" The Perestroika Deception. The world's slide towardsthe 'Second October Revolution' ['Weltoktober'] "

Author: Anatoliy Golitsyn, Famous genuine Soviet defector Published by: EdwardHarle Limited

Anatoliy Golitsyn follows up the predictive success of his famous work New Lies for Old byauthoritatively demonstrating that Mikhail Gorbachëv's 'Perestroika' prepared the ground forthe Leninist, or deceptive, strategic discontinuity, which materialised with the fake'disintegration' of the Soviet Union and 'collapsible Communism'.

Consisting of self-originated Memoranda to the Central Intelligence Agency, which neglectedto take his advice but has since realised that he was 100% accurate, The PerestroikaDeception reveals that the West has allowed itself to be duped by the continuing Marxist-Leninist World Revolutionaries, who persist with Lenin's project to achieve control over theentire world, and to install their Luciferian collectivist utopia-on-Earth.

This book is also essential background for new subscribers to Soviet Analyst, An IntelligenceCommentary, which focuses on continuing Soviet strategic deception operations. Tosubscribe to this intelliegence service, press Soviet Analyst, to which The PerestroikaDeception is an indispensable introduction.

In May 1992, Anatoliy Golitsyn, the famous genuine Soviet defector and the Author of ‘NewLies for Old’ [1984], wrote to Mr Story as follows; ‘I have read a few recent issues of SovietAnalyst with great interest. It seems to me that you have good grasp of Soviet strategywhich probably causes them some concern. I now enclose for your perusal and not forpublication an extract from my Memorandum called ‘Predicting, Understanding andResponding to Perestroika’ which I sent to the CIA in March 1989. I do not want to alarmyou and I do not want to discourage you from the excellent courageous line you are takingin your publication. But I want to warn you on personal basis to be careful in yourcontacts…. I think of sending you through my lawyer more extracts from my memos to CIA

for possible publication in Soviet Analyst after this year’s US Presidential elections. Withgood wishes, Sincerely, Anatoliy Golitsyn’.

The 1992 Presidential election was won by Bill Clinton, a CIA operative and intelligencecommunity ‘Box Gang’ crony of the Bush Family. Sure enough, a large parcel arrived atWorld Reports Limited’s London office in December 1992, containing more than 100 pagesof memoranda that Mr Golitsyn had submitted of his own volition (not under contract) to theCentral Intelligence Agency (many of them addressed by name to the Director of CentralIntelligence, or DCI). So what did Anatoliy Golitsyn realise about the US presidentialsuccession of 1992, or what did he suspect? Did he know that Clinton, a CIA operative, mayalso serve another master (as subsequent events allegedly implied)?

The significance of all this is that a proper grasp of the Leninist mentality is an essentialprerequisite for understanding overt and covert Soviet long-range World Revolutiondeception strategy. What Golitsyn does is to teach the uncomprehending West whatLeninism means, and how it never dies. If intelligence communities had taken Mr Golitsyn’swarnings as seriously as the Editor of Soviet Analyst did, the world today would be a verydifferent place. But the Foreign Office and the US State Department ‘knew better’.

And if certain multinational corporations had not been so blinded by greed and had paidattention as well – by subscribing to Soviet Analyst – they would have saved themselvesbillions and billions of dollars in some instances. It is quite obvious, even today, that the topleadership of British Petroleum has no real clue about the nature of the KGB-GRUcriminalists with which it is dealing: and the same also applies to certain US energy majors,as well – although US intelligence, being itself so extensively criminalised, is probably betterequipped to collaborate with the covert Soviet ‘oligarchs’ (specially selected KGB-GRUoperatives) into whose hands the assets of the Soviet Party-State were temporarilytransferred.

In short, Soviet Analyst never accepted that there was a Soviet strategic discontinuity in1989-91. The ‘discontinuity’ was Leninist in character. This is what the Foreign Office, theState Department, and most of the key Western intelligence communities, chose not tounderstand. We are all paying the expensive price for their blindness and stupidity today.The West did NOT win the intelligence war.

As a result of Anatoliy Golitsyn’s intervention, Christopher Story subsequently edited thememoranda and published them as The Perestroika Deception, which is probably the mostimportant work on Soviet deception strategy ever written: see the Edward Harle Limitedbook sub-website for details.

From the backcover: "Anatoliy Golitsyn's first book, 'New Lies for Old', caused a longrunning sensation when it was discovered that, unlike most Western analysts, the Authorhad accurately predicted, some years ahead of the events, the 'Break with the Past' whichtook place in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union in 1989-91. In his book 'Wedge: TheSecret War between the FBI and CIA' [Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1994], Mark Riebling, whocarried out a methodical analysis of Golitsyn's predictions in 'New Lies for Old', credited theAuthor with 'an accuracy record of nearly 94%'. This singular achievement puts all otheranalysts, including some official services, to shame; and it is precisely because of his recordof pin-point accuracy that Western Governments, policymakers and even some intelligenceservices, whose record bears little comparison with Golitysn's, have competed with oneanother over the years to find reasons why Golitsyn's perceptive explanations of Sovietstrategy should be ignored. But events as they unfold are relentlessly proving this

remarkable analyst of Soviet strategy to be right. 'The Perestroika Deception' explains thedevious secret intent behind the Leninist strategy which the 'former' Communists arepursuing under cover of fake 'reform' and 'progress towards democracy'. The immediatestrategic objective is 'convergence' with the West -- on their terms, not ours. The ultimateobjective is Lenin's: replacement of nations states with collective regional governments asbuilding blocks of the 'New World Social Order' -- World [Communist] Government."

About the Author: Anatoliy Golitsyn was born in the Ukraine in 1926, served as a memberof the KGB in various intelligence, counterintelligence, and counterespionage roles, until hedefected to the United States in 1961 of which he is now a citizen. Since that time he hasdiligently studied Communist and international affairs, reading both the Western andCommunist press which has lead him to submit Memoranda to the CIA outlining his analysisof Communist affairs.

Introduction: The book includes a series of memoranda that the author sent to the CIA inrecent years. Golitsyn felt that since his "warnings" have basically gone unheeded by thegovernment that he would publish them in a book. He asked the CIA to declassify them, andthey agreed. The author cites several reasons for this consideration of presenting hismemoranda to the public. I'll quote just two:(1) "...The democracies of the United States and Western Europe are facing a dangeroussituation and are vulnerable because their governments, the Vatican, the elite, the media,the industrialists, the financiers, the trade unions and, most important, the general publicare blind to the dangers of the strategy of 'perestroika' ... The democracies could perishunless they are informed about the aggressive design of 'perestroika' against them." (pg.XIX)(2) "...I could not imagine that American policymakers, and particularly the conservatives inboth the Republican and Democratic parties, despite their long experience with Communisttreachery, would not be able to grasp the new manoeuvres of the Communist strategistsand would rush to commit the West to helping 'perestroika' which is so contrary to theirinterests."It has been sad to observe the jubilation of American and West European conservativeswho have been cheering 'perestroika' without realising that it is intended to bring abouttheir own political and physical demise. Liberal support for 'perestroika' is understandable,but conservative support came as a surprise to me." (pg. XIX)

In trying to understand the reason that Golitsyn's warnings have been overlookedby Western leaders, the editor writes:"The first main reason for the general (but not in fact complete) rejection of the Author'sanalysis is that, as the case of Aldrich Hazen Ames has shown, the Russians won theintelligence war through their penetration of Western intelligence services--a messagewhich, naturally, these services do not wish to hear... In the course of his work with theAmerican, British and French services, the Author found that penetration had destroyedtheir ability to interpret events in the Communist world correctly." (pg. XXV)

The following items are just a sampling of what is covered in this 247 page book:- Perestroika is the result of 30 years of preparation and strategy in the "restructuring of thewhole world." (pg. 45)- The actions of Russia in securing victories by the Leftist parties in the recent elections ofthe U.S., West Germany, France and Britain. The Russians feel that Conservatives might"recover" from the idea of perestroika so it would be best to have Liberals in office.- In 1989, Golitsyn suggested to the CIA that Gorbachev could possibly be replaced byeither a conservative of Ligachev's type or by a liberal of Yeltsin's type. The author furtherspeculated that Gorbachev's replacement would be a calculated move and, depending oncircumstances, may even be brought back into power at a later date.

