Superior Index Go to the next: Chapter 12
Print Files: A4 Size.
You have every reason to believe, to be concerned, and to be prepared for a first strike by the Soviet Union upon these United States. ... Therefore, secure the underground shelters, preserve the food, and prepare to survive. And if it be an exercise proven unneeded, then bless God that it did not go unheeded. For, beloved, my word and your response, your very preparedness, is the one condition that can prevent the almost inevitable scenario of nuclear war.1
I have the inner awareness of the Soviet Union's plans and preparations for war. I have also studied the military balance East and West and found that the facts, when looked at objectively, coincide with my inner awareness. In addition, astrology and the signs of the times tell us that the Soviets are ready for war, that our nation is vulnerable to a Soviet first strike, and that it could happen at any time.
America spends $300 billion a year on defense. But as we sit here today, this nation has no system in place to stop one incoming nuclear warhead, whether launched by intent or by accident, by a terrorist nation or by the Soviet Union. How did we get into a position of zero defense against nuclear weapons? It's not for a lack of money or technology. We have no defense against nuclear weapons today because of the nuclear policy of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD).
The nuclear strategy of the United States is deterrence - "Let's avoid nuclear war by making the consequences of an attack by either nation too great." But MAD can maintain stability only if both sides adopt the same strategy and play by the same rules. Soviet and American nuclear strategies have diverged fundamentally in the last 20 years. Most of the U.S. missile force is capable of attacking only Soviet cities. But most of the Soviet missile force is capable of destroying American nuclear weapons.
In his best-selling novel, The Cardinal of the Kremlin, Tom Clancy explains the strategic balance. Although fictional, it is a textbook explanation of modern nuclear strategy in simple terms.
The Western nuclear arsenal was the greatest threat to Marxism-Leninism; countering that arsenal was the prime task of the Soviet military. But unlike the West, the Soviets did not see the prevention of its use as simply the prevention of war. Since the Soviets viewed the West as politically unpredictable, they felt that they could not depend on deterring it. They needed to be able to eliminate, or at least degrade, the Western nuclear arsenal if a crisis threatened to go beyond the point of mere words.
[The Soviet] nuclear arsenal was designed with precisely this task in mind. Killing cities and their millions of inhabitants would always be a simple exercise. Killing the missiles that their countries owned was not. To kill the American missiles had meant developing several generations of highly accurate - and hugely expensive - rockets like the SS-18, whose sole mission was to reduce America's Minuteman missile squadrons to glowing dust, along with the submarine and bomber bases. All but the last were to be found well distant from population centers; consequently, a strike aimed at disarming the West might be carried off without necessarily resulting in world holocaust. At the same time, the Americans did not have enough really accurate warheads to make the same threat against the Soviet missile force. The Russians, then, had an advantage in a potential "counterforce" attack - the sort aimed at weapons rather than people. ...
Nuclear Deterrence: preventing war by the threat of mutual holocaust. Both sides told the other in substance, If you kill our helpless civilians, we will kill yours. Defense was no longer protection of one's own society, but the threat of senseless violence against another. ... In achieving the ability to eliminate much of the American arsenal, [the Soviets] had the advantage of dictating how a nuclear war would be fought; in classical terms that was the first step toward victory, and in the Soviet view, Western denial that "victory" was a possibility in a nuclear war was the first step toward Western defeat.2
MAD depends on neither side having the ability to stop nuclear weapons. If one side can and the other side can't, the one that can has the advantage and MAD is rendered invalid.
In the mid-1960s, the United States decided that neither side could win a nuclear war and therefore our only hope was in MAD. Consequently we froze our ICBM force at 1,054 (it's at 1,050 today because we scrapped 54 Titans as we deployed 50 MXs) and canceled our civil defense (fallout shelters) and air defense (surface-to-air missiles) against bombers. And in 1975 we dismantled Safeguard, a limited strategic defense system against ICBMs. Strategic defense means defense against long-range weapons.
As Clancy reports, the Soviets decided that their security lay not in depending on mutual deterrence and trusting us not to bomb their cities but in developing ICBMs that were powerful and accurate enough to destroy our nuclear weapons before they ever got off the ground. In addition, they have never wavered in their commitment to strategic defense. Clancy explains why:
An American strategic-defense system could negate all of Soviet nuclear posture. If the Americans could prevent the SS-18s from taking out their land-based missiles, then the disarming first strike that the Soviets depended upon to limit damage to the Rodina [Soviet Motherland] was no longer possible. And that meant that all of the billions that had been sunk into ballistic-missile production were now as surely wasted as though the money had been dumped into the sea. ...
A workable strategic defense scheme would have the effect of adding a new element of uncertainty to the equation. It was unlikely that any country could eliminate all incoming warheads, and the death of as "few" as twenty million citizens was too ghastly a thing to contemplate, even for the Soviet leadership. But even a rudimentary SDI system might kill enough warheads to invalidate the whole idea of counterforce.
