formats

Ignoble cause: Why Orwell’s ‘jihad’ was nothing like Al Qaeda’s ‘International Brigades’ in Syria

Fighters in the International Brigades

UK Guardian journalist George Monbiot recently made some pretty outrageous claims, equating the international civilian efforts to block the rising tide of fascism in the 1930s with today’s ridiculous Western intelligence-run ‘jihad’, a.k.a. the ‘War on Terror’, which plainly runs interference for imperial greed abroad and instituting police state measures at home.

George Orwell et al were making a last stand before the West plunged into the fascist darkness it’s still in today, and which ‘al Qaeda’ is a creature of. If you think fascism ended with Russia’s defeat of Germany in 1945, think again. The Dulles brothers were sizing up Nazis for relocation en masse to the Americas as early as 1943, in preparation for taking up positions in the new U.S. National Security State, aka the Military-Industrial Complex, the vehicle through which the Reich has gone on to near-total ‘full-spectrum dominance’.

The civilian International Brigades, with barely any support from Soviet Russia, and with obstacles thrown in their way by Winston ‘anti-Nazi’ Churchill and Franklin ‘anti-fascist’ Roosevelt, fought for a noble cause when they gathered in Spain to defend the democratically-elected Republican government against the fascist coup led by Franco, and subsequent civil war from 1936-1939. The Spanish fascists were explicitly supported Hitler and Mussolini, and implicitly supported by most other Western regimes.

‘Al Qaeda’ has no cause because it’s not a real organization with defined goals that have any hope of appealing to large numbers of people – ever. Sure, there are, now, as a consequence of U.S. wars, growing numbers of Muslim men driven mad with the injustice of it all, and who believe themselves to have just cause for doing whatever they must to satisfy their thirst for retribution. But this is inherently reactionary – there is nothing noble about what they want, nor is there anything noble in the way they go about trying to achieve whatever the hell their goals are supposed to be. I mean, seriously, cutting off the hands and feet of children in Syria, filming the slaughter, then passing it off as an attack by Syrian government forces? Raping young Syrian girls, then receiving the blessing of Saudi clerics to have been retroactively and temporarily ‘married’ to them for the duration of the rape; medieval, barbaric, sanctioned by the U.S., French and UK governments… but noble?

U.S. Army veteran Eric Harroun, of Phoenix, Arizona, who joined al Qaeda to ‘wage jihad’ in Syria. With a ‘manifesto’ that can be summed up as ‘guns, women-as-sex-slaves, and sharia law’, you can bet the farm that the only freedom ‘al Qaeda’ is fighting for in Syria is the freedom to exploit others.

If Orwell were choosing where to fight abroad today, he’d be going to Syria to fight FOR Assad’s efforts to make Syria secular, progressive and peaceful – and to maintain its current status as a bulwark against Western psychopatholgical inroads into the region.

Monbiot is also forgetting about the thousands of ‘jihadis’ going to Syria annually from the U.S., Canada, Sweden, UK, France, Australia, and elsewhere in ‘the West’, a trend which our dear leaders say they’re “worried” about. Worried, that’s it?! Radicalized teenagers just ‘happen’ to be turning up in Syria? We can’t for one moment escape Big Brother’s All-Seeing Eye in this dystopian age. We’ve had no-fly lists and Total Mass Surveillance since 9/11, and even earlier, for god’s sakes! Think about it. Yes, they’re officially ‘terrorists’, but they’re clearly sanctioned to do what they do because they’re ‘our terrorists’. They’re being flown in and out, supplied, financed and trained, thanks to billions of dollars channelled through Saudi Arabia and Qatar, logistics support via Israel, Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon, and Western Special Forces coordinating operations.

What does Monbiot think Mohammed Merah was doing meeting with senior members of French intelligence in the months before the Toulouse shootings? Hint: they weren’t just swapping holiday snaps of the part-time employed 22-year-old’s paid-for ‘vacations’ to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria and Israel! Someone is clearly going around recruiting, indoctrinating or otherwise brainwashing mentally-challenged kids in ‘the civilized West’ to go join this most ignoble of causes where the super-retarded in power are leading the retarded to execute bloody mayhem… just coz they can:

So, no, if Orwell were going to ‘wage jihad’ in Syria or anywhere else today, he would not be hailed as a hero – he’d be a an agent of empire, unwitting or otherwise, and he’d be as reviled as they are.

 
formats

Psychopaths in power: The Parasite on the Human Super-organism

I was reading another devastating commentary by American author Chris Hedges on the overbearing tyranny of the State, and it got me to thinking about this popular notion of “rising up against” oppressors. Hedges’ analysis is on target, but I feel that his conclusion that we must “tear it down” in order to escape it is lacking something important.

To ‘rise up against our oppressors’, to ‘take back the country’, and to ‘overthrow the ruling class’ assumes that they are ‘up there’ to begin with. Yes, in many ways they are. Through their domination of industry, government, media, education and so on, they invariably influence – control even – just about everything material in our world; they possess most of the wealth, work in high-rise buildings, live in elevated suburbs and generally look down from their rarefied vantage point on the masses slumming it out below.

But when it comes to the important things – moral character, worldly experience, creative abilities, and basic intelligence – what do they really possess?  Few, if any of these things. In fact, I think we can make the case that, psychologically-speaking, they are actually pretty far ‘down there’ on the scale of haves and have-nots.

Ok, so they certainly set no moral example to follow. Well, what then do we need the State for? Standard political theory teaches that the State is the final arbiter of contracts between people, without which there would be lawless chaos. Left unto themselves, claimed schizoids like Thomas Hobbes, life for humans would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” I’m not so sure. In fact, I’m beginning to think it’s the other way round: life is brutish for most because of the State.

Although based on research that is some 80 years old, Political Ponerology by Andrew Lobaczewski is the classic text for understanding how psychopaths and other assorted character-disturbed people infect society from the ‘top’ down, not least through their crazed theories that reveal a barely disguised contempt for human nature. Studies have found that the ‘intelligentsia’ are actually much less intelligent than the average citizen they ‘lead’.

One study, cited in Robert Kirkconnell’s excellent American Heart of Darkness, a revision of U.S. history through the lens of Ponerology, found that 58% of Americans are more intelligent than the average U.S. president. And in terms of moral character, most presidents were found to have next to none, relative to the national average. No doubt there are variations and exceptions to the rule through time and space, but I think this supports the contention that we don’t actually need the State, and certainly not in its Leviathan form, which begins with the assumption that man is inherently evil and so must rely on the State to bestow objective morality on him from the outside.

[By the way, you can listen to our recent interview with Kirkconnell on SOTT Talk Radio here.]

I acknowledge that sweeping generalizations are generally too simplistic; the world and human psychology is complex, and so ‘simple’, ‘final’ solutions have been instrumental in getting us into this mess. Of course some individual PhDs really are experts in their chosen field; some individual bureaucrats really are good administrators; some individual military men are natural warriors; heck, some individual bankers are excellent accountants.

All of these roles can and do have a productive place within society. But I suspect that, in general, the ruling classes’ importance to any given society – and I’m including roughly the ‘top’ 10-20% here, though the percentage undoubtedly varies from place to place, and their negative impact probably diminishes the further you move down the power/wealth scale – is grossly inflated, in much the same way the casino stock market doesn’t add anything productive to the real economy of labor and capital – it just distorts everything and interferes with efficient distribution.

Check this video out:

Pretty astonishing, eh?

Note the part where the narrator says:

Everything looks like it has been designed by an architect: a single mind. This colossal and complex city was created by the collective will by the ant colony: the super-organism.

I submit that, in general, the ruling classes obstruct, retard and – in the worst cases – destroy society far more often than they actually contribute to its harmonious functioning, most of which appears to happen naturally according to ‘higher’, as yet unconscious, laws. Like that ant colony, humanity functions as one super-organism, and it does so independently of the corrupt elites’ decrees, their mad scientists’ ridiculous theories, their insane enforcers’ medieval habits, their greedy bankers’ usurious rates, and so on.

Society, the economy, civilization, etc. don’t work because of leaders and their underlings; they work in spite of them!