- The Chinese-Russian relation and the West's failure to understand this relationship. In1989, the author wrote to the CIA: "...China is destined to become a Soviet partner in thefuture World Government towards which Moscow and Peking are jointly preceding." (pg. 36)In another memorandum to the CIA in February 1993, Golitsyn wrote in reference to a"mask of diplomatic and political cooperation" by Russia: "When the right moment comesthe mask will be dropped and the Russians with Chinese help will seek to impose theirsystem on the West on their own terms as the culmination of a 'Second October SocialistRevolution.' (p. 158).- The three centers of nuclear military power that Russia and China must deal with: theUnited States, Western Europe and Israel. The Russians calculate that the U.S. and WesternEurope neutralization will be handled diplomatically via arms agreements and such. Theissue of Israel is another matter, which the author suggests that neutralization might occurvia sabotage of nuclear facilities.- The author discusses the possible 'perestroika' event in China at Tienanmen Square thatwas later changed at the last minute, reminding us that this Chinese crackdown occurred onthe "eve of the changes in Eastern Europe" and immediately after a visit by Gorbachevsuggesting that this event was far from coincidental. He questions the "massacre" atTienanmem surmising that reporters only heard gunfire and tanks from their hotel roomsbut were not true eyewitnesses to the events inside the square. He cites conflicting newsreports on the matter. He also suggests that any deaths may have been "selective killing ofthe unorganized elements" involved in Tienanmen Square. This is in line with his belief thatthe demonstration started out as a Party-organized event that later turned into genuinespontaneous involvement by many "unorganized elements" which would of course threatenChinese control of the demonstration. (pg. 108)- Golitsyn discusses the Western press and their inability to accurately report events inRussia and other Communist countries due to their ignorance, in part, of what perestroikaactually is. Their version of perestroika is so in tune with what the Communists would havethem believe, that now Russia allows its public to listen to such radio programs as "TheVoice of America" and the BBC.- On the topic of religion, Golitsyn wrote to the CIA in 1990: "...greater apparent officialtolerance of religion in the Soviet Union is accompanied by a secret drive to increase Partyand KGB penetration of the Catholic and other churches and to use agents therein forpolitical and strategic purposes inside and outside the Soviet Union. As part of theprogramme to destroy religion from within, the KGB, in the late 1950s, started sendingdedicated young Communists to ecclesiastical academies and seminaries to train them asfuture church leaders. These young Communists joined the Church, not at the call of theirconsciences to serve God, but at the call of the Communist Party in order to serve thatParty and to implement its general line in the struggle against religion." The authorcontinues in saying that when these new "church leaders" have achieved their goals, that amass withdrawal of these agents will occur to disrupt and destroy the churches. Golitsynwarns that "never in its history since Nero has Christianity faced such a threat of possibledestruction." (pp. 116-117)

- In a memorandum dated April 1995 the heading reads: "An Assessment of the Invitationto Billy Graham to Preach in Soviet Churches During His Second Visit to the USSR." Golitsynwrites: "This was an extraordinary, moving and impressive event with serious political andstrategic implications." (p. 186)

- The "contrived and military bungling" of events in Chechnya in 1994 to give the falseimpression of the ineptness of the Russian military.

Conclusion: "The Perestroika Deception" is packed full of information. And remember, thisinformation was first given to, and generally ignored by, the CIA as an expert analysis. The

author does not mix words. He tells it as he sees it. Definitely not a book you would want tocurl up with at night, but perhaps a book to consider reading in helping to balance out themis- and disinformation that is fed to us now.

Memorandum to the CIA: 26 AUGUST 1991

Anatoliy Golitsyn

THE AUTHOR'S ANALYSIS OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CALCULATED SOVIET 'COUP' AND OFITS CALCULATED 'FAILURE'

According to my assessment, the Soviet 'coup' and its 'failure' constituted a grandiosedisplay of deception - a provocation. The 'ineptitude' of the participants in the 'coup' and the'failure' of it were skillfully planned and executed. The main argument in support of thisassessment is that the Soviet military, the KGB, the Party and leading media figuresapparently had neither the skill to launch a successful coup nor the guts to crush resistanceto it. This is news indeed!Facing a real crisis in Hungary in 1956, the same forces displayed exceptional skill, know-how and determination in crushing a genuine revolt. Knowledge of the Soviet mentality andof Moscow's record of ruthless action has convinced this analyst that the Soviet military, theParty and the leaders of the media all have the skill, the will and the courage to crushgenuine resistance and opposition. They did not display them on this occasion because theabortive 'coup' was carried out in accordance with Party instructions; and it was the Partyand the Komsomol themselves which organized the alleged resistance to it.The real participants both in the 'coup' and in the 'failure' were some 20,000 or morechosen Komsomol and Party members in Moscow with two or three tank divisions guided bytheir political commissars and a handful of dedicated Party officials and generals whosacrificed their prestige in the interests of the Party's strategy and under the guidance of itsstrategists. The calculated nature of the 'coup' and its timing show that it was staged by theRussian, President Yeltsin, to save the essence of the Union at the time of transition to anew form of federation.The abortive 'coup' and the 'resistance' to it were carefully calculated displays intendedprimarily for the West. This explains why Western media contacts with Moscow were notcurtailed. On the contrary, the big guns of the Soviet media like Vitaliy Korotich andrepresentatives of the Arbatov Institute were on hand both in Moscow and in the UnitedStates to 'help' the Western media with their interpretation of developments in the USSR.The episode shows how well Soviet strategists like Arbatov and his experts on the Americanmedia have mastered the art of projecting such displays for consumption by the Americanmedia, and throughout the West.The Soviet strategists sought to underline for the West the dramatic ineptitude of the 'coup'and the spectacular courage and resistance displayed by the new 'Russian democrats' andtheir leader Yeltsin in 'defending' the Soviet Parliament- their symbolic equivalent of 'TheWhite House'. The main external objective of the display was to demonstrate to the Westthat Soviet democratization is genuine, that it has the support of the people and that it isworking. They want to convince the West that Western investment in the USSR will paydividends.They expect that the West will now respond with a new Marshall Plan which will bringWestern technology flooding in to the Soviet Union, promoting joint ventures andstimulating a restructuring of the Soviet economy along the lines of the revival of theGerman and Japanese economies after the Second World War.

Internally, one objective is to influence the Soviet population towards acceptance of the newParty-controlled 'democracy' as a real power and to develop the strength and maturity ofthe new 'democratic' structure and the popularity of its leaders, especially Yeltsin. Anotherobjective is to exploit this staged 'coup' in order to reorganize and 'reform' the Sovietbureaucracy, the military, the intelligence and counter-intelligence organizations and thediplomatic service, and to give them a new 'democratic' image.The Soviet strategists realize that only with such a new image, implying a 'Break with thePast' and severance from Communism, can these organizations be converted into effectiveweapons for convergence with their counterparts in the United States. A further internalobjective is to emphasize the change in the system by means of the spectacular, televisedbut calculated removal of old Communist symbols like the monuments to Lenin andDzerzhinskiy, and the red banners.These changes do not represent a genuine and sincere repudiation of Soviet design andintentions to secure an eventual world victory. Although very spectacular, the changes arecosmetic. They demonstrate only that Arbatov and others know how to manipulate theAmerican and other Western media through the use of powerful symbols such as thedismantling of the Berlin Wall, the toppling of Lenin and Dzerzhinskiy statues and Yeltsin'sstaged 'defense' of the Soviet 'White House'.If the Soviets were truly moving towards genuine democracy, and were intent on a true'Break with the Past', these symbolic changes would be accompanied by the introductionand implementation of a de-communization program, the irrevocable (not cosmetic)prohibition of the Communist Party and Komsomol organizations at all levels throughout theUSSR, and the removal of 'former' Party and Komsomol members from all the main seats ofpower including the KGB, the Soviet army and its political commissar administration, theMinistries, especially those for the Interior and Foreign Affairs, and the trade unions.Yeltsin has allegedly banned the Communist Party in Russia. But the question should beasked: Why did he forget to ban the Komsomol youth organization?' [Note: According to'The New York Times' of 29 September 1991, the Komsomol voted to dissolve itself; itsregulations were changed 'to allow subordinate youth leagues in the Soviet Republics tosucceed it' - Author's emphasis].To carry conviction, the necessary purge of former Communists would have to be carriedout at all levels, as was the intention with the de-nazification program in Germany after thewar. Without any such program, present changes, however impressive, will remaincosmetic.There are at present no means of distinguishing reliably between a genuine democrat and aformer Communist in Russia. However one important criterion for judging the sincerity ofthe abrupt and virtually simultaneous conversion of former Communist leaders into truedemocrats would be a frank official statement from them that the Soviet Party andGovernment adopted a long-range strategy in the years 1958 to 1960, that 'Perestroika' isthe advanced phase of this strategy, and that it is to be abandoned forthwith in favor ofnormal, open, civilized relations. There has been no sign whatsoever of any such admission.Further criteria for judging the sincerity of the abrupt conversion of 'former' Communistleaders into believers in true democracy would need to include:Accept the new Party-controlled 'democracy' as a real power and develop the strength andmaturity of the new 'democratic' structure and the popularity of its leaders, especiallyYeltsin. Another objective is to exploit this staged 'coup' in order to reorganize and 'reform'the Soviet bureaucracy, the military, the intelligence and counter-intelligence organizationsand the diplomatic service, and to give them a new 'democratic' image.The Soviet strategists realize that only with such a new image, implying a 'Break with thePast' and severance from Communism, can these organizations be converted into effectiveweapons for convergence with their counterparts in the United States. A further internalobjective is to emphasize the change in the system by means of the spectacular, televisedbut calculated removal of old Communist symbols like the monuments to Lenin andDzerzhinskiy, and the red banners.

