I am appalled at the extensive evidence indicating that there is
today in the UN among the American employees there, the greatest
concentration of Communists that this Committee has ever
encountered.... These people occupy high positions. They have very
high salaries and almost all of these people have, in the past, been
employees in the U.S. government in high and sensitive positions.1
• U.S. Senator James O. Eastland,
Activities of U.S. Citizens
Employed by the UN Hearings, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 1952
The creation of the United Nations, as we saw in the previous
chapter, was the culmination of an intensive campaign begun in the
early days of this century by those who could only be described as
the pillars of the American Establishment. Names like Carnegie,
Morgan, Warburg, Schiff, Marburg, and Rockefeller headed the list of
those promoting “world order.”
It is interesting then, though a source of confusion to many, to
learn that not only were the ideas of world government in general
and the League of Nations and United Nations in particular
especially fond goals of these “arch-capitalists,” but they were
also the ultimate objects of desire for world socialist and
communist movements. This is not idle speculation but a matter of
historical record so overwhelmingly evident as to hardly need
proving. Unfortunately, that record is not widely known.
As long ago
as 1915, before the Bolshevik Revolution, Lenin himself proposed a
“United States of the World.”2 In 1936, the official program of the
Communist International proclaimed:
“Dictatorship can be established
only by a victory of socialism in different countries or groups of
countries, after which the proletariat republics would unite on
federal lines with those already in existence, and this system of
federal unions would expand ... at length forming the World Union of
Socialist Soviet Republics.”3
Shortly after the founding of the UN,
in March of 1946, Soviet dictator and mass-murderer Joseph Stalin
declared: “I attribute great importance to U.N.O. [United Nations
Organization, as it was then commonly called] since it is a serious
instrument for preservation of peace and international security.”4
The American communists, too, left no doubt about their commitment
to Soviet-style, one-world government.
In his 1932 book Toward
Soviet America, William Z. Foster, national chairman of the
Communist Party USA (CPUSA), wrote:
The American Soviet government will join with the other Soviet
governments in a world Soviet Union.... Not christianity [sic] but
Communism will bring peace on earth. A Communist world will be a
unified, organized world. The economic system will be one great
organization, based upon the principle of planning now dawning in
the U.S.S.R. The American Soviet government will be an important
section in this world organization.5
Earl Browder, general secretary
of the CPUSA, stated in his book, Victory and After, that “the
American Communists worked energetically and tirelessly to lay the
foundations for the United Nations which we were sure would come
into existence.”6 Moreover, this leader of the American Reds
It can be said, without exaggeration, that ever closer relations
between our nation and the Soviet Union are an unconditional
requirement for the United Nations as a world coalition....7
The United Nations is the instrument for victory. Victory is
required for the survival of our nation. The Soviet Union is an
essential part of the United Nations. Mutual confidence between our
country and the Soviet Union and joint work in the leadership of the
United Nations are absolutely necessary.8 Some indication of the
importance the Kremlin attached to the creation of the UN can be
gained from the April 1945 issue of Political Affairs, its official
mouthpiece in the United States directed principally at Party
The American comrades were told:
After the Charter is passed at San Francisco, it will have to be
approved by two thirds of the Senate, and this action will establish
a weighty precedent for other treaties and agreements still to come.
But the victory cannot be won in the Senate alone; it must emanate
from the organized and broadening national support built up for the
President’s policy, on the eve of the San Francisco gathering and
after.... Great popular support and enthusiasm for the United
Nations policies should be built up, well organized and fully
articulate. But it is also necessary to do more than that. The
opposition must be rendered so impotent that it will be unable to
gather any significant support in the Senate against the United
Nations Charter and the treaties which will follow.9
Support for the
UN was even written into the Communist Party’s basic document. The
preamble to the constitution of the Communist Party, USA states:
The Communist party of the United States ... fights uncompromisingly
against ... all forms of chauvinism.... It holds further that the
true national interest of our country and the cause of peace and
progress require ... the strengthening of the United Nations as a
universal instrument of peace.10
We have also the testimony of many
former communists which reveals the value the Party placed on the
world organization. In her autobiography, School of Darkness, former
top CPUSA official Dr. Bella Dodd told of her role in the Party’s
campaign for the UN:
When the Yalta conference had ended, the Communists prepared to
support the United Nations Charter which was to be adopted at the
San Francisco conference to be held in May and June, 1945. For this
I organized a corps of speakers and we took to the street corners
and held open-air meetings in the millinery and clothing sections of
New York where thousands of people congregate at the lunch hour. We
spoke of the need for world unity and in support of the Yalta
Another former top Communist Party member, Joseph Z. Kornfeder, revealed in 1955:
Now, as to the United Nations. If you were, let’s say, a building
engineer, and someone were to show you a set of blueprints about a
certain building, you would know from those blueprints how that
building was going to look. Organization “blueprints” can be read
the same way. I need not be a member of the United Nations
Secretariat to know that the UN “blueprint” is a Communist one. I
was at the Moscow headquarters of the world Communist party for
nearly three years and was acquainted with most of the top leaders,
and, of course, I was also a leading party worker. I went to their
colleges; I learned their pattern of operations, and if I see that
pattern in effect anywhere, I can recognize it....
From the point of view of its master designers meeting at Dumbarton
Oaks and Bretton Woods, and which included such masterful agents as
Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Lauchlin Currie, and others, the UN
was, and is, not a failure. They and the Kremlin masterminds behind
them never intended the UN as a peace-keeping organization. What
they had in mind was a fancy and colossal Trojan horse under the
wings of which their smaller agencies could more effectively
operate. And in that they succeeded, even beyond their
Its [the UN’s] internal setup, Communist designed, is a pattern for
sociological conquest; a pattern aimed to serve the purpose of
Communist penetration of the West. It is ingenious and deceptive.12
Two years earlier (1953), a congressional committee heard testimony
from Colonel Jan Bukar, a Czechoslovakian intelligence officer who
had defected to the West. Among the revelations he supplied was a
lecture given by Soviet General Bondarenko at the Frunze Military
Academy in Moscow. In that lecture, Bondarenko told the elite
“From the rostrum of the United Nations, we shall convince
the colonial and semicolonial people to liberate themselves and to
spread the Communist theory all over the world.”13
Kornfeder was not suffering delusions when he claimed to see a
communist design and a “pattern for sociological conquest” in the
UN’s setup. The historical record amply demonstrates that American
citizens who were conscious Soviet agents operating at high levels
of the U.S. government were very instrumental in the planning and
formation of both the United Nations Charter and the organization
State Department and Treasury Department officials who were
key figures in planning the UN, and who were later exposed during
official investigations as Soviet agents, include:14
Virginius Frank Coe
Abraham G. Silverman
Nathan G. Silvermaster
William H. Taylor
William L. Ullman
John Carter Vincent
Henry Julian Wadleigh
Harry Dexter White
The UN’s Top Men
As we have noted, the first secretary-general of the United Nations
at the organization’s founding conference was Alger Hiss. Since that
time, six other men have held the position of secretary-general, the
highest office in the world organization. Each of these individuals
has advanced the causes of world communism and world government,
while endangering American sovereignty and liberty. Because the
leaders of any group tell much about the organization they
represent, the records of each of these men deserve close
examination. Unfortunately, we have space here for only a very brief
look at the men who have led the UN.
Alger Hiss. As far back as 1939, the FBI had presented solid
evidence concerning Hiss’s Communist activities to the executive
branch. It continued to issue repeated warnings concerning him. But,
as had happened in so many previous cases and would continue to
occur with a frequency that became an established pattern, the
reports were disregarded. In 1944, Hiss was made acting director of
the State Department’s Office of Special Political Affairs in charge
of all postwar planning. He was the executive secretary of the
critically important 1944 Dumbarton Oaks Conference, where Stalin’s
expert Vyacheslav Molotov and “our” expert Hiss worked together on
the UN Charter.
It was Hiss who accompanied President Roosevelt to
the infamous Yalta Conference, where he served as the dying
President’s “top international organization specialist.” It was at
that conference in the Soviet Crimea during February 1945 that FDR
agreed to give the Soviets three votes in the UN General Assembly to
our one. As critics pointed out when that secret agreement became
known, giving the Soviets separate votes for the Ukraine and
Byelorussia made as much sense as giving extra votes to the United
States for Texas and California.
It was Hiss’s starring role at San Francisco, however, that was most
important. As the acting secretary-general, he was the chief planner
and executive of that conference. Time magazine, reporting about
Hiss and the upcoming conference, stated in its April 16, 1945
issue: “As secretary-general, managing the agenda, he will have a
lot to say behind the scenes about who gets the breaks.” At San
Francisco, Hiss also served on the steering and executive
committees, which put the finishing touches on the UN Charter. And
it was Alger Hiss, who at the conclusion of the conference,
personally carried the new charter back to Washington for Senate
Hiss was later exposed as a Soviet spy, and in 1950 was convicted
for perjuring himself before a federal Grand Jury while being
questioned about his communist activities.15 The statute of
limitations on his espionage charges had run out, but he served 44
months in the federal penitentiary for the perjury charges. His
trial was one of the most celebrated in American history. Not only
did communists, socialists, liberals, and radical leftists turn out
to support Hiss, so too did the CFR-dominated Establishment media.
As we have noted, Hiss was himself a member of the CFR. Following
his stint at the UN founding in San Francisco, he was named
president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The man
responsible for hiring him was the chairman of the Endowment, John
Foster Dulles, a founder of the CFR. Dulles, who would later serve
as Secretary of State (1953-59), was informed of Hiss’s communist
background in 1946, but ignored this information until February
1948, just one month before Hiss went before the Grand Jury.16
Trygve Lie. The first elected secretary-general of the United
Nations, Trygve Lie, was a Norwegian socialist. Lie was a
high-ranking member of the Social Democratic Labor Party in Norway,
an offshoot of the early Communist International, and a strong
supporter of the Soviet Union on virtually every issue. It was
hardly surprising then that the Soviet Union led the campaign to
elect Lie as secretary-general. One of Lie’s principal causes was the
admission of Red China to the UN, which was also a primary objective
of the Soviet Union.
Dag Hammarskjšld. Lie was succeeded by another Scandinavian
socialist who was openly sympathetic to the world communist
revolution. Hammarskjšld once stated in a letter to a friend that
“... Chou En-lai to me appears as the most superior brain I have so
far met in the field of foreign politics.” This he spoke of the man
who, together with Mao Tse-tung, was responsible for the murder of
between 34 million and 64 million Chinese.17 It was Hammarskjšld who
was primarily responsible for the early planning and direction of
the UN’s brutal war against Katanga (see Chapter 2).
troops invaded Hungary to crush the 1956 uprising, Hammarskjšld
turned a deaf ear to the Hungarian freedom fighters. As
secretary-general, he persecuted the courageous Danish UN diplomat
Povl Bang-Jensen, who refused to turn over the names of Hungarian
refugees who had testified in confidence to a special UN committee.
U Thant. Burmese Marxist U Thant continued and intensified an
anti-American, pro-Soviet tradition begun by his predecessors. While
ignoring the massive human rights abuses — torture, slaughter,
imprisonment — of the communist regimes, Thant slavishly followed
the Soviet line by condemning Rhodesia and South Africa as terrible
human rights violators.
During the Vietnam War, Thant continually
used the rostrum of the Secretariat to place the blame for the war
on the United States. Secretary-General Thant revealed a great deal
about both himself and the organization which he headed with his
statement in 1970 that the “ideals” of Bolshevik dictator and
mass-murderer Lenin were in accord with the UN Charter.
“Lenin was a man with a mind of great clarity and incisiveness,”
Thant said, “and his ideas have had a profound influence on the
course of contemporary history.” The Burmese Marxist continued:
“[Lenin’s] ideals of peace and peaceful coexistence among states
have won widespread international acceptance and they are in line
with the aims of the U.N. Charter.”18 For his personal staff
assistant, Thant chose Soviet KGB officer Viktor Lessiovsky with
whom he had established a friendship in the early 1950s.19 Kurt
When U Thant retired on December 31, 1971, the Soviet
Union was ready with a replacement. Austrian Kurt Waldheim was its
choice, and for good reason. He had deep, dark secrets that would
assure his usefulness to them. During World War II, Waldheim not
only wore the uniform of the Third Reich, but also worked with
Yugoslavian communist leader Tito.
“As soon as he was safely in
office [as UN secretary-general], Waldheim planted over 250 Russians
in key posts,” revealed foreign affairs expert Hilaire du Berrier.
“His immediate circle was composed almost completely of Titoists....
When Tito met his old friend at the UN, he hugged him to his breast
and gave him a decoration — a great honor for a man who had
massacred Serbs, Slovenes, Montenegrans and other Yugoslavs.”20
During his reign as secretary-general, the Establishment media kept
Waldheim’s Nazi-Communist past under wraps.
During the 1970s, while Waldheim was praising communist dictators
and dictatorships, The John Birch Society, through its publications,
was virtually the only source for this important information about
the Secretary-General’s background.21 Finally, in 1986, the New York
Times and other CFR media “discovered” the Waldheim Nazi connection,
when the by-that-time “former” secretary-general was running for
president of Austria.
Javier Perez de Cuellar. This Peruvian diplomat took the UN helm in
1981 and is credited with greatly burnishing the UN image. “Under
his tutelage,” said Wall Street Journal reporter Frederick Kempe,
“the U.N. has been midwife to more peace agreements than ever
before.”22 Perez de Cuellar helped convene and also addressed the
Global Forum of Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders on Human
Survival, the New Age-ecology-world religion confab convened by
Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990.
He penned the Foreword to the radical
socialist New Age publication, Gaia Peace Atlas.23 Perez de Cuellar
has distinguished himself as a man of “peace.” Like the other men
who have held his post, however, he finds it impossible to condemn
communist oppression. Speaking of the 1989 Tiananmen Square
massacre, an event that occurred during his watch at the UN, Perez
de Cuellar has said: “Tiananmen was exaggerated. I think it was a
really cruel oppression, but from there to say it was a tremendous,
dramatic, tragic violation of human rights is an exaggeration.”24 If
an estimated 5,000 dead, 10,000 wounded, the subsequent torture and
imprisonment of tens of thousands, and the execution of a still
unknown number do not qualify as a “tremendous, dramatic, tragic
violation of human rights,” what does?
Boutros Boutros-Ghali. A former professor of international
relations, Boutros-Ghali began his political career in the regime of
the pro-Soviet Egyptian dictator Gamal Abdel Nasser. As editor of
the official Economic Ahram, it was his job to give credibility to
the communistic ideas of the Nasser revolution. As with all of the
men who have held the UN’s top post, Boutros-Ghali had the support
of the communists. As we have previously noted (Chapter 2),
Boutros-Ghali has initiated revolutionary advances in the UN’s march
toward world government. He has called for the forming of a
permanent UN Army and is pressing for taxing authority for the UN
Espionage and Propaganda
Through the decades, communist leaders and their clients certainly
have used the United Nations for world propaganda, as advocated by
Soviet General Bondarenko. Red dictators and terrorists from
Khrushchev, Tito, and Ceaucescu to Nkrumah, Castro, Lumumba, Arafat,
and Mandela have been honored with rousing ovations at the UN. Their
anti-American tirades have been broadcast to the world from that
forum of “world peace and brotherhood.”
The Communists’ use of the UN as a principal center of espionage
against the United States has been exposed time and again. FBI
Director J. Edgar Hoover stated in 1963 that communist diplomats
assigned to the UN “represent the backbone of Russian intelligence
operations in this country.”25 British espionage authority Chapman
Pincher has observed:
Because of the protection and cover they afford, all the major
United Nations institutions have been heavily penetrated.... Whole
books have been published listing the abuse and manipulation of the
United Nations by the Soviets. The area most blatantly used for
active measures and espionage is the main headquarters in New
Among the many defectors from the communist bloc countries
who have testified about the importance of the UN in the Soviet
scheme of things is former KGB operative Ladislav Bittman. In his
book The KGB and Soviet Disinformation: An Insider’s View, Bittman
The United Nations is an international organization that deserves
special attention for the role it plays in overt and clandestine
propaganda campaigns conducted by the Soviets. As an organization
that helps to shape world public opinion and plays a vital
peacekeeping role, the United Nations is a major battlefield for the
Soviet Union and the United States.... But the Soviet Union
maintains the most impressive intelligence organization, consisting
of the largest single concentration of Soviet spies anywhere in the
West.... Spying in New York is so pervasive that some diplomats
refer to the United Nations as “the stock exchange of global
Arkady Shevchenko, who was an
under-secretary-general at the UN when he defected in l978, has
described the United Nations as a “gold mine for Russian spying.”28
The most senior Soviet official to defect to the West, Shevchenko
was a personal assistant to Soviet Foreign Secretary Andrei Gromyko
from 1970 to 1973. He then became Under-Secretary-General for
Political and Security Council Affairs at the United Nations.
Shevchenko confirmed what anti-communists had been saying all along:
The Soviet Politburo regarded dŽtente as simply “a tactical
manoeuvre which would in no way supersede the Marxist-Leninist idea
of the final victory of the worldwide revolutionary process.”29
the United Nations was continuing to play an essential role in that
“In spite of this and other exposures,” said Pincher in 1985, “the
International Department and the KGB have not reduced the scale of
their operations out of the United Nations and its offshoots, being
unable to resist the facility, denied to ordinary diplomats, that
renders UN staff free to travel, without restriction, in the
countries where they are based.”30
KGB defector Oleg Gordievsky gave
a similar assessment:
The size of the KGB presence in both the United States and the UN
delegation in New York increased more rapidly at the height of
dŽtente than at any other period: from about 120 officers in l970 to
220 in l975. At the very moment when the London residency was being
sharply cut back, those in the United States were almost doubling in
It should be of no small concern to American taxpayers to
learn that they have been subsidizing these KGB campaigns of
espionage, subversion, and disinformation against their own country.
In his massive 1974 study, KGB: The Secret Work of Soviet Secret
Agents, John Barron revealed:
The KGB derives still another advantage from placing its officers on
the United Nations payroll. Since the United States pays 25 percent
of the entire U.N. operating budget, it pays 25 percent of the
bountiful salaries granted KGB officers insinuated into U.N. jobs.
American taxpayers thus are compelled to finance KGB operations
against themselves and the noncommunist world. Moreover, the Soviet
Union requires its citizens paid by international organizations to
rebate the greater part of their salaries to the government.
Thus, it actually makes money each time it plants a KGB officer in
The UN has also proved useful for the opportunity it offers the
Soviets to make contact with and transfer funds to their agents in
the CPUSA. John Barron’s KGB Today: The Hidden Hand (1983) reported
concerning the Soviet modus operandi:
From the United Nations, KGB officers additionally maintain
clandestine contact with the U.S. Communist Party, delivering money
and instructions in behalf of the International Department. The U.S.
Party exists almost entirely on secret Soviet subsidies....33
Considering the fact that locating the UN headquarters in the United
States, and in New York City in particular, has afforded the enemies
of America unparalleled opportunities for espionage, sabotage,
terrorism, propaganda, subversion, and disinformation, it is
important to note how the site for the worldbody’s headquarters was
chosen. Americans have been encouraged to believe that the decision
to build the United Nations in the United States was a great
diplomatic coup for our country. Nothing could be more patently
false. In reality, it was exactly what the communists and one-worlders
wanted. In his book In the Cause of Peace, the UN’s first elected
secretary-general described the “long and heated discussions”
concerning the future location of the permanent headquarters. Lie
and many of his fellow socialists saw the merit of establishing the
UN in the U.S. to overcome America’s “isolationism.”
not locate the headquarters of the future international organization
within the United States’ own borders, so that the concept of
international could match forces on the spot with those of its
arch-enemy, isolationism — utilizing at all times the American
people’s own democratic media?”34
The Kremlin certainly could see
the merit of the plan. Lie wrote:
The Americans declared their neutrality as soon as the Preparatory
Commission opened its deliberations. The Russians disappointed most
Western Europeans by coming out at once for a site in America....
... Andrei Gromyko of the U.S.S.R. had come out flatly for the
United States. As to where in the United States, let the American
Government decide, he had blandly told his colleagues. Later the
Soviet Union modified its stand to support the east coast.35 Even
so, these best-laid plans almost fell apart for lack of funds to
purchase a site. At that point, Lie said, he advised New York Mayor
William O’Dwyer to “Get in touch with Nelson Rockefeller tonight by
phone.” With the help of Nelson Rockefeller (CFR), Lie and his UN
team were soon in “secret consultations with the Rockefeller
brothers and with their father, John D. Rockefeller, Jr.” In very
short order the Rockefellers produced “a gift of $8,500,000 with
which to purchase the East River property as a Headquarters site.”36
The More Things Change ...
The world’s most famous capitalists provided the Kremlin with an
incredible bonanza. But that is all ancient history, according to
current prevailing wisdom. As most news stories have it, the Soviet
KGB has been disbanded and its archives completely thrown open. The
Cold War is now over. Or is it? On October 24, 1991, the Wall Street
Journal’s deputy features editor Amity Shlaes commented on evidence
indicating that the UN Secretariat headquartered in New York City
was still under the domination of old-line communists and Third
World Marxist ideologues.
Shlaes wrote that rather than becoming,
“the cornerstone in President Bush’s oft-mentioned ‘new world
order.’ ... [M]any of those working within the Secretariat, or at
its missions in its vicinity, argue that communism left a legacy....
‘It works like a scorpion’s stinger,’ says one U.N. professional.
‘The scorpion — East bloc socialism — dies. But the stinger remains
poisonous, and strikes new victims.’” Shlaes reported that
“Westerners who worked at the U.N. ... found themselves surrounded
by what many have called a communist mafia.”
The KGB has undergone a number of recent permutations, but to
paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of its death are highly exaggerated.
Zdzislaw Rurarz, the former Polish ambassador to Japan who defected
to the United States in 1981, was one of the few Soviet experts to
take notice of Boris Yeltsin’s sinister new security superagency,
the MSIA. Rurarz reported in January 1992 that Boris’s MSIA,
amalgam of four previously existing institutions: the USSR MVD, or
the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Russian MVD, the ISS, or
Interrepublican Security Service, which was mainly the former KGB,
and the FSA, the Federal Security Agency, or the Russian equivalent
of the former KGB.”
“The MSIA has inherited the network of informers
and collaborators of the former KGB and ISS which was in place
throughout the USSR. Why,” asks Rurarz, “should Russia need such a
network in the remaining former Soviet republics, now ‘independent
An obvious question — that yields an obvious answer —
except to “liberals” who are too busy planning new welfare schemes
on which to spend the “peace dividend,” and to “conservatives” who
are too busy celebrating and congratulating themselves on their
victory over communism.
Commenting on the Kremlin security reshuffling, Albert L. Weeks
wrote in April 1992 that the “new” Russian agency under Viktor
Barannikov “means that 500,000 officials and informers function
today as a separate entity, going about their business largely as
before. Thousands of other ex-KGBists work for Yevgeny Primakov,
director of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Agency.” Dr. Weeks,
professor emeritus of New York University and author of numerous
articles and books about the Soviet Union, also noted that “90-95%
of middle-ranking KGB officiers remain in the same positions as
before the August, 1991, coup attempt, according to a recent
The “thawing” of U.S.-Russian relations has not
ended Communist espionage and disinformation activities in the West.
To the contrary, it appears to have added new impetus to these
operations in many areas. According to R. Patrick Watson, deputy
assistant director of the FBI’s intelligence division, “It is clear
that the foreign intelligence threat from the Soviet Union has not
abated, and in fact it has become more difficult to counter.”
Watson, addressing the National Security Institute on March 13,
“In recent months the KGB has emphasized the recruitment of
scientists and businessmen to obtain information of economic value.”
Watson said the KGB and its military counterpart, the GRU, have
intensified their efforts and regularly plant their agents in groups
of Soviets visiting the United States. A primary task of these
agents is to identify Americans with access to technology or
information sought by their organizations.39 In October 1992, FBI
spokesman Steve Markardt confirmed that the espionage agencies of
the East European bloc and the “former” Soviet Union “are still
highly active in this country engaged in espionage ... particularly
against economic and technological targets.”40
As KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn revealed, however, espionage — the stealing of
technology and state secrets — has always been of minor importance
compared to the KGB’s primary purpose of strategic deception.
Golitsyn, arguably the most important Soviet agent ever to defect to
the West, exposed the inner workings and methodology of this
critically important disinformation process. He demonstrated how,
time after time, the Soviets had thoroughly deceived the West
concerning developments in the USSR and Moscow’s geopolitical
objectives. Through the use of elaborate, longrange programs of
strategic deception, the Kremlin has been incredibly successful, he
showed, at manipulating the policy decisions of Western governments.
Golitsyn’s signal warning to the West, New Lies For Old,41 published
in the prophetic year 1984, has proven to be the most reliable and
prescient commentary on the acclaimed changes in the communist
world. Years before they occurred, Golitsyn predicted the
“liberalization” policies in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe,
the glasnost and perestroika campaigns, the rise of independence
movements, the political restructuring, the ascendance of “liberal”
leaders like Gorbachev and Yeltsin, the dismantling of the Berlin
Wall, the breakup of the USSR, the dissolution of the Communist
Party, the dismantling of the KGB, and many other developments.
was able to do this with such uncanny accuracy because he had been
involved, as a member of the KGB inner circle on strategic
disinformation, in planning these types of deceptions. What Golitsyn
apparently did not know was that the suicidal course we are taking
is not so much the result of our leaders being duped by “masters of
deceit” in the Kremlin as it is a case of one-world Insiders in the
West, conjointly with his former KGB masters, deceiving the American
public in order to build the ultimate monopoly: world government.
Space permitting, a great deal more evidence could be cited
demonstrating the dangerous folly of current wishful thinking
regarding the “demise” of the KGB. Suffice to say, the world’s most
ruthless and bloody-handed police-state apparatus has not
transformed itself into a benign bunch of Boy Scouts or a
superfluous bureaucracy. Nor has it abandoned its “stock exchange of
global intelligence operations” at the UN.
1. Activities of U.S. Citizens Employed by the UN, hearings before
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 1952, pp. 407-08, quoted by
G. Edward Griffin, The Fearful Master: A Second Look at the United
Nations (Appleton, WI: Western Islands, 1964), p. 98.
2. Gary Allen, with Larry Abraham, None Dare Call It Conspiracy (Rossmoor,CA:
Concord Press, 1971), p. 138.
3. Official 1936 program of the Communist International, recorded in
hearings before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, July 11,
1956, p. 196, quoted by Griffin, pp. 69-70.
4. Pravda, March 23, 1946, quoted by Robert W. Lee, The United
Nations Conspiracy (Appleton, WI:
Western Islands, 1981), p. 73.
5. William Z. Foster, Toward Soviet America (Balboa Island, CA:
Elgin Publications, 1961), pp. 272, 326.
6. Earl Browder, Victory — and after (New York: International
Publishers, 1942), p. 110.
7. Ibid., p. 160.
8. Ibid., p. 169.
9. G. Edward Griffin, The Fearful Master: A Second Look at the
United Nations (Appleton, WI:
Western Islands, 1964), p. 75.
10. Ibid., pp. 76-7.
11. Bella V. Dodd, School of Darkness (New York: Devin-Adair, 1954),
12. Griffin, p. 120.
13. Executive Hearings before the House Committee on Un-American
Activities, May 13 and 14, 1953, Soviet Schedule For War — 1955
(Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1953), p.
14. Griffin, p. 87-106.
15. Louis F. Budenz, The Cry Is Peace (Chicago: Henry Regnery
Company, 1952), Whittaker
Chambers, Witness (New York: Random House, 1952), Hede Massing, This
Deception (New York:
Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1951), and Allen Weinstein, Perjury: The
Hiss-Chambers Case (New York:
Vintage Books, 1978).
16. William H. McIlhany II, The Tax-Exempt Foundations (Westport,
CT: Arlington House, 1980), p.
17. Robert W. Lee, The United Nations Conspiracy (Appleton, WI:
Western Islands, 1981), p. 20.
18. Los Angeles Times, April 7, 1970, quoted by Lee, p. 26-7.
19. John Barron, KGB: The Secret Work Of Soviet Secret Agents (New
York: Reader’s Digest Press, 1974), p. 19.
20. Hilaire du Berrier, “The Multi-colored Kurt Waldheim,” The New
American, June 2, 1986, p. 27.
21. John F. McManus, “Selective Blindness,” The Birch Log, April 8,
1976, republished as “Ahead of the Times,” The New American, April
7, 1986, p. 45.
22. Frederick Kempe, “Perez de Cuellar Wins U.N. New Respect,” Wall
Street Journal, September 26, 1988, p. 22.
23. Javier Perez de Cuellar, Foreword to Frank Barnaby, Gaia Peace
Atlas (Garden City, NY:
24. William P. Hoar, “Review of the News,” The New American, August
10, 1992, p. 11.
25. Los Angeles Times, May 4, 1963, quoted by Griffin, p. 73.
26. Chapman Pincher, The Secret Offensive (New York: St. Martin’s
Press, 1985), p. 129.
27. Ladislav Bittman, The KGB and Soviet Disinformation: An
Insider’s View (McLean, VA:
Pergamon-Brassey’s International Defense Publishers, 1985), pp.
28. Pincher, p. 129.
29. Ibid., p. 204.
30. Ibid., p. 129-30.
31. Christopher Andrew and Oleg Gordievsky, KGB: The Inside Story of
Its Foreign Operations from Lenin to Gorbachev (New York:
HarperCollins, 1991), pp. 539-40.
32. Barron, KGB: The Secret Work of Soviet Secret Agents, p. 20.
33. John Barron, KGB Today: The Hidden Hand (New York: Reader’s
Digest Press, 1983), p. 243-44.
34. Trygve Lie, In the Cause of Peace (New York: Macmillan Company,
1954), p. 57.
35. Ibid., pp. 58-60.
36. Ibid., pp. 113-14.
37. Zdzislaw Rurarz, “Yeltsin’s Police,” Washington Inquirer,
January 4, 1992, p. 4.
38. Albert L. Weeks, “KGB’s Undiminished Power Haunts Russian
Reform,” Washington Inquirer, April 17, 1992, pp. 1, 7.
39. Bill Gertz, “KGB targets U.S. businessmen, scientists to recruit
them as spies,” The Washington Times, March 14, 1991.
40. Telephone interview with the author, October 19, 1992.
41. Anatoliy Golitsyn, New Lies For Old (New York: Dodd, Mead &
Company, 1984). For further information and perspective on
developments in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe see: Edward J.
Epstein, Deception: The Invisible War Between the KGB and the CIA
(New York: Simon and Schuster,
1989). Also see the following articles from The New American: Thomas
R. Eddlem interview with
Charles Via, chairman of the Center for Intelligence Studies,
“Soviet Goals Remain the Same,” October
8, 1991; Thomas R. Eddlem, “Appearance Versus Reality,” October 22,
1991; Bryan J. Ellison, “Behind
the Facade,” May 21, 1991; “Still the Masters of Deceit,” December
4, 1989, p. 37.