What Is The Final Phase?

Golitsyn's Methodology
and the Trump Administration
Commentary for 20 February 2017
JR Nyquist

The new methodology provides explanations for many contradictions and anomalies in the communist world on which the old methodology throws no light. It explains the confidence of the communist world and the loyalty and dedication of the vast majority of its officials. It explains the reasons for disclosures of information by the communist world about itself and relates them to the requirements of long-range policy. It explains the seeming tolerance of a totalitarian system toward dissension openly expressed by its citizens in their contacts with foreigners. It provides criteria for assessing the reliability of sources, for distinguishing genuine secret agents and defectors from provocateurs, for distinguishing genuine information from disinformation and propaganda. It provides pointers to the identification of agents of influence in the West. It suggests that disinformation, recognized as such, can provide clues to the intentions of its authors. It offers guidance on the relative importance of the official and unofficial communist sources. It diverts attention from spectacular communist polemics between parties and focuses it instead on the solid advances in the groundwork of communist cooperation and coordination. It points the way to recovery from the crisis in Western studies and assessments of communism. It could help to revive the effectiveness of Western security and intelligence services. It explains the communist victory in the Vietnam War despite the Sino-Soviet split. Above all, it explains the willingness and ability of the communist world, despite the appearance of disunity, to seize the initiative and to develop and execute its strategies in relation to the United States, the other advanced industrial countries, and the Third World in the quest for the complete and final victory of international communism.
-Anatoliy Golitsyn, New Lies for Old, p. 102

