Among the groups who tried to distinguish the truth from the lie were the White emigres, Russians who had fled their homeland after the Soviet takeover. They were particularly vulnerable to the attack of disinformers. In Western Europe in the early 1920s they were considered to be a valuable and important anti-Communist factor. The emigres numbered about a million people of whom some 135,000 were still under arms and were thought to represent a potential anti-Communist armed force. Among the leaders of this group were men .. who exerted considerable influence over some Western statesmen.

Natalie Grant

In 1921, in order to discredit anti-communist White Russian emigres, the Soviet special services spread false information connecting White Russians with anti-Semitism. According to Natalie Grant’s book on Soviet disinformation, Moscow wanted to portray the average White Russian “as a person dangerous to society, politically immature, conservative to the point of stupidity and engaging in criminal pursuits.”

In 1921 the New York Evening Journal, published an article titled “Scheme to Overthrow the Soviets Exposed,” written by Herman Bernstein. The article was based on a spurious secret document dated March 11, 1921, misattributed to the Committee to Save the Motherland (a White Russian emigre group). According to Grant, the phony document “bore the seals of the Tsarist Russian Consulate General in Constantinople and contained information about a rabidly anti-Semitic conference said to have been held by more or less conservative White emigres in the Turkish capital.” [p. 25]

In fact, no anti-Semitic White Russian conference was held in the Turkish capital in 1921. The story was a communist invention. Nonetheless, readers of the Evening Journal, noted Grant, “probably retained suspicions with regard to the Whites after reading the story of the conference. This would be the first act in an affair which came back to life some years later.”

After depicting White Russian emigres as enemies of the Jewish people, the Soviet secret police (Cheka) next sought to bring American automobile magnate Henry Ford into the picture. It was of the utmost importance for Moscow to “harm persons in the United States who had shown themselves inimical to the Soviets,” noted Grant, adding that “Ford was an enemy of Communism, but he pinned the blame for conditions in Soviet Russia mainly upon a definite group of people instead of blaming Communist doctrine. He chose the Jews as his scapegoat, using a fabrication, the so-called Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, as the basis for his views.” [p. 183]

In 1925 Henry Ford got drawn into a legal battle with Herman Bernstein, author of the Evening Journal’s defamatory article against White emigres in Turkey. Ford claimed, through his newspaper the Dearborn Independent, that Bernstein was a Soviet agent. This resulted in Bernstein filing suit against Ford. As Grant noted, “Jewish groups went all out to support Bernstein and other persons who had also been attacked by Ford’s paper, the Dearborn Independent. Angrily, Jewish circles declared that Ford was building his case against the Jews upon false documents.” [p. 184]

With perfect timing, Moscow published information about Ford in the pages of Izvestiya, noting that false documents purporting a Jewish conspiracy had been given to Ford by a friend named Ferguson, “an American residing in Geneva.” Izvestiya added that Ferguson’s documents came from “Aleksander F. Gumanskiy of Berlin who, at the time, directed Russian Grand Duke Kirill’s intelligence operations against the USSR.” [p. 185]

In terms of information warfare, the Izvestiya article killed two birds with one stone. It linked Ford and White Russian emigres to fake documents alleging a Jewish conspiracy. The Izvestiya story illustrated, for all to see, that anti-communists were “dangerous to society, politically immature, [and] conservative to the point of stupidity….”

Henry Ford was convinced that Herman Bernstein was a Soviet agent. To defend himself against Bernstein’s lawsuit, Ford turned to New York attorney Boris Brasol. Born in 1885, the son of Russian parents, Brasol traveled to Europe in search of documents that would prove Bernstein’s ties to Soviet intelligence. Through his Russian emigre contacts Brasol met Vladimir G. Orlov, a White Russian with ties to the Cheka. Orlov claimed that Bernstein had acted as a secret press agent of Soviet intelligence, fabricating magazine articles for the Cheka. Unfortunately, Orlov would turn out to be a Soviet agent; especially in helping Brasol to acquire documentary “proof” of Bernstein’s guilt.

