james's blog

Richard Holbrooke

For me, this post follows on from Winter's last one. These articles are off topic in some ways but bang on regarding "the insanity" Winter perceptively and powerfully mentioned. And though this is not about Christmas it does look at Christians you never hear from (perhaps because they're dead).

The uplifting part in all this is that one of the major tools, Richard Holbrooke, is dead, very dead. And all the glowing eulogies elsewhere are to placate all those thumping hearts that are still alive in his fellow travellers. Which, of course, means they're worried. Good.

Richard Holbrooke: An American Diplomat
by Srdja Trifkovichttp

Richard Holbrooke, RIH by Thomas Fleming

and for more details on the goings on in Kosovo and Albania that Holbrooke helped start-

Kosovo’s Thaçi: Human Organs Trafficker by Srdja Trifkovichttp

It is strange, is it not, that for a supposed Christian society here in the West, we rarely hear about genocide against Christians be they Iraqis, Palestinians, Guatemalans, Timorese, Serbians or further back in history, Russians Ukrainians or Armenians.

Even more strange, given that these Christian populations are/were Catholic or Orthodox, is that you never hear a peep out of the Vatican; nevermind them doing something about it.

Perhaps there's an ingredient here I'm missing.


In the second of my essays below concerning Ray McGovern's articles, I pointed out that he was playing an elaborate game with Jeffrey Goldberg who was writing equally misleading statements with the view to appeal to people on both the 'right' and on the 'left' of politics. There is a deeper level to this game apart from the rights and wrongs of the various arguing points and that is putting on a show to distract people from other areas of importance and to diminish their quality of life and thinking in the meantime through engendering fear, confusion and helplessness for the purposes of social control a.k.a. social engineering. (from Twelfth Bough - it can get heavy)

It was immediately obvious that these two writers, one a citizen of Israel and the other and 'ex'-CIA agent, were on opposite sides of a controversial issue. What was less obvious was that they were, in fact, co-operating in keeping an entirely fictitious proposition in front of the public to scare the crap out of as many people as possible for as long as possible. (this fictitious proposition was the possibility of Israel launching an attack on Iran independently of the US). They were putting on a show for the public just as two tennis players might. They appear to be in competition but from a higher perspective, they are co-operating to a much greater degree just as the tennis players are for the purposes of furthering the interests of themselves and the financiers behind the event itself. As with tennis, the reason for it all is to manipulate the emotions of the audience. It is not about the protagonists or what they are fighting or arguing over.

When this 'sporting format' is applied to social/political issues or the political process itself, it is known as the Hegelian Dialectic. To recap, it was named after the German philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who proposed that history was the result of two opposing positions being taken by people on any and every issue, called 'thesis' and 'anti-thesis' or 'antithesis', and that history tended to adopt a position in between these two 'extremes'. This compromise has since been called 'synthesis' by Hegel's followers and champions of his theory. All very nice and might possibly be so in some circumstances. But the trouble for you and I is that this whole process is very easy to manipulate and manage to provide a predetermined conclusion if you can control the inputs; which is dead easy to do if you have sufficient money. The two positions, thesis and antithesis, are assumed to be at extremes to each other and all other possibilities lie between them. This, of course, is nonsense, but it is one of those great unspoken assumptions we rely on as a foundation to our social/political thinking, never-the-less.

So, in practice, two political parties will position themselves as the 'extremes' (thesis and antithesis) and political activism (including pundits, academics and activists) will position themselves somewhere on the continuum in between annunciating clearly and proudly that they stand for reality, compromise, reason and as practitioners of 'the art of the politically possible' while often apologising for an unpopular outcome saying that it is, after all, the lesser of two or more evils and all that is possible at this time, alas! Meanwhile, all the better possibilities that lie outside this deliberately limited political discourse go largely unnoticed and unmentioned. If they are ever mentioned at all, it is to disparage them as being beyond the extremes, 'beyond the pale', irresponsible and, increasingly, tantamount to 'terrorism'.

By paying for and promoting both political parties and the various political activists, commentators and academics in universities and 'think tanks' in between, the whole process devolves into nothing more complicated than a piece of scripted theatre played out in peoples' living rooms through the teevee, which is very appropriate given the 'virtual' quality of it all.

So this is how you control people. You determine what they are going to think about, first off, and then how they are going to think about that content. The latter, 'the how' is more about 'points for style' and much less important yet that is what we focus on when we are intent on uncovering manipulation and disinformation. What has far more influence on us and on history in the long run is 'the what'; the subjects that are placed before us and our engagement in them to the cost of the things that are more important and things that we might just actually be able to influence. This is controlling the curriculum. So Ray McGovern's clever dialogue is far less important than the simple fact that he is engaging us in a topic of his choosing, or his employer's choosing. So what's the gig here?

People such as the CIA, as we know, clearly have an agenda opposite to our best interests and they want us to behave in their interests instead of ours. They achieve this through instilling fear. This is a basic mind control technique. “But he's talking reason and arguing against war, isn't he?” Not really. He is warning against a possibility that can't happen i.e. Israel launching an attack by itself on Iran. He also gives a lot of space to the arguments of his apparent opposition. He restates them for us and even uses some of the propositions. He is giving these propositions lots of 'air-time'; putting these scary scenarios in front of us to consider and be frightened by. But because he didn't write these scenarios, he is not perceived to be peddling them. But he is. There they are in the midst of his writing. So they are more effective in gaining a foot hold in our minds because we do not readily perceive them for what they are. He is apparently arguing against them but the unconscious mind does not think in negatives, only positives, the opposite to what he is saying. Our conscious minds are disarmed by the 'charm and reason' and also through the presentation of some facts we can all agree with. So we give unhindered passage to these scenarios through our conscious mind to take up residence in our unconscious and once there cause us stress and confusion and so diminish our ability to think and act in our own best interests. For a fuller explanation of this, see a previous short essay here.