What would Anatoliy Golitsyn, the KGB defector who correctly anticipated the fake collapse of communism, say about the Trump administration? I believe he would say that the communist strategists have launched a new provocation based upon a supposed split between the communist-dominated U.S. Democratic Party and (Soviet) Russia.
This supposed split offers some tantalizing tactical advantages to the communist side. It diverts attention from the extensive and treasonous collaboration of the American Left with Russia and the communist bloc. It also helps to camouflage future collaboration on the part of Trump's critics. (People who warn of Russian interference with the elections will not be scrutinized too carefully themselves in this regard, especially by a media that is packed with communist operatives). To say that Trump is a Russian puppet diverts attention from the fact that those leveling the accusation have served Russia and the communist cause for many years. It weakens the authority of a president who has promised to reverse the many policies of national self-negation which have been the mainstay of the Democratic Party, and the watchword of the Republican establishment.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama continues to relay commands to his leftist cadres within the U.S. Federal Government. This is why he stayed in Washington. For all intents and purposes, he is still president; that is, he is the commander-in-chief for the communists in Washington. Their conspiracy continues, as ever, toward the "inevitable" convergence of capitalism with communism (on communist terms).
It is important (from the communist point of view) that nobody guess the actual situation, that nobody see how far the subversion has gone, or how powerful the communist side has become within the state. While Obama was U.S. President an identical circumstance played out in Washington as in Moscow. In both capitals the communists were depicted as an inconsiderable and irrelevant minority. In reality, the presidents of both countries were committed communists. The levers of power were in their hands, and the world suspected nothing. While Obama worked to disarm the United States, Putin worked to rearm Russia. While Obama undercut our allies abroad, Putin invaded Crimea and intervened in the Middle East. As the danger grew, as Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next and final president, the collaboration between Washington and Moscow was guaranteed to result in America's defeat.
But then a miracle happened. Donald Trump was elected president; a man of impeccable nationalist instinct, of remarkable courage in the face of the enemy. The communists were aghast at his victory. And so, strange as it seems, they decided on a preposterous fraud. While they posed as Russia's enemies, Donald Trump would be depicted as Russia's friend.
For the leading communists to deny their communist affiliation was a preliminary strategic step in both Washington and Moscow. Freed from the label of what they had actually been, the communists were able to advance without opposition from those annoying anti-communists. And now they are compelled by the logic of their false position to paint the "patriotic American dinosaur" (Donald Trump) as Russia’s puppet. Here the real puppet points to the man and declares that he is the puppet. It is a history-making deception. It is grand and it is bold. It cynically estimates the ignorance of the populace, the corruption of the political class, and the willing treachery of the media. It relies on the fact that the smartest strategists and analysts on the American side have been sidelined or murdered. So there is nobody to call out the truth.
Who now dares say the truth about what has happened in this country? Anyone writing in this vein is committing career suicide. Therefore, only someone without a career would dare to write along these lines at all! Even then it means being assigned to a death list, like Anna Politkovskaya and Alexander Litvinenko. (You want a successful career? You want to live? Sing the tune that is assigned. Play a role out of the communist script. You can be a conservative if you wish, but you will be Moscow’s conservative.)
Of course, you probably think I am crazy. You think communism went away in 1991. You think that communism no longer exists. But then you will have to explain how we got here – with communist thugs using open intimidation on the streets of our cities! If communism lost the Cold War, why does it presently hold such power in government agencies, universities and newspapers? Why do you think U.S. counterintelligence is spying on the President of the United States and his staff? Who wants to bring him down? You need to explain all the variable phenomena of today: from the communist-inspired economic sabotage of global warming "science" to the insistence that our border remain a sieve. It is only our enemies who stand to gain from these policies.
But communism is dead. Nobody believes in it anymore. We are told that the last true believer in communism was Stalin’s protégé and USSR Communist Party Ideology Chief Mikhail Suslov. Gorbachev and Yeltsin, and other top Soviet officials, made a show of abandoning communism. But I tell you it was only a show. Former KGB officer Anatoliy Golitsyn insisted that all communist sources of information are larded with falsehood; that communist officials publicly and privately make misleading statements about themselves, their thoughts and their intentions.
What do we actually know about the thinking of Mikhail Suslov or Mikhail Gorbachev (for that matter)? We only know what Communist Party officials say is true – about themselves and their party. And communists lie! There is also a more subtle point, which may seem contradictory, but is fundamental at the non-ideological level: It is irrelevant what Suslov or Gorbachev believed. Their personal beliefs would be decisive only if Marxism had been a mere belief system, if it represented a stable set of principles; but Marx himself did not believe in Marxism. He laughed at people who believed in it. Why would it matter if Suslov also did not believe?
What is decisive to understand about Marxism is its ever-shifting role as a rationale for a new kind of power. What is important here is not the particulars of the rationale itself, but the spirit which calls forth the rationale in the first place. If we want to understand how the great totalitarian machine is able to morph and shift and change with the times, we must go to its soul. At bottom Marxism is a strategy behind which stands a pathological desire for absolute power and global destruction. The outward phenomenon of Marxism is merely the intellectual camouflage of the politically self-actualized psychopath. Here is the outward expression of his rationalization for murder, for seizing power. This outward expression has changed time and time again, but its spiritual essence is always the same. And we always seem to miss the point of it. We always seem to address the inner thoughts and intentions of people who are assumed to believe or not believe in a set of “principles.” But this is an error. We do not understand these people at all! The communist does not take ideas seriously. He is serious only about power and strategy.
