What the commie spooks did 5

Ion Mihai Pacepa was “one of the top members of the Soviet bloc espionage community”. 

He writes:

One of our main assignments was to turn the UN against the United StatesWe in the Soviet bloc poured millions of dollars and thousands of people into that gigantic project. Virtually all UN employees and representatives from the communist countries — comprising a third of the world’s population — and from our Arab allies were secretly working for our espionage services.

Our strategy was to convert the centuries-old European and Islamic animosity toward the Jews into a rabid and violent hatred for the United States by portraying it as a country run by a rapacious “Council of the Elders of Zion” (the Kremlin’s epithet for the U.S. Congress), which allegedly wanted to transform the rest of the world into a Jewish fiefdom.

Unfortunately, we succeeded. In 2003, the UN expelled the U.S. from the Commission on Human Rights by the overwhelming vote of 33 to 3, and it appointed the tyrannical government of Libya to chair that body. A year later, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan decided to secretly make the UN even more anti-American.

On December 2, 2004, Annan endorsed the 101 proposals of the “High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change,” commissioned by him to build a UN “for the twenty-first century.”  The panel recommended that the U.S. be further isolated by establishing the rule that only the UN could authorize preemptive wars against terrorism or any other threats. For that, the panel concluded that the UN’s bureaucracy should be significantly increased (by creating a ”peace-building commission”), its efficiency significantly decreased (by greatly expanding the already inefficient Security Council), and the treasuries of its member countries additionally raided by having them “donate” to the UN an additional 0.7% of their GNP to fight poverty. (On December 7, 2007, Senator Obama introduced into the U.S. Senate the Global Poverty Act of 2007, demanding that 0.7% of the U.S. gross national product, totaling $845 billion over the next 13 years, be spent to fight “global poverty”. 

It is hard to believe, but true, that some of the authors of these proposals for “reforming” the UN were the same communist spies who had originally worked to subvert the UN. One eminent member of Kofi Annan’s blue-ribbon panel was the nouveau riche Yevgeny Primakov, a former KGB general and Soviet intelligence adviser to Saddam Hussein who rose to head Russia’s espionage service for a time — and to sing opera ditties with U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright while secretly running the infamous Aldrich Ames spy case behind her back. Another prominent member was Qian Qichen, a former Red China intelligence officer who worked under diplomatic cover abroad, belonged to the Central Committee of the Communist Party when it ordered the bloody Tiananmen Square repression in 1989, rose afterward to the Politburo, and in 1998 became vice-chairman of China’s State Council. And then there was Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League (another KGB puppet), who stated that he missed “the balance of power provided by the Soviet Union.” …

Primakov is an old enemy of the U.S. His espionage service — like my former one — used to spend every single day thinking up new ways to portray the American land of freedom as an “imperial Zionist country” that intended to convert the Islamic world into a Jewish colony. His first major victory was UN Resolution No. 3379 of 1975, which declared Zionism “a form of racism and racial discrimination.” Officially presented as an Arab initiative, that projected resolution had in fact been drafted in Moscow under the supervision of Primakov, turned into the KGB’s main Arabist. The resolution was openly supported by the Arab League and the PLO, two organizations on our payroll. …

On August 31, 2001, Primakov’s boss at the UN, Kofi Annan, organized a UN World Conference on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, which opened in Durban, South Africa. Its task was to approve new pre-formulated Arab League declarations asserting that Zionism was a brutal form of racism, and that the United States was its main supporter. Yasser Arafat, Fidel Castro, and the same gaggle of Arab and Third World governments who had supported the UN’s anti-Semitic Resolution No. 3379 in 1975 urged the participants to condemn Israel and the United States as Zionist powers who wanted to conquer the Islamic world. On September 3, 2001, the U.S. withdrew its delegation from Durban, charging that the UN conference had been “converted into a forum against Israel and Jews.” The Israeli government followed suit. On September 4, 2001, Congressman Tom Lantos, a member of the U.S. delegation, told reporters: “This conference will stand self-condemned for yielding to extremists. … I am blaming them for hijacking this conference.”

The September 11, 2001, attacks came seven days later. On that same day the KGB was celebrating 124 years since the birth of its founder. The weapon of choice for that horrific act of terrorism that has changed the face of our world was the hijacked airplane, a concept that had originally been invented by the KGB.

