Peter Beter News Alert 8: Perspective: Soviet Union & The Legacy of the Late Yuri Andropov

Number 8 - November 18, 1983


IN THIS ISSUE:

Perspective: Soviet Union

The unexpected sudden death of Soviet President Yuri Andropov, while unannounced as yet, has created a time of heightened dangers.     The Soviet Union has a strong impact on U.S.  policies, both in reality and as a conven­ient excuse for many actions.     Therefore this issue deals entirely with the situation in Russia and where it is leading.

The Legacy of the Late Yuri Andropov

After just one year as acknowledged leader of the Soviet Union, Andropov died suddenly on Nov.  5,  1983. This followed a year which saw the fastest consolidation of power by any Soviet leader in history.     Andropov was a guiding force in the overthrow of the old Bolsheviks from top power by an anti-Bolshevik new group years ago.     Now a new and more massive phase is beginning in a from-the-top-down revolution to de-Bolshevize life in Russia.    It is intended to completely remake the unsatisfactory economic struc­ture inherited from the Bolsheviks.     Entrenched Bolshevik bureaucrats are to be rooted out and replaced with a new breed of local and regional leaders.     And Andropov has paved the way for the takeover soon of a new generation of Kremlin leaders,  of whom Grigory Romanov and Mikhail Gorbachev are most prominent.

Copyright © 1983, Audio Books, Inc.

Background references are indicated in parentheses ( ), abbreviated as follows:
ALi    Dr.  Beter AUDIO LETTER® Cassette Tape It
ABi    AUDIO BOOK® Cassette Tape #
,ST#    SPECIAL TAPE #
These tapes produced by Audio Books, Inc., may be ordered from NewsALERT.

Perspective: Soviet Union


Our Lord Jesus Christ used to ask His disciples:   "Which of you by being anxious can add one cubit to his span of life?" Rich or poor, young or old, powerful or weak, we all depend upon our Creator for life itself.     He exhorted us to be about our respective missions in life,  instead of becoming so tangled up in daily cares that our lives become unfruitful.

It seems safe to say that not many Americans would look to the Kremlin to see any illustration at all of what Christ taught. We are constantly told by our own leaders, and most Americans believe it, that Russia's rulers are totally evil, that they are a deadly menace, and that they have not changed.     But the fact is that major changes have taken place in Russia's ruling circles in recent years. 

They are changes for the better,  and they are still underway.
The principal architect of change for several years now has been Yuri Andropov--first behind the scenes,  and finally as the acknowledged leader of the Soviet Union. 

After one short year in the world spotlight his life has ended,     This has not been announced; a ceremonial double is being prepared if needed to buy time during the transitional period now in progress.

Andropov was a man with a mission, living on borrowed time. Instead of giving in to serious ailments that would sideline most people, Andropov accepted the burden of leadership at a criti­cal time.     Right up to the last, he was planting seeds for a future which he will never see.     If they bear fruit as he hoped, they will someday constitute his lasting legacy.

NewsALERT believes it is vitally important that you know and understand the present situation in the Soviet Union. This is true because the U.S. Government uses Russia as its excuse for practically every aspect of its foreign and military policies. Now it is even being used increasingly on the domestic level, as bogus demands for all-pervasive secrecy (NewsALERT #7) chip away at our basic freedoms.     The recent sudden death of Yuri Andropov has created new dangers in an already dangerous time.     If the "Reagan" Administration tries to exploit this mo­ment of Kremlin vulnerability with new military moves,  it will endanger--not just Russia--but our own country as well.

The Legacy of the Late Yuri Andropov


One year ago this month,  on November 10,   1982, the Soviet Union announced that its leader,  Leonid Brezhnev, had died. He was replaced only two days later by a new leader, whose name was unfamiliar to most Americans:   Yuri Andropov.

During the past year, the Andropov name has become any­thing but unfamiliar.     His lightning-fast takeover of the reins of the Kremlin was followed by the fastest consolidation of pow­er in Soviet history.     His predecessor,  Brezhnev, had been the first Soviet ruler to obtain all three top Soviet offices--General Secretary,  President of the Supreme Soviet, and Chair­man of the National Defense Council.   It took Brezhnev thirteen years to accomplish that; it took Andropov only 7 months to do the same thing.

Andropov has made news with everything from arms control initiatives (and threats) to inviting a young New England girl to visit Russia and see for herself what it is like.     But lately his name is in the news for a different reason.     It is not his domi­nant presence on the scene that is making news, but his absence His last public appearance was on August 18, in an important Moscow meeting with visiting U. S.  senators (NewsALERT #2).

Any number of times over the past two decades, Andropov has bounced back from seemingly debilitating illnesses to carry on,  stronger than ever in will if not in body.     For example, in 1966 he suffered a heart attack, yet a year later he was made head of the KGB.     He proceeded to master the KGB and trans­form it in important ways while running it for 15 years.

During this past year it has been much the same story. He was hospitalized for two weeks in March,  appeared weak and shaky in public appearances in June, missed a meeting with the visiting West German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, in July. Yet before and after each of these episodes, Andropov has forged ahead with a wide range of initiatives,  especially on the domes­tic front. 

When his latest bout with illness developed this fall, his Kremlin colleagues were counting on him to somehow make another comeback.    Key Andropov projects are entering a crit­ical stage over the next few months,  and his continued leader­ship would have been invaluable.     But it was not to be.

Andropov was hospitalized in the latter part of October for treatment of some of the same ailments which have afflicted him for years.     It is believed that the crisis this time involved diabetes and a recurring kidney problem.     During late October his condition worsened dramatically enough that his son, Igor, delayed attending a conference in Helsinki for a week. When he finally arrived on Nov. 4, he told reporters that his father's health was "not bad. "
Andropov's condition had improved, and seemingly just in time.

 The following day,  Nov.  5, was the day of the annual rally in the Kremlin Palace of Congresses to mark the anniver­sary of the 1917 revolution.   It is attended by some 6,000 Com­munist Party officials, including--without fail--Russia's top ruler.     Two days later, Nov.  7, was to be the day of the annual military parade through Red Square, at which attendance is even more mandatory.

While Andropov was still in no condition to be appearing in public,  the circumstances left little choice.     His failure to appear would send dangerous signals to the West.

 It was also considered dangerous to substitute a double for Andropov, even though that could have been done.     Even the most convincing doubles, while they easily fool the public,  run a high risk of detection by intelligence operatives.     No one in Russia knew the possibilities and risks in that area better than Andropov: it was Andropov who, as then-head of the KGB, masterminded the "intelligence war of doubles" which erupted in early 1979 (AL#45 on).

Andropov decided that he had to make the appearance, as scheduled,  on Nov.  5.     Exactly what went wrong is not clear. Circumstantial evidence suggests that stimulants and other medication intended to prop up Andropov for his appearance at the rally backfired,  overtaxing his weakened body.     In any case, what is clear is that Soviet President Yuri Andropov died, suddenly and unexpectedly, shortly before the Kremlin rally on Nov. 5, 1983.
Soviet officials had been cheerfully assuring journalists that Andropov would attend the rally,  almost up to the moment that it began. 

When he failed to appear, the thousands of officials packing the vast hall were stunned.

The unexpected sudden death of Yuri Andropov sent shock waves through the Kremlin, producing initially confused and contradictory public responses.     First there was the lame ex­cuse for Andropov's absence from the Kremlin rally, offered to reporters afterward by spokesman Leonid Zamyatin. He said Andropov had a cold, and that he would miss the parade through Red Square two days later for the same reason.   On the day of the parade itself, Soviet sources "privately" amended their story by telling western reporters that Andropov was seriously ill, but expected to recover.     They were buying time while deciding how to proceed.

There are only two choices open to the Kremlin. Either they can publicly report that Andropov has died,  or they can keep it a secret for awhile.     Both approaches have their haz­ards.     If they publicly admit Andropov's death,  then they must publicly replace him with a new leader--and they are not ready to do that yet. 

If instead they continue to pretend that Andro­pov is alive, it provides a veneer of apparent continuity--but only at the expense of using doubles and other measures to maintain the impression of Andropov's continued presence. As already mentioned, these measures run an ever-increasing risk of detection as time goes on.     Once the charade is known by,  say, the CIA, it will signal Washington that the Kremlin is in a period of relative vulnerability.

