutions not transformed the latter from being more ore less left-leaning into being de-facto communist? Has the move of the Schengen border, by which Western Europe had initially been meant to protect itself towards the East, away from the Western European countries and deep into East European territory, been really such a good idea? Why has there not been a fierce warning by the West Europeans to the (Leninist) states of the East that, should they not immediately stop the massive (state-controlled) criminal activity out of their territory into Western Europe, they would be kicked out of the EU? Is there anything that the Western utopians seeking to establish a borderless Great Europe (if not Pan-Eurasia!) will not deliberately ignore and sacrifice on the altar of their reckless project of “European integration”? Has there anybody in the West paid serious attention to the ominous fact that quite soon after the alleged “collapse of communism” a massive wave of communist nostalgia was flooding the East? And why, for heaven’s sake, could nobody foresee the easily foreseeable, namely that by establishing “freedom of settlement” for everybody throughout this massively enlarged “Europe”, millions and millions from the enormously impoverished countries of Eastern Europe would literally invade Western Europe, not only bringing down wages and putting additional burden on the Western European countries’ social-, healthcare- and education systems, but carrying with them the very attitudes and manners (or lack thereof) those barbarised communist societies had been so notoriously infamous for? Has there anybody ever given any thought to the irritating fact that not only had there been in Eastern Europe no de-communisation whatsoever on the political level (which would have been vitally necessary in order to enable these countries to have a genuine fresh start), but that the populations enslaved under those communist tyrannies for decades were never decommunised either? Importing them, so to speak, into the West was a fatal thing to do! Certainly, they were thirsting for a higher standard of living, which is more than understandable, given the dull conditions under which they had been forced to exist for so many years, but were they also thirsting for cultivating the qualities that are indispensable for being successful in a free (or relatively free) market society? With the benefit of retrospect, one must say: Not quite. Self-responsibility, self-initiative, let alone self-reliance had been foreign categories to them, as in their parallel universe the all-powerful state – in other words: the collective – was looking after anything and everything. Unlearning the virtues of discipline, hard work, courage, inventiveness, entrepreneurship and risk-taking was definitely much easier than accepting the challenge of relearning them anew! As with all other things in life, falling is always easier than getting back up. This fundamental truth was not being considered by the Western politicians, whether out of naïveté or simply inferior motives. Helmut Kohl, for one example, who wanted to write history whatever the cost, later admitted that he had underestimated the rift that had separated East- and West Germany. A shy admission, but an admission nonetheless.

What applies to Western Europe, applies to the West at large. Handing over huge sums of money and technology to and engaging in joint ventures with the “self-imploded” Soviets was nothing but financing the West’s own destruction. Signing, with a smile, all kinds of disarmament treaties with them was just as suicidal, as communism has always viewed treaties as mere scraps of paper that can be torn apart whenever it suits them. As a consequence, again and again, the West had to learn that it was disarming unilaterally! But as the “collapse of communism” had been prematurely carved in stone, no more debate or consideration was possible. The thing was quickly turning into a fait accompli for the communists. By their apparent breaking up of the Soviet Union into fifteen, of Czechoslovakia in two, of Yugoslavia in meanwhile six, they have also mutliplied their seats in all international organisations. In 1997, an extended G7 (called G8) was formed in order to include Russia. In 2002, a NATO-Russia Council was founded; in 2012, the Russian Federation was even accepted in the WTO. While the Eastern European states, now in NATO, were simultaneously holding military manoeuvres with the Russians. The same process of gaining of weight can be seen with the People’s Republic of China. As for the OSCE (formerly, CSCE), Russian representatives have frequently said that they viewed this organisation as a “net they had thrown over Western Europe”. It’s been a gradual, but systematic process of turning around the balance of power, across the board.



The communists have “played the nationalist card” before. Stalin, allied with Britain and the United States against the axis powers, was wise enough to apparently dissolve the Comintern, admit greater freedom of religious practice, commission a first-ever national anthem for the Soviet Union (by its melody, still in place today) and emphasise Russian patriotism (even though the USSR was, by definition, a supra-national entity). Consequently, WWII was named (and is still named today) “the Great Patriotic War”. However, religious suppression again grew by the late 1940s, went haywire under Khrushchev from the late 1950s till his removal in 1964 and was again intensified beginning in the mid 1970s. The communist revolutionary method is based on the strategic use of the dialectical principle, and so periods of seeming relaxation are always followed by periods of ideological hardening and persecution. Also, communism, following vastly the precepts of Lenin, is infinitely flexible and opportunistic and allows, to a certain degree, for national characteristics to modify the underlying (nevertheless sacrosanct) doctrine of Marxism-Leninism – which is why communism in China out of necessity shows different aspects and qualities than, e.g., communism in Cuba. The revolution always mimics the local tradition, using it against itself. Hence, Mao’s “Red Book”, Gaddafi’s “Green Book” or Castro’s “Caribbean Communism”.

