The ‘August coup’ hoax that legitimized the fake collapse of communism

Moscow. The 19th of August 1991. Boris Yeltsin addresses people from the top of a tank. Photo TASS / Valentin Kuzmin; Alexander Chumichev (Photo by TASS via Getty Images)

By Anatoliy Golitsyn
June 22, 2019 Anno Domini
Excerpt: The Perestroika Deception, pgs. 137-144 (1998)

THE FAKE ‘AUGUST COUP’ AND ITS CALCULATED FAILURE

A deliberately engineered ‘Break with the Past’

Who called the shots in the USSR before the ‘coup’ and who introduced the ‘reforms’? Gorbachev and his ‘liberals’? NO, the Party and its strategists.

Who is calling the shots now and who proposed the coup to replace Gorbachev? The ‘hardliners’, the Minister of Defence and the Chief of the KGB? NO, the Party and its strategists.

The ‘coup’ was proposed in accordance with the requirements of the Soviet strategy of convergence leading to eventual World Government. This strategy and its moves, like the present Soviet ‘coup’, can only be understood in the light of the theories of one of the principal Soviet agents of influence, namely Sakharov, and his timetable for convergence. According to Sakharov, during the first phase the Leninist realists (i.e. Gorbachev and other ‘liberals’) will expand and strengthen ‘democracy’ and economic reform in the USSR and other socialist countries.

As we know, this has already happened.

According to Sakharov, in the second phase the pressure exerted by the Soviet example and by the internal progressive forces would lead to the victory of the Leftist Reformist Wing (the Soviet term for American liberals) which would begin to implement a programme of collaboration and convergence with the USSR on a worldwide scale, entailing changes in the structure of ownership. According to Sakharov, this phase would include an expanded role for the intelligentsia and an attack on the forces of racism and militarism.

We had reached this phase before the war with Iraq. In the assessment of the Soviet strategists, the US victory over Iraq adversely affected the political balance in the United States. In their view, the victory weakened and demoralised the liberals (or Leftist Reformists) and strengthened the centrist and conservative forces and the US military. This disturbed Soviet plans to carry out their strategy of convergence.

They saw that their main political allies in achieving convergence with the United States had been weakened. Accordingly they engineered this strategic ‘coup’ to reverse and improve the political fortunes of their American allies. Seen in strategic terms, the main purpose of Gorbachev’s ‘dismissal’ is further to confuse American opinion and to alter the political landscape in the United States so as to accelerate the progress of the Soviet strategy and to put it back on the rails.

This strategy is a deliberate and coordinated walk towards ultimate victory by advancing first the left leg of action by ‘liberals’, then the right leg of action by ‘hardliners’ and then once more the left leg of action by ‘liberals’. The ‘dismissal’ of Gorbachev is temporary. In earlier Memoranda I predicted a calculated ‘resignation’ by Gorbachev and his eventual return to power.

The ‘coup’ confirms this prediction. According to my analysis, the ‘coup’ is aimed at intensifying American anxieties over the fate of Gorbachev and the other ‘liberals’ and ‘reformists’ in the USSR like Shevardnadze. When these concerns reach their peak, the Soviet strategists’ next move can be expected. They will return Gor- bachev and other ‘liberals’ to power through a campaign of strikes and demonstra- tions organised by the Party.

As the Soviet strategists see it, Gorbachev’s return and the strengthening of the ‘reformists’ in the USSR will also strengthen the American liberals, revive their fortunes and help them win future elections – leading eventually to the convergence of the United States and the USSR. In short, Gorbachev’s return will be a repetition of the device of the suppression of Solidarity in Poland, followed by its victory.

The main purpose of the ‘coup’ is to reverse an unfavourable situation for potential Soviet allies in the United States and to create favourable conditions for the implementation of the convergence strategy. The second objective is to secure the non-violent creation of the new Soviet Federation of Republics. The third objective is to provide any potential adventurers there may be in the Soviet military with a lesson and thereby to eliminate any possibility of a genuine coup in the future.

Moscow, August 20, 1991. Russian President Boris Yeltsin makes communist first salute and speaks at a rally held in support of “democracy”. (Photo by: Sovfoto/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

A FURTHER ANALYSIS OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE SOVIET ‘COUP’

The point has already been made that Gorbachev will be returned to power at the moment when it best serves the Soviet strategy of convergence. Depending on the circumstances prevailing at the appropriate time, he could be returned to power through an election, after a period of other activities .

His alleged removal from power and house arrest are deliberate devices to build up his popularity before such an election. Meanwhile one can expect that the Soviet strategists intend to replace him or to add to his team another ace card, the ‘anti-Communist’ (but, like Gorbachev, protege of Andropov) Boris Yeltsin, leader of the Russian Republic. As the Soviet strategists see it, Gorbachev has exhausted the influence he exerted on their behalf in the West. He was unable to extract more econ- omic aid at the London Summit Meeting and his advice concerning a diplomatic solution to the conflict with Iraq was ignored by President Bush. It is the strategists’ belief that Boris Yeltsin will give greater credibility in the West to Soviet economic and political ‘reform’. He will be in a better position to exploit his influence to extract additional economic aid from the West and, in particular, to obtain from the West a commitment to a new Marshall Plan for Russia.

A Marshall Plan for Russia is one of the primary interim objectives of the Soviet strategists and one that Gorbachev failed to achieve. The strategists expect that Yeltsin will be able to exert greater influence in diplomatic, economic and political relationships and will receive more cooperation in the international arena particularly in the Middle East and at the United Nations. One can expect that the Soviet strategists will come forward with fresh initiatives combined with deliberate provo- cations and crises in order to enhance the role of the United Nations.

They will do this because they regard the United Nations as a stepping stone to a future World Government The Soviet political game and the Soviets’ trickery in ‘manipulating’ politicians like Gorbachev and Y eltsin for W estern public consumption demand more imagination and a better grasp of these machinations from the Bush Administration. For example, to proceed with the appointment of Mr Robert Strauss as the new Ambassador in Moscow is a great mistake because the appointment is being made at a time when the Soviet strategists are deliberately undermining the credit and prestige President Bush gained from his dealings with Gorbachev. They are undercutting the President in favour of their political allies – namely, the American liberals. Nowadays the situation is more serious than it was after the Second World War. President Truman woke up to the nature of Stalin’s mentality, his deeds and his intentions. The Bush Administration, by contrast, has no understanding of Soviet strategy and its ultimate, aggressive, strategic designs against the United States.

