Toby Westerman Can’t, or Won’t, See the Forest for the Trees!


A Sad Example of a Supposedly Alternative Kremlinologist Who – even Now! – Refuses to Take into Account Any Continued Existence Whatsoever of a Communist Grand Design Aimed – still! – at Total Control over the Whole World. Instead, He Personalises (as if It Was All about Putin and Not about the Same Old World Revolutionary Steam Locomotive), and Adds Up Fact after Fact, Claiming to Be “Connecting the Dots”, Which Finally He Isn’t, as He Lacks – or Dismisses – the Indispensable Frame of Reference Necessary for Putting 2 and 2 together, Meaning a Solid Understanding – and Acknowledgment! – of Communist Longterm Deception Strategy as Laid out by Premier Soviet Defector Anatoliy Golitsyn. 


 I still just see a bunch of trees







“Subtle! Subtle! / They become formless. / Mysterious! Mysterious! / They become soundless. / Therefore, they are the masters of the enemy’s fate.

Sun Tzu, 6th century B.C.: “The Art of War”


“No parliament can in any circumstances be for Communists an arena of struggle for reforms… The only question can be that of utilising bourgeois state institutions for their own destruction.”

Lenin *


“Our only strategy at present is to become stronger and, therefore, wiser, more reasonable, more opportunistic. The more opportunistic, the sooner will you again assemble the masses around 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.

Lenin *


“The withering away of the state, the precondition for the classless society, could not be entertained as a possibility until the encirclement of socialism by capitalism had been changed to the encirclement of capitalism by socialism. That is to say, until those conditions had been established which would assure world-wide Soviet domination.”

Stalin, 1939 *


“The point is that the Communist goal is fixed and changeless – it never varies one iota from their objective of world domination, but if we judge them only by the direction in which they seem to be going, we shall be deceived.”

Yelena Bonner, wife of Soviet nuclear physicist and leading figure of the controlled “dissident movement”, Andrei Sakharov *                                                                                                                           


“Capitalism’s short-term view can never envisage the lengths across which we can plan.”

Lavrentii Beria, early 1950s *


There is no wall between socialism and Communism. These are not two divergent types of society, but merely two phases of one and the same social formation, distinguished the one from the other by the degree of their maturity. The transition from socialism to Communism consequently constitutes a gradual process. Communism grows up out of socialism as its direct prolongation. In the very bosom of socialist society its germs and roots spring up. These shoots of the future, developing on socialist soil, will lead… to a consolidation of Communism. Naturally, the entry into a higher phase of the new society cannot be pinned down to a specific calendar date, but it will be accomplished without abrupt change.” – “From the fact that the transition from socialism to Communism will take place by degrees, it does not follow that this is a slow process. On the contrary, the transition is distinguished by a particularly high rate of development in all areas of social life… ending with the uplift of the culture and the conscious awareness of people.”

“Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism”, 1960 *


“Unlike in present United States, there will be no place for dissent in future Marxist-Leninist America. Here you can get popular like Daniel Ellsberg and filthy rich like Jane Fonda for being ‘dissident’, for criticising your Pentagon. In future, these people will be simply squashed like cock-croaches; nobody is going to pay them nothing for their beautiful, noble ideas of equality! This they don’t understand, and it will be greatest shock for them, of course. The demoralisation process in the United States is basically complete already. For the last 25 years – actually, it’s overfulfilled because demoralisation now reaches such areas where previously not even Comrade Andropov and all his experts would even dream of such a tremendous success. Most of it is done by Americans to Americans, thanks to lack of moral standards. As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter any more. A person who was demoralised, is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him. Even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures, even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him concentration camp, he will refuse to believe it – until he is going to receive a kick in his fat bottom. When the military-boot crashes his balls, then he will understand, but not before that. That’s the tragic of the situation of demoralisation.”

Soviet defector of 1970, Yuri Bezmenov, 1984 (interview conducted by G. Edward Griffin; therein: minutes 1:12:20 till 1:14:02)


“Gentlemen, Comrades, do not be concerned about all that you hear about ‘glasnost’ and ‘perestroika’ and democracy in the coming years. These are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant change within the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans, and to let them fall asleep.

Mikhail Gorbachev, early in his tenure, speaking before the Politburo *


The Party has made “specific decisions on how to update our political system”. – “Thus we shall give a fresh impetus to our revolutionary restructuring. We shall maintain our quiet [i.e. Leninist] creativity and daring in an efficient and responsible fashion in a Leninist Bolshevik manner.”

Mikhail Gorbachev, speaking at the 27th CPSU Congress, March 1986 *


“Adopting a bold, realistic, mobilising and inspiring strategy, one that is Leninist in spirit, the struggle for the triumph of Communist ideals, of peace and progress, the 27th Congress of the CPSU expresses the Party’s firm determination to honourably follow our great road, and open up new vistas for the creative energy and revolutionary initiative of the… people’s intelligentsia. The Congress calls on all Soviet people to dedicate all their strength, knowledge, ability, and creative enthusiasm to the great goals of Communist construction, and to worthily continue Lenin’s victorious revolutionary cause, the cause of the October Revolution!”

Mikhail Gorbachev, closing address to the 27th CPSU Congress, March 6, 1986 *


“Perestroika is a revolutionary process for it is a leap forward in the development of socialism, in the realisation of its crucial characteristics.”

Mikhail Gorbachev: ‘Perestroika’, 1987


“What is meant [by the term ‘revolution from above’] is profound and essentially revolutionary changes implemented on the initiative of the authorities themselves but necessitated by objective changes in the situation. It may seem that our current perestroika could be called ‘revolution from above’. True, the perestroika drive started on the Communist Party’s initiative, and the Party leads it. I spoke frankly about it at the meeting with Party activists in Khabarovsk [already!!!] in the summer of 1986. We began at the top of the pyramid and went down to its base, as it were. Yes, the Party leadership started it. The highest Party and state bodies elaborated and adopted the program. True, perestroika is not a spontaneous but a governed process.

Mikhail Gorbachev: ‘Perestroika’, 1987


“We openly confess that we refuse the hegemonial endeavours and globalist claims of the United States. We are not pleased by some aspects of American policy and of the American Way of Life. But we respect the right of the American people, just as the right of all other peoples, to live along its own rules and laws, its own morals and inclinations.”

Mikhail Gorbachev: ‘Perestroika’, 1987


“Those who hope that we shall move away from the socialist path will be greatly disappointed.”

Mikhail Gorbachev: ‘Perestroika’, 1987 *


“We are moving towards a new world, the world of Communism. We shall never turn off that road.”

Mikhail Gorbachev, 1987 *


“We see that confusion has arisen in some people’s minds: aren’t we retreating from the positions of socialism, especially when we introduce new and unaccustomed forms of economic management and public life, and aren’t we subjecting the Marxist-Leninist teaching itself to revision? … No, we are not retreating a single step from socialism, from Marxism-Leninism…

Mikhail Gorbachev, 1988 * 


“The image of the enemy that is being eroded has been … absolutely vital for the foreign and military policy of the United States and its allies. The destruction of this stereotype … is Gorbachev’s weapon.

Georgi Arbatov, 1988 *


We are for a Lenin who is alive! In building our future we are basing ourselves upon the gigantic intellectual and moral potential of the socialist idea linked with the theory of Marxism-Leninism. We see no rational grounds to give up the spiritual [sic!!!] richness contained in Marxism. Through restructuring [i.e. ‘perestroika’], we want to give socialism a second wind and unveil in all its plenitude [meaning: globally!] the vast humanist potential of the socialist system.” – “In order to achieve this, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union returns to the origins and principles of the Bolshevik Revolution, to the Leninist ideas about the construction of a new society… Our Party was and remains the Party of Lenin… In short, we are for a Lenin who is alive.” – “We must seek these answers guided by the spirit of Leninism, the style of Lenin’s thinking, and the method of dialectical cognition.

