Posted 07 November 2008 - 08:08 PM
(Feel free to add on to this TFP 101)
What is "The Final Phase"?
Russia and China are not our friends. They are not our true partners in the war on terror nor in the world of free-trade. They engage the West as partners for now while it is to their advantage, but only as a means to an end.
Conventional wisdom concludes that Russia and China "need" the West for their long-term national interests and prosperity; they do not - there are other avenues.
Today, we establish joint intelligence operations with Russia's former KGB in the war on terror and consider them to be full - "need to know" - partners and share our intelligence with them. This is a dangerous partnership.
We invite Russia and China as a go-between partners in negotiating with North Korea to cajole them to abandon their nuclear program. We entrust them to act in good faith on our behalf when in fact they are more apt to manipulate tensions using North Korea as a potential diversion ploy in sync with China's future military designs against Taiwan. Contrary to Beijing’s pronouncements, they are not concerned about Korea’s saber rattling; they welcome it and use it.
Russia and China’s continuing modernization of weapon systems - especially strategic - and buildup of military might are rationalized and explained away by wishful thinking and hopeful analyses in the West. However, such analyses fall short of adequately assessing their true threat and intentions. It appears no one dares say or even suggest what could be behind their growing military posture and mutual relationship.
Dr. Joseph D. Douglass, Jr., in "Drugs, Russia and Terrorism," addresses this reluctance to face certain realities in the War on Terror concerning Russia and China citing an intelligence committee hearing from 2002 in which then DCI George Tennet testified:
Another critical yet overlooked facet of the terrorism problem was raised briefly during the recent Senate Intelligence Committee National Security Threat hearings. The key question was asked by Sen. Evan Bayh: "Are Russia and China involved with enabling evil?"
This question was highly relevant because certain facts with respect to China and Russia, both of which presumably joined us in the war on terrorism, have been missing in discussions about the war on terror.
It is well known that China has been one of the biggest supporters of Middle East terrorists and rogue regimes seeking to acquire long-range missiles and weapons of mass destruction.
Even more involved has been Russia. In its former incarnation as the Soviet Union, Russia is the granddaddy of international terrorism.
Today's international terrorism is fundamentally the product of Russia's military intelligence, the GRU, and to a lesser extent its civilian intelligence, the KGB. Both the KGB and GRU are alive, well and more powerful today than they were under Communism.
Further, the greatest sources of potential weapons of mass destruction, missiles and submarine proliferation over the past decade have been the various Russian laboratories and organizations (e.g., military and intelligence).
Thus, the possible involvement of Russia and China should have been under intense CIA covert scrutiny for many years, and Sen. Bayh deserved an honest and straightforward answer. What he got was a near-incoherent response.
Consider Director Tenet's answer: "Well, sir, I would say that, first of all – and it's all separate. The reasons may be different. And at times we have distinctions between government and entities. And that's always – and I don't want to make it a big distinction, but sometimes you're dealing with both those things."
Translation: "Yes, Senator, we believe there is involvement, but we don't understand the role of those who are involved, whether they are independent 'entities' or government representatives. Obviously, because we are trying to build a friendship with Russia and because we would not know what to do if they were involved, we would rather not discuss this subject at this time."
While it is now a universally accepted notion that terrorism poses the largest and most imminent threat to the West, the long-range threat Russia and China may pose has taken a back seat to the more immediate concern of terrorism; yet these matters are likely to be interrelated. (See China's Military Planners Took Credit for 9/11.)
Although masked to varying degrees, Russia and China are hostile toward the West and are jointly aligned with an objective to permanently end the West's "hegemony."
The United States and Great Britain have abandoned their Cold War posture and have restructured their intelligence organizations and concepts focused on threat posed by terrorism. Defense has likewise restructured and abandoned much of its heavy war-fighting concepts and components.
It appears to be beyond the comprehension of Western intelligence that Russia and China may be acting in collusion and coordination against the West. Our preconceived notions about their supposed "primordial distrust" of one another tends to render this concern moot. We view Russia and China as two, distinctly separate nations pursuing their own national interests.
But, what if Western intelligence is wrong in their concepts about Russia and China?
Less then two months before the 9/11 attacks, Russia and China signed a treaty in Moscow, on 16 July 2001, which may contain what some intelligence analysts suspect are secret military codicils beyond its overt provisions. However, even its overt language clearly indicates Russia will join China militarily should an "aggressor" interfere with its "internal affairs" over the issue of Taiwan.
What are the ramifications of a militarily unified Russia and China to the world's balance of power? Has this been seriously considered by Western intelligence?
At this late stage of "the final phase" plans of Russia and China, it may be too late for the West to awaken in time to thwart the emerging threat of their covert strategic alliance - time is running out.
"The Final Phase"
The threat posed by Russia and China - which trumps the threat of terrorism - does not originate in their alliance of 16 July 2001. The threat goes back much farther than that.
In 1961, a KGB major defected from Russia and unsuccessfully tried to warn Western intelligence of a long-range strategic deception planned against the West. The defector was Anatoliy Golitsyn. (Unfortunately, this name causes an immediate knee-jerk, shut-mind reaction amongst some professionals in Western intelligence. This reluctance to reconsider the nature of Golitsyn's warnings in light of today's events - and those since 1991 - may become a fatal blind spot leading to the West's demise.)
Golitsyn said that Russia and China would feign a split between themselves in order to work a "scissors strategy" against the West. Confident that the West would try to take advantage of an apparent split between them, they pursued myriad ploys - including border clashes - to effect and solidify the desired misperceptions of the Western intelligence.
Despite Golitsyn's warnings to the CIA, the Nixon Administration pursued its China Policy, which exactly comported with the expectations of Russia and China's long-range plans.
In 1980, Golitsyn warned that the dialectical nature and method of the long-range deception would unfold further with the ascension of a younger reformer in Russia who would break the mold of his predecessors and who would usher in unprecedented change, albeit spurious. He described perfectly the person of Mikhail Gorbachev who would not become Russia's leader for another five years.
Golitsyn posited that the on-going deception would likely manifest itself in supposed revolutionary "changes," which would include among other things: the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact; fall of the Berlin Wall; reunification of Germany; democratization throughout the Soviet bloc nations; and, even the dissolution of the Soviet Union itself. The Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, eleven years following Golitsyn's long-before dismissed warnings.
