Because we can see that there is a complex and clever system in Russia, quite opaque and full of interesting details and inner rules, we should conclude that the system came about by intelligent design. But how? The evidence strongly suggests that it did not come about by chance. This book firmly rejects the ideas often promulgated in Western academic circles that Putin is an ‘accidental autocrat’ or a ‘good tsar surrounded by bad boyars.’” – Karen Dawisha, Putin’s Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia?
The elite [are] the ultimate authority [in Russia]: it provides the collective leadership of which [the president] is a member and which decides, among other things, how long he should serve as President. The elite has to have some mechanism at its disposal through which such decisions can be reached and through which controlled political events can be coordinated. It is essential to the success of the strategy that this mechanism should be well concealed from the West. I lack the facilities to study how it might be operating. The likelihood is, however, that it functions under cover of some openly acknowledged body. The National Security Council might be a candidate for investigation as a possible front for this secret mechanism. – Anatoliy Golitsyn, Memorandum to the CIA: 1 October 1993
I want to warn Americans. As a people, you are very naïve about Russia and its intentions. You believe because the Soviet Union no longer exists, Russia now is your friend. It isn’t, and I can show you how the SVR [Russian Foreign Intelligence Service] is trying to destroy the U.S. even today and even more than the KGB did during the Cold War. – Sergei Tretyakov, as quoted by Pete Early in Comrade J, 2007
America’s old enemy is still there, plotting the overthrow of capitalism. But this is a paradox because communism supposedly died 23 years ago. What died, of course, was something different. What actually died was the practice of admitting to communist beliefs. That is what died! The fashion today – in Russia and China, the U.S. and Europe, Latin America and Africa – is to deny that one is a communist. Thus, Nelson Mandela was not a communist, but a “democrat.” Hugo Chavez was not a communist but a “populist.” President Xi Jinping is not a communist, but a “pragmatist.” Vladimir Putin is not a communist but a “Christian.” And so the game is played, around the world, so that nobody is a communist except those who wear a red beanie, or have a hammer and sickle emblazoned on their forehead.
Today we are supposed to believe that the communist world movement no longer exists. It no longer has its capital in Russia. We are supposed to believe that the Chinese communists are communists in name only. Is it wise to believe that communism died because the psychopaths behind it were cured? Or would it be wiser, overall, to assume that the psychopaths who composed the core of a criminal system remain as they were? Why would it be any different now? Today they fool us with the pretense that they have turned over a new leaf. But there is no leaf, and there is nothing to turn over. Psychopaths are not cured by becoming capitalists.
Tens of millions were murdered by the Communist Party system between 1917 and 1991. Who stood trial for these murders? Was property restored to the families of the victims? Was restitution given? No. Lenin was not even buried, but remains on display in Moscow, as fresh as a daisy. His statues remain standing throughout Russia. It may be argued that in 1991 the Communist Party Soviet Union changed its formation, going partly underground. If the system in Russia is opaque, as Russia expert Karen Dawisha shows, then it is by careful design. Why should Russia’s political reality be so murky except that Russia has been organized with a deception in mind – with a dark veil drawn over key events and personalities? We need to look closer at the work of Anatoliy Golitsyn, who successfully predicted the entire course of Russian policy from 1985 to the present. He predicted perestroika and glasnost. He predicted the Communist Party giving up its monopoly of power. He predicted the establishment of checks and balances in the Russian political system. And he predicted these checks and balances would be a swindle; perhaps the greatest swindle of all history, with the fate of the world hanging in the balance.
Many researchers strongly suspect the apartment bombings that struck Russia in 1999 were staged by the FSB so that Muslims would be blamed and a war could begin against Chechnya. Some researchers suspect this was done as an opening move to consolidate a new type of regime in Russia. Yet it was not merely a new type of criminal regime, but a reconfiguration of the Soviet regime (same criminals, different label). As outgoing head of the FSB prior to the bombings, Vladimir Putin must have been involved in the planning, and he was certainly the political beneficiary of the outcome. The subsequent resumption of the war in Chechnya, which was then dubbed “Operation Anti-Terror,” was not merely the Kremlin’s alibi in advance of 9/11. It set up Putin to play the role of faithful ally to the United States (which he never was). That this alibi was a fake was even acknowledged by Putin’s handpicked Gauleiter in Chechnya, Akhmad Kadyrov, who gave an interview for the 7 January 2000 edition of the London Arab language newspaper Al-Sharq al-Awsat in which he obliquely suggested that Russian generals controlled both sides of the Chechen conflict. How very intriguing indeed! “This is not jihad,” Kadyrov explained, “it is rather deception.” He had personally confronted Putin about this fact, and Putin had supposedly admitted that “mistakes were made.” According to Kadyrov, “I told Putin that if Russia really wanted to, not a single foreigner [i.e., al Qaeda terrorist] could have infiltrated into Chechnya or extended a single dollar to it, which means that this whole thing was deliberately planned.”
