View Single Post
  #8  
Old 01-22-2005, 12:20 PM
Draken Draken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 896
Default Editor of "Soviet Analyst" Christopher Story on Communism

These are parts 1 & 2 of an apparently 3-part interview of which the third part wasn't to be found a this website, but it's probably quite enough. ;-)


Dispelling Disinformation

by William F. Jasper
http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue07/perestroika_01.htm


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.


PART 2

Leninists Still Leading

by William F. Jasper
http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue08/perestroika_02.htm


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.
__________________
Three things are sacred to me: first Truth, and then, in its tracks, primordial prayer; Then virtue–nobility of soul which, in God walks on the path of beauty. Frithjof Schuon
Reply With Quote