Yuri Bezmenov Full Interview & Lecture - HQ

I was born in a military family. My father was a high-ranking officer of the Soviet army general staff, inspector of land forces, stationed outside of USSR in every "quote unquote" brotherly country or liberated country of the world.

I graduated from Oriental Studies Institute affiliated to Moscow State University in 1963. I started working with Novosti, an ideological subversion organization of USSR, which is directly under KGB. Ostensibly, it's a public news agency. Novosti, in Russian language, means news, but there are no news. It's mainly propaganda.

My first job was a translator with an economic aid group in India. We were building refineries and other industrial projects in the public sector, socialist sector of India. My last job was press officer of the Soviet embassy in New Delhi. I defected in 1970.

I came, landed in Canada, worked for several years as a producer of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation overseas service in Russian language, similar to Voice of America. Then I was teaching at the University of Toronto political science department, McGill University Slavic Studies, and School of Journalism, Ottawa, in Colton University in Ottawa. Last year I joined a small Russian language publishing house here in Los Angeles, and now I'm a political analyst for weekly Panorama newspaper.

Lumumba University language instruction was my so-called extracurricular activity, which is usually given to Soviet young communists as a non-paid job to prove loyalty to the party. I was instructing students from Asia, Latin America, and Africa before they entered an ideological indoctrination class. It was mainly Russian language instruction, after which the students usually join a two-year or three-year extensive course in Marxist-Leninist ideological indoctrination plus their own subjects of choice: medicine, physics, chemistry, whatever. If, after five or six years of studying, they are proven to be well-flexible, loyal, cynical enough to follow the Soviet foreign policy, they are being transferred to a KGB school for a period of two years, after which they are being dispatched back to their native countries and become so-called "sleepers."

The word "sleeper" originated from sleeping for several years. They sleep in their own countries, doing nothing. Sometimes they are pursuing their own careers, become lawyers, doctors, teachers, taxi drivers, barbers, and they spring into action after many years of destabilization of their own countries as Soviet agents. Therefore, all of a sudden, you discover well-established lawyers in a country like Nicaragua who are for some strange reason bitterly against "quote unquote" American imperialism and idealistically for Soviet Marxist-Leninist imperialism.

I joined Novosti press agency before I graduated from the Oriental Studies Institute, where I studied Hindi and Urdu, two languages of the Indian subcontinent. Urdu is the language of Pakistan, and Hindi is the language of India. The journalistic part of my training was ordinary journalism, mass media communication theories, and studies. Together with that, we had very extensive training in military civil defense, intelligence, and ideological subversion. So, even before I graduated, I started working with Novosti press agency, first as a translator, interpreter, and guide with foreign delegations who were invited to USSR and who were shown all the beauties of socialism and dispatched back to their countries to explain to their people how beautiful is socialism. My role was directly linked with KGB activities of brainwashing and psychological assessment of these guests. If they showed any sign of flexibility, which means they showed that they were recruitable, I passed them over to professional KGB recruiters, and from there on, they were actively being involved in ideological subversion and propaganda both in USSR and in their own countries.

Well, the decision, of course, was very painful and difficult. But on the other hand, I didn't have any illusions about the Soviet system and communist or socialist system. It's the most rotten and unworking system in the world. Some people call it state capitalism, socialism, centralized planning, whatever. It doesn't really matter what kind of name you attach to the system. Basically, if you're a religious person, it's a devilish, satanistic system which appeals only to the most primitive negative side of human nature. Its basis is the denial of private property, human dignity, personal responsibility, and, of course, any religion, religious affiliation of a human being to God as a supreme being.

My dissatisfaction, disillusionment, if you can call it that, because I never was illusioned, with communism started as early as age six, I guess. The first shock was after the Second World War, when most of the children of my age understood that the United States is the friend with whom together Soviet people defeated Nazism, German fascism. All of a sudden, it turned into an enemy. And all of a sudden, the propaganda turned 180 degrees around, and we were brainwashed in the spirit of hatred to everything which is American. But how could you explain to a child of six years old who owes his survival to American Spam, condensed milk, egg powder, and things which you probably people never remember because nobody eats them these days? Spam meat. You know what I'm talking about. How can you explain to them that these delicious things came from an enemy who wants to subvert and destroy us? It's impossible because the child remembers when he was hungry, he was eating Spam and drinking condensed American milk with the American eagle on the label. So all the efforts of the Soviet propaganda to convince me that America is bad was futile, naturally. That was the first shock.

The second was this 20th Congress of the Soviet Communist Party, when Khrushchev revealed the atrocities of Stalin, terrorism, and murder, systematic murder of millions of innocent people. That was another greatest shock. And the third shock, of course, when I was already growing up, was the invasion into Czechoslovakia in 1968. That was the last straw. And when I was in India, acting as a Soviet official, Soviet diplomat, I understood that sooner or later I have to defect and to explain what exactly I was doing in India. I fell in love with that country because, at that time, this country didn't do any harm to any neighbors, least of all to the Soviet Union. And yet, we did so much harm to that country that I decided to defect and explain, first to Indians, then to American politicians, intelligence communities, and media. Unfortunately, I didn't have much success because my stories were treated with great skepticism. I was called paranoid, McCarthyist, fascist, cold war maniac, and other names which I don't want to mention here. And it took me quite a number of years to understand that I'm talking to people who are trying to prevent the average American from knowing the truth about communism.

The basic methods are not that much different from activities of any public relations officer from any big company, say Coca-Cola. I bet they have their own department of personnel, of public relations, and press relations. But the ultimate goal, the ultimate purpose is different. If Coca-Cola wants to make profit and to sell more Coca-Cola to nations of the world, the Soviet Union, the ultimate purpose of the Soviet system is not to sell anything, least of all ideology. It is to destroy the civilization on which affluence and freedom are based and replace it with a system of total control over the life of human beings. The system of total exploitation, that's the ultimate purpose.

And my specific measures, which I was forced to do unwillingly, of course, but I had to do them just to promote myself further and further, is bribery, corruption, befriending politicians, members of parliament, influential scholars, members of civil service, businessmen. In other words, anyone who has anything to do with shaping public opinion in the interest of the Soviet foreign policy. That would include a long process which sometimes is unnoticeable to an average person. It's a long-term process which is called ideological subversion. It's unnoticeable, like the movement of a small hand of a clock. You know it's going around, but even if you watch it intensely, you don't see the movement. The eventual result is befriending these people and trying to get them involved in activity in the interests of the Soviet foreign policy.

The immediate impulse came when I learned that the Soviet embassy department of research and counter-propaganda, of which I was a deputy chief, was engaged neither in research nor in counter-propaganda. It is a department which is compiling information of a private nature on individuals, divided into two groups: good boys and bad boys. The sympathetic people were promoted in media and public life. The people who were opposed to the Soviet foreign policy were blackwashed, blackmailed, and destroyed, first morally, and sometimes physically too.

My understanding of what I was doing came to me when I looked at a press release of the United States Information Service describing an incident in a South Vietnamese city of Hue, captured by communists from Hanoi for 48 hours. Then it was recaptured by the United States and South Vietnamese armies. And to their horror, they discovered that within two nights, the communists could manage to round up more than 15,000 people and execute them. Most of these people were either sympathetic to the United States or to Western culture, or directly involved in activities supporting the United States president in South Vietnam. Agents of the CIA, naturally, even barbers, because they knew too much, they were executed. And United States intelligence couldn't figure out how they could possibly do it in such a short period of time. Later on, they discovered, they found out from several defectors that long before communists occupied that city, there was an extensive, omnipresent network of informers who knew exactly the addresses, the names, the whereabouts of each individual who was later executed. When I turned to my own files, I discovered that basically that information exists in my department. So it doesn't take much intelligence to understand what I was doing in India. I was compiling information. These people would be executed indirectly. I was involved in criminal activity, in mass murder. I decided to defect and explain it to Americans. And the response I already described: I was called paranoid. But I decided to defect and try nevertheless.

There's another long story. It's virtually impossible to defect in India simply because the Indian government, under pressure from the Soviet government, if you can call them a government, I don't call them a government, I call them a junta, they adopted a law as early as '61, '62, after Stalin's daughter's defection, especially that law states that no embassy, no foreign legation on the territory of the Indian Republic has the right to extend political asylum to any defector from any country. Which is very, it's a masterpiece of hypocrisy. No other defector but a Soviet one needs a political asylum. If you are a Canadian or American, if you want to be nasty to your own government, the maximum you can do is just to pick up the phone and make a dirty phone call to your ambassador. Buy yourself a ticket and get lost. What happens to a Soviet defector under that law? If I knock on the door of the United States embassy, by that law, the American diplomats have to turn me back to the Indian police, and Indian police takes me back directly back to the Soviet embassy, and that's the end of my defection.

So, knowing that perfectly well, and having contacts both with Indian police and American media corps, I understood that the only way for me was to disappear for a while. And the best way I discovered was to mix with a group of hippies. Mind you, that was the time, I was 13 years younger, so I looked slightly different, of course. I studied so-called counterculture in India. Sometimes, good, sincere young people who wanted to study oriental mysticism and culture and religion. But most of them were simply easygoing individuals who were delighted with exotic life and the easiness with which they can purchase hashish and other drugs in India. And sometimes they traveled the Indian subcontinent without any identification papers. So the best way to escape detection was to mix with a group of hippies and travel in India until the campaign in the media and in the police, the police search will subside. All the newspapers in India carried my picture and announcement of the police that anyone coming forward with information about my whereabouts would receive 5,000 or 2,000 rupees. Knowing that perfectly well, I just walked India barefoot with beads and blue jeans, smoking hash, and enjoying life until I found sympathetic journalists who smuggled me from India to Greece. Mind you, that was a military dictatorship at that time. Then only I approached the American CIA, and they helped me to land in Canada as a legitimate ordinary immigrant.

So now I'm a Canadian citizen, as you can see from my patriotic title. Canada is a kind of middle-of-the-road country where there are so many various ethnic groups that another strange character who speaks both Russian and English and two oriental languages, I didn't have any problem fitting into academic circles and first being just a student at the University of Toronto, later a producer with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I think it was successful, and until and unless there will be a follow-up to that movie, it will remain as an open wound in the United States as a scare tactic, which in this particular case, I'm not sure whether KGB paid for the production of that movie or not, but it's totally irrelevant. What is the most important? Unless, after seeing the tragic sequences of the nuclear attack, the American population is not explained what to do about it. If you still stop at that and let it be, obviously this is a scare tactic. This is the greatest harm done to the United States by Americans, by an American filmmaker. I bet a drop of their disinformation system could not possibly do that much harm to the United States. When you see something obviously sponsored by the Soviets, you understand, well, this is propaganda. You may or may not agree with this, depending on your background and intelligence and education. But here, it's a subtle approach, playing on the most sensitive strings of your soul, appealing to the most basic instincts of human nature, survival. But there are no answers how to survive.

Well, obviously disarmament is not the answer simply because some people naively expect the drop-off to blush out of shame and reduce the number of warheads. That doesn't happen this way. We are facing an unresponsive, irresponsible group of people for whom nuclear war is not a theory, it's a practice. And the military strategy of the Soviet Union is designed to do nuclear war and to survive and possibly to win.

I started my military training when I was six or seven years old, when I entered secondary school, and I graduated in '63 after almost 15 years of continuous training as a junior lieutenant of reserve of the Soviet army. And psychologically, every Soviet citizen is well-prepared for nuclear war. And technically, he's equipped with facilities and the knowledge how to use it in case of war or natural disaster, doesn't matter. Survival tactics and survival methods are taught extensively in various manners. They are exposed to documentary movies about nuclear war. They know the technical data of radiation or contamination of air and land. They know the organizational patterns of civil defense to such an extent that even if there's no nuclear attack, even if there's conventional warfare, each individual, at a certain time, knows exactly where to go, what to do, where is the shelter, whom to call by telephone, which is not the case, unfortunately, in the United States. I think if a bomb, an ordinary bomb, maybe a sting bomb, is dropped in the middle of Los Angeles, most of the people will not die of atomic radiation, they will die of panic. They will run, and the traffic jams and panic will kill more people than anything else. And where do they go? Is there any literature about how to protect an individual? With the medical first aid treatment, that is not taught to kids in American colleges.