Mikhail Gorbachev, speaking to a group of Russian students, Nov. 15, 1989 *


“In a democratic state, a changeover to a multiparty system is inevitable. Various political parties are gradually being formed [out of the CPSU] in our country. At the same time, a fundamental renewal of the CPSU is inevitable… First, it is necessary to organisationally codify all the platforms that exist in the CPSU and to give every Communist time for political self-determination The Party should divest itself of all state functions. A parliamentary-type Party will emerge. Only this kind of Party, provided that there is a mighty renewal [of the CPSU]… will be able to be a leading Party and to win elections for one or another of its factions. With the development of democratic movements in the country and the further radicalisation of restructuring, it will be possible for this alliance to become the vanguard of society in actual fact. This will provide a broad social base for the renewal of society … [and to] erect a barrier against attacks by the conseratives, and guarantee the irreversibility of restructuring.”

Boris Yeltsin, speaking at the 28th CPSU Congress on July 6, 1990 *


“Now, about the Party itself. Allow me to formulate three conditions necessary for the Party to fully demonstrate its viability and actually attain its vanguard potential. In the first place, to this end it must, resolutely and without delay, restructure all its work and reorganise all its structures on the basis of the new Statutes and the Congress’s Programme 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 behind an all-encompassing democracy, comradeship, openness, glasnost and criticism. Secondly, when there are various views and even platforms on a number of questions of policy and practical activity, the majority must have respect for the minority. And thirdly, Comrades, we must study, learn, and improve our culture. If we embark on this path, it will be easier to interact and have contacts with other forces. The Central Committee and I 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 basis. Let us prove that the CPSU, as it restructures itself, is capable of living up to these expectations… and then it will become a truly vanguard party whose power lies not in giving orders but in influencing people.”

Mikhail Gorbachev, speaking to the 28th CPSU Congress, July 13, 1990 *


“He [Gorbachev] isn’t a Leninist any more.” – “I don’t think we have been deceived; at least, I hope we haven’t.”

Margaret Thatcher, July 1991, in a personal conversation with Christopher Story *


Gorbachev’s ‘Perestroika’ was exactly modelled after Lenin’s ‘New Economic Policy’ of the 1920s. And the West fell for the same lies TWICE:

“GORBACHEV OFFERS PARTY A CHARTER THAT DROPS ICONS – HARD-LINERS CRITICIZED – Opening a 2-Day Meeting, He Challenges Even Sanctity of Marxism-Leninism” (Headline of The New York Times, July 26, 1991) *

“LENIN ABANDONS STATE OWNERSHIP AS SOVIET POLICY – Official Decree Retains Control of Only a Few of the Big National Industries – TO LEASE TO INDIVIDUALS – Payments for Postal, Railroads and Other Public Services Are Re-established” (Headline of The New York Times, August 13, 1921) *


“I think that the idea of a Common European Home, the building of a united Europe, and I would like to underline today, of Great Europe, the building of Great Europe, great, united Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals, from the Atlantic to Vladivostok, including all our territory, most probably a European-American space, a united humanitarian space: this project is inevitable. I am sure that we will come to building a united military space, as well. To say more precisely: we will build a united Europe, whose security will be based on the principles of collective security. Precisely, collective security.”

Soviet foreign secretary of the day, Eduard Shevardnadze, on November 19, 1991, interviewed on a Moscow television programme along with NATO Secretary General of the day, Lord Robertson *


“Our vision of the European space from the Atlantic to the Urals is not that of a closed system. Since it includes the Soviet Union, which reaches to the shores of the Pacific, it goes beyond nominal geographical boundaries.”

Mikhail Gorbachev in his prepared Nobel Peace Prize speech in Oslo in June 1992, when the Soviet Union had already been ‘disbanded’ by him half a year earlier!!! *


“I dare say that the European process has already acquired elements of irreversibility. In such a context, in the process of creating a new Europeself-determination of sovereign nations will be realised in a completely different manner.

Mikhail Gorbachev, in the same speech in June 1992; nota bene: speaking for the Yeltsin regime to which, allegedly, he was in opposition! *


“There was a brilliantly planned and executed, large-scale, unprecedented provocation in which the roles were scripted for the intelligent and the stupid, all of whom consciously or unconsciously played their parts.”

Lt-General Aleksandr Lebed, commenting in retrospect three years after, on the fake August coup of August 1991, as was published by ITAR-TASS on August 19, 1994 *


“One thing, I think, needs to be said here: And that is that the KGB and the GRU, Soviet intelligence, cannot exist without the Communist Party. The Communist Party and the KGB share the same bloodstream. They are the same entity. This was made clear by the head of the KGB, Alexander Shelepin, in 1961, when he made a very important speech, pointing out that the Party lives inside the structures of the KGB, and the KGB lives inside the Party. Now, I want to emphasise that at the outset because a number of books have appeared recently, suggesting the thesis that, you know, the Party disappeared, Communism died, the Soviet Union collapsed, but for some reason the KGB and the “Organs”, as they call it, continued.” – “The simile that I like to use, you know, is: the dog, the front of the dog, the head and the front legs fell off, and the back legs of the dog carry on walking. This is of course absolutely absurd!”

Christopher Story, 1995 (interview conducted by Bill McIlhaney; therein: minutes 3:41 till 7:28)


“They write that I am the mafia’s godfather. [But] it was Vladimir Lenin who was the real organiser of the mafia and who set up the criminal state.

Otari Kvantrishvili, a Georgian mafia ‘leader’, who was later murdered; published in April 1994 in Komsomolskaya Pravda. *


“One tries to make Westerners believe that the mafiya is the product of post-Communism, whereas in reality it is organised, controlled and staffed by the KGB.

Algirdas Katkus, then Vice-President of ‘newly independent’ Lithuania in an interview for the French publication Libre Journal: ‘Un pays sacrifie’; Number 26, page 29; Paris 1995 *


“The collective security model… should pave the way for a gradual evolutionary synthesis of several processes: integration within the CIS and the EU, strengthening and increasing the role of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, transforming NATO [and] working together to prevent or resolve conflicts.”

Yuriy Ushakov, Director of the Directorate for European Cooperation at the Russian Foreign Ministry, in International Affairs, Vol. 4, #5 (1995): ‘Europe: Towards a New Security Model’ * 


“Russian membership of the Council of Europe will open up intensified new cooperation between Russia and Europe and will assist us in reaching our objectives of achieving membership of the European Union and of NATO.

Then Russian Foreign Minister, Andrei Kozyrev, after Russia’s admission to the Council of Europe by February 8, 1996


Vladimir Zhirinovskiy is “just the probe they use to measure the depth of dissatisfaction in Russia.” [But Zhirinovskiy also acts as a ‘probe’ to test whether Soviet strategy has possibly been understood by Western observers, which to the satisfaction of the strategists just never happens to be the case: the West continues to be sound asleep.]

Mikhail Poltoranin, then head of the ‘Federal Information Centre’, Jan. 13, 1994, ITAR-TASS * 


Vladimir Zhirinovskiy also did his work well. He was in good shape and did his best to show everybody present [at the Council of Europe, in Strasbourg] what a wild and horrible person he is. Russia, he said, is the most democratic state in the world, unlike any member of the Council of Europe – for instance, the Germans, who are harming the Turks, the Turks who are suppressing the Kurds, and so on. Having succeeded in frightening the gentle Europeans [indicating how much the Leninists despise the compliant European ‘useful idiots’; Christopher Story] he concluded by saying that he personally would be happy if Russia were refused admission – as, in that case, he (Zhirinovskiy) would win the Presidential elections by a still larger margin.” [This is how the Soviets dialectically make the West call for what the Soviets want: In this case, ‘Yeltsin must be supported so to prevent a dictator Zhirinovskiy’, and money kept flowing …] 

Vladimir Lukin, formerly Russia’s Ambassador to the United States and Chairmain of the State Duma Committee of Foreign Affairs: International Affairs, Volume 42, Number 2, 1996: “Russia’s Entry to the Council of Europe” * 


“Ukrainian Comrades [should] not be involved in political infighting in their country [but] strengthen their ranks [and] set up primary organisations based on the CPSU platform [!!!].” – “The most powerful branches of the Union of USSR Officers operate in the units of the 43rd Missile Army, in Crimea, Dnepropetrovsk, Odessa, Kharkov, and Kiev.”