Given this situation and the Soviet ‘game plan’, the President, instead of appointing a politician/businessman like Robert Strauss as American Ambassador in Moscow, should consider appointing someone like Richard Helms or General Vernon Walters – that is to say, a professional man and an intelligence expert who might see through the Soviet game plan and help the Administration as General Bedell Smith helped President Truman in 1947.

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 skilfully 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!

Oleg Kalugin, former KGB general, giving a speech after the Russian government forces suppressed the fake August Coup – an attempt by supposed hard-line members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) to take control of the country. Moscow, Russia, on August 20, 1991. (Photo by Wojtek Laski/Getty Images)

Facing a real crisis in Hungary in 1956, the same forces displayed exceptional skill, knowhow 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 accor- dance with Party instructions; and it was the Party and the Komsomol themselves which organised 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 offi- cials 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 democratisation 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 ven- tures 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 reorganise and ‘reform’ the Soviet bureaucracy, the military, the intelligence and counter-intelligence organisations and the diplomatic service, and to give them a new ‘democratic’ image.

The Soviet strategists realise that only with such a new image, implying a ‘Break with the Past’ and severance from Communism, can these organisations be converted into effective weapons for convergence with their counterparts in the United States. A further internal objective is to emphasise 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 ‘defence’ 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-communisation programme, the irrevocable (not cosmetic) prohibition of the Communist Party and Komsomol organisations 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 organisation?’ [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 programme in Germany after the war. Without any such programme, 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 favour of normal, open, civilised 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 theatre 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 East- em Europe – and had to be replaced by new, more attractive, popular symbols.

Moreover these cosmetic changes are logical and were predicted earlier by this ana- lyst. The Soviets realised 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 reorganisation of the Soviet bureau- cracy 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 manoeuvres 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 pur- suit 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 naivete serve only to encourage the Soviet strategists to stage new spectacles more convinced than ever that their strategic designs are realistic.

Leninist Aesopian speech

By Christopher Story
June 19, 2019 Anno Domini
Excerpt: The European Union Collective: Enemy of Its Member States, pg. XXXIX (1997)

Lenin was most exacting of the language and style of agitation and propaganda. He demanded that the language of articles and books should be impeccable…. Before him, history had not known a politician who made such effective use of the spoken word in the interests of the revolutionary transformation of society’ [from ‘Lenin on Language’, Raduga Publishers, Moscow, 1983]. However, typically, Lenin did not encourage such exactitude in order to clarify matters: on the contrary, he was exacting in his use of language in order to obfuscate – and to create a means of communicating with those whom he called ‘the interested’ (the revolutionaries), while still using ordinary, everyday language, to which the Tsarist censors could hardly object. By the use of this dialectical means of communication, which contained hidden meanings, the ‘enemy’ could be charmed, deluded, misled and lied to, while the interested’ could simultaneously be instructed as required by the strategists.

Among vehicles used for the issuance of Kremlin directives, one of the most widely employed outside the ‘former’ Soviet Bloc has been ‘World Marxist Review’, in which language is used with Leninist care. Another crucial source of information on the continuing Revolution is the Russian Foreign Ministry’s journal ‘International

Affairs’, also written in Lenin’s ‘two-faced’ language, which provides detailed continuing insights into Soviet revolutionary policy, tactics, strategy and intentions: if Western analysts were aware of Lenin’s ‘special way of writing’, and were prepared to spend the necessary time reading and analysing ‘International Affairs’, they would be able to acquire Golitsyn-like expertise in interpreting events and predicting the likely course of Soviet tactics or strategy. One reason for Western blindness is ignorance about Lenin’s ‘Aesopian language’.

So the Leninists’ ‘Aesopian language’, alluded to in this work, requires some brief explanation. In the Preface to the Russian Edition of ‘Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism’ [26th April 1917], Lenin wrote: ‘I was not only forced to confine myself strictly to an exclusively theoretical, mainly economic analysis of facts, but to formulate a few necessary observations on politics with extreme caution, by hints, in that Aesopian language – in that cursed Aesopian language – to which Tsarism compelled all revolutionaries to have recourse whenever they took up their pens to write a “legal” work’ [i.e., a work which would not be censored or banned by the Tsarist authorities as illegal -Ed.]. Following this passage, Lenin appended a Note, which reads as follows: “Aesopian”, after the Greek fable writer, Aesop, was the term applied to the allusive and roundabout style adopted in “legal” publications by revolutionaries in order to evade the censorship’.

That this method of communication has been used by the Leninists ever since is obvious from the language of double-meanings used by Gorbachev, Kozyrev and other contemporary Leninists – ‘perestroika’ being the most conspicuous case in point. The Soviets encouraged the West to believe that ‘perestroika’ meant ‘restructuring’, as in ‘restructuring of the economy’; which it did. But ‘perestroika’ also meant something entirely different to ‘the interested’; and its second meaning was quite legitimate: to Gorbachev’s ‘interested’, ‘perestroika’ meant ‘re-formation’, as in ‘military formation’: so that its hidden meaning was ‘we are ‘re-forming’, in order more effectively to prevail over all who are opposed to Communism. That this was the case was made clear by Carl Bloice, the Kremlin correspondent of the CPUSA’s ‘People’s Weekly World’ [see page 62]. Citing Lenin, he wrote in May 1991 that the Soviet Leninists were engaged in ‘drawing back in order to make better preparations for a new offensive’.

Sanhedrin addresses Putin as Jewish king

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin lighting something as part of Jewish ritual at the Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center in Moscow on February 19, 2013, with Russia’s chief rabbi, Berel Lazar (R), attending. ALEXEY DRUZHININ/AFP/Getty Images

By Child of the Immaculata – Apoc. 12:17
June 14, 2019 Anno Domini

“Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday met with a delegation of rabbis, led by Sephardic Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, former Chief Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau, Chief Rabbi of Russia Berel Lazar, and rabbis of the Rabbinical Center of Europe (RCE). Rabbi Yosef began by saying ‘according to the Jewish tradition, your leadership is decided by the kingdom of G-d, King of the world, and therefore we bless you: Blessed is the One who gave of His glory to flesh and blood.”