Unfortunately, for example, there's obvious tension in the world. Television newscasts inform the American family about happenings in East and West Germany. And only at the last moment, they decide to bring the canned food down to the basement. It's sheer idiocy. Why not to have them in the basement in peacetime? Number two, there's a very realistic picture of what happens when the first nuclear bomb strikes a big city, Kansas City, I think, when people, a big panoramic picture shows almost an ant hill when you know people are disoriented totally. That would produce love in Russia because, unlike that, Soviets know exactly what to do. There'll be much less panic, if at all.

I know about infiltration of KGB into the peace movement probably as much as an average American who reads newspapers systematically. But I'm obviously aware that the World Peace Council is a front organization of the KGB. Romesh Chandra, I know personally, both in India and USSR. I worked with delegations of various peaceniks who came to the World Congress of the Peace Council in Moscow. I think it was in 1961 or '62. Yeah, it was before the Cuban crisis. And at that time, they struck me as people who are pathologically unable to see the truth, not to talk about the military aspects. When I, as a translator and guide, used to take them to places in Moscow which are not supposed to be for foreign eyes, they didn't want to see it. They had their preconceived ideas. They were suffering from self-importance. They thought it's a great honor to sit in the Kremlin, in the Palace of Congresses, next to a delegate from the Kremlin, and talk about peace as if that person from the Kremlin means anything in the peace movement. Self-delusion is the most predominant phenomenon among these people. Romesh Chandra is a very shrewd politician who takes advantage of naive, misguided, idealistically minded, sometimes sincere people. But he is, I would say, my impression is that he's totally sold himself to the Soviets. He receives his payments or royalties or whatever you can call it in the form of prizes. Of course, it's very embarrassing if you approach a person of his caliber with money, with cash, and say, "Here, Comrade Romesh Chandra, there's money for your propaganda in the interests of the Soviet Union." It's very impolite. So instead, the Soviet Union creates artificial international bodies such as the Jawaharlal Nehru Peace Committee, which consists of various progressive leaders, writers, sometimes they're known figures, and philosophers, educationalists. Sometimes they probably feel that if there's no other possibility to express the desire for peace, at least there is some legitimate overt activity where they can express themselves. That's okay. And they think they are too smart not to see that part of it is Soviet propaganda. "Okay, we are smart. We are not going to allow them to use us for propaganda purposes." This is wishful thinking because after five or six visits to USSR, everything is paid by the Soviet government. After spending several vacations on the Black Sea coast in luxurious atmosphere with two or three nice girls, interpreters, lots of vodka and caviar, books published that books which nobody there is in the United States, all of a sudden published in millions of copies in their society in various languages, that tickles their ego. They think they are somebody. All of a sudden, it's difficult to resist the temptation. Romesh Chandra is exactly that type of personality. He was approached at a very early stage, and he didn't have the willpower and moral principles to resist the temptation, to resist the approach. And by now, he's just a pawn in the game, a high-ranking pawn. And if he is dismissed or dies a natural death, there'll be another line of people who would like to take his place. Yes, KGB takes a very active part in the peace movement. And if these people were sincere as they say they are, they would start demonstrating in the Kremlin, or I mean, in Red Square, not in Washington D.C. or in Central Park in New York or in Los Angeles. But they don't have the courage, they don't have the guts to go to Russia and protest against the nuclear armament of the Soviet Union. Therefore, I agree that they are misguided, but I think they are cowards. They're unprincipled, dishonest people, and there's no justification that they are misguided or poorly informed. It's their fault that they're poorly informed. There's enough information, there's enough possibility. In case of a United States citizen, there's enough freedom to do what their consciousness should tell them to do: go to Russia and protest against the army. It doesn't take much courage to take part in a demonstration in Los Angeles. But if you're really genuinely concerned about peace, tell it to Brezhnev, tell it to Andropov, and we'll see how courageous and sincere you are. They don't do it.

Well, the greatest strength, I think, is the basic principle of American democracy, common sense, and the value of the principles of private property and respect to human dignity and individual rights. The weakness is the permissiveness and lack of moral stamina, which, if you are a religious person, could be interpreted as probably alienation from religion, alienation from God. Thinking too much in materialistic terms, thinking in a short span of time for pragmatic advantages, disregarding the perspective of civilization. Some philosopher, I forget his name, I was a bad student in Moscow, said that the level of civilization is in direct proportion to the time span that a human being thinks in for the future. The least civilized people live today, this minute. The more civilized nations think about tomorrow, 10 years from now, 100 years from now. This is one of the definitions. Unfortunately, Americans are made to think in shorter and shorter time spans. This is the greatest weakness. So, therefore, enjoy life and make love, not war. I think that willpower and revitalization of traditional moral values and principles is the most desirable thing now today. The sooner the better. The things that the principles and values on which the affluence and success of American civilization depend and are based upon should be immediately revitalized and brought back to school programs, to media, and let's face it, propaganda. I'm not afraid of this word, unlike the left-liberal journalists who think, "Oh, well, it's propaganda." I don't see anything wrong in propagating the basic moral principles and values on which America is built. Willpower, faith, unshakable faith that this country, this civilization is right, and the enemy is wrong. No amount or no number of nuclear warheads and no size of the army will help the United States to survive, whether there's nuclear war or conventional warfare. Vietnam proved very clearly that with all the technology, with all the supersonic bombers and napalm and whatnot, electronic gadgets, and cold beer and Coca-Cola, you cannot defeat an enemy unless you are fighting and have faith in the righteousness of your fight. So that's the most urgent thing, I think. Wake up and convince yourself that you are on the right side. There should not be any neutralism or objectivity. Objectivity is good when you are discussing philosophical concepts. In today's world, if you are neutral, you are already an enemy of your own country. You have to actively take part of your country, your side. One of the reasons of my defection is that I took sides. I decided to take part, to make my own personal choice. For some strange reason, today it's very fashionable, it's considered to be intellectual not to take sides. Academic media, must, academic circles, Hollywood stars, politicians, they think it's very fashionable, it's intellectual to be non-aligned, non-committed, neutral. It's not intellectual. It's suicidal.

Okay, I'll start with a short explanation. I'm going to show you some slides. Now, the things that you're going to see, there's nothing new actually. They're reproductions from various media organs in the United States, USSR. Probably you see these pictures 100 times a day. I'm going to give you a very different viewpoint on the same things, same facts that you see and probably don't take much trouble to understand and think what you are seeing. I don't know if you heard my introduction. And I'm an ideological subverter. Yes. From Russia. Okay. Okay. The idea of showing the slides to you is just to provoke questions in your mind, and later on, if you still have patience with me, I will explain how exactly the system of ideological indoctrination and subversion works.

Well, we know that we are living in a time of peace, and we know that the recent walkout from the Geneva talks by the Soviets is centered around the nuclear arms and rockets. We don't see much about the Soviet preparedness, the Soviet viewpoint on military strategy. Well, this is a selection of pictures, only pictures. Confucius said that one picture tells more than a thousand words. These pictures are from everyday newspapers in USSR. This is what a Soviet citizen looks upon every day. Basically, this is a militaristic spirit. Pictures of foreign delegates observing the rockets passing the Red Square. The idea of invasion, unlike in the United States, is not being criticized by the Soviet media at all. On the contrary, it's being forcefully encouraged. From the age of say, five or six years old, every Soviet student or schoolboy has to go through military training. This is a picture from a special military school where young kids, well, maybe four or five years old, are being trained to be future officers of the Soviet army. That's what they do when they grow up. These are the Soviet sailors, navy officers in a foreign country. We criticize a lot American presence in foreign countries. But we never criticize and we never pay too much attention about these planes landing with ammunition and firearms in, say, countries like Ethiopia. These are the pictures in Time magazine which probably you've seen and then forgotten about it. These are the Soviet tanks on foreign territory. Are there any protest demonstrations in Los Angeles or New York City? No. These are the Soviet military advisors. Nobody tells them, "Russians, go home."

How it starts? The media obviously plays a great role. This is a political cartoon from a Western newspaper. You see, it was published sometime after the Second World War. These four columns of peace. Pay attention to whom they are being erected. Roosevelt on the left, Churchill on the right, and Stalin in the middle. A peacemaker Stalin. Okay, this is another thing. Chicago Tribune, January 1945. "Destiny's Child: New Year '45 is Born." Look who is looking with love and affection. Churchill, Roosevelt, Chiang Kai-shek, and Stalin. And this is how the Soviet media describes Churchill as a warmonger. Is Gusta, Moscow, 1951. This is how the Soviet media presents American militarism linked with Nazism. This is how the Soviet media illustrates South African colonialism. Not much different from a political cartoon in the New York Times or Los Angeles Times. Matter of fact, almost similar growth of inflation due to military expenses. Political cartoon from Pravda, the newspaper. It could be published as it is in the Los Angeles Times. Nobody would wonder. NATO is criticized by the Soviet media, but so it is by the American media. Law and order justifying the former military criminals.

This picture, this is what a number of books which I selected in an average university bookstore. Most of them are left-wing propaganda. Erich Fromm's "May Man Prevail?", "The China Story" of course, from the viewpoint of the left. Lenin's work "How to Deal with Communists" by a former ambassador to USSR. Marx and Engels, Lenin, Herbert Marcuse, the communist movement. These are the books which are included in the list of reading for an average student of political science department in any college of Canada or United States. These are the books which are on sale in United States and Canada. Soviet propaganda. These are the booklets and magazines published by Novosti Press Agency, for which I worked for 12 years. No restriction for these booklets. I found them on the campus of Toronto University. Most half of these books I edited myself when I was working for Novosti in Moscow.

This is a very interesting thing. It doesn't say much unless I explain what it is. These are the seals attached to crates of books imported from USSR to Montreal. As you can easily see, the seal is unbroken, which means that the customs in Canada didn't bother to see what's inside. And as I know from my personal experience, we used to import machine guns, AK-47, and ammunition through India to Bangladesh in exactly the same crates, signed "Printed Matter," to Dhaka University.

This is what the editor of Time magazine suggests you to read at the time of invasion, I mean, the fall of Southeast Asia to communists. Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago" is on the bottom of the list, according to the editor's choice. Why on the bottom of the list? These are the books which are never included in the list of compulsory reading in any university or college in the United States or Canada. Look what the student is missing. "The Death of Stalin," "Childhood in Prison," "Ferment in Ukraine," "Russian Secret Service," "The Great Terror." These are the books which, for some strange reason, Americans are denied the freedom and right to read. "Why America is in Global Retreat?" Have you ever seen this book on a campus? No. Of course not. I know that. Anthony Sutton's "National Suicide." Have you ever had a chance to read that book? Oh, you had?

This is another very interesting thing. A description of how drugs penetrate into Western society, originated in the communist world. For some strange reason, that textbook is never included in the list of compulsory reading for students of political science or international affairs. This is the book written by a former member of the Communist Party in Czechoslovakia explaining the tactics of subversion. For some strange reason, it was not published in the United States or Canada. The author had to pay for the publication himself after defecting to the West.

This is another interesting example. "Exoneration and Ultimate" written by Richard Romer, a science fiction novel about the invasion of the United States into Canada to expropriate the oil and natural gas resources in that neighboring friendly nation. Why it took invasion? I don't understand. 51% or more of the companies already belong to the United States in Canada, as probably you know already. Who is the author? Richard Romer is a dynamic and dedicated exponent of the needs of potential. And so anyway, he's a friend of Pierre Trudeau, a former military officer. And what he writes is something that Andropov probably would be very happy about. He describes a situation when the only thing that saves Canada from United States military occupation is a call from Andropov to the President of the United States, threatening him with the reply or the military answer to an invasion of Canada by the United States. And this is written by a close friend of Pierre Trudeau, a politician, a former military man. Why is he a paranoid, or am I a paranoid?

These are the three books published almost simultaneously, sometime in the middle of the '70s. "CIA and the Cult of Intelligence," "CIA Diary" by Philip Agee, and "The KGB" by John Barron. I tried to buy "The KGB," but it was not in the bookstores of Canada or United States. The previous two books on the left were. This is the author of the most anti-American book, the defector to the communist side, Philip Agee. He's alive. Nobody's threatening his life. Nobody is poisoning him with a poisoned umbrella. This is, you know who, he's criticizing CIA for developing a gun to kill communist agents, and he tries to present it as a crime on behalf of the United States intelligence agency. Why is it a crime to defend you from communist agents and to develop a secret gun which is silent? Is there any logic? I don't see any. This is the fellow who also criticizes the United States CIA for developing technical means of bugging USSR embassies on the territory of the United States. Why not? I don't see any reason why not. But Montale obviously does. He knows better. These are the authors who published lists of American agents stationed all over the world. They are alive. They, they actually they made quite a lot of money on that publication. And this is the victim. The chief of CIA in Greece was killed when the book of the previous two Americans was published. This fellow is dead. The other two are not.

Siberia, 1971, was visited by a group of politicians from Canada. Then this is the report about that visit. This is the group. We're shaking hands with the Soviet ambassador. This is a Soviet technical miracle. A pipeline on the permafrost or something. In other words, what Canadians were doing in the early '60s is presented to the Canadian public as an achievement, a great technological achievement in USSR. This is the route of their travel in Siberia. The Canadians covered that much distance. Please remember that map. I will come back to that question. This is a book published by a Canadian author, Farley Mowat. By the way, "Never Cry Wolf," a movie which is made on the basis of Farley Mowat's book. He's a nice fellow, drinks a lot of vodka. He was a guest of Novosti Press Agency, which I was working for. This is another book written by Farley Mowat after returning from Siberia. He was accompanied by a person like myself, a Novosti Press Agency journalist. Glorification of Siberia. This is what an Oh, this is the route I promised you to come back to that map which Farley Mowat, a Canadian progressive writer, covered when he was in USSR. This is what he makes Canadians to believe Siberia looks like. It does. Of course, Baikal Lake is a very beautiful natural phenomenon, and nicely dressed Soviet Eskimos or Chukchi, I don't know, some ethnic minorities, friendly talking to each other in fluent English. They have nice motels somewhere in the middle of Siberia, huge hydroelectric projects. It is true it is built, but they never mention by whom. And this is what I eventually wanted to show you. These are the two routes. First one in red ink by Canadian government delegation, in blue ink by the author Farley Mowat, accompanied by Novosti. The black dots are locations of Soviet concentration camps. These people were shown the places where slave labor is being used by the Soviet government. If you call them government, I call them a junta, mass murderers. But there is not a single mention, not a word that those beautiful electric stations were built by slave labor. This is what the Canadian reader will never see in the report by Canadian politicians or the progressive writer Farley Mowat.

You say, "Well, that's Russia. This is not a kindergarten. This is a prison for children of prisoners." These are the houses. If an American contractor would build a house like that, I think he will end up in jail. But this is what is being shown to some naive foreigners as achievements of Soviet technology. Naturally, if you follow the editor's choice and advice, you will never understand that the description, the most detailed description of the Soviet concentration camp system is put on the bottom of the list. You say, "Well, maybe in USSR, the concentration camp is nothing surprising." Well, this is a concentration camp in Southeast Asia, in Cambodia. Same thing. Slave labor. This is what happens to slave laborers when they don't obey the orders. They are being executed, not by firing squad, because bullets are too expensive, by shovels, crushing skulls. This is the victory of communism for you. This is what happens to their children. And this is the originator of this slaughterhouse. Cambodian Premier Pol Pot during an interview with Time magazine. Very nice, plump, fatherly image. You are made to believe that the Holocaust that happened during the Second World War is something that may happen again. It may, but the originator of it may not necessarily be the Nazis. We don't have any Nazi submarines roaming around the shores of the United States and Canada. We have liberation forces. That's what Holocaust, this is happening right now, after the so-called national liberation movement. This is a still from a movie, "Holocaust," a television production. The Nazis are shooting the prisoners, the Jews. We are made to... well, it's horrible. Of course, there's no denial. It happened many years ago. And the tactic which I will explain to you later, if you have patience with me, is sidetracking your opinion from the present danger to the past. From this. This is present time. This is past time. This is happening right now in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Is there any movie about the Holocaust which happens now? No.

This is what happens in Rhodesia before it became Zimbabwe. It's a black girl, by the way, not a white man. This is the result of the socialist movement. These people were killed by those who are now in power in Zimbabwe, and we call them Reverend Bishops or whatever. This is the supply of Soviet arms to Rhodesia before it turned into Zimbabwe. And this is a very interesting picture. A poor South African is showing his internal passport, saying that there's no freedom and he has to live wherever he's assigned to live by the police. For some strange reason, not a single media outlet in the United States makes a comparison, because in Russia, every citizen has a passport like that. And the Asian ethnics in USSR do not have the right to live in those areas which are designed for the whites, and the other way around. But we are getting emotional about this passport. Why not about the Soviet passport? The answer is in the wind. How they sing in the wind.

Okay. The feeling of guilt. Open any magazine. There are lots of pictures like that. Hungry people asking for your dollar donation. Think about it. Emma De Leon has no one else to turn to except you. See how many pictures I collected them within one week. And who helps them? Rock stars, through the United Nations, UNICEF. And how do they use this money? They buy arms. Have you noticed that countries like the Philippines never ask for donations? Why? Because they have a free market system. Oh yes, they have military dictatorship, oppression of civil rights. But for some strange reason, only those countries which are already liberated by Marxists are asking for your donations. Why? And when they get these donations, will you be my friend? This is what Time magazine wants you to think. If not, the implication is this is what's going to happen. Puzi, when white miners stationed in this small African country were murdered by so-called national liberation movement, this is the result. Raped and murdered after your donations. And who is supporting these movements? Of course, United Nations. Okay, we'll come later on to the question of semantic manipulation. Everybody knows that the United Nations is not united and it's not nations. But please continue to call. I don't know how many people notice the striking similarity between the emblem of the United Nations and the emblem of the USSR. You think it's a coincidence? The symbolism is obvious, unless you are blind, of course. And the creator of the United Nations charter is an American, Alger Hiss, standing next to Comrade Molotov, sitting there on the left. We know he was a Soviet spy, but he's at large now. Alger Hiss, he's a lawyer, a respected citizen of the United States, a former Soviet spy. Well, you know this guy is Daniel Ellsberg. He published secret papers of the Pentagon. Why not of the Soviet military-industrial complex? He's a respected citizen of the United States. Dr. Spock, "Agony of Vietnam." I forget what's his name. Oh, yeah. How many men has to die before they understand? I don't remember the lyrics of the song, but it was a very impressive song. When I was a Soviet student, I almost cried when I listened to that. I thought, my God, what a nice fellow. John Baez, very nice couple of kids. Fonda, she was crying on location in Vietnam, beautifully filmed by American Hollywood correspondent, I mean, filmmakers. What is she doing now? Did she ever defend both people? Did she say a word in defense of Vietnamese or say about horrors of coming out of this? No. She's busy preaching health or whatever, and also she takes part in demonstrations against South African racism. Not about this, and not about this. These are liberation movement warriors. Jane Fonda didn't say anything about that racism. A black killed by blacks simply because he's anti-communist. That's just a symbolic picture.

Okay, now, next thing I'm going to show you some slides which are also not sensational, but may provoke some questions in your mind. Maybe not. Okay, the more questions you have, the better, because we'll come to a systematic explanation of the phenomenon later. Now I want you just to get excited. Hollywood actress talking to Fidel Castro. Nothing wrong, of course, depends what is the message or what's the subject of talking. I bet you never heard about this fellow. He's an American singer, Dean Reed. He's singing in Moscow for some strange reason. And you know what? He's singing about oppression, civil rights in the USA, and about poor Americans who cannot survive.

Well, I don't want to be too critical of the Pope of the Catholic Church, but some statements which he made at the earlier years of his becoming a pontiff of the Catholic Church were strikingly unpleasant to me. Communism and church can coexist, can they? Well, you should ask Russian Orthodox priests who were literally exterminated by Soviet communists. Communism and church can coexist? I don't think so. Catholic Times. I collected this newspaper in a Catholic church which I attend, although I'm an Orthodox Christian, as Russians most of them are, but I do come to Catholic church because my wife is a Catholic. So I don't see much difference because God, I suppose, is one, so Jesus Christ is also the same. Whichever church you go, but Christians and socialism is something that doesn't really appeal to me. I don't know how about you. "Social justice central to gospel?" Is it? I never heard about it. Joined with Marxists. It's from the same newspaper, and that's how they joined with Marxists. Nicaragua before Sandinistas came to power, a priest with a machine gun behind his back, and the machine gun, of course, Kalashnikov, if you know anything about machine guns.

Okay, then there are some strange deviations from the religious path. What's his name? Jim Jones. Reverend, nice-looking guy with adopted kids and shaking hands with the politician, Mayor George Moscone, in 1976. Very nice. That's how it all ended. You remember more than 900 people who poisoned themselves together with their kids in Guyana. This is a very interesting picture. It's not very clear. Instead of Jesus Christ, they put a naked lady, you know, in the church. Strange, of course, it's strange. Crucifix of a woman for Pound Sunday. Boy, Jesus Christ would turn in his grave if he were in a grave.

Now, this is something that also indicates some strange occurrences within the framework of organized religion. "Struggle," a paper with hammer and sickle published by a Canadian group of Trotskyites, very dynamic, extremely radical group. They challenge the question, "Whose democracy is this?" meaning that Canadian democracy is not democracy at all, simply because that radical group is challenged by the local police. Right, so nothing new, we know about this. But look where this paper is being distributed. "Political Repression," Friday, October. B Street, United Church. Strange, huh? See, this is the same leaflet enlarged. This is another thing. President Carter handed over an antique crown belonged to the Church of Hungary to the present communist regime of Hungary. Why? I don't understand. To make them friendlier to the church? I doubt it.

Feminist movement. I don't know how you feel about feminism. I don't think that to be equal with men, you have to politicize your movement. You cannot legislate equality. You have to be equal. But that distracts your mind from real issues of family loyalty and moral foundations. And they make great political capital on that. First lady of the United States sitting to the to some kind of, I forget what her name was, exposing her tits to the media. I mean, this is. And by the so by by.

The American media standards. This is something normal, acceptable. A First Lady of the United States together with a lady who burns her bra. I don't know. Well, ladies in the army, of course. I don't know what your opinion is. I, I never heard about girls in the Soviet army, especially in the infantry force, simply because when they have their period, that may create a problem for invasion of, say, Afghanistan again. The homosexualism. I, to be honest, me personally, I don't like the idea of homosexuality. I think it's unhygienic. But, but homosexuality in the army, making heroes of them, gays on the march. Why? Why to have a population in a natural manner deserve public opinion, attention, and political force? Why to politicize something which doesn't belong to politics at all? In Russian, in the Soviet Union, we have a joke: "Don't mix politics and prostitution." They are already mixed. We know perfectly well this. The medical science proves that homosexuality leads to distortion in human psychology. This fellow killed 15 kids after molesting them sexually. We know that most of the agents who were recruited by the KGB, including Maclean and Guy Burgess, were homosexuals. But we are reading in the media that this is something acceptable. More than that, we are made to believe that these people deserve equal rights and respect.

