Pardon my "dragon breath".
Granma International - Nov 30, 2007
http://www.granma.cu...8complot-i.html
House Select Cmte on Assassinations (JFK)
Started by
WmWallace
, Oct 15 2005 03:54 PM
55 replies to this topic
#45
Bard
-
- Members
- 147 posts
Member
Posted 23 November 2009 - 11:37 PM
Tonight on our local radio show the host was talking about the Kennedy assassination.
Here is my little hack piece, sent off to the radio host to try to get him to think on different lines. He buys the Oswald lone nut, no RED connection idea.
The First article is by Nyquist and the second a Human Events piece about Pacepa’s book that Nyquist talks in his article.
http://www.financial.../2008/0801.html
http://www.humaneven...le.php?id=24169
Were they that reckless to kill a pres? Or just that confident that we wouldn't react with nukes anyway. Were we that weak to just let it happen? I am starting to think we were.
Here is my little hack piece, sent off to the radio host to try to get him to think on different lines. He buys the Oswald lone nut, no RED connection idea.
The First article is by Nyquist and the second a Human Events piece about Pacepa’s book that Nyquist talks in his article.
http://www.financial.../2008/0801.html
http://www.humaneven...le.php?id=24169
Here are 2 articles that might explain why Khrushchev would have Kennedy killed and why Oswald was a means to it. It's all about nuclear war. The first one is an explanation of reasoning, the second is about Pacepa's book showing the means and the evidence in short.
The Soviet influence would surely be concealed by the CIA because it would have meant escalation (WW3) with the Soviets which the West never wanted. That’s why the CIA/FBI believed Nosenko and let the FBI run the white wash of the investigation. Did we ignore the evidence because we so intent on avoiding war as to let a POTUS get killed? I think yes.
That's why we never had civil defense, we were never serious about fighting and winning nuke war in first place. That's why we were sucking on the pacifier of MAD, which the Russians never belieived in. The evidence of that? The world’s largest civil defense program. Nukes are just better artillery to the REDs. They don't think like us. They aren't scared of nuclear winter; they were a hardened police then and are now. We never understood them, because they are not like us, they have had a totally different cultural development marked by oppression and repeated invasion for hunders of years.
Convincing in and of itself? It’s at least something to think about.
1 Douglass said (In Nyquist's interview) that Sejna said that the REDs flew thier flags at half-mast when Kennedy died because Kennedy unwittingly did what the Soviets wanted. I don't know if Senja went on record about whether the REDs had a hand in the assassination or not though.
2.Pacepa says that they did have a hand in it.
3.My recollection of Lunev's take, and I am asking for correction, didn't say yes or no on his interview tapes with Barry Farber of Newsmax.
4. Tenent H. Bagley in a Nyquist interview says that the RED did not have direct hand in it because they didn’t want to start WW3.
Were they that reckless to kill a pres? Or just that confident that we wouldn't react with nukes anyway. Were we that weak to just let it happen? I am starting to think we were.
The difficulty in understanding the Russian is that we do not take cognizance of the fact that he is not a European, but an Asiatic, and therefore thinks deviously.- Patton
#47
Guest_ultimathule_*
Guest_ultimathule_*
-
- Guests
Posted 27 November 2009 - 02:32 PM
These transcripts are fascinating. I know many of you regulars have much greater knowledge of the details and happenings of all this stuff, but a lot of these details are "new" to me and I am thankful for the pinning of this topic.
I'm still in progress reading though these transcripts, and admittedly I am not as well-versed in the history surrounding JFK as I should be. But being a simple "joe citizen" with an interest in all this stuff (not JFK stuff per se, but in the espionage aspects of the cold war, and with a serious interest in TFP thesis), this is phenomenal reading.
In cursory study of Angleton/Golitsyn on the internet, one finds plenty of attempts to marginalize and/or discredit both Angleton & Golitsyn. I've seen it several times - in comments to blogs or forums that bring up Golitsyn - the recent one at American Thinker is a good example, and there is a classic rebuttal of the Golitsyn thesis at a Free Republic column somewhere that I remember reading. Even when people's interests are piqued enough to do a quick internet search on Golitsyn, I fear they often end up only to this two-sided "some think he's legit, some don't" conclusion.
As an observer looking at these transcripts (from the panorama of decades after these events) it is clearly evident that Golitsyn was a legit defector of immense proportion and that Angleton was no "paranoiac," or chump. Angleton comes across as top-notch.