As explained by Golitsyn, the ascension of this younger Russian leader would mark the beginning stage of the deceptive plan's most dangerous phase, "the final phase."
From Gorbachev to Putin, the long-range plan was never abandoned (nor even acknowledged as having once existed) and is still operational today. And, it includes the coordination and cooperation of the plan's main co-partner, China.
This introduction is intended to be brief; therefore, it will not delve into an in-depth presentation of the issues surrounding "the final phase." It is meant solely as a starting point giving a general outline. The overall material presented herein is meant within the context of "the final phase" plans of Russia and China. Your attention is invited to view the material here while keeping its context in mind.
Please feel free to explore this site and pose any questions that may come to mind.
Thank you and welcome to The Final Phase.
James Angleton, was the CIA's chief of Counterintelligence. He was Golitsyn's main supporter who thoroughly understood the significance of the first-hand information Golitsyn had and, especially, the methodology he used to correctly analyze the long-range deception plans.
Knowing about Angleton and the events surrounding him and Golitsyn, are key to understanding the larger problem of how Western intelligence missed the importance of the warnings. The reasons behind the misunderstandings are multifaceted and complex. However, the material below by Mark Riebling and Edward Jay Epstein serve as excellent background information on the matter.
Epstein’s book, Deception: the Invisible War Between the KGB and CIA, is a must read. He comprehensively dissects the key elements and components of deception; explains the hows and whys of Western vulnerabilities to the same; and, presents the historical context of the “controversy” surrounding Golitsyn and Angleton. Moreover, it is the only work that extensively presents the other side of the story via extensive interviews with Angleton - the vast majority of other writings are based on hearsay and second-hand accountings.
Dr. Joseph D. Douglass Jr., author of Red Cocaine: The Drugging of America and the West, has been an authoritative source for two decades on the mostly hidden aspect and facet of the strategic use of “organized crime” by Russia and China in furtherance of their hidden objectives against the West. If al-Qaida ever detonates a nuclear device on American soil, the Russian Mafia (comprised in large part with ex-Spetsnaz military personnel and former GRU/KGB intelligence officers) most likely will have played a direct hand in the acquisition of same and will have assisted in smuggling the device(s) through established drug routes into America or Great Britain.
One author who specifically subscribes to The Final Phase Thesis is J. R. Nyquist. His current work linked below specifically addresses this thesis within the context of today’s geopolitical events. His work is extensive on this subject and presented in a most authoritative and cogent way. His article, Wilderness of Mirrors Revisited: How I Got Here, is presented on the front page of this site and gives an excellent overview and background. He is the author of Origins of the Fourth World War: And the Coming Wars of Mass Destruction, which is a seminal and most comprehensive work on the specific thesis presented herein.
Chinese president stresses commitment to peaceful development in New Year Address
Sat Dec 31 2005 09:22:59 ET
BEIJING Chinese President Hu Jintao reiterated China's strong commitment to peaceful development in his New Year Address broadcast Saturday to domestic and overseas audience via state TV and radio stations.
"Here, I would like to reiterate that China's development is peaceful development, opening development, cooperative development and harmonious development," Hu said.
"The Chinese people will develop ourselves by means of striving for a peaceful international environment, and promote world peace with our own development," Hu said in the address broadcast by China Radio International, China National Radio and China Central Television.
He said the Chinese people are willing to join with peoples of all nations in the world to promote multilateralism, advance the development of economic globalization toward common prosperity, advocate democracy in international relations, respect the diversity of the world and push for the establishment of a new international political and economic order that is just and rational.
He pledged that China will adhere to its fundamental national policy of opening to the outside world, continue to improve the investment environment and open the market, carry out international cooperation in a wide range of areas and seek to attain mutual benefits and win-win results with all countries in the world.
He mentioned in particular that China will do its best to help developing countries accelerate development and help people suffering from war, poverty, illnesses and natural calamities in the world.
When a prolonged, stubborn and heated struggle is in progress, there usually begin to emerge after a time the central and fundamental points at issue, upon the decision of which the ultimate outcome of the campaign depends, and in comparison with which all the minor and petty episodes of the struggle recede more and more into the background.
That, too, is how matters stand in the struggle within our Party, which for six months now has been riveting the attention of all members of the Party. And precisely because in the present outline of the whole struggle I have had to refer to many details which are of infinitesimal interest, and to many squabbles which at bottom are of no interest whatever, I should like from the very outset to draw the reader’s attention to two really central and fundamental points, points which are of tremendous interest, of undoubted historical significance, and which are the most urgent political questions confronting our Party today.
The first question is that of the political significance of the division of our Party into “majority” and “minority” which took shape at the Second Party Congress and pushed all previous divisions among Russian Social-Democrats far into the background.
The second question is that of the significance in principle of the new Iskra’s position on organisational questions, insofar as this position is really based on principle.
The first question concerns the starting-point of the struggle in our Party, its source, its causes, and its fundamental political character. The second question concerns the ultimate outcome of the struggle, its finale, the sum-total of principles that results from adding up all that pertains to the realm of principle and subtracting all that pertains to the realm of squabbling. The answer to the first question is obtained by analysing the struggle at the Party Congress; the answer to the second, by analysing what is new in the principles of the new Iskra. Both these analyses, which make up nine-tenths of my pamphlet, lead to the conclusion that the “majority” is the revolutionary, and the “minority” the opportunist wing of our Party; the disagreements that divide the two wings at the present time for the most part concern, not questions of programme or tactics, but only organisational questions; the new system of views that emerges the more clearly in the new Iskra the more it tries to lend profundity to its position, and the more that position becomes cleared of squabbles about co-optation, is opportunism in matters of organisation.
