Sunday, June 19, 2016

Orlando Terror, Operation Gladio Plan C and the Resistible Rise of Donald Trump

Sorry to skip a month blogging - most of May was spent on an incredible, possibly life-changing vacation that I will be providing much more details on in my next blog post - but since the Presidential contest for November has been decided for the major parties, I feel compelled to take my focus off deep history for a moment and weigh in.  I've already written about and was correct in predicting that Hillary Clinton would win the Democratic Party nomination.  It really is incredible that in challenging her, Bernie Sanders was able to win as many votes, states and delegates and last as long as he did.  But it is past time that he and his most passionate supporters face reality: he never had a chance.

You can run on a platform that threatens the system and win in the House, you can even run on a platform that threatens the system and win in the Senate, but if you run for President on a platform that threatens the system, you will not be allowed to win even the nomination of a major party.  Sorry to be such a cynical bastard, but if media bias, DNC-enabled disenfranchisement and computer voting fraud doesn't convince you the fix was in from the beginning, nothing will.  As I wrote previously in a blog post explaining why the system wouldn't let Bernie win, the last time a candidate from a major party who ran for President on a platform that genuinely threatened the status quo came close to winning the nomination, it was Robert F. Kennedy in 1968.  Remember what happened to him?  I suppose it's possible there was an exception to the rule four years later when McGovern was nominated, but that only happened because of the Canuck Letter and other instances of "ratfucking" done at the instigation of President Nixon so that he could face an opponent easier to beat.  Two years later, Nixon found out what happens when you try to cheat the system.

It is because of this that while I believe that establishment-favorite Clinton is most likely to win, the portrayal of presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump by the Radical Establishment Media (and himself) as being anti-establishment is a clever piece of misdirection.  I'm reminded of the logical extension of a Carl von Clausewitz quote by Michael Ruppert in the movie Collapse, "There was a guy name von Clausewitz who said that war is a continuation of politics by other means.  Politics is a continuation of economics by other means."  From that perspective, it should be clear that Trump, political neophyte though he may be, is far from being anti-establishment where economics are concerned.
Donald Trump 2016 GOP presumptive nominee   Photo credit:

If it isn't clear, let me spell out the absurdity of The Donald's unctuous outreach to Sanders' supporters: you know that richest 1%; those billionaire fat-cats Bernie's always railing against?  Trump is the milk-carton-poster-child personification of that social strata.  Basically born with a $200 million silver spoon in his mouth, he parlayed that into a real estate/reality TV huckster empire worth billions.  While a complicit media has done a magnificent job of image reinforcement for Trump by painting him as simpatico with the stereotypical blue-collar angry guy on a bar-stool, this is someone who has spent his entire adult life wining and dining the elite.  They may view Hillary as the better choice because of her longer track record of political compliance with overworld objectives, but that doesn't mean they see Trump as an untrustworthy loose cannon.  Remember, this is the man who literally wrote the book on The Art of the Deal.  He can be counted on to negotiate in their favor, even if his road to electoral victory is riding a wave of discontented revolt.

That possibility of victory should not be discarded as a pipe dream.  My recent road trip with my wife took us through Pacific Northwest blue states as well as Great Basin red states.  The only presidential candidates that I saw signs and bumper stickers for, often in the same state regardless of color, were Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.  I realize that's not the most scientific basis for measuring the level of anger and political discontent with the status quo.  But the fact remains that Trump, with large dollops of free media enabling, rode this wave of anger to victory and Sanders, despite significant media obstruction, rode a parallel wave of discontent to a close second.  While it may not make logical sense from an ideological perspective for a Bernie supporter to switch to Trump, the reality of politics is that sometimes emotion trumps logic.  As comedian Bill Maher observed, we're one terror attack away from "President Trump."

Orlando club Pulse    Photo credit:

In that context, it's important to take a closer look at the recent terror attack in Orlando.  This horrific mass shooting on June 12, the worst in US history in terms of casualties with 49 killed and 53 wounded, already has the presumptive nominees pouncing on it to provide red meat for their respective bases.  Clinton is highlighting it to promote gun control against "lone wolves" while Trump uses it to rally around the 2nd amendment and highlight his proposal to ban Muslims from entering the country; even expanding it to "suspend immigration from areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or allies."

But what alarms me with this particular incident are the number of inconsistencies ignored by REM indicative of a Brabant-style Gladio operation similar to other recent attacks.  Just as the San Bernardino massacre last December originally had eyewitness reports of three shooters subsequently reduced to two, initial reports in Orlando of two shooters were reduced to one Omar Mateen, even though Mateen reportedly told police he had accomplices.  Just as with the Boston Bombing in 2013, we have the FBI questioning the perp/patsy on multiple occasions only to be cleared of suspicion before the subsequent terror event.  The FBI even admit that they introduced Mateen to "informants" - a procedure usually employed so they can be handlers in a sting operation - though somehow Mateen, like Tsarnaev in Boston before him (and the WTC bombers in 1993) just slipped through the cracks.  Then there's the curious case of James Wesley Howell from Indiana, arrested in Santa Monica, California in the early hours of the same morning as the Orlando attack for possessing weapons in his car.  He claimed that he was on his way to an LA Gay Pride event.  Cuz what better way to express your bisexual pride than firing three assault rifles with high capacity ammo and detonating a five gallon bucket of explosive chemicals?

Now I'm willing to admit I might be wrong in some of my suspicions.  Perhaps the Howell case is completely coincidental and there's no connection.  Maybe Mateen was really just a frustrated bipolar American lashing out in rage over his conflicted sexuality.  I find that a much more believable motive than radical Islam, especially considering in addition to pledging support to ISIS, Mateen had earlier attracted the attention of the FBI in 2013 by telling co-workers he was a member of Hezbollah, which anyone with a cursory knowledge of Sunni-Shiite relations understands is fighting against ISIS in Lebanon, indicating Mateen doesn't understand shit about who he supports; yelling 'ISIS' is a convenient deflection from his closeted reasons.  But I'm a lot more reluctant to let go of my suspicions of his handling by the FBI where they attempted to lure him into a terror plot, particularly since this was not his only connection with the intelligence community.

There are at least three connections that I'm aware of that Mateen had with the CIA.   (Thanks to the whole crew at RI for their contributions.)  First, there is his father, Seddique Mateen.  According to Daniel Hopsicker, the US-based Afghan satellite channel that Mateen has a show on, Payam Afghan, is said to be "widely known in Southwest Asia as a CIA-Pakistani-ISI construct."  Second, Omar Mateen was a member of the Timbuktu Seminary, an educational website run by former US Marine and undercover FBI agent Marcus Dwayne Robertson.  According to The Intercept, Robertson, who now goes by Abu Taubah, claims he worked as a covert operative for the CIA.  Third, there is Mateen's security guard employment with G4S.  This security corporation was formerly known as Wackenhut, a CIA proprietary company previously involved in Iraqgate, among other offenses.  The shares of G4S were bought up by Pakistan in 2012, a deal the Chairman of Wackenhut said would not be possible without the support of Bank al Falah.  According to wikipedia, "the roots of the bank go back to the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI)."

Sibel Edmonds author of The Lone Gladio  Photo credit:

It is this last intelligence connection that intrigues me the most because it ties into a personal hypothesis I have regarding the overworld vetting of Donald Trump's nomination.  My previous post on Iran/Contra explained how the overworld, exemplified by David Rockefeller, manipulates deep state events in coordination with the realms of intelligence, politics, finance and the underworld.  Much of the covert operation apparatus that had been the domain of CIA proper was partially outsourced through the private efforts of guys like Gen. John Singlaub, but also through BCCI, which intersected all those realms.  Privatization as a tool for Empire Maintenance is something that became even more intense in the 21st century with the invasion of Iraq as mercenary contractors like Blackwater were used in some cases to supplement and in some cases to outright supplant the military.  With more and more attention being brought by alternative media to the history of Operation Gladio in false flag terror attacks, and in the case of the Paris attacks last November the finger of blame being pointed at the organization in charge of Gladio B, NATO, on an international television outlet, is it likely that there are plans underway to obscure the role that Gladio plays today by trying to change it again?  The original change in the 90s from Gladio A to Gladio B changed how it operated, from Cold War objectives to War on Terror objectives.  Could they now have plans to change where it operates from in the latest evolution?

This possibility is certainly something I'm not alone in entertaining.  Sibel Edmonds hinted at something similar happening in her novel The Lone Gladio on page 352:

"Well, Greg, you did it.  You exposed and ended the operation.  Here's to that."  She raised her glass and took another sip.  "And I believe that's it for me.  I no longer owe you.  I fulfilled my obligation and kept my end of our deal."  Elsie lifted her glass high and drained it.  "Even Steven."

Greg narrowed his eyes.  "That was Operation B.  You are right: it ended.  But Operation C has already kicked in and is hard at we speak.  We might have cut two tiny heads off the beast, but the hydra's got hundreds more, you can bet your life on it."

My hypothesis is the overworld is currently exploring the possibility of transitioning Operation Gladio Plan B to Operation Gladio Plan C by decentralizing NATO responsibility and privatizing wherever possible to obscure accountability.  That Gladio continues is essential for Empire Maintenance; the question then is how to do so in the most effective manner.  Keeping in mind that in being the presumed nominee Trump passed his overworld vetting, declaring that NATO "may be obsolete" and that "maybe" it should be gotten rid of would constitute the most efficient path of achieving an overworld objective - with the added bonus of appearing to be anti-establishment! 

Why else do I think President Trump might be a useful instrument in the evolution of Gladio B under NATO to Gladio C privatized?  At the same time Trump was questioning the need for NATO last March, he unveiled his list of top foreign policy advisors.  One name in particular stood out in bold for me: Joe Schmitz.  While REM outlets usually described him as a former Defense Department inspector general, he stood out to me for a different position entirely: a former executive with the firm of mercenaries formerly named Blackwater.  If you haven't read Jeremy Scahill's book Blackwater, it's worth it for how he details the whole sordid history of the Schmitz family.  For Trump to lambaste the entire Bush family name over Iraq, which I loved, then choose as one of his main foreign policy advisors someone who helped protect that criminal administration proves two things.  It proves Trump likes to have it both ways and that he has a particular interest in the arena of privatization that could prove very useful to the Deep State if he won in November.

“Therefore learn how to see and not to gape.
To act instead of talking all day long.
The world was almost won by such an ape!
The nations put him where his kind belong.
But don't rejoice too soon at your escape -
The womb he crawled from is still going strong.”
Bertolt Brecht, The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui 

There have already been so many articles and op-ed columns dedicated to comparing the rise of Trump to the rise of a fascist dictator, it's hard to resist the temptation, which is basically what the quote above from Brecht's play does.  I certainly don't believe that President Hillary Clinton would shy away from emasculating NATO if it best served the interests of Empire Maintenance.  Perhaps that is the choice we really face in November: transition to Gladio C at a glacial pace to preserve the appearance of business as usual with another President Clinton, or shake the status quo with the "faster, please" position of President Trump.  In that light, Orlando may be a trial balloon for the Deep State to get a pulse on what America can take - similar events before November could either quicken that pulse or make it catatonic.  "Faster, please", in case you didn't get the reference, is a signature meme of Machiavelli lover and author of Universal Fascism Michael Ledeen.  While Ledeen might make a scholarly claim that historically speaking Trump is not a fascist, I would invite him and everyone else to read Umberto Eco's 14 points of fascism to see if the candidate you despise measures up.  Personally, whatever you call it, I don't think American Judas would survive it should President Trump take this whim and make it law:

Donald Trump wants to 'close up' the Internet

Donald Trump has called for a shutdown of the Internet in certain areas to stop the spread of terror.

In a speech at the U.S.S. Yorktown in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, on Monday, Trump referenced the use by ISIS of social media as a recruitment tool. He recommended a discussion with Bill Gates to shut off parts of the Internet.

"We're losing a lot of people because of the Internet," Trump said. "We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what's happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way. Somebody will say, 'Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people."

Some totalitarian governments do it
The notion that the Internet could be shut off is not completely off base. North Korea does it. Some countries have been known to shut off Internet service to their citizens in times of crisis. Egypt restricted the Internet during the 2011 Arab Spring uprising.

Other countries block certain Internet services and sites. China is the most famous example, forbidding most social networking sites as well as websites that deal with subjects the government doesn't want its citizens to know about.


Call it fascist, call it foolish, call it a 'loose cannon' like so many others in the 'establishment' do.  But if you care about freedom and if anything I've written in this entry makes any sense, whatever you call it, resist it.  It doesn't have your best interests at heart.  At all!

Thursday, April 28, 2016

The Origins of Iran/Contra: From the Bay of Pigs to Lee Harvey, Osvaldo

In downtown Los Angeles, there is a place called the Civic Center Mall.  It is known as containing the largest concentration of government employees in the United States outside of Washington, D.C.  On a personal level, it is an area I spent a great deal of time hanging out with the LA branch of the #Occupy Wall Street movement in the fall of 2011.  But it is also an area where a plot to assassinate President Jimmy Carter was foiled on May 5, 1979 that may have influenced future events that put in motion the sinister forces that conspired to perpetrate one of the grossest violations of the U.S. Constitution known as the Iran/Contra scandal.
Civic Center Mall  Photo credit:

The Iran/Contra scandal was revealed on November 25, 1986 by Edwin Meese as a criminal enterprise where funds from the sales of US arms to Iran were diverted to the Contras fighting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua.  There is the known scandal covered by the mainstream media that led to the histrionic hearings where Lt. Col. Oliver North displayed his crisp uniform and his not-so-crisp memory, the Tower Commission issued their report which like most government commissions uncovered minimal criminality and zero systemic accountability, and all outstanding indictments for six of the known perpetrators (former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, Elliott Abrams, Robert C. McFarlane, Alan Fiers, Clair George and Duane Clarridge) were pardoned by lame-duck President George H. W. Bush as he was about to leave office.

But there are also the more clandestine elements not as widely publicized that illustrate just severely our democratic processes have been subverted.  Just to mention a few, there was the "readiness exercise" called Rex-84 in which Oliver North worked with FEMA to draw up plans to, among other things, detain hundreds of thousands of undocumented aliens, surveillance and detention of political dissidents, including US citizens, and identifying scenarios for suspending the US Constitution.  There was the CIA-Contra-crack scandal that I've written multiple blog entries on that Gary Webb lost his career and his life over.  There was the financial legerdemain perpetrated by these shadow networks through shady institutions like BCCI, another scandal I've written about previously.

Intersecting all of these elements were the "secret teams" of intelligence agents, military operatives and others working in the private world of covert operations detailed in the book The Iran Contra Connection by Jonathan Marshall, Jane Hunter and Peter Dale Scott.  These covert teams probably existed on an ad hoc basis throughout US history (General Smedley Butler's War is a Racket gives a good summary of how this happened prior to WWI.) but really became institutionalized in 1947 with the creation of the CIA and the NSC.  One of the first prime examples of this type of secret team was what Paul Helliwell did for Chaing Kai-Shek's Kuomintang Army (KMT) in Taiwan in the 1950s.  A career OSS/CIA officer, (who also helped Walt Disney set up an unconstitutional form of government on his Florida land purchase for what would ultimately become Disney World) Helliwell tried to prepare Chaing's KMT for a future mainland China invasion by setting up a clandestine arrangement for CIA fronted companies Civil Air Transport (CAT) and the Sea Supply Corporation to ship opium for the benefit of the KMT.  CIA involvement with the drug trade continued into the 1960s as focus shifted from a presumed offensive out of Taiwan to a defensive posture in Laos and Vietnam.  CAT was renamed Air America and was extremely important in maintaining covert, often illegal operations.  Helliwell was transferred to provide business cover for the CIA's Cuban operations in 1960.

Paul Helliwell
Paul Helliwell  Photo credit:

The foundation of the scandal on a personnel level, to some degree, traces back 55 years ago to April 1961.  This was the infamous Bay of Pigs debacle that the CIA coordinated where a group of Cuban counter-revolutionaries invaded Cuba with the goal of overthrowing Fidel Castro.  The invasion was a spectacular failure that became a sort of spawning ground for future scandals.  (President Nixon referred to it while trying to cover up Watergate as "the whole Bay of Pigs thing", which H.R. Haldeman believed was a code for the JFK assassination.)  According to page 32 of The Iran Contra Connection, Helliwell worked with Lucien Conein, Mitch WerBell and E. Howard Hunt to develop relationships with drug dealing Cuban veterans of the Bay of Pigs invasion.  Lucien Conein was suspected to be involved in the JFK assassination, having worked with Ted Shackley and William Harvey (who was in charge of ZR/RIFLE, the top secret CIA operation to kill Castro, working directly with Mafia ambassador Johnny Roselli) at the JM/WAVE CIA station (where Helliwell was the CIA paymaster) in Miami in 1963.  Conein was the CIA's liaison with the Corsican gangsters of Saigon, according to page 64 of The Iran Contra Connection, and knew about but did not tell Washington of the large drug shipments the Corsicans were sending to Europe while giving the 1965 Saigon government a fixed percentage of the profits.  Mitch WerBell, an arms dealer who may have supplied silencers to the gunmen in Dallas that killed JFK, was indicted on drug smuggling charges in 1976.  While serving as a "personal security advisor" to Lyndon H. LaRouche in 1978, his former OSS colleague General John Singlaub reconnected with him at a right-wing meeting set up, according to page 66 of The Iran Contra Connection, for those who "didn't think the country was being run properly and were interested in doing something about it."  Singlaub later became head of the World Anti-Communist League (WACL) and one of the most pivotal members of the "secret team" that orchestrated key events in the Iran/Contra scandal, raising "tens of millions of dollars...for arms and ammunition" by his own admission.  According to page 21 of The Iran Contra Connection, Singlaub began to report to NSC staffer Oliver North and CIA director William Casey in 1984 on his fundraising activities for the Contras.

And then, there was E. Howard Hunt, CIA veteran of the successful 1954 Guatemala coup and the unsuccessful Bay of Pigs campaign.  I've detailed previously Hunt's involvement with the JFK assassination as revealed through Mark Lane's successful courtroom defense written about in Plausible Denial.  Hunt is also famous for his criminal involvement with the Watergate burglars, including Cuban exile Eugenio Martinez, an active member of Operation 40, a CIA counter-intelligence operation (which Hunt and fellow Watergate burglar Frank Sturgis were members of) originally designed to seize control of the Cuban government after the Bay of Pigs invasion.  Other members of Operation 40 include Rafael (Chi Chi) Quintero, Felix Rodriguez and Luis Posada.  What do these three have in common besides a connection with the CIA's Bay of Pigs campaign?  All three were active at the Ilopango Air Force Base in El Salvador that resupplied the Contras in Nicaragua and imported large quantities of cocaine into the US to support the Contras.  When Eugene Hasenfus, an Air America veteran, was captured by the Sandinistas after his plane was shot down on October 5, 1986, which blew the Iran/Contra scandal wide open, he told his captors that two Cuban-Americans based in El Salvador, "Max Gomez" and "Ramon Medina", coordinated the operation for the CIA and that they had the "blessing" of Vice President George H. W. Bush.  "Medina" was an alias for Luis Posada, who I've written multiple blog entries about, and "Gomez" was an alias for Felix Rodriguez, a longtime CIA operative who took part in the 1967 Bolivian operation that led to the capture of Che Guevara.  He interrogated Guevara before he ordered his execution.  He still possesses Guevara's Rolex watch that he took as a trophy.

Long before Hasenfus's plane was shot down, the US was involved with criminal activity on behalf of the Contras: Duane Clarridge, chief of the CIA Latin America division who was one of the six pardoned by Bush for Iran/Contra, (later one of the "principal forgers" of the Niger uranium documents used as justification for invading Iraq in 2003) was responsible for mining Nicaraguan harbors in 1984, an act for which the United States was convicted in the World Court at The Hague in 1986.   But how does Iran fit into this scandal?  The official story is that, to secure the release of American hostages held in Lebanon by Hezbollah, members of the Reagan administration sold missiles to Iran starting in 1985 to secure their release.  How were members of the Reagan administration able to reach out to their sworn enemy, Iran, who called them the "Great Satan"?  I synopsized some of how this happened in the 2nd edition of American Judas through the efforts of one Machiavellian meddler named Michael Ledeen:

As a consultant working with NSC head Robert McFarlane, he was involved in the transfer of arms to Iran during the Iran/Contra scandal. Ledeen acted as a go-between for Oliver North in the early stages of the Iran/Contra scandal, working with Israeli spy David Kimche to gain the release of US hostages in Beirut through an Iranian arms dealer, Manucher Ghorbanifar. Ghorbanifar then served as the medium between Oliver North and Iran in the Iran/Contra scandal.

Michael Ledeen  Photo credit:

Ledeen (named as a "conduit" for the Niger uranium forgery that was used as justification for invading Iraq in 2003) indicates that his association with Ghorbanifar (who in addition to being an Iranian arms dealer, was also an agent of "the intelligence services of Israel" during the 1970s) began at this time.  Yet the history of US arms shipments to Iran after the rise of the Ayatollah actually began much earlier.  The earliest confirmed shipment took place in 1981, with Israelis acting as the middlemen much as they did in the 1985-86 Iran/Contra period.  This took place shortly after Reagan took office in the aftermath of a scandal that George Polk Award-winning investigative journalist Robert Parry describes as a "prequel" to Iran/Contra:

On July 18, 1981, an Israeli-chartered plane was shot down after straying over the Soviet Union, offering the first glimpse of these secret arms transactions. In a PBS interview nearly a decade later, Nicholas Veliotes, Reagan’s assistant secretary of state for the Middle East, said he looked into the incident by talking to top administration officials.

“It was clear to me after my conversations with people on high that indeed we had agreed that the Israelis could transship to Iran some American-origin military equipment,” Veliotes said.
In checking out the Israeli flight, Veliotes came to believe that the Reagan camp’s dealings with Iran dated back to before the 1980 election.

“It seems to have started in earnest in the period probably prior to the election of 1980, as the Israelis had identified who would become the new players in the national security area in the Reagan administration,” Veliotes said. “And I understand some contacts were made at that time.”

That "prequel" is known as the 1980 October Surprise.  It certainly wasn't the first October Surprise; the most infamous precedent would be during the 1968 electoral campaign when Richard Nixon ordered Anna Chennault, his liaison to the South Vietnam government, to persuade them to reject a cease-fire being brokered by President Johnson, an interference that violated the Logan Act.  While I've written about the 1980 scandal before, I think a synopsis would be helpful as to how it relates to key Iran/Contra characters.  On November 4, 1979, a group of Iranians stormed the US Embassy in Tehran, taking more than 60 American hostages.  The Reagan campaign, managed by William Casey, was worried that if President Carter was able to pull off an 'October Surprise' and negotiate the release of the hostages right before the election, it might give him the momentum to win re-election in 1980.  Casey enlisted his friend, former OSS officer John Shaheen, along with his Shaheen's business partner Cyrus Hashemi to initiate negotiations to delay the release of the hostages.

Casey had secret meetings with both men and, according to Peter Dale Scott's The Road to 9/11 page 324 endnote 87, "Hashemi had worked for the CIA beginning in 1975."  Hashemi then had a meeting in March 1980 with Donald Gregg, a CIA officer who at the time was a member of Carter's White House team, but who knew George H. W. Bush (who directed the CIA in 1976) and later worked in his office when he became Vice President.  This led to a meeting in July 1980 in Madrid where Casey, Hashemi and his brother Jamshid Hashemi met with Iranian mullah Mehdi Karrubi to ensure the Iranians would not release the hostages to Carter prior to the election.  This was followed up with a meeting in October 1980 in Paris where Casey finalized the deal with the Iranians.  This time, according to a 1993 Russian government report, he was joined by Robert Gates, an NSC staffer at the time, and George H. W. Bush.

These names already constitute the future initiates of Iran/Contra infamy.  Once Reagan won the election, he appointed his campaign manager William Casey to be the CIA director, where he was in his element coordinating with the "secret teams" involved in Iran/Contra.  Donald Gregg was part of Operation 40 with Felix Rodriguez and worked closely with him and Vice President Bush starting in 1983 to subvert the Boland Amendment and supply the Contras with arms, cash and supplies.  Robert Gates' involvement in Iran/Contra included staying informed of Contra support through Alan Fiers (who pled guilty for Iran/Contra, later pardoned by Bush) though he denied recalling details about as frequently as Oliver North.  According to page 108 of The Road to 9/11, John Shaheen and Cyrus Hashemi were involved in 1985 in an Israeli arms sale to Iran in Hamburg brokered by Michael Ledeen.

How does Ledeen figure into the October Surprise?  An early draft of the task force report investigating the October Surprise (a whitewash chaired by veteran scandal-sweeper Lee Hamilton) mentioned a September 16, 1980 meeting for the "Persian Gulf Project" that Ledeen attended as well as an "October Surprise Group" that had multiple meetings attended by Ledeen.  His partner Manucher Ghorbanifar also figures in by attending meetings in Washington and the Paris meeting in October 1980.  In fact, just prior to his death, Duane Clarridge revealed that Ghorbanifar set the date of the hostage release and that he had “big bets in Las Vegas—big, big—millions” tied to the timing of the deal.  This was corroborated by CIA specialist on Iran George Cave, who while denying Reagan officials plotted the October Surprise (Cave is reputed to have attended the Paris meeting and wrote a 2013 'fictional' novel October 1980 which Clarridge said, “The whole novel is really true.”) seconded that Ghorbanifar likely placed bets on the outcome.  According to Peter Dale Scott's The Road to 9/11 page 324 endnote 89, Ghorbanifar was also involved with the 1985 Hamburg deal along with Adnan Khashoggi, who may have attended the Paris meeting and was a financial intermediary in the delivery of American-made missiles from Israel to Iran, "and ex-CIA officer Miles Copeland."

Miles Copeland, Jr.jpg
Miles Copeland  Photo credit:

With Miles Copeland, we enter into an earlier chapter of the plot to delay the release of the hostages, a sort of "prequel to the prequel" of Iran/Contra.  Copeland (father of Stewart Copeland, drummer for The Police) worked closely with Archibald and Kermit Roosevelt in arranging Operation Ajax, which deposed the democratically-elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh, and replaced him with Shah Reza Pahlavi in 1953.  This was a pivotal event, along with the subsequent savagery by the Iranian secret police SAVAK, that led to the overthrow of the Shah and rise of the Ayatollah in 1979.  On April 20, 1980, Copeland published a "speculative" piece in the Washington Star on how he would free the hostages.  This was just two days after President Carter made a top secret decision to proceed with Operation Eagle Claw, a rescue attempt almost identical to what Copeland wrote about.  As investigative journalist and co-author of The Iran Contra Connection Jonathan Marshall said, "There is legitimate room for at least questioning as to whether it was some kind of leak that came out in the form of fiction to protect him from charges that he had sabotaged it."

Is there more direct testimony that the Reagan campaign sabotaged Carter's hostage rescue, at that time totaling 52 hostages, which resulted in the abortion of the mission at the first staging area, Desert One, with eight US servicemen killed in a helicopter crash?  According to Mansur Rafizadeh, a CIA "secret team" directed by William Casey sabotaged the mission.  Rafizadeh worked for both the CIA and SAVAK.  According to him, corroborated by historian Donald Freed and Reagan administration policy advisor Barbara Honegger, Casey was knowledgeable about Operation Eagle Claw before the fact as he was in communication with Richard Secord, the chief mission planner.  Secord was heavily involved in Iran/Contra, both in providing planes and supplies to the Contras and assisted the shipment of missiles to Iran.  On the Turkish border in the mother ship, awaiting the cue from chief planner Secord, was none other than Oliver North.  Working closely with him as a logistical planner for ground operations was Albert Hakim.  Yet 24 hours before the operation, when he was supposed to be obtaining trucks and other necessary vehicles, Hakim left Tehran and fled to Baghdad.  Hakim later became Secord's business partner in the Stanford Technology Trading Group International and was indicted for conspiracy in Iran/Contra, among other counts, along with Secord, North and former National Security Adviser John Poindexter.  The Pentagon review board found astonishing incompetence and negligence in the failure of Operation Eagle Claw and freelance journalist Cynthia Dwyer, who had not yet been taken as the 53rd hostage, told Reverend Moore that the CIA deliberately botched the operation.

While the scenario above may sound too terrible to be true for some, there is an historical precedent in which the CIA purposely designed an operation to fail.  According to David Talbot in his book The Devil's Chessboard, page 400, that is exactly what Allen Dulles did with the Bay of Pigs.

But, as usual, there was method to Dulles's seeming carelessness.  It is now clear that the CIA's Bay of Pigs expedition was not simply doomed to fail, it was meant to fail.  And its failure was designed to trigger the real action - an all-out, U.S. military invasion of the island.  Dulles plunged ahead with his hopeless, paramilitary mission - an expedition that he had staffed with "C-minus" officers and expendable Cuban "puppets" - because he was serenely confident that, in the heat of battle, Kennedy would be forced to send the Marines crashing ashore.  Dulles was banking on the young, untested commander in chief to cave in to pressure from the Washington war machine, just as other presidents had bent to the spymaster's will.

Not only did Dulles keep the news from JFK that the operation was doomed to fail, as the minutes of a November 15, 1960 task force meeting released in 2005 prove, he also kept the plots to assassinate Castro from him too.  President Kennedy did his best to stand up against this intimidation from Dulles, ultimately firing him for the Bay of Pigs, and also from Dulles's compatriot Lyman Lemnitzer, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  It was Lemnitzer, along with Navy chief Arleigh Burke, who tried to coerce JFK into using the military as the Bay of Pigs operation was in the process of failing.  Lemnitzer continued to raise the prospect of invading Cuba with JFK afterward, most notoriously with his proposal of Operation Northwoods, which advocated false flag terror attacks in Washington D.C. and Miami to justify an invasion of Cuba.  President Kennedy rejected this and three months later reassigned Lemnitzer to become Commander of U.S. Forces in Europe.  Lemnitzer then became Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in January 1963, in charge of the infamous Operation Gladio, among other duties.  He certainly had the means and motivation to assassinate JFK.

I have this feeling man, 'cause you know, it's just a handful of people who run everything, you know … that's true, it's provable. It's not … I'm not a fucking conspiracy nut, it's provable. A handful, a very small elite, run and own these corporations, which include the mainstream media. I have this feeling that whoever is elected president, like Clinton was, no matter what you promise on the campaign trail – blah, blah, blah – when you win, you go into this smoke-filled room with the twelve industrialist capitalist scum-fucks who got you in there. And you're in this smoky room, and this little film screen comes down … and a big guy with a cigar goes, "Roll the film." And it's a shot of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you've never seen before … that looks suspiciously like it's from the grassy knoll. And then the screen goes up and the lights come up, and they go to the new president, "Any questions?" "Er, just what my agenda is." "First we bomb Baghdad." "You got it …"

While this classic Bill Hicks routine on "The Elite" was played for comedy, I do believe that it hits on a larger truth; both in terms of the JFK assassination and how the world really works.  This is the milieu that Peter Dale Scott describes as "deep politics": all those political practices and arrangements, deliberate or not, that are usually repressed in public discourse rather than acknowledged.  I think most people understand how this works in regard to the underworld; that there is an intersection between financial and political realms with organized crime.  But in his book The Road to 9/11, Scott spells out how this works in regard to the overworld: that realm of wealthy or privileged society that, although not formally authorized or institutionalized, is the scene of successful influence of government by private power.  A prime example of someone who has done this over the course of several decades without ever holding public office is David Rockefeller.  While there is no evidence that Rockefeller was involved in the JFK assassination, there have been a number of books, such as Thy Will Be Done The Conquest of the Amazon: Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil by Gerard Colby and Charlotte Dennett, Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency by Donald Gibson, and The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government by David Talbot, that detailed how among those who stood to benefit from the assassination of JFK, Rockefeller was one of the biggest.  I doubt there is any evidence that will surface; when you live in the overworld, your actions tend to stay in the shadows.

David Rockefeller Sr.  Photo credit:

Yet there was a period in 1979 when Rockefeller felt compelled to step out of the shadows to exert his overworld influence.  This was during the time that the Shah of Iran had been overthrown on February 11, 1979 but prior to the seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979.  Rockefeller wanted President Carter to permit the Shah to enter the United States.  Carter, cognizant of Iranian history and popular animosity there over the CIA engineered coup, had no desire to do so.  Rockefeller found multiple ways to apply pressure to get his way.  Three of Rockefeller's men, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, current National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and influential lawyer/banker John McCloy (previously a member of the Warren Commission, always a member of the overworld since representing IG Farben and sharing a box with Hitler and Goering at the 1936 Olympics) supported this special project code-named Project Alpha, which included Rockefeller dipping into private funds to pay his and McCloy's employees for working on this project.  The lobbying effort was so intense that at one point when his chief of staff Hamilton Jordan told him opposing Kissinger was politically dangerous, Carter responded, "The hell with Henry Kissinger, I am President of this country!"

What was Rockefeller's motive for breaking with his usual low-profile behavior?  As the current chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank (McCloy had previously been chairman), he was aware that they were one of the companies most indebted to the Shah.  Iran was "the crown jewel of Chase's international banking portfolio."  Financial analyst and journalist Mark Hulbert, in his book Interlock, argued that Rockefeller and his coterie precipitated the hostage taking to give Chase legal cover to seize enough Iranian assets to erase billions in questionable loans that now threatened the bank's liquidity.  The new Iranian government wanted Chase to return Iranian assets.  But in a crisis situation, seizure of Iranian assets would be legal under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, powers that had been conveniently transferred, according to Peter Dale Scott's The Road to 9/11 page 86, to FEMA under reorganization engineered by Zbigniew Brzezinski on July 20, 1979.  Ten days after the hostages were taken, President Carter froze all Iranian assets in US banks on the advice of his Treasury Secretary, William Miller.  Naturally, Miller had ties with Chase Manhattan Bank.

Why did President Carter cave in to their demands?  There are a number of factors, but the political pressure on him certainly increased in the summer of 1979.  There was pressure from McCloy on his closest advisors.  There was pressure from Kissinger, indicating he would withdraw his support for SALT II unless there was a "more forthcoming attitude on our part regarding the Shah."  Perhaps the deciding factor arrived courtesy of three Rockefeller men advising the Shah: Joseph V. Reed, Robert Armao and Benjamin H. Kean.  They lobbied to have the Shah admitted to the US on the grounds of his poor health to get better treatment at an American hospital.  Carter reluctantly accepted this rationale with the pregnant question, "What are you guys going to advise me to do if they overrun our embassy and take our people hostage?"

But there is one other factor that is rarely mentioned.  That would be the incident I referred to at the beginning of this post, an assassination attempt against President Carter on May 5, 1979, foiled by the Secret Service ten minutes before he was to give a speech at the Civic Center Mall in Los Angeles.  The suspect arrested was an Ohio-born unemployed drifter with a history of mental illness who told the police that he spent the night before at the Alan Hotel with a man he knew as "Julio" who, along with two other Latino men, asked him to fire a starter pistol with blanks as a diversion so they could shoot President Carter from their hotel room.  This story was written about in Time and Newsweek when it happened and wikipedia has a synopsis of the details.  The drifter with the starter pistol was named Raymond Lee Harvey.  "Julio" turned out to be Osvaldo Espinoza Ortiz.  As James DiEugenio wrote recently, "No one as smart as Carter could have missed the significance of that."

After the hostages were taken, Rockefeller tried to slip back into the shadows, but there is evidence he was involved in the October Surprise.  On September 11, 1980, according to a campaign visitor log, Rockefeller and several of his aides signed in to see William Casey at his campaign headquarters in Arlington, Virginia.  That this visit concerned the October Surprise was corroborated by sworn testimony from CIA officer Charles Cogan, who was present when Rockefeller's aide Joseph Reed in 1981 told Casey something to the effect of "we did something about Carter's October Surprise."  In a less formal setting, Cogan said Reed's words were "We fucked Carter's October Surprise."  Besides Rockefeller and Reed, also attending the 9/11/80 meeting with Casey was Archibald Roosevelt, the former CIA officer who had collaborated with Miles Copeland both on Operation Ajax and a hostage-rescue plan that President Carter rejected in favor of the sabotaged Operation Eagle Claw.    The effort to undo Carter's efforts to free the hostages was something many who had worked for the CIA, out of loyalty to their former director George Bush, had a personal interest in.  Copeland referred to these interested parties as "the CIA within the CIA" who "had an understanding with the Iranians" that the hostages would not be returned before Reagan's election.  A key figure in that arrangement was Ted Shackley coordinating the Republican monitoring of hostage negotiations for Richard Allen of the Reagan-Bush campaign.

Theodore (Ted) Shackley
Ted Shackley  Photo credit:

No examination of the origins of Iran/Contra is complete without discussing Ted Shackley.  Perhaps more than any other individual, Shackley ties so many disparate strands of this dark web of conspiracy together.  In early 1962, Shackley was deputy chief of JM/WAVE in Miami, delivering supplies to mobster Johnny Roselli as part of the plan to assassinate Fidel Castro.  Later that year he became head of the station and gained control of Operation 40.  In 1966, he was placed in charge of the CIA's secret war in Laos and his "Secret Team" became involved in the drug trade by helping anti-communist General Vang Pao monopolize the heroin trade in Laos.  Shackley and his associate Thomas Clines even set up a Saigon meeting in 1968 between Pao and Mafia kingpin Santo Trafficante to establish a heroin-smuggling operation from Southeast Asia to the United States.  When he became Chief of Station in Vietnam in 1969, Shackley headed the Phoenix Program, which in a two year period murdered 28,978 civilians.  He stepped up his drug operation with the help of Clines, Richard Armitage (yeah, the same gossip who leaked Valerie Plame's identity to Bob Woodward) and Richard Secord by disbursing excess money from the Vang Pao opium fund from 1973 to 1975 into a secret account at Nugan Hand Bank in Sydney Australia.  When Saigon fell in April 1975, Armitage set up a secret "financial conduit" inside Iran so the "Secret Team" could access the drug funds for black operations against enemies of the Shah.

When George H. W. Bush became director of the CIA in 1976, he appointed Shackley to Deputy Director of Operations.  But when Carter was elected and he appointed Admiral Stansfield Turner to head the CIA, Turner fired Shackley when he found out about Nugan Hand and the activities of his "Secret Team."  Shackley's response was to privatize his operations in providing intelligence to business; the "CIA within the CIA" Copeland referenced.  This included joining Stanford Technology owned by Albert Hakim in October 1980 where they profited off the Iran-Iraq War.  In addition to his previously mentioned coordination of the October Surprise, it should probably come as no surprise that Shackley was involved in Iran/Contra.  According to The Iran Contra Connection page 177, in November 1984, Manucher Ghorbanifar made contact with Shackley in West Germany with a proposal to "work with the 'moderates' in Iran" and "suggested ransoming the hostages for cash as a first step."  In May 1985, Shackley revived this Ghorbanifar gambit when he had a meeting with his friend Michael Ledeen to discuss the hostage situation.  According to Shackley, Ledeen told him members of the U.S. government wanted to know in that connection if the Ghorbanifar connection was "still open."

All of this is really just scratching the surface.  Shackley's exploits were so numerous and notorious, a Hollywood movie directed by Robert DeNiro titled The Good Shepherd was loosely based on his career.  Perhaps the most memorable line from his character, played by Matt Damon, is when a mobster played by Joe Pesci asks ultimately what does the CIA have?  Damon chillingly replies, "The United States of America.  The rest of you are just visiting."

While so many of these events may seem like ancient history, when the conspirators go unpunished their deeds tend to be repeated.  Sometimes, as in the most recent revelation of the Panama Papers, not only do diabolical deeds get repeated, but the same dark actors crop up, such as Adnan Khashoggi from Iran/Contra.  Unless our citizens are willing to dredge up this darkness and expose it to the light of justice, we will continue to be just visitors in this country, pretending to be free.

Monday, February 29, 2016

ISIS, Peoples Temple, SLA and the Manson Secret: Mind Control, the CIA and Cult Manipulation

Every once in a while, I get a comment on this blog that inspires a new blog post.  Last October, when I wrote ISIS is BS: It's Just the Latest Greatest Gladio Operation, I received a comment from Peter Chamberlin who posted a link that detailed the concentration of future ISIS leaders (Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Abu Ayman al-Iraqi, Abu Abdulrahman al-Bilawi and Haji Bakr, to name four) who were imprisoned together at Camp Bucca, an internment center in Iraq where the US Army ran a "behavioral modification program."  From 2004 to 2009, these Islamists, along with many others, were in the midst of an "Al Qaeda school" where terrorists gave chalkboard lessons on explosives and suicide bombing techniques to younger prisoners.  Camp Bucca has been portrayed in the media as a place where a "pressure cooker" of Islamic extremists just blew. I think this interpretation is just another example of "blowback" being bullshit.  After asking at RI if anyone could find any corroborating links of what seemed to me to be evidence that ISIS was part of a mind control intelligence operation, seemslikeadream found a few different sources on the subject, and I discovered this one which not only corroborated my own suspicions that Camp Bucca was a CIA brainwashing facility for building radicalized leaders for ISIS, but brought up an example from the past to illustrate how mind control intelligence programs did not end with MK-ULTRA in the 1960s as the CIA has maintained.

But is such a thing really possible? Sadly, yes. CIA mind control technology has made tremendous strides since it began in the 1950s with the lavishly-funded MK Ultra program. MK Ultra was closed around 1960 because it had achieved its objective: Power over the human mind such that a brainwashed “Manchurian candidate” assassin could be created. That is, an ordinary human being, after CIA treatment, could be made to kill someone – anyone – without the slightest conscious awareness of his actions. The most notorious “Manchurian candidate” is Sirhan Sirhan, the mind-control slave who was set up as a patsy in the CIA’s murder of Robert F. Kennedy in 1968.

The CIA also has a track record of creating cults – and their charismatic leaders. The Reverend Jim Jones, an anti-establishment clergyman, was turned by CIA mind-control into a fire-breathing, charismatic puppet-master, who convinced hundreds of people to join him in a mass suicide. Ironically, the puppet-master was himself a CIA puppet; the mass suicide was a CIA experiment designed to discover whether a large group of political dissidents could be so totally controlled that they would kill themselves on command. This experiment, like the murder of RFK, was a success.

More recently, the CIA has been conducting Nazi-style mind-control experiments on Muslim inmates in Guantanamo and other terror prisons. Jon Ronson – a mainstream journalist and bestselling author who generally keeps his humorous distance from “conspiracy theories” – discovered in 2003 that Guantanamo inmate Jamal al-Harith and others had been subjected to torture and “silent sound” mind-control experiments while in US custody.

In her book The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein shows that CIA torture is not designed to elicit information. Its real purpose is to “break” the subject so he or she can be mind-controlled.

Douglas Rushkoff’s book Coercion explains how CIA mind control works: The subject is “broken,” then the CIA interrogator presents himself as a substitute parent figure and seizes total control of the subject’s mind. That is how Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times in a single month, was convinced by his mind-control torturers that he was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

The secrecy surrounding al-Baghdadi’s five years in US custody strongly suggests that the self-proclaimed “caliph of Islam” is actually a Muslim version of Jim Jones. His “Islamic State” is a Muslim Jonestown. It is designed to mass-suicide Islam by turning Muslims against each other.

Fortunately, the world’s Muslims are not drinking the kool aid.

This is not the first time I have read the allegation that Jim Jones was involved with the CIA and that his Peoples Temple cult was a mind control experiment.  Peter Levenda wrote a brilliant trilogy of books titled Sinister Forces and in Book Two: A Warm Gun, he devotes all of Chapter Thirteen to the subject.  The first association Jones had with the intelligence community began when he was a fifteen year old sidewalk preacher in Richmond, Indiana and met Richmond police officer Dan Mitrione.  Giving liberal credit to author Jim Hougan for his piece Jonestown, The Secret Life of Jim Jones: A Parapolitical Fugue (Hougan's three part series on the subject on his website is a valuable update), Levenda maps out the known details of their relationship.  After his sidewalk preaching teenage years, Jones became assistant minister for the Somerset Methodist Church in Indianapolis in 1952.  It was there that he refined the approach for which he became known: preaching a gospel of racial tolerance that attracted black followers and performing "miracles" in which he fraudulently removed cancerous tumors through mesmeric passes, shouting Biblical phrases, and concealing chicken livers to be conveniently revealed as "tumors."  What was different during the 1950s as opposed to his later career is that his political outlook was decidedly anti-Communist.

Cult leader Jim Jones
Jim Jones  Photo credit: Corbis via NPR

That changed during the 1960s when Jones hooked up again with Dan Mitrione.  According to Hougan, Mitrione had moved on from being chief of police in Richmond, Indiana to training three months at the FBI's National Academy in 1957 to being hired by the State Department in 1960 as a "public safety adviser."  In late 1960 he moved to Brazil officially employed as an Agency for International Aid (AID) officer attached to the Office of Public Safety (OPS).  I've written multiple blog entries about how AID often provides cover for the CIA, but I've not yet written about OPS.  Levenda goes into more details about OPS and Mitrione in Sinister Forces Book Two: A Warm Gun on page 171:

Mitrione, it is now known, was involved with the training of Latin American police forces in the use of torture and drugs in interrogations, under the auspices of the now-defunct and cynically entitled Office of Public Safety (OPS), an Orwellian organization that was formed during the Eisenhower administration.  Mitrione was an avid practitioner of the methods he taught and, according to one of his trainees in Uruguay in the late 1960s, he would pick up homeless people on the streets to be used as guinea pigs in his training sessions, bloody interrogations which were always conducted in a soundproof room.  In Montevideo, this room was in the basement of his home.  When the derelicts died during the course of the "training," their bodies would be dumped back in the streets as a warning to Communist insurgents.

Dan Mitrione  Photo credit: Advance Indiana

Eventually this flagrant sadism caught up with Mitrione and he was, to quote Levenda on page 171 again, "taken hostage and killed by the leftist guerrilla Tupamaros in Uruguay in 1970, revolutionaries who knew that he was a CIA agent with AID agency cover."  What is fascinating about this in regard to Jim Jones is that the CIA opened a 201 file on Jones at the same time Mitrione was staying in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in November, 1960.  Mitrione then moved to Belo Horizonte, Brazil in December 1960, which is where Jones and his family traveled to in April 1962.  Prior to that, Jones had been spotted in places as varied as Hawaii, Cuba (where he supposedly had his picture taken with Fidel Castro while trying to convert and convince black Cubans to leave with him to Indiana) and even Guyana - but at conflicting times where he couldn't be in both places at once.  Considering the State Department issued Jim Jones two passports - one on June 28, 1960, the second January 30, 1962 - Hougan believes that, in a peculiarity similar to the 'Oswald double' phenomenon, there were two Jim Joneses: the real one and an impersonator.  While in Belo Horizonte, Jones was interested in the works of David Miranda, who did a study on ESP and mass-conversion techniques, subjects of interest to the CIA in connection with MK-ULTRA, which Mitrione would become involved with later in Uruguay.  What Hougan suggests is that the CIA file was opened on Jones in 1960 when Mitrione was recruited into the CIA because he intended to use Jim Jones as a CIA agent and that Jones' file was closed and purged in 1970 as a direct and logical result of Mitrione's assassination.

Jones was certainly not the same preacher who left America when he returned in 1965.  He moved to Ukiah, California and incorporated the "Peoples Temple of the Disciples of Christ of Redwood Valley" on November 26, 1965.  The religious organization that adopted them and insured their legitimacy, the Disciples of Christ, has counted three presidents among its members (James Garfield, Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan) and is a millennialist sect with apocalyptic beliefs.  Jones himself preached apocalyptic visions, but now instead of preaching anti-Communism as he had done in Indiana during the 1950s, Jones was preaching the gospel of Karl Marx.  Yet despite this (or perhaps because of, if this conversion was all part of a psy-op), "the Messiah from Ukiah" was, according to the late conspiracy researcher John Judge, contacted by missionaries from World Vision.  This particular non-governmental organization (NGO) has a history of intersecting with the intelligence community including Cuba during the Bay of Pigs invasion, southeast Asia with the CIA, and as Levenda points out on page 184, "World Vision is only one example of an organization that is widely reported to have cooperated extensively with American intelligence services in South America."  World Vision also has bizarre ties to the John Lennon assassination and the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan that I have written about before.

After moving to San Francisco in 1972, the Peoples Temple became more prominent and consequently received greater public scrutiny.  Occasionally there would be negative coverage in the press, though nothing comprehensive of the beatings, sexual abuse, torture, brainwashing and mind control.  On October 3, 1976 one member named Bob Houston wrote a letter to Jim Jones resigning from the Peoples Temple.  On October 5th, he was found dead under suspicious circumstances.  Houston's father worked for Associated Press was convinced of foul play as a result of his son's defection and pushed for a deeper investigation into the Peoples Temple.  He was able to convince Congressman Leo J. Ryan to take up his case.  Levenda summarizes Ryan's creds in Book Two: A Warm Gun on page 204:

At the same time, California Congressman Leo J. Ryan was making a name for himself as a government watchdog. He had co-authored the Hughes-Ryan Amendment, which required the CIA to get prior approval from Congress before undertaking any covert activity. In addition, he was asking questions about the CIA's mind-control projects in the State of California, as he wondered whether or not the notorious members of the Symbonese Liberation Army (SLA) had been willing or unwilling beneficiaries of the MK-ULTRA program while serving time at Vacaville.

The question Ryan asked the CIA regarding the SLA concerned their leader, Donald DeFreeze.  While imprisoned at Vacaville, he was involved with the Black Cultural Association under the direction of Professor Colston Westbrook.  Westbrook has since been identified as a former intelligence agent who worked for AID, the same agency providing cover for Dan Mitrione and possibly Jim Jones in Brazil.  The SLA, like ISIS and the Peoples Temple, also engaged in brainwashing, famously kidnapping and programming heiress Patricia Hearst to help them rob a bank.  It is possible they were not genuine revolutionaries but agent provocateurs; at one point they hijacked a car and driver, drove around a few hours telling them who they were, then let the driver go - the same type of attention-demanding phoniness that Lee Harvey Oswald doubles engaged in test driving cars while talking tough about Russia, or talking about killing Kennedy at rifle ranges.

Donald Cinque DeFreeze
Donald "Cinque" DeFreeze  Photo credit: Find a Grave

But Ryan took their intelligence connections seriously enough to ask if DeFreeze, who was killed along with five other SLA members May 17, 1974 in an LA SWAT team raid where the house they were staying was burned to the ground, was involved with the CIA MK-ULTRA program.  The CIA issued a non-denial denial, stating that "DeFreese" (note the misspelling.  Deliberate?) was not a participant in CIA program as "far as our records" indicate.  This was issued October 18, 1978.  By then, Jones had already moved the Peoples Temple out of the US into the jungles of Guyana where Jonestown was created.  Congressman Ryan then investigated Jonestown in November, offering to take members back to the US who didn't want to stay.  When they drove to the airport November 18, 1978, the party was gunned down by Jones' security force, murdering Ryan and several others.  Jones then proceeded to kill 913 human beings including himself.  Whether through administering hypodermic cyanide injections, having his security force kill those trying to escape, or the brainwashed Kool-Aid drinkers the media loved to highlight, Jones is responsible for all these murders.

There was one man whose life Jones went out of his way to save: Richard Dwyer.  Dwyer had accompanied Ryan to Jonestown.  He was a career intelligence officer working under State Department cover at the US Embassy in Georgetown.  Multiple sources have said his real employer was the CIA.  How amazing that in the midst of orchestrating the complete decimation of Jonestown, he tried several times to make sure that someone from the intelligence community was out of Jonestown when his apocalyptic visions were about to become very real.

Ed Sanders, in his book about Charles Manson and the Family, stated that if the Pentagon ever formulated the Manson Secret, the world would be in trouble.  One wonders if Jonestown was an example of such a formula: a white man, with murky intelligence connections and political activity in Latin America and the Caribbean during the sixties, becomes the leader of a large black congregation and orders them all to their deaths.  If this had been in a novel, it would have been dismissed as unbelievable.

Charles Manson might be getting married
Charles Manson  Photo credit: death and taxes

The above passage from page 203 of Peter Levenda's Book Two: A Warm Gun is just one of many examples where he draws parallels between Jonestown and Helter Skelter.  Jim Jones preached that he was the reincarnation of Jesus (and Lenin); Manson also would tell his followers that he was Jesus (and the Devil).  Like Manson, Jones had his "family" (he insisted they address only him as Father) through which he used psychodrama to subordinate other members.  Manson would orchestrate the sex lives of the members of his family by directing group copulation; Jones would control the sex lives of his congregation arranged marriages, public humiliations and private rape.  Manson would use drugs, particularly LSD, as part of his acting out rituals for the Manson Family such as putting him on a cross in a mock crucifixion where he would be resurrected; Jones had a huge pharmacy of narcotics and psychoactive compounds, it's not really clear how the drugs were used in everyday life in the compound.  At the Jonestown compound, Jones put his congregation through rigorous physical labor and sleep deprivation; Manson would often exhaust his women with physical work prior to sex and would take his crew on late night "creepy-crawl" burglaries.  As Levenda wrote in the previously cited book on page 98, "That combination of sex and drugs and a kind of perverse operant conditioning are the basic working parts of what Ed Sanders calls "The Manson Secret."  It was what CIA psychiatrist Ewen Cameron was working on until virtually the day he died, except that Manson was much more successful.  As documented in The Nine, Cameron created zombies; Manson created assassins."

Was Manson involved with the intelligence community?  Levenda believes that Manson may have been subjected to MK-ULTRA testing while imprisoned in Chillicothe during the 1950s.  Manson maintained a connection with the intelligence community during the 1960s with a drug dealer named Ronald Stark.  According to the blog VISUP, Stark was a large scale LSD during the 60s who was finally brought down in Italy in 1980.  He was released by an Italian court on the basis that he had been employed by US 'secret services' since at least 1960.  It's hard not to wonder if Jones was a more refined large-scale approach as Manson.  Both believed in the prospect of an imminent race war.  To quote Levenda's book again on page 201, "One could say they were on either side of the same argument: Jones (ostensibly) wanted to preserve the black people of America and Manson wanted them destroyed.  Both, however, saw race war as inevitable.  When the dust cleared, however, Manson had killed only white people (with an attempted murder on one black drug dealer); Jones had killed hundreds of black people in Jonestown."

My point in exploring these dark chapters of the past hopefully illustrates that the past continues to live on into the present.  ISIS is only the most recent blatant example.  The techniques of mind control will continue to be effective on anyone willing to surrender their free will for the illusion of security.  When you surrender your free will, you surrender your power.  Guard against that with vigilance.

Thursday, January 28, 2016

Climate Denialism, Climate Fatalism and Porter Ranch: Confronting the Inevitability of the Carbon Crisis

Peak Oil happened 10 years ago according to the International Energy Agency.  I no longer mention Peak Oil (that's a peak in global conventional crude production, to be precise) in my description of this site because the technological advancements in fracking have punted the full ramifications downfield by at least a decade or two.  This in spite of President Obama's attempts to emphasize renewable energy use; proving that when you employ an "All-of-the-Above Energy Strategy" - dirty beats clean in the marketplace for liquid fuel consumption.  This will continue to be the case even after the shale bubble pops, which looks like what's happening now, and after US shale oil production peaks, which may occur as soon as 2020, according to the US Energy Department.  Look for coal to make a comeback (along with the Fischer-Tropsch coal-to-oil liquefaction process popularized by the Nazis) sometime in the 2030s or 40s at the latest.  That's regardless of whether it's a Democratic administration insisting that the coal is "clean" or a Republican insisting coal production should skyrocket regardless of environmental ramifications because of China, the Middle East, or whatever "other" is timely for a reactionary to demonize.

Bottom line: this means a peak in total liquid fuel production probably won't occur until sometime close to the mid-21st century.  This is not good news.  Delaying the inevitable peak through an increased reliance on non-conventional fossil fuels only intensifies the overall consequences, both economically in terms of demand permanently outstripping an irreversibly declining supply, and environmentally in terms of carbon (oil, shale, coal) consumption increasing greenhouse gas emissions to the point global warming becomes severe enough to diminish food production, among other disasters.  They are flip sides of the same coin that should be simultaneously referenced as the Carbon Crisis in referring to the predicament human civilization finds itself in.  I've been saying that for over two years now; I even did an annual update in 2013 and 2014.

I decided to stop doing an annual update - partially because of my terrible history in maintaining any kind of annual update on this blog (like UNDER THE RUG or Krampus of the Year), but also because I think it's better to report news as it occurs, rather than compile it for reporting en masse near the end of the year.  It's not as though there was a shortage of developments in the worsening of the Carbon Crisis in 2015.  But at some point, the enormity of climatological abnormalities happening either necessitates a universal awakening within civilization or a universal shutdown of civilization.  True existential threats trump denial every time.

So why am I writing this blog entry, since we clearly haven't reached that point yet?  Because I want to explore the sociological phenomenon of climate denial through a prism I've grown extremely comfortable looking through: conspiracy theory.  Interestingly, there are two diametrically opposed theories positing a cover-up of the truth about global warming:

1) The truth about global warming is being covered up because the United Nations, through the backing of such pro-eugenic wealthy elitists as David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger and Bill Gates, is using this phony story, propagated by paid scientists and a compliant mainstream media, as an excuse to cull the world's population and institute totalitarian control by removing property rights via Agenda 21 and instituting a technocracy economy where carbon consumption is rationed through global policing.

2) The truth about global warming is being covered up because human industrial civilization has already burned enough greenhouse gasses to drive humanity to extinction, so to avoid spreading panic the mainstream media sells the worst effects as possibly happening, but in decades or hundreds of years, and mainstream scientists are soft-pedalling the immediacy of self-reinforcing feedback loops from clathrates and permafrost melt sending massive amounts of methane into the atmosphere, which could happen within the next decade or two.

Both theories deny the current consensus on global warming (the IPCC): one says the consensus is wrong because global warming isn't real and the other says the consensus is wrong because global warming is worse than admitted.  The first theory, which seems more prevalent in the parapolitical community, is actually more grounded in historical reality than most climate denial positions that reject the scientific consensus either from a religious prejudice (God wouldn't allow such a cataclysm, He promised that after the Great Flood) or an ideological/economic prejudice (Exxon says it's not real, why should I doubt their data instead of latte-sipping lefties who want us all riding bikes?) or both.  That's not to say climate denial conspiracy is devoid of those prejudices - just watch Alex Jones, who manages to combine everything.

But there is one researcher that I have a great amount of respect for who has been publicizing and advocating this theory: James Corbett.  I've quoted from The Corbett Report on numerous occasions, including the Sibel Edmonds Gladio B interviews, where he generously linked to my blog synopses, and the Boston Bombing coverage.  For the most part, I agree with his views on the Deep State, the total corruption of the political process, abuses of the National Security State, and his classic 9/11 expose video, among other issues.  But I am in absolute disagreement with him on the subject of climate change.  He presents his case for how he came to that assessment with quite a bit more research than the prejudicial examples cited in the paragraph above.

James Corbett, host of The Corbett Report  Photo credit:

It is certainly historically correct, as Corbett points out to buttress his argument, that the Rockefeller family has ties to eugenics and has advocated population reduction.  What I pointed out in a post on the Rockefellers last year is that where the Rockefellers have been responsible for a mass population reduction, i.e. genocide, in practice, it was through "development", i.e. deforestation, of the Amazon rainforest where death tolls ranged from 40,000 to 100,000 during the 1960s - environmental degradation that is currently losing the ability to regulate the climate.  Which kind of undercuts Corbett's argument that the Rockefellers are perpetrating a fraud by propagandizing against the dangers of climate change: the scientific research proves the Rockefellers in reality have perpetrated actual climate change.  Again, I must cite the excellent book by Charlotte Dennett and Gerard Colby, Thy Will Be Done, which documents not only the genocide I mentioned, but the Rockefeller ties to eugenics that Corbett mentioned.

Ultimately, on the subject of science, I know Corbett's counter to the evidence I've cited is that there are scientists that question the anthropogenic impact on global warming that he has interviewed on his show.  The reality is that there will never be a 100% consensus on any scientific theory: even Darwin's theory of evolution is controversial enough that over 500 scientists doubt it as recently as 2006.  It would be illogical for me to argue that every academic study that questions the link between human activities and global warming is funded by oil corporations and the Koch brothers, even though it's been proven that many of them are.  Likewise, while Corbett may have a point castigating the CRU for their attempts in 2009 to censor dissenters, it would be illogical for him to argue that every academic study that validates the link between human activities and global warming is the product of a UN plot.  But here's the implicit argument: if the UN and their fellow conspirators are really perpetrating a hoax, then you must reject the science behind the theory that radiatively active gases in the earth's atmosphere create a greenhouse effect.  Only by rejecting this scientific theory can you then dismiss the massive planetary deforestation and burning of fossil fuels and essentially say, "Well, that doesn't matter."

So why do I disapprove of this conspiracy theory so vociferously?  Primarily because there is so much evidence global warming is happening right now and not just in predictive models for the future by IPCC-approved studies.  The claim that global warming paused is old and fallacious: according to NASA, global temperature rose 1 degree Celsius past pre-industrial times during the first six months of 2015.  By the end of the year, both NASA and NOAA said 2015 was the hottest year in recorded history.  As far as the "rise of the oceans" mocked by reactionary politicians, their rapid warming is breaking scientific charts with carbon rates similar to emissions that drove a mass extinction event 252 million years ago; we've already seen sea levels north of New York rise by 128 mm.  But what's happening now that really scares me is the news that global warming is slowing down the Gulf Stream over the North Atlantic Ocean.  More about that later.

There are other parts of this theory that don't sit well with me.  I've noticed that a lot of people who buy into the UN hoax theory simultaneously promote the idea that the elites control the weather (though I'm not sure if Corbett promotes this or not) either through HAARP, chemtrails or other weather modification technology.  To me, buying into both seems like a way to have your cake and eat it too.  It's a built-in escape clause in case global warming becomes literally impossible to deny: the elites did it!  Now I don't deny there is truth to the charge that weather modification technology does exist and has been used.  But there's a logical conundrum in the elite control scenario.  If the elites created global warming to cull the the world population, how exactly would they institute totalitarian control when the climate is wreaking global havoc?!  Michael Ruppert explained in 2009, "As human industrial civilization collapses everything will be governed by a force as powerful and unyielding as gravity. That is geography. Things do not break up. They break down. They get smaller. Problems in Essen or the Rhineland will be different from problems in East Prussia or Bavaria."

Since global collapse necessitates re-localization, the good news is that we won't have to worry being controlled by the United Nations, NATO or the Federal Reserve, they will either become ineffectual figureheads or will cease to exist entirely.  But the federal government may suffer the same fate as well.  What is the best way to create a new society?  Unless you change the way money works, you change nothing.  While some may fear technocracy as a UN tool of enslavement, I think it has excellent potential for success in a post-industrial, re-localized society, which is how I advocate implementation.  But I also think it's important to remember that in such a future, there will be no one-size-fits-all solution.  Local currencies should reflect the output of that particular region, though hopefully if this is an ad hoc arrangement in the wake of the Carbon Crisis, the economy will be rooted in sustainability as opposed to growth.  Hopefully, if we learn the right lessons, we can build a new society that values sustainability and vilifies greed.

Unless there's no humanity left to rebuild society...

Which brings us to the second theory, what I would call climate fatalism.  This has been most prominently promoted by Guy McPherson, who has at times said that global warming would cause humans to be extinct on this planet by 2030; lately he has upgraded that estimation to 2050.  In fairness, this theory isn't predicated on a cover-up, but McPherson has asserted that it is a by-product, singling out mainstream climate change activists like James Hansen and Bill McKibben for being "guilty of malpractice" for not stating that we face extinction.  He has also criticized Michael E. Mann (who, coincidentally, James Corbett has also criticized, but for diametrically different reasons) for his call to "keep burning coal" because even though he thinks we're screwed either way, we should stop doing what got us in this mess in the first place.

Dr. Guy McPherson  Photo credit:

The criticism of McPherson seems to come in two different forms.  One form is to criticize him because of the fear that such "doom and gloom" will diminish the activism trying to reduce carbon emissions because people will give up if they think it doesn't matter because it's too late.  I think this charge is unfair; McPherson always encourages his audience to use their knowledge as motivation to live your life focused on what's most important to you and not to give in to hopelessness - since Michael Ruppert's death he has maintained a suicide re-consideration link on his website homepage.  The other form is in critiquing his methodology.  He has been charged with cherry-picking scientific data that in full does not support his position.  Another charge is that he only lists positive feedback loops without also taking into consideration negative feedback loops that might reduce the severity and immediacy of global warming.

McPherson's response does not directly rebut those specific points.  He does say that his larger point stands that methane is an issue that is not for our grandchildren to deal with, but for us right now.  While I may disagree with him on the specifics and immediacy of human extinction, where methane is concerned I do agree with him.  McPherson in his research quotes from a study by Malcolm Light that the methane clathrate gun was fired in 2007 when the Gulf Stream "energy/year exceeded 10 million times the amount of energy/year necessary to dissociate subsea Arctic methane hydrates."  That the slowing down of the Gulf Stream has been noted as a scientific reality by the Washington Post in 2015 as I mentioned before is an ominous sign that this research may be correct.  Also related to this is a story by the BBC that permafrost warming in parts of Alaska 'is accelerating.'  Methane's greatest potential for planetary destruction as a greenhouse gas is that it is 33 times more powerful than carbon dioxide over a 100 year period following emission, and 105 times more powerful than carbon dioxide over a 20 year period following emission.

This really hit home for me on a personal level living in southern California this winter.  There was a methane leak in Porter Ranch first reported October 23, 2015 that at this date still has not been plugged.  This one failed well at Southern California Gas Co.'s Aliso Canyon storage field has put out, according to the Los Angeles Times, "the equivalent of 2.1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide - more greenhouse gas than 440,000 cars emit in a year."  The methane emissions have surpassed what is released by all industrial activity in the state.  While Governor Jerry Brown is currently working on a plan for So Cal Gas to "offset" the emissions, (click here to read how I really feel about what a bullshit concept offsets are) I find it astounding that they ordinarily wouldn't be required to pay for this leak "because California's climate change regulations exempt methane leaks — even enormous ones — as "fugitive emissions" that are not subject to the state's cap-and-trade program."  As reprehensible as that is, it's pretty much par for the course for authorities upholding the consensus view on global warming.  Guy McPherson has pointed out that most major climatological assessments "fail to account for significant self-reinforcing feedback loops" and the IPCC's praised Fifth Assessment "ignores important feedbacks."  The melting of permafrost and Arctic methane clathrates are two of the biggest feedback loops that could make global warming spiral out of control.

There's one more elephant in the Carbon Crisis living room that McPherson frequently brings up that most others fail to address.  That is the time lag between the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and its corresponding affect on average global temperature.  This time lag is approximately forty years.  In other words, even if we stopped all fossil fuel emissions today, the carbon dioxide emitted in 2015, which amounted to approximately 9.734 gigatons, (1 gigaton = 1 billion tons) won't have an affect on global temperature until 2055.  The global warming we're experiencing right now is from roughly 1975.  With so much future warming already baked into the system, drastic action must take place.  Yet reducing emissions alone won't stop climate change.  McPherson explains that carbon emissions contain reflective particles.  Dramatic emissions reduction of 35-80% would create an absence of solar dimming that would result in 1 °C of additional warming.  That would put the planet at 2 °C.  For those hoping for a techno-fix, the most recent conclusion of scientists is that we cannot geoengineer our way out of climate change.

This is the real crossroads of history at which we stand.  Do we confront the inevitability of the Carbon Crisis with compassion and dignity or wastefulness and recklessness?  Well, I suppose there are uglier ways to go.  It's ironic, but my idyllic childhood memories growing up in suburban LA were literally colored by greenhouse gas emissions.  The late Dennis Farina put it best in the movie Get Shorty: "They say the fucking smog is the fucking reason you have such beautiful fucking sunsets."  I thought they had disappeared for good with tighter emission standards reducing our smog to negligible levels.  But for the past couple months, they've returned.  My sister Anastasia has captured some of these spectacular sunrises and sunsets on camera.

Could this be from the methane leak in Porter Ranch?

Or the cesium from Fukushima?

Either way, what a beautiful way to go!