I'm only up to page 35 on the Angleton transcript at this time, but man, I am enjoying this reading.
Loved this by Angleton:
"...we had a very sophisticated research and development program of an electronic device by which we could shoot a beam against a windowpane and turn the windowpane into a receiver so you could listen to conversations within a room."
That's cool stuff.
Other classics:
Angleton: "Some of the finest men [in the CIA] were fired [under Colby]."
Angleton: "Now, the reason I explain this to you is that having represented for 31 years probably the most distinguished group of loyal people that I have ever known, and the most hard working people, to have the Agency send as a representative of the Agency an individual of Hart's character and inexpertise before that Committee to take up a case of this magnitude and to listen to the committee people talk about the Chamber of Horr[o]rs of the Agency was redolent of the Church Committee, totally adversary, reviving the past, and it raises very grave questions about the integrity of your committee and it raises those questions in a way that the American people have been horn-swoggled."
Angleton: "I had a telephone call yesterday from a friend who subscribes to the London Economist and who read out the following statement from the foreign news section... Mr. James Angleton, the former Chief of Counterintelligence, CIA, was due to testify for six hours on 22 September to the House Subcommittee that is investigating the Kennedy assassination. He pulled out for the time being on the grounds that ( a ) he needed time to review the testimony of John Hart, who had made damaging allegations about the suspected defector Yuri Nosenko, and, ( b ) he wanted his lawyer upon (sic) classified information. I simply don't know how this was acquired. I haven't had time to try to analyze it in terms of dates and so on. But I had a telephone call from the reporter from the Wilmington Delaware paper whose name is Joe Trento, who has written a series of sensational reports about moles in the CIA, including myself as a mole and others, and who purports to have agents in the CIA and who purports that a former colleague of mine, Cleveland Cram, who I understand has been called back in service to write the history of the counterintelligence, is actually working on this question of moles. Trento also wrote an article in Penthouse together with a colleague named Roman for the August issue which deals with KGB penetration through the United Nations. The article on the whole is totally apocryphal in terms of allegations attributed to me, I mean statements attributed to me regarding that. I was shown a draft of this article by one William Corson, a colonel, several weeks before its publication. William Corson is a former Marine colonel who purports to have excellent contacts with the Senate and House intelligence people, including Senators, and including the Director of the CIA and others. He is listed as the Washington representative of Penthouse magazine. He has also written a book, which is in the public domain, on the Office of Strategic Services, OSS. He is an author of that book. I can't recall its title. I received this telephone call at the Army-Navy Club in which Trento stated that the Agency had put my head in a basket by producing John Hart and whether I had any comments to make. I said no. Then he went on to make a statement that Nosenko was going to sue the CIA, that he mentioned names, which I did not catch at all, the operation I think he mentioned was Meadowlark and he insisted that he and Corson wanted wanted to see me immediately. I told him that my lunch was getting cold and that I had guests, et cetera, and 'no, thank you'."
"My lunch was getting cold." Classic.
I'm still in progress reading though these transcripts, and admittedly I am not as well-versed in the history surrounding JFK as I should be. But being a simple "joe citizen" with an interest in all this stuff (not JFK stuff per se, but in the espionage aspects of the cold war, and with a serious interest in TFP thesis), this is phenomenal reading.
In cursory study of Angleton/Golitsyn on the internet, one finds plenty of attempts to marginalize and/or discredit both Angleton & Golitsyn. I've seen it several times - in comments to blogs or forums that bring up Golitsyn - the recent one at American Thinker is a good example, and there is a classic rebuttal of the Golitsyn thesis at a Free Republic column somewhere that I remember reading. Even when people's interests are piqued enough to do a quick internet search on Golitsyn, I fear they often end up only to this two-sided "some think he's legit, some don't" conclusion.
As an observer looking at these transcripts (from the panorama of decades after these events) it is clearly evident that Golitsyn was a legit defector of immense proportion and that Angleton was no "paranoiac," or chump. Angleton comes across as top-notch.
I'm only up to page 35 on the Angleton transcript at this time, but man, I am enjoying this reading.
Loved this by Angleton:
"...we had a very sophisticated research and development program of an electronic device by which we could shoot a beam against a windowpane and turn the windowpane into a receiver so you could listen to conversations within a room."
That's cool stuff.
