Sorry so long...no links to his book. Notice the date of the following--TTS
Golitsyn’s Specific Predictions from his 1984 book New Lies For Old.
Pages 327-328: “The Communist strategists are now poised to enter into the final, offensive phase of the long-range policy, entailing a joint struggle for the complete triumph of Communism. Given the multiplicity of parties in power, the close links between them, and the opportunities they have had to broaden their bases and build up experienced cadres, the Communist strategists are equipped, in pursuing their policy, to engage in maneuvers and stratagems beyond the imagination of Marx or the practical reach of Lenin and unthinkable to Stalin. Among such…stratagems are the introduction of false liberalization in Eastern Europe and, probably, in the Soviet Union and the exhibition of spurious independence on the part of the regimes in Romania, Czechoslovakia and Poland.
Pages 224-226: “It would be worthwhile for the West to study the scenario and techniques of the Czechoslovak experiment [of 1968]—so as not to be taken in again. The scenario could well be repeated in essence, although with local variations…The staging of the ‘quiet revolution’ and its reversal served a wide variety of strategic and tactical objectives. [Among them:]
· To arouse sentiment against military pacts in Europe
· To increase pressure in the West for the convening of a conference on security in Europe, the Communist interest in which is to promote the dissolution of military pacts, the creation of a neutral, socialist Europe, and the withdrawal of the American military presence.
· To rehearse and gain experience for the repetition of ‘democratization’ in Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, or elsewhere in Eastern Europe during the final phase of the long-range policy of the Bloc.”
Pages 241-242: “The creation of a false, controlled opposition movement like the dissident movement serves the internal and external strategic purposes.
Internally it provides a vehicle for the eventual false ‘liberalization’ of a Communist regime; it provokes some would-be opposition elements to expose themselves to counter-action, and others are driven to conformity or despair. Externally, ‘dissidents’ can act as vehicles for a variety of disinformation themes on the subject of the evolution of the Communist system… It sets the scene for an eventual dramatic ‘liberalization’ of the system by heightening the contrast between neo-Stalinism and future ‘socialism with a human face.’ It creates a cadre of figures who are well known in the West and who can be used in the future as the leaders and supporters of the ‘multi-Party system’ under Communism. ‘Dissident’ trade unions and intellectuals can be used to promote solidarity with their Western counterparts and engage them in joint campaigns for disarmament and the reform of Western ‘military-industrial complexes.’ In the long run the Western individuals and groups involved will face the choice of admitting that their support for dissidents was mistaken or accepting that Communism has undergone a radical change, making ‘convergence’ an acceptable, and perhaps desirable, prospect.”
Page 262: “One of the objectives [of Euro-Communism] was to prepare the ground, in coordination with Bloc policy in general, for an eventual ‘liberalization’ in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and a major drive to promote the dissolution of NATO and the Warsaw Pact and the withdrawal of the American military presence from a neutral, socialist Europe.”
Page 323: “The Western strategy of a mildly activist approach to Eastern Europe, with emphasis on human rights, is doomed to failure because it is based on misconceptions and will lead ultimately into a trap when a further spurious liberalization takes place in Eastern Europe in the final phase of the long-range Communist policy. Not the least disturbing aspect of the present crisis in Western assessments and policy is that, if it is recognized at all, its causes are misunderstood. As matters stand the West is acutely vulnerable to the coming major shift in Communist tactics in the final phase of their policy.
Page 331: “The conclusion [is that] the ‘renewal’ in Poland was planned thoroughly, and well in advance, by the Polish Communist Party in cooperation with its Communist allies and with a view to furthering the Communist strategy for Europe. The conclusion is further supported by the evidence of the Polish Communist Party’s involvement in the formation and functioning of Solidarity.”