In true Soviet style, Orlov put Brasol in touch with Harold von Siewiert, supposedly “an employee of the German Ministry of Interior.” Von Siewiert introduced Brasol to Soviet agent Mikhail Karpov, a chief functionary of Moscow’s disinformation apparatus in Berlin. Brasol asked Karpov for documents that would prove Bernstein worked for Moscow. In 1926, Karpov presented Brasol with three sets of documents. Ford paid Karpov the tidy sum of $7,000 for those documents. (In today’s money, well in excess of $100,000.)

What was the real value of Karpov’s documents? Two of the three sets of documents were worthless, containing nothing of interest. The third set contained eight separate incriminating letters supposedly written in 1921-22. These letters were subjected to chemical tests which showed that the ink in those letters was ten to fourteen days old (in 1926!). In other words, the letters were forgeries. Even if Bernstein had been a Soviet agent, this kind of shabby fabrication would have exonerated him.

For all his efforts on Ford’s behalf, Boris Brasol only succeeded in getting himself into trouble. Ford settled out of court with Bernstein while Brasol became subject to threats and blackmail from the Soviet agents he had fallen in with. The same dark personalities who introduced the New York attorney to Karpov threatened Brasol with law suits. Orlov and von Siewiert demanded money from Brasol. Meanwhile, Karpov was writing him sinister letters. The details of Brasol’s search for incriminating documents, noted Orlov, could prove incriminating to Ford. How much hush money was Ford willing to pay? According to Grant, “Ford’s lawyers turned a deaf ear to [Brasol’s] pleas for financial support to Orlov.”

Moscow’s disinformation agents are trained to keep their victims on the hook. Once hoodwinked, there is always the embarrassment of being a fool. How much will you pay to keep your own foolishness out of the newspapers? Grant points out that while Soviet methods are sophisticated, Soviet agents are often of an “exceedingly low cultural and moral level….” The Karpov/Brasol letters are part of a collection at the Library of Congress. They show how intrigue and lack of principle, crude manipulations and lies are used by Moscow’s secret agents.


Quarterly Subscription (Voluntary)

JRNyquist.blog

$10.00


Thank you for visiting!

26 thoughts on “How Communists Discredit Anti-Communists

  1. Is it a fluke that after decades of controlled leadership an outsider, supported by the masses, slipped through the well greased cracks to clean up the vast corruption and rally the American masses? It becomes clearer every day that the Trump administration was allowed to exist. If they wanted him to lose the election initially, he would have lost the election. The wealth of information identifying those who pose a threat to this American/global mafia was crucial in their next move. The physiological damage to the masses, who are feared, was necessary to gage its success. The false information was spoon fed to the group of “Patriots” to make fools out of them and steal all hope from the masses. A trap set with propaganda and conspiracy identified the most radical among us. The cloak slowly falls to the floor.

    Now, we enter the stage of open tyranny. Fore when you lose all appearances of “Justice” the mob will strike all its enemies with financially crushing lawsuits, or they fall ill and fade away. The top dogs first, publically, then the progression downwards. Each “Patriot” will be crushed and with it, most importantly, a threatening message to over half the population who have much to lose if they stand up and no one to organize and lead them. The situation grows darker with each passing day. There are no tiny tax loophole violations coming for these criminals. They own all three branches of government now, have identified all insider threats, and we are about to see the not so slow roll towards total tyranny. Only a fearful and demoralised population will accept Communism and people fear being labeled a “domestic terrorist” more then taking their Country back from this monstrous mob.

    It was foolish to ever take on this mob by courageously and arrogantly walking in their front door and announcing themselves as the People’s Police. Like the Chicago mobs in our history, their world is one of endless tentacles in every direction. The one difference is now they are massive, they are global, and they have learned valuable lessons over the years, lessons of survival. They probably had insiders who knew the exact second these noble fools woke each morning. America has been had and has already been sold. Our new normal will be an education to this effect.

