- No posts where found
German Adviser Andreas Gives His Views on the CIA’s KGB Officer Anatoli Golitsyn
I shall post our dialogue, although I do not agree with your conclusion. Since we agree that both the CIA and KGB worked together (as did its surrogates, the West German BND and the East German SSD) during the entire Cold War Hoax, I shall post this. Others who read may come up with some further facts leading one of us to change our conclusion. As you know, I welcome all correction set forth in a factual, cogent way as you have done that I may reconsider certain conclusions.
Both positions need to be reviewed.
Please don’t post it if I cannot win you over to my point of view by my below mentioned answer.
What would be the point of launching wrong information on matters like these.
I certainly don’t want to whitewash Golitysn if he was/is the man you say he is.
I took your core arguments seriously and think they are flawed.
I know you are somebody who cherishes only the better argument. If I can’t convince you and you give me your reasons, I won’t be able to convince myself any more. And vice-versa.
So please listen to my objections.
Peter Wright: Any retired MI5 Assistant Director (!) is no truth-worthy source.
“Golitsin was given the most secret files of the CIA by Angleton and the most secret files of the British MI5 by Roger Hollis according to ex-MI5 officer, Peter Wright. This proves the collusion at the very top of the CIA, KGB and MI5/MI6”
Of course it proves the collusion at the top level. But as I have said:
Had this operation been for real, it would never have been nor needed to have been transacted in broad daylight – so sloppy, so traceable, that it was just a question of time until somebody discovered the files were missing. A long time – “maybe as long as three years” had passed by then. Don’t you think Angleton could at least retrieved them quietly long before without before?!
My conclusion continues reasonable to me: this charade was a decoy intended to frame Golitsyn for the ongoing killings and to rob the remaining loyal US and GB operatives of their confidence, making them leave Western intelligence services.
“Golitsin’s truthful work on GP [GP = Glasnost/Perestroika ?] further confuses the seeker in seeking to substantiate Golitsin’s guilt or innocence as a Soviet spy or a real ‘defector’.”
This would only to apply to those very few of us who could judge his assertions to be “truthful” – those who knew already that the end of the Cold War was as fake as the whole Cold War in itself. A tiny group of people.
Moreover in 1995 the Golitsyn story was dead cold.
Ergo: Why would they bother to launch The Perestroika Deception to convince a bunch of people whose “conspirary knowledge” made them cases beyond any “retrieval” in the first place, and for whom this Golitsyn question was a comparatively little piece in the whole picture, one more detail only?
In your quotation from his book on VAIII, p. 798, Peter Wright discredited Golitsyn making him look like a nitwit who didn’t give any information on KGB moles (see quotation VAIII, p. 798.).
But according to your argument, that’s exactly what Golitsyn’s task would have been: “Golitsin was the real deal – aided by the CIA to completely purge the KGB of real Russian patriots.”
And why would anybody have trusted him if he hadn’t given Western Intelligence anything substantial? That would have made him suspicious right away, wouldn’t it?
a. Opus Dei member of the Knights of Malta, William Colby: was he acting on his own – against Opus Dei?! Maybe he had grown a conscience? Yes, that’s possible, ok.
b. How do we know for sure the reasons for the murder of Eric Timm and Desmond Fitzgerald? It seems we have to believe Anthony Cave Brown. But even if we can trust him (I believe your judgement on his work “C”), he could have been mistaken on this one. Nobody knows everything. Happens all the time that we got something wrong.
But: They having been murdered at least provides both of them with some credibility. They may have opposed Angleton for having discovered one/some of the hundreds and thousands treasonous acts this demon committed, and assuming Angleton was a traitor, they wrongfully suspected Golitsyn to be one too for the very fact that Angleton vouched for his authenticity and defended him.
And finally Yuri Nosenko: is there any real prof to settle the question about where his loyalties lied. The best argument brings up is his being tortured. But this doesn’t prove anything if you send a strong and dedicated man. Maybe a Coadjutor. My point being: This whole Nosenko/Golitsyn controversy (and wasn’t there involved defector named “Fedora”?) created an embroilment of ultimately inconclusive data.
There remain the “good points” in my original paper.
P.S.: If I haven’t convinced you still, DON’T POST MY PAPER!
I will post it, but I must disagree.