The principal shortcoming of the existing literature on the crisis in our Party is, as far as the study and elucidation of facts is concerned, the almost complete absence of an analysis of the minutes of the Party Congress; and as far as the elucidation of fundamental principles of organisation is concerned, the failure to analyse the connection which unquestionably exists between the basic error committed by Comrade Martov and Comrade Axelrod in their formulation of Paragraph 1 of the Rules and their defence of that formulation, on the one hand, and the whole “system” (insofar as one can speak here of a system) of Iskra’s present principles of organisation, on the other. The present editors of Iskra apparently do not even notice this connection, although the importance of the controversy over Paragraph 1 has been referred to again and again in the literature of the “majority”. As a matter of fact, Comrade Axelrod and Comrade Martov are now only deepening, developing and extending their initial error with regard to Paragraph 1. As a matter of fact, the entire position of the opportunists in organisational questions already began to be revealed in the controversy over Paragraph 1: their advocacy of a diffuse, not strongly welded, Party organisation; their hostility to the idea (the “bureaucratic” idea) of building the Party from the top downwards, starting from the Party Congress and the bodies set up by it; their tendency to proceed from the bottom upwards, allowing every professor, every high school student and “every striker” to declare himself a member of the Party; their hostility to the “formalism” which demands that a Party member should belong to one of the organisations recognised by the Party; their leaning towards the mentality of the bourgeois intellectual, who is only prepared to “accept organisational relations platonically”; their penchant for opportunist profundity and for anarchistic phrases; their tendency towards autonomism as against centralism—in a word, all that is now blossoming so luxuriantly in the new Iskra, and is helping more and more to reveal fully and graphically the initial error.
As for the minutes of the Party Congress, the truly undeserved neglect of them can only be explained by the fact that our controversies have been cluttered by squabbles, and possibly by the fact that these minutes contain too large an amount of too unpalatable truth. The minutes of the Party Congress present a picture of the actual state of affairs in our Party that is unique of its kind and unparalleled for its accuracy, completeness, comprehensiveness, richness and authenticity; a picture of views, sentiments and plans drawn by the participants in the movement themselves; a picture of the political shades existing in the Party, showing their relative strength, their mutual relations and their struggles. It is the minutes of the Party Congress, and they alone, that show us how far we have really succeeded in making a clean sweep of the survivals of the old, purely circle ties and substituting for them a single great party tie. It is the duty of every Party member who wishes to take an intelligent share in the affairs of his Party to make a careful study of our Party Congress. I say study advisedly, for merely to read the mass of raw material contained in the minutes is not enough to obtain a picture of the Congress. Only by careful and independent study can one reach (as one should) a stage where the brief digests of the speeches, the dry extracts from the debates, the petty skirmishes over minor (seemingly minor) issues will combine to form one whole, enabling the Party member to conjure up the living figure of each prominent speaker and to obtain a full idea of the political complexion of each group of delegates to the Party Congress. If the writer of these lines only succeeds in stimulating the reader to make a broad and independent study of the minutes of the Party Congress, he will feel that his work was not done in vain.
One more word to the opponents of Social-Democracy. They gloat and grimace over our disputes; they will, of course, try to pick isolated passages from my pamphlet, which deals with the failings and shortcomings of our Party, and to use them for their own ends. The Russian Social-Democrats are already steeled enough in battle not to be perturbed by these pinpricks and to continue, in spite of them, their work of self-criticism and ruthless exposure of their own shortcomings, which will unquestionably and inevitably be overcome as the working-class movement grows. As for our opponents, let them try to give us a picture of the true state of affairs in their own “parties” even remotely approximating that given by the minutes of our Second Congress!
Some Ancient Stratagems
This whole strategy really isn't anything new, except to the extent that television and other sophisticated communications techniques make it more compelling. As long-time readers of my newsletter, Insider Report know, I have for years encouraged serious students of politics to become familiar with Sun Tsu and his classic work, The Art of War. This treatise, which was written nearly 2500 years ago, around 500 B.C., contains the blueprint for all that is being done to us today, as the Insiders pursue their age-old dream of a New World Order.
Quoted below are just a few examples of Sun Tsu's stratagems. As you read them, reflect on what you have been exposed to in the recent media blitz.
• "All warfare is based on deception.
• "When the enemy is divided, he is destroyed.
• "When he is united, divide him.
• "To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.
• "Those skilled in war subdue the enemy without battle.
• "When able to attack seem unable; when active, seem inactive.
• "When near make the enemy believe you are far; when far away make him believe you are near.
• "If weak pretend to be strong and so cause the enemy to avoid you; when strong pretend to be weak so that the enemy may grow arrogant."
Sun Tsu knew, as do his more modern practitioners, that painting false pictures for the purpose of deception is an integral part of the "ultimate weapon." Believe me, our enemies know all about the strategies of deception. An important new book on this subject has just been released by the brilliant investigative reporter, Edward Jay Epstein. He has even called his book Deception, and it is one that I highly recommend to you. In it he says:
"First, the victim's leadership has to be in a state of mind to want to accept and act on the disinformation it receives from its own intelligence. This might not happen unless the disinformation fits in with the adversary's prevailing preconceptions or interest -- which is, at least in the case of the United States, not difficult to determine. Angleton [former CIA head of counter-espionage] suggested that Lenin showed he understood this principle when in 1921 he instructed his intelligence chief in crafting disinformation, to 'Tell them what they want to hear.'
"Second, the victim has to be in the state of mind in which he is so confident of his own intelligence that he is unwilling to entertain evidence, or even theories, that he is or can be duped. This kind of blanket denial amounts to a conceit, which Angleton claimed could be cultivated in an adversary...[to leave] a nation defenseless against deception."
The CIA's late superspy, James Jesus Angleton, was fond of saying, "Deception is a state of mind -- and the mind of the state." [Emphasis added]
For another example of this strategy at work -- but one that is far removed from the world of international geopolitics -- rent a video of that classic Paul Newman/Robert Redford movie, "The Sting." They were indeed masters of deception.
And in fact, "The Sting" wasn't all that different from the international machinations we've been discussing. If you'll remember, essential to the success of that con game was what James Angleton called the "feedback channel" -- a way to successfully disseminate false but believable information back to the "mark," or in this case the person who was to be stung.
A Series Of "Glasnosts"
Describing all of the ramifications of what's going on right before our eyes would take a volume of no small proportion. There is a desperate need today for such a study. But in the meantime, consider just a few facts and juxtapose them with the principles of deception and the "art of war" that we've been describing:
Mikhail Gorbachev is the central figure in a massive "PR" campaign, the results of which have framed the official policy of our government and others into "preserving his leadership role" and "helping him to succeed."
Gorbachev's "glasnost" is actually the sixth one that we've experienced since Lenin's day. As Epstein points out and my own studies confirm, they were:
1. The New Economic Policy (NEP), Spring 1921-1929. At that time, Lenin said, "Glasnost is a sword which heals the wound it inflicts."
