" The Perestroika Deception.

The world's slide towards

the 'Second October Revolution' ['Weltoktober'] "

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

Anatoliy Golitsyn follows up the predictive success of his famous work New Lies for Old by
authoritatively demonstrating that Mikhail Gorbachëv's 'Perestroika' prepared the ground for
the 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 neglected

to take his advice but has since realised that he was 100% accurate, The Perestroika
Deception 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 the
entire world, and to install their Luciferian collectivist utopia-on-Earth.

This book is also essential background for new subscribers to Soviet Analyst, An Intelligence
Commentary, which focuses on continuing Soviet strategic deception operations. To
subscribe to this intelliegence service, press Soviet Analyst, to which The Perestroika
Deception is an indispensable introduction.

In May 1992, Anatoliy Golitsyn, the famous genuine Soviet defector and the Author of ‘New
Lies for Old’ [1984], wrote to Mr Story as follows; ‘I have read a few recent issues of Soviet
Analyst with great interest. It seems to me that you have good grasp of Soviet strategy
which probably causes them some concern. I now enclose for your perusal and not for
publication an extract from my Memorandum called ‘Predicting, Understanding and
Responding to Perestroika’ which I sent to the CIA in March 1989. I do not want to alarm
you and I do not want to discourage you from the excellent courageous line you are taking
in your publication. But I want to warn you on personal basis to be careful in your
contacts…. 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. With
good wishes, Sincerely, Anatoliy Golitsyn’.

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

The significance of all this is that a proper grasp of the Leninist mentality is an essential
prerequisite for understanding overt and covert Soviet long-range World Revolution
deception strategy. What Golitsyn does is to teach the uncomprehending West what
Leninism means, and how it never dies. If intelligence communities had taken Mr Golitsyn’s
warnings as seriously as the Editor of Soviet Analyst did, the world today would be a very
different 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 paid
attention as well – by subscribing to Soviet Analyst – they would have saved themselves
billions and billions of dollars in some instances. It is quite obvious, even today, that the top
leadership of British Petroleum has no real clue about the nature of the KGB-GRU
criminalists 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 better
equipped to collaborate with the covert Soviet ‘oligarchs’ (specially selected KGB-GRU
operatives) into whose hands the assets of the Soviet Party-State were temporarily
transferred.

In short, Soviet Analyst never accepted that there was a Soviet strategic discontinuity in
1989-91. The ‘discontinuity’ was Leninist in character. This is what the Foreign Office, the
State Department, and most of the key Western intelligence communities, chose not to
understand. 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 the

memoranda and published them as The Perestroika Deception, which is probably the most
important work on Soviet deception strategy ever written: see the Edward Harle Limited
book sub-website for details.

From the backcover: "Anatoliy Golitsyn's first book, 'New Lies for Old', caused a long
running sensation when it was discovered that, unlike most Western analysts, the Author
had accurately predicted, some years ahead of the events, the 'Break with the Past' which
took place in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union in 1989-91. In his book 'Wedge: The
Secret War between the FBI and CIA' [Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1994], Mark Riebling, who
carried out a methodical analysis of Golitsyn's predictions in 'New Lies for Old', credited the
Author with 'an accuracy record of nearly 94%'. This singular achievement puts all other
analysts, including some official services, to shame; and it is precisely because of his record
of pin-point accuracy that Western Governments, policymakers and even some intelligence
services, whose record bears little comparison with Golitysn's, have competed with one
another over the years to find reasons why Golitsyn's perceptive explanations of Soviet
strategy should be ignored. But events as they unfold are relentlessly proving this
remarkable analyst of Soviet strategy to be right. 'The Perestroika Deception' explains the
devious secret intent behind the Leninist strategy which the 'former' Communists are
pursuing under cover of fake 'reform' and 'progress towards democracy'. The immediate
strategic objective is 'convergence' with the West -- on their terms, not ours. The ultimate
objective is Lenin's: replacement of nations states with collective regional governments as
building 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 member
of the KGB in various intelligence, counterintelligence, and counterespionage roles, until he
defected to the United States in 1961 of which he is now a citizen. Since that time he has
diligently studied Communist and international affairs, reading both the Western and
Communist press which has lead him to submit Memoranda to the CIA outlining his analysis
of Communist affairs.

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

In trying to understand the reason that Golitsyn's warnings have been overlooked
by Western leaders, the editor writes:
"The first main reason for the general (but not in fact complete) rejection of the Author's
analysis is that, as the case of Aldrich Hazen Ames has shown, the Russians won the
intelligence war through their penetration of Western intelligence services--a message
which, naturally, these services do not wish to hear... In the course of his work with the
American, British and French services, the Author found that penetration had destroyed
their ability to interpret events in the Communist world correctly." (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 the
whole world." (pg. 45)
- The actions of Russia in securing victories by the Leftist parties in the recent elections of
the 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 by
either a conservative of Ligachev's type or by a liberal of Yeltsin's type. The author further
speculated that Gorbachev's replacement would be a calculated move and, depending on
circumstances, may even be brought back into power at a later date.
- The Chinese-Russian relation and the West's failure to understand this relationship. In
1989, the author wrote to the CIA: "...China is destined to become a Soviet partner in the
future 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 comes
the mask will be dropped and the Russians with Chinese help will seek to impose their
system on the West on their own terms as the culmination of a 'Second October Socialist
Revolution.' (p. 158).
- The three centers of nuclear military power that Russia and China must deal with: the
United States, Western Europe and Israel. The Russians calculate that the U.S. and Western
Europe neutralization will be handled diplomatically via arms agreements and such. The
issue of Israel is another matter, which the author suggests that neutralization might occur
via sabotage of nuclear facilities.
- The author discusses the possible 'perestroika' event in China at Tienanmen Square that
was later changed at the last minute, reminding us that this Chinese crackdown occurred on
the "eve of the changes in Eastern Europe" and immediately after a visit by Gorbachev
suggesting that this event was far from coincidental. He questions the "massacre" at
Tienanmem surmising that reporters only heard gunfire and tanks from their hotel rooms
but were not true eyewitnesses to the events inside the square. He cites conflicting news
reports on the matter. He also suggests that any deaths may have been "selective killing of
the unorganized elements" involved in Tienanmen Square. This is in line with his belief that
the demonstration started out as a Party-organized event that later turned into genuine
spontaneous involvement by many "unorganized elements" which would of course threaten
Chinese control of the demonstration. (pg. 108)
- Golitsyn discusses the Western press and their inability to accurately report events in
Russia and other Communist countries due to their ignorance, in part, of what perestroika
actually is. Their version of perestroika is so in tune with what the Communists would have
them believe, that now Russia allows its public to listen to such radio programs as "The
Voice of America" and the BBC.
- On the topic of religion, Golitsyn wrote to the CIA in 1990: "...greater apparent official
tolerance of religion in the Soviet Union is accompanied by a secret drive to increase Party
and KGB penetration of the Catholic and other churches and to use agents therein for
political and strategic purposes inside and outside the Soviet Union. As part of the
programme to destroy religion from within, the KGB, in the late 1950s, started sending
dedicated young Communists to ecclesiastical academies and seminaries to train them as
future church leaders. These young Communists joined the Church, not at the call of their
consciences to serve God, but at the call of the Communist Party in order to serve that
Party and to implement its general line in the struggle against religion." The author
continues in saying that when these new "church leaders" have achieved their goals, that a
mass withdrawal of these agents will occur to disrupt and destroy the churches. Golitsyn
warns that "never in its history since Nero has Christianity faced such a threat of possible
destruction." (pp. 116-117)