Oh yes, and it was planned for a number of carefully thought-out reasons. As Anatoliy Golitsyn later argued, the war in Chechnya proved to everyone that Russia was militarily weak and incapable. It could no longer be a threat to the West. This further reinforced the shift of the West’s intelligence assets away from Russia toward the new Islamic threat. As Golitsyn suggested, the policies and actions taken by the Communist Party Soviet Union (CPSU) from 1985-1991 had this outcome in mind from the start.
Thirty years ago former KGB Major Anatoliy Golitsyn warned, in New Lies for Old, that “the next five years will be a period of intense struggle. It will be marked by a major coordinated communist offensive intended to exploit the success of the strategic disinformation program over the past twenty years and to take advantage of the crisis and mistakes it has engendered in Western policies toward the communist bloc.” This offensive, he said, had been carefully prepared since the late 1950s. It would involve secret collaboration between Moscow and Beijing. According to Golitsyn, Russia and China were committed to a “scissors strategy,” and in “the final stroke,” wrote Golitsyn, “the scissors blades will close.” The European option “would be prompted by a revival of controlled ‘democratization’ on the Czechoslovak pattern….” Golitsyn explained that the intensification of hard-line policies during the early 80s “exemplified by Sakharov’s arrest and the occupation of Afghanistan, presages a switch to ‘democratization’ following, perhaps, Brezhnev’s departure from the political scene.” Golitsyn then made an astonishing prediction: “Brezhnev’s successor may well appear to be a kind of Soviet Dubcek. The succession will be important only in a presentational sense. The reality of collective leadership and the leaders’ common commitment to the long-range policy will continue unaffected.” Golitsyn predicted that an era of Soviet reform would be at hand. Control would be decentralized, self-managing firms would be created, and material incentives would be employed. According to Golitsyn, “the [communist] party’s control over the economy would be apparently diminished. Such reforms would be based on Soviet experience in the 1920s and 1960s, as well as on Yugoslav experience.” Despite outward appearances, Golitsyn warned, the party “would continue to control the economy from behind the scenes as before. The picture being deliberately painted now of stagnation and deficiencies in the Soviet economy should be seen as part of the preparation for deceptive innovations….”
Golitsyn never received due credit for his many successful predictions, but his insights are being confirmed – however indirectly. In Karen Dawisha’s new book, Putin’s Kleptocracy, we find a detailed description of the mechanism by which the Communist Party Soviet Union hoped to continue its control of the post-Soviet economy in secret. Of course, Dawisha does not fully recognize that the described object (the KGB cabal around Putin) is a mechanism for secret control by an underground ruling party. She does recognize that it is a mechanism composed largely of KGB operatives. According to Dawisha, “when the newly elected Russian president Boris Yel’tsin banned the CPSU after the failed 1991 August coup attempt against Gorbachev, the CPSU’s guidance ceased, and the control over this vast mountain of foreign money fell to the KGB agents who had access to foreign operations and accounts.”
Dawisha’s statement is naïve, of course; for how does she know who is actually in charge? The KGB continued to exist after 1991. The overall military system of the Soviet Union, however attenuated, also continued to exist. We have testimony on this from KGB, FSB, and GRU defectors. But more than that, the international communist struggle continued to exist! (Check out this recent video from Cuba.) Please consider, that if the communists were not still in charge of Russia, why would Russia now be expanding its sphere of influence into communist-dominated Nicaragua as documented by Valeria Gomez Palacios? It is a fact beyond dispute, that President Daniel Ortega is a communist. The Sandinista Party is in fact a Marxist-Leninist Party which only pretends to be a “social democratic” party. The gangsters who ran the party in the 1980s are the same people who run it today. The game in Nicaragua, in fact, runs parallel to the game in Russia. The game, of course, has been to put social democratic lipstick on the same old communist pig.
If Moscow is now Russian and not communist, why would they support Ortega and the Sandinistas by installing a Russian military base in Nicaragua? According to Gomez, “As of February 2014, illegal changes to Nicaragua’s constitution went into effect, thus providing a new decree of authority to the president and changing the entire essence of the political system. The new reform of the constitution has Nicaraguans living in a legalized dictatorship and has undermined the little democracy left in the country.” In other words, a communist takeover in Nicaragua has been finalized, and a number of Russian military bases will be constructed. If the CPSU is not ruling Russia, even now, why would support for Ortega be such a priority? And why would Russian soldiers walk arm-in-arm with a dedicated communist? Even more to the point, why would the Nicaraguan communists trust the Russians unless they know that the Russians are still faithful to their cause? Furthermore, Nicaragua under Ortega is now a dictatorship opposed to the United States. Is it merely coincidence that Russia under Putin is now a dictatorship opposed to the United States? Let us be realistic, at last. Let us admit what has been happening since 1991.