2. The Soviet Constitution, 1936-1937. This was the time of what Stalin called "reconstructions," or "perestroika."
3. The Wartime Ally, 1941-1945. Stalin was known as "Uncle Joe." After Yalta, FDR's advisor Harry Hopkins wrote of the Soviets, "...there wasn't any doubt that we could live and get along with them peacefully for as far into the future as any of us could imagine." The British Foreign office concluded, "The old idea of world revolution is dead."
4. DeStalinization under Khrushchev, 1956-1959. Remember when Khrushchev pounded his shoe on the podium at the UN -- and later declared, "We spit in your face and you call it dew"?
5. Detente, 1970-1975. As Epstein writes, "The central theme was that the Soviet government...had no interest in adhering to the Leninist Doctrine of class warfare..." And finally, there is:
6. The Deception Occurring Right Now.
In each period of "glasnost," the Corporate Marxists have fallen over each other in their rush to bail out the Soviets with money, technology transfers, and credit -- all guaranteed by the U.S. taxpayers, of course.
Nor is this "deception by glasnost" limited to Russia. To the above list could be added Tito of Yugoslavia, Dubcek of Czechoslovakia, Mao of China, Ceaucescu of Rumania, plus a list of lesser-lights like Nasser and Ortega. At one time oranother, each had his own "glasnost" -- and his own sponsors among the Insiders of Corporate Marxism. Who will be next? My bet is on Cuba's Castro or his replacement.
In every case, the methodology of deception was the same. A brutal tyrant was portrayed as something else. The "art of war" was applied to the West's "state of mind" and became "the mind of the state."
Masters Of Deceit
Here are some further points to keep in mind as we attempt to untangle the deceptions being foisted upon us:
• Dissidents such as the late Andrei Sakharov and Lech Walesa are not really anti-socialist or exponents of competitive capitalism at all. They seek to preserve the current power structure, call it "non- communist," declare a so-called "market socialism," and provide a new face. These men are carbon copies of a ploy that was used many years ago, during Lenin's first glasnost, the New Economic Policy. Then, the so-called opposition was called "The Trust," and it was later proved to be created and directed by the Party itself.
• The "student revolution" in China started while Gorbachev was visiting Beijing and it was encouraged by the Communist Party leaders themselves. In the process, it identified all the real anti-communists who were promptly marked for extinction.
• All the TV news and newspaper commentaries are using anti-communist rhetoric of the type they would have scorned only a few months earlier. But at no time do they call for breaking diplomatic relations or imposing South African-style economic sanctions on China. Why?
• Did you notice, by the way, that not once in all those thousands of hours ground out by ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN was a truly anti-communist analyst the subject of those in-depth interviews? Nor were any representatives or diplomats from Taiwan interviewed.
• Without a single exception I can think of, every expert interviewed (and sometimes doing the interviewing) was a familiar CFR Trilateral type, such as Henry Kissinger, William Hyland, John Chancellor, Dan Rather, Ted Koppel, Orville Schell, Flora Lewis, and Betty Bao Lord (wife of elite Insider Winston Lord, our immediate past ambassador to China).
• In almost every instance, from China to Poland and all stops in between, the news coverage has been written and arranged for Western and especially U.S. audiences, not for domestic consumption.
• Simultaneous to all of the above, the "Green Movement" has taken over the role of radical socialism from Euro-communism and is being pushed by everyone from David Rockefeller to the Red Brigade.
In the case of China, here's where I believe it's all headed. Just as was the case of Sakharov in Russia and Lech Walesa in Poland, very shortly a much-publicized but untouchable "dissident" will emerge in Mainland China. The "brutal fascistic tyranny" of Li Peng and Deng Xiaoping will be replaced by a "reasonable moderate" such as Fang Lizhi or the "out of sight" Zhao Ziyang. Suddenly, China will have its own carbon copy of Mikhail Gorbachev.
This will be followed by even greater press and publicity for China's "green movement." These new "defenders of the environment" will be promoted by the very same leaders and pundits, including Gorbachev himself. The message is increasingly clear: The "preservation of the environment" is a basis for "worldwide cooperation" -- regardless of ideology. (Note that President Bush is now referring to himself as "The Environmental President.")
Placing all of these seemingly disconnected events and developments in context, it could be that while the world focuses on the "breakup" of communism, the stage is being set for the program I describe at length in my special report, WIPEOUT. (If you have not already seen it, I strongly suggest buying it and reading it very carefully. Readers of this report can get a copy for half-price -- only $19 -- by writing: Insider Report, P.0. Box 84903, Phoenix, Arizona 85071.)
Or could it be what Mr. Gorbachev referred to in his "inaugural speech" on March 17, 1990, "...major decisions are being prepared that will spell not only a new step in improving Soviet-American relations, but also an important contribution to our two countries consolidating positive tendencies in the entire world politics." He made that statement referring to the upcoming "meeting with President Bush in Washington" scheduled for summer 1990.
While the world is singing funeral dirges over the grave of communism, the reality is that we are witnessing "The Greening of the Reds." It's one of the most brilliant and diabolically cunning gambits of this century.
If it succeeds, you can be sure that the "great merger" will roll merrily along and that we will have taken a giant step towards the ultimate formation of the New World Order.
Posted 08 November 2008 - 04:14 PM
So it is through understanding the level of infiltration that is inherent in these opinion-making institutions that we understand that much, if not ALL, of what we hear from the media, the schools, the movies, books, and music is COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA.
The Communists said in order to deceive the West into merging with Communism, the American people had to be stupid, degenerate, distracted, chaotic and addicts. THIS is why the entertainment industry promotes drug abuse, promiscuous sex, and rampant alcoholism. The Communists WANT you to be drunk, stoned, and promiscuous. This way, you are too busy feeding your addictions to be aware of the Communist threat.
So I would emphasize the toxic nature of those three cultural institutions in this day and age; the media system, the school system, and the entertainment system.
I also think it is important to keep in mind the Communists' ultimate goal; a New World Society Order as revealed by Anatoliy Golitsyn.
A VERY important note is that this is NOT the Illuminati, the Freemasons, the NWO, or any other such garbage you find on conspiracy websites. That is all Communist disinformation.
I think this is a very important point to emphasize. The Communists spend an OBSCENE amount of time spreading disinformation. If you go to a typical conspiracy website like GLP, this is a prime example of Communist disinformation. The reason they did this is so that when you bring up the TRUE Communist threat and plan, people automatically associate you with the lunatic conspiracy theories that were spread by Communist disinformationists.