Part of the problem with “rising up against” the ruling classes is that there will be those whose actual underlying motivation was to replace the existing leaders and thus be in a position to take more for themselves. Psychopaths and other pathologicals will inevitably be carried along by the tide because, as history has repeatedly shown, in no time at all do they subvert a social or revolutionary movement into its opposite. But if we recognise that the masses have had – all along – the creativity, common sense, ingenuity, self-motivation and skills that they need to naturally and autonomously govern as a collective, we realize we don’t need ‘the State’ and we don’t need ‘leaders’.

Is all this really designed and led by certain people? Or does it form part of a single super-organism that is intelligently-informed despite being infected with a parasite?

As things stand, however, most people cling to the illusion that they need leaders, an illusion that the elites who think they rule the rest of us are only too happy to sustain. And so the parasite remains firmly attached to its more intelligent, productive, and vital host: the masses of ordinary man. As long as there’s a kind of equilibrium, the host remains sufficiently healthy while the parasite is kept in check, and as a species we get by without catastrophic ‘colony collapse disorder‘. There’s still war, slavery, oppression, injustice and so on, but it’s always competing with – or mitigated by – public education, the welfare state, creative expression, sharing, democratic improvements, unionization, human rights, demand for higher wages, etc.

What we see happening all over the world today is the worst case scenario – the parasite destroying its host. It’s particularly pronounced in certain Western countries, but no corner of the planet is immune. People are ‘losing their minds’ in ever-greater numbers, just as the bees are abruptly disappearing. The ‘common sense’ of ordinary people, of a higher intelligence than that of their ruling classes, has been eroded as they become sicker. Their dis-ease manifests as climatic stress, which feeds back into more human stress until…

Well, until the slate is wiped clean and the parasitic symbiosis between host and parasite is re-established, I guess. As Lobaczewski wrote in Ponerology:

Germs are not aware that they will be burned alive or buried deep in the ground along with the human body whose death they are causing.

The whole thing is just really tragic. The elites believe they’re shepherding the flock toward Great Things. The flock is in fact dying because it’s not really a flock; it’s a super-organism that can no longer sustain the barrage of psychopathic inroads into its ‘collective will’.

So, I say we try something different than ‘rising up and taking back control of the governing institutions’. Forget new personnel to run those institutions: we don’t need those institutions at all. Rather than engaging in battle with the tyrant, whose very thought processes are so completely alien to us that we always emerge drained from direct encounters, I say we essentially just ignore it. Not by pretending that it isn’t there, but by inwardly distancing ourselves from it and outwardly seeking communion with others doing likewise.

I know that’s hard for people to even begin contemplating when they’re presently under financial or other duress, but the beauty of it is that the more you understand how the psychopaths rule our world, the more you free yourself from the illusion that they have any power over you; the more freedom – of the real inner kind – you’ll obtain; the more you’ll have to give to other humans and less to the parasites…

See your world, see yourself, see your world, see yourself…

As Joe Baegent put it, the way out is the way in.

 
formats

Volcanic eruptions, rising CO2, boiling oceans, and why man-made global warming is not even wrong

Published on 28 November 2013, by in Climate change.

The spectacular eruption of an undersea volcano off the coast of Tonga in the South Pacific in 2009

Perhaps in an effort to ward off yet another long cold winter, officially-sanctioned climate science has been pumping out hot air at exponentially-increasing rates of late. An IPCC report in September told us that global warming “paused” unexpectedly in 1998, and shows no sign of resuming. Actually, the work that went into that report found that warming had stopped altogether, but the wording was altered to describe it as a “pause”. You’d think that a pseudo-acknowledgement like this from on-high would dampen the Global Warmists’ enthusiasm, but you’d be wrong.

Their driven need to ‘fit the facts around the policy’ is illustrated by a couple of recent articles that caught our eye. Here USA Today reports on the findings of a study that claims:

“The middle depths of a part of the Pacific Ocean have warmed 15 times faster in the past 60 years than they did during the previous 10,000 years.”

Then this BBC article cites “the world’s leading experts on ocean acidification”, who claim that:

“The world’s oceans are becoming acidic at an unprecedented rate and may be souring more rapidly than at any time in the past 300 million years, [...] causing a 30% loss of species in some ocean ecosystems.”

And, as you can probably guess, these experts are certain that it’s all your fault.

By now you know the drill:

You produce too much CO2 —> this contributes to the ‘greenhouse effect’ –> planet heats up –> ice caps melt –> sea levels rise, etc…

Take note that the Pacific Ocean data they used to come up with this “warming 15 times faster than ever” claim concerns the middle depths of the Pacific Ocean. Meanwhile, another study published back in August reported that the Pacific Ocean’s surface temperatures are cooling. The warming middle depths were attributed to man-made CO2 being “pumped into” the ocean, while the cooling surface layers were attributed to “a natural warm and cold cycle.”

What’s it gonna be guys? Man-made climate change or a natural cycle? You can’t have your cake and eat it!

But apparently they believe they can have it both ways, so the established sequence of cause-and-effect has been amended to the following: an increase in CO2, predominantly or solely caused by man, causes an increase in heat. That CO2 is absorbed by the oceans, which heats them up… except for the surface layers – that’s nature’s fault!

If we follow their reasoning to its logical conclusion, we would have to believe that the oceans are cooling by absorbing heat that is sinking down to lower layers!

When the lower-than-expected ocean surface temperatures were announced, climate scientists – as superbly economical with the truth as ever – suggested that the naturally-caused cooler surface ocean temperatures had “flattened out” the warmer ‘human-caused’ atmospheric temperatures and given us the appearance only of a “pause” in global warming!

But remember, in any event, the September IPCC report established that there never were any warmer atmospheric temperatures to begin with, so there was nothing for these cooler surface ocean temperatures to “flatten out”!

It’s CO2 Jim, but not as we know it

What there is good evidence for, however, is increased CO2 levels, in both the oceans and the atmosphere.

As we’ve already noted, the experts are also telling us that ocean acidification, the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth’s oceans due to increased absorption of CO2, has reached unprecedented levels. Now, it is assumed that this extra CO2 is coming from human activity, via the atmosphere.

But from where, you might be wondering, did they find the hard data to support their “300 million years” claim?

From volcanic vents on the ocean floors:

Emissions of CO2 driving rapid oceans ‘acid trip’

BBC, 17 November 2013

Studies carried out at deep sea vents where the waters are naturally acidic thanks to CO2, indicate that around 30% of the ocean’s biodiversity may be lost by the end of this century.

These vents may be a “window on the future” according to the researchers. “You don’t find a mollusc at the pH level expected for 2100, this is really quite a stunning fact,” said Prof Gattuso. “It’s an imperfect window, only the ocean’s acidity is increasing at these sites, they don’t reflect the warming we will see this century.”

[...] The effect of acidity is currently being felt most profoundly in the Arctic and Antarctic oceans. These chilly waters hold more CO2 and increasing levels of the gas are turning them acidic more rapidly than the rest of the world.

The researchers conclude that human emissions of CO2 are clearly to blame.

[Emphases added]

Notice anything funky about this ‘scientist’s’ understanding of a ‘fact’?!

At most, human emissions of CO2 are in the 4-5% range of a gas that makes up 3% of the atmosphere. Humanity’s potential contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is therefore statistically insignificant. Yes we have toxified the entire biosphere in every way imaginable, yes we treat our fellow Earthlings abominably, and yes, there is evidence that CO2 levels are higher than ever observed by modern man, but the notion that one tiny factor in a complex and interdependent system, one that transfers vast quantities of energy around the world, is responsible for the weather extremes and mass animal die-offs we’ve seen in recent years is utterly absurd.

There is not enough energy – in the form of either CO2 or heat, or both – above water to account for the changes happening underwater, so this energy must be coming from elsewhere. The IPCC’s own charts illustrate the problem:

The mental gymnastics Global Warmists undertake to convince themselves that man-made CO2 is responsible for this are breath-taking. Commenting on the above IPCC chart, one green pundit in the Guardian writes:

Can you make out the tiny purple segment at the bottom of the above figure? That’s the only part of the climate for which the warming has ‘paused’. As the IPCC figure indicates, over 90 percent of global warming goes into heating the oceans, and it continues at a rapid pace, equivalent to 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second.