Putin: ‘I support the struggle of Israel’

The Jewish tradition of royal address

 

Also,
 ‘Putin also spoke out against Holocaust deniers, calling them not only stupid but also shameless.’
Before moving to Russia from the USA, Russian national Iskander Hashim testifies the aforementioned Chief Rabbi of Russia Berel Lazar was in trouble with the police for paedophilia and child pornography (40:04- 41:04.). He also said that Lazar was introduced into Russia by the Head of the KGB in the 1990’s and Putin made him Chief Rabbi in 2000. Also, in an interview Lazar described himself as ‘Putin’s rabbi’, yet Putin is positioning himself as a Christian. (29.35-30:50);
In this context of Lazar’s troubles with the US police, it is worthy of note that Alexander Litvinenko accused Putin of being a paedophile;

Putin and Russian Chief Rabbi Berel Lazar

Chabad leader, Messiah Menachem Mendel Schneerson 1994

“For all these activities paramount for us, we will give monarchy to the Slavic cattle under the guise of ‘democratic transition’. And the more glitter, noise, pump, the better! Monarchy is good in that sense that it directs all the energy of the masses into the whistle. A Monarch will detract attention of the herd from our secret active work on the structuring of the population according to the system, necessary to us. A President is a screen, seemingly elected by a popular vote (and we will forge electoral procedures in such a way that they will seem so that everything would seem legitimate), and we are going to do all our necessary business from behind this screen. The President will be endowed with unlimited powers. Through changes in the top ranks of security agencies, this president will appoint our people to the posts in the security agencies. Army, all the national security agencies, and all sorts of special forces will be directly subordinate to the president. And that means that they will be subordinate to us. We will have in our hands only the strings attached to the hands of the president. And we’ll pull these strings in such a way as it is necessary to the implementation of our grandiose plan of conquering all the tribes and kingdoms, their subordination to our superior nation, chosen by God of Israel.

New York—Moscow—Tel Aviv Triangle


By Jack Bernstein
An American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel (1984 Anno Domini)
Pages 21-25

At this point, you may be confused, Israel and the Soviets are ideological allies – both follow the ideas of Karl Marx, so both are communist/socialist. Yet, the Soviets supplied military equipment to the Arabs—Israel’s enemies; and at the same time, the Soviet Union’s enemy, the United States, was arming Israel.

To understand the treachery which Zionist/ Bolshevik Jews are capable and to understand the treachery which took place before and during the 1973 War, I must explain the New York/ Moscow/Tel Aviv Triangle. To do so, it is necessary to go back a few years in history.

A heavy migration of Jews from Russia to America started in 1831. Most of these were communist Jews. So many of these communist/Bolshevik Jews settled in New York City that New York has been referred to as ‘Moscow on the Hudson.’

It has been pointed out, and with good reason, that decisions regarding communist policies come not from Moscow, but from New York City. Whether this is a fact or not is immaterial. What is important is the fact that there is a close tie between the Zionist/Bolshevik Jews in New York City and the Zionist/ Bolshevik Jews in Moscow, and extending to include the Zionist/Bolshevik Jews who dominate Israel’s government.

A brief look at Israel’s Soviet-derived leadership. (Photo illustration by Jon Swinn.)

The Zionist power over the U.S. Government in Washington, D.C. stems from the Zionist/ Bolsheviks centered in New York City. It is from New York that orders go out to the vast Zionist network all over the U.S. – a network that influences the economic and political affairs of not only our federal government, but nearly all, if not all,state governments, and to a great extent the governments of the larger and even medium sized cities. This power of the Zionist/Bolshevik Jews over the U.S. makes the New York leg of the New York/Moscow/ Tel Aviv Triangle a tremendous influence over communist policies.

In viewing the 1973 War, most people—and it seems most Arabs—are of the impression that since Soviet Russia sold equipment to Egypt and other Arab countries, the Soviets were in support of the Arabs in the 1973 War. This is a false impression. To understand that this is the result of more deceit on the part of Israel and the Soviet Union, you must be aware of the Golda Meir – Stalin/Kaganovich Pact.

Meir

Golda Meir had been born in Russia, grew up in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and in 1921 migrated to Israel. In 1949, Golda Meir became Israel’s first ambassador to the Soviet Union.

Representing Israel, Ambassador Golda Meir, a Bolshevik Jewess, met with two representatives of the Soviet Union: Kaganovich, a Bolshevik Jew, and Stalin, who had married a Bolshevik Jewess. They made a secret agreement—a pact.

Israel’s part of the pact was:

1. Israel would not allow any Western country, especially the U.S., to build military bases on Israeli territory.

2. Israel would allow an official communist party to function freely in Israel.

3. Israel would not make any agreement to solve the Palestinian problem.

4. Israel would influence world Jewry, especially in the U.S. to have Western powers adopt a policy of favoring Israel over the Arabs.

5. Israel was to continue its Marxist economic policies and prevent any free-enterprise tendencies.

Soviet Union’s part of the pact was:

1. The Soviets would institute a pro-Arab policy solely as a camouflage for its true intentions, which was to furnish aid to the Arabs, but never enough to enable the Arabs to destroy Israel.

2. The Soviets would open the gates of Soviet satellite countries to Jewish immigration to Israel. Should this be insufficient, Soviet Russia then would open its own gates to emigration.

3. The Soviets would absolutely guarantee the security of Israel.
** Both the Soviet Union and Israel would exchange intelligence reports.

From the terms of this pact, you can see it was, and still is, the aim of the Soviet Union and Zionist/Marxist Israel to prevent peace between the Arab countries and Israel until all the Arab countries are forced to adopt socialism under Soviet leadership.

In the conduct of the 1973 War, you can see part of this deceitful agreement being utilized, in particular, the part about the Soviet Union helping the Arabs – but not helping enough to defeat Israel.

In planning the 1967 War, Israel was aware that the Arab countries bordering Israel were buying equipment from the Soviets, an Israeli ally. But, because of the Golda Meir – Stalin/Kaganovlch Pact, Israeli leaders knew the Soviets would not help the Arabs enough to defeat Israel—that the aid the Soviets were giving the Arabs was only ‘bait’ to draw the Arab countries into the Soviet trap. Also, Israeli leaders knew that their American Zionist brethren were making sure the U.S. government was supplying enough arms to stop the Arabs; and would send more equipment, even troops if necessary.

When the 1973 War started, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Iraq surprised Israel with their improved fighting capability.

Moscow General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU Leonid Brezhnev meets President of Egypt Anvar al-Sadat in the airport in 1972. Photo TASS / Valentin Mastyukov; Alexei Stuzhin (Photo by TASS via Getty Images)

The Egyptian Army faced what would seem an impossible task in its attempt to penetrate Israeli territory.

First, there was the water barrier, the Suez Canal, to cross. Then, they would face a high wall of sand and fine dust which was erected by Israel. Behind that wall was a third barrier—a line of Israeli fortifications. These fortifications were stronger than the Maginot Line erected by France before World War II to stop any German invasion of France.

