Anatoliy Golitsyn: The Key to Understanding Today’s World Situation


CONTENTS: Author’s Note – 1. Unmasking Communist Deception Strategy: The Unmatched Value of Anatoliy Golitsyn’s Insight & Analysis – 2. Excerpts from Anatoliy Golitsyn’s 1984 Book, “New Lies for Old: The Communist Strategy of Deception and Disinformation” – 3. Excerpts from Anatoliy Golitsyn’s Second Book of 1995, “The Perestroika Deception: The World’s Slide Towards the Second October Revolution” – 4. Overwhelming Evidence of a Seamless Continuity of the Old USSR – 5. Communist Military Build-Up and Increasing Political Blackmail – 6. Case Study I: November 9, 2009, 20th Anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall: A SPECIAL Celebration for the Communists – 7. Case Study II: The 2006 and 2012 New Year’s Concerts of the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra: (Soviet-)Latvian Conductor Mariss Jansons’ Peculiar Symbolic Hints – 8. Reference Literature – 9. Audio & Video Sources – 10. Finally …



Anatoliy Golitsyn (1926 – 2008?)





This 49,000-word treatise does not intend in any way to substitute the two very extensive treatises on this blog, “‘Forward, Comrades! Not Back!’ – America and the World on the Brink of Global Communism”, and “Red Surprise: Russian-Chinese Military Blackmail: Accept Communism or Face World War III”, although there is some overlapping between them. Rather, it will focus mainly on the core question that makes the decisive difference in looking at today’s world events, namely: Has the Soviet Union really gone out of business after 1991, as claimed by the purported “post-communist” regimes under Yeltsin and Putin and accepted at face value by the West ever since 1992, or was the “collapse of communism” of 1989/91 in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union the boldest (and most consequential) deception operation in all of human history?

Raising a question of such monumental proportions – let alone, trying to answer it – would require an experienced, skilled, life-long political analyst fully familiar with the subject. This author – though he considers himself a private scholar of sorts, now in his late fourties – cannot and will not make such a claim.

Yet, in his studies of communist affairs, that he intensified around 2007, this author in that year of 2007 came across the two books by 1961 Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn (1926 – 2008?), New Lies for Old: The Communist Strategy of Deception and Disinformation, Dodd, Mead & Co., New York 1984; and The Perestroika Deception: The World’s Slide towards the Second October Revolution, Edward Harle Ltd., London – New York 1995. The deeper he worked himself into the matter – re-reading the two books several times and applying Golitsyn’s analysis to current world developments – the more clearly things unveiled in front of him. As the late British political analyst Christopher Story (1938 – 2010), editor and publisher of Golitsyn’s second book, The Perestroika Deception, put it in 1995 in a recorded one-hour conversation hosted by William McIlhaney (that is given here further down in a full, word-by-word transcript) , “The brain goes ‘click’, and you suddenly understand. And, having gone ‘click’, you never go backwards”.



Who is (or was) Anatoliy Golitsyn, and what is his phenomenal contribution to overall geopolitical analysis, particularly of the “once”-communist bloc’s strategic long-range plannings with regard to conquering the whole world for communism?

Instead of setting up here a new, improvised chapter, a much more proper way of introducing Golitsyn’s groundbreaking value to the analysis of world communism and communist long-term strategy is to simply present here as a full, word-by-word transcript (done by this author) an absolutely first-class one-hour conversation of 1995 with Golitsyn’s colleague analyst, so to speak, the late Christopher Story (1938 – 2010), that was hosted by American interviewer William McIlhaney. The reader is greatly encouraged to also listen to and view this conversation directly, as presented currently on Youtube here: part 1/2; part 2/2 (8 years later, in 2003, the two gentlemen engaged in a sort of follow-up conversation on the same topic of the Perestroika Deception, that can be viewed here).


Christopher Story, 1995 interviewWILLIAM McILHANEY’S INTRODUCTORY WORDS: Welcome to the McIlhaney Report! I’m Bill McIlhaney. Each show we cover a crucial issue of the day, but always from a viewpoint of perspective rarely if ever aired by the mass media. We hope you find it interesting.

This is perhaps the most important interview we’ve ever conducted. Since 1989 we’ve been told constantly by the mass media and the government about the so-called “death of communism” and the “collapse” of the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellite nations. We are told that the new Russian rulers are democratic and opening up to political and economic freedom. The Bush and Clinton Administrations have proposed even greater aid from U.S. taxpayers to the rulers of what is called the “New Russia” and the “new” Eastern European states. They tell us that we must aid and be partners with these rulers and join with them in a “New World Order”.

Our guest today can refute this conventional wisdom. He is one of two outstanding experts in the Free World on this subject [well, there has been also, since the late 1990s, profound U.S. analyst J.R. Nyquist]. The other expert, Anatoliy Golitsyn, the source of this information, has been living in the United States in hiding under an assumed identity since 1960 [in fact, since 1961] to protect himself from murder by the Soviet KGB. Our guest today is editor of the London-based periodical, Soviet Analyst, and editor of Golitsyn’s second book just published in the spring of 1995, The Perestroika Deception. I want to welcome Christopher Story to the McIlhaney Report!

CHRISTOPHER STORY: Delighted to be here.

McILHANEY: Very happy to have you, Sir! – For our listeners who are unfamiliar with this subject, we must start at the beginning. Anatoliy Golitsyn – this is one of, maybe one of two existing public photographs of him, probably taken thirty years ago.

Who is Anatoliy Golitsyn? And what did he reveal when he defected from the Soviet KGB in 1960 [actually, in 1961]?

STORY: Golitsyn is the most important defector ever to have reached the West. He came out, actually, in 1961 – he fled to Finland in 1961, with his family. And he revealed the existence of a long-range strategy of deception based on Lenin’s principles. And his importance is that all defectors who’ve come since him appear to have been engaged in an attempt to refute what he says. So, we look to Golitsyn as the source of proper insights into what the communists are really up to.

McILHANEY: And he predicted, did he not, that the KGB would send false defectors deliberately to discredit him.

STORY: That’s correct. And this happened almost immediately afterwards. Within six months, several defectors, both from the KGB and from the military intelligence, arrived in the United States.

McILHANEY: Now, in addition to identifying Soviet moles in European and American, in the European intelligence system, British intelligence system, French, he provided this whole new understanding of Soviet disinformation strategy. There was one man in the CIA who listened to him seriously, that was James Angleton. Tell us about Angleton!

STORY: James Jesus Angleton [1917 – 1987; right] was a very remarkable counterintelligence expert. And he debriefed Golitsyn. And he became absolutely convinced that Golitsyn was telling the truth. This is clear from internal evidence. But, Angleton became aware, through Golitsyn, of the significance of what the Soviets were really up to.


Staatswappen UdSSR

STORY: Basically, what Golitsyn taught and revealed was that these, all, Soviet governments are Leninist governments. They’re driven by the deception strategy perfected by Lenin, which is aimed at achieving a long-range strategy, namely: Control the whole world! [Right: Coat of arms of the overt USSR, 1922 – 1991]

McILHANEY: And part of this strategy, as really put into a codified plan by 1959, dealt with creating the impression that liberalisation, or destabilisation, decentralisation was occurring in the communist states, as a way of lulling the West into putting down its defences.

STORY: Yeah. What happened was – according to Golitsyn – is that after the death of Stalin the communists realised, in general, that the method of control they’d been adopting, namely brutal repression, was an inefficient method of achieving control over populations and that it was more efficient to seek to achieve control through infiltration and deception and through the control of the minds of the target.


STORY: And, so, the Party instructed Alexander Shelepin [1918 – 1994; left], who was the head of the KGB, in 1958, to develop a plan for the use of the total resources of the revolution. And the KGB and the GRU, military intelligence, were instructed to become the instruments of the mobilisation of the resources of the revolution. So, between 1959 and 1961, Shelepin developed, perfected and agreed with the Party the full outline of this deception plan. And, the deception plan is basically a means of projecting communism into the whole of the rest of the world. And they do it through deception, and we can examine how this is done as we go on.

McILHANEY: Well, one of the features of the plan, obviously, was to give the impression that the international communist movement was breaking up, that there were splits, divisions, dissent, that there was a rift between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, there was a rift between Red China and the Soviet Union, all of these things were examples of this disinformation strategy, and one of the principal goals of it would be that the West would feel more secure and put down its guard.

STORY: Yes. Lenin, Lenin’s methodology involves the use of the dialectic. Now, the Western mind – which is a civilised, developed mind – does not understand dialectical deception, which is basically a Mongol concept. And the fake Russia-China split is a good example, by creating the false impression that there was a split – which incidently they’ve continued ever since, because now we have communist China and supposedly non-communist Russia, so the illusion of the split continues. The West was lulled into believing that if it supported China, it would be taking precautionary action against Russia. In fact, what’s happening, and is continuing: they are both working together, and their intentions, ultimately, are hostile, they are aggressively oriented, towards the West.

McILHANEY: Yes, and another consequence of staging, deliberately staging of phoney encouragement of, or setting, let’s say, setting up, the KGB setting up phoney dissident movements within communist countries and supposedly, or, in a theatrical way presenting what appears to be liberalisation or some lessening of tight control, that also has the effect of lulling the underground, the genuine underground opposition to communism in these countries, out in the open, giving them the false hope that they can speak out, and then further identifying them and destroying them.

STORY: Well, this goes back actually to Tsarist days. In fact, the Tsarist secret police were adepts of this. But, Stalin’s henchman, the founder of the Cheka, Dzerzhinsky [1877 – 1926; right], was particularly skilled at using what we call false opposition. And in fact this was the main thrust of Lenin’s strategy in the 1920s. When Lenin launched into the West what is known as the “Trust”, he exported, he allowed the emigration of a large number of emigrés, and in their number were many controlled communist members of the Cheka. And, he introduced this false, controlled opposition to Western intelligence, and as a result the perception by Western intelligence of what was really happening was distorted. Now, this principle has been applied since 1961, and it came to its fruition under Gorbachev. Gorbachev’s “Perestroika”, which means restructuring, is in fact the restructuring not of Soviet society – although that was done for, there was a certain amount of reform and restructuring to give it credibility –,

McILHANEY: Superficial –

STORY: Superficial. It is, essentially, the restructuring of the Western mind, the control of the Western mind. That is what it means. Stalin used the word ‘perestroika’, and it meant, in Stalin’s vocabulary, it meant the re-shoeing of a horse. So, the West misunderstood the meaning of “Perestroika”, thinking that it meant reform of the communist movement. In fact, it’s a deception.

McILHANEY: Yes, and this is because everything that we’ve witnessed since 1989 has been part of this grand disinformation strategy, which Golitsyn revealed in his 1984 book, New Lies for Old, had been prepared by 1959.

STORY: Yes. The long-range strategy is what it says: It’s a long-range strategy. It took years to come to fruition. There are a number of reasons for this. They had to allow, for example, those with memories of the Stalin repressions to die off. They had to ensure that the true opposition no longer existed. And they have liquidated all true opposition in all East European countries.

McILHANEY: In all communist countries –

STORY: – all countries; with a few exceptions.

McILHANEY: Which means, as Golitsyn has pointed out, that we – and those exceptions are subject to question –, but when we see a supposed dissident movement within a communist or so-called “former-communist” state, having access to the media, operating openly –

STORY: – sure –

McILHANEY: – having resources, and being able to express itself and be heard around the world, it would immediately be suspect of being a KGB front operation, at least in terms of its leadership.

STORY: Absolutely correct. And as a result of the – Gorbachev first of all launches “Perestroika” internally, and when the softening-up process has been completed, i.e. the West is attuned to the fact that there’s been this apparent reform and that it’s all “falling apart”, they then export “Perestroika” to the whole world, so that in fact what has happened is that you have, instead of having walk-ins – you know, defectors arriving and knocking on the West’s door – you’ve got a mass walk-in, so no one knows who is genuine and who isn’t!

McILHANEY: Hmhmm. To go back just a bit regarding Golitsyn defecting to the American CIA in the early 1960s, he had an advocate in James Angleton.

STORY: Yeah.

McILHANEY: And the influence of what Golitsyn revealed was felt through Angleton’s policies.

STORY: Yeah.

McILHANEY: But that came to an end in 1974 when Angleton was fired by CIA Director William Colby –

STORY: Hmhmm.

McILHANEY: – after Golitsyn had warned that there were Soviet moles, Soviet agents, within the CIA at high levels. To what extent was Golitsyn vindicated by the Aldrich Ames exposure?

STORY: Totally! I mean, Golitsyn had been telling everybody, since he finished the first book, New Lies for Old, which actually he finished in 1980, although it was only published in 1984, that the CIA was penetrated. This was obvious from internal evidence. Now, of course, with the Ames case, that is proved. I mean, everybody knows that there are many more moles –

McILHANEY: Many more moles!

STORY: – inside Western intelligence than just Ames. But Ames is a symptom of the penetration of the Central Intelligence Agency.

McILHANEY: In the book – as you said, written in 1980, published in 1984 – Golitsyn’s New Lies for Old, he revealed not only this massive disinformation strategy, which goes back to 1959, and the ramifications of it, the applications of it during the 1960s, 1970s, but he made a series – the book was published in ’84 –, he made a series of incredible predictions regarding what was going to come as the result of this strategy, and the predictions are just amazing to read! Would you go over some of them?

STORY: Well, I mean, there are three or four pages which are just chock-a-block full of predictions. He talks about the removal of the Berlin Wall, liberalisation starting in East Germany and spreading to the rest of Eastern Europe. He says, for instance, that Dubček will be restored in Czechoslovakia, which duly happened for a brief period. And he talks about a reconciliation with the West and the reunification of Germany, and so on and so forth. And in a recent book written by Mark Riebling, called, Wedge: The Secret War between the FBI and CIA, published in 1994, Riebling carries out a careful analysis of Golitsyn’s predictions in New Lies for Old, and he established that out of 148 falsifiable predictions, 139 had been verified by 1993! And he gave him an accuracy rating of over 94%. That is without parallel in the West. I mean, this puts Golitsyn in a separate category from everybody. Now, I think –

McILHANEY: In other words, if Golitsyn is not telling the truth about –

STORY: – everybody has to explain why these predictions were correct.

McILHANEY: Well, if he is not telling the truth about the fact that all that we have witnessed since 1989 was planned as Soviet disinformation strategy going back this far, then he has to be a prophet, he just has to be a clairvoyant.

STORY: Either he has to have supernatural powers, or he has to understand Soviet strategy. And of course the answer is the latter. He understands Soviet strategy because he knows that it’s based on the thinking of Lenin [1870 – 1924; left]. He studied Lenin. Now, one of the things that I’ve done in the last few years is to go back to Lenin and try to read and understand what this evil man is saying. He’s actually preaching hatred. He is preaching how to deceive, and he is teaching us how to deceive. And Lenin’s disciples remain in control of the world communist movement. All they’ve done is relabel themselves in order to appear acceptable to the West. There’s a passage in Lenin where he says, ‘There may come a time in the revolution when true revolutionaries must put on the appearance and the clothing and the manner and the language of the enemy.’ And this is what they’ve done! And it’s very easy to see that this is the case once one understands that this is what’s going on. If you take someone like Andrey Kozyrev, the Russian Foreign Minister [at the time], you can see that everything he says is a deception. He is an absolute, he is the most brilliant representative of the Leninist case, currently operating. He is the son, incidently, of one of the Soviet diplomats who were kicked out of London by the Douglas-Home government in 1972. [Alec Douglas-Home, however, was Prime Minister only from October 1963 till October 1964, whereas from 1970 till 1974 he served as Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office under Prime Minister Edward Heath. So, it is unclear what period Christopher Story really had in mind. Unfortunately there is no information on said father of Andrey Kozyrev online, whether on Wikipedia or elsewhere.]

McILHANEY: There is a description in New Lies for Old of a new, liberal and more democratic figure who would emerge as the leader of the Soviet Union, that is a mirror image of Mikhail Gorbachev.


McILHANEY: Now, tell us about Mikhail Gorbachev and perhaps his apparently more credible – at least, in the eyes of the world and the media – successor, Boris Yeltsin. Did they ever show any traits of interest in democratic reforms?

STORY: Well, what they did show an interest in was in the continuation of their Leninist strategy. I mean, the important point about Gorbachev is that – as in the case of Hitler in Mein Kampf – he clearly and repeatedly laid down in black and white, in speeches, and in his book, Perestroika, what he was doing. He made it quite clear what he is doing.  In Perestroika, he said, ‘We went back to Lenin. We reviewed Lenin. We took inspiration from Lenin. And we based our strategy on Lenin.’ So, when I was asked by Mrs. Thatcher [1925 – 2013], as she then was, to see her in the House of Commons in July 1991, to explain these matters to her, I was completely flabbergasted when she said to me, “I don’t think Gorbachev is a Leninist any more.” And then she also said, “I don’t think we’ve been deceived. At least I hope we haven’t.” So, I’ve, I was – in fact, that was the real turning point in the later part of my life. That was when I realised I should spend basically most of my time trying to explain how she was conned and how wrong she was. [Left: Gorbachev visit, London, April 6, 1989]

Of course, it’s very simple to do: You can show from Gorbachev’s speeches, from his writings, that in fact he was constantly quoting Lenin. He is, was a key advocate of the Leninist world revolution. And of course, he remains so to this day. Gorbachev, as you probably know, is in charge of the so-called Gorbachev Foundation, which various experts led by Hans Graf Huyn, a well-known German expert, have identified as in fact the International Department of the CPSU! And it’s based here in San Francisco!

McILHANEY: Communist Party Soviet Union, yes.

STORY: Yes. The International Department of the CPSU was in fact the Comintern! So, the Gorbachev Foundation based in the Presidio in San Francisco is, in fact, the Comintern! And, what Gorbachev is in charge of is influencing the Western elite. And, in fact, the key elite of course is based here. This is the elite that he has to influence, which is what he has been doing ever since he arrived with a large delegation in Washington in 1987.

McILHANEY: That’s right. And his opponent, or his political rival, or the quote-unquote-opposition he faced, Boris Yeltsin [1931 – 2007], comes from the same Leninist background!

STORY: Oh, no question! I mean, Boris Yeltsin was awarded the Order of Lenin, he is a Communist Party chief. He could not possibly have risen to the level he did in the structures without being approved at the highest level! No one can move without approval. [Right: a rare photograph from approximately the early 1980s, i.e. well before the “democratic changes”, showing Boris Yeltsin as a clear-cut, resolute Bolshevist]

McILHANEY: Well, now looking at the reality of what exists today in light of the predictions Golitsyn made in New Lies for Old, we see that, as he predicted, the Soviet Union and its power and control over its republics, separate republics, and satellite nations still continues through the same KGB- and leaden bureaucracies that have simply been given new names, but that are still in place, fully in place.

STORY: Yeah. The so-called independence of the Soviet republics is false and provisional. It’s based on Lenin’s fake “Far-Eastern Republic”, which he set up in the late 1920s [well, in the early 1920s, as Lenin went basically insane in 1923 and died in January of 1924]. And the existence of these republics has been brought about for a number of strategic reasons. I mean, at a fairly low level, one of the most important reasons is that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and all the international institutions have been penetrated by all these countries. So, instead of just having the USSR, and the Ukraine, and Belorussia, as up to 1990, we now have, you know, 16 of these republics [well, in fact: 15 republics, rather than 16; today, out of these 15, 9 are regular CIS member states plus 1 ‘annexed’ member state (Turkmenistan) plus 1 ‘informal’ member state (Ukraine), plus 4 “ex“-member states, i.e. the 3 Baltic republics that have joined the EU, and Georgia]. There, suddenly, we’ve got 16 [15] KGBs, and we’ve got 16 [15] delegations in the World Bank and the IMF, so that these institutions have now metamorphosed into instruments of the revolution, more clearly than was the case before. That is one reason why they were given this curious independence, but another very important reason is that with the apparent independence to these countries, they opened up scope for independent military action, so that the repression, which subsequently took place in Georgia, Tajikistan, Moldova, and in Abkhasia, could take place, the minorities could be suppressed, and “Russia” could be whiter than white! You can see what I mean?


STORY: In other words, the communists, the repression was carried out by apparent non-communists.

McILHANEY: Was delegated.

STORY: Was delegated. And it was actually in the case of Georgia where the most severe repression has been taking place, supervised by Shevardnadze, who the West thought was the –

McILHANEY: a Christian –

STORY: not only a Christian – you know, baptised as a Christian – but the “architect of the end of the Cold War”. – He is known as “Stalin II” in Georgia! [Above: Comrades Gorbachev and Shevardnadze around 1989/90]

McILHANEY: Alright. In the early 1980s, Avraham Shifrin of Israel, an expert on Soviet concentration camps, published a guide-book to these camps listing over 1,700 concentration camps in the Soviet Union with millions of prisoners [Avraham Shifrin: The First Guidebook to Prisons and Concentration Camps of the Soviet Union; Stephanus Edition, Uhldingen, Switzerland 1980]. Are we to believe that all of these suddenly vanished about 1989? [Left: Map of the USSR: Concentration camps, prisons, and psychiatric prisons; from “The First Guidebook to Prisons and Concentration Camps of the Soviet Union”. – Click to enlarge.]

STORY: Are we to believe that these people suddenly, all of a sudden, set aside their ideology and suddenly started talking normally?

McILHANEY: Or that some 60 million members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, did they all stop being members of it instantly at the same time?

STORY: No. Golitsyn makes it quite clear in his new book, The Perestroika Deception, that the power structures depend on the continued adherence to revolutionary objectives of the Komsomol. There are 50, over 50 million members of Komsomol. They work closely with the structures. And, so, he says somewhere in the book, he says: scratch any of these so-called sudden, instant democrats, and you will find underneath them a Komsomol or a secret Party member. Well, all these people you see on the television screen in Moscow, they are all, without exception, secret Party or Komsomol members.

McILHANEY: We’re going to have to do our second show on the content of The Perestroika Deception because it covers the period of 1989 through 1993.

STORY: Hmhmm.

McILHANEY: And written by Golitsyn and actually derived from memoranda he prepared for the CIA, which they of course ignored. But, we hear about free enterprise, a burgeoning of free enterprise in the Soviet Union and in the Eastern European countries. What is the reality of this? I mean, isn’t it overwhelmingly controlled and limited in a way that makes a mockery of the term “free enterprise”?

STORY: They themselves call it state-controlled capitalism, which is of course a contradiction in terms.


Banner, This is Russia, June 12, 2012, Poland vs. Russia

STORY: What has happened is that Lenin’s original state was a criminal state. The Cheka, the Soviet intelligence, controlled the Mafia, invented the Mafia, became the Mafia, so that what – this apparent outbreak of free enterprise we see is in fact controlled by the KGB; this outbreak of Soviet criminality: it’s controlled! And it’s being exported on a global scale. Why is it being exported? It’s one of the themes that they are developing to create problems which need global solutions, so that there’s a world crime epidemic, terrorist epidemic: ‘we’ve got to have global structures in order to contain this epidemic’, which they themselves have created. [Above: 2012 European Football Championship in Poland & Ukraine, June 12, 2012, Warsaw: Poland vs. Russia: Merely two years after the cynical liquidation of Poland’s whole more-or-less-conservative elite around then-President Lech Kaczinsky outside Smolensk, Russia, the unchanged Soviet Union shows – in no uncertain terms and despite the maxims of political correctness displayed around the playing field – its true old criminal colours of intimidation and terror! This was also the first European Football Championship ever, since their beginnings in 1960, that took place within the “former” communist bloc, apart from the 1976 championship hosted by Tito’s “non-bloc member” Yugoslavia. – Click to enlarge.]

McILHANEY: Also, the KGB generated criminal activity providing excuse for ever tighter control over whatever window-dressing business or entrepreneur-like activity may exist over there.

STORY: Sure. And not only that. But of course, you’ve got the drug element as well. Since the 1950s, Soviet military intelligence, GRU, has been in control of drug networks all over the world. And the reason the GRU controls, is involved in this, is because it’s sabotage. You know, the narcotics operation, it’s sabotage. Other elements are controlled by the KGB.

McILHANEY: Christopher, we are going to continue in our second part of this interview. I wanna thank you for being with us today. – If you found any of this information, as you should, interesting and disturbing, please contact us at the address or phone number given at the end of the programme! We’ll be happy to send you full documentation on any subject that we’ve discussed that may interest you. This is Bill McIlhaney, for the McIlhaney Report, thanking you so much for joining us!

WILLIAM McILHANEY: [Identical introduction as for part 1] … I want to welcome Christopher Story back to the McIlhaney Report! Thank you so much for being here!

CHRISTOPHER STORY: Delighted to be here!

McILHANEY: In our prior show, and I might say to our listeners who did not see it: if you would like to contact the background of the prior part of this interview, please contact us at the address and phone number given at the end of the show. We’ll make sure you have that. In our prior show we talked about the revelations by the most important defector ever to come to the West from the Soviet KGB, Anatoliy Golitsyn, that were first introduced in his 1984 book written four years earlier, called New Lies for Old. In that book, he revealed that by the late 1950s the Soviet KGB had formulated a massive disinformation strategy to deceive the West and further the goal of eventual world control by the communist movement. And that strategy involved creating the appearance of destabilisation or breaking up of the unified communist movement worldwide, the creation of rifts and divisions between communist countries and eventually the idea of the pretense, the stage-managed, false theatrical presentation of alleged liberalisation in communist nations, the purpose being to deceive the West into putting its guard down and make it easier for communism to advance. All that has happened, that we’ve witnessed since 1989 was predicted in incredible detail in this book written in 1980.

Now, we come to the present reality – that’s just background – in the Soviet Union, in what is called “Russia” today, Commonwealth of [Independent] States, or whatever new name they’re using. We have the same power of the Soviet KGB and the leaden bureaucracy still firmly in position; the concentration camps obviously – all 1,700 of them – have not disappeared; so everything that we’ve been told about is largely pretence and deception and show business.

STORY: That’s correct. 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.

McILHANEY: Like some residual, broken-down automobiles on the High Way, or something.

STORY: Well, 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! Now, of course we know that the Party exists. The Party had very great experience of working underground before the 1917 Revolution, and also in the German-occupied areas of the Soviet Union during the Second World War. So they know all about working underground. Recently, at a meeting at Washington, I was interrupted by a well-known veteran-analyst in the middle of my presentation, and he said, “I suppose you’re gonna tell us that the Communist Party still exists, are you?” So I said, “Well, funny enough, I was just coming to that!” And I was able to point to a document published by the Communist Party USA, CPUSA, in October last year [i.e. October of 1994], where they listed the fourty or fifty congratulatory messages that Gus Hall, the Chairman of the Party, had received on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the Communist Party USA. And one of these messages came from the “Moscow Committee, CPSU!

McILHANEY: Which according to CNN no longer exists!

STORY: It “doesn’t exist”. According to the received version, it doesn’t exist. In the April issue of the Communist Party USA’s political journal, Political Affairs, there’s a report by one of their senior officials, who visits Moscow and attends a conference of the visible Communist Party [i.e. the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, CPRF], run by Gennady Zyuganov, or led by Gennady Zyuganov, and this American communist attends this Party in January 1995, and in his report, in the April issue, he says that the most important delegation to the Congress was that of the “Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which controls all the other parties,” and I quote!

McILHANEY: Rather frank admission. Obviously, that we won’t be reading about there on the front page of the Los Angeles Times.

STORY: Or the New York Times, for that matter.

McILHANEY: Now, let’s talk about some of the alleged examples of political freedom in the Soviet Union, notably the rise of rival political figures opposing Yeltsin, such as Zhirinovskiy. What is the purpose of this? There seem to be – in the first place, any dissident, movement or individual, in a communist country, who ever had access to media or to communicating with the outside world, is immediately suspect, as Golitsyn has shown, because the real opposition would never be heard from and would not continue to exist.

STORY: That’s correct. What we see on our television screen, in Moscow, is democratism, which I define as the creation and maintenance of the illusion of democracy.

McILHANEY: It’s like a play!

STORY: They’re playing games.

McILHANEY: Yes. It’s a performance!

STORY: So – and this is documented in the record of the 29th Communist Party Congress, which was held in Moscow in July 1990. There’s a speech by Shevardnadze, and another speech by Gorbachev, and also one by Yeltsin, and all three of these characters say that now is the time for, the revolution is among us, to choose which faction they wish to belong to. In other words, they can, you know, they can decide which label they would feel happiest under: would they like to be a false conservative, or would they like to be hardline Stalinist? In other words, in coded language, in the report, which is in the public domain:

McILHANEY: Play your role!

STORY: Play your role! Which group would you like to masquerade in, to pretend to be a democrat in, would you like to play democratism? So, that’s what’s going on. Now, someone like Zhirinovskiy is of course, can best be described as a caricature of a Soviet, of a Russian nationalist. He is of course KGB, he’s been created by the KGB. His purpose, among his purposes, well, I can identify two of them, really, his most important purpose is to be even ghastlier, and more ghoulish, and more threatening to the West than the existing regime in Russia, so that the West sort of falls down and prays to Yeltsin, you know, for goodness sake, –

McILHANEY: And we must support Yeltsin because –

STORY: Previously it was, “We must support Gorbachev!” Now we must support Yeltsin. That’s one of his purposes. Another very important purpose of Zhirinovskiy is as a mouthpiece or a trumpet of true Soviet strategy! Zhirinovskiy goes to Cyprus, and he says of course it’s Soviet policy to incorporate Turkey within a Greater Soviet Union! He says that openly. And he writes a book called The Thrust to the South, or I believe that’s the title, roughly [in fact, the title is: The Final Thrust South], in which he describes Soviet GRU strategy! But – and he tells us this! But of course, it’s dismissed by the liberal press in the West, and by everybody, as “the rantings of a madman”,

McILHANEY: – of a nationalist, right.

STORY: – but actually it’s an accurate statement of Soviet, of one group of options which the strategists have in mind. I’m glad I mention the word ‘strategist’, because that brings me to the point that “Who are the people running this deception?” Golitsyn, in this book The Perestroika Deception, which I’ve edited, refers to them as “the strategists”. And I think that’s a sensible thing to do. And he says that the main locus of the strategists is the so-called Security Council. Now, this is a group which under Gorbachev used to be called the Presidential Council. And it’s always existed, even, ever since the time of Lenin. There’s always been a Security Council or, you know, a top secretariat, which is over and above all other structures. It’s completely unconstitutional. Yeltsin has a nice, new Constitution: it’s not mentioned. They sit in this Security Council, and they modify, or develop, elements of the strategy. He implies in this book that this is not the main, or the only locus of the strategists, but that is where they are formally visible.

McILHANEY: Hmhmm. Well, a couple of other examples of the charade, the stage-managed performance of democratism, are the 1991 phoney Coup unseating Gorbachev in the most friendly, protected, and safe manner, which he probably helped plan, and the 1993 attack on the Chamber of People’s Deputies. Can you talk about those?

STORY: Yes, I can talk about – it’s easier to talk about the August Coup because we’ve had more time to think deeply about the Coup. The first thing to note is that Gorbachev made a number of statements in advance of the Coup, forecasting the Coup. There’s one instance, I think I try and read it out if I can, where he says, this is a very important statement, in May 1991, speaking with President Mitterand at a press conference, President Mitterand of France, he says, “The dangers lie in the fact that someone, analysing at some private moment or other this or that instance or episode or even event, including a dramatic event,” – that’s a reference to the Coup – “should not make hasty conclusions and cast out all that has been acquired and what we have created in putting international relations onto new channels, onto new rails.” Now, I’ll come back to that, but –

McILHANEY: Introducing what was going to happen!

STORY: He was introducing the Coup. The significance of the – the Coup achieved a number of objectives simultaneously. First of all, incidently, he ‘dies’ and ‘rises again’ in three days. Now, this is a typical KGB ploy. They like to make comparisons with Russian traditional religion: you know, Christ died, and he rose again in three days. So, and another point, very interesting point about the Coup, is that communism is dismantled in Russia in a space of three weeks. Now, three weeks is the period in which Stalin rolled up the opening to the West, known as the New Economic Policy in the 1920s. Remember, the New Economic Policy, on which the present deception is modelled.

McILHANEY: The first experiment called Glasnost; the first example of Glasnost.

STORY: Yeah. That’s correct. The New Economic Policy, where they export into the West all these false, controlled members of the apparent opposition. So that the Coup achieves the objective, first of all, of providing a pretext for the rolling up of communism. You remember, Gorbachev comes back from Foros in the Crimea, and he says: I’ve been struggling with these die-hard communists all these years to try and get them to see sense and to modernise themselves and to become less corrupt, and I have failed, so I resign as the General Secretary. And then a few weeks later, we have the “banning of the Communist Party”. So that then you have a situation where they’re ready for that scene change: You have Yeltsin, who is President of Russia coincidently at the same time as Gorbachev is President of the Soviet Union. And the scene changes, and the scenery moves around on its swivel, and suddenly, you know, on Christmas Day, when we should be, in England, we should be watching the broadcast of the Queen, we suddenly find ourselves watching Gorbachev saying that, you know, that he’s resigning as General Secretary. He chooses Christmas Day for a deliberate reason in order to get maximum coverage, and also to replace God! So, by Christmas Day, they have wound up the Soviet Union, which is all false, and they have replaced it with apparent “non-communism” so the West rejoices.

McILHANEY: – and vanished a Party, political Party, a controlling structure, with 65 million members. That’s pretty hard [remaining sentence incomprehensible].

STORY: They all “vanished” over night! In the course of 1991, they suddenly stopped talking their ideological gibberish, they suddenly appeared in Western suits, with nice smiles, –

McILHANEY: – eager to do business –

STORY: – eager to do business, and only too pleased to enter the modern world. And the West thinks it’s all wonderful and the West has won the Cold War! And, I hate to say it, but the Americans have been more insistent on “having won the Cold War” than anybody else; and we still, even to this day, hear people bragging about winning the Cold War; actually the Russians won it.

McILHANEY: Right, and all of this Soviet disinformation planned decades ago, carefully, to deceive and destroy the West! Let’s talk about the connection of this strategy to continental Europe in the context of the European Union, which has placed a stranglehold, a regional world government, a new level of socialist-totalitarian control – unified, centralised control – over all of Europe, and also Great Britain, –

STORY: – that’s correct –

McILHANEY: – and destroyed whatever remaining national sovereignty existed for Europe or Britain.

STORY: Right. The easiest way to understand this is to go back to Lenin and to recall his central theme, which is that the state withers away. Lenin is anti-state. The purpose of the European Union is to merge all these countries – including my own, the most ancient of the lot – into a regional bloc. Our sovereignty is in jeopardy. If we remain an independent state in ten years’ time, I will be very surprised! Now, this has been brought about, I hasten to add, by conservative governments.

McILHANEY: And the European Union not only has placed economic and property controls on people in Europe and Britain, right down to the most minute level of business transactions, and in effect says that none of the member states, none of the member nations, can act in terms of their national interests any longer.

STORY: Well, that’s right. There is no such thing as a national interest because the national interest is shared by all [then] 15 members; and the Commission: 16 members!                                                                       

McILHANEY: And this whole thing was sold to us and to the West, and businessmen over here were enthusiastic because it was supposed to be something that eliminated trade barriers and would promote business.

STORY: Yeah. It is in fact a costums union, the very reverse of what it was marked as. But, more, what I like to do is to draw attention to the significance of the European Union in terms of Soviet geopolitical strategy: What is the Soviet interest in the European Union? The European Union is intended to be the bloc which will expand to cover the whole of the landmass from the Atlantic to Vladivostok. We have, and I have friends among them, we have MPs in the Conservative Party calling for – vociferously – the expansion of the European Union, to include all the so-called non-communist East European countries, all of which, by the way, are run by communists. What happened was that immediately after the so-called changes, groups of apparent dissidents were put in power, and the West thought, “That’s it. We’ve got non-communists in power.” They didn’t stay there for more than a year, most of them, nine months in some cases. In the case of Vaclav Havel, the President of the Czech Republic, he had other tasks to perform, he was in charge of dividing Czechoslovakia in two. Incidently, there is a secret agreement between Kohl, the Chancellor Kohl of Germany, and Gorbachev, which was reached in Geneva in September 1990, for the subdivision, for the division of Central Europe. And under this agreement, a copy of which I have, I obtained in Prague, Czechoslovakia was to be divided. The reason I know this document is genuine is that it’s dated November 1991, and these events took place at the end of 1992. Czechoslovakia was to be divided in halves. The Slovak area was to be in the immediate Russian sphere of influence, and the Czech Republic was to be in the German sphere of influence and was to be merged with Germany within 15 years [the first big EU eastward enlargement took indeed place on May 1, 2004, taking in, among six other socialist states and Malta and Cyprus, both Czechia and Slovakia; yet, with Germany having meanwhile turned completely Marxist, it is safe to say that the German strategy has effectively been nullified by that of the Soviets: no matter how hard parts of the German political elite may still be trying to proceed with their Pan-German hegemonial project over the whole of Europe, international communism, with the great help of the German “Social Democrats” and Greens, as well as since 2005 with the help of the East German Trojan Horse in the Kanzleramt, Angela Merkel, appears to have won that race]. So, Havel has other tasks to perform, that’s why he is still visible there. Wałęsa, Lech Wałęsa of Poland, similarly. By the way, he can’t move, he can’t brush his teeth, without the local KGB’s permission. The same applies to Yeltsin, by the way.


McILHANEY: And his movement, Solidarity, in Poland, was always run and set up by the KGB as a phoney opposition movement.

STORY: Solidarity was a phoney opposition movement. That was, I mean, a classic case of this.

Incidently, the image of brushing teeth is amusing. You know, there’s this man, General Korzhakov, in the Kremlin, who is said to be the most powerful wield, secret power in the whole of the Leninist state. I call him Yeltsin’s toothbrush man. Yeltsin can’t brush his teeth without permission from Korzhakov.

McILHANEY: So it was necessary to, as Golitsyn has shown in New Lies for Old and the new book, The Perestroika Deception, to carry on this grand disinformation strategy and performance about a ‘collapse of communism’, a ‘collapse of the Soviet Union’, and the ‘end of communism’ in Russia and the satellite nations, as a preliminary step towards merging this still-KGB-controlled area with Western Europe, now effectively merged under this new socialist stranglehold, the European Union.

STORY: Yes. The European Union is pushing for expansion eastwards to embrace all these so-called non-communist countries; they are of course controlled by communists. John Major, the British Prime Minister, said on BBC Radio 4, in his New Year message on the 1st of January, 1992, and I quote, because I heard him with my own ears, “I look forward to the day when Russia is a fully-fledged member of the European Community,” as it then was. So, by expanding NATO to include these countries, and expanding the European Union to include these countries, we are actually accommodating and facilitating Russian strategy, which is to achieve hegemony over the whole landmass. Now, in general terms, what is the object of Soviet strategy? The object of Soviet strategy, at the present phase, is: convergence. That’s the word that Golitsyn uses in his books. That is the purpose of, that is the general purpose of the deception: to create the environment which will encourage the West to believe that there has been a political discontinuity, so that the West ‘can relax’, the West is caught off guard, and the West now indulges in collaboration, but in fact the Soviet equation consists of what I call: “collaboration”-hyphen-“blackmail”. The second part of the equation is “blackmail”. And we are collaborating and forgetting about the blackmail element, and this is very, very dangerous! Very dangerous!!!

McILHANEY: In addition to exposing this massive disinformation strategy, which Anatoliy Golitsyn uniquely has exposed and made available as information in these two books: What can be done and what should be done by the West in response to this, assuming enough people became aware of it in time?

STORY: Well, as you correctly say, I take the second point first, the important point is that there should be people who, in the structures, the power structures in the West, who do finally come to realise this deception, and indeed Golitsyn clearly says that he believes that this will eventually happen, but he says it will be too late when it does happen! Incidently, coming to understand how the Soviet deception works may come to some people through revelation, rather than through intellectual application. A mixture of both is helpful.

McILHANEY: You mean, by just observing events.

STORY: Yeah, I mean, revelation is helpful. You know, I’m not talking about Paul on the road to Damascus, but in fact the brain goes ‘click’, and you suddenly understand, and having gone ‘click’, you never go backwards!


STORY: But the answer to the first part of your question is that we should leave them to stew in their own juice. We should withdraw. Now that we’re so deeply involved, we gotta do it subtly, but we should withdraw from cooperation. We needn’t announce it, we should just do it!

McILHANEY: And stop aiding them!

STORY: Stop aiding them! Stop cooperating! Withdraw whenever we see an opportunity! Retrench! AND: We should re-arm like crazy!!! Because the only thing these people understand is that we are determined not to let them prevail!

McILHANEY: And we might say that since 1917 the Soviet Union and its slave empire have existed entirely as a result of transfusions of aid, technology, money, from the West, and primarily from the United States, paid for by U.S. taxpayers.

STORY: That’s correct. They’ve also supplemented this income from controlling the drug trade.

McILHANEY: Yes. Obviously, Christopher, this is some of the most crucial information that Americans need to be aware of, and those of you who’re listening to this programme, if you found this information new and did not see the first half of the interview, I will urge you to contact us at the address or phone number given at the end of the programme, because we would be happy to furnish you with a summary as well as extensive documentation so that you would be able to research this subject yourself.

Are you concerned, Anatoliy Golitsyn has been protecting himself for thirty years because he was on the top of the KGB hit-list, are you concerned about your own personal safety?                                                                                                                         

STORY: Golitsyn was condemned to death by Semichastniy, who was in fact the head of the KGB at the time. He asked the Party’s permission to condemn him to death, and this is the case. He is on the death-list, and he remains so. He’s under deep cover. – Golitsyn wrote to me in May 1992, having read some issues of Soviet Analyst, and he did say in the letter, the first letter he wrote to me, that he thought that I was in some danger. I have discussed this with him since, and –

McILHANEY: Needless to say what we’re fighting for is more important.


McILHANEY: I want to thank you for being here. And this is Bill McIlhaney for the McIlhaney Report, thanking you so much for joining us.

Insert: For more information: The McIlhaney Report. P.O. Box 7486. Beverly Hills, CA 90212. (310) 275-3194.

Director: Andrea Stapley. Assistant Director: Ed Nugent. Lighting/Camera/Audio: Nigel Lizeranzu; Louise Gutierrez.

Produced at Century Communications. Public Access Studio. Santa Monica, California.    



This indeed historic interview should make us think, particularly as the late Christopher Story (1938 – 2010) was as a Sovietologist only second to Anatoliy Golitsyn himself. To some readers these revelations may come as a surprise, if not as a shock. Still, we MUST face these uncomfortable truths, even though by now, as a Soviet communist rules in the White House in Washington D.C., things seem to have long passed the point of no return. The world revolution has advanced that far that one might see little more options left, so to speak, but to pray. And that may well be the whole point about it: that we have to leave behind our scandalous and decadent ways, come out of our shameful apostasy – that has facilitated this present state of affairs, in the first place -, and return to the firm and undistorted faith of earlier generations! Without such a spiritual perspective, every attempt to fight this evil solely on a political, or even military level, will be in vain. And who knows what degree and length of punishment God in Heaven sees fit to send down upon us! After all, we must not overlook how deep we have allowed ourselves down! Just try to compare the spiritual exquisiteness of the High Middle Ages with our current mess: Strong faith no longer exists. All sense of authority: gone. Purity, chastity, piety, or courtship are now an object of ridicule. Self-cultivation and love of fine music and the fine arts has been replaced by addiction to garbage that does not even deserve the title ‘music’ or ‘art’. Knowledge of classical literature, let alone producing fine literature oneself, is about to die out. The value of self-restraint, in whatever regard, has become a widely foreign category in our hedonistic anti-culture, and drugs have severely harmed several generations in a row. Not to mention the core of any functioning society, the family unit, massively undermined and to a great extent already destroyed. As a consequence, the Marxist-totalitarian state is now about to fill this overall vacuum, using envy and class-hatred as the new order of the day, with distinction and exclusiveness now being defamed as the new capital sins, family sentiment as outmoded, and Christian morals as bigotry. The old order, the old way of life is a thing of the past, which had been the objective of Highgrade Freemasonry and Communism all along: “Ordo ab Chao”, order out of chaos, says it all:  in effect, not before all memory of the old days is gone, and all resistance against the fake ‘new’ is crushed, can be fully installed this long-worked-for communist society, whose predominant feature is that it denies God, more precisely: that it does not know God any longer. Yet, such a world in which the whole of humankind would have been thrown into such an abyss of complete godlessness can hardly be imagined, by human reckoning, as a durable state of things. God the Lord has His own ways and time measure, but according to Scripture – whatever is going to happen, and however long it may take – the forces of darkness will not prevail!



Now, let’s have a look directly into Anatoliy Golitsyn’s book, New Lies for Old (there is a complete, authentic scanned-in PDF-copy of the book for free, which you can access here; or you can go to and try and order it there.) Here is, first, the very informative Editors’ Foreword by Stephen de Mowbray, Arthur Martin, Vasia C. Gmirkin, and Scott Miler; followed by Anatoliy Golitsyn’s own personal Author’s Note (emphases by this author):




Very rarely disclosures of information from behind the Iron Curtain throw new light on the roots of communist thought and action and challenge accepted notions on the operation of the communist system. We believe that this book does both these things. It is nothing if not controversial. It rejects conventional views on subjects ranging from Krushchev’s overthrow to Tito’s revisionism, from Dubcek’s liberalism to Ceausescu’s independence, and from the dissident movement to the Sino-Soviet split. The author’s analysis has many obvious implications for Western policy. It will not be readily accepted by those who have for long been committed to opposing points of view. But we believe that the debates it is likely to provoke will lead to a deeper understanding of the nature of the threat from international communism and, perhaps, to a firmer determination to resist it.

The author’s services to the party and the KGB and the unusually long periods he spent in study, mainly in the KGB but also with the University of Marxism-Leninism and the Diplomatic School, make the author uniquely well qualified as a citizen of the West to write about the subjects covered in this book.

He was born near Poltava, in the Ukraine, in 1926. He was thus brought up as a member of the postrevolutionary generation. From 1933 onward he lived in Moscow. He joined the communist youth movement (Komsomol) at the age of fifteen while he was a cadet in military school. He became a member of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) in 1945 while studying at the artillery school for officers at Odessa.

In the same year he entered military counterintelligence. On graduation from the Moscow school of military counterespionage in 1946, he joined the Soviet intelligence service. While working in its headquarters he attended evening classes at the University of Marxism-Leninism, from which he graduated in 1948. From 1948 to 1950 he studied in the counterintelligence faculty of the High Intelligence School; also, between 1949 and 1952 he completed a correspondence course with the High Diplomatic School.

In 1952 and early 1953 he was involved, with a friend, in drawing up a proposal to the Central Committee on the reorganization of Soviet intelligence. The proposal included suggestions on the strengthening of counterintelligence, on the wider use of the satellite intelligence services, and on the reintroduction of the “activist style” into intelligence work. In connection with this proposal, he attended a meeting of the Secretariat chaired by Stalin and a meeting of the Presidium chaired by Malenkov and attended by Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and Bulganin.

For three months in 1952-53 the author worked as a head of section in the department of the Soviet intelligence service responsible for counterespionage against the United States. In 1953 he was posted to Vienna, where he served for two years under cover as a member of the apparat of the Soviet High Commission. For the first year he worked against Russian émigrés, and for the second against British intelligence. In 1954 he was elected to be deputy secretary of the party organization in the KGB residency in Vienna, numbering seventy officers. On return to Moscow he attended the KGB Institute, now the KGB Academy, as a full-time student for four years, graduating from there with a law degree in 1959. As a student of the institute and as a party member, he was well placed to follow the power struggle in the Soviet leadership that was reflected in secret party letters, briefings, and conferences.

From 1959 to 1960, at a time when a new long-range policy for the bloc was being formulated and the KGB was being reorganized to play its part in it, he served as a senior analyst in the NATO section of the Information Department of the Soviet intelligence service. He was then transferred to Finland, where, under cover as vice-consul in the Soviet embassy in Helsinki, he worked on counterintelligence matters until his break with the regime in December 1961.

By 1956 he was already beginning to be disillusioned with the Soviet system. The Hungarian events of that year intensified his disaffection. He concluded that the only practical way to fight the regime was from abroad and that, armed with his inside knowledge of the KGB, he would be able to do so effectively. Having reached his decision, he began systematically to elicit and commit to memory information that he thought would be relevant and valuable to the West. The adoption of the new, aggressive long-range communist policy precipitated his decision to break with the regime. He felt that the necessity of warning the West of the new dimensions of the threat that it was facing justified him in abandoning his country and facing the personal sacrifices involved. His break with the regime was a deliberate and long-premeditated political act. Immediately on his arrival in the United States, he sought to convey a warning to the highest authorities in the U.S. government on the new political dangers to the Western world stemming from the harnessing of all the political resources of the communist bloc, including its intelligence and security services, to the new long-range policy.

From 1962 onward the author devoted a large proportion of his time to the study of communist affairs as an outside observer reading both the communist and Western press. He began work on this book. While working on the book he continued to bring to the attention of American and other Western authorities his views on the issues considered in it, and in 1968 allowed American and British officials to read the manuscript as it then stood. Although the manuscript has since been enlarged to cover the events of the last decade and revised as the underlying communist strategy became clearer to the author, the substance of the argument has changed little since 1968. Owing to the length of the manuscript, a substantial part of it has been held over for publication at a later date.

With few exceptions, those Western officials who were aware of the views expressed in the manuscript, especially on the Sino-Soviet split, rejected them. In fact, over the years it became increasingly clear to the author that there was no reasonable hope of his analysis of communist affairs being seriously considered in Western official circles. At the same time, he became further convinced that events continued to confirm the validity of his analysis, that the threat from international communism was not properly understood, and that this threat would shortly enter a new and more dangerous phase. The author therefore decided to publish his work with the intention of alerting a wider sector of world public opinion to the dangers as he sees them, in the hope of stimulating a new  approach to the study of communism and of provoking a more coherent, determined, and effective response to it by those who remain interested in the preservation of free societies in the noncommunist world.

In order to give effect to his decision to publish, the author asked the four of us, all former U.S. or British government officials, for editorial advice and help. Three of us have known the author and his views for twelve years or more. We can testify to his Sisyphean efforts to convince others of the validity of what he has to say. We have the highest regard for his personal and professional integrity. The value of his services to national security has been officially recognized by more than one government in the West. Despite the rejection of his views by many of our former colleagues, we continue to believe that the contents of this book are of the greatest importance and relevance to a proper understanding of contemporary events. We were, therefore, more than willing to respond to the author’s requests for help in editing his manuscript for publication, and we commend the book for the most serious study by all who are interested in relations between the communist and noncommunist worlds.

The preparation of the manuscript has been undertaken by the author with the help of each of us, acting in an individual and private capacity.

The author is a citizen of the United States of America and an Honorary Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE).

Stephen de Mowbray; Arthur Martin; Vasia C. Gmirkin; Scott Miler  



This book is the product of nearly twenty years of my life. It presents my convictions that, throughout that period, the West has misunderstood the nature of changes in the communist world and has been misled and outmaneuvered by communist guile. My researches have not only strengthened my belief, but have led me to a new methodology by which to analyze communist actions. This methodology takes into account the dialectical character of communist strategic thinking. It is my hope that the methodology will come to be used by students of communist affairs throughout the Western world.

I accept sole responsibility for the contents of the book. In writing it, I have received no assistance of any kind from any government or other organization. I submitted the text to the appropriate US authorities, who raised no objection to its publication on grounds of national security.

For the translation of Russian names I have used the system adopted by US government agencies. The transliteration of Chinese names follows the old system.

I wish to thank my friends, Stephen de Mowbray and Arthur Martin, who did the lion’s share of the editing and helped me throughout with their editorial advice. I thank, too, Vasia C. Gmirkin and Scott Miler for their contributions to editing and for their editorial advice.

I am grateful to PC, PW, RH, and AK for their dedication in typing the manuscript, to the wives of my friends who suffered in silence during its preparation, and especially to my wife, Svetlana, for her encouragement and her forbearance.

I wish to express my deep gratitude to two of my American friends, who will remain unnamed, for their help and their efforts in bringing my manuscript to the attention of the publishers, Dodd, Mead & Company. The publishers deserve my admiration for their grasp of the significance of the manuscript and for having the courage to publish such a controversial book. I am especially grateful to Allen Klots, of Dodd, Mead & Company, who revealed a great personal interest in the publication and also made the final editing of the manuscript.

Finally, I thank the Soviet government and party for the excellent educational facilities that made this book possible; and I thank Russian history and literature for the inspiration they gave when guiding me toward my decision of conscience to serve the people rather than the party.

Anatoliy Golitsyn



(From Chapter 25: “The Final Phase”, pages 327, 328:) In consequence, the communist strategists are now poised to enter into the final, offensive phase of the long-range policy, entailing a joint struggle for the complete triumph of communism. Given the multiplicity of parties in power, 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. Among such previously unthinkable strategems are the introduction of false liberalization in Eastern Europe and, probably, in the Soviet Union and the exhibition of spurious independence on the part of the regimes in Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Poland.

(From Chapter 25: “The Final Phase”, pages 337 to 347:) Certainly, the next five years will be a period of intensive struggle. It will be marked by a major coordinated communist offensive intended to exploit the success of the strategic disinformation program over the past twenty years and to take advantage of the crisis and mistakes it has engendered in Western policies toward the communist bloc. The overall aim will be to bring about a major and irreversible shift in the balance of world power in favor of the bloc as a preliminary to the final objective of establishing a worldwide federation of communist states.

There are a number of strategic options at the disposal of the communist strategists that can be used in various combinations to achieve their ultimate objectives. It would be impossible to list them all, but five likely interconnected options are as follows.

• A closer alignment of an independent socialist Europe with the Soviet bloc and a parallel alignment of the United States with China. Japan, depending on whether it remains conservative or moves towards socialism, might join either combination.

• A joint drive by the Soviet bloc and a socialist Europe to seek allies in the Third World against the United States and China.

• In the military field, an intensive effort to achieve US nuclear disarmament.

• In the ideological and political field, East-West convergence on communist terms.

• The creation of a world federation of communist states.

In each of these the scissors strategy [i.e. the fake Sino-Soviet split] will play its part; probably, as the final stroke, the scissors blades will close. The element of apparent duality in Soviet and Chinese policies will disappear. The hitherto concealed coordination between them will become visible and predominant. The Soviets and the Chinese will be officially reconciled. Thus the scissors strategy will develop logically into the “strategy of one clenched fist” to provide the foundation and driving force of a world communist federation.

The suggested European option would be promoted by a revival of controlled “democratization” on the Czechoslovak pattern in Eastern Europe, including probably Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union. The intensification of hard-line policies and methods in the Soviet Union, exemplified by Sakharov’s arrest and the occupation of Afghanistan, presages a switch to “democratization” following, perhaps, Brezhnev’s departure from the political scene. [The following observations were made prior to Brezhnev’s death. They are followed by comments on developments subsequent to that event, beginning on page 347. – Editors of ‘New Lies for Old’] Brezhnev’s successor may well appear to be a kind of Soviet Dubcek. The succession will be important only in a presentational sense. The reality of collective leadership and the leaders’ common commitment to the long-range policy will continue unaffected. Conceivably an announcement will be made to the effect that the economic and political foundations of communism in the Soviet Union have been laid and that democratization is therefore possible. This would provide the framework for the introduction of a new set of “reforms.”

The Brezhnev regime and its neo-Stalinistic actions against “dissidents” and in Afghanistan would be condemned as Novotny’s regime was condemned in 1968. In the economic field reforms might be expected to bring Soviet practice more into line with Yugoslav, or even, seemingly, with Western socialist models. Some economic ministries might be dissolved; control would be more decentralized; individual self-managing firms might be created from existing plants and factories; material incentives would be increased; the independent role of technocrats, workers’ councils, and trade unions would be enhanced; the party’s control over the economy would be apparently diminished. Such reforms would be based on Soviet experience in the 1920s and 1960s, as well as on Yugoslav experience. The party would be less conspicuous, but would continue to control the economy from behind the scenes as before. The picture being deliberately painted now of stagnation and deficiencies in the Soviet economy should be seen as part of the preparation for deceptive innovations; it is intended to give the innovations greater impact on the West when they are introduced.

Political “liberalization” and “democratization” would follow the general lines of the Czechoslovak rehearsal in 1968. This rehearsal might well have been the kind of political experiment Mironov had in mind as early as 1960. The “liberalization” would be spectacular and impressive. Formal pronouncements might be made about a reduction in the communist party’s role; its monopoly would be apparently curtailed. An ostensible separation of powers between the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary might be introduced. The Supreme Soviet would be given greater apparent power and the president and deputies greater apparent independence. The posts of president of the Soviet Union and first secretary of the party might well be separated. The KGB would be “reformed.” Dissidents at home would be amnestied; those in exile abroad would be allowed to return, and some would take up positions of leadership in government. Sakharov might be included in some capacity in the government or allowed to teach abroad. The creative arts and cultural and scientific organizations, such as the writers’ unions and Academy of Sciences, would become apparently more independent, as would the trade unions. Political clubs would be opened to nonmembers of the communist party. Leading dissidents might form one or more alternative political parties. Censorship would be relaxed; controversial books, plays, films, and art would be published, performed, and exhibited. Many prominent Soviet performing artists now abroad would return to the Soviet Union and resume their professional careers. Constitutional amendments would be adopted to guarantee fulfillment of the provisions of the Helsinki agreements and a semblance of compliance would be maintained. There would be greater freedom for Soviet citizens to travel. Western and United Nations observers would be invited to the Soviet Union to witness the reforms in action.

But, as in the Czechoslovak case, the “liberalization” would be calculated and deceptive in that it would be introduced from above. It would be carried out by the party through its cells and individual members in government, the Supreme Soviet, the courts, and the electoral machinery and by the KGB through its agents among the intellectuals and scientists. It would be the culmination of Shelepin’s plans. It would contribute to the stabilization of the regime at home and to the achievement of its goals abroad.

The arrest of Sakharov in January 1980 raises the question of why the KGB, which was so successful in the past in protecting state secrets and suppressing opposition while concealing the misdemeanors of the regime, is so ineffective now. Why in particular did it allow Western access to Sakharov and why were his arrest and internal exile so gratuitously publicized? The most likely answer is that his arrest and the harassment of other dissidents is intended to make a future amnesty more credible and convincing. In that case the dissident movement is now being prepared for the most important aspect of its strategic role, which will be to persuade the West of the authenticity of Soviet “liberalization” when it comes. Further high-level defectors, or “official émigrés,” may well make their appearance in the West before the switch in policy occurs.

The prediction on Soviet compliance with the Helsinki agreements is based on the fact that it was the Warsaw Pact countries and the Soviet agent Timo who initiated and pressed for CSCE process. Since the Soviets signed the CSCE agreements, they may be expected at some stage, at least, to go through the motions of complying with them. Their present ostentatious noncompliance, noted at the follow-up conferences in Belgrade and Madrid, is intended to heighten the effect of their switch to apparent compliance in the final phase of policy.

“Liberalization” in Eastern Europe would probably involve the return to power in Czechoslovakia of Dubcek and his associates. If it should be extended to East Germany, demolition of the Berlin Wall might even be contemplated.