Page 334: “The creation of Solidarity and the initial period of its activity as a trade union may be regarded as the experimental first phase of the Polish ‘renewal.’ The appointment of Jaruzelski, the imposition of martial law, and the suspension of Solidarity represent the second phase, intended to bring the movement under firm control and provide a period of political consolidation. In the third phase it may be expected that a coalition government will be formed, comprising representatives of the Communist Party, a revived Solidarity movement, and of the church. A few so-called liberals might also be included. A new-style government of this sort in Eastern Europe would be well equipped to promote Communist strategy by campaigning for disarmament, for nuclear-free zones in Europe, perhaps for a revival of the Rapacki Plan, for the simultaneous dissolution of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and ultimately for the establishment of a neutral, socialist Europe. The revival of other elements of Communist strategy for Europe [such as human rights negotiations] would be timed to coincide with the emergence of such a government.
Page 335: “A coalition government in Poland would in fact be totalitarianism under a new, deceptive and more dangerous guise. Accepted as the spontaneous emergence of a new form of multi-party, semi-democratic regime, it would serve to undermine resistance to Communism inside and outside the Communist Bloc. The need for massive defense expenditure would increasingly be questioned in the West. New possibilities would arise for splitting Western Europe away from the United States, of neutralizing Germany, and destroying NATO.”
Page 338-340: “The intensification of hardline policies and methods in the Soviet Union, exemplified by Sakharov’s arrest and the occupation of Afghanistan, presages a switch to ‘democratization’ following, perhaps, Brezhnev’s departure from the political scene… Brezhnev’s successor may well appear to be a kind of Soviet Alexander Dubcek. The succession will be important only in the presentational sense.
The reality of collective leadership and the leaders’ common commitment to the long-range policy will continue unaffected… The Brezhnev regime and its neo-Stalinist actions against ‘dissidents’ and in Afghanistan would be condemned as Novotny’s regime [in Czechoslovakia] was condemned in 1968.
The economic field reforms might be expected to bring Soviet practice more into line with Yugoslavia, or even seemingly, with Western socialist models… The Party would be less conspicuous, but would continue to control the economy from behind the scenes as before…
Political ‘liberalization’ and ‘democratization’ would follow the general lines of the Czechoslovak rehearsal in 1968. This rehearsal might well have been the kind of political experiment Nikolay Mironov [former head of the Party’s Administrative Organs Department] had in mind as early as 1960. The ‘liberalization’ would be spectacular and impressive. Formal pronouncements might be made about a reduction in the Communist Party’s role; its monopoly would be apparently curtailed. An ostensible separation of powers between legislative, executive, and the judiciary might be introduced. The Supreme Soviet would be given greater apparent power and the president and deputies greater apparent independence.
The posts of President of the Soviet Union and First Secretary of the Party might well be separated. The KGB would be ‘reformed’. Dissidents at home would take up positions of leadership in government. Sakharov might be included in some capacity in government or allowed to teach abroad. The creative arts and cultural and scientific organizations, such as writers’ unions and the Academy of Sciences, would become apparently more independent, as would the trade unions. Political clubs would be opened to non-members of the Communist Party.
Leading dissidents might form one or more alternative political parties. Censorship would be relaxed; controversial books, plays, films, and art would be published, performed and exhibited. Many prominent Soviet performing artists now abroad would return to the Soviet Union and resume their professional careers.
Constitutional amendments would be adopted to guarantee fulfillment of the provisions of the Helsinki agreements and a semblance of compliance would be maintained. There would be greater freedom for the Soviet citizens to travel. Western and United Nations observers would be invited to the Soviet Union to witness the reforms in action.
But, as in the Czechoslovak case, the ‘liberalization’ would be calculated and deceptive in that it would be introduced from above. It would be carried out by the Party through its cells and individual members of government, the Supreme Soviet, the courts, and the electoral machinery and by the KGB through its agents among the intellectuals and scientists…”
Pages 340-342: “The dissident movement is now being prepared for the most important aspect of its strategic role, which will be to persuade the West of the authenticity of Soviet ‘liberalization’ when it comes. Further high-level defectors, or ‘official émigrés’, may well make their appearance in the West before the switch in policy occurs.