An unfortunate flow on of this is that many bloggers out there repeat these scenarios in their writing not understanding what is being done to them and then what they are, in turn, doing to others. One blogger I have in mind gives live links to all the articles that give air time to the propositions he is arguing against and by doing so he is furthering the cause he is apparently fighting. This is a disinformation/propaganda technique when used deliberately and is unfortunate and misguided when used in innocence. I am presuming the particular blogger that I'm thinking of does so in innocence, though, he is very consistent in his innocence.

Often times there is only one view available on a subject and that is the establishment view. Or the establishment view is actually quite revealing; "out of their own mouths" sort of thing. These articles can be referenced profitably provided a particular quote or argument is highlighted and the point of the reference by the blogger is clear. Many progressive or 'lefty' bloggers link undiscerningly to the establishment press (New York Times, the Telegraph, the Jerusalem Post and Debka etc) and as the sole source for their stories with no specific quote to identify which part of the article they are endorsing or criticising and with no qualifying or discriminating comments! Here's an example. This article was linked to by a blogger to back the claim that the Israelis had designs on capturing the water of the Litani River in Southern Lebanon (as if this needed referencing!). But there was no quote given and no qualification given on the article in question. And there should have been because, apart from mentioning the Israelis' past attempt to capture the territory up to the Litani River, it was chock-a-block fill of disinformation. An 'ounce' of good and a pound of 'bad'. Unfortunately, the writer's motivation matters not in the effect on the audience.

The effect of this practice is to engage in an Hegelian Dialectic around the topic and the particular framing of it at the enemy's choosing. Not helpful.

Why should it matter that the topic is chosen by the 'enemy'? Because we know the enemy always lies in one way or another and their whole focus is to frame the discussion to deceive the readership for the purposes of getting us to act against our own interests. Why co-operate? They publish what is in their interests and their interests are diametrically opposed to ours and it's always fearful. They own the megaphone so if it is getting airtime, it suits their purposes. Yet we forget this all the time.

There is yet another layer to what lies behind the likes of Ray McGovern and Jeffrey Goldberg. So lets keep digging. To return to my analogy, if McGovern and Goldberg are the tennis players, who are the promoters of the 'competition', 'the event'? Previously, I said in reference to the Pentagon and NATO,

“ These two military bodies, together with Israel are ultimately controlled by bankers (through such bodies as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) -where the Generals are members-, Chatham House and Bilderbergers) and therefore they can reasonably be seen to be carrying out their agenda. And that agenda is world dominion by any and all means”.

They run much else besides the military, too, because all the top and otherwise influential people from both 'extremes' in politics and everyone in between in the media, law and business in the US, British and European societies are respectively members of one or more of these groups. This means that you are not going to get anywhere in the established order of these societies if you oppose these groups or their plans or purposes. Let's take a closer look at one of these groups.

Many in the US will be aware of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) to which all US Presidents and appointed Executives such as Secretary of State for governments of both parties have belonged since the Second World War (apart from John Fitzgerald Kennedy).

This body also boasts as members the CEOs of all the teevee networks and publishing houses and, indeed, all the major corporations. Senior legal and military personnel also belong, too. And religious heads as well. This CFR was been run for decades run by a banker, David Rockefeller, and together with his banking peers they own the Federal Reserve which creates all the money in the US and beyond. They have a license to print money. They also own such bodies as the New York Stock Exchange.

They control to a large extent, if not completely, the entire economy and the political process. These people control to a large degree the information you get even if you are a discerning reader. Even the most discerning reader can't choose to view news that is not available. Though, you can often work out what is likely missing and where the information controllers want to take us through using logic and inductive and deductive reasoning. Skills rarely taught these days for some unknown reason (ahem!)

As luck would have it, recently Tony Cartalucci of Land Destroyer blog has documented all the people involved both on the stage and behind the scenes of a mini controversy being played out in the media and shows that all parties and their financial backers are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. This is a good example of a controversy that has been entirely manufactured and is being managed from start to finish. Why? Like all shows, the purpose is to distract us from reality and to 'engage' our minds and guide, determine and control what we think for a time at least and always accompanied by fear. They are clearly trying to make our lives more fearful. This mini controversy is a microcosm of what is happening to our whole society, the macrocosm, all day, every day.

This constant diet of fear, stress and disempowerment stops us from seeing the obvious in front of us. Consider this; if we stop to think for a minute, we can now see that in America, for instance, the politics, the business, the media, the military, everything really is run in accordance with the wishes and aims of the CFR. Politics is a joke. The law is a joke. The media is a joke. Freedom of individual expression is a joke. We now know that all these functions are run by the same small group of grasping people who use it all for their own ends and against ours. Their control is pervasive and pernicious.

It has been observed that they, this CFR et. al. elite, is at war with us, the general public; that they manipulate nations and ethnic and religious groups to wage war on each other through fearful propaganda and terror at times to create profits and further their physical, economic and, most importantly, psychological control over us. And I can't argue with any of it.

So why do we put any faith in any of it? Why do we listen to it at all? Ever? Why do we repeat it to our friends and relations and our fellow workers at coffee break? “I don't”, you say? Well then, when was the last time you watched teevee? Listened to the radio? Watched the news? Today? Yesterday? If you think you are not influenced by any of this 'news and information', read on. This controlled milieu we live in is so pervasive that we don't really see or understand it most of the time and it influences us without our knowing. We are like fish swimming in water yet oblivious to its presence because it is always there and always has been. It has no external reference unless it jumps out of the water. In many ways, it really is like the 'matrix' in the movie of the same name.