Western acceptance of the new “liberalization” as genuine would create favorable conditions for the fulfillment of communist strategy for the United States, Western Europe, and even, perhaps, Japan. The “Prague Spring” was accepted by the West, and not only by the left, as the spontaneous and genuine evolution of a communist regime into a form of democratic, humanistic socialism despite the fact that basically the regime, the structure of the party, and its objectives remained the same. Its impact has already been described. A broader-scale “liberalization” in the Soviet Union and elsewhere would have an even more profound effect. Eurocommunism could be revived. The pressure for united fronts between communist and socialist parties and trade unions at national and international level would be intensified. This time, the socialists might finally fall into the trap. United front governments under strong communist influence might well come to power in France, Italy, and possibly other countries. Elsewhere the fortunes and influence of communist parties would be much revived. The bulk of Europe might well turn to left-wing socialism, leaving only a few pockets of conservative resistance.

Pressure could well grow for a solution of the German problem in which some form of confederation between East and West Germany would be combined with neutralization of the whole and a treaty of friendship with the Soviet Union. Britain would be confronted with a choice between a neutral Europe and the United States.

NATO could hardly survive this process. The Czechoslovaks, in contrast with their performance in 1968, might well take the initiative, along with the Romanians and Yugoslavs, in proposing (in the CSCE context) the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in return for the dissolution of NATO. The disappearance of the Warsaw Pact would have little effect on the coordination of the communist bloc, but the dissolution of NATO could well mean the departure of American forces from the European continent and a closer European alignment with a “liberalized” Soviet bloc. Perhaps in the longer run, a similar process might affect the relationship between the United States and Japan leading to abrogation of the security pact between them.

The EEC on present lines, even if enlarged, would not be a barrier to the neutralization of Europe and the withdrawal of American troops. It might even accelerate the process. The acceptance of the EEC by Eurocommunist parties in the 1970s, following a period of opposition in the 1960s, suggests that this view is shared by the communist strategists. The efforts by the Yugoslavs and Romanians to create stronger links with the EEC should be seen not as inimical to Soviet interests, but as the first steps in laying the foundation for a merger between the EEC and Comecon. The European Parliament might become an all-European socialist parliament with representation from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. “Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals” would turn out to be a neutral, socialist Europe.

The United States, betrayed by her former European allies, would tend to withdraw into fortress America or, with the few remaining conservative countries, including perhaps Japan, would seek an alliance with China as the only counterweight to Soviet power. The greater the fear of a Soviet-socialist European coalition, the stronger the argument for “playing the China card” – on the false assumption that China is a true enemy of the Soviet Union.

“Liberalization” in Eastern Europe on the scale suggested could have a social and political impact on the United States itself, especially if it coincided with a severe economic depression. The communist strategists are on the lookout for such an opportunity. Soviet and other communist economists keep a careful watch on the American economic situation. Since the adoption of the long-range policy, an Institute of World Economy and International Relations, originally under Arzumanyan and now under Inozemtsev, has been analyzing and forecasting for the Central Committee the performance of the noncommunist, and especially the American, economic system. Inozemtsev is a frequent visitor to the United States and was a member of a Soviet delegation received by the U.S. Congress in January 1978. The communist bloc will not repeat its error in failing to exploit a slump as it did in 1929-32. At that time the Soviet Union was weak politically and economically; next time the situation would be different. Politically the bloc would be better poised to exploit economic depression as proof of the failure of the capitalist system.

Information from communist sources that the bloc is short of oil and grain should be treated with particular reserve, since it could well be intended to conceal preparation for the final phase of the policy and to induce the West to underestimate the potency of the bloc’s economic weapons. The bloc would certainly have an interest in secretly building up reserves of oil and grain that could be used for political purposes in a time of crisis to support newly established procommunist governments in Europe or elsewhere. It is worth noting that the scale of Soviet oil exports to India is already producing political dividends for the Soviet Union.

Sino-Soviet Relations:

“Liberalization” in the Soviet Union could well be accompanied by a deepening of the Sino-Soviet split. This might include a rupture in trade and diplomatic relations, an increase in spectacular frontier incidents, and perhaps deeper incursions into one another’s territory on the lines of the Chinese “invasion” of Vietnam in 1979 – an invasion that could well have been intended as a rehearsal for a future Sino-Soviet operation.

A deepening of the split would sharpen the scissors strategy. It would encourage an even closer alignment with China of the United States and any other surviving conservative nations against a Soviet-socialist European coalition. Military cooperation would be included in this alignment and China might go so far as to offer bases in return for help in building up her military potential. In this connection, the agreements on bases between the United States and Somalia and Egypt may be a portent.

A breach in diplomatic relations between the Soviet Union and China might complicate but would not interrupt the process of policy coordination between them. They have now had twenty years in which to build up experience and mutual confidence in handling a bogus split. The existing Sino-Soviet bilateral links – political, diplomatic, and economic – could have been used for the purpose of coordinating Sino-Soviet disinformation activity connected with the split. Interruption of those channels might be a handicap, but there has been time in which to prepare alternative solutions to the problem of coordination. The breach in Soviet-Albanian diplomatic relations in 1960 was not followed by a breach in relations between Albania and all the other East European communist states. Following this precedent, Romania and Yugoslavia at least might be expected to maintain their representation in Peking if the Soviets were to withdraw or be “thrown out.” To some extent, Sino-Soviet coordination could be carried on through Romanian and Yugoslav intermediaries. Another possibility is that direct, secret communications links exist between the Soviet Union and China that are not accessible to the West. In addition there is the possible existence of a secret bloc headquarters staffed by senior representatives of the major communist states, to which allusion has been made above.

The Third World:

An alignment of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe with a socialist Western Europe would exert a powerful influence over Third World socialist parties and trade unions. Some of the remaining conservative Third World countries would be strongly drawn toward a socialist orientation. Resistance to communism from the Socialist International would be replaced by a combined communist-socialist drive for Third World influence, backed by economic aid. It would have far-reaching consequences, especially if US aid should be curtailed in response to a severe depression. Soviet oil and grain could be used to good effect.

In his article on Nicaragua, Arismendi, the leading Latin American communist strategist, envisaged international solidarity between socialists and communists in support of the “national liberation” struggle in Latin America. Cuba, which might follow the Soviet example of “liberalization” (the 1980 Cuban emigration might be part of the preparation for such a move), would play an active part in the liberation struggle. Those leaders of the nonaligned movement who had close relations with communist countries would try to involve the rest of the nonaligned movement in concerted actions with communists and social democrats to promote the joint aims of procuring the disarmament of the United States and the reduction of its role as a world power; of isolating Israel, South Africa, and Chile; and of helping liberation movements in Latin America, Southern Africa, and the Middle East, especially the PLO. A variety of forums – the UN, the OAU, and the Brandt commission on the North-South problem – would be used for exerting political and economic pressure, including, if possible, the denial of oil.

In apparent competition with the Soviet Union, China would step up its Third World activity. The United States could be tempted to encourage the growth in influence of China and her associates, such as Egypt, Somalia, and the Sudan, as a barrier to Soviet expansion. American support for China would greatly improve her openings for maneuver and for making false alliances with Thailand and Islamic countries, such as Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other conservative Arab states. It would also open doors for Chinese penetration of Latin America.

The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was used by the Chinese to improve their position in Pakistan. Following this pattern, more Soviet and Chinese interference could be expected in the affairs of neighbor states. Sino-Soviet “rivalry” did not impede their Third World penetration. If the Third World were to be divided into pro-Soviet and pro-Chinese camps, it would be at the expense of the interests of the United States and any other surviving conservative Western nations. The final outcome of support for Chinese influence in the Third World would be the emergence of additional regimes there that would be hostile to the West.


A Soviet-socialist European coalition, acting in concert with the nonaligned movement in the United Nations, would create favorable conditions for communist strategy on disarmament. The American military-industrial complex would come under heavy fire. “Liberalization” in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe would provide additional stimulus to disarmament. A massive U.S. defense budget might be found no longer justified. Even China might throw in its weight in favor of a Soviet-socialist line on arms control and disarmament.


After successful use of the scissors strategy in the early stages of the final phase of policy to assist communist strategy in Europe and the Third World and over disarmament, a Sino-Soviet reconciliation could be expected. It is contemplated and implied by the long-range policy and by strategic disinformation on the split.

The communist bloc, with its recent accretions in Africa and South-East Asia, is already strong. European-backed Soviet influence and American-backed Chinese influence could lead to new Third World acquisitions at an accelerating pace. 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.”

Except-for-2008-to-2012 Russian President Vladimir Putin, and then Chinese President, Hu Jintao, having “elevated” Sino-Russian relations in recent years to the level of “strategic partnership”, in other words to an OVERT military and strategic alliance, sorting out once and for all their “border hostilities” of the past – exactly as Anatoliy Golitsyn had warned that the scissors strategy would give way, at the end of the final phase of the communist long-range strategy, to a highly uncomfortable “one-clenched-fist”-blackmail-policy against the West. Indeed, the world has now reached exactly there! – Quite symbolically, the People’s Republic of China declared 2006 the “Year of Russia”, and in return the Russian Federation 2007 the “Year of China”.


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.

The Worldwide Communist Federation:

Integration of the communist bloc would follow the lines envisaged by Lenin when the Third Communist International was founded. That is to say, the Soviet Union and China would not absorb one another or other communist states. All the countries of the European and Asiatic communist zones, together with new communist states in Europe and the Third World, would join a supranational economic and political communist federation. Soviet-Albanian, Soviet-Yugoslav, and Soviet-Romanian disputes and differences would be resolved in the wake, or possibly in advance of, Sino-Soviet reconciliation. The political, economic, military, diplomatic, and ideological cooperation between all the communist states, at present partially concealed, would become clearly visible. 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.



(A complete and authentic scanned-in PDF-copy of the book is available, for free, here; or go to and try and order it there.)


This collection of my Memoranda to the Central Intelligence Agency is about Soviet grand strategy and the new dimensions of the threat to the Western democracies.

There is a marked difference between the American and the Communist use of the term ‘strategy’. Americans tend to think of strategy in short-range terms in relation to presidential election campaigns, in football or baseball games or in such instances as the ‘strategy of stone-walling’ during the Watergate investigations. For Russian Communists on the other hand, strategy is a grand design or general Party line which governs the Party’s actions over a long period and contains one or more special manouevres designed to help the Party achieve its ultimate objectives – the seizure of power in Russia in 1917, the subsequent expansion of the Communist camp and the final world-wide victory of Communism.

This book shows that the essence of the special manoeuvre in the present grand strategy for Communism lies, internally, in the creation and use of controlled ‘political opposition’ to effect a transition to new ‘democratic’, ‘non-Communist’, ‘nationalist’ power structures which remain in reality Communist-controlled. Internationally, the essence of the manoeuvre lies in the use of the political potential of these new power structures to develop contacts and promote solidarity with the Western democracies as a means towards the achievement of world Communist victory through the convergence of the Communist and non-Communist systems.

The main purpose of my defection at the end of 1961 was (a) to warn the American Government about the adoption of the current grand strategy for Communism and the political role of the KGB and the use of disinformation and controlled political opposition which the strategy entailed, and (b) to help the West neutralise KGB penetration of their governments.

On arrival in Washington, I asked to be received by President Kennedy. I was assured by General Taylor, the President’s security adviser, that the President would see my appropriate contributions. Mr. Robert Kennedy, the Attorney General, told me that in due time a meeting with the President would be arranged.

General Taylor wrote to me in the following terms:

The White House Washington, 21 December 1961

Dear Mr. Golitsyn,

I have your letter of December 19, 1961, addressed to the President of the United States. The subject matter is one of considerable interest to this government and your request has received careful consideration.

I wish to assure you that the officials with whom you are now in contact have the full authority and responsibility for handling matters of this nature, and I therefore request that you give them your complete cooperation.

I have asked that I be kept informed of developments in this matter, and you may be confident that information concerning your contribution will be brought to the attention of the President if and when appropriate.

Maxwell D. Taylor

While waiting for the meeting, I limited my cooperation with the CIA, FBI and allied services to the problems of KGB penetration of the American, British and French governmental institutions. After President Kennedy’s assassination, I briefed the head of the CIA [till April 28, 1965: John McCone] and the head of that agency’s counterintelligence staff [till December 24, 1975: James Jesus Angleton] about Communist long-range strategy, the creation of the disinformation department and [then KGB chief] Shelepin’s reorganisation of the KGB into a political arm of the Party.

On many subsequent occasions, I had opportunities to brief other leading Western services on the subject of Soviet long-range strategy and the new role of the KGB, recommending a reassessment of the Communist problem. A few counterintelligence officials in the CIA and the British and French services began to understand and accept the validity of my views. For me, the most encouraging development was the understanding I received from Count de Marenches, the Chief of the French intelligence service under the late President Pompidou. Count de Marenches provided me with opportunities to work with his service on the reassessment of Communist developments in terms of Soviet strategy. In the presence of a dozen senior officials of his service, Count de Marenches stated that he was in agreement with my views on the existence of the strategy and of disinformation but I was unable to explain my ideas in detail because my project with his service was terminated.

This growing awareness about disinformation and the political role of the KGB in implementing the strategy was interrupted by the Watergate hearings (which weakened the American services) and by the unfortunate death of President Pompidou (which weakened the position of the French service).

Despite adverse circumstances, I have made a consistent attempt to analyse important developments in the USSR and other Communist countries through the prism of Communist long-range strategy, strategic disinformation and the political role of the KGB. I continued to submit my Memoranda to the CIA about significant Communist developments and made suggestions on how to improve the Agency’s understanding of Communist strategy.

In 1984, I published a book, ‘New Lies for Old’, about Communist strategic political disinformation. In the book and in my Memoranda, I made several significant predictions about future developments in the Communist world. I predicted that the Communist strategists would go beyond Marx and Lenin and would introduce economic and political reforms in the USSR and Eastern Europe. I predicted the legalisation of Solidarity in Poland, the return to ‘democratisation’ in Czechoslovakia and the removal of the Berlin Wall. I warned about a political offensive to promote a neutral socialist Europe which would work to Soviet advantage. I also warned that the West was acutely vulnerable to the coming major shift in Communist tactics.

It is axiomatic that political ideas should be tested out in practice. And it is a fact that many of my predictions, particularly about the coming economic and political reforms in the USSR and Eastern Europe, passed the test and were confirmed by subsequent events, particularly in Poland and Czechoslovakia.

It remains also a fact that leading Soviet experts like Mr Zbigniew Brzezinski failed to make accurate predictions about these developments. This failure on the part of Mr Brzezinski and other experts in Washington was noticed by an ‘independent observer’ in ‘The New York Times’ of 12 September 1989.

Since then, I have submitted new Memoranda to the CIA and American policymakers in which I explained Soviet grand strategy and its strategic designs against the West, the essence of ‘perestroika’ (the final phase of the strategy), the new use of the Bloc’s political and security potential for introducing new deceptive controlled ‘democratic’, ‘nationalist’ and ‘non-Communist’ structures in the Communist countries, and the deployment of the political and security potential of the renewed ‘democratic’ regimes for the execution of the strategic design against the West.

In the Memoranda, I provided seven keys for understanding ‘perestroika’, explained the danger of Western support for it and proposed a reassessment of the situation and a re-thinking of that support as priority items of business. I suggested also how the West should respond to the challenge of ‘perestroika’ and its destabilising effect on the Western democracies.

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 physcial 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 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


FOREWORD BY THE EDITOR [i.e. Christopher Edward Harle Story (1938 – 2010), political analyst and head of the London publishing firm Edward Harle Ltd., who himself was to come forth in 2002 with the reference work 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; photograph below from a 2003 video-interview Mr. Story gave to Mr. William McIlhaney, United States – the video can be viewed online on various Youtube channels – in which the two gentlemen discussed, for the second time, the Perestroika deception and its fatal implications for the Free World.)

In July 1991, I was asked by the former British Prime Minister, Mrs (now Lady) Thatcher, to see her at her room in the Palace of Westminster. The subject to be discussed was the network of bilateral treaties, declarations and accords which the Soviet Union had been signing with leading Western countries. By then, the list of such signatories already included Germany, France and Italy, while a treaty had been negotiated between the USSR and Spain, and a Political Declaration had been signed inter alia by the Soviet Union and Finland. Germany had in fact signed two bilateral treaties with Moscow. I had carried out a preliminary analysis of these treaties and accords, and had published translations of the texts, and some early findings, in several documents issued by my serials publishing firm in London, placing the treaties in the context of the implications of the Joint Declaration of Twenty-Two States and the Charter of Paris which Mrs Thatcher had signed on 19th November 1990 amid the disruption and anxieties surrounding the challenge to her leadership.

At the meeting, the former Prime Minister expressed great interest in the texts of the treaties and in my explanation of their significance. After admitting that her officials had not, during her final weeks in office, informed her about them, our conversation broadened to include my developing assessment of Soviet strategy in general, and the Soviet agenda for Europe, in particular. When I had finished explaining, as best I could, that Soviet behaviour and what I understood of Moscow’s strategy bore familiar Leninist dialectical hallmarks, Mrs Thatcher remarked: ‘I don’t think Gorbachev is a Leninist any more’. Later in the interview, after she had become aware of my acquaintance with Anatoliy Golitsyn’s work ‘New Lies for Old’, and after hinting that she did not share Golitsyn’s analysis, the former Prime Minister pronounced: ‘I don’t think we have been deceived – at least, I hope we haven’t’.

These remarks have haunted me ever since. Obviously, the qualifying afterthought had revealed that the Prime Minister whose action in opening the door ajar had enabled the Soviets to thrust it wide open for the purpose of exporting their insidious ‘perestroika’ deception to the West, had retained a niggling doubt that the West might indeed have fallen victim to Soviet strategic deception. That she was prepared even to admit such a doubt is a tribute to her inherent intellectual integrity and strength of character. It is more than can be said for most of the West’s leaders today, who have evidently allowed Gorbachev and his successors and collaborators to ‘restructure’ their minds, in accordance with the true meaning of ‘perestroika’ – the ‘restructuring’ not of the Soviet system, but of the outlook, thinking and mentality of the West. For Stalin, ‘perestroika’ meant ‘re-shoeing’ – as of a horse: that is to say, not of the regime itself, but of the system’s means to consolidate its power.

Greatly though Lady Thatcher is to be admired, it is unfortunately the case that she was never the best judge of character. Reviewing the former Prime Minister’s book ‘The Downing Street Years’ in ‘The New York Times’ Book Review section on 14th November 1993, Dr Henry Kissinger drew attention to the passage in which the former Prime Minister described her reaction on meeting Gorbachev for the first time: ‘If at this time I had paid attention only to the content of Mr Gorbachev’s remarks – largely the standard Marxist line – I would have to conclude that he was cast in the usual Communist mould. But his personality could not have been more different from the wooden ventriloquism of the average Soviet apparatchik. He smiled, laughed, used his hands for emphasis, modulated his voice, followed an argument through and was a sharp debater… His line was no different from what I would have expected. His style was. As the day wore on I came to understand that it was the style far more than the Marxist rhetoric which expressed the substance of the personality beneath’. In this passage, as Dr Kissinger had evidently realised, Lady Thatcher had admitted that she had been beguiled by Gorbachev’s style. As he cast his spell, Gorbachev unlocked the key to the control of the Western mind – and to the ‘restructuring’ of the entire world. The West followed Lady Thatcher’s prompting, mistaking the style for the substance. The disastrous consequences of this millennial error are now crowding in upon Western civilisation, threatening its very survival.

Ambition to control the Western mind is a long-standing objective of Soviet policy, embracing the ideas of the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci, who argued that mastery of human consciousness should be a paramount political objective. As Richard Pipes has pointed out [in ‘Survival is Not Enough’, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1984, page 80], ‘such mastery is secured, in the first place, by control of the mind that absorbs and processes the information – and the best way of accomplishing this is by shaping words and phrases in the desired manner’. Moreover control of the Western mind is to be achieved not only by means of the dishonest use of language, but also through operations to demoralise the West – through corrosive attacks on society’s institutions, the active promotion of drug abuse, and the spread of agnosticism, nihilism, permissiveness and concerted attacks on the family in order to destabilise society. Religion and the traditional cultural and moral hegemony must first be destroyed, before the revolution can be successful – a message stated unequivocally by the American activist Ellen Willis, who has written that ‘feminism is not just an issue or a group of issues; it is the cutting edge of a revolution in cultural or moral values… The objective of every feminist reform, from legal abortion to child-care programs, is to undermine traditional family values’ [see ‘The Nation’, New York, 14 November 1981, pages 494-5]. The still unproven assumption of the strategists is that with Western society ‘deconstructed’, its leaders will meekly accept and cooperate with the Soviet plan for a ‘New World Social Order’, or World Government.

In this context, it is interesting to recall that the spy George Blake told Kenneth de Courcy in the early 1960s that ‘individual choice would eventually be mastered by a central Soviet control of thought process’ [’Traitors: The Labyrinths of Treason’ by Chapman Pincher, Sidgwick & Jackson, London, 1987, page 157]. The primary objective of ‘perestroika’, then, is to restructure the Western mind using both deceptive language and the ideas of Gramsci so that it becomes more receptive to, and more inclined to collaborate with, the implementation of Soviet global strategic objectives. As one of the leading strategists, Georgi Arbatov, made clear in his book ‘The System’ [Random House, New York, 1992, page 211], the ideas of Gramsci and other Marxists, whose work seeks to ‘restructure’ the Western mentality and to promote decadent lifestyles, had been consciously incorporated into the ‘New Thinking’: ‘I do respect quite a few Marxist works and ideas. I include not only the “founding fathers” of Marxism but also outstanding leaders of the Socialist International, as well as people like Antonio Gramsci, György Lukacs, Ernst Bloch and Herbert Marcuse’. The importance of Gramsci’s ideas as an element of Gorbachev’s ‘New [Leninist] Thinking’ was further confirmed in the Soviet literature towards the end of the domestic ‘perestroika’ period. Thus the June 1990 issue of Sputnik’, published by Novosti in Moscow, stated that ‘modern world [sic] culture is inconceivable without a consideration of the contributions made by influential Western Marxist philosophers G Lukacs [and] A Gramsci…’.

‘The Perestroika Deception’ reveals how the largely unseen Soviet collective leadership, borrowing the mind-control ideas of Gramsci, implemented their long-prepared shift from Lenin’s ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ to his ‘state of the whole people’, the primary characteristic of which is a theatrical display of ‘democratism’ designed to convince the West that a decisive ‘Break with the Past’ has taken place, in order to encourage Western Governments to abandon caution and to embark upon an open-ended programme of collaboration with the ‘former’ Soviet Bloc. Implicit in such collaboration is the threat of a ‘return to the Cold War’ – or worse – if the West does not cooperate. The equation can be summed up as ‘cooperation-blackmail’.

In the 1960s, the strategists had established specialist Institutes under the control of the USSR Academy of Sciences. These were instructed to study Western attitudes and to inform the leadership of likely Western reactions to given tactical manoeuvres or scenarios. As the strategists had anticipated as a result of these studies, the West was caught off guard and enticed by the ‘Break with the Past’. Indeed it was enthusiastic since, as Anatoliy Golitsyn explains, a deception, to be successful, must match the known aspirations of the target as closely as possible. Thus the West interpreted the cosmetic changes as a deepening of the process of Soviet ‘reform’, offering fresh opportunities for policy and trade. In reality the West faced an ‘acceleration in the unfolding of Soviet convergence strategy which is intended to procure the subservience of the West to Moscow under an ultimate Communist World Government’.

Like the works of Sun Tzu, Machiavelli and Clausewitz, this work is devoted to explaining strategy. Unlike the works of those classic authors, however, ‘The Perestroika Deception’ deals with the contemporary world, explaining how Russia and China adopted the attitudes and ideas of these thinkers and have applied them globally for a generation. They seek the irreversible ‘restructuring’ of Western thinking, responses and society itself, as their price for ‘no war’ and for ‘changes’ which the West has accepted as genuine, and liable to lead to the normalisation of ‘post’-Communist society accompanied by the abandonment of revolutionary objectives.

‘The Perestroika Deception’ is unique in the literature on the Communist and ‘former’ Communist states in that it addresses the unbroken continuity and implementation of the ‘convergence’ strategy, a grand overall design – or what the Soviet Leninists call ‘the general line’ – since it was decided upon in 1958-60. As the Author explains on page 51, ‘the general line’ – which is flexible as to timing, contains a variety of options and takes full account of risks and possible losses – guides the course of the Party’s actions over a period of twenty to thirty years in pursuit of its unchanging Communist objectives. ‘The feature of strategy which distinguishes it from policy is that it contains within itself a secret, concealed or deceptive manouevre, designed to take the adversary by surprise and thus secure victory for the strategy’. ‘One can’, as Arbatov explains in ‘The System’, ‘trace most clearly a direct continuity between the ideas of the Twentieth Party Congress, détente, and the New Political Thinking’. Indeed, one can; and for the elimination of all doubt, further confirmation of ‘post’-Communist adherence to the strategy of deceptive ‘convergence’ with the West has been helpfully provided by Viktor Chernomyrdin. Speaking on the ‘Russia’ TV Channel [Moscow, 2030 GMT, 15 December 1992], the newly appointed Russian Premier reaffirmed ‘the general line’, asserting the inherent flexibility of the strategy without, of course, revealing its content: ‘My colleagues in the Government who are working today will pursue this line. The planned line. The one which has been worked out… Life makes amendments to our programme, additions, perhaps, changes. But we will keep to the basic line.

Behind the impressive smokescreen of pseudo-democracy, pseudo-capitalism and pseudo-reform, this Russian-Chinese ‘cooperation-blackmail’ strategy is irreconcilably hostile to the West. Again, this is no mere presumption. It was explicitly confirmed in May 1994 to Clark Bowers, a member of an official US Republican delegation to Peking, by Mr Mo Xiusong, Vice Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party, who is believed to be the highest-ranking Chinese Communist official ever to have answered questions put to him by a knowledgeable Western expert on Communism:

Bowers: Is the long-term aim of the Chinese Communist Party still world Communism?

Mo Xiusong: Yes, of course. That is the reason we exist.

Illuminating the cooperation-blackmail ‘convergence’ strategy with his first-hand experience of the origination of the strategy and his knowledge of how Moscow applies the dialectical political method of Marx, Hegel and Lenin in practice, Golitsyn challenges the fashionable, and increasingly laughable, Western assumptions that the West ‘won the Cold War’, that the enemy ‘disappeared’, that ‘Communism is dead’, that the Soviet Union ‘collapsed’ and that Russia has embarked upon ‘progress towards democracy’ (never actually reaching it) – patiently showing that because the West fell for the ‘perestroika’ deception, it has failed to connect its present malaise to the impact of Soviet-Chinese strategy, and is unable to see the threat arising from the hostile Sino-Russian axis to which countries like North Korea, Iran and Iraq adhere.

In his book ‘Wedge: The Secret War between the FBI and CIA’ [Alfred A Knopf, New York, 1994], Mark Riebling pays tribute to the remarkable predictive record of the Author’s famous earlier work, ‘New Lies for Old’, crediting Golitsyn with ‘an accuracy record of nearly 94%’ [page 408]. Because this record validates the ‘secret, concealed or deceptive manoeuvre’ within the strategy of ‘convergence’, all manner of attempts have been made to discredit the Author and the late James Jesus Angleton, who understood the significance of his analysis. For instance, Riebling himself observes that ‘British journalist Tom Mangold even went so far as to say, in 1990 – after Golitsyn’s prescience had become clear – that “As a crystal-ball gazer, Golitsyn has been unimpressive”. Mangold reached this conclusion by listing six of Golitsyn’s apparently incorrect predictions and ignoring the 139 correct ones’.

Counting the Author’s accurate predictions and awarding him a 94% accuracy rating has certainly been helpful in ‘rehabilitating’ the Author at a time when the process of achieving control over the Western mindset has reached an advanced stage. But in one sense, this overdue accolade misses the whole point of the Author’s work. For it is not even necessary to enumerate Golitsyn’s accurate predictions, to recognise that he is revealing the truth. All that is required is an understanding that the ‘general line’ provides the necessary dialectical framework without which the otherwise incomprehensible behaviour of the ‘post’-Communists cannot be understood. Once the Western observer has grasped the continuity of Leninist strategy, he possesses the key to interpreting and predicting events correctly. Put another way, it will be found that, as a reward for studying the dialectical nature and continuity of the ‘general line’, the open-minded sceptic becomes potentially capable of achieving a predictive record as impressive as the Author’s.

Why, then, is it that, despite Golitsyn’s service at the heart of the KGB in Moscow when the strategy was first adopted; despite his proven track record of providing accurate, verifiable information to the West since his arrival at the end of 1961; despite his 94% predictive accuracy rating; and despite his obvious integrity (as I know from my personal experience of editing this work and responding to his patient, constructive and transparently honest criticisms of my own inadequate understanding of the strategy); why is it that his warnings have been overlooked by Western policymakers?

The first main reason for the general (but not in fact complete) rejection of the Author’s analysis is that, as the case of Aldrich Hazen Ames has shown, the Russians won the intelligence war through their penetration of Western intelligence services – a message which, naturally, these services do not wish to hear [see Author’s Note 80, page 219]. In the course of his work with the American, British and French services, the Author found that penetration had destroyed their ability to interpret events in the Communist world correctly. Since 1969, the West has lacked the necessary genuine secret intelligence to expose the deception buried within the strategy, let alone the existence of the long-range Russian-Chinese ‘general line’ itself; so policymakers have not been provided with the appropriate correctives to fashionable and conventional diplomatic and journalistic perceptions.

A second factor appears to be an extraordinary reluctance among some analysts to study the available documents. Again from personal experience as Editor and Publisher of Soviet Analyst, I can confirm that it is possible for even a private student to identify the existence, outline, characteristics, elaborations and continuity of the strategy from sources such as successive issues of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s journal ‘International Affairs’, from a study of Soviet and ‘post’-Communist official documents and statements in the public domain, and from articles by known agents of influence and implementers of the strategy in the Western press and specialist journals. Is such study too boring or too much like hard work? The strategists are in little doubt that private study can indeed lead to enlightenment. ‘The dangers lie,’ said President Gorbachev at a press conference with President Mitterand on 6 May 1991, ‘in the fact that someone, analysing at some private moment or other, this or that instance or episode, or even event, including a dramatic event, should not make hasty conclusions and cast doubt on all that has been acquired, and what we have created in putting international relations onto new channels, onto new rails [sic], entering, as all of us have said, a period of peaceful developments’. Note that, in addition to his expression of anxiety that ‘someone, analysing at some private moment or other’ would indeed succeed in obtaining independent corroboration of the essence of the deception strategy, Gorbachev also predicted here the forthcoming fake ‘August coup’ [‘a dramatic event’] and warned that collaboration with the West meant that only one direction was to be permitted in constructing the ‘New World Social Order’ [‘new rails’]. As a lifelong disciple of Lenin, who taught his followers the creative use of language for deception purposes, Gorbachev chose his words with characteristic care. He could have said ‘new road’ instead of ‘new rails’ ; but a train travelling along a railway line can proceed in only one direction – in this context, that intended by the strategists.

A third general reason for the lack of interest in the Author’s accurate analysis is the familiar one that the horizons of Western politicians are usually limited to the forthcoming general election. One consequence of this is that they find it hard to understand that Communist and ‘former’ Communist systems are capable of evolving strategies which remain valid, with tactical adjustments, over many decades. Likewise, many Western analysts and observers tend to focus obsessively on the behaviour and fortune of particular individuals – Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Kozyrev, Rutskoi, Yavlinski, Shevardnadze, or whoever – as though each was a personally motivated careerist, like Western politicians jockeying for power and influence. This overlooks the fact that all such characters – each of whom emerged from the security services, Komsomol and other controlled structures – are bound together as collaborators in the pursuit of the commons strategy. The ‘democratism’ display is deliberately intended to obscure this.

An exception to the rule was President Pompidou of France. Unlike his towering predecessor, de Gaulle – who was taken in by deception, cancelled France’s military commitments to NATO and embraced the Soviet concept of ‘Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals’ – President Pompidou accepted strategic political disinformation and the influence of Sun Tzu as realities. Unfortunately [see pages 168, 177 and 181] he did not survive long enough to make his influence felt in France and elsewhere.

A fourth reason, touched upon earlier, for the shameful neglect of the Author’s analysis, is that it is often difficult for an intelligence service to persuade its political masters that they are being deceived. Obviously, it is also contrary to the interests of the services generally to admit that they themselves have been misled.

In the fifth place, it has to be repeated that, over the years, a partially successful diversion campaign has been mounted to discredit both Angleton and Golitsyn. By contrast, no comparable sustained attempt seems to have been made to detract from the work of other prominent defectors – suggesting that the strategists have good reasons for helping the West to continue rejecting Golitsyn’s findings, even though he has a predictive record of such distinction that he puts everyone else to shame.

Finally, the Western media routinely publicise the views and interpretations of agents of influence, both journalists and experts, thereby adding successive layers of confusion which blur the perceptions of analysts and especially of politicians – who are usually reluctant to absorb information which does not correspond with their understanding of the current fashion, or of the opinions of their often misinformed colleagues. Politicians confer mainly among themselves, and with officials who feed them the ‘accepted line’. It is therefore particularly hard for them to find ‘some private moment or other’ in which the ‘general line’ might be revealed and confusion dispelled. This book is intended to assist them, and many others, in that urgent task.

Christopher Story, London, May 1995     



August 1985

The Danger for the West: An Assessment of the Rise of Mikhail Gorbachev, the Role of ‘Liberalisation’ in Soviet Strategy, and its Grave Implications for the West

The speedy appointment of Mikhail Gorbachev as the Party leader confirms this analyst’s earlier conclusion about the cessation of power struggles in the Soviet leadership and the solution of the succession problem by the selection of the leader in advance by the Politburo.

Gorbachev was selected, coached and prepared for this appointment by the late Suslov and Andropov and by Ponomarev and Gromyko in the same way as Dubcek was chosen for the Czechoslovak leadership. Gorbachev’s speech and other indications confirm the Author’s earlier analysis about forthcoming Soviet ‘liberalisation’ which has been in preparation during the past two decades under Shelepin and Andropov. Gorbachev was selected as the ‘new generation representative’ because of his decisiveness, his demeanour and, above all, because he has been well groomed for implementing the ‘liberalisation strategy’. Another factor favouring his selection was his non-involvement in Stalin’s repression.

There are no valid grounds for favourable illusions or for the euphoria in the West over the Gorbachev appointment and the coming ‘liberalisation’. In fact, these developments may present a major challenge and a serious test for the United States’ leadership and for the West. The liberalisation will not be spontaneous nor will it be genuine. […] (page 188)


December 1985

Gorbachev has launched a political offensive: The need to expose ‘his’ strategy and covert operations

Somehow the Western media have an uncanny capacity to detect, expose and attack covert operations of the United States – but not those of the Soviet Union. […] (page 197)


March 1987

[…] The next strategic moves will include: a) Mass Jewish emigration intended to swing Western public opinion towards acceptance of ‘democratisation’ as genuine; b) The revival of ‘liberalisation’ in Poland and the introduction of economic reforms there; c) New initiatives around the time of the Pope’s visit to the USSR; d) An initiative leading towards German federation […] (page 10)


January 4, 1988

Communist Grand Strategies and Western Illusions: An Assessment of Gorbachev’s Visit to the United States in the Light of the Grand Soviet Deception Strategy

The main purpose of General Secretary Gorbachev’s visit to the United States in December, 1987 was not to prepare for a summit meeting or to reach an agreement on a reduction of nuclear missiles but to engage the American elite in the execution of Soviet strategy and to influence it in directions favourable to the strategy.

Since the strategy presents a threat to the long-term survival of the United States, there is an acute and pressing need for a new American counter-strategy and for a new concept of counter-intelligence. […] (page 50)


September 1988

Western Counter-Strategy Against ‘Perestroika’ – Past American Strategic Mistakes in Dealing with the Communist World

After the Second World War the United States made a strategic mistake in adopting the defensive policy of containment of Communism as advocated by Ambassador Kennan. This policy failed to take into account the depth of the crisis in the Communist system at that time, the prevailing revolutionary situation in the Communist countries and the overall strength of the American nation.

At that time, the United States enjoyed a position of superiority. An offensive strategy of support and liberation for the Communist satellites in revolt would have been more appropriate.

The bankruptcy of the strategy of containment was exposed by the uprisings in Hungary and Poland, when the United States missed an historic opportunity to free Eastern Europe from Soviet tyranny once and for all. […] (page 66)

Western Counter-Strategy against ‘Perestroika’

Improvisation should be replaced by an effective American counter-strategy against ‘perestroika’. How effective it will be depends upon how accurately the United States can assess the new situation in the USSR. Because Washington overestimated the strength and aggressiveness of the Communist camp in the immediate post-war period, the United States adopted an inadequate defensive strategy of containment. Now the risk is that the United States will underestimate the political strength and aggressiveness of the Communist camp and engage itself actively with Gorbachev and ‘perestroika’.

Meanwhile, American leaders and experts on the Soviet Union remain as confused as ever by Communist disinformation on internal Soviet developments. Soviet criticism of Brezhnev (under whom the Soviets achieved military superiority), the dismissal of Yeltsin on the eve of Gorbachev’s visit to Washington, the Ligachev affair, the enlistment of Soviet religious leaders for ‘perestroika’ and the demonstration by national minorities on the eve of President Reagan’s visit to Moscow, are all part of the deliberate stage-setting planned and organised by the Soviet strategists to encourage active American involvement in ‘perestroika’.

Provoking the national minorities into agitation represents a new category of Soviet covert operations in support of the strategy, with the provocations conducted jointly by the Party apparatus, the Komsomol, the KGB, the mass organisations, religious activists and others. Occasionally, evidence of forward planning is forthcoming from the Soviets themselves. For example, an Armenian economic adviser to Gorbachev on ‘perestroika’ recently let slip in talks with American Armenians in California that ‘the measures for solving the Armenian conflict were already in preparation in 1987 and I myself supported them’. These operations demonstrated that the USSR, far from falling apart, is using its totalitarian resources more actively and imaginatively for strategic purposes.

The sophistication of these operations contrasts sharply with the primitive ‘rent-a-crowd’ operations of the stagnant, repressive, Stalinist régime. By emphasising the alleged instability of Gorbachev’s position and the fragility of ‘perestroika’, the operations are designed to induce an American underestimate of Soviet political strength, to create a favourable climate for Gorbachev’s negotiations with American leaders and to entice them into adopting an ultimately suicidal policy of support for and engagement in ‘perestroika’.

Any US strategy of active engagement would be perilous folly. It should never be forgotten that the ultimate objective of Soviet strategy is not ‘perestroika’ in the USSR but the restructuring of the American political and economic systems including the ‘military-industrial complex’. It is this aggressive angle of Gorbachev’s ‘perestroika’ which American counter-strategy should address. […] (pages 68, 69)


March 1990

The Difficulties Faced by the Western Media in Covering ‘Perestroika’

The Western media are in a difficult and vulnerable situation. They have to cover the process of ‘perestroika’ in the Communist countries within a frame of reference wrongly defined for them both by the Communist strategists, who naturally do their best to ensure favourable coverage of ‘perestroika’ by the Western media, and by Western governments which mistakenly accept and support ‘perestroika’ as a process serving Western interests. Like Western governments and their intelligence services, the Western media lack reliable sources of information on the strategic intentions of Communist officials. Like their governments, the Western media have been caught unprepared by the advent of ‘perestroika’ and have no understanding of its origin, its motivation, its use of political and security potential or its anti-Western strategic design. All these factors contribute to the media’s uncritical and inaccurate coverage of the subject. […] (page 110)


September – November 1990

1 Exposing ‘Perestroika’ as the Strategy for a Second October World Socialist Revolution (‘Weltoktober’)

2 The New Pattern of Non-violent Revolution, Not by Communist Parties, Dictatorships, the Soviet Army and Violence but through False Reform, Influence and the Political Action of the Soviet Forces Engaged in Party-Controlled ‘Democratisation’ and the So-called Multi-party System in the USSR

3 The Paramount Role of Soviet Strategic Disinformation in the Successful Execution of the ‘Perestroika’  Strategy

It was not the Author’s intention to submit further political Memoranda to the CIA on Soviet affairs. But he found that he could not sit idly by and watch the United States and its political leaders being taken in by Soviet strategic disinformation and overwhelmed by their own wishful thinking about the evolution of the Soviet system. He therefore decided to make a further attempt to explain the real essence of ‘perestroika’, to expose its contradictions, to reveal its strategic design, to give warning of its potentially dangerous impact on the United States and to counteract the present simplistic and over-optimistic Western view of its significance. Sooner or later informed opinion in the Western democracies will comprehend the new dimensions of the Soviet threat and the pendulum of US policy will begin to swing back from its present confusion to a greater sense of reality. The Memorandum is submitted in the hope of accelerating the process. […] (page 120)

The Probable Outcome

Since the West does not comprehend the strategic design behind Soviet ‘democratisation’ and economic reform, it cannot foresee the probable impact of these changes on the West. The question to be addressed is not whether the changes are reversible or irreversible but what their meaning is for the West in the long run. Because of the basic differences between the Western and Soviet-style concepts of democracy and the market economy, Western attempts to educate Soviet and East European ‘instant democrats’ in true democracy and market economics are naïve and short-sighted.

Optimistic expectations of long-term Western dividends from Western support for ‘perestroika’ are doomed to disappointment. Present Soviet-Western cooperation is only temporary: the East-West alliance is only tactical. Soviet-style democracy is ‘cuckoo-egg democracy’. When the chick hatches, it will display its true antagonistic nature and seek to dominate the nest. Blind to Soviet strategy, the United States will find itself increasingly marginalised in world affairs. To paraphrase an expression used by Marx, the United States will be left stranded in isolation to contemplate its own destruction and demise.

The Soviet pattern of violent revolution and terror came to be understood and effectively resisted by the West. Unless the West can bring itself to understand the new, temporarily non-violent pattern, it is destined to suffer defeat. Had an improvised form of ‘perestroika’ been hastily introduced in the Soviet Union, it would have led to an anti-Communist and nationalist explosion and, conceivably, to true democracy and freedom. But the current ‘perestroika’ offensive has been launched by the Soviet strategists after thirty years of preparation and experiment: the risks have been calculated, and uncontrolled eruptions have been, and will continue to be, forestalled and suppressed.

Western support for the Communist leaders who are imposing ‘perestroika’ from above has extinguished any remaining possibility of it evolving spontaneously towards genuine democracy. When with Western help the Soviet strategists have overcome their deliberately exaggerated economic difficulties and can provide their population with an abundant supply of consumer goods, they will be able to demonstrate to the world the superiority [‘superiority’ under apostrophes] of the Soviet system. They will have successfully rebuilt, restructured and renewed their society.

At that point, they will turn on the ‘hated capitalist’ and a new holocaust will result. The new holocaust will be based on class, not race. Its principal victims will be the Western political, military, religious and managerial elites. (pages 132, 133)  


April 1991

A Touch of Realism in Assessing the Struggle between Gorbachev’s Supporters, Yeltsin’s Supporters and Nationalists in the Soviet Republics

1. The ‘fighting’ between Gorbachev’s supporters, Yeltsin’s supporters and the nationalist ‘independent’ Republics’ supporters, is a deliberate attempt by the Soviets to create and develop three parallel political structures of power in the USSR. The first is the Communist ‘democratic’ structure; the second is the anti-democratic structure; and the third is the nationalist ‘independent’ Republic structure, both Communist and ‘anti‘-Communist. All three structures, however, are controlled, guided and coordinated by the Communist Party and by the Communists in the Republics.

Thus, all three structures have a good chance of succeeding. When they have succeeded, they will not give the credit to the West but will instead congratulate themselves on the formation of their new system which they will then try to introduce to the West as a model which the West should emulate.

2. Their new complex three-tier system will become politically stronger and more truly ‘democratic’ than the American system. Thus, it could become the foundation for the establishment of a World Government.

3. One can then expect that all the Soviets including the ‘democratic’ Communists led by Gorbachev or by another Leninist, the ‘democratic’ anti-Communists led by Yeltsin and the ‘nationalists’ of both the Communist and anti-Communist variety, may try to influence confused and naïve American politicians, Members of Congress and the American public to accept the following lines of convergence:

a) That Soviet society has been renewed and has ‘solved’ its political and economic problems (without any indication of how this has occurred being evident).

b) That the Soviet system has evolved into one which should serve as a model for the West, given such attractions as its free education and medical services.

4. The new strategy is designed in part to influence American society to demand similar changes in the American system. It will be argued that the American system is decadent, deeply in debt, ridden with crime, crippled by drugs and heavily burdened with the high cost of education and the higher cost of medical care.

The impact of this old-style propaganda on the American public may well be effective because of the alleged changes in the Soviet system described above. (page 136)


August 19, 1991

(Written as news of the ‘hardliners’’ coup was announced and delivered to the CIA on 20 August 1991)

Behind the Soviet Coup – Soviet Strategy and Its development: the main objectives of the coup

Who called the shots in the USSR before the ‘coup’ 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.

The ‘coup’ was proposed in accordance with the requirements of the Soviet strategy of convergence leading to eventual World Government. This strategy and its moves, like the present Soviet ‘coup’, can only be understood in the light of the theories of one of the principal Soviet agents of influence, namely Sakharov, and his timetable for convergence. According to Sakharov, during the first phase the Leninist realists (i.e. Gorbachev and other ‘liberals’) will expand and strengthen ‘democracy’ and economic reform in the USSR and other socialist countries.

As we know, this has already happened.

According to Sakharov, in the second phase the pressure exerted by the Soviet example and by the internal progressive forces would lead to the victory of the Leftist Reformist Wing (the Soviet term for American liberals) which would begin to implement a programme of collaboration and convergence with the USSR on a worldwide scale, entailing changes in the structure of ownership. According to Sakharov, this phase would include an expanded role for the intelligentsia and an attack on the forces of racism and militarism.

We had reached this phase before the war with Iraq. In the assessment of the Soviet strategists, the US victory over Iraq adversely affected the political balance in the United States. In their view, the victory weakened and demoralised the liberals (or Leftist Reformists) and strengthened the centrist and conservative forces and the US military. This disturbed Soviet plans to carry out their strategy of convergence.

They saw that their main political allies in achieving convergence with the United States had been weakened. Accordingly they engineered this strategic ‘coup’ to reverse and improve the political fortunes of their American allies. Seen in strategic terms, the main purpose of Gorbachev’s ‘dismissal’ is further to confuse American opinion and to alter the political landscape in the United States so as to accelerate the progress of the Soviet strategy and to put it back on the rails.

This strategy is a deliberate and coordinated walk towards ultimate victory by advancing first the left leg of action by ‘liberals’, then the right leg of action by ‘hardliners’ and then once more the left leg of action by ‘liberals’. The ‘dismissal’ of Gorbachev is temporary. In earlier Memoranda I predicted a calculated ‘resignation’ by Gorbachev and his eventual return to power.

The ‘coup’ confirms this prediction. According to my analysis, the ‘coup’ is aimed at intensifying American anxieties over the fate of Gorbachev and the other ‘liberals’ and ‘reformists’ in the USSR like Shevardnadze. When these concerns reach their peak, the Soviet strategists’ next move can be expected. They will return Gorbachev and other ‘liberals’ to power through a campaign of strikes and demonstrations organised by the Party.

As the Soviet strategists see it, Gorbachev’s return and the restructuring of the ‘reformists’ in the USSR will also strengthen the American liberals, revive their fortunes and help them win future elections – leading eventually to the convergence of the United States and the USSR. In short, Gorbachev’s return will be a repetition of the device of the suppression of Solidarity in Poland, followed by its victory.

The main purpose of the ‘coup’ is to reverse an unfavourable situation for potential Soviet allies in the United States and to create favourable conditions for the implementation of the convergence strategy. The second objective is to secure the non-violent creation of the new Soviet Federation of Republics. The third objective is to provide any potential adventurers there may be in the Soviet military with a lesson and thereby to eliminate any possibility of a genuine coup in the future. (pages 137, 138) 


August 20, 1991

(Delivered to the CIA on 21 August 1991)

A Further Analysis of the Objectives of the Soviet ‘Coup’

The point has already been made that Gorbachev will be returned to power at the moment when it best serves the Soviet strategy of convergence. Depending on the circumstances prevailing at the appropriate time, he could be returned to power through an election, after a period of other activities.

His alleged removal from power and house arrest are deliberate devices to build up his popularity before such an election. Meanwhile one can expect that the Soviet strategists intend to replace him or add to his team another ace card, the ‘anti-Communist’ (but, like Gorbachev, protégé of Andropov) Boris Yeltsin, leader of the Russian Republic. As the Soviet strategists see it, Gorbachev has exhausted the influence he exerted on their behalf in the West. He was unable to extract more economic aid at the London Summit Meeting and his advice concerning a diplomatic solution to the conflict with Iraq was ignored by President Bush. It is the strategists’ belief that Boris Yeltsin will give greater credibility in the West to Soviet economic and political ‘reform’. He will be in a better position to exploit his influence to extract additional economic aid from the West and, in particular, to obtain from the West a commitment to a new Marshall Plan for Russia.

A Marshall Plan for Russia is one of the primary interim objectives of the Soviet strategists and one that Gorbachev failed to achieve. The strategists expect that Yeltsin will be able to exert greater influence in diplomatic, economic and political relationships and will receive more cooperation in the international arena particularly in the Middle East and at the United Nations. One can expect that the Soviet strategists will come forward with fresh initiatives combined with deliberate provocations and crises in order to enhance the role of the United Nations.

They will do this because they regard the United Nations as a stepping stone to a future World Government. The Soviet political game and the Soviets’ trickery in ‘manipulating’ politicians like Gorbachev and Yeltsin for Western public consumption demand more imagination and a better grasp of these machinations from the Bush Administration. For example, to proceed with the appointment of Mr Robert Strauss as the new Ambassador in Moscow is a great mistake because the appointment is being made at a time when the Soviet strategists are deliberately undermining the credit and prestige President Bush gained from his dealings with Gorbachev. They are undercutting the President in favour of their political allies – namely, the American liberals. Nowadays the situation is more serious than it was after the Second World War. President Truman woke up to the nature of Stalin’s mentality, his deeds and his intentions. The Bush Administration, by contrast, has no understanding of Soviet strategy and its ultimate, aggressive, strategic designs against the United States.

Given this situation and the Soviet ‘game plan’, the President, instead of appointing a politician/businessman like Robert Strauss as American Ambassador in Moscow, should consider appointing someone like Richard Helms or General Vernon Walters – that is to say, a professional man and an intelligence expert who might see through the Soviet game plan and help the Administration as General Bedell Smith helped President Truman in 1947. (pages 139, 140)


August 26, 1991

The Author’s Analysis of the Soviet Objectives of the Calculated Soviet ‘Coup’ and of Its Calculated ‘Failure’

According to my assessment, the Soviet ‘coup’ and its ’failure’ constituted a grandiose display of deception – a provocation. The ‘ineptitude’ of the participants in the ‘coup’ and the ‘failure’ of it were skilfully planned and executed. The main argument in support of this assessment is that the Soviet military, the KGB, the Party and leading media figures apparently had neither the skill to launch a successful coup nor the guts to crush resistance to it. This is news indeed!

Facing a real crisis in Hungary in 1956, the same forces displayed exceptional skill, knowhow and determination in crushing a genuine revolt. Knowledge of the Soviet mentality and of Moscow’s record of ruthless action has convinced this analyst that the Soviet military, the Party and the leaders of the media all have the skill, the will and the courage to crush genuine resistance and opposition. They did not display them on this occasion because the abortive ‘coup’ was carried out in accordance with Party instructions; and it was the Party and the Komsomol themselves which organised the alleged resistance to it.

The real participants both in the ‘coup’ and in the ‘failure’ were some 20,000 or more chosen Komsomol and Party members in Moscow with two or three tank divisions guided by their political commissars and a handful of dedicated Party officials and generals who sacrificed their prestige in the interests of the Party’s strategy and under the guidance of its strategists. The calculated nature of the ‘coup’ and its timing show that it was staged by the Russian, President Yeltsin, to save the essence of the Union at the time of transition to a new form of federation.

The abortive ‘coup’ and the ‘resistance’ to it were carefully calculated displays intended primarily for the West. This explains why Western media contacts with Moscow were not curtailed. On the contrary, the big guns of the Soviet media like Vitaliy Korotich and representatives of the Arbatov Institute were on hand both in Moscow and in the United States to ‘help’ the Western media with their interpretation of developments in the USSR. The episode shows how well Soviet strategists like Arbatov and his experts on the American media have mastered the art of projecting such displays for consumption by the American media, and throughout the West.

The Soviet strategists sought to underline for the West the dramatic ineptitude of the ‘coup’ and the spectacular courage and resistance displayed by the new ‘Russian democrats’ and their leader Yeltsin in ‘defending’ the Soviet Parliament – their symbolic equivalent of ‘The White House’. The main external objective of the display was to demonstrate to the West that Soviet democratisation is genuine, that it has the support of the people and that it is working. They want to convince the West that Western investment in the USSR will pay dividends.

They expect that the West will now respond with a new Marshall Plan which will bring Western technology flooding in to the Soviet Union, promoting joint ventures and stimulating a restructuring of the Soviet economy along the lines of the revival of the German and Japanese economies after the Second World War.

Internally, one objective is to influence the Soviet population towards acceptance of the new Party-controlled ‘democracy’ as a real power and to develop the strength and maturity of the new ‘democratic’ structure and the popularity of its leaders, especially Yeltsin. Another objective is to exploit this staged ‘coup’ in order to reorganise and ‘reform’ the Soviet bureaucracy, the military, the intelligence and counter-intelligence organisations and the diplomatic service, and to give them a new ‘democratic’ image.

The Soviet strategists realise that only with such a new image, implying a ‘Break with the past’ and severance from Communism, can these organisations be converted into effective weapons for convergence with their counterparts in the United States. A further internal objective is to emphasise the change in the system by means of the spectacular, televised but calculated removal of old Communist symbols like the monuments to Lenin and Dzerzhinskiy, and the red banners.

These changes do not represent a genuine and sincere repudiation of Soviet design and intentions to secure an eventual world victory. Although very spectacular, the changes are cosmetic. They demonstrate only that Arbatov and others know how to manipulate American and other Western media through the use of powerful symbols such as the dismantling of the Berlin Wall, the toppling of Lenin and Dzerzhinskiy statues and Yeltsin’s staged ‘defence’ of the Soviet ‘White House’.

Boris Jelzin beim Augustputsch 1991

August 19, 1991: President of the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic), Boris Yeltsin, on top of a tank in front of what then was the seat of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR, suddenly named “The White House”, playing his melodramatic part in the staged spectacle of “countering a coup attempt by old-style communists”. – Although the scene is far from convincing, the West also this time swallowed the lie.


If the Soviets were truly moving towards genuine democracy, and were intent on a true ‘Break with the Past’, these symbolic changes would be accompanied by the introduction and implementation of a de-communisation programme, the irrevocable (not cosmetic) prohibition of the Communist Party and Komsomol organisations at all levels throughout the USSR, and the removal of ‘former’ Party and Komsomol members from all the main seats of power including the KGB, the Soviet army and its political commissar administration, the Ministries, especially those for the Interior and Foreign Affairs, and the trade unions.

Yeltsin has allegedly banned the Communist Party in Russia. But the question should be asked: ‘Why did he forget to ban the Komsomol youth organisation?’ (Note by Author, Anatoliy Golitsyn: According to ‘The New York Times’ of 29 September 1991, the Komsomol voted to dissolve itself; its regulations were changed ‘to allow subordinate youth leagues in the Soviet Republics to succeed it’ – Bold print by Author, Anatoliy Golitsyn).

To carry conviction, the necessary purge of former Communists would have to be carried out at all levels, as was the intention with the de-nazification programme in Germany after the war. Without any such programme, present changes, however impressive, will remain cosmetic.

There are at present no means of distinguishing reliably between a genuine democrat and a former Communist in Russia. However one important criterion for judging the sincerity of the abrupt and virtually simultaneous conversion of former Communist leaders into true democrats would be a frank official statement from them that the Soviet Party and Government adopted a long-range strategy in the years 1958 to 1960, that ‘perestroika’ is the advanced phase of this strategy, and that it is to be abandoned forthwith in favour of normal, open, civilised relations. There has been no sign whatsoever of any such admission.

Further criteria for judging the sincerity of the abrupt conversion of ‘former’ Communist leaders into believers in true democracy would need to include:

• An official admission that the ‘dissident movement’ and its leader, Sakharov, were serving the interests of that strategy under KGB control;

• Public exposure of the main KGB agents among Soviet scientists, priests, writers and theatre and movie personalities who have been playing an active role in the KGB-controlled political ‘opposition’ – especially those like the ‘conservative’ Kochetov and the ‘liberal’ Tvardovskiy who in the 1960s engaged in a Party- and KGB-controlled debate intended to convey the false impression that Soviet society was evolving towards democracy;

And finally: a categorical repudiation of any strategic intention on the part of the Soviets of working towards ‘convergence’ with the United States.

The self-evident absence of any of these criteria indicates that the symbolic changes mean no more than that the strategists had reached the conclusion that the old symbols had outlived their usefulness – at least, in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe – and had to be replaced by new, more attractive, popular symbols. Moreover these cosmetic changes are logical and were predicted earlier by this analyst. The Soviets realised that convergence with the United States cannot be achieved under the old compromised symbols like Lenin, Dzerzhinskiy and others associated in the Western mind with terror, repression, exile and bloodshed. Convergence requires the introduction of new, attractive, national and ‘democratic’ symbols conveying the impression that Soviet ‘democracy’ is approaching the Western model.

No doubt these cosmetic changes, the reorganisation of the Soviet bureaucracy and the new, more enigmatic status of its leaders like Yeltsin will be seen by the West as a deepening of the process of Soviet ‘reform’, offering new opportunities for Western policy. But the West’s main weakness remains unchanged: it cannot grasp the fact that it is facing an acceleration in the unfolding of Soviet convergence strategy which is intended to procure the subservience of the West to Moscow under an ultimate Communist World Government.

The Machiavellian boldness and imagination displayed by the Soviet strategists through their staged ‘coup’ and its preordained defeat are alarming. No doubt these manoeuvres will be followed not only by faked suicides, but also by staged trials of the alleged leaders of the ‘coup’. These leaders may well be sentenced to apparent prison terms. But in fact they will live in comfortable retirement in resort areas like the Crimea and the Caucasus. Russia is a big country and places can be found for them to hide.

The ‘coup’ and its ‘defeat’ show that the Soviets will go to any lengths in pursuit of their convergence strategy. This reminds me of remarks by Vladimir Zhenikov, the former KGB Rezident in Finland, and Aleksey Novikov, another KGB officer, at the time the strategy was adopted in 1961.

Both of them had recently returned from home leave in Moscow. When I asked for the latest news from headquarters, both replied using different words but to the same effect: ‘This time the KGB are going to finish with capitalist America once and for all.’ I believed them then, and I believe that what is happening now is a bad omen for Western democracy.

