By: Brent Parrish
The Right Planet
This is a rather prophetic lecture, if you ask me, by Don McAlvany on the false demise of Communism. It was recorded 25 years ago, in 1990, shortly following the fall of the Berlin Wall, which marked the beginning of the Weidervereinigung des Deutschlands (Reunification of Germany).
What I find particularly fascinating about McAlvany’s presentation are his references to KGB defector Anatoliy Golytsin’s book New Lies for Old. I have written previously (see here) about Anatoliy’s Golytsin’s startlingly accurate predictions concerning Soviet plans to deceive the West into believing Communism was dead, and that the Soviet Union was a thing of the past. Golytsin went on to write his second book entitled The Perestroika Deception in 1995.
Most of Golytsin’s predictions have proven true in hindsight. In 1984, when New Lies for Old first hit the bookshelves, Golytsin predicted that the Berlin Wall would be torn down in order to fool the West into believing that the Soviet Union was shattered. What makes Golytsin’s prediction even more eye-opening is the fact he had written the manuscript years before New Lies for Old reached publication.
The Soviets were masters at disinformation and deception. The sophistication of their subversive techniques are breathtaking in scope and audacity. Many in the West have failed to grasp the incredible lengths the Soviets and the KGB were willing to go to in order to deceive and subvert their enemies—namely, the United States and the entire Western world.
Many of the strategies and tactics employed by the Soviets—such as the dialectical and the “two steps forward, one step” back strategies—are foreign to many Western minds. But a thorough understanding of these strategies is paramount if one hopes to counter them. (You might’ve noticed I’ve switched to the present tense. I’ll get to that.)
Take the dialectical strategy, for example. Without getting into a dissertation on Marxist dialectics, the dialectical strategy entails the manipulation of friend and foe alike—playing both sides of the fence, so to speak. Communists are known for setting up “false opposition” groups in order to control and herd their opposition. Vladimir I. Lenin once said, “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” Leading the opposition requires infiltration, also referred to as “controlled opposition.”
Communists are willing to take “one step back” in order to “move two steps forward”; giving a false impression they are in a position of weakness; when, in fact, they are strong. Such a strategy can provide an opportunity to offer “concessions” to the enemy—but only “concessions” that provide the ability to move “two steps forward.” The goal is to goad the enemy into offering real concessions (i.e. compromise), while only offering token concessions that have no real lasting consequences on the long-range strategy of crushing the enemy.
“We advance through retreat … when we are weak, we boast of strength. and when we are strong, we feign weakness.”
The strategy of feigning weakness in order to lull the enemy into complacency is a rather Machiavellian concept; but it also is derived from the ancient Chinese military philosopher Sun Tzu’s maxims on war.
… Amid the turmoil and tumult of battle, there may be seeming disorder and yet no real disorder at all; amid confusion and chaos, your array may be without head or tail, yet it will be proof against defeat…. Simulated disorder postulates perfect discipline, simulated fear postulates courage; simulated weakness postulates strength…. Hiding order beneath the cloak of disorder is simply a question of subdivision; concealing courage under a show of timidity presupposes a fund of latent energy; masking strength with weakness is to be effected by tactical dispositions…. Thus one who is skillful at keeping the enemy on the move maintains deceitful appearances, according to which the enemy will act. He sacrifices something, that the enemy may snatch at it…. [“two steps forward, one step back”] By holding out baits, he keeps him on the march; then with a body of picked men he lies in wait for him.
—Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Back in February of 2014, I had the opportunity to sit down with world-renown researcher Trevor Loudon, author of the book Barack Obama and the Enemy Within. He relayed a story to me that left me incredulous, and it ties right into the whole Soviet strategy of feigning weakness.
An ex-Communist friend of Trevor’s from New Zealand actually attended Lenin’s Institute for Higher Learning in Moscow. Promising members of the Communist Party, from all over the world, were sometimes offered the opportunity to travel to Russia for further training at the International Lenin Institute, where they learned things like racial agitation, trade union building, every facet of Russian history (albeit selective Russian history)—even training in explosive devices, small arms and guerrilla warfare tactics. Trevor’s friend said that a Soviet official at the Moscow institute told the students the reason the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan was that the Soviet Union needed “their own Vietnam.”
Yes, you read that correctly.
But, if you ever listen to former Soviet officials speak about the Russian experience in Afghanistan, they often times make the comparison to the U.S. military involvement in Vietnam. According to Trevor’s friend, it was all done to feign weakness and lull the West into thinking the Soviet Union wasn’t the military force they purported themselves to be. The fact of the matter is the Soviets could’ve wiped Afghanistan off the map, had they so chosen to do so.
As I drove home from my meeting with Trevor, I could scarcely believe what he had told me. But I began to ponder my own knowledge of Soviet history. The more I thought about what Trevor had told me, the less incredible it seemed.
For example, in the late 30s, the Soviet regime under Josef Stalin was systematically liquidating thousands of Russian citizens every single day. It was known as the “Great Purge.” Stalin’s depraved and blood-thirsty executioner, Lavrenti Beria, oversaw the murder of millions of Russians, and even participated on countless occasions in the executions of his own people.
After war broke out between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, there were numerous incidents of Soviet units being ordered to attack German positions and strongholds in suicidal frontal assaults that resulted in horrific casualties, often numbering in the hundreds or thousands. There are accounts of the dog tags being stripped from the dead in order to cover up the crimes of the Soviet regime. Rarely has there been an example in history of a nation that treated its own war dead with such utter contempt.
So, as I thought more and more about what Trevor had told me, it started to seem quite plausible—if not to be expected from such a morally bankrupt regime. When President Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an “evil empire,” it was not unwarranted hyperbole. For it is not possible, in words, to describe the horrors and terrors that have been visited upon the Russian people under the Soviet system—and, more than likely, are still being visited upon the Russian people … albeit not at the astonishing levels as was experienced during Stalin’s merciless and bloody reign.
As Don McAlvany points out in his lecture, there had been six periods of “glasnost” dating back to the 20s prior to 1990. During all of the so-called glasnost periods, the United States and the West were duped into believing the Soviets were changing their tune—only to watch the Soviets return to their oppressive and tyrannical ways after securing concessions from the United States. The old dialectical doctrine of “two steps forward, one step back” has proved wildly successful against the United States and its allies, helping to further the Russian strategy for international rule and subversion.
The Soviets (i.e. Communists) employ long-range strategies. Like a master chess player, they think ten steps ahead. Stalin’s henchman Lavrenti Beria said in the early 50s, “Capitalism’s short-term view can never envisage the lengths across which we can plan.” Sadly, the United States has never really formulated long-term strategic goals to counter such threats.
