Ion Mihai Pacepa and Disinformation
In the book “Disinformation” (published by WND in 2013), Ion Mihai Pacepa offers his view on a Liberation Theology and Islamic terrorism exclusively created by the KGB and a Nazism and Soviet Marxism as “brothers.”
He offers his view as a former KGB agent today under CIA protection.
As soon as his book was published, I acquired it. Before reading it, I had already published some articles on him. But after reading the book, I was surprised at his exceedingly simplistic conclusions.
Jewish Issue and a Supposed Equality Between Nazism and Soviet Marxism
Pacepa says that Nazism and Soviet Marxism were absolutely similar. In fact, there were similar points but as any historian knows and as every Israel-loving Christian knows, the most important issue in the 2nd World War was the Holocaust that Nazis committed against the Jews, annihilating 6 million of them. In this specific issue, was there equality between Nazism and Soviet Marxism?
What History records is that while the Nazi army annihilated the Jews throughout Europe, the Soviet Union’s Red Army consisted of thousands of Jews, who helped annihilate Nazism. While the Gestapo (the Nazi secret police) relentless persecuted the Jews, NKVD, the KGB predecessor, was founded by the Soviet Jew Genrikh Yagoda, considered the greatest Jewish murderer in the 20th century, according to an Israeli newspaper.
So as far as the 2nd World War Jews are concerned, Nazism and Soviet Marxism were in opposed sides: Nazism was a total enemy of the Jews while the Soviet Marxism was a friend. Even though this in no way excuses the atrocities of the Soviet Union, it freed the first Nazi concentration camp and it was the first nation to acknowledge officially at the United Nations the modern State of Israel in 1948.
Hitler’s anti-Jewish hatred found no match in the Soviet Union, but in a powerful U.S. capitalist of his time.
My article “Hitler’s Strident Anti-Marxism,” based on the views of Henry Ford (a capitalist magnate of the automobile industry) and Hitler, brings literal mentions by them and shows that their hatred of the Soviet Marxism was derived from the fact that the Jews had a certain control of the communist revolution in Russia. You can see more information in my article “Jewish Issues: A Clarification to Christians about Their Perception on the Jews.”
Is Liberation Theology a KGB’s Daughter?
In his book Pacepa insists that KGB is the mother of Liberation Theology. But both U.S. and Brazilian Catholics dispute Pacepa. (Brazil is the largest Catholic nation in the world, heavily affected by Liberation Theology.) U.S. Catholic author John L. Allen, of Crux, said:
“Catholic Archbishop Hélder Câmara of Olinda and Recife in Brazil didn’t have to be ‘maneuvered.’ He was already on board with liberation theology before anyone in Moscow knew it was stirring. That’s not to say the KGB didn’t do whatever it could to support leftist movements in Latin America critical of capitalism and the United States. It would be surprising if they hadn’t, given the zero/sum Cold War logic that anything that seemed to hurt one side benefited the other. In that sense, Pacepa is likely correct about the KGB strategy, but may be giving the agency too much credit for its results.”
Helder Camara, who founded the National Conference of Bishops of Brazil and is the patron of the Brazilian Catholic Left, is in process of sainthood in the Vatican.
The Plínio Corrêa de Oliveira Institute, a Brazilian Catholic institution known for its conservative stances, also disputed the exaggerated conclusions in Pacepa’s book, by posting the article titled “Liberation Theology, a KGB Invention? That Is Way Too Simple… ”
To say, as Pacepa said, that the KGB created Liberation Theology equates saying that CIA created the Pentecostal and charismatic movements, even though some very radical Catholics declare just so. During the Cold War, the KGB supported sectors in the Catholic Church connected to Liberation Theology while CIA supported conservative Pentecostal movements that were opposed to Liberation Theology. See my article “The Religious War between CIA and KGB in Latin America.” I have attended Pentecostal and charismatic churches. Does it mean that I am CIA child? By no means.
Prominent Catholic website National Catholic Register, in an article written by the Catholic journalist Victor Gaetan, rebutted Pacepa and his book by showing that there is disinformative content in his declarations. See the article “Disinformation” and a Dubious Source.
Catholic theologian Malachi Martin shows several Catholic ecclesiastical leaders who, before the KGB’s birth, promoted Liberation Theology.
The big challenge, therefore, is to read Pacepa’s book knowing how to distinguish between what is real and imaginary, filtrating what seems showy and impossible to prove. It is suspicious, for example, the fact that Pacepa is praised by CIA — a praise cheerfully recorded in his book. Opposition to the KGB, for a conservative, does not mean automatic support to CIA. To receive praises from CIA (headed today by a Muslim), or from the KGB, is a disadvantage, making the praised individual worthy of mistrust.
Is Modern Islamic Terror a KGB Creation?
According to information from WND itself, which published originally the Pacepa book, the U.S. government secretly sent many supplies of weapons to Syrian rebels (largely Islamic terrorists connected to al-Qaeda) who have been raping, torturing and slaughtering Christians in Syria. CIA played a major role in this scheme. In fact, WND accuses Hillary Clinton of having helped create ISIS, which has slaughtered thousands of Christians in the Middle East.
Besides, it is known that CIA gave billions of dollars to create al-Qaeda in the late 1970s, in a scheme to strengthen and use Islamic terror to overturn the Soviet Union. But the scheme was turned upside down when one of the CIA Islamic agents, Saudi Osama bin Laden, for some reason rebelled himself against the U.S. CIA and its former agent played a crucial role in the strengthening of the modern Islamic terror. But Pacepa seems to ignore all of this, even though he presents himself as an expert on Islamic terror. He insists in attributing 100 percent blame on the KGB.
Pacepa, who supposedly occupied so prominent post in the KGB that it allowed him to know at length the CIA involvement in the fomentation of the international Islamic terror, in his book he pretends that he has no such knowledge, or he hides it in order to be in the favor and privileges of CIA.
I examined his book “Disinformation” and I did not find any criticism of CIA and no mention of the fact that CIA had and has undeniable participation in the modern Islamic terror. In fact, the current CIA director is a Muslim, having converted to this murderous religion when he was in Saudi Arabia. Even so, to CIA Pacepa has in store only praises; to the KGB, criticism. Why not, for fairness, criticize both?
In “Disinformation,” Pacepa tells that his protection, identity and other personal issues are under CIA responsibility. The introduction of his book was written by James Woolsey, a former CIA director. In this point, some could question if the Pacepa book denounces disinformation or is a tool of disinformation.
By following his own exaggerated conclusions, Pacepa has more than enough reasons to say that the U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump is a “KGB agent.”
In fact, a former CIA director has said just so. He also said that he is going to vote for pro-Islam Hillary Clinton and he praised the fact that since 9/11 the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center was headed by a Muslim for over ten years. The current CIA director is Muslim. Former U.S. President George H.W. Bush, also a former CIA director, said that he is going to vote for Hillary.
If this scandal were connected to KGB, Pacepa would be exposing it and yelling.
Why his silence?
Portuguese version of this article: Ion Mihai Pacepa e desinformação
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.