From a 1996 secret resolution addressing the work in the Ukrainian Armed Forces, published on March 19, 1996 (more than 4 years after the alleged dissolution of the USSR!!!!!) by the US Foreign Broadcast Information Service, FBIS: FBIS-SOV-96-054; page 44 *

(Quotes marked with ‘*’ are all taken from Christopher Story’s book, “The European Union Collective”)




It is quite amazing – and frightening – to see how, these days, intellectual discernment & sincerity have come down to virtually zero. Not that we could afford such laxness, opportunism, or plain incompetence in a time when the fate and destiny of the whole of humankind is at stake. We can’t. Yet, as Moscow and Beijing are now gearing up their joint efforts towards a new world unified under communism, not only the Pravdaesque mainstream media in the West, but even supposedly staunch conservatives and alternative columnists appear to be firmly immune, still, against the hard realities right in front of their noses. The “spectre of communism” has never left the scene, the USSR was never dissolved but simply relabelled, and yet these “useful idiots” (Lenin’s phrase) keep parrotting Soviet disinformation, some of them even praising the unchanged Evil Empire as the future centre of gravity of a renewed Christian civilisation. Can madness get any more absurd than that?

If one reads premier communist defector Anatoliy Golitsyn, one can see how skilled the Soviet apparat always has been and still is in planting in the Western mind false hopes and illusory expectations. As a consequence, the fictitious dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and of the Soviet Union itself was naïvely hailed by the West as the dawning of a new, democratic era throughout the world, worse: the West was convinced it had won the Cold War! In reality, however, this greatest deception operation in the history of mankind simply removed from the sleepy Western eyes the image of the enemy, and the image only, opening up formerly unthinkable new prospects for the communist bloc to modernise and solidify its economies and militaries. Tragically, whilst Russia and China were growing stronger and stronger, the West, disabled to see reality for what it was, was missing out on the ever more imminent threat to its very existence.

Deception has never ceased to be at the heart of everything the communist bloc does and never will, but there has taken place recently an alarming change in rhetoric and action on the part of Moscow and Beijing that can only be characterised as a seismic shift, at least in terms of appearance, for all that really happened was that the communists are now moving on, in their revolutionary strategy, from projecting weakness and internal division (the latter a.k.a. the “scissors strategy”) and from allegedly seeking good and friendly relations with the West to an open display of their actual strength and unity as well as their unchanged hostile revolutionary intentions. Anatoliy Golitsyn perfectly foresaw our present situation, that isn’t even recognised by most today, on page 328 of his 1984 book, New Lies for Old (bold print by this author):

“Before long, the communist strategists might be persuaded that the balance had swung irreversibly in their favor. In that event they might well decide on a Sino-Soviet “reconciliation.” The scissors strategy would give way to the strategy of “one clenched fist.” At that point the shift in the political and military balance would be plain for all to see. Convergence would not be between two equal parties, but would be on terms dictated by the communist bloc. The argument for accommodation with the overwhelming strength of communism would be virtually unanswerable. Pressures would build up for changes in the American political and economic system on the lines indicated in Sakharov’s treatise. Traditional conservatives would be isolated and driven toward extremism. They might become the victims of a new McCarthyism of the left. The Soviet dissidents who are now extolled as heroes of the resistance to Soviet communism would play an active part in arguing for convergence. Their present supporters would be confronted with a choice of forsaking their idols or acknowledging the legitimacy of the new Soviet regime.” – “There might even be public acknowledgement that the splits and disputes were long-term disinformation operations that had successfully deceived the “imperialist” powers. The effect on Western morale can be imagined. In the new worldwide communist federation the present different brands of communism would disappear, to be replaced by a uniform, rigorous brand of Leninism. The process would be painful. Concession made in the name of economic and political reform would be withdrawn. Religious and intellectual dissent would be suppressed. Nationalism and all other forms of genuine opposition would be crushed. Those who had taken advantage of détente to establish friendly Western contacts would be rebuked or persecuted like those Soviet officers who worked with the allies during the Second World War. In new communist states – for example, in France, Italy, and the Third World – the “alienated classes” would be reeducated. Show trials of “imperialist agents” would be staged. Action would be taken against nationalist and social democratic leaders, party activists, former civil servants, officers, and priests. The last vestiges of private enterprise and ownership would be obliterated. Nationalization of industry, finance, and agriculture would be completed. In fact, all the totalitarian features familiar from the early stages of the Soviet revolution and the postwar Stalinist years in Eastern Europe might be expected to reappear, especially in those countries newly won for communism. Unchallenged and unchallengeable, a true communist monolith would dominate the world.



Dear reader, we have now reached exactly there! Golitsyn was right. He didn’t want to be right, as his reason to defect in the first place was to try and warn, and eventually save the West from the impending danger. Sadly – by a mixture of communist infiltration and systemic arrogance, we can assume – his top-notch assessments were dismissed by the majority in American intelligence, and, just as Golitsyn had also predicted, a number of false defectors (Yuri Nosenko as the most prominent) soon followed him and succeeded in getting him branded as unstable and paranoid. But Golitsyn’s first book, New Lies for Old, published in1984, isn’t the manic rage of a paranoid madman, but a thorough, scholarly work for readers with the necessary background in political science and strategy. And here is how Golitsyn most meticulously explained his dilemma in the closing part of the foreword to his second book of 1995, The Perestroika Deception: The World’s Slide Towards the Second October Revolution – Memoranda to the Central Intelligence Agency; Edward Harle Ltd., London-New York (bold print by this author): 

“[…] Since the Central Intelligence Agency did not react to my Memoranda, I decided to publish them and asked the CIA to declassify them for the purpose. The Agency agreed. Several considerations forced me to take my decision.

First, the democracies of the United States and Western Europe are facing a dangerous situation and are vulnerable because their governments, the Vatican, the elite, the media, the industrialists, the financiers, the trade unions and, most important, the general public are blind to the dangers of the strategy of ‘perestroika’ and have failed to perceive the deployment of the Communist political potential of the renewed ‘democratic’ regimes against the West. The democracies could perish unless they are informed about the aggressive design of ‘perestroika’ against them.

Secondly, I could not imagine that American policymakers, and particularly the conservatives in both the Republican and Democratic parties, despite their long experience with Communist treachery, would not be able to grasp the new manoeuvres of the Communist strategists and would rush to commit the West to helping ‘perestroika’ which is so contrary to their interests.

It has been sad to observe the jubilation of American and West European conservatives who have been cheering ‘perestroika’ without realising that it is intended to bring about their own political and physical demise. Liberal support for ‘perestroika’ is understandable, but conservative support came as a surprise to me.

Thirdly, I was appalled that ‘perestroika’ was embraced and supported by the United States without any serious debate on the subject.

In the fourth place, I am appalled by the failure of American scholars to point out the relevance of Lenin’s New Economic Policy to understanding the aggressive, anti-Western design of ‘perestroika’ or to provide appropriate warning to policymakers, and their failure to distinguish between America’s true friends and its Leninist foes precisely because these foes are wearing the new ‘democratic’ uniform. Given the pressures they face, policymakers have no time to study the history of the period of Lenin’s New Economic Policy, or to remind themselves of Marxist-Leninist dialectics.