The other alarming aspect of the situation is Western euphoria and the uncritical acceptance of present Soviet developments at their face value. This shows how easily the West can be taken in by staged Soviet spectacles, and how justified the stragetists are in believing that their ‘era of provocations’ will produce the intended results. Furthermore, Western euphoria and naïveté serve only to encourage the Soviet strategists to stage new spectacles more convinced than ever that their strategic designs are realistic. (pages 141-144)

Boris Pugo, then Interior Minister of the Soviet Union, one of the – quite prominent – group of “putschists” of August 18-21, 1991, that included, among others, Head of KGB, Vladimir Kryuchkov; Defence Minister, Marshal Dmitriy Yasov; Prime Minister Valentin Pavlov; Vicepresident of the USSR, Gennadi Yanayev; Deputy Defence Minister, General Valentin Varennikov; and Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, Oleg Shenin. – As the only one, Pugo was indeed announced to have, along with his wife, committed “suicide”, after the staged coup had been brought to its calculated failure (obviously in an attempt to give events greater credibility in the West). On the basis of Anatoliy Golitsyn’s analysis, one should rather assume that Pugo henceforth lived a privileged life in the hide somewhere in the vast spaces of the USSR. The other “plotters”, just as Golitsyn had predicted, were at first officially put to “arrest”, but already by 1993 released and solemnly amnestied in 1994, continuing seamlessly with their “post-Soviet” careers in business or the reformed structures of the “new Russia” or – in the case of Yasov, being already age 70 – leaving the scene for a while into temporary retirement.

Former Defence Minister and “plotter” of 1991, Marshal Dmitriy Yasov (born 1923), on November 17, 2004, being decorated by President Vladimir Putin. – Note the expression and overall posture of Yasov, showing him, as the man of the “old” Soviet Union that he is, obviously very much pleased by how things are going for “new, post-Soviet” Russia. – In this picture you have the full continuity of the Soviet Union documented, and it even doesn’t need a single comment. Strong proof of the continuity is also the fact that Yasov in 1998 (still under Yeltsin!) returned into a prominent position as advisor at the Defence Ministry of the Russian Federation!


Former Deputy Defence Minister and Commander-in-Chief of the Soviet Land Forces, as well as “plotter” of 1991, General Valentin Varennikov (1923 – 2009), and President Vladimir Putin on April 11, 2002. Varennikov was from 1995 a member of the state Duma for the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and co-founded in 2003 a new “socialist-nationalist” party named “Rodina”. – Also, do carefully watch the body language of the two men (who are BOTH military men, as Putin isn’t as is always stated from the KGB but from the GRU, i.e. Soviet military intelligence, that still has kept its name till today): it shows them as part of a collective Soviet leadership and destroys the myth popular in the West of Putin, the “lonely Tsar”.


August 22, 1991, earliest morning: “Marked and traumatized” Mikhail Gorbachev’s return to Moscow, and thus mythical resurrection, after three days of “isolation” and “house-arrest” at his holiday resort on the Crimea. During the subsequent transition period until the replacement of the USSR by a “new” structure in late December of the same year, Gorbachev continued to be President of a Soviet Union gradually “deprived” of its Communist Party that, after a series of decrees by the Russian President, Boris Yeltsin, was finally terminated on November 6, 1991. – In reality, however, the Party just went underground and prepared for its new task: the overall political offensive on all fronts to achieve final communist victory.


Eve of December 25, 1991 (they LOVE to usurp Christmas Day, not only for gaining maximum attention, but also, as Christopher Story points out, for quite Satanically mocking and inverting Christianity!) Formal “dissolution” of the Soviet Union and deceptive taking down of the Red Flag from the Kremlin’s roof-top, one of the most powerful images in the series of staged events since 1989. – However, after 1999, marked by the leadership change from Yeltsin to Putin, step by step all the symbols from the “Soviet era” returned – in other words, the Soviet Union started again slowly to show its true face: In 2000, the old “Stalin”-anthem by Alexandrov, that had been the anthem of the Soviet Union from 1944 to 1991, was reintroduced, albeit with a slightly changed text (people had never become familiar with the Glinka-anthem, in force from 1992 to 2000, anyway), a powerful remilitarisation of the whole (still Soviet-) Russian society took place, all complete with the “return” of red flags, impressive Soviet-style military parades on Red Square, a widespread and officially “tolerated” Soviet nostalgia and even Stalin-renaissance, and finally ever more sinistre sabre-rattling and bullying against the West (that has meanwhile given way to a sense of triumph in the face of a Marxist comrade loyally executing world revolution policy right from “White House proper” at Washington D.C.). – Not to forget the “friendly” face of the dialectic in the person of internationally operating Mikhail Gorbachev who for almost twenty years has been busy with tying the Western political, journalistic, intellectual, economic, and cultural elites into the manipulative spiderweb of communist geo-strategic engineering.


March 26, 1992

Geopolitical Strategies of Russia, the ‘Commonwealth of Independent States’ and China: A Comment on Ex-President Nixon’s Advice on Massive Aid to Russia

In an earlier Memorandum to the CIA this analyst explained the common Sino-Soviet long range strategy of convergence with the West and the intended exploitation for the purposes of this strategy of the new openings arising from the ‘reformed’ political structure of the former USSR and the emergence of the alleged ‘democrats’, ‘non-Communists’ and ‘independents’ who are running it.

The present assessment shows how, because of Western ignorance of and confusion about the strategy underlying ‘perestroika’ and because of Western political and economic support for the so-called reform of the Soviet system, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) has been successfully installed and has begun to carry out concrete new geopolitical strategies within the framework of the long-standing overall Communist strategy of convergence.

These strategies are still being guided and coordinated by the same Soviet strategists who have simply shifted away from the use of the old worn-out ideology and the familiar but obsolete patterns, to the exploitation of geopolitical factors and of the new potentialities of the ‘reformed’ Communist system. The common feature of these geopolitical strategies is the manipulation and use of the ‘democratic’ and ‘independent’ images which the change in form from the USSR to the CIS and its individual members has provided so abundantly and the nature of which the West has, so far, failed to comprehend.

The following upgraded strategies may be distinguished:

The first strategy involves the CIS and Russia in particular dealing directly with longstanding American allies like Germany and Japan and causing their allegiance to be shifted away from the United States towards economic and political alliance with the CIS and especially with Russia.

To this end Russia is exploiting American economic rivalry with Germany and Japan, together with the large-scale involvement of Germany and Japan in economic cooperation with Russia and the offer to them of lucrative market and investment opportunities in Russia. China can be expected to join in this campaign to steal away old American allies by concentrating on offering the Japanese various investment opportunities in China.

• A second upgraded strategy involves the use of the new ‘independent’ Muslim states in the CIS to establish and develop economic and political cooperation with the fundamentalists in Iran and elsewhere in the Muslim world.

According to this assessment the much-advertised feud between the Armenians and the Azerbaijanis of Turkish descent in Nagorno-Karabakh may be a tactical ploy to involve Turkey, Iran and other Muslim countries in support of eventual alliance with Azerbaijan and other Central Asian Muslim states in the CIS. This strategy takes into account the growing power of the fundamentalists and the possibility of their gaining control over substantial oil reserves.

A primary objective of the strategy here is to achieve a partnership with the fundamentalists in Iran and Algeria and to replace the present American-oriented rulers of Saudi Arabia with fundamentalists. The opening in Saudi Arabia of a Russian Embassy and the probable opening of Embassies by Muslim states of the CIS should be seen, not only as an attempt to extract a few extra Saudi billions, but as part of an offensive to bring about a political reorientation in that country.

Chinese Muslims can also be expected to play an active role in promoting alliances with the fundamentalists. The supply of missiles to Iran by the Chinese should be looked at in the context of this strategy.

The third strategy is to facilitate a shift of the emerging regime in South Africa from the Western sphere of influence towards close economic and political cooperation and alliance with the CIS using for this purpose old friendships with leaders of the African National Congress and the South African Communist Party with which it is effectively merged. One can expect that the offensive to facilitate such a partnership will become more active and more visible than ever, after the ‘reforms’ in the CIS and South Africa have stabilised.

The fourth strategy is that of using and manipulating the changes in the former Soviet Union to bring about, in the longer run, radical changes in relations between the United States and Israel, in the political power structure in Israel itself, in Israel’s position in the Middle East and in world opinion towards Israel.

The fact that the new leaders in Russia have promised the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Germany, the Baltic countries and Poland, and that they are insisting on a seven-year term for the strategic arms reduction treaty being negotiated with the United States, are indications that the Russian strategists have their own timetable. This is not based on what is going to occur in the CIS according to the optimistic expectations of Western observers, but rather upon the Soviet estimate of the time needed for the strategies described above to take effect. The possibility that the United States will lose valuable allies during this period is not something new. There is nothing permanent in international relations. The Americans experienced this not so long ago when they suddenly lost Iran.

The vulnerability of the United States arises from the fact that its basic premises, assumptions and perceptions about the present and future of Russia and the CIS are wrong. Where the United States sees golden opportunities, it is in reality facing traps set for it by the Soviet long-range strategists. The impact on the United States of the successful execution of these strategies would be devastating.

The loss of old allies and the loss of oil reserves, following the equally catastrophic loss of South Africa, would result in the re-emergence of the CIS and China as stronger adversaries, and in an ‘irreversible’ change in the balance of world power in their favour. The United States would be weakened and divided and the pressure for the impetus towards convergence of the CIS and China with the United States on Sino-Russian terms would be intensified.


The Dangerous Advice of Mr Richard Nixon

In this context a comment need to be made on former President Nixon’s criticism of President Bush for giving insufficient aid to Russia and his recommendation that massive economic technological aid comparable in scale to the Marshall Plan should be provided to the CIS. Nixon suggested that the present administration was missing an historic opportunity to help Yeltsin and to transform Russia into a democracy. This analyst believes Mr. Nixon’s advice to be erroneous and damaging to the vital interests of the United States for three important reasons:

1. Mr. Nixon has no understanding of the true nature and meaning of the changes in the former Soviet Union. He does not appreciate the calculated origin of the new realities there. He fails to see that ‘perestroika’ and the introduction of quasi-democracy and limited capitalism are all being carried out on the lines of Lenin’s New Economic Policy within the framework of the long-range strategy adopted by the Soviet and Chinese leaders in 1958-60.

2. Mr. Nixon puts too much trust in the former Communist leaders and in their instant conversion into ‘democrats’, ‘non-Communists’ and ‘independents’. He does not realise that this is a tactical conversion along the lines of Lenin’s classic advice to Communists to abandon leftist and revolutionary phrases and to adopt a rightist, opportunistic image in order to achieve their strategic objectives.

3. Mr. Nixon ignores the geopolitical strategic designs of the present leaders of the CIS and China aimed at weakening the United States and at achieving convergence. Even more important, he misinterprets the motive forces at work in the structure of the CIS. Following his advice by extending massive aid to the CIS will have the opposite effect to that which he intends. It will not transform Russia into a democracy and it will not prevent a new despotism there. But it will finance the transformation of Russia and the CIS into a more viable, more powerful adversary of the United States which will resume its old ideological hostility towards genuine American democracy and capitalism. It will allow the leaders of the CIS and Communist China to accelerate the pace at which they carry out their aggressive strategies against the United States and its present allies. And it will lubricate slush funds, directing hard currency into offshore bank accounts to finance intelligence activities.

Here in the United States we have a high regard for Mr Nixon’s opinions. But it is more important to consider how the leaders of the CIS regard Mr Nixon and his metamorphosis from a fervent anti-Communist into a strong supporter of Gorbachev, Yeltsin and ‘perestroika’, and an advocate of massive aid to Russia. The question was put somewhat diplomatically to the Russian Ambassador, Lukin, by a Western journalist. Watching Ambassador Lukin on the television screen while he was giving his cunning reply, this analyst was left in no doubt that the CIS leaders regard Mr Nixon’s conversion in the light of Lenin’s alleged advice on how to assess and deal with Western politicians.

Lenin is supposed to have divided Western politicians into two categories: those who were clever, anti-Communist adversaries who should be taken on, confronted and dealt with seriously; and those who were confused and ‘useful idiots’, who could be exploited up to the hilt in the Communist interest.

Since the Soviet long-range strategy and its final phase of ‘perestroika’ were based upon Lenin’s New Economic Policy experience and were imbued with Leninist spirit and thought, it is natural that successive Communist leaders should have seen Mr Nixon through Lenin’s eyes. In 1959, when Mr. Nixon held strongly anti-Communist views, Khrushchev, who initiated the long range strategy designed to bury capitalism in America, invited him to Moscow through the Soviet ambassador in Washington and took him seriously – that is to say, flattered him – by debating his views on Communism with him. Brezhnev took him equally seriously by simultaneously engaging him in SALT negotiations while fighting him in Vietnam, and then concluding the agreement on Vietnam which led to the American defeat there. During the impeachment process, Soviet officials mocked Mr. Nixon. According to an American reporter, Soviet officials and journalists asked him at the time with obvious sarcasm: ‘What are you doing to our Nixon?’ Now that Mr Nixon is Yeltsin’s most ardent supporter and exponent of the case for a Marshall Plan for the CIS, its leaders must be laughing their heads off recalling Lenin’s phrase about ‘useful idiots’ – while harvesting the benefits of Mr Nixon’s support for their devious policies.

Retaining the Capacity to Think

US intelligence agencies should be on the lookout for signs of the implementation of the geopolitical strategies of the CIS and its members and should provide policymakers with timely warnings. To be successful, these agencies must first distance themselves from the superficial assessments of ignorant television commentators who accept at face value everything that emanates from CIS officials or TV channels. They should focus on developing reliable human intelligence on the real strategic intentions and actions of the CIS and should analyse developments in terms of the geopolitical strategies described above.

The ‘reformed’ KGB is active and its intelligence offensive against the West continues as before. In fact, its political and operational capabilities have been broadened. Instead of the familiar unified KGB the West is now faced with fifteen KGBs which have not only changed their names, but have adopted a new modus operandi – or, to cite Lenin, a ‘new way of working’.

The Central Intelligence Agency’s analysts should ask themselves the question why, if Communism is really ‘dead’, if the USSR has really disintegrated and if the Communist ship of state is really sinking, there has not been a wave of high-level defectors comparable to and greater than the wave which occurred after the death of Stalin in 1953.

High-level defectors might have been expected not only from the intelligence and security services but from the armed forces, the Central Committee apparatus, the diplomatic service and Arbatov’s Institute for the Study of the USA and Canada. The absence of high-level defectors of such calibre to date indicates that the former Soviet machinery of state has been successfully transformed into the ‘state of the whole people’, as envisaged in the Party programme adopted by the 22nd Party Congress in October-November 1961.

The armed services of the CIS remain a formidable force with nuclear capability as well as political commissars. The United States should be on guard and should conserve its military strength because basic American assumptions about the military strategies of Russia and China will turn out to have been confused, if not totally erroneous. The United States should ignore Mr Nixon’s advice and steer clear of deep economic and technological commitments to Russia, the CIS and China. It should warn its allies such as Japan, Germany and France against such commitments. It should concentrate on addressing the immediate problems which beset the country at home and undermine its strength.

Abroad it should pursue an active foreign policy to maintain its position of world leadership, preserving and strengthening its alliances. But, for all this to be possible, it must first shed its naïve illusions about the nature of the changes that have occurred in the ‘ex’-Soviet Union (CIS). It must recognise that democratisation there is false and that the fundamental nature of the adversary has not changed: only its strategy and tactics have changed, in that they have become more candid, more realistic and more dangerous.

Only if the United States comprehends the calculated nature of the changes and the Leninist strategy which lies behind them, will it wake up to the realisation that financing the economic revival of the present Russian/CIS system will enable the strategists to pursue more effectively their objectives of engineering an irreversible shift in the world balance of power and eventual convergence with the West.

This ‘convergence’ is to take place not on the West’s terms – as élite Western globalists surely imagine – but rather on the terms intended by the Leninist strategic planners. The resulting ‘one world’ will be Marxist-Leninist-Gramscian-Communist – hardly what unwitting Western collaborators truly want to see established. (pages 149–153)


April 30, 1993

[…] 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. (pages 165-167)



What was almost impossible to predict at the height of George H. W. Bush’s ‘New World Order’ frenzy back in 1991, unless one would have studied Anatoliy Golitsyn’s book New Lies for Old, is the fact that the pan-communist bloc had in the late 1950s ‘scientifically’ developed an utterly complex long-range strategy to achieve communist world victory, by all means. The fall of the Berlin Wall was not the achievement of Ronald Reagan, but a coldly calculated chess move by Moscow. As was the whole seeming wave of ‘democratisation’ in Eastern Europe in that year of 1989 a tightly scheduled deception operation planned and coordinated by the Soviet strategists. The abolition of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was a swindle; so was the alleged dissolution of the USSR in late December 1991; it wasn’t dissolved but simply relabelled as, henceforth, the “Commonwealth of Independent States”. Moscow still controls all “former” Soviet republics the same way as ever. But, as you could read in the excerpts from Golitsyn’s two books further above, it was all part of the strategy. The communist bloc could massively modernise and improve both their economies and their military, invade all supranational structures by a multitude of seemingly independent “Soviet Unions”, as well as flood the West with agents of influence and instant-entrepreneurs ‘eager to do business’, as William McIlhaney put it. All objectives, as can easily be seen if one opens one’s eyes, have been met. Former Western Europe is being gradually swallowed by the communist East, the key step of which was of course the EU-enlargement of 2004, which was set into force, MIND: on May 1st of that year: Labour Day!!! Whilst the United States finds itself, indeed, in an ever more critical position of isolation. Monetaristic-Corporatist Globalism has been used, exploited, and hi-jacked for the purpose of the revolution. Capitalism (a communist term, by the way) is in the process of being defeated and crushed by the communists, ironically via capitalist means!

Let’s once more recapitulate. 1989: Four years into the rule of Mikhail Gorbachev, two years after his proclamation of ‘Perestroika’, but nevertheless out of the blue sky, a series of collapses shook all communist regimes in Eastern Europe. In almost regular intervals, TV-viewers in the West could watch, like the falling of dominoes, the ‘toppling’ of one regime after the other. Strangely, both the Western media and politics took events at face value and bought in the deception. The fact is, however, that Poland’s Solidarność had been but an artificial and controlled opposition movement, and Czechoslovakia’s Charta 77, of which Václav Havel had been a member, but a fake dissident group. The ‘collapse’ of Honecker’s regime in East Germany came as a complete surprise to both Helmut Kohl and even Erich Honecker himself; yet things went miraculously smooth. The same suspicious ‘smoothness’ could be seen in the ‘transitions’ within the other satellite states, with merely one single dramatic scene at the end: the lynching of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu on Christmas Day 1989 (they seem to LOVE usurping Christmas Day for their insidious provocations: two years later, Gorbachev declared the Soviet Union abolished also on Christmas Day).

Within half a year, the geopolitical landscape of Europe had completely changed, so it appeared. The Berlin Wall was gone. The Iron Curtain, that had divided Europe for such a long time, was declared a thing of the past. Even the late Archduke of Austria, Otto von Habsburg, for decades head of the Paneuropa Movement, along with one the Gorbachevs of Hungary, Imre Pozsgay (who today is an advisor to present “nationalist” Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban), had enthusiastically held on August 19, 1989 a “Pan-Europan Picnic” near the Austrian-Hungarian border at the Hungarian town of Sopron (in German named Ödenburg), certain that now the peoples and cultures of Central Europe, that had been so dear to him, would finally come together. The event “quickened” the release of 600 to 700 East Germans into the West, although Hungarian border control had been simply instructed to look the other way and let them go. Everyone was cheering, nowhere could be heard even the slightest expression of doubt about the genuineness of it all. However, tragically, the Archduke was cynically used by the communists to assist them in a duplicitous propaganda coup. They are masters in letting the hated “class enemy” do the work for them! Today, Otto von Habsburg’s whole-hearted engagement isn’t even a footnote in the history of the alleged “fall” of communism. Instead, twenty years later, in 2009, right on the spot where Austria back in 1989 had politely – and as it thought: “heroically” – opened its border and allowed everybody in, was unveiled a monument in the typical style of Socialist Realism, deceptively titled in German: “Umbruch” (i.e., radical change), but at the same time titled in Hungarian: “Áttörés”. Yet, the word “áttörés” does in no way mean radical change, but “pounding”, “pinking”, “breakthrough”, as in military breakthrough! In other words, that monument’s real message, that’s hiding in plain sight, is that the “collapse of communism” and the removal of the Iron Curtain were only facilitating a full-scale INVASION, by “peaceful” means!

Referring to that event of August 1989, “former” communist East German Agit-Prop leader and now Federal Chancellor of unified Germany, Angela Merkel, made in 2009 the following devious remark: “Hungary gave wings to the will of the Germans from the GDR.” No mentioning of Western Europe; no mentioning of Austria that, after all, had opened its borders; and no mentioning, certainly, of the heir of the last Kaiser of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, who had helped them so generously. Rather, the communists are merely congratulating each other for the accomplishment of this great historic task of overwhelming the West, without the West realising at all what was going on! Today, since the outside borders of the European Schengen Agreement were shifted away in late 2007 from the eastern borders of once Western Europe further towards the East, partly Finland, but definitely Germany, Austria and Italy have practically no borders protecting them any more against the unchanged communist sphere!!! Borders have been taken away; so have been national currencies, with the exception of Britain, Sweden and Denmark; as well as distinctive passport formats (they are now all of the same burgundy colour that had always been and still is the colour of (Soviet-)Russian passports, with the format of EU and Russian passports meanwhile perfectly “harmonised”). And soon will even vanish national tax hegemony and national militaries. The nation state in Western Europe is gone and is now being swallowed, via the EU’s ever progressing convergence with the communist East and the unchanged Soviet Union, into an all-Eurasian communist bloc; and trains will again be deporting dissenters and “enemies of the people” all across Europe, this time into the new Eurasian-communist concentration camps of the future.

By October 1990, Germany was formally reunified. Chancellor Helmut Kohl was convinced he had written world history. 10 years later, however, in the aftermath of the CDU donation affair of 1999, Kohl had been turned virtually overnight into a persona non grata, without his protégé and successor in the post of CDU Party chairman, double-faced “ex-“communist Angela Merkel, coming to his assistance at all. 

Although the inspirer of this giant ‘liberalisation process’, the Soviet Union itself didn’t take the decisive step before 1991. Again, events appeared dramatic (the bizarre ‘August coup’), but again were completely construed. Also the sequence of events wasn’t logical but, for the trained eye, obviously a prepared script being acted out in typical Leninist boldness. Still, the West chose to most readily believe what it had been wishing for so desperately for so long.

As 1991 turned into 1992, the world as a whole was different. Within two and half years, communism in both Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union had ‘abolished itself’ and had given way to an allegedly new, ‘post-communist’ and ‘democratic’ era, albeit under the very same personell operating on the same old mindset and objective of Marxism-Leninism!

But, as we look closer, especially in the case of the “New Russia”, we see nothing but a change of labels. NOTHING was abolished. Things merely took on a new mask more convenient to the gullible West:

• The Union of Socialist Soviet Republics became (except for the 3 Baltic republics that are now in the EU) the “Commonwealth of Independent States”, a theoretical construct rather than an entity recognised by International Law; yet, it shows the unchanged internal union of all supposed ‘post-Soviet’ and newly ‘independent’ republics. There has been no change!

• The RSFSR (Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic) was now the “Russian Federation”.

• The military alliance of the Warsaw Pact and the communist economic community COMECON were replaced by informal collaboration behind the scenes (which as for their military cooperation is more than alarming as the East European countries are now NATO member states at the same time).

• The CPSU was transformed into a controlled seeming multi-party system, with Communists and only Communists playing their theatrical roles for Western consumption, whereas the communist youth organisation Komsomol, far from being dissolved, was ‘transformed’ into a series of new “youth leagues”; with their newspaper “Komsomolskaya Pravda”, now a mainstream newspaper, still there!

• The secret services were renamed, not for the first time at all in Soviet history, this time from KGB to FSB. The ‘reforms’ were, at best, cosmetic. Military intelligence, however, kept its name, GRU (by the way, according to Christopher Story, Putin is originally GRU, i.e. military intelligence, not KGB/FSB).

• The classically Soviet central planning economy “matured” (in the Leninist sense of the word) into a display-only of a free market economy, complete with pompous company buildings, boards of directors, shareholders, and even a Moscow Stock Exchange; yet, all controlled, as ever, by the Party and intelligence apparatus. Like with the instant ‘democrats’, no one in the West seems to have wondered where the instant ‘marketeers’ and instant ‘entrepreneurs’ had suddenly come from, particularly how they could have ever acquired their enormous starting capitals in a system that had rigorously made impossible any private accumulation of wealth whatsoever. (It is these instant-oligarchs, by the way, who effectively besiege nowadays, with all their unchanged revolutionary prolet behaviour, the top luxury resorts of Western Europe. The once so elegant French Côte d’Azur, for one example, is now at 30% in Bolshevist hands. Bourgeois, let alone aristocratic, exclusiveness is under attack.)

• On September 12, 2005, the Governor of Ulyanovsk introduced a henceforth annual “Day of Conception” (or merely “Procreation Day”), as part of the nationwide efforts to overcome the Russian Federation’s demographic crisis, which means that couples in the area are given a day off so to basically do their best to make a baby, for which, should it then be born on June 12, the “post-Soviet era’s” so-called Russia Day, attractive monetary rewards are paid by the state. The peculiar thing about this, apart from the militaristic aspect of it, is the fact that Ulyanovsk is named after the “father” of the Bolshevist Revolution, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, whose real surname was Ulyanov. Thus, this initiative and the babies it encourages to be brought into existence are very visibly dedicated to Lenin, and as such to the continuing cause of the communist revolution.

• All “formerly”-Soviet media- resp. propaganda outlets have remained perfectly intact: their “press agencies” (Ria) Novosti and (Itar) Tass; the flagship of Soviet newspapers and organ of the Communist Party, Pravda (i.e. “Truth”); Izvestia; Komsomolskaya Pravda, and so forth. How much criticism is really allowed, can be seen in the deaths of several journalists working for the “critical”, “post-Soviet” Novaya Gazeta (co-owned by Mikhail Gorbachev, by the way), among them most prominently Anna Politkovskaya, famous for her investigations of the Chechnya situation, who was shot dead by an unknown killer in the staircase of her house, execution-style, on October 7, 2006, and thus on Vladimir Putin’s birthday. In her well-known 2004 book, “Putin’s Russia: Life in a Failing Democracy”, far from revealing the full continuity of the Soviet system, she may well have made a fatal mistake, obviously crossing a red line: she ridiculed Putin, describing him as a pale secret service officer who now, instead of guarding the limousine convoys, strode up the ceremonial stairs of the Kremlin Palace like a new czar; and neither did she miss letting her readers know of the funny contortions by Putin and comrades when trying to perform, during Mass in Russian orthodox churches, the sign of the cross. Putin, by the way, took cynical revenge by commenting on her death saying, “she had brought more damage to Russia by her death, than by her work.” (Which perfectly sums it up: Politkovskaya, despite her courageous reporting on Chechniya, showed no signs of knowledge of overall Soviet strategy or of the Chechniya War being a pseudo-war set up by Soviet military intelligence primarily so to project into the West the illusion that “Russia” too is fighting Al Quaida, which, like all political terrorism since the 1960s, has been set up by the Soviets in the first place as a seemingly non-connected proxy; which also solves the ‘mystery’ of 9/11. Anna Politkovskaya’s tragic death, seen from the perspective of Soviet power, was nothing more than the crushing of an annoying insect).

• According to the late author and political analyst Christopher Story, there has also been no change in the cruel GULag system. Mr. Story said he was in the possession of lists giving the actual “street addresses” of 1,700 concentration camps throughout “Russia”. And let’s remember defector Yuri Bezmenov’s estimate made in 1984 that at any given time up to 30 million people were imprisoned in Gulag camps. As for the ‘luckier’ common citizens of Russia, they can’t move freely either, as they would possibly wish, because the old Soviet internal passport system known as “prapiska”, that regulates any movement through the country, is still in place. Regarding foreign tourists intending to travel Russia on an individual basis, they will have so many bureaucratic obstacles put in front of them that they will gladly give in and either join a guided (and controlled) travel-tour or won’t come to Russia in the first place.

• The ‘liberalisations’ have come to pass solely in “Russia”, and within Russia mainly in Moscow. The other ex-Soviet republics (except the Baltics and, for a while, Ukraine and Georgia) have maintained their open oppression. There wasn’t even a cosmetic change, apart from their alleged independence with new flags and new coats of arms. Their ‘independence’ is an illusion. They are unchangedly tied to Moscow, the same old centre of Soviet power. This means also that as for military- and intelligence capabilities these republics must be added to those of the “Russian Federation”. They are still ONE. As for alleged cultural re-nationalisation of these republics, at every opportunity (i.e. in TV documentaries on these republics as are shown at an amazing rate on German TV channels, obviously so to prepare people for the merger soon to come) one can see that always and everywhere officials and even ordinary people do not speak the national language but Russian! Also, a de-Russianisation in these republics, whether Kasakhstan or anywhere else, never happened. There still lives, as ever, a considerable portion of ethnic Russians in these territories (which one can easily see in sports: 3 out of 4 athletes, say from Kasakhstan, aren’t Kasakhs but ethnic Russians!).

• The old Soviet cadre training school for future Third-World revolutionaries and terrorists, infamous Patrice-Lumumba University for Peoples’ Friendship, is now called “Russian University for Peoples’ Friendship”. It’s still there! And if one looks closely, thanks to high-resolution digital photography (you can enlarge the picture yourself, if you wish), one can see in the emblem on the front of the building the complete coat of arms of the allegedly defunkt USSR, including Hammer & Sickle and even the acronym “CCCP”, meaning: USSR!!! WHAT BOLDNESS!!! This is a photograph made not 25 years ago, but – as one can easily see – in recent years (note the Russian tricolore, the clothes people are wearing, and the photo technology anyway). 


• The monstrous Red Stars on the Kremlin towers, installed by Stalin in the 1930s, haven’t been removed to date, and never will be. And they’re still lighted from within, day and night, 24/7, by thousands of Watts. Also, the Red Star in fact has never vanished from “Russian” military vehicles, aircraft and ships and was in March 2010 also officially re-adopted as the emblem of the Russian Armed Forces, however with the more ‘sympathetic’ facelifting of having a fine blue-white margin (and thus a Russian tricolore) around its edges: deception everywhere (for that, click to enlarge)!

A night view of the most grandiose of the Kremlin towers, Spasskaya Tower, with the bright shining Red Star on top of it (had the communist era indeed been abandoned, the lightings for these Red Stars would certainly have been immediately switched off by the end of 1991 and finally the Stars themselves removed; none of which, of course, ever took place). In the foreground the ’Holy of Holies’ not only of the unchanged Soviet Union, but indeed of world communism: the sinistre and demonic Lenin Mausoleum, that still hosts Lenin’s corpse like in the ‘old days’ of the Soviet Union; no change. And ‘pilgrimage’ – maybe on a lesser scale, but even that can’t be known for sure – still is going on today! Also, it’s funny to see them ‘hiding’ the Lenin Mausoleum for their May 9th Military Parades, but having it for the rest of the year prominently visible as always, and so well-kept and ever perfectly cleaned and polished!

Russian missile truck

• Whatever new orders and medals may have been introduced since 1992 to give the “change” credibility, most awards still show the same old Soviet esthetics and, in some cases, next to identical design. The Order of Lenin, the highest decoration in the Soviet era, couldn’t possibly be transformed, for obvious reasons. Yet, the award medal “Hero of the Soviet Union” is now, merely with a change in the colour of its ribbon, the award medal “Hero of the Russian Federation.” [!!!] The former “Order of Friendship of Peoples” is now the “Order of Friendship”, with the Soviet coat of arms in the centre replaced by a mere globe but otherwise the same. Furthermore, the design of the Medals for Distinction in Military Service, 1stand 2nd Class, hasn’t changed at all! – Everyone can check out these bold continuities on the Wikipedia pages on Soviet resp. Russian awards and medals.

• Officials and representatives of the “New Russia” still address each other, in unchanged revolutionary manner, by first plus patronymic names without family name, albeit without saying “Comrade” any longer, at least in front of Western cameras. Thus, Vladimir Putin is “Vladimir Vladimirovich”, and Mikhail Gorbachev is “Mikhail Sergeyevich”. Whereas the obligatory address in the military and the militia is still, e.g.: “Tovarishch General”, i.e. “Comrade General”! Nothing has changed!

• The old Soviet anthem, that had replaced the Internationale in 1944, commissioned by Stalin and written by Alexandrov, was again adopted in the year 2000, after a break of 8 years during which a traditional tune by Mikhail Glinka was in use but never really taken to heart by anyone. Watch for this a little YouTube presentation by this author entitled, What’s just Wrong with the “New Russia”, that has both the Glinka anthem and the old and new Soviet anthem in it.

• The unchanged communist ruling class in the unchanged Soviet Union’s unchanged “classless society” loves Vladimir Putin. He has managed to reintroduce the image of a benevolent, albeit rigid (and cruel if necessary) “father of the nation” not seen since the days of Yossif Stalin. His manifold public appearances serve this purpose: Putin, the statesman; Putin, the pilot; Putin, the navy man; Putin, the craftsman; Putin, the sportsman (in fact, he once was a very successful judoka); Putin, also, the half-naked partisan; Putin, the attender of church services; Putin, the traditional Russian; and so on and so forth. This has nothing to do with the behaviour of Western politicians especially before elections, but represents rather, once again, an all-powerful totalitarian “Beloved Leader” in the making! (And Golitsyn even foresaw this: after the calculated chaos under Yeltsin, possibly a change to a military leadership: Putin comes from the military intelligence service, GRU.)

• On August 25, 2009, Moscow’s Kurskaya Metro station was solemnly re-opened after complete renovation. However, the renovation of this socialist-classicist ‘underground palace’, first opened on New Year’s Day of 1950 under Stalin, with elegant marble floors and huge Red Stars on the stucco ceilings, also included the restoration of inscriptions on the vestibule in the entrance hall praising “Uncle Joe”, that had been removed in the course of Khrushchev’s deceptive “de-Stalinisation” after the dictator’s death in 1953: “Stalin raised us to be loyal to the people, inspired us to labor and deeds,” derived from the second verse of the original text of the Soviet Unions’ Alexandrov anthem adopted in 1944, abolished in 1992, and again introduced, with again changed lyrics, under Putin in the year 2000. As can be seen in the picture below, the highly metaphysical niche of light in the background no more has the original statue of Stalin, that after its removal by Khrushchev went lost and was now finally decided not be put up again as a copy. Otherwise, the whole original Stalinist architecture is perfectly restored (as is being restored Stalinism itself, that was in fact merely a more square-headed variant of Leninism and not a deviation from it, and along with it the full militarisation of Soviet society akin to the 1930s and ‘40s; Putin, as a man of military intelligence and along with his friends, conducts this militaristic renaissance with great zeal and great ambition, as war might well be needed to finally reach complete communist victory throughout the world).


Kurskaya Metro Station in Moscow. The vestibule in the entrance hall now again carrying praises of Stalin!

Also, there are inscribed the maxims, “For the People, For Stalin” and “For the Defence of Stalingrad”. Dmitri Gayev, chief of the Moscow Metro services, said in the opening ceremony, “Our task was to restore the station in its original style. This station is an architectural monument.” – It’s quite interesting to see, as one looks at the various ‘art works’ of socialist realism resp. socialist classicism, also known as ‘Stalin Gothic’, how closely it all resembles the type of architecture favoured by Stalin’s rival dictator, Adolf Hitler. Well, the two totalitarianisms weren’t too far from each other anyway and until 1941 indeed viewed each other not as enemies but as ideological cousins and friends.

Kurskaya Metro Station 3

Kurskaya Metro station, Moscow: socialist classicism ‘at its best’! Mind the devilish Red Stars within the chandeliers on the ceiling: they look almost like pentagrams although inside them are in fact circles and not pentagons. Also, the individual lamps making up these chandeliers are 15 in number. The 15 seems to be quite loved by communists, probably they see it as their sort of ‘trinity’, namely 3 times the ‘Hermetic’ number 5! (15 is also, at least officially, the number of the Grand Arcane card within the Kabbalistic Tarot system entitled “The Devil”, although some authors argue, the true number of the devil might rather be the 11 instead.)

• Virtually NO city in the whole of “Russia” has ever removed its inevitable Lenin monuments prominently placed in the main squares or in front of administrative buildings. There was removed only a little number of Lenin statues back in 1991/92, mainly in Moscow and solely for Western consumption. If you want to enlarge any of the pictures below (so to be able to spot valuable details such as the Soviet coat of arms with Hammer & Sickle on official buildings), just click on the respective image! (One more sidenote: In November 2012, Russia Today ‘reported’ about an alleged debate in the Russian state Duma on the need of getting rid of all Lenin monuments across the country, except maybe those of particular artistic value: yet another monstrous distraction along their insidious road of dialectical deception; the timing of such disinformation rather seems to indicate the exact opposite: they are very close to launching their final strike so to cement – once and for all, as they believe – communist world domination.)   

Moscow, Kaluzhskaja Square: What a tribute to the founder of the Soviet state, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, a.k.a. Lenin. And it’s still there!

Leningrad/St. Petersburg: A Lenin monument in front of a government building. Note the full Soviet coat of arms with Hammer & Sickle still there on the fassade of the building as ever!

Minsk, capital of Belarus: Lenin monument in front of the Belorussian parliament. Note the coat of arms on the front of the building: it’s the official coat of arms of today’s Belarus, that is almost a replica of the coat of arms of the old USSR!

Kiev, capital of Ukraine: Right in the city centre, a well-maintained Lenin statue …

Stalingrad/Volgograd: Comrade Lenin again. – By the way, on February 2, 2013, the 70th anniversary of the Soviet armies’ victory in the battle of Stalingrad, now-Volgograd was SOLEMNLY re-named for one day into Stalingrad. What’s more is that the official “New Russia” is now entering into a “discussion” about returning to the name honouring “Uncle Joe”: Stalingrad. A ‘referendum’ is looming on the horizon. If indeed Volgograd should be renamed into Stalingrad, it’s probably only a matter of years until St. Petersburg will be renamed into LENINGRAD!!!

Krasnoyarsk: Lenin again and unchangedly in a prominent public square.

Novosibirsk: Comrade Lenin, dominating the scene as everywhere. The “Russian Federation” STILL IS the state of Lenin!!!

Stavropol, the region of origin of Mikhail Gorbachev. Note also here the unchanged Soviet coat of arms in the Stalinistic architecture!

Severodvinsk: Welcome to the chilling old days of the USSR: They are still continuing today!





Kaluga: Greetings from CCCP!





Tiraspol, Transnistria (‘renegade’ sub-republic of Moldova)

Donetzk, Eastern Ukraine

• The Moscow railway station from which trains leave for what is supposed to be again St. Petersburg is still named “Leningradskaya” resp. “Leningradskiy Vokzal” (i.e. Leningrad Railway Station), in Cyrillic writing: “Ленингра́дский вокза́л”, which you can compare to what you are seeing in the picture below. – How is that?! And mind the Communist Red Star on top of the tower that is visibly lighted from within just like the Red Stars on the Kremlin towers. (Click to enlarge!)

• The military parades on Victory Day, May 9th, are back (since 2005), with full armory (since 2008), including even Topol-M nuclear missiles (below: images from the Victory Day Parade of 2012)

Victory Day Parade, 2012, 8


(For those who want to get a more authentic idea of what such a modern-day, “post-Soviet” Victory Day Parade is like, just view there on YouTube an 82-minute live-broadcast of the 2012 Parade on Red Square from Russia’s Channel One; although it’s all in Russian, you’ll get a far better picture than from viewing the international propaganda coverage of the event from “Russia Today”, as what you will see here is an unchangedly revolutionary, Marxist-Leninist Soviet Union, more than twenty years after its alleged demise.) 

• “Russian” space-rockets are still known under “Soyus” (i.e. Union); the “Russian” resupply spacecrafts still under “Progress”!

• “Russian” football clubs – and also those in the “former” satellite states of Eastern Europe – are unchangedly named, in “good old” communist, revolutionary and militaristic fashion: Dynamo; Rubin; Lokomotiv; Spartak; Zenit; Rotor; Torpedo; Saturn; Salyut; Avangard; even there still is RED STAR Belgrade!

• The state airline Aeroflot (well, everything is still state-owned except small businesses) still has its old Soviet logo showing Hammer and Sickle. Below: a modern-day Airbus A-320 of the Aeroflot flleet, and the airline’s logo in close-up view (click to enlarge).

Aeroflot Airbus 320

• In March 2011, the “Russian Federation” for the last time changed its clocks to daylight saving; they didn’t set them back in autumn any more, but are henceforth having daylight saving time the year round. This marks a return to the old Soviet Decree Time. The step is highly symbolic. After two decades of seeming rapprochement with Europe, they now turn the other way, expecting of course that the whole of Europe will follow in due time, whether by daylight saving regulation or by political standards. Indeed, the question of year-round daylight saving seems to have been vividly discussed in EU circles. Once that happens, it will almost certainly coincide with the final political merger of former Western Europe and the unchanged Soviet Union, needless to say: on Soviet terms!

• On March 29, 2012, it became known that soon-to-return President Vladimir Putin was planning to renew an old Soviet workers’ ‘tradition’ (the word ‘tradition’, in combination with revolutionary communism, should always be put under apostrophes), namely official competitions in five categories of professions: Big Brother again is looking for the ‘best stonemason’ in the country, the ‘best welder’, the ‘best miner’, the ‘best electrician,’ and the ‘best truck driver.’ The annual winner will be granted a prize of 300,000.- rubles, i.e. roughly $ 6,000,-! The second gets 200,000,-, the third 100,000.-. But, it seems, the West remains fast asleep no matter what …

• One last important point: Supposed Chechen sabotage and terror attacks in ‘Russia’: Whether the bloody attacks in the Moscow underground (mimicking London’s 7/7), attacks against rail lines, and of course the war in Chechniya, that is yet another Leninist hall of mirrors, these should rather be carefully examined as for being events staged by Russian military intelligence so to keep their argument alive that ‘Russia’ too has a ‘Muslim” resp. “Al Qaida” problem, by which they’re able to divert attention from the fact that it has been and still is the Soviet Union that created international terrorism in general, and Al Quaida in particular, and to continue to penetrate Western security structures on the basis of ‘necessary cooperation’ in the face of global problems …

One could go on for pages and pages as, in fact, the continuity is all-pervading. There has been no change whatsoever!  

The question, never asked in the West, should have been: Why wasn’t there a violent uprising of the people and a witch-hunt after all communists (like in Hungary in 1956 before it was crushed)? Why wasn’t that sinistre Lenin Mausoleum on Red Square blown up into pieces? Why weren’t 74 years of Soviet history properly reviewed and the communists’ rewriting of history corrected? Why wasn’t there done any “grief work” so much needed after three generations of brutal oppression and unimaginable crimes? And why wasn’t there a sort of Nuremberg trial, with thousands and tens or even hundreds of thousands of subsequent executions? Why was there this spooky change of labels without any change in substance whatsoever? The answer has already been given above: because the ‘changes’ were planned, coordinated, and controlled; and because it’s still the same people now working still under the same old Soviet system, and so for their unchanged goal of worldwide communist victory!



russian-ballistic-missle launch

A Russian Topol-M intercontinental ballistic missile being fired from a mobile launching base.

A (Soviet-) Russian Topol-M (a.k.a. SS-27 Mod.1 Sickle B) Intercontinental Ballistic Missile fired from a mobile transport erector launcher (the United States, in contrast, relies now solely on its silo-based, 40-year-old and increasingly unreliable Minuteman-IIIs to be replaced by an updated design not before 2030, if at all). The Topol-M, an advanced version of the SS-25 Sickle and designed alternatively also for the launch from submarines, is a fairly unmatched hi-tec weapon developed in the ‘Post-Soviet’ era under Yeltsin. Its range is 11,000 km, with a circular error probability, due to satellite control, of only 200 m. It is equipped either with one 800 KT nuclear warhead (which equates to 44 to 61 Hiroshima bombs) or instead with a multiple independently targetable warhead (MIRV). Its most important feature, however, is that it can hardly be intercepted (which indeed opens for the unchanged Soviets, along with their equally advanced missile defence, the long-desired possibility for military blackmail against the West; and, yet the present U.S. Administration is working towards “Global Zero” of nuclear weapons, which would, even with the most powerful conventional weapons replacing them, leave America and the West without its nuclear deterrent). The Topol-M is able to perform complex evasion manoeuvres to escape interception; is equipped with a counter-targeting  system; can emit decoys so to confuse defence missiles; and is shielded against radiation, EMP, nuclear explosions over 500 meters away, as well as laser attacks. Officially, there were deployed, as of late 2010, 52 Topol-Ms in silos and 18 on mobile launchers. By the turn from 2011 to 2012, that total number of 70 Topol-Ms should have increased to 78. By the year 2020, the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces say they plan to be in the possession of as many as 177 land-based Topol-Ms (silo or mobile). However, given the long tradition of Soviet cheating, real numbers should be assumed to be considerably higher. Add to this the possibly hundreds of Topols (SS-25-Sickle), Iskanders (SS-26 Stone), SS-19s and the 30 UR-100UTTKh (SS-19) and 108 RS-24 ‘Yars’ (SS-29), not to mention their biological and chemical arsenals as well as weaponry such as the cargo-container Club-K missile system that equates to a true unrestricted-warfare terror weapon, it can be secretively launched from within a seemingly harmless cargo container and thus, theoretically, from any Western freight port, from commercial ships at sea, from civilan trucks or trains. Also, the Russians have made enormous progress in all other military fields, whether tanks, submarines, torpedo technology, and aircraft! This doesn’t include the highly secretive area of Tesla weapons (directed energy weapons), where they are said to be far ahead of the United States. The unchanged Soviet Union, still more or less disguised as a “New Russia” but also including, lest we forget, the whole number of “former” Soviet republics, has a toughly trained and, so we can assume, highly motivated military. The source of their optimism and their morale is their ideology. And the Soviet Generals, who have been pushing for many years towards ever more arming up, are convinced they can fight and win a global war (in which, of course, they will be greatly assisted by their communist ally China, a country with 1.34 billion people, i.e. 19% of the world’s total population, and all other communist countries throughout the world). Furthermore, the open societies of the West will have another cruel surprise: communist cells – mainly immigrants, one can expect – in their midst; who will have drawn up death lists of anticommunists, conservatives, traditionalists, priests etc.: everybody who will not be seen “fit” for living in the future communist world society.   

Some of the following will be better understood after reading chapter 7 and Appendix II of another article on this blog, ‘Forward, Comrades! Not back!’ – America and the World on the Brink of Global Communism. All facts listed below have been been meticulously researched as well as thoroughly meditated upon by this author, based on the methodology of unmatched top Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn, author of “New Lies for Old” and “The Perestroika Deception”.

The war threats by Russia and China during the last decade, after a clever display of the “weak look” in the 1990s, were many and have intensified over the time. By now, it appears they are prepared and ready to go for it and finally crush their hated “class enemy”, with or without war, so to establish their long-desired world communist society. The West’s desperate choice will then solely be to either sign its unconditional surrender to communist world rule straight away or to accept a life-or-death military confrontation that, by human reckoning, it cannot win; not any longer.

May 13, 2000, Moscow: Only 6 days after his pompous inauguration as Russian President and as his very first act in office, former military intelligence (GRU) officer Vladimir Putin decrees the reorganisation of the territory of the Russian Federation into 8 administrative regions resp. federal districts in exactly the same manner as precisely to the day Yossif Stalin had divided the once Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic in those same 8 military districts on May 13, 1941 as a preparatory measure for the war against Germany that already was in the air (and that just as well could have been a Soviet invasion of Germany, had not the Germans attacked first). Thus, again, the secretly continuing USSR has entered a phase of immediate war preparation as early as the year 2000! Also, the already otherwise existing military districts of today happen to be identical with the newly formed regions, that are each henceforth under the control of two to five “presidential plenipotentiary envoys”, mostly military men: a system with a much stronger and more effective ‘power vertical’. Also, there were reports in that week in 2000 about a possible amnesty of as many as 120,000 prison inmates obviously to be trained for service in the military, which too follows the Stalin pattern at the beginning of the Soviet-German war. Below: The 8 federal districts of the Russian Federation (i.e. of the ‘former’ RSFSR): Northwestern, Central, Southern, North Caucasian, Volga, Urals, Siberian, and Far Eastern.

Russian Federation, Federal Districts created on May 13, 2000

November 11, 2002, Brussels: Following a summit meeting where he had met EU leaders and discussed i.a. the Chechniya crisis (and only weeks after the hostage tragedy in Moscow’s Dubrovka musical theatre, in which 39 Chechen militants and at least 129 hostages were gassed to death in a highly controversial Spetsnaz operation), Russian President Vladimir Putin turned a press conference into a veritable scandal; yet, it took a day of listening to the tapes for the Western journalists to realise what he had actually said, as the Russian interpreters either hesitated to translate in full or just couldn’t catch up with the speed of his outburst. What had happened: A reporter of the French daily Le Monde was asking about the possible use of heavy weapons against civilians in Chechniya, to which Putin gave back, among other elaborations, “If you want to become an Islamic radical and have yourself circumcised, I invite you to come to Moscow. Our nation is multi-confessional, we have experts in the field. I would recommend that he who does the surgery does it so you’ll have nothing growing back afterward.” Wow!!! Although Putin’s aides did their best to explain away the remark, arguing the President had been exhausted and was sick and tired of Chechniya, nevertheless: what a statement! Whereby the sobering political reality of the Chechniya war is that it is a staged war controlled from both sides of the conflict by the Kremlin. For what ends, one could ask? To be able to show the West that they too have an ‘Islamic problem’ and put themselves on the green tables with the political leaders of the West and tie them into ever deeper cross-border co-operation between all sorts of intelligence services and possibly police. So it’s but a construed pretext to further undermine and penetrate Western services and to have yet another strong argument along the lines of “Global problems need global solutions.” The irony of it all, however, is that global terrorism is basically a communist invention: Mainly since the ‘50s and ‘60s, none other than the Soviets, along with the Chinese and all other communist allies, had systematically formed a worldwide network of terror organisations, mostly labelled as “liberation movements.”     

May 9, 2005, Moscow, Red Square: 15 years after their last May 9th “Victory Day” parade on Red Square in 1990 (the last Victory Day in the official USSR of 1991 saw no parade, maybe as a deceptive ‘peace’ gesture towards newly reunified Germany), the Russians now hold a highly Soviet-style veterans’ parade celebrating the 60th anniversary of Soviet victory over Nazi Germany (the ‘New Russia’ still refers to WW II, in unchanged Soviet fashion, as the ‘Great Patriotic War’!).

Victory Day Parade, 2005

Victory Day Parade, 2005, 2

Victory Day In Moscow

Also Western leaders such as Jacques Chirac and Tony Blair attended the parade. – Although still an historical display of WW-II machinery, along with old men of 80 or older, the parade was far from being mere nostalgia: the reviving of the old Soviet habit of Red-Square parades was in itself a strong signal: we are back, or more accurately: we are still the old Soviet Bolsheviks (and from 2008, these parades were indeed geared up to full-scale, state-of-the-art military parades like in the times of the overt Soviet Union, albeit still with the Lenin Mausoleum hidden behind pompous scenes of Russian flags and revolutionary paintings). Plus, this 2005 parade probably marked the starting shot for an overall wave of very brutal anti-Western and, it seems, pre-WW-III propaganda (that is now everywhere on the internet, especially on Youtube); in fact, that turn again towards a much more overt military regime had already taken place by the succession by Vladimir Putin into the office of President in the year 2000, who according to the late British analyst Christopher Story is not, as widely held, KGB, but GRU, i.e. Soviet foreign military intelligence (a rivalling structure to the KGB and much more secretive than the KGB); in other words: the current Soviet-Russian leadership, probably more than any other Soviet leadership since the days of Stalin and just-as-cruel Khrushchev, consists of experts in war, not in civil affairs! And Putin may well be the man to lead the unchanged USSR, along with the whole communist bloc, to worldwide victory as he is now most likely to be President for another two 6-year-terms, i.e. until the year 2024 (although we should leave behind our Western misconception that this is about individual people: they work as a collective, also at the leadership level!).

September 2006, China: After much internal debate, the U.S. Pentagon finally publishes the fact that China had successfully proven its capability of blinding U.S. surveillance satellites with powerful ground-based laser beams. Test attacks were subsequently executed by the American military to assess the severity of the problem. – Everybody should read the 1999 book “Unrestricted Warfare: China’s Masterplan to Destroy America” written indeed by two colonels of Red China’s People’s Liberation Army, Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui. Beside its boastfulness and aggressive style, the book first and foremost reveals the all-but-politically-correct approach by China (and certainly also Russia): warfare by all means. After all, they are carrying out a revolution, world revolution, and they won’t stop at anything to get their way, as for instance their 24/7 cyber war against Western institutions and corporations greatly illustrates. Nevertheless, Americans and Europeans most civilisedly maintain their diplomatic and business ties with them, simply because there is no alternative any longer: the monster has already grown far too powerful, not the least thanks to those Western politicos who opened this door into self-destruction and utter defeat some fourty years ago…   

October 26, 2006, East China Sea, between Japan and Taiwan: During a U.S. Navy exercise in the region, suddenly and surprisedly a Chinese Song-class attack submarine surfaced within nine miles, i.e. within torpedoing distance, of the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk. None of the whole number of escorting ships of the compound (that must have included also submarines) had been aware of the presence of the Chinese submarine prior to its surfacing! The incident naturally caused great shock (not to speak of embarrassment) in American military circles as it revealed a degree of sophistication of China’s submarine fleet that had neither been known nor expected. The consequences from this new reality are far-reaching: the Navies of the West might now well be rendered useless and defenceless against Chinese (and certainly Russian) submarine approaches and attacks. Asked by American diplomats why the submarine had been shadowing the U.S. fleet, Beijing pretended ignorance and dismissed the affair as coincidental.

January 18, 2007, Xichang Space Centre, China: Despite its earlier denials about developing space weapons, China undertakes the shooting down of a redundant weather satellite of its own by a ground-space ballistic missile fired from the Xichang space centre in the North-West province of Sichuan. This first anti-satellite test by any country for two decades again causes great nervousness in the West. Yet, the Chinese Foreign Ministry stone-walls the protests, arguing it had not been informed of any such missile test, and ‘assuring’, “We are opposed to any arms race in space and we will not get into any arms race in space.” Yet, in spite of this series of ‘Sputnik shocks’, American and Western circles try to carry on with business as usual, still unable to realise where all this is headed. Not only have Russia and China been in a firm alliance for half a century, and meanwhile show it quite openly, their final intention of course is not defence or emancipation against a “Pax Americana” and so forth, but preparing for overall communist triumph on a global scale. This is what Western politicians, whatever their and their elites’ agenda may be and insofar they’re not already communist moles themselves, cannot see through.    

February 10, 2007, Munich, Germany: At the 43rd annual Munich Security Conference that always takes place at the Hotel Bayerischer Hof, that year under the motto “Global Crises · Global Responsibility”, then and from May 2012 again President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, delivered a rather unfriendly early Valentine’s Day present for his ‘partners’ in the West: a most aggressive, threatening, and Leninistically bold speech that came as a total surprise and certainly caused a lot of headache in Western political circles as it mercilessly destroyed all illusions of an American-dominated ‘unipolar’ world. Worse, during the whole speech Putin appeared to be almost exploding with cold fury (this author watched it live on Bavarian television; there is a full recording on the Youtube channel “PernatyZmey”). Whatever calculated his ‘fury’ may have been, it showed more clearly than anything else during the previous years that the Russians “mean it”; mean what, unfortunately, seems still not to have been understood to this day, i.e. communist world dominion, in other words: a ‘unipolar’ world controlled by them! Some key passages (taken from; the website gives the official English translation from the website of the President of the Russian Federation,

“[…] The unipolar world that had been proposed after the Cold War did not take place either. The history of humanity certainly has gone through unipolar periods and seen aspirations to world supremacy. And what hasn’t happened in world history? However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making. It is a world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within. And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority. Incidentally, Russia – we – are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves. […] We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this? In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according to so-called issues of political expediency, based on the current political climate. And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasise this – no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race. […] Madam Federal Chancellor already mentioned this. The combined GDP measured in purchasing power parity of countries such as India and China is already greater than that of the United States. And a similar calculation with the GDP of the BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China – surpasses the cumulative GDP of the EU. And according to experts this gap will only increase in the future. There is no reason to doubt that the economic potential of the new centres of global economic growth will inevitably be converted into political influence and will strengthen multipolarity. […] Did not our country have a peaceful transition to democracy? Indeed, we witnessed a peaceful transformation of the Soviet regime – a peaceful transformation! And what a regime! With what a number of weapons, including nuclear weapons! Why should we start bombing and shooting now at every available opportunity? Is it the case when without the threat of mutual destruction we do not have enough political culture, respect for democratic values and for the law? […] Plans to expand certain elements of the anti-missile defence system to Europe cannot help but disturb us. Who needs the next step of what would be, in this case, an inevitable arms race? I deeply doubt that Europeans themselves do. Missile weapons with a range of about five to eight thousand kilometres that really pose a threat to Europe do not exist in any of the so-called problem countries. And in the near future and prospects, this will not happen and is not even foreseeable. And any hypothetical launch of, for example, a North Korean rocket to American territory through western Europe obviously contradicts the laws of ballistics. As we say in Russia, it would be like using the right hand to reach the left ear. […] But what is happening at the same time? Simultaneously the so-called flexible frontline American bases with up to five thousand men in each. It turns out that NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders, and we continue to strictly fulfil the treaty [on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe] obligations and do not react to these actions at all. I think that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them. But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: ‘the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee’. Where are these guarantees? The stones and concrete blocks of the Berlin Wall have long been distributed as souvenirs. But we should not forget that the fall of the Berlin Wall was possible thanks to a historic choice – one that was also made by our people, the people of Russia – a choice in favour of democracy, freedom, openness and a sincere partnership with all the members of the big European family. And now they are trying to impose new dividing lines and walls on us – these walls may be virtual but they are nevertheless dividing, ones that cut through our continent. And is it possible that we will once again require many years and decades, as well as several generations of politicians, to dissemble and dismantle these new walls? […] In conclusion I would like to note the following. We very often – and personally, I very often – hear appeals by our partners, including our European partners, to the effect that Russia should play an increasingly active role in world affairs. In connection with this I would allow myself to make one small remark. It is hardly necessary to incite us to do so. Russia is a country with a history that spans more than a thousand years and has practically always used the privilege to carry out an independent foreign policy. We are not going to change this tradition today. At the same time, we are well aware of how the world has changed and we have a realistic sense of our own opportunities and potential. And of course we would like to interact with responsible and independent partners with whom we could work together in constructing a fair and democratic world order that would ensure security and prosperity not only for a select few, but for all.”

That latter statement, “a fair and democratic world order that would ensure security and prosperity not only for a select few, but for all”, shows without doubt they’re indeed still headed for world communism. In these extracts one can see as clear as the blue sky that the unchanged Soviets will do everything to manoeuvre American military presence out from the European continent, engage the Europeans in an ever tighter co-operation in all spheres that would finally mean a merger between the EU and the so-called Russian Federation, on communist terms, and leave the U.S. in complete political and military isolation. Given Putin’s mentioning of the growing economic and political power of Brazil, Russia, India and China (the so-called BRIC states; indeed bricks in their ever rising all-communist world architecture), one can see coming on the horizon what Stalin once said had to be achieved: the change of the encirclement of socialism by capitalism to the encirclement of capitalism by socialism. Putin’s speech was an open demonstration of unchanged Soviet hate against the one great obstacle on their way to an all-communist world, the United States of America; and the psychological effect on quite a number of Western politicians seems indeed to have been devastating.       

January 2008, Gulf of Biscay: Russian battle ships and aircraft hold military manoeuvres just off the Atlantic coast of NATO members France and Spain! A Russian Navy spokesman proudly terms it “the biggest exercise of its kind in the area since Soviet times.”

