The Proof Is In The Pudding

In 1961 KGB Major Anatoliy Golitsyn defected to America. He became the most controversial Russian defector of the Cold War. He first ran into difficulties when he said there were KGB agents within the CIA. This sent chills through the slumbering bureaucrats.

A controversy bubbled within our own intelligence community. Some disliked Golitsyn, having strong feelings against the idea of traitors and moles in their midst. The chief of CIA counterintelligence, James Angleton, took Golitsyn seriously and did a number of tests (by leaking information to groups of CIA officers to see if this information reached the Russians).

According to Edward Jay Epstein, in his book entitled, "Deception: the Invisible War Between the KGB and CIA," these tests proved there were moles and traitors at the CIA. Deeply entrenched within our own intelligence community, these Russian agents were trained to avoid detection. Information was not passed to the Russians whenever Angleton was about to narrow the list of suspects.

Like most bureaucratic organizations, the CIA could not face the truth. Angleton's views were resented. In 1974 the CIA's new boss, William Colby, began to zero in on Angleton. Colby later admitted to journalist David Wise: "Yeah, I was trying to ease ... (Angleton) out."

In order to accomplish this, Colby began to reorganize the CIA. This reorganization weakened CIA counterintelligence, destroying Angleton's effectiveness. Colby then engaged in a further intrigue. In December 1974 he met with reporter Seymour Hersh of the New York Times. Colby confirmed a story Hersh was working on about CIA domestic spying.

Such spying is against the rules and Angleton was implicated. Hersh left Colby's office and rushed to telephone Abe Rosenthal, his boss at the Times. "Abe, I got it," said Hersh. The story led to the resignation of Angleton. America's secret war was lost.

Director of Central Intelligence William Colby, who met his fate 21 years later in a suspicious canoeing accident, came under counterattack after Angleton left the agency. According to David Wise's account: "It began to be whispered around Washington that Colby was the mole (Angleton had been looking for). But somehow the rumors could never be tied to Angleton directly."

With the fall of Angleton, Golitsyn's warnings about Russian deception strategy were officially and finally discredited. A few years later, Angleton and Golitsyn went to William F. Buckley, a former CIA officer and editor of National Review. Angleton wanted Buckley's help in putting together a book -- "New Lies for Old" -- which would detail the mechanisms of Russian deception and warn the West of the dangers.

Buckley later satirized his meeting with Angleton and Golitsyn in a National Review column. Buckley would have nothing to do with "New Lies for Old." In his view Angleton and Golitsyn were demented.

Even from the vantage point of the early 1990s Buckley did not appreciate Golitsyn's incredible accuracy as an analyst. Like many former CIA officers, Buckley assumed -- without checking -- that Angleton was wrong. The germ of anti-paranoia ravaged the CIA after Angleton. It infected nearly everyone. Think about this for a moment; anti-paranoia is harmful to the very mission of America's intelligence community.

Last week I had a long talk with a former CIA official. The subject of Angleton and Golitsyn came up. Here again the blindness of our people emerged. This former CIA official predictably described Angleton as "paranoid." Such a label discredits a person without appeal.

In this context we ought to remember that a CIA counterintelligence chief must -- like Sherlock Holmes -- hold to his suspicions. The easiest smear against such a person, therefore, is the word "paranoia." The British writer Tom Mangold, who wrote a book on Angleton entitled, "Cold Warrior," used paranoia as a theme and a battering ram to destroy Angleton's reputation.

By blurring the distinction between the professional suspicions of a spy-catcher and the inner demons of a crazy person, Mangold painted a vivid portrait of madness and self-destruction. But the greatest lie that Mangold told in his book, and the most unforgivable, was the lie that Golitsyn was a false prophet.

"As a crystal-ball gazer," wrote Mangold, "Golistyn has been unimpressive." Mangold listed six predictions by Golitsyn that failed to come true. Six failed predictions out of 145. Mangold forgot to mention the 139 predictions that proved correct.

Without William F. Buckley's literary assistance, Golitsyn wrote his predictions down in "New Lies for Old." The book was published by Dodd, Mead #Company in 1984 under the subtitle, "The Communist Strategy of Deception and Disinformation." In 366 pages Golitsyn described how the KGB had developed a machinery of deception in the late 1950s. The purpose of this KGB machinery was to eventually erect a false democracy and a false market economy in Russia. Through secret agents and KGB-controlled anti-Soviet fronts, the Communist Party Soviet Union would continue to rule the former Soviet empire from behind the scenes.

