More Misinformation

       We are now being told repeatedly that freedom has swept through Eastern Europe. "After all," the story goes, "haven't there been elections in nation after nation?" Yes, there have been elections, but in every case, the candidates offered to the voters were all socialists. These are hardly free elections.

       For example, in the first "free" election in Czechoslovakia since World War II, a political group calling itself the National Republican Party tried to gain ballot position in order to offer voters an alternative to the socialists. The NRP made plain its rejection of socialism. Its leaders tried to register the name of a publication they intended to produce only to find that a socialist group had taken the name one day before. The NRP couldn't even obtain paper to print its posters and handbills. Three other political parties, each of which had existed during the years of communist control, were flourishing with government approval. The NRP got nowhere. And the pattern was the same wherever in Eastern Europe non-socialists tried to take part in the "free" election process.

The Hypocrisy Of It All

       Mikhail Gorbachev is President Bush's "friend." Time magazine labelled him its "Man of the Decade." He won the Nobel Peace Prize. He and Boris Yeltsin "courageously survived" a coup engineered by old-line Stalinists. How fortunate for mankind that these enlightened leaders of the Soviet Union triumphed over the attempt to turn back the clock to the days of hardline oppression!

       Wait a minute! Why is our government, cheered on by the media, continuing to chase down 82-year-old ex-Nazi corporals for their alleged participation in the crimes of Nazi Germany 50 years ago — while ignoring recent crimes attributable to Gorbachev and Yeltsin?

       Peaceful Afghanistan suffered 1.4 million civilian casualties at the hands of Soviet invaders during the 1980s. In that beleaguered country, there are many children without hands or eyes because they picked up the booby-trapped toys deliberately spread about by Soviet troops. As a member of the ruling Politburo and as the leader of the USSR beginning in 1985, Gorbachev is responsible for these horrors.

       And as another member of the Politburo during this period, so is Yeltsin. These men are either criminals or there is no such thing as a criminal. And so, too, are the various individuals recently appointed by Gorbachev to replace the bungling plotters involved in the remarkably botched coup.

       We are now being told that the proper course for the U.S. government is to rush aid to the governments run by Gorbachev and Yeltsin. But each adamantly maintains that he is still a socialist. Sending aid will only keep the socialist system alive. The way to bring about real reform is to cease financing the failed system and its criminal leaders.

       Regarding the plans to send aid to the failing Soviet system, the question that is being debated isn't whether or not the aid should be provided, but how much and how soon. Figures being thrown around reach as high as $300 billion. And, according to a report in the September 16th New York Times, the U.S. Defense Department "is considering giving technical and organizational help to Moscow's armed forces."

       Neither Gorbachev nor Yeltsin, nor any of their newly placed top assistants, have even offered a simple apology for 70 years of communist savagery. Just imagine if a group of defeated Nazi officials had gathered after World War II to reinstitute national socialism (Naziism) in Germany. Would the West have cheered them on? Would our President have dared refer to their leader as his "friend"? Would this individual have been named "Man of the Decade" and given the Nobel Peace Prize? Would he have been showered with foreign aid and given assistance for military purposes? No, he would have received none of those favors. And, for at least as many reasons why Nazis are condemned, neither should Gorbachev nor Yeltsin nor any communist from the Soviet Union.

       Another indication that something is mighty wrong is the willingness of the Bush Administration to offer foreign aid to Gorbachev's government while admitting to a deficit of over $300 billion for the current fiscal year. Foreign aid to the USSR is one of many federal schemes forcing the United States down while bringing the Soviet Union up with the result that, before long, the two nations will be indistinguishable and able to be merged with ease. The plan spelled out years ago by H. Rowan Gaither is working beautifully.

       Debt, of course, leads to socialism. How? Socialism is economic control of the people by government through taxes, regulations, controls and bureaucracy. Debt leads to increased taxation needed to pay interest to debt holders. Using debt as an excuse to confiscate the wealth of the people, government will increase bureaucratic controls and regulations as part of the process. Any government that loads its citizens down with debt is a government that intends to control them.

       Analyzing recent events in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe is possible with the benefit of a clear understanding of the conspiracy and a healthy dose of realism. But we are helped further to fathom what to many remains unfathomable because so much of it was predicted in a critically important book written in 1984.

       Anatoliy Golitsyn defected to the United States in 1961. A Major in the Soviet KGB, he had spent 15 years in the Soviet intelligence service. Increasingly disillusioned with the ways of the USSR, and armed with information about a new long-range strategy for communist victory, he sought to warn the West about Soviet plans. But he ran into a wall of opposition among U.S. intelligence experts at the CIA.

       Had it not been for one important CIA official who believed Golitsyn, Chief of Counterintelligence, James Jesus Angleton, this remarkable Soviet defector might never have been heard from. Even now, with his book published and his notoriety growing daily, the man is in hiding, afraid to appear publicly, and he is the target of orchestrated smear campaigns emanating not from Moscow, but from the conspiratorially connected U.S. and British Establishment.

Disturbing Revelations

       Golitsyn started work on his New Lies For Old (available from The Fatima Crusader) in 1962. In 1963, while most CIA personnel were discounting the Soviet defector's message, James Angleton had Golitsyn transferred to his authority. By 1968, American and British officials were permitted to read the manuscript as it then stood. Though greatly enlarged by 1984 to include commentary on more recent events and his understanding of what they meant, its substance has changed little since he first put ink to paper.

       Most of the authorities who read Golitsyn's thesis, however, completely rejected it. Especially were they disinclined to place any value on his thoughts because of his negative attitude about the Sino-Soviet split that, for so many years, formed the basis for U.S. policy toward the Soviet Union. Simply stated, the theory being propounded held that our nation's best interests lay in forming an alliance with Soviet communism because of the growing threat to both nations from militant Chinese communism.

       If Golitsyn were correct, the entire U.S. policy of sending technical, military and economic aid to the Kremlin was totally incorrect, the result of two communist giants pulling a vast amount of wool over the eyes of our intelligence service.

       But Golitsyn had more revelations to share about Soviet plans. His book claims that the Soviets are now carrying out a long-planned operation he described as "false liberalization." It includes apparent "independence on the part of regimes in Romania, Czechoslovakia and Poland" and a "shift from the old discredited Soviet practice to a new liberalized model with a social democratic facade."

       Golitsyn exposed the communist origins of Poland's Solidarity movement, wrote of his expectation that the Berlin Wall might be demolished, predicted the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and said there would be "confederation between East and West Germany." He also warned the West to expect that "Andropov will be replaced by a younger leader with a more liberal image who will continue the so-called 'liberalization' more intensively."

       He even wrote of the desire by communists to create links with the socialist European Community "as the first steps in laying a foundation for a merger" between Eastern and Western Europe. Using the oft-repeated phrase, "Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals," he said that the result of such a merger "would turn out to be a neutral, socialist Europe."

Return to
Table of Contents