February 14, 2008, Moscow: Again, Happy Valentine’s Day! Outgoing President Vladimir Putin gives the last international press conference of his (second) term as President of the Russian Federation. The thing lasts, Soviet-style, about five (!) hours, and even surpasses in aggressiveness his speech of February 10, 2007 in Munich. Adrian Blomfield writes in his February 15, 2008 article “Vladimir Putin’s nuclear threat to the West” on The Telegraph’s website, “Vladimir Putin has delivered perhaps his most menacing tirade against the West yet, repeating threats to train nuclear missiles on Europe and warning of unspecified retaliation if Kosovo declared independence. Addressing his last press conference as Russian president, Mr Putin mounted a defiant display that demonstrated more emphatically than ever the widening gulf between Moscow and its former Cold War rivals. In a vintage performance, the former KGB spy laced almost five hours of invective with crude insults, threats and admonitions often expressed in the argot of the Russian street. Reserving his greatest ire for the United States, which he accused of harbouring a colonial mentality towards Russia, Mr Putin again said that Europe would pay the consequences for a Washington-backed plan to erect a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. ‘Our generals, our security council, consider these moves a threat to our national security,’ he said. ‘We asked our partners to stop but no one listened to us. So if they continue we will have to react appropiately by retargeting our missiles.’ Mr Putin also made similar threats against Ukraine if it joined Nato. The Russian leader – often accused of returning his country to a state of autocracy – portrayed his nuclear threat as an act of democratic generosity, saying he was acting in the interests of Europeans who opposed American military expansionism. […] He told Western observers who refused to monitor the forthcoming election, widely seen as a sham, that they should ‘rather teach their own wives how to cook cabbage soup.’” [!!!!!] – The world has now been on the brink of World War III for quite some time, and Putin’s sinistre ‘recommendation’  to the West their wives should learn how to cook cabbage soup is along the same lines as Gorbachev’s threat of Dec. 10, 2011 that Germany could have had on New Year’s Eve 2011/12 full dinner tables for the last time. The message: prepare for poverty and hunger, because we are going to crush you. And the cabbage soup comment even contains an additional element: the Western societies, by decades of communist/feminist indoctrination, will be completely HELPLESS; with men unable or unwilling to fight, and women who know nothing about the basic necessities of survival in a time of crisis or war!!!      

May 9, 2008, Moscow, Red Square: The first Victory-Day parade on Red Square, after three years of ‘nostalgic’ parades, that displays again, like in Soviet times, Russia’s ‘military power’. Russian propaganda outlet ‘Russia Today’ (RT) starts its live broadcast with the following Soviet-to-the-core design:

Screenshot, Victory Day 2008, RT Insert

This is NOT made up! It’s the present allegedly ‘post-communist’ Russian reality that in fact differs not one iota from the former reality under overt Soviet communism. Yet, hardly anybody in the West seems to have asked himself why supposedly post-Soviet Russia is so much in love with its Soviet “past”!!! You have depicted here the highest military decoration in the Soviet Armed Forces for WW II service (made of platinum, rubies, and 150 diamonds!), the Order of Victory (“ПОБЕДА”), showing Spasskaya Tower on Red Square and in front of it the inevitable Lenin Mausoleum. As this is an original Soviet award, you of course get the Soviet Union’s acronym on top: “CCCP”, i.e. USSR. Yet, Victory Day has always had a double meaning: pompously celebrating Soviet victory in 1945, but also anticipating all-encompassing global victory for world communism! That second meaning has acquired much greater relevance and actuality today.

RT’s presenter of this propaganda farce, an Englishman by name of Kevin Owen, asks his studio guest Sergey Lebedev, Managing Director of the “Ligerion Group” and military consultant (not the Sergey Lebedev who was until 2007 Director of Russian Foreign Intelligence and is now the Executive Secretary of the CIS), why this event is “bigger than in recent years”. Lebedev’s cryptical answer, in stiff Soviet-English prose: “Well, ahhh, actually, ahhh, parade is a tradition [sic!] of this country, and this year specifically the combat material is returning to the scene, and it’s going to be part of the show.” (A classic non-answer! However, there might be very much an explanation that Mr. Lebedev carefully hid from us: After all, 2008 was the year when Marxist-to-the-core Comrade Obama strove for presidential nomination and was finally elected President of the United States. Everybody should check out on the web the two interviews, as audio-files, with computer expert Tom Fife – one time at Jeff Rense, the other time and more in-depth at Jeff Nyquist, both also given on this blog in full transcripts done by this author, as can be found in the parallel article, ‘Forward, Comrades! Not Back!’ – America and the World in the Brink to Global Communism -, where Mr. Fife spoke about a very peculiar incident back in early 1992 at a Moscow farewell party with Russian business partners with whom he and other Westerners were engaged in a joint venture: there was a heated argument on that evening, or rather a monologue, by the host’s wife, a committed communist, who – never mind that the USSR had been officially abolished two months prior – boasted that America would in due time have a black president, and he would be a communist, a Soviet; he was already around, had attended America’s elite universities, was “Ivy League”, he had a white American mother and an African father, he grew up in Hawaii; he would be irresistable for Americans, and he would be a great blessing for world communism; his name was Barack. – As one listens to these interviews one can’t help sensing that Tom Fife is telling the truth, which in that case would mean that America has already been, since that chaotic inauguration on January 20/21, 2009 and without knowing, in a state of post-revolution!!! Obama, now that he is re-elected, has already begun showing a quite different face from what he has shown so far, as his task is obviously to push the United States right into full-blown communism, which he and his wife already in their 2008 campaign, remember, quite openly said they would.) Owen: “Combat material. What are we talking about there?” Lebedev: “We are talking about the hardware, the military hardware.” Owen: “Okay, so, we are seeing, what, tanks, and big military hardware like we saw back in the nineties?” Lebedev: “Yes, exactly. And I’d say that the nation was expecting for this event for a long time.” [sic!]  … Owen: “How important is it to Russia, Sergey, and Russians, in 2008, 63 years on?” Lebedev: “Well, I’d say it’s very important because the country underwent very serious changes, and there were difficult times during this reform [a coded confirmation of the unbroken continuity from the overtly communist era to ‘post-Soviet’ covert communism], and the nation needs certain good landmarks, this is primarily the internal event and importance. But, on second thought, we have to remind that Russia is also a serious player in the world arena, it has its national interests, and it should have certain tools to protect them.” – A threat. The truth is the Soviet military has never been meant and still today is not meant as a defence force but as the means to eventually overwhelm and crush the West, whether by its actual use or by mere military blackmail.

By the way, it’s worth comparing these May 9th parades since 2008 to those until 1990 (as presented, e.g., on the propaganda Youtube channels “RedSamurai84” and “RussiaToday”): The whole procedure and atmosphere are absolutely identical! More than that, the rapid changes that have taken place in the past decades in the West, and not to the better, seem to have left the continuing USSR completely untouched: as one watches closely the faces of the young, of the old, of the military, there is not the slightest difference between, say, 1985 or 1990, and 2008! Lest we forget, there had been no 1968 in the Soviet Union, no drug pandemic like in the West, no anti-authoritarian education, no ‘peace’ movement, no undermining of patriotism, no gay movement, and so forth. The West had been brought down by these Leninist/Gramscian/Frankfurt School subversion strategies; the communist bloc, in contrast, had stayed the same, which is why they can now come up and teach the West ‘old-fashioned’ discipline and ‘manners’. (Also, Minister of Defence and soldiers address each other in unchanged communist fashion by “TОВАРИЩ”, Tovarishch, thus: “Comrade”, which is still the official way of address in Russia’s military!) The only differences remaining the Lenin Mausoleum being hidden behind huge scenes, the leadership therefore standing not on top but in front of it, no huge Lenin portrait covering the fassade of the reactivated shopping centre Gum opposite to the Kremlin wall, and the Defence Minister these days being not an army general but a ‘civilian’.

May 9, 2010, Moscow, Red Square: This time, the Soviets achieved a special propaganda coup: In the Victory Day parade participated units of the three WWII allies, United States, Britain, and France. As they were marching to Soviet military music and rendered their military salute to the leaders of the unchangedly totalitarian Soviet state, with whom they had been for so many decades (and still are) in a life-or-death struggle, one inevitably felt reminded of the Olympic summer games of 1936 in Berlin when also then the British and French delegations gave their salute to Adolf Hitler. History is repeating itself.

Victory Day Parade, 2010, U.S. troops, 3


Victory Day Parade 2010, French


If one looks at the list of “foreign” statesmen attending, the Parade was, with the sole exceptions of German Chancellor Angela Merkel (herself a “former” East German communist) and Israeli President Shimon Peres (a lifelong socialist), an all-Soviet resp. all-Eurasian-communist gathering. How come? British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was in the middle of an election campaign; U.S. President (if we can call him that) Barack Obama had whatever other things to do; then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Italian Prime Minister of the day, Silvio Berlusconi, were busy with fighting the European monetary crisis; whilst the Russian Federation vehemently refused as alternative guests the Prince of Wales for Britain, and Vice President (if we can call him that) Joe Biden for the United States (the ambassadors of the U.S. and Britain to the Russian Federation attended, instead). Thus, the all-communist who’s who present reads as follows: Hosts Dmitriy Medvedev and Vladimir Putin, at the time President and Prime Minister of the ‘former’ RSFSR and now-Russian Federation; Nursultan Nazarbayev, President of the ‘once’-SSR of Kazakhstan; Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov, President of the ‘once’-SSR of Turkmenistan; Emomalii Rahmon, President of the ‘once’-SSR of Tajikistan; Ilham Aliyev, President of the ‘once’-SSR of Azerbaijan; Serzh Sargsyan, President of the ‘once’-SSR of Armenia; Toomas Hendrik Ilves, President of the ‘once’-SSR of Estonia; Valdis Zatlers, President of the ‘once’-SSR of Latvia; Eduard Kokoity, ‘President’ of the renegade Georgian territory of South Ossetia; Sergei Bagapsh, ‘President’ of the renegade Georgian territory of Abkhasia; the remaining 7 “ex”-Soviet republics, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Georgia, Moldova, Kyrgysztan, and Uzebekistan were not represented, possibly not to make it too obvious. From outside the “former” Soviet Union, but still from within the communist bloc, had come: Hu Jintao, then-President of the People’s Republic of China; Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj, President of the “once”-People’s Republic of Mongolia; and Nguyen Minh Triet, President of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam; as well as from the “former” Eastern European satellites, Bronislaw Komorowski, President of Poland; Vaclav Klaus, President of Czechia; Ivan Gasparovic, President of Slovakia; Georgi Parvanov, President of Bulgaria; only Hungary and Romania were not represented. Finally, from former Yugoslavia (that had always been an informal but integral part of the Bloc), had come all leaders except the one from Bosnia-Herzegovina: Boris Tadic, President of Serbia; Ivo Josipovic, President of Croatia; Danilo Türk, President of Slovenia; Gjorge Ivanov, President of Macedonia; and Filip Vujanovic, President of newly ‘independent’ Montenegro.

The question now arises: What does Germany as the only ‘Western’ guest nation except Israel have to do in such an obvious all-communist assembly? Well, as Christopher Story and others have repeatedly pointed out, the German reunification of 1990 was in fact NOT, as was widely believed, a process of large and economically powerful West Germany ‘swallowing’ and thus annihilating communist East Germany, but very much on the contrary of communist East Germany being put in the position to massively infiltrate, subvert, and revolutionise a West German society that was in no way prepared for such an undeclared ideological offensive; after all, communism – according to the official narrative – had gone out of business. The disastrous result of this merger, that was solely to the detriment of the West Germans, can be seen today in the astonishing instance that present-day-Germany has both as head of state and as head of government respectively, a figure from the communist East: as for the former, an alleged once-Pastor and ‘regime sceptic’ but in fact protégé, who nevertheless sees no need to legalise his wild marriage now that he is Federal President of Germany, by name of Joachim Gauck; as for the latter, of course, Angela Merkel as Chancellor. Although her pre-1989-biography has been widely deleted (as has been common routine with the instant-democrats of the “former” communist world), it has become known that she was in no way a silent dissident under the communist system of East Germany, but rather grew up as part of the communist state and Party elite (her father, a ‘Pastor’ from Hamburg, West Germany, but ardent communist, changed sides in late 1954, brought his young family with him, and became a powerful GDR ‘church apparatchik’ known under “the Red Kasner”). Angela Merkel, then Angela Kasner, was even ‘privileged’ enough during her university years to partly pursue her Physics studies at a university in the Soviet Union. The family was also allowed – in the 1970s! – to travel to Western countries such as Italy. Merkel later became a tough agit-prop secretary in East Germany’s communist youth organisation, “Freie Deutsche Jugend”, and was there responsible for ‘culture and political education’. So, there’s no doubt she is a communist plant (though most Germans even today, unable to understand the incurable mindset of Marxists-Leninists, view her as a simple political opportunist), well-placed right from 1990 in West Germany’s Christian-Democratic Party, CDU, right under the wings of then Chancellor Helmut Kohl, who generously promoted Merkel’s CDU career, until he lost power in 1998 and became nationwide persona non grata due to a greatly exaggerated party donation affair in 1999, whilst she showed in that critical moment her true communist face and let him fall. In 2000 finally she became Party chairman, and in 2005 German Chancellor. Helmut Kohl, on the other hand, will soon have turned into a widely forgotten footnote in the reunification process of the two German states. Anatoliy Golitsyn called this communist practice of silent outmanoeuvering and takeover “cuckoo egg” politics: once the foreign chick hatches, it starts dominating the nest; a pattern we can now see everywhere in the Western world. Also, Merkel’s policies have in no way brought a return to a more conservative line compared to the preceding Red-Green government in power from 1998 till 2005; instead she has seamlessly continued the revolutionary path begun by Gerd Schröder and Joschka Fischer, two first-class declared Western Marxists, who were now followed in 2005 by a plain Marxist-Leninist from the communist East. Reunified Germany today has in fact become a communist state, as are most member states of the European Union now in a fast transition process to what will inevitably turn out as plain, hard-core communism.

Towards the end of the parade, by the way, the “European Anthem” was played, i.e. Schiller’s Ode to Joy from Beethoven’s 9th Symphony, firmly underlining the Soviet objective openly declared since the late 1980s of a “Common European Home from the Atlantic to Vladivostok”, in plain English of course: a unified Eurasian communist monolith with a free Western Europe having become a thing of the past. And we’re almost there already!                    

Nursultan Nazarbayev, Dmitry Medvedev, Hu Jintao, Angela Merkel, Vladimir Putin

“Former” East German communist and now Chancellor of a (communistically) unified Germany, Angela Merkel, carefully watches the military parade on Moscow’s Red Square, while ‘beautifully’ framed by her Marxist-Leninist comrades (from left to right): Nursultan Nazarbayev (Stalinist dictator-president of Kazakhstan), Dmitry Medvedev (then-President and now-Prime Minister of the Russian Federation), Hu Jintao (then-President of the People’s Republic of China), and Vladimir Putin (then-Prime Minister and now-again President of the Russian Federation): Germany (and along with it, the European Union) is visibly part of the Russian-China military axis; with the U.S. being effectively isolated and even in the grip of a shadowy clique of communist revolutionaries itself!

Shimon Peres (a lifelong socialist) and Angela Merkel (an “ex”-communist): the only ‘Western’ guests on Moscow’s Red Square in the midst of an all-communist gathering!!!

Also, the 2010 Victory Day Parade was the first in the ‘post-Soviet era’ in which the old and since the year 2000 restored Soviet Stalin anthem was again played, and so in front of troops from the U.S., Britain, and France! 

Finally, the commanders’ limousines are now for the first time pitch-black, outside and inside, instead of formerly light-grey; which adds to the intimidation (picture from the 2012 Victory Day Parade)

A clever way of ‘hiding’ and at the same time showing the Lenin Mausoleum. An overhead camera serves the trick! So happened on May 9, 2010, and so for the first time. Hence, each year they ‘restore’ the old Soviet Union a little bit further. The day it will be officially again the USSR will be of course a traumatic day for the West that will then see that it has been duped over all those years and has now ended up trapped and defeated.

November 7, 2010, Moscow, Red Square: For the first time since the fake dissolution of the Soviet Union, it seems, also a Revolution Day celebration was held on Red Square. Not a military parade with armory but nevertheless a parade with some military units and Komsomol youth, commemorating officially the Revolution Day parade of 1941 (not the October Revolution itself, “of course”…). The marching blocks of the youth organisations are being welcomed by the speakers, in good old Soviet fashion, as ‘activists’ and ‘patriots’. There is also some theatrical re-enacting of the Red Army’s fight, starting in 1941, against the nearing German armies. The salute is not taken by the President of the Russian Federation but by the Moscow Mayor, but it can be expected that sooner or later also November 7th will return to being an annual full-scale military parade in the old Soviet format. They’re merely letting go of their temporary democratic mask step by step. Some impressions:



As one watches these parades, as well as the overall revived revolutionary spirit and self-esteem of the Leninst state (also, if not particularly, among the young), one can’t help feeling reminded of Nazi Germany’s infamous propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels when he boasted that others may have to rely on the force of guns to control their people, but that the German National-Socialist state, in contrast, had achieved to win over the very hearts of the people, thus its success. It seems the “post-Soviet”, pragmatic Leninists of the Andropov stream have meanwhile mastered this art as well. It’s no longer the “dictatorship of the proletariat”, but the “state of the whole people”. 

November 8, 2010, off the coast of Los Angeles: A mysterious missile launch some 35 miles off the Southern Californian coast resulted in widespread uncertainty and confusion. All DoD entities positively confirmed there had been no missile test. At the same time, the Pentagon ruled out that it could have been a missile launch by a foreign power, coming up with the ridiculous explanation it must have been an airliner or a “toy rocket”. Yet, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO as well as former Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Ellsworth identified the projectile as “a big missile.” Also, retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant General Tom McInerney’s assessment was, “Look, this is not an airplane because of the plume, and the way you see that plume. Airplanes do not con at sea level or 5,000 feet like that. I spent 35 years flying fighters, and I never saw an airplane con like that. That is a missile, it’s launched from a submarine, and you can see it go through a correction course, and then it gets on a very smooth trajectory, meaning that the guidance system is now kicked in, it’s going at about 45° away from you, that’s why you are not seeing a lot of vertical velocity.” Could it have been a Chinese or (Soviet)-Russian missile fired from one of their super-quiet submarines?

Mysterious Missile over Southern California 2l

May 9, 2011, Moscow, Red Square: The Victory Day parade starts with the grim WW II song “Sviashchennaya voyna” (The Sacred War) written in 1941 by Alexandrov, the composer also of the Soviet anthem of 1944. The lyrics, then applied to invading Nazi Germany, might well be directed today to the “decadent imperialist” West: ”The huge country is rising / Is rising for the deathly battle / Against the dark fascist force / Against their cursed hordes – (Refrain:) Let our noble wrath / Seethe like waves / The national war is going / The Sacred War – Will resist the oppressors / Of right notions (ideas) / Rapists, bandits / People’s tormentors – Refrain – Don’t their black wings dare / Fly over our Motherland / Don’t the enemy dare tread / Our immense fields – Refrain – Let us put a bullet into the brow / Of the rotten fascist vermin / Let us make a strong coffin / For such breed – Refrain”. One can ask whether this has still anything to do with “commemoration”. It rather feels like a call to battle here and now!

There have been many more explicit World War III threats (it’s clear they are now trying to impose their will on the West, and be it through war), from both Russian and Chinese Generals as well as from the political leadership, usually whenever the West tries to act in ways that could interfere with the communist goal of complete world domination. First it was George W. Bush’s project of stationing defence missiles in Poland (that was cancelled by successor Obama) and the question of Kosovo’s independence from Serbia; then it was the Georgia crisis in August of 2008; now it is a downgraded American plan for missile stationing in Eastern Europe; the permanent tensions with Iran; and the situation in Syria (a close satellite country that Russia and China are determined to defend). Furthermore, there are the unresolved Taiwan question, recurring tensions between North- and South Korea, and a number of other issues in the Far Eastern region. Not to forget Russia’s repeated intrusions into Swedish, Norwegian and British airspace and the revived permanent reconnaissance flights of their (upgraded) propeller ‘Bear’ bombers; the latter being possibly more of a symbolic act.

But there occurred one more major incident on December 10, 2011 in Munich, Germany: Mikhail Gorbachev was there and received from the conservative Hanns Seidel Foundation their Franz Josef Strauß Award. His acceptance speech, however, turned into a brutal Leninist attack speech, full with contempt and ‘schadenfreude’ against the West, combined with very serious undertones of military blackmail, basically telling us: Accept communism or face World War III! Do read this speech (as well as the rest of that treatise) in chapter 6 of a closely related article on this blog: ‘Forward, Comrades! Not Back!’ – America and the World on the Brink of Global Communism.




November 9, 2009, in front of the German Embassy in London: Note the banner in the background: Underneath the motto “2009: 20 Years Fall of the Wall”, one can read the stranger-than-strange maxim, “Work in Progress”, all kept in communism’s favourite colours red and black resp. grey. This is clearly yet another display of utmost Leninist boldness: first, both ‘work’ and ‘progress’ are key words in the communist vocabulary. Second, ‘work in progress’ reveals the objective (as well as outcome) of the events of 1989: the furtherance of the world revolution, that truly is – the word ‘revolution’ expresses it anyway – a never-ending ‘work in progress’ indeed. Berlin: the launching base of the long-prepared-for offensive, that gained tremendous momentum through the reunification of Germany. The whole world: the building-site for overall communist victory! The symbolism of the wall made of ice-bricks in the foreground of the picture (created by the English/German artist couple Manon Awst and Benjamin Walther) is rather striking as well: this wall doesn’t need tearing down, it simply melts away and dissolves into the air, just like the communist strategists accurately foresaw the ‘magical’ removal, in the perception of the West, of the image of the enemy. The unchanged Leninists are true adepts in deception and psychological warfare! – Also, this wall of ice bricks seems to contain an additional connotation: it was Gorbachev’s demonic ‘heat’ that so wonderfully broke the Iron Lady’s ice!

The 20th anniversary celebrations of the fall of the Berlin Wall had been planned, with German precision and renewed German self-esteem, both as an impressive spectacle for the world and a colourful party for the people of Germany. And statesmen and elder statesmen, liars and liees (or co-liars) alike, attended the commemoration at the Brandenburg Gate. Not among them, ironically, were the two who so greatly but erroneously had taken pride in ‘having faced down communism’ and ‘having won the Cold War’, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Former President Reagan was no more alive; Baroness Thatcher had not come to Berlin, probably due to bad health. The third conservative of 1989, former German Chancellor Kohl, did cover a tight schedule during the whole day, but too was now very weak, notwithstanding his being widely forgotten if not persona non grata in Germany since the so-called CDU donation affair of 1999. In other words, and this is symbolic, those who were triumphing then, were either dead or appeared beaten today. Which left the scene almost completely for Gorbachev, who seems to be acting with even greater vigour and resoluteness now than as General Secretary back in the 1980s, so obviously looking forward to the nearing completion of the world revolution. Among the old guard that did attend, however, were Henry Kissinger and Hans-Dietrich Genscher, who according to Christopher Story had been working through their entire careers as Soviet moles within their respective political surroundings.

Yet, still hours ahead of the main festivities at night, there was set up i.a. a highly questionable ‘celebration’ at the former checkpoint “Bornholmer Straße”, the first border crossing to be opened in the events of November 9, 1989. In a re-enactment of sorts of the ‘Trabant invasion’ of 1989, Angela Merkel and some 100 former ‘dissidents’ and ‘democratic activists’ of the communist German Democratic Republic were solemnly if not triumphantly marching across that bridge known as Bornholmer Brücke but correctly named Bösebrücke, and they did so, of course, starting from their old communist East into what once was the French sector of West Berlin (and not the American or British sector!). Among them were the East-West-communist chansonnier Wolf Biermann (who was also the stepfather and artistic mentor of East German punk diva and certainly agent of influence once she arrived in the West, Nina Hagen) and the plain East-German Joachim Gauck, a GDR-church-politico who claims to have been suffering political persecution, but in fact was friendly with the communist regime and enjoyed privileges unknown to the ordinary East-German (ironically it was him who oversaw the agency responsible for processing the archives of the former East-German state security, MfS, a.k.a. “Stasi”); today, he defines himself, in classical Leninist fashion, as a ‘left-liberal conservative’ (sic!); his candidacy for the German State Presidency in 2010 was indeed supported, albeit not by the successor of the East-German SED, “Die Linke”, but nevertheless by both Social Democrats and (Red-)Greens; much worse: after a suspiciously hyped corruption scandal against recent German State President Christian Wulff, which led Hr. Wulff to step down from office on February 17, 2012, within two days, CDU-CSU, SPD, Free Democrats, and Greens (in other words, all parties represented in the German Bundestag, except for “Die Linke”) agreed that Joachim Gauck should be Germany’s next State President; he was then elected on March 18 and inaugurated on March 23, 2012; the change in the highest office of Germany will certainly move the country by yet another great leap towards becoming a full-fledged communist state. Never mind that Hr. Gauck stubbornly refuses to bring his family life in order so to suit his new position: though once having been a Protestant pastor, he lives in separation from his wife and instead in a “wild marriage” with another woman: you see, they are communists, and they spit on everything of old! – Back to checkpoint “Bornholmerstraße”. Now, why did the ‘collapsing’ GDR decide to first open a border crossing named by them in 1948, and still named today, after a German communist by name of Wilhelm Böse (the surname translates to ‘evil’), who had been sentenced to death by the Nazi regime in 1944, a communist ‘martyr’? And why, subsequently, was there this odd 2009 all-communist demonstration, this jolly and optimistic ‘Mayday Parade’, again over this bridge named ‘Böse Brücke’, i.e. the ‘EVIL BRIDGE’? Communism – which represents pure, concentrated evil and very much knows that it is evil – loves such insidious in-your-face audacity, especially when hardly anyone sees the forest for the trees anymore. Quite conveniently as well, this bridge had been initially opened in 1916, as Hindenburg Bridge, on a September 11th, the birthday of their highly revered founder of the Soviet Cheka, Felix Dzerzhinsky, and later-to-be death-day of the father of the new deception strategy, Nikita Khrushchev!

German Chancellor Merkel walks through the Bornholmer Bridge (Bruecke) with people who crossed it first twenty years ago, in Berlin

German Chancellor Merkel, flanked by (meanwhile new State President of Germany) Joachim Gauck (left) and leftist chansonnier Wolf Biermann (right): “for communists only”. All that was missing in this eery, complete-with-red-shawls, hardcore-communist manifestation (and let’s keep in mind that Angela Merkel once was a Secretary for Agitation and Propaganda in the East German communist youth organisation ‘Freie Deutsche Jugend’) would have been the intonation of the old communist East German anthem: “Auferstanden aus Ruinen, und der Zukunft zugewandt…” (“From the ruins risen newly, to the future turned, we stand …”). Poet Johannes R. Becher and composer Hanns Eisler knew, back in the year 1949, why they created an anthem metrically identical to the ancient Austrian “Kaiserhymne” in use as the national anthem of West Germany: For, the East-German (and pan-communist) political objective over all those decades, whatever ridiculed in the West, had been a re-unification of the two German states on communist terms. And they accomplished it, not by the use of tanks, but by the most perfidious deception ever in the history of mankind. And soon, all the mindless partying and cheering will give way in the former West to a solid sense of defeat.

20 Jahre Mauerfall 28

A commemorating tablet at Bösebrücke (Böse Bridge, i.e. ‘evil bridge’), applied in 1998, reminding of the events of November 9th, 1989. The simple fact that – say, the ‘changes’ had indeed been genuine, which they weren’t – this so important site still carries the name of the communist Wilhelm Böse (instead of, for example, again that of Reichspräsident Hindenburg after whom it had initially been named), doesn’t make any sense at all – unless, of course, the whole ‘collapse’ of communism was a hoax (which it was) and the subsequent reunification of Germany not a matter accomplished on the terms of the West but on communist terms! – Indicators indeed confirming this grim reality, even on the surface of things, are plenty. A quick check via Google Earth of the street names of East German cities and towns shows that all their ‘former’ revolutionary/socialist/communist idols are still being held in high regard: Voltaire, Alexander Pushkin, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, (they did away with Lenin), Maxim Gorki, Ferdinand Lasalle, August Bebel, Émile Zola, Rosa Luxemburg, Wilhelm and Karl Liebknecht, Clara Zetkin, Ernst Thälmann, Bertolt Brecht, Sergey Prokoviev, Yuri Gagarin, even Walter Ulbricht. Also, they still have streets, scattered across the country, with such ‘colourful’ ideological names as “Straße der Pariser Kommune” (Street of the Paris Commune), “Straße des Friedens” (Street of Peace), “Straße der Demokratie” (Street of Democracy), “Straße der Freiheit” (Street of Liberty), “Straße des Fortschritts” (Street of Progress), “Straße der Werktätigen” (Street of the Workers), “Straße der Zukunft” (Street of the Future), “Straße der Solidarität” (Street of Solidarity), “Straße der Opfer des Faschismus” (Street of the Victims of Fascism), “Straße des 8. Mai” (Street of the 8th of May), “Straße der Befreiung” (Street of the Liberation), “Straße der Republik” (Street of the Republic), “Straße der Arbeit” (Street of Labour), “Straße der Einheit” (Street of Unity), “Straße der Völkerfreundschaft” (Street of Peoples’ Friendship), “Weg der Freundschaft” (Way of Friendship), “Straße der Nationen” (Street of the Nations), “Straße der Jugend” (Street of the Youth), “Straße des Bergmanns” (Street of the Miner), “Spartakusstraße” (Spartacus Street; ‘Spartacus’, a name so widely popular in communism since its beginning, had been the codename of the forerunner, as we go back in history, of Marx and Babeuf: Adam Weishaupt, founder of the ultra-radical and hyper-Utopian Illuminati network, that indeed held those very same sick views and ideas of a completely egalitarian and collectivised society!), “Allee der Kosmonauten” (Alley of the Cosmonauts), “Platz der Vereinten Nationen” (United Nations Square), and so forth; you get the picture…



Fake ‘conservative’ Chancellor Angela Merkel with fake ‘reformer’ Mikhail Gorbachev and fake ‘independent trade union leader’ and ‘first democratic Polish President’ Lech Wałesa at Bösebrücke. What a display of all-communist harmony and friendship! (This photograph also provides, maybe, a good opportunity to look behind Angela Merkel’s ‘democratic’ mask: concentrate on her eyes, and you might sense pure Leninist evil…)

Mind the uniformly black clothes of these people (including those of Angela Merkel), the dark red here and there, the ‘workers’ caps’ of Gorbachev and Wałesa, the triumphant face of Gorbachev (he is wearing a leather jacket!), and the somewhat conspiratorial mood that lies over the scene. The message couldn’t be much clearer: WE won the Cold War, it is us who are now in control, and we are now building our world communist empire.


Reality upside down: Although the German reunification opened the door for West Germany to become a fully-fledged Communist society, these people “thank God” for it …

Germany Celebrates 20 Years Fall of the Berlin Wall

People put flowers at a remnant of the once Berlin Wall, in an apparent act of commemoration of that grim chapter of German history. Yet, how come they almost uniformly show up with deep red roses? Has their had some old East German propagandist his insidious hand in this, turning it all into a display of pro-communist nostalgia instead?

There took place a number of other high-profile events over the whole day. In the morning, there was held an (of course:) Ecumenical church service at Berlin’s Gethsemane Church, where Archbishop Robert Zollitsch, head of the German Bishops’ Conference, warned of “potential wall-builders” who still existed today, they shouldn’t be in charge, whether in society or in the churches (thus, he argued not only in favour of the post-Conciliar Catholic Church’s general theme of all-embracing inclusion, but also in favour of the essence of overall totalitarian intolerance masked as politically correct tolerance: all have to be one, or else…).


Left to right: Head of the German Conference of Catholic Bishops, Archbishop Robert Zollitsch; with former Chairman of the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany, Bishop Wolfgang Huber; German Chancellor Angela Merkel; and then Federal President of Germany, Horst Köhler, presumably after the service at Gethsemane Church, Berlin.


Shortly after, Gorbachev – who, given the tight schedule of successive events, hardly could have attended that church service – was honoured at the headquarters of the publishing house Axel Springer (once utterly hated by the extreme left). The doyenne of the mighty company, Friede Springer, along with German Foreign Minister of 1989, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, praised Gorbachev and unveiled a newly-made bronze bust of his. (There were no such honours for the late President Ronald Reagan, though!)

Chancellor Merkel then received U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the Kanzleramt: kissy-kissy between a declared American feminist and a childless ‘former’ communist from ‘once-communist’ East-Germany. They afterwards met with German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle (like Berlin’s Mayor, Klaus Wowereit, a confessing homosexual) for a lunch of the dysfunctional, one could say.

In the afternoon, the politicos gathered at the annual Falling Walls Conference (‘International Conference on Future Breakthroughs in Science and Society’), a somewhat socialistic ‘brain-exchange’ platform, where Angela Merkel spoke on ‘Breaking the Walls of the 21st Century’.

In the early evening, finally, German State President of the day, ever politically correct Horst Köhler (who had once been Director of the IMF), received the lot of international state leaders at Bellevue Castle, quite a many of them from the ‘former’ communist satellite states of Eastern Europe (Switzerland, on the other hand, had not been invited to the celebrations, on the formal grounds that it is not a member of the European Union…)


Note the almost abnormal body posture of Russian President Dmitri Medvedev standing left of Silvio Berlusconi at the righthand end of the semicircle! Although they now have a splendidly renovated Kremlin Palace, meanwhile also a brandnew Bolshoi Theatre, beautifully restored churches and monasteries throughout the country, nevertheless they themselves have remained the same old proletarian Bolsheviks and dry, technocratic apparatchiks. The new fassades shine brightly, but the content behind them is still as unpolished as ever (which is the more understandable the more one is aware of their unchanged communist despise for Western “bourgeois” etiquette).

By the time that reception was over, tens of thousands of Berliners and Berlin visitors had either reached already at the Brandenburg Gate or were on their way. The big “Fest der Freiheit” was to begin at 7 p.m.


However, unlike during the day, there wasn’t just moderately wet weather but constant intense rain. Although people didn’t mind the inconvenience, there nevertheless remains an odd symbolism, ‘choreographed’ somewhere, regarding the fact that in reality there was nothing to celebrate AT ALL!!!

As one can see, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton perfectly met the communistic ‘dress code’ of the day!


Concluding the series of solemn New World Order speeches by the state leaders and -representatives present, also the “New Tutankhamun”, via direct video-link from the White House in Washington, spoke to Germany and the world, whatever his wise-as-ever remarks may have been in detail (take note of his light-blue tie, a gesture of reverence towards the United Nations that has become a veritable fashion among politicians in recent years; also mind the frequent emphasis on blue in the light-shows of popular events nowadays, so clearly celebrating the “cold light of the Enlightenment”, or to be more specific: the cold light of Lucifer!).


Following the official part of the celebration, entertainment, though just as political (resp. ideological), had its way. Bon Jovi sang their pathetic “We aren’t born to follow”, which couldn’t have been further from the historical truth of 1989, but revealed another key characteristic of communism: neglect and rebellion, the root of which is nothing else but Satan’s rebellion against God; communism isn’t about politics, or society, or economy, it is about complete destruction of the God-given order. Period! – Then came a soft and cosy tune entitled “We Are One” by East-German DJ Paul van Dyk alias Matthias Paul and sung by Irishman Johnny McDaid. Let’s remember that in that same month of November 2009 the newly designated President of the European Union, Herman van Rompuy, declared the year 2009 as the “first year of global governance.” Following so much “Oneness”, also the German TV-channel ARD added from early 2010 to its usual ARD-logo the maxim “Wir sind eins”, thus: “We are one”. At the exact same time, also the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation, ORF, changed the logo for its first channel from “ORF1” to “ORFeins” (thus: “ORFone” ), without however changing “ORF2” into “ORFtwo”, of course. What a wonderful era of overall merging and coming together we’re living in, aren’t we…

Yet, the final culmination of the evening was yet to come. And it was, again, quite an insidious spectacle indeed. As one can see on the previous photograph, there was prepared, along the line where once the Wall had divided Berlin, a row of one thousand “wall segments” made of polysterene foam, painted on mostly by school children, and patronised over by such larger-than-life “icons” such as Mikhail Gorbachev, Lech Wałesa, or Nelson Mandela (also the latter: a communist!). These elements, however, were set up as dominoes, and the idea was to let them solemnly fall, one after the other, at the end of the celebration. Yet, think about it: why this symbolism using dominoes? There once had been discussed in Western political circles a so-called “domino theory”, the term coined by President Eisenhower in 1954 and mainly referring to the situation at the time in South-East-Asia. What it meant was the imminent danger of a step-by-step expansion of the communist sphere, threatening every new country bordering its sphere of influence to be swallowed by it. The subsequent strategy of the United States and the West, if one can call it that, was a strict policy of containment. That is what American soldiers fought for in Korea, in Vietnam, and in so many other war theatres (unless, as some hold, the whole Cold War was a hoax in itself, being part of a dialectic of an even higher category than that of world communism): they fought and in so many cases gave their lives for keeping the Free World free. Such an idea of having to contain and ward off international communism is gone; thanks to the monstrous deception known as perestroika. The removal of the image of the enemy had won the unchanged communists their success; and now they triumph and laugh at what once was the Western world by performing, in the guise of a fancy play, their very politics of continuous expansion toward complete communist world domination. 

Mind the Leninist smirk of Wałesa and the victory sign: he knows what we know not. Also pay attention to the tricky design of that wall element he was shortly after to kick over and start the chain reaction: Superficially seen, the design tells us: it all started in Poland. But there is this (communist) hammer, with the “Solidarność” logo on it (Solidarność was but a controlled, fake opposition movement, with 30% of all Communist Party members and 20 % even of the Central Committee in 1980 being at the same time members of Solidarność!).

Were the state leaders watching this perfidious scene aware of its duplicity? Disciple of Marxist instructor Saul Alinsky, Hillary Clinton, might have been. Also, left-winger Gordon Brown surely must have enjoyed the act. Even alleged conservative Nicolas Sarkozy may have understood. But what about the public; of Germany; of the world; us? – At least, there was one quite comforting detail in this that wasn’t widely reported: the dominoes did not, as intended, fall all the way round, but stopped for some mysterious reason half way. This is indeed a promising omen. Also, as the first dominoes were kicked over, a cameraman, about to start off along the falling blocks on a mini-scooter of sorts, fell, which resulted in a brief blackout of the live TV-broadcast: you see, there are always unforeseeable events that give us clues: the fall of the Berlin Wall wasn’t a blessing; rather, it cruelly sealed the destiny of the Free World!


The evening was then crowned by magnificent fireworks, but again there appears a fairly disturbing element: The scene shows the Brandenburg Gate from the West, that’s where the celebrations mainly took place. As one contemplates on this firework, one almost inevitably is reminded of missiles, missiles fired from the East towards the West! We do not know whether this was the intention, but if it was it would mean indeed that WW III is just around the corner!


Yet, in the course of the whole evening (which this author watched live on German television) there was a brief moment perhaps more devastating than everything else, and it consisted in simply one word (unfortunately this author couldn’t find a photograph or video-clip on the web showing this moment). Mikhail Gorbachev was being interviewed live by German showmaster Thomas Gottschalk who led as TV-moderator through that night, and after finishing his boastful reminiscences, as always in Russian, Gorbachev all of a sudden grabbed Gottschalk’s hand for a firm handshake, an act completely out of the norm, and uttered a resolute and categorical “Druzhba!” – Ouch! ‘Druzhba!’ means ‘Friendship!’ and is well-known to be the all-socialist/communist greeting around the world, whether in Russian or in any other language. What boldness, what cynicism: On the night when the 75 plus % ignorant Germans naïvely celebrated the supposed fall of communism and the subsequent reunification of Germany, Gorbachev brutally nullified that illusion of ‘collapsible communism’ by that single word, that single communist greeting! The merger of East and West Germany indeed had been, at last, on communist terms, just as the whole world is now in the process of being merged, too, on no one else’s terms but on those of the communists.


Showmaster and moderator, Thomas Gottschalk, well-protected on this evening against the rain by a huge umbrella. Thomas Gottschalk, as the most successful and popular TV-showmaster of Germany, isn’t that easily baffled. But in that moment, when Mikhail Gorbachev forced communist friendship upon him, he visibly was!



Mariss Jansons was born in early 1943 (as of 2020, he has meanwhile died), at the height of WW II, in the Latvian capital Riga, that had been, along with the whole of the Baltics, incorporated by force into the Soviet Union in June 1940 and that was under German occupation, since Germany had opened war against the USSR, from 1941 till 1944. Being the son of a conductor and a singer, Jansons’ career path was set early. He studied piano and conducting at the prestigious Leningrad Conservatory from age 13 and continued his training, age 26, in Vienna and Salzburg. In 1973, Jansons was appointed Associate Conductor of the Leningrad Philharmonic Orchestra. From 1979 he was for two decades music director of the Oslo Philharmonic. He also worked extensively with the London Philharmonic and London Symphony Orchestras, with the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra, the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra, and the Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra.

As the first ever conductor of “former” communist background, Mariss Jansons was invited somewhere in 2004, presumably, by the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra to conduct on New Year’s Day 2006 their internationally known and loved annual New Year’s Concert at the Vienna Musikverein. It was the time when the “New Russia” began showing again its true face of a never-abolished Soviet Union. The “Russian Federation” had adopted natural gas as a political weapon against Western Europe; later that year there were to occur the shocking assassinations of ex-KGB/FSB-officer Alexander Litvinenko and journalist Anna Politkovskaya. More than a year earlier, the world had witnessed the unspeakable school hostage tragedy at Beslan, in which up to a thousand innocent children died (the school was, in fact, bombarded from the air). On the political platform, the whole of Eastern Europe, without for the moment Romania and Bulgaria, had joined the European Union on May 1st, 2004; and Germany had exchanged, after 7 years of Red-Green governmental adventurism, its Chancellor from West German socialist-Marxist Gerd Schröder to “former” East German plain-Marxist, hidden under the cloak of an all-German “Christian Democrat”, Angela Merkel. Things were most wonderfully unfolding for European and world communism.

In the midst of that 2006 New Year’s Concert with music mainly by, as every year, the Strauß dynasty & contemporaries, there were also, as every year, one or two gags thrown in, which the audience ritually awaits to see. However, this time, 2006, as well as with Jansons’ second New Year’s Concert in 2012, things were somewhat different. Almost certainly, Mariss Jansons’ gags weren’t nearly as innocent as most of the concert- and TV-audience might have believed.

As for the concert in 2006, there was first, just before the end of Eduard Strauß’ “Telephon Polka Francaise op. 165”, a ‘surprise call’ on Jansons’ mobile phone! He switched it off, seemingly annoyed, and the orchestra finished the piece with great fanfare. Everybody had a good laugh.

The second “joke” was after playing Johann Strauß the Younger’s “Banditen Galopp op. 378”, when one orchestra musician and Mariss Jansons, both with ancient pistols, were shooting up in the air like crazy guerilleros celebrating their victory. The act was noisy, and smoke rose up to the ceiling.


So apparently harmless, so amusing.

Yet, 6 years later, 2012, Mariss Jansons from brotherly USSR (whose favourite colour seems to be anthracite grey, by the way), in his second New Year’s Concert with the utterly bourgeois Vienna Philharmonic, came up with a set of rather puzzling “jokes” again (weirdly, this year’s flower decoration of the Musikverein’s Golden Hall was solely in white and dark red; officially explained by the national colours of both Austria and, more so, Latvia). – At first, for Joseph Strauß’ Polka Francaise “Feuerfest” (Fireproof!!!) op. 269, Mariss Jansons took it upon himself to contribute the key element of percussion of this piece, which is every now and then two hammers knocking down alternately on two differently tuned anvils. This Polka is otherwise especially lovely because it includes a boys’ choir, here represented by the Wiener Sängerknaben, and spreads an atmosphere of great jollity. Nevertheless, the image remains: two hammers, and their helves even partly red (hammer & sickle certainly would have been too obvious!).


Significantly, it was this photograph showing Jansons with hammers in his hands that the (Red-)Vienna section of the deeply socialist Austrian Broadcasting Corporation ORF chose, beside a second one, for a report on their website. They certainly understood their communist comrade, no doubt!


The second “joke” came towards the end of the concert after finishing Johann Strauß the Younger’s popular Polka schnell, “Tik-Tak” op. 365. A musician passes to the conductor a huge 19th-century-style alarm-clock, with Jansons vigorously pointing to it, and, sure enough, the thing rings loud enough for everybody to hear. But, whom does he try to wake up, and what for?


(By the way, doesn’t it seem to be the case with Jansons, just as with everybody else from the communist East, that they always appear, given their ever-same superior smirk, to know more than we do? Most probably, that is the case!)

As we try to make sense of these quite obvious allusions, going back for a moment to the 2006 concert, we should view those two images of that concert in relation to each other; as, very likely, they are giving us a quite distinct message. The pistols of course stand for war (and mind that this galop is named “Bandits”; the Bolshevists, from the earliest beginnings up to this day are just that: bandits; they know it well, and, in Satanic fashion, are even proud of it). And the ringing telephone stands for dialogue. It was, in the opinion of this author, a warning: Listen to us, talk to us, engage in dialogue and cooperation – OR ELSE. (Essentially the same message like Gorbachev’s recent speech at Munich that stood at the beginning of this presentation). Indeed, in recent years, the West (or what’s left of it) has received many explicit WW-III-threats from a number of Russian generals, mostly related to Bush-43’s missile defence plans in Eastern Europe (although this is merely an excuse for gearing up their pre-WW-III propaganda machine). So, it was basically another way of expressing the pan-communist bloc’s final phase of “cooperation-blackmail”. That was 2006.

This year, 2012, things looked even more ominous. First, we have the red hammers on the anvils (albeit without a sickle) accompanying a Polka entitled indeed “Fireproof”!!! Then we get, at the end of the Tik-Tak Polka (meaning: time is ticking!!!) that wake-up call in the form of the alarm clock! However, now it isn’t a warning anymore, so it seems, but a mere one-sided message: ‘Time’s up! Communism’s coming!’ Not enough with these two “humorous side notes”, also the choice of musical pieces, at closer look, seems to hold some uncomfortable surprises, even more so when one combines them into one larger message  (unless it’s all ungrounded paranoia, but it isn’ t):

• The 2012 New Year’s Concert was actually opened with Johann & Joseph Strauß’ “Vaterländischer Marsch”; i.e. “Patriotic March”!!! The unchanged Soviets unchangedly refer to WW II as their “Great Patriotic War”, in German: Großer Vaterländischer Krieg. Interesting!

• The third piece of the altogether twenty-four was Johann Strauß the Younger’s Polka schnell op. 403, “Entweder – oder!”; i.e. “Either – Or!” Gets a bit frightening by now. This is the message of blackmail.

• The eighth of the lot was Joseph Hellmesberger Junior’s merciless “Danse Diabolique”. No explanation needed for that.

• The twelfth was Danish composer Hans Christian Lumbye’s galop “Steam Railway”. Also very fitting for a future military offensive, apart from the fact that the revolution sees itself as a train on fixed rails!!!

• The thirteenth was, as already mentioned, Joseph Strauß’ Polka Francaise op. 269, “Fireproof”; the one with the hammers (these last two even in direct succession!)

• Then there were two pieces by Tchaikovsky. Jansons isn’t Russian but Latvian; nevertheless he comes from the Russian-dominated musical tradition of the Soviet Union, and therefore Tchaikovsky makes sense (well, he isn’t too far, as a Balt, from the Scandinavian tradition either, at least geographically). But what choice: the “Panorama” and the “Waltz” from Tchaikovsky’s Ballet “The Sleeping Beauty”, that is based on the fairy tale “Dornröschen” (Little Briar Rose) from the fairy tale collection by the German Brothers Grimm, and ultimately on Charles Perrault’s story “La Belle au bois dormant” (i.e. ‘The Beauty in the Sleeping Wood’).

Victor Vasnetsov, The Sleeping Beauty 2

Viktor Mikhaylovich Vasnetsov (1848–1926): “Sleeping Princess” (1900-1926); Princess Aurora’s 100-year sleep since the curse by the wicked fairy Carabosse, mildened by the intercession of the benevolent Lilac Fairy, had hit her at age 16. Yet, along with Aurora, the Lilac Fairy sent the whole country to sleep – until finally a prince will come and kiss the princess back into life …

Do the unchanged Soviet communists equate Europe to the Sleeping Princess and themselves to the prince??? (There’ve been comments by Vladimir Putin towards the U.S. a few years ago, telling them to better keep their fingers off this young woman, Europe; however, this quote seems by now to be impossible to find on the web.) Well-known anyway, they love to liken their revolution to the glorious dawn of a new era. The opposite is true: Wherever communism comes to power, lights go effectively out for a very long time. Thus, one should rather liken communism to the evil witch who would like to kill the princess, with the dull result that the princess and her land enter into a century of deep coma.

• Not enough with all that, was played the Persian March op. 289 by Johann Strauß. – Nota bene, at a time when the full-grown Soviet satellite of Iran could in whatever way be involved in triggering World War III (and they’re now indeed threatening to block the Strait of Hormuz, presumably in coordination with Moscow, which would mean war because 40% of all shipped crude-oil worldwide is coming through that sea passage.)

• Further, there was played the (very elegant and Offenbach-style) Polka schnell op. 324 “Unter Donner und Blitz” (Thunder and Lightning). Rather drastic, given the fact that we live not only in an age of nuclear weapons and thermobaric vacuum bombs but also directed-energy-weapons.

• And, finally, the above-mentioned Tik-Tak Polka with the alarm clock as a brutal reminder!

In case these choices were indeed made by such insidious intention (Mariss Jansons is said to have researched the Strauß oeuvre with unusual meticulousness!), one can, on the other hand, be sure that none of the Vienna Philharmonic would have seen through the scheme. The communists are truly the world champions of deception; whereas, despite all monstrous history already written by communism, the naïve and ever-friendly West has again become unable to comprehend that such concentrated evil as practised resp. envisioned by the communists can indeed exist. The reality is, however: It existed then in 1917, and it hasn’t gone away ever since!

The reader to whom such considerations appear completely foreign or over-the-top may be reminded that tough ideological determination among Soviet-communist artists, including musicians, is anything but new. As another contemporary example, Russian conductor Valeriy Gergiyev (born 1953), who already looks wild and dangerous, holds a function within the German-Russian bilateral forum “Petersburg Dialogue”, that is a political body aimed at furthering the German/West-European convergence with “Russia” (from the fact that the German side is headed by the last Prime Minister of communist East Germany, Lothar de Maizière, one can immediately see on whose ideological terms that convergence will play out). What’s more, in the infamous South-Ossetia War of 2008, Gergiyev conducted the top-ideological piece of Soviet symphonic music, the Leningrad Symphony by Shostakovich, and so, most melodramatically, in the ruins of the South-Ossetian capital Tskhinvali that had now been in fact brought under direct Russian control (although, on the other hand, one should be more than wary of the alleged pro-Western stance of Georgian President Saakashvili as well; “post-Soviet affairs” just remains a hall of mirrors, designed to leave the non-initiated Western observer stunned, disoriented and confused).

The major difference, however, between the present-day generation and earlier Soviet generations is that those of today, even the oldest, were born into the deadly Marxist-Leninist collectivist system and were indoctrinated, formed and trained along the rigorous ideological lines of Marx and Lenin. Without exaggeration one could view them almost as a different species (Romanian pastor Richard Wurmbrand, author of Marx and Satan, characterised communism as “collective demonic possession”). They think, feel, and function differently, even though since the proclamation of “Perestroika” they have put on chique Western clothes and have increasingly “mastered” bourgeois conduct and behaviour, for which inwardly they hold nothing but contempt.

?????????????????????In contrast, the biography of Dmitriy Shostakovich (1906 – 1975) – although he did, for the mere sake of survival, give the system a number of highly ideological works such as “October”, “First of May”, or “Leningrad” – still shows what today has long passed: the permanent struggle within a hostile, oppressive, totalitarian system of someone who still had known, at least as a child, the old order of things. Although Shostakovich arose to the highest summits of Soviet-Russian music and certainly participated, with little zeal though, in the structures of the new proletarian environment, he remained throughout his life a quiet dissident. Many of his works show subtle irony, if not sarcasm, which was about the utmost critique possible even for someone in his position of already international fame, and it can only be guessed how Dmitriy Shostakovich, who was fascinated by the works of Stravinsky and Mahler, might have developed as a composer, had he been given the opportunity to live and breathe and work in a free, sound and God-fearing society. Legend has it that he was living, especially under Stalin, in a constant state of existential fear, with always (imagine!) a suitcase packed just in case he’d be picked up early in the morning and sent to prison, or worse. – Such a generation still aware in their hearts and minds of an era prior to the revolution no more exists. Any element of genuine opposition, genuine “reaction”, genuine restoration, has been over many decades thoroughly rooted out from the USSR’s population: they are now all “genetic” Leninists!

Thus, what’s left is nothing but a civilisatory and, first of all, spiritual DESERT: the perfect precondition for finally building their (whatever short-lived) Satanic kingdom on earth, not only on their territory, but meanwhile easily on a global scale. May God help us in the trials and tribulations that lie ahead of us! Amen.



“The fundamental philosophy of Communism can be answered only by a firm and enlightened belief in God. Nothing will give more strength to the hand-to-hand combat against the conspiracy, made possible by a knowledge of its techniques, than a great Credo from the hearts and minds of the American people. Those who are educated and among whom the ravages of unbelief have particularly paved the way for an acceptance of the doctrines of Red slavery, have a peculiar obligation to assert: ‘I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth.’ That humble expression of faith is the beginning of wisdom in the battle against Communism.” – Louis F. Budenz, former prominent US Communist, in his 1954 book “The Techniques of Communism”

“I would never have imagined the extreme degree to which the West actually desired to blind itself to the world situation, the extreme degree to which the West had already become a world without a will, a world gradually petrifying in the face of the danger confronting it, a world oppressed above all by the need to defend its freedom. There is a German proverb which runs ‘Mut verloren – alles verloren’: When courage is lost, all is lost. There is another, Latin one, according to which loss of reason is the true harbinger of destruction. But what happens to a society in which both these losses – the loss of courage and the loss of reason – intersect?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: “Warning to the West” [5 speeches given originally in 1975/76], Hill and Wang, First Edition 1986



This author has compiled an extensive bibliography on communism. Here it is. 



There is also an elaborate collection of audio & video sources on the topic. Check it out here!



… everybody is urgently recommended to go to the weblog of probably the most knowledgable analyst of communist affairs and communist world revolution alive today, U.S. geopolitical analyst J.R. Nyquist, a writer who watches things from a highly integrated viewpoint that includes military strategy, psychosociology, cultural history and philosophy. His website is (his old site, where one can still find a lot of material, was Mr. Nyquist has been doing this for thirty plus years. His reference work, Origins of the Fourth World War, was published in 1998. He also co-authored a number of books, among them Back From the Dead: The Return of the Evil Empire (2014) and The New Tactics of Global War: Reflections on the Changing Balance of Power in the Final Days of Peace (2015). J.R. Nyquist has written for online publications such as NewsMax, FinancialSense, the Sierra Times, WorldNetDaily and, more recently, the Epoch Times. He has also been a guest on various talk shows over the years. Here is one interview that he gave in mid March 2020, which of course was dealing with the Coronavirus pandemic and its connections to pan-communist strategy. Watch that interview here!





© The Contemplative Observer 2013/2020



“Forward, Comrades! Not Back!” – America and the World on the Brink of Global Communism


CONTENTS: 1. From ‘Hope & Change’ to ‘Forward!’ – 2. ‘Forward!’: A Hardcore Communist Maxim with a Long History – 3. Obama & Friends Seem to Get Ready for a Revolutionary Breakthrough – 4. The Deeper Reality of Communism: Pitch-Black Satanism! – 5. The Dire Warnings from Communist Defectors 30 Years Ago – 6. Mikhail Gorbachev’s Shocking Blackmail Speech of Dec. 10, 2011 – 7. Skip-back to 1987: Gorbachev’s Propaganda Book, ‘Perestroika’, Had It All Revealed Already! – 8. Some Final Thoughts, prior to and after the 2012 US Presidential Election – 9. President John F. Kennedy’s Speech, The President and the Press – Appendix I: Barack Obama: The Soviet Union’s Chosen One: A. Interviews on Jeff Nyquists’s ‘Outside the Box’: Tom Fife: ‘The First Time I Heard of Barack’ (i.e. in 1992); and: Anne Leary: Bill Ayers claims full authorship for Obama’s autobiography, ‘Dreams from My Father’; full audio transcripts by this author; B. Tom Fife Interview by Jeff Rense; full audio transcript by this author – Appendix II: Insightful Quotes by Prominent Proto-Communists  & Communists — Books, Articles, Films 






Still remember Obama’s victory speech four years ago on November 4, 2008 (part 1/2; part 2/2)? Remember when he apodictically stated, “Change has come to America”? It didn’t mean some vague new something, because ‘Change’ has a distinct covert meaning in the socialist/communist vocabulary: For them, change isn’t merely change, but what they actually mean, when they speak of ‘Change’, is: REVOLUTION! Thus, when Barack Obama solemnly proclaimed on that crucial evening, “Change has come to America!”, what he told the American people, without most of them realising, was that REVOLUTION HAD COME TO AMERICA! In other words: The United States already underwent a stealth communist takeover four years ago and has been ever since – think about it! – in a post-revolutionary state of affairs; which is why it is so difficult now for ‘non-progressive’ America to take the country back. Obama gave some very ominous hints in that speech about the truly historic (as well as fatal) decision the American electorate had just made: “The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year, or even in one term, but, America, I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there! I PROMISE YOU: WE, AS A PEOPLE, WILL GET THERE!” Get where? Get to communism! The ‘promise’ in reality was a blood-chilling threat! – But, by his ‘coolness’, disarming smile and sonorous baritone voice – apart from great financing and in general the most powerful PR-operation since the days of Adolf Hitler -, Obama had made America widely forget about his not-so-secret communist agenda and, as a result, marched straight into the White House, unquestioned, unhindered, unopposed. A meticulously thought-out strategy for turning an asleep America into a Soviet ‘Amerika’ had been horrifyingly successful. The nation had been caught completely off-guard.

Four years later, one would think people should have woken up from their lethal pipedream of Hope and Change (and certainly many have); after all, it’s been the most disastrous presidency ever in the history of the United States, and a whole number of researchers have meanwhile successfully dug up biographical bomb-shell after biographical bomb-shell about this mystery man, or, to be more precise: this ultimate communist Troyan Horse. Everybody, one would think, should now be able to realise that the U.S. in 2008 – unwittingly – opened the door for a full-fledged communist takeover. Everybody, one would think, should now have come to his or her senses and see that the country is in utmost peril should it continue on that fatal course toward socialism, and ultimately communism, shouldn’t they?

