Pacepa’s misreading of Operation SIG

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
August 28, 2019 Anno Domini

Soviet Romanian defector Ion Mihai Pacepa’s message to the world is a simplistic narrative of the Soviet Union pursuing a campaign to destroy Israel and the Jews, but it’s unclear why.

Soviet anti-Semitism as state policy is a decades-old myth that can only be Jewish disinformation itself, as it serves to distance the Jewish elite and the State of Israel from communism and its controlling organs in Russia and the East Bloc, thus protecting the hidden core of anti-Christ Jewish power in the world.

Operation SIG (Jewish-controlled government), a 1970s KGB plan to control the Middle East through conflict, seems to be a real KGB operation, as it is paralleled by known Israeli strategies like the Oded Yinon Plan (1982). It calls for perpetual conflict through Balkanizing the Arab world by arming and financing warring factions, including against Israel itself. Several Israeli dissidents, like Jack Bernstein and Victor Ostrovsky, corroborate Yinon’s prescriptions. For example, Ostrovsky writes in his book The Other Side of Deception, 

“Supporting the radical elements of Muslim fundamentalism sat well with the Mossad’s general plan for the region. An Arab world run by fundamentalists would not be a party to any negotiations with the West, thus leaving Israel again as the only democratic, rational country in the region. And if the Mossad could arrange for the Hamas (Palestinian fundamentalists) to take over the Palestinian streets from the PLO, then the picture would be complete”. —pg. 297  

Israel’s long-running Likud party has ruled on policies that appear to be lifted straight from Yinon and Operation SIG. Likud itself was created by Russian and East Bloc Jews like Yitzhak Shamir (former Prime Minister of Israel and Mossad head). Operation SIG’s apparent purpose and direction fits in nicely with the Yinon Plan, yet Pacepa and analysts of Pacepa’s revelations fail to make the obvious connections and draw the correct conclusions. Instead, they misinterpret the evidence that serves only to further victimize the Jewish people and the state of Israel, with the fate of the West only an afterthought in the scheme of things.

Bernstein writes in The Life of an American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel,

“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 … Israel’s part of the pact was … Israel would allow an official communist party to function freely in Israel … Israel would not make any agreement to solve the Palestinian problem … Israel was to continue its Marxist economic policies and prevent any free-enterprise tendencies.”

Bernstein then explains the Soviet Union’s part of the pact, “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; 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 immigration; the Soviets would absolutely guarantee the security of Israel…both the Soviet Union and Israel would exchange intelligence reports.”

Pacepa’s misreading of what Yinon, Ostrovsky, and Bernstein have clearly laid out perpetuates the deception behind Operation SIG by protecting the real engineers of it. Although Pacepa does include the West as a target of Operation SIG, he gets distracted by the Israeli angle and puts the West in the back seat. Perhaps Pacepa has been allowed to make the revealtions he has under the condition that Israel and the Jews be made the primary targets of Soviet operations.

The destruction of the West seems to be the primary objective for the KGB’s seeding of anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist sentiment in the Arab world (and in Latin America), with anti-Zionism being the convenient conduit by which to achieve this. Anti-Zionism is, in effect, a limited hangout, to use intelligence jargon. Pacepa’s rendering of Operation SIG also serves as a limited hangout, as it leaves no possibility of the Soviet conspiracy and world Jewry of being allies.

Pacepa hints at the truth of the matter, perhaps out of sheer ignorance, when he writes, “The KGB always regarded anti-Semitism plus anti-imperialism as a rich source of anti-Americanism.” Pacepa quotes KGB head Yuri Andropov, suggesting that the KGB’s motive in running Operation SIG as primarily anti-Semitic. “We needed to instill a Nazi- style hatred for the Jews throughout the Islamic world, and to turn this weapon of the emotions into a terrorist blood- bath against Israel”.