A mask is not an idea. A strategy is not a principle. These are tools, weapons, methods. Marx did not believe in his tools. He used them, and his followers used them, until the tools of the hour no longer served their purpose. Then the old tools, the old weapons, were discarded for a new set of weapons – “new lies for old.” Those who talk about belief or disbelief are only talking about the superficial shell of the thing, which can be replaced with a new shell – a new outward appearance. If Marx did not believe in Marxism, then the true Marxist should not believe in it either. It is a sorry swindler who believes in his own swindle. Behind the shell of the communist's outward pretenses we find the same core phenomenon: the malevolent soul of the destroyer, the envious lusting for power and revenge, the hatred of the good for being the good. And in this soul’s self-affirmation we find, curiously, a reformulation of the same old totalitarian themes; the same old bag of tricks for debasing and leveling humanity. All that being said, the outward shell of the supposedly debunked Marxism is by no means out of the game. Out-and-out communism could return to power at any time. The various outer shells – the rationales and swindles – may change and shift as circumstances require; yet the driving force from within remains ever constant, ever alert to new opportunities. Marxism is strategy, not belief. That is why Mao Zedong said, “Marxism is better than a machine gun.” One does not believe in a machine gun. One uses it, merely, to neutralize an enemy. One must keep in mind the usefulness, in this regard, of ideological mortars and howitzers and atomic bombs – the whole arsenal of political correctness.
But you cannot get over this idea; namely, that communism is dead. You saw it die on TV. How can we talk once again about Marxism-Leninism? Or as an Estonian presidential candidate once asked in response to my discourse: “What’s Marxism-Leninism?” His pained expression relayed the idea that Marxism-Leninism was something that didn’t really exist. Nobody believed in it, so why did it matter? Even the communists don’t believe in communism anymore. It’s as simple as that! Any idiot who tells you that there are true-believing communists should wear a dunce cap. Russia a democracy. China is capitalist. Cuba is an open society with superb health care. And that nice little North Korean man is a champion of world peace!
It is merely one more ridiculous proposition out of many. In fact, it is the final ridiculous proposition. It is the proposition that crushes man's soul. To say that communism doesn’t exist is to surrender. It means giving up your country to the communists who don't exist. Remember the Ministry of Truth from George Orwell’s 1984? It was a ministry that dispensed nothing but lies. Now imagine if the Ministry of Truth disbanded itself and admitted to lying. “We are turning over a new leaf,” says the Ministry of Truth. “We are now the Ministry of the Real Truth.” Oh, it’s such a relief! Finally, we can believe in them! Marxism-Leninism is gone and the Marxist-Leninists are now honest! If they say we won the Cold war, we won the Cold War. In a world where nonsense is often believed, why would this nonsense not be accepted as the New Gospel (according to Saint Gorbachev)? The hammer and sickle comes down, the tricolor goes up. How could you question that? It’s like being against chocolate!
So where did all the communists go? Did they simply revert to Christianity? Did they become Scientologists? Stop and think for a moment. You control half the planet and you’ve been fooling people in every country for decades. And what do you do for an encore? You fall off the edge of the flat earth! Well, I guess they topped themselves after all. And then, twenty-five years later, suddenly, you discover they have taken over your child’s mind and sent him into the street to beat up an old displaced factory worker wearing a hat which says, “Make America Great Again.” You have the CIA and FBI spying on the President of the United States to the advantage of change agents. And Congress is dragging its feet on Trump’s cabinet nominees because they’ve been honey-trapped by the Satanic Pedophile communist zombie apocalypse. It is real Satanism, real pedophilia, real undead communists, and a real apocalypse.
Have you ever seen the movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers? It’s an allegorical fiction about a communist takeover. Well, we’re living it. In fact, the pod people are attempting to convince the world that they are the ones fighting the alien invasion! This lie is repeated on every news channel. And you might easily believe them: First, because you did not understand who the enemy was. Second, because you don’t believe in pod people. Third, because you voted pod people into the White House in 1992, 1996, 2008 and 2012. And when the pod people finally colonized your government and rotted out your nuclear arsenal, the old pod president didn’t go back to Illinois. He remained in Washington to command the pod-people army inside the federal government, while Mr. Trump erroneously believes himself to be in charge.
So they don’t believe in Marxism-Leninism anymore? So why do we have socialized medicine? And why does Vladimir Lenin, who died in 1924, lie calmly with his eyes closed in his mausoleum on Red Square – not buried in a grave with a stone marker? No doubt, he is kept on display in Moscow because “nobody there believes in him anymore”! It’s a funny kind of not-believing in someone, don’t you think?
Nobody in Moscow believes in communism! They refuse to bury Lenin because he makes a nice tourist attraction. And besides, Vladimir Putin wears a cross and says he believes in God. (Well, he doesn’t really like to talk about it. But we think he believes in God.) And so, at the end of the day, we are all Kremlin puppets. We are all bouncing helplessly at the end of Moscow’s string. Even now the puppet-master appears to be at odds with his most secret creatures – the moles at CIA and FBI! Appearances notwithstanding, the puppeteer must always hide the puppet’s strings. This he accomplishes by a diversion in which he calls the man (Trump) a puppet and the puppet (Obama) he calls a man. And so, as well, he calls his friend enemy and his enemy he calls friend.
If President Trump could read one paragraph of these scribblings, I would wish that he read this last paragraph. Then he might understand, in an instant, who his enemies are – both foreign and domestic. And I say, that enemy is not an opponent, not a competitor, not a business rival. No, no. I mean – an enemy! And once our president can tell friend from foe, his strategic compass will align to true north and half the battle will be won.
END