Golytsin predicted the Soviets would put a “happy face” on Communism by calling for “democratic reforms” in Russia, and in the former Soviet republics and Eastern Bloc countries.
Many in the West viewed the chummy meetings between Mikhail Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan as a clear sign the Cold War was over, and that Soviet-style Communism had been defeated. Talk of glasnost (“openness” or “publicity”) and perestroika (i.e. restructuring, remaking, reforming, regrouping) filled the airwaves and Western press at the time.
Did Mikhail Gorbachev ever renounce Communism? Was he really a reformer who only wished to move Russia toward “democracy”?
Well, that depends on how one defines democracy.
During the 70th anniversary of the Marxist revolution [in October 1987], Gorbachev reaffirmed his country’s expansionist desires: “In October of 1917, we parted with the Old World, rejecting it once and for all. We are moving toward a New World, the World of Communism. We shall never turn off that road.”
Oh, and there’s plenty more of that, from where that came from (hat tip: The Contemplative Observer):
“We are for a Lenin who is alive! In building our future we are basing ourselves upon the gigantic intellectual and moral potential of the socialist idea linked with the theory of Marxism-Leninism. We see no rational grounds to give up the spiritual [sic!!!] richness contained in Marxism. Through restructuring [i.e. ‘perestroika’], we want to give socialism a second wind and unveil in all its plenitude [meaning: globally!] the vast humanist potential of the socialist system.” – “In order to achieve this, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union returns to the origins and principles of the Bolshevik Revolution, to the Leninist ideas about the construction of a new society… Our Party was and remains the Party of Lenin… In short, we are for a Lenin who is alive.” – “We must seek these answers guided by the spirit of Leninism, the style of Lenin’s thinking, and the method of dialectical cognition.”
—Mikhail Gorbachev, speaking to a group of Russian students, Nov. 15, 1989
“Gentlemen, Comrades, do not be concerned about all that you hear about ‘glasnost’ and ‘perestroika’ and democracy in the coming years. These are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant change within the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans, and to let them fall asleep.”
—Mikhail Gorbachev, early in his tenure, speaking before the Politburo
The Party has made “specific decisions on how to update our political system”. – “Thus we shall give a fresh impetus to our revolutionary restructuring. We shall maintain our quiet [i.e. Leninist] creativity and daring in an efficient and responsible fashion in a Leninist Bolshevik manner.”
—Mikhail Gorbachev, speaking at the 27th CPSU Congress, March 1986
“Adopting a bold, realistic, mobilising and inspiring strategy, one that is Leninist in spirit, the struggle for the triumph of Communist ideals, of peace and progress, the 27th Congress of the CPSU expresses the Party’s firm determination to honourably follow our great road, and open up new vistas for the creative energy and revolutionary initiative of the… people’s intelligentsia. The Congress calls on all Soviet people to dedicate all their strength, knowledge, ability, and creative enthusiasm to the great goals of Communist construction, and to worthily continue Lenin’s victorious revolutionary cause, the cause of the October Revolution!”
—Mikhail Gorbachev, closing address to the 27th CPSU Congress, March 6, 1986
“Perestroika is a revolutionary process for it is a leap forward in the development of socialism, in the realization of its crucial characteristics.”
—Mikhail Gorbachev: ‘Perestroika’, 1987
“What is meant [by the term ‘revolution from above’] is profound and essentially revolutionary changes implemented on the initiative of the authorities themselves but necessitated by objective changes in the situation. It may seem that our current perestroika could be called ‘revolution from above’. True, the perestroika drive started on the Communist Party’s initiative, and the Party leads it. I spoke frankly about it at the meeting with Party activists in Khabarovsk [already!!!] in the summer of 1986. We began at the top of the pyramid and went down to its base, as it were. Yes, the Party leadership started it. The highest Party and state bodies elaborated and adopted the program. True, perestroika is not a spontaneous but a governed process.”
—Mikhail Gorbachev: “Perestroika,” 1987
“We openly confess that we refuse the hegemonial endeavours and globalist claims of the United States. We are not pleased by some aspects of American policy and of the American Way of Life. But we respect the right of the American people, just as the right of all other peoples, to live along its own rules and laws, its own morals and inclinations.”
—Mikhail Gorbachev: “Perestroika,” 1987
“Those who hope that we shall move away from the socialist path will be greatly disappointed.”
—Mikhail Gorbachev: “Perestroika,” 1987
“We see that confusion has arisen in some people’s minds: aren’t we retreating from the positions of socialism, especially when we introduce new and unaccustomed forms of economic management and public life, and aren’t we subjecting the Marxist-Leninist teaching itself to revision? … No, we are not retreating a single step from socialism, from Marxism-Leninism …”
—Mikhail Gorbachev, 1988
Many in the West are also of the belief that the KGB no longer exists. But nothing could be farther from the truth. While no longer called the KGB, the secretive security agency merely restructured (i.e. perestroika), and is now known as the FSB (Russian Federal Security Forces). The FSB is still headquartered in the infamous Lubyanka building in Moscow. The FSB is the KGB.
A little while back, I visited the official FSB website (fsb.ru). I used Google translation services to translate the pages. One link titled “Our Leaders” lists the names of such notorious figures as Felix Dzerzhinsky, Yakov Peters, Genrikh Yagoda, Nikolai Yezhov, Lavrenti Beria, Yuri Andropov … and Vladimir Putin. Remember, the official FSB website lists these individuals as their “leaders.” It doesn’t look like anything has changed to me, as far as the old KGB is concerned, except for the name.
One of the main goals of the Soviets was to eliminate NATO. With the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and the dialectical application of their “two steps forward, one step” back strategy, Moscow hoped to gain concessions from the United States—namely, the dissolution of NATO. But the United States was resistant to the idea of breaking apart the NATO alliance. So, like the saying goes, “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em”—NATO, that is. Once again … infiltrate and take over from within.
“Russian membership of the Council of Europe will open up intensified new cooperation between Russia and Europe and will assist us in reaching our objectives of achieving membership of the European Union and of NATO.”
—Then Russian Foreign Minister, Andrei Kozyrev, after Russia’s admission to the Council of Europe by February 8, 1996
Perhaps one of the most important predictions Anatoliy Golytsin made was his repeated insistence that the purpose of all these subversive tactics was “the establishment of a neutral, socialist Europe” (New Lies for Old, pg. 334).
Enter the European Union.
“The collective security model … should pave the way for a gradual evolutionary synthesis of several processes: integration within the CIS [Commonwealth of Independent States] and the EU [European Union], strengthening and increasing the role of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, transforming NATO [and] working together to prevent or resolve conflicts.”
—Yuriy Ushakov, Director of the Directorate for European Cooperation at the Russian Foreign Ministry, in International Affairs, Vol. 4, #5 (1995): “Europe: Towards a New Security Model”
Of particular note in the above quote is the reference to “transforming NATO.”