In this latest grand operetta of apparent “post-communism” we have been seeing these communist states simply acquiring “national characteristics” along Leninist lines. The Polish communists were suddenly friends not only with Wałęsa’s Solidarność movement, but even with the Catholic Church (all greatly supported by Polish Pope Karol Wojtyła’s intense political activism and with Gorbachev leading the way). Poland’s transition to “post-communist democracy” was, like in most other satellite states, miraculously smooth and bloodless. An improbable nationwide coming together had achieved the impossible, and the communists voluntarily closed shop. That’s how it was sold to the West, and the West bought it all at face value.

In a way, one can’t blame all those conspiracy theorists who firmly believe in an international (Masonic etc.) cabal intent on bringing about a “New World Order”, as accepting the profane and pedestrian reality of Western politicians being that stupid is just too much for them to take in. Sun Tzu taught one should know the enemy as well as oneself. Sadly, the “geniuses” in the Western countries’ halls of power seem to know neither. And so the tragedy began to unfold, with the Western public naïvely celebrating Gorbachev almost like a saviour. In reality, he was a masterful Leninist who perfectly knew how to play on the West’s hopes and fears. He didn’t bring peace. He didn’t bring democracy and free markets to the countries of the communist bloc. He merely strengthened the communist system (and said so in his book, Perestroika), preparing the West for eventual defeat. His Gorbachev Foundation and Green Cross International have greatly served to influence the West towards ever greater convergence with the “former” communist bloc (on communist terms) and to push, along with Greenpeace, the United Nations and all other eco-leftwing entities, radical restructuring of the economies of the West along eco-communist lines. Gorbachev, like his comrades, has never been a friend of the West, but a dangerous, dangerous enemy. Interestingly, he still keeps commenting on international developments, ever defending the official Russian government under Vladimir Putin (even using the exact same verbiage). He regularly “warns” the West of a new arms race and World War III. However, Gorbachev’s “warnings” are in fact threats. All he does, as the “respected elder statesman” that he is in the eyes of the West, is underscore the official Russian line, giving it seemingly greater credibility. But he is not an independent private citizen, but is serving communist strategy to his last breath. In other words, they are playing role plays.

As one looks at the other satellites, the patterns of transition were similar, even though modified according to any given country’s own history. In Czechoslovakia, the (controlled) opposition group Charta 77 came to the forefront. Hungary was even using the apparance of emerging monarchist tendencies, with Hungary’s Gorbachev, the “reform communist” Imre Pozsgay, holding with ever-ambitious Archduke Otto von Habsburg (who had his own Pan-Europa agenda in mind) a much-advertised “Paneuropan Picnic” outside Sopron near the Hungarian-Austrian border. Hundreds of East-German would-be runaways indeed came, were supposedly given food and some Deutschmarks and were eventually allowed out into the West. Big drama, big confusion, the scheduled speeches and cultural programme had to be dropped – it indeed looked like a spontaneous event. In reality, all these incidents had been carefully crafted by the communists so to present to television viewers in the West convincing images of a growing deterioration of the communist bloc. Yet, there was no deterioration. There was only a controlled scene change. By the way, communist Hungary finally and officially opened its borders on Sept. 11, 1989, a date that since 2001 has lived in infamy and that marks – believe it or not – the birthday of “Iron Felix” Dzerzhinsky, founder and head of the dreaded Cheka, the initial Soviet secret police, which was brutally executing Lenin’s Red Terror against the people of Russia. In addition, Sept. 11 is also the death day of Nikita Khrushchev, under whose watch the new Leninist longrange strategy of deception was formulated and launched. (Below: Invitation leaflet for the Paneuropean Picnic.)

Paneuropa Picknick. Original

It is interesting that the career of present-day Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who was a communist activist in his youth, has always been accompanied by figures from the old communist Hungary. The above-mentioned Imre Pozsgay (1933 – 2016), for one, a life-long communist, has been time and again an advisor to Prime Minister Orbán. (Below: upper row, left to right: Péter Boross, Minister of Civilian Intelligence Services in 1990, Minister of the Interior from 1990 till 1993 and Hungarian Prime Minister from 1993 to 1994; Viktor Orbán; Imre Pozsgay.) 

Orbán, Pozsgay 

As one looks at the image below, one might think this is the Sicilian mafia. However, this is again Péter Boross and Viktor Orbán alongside János Áder, since 2012 Hungary’s State President. The occasion was the funeral of Gyula Horn (1932 – 2013), high-profile Hungarian communist until 1989 and instant-“socialist” after 1989, serving as Hungary’s Prime Minister from 1994 till 1998.