Ok… but in line with the September IPCC report, you need to explain to us how 90% of nothing (ie, the non-warming since 1998) translates into those large percentage increases in energy and CO2 in the oceans? Where does that energy and CO2 increase come from, if not from human activity, from land or from the atmosphere? They acknowledge that there is no atmospheric warming, so what then is boiling the oceans?

The answer is staring them in the face.

Rocking and rolling in the deep

A more rational explanation, and one that’s far more serious in its implications for everyone today, whatever about people in 2100, is that increased quantities of CO2 and heat are coming up from below, i.e. passing up through the oceans from within the planet, heating and acidifying the planet’s oceans.

Volcanism is the most likely culprit here.

The oceans’ chemistry and temperature is probably changing due to direct contact with known, observable vectors of CO2, namely increasingly active and newly formed volcanic vents and underwater volcanoes on the sea floor. Volcanic activity has been steadily brewing and increasing above ground for years. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the planet’s volcanoes are located underwater. With landslides, rifts and sinkholes opening up – swallowing cars, people and buildings along the way… can we even begin to imagine what is happening on the vast and relatively unexplored ocean floors?

Countless accidental discoveries of underwater vents, volcanoes, plumes and geysers have been made in recent years, many of which we’ve archived on SOTT. Here’s just one example:

Hydrothermal “Megaplume” Found in Indian Ocean

An enormous hydrothermal “megaplume” found in the Indian Ocean serves as a dramatic reminder that underwater volcanoes likely play an important role in shaping Earth’s ocean systems, scientists report.

The plume, which stretches some 43.5 miles (70 kilometers) long, appears to be active on a previously unseen scale.

“In a nutshell, this thing is at least 10 times – or possibly 20 times – bigger than anything of its kind that’s been seen before,” said Bramley Murton of the British National Oceanography Centre. [...]

“A normal hydrothermal vent might produce something like 500 megawatts, while this is producing 100,000 megawatts. It’s like an atom bomb down there.”

Remember what the September IPCC report said about all of the allegedly man-made global warming constituting the energy equivalent to “4 atom bombs”? Well here’s just one underwater volcano approaching that level of energy all by itself! The volcanoes above water are erupting all over the place, so it’s probably safe to assume that, combined with underwater volcanoes, the total energy involved here dwarfs even the IPCC’s highest energy estimates for man-made warming.

As we write, the Ring of Fire is super-active, with dozens of new and ‘dormant’ volcanoes erupting on a weekly basis. New islands formed off Japan and Pakistan in recent months, while new underwater volcanoes are being discovered all the time:

Underwater Antarctic Volcanoes Discovered in the Southern Ocean

Scientists from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) have discovered previously unknown volcanoes in the ocean waters around the remote South Sandwich Islands.

Using ship-borne sea-floor mapping technology during research cruises onboard the RRS James Clark Ross, the scientists found 12 volcanoes beneath the sea surface — some up to 3km high. They found 5km diameter craters left by collapsing volcanoes and 7 active volcanoes visible above the sea as a chain of islands.

Methane is an even more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 and both are stored in vast deposits in the form of clathrates under the ocean floors, particularly at the poles. These deposits are being ruptured by the increased volcanic activity (and accompanying seismic activity), then dissolving into the ocean depths, and are currently outgassing at levels that have observers seriously concerned because they know from the geological record that this happens during real climate change, which, like a phase transition, builds up to an abrupt and invariably catastrophic climate shift:

Climate change crisis intensifies: ‘Methane levels are going through the roof’

Methane, a powerful greenhouse gas which can lead to unchecked and rapid climate change, has been referred to as “the canary in the coal mine” and its release has been theorized to have caused past mass extinctions, known as the the “clathrate gun hypothesis.”

Many scientists believe that a sudden release of methane clathrates in the past from the seabed and permafrost led to a sudden rise in global temperatures, also known as “abrupt climate change.” Large amounts of methane being released can lead to a runaway process that is irreversible, much like “firing a gun.” Abrupt climate change can cause global temperatures to change within a matter of years.

We can discount the part about “runaway temperatures” because while the deep layers of oceans may be warming, the upper layers are not, and neither is the atmosphere, and… Newsflash: it is the upper layers of the oceans that carry warmth to land masses! If the upper layers are cooling, what effect do we think that might have on our climate, in the Northern Hemisphere for example? Has no one noticed the severe winters over North America, Northern Europe and Asia over the past few years? In addition, the ice core data tells us that methane spikes are signatures marking the boundaries between glacial and interglacial periods.

No discussion about the real causes of ‘climate change’ would be complete without mentioning Earth’s celestial visitors. With Comet ISON currently approaching perihelion, and at least four other comets in close proximity, their connection to the dramatic increase in volcanic eruptions and seismic activity in the past couple of days is completely overlooked by the authorities’ myopic reassurances that none of them pose a threat to us because we’re not directly in their line of sight and ignores the potential for celestial objects to exert influence on our environment indirectly, at-a-distance.

But really, should we expect any different given that NASA et al were caught completely by surprise when the largest comet fragment since Tunguska exploded over southern Russia just 9 months ago?

Comet dust is electrically-charged so it in turn may also be causing the Earth’s rotation to slow down slightly, as observed on Venus and Saturn. Such slowing of the rotation could be responsible for reducing the strength of the planet’s magnetic field, exposing the planet to more dangerous cosmic radiation and stimulating even more volcanism.

More volcanic activity means more moisture is evaporated, and more dust and CO2 is released into the atmosphere. Combined with a lower, cooler upper atmosphere that is loading with comet dust (a.k.a. ‘meteor smoke‘) from the significant increase in comets reaching the inner solar system in recent years, expect to see even greater weather extremes than we’ve already had to face in recent years. Eventually a threshold may be reached, at which point heavy rainfall becomes heavy snowfall and ice age conditions set in for the long term.

We say “eventually”, but bewarned, a sudden-onset global Ice Age happened very fast the last time around.

In the meantime, disregard the Warmists’ tepid scenario of gradual inundation of coastlines over the next hundred years due to non-existent man-made global warming, prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

The climate is changing alright, but it’s not warming, and it certainly isn’t your fault.

 

Co-written with SOTT.net editor Doug DiPasquale, this article was first published on SOTT.net, 27 November 2013

 
formats

John Kerry is a conspiracy theorist? U.S. Secretary of State says Oswald didn’t act alone in assassination of President Kennedy

John Kerry in his anti-war days, with Senator Ted Kennedy

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told NBC’s Tom Brockaw earlier this month that he didn’t believe Oswald acted alone on November 22nd 1963.

Has the Obama administration decided to break the U.S. government’s 50-year-silence on ‘the greatest murder mystery of the 20th century’? Not likely, Kerry quickly backtracked on his comments. But they bring to the fore something that has exercised the minds of ‘conspiracy buffs’ for decades.

Let’s listen to CNN’s Anderson Cooper discuss Kerry’s remarks with author Philip Shenon and historian Douglas Brinkley:

Notice Kerry’s key comments:

To this day I have serious doubts that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I certainly have doubts that he was motivated by himself. I have serious doubts about whether they [the Warren Commission] got to the bottom of Lee Harvey Oswald’s time and influence from Cuba and Russia. I think he was inspired somewhere by something…

Indeed, it’s apparent to anyone who has looked into this that the Warren Commission was tasked from the get-go with pinning Oswald as the lone assassin, and the lone conspirator, so to speak. Case closed.

But, as Anderson Cooper asks, why would the Warren Commission not have used all this information about Oswald’s time in Russia and Mexico City, information that was readily available to it at the time?

Today, they would not hesitate to jump on the chance to use pre-fabricated evidence to brand their selected patsy as a ‘Muslim extremist’!

Oswald was clearly set up in advance to frame the Soviets and/or Castro for Kennedy’s murder.

And yet, in the aftermath of JFK’s assassination, LBJ and others moved quickly to bury any talk of JFK having been killed by someone who was in contact with, and may even have been a double-agent for, the Russian KGB.

Why?