The conspiracy we are dealing with is in actuality quite simple. It originated in the Soviet Union. It was created by Communists in Russia. It is currently aided by Communists worldwide. The end-goal is a One World Government, controlled by Communists. It's that simple. Nothing to do with aliens, or bloodlines, or freemasonry. Nothing to do with Zetas, or TPTB, or any of the Communist disinformation bullsh*t.
The longterm strategy conceived by Communists during 1958-60 was simply that - a strategy to defeat the West and install a global Communist government. For them, it's mostly business. The only difference is, they're completely evil. They don't care about massive deception and lies. They don't care about destroying lives. They don't care about promoting drug use and alcoholism. They don't care about promoting sexual promiscuity. They are completely evil in their wanton manipulation of humans to further their plans for world domination.
And that is what they want. Global domination. One world domination, living under Communist rule. This was never about the people. Communism was never about helping people. That is a scam used to deceive people. Just ask those living in Cuba, or Venezuela, or Russia, or China, or Iran. Communism is all about a small group of people gaining absolute power and brutally dictating the lives of the masses. And they want that on a global scale.
I would also recommend Anatoliy Golitsyn's two books:
New Lies For Old
The Perestroika Deception
as well as Saul Alinsky's two books
Rules For Radicals
Reveille For Radicals
as well as studying the inspiration for the New World Social Order and Communism -
Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Gramsci.
Posted 09 November 2008 - 11:35 AM
It is a stratagem of deception intended to isolate the west and ultimately bring about a world socialist government, preferrably on Russia's terms. This is called "convergence".
This isolation would be brought about by increased anti-Americanism around the world as a result of American foreign policy (like a protracted war in Iraq?). This would result in a "peaceful" takeover of American politics by the ultra-left wing of the American democratic party.
If anyone has been paying attention-- we are witnesing this plan in action. We are at the very porch of convergence.
According to Golitsyn, Military options are left to circumstance under the veil of cooperation and that occupation or total war need not be at the forefront of the strategy.
"Ambition to control the Western mind is a long-standing objective of Soveit policy, embracing the ideas of the Italian Communist Antonia Grmsci, who argued that mastery of human consciousness should be a paramount political objective. According to Richar Pipes... "such mastery is secured, in the first place, by control of the organs of information". The objective is to control thought at the source-- that is, in 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 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 destablise society. Religion and the traditional cultural and moral hegemony must first be destroyed, before the revolution can be successful.... 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."
A. Golitsyn Peristroika Deception
Posted 29 March 2009 - 02:37 PM
This is very informative, and I would like to give it a slight...Bump.
It's a good idea to periodically bump such a fundamental thread.
.............In fact, thanks to you, I just realized that this should be pinned to the top.
Posted 20 October 2009 - 11:47 AM
By J.R. Nyquist
Since the tragedy of 9/11 we know that America faces a grave threat. We know about bin Laden and al Qaeda. We know about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. What is not understood is that we face a much bigger enemy. A more dangerous enemy, unsuspected by most of our leaders and the experts who advise them.
Who is this enemy?
In 1984 a book was published with the title New Lies for Old. It was written by Soviet KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn. The book claimed that the Soviet Union had a secret long-term strategy to disarm and defeat the United States through a controlled collapse of the Soviet empire that would take place in the last decade of the twentieth century. In the book's most remarkable chapter, titled "The Final Phase," Golitsyn accurately described the future of the Soviet bloc. Communism would give up its monopoly of power in Russia, he explained, as apparent freedom and democracy would be introduced. The communist Warsaw Pact alliance would be dissolved. The Berlin Wall might be taken down and Germany united as "the key to progress toward a neutral, socialist Europe."
Controlled democratization and liberalization would be facilitated by communist agents within the dissident movements of Eastern Europe. As Golitsyn wrote, "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." (p. 339-340.)
Golitsyn's book has been dismissed as nonsense by CIA experts, pundits and journalists. "Yet of Golitsyn's falsifiable predictions, 139 out of 148 were fulfilled by the end of 1993 -- an accuracy rate of nearly 94 percent," according to Mark Riebling's history of the FBI and CIA titled Wedge.
The correctness of Golitsyn's predictions have also been shown by researchers and journalists reporting on events in Eastern Europe. These include the stunning revelations of Andrei Codrescu about the 1989 Romanian Revolution, in his book The Hole in the Flag, as well as revelations by Polish author Darius Rohnka in his book Fatalna Fikcja ("The Fatal Fiction") and the works of Czech activist Petr Cibulka.
We also have the personal analysis of two GRU defectors. The famous spy and author, Viktor Rezun (a.k.a. Viktor Suvorov), told Christopher Story of Soviet Analyst that the collapse of the Soviet Union was undoubtedly a deception. When asked how Western intelligence could fail to see this deception, Rezun answered, "Because they are stupid." At the same time, GRU defector Stanislav Lunev has also suggested that the collapse of the Soviet Union must have been part of a strategic plan, although he says the plan went awry and led to the unintended derailment of Marxism-Leninism in the former bloc countries. However, he admits, this is no obstacle to Kremlin strategy, since Moscow's communist era objectives remain unchanged with KGB officer Vladimir Putin at the helm.
Evidence of a long range Soviet strategy of controlled democratization and fake collapse for the purpose of disarming the West also appears in the writings of the high level Czech defector Jan Sejna. In his 1982 book, We Will Bury You, Sejna wrote of a plan to “convince the Capitalist countries that they had no need of military alliances.” He added that, “To this end we envisaged that it might be necessary to dissolve the Warsaw Pact, in which event we had already prepared a web of bilateral defence arrangements, to be supervised by secret committees of Comecon.”
The evidence for strategic deception is rich and verifiable. It is not material invented by kooks, but solidly based in reality. Americans do not realize the extent to which the Chechen wars were Kremlin-inspired provocations, openly alluded to by Russia’s ranking Chechen official, Mufti Kadyrov. They do not realize the suspicious backgrounds of leading Chechen Muslims, or the fact that al Qaeda’s Number Two man spent several months in Russia only to be released under mysterious circumstances. Could it be a coincidence that terrorism expert Yossef Bodansky alleges that bin Laden’s acquired nuclear weapons via Chechnya, from Russian sources?
