Archives for category: politics

f2

One (of the) reason(s) I don’t use marijuana

I’d a couple of incidental encounters with marijuana in high school in the 1960s, but these had been nothing that attracted me to its use. I seem to recall it was mere matter of saying I’d ‘tried it.’ It was in Vietnam my only, serious, sustained use of the plant, had occurred. After Vietnam, I was an ‘on again, off again’ smoker of cannabis, through the 1970s. By the early 80s, I was mostly through the process of weaning myself of this plant altogether, with the rare encounter. By the time of penning this essay, I’ve not ingested this ‘drug’ in over 30 years. Here follows, is one reason why.

I’d recently encountered an anecdote that caused me recalling a story of a time I was staying at Helena, Montana, I think it was the fall season of 1980. There was a bust ongoing (undercover police work) of the local petty weed dealers and one of them panicked, brought a half pound of super-high THC content sinsemilla to an acquaintance who didn’t smoke dope but wasn’t adverse to people who did, for safe keeping. But then, this dope-dealer left town, no doubt due to the ‘noids.’ The guy holding his dope didn’t want it but knew an artist who smoked and went to drop it at his house; the intended recipient wasn’t home but the artists wife accepted the ‘gift’ and then something remarkable happened.

What the guy delivering the dope to his artist buddy didn’t realize was, the wife had had it up to her neck with her husband’s dope smoking, and his dope smoking buddies, because it was her attitude, now that they were married and had small kids, it was time to ‘get serious’ about life and stop with the dope-drain on their budget.

She put the half pound of sinsemilla, together with a couple pounds of butter, into a large wok, simmered it for some hours at very low heat, strained the now green fat through cheese cloth and made up a VERY LARGE batch of VERY STRONG chocolate (to conceal any flavor of cannabis) brownies sans any evidence of dope (included no leafy matter.) She then proceeded to send the brownies off to a large party attended by her husband’s friends, where a local political wag was to announce the formation of Montana’s new “NO-NOTHING” (correct spelling, a deliberate gag on history) political party. The platform of the party was, the Montana legislature meeting every two years for ninety days, should be changed, to meeting every ninety years for two days.

Everyone who attended that event was wrecked, for a week. And I mean wrecked. The party was on a Saturday night and it was Monday morning people showed up to work so dysfunctional, it defies description. One guy spent 40 minutes, panicked, looking for car keys which were clutched in his fist the entire time he was turning his house upside down, while looking for those very keys, in desperate attempt to get off to work.

And, no, nothing, came of the nascent political endeavor, it was as if it had been little more than a passing hallucination. It’s a pity, because, a legislature limited to meeting once in every ninety years, for two days, seemed (and still seems) like a good idea…

Disclaimer: if this story seems familiar, but only that, to certain of my Montana acquaintances, possibly it is because it is based in fact with a caveat; a few ‘small’ details have been ‘modified’ to indict the truly deserving, while more or less shielding the guilty, possibly excepting myself; with a hazy memory (was it a dream?) of ripping my house apart looking for the keys I had clutched in my fist –

Disclaimer #2: My satire in the present genre is to be honest in the Native American way; in effect, constructing a joke story closely resembling real life, a sort of collage of facts assembled from bits and pieces of diverse experience, combined with anecdotal information to create the culturally intact inherent Native wisdom found in their humor. In other words, parts of the story consist of an autobiographical facts incorporated, multi-faceted rip-off of other peoples life stories and experience. And because unlike the White world, the Native world entertains paradox in daily approach to life, some aspects are simply made up from the imagination’s fund of plausible improbabilities –

Related:

Mother’s Day and Male Dopes

The Great Phuc Uuus Massacre

For those unfamiliar with ‘GLADIO’, this is the name assigned a known history of western democracies intelligence agencies unleashing terror on their own citizens for purpose of influencing or manipulating public opinion to the advantage (historically-typically) of the right wing in politics. In the history developed since GLADIO first spilled into the open in Europe in 1990, we see the Central Intelligence Agency was central to setting up the original cells. Although exposed for mass murders falsely blamed on left wing political movements, the initial GLADIO actors were never prosecuted and the apparatus behind GLADIO never shut down. There is a video documentary of GLADIO  (NATO’s secret armies) farther down this page, followed by more print information. Meanwhile, presented here are the holes in the stories of several USA mass shootings, raising the specter of ongoing GLADIO operations –

Most recent update 10 October 2017:

Gunshot victim testimony of what went on from inside the venue matches the previous analysis of multiple shooters:

Las Vegas, gunfire from at least two automatic weapons, analysis:

2nd, 19 second recording, clearly two automatic weapons:

All for the ‘fact’ of a lone shooter who must simultaneously work two automatic weapons like Rambo (and then conveniently commit suicide.) BUT, What I clearly hear is two separate calibers, two rates of fire, the heavier caliber a lower rate of fire at distance but steady, indicating it is belt fed. The lighter caliber with higher rate of fire is much closer and in bursts. It’s been 45 years but you never forget the nature of the noise, in fact you need to learn to accurately interpret the noise because it can give you critical information in a fluid combat circumstance. These are 2 separate weapons without question, employed from distinct locations.

Then, the Las Vegas Sheriff (going ‘off script’, read on) says the shooter had to have had help, at least in pulling the act together (setting it up)

If you follow the Sheriff over the entire (longer, following) interview, what becomes clear is, in his own words, the ‘facts’ he reports are coming from the FBI. Is the FBI corrupt? Oh yes. So, when we hear two automatic weapons discharging from separate locations, you have to look for openings in the ‘lone shooter’ story the FBI is feeding us.

Interesting ‘facts’ are 1) the ‘hero’ security guard is sent packing before the room is breached by the police team. Is this sanitizing witnesses? The other interesting fact is, the Sheriff states there was a second team hauled a large, heavy bag of weapons to the location in the midst of the operation. Is this opportunity to swap out weapons used? Did large quantities of ammo and, spent brass with associated weapons come up to the room and, a belt fed machine gun and associated ammo and spent brass & belt links go back down in that bag? 3) It has been reported there was a full hour passed after the shooting had stopped, with police on location, before the police forced their way into the ‘shooters’ room. This, coupled with ‘the adjacent room’ (adjoining suite) spoken of by the Sheriff, provides plausible separate entry and exit, with ample time to swap out the evidence.

Also, the Sheriff’s investigators don’t have access to the ‘shooters’ girlfriend, all this information will be fed via the FBI who appear have total control over all information.

An interesting aside, the ‘gentlemen’ (includes FBI ‘investigative’ leader) standing behind the Sheriff like minders, while giving very close attention to every reporter and every question asked, pass a note from one to the other at minute 32:17. What couldn’t wait to be known at that moment? These two guys seemed more interested in the reporting than the crime.

The full interview:

Prior ‘gladio’ updates:

Updated 23 July 2016:

GLADIO returns to Munich: “A Munich police spokesman says witnesses have reported seeing three shooters with “long guns” who attacked a McDonald’s in a city mall”

Munich_3_Shooters.jpg - 1

Three gunmen then magically morph into a single shooter who commits suicide: “A teenage German-Iranian gunman who killed nine people in a shooting spree at a busy Munich shopping centre and then committed suicide had likely acted alone, German police said Saturday”

Munich_3_Shooters_(2).jpg - 1

This preceding would appear to be the more recent USA GLADIO model re-exported to Europe; recalling there has never been a satisfactory explanation for how a recently sold in the USA military grade assault rifle was reported to be employed in the Paris Bataclan massacre: “Milojko Brzakovic of the Zastava arms factory told The Associated Press that the M92 semi-automatic pistol’s serial number matched one his company delivered to an American online arms dealer in May 2013. It was not clear how the gun got back to Europe”

As well at the Bataclan, a member of the band stating: “When I first got to the venue and walked in, I walked past the dude who was supposed to be the security guard for the backstage. I immediately went to the promoter and said: ‘Who’s that guy? I want to put another dude on. Eventually I found out that six or so [band security detail] wouldn’t show up at all.”

