«On Tuesday, August 22, China Daily, the official state-newspaper of the Communist Party of China, reported a visit by Chinese State Councilor Dai Bingguo to Russia, where he met with his Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. According to China Daily, both sides pledged “to further promote their comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination.” China Daily continued, “Lavrov said the Russia-China strategic partnership is irreversible, which not only serve the fundamental interests of both countries, but also conduce to peace and stability in the world.”
In September, the Sino-Russian “strategic partnership” was expressed at a higher level, as Chinese President Hu Jintao journeyed to Vladivostok, Russia, where he was the honored guest of President Vladimir Putin, who hosted the 2012 meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). China’s Xinhua News reported on September 7:
Hu said that he would like to have a thorough exchange of views with Putin on how to promote the comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination between the two countries and on regional and international issues.
"I am also looking forward to a successful APEC meeting to be presided by President Putin," he added.
Putin said the Russia-China relations have reached a very high level thanks to personal contribution of Hu, who would be invited to be the first speaker at the APEC leaders' meeting.
The China-Russia strategic partnership has developed steadily in recent years. The two countries have further boosted strategic and political mutual trust, enhanced their trade and economic cooperation, and coordinated closely on major world and regional issues.
The Hu-Putin love-fest in Vladivostok is a follow-up to Putin’s visit to China in this past June and Hu’s visit to Russia last year. For more than a decade, The New American has been reporting on the growing partnership between Moscow and Beijing and the extensive cooperation between the two regimes on matters concerning military, technology, science, trade, education, and geo-politics.
Russia is supposedly no-longer a communist country yet it shares a “strategic partnership” that is “irreversible” with the People's Republic of China, which still remains under Communist Party rule. Despite this apparent difference in government, what sort of “stability in the world” could these two states be working towards? Surely not a “world revolution” to lead toward a “one-world communist state,” as once commonly dreamed by all Soviet dictators from Lenin to Grobachev and China's Mao Zedong. After all, the Soviet Union collapsed, “communism is dead;” or was the collapse of communism and the Soviet Union a subterfuge to advance a strategic Soviet victory?
In The Art of War, Sun Tzu wrote, “Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.” Bolshevik leader and founder of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Lenin was a diligent student of Sun Tzu’s The Art of War. Lenin and his Soviet protégés understood, “To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill,” as Sun Tzu wrote.
“Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War,” Henry Kissinger said during a tribute to the late president. “By the grace of God, America won the Cold War,” President George H. W. Bush triumphantly declared in his January 1992 State of the Union address.
For over twenty years the general consensus has been that the United States “won” the Cold War, but in light of Russia’s continued Cold War-style hostilities abroad and resurgent Soviet-style totalitarianism at home, coupled with the Soviet leadership’s interest in Sun Tzu, is it possible to deduce that America did not actually win the Cold War and that the collapse of communism was a strategic Soviet deception?
Was the Soviet Union actually defeated? Did communism implode? Did the America really win the Cold War?
“Who told you that the Cold War was ever over? It transforms, it is like a virus,” said KGB/FSB defector Sergei Tretyakov on FOX News, in 2009. “I don’t agree that the Cold War is back. It never ended,” said Andrei Lugovoi, a representative in the Duma, Russian parliament, in 2000.
In July 2012, during a speech at a conference hosted by Cliff Kincaid at the National Press Club, in Washington D.C., KGB/FSB defector Konstantin Preobrazhensky said, “Still, Russia is a Marxist country, that's why Marxist don't need to destroy Russian society.”
If Russia is still a “Marxist country” and the Cold War “never ended,” then what really happened? Did the alleged “collapse of communism” happen by coincidence or by design — and, by design, we mean, specifically, by internal communist design?
The apparent demise of the Soviet Union and its communist empire came about rather quickly and unexpectedly. That is how it appeared to virtually all but a few, such as KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn.
Before his defection to the West, in 1961, Golitsyn served as a member of the KGB’s ultra secretive Department D, which dealt with long-range disinformation. Department D was subordinate only to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and was “given access to the executive branches of government and to departments of the Central Committee to enable it to prepare and carry out operations that required the approval or support of the party leadership,” according to Golitsyn. (For a detailed explanation of Golitsyn’s importance to understanding the ongoing Soviet-Russian long-range deception strategy, see the three-part interview conducted by The New American with the late Christopher Story, publisher of the British-based Soviet Analyst, and publisher of Anatoliy Golitsyn’s books.)
Upon his defection to the West he wrote a series of memorandums to the CIA about Soviet disinformation strategies. With the permission of the CIA, Golitsyn published his writings and predictions in a book New Lies for Old, published in 1984. Author Mark Riebling, in his 1994 book Wedge: The Secret War between the CIA and the FBI, concluded a careful analysis of Golitsyn’s predictions in New Lies for Old. He deduced that out of 148 predictions, 139 had been verified by 1993, which comes out to “an accuracy rating of 94%.”
With a deep understanding of Soviet strategic deception, Golitsyn foresaw the coming so-called collapse of communism and the liberalization of Eastern Europe.