The anti-Bolshevik new rulers of the Kremlin (AL#38) want, above all, to avoid conveying any such impression of weakness. They are convinced that their bitter enemies, who have trans­planted a new Bolshevism into the U. S. Government, will take full advantage of the situation.     In their view, the Grenada in­vasion was only a small dress rehearsal for much larger mili­tary adventures which the Pentagon would like to stage if it can get away with it.
In the wake of Andropov's death,  Russia's top remaining leadership spent five intensive days deciding upon the best course of action.     Their decision:   the image of continued An­dropov leadership will be continued for the time being. Mean­while a shadow government dominated by the military and the KGB will run the show on an interim basis.     Contingency ar­rangements will also be made so that,  if circumstances make it advisable, the shadow government can announce Andropov's death and take over publicly.     Otherwise, efforts will be con­centrated on expediting measures which Andropov had set in motion to bring about sweeping changes in Russia's government.

Some U. S„  commentators are saying, as they evaluate the possibly terminal Andropov "illness, " that he has left no real mark on the country he has run.     That is a long way from the truth.     Like a farmer at the end of planting season, the late President Yuri Andropov planted a lot of seeds which will take time to bear fruit.     If the things he set in motion are not abor­ted through errors,  opposition or war, dramatic transforma­tions lie ahead for the Soviet Union.     And history will record eventually that they are the living legacy of Yuri Andropov.

To comprehend the Andropov legacy, it is necessary to begin with his career as head of Russia's combined intelligence and secret police organization, the KGB.     Andropov was a member of the anti-Bolshevik group which originally joined with the Bolsheviks in the 1917 revolution but later turned against them on moral grounds (AL#28, 38).

In 1967 Andropov was given the assignment of heading the KGB by another member of the anti-Bolshevik faction, Leonid Brezhnev.     Andropov's assignment was to bring the KGB under control and root out Bolshevik power there (AL#80)„     It was a tall assignment, and a key one.     A decades-long overthrow of the former Bolshevik rulers of Russia was underway,  and was being accomplished without the Bolsheviks fully comprehending what was happening.     Of all governmental entities in Russia, the KGB was least susceptible to such tactics.  

But Andropov succeeded.

In 1973 Andropov became a full member of the ruling Polit­buro, while still remaining as head of the KGB.     From that twin base of power, Andropov devised plans for the final, com­plete overthrow of the Bolsheviks from the top echelon of power in Russia.     His targets were the ruling Politburo and the Cen­tral Committee with its 300-plus members.     As in the past, the changes would be carried out in ways generally invisible to the public,  so as not to alarm them: extensively trained doubles with their appearance changed by plastic surgery were a key tool.  

But what Andropov was planning was to turn the long-term overthrow of the Bolsheviks into a rout at the top.

The gradual overthrow of the Bolsheviks from top power in Russia erupted into a full-fledged coup d'etat behind the scenes during 1976 and 1977,    This destroyed the long-standing covert Rockefeller-Soviet alliance (AL#1, 7), because the Soviet side of that alliance consisted of the Bolsheviks.     The era of so-called detente came to an end,  as the New Kremlin prepared for an expected imminent conflict with the United States,

At the same time, many of the old Bolsheviks were being expelled from Russia under cover of a torrent of "Jewish emi­gration. "    Some of the emigres were legitimate; many were not.     Dr. Beter first reported in Dec.  1977 (AL#29) that many of these old Bolsheviks from Russia were being welcomed into powerful positions here in America by the Rockefeller interests. That was a deadly mistake: it set the stage for a silent Bolshe­vik coup d'etat right here in America,  starting with the murder of Nelson Rockefeller in early 1979 (AL#42).     Much of the U.S. Government has since been Bolshevized,  particularly in the military realm.     For nearly 5 years now,  a bitter power strug­gle between the new U. S. Bolsheviks and their former allies, the Rockefeller Cartel, lias divided the U. S. Government.

Bolshevism was injected into Christian Russia in 1917 with the backing of U.S. financiers; now it has returned to infect the United States itself.     Meanwhile the opposite has been taking place in Russia.     The power struggle there to root out Bolshe-vism--an enormous job--is continuing.     And the key strategist in this struggle has been the late Yuri Andropov.

As Dr.  Beter described in detail over 5 years ago (AL#38), the anti-Bolsheviks of the New Kremlin are engaged in a revo­lution from the top down, not from the bottom up. 

One reason is that by attacking the very top of the power pyramid, they ob­tain maximum leverage from their efforts.     The other reason, which is closely related,  is the fact that the New Kremlin power faction is numerically a relatively small group.     They are, as Dr. Beter detailed, an old native Russian religious sect, very tough and very tightly knit. 

They do not publicly advertise their beliefs in the present circumstances, because to do so would enable the Satanic Bolsheviks to target and eliminate them relatively easily.     Instead they are encouraging the grad­ual rebirth of Christianity in Russia in more subtle ways, with results that sometimes startle foreign visitors (AL#45, 75).

Under the Andropov-designed strategy, the anti-Bolshevik group has succeeded in consolidating its control over the ruling Politburo, the Central Committee, and the all-important mili­tary services, while retaining control over the KGB. These steps have rendered the new group relatively secure against any direct attempt at a counter-coup d'etat by the Bolsheviks. The takeover at the top by the New Kremlin anti-Bolsheviks is now essentially complete.

However,  that does not mean that all Bolshevik power in the Soviet Union has now been destroyed.     Far from it.     The new group has penetrated only selected areas and strata below the top.     They are confronted with an entrenched bureaucracy that is still predominantly Bolshevik in many areas.     They have al­so inherited an economic structure which was created by the Bolsheviks to stress centralized control instead of productivity. Changing that economic structure and replacing entrenched lower-level Bolsheviks is the next great challenge in the top-down revolution of the New Kremlin.     In terms of the sheer magnitude of the problem and the hundreds of thousands of offi­cials who will ultimately be affected,  it is a staggering task.

It is this task, more than any other, which led to Andropov's selection by his colleagues to lead Russia a year ago. They anticipated a lull of about one year before the U. S. -based Bol­sheviks would start setting off a new round of crises (AL#80). In that time they hoped Andropov could lay out the blueprints and set events in motion toward bringing about these changes.
Andropov wasted no time in getting this new phase of the top-down revolution underway. 

When he took office last November, he inherited an economy troubled by declining productivity, slackening industrial growth (and actual decline in some areas), problems of labor discipline,  shoddy quality of many consumer items, and corruption.     As a first step to achieve some short-terms gains,  Andropov launched a drive to improve labor dis­cipline and begin introducing novel (for the Soviet Union) finan­cial incentives to encourage better work.     He also launched a highly visible anti-corruption drive.     This is being carried out by a former Andropov lieutenant at the KGB,  Vitaly Fedorchuk, through his new assignment at the Interior Ministry. Fedor-chuk's anti-corruption drive provides one very effective way to go after entrenched Bolsheviks and root them out quickly.

While initiating these moves to achieve some short-term gains, Andropov was also laying the groundwork for more com­prehensive changes over the longer term.     Last June Andropov convened an ideological party plenum--only the third such plen­um since World War II.     The fact that Andropov was able to convene it shows how thoroughly in command he was, and how fully his leadership was accepted among the New Kremlin group. The focus of the plenum was economics — the very heart and soul of the Soviet system.

As long ago as 1976, a Russian mathematician proved that socialism in any form is inherently destructive, both economi­cally and otherwise.     Dr.  Beter reported in July 1978 (AL#36) that Russia's new anti-Bolshevik rulers had accepted this ver­dict. 

Russia's formerly totally collectivized agriculture was already beginning to move partially toward private enterprise. (By ironic contrast, American agriculture is moving in the op­posite direction:   due in large part to government policies, the small family farm is gradually disappearing. Collectivizing is on the increase here, under the banner of "agribusiness. ") When Andropov called the ideological plenum on economics last June he started the ball rolling toward eventual dismantling of the unworkable economic system created by the Bolsheviks. In its place there is intended to be a system of financial rewards and penalties that are governed by marketplace factors. There is also to be increased authority and responsibility of local factory managers. 

In other words, a step-by-step process is about to begin in the direction of free enterprise in Russia. It is to get started right away with localized "experiments" in selected industries.

Some U.S.  commentators have lately pooh-poohed steps like these as being insignificant.     If they really believe that, then they do not understand either the thinking of Russia's new rulers or the problem they face.     The New Kremlin anti-Bolsheviks want to make, sure that they are moving in the right direction in a way that will work.     They also are leery of rapid moves that invite both mistakes and intervention by the Bolsheviks to make mischief.      They are patient; they will take their time; but they are on the move.
An equally important factor in changing the economic system is changing the people who will administer it.

 At the economic plenum last June, Andropov obtained endorsement to call elec­tions for some 5, 000 to 6, 000 local and regional party leaders. In this, Andropov succeeded in turning the monolithic party sys­tem created by the Bolsheviks against them.     "Elections" in the Soviet Union are one-candidate affairs: whoever picks the candidates controls the outcome.