Moving on to the USA and the recent killing of police in Dallas, immediately, it is apparent the reporting is problematic; with initial reports of multiple snipers firing from elevated positions, which would be consistent with an initial high rate of police casualties. Most of the police appear to have been gunned down in the first minutes. It was also reported the fire (from multiple snipers) was “triangulated” or a professionally set up, coordinated ambush. Former CIA officer & clandestine service Afghanistan veteran William Hurd stated: “When gunfire started exchanging, you had folks in cross positions that were moving towards the target,” the Texas Republican told Fox News’ “Fox & Friends” program. “Usually, most folks that have never been in that situation are going the opposite direction. The level of coordination, there seemed to be some type of triangulation”

This information is also stated by the Dallas Chief of Police: “We believe these suspects were positioning themselves in a way to try to triangulate against officers,” Brown said”

But within 48 hours the narrative had dramatically changed; it is now a ‘lone gunman’ whom the police took care to blow up with a robot after they had him cornered (never-mind they’d initially reported he’d shot himself.) Question: Why, after cornering the suspect, instead of holding out for a negotiated surrender and possible critically important intelligence gains, would they take him out with an explosive device?  How could  the professional police of Dallas, many of them military veterans qualified  to make an accurate first assessment, get it all so wrong as to have to change the entire story?

At San Bernardino; three shooters, tall with athletic build: eye witness account. Of course we all are subsequently informed this was a (conveniently dead) lone gunman…

 

Orlando nightclub shooting; eyewitnesses claim more than one shooter and accomplices preventing escapes, blocking exit doors from the outside, while shooting went on. Of course this morphed into a single, dead shooter…

Orlando eyewitnesses part 1:

Orlando eyewitnesses part 2:

 

The Navy Yard shootings generated initial reports of multiple gunmen at more than one location, but ultimately a single lone gunman is dead at the scene. But this one gets a little stickier; a swat team on location was ordered not to intervene and leave scene of the ongoing shooting: “A tactical response team from the force was told by a supervisor to leave the scene instead of aiding municipal officers, police sources told the BBC”

BBC_Navy_Yard_SWAT.jpg - 1

Aurora: The evidence covered up by law enforcement and the court in the ‘Batman’ theater shooting is nothing short of overwhelming. Video of close eyewitness accounts (<preceding link is expanded witness accounts) clearly detail the shooter(s) had inside help and this evidence is suppressed:

The only difference between the old domestic Gladio which had been western intelligence agencies engineering terror and the current version of domestic Gladio (Gladio B) is the label put on the enemies supposedly responsible; today’s boogeyman is radical Islam whereas previous to the fall of the Soviet Union the terror boogeyman was communism. A fifty minutes documentary of social engineering via GLADIO terror cells employed by intelligence agencies in Europe is a good place to start:

A postscript observation would be concerning historian Daniele Ganser’s otherwise excellent conclusions in his 2004 book NATO’s Secret Armies:

‘Prudent Precaution or source of Terror?’ the international press pointedly asked when the secret stay-behind armies of NATO were discovered across Western Europe following the Gladio revelations in Italy in late 1990.

After more than ten years of research and investigation the answer is now clear: Both. The secret stay-behind armies of NATO were a prudent precaution, as the available documents and testimonies amply demonstrate. Based on the experiences of the Second World War and the rapid and traumatic occupation of most European countries by the German and Italian forces, military experts feared the Soviet Union and became convinced that a stay-behind army could be of strategic value when it came to the liberation of the occupied territory. Behind enemy lines the secret army could have strengthened the resistance spirit of the population, helped in the running of an organised and armed national resistance, sabotaged and harassed the occupying forces, exfiltrated shot down pilots, and gathered intelligence for the government in exile.

Based on the fear of a potential invasion after the Second World War highly placed officials in the national European governments, in the European military secret services, in NATO as well as in the CIA and the MI6 therefore decided that a secret resistance network had to be set up already during peacetime. On a lower level in the hierarchy citizens and military officers in numerous countries of Western Europe shared this assessment, joined the conspiracy and secretly trained for the emergency. These preparations were not limited to the 16 NATO member countries, but included also the four neutral countries in Western Europe, namely Austria, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland, on which the author is preparing a second publication. In retrospect it has become obvious that the fear was without reason and the training had been futile for the invasion of the Red Army never came. Yet such a certainty was not available at the time. And it is telling that the cover of the network, despite repeated exposures in many countries during the entire Cold War, was only blown completely at exactly the same moment when the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union collapsed. The secret stay-behind armies of NATO, however, were also a source of terror, as the evidence available now shows. It has been this second feature of the secret war that has attracted a lot of attention and criticism in the last decade, and which in the future will need more investigation and research. As of now the evidence indicates that the governments of the United States and Great Britain after the end of the Second World War feared not only a Soviet invasion, but also the Communist Parties, and to a lesser degree the Socialist Parties. The White House and Downing Street feared that in several countries of Western Europe, and above all in Italy, France, Belgium, Finland and Greece, the Communists might reach positions of influence in the executive and destroy the military alliance NATO from within by betraying military secrets to the Soviet Union. It was in this sense that the Pentagon in Washington together with the CIA, MI6 and NATO in a secret war set up and operated the stay-behind armies as an instrument to manipulate and control the democracies of Western Europe from within, unknown to both European populations and parliaments. This strategy lead to terror and fear, as well as to “humiliation and maltreatment of democratic institutions’, as the European press correctly criticised.

Experts of the Cold War will note that Operation Gladio and NATO’s stay-behind armies cast a new light on the question of sovereignty in Western Europe. It is now clear that as the Cold War divided Europe, brutality and terror was employed to control populations on both sides of the Iron Curtain. As far as Eastern Europe is concerned, this fact has long been recognised, long before it had been openly declared. After the Red Army had in 1968 mercilessly crushed the social reforms in Prag, Soviet leader Leonid Breschnew in Moscow with his infamous ‘Breschnew doctrine’ had openly declared that the countries of Eastern Europe were only allowed to enjoy ‘limited sovereignty’. As far as Western Europe is concerned the conviction of being sovereign and independent was shattered more recently. The data from Operation Gladio and NATO’s stay-behind armies indicates a more subtle and hidden strategy to manipulate and limit the sovereignty, with great differences from country to country. Yet a limitation of sovereignty it was. And in each case where the stay-behind network in the absence of a Soviet invasion functioned as a straightjacket for the democracies of Western Europe, Operation Gladio was the Breschnew doctrine of Washington. The strategic rationale to protect NATO from within cannot be brushed aside lightly. But the manipulation of the democracies of Western Europe by Washington and London on a level which many in the European Union still today find difficult to believe clearly violated the rule of law and will require further debate and investigation. In some operations the secret stay-behind soldiers together with the secret military services monitored and filed left-wing politicians and spread anti-Communist propaganda. In more violent operations the secret war led to bloodshed. Tragically the secret warriors linked up with right-wing terrorists, a combination that led – in some countries including at least Belgium, Italy, France, Portugal, Spain, Greece and Turkey – to massacres, torture, coup d’etats and other violent acts. Most of these state-sponsored terrorist operations, as the subsequent cover-ups and fake trials suggest, enjoyed the encouragement and protection of selected highly placed governmental and military officials in Europe and in the United States. Members of the security apparatus and the government on both sides of the Atlantic who themselves despise being linked up with right-wing terrorism must in the future bring more clarity nd understanding into these tragic dimensions of the secret Cold War in Western Europe.

If Cold War experts will derive new data from NATO’s stay-behind network for their discourse on limited sovereignty during the Cold War, then international legal experts and analysts of dysfunctions of democracies will find data on the breakdown of checks and balances within each nation. The Gladio data indicates that the legislative was unable to control the more hidden branches of the executive, and that parliamentary control of secret services is often non-existing or dysfunctional in democracies on both sides of the Atlantic. Totalitarian states have long been known to have operated a great variety of largely uncontrolled and unaccountable secret services and secret armies. Yet to discover such serious dysfunctions also in numerous democracies comes as a great surprise, to say the least. Within this debate of checks and balances military officials have been correct to point out after the discovery of Operation Gladio and NATO’s stay-behind network that there can never be such a thing as a ‘transparent stay-behind army’, for such a network would be exposed immediately in case of invasion and its members would be killed by the invasion force. Parliamentarians and constitutional lawyers meanwhile have been equally correct to emphasise that both the armed forces and the secret services of a democracy must at all times be transparent, accountable, controlled and supervised closely by civilian representatives of the people as they represent the most powerful instruments of the state.