If the Soviets had such a system first, the meager American counterforce arsenal could be countered more easily than the Soviet one, and the strategic situation for which the Soviets had worked thirty years would remain in place. The Soviet government would have the best of both worlds, a far larger force of accurate missiles with which to eliminate American warheads, and a shield to kill most of the retaliatory strike against their reserve missile fields.3
Contrary to popular opinion, high-tech laser and particle beam weapons are not the only way to shoot down a nuclear warhead. There are ground-based systems called antiballistic missiles (ABMs) that are capable of destroying a nuclear warhead before it reaches its target. These systems, while highly sophisticated, use existing technology. I will therefore refer to them as "low-tech" to distinguish them from futuristic weapons. Both the United States and the Soviet Union have developed "low-tech" ABMs. However, only the Soviet Union has deployed them.
While Clancy's book focuses on high-tech systems like lasers that the Soviets are persistently researching and that are also part of the U.S. SDI, or "Star Wars," program, he does not mention that the Soviets have already deployed many of the components of a ground-based defense system that could protect the Soviet Union from a U.S. submarine-based nuclear attack, which could occur after a Soviet first strike had destroyed most of the U.S. land-based weapons.
Although Clancy, like most people today, does not think that the Soviets would execute a deliberate first strike but would only attack in response to an escalating world crisis, some sources even more informed than Clancy say that the Soviets do plan a surprise first strike.
Jan Sejna, a former general in the Czechoslovakian army, is the highest-ranking member of the Communist military ever to defect. He was privy to the Soviets' strategy for global conquest and says that they plan a first strike following a period of economic turmoil. If you want to hear him speak, I recommend you get the video- or audiotapes of the Summit University Forum I held with General Sejna at the Hilton Hotel in Washington, D.C., and listen to what he says.4 You decide whether he is credible or not.
Many Americans doubt that the Soviets would launch a surprise first strike attack on the United States, or that they could launch one without being destroyed in return. And few understand how a coordinated Soviet attack on U.S. nuclear weapons could render us incapable of an effective response.
In The Cardinal of the Kremlin, Clancy describes a simplified but realistic scenario of a Soviet attack on the United States from the viewpoint of a Soviet colonel, Mikhail Filitov (Misha). The scenario assumes that a Soviet strategic defense is in place that can shoot down the U.S. submarine-based nuclear missiles and any remaining land-based missiles fired in retaliation. These defenses are supposed to be high-tech lasers. In reality, the low-tech systems that the Soviets have already deployed could perform this function. In addition, the Soviets have already deployed a ground-based laser capable of damaging or destroying U.S. satellites.
The scenario, which purportedly follows a period of escalating tension between the superpowers, is as follows:
When the tone of Western rhetoric reached its culmination, the launch orders would be issued to the missile force, and 300 SS-18s would launch, allocating three warheads to each of the American Minuteman silos. Smaller weapons would go after the submarine and bomber bases to limit collateral casualties as much as possible - the Soviets had no wish to exacerbate the situation more than necessary. Simultaneously, the lasers would disable as many American reconnaissance and navigation satellites as possible but leave the communications satellites intact - a gamble calculated to show "good" intent. The Americans would not be able to respond to the attack before the Soviet warheads struck. (Misha worried about this, but information from KGB and GRU said that there were serious flaws in the American command-and-control system, plus the psychological factors involved.) Probably the Americans would keep their submarine weapons in reserve and launch their surviving Minutemen at Soviet missile silos, but it was expected that no more than two to three hundred warheads would survive the first strike; many of those would be aimed at empty holes anyway, and the defense system would kill most of the incoming weapons.
At the end of the first hour, the Americans would realize that the usefulness of their submarine missiles was greatly degraded. Constant, carefully prepared messages would be sent via the Moscow-Washington Hot Line: WE CANNOT LET THIS GO ANY FURTHER. That was the important part - to make people stop and think. A man might attack cities on impulse or in a state of rage, but not after sober reflection.5
What Clancy does not take into account in this scenario are the Soviet defenses that have been deployed and the Soviet bomb shelters for their leadership and 60 percent of their urban population.6
After a Soviet attack on our weapons, not our cities, we would have about 2,400 warheads on submarines left. They are too small and inaccurate to destroy military targets in the Soviet Union. Following a first strike, the U.S. president would have the choice of either destroying innocent Soviet civilians and submitting to Soviet retaliation on U.S. cities, or surrender.
Strategic Defense in the United States and the Soviet Union
And Soviet defenses may soon be able to stop our incoming warheads. In 1987, the Pentagon estimated that the Soviets could have deployed a countrywide strategic defense system protecting key targets by the early 1990s. This would consist of antiballistic missiles (ABMs), surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) modified to function as ABMs, and a radar network.7 These are not the vaunted Star Wars laser and particle-beam weapons but high-speed ground-based missiles.
The Soviets do have their own top-priority Star Wars program, however, which is larger than ours. They have outspent us on strategic defense fifteen to one since 1976. They have the components for a space-based kinetic-kill vehicle (KKV) global missile defense. This includes a heavy launch vehicle, a space station and a space plane. If they deploy their system, they will control space.
In fact, the Soviets may already have the ability to control space. A Soviet scientist who defected in 1989 says that the Soviet Union deployed a space-based laser weapon system, code named "Project Astrophysica," in 1983! The system is capable of attacking U.S. satellites and may be able to attack ballistic missiles as well. Newswatch, a newsletter published by High Frontier, an organization that advocates strategic defense, headed by Gen. Daniel O. Graham, reported, "In separate reports, both the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency acknowledged the existence of the space-based laser system."8
These Soviet strategic defense programs are not cheap. Loans from Western banks have supported the Soviet weapons buildup. Billions of dollars are loaned to the Soviet Union annually by the West.
Since the Soviets are defending their country and people with ABMs and we are not, we are vulnerable to a first strike.
On October 2, 1987, El Morya delivered the following prophecy through me in New York City:
Ere 24 months have passed, be it known to you that this nation must have the capacity to turn back any and all missiles, warheads incoming whether by intent or by accident. Where there is no defense you invite the bear into your own haven. ... Ere 24 months pass, beloved, there shall be a reckoning and a confrontation unless something is done.9
October 2, 1989, has passed us, and El Morya has never countered that statement. That means that all is in flux on this planet and we do not know what we can expect because the United States has no defenses against incoming ICBMs.
Dictating through me in Lisbon, Portugal, on February 26, 1988, Archangel Gabriel said:
I tell you, in this very hour, in this very hour, and I repeat it, the plans move forward with speed on the part of the Soviets for the installation of radar units and ABMs in multiple numbers, a vast assembly line prepared and moving forward; and this is also revealed by the intelligence of the United States Air Force, and yet there is still compromise!
I tell you, beloved, the truth that I speak can save your life and if you heed me not, you will one day hear my words again. Therefore, listen unto me in this hour.
The movement is accelerated on the part of the Soviets to move against Europe and to take the United States as well by a first-strike attack. This is what is on the drawing board and this is the only reason negotiations are continuing. I tell you the step-up is enormous! And in these days that are passing, in these very hours your lives are being betrayed by fallen angels in power [in embodiment] ....
Blessed ones, the acceleration is at hand and El Morya has declared it and it has not changed: Unless the United States change her course and defend the peace of the world, you will see an encounter as early as twenty-four months from October last. Blessed hearts, these are the facts and these are the realities. Wherefore we say, get thee into the high mountain of God,10 for this is the fulfillment of the prophecy of Fatima!11
I have told you before12 what we can do to deter a Soviet first strike. It wouldn't take six to eight years to put in a defense system because we don't need a fancy high-tech system to fulfill our objective, which is to reduce the Soviets' confidence in their ability to attack. It would only take 24 months to put in systems that would defend our weapons, since these are what the Soviets target.
These simple systems would deter them from launching a first strike because too many of our missiles would survive to threaten them. I have talked about low-tech systems such as swarmjets; high-speed GAU-8 Gatling-type 30-millimeter machine guns; nonnuclear interceptor missiles such as ERIS and HEDI; and a space-based kinetic kill vehicle (KKV) system, a network of satellites that can shoot out projectiles that disable ICBMs by kinetic energy.
This isn't some high-tech, trillion-dollar system. The technology has already been developed. In some cases the components of a defense already exist. With a crash program we could have already begun deploying the first layer of the system several years ago. It's ready and it's a nonnuclear defense. All it takes is a decision to deploy.
And now, even more promising systems have emerged, such as Brilliant Pebbles, which would consist of thousands of small, non-nuclear missiles less than a meter in length and weighing about 100 pounds each. They would orbit the earth and spring into action upon detection of an ICBM launch. They would home in on the ICBM and knock a hole in it solely by kinetic energy. The missile would disintegrate as it reentered the atmosphere, harming no one. Brilliant Pebbles are purely defensive since they could not be used to attack any targets on the ground.
The cost of this system? About $100,000 per "pebble" - and that includes launch into orbit. A system of 100,000 pebbles in orbit would cost about $10 billion, according to former SDI Chief James Abrahamson.13 In addition to Brilliant Pebbles, the United States would also need to deploy satellites to verify that an attack was underway and additional command and control facilities, at a cost of $15 billion. The total system - consisting of GAU-8 machine guns, ERIS, HEDI and Brilliant Pebbles - would cost about $85 billion.14
Although Brilliant Pebbles technology is being developed, no one is talking about deployment in the decade of the 1990s. In fact, the Bush administration asked for $1 billion less for strategic defense in its 1990 budget than what Reagan had planned to request.15 But because of glasnost President Bush isn't going to deploy anything, even though a defense could only enhance arms control as well as deterrence.
Billions of dollars spent in defense outrages many of our citizens. Of course, it outrages me too. But I would ask you: What price in dollars would you place upon your own life. If you could live to fulfill your destiny of realizing and becoming a Christed one upon earth, what worth would you place on the gift of your Christ Self on the altar of humanity?
Think of the influence of one son of God or one daughter of God fully integrated in Christ. If you can live out your life to the full threescore and ten and more on this planet, God willing, and you can become that Christ, not cut off by nuclear war, what can you do for this earth? What can happen to this planet? If we can survive a nuclear war, we can survive to bring in a golden age and to bring forth souls of Light who need to be here fulfilling their destiny.
And that is why the fallen angels on both sides are planning a nuclear war in our time, with the capitalists in the West supplying the Communists in the East with all they need. It is because they want to take away our physical bodies so that we cannot bring forth the Christ consciousness even as we give birth to souls of Light who are potentially Christed ones.
We have all the tools we need to achieve our victory in this age. We have the lost teachings of Jesus restored and we have the macrobiotic diet to restore our bodies to wholeness. We have the violet flame that we can call forth to transmute those negative elements of our astrology and our psychology. God has given us the opportunity to make ourselves fit to be parents who will bring forth these Lightbearers.
But we have to build a platform of evolution that is safe and secure for them to fulfill their destinies. That's why we need defense against nuclear weapons. How much is one Christed one worth? Was it worth $1 billion, $2 billion, $10 billion to have Jesus Christ or Gautama Buddha or the ancient prophets on earth? To me it was worth that much money. Their lives are priceless. They have changed the course of history. To me you are worth $85 billion, you the individual.
Because when God gave you the gift of life, he placed a divine spark in your heart. This divine spark is your potential to realize God where you are. It is the essence of your spiritual being. It is your potential to work the works of him that sent you - even our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. This Light, when expanded to the full capacity God intended, is the means whereby you can change the world for the better.
Americans spend $100 billion a year on "recreational" drugs and $79 billion a year on alcohol. Organized crime rakes in billions each year. And the capitalist bankers have loaned many times that amount of money to nations all over the world, including the Soviet Union.
I would like to give you information that corroborates my inner awareness of what is going on inside the Kremlin walls.
I have mentioned the prophecies of Mother Mary and Nostradamus, which point to war in our time. The sunspot cycle, astrological cycles and potential climatic variations also point to a high likelihood of war. Economic and political conditions point to war. Yet in the United States and the Soviet Union it's now chic to declare that the Cold War is over.
In fact, in the United States some people are claiming victory. On May 17, 1989, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., published an editorial in the Wall Street Journal entitled "Somebody Tell Bush We've Won the Cold War."
Schlesinger argued that the new Soviet Union is not the old Soviet Union. "Glasnost, to put it simply, means the end of Soviet totalitarianism," he wrote. Glasnost, said Schlesinger (and he ought to know better, he's a historian), will make the world safe for democracy. He went so far as to say that "anyone who thinks that an invasion of Western Europe is high on the list of Mr. Gorbachev's priorities should have his head examined."16
Schlesinger wrote, "We stand at a great turning point in history,"17 which indeed we do but it's not the kind of turning point that he imagines. The Cold War may well be over, but the lamb had better not lie down with the bear. It looks like a hot war is about to begin.
Schlesinger and those of like mind in the governments, the media and the intellectual communities of the West apparently believe that glasnost is a new development in the Soviet Union. Contrary to popular belief, glasnost is not new. Nor does it signal an era of irreversible change that will suddenly democratize the most powerful and aggressive totalitarian state that the world has ever known.
Glasnost is a time-tested strategy used by Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev to purge their opponents and gain lifesaving economic transfusions from the West. Glasnost is a sting operation. But it's not just designed to gain our money; it is also a fatal trap. It is a bear trap.
Gorbachev is using glasnost in precisely the same manner as Lenin did, according to Edward Jay Epstein, a highly respected authority on U.S. and Soviet intelligence matters. He writes:
Glasnost - a Russian concept that originally meant publicity or notoriety - has been an effective instrument of Soviet policy since the early days of the Bolshevik Revolution. It was first used by Lenin, who realized that power proceeded from denying others a veil of privacy for their decision making. Hence, glasnost, or "public airing," became a weapon for the Communist Party. By forcing local officials to engage in a process of "criticism and self-criticism" in which they had to confess to their own mistakes or point to those of others, Lenin made all government officials and lower-ranking Party members increasingly vulnerable to Party discipline and purges. In so doing, he strengthened the hold of the Party hierarchy while at the same time increasing the appearance of free speech. As he noted, "Glasnost is a sword which itself heals the wound it inflicts."
This miraculous sword could also be used as a powerful instrument of deception. To the extent that these controlled bouts of self-criticism were seen by foreign eyes as unrestricted freedom of criticism, it created the illusion of a budding democracy. As in all deceptions, a single indicator of a phenomenon - in this case, criticism - is represented as the phenomenon itself, an open society. The logic went: Democracies allow public criticism of officials; the Soviet Union allows public criticism of officials; therefore the Soviet Union is a democracy.18
Lenin began the first glasnost in the spring of 1921, when it was clear to him that Communism as an economic system was not working and the Soviet state was literally bankrupt. He decreed the end of "war Communism," in which Soviet citizens had neither rights nor money, and declared the start of the New Economic Policy (NEP), which would be driven by market forces.
Along with this economic "restructuring," the first perestroika, Lenin said that there would be political liberalization.
Epstein writes: "Taken together, these measures suggested that the Soviet Union, despite its rhetoric about revolution, was slowly but irreversibly moving toward an accommodation with capitalism. ... The message implicit in NEP was: The desired reversal of communism would be accelerated by trade with the West."19
Lenin gave Feliks Dzierzhinski, head of the OGPU (the security arm of the Communist Party and forerunner of the KGB), the responsibility of making sure the West got the message. He made Dzierzhinski head of the NEP's Supreme Economic Council so that he could control both the overt and covert channels of information to the West.
Dzierzhinski used his covert channels to show the West that the revolution was failing, and he used his overt channels to suggest that democracy was taking hold in Russia. By controlling both channels, he could control the West's perception of glasnost.
He started what appeared to be opposition newspapers that proclaimed an era of change. He directed the OGPU agents to allow Soviet defectors to return and tour the "underground." They were allowed to attend dissident meetings and talk with recently released political prisoners so that they could report back to the West how censorship had come to an end under the NEP. As Lenin saw it, the new atmosphere of glasnost opened a path to the American business community and created the proper climate to acquire U.S. goods, technology, and most of all, bank loans and credits. As Epstein points out, glasnost "also gave American lobbyists, public relations firms, and politically influential contacts a powerful incentive to support Soviet objectives."20 Sound familiar?
Ever since Lenin told his comrades that the capitalists would sell them the rope that the Communists would one day use to hang the capitalists, Western bankers and businessmen have eagerly complied. Lenin established trade concessions, that is, joint ventures, with Western businesses that were anxious to invest capital in Russia because she had a huge market and Lenin was offering what amounted to a guaranteed monopoly.
But Lenin did not see this as peaceful trade or as something that would actually liberalize the Soviet state. "Concessions," he told the Russian Communist Party in 1920, "do not mean peace with capitalism, but war on a new plane."21 Lenin never mentioned this to the capitalists, of course. And the capitalists, themselves the betrayers of the American dream and the free enterprise system, were overpowered by their greed to milk the light from a new market of people. They fell in line with (and in love with) Lenin's plan.
Lenin's strategy was to tell the capitalists what they wanted to hear, namely that the Soviet Union was a potential source of great profits and that trade made the Soviets more moderate. Armand Hammer, the first and foremost American advocate of U.S.-Soviet trade, told his fellow American businessmen that Lenin had admitted to him that "Communism does not work," much like Gorbachev now admits Soviet economic failures to the world. The Soviet diplomatic corps was also used to convey the perception that glasnost was transforming the Soviet Union into a modern state whose goal was now peaceful coexistence rather than world revolution.
The OGPU under Dzierzhinski's direction used double agents, false defectors and "opposition" newspapers to reinforce the message. Using codes they knew had been broken by the British, the Soviet Foreign Ministry directed its foreign agents to stop subversive activities in the West.
The deception worked. By 1925 more than 38 companies, including Ford Motor Company, had invested in Soviet enterprises. Before long another 300 companies established concessions. Soon a river of manufactured goods, trucks, ships, planes and even completely built factories was flowing into the Soviet Union, financed by Western credit.
According to Epstein, the deception worked "because it coincided with what Western governments wanted to believe. It was convenient to assume that the Soviet Revolution was a failure if only because it ended the pressures to take military action against Moscow. And it was in the interest of Western governments to believe that trade with the Soviet Union would weaken, rather than strengthen, the revolutionary elements in the government."22
In essence, the Soviets manipulated the West by playing upon their inherent desire for peace at any price. And peace never comes when you want it more than anything else - even more than God. Thus Western governments and business leaders formulated policies that advanced Soviet interests at the expense of Western democracies. Moscow used this first glasnost to stave off financial collapse, thwart Western plans to contain the Soviet Union and attract a dozen new Communist parties to the Communist International, the organization for international revolution.
In 1929, when the first glasnost had accomplished its purposes, the NEP suddenly came to an end. All private investment was nationalized and all concessions were canceled.
Epstein described how Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev carried out glasnosts of their own, each time to acquire goods, credits and technology and to gain strategic military and political advantages through arms control as well as greater acceptance in the world community.
The second glasnost began in 1936 with Stalin's new Soviet Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech, press and assembly, as well as elections by secret ballot. Based on these reforms, as well as on Stalin's promise not to support any group that advocated the overthrow of the U.S. government, including the American Communist Party, President Roosevelt extended credits to Moscow. "This glasnost ended with Stalin's bloody purge of the Communist Party in 1937-38," Epstein writes.
The third glasnost, which Epstein calls the Uncle Joe Partnership, began after Hitler invaded Russia in 1941. Stalin "restored the rights of the Russian Orthodox Church, proposed the liberalization of censorship and other controls, and permitted Russians to own private plots to grow food,"23 Epstein writes. Stalin received massive aid in the form of the Lend-Lease program as well as tremendous concessions from Roosevelt and Churchill at Yalta. After Yalta, Harry Hopkins, President Roosevelt's adviser, wrote, "There wasn't any doubt in the mind of the President, or any of us that we could live and get along with them peacefully for as far into the future as any of us could imagine."24 The third glasnost ended in 1945 with the Soviet takeover of Czechoslovakia and the descent of the iron curtain.
The fourth glasnost, de-Stalinization, began in 1956 with Khrushchev's denunciation of Stalin. Khrushchev's reforms included a return to competition in agriculture and industry and relaxation of censorship (Solzhenitsyn's One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich was published). Armand Hammer was invited to the Soviet Union to spearhead a new wave of capitalist investment. Khrushchev told him, "If we cannot give our people the same standard of living that you give your people under the Capitalist system, we know that Communism cannot succeed."25 This glasnost ended with the shooting down of an American U-2 spy plane over the Soviet Union (1960), the erection of the Berlin Wall (1961), and the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962).
The fifth glasnost, better known as "detente," began in 1970 under Leonid Brezhnev. As Epstein writes, "The central theme [of this glasnost] was that the Soviet government was now run not by ideologues but by technocrats who had no interest in adhering to the Leninist doctrine of class warfare. Instead, like technocrats in the West, they wanted to expand and rationalize their industrial base. They wanted, in short, to substitute butter for guns."26
Under Brezhnev, a new constitution was passed, also guaranteeing freedom of speech, press and assembly. During this time, the arms control process began and the superpowers signed SALT I. Brezhnev announced a unilateral troop cut in Soviet forces in Europe, apparently withdrawing 10,000 troops from East Germany. In 1981, it was discovered that this tank division had merely been reorganized and moved across the border into Poland. This glasnost gradually wound down and ended with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.
In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev embarked on the sixth wave of glasnost. Some, no doubt, will argue that this glasnost is not the same as before. Things are different. And indeed they are! Now the Soviets have the largest nuclear arsenal and the most powerful conventional military forces in the world. This has changed the rules of glasnost.
When talking glasnost, the Soviets also say the Cold War is over, but they approach the subject from a different angle than their counterparts in the West. The Soviets tell us that Gorbachev desires to change the emphasis of the Soviet economy so that it produces fewer "guns" and more "butter," i.e., fewer weapons and more consumer goods.
But, the Soviets say, glasnost is a precarious undertaking that may or may not succeed. Yes, the Cold War is over, at least for now. But, they argue, there are many reactionary forces in the Soviet Union who resist change, and the Soviet economy is a disaster. They say that if glasnost and perestroika are to change the Soviet economy from an inefficient, centrally controlled mess that emphasizes military production to an economy that is open, market-oriented and designed to satisfy consumer wants, Gorbachev is going to need help.
In other words, Gorbachev can succeed only if (and here's the catch) the West comes up with enough loans, credits and trade to help the Soviet economy make the transition. Gorbachev's failure to achieve his goals under glasnost might mean the emergence of a more aggressive, militaristic Soviet Union under a hard-line leadership. In other words, Gorbachev is our only hope for the Soviet Union to turn to a more free-enterprise economy and join the West.
Given the fact that the Soviets have great military power and nothing else going for them, this is a very effective threat. No matter how diplomatically it is couched, the message to the West is clear: Pay up! In the neighborhoods of New York City it's called "paying protection." In other quarters it's called blackmail.
The West has paid up. Between 1985, when Gorbachev came to power, and 1987 the Soviet bloc borrowed $15 billion from Western banks.27 We forked over our money, which represents the energy, the light and the lifeblood of our labor. In about the same period of time Western governments, at their taxpayers' expense, loaned the Soviets another $12 billion.28 That's a total of $27 billion handed over to them in two years. In the last year the pace of borrowing has dramatically increased. In October 1988 alone the Soviets borrowed about $9 billion from Western banks.29
But paying up is not going to buy protection. The borrowed money is not going into the Soviet consumer economy. If the Soviets were using all that loan money to buy "butter," why is butter rationed in 32 regions of the Russian Federation? And why are staple foods now rationed in 8 of the 15 Soviet republics?30 Night after night on television you see the endless lines of Soviet citizens waiting to buy anything.
Even though billions of dollars have been poured into the Soviet economy you do not see an influx of foodstuffs and manufactured goods (toasters, irons, television sets) in Soviet stores. The situation in the Soviet Union is growing steadily worse. The Soviets are even importing potatoes, a Russian staple, from China.31 Personal savings in the Soviet Union are growing at an alarming rate, not due to prosperity but because there is simply nothing to buy in the stores.32
So where did those billions of Western dollars go? They went to produce tanks, nuclear missiles, and other supplies for the Soviet military machine!
In 1988 the Soviets increased the number of nuclear warheads in their arsenal by 16 percent. The increase came mostly from 130 rail-mobile SS-24 ICBMs with 10 warheads apiece.33 In the same period of time the United States produced virtually none.
Gorbachev promised to cut tank production, but he has added 13,300 tanks to the Soviet arsenal. Average annual tank production is now higher than it was at the height of the Cold War. It was 3,000 in 1979; it was 3,500 in 1988.34 In January of 1990, Intelligence Digest, a prestigious British newsletter, reported that the Soviets have continued production of their top-of-the-line T-80 tank at a rate of 3,500 per year. The heralded cutback in Soviet tank production has been in the T-74, which is used for export and second-line divisions.35
If Gorbachev were serious about developing greater political and economic freedom, he would have spent Soviet money on "butter." But instead he purchased "guns."
My analysis of the situation is that the Soviets intend to solve their economic problems by seizing the wealthy Western European nations with their military forces. We see further evidence of this in Soviet military preparations.