Anatoli M. Golitsyn was most assuredly the link between the Order’s Soviet KGB with the Order’s CIA via Knight of Malta James Angelton and Jesuit Fordham University-trained Knight of Malta Raymond Rocca. Golitsyn was given the most secret files of the CIA by Angleton and the most secret files of the British MI5 by Roger Hollis according to ex-MI5 officer, Peter Wright. This proves the collusion at the very top of the CIA, KGB and MI5/MI6—all subject to the Jesuit Papacy. Golitsyn’s truthful work on “Glasnost Perestroika” further confuses the seeker in attempting to substantiate Golitsin’s guilt as a Soviet spy or innocence as a real “defector.”
CIA officers Eric Timm and Desmond Fitzgerald were both murdered for openly opposing Angleton’s collusion with Golitsyn. See page 797 of VAIII quoting Treason in the Blood by Anthony Cave Brown.
Golitsyn lied about Yuri Nosenko stating he was a plant into the CIA, when in fact, Nosenko was a real “defector.” Yuri in his own mind believed there was a real Cold War between the US and USSR, they supposedly being mortal enemies—a bold-faced lie! After being tortured for three and one-half years by Angleton, Nosenko was found to be a real defector and went to work for the CIA. Golitsin was protected by JFK assassin, brother Knight of Malta William F. Buckley, Jr., he claiming that Golitsin was not the “mole” within the CIA, Buckley knowing full-well it was Angleton who was the liaison between CIA and KGB by way of his absolute control of CIA Counterintelligence.
CIA Director William Colby later fired Angleton for which Colby was later “killed in a hunting accident.” All opposing Angleton were either driven from power in the CIA or were killed.
Golitsyn was the real deal—aided by the CIA to completely purge the KGB of real Russian patriots seeking to overthrow the Order’s Soviet Government born and built by the Pope’s International White Power Structure centered in London and Washington subject to Rome!
Let us always remember the Order has an open-but-false policy and a secret-but-true policy. Concerning Golitsyn, the open policy was to treat him as a real defector when in fact he was not. He was used to purge the KGB of CIA Russian patriots as well as to drive American patriots out of the CIA! Wonderful! Though several of Golitsyn’s warnings were true in his epic work, as you stated, the CIA never acted upon them—and Golitsyn secretly concurred in this action. This is why he was paid by the CIA to write GP in the first place! OPENLY publish facts that are true giving credence to his claim of being a real KGB “defector;” yet the understanding from the outset was that CIA would never act upon those warnings, the Soviets and Red Chinese perfecting their alliance for America’s coming Sino-Soviet-Muslim Invasion—to the delight of Roman Catholic Knight of Malta Golitsyn, protected by brother Knights Angleton, Rocca, Dulles, McCone and William F. Buckley, Jr.
No, Gloitsyn was a real agent for Rome building the Soviet side of the Black Pope’s dialectic between “the Communist East and the Capitalist West!” And as we perceive, the USSR was built and the US was weakened in preparation for her invasion!
In VAIII (p. 796-798) you rendered a rather harsh verdict on Soviet defector Anatoli Golitsin.
However, I am convinced that the Jesuits’ Western intelligence services did everything to discredit and neutralize him right from the beginning. Golitsyn was framed and wrongfully accused in a most cynical fashion.
To prove my point of view, I would like to submit my following arguments to your attention.
Let me begin by quoting the decisive passages from your VAIII:
“Angleton . . . demonstrated his confidence in [Knight of Malta] Golitsin by making available to him the CIA files on the personnel of the main operating section of the CIA in the Cold War with Russia, the thousand-odd men and women of the Soviet Division. He settled in an apartment in New York City, where he was permitted to receive and read the files. During this period—perhaps three years—many of the personal and operational files were delivered to him . . . We’re talking about careers ruined, about mass resignations of counterintelligence people convinced that the CIA has been irrevocably penetrated by KGB pawns, about men we thought were our moles in Moscow—arrested and shot . . .” [...] „Golitsin was evacuated suddenly to a farm in upstate New York. The files were sent to him there but he never returned them. . . . When this was discovered, an operation was undertaken to retrieve them and, according to a CIA officer involved, ‘two vans were required to return them to the Agency—two van loads of our most secret files in the possession of a Russian in the boonies somewhere north of Albany! You can imagine what the FBI thought when they were told about what had happened to some of the most secret files!’ ” (see VAIII, pages as mentioned above)
Now first of all, the value of a defector generally lies in the intelligence he is bringing in, in this case from the Soviet Union. If the CIA wanted to pass on the above-mentioned information, there is no point in doing so through a Soviet defector sitting in NY. The whole argument is quite ludicrous.