But how could such learned and distinguished scholars as S. Bilar and Z. Brzezinski have failed to warn them about the successes of the New Economic Policy, the mistakes made by the West in accepting it and Gorbachev’s repetition of Lenin’s strategy and its dangers for the West? What happened to their credentials as great scholars? Why was it left to Professor Norman Stone of Oxford University to detect and make the parallel in his article in the London ‘Daily Telegraph’ of 11th November 1989, and to express concern at the euphoria over Gorbachev? In his book, ‘The Grand Failure’, Brzezinski limited his description of Lenin’s New Economic Policy to three brief phases. He described the New Economic Policy as amounting to a reliance on the market mechanism and private initiative to stimulate economic recovery. In his words, it was probably ‘the most open and intellectually innovative phase’ in Soviet history.

For Brzezinski, the NEP is ‘a shorthand term for a period of experimentation, flexibility and moderation’ [see ‘The Grand Failure’, Charles Scribner and Sons, New York 1989, pages 18-19]. I am appalled by Brzezinski’s failure to explain the relevance of Lenin’s New Economic Policy to ‘perestroika’.

This failure is further illustrated by the following:

(a) S. Bialer, a former defector from the Central Committee apparatus of the Polish Communist Party, wrote a foreword to Gorbachev’s book, ‘Perestroika’, introducing it to the US public without inserting any warning about the parallel with the New Economic Policy and its dangers for the Western democracies.

(b) During his recent visit to Moscow, Z. Brzezinski, the former National Security Adviser in the Carter Administration, met leading Soviet strategists including Yakovlev, an expert on the manipulation of the Western media, and advised them on how to proceed with ‘perestroika’. Furthermore, Brzezinski delivered a lecture on the same subject to the Soviet diplomats at the High Diplomatic Academy!

In the fifth place, I am disappointed that Gordievsky, a recent KGB defector, did not help much to explain ‘perestroika’ as the final phase of Soviet long-range strategy, to describe its essence or to point out the deceptive nature of the changes and the strategic danger for the West. Gordievsky’s articles in ‘The Times’ of London of 27-28 February and 1 March 1990, contained a rather optimistic, if not laudatory, description of the ‘reforms’ initiated under Gorbachev and Yakovlev. I am puzzled that he should write so enthusiastically about them in the London ‘Times’. He might as well have published his comments in the Party newspaper ‘Pravda’ or in Korotich’s ‘Ogonek’. His assessment of ‘perestroika’ and its meaning for the West is in complete contradiction to that set out in my Memoranda to the Central Intelligence Agency. Further comment would be superfluous. I leave it to the reader to make his own judgment.

In the sixth place, misguided Western support for ‘perestroika’ at all levels, and especially among the Western media, is destabilising Western societies, their defence, their political processes and their alliances. It is immensely accelerating the successful execution of the Soviet strategic design against the West. In 1984 I thought that, in the event of Western resistance to Soviet strategy, the scenario of convergence between the two systems might take the next half century [see New Lies for Old, pages 365-6].

Now, however, because the West has committed itself to the support of ‘perestroika’ and because of the impact of the misguided and euphoric support for it in the Western media, convergence might take less than a decade. The sword of Damocles is hanging over the Western democracies, yet they are oblivious to it. I believe in truth and the power of ideas to convey the truth.

Therefore, I present my Memoranda to the public – convinced that they will help them to see the ‘perestroika’ changes, and their sequels, in the Communist world and beyond, in a more realistic light, and to recover from their blindness.

Anatoliy Golitsyn, United States, 1995″



It is entirely incomprehensible, given the (well-timed) renewed aggressiveness and threats from this now openly displayed Moscow-Beijing communist alliance, that supposed analysts and commentators stubbornly keep rationalising things to the effect that either “Russia” has a right to defend itself; just happens to be ruled by a bunch of power-ridden oligarchs who want the USSR back; should be applauded for showing strength and traditional Russian self-esteem; or whatever more outlandish distortions of reality are in circulation. Yet, what we are facing is the final mobilisation of the whole of the communist bloc towards slaying the West! Therefore the most unfriendly language, therefore all the military moves.

Because of this deplorable inaptitude across the board, because of these laughable non-assessments one can read everywhere (the shameful example to be introduced here being supposed political analyst Toby Westerman), this author sat down in late August 2013 and mailed a little reader’s comment to the traditional-Catholic website, where same Toby Westerman appears to be in the position of regular house Kremlinologist, so to speak (that comment by this author was then posted by TIA in their “What People Are Commenting” section on August 29, 2013):


Dear Mr. Guimarães,

With all due respect, after having read your contributor Toby Westerman’s articles on Russia and China for quite some time, I’ve come to the conclusion that although he desperately tries to figure out the writing on the wall, still he cannot identify WHY the “new Russia” so fatally resembles the old Soviet Union.

For, had he ever read – let alone: grasped – the two books by outstanding Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn, New Lies for Old (1984) and The Perestroika Deception (1995), as well as the late Christopher Story’s reference work, The European Union Collective (2002), he certainly would stop parroting the official Soviet line of deception of a “fall” of the USSR back in 1991.

The shocking reality – according to Golitsyn and Story and very easy to realise as soon as one really opens one’s eyes – is that there has been NO discontinuity in the Soviet/pan-communist project of Marxist-Leninist world revolution whatsoever. Indeed, the alleged “fall of communism” of 1989/91 in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union was the greatest lie ever sold, precisely to confuse and strategically disarm the United States and the West and to finally swing the balance of world power in favor of world communism, the latter of which we can now observe, real-time, as open cooperation-blackmail and WWIII-threats.

Golitsyn is THE key to understanding this (and no less a man than once-CIA counterintelligence expert James Jesus Angleton came to appreciate the enormous value of Golitsyn’s fully accurate assessments as well as predictions). As an introduction to this, I recently published on my blog, beside much more extensive treatises on the same topic, a compilation entitled Photographic Proof the USSR Still Exists. Do read it, everybody, and awaken to the grim fact that Perestroika and Glasnost were simply a giant propaganda and brainwashing offensive to psychologically overwhelm and manipulate the West and remove from its eyes the IMAGE of the enemy, and the image only! 

All the best for your further work, and may God the Lord have mercy on us, 

O.R., Europe


And here is Westerman’s slick, evasive, and arrogant response, very obviously meant to defend his personal position of “respectability” as a good-for-nothing “analyst”, rather than to defend truth (that is foreign to him), published on that website a few days later – never mind that the editors there seem to be light-years away from willing to have a look into Golitsyn’s unique expertise on their part (bold print by this author; posted by TIA in their “What People Are Commenting” section on Sept. 3, 2013 under the header, “My Approach on Russia”):

Last week, a reader from Europe, O.R., sent a criticism to TIA for publishing Mr. Westerman’s articles on our website. According to this reader, his articles supposedly are out-of-touch for not considering the works of Golitsyn and Story. These authors – Mr. O.R. argues – defend that the fall of USSR never really happened. It is just a maneuver to deceive the West. TIA sent the criticism to Mr. Westerman. Below is his response. The Editor.