By this maneuver, Andropov achieved what could prove to be a master stroke of combined economic and political change. The man whom Andropov placed in charge of selecting these new local and regional leaders is Mikhail Gorbachev, who at 52 is the youngest member of the Politburo.     Gorbachev has until lately been associated mainly with the agricultural pro­gram, which he has been working to improve.

   (This year he has apparently succeeded: the Soviet harvest for 1983 is the best in at least 5 years, by a large margin. )    Now he is mov­ing beyond agriculture to wider areas of responsibility, ranging from party organization to foreign policy.     He is a forceful leader and very intelligent. . . almost a younger Andropov, by some accounts.     Andropov was acutely aware of the need to groom a new generation to take leadership in Russia, and in his assignment to Gorbachev he took a major step in that direc­tion.

Gorbachev's day is not here just yet.    His task of ousting Bolsheviks in local and regional positions through "elections" will extend well into 1984, and it is hazardous.     If the Bolshe­viks can find a way to stop him, they will.     But if he succeeds, Gorbachev will become a leader of the New Kremlin's new gen­eration.

Another Politburo member who is closer to his zenith of power is Grigory Romanov, 60.     When the present interim shadow government steps aside by announcing that Andropov has died, the present plan is for Romanov to be installed as titular leader.     But Romanov will not have anything like the degree of authority exercised by the late Yuri Andropov. 

More likely is a period of shared authority between Romanov and Gorbachev, as happened in the mid-1950's with Bulganin and Khrushchev. Just as Bulganin faded away after awhile as full authority was granted to Khrushchev, Romanov eventually will be eclipsed by the still-rising Gorbachev.     Initial installation of the Romanov-Gorbachev team is not likely, though, until well into 1984.

Yuri Andropov did not live to see the outcome of the new initiatives he set in motion to change the economy of the Soviet Union.     Indeed, he did not expect to do so.     From the time of his accession to power just a year ago,  Kremlin officials said hopefully yet nervously:   "If only he has time. "
Now, a year later, it can be said that Andropov did have the time to plant some very important seeds.

How important? Consider this:

The Soviet Union, contrary to what you often hear from U.S. Government spokesmen, is a scientific and technological power­house.     Russia is a chained giant--chained by a stupid and un­workable economic system imposed by the Bolsheviks beginning in 1917.     If the New Kremlin succeeds in throwing off those chains, the results will be nothing short of spectacular.
We hear constantly about the efforts of Soviet spies to obtain information about U. S. technology, as if that were proof that the Russians could not do these things for themselves. That may make us puff up with pride, but it happens to be wrong. Long ago the late Gen.  Thomas Power, former head of the U„ S. Air Force Research and Development Command and then of the Strategic Air Command, explained what the Russians are up to (AL#32). 

Quite simply, they do not believe in wasting resour­ces to duplicate work which someone else has done--and they aren't too proud to obtain good information wherever they can find it.     They use what Gen. Power called "uncanny" technical intelligence to keep abreast of us in military technology we are developing.     And they save their best technologists to--again in Gen. Power's words--"leapfrog" over us with more advanced or specialized weapons.     As a result, in the military area, the Russians end up having pretty much what we have--plus some more besides.

Likewise in non-military scientific areas, the Russians are far, far better than most Americans are led to believe.    Just a few days ago, for example, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology achieved a major milestone in nuclear fusion termed "breakeven. "    It brings us one step closer to clean, plentiful fusion power.     It was done with a machine called a tokamak--conceived by Russian researchers years ago to solve a critical problem called plasma instability.

Russian researchers of all kinds are strongly encouraged to publish the results of their work.    On the average,  they publish more than their counterparts here in the U„ S.    In certain fields, in fact, the technical literature of the Soviet Union exceeds that of the entire rest of the world combined.     Some of it is below our own standards, but much of it is also very good.     And we are talking here, not about secret reports, but about the "open" literature which is available to anyone in the world who wants it.

While the Russians eagerly seek out the information we pro­duce here, the U. S. makes no comparable effort to benefit from what the Russians produce.     We could, but we don't. In­stead,  the Bolshevized Reagan Administration is increasingly obsessed with just trying to hide whatever we do learn, in an all-pervasive drive for secrecy (NewsA LER T #7).      That kind of attitude is typical of Bolshevism, and if it is not stopped, it will chain the U.S. just as surely as it has chained Russia.

What prevents the scientific and technical prowess of the Soviet Union from benefiting its people more is the economic structure.     It is so inefficient and unwieldy that the Russians have actually overcompensated by churning out even more engi­neers and scientists than they should need.     Every Russian factory of any size,  for example, has its own research depart­ment: that is easier than trying to get special problems worked on by a centralized research laboratory controlled by an over­fed Bolshevik bureaucrat. 

Thus, the weakness of the economic system has paradoxically created a latent strength in the form of widespread know-how that has yet to be properly tapped.

With its economy set free,  the resultant release of techno­logical potentials could some day turn Russia into a kind of super-Japan.     Even more importantly,  such an economic rev­olution would sound the final death knell for Bolshevism in Rus­sia.     That would fling the doors open wide for the spiritual rebirth which is already visible in Russia today.     If it happens, that will be the real legacy of the late Yuri Andropov.

Next scheduled issue:  Dec. 2, 1983

NewsALERT is published 24 times per year by Audio Books, Inc. Headquarters address: 1629 K St., NW, #5092; Washington, DC 20006.     For faster service write to: NewsALERT, P.O.  Box 276, Savage, MD 20763.     Current sub­scription rates:    545.00/year in U. S. A. & Canada;    $70.00/year other countries. Outside U.S.A. please remit by international money order in U.S. dollars.

Peter Beter News Alert 8: Perspective: Soviet Union & The Legacy of the Late Yuri Andropov

Peter Beter News Alert 7: The "Mayaguez Strategy" for Invasion of Grenada & The Campaign to Control What Americans Know

Number 7 - November 4, 1983


IN THIS ISSUE:

Perspective: Secrecy and Deception

The "Mayaguez Strategy" for Invasion of Grenada

On October 25 the United States invaded the Caribbean island of Grenada.     President Reagan claimed that it was carried out to protect American lives and in res­ponse to a request from other Caribbean island nations, who sent token forces to help.   However,  the Grenada invasion had actually been in the planning for over two years,  and its precise timing was dictated by the truck-bomb massacre of U.S.  Marines in Beirut 2 days earlier. Just as the Mayaguez affair in 1975 de-fused American anger over the fall of South Vietnam, the Grenada inva­sion de-fused unwanted reactions to the Beirut disaster.

The Campaign to Control What Americans Know

The Grenada invasion was surrounded by a White House campaign of press censorship and deception, unparalleled even in the most secret operations of World War II. This reflects a much larger pattern of obsession with secrecy which has been growing over the past 4 years.     The new Bolshevism infecting the U.S.  Government is leading to unprecedented new controls on government employees, hiding of information and obstruction of scientific inquiry.

Copyright © 1983, Audio Books, Inc.

Background references are indicated in parentheses ( ), abbreviated as follows:
Ali    Dr. Beter AUDIO LETTER® Cassette Tape #
AB#    AUDIO BOOK® Cassette Tape #
ST#    SPECIAL TAPE #
These tapes produced by Audio Books, Inc., may be ordered from NewsALERT.

Perspective: Secrecy and Deception

Ten days ago the United States, acting under the thin cloak of a Caribbean multinational force,  invaded the island of Gre­nada.     The event made headlines not only because of its sensa­tional nature, but also because of unprecedented actions by the U. S.  Government to control the news about it.     These actions ranged from deceptive White House statements to the exclusion of all independent press coverage of the fighting for the critical first two days of warfare.

The furor which has erupted over censorship of the press in the Grenada invasion is well justified, but it only scratches the surface.     There are several layers of secrecy and deception involved in what happened.     There is secrecy over the true military purpose of the invasion: Reagan now scolds reporters for using his own original word "invasion," saying it was only a "rescue mission" to protect American lives.   There is decep­tion about the reason for the timing of the invasion, which was directly related to the bombing of U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut two days earlier.     And in a truly perverse twist worthy of the new U. S.  Bolshevik war planners, there is even secrecy about the reasons for secrecy.     The teapot tempest of Grenada did not warrant secrecy exceeding that of the D-Day invasion of World War II for military reasons:   it was done instead to man­ipulate the press and, thereby,  the American public.