Well, that again is a debatable question whether to like or not to like a certain type of music. Me personally, I don't. These two nice ladies, one is younger, the other is a little bit older. Both of them wanted, for some strange reason, to shoot the President of the United States, defending the environment of the United States, the green trees and vegetation. Why does it take the President of the United States to defend the environment? I don't understand. If you do, please explain. Then, of course, glorifying all kinds of national liberation leaders, we naturally provoke our own kids to go into some strange liberation movement. You know who I'm talking about. This is the girl who was abducted by terrorists and then she became a terrorist herself. A daughter of a wealthy publisher. Naturally, there are thousands, millions of kids who loved, adored her courage. This is Comrade Carlos. You know who he was. He was trained and educated in Lumumba University, where I was teaching Russian language to the likes of him. That's the result of the activity when they come back home. Aldo Moro was killed by Red Army terrorists who wanted to liberate Italians from something. I don't know, from whom. These are the persons who were part of the Baader-Meinhof gang. And this is a person who also liberates someone from someone. I don't exactly know, obviously Indians from whites in the United States. But pay attention to what he holds in his hand. It's a Kalashnikov AK-47. I know it by heart. I can put it apart with my eyes closed. War and terrorism. Does it exist apart from verbal war?

This is what I have collected on a campus in Canada, Colton University, Ottawa. Left-wing tabloids. That's how they instill in the minds of people, young people, that to fight is the only way. Violence, death is the only way to achieve rights of Palestinian people, other people, Quebec separatists, and jobs and peace. Obviously, you cannot get a job if you spend all your time walking up and down streets with posters like that. You have to go to places where the jobs are. And of course, to find a job, the most unsuccessful way to find a job is to read papers like that. Don't feel like working.

This is something else. This is a Playboy magazine. Probably you heard the story about Larry Flynt. How successful is he to attract attention of the media and public opinion by doing crazy things, getting involved in court cases of the car manufacturer. Why he wants to do it, I don't know. But what he does attracts some strange mass attention. Playboy magazine makes jokes about Russian sex. That's the image they want to present to American people. But they don't explain to American people that the process of demoralization is not a question of a joke.

This is Portugal after socialists came to power. On your left is a prostitute who was imported from East Germany to Lisbon. A communist prostitute in a country which just had its successful socialist revolution. Very interesting. What for? To make money? No, I'll tell you later. On the right, pornographic literature in a country with strong Catholic moral principles. Well, I don't know how many people of you like to drink alcohol. I did. But I noticed that some ads in magazines have some strange desire to joke about alcohol, and the jokes are closely related to the justification of Soviet Russian presence. A prominent Russian joined the secret service. Something to joke about while you drink vodka. I don't see any humor in that. Do you?

Okay. This is a number of advertisements for alcohol for which Canadians get into hot water. Comes the revolution. Anyone can drink McInnes vodka. Alberta vodka is superimposed on the picture of the cruiser battleship Aurora. I don't know how many of you know that this is a historical relic in the USSR. The revolution, communist Bolshevik revolution, started with a cannon fired from that battleship. And obviously, the Soviet embassy was insulted. So they sent a protest note to Pierre Trudeau, and the picture was removed from the magazine.

When I was teaching at Colton University in Ottawa, my superiors forced me to do an IQ test with two groups of my students. The idea was to answer about 100 questions, to give an answer: yes, no, or undecided. The more undecided or negative answers you give, the more, according to the compilers of this test, you are adaptable and useful to society. The more positive answers you give, the more questionable is your adaptability and usefulness for your country. This is an explanation of how to score, how to count the scores. And now see the questions. "Telling a dirty joke is bad." "A good soldier is a patriot." Yes, no, or undecided. Think about it. "Every communist should be run out of the country." Yes, no, or undecided. "The Bible is the greatest source of truth." Right. "God is everywhere." "A person who kills another person is a murderer." Yes, no, or undecided. Okay. Now, if you don't believe me, come, let's come back. See, I want to repeat to you once again the conditions of the scoring. The more undecided and negative answers you give, the more you are adaptable and flexible and useful for society. Do you understand what they are doing to kids? Okay, they're doing two things at a time. They teach them moral relativism. They teach them how to lie to get a greater score because obviously a child would say, if a person kills another person, he is a murderer. But for the sake of getting a higher score, obviously a student would put "no" or "undecided." So you teach your kid how to lie to be successful and to look adaptable and useful for society.

Well, obviously I had to do that test. But I added one more question to that thing. My own question. I said, "What kind of society you are going to be useful to?" And most of my students gave me an excellent answer. They said, "A society where there is no moral principle, no respect to God, love, family, and working ethics." Very simple. They are not that stupid. Here we are. Comrade Brezhnev. Now, this is a picture from a Soviet magazine. Obviously, Soviet media tries to project their leaders in the most respectful way, very impressive, very fatherly, very serious person. There's nothing surprising. What else is new? Of course. But this is Time magazine, an American magazine. The caption is not quite clear, but it says, basically, that Comrade Brezhnev doesn't give an interview to Time magazine. The message is clear. He's a positive, caring person. He's too busy to take care of the world's problems and economic problems in Russia. It's a very humorous caption. But nevertheless, the impact, if you are not quite concerned about politics, what is your impression about this nice gentleman? Nice, smiling, tired. Well, and this is how media presents your leaders. I don't know whether he deserves to be presented like that or not. This is a different question.

This is the Prime Minister of Great Britain about 10 years ago, together with The Beatles. You may or may not like The Beatles. Me personally, I don't like them. But a Prime Minister of a country together with entertainers. The Queen, Her Majesty the Queen, knighted The Beatles. A highest honor which previously, in all times, was given only to the most deserving patriots of the British Empire, was given to a bunch of [Applause] monkeys. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing is playing football. He's our guy. He plays piano. No, that never mind what he does for politics or world problems. He's a nice, charming personality. Helmut Schmidt is taking part in a circus performance. Nice, charismatic leader. Never mind what his policies are. He's popular. He's in the section of "People of the Year" in Time magazine. First Lady of the United States together with a pop singer, folk singer. Well, so what? You know, we had a saying in Russia that in old times, clowns were entertaining the royalty. Today, the mightiest of the world think it's a privilege to appear with entertainers. It's just the reverse of the old principle. You know, they are the entertainers of entertainers because they want it for their political career. Ed Kennedy dances in Moscow. Why? I mean, is that his business to go to the USSR? Why doesn't he occupy himself with something more relevant to the urgent problems of the world? He thinks he's going to be popular in America, maybe. But in Russia, they look at him as a schmuck out of [Applause] his Senator McGovern is talking to a gorilla somewhere in Africa. Not a gorilla monkey, but a young member of a national patriotic movement, a movement which is indoctrinated by the Soviets, armed and paid for. He thinks he's smart and he's something to admire. I bet the guys who are standing behind don't think this way at all. Well, Kissinger, just by mistake, is here. Would you buy a second-hand car from us? Pierre Trudeau, Prime Minister of one of the most developed industrial nations, independent nation in the world, is befriended by Fidel Castro. If you remember, Canada never stopped trade relations with Cuba despite the urge from the United States government's administrations to not to sell Cuba's strategic technology and materials. No, he wouldn't listen to the United States. He smiles at Fidel Castro. Meanwhile, his wife, estranged wife Margaret Trudeau, is talking to a rock star. I forget his name. Rolling. That's it. That's him, right? And he's posing for pictures like that. That's the Prime Minister's wife. That's her too, in French Riviera with some Hollywood actor. Why? 50 years ago, for a thing like that, a Prime Minister would have to resign. It's a shame for a nation. Not anymore.

Okay, now the tantrum. It's another debatable question. Why are we so happy, Comrade Nixon? What is so funny? I would like to ask here. Smile again. Why? He's standing next to a mass murderer and he's smiling. Why? Pierre Trudeau also attentively listens to Comrade Brezhnev. I don't know what. West German Chancellor is helping Comrade Brezhnev to stand up because the senile leader of Russia is unable to stand up without Western aid. Oh, you may say, well, it's West Germans. They're too close to Russia. Probably they do it just in case. Okay, here's the same thing. Carter is helping. The President of the mightiest empire, mightiest power in the world, United States, is helping Comrade Brezhnev. You remember the incident when Brezhnev almost stumbled down the staircase somewhere in Vienna, of course, and thanks to Carter, he didn't fall. Andrew Young is talking to a dictator in Africa again. McGovern, I think, is talking to August, a Soviet puppet in Rwanda. Why is it so necessary to be friendly, to smile at each other?

Now we're coming to space, from Earth to space. Clouds over the space program. Why clouds? Mind you, this is after three or four successful landings on the moon. Why clouds? Okay, here are two pictures. Left, Soviet cosmonauts walking into the Kremlin Hall for a ceremonious reception. On the right, two American astronauts casually watch TV. On the top, Soviet police bureau talking to the space pilots on orbit. On the lower picture, Lyndon Johnson with, I think that's Glenn, you know, an American space pilot. Now, even if you don't know anything about the theory of information, the comparison, mind you, this is a French magazine. It's not Soviet propaganda. The comparison of the size of the pictures gives you the message already. What is more important? What is more impressive? Here, a picture from a Soviet newspaper, Pravda. A Soviet schoolboy compares two replicas of Soviet spacecraft and American Apollo. Friendship in space. The found right. Pay attention to the size of the spacecrafts. They are almost identical. Right? Now, this is what the size is, almost actual size. The American spacecraft is on the left. It's almost twice as big as the Soviet one, right? Okay. This is a Soviet picture. This is an American picture with true sizes. Okay. You say, well, Soviet media, of course, tries to diminish the successes of the American space program. Now, this is an American media. On the left, a Soviet moon walker or Soviet probe on the moon. On the right side, an American space rover, as they say it, actually used on the surface of the moon. The sizes are almost identical. Right? Wrong. The thing on the left is the size of a tea kettle. In other words, about 100 times smaller. But Time magazine does not explain it to the readers. An average person in the United States has the impression that the junk on the left is as important and as successful as the masterpiece of technology produced by American mind and ingenuity.

Okay, you remember Skylab? There was a time when it was just about to fall down on the United States or any other country, and the Pentagon was very worried. There were pictures, there were discussions on TV. Some strange characters even started joking about it. See the Skylab target. Lot of emotions expressed about the failure of the United States' Skylab. Lot of bitter opinions were expressed about the unnecessary spending on space research. But when a Soviet nuclear-powered satellite fell on the territory of Canada, there were no protest demonstrations. There were nothing like that. Nowhere in the world. Ask yourself why. According to some information, this was not a satellite at all. It was a flying atomic bomb. Canadians spent something like $15 million just to find the junk on their own territory. Thank God it fell in uninhabited areas of Canada, the Northwest Territories, where only penguins live. Oh, what if it fell on Toronto? A flying nuclear bomb. Boy, but no protests here.

Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin happily looking at the linking of American and Soviet spacecraft in, where, in the American ground control center. This is a picture from Time magazine. This is also a picture from Time magazine. Soviet citizens are watching the same moment, linking of spacecraft. Think about it. Compare here, happiness on the right, American representative of NASA, and Brezhnev, very happy. That's how ordinary Soviet citizens think about the farce in space. They understand perfectly well that linking spacecraft in space is just a fake. It doesn't mean anything. Look at their faces. They are sad. A dream was realized. Was it worth the price? Pessimistic question, right? After all the successes of the American space program, the media, the media tries to instill in your mind doubt, pessimism. Why?