Golitsyn's description of controlled democratization and liberalization in Russia was so close to the actual events, which occurred from late 1989 through 1991, that researcher Mark Riebling, author of "Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA," credited Golitsyn with 94 percent accuracy.

Since that time Golitsyn's accuracy has increased further. His prediction that Russia and China would unite into "one clenched fist" at the end of the final phase of the long-range strategy has come true. Now Golitsyn has proved correct in 140 out of 145 predictions.

In the last few months we have seen Russia engaged in a series of military mobilizations under the cover of the crisis in Dagestan and Chechnya. At the outset of this crisis Yeltsin appointed a new prime minister -- Vladimir Putin, chief of the Russian secret police. Putin is a militaristic tough guy, allied to the Russia General Staff, committed to mobilizing Russia's military industrial complex.

Once again Anatoliy Golitsyn proves to be a prophet of incredible accuracy. A fellow researcher sent me a note the other day, pointing to page 229 of Golitsyn's book, "The Perestroika Deception." On this page Golitsyn predicts how a war in Chechnya would be used by Kremlin strategists to accomplish a leadership change.

Golitsyn writes of "the military/nationalist option as the third course upon which the Kremlin strategists might embark in (the) future to adjust the style and leadership of a new government if, for example, Yeltsin was considered to have exhausted his usefulness in extracting concessions from the West."

Golitsyn adds that "the Chechnyan 'crisis' can be seen not as a likely cause of a military coup, but as a possible planned prelude to a change of government." But this nationalist government, says Golitsyn, would be Communist at its core. Nationalism is simply a motivational device to jump-start the old Soviet machinery. The Russian people are more energized by nationalism than by Marxism-Leninism, so the trick is to use the slogans and propaganda which most efficiently serve the cause of militarization.

That is the key to Putin's policy. That is why "the Bear" faction in the Duma has been given life -- as the second strongest political party after the Communists. Golitsyn's analysis goes further: "Since an outright military or nationalist government might prejudice the flow of Western aid and the continued 'cooperation' with the West ... it is more likely that the Kremlin strategists will opt for ... a new President and Commander-in-Chief with a military background and a 'reformist' Prime Minister, in the context of overtly tighter KGB control."

Although Putin is a paramilitary KGB careerist, he is perceived as an ally of Russia's General Staff. He therefore fits Golitsyn's description. Furthermore, we now find that the man emerging as Putin's chief lieutenant and future prime minister also fits Golitsyn's description.

Finance Minister Mikhail Kasyanov has become Putin's deputy prime minister and -- most probably -- Russia's future prime minister.

Kasyanov is said to speak English, and he has extensive relations with Western financiers. He is polished, likable and a good negotiator. Who else could do a better job of keeping Western money flowing into Russia? According to a Jan. 11 Moscow Times story entitled, "Kasyanov Given Chance to Prove His Mettle," Western investors think that Kasyanov's rise is a green light to pouring further billions down Russia's economic rat-hole.

"The markets have reacted to his appointment positively," said Arnab Das, a market analyst with JP Morgan.

Those who continue to ignore Golitsyn's accuracy do so at their own risk. Such people are being slowly but surely discredited themselves, however smug they now appear. Golitsyn was so prescient in his predictions about a Chechen war leading to a change in the Russian government, that he even got the details right. "The transition might be brought about," said Golitsyn, "by the resignation of Yeltsin. ..."

Those who reject Golitsyn's warnings about Russia object to his statements about secret collusion between Russia and China. That collusion is now happening in plain view. When are we going to wake up? The man who predicted it all should be listened to. Golitsyn understands how the Kremlin strategists think.

In our own private lives we discover that knowing a person enables us to predict that person's future actions. But if we are constantly wrong in predicting those actions, maybe we don't know the person after all. With Golitysn it is clear. He knows the mind of the Kremlin. He can therefore predict how the Kremlin will act in the future.

Those in Washington who have failed, time and time again, to predict Kremlin actions have only proved that they do not understand Russia.