Well, quite obviously, not so! No alarm from the journalistic profession. No tough talk even from the Republican Party (at least until the ‘game-changer’ television debate of October 3, 2012). The emperor has no clothes (and since October 3rd, for the whole world to see), he is as naked and exposed as one can get; yet the whole media- and political establishment keeps silent! Are they now all communists as well? Or what is it that they are afraid of? Ostracism? Financial loss? Well, if this hard-core Communist, this (possible) Frank Marshall Davis jr., this second-generation Stalinist, gets a second term, they will certainly lose it all anyway – unless, of course, they are willing to stay with him and his revolution all the way to the bitter end, which many of them, we can assume, probably aren’t. So, have Soviet-style political correctness and submissiveness already paralysed all of America’s vital reflexes? Has the country already sold out to the realistic possibility of a Russian-Chinese communist diktat, soon to be coldbloodedly facilitated by Comrade Obama, or Scary Torero, or whatever his real name is?

The puzzling paradox we can now see unfold in front of our eyes is that – because of, so far, lack of substantial opposition – Obama sees not the slightest necessity to back down. On the contrary: he calls everybody even more aggressively to his homosexual-egalitarian-atheist-Marxist-internationalist revolutionary cause. No doubt, the 2012 Democratic Convention was a full-scale Soviet Party Congress rather than a convention of an American political party. It would have fitted perfectly into the Soviet context under, say, Brezhnev. Still no uproar in the mainstream media. And finally the boldest of it all: the campaign slogan “Forward!” What a choice! What a message!



“Forward” is bolder-than-bold communist speak that goes back all the way to the days of Karl Marx.

Marx had named his Paris-based 1844 revolutionary weekly: “Vorwärts”, i.e. “Forward”. The paper, financed by Meyerbeer and being under the main editorial influence of Marx and Ruge, was directed at German emigres in France and the revolutionary underground in Germany. Engels, Bakunin, Heine, among others, took part in it. Due to its radicalism, the publication was closed by the authorities in early 1845, and Marx was expelled from France; he then set himself up in neighbouring Belgium and carried on his revolutionary agitation anyway. Three years later, just in time for the 1848 Revolution, Marx and Engels published, on behalf of the meanwhile established ‘Communist League’, that dreadful document that has ever since plagued the nations of the world: the Communist Manifesto – that officially gave birth to the international communist movement, a movement utterly conspiratorial, deeply sinister, even demonic, and intent and determined to sooner or later fulfil on a global scale Weishaupt’s as well as Babeuf’s chimera of a ‘better and more just society’ without God, in fact: a veritable hell on earth, as the course of history in the meantime has so horrifyingly demonstrated.

“Vorwärts” (i.e. “Forward”) has also been since 1876 the organ of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, prior to 1890 named Socialist Workers’ Party of Germany and then under the leadership of Bebel, Liebknecht, and Lasalle. Engels, Marx’s comrade-in-arms, wrote for the “Vorwärts”; so did Trotzky, beside Lenin the leading figure in the 1917 Bolshevist takeover of Russia, that threw a formerly exquisite and prosperous nation into an abyss of slaughter and tyranny. (As for the German ‘Social Democrats’, their roots are no doubt plain revolutionary Marxist, a fact somewhat denied today, although the Party’s fundamental philosophy has never really changed. Willy Brandt, for instance, SPD chairman from 1964 till 1987 and German Chancellor from 1969 till 1974, is said to have powerfully delivered the Socialist International, during his presidency from 1976 till 1992, to the direct control of Moscow).

Likewise, the second ‘Titan’ on the evil firmament of communism and ‘founding father’ of the (never-abolished) Soviet Union, Lenin, had his 1904/05 propaganda weekly that he published from Geneva, Switzerland, named: “Vpered”, i.e. “Forward”.

When from 1909 till 1912 Bogdanov, Lunacharsky and others headed a separate group within the Bolshevist movement, that group called itself “Vpered”; thus: “Forward”.

The “Forward” slogan has been and still is literally omnipresent in the socialist world: sports clubs, industrial plants, towns and settlements, publications anyway – it’s indeed everywhere! Two more examples taken from the ‘post-Soviet’, ‘new’ Russia, that is nothing but the old Soviet Union in disguise, with its same old goal of communist world domination:

From 2005 till 2011, there existed within the hilarious kaleidoscope of ‘Russian’ fake party pluralism (that is all firmly controlled from behind the scenes by the same old CPSU, that has merely gone underground) a ‘Socialist League’ by name of “Vpered”; again: “Forward”.

Finally, on September 10, 2009, then President of the ‘Russian Federation’, Dmitri Medvedev, issued a kind of state-of-the-nation address to the still-Soviet people on the Kremlin’s website (, in which he theorised, in good old Sovietsky gobbledegook, about accomplished improvements as well as challenges still lying ahead (you see: they’re still on that same old revolutionary march). That presidential article was headed by the imperative, “Rossiya, Vpered!”, i.e. “Russia, Forward!” A thinly veiled call to battle. – And take note of the date: it was the day preceding September 11th. The late political analyst, Christopher Story, who also published in 1995 Anatoliy Golitsyn’s second book, The Perestroika Deception: The World’s Slide Towards the Second October Revolution, frequently pointed out the fact that September 11th is the birthday of the founder of the Cheka, the precursor of all Soviet intelligence and secret police, Felix Dzerzhinsky! In addition, Nikita Khrushchev, under whose watch religious persecution is said to have even exceeded that of the Stalin period, and who commissioned his strategy experts with the formulation of a new, Leninist longrange plan for global communist takeover, died on a September 11th!



The question now arises: Has the Obama campaign chosen this chilling communist maxim by chance? After everything we have learned since 2008 about Obama’s background and motivations, we must say: Hardly! Obama and his clique are communists.

Here are some highly revealing (as well as troubling) passages from Obama’s speech given on May 5th, 2012, one time at Columbus, Ohio, and a few hours later in an identical repeat at Richmond, Virginia, which marked the official launch of his 2012 campaign and, along with it, the public introduction of his new slogan, “Forward”. Wait for this: May 5th is the birthday of none other than KARL MARX (so many strange coincidences here …):

Yes, there were setbacks. Yes, there were disappointments. But we didn’t quit. We don’t quit! Together we’re fighting our way back! […] But we are making progress. And now we face a choice! […] And now, after a long and spirited primary, Republicans in Congress have found a nominee for President who’s promised to rubberstamp this agenda if he gets a chance. Ohio, I tell you what: We cannot give him that chance! Not now! Not with so much at stake! This is not just another election! This is a make-or-break moment for the middle-class, and we’ve been through too much to turn back now! We have come too far to abandon the change we fought for these past few years! We have to move FORWARD to the future we imagined in 2008, where everyone gets a fair shot [sic!], and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules! That’s the choice in this election! And that’s why I’m running for a second term as President of the United States! […] Well, Ohio, I’m here to say: We were there, we remember, and we are not going back! We are moving this country FORWARD! […] Cutting prescription drug costs for seniors: that was the right thing to do! I will not go back to the day when insurance companies had unchecked power to cancel your policy, or deny your coverage, or charge women differently from men. We’re not going back there! We’re moving FORWARD! We don’t need another political fight about ending a woman’s right to choose, or getting rid of Planned Parenthood, or taking away access to affordable birth control! I want women to control their own health choices, just like I want my daughters to have the same opportunity as your sons! We are not turning back the clock! We are moving FORWARD! […] This should be the last election where multi-million dollar donations speak louder than the voices of ordinary citizens! […] That’s what we’re fighting for, Ohio: a bold America; a competitive America; a generous America; a FORWARD-looking America. […] When we look back four years from now, or ten years from now, or twenty years from now, won’t we be better off if we have the courage to keep moving FORWARD? That’s the question in this election! […] But if there’s one thing that we learned in 2008, it’s that nothing is more powerful than millions of voices calling for change. When enough of you knock on doors [sic!], when you pick up phones, when you talk to your friends, when you decide that it’s time for change to happen, guess what: change happens! Change comes to America! [meaning: ‘REVOLUTION comes to America’!!!]  And that’s the spirit we need again! […] I still believe in you, and I’m asking you to keep believing in me! [A phrase reminiscent of Hitler’s frequent appeals to the people of Germany not to let him down and to still believe in him.]   

For those who don’t realise: ideologically, “socialism” and “communism” are one and the same! They simply represent, according to Marxist theory, two consecutive stages in the revolutionary process! Other than that, the communist movement has always used the terms “socialist” and “communist” as synonyms. The most obvious example: The Communist Party of the Soviet Union was presiding (and still presides covertly today) over the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (relabelled in December 1991 into  Commonwealth of Independent States).

Maybe the time has come to finally wake up to the reality that liberals are progressives are leftists are socialists are communists, no way around it; and no longer to allow them to deceive us about their “common” – that is to say: communist – agenda!



So, clearly, “Forward” is taken right from the bloodstream of communist revolutionary thinking. It symbolises the movement ever ahead also known as “Progress” (another communist catch-phrase). Movement ahead, however, means at the same time departure from and break with the past; which is what revolution is all about: Destruction of the old and marching into new, unknown territory and a trivial Utopia that, naturally, never comes to pass (except for the future nomenklaturists who end up ‘slightly more equal’ than the other ‘equals’ …). The sobering outcome, instead, was, is, and will ever be: Utmost material and, worse: spiritual, deprivation; a big, horrible nothingness, in which everything precious and noble, everything sacred and sublime, is gone.

It’s Satanic! It’s the ‘Old Bastard’s’ age-old programme for destruction that derives from his insatiable envy and jealousy and his thrive for final revenge. Consequently, it is safe to say that essentially, even if unknowingly, every Marxist – he may call himself communist, or socialist, or green – is a Satanist. That’s how serious it is.

The following quotations should remove any remaining doubt as to whether communism is in reality Satanism. It is!

François Noël Babeuf, with his ‘Society of Equals’ a direct forerunner of communism (he was arrested and executed, though, after it was detected he had secretly arranged for a coup against the Directory government to be pulled off on May 11, 1796, known as the Babeuvian Conspiracy resp. the Conspiracy of Equals): “The love of revolution has killed within me all other love and has made me as cruel as the devil.”

Bruno Bauer, beside Ludwig Feuerbach the fallen theologian in the Germany of the 1840s, and teacher i.a. of Karl Marx: “I deliver lectures here at the university before a large audience. I don’t recognise myself when I pronounce my blasphemies from the pulpit. They are so great that these children, whom nobody should offend, have their hair standing on end. While delivering the blasphemies, I remember how I work piously at home writing an apology of the Holy Scritpures and of the Revelation. In any case, it is a very bad demon that possesses me as often as I ascend the pulpit, and I am so weak that I am compelled to yield to him… My spirit of blasphemy will be satisfied only if I am authorized to preach openly as professor of the atheistic system.” 

Karl Marx, as a 19-year-old university student, wrote the following plain Satanic poetry (from Marx and Satan by Richard Wurmbrand; see also Marx’s Collected Works): “I shall build my throne high overhead / Cold, tremendous shall its summit be / For its bulwark – superstitious dread / For its marshal – blackest agony. / Who looks on it with a healthy eye / Shall turn back, deathly pale and dumb / Clutched by blind and chill mortality / May his happniness prepare its tomb.” (‘Invocation of One in Despair’) – “Look now, my blood-dark sword shall stab / Unerringly within thy soul / God neither knows nor honours [the] art. / The hellish vapors rise and fill the brain. / Till I go mad and my heart is utterly changed. / See this sword – the Prince of Darkness sold it to me. / For me he beats the time and gives the signs. / Ever more boldly I play the dance of death.” (From ‘The Player’) – “To clench and crush you, personified humanity / With tempestuous force / While for us both the abyss yawns in darkness / You will sink down and I shall follow laughing / Whispering in your ears, ‘Descend, come with me, friend!'” (From Marx’s unfinished drama, ‘Oulanem’) – “With disdain I will throw my gauntlet / Full in the face of the world / And see the collapse of this pygmy giant / Whose fall will not stifle my ardour. / Then will I wander godlike and victorious / Through the ruins of the world / And, giving my words an active force / I will feel equal to the Creator.” (‘Human Pride’)

Georg Jung, a friend of Karl Marx, in a letter to Arnold Ruge of October 18, 1841 (Marx is at the time 23 years old): “Dr. Marx, Dr. Bauer, and L. Feuerbach are associating for a theological-philosophical journal. May then all angels gather around the old Lord and may he have mercy with himself, for these three certainly will throw him out of his heaven and sue him on top of it.”

Mikhail Bakunin, the infamous Russian anarchist and for a while co-warrior of Marx: “The Evil One is the satanic revolt against divine authority, revolt in which we see the fecund germ of all human emancipations, the revolution. Socialists recognise each other by the words, ‘In the name of the one to whom a great wrong has been done.'” (He is speaking of Satan!)

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, French anarcho-socialist (‘Property is Theft’): “We reach knowledge in spite of him, we reach society in spite of him. Every step FORWARD is a victory in which we have overcome the Divine.”

All these quotes, too, are taken from Richard Wurmbrand’s thorough study Marx and Satan – Was Karl Marx a Satanist? Richard Wurmbrand (1909-2001) was a Romanian Lutheran Pastor (as a youth, still a determined communist himself), who suffered tremendously from 1948 till 1956 and again from 1959 in the torture chambers of communist Romania until he was ‘bailed out’ in 1964 by a Norwegian Christian community for the extraordinary sum of $ 10,000. Beside building a rescue & support organisation for persecuted Christians behind the Iron Curtain, he did some comprehensive research about the roots of communism: what he found was the Satanic!

One last quote by Bolshevist devil, Anatoli Lunacharsky, Soviet Commissar for Enlightenment, responsible for culture and education. In an address to the Congress of Primary School Teachers in 1925, Lunacharsky proclaimed: “Down with Christian charity and love of thy neighbor; what we need is hatred. We must understand how to hate; by that only can we hope to conquer the world. Religion and communism are incompatible in theory as well as in practice. We hate Christianity and Christians; even the best among them must be taken as our worst enemies; they preach Christian charity, love of your neighbors and compassion, all of which are contrary to our fundamental principles. Christian charity is an impediment to development of the revolution. We have done with the kings of the earth; let us not concern ourselves with the kings of heaven.” (Source: The Coast Artillery Journal, Vol. 66; February, 1927; article: ‘The Red Army: Condensed translation from the Journal Militaire Suisse (issue October 15, 1926) by Colonel George Ruhlen, U.S.A., Ret.; page 127’)

This, dear reader, is the driving force behind communism – and thus, “make no mistake”, the driving force behind Obama. His and his aides’ goal is indeed the complete economic, socio-cultural, moral, and spiritual destruction of the United States. – Until recently, the U.S. has been the major stumbling-block for the communists on their march towards an all-unified communist world federation. Once the U.S. is gone, they will have their way, everywhere in the world!

One can only wonder whether Mitt Romney and his Republicans are aware, given their (prior to October 3, 2012) weak, defensive, even spineless instead of brave and offensive election campaign, what responsibility – for the United States and the whole world – rests on their shoulders: For, if this Kremlin-obedient Obama Politbureau stays in power, it will complete its work of destruction and deliver the U.S. (as well as the remaining free world) to Soviet/Red-Chinese occupation, red terror, and slaying in the tens and hundreds of millions!

For those who wish to meditate for a moment on the demonic evil of communism: Cover Lenin’s right facial half, and look, if you dare, at his left facial half only, which is the right half on the picture, that is in the shade! – Communism isn’t a political phenomenon, but a spiritual one: it comes right out of hell!


Yossif Stalin, as a mass murderer only second to Chinese butcher Mao Zedong,  used to say, “One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic.” (And we’re talking meanwhile of well over 200 million deaths under communism.) So, let’s bring things back from abstract statistics to what actually was being done by all communistic revolutionaries since the French Revolution to the ‘old classes’, i.e. the aristocracy, the bourgeoisie, the clergy, the intellectuals, the entrepreneurs, the peasants, government-, military- and police personnel loyal to the old order, and in general everybody who held traditional views, believed in God, resp. had a clean and beautiful face. The demon of communism hates them all, and does away with them all. There came out several books in the 1920s with heartbreaking eyewitness reports of what was going on in Soviet Russia at the time. One such book, originally published in 1924 and re-published in 2008 by Edward Harle Ltd., is The Red Terror in Russia by Sergey Petrovich Melgounov. Read, if you can take it, the following excerpts that are overwhelming proof that the horrors of the Bolshevist Revolution, just as of any other communist revolution, were purely Satanic in nature. The objective is, again and again, to terrorise, intimidate, humiliate, crush, and destroy. For what ends? So in order to triumph! Triumph over God the Lord and over the beauty and dignity He endowed onto the summit of His Creation that is man. Communism isn’t a ‘failure’ when it brings about destruction. Destruction is its sole purpose!!!

A local eye witness report from the Kuban region said, “We were led forth from the cells in batches of ten, but were quite calm, for, on the first batch being removed elsewhere, we were told that the reason for their removal was that they might be questioned only. But when the second batch was removed we realised that the purpose of the removal was execution, and sure enough, those who were taken away were butchered like cattle.” (page 39)

A correspondent of the Crimea newspaper Dielo wrote on the purges in Sebastopol, “The city is like a city of the dead, with the population lying in cellars and lofts, and every fence and wall and telegraph post and telephone standard and shop front and signboard plastered over with posters saying ‘Death to the Traitors’.” (page 43)

A refugee from Tiflis reported, “The town was wholly given up to pillage and rapine… One night a friend of mine saw a huge pile of corpses – 300 or so of them – lying in the Cathedral Square. All the house walls around them were bespattered with blood, and evidently a very large number of executions had taken place. In the pile were men and women, were old and young, were military and civilian, were Georgian and Russian, were rich and poor.” (page 48)

And another description of the Bolshevist takeover of the Crimea: “When usurped Bolshevist rule was established in the Crimea, it was established in the most bloodthirsty, cruel, and ruffianly forms possible, as a rule based solely upon crude, tyrannical authority. And whole rivers of blood began to flow in the towns, and Bolshevist sailors to rage everywhere, and robberies to occur, until there had become formed a general, permanent atmosphere of plunder and pillage of the citizens.” (page 64)

Melgounov gives a quote from another book published in 1918, ‘Seventy-four Days of Bolshevist Rule’ by A. Lokerman, dealing with the massacres at Rostov: “After being divested of their clothing at Sivers’ headquarters (save that a few were allowed to retain their trousers and boots, and a few even their shirts as well, since those garments could, of course, be removed after execution), the prisoners, men naked and barefooted, were, in this twentieth century, marched along a snow-covered street to the churchyard, and shot. And though most of them died praying and crossing themselves, it need hardly be said that such concessions to ‘bourgeois prejudice’ as a blind-folding of the prisoners, or a permitting of a priest to be present, were ignored.” (page 65)

From Voronezh Province became known the following: “In Kerensk victims usually were tortured with subjection to sudden changes of temperature. First they were put into a steaming bathhouse, and then led forth, naked, into the snow. And at Alexievskoe and other villages in Voronezh Province the victims would similarly be taken naked into the winter-bound street, and soused with cold water until they became living statues of ice. And at Armavir the ‘death wreath’ was the implement most used. That is to say, the victim would have his head encircled with a leather strap fitted at the ends with an iron nut and a screw, and the nut and the screw be joined together, and the head increasingly compressed. Lastly, the Che-Ka of a Caucasian stanitya used an iron-studded ‘glove’ that was made to be worn on the executioner’s hand.” (page 96)

Quoting from a scene of Steinberg’s ‘The Moral Aspect of Revolution’ depicting events in Tambov Province: “In this district the peasants had a particular veneration for an ikon of the Vishinskaya Madonna; and when influenza broke out in the district, a solemn procession was held in the ikon’s honour, and a celebrating of Mass. And, on the Bolshevists seizing both ikon and clergy, and the peasants learning later that the Che-Ka had insulted the ikon, and ‘dragged it about the floor’, they set forth to ‘rescue Our Lady’, with women and children and the aged and everyone else joining the throng. And then the Che-Ka turned machine-guns upon them, and mowed them down in rows as, ‘with terrible eyes which saw nothing’, they moved forward over the bodies of dying and dead, and mothers, flinging themselves before their children, cried: ‘O Holy Virgin and Defender, bless us gladly we lay down our lives for thee!'” (page 74)

Melgounov explains: “In fact, each Che-Ka seems to have had its speciality in torture. Kharkov, for instance, under Saenko, went in primarily for scalpings and hand flayings; and in Voronezh the person to be tortured was first stripped naked, and then thrust into a nail-studded barrel, and rolled about in it, or else branded on the forehead with a five-pointed star, or, if a member of the clergy, ‘crowned’ with barbed wire. As for the Che-Kas of Tasritisin and Kamishin, it was their custom to saw their victims’ bones apart, whilst Poltava and Kremenchoug made it their special rule to impale clergy (once, in the latter place, where a ruffian named Grishka was in command, eighteen monks were transfixed in a single day). Also, inhabitants have testified that Grishka would burn at the stake any peasant who had been prominent in a rebellion, and sit on a chair to enjoy the spectacle. The Che-Ka of Ekaterinoslav, again, went in for crucifixion and death by stoning, and the Che-Ka of Odessa for putting officers to death by chaining them to planks, and slowly, very slowly, pushing them into furnaces, or else tearing their bodies on a capstan wheel, or else immersing them in a boiler of water heated to simmering point, and then flinging them into the sea, before finally consigning them to the flames again.” (page 95)

Finally, a brutal note of April 1919 published by the Izvestia of Odessa and revealing the calculated evil behind the nightmare: “The carp enjoys being seethed in cream, and the bourgeois being slain by a Power which is stern, and ready to kill him… Even though our souls may revolt from the task, let us use strong measures, and bring the bourgeoisie to their senses, seeing that we need but shoot a few dozen of the fools, of the wastrels, and make the rest clean the streets, and set their womenfolk to scour out Red Guard barracks (though even this is too great an honour for them!), for the bourgeoisie to realise that our Government is a Government come to stay, and that it is useless to look for help from Englishmen or Hottentots.” (page 27)



As Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov explained and warned in a 1984 interview,

[…] Ideological subversion is the process which is legitimate, overt, and open; you can see it with your own eyes. All you have to do, all American mass-media has to do is to unplug their bananas from their ears, open their eyes, and they can see it! There’s no mystery, there is nothing to do with espionage. I know that espionage-intelligence-gathering looks more romantic, it sells more deodorants through the advertising, probably; that’s why Hollywood producers are so crazy about James-Bond-type of thrillers, but in reality the main emphasis of the KGB is not the area of its intelligence at all! According to my opinion, and opinion of many defectors of my calibre, only about 15% of time, money, and man-power is spent on espionage as such. The other 85% is a slow process which we call either ‘ideological subversion’, or ‘active measures’ (aktivniye meropriyatiya, in the language of the KGB), or ‘psychological warfare’. What it basically means is to change the perception of reality, of every American, to such an extent that, despite their abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interests of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country. It’s a great brainwashing process which goes very slow, and it’s divided in four basic stages. The first one being: demoralisation. It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralise a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years which requires to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy, exposed to the ideology of the enemy; in other words: Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the softheads of at least three generations of American students, without being challenged or counter-balanced by the basic values of Americanism, American patriotism. The result? The result you can see: Most of the people who graduated in the sixties, drop-outs or half-baked intellectuals, are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass-media, educational system. You are stuck with them. You cannot get rid of them. They are contaminated, they are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind, even if you expose them to authentic information, even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still cannot change the basic perception and the logical behaviour. In other words, these people – the process of demoralisation is complete and irreversible. To get rid society of these people, you have, you need another 20 or 15 years to educate a new generation of patriotically-minded and common-sense people who would be acting in favour and in the interests of the United States society.

Interview host, G. Edward Griffin: And yet, these people who have been programmed and, as you say, in place and who are favourable to an opening with the Soviet concept: these are the very people who would be marked for extermination in this country?

Yuri Bezmenov: Most of them, yes. Simply because the psychological shock when they will see in future what the ‘beautiful society of equality and social justice’ means in practice, obviously they will revolt. They will be very unhappy, frustrated people. And the Marxist-Leninist regime does not tolerate these people. Obviously, they will join the links of dissenters, dissidents. 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 completed 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 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. So, America is stuck with demoralisation, and unless – even if you start right now, here, this minute you start educating a new generation of Americans: it will still take you 15 to 20 years to turn the tide of ideological perception of reality back to normalcy and patriotism. – The next stage is destabilisation. This time, subverter does not care about your ideas and the patterns of your consumption, whether you eat junk-food and get fat and flabby, doesn’t matter any more. This time, and it takes only from 2 to 5 years to destabilise a nation, what matters is essentials: economy, foreign relations, defence systems. And you can see it quite clearly in some areas, in such sensitive areas as defence and economy, the influence of Marxist-Leninist ideas in the United States is absolutely fantastic. I could never believe it 14 years ago when I landed in this part of the world that the process will go that fast. The next stage, of course, is crisis. It may take only up to six weeks to bring a country to the verge of crisis, you can see it in Central America now. – And after crisis, with a violent change of power structure and economy, you have, so-called, the period of ‘normalisation’; it may last indefinitely. ‘Normalisation’ is a cynical expression borrowed from Soviet propaganda: when the Soviet tanks moved into Czechoslovakia in ’68, Comrade Brezhnev said, ‘Now the situation in brotherly Czechoslovakia is normalised.’ This is what will happen in the United States if you allow all these schmucks to bring the country to crisis, to promise people all kind of goodies and the paradise on earth, to destabilise your economy, to eliminate the priniciple of free market competition, and to put a big-brother government in Washington, DC,  with benevolent dictators like Walter Mondale who will promise looots of things, never mind whether the promises are fulfilled or not; he will go to Moscow to kiss the bottoms of new generation of Soviet assassins, never mind, he will create false illusions that the situation is under control. Situation is not under control. Situation is disgustingly out of control! Most of the American politicians, media, and educational system trains another generation of people who think they are living at a peace time. False! United States is in a state of war; undeclared, total war against the basic principles and the foundations of this system! And the initiator of this war is not Comrade Andoropov, of course. It’s the system; however ridiculous it may sound: the World Communist System, or the World Communist Conspiracy! Whether I scare some people or not, I don’t give a hoot; if you are not scared by now, nothing can scare you! – But, you don’t have to be paranoid about it. – What actually happens now that, unlike myself, you have literally several years to live on, unless the United States wake up. The time bomb is ticking. With every second – tick, tick – the disaster is coming closer and closer. Unlike myself, you will have nowhere to defect to – unless you want to live in Antarctica with penguins. This is it; this is the last country of freedom and possibility.

G. Edward Griffin, visibly at unease: Okay. So, what do we do? What is your recommendation to the American people?

Yuri Bezmenov: Well, the immediate thing that comes to my mind, is of course: There must be a very strong national effort to educate people in the spirit of real patriotism, number one. Number two, to explain them the real danger of socialist-communist-whatever welfare state, big-brother government. If people will fail to grasp the impending danger of that development, nothing ever can help United States. You may kiss good-bye to your freedom, including freedoms to homosexuals, to prison-inmates, all these freedoms will vanish, will evaporate in 5 seconds, including your precious lives. – The second thing: at the moment [i.e. in 1984] at least part of the United States population is convinced that the danger is real, they have to force their government – and I’m not talking about sending letters, signing petitions and all these beautiful, noble activities -, I’m talking about forcing United States government to stop aiding communism; because there is no other problem more burning and urgent than to stop the Soviet military-industrial complex from destroying whatever is left of the free world. And this is very easy to do: NO credits; NO technology; NO money; NO political or diplomatic recognition; and of course NO such idiocies as grain deals to USSR. The Soviet people, 270 millions of Soviets, will be eternally thankful to you if you stop aiding a bunch of murderers who sit now in Kremlin and whom President Reagan respectfully calls ‘government’. They do not ‘govern’ anything, least of all such complexity as the Soviet economy. So, basically, two very simple, maybe too simplistic answers or solutions. Nevertheless, they are the only solutions! Educate yourself! Understand what’s going on around you! You are NOT living at a time of peace; you are in the state of war! And you have precious little time to save yourselves. You don’t have much time, especially if we are talking about young generation, there’s not much time left for convulsions and sexual masturbations to the beautiful disco-music. Very soon it will go [snapping] just, just overnight. If we are talking about capitalists, or wealthy businessmen, they, I think, they are selling the rope on which they will hang very soon. If they don’t stop, if they cannot curb their insatiable desire for profit and they will keep on trading with the monster of Soviet Communism, they are going to hang, very soon! And they will pray to be killed, but unfortunately they will be sent to Alaska, probably, to manage industry of slaves. It’s simplistic; I know it sounds unpleasant; I know Americans don’t like to listen to things which are unpleasant, but I have defected not to tell you the stories about such idiocies as microfilm-James-Bond-type espionage, this is garbage, you don’t need any espionage any more. I have come to talk about: SURVIVAL! It’s a question of survival of this system. You may ask me what is it then for me: survival, obviously, because, unlike – as I said: I am now in your boat! If we sink together, we will sink beautifully – together. THERE IS NO OTHER PLACE ON THIS PLANET TO DEFECT TO!

Now, 25 years after the introduction of deceptive Perestroika and the subsequent deceptive ‘taking down’ of communism in Eastern Europe and the USSR, the unchanged communists are jubilant! Their ridicule of America and the West has indeed reached a new quality of ‘openness’ recently. Still, America and the West, which completely fell for the communist lies of ‘reform’, ‘democratisation’ and ‘ending the Cold War’, refuse to wake up. And better, maybe, they remain asleep now because time has run out anyway! The most thrilling example of such an in-your-face humiliation took place on December 10, 2011 in Munich, Germany. Mikhail Gorbachev payed a visit to Bavaria’s capital as he was awarded by the conservative Hanns Seidel Foundation their Franz-Josef-Strauß Award. He used the opportunity and turned an acceptance speech (that he gave freely, without a manuscript) into a wild Marxist-Leninist furioso (the complete speech is given further below in this article). In that speech, he brutally threatened, “It’s definitely wrong to believe one could hide away, one could sit out anything. No one can hide any more or sit anything out!”  – In other words: We’ve got you. All of you! And there’ll be no escape for anyone.   

So, see to it, Americans, that you free yourselves from this communist junta and return to being “the home of the brave and the land of the free”! The alternative would be, for America and the world: misery, enslavement, and death. Or, as unmatched Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn foresaw in his literally prophetic 1984 reference work on communist longrange strategy, New Lies for Old: The Communist Strategy of Deception and Disinformation (he foresaw this for the case that the West would fail to open its eyes and change course in time, which, as we now know, hasn’t happened; pp. 345-47, bold emphasis and underlining 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.

THE WORLDWIDE COMMUNIST FEDERATION: Integration of the communist bloc would follow the lines envisaged by Lenin when the Third Communist International was founded. That is to say, the Soviet Union and China would not absorb one another or other communist states. All the countries of the European and Asiatic communist zones, together with new communist states in Europe and the Third World, would join a supranational economic and political communist federation. Soviet-Albanian, Soviet-Yugoslav, and Soviet-Romanian disputes and differences would be resolved in the wake, or possibly in advance of, Sino-Soviet reconciliation. The political, economic, military, diplomatic, and ideological cooperation between all the communist states, at present partially concealed, would become clearly visible. 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.

A decade later, Anatoliy Golitsyn was still sending memorandum after memorandum to the CIA, desperately trying to explain the deceptiveness of the ‘changes’ in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, that he had already predicted during the Brezhnev years when nobody expected a ‘collapse’ of communism at all. On April 30, 1993, more than a year into the alleged ‘post-Soviet’ era meanwhile under instant-democrat Boris Yeltsin, Golitsyn gave in yet another memorandum the following analysis and terrifying forecast (see Golitysn’s second book, The Perestroika Deception: The World’s Slide Towards the Second October Revolution, published in 1995, pp. 165-66):

[…] 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; Ed. of NLfO] 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 [of 1993], 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 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 [seen from 1993]. 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 Russians 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.

What follows is, finally, a crystal-clear assessment of the true objective of the EU’s eastward expansion deep into the ‘formerly’ Communist sphere by the late British political analyst and publisher of Anatoliy Golitsyn’s second book, The Perestroika Deception, Christopher Story (1938-2010), given on page 92 of his 2002 reference work, The European Union Collective: Enemy of its Member States: A Study in Russian and German Strategy to Complete Lenin’s World Revolution:

The European Union’s member governments and the political collective’s structures have failed to detect, or else have chosen to ignore, one fundamentally unfriendly hidden strategic purpose of the ‘liberation’ of Central and Eastern Europe, and of the ‘former’ Soviet Union’s apparent fragmentation – which was to create the conditions for the intended adherence, in due course, of the ‘former’ East European satellites and of the ‘former’ Soviet Republics, to the eastwards-expanding European Union collective. By this means, the unified (Communist) political space ‘from the Atlantic to Vladivostok’ will gradually be established. – By encouraging the illusion that the European Union has an ‘historic opportunity’ and a moral duty to entice and welcome all the East European countries and then the Republics and Russia itself into the orbit of the West, the strategists have bamboozled the socialist European Union Collective into active cooperation with them in furthering the creative implementation of the Leninist strategy to establish a single (eventually Communist) European space in accordance with the unchanging objective enunciated by Gorbachev, Shevardnadze and their successors. The trick has been to encourage the Europeans at national and collective levels in the mistaken view that the way to deal with Russia is ‘not to isloate it’, but rather to ‘draw’ it into the West’s structures so that Moscow is not ‘left out in the cold’. This is comparable to the psychological pressure routinely used on the reluctant British, to persuade them to abandon the pound sterling and their residual sovereignty. In reality, it is not the West which is enticing the East into its orbit, but the East which is covertly enticing the West into its enlarging sphere of control through ‘convergence’ on its own terms.

In the same book, on page 52, Christopher Story reports of a truly mind-boggling discovery he made, that illustrates how completely and unreservedly the West had indeed accepted the false changes in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union at face value – very much as Anatoliy Golitsyn had criticised:

[…] Given this tradition [of communist lies and deception], the blindness of Western defence and foreign policy establishments is breathtaking. This author’s three-volume copy of the Oxford University Press edition of the documents of the Communist International, 1919-1943, selected and edited by Jane Degras (1956), contains, inside each cover, a stamp which reads: ‘MINISTRY OF DEFENCE LIBRARY: WITHDRAWN’. To establish definitely whether the British Ministry of Defence owns a set of these indispensable volumes, the Author telephoned the MOD Library, posing as an army officer, and enquired whether the Library possessed a set of these books; the answer was in the negative. Likewise, Mrs Christine Stone, the wife of Professor Norman Stone, has confirmed to the author that her husband bought a number of books on Communism which had been discarded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The message is that these key British Departments of State have shredded their institutional memories and have unreservedly accepted the false Leninist ‘Break with the Past’ as genuine – a reckless abrogation of responsibility which could have been avoided by maintaining at least a skeleton analytical staff devoted to interpreting events in terms of Leninist deception theory (which those departments do not understand: as a consequence, British foreign policy has remained rudderless and confused). 

Sure enough, on October 10, 2012, 10 years after The European Union Collective came out, present British Prime Minister David Cameron said in a fairly dramatic speech at the Conservative Party Conference,

Unless we act, unless we take difficult, painful decisions, unless we show determination and imagination, Britain may not be in the future what it has been in the past. The truth is this, we are in a global race today and that means an hour of reckoning for countries like ours. Sink or swim, do or decline.

It seems the remaining ‘non-progressive’ political leaders in the West have realised at last. It’s now official: Face the challenge, take up the fight, much too late, at the eleventh hour – or perish!

Sadly, even political journalists and book authors such as Herb Romerstein, Jerome Corsi, Paul Kengor, Cliff Kincaid, Aaron Klein, Stanley Kurtz, the whole crowd writing on or, or the regular ‘Sovietologist’ for the traditional-Catholic website by name of Toby Westerman, cannot see through this giant hoax of ‘collapsible communism’. They seriously believe – still! – in the fairytale of Soviet communism having 20 plus years ago just overnight dissolved into thin air and of the United States having thus won the Cold War, despite all overwhelming evidence to the contrary! There were no ‘Nuremberg Trials’ in the Soviet Union resp. in ‘post-Soviet Russia’ that in such case would have dealt with every aspect of Soviet communism and would have arrested for ever, if not executed, every communist starting from the very top down to the district- and local level. All the communists of Eastern Europe and the USSR did was enact a few theatrical spectacles and put on a ‘democratic’ mask. And the West, all too ready to fall victim to its own wishful thinking, hailed the ‘post-Soviet’ instant-democrats as the harbingers of a new era of democracy, freedom, and guaranteed free enterprise – and laid down its guard, as the enemy had allegedly disappeared! If only Western politicians, entrepreneurs, intellectuals, and journalists had studied – i.e. really studied! – Anatoliy Golitsyn’s and Christopher Story’s methodology for properly comprehending Soviet and pan-communist longrange strategy and for adequately analysing and interpreting Soviet and all-communist moves and day-to-day policy!!! Even now as the United States is being actually sovietised by the minute, American conservatives show no signs of waking up to the monstrous reality that the ‘Obama Nation’ isn’t just a home-made American phenomenon but Moscow’s greatest coup ever: Obama, beyond doubt, is their man and was already in his twenties chosen as a future communist Troyan horse in the White House, as computer expert Tom Fife very credibly reported of a Moscow dinner party in February 1992 (when Obama was 30 and still unknown), where he was engaged in a business joint venture in newly ‘democratic Russia’. During that dinner that took place in the private apartment of the leading man of the Russian part of that joint venture, that physicist’s wife, who acted like a high-level Party apparatchika (despite the CPSU having been allegedly dissolved half a year earlier), felt offended by one American’s comparison of Russian facial features with those of the Mongols! In her cold anger, she started attacking, in unchanged Soviet Anti-Americanism, the American way of dealing with their own ‘race problems’ and went on saying that, “by the way”, the United States would soon have a black President, and he would be a communist, a Soviet! She went on giving all the basic data about America’s current ‘President’ including, unbelievable as it may sound, his first name ‘Barack’, underlining he’d indeed be a ‘blessing’ for world communism. (Do listen to certainly the best interview that Tom Fife gave on a talk-radio show, i.e. the one with political analyst Jeff Nyquist, here, and read, if you like, a full transcript thereof on pages 242-256 of the huge ‘Word’-compilation by this author entitled “Red Surprise: Russian-Chinese Military Blackmail: ‘Accept Communism or Face World War III'” and presented also on this blog).

The inevitable (but painful) conclusion from the fact that the Soviet Union was never abolished and the U.S. has now been and continues to be ‘governed’ by a literal Soviet plant couldn’t be more devastating: it would mean having to realise that things are much, much worse still than anybody is willing to see: the United States have already been in a post-revolutionary state of affairs ever since Barack Obama was first inaugurated into office in January 2009! That was already the sea change, albeit widely unnoticed, and now Americans can’t get out of this free fall into full-blown communism, as the fatal outcome of the 2012 elections so mercilessly illustrates. It’s unfortunate, it’s tragic, but that’s where we are: the communists have won and will shortly unleash – this time, in every corner of the world – a hell on earth very much like during their Bolshevist takeover of Russia starting in 1917.             



What follows is that shocking speech that Mikhail Gorbachev gave on December 10, 2011 at Munich, Germany, where he had been awarded by the conservative Hanns Seidel Foundation the prestigious Franz Josef Strauß Award (first awarded in 1996; Henry Kissinger was given it too at some point). It wasn’t a ceremonial acceptance speech, though, but a thuggish, in-your-face demonstration of unchanged Leninist determination, worse: of most diabolical Leninist triumph and deadly communist “cooperation-blackmail”, perfectly confirming even the worst predictions by Anatoliy Golitsyn, as just given above. The grand Perestroika deception, planned under Khrushchev and implemented by Gorbachev, has not been understood  by the West, even to this day, as what it was: the hoax of the millennium. The Warsaw Pact and COMECON were dissolved not factually, but only formally. Also the Soviet Union, along with its Communist Party, was not ‘dismantled’ and truly buried, but simply relabelled itself and put on a democratic and free-market-economic mask so to lull the West into suicidal cooperation and, ultimately, convergence, all on the erroneous pretext that ‘the West had won the Cold War’ and ‘Communism was dead’. However, there was no collapse of communism; not in Eastern Europe, not in the Soviet Union. It was all theatrical ‘political changes’ for display only! Which is why all the talk about a re-Sovietisation of ‘Russia’ under Putin is pure nonsense, because also during the ‘wild Yeltsin years’ the Soviet Union was just as intact as it had been prior to 1991/92 and as it is now! So, the trick worked wonderfully, and as a consequence the West today is indeed caught in exactly that dilemma that Golitsyn had been so tirelessly warning of for years and decades: namely that of being forced to give in to the military and economic blackmail of an overwhelmingly strengthened communist bloc and having to accept – nolens, volens – communist tyranny. This is where we stand right now: on the very edge of a very bloody communist takeover, both in America and in the remaining free world. And it seems almost as if there is little or nothing left, as societies, that we can still do about it. What we certainly can do, as individuals, is pray and, selfish as it may sound, look after ourselves and our loved ones. It may well be as brutal and elementary as that. Maybe that’s why the event wasn’t broadcast a second time and the content of Gorbachev’s speech was nowhere discussed, whether in the German or international mainstream media: It might have caused panic in the populations of the West. Also, the speech reveals another crucial point: the dangerous role of Germany in all of this: They too – just as if the downfall of the Nazi Party by the end of WWII had never happened, and despite their long-displayed friendship towards America and the West –  have an agenda, partly in line with the Soviets, but finally opposed to the larger all-communist design. See for this the late Christopher Story’s reference work, 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, that bases itself upon Anatoliy Golitsyn’s analytical methodology, but provides priceless additional in-depth information. [First half of the speech from a massively streamlined print version published 3 months after on the Hanns Seidel Foundation’s website; the PDF-file says ‘Manuscript handed out by the author’, and indeed the lousy, KGB-style German indicates that Gorbachev’s staff must have fabricated it; here is the exact link:; the English translation of it, from the German, has been thoroughly done by this author. – Second half of the speech translated by this author from the Russian-to-German simultaneous interpretation on Bavarian television; unfortunately there’s only the second half of that broadcast presented on a number of communist-leaning German Youtube channels; the text trailer at the beginning each time deceptively suggests that ‘concerned’, elder statesman Gorbachev warns of the possibility of World War III due to NATO’s aggressiveness and ‘war-mongering’, which is of course pure Kremlin propaganda! Here is one copy with this second half of the original TV-recording (20 minutes long), in case you know Russian or German. Bold print added and indispensable comments & explanations inserted in grey type within square brackets by this author.]

Gorbatschow, Franz-Josef-Strauss-Preis, 10. 12. 2011, 6

Saturday, Dec. 10, 2011, Imperial Hall of the Munich Residenz, merely hours ahead of a total lunar eclipse, a.k.a. ‘blood-moon’, that was visible over most of Eurasia



But, wait a moment: Is THIS really Gorbachev??? – Obviously it’s him! He has put on weight, and he is 20/25 years older. – But, still: isn’t there a cardinal difference to the elegant, even charming Gorbachev most of us may remember? A very disturbing, frightening difference? Don’t we see here rather a brutal communist butcher, very similar to Mao Zedong??? – The explanation isn’t rocket science: Gorbachev and the whole allegedly ‘post-Soviet’, ‘new’ Russia have dropped their peaceful and democratic mask by which they have mesmerised the West so effectively for so long! What we see now, if we are willing to open our eyes, is the old, dreadful monster of Soviet communism, that is now eager to slay us all!


[1st part of the speech, translated from the streamlined print version:]

“Most honoured friends from the Government of the Free State of Bavaria, ladies and gentlemen, today is a quite special day for me, a quite special event, after so much good said about me. [He is playing with his nimbus as ‘Gorbachev Superstar’.] And I even could have prided myself, I am already 80 now, but after all I can control myself [in good old ‘communist humility’].

I would like to thank the Hanns Seidel Foundation from the bottom of my heart [Marxists-Leninists have a heart??? This is news indeed!] for this honour, for granting me the Franz Josef Strauß Award. The life’s work of not a few politicians has been honoured with this award. Franz Josef Strauß himself was one of the outstanding political personages in postwar Germany. And like every strong personality, he had many political friends, but at the same time also many political enemies [Very much so, and mainly the Soviet Union, that had him in its deadly crosshairs and obviously had commissioned its allied German terrorist faction RAF with threatening his life. The circumstances of Strauß’s death on October 3, 1988, by the way, were suspicious! And merely a week before, he had been to communist Bulgaria, not to mention a quite adventurous ‘secret’ visit of his to the Soviet Union around Christmas of 1987!]. In the West he was often termed an extreme conservative [There is no such animal as an ‘extreme conservative’. Conservatism and extremism exclude each other!]. You may easily imagine what kind of political grades he got in the Soviet Union: After all, he was the favourite target of our propaganda [not just of propaganda …] in the decades of the Cold War, branded as a reactionary. That’s the way our life works, that’s our history [!!!]. And we keep living it, take lessons and draw conclusions from it [alluding to the Soviet Union’s dialectical way of Marxist-Leninist strategic planning].

In the mid ’80s, serious [rather fictitious, but nevertheless greatly consequential] political restructuring was begun in the Soviet Union, soon known under ‘Perestroika’ and ‘Glasnost’. Already then we had revised much within our own ideas [i.e. within socialism, nothing more]. My first meeting with Ronald Reagan took place in 1985 in Switzerland. We talked for an hour. Afterwards, my delegation asked me about my impression of the dialogue partner. I told them, “Reagan is a conservative to the core, a political dinosaur.” Later I learnt about Reagan having been asked that same question. His answer was, “Gorbachev is a stubborn Bolshevik.” That time was in no way easy for us [meaning: ‘for us communists to overcome Reagan’s anticommunism’!!!]. We had to grow beyond ourselves, so to speak [i.e. ‘we had to opportunistically acquire the style of our hated class enemy – what a pain, uff …’]. At my first conversation with Margaret Thatcher, already after ten minutes the discussion came to a standstill, and we turned away from each other. After a break, I resumed the talk. I said to Mrs. Thatcher: “You know that I have no order whatsoever from the Politbureau to persuade you to enter the Communist Party.” Mrs. Thatcher smiled. The ice was broken, the situation eased, and we could continue the conversation [he boldly paints himself as the grandiose diplomat and Margaret Thatcher, well, as a boot! The fact of the matter is, however, that Gorbachev effectively managed to bewitch Margaret Thatcher, not by ‘supreme’ diplomacy but by his dark sexual charisma, as was analysed by Christopher Story]. That’s how it all began.

And then quickened the pace of events that in 1989 sealed the destiny of Germany [indeed, by embarking on this secretive alliance with the Soviets, the Germans have sealed their fate; however, they are convinced they will be able to tame the Russian Bear: German hubris, again and again!]. In June 1989 I came to visit Bonn, where I met with Helmut Kohl. Following the talks, there was a press conference. We were asked whether we had discussed Germany and its reunification. We confirmed to have talked about this. They key points were expressed by each one of us in a different manner, yet in substance we said the same, namely: The reunification would be a question of a distant historical future – three months later, the Berlin Wall fell. This was a historical development determined by millions of people and by their will for reunification [a monstrous lie: the so-called Fall of the Berlin Wall and all the ‘changes’ in the Eastern European communist satellites during the year 1989 were not spontaneous events at all, but had been long planned and were precisely coordinated by Moscow so to open up the chessboard for their new strategic phase, that was to turn out overnight, and has remained to this day, as a 360-degree political offensive against the West]. Our predictions then proved inaccurate, they were corrected by life [one of these cynical Leninist expressions: when communists speak of ‘life’, they mostly mean the communist substitute for true organic developments, namely synthetic, artificial events brought about by meticulous and multi-layered strategic planning; the real life they hate and are afraid of because it constantly threatens their ‘beautifully planned’ framework of communist tyranny]. The people were helping us [by which he admits that the Communist Parties were in charge of events, not the people out of themselves] to look a bit further into the future and to do a step towards that future [when alleged ex-communists still keep speaking of the ‘future’ as Gorbachev is doing here, we know they are still working overtime for their terrible goal of global communist victory].

François Mitterand, an eminently cautious as well as polite man [first of all, Mitterand was a die-hard socialist and very Moscow-friendly!] expressed to me, “I cannot imagine how you and the Germans will come out of this situation. Also I myself do not know what should be said.” I realised he wasn’t particularly enthusiastic about the perspective of a reunified Germany. With regard to Margaret Thatcher, she openly argued against it. Yet, they all were eminent politicians. History knows no standstill [that’s of course the standpoint of a revolutionary], and at the time its course took a very particular direction [by ‘very particular direction’, if you read between the lines, you can sense that this ‘direction’ was thoroughly premeditated, contrived, and perfectly under control every step of the way!]. We, who were politicians [deception again: Gorbachev and his comrades aren’t ‘politicians’, but communist apparatchiks in the service of the world revolution!], had to recognise and sense this. In the end, all signed the necessary treaties, also those who had initially disagreed [“All’s well that ends well.” – He is constantly taking us for a ride!]. Germany was reunified, and Europe was opening a new chapter in its history [a dangerous new chapter of getting gradually swallowed by communism]. After all, not only the German union was at stake, but the overcoming of the division of Europe, more than that – the division of the whole world [the Soviet Union posing as the harbinger of overall reconciliation and “Worldwide Democratic Peace”: the lie isn’t new. What he doesn’t mention is the strategic rationale in all of this, and what their idea of ‘peace’ really is about: it’s a horrible peace of the grave].

Franz Josef Strauß came to Moscow in December 1987. This was an important meeting. Strauß explained to me his understanding of Germany, of Europe, and the world. There’s many a conversation in which one talks around things without going beyond repeating conventional wisdom. But the talk with Franz Josef Strauß went completely different. I saw in front of me a man who made no secret of his views and knew how to stand up for his positions, but who had also the gift of perceiving the state of the world and of Europe, the role of the Soviet Union and the Federal Republic, in a wider context and with a sense of realism [an indication that Strauß, despite his tough conservatism, was ready to make significant compromises towards the Russians, and he did, which is why already in the year 1983 a fraction of his Christian Social Union broke away and founded a new party that shifted farther to the right]. Strauß had made acquaintance with war at first hand. He was near Stalingrad, and from such experiences man always draws his consequences [smell the sense of triumph?]. We spoke about the danger of war, and about how to forestall it. We asked ourselves whether wars needed to be fought at all [however, Pacifism and naïve disarmament are a Troyan Horse for a global ‘Pax Sovietica’; Franz Josef Strauß knew this!]. At that time, on both sides in Europe many nuclear weapons were being stockpiled. They were also stationed on the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany. Strauß told me that, after one of his trips to the U.S. and having talked to Secretary of Defense McNamara, he had commissioned the Inspector General of the Bundeswehr to draw up a report on the possible effects for the Federal Republic of Germany of a future war. The report’s main conclusion was: Nobody would survive the use of nuclear weapons [another piece of dangerous disinformation: only the military circles of the West considered nuclear weapons solely as a deterrent, convinced that an actual nuclear war would annihilate both sides. The Soviet military, however, has always held the view that a nuclear (offensive) war is not only leadable, but also winnable! They have for decades been planning for such a scenario, and their civilian population is precisely trained so to know what to do and where to seek shelter in the event of nuclear war].

I already mentioned our first meeting with Ronald Reagan when we commented on each other quite negatively. Nevertheless, after the negotiations, a highly important declaration was made in our joint communiqué: that it was necessary to avoid a nuclear war because in such a war there would be no victors [again: the Western view, not the view of the Soviets!!!]. From this resulted the question for what we’d need an arms race worth billions of dollars in the first place [Gorbachev and his strategists certainly don’t care about the economic situation of the West; they simply want the West to onesidedly disarm; today, Germany no longer has any nuclear deterrent stationed on its territory]. Not to forget the fact that 90% of all nuclear weapons were stationed in the U.S. and in the Soviet Union.

Thus was the contextual frame of our talks with Franz Josef Strauß. As I receive today the award that carries his name, I would like to pay my reverence and respect to this man [not very credible; but the Germans, in their blindness, still keep courting Gorbachev!]. He won great merits for German post-war policy [certainly not so in order to posthumously be ‘lauded’ by an unchanged Soviet Communist Party Secretary: but Gorbachev can say whatever he wants, and Strauß can’t reply from his grave]. I am convinced it would have been so much more difficult for us to achieve the task of German reunification, had the mood among the Germans and Russians at the time been different [there was no ‘mood’ with the Soviet Union’s common man, simply because he has no say in anything; as for the West Germans, they weren’t happy at all about this sudden burden of having to finance the rebuilding of East Germany. By the way, even today, 22 years after the reunification, 20% (!!!) of all West Germans have still never been to former East Germany! Tells a lot!]. We should appropriately acknowledge this fact: Two peoples that had lived through such a dramatic joint history were able to find the way to reconciliation, they were able to comprehend that a confrontation would lead nowhere [according to the late Christopher Story’s The European Union Collective, these two powers form a veritable alliance, with Germany having little problems with the prospect of accepting socialism; in other words: Germany, as well as France, have systematically betrayed their Western allies, right since the days of Adenauer; as a result, the United States and Britain have meanwhile been fooled by Germany and France, since 1945, and by the alleged post-Soviet Russia and its ‘former’ satellites, since 1989/1992!!!]. Obviously, also the passed joint experiences of those centuries were coming to effect when Russians and Germans had been linked through good-neighbourly, friendly relations [what he seems to have in mind, though, is the 24 years of tight German-Soviet cooperation all the way from the Bolshevist Revolution of 1917 till June 1941, when Hitler breached his non-aggression pact with Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union].

[2nd part of the speech, translated from the non-streamlined and very professional Russian-to-German simultaneous interpretation on Bavarian TV:]

And it is good that there are no more walls; but, dividing lines are again emerging. And if one should be worried about something, and what today’s politicians should think about, in Central Europe, also in Eastern Europe etc., what they should think about is: under no circumstances to allow a war, under no circumstances to allow a new confrontation. I know why the politicians in Russia react so sharply to the missile defence in Europe, to its intended stationing.

But now I’m also slowly asking myself: what’s this all about? For, what we can see is that the missile defence is meant as a defence against Russia. Everything else is just talk, or a wall of fog to cover the truth. Yes, and as a result, the Russian government said: We’re going to station means of defence, here and there, and we are ready to use weapons that guarantee our security. What does this mean? WORLD WAR III!

And if Russia and the USA should again be at loggerheads, this IS World War III! This won’t be restricted to a local war! And we need to again clearly remember the lesson, you know: the Cold War was over; our partners were triumphing, and they wouldn’t see the forest for the trees any more [!!!!!], in the West, and especially in the USA. They wanted to build a new empire, with a super-super-super-power [the communists have won, and now they LAUGH at the West, as was predicted by Anatoliy Golitsyn 30 years ago] – to which I say: the Germans are a serious and reflecting nation, and they know well what is being said in the USA; and when they don’t react to it and sometimes nod, it means all this can’t be taken for serious: It’s the attempt to threaten Russia a bit; and there is still in Europe a bit of fear left towards Russia. Yet, we only wish to build and develop: No one has led more wars in the 20th century than us. So much we had to suffer, and, just as a sidenote: We had no plans after WWII to start military action against the USA. I know it. I MUST know it.

And, suddenly, all this starts all over again. This reminds me of those 200 or 300 U.S. bases, spread all over the world, from the Cold War era; and have they been of any use to anybody? I have the impression that the evildoer of the system in which the West lives, and so with the consent of Washington, this radical market philosophy, all this hasn’t turned out positively. [You see: no more respectful words for free market economics like 25 years ago; Gorbachev and the unchanged Soviets now show their true unchanged colours: RED, and nothing but deep red! Now, as they have managed to drive capitalism against the wall, and so by capitalist means, the message couldn’t be any clearer: ‘your capitalist system has failed, and you’d better accept our glorious alternative of communism, OR ELSE …’ If one contemplates about this for a moment, one understands that the communist bloc is now indeed pushing for global communist takeover, no doubt!!!]

London, G-20 protests, April 2, 2009: Take note of the hardcore-communist maxims of the alleged anti-globalists: “Stop WWIII over Iraq!” – “Democracy is an illusion.” – “Capitalism isn’t working.” – “No borders anywhere!” – “One Currency, One Country!”. – This is clearly Moscow’s Fifth Column at work, whether protesting G-20 summits, “fighting Climate Change”, or “occupying Wall Street” … (And so with the ‘blessings’ of the occupant in the White House and the active support of his communist buddy, Bill Ayers) – Note also the scythe to the right: a clear and sinistre threat!!!



What have we got? Bubbles! One bubble after the other, and they all burst. And, one should understand at last that the solution can’t be an arms race, the militarisation of the world and the economy, because we’d keep on throwing money out the window. [Again this false ‘concern’ about his hated ‘class enemy’s’ finances that he otherwise has only bothered about insofar as he sought to extract money for his world revolutionary cause!] And former Finance Minister Waigel [Theo Waigel is sitting in the first row] spoke of 10 billion DM or Dollar, of course it was Mark, Deutschmark, that he didn’t give to Gorbachev at that time. How much money are we simply throwing out the window! [Rather odd that he speaks of himself in the third person!]

Eisenhower is again quoted these days, General and President Eisenhower. Yesterday I had again the idea to watch that movie: “FFF” [sic: FFF equals 666!]. — No. — “JFK”. On the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. I like such films [especially if they don’t touch upon the Cuban-Soviet connection …], and one should watch them from time to time just so to remain awake; if possible: wide-awake! [What does he mean by that? Does he try to remind us that everyone who  – like President Kennedy – dares stand up against communism will be killed?] And, Eisenhower, to come back to that, said that the military-industrial complex is a dangerous thing; and one should never lose control over it! [Is he alluding to Soviet infiltration of U.S. structures? Well, the U.S. is now under the control of a Bolshevik, anyway!] He said that in a way as had never been said before. And I want to say: the man was right! [Applause. Yet, we do not know how many Russians sat in the auditorium; there must have been quite a number of them as the video shows lots of Russian-looking faces, none of which with head-phones on, so obviously these people knew Russian.] The military-industrial complex in our grand countries, that’s those who set the tone, who exert pressure on politics. I know how our military-industrial complex is doing this, and it is still very critical of Gorbachev because of Perestroika [he is permanently taking us for a ride!] and the freeing of the country from these military expenditures [well, they did receive vast sums from the West!].

But, these people [and now Gorbachev is again speaking of the United States] have been accustomed to always ‘play the first fiddle’, and I think that if an economy cannot provide for its people, it is an ill economy; AND SUCH AN ECONOMY MUST BE CURED, AND SO BY RADICAL MEANS! [Can a central planning bureaucrat, who has no understanding of free market economics other than through his upside-down Marxist ideology and hearsay, get any bolder than that? This is a key passage in the speech as it clearly shows they have even, combined with the Chinese, achieved economic superiority and are now laughing at us. The ‘radical means’ is of course brutal revolutionary takeover and introduction of central planning communism, complete with abolition of private property as well as of the family unit, no question.] This was my idea, this was my approach. [Read Gorbachev’s 1987 propaganda book “Perestroika”, that has by the way in its German edition the subtitle, translated into English: ‘The Second Russian Revolution: New Thinking for Europe and the World’!!!] And I’m still repeating it today. But, no, what are they telling people? They are telling them things that make them afraid. Well, and now they’re arming up [another lie, because Comrade Obama is greatly engaged in bringing down America’s military capabilities even further].