Likewise, if traitor Angleton & Co. wanted to pass on this sensitive information to Golitsyn, they needn’t do so by handing him out loads of operational files in the above mentioned most conspicuous way, right in the limelight. They seemed rather eager to draw everybody‘s attention to this monstrous procedure.
And that’s exactly what happened. Everybody was made to believe that Golitsyn was the traitor responsible for the execution of American moles. Another side effect were those “mass resignations of counterintelligence people convinced that the CIA has been irrevocably penetrated by KGB pawns”. Thus the Jesuits’ “operation Golitsyn“ elegantly purged the CIA of its last remaining upright agents, thereby killing two birds with one stone.
The Jesuits themselves put the very truth in the mouth of one of their contemporary “Jesuit theatre” players, the moment Knight of Malta Tom Cruise recognizes: “Golitsyn was a decoy. He was just a decoy!” (in Mission Impossible. Everybody interested in this matter should view again this whole affair embedded in the main plot.)
At some point we can’t expect to understand the true nature of the Golitsyn case without studying The Perestroika Deception, written and published in his name in 1995.
There he complains that although having provided the Americans, British and French Secret Services with highly sensitive intelligence, being rewarded with the United States Government Medal for Distinguished Service and made Honorary Commander of the British Empire, and although those intelligence services appeared to be highly interested in his disclosures, he had to witness his warnings going completely unheeded through the 30-year period he provided the CIA with his Memoranda. He then decided to present his Memoranda to the public in his second book, The Perestroika Deception.
Before we advance, let’s consider the possibility that his book is a forgery intended to influence public opinion in some way. The CIA could be behind it. Or maybe the Vatican [which we know would amount to the same]?
But more importantly we shouldn’t forget that a forgery has to be credible in order to manipulate the reader. Now, the author argues that not only did the CIA authorize the publication of his memoranda [ibid. p. XIX], but also didn’t heed his warnings. This either puts the whole CIA’s assessment against his own or – if allowing for the possibility that the CIA had in fact taken counter-measures – would testify to the author’s ignorance.
In addition, employing Golitsyn in 1995 would have been tantamount to beating a dead horse, for then he had already been scared long ago by endless debates on his credibility, with a variety of conflicting theories leading nowhere but to confusion.
Therefore it appears reasonable to assume Golitsyn’s authorship of The Perestroika Deception.
Nevertheless he could still be wrong or just delirious. Therefore we have to take a closer look at his statements.
First, Golitsyn ironically opens with the following epigraph dedicated to James Angleton:
“In memory of Jim Angleton, founder and outstanding chief of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Counter-intelligence, a man of vision and courage, a warrior and comrade-in-arms, who recognized the dangers of the Soviets’ new strategic challenge.”
I say “ironical” because his relationship with Angleton is very much identical to Charles Manning’s relationship to Allen W. Dulles. Manning, right at the beginning of his highly recommendable Martin Bormann – Nazi in Exile (1981) heartily thanks “Allen W. Dulles [!], for his encouragement and assurance that I was ‘on the right track, and should keep going’’’.
Dear Eric, in one of your posts (title: “Knight of Malta Raymond Rocca: CIA Traitor to Americans and Builder of KGB”) you wrote:
‘James Angleton, Soviet KGB ‘defector’ Anatoli Golitsin and Raymond Rocca had secretly worked together for several years in purging all CIA operatives in Russia which totaled over 1000, while destroying true Soviet defectors such as Yuri Nosenko. Indeed, Golitsin refused to speak with any CIA officers save Angleton and Rocca! (Anthony Cave Brown’s Treason in the Blood (1994) makes this collusion quite clear, although Brown, like English Knight of Malta Avro Manhattan, refused to admit the obvious connection between CIA and KGB, he promoting Rome’s false dialectic of ‘the Cold War.’)”
On the other hand, in The Perestroika Deception, page XVII, Golitsyn writes that “on arrival in Washington, I asked to be received by President Kennedy. I was assured by General Taylor, the President’s security adviser, that the President would see my appropriate contributions. Mr. Robert Kennedy, the Attorney General, told me that in due time a meeting with the President would be arranged. General Taylor wrote to me in the following terms: […] I wish to assure you that the officials with whom you are now in contact have the full authority and responsibility for handling matters of this nature, and I therefore request that you give them your complete cooperation. […] You may be confident that information concerning your contribution will be brought to the attention of the President if and when appropriate. ”
If true, this would signify they made sure Golitsyn didn’t meet JFK.