Why go to such lengths to prepare Oswald’s backstory, get him a job at the school book depository, and pre-place just three spent shell casings on the window ledge of the last window on the 6th floor when at least 5 or 6 bullets were fired, if, in the end, after all that careful planning, all you fell back on was a ‘lone assassin’ with a troubled childhood?

As myself and fellow SOTT.net editors have been discussing on recent episodes of SOTT Talk Radio, one possible explanation for this sudden backtracking is that the Oswald-in-bed-with-the-Russians backstory was ditched because the original plan was subverted at the last minute. As has been suggested elsewhere, the original plan may have been to stage a ‘nearly’ assassination in which JFK would only be shot at, and maybe injured. Following this line of thinking, the conspirators sought to ‘create facts on the ground’ that would have left JFK with no choice but to ‘turn the ship around’ regarding his peace moves with the Soviet Union.

In effect, this would have been a false-flag attack in which a foreign nation – the enemy du jour – would be blamed for the ‘attempted assassination’ of a popular U.S. president. The public outcry would have seen the popular will JFK had carefully courted during the course of his presidency – where he preached compassion for, and greater cooperation and lasting peace with, the Soviets – instead subverted towards reinstituting and entrenching the hardline anti-Communist stance preferred by the CIA, the Generals and the Defense Contractors.

But what if a second faction of conspirators got wind of the initial plan and decided to place their own shooter(s) on the grassy knoll, with the intention of actually killing JFK. As soon as that happened, the whole backstory the original conspirators had meticulously prepared for its patsy, Oswald, became lethally dangerous.

Now they could no longer present their scapegoat to the public as previously intended because JFK’s death transformed Oswald’s role from someone who defected to Russia, sympathised with Castro and came close to killing the president, into a patsy who actually did kill JFK! Once you bring Oswald’s pre-prepared backstory front and center in the midst of the national trauma, in the process directly accusing Soviet Russia of killing JFK, you find yourself facing, in all probability, an actual war, not the maneuver you originally sought to maintain a ‘strategy of tension‘.

Oswald is shot by Jack Rubenstein, Dallas operative for ‘organized crime’

So, what do you do now? You frantically negotiate with the second faction to make sure everyone’s singing from the same hymnsheet and agree that the patsy’s backstory will be limited to him being just a ‘lone assassin’. Then you induce one of your own to kill the patsy before he can say too much. Everyone goes along with it ‘in the interest of national security’. Everyone in both factions knows that they can’t rat out the other conspirators because evidence can be produced to expose each other’s culpability.

Does this sound far-fetched? I’ll admit that it did to me when I first thought about it. But it’s starting to make more and more sense. Rather than further complicate research into JFK’s assassination, I think some kind of double-cross scenario like this simplifies it greatly. So many big names in the U.S. intelligence community were in Dallas that day. Nixon, Hoover and George Bush Sr. were also present. So, apparently, was Yitzhak Rabin, then IDF Chief of Staff. If the original plan was to stage an event that would serve as a ‘course-correction’ for the Cold War, then I suppose most of them thought they were coming for a ‘big show’, a psy-ops that would ‘set America back on the right track’, because I doubt that all of them would have wittingly participated in, and risked being seen at the scene of, the broad daylight murder of the U.S. Commander-in-Chief.

So when John Kerry suggests that the Russians and Cubans were behind Oswald, he’s sort of right. The original set of conspirators, presumably led the CIA because the agency handled Oswald during this time, was planning to make it look like Russia and Cuba were pulling Oswald’s strings and “whispering in his ear.”

But then along came a wild-card.

Was it ‘rogue CIA’, as RFK Jr suggested earlier this year, or was this second faction operating through a different agency?

What other agency has the capability, and the track record, to do something so brazen and ruthless under the nose of U.S. intelligence?

Any guesses?

See also: Joe Quinn’s thoughts on this new angle to the JFK assassination here.

 
formats

▶Why the U.S. and Israel rely on Hamas and Hezbollah to justify their warmongering existence

Published on 5 September 2013, by in Grand Chessboard.

In the above snippet from a 2007 BBC Newsnight programme, we learn something that reveals the whole War on Terror to be a complete sham and the destabilization of the Middle East by the U.S. and her allies to be intentional. In March 2003, the US launched Operation Iraqi Freedom. While Bush was prancing around the USS Lincoln in a codpiece declaring ‘Mission Accomplished’ in Iraq, something very interesting was taking place in the background. Realising that it was in its interest to prevent Iraq from sliding into all-out civil war, the Iranian government sent a letter to the White House offering the following:

  • Iran would use its influence to support stabilization in Iraq.
  • Iran would open its civilian nuclear energy program to full international inspections.
  • Most importantly, Iran would end its support of Hamas and Hezbollah.

In return, Iran requested the following:

  • A halt to US hostile behavior.
  • Abolition of all economic sanctions.

Then U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney turned down the offer and chastised the Swiss for passing it along.

It was all there; Iran was prepared to cooperate with the US in Iraq, cooperate with Israel and the US in Palestine, Syria and Lebanon, and allow full transparency of its nuclear program… if only the US would help them dismantle the MEK. The US State Department wanted to pursue it, but the Neocons torpedoed the deal.

Just think of the ramifications of this US refusal to accept what amounts to an extraordinary olive branch. America’s murderous attack on Iraq killed over one million civilians. With Iranian help in pacifying the Iraqi Shia population, this death toll would, at the very least, have been massively reduced. The Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006 would never have happened because Hezbollah would have been finished as a fighting force. Operation Cast Lead would never have happened because Hamas would never have come to power in Gaza. Syria would no longer be a pariah state because of its support for Hezbollah.

But what is really twisted here is that the three specific offers made by Iran in 2003 later became the very same conditions the US said Iran must meet if it is to avoid increased sanctions and the threat of airstrikes on its nuclear installations by the US and allies, followed by certain all-out war.

So why don’t the Iranians and Americans just revisit the original offer and shake on it?

Because, you see, Israel and the US don’t want Hamas and Hezbollah to cease to exist. Israel and the US don’t want the Iranian regime to assist the US in Iraq. Israel and the US don’t want the world to see that Iran has no nuclear weapons program. They need to force a phony crisis with Iran in order to provoke a war with her. They need Hamas and Hezbollah to exist so they can hold them up as a credible threat to their economic and geopolitical interests in the region. They need these enemies to justify their miserable warmongering existence. They need these enemies to justify the War on Terror and the removal of civil liberties at home.

Also, we cannot forget just how profitable war is for the warmongers.

 
formats

About that ‘greatest whistleblower ever’: Ellsberg, Snowden, and the Secret Team

Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden

The political circus this week  narrowly voted down an amendment to ‘rein in the NSA’s mass surveillance infrastructure’. As if senators can – or would sincerely wish to – negatively influence the behemoth that is the Global Security State! Ever since NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden leaked ‘Top Secret’ documents to the UK’s Guardian newspaper, favorable comparisons have been made with Daniel Ellsberg, whose leaked ‘Pentagon Papers’ in 1971 revealed that the U.S. government knew, early on, that the Vietnam War could most likely not be ‘won’ (whatever ‘won’ means because its strategic goals were never defined), and that continuing the war would lead to many times more casualties than was ever admitted publicly.

Like today’s circumspect avoidance when it comes to blowing the whistle on 9/11 (with a few honorable exceptions that do not receive widespread coverage), the ‘greatest whistleblowers ever’ (and I include Julian Assange and WikiLeaks in this category) don’t leak the names behind purchases of pre-9/11 airline company ‘put options‘; they don’t leak the voluminous diplomatic cables that would sorely expose the NeoCon-Israeli scheming in the run-up to America’s ‘New Pearl Harbor‘; they don’t leak the satellite images that would rubbish the fairytale that ‘al Qaeda’ was responsible for ‘dustifying’ the World Trade Center, firing that missile at the Pentagon, and downing Flight 93.

Commissioned in 1967 by then U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who was concerned about the disastrous course of the war in Vietnam – or rather, the disastrous press coverage it was receiving – the report that became known as the ‘Pentagon Papers’ was ostensibly ”a comprehensive history of the United States involvement in Vietnam from World War II [1945] to the present [1968, when the report was completed].”