Thanks for the opportunity to respond, and thanks to O.R. in Europe for his interest.
l l
I have read Golitsyn’s works as well as Story’s. They present a compelling case for a planned end to the USSR.
Planned or not, however, the USSR did collapse, and, while I find the reasoning of Golitsyn and Story to be a valid explanation for the Soviet Union’s demise, the “it was all planned” hypothesis will be difficult for many to accept. Conspiracy theories, even if valid, tend not to be trusted by many if not most readers.
ll l
My approach is to document what is happening now in Russia and with its allies. I seek to show the link between the present and the old Soviet Union, as well as Moscow’s efforts to construct a new Communist State, which would be more in line with Lenin’s original intentions. I have consistently pointed out that the rulers in Moscow are a spy elite which traces its origins to the bloody Cheka of the early days of Bolshevik Russia.
In the end, it matters little if the current rulers in Moscow are following a grand plan from an earlier period or are simply totalitarians determined to cook up a “new and improved” Soviet Union. The result is the same: a clear and immediate threat to humanity which many, even many conservatives, are unwilling to acknowledge.
I agree with O.R. as to the level of danger, but I also believe that the best course is to concentrate on Moscow’s present intentions and its links and identification with the Soviet past.
I hope this clarifies my approach
Best to all at TIA and to O.R. 
Toby Westerman
Because of this kind of analytical incompetence, mixed with dishonesty and probably financial considerations, whether on the part of politics, intelligence, or journalism, we have reached where we have reached. There appears to be neither clarity of thought nor courage left anywhere, and those few who are heroically explaining as true educators the intellectual as well as moral and spiritual shortcomings of the West that have led to the disaster at hand today, and who are able to most accurately analyse (in the fullest sense of the word) what Moscow, Beijing and allies are in fact up to, are being at best ignored, or otherwise ridiculed as hopeless relics of the Cold War era, resp. attacked as ‘McCarthyiites’ of yesteryear.
And so, as this author recently came across yet another jewel of Toby Westerman’s “at-face-value analytical depth”, he just couldn’t help using that article absurdly titled “Thanks, Putin – America Owes You a Debt of Gratitude” for a pars-pro-toto refutation (not an ad-hominem attack against Toby Westerman, whom this author doesn’t know and has no need of getting to know) of this comfortable general ‘consensus’ that, yes, things are bad, and Russia’s moves are disturbing, but we must wait and see and pray that this present Russian oligarchy under Putin will come to their senses in time, and maybe the upcoming midterm elections will give a boost to American conservatives, and maybe by January 20, 2017, Barack Obama and his Marxist friends will be history. These are DREAMS, it’s the stubborn refusal of reality, in fact putting one’s head in the sand!
What follows is Toby Westerman’s pointless article of March 17, 2014, just as it was posted on the TIA website, complete with illustrations, yet extended by a whole number of orange-coloured comments resp. rectifications, as well as added bold print, by this author:       



By Toby Westerman

America owes a debt of gratitude to Russian president Vladimir Putin [Westerman throughout is personalising developments as if we were confronted with some Putin, the “lonely Czar”, rather than with a disciplined, well-oiled collective leadership machinery; premier Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn, in contrast, always used the phrase, “the strategists”]. Before his Stalinist invasion of Ukrainian territory, few seemed concerned about Russia’s drive to modernize its military and Moscow’s ever tightening military alliance with China [the alliance, as shown by Golitsyn, had existed ever since 1957, despite all disinformation to the contrary, whereas recently that scissors strategy of disinformation merely gave way again to an overt display of their alliance, the switch from alleged Sino-Soviet split to “one clenched fist”; a mere change of appearance, not of fact]. After Putin’s military adventure in Crimea [it wasn’t an adventure, but a strategic chess move], a parade of experts, pundits, and talk show hosts are now talking about Putin’s goal of re-forming a new version of the Soviet Union, and some have even applied the term “communist” [rightfully so] to events in Russia. [Let’s see what ‘better’ and ‘deeper’ insight “expert” Westerman will provide us with …]

(INA Today readers, of course, have been informed of these and related matters for a decade and a half [having been fed half-truths and at-face-value “analyses”]).

Putin and the Plan [he keeps personalising the issue, proving his shortsightedness]

With this new awareness, a part of America’s news agencies is encouraging as vital a better understanding of the political oligarchy in Moscow and Beijing.

[Above:] An Eurasian Union is in motion to re-place the former USSR [the USSR has been all the while in place, through their internal structure of the “CIS” and with the CPSU still there behind the scenes; it’s simply coming out from its hiding and back to the forefront, that’s all; thus, not a “former” USSR is being replaced, but a temporarily covert USSR is now finally reappearing into plain sight; and that presently discussed “Eurasian Union” is only the preparation for what had been called for 25 years ago by Gorbachev and Shevardnadze as a “Common European Home from the Atlantic to Vladivostok”, that is a unified communist Eurasia including the whole of Western Europe!!! Western Europe, sooner rather than later, will be part of this extended Soviet Union, which by the end of the day will show that the so-called EU extension into the East was in fact a steady extension of Soviet influence over Western Europe, a Soviet Western extension! Also, they were boasting back then that the CSCE, now OSCE, was a net they’d thrown over Europe!!! Nothing of which, of course, Westerman dares to look at].

Putin is not merely a thug, a school yard bully or anything of the kind [they all are!!!]. He is a true believer in what he has referred to as “the cause” – Communism [otherwise he wouldn’t be President of the still-existing USSR!!!]. Various commentators, including talk show guru Rush Limbaugh, have stated this, but what is lacking is the realization that Putin is not alone in his desire to rebuild the Soviet Union. The restoration of the Soviet Union, in some version or other, has been the goal of the Moscow oligarchy since the collapse of USSR [For goodness sake, please stop talking of “oligarchs”; they are a political class, Bolshevist revolutionaries to the core; and we’re not seeing a “restoration” here, but a mere reemergence of something that had been kept hidden for 22 years, for reasons of strategy!].

While Russian president Boris Yeltsin, in 1992, was speaking to a joint session of the U.S. Congress and promising lasting peace and friendship, Russian spies continued to carry out Soviet-style deep penetration efforts against America and our allies [the main issue here is strategy, not the conventional spying business; and the problem of revolutionary moles in the Western structures, the most prominent and fatal one being Comrade Obama, is by far more crucial than spies: again, Westerman reveals he has no awareness of strategy and doesn’t even acknowledge the United States having been already in a post-revolutionary situation ever since Obama’s first election in 2008]. Yeltsin also took the first steps in forming what became under Putin, a “Union State” between Russia and the Stalinist pariah nation of Belarus. Where, it may be added, the KGB is still called the KGB [And so, what does this tell us??? Westerman fails in providing us with an explanation; which of course can only be that the “reforms” were only cosmetic, and done “more thoroughly” in the “once” RSFSR, now: Russian Federation, than in other Soviet republics. – Poor man: he simply can’t tell the forest for the trees!].

Putin continued and accelerated what Yeltsin had begun [Yeltsin had begun nothing. He merely was one element in the long chain of consecutive phases of their long-range strategy towards world communist domination; Westerman, go home, you haven’t understood a thing!]. The Russian army retained Soviet-era insignia and banners; Soviet Cold War spies, living and dead, were given special honors; the mass murderer, Josef Stalin, acquired a new coat of whitewash; even the cruiser Aurora, which is credited in Soviet lore for playing a key role in the Bolshevik overthrow of the Russian Provisional Government – which took power after the Tsar’s abdication – has again been given the pride of place it enjoyed in the Soviet era [this stretch is typical of Westerman: although he keeps listing mind-blowing fact after mind-blowing fact, which basically all prove a seamless continuity of the USSR all the way through the 1990s till today, he doesn’t and cannot come up with a coherent explanation or conclusion. He is registering, he is alarmed, yet he doesn’t understand, and so he leaves his readers with no clues about what these facts actually mean!].


The Role of the Ukraine

Russia and Ukraine share a common history that goes back over a thousand years [yet, the year 1917 marked, factually, a new year count, a radical new beginning akin to the French Revolution, which was the historical forerunner of the October Revolution]. Often, this shared history has been bloody and bitter, but similarities in language and culture [and particularly in their being two Socialist Soviet Republics of one and the same still-intact USSR!] make events in Ukraine immediate and vivid to the Russian people [a funny way of putting it; yet, we are not talking about a national question here, but about the USSR, along with all her allies around the world, prepping up for WWIII]. Ukraine was an important part of the Tsarist Empire and one of the original members of the USSR. In the Soviet era [he speaks of a “Soviet Era” as a thing of the past, yet the Soviet Union is still there, Mr. Westerman, and it isn’t being restored, but simply reemerging from its 22-year hiding], Ukraine was not only an important agricultural area, but also a center of industry.