“‘Liberalization’ in Eastern Europe would probably involve the return to power in Czechoslovakia of Dubcek and his associates. If it should be extended to East Germany, demolition of the Berlin Wall might even be contemplated,” wrote Golitsyn, five years before those events took place. He continued, “Western acceptance of the new ‘liberalization’ as genuine would create favorable conditions for the fulfillment of communist strategy for the United States, Western Europe, and even, perhaps, Japan.”
With regard to the Sino-Soviet split, Golitsyn wrote, “Sino-Soviet differences are also the product of joint Sino-Soviet disinformation.” He elaborated further, “The disinformation program is an integrated whole. The Chinese have played an important part in every operation.”
The Eastern bloc intelligence agencies, the KGB and Chinese collaborated with one another, showing each other stolen classified US and NATO documents about the alleged Sino-Soviet “split.” This information, Golitsyn claims, was used to develop long-range strategies of deception. “Duality in Sino-Soviet polemics is used to mask the nature of the goals and the degree of coordination in the communist effort to achieve them.” This puts the formation of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), in 2001, into perspective.
On June 15, 2001, Russian President Vladimir Putin and the leaders of some of its “ex”-Soviet republics — Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan — and also the People’s Republic of China, gathered in Shanghai, where they agreed to create the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The SCO is essentially the majority of the USSR plus Communist China amalgamated into one bloc organization. Under the guise of regional security, the SCO has hosted annual joint war games with the armed forces of all its member states.
In size, the “SCO member states occupy territory of around 30 million 189 thousand square kilometers, which makes up three fifths of the Eurasian continent, and have a population of 1.5 billion, which makes up a quarter of the planet’s population,” according to the SCO’s website.
Earlier this year, in June 2012, the former Soviet republic of Tajikistan hosted “Peace Mission 2012,” a joint five-day military training exercise comprised of 2,000 military personnel and armored units from the armed forces of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. These SCO military drills have been going on since 2003, the largest of which was “Peace Mission 2010,” which included 5,000 Russian, Chinese, Kyrgyz, Tajik, and Kazak soldiers taking part in joint drills within Kazakhstan.
In his second book, The Perestroika Deception (1995), Golitsyn wrote, “When the right moment comes the mask will be dropped and the Russians with Chinese help will seek to impose their system on the West on their own terms as the culmination of a ‘Second October Socialist Revolution.’”
Russia has already begun to move in this direction. On Victory Day, May 9, 2011, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev used a giant Red Star with the letters CCCP (Russian abbreviation for USSR) as the backdrop for his Victory Day reception speech, in which he exalted the Russian military. Later that year, in November, Medvedev announced, “The Russian Federation will deploy modern offensive weapon systems in the west and south of the country, ensuring our ability to take out any part of the U.S. missile defense system in Europe.”
Earlier this year Russia announced it would open military naval bases overseas in its Cold War allied states of Communist Cuba and Vietnam. In an interview with RIA Novosti state media, on July 27, 2012, Russian Vice Admiral Viktor Chirkov said, “It’s true that we are continuing work on providing the navy with basing outside the Russian Federation.” Vice Admiral Chirkov continued, “We aim to set up resupply bases in Cuba, the Seychelles, and Vietnam.”
Sino-Russian collaboration has already solidified through the SCO, making the possibility of a “Second October Revolution” increasingly likely. Following the 2012 Russian Presidential Elections, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation vowed to return to power either by through parliamentary or “revolutionary methods.” As we approach the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik October Revolution of 1917 it remains to be seen whether Russia will brazenly return to Communist Party rule or if Putin’s “democratic” Russian Federation will continue the country’s gradual re-Sovietization. Either way, to speak of a historic “collapse of communism” or “fall of the Soviet Union” only serves to deviate and distract the West from the KGB’s ongoing long-term strategy, which can perhaps be described best in the words of Sun Tzu, “All warfare is based on deception”».
Christian Gomez («Second October Socialist Revolution», in The New American, 11 October 2012).
«During his stop in Poland this week ahead of the G-20 summit, President Donald Trump slammed communism as a “cruel” and “wicked” system that sought to crush the Polish people's freedom, faith, history, identity, and even humanity. But despite the murderous tyranny that enslaved the nation for so long, Trump said the communist butchers were unable to crush their faith in God — and that crying out to Him was ultimately the key to restoring freedom in Poland.
Trump's eloquent words revealed an understanding on the evils of communism that is lacking among wide swaths of today's Western political class. However, the U.S. president also claimed communist savagery was no longer a threat to Poland or to Europe. "This continent no longer confronts the specter of communism," Trump said. In reality, the criminal conspirators behind “communism” remain a serious threat to Europe and the world. They rule the most populous nation in the world today. And communist criminals are still alive and well in Poland itself, too.
Still, Trump's July 6 speech in defense of faith, freedom, family, and Western civilization was moving. “I am here today not just to visit an old ally, but to hold it up as an example for others who seek freedom and who wish to summon the courage and the will to defend our civilization,” Trump said, showering the Poles with praise. “The story of Poland is the story of a people who have never lost hope, who have never been broken, and who have never, ever forgotten who they are.”