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

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

Conclusion: "The Perestroika Deception" is packed full of information. And remember, this
information 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 to
curl up with at night, but perhaps a book to consider reading in helping to balance out the
mis- 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 OF
ITS CALCULATED 'FAILURE'

According to my assessment, the Soviet 'coup' and its 'failure' constituted a grandiose
display of deception - a provocation. The 'ineptitude' of the participants in the 'coup' and the
'failure' of it were skillfully planned and executed. The main argument in support of this
assessment is that the Soviet military, the KGB, the Party and leading media figures
apparently had neither the skill to launch a successful coup nor the guts to crush resistance
to it. This is news indeed!
Facing a real crisis in Hungary in 1956, the same forces displayed exceptional skill, know-
how and determination in crushing a genuine revolt. Knowledge of the Soviet mentality and
of Moscow's record of ruthless action has convinced this analyst that the Soviet military, the
Party and the leaders of the media all have the skill, the will and the courage to crush
genuine resistance and opposition. They did not display them on this occasion because the
abortive 'coup' was carried out in accordance with Party instructions; and it was the Party
and the Komsomol themselves which organized the alleged resistance to it.
The real participants both in the 'coup' and in the 'failure' were some 20,000 or more
chosen Komsomol and Party members in Moscow with two or three tank divisions guided by
their political commissars and a handful of dedicated Party officials and generals who
sacrificed their prestige in the interests of the Party's strategy and under the guidance of its
strategists. The calculated nature of the 'coup' and its timing show that it was staged by the
Russian, President Yeltsin, to save the essence of the Union at the time of transition to a
new form of federation.
The abortive 'coup' and the 'resistance' to it were carefully calculated displays intended
primarily for the West. This explains why Western media contacts with Moscow were not
curtailed. On the contrary, the big guns of the Soviet media like Vitaliy Korotich and
representatives of the Arbatov Institute were on hand both in Moscow and in the United
States to 'help' the Western media with their interpretation of developments in the USSR.
The episode shows how well Soviet strategists like Arbatov and his experts on the American
media have mastered the art of projecting such displays for consumption by the American
media, and throughout the West.
The Soviet strategists sought to underline for the West the dramatic ineptitude of the 'coup'
and the spectacular courage and resistance displayed by the new 'Russian democrats' and
their leader Yeltsin in 'defending' the Soviet Parliament- their symbolic equivalent of 'The
White House'. The main external objective of the display was to demonstrate to the West
that Soviet democratization is genuine, that it has the support of the people and that it is
working. They want to convince the West that Western investment in the USSR will pay
dividends.
They expect that the West will now respond with a new Marshall Plan which will bring
Western technology flooding in to the Soviet Union, promoting joint ventures and
stimulating a restructuring of the Soviet economy along the lines of the revival of the
German and Japanese economies after the Second World War.
Internally, one objective is to influence the Soviet population towards acceptance of the new
Party-controlled 'democracy' as a real power and to develop the strength and maturity of
the new 'democratic' structure and the popularity of its leaders, especially Yeltsin. Another
objective is to exploit this staged 'coup' in order to reorganize and 'reform' the Soviet
bureaucracy, the military, the intelligence and counter-intelligence organizations and 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 the
Past' and severance from Communism, can these organizations be converted into effective
weapons for convergence with their counterparts in the United States. A further internal
objective is to emphasize the change in the system by means of the spectacular, televised
but calculated removal of old Communist symbols like the monuments to Lenin and
Dzerzhinskiy, and the red banners.
These changes do not represent a genuine and sincere repudiation of Soviet design and
intentions to secure an eventual world victory. Although very spectacular, the changes are
cosmetic. They demonstrate only that Arbatov and others know how to manipulate the
American and other Western media through the use of powerful symbols such as the
dismantling of the Berlin Wall, the toppling of Lenin and Dzerzhinskiy statues and Yeltsin's
staged '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 introduction
and implementation of a de-communization program, the irrevocable (not cosmetic)
prohibition of the Communist Party and Komsomol organizations at all levels throughout the
USSR, and the removal of 'former' Party and Komsomol members from all the main seats of
power including the KGB, the Soviet army and its political commissar administration, the
Ministries, especially those for the Interior and Foreign Affairs, and the trade unions.
Yeltsin has allegedly banned the Communist Party in Russia. But the question should be
asked: Why did he forget to ban the Komsomol youth organization?' [Note: According to
'The New York Times' of 29 September 1991, the Komsomol voted to dissolve itself; its
regulations were changed 'to allow subordinate youth leagues in the Soviet Republics to
succeed it' - Author's emphasis].
To carry conviction, the necessary purge of former Communists would have to be carried
out at all levels, as was the intention with the de-nazification program in Germany after the
war. Without any such program, present changes, however impressive, will remain
cosmetic.
There are at present no means of distinguishing reliably between a genuine democrat and a
former Communist in Russia. However one important criterion for judging the sincerity of
the abrupt and virtually simultaneous conversion of former Communist leaders into true
democrats would be a frank official statement from them that the Soviet Party and
Government adopted a long-range strategy in the years 1958 to 1960, that 'Perestroika' is
the advanced phase of this strategy, and that it is to be abandoned forthwith in favor of
normal, 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' Communist
leaders into believers in true democracy would need to include:
Accept the new Party-controlled 'democracy' as a real power and develop the strength and
maturity of the new 'democratic' structure and the popularity of its leaders, especially
Yeltsin. Another objective is to exploit this staged 'coup' in order to reorganize and 'reform'
the Soviet bureaucracy, the military, the intelligence and counter-intelligence organizations
and 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 the
Past' and severance from Communism, can these organizations be converted into effective
weapons for convergence with their counterparts in the United States. A further internal
objective is to emphasize the change in the system by means of the spectacular, televised
but calculated removal of old Communist symbols like the monuments to Lenin and
Dzerzhinskiy, and the red banners.
These changes do not represent a genuine and sincere repudiation of Soviet design and
intentions to secure an eventual world victory. Although very spectacular, the changes are
cosmetic. They demonstrate only that Arbatov and others know how to manipulate the
American and other Western media through the use of powerful symbols such as the
dismantling of the Berlin Wall, the toppling of Lenin and Dzerzhinskiy statues and Yeltsin's
staged '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 introduction
and implementation of a de-communization program, the irrevocable (not cosmetic)
prohibition of the Communist Party and Komsomol organizations at all levels throughout the
USSR, and the removal of 'former' Party and Komsomol members from all the main seats of
power including the KGB, the Soviet army and its political commissar administration, the
Ministries, especially those for the Interior and Foreign Affairs, and the trade unions.
Yeltsin has allegedly banned the Communist Party in Russia. But the question should be
asked: Why did he forget to ban the Komsomol youth organization?'
[Note: According to 'The New York Times' of 29 September 1991, the Komsomol voted
to dissolve itself; its regulations were changed 'to allow subordinate youth leagues in the
Soviet Republics to succeed it' - Author's emphasis].
To carry conviction, the necessary purge of former Communists would have to be carried
out at all levels, as was the intention with the de-nazification program in Germany after the
war. Without any such program, present
changes, however impressive, will remain cosmetic.
There are at present no means of distinguishing reliably between a genuine democrat and a
former Communist in Russia. However one important criterion for judging the sincerity of
the abrupt and virtually simultaneous conversion of former
Communist leaders into true democrats would be a frank official statement from them that
the Soviet Party and Government adopted a long-range strategy in the years 1958 to 1960,
that 'Perestroika' is the advanced phase of this strategy, and that it is to be abandoned
forthwith in favor of normal, 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' Communist
leaders into believers in true democracy would need to include:
• An official admission that the 'dissident movement' and its leader, Sakharov, were
serving the interests of that strategy under KGB control;
• Public exposure of the main KGB agents among Soviet scientists, priests, writers
and theater and movie personalities who have been playing an active role in the
KGB-controlled political 'opposition' - especially those like the 'conservative'
Kochetov and the 'liberal' Tvardovskiy who in the 1960s engaged in a Party- and
KGB-controlled debate intended to convey the false impression that Soviet society
was evolving towards democracy;
• And finally: a categorical repudiation of any strategic intention on the part of the
Soviets of working towards 'convergence' with the United States.
The self-evident absence of any of these criteria indicates that the symbolic changes mean
no more than that the strategists had reached the conclusion that the old symbols had
outlived their usefulness - at least, in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe - and had to be
replaced by new, more attractive, popular symbols. Moreover these cosmetic changes are
logical and were predicted earlier by this analyst. The Soviets realized that convergence
with the United States cannot be achieved under the old compromised symbols like Lenin,
Dzerzhinskiy and others associated in the Western mind with terror, repression, exile and
bloodshed. Convergence requires the introduction of new, attractive, national and
'democratic' symbols conveying the impression that Soviet 'democracy' is approaching the
Western model.
No doubt these cosmetic changes, the reorganization of the Soviet bureaucracy and the
new, more enigmatic status of its leaders like Yeltsin will be seen by the West as a
deepening of the process of Soviet 'reform', offering new opportunities for Western policy.
But the West's main weakness remains unchanged: it cannot grasp the fact that it is facing
an acceleration in the unfolding of Soviet convergence strategy which is intended to procure
the subservience of the West to Moscow under an ultimate Communist World Government.
The Machiavellian boldness and imagination displayed by the Soviet strategists through
their staged 'coup' and its preordained defeat are alarming. No doubt these maneuvers will
be followed not only by faked suicides, but also by staged trials of the alleged leaders of the
'coup'. These leaders may well be sentenced to apparent prison terms. But in fact they will
live in comfortable retirement in resort areas like the Crimea and the Caucasus. Russia is a
big country and places can be found for them to hide.
The' coup' and its 'defeat' show that the Soviets will go to any lengths in pursuit of their
convergence strategy. This reminds me of remarks by Vladimir Zhenikhov, the former KGB
Rezident in Finland, and Aleksey Novikov, another KGB
officer, at the time the strategy was adopted in 1961. Both of them had recently returned
from home leave in Moscow. When I asked for the latest news from headquarters, both
replied using different words but to the same effect: 'This time the KGB are going to finish
with capitalist America once and for all'. I believed them then, and I believe that what is
happening now is a bad omen for Western democracy.
The other alarming aspect of the situation is Western euphoria and the uncritical acceptance
of present Soviet developments at their face value. This shows how easily the West can be
taken in by staged Soviet spectacles, and how justified the strategists are in believing that
their 'era of provocations' will produce the intended results. Furthermore, Western euphoria
and naiveté serve only to encourage the Soviet strategists to stage new spectacles more
convinced than ever that their strategic designs are realistic.