The pieces of the puzzle are in front of our eyes. But Americans will not believe their eyes. No matter how carefully the evidence is laid out, the public and American officials reject the idea of an ongoing Soviet deception strategy to bring America to its knees.
A few months before the attack on the World Trade Center, Fidel Castro visited Iran. He said that working together, they could bring down the United States. It is significant that Russia and China are now allied, and engage in regular joint military exercises. It is significant that communist dictators are emerging in Venezuela, Ecuador and Brazil. It is also significant that Europe is slipping into “socialist neutrality.”
The danger is very great. But Americans will not believe in this danger because we feel superior. We feel invulnerable. Why should anyone conspire to destroy America? The answer is simple. The answer is that inferior nation-states, like inferior persons, sometimes hate those who are superior.
Julien Benda once wrote: “Our age is the age of the intellectual organization of political hatreds.” Now ask yourself who the organizers of political hatred are, and which nations have been targeted? Today, the central targets of organized political hatred are Israel and the United States.
First you hate, then you dehumanize, then you kill. That is the formula for mass destruction warfare. You don’t begin a war by nuking enemy cities. You begin by organizing hatred against target populations. You dehumanize your target. When you have united a large enough mass behind you, and they are eager for blood, then you can unleash your weapons of mass destruction. The world will stand up and cheer, and you will be its new master.
Hatred is a powerful unifying force. In his book, “The True Believer,” Eric Hoffer wrote: “hatred is not always directed against those who wronged us.” In fact, it is often directed at the good, the superior and the fortunate. Seeing that someone is superior to ourselves, we sometimes think ill of our abilities and prospects. “Self contempt produces in man the most unjust and criminal passions,” wrote Hoffer, who explained that hatred is often “an expression of a desperate effort to suppress an awareness of our inadequacy, worthlessness, guilt and other shortcomings of the self.”
If we look at the world around us, at the Arab world, the Chinese and the Russians, we find national inferiority complexes at work. And these help to explain the war preparations of Russia and China, and their justification by officials like Gen. Chi Haotian of China’s Communist Party Central Military Commission, who said in 1999: “War [with American imperialism] is inevitable. We cannot avoid it.” He also explained, “We must be prepared to fight for one year, two years, or even longer.”
You can twist perceptions, reality won't budge. Rush 'Show Don't Tell'
"The best is yet to come..." Barack Obama, re-election victory speech, 11-6-2012
Posted 11 November 2009 - 01:39 PM
I would also add that JR mentioned that it was a bit dated and that things are more in focus now, and I agree, but it is still a very good description of the perestroika deception.
You can twist perceptions, reality won't budge. Rush 'Show Don't Tell'
"The best is yet to come..." Barack Obama, re-election victory speech, 11-6-2012
Posted 17 April 2010 - 03:44 AM
A grave strategic crisis is coming. The U.S. Congress has decided to allow the nation's nuclear arsenal to sink into disrepair. At the same time, the president is eager to sign a nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia, while Russia is modernizing its nuclear forces (not to mention what China is doing). It is possible, within a year, that America will have less than 400 strategic nuclear warheads. The strategic posture of the United States has become a makeshift affair; partly based on the dictates of political correctness, partly based on the false market optimism of a business community that wants to trade with Communist China. It does not occur to these businessmen that China is trading with them today in order to hang them tomorrow.
Today's strategic crisis is an intellectual crisis. It occurs because men have not studied the strategic situation with due diligence. They have abandoned common sense, and they have failed to name their enemies. The Islamic threat notwithstanding, the United States faces two powerful opponents: Russia and China. Due to the advance of "politically correct" thinking in Washington, and to the softening of the American psyche, few politicians are willing to admit that Russia and China are working against the security interests of the United States. Other countries, as well, are part of the Russian-Chinese alliance. These include Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Venezuela, and others.
It would seem, indeed, that the old Communist Bloc still exists, and is growing, especially in the Third World. Meanwhile, Communist influence in Europe is spreading through KGB-businesses, Russian organized crime, and agents of influence. Though former Soviet Republics and Warsaw Pact states have gained entry into NATO, the governments and economies of these countries are largely in the hands of Moscow's agents. Even Lech Walesa in Poland has long since been exposed as an agent of the communist secret police. It is no wonder, therefore, that Russia and China are engaged in a military buildup while the strategic attention of the United States is focused on Iran and Afghanistan. A deception has been promulgated, and the United States has been taken for a ride.
It now becomes evident, twenty years after the so-called collapse of communism, that America didn't win the Cold War. The communist bloc merely reorganized itself under new banners and new slogans. The old ideology was outwardly abandoned to facilitate the interpenetration of East and West. It is an indisputable fact that the collapse of Communism in 1989 was part of a longstanding Kremlin plan. We know this from the testimony of defectors and researchers like Jan Sejna, Anatoliy Golitsyn and Vladimir Bukovsky. It was Bukovsky who acquired documents from the Communist Party Soviet Union archive proving the existence of the plan. We also know that this plan did not play out as envisioned. After the unification of Germany, the German people did not abandon NATO as Kremlin strategists had projected. The Kremlin's miscalculation in this regard led to a major upset for the Soviet side, leading to a series of setbacks. To recover lost ground, the Kremlin strategists set to work after 1991. They built what has been called a KGB regime in Moscow. And they have been building an international alliance with which to change the global balance of power.
Some historical background is necessary to understand how we got where we are today: In December 1961 a KGB major named Golitsyn defected to the United States with information about a Soviet long-range strategy. He provided the CIA with a package of documents, including one that described a new KGB directorate of disinformation (Department “D”). The document said that catching American spies was not the KGB’s primary concern. Better to create an elaborate web of disinformation “to negate and discredit authentic information the enemy has obtained.” The KGB’s tactic was to feed the CIA a steady diet of pleasing falsehoods. Eventually, the CIA would only believe stories tailored by the KGB. This, in turn, would allow Soviet agents to penetrate more easily into the heart of U.S. intelligence.