Though its borders were erased for more than a century, as a nation, Poland is more than one thousand years old, Trump said. And throughout its history — from helping to save Christian Europe from an Islamic invasion at the 1683 Battle of Vienna to beating back the murderous Soviet army in the 1920 “Miracle of Vistula” — the Polish people have a long and proud tradition of resisting oppression. But in 1939, despite a long and valiant fight, the proud Poles faced an impossible challenge.
That year, Adolf Hitler's mass-murdering National Socialist (Nazi) regime invaded Poland from the West. And from the East, Joseph Stalin's mass-murdering International Socialist dictatorship, which at that time was friendly with Hitler under the Nazi-Soviet Pact (also known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact), invaded as well. “That’s trouble,” Trump said. “That’s tough.”
“Under a double occupation the Polish people endured evils beyond description: the Katyn Forest massacre, the occupations, the Holocaust, the Warsaw Ghetto and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, the destruction of this beautiful capital city, and the deaths of nearly one in five Polish people,” Trump continued, adding that the Nazis murdered millions of Polish Jews, along with countless others, during the “brutal” occupation.
 |
| See here |
 |
| The unofficial wartime flag of the Armia Krajowa and the Polish Underground State (the Polish flag emblazoned with the Kotwica). |
 |
| Members of the SS-Sonderregiment Dirlewanger fighting in Warsaw, pictured in window of a townhouse at Focha Street, August 1944. |
 |
| See here |
 |
| "Gray Wolf" with Polish flag: German SdKfz 251 armored vehicle captured by the 8th Kribar Regiment of the Warsaw resistance on 14 August 1944 from the 5th Wiking SS Panzer Division. |
 |
| After the Warsaw Uprising, 85% of the city was deliberately destroyed by the German forces. |
But in 1944, as the Nazi and Soviet armies were preparing for battle in Warsaw, where Trump spoke, “the citizens of Poland rose up to defend their homeland,” he said, describing conditions at that time as “hell on earth.” “We salute your noble sacrifice and we pledge to always remember your fight for Poland and for freedom,” Trump declared.
With the Nazis defeated, Poland was instead enslaved by communists led by Stalin's brutal regime — one of the most murderous and barbaric in human history. “Through four decades of communist rule, Poland and the other captive nations of Europe endured a brutal campaign to demolish freedom, your faith, your laws, your history, your identity — indeed the very essence of your culture and your humanity,” Trump observed, slamming communism but without noting the key role of Western establishment globalists in betraying Poland into slavery.
Yet, despite unspeakable brutality, through it all, the Poles “never lost that spirit,” Trump said as the crowd applauded enthusiastically between chants of Trump's name. “Your oppressors tried to break you, but Poland could not be broken,” he added. Through it all, the Polish people's unshakable faith in God is what got them through, the president observed.
On June 2, 1979, a million Poles gathered at Victory Square for their first mass with Pope John Paul II, himself from Poland. “That day, every communist in Warsaw must have known that their oppressive system would soon come crashing down,” Trump said. “They must have known it at the exact moment during Pope John Paul II’s sermon when a million Polish men, women, and children suddenly raised their voices in a single prayer.”
“A million Polish people did not ask for wealth,” Trump continued. “They did not ask for privilege. Instead, one million Poles sang three simple words: ‘We Want God.’”
And that, Trump suggested, was the key.
“In those words, the Polish people recalled the promise of a better future,” Trump said. “They found new courage to face down their oppressors, and they found the words to declare that Poland would be Poland once again.”
Praising the “incredible crowd” and the “faithful nation,” the American president, who received a hero's welcome in Poland, said he could still hear the voices of those brave Poles echoing through history. “Their message is as true today as ever,” he said. “The people of Poland, the people of America, and the people of Europe still cry out ‘We Want God.’”
Reasserting their identity as a “nation devoted to God,” Trump said that the Poles, through their powerful declaration, came to understand what to do and how to live. “You stood in solidarity against oppression, against a lawless secret police, against a cruel and wicked system that impoverished your cities and your souls,” he said. “And you won. Poland prevailed. Poland will always prevail.”
Indeed, today, even as the post-Christian West is mired in confusion and decadence, Poland remains firmly committed to God. Late last year, the nation even formally recognized Jesus Christ as the King of Poland, as well as its Lord and Savior, in the presence of Polish President Andrzej Duda and other top officials from both church and state.
Unfortunately, despite Trump's understanding of the evils of communism and the centrality of faith in God in resisting those evils, the American president claimed the danger to Europe from communism was over. But according to Soviet KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn, who worked in communist disinformation and deception operations, the danger is far from over.