These changes do not represent a genuine and sincere repudiation of Soviet design andintentions to secure an eventual world victory. Although very spectacular, the changes arecosmetic. They demonstrate only that Arbatov and others know how to manipulate theAmerican and other Western media through the use of powerful symbols such as thedismantling of the Berlin Wall, the toppling of Lenin and Dzerzhinskiy statues and Yeltsin'sstaged 'defense' of the Soviet 'White House'.If the Soviets were truly moving towards genuine democracy, and were intent on a true'Break with the Past', these symbolic changes would be accompanied by the introductionand implementation of a de-communization program, the irrevocable (not cosmetic)prohibition of the Communist Party and Komsomol organizations at all levels throughout theUSSR, and the removal of 'former' Party and Komsomol members from all the main seats ofpower including the KGB, the Soviet army and its political commissar administration, theMinistries, especially those for the Interior and Foreign Affairs, and the trade unions.Yeltsin has allegedly banned the Communist Party in Russia. But the question should beasked: Why did he forget to ban the Komsomol youth organization?'[Note: According to 'The New York Times' of 29 September 1991, the Komsomol votedto dissolve itself; its regulations were changed 'to allow subordinate youth leagues in theSoviet Republics to succeed it' - Author's emphasis].To carry conviction, the necessary purge of former Communists would have to be carriedout at all levels, as was the intention with the de-nazification program in Germany after thewar. Without any such program, presentchanges, however impressive, will remain cosmetic.There are at present no means of distinguishing reliably between a genuine democrat and aformer Communist in Russia. However one important criterion for judging the sincerity ofthe abrupt and virtually simultaneous conversion of formerCommunist leaders into true democrats would be a frank official statement from them thatthe Soviet Party and Government adopted a long-range strategy in the years 1958 to 1960,that 'Perestroika' is the advanced phase of this strategy, and that it is to be abandonedforthwith in favor of normal, open, civilized relations. There has been no sign whatsoever ofany such admission.Further criteria for judging the sincerity of the abrupt conversion of 'former' Communistleaders into believers in true democracy would need to include:

• An official admission that the 'dissident movement' and its leader, Sakharov, wereserving the interests of that strategy under KGB control;

• Public exposure of the main KGB agents among Soviet scientists, priests, writersand theater and movie personalities who have been playing an active role in theKGB-controlled political 'opposition' - especially those like the 'conservative'Kochetov and the 'liberal' Tvardovskiy who in the 1960s engaged in a Party- andKGB-controlled debate intended to convey the false impression that Soviet societywas evolving towards democracy;

• And finally: a categorical repudiation of any strategic intention on the part of theSoviets of working towards 'convergence' with the United States.

The self-evident absence of any of these criteria indicates that the symbolic changes meanno more than that the strategists had reached the conclusion that the old symbols hadoutlived their usefulness - at least, in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe - and had to bereplaced by new, more attractive, popular symbols. Moreover these cosmetic changes arelogical and were predicted earlier by this analyst. The Soviets realized that convergencewith the United States cannot be achieved under the old compromised symbols like Lenin,Dzerzhinskiy and others associated in the Western mind with terror, repression, exile andbloodshed. Convergence requires the introduction of new, attractive, national and'democratic' symbols conveying the impression that Soviet 'democracy' is approaching theWestern model.No doubt these cosmetic changes, the reorganization of the Soviet bureaucracy and thenew, more enigmatic status of its leaders like Yeltsin will be seen by the West as a

deepening of the process of Soviet 'reform', offering new opportunities for Western policy.But the West's main weakness remains unchanged: it cannot grasp the fact that it is facingan acceleration in the unfolding of Soviet convergence strategy which is intended to procurethe subservience of the West to Moscow under an ultimate Communist World Government.The Machiavellian boldness and imagination displayed by the Soviet strategists throughtheir staged 'coup' and its preordained defeat are alarming. No doubt these maneuvers willbe followed not only by faked suicides, but also by staged trials of the alleged leaders of the'coup'. These leaders may well be sentenced to apparent prison terms. But in fact they willlive in comfortable retirement in resort areas like the Crimea and the Caucasus. Russia is abig country and places can be found for them to hide.The' coup' and its 'defeat' show that the Soviets will go to any lengths in pursuit of theirconvergence strategy. This reminds me of remarks by Vladimir Zhenikhov, the former KGBRezident in Finland, and Aleksey Novikov, another KGBofficer, at the time the strategy was adopted in 1961. Both of them had recently returnedfrom home leave in Moscow. When I asked for the latest news from headquarters, bothreplied using different words but to the same effect: 'This time the KGB are going to finishwith capitalist America once and for all'. I believed them then, and I believe that what ishappening now is a bad omen for Western democracy.The other alarming aspect of the situation is Western euphoria and the uncritical acceptanceof present Soviet developments at their face value. This shows how easily the West can betaken in by staged Soviet spectacles, and how justified the strategists are in believing thattheir 'era of provocations' will produce the intended results. Furthermore, Western euphoriaand naiveté serve only to encourage the Soviet strategists to stage new spectacles moreconvinced than ever that their strategic designs are realistic.

Dispelling Disinformationby William F. Jasper

This is Part One of an interview by William F. Jasper, Senior Editor of TheNew American, with Christopher Story, editor of the London-based SovietAnalyst, an intelligence commentary, and editor of The PerestroikaDeception by Anatoliy Golitsyn, the Soviet defector and famous author ofNew Lies for Old. The interview was conducted on August 16 1995 in thePresidio, San Francisco, outside the headquarters of the GorbachevFoundation/USA.Q. Why did you start publishing Soviet Analyst, and how does thatpublication differ from other sources concerned with Soviet Russia,Communism, etc ?A. Soviet Analyst had been published since 1972 by a group of people inLondon with long-established connections with the British Foreign Office.Around midsummer 1991, they approached me, knowing that I might beinterested in buying the paper, and revealed that they wanted to sell it.Their reasoning was that "it was all over"; the Soviet Union was finished.

Interestingly, they thought this well before the "August coup," which tookplace on August 19, 1991.Since these people had Foreign Office connections, they had essentiallyreflected the Foreign Office line. At the time, the Foreign Office was busilyrecognizing the alleged political "independence" of the Soviet Republics, oneby one, and generally appeared to be doing everything possible to reinforcethe illusions of "change" which were being staged by the Soviet strategists inpursuit of their objectives. We have inherited old issues of Soviet Analystgoing back to 1972, from which it is very clear that Soviet Analyst was an"arm' s length" vehicle for Foreign Office opinion about the Soviet Union. Inacquiring this title, I saw an opportunity to counter disinformation aboutSoviet developments. We started publishing Soviet Analyst in November1991, stressing the Soviets' Leninist use of strategic deception, andexplaining it to our readers. We started from the assumption that there hadbeen no true discontinuity. Hence Soviet Analyst differs from probably allother publications in that our analysis shows that the apparent "Break withthe Past" is a deception, and that "perestroika" and post-"perestroika"represent further stages of the Leninist World Revolution.Q. From Oxford to Stanford to the Rand Corporation to London, Paris andBerlin, there are hordes of Sovietologists and Soviet defectors who are busilyinforming the West about what is "really happening" in the so-called'"former" Soviet Union. You have singled out the work of the Soviet defectorAnatoliy Golitsyn. Why do you think he is unique ?A. Golitsyn is probably the most important Soviet defector ever to havereached the West. The reason for this is that he revealed the details of along-range deception strategy of which the West previously had noknowledge. When debriefed, he emphasized, as he has done ever since, thatbecause of his background of working within the "inner KGB" — a super-secret strategic planning department of which not even ordinary KGB officerswere aware — he was uniquely qualified to inform the West about Sovietstrategy. One of the superficial criticisms frequently made about Golitsyn isthat he has been "out of the loop" since defecting to Finland with his wifeand daughter in 1961, so how could he possibly know what was going on?People who say this reveal a failure to understand Golitsyn's significance,and what he has to offer the West.In summary, Golitsyn's importance is that, unlike all other defectors,Golitsyn discusses and elaborates upon Soviet strategy. By contrast,defectors like Oleg Gordievsky discuss mundane matters concerning themanner of their "escape" from the Soviet Union, perhaps revealing valuableoperational information in order to gain the confidence of (in Gordievsky'scase) Britain's MI6, before inserting strategic disinformation in their output.Golitsyn is different. He has spent his years in the West explaining patientlythat the Soviets follow Leninist strategic principles, and are engaged in adeadly long-term war against the West. The Soviet revolutionaries havefollowed Lenin's advice to "work by other means."