What makes the Grenada censorship episode most important is that it is part of a far wider pattern which is growing fast. In the four years since the U. S.  Government started falling un­der the spell of a silent new Bolshevik Revolution, government­al preoccupation with secrecy has become an obsession.    Up to now it is a trend which, by virtue of its very stealth, has es­caped widespread public notice.     But it is very ominous.

President Reagan is fond of painting his Administration as one devoted to ideals which millions interpret as Christian. If we would simply pay attention to what our Lord Jesus Christ actually taught, we would not make this mistake.     The ways of all-pervasive secrecy are ways of darkness.    "For everyone who does evil hates the light...lest his deeds should be exposed." The pseudo-Christian image of the Reagan Administration is a Satanic counterfeit.

The "Mayaguez Strategy" for Invasion of Grenada

Two weeks ago on Oct. 23 the four-story concrete barracks occupied by U. S.  Marines at the Beirut Airport was destroyed by a truck bomb in a suicide attack.     Initial reports that day, as mentioned in NewsALERT #6, were that as many as 150 Ma­rines had been killed, with many more injured and missing. In incidents of this type, the news always gets worse as time goes on.     By today, with the digging-out almost completed, the toll stands at 234 dead, with the possibility that it will reach 239.

As we detailed in NewsALERT #4 six weeks ago,  our own leaders are maneuvering the U. S.  very deliberately,  step by step, into a new "Vietnam" in Lebanon.     In this, the Bolshe-vized U. S. Government is working hand in glove with the radi­cal Zionists who now control the Israeli government. What happened in Beirut on Oct.  23 is a harbinger of things to come: not even in the nightmare of Vietnam itself--not even in the darkest days of the 1968 Tet offensive--did America lose so many men in a single day.

Just two days after the Beirut disaster Americans were hit with another big shock: the U, S invasion of Grenada, under color of a "multinational" Caribbean force.     The shock of Beirut had not yet worn off, and its full meaning had not yet sunk in, before the Grenada invasion diverted the attention of the American people and of Congress.

The timing and sequence of these two stunning events was no accident.     (Stop and think for a moment how different the emo­tional impact would have been if they had happened in opposite order--first the controversial Grenada invasion,  followed two days later by the disaster in Beirut.)    Even President Reagan stated in his initial announcement about the invasion that the "formal" decision had been made on Oct. 23--the same day as the Beirut disaster.     But that is only one small hint of the ex­tent to which these two events were coordinated with each other.

The Reagan Administration has been planning the invasion of Grenada for well over two years.     A mock invasion of Grenada was carried out by the U.S.  Marines on an island near Puerto Rico as long ago as 1981.     Even so, the actual timing of the Grenada invasion was based on psychological rather than stra­

[Scan Problem] Trie same pattern has been followed as was used in the little-remembered Mayaguez incident of 1975.

The prelude to the Mayaguez affair was the collapse of South Vietnam in the spring of 1975.     Two years earlier the U.S. had withdrawn its military forces under a supposed "peace" agreement,  assuring Americans that our sacrifices had ren­dered the South Vietnamese capable of defending themselves. In March 1975,  North Vietnamese forces launched major at­tacks in the Central Highlands of South Vietnam.     Within two weeks South Vietnamese forces were in wholesale retreat.

Day by day the news from Vietnam got worse.   On April 16 American officials in Saigon began evacuating U.S. citizens. The South Vietnamese presidency changed hands twice in a week's time as the situation went from bad to worse.   By April 28 Tan Son Nhut air base outside Saigon was being shelled, and President Gerald Ford ordered the immediate all-out evacua­tion of remaining personnel from Saigon.     Hours after the pullout ended the following day, South Vietnam surrendered un­conditionally to North Vietnam.
Americans had endured a decade of war. . . 58,000 dead, with many more maimed and missing. . . $200 billion or more of our tax dollars spent. . .
American society torn by unprecedented turmoil. . . and all for what?    It had all ended in a panicky with­drawal so precipitous that it left behind some $5 to $10 billion in war materiel for the North Vietnamese to capture.

As the shock of what had happened gradually wore off, it was being replaced by anger and frustration among the Ameri­can people.    All of the promises, all of the rationales and all of the exhortations of five Administrations,  both Democrat and Republican,  had been proven totally worthless regarding Viet­nam.     We had been betrayed. . . and someone had to pay.

Our leaders knew better than to wait for the building pres­sure of public hurt and rage to explode in their faces. Instead, they arranged for those pent-up feelings to be vented off at a s cape goat.

On May 12,  1975--less than two weeks after the fall of Sai­gon—an American merchant ship named the Mayaguez moved into very dangerous waters in the Gulf of Siam. It maneuvered close to a particularly sensitive island named Poulo Wai, which was claimed by both Cambodia and Vietnam. As expected, the Mayaguez and its crew of 39 were captured by the Cambodians.

What ensued would have a comic opera quality if it were not so sad.     The U.S. Air Force,  U.S.  Navy,  and (as always) the U.S.  Marines were ordered into action against Cambodia. It was a three-day sensation,  culminating in the Marines being sent in to rescue the crew of the Mayaguez.      They did so, and it was all played up as if it were a stupendous victory. There were headline photos of President Ford and his aides in poses of apparent jubilation over news of the successful mission.

From the standpoint of normal military calculations,  it was actually far short of the unqualified success it was claimed to be.     More American servicemen were lost in the operation (41) than the entire rescued crew of the Mayaguez (39).    But at such moments, facts don't matter: all that counts is the emo­tion that is generated.     And it worked.

The "victorious" Mayaguez affair pushed the vastly more important but distasteful collapse of South Vietnam off the front pages and out of mind for awhile.     It enabled millions to men­tally clench their fists and say:   "That'll show them they can't push us around!"    And most critically for our leaders,  it re­placed seething anger over Vietnam with widespread approval over handling of the Mayaguez incident.

By the time the sensation of the Mayaguez incident faded away in our minds,  there were other news stories to attract our momentary attention.     The fall of South Vietnam which had taken place weeks earlier was still an unavoidable fact, but it had become a fact without strong emotional power. America's leaders had succeeded in their Mayaguez ploy.

They were no longer in danger of having to pay for their role in the disaster known as Vietnam.

The American invasion of Grenada last week shares some important characteristics with the Mayaguez incident of 1975. They are different in one respect:   the Mayaguez incident was meaningless in itself, whereas the Grenada operation involves strategic considerations of its own.     But the two situations are alike in their politically motivated timing.

The Mayaguez in­cident was used to prevent undesirable (to our leaders) public and congressional reactions to a disaster--the fall of South Vietnam.     Likewise,  the Grenada invasion was timed to pre­vent similarly unwanted reactions to another major disaster--the massacre of Marines in Beirut.     And in both cases, when the respective Presidents announced their actions,  they said it was "to protect American lives. "

In NewsALERT #6 we reported that the Beirut bombing of our Marines was arranged by the Israeli Mossad, through its infiltration of other groups in the region.  We also reported that it was done in coordination with the present U.S. Govern­ment, with the objective of preventing success of the Lebanese National Reconciliation Conference.  This coordination is re­flected strongly in the timing of events leading up to the Grena­da invasion.

Washington's public buildup toward overt action against Gre­nada began last March 24, when President Reagan showed pic­tures of the new runway under construction there.     He implied that the 9,000-foot runway had no conceivable peaceful use, and therefore that it must be for military use by the Russians and Cubans.

What he did not mention was the real reason for U. S. interest, which lies about 500 miles away in Guyana. The Soviet Union and Cuba already have access to a bigger and, in some respects, better-located airfield in Marxist Guyana: the huge Timehri Airfield.     This is the airport through which the bodies from the Jonestown Massacre and the parallel secret commando operation against a secret Russian missile base passed in November 1978 (AL#40).

The Timehri Airfield has been used extensively for ferrying Cuban troops to Africa and for other purposes.   American of­ficials do their best never to talk about it in public, however, due to the embarrassing history of the airfield.   It was former­ly an American air base called Atkinson Field.     But in 1965, President Lyndon Johnson turned it over free of charge to the newly independent,  Marxist Republic of Guyana which renamed it the Timehri Airfield.     That is how things worked in the days of the now-extinct secret alliance of Washington and Moscow.

The war planners of the now-Bolshevized U.S. Pentagonwant an air base to counter the Timehri Airfield in Guyana. It was decided some time ago that the best way to get one would be to wait until the Cubans finished building the new runway at Grenada and then seize it for American use.     That is the plan which spawned the initial Reagan TV blast last March about the Grenada runway, which was then nearing completion.