Yet, by ingenuity, the Egyptian Army crossed the Suez Canal, went over the sand and dust barrier and broke through the heavy fortifications in a matter of a few hours.

Israel was in trouble; the Arabs were winning the war.

But, as pre-planned – If necessary, the U.S. airlifted huge amounts of military equipment and supplies to Israel and, as I mentioned before, the U.S. Airborne Division at Ft. Bragg, N.C. and U.S. troops stationed in Germany were placed on alert and would have been sent to help the Israeli forces if it became necessary to help Israel win the war. Fortunately for America, American troops weren’t needed to help Israel survive. The additional arms were enough. However, the Arab forces were strong enough to stop Israel from taking over more Arab land. In fact, Egypt was able to take back part of the Sinai.

Egypt’s president Sadat realized that the Soviets had no intention of helping the Arabs win the war; that the Soviets in selling them some equipment were only trying to trap Egypt in the Soviet net. So, Sadat kicked Soviet military advisors and civilian technicians out of Egypt.

Hungary’s ‘nationalist’ PM Viktor Orbán nothing but a commie plant

A fire worker controls the temporary pedestal, as activists and sympathizers of Hungarian ‘Szolidaritas’ Movement pull their ropes to break down their plastic statue of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, representing the former Soviet communist dictator Stalin, in Budapest on September 29, 2013 during their anti-government demonstration to protest against the financial and economic policy of Orban’s government. (ATTILA KISBENEDEK/AFP/Getty Images)

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
April 24, 2019 Anno Domini

The Soviet Trust model of using controlled opposition to trap anti-communists and conservatives is still in use today.

Look no further than Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who has successfully fooled Western (and Eastern) conservatives into believing that he and a clique of so called Eastern nationalists, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, are genuine conservatives trying to save the world from the globalists and the evil West. It seems Orban’s anti-immigration policy has been the main driver in affirming this carefully crafted ruse.

Unfortunately, Orban and other East Bloc nations’ anti-immigration policies are not about saving Europe and conservatives but about preserving stability within the Soviet Bloc nations as they reform and about pushing more migrants to Western Europe, which is the primary target of the Soviet Kalergi plan of migration destabilization. When Hungary was officially communist, under János Kádár, immigration was greatly restricted, so Orban’s policy on immigration is essentially the same as it was in Red Hungary.

No one seems to be asking how these Soviet Bloc nations with membership in the European Union are able to maintain membership whilst going against E.U. directives like unfettered immigration. The answer can only be that the Kremlin has cut a deal to keep its satellites free of the migration agenda, thus empowering the satellites while its Western European neighbours disintegrate. That or the European Union has become the victim of nuclear blackmail and has no choice but to let the Kremlin and its satellites do what they like. Of course, the E.U. is full of communist saboteurs, so whatever scenario, it’s not hard to believe.

Soviet analyst Max Moritz writes,

“Orbán’s attacks against Brussels, against George Soros, and certainly against immigration are more than just bombastic spectacle. Hungary, which formed in February 1991 together with Poland and then-Czechoslovakia, the so-called Visegrád Group, is seamlessly pursuing, like its meanwhile three good old socialist brother states (that include Slovakia), an unchanged East Bloc policy, which in the new situation is designed to make sure that these countries only benefit from their membership in the European Union.

Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orban and Polish ruling party leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski, are depicted as secret communists during anti-government parade that walked through the streets of Krakow, Poland on 14 April, 2019. (Photo by Beata Zawrzel/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

“Their (Hungary, Poland, etc.) behaviour during the 2015 so-called “refugee crisis” gave these four countries completely away, as they outright refused (and still refuse) to take any significant numbers of people in. In other words, they do not regard themselves as part of the E.U. or the West at all! Given the fact that this immense wave of migration (that hasn’t stopped even now) represents a clandestine Russian operation aimed at destabilising Western Europe, and Western Europe only, it becomes clear that these unchanged East-bloc countries, based on their fictitious nationalism, won’t allow these people from Africa and Asia in. After all, the migration crisis is designed to hit solely the West! And: They are, under whatever pretext, silently or not so silently leaving the EU, not formally, but factually, moving back into the same East-European communist sphere they came from!,” says Moritz.

Orban is accused of being a communist informant during the 1980s when Hungary was openly communist. It seems the Kremlin set him up in a Soviet Trust model from the beginning—bringing him to fame as a (fake) anti-Communist, which resulted in ensnaring legitimate anti-communists and conservatives and, thereby, controlling legitimate anti-communistm in the country, thus allowing the continuance of the rebranded communist regime.

“…since coming into office in Hungary’s 2010 general elections, he (Orban) has faced frequent accusations both at home and abroad of emulating the authoritarian practices he once opposed.” (Source)

Orban’s role as a fake anti-communist also appears to have helped facilitate the grand deception of the global collapse of communism in the 1990s, with Hungary being part of a carefully laid out plan to conveniently allow the world’s media to have cameras ready to roll as one regime appeared to fall after another, in successive order. Now he is the Prime Minister of the country, whose anxious populace view him as a stooge of Putin and the Kremlin. This is unsurprising, as Orban is surrounded by “former” communist advisors. Some of Orban’s critics see him as using the exact same playbook used by Kádár. Critics also accuse Poland’s Jarosław Kaczyński (pictured above as a crypto-Communist alongside Orban) of using the playbook from Communist Poland, which is similar to Kádár’s. They are similar because they come from the same source, the COMINTERN at the Kremlin.

MOSCOW, RUSSIA – JANUARY 31: Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) receives Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban (C) in the Kremlin on January 31, 2013 in Moscow, Russia. Orban is on a one-day visit to Russia. (Photo by Sasha Mordovets/Getty Images)

When it became public in 2015 that Orban was part of the Soviet Trust honeypot, he was called to appear before a parliamentary national security committee—to which he refused, calling it “absurd and ridiculous”.

Orban and Hungary are not the only ones running this fake opposition Soviet Trust. The same could be said for Poland and other “former” Soviet bloc nations also blocking E.U. immigration directives. So, while these Soviet Bloc nations continue to fool Western conservatives and anti-communists alike that Russia and its satellites have reformed to capitalism and conservative values, Western Europe and America continue to cripple under the weight of Soviet destabilization measures like the Kalergi plan and cultural Marxism. Meanwhile, said Soviet Bloc nations continue to draw on European Union coffers. What a swindle!