This clash between mandatory secrecy and mandatory transparency, which lies at the heart of the Gladio phenomenon, directly points to the more general question of how much secrecy should be granted to the executive branch of a democracy. Judged from the Gladio evidence, where a lack of transparency and accountability has lead to corruption, abuse and terror, the answer is clear: The executive should be granted no secrecy and should at all times be controlled by the legislative. For a secret government, as it manifested itself in the United States and parts of Western Europe, can lead to abuse and even state terrorism. The growth of Intelligence abuses reflects a more general failure of our basic institutions’, US Senator Frank Church had wisely noted after a detailed investigation of CIA covert operations already in the 1970s. Gladio repeats this warning with a vengance.

It can hardly be overemphasised that running a secret army and funding an unaccountable intelligence service entails grave risks every democracy should seek to avoid. For the risks do not only include uncontrolled violence against groups of citizens, but mass manipulation of entire countries or continents. Among the most far-reaching findings on the secret war, as seen in the analysis, ranges the fact that the stay-behind network had served as a tool to spread fear amongst the population also in the absence of an invasion. The secret armies in some cases functioned as an almost perfect manipulation system that transported the fears of high-ranking military officers in the Pentagon and NATO to the populations in Western Europe. European citizens, as the strategists in the Pentagon saw it, due to their limited vision were unable to perceive the real and present danger of Communism, and therefore they had to be manipulated. By killing innocent citizens on market squares or in supermarkets and blaming the crime on the Communists the secret armies together with convinced right-wing terrorists effectively translated the fears of Pentagon strategists into very real fears of European citizens.

The destructive spiral of manipulation, fear and violence did not end with the fall of the Soviet Union and the discovery of the secret armies in 1990, but on the contrary gained momentum. Ever since the vicious terrorist attacks on the population of the United States on September 11, 2001 and the beginning of the ‘War on Terrorism’ fear and violence dominate not only the headlines across the globe but also the consciousness of millions. In the West the ‘evil Communist’ of the Cold War era has swiftly been replaced with the ‘evil Islamist’ of the war on terrorism era. With almost 3,000 civilians killed on September 11, and several thousands killed in the US-led war on terrorism so far with no end in sight, a new level of brutality has been reached.

Such an environment of fear, as the Gladio evidence shows, is ideally suited to manipulate the masses on both sides into more radical positions. Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaida terror network manipulated millions of Muslims, above all young male adults, to take up a radical position and believe in violence. On the other side also the White House and the administration of George Bush junior has fuelled the spiral of violence and fear and lead millions of Christians and seculars in the United States and in Europe to believe in the necessity and justice of killing other human beings in order to enhance their own security. Yet human security is not being advanced, but on the contrary decays, as the atmosphere is drenched with manipulation, violence and fear. Where the manipulation and the violence originate from and where they lead to, is at times very difficult to dissect. Hitler and the Nazis had profited greatly from manipulation and the fear in the wake of the mysterious Reichstagsbrand in Berlin in 1933, whereupon the Third Reich and Second World War followed. In 2001 the war on terrorism began, and once again radical critics have argued that the White House had manipulated 9/11, the largest terrorist attack in history, for geostrategic purposes.

As people across the globe share a vague sensation ‘that it cannot go on like that’ many search for an exit strategy from the spiral of violence, fear and manipulation. In Europe a consensus is building that terrorism cannot be defeated by war, as the latter feeds the spiral of violence, and hence the war on terrorism is not part of the solution but part of the problem. Furthermore also more high-tech – from retina scanning to smart containers – seems unable to really protect potential targets from terror attacks. More technology might even increase the challenges ahead when exploited for terrorist purposes and asymmetric warfare, a development observable ever since the invention of dynamite in the nineteenth century. Arguably more technology and more violence will therefore not solve the challenges ahead. A potential exit strategy from the spiral of fear, manipulation and violence might have to focus on the individual human being itself and a change of consciousness. Given its free will the individual can decide to focus on non-violent solutions of given problems and promote a dialogue of understanding and forgiveness in order to reduce extremist positions. The individual can break free from fear and manipulation by consciously concentrating on his or her very own feelings, thoughts, words and actions, and by focusing all of them on peaceful solutions. As more secrecy and more bloodshed are unlikely to solve the problems ahead the new millennium seems a particularly adequate time to begin with such a shift in consciousness which can have positive effects both for the world and for oneself.

Following on his excellent deconstructive analysis of GLADIO, Ganser’s epic fail is in the last paragraph where…

A potential exit strategy from the spiral of fear, manipulation and violence might have to focus on the individual human being itself and a change of consciousness. Given its free will the individual can decide to focus on non-violent solutions of given problems and promote a dialogue of understanding and forgiveness in order to reduce extremist positions. The individual can break free from fear and manipulation by consciously concentrating on his or her very own feelings, thoughts, words and actions, and by focusing all of them on peaceful solutions

…naively presuming the class of psychopaths risen to rule from the shadow will somehow magically correct the organic deficit in their personalities. What’s more and what’s worse is, on top of ‘leopards don’t shed their spots’ or criminals do not voluntarily surrender their business models, utterly missing is the ‘how’ that will be required; to weed out a pervasive criminal ‘deep state’ apparatus rooted in every branch and at every level across western democratic institutions. This septic infection of western democratic institutions has become the world’s largest and most entrenched organized crime family, where military-industrial corporate boards are fused with rogue intelligence agencies and ‘terror’ is essential to their bottom line: PROFIT. The stark reality is, generating terror has become a money making venture of such magnitude, were the symbiotic relationship between deliberately generated terror, and the armaments and related industries that derive immense profits from the same, were interrupted, the western culture’s economic engine would collapse.

Insofar as Genser’s ‘non-violence’ proposal, that is well and good, provided it is not manipulated akin to the Gene Sharp model where Ghandi’s moral and ethical principles had been suborned to amoral utilitarian ends based in ‘color revolutions.’ This evil, and those who’ve perpetrated it, must be put away. As well, Genser’s last paragraph should not be construed to allow the GLADIO criminal elements forgiveness along the lines of a ‘truth and reconciliation’ process, which is inconsistent with accountability and the rule of law. If the criminals were to walk free, the principle of deterence is not only rendered meaningless, recidivism would reinfect every institution.

The cycle of revolution attending the ‘rise and fall’ phenomena of the western civilized hierarchies throughout history demonstrates a failed model. At the end of the day, that required going forward will be more along the lines of a ‘reverse’ Social Darwinism where decentralization is the habit and the rule, and all those aspiring to the rise of hierarchy are speedily and effectively squelched; demanding an entirely new social perspective. The impediments to this are formidable.

Example given, rather than initiate a program to convert eastern Europe’s small farmers to organic production, when expanding, the European Union has forced tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of small farmers off the land with required equipment and farm to market ‘upgrades’ these small farmers could not afford or had no access to where the infrastructure did not exist, effectively handing ‘food security’ to multinational conglomerates such as Monsanto and Syngenta. Already a new generation is coming up having lost critical knowledge in community self-sufficiency. There have been few less criminal and anti-democratic acts in the annals of democracy; where the actual facts demand surrender of a community right to self-sufficiency. On the pretext of ‘sanitation’ the EU took away the largest source of clean, community produced foodstuffs and has positioned the likes of Monsanto and Syngenta to replace this vanished community produce with product that, were it labelled honestly, would sport a skull and crossed bones.

Every day that passes with these sort of events left unchecked, reduces the chances of intelligent dismantling of a system gone horrendously wrong; sans violence and escalated social trauma. Everyday that passes under the current criminal class of leadership, those GLADIO false flag actors represented in Obama, Cameron, Merkel, Hollande & company, who either cannot or will not look and act beyond the amorality of ‘Realpolitik’ and move on behalf of people rather than a corporate system which feeds on people, compounds the problem.

Each day of deferred action determines increased gravity in coming, inevitable, social collapse. It is the undeniable repeat history of western civilization. Short of intelligent dismantlement, a radical event in the age of the most lethal weapons the world has ever seen, there almost certainly will be no ‘phoenix’ rise from the western civilization’s ashes, this time. C’est la mort.