Daniel Ellsberg served in the Pentagon from August 1964 under Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. In one of those curious synchronicities of history, Ellsberg’s first full day as special assistant to McNamara saw the captain of USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin claim that it was under fire from North Vietnamese patrol boats. No such thing happened. According to his Wikipedia page, Ellsberg personally reported the ‘incident’ to McNamara. The subsequent Gulf of Tonkin Resolution resulted in a huge escalation of U.S. military involvement in Vietnam. In fact, it transformed the situation from a 20-year long CIA ‘covert war’ to a full-scale military invasion and occupation.

Ellsberg is said to have experienced an epiphany attending a War Resisters League conference at Haverford College in August 1969, listening to a speech given by a draft resister. Thereafter he resolved to expose the collection of ‘top secret’ documents that went into making this Pentagon report, first petitioning Congressmen, then, two years later, the New York Times and Washington Post to publish excerpts from the multi-volume chronology of events in and around the Vietnam ‘conflict’. Instant fame followed and he became a champion of the anti-war movement – a role he still plays today, revered as ‘the most dangerous man in America‘.

Missing from this history is the information provided by Col. Fletcher Prouty in his incisive, insightful book The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World, apparently written in response to the Pentagon Papers and first published the following year (1972). Prouty’s powerful and eminently reliable testimony (he was privy to far more than Ellsberg during this period), all of it backed up with extensive documentation, stands in direct opposition to the legacy worn by the Pentagon Papers, which became a source document for university professors teaching American history. The Secret Team and Prouty’s follow-up book, published in 1992, JFK: The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy, absolutely demolish the Pentagon Papers as “unreliable, inaccurate and marred by serious omissions, a contrived history, at best.”

In the introduction to his JFK book, a superb account of Kennedy’s assassination placed in proper historical context, Prouty wrote:

The history of the Cold War period that began before the end of WWII has been replete with fantasies. A number of those whom we call “historians” are no more than paid hacks with little or no practical experience, and a fixed agenda. Even the official “History of United States Involvement in Vietnam from WWII to the Present (1968),” popularly known as the Pentagon Papers, contains such amazing propaganda in the chronological record of that period as:

22 Nov 1963: Lodge confers with the President. Having flown to Washington the day after the conference, Lodge meets with the President and presumably continues the kind of report given in Honolulu. (see Vol. II, page 223)

That is the Pentagon Papers’ official account of that otherwise momentous day. What possible explanation can there be for the fabrication of that totally untrue bit of official record of the very day that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a contract murder? This becomes all the more significant when we realize that this official history was directed by Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara and was compiled and written by members of his staff in the International Security Affairs section, under the task force leadership and direction of Leslie H. Gelb, later editor of the New York Times and now [1996] the president of the Council on Foreign Relations.

This massive study, containing countless other fabrications and significant omissions, was officially presented to the newly appointed Secretary of Defense, Clark M. Clifford, on January 15, 1969. Since that time, as later researchers, writers and college professors have attempted to describe the thirty years of Vietnam War history, they have been misled by this work and by others that are equally false and contrived.

The key word there is misled. Prouty does not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The Pentagon Papers, like the diplomatic cables and war logs released by WikiLeaks, and the NSA presentations released by Snowden, in and of themselves are potentially valuable. The problem, Prouty explains, is that valuable context is either missing, or – wherever it’s provided – is dangerously misleading. The result is that the true ‘line of force’ is obscured and even ‘the very elect’ find themselves enticed into a trap set by the “masters”:

In this book, I have used various editions of the Pentagon Papers as reference material. They are useful and they are quite accurate as far as individual elements go, but they are dangerous in the hands of those who do not have the experience or the other sources required to validate and balance their content. This is because their true source was only marginally the Pentagon and because the clever selection of those documents by the compilers removed many important papers. This neglect of key documents served to reduce the value of those that remained to tell the story of the Vietnam War. From the beginning, the Pentagon Papers were a compilation of documents designed to paint President John F. Kennedy as the villain of the story, and to shield the role of the CIA. (JFK, p.275)

Prouty was there when all this, and more, was going down. He remains a relatively unknown ‘whistleblower’ (if we can call him that – he only began speaking out after retiring from the military). He’s perhaps best remembered for his work with movie producer Oliver Stone on the excellent JFK, in which he was portrayed by the ‘Mr. X‘ character, but I encourage anyone interested in real 20th Century American history to consult the man’s own works and recorded interviews, which are available on YouTube.

In his preface to the first edition of The Secret Team, which made it to print only for its entire stock to be bought up by persons unknown, then disappeared from bookstores, Prouty wrote:

This treasure trove of TOP SECRET papers was delivered to the New York Times, and other newspapers in mid-June, 1971, by a then-unknown “Hippie” of that period. His name was Daniel Ellsberg. What few people have learned since that time is the fact that both Daniel Ellsberg, who pirated these highly classified papers, and Leslie Gelb the Director of that Task Force, had worked in that same office of International Security Affairs (ISA).

The “misappropriation” of those documents was not the work of some “true patriots” as Noam Chomsky wrote in 1972. Rather it was an inside job. That ISA office had been the home of many of the “big names” of the Vietnam War period, among them Paul H. Nitze, John T. McNaughton, Paul C. Warnke and William Bundy, among others. The fact that I had many of them in my office, that I had worked with them, and that I had written parts of some of them proves that they were not genuine Pentagon papers, because my work at that time was devoted to support of the CIA.

To look at this matter in another way, the man who has lived and experienced this unnatural existence becomes even more a victim of its unreality. He becomes enmeshed beyond all control upon the horns of a cruel dilemma. On the one hand, his whole working life has been dedicated to the cause of secrecy and to its protection by means of cover stories (lies). In this pursuit he has given of himself time after time to pledges, briefings, oaths, and deep personal conviction regarding the significance of that work.

Even if he would talk and write, his life has been so interwoven into the fabric of the real and the unreal, the actual and the cover story, that he would be least likely to present the absolutely correct data.

On the other hand, as a professional he would have been subjected to such cellularization and compartmentalization each time he became involved in any real “deep” operation that he would not have known the whole story anyhow. This compartmentalization is very real. I have worked on projects with many CIA men so unaware of the entire operation that they had no realization and awareness of the roles of other CIA men working on the same project.

Another group of writers, about the world of secrecy, are the “masters”- men like Allen W. Dulles, Lyman Kirkpatrick, Peer de Silva and Chester Cooper. My own choice of the best of these are Peer de Silva and Lyman Kirkpatrick. These are thoroughly professional intelligence officers who have chosen a career of high-level intelligence operations. Their writing is correct and informative — to a degree beyond that which most readers will be able to translate and comprehend at first reading; yet they are properly circumspect and guarded and very cleverly protective of their profession.

There is another category of writer and self-proclaimed authority on the subjects of secrecy, intelligence, and containment. This man is the suave, professional parasite who gains a reputation as a real reporter by disseminating the scraps and “Golden Apples” thrown to him by the great men who use him.

This writer seldom knows and rarely cares that many of the scraps from which he draws his material have been planted, that they are controlled leaks, and that he is being used, and glorified as he is being used, by the inside secret intelligence community.

Allen Dulles had a penchant for cultivating a number of such writers with big names and inviting them to his table for a medieval style luncheon in that great room across the hall from his own offices in the old CIA headquarters on the hill overlooking Foggy Bottom. Here, he would discuss openly and all too freely the same subjects that only hours before had been carefully discussed in the secret inner chambers of the operational side of that quiet Agency. In the hands of Allen Dulles, “secrecy” was simply a chameleon device to be used as he saw fit and to be applied to lesser men according to his schemes.

It is quite fantastic to find people like Daniel Ellsberg being charged with leaking official secrets simply because the label on the piece of paper said “TOP SECRET,” when the substance of many of the words written on those same papers was patently untrue and no more than a cover story. Except for the fact that they were official “lies”, these papers had no basis in fact, and therefore no basis to be graded TOP SECRET or any other degree of classification. Allen Dulles would tell similar cover stories to his coterie of writers, and not long thereafter they would appear in print in some of the most prestigious papers and magazines in the country, totally unclassified, and of course, cleverly untrue.