But when one looks at the situation thoroughly, one can easily see that our government is acting correctly and appropriately, because – I just say: the devil [his boss] take it – there is no system for executing global decisions in a world that is already global [their constant theme anyway, across the board, from East to West]. We simply still lack such mechanisms, and I have heard with great interest that [Gorbachev now starts addressing the Germans], as has been said by your Prime Minister [Bavaria’s Prime Minister, Horst Seehofer, CSU], “we are ready to help, but not to throw money into a bottomless pit.” [alluding to the Euro crisis and Greece as the country with the greatest problems of the lot] [And now, coldly:] After all, IT WAS THE GERMANS who initiated the Euro, the European single currency, and therefore Germany carries also great responsibility, and Germany is big and strong, and thus carries an especially great responsibility, from which it cannot just steal away. [The Soviets are now leaving the Germans in their own mess, as the megalomaniac currency union, driven solely by ideology anyway, is about to fall apart; the Germans, in their unrootable tendency to want it all, have overdone it. And Moscow is awaiting its triumph in the face of the failure of the initially German-thought-out EU project, that was, however, hijacked in the mid 1980s by the Left and is now the vehicle for Eurasian and ultimately global ‘convergence’, on communist terms.]

But, this is also about the processes within the countries. Many have entered the EU in an expectation of having things for free [he is talking about the 5 ‘former’ satellites, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, and Slovenia, that joined the EU, along with the 3 ‘former’ Soviet Republics, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, get this: on MAY 1st (Labour DAY!!!), 2004, and about Romania and Bulgaria, that followed in 2007. – But who paid to bring them up somehow: Western Europe; only to get flooded, in return, by a tidal wave of impoverished immigrants as well as KGB-directed organised crime!], I think you know exactly what I mean [?]. Yes, so quickly did they rush to the West and left the Warsaw Pact and COMECON, all up and away towards the West, and the West immediately welcomed them and quickly incoroporated these new countries [Fairy tale! – And again bolder than bold, as the seeming dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and of COMECON was in reality a controlled deception operation orchestrated by Moscow. Thus, the Soviets have even freed themselves from the economic burden deriving from these countries and instead let the West Europeans pay for their recovery, which, to a great extent, has taken place – however, without loosening their political grip on these ‘former’ satellite states from behind the scenes via the unchanged communist nomenklatura: whether ‘nationalist’, ‘conservative’, ‘social democrat’, or ‘liberal democrat’: in reality, it’s nothing more than a bold spectacle known as ‘democratism’, and with every one of them playing his particular role; same as in the unchanged Soviet Union: Gennadi Zyuganov: the ‘Stalinist’; Vladimir Zhirinovsky: the ‘ultra-nationalist madman’; Boris Nemzov, Vladimir Bukovsky, Garri Kasparov, Grigory Yavlinsky etc.: the ‘democratic opposition’, and so forth. – NO GENUINE OPPOSITION whatsoever in the unchanged Soviet Union, 95 long years after the October Revolution of 1917! – Also, by having their ‘former’ satellites now in the EU and in NATO, they have not only ‘peacefully’ entered, along the lines of ancient Chinese strategist Sun Tzu’s treatise ‘The Art of War’, the enemy’s camp, but can also use this, and they do, for further anti-Western propaganda: poor betrayed Russia versus evil expansionist West; this extremely hostile pre-WWIII propaganda can be found on English Pravda online, Novosti, or International Affairs], which all entered suit the United Nations [well, as for the 15 republics that ‘once’ formed the USSR, 3 of which are now in the EU and the other 12 are constituting the same old Soviet Union under the new label of ‘Commonwealth of Independent States’, one must recognise that the world is now faced not by 1 Soviet Union, but by 15 ‘Soviet Unions’, which all hold individual seats in the various international organisations, such as the UN, the World Bank etc., take part in international sports events as 15 separate ‘nations’ and so forth. The same trick was applied by doubling former Czechoslovakia into Czechia and Slovakia, and by splitting former socialist Yugoslavia, that had officially been outside the communist bloc but in reality had always been part of it,  into 6: Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina; not to mention the Republika Srpska within Bosnia, and Kosovo within Serbia. In other words, what once was 3 states, the USSR, the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, and the Yugoslav Socialist Republic, has now multiplied into 23!!! This is truly Voodoo ‘nation building’, Leninist-style, along the lines of ‘federation precedes unification’]; and you yourselves [the Germans] have greatly furthered this development; thus: look who is talking! [This shows the internal war going on among these two rivals, Germany and the unchanged Soviet Union.] [And now again extremely cynical:] And, shouldn’t one be grateful to the Greeks for having established the fundaments of our civilisation? [Laughter and applause. – Germany is now trapped in its self-inflicted straightjacket of the Euro, but cannot let go of it, because ‘this would send the wrong signal’. Thus, the EU member states are on a gravy train of “Together we stand. Together we fall!” – As for the ‘fundaments of our civilisation’: Never mind that this European civilisation, until the Renaissance and, later, the so-called Age of Enlightenment, was based not so much on the legacy of ancient Greece but, of course, first and foremost: on Christendom! On the other hand, Gorbachev frequently plays with the false impression he might be a concealed Christian, but by attending Interfaith gatherings at Assisi or elsewhere he again is only furthering the Masonic-Communist agenda – massively supported by the false post-Conciliar Catholic Church – of watering down the individual religions and moulding them into one futurist hybrid, as is so comprehensively shown by Mr. Lee Penn in his reference work, False Dawn: The United Religions Initiative, Globalism, and the Quest for a One-World-Religion; Sophia Perennis, 2001.]

But, well [talking still, it seems, to the Germans], I believe we know exactly what we need to think of each other [what an expression of mutual distrust among these two allies and, at the same time, rivals!!!], and we must build a system for executing global decisions in a global world. And for this, NEW systems, NEW models are needed! [i.e. the o-so-successful central-planning ‘model’ of Marxism-Leninism: All-encompassing ‘Friendship’ to the world!] [And now again attacking the Free Market system:] Betting on super-profits, super-consumption, and the like, leads nowhere. That’s of no use! [The following is highly duplicitous and certainly is directed against the United States, both in economic and military respect:] Now, we have a billionaire who owns a submarine. And now he wants to commission a second one. Is this going to give the man happiness? No! One should find a small submarine, torpedo his first one so to prevent the second one from being built [the exact same logic would apply to a surprise preliminary strike, using e.g. high-altitude EMPs, by which all electronic infrastructure and power grid would be knocked out in an instance, disenabling any effective defence]; because no one needs this. Who needs this? [Of course, the Soviets would love to see a Western world that has completely abandoned its ‘unnecessary’ military capabilites, and Comrade Obama will certainly do his ‘best’ to get there – the war behind this faux administration and the U.S.military seems already to be on …]

And I ask you, my dear Germans [!!!]: stand you also by your responsibility! [i.e. we won’t bail you out …] You have initiated the Euro-zone, and as soon as the control mechanisms become effective [i.e. as soon as all remaining national sovereignty of the individual member state is fully done away with, as is happening right now], this system will be precisely what Europe and the world need [i.e. a super-imposed unaccountable communist big-brother world authority]! [Applause]

I think we should all really think about, together, how we can prevent a violent solution of the problems at hand, because when someone chooses force, this is the most dangerous thing that there is; and I repeat: we’re again in an arms race! [This is the ‘cooperation-blackmail’ Anatoliy Golitsyn and Christopher Story had warned of: ‘let’s peacefully come together, on our communist terms – OR ELSE …’ – as for the arms race: it was the Soviets, as well as the Chinese, who have been arming up since 1991 like crazy!!!] It’s obviously about re-militarisation, not only militarisation of the economy [sic!], but also of consciousness [How true, Señor, how true!]. WE ARE ILL; WE ALL NEED TO BE TREATED AND CURED! [In the political psychiatry of the upcoming global Soviet State: thank you very much!]

[Now follows a bold, in-your-face inversion of reality: he blames the very militaristic euphoria of the Russian armed forces on the American forces!] And Generals again become heroes; Generals who believe they had disarmed too much, one missile of many thousands [which is outright ridiculous!], that’s too much. And here I ask myself: How do the Generals think? If one bets on solving problems militarily, then one commits a mistake [a warning!], and I’d like to say this again, I’ve heard this, we just had in France an annual meeting, the annual Conference of the World Political Forum, that I brought into being several years ago, really a serious organisation; there it was said: to bet on force and strength isn’t efficient. [True: Western defence capability, to them, is certainly ‘not efficient’. – As Christopher Story said in a 1995 recorded conversation with American host William Mc Ilhaney: “We should leave them to stew in their own juice. We should withdraw. Now that we’re so deeply involved, we’ve got to do it subtly, but we should withdraw from cooperation. We needn’t announce it; we should just do it. And stop aiding them; stop cooperating; withdraw whenever we see an opportunity; retrench. AND: We should rearm like crazy! Because the only thing these people understand is that we are determined not to let them prevail.” – Sadly, such change of course has never been tried.] The nations, and most politicians, condemn such an attitude [but welcome it when it is held, not defensively but offensively, by the Soviets???]. And at the end we came to the conclusion that wars do not solve problems [the Soviet monster again posing a peace angel: the perfidious advances in the 1960s and ’70s by false ‘dissident’ Andrey Sakharov come to mind; and in general the international Peace Movement as a whole, that goes back to the early 1900s, having been right from the outset a branch of communism as well as of so-called Theosophy], and in earlier days thinkers said that war is necessary, that war brings about a movement ahead etc. [He indeed points to the Hegelian dialectics that are part and parcel of Marxist-Leninist thought!] – No! War means a giant failure of politics. [By ‘failure’, Gorbachev of course means, in that case, the ‘failure’ of Western politics to submit to communism!]

For what should one take up arms, aeroplanes, extremely destructive weapons [another threat]? And why? [For instance, in order to defend oneself against communism?????] Because the politicians got it wrong, because the politicians still lag behind the fast changes in the world. [By speaking of ‘politicians’, Gorbachev of course is speaking of the West, and of the West only: there is no such animal as a ‘politician’ in the still-communist system, they have only apparatchiks; politicians, whether sincere or corrupt, whether capable or inapt, only exist in the democracies or constitutional monarchies of the West. And he already blames on them a World War that, by now, hasn’t even begun! Also note the theme that (Western) politics lags behind the fast changes in the world, which means: lags behind the communist programme of world revolution! – Below: a completely revolutionary Soviet postage stamp of 1988 saying: “Perestroika prodolzenye dela Oktyabrya”, i.e. “Perestroika CONTINUES the October (Revolution)”!!! – and “Uskorenye – Demokratizatsiya – Glasnosti”, i.e. “Acceleration – Democratisation – Openness”. Perestroika was the launching of an overall revolutionary offensive. In Gorbachev’s 1987 propaganda book, Perestroika, one can read bold and clear that Perestroika was meant to give socialism a second breath, essentially by returning to “a Lenin who is alive”. And the West was caught completely off guard!]

And, so to speak, the Russians, the Germans, the French [the Russians of course come first; and with the other two, they form the socialist European troika], the Americans, the Japanese, and now also the Chinese, by the way [we know that], these nations are responsible for providing for the world a peaceful, positive perspective. [And we know well what a ‘peaceful, positive perspective’ means from the mouth of a die-hard Marxist-Leninist: it means brutal communist ‘normality’ and lights out forever! – ‘Positive’ holds also a covert meaning, as it implies ‘positivist’, thus: godless.]

And, also [now read very carefully], it’s definitely wrong to believe one could hide away, one could sit out anything. No one can hide any more or sit anything out! [A clear message also on an individual level: ‘Don’t think we won’t get you, because we will!’ Every new passport in almost every country in the world is now an “E-passport”, with a built-in RFID-chip, by which the holder may well one day be tracked and located any time.] Also small countries need contacts [i.e. ALL states of the world must be part of the overall surveillance grid!].

I believe I have now strayed quite far from the Franz-Josef-Strauß Award [cynical laughter], but I’m convinced that the one is closely connected to the other; connected to the legacy passed on to us by smart brains. [This is all coded, conspiratorial language. He alludes here not only to Lenin, but also – as he speaks to his German fellow-strategists – to Bismarck, Hitler, Adenauer, and all the way up to Helmut Kohl.]

I’d like to once again express my heartfelt thanks. You know, I speak at home, here in Germany, in Europe, in the world; I advocate [enforced] cooperation and of course a deepening in the cooperation between Russia and Germany [France is the third cornerstone in this evil geopolitical triangle]. Because, this means very, very much for the overall situation; it stabilises it, develops it towards a positive outcome, and the people who are demonstrating in Wall Street demand social justice and equality [i.e. they demand communism; so, here we have an official endorsement, so to speak, of OWS by a ‘former’ General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union!!! As a sidenote, the ‘Occupy’ movement has nothing to do with the alleged ‘mass demonstrations’ that accompanied the Russian Duma Elections in December 2011 and Putin’s ‘re-selection’ in March 2012! These are staged provocations – most likely just as the Dec.-29th-2011 submarine accident at Murmansk – so to project the ‘weak look’ as recommended by Sun Tzu, which in that case would mean that they couldn’t be any closer to go for it and start their desired global military adventure: things have never been more on-the-edge than right now! Also keep in mind that in the last week of October 2012 there will be the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis!!! These communists have their own funny way of celebrating anniversaries. (Update: They indeed used the last week of OCTOBER 2012 to test an improved version of their already highly advanced Topol-M Intercontinental missile!!!) Not to mention that the year 2017, only 5 years away, will mark the centennary of the October Revolution – as well as the tricentennary of the foundation of the Grand Lodge of England. In 2018, then, will be the 200th birthday of Karl Marx, and in 2020 the 150th birthday of their other evil icon, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov alias Lenin. So, it appears, they are going to have a tight celebration schedule in the coming years, and might well have decided to reach communist world hegemony before 2017].

And, as you can see, also in the EU, mistakes were made. But this isn’t yet the essential point I want to make. I have the impression that – of course we aren’t out of the old crisis yet, and there are already signs on the horizon for a new crisis [which international communism, directed by Moscow and Beijing, will certainly make use of for the furtherance and victory of the revolution; via economic manipulations, via Western trade unions, via anarchist and terrorist groups, via sabotage, assassinations if necessary, and so forth], but – as LENIN calmed his comrades-in-arms, this was when the Soviet power came into being, when there was a chaotic situation in the country: “Yes, of course we have chaos, BUT FROM CHAOS SPRING UP NEW FORMS OF LIFE“. [That same logic is known from highgrade Freemasonry, and Gorbachev is also a Mason: ‘Ordo ab Chao’, order out of chaos: it’s an utterly blasphemous claim that man by himself should be entitled to create chaos (by destroying the old, God-given order) so to organise on top of the ruins a new hybrid and sterile, man-made order without God. The phrase ‘New Forms of Life’ also describes the Leninist ‘creativity’ that uses, for a while, even the most contradictory and opportunistic methods to reach their final goal, as well as their idea of an overall synthetic counterfeit of true life. Because they HATE life. – It’s all deeply Satanic!]

And therefore, chaos IS a problem, a crisis IS a problem, all this isn’t easy, but there are always included opportunities that definitely should be made use of. [Pro-communist globalist, if not Soviet agent, Henry Kissinger (who allegedly used to go under the KGB code name “Bor”), made an almost identical statement on January 5, 2009 regarding incoming new President Obama in relation to the economic crisis. Kissinger explained, “His task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a New World Order can be created. It’s a great opportunity; it isn’t just a crisis.” ]

[And now Gorbachev turns straight diabolical:] And I wish the Germans a healthy New Year. And this time you will still have enough bratwursts and pork-knuckles for New Year’s Eve [laughter; yet, one can be sure not one single German was laughing]. WELL, AND AS FOR THE NEXT NEW YEAR’S EVE [i.e. the turn from 2012 to 2013], WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT THAT, TOGETHER! [One can see on the video, that is bad visual quality, for a brief moment Bavarian Prime Minister Horst Seehofer almost certainly with a face DEEP FROZEN in shock!!! This is why they hid away this speech from the German population and from the world – all the critical passages have indeed been removed in the ‘official’ print version that was published three months after the speech, in March 2012. It’s too late to change course; certainly also for the Germans, who once again in history overstretched their capabilites and have indeed thought they could deal with the Soviet monster on equal terms. It’s even too late to inform or prepare the public. It’ll be a hellish attack out of the blue sky. How many will in a second lose their minds and go crazy? And how many will just decide to hang themselves in their houses or apartments?]

And, I tell you quite frankly: it is for me a special, an emotional day. And regarding the accomplishments that I myself associate with my life [you see: communists are very different from Western careerists: they don’t take too much personal pride in their achievements, but, at the most, in their ‘humble’ contribution to the revolutionary cause!!!] – the German question, the destiny of Germany -, these were for me of determining importance. And I’m proud of what I could do. – Thank you very much! I’m wishing you good success!”



Whatever inconvenient a reality to the bulk of Western politicians and ‘analysts’, there is little if any reason for surprise over today’s advancements of international communism, all the way to Westminster and Washington D.C. As, in parallel to Gorbachev’s smooth public appearances back in the mid 1980s, the Soviets gave plenty of hints, even to the point of open declarations, what they were really up to. An overwhelming case in point, in this respect, is their propaganda book, ‘Perestroika’, published in 1987 under the authorship of Mikhail Gorbachev. The book was translated into dozens of languages and sold in some 5 million copies worldwide: so, this was certainly no minor propaganda initiative on the part of the Soviet apparat, but an important move to laying out to the ‘interested’ in the West what perestroika was ultimately about. It appears that the Soviets, who have always been thoroughly studying the Western mentality, must have counted on a general laziness and unwillingness to read so widespread nowadays in the societies of the free world. But, left-wing circles in Europe and America will definitely have studied the book; so did a handful of truly dedicated analysts – such as, e.g., the late Christopher Story. It seems, ‘Perestroika’ wasn’t published in exactly identical versions, as the quite differing titles suggest. The English version’s full title went: “Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World”; the French: “Perestroïka: Vues Neuves sur Notre Pays et le Monde” (thus, not ‘New Thinking’, but ‘New Vistas …’); the Spanish, coyly: “Perestroika: Nuevas Ideas para Nuestra País y el Mundo” (i.e. ‘New Ideas …’). But by far the boldest title was that of the German version (and Germany, of course, at the time was in the immediate focus of the Soviet strategists, as they viewed a German reunification not as a loss of their geopolitical influence in Europe but, on the contrary, as an opportunity for them to firmly gain access to once-Western Europe, using a unified Germany, as they did, as a jumping-board; 25 years later, 10 out of 27 member states of the meanwhile greatly enlarged as well as utterly centralised, if not to say: Sovietised, European Union are ‘former’ socialist countries!!!). So, here’s the German title: “Perestroika: Die Zweite Russische Revolution – Eine Neue Politik für Europa und die Welt”, i.e. “Perestroika: The Second Russian Revolution – A New Policy for Europe and the World”. Shouldn’t that odd title alone have raised sufficient suspicion in Western policy circles so to really have a proper look into that book? And mind that it doesn’t say, ‘New Policy for the USSR’, but ‘New Policy for Europe and the World’, thus revealing beyond doubt the true nature of perestroika, namely that of a political offensive, worse: a deadly programme for the fundamental restructuring, transformation, and ultimately communisation of the Western world. Ronald Reagan could have avoided making a fool of himself when begging Gorbachev from the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, “Mr. Gorbachev, open that gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall!” (as that’s what the Soviets were intending to do anyway, albeit for their political ends), and Margaret Thatcher would have been perfectly prepared not to fall for “Gorbachev’s style” that she so greatly admired and not to reach at the completely erroneous conclusion that “Gorbachev isn’t a Leninist any more.” However, ‘Perestroika’ (very much like Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’, published as early as 8 years before he came to power) seems not to have been given the necessary attention (and apart from the book, there exist so many other clear statements by Soviet representatives during that time that suggest everything but peaceful intentions). As a consequence, the whole world is now paying dearly as it is now being pressed by a triumphant pan-communist bloc, and even a communist Troyan Horse in the White House, to accept communism as the ‘new’ model for the whole world. Read below a selection of quotes from ‘Perestroika’, that of course do not mention the existence of a pan-communist long-range strategy and that are written in the usual coded Leninist language (bold emphases as well as added explanations in grey colour by this author). The quotes are partly taken from the English version via Christopher Story’s ‘The European Union Collective’ (TEUC), partly from the German version directly and translated by this author into English (GtoE):

“In the West, including the U.S., Perestroika is being interpreted in a variety of ways. There is the view that Perestroika has been recognised as inevitable due to the catastrophic state of the Soviet economy; it would mirror the frustration over socialism and a crisis of its ideals and highest goals. Nothing could be further from the truth than such interpretations, whatever motives may be behind them. Of course, the discontent about how things have developed in our country in recent years has been a major reason for us to launch Perestroika. However, to a far greater extent, it was the realisation that the potential of socialism had been made use of insufficiently. Now, as we are celebrating the 70th birthday of our revolution, we are becoming very much aware of this. We have at our disposal a sound material basis, rich experience [an allusion, definitely, to Lenin’s deceptive ‘New Economic Policy’ of the 1920s, after which the alleged reforms of the 1980s were modelled], and a clear worldview [meaning, that of Marxism-Leninism!!!]. With that foundation, we are able to focussedly and continuously improve our society and work on making ever greater use of all our activities, qualitatively and quantitatively [in other words, Perestroika represents the total mobilisation of all resources, be they economic, political, diplomatic, military, or intelligence].” (GtoE)

The works of Lenin and his ideals of socialism remained for us an inexhaustible source of dialectical creative thought, theoretical wealth and political sagacity… Turning to Lenin has greatly stimulated the Party and society in their search to find explanations and answers to the questions that have arisen… The Leninist period is indeed very important. It is instructive that it proved the strength of Marxist-Leninist dialectics, the conclusions of which are based on an analysis of the actual historical situation. Many of us realised even long before the [1985] Plenary Meeting that everything pertaining to the economy, culture, democracy, foreign policy – all spheres – had to be reappraised.” (TEUC, page 14)

We are not going to change Soviet power, of course, or abandon its fundamental principles, but we acknowledge the need for changes that will strengthen socialism… The essence of ‘perestroika’ is that it … revives the Leninist concept of socialist construction both in theory and in practice.” (TEUC, page 14)

“They tell us that nothing will come of ‘perestroika’ within the framework of our system. They say we should change the system and borrow from the experience of another socio-political system. To this they add that, if the Soviet Union takes this path and gives up its socialist [i.e. communist] choice, close links with the West will supposedly become possible. They go so far as to claim that the October 1917 Revolution was a mistake [it wasn’t just a ‘mistake’, it marked the implementation of hell on earth!!!] which almost certainly cut off our country from world social progress.” – “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 [i.e. communist] choice. We are looking within socialism [i.e. within communism], rather than outside it, for the answers to all the questions that arise. We assess our successes and errors alike by socialist [i.e. communist] standards. Those who hope that we shall move away from the socialist [i.e. communist] path will be greatly disappointed. Every part of our programme of ‘perestroika’ – and the programme as a whole, for that matter [HERE we have a clear hint to their longrange strategy in service of the world revolution] – is fully based on the principle of more socialism [i.e. more communism] and more democracy [i.e. more collectivism].” (TEUC, page 37)

“Despite all contradictions in today’s world, despite the variety of societal and political systems, and despite the different paths nations have taken in history, this world remains an undividable whole. We are all passengers on board of Ship Earth, and we must not allow it to be destroyed. There won’t be a second Noah’s Ark.” [This is the exact language of the so-called environmental movement, that is simply being used as a vehicle for the implementation of brutal, merciless communism worldwide. Gorbachev himself was deeply involved in the Earth Summit of 1993 and also set up in the ’90s an alleged environmental organisation by name of Green Cross International.] (GtoE)

“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 [!!!!!!!!].” (GtoE)

“We do not hold any evil intent towards the American people [an outright lie!]. We are ready and willing to cooperate with them in all fields [but why this eagerness for cooperation if there is still this unchanged ‘anti-bourgeois’ contempt???]. Yet, we want cooperation on the basis of equality, reciprocity, and mutual understanding. Sometimes we are more than disappointed, and even have serious doubts, when our country is termed by the United States [accurately so] an aggressor and ‘evil empire’. The most unbelievable stories and lies about us are being disseminated, mistrust and enmity are being shown towards our people, limitations are being used against us, and uncivilised behaviour blamed upon us. This proofs of intolerable shortsightedness [a clear threat!].” (GtoE)

“Time doesn’t stand still, and we must not let pass it in vain. We need to act. The world situation doesn’t allow us to wait for the most convenient moment: We need a constructive and comprehensive dialogue, and we need it now. Nothing else it is we are aiming at when we connect, via TV, Soviet and American cities, Soviet and American politicians and personalities of the public domain, as well as ordinary American and Soviet citizens. We let our media present the whole spectrum of Western positions, among them even the most conservative [if it only were true …]. We encourage contacts to people who represent other world views and other political convictions. In this way, we express our view that such practice is a step on the way towards a world acceptable for both sides [!!!!!].” (GtoE)

“The necessity for change was forming not only in the higher political circles but also, and visibly, in the public’s consciousness [there’s no ‘public’ under communist tyranny, there’s only the PARTY!]. People who had practical experience, a sense of justice, and were committed to the ideals of Bolshevism, were criticising the established practice and worriedly sensed indications of moral disintegration and weakening of revolutionary ideals and socialist values. Workers, farmers and intellectuals, party functionaries in the capital and in the various regions were thinking over the situation in the country. One was becoming increasingly aware that things couldn’t go on like this much longer. Consternation and unwillingness were building up as the respected values of the October Revolution and of the heroic fight for socialism were being trampled on. [!!!]” (GtoE)

Perestroika is a word with many meanings. But if we want to pick from these synonyms the most important one that most aptly expresses its nature, we are saying: Perestroika is a revolution. And undoubtedly is the decisive acceleration of the socio-economic and cultural development of Soviet society along with drastic changes, that aim at a qualitatively new state, indeed a revolutionary task.” (GtoE)

We need to endow the historical impulse of the October Revolution with a new dynamic, and push forward what our society has begun through it. That does not mean, of course, that we equate Perestroika to the October Revolution, an event that marked a turning point in the thousand years’ history of our country and that was unique in its influence on the development of mankind.” (GtoE)

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

“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. (TEUC, page 83. – No further explanation needed. Gorbachev, or his ghostwriters, most openly reveal the facts all by themselves: Plannedly and controlledly, the Party and State organs reshaped themselves into a ‘new form’ more suitable to carry out the final bit of the world revolution. That was all.)



In the first US Presidential television debate of October 3, 2012 (that this author watched live from beginning to end, and with great amazement), Mitt Romney powerfully reminded the whole world that the ‘Emperor’ indeed has no clothes. Obama visibly would have wished to be somewhere else, as he was being literally destroyed by the minute (however, strangely, he didn’t seem to bother). Going by conventional standards (that in these last four years no longer applied), Mitt Romney may very likely win the election. But will in such case a defeated Obama, who is a determined communist revolutionary (and a dangerously narcissistic sociopath), really vacate the White House? And even if he will, does that mean that the overall leftish climate will just go away, that Russia and China will miraculously stop pushing for communist world government? Certainly not! The far Left would consolidate itself and would even more easily be able to trigger anarchy and civil war from outside the Presidency rather than from within it. As some analysts have already noted: Should Romney win (and he isn’t there yet), and his victory not be stolen by a Democratic rigging of the vote, it might turn out – on the long run – as little more than a Pyrrhic victory.

UPDATE as of Nov. 11, 2012: Well, as we now know, Romney didn’t win at all. He lost 206 : 332 by electoral vote, 47.9% : 50.6% by popular vote, and 24 : 26 by states. Although to hope for a landslide victory for Mitt Romney certainly was over the top, nevertheless this defeat came as a harsh surprise for a conservative America that had in part already been celebrating Obama’s leave for January 2013. How this completely inapt ‘President’ and meanwhile notorious communist still managed to stay in office, may well forever remain a mystery. Had the Republican campaign been too weak, too ‘civilised’, too defensive? Too narrow in its approach, anxiously avoiding the key facts about Obama’s ultra-communist background, his youth mentor (and possibly biological father), CPUSA activist Frank Marshall Davis, his strategic spiritual father, Marxist instructor Saul Alinsky, his close friends and allies, unrepentant Weatherman terrorists, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, all the helpers and enablers from the far left such as Alice Palmer or Louis Farrakhan, and from aggressive Wahhabi Islam such as Khalid al-Mansour? Had it been the completely frustrating left-wing domination of the mainstream media? A shift in America’s demographics towards a higher percentage of Blacks and Latinos? A youth too superficial to grasp any more the difference between glossy presentation and solid substance? A steady Marxist ideological diet fed to America’s young in schools and universities (as well as by the media and entertainment industries) at least since the 1960s? OR, WAS THE ELECTION SIMPLY RIGGED??? – Communists aren’t especially known for any playing by the rules whatsoever. What they do, instead, is break the rules as effectively as they can until they are in a position to change them entirely. Game over. With all due respect for the incurable optimists who try to keep up their own and everybody else’s morale, let’s face it: America should have never ever voted this man into office back in 2008! Now, in 2012, that he was already in power, it was an all-too-easy fait accompli! – One could even compare the United States of 2008 to 2012 to post-WWII Czechoslovakia from 1945 to 1948. Although like the whole of Eastern Europe cynically delivered by Roosevelt into Stalin’s sphere of influence, the country was still ‘allowed’ its well-established parliamentary system for the moment. However, ONLY UNTIL Stalin finally decided in 1948 enough was enough and swiftly ‘transformed’ Czechoslovakia into a one-party communist dictatorship as rigid as the Soviet Union itself!

So much to analyse! And yet, so little time left, if any, in this continuing and certainly deepening Obama nightmare (that is only part of the wider picture of a globally coordinated communist takeover everywhere on this planet). The revolution is in full gear, and God alone knows what the United States will look like in 2016 and whether there will ever be the chance for conservative America to bring about a restoration of the original Constitutional Republic.



This famous and greatly educating speech, given only a few weeks after the Cuban Bay of Pigs debacle and just three months into JFK’s presidency, has nothing to do with secret societies (as is now claimed by opinion manipulators like Alex Jones, who is not a conservative, but an agent provocateur) and everything to do – of course! – with communism! It is sad to see how many fall for this utter nonsense, particularly as the speech itself (one could call it the quintessential political speech given in the days of the Cold War) provides, clear as the blue sky, the context: Kennedy first refers to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, criticising the press for lack of discretion in the matter, and then proceeds to a marvellous and sobering portrait of the world communist conspiracy both the U.S. government and the American society, and press, were facing. The speech has a purpose: it calls on the press to exert greater self-discipline at a time of whatever undeclared war. The manipulators have taken parts of the speech out of context and rearranged them in a manner that suggests that Kennedy spoke about American secret societies (who, they claim, then killed Kennedy as a result). So, let’s listen, again and again, to this quite unique and courageous presidential speech, all the more so as communism didn’t die with Gorbachev, but merely changed labels in order to put the West to sleep and finally be victorious. And it was the communists who killed President Kennedy. Lee Harvey Oswald was their man. He had stayed in the Soviet Union for two years, returned to the United States, married to a Russian KGB-controller wife, and actually travelled to Mexico City weeks before the assassination, where he met with Cuban and Soviet officials. John Fitzgerald Kennedy, who prior to Donald J. Trump would have been unacceptably far to the right for today’s Republican Party, was a declared anti-communist and died a martyr by the hands of communism; and nobody is going to take that away from him!   







Political Analyst Jeff Nyquist interviews computer expert Tom Fife, who had been witness to a more than ominous slip of the tongue, or outburst, on the part of a committed Russian communist at a private dinner party in Moscow in early 1992 (!!!), where Mr. Fife had been engaged in an American-British-Russian joint venture project. – Transcript done by this author from the original Jeff Nyquist audio. The conversation was released as an mp3-podcast on February 8, 2010, but the actual broadcast on Jeff Nyquist’s radio programme “Outside the Box” seems to have been earlier, presumably somewhere in 2009. Though this live radio talk was fairly casual in tone, it was nevertheless both completely serious and very substantial. It is highly recommended to listen to this amazing historical time document directly, as can be found as an mp3 file on: under “Tom Fife and Anne Leary Interviews”: As one listens to the interview, one can’t help very much liking Mr. Fife and sensing him as an absolutely genuine and trustworthy gentleman speaking with great humbleness as well as clarity! There have been other interviews with Mr. Fife on this same topic – the one on Jeff Rense Radio is presented, in full, further below, simply because it wonderfully complements this interview with Jeff Nyquist -, but the one given to Jeff Nyquist is slightly more in-depth and more thoughtful. American Free Press published on March 23, 2009 an article written by Tom Fife himself: Also, Tom Fife has a brief report on his own website under the title “The First Time I Heard of Barack”: (click there on ‘Original Essays: On Barack Obama’). Quite significantly, Tom Fife’s shocking revelations, that add such an important piece to the puzzle of what and who Obama really is, went viral on the alternative media but were completely ignored by the “official” mainstream.

The second conversation within that radio programme was then with conservative blogger Anne Leary, who told her eye-opening story of a brief, incidental encounter with former Weather Underground terrorist and Obama buddy, Bill Ayers, at Ronald Reagan Airport at Washington D.C., during which Bill Ayers three times repeated, despite or maybe because Anne Leary had identified herself as a conservative blogger, that it was actually him who had written Barack Obama’s myth-maker book, “Dreams from My Father”!!! This transcript is included here as well. – Words not picked up from the audio, at times, are given as question-marks within square brackets. Sorry about this shortcoming.

JEFF NYQUIST’S INTRODUCTORY WORDS: Welcome to another edition of ‘Outside the Box’. I am Jeff Nyquist, your host. And tonight I have two special guests: Tom Fife, an American businessman and physicist, and Anne Leary, a conservative blogger  from ‘’. The thing that’s interesting about these two stories is the way that they dovetail and work together, and perhaps even make us afraid. Perhaps some of you remember Whittaker Chambers, who was a communist back in the 1930s who turned around and ended up coming before American authorities to expose Alger Hiss, former Assistant Secretary of State, as a communist agent. We now know also, because of other Soviet spies that turned against their network, that Harry Dexter White, the Secretary of the Treasury appointed by Harry Truman, was also involved in a spy network, two spy networks actually, that were in Washington at the time. More than a half a century ago, they called it ‘The Red Scare’. You may remember the name Joseph McCarthy, and McCarthyism. Joseph McCarthy was a United States Senator who said that communists were infiltrating the government. He held hearings, but in those hearings, appearing on television, Senator McCarthy looked like a bully, and so it got a bad name looking for communists. But the communists, they were infiltrating the United States, they were subverting it, because the business of communists is revolution. And what we have is a book named “The Web of Subversion [: Underground Networks”] by James Burnham [orig. John Day Co., New York 1954; reprint i.a.: The Americanist Library, 1965], which describes how this process works. James Burnham himself: a former communist. We now know in more recent times that the head of the CIA for watching the former Soviet Union, Aldrich Ames, was actually a Soviet agent himself. We know that Robert Hanssen of the FBI, who was responsible for watching Russia for the FBI, was also a Soviet and then a Russian agent himself. The ability of the Russians to penetrate the most sensitive positions in enemy intelligence services and enemy governments is well-documented in the history of the Cold War. And so I make this my introduction to show people that these things are not fantasy. These spy stories are not just make-belief, they’re real. I will be back with my first guest, Tom Fife, and he’s going to tell you a story about possible communist infiltration of the American political system. I will be back after these messages. [ – commercial break – ]

JEFF NYQUIST: Well, here we are on ‘Outside the Box’, and I’ve got a very special guest, a man, a businessman, a physicist, an American, who has experience working in Moscow, overseas, he had Russian business associates, and he has a very interesting, illuminating story to tell, and I want to welcome Tom Fife to the show. Tom, are you there?

TOM FIFE: Yes, I am.

NYQUIST: Tom, tell us a little bit about your business background. Now, you are trained as a physicist, and you’ve worked with developing some of the technology in handheld devices, I understand.

FIFE: Particularly programming for the early versions of the pen computers.

NYQUIST: And you have one time got involved in a sort of a joint venture project with Russians back in the early 1990s. Maybe you can tell us a little bit about that.

FIFE: Yes. Well, it grew out of an episode where I met an Englishman who was doing relief work for the Russians back when it looked like the society was about really to collapse back in about ’91, and he talked to me whether I could go over with him to help them, and in the process of doing all that work I got to know some of the people who were involved in the Russian Academy of Science[s], and these guys were all physics types, too, and so we had an affinity for, you know, for each other, we had common interests and everything. And they were a lot of programmers themselves, and they told us that they were very keen on trying to get a connection with some Western companies and maybe doing some joint ventures with them. And that indeed was what we ended up doing.

NYQUIST: Hmhmm. And in early ’92 or so – 

FIFE: Well, the British guy had a consultancy, doing accounting, and he built up an umbrella corporation that was British, that the Russians and our American group would be under.

NYQUIST: So, you set the stage kind of what you were doing in Moscow in ’92. Maybe you can describe a very interesting experience you had. You were at a dinner party in Moscow?

FIFE: Yes. We had been in Moscow, and we had been working with these people, getting everything organised. And, it turns out that the Russians already had constructed this little company of their own, that was within the Russian Academy of Sciences. And, so we just had a hook into that, so to speak. And the head of that little company was a physicist, and his wife, they were the heads of the company, the people we actually worked with directly.


FIFE: And we were on our way back home, and – as is pretty common tradition, you know – before you go back you always have a little kind of good-bye party. And that’s what this was. We were called gathered together, some of the Russians and the Americans that were there, the British guy was there, and we had this little party in the physicist and his wife’s apartment, the flat there.

NYQUIST: And so you guys were eating and drinking and making toasts, I assume.

FIFE: Yes, it’s a Russian tradition to do these toasts, and the way they usually do it is they’ll work around the table, and everyone will have their turn, and they’ll pour a little bit of Vodka out, you know, they’ll give their toast, everyone tosses it back, and then after a little bit more discussion then the next guy down the line will go ahead and propose a toast, and they’ll go along. And we were doing that, and we were eating our meal at the same time. And just have, you know, just have a general discussion, it was just a light-hearted thing.

NYQUIST: And so, eventually somebody gives a toast that provokes an interesting, more interesting kind of discussion; or a monologue, perhaps.

FIFE: It turned into a monologue, yes. My American friend, who was there with me, he for whatever reason didn’t want to propose the toast, he just wanted to go ahead and say what he thought about things; about observations he had made, about being in Russia. And for some reason he was caught by the different racial types that he saw in Russia, I think he thought that they would be more homogeneous or something. But there is a little bit of variety in the Russian people.


FIFE: And one of the things that he was noting was high cheek-bones in some of them. And so he was remarking about the influence of the Mongols and stuff like that, and I think it was that point that the wife took a little bit of offence at. And, I know that they’re a little bit sensitive about the whole Mongol thing, you know, they were subjugated for 400 years or something like that; and it’s not something they look at very fondly. But the whole thing they were talking about here really ended up being her response to that remark, that she wanted to correct him on what a true Russian is, racially. And she described what she called a round Russian face, and she was talking about what villages you can go to to actually see, you know, to see the perfect Russian. And one of the funny things was somewhat she was like describing herself.

NYQUIST: Now, this is the wife of the head of the Russian company from the Academy of Science[s] that you were working with.

FIFE: Correct.

NYQUIST: So, she is responding sort of sensitively about this remark about Russians having Mongol features?

FIFE: Yes. And – you know, she didn’t get out of control like: ‘wow!’ But you could tell that she was miffed, and she started to say things like, “You Americans should talk about race or something. Look at your race relationships back home!” And she was particularly talking about, you know, the black problems we have, you know, the riots, and then she said, “Well, you’re going to be quite surprised because you’re going to have a black president very soon.” And, of course, when she said something like that, it was kind of a surprise, because, you know: How would she know!

NYQUIST: Yeah, how would she know, and, you know, it’s interesting, just, I’m remembering, you told me before off-air that this conversation occurred in February of ’92, and I’m remembering that the Los Angeles riots, in relation to the Rodney King affair, happened, I think, in January of ’92, if I’m remembering right, or maybe that was earlier in February ’92, but it was about that same time.

FIFE: I think you’re right. It was very close to that.  

[The Rodney King incident happened in fact on March 3, ‘92. The Los Angeles riots lasted from April 29 till May 4, ‘92, following the acquittals of 3 police officers who had been filmed whilst using excessive force against African American traffic law offender Rodney King, which document brought the case nationwide attention.]

NYQUIST: So she’s going on about “You are going to have a black president …

FIFE: Hmhmm.

NYQUIST: … one day.” Now we do have one. Now, this is very curious. So, what did she go on to say? And did any of the Russians there try to stop her from going on in this direction?

FIFE: Well, the other Russians in the room were, I would say, subaltern to her, and they just sat there and were riding it out.

NYQUIST: Now, when you say they were subaltern to her, that there was some kind of power that she had, she was some kind of special person?

FIFE: Well, what they’d told me was that she was an apparatchik of some sort, within the Communist Party …


FIFE: … and that she was doing what they call climbing two ladders.


FIFE: I got the impression she was one of these people who would be in a group and she would be the Party contact for them.

NYQUIST: Now, that’s interesting because in February of ’92 the Communist Party Soviet Union had been disbanded! [!!!!!]

FIFE: Yeah.

NYQUIST: So, that is very interesting.

[The CPSU had been formally “dissolved”, i.e. went into hiding, shortly after the staged “August Coup”, as early as August 29, 1991. The remaining “non-Communist” USSR was then formally “abandoned”, i.e. relabelled as the CIS, during December 1991. – Thus, this “little” detail alone CONFIRMS the seamless Soviet-Communist continuity after 1991 to this very day!!! – There has remained, though, a Communist Party of the Russian Federation under Gennady Zyuganov, which constitutes one faction in the fake party pluralism of “post-Soviet Russia”. In fact, they all represent branches of one and the same old CPSU! “Russian” democracy is a mere play with labels, nothing else. It’s the same old Soviet Union in a new guise.]

NYQUIST: So they were kind of afraid of her, or they kept their distance from her?

FIFE: Yeah. In general, my observation was that they didn’t trust communists in general. But they really didn’t trust anybody who had been up the ladder at all.

NYQUIST: Hmhmm. Sure.

FIFE: They didn’t like it at all.

NYQUIST: Sure. It’s a power system, it was a dictatorship, and of course those people make you afraid because where there is power there is also people being killed and being pushed around, and power is a terrifying thing.

FIFE: Yeah, I heard all kinds of stories about different things that the Party people would do and get away with, you know.


FIFE: And, so they just sat there with their heads down and, just like I said, were kind of waiting it out. They didn’t participate at all. And from that point on – you know, they had been talking a little bit before – when she was talking and doing her thing here, they were quiet.

NYQUIST: Now, what about her husband? Did he try to stop her?

FIFE: Ah, yeah. About the time that she was saying this thing, ‘Give us a little revelation’, the way she did, he did step up and say, Well – not exactly how he put it – but he was trying to say: How about dropping this, and we do something else or something, and she brushed him off and said, no no, she wasn’t done yet, she had something else to say.


FIFE: And so, he just kind of moved to the side, and actually he was the one also who seemed like to be just waiting it out, just let her finish with what she was going to say and forget about it.

NYQUIST: Hmhmm. So, what was her explanation in her predicting that there was going to be a black President in the United States?

FIFE: Well, the next shell that she dropped after that was: not only was he going to be black, but that he was going to be a communist, “a Soviet”, she said.

NYQUIST: She called him a Soviet?

FIFE: Yes, she called him a Soviet, yeah.

NYQUIST: That’s quite remarkable. That means not just that he’s a communist with a small ‘c’, it means he’s a Communist with a big ‘C’! [!!!]

FIFE: That’s what it would imply, I think. Yeah. And then she said, you know, she made a comment about: We had a chance to vote for a woman for Vice President, she said, but we didn’t take it. And she was saying that that was one of the reasons that she knew that we were still backwards and not being enlightened and everything.

NYQUIST: Yeah. And of course she is referring to Geraldine Ferraro, who was a Vice Presidential candidate with Walter Mondale in 1984.

FIFE: That’s immediately what I was taking it to be. Yeah.

NYQUIST: Yeah. Until this last election where Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was on, I think that was the only other female on a presidential ticket.

FIFE: Yeah, at least a major ticket, yeah, yeah. And then I think I said something like, “Well, you don’t vote for vice president, you vote for the president.” And she just walked right over that, and she started talking about this guy that was going to be president. And, first, you know, it was just this ‘fact’ that ‘We’re gonna have this black president’. But then she started talking about him and about the fact that “Oh, this isn’t idle talk,” she says. So, he exists, he has been groomed to be President. And, she said, he has been groomed to be irresistable. And he will be President.


FIFE: And she said that he had a white mother and he had a black African father.

NYQUIST: Hmm. And so she specifically identified the mother as a white American and the father as a black African.

FIFE: Yes. And she seemed to think that there was something magic in having a black African and not a black American as a father, that she thought that this was great because then he wouldn’t have anything slave baggage to go along with it.

NYQUIST: I see. So, in her Russian mind, not really understanding American politics, she thought having ancestors who’d been in slavery would have been a handicap for someone who were running for the Presidency.

FIFE: Correct.

NYQUIST: Interesting.

FIFE: And I thought it was funny all said and done. That was one of the places when he got a lot of study from, I think, American blacks. They felt like he had side-stepped the whole slave issue somehow, and they didn’t, you know, like he wasn’t quite black enough, or something. I remember there were jokes about that going around at the time.

NYQUIST: So, did she give a name for this black politician they were grooming to be President, that she called a “Soviet” person?

FIFE: Yes. And, she named him as being “Barack”.


FIFE: And, I thought it was a strange name for, you know, to be coming up with an American president, that he had that name. But then, I said, from what I remember it’s an Arabic word, it means ‘blessing’ or something. And it’s [?] Hebrew, similar Hebrew word, I think like ‘baruch’, they are all related words.    

NYQUIST: Right. Right. Yes.

FIFE: And I said that I think it meant something like ‘blessing’, or something, had something to do with ‘blessing’, or something. And she said, “Yes!” She said that “He IS a blessing!” And she said, I remember she [?] dramatically, this is one of the things when she went a little bit dramatic when she said that, and he’ll be a blessing for our world efforts, or “a blessing for world communism,” I think that’s what she said.

NYQUIST: Hmm. So, did you find it strange that it was an Arab word that was the name of a supposed black President?

FIFE: Yeah, at first, you know, later on, you know, you can see the connection: well, okay, a lot of blacks in Africa are Muslim. But when I said “Arab”, she corrected me. She insisted it was “African”.


FIFE: Then I thought, well, okay, I let her go on, you know, she is convinced it’s an African word. But I knew that was Arabic origin.

NYQUIST: So, she has gone so far as to –, did she provide a last name for this future black President?

FIFE: Yeah, she was a bit, a little bit muddled on that. I think she knew it, but then couldn’t remember it quite correctly because she said maybe she was getting that country and his last name confused, that’s what she said, but she said that she thought that it was “Uganda”. And I said, Uganda, yeah, I was thinking: ‘Uganda’, you know, could be named after a country, but she didn’t say “Kenya”, but she said “Uganda”. So, I’m thinking that she got that confused with “Obama”.


FIFE: I think that she just couldn’t remember the name quite correctly, and maybe in her mind, when she heard “Obama”, she thought “Uganda”; and that’s what stuck in her head, maybe.


FIFE: But, she did say definitely “Barack”. And it was this thing that sounded like “Obama”.

NYQUIST: Interesting, interesting. I am Jeff Nyquist, and with me is Tom Fife, he’s an American businessman and physicist who has worked in the computer field, and he’s been telling us about a dinner party in Moscow in February of 1992, where a Russian woman came up with this extraordinary statement that “You are going to have a black President some day soon.” And we will be back with more after these messages. Stay tuned. [ – commercial break – ] 

NYQUIST: Alright, we’re back. I’m Jeff Nyquist, and with me is my guest, Tom Fife, an American businessman and physicist who has worked in Russia, and we are going to continue with his story, a very unusual story, about a dinner party in Moscow in February of 1992, where a Russian woman, who’s part of the Communist structures in the former Soviet Union that apparently survived the collapse of the Soviet Union [!!!!!], got sort of miffed during a dinner party in description of a Mongol racial influence in the Russian population and came back with this, “Well, you Americans, you have your racial problems”, and then came up with this extraordinary statement that “You are going to have a black President some day soon,” and of course actually describing a man who has a white mother, an African father, whose name is Barack, who is a Communist, she said, and described him as “Soviet,” which implies that he has some kind of relationship with Moscow.

FIFE: Yes.

NYQUIST: And, Tom, when you said that ‘Barack’ means something like ‘blessing’ in Hebrew or Arabic, she came back with, yes, he will be a blessing to the communist global struggle, whatever.

FIFE: That’s exactly her synonym.

NYQUIST: Yeah. And it’s extraordinary because in 1992 Barack Obama was not even in politics yet. He wasn’t introduced as the chosen successor for a State Senate seat until 1995, when Alice Palmer, who was by the way an admirer of the Soviet Union and very close to a lot of communists and attended the 27th Communist Party Congress in the Soviet Union [of February/March 1986, where the Fourth Party Programme of the CPSU was adopted, that reflected the beginning of the new phase of the communist long-term deception strategy known as ‘perestroika’ and directed by Gorbachev], announced Barack Obama as her successor. Interesting fact! And that announcement, by the way, was made in Bill Ayers’ living room, Bill Ayers being a former Weather Underground terrorist who –, one of his statements about his terrorism is, “I am a communist!” So, this is very interesting and kind of scary that this communist lady in Moscow in ‘92 is aware of this guy that is not even going to be chosen yet for three years to stand for a State Senate seat. What else did she say about this future American President? Anything more specific?

FIFE: Yeah, she seemed to me very intense on trying to drive home the idea that this was a real person, and she knew about him. And she didn’t just go with the name and, you know, Mum and Dad. First she came to the home [?] and was about trying to remember, first she thought Northwest, and then she said, no, no, no, “He is from Hawaii,” and then she said that he had been schooled in the schools of the presidents, she said he’s “Ivy League”, that’s how she referred to it.

NYQUIST: Ivy League. Hmm.

FIFE: And she said that he was in New York and Chicago and had gone to school in California, and she said that he was currently in Chicago, that’s where he was.

NYQUIST: Interesting. Because Barack Obama attended Occidental College in California, then Columbia in New York, and worked in New York, I believe, three years after graduating, and then moved to Chicago after that.

FIFE: She also said that he was –, soon he was to be entering politics, and it sounded like, it actually sounded like she was saying: everything was under control, you know, like he’s gonna check all his boxes and he’ll climb the ladder, and be President.

NYQUIST: Wow! Did she say anything about his ever visiting the Soviet Union? Did you get the impression that he’d been to the Soviet Union?

FIFE: You know, she didn’t, no. She didn’t say about him being –, if she had, I wouldn’t have been surprised by how much she knew. But she did not say that.

NYQUIST: This is very interesting. I think I mentioned it to you before when we were talking off-air, but Barack Obama’s parents, you know, they met in a Russian class! That’s how they met. In 1960, I believe, was the year that they met, and in that class. They were both taking Russian in Hawaii! It is kind of funny: You hear this from a Russian, and Barack Obama exists because his parents were studying Russian. So, Tom, how did it end, how did she end this monologue she gave about this future black president, how did she kind of conclude, how did it end?

FIFE: Let me say, she –, it was a series of, like I said, a series of details that she was giving that would show that she knew this fellow, and –, oh, the other thing that she said was that, the way she put it was: America was at the same time the big stumbling block for communism plus its biggest hope and that America had to be brought over for everything to work worldwide. [!!!!!]


FIFE: And so, that, she said, that had to take place. And it was going to take place. And, I think, that was one of the most frightening things about it, was because there wasn’t just a woman mouthing off. She had this chilling certainty about it, a self-assuredness about everything she said. That had almost more power than, in some respects, than the words she said. She was just so certain! And it was like foregone conclusion.

NYQUIST: And how did you and the British man and the other American, that were there, how did you receive this information?

FIFE: I think the other two guys were seeing it a little bit more encouragedly than I did. I think I was the one who was probably taken the most abacked by it, for some reason. I think I felt chilled about it.                      


FIFE: The British guy, particularly, is the one that I had a little bit of conversation with, and he remarked that, you know, that all your life you’re growing up you hear everyone talking about communists and taking over the world and everything, and he said, you should all be darn if I just sat here and heard a communist say that they were about to take over the world. And that was his biggest remark about it; the fact that she felt, how I should say, she kind of felt [?]. But my American friend, he didn’t, I don’t remember hearing him remarking anything about it. The only conversation I remember afterwards was only just between me and the Brit.

NYQUIST: Hmm. And, it would be really fascinating if he could be gotten to talk about this now. Have you tried to talk to your British contact? Have you been able to get hold of him?

FIFE: I’ve been, you know, it’s been near almost twenty years that this took place, and it’s kind of a cold search, but I have been getting some help there, and I was able to at least a little bit have contact there with the British guy, and he said he absolutely didn’t want to have anything to do with this. He said he didn’t want to talk about it and he didn’t want to be involved.

NYQUIST: And, so, he didn’t feel any responsibility to talk about it at all that this had happened and that it was –, I mean, when you talked to him, did he remember the incident?

FIFE: He, well, actually I didn’t think we had a chance to really get very much in that direction. I was trying to get him to maybe talk about it somehow, but he didn’t want to talk about it really. And he just said he didn’t want to have anything to do,  you know, because I was saying, “Hey, could you just maybe give a little bit of colour of veracity to what I’m saying because, so far, it was like, you know: This is one guy talking.” And –

NYQUIST: So you called him up, and you said, “Hey, I’ve been on the radio, I’ve been talking about what this Russian woman said at this party.”

FIFE: Yeah. Repeatedly, people will always ask and said, “Well, you know, if we can get something else to be lined up here, you know, that says the same thing, it’ll give it a little bit more strong story and everything. But, he definitely left me knowing that he didn’t want to be involved.

NYQUIST: So he was very quick to brush it off and do not want to –

FIFE: Yeah.

NYQUIST: I see. And what about the other American that was there that kind of inspired the whole thing by talking about Mongols?

FIFE: Well, you know, I’m not sure [laughs]. We had this company together, and the whole thing collapsed right afterwards. It was because of the Russians that the whole thing collapsed.

NYQUIST: Now, that’s interesting to me because I’ve interviewed other businessmen who’ve had dealings in Russia, and the one theme that comes out is that the Americans or the British or the Swedes or whoever it is, they have this big investment in Russia, they have Russian partners, and what then invariably happens is that the Americans or the Swedes or the British lose their money, and the Russian partners end up with everything. Is that kind of what happened to you?

FIFE: Yeah, there was a group of Russians that we were with, and then this other group, to me they came out of the blue, I just was not involved in the whole process of the organisational side of things, I was much more on the technical side. And I was involved with doing the technical things, and the other people were involved with the business side. Somehow they brought in this other guy, who was a Russian, he was with the University of Moscow, and it was through him, or it was actually to him and around him, that everything started to aggregate, and he ended up in control. And I’m not sure of all what went on, but that’s what in the end happened.

NYQUIST: Hmm. Interesting. And, so, the party wrapped up, she’d made these statements, and what interested me and what I think our listeners are wondering is: Okay, you heard this very strange story, it kind of spooked you at the time. How long was it before you realised that this Barack person you heard about, this black American politician, was a real person and that you could see him on TV or read about him or notice he was actually there?

FIFE: Yeah, of course when I went home, at the time I had an act of security clearance.

NYQUIST: Oh! Because you were defence contractor of some kind?

FIFE: Yes, I was involved in another company that had an act of security clearance going. And so whenever I went to Russia, when I got back, I had to be debriefed by the Defence Intelligence Agency, the DIA.


FIFE: And an agent would come in scheduled time, and we would chat, and basically before I would go over, he had said, that he wanted to make sure that I would make notes of anybody that I might meet, particularly ones that wanted to be friendly with me, things like that, and so I did that. And so I kept a little diary of what went on when I was over there.


FIFE: And, I did make notes of this conversation because it did strike me so strongly.


FIFE: And I did go –, I was debriefed with the guy when I got back and ended up giving him the little notes I’d made on an evening when I got home. But, you know, this was a very vivid thing. It was in my head. As a matter of fact, it was actually so vivid that when I got home, one thing I did do is that I told my son, who was, you know, 12, 13, 14 something at the time, I mentioned to him that, I said, you know, if I’m not around in the future at some time and you hear about a guy, this guy who wants to be President, he’s half white and half black, I said, you got to fight this guy! Because, I just told him enough, I said, he is gonna be no good. And one interesting thing of course is that my son remembers that conversation we had. That’s one point of reality that’s very vivid with him, and he says that’s one thing that he remembers very well because I guess it kind of affected him that I pulled him aside and I felt something strong enough to tell him that. And that stuck with him. Now, of course, with me in the meantime it was just a story, for years and years and years. And I didn’t see this guy, you know, sticking his head up anywhere. And so, it just kind of, you know, stuck in the back of my mind, and every once in a while I think about it, I remember it, you know, something would remind me of it, and an interesting thing that did cause it to pop up in my head every a couple of times since then, when she was describing him, back at the dinner, and she said he was half-white and half-black, she stopped and said, “That’s right, he’s a chocolate baby!” And I thought that was such a queer thing to say, you know, I just didn’t think of –, you know, it’s not in my vocabulary, like [?] people refer to a lot of this stuff [?] every once in a while, but it was an eye-turner phrase for me, and I’ve heard it yet a couple of times since, and when I did hear that, I nearly remember this woman saying it, you know.

NYQUIST: Yeah, it’s a kind of unusual thing to say.

FIFE: Yes, so it stuck in my head, and it has been a trigger a couple of times for me to start thinking about it again. But, what really did it was of course when I saw him at the Democratic National Convention when he gave that famous speech of his.

NYQUIST: In 2004.

FIFE: Yeah, I think, it’s that ‘purple-speech’ that people keep talking about, We aren’t red or blue any more, or purple, or something, I don’t know.

NYQUIST: Yeah. I think so, yeah. Because in 2000 he didn’t have any, or any previous Democratic Convention, he didn’t have any platform at all.

FIFE: Yeah. But even there it didn’t register exactly with me because the only thing I knew then was, okay, here is a black guy, his name is Barack, and that, that DID get my attention, and it was afterwards that I started hearing people talk about all the –, you know, they were praising him, actually it was kind of surprising how overflowing with lauding they were doing, that they just couldn’t stop to praise him enough, and then they were talking about how he was a Presidential hopeful, perhaps, you know, and all that type of stuff, and then it was later, not long after that, I started seeing little bio kind of clips on him, and the one that did of course, the very second they talked about him having a white mother and a father from Kenya; that just like: Oh oh! It was like, as if something snapping, you know, hit you in the head, that’s what it felt like. It was like: Oh my God! You know – it was a story! All of a sudden it didn’t seem like a story any more. I felt like: God, I’m right in the middle of something real! And, it really struck me, and, you know, after that I started googling things about him, and everything matches, I mean everything she said connects with the reality of this guy!

NYQUIST: Well, you must have had quite a shock then to realise this person was real and that they were considered to be presidential timber.

FIFE: Yeah. And, at first it was still kind of like, I was kind of like simmering on the back-burner about this thing, and I have to admit I had an anxious feeling about it, and I felt like: How can I say to anybody what’s going on. So I started saying, you know, I would be with some friends, and I’d go and say “Hey, I got to tell you this story I got …” They half believe me, and they half wonder whether I was making this stuff up, or something.