I suggest that Golitsyn was quarantined right from the beginning with Angleton and Rocca acting as his “guardian angels”.
As I said, it is impossible to discuss the case without having studied attentively The Perestroika Deception.
One of Golitsyn’s assignments was to serve as senior analyst in the NATO section of the Information Department of the Soviet intelligence service from 1959 to 1960, precisely at the time when Soviet long-range strategy was being designed over a period of one generation with the KGB being reorganized to play its part in it. Below you find some of his statements (there is much more “meat”!). What is really interesting now is to see how astoundingly Golitsyn’s information coincides with what we know about the Jesuits’ machinations:
• Perestroika was no genuine people’s revolution but conceived by the Soviet leadership between 1958 and 1960, introduced from above as a Party-controlled democratization movement, “conducted by the Communist Parties, their apparatus, their security services and their armed forces.” (ibid, p. 102) […];
• The Prague Spring in 1968 and the founding of the polish trade-union movement “Solidarity” in 1980 were planned soviet exercises in social engineering; rehearsals for launching the real thing later, the Perestroika;
• The “natural aging and death of Stalin’s former victims resulted in the disappearance of active anti-Communists and the general acceptance of the régime by the Soviet population. By the 1980s, there were no social democrats or politically active nationalists left alive in the USSR. By then, the KGB and the Party apparatus had succeeded in creating conditions in which only they could form strong grass roots organizations. ” (ibid, p. 15) “A generation’s delay was needed for Stalin’s victims and their jailers to pass away before the final phase of the strategy could be introduced.” (ibid, p. 102);
• “Gorbachev was selected, coached and prepared for this appointment by the late Suslov and Andropov and by Ponomarev and Gromyko” (ibid, p. 188);
• Perestroika did not lead to the disintegration of the Soviet Union, for is it the Communist Party which continues to exercise full control of foreign policy, defense and security as well as key industries of the new “independent” countries. In this context Golitsyn points out that “the leverage which continues to be exerted by the provision of oil, gas and electricity via networks established by the ‘former’ USSR, constructed prior to ‘perestroika’, remains as powerful as under the overt Soviet Bloc system.” (ibid, p. 102) “The fact that there have been no significant disclosures by the new ‘democratic’ governments about the important secret agents of the security services operating among their respective leading ‘dissidents’, intellectuals, scientists, cultural and religious leaders or cultural defectors, confirms that continuing use will be made of the political, intelligence and security potential of these countries to further the strategy of convergence.” (ibid, p. 99-100) (the meaning of “convergence” will become clear further below)
• The split between Communist China and the Soviet Union never happened but was a “common strategic disinformation operation to secure the successful preparation of their common strategy of ‘restructuring’. […] Gorbachev’s ‘perestroika’ and Deng’s ‘Four Modernizations’ are two similar elements in the final phase of the common strategy.” (ibid, p. 35);
• “It should be remembered, too, that the emergence of ‘perestroika’ in Russia was accompanied by the tightening of military and political control in China, starting with the Tienanmen Square episode. Far from being coincidental, this was the result of a joint Sino-Soviet decision – confirmed during Gorbachev’s visit immediately ahead of the Tienanmen Square provocation – that, while one main pillar of the Leninist world was engaged in ‘perestroika’, the other should be held under firm control. Similarly, the introduction of a Chinese version of ‘perestroika’, which may be expected in China after the death of Deng, would be a probable reason for a tightening of control in Russia95.” (ibid, p. 229);
• Both the 1991 coup against Gorbachev and its failure through Yeltsin’s “heroic” stand at the White House of Russia were calculated Soviet operations. “The real participants both in the ‘coup’ and in the ‘failure’ were some 20,000 or more chosen Komsomol and Party members in Moscow with two or three tank divisions guided by their political commissars and a handful of dedicated Party officials and generals who sacrificed their prestige in the interest of the Party’s strategy and under the guidance of its strategists” and “the main external objective of the display was to demonstrate to the West that Soviet democratization is genuine, that is has the support of the people and that it is working.”