For those who may still be of the opinion that talk of a “one-world government” (i.e. “new world order”) is strictly relegated to the realm of crackpots and so-called “conspiracy theorists,” consider the words of the unelected full-time President of the EU, Herman Van Rompuy, who has openly referenced the agenda for “global governance” on more than one occasion. Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky has referred to the European Union as a “pale version of the Soviet Union.”
In 2009, Van Rompuy said:
“2009 is also the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen, is another step towards the global management of our planet.”
Van Rompuy has also stated his desire to work closely with Russia in order to further the agenda of global governance:
“By working together, the EU and Russia can make a decisive contribution to global governance … to global economic governance in the G8 and the G20.”
The ongoing conflict in Ukraine shows the “Russian Bear” still has its claws. Just today there was a report Russia was reviewing the “legality” of Baltic states’ independence. The level of disinformation coming from Putin’s state-run media machine has reached fever pitch within Russia. The Russian people are being fed a steady and constant diet of hyper-nationalistic and intensely anti-American rhetoric; it resembles a war-time footing.
Ex-Communist turned vocal anti-Communist, Dr. Bella V. Dodd (1904-1969), author of the book School of Darkness, pointed out there are three concepts that are important to differentiate concerning Communism, i.e., the Communist Conspiracy (i.e. “world conspiracy”), the Communist Party (political arm), and the Communist Movement (“social action,” i.e. praxis).
At the heart of Communism lies conspiracy. In order to subvert and deceive, conspiracy is a vital and necessary component. Communists are taught to lie … the predetermined ends always justify the means. Period.
The one thing Communists and their ilk cannot withstand is their strategy and process being exposed. Communism is a form of psychological warfare (i.e. psyops) based on deception. Psyops only work if the party who is being deceived and manipulated is unaware of the tactics being employed against them. In essence, it’s a mind game. This is why it absolutely crucial to understand the dialectic process when it comes to Marxism-Leninism, if one wishes to have any success at countering such subversive and deceitful tactics.
Unfortunately, for many Americans and Westerners, it is still inconceivable that such a conspiracy is, and has been, employed against them. As one long-time and well-known researcher on Russian (i.e. Communist) strategy and tactics, J.R. Nyquist, recently wrote:
This last point is not to be made in polite society, and few are well-informed enough to know something of its validity. For 99 out of 100 persons, it is preferable to believe a lie. As a former British MP once said within my hearing; “Reagan and Thatcher saved the West from socialism.” But a former Russian GRU colonel, sitting across the table, whispered in my ear, “But America is the Marxist paradise.”
If you still find it hard to believe that the U.S.A. is already a “Marxist paradise,” and the world is moving toward global governance (i.e. worldwide socialism), I would encourage you to read the Communist Manifesto. Pay particular note to what has been referred to as the “10 planks of the Communist Manifesto” in Chapter Two. And then ask yourself, how many of these 10 points have already been implemented in the United States? I think, if you’re intellectually honest with yourself, the answer will shock you. And if it’s still too hard to digest and believe, just apply the scientific method: observe, make predictions, test your predictions, and then draw your own conclusion.
By: Brent Parrish
The Right Planet
Many people have probably never heard of Anatoliy Golitsyn. I had never heard of him until several years ago after I started heavily researching the history of the Soviet Union, and the strategy and tactics Communists employ against their adversaries.
Golitsyn’s name was again brought up during a lengthy discussion I had with author Trevor Loudon back in 2014. I decided right then and there that I needed to look deeper into this intriguing character.
Anatoliy Golitsyn was an ex-KGB officer who spent 15 years in Soviet intelligence work, which put him in contact with high-ranking Soviet officials. He defected to the West in 1961. Golitsyn wrote two books that outline in painstaking detail the Soviet’s “grand strategy” against the West and the non-communist Third World: New Lies for Old (1984) and The Perestroika Deception (1995).
Both books contain some astonishing and disturbing predictions. In a nutshell, Golitsyn claimed that the alleged fall of the Soviet Union, and the subsequent end of the so-called “Cold War,” was nothing but a ruse designed to lull Western powers and non-communist nations into believing Communism had been defeated—when, in fact, nothing could be farther from the truth.
Golitsyn wrote in New Lies for Old:
The feigned disunity of the communist world promotes real disunity in the noncommunist world…. False alignments, formed with third parties by each side against the other, make it easier to achieve specific communist goals, such as the acquisition of advanced technology or the negotiation of arms control agreements or communist penetration of Arab and African states. In Western eyes the military, political, economic, and ideological threat from world communism appears diminished. 
Communist strategy has long used the tactic of “controlled opposition” to deceive and lull their enemies into complacency. The purpose of “false opposition” is to further confuse and undermine any genuine opposition in the communist world. Vladimir I. Lenin best summed up the dialectical strategy of controlled opposition by stating, “The best way for us to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.”
The dialectic of this offensive consists of a calculated shift from the old, discredited Soviet practice to a new, “liberalized” model, with a social democratic facade, to realize the communist planners’ strategy for establishing a United Europe. At the beginning they introduced a variation of the 1968 Czechoslovakian “democratization.” At a later phase they will shift to a variation of the Czechoslovakian takeover of 1948. 
Granted, when one examines claims by former intelligence operatives who allege to have “seen the light” and are now trying to warn us for solely altruistic reasons, one should exercise a healthy amount of caution and skepticism. They may be acting as a double-agent; or they could be an outright fraud altogether. So it is wise to test their claims and allegations and ask oneself, “To whose benefit?” Does it stack up? How do their revelations compare to other defectors of a similar vein?
What makes Anatoliy Golitsyn stand out is the uncanny accuracy of his predictions. Mark Riebling wrote in his spy book Wedge: The Secret War between the FBI and the CIA, “[O]f Golitsyn’s falsifiable predictions, 139 out of 148 were fulfilled by the end of 1993—an accuracy rate of 94 percent.” 
One of the goals behind the Soviet Union’s “false liberalization” facade was to put a “happy face” on Soviet-style communism. Golitsyn predicted the emergence of a “younger leader with a more liberal image, who will continue the liberalization more intensely.”  By falling for the Soviet “liberalization” ploy, the West begins to question its massive defense expenditures; since it seems wasteful and unnecessary now that the “Cold War” is allegedly a thing of the past.
Further warnings Golitsyn tried to impart to the West in the 1960s included his predictions that the Berlin Wall would come down, East and West Germany would be reunited, and the Warsaw Pact would be dissolved. The goal of all these tactics was to create a “neutral, socialized Europe.” All of these predictions have come to pass. We now see a “neutral, socialized Europe” in the form of the European Union (EU). Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky once referred to the EU as the “pale version of the Soviet Union.”