FIFE: I think the problem is it was enough after the fact, that it wasn’t like I was predicting that much, at that point in time, so –

NYQUIST: No. Now you’re talking about when he started to announce for presidency and run in the primaries?

FIFE: That’s when I said, I just dropped everything and said I got to get something, get this word out. When I could see that he really was moving towards the nomination. That’s when I really started.

NYQUIST: So that was what: April; or March or April of 2008?

FIFE: It was, yeah, spring of ’08. Yeah.

NYQUIST: And, what did you do? Did you write to newspapers? Did you call radio shows? Did you notify TV stations? How did you approach it?

FIFE: I wrote e-mails to everybody you can think of. All the big names, like all the mogul names, I wrote e-mails to them, wrote paper letters to them.

NYQUIST: Hmhmm. And, did you get any responses?

FIFE: Ah — No. [laughs]


FIFE: No –

NYQUIST: No interest at all??? And, well, in these letters or e-mails you’d write to them: Was it a teaser? Did you tell the whole story? What did you do in these letters?

FIFE: Well, when I started off, you see, I don’t know why, but I didn’t want to just start broadcasting it out total clock, I don’t know why I did or didn’t, maybe that’s good or bad, one way or the other, but I didn’t. And I, the –, the first batch of letters were saying, “I got something that I want to tell you, and it’s very important about Barack Obama,” and I’m not sure [?] I said, maybe that was about it, his background, or something. And no one seemed to care, you know. Maybe they were just flooded with letters like that. Maybe there is enough people out there who have their own little versions or something, I don’t know, but I got no response at all. What actually got something going, finally, was a friend of mine has this rather large e-mail list, a political oriented one, conservative political oriented, and I wrote up a little paragraph, and it’s a paragraph I have out on a website right now, not a paragraph, but a –, it’s the little stories that I have, kind of what I just related, and I have it out there on internet, and it was that text then that I was able to get on to her mailing list. And I did get a little bit of response from that, and eventually it got down to Wiley Drake. And he asked me to come on his show, but I couldn’t get on until actually election day; mid election day, when that little thing took place. And then from him there was an interview with a lady at ‘WorldNetDaily’, Janet Folger [now, Janet Porter]. She quoted my figurehead I have on the internet, and after that there was a lot of e-mail to me, and people were asking questions and actually a lot of people were starting to reinforce, they said, “Oh, you know, that I was involved in this and that and the other,” and here’s an example, one of the letters I got, I mentioned in the write-up I had that one of the things that she said was that the three important cities in America for them was New York, Chicago, and San Francisco. She was talking like San Francisco was of some particular importance, and I didn’t understand what she was saying – whatever she was saying just didn’t make a lot of sense to me. And I mentioned just that much in the write-up, and I got an e-mail then from someone who said, “I know what she’s talking about, it was the Gorbachev Institute that was started at the Presidio.” And I got an e-mail then from a lady who said that she was hired by them to write some programming for them. And that’s what she thought it was, this Gorbachev thing.

NYQUIST: So, Tom, tell me about your –, you say you have a website. Let’s give out the web address so that people, listeners can go visit it and maybe read what you have on there.

FIFE: Yeah, it’s a website that my son put together for me, and it’s, and it’s just all run together as one word, “americantownmeeting”.

NYQUIST: And, well, I want to thank you, Tom. You are very brave for coming forward with this story. And I know those who disbelieve you will say you’re very evil for coming forward with this story, but you’re certainly brave. And, you know, when I first heard this story, heard about this story, I thought it would have to be a hoax, and then I heard your interview tonight, thought twice, and I have a Ukrainian friend who listened with me, and he, to his mind your details were so authentic to him, being someone who lived the first half of his life in the Soviet Union, that he said this has to be true. And that’s his view on it. So I thought I had to have you on the show, and I had to interview you, and I thought it’s important to add this to the public record so that people can think about it, because it’s a testimony of a witness. The listeners can determine the credibility of the witness, that’s their responsibility, but I think that the witness has come forward, and we need to listen to the witness. So I want to thank you for coming on the show.

FIFE: I want to thank you very much for having me. It’s something I think it –, you know, you put yourself in my shoes: I have to come forward. I can’t imagine waking up in some future time not having come forward, or at least tried to get it across, and to see what maybe have happened to the country and everything, and I have been quiet, you know, silent, and the whole thing. I have to come forward. That’s the way, I just have to.

NYQUIST: Yeah. It makes perfect sense. Well, thank you, Tom, Tom Fife, for being with us on the show today, and I’ve got another guest after the break with more on Barack Obama’s background. [ – commercial break – ]

JEFF NYQUIST: I’m Jeff Nyquist. We’re back. It’s ‘Outside the Box’, and with me in this segment is a conservative blogger of “”.


NYQUIST: Ah. Okay. “backyardconservative”, okay. It’s Anne Leary, and say it again, it’s “backyardconservative ?”

LEARY: “”.

NYQUIST: “”! Okay.

LEARY: But you can just search it, and you’ll find it. If you just search for “backyardconservative”, it’ll come up.

NYQUIST: And it’s a very interesting blog, and it’s –, Anne is very politically active at the local level, I take it, and –

LEARY: Not so much now, but I used to be quite a bit more. Now I just BLOG!

NYQUIST: Now you just blog. And, so, anyway, Anne, you’ve made some little bit of news lately among the conservative bloggers, and I was forwarded a piece, an interview done with you by AmericanThinker about an encounter that you had with the infamous Bill Ayers in the Ronald Reagan Airport in Washington some time ago. Could you maybe tell our listeners about that?

LEARY: Sure. Yeah, it was about a week ago, on Monday, and it was in the morning, and I was headed back from Chicago, I’d been there for a meeting, and then I look up while I was having a coffee at Starbucks before I went through the security, and I look up and I see this kind of scruffy-faced guy who, you know, he looks a little older, and he had a backpack, and I thought: Wow! This is not your normal, you know, 60+ year-old. And I looked at him, and he got closer, and then I saw yet that earring in his ear, and I thought: THAT’S BILL AYERS!!! So, I mean, I’ve been tracking him for, I mean, you know, his videos, and things that he said, because he’s from Chicago and he’s a good friend of Barack Obama even though the President denies it essentially. So I thought I’m gonna get a picture of him and find out where he is speaking. So I grabbed my BlackBerry, and I had to delete a picture because I had, you know, tourist pictures on there. So, I thought, okay, and I had one shot, and I followed him, and I thought, okay, I’m gonna go passed him, and I did. I turned around, planted myself, took the picture, and then I said, “What are you doing in D.C., Mr. Ayers?” And, just as I took the picture, he turned. So I was really lucky, I got his face, a pretty good shot so everybody could see it was Bill Ayers, you know, seeing the picture.


LEARY: And he, you know, he gave me kind of an uneasy smile then when he realised that I was taking his picture. But after that he didn’t smile at all, and I just asked him, and he told me he was speaking at an education conference, and so I asked him where, so I was kind of fishing a little bit, okay, I thought, okay, all this kind of play along a little bit, and then I think he was trying to decide if I was a fan or not, something. So he said, “That’s what I do: education,” and speaking at this Renaissance lecture. And then he said, “You shouldn’t believe everything you hear about me! You know nothing about me!” Wow! That got me kind of mad because he is an unrepentant domestic terrorist. So I just said, “Well, I know plenty. I’m from Chicago, I’m a conservative blogger, and I’m going to post this!” Well, then I thought for sure he would just go off, you know –

NYQUIST: laughing

LEARY: and would be aggravated and go. – Well, he didn’t! He stood there, and I could see kind of a wheel turning in his head, and then he looked to me straight in the eye – and, you know, no snark, no sarcasm, no jokie stuff –, he just looked at me and he said, “I wrote ‘Dreams from My Father’!” And I said, “Ha???” I said, “So you admit it?” I mean, just like “What???”

NYQUIST: Now, just to explain to the listeners, ‘Dreams from My Father’ is Barack Obama’s first autobiographical book! [It came out in 1995.]

LEARY: Right. Right. This is like his myth-maker book, that –, you know, people voted for him, some, just on the strength of the miracle, you know, poetry of this autobiography about, you know, his father, and his upbringing. And, so, this is like a core to Barack Obama’s, his mystique as, you know, being this wonderful American-dream-kind-of person.


LEARY: So, I was pretty incredulous. I mean, anyway, I said, “Oh, so you admit it, because obviously there have been rumours about this for some time.” But, anyway, then he said to me, “Michelle asked me to.” Then, I just, I’m thinkin’, Wow! That is really a stunner because he is bringing Michelle into this. He’s upping the antes! And, but then I thought, well, this is Bill Ayers, you know, he dances on the Flag, he dances around the truth, so, you know, I just kind of looked at him, and then he went on to say, “Oh, and if you can prove it, we can split the royalties.” So, I said, “Oh, well, fine,” I said, “Oh, stop pulling my leg!” So I thought then he would leave. He had had his little fun. But no! He came again! And this time he’s looking really serious, it’s like almost like he’s pleading with me. And he says, “I really wrote it! The wording was similar!” And so then I said, “What! I believe you probably heavily edited it.” And then he said for the third time, “I WROTE IT!” And then I got mad because I thought, well, he can prove if he wrote it or not, I mean this was written years ago, and he hasn’t said it up until now, and he’s gone along with this whole charade that, you know, Obama, you know, it’s his ‘work of his life’ to write this book. So I said, “Why would I believe you, you’re a liar!”

NYQUIST: [laughing]  And he is a revolutionary communist to boot!                                       

LEARY: Wow! Yes, falsie communist! I mean, he’s a bomber, he is a domestic terrorist! Yeah, but you can’t say, you know, come out and say a lot of this stuff even in the book said he claims he has written because there is no statute of limitations on murder, I mean there are still some cases that are open.


LEARY: So after I’d called him a liar, then he finally realised that he couldn’t say much more to me. So then he walked off, but he just kind of talked over his shoulder, “Well, if you can prove it, we’ll split the royalties.” So, you know, the way I figure it, I think he wanted to get this out there, but he wants plausible deniability, I mean, it’s my word against his, but –


LEARY: – you know: He said it. I reported it, just as he said it.

NYQUIST: He wanted to get it off his chest to somebody, but he wanted it to be deniable.

LEARY: Right. Right. But then it’s kind of interesting because, you know, initially people are like questioning the –, you know, my veracity, that I, so that supposedly that I wouldn’t make this whole thing up. Well, that’s kind of ridiculous. Why would I do that? I mean, I’m not putting my credibility on the line for Bill Ayers!

NYQUIST: laughs.

LEARY: But, but then, you know, I think that National Review found something, or the National Journal, which is the Charlie Cook inside the Buckley [Bradley?] Publication, head to head, they’ve been at some kind of, one of these lectures, and they actually asked Bill Ayers if he wrote the book, a week or two ago. And he kind of jokily said, “Oh yeah, you can quote me. I wrote it. I met with the President three or four times, and then I wrote the book. Ha ha ha.” And they kind of took it, “Ha ha ha.” Well, that never went anywhere. Nobody ever heard that he said that. I mean, they put it on one of their little blogs, and it was kind of a –, you had to pay to read it, so it just never went anywhere. And, of course, everybody thought it’s all “jokie-jokie”. So, I think what he is doing, you know, obviously there was no buzz there, he must want this out. He must want this out. I think he saw this opportunity, and he took it. And even if, you know, not many people have heard of my blog, and, you know, of course, he didn’t know me from Adam, I’m still sure that he thought, you know, the way the internet would go and given his notoriety, that it would make a buzz. And I think further, the reason, when I think he decided to tell me, because I was a conservative blogger, and he figured it would get around, and, you know, actually it didn’t just go around the conservative blogosphere, I think this was in his calculation, the only way the mainstream media would pay attention to it is if it did go around the conservative blogosphere. Because, you know, he would have plausible deniability, and they would want to debunk it. But it would still get out there! It would still get buzz. And –

NYQUIST: So people would be left to wonder whether he wrote it or not.

LEARY: Right. And, you know, I mean it wasn’t just a question of yanking the conservative blogger’s chain. He is yanking President Obama’s chain! You know.

NYQUIST: laughing

LEARY: He is like upping the antes, and he brings Michelle in there! And, you know, in fact, I got like 30,000 some hits on this thing. And it went up on to the top of the memorandum, which is the kind of the buzz, it’s more liberal biased buzz, to the point where the New York Times Caucus Blog called me a “stalker”. They felt like they had to attack me. You know, Bill Ayers is the victim here, of course! You know.

NYQUIST: [Laughing] Oh man! “Anne Leary: Stalker-Blogger!”

LEARY: Yeah, so, anyway, I think people pretty much believe that it went down the way I said because there’s no way I’m a stalker, I only met the guy the first time. And it was clear when I posted that I was very skeptical. And I said I was. So, people can make up their own minds, but it’s clear to me that he wants this out there. And in fact, after all, said and done, I actually do think he wrote it, but I don’t think he’ll admit it any time soon.

NYQUIST: Hmhmm. Interesting. Anne Leary of “,” right? Am I saying that right?

LEARY: That’s right. Very good. Thank you!

NYQUIST: Alright. Well, thank you for being with us! – I will be back after these messages. [ – commercial break – ]

JEFF NYQUIST’S CLOSING WORDS: Well, ladies and gentlemen, you’ve heard a couple of interesting stories from witnesses, and I would like to conclude by quoting Bill Ayers himself, Bill Ayers, the self-declared communist and communist revolutionary, I should say, and former member of the Weather Underground organisation, a terrorist organisation from the 1960s and ‘70s. This is what Bill Ayers said at an education conference in Venezuela recently. He said,

“This is my fourth visit to Venezuela, each time at the invitation of my comrade and friend Luis Bonilla, a brilliant educator and inspiring fighter for justice. Luis has taught me a great deal about the Bolivarian Revolution and about the profound educational reforms underway here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution, and I’ve come to appreciate Luis as a major asset in both the Venezuelan and the international struggle – I look forward to seeing how he and all of you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane.

Again, that’s Bill Ayers, who in 1969 declared, “We are revolutionary communists!” Bill Ayers, the friend of our President, Barack Obama. – Bill Ayers. – Well, Bill Ayers.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining us. I hope you’ll visit my website at “”, or you can go to “”, all one word “”. There you’ll find videos and other information, and I hope you will join me, Jeff Nyquist, your host, on another ‘Outside the Box’ next week at the same time. Until then, God bless!


Same interviewee, same topic, probably also broadcast in 2009. Yet, different radio host, and thus an entirely different conversation. This one below greatly confirms and complements the interview conducted by Jeff Nyquist. (Also, make sure you don’t miss the original 41-minute audio! Tom Fife is 100% credible!) 

JEFF RENSE: Okay. Welcome back. We’ll spend this hour talking to Mr. Tom Fife. I remember reading this article when it came out, and it was so impelling and compelling and downright fascinating that people were e-mailing me, asking me if it was real, if it was a hoax, how could this be real! It’s entitled, “The First Time I Heard of Barack”, and the author is my guest, Tom Fife. Welcome to the programme, Tom!

TOM FIFE: Ah – Hello!

RENSE: Hi! Glad you’re here.

FIFE: Yeah, well, thanks for having me.

RENSE: My pleasure! Charlotte Iserbyt set this up, and we have to thank Charlotte as well. Now, this essay, “The First Time I Heard of Barack”, really did go around the world. It got a lot of reading, a lot of exposure, on my site, and as I just mentioned, I got e-mails about it and so forth. You might just kind of walk us through that and explain to us how this article came to be and what’s behind it, because it’s most intriguing.

FIFE: Okay. Well, it’s kind of A Tale of Two Cities, in a certain respect. It occurred of course back in ’92, in a dinner conversation in Moscow.

RENSE: What were you doing in Moscow, Tom?

FIFE: Yes. I was a software developer, and I was over there with a British friend doing some relief work –

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: – for the -, it was at the time of the Soviet Union collapsing, –

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: – and so I went over there with him, he invited me over there to help with some what he called infrastructure work, and that was basically to set up a network of fax-machines so these people could communicate to each other on the telephone lines. And, well, basically we went over to do this relief work –

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: – and I got to know some people with the Russian Academy of Science, and we started chatting, and we decided we had some common ground in developing some software, and so that’s why I was there, or that’s why I ended up there in early ’92.

RENSE: Right.

FIFE: And, I, we were talking to the people there, and –

RENSE: Now, this occurred at a dinner, the primary disclosure.

FIFE: Yeah.

RENSE: Tell us about the dinner, Tom. How many were there? Where was it held? What kind of an atmosphere was it?

FIFE: Yeah. Well, the people who sponsored it were people who were the head of the mirror company that existed in Russia for this little joint venture we had established.

RENSE: Okay.

FIFE: And we were on our way back to America, and they said, ‘Well, come on over, and we’ll have dinner tonight.’

RENSE: Right.

FIFE: And, this was like the night before we came back.

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: And, so we went over to their flat.

RENSE: How many people were there altogether?

FIFE: Oh – about, about, I’d say about ten.

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: And –

RENSE: Who were these people?

FIFE: Yeah, they were –

RENSE: I don’t expect names, but I mean: what kind of people were they? Professionals? Scientists?

FIFE: Scientists, for the most part. Almost everyone there had a degree in Physics – like I did, I have a degree in Physics.

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: And, the one thing in common that we had was that we were all pulled together for this project.

RENSE: Right.

FIFE: And everyone there were Russians, except for the British friend and an American friend.

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: And we were the Western half of the whole thing.

RENSE: And the Russians spoke English passably well, obviously?

FIFE: Yeah, particularly the two hosts.

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: They were very good. The husband was a physicist, and he was very high up in the Russian Academy of Science. And he had pretty well published, and he was the head of this little company that was the Russian anchor of the joint venture. And his wife, I was told, was some sort of, I guess you might call it an apparatchik, or something.

RENSE: Right.

FIFE: She had a degree of her own in some profession, and she’d be in an organisation where she could exercise her skills, but the same time she was climbing a parallel ladder in the Communist Party [However, this was in February 1992, several weeks after the ‘dissolution’ of the USSR and about half a year after the ‘prohibition’ of the CPSU following the fake theatrical ‘August Coup’ of 1991; which shows without a doubt that the Party structure and everything else had NOT left the scene at all!!!]. And so she was like the communication link between the Communist Party and the organisation. That was what I understood.

RENSE: Right.

FIFE: That’s what I understood what her relationship was.

RENSE: Right. Now, this is 1992, folks, I want you to remember that, we’re getting close to 20 years now. [Unlike Jeff Nyquist in his interview with Tom Fife, Jeff Rense misses the crucial point completely: why was there still a Communist Party in place in the recently ‘abolished’ and allegedly no-more-communist ‘post-Soviet’ Russia of early 1992??? As this ‘little’ detail perfectly confirms the seamless continuity of the USSR beyond 1991 to this day!!!]

FIFE: Yes. And, so we were there, and it was a typical Russian dinner, and what they typically do is then have a bottle of chilled Vodka, and they would have toasts around the table, and when it came up to my American friend’s turn to have a toast, he didn’t actually have a toast so much as he stood up and he just wanted to kind of express his observations about Russia. And, in the process, he was saying that he had observed all these different racial differences, and the bottom line to it was basically that he noted that people had high cheek-bones, and he related that to Mongol blood.

RENSE: Asian genetic [?], sure.

FIFE: Yeah. And he made some comments about that, and with some of them you could tell it was a sore point, –


FIFE: – you know, and particularly, I think, with the wife; I think she was a little bit irritated, because as soon as he stopped talking, she kind of took over and started saying things like, ‘Well, you have to understand what the true Russian is,’ and so she started to describe what a Russian is truly, as a race, I guess. That’s what she was starting to talk about. And then this decayed – I can say: decayed – into her wanting to let us know that we were not as perfect as we thought we were.

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: And so –

RENSE: She was hardcore then. That’s what you’re saying; I get it.

FIFE: Well, she – you know, I was surprised, I really was. I was surprised that she came across that way, because her husband was so easy-going and everything.

RENSE: Well, behind every successful man is an apparatchik, remember that!

FIFE: [Laughing] Yeah, I guess so. – But, anyway, she started this thing about, ‘Well, you think you’re so perfect,’ –

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: – and everything, –

RENSE: American arrogance …

FIFE: Yes. Yes. And then she said, ‘Well, you had a chance to vote for a woman as a Vice President, and you didn’t do it!’

RENSE: Oh oh! A feminist, too – ahh?

FIFE: Yes. And then we said, ‘Well, you don’t vote for the Vice President, you vote for a ticket, you know,’ and she said, ‘Well, you had a chance to do this, this great event of voting for a woman for Vice President, and you didn’t take it.’

RENSE: ‘And you’re gonna pay now, folks …’

FIFE: Okay. And then she said, ‘Oh, you know, the tables are gonna be turned for you.’ [!!!!!]

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: And this is where she started to lay the bomb. And that was, she said, ‘Very soon you’re gonna have a black President,’ and then we were all saying, ‘You know, that’s not unimaginable, you know, given the right guy at the right time, why not, you know!’ And then she said, ‘What if I told you that you’re gonna have a black President very, very soon, and he’s gonna be a Communist?’ And it was like, you know – you know, what do you say when someone says that to you. And, so, during this whole time, by the way, the Russians didn’t participate at all – except, you know, except for the two hosts. They all kept their heads down, just kind of listened, and they didn’t make a peep, they didn’t say a word.

RENSE: Wow! That’s amazing! I can just about imagine the silence in that room there!

FIFE: It was! No, no. Yeah. It really was! And so the only people that spoke were a little bit from us on the Western side, but mostly it was the wife that was doing the talking.

RENSE: Hmm. A black President who is a Communist!

FIFE: Exactly.                                                           

RENSE: Now, she said: ‘pretty soon’. What did that mean? This is 1992 now.

FIFE: 1992.

RENSE: The Clintons had just taken over, remember, we’re just stepping into 8 years of the Clintons – or about to.

FIFE: Yeah, well, this was in early 1992. [Bill Clinton wasn’t elected until November 1992.]

RENSE: Okay.

FIFE: It was still, it was even before that election.

RENSE: Right.

FIFE: Right? – And so, okay, she continued on, and she obviously wanted to make it more concrete for us.

RENSE: Alright. Hold on, Tom, right there. We have to take a little break, we’ll come right back.

FIFE: Okay. Okay.

RENSE: Mr. Tom Fife. We are going to put up the story in question, the essay, back up. It’s on, and now I’m going to put it back up under Tom’s name, I guess, and we’ll come back and hear more of this story, which is fascinating, in just a couple of minutes. ~~~

RENSE: Hi! We’re back to Tom Fife attending a most interesting dinner in Moscow –

FIFE: Hmm.

RENSE: – so to speak, in 1992. So, this woman was – it sounds to me like she was getting pretty energised.

FIFE: She was. And, yeah, she was quite hot under the collar at first –

RENSE: Yeah!

FIFE: That, I could tell, was what started it off.

RENSE: Okay. I understand. Now, when she said ‘This black President,’ then threw in the kicker: ‘and he is going to be a communist too,’ what was her demeanour when she said that? Do you remember? Was there anything particular that stuck in your mind about it – and it must have been because you remember it very clearly. But- tell me more about her disposition: what you’re suggesting here is that what she was relaying to you by way of a taunt was knowledge of forehand.

FIFE: Yeah. And everything, make note, everything she said, she said it as though it were foregone conclusion. And, what I’ll tell you in the next little bit, you can see that it was building up to something, and actually I think, you know, bottom line I think she got carried away.

RENSE: In other words, she flapped her gums too much?

FIFE: I think she did. Yeah. And, but – I think it all started from what my friend said, and I think she just took that as, you know, she just used that as a springboard to go into this thing. And, maybe the Vodka got the better part of her, I don’t know.

RENSE: Well, that and feminism.

FIFE: Yeah. Yeah. [laughs] What do you know. – But, what she – she wanted – at about that point, you know –

RENSE: Excuse me, Tom, excuse me –

FIFE: Oh, yeah.

RENSE: When she laid that first one on you, ‘You’re gonna get a black President,’ how long was it after that that she said the communist thing, and what was the reaction in the room, if any?

FIFE: Ahh – okay: like I said, the Russians didn’t bet an eye. They just – for the most part, they had their heads down like they were thinking and listening –

RENSE: laughing

FIFE: – and they didn’t really respond; well, not even, not reveal – they, they didn’t respond.

RENSE: I would suggest the woman may well have been KGB also, in addition to the rest of her dossier.

FIFE: Yeah, you know, I – you see, you know, there’s something to think about that because here was this company formed to be the interface with the Russian Academy of Science –

RENSE: And we think that’s gonna happen without KGB involvement? I don’t think so.

FIFE: Yeah, exactly. And so, I just know that the Russians didn’t like her.

RENSE: Aha. Interesting.

FIFE: I know that.

RENSE: Interesting.

FIFE: They told me they didn’t like her and they personally didn’t want to have anything to do with her.


FIFE: But, they –

RENSE: And they were also doubly glad they weren’t married to her, right?

FIFE: [laughing] But they had had the husband as their professor.

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: And he was even – they were doing dissertations, and he would be the, he would be the –

RENSE: I see –

FIFE: – the judge and jury for their dissertations, so –

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: It was an interesting situation, but in most part I only got the idea that everyone respected him, but they didn’t want to have anything to do with her.


FIFE: That was the general feeling.

RENSE: Hmhmm. Interesting.

FIFE: And, so, she started lighting into things like, well, she obviously wanted to make the point that ‘this wasn’t just idle talk.’ So she started talking about him, you know, and she was saying like, oh – she made the reference that he was already born, I don’t know why she said that particularly, but she said that he’s already born, and he’s educated, and that he was – she referred to him as being ‘Ivy League’. And – and, oh, and then, well, one of us asked, ‘Okay, then, what’s his name?’ or something, and then she said: “Barack.”

RENSE: Now, you are absolutely – the Vodka didn’t cloud anything here? You’re absolutely certain that she said, “Barack”?

FIFE: Yes. And in fact, you see, that’s when I said – you see, I had a career in aerospace,

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: – and I’ve had to pick up a smattering of languages because I was in the military side of it, and I was, I had to do scenarios with different countries, and everything –

RENSE: Ah, very good. Okay. So you didn’t miss a thing; I got it. Sure.

FIFE: And so one of the things – I’ve had to pick up a smattering of different languages in the process.

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: And so I knew – I don’t know Arabic, but I know a bit of it. And so I remarked, I said: ‘Barack,’ I said, ‘that means like blessing, in Arabic’, and then she said, ‘Yes! It means blessing’, and then she made this thing about how, that he would ‘become a blessing for world communism’, or some such phrase.

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: And that he would ‘help us to become the No. 1 power in the world’ – not Russia, necessarily, but I think communism would be the No. 1 power in the world.

RENSE: Makes sense. I understand. It was the ethic she believed in rather than the physical country. [This would again have been an excellent opportunity for Jeff Rense, who is a knowledgable man and may well have read at some point the two books by Anatoliy Golitsyn, to point out the obvious contradiction between a recently ‘dissolved’ Soviet Union, that allegedly had abandoned its Marxism-Leninism, and the thrilling fact coming out in this conversation that they were still seamlessly continuing with their programme of World Revolution!!! The explanation, of course, being: the ‘changes’ of 1989/91 were a cruel hoax. Well, Tom Fife made a correction anyway:]

FIFE: Yeah, the Party. I think that’s the thing with communists: they’re always the Party men.

RENSE: This is fascinating! Hold on, Tom, I have to pause again. But I again would encourage all of you to re-read this essay by Tom Fife, “The First Time I Heard of Barack”. I put it back up momentarily on my home-page, under ‘Guests’, under his name, and – pass it around! Tom was there! We’ll be right back. ~~~

RENSE: Okay, we are back, talking with Tom Fife. This is a remarkable story, and – go ahead, Tom! Tell us more, if you would! This woman, I get the distinct impression that she was almost out of central casting, if you will.

FIFE: laughing

RENSE: I’m now getting that larger-than-life kind of persona that only a die-hard, devoted, true believer, I guess, a koolaid-drinking communist, could have.

FIFE: You know, and that’s the funny thing about her because when all the time up to this point, and even afterwards – this is a singular event, this evening when she did this, all the other times she was rather subdued, –

RENSE: She was being a good KGB agent, taking mental notes.

FIFE: [laughing] – she was always subdued. But this evening, something torched her off, and she did this, but – oh, actually, okay, I was starting remembering where I was – yeah, then she was rattling off his credentials, so to speak. But, it was at this time that she made his pedigree known, and this was the key to me recognising who she was talking about these years later. Because she said that his mother was white, and from mid America, she said, you know, from the middle of the country [the Dunhams were from Kansas], and that his father was black, and he was from Africa.

RENSE: Ah, this is amazing! Yeah, I remember the essay, I read it very well. It’s back up on the home-page again. So, continue, please! This woman is just – she’s on a big roll here!

FIFE: She was on a roll, yeah! And, then she made – actually, it was at this point that she made one of the most, what I thought, odd comments of the whole evening, and she said, “That’s right: a chocolate baby!” And when she said that, she said it with such almost like arrogance and contempt, it was a very, very strange feeling; and, like I said, it was probably one of the most remarkable comments of the way she said it that I heard her say all evening. And, so – oh, that’s right, then she said again that – she was emphasising that the father was African, and that she thought that was gonna be a better sell, I’m using my own words there, –

RENSE: Yeah, yeah.

FIFE: – a better sell onto America in being African as opposed to American Black, because she said that they had thought this all out very carefully, she said. And that being African, he won’t have a ‘slave stigma’. [This ‘careful thinking out’ could also imply, however, that they completely manufactured his life story, even to the point of ‘giving’ him a sham African father so to create the public image they desired. The perfect Manchurian Candidate! In any case, Bara(c)k Obama senior from Kenya doesn’t resemble him at all, whereas his Hawaii mentor during all his High School years, communist radical Frank Marshall Davis may well be also his biological father, as was pointed out in Joel Gilbert’s film documentary “Dreams from My Real Father”.]

RENSE: Got it.

FIFE: And that was a particular point she was trying to make, at that point. You know, in this whole thing she was saying about him, that was one of the things that she thought was so clever – it came across to me that she thought it was so clever that they had considered this and that they –

RENSE: Oh, in a way it was! The whole thing was clever. I mean, this guy has been groomed obviously from a long time ago –

FIFE: Groomed. Yes.

RENSE: And, now, in your essay you mentioned that she did also remark that he was from, or would be thought of as being from, Hawaii.

FIFE: Yes. She – that was –

RENSE: That’s totally over the top! There is no odds, this is no coincidence, obviously.

FIFE: You know, there was one other – I will tell you this too – there was one other thing that I didn’t write down here, and that was when she was a little bit, she acted a little bit confused, at first, when she was talking about where he was from, and then she landed back and said: “Hawaii.” But at first she said: “Washington, State.” [The Dunhams had lived for several years at Mercer Island, east of Seattle, before moving to Hawaii in 1960; Ann Dunham was there attending ultra-left-leaning Mercer Island High School, from where she graduated as a determined young Marxist-feminist.]


FIFE: And then she landed back on Hawaii. She said, no no no: Hawaii. And in reading up about him and, you know, his background, I didn’t make note of the fact that for a while they lived in Washington, State, before they went to Hawaii; I don’t know, I think I’m reading that correctly. I’m just bringing that up because she did have this momentary confusion about whether it was Washington or Hawaii.

RENSE: Alright, so, we got Hawaii, and then she mentioned his – he was schooled, partly, in California?

FIFE: California. And that he was now in Chicago; and that he was very soon – this was like an eminent thing with her, at this point of time –, that very soon he was going to be in the Legislature in Chicago.

RENSE: Hmm. Yeah. Well, again, there certainly are no coincidences of this magnitude! She was somehow, apparently, on the inner circle, or attribute certainly to the ‘notch’ level, at that kind of a verified atmosphere, and just let it out. How interesting!

FIFE: And like I said, this was a singular event. She – as a matter of fact, after that I probably I only saw her just a handful of times in the next couple, three years.

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: And – yes, she wasn’t – absolutely no more social events, there was always just in-public, after that. And I saw her never again in a social environment. This was the one time, really. And – let me see – okay, yeah, she made a big point – oh, that’s right: she went back, and – as a background, I think – she started talking about how well they were established here in the United States. And she mentioned three cities that were of particular interest to her, and she said they were: New York, Chicago, and San Francisco.

RENSE: Well, when you think of the communist agenda, certainly one of the key planks is the sexual, moral destruction of a nation, and certainly San Francisco would be the flagship city in that regard. Fits. – Well, this is a fascinating story. Think of it all: the name; the race; Hawaii; California; Washington; Chicago; President; a ‘chocolate baby’ President. Interesting, to put it mildly. – We’ll be right back.

RENSE: Okay. Welcome back! My guest this hour is Tom Fife, and again thanks to our friend of so many years, Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt for arranging to have Tom on the programme. I first published his essay back on November 20th of last year. It is entitled, “The First Time I Heard of Barack”. You’ll find it in the guest-section at ‘’ under Tom’s name right now. – This is quite a story. And again, these are all physicists, scientists, with the exception of the bigmouth, I mean: the ‘ever humble’ wife of the host of the evening, whatever. Alright, this is wild! Now, this doesn’t prove anything. It is, as Tom says and as I say, definitely anecdotal. But, again, you have to ask yourself: what are the odds? Ridiculous! Don’t even go there!

FIFE: Yes!

RENSE: This woman knew something, and she spilled the beans, perhaps through a series of circumstances, from the Vodka, getting – her feminism, her Party loyalty, this is more than a Party loyalist, this woman was obviously fanatical, from what I’m hearing in your voice and your words.

FIFE: She had a certain level of intensity in her voice, yes [laughing briefly].

RENSE: Yeah. I hear that. Alright. So, when she was finished with her rant, did you have any response to her allegations, or her prognostications?

FIFE: Well, you know, when she was absolutely done with what she was saying, it was one of those moments when everyone looks at each other and realises, ‘It’s – time to go home now, isn’t it?’

RENSE: [laughs] That’s funny!

FIFE: And that’s what it was. When she finally stopped talking and you could tell that she was kind of ‘done’, that’s when everything broke up. She came back around to each of us and gave us little trinket-type partying gifts, but that was –

RENSE: Little KGB-going-away gifts?

FIFE: Well, yeah, you know, I think she gave me a little packet of, like, of post-cards.

RENSE: Aha. I understand.

FIFE: You know, like a packet of 25 DVDs you might give to some stranger.

RENSE: Yeah yeah.

FIFE: Yeah.

RENSE: This is wild. Who have you shared this with, Tom, before writing the essay and releasing it? Have you talked about it much over the years, and especially, I guess, in the last couple of years? When did this all come back to you – not that it ever left, but when did it really start to loom up again?

FIFE: No, you know what, it never did leave me, because of the impact of someone telling you that they’ve engineered to take over your country.

RENSE: Well, obviously!

FIFE: That, that doesn’t leave you! But then when you come back and you get into things again and you just kind of – it goes in the back of your head.

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: But I did mention it a few times to some friends, when I first, when it was fresh, when I’d just come back, and the general sentiment was, ‘Oh, you know what blowhards these commies are, you know…’

RENSE: Right.

FIFE: ‘You know…’ – ‘Yeah. Yeah.’ ‘Yeah, yeah, yeah. Of course they would say that.’ And that was it. And I kind of thought, ‘Well, okay, there’s nothing there’, you know, ‘all I have is the words out of her mouth on that evening.’

RENSE: You didn’t know Barack Obama from anything, back then. Nobody did.

FIFE: That’s the whole thing. No, no one did.

RENSE: Yeah.

FIFE: And it wasn’t until, for me it wasn’t even until after ’04. It was some time later when I found out that this Barack-Obama guy had a background, and it included a white mother and a black African father, and all the Hawaii thing, the Chicago thing, and it was like, I don’t know, if you can imagine a rubber-band snapping from 1992 back into your head, –

RENSE: Hmhmm. Hmhmm, hmhmm.

FIFE: – it was a really strange feeling, and it was actually scary, it was as scary as hell!

RENSE: I’m sure. And then, I guess, when you realised, heard, that his teenage mentor was a Black American communist named Frank Marshall Davis, that’s another interesting little part of it.

FIFE: You know, every time I turn around, there’s another layer that – and that’s why I mentioned the thing about Washington, because I didn’t write it down here, but it was just – since I wrote this, I read this thing about how the mother had been in Washington before she went to Hawaii.

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: And so I’m thinkin’: She just got confused. You know, she was just sitting there, she probably knew the whole itinerary of everyone for the last –

RENSE: Sounds like it.

FIFE: – and she just got confused for a second about where it was, or –

RENSE: Sure.

FIFE: – he was born, you know. It –

RENSE: Very understandable. Sure. Absolutely. No, she had the whole story, it sounds like; everything. – And at what point did you realise that – now, we got to stop thinking about physical geography here, we got to put this idea of the Soviet Union and physical Russia out of our minds. That’s not the issue. The issue is world communism!

FIFE: I think – Yeah. Yeah. I think that’s what we are talking about.

[Well, the whole business of the USSR has been world revolution all along, right from the 1917 Revolution. That, however, does NOT mean that the USSR has by some miraculous political turn of the tides ceased to exist back in December 1991. It’s still there, perfectly organised, greatly re-armed, and with meanwhile pretty much all major world powers on its side – which makes the whole picture all the more frightening!!! So, of course, it’s still very much about the unchanged Soviet Union, and along with it, definitely about its unchanged goal of communist world domination.]

RENSE: Yeah. When did you realise that world communism owned this country? A year ago? Six months ago? Two years ago?

FIFE: laughs.

RENSE: When did it all kind of agglutinate into your head into one obvious image: this country ain’t what it seems to be.

FIFE: [sighs] I could be really smug and say the 4th of November [of 2008], but –

RENSE: That works. Hey, listen: That works. That’s fine.

FIFE: Ahh. I don’t know. You know, I really didn’t – when she said it – I thought it was impossible.

RENSE: Well, who wouldn’t? You had nothing to tag it to back then at all, no, nothing.

FIFE: No, there was nothing there, and –

RENSE: And ten years would go by before anything would be on the radar, if then; and maybe twelve years: 2004.

FIFE: If I were really looking, it would have been a while for me to actually – yeah. And of course, like I said, it came into place – Oh! You know, that was – I tell you another thing, it was so darn frustrating with this whole thing, is when I finally got together, I’m sitting there by myself in my room, and I’m thinking about this thing, and I’m sitting there thinking: I know something, and I gotta tell somebody. I can’t let this go by. It’s like: this has been layed in my lap, and I have to get the word out. And I sat there, and I pepped away on my computer, and I wrote e-mails to every talkshow host I could think of, and all the local shows and everything. I never got a peep back.        

RENSE: Oh, I’m sure. No question.

FIFE: And I just kept on writing, praising it differently: “Maybe you didn’t hear me the first time …” And I – over and over and over again – and I never got a word back! And it wasn’t until – literally, literally – election day that someone let me tell my story –

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: – for the first time publicly, yeah.

RENSE: Yeah. I remember reading the essay, and as I said I was getting e-mails from people saying, “Come on! Who is this guy, Tom Fife,” and, “This is ridiculous! It couldn’t have happened this way!”

FIFE [with energetic voice]: Hey, I’m here, and I’m – I SWEAR: THIS IS ALL TRUE. I WAS THERE –

RENSE: You don’t have to – Tom, I hear your voice! That’s fine. You don’t have to worry about it. I’ve been doing this for a long time. You’re telling something exactly as you experienced it.

FIFE: And it’s just crazy. You know, it sounds crazy, but it’s the absolute truth. And that’s the thing. And that’s what – part of the thing scares me, you know.

RENSE: Well, it should scare a lot of Americans. Everyone listening should be worried because it tells them, it tells all of us, that there are no accidents, there are no coincidences, that everything is planned, and if they planned Barack Obama nearly 20 years ago, what have they got planned for the next 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 20 more? They, the controllers; they, the people, clearly, at the very least tied immanently to the City of London banking cartel – if in point of fact that isn’t one of the primary nodes of this beast, which I believe it to be: we have communism – you can call it – can play the label game all you want: what we have here is an insidious, evil world-control monstrosity, that is literally able to create and destroy nations at will, and tens, and twenties, and ultimately hundreds of millions of human lives; and ultimately billions, because if they decide to release H5N1, or some successor virus, in a pandemic format, we’ll lose 80 – however many % of the world population they wish to cull, they will. That’s what it tells us. That’s what this tells me. And I think it tells the same thing to almost anyone else listening. Does that sit well with you?

FIFE: [laughing] It doesn’t sit well with me, but I think you’re telling the absolute truth, yeah. And that’s what I feel from the whole thing.


FIFE: There is just a large scheme out there that’s almost like – you know, she used the word “irresistable”.

RENSE: Oh, really?

FIFE: She did say that. She said that this whole thing, that he would be irresistable, and that America would not be able to resist.

RENSE: Well, America couldn’t. He got NLP, he got all kind of obvious coaching, at the best camera angles, he got the [?]. You’re right! She gave you, literally, a 17-year glimpse into the future. What a scene! – Tom, thank you very much for being here and sharing this with us tonight! It’s been fascinating.

FIFE: Thank you!

RENSE: Alright. Take care of yourself!

FIFE: Ah. Okay, thanks.

RENSE: Good night! – Mr. Tom Fife. There is one for you to think about! Okay. Back in 21 hours.



This quite lengthy appendix should give the reader a more in-depth understanding of communist thought and sentiment, i.e. of the overall communist mentality: their insane degree of hatred and ruthlessness, their methodical deceit and highly complex long-term strategic planning, their diabolical contempt for everything of old, their joyful cynicism and cruelty, and finally their steely determination in pursuit of fundamentally destroying every aspect of a God-given, traditional order whatsoever, wheresoever. The quotes are given in chronological order, divided into several sections all the way from the French Revolution, the establishment of the communist movement, and through the various stages of Soviet history, right to the present – as, behind their current ‘democratic’ and ‘free enterprise’ mask, they have remained the same Soviets as ever. – Taken, unless indicated otherwise, from Christopher Story’s ‘The European Union Collective: Enemy of its Member States – A Study in Russian and German Strategy to Complete Lenin’s World Revolution’ (marked as ‘TEUC’), Edward Harle Ltd., London – New York 2002; and mainly from the book’s first part that deals with the Soviet-Russian geopolitical strategy, “Europe from the Atlantic to Vladivostok’, pages 27-144.



It is, to a great extent, this famous military theorist who has ‘inspired’ to this day the strategic methodology of the pan-communist bloc, especially since the 1950s after Mao Zedong had won his revolution in China. Sun Tzu’s treatise ‘The Art of War’ – that deals exclusively with questions of the offensive – represents the essence of overall deception and praises the highest form of warfare to be not having to go to battle, in the first place, but defeating the enemy by other means (it can be read online here). Although the treatise, written 5 centuries BC, is also an example of the beauty and elegance of ancient China regarding form, it is nevertheless carried by the cold and cynical logic of the deceiver who ‘knows’ he will succeed in defeating and conquering his target because he is in the possession of a precise and deadly methodology:

Warfare is the Way of deception. / Therefore, if able, appear unable, / If active, appear not active, / If near, appear far, / If far, appear near, / If they have advantage, entice them, / If they are confused, take them, / If they are substantial, prepare for them, / If they are strong, avoid them, / If they are angry, disturb them, / If they are humble, make them haughty, / If they are relaxed, toil them, / If they are united, separate them. / Attack where they are not prepared, go out where they do not expect. / This specialized warfare leads to victory, and may not be transmitted beforehand.” (From Chapter 1: ‘Calculation’)

“Subtle! Subtle! / They become formless. / Mysterious! Mysterious! / They become soundless. / Therefore, they are the masters of the enemy’s fate. (From Chapter 6: ‘Weakness and Strength’)



Without further comment from the side of this author, here are two passages on this key figure, even initiator, of the overall anti-traditional, as well as anti-societal, conspiracy, taken from the reference work on the topic, the Abbé Augustin Barruel’s (1741-1820) famous “Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism”, published in four consecutive volumes during the late 1790s. One time, a quote from the Preliminary Observations to Volume III, ‘The Antisocial Conspiracy’; the other time a longer passage from pages 1 to 5 of the Preliminary Discourse to the fourth and final volume (entitled ‘Antisocial Conspiracy: Historical Part’) of this unique piece of historical literature. Barruel writes the following (the quote from Vol. IV can also be applied to our present state of affairs, whether in the United States or anywhere else):

• From Vol. III, Preliminary Observations: “The third conspiracy, which I am now about to investigate, is that of the Atheistical Illuminees, which at my outset I denominated the conspiracy of the Sophisters of Impiety and Anarchy against every religion natural or revealed; not only against kings, but against every government, against all civil society, even against all prosperity whatsoever.

The name of Illuminee which this Sect (the most disastrous in its principles, the most extensive in its views, the most atrociously cunning in its means) has chosen, is of ancient standing in the annals of disorganising Sophistry. It was the name which Manes and his disciples first affected, gloriantur Manichaei se de coelo illuminatos. The first Rosicrucians also, who appeared in Germany, called themselves Illuminees. And later, in our time, the Martinists (with many other sects) have pretended to Illuminism. As an outline for history I distinguish them by their plots and tenets, and will reduce them into two classes, the Atheistical and the Theosophical Illuminees. These latter more particularly comprehend the Martinists, whom I have already mentioned in my second volume, and the Swedenbourgians, whom I shall mention in their proper place, where also I shall give what information I have been able to collect relating to them. The Atheistical Illuminees are the objects of the present volume, and it is their conspiracy that I mean to disclose. […]”

• From Vol. IV, Preliminary Discourse: “Conceived but a short time before the French Revolution, by a man whose ambition seemed confined within the narrow compass of the town of Ingolstadt and to the dusty folios of his schools, by what strange means did Illuminism, in less than fifteen years, become that formidable Sect which, under the name of Jacobin, rides triumphant over ruined altars, shivered scepters, and scattered crowns; over the wrecks of nations and their constitutions; over the bodies of potentates fallen beneath their poisons or their poignards, while they drag others in their train, craving a servitude termed peace, or branding themselves with the infamy of what they call an alliance?

Under this name of JACOBIN absorbing all the mysteries, plots, and combinations of every sectary against every religion, government, and society, by what artifice could Illuminism acquire that dominion of terror which forbids any sovereign within the astonished universe to say, Tomorrow I shall continue seated on my throne; which forbids nations and citizens to say, that their laws and religion, their houses and property, will not be torn from them; which forbids the peaceful inhabitant to lie down to rest with any assurance that he will not rise in the morning beneath the shade of that symbol of blood called the Tree of Liberty, and threatened by the axe of the devouring guillotine? How is it possible, that the secret adepts of the modern Spartacus should be the invisible and exclusive movers of that long chain of crimes and calamities, that disastrous torrent of ferocity and rapine, which is called the revolution? How do they continue to direct those machinations which are to consummate the dissolution and misery of human society?

In dedicating this Fourth Volume to the investigation of these questions, I do not flatter myself with the hopes of illustrating them with all that precision and of pointing out those particularities which other men might have done who have had it in their power to follow the Sect of Illuminees into their dark abodes without ever losing sight of the adepts or their teachers. The monster has taken its course through wilderness, and darkness has more than once obscured its progress. Weishaupt had adopted the bird of night for his emblem, because he courted darkness; but the screechings of this ominous bird, rending the air in spite of him, discover his secret retreat. The venomous reptile is often discovered by the stench of its poison; the beaten and blood-stained track leads to the discovery of the cavern inhabited by brigands; and, notwithstanding all the efforts of the wicked, an all-powerful God will sometimes in his mercy permit a ray of light to shine on their tenebrous recesses, which may suffice to develope their plots. Many horrid particulars, no doubt, have been lost under the veil of darkness; but in classing those which have come to my knowledge, I find abundance of proofs to trace the Sect wherever crime has pointed out its fatal influence. In vain does the black cloud hover round the summit of the volcano, the bituminous and sulphureous vapours which it exhales, bear testimony of the interior combustions, till at length the erruption denotes the abyss where so great a convulsion was generated.

Hence, without flattering myself with the hopes of seizing every link of that horrid chain of iniquity which must blacken the page of history when treating of the Sect, or of decyphering the assumed names of all its adepts, I shall proceed to lay before my readers what has already come to light. Asserting nothing but what will bear the strictest scrutiny, I shall still find matter sufficient to trace the progress of the Sect from its origin to that congress to which, at the present moment, it calls the vanquished sovereigns, not so much to quell the horrors of the field of battle, as to enjoy that dominion of terror which it despotically sways without, and to prepare within new resources to extend its triumphs; not so much to restore to nations the tottering remnants of their laws and religion, as to invent means of obliterating the very traces of either that may yet remain. I shall here attempt to lead the historian through these mazy windings lest he should lose himself when in pursuit of the Sect. The reader has already seen (in our remarks on the Code) its oaths and threats against every religion, all society, and property. Now, when reading of what the Sect has done, of the plots and machinations it has successfully undertaken and executed, may nations and their rulers acquire new ardour, and be stimulated to oppose their future projects with all the courage and all the means they are masters of. It is to triumph over Jacobinism, cost what it may, that nations are to study the records of this Sect, and not to sink meanly into despair. I know I am but mortal, and that ere long I shall descend into the grave; and I calmly wait my dissolution which threatens society, after I have awakened my readers to the dangers which threaten them, only to see them sinking once more into that apathy which portends ruin, under pretence that it is too late, that it is useless to resist the fate which the Sect has decreed for all nations? God forbid that I should hold such language! Cannot the good be fired with that zeal which consumes the breast of the miscreant heaving for wickedness. Let the rulers of nations will it, let nations will to save their religion, their laws, their property, as this infernal Sect wills the destruction of them all, and success must infallibly crown their endeavours. It is only in hopes of contributing to their success, that I once more consent to sully my pen with the names of Weishaupt, of Illuminee, and of Jacobin, and to wade through their disgusting annals. […]”  



François Noël ‘Gracchus’ Babeuf was indeed the most radical of all revolutionaries of the French Revolution. Two years after the nightmare of the Jacobinian Terreur was put to an end in the summer of 1794, Babeuf had everything prepared for a violent coup against the ruling Directory (revolutionary) government (which conspiracy, however, was detected in time and rooted out; Babeuf and his clique were executed the following year). His plan was the erection of a completely egalitarian and communal society, beyond private property of any sorts and certainly even more hostile to any remnant of traditional society than had been the revolution so far. His “Society of Equals” represents the direct continuation of Weishaupt’s Illuminati programme – most likely Babeuf was an Illuminati member himself –  as well as the blueprint for Marxist Communism, proving them all as part of one and the same ideological stream, more: as part of one and the same anti-force; after all, Babeuf and comrades had the same manner of using code names derived from Greek-Roman antiquity as was the practice among Weishaupt, Knigge & Co. Also, Weishaupt’s code name Spartacus has been prominently used by communists to this day, notwithstanding the fact that International Workers’ Day, May 1st, ‘coincides’ with the founding day of the Illuminati brotherhood, May 1st, 1776: Babeufism and Marxism ARE absolutely identical with Weishaupt’s Illuminism!!!  Here is, in full, Babeuf’s infamous Manifesto of the Equals, written in that ominous year of 1796:

“People of France! For fifteen centuries you lived as a slave and, consequently, unhappy. For the last six years you barely breathe, waiting for independence, freedom and equality. EQUALITY! The first wish of nature, the first need of man, the first knot of all legitimate association! People of France! You were not more blessed than the other nations that vegetate on this unfortunate globe! Everywhere and at all times the poor human race, handed over to more or less deft cannibals, served as an object for all ambitions, as feed for all tyrannies. Everywhere and at all times men were lulled with beautiful words; at no time and in no place was the thing itself ever obtained through the word. From time immemorial they hypocritically repeat; all men are equal; and from time immemorial the most degrading and monstrous inequality insolently weighs upon the human race. As long as there have been human societies the most beautiful of humanity’s rights is recognized without contradiction, but was only able to be put in practice one time: equality was nothing but a beautiful and sterile legal fiction. And now that it is called for with an even stronger voice we are answered: be quiet, you wretches! Real equality is nothing but a chimera; be satisfied with conditional equality; you’re all equal before the law. What more do you want, filthy rabble? Legislators, you who hold power, rich landowners, it is now your turn to listen. Are we not all equal? This principle remains uncontested, because unless touched by insanity, you can’t say it’s night when it’s day. Well then! We claim to live and die equal, the way we were born: we want this real equality or death; that’s what we need. And we’ll have this real equality, at whatever price. Unhappy will be those who stand between it and us! Unhappy will be those who resist a wish so firmly expressed. The French Revolution was nothing but a precursor of another revolution, one that will be bigger, more solemn, and which will be the last. The people marched over the bodies of kings and priests who were in league against it: it will do the same to the new tyrants, the new political Tartuffes seated in the place of the old. What do we need besides equality of rights? We need not only that equality of rights written into the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen; we want it in our midst, under the roofs of our houses. We consent to everything for it, to make a clean slate so that we hold to it alone. Let all the arts perish, if need be, as long as real equality remains! Legislators and politicians, you have no more genius than you do good faith; gutless and rich landowners, in vain you attempt to neutralize our holy enterprise by saying: They do nothing but reproduce that agrarian law asked for more than once in the past. Slanderers, be silent: and in the silence of your confusion listen to our demands, dictated by nature and based on justice. The Agrarian law, or the partitioning of land, was the spontaneous demand of some unprincipled soldiers, of some towns moved more by their instinct than by reason. We reach for something more sublime and more just: the common good or the community of goods! No more individual property in land: the land belongs to no one. We demand, we want, the common enjoyment of the fruits of the land: the fruits belong to all. We declare that we can no longer put up with the fact that the great majority work and sweat for the smallest of minorities. Long enough, and for too long, less than a million individuals have disposed of that which belongs to 20 million of their like, their equals. Let it at last end, this great scandal that our descendants will never believe existed! Disappear at last, revolting distinctions between rich and poor, great and small, masters and servants, rulers and ruled. Let there no longer be any difference between people than that of age and sex. Since all have the same faculties and the same needs, let there then be for them but one education, but one food. They are satisfied with one sun and one air for all: why then would the same portion and the same quality of food not suffice for each of them? Already the enemies of the most natural order of things we can imagine raise a clamor against us. They say to us: You are disorganizers and seditious; you want nothing but massacres and loot. PEOPLE OF FRANCE: We won’t waste our time responding to them; we tell you: the holy enterprise that we are organizing has no other goal than to put an end to civil dissension and public misery. Never before has a vaster plan been conceived of or carried out. Here and there a few men of genius, a few men, have spoken in a low and trembling voice. None have had the courage to tell the whole truth. The moment for great measures has arrived. Evil has reached its height: it covers the face of the earth. Under the name of politics, chaos has reigned for too many centuries. Let everything be set in order and take its proper place once again. Let the supporters of justice and happiness organize in the voice of equality. The moment has come to found the REPUBLIC OF EQUALS, this great home open to all men. The day of general restitution has arrived. Groaning families, come sit at the common table set by nature for all its children. PEOPLE OF FRANCE: The purest of all glories was thus reserved for you! Yes it is you who the first should offer the world this touching spectacle. Ancient habits, antique fears, would again like to block the establishment of the Republic of Equals. The organization of real equality, the only one that responds to all needs, without causing any victims, without costing any sacrifice, will not at first please everyone. The selfish, the ambitious, will tremble with rage. Those who possess unjustly will cry out about injustice. The loss of the enjoyments of the few, solitary pleasures, personal ease will cause lively regret to those heedless of the pain of others. The lovers of absolute power, the henchmen of arbitrary authority, will with difficulty bow their superb heads before the level of real equality. Their shortsightedness will understand with difficulty the imminent future of common happiness; but what can a few thousand malcontents do against a mass of happy men, surprised to have searched so long for a happiness that they had in their hands. The day after this real revolution, they’ll say with astonishment: What? Common happiness was so easy to obtain? All we had to do was want it? Why oh why didn’t we desire it sooner? Did they really have to make us speak of it so many times? Yes, without a doubt, one lone man on earth richer, stronger than his like, than his equals, and the balance is thrown off: crime and unhappiness are on earth. PEOPLE OF FRANCE; By what sign will you now recognize the excellence of a constitution? …That which rests in its entirety on real equality is the only one that can suit you and fulfill all your wishes. The aristocratic charters of 1791 and 1795 tightened your chains instead of breaking them. That of 1793 was a great step towards true equality, and we had never before approached it so closely. But it did not yet touch the goal, nor reach common happiness, which it nevertheless solemnly consecrated as its great principle. PEOPLE OF FRANCE, Open your eyes and your hearts to the fullness of happiness: recognize and proclaim with us the REPUBLIC OF EQUALS.”



“A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies. Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries? Two things result from this fact: I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power. II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a manifesto of the party itself. To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London and sketched the following manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages.” (Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels: The Communist Manifesto, 1848; Preamble, in full)

“The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas. But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to Communism. We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible. Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production. These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c. – When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” (Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels: The Communist Manifesto, 1848; excerpt from Chapter II: ‘Proletarians and Communists’. – Points 2 and 5, key for the systematic destruction of an economy, have been a firm reality also in the so-called Free World for a long time: The progressive income tax has served as a tool for slow-motion redistribution of wealth, and our economies are completely at the mercy of privately owned central banks. Point 9 is a reality one can now see everywhere, especially in Europe: the old, traditional village is mostly a thing of the past. Points 7, 8, and 10 are presently being implemented at breakneck speed: whole economic sectors are now in the process of getting nationalised, not only in Obamerica. The remaining points 1, 3, 4, and 6 would then be fulfilled the day communism officially takes over: as soon as that happens, everybody will lie equally in dirt, as the sad history of communism has shown again and again, painfully realising the diabolical cynicism of ‘Liberté! Egalité! Fraternité!’ End of story.)