    At the end of the Obama masquerade and the beginning of the Clinton’s rabid hopeful coronation, TPP as well as a coming war in Syria was their next move. I believe the puppet masters of Obama parted with the Clinton crime family and used her as an obvious villain for the bringing in of Trump. It is obvious she was not part of their plan and much too compromised to flip on them. Perhaps their focus groups told them they should fear the masses before they rolled out their beloved TPP which would open the door for China and their pre-planned Syria conflict which would start a war with Russia. The mob is either in bed with the Bear or thinks they can take her. At this point, I am so jaded that I think a deal was made with Russia and China to jointly run a global economy and all else is theatrics to control the masses. What I do know is that they fear the patriotic armed public and we are active targets now.

    The only way to crush this mob is to be more ruthless and brutal then they are. They are betting the good American people do not have the stomach for it and they can pick off the unorganized patriots who do understand the situation as they crop up. Their paid thugs rule the streets on call and act unabated, while patriotic Americans will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of “their law”. They thought we would rise up but we didn’t and now they fence the capital and purge the military in preparation. The good thing about a mob this vast is that the paranoia grows quickly. This is the only way the American people can see their true intentions. They must keep these monsters guessing and watching their backs. Their mistakes must become open doors. I think they keep Trump on the sidelines to give us a shred of hope and stem a complete uprising. Only a fool would think we have an honest election system and could simply elect our way out of this mess. However, it bides them time for their big reveal. The reveal will, I believe, be something that solves many of their problems all at once which is very bad for the good populous of the World and the US. They can slowly bleed our economy dry if they feel confident that the people will not rise up, thus avoiding a huge conflict. I think they will make their move before the setting of the sun on this Biden farse. The people are wise to this game, the silence from the masses is spooking them, and they are too corrupt and void of morals and creativity to wait decades for their plans.
    The only way to destroy this beast is from the inside now and by releasing wolves to push them prematurely.

    1. Their conceit is — having a strategy, and a global following, and slogans, and weapons — is that they know what they are doing. Here in America we built a material civilization that was the envy of the world. We even became the hub of the world economy. And now this enemy of mankind has the “brilliant” idea of destroying America, of demoralizing the people who built it — making America’s masses into idiot children. We have to ask: Can these revolutionary fools, with their oriental despotism, put themselves in our place once they have destroyed our society? Modern civilization requires an incalculably subtle intellectual power to maintain. I do not think they can survive their own success.

      1. I think that, in the very long run, this will prove to be for the best. The material power of modern civilization combined with the spiritual darkness of mankind is leading us toward a hell on earth. This would continue even if the communists were defeated. Jeff, I believe you said it best in “A Disturbing Little Book”. We are headed for a dark age. But this may be our only hope of salvation. As TS. Eliot said, “It comes to a choice of pyre or pyre/ To be redeemed out of fire by fire”.

      2. They did not waste a second…………. “Breaking: Biden Bombs Syria”……………..and so it begins. This is the key event in their plan that brings about their unaccountable global governance. We shall see shortly if we have a military who is faithful to this Nation of not. I think events will move swiftly now.

  2. “I do not think they can survive their own success” – Let’s hope that will be the case. One need only look at the dumpster fire thaw was Seattle to see where the Left fork in the road leads.

    But what devastation we will all suffer on the way there! It blows one’s mind to witness our civilization’s eager self-destruction — an end that even our external enemies could not have imposed on us.

  3. Let’s not ignore the elephant in the room. The continuing, Covid Live Exercise, is an attempt to establish a New World Order. Did Russia leak the virus from the joint US/China bioweapons facility ib wuhan? Or am I doing to Russia, what Soviets did to White Russians?

      1. ACTUALLY JEFF I THINK YOU ARE MISTAKEN. PACEPA CO-WROTE A NEW BOOK WITH JAMES WOOLSEY. IT COMES OUT ON FEBRUARY 28, AND YOU CAN PRE-ORDER STARTING TODAY.