 

Vancouver one giant Trump Tower, Soviet Chabad laundro-mansion

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
Jan. 19, 2019 Anno Domini

If we take Trump Tower to mean a place where Sino-Soviet oligarchs can launder their blood-soaked cash, consider Vancouver to be the biggest.

It is one of the most Soviet-penetrated ports in the Western world: Vancouver, the gem city on Canada’s West coast—a once beautiful city now plagued with rampant drug addiction, homelessness, and massive displacement of the European-derived indigenous population, largely due to one of the most inflated housing bubbles in human history. Things are so bad in Vancouver, Vancouver’s heroin-fentanyl-riddled downtown Eastside has become infamous around the world.

Seemingly bewildered civic and national officials continue to fail to find a solution to “the Vancouver model“. But that’s because they fail to identify the root of the problem, which is now out in the open for any non-ostrich to see.

The root of the problem is the Soviet narcotics offensive, with much of Vancouver’s drugs coming from Communist China’s Golden Triangle region, and Sino-Soviet money laundering, which involves the KGB (now FSB), Chinese intelligence, and the Sino-Soviet-Semitic international organized crime syndicate, including Chabad Lubavitch. The Chabad mafia just happens to have a large presence in Vancouver, with at least half a dozen operations in the city.

The provincial government, the socialist BCNDP, has been forced to admit that money laundering is largely responsible for the city’s problem, but they won’t develop this explanation to its necessary conclusion, which is that Vancouver’s problems are by design and part of a long-range Leninist Soviet strategy to destabilize the West. Get the indigenous population, especially its youth, hooked on and killed by drugs, thereby reducing the white, Western population; flood the real-estate market with laundered Soviet cash, much of which is the proceeds from Red narco-terrorism; use the effective housing inflation to drive out the local population; and, finally, increase Chinese-Korean migration to insure against any relapse of said displacement.

This same plot is taking place in several places in the Western world. In California’s Silicon Valley, for example, the exact same thing is happening.

Instead of admitting the root of the problem, Canadian officials ignore any discussion of the matter and, instead, attempt to curb these Soviet active measures by imposing ineffective across-the-board housing taxes on foreign buyers and absentee landlords. They don’t seem to understand that this Soviet plot is not about money. The Soviets don’t care about taxes. They are willing to take loses in order to ensure the advancement of their strategies. It was the Chinese communists, after all, who greatly subsidized the cost of heroin to American soldiers during the Vietnam intervention, as an effective means of destabilizing America’s armed forced. Therefore, Canadian officials need to focus on, at the very least, banning foreign buyers all together, including identifying and stopping the many shell games that Soviet agents like to use in anonymously laundering cash through real estate.

Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou.

Many Sino-Soviet elites, like Communist-controlled Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou, own estates in Vancouver’s posh mansion district Shaughnessy, where you will find some completely empty mansions. Wanzhou’s estate mysteriously seems to be in a perpetual state of renovation, like others. These are, effectively, Soviet laundro-mansions. Shaughnessy, which is located very close to the Chabad district of Vancouver, is a microcosm of the macrocosmic Soviet active measure throughout all of Vancouver, Silicon Valley, and in other places in the West. So, too, is Vancouver’s Trump Tower (Toronto, where the same housing bubble exists, also has a mobbed-up Trump Tower). Real estate seems to be the primary instrument through which gangsters and gangster-run governments, like in Marxist Russia, China, and Israel, launder their money.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, a devoted Marxist  and son to suspected KGB asset and former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau, has done absolutely nothing thus far. Until Canada’s elected officials grow a collective set of functioning gonads and identify the problem, this Soviet penetration is only going to deepen and wreak havoc on Canada.

The Kremlin directs the anti-Zionist movement on behalf of Israel

Soviet-created anti-Zionist leaflets dropped in Syria depict Israel and the “evil West” running ISIS, as propaganda to agitate the Muslims against West and into Communist hands.

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
Jan. 14, 2019 Anno Domini

Realizing the truth of the Perestroika deception has changed our understanding of the entire geopolitical game significantly.

This rare knowledge, brought to us by brave souls like Anatoliy Golitsyn, has made everything clearer. We can now see the full scope of Jewish power today in a world swarming with disinformation and controlled opposition.

If Jewish Bolshevik power never left Russia but remained and, as one of its objectives, created and groomed Israel as a Soviet satellite, is it reasonable to assume that the infamous Elders of Zion—the Kahal— are based in Moscow and not Tel Aviv?

Remember that Jewry once used England as its base of operations, thanks to traitors like Oliver Cromwell, and it appears that not long after Judaic ‘Brit’ain helped found the masonic republic of the United States of America, Jewry set its sights on the Holy Russian Empire, not only to eradicate Christian monarchy but also to set up a base of operations for its international super government.

And if the Chosenite base of operations resides in the Lubyanka, whether through its international crime syndicate Chabad Lubavitch, the POLITBURO, or the still-functioning COMINTERN, it can only be reasonable to assume that its Balkanization plan for the Middle East, commonly known as the Oded Yinon Plan, is also directed from Russia. What’s more, the Yinon Plan seems to serve as a model for a global Balkanization scheme, which is nothing more than old Soviet expansionism, with Eurasian-led global collectivism as the ultimate goal.

Well, as it happens, Russia has a long history of fomenting anti-Zionist agitation, especially in the Arab world. When they aren’t dropping leaflets from planes over Syria with cartoons of America and Israel puppeteering ISIS, the crypto-Soviet empire of Russia is directing almost every single liberation organization (color revolutions) in the Arab world and even in the West. These liberation organizations—like the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), for example—have been telling Muslims for decades that they must rise up against the great Zionist power and its Western backers America. Israel and the West are the great Satan, the rhetoric goes. This is an awfully convenient narrative for anti-Western communist expansionist aspirations, isn’t it? In the West, the KGB-run Irish Republican Army (IRA) is anti-Zionist and even overtly Marxist, as was the violent FLQ separatist group in Quebec, Canada. The continuity is all there: “liberation”, anti-Zionism, and Marxism. Yet no one of prominence seems to make these obvious connections. Of course, these liberation fronts are all about “liberating” said nations expressly so that they can be gobbled up by Soviet expansion.