Then-Prime Minister of Grenada Maurice Bishop protested that the runway was needed to boost tourism, which was being hampered by Grenada's small,  out-of-date airport. Last spring he came to Washington in an attempt to speak to Reagan and other top Administration officials by presenting full details about it.     His overtures were turned aside.     Other than a per­functory, brief meeting with then-National Security Advisor William Clark, he reportedly was not given an audience with anyone able or disposed to deal authoritatively with him.

Instead, a covert campaign got underway to destabilize the Bishop regime, with completion of the runway drawing near. A pretext would be needed to trigger the planned invasion at the right time.     For that purpose, ambitious men close to Bishop were cultivated.     Meanwhile,  U.S.  planning for action in Gre­nada were kept closely coordinated with Israeli moves to be taken covertly in Lebanon.     This month it all came together in a lightning sequence of stunning events.

October 13: Turbulence begins in Grenada, as Prime Mini­ster Bishop is placed under house arrest.

October 18:   Amphibious task force of 1800 U. S. Marines and supporting ships leave Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, sup­posedly bound for Lebanon to relieve Marines ending their tour of duty there.     Naval task force headed by aircraft carrier, USS Independence, also leaves Norfolk,  Virginia, supposedly to relieve ships on duty off Lebanon.

October 19:   Bloody coup in Grenada.     Bishop,  close to Cuba politically and to Castro personally,   is killed along with top aides.     U.S. nonetheless alleges Cuba is behind it.

October 21: While Soviet official statements remain cau­tious, Russia's client state Cuba strongly condemns the kill­ings and hints that it might   re-examine ties with Grenada.

The same day, U. S. announces that it is "diverting" the naval and Marine task forces toward Grenada, purely as a "precau­tionary" measure,  insisting there is no intention to take action.

October 23:   Marines massacred in Beirut by suicide bomb­ing arranged by Israeli Mossad (NewsALERT #6).

Same day:   Combined U, S. Navy-Marines task force of 21 ships arrives off Grenada.     As announced two days later by President Reagan,  the "formal" go-ahead for invasion involving other Caribbean participants is given that day. Meanwhile, White House continues to call an invasion "preposterous. "

October 24:  Congress,  shocked by the carnage in Beirut, begins spirited debate.     Many express regret at having agreed to leave Marines there.     Bill is prepared in Congress to cut off funding and thereby force a pullout of the Marines. Power­ful sentiment is building fast to undo the blank check recently given to Reagan to keep Marines in Lebanon for 18 months. Such a cutoff, if it succeeded, would spoil secret joint U. S. -Israeli plans for further conflict in Lebanon (NewsALERT #4).

October 25:   Grenada invasion shocks Congress and the na­tion.     The U. S.  claims that the attack is in response to the bloody coup of Oct.  19. . .but it is carried out with forces that had put to sea with perfect timing one day before the coup.

Same day:   Legislation to cut off funding for Marines duty in Lebanon is introduced--but Congress,  stunned by the newer crisis in Grenada, decides to put off consideration of the Leba­non measure.     The "Mayaguez strategy" is working:   by pre­venting action on Lebanon at the emotionally critical moment, the Grenada invasion saves the long-range plan for Lebanon.
From the moment that the Grenada invasion was announced, it seized the headlines away from the still-fresh Marine disas­ter in Beirut.

This effect was magnified enormously by impo­sition of unprecedented secrecy and press censorship by the Bolshevized Reagan White House.   Nothing whets journalistic appetites as surely as official secrecy or the appearance of a coverup.     And in the Grenada invasion, the Reagan White House and the Pentagon went to extremes unprecedented in the United States.    This ominous development is partly a reflection of the basic nature of the Bolshevik forces which now grip the reins of power in the U. S. Government.     (More about that in the second topic. ) 

But in addition,  secrecy and censorship have been used as a deliberate ploy to manipulate press cover­age of the Grenada invasion.     There were misleading state­ments before the invasion,  conflicting statements afterward. Reporters were barred from on-scene coverage--a level of secrecy greater than in the D-Day invasion of Europe or the first atomic bomb mission in World War II.     Four reporters who did reach Grenada were rounded up, helicoptered to the assault carrier USS Guam,  and held incommunicado under con­stant watch for more than a day.     The press seethed.

The angry press struck back by bathing Grenada in the most extensive coverage they could muster,  including denunciations of the unprecedented censorship.     And that was exactly what the Administration's Bolshevik strategists wanted.     It took everyone's mind off Beirut long enough for passions to die down concerning the massacre of U.S. Marines.

By the end of October the aftermath of the Grenada invasion was settling down.     The leaders of the coup, Deputy Prime Minister Bernard Coard and Gen. Hudson Austin, were in cus­tody, and there was talk of forming a new U. S„ - supported gov­ernment for Grenada.     Early U. S.  statements gave the idea that American forces would soon be gone,  and to reinforce this impression,  it was announced that by this weekend half of the 6,000-man invasion force would be gone.

The Pentagon has no intention of really pulling out complete­ly from Grenada:   that Cuban-built runway has already become a makeshift American air base.     But for the moment, Grenada seems under control.     So on Nov.  2 the House of Representa­tives finally got around to voting on that proposal to cut off the funding required to keep Marines in Lebanon.     By then the emotional climate had undergone a predictable change. Instead of the early revulsion at the needless Marine deaths, the feel­ing had become, in the words of House Speaker Tip O'Neill: "It would be a disaster to pull out.    It would be a victory for the Syrians and the Soviets. . . "

With that Vietnam-like reasoning, the House voted 274-153 not to cut off funding.     The Marines stay in Lebanon.

Thus, America's betrayal into a new "Vietnam" in Lebanon (NewsALERT #4) is continuing right on track.     Thanks to the House vote of Nov.  2,  the truck bomb massacre of Marines on Oct.  23 has served its purpose.     We have passed a turning point in investment of American lives that may well be the point of no return.

Now the joint Bolshevik-Zionist military junta that links the U.S. and Israel (AL#67) is free to continue its campaign for partition of Lebanon.     Yesterday, Nov.  3, the National Recon­ciliation Conference of Lebanese leaders in Geneva adjourned in an air of possible compromise.     President Gemayel has been given a mandate to seek a way out of the deadlock over the May 17 troop withdrawal agreement between Lebanon and Israel. If the agreement can be modified in certain ways, there is a chance that all parties in Lebanon could reach agreement on all the other problems facing them.     Peace is possible.

But the Israeli government does not want peace: it wants par­tition. Today a truck bomb exploded at an Israeli regional headquarters building in southern Lebanon,  in a smaller-scale version of what happened to U. S.  Marines on Oct.  23. Once again the Mossad has done the bidding of ex-Mossad agent, Prime Minister Shamir.     Just as the Bolsheviks here do not hesitate to sacrifice American lives for their own purposes, the radical Zionists who run the Israeli government today do not hesitate to shed their own people's blood in the same way. Now the Shamir government has a pretext which it will use to insist that the crucial May 17 agreement not be changed. And in that way,  Lebanese hopes for peace can once again be dashed by the Satanic forces who are bent on war.

The Campaign to Control What Americans Know

On March 17,  1982,  retired Army Gen. William Westmore­land spoke at Fort Lewis College in Durango,  Colorado. He said that in any future war involving the United States, the news media will have to be censored.     Westmoreland, who was the commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam,  complained about the freedom of press coverage which had existed in the Vietnam war,  saying:   "Without censorship, things can get terribly con­fused in the public mind. "

In the Grenada invasion this month we have seen a practical example of Westmoreland's recommendations at work.   To the new U.S.  Bolsheviks, the public "need to know" which is the basis of our free form of government does not exist.

The unprecedented secrecy and censorship over Grenada is only the latest and most dramatic example of a growing obses­sion with secrecy by the Reagan Administration.     But this dangerous trend is not, as some commentators seem to think, just a peculiarity of Reagan and Co.     It is instead a result of the Bolshevizing of the U.S.  Government which began in 1979 during the Carter Administration.     This began with the mur­der of Nelson Rockefeller (AL#42) and continued largely out of public view (AL#43 on).

An early concrete consequence of the new Bolshevik influ­ence surfaced late in the Carter Administration, Sept. 1980. A new super-classification level above Top Secret called Royal was announced, with access limited to about two dozen top offi-cials of the Executive Branch and fewer than ten members of Congress.

Under the Reagan Administration,  governmental preoccupa­tion with secrecy has become increasingly paranoid and all-encompassing.     On Nov. 25,   1981,  Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger recommended a catch-all new low-level security classification called "Restricted."    It would apply to anything and everything which could cause "the loss of an advantage to the United States."    That encompasses just about everything. On April 2,   1982,  Reagan signed a sweeping new Executive order which encourages secrecy as a governmental way of life: it eliminates former requirements to consider the public's right to know, and requires that--when in doubt--the highest level of security classification is to be used.     Among other things, this guts the Freedom of Information Act by making it virtually impossible for anything to be classified improperly, Governmental wrongdoing is thus being systematically removed from public scrutiny and accountability.This year the paranoia has deepened.

Last February Rea­gan said he was "up to my keister" with leaks, and on March I signed an Executive Order which, among other things, renders all federal employees subject to lie detector tests upon demand

On August 25 an unprecedented new contract was unveiled that must be signed by all government officials with access to Sen­sitive Compartmented Information (S„ CI.): it subjects them to pre-publication governmental censorship of every word they write for the general public for the rest of their lives. Nothing like this has ever been done before in American history. Nor is there any precedent for the August 30 Reagan memo sent to all 2. 6 million federal employees,  threatening everyone with "appropriate administrative action" or even "criminal prosecu­tion" for any breach of security.

Nor is the obsession with secrecy limited to governmental employees: it is increasingly threatening free thought and new learning of all kinds.  

On Jan.  6,   1982, then-Deputy CIA Dir­ector, Adm.  Bobby Inman, urged at a scientific convention that scientists submit their work to voluntary censorship. When that created a storm of protests from appalled scientists, White House spokesman Larry Speakes said on Jan.  8,   1982: "There is no consideration being given to any mandatory program for government review of scientific papers."    But eight months later a technical symposium in San Diego was torn to shreds by a last-minute "security" crackdown by the Pentagon. Even though the papers were unclassified,  Pentagon agents swooped down just before the meeting with warnings to the technical so­ciety and to speakers not to transgress some little-understood security rules.     Rather than risk dire consequences,  some 100 speakers — about 1 in 6--cancelled their presentations.

Universities are being pressured to become policemen over foreign students and visitors, even when they will be exposed to nothing classified here, and even when they bring expertise that will benefit researchers here.     Foreign films that don't suit the government are being labeled as propaganda.
The Grenada invasion with its censorship is a warning. The silent cancer of a new Bolshevism has invaded America. . . and it is casting a dark pall of governmental secrecy over the land.

Next scheduled issue:   Nov.  18, 1983

News A I.FRT is published 24 times per year by Audio Books, Inc.

Headquarters address: 1629 K St., NW, #5092; Washington, DC 20006. 

For faster service write to: NewsALERT, P. O. Box 276, Savage, MD 20763.  

Current sub­scription rates:    $45.00/year in U. S. A. & Canada;    $70.00/year other countries. Outside U. S. A. please remit by international money order in U. S. dollars.

Peter Beter News Alert 7: The "Mayaguez Strategy" for Invasion of Grenada & The Campaign to Control What Americans Know

Peter Beter Newsletter 6 : Perspective: Soviet-American Confrontation The "Reverse Cuba" Missile Crisis Now Underway

Number 6
October 23, 1983


Note: Due to late-breaking crisis developments, editing of this issue was extended 2 days beyond the scheduled date of Oct. 21.

IN THIS ISSUE:

Perspective: Soviet-American Confrontation The "Reverse Cuba" Missile Crisis Now Underway

A superpower confrontation is underway between the U.S. and the USSR which is a mirror image of the:Cuban Mis­sile Crisis of 1962.     The Korean airliner incident of last month and its aftermath have produced results which were badly miscalculated by the Reagan Administration. Krem­lin leaders are convinced that the U.S. is bent on war, as stated with grave finality in an Andropov crisis declara­tion of Sept.  28.     In retaliation for impending Euromissile deployment by the U.S. , Soviet underwater-launch missiles are now being planted along America's shores.

Expanding Crisis: Lebanon, Persian Gulf, Korea

With the Lebanon War Powers Resolution safely signed, violence against U.S. Marines has rapidly escalated to the catastrophic terrorist attack of Oct.  23.     The Iran-Iraq war also is moving toward becoming a new arena of Soviet-U. S,  conflict.     Top South Korean officials impli­cated in the Korean airliner incident were killed in a bomb blast in Rangoon,  Burma,  arranged by the KGB.

Copyright © 1983, Audio Books, Inc.

Background references are indicated in parentheses { ), abbreviated as follows:
Ali    Dr. Beter AUDIO LETTER® Cassette Tape #
ABl    AUDIO BOOK® Cassette Tape #
ST#    SPECIAL TAPE #
These tapes produced by Audio Books, Inc., may be ordered from NewsALERT.

Perspective: Soviet-American Confrontation

When Korean Air Lines Flight 007 flew into supersensitive Soviet airspace on Sept.   1 and was shot down,  those who had planned the incident expected it to shoot down arms control too (NewsALERT #3).     It has accomplished that purpose, paving the way for deployment of new U. S. nuclear missiles in Europe on schedule beginning in a few weeks.

But the Reagan Administration has made a grave miscalcu­lation by over-using the airliner incident as a propaganda blud­geon against Russia.     As a Soviet official was quoted in the Washington Post on Oct.  17:   "There is a very strong convic­tion here that you want to destroy us.     That is serious."
That is serious.     Serious enough that on Sept.  28 Soviet President Andropov issued a declaration on Soviet-American relations that signifies the onset of a major super-power con­frontation.     At this writing we are already in the midst of a still-escalating crisis which is like the 1962 Cuban Missile Cri­sis and the 1976 Underwater Missile Crisis rolled into one.


The "Reverse Cuba" Missile Crisis Now Underway

In the nearly four decades of the Atomic Age,  there has been only one publicly admitted nuclear confrontation between the super-powers.     That confrontation was, of course,  the Cuban Missile Crisis, which erupted 21 years ago this month in Octo­ber 1962.

That crisis arose out of the efforts of one super-power to deploy medium-range nuclear missiles on the other's doorstep. The missiles were Russian, the doorstep was Cuba, and the targeted super-power was the United States.     In response, the U. S. adopted a posture which explicitly threatened nuclear war rather than accept the presence of any of those missiles. The Soviet Union--which at that time was heavily outgunned by U.S. nuclear might--opted for survival and backed off.

Four months ago in our complimentary Interim News Alert #4 (which preceded the regular NewsALERT series) we report­ed that an exactly similar crisis was brewing again, but in re­verse.     This time the medium-range nuclear missiles to be deployed are American, the doorstep is Europe,  and the tar­geted super-power is Russia.     This time it is the U. S.  that is outgunned and is trying to tip the balance the other way. And this time it is Russia that is saying,  as the U.S. did 21 years ago, that not a single one of these missiles is acceptable.

This "Reverse Cuba" crisis is now upon us.     As of this writing it remains partially visible,  partially obscured,  yet it already surpasses the 1962 crisis in its actual scope. More about that in the "Expanding Crisis" topic of this NewsALERT.

The Reverse Cuba Crisis over deployment of U. S. missiles in Europe is taking place against the backdrop of collapsing arms control talks.     This is no coincidence: the two are inti­mately related.     President Reagan's hand-picked arms control chief,  Kenneth Adelman, has been presiding over a strategy of arms control talks that is designed to buy time,  look good to the public, but lead nowhere.

 He is fulfilling to the letter his publicly stated approach to arms control negotiations: "My pol­icy would be to do it for political reasons.   I think it's a sham." (N. Y.  Daily News column by Ken Auletta,  5/24/81)    The real goal is to make sure that the missile deployment proceeds.

Both Soviet and American public statements speak of seeking "equality" or a "balance" in European nuclear weapons, yet they propose going about it in opposite ways.

 The Russians have been offering ever since at least May 3 of this year to re­move and destroy large numbers of their own European mis­siles,  provided the U.S. does not deploy new ones.     In effect, they are conceding that their own nuclear power in Europe is greater than that of NATO, and offering to redress the imbal­ance by destroying most of their own weapons.

 The response of the Reagan Administration is that this won't do. Regard­less of what the Russians do (short of destroying ALL their missiles, which ignores the large British and French nuclear forces),  the U.S. insists on putting large numbers of new mis­siles in Europe aimed at the Soviet Union.     When the window dressing and public-relations imagery is peeled away from the various U.S. proposals made so far,  this insistence upon de­ploying the missiles is always the bottom line.

The reason these two approaches are so fundamentally in­ compatible is that the true,  strategic goal is not really "equal­ity" for either side.

 The European missiles are only part of a strategic equation which also includes secret weapons which are not discussed in public at all.     The Soviet Union today has a commanding advantage in the realm of secret weaponry, an advantage which began with Russia's surprise offensive to take military control of space in late 1977 (AL#26 on).     Because of this factor it is to Russia's advantage to de-emphasize conven­tional missile forces equally on both sides.      But by the same token,  the greater U.S. dependence upon missiles means that the only way to counter Soviet power is through sheer force of numbers. 

Thus,  the U.S. is not interested in any formula for nuclear "equality" that prevents deployment of new missiles.
This asymmetry in weaponry and strategy is made more acute--and much more dangerous--by the adoption of a "first strike" nuclear strategy by the U.S. Pentagon.     Dr. Beter first began reporting on this strategic shift in the summer of 1978 (AL#36, 37). 

Since then various hints about it have sur­faced from time to time,  such as the Defense Department spokesman's statement in January 1980 that America might "shoot first" in a nuclear war (AL#57); the Presidential Direc­tive shifting America onto a "counterforce" (i. e.  first strike) posture (AL#57); and new strategies for protracted nuclear war. This shift to a first strike posture is alien to American tradi­tion and values, but reflects the Bolshevizing of the Pentagon which has taken place over the past few years.

The prime Soviet weapon against a possible American first strike is its fleet of hovering weapons platforms called cosmo-spheres.     These machines, which could have been developed by the U.S. but were not (AL#32), began to be deployed in late 1977 and for awhile announced their presence by hair-raising air booms along the U.S. East Coast (AL#29).

 Hovering over U. S. missile sites,  cosmospheres could thwart a first strike by using their beam weapons to blast the missiles as they are launched.     But that is true only if there are enough cosmo­spheres to go around.     The Reagan Administration plan to de­ploy 572 new missiles in Europe is designed to help swamp out the cosmospheres through sheer numbers.     To the extent that there are more missile sites than the cosmospheres can patrol, an American nuclear first strike becomes increasingly feasible.

These are the reasons why the anti-Bolshevik new Kremlin led by Yuri Andropov is so adamant against agreeing to even a single new U.S. missile in Europe.   In their view, the missiles are quite simply a prelude to nuclear war.
The Korean airliner incident of Sept.   1 was staged and timed in a way designed to undercut arms talks and insure that there would be no delay in Euromissile deployment (NewsALERT #3).

But the Bolshevized Reagan Administration made an extreme miscalculation, both by staging the incident and by using it to hammer so hard at the Soviets throughout the month of Septem­ber.     In short, Reagan and his scriptwriters overdid it.

In late September there was a sudden massive increase in Soviet naval activity worldwide.     Then on Sept.  28 Soviet Pres­ident Andropov issued a major statement through the Soviet press agency,  Tass.     The seriousness of this event has been largely lost in the frothy daily reports which most Americans depend on for their news.     To begin with,  it was issued as a Declaration of the General Secretary of the Party--a format used only in crisis situations.    It began with the words:

"The Soviet leadership deems it necessary to make known. . . its assessment of the course pursued by the present United States Administration.     Briefly, it is a militarist course that poses a grave threat to peace. "    

The statement made many points, the most ominous of which is:

"Even if someone had il­lusions as to the possible evolution for the better in the policy of the American Administration, the latest developments have FINALLY DISPELLED THEM. "   (Our emphasis. )   

 This is not a statement of complaints to be resolved, but a gravely stated final judgment.

Andropov also said in his crisis declaration that in its re­sponse to American deployment of missiles in Europe, the So­viet Union's "words and deeds will not be at variance. " Those words for months now have warned that Russia's countermeas-ures will include weapons aimed at the U. S. itself.    A few days ago on Oct.   17, Soviet Gen. Nikolai Chervov made it more spe­cific in an interview with the German magazine Stern, saying Soviet nuclear missiles will be positioned "within 10 minutes" of the U.S.     American officials and news commentators inter­preted this to mean that Soviet missile subs would just move closer to our shores. 

But that is not what he meant at all.

In Interim News Alert #4 last June we called attention to the warning hints which had taken place in Swedish and Norwegian waters.     Sonar-evading minisubs created a sensation by inva­ding the most heavily defended waters,  prowling around at will, and leaving unscathed.     These are a more advanced version of the sonar-evading minisubs which were used 7 years ago to plant underwater-launch missiles (UWM's) inside America's territorial waters (AL#16).     Now they are at work again.

The Andropov crisis declaration of Sept.  28 was actually a declaration of covert war against the U. S.     Even though most of the Soviet missiles planted in our waters 7 years ago are still there,  they are considered unreliable.     Planting of new UWM's in our waters began on Sept.  28.     In 1976 the missiles were all short-range,  rocket-propelled models intended to hit coastal targets not far away.     Many of these are being planted once again. 

But now, in addition,  there is also a specially en­capsulated version of a brand-new Soviet cruise missile desig­nated SSCX4.     It has a 900-mile range, enabling it to reach any target in the U.S. except North and South Dakota, Minnesota and parts of surrounding states.     Due to this new threat the presidential nuclear war command airplane was recently moved to an inland location within this island of safety.     By Oct. 12 at least 73 UWM's had been planted. . . with many more to come.


Expanding Crisis: Lebanon, Persian Guif, Korea

Having triggered a faster-than-intended crisis buildup due to miscalculation, the new U. S. -based Bolsheviks are trying to regain control of events.     Their primary strategy for now is to deliberately multiply the arenas of crisis in an effort to throw the Kremlin off balance.     In this they are being assisted by their close allies, the radical Zionists who presently control the government of Israel.

At the same time, the Kremlin is no longer waiting to see what the Bolshevik-Zionist Axis will hatch next,  but is taking aggressive action of its own.     Two days ago on Oct.  21 it was announced that Soviet President Andropov was postponing a visit to Bulgaria.     This was not due to health problems as rumored:

although Andropov does have some chronic ailments, he is very much in charge.     He cancelled the trip for the moment as being in conflict with a crisis mobilization campaign now being direc­ted at the Soviet population.     He is also personally coordinat­ing the crisis decision-making now underway in the Kremlin.

Lebanon:   More Marines Sacrificed

In NewsALERT {14 last month we explained the reason why U. S. Marines were sent to Lebanon.     They are there in order to implement plans by which the U. S. is to be intentionally drawn into a new "Vietnam" in Lebanon.     Their mission is claimed to be that of "peacekeepers, " but the heavy constraints on their action make any such role impossible.     Instead, their role up to now is to serve as bait for fatal attacks designed to deepen American involvement beyond recall.

If we were only saying these things after the fact,  it would be just our word against the word of President Reagan and the rest of the U. S. Government.     But NewsALERT is simply con­tinuing the work carried on formerly by Dr.  Beter,   who gave warnings repeatedly and explicitly about the present situation over a year ago (AL #78, 79, 80).     No amount of rationaliza­tion or excuses can change one simple fact: Reagan's profuse assurances at that time that the Marines would not be in danger have been proven totally untrue, while Dr. Beter's warnings have been proven tragically accurate.

When Dr.  Beter was giving those unheeded warnings over a year ago, he also reported the key fact that the Israeli intelli­gence agency called the Mossad was manipulating events. For example, in August 1978 (AL#78) Dr.  Beter reported that the Lebanese President-elect,  Bashir Gemayel, was slated by Is­rael to be assassinated.     The following month the plan was carried out,   helping to set the stage for the Marines' open-ended deployment in Lebanon.     The slain president-elect was replaced by his less capable brother,  Amin, as president.

The Israeli Mossad continues its manipulation of events, in concert with the U. S. Pentagon and certain factions within the U.S. State Department.    While overrated in some ways, the Mossad deserves its premier reputation in one particular area: the infiltration and subversion of other power centers through out the Middle East. 

This has been going on ever since Israel was proclaimed a state, and today there are Mossad agents in sensitive positions from Morocco to Iran.    The Mossad is also extremely active in New York City, due to the presence there of United Nations headquarters.     This fact surfaced briefly in August 1979,  in the celebrated case of Israeli spying on then-U. S. Ambassador to the U. N. , Andrew Young (AL#49).

Wherever possible, undercover Mossad agents position themselves to play off radical versus more conservative fac­tions within power groups which they infiltrate.     In this way they are frequently able to raise or lower the level of conflict on at least a short-term basis.     When these moves are coord­inated with other steps taken by the Israeli government and by the U.S. , they can and do radically alter the course of events. This process has been used heavily over the past two months in Lebanon.

In NewsALERT #4 we described how the fatal attacks of Aug. 29 and Sept.  6, which took the lives of 4 Marines, triggered the writing of a War Powers Resolution on Lebanon.     (A more complete name is the "Multinational Force in Lebanon Resolu­tion. ")    Like the 1964 Tonkin Gulf Resolution which was used as the authority for the Vietnam War, the new resolution was desired as authority for escalation to come in Lebanon.

While the sacrifice of several Marines was required in order to get the War Powers ball rolling,  actual passage was another matter.   Enough senators and congressmen were worried about the possible consequences to endanger passage of the resolution if major violence continued.     And so,  as the measure worked its way across Capitol Hill, the 3-week war calmed down. On September 26 one of Lebanon's never-ending ceasefires was proclaimed.     U. S.  officials immediately claimed that it was the Marines' presence that had brought it about,  supposedly by persuading Syria to back off.

It was a false ray of hope, but it reinforced the bogus "peace keeper" image of the Marines' mission.     Two days later the Beirut Airport even reopened to traffic for the first time since August 28,  further dramatizing the supposedly improved situa­tion.     That day the House of Representatives passed the Leba­non War Powers Resolution overwhelmingly (270-161). One
day later it also cleared the Senate (54-46).

The lid stayed on until Reagan could sign it,   thus preserving the fiction that it is all being done for peace.    Reagan signed it on October 12, but with a disclaimer.     In a crisis to come, he can still make use of a constitutional time bomb which was planted this past summer by the U. S. Supreme Court, which overturned the "legislative veto" power of Congress. Reagan & Co. will ride along as long as possible on the congressional authority granted by the Lebanon resolution.    But whenever it should become necessary,  the White House will be able to con­tinue its Lebanon strategy even if Congress objects. Hiding behind a constitutional confrontation, the White House will be able to continue regardless of the will of Congress--or of the American people.

Once the Lebanon resolution was signed by Reagan on Oct. 12,  the ceasefire had done its job.     Immediately it started un­raveling, as sniping attacks began on U.S. Marine positions. On Oct.  14 another Marine was shot to death, and on Oct. 16 still another, plus 3 more injured.

Over the past few weeks the talk in Lebanon has been of a so-called "national reconciliation conference. "    It would have the purpose of bringing all the warring factions together at a conference table to work out a new power-sharing formula to end the bloodshed.     The odds against success for such a con­ference are high, but not impossibly so: Lebanon was, after all, a peaceful place until de stabilization by outside forces began a decade ago. 

Therefore,  one thing which neither the present U. S. administration nor the Israeli government can afford is a successful Lebanese reconciliation conference. Something had to be done, because after weeks of bickering over a meet­ing site, all sides are now leaning toward meeting in Geneva.

For the radical Zionists who now run the Israeli government, bloodshed is always a favorite tool of policy. Former terrorist Menahem Begin has now been succeeded as Israel's Prime Min­ister by a quieter but even more radical terrorist--Yitzhak Shamir.     Shamir,  a member of the infamous Stern Gang killers in the 1940's and later a Mossad agent, has built his entire ca­reer on murder and intrigue.     Has he changed now?   As the Prophet Jeremiah said:   "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?   Then also you can do good who are ac­customed to do evil. "

Today news comes from Beirut of the inevitable terrorist attack on U. S.  Marines.   Early reports say nearly 150 Marines killed,  perhaps 70 wounded.     The Mossad has struck again.

Persian Gulf:   The Iraq-Iran War

A month ago in NewsALERT #4 we included a brief Crisis Alert concerning an impending new development in the Iraq-Iran war.     This development is a desperation move by Iraq to cripple Iran's oil-exporting capability, just as Iraq's capability is crippled already.     Should Iraq succeed,  Iran has threatened to close the Persian Gulf to commercial shipping altogether.
As we reported then, a key event to watch for was to be the delivery of 5 French Super Etendard fighters with Exocet mis­siles.     In NewsALERT #5 we reported that the delivery was being set in motion as of Oct. 7.

This initial move was from Landivisiau naval air base in Brittany to Bordeaux Airport on the southwestern French coast. Landivisiau is the base where some 30 Iraqi pilots and mechan­ics had undergone a 14-week crash course on flying and servi­cing the Etendards.

For the next ten days or so there were conflicting reports and rumors as to whether the delivery process had been com­pleted or not.     During that time agents of the Rockefeller Car­tel, which opposes the sale (NewsALERT #5) were still trying to block it.     They did not succeed.     On October 17 Secretary of State George Shultz spoke to reporters aboard his plane en route home from a meeting in Canada and said:   "The French have made their decision. "   He also hinted at an American tilt toward Iraq and against Iran by criticizing Iran's threats with­out commenting on Iraq's plans.

The 5 French jets are now in Iraq, having arrived there on Oct.   19.     Now Iraq is beginning its military push to shut down Iran's oil exports: yesterday it warned all shipping away from the Iranian port of Bandar Khomeini in the northern Persian Gulf,  claiming to have planted mines.

The plans for a Persian Gulf oil crisis are both economic (NewsALERT #5) and strategic in nature.

  There is a link be­tween today's terrorist attack on Marines in Lebanon and the Persian Gulf crisis now building.     Hours after the Lebanon disaster,  U.S.  officials are blaming Iran.     Bolshevik-Zionist agents are at work to manipulate Iran in desired directions (AL#52), and that manipulation is now designed to help lead toward a U. S. -Iran confrontation.    At the same time, Iran is to be pushed toward closer ties with Moscow, thereby convert­ing the confrontation into another arena of belligerence between Russia and America.     Iran's crucial importance in this regard was described by Dr.  Beter over 5 years ago (AL#37), and is once again destined for the headlines.

South Korea:   Bomb Blast in Burma

As discussed earlier in this News A LERT, the mounting cri­sis now developing between the United States and the Soviet Un­ion began nearly 2 months ago with the Korean airliner episode As we reported in NewsALERT #3,  the incident was arranged by the Korean CIA on behalf of its American counterpart. It was patterned closely after an almost identical mission in 1978, with one crucial difference.     This time the object was not the gathering of intelligence, but the death toll itself.

After the 1978 Korean airliner intelligence mission (AL#33), the Kremlin sent extremely blunt warnings to the South Korean government.     The warnings threatened the most extreme of consequences if there should ever be a repetition.

On Oct. 26,   1979, the Korean CIA assassinated President Park Chung Hee in an internal power struggle.     This led to a military coup which installed the current Korean President, Chun Doo Hwan.     Chun had the KCIA director who had master­minded the assassination executed in May 1980.

This sequence of events gave South Korea a new President, Chun, who had not been involved in the planning of the 1978 air­liner incident.     However, he surrounded himself with key aides who were career diplomats and officials, many with very close U.S. ties.      A number of these men were well aware of the 1978 incident's true nature,  and bore some responsibility for it.

Soviet President Andropov's veiled declaration of war on Sept.  28 was directed against every power that is joining in the U. So  Bolshevik campaign against Russia.     That includes spe­cifically South Korea.     As far as the Kremlin is concerned, the Korean airliner incident last month was an act of war, and requires that the warnings of 197 8 be fulfilled.
Andropov assigned the KGB, which he ran for fifteen years, the following task:   somehow the top leadership of South Korea which was implicated in both Korean airliner episodes was to be eliminated.     If possible,  President Chun was to be spared, since available information indicated that he was not personally involved in the planning of either incident.

The assignment was a difficult one.     It required that South Korea's top leaders be assembled all together,  except for Chun, and that the normally tight South Korean security be breached. The answer turned out to be a ceremonial visit by South Korean leaders to the Martyr's Mausoleum in Rangoon,  Burma. The Burmese were loath to let foreign security forces prowl around their revered shrine, which meant the South Koreans would have to depend upon Burmese security.

Early this month on Oct.  9, a powerful blast reduced the Martyr's Mausoleum in Rangoon to ruins.     Seventeen top mem­bers of the South Korean government were killed,  and over a dozen more injured.     Three Burmese were also killed and many more wounded.     But President Chun was not there: he had been scheduled to arrive at 10:30 a.m. , and the b]ast took place five minutes earlier.

In any operation like this one, the Russian KGB always cov­ers its tracks very carefully.     South Korea is blaming North Korea, and Burma has so far rounded up three "Koreans" (not specifying whether North or South) as suspects.     The KGB connection is unlikely ever to surface. . . but Andropov's assign­ment has been carried out.     The crisis keeps expanding.

Next scheduled issue:   Nov.  4, 1983

NewsALERT is published 24 times per year by Audio Books, Inc. Headquarters address: 1629 K St., NW, #5092; Washington, DC 20006.     For faster service write to: NewsALERT, P.O. Box 276, Savage, MD 20763.     Current sub­scription rates:    $45.00/year in U.S.A. & Canada;    $70.00/year other countries. Outside U.S.A. please remit by international money order in U.S. dollars.

Peter Beter Newsletter 6 : Perspective: Soviet-American Confrontation The "Reverse Cuba" Missile Crisis Now Underway