Boross, Orbán, Áder

Viktor Orbán’s completely over-the-top nationalism perfectly matches the faux Russian nationalism of disciplined Chekist Vladimir Putin. And the two are great friends, as well! Putin frankly calls Hungary Russia’s most important ally in Europe.

Putin, Orban 3

Orbán’s attacks against Brussels, against George Soros and certainly against immigration are more than just bombastic spectacle. Hungary, which formed in February 1991 together with Poland and then-Czechoslovakia the so-called Visegrád Group, is seamlessly pursuing, like its meanwhile three good old socialist brother states (that include Slovakia), an unchanged East Bloc policy, which in the new situation is designed to make sure that these countries only benefit from their membership in the European Union. What’s more, their behaviour during the 2015 so-called “refugee crisis” gave these four countries completely away, as they outright refused (and still refuse) to take any significant numbers of people in. In other words, they do not regard themselves as part of the EU or the West at all! Given the fact that this immense wave of migration (that hasn’t stopped even now) represents a clandestine Russian operation aimed at destabilising Western Europe, and Western Europe only, it becomes clear that these unchanged East-bloc countries, based on their fictitious nationalism, won’t allow these people from Africa and Asia in. After all, the migration crisis is designed to hit solely the West! And: They are, under whatever pretext, silently or not so silently leaving the EU, not formally, but factually, moving back into the same East-European communist sphere they came from!  

Starting with Sept. 4, 1989, Communist East Germany saw a growing movement on its own territory of civil rights activists, dissidents and reform communists gathering especially in Leipzig’s St. Nicholas Church for weekly political demonstrations. These so-called Monday demonstrations at first were in no way demanding the abolition of the socialist system or even reunification with capitalist West Germany. What people were mostly calling for was a reform of the system, freedom to travel, freedom of speech, the dissolution of the hated State Security (mostly called “StaSi”) and better life conditions. In fact, these activists were solely envisioning a better, more just and purer socialism in a continuedly separate East Germany! Without Helmut Kohl’s maximum pressure for swift reunification, East Germany would certainly not have joined West Germany all by itself. Such fast reunification not having been planned by the communists at all, they quickly adapted their strategy to the new situation and basically took over the whole, which – if one thinks about it – has been quite an accomplishment, sarcastically speaking. Also, the communists were hoping that after their fake “dissolution” of the Warsaw Pact military alliance, NATO would follow suit and truly dissolve. This did not come to pass. What did the communists do? They followed the good old maxim, “If you can’t beat them, join them!”, which, before the 1990s were over (as for the satellite states and even three “post-Soviet” republics), they did.

As for Putin’s purported nationalism (or even “Christian faith”), it’s rather easy to debunk. The man has been a lifelong loyal Soviet intelligence cadre, and most likely not only of the KGB, but also of the military intelligence service GRU. He once called the dissolution of the Soviet Union “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century.” When asked about his alleged “Christendom” and whether he believes in a higher being (at Larry King Live in Sept. 2000), he evades and then comes up with a classic communist answer: “I believe in man.” He says he has kept his Communist Party membership card to this day and that he has always liked communist and socialist ideas and still likes them. He absurdly compares the “moral code of communism” (we know what that is!) with the Bible. He accuses Lenin – from the standpoint of a faithful Leninist – of having placed a time bomb under the Russian state by drawing administrative borders along ethnic lines (which sounds like an allusion to the Donbass question, but also like clever disinformation, as if Moscow were not in control, still, of pretty much all of the “former” Soviet republics). He tells OSCE observers, who had decided to skip monitoring Russian elections as they realised they would be rigged anyway, to better go home and tell their wives how to make cabbage soup. The late Anna Politkovskaya (almost certainly murdered at Putin’s instruction and in fact on his birthday) had dared ridicule him and his colleagues in her book, Putin’s Russia, where she described their funny contortions in trying to make the sign of the cross! Putin paid her back posthumously, saying, approximately, she had done more harm to Russia by her death than while she was alive. Though one should not personalise too much in all matters Soviet or “post-Soviet”, as these people are all quite uniformly in Lenin’s mind, it is nonetheless true that after Putin had succeeded Yeltsin, the old Soviet anthem was immediately readopted and Russia’s military districts were redrawn the way they had been under Stalin in WWII. There was a distinct change toward greater militarisation, nationalistic indoctrination and even official re-Stalinisation. Russia was obviously getting prepared, slowly but surely, for war. And sure enough, if one thinks about it, the “overture” to World War III was started on September 11, 2001. Ever since, the world appears to have been descending into ever-greater chaos, disorientation and helplessness, while the war threats coming out of Moscow and Beijing have become louder and louder. And it’s still communist world revolution which drives them, and not nationalism. After all, Lenin is fiercely anti-state and thus anti-nation. But it seems hardly anyone will find out of this crazy hall of mirrors before full-scale war has been set in motion. So help us God!





© The Contemplative Observer 2019