Welcome to The Final Phase Forum!
This forum derives its name from a KGB defector - Anatoliy Golitsyn - who escaped to the West in 1961. He tried unsuccessfully to warn Western Intelligence that Russia had developed a long-range plan of deception designed to lull the West to sleep leading to its ultimate conquest.
He said that the plan called for false liberalizations, including the taking down of the Berlin Wall, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the democratization of Russia and the staged demise of communism itself - an unprecedented stratagem so profound that it would successfully confound all. The latter stage of this monumental deception would be known as the final phase of the plan, which is where we find ourselves today.
There is an absolute connectedness to today's world events and to Golitsyn's first-hand knowledge and methodology of analysis. Many of today's geopolitical moves are intertwined and part & parcel of The Final Phase.
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 Beijings pronouncements, they are not concerned about Koreas saber rattling; they welcome it and use it.
Russia and Chinas 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.
Epsteins 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 todays 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 readers 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 Iskras 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 Iskras 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 centralismin 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.