*

Related:

Deep State IV NATO & Gladio

Deep State V Economics & counter-insurgency

*

Ron10

In any democracy, ethics, self restraint, tolerance and honesty will always take a second seat to narcissism, avarice, bigotry & persecution, if only because people who play by the rules in any democracy are at a disadvantage to those who easily subvert the rules to their own advantage (Ronald’s Maxim)

Jews in the News

“We have become stupidly politically correct, which is the death of comedy. It’s not good for comedy. Comedy has to walk a thin line, take risks, comedy is the lecherous little elf whispering in the king’s ear, always telling the truth about human behavior” -Mel Brooks, 21 September 2017

Now, this preceding famous Jew’s quote via an anti-anti-Semitic website…

Jews_in_the_News - 1

…is linked to Breitbart:

Jews_in_the_News - 1 (1)

So, I already should be confused; Bannon’s allegedly anti-Semitic website (which has at least one ‘self-hating Jew’ columnist) gets a bone toss from an anti-anti-Semitic watchdog while the (accused) anti-Semitic Breitbart and Bannon are roundly warned against by The Times of Israel. Jesus! Could Mel Brooks sort that with comedy?

Mel Brooks very much appreciates the court jester tradition, a tradition under assault from all directions.

Now, what brought out this rant is, former Central Intelligence Agency officer Valerie “of Jewish descent” Plame is racked and pilloried for ‘tweeting’ former CIA officer Phil Giraldi’s column at Unz Review: America’s Jews Are Driving America’s Wars

What we have here is similarly ludicrous to my introduction; A Jew, Ron Unz, is providing a platform, the Unz Review, to an accused anti-Semite, Phil Giraldi, and when Valerie Plame points to Giraldi lambasting the same ‘usual suspects’ unloaded on by famous self-hating Jew Glenn Greenwald…

Jews_in_the_News - 1 (2)

…the press unloads on Plame with what amounts to a ‘journalistic’ rapid fire cannon (HERE, HERE and the academic ‘usual suspect’ HERE.)

‘The Hill’ includes this language:

“The article the former CIA operative linked to argues that the neoconservative foreign policy establishment is largely beholden to American Jews with an attachment to Israel. The article’s author, Philip Giraldi, says American Jews shouldn’t be allowed to make decisions related to Middle East policy”

Glenn Greenwald might argue it is the WRONG Jews allowed to make foreign policy. And that’s where Giraldi ‘stepped on his dick’ (a military expression) and I suspected from the moment I saw the title of his article he’d get blasted, because Giraldi didn’t (and mostly doesn’t) give attention to the manifold traps, where if you’re not watching where you walk, the all-encompassing term ‘Jew’ can lead to; because the word Jew is sort of like the La Brea tar-pit of nouns: whether self-hating Jews, apostate Jews, kinda Jews (not of a Jewish mother, also known as wild oats Jews), agnostic Jews, atheist Jews, Marxist Jews, Reform Jews, Reform-Jews-aren’t-Jews-Jews (hyper-Orthodox Israeli Rabbinate designated Jews), quit screwing over the world Jews (also known as Tikkun Olam Jews), Jews screwed over our world Jews (Sephardic Jews), waiting to be saved from themselves Jews (Bibi Netanyahu and his ilk), evangelizing Jews (also known as Jews for Jesus or cover for MOSSAD assassin Jews), J Street Jews, AIPAC Jews, neocon Jews, neo-liberal Jews (Soros), Jews on the Left, Jews on the right, stand up, sit down, Fight! Fight! Fight! It’s a pity Celebrity Death Match never pitted Glenn Greenwald against Alan Dershowitz, it’d be platinum at youtube:

As much as I’d have preferred a ‘Perfected Jew’ Ann Coulter versus ‘Kinda Jew’ Gloria Steinem death match (with no survivor), there’s no authentic center survives in today’s politically correct world lamented by a real hero: Mel Brooks (may he forever be blessed for Blazing Saddles.)

This brings us back to Giraldi and his ‘platform’ run by Ron Unz. Why is it ‘mainstream’ media fries Plame over Giraldi but neglects to mention Unz is Jewish? Is it because,  example given, Unz Review also hosts ‘Über-Zionist’ and historical revisionist Llana Mercer who states:

“Libertarians err in mistaking the 2,000-year-old Jewish right to the land for a biblically-based, religious claim. The claim is first and foremost historical, although naturally, the Hebrew community’s claim to its ancient homeland can’t be reduced to a title search at the deeds office. Jewish rights to Israel proceed from the original ownership of the land: The original and rightful owners were Jews. The fact that they were killed and exiled by the Romans doesn’t nullify their ownership”

Setting aside the upcoming potential evidence for hypocrisy, in case where Llana doesn’t seem to have read Jewish history from whence Israel had been created by exterminating the Canaanites, this recalls cartoonist Stan Lynde’s joke attributed to a Crow tribal chief:

“This has been Crow land from time immemorial, it was always Crow land, there has never been a time it was not Crow land, that is, ever since we took it from the Shoshones!

Considering:

Canaanite is by far the most frequently used ethnic term in the Bible. In the Book of Joshua, Canaanites are included in a list of nations to exterminate, and later described as a group which the Israelites had annihilated”

One would think a Jew, that is Llana Mercer, would get her own book right, what a shame Louis Black didn’t notice her commonality with certain televangelist Christians:

In fact Israel’s right to exist as a modern state is due solely to certain United Nations acts Arab states are bound by for the very fact the Arab states joined the United Nations and contracted themselves to the western standard of international law. Certainly a case of ‘it sucks for Palestinians’ (particularly going to the Israeli middle finger put to subsequent UN acts) but that’s the shit which actually matters.

And so it is, relating to Plame read Giraldi, an act worthy of politically correct firing squad, no one in ‘mainstream’ notes Ron Unz is a Jew who hosts a Paleo Zionist (read pro-Israel propagandist) who deliberately doesn’t get her history right. Mainstream press would leave the impression Giraldi is hosted by an anti-Israel/anti-Semitic website.

Now again back to Giraldi: I read Giraldi because he’s a spook. Likely Plame read Giraldi because she’s a spook. Now, if Greenwald, far out on the liberal-left, and Giraldi, far out on the conservative-right, finger the same neocons who happen to be Jews, that should inform you they’re onto something. Would it matter if Giraldi were anti-Semitic in the case of his noticing an accurate fact? Or does the fact die to conform Plame to a politically correct history of events? Considering the media phenomenon of ‘hasbara‘ and certain outcome in western press resembling this, professional spy Giraldi’s accusations against western media should merit further investigation:

“Hasbara is a form of propaganda aimed at an international audience, primarily, but not exclusively, in western countries. It is meant to influence the conversation in a way that positively portrays Israeli political moves and policies, including actions undertaken by Israel in the past”

Meanwhile, let’s look at a couple cases of historical, however highly politically incorrect, exemplary causes of anti-Semitism:

The Nakba

“For refugees, camps were shelters for the reconstruction of personal and social life, but were also seen as sites of great political significance, the material testimony of what was destroyed and ‘all that remains’ of more than four hundred cities, towns and villages forcefully cleansed throughout Palestine in the Nakba of 1947-9. This is the reason refugees sometimes refer to the destruction of camps as ‘the destruction of destruction.’ The camp is not a home, it is a temporary arrangement, and its destruction is but the last iteration in an ongoing process of destruction.

“This rhetoric of double negation – the negation of negation – tallies well with what Saree Makdisi, talking about the Israeli refusal to acknowledge the Nakba, has termed ‘the denial of denial’, which is, he says, ‘a form of foreclosure that produces the inability – the absolutely honest, sincere incapacity – to acknowledge that denial and erasure have themselves been erased in turn and purged from consciousness.’ What has been denied is continuously repeated: Israel keeps on inflicting destruction on refugees and keeps on denying that a wrong has been done” –Eyal Weizman: ‘The Least Of All Possible Evils’ (Humanitarian Violence From Arendt To Gaza)

Following on this preceding act, Cairo’s Sephardic Jewish population dropped from 75,000 to less than 100. The Arab world had become anti-Semitic practically overnight (overlooking oxymoron in the term anti-Semitic, Arabs are a Semitic people.)