The prediction of Soviet compliance with the Helsinki agreements is based on the fact that it was the Warsaw Pact countries and a Soviet [agent of influence] who initiated and pressed for the [negotiations]…
‘Liberalization’ in Eastern Europe would probably involve the return to power in Czechoslovakia of Dubcek and his associates. If it should be extended to East Germany, demolition of the Berlin Wall might even be contemplated…
Western acceptance of the new ‘liberalization’ as genuine would create favorable conditions for the fulfillment of Communist strategy for the United States, Western Europe, and even, perhaps, Japan… Euro-Communism would be revived. The pressure for united fronts between Communist and socialist parties and trade unions at the national and international level would be intensified.
This time, the socialists might finally fall into the trap. United front governments under strong Communist influence might well come to power in France, Italy, and possibly other countries. Elsewhere the fortunes and influence of Communist Parties would be much revived. The bulk of Europe might well turn to left-wing socialism, leaving only a few pockets of conservative resistance.
Pressure could well grow for a solution of the German problem in which some form of confederation between East and West Germany would be combined with neutralization of the whole and a treaty of friendship with the Soviet Union. France and Italy, under united front governments, would throw in their lot with Germany and the Soviet Union. Britain would be confronted with a choice between a neutral Europe and the United States.
NATO could hardly survive this process. The Czechoslovaks, in contrast with their performance in 1968, might well take the initiative, along with the Romanians and Yugoslavs, in proposing (in the Helsinki context) the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in return for the dissolution of NATO.
The disappearance of the Warsaw Pact would have little effect on the coordination of the Communist bloc, but the dissolution of NATO could well mean the departure of American forces from the European continent and a closer European alignment with a ‘liberalized’ Soviet Bloc. Perhaps in the long run, a similar process might affect the relationship between the United States and Japan leading to abrogation of the security pact between them.
The EEC [EU] on present lines, even if enlarged, would not be a barrier to the neutralization of Europe and the withdrawal of American troops. It might even accelerate the process. The acceptance of the EEC by Eurocommunist parties in the 1970s, following a period of opposition in the 1960s, suggests that this view is shared by the communist strategists. The efforts by the Yugoslavs and Romanians to create stronger links with the EEC should be seen, not as inimical to Soviet interests, but as the first step in laying the foundations for the merger between EEC and COMECON. The European Parliament might become an all-European socialist parliament with representation from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. ‘Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals’ would turn out to be a neutral, socialist Europe.
The United States, betrayed by her former European allies, would tend to withdraw into fortress America or, with the few remaining conservative countries, including perhaps Japan, would seek and alliance with China as the only counterweight to Soviet power.”
Page 348: “The timing of the release of the Solidarity leader and the news of the appointment of Adropov confirm… that the ‘liberalization’ will not be limited to the USSR, but will be expanded to Eastern Europe and particularly Poland. The experiment with ‘renewal’ in Poland will be repeated again.
This time, however, it will be with full strategic initiatives and implications against Western Europe and NATO. The appointment of Andropov, the release of the Solidarity leader, and the invitation to the Pope to visit Poland in June 1983, made by the Polish government, all indicate that the Communist strategists are probably planning the re-emergence of Solidarity and the creation of a quasi-social democratic government in Poland (a coalition of the Communist Party, the trade unions, and the churches) and political and economic reforms in the USSR for 1984 and afterward.”
Pages 349-350: “How will the Western German social democrats respond when the Communist regimes begin their ‘liberalization’ by making concessions on human rights, such as easing emigration, granting amnesty for the dissidents, or removing the Berlin Wall? One can expect that the Soviet agents of influence in Western Europe, drawing on these developments, will become more active.
It is more than likely that these cosmetic steps will be taken as genuine by the West and will trigger a reunification and neutralization of Western Germany and further collapse of NATO. The pressure on the United States for concessions on disarmament and accommodation with the Soviets will increase.