After defecting to the West, Golitsyn warned of a long-range strategy being pursued by the international communist conspiracy involving supposed “liberalization” in Eastern Europe and ostensible collapse of the Soviet Union. Arguably the most important defector ever, virtually all of his predictions have come to pass, according to experts who have analyzed the issue.
 |
| Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, center, Lech Walesa, left, and others, listen as President Donald Trump speaks at Krasinski Square at the Royal Castle, Thursday, July 6, 2017, in Warsaw. |
Eventually, according to Golitsyn, “it may be expected that a coalition government will be formed, comprising representatives of the communists, of a revived Solidarity movement, and of the church,” he wrote. “A few so-called liberals might also be included.” On the creation of a coalition government with those components, Golitsyn's prediction proved exactly correct.
Later developments also seem to have vindicated much of Golitsyn's warnings. In 1989, for example, Solidarity leader Walesa offered alarming comments in an interview with Soviet publication New Times. “Let power remain in the hands of the Communists,” he was quoted as saying, “but let it be different. Let it serve the people better, respect the law and be accountable to society. We are prepared to cooperate constructively with such authorities.”
More recently, former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev, speaking in London in 2001, approvingly referred to the European Union, of which numerous “former” Soviet nations are members, as the “new European Soviet.” Since then, numerous others have offered similar arguments. Russian Presidential Candidate Vladimir Bukovsky, a writer and lecturer, for example, recently warned that the EU is structurally very similar to the Soviet dictatorship.
And indeed, numerous Soviet-era communist criminals and murderers, who were never punished after the ostensible collapse of communism, are firmly embedded all throughout the EU's architecture to this day. More than a few critics of the EU have pointed out that fact in highly public comments.
It is true, of course, that the current leadership of Poland includes a number of Polish anti-communist heroes whose commitment to keeping tyranny and terror at bay is not and has not been brought into question. Many of them actually understand the Soviet strategy exposed in the West by Golitsyn. But that does not mean the threat is over, even in Poland.
Trump, though, focused on other threats to freedom and Western civilization — primarily Islamic terrorism and extremism. Ironically, that threat, too, stems in large part from the Soviet regime. As outlined by defector and former head of the communist Romanian regime's intelligence service General Ion Mihai Pacepa, the communist conspiracy deployed thousands of communist agents across the Middle East to radicalize Muslims and use them as cannon fodder in waging war against the West.
“As KGB Chairman Yuri Andropov told me, a billion adversaries could inflict far greater damage on America than could a few millions,” he said. The details provided by Pacepa and other defectors make clear that the “Evil Empire” was crucial in the emergence of today’s Islamic terror threat. More recently, vast amounts of evidence, including information revealed by defectors, shows that the Kremlin (along with other governments) continues to be involved in promoting, guiding, and fomenting “Islamic” terror.
Trump also pointed to another, more subtle threat to freedom that — whether he realized it or not — has a number of similarities and links to the machinery erected by international communism over the last century. “This danger is invisible to some but familiar to the Poles: the steady creep of government bureaucracy that drains the vitality and wealth of the people,” Trump said. “The West became great not because of paperwork and regulations but because people were allowed to chase their dreams and pursue their destinies.”
 |
| Warsaw Uprising Monument in Krasiński Square in Warsaw. |
However, Trump vowed to fight back and defend Western values. “Americans, Poles, and the nations of Europe value individual freedom and sovereignty,” he said. “We must work together to confront forces, whether they come from inside or out, from the South or the East, that threaten over time to undermine these values and to erase the bonds of culture, faith and tradition that make us who we are. If left unchecked, these forces will undermine our courage, sap our spirit, and weaken our will to defend ourselves and our societies.”
The parts of Trump's speech exposing the evils of communism and touting the benefits of faith and freedom should be applauded by liberty-minded people everywhere. However, there is more to the threat against Western civilization, freedom, and Christendom than simply Islamism and bureaucracy. If liberty and independence are going to survive over the long term, Americans and others concerned about the future of liberty must work to educate their fellow citizens on the entire scope of the danger».
Alex Newman («In Poland, Trump Cites Faith as Key to Ending "Wicked" Communism», in The New American, 06 July 2017).
«During the Cold War, well-publicized antagonisms between East and West dictated that the United Nations not be able to establish its own permanent UN military operations. UN military authorizations may be vetoed by any of the five permanent Security Council members. The Soviet Union, which could have vetoed UN entry into the Korean War, actually permitted it by temporarily boycotting the world body. No full-scale direct UN military action has occurred since — only UN peacekeeping activity.
But Articles 52-54 of the UN Charter authorize forming "Regional Arrangements," precisely what NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is. In its preamble and 14 short articles, the 1949 NATO Charter demonstrates its UN genesis in five places. Marketed to the American people as only a military alliance designed to check any westward movement of the Soviet Bloc, NATO won immediate — though not unanimous -- approval in the U.S. Senate. When the USSR supposedly dissolved, NATO should have as well, but its founders had other plans.
On March 19, 1949, Secretary of State Dean Acheson stated that the pact was "designed to fit precisely into the framework of the United Nations," that it was "subject to the overriding provisions of the United Nations Charter," and that it "is an essential measure for strengthening the United Nations."
After Yugoslavia's Communist government dissolved in the early 1990s, ancient rivalries among the region's ethnic and religious groups degenerated once again into bloody conflicts. With Russia, then an ally of one of the combatants, potentially standing in the way of UN action, the world planners turned to NATO, where no member nation has a veto. When President Clinton addressed our nation on November 27, 1996, he lamented that the UN's early peacekeeping mission in Bosnia had failed because its personnel didn't "have the authority to respond to any violations of the military provisions of the peace arrangement." But, he gladly reported, NATO had "overwhelming force" capability on which NATO members could rely.
NATO's forces, especially its air wing, had already been employed in Bosnia when U.S. Admiral Leighton Smith declared in September 1995 how pleased he was to be "carrying out the mandates of the secretary general." But was he referring to the UN or NATO secretary-general? It didn't really matter, since each is ultimately a UN official. In the fall of 1996, former German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher stated in a Washington Times column: "NATO's decision to send forces to Bosnia based on a UN Security Council decision is to be applauded." NATO was then, and is still today, the UN's military force. Moreover, on December 1, 1996, the Associated Press reported that U.S. General George Joulwan, NATO's supreme commander, dutifully went to NATO headquarters in Brussels "seeking authority to begin moving the first soldiers into place" in Bosnia. Those 20,000 U.S. troops and forces from 15 other NATO countries have never worn the UN blue helmets but, without question, they are a UN force.
America's top military officials are trained at Fort Leaven-worth's School of Advanced Military Studies. One of their instructors, military theorist James J. Schneider, authored "Ambushing the Future" for the April 1995 issue of Strategic Warfare magazine. Therein, Schneider claimed that "the future will be dominated by a single overwhelming presence -- the United Nations." But recognizing the UN's inability to have its own military force, he added, "Even now we can anticipate the transformation of NATO from a regional security arrangement to a future role as the UN's military arm." The "future role," of course, had already arrived.
Consider where all of this is heading. On August 27, 2001, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman called for "NATO to occupy the West Bank and Gaza and set up a NATO-run Palestinian state." Note that this outspoken pro-UN internationalist doesn't envision the UN itself implementing his suggestion. There is no UN army to do what he wants. But there is a NATO armed force.
 |
| President Harry Truman signs the North Atlantic Pact creating the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as several foreign diplomats watch. August 24, 1949. |
 |
| During the Cold War, most of Europe was divided between two alliances. Members of NATO are shown in blue, with members of the Warsaw Pact in red, unaffliated countries are in grey. Yugoslavia, although communist, had left the Soviet sphere in 1948, while Albania was only a Warsaw Pact member until 1968. |
 |
| NATO has added 13 new members since the German reunification and the end of the Cold War. |
 |
Map of NATO partnerships globally |
In keeping with the developing awareness that NATO can do what its UN parent can't accomplish, NATO's 19 member nations expressed formal willingness on November 21, 2002 "to take effective action ... without conditions or restrictions" if Iraq refuses "fully and immediately" to comply with UN Security Council demands. The UN doesn't need its own army; it already has NATO. And NATO has already begun to "project its will" beyond the geographic limits of member nations.
NATO began with 12 members and grew to 16 in 1982. All were from North America and Western Europe. In 1999, expansion into the former Soviet Bloc occurred when Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic were added. Plans announced in November 2002 called for adding seven more nations in 2004 (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Romania, Slovenia and Bulgaria), bringing the total to 26.
NATO now has more nations from which to draw its forces and fewer nations to stand up to its growing military strength. In the process, the UN has acquired through the back door what it has not been able to achieve openly».
John F. McManus («NATO: The UN's Military Arm», in The New American, 30 December 2002).
«Despite defending Western values, nationhood, and Christianity in his historic July 6 speech in Warsaw, Poland, President Donald Trump also made a number of remarks appearing to subtly promote U.S. intervention overseas, as well as entangling alliances with transnational institutions. Some of the rhetoric — full-blown support for NATO, for example, or demanding that the Kremlin stop aiding the Syrian regime in its war against Islamist rebels — marked a sharp contrast with his anti-globalist campaign speeches promoting largely noninterventionist views and “America First” policies. But what the changing rhetoric means from a policy perspective remains to be seen.
Support for NATO and the “Transatlantic” alliance between “Europe” and the United States were key themes in Trump's speech. “You were supported in that victory over communism by a strong alliance of free nations in the West that defied tyranny,” Trump said after describing heroic Polish efforts to resist National Socialist (Nazi) and International Socialist (Soviet) oppression. “Now, among the most committed members of the NATO Alliance, Poland has resumed its place as a leading nation of a Europe that is strong, whole, and free.”
While Trump never said it explicitly, a number of his comments were interpreted by some analysts as an endorsement of the globalist European Union, which Trump ridiculed and slammed on the campaign trail as he fervently supported British secession. “A strong Poland is a blessing to the nations of Europe, and they know that,” Trump said. “A strong Europe is a blessing to the West and to the world. One hundred years after the entry of American forces into World War I, the transatlantic bond between the United States and Europe is as strong as ever and maybe, in many ways, even stronger.”
Again, without saying it explicitly, Trump appeared to be endorsing a key globalist theme that, a few generations ago, was happening much more openly — the establishment-engineered unification of Europe on the road to a “Transatlantic” union, finally paving the way toward world federalism and true globalism under the banner of a “New World Order.” While the movement has changed some of its rhetoric, the goals remain the same. And through the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the goal of installing transnational policymakers over the economies of the United States and the EU is no longer a remote prospect.
Under the controversial scheme, unelected EU bureaucrats would be empowered to impose policies on Americans. Transnational “tribunals” would also have the power to override American courts and elected officials. And despite fading from the forefront of public discussion in the press, U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, a former Rothschild operative, recently told an audience in Berlin that the U.S. government remained open to imposing the “free trade” regime on America and Europe. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the open-borders fanatic and “former communist,” reportedly welcomed the idea as well.
In his speech from Poland, Trump appeared to endorse the idea, no doubt pleasing globalists in Europe and the United States. “To the citizens of this great region, America is eager to expand our partnership with you,” Trump said, presumably referencing “citizens” of the EU and the TTIP scheme. “We welcome stronger ties of trade and commerce as you grow your economies. And we are committed to securing your access to alternate sources of energy, so Poland and its neighbors are never again held hostage to a single supplier of energy.”
In addition to the subtle nod of support to transnational regimes, Trump also struck a much more militaristic, interventionist tone in the speech. “Today, the West is also confronted by the powers that seek to test our will, undermine our confidence, and challenge our interests,” he said. “To meet new forms of aggression, including propaganda, financial crimes, and cyberwarfare, we must adapt our alliance to compete effectively in new ways and on all new battlefields.” He was referring to NATO.
Trump also said U.S. and Polish troops were serving in Afghanistan and Iraq supposedly “combating the enemies of all civilization,” though on the campaign trail he regularly denounced the Iraq War.
And then, despite having stated repeatedly before his election that the U.S. government should stay out of Syria and avoid confrontation with the Kremlin if possible, Trump seemed to have succumbed, at least partly, to the swarms of globalist swamp creatures burrowed in his administration on both issues. “We urge Russia to cease its destabilizing activities in Ukraine and elsewhere, and its support for hostile regimes — including Syria and Iran — and to instead join the community of responsible nations in our fight against common enemies and in defense of civilization itself,” Trump said. With all of that in mind, Trump touted the increasing monetary support for NATO provided by other governments thanks to prodding by the new U.S. administration. “As a result of this insistence, billions of dollars more have begun to pour into NATO,” he said.
“In fact, people are shocked. But billions and billions of dollars more are coming in from countries that, in my opinion, would not have been paying so quickly.”
On the campaign trail, though, Trump referred to NATO, which is a subsidiary of the United Nations and is typically used to enforce UN decrees, as “obsolete.” But since his election, he has radically shifted his position. “To those who would criticize our tough stance, I would point out that the United States has demonstrated not merely with words but with its actions that we stand firmly behind Article 5, the mutual defense commitment,” Trump said, despite having advocated repeatedly for a constitutional declaration of war from Congress prior to committing U.S. forces. Article 5 of the pact purports to commit U.S. troops to war whenever another NATO member is attacked.
Finally, Trump praised Poland for acquiring Patriot air and missile defense systems from the United States, and also for being among the first NATO member states to achieve the benchmark for “investment in our common defense.” “Thank you, Poland,” Trump said. “I must tell you, the example you set is truly magnificent, and we applaud Poland.”
The president, who was greeted as a hero in Poland, also said that America had never, and would never, give up on “freedom and independence as the right and destiny of the Polish people.” Unfortunately, Trump has probably not read the explosive book I Saw Poland Betrayed by former U.S. Ambassador to Poland Arthur Bliss Lane. The book documents, among other horrors, the deliberate post-World War II betrayal of Poland by the very same U.S. and Western foreign-policy establishment — with the Council on Foreign Relations at the center of it — into communist slavery. In fact, the U.S. government, under the influence of establishment globalists whose heirs remain in positions of power to this day, played a crucial role in ensuring that Poland would lose both its freedom and independence to the savage communist tyrants operating out of Moscow.
To his credit, in his historic speech, Trump blasted the “wicked” system of communism, and praised the Christian faith of the Polish people as crucial to overcoming it. He also offered a vigorous defense of Western civilization against those who would subvert and destroy it. However, to truly save liberty, sovereignty, Christendom, and Western civilization, Americans and Poles must reject statism and globalism — including establishment plots and transnational sovereignty-crushing schemes such as NATO, the EU, and the UN. Only then will Western values and freedom truly be safe from those who would subvert them».
Alex Newman («In Poland, Trump Touts Intervention and Entangling Alliances», in The New American, 07 July 2017).
Polish Anti-Communist Hero Was Communist Agent, Documents Show
Presumed anti-communist Polish leader Lech Walesa actually served as a spy working for the murderous regime in Moscow and its secret-police puppets in Poland, according to recently released official documents from the 1970s. The revelations last month sparked an instant uproar across Poland, with even top government officials saying that the news casts a shadow over Polish history and independence. Walesa, who was in socialist-ruled Venezuela at the time, promptly denied the accusations, suggesting the papers may have been forgeries. But it is hardly the first time suspicions have been raised about the supposed left-wing freedom fighter's links to international communism.
The “hero” and self-styled founder of the Solidarity labor union is best known for his supposed role in liberating Poland from Soviet-backed communist tyranny, at least according to mainstream history books. But for decades, the former shipyard worker's legacy has been marred by accusations that Walesa was not who people think he was — or who he portrays himself to be still today. Now, with the release of never-before-seen documents seized by investigators, Walesa's credibility appears to be in tatters with broad swaths of the public. According to the recently released papers, Walesa was a spy — code name Bolek — who betrayed his countrymen and collaborated with the communist Polish regime's ruthless “security” apparatus.
Among the documents released by the Polish Institute of National Remembrance, which oversees investigations into crimes perpetrated by the nation's former National Socialist (Nazi) and Communist rulers, were Bolek's work and personal files. The papers, signed by what is said to be Walesa himself, appear to show that the supposed anti-communist activist was in fact a paid operative of communist authorities during the heyday of the protests he led at a shipyard in Gdansk. One of the documents is a handwritten agreement signed by Walesa in which he agrees to cooperate with the regime's “security” service. Another document lists the payments he received. And a third includes testimony about Walesa from other communist agents.
“I commit myself to cooperate with the secret police in exposing and fighting the enemies of the PRL [Polish People's Republic],” says one of the documents signed by Walesa, a reference to the Soviet-backed communist regime then enslaving the people of Poland. That particular paper, which committed him to snitching on genuine anti-communist activists, was dated 1970. At that time, Walesa was leading what were made out to be large-scale public protests against communism.
The documents were seized by investigators from the widow of General Czeslaw Kiszczak, who served as the final “interior minister” of the brutal communist regime before its ostensible collapse in 1989. Kiszczak died last year, and his widow reportedly tried to sell the papers to the government. According to a letter found among the documents, the former general decided to hold on to some of the communist-era papers so that they could not be used against Walesa or the Solidarity movement. Still, in the letter from Kiszczak, dated 1996, he reportedly asked that all the files be published five years after the death of Walesa.
Instead, the INR released the documents publicly late last month and even allowed journalists to examine them. According to INR chief Lukasz Kaminski, the papers were released to the public in order to “end speculations about the contents of these files.” Despite allegations by Walesa defenders, the institute insisted that the documents were authentic and produced by the secret police of the era. The only remaining defense, then, is that the secret police created the papers as a means of discrediting Walesa, although that appears unlikely at this point. Other apologists claimed Walesa may have been coerced into signing them, though Walesa himself has not made that claim.
The reactions by current Polish political leaders were swift. “Walesa may have been a puppet — we have to sort this out,” Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski was quoted as saying. “This casts a shadow over the creation of an independent Poland and its political elites.” Deputy Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, meanwhile, said it was now clear that “Lech Walesa had an agent’s past.” Prime Minister Beata Szydlo, while alarmed, sounded a more cautious tone: “I think that above all we need to know the truth. Poles deserve this truth and the most important thing is to dispel all doubts.”
Walesa himself, who was in imploding Venezuela at the time of the revelations, fiercely denied the charges in interviews and on social media. “I was not an agent of the security services,” the 72-year old told the far-left U.K. Guardian newspaper shortly after the fresh accusations surfaced. “I have not spied on anyone in my life. I have taken no money. I will prove all of this. I have hired lawyers.” Separately, he said people were not able to change the “true facts through lies, slander and forgeries.” “It was I who safely led Poland to a complete victory over communism,” he insisted.
After the files were finally released to journalists, though, Walesa sounded a different tone. “I’ve lost. But only because almost everyone has believed that there was some treacherous collaboration on my part with the Security Service,” said the 1983 Nobel Peace Prize winner. “It is not true. Thank you. You have betrayed me, not me you.”
It is, of course, hardly the first time Walesa has faced such allegations. In fact, he was cleared of similar charges in 2000 by a special tribunal that examined the matter. But while the latest accusations took many by surprise, longtime readers of The New American and its predecessor publications have been well aware of the controversies for decades. In the December 4, 1989, issue, for example, this magazine published a commentary by prominent Solidarity union leader Anna Walentynowicz, sometimes described as the “mother of independent Poland.” In the piece, Walentynowicz made explosive allegations that cast doubt on the entire narrative surrounding events in Poland.
“The role of Lech Walesa was different from the current popular myth,” explained Walentynowicz, who worked in the same Gdansk shipyard, was a key founder of Solidarity, and exposed Walesa's collaboration with the regime within three days of the group's founding. “First of all, Walesa is not the chairman of Solidarity, since his tenure expired two years ago. Furthermore, Walesa is not the founder of Solidarity, as is universally repeated in the Western mass media. To the contrary, had it depended on him, Solidarity would never have been formed.”
The regime also helped build up Walesa in the public mind, she said, allowing him to consolidate complete control over Solidarity. “When Walesa gained sufficient strength and an unequivocal position in the West, he peremptorily made short of the opposition within Solidarity,” continued Walentynowicz. “He illegally designated himself chairman, dissolved the National Commission, and formed the National Executive Committee, which was composed exclusively of loyal sycophants.”
 |
| See here |
After that, she said, bogus “talks” between Solidarity and the regime were held in which the regime “decided on the content and the results,” all with Walesa's approval. And finally, sham “elections” were held in which all “opposition” candidates were selected by Walesa, but which the Western establishment press nonetheless fraudulently touted as “democratic” and legitimate. Noting that almost 40 percent of Poles boycotted the phony election in the first round, and 75 percent in the second, Walentynowicz described the farce as “the Left-in-opposition opposing the Left-in-power.” Real opposition was still forbidden, but the fraud gave the regime the appearance of legitimacy on the international stage — and allowed it to access Western aid.
By 1991, two years after TNA printed Walentynowicz's stunning revelations, the “new” regime in Poland was still packed with communists and communist lackeys, despite the claims offered by the Western press. In fact, according to a July 30, 1991, article in this magazine by Joe Losiak, then the editor of Radical, a publication focused on Poland, “the entire economy is centrally controlled.” Communist insiders, he continued, had been placed “throughout the infrastructure of the Polish economy by the communists, and only a few superficial changes have been made.” And as “former” communists, they all received protection from Walesa for their past crimes, Losiak added. Walesa became president in 1990.
Solidarity, meanwhile, had become a new instrument of repression, espionage, and more, he explained, noting that its representatives were even policing speech. “The joke in Poland is that the communists organized the opposition at gun point,” Losiak wrote. Similar absurdities occurred in many other “former” Soviet nations, he continued, with the exception of Romania, where an apparently uncontrolled public uprising resulted in communist dictator Nicolae Ceaucescu and his wife being executed by firing squad for their reign of mass-murder and savage terror.
Of course, as in the United States or any other country, the reality of political developments is not always what is presented to the public in establishment-controlled media outlets. And in Poland, which was betrayed by the globalist U.S. establishment after World War II and handed over to suffer under generations of communist slavery, that holds true as well. Among other concerns, consider that ruling Law and Justice, like Poland's other dominant party, Civic Platform, both have their roots in Walesa's Solidarity, which is still broadly credited with having brought down communist tyranny in Poland in 1989.
But not everybody was convinced by the narrative even before the most recent release of documents — and for good reason. One prominent voice that has cast doubt on the prevailing view of Solidarity as anti-communist savior is Soviet KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn, who worked in communist disinformation and deception operations. After defecting to the West, Golitsyn warned of a long-range strategy being pursued by the international communist conspiracy involving supposed “liberalization” in Eastern Europe and apparent collapse of the Soviet Union. Arguably the most important defector ever, virtually all of his predictions have come to pass, according to experts who have analyzed the issue.
In his 1984 book New Lies for Old, Golitsyn argued that the partial communist “suppression” of Solidarity in the early 1980s was in fact part of the deception — an effort to dupe the West into believing that the alliance represented genuine opposition. Eventually, according to Golitsyn, “it may be expected that a coalition government will be formed, comprising representatives of the communist, of a revived Solidarity movement, and of the church,” he wrote. “A few so-called liberals might also be included.” On the creation of a coalition government with those components, Golitsyn's prediction proved exactly correct.
Later developments also seem to have vindicated much of Golitsyn's warnings. In 1989, for example, Solidarity leader Walesa offered alarming comments in an interview with Soviet publication New Times. “Let power remain in the hands of the Communists,” he was quoted as saying, “but let it be different. Let it serve the people better, respect the law and be accountable to society. We are prepared to cooperate constructively with such authorities.” More recently, former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev, speaking in London in 2001, approvingly referred to the EU, of which numerous “former” Soviet nations are members, as the “new European Soviet.”
And indeed, numerous Soviet-era communist criminals and murderers, who were never punished after the ostensible collapse of communism, are firmly embedded all throughout the EU's architecture to this day. More than a few critics of the EU have pointed out that fact in highly public comments. It is true, though, that the current leadership of Poland includes a number of Polish anti-communist heroes whose commitment to keeping tyranny and terror at bay is not and has not been brought into question.
The Poles have been betrayed, oppressed, and stabbed in the back on numerous occasions in their rocky history. Indeed, essential to understanding what has happened in Poland is the history of how it was betrayed by the Western establishment and deliberately sold into slavery. This horrifying tale of betrayal, involving the highest echelons of power in the United States, including globalists at the Council on Foreign Relations, was recounted by the U.S. Ambassador to Poland at the time, Arthur Bliss Lane, in his must-read book I Saw Poland Betrayed. Once the true nature of the threat that Poles and all of humanity are dealing with is properly understood, the battle will be practically won (in The New American, 19 March 2016).
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário