It took me several days to work out why I felt annoyance at some of the offsite commentary on the ebola piece. Idiots say dumb shit on the internet all the time. It's probably 90% of the non-porn internet at this point. And besides, nobody promised me a life unoffended. Hand to gods, it's genuinely never bothered me before.
Now I think I've got it. There is such a contrast between the heartfelt sharing of personal experiences in the comments on the post and the braying nonsense issuing from the peanut gallery. The post led to some significant sharing of important, corroborative personal challenges in a space we all operate in -health and wellness- and some basement-dwelling nobodies want to shit from a great height on that sharing. Turns out that's the source of my annoyance. And I'm not having it. So we'll open by rubbing some peanut gallery noses in their own inanity. As Ms Minaj would say, all these bitches are my sons.
"The world has “a very significant chance” to halt the Ebola epidemic in west Africa, Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates has said. But speaking to MPs and peers in the Palace of Westminster Gates warned it was vital to learn the lessons from the current outbreak to ensure the world is ready for other, more virulent diseases that can be expected to follow in Ebola’s wake...
Speaking in the Queen’s Robing Room, Gates said: “We have a very significant chance to halt this epidemic. We have a chance to go back into these countries and build effective primary healthcare systems so that future outbreaks will be detected sooner and stopped at a very early stage. It is very likely in the next 20 years something will come along that is even more transmissive than Ebola.
Mister 'vaccinate the world' himself calling for exactly what I said would be called for: Something Must Be Done. As an aside, it is slightly unusual for the Grauniad to be so "yes, yes, Your Majesty" about the dramatic legacy names of our state buildings. I suspect some signalling behaviour going on here.
And then last night, news of another 'ebola' death in the US.
[A]fter "Salia arrived in Omaha, his ambulance to the hospital was accompanied by a single Nebraska State Patrol cruiser and a fire department vehicle - a subdued arrival in contrast to the August delivery of Dr. Rick Sacra, whose ambulance was flanked by numerous police cars, motorcycles and fire vehicles." As expected, because as previously reported, Klain's main priority since ascending to the Ebola throne, has been to hush as much as possible any Ebola-related developments on US soil. What is once again most disturing, is that Salia, a Sierra Leone citizen who lives in Maryland, first showed Ebola symptoms on Nov. 6 but tested negative for the virus. Just like the first Ebola casuality on US soil, he eventually tested positive on Monday only after his symptoms had escalated materially, leading many to wonder just what is the incidence of false negatives when testing for Ebola.
Oh, I'm sorry. Did that just say there is no accurate test for ebola? Is that what that just said? How do we know he didn't die of unicorns, then? As for the 'subdued' coverage, there ZH has this slightly wrong. How about this. In the lead-up to the election the front page was ebola and ISIS, the election swings right in protest against an ineffectual president (true). Now they're both back to page 6 if they're lucky. IMAGINE FUCKING THAT, peanut gallery.
Not only are ISIS and ebola off the front page, they were off the agenda at G20 as well. Which seems like the best possible place to get global consensus to act against these existential threats. Unless they, you know, aren't existential threats. We had ten weeks of around the clock fear porn on the TV and this is what they did speak about: that building out of the transnational legal structure and its impact on the health systems of non-US countries of US pharma companies. You don't fucking say.
David Cameron said that US and EU partners had met and were ready to put ‘rocket boosters’ behind the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. TTIP would allow for a reduction of regulatory barriers for big businesses, and has been widely criticised as undemocratic. Cameron denied that the deal was risky, saying it would create jobs and boost growth. A particular concern of opponents is the future of the NHS under the deal; the worry is that opening Europe’s public health service to American companies could lead to privatisation. Union leader Len McCluskey has demanded that the NHS be exempt from the deal and accused Cameron of ‘riding roughshod’ over opposition and ‘trying to brush the threat of TTIP under the carpet’.
Let's put all that together again. In the week since I posted on ebola we had
- The great and the good calling for Something Must Be Done (possibly accompanied by the whiff of signalling behaviour).
- Someone died of something that wasn't ebola and then it was because there is genuinely no test for it.
- An acceleration of the legal structure required for global corporations to stalk the earth like continent striding egregores and its impact on global health care.
I'm calling it, peanut gallery. I win. Ask your doctor if humble pie is right for you. On with the rest of the dispatches.
Nearly three decades since the stories of Nicaraguan Contra-cocaine trafficking first appeared in 1985, the New York Times has finally, forthrightly admitted the allegations were true, although this belated acknowledgement comes in a movie review buried deep inside Sunday’s paper.
The review addresses a new film, “Kill the Messenger,” that revives the Contra-cocaine charges in the context of telling the tragic tale of journalist Gary Webb who himself revived the allegations in 1996 only to have the New York Times and other major newspapers wage a vendetta against him that destroyed his career and ultimately drove him to suicide.[..]
The Times’ resistance to accepting the reality of this major national security scandal under President Ronald Reagan even predated its tag-team destruction of Webb in the mid-1990s, when he was alternately pummeled by the Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. The same Big Three newspapers also either missed or dismissed the Contra-cocaine scandal when Brian Barger and I first disclosed it in 1985 for the Associated Press — and even when an investigation led by Sen. John Kerry provided more proof in 1989.