Q. If we examine Golitsyn's record since 1961, do we have reason to placefaith in his analysis and his analytical methods ?A. At a superficial but easily explained level, Golitsyn's public fame derivesfrom the fact that in 1980, he completed a work called New Lies for Old,which was in fact published in 1984. This book contained explicit predictionsconcerning the future course of Soviet strategy, which events subsequentlyproved to have been correct. In his recent book, published in 1994, entitledWedge: The Secret War between the FBI and CIA, Mark Riebling explainedthat after carrying out a careful analysis of Golitsyn's predictions in New Liesfor Old, he had found that out of a total of 148 falsifiable predictions, 139had been verified by 1993 — "an accuracy rating of 94%." This achievementplaces Golitsyn in a league of his own, putting most other observers toshame.Q. And the predictions he made concerned very significant, "earth-shattering" developments...A. Golitsyn's main predictions included details of the forthcoming falseliberalization of the whole of Eastern Europe, followed by similardevelopments in the Soviet Union. He predicted the removal of the BerlinWall, the unification of Germany, the restructuring (if not abolition) of NATO.He even went so far as to specify that a "Break with the Past" process wouldstart in East Germany, with the opening of its borders — as it turned out, toneighboring Communist countries. That was quite remarkable: Golitsynknew that the process would start in East Germany; and it did.Q. For 34 years, Golitsyn has remained in hiding. He has never been seen inpublic; his whereabouts are a closely guarded secret. Meanwhile, otherdefectors are conducting national tours, appearing on television, or writing inthe press. I recently saw Yuri Svets on C-Span, hawking his new bookdealing with his KGB activities while stationed in Washington. Is Golitsyn'ssecrecy a reflection of his prudence, or of paranoia?A. Well, those who seek to discredit him routinely accuse him of paranoia.That is, of course, a mistake. Golitsyn was condemned to death in 1962,after Semichastniy, then head of the KGB, had formally asked the Party forits approval that he should be liquidated. A Soviet defector who I am advisedis reliable, reported to me that he had seen a book on display in theLubyanka [KGB headquarters] in Moscow, listing the names and details ofTraitors to the Motherland, complete with photographs. Golitsyn features inthis book, which states that those listed are to be reported or killed.Obviously, it is highly significant that, unlike KGB officers who have becomeprominent in the West such as the "two Olegs" — Oleg Gordievsky (who toldMrs. Thatcher how wonderful Gorbachev was) and KGB General Oleg Kalugin— Golitsyn remains under deep cover. It is significant that we don't knowwhere he is, and that I have never spoken to him (he corresponds with meexclusively through intermediaries). If he can't present himself openly, andcannot live a normal life, there must be a reason for it.

The smear that he is paranoid does not provide a rational explanation. Hisbooks are not paranoid; they are written in moderate, carefully constructedlanguage. To accept the lie that he is paranoid, it would be necessary tobelieve that a man who writes so carefully and rationally, neverthelesschooses to live in disguise, with a new identity and personality, out of directcontact with those he wishes to influence, and subjects himself to open-ended inconvenience in living out his paranoia. This scenario is manifestlyabsurd. In The Perestroika Deception, Golitsyn clearly acknowledges that hislife is in danger. If this is so, it proves that he is a living threat to the Sovietstrategists — since he has revealed the essence of their long-range strategy.Incidentally, Golitsyn explains that a strategy differs from a policy in thefollowing respect: Whereas a policy is overt, a strategy contains within it asecret maneuver or dimension which is not revealed, the purpose of which isto ensure the realization of the strategy.Q. And Golitsyn's moderate, careful predictions in New Lies for Old havebeen amply validated by the course of events in recent years, as we haveseen.A. Absolutely correct. New Lies for Old is an outstanding predictivedocument — which of course suggests that the sequel, The PerestroikaDeception, provides further significant guidelines for understanding Sovietstrategy today and how it will evolve in the future.Q. Were you surprised when Golitsyn contacted you?A. I was very surprised. What happened was that after we had beenpublishing Soviet Analyst — re-angled towards the truth — for six months,and explaing in successive issues that the Soviets were engaged in globalstrategic deception operations, I received a letter dated May 1992 fromAnatoliy Golitsyn, enclosing a few pages from his Memoranda to the CentralIntelligence Agency. The letter began as follows:

I have read few recent issues of Soviet Analyst with great interest.It seems to me that you have good grasp of Soviet strategy whichprobably causes them some concern .... I do not want to alarmyou and I do not want to discourage you from [the] excellentcourageous line you are taking in your publication. But I want towarn you on personal basis to be careful in your contacts.

I cite these extracts from the letter because it proves that Golitsynapproached me, not the other way around (I would not have known whereto begin). This is important, in the light, for instance, of an article by WilliamSatire which appeared on July 10th in the International Herald Tribune,which accused me of being an "acolyte," and also stated, as matters of fact,that "Anatoliy Golitsyn, the longtime Soviet defector ... tums out anewsletter in the United States, Soviet Analyst, and I am on his mailing list."This mis- or dis-in-formation — Soviet Analyst is published by my firm —

seems to have been intended to implicate Golitsyn in any mistakes which Imight inadvertently make in successive issues of Soviet Analyst. TheInternational Herald Tribune has since agreed to publish a letter from mecontaining an appropriate correction.By trying to portray me as an "acolyte," Satire, who has "connections,"sought to convey the impression that I am a "follower" of Golitsyn, whobasically reproduces what he says and writes. But as I have explained, thedefector approached me, not the other way around. The significance of allthis is that Golitsyn is not alone in having reached the conclusion that theSoviet/ Russian strategists and implementers are all Leninist revolutionaries.Golitsyn's enemies would like it to be thought that the only analyst whoholds this view is Golitsyn himself, and that he is in a minority of one.In his first letter to me, Golitsyn also wrote that "I think of sending youthrough my lawyer more extracts from my memos to CIA for possiblepublication in Soviet Analyst after this year's US presidential elections." Ispent the summer and fall of 1992 wondering why he had made his decisionto send me further Memoranda, dependent upon the outcome of the 1992presidential election. After Clinton was elected, sure enough, we received ahuge parcel (in early December 1992) containing well over 100 pages of hisMemoranda to the CIA. It became apparent that Golitsyn felt that Clinton'selection necessitated the publication of these Memoranda; and in his coverletter dated December 1992, he authorized me to quote from thesedocuments in Soviet Analyst. In March 1993, it was agreed that I would editthe complete file of Memoranda to the CIA for publication. The PerestroikaDeception is the consequence of our collaboration.

This interview will be continued in the next issue of Studies in ReformedTheology.

Leninists Still Leadingby William F. Jasper

This is part two of an interview by William F. Jasper, senior editor of THENEW AMERICAN, with Christopher Story, editor of Soviet Analyst, anintelligence commentary, and editor of The Perestroika Deception byAnatoliy Golitsyn, the Soviet defector and author of New Lies for Old. Theinterview was conducted August l& 1995 in the Presidio, San Francisco,outside the headquarters of the Gorbachev Foundation/USA.Q. According to Anatoliy Golitsyn, "glasnost, " "perestroika," and the reformsand upheavals we have been witnessing in the '[former" Soviet Blocrepresent controlled events which form part of a "Grand Strategy" rehearsedand planned decades ago. Could you explain the meaning of the phrase"strategic deception ?"A. Golitsyn makes clear throughout The Perestroika Deception that thepersonalities on the stage of the so-called "former" Soviet Union are all

secret members of the Communist Party, KGB officers, members of the hugeKomsomol network numbering over 50 million, or members of thenomenklatura — or, at a lower level, druzhiny (vigilantes), who are used forstaged demonstrations, televised provocations, and street events. AsGolitsyn writes on page 19 of The Perestroika Deception:

Lenin advised the Communists that they must be prepared to"resort to all sorts of stratagems, maneuvers, illegal methods,evasions and subterfuge" to achieve their objectives. This advicewas given on the eve of his reintroduction of limited capitalism inRussia, in his work Left Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder.