Today, much of Russia’s natural gas exported to Europe goes through Ukrainian territory. Putin and the Moscow political oligarchy recognize that Ukraine is an important element in a new Soviet Union because of its historical ties to Russia [“historical ties to Russia” is typical Western-bourgeois sentimental babble; what communism once owns, it never lets go again, as simple as that! No need for well-measured historico-cultural findings. The only culture that is shared by post-revolutionary Moscow and post-revolutionary Kiev is Bolshevist, idiot!], its strategic location between Europe and Russia, its sheer size (the second largest nation in Europe [Ukraine ceased to be a “nation” many, many decades ago when it was forever subjected to communist rule during the years of the Red Terror; what we are dealing with is – still – an SSR, a Soviet Socialist Republic, not a nation!]), as well as its continued economic importance.

[Above:] Ousted president Viktor Yanukovych, disliked for his extreme pro-Russian, policies and corruption

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union [what a faithful servant of Soviet disinformation Westerman is: never once he questions the official version of a “collapse of the Soviet Union” as possibly having been a deception instead, a simple change of labels; he watches, and yet he cannot see!], Ukrainian leaders continued a generally pro-Moscow policy [there was no pro- or anti-Moscow “policy” on the part of the “Ukrainian leaders”, there was only joint strategic action behind the scenes; with some temporary allowance of an “Orange Revolution” feeding illusionary expectations mainly in the West]. Thousands of Russians migrated to Ukraine after the collapse of the Soviet Union, giving Moscow additional leverage in Ukraine’s affairs [even stronger influence than in official Soviet times? Come on! This is nonsense! Ukraine was and still is a firm part of the still-intact USSR, despite all the fuzz and “independence movement” going on! It’s deception!!!].

Of the post-Soviet [rather: still-Soviet!!!] Ukrainian leaders, none has labored more intently for Moscow than Viktor Yanukovych, who was first elected president in a rigged election in 2004. He was removed from office by another election in 2005, after mass demonstrations were carried out, known as the Orange Revolution. A split in the “Orange” movement allowed Yanukovych to be reelected in 2010, only to be deposed by mass protests in February 2014 because of his extreme pro-Russian policies, corruption, and generally tyrannical rule [and only an idiot would have ever thought that Yushchenko-style freedom and democracy would ever prevail in a Soviet Socialist Republic!!! There was also Vaclav Havel in Czechia; he was controlled. There was Lech Walesa in Poland; he was controlled too! They just move their chess pawns back and forth, advancing their strategy all the while; if they make mistakes, they take detours, that’s all].

The pro-freedom movement [more likely: the “pro-freedom provocation”, and weren’t these barricades really impressive???] that removed Yanukovych was not merely a localized rejection against Russian dominance and world-class corruption, but was, and continues to be, a direct threat to the existence of the Moscow political oligarchy [which is precisely what the Soviet strategists, whom you call “oligarchs”, want you, Westerman, and the West to believe!!!].


Moscow Fears a Revolution by Its Own People [Really?]

Putin’s desire to have Ukraine as a member of a nascent Soviet State [Putin is little more than a figure-head; he is not so much determining policies, but merely executing longrange strategy!] is second only to the knowledge that Moscow must suppress the pro-Western revolution that ousted Yanukovych. Moscow justifiably fears the contagion of the democratic spirit which is now evident in Ukraine [don’t say “evident”, say “apparent”, because all that you are describing is the mere surface of events, that you are unable to properly assess and interpret!].

For all the pro-Soviet propaganda and political manipulation after the collapse of the USSR [not again!], there still exists within the Russian people [the Russian people, the Russian culture irreversibly was consigned to the midden-heap of history by the Bolshevist Revolution; there is no longer a “Russian people”, there is only a Soviet “people”, which actually was the wording during the official USSR!], a desire for true human freedom [not true: they were “taught”, particularly by the calculated economic chaos under Yeltsin, that one cannot eat democracy. They do not long for freedom, whether political or economic, they long for stability, guaranteed minimum wages and pensions, and finally they long for Soviet greatness throughout the world!]. Moscow knows this, and lives in fear of it [which is why they are now most relaxedly laughing at NATO and the West??? Come on, Toby!].

[Above:] The people of Ukraine protest in the streets against the Putin invasion [personalisation again; here one should also perhaps throw in an important lesson every student of art history already learns in his first semester: to neatly discern between what his eyes can see and what his interpretative mind wants to see. What we actually see in the photograph to the right is a young man, surrounded by other young people draped in Ukrainian flags, who holds up a card-board sign saying, “Putin! Hands off Ukraine” in his one hand and a megaphone in the other. That is basically all that can be said about this photograph! Everything else is interpretation! When Westerman says the people of Ukraine protest, one could just as well speculate that probable Komsomol members are staging a protest, and so, if one chooses to interpret further, in a suspiciously calm manner!]

The unrest [resp., the probably staged “unrest”] recently unleashed on the streets of Kiev is the most significant reason for Moscow’s intervention [how does Westerman know? The reason for Moscow’s “intervention” much more likely is a mere playing out of strategy, and of mobilising the Soviet Army under a false pretext in an obvious preparation for World War]. The seriousness of this threat was made clear, ironically, by a political leader supposedly in opposition to Putin’s ruling party [surprisingly, here Westerman admits the existence of controlled or false opposition within the Russian State Duma, yet again without coming to the inevitable conclusion that some other force behind must be in control of all these apparent different parties, which is of course and always has been ever since 1992 the unchanged CPSU, that is operating from the shadows]. Communist Party Gennady Zyuganov declared with remarkable candor that “It is possible that in two years there will be a similar scenario in Russia,” if Moscow did not take action [Westerman parrotting a classic piece of misleading disinformation by Zyuganov, that implies that “Russia” is on the defensive, weak, and under pressure; yet, this is the classic “weak look” as taught by ancient Chinese strategic thinker Sun Tzu and frequently used by the Soviets to confuse the West about their real strength and their real intentions].

Moscow was extremely fearful of the “colored revolutions,” [they were either entirely in charge of them, or at least admitting them for some limited time!!!] inspired by the 2004 Orange Revolution and its spread to what Russia calls its “near abroad,” the States of the former Soviet Union [he never uses quotation marks, as he is a true believer in today’s “Russia” as a “former” instead of an unchanged Soviet Union]. Moscow’s spy services took action in cooperation with pro-Russian elements within the “near abroad” States to blunt the effects of that expression of human freedom [but what if the apparent roll-back is simply a removal of the illusion of post-Soviet “independence”???]. To a large extent, Moscow was successful [of course, it is; how can it not be, with Communists in control of all power centres also throughout the Western world, that in addition is by now completely unable to challenge a Russian-Chinese-led, read: all-out pan-Communist, military threat!!!].

After the overthrow of Yanukovych [“overthrow” is already an interpretation for which we do not have sufficient data to prove it, despite the dramatic protests against his opulent lifestyle; all that we can say is that Yanukovich disappeared], however, the same cold fear is again motivating Putin and the rest of Russia’s political class [come on: the ruling political class in the Kremlin is far from being afraid, whether of Kiev or the West!].

The [apparent] demonstrators in Kiev now were not merely [apparently] protesting a corrupt election. They rejected what would certainly become Ukraine’s merger with the new Soviet State, and the ousting of a loyal pro-Moscow figure [so it seemed]. The demonstrators [apparently] brazenly denounced the lies from both Yanukovych and his Russian masters. Putin had to make a bold move or risk not only a serious blow to his plans for a re-formed Soviet Union, but also face the wrath of his own people awakened by the cries of freedom coming from the streets of Kiev. [What a naїve look at events: Russia forced to react in the face of a freedom movement threatening to get out of control. Maybe we should feel sorry for the people in the Kremlin, given all the distress and crisis. Yet, what is getting ever clearer, and has been the much more plausible explanation all along, is that it’s again, like in 1989, 1991, or 1993, a well-planned and theatrically enacted provocation to distract the West’s attention from the ongoing military buildup almost certainly directed not against the still-communist Ukrainian SSR, but against the West!]