Lastly there is the writer from outside this country who has gained his inside information from sources in another country. These sources are no doubt reliable; they know exactly what has taken place – as in Guatemala during the Bay of Pigs era – and they can speak with some freedom.

In other cases, the best of these sources have been from behind the Iron Curtain. In every case, the chance for complete information is very small, and the hope that in time researchers, students, and historians will be able to ferret out truth from untruth, real from unreal, and story from cover story is at best a very slim one. Certainly, history teaches us that one truth will add to and enhance another; but let us not forget that one lie added to another lie will demolish everything. This is the important point.

With this in mind, is it cynical of me to wonder what game is afoot behind these ‘scandals’ over solitary NSA powerpoint slides marked ‘TOP SECRET’? Do we think U.S. intelligence agencies no longer function in this (or a similar) way? Did you catch the above remark about Noam Chomsky lauding Ellsberg as a “true patriot”? The darling of the American Left recently said of Ed Snowden:

I think he has carried out a heroic act. That is the proper act of a citizen to let people know what their government is doing. For the most part, the public should know what their representatives are doing.

Allen Dulles, Gen. Ed Lansdale, Gen. Charles P. Cabell, Mr. Nathan Twining.

Following the Tonkin false-flag non-event, Ellsberg spent two years (1965-1967) in Vietnam working under General Edward Lansdale as a civilian in the U.S. State Department. Lansdale was formally a U.S. Air Force man, but Prouty explains that his entire ‘military career’ was cover for his role as the CIA’s chief of counter-insurgency operations in Vietnam and elsewhere. I don’t think I’m going out on too much of a limb to say that Ed Lansdale was probably involved in the assassination of JFK. Prouty and others identified him in a photo taken at Dealey Plaza that fateful day:

Why was General Ed Lansdale in Dealey Plaza? Those who knew him, say this man is Ed Lansdale. Photo taken Nov. 22, 1963.

Prouty has more to say on this:

Bear in mind that these ‘tramps’ were supposedly apprehended in the railroad yards behind the white picket fence on the grassy knoll right after Kennedy was shot. They are prime candidates for being one of the teams of hitmen that caught Kennedy in the cross-fire.

In noting Ellsberg’s proximity to the dark actors and covert operations during the sixties, I don’t necessarily mean to suggest that he was a witting participant in the scheming to remove JFK and embroil the U.S. in Vietnam, but rather that, like most others who find themselves caught up in the intrigues of state, Ellsberg was in way over his head, and that by leaking the Pentagon Papers, he had unwittingly continued to serve his masters’ interests. Prouty, however, came down somewhat harder on Ellsberg:

[...] certain aspects of the release and publication of the Pentagon Papers [are] deeply suspect, especially since the man who says he released these vast volumes to the newspapers, Daniel Ellsberg, was ideally suited for this role by virtue of his Vietnam experience with the very same Edward G. Lansdale. No matter what one might wish to believe the intentions of Ellsberg were when he did this, it would be most difficult to accept that he of all people did not know all the facts. And if he did know all of the facts I have described, why did he want to make it appear that it was Pentagon policymakers who went ahead “despite the intelligence estimates prepared by their most senior intelligence officials”? Why has so much care been taken to make it appear that these are papers from the Pentagon that he has dumped on the news media’s doorstep? Why has no one made the proper distinction that the majority of these documents were not really Pentagon originated at all, but were originated in, among other places, the CIA (Covert side)? Certainly if his facts, as well as those presented by The New York Times, are right, the CIA (Covert side) was in a much better position to heed its own CIA (Intelligence side) warnings and advice than any other department or agency in Washington.

The answer to these questions becomes obvious. The CIA uses its intelligence role as a cover mechanism for its operational activities. Furthermore it uses its own secret intelligence as an initiator for its own secret operations. This is what pleased General Donovan when President Roosevelt unleashed him with the OSS and it is what has been the driving force behind the hard core operational agents within the intelligence community since that time. [The Secret Team, p.55]

Such is the CIA’s dual function as both lie factory and war-maker. This schizoidal division of labor at the heart of the CIA remains very much in evidence today: just think of the hundreds if not thousands of Muslims and people of Middle Eastern ethnicity kidnapped off streets around the world and subject to ‘extraordinary rendition’ for ‘extracting valuable intelligence on terror networks‘.  The CIA chiefs and fellow psychopaths pulling the strings behind the U.S. regime know perfectly well that the intelligence value – in terms of extracting objective information – from torturing people is nil. They know the tortured will confess to whatever they think their torturers want them to say in order to immediately end the pain. The CIA then uses that ‘information’ in the ‘intelligent reports’ it sends to policy-makers, while the FBI uses it to spin fantastical stories about eeevil Muslims under every bed.

Ellsberg has since claimed that he later regretted not publicising the contents of his Pentagon safe seven years earlier, when blowing the whistle could really have made the difference between 3,000,000 Vietnamese losing their lives and 2,600,000 Americans being put through the war-machine meat-grinder:

I’ve long regretted that it didn’t even occur to me, in August 1964, to release the documents in my Pentagon safe giving the lie to claims of an “unequivocal, unprovoked” (unreal) attack on our destroyers in the Tonkin Gulf: precursors of the “evidence beyond any doubt” of nonexistent WMDs in Iraq, which manipulated Congress, once again, to pass the exact counterpart of the Tonkin Gulf resolution.

It might be interesting to ask at this point, had Ellsberg immediately revealed that the (overt) Vietnam War was about to be launched under false pretenses, would he would have met the same fate as Dr. David Kelly?

One of the spin-masters listed by Prouty above – Chester L. Cooper – wrote an article entitled ‘The CIA and Decision-Making‘ that was published in the January 1972 edition of Council on Foreign Relations journal, Foreign Affairs. Cooper wrote:

“Thanks to Daniel Ellsberg, those of us who have not seen a National Intelligence Estimate for many years, or who have never seen one, can address the matter with somewhat more confidence than we could have a few months ago. Although it probably did not cross Ellsberg’s mind when he released the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times, he succeeded in doing what the Agency, on its own, has rarely been able to do for more than twenty years: he made the CIA ‘look good’ through what inhabitants of the Pickle Factory* themselves would call a ‘highly credible source’.”

[*A slang term for the CIA used by its employees. How cute.]

JFK: “I want to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.”

Prouty comments on Cooper’s wink-and-nod as follows:

To those well steeped in the ways of the real CIA, and unfortunately there are too few who are, the above statement fits the pattern. Here is an Agency partisan praising Daniel Ellsberg. This does much to support our earlier contention that one of the real reasons these papers were delivered to the public was really on behalf of the CIA and the Secret Team and not the other way around.

The CIA would have us believe that it was an objective and blameless intelligence agency all through those horrible years of the Vietnam build-up. However, it was the CIA that hid behind its own cover and that of State and Defense to fan the flames of a smoldering conflict. To add insult to injury, the CIA would have us believe that Eisenhower’s Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, the DOD, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Richard M. Nixon were all to blame because they would not read and heed their NIE. Where were the CIA officials of the clandestine sector when their own men were writing these National Intelligence Estimates? [The Secret Team, p.136]

What then was the driving force behind the creation and dissemination of the Pentagon Papers? Prouty continues:

The Agency is very much aware, too, that it cannot look back, because fate is creeping up on it. The tremendous pressures in this country that have built up during the long tragic years of the conflict in Indochina are driving researchers, politicians, and other concerned Americans to search for the origins and sources of responsibility for that disaster. This is bringing them closer and closer each day to the curtain of secrecy that has effectively veiled these areas from sight for more than a decade. This pressure is now forcing Agency and Secret Team supporters to begin a serious program of rewriting history, in a massive effort to protect and shield the Agency while shifting the search into other avenues. We have already said that the work of Daniel Ellsberg and the number of people who helped him may have been the first major step in this effort. The released Pentagon Papers do much to portray the CIA as it is supposed to be, while doing all it can to shift any censure of the CIA as an organization primarily concerned with clandestine operations, to the military, the National Security Council, and the White House. [The Secret Team, p.135]

The Pentagon Papers were crafted to safeguard the CIA’s role as ‘Praetorian Guard’ for the psychopathic oligarchs ruling the U.S. empire. The Secret Team had, at this point in the 1960s, assassinated the JFK brothers, many important civil rights activists and social leaders, brutally suppressed mass demonstrations, subverted political protest movements at home and abroad, sent hundreds of thousands of young Americans to fight an enemy of its own creation in Vietnam, and flooded the country with drugs they’d been testing as biological and chemical warfare agents since the 1940s. This stimulated – or amplified, depending on how you look at it – a wave of popular dissent and thirst for social justice that the oligarchs read as “stemming from an excess of democracy“, not the other way around!