Golitsyn warned the CIA that Soviet disinformation was carefully devised to support a long-range plan in which the balance of power would be inconspicuously shifted in favor of the communist bloc. With the exception of the CIA’s James Angleton, few credited Golitsyn’s warning. Having been disbelieved and cast aside, Golitsyn submitted a top secret manuscript to the CIA in 1982. According to this manuscript, by 1986 the Soviet Union would be led by a man “with a more liberal image.” This man would initiate “changes that would have been beyond the imagination of Marx or the practical reach of Lenin and unthinkable to Stalin.” The Soviet system would be liberalized, and 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…. The KGB would be reformed. Dissidents at home would be amnestied; those in exile abroad would be allowed to take up positions in the government…. 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.”
The CIA did not take Golitsyn’s manuscript seriously, and gave Golitsyn permission to publish it as a book, titled New Lies for Old, which appeared in 1984. It included 148 falsifiable predictions. According to researcher Mark Riebling “139 out of 148” of Golitsyn’s predictions “were fulfilled by the end of 1993 – an accuracy rate of nearly 94 percent.” Did anyone agree with Golitsyn’s analysis, or approve his predictions at the time? Leading pundits and CIA analysts mocked Golitsyn’s work. “Unfortunate is the only term for this book,” wrote a CIA analyst in 1985. There were no CIA apologies tendered to Golitsyn when 139 of his predictions came true. By that time Golitsyn’s critics were busy congratulating themselves on winning the Cold War. The success of Soviet disinformation was total. From that point forward the world would only understand what the KGB wanted them to understand.
According to the 1982 memoirs of a high-level Czechoslovakian defector named Jan Sejna,, “One of the basic problems of the West is its frequent failure to recognize the existence of any Soviet ‘grand design’ at all. Those rejecting this concept unwittingly serve Soviet efforts to conceal their objectives and further complicate the process of determining such objectives.” As a leading official, Sejna worked directly for the top level of the Czech communist government. In 1967 Sejna and his colleagues were briefed on Moscow’s strategy. “It had always been made clear that the Plan’s objectives were firm but the means and methods of achieving them were flexible,” wrote Sejna in his memoirs. “This flexibility often serves to confound Western political analysts, who tend to confuse a change in tactics with a profound change in … thinking.” Therefore, Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin in 1956 was a tactic and not a change of heart. According to Sejna, even though Khrushchev denounced Stalin’s crimes, the Kremlin had not abandoned Stalin’s objectives.
While addressing Western ambassadors during a reception at the Polish Embassy in Moscow on 18 November 1956, Khrushchev publicly stated: “Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!” ("Мы вас похороним!") On 24 July 1959 Khrushchev told visiting U.S. Vice President Richard Nixon that his grandchildren would live under communism. Two months later Khrushchev visited the United States where he made the exact same boast to U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ezra Taft Benson. When Benson assured him the opposite, Khrushchev reportedly said: “You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you’ll fall like overripe fruit into our hands.”
Khrushchev’s intention was recently explained by the former deputy chief of Romania’s foreign intelligence service, Ion Pacepa, who made the following observation to the Czech-American researcher Robert Buchar: “The whole foreign policy of the Soviet bloc states, indeed its whole economic and military might, revolved around the larger Soviet objective of destroying America from within through the use of lies. The Soviets saw disinformation as a vital tool in the dialectical advance of world communism. KGB priority number one was to damage American power, judgment, and credibility.”
It is noteworthy that Khrushchev did not say, “You will live under communism.” He also did not say, “Your children will live under communism.” He told his American opposites that their grandchildren would live under communism. Khrushchev was admitting that Moscow’s plan was a long-range plan, involving decades of work. Starting in February 1967 the Warsaw Pact countries received regular directives detailing their part in the overall Plan. “When my friends and I studied the Strategic Plan,” wrote Sejna, “our initial reactions were identical: we considered it quite unrealistic, especially in its timing, which we thought wildly optimistic.” Only after Sejna defected to the West did he change this opinion. “I could find no unity, no consistent objective or strategy among Western countries. It is not possible to fight the Soviet system and strategy with small tactical steps. For the first time I began to believe that the Soviet Union would be able to achieve her goals – something I had not believed in Czechoslovakia.”
The Kremlin strategists envisioned that sometime after 1990 an economic and political sequence would unfold, leading to the collapse of the American economy and “the advent to power in Washington of a transitional liberal and progressive government.” In September 1967 the Secretary of the Soviet Central Committee, Konstantin Katushev, arrived in Prague to orally brief the Czech communist leaders. The Czechs feared that an economic crisis in America would lead to the emergence of a right-wing regime. The United States could move to “either extreme,” Katushev admitted, “as … in the McCarthy period and the Vietnam War. If we can impose on the U.S.A. the external restraints proposed in our Plan, and seriously disrupt the American economy, the working and lower middle classes will suffer the consequences and they will turn on the society that has failed them. They will be ready for revolution.”
The Russian strategists foresaw that the American workforce would be facing a difficult situation in twenty to forty years. America’s enormous progress in technology, said Katushev, was a destabilizing influence because it led to underemployment by unskilled workers. “This phenomenon,” Katushev noted, “is one I consider the United States cannot deal with.” Though American workers could turn to the right, he added, “It’s more likely … that a progressive regime will emerge because, in spite of their power, the governing bureaucratic elite and industrial elite, and the media, are fundamentally liberal in their outlook and ashamed of their failure to solve basic national problems.”
In 1967 Soviet Marshal Matvei Zhakarov visited Prague to encourage the recruitment of “high-level agents of influence” in the rising elite of America’s universities, media and government. Moscow perceived that power was passing from the hands of the “old industrial plutocracy.” If the Soviet bloc could penetrate the U.S. media and academia, it would be easier to manipulate the society as a whole. While the Strategic Plan called for disrupting the U.S. economy and encouraging the election of a progressive presidential candidate, it also aimed at splitting the United States from Europe. According to Sejna, “The Russians planned to play upon the nationalist, bourgeois prejudices of the leading European countries in order to convince them that Europe must strive to become a distinct entity, separate from the United States.”
In order to gain technology and money from the West, Moscow also planned to launch an unprecedented peace offensive, which would involve the liquidation of the communist bloc. About this plan, Sejna wrote: “The erosion of NATO begun in Phase Two [of the Plan] would be completed by the withdrawal of the United States from its commitment to the defense of Europe, and by European hostility to military expenditure, generated by economic recession and fanned by the efforts of the ‘progressive’ movements. To this end we envisaged that it might be necessary to dissolve the Warsaw Pact, in which event we had already prepared a web of bilateral defense arrangements, to be supervised by secret committees of Comecon.”