Understanding brainwashing - - - -

I read a study once on the effects of brainwashing on American POWs in Korea and on studies since then it all made a huge impact on me ('twas a long time ago, so no link unfortunately). The powerful bit for me was the finding that even after the subjects of the brainwashing were aware of what had happened to them, they still held to the belief that the now known implanted thoughts and ideas in their minds were still their own and presumably also held that the thinking that followed on from these thoughts was correct. It made a huge impact on me because as soon as I read it I knew the truth of it. It is very hard to appreciate the effects on mind control on yourself and this is why it is so insidious. You think you are all right when you are not. You think you know when you do not. You think you are not being affected but you most certainly are. I can't stress this enough.

I was brainwashed or programmed as a child in the 1960's by trained personnel. Some of it is recognisably the same as MKUltra programming, an aspect of which you can read about here ("Greenbaum Speech'). I have remained sane and functioning by continually testing the validity of my perceptions and those of others. It's hard work and isolating but the upshot of it all is that I can see how we are all subjected to an insidious form of programming through the teevee.

I mention all this to establish some bona fides in this area and so that when I say you are being conditioned (programmed) through your teevee, I really do have some idea of what I'm saying. Teevee is triggering for me. The brightly lit screen is in the place of the bright spotlight. The high level of background sound is like the noise that was in my right ear and the constantly repeated bullshit messages from the ads with their increased volume and the clichéd dialogue from the content shows (programs!) are similar to the contradictory and illogical programming messages repeatedly shouted in my left ear.

These mind manipulators do it because it works. They put all these false notions in front of you and deliver them often with sexual stimulation of one sort or another and/or fear, all designed to bypass your conscious mind and lodge the messages or images in your unconscious mind to then determine your reactions and thoughts. Too easy. The flickering screen induces a state of dissociation. Again, allowing the messages to bypass the critical thinking of the conscious mind. It is startling to hear people parroting things they have seen and heard on teevee and talking as if they understand these topics and that they are speaking their own knowledge when they wouldn't have the faintest clue.

We are physically what we eat and how we use or bodies (or not!). That's it! This is what determines our physical state.
And mentally, we are exactly the same. It's what we allow ourselves to ingest by watching, reading and listening and how we exercise our minds (or not!). This determines our mental state. We wouldn't eat garbage. So why do we watch and listen to it?

Nothing of any significance is going to change until enough people change the way they think and that is not going to happen to a large enough extent, I feel, until enough people actually unplug from their teevee sets and start teaching their kids real history, real life. You would be far better off teaching your kids poker, for instance, or chess. Or some life skills such as how to budget, how to negotiate and how to use basic logic. It's a whole lot more fun, too!

An expertise in chess would give you an appreciation of how complex situations and dominance or power imbalance is most often built up from small, seemingly innocuous, moves and an appreciation that there is very little done without an endpoint in mind. One of your family might even come up with an incisive observation such as this comment from WP

An expertise in poker would be invaluable in assessing what is going on with all the sabre rattling at Iran, for instance. Though it is (deliberately) the same noise made prior to the Iraq invasion, it is for a different purpose. In poker you might set a trap for an opponent through a whole series of moves and win. If you estimate that the opponent is not smart enough to figure out what you did, you can do it again the same way. On the other hand, if you estimate your opponent to be smart enough to realise what happened, you can do it again but reverse it. In other words, if you had the goods last time, this time you can use the set-up to bluff instead. And that is what is happening in regard to Iran and it is sucking in everybody on the 'left' and the 'right'. It's a psy-op to frighten and control the public in the West, in Israel and in Iran. It works because the consequences of war with Iran are horrendous and the fear hinders clear observation and deduction. Plus, we are not educated in the ways of the psychopaths that gravitate to positions of power in our society and invariably are the ones running this psychological warfare against us.

Unplugging the teevee gives you and your family all that time to engage in learning these life skills and having fun at the same time. What's not to like!! Unplugging the teevee and unhooking yourself from the constant programming, the constant fear, the constant control of the curriculum you think about, is the simplest and most effective revolutionary thing you can do to counter the forces of violence, exploitation and destruction in your society. The rest will follow.

George Orwell said the same about speaking the truth; that it was revolutionary. But you have to know what the truth is and how to discern it, before you can speak it? And you have to understand it before it is truth to you and worth passing on. It is so much harder to sort out what is truth and understand it if you have the constant bullshit that is teevee squawking in your ear.

Go 'cold turkey' for a few days or a week (or more if you can do it) and I guarantee you that you won't want to go back to passively presenting your mind to be fashioned by these mind controllers. Get your news online, and then when you watch teevee again see if you are aware of the gap. Strive to gather your own news. If you want to stick to 'mainstream' sources, you can.

An easy way to do it is as follows:
- go to google news.
- scan the top stories.
- think about the priorities of whoever decides these are the top stories.
- click on “World”. Notice under each headline there is a line that says "all XXX news articles >>".
- pick a story that interests you and click on that. Notice that you can read news from around the world. Try it!
- If you note something that seems interesting, open a new google search and do a search on it.
- Try searching for things together like this: "thing X + thing Y." see what pops up.
- Then click on the links and read them.

Welcome to research and independent thinking. After you do that for a few days, watch teevee news and see how you like it.

The controllers in our society need your help, your co-operation, to dominate you. They need you to be plugged in. They need your help to dominate the next generation. You don't have to co-operate in this and there's nothing they can do about it! Go on, unplug!. And have some fun with your family instead.

Hegel and Pavlov Go to Wimbledon

Hegel and Pavlov Go to Wimbledon: or watching tennis and the gentle art of brainwashing.

Ray McGovern has written a follow-up, "A Neocon Preps US for War with Iran" to his piece that I commented on in my previous post. This, too, is artfully contrived and instructive, I think, as a window into the world of mass mind control or social engineering.

Social engineering (otherwise known as brainwashing or mind control) relies on two major techniques as far as I can tell: learning through association (made famous by Pavlov - and his dogs) and restricting the “field of view'. In other words, controlling the apparent options to choose from with one, at least, presented as the 'good' option (made famous by the followers of Hegel and known as the Hegelian Dialectic). This later technique is recognised as the double bind when no options are presented as 'good'.