Other classics:
Angleton: "Some of the finest men [in the CIA] were fired [under Colby]."
Angleton: "Now, the reason I explain this to you is that having represented for 31 years probably the most distinguished group of loyal people that I have ever known, and the most hard working people, to have the Agency send as a representative of the Agency an individual of Hart's character and inexpertise before that Committee to take up a case of this magnitude and to listen to the committee people talk about the Chamber of Horr[o]rs of the Agency was redolent of the Church Committee, totally adversary, reviving the past, and it raises very grave questions about the integrity of your committee and it raises those questions in a way that the American people have been horn-swoggled."
Angleton: "I had a telephone call yesterday from a friend who subscribes to the London Economist and who read out the following statement from the foreign news section... Mr. James Angleton, the former Chief of Counterintelligence, CIA, was due to testify for six hours on 22 September to the House Subcommittee that is investigating the Kennedy assassination. He pulled out for the time being on the grounds that ( a ) he needed time to review the testimony of John Hart, who had made damaging allegations about the suspected defector Yuri Nosenko, and, ( b ) he wanted his lawyer upon (sic) classified information. I simply don't know how this was acquired. I haven't had time to try to analyze it in terms of dates and so on. But I had a telephone call from the reporter from the Wilmington Delaware paper whose name is Joe Trento, who has written a series of sensational reports about moles in the CIA, including myself as a mole and others, and who purports to have agents in the CIA and who purports that a former colleague of mine, Cleveland Cram, who I understand has been called back in service to write the history of the counterintelligence, is actually working on this question of moles. Trento also wrote an article in Penthouse together with a colleague named Roman for the August issue which deals with KGB penetration through the United Nations. The article on the whole is totally apocryphal in terms of allegations attributed to me, I mean statements attributed to me regarding that. I was shown a draft of this article by one William Corson, a colonel, several weeks before its publication. William Corson is a former Marine colonel who purports to have excellent contacts with the Senate and House intelligence people, including Senators, and including the Director of the CIA and others. He is listed as the Washington representative of Penthouse magazine. He has also written a book, which is in the public domain, on the Office of Strategic Services, OSS. He is an author of that book. I can't recall its title. I received this telephone call at the Army-Navy Club in which Trento stated that the Agency had put my head in a basket by producing John Hart and whether I had any comments to make. I said no. Then he went on to make a statement that Nosenko was going to sue the CIA, that he mentioned names, which I did not catch at all, the operation I think he mentioned was Meadowlark and he insisted that he and Corson wanted wanted to see me immediately. I told him that my lunch was getting cold and that I had guests, et cetera, and 'no, thank you'."
"My lunch was getting cold." Classic.
#48
Guest_eskie_*
Guest_eskie_*
-
- Guests
Posted 29 November 2009 - 02:48 PM
I spent a good amount of time with those archives, and will again.These transcripts are fascinating. I know many of you regulars have much greater knowledge of the details and happenings of all this stuff, but a lot of these details are "new" to me and I am thankful for the pinning of this topic.
I'm still in progress reading though these transcripts, and admittedly I am not as well-versed in the history surrounding JFK as I should be. But being a simple "joe citizen" with an interest in all this stuff (not JFK stuff per se, but in the espionage aspects of the cold war, and with a serious interest in TFP thesis), this is phenomenal reading.
I happened to read Bagley's "Spy Wars" before approaching the House Committee archives. "Spy Wars" covers a lot of the same ground that the Committee on Assassinations did, of course, but Bagley lays out the history and the facts in a chronological and logical framework that makes it relatively easy to follow and understand the events in question and the associated analysis. The House Committee records, in contrast, are more "hodge-podge" - disordered chronologically, and it's harder to sew all the pieces together without first hearing the story in a more ordered fashion. So, yes, this is a recommendation of Tennant Bagley's book.
#49
WmWallace
-
- Admin
- 2,562 posts
Administrator
- Gender:Male
Posted 04 December 2009 - 11:01 AM
So, yes, this is a recommendation of Tennant Bagley's book.
So true! Reading "Spy Wars" will help immensely in understanding just how far off the mark people like Hart were.
This period of time is where we, as a nation, took the wrong turn and have ever since headed down the path of destruction.
#50
bm_cali
-
- Admin
- 3,905 posts
Member
- Gender:Male
- Location:San Francisco hinterlands, USA
- Interests:Winning the next world war. General curmudgeon-ship.
