Disinformation - Ion Mihai Pacepa -

Disinformation - Ion Mihai Pacepa -

(Parte 2 de 6)

This book conclusively exposes a host of damaging lies, well beyond the

Pius case. Much of the history we thought we knew, or we thought we even recently uncovered, was actually spawned as communist disinformation. As the authors note, this was a war “that broke out in 1945 and has never ended.” The Soviet Union and Cold War are over, but the war on religion remains, unwittingly reinvigorated by misled scholars who have picked up “facts” that were never actually facts to begin with.

The lies have been allowed to become “history,” to become “truth.” But what is truth? What is history? This book has the real history. In that sense, this is a seminal work that will start the process of remedying some serious mis-education and unforgivably flawed “scholarship.” And historians and scholars must carefully discern how General Pacepa and Rychlak got there: by hooking into a key concept that properly redirects historians and scholars to the truth—that is, understanding the outrageous and uniquely Soviet tactic of disinformation.

This is a crucial angle. General Pacepa and Rychlak could have simply written a standard account of Soviet persecution from a faith-based perspective. As they peeled back the layers, however, they saw the rotting marrow that was disinformation—known as dezinformatsiya in Russian. Of course, General Pacepa already knew this, having lived it and, regrettably, been a reluctant participant. Now, making reparation, both he and Rychlak are able to explain to the world how knowledge of Soviet disinformation explains much of what we did not know, and, even more significantly, much of what vii we got wrong. They have focused the spotlight at an angle that offers historians a clarity that heretofore has been lacking.

So patently dishonest was the Soviet use of disinformation that even the Soviet definition of disinformation, published in the 1952 edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, was itself a form of disinformation. Only the surreal upside-down world of Soviet communism could produce such a litany of dishonesty. The late Vaclav Havel spoke of the “communist culture of the lie.”1 Here it is again, thrown wide open yet again. General Pacepa and Rychlak lift the scales from our eyes, and, as they do, we see a church on the cross, nailed there by merciless persecutors.

But the authors’ concern is not merely the Catholic Church, or the

Christian church more broadly. This groundbreaking book unravels not only the schemes against Pius XII and figures like Cardinals Stepinac and Mindszenty and Wyszynski. It shows the duplicity of groups such as the World Peace Council and World Council of Churches and Workers World Party; the bloody hands of surrogates from Vyshinsky to Romanian and Bulgarian intelligence; the Soviet role in liberation theology; the witting and unwitting roles of players like Romesh Chandra and Rolf Hochhuth and Erwin Piscator and I. F. Stone and Edward Keating and John Cornwell; the impact of paid agents, agents of influence, and dupes; the macabre black art of Soviet “necrophagy;” and much more. Most ironic, the book highlights the loathsome anti-Semitism behind the very conspirators of the original “Hitler’s Pope” campaign and other disinformation efforts. The chapter on the Soviet promulgation of the insidious Protocols of the Elders of Zion conspiracy is an awakening. Here, the persecutors of Christ’s followers resurrected an old Jew-hating standby and spread it as gospel truth to the West.

Indeed, the anti-Semitism documented in this book is shocking. The authors chronicle Yuri Andropov’s anti-Zionism campaign, support of Islamic terrorism, and dual promotion of virulent anti-Semitism and anti- Americanism among Middle East Arabs. By 1978, the Soviet bloc planted some four thousand agents of influence in the Islamic world, armed with hundreds of thousands of copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion—and military weapons. The seeds they planted in the Arab world decades ago still sow hatred and destruction in the form of violence and terror. Atheistic communism sought out a handmaiden in radical Islam, with extremist Muslims exploited by Soviet manipulators who hoped to besmirch Judaism viii and Israel and Christianity and America and the West—and too often with tragic success. They promulgated not only acts of terrorism but egregious acts of “diplomacy” like the infamous UN Resolution 3379, declaring Zionism a form of racism.

language seems a little over-the-top, wellyou had better start reading,

Alas, it is no shock at all—one supposes—when one sees that the perpetrators behind these varying forms of malevolence were the same political bandits who advanced an international ideology that snuffed out the lives of more than 100 million people in the twentieth century, twice the combined death toll of the two world wars. And “bandits” is not too strong a word, or perhapspolitical gangsters would be just as fitting. For anyone who feels such because you are in for an ugly education. This is a sickening saga of Soviet deceit that leaves one either wanting to take a bath or—ah, yes—maybe even go to church.