In all cases control is the key and using the victims own mind and nature against her or him. If these techniques can be applied whilst associated with pain or, failing that, fear, then so much the better as they will not only bypass the critical thinking faculties of the victims but will be embedded deeper into the psyche because of the thought's association with physical body memory and sensations.

It is our nature, for instance to learn by associating two events close in time. This is known as correlation. Often the two events have a causative link such as touching a stove and experiencing a burning sensation. But correlation is not always the same as causation and this can be used against the mind.

So back to Mr McGovern. He has used these same techniques to 'mess' with our minds. McGovern sets out apparently to demolish Jeffrey Goldberg. This journalistic contest is over the presumed imminent military attack on Iran. It can be seen that McGovern and Goldberg are both engaging in a little Hegelian Dialectic here; together they are providing both sides of some of the aspects of the argument and are thereby 'restricting the view'. McGovern is playing tennis with Goldberg and engaging the audience with point, counter point and keeping the audience from looking past the field of play. The topic is framed in terms of local Middle-East politics with the US as an almost innocent bystander rather than in global terms and the US as the major belligerent and threat to world peace.

The US government is portrayed as being almost benign now that Bush and the neocons such as James Woolsey and those horrid CIA analysts responsible for the 'bad intel' justifying the Iraq War are no longer on the scene. Poor Obama is left with this legacy, though, and is working against the interests of Israel. We know this because McGovern tells us that Goldberg has said Obama is unpopular in Israel. So all this means that all you Democrat voters out there can continue to have faith in the system. No need to look elsewhere.

McGovern uses word association to correlate two dissimilar events. He quotes Woolsey using the word 'blockbuster' in connection with an obvious lie and then McGovern uses this same word, blockbuster, to cast doubt by association on Iraq's guilt in connection with the gassing of Kurds in Halabja i.e. that it, too, is a lie and suggesting Iran was to blame instead.

So, from Pavlov and 'association', we go back to Hegel and his dialectic and our tennis analogy. McGovern is co-operating with Goldberg to put on a spectacle and distracting us from the bigger picture. Wimbledon is not staged each year to determine the best tennis player in the world. That is not the “WHY” of it. When we expand our view, we can see it is staged by financiers and promoters to make money and perhaps aggrandise themselves. Same here with Middle East wars!

But before we move on to this larger arena, let's have a brief look at what McGovern is trying to do within this Middle East context. If you read his article with the above in mind, I believe you will see he is trying to put these following ideas in to peoples heads -

1. that Iran was responsible for gassing the Kurds during the Iraq/Iran War (started by Iraq at the urging of the US).
2. that Iran will therefore be open to using chemical warfare in the future.
3. that Iran was, indeed, working on a nuclear weapon technology in the past prior to 2003.
4. that, therefore, it could well do so again in the future.
5. that these two indicators of Iranian thinking and motivation justify Israel's attitude to Iran.
6. that Goldberg's assertions regarding Iran have merit because McGovern does not contest them but merely restates them and thus giving them more 'airtime'.
7. that a valid and overarching reason for not engaging Iran in war is fear that the US might not win (never mind all the innocent lives lost and destroyed – and for what?!)
8. I could go on!!

Goldberg and McGovern are playing a game that parties to the 'Two Party Political System” play all over the Western “democratic” world. It is a controlled contest to 'restrict the view' and provide a limited options menu to 'choose' from or vote for. The political 'Hegelian Dialectic', keeping the ball in play but within prescribed boundaries to distract us and condition us through fear.

So what's the wider view here? It is of an increasingly turbulent and violent world and the principal perpetrators of this violence are the Pentagon (together with Ray McGovern's CIA), NATO and Israel. The Pentagon has superseded the government of the US and NATO has superseded the United Nations. These two military bodies, together with Israel are ultimately controlled by bankers (through such bodies as CFR -where the Generals are members-, Chatham House and Bilderbergers) and therefore they can be reasonably seen to be carrying out their agenda. And that agenda is world dominion by any and all means. The obstacles to this complete domination, I believe, are (in descending order) China, a resurgent Russia, Iran and an equally resurgent Latin America focussed around ALBA (the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas). The Principal members of ALBA are Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Nicaragua. Honduras was a member until the US sponsored coup there and Haiti was an 'observer' and recipient of aid from ALBA until the US invasion there, too. El Salvador has begged off joining since the Honduran coup.

A pattern can be seen regarding the Pentagon led hostilities world wide. Military intervention is swift against the weakest members of this 'Axis of the Unwilling' which is typical bullying behaviour. And threats and prolonged intimidation are used against those that can defend themselves in the hope of eroding their capacity and will to fight over time by exhausting them through psychological stress. (WP's chess analogy is very useful here in understanding this 'war of nerves').

The US/NATO is engaged in a long and lengthy process of encircling both China and Russia to choke them politically and economically and it is far from complete. So I don't think they are by any means ready to launch WW3 yet. Besides, Europe is still dependant on Russian oil and gas. Hence, the pressure on getting the uneconomic Nabucco pipeline into operation.

Therefore, with all this in mind, I do not think that a military attack on Iran (which would very likely involve Russia, at least) is imminent. However, the drive for world domination continues and I think a military attack is far more likely against Nicaragua instead. All the noise (including McGovern's writings) and sabre rattling at Iran is serving the double purpose of not only exhausting everybody's psychological strength but also distracting everybody away from the Caribbean. The US is right now in the process of extending it's military control down through Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean to South America and, of course, Venezuela. The US Air Force now has unrestricted access to Mexican air space, for instance.