 Most of the people “working” at the UN are probably still anti-American spies …

The peace and freedom of the world depend on the power of the United States, not of the UN bureaucracy, as was always the case.

This article is of very great importance. Historians should take full and careful note of it.

We agree of course that the UN bureaucracy is useless and worse than useless. We abominate the UN and think it should be destroyed.

Apart from that, his last sentence troubles us. The world has little peace and less freedom. Should the US try to establish peace and freedom wherever they’re lacking?  Should the US police the world? It would have to make laws under which it would act globally. It’s writ would have to run in every state. The US government would then be the world government. But could it enforce it’s laws everywhere, on all peoples? Would Americans, or enough of them, want to do that – a nation that has always resisted acquiring an empire?

Would it not be enough for the US to protect itself and its own interests against its enemies – at present Russia, China and the other communist states, and all 56 Islamic states?

Such a policy would not preclude preemptive strikes against potential enemies, such as those trying to build nuclear arsenals with aggressive intent, or any that kept vital resources from American markets.

It may be hard to accept, but the truth is that the victims of  the Janjaweed, Joseph Kony, Kim Jong-un, Boko Haram, the Taliban cannot be saved by America. It is much easier to do harm on a vast scale, as the KGB and the Arabs have proved so successfully.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
  • Liz

    More proof that Obama is just a lackey for Third World dictators, and his agenda (aside from destroying America) is to siphon off as much money as he can from American taxpayers into the hands of his leftist buddies in the process.  

  • http://themoonshinesbrighter.wordpress.com/ Andrew M

    For all of the damage this agent of Soviet espionage did, we must applaud him for blowing the whistle on the plot he helped advance. Even if we cannot forgive his behavior, it takes a certain amount of bravery to come forth with these details and utter honesty to experience a change of heart.

    America should not have an empire. I am usually an advocate for global unification under the rule of law, being a moral absolutist and all, but our understanding of morality remains naïve, myopic, and cloudy even as our technology improves by leaps and bounds. I imagine that such a system, despite instituting global law, would actually end up decentralizing that power into local institutions where it can be more accurately enforced. In the face of the UN’s current bureaucratic ossification, our moral turpitude will be obvious to our descendants. It is enough to simply be the best America we can be at the moment and worry about being better when the opportunity strikes – our freedom is paramount, now and forever.

    Given the great amounts of damage which have already been done, most notably to the minds of our citizenry, it is amazing that America still has a leg to stand on. Even so, we have to improve our materials before we can improve our morale. The former will beget the latter, and we will undo the damage from both within and without to regain the trust of ourselves and our allies.

  • http://www.dupageattorneys.com/ law firm Chicago

    I do not like Rush Limbaugh. I quit listening to him years ago because I couldn’t stomach his regular fits of outright inappropriate language. It’s not that I’m Puritanical – I just don’t like people that rely heavily on belittling their.

  • George

    If you think Rush Limbaugh is bad  , listen to Michael Savage ( formerly – Michael Weiner ) on The Savage Nation conservative radio talk show broadcast who routinely bashes atheists and spews out his hate-mongering venom toward atheists regularly and yet he has the unmitigated gall to accuse others of hating Christians. One website states (allegedly ) that he is Jewish.    I don’t see any secular media anywhere saying the vile hate-mongering remarks that he says about atheists yet he gets a free pass because he represents the religiouus right masses. Some of the callers are just as bad and it’s [ OPEN SEASON ] on atheists.  The same religious zealots who can’t stand anyone criticizing their religious beliefs have absolutely no qualms about  bashing people of other religions and  especially SECULAR FREETHINKERS.   It’s the typical double-standard hypocrisy all over again.   It doesen’t matter if the conservative radio host is Sean Hannity , Glenn Beck , Neal Bortz,  etc., even though we are conservative , we will NEVER get any support from any of these people ( many of them who have a very venemous hatred and disdain for people who are secular ). I just stopped altogether listening to conservative talk radio , even though I agree politically and economically , they cannot get away from pushing or aligning themselves with the religious  GOD drivel and their organized indoctrinated theological dogma.  As usual , they have absolutely NO tolerance for people who are secular while demanding tolerance for their religious dogma. I think there is a word for them . Oh yeah , it’s called — HYPOCRITES   !!!!!!!!!

  • Anonymous

     George, well-said!