Meanwhile, about the time indigenous Jews had been abandoning the Arab world on account of blow-back due  to ‘Jewish State’ behavior, Alan Ginsberg had revolted conservative America with exploits disgustingly glorified, in detail, by Jack Kerouac in his ode to debauchery ‘On the Road.’ Ginsberg, his behavior lauded by the New York Times via Kerouac and subsequently his own ‘howl‘, is the one American responsible for more USA anti-Semitism than the entirety of whatever other reasons exist taken together. How this shit is generated and real, is buried within political correctness. Never did a ‘free press’ fuck over more people who happen to be Jews, by generating hate at a single pop with glorifying the personage of Ginsberg, but HEY! that’s ‘free speech’ in America.

If my despise for Ginsberg is anti-Semitic (as a non-Jew, am I entitled to hate a single Jew?), then not only is Giraldi anti-Semitic but so would be Paleo-Zionist Llana Mercer.

If you care to wade through the sewer of anti-Semitism in  the comments at Giraldi’s columns at Unz Review, you’ll see Giraldi, on occasion, show his temper at anti-Semitic accusations, and also you’ll notice those comments bashing the anti-Semite morons who cling to Giraldi’s work like flies attracted to stink, are also allowed to post.

Whether Giraldi is an anti-Semite is probably a matter of interpretation. He doesn’t do well at separating out Jews of differing persuasions is the kinder interpretation, as his terminology is often all too inclusive. But this kinder interpretation could be correct. A big step he could take in the right direction would be to clean up his ‘forum’ (article comments) with disallowing the hate-mongers’ posts. But then, that’s an ‘in principle’ violation of ‘free speech’ in the conservative American tradition. An ACLU case of  ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ or ‘it sucks for Phil.’

Insofar as Ron Unz, a read through a chapter of his American Pravda reveals a self-honesty rare in today’s world; leading one to possibly understand his willingness to entertain spooks, kooks and pukes from across the spectrum of what would otherwise be largely suppressed voices. Clearly, Unz coined the term ‘American Pravda’ for a reason. Beyond this, there are numerous innate political enemies juxtaposed at the Unz Review and that should speak to something.

At the end of the day (and hopefully not the world), Jews are like anyone else; there are good and bad among them, they have their bright and they have their ugly. That just makes us all equal in a geopolitic where everyone uses everyone and certainly the Israelis both use and get used (too willingly) in concert with those Christian Zionist allies fully intending at the end, all Jews will be either converted or dead and a crusader banner flying from the Temple Mount. That’s amazing to me but nobody seems to have a trademark protection on self destructive behaviors.

I have to close this diatribe, and considering the underlying current of the entire business has to do with 3rd parties allegedly fighting Israel’s wars, with spooks in the spotlight, I’ll close with an Israeli spook:

“I am a humbler man today than I was in the 1970s when I joined Israeli intelligence. I’ve learned the hard way that everyone makes mistakes, some of them so big that they are irrevocable. I’ve also changed my view of Israel and the Jewish people. When I was young, I shared with many Israelis a deep nationalistic feeling — the self-righteous and arrogant belief that we were right and everyone else was wrong, that it was more important for Jews and Israel to survive than others, that we were — as the Bible says — the chosen people. I still believe that Jews are chosen. But no longer can I accept the premise on which the Iranian arms deals were based: ‘Better that their boys die than ours.’ People are people. We are all chosen”Ari Ben-Menashe

*

Giraldi’s rebuttal to the controversy in ‘mainstream’ (external link)

Related at this site:

Christian anti-Semitism

Friedman and the ‘Narrative’

Comic story of a ‘kinda Jew’ girlfriend

Goodman_Amazon - 1 (1)

On Melvin Goodman’s ‘Whistle Blower at the CIA’, an assessment of both; book & author. Of too may criticisms to detail, we begin with what appears to be the statement of a naif:

“The CIA I joined was not the paramilitary organization it is today”

This preceding statement is patently absurd; see former Pentagon liaison to CIA Fletcher Prouty’s nearly 50 years ago account ‘The Secret Team.’ What Goodman misses is, the paramilitary arm of the CIA, part of its’ directorate of operations, is simply [these days] ‘out of the closet’ as compared to the era of Alan Dulles which initially had built this quite amazing, but in those days ‘clandestine’ paramilitary arm, replete with world-wide logistics.

As Goodman details the methodical destruction of the CIA’s independent intelligence function, over decades, by politics driving policy, Goodman seems to naively believe the CIA can be salvaged with un-corrupted leadership imposing its’ will from the top down. Many a well intended executive has gone to their career gallows when presiding over a crime syndicate which despises-sabotages their leadership from within.

Goodman has a positive bias (blind spot) towards certain military, reflecting his war college days. Goodman gets the right-wing orientation and archaic military culture correct, but neglects the institutionalized religious extremism and is too generous to top military figures, particularly former students, e.g. Martin Dempsey, and certainly H.R. McMaster; Dempsey sat on his hands and did nothing to address the problem of (as documented by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation) Christian extremism in the officer corps, McMaster is likely part of this present day problem. This infection is also known to have spread throughout the CIA, how can it not be so much as be noted?

Goodman’s assessment of William Colby is unnecessarily oxymoronic; Former director Colby was a ‘reformer’ troubled by the abuses of the agency but this has to be squared with Colby’s on-site leadership of the office overseeing ‘Phoenix Program’ in Vietnam … but as Goodman was aware, Colby profiles as a ‘catholic conscience’ whose CIA crime programs he oversaw had ‘escaped the lab’ or gone out of control, Phoenix with up to 50,000 assassinations of mostly non-combatants (Colby acknowledged 20,000 dead Viet Cong proper, which is questionable), or for that matter, GLADIO aided and abetted by Colby via Opus Dei and the resultant false-flag terror in Europe. He [Goodman] couldn’t write about the prior, and dare not actually touch the latter; on account of his desire to see the CIA salvaged on the one hand, and his having to submit his book to CIA censors on the other hand. However Goodman mentions the possibility in passing, no one from the CIA is going to delve into actual circumstance of Colby’s death; pointing to assassination for his loose tongue over decades, and not least, for putting Douglas Valentine onto the principals of Phoenix, inclusive of Daniel Ellsberg and Ellsberg’s association with international narcotics traffickers.

Goodman describing Colby as an “honorable” CIA director is more than a stretch. Colby, at best, was repentant, however this cannot forgive a world class international criminal, deserving of nothing less than a life in prison term. That other CIA directors were worse, cannot conceal Colby’s personal history of initiating incalculable evil. This ‘catholic’ attitude of ‘forgiveness’ on Goodman’s part, overlooking a world class criminal’s faults, is one of the worst tools of a self-psychology skewing reality; a human defect that largely destroys his book.

On Robert Gates: “Gates lacked a moral core … his long history of lying, pandering and conniving…” Goodman might have better said Gates had been the ‘flotsam in the septic tank at Langley’ but Goodman is a gentleman in all circumstance, whereas I am not. But there is no mention of Gates’ hardcore Iran-Contra crimes as noted by rogue Israeli intelligence officer Ari Ben Menache.

Instead, Goodman lays tremendous blame on William ‘Bill’ Casey for all sorts of nefarious acts and yet admits Casey was incomprehensible and senile. He seems to miss it was Robert Gates was actually running things on behalf of the Vice President George H.W. Bush, for the mentally disabled Casey, instead Goodman makes Gates out to be Casey’s sycophant. No doubt Robert Gates is worthy of utter contempt, but to put much of the book into reducing Gates’ more than considerable influence during the Reagan administration, to one of a small, shallow, vindictive, two-faced suck-up and butt-kisser (no doubt Gates was all of these) undermining objective intelligence analysis at the CIA, and whose incompetence combined with conforming ‘intelligence’ to ideological policy had done tremendous damage, is an insult to the informed reader. In reality, Robert Gates was also a cunning, accomplished, world-class criminal, throughout his government career. Despite knowing Gates from 1968, Goodman couldn’t properly read him.

There is no mention of Robert Gates role in the 1980 ‘October Surprise’ (in fact no mention at all, of this critically important event.)

Goodman mentions Robert McFarlane but there is no mention of one of the best kept secrets in Washington; that Reagan’s National Security Advisor, McFarlane, was an Israeli intelligence asset, and this is the real reason he was ‘retired’ rather than face politically damning treason charges, to protect George H.W. Bush’s upcoming run for the presidency.