This Soviet agitation of the Muslim world achieves several key goals for Jewish world imperium:

1. It makes possible the potential for creating Islamic terrorism, which can then be used in false flag attacks around the world, not just in Islamic countries. This terrorist threat can be exported to virtually any Soviet satellite or through its criminal network in the West—all the more so when Israel and double agents within Western intelligence are providing cover for the export. With authentic terrorist attacks, it serves by keeping the Jewish people (at home and abroad) in a constant state of fear and in subjugation to their Pharisaic Jewish leaders (as the Protocols of Zion presciently revealed over 100 years ago, “Their anti-Semitism is indispensible to us for the management of our lesser brethren”). The wave of modern terrorism also has the benefit of providing a pretext for Western countries to bring in oppressive police measures on the general population (this also benefits the technocracy aspect of Jewish global conquest: non-stop surveillance, smart grid, environmentalism [also Soviet controlled], etc.)

2. By linking the West to Jewish oppression of the Arab world, the West is discredited and demonized to the Arab world, leaving Muslims sympathetic to Soviet expansionism in the Arab world (Arab oil, among other things) and in the West (including in Ukraine and Europe). This demonization of the West only fuels more indignant Muslim radicals to commit terrorism and/or join Russo-Judeo-controlled false flag capers like ISIS, Al Qaeda, ISIL, etc. in Western countries. 

3. To moderate Muslims, Soviet agitation pits them against the West and even their own Arab leaders (who are mostly KGB assets, like Assad in Syria), because Soviet propaganda has moderates believing that Israel and the West are behind Jihadist groups, which is partially true. Essentially, this is the driving force behind the Balkanization of the Arab world: moderates against radicals, radicals against the West and Israel, moderates and radicals against their own government—just constant infighting. That’s been the Russian-Jewish strategy since Israel was founded in 1948 (Israel’s legitimacy was first officially recognized by the Soviet Union).

4. Finally, with this constant fracturing and splintering of Islamic states, displaced Muslims are left fleeing to the West, which furthers the Russo-Judeo Kalergi plan of diluting white, Western, Christian nations with Muslims, blacks, Asians, etc. in order to create a massive mongrel slave class—primed for a technocratic Orwellian clamp down. Western liberals, who should be more opposed to Islamic immigration than anyone (due to Sharia), have been tricked into supporting the Islamic invasion of the West because they perceive Israeli oppression of the Islamic world as being part of British-American colonialism, which they hate far more than Sharia law. Colonialism, however liberals perceive it, is considered the greatest evil in history. Therefore, they feel a sense of guilt and sympathy to the perceived plight of the Islamic world. This Leftist perception did not come about by accident. It was planned this way. Now, Leftists are falling for the gambit and cheerleading the Kalergi plan.

5. The perception of Russia as the anti-Zionist hero of the Middle East and as an Orthodox Christian ethno state serves the final goal of hoodwinking the last bastion of opposition to global communism: Western nationalists/conservatives. Win them over and it’s game over. This is where we are at today. Putinist Russia and the Trump regime are all about streamling conservative/nationalist sentiment into communist hands in Russia. The Western Left is already Marxist; all that is left is to honeypot conservatives and anti-communists. This goal is almost a done deal, as most in the alt media and in the nationalist cause are pro-Russia, pro-Trump. What the Jewry does next remains to be seen.

Hopefully by now, you can see how both Russia and Israel benefit from anti-Zionism. Anti-Zionism does not hurt Israel. It only plays into Jewry’s hands. Russia plays the good cop while Israel plays the bad cop. The bad cop pushes the Arab world into the seemingly loving arms of the good cop. 

Another benefit of running and controlling the global anti-Zionist movement is that Jewry gets to homogenize their opposition into a smaller, more manageable “opponent”. How many individuals seeking the truth on the Jewish question have been derailed and suckered into becoming anti-Zionist activists? Plenty. Was Rachel Corrie’s death really heroic? Zionism itself has little to do with the age-old Jewish question. The Jewish problem has been around a lot longer than the state of Israel has. In this way, anti-Zionism serves as a distraction.  Kremlin organs like Zerohedge and Russia Insider facilitate this same homogenization scheme but using a slightly harsher tone than anti-Zionism (I wrote an article about this using Russia Insider as an example). It seems that these organs rarely ever cast Israel or Jews in a negative light without first implicating the West.

Ultimately, Zionism serves Jewry by allowing it to control its opposition, its own people (at home and abroad), as well as Christian Zionists, and allows Russia to control the Arab world. Control of the Arab world gives Russia, in cooperation with China, the resources it needs to economically and genetically overthrow the West and helps it to water down and weed out opponents to world Jewish collectivism.

Pat Buchanan and Right either misled on Russia or controlled opposition

Pat Buchanan

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
Dec. 5, 2018 Anno Domini

As a second response to Father Michael Ruskin’s comments regarding my open letter The Russia Deception of Western Nationalists and the Church, let me start off by saying that Pat Buchanan is no competent analyst of geo-political affairs. 

He has demonstrated this repeatedly, whether it’s ignoring the International Jewish elephant in the room or falling for long-range Soviet deceptions like Perestroika and Glasnost. His is nothing more than kosher konservatism in the spirit of Lenin’s Soviet Trust “monarchist” leagues honeypots. 

Father Ruskin quotes Buchanan, “…Russia’s regime is no longer Communist. The ideology that drove its imperialism is dead.”

OK, Pat, I’ll agree with your first statement, partially. Sure, Russia is no longer “Communist”. It’s actually far worse than 1940s communist USSR, because now it uses far more sophisticated psychological propaganda (like hypernormalization) and has the technology to enforce it in a beyond-Orwellian fashion. Therefore, it’s a hybridized communism that appears democratic, as Golitsyn repeatedly warned us (Has Buchanan ever even read Golitsyn’s work?) As for his second statement, where does he conjure up that the ideology behind its imperialism is dead? Clearly, Buchanan, like most of the Western world, has fallen for the Perestroika Deception. Pat must have a miniature replica of the broken Berlin Wall on his mantlepiece. News for you, Pat. That was a staged incident designed to legitimize one of the greatest deceptions of our time.

“‘Perestroika’ is a great trap of the dark powers. They are preparing something new and more terrible. Russia is standing on the threshold of the Antichrist.” —Hieroconfessor Archimandrite Nektary (Chernobyl)

Someone please tell Buchanan that his failed 1980s analytical template is long due for an overhaul. Or perhaps he has no template but is just taking orders from the Soviet-infested establishment Right. Is he not also a diehard supporter of Jewish-Russian-controlled Trump, the biggest fake conservative  on the planet?