... Another speech of Lenin's ... in July 1921 is again highly relevant tounderstanding "perestroika." "Our only strategy at present," wrote Lenin, "isto become stronger and, therefore, wiser, more reasonable, moreopportunistic. The more opportunistic, the sooner will you again assemblethe masses round you. When we have won over the masses by ourreasonable approach, we shall then apply offensive tactics in the strictestsense of the word." |Emphasis in original.]If you examine the backgrounds of prominent Russian figures, you will findthat they have long Communist Party/ KGB or Komsomol pedigrees. Yet forsome inexplicable reason, the Western media have accepted their sudden,orchestrated, mass "conversion" to Western-style norms of behavior, theirendless talk of "democracy," and their acceptance of "capitalism," asgenuine. "Scratch these new, instant Soviet "democrats," "anti-Communists," and "nationalists" who have sprouted out of nowhere, andunderneath will be found secret Party members or KGB agents," Golitsynwrites on page 123 of his new book. In accepting at face value the"transformation" of these Leninist revolutionary Communists into "instantdemocrats," the West automatically accepts as genuine the false "Break withthe Past" — the single lie upon which the entire deception is based.In short, the "former" Soviet Union — and the East European countries aswell — are all run by people who are steeped in the dialectical modusoperandi of Lenin. Without exception, they are all active Leninistrevolutionaries, working collectively towards the establishment of a worldCommunist government, which, by definition, will be a world dictatorship.It is difficult for the West to understand the Leninist Hegelian dialecticalmethod — the creation of competing or successive opposites in order toachieve an intended outcome. Equally difficult for us to comprehend is thefact that these Leninist revolutionaries plan their strategies over decadesand generations. This extraordinary behavior is naturally alien to Westernpoliticians, who can see no further than the next election. Western politiciansusually react to events. Leninist revolutionaries create events, in order tocontrol reactions to them and manipulate their outcomes.

Before Gorbachev — acting on the instructions of the Leninist strategiccollective — embarked upon perestroika, he achieved a breakthrough byconvincing the former British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, that he wassomeone she could do business with. This was done by personal contact,and through the intermediation of a dispatched defector, Oleg Gordievsky,his role being to reassure the British government that Gorbachev was"genuine." in her book The Downing Street Years, Lady Thatcher evenadmits that she mistook Gorbachev's style for the substance. I explain thisin my introduction to Golitsyn's new book: "As he cast his spell [over Mrs.Thatcher], Gorbachev unlocked the key to the control of the Western mind— and to the restructuring of the entire world. The West followed LadyThatcher's prompting, mistaking the style for the substance. The disastrousconsequences of this millennial error are now crowding in upon Westerncivilization, threatening its very survival."The purpose of perestroika, culminating in the "Break with the Past," hasbeen to convince the gullible West that Communism is dead, that the SovietUnion has collapsed, and that we are friends, not enemies anymore — a liewhich was duly embedded in the Joint Declaration of Twenty-Two States,signed by Western and Warsaw Pact leaders on November 19, 1990. TheDeclaration asserted that the signatories are "no longer adversaries," andrepresented the culmination of the deception which had been managed forWestern public consumption by Gorbachev's close KGB associate, GeorgiArbatov. Since publishing an article in the June 1988 issue of Kommunist, inwhich he said that "the image of the enemy" was being eroded and wasvanishing, Arbatov had repeated this message at every opportunity. Ofcourse, as a trained Leninist revolutionary who followed Lenin's advice to hisassociates to use language deceptively, Arbatov meant that the enemywould continue to exist. It was only his image which was to "vanish."The trick worked. The West foolishly and recklessly ignored Arbatov'srepeated mention of the phrase "the image of the enemy," and jumped tothe hazardous and unwarranted conclusion that the enemy himself wasdisappearing.After the West had bought the discontinuity deception, it readily accepted itscorollary — namely, that a peaceful future for all mankind could only beassured through open-ended "cooperation." But in fact lasting "cooperation"with these Leninist revolutionaries is impossible, since their purpose is todominate, control, and destroy us. The "cooperation" theme forms only oneelement of an equation which can be summarized as "cooperation/blackmail." In other words, the secret Leninist revolutionaries have told theWest to "cooperate — or else." The blackmail element of this evil equationwas made explicit by Gotbachev when he delivered his sinister "end of theCold War" speech at Fulton, Missouri, a theatrical occasion at the locationwhere Winston Churchill had delivered his famous speech announcing thatStalin had imposed an Iron Curtain across the center of Europe. Gorbachev'sspeech was sinister because it contained a menu of "conditions" on the basis

of which the Soviet Union would be willing to "cooperate" with the West, plusseveral more or less explicit threats of world war if we failed to cooperate asinstructed.Of course, the Western media failed completely to understand thesignificance of the speech — just as today it fails to alert us to the warpreparations the Russians are conducting in close collaboration with theCommunist Chinese; and just as it has failed to question why, as a Reutersreport noted on August 13, 1995, the "former USSR" maintains "dozens ofclosed military cities." The fact is that the West does not know what goes onin the dozens of closed secret military and nuclear cities. The press shouldbe asking how this squares with the rhetoric that the "former" Soviet Unionis no longer an adversary or a threat.Gorbachev's Fulton speech contained the directives of the secret Leninistrevolutionaries, with which the West was required to comply. If the requiredcooperation did not materialize, then this "window of opportunity" wouldclose, and would not be likely to recur in our lifetime — so that theconsequences for humanity could be grave in the extreme. The threateningtone was blatant, and the West proceeded to comply.Q. Describe the Soviet "convergence" strategy.A. This is the central objective towards which the secret Leninistrevolutionaries are working. Their purpose has been to dismantle overtCommunism, to establish apparently "normal" relations with the West, toremove travel restrictions so that large numbers of their agents would beaccepted into Western societies, and to "cooperate" with the West — inparallel with the West dropping its antagonistic stance, dismantling itsmilitary power, collectivizing its security arrangements, and signing bilateraland multilateral treaties and accords with the "former" Soviet Bloc.But the West does not understand that these Leninist revolutionaries intendthat "convergence" is to be achieved on their (Communist) terms, not onours. The Leninist meaning of "convergence" is that the West is to"converge" towards the Communists, contrary to the naive belief of Westernpolicy-makers and political establishments.In New Lies for Old, Golitsyn explained the detailed preparations for"convergence," and predicted that it would form the central theme of theforthcoming false "liberalization." He pointed out that the most prominentagent of influence preparing the West for perestroika was the nuclearscientist and controlled "dissident" Andrei Sakharov. He was the primaryadvance salesman for "convergence."Today, the West erroneously believes that open-ended cooperation withthese "former" Communists will lead to a peaceful world. That is not theirintention. Their purpose is to control the world. They are proceeding towardsthis objective by eroding national sovereignty in accordance with Lenin' sdiktat that the state is to "wither away."All contemporary collective political arrangements — the so-called EuropeanUnion; the North American Free Trade Area; the Organization for Security

and Cooperation in Europe, an intergovernmental agreement requiring thepooling of military intelligence and other anti-state measures; and newregional blocs like the South African Development Community, which has setSouthern Africa on the road to integrated security, military and foreignpolicies, and seeks to usurp national sovereignty in the region — all aredevices designed to undermine the state in order to replace nations withregional blocs which are to be the components of a world government. Thedestruction of national sovereignty is the paramount objective, since as longas nation states continue to exist, world government cannot be established.Q. How is it possible for the strategists to plan, execute, and maintain theinternal coherence of such a massive, long-term global deception, whileretaining essential control in the "former" Communist countries, and yetactually appear to relax many of the features of the police state, andintroduce relaxation of restrictions on travel, allow 'Tree "publishing, and soforth ?A. The first part of the answer is that, as Golitsyn explains, the Leniniststrategists are capable of planning and executing strategy over prolongedperiods — that is to say, over decades and for periods of a generation ormore. They refer openly to the strategy, without throwing any light on it, as"the general line." The apparatchik Viktor Chernomyrdin, speaking on the"Russia" TV Channel in December 1992, shortly after his appointment asRussian Premier, alluded deliberately to this "general line," asserting notonly its existence but its inherent flexibility, without revealing its content,when he said: "My colleagues in the government who are working today willpursue this line. The planned line. The one which has been worked out ....Life makes amendments to our program, additions, perhaps changes. But wewill keep to the basic line."This, as indicated, was an explicit, authoritative affirmation of the existenceof the established long-range strategy — one of the most important post-Gorbachev confirmations of the absolute accuracy of Golitsyn's analysis.The Leninist strategists are capable of planning over decades. The West hasno ability to plan beyond the next election, and little ability to do so evenbetween elections. We have absolutely no concept of long-term strategy. Infact, we have no strategy at all; by which I mean, in the case of Britain, forexample, a strategy for national survival, for the indefinite retention of ournational sovereignty, or a strategy based upon any proper understanding ofour country's inalienable national interests.Not only do these Leninist strategists plan for the long-term, but they canoperate long-term because they share the same collective purpose. As wehave seen, the implementers of the strategy are professional secret Partymembers, KGB officers, and indoctrinated, purposeful revolutionaryimplementers of instructions. They are a disciplined, determined cadre. AsGolitsyn told the CIA in March 1989, "the Soviet Party apparatus will becomea true general staff of world revolution to be carried out through the strategyof 'perestroika.'"