The most likely excuse for the military intervention in Nicaragua (if it eventuates) will be the “War on Drugs”. It must be remembered that the Pentagon controls the growing and distribution world wide at one stage or another of 90% of the worlds heroin. So the heroin that is coming into the United States and is the reason for the drug wars in Mexico with all it's appalling carnage, is ultimately being provided and controlled by the US military. My estimate is that it is being transported from Afghanistan to Manas Air Base in Kyrgyzstan and from there to Costa Rica where C130 Hercules are a common sight at it's two major airports. There it is likely handed on to criminal/terrorist gangs with political cover to make its bloody way north through Central America and Mexico and into the US causing social destabilisation and political corruption all the way and laying the ground work for military intervention. The US Navy recently moved its Gulf of Mexico fleet to Costa Rica.

Heroin can be seen as a weapon of war. Indeed, Russia, China, Iran and now even Costa Rica have huge and growing drug problems and the attendant social destruction and political weakening. This heroin comes from Afghanistan courtesy of the US Armed Forces who are ever ready to apply their violent solutions to the violence and destruction they deliberately create in the first place.

Again, heroin is being used as a weapon of war and, ultimately, as a tool for world dominion. Of course, legalising heroin use would undo all this! Though, economic and social justice would largely eliminate the need for it. But then, economic and social injustice is the whole point, isn't it?

For background reading, I can recommend Mike Whitney's, “Is the CIA behind Mexico's Bloody Drug War?” (Read “Pentagon/CIA” for “CIA” to get my understanding of it all)
And here are three articles, all from Rick Rozoff-
"Twenty Years After End of The Cold War: Pentagon's Buildup I Latin America"

"Central Asia: U.S. Military Buildup On Chinese, Iranian And Russian Borders"

And for confirmation of Israel's Air defence being in US/NATO's hands and therefore giving the lie to Israel's ability to start a war with Iran on it's own, see-
"Israel: Forging NATO Missile Shield, Rehearsing War With Iran"

War by Memorandum

Recently, Kenny's Sideshow posted an article on various warnings of an impending unilateral military strike against Iran by Israel. Featured was an article entitled "MEMORANDUM FOR: The President written by Ray McGovern and Phillip Giraldi, both former CIA officers, and a video interview of Michel Chossudovsky being questioned on the concerns raised by the McGovern/Giraldi article. I believe this article is disinformation and Chossudovsky in his interview provides the key to start the unlocking process. (This interview is also featured at Twelfth Bough) That key is the fact that the military command structures of Israel, NATO and the US are all integrated.

This should not come as a surprise if one thinks about the possiblity (likelyhood) of war with Iran escalating into WW3. It is what you would expect because the US and NATO would want to be able to operate on a co-ordinated world-wide basis. So a number of things flow on from this fact.
It is actually impossible for Israel to start a war without-

1. Any hope of doing it without forewarning the US
2. Any hope of continuing it by themselves
3. Any hope of having co-ordinated defence of Israel ready for implementation because they have acted outside prearranged plans
4. Any hope of being included in on going and future planning as they are now a wildcard actor

McGovern and Giraldi would be fully conversant with all this. Yet, they behave as if-

1. It is of no importance (untrue)
2. Obama and the Joint Chiefs of Staff would not be aware of this (untrue)
3. The public readership is largely unaware of this (probably true)

So who is the intended audience here? Obviously the public and that is so often the case with these “open letters”. It's a rhetorical device and, though it is reasonably open itself, it never-the-less works to deceive at more subtle levels. It tends to frame the readers understanding of the apparent target of the letter's perceptions and power regarding the issue; in this case, Obama and his position and power as 'Supreme Commander' and that this undeclared war on Iran is a part of a whole.

I believe the purpose of the letter is to place the following ideas in the minds of the public-

1. That Israel can, and likely will, act alone to start the war with Iran (which it can't)
2. That the US will be obligated, indeed, 'left with no choice' but to enter the war and 'finish it' (which it isn't)
3. That Israel will be completely to blame (which it won't be)
4. That Obama is the ultimate controlling figure here. (which he isn't)
5. That there is no higher co-ordinating power than the political leaders of these two respective countries and that there isn't another agenda (which, inductively, there obviously is on both points)
6. That there is no agenda for world dominion and that it has not been in play for some years now (which is also obviously the case on both points)
7. That this can all be stopped by writing to your local congressman or congresswoman. (which won't do shit)
8. That Israel is the most dangerous of the the three belligerents. (which it isn't) The other two, of course, being NATO and the US.
9. Paint US leaders, past and present, as being repeatedly duped by Israeli leaders and not having their own agenda or more to the point, not having their own marching orders as have the various Israeli leaders over the decades (which, again inductively, they clearly have)
10. Nuclear power is the issue and not oil or oil sales in $US

I have not included the article from McGovern and Giraldi as i was originally intending. I was going to inject my comments into it pointing out the multiple inaccuracies but decided it would fast become tedious and these inaccuracies would likely be obvious now (if not before!) if I have made good my points above.

The question has been raised before and I think it is worth considering again, “Is there any such thing as an ex-CIA agent?”
And given their various oaths of secrecy and loyalty, how is it that the members of VIPS (listed below) can run with the 'opposition' on the net in apparent direct opposition to the interests of government on 'National Security matters' for so long?

Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

Phil Giraldi, directorate of operations, CIA (20 years)
Larry Johnson, directorate of intelligence, CIA; Department of State, Department of Defense consultant (24 years)
W. Patrick Lang, colonel, USA, Special Forces (ret.); Senior Executive Service: defense intelligence officer for Middle East/South Asia; director of HUMINT Collection, Defense Intelligence Agency (30 years)
Ray McGovern, U.S. Army intelligence officer; directorate of intelligence, CIA (30 years)
Coleen Rowley, special agent and Minneapolis division counsel, FBI (24 years)
Ann Wright, colonel, U.S. Army Reserve (ret.), (29 years); Foreign Service officer, Department of State (16 years)

At the end of that great Irish film, "The Commitments", the main character looks in the mirror (as I am figuratively doing, now) and asks himself, "But, what does it all mean, Jimmy?"

He then answers himself, "I'm fooked if I know"!

I have listed lots of things I think the authors are trying to do with the article but the big question is "Why go to the trouble and why now?" Unless, of course, they really mean to . . . . No. . . They wouldn't would they?
Folks, your thoughts would be welcome.

Here is the link to the article, "MEMORANDUM FOR: The President" again.

Killing The Gulf - Updated (Again!)

This article first appeared at Rense and was copied by A Peasant at her Twelfth Bough (Wordpress) site where AP added text, videos and emphasis. These all gave added information and importance to this already very well researched and written article. So with AP's permission, I have copied her version here in the interests of spreading this important article further. It is sobering reading, indeed. I suspect that the people involved with this are taking the opportunity to wreak economic devastation so as to make ever more people dependant on the government and therefore ever more controllable. I further suspect that the 'dark forces' that ultimately lie behind these people are simply intent on killing all life on earth.

Purposely Killing The Gulf?
by J. Speer-Williams
(h/t Dublin Mick) via Rense — (A Peasant's additions in blue and emphasis in bold)

The private, foreign International Monetary/Banking Cartel controls its puppets in Washington as it controls its oil company executives. And everything the Cartel does is anti-life, there are absolutely no exceptions; and their pretended Gulf oil clean-up is a glaring case in point.

Instead of cleaning up the unprecedented catastrophe created by the Cartel’s mega-corporations (Halliburton, Transocean, and British Petroleum), these very same companies seem to be purposely killing our Gulf of Mexico, under the pretense of cleaning it up.

Instead of using safe, non-toxic ways to gather up the rogue oil gushing from their incompetence, or planned cataclysm, the private Cartel is using an extremely toxic chemical dispersant, with the approval of the Obama administration.

Alan Levine, the head of Louisiana’s Department of Health and Hospitals, said: “We don’t have any data or evidence behind the use of these chemicals in the water. We’re now basically using one of the richest ecosystems in the world as a laboratory.”

As reported in Britain’s Telegraph, Louisiana state Secretary of the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Robert Barham reported: “We’re very disappointed in their [EPA and oil company executives] approach. The federal procedures call for a consensus between federal authorities, the responsible party and the states involved. When we met and expressed our concerns [over the use of dispersants], apparently they decided to go without us.”

And go they did. Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency allowed BP to turn our Gulf of Mexico into a toxic testing ground, instead of removing the crude oil.


British Petroleum (BP) has even refused to use their own oil tankers, lying in the Gulf, to suck up most of the runaway oil, and possibly salvage it for sale later, as was done after a Saudi spill in the ’90’s. That method was so successful, it vacuumed up about 85 percent of that renegade oil.

Nick Pozzi, a former oil pipeline engineering and operations project manager is puzzled why BP did not salvage perfectly good crude oil for later sale, and to thereby protect marine and wildlife.

What Mr. Pozzi does not know is the oil companies are owned by the world’s only legal counterfeiters ­ the International Monetary/Banking Cartel - who can “print” all the money they want, so making money on Gulf oil was not important to them. Killing the Gulf of Mexico is, apparently, important to them, for their own cryptic and esoteric reasons.


If the Cartel had wanted to save marine life, any oil they had not vacuumed up could have been mulched with any number of non-toxic materials, such as “Oil Sponge,” a name trademarked by Phase III, Inc.

Rated as the “best performing” absorbent by the US Army Corp of Engineers, Oil Sponge is 100% organic, and is made from renewable resources.


Oil Sponge is built using a microbial and nutrient package, capable of transforming oil hydrocarbons into a safe bi-product of carbon dioxide and water.

But, the governmental bureaucrats of the Obama administration, and the Cartel’s oil executives, had no interest in using an environmentally friendly product to clean up what is the greatest man-made environmental disaster of all time they seemed intent on making this unbelievable cataclysm far, far worse, and one that could never be cleaned up.

It cannot yet be proven that the Monetary Cartel purposely blew up their own wellhead, but the crimes they have committed in their so-called “clean-up” efforts are well documented, in spite of no corporate media outrage.


CEO Connie Mixon says it’s revolutionary. But while this product is used from the Middle East to Europe to Canada, it’s not being used to clean up in the Gulf. Mixon says she has not been able to garner interest from the parties currently involved in the cleanup–most specifically the Marine Spill Recovery Corporation (MSRC).

“They’re using 30-year-old technology to fight this spill…our product was invented after Exxon-Valdez to specifically deal with spills like these,” Mixon tells WSB’s Pete Combs.

After the Exxon Valdez incident of March 1989, Mycelx of Georgia developed what looks like a paper towel to soak up to 50 times its weight in oil. And while this product is used from the Middle East to Europe to Canada it was of no interest to the parties Obama charged with cleaning up the Gulf of the floating oil those very same parties caused.

see video here

Then there is the Aerohaz product manufactured by Sustainable Technologies, Inc. that encapsulates environmental contaminants, making crude oil and other oil like substances easy to retrieve.


Even hair naturally separates oil from water, leaving large tar globs, in which mushrooms can then be seeded. And as the mushrooms grow, they digest the oil, leaving non-toxic organics, which can then be composed into soil, great for growing healthy vegetables.

Anyone who has ever had a bad hair day knows how well hair will retain oil. In fact, Lisa Gautier, president of Matter of Fact (website for hair salons) has collected 400,000 pounds of hair, and stuffed it all into nylons to be used as booms near Gulf shores.

This idea could have been a shot in the arm of our dying economy, by creating organic compose for the millions of nutrient depleted farm acres in the world. Also there could have been a viable cottage industry of collecting hair from salons.

And, hair is certainly a renewable resource, with most of us contributing. But neither Obama or the Cartel has done anything for our dying US and world economy, but ensure it dies, while feebly pretending to resuscitate it.