Indeed, the New York Times took a leading role in putting down the story in the mid-1980s just as it did in the mid-1990s. That only began to change in 1998 when CIA Inspector General Frederick Hitz conducted the spy agency’s first comprehensive internal inquiry into the allegations and found substantial evidence to support suspicions of Contra-cocaine smuggling and the CIA’s complicity in the scandal.
Though the Times gave short-shrift to the CIA’s institutional confession in 1998, it did at least make a cursory acknowledgement of the historic admissions. The Times’ co-collaborators in the mugging of Gary Webb did even less. After waiting several weeks, the Washington Post produced an inside-the-paper story that missed the point. The Los Angeles Times, which had assigned 17 journalists to the task of destroying Webb’s reputation, ignored the CIA’s final report altogether.
So, it is perhaps nice that the Times stated quite frankly that the long-denied scandal “really happened” – even though this admission is tucked into a movie review placed on page AR-14 of the New York edition. And the Times’ reviewer still can’t quite face up to the fact that his newspaper was part of a gang assault on an honest journalist who actually got the story right.
Watch the following preview. This, combined with Kill the Messenger, combined with The Culture High and you will get how the system works.
The job right from the start seems to have been different from what she had imagined: In meetings, Fed employees would defer to the Goldman people; if one of the Goldman people said something revealing or even alarming, the other Fed employees in the meeting would either ignore or downplay it. For instance, in one meeting a Goldman employee expressed the view that "once clients are wealthy enough certain consumer laws don't apply to them." After that meeting, Segarra turned to a fellow Fed regulator and said how surprised she was by that statement -- to which the regulator replied, "You didn't hear that."
This sort of thing occurred often enough -- Fed regulators denying what had been said in meetings, Fed managers asking her to alter minutes of meetings after the fact -- that Segarra decided she needed to record what actually had been said. So she went to the Spy Store and bought a tiny tape recorder, then began to record her meetings at Goldman Sachs, until she was fired.[..]
I don't want to spoil the revelations of "This American Life": It's far better to hear the actual sounds on the radio, as so much of the meaning of the piece is in the tones of the voices -- and, especially, in the breathtaking wussiness of the people at the Fed charged with regulating Goldman Sachs. But once you have listened to it -- as when you were faced with the newly unignorable truth of what actually happened to that NFL running back's fiancee in that elevator -- consider the following:
1. You sort of knew that the regulators were more or less controlled by the banks. Now you know.
2. The only reason you know is that one woman, Carmen Segarra, has been brave enough to fight the system. She has paid a great price to inform us all of the obvious. She has lost her job, undermined her career, and will no doubt also endure a lifetime of lawsuits and slander.
So what are you going to do about it? At this moment the Fed is probably telling itself that, like the financial crisis, this, too, will blow over. It shouldn't.
Russia added more than 55 tonnes of gold to its reserves in the last three months. It now has the fifth-largest gold reserves in the world. That is assuming western countries aren't openly lying about their gold reserves... which we know they are from the debacle that was Germany's attempt to get its gold back from the Fed. Countries hoard gold to pivot their monetary system... or go to war. Since 2009, central banks around the world have been increasing their physical gold reserves. And yet you look in the financial press and all you hear is how bad gold is doing. (Which drives the price down.) I'm not in any way a gold bug but that doesn't mean something isn't going on here.
That thing about the transnational legal framework. You remember General Petraeus, right?
Former general and CIA chief David Petraeus, a key figure in the globalist Council on Foreign Relations and the shadowy Bilderberg network, boasted at a recent conference that the United States of America is set to be merged into the continental regime being erected under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Speaking at the Margaret Thatcher Conference on Liberty last week in London, the ex-commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq essentially celebrated the end of U.S. independence — and by extension, the demise of the Constitution.
“After America comes North America,” Petraeus said confidently in answering the question about what comes after the United States, the theme of the panel discussion. “Are we on the threshold of the North American decade, question mark? I threw that away — threw away the question mark — and boldly proclaimed the coming North American decade, says the title now.” He also boasted about how the three economies have been put “together” over the last 20 years as part of the “implementation” of the North American Free Trade Act.
Documents released by the U.S. government show it views an executive order issued in 1981 as the basis of most of the National Security Agency's surveillance activities[...]
The order, signed in 1981 by President Ronald Reagan, was intended to give the government broad authority over surveillance of international targets. One of the documents obtained was a 2007 NSA manual citing the executive order as "the primary source of NSA's foreign intelligence-gathering authority." A legal fact sheet on the memo produced in June 2013, two weeks after Snowden's disclosures, said the NSA relied on the executive order for the "majority" of its activities involving intelligence gathered through signals interception.
Remember when I said the period between Bush Snr running the CIA, to becoming Veep, to becoming president was the major hijack that allowed the build out of the private Black Project world. This is right in the middle of it and has subsequently turned out to be the cornerstone piece of the whole thing.
As for the part of PRISM that is used for private companies? Well, Catherine Austin Fitts points out that it is "the ultimate insider trading mechanism".
Throughout the last year, the U.S. government has repeatedly insisted that it does not engage in economic and industrial espionage, in an effort to distinguish its own spying from China’s infiltrations of Google, Nortel, and other corporate targets. So critical is this denial to the U.S. government that last August, an NSA spokesperson emailed The Washington Post to say (emphasis in original): “The department does ***not*** engage in economic espionage in any domain, including cyber.”
After that categorical statement to the Post, the NSA was caught spying on plainly financial targets such as the Brazilian oil giant Petrobras; economic summits; international credit card and banking systems; the EU antitrust commissioner investigating Google, Microsoft, and Intel; and the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. In response, the U.S. modified its denial to acknowledge that it does engage in economic spying, but unlike China, the spying is never done to benefit American corporations.
That Time the Creator of an Experimental Ebola Drug "Joked" About Culling 25% Of The World's Population
Seen this one, peanut gallery? He also grows vaccines inside tobacco plants for DARPA. (Poor people smoke more than rich people, especially in Asia. What a clever delivery system.)
The best and most comprehensive account of the dangers of police militarization is the 2013 book by the libertarian Washington Post journalist Radley Balko, entitled “Rise of the Warrior Cops: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces.” Balko, who has devoted his career to documenting and battling the worst abuses of the U.S. criminal justice system, traces the history and underlying mentality that has given rise to all of this: the “law-and-order” obsessions that grew out of the social instability of the 1960s, the War on Drugs that has made law enforcement agencies view Americans as an enemy population, the Reagan-era “War on Poverty” (which was more aptly described as a war on America’s poor), the aggressive Clinton-era expansions of domestic policing, all topped off by the massively funded, rights-destroying, post-9/11 security state of the Bush and Obama years. All of this, he documents, has infused America’s police forces with “a creeping battlefield mentality.”
I read Balko’s book prior to publication in order to blurb it, and after I was done, immediately wrote what struck me most about it: “There is no vital trend in American society more overlooked than the militarization of our domestic police forces.” The Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim, in the outlet’s official statement about Reilly’s arrest, made the same point: “Police militarization has been among the most consequential and unnoticed developments of our time.”
In June, the ACLU published a crucial 96-page report on this problem, entitled “War Comes Home: The Excessive Militarization of American Policing.” Its central point: “the United States today has become excessively militarized, mainly through federal programs that create incentives for state and local police to use unnecessarily aggressive weapons and tactics designed for the battlefield.”
The report documents how the Drug War and (Clinton/Biden) 1990s crime bills laid the groundwork for police militarization, but the virtually unlimited flow of “homeland security” money after 9/11 all but forced police departments to purchase battlefield equipment and other military paraphernalia whether they wanted them or not.
That last piece is key. It's forcing planned obsolescence. Lockheed sells gear to the military one year. If it isn't destroyed in theatre (or air-dropped to the enemy so we are forced to pay for more and better tech) then it stays on the books. An army can actually have too many tanks. That's not a good situation if you are in the business of selling tanks or drones to said army.
What do you do? You force a resale... you backdoor the old inventory out of the army and into the police after a couple of years so that the army can trade up. Think of it like the auto ecosystem.
And who is it that gets these battlefield weapons pointed at them the most? Guess.
I like how the 'unknown' segment is, in fact, black. Because I think we all know it actually is. "Lies, damned lies and statistics", eh?
Manufacturing Official Reality
A prominent national security reporter for the Los Angeles Times routinely submitted drafts and detailed summaries of his stories to CIA press handlers prior to publication, according to documents obtained by The Intercept.
Email exchanges between CIA public affairs officers and Ken Dilanian, now an Associated Press intelligence reporter who previously covered the CIA for the Times, show that Dilanian enjoyed a closely collaborative relationship with the agency, explicitly promising positive news coverage and sometimes sending the press office entire story drafts for review prior to publication. In at least one instance, the CIA’s reaction appears to have led to significant changes in the story that was eventually published in the Times.
“Non-official cover” occurs when a journalist is essentially working for the CIA, but it’s not in an official capacity. This allows both parties to reap the rewards of the partnership, while at the same time giving both sides plausible deniability. The CIA will find young journalists and mentor them. Suddenly doors will open up, rewards will be given, and before you know it, you owe your entire career to them. That’s essentially how it works.
At its peak, it drew in more than 40,000 Cubans. However, its subscribers were completely unaware they were using a U.S. government program and giving American contractors their private data to potentially use for political purposes. Perhaps most shockingly, the Cuban Twitter program was not paid for and run by a spy agency such as the CIA. Instead, it was the brainchild of USAID, the U.S. Agency for International Development, best known for overseeing billions of dollars in U.S. humanitarian aid.
According to AP, documents show the U.S. government planned to build a subscriber base through "noncontroversial content"—news messages on soccer, on music, on hurricane updates. Later, when the network reached a critical mass of subscribers, operators would introduce political content aimed at inspiring Cubans to organize "smart mobs," mass gatherings called at a moment’s notice that might trigger a Cuban Spring or, as one USAID document put it, "renegotiate the balance of power between the state and society." By 2011, USAID was paying tens of thousands of dollars in text messaging fees to Cuba’s telecommunications monopoly routed through a secret bank account and front companies. Then, toward the middle of 2012, the program vanished as mysteriously as it appeared.