(ibid, p. 141) [in bold by Golitsyn] Moreover, “the ‘White House’ provocation59 has provided the strategists with a pretext for reasserting control from the centre” (ibid, p. 163);
? There never was any genuine Chechnyan independence movement. Instead, it was artificially engineered and carried out by what is known as a “counter gang”, that is, units or groups run by their own government, usually through double agents. In the Chechnyan case this was done for various reasons: a) “Contrived and televised Russian military bungling during the Chechnyan campaign has sent a strong message to the West that Russian military leaders are divided amongst themselves and that there is widespread incompetence and low morale in the army – factors which demonstrate that it can be discounted as a serious military adversary for the foreseeable future.” (ibid, p. 227); b): “The televised spectacle of Russian barbarity in Chechnya has aroused apprehension in neighboring states of comparable Russian military operations against themselves, thereby strengthening the argument that former members of the Warsaw Pact should be admitted to membership of NATO93” (ibid, p. 228). According to Golitsyn, one major idea underlying Perestroika was what of Sun Tzu who wrote, in his The Art of War: “When you are weak, make the enemy believe you are strong. When you are strong, make the enemy believe you are weak.”
• “China is destined to become a primary Soviet partner in the future World Government towards which Moscow and Peking are jointly proceeding.” (ibid., p. 36)
• “The final period of ‘restructuring’ in the United States and Western Europe would be accompanied, not only by the physical extermination of active anti-Communists, but also by the extermination of the political, military, financial and religious élites. Blood would be spilled and political re-education camps would be introduced. The Communists would not hesitate to repeat the mass repressions of their revolution in 1917, of the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe in the Second World War or of the Chinese Communist victory of 1949.48 This time, they would resort to mass repressions in order to prevent any possibility of revolt by the defeated, and to make their victory final.” (ibid., p. 34)
• “Their [the perestroikan Communist's] vision includes the extermination of the American and European capitalist and élites.” (ibid., p. 38)
• “The pragmatic ground for a new American response to ‘perestroika’ is the need to protect and preserve the American system from ‘restructuring’ and convergence with the Soviet system and to save the American people from the blood baths and re-education camps which such convergence will ultimately bring.” (ibid., p. 42)
• “Behind the mask of diplomatic and political cooperation and partnership with the Unites States and Europe, the current Russian leaders are following the strategy of their predecessors and working towards a ‘New World Order’. When the right moment comes the mask will be dropped and the Russians, with Chinese help, will seek to impose their system on the West on their own terms as the culmination of a ‘Second October Socialist Revolution’.” (ibid., p. 158) [in bold by Golitsyn]
• “The final goal of Soviet strategy [is] the convergence of the capitalist West with the Communist East on Soviet terms and the creation of a World Government as a solution to the arms race and nuclear confrontation9.” (ibid., p. 10)
But Golitsyn was wrong on two major points:
First, as you state in VAIII, Golitsyn came from a catholic family and later was made Knight of Malta. He defected, believing he could trust the West. After all, the West was the enemy of his enemies, the Soviets. Golitsyn had no idea that the power-wielding elite in the U.S. and the Soviets were ultimately playing for the same club: the Jesuits!
That’s why he never came to terms with the U.S.’s refusal to heed his warnings. America’s secret establishment and their Jesuit masters knew all too well what Golitsyn was talking about, he was “carrying coals to Newcastle”.
Secondly, the information he was allowed to receive as a Soviet KGB officer, was wrapped up in Cold War terms and concepts. Golitsyn naturally assumed the Soviets would continue to seek Soviet world control and hence try to infiltrate and finally take over the West. There he overestimated the Soviet’s might, understandable as it was for a Soviet citizen.
True, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and Slovakia were allowed membership both in NATO and the European Union. By letting them in, NATO and the European Union let in as many Trojan horses which are currently commanding some significant 97 of the European Council’s total of 345 votes.
The current European Union’s staggering velocity in imposing a pure breed Fabian-socialist government on all EU member states seems to confirm his prediction.
But both the former Soviet Republics joining NATO and the EU and the Fabian-socialists taking over the EU isn’t due to “ex-“Soviet or Russian activities. Instead, it has been made possible only because “the West” – the Jesuits! – let it happen. (Let’s bear in mind here that the Jesuits’ “West” built communist Russia right from its inception in 1917, making it one more of their “reductions”.)
Dear Eric, I would be honored if you posted this article on your website, provided you agree with its content.
I had to write this article in a little hurry. Please excuse any lapses.
Only registered users can comment.