Dispelling Disinformation
by William F. Jasper

This is Part One of an interview by William F. Jasper, Senior Editor of The

New American, with Christopher Story, editor of the London-based Soviet
Analyst, an intelligence commentary, and editor of The Perestroika
Deception by Anatoliy Golitsyn, the Soviet defector and famous author of
New Lies for Old. The interview was conducted on August 16 1995 in the
Presidio, San Francisco, outside the headquarters of the Gorbachev
Foundation/USA.
Q. Why did you start publishing Soviet Analyst, and how does that
publication differ from other sources concerned with Soviet Russia,
Communism, etc ?
A. Soviet Analyst had been published since 1972 by a group of people in
London with long-established connections with the British Foreign Office.
Around midsummer 1991, they approached me, knowing that I might be
interested 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 took
place on August 19, 1991.
Since these people had Foreign Office connections, they had essentially
reflected the Foreign Office line. At the time, the Foreign Office was busily
recognizing the alleged political "independence" of the Soviet Republics, one
by one, and generally appeared to be doing everything possible to reinforce
the illusions of "change" which were being staged by the Soviet strategists in
pursuit of their objectives. We have inherited old issues of Soviet Analyst
going 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. In
acquiring this title, I saw an opportunity to counter disinformation about
Soviet developments. We started publishing Soviet Analyst in November
1991, stressing the Soviets' Leninist use of strategic deception, and
explaining it to our readers. We started from the assumption that there had
been no true discontinuity. Hence Soviet Analyst differs from probably all
other publications in that our analysis shows that the apparent "Break with
the 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 and
Berlin, there are hordes of Sovietologists and Soviet defectors who are busily
informing the West about what is "really happening" in the so-called
'"former" Soviet Union. You have singled out the work of the Soviet defector
Anatoliy Golitsyn. Why do you think he is unique ?
A. Golitsyn is probably the most important Soviet defector ever to have
reached the West. The reason for this is that he revealed the details of a
long-range deception strategy of which the West previously had no
knowledge. When debriefed, he emphasized, as he has done ever since, that
because of his background of working within the "inner KGB" — a super-
secret strategic planning department of which not even ordinary KGB officers
were aware — he was uniquely qualified to inform the West about Soviet
strategy. One of the superficial criticisms frequently made about Golitsyn is
that he has been "out of the loop" since defecting to Finland with his wife
and 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 the
manner of their "escape" from the Soviet Union, perhaps revealing valuable
operational information in order to gain the confidence of (in Gordievsky's
case) Britain's MI6, before inserting strategic disinformation in their output.
Golitsyn is different. He has spent his years in the West explaining patiently
that the Soviets follow Leninist strategic principles, and are engaged in a
deadly long-term war against the West. The Soviet revolutionaries have
followed Lenin's advice to "work by other means."
Q. If we examine Golitsyn's record since 1961, do we have reason to place
faith in his analysis and his analytical methods ?
A. At a superficial but easily explained level, Golitsyn's public fame derives
from 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 predictions
concerning the future course of Soviet strategy, which events subsequently
proved to have been correct. In his recent book, published in 1994, entitled
Wedge: The Secret War between the FBI and CIA, Mark Riebling explained
that after carrying out a careful analysis of Golitsyn's predictions in New Lies
for Old, he had found that out of a total of 148 falsifiable predictions, 139
had been verified by 1993 — "an accuracy rating of 94%." This achievement
places Golitsyn in a league of his own, putting most other observers to
shame.
Q. And the predictions he made concerned very significant, "earth-
shattering" developments...
A. Golitsyn's main predictions included details of the forthcoming false
liberalization of the whole of Eastern Europe, followed by similar
developments in the Soviet Union. He predicted the removal of the Berlin
Wall, 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 would
start in East Germany, with the opening of its borders — as it turned out, to
neighboring Communist countries. That was quite remarkable: Golitsyn
knew 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 in
public; his whereabouts are a closely guarded secret. Meanwhile, other
defectors are conducting national tours, appearing on television, or writing in
the press. I recently saw Yuri Svets on C-Span, hawking his new book
dealing with his KGB activities while stationed in Washington. Is Golitsyn's
secrecy 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 for
its approval that he should be liquidated. A Soviet defector who I am advised
is reliable, reported to me that he had seen a book on display in the
Lubyanka [KGB headquarters] in Moscow, listing the names and details of
Traitors to the Motherland, complete with photographs. Golitsyn features in
this book, which states that those listed are to be reported or killed.
Obviously, it is highly significant that, unlike KGB officers who have become
prominent in the West such as the "two Olegs" — Oleg Gordievsky (who told
Mrs. Thatcher how wonderful Gorbachev was) and KGB General Oleg Kalugin
— Golitsyn remains under deep cover. It is significant that we don't know
where he is, and that I have never spoken to him (he corresponds with me
exclusively through intermediaries). If he can't present himself openly, and
cannot live a normal life, there must be a reason for it.
The smear that he is paranoid does not provide a rational explanation. His
books are not paranoid; they are written in moderate, carefully constructed
language. To accept the lie that he is paranoid, it would be necessary to
believe that a man who writes so carefully and rationally, nevertheless
chooses to live in disguise, with a new identity and personality, out of direct
contact with those he wishes to influence, and subjects himself to open-
ended inconvenience in living out his paranoia. This scenario is manifestly
absurd. In The Perestroika Deception, Golitsyn clearly acknowledges that his
life is in danger. If this is so, it proves that he is a living threat to the Soviet
strategists — since he has revealed the essence of their long-range strategy.
Incidentally, Golitsyn explains that a strategy differs from a policy in the
following respect: Whereas a policy is overt, a strategy contains within it a
secret maneuver or dimension which is not revealed, the purpose of which is
to ensure the realization of the strategy.
Q. And Golitsyn's moderate, careful predictions in New Lies for Old have
been amply validated by the course of events in recent years, as we have
seen.
A. Absolutely correct. New Lies for Old is an outstanding predictive
document — which of course suggests that the sequel, The Perestroika
Deception, provides further significant guidelines for understanding Soviet
strategy 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 been
publishing Soviet Analyst — re-angled towards the truth — for six months,
and explaing in successive issues that the Soviets were engaged in global
strategic deception operations, I received a letter dated May 1992 from
Anatoliy Golitsyn, enclosing a few pages from his Memoranda to the Central
Intelligence 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 which
probably causes them some concern .... I do not want to alarm
you and I do not want to discourage you from [the] excellent
courageous line you are taking in your publication. But I want to
warn you on personal basis to be careful in your contacts.

I cite these extracts from the letter because it proves that Golitsyn
approached me, not the other way around (I would not have known where
to begin). This is important, in the light, for instance, of an article by William
Satire 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 a
newsletter 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 I
might inadvertently make in successive issues of Soviet Analyst. The
International Herald Tribune has since agreed to publish a letter from me
containing 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, who
basically reproduces what he says and writes. But as I have explained, the
defector approached me, not the other way around. The significance of all
this is that Golitsyn is not alone in having reached the conclusion that the
Soviet/ Russian strategists and implementers are all Leninist revolutionaries.
Golitsyn's enemies would like it to be thought that the only analyst who
holds 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 you
through my lawyer more extracts from my memos to CIA for possible
publication in Soviet Analyst after this year's US presidential elections." I
spent the summer and fall of 1992 wondering why he had made his decision
to send me further Memoranda, dependent upon the outcome of the 1992
presidential election. After Clinton was elected, sure enough, we received a
huge parcel (in early December 1992) containing well over 100 pages of his
Memoranda to the CIA. It became apparent that Golitsyn felt that Clinton's
election necessitated the publication of these Memoranda; and in his cover
letter dated December 1992, he authorized me to quote from these
documents in Soviet Analyst. In March 1993, it was agreed that I would edit
the complete file of Memoranda to the CIA for publication. The Perestroika
Deception is the consequence of our collaboration.

This interview will be continued in the next issue of Studies in Reformed

Theology.

Leninists Still Leading

by William F. Jasper

This is part two of an interview by William F. Jasper, senior editor of THE

NEW AMERICAN, with Christopher Story, editor of Soviet Analyst, an
intelligence commentary, and editor of The Perestroika Deception by
Anatoliy Golitsyn, the Soviet defector and author of New Lies for Old. The
interview 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 reforms
and upheavals we have been witnessing in the '[former" Soviet Bloc
represent controlled events which form part of a "Grand Strategy" rehearsed
and planned decades ago. Could you explain the meaning of the phrase
"strategic deception ?"
A. Golitsyn makes clear throughout The Perestroika Deception that the
personalities on the stage of the so-called "former" Soviet Union are all
secret members of the Communist Party, KGB officers, members of the huge
Komsomol network numbering over 50 million, or members of the
nomenklatura — or, at a lower level, druzhiny (vigilantes), who are used for
staged demonstrations, televised provocations, and street events. As
Golitsyn 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 advice
was given on the eve of his reintroduction of limited capitalism in
Russia, in his work Left Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder.