Concerning the six-percent of Golitsyn’s predictions that were left unfulfilled, a plausible explanation could be, that since Golitsyn had defected to the West in 1961, any changes in Soviet strategy following his defection would be unknown to him, since he was no longer privy to top-secret KGB intelligence. Plans change as circumstances dictate.
It is worth noting, too, that Golitsyn’s predictions were penned several years prior to his first manuscript for News Lies for Old being published in the West in 1984.
One of the most important revelations by Golitsyn had to do with the Sino-Soviet split. For many years there has been a widely accepted belief in the West that there was a serious rift between Red China and the Soviet Union. Billions of dollars in massive U.S. aid programs were poured into the USSR in an effort to exasperate and prolong the so-called Sino-Soviet split.
Golitsyn warned (emphasis added):
There are a number of strategic options at the disposal of the communist strategists that can be used in various combinations to achieve their ultimate objectives. It would be impossible to list them all but five likely interconnected options are as follows:
- A closer alignment of an independent socialist Europe with the Soviet bloc and a parallel alignment of the United States with China. Japan, depending on whether it remains conservative or moves toward socialism, might join either combination.
- A joint drive by the Soviet bloc and a socialist Europe to seek allies in the Third World against the United States and China.
- In the military field, an intensive effort to achieve US nuclear disarmament.
- In the ideological and political field, East-West convergence on communist terms.
- The creation of a world federation of communist states.
In each of these the scissors strategy will play its part; probably, as the final stroke, the scissors blades will close. The element of apparent duality in Soviet and Chinese policies will disappear. The hitherto concealed coordination between them will become visible and predominant. The Soviets and the Chinese will be officially reconciled. Thus the scissors strategy will develop logically into the “strategy of one clenched fist” to provide the foundation and driving force of a world communist federation. 
The concept of the “swinging pendulum” applies here—well-understood by the devoted Communist. As the United States bounces back and forth between East and West in search of alliances with foreign powers that are, in fact, hostile to U.S. interests, America finds it self caught between the jaws of a dialectical, geopolitical bear trap—specifically, the convergence between Russia and China. Golytsin used the analogy of being caught between the blades of a pair of “scissors” in New Lies for Old.
After successful use of the scissors strategy in the early stages of the final phase of policy to assist communist strategy in Europe and the Third World and over disarmament, a Sino-Soviet reconciliation could be expected. It is contemplated and implied by the long-range policy and by strategic disinformation on the split. The communist bloc, with its recent accretions in Africa and South- East Asia, is already strong. European-backed Soviet influence and American-backed Chinese influence could lead to new Third World acquisitions at an accelerating pace. Before long, the communist strategists might be persuaded that the balance had swung irreversibly in their favor. In that event they might well decide on a Sino-Soviet “reconciliation.” The scissors strategy would give way to the strategy of “one clenched fist.” At that point the shift in the political and military balance would be plain for all to see. Convergence would not be between two equal parties, but would be on terms dictated by the communist bloc. The argument for accommodation with the overwhelming strength of communism would be virtually unanswerable. Pressures would build up for changes in the American political and economic system on the lines indicated in Sakharov’s treatise. Traditional conservatives would be isolated and driven toward extremism. They might become the victims of a new McCarthyism of the left. The Soviet dissidents who are now extolled as heroes of the resistance to Soviet communism would play an active part in arguing for convergence. Their present supporters would be confronted with a choice of forsaking their idols or acknowledging the legitimacy of the new Soviet regime. 
Andropov’s proposals about improving relations with China are not aimed at undermining China’s relations with the United States, but at stimulating a revival of an American interest in closer relations with China, which are presently perceived as weakened after the departure of such strong proponents of United States-Chinese military cooperation as Brzezinski and others. Its main purpose is to facilitate the acquisition by China of American weaponry and military technology. The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan also may be designed to create more favorable conditions for China’s penetration into Moslem countries, capitalizing on China’s success with Pakistan. The recent trip of China’s premier to Africa, which included visits to Egypt, Algeria, and Morocco, confirms another point in the book about the existing division of labor between the Soviet Union and China. It seems that the influencing of Moslem countries has been left to China by the Soviet strategists. As for China’s role in the realization of communist strategy in Europe, the Sino-Soviet rivalry might be exploited by China’s intervening in European politics under the pretext of resisting “Soviet hegemony.” In this case, the Chinese strategists might try to gain a Rapallo [see Rapallo Treaty of 1922] type of arrangement with some conservative governments of Western Europe. 
Another oft-employed strategy by communists worldwide is exploiting what is known as a “Popular Front.” The concept behind a popular front is the creation of a temporary alliance with disparate elements of a populist rebellion or political movement that is often times local or regional in scope. The leaders of a popular front may believe they are in sole charge of it; when, in reality, it is being controlled and coordinated by outside forces (like the KGB/FSB, for example) working behind the scenes.
Popular fronts in their violent manifestation are sometimes referred to by radicals and revolutionaries as “wars of liberation.” Consider the war between Iraq and Iran during the 1980s:
… The Iraqi attack on Iran looks like a concerted effort by radical Arab states, each of which is in a united front relationship with the Soviet Union against “imperialism,” to use dual tactics (hostilities by Iraq, assistance by Syria and Libya) with the single overall objective of bringing Iran into an anti-Western alliance with them. The object of the alliance would be to gain control over a strategically vital area of the Middle East. Its success could but serve the strategic interests of the communist bloc. Despite Saddam Hussein’s alleged purges of communists in Iraq and the moderation in his attitude toward the United States, he is continuing to receive arms supplies from communist sources, as are his Iranian opponents. 
Such a scenario, as described above, may seem preposterous to the uninitiated. Many may not realize Iraq had the largest Communist Party presence in the Middle East at one time. Additionally, Iran also has its communist elements as well.
The victory of the 11th February 1979 [Iranian Revolution] resulted in the emergence of a political atmosphere in which for the first time, after 25 years political parties and organisations were allowed to organise freely. Tudeh [Communist] Party of Iran was among those too.
On the 1st of October 1991, the Tudeh Party of Iran celebrated its fiftieth birthday and in February 1992, the Party held its 3rd Congress after more than 43 years and reaffirmed its commitment to the principles of Marxism – Leninism. The Tudeh Party elected a new central committee and re-elected comrade Ali Khavari as the chair of the party. 
Some Kurdish groups, like the YPG and PKK, currently battling ISIS in Syria and Iraq are themselves Marxist-Leninist organizations, and are even on terrorist watch lists by both the United States and the EU. Granted, while many of us in the West are indeed rooting for the Kurds in their life and death struggle against the barbaric and ultra-violent Islamic State, and understandably so, it is worth remembering just who some of these Kurdish groups are in the grand scheme of things, particularly as it concerns the overall geopolitical goals of Russia and China.
One particularly chilling passage in New Lies for Old covers what Golytsin called the “Czechoslovak rehearsal,” in reference to the Prague Spring of 1968, implying it was a dress rehearsal of sorts for a much larger “grand strategy” set for the appropriate time in the future.
Also mentioned in the same passage is the so-called reforming of the KGB—which, by the way, did occur. The KGB is now known as the FSB or Russian Federal Security Service.
Political “liberalization” and “democratization” would follow the general lines of the Czechoslovak rehearsal in 1968. This rehearsal might well have been the kind of political experiment Mironov had in mind as early as 1960. The “liberalization” would be spectacular and impressive. Formal pronouncements might be made about a reduction in the communist party’s role; its monopoly would be apparently curtailed. An ostensible separation of powers between the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary might be introduced. The Supreme Soviet would be given greater apparent power and the president and deputies greater apparent independence. The posts of president of the Soviet Union and first secretary of the party might well be separated. The KGB would be “reformed.” Dissidents at home would be amnestied; those in exile abroad would be allowed to return, and some would take up positions of leadership in government. Sakharov might be included in some capacity in the government or allowed to teach abroad. The creative arts and cultural and scientific organizations, such as the writers’ unions and Academy of Sciences, would become apparently more independent, as would the trade unions. Political clubs would be opened to nonmembers of the communist party. Leading dissidents might form one or more alternative political parties. Censorship would be relaxed; controversial books, plays, films, and art would be published, performed, and exhibited. Many prominent Soviet performing artists now abroad would return to the Soviet Union and resume their professional careers. Constitutional amendments would be adopted to guarantee fulfillment of the provisions of the Helsinki agreements and a semblance of compliance would be maintained. There would be greater freedom for Soviet citizens to travel. Western and United Nations observers would be invited to the Soviet Union to witness the reforms in action. 
Naturally, if you are an American who believes in the unalienable rights of the individual and the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, the eery accuracy of Anatoliy Golitsyn’s predictions should certainly give one great pause. Golitsyn was either a clairvoyant, or he knew the score.
Equally as ominous as Golitsyn’s predictions was the inexplicable and chilly reception he received in the West by the press and U.S. intelligence experts. The wall of opposition that Golitsyn crashed into when he attempted to warn the appropriate Western authorities is both infuriating and bone-chilling.
… So thoroughly was his information discounted and his credibility questioned that he began to fear for his life. Eventually, he was also repudiated by [William F. Buckley, Jr.]
Had it not been for the CIA’s chief of counterintelligence, James J. Angleton, the astonishing Golitsyn revelations might never have reached the public. Golitsyn sought to convince CIA officials that there would be a complete turnabout in Communist strategy. In 1963, almost everyone at the CIA scoffed at Golitsyn’s contentions, prompting Angleton to have Golitsyn transferred to his supervision. 
Having read similar accounts by other defectors from socialist and communist nations, a disturbing pattern emerges: there is a regular and consistent pattern in the West to try and silence and disparage former intelligence operatives from communist regimes who have attempted to warn Western governments and intelligence services about the active communist conspiracy that is unceasingly plotting and working against the Western world, both in the past and at present. What is especially troubling is the historical resistance toward those with intimate knowledge of communist designs against the West.
Over the past 20 years or so, a lot of new and unsettling information has come out that reveals an incredible level of infiltration at the highest levels by Soviet “agents of influence,” communists and fellow travelers (sympathizers). Sources such as the Venona decrypts, Mitrokhin Archives and Vassiliev’s Notebooks, among many other sources, are chock full of references to high-ranking U.S. government officials and well-known Americans that were actively working with the Soviets and the KGB (I will have more details on some of these individuals in an upcoming article on Sen. Joseph McCarthy).
Several very well-researched books*, with plenty of footnotes, have also been published over the past few decades that further pull back the covers on just how bad the infiltration truly has been (and, I suspect, still is). Consider our current president, Barack Obama, and his troubling connections with leftist radicals … people like Bill Ayers and Frank Marshall Davis, just to name a few.
For Western intellectuals and Establishment types—whether they are of the Maoist or Marxist-Leninist or Trotskyite or similar schools—it would behoove them to consider just what sort of world it would be if the scourge of “pure socialism” were to take root in the form of a global federation of communist states (i.e. world government).
KGB defectors like Anatoliy Golitsyn and Yuri Bezmenov (a.k.a. Tomas Schuman) have warned that once the situation has been “normalized” (see “Prague Spring”)—meaning, the full implementation of the dictatorship of the proletariat—the Gramcsiist Communists (“useful idiots,” “Cultural Marxists,” etc.) and Anarchists (“useless idiots”) will be ruthlessly swept aside. They will have served their intended purpose—to prepare the populace to accept pure socialism; and they will have no place in a communistic world.
Because the despotic tyrants that would rule over the aforementioned individuals know full and well they would become their most ardent enemies once they discover just how repressive and oppressive pure socialism truly is in its undiluted and toxic form.
In the new worldwide communist federation the present different brands of communism would disappear, to be replaced by a uniform, rigorous brand of Leninism. The process would be painful…. 
One need look no further than Putin’s Russia or Red China to see how counter-revolutionaries, anarchists, minorities, religions, bourgeoisie, homosexuals, and the like, are dealt with—mercilessly and ruthlessly.
You’ve been warned.
But who’s listening?
* A few recommended books on the subject matter: M. Stanton Evans’ Blacklisted by History, Herbert Romerstein & M. Stanton Evans’ Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government, Weinstein & Vassiliev’s The Haunted Wood, Haynes, Klehr & Vassiliev’s Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America, Diana West’s American Betrayal, Herbert Romerstein’s The Venona Secrets, Christopher Andrew & Vasili Mitrokhin’s The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB.
- Anatoliy Golitsyn, New Lies for Old (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1984), p. 182.
- Ibid., p. 349.
- Mark Riebling, Wedge: The Secret War between the FBI and the CIA (Simon & Schuster, 2002), pp. 407-8.
- Anatoliy Golitsyn, New Lies for Old (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1984), p. 350.
- Ibid., pp. 337-8.
- Ibid., pp. 345-6.
- Ibid., p. 351.
- Ibid., p. 337.
- History of the Tudeh Party of Iran, Iran Chamber Society. Retrieved from http://www.iranchamber.com/history/tudeh/tudeh_party03.php
- Anatoliy Golitsyn, New Lies for Old (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1984), p. 339.
- John McManus, William F. Buckley, Jr.: Pied Piper of the Establishment (The John Birch Society, 2002), p. 85.
- Anatoliy Golitsyn, New Lies for Old (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1984), p. 346.
By: Brent Parrish
The Right Planet
I was surprised and bit buoyed recently when I saw that Glenn Beck has been taking a hard look at Grover Norquist’s very questionable ties to Islamic radicals. I was even more surprised when I read that Glenn Beck would be interviewing Grover Norquist on his show tonight.
Initially, Norquist rebuffed Glenn Beck’s request for an interview, as the following Twitter exchange will attest.
But, apparently, Grover has a had a change of heart, for whatever reason.
Here’s a slice from Beck’s interview with Norquist:
WATCH the full interview here
Via the The Blaze:
Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, appeared on The Glenn Beck Program Thursday to defend himself against accusations that he is an “agent of influence” for radical Islamists. Norquist set up the Islamic Free Market Institute roughly 20 years ago, and through the organization, Beck said, he crossed paths with a number of controversial figures, including two now-imprisoned terrorists.
“When we set up the Islamic Free Market Institute in the mid-nineties it was because I had seen in Afghanistan and Pakistan during the end of the war against the Soviet Union, this radical strain of anti-Americanism and statism in the Muslim community from people who you would think would’ve be more supportive of the United States,” Norquist explained. “I was looking around for, how do we make the case for a reformation in Islam focused on something that I know something about, which is free market economics.”
“That sounds like an unbelievably noble goal,” Beck said. “Now here is the question that leaps to mind: if that’s my goal, gosh, how do I take a check from a guy like [Abdurahman Alamoudi]?”
Beck explained on his television program Wednesday that Norquist’s Islamic Free Market Institute accepted at least $20,000 from Abdurahman Alamoudi, who allegedly raised money for Al Qaeda and is currently serving a 23-year prison sentence on terrorism charges.
Grover Norquist is founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform. Norquist has been under some scrutiny for a while now concerning his ties to Islamic radicals. Former Asst. Sec. of Defense Frank Gaffney has been trying to alert Americans about the concerning infiltration by Islamic radicals into the American political process for several years now.
Norquist joined forces with Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi in the 90s to found the Islamic Institute, later renamed the Islamic Free Market Institute. Norquist is also connected with Khaled Saffuri, who worked with al-Amoudi for years. Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi is currently serving 23 years in a federal prison.
Via Discover the Networks (emphasis mine):
In September 2003, British customs officials arrested Alamoudi at Heathrow Airport as he was returning from Libya with $340,000 in cash given to him by President Muammar Qadhafi to finance a plot involving two U.K.-based al Qaeda operatives intending to assassinate Saudi Crown Prince (later King) Abdullah.
Alamoudi was subsequently extradited to the United States. In October 2003, he was arrested at Dulles Airport on charges of having illegally accepted $10,700 from the Libyan mission to the United Nations.
With Alamoudi in custody, federal authorities released a transcript of a telephone conversation in which he had: lamented that no Americans had died during al Qaeda’s 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya; recommended that more operations be conducted like the 1994 Hezbollah bombing of a Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires, in which 85 people died; and clearly articulated his objective of turning America into a Muslim nation.
Alamoudi was indicted not only for his illegal dealings with Libya, but also for tax evasion and immigration fraud. He ultimately pled guilty to, and was convicted of, being a senior al Qaeda financier who had funneled at least $1 million into the coffers of that terrorist organization. He also acknowledged that he had pocketed almost $1 million for himself in the process. In October 2004, Alamoudi was sentenced to 23 years in federal prison.
During the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) trial of 2007, which examined evidence of HLF’s fundraising on behalf of Hamas, the U.S. government released a list of approximately 300 of HLF’s “unindicted co-conspirators” and “joint venturers.” Alamoudi was named in that list. To view the names of additional noteworthy individuals and groups listed, click here.
Some of Norquist’s Islamic ties are Suhail A. Khan, David Safavian, Jamal al Barzinji, and others, including Sami al-Arian, who was sentenced to 57 months in prison on one count of conspiracy to “make or receive funds … for the benefit of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.”
Via Human Events:
Norquist, reported [Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA], “also associated with terror financier Sami Al-Arian, according to Mary Jacoby’s reporting in March 2003, in the St. Petersburg Times. Al-Arian pled guilty in 2006 ‘to a charge of conspiring to provide services to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a specially designated terrorist organization, in violation of U.S. law,’ and is under house arrest, according to a Department of Justice press release. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s ‘paramilitary wing—the al-Quds Brigades—has conducted numerous attacks, including large-scale suicide bombings,’ according to the National Counterterrorism Center.”
By: Brent Parrish
The Right Planet
Click above to play video
For the past three years, Trevor Loudon, author of the book Barack Obama and the Enemies Within, has been trying to warn Americans about the Marxist takeover of the Democratic Party. If you listen to the video above, you can hear Trevor is losing his voice from all the rallies he’s been attending lately. He is trying, with every fiber in his being, to warn Americans of the dire consequences of ignoring the ominous slide toward pure socialism occurring now in the American body politic.
A little while back I had the distinct pleasure of sitting down and talking to Trevor Loudon at length when he visited Indianapolis. Many of the points he is making in his presentation to the Leadership Institute were the same ones he made during his visit to Indy.
I want to focus on some key points regarding illegal immigration Trevor made in his presentation.
Before 1995, the AFL-CIO labor union was lead by alleged anti-communists like Lane Kirkland and George Meany. But, in 1995, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and the Gramcsiist communists kicked out Lane Kirkland, replacing him with DSA member John Sweeney. Sweeney is currently President Emeritus of the AFL-CIO. He was president of the organization for four terms, from 1995 to 2009. Richard L. Trumka is the current AFL-CIO President.
The radical leftists took over every major labor union in the country, and purged the Democratic Party of all the moderates, dixiecrats, centrists and bluedog democrats—with Sen. Joe Lieberman being the last to go.
Today, there is not a single policy embraced by the Democratic Party that can be distinguished from the platform of the Communist Party USA or the Democratic Socialists of America. This is full-on Marxism-Leninism, ladies and gentlemen. I have been warning about this for years—Trevor, even longer. Now we have a situation where some twenty-thousand Marxists own the unions, and the unions own the Democratic Party. It was Vladimir Lenin who once wrote that the labor unions are “the transmission belts from the Communist Party to the masses.”
Trevor mentioned some key individuals worth noting in his presentation that have been major driving forces behind the “immigration reform” movement (i.e. amnesty) in the United States.
The first organized effort to bring Latinos into the Democratic Party started with hardcore communist Bert Corona in the 1950’s. It was Corona who set up the Viva Kennedy clubs that, for the first time, brought large numbers of Mexican-Americans into a Presidential campaign.
The former mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa—a hardcore Marxist, who cut sugar cane in Cuba for the Castro brothers—turned L.A. into a sanctuary city, and forbade the LAPD from enforcing immigration. The illegals flooded into California by the hundreds of thousands.
Communist Party supporter, and former head of the California senate, Gil Cedillo, pushed through the DREAM Act in California about three years ago, giving so-called “rights” to the children of illegal immigrants—euphemistically called “undocumented workers.”
Maria Elena Durazo, a Marxist and chair of the AFL-CIO’s Immigration Committee, added hundreds of thousands of Latinos to the California voter rolls over the past 15 years via union-led and union-funded get-out-the-vote efforts.
The current leader of the “immigration reform” movement is DSA member and Communist Party supporter Eliseo Medina. Until recently, Medina was the head of the SEIU union. He served on Obama’s Latino Advisory Council with several other Marxists.
Medina works very closely with Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-IL), who is attempting to drive amnesty through the House. Gutiérrez regularly consults President Obama on immigration issues. When Gutiérrez couldn’t shove amnesty through the House, he pressured Obama to do it illegally via executive orders.
After five years of hard lobbying, Medina manged to get the AFL-CIO to flip their policies from anti-illegal to pro illegal immigration—which was achieved at their national convention held in Louisiana in 2000. According to Trevor Loudon, Eliseo was quoted as saying passing amnesty is the number one priority of the Progressive Movement. Granting citizenship and voting rights to 11 million “undocumented workers” is the primary and ultimate goal. There was no talk of compassion, or reuniting families, or helping the economy at the convention in Louisiana. The interests of the “Party” comes first. Period.
Before 1995 unions represented the interests of labor and its union members (and to make union leaders rich). But, now, the goal of the labor unions is strictly “socialist revolution.”
“Illegals are bad for union workers; they will cost jobs; but they’re great for the revolution,” says Trevor Loudon.
Twenty-five years ago it was the labor unions that were staunchly opposed to illegal immigration, citing unfair competition that would drive down wages and conditions for union members should amnesty be granted. Now labor leads the charge to legalize illegals. Union leaders are selling out their own members because revolution comes first. The Marxists have succeeded at getting union members to vote against their own best interests.
California, the most populous state in the union, with the most electoral votes, has already been lost to the Marxists and the communists. Should the likes of Eliseo Medina and Barack Obama succeed in adding at least eight million Latinos to the voter rolls, it will turn the second most populous state in the union, Texas, blue. No Republican president will ever be elected again—at least, not in our lifetimes. The United States, in effect, will become a one-party state led by the unions and the communists. This is why Trevor believes Obama is risking so much political capital on his risky executive amnesty maneuver.
Members of the GOP who support amnesty are committing political suicide. If the Republican leadership believes granting amnesty to millions of illegals will result in creating new Republican voters, they are utterly delusional. In 2008, Latinos voted overwhelmingly for Obama and progressive candidates.
And yet, according to Trevor Loudon, the Chamber of Commerce spent $1.7 billion in the past 10 years promoting amnesty. But, why? The answer is simple: cheap labor. Members of the Vichy GOP are not looking any farther than the noses on their collective faces. It’s all about cheap labor and profits—nation be damned. But, as Vladimir Lenin once said, “The capitalists will sell us the rope with which to hang them.”
If you think the Democrats and their progressive ilk are arrogant, corrupt and power-mad now, just wait when they have sole control. If this brazen attempt at executive amnesty is allowed to stand, the United States will go the way of Venezuela, then Cuba. We have only two years to save our constitutional republic. Time is not on our side, ladies and gentlemen.
The Betrayal Papers will trace the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama administration’s foreign and domestic policies. The five-part series will present a picture of a conspiracy that is manipulating the American government to the benefit of a totalitarian, genocidal movement that seeks to establish a global Islamic State.
- The Muslim Brotherhood is an international political, financial, terrorist and movement whose goal is to establish a global Islamic State (Caliphate).
- They have and continue to exert tremendous influence of the American government’s foreign and domestic policies under President Barack Hussein Obama.
- The violence in the Middle East and across North Africa is a direct consequence of the Muslim Brotherhood’s effective control over American foreign policy in the region.
- They operate through various “civic” front groups, as well as through American institutions who take their money as operational funding (Georgetown University, Brookings Institution).
In America, we have a weak and struggling economy, growing public and private debt and millions are un- and underemployed. While a weaponized IRS targets Tea Party groups and other voices of liberty, and military veterans are labeled as “domestic terrorists” by the Department of Homeland Security, the federal government refuses to secure the southern border. Educational policy now includes the teaching Arabic and visits to mosques for schoolchildren.
Internationally, America is in retreat. The Middle East is in ashes, and in the midst of an ongoing genocide replete with daily horrors, the likes which have not been seen for centuries. Former allies have been abandoned and are embittered. Under the present leadership in the White House and State Department, Israel is considered the aggressor and Hamas the oppressed.
In sum, the world is at its most volatile point since the outbreak of World War II.
If you think that this is a result of something other than an “incompetent,” “stupid,” or “clueless” President, words regularly used by those who sense something is wrong but, can’t quite bring themselves to own up to the ugly truth, you’re not alone.
Millions of Americans are realizing that the Obama administration is not merely “misguided.” It is actually and consciously anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and broadly anti-Western. Yet , the American public does not yet fully appreciate why and how the administration always finds itself square against everything this country is based on – religious freedom, capitalism, and justice under law.
This series of articles will explain the force and mechanics behind Obama’s anti-American global agenda: the Muslim Brotherhood.
Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimoon: The Root of Today’s Islamic Evil
Founded in 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood (aka, the Society of Muslim Brothers, or Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimoon in Arabic) is an international movement (some would argue an international conspiracy) that seeks to establish a worldwide Islamic State (or Caliphate). When it was created in the late 1920s, the Brotherhood was a contemporary of the Nazi Party of Germany. Indeed, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine, Amin al-Husseini, is considered by some as the man who catalyzed the Holocaust; for it was only after Husseini visited Hitler in Berlin in 1941 that the systematic extermination of Jews and other minorities began with industrial efficiency.
After the war, despite the insistence by many wartime leaders (Churchill included) that he be brought to justice, Husseini escaped to the Middle East. He lived there until his death in the 1970s, serving as a mentor to a young Yasser Arafat. Husseini and the Nazi Party are the connection points between the Holocaust and today’s Middle Eastern genocide.
The Allies conscious failure to arrest and prosecute Husseini haunts us today.
A Terror Hedge against Stalin and Soviet Russia
At the beginning of the Cold War, working with former Nazis, the American CIA began to court the Muslim Brotherhood as an ally against Soviet Russia. This calculus may have made sense when facing down Josef Stalin, a totalitarian tyrant hell-bent on world domination, but it has proved a costly strategy in the long run.
In the years and decades that followed World War II, the Muslim Brotherhood has evolved into a modern day Nazi International, not unlike the old Comintern (Communist International). It has a vast network of financial and business interests across the world; it has agents, supporters, and apologists within western governments; and it has a support network of “civic” organizations in the West.
These all serve as a cover for its darker and insatiably violent ambitions.
For despite all their intrigue and political gamesmanship, the Muslim Brotherhood is not strictly a political movement, nor a financial cabal. It’s also the mothership of virtually all Islamic terrorist groups operating in the world today, including Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, the Taliban, Boko Haram, and many more. Such groups, all children of the Muslim Brotherhood’s fanatical Islamic ideology, are today ethnically cleansing countries such as Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Nigeria of all traces of Christianity. No less than the President of Egypt, Muslim Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, a devout Muslim, has said as much.
Considering how the Muslim Brotherhood and their terrorist pawns treat fellow Muslims in Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Iraq, butchering them by the bushel including women and children, it should come as no surprise that Egypt and Saudi Arabia have declared the them a “terrorist” organization.
It should also come as no surprise that the United Arab Emirates has designated Muslim Brotherhood front groups operating in the United States “terrorist” entities. In November, the UAE effectively declared that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Muslim-American Society (MAS) were no different than Al Qaeda. Why? It’s because they share a common origin in the Muslim Brotherhood. One could add to this list of domestic terrorist collaborators and enablers the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), and the Muslim Students Association (MSA).
A New HQ in America
Equally alarmingly, all-American institutions such as Georgetown University and the Brookings Institution have accepted so much money from the Muslim Brotherhood government in Qatar, that their political positions are virtually indistinguishable from the Muslim Brotherhood’s domestic front groups!
Yet, the United States government does not see these organizations and their employees as the enemy, as apologists for the worst kinds of barbarity. In fact, the highest profile people from these organizations advise the Obama administration, including the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and the National Security Council. In January, the Department of State actually welcomed the Muslim Brotherhood to a meeting, and shortly thereafter Egypt exploded in jihadi violence. This is no magical coincidence.
To the detriment of our safety and well-being, the domestic Muslim Brotherhood front groups help dictate counterterrorism policies. It is their influence which leads to the farcical idea, recently expressed by Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast, that the Crusades have something to do with ISIS and the mass murder of innocents in the Middle East today.
These front groups shape our foreign policy, which since the Arab Spring and continuing to this day is on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood.
So-called “moderate Muslims” employed at these front groups have made the country of Qatar, a totalitarian sharia-based society, and an “ATM for terrorists,” the closest ally of the United States under Obama’s Presidency. With enthusiasm from Obama and Eric Holder, they have us emptying Guantanamo Bay of the most vicious killers and sending them to Qatar, with only the vaguest of security assurances.
The remaining four articles will explore the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood on American policy, both foreign and domestic (including in Common Core, Obama’s position on illegal immigration and amnesty, and the hostility of the administration toward police officers). The exposé will also detail the operatives in the government who work to advance the Muslim Brotherhood’s ambitions for a worldwide Caliphate. And it will put into context the mysterious influence that George Soros and Valerie Jarrett have over Barack Hussein Obama, his administration, and the policies that affect every American.
The Betrayal Papers is a collaborative effort by the Coalition of Concerned Citizens, which includes: Andrea Shea King, Dr. Ashraf Ramelah, Benjamin Smith, Brent Parrish, Charles Ortel, William Palumbo, Denise Simon, Dick Manasseri, Gary Kubiak, Gates of Vienna, IQ al Rassooli, Jeff Bayard, Leslie Burt, Marcus Kohan, Mary Fanning, General Paul E. Vallely, Regina Thomson, Scott Smith, Terresa Monroe-Hamilton, Colonel Thomas Snodgrass, Trever Loudon, Wallace Bruschweiler, and William Palumbo.
Also see: Restoring Liberty: Joe Miller
By: Brent Parrish
The Right Planet
For many years now I have said the State Department needs to be cleaned out from top to bottom. And I’m not alone in that opinion, either. The U.S. Department of State has a long history of working against the best interests of the United States, consistently shilling for all things socialist. Those who have looked into tax-exempt foundations like the Carnegie Endowment, Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Consortium, Guggenheim Fellowship, etc., and the subsequent investigation by the Reece Committee, might know what I’m talking about.
The first U.S. Secretary of Defense, James Forrestal, once said, “Consistency has never been a mark of stupidity. If the diplomats who have mishandled our relations with Russia were merely stupid, they would have occasionally made a mistake in our favor.”
State Department Spokesperson Marie Harf recently told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews ISIS could be stopped if we could just create jobs for them.
At first blush, for those ignorant of Marxist ideology, this sort of thinking seems preposterous. Well, I am strongly inclined to agree. But I digress.
For dyed-in-the-wool Marxists and their fellow travelers (sympathizers), it makes perfect sense. This is why I believe it so important more Americans gain a better understanding of Marxism—since it is lauded and approved of by so many American universities and the liberal media, not to mention those in positions of power within our own government.
Karl Marx believed our view of history needed to be changed (cf. “hope and change”). Cleon Skousen wrote in his book The Naked Communist about the central importance economics plays in the Marxian religion. Marx believed history should be changed to “a fixed, undeviating, pre-determined course of progress which could be charted in the past and predicted for the future on the basis of a single, simple criterion—economics.”
According to Marx and his votaries, if we could only “level the playing field” by making everyone and everything the same (see “equality and fairness”), it would usher in a veritable utopia, i.e., the long hoped for “workers’ paradise.” Interestingly, about 90 percent of what Karl Marx wrote concerned economics (see Das Kapital).
Well, let’s just get something straight: ISIS doesn’t give a damn about economics—quite the contrary. Their motivations and actions are not influenced by Marxism, per se, but rather the teachings of Muhammad, and a literal interpretation of the Koran and the Hadith.
Although it should be noted that Marxism and Islam have quite a bit in a common.
Until our government pulls its proverbial head out of its posterior region, and begins to address the Islamic ideology that fuels terrorist groups like ISIS, we will forever be beating our collective heads against the wall wondering why we are not getting anywhere, while the enemy runs roughshod over us and others. If you cannot define the enemy, you cannot defeat the enemy. How many times does it have to be said?
Harf went on to make the patently absurd claim that “we cannot win this war by killing them [ISIS] … we cannot kill our way out of this war.”
So why are we killing them? The whole purpose of war is to kill the enemy until they’re either all dead or they surrender unconditionally. Period.
You just can’t make this stuff up.
Of course this brings us to the all-important question: just whose team is the Obama Administration and the State Department playing for?