Oh, this is a frog. I don't know how much you know about frogs. I'll tell you that a frog can see a mosquito only if it moves across the area of its vision. If a mosquito quietly sits on a grass blade, the frog doesn't notice it. That's the attitude of American media. They do not notice a problem unless it moves and moves close to Hilton, where they station. These are the people who may file a suit against me if I call them liars, but that's exactly what they are. They've been lying to you for years and years about the situation in Vietnam, in Russia. They were selling commercials, deodorizers, and cars. And they sold you rotten information, disinformation of what happens in the world. They have a vision of a frog, but they look like semi-gods to you. And if I challenge their credibility, probably the people will call me a paranoid or a very nasty person. I may be a nasty person, but that's my opinion. I was a person who used to take these people for a ride when I was working for the Soviet side.

Okay, if you don't believe me, here is one of the most conservative news, conservative newspapers. In this particular case, it's a Canadian newspaper, The Globe and Mail, editorial page. Nothing, nothing special, right? "The Malaise of Liberal Democracies." "Saving BH," former President of Pakistan, called priority. And then there is another article on the right here. "US Out to Dominate Pacific," Russians claim. Well, obviously somebody's opinion, right? Nothing unusual for an average reader. Russians claim that the United States ought to dominate the Pacific. The idea is that, well, the United States is obviously aggressive and they want to dominate something, and Russians are unhappy about it. Somebody says, you read an article and probably you may agree or disagree, but you have a feeling the message of urgency. The nasty Americans again out to dominate the Pacific. Now look who is the author. Alexandra Malishkin, Novosti Press Agency. Not a word. Who is Malishkin and what is Novosti Press Agency? An average reader will accept this article as a legitimate overt expression of an ordinary journalist. It is not an opinion. It's a fabrication by an extension of the KGB, Novosti Press Agency's organization, for which I worked for 12 years. This is the highest example of dishonesty and disinformation. Just one line more would explain to an average reader what it is that he's reading. But alas, there is no explanation.

Now, this is the monument to Mother Russia in former Stalingrad. Now it is vulgar. The statue is designed to instill a feeling of patriotism and, I don't know what else, pride, maybe for the motherland. These are the pictures of construction of high-rise apartments in Moscow. Glorious achievement of Soviet technology. Caviar as an average staple food of Russians. These are the minks and furs that Soviet citizens wear. You know, that's how they look when they relax. Fat, nice ladies. You know, you think it's Soviet propaganda. No, comrades. This is also some fashions, latest fashions from Russia, right from the Kremlin for an average Soviet housewife. Well, obviously, it doesn't take much intelligence to understand that this is not quite true, and obviously it has something to do with Soviet propaganda. The myths and the realities of the KGB. You see, from Stalin to Kosygin. "The Myth and the Realities" by Ariel Harmon, a former ambassador of the United States to the USSR. Very complimenting article to the Soviet system. And this is where it comes from. You thought it was from a Soviet magazine, right? No, it's from Look magazine, an American magazine, which published that crap. If you don't believe me, I'll tell you that I was a person who accompanied a group of journalists from Look magazine when they came to Moscow on invitation from Novosti. I made them to publish that thing for which I was awarded. I received a bonus, a free ticket to Italy for a week.

Now, this looks like sheer high-class idiocy, but unfortunately, this is exactly what happened. It didn't take me much effort to convince the Americans, to tell the American journalist from Look magazine, to bring back this magazine, to dedicate the whole issue to the glorious anniversary of the Soviet revolution. This is what you were reading in your American magazine. This is how an average American perceived the Soviet way of life. A happy Soviet citizen. This is what an average girl in Russia wears. This is what they eat and drink. This is how they build their apartment houses. And this is how they are fiercely patriotic. Amazing. Anyway, so I will explain to you how it all happens. The last two pictures, I will not comment. I want you simply to look close into these [Laughter] eyes. This is the person who wants to liberate you. Wanted, at least not anymore. He's dead. But there are many other people with the same type of eyes. If I were a deeply religious person, my answer to that picture would be: these are the eyes of a Satan. Nice fellow, right? United Nations celebrated, back in 1969, I think, the 100th anniversary of his birthday, the greatest leader of mankind. God forbid us to have leaders like that. Well, that's all. Oh, [Applause] subversion is the term. If you look in a dictionary or criminal code, to that matter, it's usually explained as a part of activity to destroy things like religion, government system, political, economic system of a country, and usually it's linked to espionage and such romantic things as blowing up bridges, sidetracking trains, cloak-and-dagger activity in Hollywood style. When what I'm going to talk about now has absolutely nothing to do with the cliché of espionage or KGB activity of collecting information. So the greatest mistake or misconception, I think, is that whenever we are talking about the KGB, for some strange reason, starting from Hollywood movie makers to professors of political science and "quote unquote" experts on Soviet affairs or Kremlinologists, as they call themselves, they think that the most desirable thing for Andropov and the whole KGB is to steal blueprints of some supersonic jet, bring it back to the Soviet Union and sell it to the Soviet military-industrial complex. It's only partly true. If we take the whole time, money, and manpower that the Soviet Union and the KGB in particular spends outside of USSR borders, we will discover, of course, there are no official statistics unlike with the CIA or FBI, that espionage as such occupies only 10 to 15% of the money, time, and manpower, 15% of the activity of the KGB. The rest, 85%, is always subversion. And unlike a dictionary of English, Oxford dictionary, subversion in Soviet terminology means always a destructive, aggressive activity aimed to destroy the country, nation, or geographical area of your enemy. So there's no romance in there. Absolutely no blowing up bridges, no microfilms in Coca-Cola cans, nothing of that sort. No James Bond nonsense. It's most of this activity is overt, legitimate, and easily observable if you give yourself time and trouble to observe it. But according to the law and law enforcement systems of Western civilization, it's not a crime. Exactly. Because of misconception, manipulation of terms. We think that a subverter is a person who is going to blow up our beautiful bridges. No, a subverter is a student who comes for exchange, a diplomat, an actor, an artist, a journalist like myself was 10 years ago. Now, subversion is an activity which is a two-way traffic. You cannot subvert an enemy which doesn't want to be subverted. If you know the history of Japan, for example, before the 20th century, Japan was a closed society. The moment a foreign boat comes to the shores of Japan, the Imperial Japanese army politely tells them to get lost. And if an American salesman comes to the shore of Japan, let's say 60 or 70 years from now back, and says, "Oh, I have a very beautiful vacuum cleaner for you, you know, with good financing." He says, "Please leave us. We don't need your vacuum cleaner." If they don't leave, they shoot them to preserve their culture, ideology, traditions, values intact. You were not able to subvert Japan. You cannot subvert the Soviet Union because the borders are closed. The media is censored by the government. The population is controlled by the KGB and internal police. With all the beautiful glossy pictures of Time magazine and magazine America, which is published by the American embassy in Moscow, you cannot subvert Soviet citizens because the magazine never reaches Soviet citizens. It's collected from the newsstands and thrown into the garbage can. Subversion can be only successful when the initiator, the actor, the act, the agent of subversion has a responsive target. It's a two-way traffic. United States is a receptive target of subversion. There is no response similar to that one from the United States to the Soviet Union. It stops halfway somewhere. It never reaches here.

The theory of subversion goes all the way back 2,500 years ago. The first human being who formulated the tactics of subversion was a Chinese philosopher by the name of Sun Tzu, 3,500 years BC. He was an advisor for several imperial courts in ancient China, and he said after long meditation that to implement state policy in a warlike manner is the most counterproductive, barbaric, and inefficient. To fight on a battlefield, you know that war is a continuation of state policy, right? So if you want successfully to implement your state policy and you start fighting, this is the most idiotic way to do it. The highest art of warfare is not to fight at all, but to subvert anything of value in the country of your enemy until such time that the perception of reality of your enemy is screwed up to such an extent that he does not perceive you as an enemy, and that your system, your civilization, and your ambitions look to your enemy as an alternative. If not desirable, then at least visible, "better read than dead." That's the ultimate purpose, the final stage of subversion, after which you can simply take your enemy without a single shot being fired, if the subversion is successful. This is basically what subversion is. As you see, not a single mentioning of blowing up bridges. Of course, Sun Tzu didn't know about blowing up bridges. Maybe there were not that many bridges at that time. But the basics of subversion are being taught to every student of KGB school in USSR and to officers of military academies. I'm not sure if the same author is included in the list of reading for American officers, to say nothing about ordinary students of political science. I had difficulty to find the translation of Sun Tzu in the library of a university in Toronto and later on here in Los Angeles. But it's a book which is not available. It is forced to every student in USSR. Every student who is taught to be dealing further in his future career with foreigners.