Although most of the world condemns his actions, Putin does have a loyal, and increasingly powerful, friend. In his confrontation with the West, Putin has a long cultivated ally. [Stop talking about “Putin”! The People’s Republic of China isn’t predominantly an ally of Putin, but of the (still-intact) USSR, and has been such, no matter what, since the late 1950s!]


An Old Moscow-Beijing Axis Recently Acknowledged

Some commentators have taken note of China’s support of Moscow’s invasion of Ukrainian territory, and the similarity of Russia’s land grab to China’s claim to the South China Sea, which is mineral rich and a vital corridor for world shipping. [Because these two communist great powers are engaged in a joint strategy, that requires joint, coordinated moves!]

Suddenly, some pundits are recognizing the common interests, methods, and close cooperation between Moscow and Beijing. [Oh yes! They call it: World Revolution!!!] This was not supposed to happen. [At least for those who naїvely believed in the authenticity of the alleged Sino-Soviet split!]

[Above:] Putin continues the Yeltsin/Jiang Zemin plans for a New World Order to replace US leadership. [He certainly continues Russian-Chinese cooperation towards a Russian-Chinese-controlled “New World Order”, yet that “New World Order” is intended to be a “New World Social Order”, i.e. communism everywhere in the world; also, this joint strategy leads much farther back than to Yeltsin and Jiang Zemin, but to Khrushchev and Mao Zedong, who commissioned the formulation of a joint communist longrange strategy of deception a.k.a. the “Shelepin Plan”. Anatoliy Golitsyn, when he defected over to the West in December of 1961, sacrificed for himself a privileged life in the Soviet structures so to let the West know of this deadly longrange strategy, even facing terrible ridicule and denigration in his new home country, the United States; he then sacrificed the greater part of his life in the West, i.e. at least until 1995, for continuingly warning and trying to educate Western decision-makers as for what lies ahead with most inevitable certainty, unless the West would in time awake to the communist bloc’s longrange scheme. The West “knew better”, and as a result we are now all awaiting indeed the second October Revolution. Westerman ignores all of this!]

After the collapse of the USSR, pundits in the U.S., of various political persuasions, speculated that fear of an increasingly powerful China would drive Russia to align with the West. These pundits, however, failed to acknowledge that Yeltsin’s Russia had, early on, began a policy of providing military assistance to China, providing technical aid, training for officers, and military hardware. [Westerman continues his line of “It started under Yeltsin”, which is pure nonsense. Moscow and Beijing had been tight allies ever since Khrushchev and Mao had sorted out any of their internal differences, adopting a split for outward consumption only, which soon was to lead the United States – by the mistaken, if not treacherous recommendations by then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger – to believe they could “contain” the USSR by opening up to, and building up as a great power, the People’s Republic of China. By this suicidal decision the groundwork was laid in selling the communists the rope by which to hang the hated capitalist world! Yet, not a word by Westerman about the Sino-Soviet split having been a long-term deception!] 

Moscow’s assistance to China has continued for years, unnoticed among the U.S. pundits, who still expect a U.S.-Russian alliance against China [also here, Westerman forgets to mention that the U.S.’s opening up to China in the early 1970s had in mind precisely the opposite: a U.S.-Chinese alliance against the Soviet Union. So, why has this expectation turned out as futile? Because both Moscow and Beijing were jointly fooling the United States and the West! Golitsyn called it the Scissors Strategy].

There also existed among U.S. policymakers and politicians the belief that the Chinese people would eventually emulate the example of Russia and rid themselves of their communist overlords [Amazing how many major flaws Westerman puts alongside each other in one short sentence: there is no Russian people any more, and bascially no longer a Chinese people either, only a “liberated” Soviet people, whether in the stil-intact USSR or in the PRC, and certainly did the Soviet people not rid itself of its communist oppressors in 1991, which was, like the events of 1989, the smoothest “fall” of a tyrannical system in the whole of human history! As a consequence, there’s no example for the people of “China” to emulate so to get rid of their tyrants, in the first place!] This confidence was so great that the U.S. exported much of its manufacturing capability to the Peoples Republic of China (PRC). Politicians hoped that industrialization and a new wealthy class would lead to the end of communist rule, and U.S. manufacturers saw great opportunity for quick profits from selling both to U.S. markets and satisfying a burgeoning consumer class. [Because they were duped, both politicians and industrialists, by communist lies and deception!]

In the meantime, millions of American workers permanently lost their jobs.

The American political leadership remained blind to the reality that none of their preconceptions were based on fact. Not only did Russia and China grow closer [they didn’t grow closer, but the strategic phase of projecting a split between them was slowly nearing its end], but in 1997, Yeltsin and then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin jointly declared a New World Order that would counter, and eventually replace, American leadership in the world. [Again, we’re talking about communist world revolution here, and by definition all communist parties, whether in communist states or in the West, are engaged in it: the goal is “Worldwide Democratic Peace”, i.e. global communist tyranny, or communist world domination! Whilst Westerman portrays it as some kind of conventional geopolitics!]

Putin again carried on and intensified what Yeltsin had begun [not begun, only continued]. Russian military aid to the PRC evolved into a full-scale military and naval alliance. Joint exercises are held involving ground, air, and sea forces of both nations. Moscow and Beijing are even considering a joint lunar base. As one military commentator on Fox News recently acknowledged, America is indeed facing a “Moscow-Beijing axis.” [And so a communist revolutionary axis determined to bring about infamous “World October”, doubt it not!!!]


Options? [No more options! America & the West now stand with their backs against the wall!]

To put the matter bluntly, neither the U.S., nor its European allies are ready to face Putin’s Russia [it isn’t “Russia”, but still the Soviet Union, and it belongs not to Putin, but to the Communist Party SU], an expanding China, and certainly not an alliance between Russia and China [at least, Westerman acknowledges this!]. Years of denial and self-deception have put us in a very dangerous position. Our options are limited, but they can be effective. [There are no more options, not to think of “effective” ones. The pan-communist bloc is now pushing forward, using its military superiority not only as a means of blackmail, but soon, it appears, as the very concrete means to win a global war and install communism throughout the world – no matter the casualties, and once and for all, they’re convinced! Yet, Westerman is playing down the scope and meaning of it all!]

To its credit, the E.U. is showing cooperation with the U.S. in placing some sanctions against Russia, and a political pact between the new Ukrainian government and the European Union is in the works. [At which the Soviets are simply laughing, knowing they’ve swung the balance of power irreversibly!]

There is, however, also the question of how much pressure the E.U. is able or willing to put on Russia. [Regarding the question of will, the two dominant countries in the EU, Germany and France, are ruled by an East-German communist apparatchik and a French socialist! The European Commission is headed by a “former” Maoist student leader at the University of Lisbon! Regarding their ability, well, the Russians certainly won’t lose time in making use of Europe’s energy dependence on Russia and of West European investments in Russia, before Europe could possibly free itself from this dilemma! – And, by the way, who was it, in the case of Germany, who set in motion Germany’s suicidal “Energiewende” back in the late 1990s, that was based on the green-communist lie of Anthropogenic Global Warming? It was the radical-left Red-Green Schröder-Fischer government, with their Minister for the Environment (also known as Germany’s “Salon Stalinist” No. 1), Jürgen Trittin! And who even further accelerated Germany’s exit from nuclear energy, merely two days after the Fukushima accident of March 11, 2011? The succeeding supposedly “conservative” coalition government of CDU/CSU and FDP, led by “former” East German Marxist-Leninist, Angela Merkel, who has remained in power to this day, meanwhile in a coalition with the Social Democrats! The West European countries are being crippled from within!!! – One more delicate aspect: What are former Chancellor Gerd Schröder (SPD) and former Vice Chancellor and Foreign Minister Joseph “Joschka” Fischer (Greens) doing today? Schröder is, beside his resumed profession as a lawyer, as well as a plethora of other splendidly payed activities, chairman of the board of the Nord Stream AG owned at 51% by the Russian gas giant Gazprom and engaged in building a submarine gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany; in other words, Schröder, a declared Marxist, functions as a lobbyist for Soviet-Russian expansionist interests! Joschka Fischer, on the other hand, once a Marxist-radical street fighter, too is involved with energy. He is i.a. a consultant with the German power supplier RWE and with the Austrian oil concern OMV. European energy dependence on Russia is key for the Soviet strategists, and comrades Schröder and Fischer, among many others, are helping the Russian bear in this strategic operation!] Unfortunately, unlike the period of the post-WWII Soviet threat, Europe is closely tied economically to Russia. The European Union gets one-third of its natural gas from Russia, and European financial institutions had heavily invested in Russia. Norway could assist Europe, as could the U.S., if unnecessary regulations were relaxed, but a change of suppliers would take time, increase costs, and the possibility of retaliation by Moscow would loom large. [So, what are the “effective options” then, Mr. Westerman?]