If the elite Jewish agenda in Israel is to maintain constant division and warring between Israel and its neighbours, then Andropov’s statement supports this. Pacepa misinterprets this because he doesn’t see that Israel is a Soviet satellite, or he is fake defector (I tend to think he is either a misinformed defector or a censored defector). Balkanization not only makes it easier to control the Middle East, it also serves to discredit the West, as the West is portrayed as being responsible for the Balkanization of the Middle East through its supposed creation, Israel. Pacepa doesn’t provide a clear motive for his version of Operation SIG. If Russia seeks to destroy Israel and the Jews, then why? Israel doesn’t attack Russia or carry out disinformation against it. Israel’s government largely is compromised of Soviet-derived stock. Communism is largely a Jewish creation. Even today, Jews are overrepresented in communist, socialist, and Marxist movements. Pacepa’s narrative makes no sense, unless he believes the ridiculous notion that the Soviet Union hated Jews just because they were Jews. Pacepa and his supporters would be more believable if they had argued that Soviet motive was simply to control the Middle East as part of its world communist plot, but they just can’t help themselves. They have to victimize Jewry at each and every turn.

Central importance of Sun-Tzu’s ‘Art of War’

By Christopher Story
July 15, 2019 Anno Domini

Excerpted from Christopher Story’s The European Union Collective: Enemy of Its Member States (1997),  pgs. 56-59

The blindness of the West, and its arrogant assumption that ‘we won the Cold War’ particularly reconfirms the timeless effectiveness of the advice given by the ancient Chinese military strategist, Sun-Tzu, in his treatise entitled ‘The Art of War’: ‘Pretend inferiority and encourage your enemy’s arrogance’ . It is known that ‘The Art of War’ was required reading in the East German and Soviet armed forces. As Anatoliy Golitsyn explains in New Lies for Old: “The ancient Chinese treatise on strategy and deception, Sun -Tzu’s The Art of War, translated into Russian by N.I. Konrad in 1950 (shortly after the Communist victory in China), was retranslated into German in 1957 by the Soviet specialist Y. I. Sidorenko, with a foreword by the Soviet military strategist and historian General Razin. It was [also] published in East Germany by the East German Ministry of Defense and was prescribed for study in East German military academies: [see facsimile on page 57]. A new translation and other studies of Sun-Tzu were published in Peking in 1957 and 1958 and in Shanghai in 1959. Mao Tse-Tung is known to have been influenced by Sun-Tzu in his conduct of the civil war”.

Illusions such as those dispensed by the author of the article cited above from “The Times’ of London are fostered by, and depend upon, the continued success of the Russian ‘weak look’ strategic deception – which is based upon the practical applic- ation in modern conditions of Sun-Tzu’s military deception aphorisms:

Statue of Sun-Tzu

‘All warfare is based on deception’.

‘Therefore, when capable, feign incapacity; when active, inactivity’.

‘When near, make it appear that you are far away; when far away, that you are near’.

‘Offer the enemy a bait to lure him; feign disorder and strike him’. ‘Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance’.

‘Keep him under strain and wear him down’.

‘When he is united, divide him’.

‘Attack the enemy’s strategy’.

‘Disrupt the enemy’s alliances’.

‘If I am able to determine the enemy’s dispositions while at the same time I conceal my own, then I can concentrate and he must divide. And if I concentrate while he divides, I can use my entire strength to attack a fraction of his’.
‘Make the devious route the most direct and turn misfortune to advantage’.

‘The ultimate in disposing one’s troops is to be without ascertainable shape. Then the most penetrating spies cannot pry in, nor can the wise lay plans against you’.

‘Subtle and insubstantial, the expert leaves no trace; divinely mysterious, he is inaudible. Thus he is master of his enemy’s fate’ .

‘Active measures’ operations against Western leaders

The successful implementation, through the creative (Leninist) application of Sun-Tzu’s teachings and complementary Leninist dialectical strategic deception principles, of the inverted pyramid of lies called ‘perestroika’, is all the more remarkable in that, as has been shown, absolutely faithful adherence to Leninist revolutionary methods had repeatedly been asserted in public by the Communist leaders and the 1991 that she had concluded that ‘Gorbachev isn’t a Leninist any more’ – merely weeks before Gorbachev and the KGB executed the biggest and boldest Leninist Bolshevik provocation to date: the fake August coup. Prominent among the planners and implementers of this provocation was the KGB veteran Yevgeniy Primakov, a leading KGB strategist, who flew back to Moscow late in the evening of 19th August, thus conveying the impression that he had not been involved – yet issued a statement on the following day asserting that Gorbachev was not ill but was being held captive.

Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev shakes hands with Lady Thatcher during a meeting in Lord Powell’s office in London, Wednesday October 19, 2005. PRESS ASSOCIATION Photo. Photo credit should read: Michael Stephens/PA (Photo by Michael Stephens – PA Images/PA Images via Getty Images)

The Soviets have even gone so far as to hint in public that both the British Prime Minister and President Reagan were the target of ‘active measures’ operations by Soviet intelligence ahead of the controlled ‘Break with the Past’. The nature of these ‘active measures’ is not known (although in Mrs. Thatcher’s case, the murder shortly before she came to office in 1979 of her intelligence adviser, Airey Neave, in a car bomb placed in the House of Commons car park, may have been an element of them – since Neave was well equipped to warn her against being taken in by the Soviets); but ‘active measures’ covers everything from the fabrication of forgeries to the administration of mind-altering psychotropic drugs, to sexual allure or entrapment, to assassination.

It is the Author’s view that analysts have overlooked one important reason why Gorbachev was selected by the Kremlin’s strategy collective as General Secretary following a prolonged period of apparent infighting which resulted in Gorbachev’s alleged rival, Grigory Romanov, being expelled from the Kremlin in the summer of 1985, framed as an alcoholic (which he was not) and forcibly confined to a hospital for alcoholics [see pages XXXX-XXXXII]. This is that he possesses what can only be described as a kind of demonic sexual allure: and the strategists’ key target at the time was Mrs. Thatcher. She immediately fell for Gorbachev’s ‘charms’, notwithstanding his boorish behaviour during his visit to London in late 1984, described on pages 17- 18. The Author is personally acquainted with two American women, not known to each other, each of whom has separately testified to Gorbachev’s sexual magnetism, which the late Malachi Martin described as being sinister. (One of these women also testifies to the near-freezing temperature immediately surrounding the person of MVD General Eduard Shevardnadze, reported on page 49; but the other lady is not one of the two who have separately experienced that distsurbing phenomenon).

On 19th February 1991, ‘Izvestia’ reported that ‘in the United States and Britain, “Active Measures” against President Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher had limited success’ . The inclusion of the qualification ‘limited’ here should perhaps be disregarded: the proper translation of this statement from the Aesopian language used by ‘Izvestia’ is that the operations were successful. The fact that they were mounted, and have even been openly acknowledged, is of course significant enough.

Mrs Thatcher failed to understand that she had been duped by Mr Gorbachev, as she made clear to the author in July 1991. During an interview in which the Author explained details of the Soviet ‘bilateral treaty offensive’ and spoke of Golitsyn’s work, which the former Prime Minister dismissed, Mrs [now Lady] Thatcher not only remarked: ‘I don’t think Gorbachev is a Leninist any more’, but also added the following corollary: ‘I don’t think we have been deceived—at least, I hope we haven’t’ [see page 19]. As the Author wrote in the Editor’s Foreword to Golitsyn’s book The Perestroika Deception, this qualifying afterthought clearly implied ‘a niggling doubt that the West might indeed have fallen victim to Soviet strategic deception’. Necessarily, by then the consequences of Lady Thatcher’s mistakes were crowding in on the West like a gigantic thunderstorm. But if she had entertained such doubts while still in power, it was surely her duty to have had them investigated.

That failure was undoubtedly Lady Thatcher’s worst: and the Author has elsewhere described the British Prime Minister’s careless accommodation of Gorbachev and all his Leninist lies as ‘a millennial strategic error’. A second strategic error of comparable proportions concerned Europe: though troubled by the implic- ations of the ‘European project’, she pushed through the 1986 Single European Act which paved the way for the Collective’s Maastricht Treaty. In the end, she became an enthusiastic supporter of the Leninist deception strategy of ‘convergence’. She had already permitted her Foreign Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe , to go along with the Foreign Office’s plan to hand the priceless capitalist jewel of Hong Kong over to the Communist Chinese, a grand betrayal which could hardly have been urged upon her other than by forces aware of the ‘convergence’ framework and agenda. Lady Thatcher’s most recently monitored geopolitical stance is that ‘Russia isn’t a threat any more’—just as ‘Gorbachev isn’t a Leninist any more’.