There is no mention of the Guardian expose, where David Petraeus is shown to have been reported to, at the apex of chain of command, concerning clandestine torture sites, and related death squads, in Iraq. This documentary was closely timed to his [Patraeus] resigning from the CIA (only weeks prior to film release), certainly the real reason behind Petraeus departure, the illicit affair with Paula Broadwell exposed as a ‘cover story’ for his resignation, and why the Broadwell case sat on Attorney General Holder’s desk for a year; to see how revelations might develop, answering a question at the White House: would there be any instance of American press picking up the Guardian Films/BBC Arabic documentary? It stretches credulity Goodman wouldn’t have known this.

For all his criticism of Obama’s protection of John Brennan and handing the CIA over to the operations people, with Obama keeping the CIA Office of Inspector General vacant for 42 months, Goodman is timid, there is no chance this guy would look into Obama’s mother’s career as a clandestine services intelligence officer and the fact a young Barack was employed by a CIA front company.

Goodman utterly blows his North Korea analysis, when using LBJ’s metaphor of a nation that “couldn’t piss its way out of a phone booth” let alone pose an existential threat to the USA. He probably wishes he had that back; since his book’s May 2017 publication, North Korea has tested a hydrogen bomb, and appears to have successfully performed a MIRV (multiple independent re-entry vehicles) test with a medium range missile over the Pacific. Directly relevant to this, there is no mention of the ‘Tinners’ CIA ‘sting’ operation that actually accelerated North Korea’s nuclear program; when the CIA had passed authentic bomb designs, with deliberate flaws introduced, through the international black market … and the CIA’s corrupt cut-outs, who just happened to be expert nuclear engineers, caught and corrected the mistakes prior to selling the bomb schematics. This resulted in the CIA insisting all evidence of the ‘sting’ operation be destroyed, an event described by a Swiss investigator as “hiding their own stupidity.”

Goodman’s treatment of Feinstein’s torture report sticks closely to what is already reported in ‘mainstream’ without so much as a whiff of considering whether the entire exercise were a damage control information operation pointing to Feinstein and CIA in collusion to bury the real numbers of renditions and not having to deal with ‘disappeared’ people. The very idea of Feinstein holding the national security state accountable is at odds with her voting record and real actions in nearly every respect.

If Goodman were a real whistle-blower, the CIA history he details, at minimum, would have 1) pointed out the renditions story has never added up, questioning whatever exercise the Feinstein report is really all about; because there is a glaring inconsistency in the math of 11,000 known flights and more  identified renditions aircraft than acknowledged ‘black site’ prisoners, 2) brought up the Guardian expose of Petraeus, 3) confirmed the 1980 ‘October Surprise’ deal with Iran’s ayatollahs, and Robert Gates involvement, 4) fingered William Colby’s key role in setting up the GLADIO cells that eventually terrorized Europe throughout the 1980s, 5) brought up the ‘Tinners’ nuclear sting gone awry, 6) spilled on the CIA’s history of international narcotics trafficking (NOT an isolated Iran-Contra linked phenomenon but ongoing from Vietnam to this day in Afghanistan),  and, not least, 7) how it is a known cartel hit-man, Enrique Prado, rose to become the CIA equal to a two star general, even as  he continued to conduct business with the international narcotics trafficking under-world. Prado is in private business, to this day, untouched. Tell us Goodman, who at CIA is protecting Prado? Goodman could have outlined these subjects without submitting his book for review & censorship and willingly suffered the consequence, but he didn’t.

On the other hand, as an analyst who, having never worked in the ‘operations directorate’, Goodman is a technocrat who never actually experienced the ‘underbelly’ of the CIA. That said, it is hard to believe he’d not be intimately informed of the dirtier side’s history after 24 years at the agency. And most certainly, no one who wishes to stay within the safe confines of the establishment would ever point to the official 9/11 record as being equally bizarre to any of the conspiracy theories; particularly as relates to World Trade Center Building 7 having ‘died of fright’ on the afternoon of 11 September.

Finally, Goodman’s admiration for William ‘the Iran animus’ Burns  – Condoleezza Rice’s hatchet-man, when it came to sinking any rehabilitation in the USA’s relations with Iran under cover of, or pretense of, ‘diplomatic’ efforts – and wishing that genuine creep could have been appointed Director of CIA, shows Goodman’s utter poor judgement of character, or the disingenuous nature of those portions of his book amounting to a revisionist historical fiction. I’m guessing it is poor judgement of a failed analyst for the following important facts Goodman DOES bring out:

Goodman points out that, in March 1985, the CIA was responsible for a Beirut car bomb laden with 400 lbs of explosive that entirely missed its target but killed 80 innocent people. This was result of a) false (read politicized) analysis leading to US Marines stationed in Lebanon b) the subsequent blowing up of the marine’s barracks c) resultant attempt to target a Lebanese responsible for the attack on the marines due to said false analysis placing marines in harms way d) assassination of SOLELY 80 INNOCENTS;  on account of corruption/incompetence by the CIA from beginning through end of process.

‘cash awards’ (legal bribes) paid for ‘politicized’ (falsified) analysis by superiors. Early example is the 1985 assessment Agca’s Attempt to Kill the Pope: A Case for Soviet Involvement.’ The falsifiers are promoted within the system, a legacy of Robert Gates.

Concerning subsequent falsified analysis, this following metaphor is used when choosing people to produce the product:

“”Judge shopping in the courthouse” for there is no better way to assure the outcome of a tendentious intelligence product. You can get the sentence you desire with the right judges; you can do the same with the appointment of the right analysts to draft an intelligence product”

When the better intelligence didn’t fit the politics of policy, Robert Gates routinely blocked that information’s circulation. John Brennan took this farther with his reorganizing the CIA into regional ‘fusion centers’ where the analysts themselves are now subject to manipulation via pre-corrupted ‘raw’ intelligence fed to them directly by the operations side of the agency; thus ‘taming’ the independence of the analysts. This is consistent with my own analysis of the new fusion centers (which goes much farther.)

The office of DNI was designed under Bush to give intelligence final product control (delivery/dissemination) within the administration to the Pentagon; who controls the DNI budget and personnel (!!)

The offices of inspector general are compromised at Defense, State, CIA & NSA.

The CIA’s operations directorate “senior leadership” began an internal war against the OIG office under Bush but this endeavor was much more successful under Obama…

“Obama endorsed an overall weakening of the office of Inspector General throughout the national security bureaucracy and undermined to work of individual inspectors general”

…noting Goodman’s wife was employed at CIA OIG during Bush Jr, to 2005, his source is premium. As well, Goodman notes:

“The State Department had no Inspector General during the entire tenure of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, leaving in place an acting Inspector General with close ties to Secretary Clinton and her husband”

Diane Feinstein “sat on her hands while CIA director Panetta dismantled and marginalized the oversight responsibilities of the Office of Inspector General”

And finally: “The Pentagon is responsible for nearly 90% of personnel in the intelligence community and 85% of the community’s $75 billion budget”

The upshot of Goodman’s book: the military has won the internecine intelligence battle for control set in motion with the creation of the CIA as an intelligence GATHERING (not clandestine operations) agency by Harry Truman and this is not good news. At the end of the day, with a thoroughly militarized intelligence community (noting the CIA’s operations sector has been paramilitary since the era of Allan Dulles), Goodman’s overall point is correct, but this could be lost on readers drowned in the book’s obsession with Robert Gates rants.

My upcoming amazon ranking: two stars.

*

Note on the preceding: embedded links upcoming

Mephisto

A Mephisto assessment of reality

How the United Nations actually dis-invites press with a mail ‘inviting’ press:

From: UN Spokesperson – Do Not Reply
Date: Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 3:57 PM
Subject: Media Advisory: Meeting on Hurricane Irma
To: MEDIA ADVISORY
Meeting on Hurricane Irma United Nations, 15 September 2017 — On 18 September 2017, the President of the seventy-second session of the United Nations General Assembly, H.E. Mr. Miroslav Lajèák, and the Secretary-General of the United Nations, H.E. Mr. António Guterres, will co-host a High-Level Meeting on Hurricane Irma at United Nations Headquarters.