Karen Dawisha suggests that Russia’s present leadership, which is drawn from the KGB, is oriented toward self-enrichment. She doesn’t see the communist part of this grand scheme, despite the many statues of Lenin that are still standing throughout Russia (as they were still standing in Ukraine only a year ago). Why not take down the statues? Why not bury Lenin? Why threaten the people who took down the Lenin statues in Ukraine? These questions are glossed over, and they shouldn’t be. For if the supposed KGB rulers in Moscow were not communists, but merely greedy criminals, how do we explain their apparently suicidal prodding and poking of America today? How do we explain their ferocious lashing out? How do we explain their annexation of Crimea, their belligerence toward the Baltic States and NATO? Surely, if their plan was to enjoy their ill-gotten gains in peace, they would merely bribe key Western officials and present themselves as non-threatening, nuclear-armed “friends” who would rather get access to the Western financial system than shoot down civilian airliners and annex chunks of neighboring countries. What better way to preserve their wealth than to avoid conflict? Why build military bases in Central America? Why send strategic bombers to fly along the California coast? What kind of man risks World War III in order to possess $80 billion instead of a $40 billion? This is not greed. It is a psychological abnormality, a defect symptomatic of a communist misfit.
Oh yes, Putin and his gang are criminals. As Karen Dawisha shows, Western leaders knew about this long ago. Here the label of “criminal” replaced the more threatening brand name of “communist.” Here was a diversion wrapped inside an alibi, sugared with the promise of a lucrative partnership. The diversion was successful, the alibi was accepted without a second thought, and the partnership was a farce. Showing his true colors today, Putin snarls threats as we move beyond the final phase of the great deception – toward what Anatoliy Golitsyn called “one clenched fist.” The danger of war is growing. The Russian military drills are becoming more frequent. Bases are being prepared in Nicaragua. ISUS is advancing in Iraq. North Korea is preparing for war. China is preparing for a “regional war.”
In Karen Dawisha’s book we read about the massive wealth controlled by the Russian president and his associates. These people hold key positions in global finance, enabling them to (in Dawisha’s words) “undermine … Western financial institutions, the banks, equity markets, real estate markets, and insurance companies….” Prominent Western politicians have been corrupted, like Silvio Berlusconi, and major companies have been compromised like the Bank of New York. The new Russian sistema controls the political and economic development not only of Russia, but has intertwined itself, insinuated itself, into Western politics and business. According to Dawisha, “The KGB moved the CPSU’s vast financial reserves offshore, out from under President Mikhayl Gorbachev’s control, thus further crippling his regime.” But the money wasn’t moved off shore to cripple Gorbachev. It was moved offshore to infect the West. Dawisha has yet to realize that a strategy was then being engaged. She does not grasp the sophisticated methods and tactics of the CPSU and its Sword and Shield (the KGB); so she has yet to recognize the process that was actually being advanced in 1991. When Lev Pavolovsky warned that Putin belonged to “a very extensive but politically invisible layer of people who … were looking for a ‘revanche’ in connection with the fall of the Soviet Union” he was perhaps referring to the Communist Party Soviet Union, which continues to exist. And yes, it still is running things because we can trace its larger design (which is thoroughly Red). Amazingly, Dawisha comes very close to seeing this larger picture. She acknowledges that Putin’s favorite songs are Soviet, yet she tends to lay a greater emphasis on Putin’s greed. While Putin was stationed in East Germany, she explains, “he had the leaders of the German Red Army faction … steal speaker systems for him when they had a moment free from their terror campaigns.”
In her excellent outline of Putin’s criminal ties, Dawisha assumes that all of this automatically tells us what these links are designed to do, and what purposes they serve. She does not stop to think that wealth is merely one of the trappings of absolute power and not the thing itself. She does not stop to think that if “top Kremlin elites” set the guidelines for working with criminal structures, that the central purpose may be strategic aggrandizement through an appeal to personal aggrandizement. The thing which allowed Anatoliy Golitsyn to make so many accurate predictions about Russia was his ability to stay focused on the strategic significance of actions and events. In her analysis, Dawisha is almost there. She has put the pieces together admirably when she quotes a Spanish prosecutor as saying that “one cannot differentiate between the activities of the [Russian] government and organized crime groups [in Russia]…. The FSB is ‘absorbing’ the Russian mafia [and using them for black ops].”
This is very important. The Sword and Shield of the CPSU is “using” the Russian mafia. It is not the other way around. Here I want to return to one of Dawisha’s most intuitively brilliant insights: “that the [Russian] system came about by intelligent design.” Few realize how sophisticated that design truly is, and how much study, and how much brain power, has gone into it. This is no ordinary criminal network. These are not merely “corrupt officials.” The Soviet Academy of Sciences made its contribution. Top Soviet experts in every field also contributed; for the Soviet Union was geared to one objective, one mission, and the collapse of the Soviet Union was not the end of that mission but a means to it. Again, the Spanish prosecutor that Dawisha quotes spoke of wiretaps which showed that Russian mafia bosses “had a ‘dangerously close’ level of contact with senior Russian officials.”
Full article: The Psychopath Under the Bed – PART ONE (JR Nyquist)