Posted 10 December 2009 - 08:21 PM
I think one of the things that unnerved the Establishment about Angleton was that he was in many ways, similar to Patton, McArthur, et al, of the final portion of the frontier era. A mestizo but with none of the modernist "Chicano power" BS, and a demonstrated patriot during WW2. He simply was not considered to fit in with the "new" way of being after the 1950s. JFK was also somewhat of that previous more rough and ready time, his known character faults notwithstanding.
Isn't it interesting the way that not long after the assassination, the character assassination of Angleton also commenced?
I believe that was no accident and like the assassination of JFK the KGB had a hand in it.
Those among the Left who worship JFK would do well to learn more about their hero and those who served in his administration. There were some great Americans in that administration.
Isn't it interesting the way that not long after the assassination, the character assassination of Angleton also commenced?
I believe that was no accident and like the assassination of JFK the KGB had a hand in it.
Those among the Left who worship JFK would do well to learn more about their hero and those who served in his administration. There were some great Americans in that administration.
#51
KABUD
-
- Members
- 96 posts
Member
- Location:New York, NY
- Interests:strategic planning, economics, finance, politics, defense, security, God, arms, Constitution, history,
Posted 03 January 2010 - 11:46 AM
Thank you very much for this posting!
Congressional records are one of the most valuable source we have
Unfortunately a lot of the hearing transcripts are hidden in variouis ways from public
A very interesting one is a Surikov Document
that appeared in 1995 was a subject of 4 or 5 Congress hearings and today one can see that Surikov Document in fact was an outline of kremlin policies since
Again, thanks for this posting
God Bless
Congressional records are one of the most valuable source we have
Unfortunately a lot of the hearing transcripts are hidden in variouis ways from public
A very interesting one is a Surikov Document
that appeared in 1995 was a subject of 4 or 5 Congress hearings and today one can see that Surikov Document in fact was an outline of kremlin policies since
Again, thanks for this posting
God Bless
#52
KABUD
-
- Members
- 96 posts
Member
- Location:New York, NY
- Interests:strategic planning, economics, finance, politics, defense, security, God, arms, Constitution, history,
Posted 03 January 2010 - 12:10 PM
Hi Bard, may i ask you how can i get myself a copy of Lunev audio files with Barry Farber?
I have a copy but half of it is ruined with noise.
I actually put it on yuotube here:
and plan to put more. But i only have roughly about 1/2 of that particular recording
I have a copy but half of it is ruined with noise.
I actually put it on yuotube here:
and plan to put more. But i only have roughly about 1/2 of that particular recording
Tonight on our local radio show the host was talking about the Kennedy assassination.
Here is my little hack piece, sent off to the radio host to try to get him to think on different lines. He buys the Oswald lone nut, no RED connection idea.
The First article is by Nyquist and the second a Human Events piece about Pacepa’s book that Nyquist talks in his article.
http://www.financial.../2008/0801.html
http://www.humaneven...le.php?id=24169
Were they that reckless to kill a pres? Or just that confident that we wouldn't react with nukes anyway. Were we that weak to just let it happen? I am starting to think we were.
#54
WmWallace
-
- Admin
- 2,562 posts
Administrator
- Gender:Male
Posted 06 February 2010 - 02:26 PM
One little, obscure piece of the puzzel that supports that Oswald was NOT on an assigned USSR mission:
A few months(?) prior to 11/22/63, Oswald tried assassinating Gen. Walker at his home in Dallas. Apparently, Walker was one of the "facsists" he was a "hunter of" - "A hunter of facists" as inscribed on a photo of himself (...my memory is a little foggy on the exact context of the term).
If Oswald was on an assigned assassination mission, wouldn't he have been controlled enough - either self-controlled or agent-run controlled - to not have risked exposure/arrest by taking a pot-shot at Gen Walker, an utterly minor target when considering his main target, JFK?
(And, don't forget his VERY public one-man mission on the streets to advance "Fair Play for Cuba," which even led to TV coverage and a TV interview - too open, too direct, too dangerous to expose the Red leanings of a future assassin of an American president.)
I believe what seems clear in reading Bagley's "Spy Wars" is that it was indeed a myth that the KGB never contacted or examined Oswald in-depth; they most likely did. However, that is a far cry from evidence of putting him on an assigned mission to kill an American president. It would have too reckless on the KGB's part.
But, who really knows?