Lt. Gen Ion Mihai Pacepa and Prof. Ron Rychlak have done yeoman’s work. Pardon me if I say the Lord’s work, as my better angels override my scholarly objectivity. We owe a debt of gratitude to General Pacepa and Rychlak for exposing the devils and the details behind the disinformation.

—PAUL KENGOR, PhD, Professor of Political Science, Grove City College

This page intentionally left blank This page intentionally left blank

DOWN THROUGH THE AGES, everyone who has sat on the Kremlin throne—autocratic tsar, communist leader, or democratically elected president—has been preoccupied with transforming his country into a monument to himself, and with controlling all expressions of religion that might in any way impinge on his political ambitions.

Furthermore, the Russian rulers have traditionally used their political police as the means for secretly carrying out their grandiose plans. Tsarism, communism, and the Cold War may have been swallowed up by the sands of time, but the Kremlin continues these traditions.

Eventually, the Kremlin’s hand reached the shores of the United States as well.

In March 1996, a sensational story jolted the American conscience. The

National Council of Churches (NCC) and the Center for Democratic Renewal (CDR), two secretly Marxist organizations headquartered in the United States, held a joint press conference to announce a “huge increase” in the number of arson cases committed against black churches in the United States.

On June 8, President Bill Clinton denounced those fires in a radio address, and he proposed a new federal task force to investigate them. The president spoke with emotion about his own “vivid and painful memories of black churches being burned in my own state [of Arkansas] when I was a child.” Charging that “racial hostility” was the driving force behind the fires, he pledged to place the full power of the federal government behind the investigation. On June 15, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives assigned two hundred federal agents to a new task force charged to investigate black church fires.1 By July the accounts of arson committed against black churches had snowballed, with more than twenty-two hundred articles appearing in the press to condemn what the Center for Democratic Renewal called “a well-organized white-supremacist movement.”2

The story spread like wildfire, inflaming decent people everywhere against the perceived American racists who had caused such terrible crimes. In Geneva, Switzerland, the World Council of Churches (WCC)—the international affiliate of the National Council of Churches—flew thirty-eight pastors to Washington, DC, to provide the American government and people with more information about this unprecedented racist tragedy.3

On July 13, President Clinton signed into law the Church Fire Prevention Act of 1996, which made church arson a federal crime. On August 7, he also signed a spending bill that included $12 million to combat fires at churches with black congregations. A few days later, the NCC ran full-page ads in the New York Times,Washington Post and numerous other papers soliciting donations for its new “Burned Churches Fund.” On August 9, the Wall Street Journal reported that the NCC had “managed to raise nearly $9 million,” and that contributions were continuing to pour in “at about

$100,0 a day.”4

Then the bubble burst. It was eventually established by a private group, the National Fire Protection Association, that in recent years there had been farfewer church fires than usual, and law enforcement officials in the South could not confirm any as having been racially motivated.5 No church burning had occurred in Arkansas during Clinton’s childhood, in spite of his “vivid and painful” memories, and the National Council of Churches was accused of fabricating “a great church-fire hoax.”6

Average Americans looked upon the NCC/CDR hoax as simply a slip of the pen, and forgot about it. No one at home or abroad asked why the whole slanderous hoax had occurred in the first place. The political damage was done, however.

The United States, which had paid with 405,399 American lives to save the world from the evils of Nazi racism and the Holocaust, now found itself slandered as a neo-Nazi, racist country. Within a few years, over 40 percent of Canadian teenagers were calling the United States “evil,”7 and 57 percent of Greeks answered “neither” when asked which country was more democratic, the United States or Iraq.8 In Berlin, a German cabinet minister, Herta Däubler-Gmelin, compared new president George W. Bush to Hitler.9 Western Marxists, such as Venezuela’s ruinous dictator Hugo Chavez also leapt into the fray, gleefully entertaining the United Nations in 2006 with an indirect (but clearly understood) reference to the American president by saying: “Yesterday, the devil came here. Right here. Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today.”10 By 2008, in the United States itself, some leaders of the Democratic Party even began describing their own country as a “decaying, racist, capitalist realm,” unable to provide medical care for the poor or rebuild its crumbling schools.1