One of Golitsyn's most basic statements about Russia and China goes to the heart of the matter. It is the deeper truth we must never lose sight of. "American military and intelligence analysts," writes Golitsyn, "having accepted democratic 'reforms' in Russia as genuine, have lowered their guard with respect to disinformation and have failed to detect its continuation."

And what is the purpose of this disinformation? Golitsyn's explanation is basic: "The Russian and Chinese leaders are still committed to their objective of world domination and believe that, disguised as 'democrats' ... they will be able to achieve it." Those who have written against Angleton and Golitsyn have missed the bottom line.

If Golitsyn's predictions have been accurate, if his analysis continues to withstand the test of time, then the critics must eventually revise their criticism. There is no rational argument against a man who has proven himself again and again.

J.R. Nyquist is a WorldNetDaily contributing editor and author of 'Origins of the Fourth World War.'

"Icebreaker" is a treatment of the pact between Stalin and Hitler. It also discusses Barbarossa. The unique thing about it is that it looks deeply into Stalin's motivation for the pact and at the evidence that Stalin intended to invade Germany and from there, the rest of Europe, sometime between late 1941 and the beginning of 1943. If true, then it casts Barbarossa in a whole new light - essentially, making Barbarossa into a true backstabbing move not just simple conquest. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND reading this book! Also, yet another good read, that 100% corroborates aspects laid out by "Icebreaker" is Hans Rudel Ulrich's account of the war, titled "Stuka Pilot." I must warn you, this latter is very, very dry reading with no style at all. But the content is valuable, very valuable! The observations made by Rudel early on during Barbarossa, if taken at face value, demonstrate just how close Europe was to be conquered completely by Stalin right on the heels of Hitler's incursion. That Stalin ended up with only a fraction is 100% due to the unexpected occurrence of Barbarossa.

The key I think is education. As long as the hard left has control over the education system in this country they get to rewrite history. Political correctness had its birth in totalitarian regimes and yet we allow this to be taught to our children. There should be NOTHING that can not be said. ALL thoughts should be debated and the thoughts that have the best argument should win with the majority. It is only when we fail to debate the pro's and con's of an idea that we lose our freedom. Look at the Democrats for years they did not have to defend their views they attacked the character of the speaker instead of the merit of his/her argument. Talk radio and the Internet made them debate and they lost.

Totalitarian regimes by their very nature do not trust one another. Hitler no more trusted Stalin as Stalin trusted Tito or Mao. They understood each others motive. the only countries that trusted Hitler and Stalin and China were the democracies of the West. One of the reasons that there were so many wars in history IMO was because there were so many absolute rulers. Theses rulers understood there fellow rulers because they would do the same thing to each other if given the chance. This is were the US is and has been different in its history. We do not want world domination. If we did we would have conquered the world long ago. WE just want to be left alone but the other nutcases will not let us alone and continue to draw us into saving the world from but one more nutcase.

"The key I think is education."

Couldn't agree more. David Horowitz, to my knowlege, is the leader in this area. Are you familiar with Front Page Magazine? (his website).

Being an old baby boomer myself, I started reading Horowitz when he was a Communist and I was (marginally) part of SDS. Now he his one of the greatest conservative thinkers in the country, I am a conservative Republican, and I am still reading him!

His greatest book in terms of content, though unfortunately uneven (you have to pick and choose) is
How to Beat the Democrats. (Not specifically about education, but education is his main focus as a conservative activist).

Weird story about that. One night Horowitz took over the radio show of Michael Reagan, President Reagan's son. Since Horowitz is, in national radio terms, unknown, I called right in and talked to him. I mentioned that I loved the book, How to Beat the Democrats and was met with dead silence, so I moved on. It was like he was embarassed to be openly discussing it on the radio. Maybe he was right. The tactics, if followed, are devastating. (At one point, Horowitz thanked Karl Rove for his help in setting up a particular website. I'd be willing to bet Karl Rove knows this book well.)

Of course, Horowitz's parents were Communists and he was raised as one, so he understands the tactics they use. He was at the forefront of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement, which he now admits was nothing more or less than a Communist attempt to take advantage of America's freedom of speech to take over Berkeley. An attempt, obviously, that has ultimately completely succeeded.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.