Even the above point - and a hundred others points that support the notion that Oswald had acted totally independent - could, regardless, have been a manipulated red herring to throw-off any hounds on the scent of KGB involvement/intrigue...they're smart that way. master deceivers. Sometimes the best hidding place is the most open one right under the nose.
A few months(?) prior to 11/22/63, Oswald tried assassinating Gen. Walker at his home in Dallas. Apparently, Walker was one of the "facsists" he was a "hunter of" - "A hunter of facists" as inscribed on a photo of himself (...my memory is a little foggy on the exact context of the term).
If Oswald was on an assigned assassination mission, wouldn't he have been controlled enough - either self-controlled or agent-run controlled - to not have risked exposure/arrest by taking a pot-shot at Gen Walker, an utterly minor target when considering his main target, JFK?
(And, don't forget his VERY public one-man mission on the streets to advance "Fair Play for Cuba," which even led to TV coverage and a TV interview - too open, too direct, too dangerous to expose the Red leanings of a future assassin of an American president.)
I believe what seems clear in reading Bagley's "Spy Wars" is that it was indeed a myth that the KGB never contacted or examined Oswald in-depth; they most likely did. However, that is a far cry from evidence of putting him on an assigned mission to kill an American president. It would have too reckless on the KGB's part.
But, who really knows?
Even the above point - and a hundred others points that support the notion that Oswald had acted totally independent - could, regardless, have been a manipulated red herring to throw-off any hounds on the scent of KGB involvement/intrigue...they're smart that way. master deceivers. Sometimes the best hidding place is the most open one right under the nose.
#55
JRNyquist
-
- Admin
- 81 posts
Member
Posted 04 June 2011 - 12:29 PM
Many thanks for this wonderful thread! You see how the reality of Angleton is very different from the general impression given to the public by the "framers of discourse." You get a sense, as well, how effectively Angleton and Golitsyn were targeted by Soviet active measures; how their names were blackened; how their credit was destroyed by listing them as clinically paranoid. In the end it wasn't enough to say that Golitsyn was sick. It was necessary to say that Angleton, too, was "infected" by a kind of disease. I am impressed with Angelton's response. How can a psychologist diagnose a person he hardly knows? Golitsyn was a person of outstanding qualities, easily misunderstood by lesser individuals. Golitsyn, at a very young age, had met with Stalin on account of his qualities. Golitsyn's greatest asset, said Angelton, "was his analytical quality."Angleton further noted: "His mind without question is one of the finest analytical minds. He is ... an analytical type and he is a historian by background."
The failure of scholars -- particularly conservative scholars and historians -- to properly assess Golitsyn's worth and to properly recount the events of 1989-91 is unforgivable. (I lay a charge of guilt on the head of William F. Buckley.) The work of many intelligent men is vitiated by their inability to see the reality behind the facade of Communism's collapse. The danger we are in today may not be avoidable at this late hour. See how far we have sunk. We have a man in the White House who was mentored by Communists and who was, by the testimony of a classmate at Occidental, a raving Communist revolutionary in his youth, and who has hidden his past ideological leanings behind a shield of lies. I believe the testimony of Tom Fife, who was told by a Soviet KGB/Party functionary in 1992 that the Communist International was grooming a young black man to be the future president of the USA, and this man's name was Barrack (with a white American mother and an African father). I have spent time talking with Fife, and he is a solid person in my judgment. Anyone who has seen real Communists up close knows they are real. They are not a figment of the imagination. They are in deadly earnest, and they are killers -- plain and simple. The American people do not know what a Communist is. With smooth words they talk of socializing health care, but these are empty promises born of a lust for self-aggrandizement. Communism is alive! One merely has to look at family law in this country to see that Communism (i.e., the destruction of fundamental institutions like the family) is hard at work on all sides. even our national defense has reached the point of being negated; and soon, within three years or so, we will be effectively defenseless. That's when the final crashing down occurs. That's when billions will die, when the weak will be trampled by the strong, and man's inhumanity will enlarge itself as in the time of the last Dark Ages.