        BUT THERE IS BAD NEWS TO REPORT: PACEPA ESSENTIALLY FINALLY GOT TAKEN OUT BY THE COMMIES, AFTER NEARLY 43 YEARS OF THEIR EFFORTS.

  4. Mr. Nyquist, thank you for your response regarding https://www.thepostemail.com/2021/02/21/interview-jr-nyquist-on-the-threat-of-communism-today/ at https://jrnyquist.blog/2021/02/15/disinformation-101-hoaxes-and-false-narratives/, although it was to another person. “Nevin” asked “which source did you find this in” regarding “Let me give you an idea: the global warming idea was brought up in the Soviet Politburo in the late 1970s. He was a science guy and pioneered the idea that “If we could convince the West that the planet is going to warm out of control and we can get them to ruin themselves with an economic sabotage operation, we can get them to flip to socialism.”” You answered with “a Soviet Politburo member in 1990″‘s book from 1982 citation: “As a result of the formation of a layer of carbon dioxide around the Earth which encloses it like a glass cover the threat of unfavorable changes in climate has arisen that may transform our blue planet into an enormous greenhouse … with possible catastrophic effects.”
    What about “a politburo member in the 1970s” stating “the global warming idea” was “an economic sabotage” and a lie? These are different things. Where does it come from? Please explain.

    1. My memory is not perfect. The book was 1982 and not late 1970s. Frolov was an academic advisor to the Politburo many years before he became a full member, and I seem to recall he was an editor at Pravda — which is a very key position with direct ties to Politiburo. A Russian source who lived in the USSR told me that before anything of this kind is published it has already been approved by the people at the top. That is how you get to the top. So if my formulation in an interview, off the top of my head, was three years off, then crucify me with it. This is my conclusion as to where the global warming nonsense originated. Frolov put it out and explained it first. How is that possible?

      1. Mr. Nyquist, thank you for explanation, now I understand your reasoning. Regarding the “crucifixion” it was only because the “global warming” is such a big item, it would be interesting to trace it like that exactly. The russian original of the book came out in 1982 too.
        Regarding that Frolov, he is a very interesting guy. https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/20/world/aide-to-gorbachev-takes-pravda-helm-brezhnev-man-is-out.html says: “Mr. Frolov, the new editor, was a contemporary of Mr. Gorbachev at Moscow State University, and studied in the philosophy department with Mr. Gorbachev’s future wife, Raisa.”
        According to https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD_%D0%A2%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87_(%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%84) he was “In 1965-1968 – Assistant Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee for Ideology P. N. Demichev.” (В 1965—1968 годах — помощник секретаря ЦК КПСС по идеологии П. Н. Демичева.) and “Member of the CPSU Central Committee (1986-1991), Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee (1989-1990), in 1990-1991 – member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee (1990-1991).” (Член ЦК КПСС (1986—1991), секретарь ЦК КПСС (1989—1990), в 1990—1991 годах — член Политбюро ЦК КПСС (1990—1991).).
        At https://en.globalistika.ru/frolov-ivan-timofeevich-1-1-1 is stated: “Asking the question “Does the ecological crisis threaten the world?” (Pravda, August 16, 1974), Frolov focused on socio-economic contradictions of Western industrial civilization.”. There is also very interesting CV of him there. It says: “a famous Russian philosopher”.
        In a book “Soviet Studies in Philosophy; FALL-WINTER 1974-75/VOL. XIII, NO. 2-3; PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS OF ECOLOGY; MAN AND HIS ENVIRONMENT; A Series of Round Table Discussions” edited by him in an article by M. I. Budyko: “MAN AND THE BIOSPHERE” on p. 39 is stated: “Data have recently been obtained which show that climatic conditions may change significantly in the decades immediately ahead if there is further increase in the consumption of energy, which, converted into heat, warms the atmosphere, plus increase in the amount of fuel burned, which raises the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.” It’s as close as they get to “global warming” and “carbon dioxide” in that publication.
        https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-10-11-mn-2809-story.html says: “Frolov promised that so long as he remains at Pravda, he will fight for its independence, avoid sensationalism and watch over ideology to prevent it from turning into “Anti-Communist Pravda.””
        Thank you again, Mr. Nyquist, best regards.