Although E.U. sanctions would be costly to Russia, Putin is betting that Russia can stand the pain, while Europe will not. [And you can bet he is right in his betting!]

[Above:] The US should back the anti-communist demonstrations like those in Caracas, Venezuela. [A U.S. under communist Obama will never support anti-communist protest movements! A pipedream!]

There is, however, another possibility for pressuring Moscow [really?], and it would not involve the vulnerable European economies. The United States could demonstrate its displeasure with Russian aggression and express its commitment to freedom by supporting pro-freedom manifestations in Moscow’s neo-communist allies in Latin America. [Which would certainly turn around the global balance of world power back to America’s favour in an instance! Does Westerman even think? The communisation of Latin America, by now, is almost complete. And before dreaming of supporting the conservative movements in these countries, one has to address the murderous fact that a second-generation Stalinist resides in the White House in Washington D.C.! As long as he and his comrades are in power, America won’t be able to do anything. In fact, as things stand now, America no longer exists! Not to mention the present Pope being an even more radical Marxist than his five preceding Conciliar Popes together! So, not even the Catholic Church will stand up against the world revolution; instead, it is part of it!]

The pro-Moscow governments in Latin America, Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua have recently hosted Russian bombers and warships. [You see: Kennedy was risking war over this. But where is the reaction now, under Obama? Nothing!] The intent is clear: turn Caribbean Latin American waters into a Russian lake. Moscow’s Latin friends, however, do have a problem: in each nation there are significant pro-democracy elements [fatally, supported by no one!].

It is our best interests to aid these pro-freedom groups [what is Westerman talking about, when he says, “Our best interest”? There is no such “We” any longer, as not the conservative parts of the U.S. population are in charge, and not even the military, but a hardcore-communist as President!], both from a moral and a strategic view. [The first moral obligation of truthful, conservative America should be to save itself from the communists presently in power at home! Then, they can think about moral obligations towards other nations. As for strategy, one can only ask what sort of “strategic thinking” Westerman has in mind, especially as he has no understanding of communist strategy whatsoever!]

Although the present administration would find this strategy distasteful, it is certainly open to the next U.S. President [there are almost 3 more years to go until January 20, 2017 – the year, by the way, of the centennial of the October Revolution. Does Mr. Westerman seriously believe that Moscow, Beijing, and their helpers around Obama will give the United States that much time, let alone a real chance, to take the country back???]. Moscow is planning for the long term. America must recognize this fact and do the same. [But it’s game over already, Westerman! Wake up! America should have done the same, but hasn’t. That is all that can be said. There’s no more time or room for turning this thing around again; not any longer!]

It is long past time to deny Moscow the naval and air presence in Latin America, which the Russian military now enjoys in Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua [you see!]. The Moscow oligarchy has shown its capacity for aggression when their interests seem to demand it. [This is not about the demands of “seeming interests” of a “Moscow oligarchy”, but about the firm revolutionary determination of the disciples of Marx and Lenin to establish, finally, a World Communist Federation across the entire globe, leaving non- and anti-communists perhaps with the only option, as Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov warned 30 years ago, to “defect” to Antarctica and live there with the penguins, which is of course an illusion as well!] The United States has every right to insure its safety and protect those who have the same values of human integrity, whether in Ukraine or in Latin America [but, tragically, lacks the political will and the capacity to do so! A useless article ending with a tame and defensive, politically correct phrase arguing the United States – at least – has got the moral highground; a way of thinking the Soviet imperialist madmen just laugh at mercilessly, as all that is moral to them is what serves the world revolution!!!].

Posted March 17, 2014



Toby Westerman, certainly terrified given the seriousness of the situation, but either unable or unwilling to put it all in proper perspective.

Toby Westerman, certainly terrified given the seriousness of the situation, but either unable or unwilling to put it all in proper perspective.


Also, Toby Westerman was interviewed by Cliff Kincaid on March 26, 2014 (the photo above was picked from that video by this author). They discussed the current Ukrainian crisis and Russia’s and China’s ever more aggressive stance against the West, in which the two powers appear to no longer bother about behaving nice or civilised or diplomatic. Unfortunately, despite Cliff Kincaid’s persistent questions, Toby Westerman carefully evaded the issue of a communist longrange strategy of deception as explained and warned of by Anatoliy Golitsyn (and without which the communist world – that is not “again-communist”, but STILL-communist – would never ever have been able to swing the balance of world power in its favour!).





Anybody seriously interested in the real nature and scope of present developments should read – rather than Westerman’s good-for-nothing sleeping pills – the following three books, that are absolutely key for understanding the situation and that should be regarded as unmatched, top-reference literature. Whatever one feels inclined to read in addition – certainly, the articles on this blog are very much recommended as a substantial introduction to this huge topic -, nonetheless it is these four absolutely outstanding books (plus a few interviews and lectures featuring these authors) that are perfectly enough to acquire a proper knowledge and grasp of what so-called “Russia” and so-called “China” are really up to:


ANATOLIY GOLITSYN: New Lies for Old: The Communist Strategy of Deception and Disinformation; Dodd, Mead & Co., New York 1984. (Read the book online for free as a complete scanned-in PDF-copy here, or try and order it via here!) 

ANATOLIY GOLITSYN: The Perestroika Deception: The World’s Slide Towards the Second October Revolution; Edward Harle Ltd., London-New York 1995. (Read the book online for free as a complete scanned-in PDF-copy here, or try and order it via here!)

CHRISTOPHER STORY: The European Union Collective: Enemy of Its Member States – A Study in Russian and German Strategy to Complete Lenin’s World Revolution; Edward Harle Ltd., London-New York 2002. (Read the book online for free as a complete scanned-in PDF-copy here, or try and order it via here!)

CHRISTOPHER STORY: A one-hour interview of 1995, conducted by Bill McIlhaney, on Anatoliy Golitsyn and the Soviet Union’s perestroika deception: part 1; part 2.

CHRISTOPHER STORY: One-hour-follow-up interview of 2003, again conducted by Bill McIlhaney, discussing the same issues, yet from the perspective of 2003: click here.

CHRISTOPHER STORY: “Lenin’s Satanic World Revolution”. – A 50-minute public talk at the “Fatima: 2000” World Peace Bishops’ Conference at Hamilton, ON, Canada, Oct. 11 – 18, 1999. Christopher Story at his best! A marvellous – and very, very comprehensive – talk that, luckily, is still preserved on the web: click here.

YURI BEZMENOV: 80-minute interview of 1984, conducted by G. Edward Griffin, titled, “Deception Was My Job: On the Soviet Subversion of the Free World Press”: click here

YURI BEZMENOV: One-hour public lecture on Soviet-communist subversion, given in 1983 in Los Angeles: click here


Thanks for your attention and reading!



All other articles on this blog can be checked out here.