As for God’s work in Russia, we know that it’s taking place regardless of the Soviet-led Moscow Patriarchate and fake Christian Putin. That is what St. Tikhon’s Catacomb Church system was all about—keeping the true faith alive amongst the state-sanctioned presence of the anti-Christ Moscow Patriarchate. This is another area where it appears Buchanan, a so called Catholic, has no clue. If you want to understand the Eastern geo-political situation, you have to know about the complex Church history there, which includes the Catacomb Church or the Russian Church Abroad (colloquially known as ROCOR).

St. Philaret of New York addressed the situation thus:

“And here is something to which I would like to draw your attention to – something about which very many do not think about. Father Archimandrite Constantine, whom probably many of you know, the reposed editor of the journal “Orthodox Rus’”, a profound Christian mind, considered that the most terrible among all the achievements of the communists was that the communists created their own false-church, a soviet church which they shoved onto the unfortunate people in place of the genuine Church which went underground into the catacombs. Do not think that I am exaggerating or that Father Constantine was exaggerating!”

Regarding Father Ruskin’s acceptance of Putin’s mere words, Putin can trash talk communism all he wants. Talk is cheap. It means nothing to those who can see what is really taking place. Putin talks out both sides of his mouth, like all politicians do. They are all liars and deceivers.

“Russia is allowing for Christianity to affect the nation’s conscience,” Ruskin said.

The Kremlin is allowing a bastardized form of Orthodox Christianity to affect the nation’s cohesion…for the sake of geo-political strategy…and demoralization. This is also why homosexuality and feminism are restricted in Russia—not because they are immoral but because they have a detrimental effect on national unity and military camaraderie. In short, the crypto-Communists in Russia are using the vestiges of church and morality as a means to an end (Golitsyn also predicted this)—to foment their national Bolshevik aspirations, which will then be used to lead a Eurasianist world empire.

Heretics embrace: “Pope” Francis and Moscow Patriarch Kirill.

Ruskin goes on to question how I can condemn Russia while the West legislates overtly anti-God laws. Further to what I stated in the previous paragraph, it turns out that Russia actually has validated its first gay marriage. As far as the Vatican II conciliar Church and the Anglican Church are concerned, who do you think it is that is “dialoguing” with said homosexualized churches? None other than Tobacco Metropolitan Kirill and his Soviet Moscow Patriarchate.

“What does the claim Russia is deceiving Christians in the West actually mean? It’s a nothing-burger,” Ruskin writes.

How is it a nothing burger when it appears that most Western conservatives and Christians are so deceived about Putinist Russia that they would seemingly support a full-scale Russian invasion of America and the “evil” West? These sheep are now flocking to Russia in hopes of finding a white, Christian paradise. Good luck in multi-cultural Sharia Russia. They will be disappointed. Hopefully, those expats already living there have realized that Russia is not the land of milk and honey they thought it would be. 

There is no reason to believe that either Kirill or Putin have repented of communism. For every seemingly anti-communist rhetorical statement from either of the two, I could find ten pro-communist statements and pro-communist manoeuvres. Don’t let confirmation bias convince you otherwise.

As for Soviet-infiltrated NATO, former Secretary General of NATO Anders Fogh Rasmussen recently began working for a Russia-affiliated bank. Why, the current NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, has a KGB past! It’s pretty obvious now that NATO is completely useless in terms of its original purpose. Why would NATO need to overthrow Ukraine’s so called president when NATO and the globalists are pursuing the same goals? It’s all theatre now, to make is think we have a choice and stand on one side. Pretty much every world power is in cahoots with all the others. That’s how the game works now. Nation states are long over. Now it is merely the world state, with the odd scuffle over who gets to lead it. Seeing as Russia was the pioneer of communism, it feels that it has the right to lead the world communist government that is forming before our eyes. 

Tell me, how do you know Poroshenko is a CIA asset? The only source I have seen for this claim is Russian mainstream media, which has a long history of blaming their crimes on the West and its intelligence establishment. I am not saying he isn’t an asset, but we shouldn’t assume that the Russian mainstream media is telling us the truth. And the alternative media is no better, as it is generally pro-Russia and infiltrated by Russian trolls.

Ruskin said, “Putin merely helped the people of Crimea defend themselves against that overthrow.”

How do you know this? Again, it appears this is just regurgitated rhetoric from Kremlin state-controlled mainstream media. The same people are telling us that the Holodomor never happened and that Stalin was much nicer to prisoners than we are led to believe.

“Finally, you posted a picture of a Communist, perhaps from the 1930’s, secreted in a church and snaring a Russian civilian who was outside. The unfair implication is that this is happening now. Would it be any more truthful if you had shown another picture of a paedophile priest inside a Roman Catholic church, busily snaring a child who was in the vicinity? I think not.”

First of all, I am not Catholic. If you read under that picture, I wrote a description of that Soviet propaganda art suggesting it has dual meaning. On the one hand, the Soviets are saying that Christianity is a snare for the gullible. On the other hand, they could be admitting, cryptically, that their Soviet-controlled Moscow Patriarchate is really the snare. Remember, Satanists have a history of bragging about their crimes in plain sight (it’s called “revelation of the method”). This macabre twist serves to demoralize the victim and empower the Satanists.

It’s important to realize that part of the Leninist strategy is to gain the trust and participation of nationalists and Western conservatives. To achieve this, the communists have to pretend to be nationalists and conservatives. That’s where we are today and one of the reasons Trump was selected by the establishment as president. He is a Judas Goat type rounding up all resisters to the NWO world takeover and there to discredit the last shred of credibility the Right had. What’s more, he was sent in to divide the populist. Divide and conquer.

JFK’s 3D chess, CIA anti-communism

Joseph Kennedy and son U.S. President John F. Kennedy.

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
Dec. 4, 2018 Anno Domini

Unlike Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, pretend players at the table of three-dimensional chess, Joseph P. Kennedy and his son John were truly playing the game.

A good example of this is in the brilliantly crafted public relations campaign that Papa Joseph came up with in order to trick the Jews into supporting his son as president: “Kikes for Kennedy, Nazis for Nixon”—even though Joseph and Jack had a plan to undermine Jewish power in the world. The gambit paid off, as Jack would go on to win the U.S. Presidential election in 1960, with a great deal of support from the Jewish community and the masonic establishment. Granted, the power structure was probably still nervous about what Jack would actually do.

It also seems that the civil rights movement that JFK championed was another attempt at 3D-chess; however, in retrospect, this went too far, as it contributed to the Soviet plan of demoralizing the United States—to the point that it has spawned the Cultural Marxist thought-police state we are in today. While it may have worked in the short-term for JFK, it was a huge mistake for the West in general. It also didn’t help JFK’s image to the intelligence community when he attempted to thwart anti-communist war efforts (Vietnam, Cuba, etc.). I have a difficult time seeing a tangible 3-D chess strategy in such manoeuvres and can certainly sympathize with the Western intelligence community’s perception of JFK as a communist saboteur of sorts.