What subversion is, basically, it consists of four periods, timewise. If we start from here and go this way, time, right? This is the beginning point. The first stage of subversion is the process which is called basically demoralization. It says for itself what it is. It takes from, say, 15 to 20 years to demoralize a society. Why? Why 15 or 20 years? This is the time sufficient to educate one generation of students or children. One generation, one lifetime span of a person, a human being, which is dedicated to study, to shaping up the outlook, ideology, personality, no more, no less. Usually, it takes from 15 to 20 years. What it includes? It includes influencing, by various methods, infiltration, propaganda methods, direct contacts, doesn't really matter. I will describe them later, of various areas where public opinion is formulated or shaped: religion, educational system, social life, administration, law enforcement system, military, of course, and labor and employer relations, economy. Okay, five areas. I will not write them down because we will not have enough space. Sometimes, when I describe all the methods, students ask me a question: "Are you sure this is the result of Soviet influence?" Not necessarily. You see, the tactic of subversion about which I'm talking is similar to the martial art, the Japanese martial art. If some of you are familiar with that tactic, probably you will remember that if an enemy is bigger and heavier than yourself, it would be very painful to resist his direct strike. If a heavier person wants to strike me in the face, it would be very naive and counterproductive to stop his blow. The Chinese and Japanese Judo art tells us what to do. First, to avoid the strike, then to grab the fist and continue his movement in the direction where it was before, right? Until the enemy crashes into the wall. You see? So what happens here? The target country obviously does something wrong. If it's a free democratic society, there are many different movements within the society. There obviously, in every society, there are people who are against this society. They may be simple criminals, ideologically in disagreement with the state policy, conscientious enemies, simply psychotic personalities who are against anything, right? And finally, there are small groups of agents of a foreign nation, bought, subverted, recruited, right? The moment all these movements will be directed in one direction, right? This is the time to catch that movement and to continue it until the movement forces the whole society into collapse, into crisis, right? So that's exactly the martial art tactic. We don't stop an enemy. We let him go. We help him to go in the direction we want him to go. Okay. So on the stage of demoralization, obviously there are tendencies in each society, in each country, which are going in the opposite direction from the basic moral values and principles. To take advantage of these movements, to capitalize on them, is the main purpose of the originator of subversion. So we have religion, we have education, we have social life, we have power structure, we have labor relations, unions, and finally, we have law and order. One, two, three, four, five, six. Okay, these are the areas of application of subversion. What it means exactly in case of religion: destroy it, ridicule it, replace it with various sects, cults which bring people's attention, faith, whether it is naive, primitive, doesn't really matter, as long as the basically accepted religious dogma is being slowly eroded and taken away from the supreme purpose of religion to keep people in touch with the supreme being, that serves the purpose. Therefore, replace accepted, respected religious organizations with fake organizations. Distract people's attention from the real faith and attract them to various different faiths. Education: distract them from learning something which is constructive, pragmatic, efficient, instead of mathematics, physics, foreign languages, chemistry. Teach them history of urban warfare, natural food, home economy, your sexuality, anything long as it takes you away. Okay, social life. Replace traditionally established institutions and organizations with fake organizations. Take away the initiative from people. Take away the responsibility from naturally established links between individuals, groups of individuals, and society at large, and replace them with artificially, bureaucratically controlled bodies. Instead of social life and friendship between neighbors, establish social worker institutions of people who are on payroll of whom? Society? No, bureaucracy. The main concern of social workers is not your family, not you, not social relations between groups of people. The main concern is to get a paycheck from the government. What will be the result of their social work doesn't really matter. They can develop all kinds of concepts to show to the government and to the people that they are useful. Okay, away from the natural links. Power structure. Okay. The natural bodies of administration which are traditionally either elected by people at large or appointed by elected leaders of society are being actively substituted by artificial bodies. The bodies of people, groups of people whom nobody elected, never. As a matter of fact, most of the people don't like them at all, and yet they exist. One of such groups is the media. Who elected them? How come? How come they have so much power, almost monopolistic power on your mind? They can rape your mind. But who elected them? How come they have the nerve to decide what is good and what is bad for the elected by you president and his administration? Who the hell are they? Spiro Agnew, who was hated by the liberal left, called them a bunch of insufferable snobs, and that's exactly what they are. They think they know. They don't. The level of mediocracy. In a big establishment like The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, major television network, you don't have to be an excellent journalist. You have to be exactly a mediocre journalist. That's easier to survive. There's no competition anymore. You have your good, nice income, $100,000 a year. That's it. Whether you are better or worse doesn't really matter anymore. As soon as you're smiling to the camera and do your job, that's it. No more competition. Power structure is slowly eroded by the bodies and groups of people who do not have neither qualification nor the will of people to keep them in power, and yet they do have power. Okay. Together with that, there is another process. Law enforcement, law and order organization and structure is being eroded for the last 20, 25 years. You, if you see old movies and new movies, you can see that in new movies, a policeman, an officer of the United States Army looks dumb, angry, psychotic, paranoid. A criminal looks nice, kind of, well, he smokes hash and shoots the whatever drug, but basically he's a nice human being. He's creative and he's unproductive only because society oppresses him. Whereby a general of the Pentagon is always by definition a dumb war maniac. A policeman is a pig, rude policeman. He abuses his power. No, a generalization like that. The hatred, the mistrust to the people who are supposed to protect you and enforce law and order. Moral relativity. The Angela Bohnner process lasted two years in Los Angeles. And yet there are still some lawyers who say, "Look, he's a nice character." As a matter of fact, there was some witness who said, also a criminal, who said, "Well, he's a nice guy. I asked him one day to burn the house of my enemy, and he wouldn't do it." It's my spell illusion. A slow substitution of basic moral principles whereby a criminal is not a criminal. Actually, he's a defendant. Even if his guilt is proven, there is still a doubt. To kill or not to kill. To be or not to be. "Thou shalt not kill." Yes. But this line may not necessarily be applicable to a murderer. "Thou shalt not murder." That should be the presumption. Not "Thou shalt not kill." Okay. Labor relations. At this stage, within 15 to 20 years, we destroy the traditionally established links of bargaining between employer and employee. The classical Marxist-Leninist theory of natural exchange of goods. A person A has five sacks of grain, and person B has five pairs of shoes, and the natural exchange without money is when they bargain between each other. And only with the introduction of the third force, see, an entirely third foreign stranger who says, "No, don't give him five sacks of grain, give it to me, and you give me your five pairs of shoes, and I will distribute it accordingly so that the economy will go." This is the death of natural exchange and death of natural bargaining. Well, trade unions were established 100 years ago. The objective was to improve working conditions and to protect the rights of workers from those employers who were abusing their rights because they had more money. Objectively, at that time, initially, the trade union movement did work. What we see now is that the bargaining process is no longer resulting in a compromise which is leading objectively to the betterment of working conditions and increase of salary. What we see is that after each prolonged strike, the workers lose. Even if they have a 10% increase of their salaries, they cannot catch up due to inflation and due to missed time. More than that, millions of people suffer from that strike because the economy now is interdependent. It's intertwined like one body. If previously steelworkers, say 100 years ago, could strike and nobody would suffer, now it's impossible anymore. If a garbage collector strikes today, the rest of the multi-million city is stinking. I mean, there's no more service. In Quebec, for example, we had the electricians who were on strike in the middle of winter. You can freeze your bottom, and they still were on strike. Did they catch up with the salary? No, they lost. Who benefited? The leaders of the trade union. What is the motivation for strike? Improving workers' conditions? No, obviously it's not. Then what is it? Ideology. To prove to these capitalists and the obedient horde of workers like sheep follow these people, and they cannot disobey. Why? Because if they do, you know what happens to them? Tickets, murders, shooting truck drivers by picketers. In Montreal, for example, I saw with my own eyes when I was correspondent of CBC International, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, when the workers of an aircraft factory destroyed computers and equipment in the factory, and the administration employed strikebreakers. Their cars were turned upside down and burned. Their houses were burned. Their kids were intimidated, and some victims were there, of that we can be sure. Why? To improve conditions of workers? No, ideology. Okay. So this is what happens basically. It may or may not happen without the help of the Soviet Union. But the natural tendencies are being greatly taken advantage of and capitalized by the Soviet propaganda systems. How? Whenever a trade union strikes, we have an influx of propaganda, mass media, ideological dissemination, "the workers' rights," and we repeat it like parrots. Yes, workers' rights. Whose rights? Workers. No. The only freedom of a worker to sell his labor according to his own desire and will is taken away from him. By whom? By the trade union boss. Unlimited power is given. Responsibility. I want to sell my labor not for $2.50 an hour but for $2. I don't have the right. My freedom is denied to me. I know that if I sell my work for $200 for $2 an hour, not for $3 an hour, I will compete better with the other guy who is lazy and more greedy. I don't need $3. I need only $2. No. I was made to believe by media, by business, by advertising agencies that I need more and more and more. Have you ever heard any advertising on TV to consume less? No. No way. Whether you need a six-cylinder car or not, you have to buy it and hurry up. When I was driving here on the local radio station, an excited announcer said, "You hurry up. Rush and save, save. There is a plenty of houses for sale. Save by buying more." See, of course, of course, it would be too naive to expect that the KGB makes that advertising agency to do such a crazy commercial. No, of course not. But what we did when I was working for Novosti, no secret, we would snowplow editorial offices, student organizations, religious groups with literature of class struggle, maybe if not directly Marxism propaganda, then propaganda of legitimate aspirations of the working class, betterment of life, equality, equality. Mind you, President Kennedy once said, "People, we will make America believe that people are born equal." Are people born equal? Is there any mention in the Bible or any other holy scripture in any religion? If you don't believe me, go to the library and check it. There is not a single word about equality. Just the opposite. By your deeds, God will judge you. What you do is important. The merit of your personality. You cannot legislate equality. If you want to be equal, you have to be equal. You have to deserve it. And yet we build our society on the principle of equality. We say people are equal. We know it is false. It's a lie. Some people are tall and stupid. Others are short, bald, and clever. If we make [Laughter] them, if we make them equal by force, if we put the principle of equality in the basis of our social political structure, it's the same as building a house on sand. Sooner or later it will collapse, and that's exactly what happens. And we, as Soviet propaganda makers, are trying to push you in the direction which you go yourself. Equality. Yes, equality. Land of equal opportunities. Is it true or not? Think about it. Equal opportunities. Should there be equal opportunities for me and for a lazy bastard who comes here from some other country and immediately registers as a welfare recipient? Benefits. I never received a single dime. No, sorry. I did receive once, but I never applied for welfare for the 13 years I took any job. Security guard, journalist, taxi driver, anything. Well, I was restless. But some people don't like it. They immediately. So why should we have equal opportunities? Why equal opportunity to excel? Equal opportunity in equal circumstances. Yes, but we know people are different. To excel? Yes, provided we reach the same level of excellency, perfection, which is a hypothetical distant future. Yes, maybe. But we know perfectly well that even with the best intentions, people cannot be equal. Why should we have equality in the legal system? Myself, I'm considering myself a law-abiding citizen, and a person who comes here to rob and shoot. Say, the United States administration under Carter imported thousands of Cuban criminals. They were known criminals, yet they were accepted. Do you think it's fair if myself and my wife from the Philippines, who work like an excuse me, horse, as a lab technician in a hospital, should have the same rights as a criminal from Cuba? Why? And yet we repeat as parents, equality, equality, equality. And the Soviet propaganda system helps us to believe that equality is something which is desirable. Democracy, as it was established by the fathers of this country, of this system, in the last century, is not equality. It's a system where different people, unequal people, have a chance to survive and help each other in constant competition, in constant perfection, not in equality which is superimposed from a godfather or nice person in Washington D.C. And the absolute equality exists in the Soviet Union, quote unquote, equality. Everybody is equal in dirt, except some people are more equal than the others in power. [Laughter] So the moment you bring a country to the point of almost total demoralization, when nothing works anymore, when you are not sure whether it is right or wrong, good and bad, when there's no division between evil and good, when even the leaders of the church sometimes say, "Well, violence for the sake of justice, especially social justice, is justified in countries like Nicaragua, El Salvador, or well, maybe Rhodesia," and we listen to them and say, "Yeah, probably it's true." Is it true? No, it is not true. Violence is not justified, especially for the sake of "quote unquote" social justice introduced by Marxist-Leninists. That is my former colleagues from Novosti Press Agency. Okay. So we reach that point. The next step is destabilization. Again, this word says for itself what it is: to destabilize all the relations, all the accepted institutions and organizations in a country of your enemy. How you do it? You don't have to send a battalion of KGB agents to blow up bridges. No, you let them do it themselves. The area of application is again narrower now, not like the previous case. The overt, legitimate actions of the KGB in this case would be hardly noticeable. There is no crime if a professor who recently went to USSR introduces a course of Marxism-Leninism in a Californian college, for example. Nobody's going to come to his doorstep and say, "Okay, mister, come, you are under arrest." No, it's not a crime. It's not even considered a moral crime against your country. So the area of application here is narrowing down to economy again, labor relations, right to law and order, plus military and economy, law and order, yes, and again the media, but with a wider scope, a little bit different. I'll explain to you.

Basically, three areas. Economy: the radicalization of the bargaining process. If on that stage, we still could achieve theoretically some positive compromise between the negotiating sides, with say, arbitrary introduction of arbitrary judges, a third side objectively judging the demands of both sides, here it's radicalization. On this stage of destabilization, we cannot come to compromise. Eyes. Even within a family, the husband and wife couldn't figure out which is better. Husband wants his kids to eat at the table, and wife wants the child to roam around the room and drop food all over the floor. They cannot come to compromise unless they start a fight. It's impossible to reach a compromise, a constructive compromise between neighbors. Some people say, "I don't like you watering your lawn at that time because exactly at that time I'm walking my dog, and he's getting nervous, he cannot pass his bowels." You know, so they cannot compromise. They go to a civil court or something like that. Radicalization of human relations. No more compromise. Fight. The normal, traditionally accepted relations are destabilized. The relations between teachers and students in schools and colleges: fight. The relations in the economical sphere between laborers and employers are further radicalized. No more acceptance of the legitimacy of demands of workers. Unlike the Japanese with Theory Z, if you ever heard about it, where the workers are involved in the decision-making process, therefore they don't have a moral incentive to fight their bosses. In the United States, it's just the opposite. The harder is the fight, the better. The more heroic they look. When the Greyhound network was on strike recently, the correspondents of local TV networks all over the local...

States were approaching these strikers, and they say, "Oh yes, we are doing something nice. They look like heroes, and they were proud."

There was some family, uh, the husband was a bus driver. Now, they decided, in, in, in, in a protest against the, uh, bosses, to camp somewhere in the forest, and they were presented to the, to the audience as, as a heroic, nice people.