WHEN Monday, 18 September; 12:00 pm – 1:00 pm EDT WHERE: Trusteeship Council Chamber HOW: There is limited seating at the event. UN journalists wishing to cover it can request special passes from the UN Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit.  External print journalists must register here by 4pm EDT on Friday, 15 September

“This is, in three minutes…”

As hard as it may be to the uninitiated to grasp, this is real and not a joke, an email giving external (read not UN insider) journalists 3 minutes to register for attendance at a United Nations meeting on Hurricane Irma. Look at the external press registration deadline versus the time this mail ‘inviting’ external press had been sent. Registration was required three minutes from the time the UN hit send on the mail. If I’m ever freed up to write solely satire, the UN is a rich source…

Kudos to Inner City Press

*

16 September 2017 updated article HERE

 

The entire sand-castle (a product of Obama CIA Director John Brennan’s imagination) the “Russians hacked the election” is finally washing away with an incoming tide. How this plays out is anyone’s guess.

The open question is, how the new information will be leveraged, if it were to actually break into the open widely, with the bad boy Trump essentially captured by the surreal evil that surrounds him. Other than pure evil (e.g. Pence), only a narcissist or a fool would ever desire to be president of this particular republic. In ‘The Donald’, we have both.

1 August 2017 an audio tape is leaked in which Seymour Hersh states the FBI knows it was Seth Rich leaked the DNC mails:

“What the [FBI] report says is that some time in late Spring… he makes contact with WikiLeaks, that’s in his computer. Anyway, they found what he had done is that he had submitted a series of documents — of emails, of juicy emails, from the DNC” -Seymour Hersh

On 9 August 2017 The Nation magazine publishes a column on a group of independent experts…

“Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year”

…demonstrating the DNC mails were leaked, not hacked.

On 18 August 2017 Antiwar.com reports Congressman Dana  Rohrabacher has met with Assange concerning the DNC mails and [the article] further credibly suggests Assange is holding the DNC leak evidence hostage as a bargaining chip to possibly acquire a pardon for himself and leverage wikileaks into legitimacy with a President of the United States who at this point is owned by the USA’s intelligence agencies, a hare-brained scheme destined to fail. Assange & company waited too long.

But this would fit Julian Assange’s self-centered, persecuted-savior complex which never ceases to amaze, this guy (as well, Craig Murray) has allowed the idiots surrounding Trump to push us towards the brink with Russia, for months. All because Assange is tired of his embassy confinement in London, a circumstance that is entirely his own fault for the fact he didn’t have the self-discipline to keep his dick in his pants (whether Assange’s admitted intercourse was a case of rape or not.)

What’s more is, this blog pointed to strong circumstantial evidence it was Seth Rich leaked the DNC mails this past January, and recalling this, it still stretches the imagination a former UK ambassador would make an amateur espionage move worthy of a cub scout playing spy. But that’s what Craig Murray had done in the case of the DNC emails leaked to WikiLeaks.

Seymour Hersh states Seth Rich is the source of the DNC mails. Craig Murray states he had met with the source of the DNC mails. A + B = C:

Craig Murray met with Seth Rich

That Murray would be a high value target for American counter-intelligence to monitor for the reason of his high profile association with WikiLeaks is beyond obvious. For Murray then to state

murray_wikileaks-1

“I know who leaked them. I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things”

…goes to the practically bizarre when coming from a former United Kingdom ambassador to Uzbekistan. The UK is little different to the USA in the case of embassies providing cover for spies; in which case Murray should at least have some rudimentary espionage understanding such as YOU DO NOT MEET YOUR SOURCE DIRECTLY WHEN YOU ARE A HIGH PROFILE TARGET OF YOUR ADVERSARY’S COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE HUNTING YOUR (in this case, WikiLeaks) SOURCE(S)

Then, we had WikiLeak’s Assange giving what amounts to a ‘Glomar’ ‘I will neither confirm or deny’ response concerning the murder (assassination) of Seth Rich after appearing to suggest Rich was the source of the DNC emails leak:

Beyond this, WikiLeaks offering a $20,000 reward for the solving of the Seth Rich murder is laughable, that’s what an American west coast upscale community would offer for the arrest of a serial killer of the neighborhood’s cats. Two million dollars might get two seconds’ attention of a corruptible counter-intelligence agent with knowledge of a professional hit on Seth Rich, twenty million might even net an inside the agency sucker willing to take the exceedingly high risk to one’s life (almost certain death) that would attend selling out an agency hit man for substantial lucre. In truth, the WikiLeaks reward offer amounted to little more than a tabloid publicity stunt.

Narcissism is a blinding thing; and a self-righteous narcissism is no exception. Ambassador Murray could have every good intention but on the face of it, he had seriously screwed up. Murray and WikiLeaks should have immediately come clean, there was little to lose. Seth Rich was the source, Murray had met with him, and much could have been gained by stating so; there would be nothing given up any intelligence agency involved did not already know. It have been the right thing to do.

Craig Murray stating ‘I had a serious lapse of professional judgement and this resulted in the death of Seth Rich’ would be the most responsible and newsworthy move WikiLeaks could have taken; to counter the CIA’s ‘the Russians hacked the DNC’ propaganda lie, in which there is much invested by the agency; and the consequent damage to relations with Russia, and growing threat to what little world peace yet exists, is immense. WikiLeaks should have done the right thing a long time ago and they have not. Why not? Because Assange and WikiLeaks believes Assange’s comfort is more important than world peace. What fucks. This is beyond inexcusable, it’s criminal. But for Murray, there’s more at stake here than just a hit to ego & image.

Murray’s likely role in the DNC leaks case? A personal meeting with Rich to confirm for WikiLeaks Seth Rich was a bona fide insider with authentic material prior to a WikiLeaks cash payment to Rich and arrangements completed for the mails transfer.

Now, it is a question of ‘damned if you do and damned if you don’t’ release the evidence because WikiLeaks waited too long, and let the criminals surrounding Trump consolidate their power while investing deeply in the myth of the Russians hacked the election; a criminal cabal that will up the ante on the world stage to any level necessary to avoid accountability. WikiLeaks Idiots. WikiLeaks Morons.

Meanwhile, Murray subsequently barred from the United States (except that he applies for a visa, typically unnecessary for a British citizen) appears to have been, in a  manner of speaking, a deep state message to Murray: ‘thank you very much for the lapse of judgement, we have taken full advantage with the assassination of Seth Rich and we won’t be requiring your services after this’ (he’d be smart to stay away.)

The really sticky problem for WikiLeaks in this scenario is, Seymour Hersh asserts in the  recorded call WikiLeaks had paid Rich for the leaked documents, damaging or reducing to element of pretense WikiLeaks claims of journalism & providing rationale for deep state prosecutors & judges to find this had been straightforward espionage. But they won’t do it if the Rich-Murray meeting stays buried, a LOT is invested in ‘the Russians did it’ for the public consumption. If it DOES break open, Murray’s ‘goose is cooked.’ It’s now not only WikiLeaks problem in a larger sense, but Murray’s, whether he does or doesn’t admit the assassinated Seth Rich had been the DNC mails source.

Murray’s reputation? C’est la mort.

*

Related:

Agent Assange

Litmus Test

WikiLeaks & Spy Agencies

 

Truth is seldom pure and never simple -Oscar Wilde

I’d tacked the Oscar Wilde quote onto my preceding post on Charlottesville as an afterthought. Then, having thought about Wilde’s maxim, considering his dialect and 19th Century literary period, today he might have rather modified his short statement, in effect, ‘Truth is seldom clean and never simple.’

Since, I’ve read both; Glen Ford’s pointing to the USA founded as a racist state; Trump’s protestations of ‘where does it end’ with removing American monuments; so called ‘scholars‘ disputing Trump’s equating General Lee with General Washington; and finally, I’ve read the letter of Stonewall Jackson’s great, great grandsons, Jack and Warren Christian, natives of Richmond, Virginia.

Prior to my conclusions, allow me to inform you all; I am eligible to belong to the fraternal order “Sons of the Confederate Veterans.” In fact, if they had a ‘noble line’ of descent from the families of the old ‘southern aristocracy’, I would certainly qualify.