And now that they’ve probably destroyed the tourist, shrimping, and fishing industries along the Gulf Coast, we’ll be hearing about more “stimulus packages” that will make what money we do have even more worthless as it enriches Wall Street.

But in the world of what could have been, there’s hay, sawdust, crushed volcanic rock, and even kitty litter that could have mulched with the oil on the surface of the Gulf waters, making for easy pick-up.

But, oil industry executives and their confederates in the Obama administration quickly made sure that all spewing oil would either sink well below the surface, or never rise to it, with over half a million gallons of their dispersants. Now the oil that’s been gushing for weeks can never be vacuumed up or safely neutralized.

Worse yet, these international enemies of humanity, and life in the Gulf, committed their dastardly deed of deeply submerging the floating oil with an extremely dangerous chemical dispersant that would deny all marine creatures oxygen, thus killing them, and marine plant life to boot, as major underwater currents carry this poisonous oily plume through-out the Gulf and into the Atlantic.

Trying to give this mass murder a positive spin, BP spokesman John Crabtree said his corporation had dropped more than 560,000 gallons of [toxic] chemical dispersants on the surface slicks and 28,700 gallons of the chemical at the subsea wellhead, 5,000 feet below sea-level.

Crabtree’s justification for such an insane, criminal act was that the dispersants would drive the oil well below the water’s surface, thus keeping it away from coastal shorelines. So instead of removing the oil, BP decided to make the oil even more toxic, and drive it deep into the ocean where it can never be retrieved, but will kill all marine life in its path.

Mandy Joyce, a marine sciences professor at the University of Georgia carefully chose her words about BP’s deplorable dispersants: “Anything that requires oxygen will not be able to survive that water. The food web is going to change. You could stymie the entire production level of the Gulf of Mexico. That’s a very real possibility.”

BP’s chemical dispersants contain 2-butoxyethanol, a compound that kills marine and wildlife, exactly the life our clean-up measures should try to save.

BP’s chemical dispersants, currently being dropped by airplanes, break the crude oil into tiny droplets that sink well below the water’s surface, where they form a giant cloud or plume, making it impossible to gather, as is the obvious intention.

And with this poisonous plume creating a dead zone, currently estimated to be about the size of Delaware and Rhode Island combined, hidden at about 3,000 feet of water, no one can place an accurate figure on how much oil has actually rushed into the Gulf.

And once this death dealing plume reaches the large, rapidly moving Loop Current, this oily cloud of doom could swing toward Florida and Cuba, killing the coral reefs and marine life there.

According to Stephen Howden, an oceanographer at the University of Southern Mississippi, the Loop Current could drag the oxygen destroying cloud into shallower waters thus potentially impacting the coral reefs and fisheries near Florida’s coast.

University of Georgia’s Mandy Joyce said, “It’s a good thing the oil is not damaging the coast line, but to say everything is fine because its not hitting the coast is missing a very important part of this equation.”

And I would say, Ms. Joyce’s statement is a serious understatement.

Another person famous for misleading and under stated remarks is our president, Barack Obama.

There can be no denying that President Obama and his EPA regulators are accomplices to the crimes in the Gulf of Halliburton, Transocean, and British Petroleum by allowing these perpetrators of the disaster to be the ones in charge of the capping and clean-up efforts.

How much longer will our government allow these corporate criminals to fail with the capping of the oil gushers ,and making a dead zone of the Gulf of Mexico and perhaps the Atlantic ocean?

Thus far, President Obama has made a grandstand play by pretending to excoriate the oil company executives responsible for the Gulf tragedy for not taking proper responsibility.

Excuse me Sir, it’s you who should have taken control and responsibility by tasking competent individuals and companies to cap this runaway well, and to clean up the mess, without destroying the entire Gulf of Mexico in the process.

And instead of excoriating the oil company executives and government bureaucrats who dumped over a half million gallons of toxic dispersants into the Gulf, you should be arresting them for crimes against humanity, not to mention their crimes against marine and wildlife.

Additionally, Obama’s teleprompter writers had the ignorance to state the ridiculous: “I know BP has committed to pay for the response effort, and we will hold them to their obligation,” read Obama.

The very obvious point Mr. Obama, is you should have saved our Gulf of Mexico, by making sure Transocean, Halliburton, and British Petroleum had absolutely nothing to do with the clean-up efforts, rather than making them pay to turn the Gulf into a dead zone.

President Obama went on to say many parties, including the federal government should accept blame for the disaster, he stopped short of saying he, himself, should be held responsible for his part in so destroying so much life in the Gulf.

“There is oil leaking. We need to stop it, and we need to stop it as soon as possible,” said Obama.

It’s not a leak, Mr. Obama. It’s a volcanic gusher spewing out an Exxon Valdez every two to four days.(emphasis ed.)

From whales and dolphins to sardines, from starfish to coral reefs, from microscopic organisms to all the fish in the sea, the Cartel has embarked upon killing, and will kill unless they are stopped. Are you man enough for the job, Mr. President?

J. Speer-Williams


This link here at Daily Kos (something useful from Daily Kos - who knew?) explains how oil booming should work and how it is actually being done in the Gulf, right now - with pictures.
Link courtesy of Twelfth Bough

Generally, true incompetence is just that and is sprinkled in with competence. The incidence is dependent on the industry or occupation and on how high up the hierarchy you are dealing with. (The higher up a hierarchy the incompetence goes the stronger the link is between the incompetence and corruption. Till, in the end, they are one and the same thing).
But when the incompetence reaches 100%, and when clearly competent people are clearly lying, you are looking at a tightly controlled program. As an example from the linked article at Daily Kos-

Now the Coast Guard? They know booming. They know what fucking proper fucking booming looks like. Coast Guard commandant, Adm. Thad Allen should be fired. Today. Now. This minute. Before he can give another press conference echoing what BP said not five minutes before him.