You see, the violent clashes between passengers, picketers, and, and the strikers are presented as something normal. Ten, fifteen, twenty years ago, we would, we would be, we would be angry, say, "Why, why, why so much hatred?" Today, we are not. We say, "Well, commonplace radicalization, militarization." Sometimes, as I explained on that stage, I, I took a step a little bit further. Shooting people, okay. Law and order now also is, uh, pushed into the area where previously people settled their differences, uh, peacefully and legitimately.

Now, we are getting with this, uh, court cases in the, in the smallest, irrelevant cases. We cannot solve our problems anymore. The society at large becomes more and more antagonistic between individuals, between groups of individuals, and the society at large. The media puts itself in the opposition to the society in general, at large, separate, alienated.

Okay. On that stage, you remember I was talking, uh, a couple of hours ago about the sleepers. That's when the students from, say, the United States, if they are trained in, in Lumumba University or developing nations, that's the students I was dealing with, are being sent back from the Soviet Union here. Or if they were already in the United States, in the country which is the object of, of subversion, they spring to action. The sleepers go up. They slept for fifteen to twenty years. Now they become leaders of groups, preachers, uh, I don't know, public, public figures prominently. They act. They actively include themselves in a political process.

All of a sudden, we see a homosexual. Fifteen years ago, he did his dirty job, and nobody cared. Now he makes it a political issue. He demands recognition, respect, human rights, and he rallies a large group of people, and there are violent clashes between him and police, his group, and, and ordinary people. No matter what, it's black against white, yellow against green, doesn't matter where the dividing line goes. As long as this group comes into antagonistic clash, sometimes militantly, sometimes with firearms, that is destabilization process.

The sleepers, many of whom are simply KGB agents, become leaders of the process of destabilization. Doesn't mean that Comrade Andropov sends Comrade Ivanov to the United States. The person who takes care is already here. He's a respected citizen of the United States. Sometimes he, he gets money from various foundations for, for his legitimate, uh, struggle for, I don't know, human rights, women's rights, kid li, prison li, whatever. There are sympathetic Americans who donate their money to him.

Destabilization process usually leads directly to the process of crisis. In case of developing nations, that's the area where I, I was active. The process starts when, when the legitimate bodies of power, the social structure collapses. It, it cannot function anymore. So instead, we have artificial bodies injected into society, such as non-elected committees. You remember I was talking about them here. Social workers who are not elected by people, media who, who are self-appointed rulers of your opinion. Uh, some strange groups, uh, which claim that they know how to lead society forward. They don't. Usually, all they care is how to collect donations and, and promote and sell their own concocted ideology, mixture of religion and ideology. Here, we have all these artificial bodies claiming power. If the power is denied to them, they take it by force.

In case of Iran, for example, all of a sudden we have revolutionary committees. Who, what kind of revolution? There was no revolution yet. And yet they had a committee. They were taking power of, of judgment. They had, they had the power of execution. They had the power of, of legislation. And they had the power of, of judicial. All of them combined in one person who is a half-baked intellectual, sometimes graduated from Harvard University or, or Berkeley. He comes back to his country, and, and he thinks that he, he knows the answer to all the social, economical problems.

Okay, crisis is when society cannot function anymore productively. It collapses. Obviously, that's the word for crisis. So, therefore, the population at large is looking for a savior. The religious groups are expecting a Messiah to come. The workers say, "We have family to feed. Let's have a strong government, maybe socialist government, centralized, when, when somebody puts their employers in their place and, and let us work. We are sick and tired of going to strike and, and missing overtime and all that stuff. We need some strong man, strong government, a leader, a savior is needed. Population is sick and tired already."

And here we are. We have a savior. Either a foreign nation comes in, or the local group of, of leftists, Marxists, no matter what they call themselves, Sandinista, a reverend, or some sort, Bishop Muzorewa like in, in Zimbabwe, doesn't matter. A savior comes and says, "I will lead you." So we have two alternatives here: civil war and invasion. Okay. See how it goes. Civil war, we know what it is. Lebanon is, is the best example. The civil war which was artificially implanted in Lebanon by injection of force of PLO, Palestinian Liberation Organization. Invasion, we had in many other countries like Afghanistan, uh, name any East European country, it was invaded by the Soviet army. But the result is the same.

The next stage is normalization. Normalization is a very ironic word. Of course, it is borrowed from the 1968 situation in Czechoslovakia, when the Soviet propaganda, and after them, the New York Times, declared the country is normalized. The tanks moved into Prague. So there's no more Prague Spring. There's no more violence. Normalization. At that stage, the self-appointed rulers of the society don't need any revolution anymore. They don't need any radicalism anymore. So this is the reverse from destabilization. Basically, it is stabilizing the country by force. So all these sleepers and activists and social workers and liberals and homosexuals and professors and Marxists and Leninists are being eliminated physically. Sometimes they've done their job already. Okay? They are not needed anymore. The new rulers need stability to exploit the nation, to exploit the country, to take advantage of the victory. Okay? So no more revolutionaries, please. And that's exactly what happens in a number of countries.

You remember Bangladesh. This is the crisis in which I was instrumental. First, they had Mujibur Rahman in 1971. He was the leader of, of People's Party, Awami League, with a mustache like Stalin. He was in, in Russia many times. In five years, he was shot by his former colleagues, Marxists. He fulfilled his function. In Afghanistan, it happened three times. First, there was Taraki, then there was Amin. Now there's Babrak Karmal. They killed each other successively. One after another. The moment he fulfilled his duty. The first one demoralized the country. The second destabilized. The third one brought it to crisis. Goodbye, comrades. Babrak Karmal comes from Moscow and is put into the seat of power. Same thing happened in Grenada recently. Maurice Bishop, Marxist, was killed by Austin, what's his name? General something, was also a Marxist. Right? So no more revolutions, please. Normalization now. From now on, no more strikes, no more homosexuals, no more women's lib, no more kid, no more lib. Period. Good, solid, democratic, proletarian freedom. That's it.

Now, to reverse this process takes enormous effort. When today, the United States had to invade Grenada to reverse the process of subversion. Some people say, "Boy, this is not good. It's not a matter of invading a beautiful country, island of Grenada." Well, why didn't you stop the process here when Grenada was just approached by leftists? Why not to prevent Maurice Bishop to come into power in the first place? Did Grenadians want him? Very questionable. They didn't know who Maurice Bishop was in the first place. He came to power by a coup himself. Okay. No, we let the situation develop further and further and further until the crisis and normalization, very soon. And then the United States decided to invade the country, discovering that the, the country was absolutely a military base for the Soviet Union. Of course, it's a drastic measure. Of course, it's, it's a pity that, uh, Marine Corps had to lose what, seventeen lives. Very bad. Why not to stop the process before it comes to crisis? Oh, no. Intellectuals will not let you. It's interference in, into domestic affairs. They are very careful not to, not to let the American administration to interfere in domestic affairs of Latin American countries. They don't mind the Soviet Union interfering in these affairs. Okay.

So, to reverse this process from here, it takes only and always military force. No other force on earth can reverse this process at this point. At this point, it does not take military invasion of the United States army. It takes strong action, like in Chile, a CIA covert involvement to prevent the savior from outside to come into power and to stabilize the country before it erupts into civil war. Okay. Support the right-wing conservative forces. Buy money, buy crooks, or love, doesn't matter. Stabilize the country. Don't let the crisis develop into, into civil war or invasion. Oh, no. Your liberals will say it's, it's against the law. The Congress will not appropriate money for covert actions of the CIA. Why not? Should we wait till the normalization comes and Soviet tanks land in, in Los Angeles airport?

Now, at that point, at the point of destabilization, also the process could be reversed again, easily than this. No CIA involvement at this point. You know what it takes here? Restriction of some liberties for small groups which are self-declared enemies of the society. As simple as that. Oh, no. The media and liberals will tell you this is against the American Constitution. How can we, uh, by force, deny the civil rights to criminals, for example? It's, it's not good. Okay. So, we allow them to, okay, if you allow the criminals to have civil rights, go on and bring the country to the crisis. This is a bloodless way to curb the rights. I mean, not to put them in prison. No. No. I'm not talking about putting all the gays from San Francisco in a concentration camp. Do not allow them to take political force. Do not elect them to the seats of power, whether it is at the municipality level, state level, or federal level. It has to be beaten into the heads of American voters that a person like that in the seats of power is an enemy. Do not be afraid of this word. It is an enemy. If he's not an enemy here, he will be here. Later on, he will be shot, of course. But at this point, he is an enemy. Okay. You are doing a great service by denying him the right to capitalize on his own crazy ideas and become a powerful man. A man who uses the seat of power.

Restriction of certain freedoms and permissiveness at that point would prevent sliding into crisis and probably will return the process of destabilization. To curb unlimited power, monopolistic power of trade unions here at that point would save the economy from collapsing. To introduce a law to stop private companies from raping public opinion's mind in, in the direction of consumerism. No company must have the right to force you into buying more unless you want it. There must be a law. You want to advertise your, your car, okay, but not a single mention of buying it now and saving money. It must be against the law to force people to consume more.

Self-restraint. Previously, before this process started, self-restraint was a business of church, religion, because our preachers, the fathers of the church, would tell us material values are good, but it's not the prime function of a human being because you have to live with something. Obviously, the design for our life is not to consume more deodorants. There must be something greater. If such a complicated instrument as the human body was created, obviously there must be some higher purpose for that. And it's very easy to avoid destabilization by denying the greedy companies one little freedom, one little liberty, forcing you into turning yourself into processors of unwanted products and goods. They turn you into machines, like a, the worm, where there's an inlet and an outlet. So, and how long an average appliance lasts these days? Less than a year. Why? Where's the workmanship? We want you to buy more. Okay. This civilization process could be easily overcome if, as I say, the society, by its own will or after persuasion by the leaders, will come to the idea of self-restraint. It's so hard. We want to consume more, but you have to, unless you will come to this stage when, as we say in Russia, "If the Sahara Desert ever becomes a communist state, there will be a shortage of sand." So you have to curb your, you have to curb your expectations at this point before it's too late. But no, we don't want to do it.

Demoralization process again. It's the easiest thing to reverse. First of all, by restricting the import of propaganda. The easiest thing to do is unlimited, unrestrained import of Soviet literature, Soviet journalists, uh, giving Soviet propaganda and ideological agitators equal time on American TV networks. It has to be stopped, and it's easier. They won't, they won't be offended, mind you. As a matter of fact, they will respect America more. But then my former colleague, Vladimir Popov, appears on Nightline, and Ted Koppel asks him, "Well, Vladimir, what do you think about this?" And what can he think? He's an instrument of propaganda. He thinks what, what Comrade Andropov tells him to think. He's just a nice, articulate mouthpiece of the Soviet subversion system. And Ted Koppel makes you believe that my friend Vladimir Popov thinks... [Laughter]

The process of demoralization may not have started at all if, at that point, the country which is the recipient of subversion actively, not violently, but actively prevents the importation of foreign ideology. I don't want America to follow the pattern of ancient Japan. You don't have to shoot every foreigner when he approaches the sacred borders of the United States. But when he offers you junk in the disguise of something very shiny, you have to tell him, "No, we have our own junk." If at that point the society is strong, brave, and conscientious enough to stop the importation of ideas which are foreign, then the whole chain of events could be prevented.

Recently, I've been to the Philippines, and I was shocked how, in big cities like Manila, children listen to deafening music. A melodious nation with long traditions of, of good, nice ethnic music introduced by the Spanish long time ago, maybe two centuries, three centuries ago, I don't remember how, all of a sudden listen to musical garbage blasting their radios at, at full blast, at the full volume. Why? In India, I spent many years watching the reactions of Indians walking out of movie theaters after seeing Hollywood productions. They, they couldn't figure out why Americans are so wasteful. They smash their cars, their shiny cars, every five minutes. How come they shoot each other for half a million dollars? Is it true that they are so sex, sex, I mean, obsessed with sex? Can you imagine showing a movie where every five minutes there's a population on the screen to a country like India with long traditions, tradition of, of, uh, respect to these private matters, or to Pakistan? And the United States expects these people to respect you? No way. Oh yes, they will see the movie. They'll pay five rupees to see that garbage. They walk out and will tell their kids, "Don't respect Americans, don't be like Americans." You see, so the process of demoralization could be stopped right here, both as an export and as an import. And that takes one step, one very important thing to do. You don't have to expel all the KGB agents from Washington D.C.