Followup phone calls with a small, random sample of pro-secession respondents to the Reuters poll, however, suggest that while their wish to leave the union may not be quite what it appears, it is not amusing at all.
Those we spoke to seemed to have answered as they did as a form of protest that was neither red nor blue but a polychromatic riot — against a recovery that has yet to produce jobs, against jobs that don’t pay, against mistreatment of veterans, against war, against deficits, against hyper-partisanship, against political corruption, against illegal immigration, against the assault on marriage, against the assault on same-sex marriage, against government in the bedroom, against government in general — the president, Congress, the courts and both political parties.
By the evidence of the poll data as well as these anecdotal conversations, the sense of aggrievement is comprehensive, bipartisan, somewhat incoherent, but deeply felt.
This should be more than disconcerting; it’s a situation that could get dangerous. As the Princeton political scientist Mark Beissinger has shown, separatist movements can take hold around contempt for incumbents and the status quo even when protesters have no ideology in common.
[N]ow Lopez is seeking answers to a lingering question: Could still-classified records reveal, as he and some of his fellow investigators have long alleged, that the CIA interfered with the congressional investigation and placed the committee staff under surveillance?
While Lopez’s latest effort to uncover new information may seem quixotic, given the seemingly endless spate of JFK conspiracy theories, it has taken on new meaning in the wake of revelations that the CIA earlier this year spied on the Senate Intelligence Committee in an unrelated case.
CIA employees hacked into the computers of Senate staffers reviewing the agency’s counterterrorism tactics. When the allegations were corroborated, the CIA apologized and vowed to take disciplinary actions.[..]
“I think there is a pattern,” said John Prados, a senior fellow at the National Security Archive at George Washington University and author of “The Family Jewels: The CIA, Secrecy, and Presidential Power.”
He cited two congressional investigations in the mid-1970s of the agency’s assassination plots against foreign leaders and the arms-for-hostages operation known as the Iran-Contra Affair in the 1980s. In those cases, Prados and other historians allege, the CIA withheld information, spread false stories, or did not make available all witnesses.
Lopez, Blakey, and Hardway contend they were rebuffed during their investigation when they asked about a CIA-backed group of Cuban exiles who had been seeking to overthrow Castro that had widely publicized ties to alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. They were informed that such a case officer did not exist for the so-called Revolutionary Student Directorate -- also known by its Spanish-language acronym DRE . Their suspicions grew when they learned from a lawsuit in the late 1990s that one of the agency’s chief liaisons to the assassination panel, the late George Joannides, was operating “under cover” and it was Joannides, a career intelligence operative, who helped manage the Cuban group before the assassination.
You have to read this entire, astonishing piece.
In an interview for Rossiyskaya Gazeta the secretary of the Russian Security Council explained how Russian analysts were predicting the development of the situation in Ukraine a year ago. And he also gave an assessment of the role of the United States and NATO in the events in eastern Ukraine, explained why these events are a continuation of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s plan for the disintegration of the USSR and Russia, and assessed prospects for the development of the multipolar world and the possibility of a future struggle for hydrocarbon resources.
[Yegorov] Nikolay Platonovich, the realities of recent months are a coup d’etat in Ukraine, military operations by the Ukrainian authorities against the inhabitants of Donetsk and Luhansk regions, and a frenzied anti-Russian course by Kiev. Would it have been possible to predict this turn of events only a year ago?
[Patrushev] Our specialists were warning of the high probability of an escalation of the situation in Ukraine in the context of political and economic instability, particularly under external influence. At the same time it should be acknowledged that the probability of an imminent instant seizure of power in Kiev with the support of militant groups of open Nazis was not considered at that time. Let me remind you that prior to the coup you mentioned, Moscow was implementing in full all its partnership commitments to Kiev.
We were constantly providing material and financial aid, without which Ukraine was in no condition to cope with economic difficulties that had become chronic in nature. To support our neighbours, material and financial resources amounting to tens of billions of dollars were mobilized. Unfortunately for many people in Ukraine this aid became, in time, so customary that its importance for the country’s survival was simply forgotten.
As for longer-term predictions, the Ukraine crisis was an entirely expected outcome of systematic activity by the United States and its closest allies.
For the past quarter of a century this activity has been directed towards completely separating Ukraine and the other republics of the former USSR from Russia and totally reformatting the post-Soviet space to suit American interests. The conditions and pretexts were created for colour revolutions, supported by generous state funding.
Thus, Victoria Nuland, US assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, has repeatedly stated that during the period 1991 through 2013 Washington spent 5bn dollars on “supporting the desire of the people of Ukraine for stronger, more democratic government”. According to figures from open sources alone, for instance US Congress documents, the total amount of state funding for various American programmes of “aid” to Ukraine in the period 2001 through 2012 came to at least 2.4bn dollars. That is comparable with the annual budget of some small countries. The US Agency for International Development spent about 1.5bn dollars, the State Department nearly half a billion, and the Pentagon more than 370m dollars.
According to congressional records, organizations such as the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Peace Corps, and the Open World Centre took part in Ukrainian aid programmes, in addition to the well-known USAID and other departments. It is not hard to guess for whom and why American volunteers and staffers of diplomatic missions have been “opening the world” throughout the 23 years since the breakup of the Soviet Union.
[Yegorov] Maybe this money went to a good cause and helped to build a real “democratic” society in Ukraine, as the Americans understand it?
[Patrushev] I do not know what kind of a good cause that could be, if as a result of this activity in Ukraine an entire generation was raised that is completely poisoned with hatred of Russia and with the mythology of “European values”. It has not yet realized that these values, even in the positive sense of the term, are not actually designed for Ukrainians. Nobody intends to set about boosting living standards in Ukraine or establishing these young people in Europe, which is itself having great difficulty coping with extremely serious challenges and threats.
I think the “sobering up” of the Ukrainians will be harsh and painful. It remains to be hoped that this will happen relatively quickly, and a whole string of objective factors could promote that. I would like to note another factor that is of fundamental significance. Irrespective of the subsequent development of events, the significance of the one for the other – Russia and Ukraine – will persist. Ukraine will simply not be able to develop successfully without Russia, whether anyone likes it or not.
Such is the objective interdependence of economic, logistical, and other links that has developed over the centuries. But whereas for Russia the total severance of these links would be a painful blow, for Ukraine it would be disastrous. It is no accident that current President Petro Poroshenko was obliged, in the wake of his ousted predecessor, to raise the question of postponing the implementation of economic section of the already signed association agreement between Ukraine and the EU. It is to be expected that the victory euphoria of other Kiev rulers will also give way to a more sober assessment of the real state of affairs.
[Yegorov] Some experts think the Ukraine crisis was only a pretext for a new deterioration in the West’s relations with Russia. Is that so?
[Patrushev] It is true that if the catastrophe in Ukraine had not happened some other grounds would have been found to step up the policy of “containment” of our country. This course has been pursued unswervingly for many decades; only the forms and tactics of its implementation change.
As you know, after World War II the confrontation between the USSR and the West headed by the United States took the form of a “cold war”. The military-political component of this standoff was entrusted to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), formed on the initiative of the United States on 4 April 1949. An analysis of NATO’s practical activity indicates that in creating the alliance the United States was pursuing two main objectives.
First, a military bloc directed against the USSR was formed under American leadership.
Second, Washington forestalled the emergence in Western Europe of an autonomous grouping of states that could have competed with the United States. It should be recalled that the territory of the United States itself, which essentially established unilateral military control over the allies, is not included in NATO’s zone of responsibility.
Dutch Intellectuals Apologize to Putin for Lies on MH17, Syria, Ukraine...
A letter sent by a prominent Dutch Professor to Russian president Vladimir Putin has attracted much media attention in Europe. The letter was written by Professor Cees Hamelink and signed by dozens of Dutch intellectuals and professors. Below is the letter in its entirety.
Dear Mr. President Putin,
Please accept our apologies on behalf of a great many people here in the Netherlands for our Government and our Media. The facts concerning MH17 are twisted to defame you and your country.
We are powerless onlookers, as we witness how the Western Nations, led by the United States, accuse Russia of crimes they commit themselves more than anybody else. We reject the double standards that are used for Russia and the West. In our societies, sufficient evidence is required for a conviction. The way you and your Nation are convicted for 'crimes' without evidence, is ruthless and despicable.
Latin Americans will recognise the audacity and danger of this "breaking free" in a country whose establishment was welded to great, external power. Australians had served every British imperial adventure since the Boxer rebellion was crushed in China. In the 1960s, Australia pleaded to join the US in its invasion of Vietnam, then provided "black teams" to be run by the CIA. US diplomatic cables published last year by WikiLeaks disclose the names of leading figures in both main parties, including a future prime minister and foreign minister, as Washington's informants during the Whitlam years.
Whitlam knew the risk he was taking. The day after his election, he ordered that his staff should not be "vetted or harassed" by the Australian security organisation, ASIO - then, as now, tied to Anglo-American intelligence. When his ministers publicly condemned the US bombing of Vietnam as "corrupt and barbaric", a CIA station officer in Saigon said: "We were told the Australians might as well be regarded as North Vietnamese collaborators."
Whitlam demanded to know if and why the CIA was running a spy base at Pine Gap near Alice Springs, a giant vacuum cleaner which, as Edward Snowden revealed recently, allows the US to spy on everyone. "Try to screw us or bounce us," the prime minister warned the US ambassador, "[and Pine Gap] will become a matter of contention".
Victor Marchetti, the CIA officer who had helped set up Pine Gap, later told me, "This threat to close Pine Gap caused apoplexy in the White House... a kind of Chile [coup] was set in motion."
Pine Gap's top-secret messages were de-coded by a CIA contractor, TRW. One of the de-coders was Christopher Boyce, a young man troubled by the "deception and betrayal of an ally". Boyce revealed that the CIA had infiltrated the Australian political and trade union elite and referred to the Governor-General of Australia, Sir John Kerr, as "our man Kerr".
Kerr was not only the Queen's man, he had long-standing ties to Anglo-American intelligence. He was an enthusiastic member of the Australian Association for Cultural Freedom, described by Jonathan Kwitny of the Wall Street Journal in his book, 'The Crimes of Patriots', as, "an elite, invitation-only group... exposed in Congress as being founded, funded and generally run by the CIA". The CIA "paid for Kerr's travel, built his prestige... Kerr continued to go to the CIA for money".
When Whitlam was re-elected for a second term, in 1974, the White House sent Marshall Green to Canberra as ambassador. Green was an imperious, sinister figure who worked in the shadows of America's "deep state". Known as the "coupmaster", he had played a central role in the 1965 coup against President Sukarno in Indonesia - which cost up to a million lives. One of his first speeches in Australia was to the Australian Institute of Directors - described by an alarmed member of the audience as "an incitement to the country's business leaders to rise against the government".
The Americans and British worked together. In 1975, Whitlam discovered that Britain's MI6 was operating against his government. "The Brits were actually decoding secret messages coming into my foreign affairs office," he said later. One of his ministers, Clyde Cameron, told me, "We knew MI6 was bugging Cabinet meetings for the Americans." In the 1980s, senior CIA officers revealed that the "Whitlam problem" had been discussed "with urgency" by the CIA's director, William Colby, and the head of MI6, Sir Maurice Oldfield. A deputy director of the CIA said: "Kerr did what he was told to do."
On 10 November, 1975, Whitlam was shown a top secret telex message sourced to Theodore Shackley, the notorious head of the CIA's East Asia Division, who had helped run the coup against Salvador Allende in Chile two years earlier.
Shackley's message was read to Whitlam. It said that the prime minister of Australia was a security risk in his own country. The day before, Kerr had visited the headquarters of the Defence Signals Directorate, Australia's NSA where he was briefed on the "security crisis".
On 11 November - the day Whitlam was to inform Parliament about the secret CIA presence in Australia - he was summoned by Kerr. Invoking archaic vice-regal "reserve powers", Kerr sacked the democratically elected prime minister. The "Whitlam problem" was solved, and Australian politics never recovered, nor the nation its true independence.
RIP Gough. Feel free to pull a King Arthur on us. Any day now is fine.
Yes, obviously. That's their job. But it's quite impressive to see it collated like this.
You'll recall Sharyl Attkisson from my evidently-contentious ebola post. Consider buying her book.
When the longtime CBS reporter asked for details about reinforcements sent to the Benghazi compound during the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack, White House national security spokesman Tommy Vietor replied, “I give up, Sharyl . . . I’ll work with more reasonable folks that follow up, I guess."
Another White House flack, Eric Schultz, didn’t like being pressed for answers about the Fast and Furious scandal in which American agents directed guns into the arms of Mexican drug lords. “Goddammit, Sharyl!” he screamed at her. “The Washington Post is reasonable, the LA Times is reasonable, The New York Times is reasonable. You’re the only one who’s not reasonable!”
When the White House didn’t like her reporting, it would make clear where the real power lay. A flack would send a blistering e-mail to her boss, David Rhodes, CBS News’ president — and Rhodes’s brother Ben, a top national security advisor to President Obama.
The administration, with the full cooperation of the media, has successfully turned “Benghazi” into a word associated with nutters, like “Roswell” or “grassy knoll,” but Attkisson notes that “the truth is that most of the damaging information came from Obama administration insiders. From government documents. From sources who were outraged by their own government’s behavior and what they viewed as a coverup.”[...]
Attkisson, who received an Emmy and the Edward R. Murrow award for her trailblazing work on the [Fast and Furious] story, says she made top CBS brass “incensed” when she appeared on Laura Ingraham’s radio show and mentioned that Obama administration officials called her up to literally scream at her while she was working the story.
One of her bosses had a rule that conservative analysts must always be labeled conservatives, but liberal analysts were simply “analysts.” “And if a conservative analyst’s opinion really rubbed the supervisor the wrong way,” says Attkisson, “she might rewrite the script to label him a ‘right-wing’ analyst.”
In mid-October 2012, with the presidential election coming up, Attkisson says CBS suddenly lost interest in airing her reporting on the Benghazi attacks. “The light switch turns off,” she writes. “Most of my Benghazi stories from that point on would be reported not on television, but on the Web.”
This one is weird. Really weird. I hope the guy gets help.
Like many other news websites, Common Dreams has been plagued by inflammatory anti-Semitic comments following its stories. But on Common Dreams these posts have been so frequent and intense they have driven away donors from a nonprofit dependent on reader generosity.
A Common Dreams investigation has discovered that more than a thousand of these damaging comments over the past two years were written with a deceptive purpose by a Jewish Harvard graduate in his thirties who was irritated by the website's discussion of issues involving Israel.
His intricate campaign, which he has admitted to Common Dreams, included posting comments by a screen name, "JewishProgressive," whose purpose was to draw attention to and denounce the anti-Semitic comments that he had written under many other screen names.
The deception was many-layered. At one point he had one of his characters charge that the anti-Semitic comments and the criticism of the anti-Semitic comments must be written by "internet trolls who have been known to impersonate anti-Semites in order to then double-back and accuse others of supporting anti-Semitism"--exactly what he was doing. (Trolls are posters who foment discord.)