In order to avert the dangers this clamor for progress posed to their future proprietorship of the American plantation nation, the Secret Team did what it and its older incarnations have always done: it rewrote history to meet its current political requirements. Just as a psychopath will be several moves ahead of its mark, the Secret Team is always one or more steps ahead, feigning one move to make quite another, throwing fake victories and scapegoats to ‘the mob’, and always keeping in mind its goal of staying ahead and staying on top.

By casting JFK as ‘a commie’, a ‘peacenik’ and ‘unAmerican’, a key part of that rewriting of history involved lobotomising from memory the glimpse of ‘Camelot made manifest‘, truly transformative change and democratic progress for all, during JFK’s brief campaign of wresting control of the country – and therefore the empire – from America’s ‘optimates’.

While the “master writers” set to work on shaping public perception, they have operatives like Ellsberg’s one-time boss, Ed Lansdale, busy ‘establishing facts on the ground’ in Vietnam and Iraq and Syria for the policy-makers back home, saying one thing while doing another to manipulate outcomes favorable to their goal – namely, suppressing the establishment of secular progressive government that would rule ‘by, for and of the people’.

History may not exactly repeat itself, but it certainly rhymes.

Inside joke? Biblical inscription inside the CIA’s Langley HQ

 
formats

Rising food prices, climate change and global ‘unrest’

Published on 20 July 2013, by in Climate change.

I don’t mean to put a damper on the everyone’s summer holidays, but the current heatwaves in the U.S. and Europe has me thinking back to numerous warnings issued during last summer’s major drought and “record-breaking heatwave” in the U.S.

Analysts at Rabobank, a Netherlands-based bank specialising in food and agri-business financing, were crunching the numbers and predicted at the time that food prices, specifically meat prices, would soar in 2013 as a result of the U.S. drought.

Back in 2011, the New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI), a research body of academics from Harvard and MIT, using data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) Food Price Index, published a paper that correlated “outbreaks of unrest” in 2008 and 2011 with increases in food prices. They claimed to have identified the precise threshold for global food prices that leads to worldwide unrest: 210 points

“high global food prices are a precipitating condition for social unrest. More specifically, food riots occur above a threshold of the FAO price index of 210.”

NESCI

Yaneer Bar-Yam, president of NECSI and one of the paper’s authors, said:

“When people are unable to feed themselves and their families, widespread social disruption occurs. We are on the verge of another crisis, the third in five years, and likely to be the worst yet, capable of causing new food riots and turmoil on a par with the Arab Spring.”

The aggregated FAO Food Price Index averaged 211.3 points in June this year, but more telling indicators might be their June 2013 Cereal Price Index, which averaged 236.5 points, and their Sugar Price Index, which averaged 242.6 points. Dairy prices are also riding above this 210 threshold, so when we consider that most people’s diets are substantially based on sugar, cereals and dairy, followed by meats from cattle raised on grains, it seems pretty clear that we’re very much in the danger zone.

In fact, the NESCI paper, ‘The Food Crises and Political Instability in North Africa and the Middle East’, went further and forecast the highest risk of global unrest for August 2013.

“When you have food prices that peak, you have all these riots. But look under the peaks, at the background trend. That’s increasing quite rapidly, too,” said Yaneer Bar-Yam. “In one to two years [from 2011], the background trend runs into the place where all hell breaks loose.”

The Food Crises and Political Instability report doesn’t simply compile the correlation between food prices and political uprisings, but also projects a certain global threshold when food price trends might rise significantly enough to spark global unrest. According to the NECSI, the world will reach its food price threshold in August 2013.

Compounded by speculators in the commodities markets “making a killing” on the food crisis, prices for staples like corn and wheat rose nearly 50% on international markets last summer. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) predicts that rising global food demand will “push up prices 10 to 40 percent over the coming decade” [that is, between 10 and 40 percent higher than their current highs].

Meanwhile the UN has warned that world grain reserves are so dangerously low that “severe weather in the U.S. or other food-exporting countries could trigger a major hunger crisis in 2013.”

‘Green guru’ Lester Brown, president of D.C.-based think-tank, the Earth Policy Institute, says the climate is “no longer reliable” and that demands for food are growing so fast that a breakdown is inevitable:

Food shortages undermined earlier civilisations. We are on the same path. Each country is now fending for itself. The world is living one year to the next… Climate is in a state of flux; there is no normal any more. We are beginning a new chapter.”

Here’s what Abdolreza Abbassian, a senior FAO economist, had to say about the global food crisis last year:

“We’ve not been producing as much as we are consuming. That is why stocks are being run down. Supplies are now very tight across the world and reserves are at a very low level, leaving no room for unexpected events next year.

 

Yes, that means there’s no room for unexpected events this year (2013).

China, normally the world’s second largest surplus exporter of wheat, just this week announced that it will be importing wheat from the U.S. this year, following major crop failures resulting from the northern hemisphere’s record-breaking cold, wet spring.

 

But the U.S. isn’t faring any better, with the 2012 drought extending into this year and condemning the growing season before it even started. Far from producing “no unexpected events”, 2013 is producing even wilder weather extremes than ever before.

Buckle up: we’re in for a rocky ride…

 
formats

Manufacturing civil war in Egypt: ‘Mystery’ snipers massacre Morsi supporters

Published on 9 July 2013, by in State terrorism.

A week after the Egyptian Army deposed President Mohamed Morsi, supporters of the ousted leader were massacred yesterday during a sit-in protest at an “elite army base” in Cairo. So far over 50 have been reported dead, with hundreds injured. The Muslim Brotherhood is blaming the Egyptian army and police, but a military spokesman has said a “terrorist group” was responsible.

“We have people hit in the head, we have bullets that exploded as they entered the body, cluttering organs and body parts” said Gehad Haddad, a spokesman for Muslim Brotherhood.

Adamant that the role of police and army is to “safeguard the people’s revolution”, no matter their particular political affiliation, military spokesman Ahmed Ali said security forces acted “in self-defence against armed men attacking them from various locations, including rooftops.”

No one disputes that there were clashes between Morsi supporters – at least some of whom also appeared to be armed and intent on violence – and the security forces sent in to remove them, but it’s unclear who the gunmen were:

Witnesses, including Brotherhood supporters at the scene, said the army fired only tear gas and warning shots and that “thugs” in civilian clothes had carried out the deadly shooting.

This bloodbath comes on the heels of arguably the largest mass demonstrations in modern history, and is almost certainly going to spiral out of control and plunge Egypt into chaos.

This is not the first time ‘mystery gunmen’ have begun shooting people in the head since the uprising began in 2011. In March 2013, a Morsi government inquiry into the deaths of nearly 900 protesters in Egypt at the end of Mubarak’s reign concluded that, “police were behind nearly all the killings and used snipers on rooftops overlooking Cairo’s Tahrir Square to shoot into the huge crowds.”

Police officials told the commission that snipers’ equipment of the kind used during the uprising could only be found with members of an elite counterterrorism unit that worked under Mubarak’s pervasive state security agency and took orders directly from the interior minister.

Most the victims were shot in the head or chest, suggesting the use of snipers, and bystanders were also killed or wounded as they watched the clashes from their homes, the report said.

So, Mubarak ordered teams of snipers to shoot protesters in the head in order to justify widespread repression of the uprising in a last-ditch effort to maintain power.

Case closed?

Not quite. Sniper attacks continued during Morsi’s brief reign, with more ‘mystery’ snipers picking people off in Port Said as recently as January this year.

Since his removal from power and subsequent death in 2012, Mubarak can’t of course be blamed for the recent coordinated efforts to generate chaos.