“Section II has made clear the relations of the Communists to the existing working-class parties, such as the Chartists in England and the Agrarian Reformers in America. The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement. In France, the Communists ally with the Social-Democrats against the conservative and radical bourgeoisie, reserving, however, the right to take up a critical position in regard to phases and illusions traditionally handed down from the great Revolution. In Switzerland, they support the Radicals, without losing sight of the fact that this party consists of antagonistic elements, partly of Democratic Socialists, in the French sense, partly of radical bourgeois. In Poland, they support the party that insists on an agrarian revolution as the prime condition for national emancipation, that party which fomented the insurrection of Cracow in 1846. In Germany, they fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way, against the absolute monarchy, the feudal squirearchy, and the petty bourgeoisie. But they never cease, for a single instant, to instill into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat, in order that the German workers may straightway use, as so many weapons against the bourgeoisie, the social and political conditions that the bourgeoisie must necessarily introduce along with its supremacy, and in order that, after the fall of the reactionary classes in Germany, the fight against the bourgeoisie itself may immediately begin. The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilisation and with a much more developed proletariat than that of England was in the seventeenth, and France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution. In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things. In all these movements, they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time. Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries. The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. – Working Men of All Countries, Unite!” (Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels: The Communist Manifesto, 1848: Closing chapter, no. IV, in full: ‘Positions of the Communists in Relation to the Various Existing Opposition Parties’)



“All nations will come to socialism. This is unavoidable. But all will not come in the same way. Each of them will bring its own traits into one or another form of democracy, into one or another variety of dictatorship of the proletariat, into one or another rate of socialist transformation in various aspects of social life. But of course, there is no need to exaggerate the significance of these peculiarities.” (Anatoliy Golitsyn: ‘The Perestroika Deception’, page 104; from: V.I. Lenin: ‘A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism’, Collected Works, Vol. XXIII)

“A Communist must be prepared to make every sacrifice and, if necessary, even resort to all sorts of schemes and stratagems, employ illegitimate methods, conceal the truth, in order… to conduct revolutionary work within…” (TEUC, page XXVII; from: V.I. Lenin: Collected Works, Vol. XVII, pages 142-145)

“I was not only forced to confine myself strictly to an exclusively theoretical, mainly economic analysis of facts, but to formulate a few necessary observations on politics with extreme caution, by hints, in that Aesopian language – in that cursed Aesopian language – to which Tsarism compelled all revolutionaries to have recourse whenever they took up their pens to write a ‘legal’ work.” (TEUC, page XXXIX; from: V.I. Lenin: Preface to ‘Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Captialism’, April 26, 1917)

“In form, such a strong revolutionary organisation… may also be described as a ‘conspiratorial organisation’, because the French word ‘conspiration’ is the equivalent of the Russian word ‘zagovor’, and such an organisation must have the utmost secrecy. Secrecy is such a necessary condition for this kind of organisation that all other conditions (number and selection of members, functions, etc.) must be made to conform to it. It would be extremely naïve indeed, therefore, to fear the charge that we Social-Democrats desire to create a conspiratorial organisation.” (TEUC, pages 50-51; from V.I. Lenin: Collected Works, Vol. V, page 475; International Publishers, New York)

“Morality is that which serves [to create] a new Communist society.” (TEUC, page XIX; from: V.I. Lenin: Collected Works, Vol. XVII, pages 321-323)

“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.” (TEUC, page XIX; from: V.I. Lenin: Collected Works, Vol. XVII, page 149)

“We set ourselves the ultimate aim of destroying the state.” (TEUC, page 10; from: V.I. Lenin: State and Revolution; [orig. 1917]; International Publishers, New York 1961 Edition, page 68)

“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.” (TEUC, page 50; from: V.I. Lenin: speaking at the Comintern Congress in July 1921, referring to the newly introduced deception operation named ‘New Economic Policy’, the strategic forerunner of Gorbachev’s ‘perestroika’.)


1924 – 1953: THE STALIN ERA

“It is only possible to speak of utilising the bourgeois organisations with the object of destroying them.” (TEUC, page XIX; from: ‘Blueprint for World Conquest’, 6th World Congress of the Comintern, 1928)

“Communist society … recognises no form of state.” (TEUC, page XXXI; from: ‘Blueprint for World Conquest’, 6th World Congress of the Comintern, 1928)

“The Soviet United States of Europe is the only correct slogan pointing the way out from European disunity.” (TEUC, page XXXII; from: Leon Trotsky, in: ‘The Bulletin of the Opposition’, Nr. 17-18, November-December 1930; page 53)

“The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep. So we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard-of concessions. The West, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. As soon as their guard is down, we will smash them with our clenched fist.” (TEUC, page 35; from: Dmitri Manuilski, speaking to his students at the Lenin School in 1930)

“The socialist society will be forced to apply the most resolute measures for a long time against people who are harmful and deliberately destructive… i.e., those who seek to undermine the socialist state and to re-establish the capitalist system.” (TEUC, page 20; from: M. Rezunov: ‘Socialism or State Capitalism in the Soviet Union’, Leningrad 1934, pp 12-18)

“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.” (TEUC, page 20; from: Yossif Stalin: Report to the 18th Party Congress, CPSU, March 10, 1939; published in: Communist International Magazine, special issue, XIV, 520 ff, 1939; cited by Louis F. Budenz: The Techniques of Communism, 1954, page 12)

“Divide the world into regional groups as a transitional stage of world government. Populations will more readily abandon their national loyalties to a vague regional loyalty than they will for a world authority. Later, the regions can be brought together all the way into a single world dictatorship.” (TEUC, page 23; from: Yossif Stalin: ‘Marxism and the National Question’; 1942)

“Parliaments can be helpful post-revolution vehicles for transforming democratic nations into fully-fledged Communist states.” (TEUC, page 72: from a 1961 analysis by communist Czechoslovakia’s official historian, Jan Kozak, regarding the 1948 overthrow of Czech parliamentarism in favour of rigorous One-Party Stalinism by the use of the Czech parliament itself. Source: Jan Kozak: ‘How Parliament can play a Revolutionary part in the Transition to Socialism, and the Role of the Popular Masses’; American Edition by Long House Publishing Company, CT, 1962. – In the case of Hitler Germany, that phase of ‘post-revolutionary’ latency lasted less than two months until Htiler and comrades, who had risen to power, lest we forget, by the legal means of democratic vote, crushed the parliament and introduced their One-Party dictatorship, based on the provocation of the Reichstag fire. Likewise, also in the case of present-day America it is certainly not far-fetched to speak of a ‘post-revolutionary’ situation ever since January 2009, given the fact that the United States have been governed for the last four years (and continue to be governed furtheron) by a die-hard, albeit cleverly concealed Marxist, who might well soon – now that he is reelected – show a quite different face from what he has shown so far (ugly enough as it has already been). In the case of the European Union, it’s been a fait accompli already for a long time, with no chance for any of the member states even to envision leaving this political monstrosity, that too is on its way to totalitarianism, not the least in the light of an upcoming merger with the unchanged Soviet Union, which is the declared goal of the political forces involved, but will be to the detriment of the peoples of Western Europe who can expect to be fully subjected under the Communist yoke in the not-too-far-away future.)

“Morality is what brings about… a new society of Communists. Communist morality is that which serves this struggle… At the base of Communist morality lies the struggle for the strengthening and completion of Communism.” (TEUC, page 20; Sochineniya, 4th Edition, Vol. 31, Moscow 1950; pp 266, 268, 269, 270.)

“Capitalism’s short-term view can never envisage the lengths across which we can plan.” (TEUC, page 50; from Lavrentii Beria: Lecture to American Communists attending the Lenin School; early 1950s)



“The thing that exists [thesis], the opposite that grows out of it [antithesis], and the higher stage that develops from their interaction or conflict [synthesis], govern all correct thinking and the proper interpretation of life and society… That which retards socialism is ‘reactionary’ and is to be destroyed. That which advances socialism is ‘progressive’ and ‘liberating’ and is to be encouraged and forwarded.” (TEUC, page 20; from: Louis F. Budenz (1891-1972), former prominent US Communist who renounced his communism in 1945, returned to Catholicism and became an ardent writer against the Communist conspiracy: The Techniques of Communism; Henry Regnery Company, Chicago 1954, pages 7-8)

“The Struggle for the future will probably not be so much through engines of war, as through the continued penetration of the thought process of the world’s population.” (TEUC, page 96; from: Louis Budenz: The Bolshevik Invasion of the West: Account of the Great Political War for a Soviet America;   Bookmailer, 1966; in: The West at Bay: How it got that way (On lieu of a Preface), page 6)

“Communism is a movement directed against individualization and towards standardizing of all man’s activities. Steadily and persistently, the Soviet regime is driving towards its ultimate goal: control of human behavior.” (TEUC, page 96; from: Dr. Boris Sokoloff, a Russian medical doctor heavily involved with the Russian Revolution itself, but who escaped from Russia and reached the United States, in his 1956 book ‘The White Nights’, The Devin Adair Company, New York 1956, page 292. – This observation not only illustrates the prominent role of mass mind control, as was contributed to Lenin’s condsiderations and plannings by Ivan Pavlov and was given just as high credit in Nazi Germany, but also the true and quite frightening meaning of Gorbachev’s slogan ‘New Thinking’. Obviously, if it is possible to bring about a ‘new society’ where all individuals are of one mind (for which the introduction of perfidious ‘political correctness’, a Soviet invention anyway, is already a deadly harbinger), chances are considerably greater to accomplish the desired ‘irreversibility’ of things, and so with far less emphasis on overt oppression, just the way Aldous Huxley had foreseen resp. had blown the whistle about already in 1932 as an additional note to his novel Brave New World: “A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.“)

“The victory of Communism on the world scale will provide the necessary material and intellectual preconditions for the merging of [all] nations. A Communist economic integration never known before will gradually be formed throughout the world. There will emerge a common moral code which will absorb all that is best in the character of each nation. Mankind will become one united, fraternal community completely free of antagonism.” (TEUC, page 33; from: Foundations of Marxist-Leninist Philosophy resp. Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism; 1960)

“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.” (TEUC, page 34; from: Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism; 1960; page 656)

“In deciding other affairs, methods of public influence, the influence of public opinion, will be utilised.” – “Communism means new relations between the peoples. They will arise as a result of the further development of the principles of socialist internationalism, which today constitute the basis of relations between countries.” – “The cultures of different peoples, national in form, will be increasingly imbued with the same Communist content. Their drawing together on this basis will provide a mighty stimulus to the mutual enrichment and development of national cultures and in the long run will lead to the formation of a single, deeply international culture that will be truly the culture of all mankind. Under Communism, public opinion will become a mighty force, capable of bringing to reason those individuals who might not want to follow Communist customs and rules of behaviour in the community. (TEUC, pages 96-97; from: Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism; 1960; pages 735-753)

“Individual choice would eventually be mastered by a central Soviet control of thought process.” (TEUC, page 96; Soviet spy George Blake, as remembered by Kenneth de Courcy and cited by Chapman Pincher in Traitors: The Labyrinths of Treason; Sidgwick & Jackson, London 1987, page 157)


1964 – 1982: THE BREZHNEV ERA

The kollektiv represents “the setting for group pressure [whose] task is to instil … habits of collectivism… to foster an acceptance of group control over values, attitudes and behaviour.” (TEUC, page 97; from: Allen Kassof: The Soviet Youth Program , Harvard University Press, Cambridge 1965; page 45. Cited in: Contemporary Soviet Politics: An Introduction; Donald D. Barry and Carol Barner-Barry, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1978-91)

“Lenin’s inestimable service consists in that he furnished answers to the most acute questions raised by Life and indicated the most efficacious forms of struggle… for the victory of the socialist revolution and the triumph of Communism. To apply a consistent class line, firmly adhere to principles, be flexible in tactics, consider the concrete conditions from every angle, to undertake bold and at the same time well-conceived actions… this is what Lenin taught us, and what we learn from Lenin. His contribution to revolutionary theory was a major stage in the development of Marxist thought.” – “Communists will always be true to the creative spirit of Leninism… Study Lenin’s works! There you will find an inexhaustible fund of inspiration for struggle against reaction and oppression, for socialism and peace. Acquaintance with Lenin’s works will help the rising generation to see more clearly the revolutionary prospects of our era. Spread more widely the knowledge of the achievements of Leninism! Let us raise higher the banner of Leninism in the struggle for the revolutionary renewal of the world! Long live Leninism!” (TEUC, page 39; nota bene: NOT Gorbachev, but: Leonid Brezhnev: statement at the International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties held in Moscow from June 5 to 17, 1969: ‘Record of the International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties’, Peace and Socialism Publishers, Prague 1969; page 172)

“The plan for economic and monetary union has revolutionary longterm political implications, both economic and political. It could imply the creation of a European federal state, with a single currency… It will arouse strong feelings about sovereignty.” (TEUC, page 32; from a British Foreign Office document dated November 9, 1970; thus, the British political class was perfectly aware of the consequences of a British membership in the then EEC, but nevertheless embarked on that deadly road to national extinction).



“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.” (TEUC, page 44; statement by Mikhail Gorbachev before the Politburo early in his tenure, i.e. somewhere around 1985/86; from: Relevance Special Report, September 1994: ‘The New Lies Strategy: The KGB’s Advance through Retreat’, under the section entitled ‘The Grand Illusion’)

“Let us imagine a rejuvenated Central Committee in Moscow decides to free the Soviet Union from its increasingly burdensome confederates. ‘Just understand, Comrades,’ says the barely 31-year-old General Secretary, ‘that these small eastern European states with their chaotic economic situation, with their incomprehensible inner contradictions and their harmful ideologies will simply continue to hinder our Communist structure. In my view, it would be much more correct to leave these societies – while guaranteeing our military interests – to their own dynamism of development.'” – “From the propagandist point of view, this would bring us only benefits… because we could then be hailed once again as liberators of these countries… Let us fantasise further: the First Secretary’s words are unanimously enacted, the Warsaw Pact is terminated, the Soviet troops stationed in the Eastern European region are disbanded amidst military music and flowers, and the former Eastern Bloc countries make a start on controlling their own problems. Through free elections, in which several parties may participate, they create their parliamentary institutions, they open their borders and guarantee freedom rights, including sensible limited private ownership. All other things – McDonalds network, unemployment, peep-shows – will automatically follow.” (TEUC, page 111; article by György Dalos; in: ‘Das Kursbuch’, Kursbuch Verlag/Rotbuch Verlag, Berlin, September 1985: ‘Die Befreiung der Sowjetunion von ihren Satelliten: Entwurf einer Mitteleuropäischen Konföderation’ (i.e. The Soviet Union’s ridding itself of its satellites: Draft of a Central European Confederation). Apart from an inevitable element of disinformation regarding the ‘harmful ideologies’ of the East European satellite states etc. and with typcial Leninist boldness and cynicism, this was a clear and detailed pointer to what the Soviets were up to, 2 years before the pompous proclamation of perestroika and 4 years prior to the ‘demolition’ of the Iron Curtain. Had these signals been properly perceived and analysed by the West, it would have been so much harder for the Communist bloc to surprise the West with their false ‘democratisation’ offensive in 1989; Western politicians would have been warned to stay away from any of the communists’ deceptive overtures. – Note that also here, like in the Soviet context, there’s a reference to limited privatisation only!!! The ‘new’ model would then be not a free market economy but state-controlled ‘capitalism’, in other words: the same old central planning economy ‘enriched’ by superficial capitalistic features so to dupe the West into convergence on the false premises of ‘collapsible communism’.)

“Already today we can say: the Congress has been held in an atmosphere of Party fidelity to principle, in a spirit of unity, exactingness, and Bolshevik truth.” – “It is in this way, in Lenin’s way, that we have acted here at our Congress. And that is the way we shall continue to act! – “Comrades, our Congress has shown that at the present stage, which is a turning point in our country’s social development, the Leninist Party is equal to its historic tasks.” – “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! (TEUC, page 19; Mikhail Gorbachev’s closing address to the 27th CPSU Congress on March 6, 1986; from the Information Bulletin ‘XXVII Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union: Documents of the Communist and Workers’ Parties, Articles and Speeches’, 9/1986, Volume 24; Peace and Socialism International Publishers, Prague 1986, pages 125-130)

“At a Party Congress at which frank reports were delivered and sharp discussions held, after which the delegates expressed support for unity, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, in defiance of sceptics, exclaimed enthusiastically: ‘Now this is something I really understand! This is Life!’ Many years have gone by since then. One can note with satisfaction that the atmosphere at our Congress is again marked by that Bolshevik spirit, that Leninist optimism, that call to struggle against the old and outmoded in the name of the new.” (TEUC, page 40; at the same 27th Party Congress of the CPSU, February 1986: Boris Yeltsin; the supposed ‘anti-Communist’, who was in reality, like Gorbachev, a flawless Party and Politburo boss, and who merely enacted this dialectical ploy of displayed ‘rivalry’ with Gorbachev for the furtherance of Communist strategy.)

“The 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union notes that our Leninist party has come to its Congress enriched… At the present turning point, in a qualitatively new situation inside the country and on the world scene, the Party has again shown its loyalty to Marxism-Leninism.” (TEUC, page 19; Final Resolution on the Political Report of the Central Committee; ibid., page 133)

“We are moving towards a new world, the world of Communism. We shall never turn off that road.” (TEUC, page 19; Mikhail Gorbachev, November 1987)

“The new Soviet initiatives are in large part centred on Europe – which, should a sharp turn toward a policy of peace be achieved, would have a special role to play as the building site of détente.” (TEUC, page 31; Fyodor Burlatsky: From Geneva to Reykjavik, Progress Publishers, Moscow 1987; page 97 – ‘Sharp turn’ is supposed to mean a U-turn for Europe away from an alliance with the United States towards a joint political, economic and military space with the Soviet Union! – And here is Christopher Story’s explanation of the Communist meaning of ‘peace’: “the cessation and absence of all opposition to Lenin’s World Communist Revolution”, in other words: the global implementation of an ‘eternal’ peace of the grave.)

“Our philosophy of peace [which always means a communist peace of the grave with all opposition crushed] is frankly based on the conviction that socialism can win without war, without military competition.” (TEUC, page 42; Burlatsky: From Geneva to Reykjavik, page 155; the strategic theme ‘victory without war’ is mainly based on the theories by ancient Chinese military theorist Sun Tzu, laid out in his treatise The Art of War, that says the highest form of war is not having to go to war by instead gradually undermining and destroying the enemy country’s social and cultural fabric as well as spiritual values from within; that same approach is also well-known from the infamous Prison Notebooks by Italian communist Antonio Gramsci, who indeed inspired several generations of covert revolutionaries to embark on a highly efficient ‘March through the institutions’ – once ‘Daniel le Rouge’, leader of the May 1968 student riots in Paris and a.k.a. Daniel Cohn-Bendit, as well as Joschka Fischer, once far-left street activist, being probably the most prominent examples: the former is today leader of the European Green parties in the European Parliament; the latter made it to the post of head of the German Greens and German Foreign Minister from 1998 to 2005 under socialist Chancellor Gerd Schröder, whose famous expression, ‘Yes, I am a Marxist’ surprisingly hasn’t bothered anyone in Germany, which tells us all about the incredible progress of the revolution in Germany and throughout Europe.)

“Some progress, in fact considerable progress has been made in Europe towards détente and in New Thinking.” (TEUC, page 42; Burlatsky: From Geneva to Reykjavik, page 159)

“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… Neither the arms race, nor power politics in the Third World, nor the military blocs, are thinkable without ‘the enemy’, and without the ‘Soviet threat’.” (TEUC, page 23; Georgiy Arbatov, then close strategic advisor to Gorbachev and member of the Politburo; in: Kommunist, 1988. – This is what the alleged ‘end of the Cold War’ really was about: the bringing to an end of anti-Communism by deceptively creating the illusion that the Communist threat was over. This manipulation of the Western mind enabled the Soviet strategists to advance full steam towards a merger of the blinded West with the unchanged Communist East, naturally on Communist terms, and with the West not realising what’s going on until it’ll be too late!!!)

“The ‘image of the enemy’ which we are expending so much effort on debunking today emerged as a counterbalance to the real image of the Soviet people, contrary to its friendliness, valour, wisdom and self-sacrifice.” (TEUC, page 42; July 25, 1988: Eduard Shevardnadze before the 19th All-Union CPSU Conference; that part of his speech was entitled ‘The Party’s Thought and Will geared to Perestroika’)

“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…” (TEUC, page 14; Mikhail Gorbachev; in: ‘Current Digest of the Soviet Press’, 40, Number 7, 1988, pages 3-4)

“Hungary allowed 60,000 East Germans to leave for the West, and thousands more moved into Prague and Warsaw. Hungarian Foreign Minister Gyula Horn allowed East Germans to leave after talking by phone with Shevardnadze.” (TEUC, page 111; the events in the summer of 1989 at the Hungarian-Austrian border as described in the otherwise completely uncritical book The Wars of Eduard Shevardnadze by Carolyn Ekedahl and Melvin A. Goodman, The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997; page 248. – This en-passant-mentioning of an exchange on the telephone between the Hungarian and the Soviet Foreign Minister immediately before go-ahead was given in the night from September 10 to September 11, 1989 for those 60,000 East Germans to leave into the West reveals that events were tightly coordinated with Moscow. There was no spontaneous element in any of this. It was all planned and carried out with military precision. – September 11, by the way, is the birthday of the founder of the Cheka and co-architect of Lenin’s Red Terror, Felix Dzerzhinsky, as well as the death-day of the father of the New Longrange Deception Strategy, Nikita Khrushchev! A fact that seems to have had little effect on 9-11 researchers to consider the possibility, in one way or the other, of a Russian involvement in those terror attacks that led to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and gave birth to the new Soviet propaganda line of a ‘common Islamic threat’ that would necessitate close security and intelligence cooperation between ‘Russia’ and the West. – Also, Gyula Horn, an active supporter of the Soviet crushing of the genuine Hungarian uprising back in 1956 and active participant in the brutal ‘cleansing’ operations that accompanied it, was soon to be a ‘post-communist’ Prime Minister of ‘newly democratic’ Hungary during the years 1994 to 1998! He later was co-founder, with Mikhail Gorbachev, in 2003 of the ‘World Political Forum’, a platform that serves like the Gorbachev Foundation to influence and manipulate Western elites in the interests of communist revolutionary strategy.)

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 [i.e. godless] 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.” (TEUC, page 14; Mikhail Gorbachev speaking on November 15, 1989 to a group of Russian students. – Thus, these remarks represent a blatant real-time explanation of the true nature of the supposed ‘changes’ that were all-too-smoothly transforming in those months the Eastern European satellite states into ‘instant-democracies’!)

“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 inevitableFirst, 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 conservatives, and guarantee the irreversibility of restructuring.” (TEUC, pages 79-80; Boris Yeltsin speaking at the 28th CPSU Congress on July 6, 1990; from: Current Soviet Policies XI, Current Digest of the Soviet Press, Columbia University Press. – What Bolshevik heavyweight Boris Yeltsin lays out with considerable openness, the language being still slightly Leninistically coded, is precisely what prominent defector Anatoliy Golitsyn had been warning of for 30 years: the Party would free itself of its state functions, set up a tightly controlled, pseudo-democratic regime staffed with Communists posing under whatever political label they may have chosen to seemingly represent, and would be able to engage undividedly and with all its resources in the furtherance of the world revolution and the total collectivisation of everything and everybody around the globe. The longterm aim of a fully revolutionary vanguard Party would establish itself as the dominant factor worldwide: Lenin’s ‘state of the whole people’ and the Communist version of ‘global democratic peace’ would have become the deadly and all-encompassing reality for every human being anywhere in the world, with conservatives reduced to an endangered species and ultimately erased from the face of the earth. As of 2012, these objectives aren’t too far from being finally fulfilled, as one looks around oneself.)

“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.” (TEUC, page 82; Mikhail Gorbachev speaking on July 13, 1990 to the 28th CPSU Congress. – These remarks leave no room for doubt whatsoever that all the pressing ‘changes’ were about a tactical re-organisation and re-formation of Party and State in the interest of strategy! Ideology wasn’t abandoned, the Communist Party wasn’t abandoned, and neither was the USSR abandoned in its previous borders. It was all, and still is, a giant deception operation that succeeded, by playing with false, seemingly Western labels, to hoodwink the Free World and ultimately achieve worldwide communist victory.)

“The 28th CPSU Congress attaches fundamental importance to defining the principles of the Party’s policy at the present stage, with a view to… renewing those principles and making progress towards a humane, democratic socialism. Distortions of the principles of socialism from the 1930s into the 1950s [meaning, during the Stalin period] engendered complicated problems…” (TEUC, page 42; statement of the July 1990 28th CPSU Congress, as published on July 15, 1990 in Pravda)

“Stalinist socialism, which our country developed for many years, has shown itself to be fully bankrupt, having exhausted its resources for growth.” (TEUC, page 36; Vladimir Shastitko, Director of the Institute of the Economy of the World Socialist System in the August 1990 issue of the Soviet journal ‘Sputnik’. – Meaning solely the Stalinist model of socialism had outlived itself, not socialism – resp. Communism – as such!)



“The New Economic Policy introduces a number of important changes due to the fact that in their entire policy of transition from capitalism to socialism the Communist Party and the Soviet Government are now adopting special [i.e. secretive, deceptive] methods to implement this transition and in many respects are operating differently from the way they operated before; they are capturing a number of positions by a ‘new flanking movement’, so to speak; they are drawing back in order to make better preparations for a new offensive against capitalism. In particular, a free market and capitalism, both subject to state control [!!!], are now being permitted…” (TEUC, page 62; V.I. Lenin: ‘Draft Thesis on the Role and Function of Trade Unions Under the New Economic Policy’; prepared on December 28, 1921 and approved two weeks later by the Party’s Political Bureau; Collected Works, Vol. XXXXII, page 375. – This Lenin quote was used by Carl Bloice, a member of the National Committee of the Communist Party USA and Moscow-based correspondent of the CPUSA’s ‘People’s Weekly World’, a man obviously with excellent personal contacts to Mikhail Gorbachev. In: Political Affairs (the theoretical journal of the CPUSA), May 1991, Vol. LXX, Nr. 5, pages 14-16: ‘An Observation on Economic Changes in the Soviet Union’. The parallel drawn by Bloice officially confirms the identical pattern in both Lenin’s NEP and Gorbachev’s ‘Perestroika’: a tactical retreat to prepare for an even stronger offensive.)

“The dangers lie in the fact that someone, analysing at some private moment or other, this or that instance or episode, or even event, including a dramatic event, should not make hasty conclusions and cast doubt on all that has been acquired and what we have created in putting international relations onto new channels, onto new rails, entering, as all of us have said, a period of peaceful development.” (TEUC, page ´7; Mikhail Gorbachev in a joint press conference with French President of the day, socialist Francois Mitterand, in Paris on May 6, 1991; the coded statement reveals the permanent fears of the professional liars, which the Marxists-Leninists are, that their inverted pyramid of lies, that out of necessity grows bigger and bigger, could be exposed. Gorbachev even gave a cryptic pointer by the phrase ‘including a dramatic event’ to the staged ‘August Coup’ three months later. The image of ‘new rails’ of course suggests the intended irreversibility of their revolutionary progress. And what communists mean by ‘peace’ should be sufficiently known after all crime and tragedy committed by communism ever since 1917: it’s a peace of the grave, with all opposition crushed and liquidated once and for all.)

“The challenge for us Europeans is to draw the Soviet Union into our common endeavour, to dispel any temptations to isolate it… From the viewpoint of security policy, our reference system reaches from the shores of the Pacific to Vladivostok.” (TEUC, page 12. What a surprise: former Secretary General of NATO, Manfred Wörner, Germany, addressing the Conference on the Future of European Security organised by the Czechoslovak Ministry of Foreign Affairs and held on April 25/26, 1991 in Prague. – Unless this is a citation mistake by Christopher Story, ‘from the Pacific to Vladivostok’, which itself is situated on the Pacific, can only mean: the whole Northern hemisphere! Otherwise it would be ‘from the Atlantic to Vladivostok’, enclosing the present-day EU and the perfectly intact USSR, that is already overlapping with EU territory through the 3 Baltic Soviet Republics.)

“He [Gorbachev] isn’t a Leninist any more.” – “I don’t think we have been deceived; at least, I hope we haven’t.” (TEUC, page 19; Margaret Thatcher in a July 1991 conversation with Christopher Story, who had done his best to correct Lady Thatcher’s erroneous view, but failed. Gorbachev’s powerful sexual charisma, that was described by several time witnesses as extremely sinistre and demonic, had served its purpose and literally bewitched Margaret Thatcher so that she believed Gorbachev was somebody she could do business with…)

“GORBACHEV OFFERS PARTY A CHARTER THAT DROPS ICONS – HARDLINERS 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 INDIVUDALS – Payments for Postal, Railroads and Other Public Services Are Re-established” (Headline of The New York Times, August 13, 1921)

(TEUC, page 55; Christopher Story even gives photocopies in his book of these two almost identical headlines of The New York Times: proof that Gorbachev’s Perestroika deception was indeed modelled after Lenin’s ‘New Economic Policy’ deception, and it worked out in the Western mind in the very same successful way! Thus, as Christopher Story ironically puts it: “Communism collapses twice.”)

“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.” (TEUC, page 52; 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. – Now, this is an absolutely outrageous confession as it provides first-hand confirmation, beside all other proof against the official version, that the whole events of August 1991, from the ‘arrestation’ of Gorbachev at his Crimea holiday resort to the supposed coup d’etat by ‘neo-Stalinists’ to the mysterious failure of their ‘coup’ was all nothing but a theatrical play staged for Western consumption and designed to prepare for the fake dissolution of the CPSU and the subsequent fake dissolution of the Soviet Union so to transform, for the furtherance of strategy, overt Communism into covert Communism with a pseudo-democratic and pseudo-‘capitalist’ mask. Interestingly, this 3-day provocation was code-named ‘Golgotha’, which wonderfully illustrates the Satanic dimension of Communism that so much enjoys ridiculing and mocking religion in general and Christianity in particular.)

“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.” (TEUC, page XXXII: 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. – Note the bold and terrifying geopolitical vision of a joint political space of the whole of Europe and the whole of the unchanged Soviet Union all the way from the Atlantic shores of Portugal and Ireland to the far East; of course meant as a ‘humanitarian’, i.e. a communist space – for which the EU’s massive enlargement deep into the ‘former’ communist East in 2004/2007 was nothing but a preliminary step; it’s in fact a Soviet Western enlargement, nothing else. Even bolder, Shevardnadze includes in this framework North America as well! That’s why their communist plant in the White House, Barack Obama, spoke at the DNC of 2008 from a floor designed in the manner of an EU flag: yellow stars on blue ground. This is Obama’s mission: to force the United States into a pan-communist supranational structure, as promoted by the UN and the EU and powerfully pressed forward by the communist alliance led by the unchanged Soviets and the Red-Chinese. Note also that all their devilish plannings for the Soviets themselves are always ‘inevitable’. They are so self-assured simply because the West has been in such suicidal deep sleep!)

“If we had not freed our foreign policy from ideologised or, as we used to say at that time, class interests etc., we would have found it difficult to find a common language with our partners, and it would have been difficult to overcome the military confrontation.” (TEUC, page 61; Eduard Shevardnadze in that same television programme, November 19, 1991, 19:40 GMT; interview conducted by Valentin Zorin: ‘Undiplomatic Conversations’, Central Television, First All-Union Programme. – This is a highly revealing statement as it shows that ideology was deceptively ‘abandoned’ for tactical reasons only in order to reach common ground with the West, and not the other way round that common ground would have been naturally made possible because ideology had frankly disappeared! Sometimes they do make mistakes…)



“I look forward to the day when Russia is a fully-fledged member of the European Community.” (TEUC, page 13. Believe it or not: British Prime Minister of the day, John Major!!! So uttered on New Year’s Day 1992 – which was precisely a week, and not more, after the fake abolition of the USSR on Christmas Day 1991 – in the Prime Minister’s New Years’ Day broadcast on BBC Radio 4.)

“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.” (TEUC, page XXXIII: Mikhail Gorbachev in his prepared Nobel Peace Prize speech in Oslo in June 1992, when the Soviet Union had already been officially ‘abolished’ by him half a year earlier!!! Yet another bold pointer indicating that the Soviet Union was still in existence in June 1992 (albeit, behind the scenes), and has continued to live on behind the scenes up to this day!)

“I dare say that the European process has already acquired elements of irreversibility. In such a context, in the process of creating a new Europe… self-determination of sovereign nations will be realised in a completely different manner.” (TEUC, page XXXIII: Mikhail Gorbachev, in the same speech in June 1992; nota bene: speaking for the Yeltsin regime to which, allegedly, he was in ‘opposition’!)

“We are talking about… a principled choice for Russia’s course and consquently, to a considerable extent for the course to be pursued by the other states not only of the Commonwealth of Independent States, not only of the former Soviet Union, but also of the whole so-called socialist camp… because of the reality which consists of the fact that the Russian Federation has been at the centre of that configuration and is today economically, culturally and in many other senses certainly the locomotive which by the direction and speed of its movement determines the direction and speed of movement of other states.” (TEUC, page 124; Russian Foreign Minister of the day, Andrei Kozyrev, in the course of an interview on December 4, 1992 on Mayak Radio. – However, one year after the alleged dissolution of the Soviet Union and 3 years after the alleged collapse of communism in the Eastern European satellites, there was, in official terms, no ‘socialist camp’ in existence any more. But, in reality, of course, it still was, and so with the unchanged Soviet Union still in the driving seat. Note also the use of the word ‘locomotive’, by which Kozyrev confirms that the old geopolitcal endeavour of communist world revolution is still their goal!)


1992 – 1999: THE ‘YELTSIN YEARS’

“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.” (TEUC, page 19; Yelena Bonner, wife of controlled ‘dissident’, Andrei Sakharov)

Answering a naïve question from the audience, in late 1993, whether he would ‘return to politics’, Gorbachev replied, “I’m not hiding in the woodwork. I’m involved in a different political role… I have not abandoned links with the past.” And asked, ‘What are you doing right now?’, Gorbachev gave back, “I’m working on the same problems as before – on New Thinking and international relations.” (TEUC, pages19; 40. Mikhail Gorbachev, November 6, 1993, on CNN’s Larry King Live. – What this meant was and is of course Gorbachev’s vanguard role for the world revolution via his newly founded Moscow/Amsterdam/San Francisco-based Gorbachev Foundation, his supposed environmental organisation Green Cross International, and his very active support of ‘Interfaith’ organisations such as the United Religions Initiative, all designed to bring the once Free and faithful world over to the deadly standards of Marxism-Leninism.)

“The organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe [OSCE] is a net we have thrown over the West.” (TEUC, page 90; Russian Foreign Minister of the day, Andrei Kozyrev, as reported in the German newspaper ‘Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung’ on January 8, 1994.)

“Prague? Let us give it to Germany.” – “The Czech Republic should go to Germany.” (TEUC, page 52. Vladimir Zhirinovskiy, ‘caricature of a Russian nationalist’, as Anatoliy Golitsyn termed him, but of course high-ranking GRU officer, making on two occasions a highly interesting point; one time in the Italian newspaper L’Espresso on January 21, 1994, the other time in the German newspaper Die Welt just ten days later, on January 31, 1994. The statements refer to the secret German-Russian accord reached by Kohl and Gorbachev at their September 1990 meeting in Geneva that foresaw the Czech Republic to be merged with Germany within 15 years; and indeed, right on time, 14 years after that accord, the German-dominated European Union took in not only the Czech Republic but most of ‘formerly communist’ Eastern Europe. It can only be speculated whether even the time difference of 10 days between these two statements by Zhirinovskiy could have secretly indicated the actual time range in years until the EU’s eastwards-enlargement, which came to pass indeed 10 years after Zhirinovskiy’s pointer, and so on May 1st of 2004, i.e. on Labour Day!!!)

Vladimir Zhirinovskiy is “just the probe they use to measure the depth of dissatisfaction in Russia.” (TEUC, page 52; Mikhail Poltoranin, then head of the ‘Federal Information Centre’, January 13, 1994, ITAR-TASS; 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.)

Russian Foreign Minister of the day, Andrei Kozyrev, when on a visit to Iran in April 1994, explained his visit as “not a turn away from the West; we shall not turn away from the West anywhere, but a mere consideration of the fact that Russia is a great power and it must, and is, playing on all chessboards of world politics abiding by corresponding rules. We are Christians where it is appropriate, we are Europeans in Europe and Muslims in the orient; adding that this was “not hypocrisy, but Russia’s multi-faced image.” (TEUC, page 127; as was reported via ITAR-TASS. – The ultimate objective of such ‘multi-facedness’ of course being moulding the whole world into one and erecting on top of this global hegemony, then by the use of brute force like in the Revolution of 1917 (perhaps a bit ‘smarter’ due to the whole range of modern surveillance technology and an all-encompassing cashless society soon to come), a final Satanic kingdom on Earth; as Christopher Story reminds us, this statement by Kozyrev shows again the close similarity, if not identity, in the objectives of Freemasons, historical Illuminati, and Communists.)

“The Moscow City Committee of the CPSU [i.e. Communist Party of the Soviet Union!!!] congratulate you on the 75th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party, USA and on the 70th anniversary of the Communist press in the United States.” (TEUC, page 76; September-October 1994 issue of the CPUSA’s journal ‘Political Affairs’; this note of congratulations from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was given 3 years AFTER the alleged dissolution of the CPSU and the Soviet Union!!!)

Interview with an Ukrainian government official by name of Boris Tarasiuk on the BBC programme, ‘Disputed Borderlands’, broadcast on Nov. 5, 1994:

TARASIUK: “We have to design a new approach, a new concept of all-European security, which will be freed from the division of the Continent into military blocs.”

ALLAN LITTLE, reporter of the BBC: “Where would the centre of gravity in such a system be, where would the real decision-making power lie?”

TARASIUK (according to Christopher Story, ‘unable to prevent himself from breaking into a broad smile on-camera’): “Very interesting question. It’s a question for… to be a subject for a special conference. Well, I could tell you that I know the answer to this question, but I would prefer rather not to answer it.”

LITTLE: “What’s your… well, what are your doubts about it?”

TARASIUK: (according to Christopher Story, ‘still looking uncomfortable at having been asked a pertinent question by a Western journalist, probably for the first time in his life’): “Well, I think that the time hasn’t come yet for giving an answer.”

(TEUC, page 119. – One certainly needn’t be a genius to guess what that “already-decided-upon” political centre of gravity is meant to be …)

“Also attending were other components of the Communist movement in Russia. The most prominent was the COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION, which acts as a coordinating structure of the parties of the former USSR. Eventually, its aim is to become a fully-fledged party.” (TEUC, page 76; April 1995: American Communist Sam Webb reporting in the April 1995 issue of the Communist Party USA’s journal ‘Political Affairs’ on his recent visit to Moscow where he had attended in January 1995 the Third Congress of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) led by Gennadiy Zyuganov, one of the many splinters, from far-left to ‘far-right’, that had emerged in 1991/92 from the supposedly defunkt CPSU and that are in fact controlled by the same old CPSU that merely had gone in the hiding so to enable the illusion of a New Democratic Russia. By that phrase, obviously trusting that ‘Political Affairs’ is only read by ‘the interested’ and not by anyone else, Sam Webb revealed the truth about the ‘coordinating structure’ of all those new parties!!! Nothing has changed except for a new modus operandi! – Quite tellingly, no big festivities of any kind took place in late 2011 to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the ‘end of the Soviet Union’ – because there had been no end to the USSR, plain and simple. Certainly, they do not want to encourage any genuine expression of anti-Communism that could get out of hand. – The last sentence of the above-given quote clearly expresses the likelihood of the CPSU to officially re-emerge from its present hiding as soon as the convergence with the West on their communist terms would have so far progressed that wide-spread acceptance of this reality as well as absence of any considerable opposition would be guaranteed.)

“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.” (TEUC, page 69; 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. (TEUC, page 69; 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. – These two statements show with horrifying clarity what Anatoliy Golitsyn, as well as e.g. Joseph D. Douglass (author of ‘Red Cocaine’), had warned of all along that the ‘Eastern Mafiya’ isn’t a criminal operation in the conventional sense but a giant political operation designed to serve world-revolutionary strategy and aimed at exporting Lenin’s ‘criminal state’ model to the whole world! Also, it is quite peculiar that Algirdas Katkus speaks of the ‘KGB’, although that name for the Security Services had been abandoned, along with the ‘dissolution’ of the USSR, in 1991. Yet another detail showing how much all the relabelling was predominantly meant for outward consumption, but didn’t really make much of a difference for the Soviets themselves, including their ‘ex-Soviet’, newly ‘independent’ so-termed Near Abroad, in this case: the Baltic ‘ex-Soviet’ Republic, Lithuania.)

“We should not forget that the representatives of the former political system have all adapted beautifully to the new economic situation. They are in banking. They were the first to understand all the positive sides of a system of government-controlled capitalism. They were very good organisers, and they were pioneers in commercialising the country.” (TEUC, page 63. Oleg Poptsov, Director of the Second National TV Channel, in June 1995. – What a frank admission of who really is the ‘oligarchy’ of the ‘New Russia’: they are trusted secret service personnel posing as ‘private entrepreneurs’ in the interest of the deception strategy and to involve foreign investors in ‘joint ventures’ with Russia’; meanwhile, the Soviet manager-apparatchiks have effectively turned the scales and walk around in the West, buying whatever they can and whatever suits Soviet economic strategy; which is predominantly the energy sector so to guarantee an ever greater energy dependence of Europe on Russian natural gas, to a lesser degree: oil, and other natural resources.)

“It will become possible to create a Euroatlantic security area or, in other words, the comprehensive collective security system which has long been discussed in our country as the highest goal of our foreign and defence policy.” (TEUC, page 9; Sergei Rogov, then Director of the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of the United States and Canada; in: ‘International Affairs’, the journal of the Russian Foreign Ministry; Vol. 41, Nr. 7, 1995, page 6)

“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.” (TEUC, page 93; Yuriy Ushakov, Director of the Directorate for European Cooperation at the Russian Foreign Ministry; in: ‘International Affairs’, Vol. 4, Nr. 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. (TEUC, page 98; then Russian Foreign Minister, Andrei Kozyrev, after Russia’s admission to the Council of Europe by February 8, 1996)

“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.” (TEUC, page 103; Vladimir Lukin, formerly Russia’s Ambassador to the United States and Chariman of the State Duma Committee of Foreign Affairs; in: ‘International Affairs’, Vol. 42, Nr. 2, 1996: ‘Russia’s Entry to the Council of Europe’. – Official confirmation of how the unchanged Leninists stage dialectical plays to reach their objectives: Zhirinovskiy, posing as the ‘great threat’ of a back-fall of the ‘new, democratic’ Russia into another dark age of tyranny, merely acted out his role so to convince the West that it has no alternative to taking ‘Russia’ into their Western structures!!! The ploy, as also in the case of NATO’s eastwards-expansion, worked out most wonderfully: The ‘Russian Federation’ was finally welcomed as the 39th member of the Council of Europe on February 28, 1996, marking a major stepping stone in the process of peacefully and deceptively ‘entering the enemy’s camp’. The outcome then, of course, is what Christopher Story terms cuckoo’s egg diplomacy: once admitted to Western structures, the new members start dominating the nest…)

“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.” (TEUC, page 79; from a 1996 secret resolution addressing the work in the Ukrainian Armed Forces, published on March 19, 1996 by the US Foreign Broadcast Information Service, FBIS: FBIS-SOV-96-054; page 44)

“It is very important that Russia is integrated into a new European security architecture.” (TEUC, page 13; Klaus Kinkel, German Foreign Minister of the day, in May 1996)

Russia should join the European Union “in order to end its Cold War-era isolation for good.” Russia needed to be recognised, at last, as a “full European state… We are also prepared to join the European Union.” (TEUC, page 13; Boris Yeltsin on March 22, 1997 in Helsinki during a two-day Summit Meeting with President Clinton; in: The Daily Telegraph, March 23, 1997: ‘Yeltsin wants Russia in EU’)

“During the 1990s, the neo-liberal economic model has been implemented on a global scale. As a result, the IMF and the World Bank have begun to play approximately the same role on a global scale as the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union once played for the Communist Bloc. IMF and World Bank experts decide what to do with the coal industry in Russia, how to reorganise companies in South Korea and how to manage entrepreneurs in Mexico. Despite all that is said about the free market, world practice has never before known such centralisation. Even Western Governments are forced to reckon with this parallel authority.” (TEUC, page XXXVIII; Boris Kagarlitsky, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Comparative Political Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences; in: ‘Socialism and Democracy’, Vol. 12, Nrs. 1-2, 1998, published by ‘The Committees of Correspondence’, an offspring of the Communist Party USA, that has its office at 10th Floor, 122 W.27th Street, New York 100001-6281, which is also the office of the far-left Gramsci operation calling itself ‘The Brecht Forum’, and of the ‘New York Marxist School’. The telling Marxist-Leninist titles of some of Boris Kagarlitsky’s writings: ‘The Dialectic of Change’; ‘Disintegration of the Monolith’; ‘De-revising Marx’; ‘Restoration in Russia’; ‘Why Capitalism Failed’; and ‘The Mirage of Modernisation’; info by Christopher Story – A great pointer to how these international organisations have always played and still play in the hands of world communism!)

“The two pillars of the nation state are the sword and the currency, and we have changed that. (TEUC, page 73; Romano Prodi, shortly after his election for the post of President of the European Commission; Financial Times interview of April 9, 1999. Mind this bold and arrogant admission by this supposed centre-left politician, but in fact key revolutionary, basically saying that they go ahead anyway, whether with or without the European peoples’ consent! If one contemplates for a moment on this self-assured and dictatorial statement, one is inevitably reminded of another overly self-assured revolutionary dictator with pan-European ambitions: Adolf Hitler!)



(As for the EU, at present, 2012/early 2013, 10 of the 27 EU member states are ‘formerly’ communist, notwithstanding the EU’s dominant power, Germany, which through its reunification in 1990 was effectively turned into an all-communist greater Germany rather than the other way round. These 10, if not 11, out of 27 ‘formerly’ communist EU member states are: the 3 Baltic states, that were actually Soviet Republics until 1991; the direct Soviet satellites Poland, Czechia & Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria; as well as Slovenia, as the first of former Yugoslavia, which had been officially out of the communist bloc but in fact part of it; with Croatia due to join on July 1, 2013 as member state Nr. 28. Thus, apart from Switzerland, Norway, and Iceland, a handful principalities such as Liechtenstein, Monaco, or Andorra, and of course the Vatican, all that then remains are the 4 other former Yugoslav states, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Macedonia; as well as once ultra-Stalinist Albania. Other than that, the stage is set for the real thing yet to come: the merger with the unchanged Soviet Union, of course and tragically on Soviet-communist terms, and probably starting with Ukraine and Moldova, followed by Belarus, the ‘Russian Federation’, and finally the 3 Caucasus Republics, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Armenia, and probably even the 5 Central Asian Republics, Turkmenistan, Kasakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tachikistan, and Kirgistan. – Regarding the global level, the IMF and World Bank, along with the G-8 and G-20 forums, have already acquired, notably by 2010, the status of an unannounced world government anyway.)

“Over the next decade we will complete our economic integration and, even more importantly, give shape to a new, political Europe. The next five years [meaning 2000 to 2005] will be decisive.” – “We are already pushing forward with political integration by establishing an area of freedom, security and justice, and by developing common foreign, security and defence policies. Our common interests and objectives are best served by a common approach and common means.” – “Political integration will become a reality as political leaders and citizens come to realise that their shared values of liberty, peace and stability, democracy, human rights, tolerance, gender equality, solidarity and non-discrimination can best be promoted through shared policies and institutions. Political integration must be pursued…” – “What we are aiming for, therefore, is a new kind of global governance to manage the global economy and environment.” – “The truth is that ‘Brussels’ is all of us.” – “We must sustain the pace of change to the very fabric of the European Union itself.” – “It will need further integration backed by a systematic policy of reform, transforming both our economy and our social systems. (TEUC, page 11; Romano Prodi, then President of the European Commission, February 9, 2000: Strategic Objectives 2000-2005: ‘Shaping the New Europe’. – Romano Prodi, although officially a left-of-centre Christian Democrat, but having led a number of left- and far-left coalition governments in Italy, was investigated from 2002 to 2006 by an Italian parliamentary commission, named the ‘Mitrokhin Commission’, about the possibility of his being a communist agent, i.e. a man of Moscow. The investigations met severe political obstacles, were themselves accused to serve an intrigue by Prodi’s political rival, then Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, and finally were terminated after four years without having been able to verify or falsify the claims made in the archives of KGB Major Vasili Mitrokhin that Romano Prodi was their man. Interestingly, also former FSB-agent Alexander Litvinenko, who was assassinated in 2006, made the same claims, albeit based on hearsay. – Despite the outrageous implications of these claims, but quite tellingly, no investigation of Mr. Prodi was ordered by the EU institutions. His successor, by the way, the Portuguese José Manuel Barroso, was in his time as a university student back in the early 1970s a Maoist student leader; has he remained a communist, despite his conservative party affiliation? We can only know by his policies as Mr. Barroso arrogantly refuses questions regarding this sensible point in his biography and what it means for his present political views. – Photograph below: Romano Prodi (left) and Vladimir Putin at a meeting in 2007: Conspiratorial Comrades fighting hand in glove for the triumph of Lenin’s world revolution?)


A planned ‘merger’ between President Putin’s so-called ‘Unity’ Party and two other large ‘factions’ in the Duma represented “a movement, a front, a league – the CPSU, in effect. (TEUC, page 77; an Izvestia quote in The New York Times on November 6, 2001)

The purpose of this intended ‘merger’ was “to unite all healthy [i.e. Communist] political forces and all of society, for the sake of a single purpose.” (TEUC, page 77; Sergei Shoigu, the Kremlin’s Emergencies Minister; the emphasis on ‘all of society’ and ‘a single purpose’ shows their revolutionary optimism to be able to build their long-desired Leninist ‘State of the Whole People’.)

The European currency union isn’t about economics. “This is a purely political process.” (TEUC, page 29; then President of the European Commission and almost certainly Soviet agent, Romano Prodi, on January 2, 2002; as Christopher Story brilliantly puts it: “With previously unremarked honesty, Sig. Prodi thereby destroyed with that single comment all the myriad spurious economic and monetary pretensions that had accompanied the prolonged gestation of the Euro – making retrospective fools of finance and economy ministers, central bank governors, Prime Ministers, Presidents and others who had contended publicly that the introduction of the Euro was ‘necessary’ in order to make it easier for tourists and businessmen to conduct trans-European transactions.”)

“Post-war Germany had never believed in the nation state at all, and has been working for a European federation all along.” (TEUC, page 29; German Finance Minister of the day, Hans Eichel; The Daily Telegraph, January 17, 2002; Christopher Story comments: “Although deception remains the European Union’s familiar modus operandi – nothing will ever change that – it has recently become fashionable for senior Euro-ideologues to throw caution to the winds and to reveal what was previously hidden from the captive populations of the EU Member States by their leaders.” Hans Eichel’s statements were made only days after Sig. Prodi’s outrageous admission! Christopher Story continues: “But for a senior German ideologue to admit this openly in 2002, suggests that Berlin has concluded that the Leninist attack on the nation state, which Herr Eichel confirms that it is pursuing in tandem with Moscow, has progressed so far in Europe that the true purpose of the EU Collective need no longer be withheld. It is now acceptable to speak openly in Europe about the redundancy of the nation state – the revolutionary expectation being that, given the Revolution’s triumph in the cultural war that has been waged since the 1960s to undermine loyalties and respect for all institutions, the nation state means nothing to the younger generation.” – Meanwhile, a decade later, even TV-correspondents unashamedly demand the building of a European federal state; ironically, the deadly crisis of the European Monetary Union is being used, instead of admitting its complete failure, for even further centralisation under the maxim of all-European ‘solidarity’. More than ever, the EU displays the Kafkaesk reality of being literally a ‘revolutionary’ perpetuum mobile!)

From a German 90-minute documentary made from November 2009 till spring 2011 on the Social Democratic Party of Germany, entitled “Sozialdemokraten – 18 Monate unter Genossen” (i.e. ‘Social Democrats – 18 Months among Comrades’): At precisely 30:22 till 33:34 running time, there is a brief segment filmed in April 2010 in Berlin at the fairly left-leaning Hertie School of Governance’s award of their annual Speaker’s Prize, “Best Speaker of the Year” (the chosen winner, conservative Karl Theodor zu Guttenberg, however, refused the award). Within this segment, from 32:09 till 33:34, there are shown some comments towards a mainly Social Democrat audience, including their Chairman, by German Green, Jürgen Trittin, who is generally held as being part of the ‘left wing’ of the Green Party and by some, due to his arrogance, as a ‘Salon Stalinist’ – one could easily term him as well as the Al Gore of Germany; under the Red-Green Schröder/Fischer coalition government from 1998 till 2005, Trittin had ‘served’ as Federal Minister for the Environment and in that function pushed forward Germany’s gradual “Atomausstieg”, i.e. complete exit from nuclear energy, by the year 2022 (his Comrades in ‘Russia’ and Eastern Europe, on the contrary, keep building nuclear power plants, so why can’t Germany???); today he is head of his party. Trittin talks here, quite sportively and sympathetically, about the speech of Social Democratic Party Chairman Sigmar Gabriel, who is present in the audience, at the SPD’s Party Convention at Dresden on November 13, 2009, and makes a more than revealing point that illustrates the all-Marxist cooperation between Social Democrats and Greens, and what their programme really is – and always has been – about. Trittin elaborates,

“The next political speech is headlined, I quote: ‘Speech by the Chairman of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, Sigmar Gabriel, at the SPD’s Federal Party Convention at Dresden’. That speech was a success, but it turns out that these two hours also have their pitfalls. Because there are also some weak passages in them, if I may say that. 164 times the speaker pronounces the word ‘Comrade’ [‘Genosse oder Genossin’], thus on average once every 44 seconds. My teacher would have scored here: ‘Repetitive mistake’. One of the most-cited sentences of this speech goes: ‘The political centre is not defined by income- or professional groups, and by the way also not by certain political views to which one would have to adapt. The political centre of Willy Brandt was something entirely different. It was no distinct place, but it was the prerogative of interpretation [‘Deutungshoheit’] in society.’ Prerogative of interpretation, that’s the key term in this speech, and that means something entirely different than mere majority appeal. Rather, it goes back to Antonio Gramsci’s term of ‘Hegemony’.”  (Sigmar Gabriel nods silenty.) – Trittin’s ‘clarifying remark’ comes indeed as a bomb-shell: Antonio Gramsci was the co-founder in the early 20th century of the Communist Party of Italy and has become famous for his strategic ideas quite contrary to classical Marxism, namely that first the cultural and spiritual base of a society need to be destroyed before the revolution can be successful, an approach similar to that of the infamous Frankfurt School. It is interesting that a so-called “Green” politician, speaking to Reds, makes this conspiratorial reference to communist Gramsci and his idea of ‘hegemony’: it means no less than across-the-board domination of the political debate, more than that: of any political thinking whatsoever, in other words: effective tyranny that’s generally accepted by the population due to the strategistis’ recipe of gradualism! And it means that the widely known joke about Greens being watermelons – green on the outside, red on the onside – is no joke at all! Greens are revolutionary communists who have merely hijacked environmental issues for the furtherance of the revolution. That’s why we have “Global Warming”, or “Climate Change”, or “Climate Disruption”, or whatever. It’s all a bunch of lies, long since proven to be lies by outstanding experts and scientists, but who cares as long as these people are in the positions of power, in the EU, in the UN, and basically everywhere, and control the so-called ‘debate’, that in fact is rather a one-way avalanche of constant brainwashing, 24/7.             




Sergey Petrovich Melgounov: The Red Terror in Russia; [orig. 1924]; Edward Harle Ltd., London – New York 2008

Bella Dodd: School of Darkness: The Record of a Life and of a Conflict Between Two Faiths; P. J. Kenedy, 1954 (order here)

Louis F. Budenz: The Techniques of Communism; Henry Regnery Co., Chicago 1954 (order here)

Louis F. Budenz: The Bolshevik Invasion of the West: Account of the Great Political War for a Soviet America; Bookmailer 1966 (order here)

Jan Šejna: We Will Bury You: The Soviet Plan for the Subversion of the West by the Highest Ranking Communist Ever to Defect; Sidgwick & Jackson, London 1982 (order here)

Anatoliy Golitsyn: New Lies for Old: The Communist Strategy of Deception and Disinformation; Dodd, Mead & Co., New York 1984 (order here)

Richard Wurmbrand: Marx and Satan – Was Karl Marx a Satanist? – Living Sacrifice Book Co., 1986 (order here)

Anatoliy Golitsyn: The Perestroika Deception: The World’s Slide Towards the Second October Revolution; Edward Harle Ltd., London – New York 1995 (order here)

Herbert Romerstein & Eric Breindel: The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America’s Traitors; Regnery Publishing, Washington DC 2000 (order 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 (order here)

Jerome R. Corsi: The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality; Threshold Editions, New York 2008 (order here)

Aaron Klein (with Brenda J. Elliott): The Manchurian President: Barack Obama’s Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists; WorldNetDaily Books, New York 2010 (order here)

Stanley Kurtz: Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism; Threshold Editions, New York 2010 (order here)

Dinesh D’Souza: The Roots of Obama’s Rage; Regnery Publishing, Washington DC 2010 (order here)

Dinesh D’Souza: Obama’s America: Unmaking the American Dream; Regnery Publishing, Washington DC 2012 (order here)

Paul Kengor: The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor; Mercury Ink, 2012 (order here)

The Contemplative Observer: Red Surprise: Russian-Chinese Military Blackmail: ‘Cooperate or Face World War III’; non-profit online publication by the author of this blog; at present, 280 pages (read here



Herbert Romerstein: Treason and Ted Kennedy: The Story the Media Won’t Tell; (followed by a 1983 letter from KGB head, Viktor Chebrikov, to then Soviet leader, Yuri Andropov, regarding Ted Kennedy’s collaboration with the KGB); published at, 2003 (read here)

Herbert Romerstein: What Was the Weather Underground? – 52-page PDF-file, includes several historical documents; published at (read here)

Herbert Romerstein: From Henry Wallace to William Ayers – the Communist and Progressive Movements; published at (read here)



The Truth about Communism; documentary, including extensive historical footage; narrated by Ronald Reagan; USA 1962 (watch here)

Coming Out of the Ice; motion picture on the tragic life of Victor Herman, an American who had accompanied his pro-Soviet father around 1930 over to the Soviet Union where Henry Ford had set up an auto factory, complete with hundreds of skilled workers from the U.S. and their families. Young Victor Herman, who was a fabulous athlete, quickly found himself trapped by the Soviet authorities who sought to make use of his sports talent for propaganda purposes and wanted him to become a citizen of the Soviet Union, which Herman persistently refused. The price he paid for his allegiance to America was many years of forced labour in the Gulag camps of the far North. Not before the early 1970s he was able to return to the United States as a free man. An amazing and very instructive film, particularly for those who still believe socialism is a good idea. The reality is: socialism KILLS. – Directed by John Savage; USA 1982 (watch here: part 1/7)   

No Place to Hide: The Strategy and Tactics of Terrorism; documentary, presented by G. Edward Griffin; American Media, USA 1982 (watch here)

Communist Subversion; lecture given by Yuri Bezmenov in Los Angeles in 1983 (watch here)

Soviet Disinformation and Subversion of the Western Press; interview with Yuri Bezmenov; host: G. Edward Griffin; USA 1984 (watch here)

Martin Luther King, Jr.: A Communist and Moral Degenerate? – An amazing 80-minute talk by American Baptist Pastor James Knox (, that takes a second look at the ‘national hero’, Michael ‘Martin Luther’ King; USA, 1990s (listen here

The Perestroika Deception; interview with Christopher Story, editor and publisher of Anatoliy Golitsyn’s 1995 book, The Perestroika Deception; host: William McIlhaney, USA 1995 (part1/2; part 2/2)

The Perestroika Deception; follow-up interview with Christopher Story; again with host William McIlhaney, USA 2003 (watch here)

Lenin’s Satanic World Revolution; Christopher Story giving a 50-minute public talk at a Catholic conference in 1999, i.e. the “Fatima: 2000” World Peace Bishops’ Conference held in Hamilton, ON, Canada from October 11 – 18, 1999 (watch here).

The Deliberate Dumbing Down of the World; interview with educational whistleblower, Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt; USA 2006 (watch here)

The Great Global Warming Swindle; documentary; directed by Martin Durkin; WagTV/BBC Channel 4; U.K. 2007 (watch here)

Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America; by James Jaeger; USA 2010 (watch here)

Dreams from My REAL Father: A Story of Reds and Deception; documentary by Joel Gilbert; USA 2012 (order here)

The Unvetted; documentary by Agustín Blázquez, Cliff Kincaid ( et al; USA 2012, 32 min. (watch here)

2016: Obama’s America; documentary by Dinesh D’Souza; USA 2012 (watch here; order here)  





© The Contemplative Observer 2012