The impersonation, this character wrote, must be part of an "elaborate Hasbara setup," referring to an Israeli international public-relations campaign. When Common Dreams finally confronted the man behind the deceptive posting, he denied that he himself was involved with Hasbara.
In transmitting President Richard Nixon's orders for a "massive" bombing of Cambodia in 1969, Henry Kissinger said, "Anything that flies on everything that moves". As Barack Obama ignites his seventh war against the Muslim world since he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the orchestrated hysteria and lies make one almost nostalgic for Kissinger's murderous honesty.
As a witness to the human consequences of aerial savagery - including the beheading of victims, their parts festooning trees and fields - I am not surprised by the disregard of memory and history, yet again. A telling example is the rise to power of Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge, who had much in common with today's Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). They, too, were ruthless medievalists who began as a small sect. They, too, were the product of an American-made apocalypse, this time in Asia.
According to Pol Pot, his movement had consisted of "fewer than 5,000 poorly armed guerrillas uncertain about their strategy, tactics, loyalty and leaders". Once Nixon's and Kissinger's B52 bombers had gone to work as part of "Operation Menu", the west's ultimate demon could not believe his luck.
The Americans dropped the equivalent of five Hiroshimas on rural Cambodia during 1969-73. They levelled village after village, returning to bomb the rubble and corpses. The craters left monstrous necklaces of carnage, still visible from the air. The terror was unimaginable. A former Khmer Rouge official described how the survivors "froze up and they would wander around mute for three or four days. Terrified and half-crazy, the people were ready to believe what they were told... That was what made it so easy for the Khmer Rouge to win the people over."
A Finnish Government Commission of Enquiry estimated that 600,000 Cambodians died in the ensuing civil war and described the bombing as the "first stage in a decade of genocide". What Nixon and Kissinger began, Pol Pot, their beneficiary, completed. Under their bombs, the Khmer Rouge grew to a formidable army of 200,000.
ISIS has a similar past and present. By most scholarly measure, Bush and Blair's invasion of Iraq in 2003 led to the deaths of some 700,000 people - in a country that had no history of jihadism. The Kurds had done territorial and political deals; Sunni and Shia had class and sectarian differences, but they were at peace; intermarriage was common. Three years before the invasion, I drove the length of Iraq without fear. On the way I met people proud, above all, to be Iraqis, the heirs of a civilization that seemed, for them, a presence.
Bush and Blair blew all this to bits. Iraq is now a nest of jihadism. Al-Qaeda - like Pol Pot's "jihadists" - seized the opportunity provided by the onslaught of Shock and Awe and the civil war that followed. "Rebel" Syria offered even greater rewards, with CIA and Gulf state ratlines of weapons, logistics and money running through Turkey. The arrival of foreign recruits was inevitable. A former British ambassador, Oliver Miles, wrote recently, "The [Cameron] government seems to be following the example of Tony Blair, who ignored consistent advice from the Foreign Office, MI5 and MI6 that our Middle East policy - and in particular our Middle East wars - had been a principal driver in the recruitment of Muslims in Britain for terrorism here."
Bibi calls the UN Human Rights council the "terrorist rights council". One of his best performances so far. Who would have thought he could top his cartoon bomb?
What if the entire UN General Assembly got into a time machine and had to live through – all over again – the “Yellow Cake Uranium” speechby the American’s that justified the Iraq invasion? What would their faces look like?
Watch the faces in the audience as they take in Obama’s speech to the General Assembly last week.
It is quite remarkable to see this many professional diplomats unable or unwilling to hide their revulsion, horror, hatred or nauseousness. Indeed, the struggle on the faces of the most controlled – such as the UK delegation – underscores the extent to which the spin doctors are out of bullets.
It was not just the audience. President Obama was clearly struggling to maintain a straight face.
The official story has never been thinner. Take a moment to contemplate what this means and where this might lead. Who controls what “death star” that could persuade this many educated, intelligent humans to engage in behavior this unnatural for all the world to see?
Step forward a fabulously wealthy Gulf state that owns an array of London landmarks and claims to be one of our best friends in the Middle East. Qatar, the owner of Harrods, has dispatched cargo planes laden with weapons to the victorious Islamist coalition, styling itself "Libya Dawn".
Western officials have tracked the Qatari arms flights as they land in the city of Misrata, about 100 miles east of Tripoli, where the Islamist militias have their stronghold. Even after the fall of the capital and the removal of Libya's government, Qatar is "still flying in weapons straight to Misrata airport", said a senior Western official.
So it is that Qatar buys London property while working against British interests in Libya and arming friends of the jihadists who tried to kill one of our ambassadors. A state that partly owns 1 Hyde Park, London's most expensive apartment block, and the Shard, the city's tallest building, is working with people who would gladly destroy Western society.
The remarkable truth is that few in the Middle East would be shocked. From Hamas in the Gaza Strip to radical armed movements in Syria, Qatar's status as a prime sponsor of violent Islamists, including groups linked to al-Qaeda, is clear to diplomats and experts.
Last month, Gerd Müller, the German international development minister, implicated Qatar in the rise of Isil. "You have to ask who is arming, who is financing Isil troops. The keyword there is Qatar," he said.
Yet a state endowed with large reserves of gas and oil and one of the world's biggest sovereign wealth funds can wield immense influence, even over Berlin. Qatar was duly able to secure a formal withdrawal of this charge from the German government.
[I]n order to launch the incursion into Syrian sovereign territory "took months of behind-the-scenes work by the U.S. and Arab leaders, who agreed on the need to cooperate against Islamic State, but not how or when. The process gave the Saudis leverage to extract a fresh U.S. commitment to beef up training for rebels fighting Mr. Assad, whose demise the Saudis still see as a top priority."
Said otherwise, the pound of flesh demanded by Saudi Arabia to "bless" US airstrikes and make them appear as an act of some coalition, is the removal of the Assad regime. Why? So that, as we also explained last year, the holdings of the great Qatar natural gas fields can finally make their way onward to Europe, which incidentally is also America's desire - what better way to punish Putin for his recent actions than by crushing the main leverage the Kremlin has over Europe?
Q: Why will there never be a coup d’état in Washington?
A: Because there’s no American embassy there.
Westerbeke: The problem is that there are very many different satellite images: Some of them can be found on the Internet, others come from foreign intelligence agencies.
Spiegel: High-resolution images, for example from US spy satellites could play a crucial role in the investigation of the case. Did you get those shots of the Americans?
Westerbeke: We are not sure if we already have everything, or whether there are more - material that may be even more specific. What we present is certainly not enough to draw any conclusions. We remain in contact with the United States to get satellite images.
The scenario of this bio-terrorism drill was designed to simulate a smallpox attack in three states. Numerous congressmen, former CIA director James Woolsey, New York Times reporter Judith Miller (who pushed the Iraq WMD myth, as well as the false link between Iraq and the Anthrax attacks), and anti-terror official Jerome Hauer all participated in the exercise.
As a part of this war game, scripted TV news clips were made to help make this drill as realistic as possible.
At the end of one of these clips, the reporter says: "Iraq might have provided the technology behind the attacks to terrorist groups based in Afghanistan."
Here's that fake news piece. She sure says the word vaccine a lot.
Conclusion: Newswire Edition
Why the newswire edition when there are a couple of oddly-anticipated topic areas remaining in the series?
A couple of reasons. I guess I wanted to frontrun any more peanut gallery claptrap where people confuse verifiable data with 'things they don't like', particularly as the next post in this series is going to be intense. Secondly, the series is building toward an interlocking conclusion and so the various categories need to be updated as the Endgame plays itself out around us.
The final reason emerged during my recent trip to New Zealand. Speaking to in-laws who are relatively senior in government departments I always like to tease them about how the stuff I say is happening the previous time we catch up -which is dismissed as preposterous- is accepted as fact by the next visit, beginning with how the Boomers destroyed the earth and western civilisation. (I will be dining out on Snowden for years. Which is only fair because I would also eat off him.)
New Zealand, year-on-year, ties with one Nordic country or another for being the least corrupt place on earth. It suffers from a fairly childish cognitive error that most of the world behaves or thinks the way they do. (Nevermind the fact they're still a Five Eyes country and active participant in the Trans-Pacific Partnership.) This compounds in my head with people who have never had much private sector experience. The real world does not run on precise salary bands and disability working groups. It might say it does so but that is a
conspiracy lie. The closest it gets to such things is summoning the Brethren Court. It runs on twenty year exits, lies, espionage, theft, leverage. You genuinely could swap the word 'business' with 'conspiracy' and it would not cause a single second of confusion.
So as we were going over some of the various Anglo-American atrocities and I'm pointing out my Malaysian Airlines data, one of these in-laws said "yeah maybe. But I guess it's still better to be aligned with America than Russia." I get annoyed at this absurd conflation of an entire country with a few hundred psychopaths that currently call it home. Only government workers think like that. I say as much and then use Gary Webb as my example. You all know I don't have a problem with states having espionage capabilities but I very much do have a problem with the CIA flying crack cocaine into poor black communities so they can fund the overthrow of democratically elected foreign governments whilst turning a blind eye to the domestic misery and death they caused, and have the mainstream media do their clean-up propaganda for the whole thing.
My in-law looks at me. "That did not happen." Oh, I beg to differ. Seconds later, I show her two articles. Yes, the CIA sold crack to innocent American kids so they could use the money to go and murder some other country's kids, and then subsequently murdered the journalist who broke the story. She tells me she feels sick. It is sickening the first time you are shown just how far the shadow state is prepared to go -and still get away with. This is because it suddenly recontextualises your entire memory of the earth. 'Reality' becomes 'Official Reality'. Less than an hour later and she's sharing some fairly extreme Wellington gossip to do with the country's current prime minister, his background in global finance, and the companies he has or is flogging off national assets to. Literally 60 minutes earlier, that would have been 'conspiracy theory'. Now, maybe it isn't.
And really, this is the only way to do it without going properly insane: hoard verifiable data rather than gathering one or two data points before scurrying off down your preferred alterna-road (aliens, New World Order, Illuminati, something about the Jews, reptilians, etc).
Hence the newswire approach, then. You will only remember a small percentage of this post but maybe, just maybe, that part that you do remember -that particular data point- can be somebody else's red pill.