Q. We have been told that the KGB was dissolved and is a shadow of itsformer self. How true is this?A. The reverse is the case. The KGB has undergone a number of "labelchanges" since the "Break with the Past," as it had done under allCommunist leaderships since Lenin first established the ExtraordinaryCommissions for Combating Counter-Revolution (Che-Ka's), instructing hismurderous henchman, Dzerzhinsky, to open the jails and to recruit sadists,murderers, rapists, and other criminals into the ranks of the Che-Ka's.Today, state security personnel proudly refer to themselves as Chekists.After the fake "August coup," Vadim Bakatin, allegedly a "liberal" who hasmore recently helped to "explain" matters for Western public consumption,was appointed head of the KGB in place of Vladimir Krychkov, whosestrategy had called for the replacement of himself. Bakatin was allowed tofunction for precisely 107 days, before being removed in favor of ViktorBarannikov, who had previously served as a KGB gauleiter in the Caucasus,where he stirred up ethnic unrest.In his new "helpful" role, Bakatin has described the KGB as "an independentforce with its own interests and, objectively, it has become an institutionpositioned above the highest powers and decision-making organs of theUnion and the Republics."This statement, which has been widely quoted, contains important dis-information, and is only partially correct. The Communist Party and the KGBhave, since the late 1950s, repenetrated each other, so that they "share thesame bloodstream." It is impossible for the KGB to function without theoversight and participation of the Party, while the Party owes its existence(whether overt or underground) to the KGB ("the Organs").Bakatin is unreliable and suspect, because in the above statement hepromotes a primary deception theme, on which the "Grand Deception" itselfdepends — a theme which has been repeated by Western analysts. Becauseeveryone knows that the KGB continues to function and has greater powersthan ever, the strategists' apologists refer openly to this fact — but,crucially, stress that the KGB "acts alone." It does not. It acts in secretcollaboration, as always, with the Communists, who direct its activities. Byimplying that "the Organs" are a power unto themselves, Sovietdisinformation has "separated" the "democratists" from the KGB — leavingthe field clear for the continuing deception that they are true democraticparliamentarians, whom the West must support to the hilt, in order to"preclude the return of Communism" — which, in reality, has been in controlall along.

Red March to Global Tyrannyby William F. Jasper

This is the final part of an interview with Christopher Story, editor of theLondon-based journal Soviet Analyst and of The Perestroika Deception by

Anatoliy Golitsyn, the Soviet defector and author of New Lies for Old. Theinterview was conducted by William F. Jasper, senior editor of THE NEWAMERICAN, and took place just outside the San Francisco headquarters ofthe Gorbachev Foundation/USA.

Q. Can you explain the various "reforms" and "restructurings" of the KGBover the past few years?A. Viktor Barannikov was appointed in December 1991 to head the newSecurity Ministry, consisting of four elements of the KGB: internal security,foreign espionage, border troops, and the Russian intelligence service.Legislation passed by the Russian Supreme Soviet in 1992 gave the KGB'ssuccessors the powers deployed by the KGB under the "former" USSR. Then,one day ahead of Yeltsin's KGB-planned attack on the Supreme Soviet inSeptember 1993, Barannikov was sacked. Yeltsin's barbarous attackdestroyed the "democratist" parliament, which has been replaced by theDuma. This "new" legislature consists of obedient servants of the regime,who vote as ordered. For instance, the Duma voted 234 to 0 this summer toimpose sanctions on Croatia. In April 1995, this Duma approved legislationconferring powers on the further reorganized Federal Security Service,powers which equal or exceed those of "the Organs" in the Stalin era.In December 1993, Yeltsin ostensibly "disbanded" the Security Ministry,although in practice this procedure consisted of nothing more than theredistribution of the Ministry's functions and facilities among several old andrecently established security and law enforcement agencies. For a time, atleast 14 agencies with intelligence functions were identifiable by Westernanalysts.In short, the KGB is far from being a shadow of its former self. On thecontrary, with their penetration, manipulation, and direction of the so-called"Russian Mafia, in order to establish a form of "state-controlled capitalism,""the Organs," working to the Party's instructions, are the center of all powerin the contemporary Soviet Union.

Q. Does the KGB still run gulag-style cocentration camps ?A. According to a report in the June 30, 1993 issue of the highly respectedSwiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung, the Soviet gulag system remains.The February 11, 1993 Neue Zürcher Zeitung reported that the gulag systemconsists, as previously, of hundreds of known and dozens of unknown prisoncamps, containing between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 prisoners. Torture hascontinued, as well as the abuse of psychiatric treatment. The population inSoviet Georgia has mysteriously declined from over 5 million to less than 3.8million since Eduard Shevardnadze replaced the legitimately electedPresident Zviad Gamsakhurdia in March 1992. No explanation for thiscatastrophe has been forthcoming, and there are no indications of migrationfrom Georgia to the West on the scale implied. Shevardnadze works secretlyand dialectically with Moscow, where he has an apartment. His job is to

squeeze the last sign of resistance out of the brave Georgian people, and heis presiding over this evil by every means at his disposal: induced famine,invasions of city residencies by country people (as in the BolshevikRevolution), withholding fuel, hyperinflation, drug operations, thuggery bythe regime's special repression forces, and military activities — after"allowing" Russia to establish numerous military bases throughout theterritory. As for the repression carried out by the Russians in Tajikistan, noone knows the scale of the carnage that has taken place there.

Q. What does Golitsyn mean in The Perestroika Deception by his warningthat the West may yet experience its bloody feasts ?A. The secret Leninist revolutionaries covet the mad objective of worldgovernment. By definition, a world government must be a worlddictatorship, which will seek to maintain total control. Its architects areseeking to eliminate all opposition to the establishment of world governmentby enlisting, through deception, the West's enthusiastic cooperation in itsestablishment. Conceivably, they may not succeed, in which case there willbe bloodshed before the final purpose is achieved. But what is certain isthat, if it is ever achieved, maintenance of a global dictatorship will prove animpossible task, even though access to weaponry by the population will beprecluded; and in order to simplify this task the controllers may resort, asStalin did, to the wholesale liquidation of millions of people. The Communistsare responsible for perhaps 150-plus million deaths; and it is this image theyhave sought to erase from the West's consciousness with their talk of theelimination of the image of the enemy. They need to erase this imageprecisely because as long as it remains embedded in our memory, we willresist their schemes, including their plans to establish global control.