... Another speech of Lenin's ... in July 1921 is again highly relevant to
understanding "perestroika." "Our only strategy at present," wrote Lenin, "is
to become stronger and, therefore, wiser, more reasonable, more
opportunistic. The more opportunistic, the sooner will you again assemble
the masses round you. When we have won over the masses by our
reasonable approach, we shall then apply offensive tactics in the strictest
sense of the word." |Emphasis in original.]
If you examine the backgrounds of prominent Russian figures, you will find
that they have long Communist Party/ KGB or Komsomol pedigrees. Yet for
some inexplicable reason, the Western media have accepted their sudden,
orchestrated, mass "conversion" to Western-style norms of behavior, their
endless talk of "democracy," and their acceptance of "capitalism," as
genuine. "Scratch these new, instant Soviet "democrats," "anti-
Communists," and "nationalists" who have sprouted out of nowhere, and
underneath will be found secret Party members or KGB agents," Golitsyn
writes on page 123 of his new book. In accepting at face value the
"transformation" of these Leninist revolutionary Communists into "instant
democrats," the West automatically accepts as genuine the false "Break with
the Past" — the single lie upon which the entire deception is based.
In short, the "former" Soviet Union — and the East European countries as
well — are all run by people who are steeped in the dialectical modus
operandi of Lenin. Without exception, they are all active Leninist
revolutionaries, working collectively towards the establishment of a world
Communist government, which, by definition, will be a world dictatorship.
It is difficult for the West to understand the Leninist Hegelian dialectical
method — the creation of competing or successive opposites in order to
achieve an intended outcome. Equally difficult for us to comprehend is the
fact that these Leninist revolutionaries plan their strategies over decades
and generations. This extraordinary behavior is naturally alien to Western
politicians, who can see no further than the next election. Western politicians
usually react to events. Leninist revolutionaries create events, in order to
control reactions to them and manipulate their outcomes.
Before Gorbachev — acting on the instructions of the Leninist strategic
collective — embarked upon perestroika, he achieved a breakthrough by
convincing the former British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, that he was
someone 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 even
admits that she mistook Gorbachev's style for the substance. I explain this
in 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 Lady
Thatcher's prompting, mistaking the style for the substance. The disastrous
consequences of this millennial error are now crowding in upon Western
civilization, threatening its very survival."
The purpose of perestroika, culminating in the "Break with the Past," has
been to convince the gullible West that Communism is dead, that the Soviet
Union has collapsed, and that we are friends, not enemies anymore — a lie
which was duly embedded in the Joint Declaration of Twenty-Two States,
signed by Western and Warsaw Pact leaders on November 19, 1990. The
Declaration asserted that the signatories are "no longer adversaries," and
represented the culmination of the deception which had been managed for
Western public consumption by Gorbachev's close KGB associate, Georgi
Arbatov. Since publishing an article in the June 1988 issue of Kommunist, in
which he said that "the image of the enemy" was being eroded and was
vanishing, Arbatov had repeated this message at every opportunity. Of
course, as a trained Leninist revolutionary who followed Lenin's advice to his
associates to use language deceptively, Arbatov meant that the enemy
would continue to exist. It was only his image which was to "vanish."
The trick worked. The West foolishly and recklessly ignored Arbatov's
repeated mention of the phrase "the image of the enemy," and jumped to
the hazardous and unwarranted conclusion that the enemy himself was
disappearing.
After the West had bought the discontinuity deception, it readily accepted its
corollary — namely, that a peaceful future for all mankind could only be
assured through open-ended "cooperation." But in fact lasting "cooperation"
with these Leninist revolutionaries is impossible, since their purpose is to
dominate, control, and destroy us. The "cooperation" theme forms only one
element of an equation which can be summarized as "cooperation/
blackmail." In other words, the secret Leninist revolutionaries have told the
West to "cooperate — or else." The blackmail element of this evil equation
was made explicit by Gotbachev when he delivered his sinister "end of the
Cold War" speech at Fulton, Missouri, a theatrical occasion at the location
where Winston Churchill had delivered his famous speech announcing that
Stalin had imposed an Iron Curtain across the center of Europe. Gorbachev's
speech 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, plus
several more or less explicit threats of world war if we failed to cooperate as
instructed.
Of course, the Western media failed completely to understand the
significance of the speech — just as today it fails to alert us to the war
preparations the Russians are conducting in close collaboration with the
Communist Chinese; and just as it has failed to question why, as a Reuters
report noted on August 13, 1995, the "former USSR" maintains "dozens of
closed military cities." The fact is that the West does not know what goes on
in the dozens of closed secret military and nuclear cities. The press should
be asking how this squares with the rhetoric that the "former" Soviet Union
is no longer an adversary or a threat.
Gorbachev's Fulton speech contained the directives of the secret Leninist
revolutionaries, with which the West was required to comply. If the required
cooperation did not materialize, then this "window of opportunity" would
close, and would not be likely to recur in our lifetime — so that the
consequences for humanity could be grave in the extreme. The threatening
tone was blatant, and the West proceeded to comply.
Q. Describe the Soviet "convergence" strategy.
A. This is the central objective towards which the secret Leninist
revolutionaries are working. Their purpose has been to dismantle overt
Communism, to establish apparently "normal" relations with the West, to
remove travel restrictions so that large numbers of their agents would be
accepted into Western societies, and to "cooperate" with the West — in
parallel with the West dropping its antagonistic stance, dismantling its
military power, collectivizing its security arrangements, and signing bilateral
and multilateral treaties and accords with the "former" Soviet Bloc.
But the West does not understand that these Leninist revolutionaries intend
that "convergence" is to be achieved on their (Communist) terms, not on
ours. The Leninist meaning of "convergence" is that the West is to
"converge" towards the Communists, contrary to the naive belief of Western
policy-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 the
forthcoming false "liberalization." He pointed out that the most prominent
agent of influence preparing the West for perestroika was the nuclear
scientist and controlled "dissident" Andrei Sakharov. He was the primary
advance salesman for "convergence."
Today, the West erroneously believes that open-ended cooperation with
these "former" Communists will lead to a peaceful world. That is not their
intention. Their purpose is to control the world. They are proceeding towards
this objective by eroding national sovereignty in accordance with Lenin' s
diktat that the state is to "wither away."
All contemporary collective political arrangements — the so-called European
Union; the North American Free Trade Area; the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe, an intergovernmental agreement requiring the
pooling of military intelligence and other anti-state measures; and new
regional blocs like the South African Development Community, which has set
Southern Africa on the road to integrated security, military and foreign
policies, and seeks to usurp national sovereignty in the region — all are
devices designed to undermine the state in order to replace nations with
regional blocs which are to be the components of a world government. The
destruction of national sovereignty is the paramount objective, since as long
as nation states continue to exist, world government cannot be established.
Q. How is it possible for the strategists to plan, execute, and maintain the
internal coherence of such a massive, long-term global deception, while
retaining essential control in the "former" Communist countries, and yet
actually appear to relax many of the features of the police state, and
introduce relaxation of restrictions on travel, allow 'Tree "publishing, and so
forth ?
A. The first part of the answer is that, as Golitsyn explains, the Leninist
strategists are capable of planning and executing strategy over prolonged
periods — that is to say, over decades and for periods of a generation or
more. 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 as
Russian Premier, alluded deliberately to this "general line," asserting not
only its existence but its inherent flexibility, without revealing its content,
when he said: "My colleagues in the government who are working today will
pursue this line. The planned line. The one which has been worked out ....
Life makes amendments to our program, additions, perhaps changes. But we
will keep to the basic line."
This, as indicated, was an explicit, authoritative affirmation of the existence
of 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 has
no ability to plan beyond the next election, and little ability to do so even
between elections. We have absolutely no concept of long-term strategy. In
fact, we have no strategy at all; by which I mean, in the case of Britain, for
example, a strategy for national survival, for the indefinite retention of our
national sovereignty, or a strategy based upon any proper understanding of
our country's inalienable national interests.
Not only do these Leninist strategists plan for the long-term, but they can
operate long-term because they share the same collective purpose. As we
have seen, the implementers of the strategy are professional secret Party
members, KGB officers, and indoctrinated, purposeful revolutionary
implementers of instructions. They are a disciplined, determined cadre. As
Golitsyn told the CIA in March 1989, "the Soviet Party apparatus will become
a true general staff of world revolution to be carried out through the strategy
of 'perestroika.'"
Q. We have been told that the KGB was dissolved and is a shadow of its
former self. How true is this?
A. The reverse is the case. The KGB has undergone a number of "label
changes" since the "Break with the Past," as it had done under all
Communist leaderships since Lenin first established the Extraordinary
Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution (Che-Ka's), instructing his
murderous 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 has
more recently helped to "explain" matters for Western public consumption,
was appointed head of the KGB in place of Vladimir Krychkov, whose
strategy had called for the replacement of himself. Bakatin was allowed to
function for precisely 107 days, before being removed in favor of Viktor
Barannikov, 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 independent
force with its own interests and, objectively, it has become an institution
positioned above the highest powers and decision-making organs of the
Union and the Republics."
This statement, which has been widely quoted, contains important dis-
information, and is only partially correct. The Communist Party and the KGB
have, since the late 1950s, repenetrated each other, so that they "share the
same bloodstream." It is impossible for the KGB to function without the
oversight 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 he
promotes a primary deception theme, on which the "Grand Deception" itself
depends — a theme which has been repeated by Western analysts. Because
everyone knows that the KGB continues to function and has greater powers
than ever, the strategists' apologists refer openly to this fact — but,
crucially, stress that the KGB "acts alone." It does not. It acts in secret
collaboration, as always, with the Communists, who direct its activities. By
implying that "the Organs" are a power unto themselves, Soviet
disinformation has "separated" the "democratists" from the KGB — leaving
the field clear for the continuing deception that they are true democratic
parliamentarians, whom the West must support to the hilt, in order to
"preclude the return of Communism" — which, in reality, has been in control
all along.

Red March to Global Tyranny

by William F. Jasper

This is the final part of an interview with Christopher Story, editor of the
London-based journal Soviet Analyst and of The Perestroika Deception by
Anatoliy Golitsyn, the Soviet defector and author of New Lies for Old. The
interview was conducted by William F. Jasper, senior editor of THE NEW
AMERICAN, and took place just outside the San Francisco headquarters of
the Gorbachev Foundation/USA.

Q. Can you explain the various "reforms" and "restructurings" of the KGB
over the past few years?
A. Viktor Barannikov was appointed in December 1991 to head the new
Security 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's
successors the powers deployed by the KGB under the "former" USSR. Then,
one day ahead of Yeltsin's KGB-planned attack on the Supreme Soviet in
September 1993, Barannikov was sacked. Yeltsin's barbarous attack
destroyed the "democratist" parliament, which has been replaced by the
Duma. This "new" legislature consists of obedient servants of the regime,
who vote as ordered. For instance, the Duma voted 234 to 0 this summer to
impose sanctions on Croatia. In April 1995, this Duma approved legislation
conferring 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 the
redistribution of the Ministry's functions and facilities among several old and
recently established security and law enforcement agencies. For a time, at
least 14 agencies with intelligence functions were identifiable by Western
analysts.
In short, the KGB is far from being a shadow of its former self. On the
contrary, 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 power
in 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 respected
Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung, the Soviet gulag system remains.
The February 11, 1993 Neue Zürcher Zeitung reported that the gulag system
consists, as previously, of hundreds of known and dozens of unknown prison
camps, containing between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 prisoners. Torture has
continued, as well as the abuse of psychiatric treatment. The population in
Soviet Georgia has mysteriously declined from over 5 million to less than 3.8
million since Eduard Shevardnadze replaced the legitimately elected
President Zviad Gamsakhurdia in March 1992. No explanation for this
catastrophe has been forthcoming, and there are no indications of migration
from Georgia to the West on the scale implied. Shevardnadze works secretly
and 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 he
is presiding over this evil by every means at his disposal: induced famine,
invasions of city residencies by country people (as in the Bolshevik
Revolution), withholding fuel, hyperinflation, drug operations, thuggery by
the regime's special repression forces, and military activities — after
"allowing" Russia to establish numerous military bases throughout the
territory. As for the repression carried out by the Russians in Tajikistan, no
one knows the scale of the carnage that has taken place there.

Q. What does Golitsyn mean in The Perestroika Deception by his warning

that the West may yet experience its bloody feasts ?
A. The secret Leninist revolutionaries covet the mad objective of world
government. By definition, a world government must be a world
dictatorship, which will seek to maintain total control. Its architects are
seeking to eliminate all opposition to the establishment of world government
by enlisting, through deception, the West's enthusiastic cooperation in its
establishment. Conceivably, they may not succeed, in which case there will
be bloodshed before the final purpose is achieved. But what is certain is
that, if it is ever achieved, maintenance of a global dictatorship will prove an
impossible task, even though access to weaponry by the population will be
precluded; and in order to simplify this task the controllers may resort, as
Stalin did, to the wholesale liquidation of millions of people. The Communists
are responsible for perhaps 150-plus million deaths; and it is this image they
have sought to erase from the West's consciousness with their talk of the
elimination of the image of the enemy. They need to erase this image
precisely because as long as it remains embedded in our memory, we will
resist their schemes, including their plans to establish global control.

Q. The West has been assured time and time again that the Communist
Party was suspended and has been greatly weakened in the Soviet Union.
Please comment on Golitsyn's explanation in The Perestroika Deception that
the 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 now
faced: In brief, it was to subdivide itself into factions spanning the entire
political spectrum in order to establish the conditions for "democratism" —
fake democracy.
Yeltsin's own resignation from the Communist Party at the 28th Party
Congress in July 1990 coincided with the emergence of all those instant
Soviet "democrats," "anti-Communists," and "nationalists" mentioned by
Golitsyn in The Perestroika Deception. Communists were given the freedom
to adopt whatever deceptive political label they liked. Some became
Stalinists, others Social Democrats or Liberals. Some remained Communists.
Others moved incongruously to the right, or adopted a nationalist stance. All
these sudden political "changes of heart" were fake. Their purpose: to create
the apparatus needed in order to play the game of "democratism" — an
essential 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 Communist
Party was to be splintered when he stated that we must now prove in
practice ... the idea of a broad coalition .... The Party must, resolutely and
without delay, restructure all its work and reorganize all its structures on the
basis of the new Statutes and the Congress' Program Statement, so that
under the new conditions, it can effectively perform its role as the vanguard
Party. We must do everything to firmly establish in the CPSU the power of
the Party masses based on all-encompassing democracy, comradeship,
openness, glashost and criticism .... When there are various views and even
platforms on a number of questions of policy and practical activity, the
majority must show respect for the minority. We must study, learn and
improve our [new] culture. If we embark on this path, it will be easier to
interact and have contacts with other forces. The Central Committee and I
as General Secretary will do all we can to help the Republic Communist
Parties gain their new independent status as soon as possible — a status
that will lead not to a fragmentation of Communists and nations, but to a
new internationalist unity of the CPSU on a common ideological political
basis.
Gorbachev revealed that the CPSU was to be restructured from top to
bottom, enveloped in "democracy" — meaning that its new controlled
factions and platforms were to compete amongst each other, thereby
creating "democratism," the illusion of democracy — and that all
Communists must "study, learn and improve our culture," meaning the new
"culture" of democratism. As for the Republic Communist Parties and the
Soviet republics themselves, "independence," of course, is false and strictly
provisional, 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 West
rejoiced (forgetting that the Chinese and Cuban Communist Parties, for
instance, remained in place), and jumped to the reckless conclusion that
Communism had collapsed. The assumption, presumably, was that having
been "banned," the Party could not be "unbanned." But of course, it was
only "banned" for cosmetic purposes. Today, the existence of the CPSU is
openly acknowledged by Soviet/Russian and Western Communist sources.

Q. Most Western analysts pay close attention to the personalities on the

Soviet/Russian stage, seeking to analyze the conflicting statements of the
various 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, since
none of these people are political powers in their own right?
A. They are all servants of the revolution, and they cooperate closely while
appearing to differ. They are not independent actors on the stage. To the
extent that they may appear to differ genuinely on ephemeral matters, their
differences are always of only passing significance; they have no possibility
of ever achieving power in this environment which is so completely
manipulated 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 Security
Council, which is a continuation of the "Presidential Council" that existed
under Gorbachev. Such an entity has existed since the Leninist state was
first established, and it is to be found in other Communist states as well.
Outside the Security Council, power resides within the cooperation network
operative between the secret and overt Communist parties worldwide, since
all participate fully in the implementation of the strategy to achieve world
government through what Golitsyn refers to as the Second October
Revolution ("Welt-oktober"). The closest cooperation exists between the
Russian 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 the
world Communist movement was disunited. What is the current position?
A. The Sino-Soviet "split" was indeed a classic Leninist dialectical deception
which masked the continuing collaboration between the two most important
and powerful Communist Parties in the world, in pursuit of the long-range
strategy which was ratified, as Golitsyn explained in New Lies for Old, at the
Eighty-One Party Congress held in Moscow in November 1960. It was at that
Congress that the Communist parties agreed to collaborate over a period of
decades in pursuit of the objective of "convergence" leading to world
government.
Golitsyn is most frequently attacked for his assertion that the Sino-Soviet
"split" was false, because this particular element of the deception strategy is
the most sensitive of all. If the West were to become aware that in fact the
Russians and Chinese have been working closely together all along, and are
the closest of allies, it would recognize the grave danger it faces. But of
course, we now have a facade which perpetuates the illusion of the "split."
The Tiananmen Square atrocity in June 1989 provided a clear signal to
Chinese dissidents that political perestroika was not about to be permitted in
China. Golitsyn explains in The Perestroika Deception that the core
demonstrators who appear to have been controlled and carried banners
supporting the Chinese Communist Party suddenly marched out of the
Square in formation. The shooting started after they had left; those who
were killed were true dissidents who had traveled to Beijing to join in the
demonstrations.
The current spectacle is of "non"-Communism in Russia and overt
Communism in China. This preserves the illusion of the "split," and has
provided the backdrop against which the two countries are collaborating in a
coordinated military buildup of ominous proportions. The Russian-Chinese
military agreement of 1993 has been followed by further accords, and the
scale of China's buildup is now causing serious alarm in Western defense
circles, 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 assembled
Russian Security Council do not show Gorbachev. This is because, for
Western public consumption purposes, Gorbachev resigned on Christmas
Day 1991, and faded into the background. But in reality, Gor-bachev moved
sideways into an organization called the Gorbachev Foundation based in the
Presidio, a former U.S. Army base in San Francisco overlooking the Golden
Gate. The Gorbachev Foundation somehow took over the work of the
International Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party
of the Soviet Union (CPSU), which I have already shown to exist. The
International Department, in turn, was the successor of Cominform and
Comintern. Thus, the Gorbachev Foundation is a cover for the International
Department — traditionally the most aggressive and devious enemy of the
West within the Communist apparatus.

Q. You and I have today entered the American offices of the Gorbachev
Foundation, which as this interview is being conducted is planning a high-
profile "State of the World Forum" — an influence-peddling bonanza — to be
held at the Fairmont Hotel in San Francisco (THE NEW AMERICAN'S report
on this .forum appears on pages 23-28 of this issue.) We are sitting outside
this old Admiral's House on the shore of San Francisco Bay, and it seems
incredible that this building could be the chief branch of the International
Department in the West. How can this be?
A. Well, we have been examining some of the documents we picked up
when 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 the
dozen or so young idealists we saw in the Gorbachev Foundation's offices to
have invited all these big shots to their meeting? The answer, of course, is
that this office works with the Gorbachev Foundation, Moscow, based at 49
Leningradsky Prospekt, Moscow 125468, which directs Gorbachev's
campaign 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 visited
Washington in the late fall of 1987, ostensibly to sign a treaty. But the real
purpose of the visit was to meet members of the American intelligentsia,
whom he referred to as "the yeast of events." Translated, this means that
once they had climbed aboard, there could be nothing stopping progress
towards what Golitsyn calls the Second October Revolution via the
"restructuring" of the Western mind so that it would accept, without
questioning, the entire secret Leninist revolutionary program for achieving
hegemony over the whole world. When the West finally wakes up to the fact
that it has been deceived, the blackmail element of the "cooperation-
blackmail" equation will be used mercilessly, and the West may be
compelled to submit to the demands of the Soviet-Chinese alliance.
I have discovered that the Gorbachev Foundation/USA was registered
initially 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 has
been established from an examination of the entity's founding documents.
Precisely one year later — on April 10, 1992 — the organization changed its
name to the Gorbachev Foundation/ USA. I believe that the establishment,
over four months ahead of the fake coup, of the shell which later became
the Gorbachev Foundation/USA provides convincing evidence of forward
planning — revealing that the coup was indeed false, and that Gorbachev
had received his instructions from the strategists well in advance.
Gorbachev had in fact hinted on several occasions that the "Break with the
Past" was imminent. On May 17, 1990, he remarked that "we have entered
the last lap," and one year later, at a press conference with President
Mitterrand on May 6, 1991, he said:

The dangers lie in the fact that someone, analysing at some

private moment or other, this or that instance or episode, or even
event, including a dramatic event, should not make hasty
conclusions and cast doubt on all that has been acquired and what
we have created in putting international relations onto new
channels, onto new rails, entering, as all of us have said, a period
of peaceful development.

In this classically Aesopian Leninist statement, Gorbachev said three

revealing things. First, he hinted at continuing anxiety in Soviet strategic
circles at the possibility that Moscow's devious Leninist strategy of
"convergence" with the West on Communist terms, facilitated by the
forthcoming false "Break with the Past," might be exposed by someone like
Golitsyn in the West who had done his homework on the strategic deception
tradition of Lenin. Second, Gorbachev predicted the forthcoming "August
coup" ("a dramatic event"), which the Soviets had actually code-named
"Golgotha." Third, the Soviet president affirmed Moscow's pride in having
successfully redirected Western thinking so that it was now ripe for
accepting the Soviet (Leninist) view of the world's stateless future.
Lady Thatcher, George Bush, and the other prominent personalities who will
be participating at the Gorbachev Foundation's "State of the World Forum"
have all along been prepared to overlook Gorbachev's Leninist pedigree, and
are lending their prestige to the global campaign by the International
Department of the CPSU's Central Committee to "restructure the world."
Without elaborating here, the technique being used by the International
Department/Gorbachev Foundation is to assert the existence of hideous
"global problems" — the environment, world health, global security, the
global crime epidemic, terrorism — which are "too big" for nation-states to
handle. Accordingly, "global structures" are required in order to address
these problems; and the Gorbachev Foundation projects these "solutions" to
the international elite. A "global justice system," for instance, would require
a national legal system to be revised so as to enable anyone to be arrested
anywhere, for any "offense," at any time. Another theme floated by
Gorbachev is that wherever human rights abuses are taking place, the
international community should have carte blanche to intervene across
borders. Such an arrangement, naturally, would render such borders
pointless.
All these initiatives are subtly aimed at doing away with the nation-state,
which is the core objective originally enunciated by Lenin shortly after
seizing power. The Gorbachev Foundation is one of the leading
contemporary instruments working towards this objective. It is much more
dangerous than its predecessors because it has successfully deceived the
West that its intentions are entirely altruistic.
The location of the Gorbachev Foundation's office here in the Presidio is
significant. This place used to be an important U.S. military base, until it was
closed two years ago, on the ground that "the Cold War is over" and the
enemy has "disappeared." So here is Gorbachev's organization, linked to the
secret International Department, today's Comintern, directing the secret
Communists' further penetration and mind-control activities in America. The
fact that Lady Thatcher, George Bush, and other "pragmatic" members of
"the Great and the Good" in the West are obediently trooping to San
Francisco this month to be honored guests at a conference hosted by the
International Department of the CPSU summarizes the pitiful condition of
Western analysis, and reveals with stark clarity how advanced the Leninist
revolutionaries' "global restructuring" and mind-control activities have
progressed in the space of just a few short years. It also reveals the woefully
inadequate intellectual capacity of the Western elite and its gullibility in the
face 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 the
USSR and Eastern Europe. The Vatican ignores the anti-western design of Soviet strategy. It
fails to understand that greater apparent official tolerance of religion in the Soviet Union is
accompanied by a secret drive to increase Party and KGB penetration of the Catholic and
other churches and to use agents therein for political and strategic purposes inside and
outside the Soviet Union.

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

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

In the present phase secret agents in the Catholic and

other churches are being used to implement Communist strategy.

When they achieve their Communist world victory, they will use mass withdrawal of their
agents 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 military
school, he was awarded a Soviet medial 'For the defence of Moscow in the
Great Patriotic War' for digging anti-tank trenches near Moscow. At the age
of fifteen, he joined the Komsomol (League of Communist Youth) and, at
nineteen, he became a member of the Communist Party.

In the same year, he joined the KGB, in which he studied and served until
1961. He graduated from the Moscow School of Military Counter-espionage,
the counterintelligence faculty of the High Intelligence School, and the
University of Marxism-Leninism and completed a correspondance course with
the High Diplomatic School. In 1952 and early 1953 he was involved with a
friend in drawing up a proposal to the Central Comittee on the
reorganisation of Soviet intelligence.

In connection with this proposal he attended a meeting of the secretariat

chaired by Stalin and a meeting of the Presidium chaired by Malenkov and
attended by Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Bulganin. In 1952-53 he worked
briefly as head of a section responsible for counter-espionage against the
United States. In 1959 he graduated with a law degree from a four-year
course at the KGB Institute (now the KGB Academy) in Moscow.

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

He defected to the United States in December 1961. Subsequently, his

contribution to the national security of leading Western countries was
recognised by the award of the United States Government Medal for
Distinguished Service.

He was made an Honorary Commander of the British Empire (CBE). A

promise of membership of the Légion d'Honneur made when President
Pompidou 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 of
Communist and international affairs, reading both the Communist and the
Western press. In 1980 he completed, and in 1984 he published, 'New Lies
for Old', a study of the Soviet long range strategy of deception and
disinformation.

For over thirty years, the Author has submitted Memoranda to the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), in which he has provided the Agency with timely
and largely accurate forecasts of Soviet Bloc developments and on the
evolution of Soviet/Russian/Communist strategy. By applying the dialectical
methodology which drives the strategy, the Author has been able to score
innumerable 'bulls-eyes'. This unparalleled track record reflects the Author's
personal experience of four years in the KGB's strategy 'think tank', together
with his deep understanding of the dialectical nature of the strategy and the
Leninist 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 cold
war. The reality is quite the reverse. Everything we have seen since 1989
has been a massive and successful, multi-decade long deception strategy on
the part of the KGB, the Soviet secret police. The Goal?
To deceive the West and achieve the goal of Leninist strategy - a totalitarian
world government or international police state. We know this from the
evidence provided by Anatoly Golitsyn the most important defector from the
KGB who came to America in 1961. In 1980 he wrote a book, "New Lies for
Old," published in 1984, which described the disinformation strategy and
made specific predictions as to what the KGB would do, such as removing
the Berlin Wall, changing the name of the KGB and other structures and the
role played by Mikhail Gorbachev. An independent analysis showed that over
94 per cent of those predictions came true by 1991 and since then. That's
how we know Golitsyn was correct.

Christopher Story, who first appeared on this show in 1995, is uniquely

qualified to expose this conspiratoral strategy. Based in London, he
publishes ten newsletters and reviews on economic, financial and political
intelligence, including Soviet Analyst. These invaluable periodicals
incorporate the understanding of post-1989 events provided by Golitsyn. He
has published Golitsyn's second book, Perestroika Deception, Joseph
Dougla's Red Cocaine on the Soviet strategy of using drugs to sabotage the
West and European Union Collective on the regional world government now
in place over Europe and Britain.