During this period there might be an extensive display of the fictional struggle for power in the Soviet leadership. One cannot exclude that at the next Party Congress or earlier, Andropov will be replaced by a younger leader with a more liberal image who will continue the so-called ‘liberalization’ more intensively…
In is not inconceivable that the Soviets will make concessions on Afghanistan in order to gain new strategic advantages.”
Was the Pope a KGB agent as well? He thwarted the Fatima prophesy and said Russia was already consecrated so no need to convert them thus distracting Catholics away from a crusade against the evil empire. I think he and Lech Walesa were in on it. That is why the Commies let the Pope into Poland when we all agree it seemed like suicide for them to do so. Eh?
I have to lean back and concentrate on getting into the gloom mode. Okay, I'm ready to kick some butt.
I don't remember who said that if something happens in a government that it was planned long before the actual occurrence.
"democratised international order."
There is no thing such as the complete collapse or change of a government. The power is just handed over to another group who will continue throwing curve balls to the people.
We see this happen in America when the parties swap seats every few years but the ultimate goal is still on the wall for the leaders to follow.
The only differences I see in governments is that they have different ideas about how to reach the peak of governance, total control of the people and the businesses.
>>"Therefore China is positive towards trilateral cooperation," he said in response to a question about the possibility of the three countries emerging as an "alternative pole in the years to come."
But he said that cooperation and exchanges among the three countries were "by no means an alliance or targeted against any other country." <<
That's where I stopped reading.
I have decided that I am not going to expend any effort whatsoever with being concerned about what happens anywhere except inside the continental United States. I don't give a damn what happens in Korea, Germany, France, Iran, China or anywhere else.
I would bring all our troops home and let the other countries fight it out for themselves. Want to rape and pillage another country, go for it. I won't say a word about it. When the other guys come to kick your ass, don't come to me for help.
The definition of leadership and moral direction changed in America when the NWO was announced. Myself, I don't believe that we can educate the people to recognize what is happening because everything is so gentle and calm.
There isn't any soldiers walking our streets. Nobody is starving where the media can get in and show it on TV. They talk about it but without having pictures the effect is diminished.
Screaming about Terri Schavio won't accomplish a thing when a 14 year old can make the decision on her own to have an abortion and the doctors will obey her wishes. "Kill the life inside of me" "yes, Ma'am, this way please." We'll sell the baby body parts to the highest bidder.
Too many people continue to think that our leaders are just wonderful while I think they are a bunch of corrupt sonsabitches who don't give a damn about what is best for the American people. If you want to re-elect a career politician who has spent the last 20 years trying to get us into the sorry condition position we are now, go ahead and I will fight you every step of the way.
We have Republicans and Democrats who are fighting to be the first to give our national sovereignty to the United Nations by signing treaties with them. Then it becomes 'law' that we obey this international treaty which does nothing except hinder the advancement of the individual states and the American people.
You want to re-elect people like this instead of getting off your ass and marching on your state capitols and/or Washington demanding that politicians sworn Oath of Office must be their single guide, not some goddam treaty with another government in another hemisphere who can't even feed themselves.
I'm not suggesting an armed revolution and killing these politicians, oh no, I want them to pay for their deceptions and deceit by spending the rest of their lives in jail.
The Minutemen have shown what it takes to announce, "If you won't do it properly then get out of my way." Follow their lead and tell your state officials that EPA is nothing more than a control system that stops the advancement of our economy.
Bush can write an Executive Order that would permit oil drilling anywhere on our continent to cure this fuel shortage. By the way I don't think EO's should be available in these times of instant communication, another day for that subject. Why hasn't he written it?
If we want to protect Israel then send some troops over there and do it. Quit farting around with this sick diplomacy from the communist ridden State Department. Announce the next Palestinian caused explosion will result in the obsolescence of all Palestinians.
Begging the UN for permission to go to war? That wouldn't happen under the men I would select to go to Washington. Probably because the UN wouldn't be here to go begging to in the 1st place.
Okay, time for another cup of coffee and another thread.