If the Soviets aren't planning to invade Europe, why do they still have 27,000 meters of bridging equipment stockpiled on the border between Eastern and Western Europe? If their strategy is defensive, why are 3 million metric tons of ammunition still stored in the Warsaw Pact's Western theatre?36 If they have a defensive strategy, that isn't a very good place to store ammunition. If Gorbachev wants peace, why has he increased Soviet conventional forces 25 percent since coming to power?37 That's an amount equal to the combined German and French armies!
Many people see the INF treaty as the first step to lasting peace in Europe. However, growing evidence indicates the Soviets have violated it in so many ways as to render it useless and even highly dangerous to Western Europe.
Recent reports indicate the Soviets did not destroy all of the INF missiles required under the treaty. The Washington Times reported on March 6, 1990:
U.S. military intelligence agents have photographed Soviet-made SS-23 missiles that were deployed in East Germany in apparent violation of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, Bush administration officials said yesterday.
The short-range nuclear missiles, bearing East German military markings, were spotted last week by members of the U.S. Military Liaison Mission, an army observer team, said officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.38
The agents photographed 6 SS-23 launchers and 12 missiles. The missiles were banned under the INF treaty.
The Washington Times continued: "The Soviets are expected to argue that the missiles are not part of the INF treaty because they belong to East German forces, officials said. But officials reject that notion because the Soviets forced West Germany to agree to dismantle the 70 Pershing I-A missiles under its control."39
It looks like the Soviet quick-change artists used this trick more than once. The New York City Tribune reported on March 23 that "the new Czechoslovak government of former dissident Vaclav Havel has acknowledged that its army has about 70 SS-23 INF missiles of Soviet manufacture."40 The question that remains to be answered is: were these missiles transferred to East Germany and Czechoslovakia before or after the INF treaty was negotiated? If before, the Soviets should have informed us. If after, they were violating the treaty.
Many people are under the impression that the Soviet defense budget is decreasing. However, defense spending has actually increased 3 percent a year over the last five years.41 A statement by the International Security Council published on the opinion page of the New York Times on November 3, 1989, warns:
The Soviet Union continues to assign the highest priority to the modernization and expansion of its strategic nuclear capabilities, both offensive and defensive. Massive investments, which have actually increased during the Gorbachev regime, have made these forces far more formidable than a decade ago. Yet, the Soviet threat to the U.S. deterrent force is increasingly being defined in terms of assumed Soviet intentions rather than actual Soviet capabilities and programs.
"Neither the public nor most of Congress seems to realize that Soviet military spending under Gorbachev has continued to increase annually while comparable U.S. defense budgets have been reduced for five consecutive years. This combination is producing a widening gap similar to that of the 1970s when the military balance shifted heavily in favor of the Soviets and U.S. deterrent forces became seriously vulnerable to new Soviet capabilities."42
Based on the evidence, I conclude that a Soviet invasion of Europe combined with a surprise nuclear attack on the United States is a very real possibility. In Book 2 of my book Saint Germain On Prophecy you will find Nostradamus's prediction of the invasion of Europe by an "Oriental" or "Easterner."43 The Soviet Union, as Gorbachev reminded the world, is "also an Asian and Pacific country."44
The Chinese experiment in economic reform without accompanying political reform illustrates what the Soviets have known for 70 years: Communism is an economic system whose power is based on state control of the economy. You can't have economic freedom without political freedom. Any true liberalization of the Soviet economy would mean that the nomenklatura, the Soviet elite, would lose their political power and probably their lives. No Soviet leader is going to undertake such a program. That's why glasnost is and always has been an optical illusion.
From the Soviet point of view it makes more sense to drive their tanks to Western Europe and take what they want than to truly reform their economy.
And besides, one day our Western loans will run out. Remember, there is a catastrophic economic crisis ready to strike the Western industrial economies. When it is no longer possible for the Soviets to borrow what they need, they will take what they want by force.
Some will argue that the Soviets will never invade Western Europe because that would start World War III. But that's not the way the Soviets see things. World War III is exactly what they have prepared for. They have invested in offensive and defensive nuclear and conventional forces and they must get a return on their money in order to survive. The Bolsheviks never abandoned the idea of crushing capitalism; they just postponed it until the day when they would be strong enough to pull it off.
Do not be taken in by the so-called signs of peace you see coming out of the Soviet Union. They are carefully choreographed to deceive you. Consider the notion that the Soviet Union is becoming more liberal, more democratic, and hence more like us - that is, more peaceful.
Gorbachev talks about reforming the system to provide greater freedom and dissent. On April 8, 1989, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, under his direction, got rid of the oppressive penal statutes from the Brezhnev era that were used to give dissidents long jail sentences for exercising free speech or freedom of the press. But it replaced them with new rules that are worse. In the words of Soviet emigré Cathy Young, author of Growing Up in Moscow, "The Soviet legal mechanism of political repression has been updated and fine-tuned to deal more effectively with new forms of opposition."45
The Soviets talk about getting rid of chemical weapons, but they used them on their own citizens demonstrating in Soviet Georgia.46 If they use them on their own people, what do you think they will do with us?