      2. As you can see, Frolov’s “scientific” ideas were laced with communist motives — and his global warming formula has been fully adopted ever after. There can be little doubt THIS is the origin of today’s climate change nonsense. Frolov was the first to outline it as a plan to force socialism through climate change. He was afterwards elevated to the Politburo because that is where people with useful strategic ideas go when their ideas are show promise.

      3. Jeff, it seems to me that the Western Scientific profession has been taken hard by Frolov’s Global Warming propaganda. Also a few Western Scientists including John L. Casey, Dr Tim Ball and etc are already worried about the coming Grand Solar Minimum.

  5. Mr. Nyquist, I don´t contest your assumptions. The problem was with the form they got in the original interview. It was presented as something that happened, someone heard it, wrote about it (the quotes used there). When actually it’s your theory based on clues you later provided. Also Frolov was “Politburo member” more than 10 years later. So these are clues, not proves, and it looked like the latter. Like someone describing it, who was present, whose testimony is available, maybe a defector. Not meant to “crucify” you, but to find out. Thank you for additional explanation, best regards.

    1. I think what I’m saying is not an assumption. Something that is obvious on its face is not an assumption. The mind can directly see truths by integrating various facts. If mine is a theory then you can safely dismiss it. But you shouldn’t. In fact, you might call everything a theory. The idea that your senses are reliable is a “theory, too. Which would mean that your existence is a theory. A silly theory, to be sure. In my mind, Frolov’s book outlines the use of global warming “science” to change the world to socialism. And it is not a “theory” that the communists and their allies are doing this. And it is not a theory that the idea originated from a Soviet scientist who was in the Politburo. It is perfectly obvious this nonsense originated with the Soviets. Frolov was THE Politburo’s go-to guy for science. Okay. He wasn’t a Politburo member when he originated it. But his suggestion MUST have been adopted by the Politburo. I call your attention to the Copenhagen climate change summit in 2009. Vast crowds of Marxists gathered, wearing Che T-shirts and waving red flags. Communists don’t just show up Unbidden. A journalist walked through the crowd interviewing folks — all of them admitting they were communists. So forgive me for saying that my statement is not an assumption, but a logical inference, factual and not theoretical. If you cannot see this, you are missing the obvious. And it is so very obvious.

      1. Mr. Nyquist, I think our item is approached from a bit wrong angle. I used “assumption” and “theory” loosely. If you want to call it “statement” or “inference”, I have no problem with that. And to put it differently: I’m not here to disprove you.
        Since my 1st post I was focused on the sentence between quotation marks (including the quotation marks, these are important): “If we could convince the West that the planet is going to warm out of control and we can get them to ruin themselves with an economic sabotage operation, we can get them to flip to socialism.” not in terms of meaning but a source.
        If I compare it with quote from Frolov’s book: “As a result of the formation of a layer of carbon dioxide around the Earth which encloses it like a glass cover the threat of unfavorable changes in climate has arisen that may transform our blue planet into an enormous greenhouse … with possible catastrophic effects.” (and I assume it’s direct quote, I don’t have the book), there’s a difference.
        The first citation, turns out, probably doesn’t have source. Maybe it’s not even citation, which I thought in the beginning, but to me really looked like one. Maybe the quotation marks were used only to enliven the text instead of comma.
        Later I welcomed your explanation as to how did you come to your conclusion, when it’s not citation (which is important), that a situation like this in the politburo in the 70’s happened. So conclusion versus fact (a statement by a witness for example).
        Best regards.

Leave a Reply