One of the sure-fire ways of deducing State involvement in criminal acts or acts of terror is to look to what should have happened and compare it to what actually did happen (or did not happen). It's particularly the omissions that give the game away; the things not done. Think 9/11; think Katrina as AP has reminded us. Think through the options not used to control the oil, the exemptions granted, the help refused. Any one of which would be giving us a different outcome today.


From one of the excellent links supplied by McJ in the comment thread comes this-

The facts that have now come to light should absolutely settle once and for all the following facts.
[1]There is no energy shortage.
[2] The oil men have been manipulating us terribly for decades

[3] That solving the energy needs of the world using oil is too costly and unbelievably dangerous for us in so many ways that only a crazy
(or something else, ed.) person would try.
[4] Alternative energy is a much better option.
[5] If I was wrong it was because I was too conservative. ....

There is a resistance to thinking BP might do this deliberately because, surely, it is costing them bigtime with all this lost oil. Understandable though this line of thinking is, it is never-the-less wrong. In one very real sense the lost oil is not costing BP a cent. It may be a deferred expense but even that is doubtful for the following reason.

From one of the points above, there is no shortage of oil; the supply, in actual fact, far outstrips demand. So the value of the oil in real negotiable or cash terms is not the deposit's cubic capacity multiplied by the price in dollars but rather the amount that can be sold (i.e. the size of the market) from the well multiplied by the price. Therefore if the deal is to control the oil by owning the deposits so that others don't get their hands on it and also keeping the price high for what you do sell, the lost oil is not impacting on that financial bottom line, at all. It is not affecting sales revenue this year or next and probably never.

To put it another way, BP's financial bottom line is governed by how much of the market it fills multiplied by the price. This is determined by an arrangement between the oil majors that has nothing to do with the amount of reserves there are because the reserves are huge contrary to popular belief. So oil escaping from those reserves doesn't affect BP's profit this year or in ten years or even fifty years time because they have more than they can possibly bring to market in that time. Their sales will not be affected.
This would give a financial reason for BP's management's refusal to retrieve the escaped oil. Retrieving the oil will cost money and that will affect their bottom line profitability immediately.

Another reason a reader might think that this catastrophe is not deliberate is how would they go about causing the blowout. Would they go down 5000ft and put a bomb there or what? Maybe, but all they need do is lobby for legislation to remove safeguards like extra safety valves (which they have done), have their CEOs put pressure down the line to remove or not put the safely valves etc in place for supposed economic reasons and sit back and wait. It is all very predictable. The people behind it may not know which well will blow but they will know that it will happen sooner or later. I doubt this is in serious dispute. Hence the Obama administration issuing 27 further licenses to drill the Gulf without the previously removed safeguards since the BP disaster. This is exactly what you do if you want these disasters to occur. Turn down the sound and watch the picture. Or focus ont he facts and disregard the narrative.

The people who ultimately control BP have their own separate agenda which I and others have pointed to.
And from that same article comes this warning which may well be part of that separate agenda-

A warning here: The removal of 2 cubic miles of oil from this deposit is setting us up for a sea floor collapse. We could see earthquakes, tsunami and worse.

All coming to you at very little cost to BP and their ultimate controllers. In fact, after collecting insurance, and jacking the price of oil up now and/or in the future, they'll make money on the deal.

But again, it's not ultimately about money, it's about control which they are exercising while, ironically, others are saying they are out of control.
They are, in fact:-
-inhibiting other countries' economies through high price and restricted access to oil,
-maximising their profits while doing so and
-moving ever closer to bringing down economic activity wherever and whenever they can
-getting their jollies by seeing the effects of 'their power' and feeling like 'Lords of the Universe' and
-all the while watching and laughing at everyone running around in ever decreasing circles

'Not' Learning

The subconscious mind does not distinguish between positives and negatives. For instance, if a person was to hear that the Pope is not a pedophile, the subconscious is going to put 'Pope' and 'pedophile' together and miss the 'not'. 'Not' has no meaning to the subconscious. It does not exist. It is not real. The subconscious cannot picture something that has no reality, no existence, no substance. How does any mind conscious or subconscious picture a 'not mountain' without thinking? The thinking mind, the conscious mind, will start the process of determining what a 'not mountain' might be, turn it into a positive image of some sort and then picture a flat landscape. But the subconscious mind cannot think rationally and so cannot do this and so will simply see a mountain.

This has enormous ramifications because if you are to teach a child what to do and you frame it in what they should not do, you are very likely going to put the opposite of what you want in that child's subconscious mind; what you don't want. Yet the child, after thinking, will have a rational understanding in their conscious mind of what you do want. So the subconscious will be driving counter to the conscious mind. They are at odds with each other and can even be at war with each other.


The conscious mind has been likened to a Ferrari; very flash and able to zip around, twist and turn and all at high speed. The subconscious mind has been likened to a bulldozer. Slow to move, cumbersome, yet immovable from its chosen course. Not at all impressive compared to the conscious 'Ferrari' mind. However if you were to witness a head to head contest between them as to which would prevail over the other, which would you put your money on?

There will be damage to the conscious mind.
Neuroses, at the very least, and psychoses being very real possibilities.

neurosis, neuroses (pl)
n : a mental or personality disturbance not attributable to any known neurological or organic dysfunction

psychosis, psychoses (pl)
n : any severe mental disorder in which contact with reality is lost or highly distorted

Now imagine a religion that teaches children through negatives;
Thou Shalt Not....Covet ... Steal ... Kill

Then imagine a nation using this religious teaching as its model for behaviour and social and political policies; a nation that builds structures such as legal, police, military and educational bureaucracies, designed and administered by these same children some years later in adulthood. Will this nation engage in behaviours, nationally and internationally, that are destructive of mental health; that are neurotic and/or psychotic?

Will damage follow as night follows day?

Syndicate content