Gorbachev comes up with peace overtures like Baskin Robbins comes up with the flavor of the month. But, according to Dr. Albert L. Weeks, a Sovietologist and professor of politics and history at New York University, if you look at the Soviet military's internal papers during Gorbachev's rule, you find that the business end of the Soviet government is becoming increasingly hostile and aggressive towards the United States. In fact, in August 1989, Mary Fitzgerald, an expert in Soviet military doctrine and a scholar at the Hudson Institute, said that even though Gorbachev is talking peace, his officers still emphasize "the value of surprise at all levels" of conflict.47
The Soviets are preparing for war, and as it now stands, your government has chosen not to defend you.
I wish to remind you of what Saint Germain said about glasnost on February 27, 1988:
Therefore, beloved, know that that intent is on the drawing boards in Moscow and in the Kremlin and has ever been. It is not new. And therefore, I tell you, glasnost is a propaganda sham! I tell you, the prince out of the Soviet Union is a sham and a liar and a betrayer of the people!
And I say this directly to the heart of Mikhail Gorbachev:
You may fool the people but you have not fooled the ascended hosts of Light and you have not fooled the hearts of the Lightbearers in the earth! And you, Ronald Reagan, are a sham and betrayer of my sponsorship and you also shall know your karma for this betrayal of Europe and the European states!
And everyone who has gone after these liars, in the United States Senate and in the nation-states of Europe, know that I, Saint Germain, do stand and my angels with me and you shall not pass and you shall know the judgment of your karma and you shall know it all too late, too late therefore! And you shall have caused, therefore, the downfall of nations, and in so doing you shall have incurred a karma so vast as to be practically impossible to balance in aeons of the future.
Therefore I sound the warning and I sound it with Archangel Gabriel! And I announce to you fallen ones, though you may think you are the instruments of the karma of the people, let it be known that if you so become those instruments, the sword of Damocles shall be upon your own heads and your victory shall be short-lived and your triumphs and your celebrations shall be exposed as the very conflagration of hell surrounds you!48
We have not heard words like these coming from any representative in the U. S. government. And so you can see why our hearts burn within us, why we yearn to acquaint the American people with this Ascended Master who is so very close to them, who is so very much a part of the American dream.
Saint Germain said on February 13, 1988:
One does not rest one's case on a hope that enough souls of Light on a planet will deliver the mandate of the violet flame that can be received by the Karmic Board to turn the tide of world history. There is more than violet flame involved, beloved. There is free will.
And there are many in positions of power this day who have amassed power and wealth and armaments and technology whose free will is committed to world destruction. I should not trust my fate to their hands, nor should you. Therefore, the wise will remove themselves to that point in time and space which they discover by meditation and [the] unerring guidance of my angels is the correct place for them to be.
Do not consider, then, that you who have not attained to the levels of an Ascended Master may turn the world around merely by the raising of the right hand. If it were so, beloved, we should long ago have done this through you. What you ultimately can do and must do, in all of the promises you have heard, is to invoke that violet flame and to continue to invoke it and use Archangel Michael's Rosary for Armageddon.
For much will change, much will be set aside. Entire kingdoms may come to their judgment. Yet you must be found out of the way. For this very process to occur, world chemicalization is in order! ...
Blessed hearts, I trust that I make myself clear. The preparedness at a personal and national level has never been more paramount. Your preparedness in your life can be complete in a matter of months. When you are fully prepared and determined to survive physically in the earth, come what may in all of these predictions and those you have heard elsewhere, you are then a free agent of Saint Germain and you may give your life and heart to this very cause of stopping those conditions in their tracks before they are outpictured, therefore rendering your preparations only a safety valve, a security net, a lifeboat, if you will.49
Saint Germain states that the very preparedness of the Lightbearers will deter nuclear war because the fallen ones are out to destroy the shepherds of the people, the Lightbearers of the New Age of Aquarius.
Saint Germain said on November 29, 1987, in Washington, D.C.:
When all the world has gone mad or asleep around you, beloved, you do not despair, you come into the awareness, truly the direct apprehension of your Godhood. You kindle a sun in a dying world! That is your mission! You kindle a sun and you adore Helios and Vesta, Alpha and Omega, the one true God manifest in all the beauty and glory of His Light emanations! You become a sun! You are the sun, and you will let no Darkness defeat it, put it out, or cast a shadow.50
Before I left my altar at the Royal Teton Ranch, I made the call to beloved El Morya to ask him if he had a message for me to deliver on this occasion to you, to the people of New York, to the Keepers of the Flame. El Morya dictated this message from the Darjeeling Council and so I will read it to you.
"Whereas the Soviet Union has not halted its ongoing plan for a nuclear first strike, the Lightbearers of the world would do well to heed our earlier warnings and prepare. For the hour is fast approaching when nothing will be able to turn back that first strike." Signed: El Morya Khan and the members of the Darjeeling Council of the Great White Brotherhood.
N.B.: "Prophecy for the 1990s III" is based on a lecture given by Elizabeth Clare Prophet May 21, 1989, at the Sheraton Centre Hotel, New York, updated for publication in the 1990 Pearls of Wisdom.
Throughout these notes PoW is the abbreviation for Pearls of Wisdom.