Q. The West has been assured time and time again that the CommunistParty was suspended and has been greatly weakened in the Soviet Union.Please comment on Golitsyn's explanation in The Perestroika Deception thatthe reverse is the case.A. At the 28th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU)held in July 1990, Yeltsin and Gorbachev spelled out the task the Party nowfaced: In brief, it was to subdivide itself into factions spanning the entirepolitical spectrum in order to establish the conditions for "democratism" —fake democracy.Yeltsin's own resignation from the Communist Party at the 28th PartyCongress in July 1990 coincided with the emergence of all those instantSoviet "democrats," "anti-Communists," and "nationalists" mentioned byGolitsyn in The Perestroika Deception. Communists were given the freedomto adopt whatever deceptive political label they liked. Some becameStalinists, others Social Democrats or Liberals. Some remained Communists.Others moved incongruously to the right, or adopted a nationalist stance. Allthese sudden political "changes of heart" were fake. Their purpose: to create

the apparatus needed in order to play the game of "democratism" — anessential ingredient in the deception campaign to persuade the West that"Communism is dead" and had been succeeded by "democracy."At the 28th Party Congress, Gorbachev also confirmed that the CommunistParty was to be splintered when he stated that we must now prove inpractice ... the idea of a broad coalition .... The Party must, resolutely andwithout delay, restructure all its work and reorganize all its structures on thebasis of the new Statutes and the Congress' Program Statement, so thatunder the new conditions, it can effectively perform its role as the vanguardParty. We must do everything to firmly establish in the CPSU the power ofthe Party masses based on all-encompassing democracy, comradeship,openness, glashost and criticism .... When there are various views and evenplatforms on a number of questions of policy and practical activity, themajority must show respect for the minority. We must study, learn andimprove our [new] culture. If we embark on this path, it will be easier tointeract and have contacts with other forces. The Central Committee and Ias General Secretary will do all we can to help the Republic CommunistParties gain their new independent status as soon as possible — a statusthat will lead not to a fragmentation of Communists and nations, but to anew internationalist unity of the CPSU on a common ideological politicalbasis.Gorbachev revealed that the CPSU was to be restructured from top tobottom, enveloped in "democracy" — meaning that its new controlledfactions and platforms were to compete amongst each other, therebycreating "democratism," the illusion of democracy — and that allCommunists must "study, learn and improve our culture," meaning the new"culture" of democratism. As for the Republic Communist Parties and theSoviet republics themselves, "independence," of course, is false and strictlyprovisional, its purpose being, as Golitsyn warned the CIA in the fall of 1990,to open up scope for independent military action in the Republics. Hence the"post-Gorbachev" repression (and in some cases, genocide) in Georgia,Moldova, Tajikistan, Armenia, Nagorno-Karabach, and Ukraine.After the "August coup," the Communist Party was "banned." The Westrejoiced (forgetting that the Chinese and Cuban Communist Parties, forinstance, remained in place), and jumped to the reckless conclusion thatCommunism had collapsed. The assumption, presumably, was that havingbeen "banned," the Party could not be "unbanned." But of course, it wasonly "banned" for cosmetic purposes. Today, the existence of the CPSU isopenly acknowledged by Soviet/Russian and Western Communist sources.

Q. Most Western analysts pay close attention to the personalities on theSoviet/Russian stage, seeking to analyze the conflicting statements of thevarious characters. They attach Western-style political labels to these actors— describing one personality as "liberal," another as "further to the left,"others still as Communists, and others as "non"- or "anti-Communists."

From what you have explained, isn't such analysts completely futlie, sincenone of these people are political powers in their own right?A. They are all servants of the revolution, and they cooperate closely whileappearing to differ. They are not independent actors on the stage. To theextent that they may appear to differ genuinely on ephemeral matters, theirdifferences are always of only passing significance; they have no possibilityof ever achieving power in this environment which is so completelymanipulated and controlled by the vast Communist Party network.

Q. Where, then, does the true locus of power lie?A. Almost certainly, "the power above the state" is located in the SecurityCouncil, which is a continuation of the "Presidential Council" that existedunder Gorbachev. Such an entity has existed since the Leninist state wasfirst established, and it is to be found in other Communist states as well.Outside the Security Council, power resides within the cooperation networkoperative between the secret and overt Communist parties worldwide, sinceall participate fully in the implementation of the strategy to achieve worldgovernment through what Golitsyn refers to as the Second OctoberRevolution ("Welt-oktober"). The closest cooperation exists between theRussian strategists and their Chinese counterparts.

Q. In New Lies for Old, Golitsyn explained that the Sino-Soviet "split" was.false, .forming part of a deception designed to persuade the West that theworld Communist movement was disunited. What is the current position?A. The Sino-Soviet "split" was indeed a classic Leninist dialectical deceptionwhich masked the continuing collaboration between the two most importantand powerful Communist Parties in the world, in pursuit of the long-rangestrategy which was ratified, as Golitsyn explained in New Lies for Old, at theEighty-One Party Congress held in Moscow in November 1960. It was at thatCongress that the Communist parties agreed to collaborate over a period ofdecades in pursuit of the objective of "convergence" leading to worldgovernment.Golitsyn is most frequently attacked for his assertion that the Sino-Soviet"split" was false, because this particular element of the deception strategy isthe most sensitive of all. If the West were to become aware that in fact theRussians and Chinese have been working closely together all along, and arethe closest of allies, it would recognize the grave danger it faces. But ofcourse, we now have a facade which perpetuates the illusion of the "split."The Tiananmen Square atrocity in June 1989 provided a clear signal toChinese dissidents that political perestroika was not about to be permitted inChina. Golitsyn explains in The Perestroika Deception that the coredemonstrators who appear to have been controlled and carried bannerssupporting the Chinese Communist Party suddenly marched out of theSquare in formation. The shooting started after they had left; those who

were killed were true dissidents who had traveled to Beijing to join in thedemonstrations.The current spectacle is of "non"-Communism in Russia and overtCommunism in China. This preserves the illusion of the "split," and hasprovided the backdrop against which the two countries are collaborating in acoordinated military buildup of ominous proportions. The Russian-Chinesemilitary agreement of 1993 has been followed by further accords, and thescale of China's buildup is now causing serious alarm in Western defensecircles, which still do not understand that the two countries are allies.

Q. What is Gorbachev's function today?A. Photographs appearing recently in the Western press of the assembledRussian Security Council do not show Gorbachev. This is because, forWestern public consumption purposes, Gorbachev resigned on ChristmasDay 1991, and faded into the background. But in reality, Gor-bachev movedsideways into an organization called the Gorbachev Foundation based in thePresidio, a former U.S. Army base in San Francisco overlooking the GoldenGate. The Gorbachev Foundation somehow took over the work of theInternational Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Partyof the Soviet Union (CPSU), which I have already shown to exist. TheInternational Department, in turn, was the successor of Cominform andComintern. Thus, the Gorbachev Foundation is a cover for the InternationalDepartment — traditionally the most aggressive and devious enemy of theWest within the Communist apparatus.

Q. You and I have today entered the American offices of the GorbachevFoundation, which as this interview is being conducted is planning a high-profile "State of the World Forum" — an influence-peddling bonanza — to beheld at the Fairmont Hotel in San Francisco (THE NEW AMERICAN'S reporton this .forum appears on pages 23-28 of this issue.) We are sitting outsidethis old Admiral's House on the shore of San Francisco Bay, and it seemsincredible that this building could be the chief branch of the InternationalDepartment in the West. How can this be?A. Well, we have been examining some of the documents we picked upwhen we entered the Gorbachev Foundation's building a couple of hours ago.And you can see from these documents that George Bush, Lady Thatcher,James Baker III, George Shultz, Senator Alan Cranston, and other well-known figures are scheduled to attend this event. How is it possible for thedozen or so young idealists we saw in the Gorbachev Foundation's offices tohave invited all these big shots to their meeting? The answer, of course, isthat this office works with the Gorbachev Foundation, Moscow, based at 49Leningradsky Prospekt, Moscow 125468, which directs Gorbachev'scampaign to co-opt Western elites in support of the [secret Communist]strategy.

In The Perestroika Deception, Golitsyn explains how Gorbachev himself kick-started the process of influencing the American elite when he visitedWashington in the late fall of 1987, ostensibly to sign a treaty. But the realpurpose of the visit was to meet members of the American intelligentsia,whom he referred to as "the yeast of events." Translated, this means thatonce they had climbed aboard, there could be nothing stopping progresstowards what Golitsyn calls the Second October Revolution via the"restructuring" of the Western mind so that it would accept, withoutquestioning, the entire secret Leninist revolutionary program for achievinghegemony over the whole world. When the West finally wakes up to the factthat it has been deceived, the blackmail element of the "cooperation-blackmail" equation will be used mercilessly, and the West may becompelled to submit to the demands of the Soviet-Chinese alliance.I have discovered that the Gorbachev Foundation/USA was registeredinitially with the California authorities as the Tamalpais Institute on April 10,1991 — that is to say, over four months prior to the "August coup." This hasbeen established from an examination of the entity's founding documents.Precisely one year later — on April 10, 1992 — the organization changed itsname to the Gorbachev Foundation/ USA. I believe that the establishment,over four months ahead of the fake coup, of the shell which later becamethe Gorbachev Foundation/USA provides convincing evidence of forwardplanning — revealing that the coup was indeed false, and that Gorbachevhad received his instructions from the strategists well in advance.Gorbachev had in fact hinted on several occasions that the "Break with thePast" was imminent. On May 17, 1990, he remarked that "we have enteredthe last lap," and one year later, at a press conference with PresidentMitterrand on May 6, 1991, he said:

The dangers lie in the fact that someone, analysing at someprivate moment or other, this or that instance or episode, or evenevent, including a dramatic event, should not make hastyconclusions and cast doubt on all that has been acquired and whatwe have created in putting international relations onto newchannels, onto new rails, entering, as all of us have said, a periodof peaceful development.

In this classically Aesopian Leninist statement, Gorbachev said threerevealing things. First, he hinted at continuing anxiety in Soviet strategiccircles at the possibility that Moscow's devious Leninist strategy of"convergence" with the West on Communist terms, facilitated by theforthcoming false "Break with the Past," might be exposed by someone likeGolitsyn in the West who had done his homework on the strategic deceptiontradition of Lenin. Second, Gorbachev predicted the forthcoming "Augustcoup" ("a dramatic event"), which the Soviets had actually code-named

"Golgotha." Third, the Soviet president affirmed Moscow's pride in havingsuccessfully redirected Western thinking so that it was now ripe foraccepting the Soviet (Leninist) view of the world's stateless future.Lady Thatcher, George Bush, and the other prominent personalities who willbe participating at the Gorbachev Foundation's "State of the World Forum"have all along been prepared to overlook Gorbachev's Leninist pedigree, andare lending their prestige to the global campaign by the InternationalDepartment of the CPSU's Central Committee to "restructure the world."Without elaborating here, the technique being used by the InternationalDepartment/Gorbachev Foundation is to assert the existence of hideous"global problems" — the environment, world health, global security, theglobal crime epidemic, terrorism — which are "too big" for nation-states tohandle. Accordingly, "global structures" are required in order to addressthese problems; and the Gorbachev Foundation projects these "solutions" tothe international elite. A "global justice system," for instance, would requirea national legal system to be revised so as to enable anyone to be arrestedanywhere, for any "offense," at any time. Another theme floated byGorbachev is that wherever human rights abuses are taking place, theinternational community should have carte blanche to intervene acrossborders. Such an arrangement, naturally, would render such borderspointless.All these initiatives are subtly aimed at doing away with the nation-state,which is the core objective originally enunciated by Lenin shortly afterseizing power. The Gorbachev Foundation is one of the leadingcontemporary instruments working towards this objective. It is much moredangerous than its predecessors because it has successfully deceived theWest that its intentions are entirely altruistic.The location of the Gorbachev Foundation's office here in the Presidio issignificant. This place used to be an important U.S. military base, until it wasclosed two years ago, on the ground that "the Cold War is over" and theenemy has "disappeared." So here is Gorbachev's organization, linked to thesecret International Department, today's Comintern, directing the secretCommunists' further penetration and mind-control activities in America. Thefact that Lady Thatcher, George Bush, and other "pragmatic" members of"the Great and the Good" in the West are obediently trooping to SanFrancisco this month to be honored guests at a conference hosted by theInternational Department of the CPSU summarizes the pitiful condition ofWestern analysis, and reveals with stark clarity how advanced the Leninistrevolutionaries' "global restructuring" and mind-control activities haveprogressed in the space of just a few short years. It also reveals the woefullyinadequate intellectual capacity of the Western elite and its gullibility in theface of the Communists' relentless onslaught against the West.

Excerpt from the book of KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn The Perestroika Deception:

Golitsyn writes[March 1990 Memoranda to the CIA]:Section: The Main Priorities for re-thinking

[book page 116]

The Vatican should reverse its mistaken support for the renewal of the communist regimes in theUSSR and Eastern Europe. The Vatican ignores the anti-western design of Soviet strategy. Itfails to understand that greater apparent official tolerance of religion in the Soviet Union isaccompanied by a secret drive to increase Party and KGB penetration of the Catholic andother churches and to use agents therein for political and strategic purposes inside andoutside the Soviet Union.

As part of the program to destroy religion from within, the KGB, in the late 1950s, startedsending dedicated young Communists to ecclesiastical academies and seminaries to trainthem as future church leaders.

These young Communists joined the church, not at the call of their conscience to serve God, butat the call of the Communist Party in order to serve that Party and to implement its general linein the struggle against religion.

In the present phase secret agents in the Catholic andother churches are being used to implement Communist strategy.

When they achieve their Communist world victory, they will use mass withdrawal of theiragents to disrupt and destroy the churches.

Never in its history since Nero has Christianity faced such a threat of possible destruction.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bio - Anatoliy Golitsyn

Anatoliy Golitsyn was born in the Ukraine in 1926. While a cadet in militaryschool, he was awarded a Soviet medial 'For the defence of Moscow in theGreat Patriotic War' for digging anti-tank trenches near Moscow. At the age

of fifteen, he joined the Komsomol (League of Communist Youth) and, atnineteen, he became a member of the Communist Party.

In the same year, he joined the KGB, in which he studied and served until1961. He graduated from the Moscow School of Military Counter-espionage,the counterintelligence faculty of the High Intelligence School, and theUniversity of Marxism-Leninism and completed a correspondance course withthe High Diplomatic School. In 1952 and early 1953 he was involved with afriend in drawing up a proposal to the Central Comittee on thereorganisation of Soviet intelligence.

In connection with this proposal he attended a meeting of the secretariatchaired by Stalin and a meeting of the Presidium chaired by Malenkov andattended by Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Bulganin. In 1952-53 he workedbriefly as head of a section responsible for counter-espionage against theUnited States. In 1959 he graduated with a law degree from a four-yearcourse at the KGB Institute (now the KGB Academy) in Moscow.

From 1959 to 1960, at a time when Soviet long-range strategy was beingformulated and the KGB was being reorganised to play its part in it, heserved as a senior analyst in the NATO section of the InformationDepartment of the Soviet intelligence service. He served in Vienna andHelsinki on counterintelligence assignments from 1953 to 1955 and from1960 to 1961, respectively.

He defected to the United States in December 1961. Subsequently, hiscontribution to the national security of leading Western countries wasrecognised by the award of the United States Government Medal forDistinguished Service.

He was made an Honorary Commander of the British Empire (CBE). Apromise of membership of the Légion d'Honneur made when PresidentPompidou was in power was not fulfilled owing to the change of government.

Since 1962, the Author has spent much of his time on the study ofCommunist and international affairs, reading both the Communist and theWestern press. In 1980 he completed, and in 1984 he published, 'New Liesfor Old', a study of the Soviet long range strategy of deception and

disinformation.

For over thirty years, the Author has submitted Memoranda to the CentralIntelligence Agency (CIA), in which he has provided the Agency with timelyand largely accurate forecasts of Soviet Bloc developments and on theevolution of Soviet/Russian/Communist strategy. By applying the dialecticalmethodology which drives the strategy, the Author has been able to scoreinnumerable 'bulls-eyes'. This unparalleled track record reflects the Author'spersonal experience of four years in the KGB's strategy 'think tank', togetherwith his deep understanding of the dialectical nature of the strategy and theLeninist mentality of its originators and implementers.

The Author is a citizen of the United States.

Christopher Story - The Perestroika Deception (The McIlhany Report)

Watch

The Perestroika Deception

(Veoh - xvid, 374 MB - 1 hour)

(Download the original file with the Veoh Player)

Two shows, 28 minutes each:

- The Perestroika Deception 2003

- KGB Terror Network & Iraq

Since 1989 the world has been told that the Soviet Union collapsed and that,except for several countris, Communism is dead and the U.S. won the coldwar. The reality is quite the reverse. Everything we have seen since 1989has been a massive and successful, multi-decade long deception strategy onthe part of the KGB, the Soviet secret police. The Goal?

To deceive the West and achieve the goal of Leninist strategy - a totalitarianworld government or international police state. We know this from theevidence provided by Anatoly Golitsyn the most important defector from theKGB who came to America in 1961. In 1980 he wrote a book, "New Lies forOld," published in 1984, which described the disinformation strategy andmade specific predictions as to what the KGB would do, such as removingthe Berlin Wall, changing the name of the KGB and other structures and therole played by Mikhail Gorbachev. An independent analysis showed that over94 per cent of those predictions came true by 1991 and since then. That'show we know Golitsyn was correct.

Christopher Story, who first appeared on this show in 1995, is uniquelyqualified to expose this conspiratoral strategy. Based in London, hepublishes ten newsletters and reviews on economic, financial and politicalintelligence, including Soviet Analyst. These invaluable periodicalsincorporate the understanding of post-1989 events provided by Golitsyn. Hehas published Golitsyn's second book, Perestroika Deception, JosephDougla's Red Cocaine on the Soviet strategy of using drugs to sabotage theWest and European Union Collective on the regional world government nowin place over Europe and Britain.