The clue to understanding the significance of the black church arson hoax lies in the documented fact that the World Council of Churches, which ignited and promoted that story, has been infiltrated and ultimately controlled by Russian intelligence since 1961. The Mitrokhin Archive, a voluminous collection of Soviet foreign intelligence documents smuggled out of the Soviet Union in 1992, provides the identities and Soviet intelligence code names of many Russian Orthodox priests dispatched over the years to the World Council of Churches for the specific purpose of influencing the politics and decisions of that body. In fact, in 1972 Soviet intelligence managed to have Metropolitan Nikodim (its agent “Adamant”) elected WCC president. A 1989 KGB document boasts: “Now the agenda of the WCC is also our agenda.”12 Most recently, Metropolitan Kirill (agent “Mikhaylov”), who had been an influential representative to the World Council of Churches since 1971 and after 1975 a member of the WCC Central Committee, was in 2009 elected patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church.13

The above slanderous attack on the United States and its churches was really nothing surprising. It reflects how the Kremlin has for centuries preferred to carry out its domestic and foreign policies by complicated deceptions. Religion frequently figures in operations of the traditionally cynical Russian leaders, who have considered themselves the only god mankind needs.

Historically, the Kremlin’s manipulation of religion for its own political purposes dates back to the sixteenth century. When Ivan IV—the Terrible— had himself crowned in 1547 as Russia’s first tsar, he also made himself the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, as was recognized by the patriarch in Constantinople in 1591. Muscovy had only recently been liberated by the Turks’ overthrow of the Byzantine Empire, and it was from the latter that Ivan had inherited the idea of a “symphony of church and state.” The difference was that, instead of having an emperor and a patriarch—as in Byzantium— Ivan himself wore both hats. This merger of functions persisted through all the tsars down to Nicholas I, through all the Soviet leaders from Vladimir Lenin through Boris Yeltsin, and still lives on in Vladimir Putin’s Russia today.

Ivan IV was also the first head of Russia to establish his own political police, the Oprichnina, or separate court. Created in 1564 under Ivan’s personal direction, it was mainly used to control the boyars who were threatening his reign. That tradition has also lived on, going through numerous name changes, down to the Soviet Union’s threateningly familiar KGB (Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti, or Committee of State Security) and beyond, to today’s FSB (Federalnaya Sluzhba Bezopasnosti, or Federal Security Service). Russia’s political police have always been responsible for keeping order in church and state, in accordance with commands issued by the man seated on the Kremlin throne.

Up until World War I, Russia was basically isolationist—inscrutable perhaps to foreigners—with a love of tackling problems indirectly and clandestinely rather than head-on, but not considered a threat by the rest of the world. Centuries ago, the Russian tsars were not particularly finicky about concealing their hand when conducting deceptions. Their political horizons essentially ended at the Russian borders, and they knew the Russian peasants had infinite faith in their tsar and in their Orthodox religion, which he represented. Foreign visitors were not always taken in, but that did not matter. In the nineteenth century, for example, Astolphe, Marquis de Custine, wrote extensively about his travels in Russia. He railed against the “dexterity in lying” and the “naturalness in falsehood” that he encountered in 1839, such as when the tsar tried to overwhelm the visiting Frenchman with an illumination spectacle at the imperial palace. This display was designed to conceal the fact that hundreds of spectators had drowned when a sudden squall overturned their boats. “No one will ever know the truth,” he wrote in his diary, “and the papers will not even mention the disaster—that would distress the Czarina and imply blame on the Czar.”14 At the end of his trip, Custine concluded: “Everything is deception in Russia.”15

It was during the preliminary period leading up to World War I that the Kremlin leader began seriously thinking about world domination and tinkering around with the organization and mandates of his foreign intelligence service. Elsewhere in the world, foreign intelligence services are primarily engaged in collecting information to help their heads of state conduct foreign affairs, but in Russia and later throughout the Russian sphere of influence, that task has always been more or less irrelevant. There the goal is to manipulate the future, not just to learn about the past. Specifically, the idea is to fabricate a new past for enemy targets in order to change how the world perceives them. Besides targeting Western governments—nowadays the United States in particular—the Kremlin has come to view the powerful Western religions as dangerously hostile threats.

(Parte 2 de 6)

Comentários