While I don’t believe JFK was a secret communist trying to sabotage Western war efforts, I struggle to find clarity in much of his foreign policy. Perhaps JFK and his father saw the wars as serving as an overall drain on resources and attention—which could otherwise be diverted back to undermining Jewish power and the Rothschild war dialectic. If this could confuse an analyst in 2018, how much more could it do the same to the intelligence and military analysts of the 1960s? JFK should have committed to Vietnam and definitely a Cuba intervention (Cuba went on to serve as a major Soviet narcotics trafficking point and revolutionary bully in South America as a result of a failed Western intervention during the Bay of Pigs and Cuban missile crisis. The failure also contributed to the mess in Nicaragua, Panama, and Mexico. Vietnam is also a key player in the Soviet narcotics network.). On the other hand, perhaps America really never stood a chance in Southeast Asia and Kennedy saw this. The Rothschild war machine wanted the dialectic to continue while Kennedy wanted to end the waste of resources and lives.

Israel orchestrated the assassination of John F. Kennedy, as the late Michael Collins Piper and others have hypothesized, with the participation of Soviet-compromised Western intelligence, specifically the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. military intelligence, and, of course, other players. If anything, Israel (and probably the USSR) did a good job of leading Western intelligence into believing that their participation in the murder of Kennedy would further the anti-communist cause (keep in mind that Western intelligence had already been heavily infiltrated by the communists by this time). Kennedy was in a no-win situation. Apparently, his 3-D chess had backfired and provoked his backers to turn on him, with Russia and World Jewry the sole beneficiaries of the fallout. The assassination of Kennedy did not stop the communist subversion of the West but, instead, furthered it, primarily by dividing the West and guaranteeing Israel and Russia complete dominance in the Middle East (Kennedy apparently worked to protect the Arab countries from Judeo-Marxist subversion). After JFK’s departure from this planet, the Arab world would undergo a radical Marxist transformation that has served Israel’s interest of divide-and-conquer as well as World Jewry’s Kalergi plan of flooding the West with subsequently displaced Muslims.

The Putinists cry about how NATO supposedly has guns pointing at Russia from all sides; meanwhile, the crypto Soviet Union has satellites surrounding all of the Western powers, especially the United States. And with Great Britain now exiting the European Union, Russia now has their satellite Germany—the largest economy in Europe—as the sole inheritor of Eurasian directorship. JFK’s death allowed all of this to happen.

Makow’s Russian source seems credible

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
Nov. 16, 2018 Anno Domini

It’s important when vetting Russian defectors to approach them systematically rather than emotionally. Finding corroborating evidence from multiple sources is key.

The reason for this is not only because Soviet defectors can be wrong but because the Kremlin has a history of carrying out counter-intelligence using fake defectors, as a means of discrediting legitimate defectors and misleading the Kremlin’s enemies.

In the case of Henry Makow’s alleged Russian source (posted to his website Nov. 13, 2018), this defector, or insider, seems credible. There is little doubt that the Kremlin’s manipulation of Trump involves “kompromat”, specifically sexual compromise, as I have thoroughly documented in my series Trump Controlled By Mossad. (At the time I wrote that series, except for perhaps parts IV and V, I wasn’t aware that the Kremlin and Israel are joined at the hip. I am open minded. So, when I came across information contradicting the standard so called patriot/conservative narrative of geo-politics, I gave it an honest hearing and quickly adopted a revised position.) Where I might disagree with Makow’s source is in his verbage. Trump is a Kremlin asset, for sure. His personal and financial instability makes him all the more easy to blackmail and control.

Makow prefaced this article with “They regard him (Trump) as unstable and unreliable. But it does describe a kind of collusion. So what? Why shouldn’t Russia support a pro-peace candidate?” Trump does what he is told. If he appears to be pro-peace, it’s only because his masters have not mandated war. I also disagree with Makow calling disinformation the defector saying “Putin attributes anti-Russian agitation in the US to “right-wing groups”. Since the source doesn’t specify which right-wing groups, we can only assume that he means the truly awakened patriots who know that the Kremlin is pursuing a world communistic agenda—in which case, the source, again, is correct. Makow appears mistakenly to believe that the Left’s cheap and shallow so called anti-Russianism is to what the defector was referring. Evidently, the defector knows that the Left’s perceived anti-Russianism is phoney and empty. The American Left’s superficial opposition to Russia is based mainly on a caricature of Putin alone. They perceive him as a fascist, not as the crypto-communist that he is. As for George Soros, the billionaire is a Soviet agent. All this talk of Nazi-collaborating and the American Left is a distraction.

The defector’s second contention is that Wikileaks is controlled by Russia’s SVR. Again, this is a more-than-plausible argument. For a while, I and several others have been warning people that Wikileaks is an Israeli psyop. Wikileaks is either soft on or completely ignores issues related to both Israel and Russia, especially neo-Russian communism. However, after having learned that Soviet Jewry and Israeli Jewry—which control both Israel and Russia—are one and the same entity, it makes more sense that Wikileaks is a joint Russian-Israeli operation, with Russian institutions being the actual base of operations due to Russia’s well documented massive Internet psych warfare agenda. Unfortunately, the defector doesn’t go beyond Wikileaks in exposing Russian psych warfare operations. It’s clear that there are many more, including Guccifer 2.0, Qanon, and, probably, Edward Snowden.

The defector seems to say that the CIA was trying to thwart Putin’s support of Trump by arranging for the assassination of one of Putin’s drivers, which was a warning to Putin to abandon his pursuit of Trump. It’s possible. If true, it’s unclear what the CIA’s motives would have been. Were they sincerely concerned about having a Kremlin puppet as U.S. president or were they acting on behalf of the Democrats? Perhaps there were other reasons. We will probably never know.

What’s also credible and extremely important is the defector’s allegation that Trump is indebted to Russian and European banks. It’s well know that Trump is not a self-made man and was heavily bankrupt. This makes him even more vulnerable to kompromat, as if the sexual stuff weren’t enough.

The defector’s last allegation, that Melania wants a divorce but can’t because of how it would affect Trump’s presidency, is very probable. Trump is a pig. What decent woman would want to remain married to him?

As this evil system continues to squeeze the populace, you can bet that there will be many more defectors rising up and declaring the truth. But we must be on guard, as there will be fake ones, too.