In terms of operational details, the Plan relied on future sabotage and terrorist operations. These would benefit from the infiltration of organized crime and Soviet-sponsored drug trafficking. The Russian planners believed that the American economy could be sabotaged, that the CIA was effectively blind, and that drug trafficking could open a back door to America’s financial centers and geographical heartland. Sejna’s testimony on this subject was published in 1990 a book titled Red Cocaine, written by Joseph D. Douglass, Jr., with an introduction by Ray S. Cline, former Deputy Director for Intelligence at the CIA.
The role of terrorism was especially important to the thrust of the Strategic Plan. When researcher Robert Buchar asked Russian historian Vladimir Bukovsky whether the Soviets fathered modern terrorism, Bukovsky replied: “Oh definitely. I can show you hundreds of documents proving that. I mean how they supplied, trained, created and … control almost every terrorist organization on earth. I have these documents.”
The former Deputy Director of the Romanian intelligence service, Ion Mihai Pacepa, has written about Russia’s involvement with international terrorism. “Today’s international terrorism,” he wrote in August 2006, “was conceived at the Lubyanka, the headquarters of the KGB…. I witnessed its birth in my other life, as a Communist general.”
In a 1987 book, titled Spetsnaz: The Inside Story of the Soviet Special Forces, a Soviet military intelligence defector writing under the pen name Viktor Suvorov explained the ultimate purpose to which terrorism would be put to use. In Chapter 15 of the book, Suvorov listed various acts of economic sabotage and terrorism to be undertaken in advance of all-out war against the United States. “All these operations,” wrote Suvorov, “are known officially in the GRU as the ‘preparatory period,’ and unofficially as the ‘overture.’ The overture is a series of large and small operations the purpose of which is, before actual military operations begin, to weaken the enemy’s morale, create an atmosphere of general suspicion, fear and uncertainty, and divert the attention of the enemy’s armies and police forces to a huge number of different targets, each which may be the object of the next attack.” According to Suvorov, the overture is carried out by intelligence agents and by “mercenaries recruited by intermediaries.” The strategy they follow is known as “grey terror,” described by Suvorov as “a kind of terror which is not conducted in the name of the Soviet Union.” Instead, the terror is carried out in the name of “already existing extremist groups not connected in any way” with Russia. According to Suvorov, “The terrorist acts carried out in the course of the ‘overture’ require very few people, very few weapons and little equipment.” The example of 19 men with box-cutters comes to mind, though Suvorov lists “a screw driver, a box of matches or a glass ampoule.”
In a July 2005 interview with the Polish Newspaper Rzeczpospolita, FSB/KGB defector Alexander Litvinenko alleged that al Qaeda’s second-in-command, Ayman Al-Zawahri, was “an old agent of the FSB.” Political writer and former KGB officer, Konstantin Preobrazhenskiy, confirmed Litvinenko’s allegation, stating: “[Litvinenko] was responsible for securing the secrecy of Al-Zawahri’s arrival in Russia, who was trained by FSB instructors in Dagestan, Northern Caucasus, in 1996-97.” Preobrazhenskiy further stated: "At that time, Litvinenko was the Head of the Subdivision for Internationally Wanted Terrorists of the First Department of the Operative-Inquiry Directorate of the FSB Anti-Terrorist Department. He was ordered to undertake the delicate mission of securing Al-Zawahri from unintentional disclosure by the Russian police. Though Al-Zawahri had been brought to Russia by the FSB using a false passport, it was still possible for the police to learn about his arrival and report to Moscow for verification. Such a process could disclose Al-Zawahri as an FSB collaborator.”
Litvinenko detailed Russia’s role as the originator of modern terrorism in his July 2005 interview with Rzeczpospolita: “I know only one organization that has made terrorism the main tool of solving political problems. It is the Russian special services. The KGB has been engaged in terrorism for many years, and mass terrorism. At the special department of the KGB they trained terrorists from practically every country in the world. These courses lasted, as a rule, for half a year. Specially trained and prepared agents of the KGB organized murders and explosions, including explosions of tankers, the hijacking of passenger airliners, along with hits on diplomatic, state and commercial organizations worldwide.” Litvinenko added that the agents of the KGB/FSB were “the bloodiest terrorist in the world.” He then listed Carlos Ilyich Ramiros (Carlos the Jackal), Yassir Arafat, Saddam Hussein, and a host of others. According to Litvinenko, “all these figures and movements operated under their own slogans; however, none of them especially hid their ‘intimate’ … relationship with the Kremlin and Lubyanka. There is a simple question: whether the Russian special services would train and finance people and groups which are unsupervised by Lubyanka and did not serve the interests of the Kremlin? You understand perfectly, they would not. Each act of terrorism made by these people was carried out as an assignment and under the rigid control of the KGB of the USSR.”
Asked if this terrorism continues under the post-Soviet leadership, Litvinenko warned that “the center of global terrorism is not in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan or the Chechen Republic. The terrorist infection is spread worldwide from Lubyanka Square and the Kremlin cabinet. And until the Russian special services are outlawed, dispersed and condemned, the terrorism will never stop.” Roughly 16 months after his public statements about the KGB’s connection to Al Qaeda, Litvinenko was poisoned at the bar of a London hotel by Kremlin agents who put radioactive polonium-210 in his tea. He died in November 2006.
The strategic crisis facing the United States is a life-and-death crisis. If we continue to ignore the growing evidence of danger, the free world may not survive. The Strategic Crisis Center wants to encourage widespread debate, involvement, and concern with these issues. Citizens need to get educated, they need to get involved, and they need to alert their neighbors, their friends, and their families to the danger.
You can twist perceptions, reality won't budge. Rush 'Show Don't Tell'
"The best is yet to come..." Barack Obama, re-election victory speech, 11-6-2012
Posted 19 November 2010 - 10:00 PM
Must Watch:Is Communism Winning?
Trevor Loudon of New Zeal writes -
Modern anti-communists fall into two main camps.
The majority believe that communism was soundly defeated in the 1980s and 1990s, but is now making a comeback in some areas - such as inside the US government.
The minority, of which I am one, believe that the "fall of communism" was part of a long term disinformation strategy, which is now entering its final phase.
Please watch the 1995 interview below with Christopher Story, a champion of the minority view.
Look at the world today and see if you can see some truth in Mr Story's thesis.
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users