www.jrnyquist.com/golitsyn-s-methodology.html

The Wilderness of Mirrors, Part II
By J.R. Nyquist 08.21.01


Last week I discussed how, 14 years ago, I began to suspect that the Soviet empire was about to engineer its own collapse for deceptive strategic purposes. As KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn predicted in his 1984 book, "New Lies for Old*, "The 'liberalization' [in the communist bloc] would be spectacular and impressive." Golitsyn even wrote of "a reduction in the communist party's role; its monopoly [of power] would be apparently curtailed." According to researcher Mark Riebling, Golitsyn made 148 "falsifiable predictions" about future changes in the Soviet empire. By the end of 1993, according to Riebling, "139 out of 148 [of Golitsyn's predictions] were fulfilled." Since then over 140 out of the original 148 predictions have come true, giving Golitsyn an accuracy rating above 94 percent.

As I explained last week, Golitsyn's claims about a long range Soviet deception strategy were not credible to me in 1984. But in 1987 I discovered corroborating testimony in the memoirs of another East Bloc defector -- Jan Sejna. According to Sejna the fake collapse of the Warsaw Pact was being contemplated by Kremlin strategists in 1967, who confided their plans to top Czech officials.

This discovery led me to read more thoroughly, and to discover more pieces to the puzzle. In 1987 Brian D. Dailey and Patrick J. Parker brought forward a volume of scholarly articles entitled "Soviet Strategic Deception." In going over this text I found the following statement by intelligence researcher John Dziak, who wrote: "It should be stressed that Golitsyn was not the only
source talking about long-term deception planning and operations." Aside from listing Jan Sejna as confirming a long-term deception strategy, Dziak mentions Ladislav Bittman, an intelligence officer who worked with the Russians in coordinating their plans. Dziak's article was extremely illuminating, as are the works of researcher Joseph D. Douglass, Jr., and others who grasped the importance of defector testimony on deception.

Clearly, some scholars and experts -- Reibling, Douglass and Dziak -- are aware of the existence of a long range Russian strategy. It is one thing to fool the public, but it is another thing to fool the intelligence professionals, statesmen and scholars. Even so, most of today's scholars and "experts" would disagree with Reibling and Douglass. In fact, they would write them off as "out of touch."

Could the strategists of the Kremlin successfully deceive professional observers and strategists in the West?

If Soviet deception strategy is real, it can only exist by feeding off Western delusions and preconceptions. In this regard, the dominant philosophy of the West is liberalism, which might well be characterized as large body of delusional thought. Even more to the point, liberalism is the mother's milk of the administrative staff of leading corporations and government. To a large extent, the academic teachings of liberalism have influenced all professions and all professionals. Even professed conservatives cannot free their minds from the poisonous intellectual undercurrents of liberalism. Therefore, the Russian strategists needed only to aim their lies at the preconceptions of the liberal.