As a postscript, I would like to remind everyone that the former head of the Romanian intelligence service (acting head), Ion Pacepa, wrote a book titled "Programmed to Kill: Lee Harvey Oswald, the Soviet KGB and the Kennedy Assassination." Basically, he says that Khrushchev ordered Kennedy's death and that the president of Romania talked about it to top intelligence staff. Something to the effect that Khrushchev was a lunatic because he wanted to kill Kennedy. This was more than a year before Kennedy's death, perhaps more than two years (I'd have to go back and check the book). So imagine what they did. They killed Kennedy and most Americans are yet left with the impression that the CIA backed by evil corporations killed Kennedy. Oh yes. Kennedy was going to dissolve the Fed or the CIA, they claim. That's why he was killed! But in reality, of course, Kennedy embarrassed Khrushchev at Berlin, and Khrushchev's way was the way of the assassin. By some testimony it was Khrushchev who conspired to have Stalin's bodyguards removed on the night Stalin died (supposedly of the stroke). The only night in Stalin's career as dictator that he was unprotected and he died. Khrushchev, as an employer of assassins, merely followed his nature by assigning Oswald the job. To get away with murder, and see so many lies triumph, is the Communist way.
Angleton spoke of the "delusions "foisted on" the Congressional Committee. These delusions have now be "foisted" on an entire nation.
The failure of scholars -- particularly conservative scholars and historians -- to properly assess Golitsyn's worth and to properly recount the events of 1989-91 is unforgivable. (I lay a charge of guilt on the head of William F. Buckley.) The work of many intelligent men is vitiated by their inability to see the reality behind the facade of Communism's collapse. The danger we are in today may not be avoidable at this late hour. See how far we have sunk. We have a man in the White House who was mentored by Communists and who was, by the testimony of a classmate at Occidental, a raving Communist revolutionary in his youth, and who has hidden his past ideological leanings behind a shield of lies. I believe the testimony of Tom Fife, who was told by a Soviet KGB/Party functionary in 1992 that the Communist International was grooming a young black man to be the future president of the USA, and this man's name was Barrack (with a white American mother and an African father). I have spent time talking with Fife, and he is a solid person in my judgment. Anyone who has seen real Communists up close knows they are real. They are not a figment of the imagination. They are in deadly earnest, and they are killers -- plain and simple. The American people do not know what a Communist is. With smooth words they talk of socializing health care, but these are empty promises born of a lust for self-aggrandizement. Communism is alive! One merely has to look at family law in this country to see that Communism (i.e., the destruction of fundamental institutions like the family) is hard at work on all sides. even our national defense has reached the point of being negated; and soon, within three years or so, we will be effectively defenseless. That's when the final crashing down occurs. That's when billions will die, when the weak will be trampled by the strong, and man's inhumanity will enlarge itself as in the time of the last Dark Ages.
As a postscript, I would like to remind everyone that the former head of the Romanian intelligence service (acting head), Ion Pacepa, wrote a book titled "Programmed to Kill: Lee Harvey Oswald, the Soviet KGB and the Kennedy Assassination." Basically, he says that Khrushchev ordered Kennedy's death and that the president of Romania talked about it to top intelligence staff. Something to the effect that Khrushchev was a lunatic because he wanted to kill Kennedy. This was more than a year before Kennedy's death, perhaps more than two years (I'd have to go back and check the book). So imagine what they did. They killed Kennedy and most Americans are yet left with the impression that the CIA backed by evil corporations killed Kennedy. Oh yes. Kennedy was going to dissolve the Fed or the CIA, they claim. That's why he was killed! But in reality, of course, Kennedy embarrassed Khrushchev at Berlin, and Khrushchev's way was the way of the assassin. By some testimony it was Khrushchev who conspired to have Stalin's bodyguards removed on the night Stalin died (supposedly of the stroke). The only night in Stalin's career as dictator that he was unprotected and he died. Khrushchev, as an employer of assassins, merely followed his nature by assigning Oswald the job. To get away with murder, and see so many lies triumph, is the Communist way.
Angleton spoke of the "delusions "foisted on" the Congressional Committee. These delusions have now be "foisted" on an entire nation.
This is true. Some mysteries are unsolveable, and this is one of them, at least from our vantage point in time.
This site - "The Kennedy Assassination" by John McAdams - does seem to solve many of the mysteries related to this case.