According to remote memory, family oral history & genealogy (I had been briefed on these in distant past, and am not intimately familiar with the material), if I recall events correctly, my own great, great grandfather was a casualty of the war, while serving in the Southern military. This orphaned my great grandfather who had been taken in by cousins; these migrated to California some years after the war, I seem to recall from the vicinity of Texarkana, Texas. As a not very interested adolescent, I may have this history transposed and it was an orphaned cousin traveled to California with my ancestor. Either way, I am informed we are somehow related to a Captain Daniel of the 9th Texas artillery or Daniel’s Battery of the Confederacy’s Trans-Mississippi Department, although this last may have no direct bearing on my ancestry, I just don’t know. What I do know is, my great grandfather’s surname was “Daniel” (no ‘s’ at the end of the family’s name) and descended from one of the ‘first’ families of Virginia, or as Wikipedia puts it “a [Virginia] family of old colonial heritage.” In any case, this last is not a distant memory’s conjecture on my part, but had been clear, I’m informed I am descended via a Confederate veteran of the Civil War who was of this ‘Daniel’ family; via my maternal line.

Now, for those unfamiliar with arcane American history, I will give example of this highly educated, southern aristocratic family’s progeny: my relative, the Virginian Peter Vivian Daniel, was author of a concurring opinion in the 1857 decision Dred Scott v Sandford in which he stated:

“the African negro race never have been acknowledged as belonging to the family of nations”

Beyond this seeming remote history (I was in Vietnam when the California branch of the Daniel family held a big reunion, drawing more than 1,000 extended family, mostly educated professionals) I can give up a couple of embarrassing family secrets, one of them pretty bad. If it weren’t bad enough one of my great uncles had been named Forrest, for Nathan Bedford Forrest, whose troops murdered en mass the captured Black Union soldiers at Ft Pillow, one of my great aunts (I had many, so her identity is not in danger) once gave me the original lyric to a certain (in)famous slave auction block ditty or southern nursery rhyme:

Enee, Meany, Miney, Moe
Catch a nigger by the toe
If he hollers
Make him pay
With fifty lashes
Every day

My-mother-told-me-to-choose-the-very-best-one

Fortunately, I was not so deeply immersed in these attitudes to prevent mental escape and, had a wider exposure to our world. Although it never crossed my mind to apply for membership in the Sons of Confederate Veterans, I’d now looked and found lingering influence of a White slant to history, as later I’d read “Lee’s Lieutenants” (several large volumes), a “Robert E Lee Reader” and much more. All of this history has a White slant, regardless of whether the author was a Southern or Northern partisan. I should have read Frederick Douglass but I didn’t. My interest in those days had been primarily martial, not social. What I now understand is, for many, the war and the slave owning South are not exactly remote events. Particularly for Black people with Jim Crow only recently off their back, and, it would seem, for those many Whites who cling to White supremacy as a god-given right to White people.

Going to my amended statement of Oscar Wilde where ‘Truth is seldom clean and never simple”, my take on Trump versus Glen Ford is, both have it right but Ford’s truth is ‘cleaner.’ Trump equates General Lee with General Washington as unequivocal American heroes, whereas Glen Ford equates General Lee with General Washington as racists serving the cause of White supremacy. In the USA founding document, where a ‘negro’ is worth 3/5 of a White Man according to Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution…

“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons” (in effect, Black people)

…according to our founding document, Glen Ford has it right. The USA was founded as a racist state based on “White privilege”

This recalls the ‘scholars’, one of whom stated:

[the monuments] “force us to contemplate the centrality of slavery to the making of the nation,” said Gregory Downs, a history professor at the University of California, Davis who studies the impact of the Civil War on the United States. But he also said the difference between the nation’s first president, George Washington, and then [sic] man who sought to secede from the nation, Robert E. Lee, isn’t complicated.

“It is obvious that traitors in arms to the nation are not equivalent to those who created it,” he said”

Pardon me Mr Gregory Downs, but both men sought to perpetrate slavery by the willful acts of their own volition in a civic context. How is a man, General Washington, who sought to found a nation (United States of America) perpetrating slavery, any different than a man, General Lee, who sought to found a nation (Confederate States of America) perpetrating slavery? This is not a case of comparing apples to oranges.

I expect there’d be many who would join a new organization called “Dissident Sons of the Confederacy” or even “Dissident Sons of the Revolution.” Maybe there is some handful of motivated persons out there would be interested to invest in such an endeavor. Perhaps they will stumble across this blog post. Meanwhile, my hat is off to Stonewall Jackson’s great, great grandsons Jack and Warren Christian, and particularly, my hat is off to Glen Ford at Black Agenda Report.

Full text of the letter by Jack and Warren Christian:

Dear Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney and members of the Monument Avenue Commission,

We are native Richmonders and also the great-great-grandsons of Stonewall Jackson. As two of the closest living relatives to Stonewall, we are writing today to ask for the removal of his statue, as well as the removal of all Confederate statues from Monument Avenue. They are overt symbols of racism and white supremacy, and the time is long overdue for them to depart from public display. Overnight, Baltimore has seen fit to take this action. Richmond should, too.

In making this request, we wish to express our respect and admiration for Mayor Stoney’s leadership while also strongly disagreeing with his claim that “removal of symbols does [nothing] for telling the actual truth [nor] changes the state and culture of racism in this country today.” In our view, the removal of the Jackson statue and others will necessarily further difficult conversations about racial justice. It will begin to tell the truth of us all coming to our senses.

Last weekend, Charlottesville showed us unequivocally that Confederate statues offer pre-existing iconography for racists. The people who descended on Charlottesville last weekend were there to make a naked show of force for white supremacy. To them, the Robert E. Lee statue is a clear symbol of their hateful ideology. The Confederate statues on Monument Avenue are, too—especially Jackson, who faces north, supposedly as if to continue the fight.

We are writing to say that we understand justice very differently from our grandfather’s grandfather, and we wish to make it clear his statue does not represent us.

Through our upbringing and education, we have learned much about Stonewall Jackson. We have learned about his reluctance to fight and his teaching of Sunday School to enslaved peoples in Lexington, Virginia, a potentially criminal activity at the time. We have learned how thoughtful and loving he was toward his family. But we cannot ignore his decision to own slaves, his decision to go to war for the Confederacy, and, ultimately, the fact that he was a white man fighting on the side of white supremacy.

While we are not ashamed of our great-great-grandfather, we are ashamed to benefit from white supremacy while our black family and friends suffer. We are ashamed of the monument.

In fact, instead of lauding Jackson’s violence, we choose to celebrate Stonewall’s sister—our great-great-grandaunt—Laura Jackson Arnold. As an adult Laura became a staunch Unionist and abolitionist. Though she and Stonewall were incredibly close through childhood, she never spoke to Stonewall after his decision to support the Confederacy. We choose to stand on the right side of history with Laura Jackson Arnold.

We are ashamed to benefit from white supremacy while our black family and friends suffer. We are ashamed of the monument.

Confederate monuments like the Jackson statue were never intended as benign symbols. Rather, they were the clearly articulated artwork of white supremacy. Among many examples, we can see this plainly if we look at the dedication of a Confederate statue at the University of North Carolina, in which a speaker proclaimed that the Confederate soldier “saved the very life of the Anglo-Saxon race in the South.” Disturbingly, he went on to recount a tale of performing the “pleasing duty” of “horse whipping” a black woman in front of federal soldiers. All over the South, this grotesque message is conveyed by similar monuments. As importantly, this message is clear to today’s avowed white supremacists.

There is also historical evidence that the statues on Monument Avenue were rejected by black Richmonders at the time of their construction. In the 1870s, John Mitchell, a black city councilman, called the monuments a tribute to “blood and treason” and voiced strong opposition to the use of public funds for building them. Speaking about the Lee Memorial, he vowed that there would come a time when African Americans would “be there to take it down.”

Ongoing racial disparities in incarceration, educational attainment, police brutality, hiring practices, access to health care, and, perhaps most starkly, wealth, make it clear that these monuments do not stand somehow outside of history. Racism and white supremacy, which undoubtedly continue today, are neither natural nor inevitable. Rather, they were created in order to justify the unjustifiable, in particular slavery.

One thing that bonds our extended family, besides our common ancestor, is that many have worked, often as clergy and as educators, for justice in their communities. While we do not purport to speak for all of Stonewall’s kin, our sense of justice leads us to believe that removing the Stonewall statue and other monuments should be part of a larger project of actively mending the racial disparities that hundreds of years of white supremacy have wrought. We hope other descendants of Confederate generals will stand with us.

As cities all over the South are realizing now, we are not in need of added context. We are in need of a new context—one in which the statues have been taken down.

Respectfully,
William Jackson Christian
Warren Edmund Christian
Great-great-grandsons of Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson

*

*

 

%d bloggers like this: