Telegram From the Embassy in the Soviet Union to the Department of State Moscow, April 18, 1961, 2 p.m. - History

Telegram From the Embassy in the Soviet Union to the Department of State Moscow, April 18, 1961, 2 p.m. - History

Telegram From the Embassy in the Soviet Union to the Department of StateMoscow, April 18, 1961, 2 p.m.

. Following letter to President Kennedy from Khrushchev handed me by Acting Foreign Minister Semenov at 12:15 today. Begin text:
Mr. President, I send you this message in an hour of alarm, fraught with danger for the peace of the whole world. Armed aggression has begun against Cuba. It is a secret to no one that the armed bands invading this country were trained, equipped and armed in the United States of America. The planes which are bombing Cuban cities belong to the United States of America, the bombs they are dropping are being supplied by the American Government.
All of this evokes here in the Soviet Union an understandable feeling of indignation on the part of the Soviet Government and the Soviet people.
Only recently, in exchanging opinions through our respective representatives, we talked with you about the mutual desire of both sides to put forward joint efforts directed toward improving relations between our countries and eliminating the danger of war. Your statement a few days ago that the USA would not participate in military activities against Cuba created the impression that the top leaders of the United States were taking into account the consequences for general peace and for the USA itself which aggression against Cuba could have. How can what is being done by the United States in reality be understood, when an attack on Cuba has now become a fact?
It is still not late to avoid the irreparable. The Government of the USA still has the possibility of not allowing the flame of war ignited by interventions in Cuba to grow into an incomparable conflagration. I approach you, Mr. President, with an urgent call to put an end to aggression against the Republic of Cuba. Military armament and the world political situation are such at this time that any so-called "little war" can touch off a chain reaction in all parts of the globe.
As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, there should be no mistake about our position: We will render the Cuban people and their government all necessary help to repel armed attack on Cuba. We are sincerely interested in a relaxation of international tension, but if others proceed toward sharpening, we will answer them in full measure. And in general it is hardly possible so to conduct matters that the situation is settled in one area and conflagration extinguished, while a new conflagration is ignited in another area.
I hope that the Government of the USA will consider our views as dictated by the sole concern not to allow steps which could lead the world to military catastrophe. End text.
Freers


English HTML

Telegram received by the [Chinese] Central Committee

Telegram From: the Soviet Union

Ministry of Foreign Affairs 4 th department No. 42

Recommendations based on Developments in the Current Situation

To the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Comrade [Li] Fuchun:

Copy [Chinese] Central Committee:

Following the American imperialist&rsquos invasion of Cuba, the contradictions between the Soviet Union and the United States have started to intensify. This might lead to more progress in the fight against American imperialism, providing an opportune time [for China] to further strengthen Sino-Soviet unity and to encourage the Soviet Union to intensify its fight against American imperialism. With regards to the current situation, it is possible to reconsider the signing issue from the economic and scientific talks if it is possible to invite the Vice Premier to sign this in Moscow and to publicize this signing in a communiqué, it could strengthen Sino-Soviet relations, bolster enthusiasm for the international struggle against American imperialism, and reveal the imperialist conspiracy to sever Sino-Soviet relations. Simultaneously, this could be an opportunity to informally exchange ideas regarding the current with the Soviet leadership, and to motivate the Soviet Union [to intensify its fight against imperialist America].

Additionally, with regards to the development of the current situation, it is also possible to consider inviting Comrade Brezhnev to visit China ahead of schedule.


U.S. Recalls All 28 Marine Guards at Moscow Embassy : Follows Spy Allegations Against 2

All 28 Marine guards at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow will be returned to the United States next month to help in the investigation of two Marines accused of allowing Soviet spies into the building, the Marine Corps said today.

The contingent of Marine guards “will be replaced by Marine security guards stationed in other posts around the world or by Marines drawn from the Marine Security Headquarters in Quantico, Va.,” the State Department and the corps said in a joint statement.

“This measure is precautionary in nature and is intended to facilitate an investigation of the security program at the U.S. Embassy,” the statement added.

“There’s no evidence that any of the returning Marines are implicated in any wrongdoing.”

The move follows last week’s word that the corps suspects two former guards of allowing Soviet agents to roam through the embassy at night on “numerous and diverse occasions” last year, poking through sensitive communication facilities and offices.

The corps has charged Sgt. Clayton J. Lonetree with 24 spying-related counts of misconduct, including two capital charges of espionage. Cpl. Arnold Bracy is being held in confinement pending the start of a pretrial investigation.

Earlier today, the Marines sent Lonetree, 25, of Chicago from his cell at the Quantico, Va., barracks to Bethesda Naval Hospital for a psychiatric evaluation to determine his ability to stand trial in a court-martial, the corps said.

Lonetree’s mental examination is in accordance with Rule 706 of the court-martial manual to determine if there is “reason to believe that the accused lacks mental responsibility for an offense charged or lacks the capacity to stand trial,” the Marine statement said.

The Marine Corps said the 28 returning embassy guards will initially be ordered back to their headquarters command at Quantico, where they would receive new assignments.

“They’re not suspected of any involvement,” stressed Maj. Tony Rothfork, a spokesman.

The rotation of the guards comes at a time when the State Department has ordered a wide-ranging investigation of its security procedures in Moscow. It also comes at a time when the Pentagon has ordered the Navy to conduct an inquiry into the procedures used in selecting, training and deploying Marine embassy guards.

The Marine Corps last Friday charged that Lonetree had escorted Soviet agents through the embassy on numerous occasions between January and March, 1986. It also charged that Bracy, 21, had served as a lookout for Lonetree, helping to shut off internal alarms that were triggered by the Soviet agents.

Pentagon sources also have disclosed that both men became involved sexually with Soviet women employed at the embassy, which allegedly led to their recruitment by Soviet agents.

Lonetree’s father, Spencer Lonetree, said on ABC’s “Good Morning America” show that he believed his son’s “uniqueness as an American Indian . . . was the reason why they were attracted to him.”

The younger Lonetree told investigators he spied for the Soviet Union because of “what the white man did to the Indian,” according to today’s New York Times.

Lonetree gave that and conflicting explanations for his alleged actions at the embassy in three interviews late last year with military investigators, the newspaper said, quoting declassified memos.


THE BREACH OF TRUST IN MOSCOW A MARINE GUARD'S STORY: THE PERILS OF SOVIET DUTY

I, like many Americans, was angry and frustrated by the recent allegations of spying and sexual misconduct by some Marine Corps security guards at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. But the idea that trained and supposedly patriotic Marines could be charged with giving classified materials to the enemy unfortunately did not surprise me.

I was a Marine from 1972 to 1976 and was an embassy guard for the last two years of my duty. My posts included embassies in Amman, Jordan Beirut, Lebanon Cyprus London Paris -- and Moscow.

Moscow is among the toughest of duties. In Lebanon, a Marine guard must worry about his physical safety. Everybody and his mother who has a grudge against the United States is going to strike at the embassy or Americans with something -- be it a rock or a Soviet rocket. Outright hatred of the United States is everywhere.

In the Soviet Union you have little fear for your physical safety the average Soviet is not allowed to carry a gun. Instead there is the fear of government spying, of Big Brother always watching, of something out of George Orwell's novel 1984.

As a Marine guard in Moscow, you learn that spying -- by our side and theirs -- is a part of daily life.

Marine guards -- or watch standers as we're called -- stay in the Marine House, which is on the embassy grounds or nearby in case of an emergency. In Moscow, you take it for granted that the house is bugged. So at night guards don't talk about hometowns or families. You don't talk about work, pretty girls and sports.

Marines are warned not to be overheard talking about anything personal that can be picked up and used against you. We always assumed that our mail was opened. So letters from home were kept short and sweet -- usually about the weather.

When I was in Moscow, we heard about a Metropolitan Life Insurance man who came to the embassy to sell insurance. Word was that the KGB tried unsuccessfully to get him to turn over medical records.

When Marines went out to restaurants, the KGB was said to be watching to see what we ordered and how we paid for our meals, whether we were big spenders, big drinkers or big tippers. That could show if a Marine had a weakness -- from alcohol to financial difficulties.

Even back then there were comments about the poor security at the Moscow embassy. Everyone knew the place was bugged. I saw State Department people use sign language to communicate. I saw them write messages to one another in notebooks and then throw the notebooks into the burn bag -- where materials are collected to be destroyed.

Sometimes we even joked about it. We would yell derogatory remarks about the Soviets to the walls, assuming the KGB was listening to all of it.

That Marines can be compromised by Soviet women isn't a surprise either. Soviet nationals are all over the embassy. Soviet women work as secretaries, translators and clerks. The only women a Marine gets to know are either career embassy employees, employees of Western embassies or Soviets.

The Soviet women are friendly, often asking about life in America. They have a great interest and curiosity in U.S. customs. Some will invite you to dinner -- an invitation you are to decline.

Obviously, KGB agents don't wear a sign announcing who they are. So you never know if the Soviet secretary asking about America is just curious or is a Soviet spy. You never know whom to trust. That's why a Marine guard always must keep his distance.

That can be tough on a 19-year-old Marine on his first tour of duty. And unfortunately that is the kind of person the security guard unit usually gets. To qualify for this duty, a Marine must be single and agree to stay single until the tour is over. By his second tour of duty -- after three or four years -- a Marine is usually married or engaged. So he doesn't qualify or seek out this detail. That means that most embassy guards are young, first- time enlistees. They can lack maturity and military experience. And that can leave them open to poor judgment.

The reason for using unmarried Marines is cost. It is expensive to move families all over the world and there are few housing facilities in many countries for families. The other criteria for security duty include:

-- Be a lance corporal or above with at least 30 months to do in the service or be willing to extend your tour of duty.

-- Be interviewed and recommended by a board that includes your commanding officer.

-- Be a U.S. citizen eligible for a top secret clearance with an excellent conduct record.

-- Be able to meet minimum Marine Corps standards of physical fitness and military appearance.

Since 1949 Marines have been security guards at U.S. foreign-service posts under an agreement between the Marine Corps and the State Department. There are now about 1,300 Marines in this assignment -- units of six to 35 men -- who serve at 118 embassies, consulates and missions in 105 countries.

The tour of duty is 30 months after you graduate from a special five-week training school. There you learn how to set a table and open a checking or savings account in a foreign country. A Marine guard also gets 100 hours of language training for each country he is assigned to. The idea is to give you enough knowledge of the language so you can pick up words or phrases. It's all part of intelligence gathering. So is your training in how to carry on a conversation at a dinner party or reception and listen to several other conversations at the same time.

Once you graduate, you are assigned a hardship or non-hardship post. A hardship post is a country with a poor standard of living. For that reason, these are only 12-month tours. Hardship posts include all of the communist- bloc countries, including the Soviet Union, and some Arab and African countries. Non-hardship posts include Western Europe, South America, Mexico, Canada and some parts of Asia.

Embassy security is considered glamor duty. The recruiting posters talk about travel and seeing the world. As part of the duty, you even get a special allowance to buy suits and other dress clothing for all the receptions and parties the guards attend.

During embassy guard training, a Marine is subjected to extensive inspections, interviewing and background checks. Because foreign citizens can be so curious about the United States, you are quizzed about your country. My last interview question was who had rushed for the most yards in a Super Bowl. But no one asked, "Will you spy against the United States?" And there is really no way to predict who will be prone to compromise. The training weeds out the obvious people who shouldn't be Marine guards. But there is no way to know for sure.

The Marines in my unit in Moscow knew the Soviets were always looking for people to compromise. The Marines in my outfit were careful, and loyal.

So what causes a Marine to spy?

Perhaps it is greed. Perhaps it is bad judgment in getting too close to a woman in a lonely, foreign land. In Paris or London, Marines socialize freely, attend movies, theater, restaurants, shops. Some establishments get so used to seeing Marines that they set aside special reserved tables for them. But in Moscow there is little to do and little freedom. You buy clothes out of catalogs from J.C. Penney and Sears.

Maybe it is seeing many white-collar criminals back home get only a slap on the wrist for their crimes that makes a Marine think nothing will happen if he gives the other side some information. Perhaps it is the assumption that just a few classified materials won't hurt, that everyone spies, that if the press can report classified information, what could it hurt to give it to the Soviets for money?

Or maybe it is something much worse: a hatred of the United States or a character flaw that allows a man to become a traitor to his country.

I don't know the answer. What I do know is that the vast majority of Marines on the embassy security detail are dedicated men who try to put the best foot forward in a foreign country for both the Marines and the United States. They are the best the Marines have to offer and they have done an excellent job guarding U.S. embassies for almost 40 years.

But as in any group, there are always a few who fail, who hurt things for the rest, who bring a black eye to an otherwise good organization. And that has been the unfortunate case in Moscow.


Soviet Denies Advisers in Kabul Had Role in U.S. Envoy's Death

MOSCOW, Feb. 17 — The Soviet Union denied today that its police advisers in Afghanistan supervised an assault Wednesday against abductors of the American Ambassador, Adolph Dubs, after which the Ambassador was found riaari of bullet wounds.

A Government statement distributed by Tass, the official press agency, acknowledged that Soviet representatives had been at the scene. But the statement asserted that the Russians had “nothing to do with the decision of the Afghan authorities as regards the character of actions directed at saving the life of the American Ambassador.”

Afghan security forces stormed Kabul hotel where the Ambassador was being held hostage. The State Department in Washington charged that three Soviet advisers and a Soviet security officer had been with the police forces and disregarded American pleas that an effort be made to stall the abductors and win time for other approaches.

Washington demanded a full report from the Soviet Embassy.

Soviet Envoy Expresses Regret

Last night, Anatoly F. Dobrynin, Moscow's Ambassador in Washington, expressed regret on behalf of Moscow over Mr. Dubs's death and he told Deputy Secretary of State Warren M. Christopher that Moscow's investigation had shown no inappropriate behavior by the Soviet advisers.

Mr. Dobrynin said the Afghans were responsible for all aspects of the incident.

Tass reported that the Soviet Government had “rejected as inconsistent, claims of any responsibility of Soviet citizens in Afghanistan for the tragic outcome of what happened in Kabul”

The press agency said that “Soviet representatives had arrived at tne place of the incident with the aim of protecting the life of Soviet citizens, whom the terrorists were also threatening.” It did not elaborate on the assertion that Soviet citizens had also been imperiled. A request by The New York Times to the Soviet Foreign Ministry for more information was not answered.

The Tass dispatch, datelined Washington, continued:

“The Soviet Embassy expressed regret that the American side had made claims based on false data and made public this version based on a falsification of facts. It was stressed that such attempts at artificially linking the incident with SovietAmerican relations and thus marring them do not serve the interests of our countries.”

On Wednesday, acting on instructions from President Carter, Mr. Christopher expressed “shock” to Ambassador Dobrynin over the role of Russians in the incident.

Officials in Washington said the Administration's anger over the Kabul incident, and also over Soviet propaganda said to be fanning anti‐Americanism in Iran, was running high and straining United States‐Soviet relations.

The American Embassy in Teheran was invaded by armed men the same day Mr. Dubs was abducted and slain.

The identity and affiliation of the abductors of Mr. Dubs have not yet been determined. The Afghan Government has said the abductors demanded the release of a man named Bahruddin Bahes, not known to the authorities.

Afghanistan's Marxist‐oriented Government, which took power in a coup last April and signed a friendship treaty with Moscow in December, expressed regret to the United States over the slaying.


Notorious turncoat Philby ran interference in Gouzenko spy sensation, author finds

BY RANDY BOSWELL, POSTMEDIA NEWS SEPTEMBER 30, 2010
Source: Canada.com

UNDATED — Harold “Kim” Philby (British Secret Service) 1955 file photo. (Died May 1988). A new book about the history of Britain’s foreign intelligence service has shed fresh light on Canada’s most famous spy case — the 1945 defection of Soviet embassy employee Igor Gouzenko — and the clandestine efforts by notorious British double-agent Kim Philby to manipulate events in Ottawa and London to Moscow’s advantage.

Queen’s University Belfast historian Keith Jeffery, author of The Secret History of MI6: 1909-1949, says classified documents that only he was authorized to see while researching the book show the powerful and traitorous Philby issuing memos at MI6 headquarters with a “cautious and soothing tone” — a strategy designed to “downplay” the significance of what were, in fact, sensational revelations from Gouzenko about the existence of a Soviet spy ring in North America.

Gouzenko, a cipher clerk at the Soviet embassy in Ottawa, defected in September 1945 with about 100 telegrams and other classified documents he’d snatched from a consular safe, exposing an extensive espionage network — including scientists, bureaucrats and even the Montreal-area socialist MP Fred Rose — operating in North America and Britain at the end of the Second World War.

Among the secret dispatches stolen by Gouzenko were several that revealed the August 1945 handover of experimental uranium samples to Soviet agents in Montreal by Alan Nunn May, a British nuclear scientist working in Canada at the time.

Gouzenko’s revelations about May, later dubbed the “Atom Spy” when his crimes became public, stunned political leaders in Canada, Britain and the U.S.

Secret papers declassified in 2007 through the U.K. National Archives and others published last year in historian Christopher Andrew’s official history of the MI5 — Britain’s domestic spy agency — have previously documented some of Philby’s efforts to stymie the Gouzenko investigation.

But Jeffery told Postmedia News that the secret MI6 files he probed contained “spanking new stuff” that showed how Philby was exploiting his position as head of counter-intelligence at MI6 to restrict information flows in London and to thwart Canadian, British and American officials who were trying to understanding the scope and implications of Gouzenko’s disclosures.

“It would appear,” Philby notes in one memo unearthed by Jeffery, that Gouzenko’s information is “genuine though not necessarily accurate in all details.”

And when Canadian and British intelligence officials make arrangements to arrest May at a meeting he had scheduled with his Soviet handler in London, Philby pointedly asserts in a report that “other members of the (Soviet spy) network will have been warned” of Gouzenko’s defection and predicts that the expected rendezvous “between May and the Soviet agent in the U.K. will fail to materialize.”

As Jeffery writes, it was Philby himself who was secretly notifying Moscow about the Soviet spy crisis unfolding in Ottawa, and his memos to unsuspecting MI6 colleagues and Canadian partners included “predictions of developments which he had already engineered himself.”

Furthermore, Jeffery discovered, Philby took steps to make certain that MI6 sent agent Roger Hollis instead of the more competent Jane Archer to interrogate Gouzenko.

Philby’s “preference, significantly, was for Hollis rather than Archer, whom he considered the abler and more knowledgeable, and therefore more of a threat.”

Jeffery — reached for an interview in Washington, where he’s scheduled to discuss his book on Friday at the Woodrow Wilson International Center — describes the Gouzenko affair as “the start of the Cold War.”

What he discovered in the secret MI6 archives on the Canadian episode, he said, “are the footprints of Kim Philby” appearing everywhere as he scrambled to dampen British interest in Gouzenko’s revelations.

“He was in a powerful position — just the right place — to impede the investigations that the Gouzenko defection triggers,” said Jeffery. “He was communicating directly to the Soviet Union. He knows that Nunn May is coming back to London and that a rendezvous is set up” with a Soviet agent outside the British Museum — and that British and Canadian intelligence officials are planning to arrest the pair at the meeting.

Philby and his Soviet contacts “are not able to warn Nunn May or to get him out — he’s kind of sacrificed,” said Jeffery. “But the Soviet link — of course crucial if he’d been captured — never turns up for the rendezvous because he’d been tipped off by Philby.”

Nunn May was eventually charged and convicted of passing official secrets to the Soviets. He was sentenced to 10 years hard labour, but served only six before his release in 1952.

He worked as a scientific researcher in Ghana until the late 1970s, and died in Britain in 2003.

The fallout from the Gouzenko affair was far-reaching and — according to many experts — the episode locked the U.S., Britain and their allies into a political and military standoff with the Soviet Union that would dominate global politics for nearly 50 years.

In the end, notes Jeffery, Philby “can’t prevent the big picture” revealed in Gouzenko’s smuggled documents that Soviet agents had penetrated North American society.

“What he manages to succeed to do in the micro-story is to manipulate things a bit and to protect the Soviet network in the United Kingdom.”

Philby’s accurate “prediction” that Nunn May’s contact won’t show at the planned sting even had the effect of reinforcing for MI6 brass “what a brilliant man he is — this man who can see how the Soviets are operating.

“Self-fulfilling prophecies are great — especially if you know what’s going to happen,” Jeffery said. “It actually confirmed his reputation within the service as a man of very sharp intelligence.”

Philby wasn’t exposed as a double-agent until 1963, when he escaped to the Soviet Union. He was “absolutely trusted” in Western intelligence circles until that time, said Jeffery.

The historian’s 800-page book — published in Britain under the title MI6: The History of the Secret Intelligence Service, 1909-1949 — was researched under what Jeffery has acknowledged was a “Faustian pact” with the spy agency that gave him unprecedented access to secret files but allowed MI6 officials to vet the final manuscript prior to publication.

© Copyright (c) Postmedia News


“Singing tomorrows?” or “Grinding tomorrows?” The Soviet Union is not yet Dead (Quebec, 1996)

“The pragmatic basis for a revised US response to ‘perestroika’ is the need to protect and preserve the American system from ‘restructuring’ preparatory to ‘convergence’ with the ‘reformed’ Soviet system, and to save the American people from the blood baths and re-education camps which such ‘conver­gence’ will eventually bring about, of which the West currently has no conception.”

— Anatoliy Golitsyn, writing in his “Post-script, the long-range deception strategy”, in The Perestroika DeceptionThe World’s Slide Towards the Second October Revolution (1995), p. 209


I have just found a document from 1996, the title of which strongly suggests that the 1995 Quebec referendum to “secede” (i.e., force all of Canada to “negotiate” a regional union) just missed the Soviet boat.

I’ve written this article in the order in which known information came to mind, topped off with the final research toward the end, which confirmed my intuition.

Had there really been a Cold War …

had there really been a post -Cold War …

had the Soviet Union indeed “collapsed” …

were Perestroika and democratisation of the USSR genuine …

then why would the Quebec Left in 1996 associate the very object of the 1995 Quebec referendum to “secede” with an ultimate triumph of the old Soviet Union?

I think the Left slipped up in a major way when certain exponents of it conferred a particular book title on a collection of essays on the 1995 Quebec referendum.

That book title inadvertently exposed the fact that Quebec’s referendums to “secede”, led by the veiled Communist Parti Québécois, are a Soviet tactic for restructuring Canada and North America.

The Soviet Union therefore necessarily did not “collapse”.

KGB defector, Anatoliy Golitsyn, in his 1995 book The Perestroika Deception, points out that the USSR undertook a superficial or “cosmetic” transformation to facilitate its own “convergence” with a “restructured” West.

After years of historical and constitutional research, it is my view that the Quebec referendums are undoubtedly one tool of that restructuring.

Middle-class French-Canadians unknowingly wave North American Union banners during 1995 Quebec “secession” rally.

The goal is for Quebec to use a threat of dismantling Canada by secession , to force the “rest of Canada” to negotiate its complete restructuring to match whatever then-current stage of development is found in the European region.

In 1980, that stage was the European Economic Community (EEC). In 1995, it was the European Union (EU). Whatever the stage, for the clear purpose of deception, the desired restructuring is always called: “ Canadian unity “.

René Lévesque, in English-language video footage, declares that the powers gained by Quebec in “seceding” will eventually be relinquished to unidentified recipients. These can only be regional authorities, municipal authorities and world government in a world state where nations have ceased to exist, and only cities and regions are on the signposts.

The title of the 1996 anthology in which Communists lament the 1995 Quebec Referendum loss is this:

Le goût du Québec.
L’après référendum 1995.
Des lendemains qui grincent…
ou qui chantent ?

The title translates as follows:

The Taste of Quebec.
After the 1995 Referendum.
Singing tomorrows…
or grinding tomorrows?

The book (hereafter, “Lendemains“) (published at Montreal in 1996 by Les Éditions Hurtubise HMH, ltée, 260 pages) is divided into two sections of articles, one under the title “Des lendemains qui grincent…” (Grinding tomorrows?) and the other under the title: “Des lendemains qui chantent?” (Singing tomorrows?)

Le goût du Québec. L’après référendum 1995. Des lendemains qui grincent… ou qui chantent?

In contrast to “Des lendemains qui grincent“, we have a cluster of authors unified under the necessarily (as we shall see) militant Red theme of “Singing tomorrows” — “Des lendemains qui chantent“, the ultimate triumph of the apparently not really reformed Soviet Union.

We have Myra Cree, Henry Mintzberg, Julien Bauer, Peter G. White, Claude Corbo, René Boudreault, Marco Micone, James O’Reilly, Robin Philpot, Bernard Cleary, Joseph Rabinovitch, Louis Cornellier, Isabelle Guinard, and Naïm Kattan, with Philippe Resnick in annex and labor commissioner, Marc Brière (aka the class-conscious Marxist “judge”) doing a post-script. A veritable “multicultural” plea for a new, essentially “territorial” common “nation” and new “people-hood” in order to re-engineer the vote next time for the desired outcome.

The expression, “singing tomorrows” is a well known paean to the eventual triumph of the Soviet Union, as will be more clear further below.

The editor of the volume, an anthology published in 1996, is Marc Brière. Brière, born in 1929, calls himself an “Attorney, judge and Québécois essayist” (“Avocat, juge et essayiste québécois). (He is actually not a judge, but a commissioner of an administrative board. Who says Marxists are not class-conscious?)

Brière, who claims credit for the idea of the post-referendum anthology, calls himself a “ member of Cité Libre“, the magazine founded by card-carrying Communist Gérard Pelletier and his pro-Soviet friend Pierre Elliott Trudeau. (“Lendemains” p. 257) Here is the full statement:

Ancien élève du collège Stanislas de Montréal, il [Brière] passa deux ans à l’école navale de Royal Roads, en Colombie britannique, et devint officier de la Marine Royale du Canada, pour entreprendre ensuite des études de droit aux universités de Montréal et de Paris. Membre de Cité libre et de la Fédération libérale du Québec, il participa activement à la Révolution tranquille aux côtés de Paul Gérin-Lajoie et de René Lévesque. Il contribua à la fondation du Mouvement souveraineté-association, en 1967, puis à celle du Parti québécois. Robert Bourassa le nomma au Tribunal du travail en 1975.

A former student of Stanislas College in Montreal, he [Brière] spent two years at the Royal Roads naval college in British Columbia, and became a Royal naval officer of Canada, to then take up the study of law at the universities of Montreal and Paris. A member of Cité libre and the Liberal Federation of Quebec, he took an active part in the Quiet Revolution at the side of Paul Gérin-Lajoie and René Lévesque. He contributed to the founding of the Mouvement souveraineté-association in 1967, and to that of the Parti Québécois. Robert Bourassa appointed him to the Labor Board in 1975.

So, Brière has a personal interest and investment to vindicate in this book. He is a founding member of the MSA which was organized to become the veiled Communist PQ. He is a “member” of Cité libre run by and for the goals of Communists in Canada. He is thus close to secret committee men from Cité libre who ordered the Parti Québécois to be set up in the first place. He helped to set it up by contributing to the founding of the MSA which led to it. Brière then worked for the Parti Québécois for four years “in government”. Brière is thus an insider. His 1996 book is necessarily a Communist tactic. He even got himself a little military training at the expense of Canada and so he was possibly in a command chain at the time of the 1995 referendum. The implications of his book’s title, discussed below, should be taken seriously.

Alan Stang in “CANADA” (April 1971) identified Cité Libre as harboring Communists. Robert Rumilly (The Leftist Infiltration in French Canada, 1956 / L’Infiltration Gau­chiste au Canada Français) identified Cité Libre as the self-described “little sister” of Esprit, a crypto-Communist magazine in France founded in October 1931. Esprit’s first issue featured a favorable travel journal of a voyage behind the Iron Curtain.

We later find the principal figures of Esprit linked to UNESCO at the founding of the UN. You can search the UNESCO web site today for the names of Emmanuel Mounier and Jacques Maritaine, both leading lights of the crypto-Communist Esprit.

(For stunning information on the Communist nature of the UN’s origins, G. Edward Griffin has narrated a superb exposé entitled The Subversion Factor . It is absolutely essential viewing. If you have never looked into Communism, this is the one film you must see. If you are familiar with Communism but haven’t seen it, you need to see it.)

With Marc Brière, we are thus firmly on territory of the far left associated by “former” Marxist-Leninist leader, Jean-François Lisée,* with Power Corporation of Canada, whose “secret committee” of Communist-infested “Liberals” in the federal cabinet of Soviet agent and (de facto) prime minister, Lester Bowles (aka “Mike”) Pearson, appointed René Lévesque to set up the “separatist” Parti Québécois and the referendums.

However, the Parti Québécois is a veiled Communist party, according to the terms of its own 1972 manifesto, which proposed a totalitarian government to run the economy, centralized production, the virtual obliteration of private business, and a self-managed work-force, all on the model of what Charles Perrault, then of the Conseil du patronat (Quebec Employers Council) and Narciso Pizarro, a Marxist socialist, both identified as the kind found in “socialist countries” such as Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Poland.

Given the title of this 1996 post-referendum book of Brière’s, “Singing tomorrows”, one may reasonably infer that not only has the purpose of the Parti Québécois not changed since 1972, but in some as yet unknown way, it is a direct creation of the Soviet agenda for the overthrow of North America. In a future post, I will explain the links discovered between international covert intelligence operations, the “secret committee” of Power Corporation, UNESCO, the creation of the Parti Québécois, and North American Union.

All this merely underscores the interpretation to be made of the book’s French title, explained in detail below, as implying that the failure of the 1995 referendum narrowly averted a Soviet overthrow of Canada.

Thus, the clear allusion in the title, in effect the banner under which the small host of writers has come to collaborate, is that the failure of the 1995 Quebec referendum was a near-miss to a Soviet takeover.

Moreover, the authors are writing in 1995-1996, well past the alleged “collapse of the Soviet Union” at the hands of Mr. Glasnost, or Mr. Perestroika, as you will, Mikhail Gorbachev.

Keep in mind the name of KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn and his important books, New Lies for Old and The Perestroika Deception, in which Golitsyn only feigned “collapse” as a tactic in its “long-term strategy”.

Anatoliy Golitsyn was born in the Ukraine in 1926. He became a member of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union at the age of nineteen, when he also joined the KGB. In 1959, he graduated with a law degree from a four-year course at the KGB Institute in Moscow. He “graduated from the Moscow School of Military Counter-espionage, the counterintelligence faculty of the High Intelligence School, and the University of Marxism-Leninism” according to his profile in the foreword to his 1995 book (paperback 1997), The Perestroika Deception.

From 1959 to 1960, Golitsyn served as a senior analyst in the NATO section of the Information Department of the Soviet intelligence service. He repeatedly served in Vienna and Helsinki on counterintelligence assignments.

He defected to the USA in (1961??)

According to the late Christopher Story, who edited The Perestroika Deception, the book

“reveals how the largely unseen Soviet collective lead­ership, borrowing the mind-control ideas of Gramsci, implemented their long-pre­pared shift from Lenin’s ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ to his ‘state of the whole people’, the primary characteristic of which is a theatrical display of ‘democratism’ designed to convince the West that a decisive ‘Break with the Past has taken place, in order to encourage Western Governments to abandon caution and to embark upon an open-ended programme of collaboration with the ‘former’ Soviet Bloc.”

In the chapter entitled, “The Fourth Key: Lenin’s ‘Forging of New and Old Forms’ for Developing Socialism, and Chicherin’s idea of False Representative Institutions through the Admission of Non-Communists (p. 86), Golitsyn writes:

One key to understanding this basis lies in Lenin’s advice to Communist Parties ‘to study, to search for, to find and to grasp the one particular powerful, specifically national tactic which will solve our international task … until the final victory of Communism’. All parties, advised Lenin, must rid themselves of the radical phrase­ology of the Left Wing. They must be ready to use a variety of tactics, old and new, legal and illegal. ‘International Communism’, he went on, ‘must subordinate to itself not only new, but old forms too — not simply to reconcile the new with the old, but to forge all forms, new and old, into a single weapon which will bring full, complete and decisive victory for Communism’. Following Lenin’s advice, the Soviet strat­egists and Arbatov’s Institute for the Study of the USA and Canada have studied Western democracy, its political processes and its media. …

“It is also likely”, Golitsyn says:

“that prominent agents of influence in the West with knowl­edge of American conditions will have suggested that, to conquer the United States, Communism would have to be Americanised and dressed in ‘democratic’ garb.”

Given the title of Marc Brière’s 1996 socialist lament for the failure of the 1995 Quebec referendum (no “singing tomorrows”), then mutatis mutandis, I would ask, is Arbatov’s Institute for the Study of the USA and Canada involved in “Canadianising” Communism and dressing it up in the ‘democratic garb’ of Quebec referendums under the Communist-infested Parti Québécois which is a “false representative institution”? The referendums to “secede” (translation: to force the rest of Canada to “negotiate” the new regional system unfolding in Europe) are not only unconstitutional, they are forbidden by it.

I can explain this quickly in a way that Americans in particular will understand, because they understand the political and legal purposes of their own constitutional division of powers. I am referring to the distribution of legislative and political power between the federal and State levels. In America, the central or federal government has “enumerated” powers, a legal term meaning that its hands are tied it can do only those things on the list of powers that constitutionally it is given to do.

In Canada, the reverse is true. The “state” or provincial powers are enumerated, with a small “general” or “residual” power confined to “local purposes” only. (See Section 92 of the British North America Act, 1867 — still the only lawful Constitution for Canada.)

As a result of this Canadian division of powers, a province literally has no power to take any steps outside the list, including holding referendums to “secede” or drafting “laws” with preambles containing a unilateral declaration of independence, etc. There is no power on the list under which it can be done.

The Canadian division of powers was designed specifically to prevent them doing it. A province has no power to “secede”, and therefore no power to take a step in that direction, intended to facilitate “seceding”.

The 1998 opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada pretending the constitution (the current one, part of a coup d’etat imposed by Trudeau in 1982, with much of the language of the 1867 original) is “silent on the ability of a province to secede”. They lied. They ignored the division of powers deliberately, as well as every other feature designed to deny a provincial power to secede, or a federal power to annex Canada… to the USA or (ejusdem generis rule) into a regional union.

Therefore, since the time of the secret committee of Power Corporation (circa 1967), the referendums to “secede” — recommended by Trudeau and his Communist friends to René Lévesque — are entirely outside the lawful Constitution. They are unconstitutional and void. This is more clear from the words of the Hon. Justice John Wellington Gwynne of the Supreme Court of Canada (in better days), writing in Citizens’ and The Queen Insurance Cos. v. Parsons, (1880), 4 S.C.R. 215, pp. 347-348:

“To enjoy the supremacy so conferred by the B.N.A Act, these local legislatures must be careful to confine the assumption of exercise of the powers so conferred upon them, to the particular subjects expressly placed under their jurisdiction […]”

“True it may be, that the Acts of the local legislatures affecting the particularly enumerated subjects placed by the B.N.A. Act under their exclusive control, if not disallowed by the Dominion Government, are supreme in the sense that they cannot be called in question in any court, but this supremacy is attributable solely to the authority of the B.N.A. Act, which has placed those subjects under the exclusive control of the local legislatures, and is not, in any respect, enjoyed as an incident to national sovereignty.”

There is no power in the lawful Constitution for a Province to “secede” or to do anything “in relation to” (legal term) seceding. The provincial powers reserved to a Province in Canada are enumerated, i.e., confined to the list of constitutional subject matters. A Province can do nothing that is “in relation to” “secession”, which includes conducting referendums “in relation to” “seceding”.

Gilles Duceppe (“former” Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) of the veiled Communist Bloc Québécois (at the federal level) has suggested that Quebec has a parliamentary “privilege” to conduct the referendums and to ask the public any question it pleases. This is untrue. Parliamentary privilege is confined to the exercise of existing legal powers essential to the conduct by the Legislature of its affairs as such a Legislature. There is no “parliamentary privilege” to act as a putsch, or in any way outside the existing legal powers of a Province. Privilege ceases to exist when the Legislature clearly shows by deliberate unconstitutional behavior that it is not acting as a Legislature, but as the perpetrator of a coup: i.e., as a usurper.

Further, Provincial powers are confined to their local territory. No Province can take any action which substantially affects any other Province or all of Canada. In other words, a Province has no such “extra-territorial” power. Therefore, referendums in Quebec as a pretext to “negotiate” the restructuring of all of Canada are fundamentally extra-territorial in character (legal term), and therefore unconstitutional.

Trudeau, a constitutional lawyer, and a law professor, knew that a Province has no power to “secede”. He thus used a ploy to conceal the illegality: he tabled a federal Bill to conduct a Canada-wide referendum on “national unity”, while declaring that the referendum might be done instead only in Quebec (under his Communist friend, Lévesque). The federal Bill was never passed (which saved it from judicial review and thus from exposure as unlawful: — the federal government, also, has no constitutional power to dismantle Canada). But the public fell for it: the illegal Quebec referendums have proceeded since that time on a blind assumption derived from Trudeau’s unlawful public statement.

The entire operation is an exercise in mass mind-control, which depends in turn upon media control. The latter has been achieved, for example, through creation of the State-controlled CBC-Radio Canada which underpins the sedition, subversion and propaganda of the Left, wrongly conveying these to the public as normal events while planting fifth-columnists (such as Rhodes Scholar Rex Murphy and Bilderberger Peter Mansbridge) in editorial news positions to help engineer public compliance with illegality until Canada is done and disposed of.

It can be no coincidence that Pearson retired suddenly while in office, the same year the secret committee decided to create the veiled Communist Parti Québécois (PQ). Pearson’s retirement allowed Trudeau to rise from that secret committee to the Prime Minister’s Office, precisely in time to seem to “fight” “Lévesque’s” new “separatist” party to “save” Canadian “unity” by “negotiating” the European system to replace Confederation. The very system Mikhail Gorbachev has called “the New European Soviet”.

The Parti Québécois which is running these referendums therefore certainly fits the label of a “false representative institution”. The Soviet ploy for convergence thus obviously includes not only the creation of false (merely cosmetic) “democratic” agencies in Communist countries to encourage convergence, but the concocting of false “political” parties and other “dummy” entities in target countries to guide their dismantling, ostensibly by their own citizens under the guise of “democratic” procedure.

Now, let me get back to the sinister title of Brière’s 1996 anthology.

I am reading that anthology now. So far, its appearance immediately after the failed 1995 referendum seems to be an aggressive tactic to keep the “secession” ball in the air.

However, I will not discuss the various articles in the book right now. I will stick to the title of the book, which is fundamental. In particular since it also serves to divide the book into two sections, “Singing tomorrows” (implied Soviet victory) and “Grinding tomorrows” (misery until the day of victory).

I would not have recognized the allusion to ultimate Soviet victory in the title of the 1996 book on the 1995 Quebec referendum, but for Alan Stang.

Jean-Louis Gagnon at the Microphone

The 1971 offprint by American Opinion of Stang’s CANADA How The Communists Took Control features a reproduction at p. 14 of a telegram sent by a known Soviet agent (exposed by Igor Gouzenko): one Jean-Louis Gagnon. Gagnon used the expression “ singing tomorrows ” in connection with an eventual triumph of “the great Soviet Union”.

Remarking on Gouzenko’s naming of Gagnon (among many other agents in Canada for Soviet espionage), Alan Stang says:

“The papers brought by Igor Gouzenko to the Canadians from the Soviet Embassy in Ottawa revealed that it was Jean-Louis Gagnon who had supplied Soviet Colonel Zabotin with the information that the exact date of D-Day was June 6, 1944.”

D-Day was the date of the Allied landing in France, in World War II.

To enhance that picture, anticommunist author Eric D. Butler (an Australian) wrote as follows in his important article “The Real Communist Menace”:

“Colonel Zabotin, for whom Gouzenko worked, and who figures prominently in the [Canadian] Commissioner’s Report, suddenly departed from Ottawa in December, 1945, without notifying the Canadian authorities, to whom he was accredited. He sailed from New York in a Soviet ship which left secretly at night without complying with port regulations. Just after the publication of the Canadian Report, a newspaper item said that Colonel Zabotin “died from heart failure four days after his return to Russia from Canada.”

In his 1982 article, “Inside the ‘Featherbed File’? Canada’s Watergate — The story of treason in Ottawa”, former RCMP undercover agent, Patrick Walsh, further describes the fact that Jean-Louis Gagnon was a member of Soviet spy rings operating in Canada exposed by Igor Gouzenko:

“The almost incredible story of Soviet penetration into the Canadian civil service has never been written, with the exception of the Gouzenko expose of the 󈧬s which uncovered one branch of Soviet spying: the GRU military intelligence network masterminded by Col. Zabotin. However, the Royal Commission Report dealing with Soviet espionage in the 󈧬s revealed that other Soviet spies active in the External Affairs Department had either fled the country (Jean-Louis Gagnon fled to Brazil, with the cooperation of Mitchell Sharp, then a director of Brazilian Traction Corporation) or could not be positively identified because only their code names were known.”

Mitchell Sharp deserves further mention. Sharp — who helped to protect the Soviet infiltration of Canada that Gouzenko had begun to expose — would become a future Trudeau advisor, and a future member of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission.

Sharp is seen here whispering in Trudeau’s ear at the Liberal convention which elects Trudeau as de facto Prime Minister (Alan Stang has generally described this event in his chapter “The Big Switch”).

Mitchell Sharp whispering in the ear of Pierre Elliott Trudeau at the 1967 Liberal Leadership Convention

The Rockefellers’ Chase Manhattan was among those banks (Kuehn Loeb of the Warburgs was another) which deliberately and consciously financed the 1917 Bolshevik revolution.

That so-called “revolution” was in fact the aggressive invasion of Russia by radical Communists. The so-called “revolution” resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of innocents, mostly Christian Russians. It created the most brutal tyranny the world has ever seen, whose butchers have never been brought to justice despite the alleged “fall” of the now “former” Soviet Union.

Mitchell Sharp is thus an associate of these same Rockefellers and their Trilateral Commission, whose literature, by the way, includes an article by Peter Sutherland in which he extols the French crypto-communists of Esprit as “Catholic socialists”. The mire expands. Esprit is linked to Trudeau’s Cité libre, to UNESCO (arm of the UNO as world government), and to the Trilateral Commission.)

After a “cooling off” period, Jean-Louis Gagnon returned from Brazil only to be employed by the federal government of Canada! Most notably, he found protection with “pilgrim of Moscow” Pierre Elliott Trudeau, as Quebec historian Rumilly calls him.

Stang points out that Gagnon’s telegram, sent from Washington to a Communist May-day rally in Montreal on May 1st, 1946 conveys the adoration of Gagnon for “the great Soviet Union”.

Here is the English translation published by Alan Stang along with the French telegram in the John Birch Society’s offprint of Stang’s April 1st, 1971 “CANADA” article in American Opinion:

“On this first post-war victorious May Day we
can foresee the victory of the working
class STOP Fraternal greetings to all trade
union leaders STOP Let us go forward to Peace STOP
Long live the glorious Soviet Union STOP Long live
singing tomorrows STOP”

Stang was not alone in publishing a copy of the telegram. In the same month of April, 1971, the journal Straight Talk! of the Edmund Burke Society (EBS) (based in Scarborough, Ontario), also featured an image of the telegram. Its unsigned article said that Jean-Louis Gagnon had been “a member of the Communist Party” at the time he sent the telegram to a Communist May Day rally.

Telegram sent by Soviet agent and Communist Party member Jean-Louis Gagnon to a Montreal Communist May-Day Rally on May 1st, 1946: “Singing Tomorrows” (“ les lendemains qui chantent “), published in the April 1971 issue of Straight Talk!, journal of The Edmund Burke Society (EBS) and by the John Birch Society in the April 1971 article in American Opinion by Alan Stang entitled “CANADA How The Communists Took Control”.


Here is my transcript of the original French telegram:

“Ce premier mai victorieuse d’après-guerre laisse
prévoir l’avènement de la victoire [de la] classe
ouvrière STOP Saluts fraternels aux chefs
unionistes STOP En avant pour la paix STOP Vive
la grande Union soviétique STOP Vive les
lendemains qui chantent STOP.”

Militant Communist origin of the term
les lendemains qui chantent“.

The phrase “ les lendemains qui chantent ” originates in a 1937 “song of the Left” entitled “Jeunesse” (Youth) with lyrics by Paul Vaillant-Couturier, and music by Arthur Honegger. It appears, in the singular , in the last line of the first six-line stanza of the song, which celebrates the history of Communism while anticipating its ultimate triumph . That ultimate triumph is embodied in the last line of the first verse, which reads:

“Nous bâtirons un lendemain qui chante ”
(We will build a singing tomorrow )

JEUNESSE
Paroles de Paul Vaillant-Couturier
Musique d’Arthur Honegger – 1937

YOUTH
Lyrics by Paul Vaillant-Couturier
Music by Arthur Honegger – 1937

Nous sommes la jeunesse ardente
Qui vient escalader le ciel
Dans un cortège fraternel
Unissons nos mains frémissantes
Sachons protéger notre pain
Nous bâtirons un lendemain qui chante

We are the passionate youth
Who come to scale the heights
In fraternal procession
Unite our trembling hands
We know the way to defend our bread
We will build a singing tomorrow

The explanation provided in the footer to the song at the web site of the Parti socialiste, in the section “Centenaire du Parti socialiste” (Centenary of the Socialist Party) describes the fifth and final stanza of the same song as an allusion to the Communist war-cry of the French Front. The French Front was the enlargement of the Front Populaire (Popular Front) to include Catholics and former members of the “Croix de Feu” (Cross of Fire).

The theme of “we will build a singing tomorrow ” is taken up again by the militant Communist, Gabriel Péri, in his final letter, before being executed at Mount Valérien in December 1941: “ je meurs pour des lendemains qui chantent ” (“I die for singing tomorrows”).

Péri’s 59-page autobiographical letter was published posthumously in Paris in 1947 by Éditions sociales under the title, Les lendemains qui chantent. This was one year after Soviet agent Jean-Louis Gagnon’s May 1st telegram to the Communist May-Day rally in 1946.

However, the phrase was already current from Paul Vaillant-Couturier’s Communist battle hymn of 1937, Jeunesse.

See: SearchWorks catalog at Stanford University Libraries.
Les Lendemains qui chantent : autobiographie, Péri, Gabriel, 1902-1941. Paris : Éditions sociales, 1947.

Paul Vaillant-Couturier (1892-1937) was a journalist, writer, member of the French parliament, and editor-in-Chief of the Communist review, l’Humanité.

To sum up, the very title of this 1996 anthology — “Le goût du Québec. L’après référendum 1995. Des lendemains qui grincent… ou qui chantent ?” — by a raft of socialists lamenting the 1995 Quebec referendum loss, appears to imply that the Left expected a Soviet conquest of Canada in 1995 by means of the ballot box.

International state recognition of Quebec and the other dismantled Provinces would have conferred a “treaty power” so that all might sign “treaties of accession to the European system”. A system that Mikhail Gorbachev has called “the new European Soviet”.

The phrase “les lendemains qui chantent” in the title of the 1996 book therefore suggests that Jean-Louis Gagnon’s “great Soviet Union” indeed has not collapsed: the Quebec referendums are a “specifically national tactic” — a part of its “Long Term Strategy” for complete Communist conquest.

Anatoliy Golitsyn warned in his books New Lies For Old, and The Perestroika Deception, that the Soviet Union did not collapse. It went “underground” in execution of a long-range strategy of “convergence” with and “restructuring” of Western countries.

The Quebec referendums under the Parti Québécois in 1980 and in 1995 were attempts to fundamentally restructure all of Canada for Communism. The referendums (for both political dismantling and horizontal east-west restructuring on the heels of socialist policies), are interspersed with “trade deals” for vertical north-south integration, restructuring and convergence.

The so-called “trade deals” are a pretext for the vertical integration of Canada, USA and Mexico into a Communist regional union.

So far, the power centers of the existing nation-state framework — although controlled from without — remain within their original countries. It is absolutely essential to recover constitutional control of these power centers — our national governments — before they are used to dismantle us. It may or may not be possible to do this politically but it must be done, legally.

It is vital to launch constitutional challenges to unconstitutional action and to hammer our respective rogue governments with a torrent of constitutional lawsuits. The people must not be presumed to accept or to obey our unconstitutional regimes. Above all, we must not allow ourselves to be manipulated into cooperating or even seeming to cooperate with our nations’ demise. The international community views non-revolt as passive compliance.

Looking over the list of writers who contributed to the 1996 anthology, most are not yet familiar to me. However, a couple stand out.

Peter G. White is President of the Canadian branch of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the world-government crowd, i.e., the Canadian Institute of International Affairs (CIIA) now called Canadian International Institute (CIC) and simply “Open Canada”. The CIC named billionaire Communism-promoter, George Soros, “Globalist of the Year” in 2010.

White is also Vice-president of the phony Council for Canadian Unity, which keeps the “secession” ball up in the air so Quebec can be used to dissolve what remains of the constitution of Canada for regional “union”, that being the real meaning of “unity”.

Also at the time of publishing the 1996 book, White is an associate of Conrad Black and is President and administrator of the Quebec branch of Black’s Hollinger Inc., which owns a slew of French-language Quebec daily newspapers, including Le Droit in Ottawa-Hull. Le Droit is known to have been involved in manipulating political affairs in Ontario linked to the 1998 Supreme Court of Canada “Quebec secession” Reference. (Well, it’s known to me, anyway, in addition to being known to the “secession” conspirators I’ve done my homework. The case in question is Lalonde v. Ontario (Commission de restructuration des services de santé), 2001 CanLII 21164 (ON C.A.) [56 O.R. (3d) 577].

In addition, White was sitting on the Boards of Directors of Téléglobe, Télésystème Inc., and Southam Inc., all bastions of communications and media control. Through the CIIA and Southam, White is therefore linked to Power Corporation of Canada, which sits on the Board and Senate of the CIIA (world government), and which purchased the money-losing Southam chain of newspapers in 1994. Power Corp. thus acquired control of Quebec’s one and only English-language daily newspaper, The Montreal Gazette, the year before the 1995 Quebec referendum subject of the 1996 anthology.

Power Corp. appointed a new publisher, Michael Goldbloom to run The Gazette. Goldbloom, along with other Gazette figures including Editor, Sheila Fraser, published signed editorials urging English-speaking Canadians in Quebec to vote “Yes” in the upcoming 1995 referendum. Fraser was later appointed to Canada’s Senate where she led a Senate committee to unlawfully adopt the 1998 Secession opinion of the non-judicial advisory board of the Supreme Court of Canada as the so-called “Clarity Act”, a federal “law” purporting to authorize Quebec “secession”.

White moreover was principal Secretary to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney (Mr. NAFTA, i.e. Mr. Continental Union) from 1983 to 1986. From 1986 to 1988 White was chairman of Domgroup Ltd. and editor of Saturday Night Magazine: more media control.

White is linked to Maurice Sauvé, who sat on the secret committee of socialist-infested “Liberals” at Power Corporation of Canada. That secret committee of mostly Ministers from Quebec in the federal cabinet of Soviet agent Lester Bowles Pearson instructed Communist René Lévesque to create and lead the Parti Québécois (PQ) in 1967. The PQ ran both Quebec referendums to “secede” in 1995 and 1980. The PQ’s political manifesto is Communist that’s the one I’ve been translating. Look for it in the sidebar: Quand nous serons vraiment chez nous.

Charles Taylor is a Rhodes Scholar with a PhD in philosophy from Oxford and is President of the Quebec Section of the New Democratic Party (NDP), as well as leftist “guru” to the late Jack Layton, the former leader of Canada’s federal NDP, which is a full member of the Socialist International (SI) and signed up to world government. The NDP’s party constitution intends to abolish private property.

In the back of the 1996 anthology, Taylor is declared to be a “world recognized authority”, having published, amongst others, Explanation of Behaviour (1964), Pattern of Politics (1970), Hegel (1975), Hegel and Modern Society (1979), Philosophical Papers (1985), Sources of the Self (1989), and The Malaise of Modernity (1991). Taylor is a member of the Royal Society of Canada and of the British Academy. As a Rhodes Scholar, he himself is undoubtedly one of the chief causes of the “malaise of modernity”.

Charles Taylor is perhaps best known in Quebec for his cheer-leading of the French Canadians in an attempt to destroy their racial and cultural homogeneity through a process of endless “reasonable accommodation” of the 200+ cultures of incoming mass-immigrated foreign races imported for the purpose of anti-national unconstitutional “multiculturalism”…. apparently the intended format of the upcoming multicultural regional North American Union.

______
* Lisée is counted among “former” “(translation:) leaders of Marxist-Leninist organizations in the 1970s, who joined the upper spheres of the bourgeois political class after having atoned for their “crimes” and expressed their repentance”. That quote is from issue No. 71 (20-11-2005) of the Drapeau Rouge Express (Red Flag Express), the online journal of the Parti Communiste Revolutionnaire (Revolutionary Communist Party). Also see the book: Ils voulaient changer le monde. Le militantisme Marxiste-Léniniste au Québec (They wanted to change the world. Marxist-Leninist militancy in Quebec) by sociologist, Jean-Philippe Warren. Lisée himself addresses the history in that book during a radio broadcast by the French-language CBC (Radio-Canada) entitled “Le marxisme-léninisme, une utopie?” aired on Monday, October 22nd, 2007. The thing is, Lisée is not a “former” Marxist-Leninist. He’s doing the regional union now, under protection of the so-called “bourgeoisie”, the super-capitalists. Lisée crafted the strategy for the 1995 Quebec referendum and wrote the question on the ballot.

In a review of the Warren book at http://www.revueargument.ca (Vol. 11, No. 1, Autumn 08 — Winter 09), both Lisée and Gilles Duceppe are introduced as coming from the “extreme left”: “… But as long as one is satisfied to grasp the adventure of the extreme-left by its most delirious and most disastrous end […] one will not be able to understand the reasons which led a number of educated and politicized young people — today occupying eminent positions in the media, the universities and the political parties (Jean-François Lisée, Gilles Duceppe, Robert Comeau, Alain Saulnier) — to give body and soul to the construction of a communist society from coast to coast.”

We are supposed to believe that these “former” Marxist-Leninists “repented” of their “crimes” and joined the “Establishment” in politics. I think that is as much of a myth as the Cold War and the fall of Communism. These men are conducting their revolution, right now, under protection of the so-called “bourgeoisie”, the bankers and the supercapitalists, without whose money the first Bolshevik Revolution could not have been done.

The Communist revolution is underway. They are replacing our populations with mass immigration, they are changing the form of government, eliminating international borders, they are forming the regional unions. Everything they are doing now in Establishment “politics” is what the Marxist-Leninists always wanted to do. Could it be that the Establishment has fooled the Marxist-Leninists? Or have the Marxist-Leninists fooled the Establishment?


The Special Relationship with India

Part 1: The Supremacy of the Indian National Congress

The Decline and Fall of Congress

25 thoughts on &ldquo India sold out by CPI, Congress and our press to the USSR &rdquo

Thanks. I knew the USSR had great interest in India and spied actively. But I never expected this! They all should be charged with TREASON if the names come out someday. Our politicians are the true enemies of India and they are a national security threat. Makes me wonder if the Chinese commies are doing this now!

Thanks. I knew the USSR had great interest in India and spied actively. But I never expected this! They all should be charged with TREASON if the names come out someday. Our politicians are the true enemies of India and they are a national security threat. Makes me wonder if the Chinese commies are doing this now!

I don’t think the China situation is the same as USSR, particularly since China has attacked India in the past. And yet India has voted along with China against condemning Burmese human rights violations. Nothing is impossible. Indian politicians are for sale.

I don’t think the China situation is the same as USSR, particularly since China has attacked India in the past. And yet India has voted along with China against condemning Burmese human rights violations. Nothing is impossible. Indian politicians are for sale.

These disclosures, coming out after a long lapse of nearly 40 years, hardly have any sting. Particularly so when the relevant names of very few operatives and accomplices have been disclosed. However it does portray the naked picture of the polity of India.. My God, shall we ever be free from the Jaychands of modern times?

These disclosures, coming out after a long lapse of nearly 40 years, hardly have any sting. Particularly so when the relevant names of very few operatives and accomplices have been disclosed. However it does portray the naked picture of the polity of India.. My God, shall we ever be free from the Jaychands of modern times?

As far as I am concerned, this is just one more confirmation, if ever one such was needed, that politicians of certain political parties are totally immersed in corruption – from Nehru’s time onwards.

I have heard first hand accounts of suitcases full of cash floating around in the Prime Minister’s entourage in 1985 (particularly in the hands of a famous central Minister).

I have personally seen Rs.100 being doled out (in 1985 Rs.100 was very big money! – my monthly salary was Rs.1200 or 1400 I remember) to visitors from villages in the office of the Chief Minister.

I have heard from an ADC to the Governor of Assam about the extent of corruption necessary if one has to rise to the top. (He was himself a conduit between one of the most corrupt CMs of Assam and the Governor.)

I have heard from an Indian businessman in USA (not an Indian, but a professional working for a US company) how one of our CMs asked him to deposit a million dollars in her foreign account before she could discuss the license for their company’s India project. (This US company decided not to enter India after that incident.)

And so on. And on. (I could go on for ever! – and I’m sure you can add to this list another 20 things you know)

Everywhere there are clear first hand stories about the extent of corruption in our politics.

This one was a re-confirmation but more importantly it shows how our politicians are willing to sell India’s national interest for personal gain. Buying shoddy USSR arms (which were poor replicas of Western arms), for instance, surely compromised India’s national interest. And I don’t know to what extent these people do such things today.

In the face of a very powerful China, India can’t afford to have such “leaders”. It does so at its peril.

As far as I am concerned, this is just one more confirmation, if ever one such was needed, that politicians of certain political parties are totally immersed in corruption – from Nehru’s time onwards.

I have heard first hand accounts of suitcases full of cash floating around in the Prime Minister’s entourage in 1985 (particularly in the hands of a famous central Minister).

I have personally seen Rs.100 being doled out (in 1985 Rs.100 was very big money! – my monthly salary was Rs.1200 or 1400 I remember) to visitors from villages in the office of the Chief Minister.

I have heard from an ADC to the Governor of Assam about the extent of corruption necessary if one has to rise to the top. (He was himself a conduit between one of the most corrupt CMs of Assam and the Governor.)

I have heard from an Indian businessman in USA (not an Indian, but a professional working for a US company) how one of our CMs asked him to deposit a million dollars in her foreign account before she could discuss the license for their company’s India project. (This US company decided not to enter India after that incident.)

And so on. And on. (I could go on for ever! – and I’m sure you can add to this list another 20 things you know)

Everywhere there are clear first hand stories about the extent of corruption in our politics.

This one was a re-confirmation but more importantly it shows how our politicians are willing to sell India’s national interest for personal gain. Buying shoddy USSR arms (which were poor replicas of Western arms), for instance, surely compromised India’s national interest. And I don’t know to what extent these people do such things today.

In the face of a very powerful China, India can’t afford to have such “leaders”. It does so at its peril.

Hello Sir,
I wish to add here. My friend's brother was DCP Delhi, during which one of our ex-President during the eighties used to frequent with high profile escorts along this DCP.
Just imagine this happens in India.
The SAHARA Group is one BLACK MONEY COMPANY. It had all the money from all political parties in India invested in it. The modus operandi of Sahara Group was to start an NBFC operation suck up all the money of rural poor and vanish. Unfortunately our regulators such as RBI do not monitor NBFC and this has become a loot n scoot operation.
Similar the the Chit funds in India. It is good for looters, who dont have shame, but fool the masses.

Hello Sir,
I wish to add here. My friend's brother was DCP Delhi, during which one of our ex-President during the eighties used to frequent with high profile escorts along this DCP.
Just imagine this happens in India.
The SAHARA Group is one BLACK MONEY COMPANY. It had all the money from all political parties in India invested in it. The modus operandi of Sahara Group was to start an NBFC operation suck up all the money of rural poor and vanish. Unfortunately our regulators such as RBI do not monitor NBFC and this has become a loot n scoot operation.
Similar the the Chit funds in India. It is good for looters, who dont have shame, but fool the masses.

Thanks a lot for sharing the information and emphasizing the credibility of the source. The whole communist movement is a web of deception and lies that only trained eyes can spot. Though our Indian leaders accepted monetary benefits in return for taking positions favorable to the Soviets, I don't think any of them fully appreciated what they were getting into. ( CPI might have known. I am speaking about Congress ) And one peculiar tool in Soviet's hands was that they could get spies literally for free! The power of the Marxist-Leninist idea itself made people engage in seditious acts in the belief that they were ultimately working for the good of the humanity.
That subversion is a great tool for power rather than direct political/military action has been known to the Marxists even since Marx's days. Lenin's evil genius led him to include it as a part of the communist strategy. As many latter day KGB defectors like Golitsyn and Bukovsky and the Czech anti-communist Cebulka have pointed out, the communists systematically engaged in a campaign of dis-information. The west was continuously duped into believing during the 20s that the Bolsheviks were moderating their stance and would soon become traditional nationalists allowing a level of capitalism to exist. And the west naively pumped capital into USSR building it's industries and military. Then one fine day, Stalin spectacularly reversed everything and created the monstrous state we all know. Then again after his death the west would be told that it was all Stalin's mistake and a process of de-Stalinization was going on. The naive western intellectuals would then convince their govts to accept peaceful co-existence with the Soviets. But again after getting enough western aid and trust, Brezhnev would once again thunderously revert back to the mighty Soviet state. But all these machinations are only for the west to be deceived. Nothing changed for those inside the iron curtain. Their reality was filled with govt spies everywhere, threats of execution and gulags.
The one reason why communists practice deception more than any other ideology is their internationalist dream. Communism has to be global when it arrives. The communists might differ in the operational strategies on achieving this, but this goal itself cannot be compromised. So the ultimate end of Soviet foreign policy was not the Soviet national interest, but furtherance of the ambitions of the international communist movement ( which of course was firmly in their hands. But still the distinction ought to be made. For eg, the communist leaders wouldn't mind sacrificing national interest on some issues if they feel that it would advance the international movement ) For achieving this end, they would fund not just the communist elements in other countries, but also any rebel group that might de-stabilize the country. But sometimes like in India's case, the so-called nationalist leaders might themselves hand over the country on a platter. So the Soviets would ask the local communist to tone down its revolutionary acts ( Remember CPI supporting Indira on every action she took ) and strengthen the govt's hands. And since they believe in the ultimate justice of the Marxist-Leninist cause, they don't mind the means. The secular Soviets therefore would have no problem supporting a theocratic revolution in Iran, if they feel that the Iranian regime can slowly be subverted.
Now if we analyse all these deceptions that the Soviets practised, we cannot help wondering why they could not save their own skin. How did the mighty secret police fail to neutralise the threats. Even minnows like N Korea, Cuba and Vietnam are able to do it. The simple answer could be that there was genuine dis-content, Reagan's aggressive stance helped the anti-communist cause and the inability of the Soviets to satisfy the people's aspirations led to their overthrow. This makes for a good bed-time story. I myself want to believe in this. But let's now consider a more subversive possibility. Is it possible that the Soviet communists realised that the only way they would achieve global communism was through deceit. And the best way to cheat your enemy is to make him believe that he is winning. So the communists would pretend to liberalize, allow a flavour of multi-party democracy and allow some private ownership. The west is happy that it has won and invites the former communists into it's homes. Now they want the west to reciprocate. The social democratic politicians suddenly become outright socialists. While Eastern Europe is decentralizing, western Europe is simultaneously centralized under the control of an unaccountable body – the EU.
Now all these possibilities have been pointed out by various Russian dissendents and some American ultra-conservatives. But they are usually painted as conspiracy theorists and nut-jobs. Afterall as Fukuyama proclaimed, western liberalism won it's battle against communism for everyone to see. But let's be a little objective now. Let's ask whether the revolutions of 89-91 were genuine people's uprisings or were they carefully controlled. Now one evidence is that none of these revolutions were led by life-long anti-communists. They were and some are still in jails. These were led by life-long communist leader who suddenly saw the virtues of liberalism. Yeltsin had been a prominent party functionary for years. In Poland the Solidarity movement was filled with communists. So did these revolutions install puppet regimes? Could that be the reason why all these countries have uniformly failed to adapt to capitalism. Today we describe their system as mob-capitalism. But is it really just a mob? Is it a co-incidence that Russia is today firmly in Putin's hands, a life-long KGB operative. Is it a co-incidence that many East European countries are voting back former communists into power? And is it a co-incidence that EU started consolidating its powers and become a kind of supra-nation, as Soviet Union collapsed simultaneously. Why is EU forcing the member states to ratify the Lisbon treaty. Referendums are held continuosly even if the people vote no. Then once they say yes, no more referendums. Common currency experiment has ruined every nation's finance there. Today everywhere in Europe, people are demanding for a return to more govt control. Public sector workers are all on strike. Everyone blames EU for forcing free market. But when did it force free market. If it calls it a free market, does it become free. The only thing free is free immigration due to the open borders policy making Europe even more unstable. Are these all just co-incidences or is there a definite plan?
People who raise such questions are all uniformly ridiculed as paranoid. So those who have seen the deception of communists, keep our mouths shut. But I am sure Europe is fast reaching it's demise unless the nationalist leaders still left do something about this. I can only hope that such deception never reaches India.

Thanks a lot for sharing the information and emphasizing the credibility of the source. The whole communist movement is a web of deception and lies that only trained eyes can spot. Though our Indian leaders accepted monetary benefits in return for taking positions favorable to the Soviets, I don't think any of them fully appreciated what they were getting into. ( CPI might have known. I am speaking about Congress ) And one peculiar tool in Soviet's hands was that they could get spies literally for free! The power of the Marxist-Leninist idea itself made people engage in seditious acts in the belief that they were ultimately working for the good of the humanity.
That subversion is a great tool for power rather than direct political/military action has been known to the Marxists even since Marx's days. Lenin's evil genius led him to include it as a part of the communist strategy. As many latter day KGB defectors like Golitsyn and Bukovsky and the Czech anti-communist Cebulka have pointed out, the communists systematically engaged in a campaign of dis-information. The west was continuously duped into believing during the 20s that the Bolsheviks were moderating their stance and would soon become traditional nationalists allowing a level of capitalism to exist. And the west naively pumped capital into USSR building it's industries and military. Then one fine day, Stalin spectacularly reversed everything and created the monstrous state we all know. Then again after his death the west would be told that it was all Stalin's mistake and a process of de-Stalinization was going on. The naive western intellectuals would then convince their govts to accept peaceful co-existence with the Soviets. But again after getting enough western aid and trust, Brezhnev would once again thunderously revert back to the mighty Soviet state. But all these machinations are only for the west to be deceived. Nothing changed for those inside the iron curtain. Their reality was filled with govt spies everywhere, threats of execution and gulags.
The one reason why communists practice deception more than any other ideology is their internationalist dream. Communism has to be global when it arrives. The communists might differ in the operational strategies on achieving this, but this goal itself cannot be compromised. So the ultimate end of Soviet foreign policy was not the Soviet national interest, but furtherance of the ambitions of the international communist movement ( which of course was firmly in their hands. But still the distinction ought to be made. For eg, the communist leaders wouldn't mind sacrificing national interest on some issues if they feel that it would advance the international movement ) For achieving this end, they would fund not just the communist elements in other countries, but also any rebel group that might de-stabilize the country. But sometimes like in India's case, the so-called nationalist leaders might themselves hand over the country on a platter. So the Soviets would ask the local communist to tone down its revolutionary acts ( Remember CPI supporting Indira on every action she took ) and strengthen the govt's hands. And since they believe in the ultimate justice of the Marxist-Leninist cause, they don't mind the means. The secular Soviets therefore would have no problem supporting a theocratic revolution in Iran, if they feel that the Iranian regime can slowly be subverted.
Now if we analyse all these deceptions that the Soviets practised, we cannot help wondering why they could not save their own skin. How did the mighty secret police fail to neutralise the threats. Even minnows like N Korea, Cuba and Vietnam are able to do it. The simple answer could be that there was genuine dis-content, Reagan's aggressive stance helped the anti-communist cause and the inability of the Soviets to satisfy the people's aspirations led to their overthrow. This makes for a good bed-time story. I myself want to believe in this. But let's now consider a more subversive possibility. Is it possible that the Soviet communists realised that the only way they would achieve global communism was through deceit. And the best way to cheat your enemy is to make him believe that he is winning. So the communists would pretend to liberalize, allow a flavour of multi-party democracy and allow some private ownership. The west is happy that it has won and invites the former communists into it's homes. Now they want the west to reciprocate. The social democratic politicians suddenly become outright socialists. While Eastern Europe is decentralizing, western Europe is simultaneously centralized under the control of an unaccountable body – the EU.
Now all these possibilities have been pointed out by various Russian dissendents and some American ultra-conservatives. But they are usually painted as conspiracy theorists and nut-jobs. Afterall as Fukuyama proclaimed, western liberalism won it's battle against communism for everyone to see. But let's be a little objective now. Let's ask whether the revolutions of 89-91 were genuine people's uprisings or were they carefully controlled. Now one evidence is that none of these revolutions were led by life-long anti-communists. They were and some are still in jails. These were led by life-long communist leader who suddenly saw the virtues of liberalism. Yeltsin had been a prominent party functionary for years. In Poland the Solidarity movement was filled with communists. So did these revolutions install puppet regimes? Could that be the reason why all these countries have uniformly failed to adapt to capitalism. Today we describe their system as mob-capitalism. But is it really just a mob? Is it a co-incidence that Russia is today firmly in Putin's hands, a life-long KGB operative. Is it a co-incidence that many East European countries are voting back former communists into power? And is it a co-incidence that EU started consolidating its powers and become a kind of supra-nation, as Soviet Union collapsed simultaneously. Why is EU forcing the member states to ratify the Lisbon treaty. Referendums are held continuosly even if the people vote no. Then once they say yes, no more referendums. Common currency experiment has ruined every nation's finance there. Today everywhere in Europe, people are demanding for a return to more govt control. Public sector workers are all on strike. Everyone blames EU for forcing free market. But when did it force free market. If it calls it a free market, does it become free. The only thing free is free immigration due to the open borders policy making Europe even more unstable. Are these all just co-incidences or is there a definite plan?
People who raise such questions are all uniformly ridiculed as paranoid. So those who have seen the deception of communists, keep our mouths shut. But I am sure Europe is fast reaching it's demise unless the nationalist leaders still left do something about this. I can only hope that such deception never reaches India.

I couldn't really follow what you are trying to say, but it didn't seem to be a spam message so I've posted it. Could you please clarify (a) what is this about an ex-President and DCP. What exactly happened? and (b) how did you jump to Sahara: what is the context?

Look forward to clarifications.

I couldn't really follow what you are trying to say, but it didn't seem to be a spam message so I've posted it. Could you please clarify (a) what is this about an ex-President and DCP. What exactly happened? and (b) how did you jump to Sahara: what is the context?

Look forward to clarifications.

I wouldn't (easily, i.e. without specific evidence) credit the USSR strategists with that kind of foresight or capacity needed to "socialise" the entire West. I'm more inclined to go with Timur Kuran's work in this regard, and that people had genuinely got disillusioned by the USSR form of communism.

True, the KGB did not really die. Putin is ex-KGB and his style is pretty close to that of a dictator. I'm sure he is not averse to using underhand dealings to put down opponents.

And yet, I'd hope (although I can't be certain about it, given your comment!) that the people of Russia understand the concepts of freedom better than they used to, in the past.

Ultimately the risk of communism won't be eliminated until the ideas of freedom spread in every corner of the world. That's our job. India, in particular, remains very susceptible to socialist ideas.

I wouldn't (easily, i.e. without specific evidence) credit the USSR strategists with that kind of foresight or capacity needed to "socialise" the entire West. I'm more inclined to go with Timur Kuran's work in this regard, and that people had genuinely got disillusioned by the USSR form of communism.

True, the KGB did not really die. Putin is ex-KGB and his style is pretty close to that of a dictator. I'm sure he is not averse to using underhand dealings to put down opponents.

And yet, I'd hope (although I can't be certain about it, given your comment!) that the people of Russia understand the concepts of freedom better than they used to, in the past.

Ultimately the risk of communism won't be eliminated until the ideas of freedom spread in every corner of the world. That's our job. India, in particular, remains very susceptible to socialist ideas.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

The Great Hysteria and The Broken State In this book I show why this is no Spanish flu and why lockdowns amount to public health terrorism. Both print and Kindle versions are now available.

I’m now forming, along with Peter Harris, Australia’s Representatives, a new political party to fight the totalitarian Liberal and Labor parties. Please visit and join: https://ausreps.org/become-a-member/

GET UPDATES VIA EMAIL

(1) Feel free to republish my posts with attribution: no need to ask. (2) I do not publish sponsored articles – any such requests will be marked to spam.


High-Tech Conversation Stoppers by Sharon Begley with Susan E. Katx in Washington and Karen Springen in New York

When two visiting U.S. congressmen used kiddie Magic Slates to communicate in the Moscow embassy last week, they were acknowledging one of the open secrets of the surveillance game: bugs have stayed a step ahead of bug detectors. Gobbling up the wares of the microelectronics revolution, the spy's black bag now contains tiny cameras that photograph documents fed into copying machines, lasers that bounce light beams off windows to "read" conversations from the vibrations they cause in the glass and nickel-size bugs that transform the secret electronic emanations of computers into decodable bits and bytes. At the same time, traditional techniques are still effective: the congressmen, who checked on embassy security during their Moscow visit, were equally concerned about high-tech versions of old-fashioned microphones that Soviet agents might have planted in the compound.

The newest listening devices, some as small as fingernails, collect and send signals in ways that confound the debugging brigade. Those that transmit by wires, now thin enough to be woven into carpets and drapes, are exceptionally difficult to ferret out one would have to X-ray every inch of wall and fabric. Bugs that send data electronically theoretically can be detected by receivers that scan a wide band of frequencies for emitted signals. One popular sweeper, the "nonlinear junction detector," beams out microwaves and detects bugs by the signal they echo back. However, listening devices that transmit not by radio or microwave but by fiber optics, which are hair-thin strands of glass, are "virtually undetectable," says Hall Gershanoff, editor and publisher of the Journal of Electronic Defense. These bugs can convert overheard signals into light pulses that race through the glass fiber to an infrared transmitter embedded in an exterior wall. The transmitter relays the light signals to a listening station. Since no electronic signals are emitted, the system eludes conventional sweeps.

Diplomats in Moscow can try whispering and running water to foil bugs that eavesdrop on conversations, but they cannot so easily counter devices that listen to the chatter of high technology. These bugs pick up the unique electromagnetic signals emitted by each stroke on an electric typewriter or each operation in a computer. Take the typewriter. A bug planted inside can tell which key was hit and send that information to a listening station, where decoders print the words typed at the bugged machine. Like state-of-the-art audio bugs, the latest electronic bugs can also transmit by fiber optics. But even those that rely on conventional transmissions may elude the Americans in Moscow: Charles Taylor, who has taught countersurveillance at Texas A&M University, suspects the Soviets have embedded tiny diodes in the concrete walls of the new American Embassy. These electronic circuits, which resemble flecks of metal, reflect the signals of the security sweeps and so swamp them with false readings.

Bad vibrations: Americans may not even find privacy on the home turf. The Soviets' new Washington embassy, built on a high hill, is perfectly placed to beam laser light from a generator as small as a flashlight toward windows, catching the conversations going on behind them. John Pike of the Federation of American Scientists says that "the White House has put little noisemakers on its windows" to foil the eavesdropping, which can also be hindered by heavy drapes.

What can diplomats do to keep their communications secure? They can trade in their Selectrics for manual typewriters, which don't emit buggable signals. They can banish computer-controlled telephones, which can be programmed remotely to pick up all sounds in the room just like a live microphone. An entire embassy-or key rooms-could be shielded with copper to keep electromagnetic signals from reaching listening posts. But in this day and age, it's virtually impossible to function without computers, and it's immensely difficult and expensive to ferret out sophisticated electronic ears planted in walls. Unless the debuggers make technological breakthroughs of their own, diplomats may have to get used to Magic Slates.

760-668-2245

Over 30 years of specialized service
over 2,500 locations swept.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT US
FROM A SUSPECT TELEPHONE OR FACILITY
WHEN INQUIRING ABOUT BUG SWEEPING OR OUR
SERVICES AND SURVEYS.


Excerpt from 'Stalin's Daughter' by Rosemary Sullivan

At 7:00 p.m. on March 6, 1967, a taxi drew up to the open gates of the American Embassy on Shantipath Avenue in New Delhi. Watched carefully by the Indian police guard, it proceeded slowly up the circular drive. The passenger in the backseat looked out at the large circular reflecting pool, serene in the fading light. A few ducks and geese still floated among the jets of water rising from its surface. The embassy's exterior walls were constructed of pierced concrete blocks, which gave the building a light, airy look. The woman noted how different this was from the stolid institutional Soviet Embassy she had just left. So this was America.

Svetlana Alliluyeva climbed the wide steps and stared at the American eagle embedded in the glass doors. All the important decisions of her life had been taken precipitately. Once she crossed this threshold, she knew that her old life would be irrevocably lost to her. She had no doubt that the wrath of the Kremlin would soon fall on her head. She felt defiant. She felt terrified. She'd made the most important decision of her life she'd escaped, but into what she had no idea. She did not hesitate. Clutching her small suitcase in one hand, she rang the bell.

Danny Wall, the marine guard on desk duty, opened the door. He looked down at the small woman standing before him. She was middle-aged, neatly dressed, nondescript. He was about to tell her the embassy was closed when she handed him her passport. He blanched. He locked the door behind her and led her to a small adjacent room. He then phoned Robert Rayle, the second secretary of the embassy, who was in charge of walk-ins -- defectors. Rayle had been out, but when he returned the call minutes later, Wall gave him the secret code indicating the embassy had a Soviet defector, the last thing Rayle was expecting on a quiet Monday evening in the Indian capital.

When Rayle arrived at the embassy at 7:25, he was pointed to a room where a woman sat talking with Consul George Huey. She turned to Rayle as he entered, and almost the first thing she said to him was: "Well, you probably won't believe this, but I'm Stalin's daughter."

Rayle looked at the demure, attractive woman with copper hair and pale blue eyes who stared steadily back at him. She did not fit his image of Stalin's daughter, though what that image was, he could not have said. She handed him her Soviet passport. At a quick glance, he saw the name: Citizeness Svetlana Iosifovna Alliluyeva. Iosifovna was the correct patronymic, meaning "daughter of Joseph." He went through the possibilities. She could be a Soviet plant she could be a counteragent she could be crazy. George Huey asked, nonplussed, "So you say your father was Stalin? The Stalin?"

Get the latest on celebs, TV and more.

By clicking Sign up, you agree to our privacy policy.

As the officer in charge of walk-ins from the Soviet bloc, Rayle was responsible for confirming her authenticity. After a brief interview, he excused himself and went to the embassy communications center, where he cabled headquarters in Washington, demanding all files on Svetlana Iosifovna Alliluyeva. The answer came back one hour later: "No traces." Headquarters knew nothing at all about her -- there were no CIA files, no FBI files, no State Department files. The US government didn't even know Stalin had a daughter.

While he waited for a response from Washington, Rayle interrogated Svetlana. How did she come to be in India? She claimed that she had left the USSR on December 19 on a ceremonial mission. The Soviet government had given her special permission to travel to India to scatter the ashes of her "husband," Brajesh Singh, on the Ganges in his village -- Kalakankar, Uttar Pradesh -- as Hindu tradition dictated. She added bitterly that because Singh was a foreigner, Aleksei Kosygin, chairman of the Council of Ministers, had personally refused her request to marry him, but after Singh's death, she was permitted to carry his ashes to India. In the three months she'd spent here, she'd fallen in love with the country and asked to be allowed to stay. Her request was denied. "The Kremlin considers me state property," she said with disgust. "I am Stalin's daughter!" She told Rayle that, under Soviet pressure, the Indian government had refused to extend her visa. She was fed up with being treated like a "national relic." She would not go back to the USSR. She looked firmly at Rayle and said that she had come to the American Embassy to ask the US government for political asylum.

So far, Rayle could conclude only that this utterly calm woman believed what she was saying. He immediately understood the political implications if her story was true. If she really was Stalin's daughter, she was Soviet royalty. Her defection would be a deep psychological blow to the Soviet government, and it would make every effort to get her back. The American Embassy would find itself in the midst of a political maelstrom. Rayle remained suspicious. He asked her why her name wasn't Stalina or Djugashvili, her father's surname. She explained that in 1957 she had changed her name from Stalina to Alliluyeva, the maiden name of her mother, Nadezhda, as was the right of every Soviet citizen.

He then asked where she had been staying. "At the Soviet Embassy guesthouse," she replied, only several hundred yards away. How had she managed to slip away from the Soviet Embassy without being noticed? he asked. "They are having a huge reception for a visiting Soviet military delegation and the rest of them are celebrating International Women's Day," she replied. He then asked her how much time she had before her absence at the guesthouse would be noticed. She might have about four hours, she explained, since everyone would be drunk. Even now she was expected at the home of T. N. Kaul, the former Indian ambassador to the USSR. She said in sudden panic: "I really have to call his daughter, Preeti, to let her know I'm not coming."

For Rayle this was a small test. He replied, "OK, let me dial the number for you." He searched for the number, dialed, and handed her the phone. He listened as she explained to T. N. Kaul and to his daughter that she had a headache and wasn't going to make it for dinner. She said her affectionate good-byes to both.

Then she passed Rayle a battered sheaf of paper. It was a Russian manuscript titled "Twenty Letters to a Friend" and bearing her name as author. She explained that it was a personal memoir about growing up inside the Kremlin. Ambassador Kaul, whom she and Brajesh Singh had befriended in Moscow, had carried the manuscript safely out of the USSR a year ago January. As soon as she'd arrived in New Delhi, he returned it to her. This was astonishing: Stalin's daughter had written a book. What might it reveal about her father? Rayle asked if he could make a copy of it, and she assented.

Following his advice as to the wording, she then wrote out a formal request for political asylum in the United States and signed the document. When Rayle warned her that, at this point, he could not definitely promise her asylum, Svetlana demonstrated her political shrewdness. She replied that "if the United States could not or would not help her, she did not believe that any other country represented in India would be willing to do so." She was determined not to return to the USSR, and her only alternative would be to tell her story "fully and frankly" to the press in the hope that she could rally public support in India and the United States. The refusal to protect Stalin's daughter would not play well back home. Svetlana understood how political manipulation worked. She'd had a lifetime of lessons.

Rayle led Svetlana to a room on the second floor, handed her a cup of tea and some aspirins for the splitting headache she'd developed, and suggested she write a declaration -- a brief biography and an explanation of why she was defecting. At this point, he excused himself again, saying he had to consult his superiors.

The US ambassador, Chester Bowles, was ill in bed that night, so Rayle walked the ten minutes to his home in the company of the CIA station chief. Ambassador Bowles would later admit that he had not wanted to meet Svetlana personally on the chance that she was simply a nutcase. With Bowles's special assistant Richard Celeste in attendance, the men discussed the crisis. Rayle and his superiors realized there was not going to be enough time to determine Svetlana's bona fides in New Delhi before the Soviets discovered she was missing. Bowles believed that the Soviet Union had so much leverage on the government of India, which it was supplying with military equipment, that if it found out Svetlana was at the US Embassy, Indian forces would demand her expulsion. The embassy would have to get her out of India.

At 9:40 p.m., a second flash cable was sent to headquarters in Washington with a more detailed report, stating that Svetlana had four hours before the Soviet Embassy noted her absence. The message concluded, "Unless advised to the contrary we will try to get Svetlana on Qantas Flight 751 to Rome leaving Delhi at 1945Zulu (1:15 AM local time)." Eleven minutes later, Washington acknowledged receipt of the cable.

The men discussed their options. They could refuse Svetlana help and tell her to return to her embassy, where it was unlikely her absence had been noticed. But she'd made it clear she would go to the international press with the story. They could keep her in Roosevelt House or in the chancery, inform the Indians that she'd asked for asylum in the United States, and await a court decision. The problem with this option was that the Indian government might take Svetlana back by force. The embassy could try to spirit her out of India covertly. None of these were good options.

The deciding factor was that Svetlana had her Soviet passport in her possession. This was unprecedented. The passports of Soviet citizens traveling abroad were always confiscated and returned to them only as they boarded their flights home. That afternoon the Soviet ambassador to India, I. A. Benediktov, had held a farewell luncheon for Svetlana. It was a grim affair. He was furious with her because she had delayed her departure from India long past the one month authorized by her Russian visa, and Moscow was now demanding her return. She was compromising his career. She would be getting on that flight back to Moscow on March 8.

"Well, if I must leave," she'd said, "where's my passport?" Benediktov had snarled to his aide: "Give it to her." Here Svetlana showed she truly was Stalin's daughter. When she demanded something, she was not to be refused. Benediktov had made a huge mistake that he would pay for later. For the Soviets, Svetlana was the most significant defector ever to leave the USSR.

Sitting in his sickbed, Chester Bowles made a decision. With her Indian papers in order and her Russian passport, Svetlana could openly and legally leave India. He ordered a US B-2 tourist visa stamped in her passport. It would have to be renewed after six months. He asked Bob Rayle if he would take her out of India. Rayle agreed. The men returned to the embassy.

It was 11:15 p.m. As they prepared to leave for the airport, Rayle turned to Svetlana. "Do you fully understand what you are doing? You are burning all your bridges." He asked her to think this over carefully. She replied that she had already had a lot of time to think. He handed her $1,500 from the embassy's discretionary funds to facilitate her arrival in the United States.

She was led down a long corridor to an elevator that descended to the embassy garage. Clutching her small suitcase, which contained her manuscript and a few items of clothing, she climbed into a car. A young marine sergeant and the embassy Soviet affairs specialist, Roger Kirk, recently back from Moscow, climbed in beside her. They smiled. It was electrifying to be sitting next to Stalin's daughter. She wondered, "Why did Americans smile so often? Was it out of politeness or because of a gay disposition?" Whatever it was, she, who had never been "spoiled with smiles," found it pleasant!

Rayle phoned his wife, Ramona, to ask her to pack his bags for a trip of several days and to meet him at Palam airport in one hour. He did not tell her where he was going. He then went to the Qantas Airlines office and bought two first-class open tickets to the United States, with a stopover in Rome. He soon joined the other Americans at the airport -- by now there were at least ten embassy staff members milling about in the relatively deserted terminal, but only two sat with Svetlana.

Svetlana easily passed through Indian customs and immigration and, in five minutes, with a valid Indian exit visa and her US visitor's visa, joined Rayle in the international departure lounge. When Rayle asked her if she was nervous, she replied, "Not at all," and grinned. Her reaction was in character. Svetlana was at heart a gambler. Throughout her life she would make a monumental decision entirely on impulse, and then ride the consequences with an almost giddy abandon. She always said her favorite story by Dostoyevsky was "The Gambler."

Though outwardly cool, Rayle himself was deeply anxious. He was convinced that, as soon as they discovered her missing, the Soviets would definitely insist that she be handed over. If she was discovered at the airport, the Indian police would arrest her, and there would be nothing he could do. He felt the consequences for her would be grave. Execution would have been the old Stalinist style, but her father had been dead fourteen years. Still, the current Soviet government took a hard line on defectors, and imprisonment was always a possibility. When the classical dancer Rudolf Nureyev defected in 1961, he was sentenced in absentia to seven years' hard labor. In Rayle's mind must also have been the recent trials of the writers Andrei Sinyavsky and Yuli Daniel. In 1966 they'd been sentenced to labor camps for their "anti-Soviet" writings, and they were still languishing there. The Kremlin would not risk a public trial of Svetlana, but she might disappear into the dark reaches of some psychiatric institution. Svetlana, too, must have had this in mind. Sinyavsky was an intimate friend. At least she knew that, were she apprehended, she would never be allowed out of the Soviet Union again.

The Qantas flight to Rome landed punctually, but Rayle's relief soon turned to dread as he heard the announcement that the flight would be delayed. The plane had developed mechanical difficulties. The two sat in the departure lounge waiting as minutes turned to hours. Rayle looked at Svetlana. She, too, had begun to be agitated. To cope with the mounting tension, Rayle got up periodically to check the arrivals desks. He knew that the regular Aeroflot flight from Moscow arrived at 5:00 a.m. and a large delegation from the Soviet Embassy always came to greet the diplomatic couriers and the various dignitaries arriving or departing. Members of the Aeroflot staff were already beginning to open their booth. Finally, the departure for Rome was announced. At 2:45 a.m. the Qantas flight for Rome was airborne at last.

As they were in midair, a cable about the defector arrived at the American Embassy in New Delhi. In Washington Donald Jameson, who served as CIA liaison officer to the State Department, had informed Deputy Undersecretary of State Foy Kohler of the situation. Kohler's reaction was stunning -- he exploded: "Tell them to throw that woman out of the embassy. Don't give her any help at all." Kohler had recently served as American ambassador to the USSR and believed that he had personally initiated a thaw in relations with the Soviets. He didn't want the defection of Stalin's daughter, especially coinciding with the fiftieth anniversary of the Russian Revolution, muddying the waters. When the embassy staff read the flash cable rejecting Svetlana's appeal for asylum, they replied, "You're too late. They've gone. They're on their way to Rome."

The staff failed to check the status of the Qantas flight. Had they discovered that Svetlana and Rayle were sitting for almost two hours in the airport lounge and could have been recalled, Svetlana would have been driven back to the embassy and "kicked out." The whole course of her life would have gone very differently. But Svetlana's life always seemed to dangle on a thread, and chance or fate sent her one way rather than another. She would come to call herself a gypsy. Stalin's daughter, always living in the shadow of her father's name, would never find a safe place to land.

From "Stalin's Daughter: The Extraordinary and Tumultuous Life of Svetlana Alliluyeva," by Rosemary Sullivan. Copyright 2015 by Rosemary Sullivan. Reprinted by courtesy of Harper, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers.


Watch the video: UFOS OVER RUSSIA: THE TOP SECRET INCIDENT FROM 1961