The liberal believes in "people power," and "democracy." But democracy is merely a form, and is not the true substance of the elected leadership themselves. The communists realized that if they handpicked the democrats and set them into power, the resulting democracy would not disturb the operations of the secret police or the inner deliberations of the Communist Party Central Committee. To fool the West's experts was only a bit more complicated than fooling the general public.

There is also another factor: the decay of intellectual integrity in Western elites. The intellectual bureaucrat is a careerist. His judgment is not truly independent. Many are educated in modern society, but there are a limited number of slots for experts. Consequently, there is a temptation to tell the powerful what they want to hear. In addition, organizational uniformity and standardization have reached a high degree of perfection.
Modern Westerners attend regimented public schools where they are fed staple ideas. They watch the same television programs and are influenced by the same commercials. The expert is often no different. He too must socially adjust himself to the views of others or face the consequences.

The experts depend, as well, on the West's intelligence services to provide them with raw data. If the intelligence scholars of the West are susceptible to deception, it can only be on account of massive intelligence failures as well as analytical failures. It is not merely the blinding assumptions of liberalism at work, but the basic inability of the FBI and CIA to cope with the GRU and KGB.

In 1987 the effectiveness of Western intelligence versus Russia was called into question by a former assistant director of MI5, Peter Wright. The "Spycatcher" scandal caused ripples. The conservative government of Prime Minister Thatcher banned Wright's memoirs. Instead of concern for the effectiveness of the intelligence services, there was -- in essence -- a coverup of the legacy of incompetence and impotence of those services.

Wright's revelations about moles in high places and the general collapse of effective counter-intelligence in the West suggests a weakness that Kremlin deception strategists might well exploit. The communist penetrations of the British government and intelligence services simply cannot be set aside. And the British were much tighter in their security than the Americans. "At least the Brits catch their moles," one professional quipped.

The "Spycatcher" scandal exposed the truth about Western intelligence. "I was morose," confessed Wright at the end of his memoirs. "I was on the losing side."

And what had won?

It was an attitude that balked security, that shook its head at the very idea of Soviet penetration agents. It was the attitude that brought us Aldrich Ames at the CIA and Robert Hanssen at the FBI -- traitors who effectively blinded U.S. intelligence by killing off nearly all U.S. spies operating in Eastern Europe.

Do you really think the KGB is unable to fool Western agencies staffed with KGB-run moles and plants?

Many readers, of course, will object to this analysis. They will explain, in all innocence, that communism really did collapse in Eastern Europe. Democracies have emerged in Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary. Golitsyn's claim that these collapses were "false," or "controlled" have no merit because whatever the KGB might have planned in in the 1960s, things turned out quite differently.

Last weekend I received intelligence from the Czech Republic about the ongoing power of the secret police and the communists. This information can be accessed on my Web site, www.JRNyquist.com, and involves the jailing and persecution of dissidents. In this respect, nothing has changed in the "former" Soviet satellites. I have received similar correspondence from Poland, Russia and Romania in recent years. Many East Europeans have written to explain that the economy in their respective countries is yet under communist control, that the leading military officers are "hard liners," and that the new "democratic" politicians are either agents of the secret police, false fronts or outright former communist functionaries.

East European leaders like Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel may appear to be credible democrats at first glance, but Walesa has been publicly accused of having intimate ties to the secret police, and Havel's secret police file has mysteriously "disappeared" from the archives. In the case of the Romanian Revolution, most Americans never read Andrei Codrescu's book, "The Hole in the Flag."

According to Codrescu, communism was not overthrown by the Romanian people, but by agents of Moscow imbedded in the Romanian communist establishment. The real history of the revolutions in Eastern Europe has yet to be written. Watching events in Eastern Europe with Golitsyn's warnings in mind, the
evidence is strongly in favor of the thesis that the communist system was collapsed intentionally on orders from Moscow.

What objectives could Russia possibly achieve by "defeating itself" in the Cold War. Watch for next week's column, in which I will explore the significance of these events in greater detail.

web.archive.org/web/20020209021259/http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/files/aug/21/nyquist.htm