#56
SJL
-
- Members
- 2,208 posts
Member
Posted 04 June 2011 - 11:40 PM
Many thanks for this wonderful thread! You see how the reality of Angleton is very different from the general impression given to the public by the "framers of discourse." You get a sense, as well, how effectively Angleton and Golitsyn were targeted by Soviet active measures; how their names were blackened; how their credit was destroyed by listing them as clinically paranoid. In the end it wasn't enough to say that Golitsyn was sick. It was necessary to say that Angleton, too, was "infected" by a kind of disease. I am impressed with Angelton's response. How can a psychologist diagnose a person he hardly knows? Golitsyn was a person of outstanding qualities, easily misunderstood by lesser individuals. Golitsyn, at a very young age, had met with Stalin on account of his qualities. Golitsyn's greatest asset, said Angelton, "was his analytical quality."Angleton further noted: "His mind without question is one of the finest analytical minds. He is ... an analytical type and he is a historian by background."
The failure of scholars -- particularly conservative scholars and historians -- to properly assess Golitsyn's worth and to properly recount the events of 1989-91 is unforgivable. (I lay a charge of guilt on the head of William F. Buckley.) The work of many intelligent men is vitiated by their inability to see the reality behind the facade of Communism's collapse. The danger we are in today may not be avoidable at this late hour. See how far we have sunk. We have a man in the White House who was mentored by Communists and who was, by the testimony of a classmate at Occidental, a raving Communist revolutionary in his youth, and who has hidden his past ideological leanings behind a shield of lies. I believe the testimony of Tom Fife, who was told by a Soviet KGB/Party functionary in 1992 that the Communist International was grooming a young black man to be the future president of the USA, and this man's name was Barrack (with a white American mother and an African father). I have spent time talking with Fife, and he is a solid person in my judgment. Anyone who has seen real Communists up close knows they are real. They are not a figment of the imagination. They are in deadly earnest, and they are killers -- plain and simple. The American people do not know what a Communist is. With smooth words they talk of socializing health care, but these are empty promises born of a lust for self-aggrandizement. Communism is alive! One merely has to look at family law in this country to see that Communism (i.e., the destruction of fundamental institutions like the family) is hard at work on all sides. even our national defense has reached the point of being negated; and soon, within three years or so, we will be effectively defenseless. That's when the final crashing down occurs. That's when billions will die, when the weak will be trampled by the strong, and man's inhumanity will enlarge itself as in the time of the last Dark Ages.
As a postscript, I would like to remind everyone that the former head of the Romanian intelligence service (acting head), Ion Pacepa, wrote a book titled "Programmed to Kill: Lee Harvey Oswald, the Soviet KGB and the Kennedy Assassination." Basically, he says that Khrushchev ordered Kennedy's death and that the president of Romania talked about it to top intelligence staff. Something to the effect that Khrushchev was a lunatic because he wanted to kill Kennedy. This was more than a year before Kennedy's death, perhaps more than two years (I'd have to go back and check the book). So imagine what they did. They killed Kennedy and most Americans are yet left with the impression that the CIA backed by evil corporations killed Kennedy. Oh yes. Kennedy was going to dissolve the Fed or the CIA, they claim. That's why he was killed! But in reality, of course, Kennedy embarrassed Khrushchev at Berlin, and Khrushchev's way was the way of the assassin. By some testimony it was Khrushchev who conspired to have Stalin's bodyguards removed on the night Stalin died (supposedly of the stroke). The only night in Stalin's career as dictator that he was unprotected and he died. Khrushchev, as an employer of assassins, merely followed his nature by assigning Oswald the job. To get away with murder, and see so many lies triumph, is the Communist way.
Angleton spoke of the "delusions "foisted on" the Congressional Committee. These delusions have now be "foisted" on an entire nation.
They are soaked in Marxism, ooze of it like a terminaly drunken vodka drinkers whose skin sweats the smell of it.
All these people are becoming as mentaly crippled by this poison of the absurd.
It is simple, they want to teach people to not repent so they will not see the light through it. They hate "punishment". THey talk of people profiting, but the Marxist is always the one asking for free stuff, free science, "love of science".
In fact, they completely lose the sense of currency and continued service. For them, they eat the drug pill, and before the pill loses its effect, they must party, they must trash it. Let them eat the pill and do it or die sad. Lives of glorified pathetic donut shop looters, spending all their miserable pathetic lives concocting for the most petty of all one time consumptions.
THey march on with arrogance but behind it lay a poor scared old KGB informing "lady", completely crazy.
The pay in money vs. services or services vs. money, and there lay the crux of it. They want to give nothing and in the end they will get less than nothing because nothing will be met with a life of nothingness too. The Death of the payer is their death because they participate not.
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