The most difficult and, at the same time, the simplest answer to subversion is to start it here and even before by bringing back the society to religion. Something that you cannot touch and eat and put on yourself, but something that rules society and makes it move and preserve it. A Soviet scientist, Shafarovich, who has nothing to do with religion, he's a computer scientist, did a very intensive research on the history of socialist countries. He calls socialist or communist any country with a centralized economy and a pyramidal style of power structure. And he discovered, actually, he didn't discover it, he just brought to the attention of his readers that civilizations like Mohenjo-daro in the River Indus area, like Egypt, like Maya, Incas, like Babylon, Babylonian culture, collapsed and disappeared from the surface of earth the moment they lost religion, as simple as that. They disintegrated. Nobody remembers about them anymore, well, distantly. So the ideas are moving society and keeping mankind as, as a society of human beings, intelligent, moral agents of God. The facts, the truth, the exact knowledge may not. All the sophisticated technology and computers will not prevent society from disintegrating and eventually dying out.

Have you ever met a person who would sacrifice his life, freedom for the truth like that? This is truth. I never met a person who said, "This is truth, and I'm ready to shoot me to defend the truth." Right. But millions sacrifice their life, freedom, comfort, everything for things like God, like Jesus Christ. It's an honor. Some martyrs in, in the Soviet concentration camp died, and they died in peace. Unlike those who shouted, "Long live Stalin," knowing perfectly well that he may not live long. Something which is something which is not material moves society and helps it to survive. And the other way around. The moment we turn into "two times two is four" and make it a guiding principle of our life, our existence, we die. Even though this is true, and this we cannot prove, we only can feel and have faith in it.

So the answer to ideological subversion, strangely enough, is very simple. You don't have to shoot people. You don't have to aim missiles and Persians and cruise missiles at Andropov's headquarters. You simply have to have faith and prevent subversion. In other words, not to be a victim of subversion. Don't try to be a person who in judo is trying to smash your enemy and being caught by your hand. Don't strike like that. Strike with the power of your spirit and moral superiority. If you don't have that power, it's high time to develop it. And that's the only answer. That's it. Thank you. [Applause]

Can you describe how a concept is formulated, turned into propaganda, and then ends up on someone's bumper sticker or in a newspaper? What's the step-by-step process? The other thing is, how close is the Politburo to the actual propaganda-creating process? Mhm. And finally, uh, the 007 incident was, uh, notable in the fact that it took a long time before the Soviets responded to it, and then the military took the lead in terms of explaining what had happened rather than the political organs. And I wanted to know why that actually happened. Mhm.

Okay. Now, the propaganda concepts are not being developed. They had been developed long ago. There's nothing basically new in the concept of, of overall propaganda, uh, methods and goals. The ultimate goal, however ridiculous it may sound or primitive or simplistic, is world domination. Many, many experts in foreign policy would ridicule my opinion, but this is what it is. I saw it with my own eyes. I was a part of that. So, and my father was, I think I mentioned that before, he was an inspector of land forces. He traveled all over the world where the Soviet troops were stationed. So, he knows perfectly well that the troops are not stationed there to collect harvest for Cubans or, or to help Afghans to develop the, uh, for the hordes of cattle or goats. They are there for one purpose: world domination.

The concepts, the immediate issues or problems are created, of course, for propaganda purposes, and they end up as bumper stickers, probably not, uh, long. It takes a really short period of time, unlike some other things in, in the Soviet system. Uh, propaganda takes. Propaganda is one of the things that they don't save money on. And, um, there is a, a huge apparatus of propaganda experts in the USSR. Most Press Agency is just one of them, one of the organizations. But the part with them, that there is a department of agitation and propaganda within the Central Committee. There are faceless people, names of whom you will never learn. Uh, they are kind of classified.

I didn't explain you the methods today because it will take us another day. The methods include such things as semantic manipulation. The words and expressions are being coined at the rate of five expressions a minute by extremely clever, educated experts. And the media outside of the USSR obediently repeats this cliché. I give you just several examples, not to take your time, not to bore you to death. Okay. I mentioned one thing: United Nations. The expression was invented by the Soviet propaganda experts, not by Americans. We know perfectly well it's not united, and it has nothing to do with nations. More than half of the delegations in the UN do not represent any nation at all. Uh, they are disunited. Obviously, the United Nations has not been able to solve a single military conflict anywhere in the world. Uh, they provoked war. Yes, they took part in wars, but they didn't prevent the expansion of communism or, or they did not prevent a single war anywhere. So the true expression, the true term for United Nations could be "disunited bureaucracies."

Okay. Another cliché which was coined in Moscow by experts of propaganda: "national liberation movement." It's not national because most of the leaders do, do not necessarily belong to the ethnic group which they lead. Number one. Number two, they are anti-patriotic and anti-national because they, they obey orders from a foreign country, USSR. Okay. They are trained in USSR. They are paid by the Soviet system, and they, they work in the interests of the Soviet system. Liberation, whom are they liberating? A movement. Movement. We understand there's something which moves, unlike something which is static. National liberation does not move. It's a war. If, if you call war a movement, probably. But it has nothing to do with the concept of movement in, in American terminology, means a legitimate, overt, organized, voluntary, uh, movement, right? I presume your, your church or your organization is voluntary. Nobody keeps you here by force, okay? National liberation movement is an army of bandits, professional bandits, which are kept, kept within the framework of the movement by force. If they betray it, it's like in the mafia, they're going to be executed. Okay.

Another example of semantic manipulation is, uh, "free medical aid," for example. You think it's, it's an American democratic expression. No way. This term was coined by, by the communists long time ago, at the time of Comrade Term. There's nothing free in this world. Everybody knows it. List of all medical aid. It's a very expensive thing to render medical assistance to other people. To somebody, sometime, somewhere has to pay for it. Who? Taxpayer. Obviously, there are many other things that are being coined by, by the Soviet propaganda apparatus. Unfortunately, see, if I call myself a genius, a genius writer, for example, the Los Angeles Times would not call me that, right? They will call me a strange, crazy Russian who calls himself a genius. Then why the hell they call liberation movements li, what they call themselves, just because they are men? The logic is twisted.

Um, the stickers on, on the bumpers. I don't know. It, it depends on the ability of local forces to tow up to the foreign policy. How close is the Politburo to the implementation of propaganda actions? Very distant. See, the Politburo is a group of self-imposed dictators. They don't really decide anything. The only objective of their existence and their life and their struggle is to stay in power, unlike an American politician who has two objectives: first, to be elected, and second, to be reelected. So the Soviet politician doesn't have the first objective. He does not have to be elected. He just makes his way in the party structure all the way up. The election doesn't bother him at all. So the only purpose of his life is to stay where he is and not rock the boat. They don't make decisions. The decision-making level are the faceless group of experts, as I, as I try to explain to you. And they, the Politburo gives only the basic directions what to be done, and the obedient servants of the highest caliber intellectuals are dutifully developing these things. Um, some independently thinking progressive academics in the United States think that, uh, socialism, they will be able to preserve their integrity and independence. It's wishful thinking. They will become obedient servants of the system that they are trying to force upon you.

The Korean airliner incident, from my viewpoint, is not an incident at all. I believe it's, it's a, it's a carefully planned and premeditated provocation. I'm not sure whether they did it, they killed 268 people just to get rid of Larry McDonald, but it, it's feasible. I wouldn't be surprised if they killed more than 60 million of their own men just to implement rotten ideas of Marx and Engels. You know, what would 268 people matter? Um, second, it, it is not a military blunder, and the order was not given by the military. Never a single military officer of the highest caliber will take responsibility to shoot a civilian airliner. My father was an officer of the General Staff of the Soviet Army. I know perfectly well what I'm talking about. No officer would take responsibility. He'll be shot tomorrow. Are you kidding? It's the order was given by a civilian, by a party apparatchik of the highest caliber, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was Andropov. In any case, Andropov knew perfectly well what goes on, what goes on, what went on.

The Soviet power structure resembles a triangle, unlike a love triangle in, in real life drama. It's a hate triangle. The, the seats of power are party, Communist Party elite, of course, not the rank and file party, but the top of the pyramid, the KGB, and the military. They hate each other, and each of them hates the other two. The, the most powerful is the party. This is the real power. The army and the KGB supposedly are servants of the party and the tools, the instruments of their power. But in fact, sometimes they are the power themselves. Andropov belongs to the most hated triangle, the KGB. My father hated the KGB because he was military. Both of them, KGB and military, hate the party. Why? Because unlike in the United States, the party is the most adventuristic people. They want to invade countries. They give the orders for all kind of adventures outside of USSR waters. They know perfectly well that comes war, they will go to bunkers and eat caviar and enjoy life, whereby the military will burn in the flames of nuclear war. Marshal Grechko was against invasion into Czechoslovakia because he knew that he will have to demoralize his army, and the first two divisions, after facing the reality and seeing that Czechoslovakia is not being invaded by Americans, will get corrupted. So you have to replace them with other two divisions, and if you stay long enough, you will corrupt the whole Soviet army. He said, "No, don't invade Czechoslovakia." But Comrade Brezhnev, who the hell they are, they think they deserve more sausages and butter, or show them tanks. So he did. He obeyed.

The, the KGB, the KGB and the army sometimes are in cahoots against the party. The recent rumor that Andropov was shot by the son of Brezhnev is an indication that the, the other two corners of the power structure were really sick and tired of, of the, of the Andropov KGB purges. You know, there were purges. Many people lost their jobs, and some were arrested, and some committed suicide in the span of some ten, ten months since Andropov came to power. So that gives you an idea of the Korean airliner incident is a premeditated provocation to create international tension because the only power on earth which is interested in provoking conflicts and preserving tension is the Soviet Union. That's the only justification of them being in power. If there is no enemy outside, they have to create him. If there is no war, they have to provoke it to scare the hell out of taxpayers inside and to keep themselves in power.

There are so many theories. Uh, one of them is expressed by, I wouldn't say a friend of mine, but I know him. There's another defector, Nikolai Khokhlov, who defected long before I even joined the KGB. He was also a KGB in Western Europe. Now he teaches psychology in one of California universities. He thinks that the Soviet Union developed an ESP system of influencing the perception and minds of people, and the generators of ESP willpower can be focused on individuals and groups of individuals so efficiently that you can literally focus that beam or whatever it is on a pilot or two pilots or three pilots and convince them that actually they are flying on safe territory. So there is no need, you can convince them that there's no need to contact the ground-based station, and you can artificially draw the plane by brainwave into the Soviet airspace. Whether it is true or not, I don't know. But I know one thing that when I was a student, and I graduated from the Oriental Studies Institute, one of my friends, he was an extremely intelligent Jewish boy. He graduated from the mathematical department of Moscow State University. After three years, I returned from India for vacation, and I met him in the, um, during a reception at the Academy of Science, and I said, "What are you doing here?" He said, "I'm working in a secret research bureau, you know, the secret, which means basically defense industry. They don't have addresses. They have post office box numbers." And I say, "It's not, is it that much secret that you cannot tell me what you research?" He said, "You wouldn't believe me. Brain waves." And I never saw him again. Brain waves. ESP, which officially in the Soviet media is, uh, described as a pseudoscience and decadent capitalist gimmick to sidetrack the minds of the proletariat from the real issues of class struggle. But obviously, the KGB takes seriously this pseudoscience. Heat. Heat.