The gunmen’s identities may forever remain unknown, but the modus operandi is the same as ever. We saw it in Tunisia in 2011; we saw it Iran in 2009; we saw it in Venezuela in 2002; we see it in Syria to this day. Protesters are always shot randomly – usually in the head – to maximise mass panic and stimulate in-fighting.

The people behind this understand that ‘régime change’ – perhaps more accurately termed ‘régime management’ in Egypt’s case – depends on instability. The media always report its effects in general terms, lamenting the ‘tragic escalation of violence’, but never homes in on the clear and deliberate efforts of parties unknown to instigate bloody mayhem.

Thanks to the CIA concept of ‘plausible deniability’, Obama can sit back, enjoy a round of golf, and say with a straight face that the U.S. is “not getting involved by backing any particular Egyptian party or group.”

But what does that mean coming from the leader of a country that has effectively ruled Egypt for decades, at arm’s length, through massive military ‘aid’?

It means that, like the Lavon Affair

The Lavon Affair refers to a failed Israeli covert operation, code named Operation Susannah, conducted in Egypt in the Summer of 1954. As part of the false flag operation, a group of Egyptian Jews were recruited by Israeli military intelligence for plans to plant bombs inside Egyptian, American and British-owned civilian targets, cinema, library and American educational center. The attacks were to be blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood, Egyptian Communists, “unspecified malcontents” or “local nationalists” with the aim of creating a climate of sufficient violence and instability to induce the British government to retain its occupying troops in Egypt’s Suez Canal zone.

…these sniper massacres serve one goal: to create a “climate of sufficient violence and instability” that enables the ruling elite in Egypt and their brethren in the U.S. and Israel to subvert, at all costs, the dreams held by ordinary Egyptians of realising self-government by, for and of the people.

 
formats

Adam Kokesh calls for ‘New American Revolution’

Published on 22 June 2013, by in COINTELPRO.

This, if nothing else, will be interesting to watch.

I posted a few weeks back about this armed march on Washington, D.C. that was planned by ‘good soldier’ and U.S. Iraq War vet, Adam Kokesh:

Internet radio host and former RT presenter Adam Kokesh is hoping to get 1,000 people to march on Washington, D.C. this coming July 4 – armed with loaded rifles. Their plan is to gather on the Virginia side of the Potomac, then march across the bridge with loaded rifles slung over their shoulders.

Some developments since then:

Adam Kokesh is cancelling his planned July 4 armed march on Washington, D.C., and instead calling for a march on all 50 state capitols with the goal of overthrowing the federal government.

Kokesh, a former host for Russian state-sponsored RT television who now hosts an internet radio show, told conspiracy theorist radio host Pete Santilli that it was time to “escalate our tactics” before cancelling the Washington march and urging supporters to march on their state capitol instead.

In a statement that paraphrases V’s ‘chat with the nation’ in the movie V for Vendetta, Kokesh called for “A new American revolution”, saying that it is:

“…long overdue. This revolution has been brewing in the hearts and minds of the people for many years, but this Independence Day, it shall take a new form as the American Revolutionary Army will march on each state capital to demand that the governors of these 50 states immediately initiate the process of an orderly dissolution of the federal government through secession and reclamation of federally held property. Should one whole year from this July 4th pass while the crimes of this government are allowed to continue, we may have passed the point at which non-violent revolution becomes impossible… we will see you on the front lines of freedom on July 4th, 2013 for this, The Final American Revolution.

If you’ve listened to our SOTT Talk Radio show on 9/11, you’ll remember Pete Santilli as Dr. Judy Wood’s ‘handler’, who called in right as the show began in an apparent attempt to stir up shit.

On May 18th, Kokesh was arrested at a ‘legalize pot rally’ in Philadelphia, before being released after his felony charges were reduced to citations.

I guess there’s nothing like a bit of controversy to give your ‘movement’ some legs.

There has been a fairly transparent effort, especially since 9/11, to agitate those few Americans who see their government’s crimes into responding with violence. I’m all for seeing the toxic concentration of power in D.C. broken up, but I also know that the Feds will be just licking their chops at the prospect of shooting down any attempted armed takeover of State capitols.

 
formats

Why do planes keep crashing at Truckee Tahoe Airport, California?

Published on 13 June 2013, by in High Strangeness.

A twin-engine Piper Aztec crashes shortly after take-off a Truckee Tahoe Airport on September 21, 2011

I was checking my inbox for news updates the other day when I came across this story about a plane crash in Truckee, Nevada County, just north of Lake Tahoe, on the Californian side:

Small plane crashes in Truckee; pilot not hurt

June 11, 2013

Authorities say a small plane that took off from Southern California missed the runway and crash landed at an airport in the Sierra town of Truckee.

Despite severe damage to the plane, the pilot walked away uninjured.

Nevada County sheriff’s Lt. Alicia Milhous says the 62-year-old pilot took off alone from John Wayne Airport in Orange County shortly before noon Tuesday in a single-engine Cirrus SR22.

About 90 minutes later he approached the Truckee Airport amid gusty winds, clipped a trailer on the way down and crashed into brush about 40 feet off the runway.

Milhous says the plane had heavy damage but the pilot, whose name has not been released, was not hurt.

The cause of the crash has not been determined.

The National Transportation Safety Board will investigate.

Truckee airport

I got a sense of deja vu, so a quick search later I found this:

Small plane crashes Thursday near Truckee airport

May 23, 2013

Crews were in the process of rescuing the lone occupant of a small plane that went down Thursday afternoon near Truckee Tahoe Airport, according to the Nevada County Sheriff’s Office.

At about 3 p.m., NCSO received a report that a single-engine aircraft crashed 7 miles east of the airport, near the California/Nevada border, said Undersheriff Joseph Salivar. The report came from the plane’s occupant, using a cellphone. His injuries were unknown.

Helicopter rescue crews from Calfire and the California Highway Patrol assisted in airlifting the victim from the crash site.

The cause of the crash is unknown. It was unclear as of late Thursday if the plane was flying to or from the Truckee airport.

The investigation has been turned over to the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board.

Two plane crashes at or near a small airport in one month? Just unlucky I guess.

But then I found this:

Cal Fire: Small plane crashes in Tahoe Nat’l. Forest

May 17, 2013

Cal Fire, the California Highway Patrol and a medical helicopter responded to small plane crash in the Tahoe National Forest.According to Federal Aviation Adminstration spokesman Allen Kenitzer, a Cessna 421 was headed to Reno when it was lost off radar about 1:25 p.m.

Cal Fire dispatchers report the air ambulance spotted the downed twin engine plane as did a CHP aircraft crew.

Sierra County sheriff’s deputies had the crash site sealed off until NTSB investigators could reach the area on Friday.

The smoking wreckage could be seen from Verdi peak a few miles to the north just before sunset Thursday evening.

There was no early word on the status of the plane’s pilot and/or passengers.

The Cessna 421 is an eight seat, pressurized aircraft often used as a corporate plane. It was on final descent into Reno when it vanished off radar. The FAA said the aircraft is registered to TRI-WINGS LLC based in Reno.

Dispatchers said witnesses said they saw a fireball in the sky before the plane went down.

Verdi Peak is in California, about 25 miles west of Reno, Nevada and 107 miles northeast of Sacramento.

I guess three plane crashes in one month near an airport that serves a town of 16,000 inhabitants makes them ‘very unlucky’.

In addition, there was a fourth plane crash on the other side of Lake Tahoe between Carson City and Reno, Nevada on May 15, 2013. Again, it involved a small aircraft and again there was no explanation for why it crashed.

There was also this unexplained small aircraft crash near Lake Tahoe last August. In fact, there were two that month. The first, on August 2nd, was also unexplained and was – up until then – the ninth plane crash since 2008 at Truckee Tahoe airport itself.

This means that, altogether, there have been at least 11 plane crashes at just one tiny airport in four years – 15 if we include the other crashes to the north, east and south of Lake Tahoe!

I don’t know if there’s any connection between these events, but I’m wondering if that rate of plane crashes is normal for an airstrip that’s largely servicing general aviation, single-engine, private flyers?