One of the biggest trends of the post financial crisis period has been a plunge in the American public’s perception of the country’s powerful institutions. The establishment often admits this reality with a mixture of bewilderment and erroneous conclusions, ultimately settling on the idea people are upset because “Washington can’t get anything done.” However, nothing could be further from the truth. When it comes to corruption and serving big monied interests, both Congress and the President are very, very good at getting things done. Yes it’s true Congress doesn’t get anything done on behalf of the people, but this is no accident. The government doesn’t work for the people.

The image above looks like concept art for a new dystopian sci-fi film. A billionaire superman with a rictus grin, striding straight past human drones, tethered to machines and blinded to reality by blinking plastic masks. Golden light shines down on the man as he strides past his subjects, cast in gloom, toward a stage where he will accept their adulation. Later that night, he will pore across his vast network and read their praise, heaped upon him in superlatives, as he drives what remains of humanity forward to his singular vision.

Except it’s not from a sci-fi movie — it’s from Mobile World Congress, in Barcelona, and the man is Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg. The picture trips all of our “horrible cyberpunk future” alarms, carefully put in place by everything from The Matrix to Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent. The former uses evil squid-bodied robots, the latter privileged human elites, but both works see humanity too distracted and preoccupied — by a full-scale replica of late-90s reality, or just sports on TV — to even be aware of the actions of those in charge. Zuckerberg’s picture acts this out: MWC attendees plugged into Samsung’s Gear VR headset literally can’t see the Facebook boss as he breezes past them.


114 thoughts on “WERPH AUCHT

  1. Manufacturing Consent Trailer

    Noam Chomsky – The Political Economy of the Mass Media – Part 1 HD

    Noam Chomsky – The Political Economy of the Mass Media – Part 2 HD


    • The Theory of Political Propaganda
      ~Harold D. Lasswell

      The Theory of Political Propaganda. Propaganda is the management of collective attitudes by the manipulation of significant symbols. The word attitude is taken to mean a tendency to act according to certain patterns of valuation. The existence of an attitude is not a direct datum of experience, but an inference from signs which have a conventionalized significance. We say that the voters of a certain ward resent a negro candidate, and in so doing we have compactly summarized the tendency of a particular group to act toward a particular object in a specific context. The valuational patterns upon which this inference is founded may be primitive gestures of the face and body, or more sophisticated gestures of the pen and voice. Taken together, these objects which have a standard meaning in a group are called significant symbols. The elevated eyebrow, the clenched fist, the sharp voice, the pungent phrase, have their references established within the web of a particular culture. Such significant symbols are paraphernalia employed in expressing the attitudes, and they are also capable of being employed to reaffirm or redefine attitudes. Thus, significant symbols have both an expressive and a propagandist function in public life.
      The idea of a”collective attitude” is not that of a super-organic, extranatural entity. Collective phenomena have too often been treated as if they were on a plane apart from individual action. Confusion has arisen principally because students have been slow to invent a word able to bear the connotation of uniformity without also implying a biological or metaphysical unity. The anthropologists have introduced the notion of a pattern to designate the standard uniformities of conduct at a given time and place, and this is the sense of the word here intended. Thus the collective attitude, as a pattern, is a distribution of individual acts and not an indwelling spirit which has achieved transitory realization in the rough, coarse facts of the world of sense.
      Collective attitudes are amenable to many modes of alteration. They may be shattered before an onslaught of violent intimidation or disintegrated by economic coercion. They may be reaffirmed in the muscular regimentation of drill. But their arrangement and rearrangement occurs principally under the impetus of significant symbols; and the technique of using significant symbols for this purpose is propaganda.


      • “The people who own the country ought to govern it.”~John Jay

        (Frank Monaghan, John Jay, chapter 15, p. 323 (1935). According to Monaghan, this “was one of his favorite maxims.”)

        “Those who own the country ought to govern it.” These words were spoken by John Jay, at the Constitutional convention in Philadelphia. It expresses the sentiments of many Americans, both then and now. It expresses a sentiment that grows virulent in an environment where human worth is reduced to a numerical coefficient enabling some to amass an advantage at the expense of others. Let’s not forget that the same men who wrote about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, were reconciled to owning slaves. They belonged to a class society where it was a foregone conclusion that power and wealth were the property of an established oligarchy. That the Jeffersonian vision of democracy was an agrarian based affair intended more as a consolidation of power than an egalitarian reform. The Constitution is a cleverly crafted instrument of control created to insure that power remained in the hands of a certain segment of society. What appears on the surface as safeguards for our liberty are manacles shackling our freedom more securely than any totalitarian regime. We act as if our founding fathers were infallible when they were acting with the same self-interest at heart as today’s investment bankers and insurance companies.

    • Kakistocracy in play just in case you weren’t sure that it is indeed in play. From James Corbett.

      And Now For The 100 Trillion Dollar Bankster Climate Swindle…

      carbontaxby James Corbett
      February 23, 2016

      Quick: what’s the first thing you remember about the climate conference in Paris last December?

      The weather astrologers’ absurd resolution to control the amount of temperature rise the world will experience over the next century?

      Politicians grandstanding on the freshly-dead victims of their latest false flag to proclaim that their global warming nonsense was a “powerful rebuke” to their proxy terror army in Syria?

      The predictable (but no less retch-inducing) hypocrisy of the jetset glitterati descending on Paris in their private jets and limousine fleets to dine on banquet lunches from Micheline-starred chefs before lecturing humanity on how we’ll all have to tighten our belts for the new climate austerity?

      Of course that’s what you remember. Because that’s what you’re expected to remember. As long as you never peek under the hood, never lift the lid to check what’s inside the COP21 documents, they’re perfectly happy for the usual drivel about saving the planet to be printed in the mainstream press. They’re perfectly happy for the progressive press to print the usual nonsense lamenting the fact that there isn’t a strong enough global government to save us from the weather demons. They’re even happy for the dissenters to debunk the flawed science and point out the hypocrisies and lambaste the silly political statements because all of these things miss the heart of the issue.

      The heart of the issue (for those who need it elaborated) is this: the future of $90 trillion of energy infrastructure investments and the $1 trillion green bond market and the multi-trillion dollar carbon trading market and the $391 billion (and growing) climate finance industry hangs in the balance.

      Of course it does. What else explains the convergence of interest in the organizations, structures and mechanisms for global governance that the magical global thermostat narrative affords?

      It’s why Enron and Goldman Sachs pioneered the emissions trading swindles (that–surprise, surprise!–are a complete and total fraud from top to bottom).

      rothschildnbcIt’s why General Electric, DuPont, Johnson & Johnson, Pepsi, Siemens, AIG and a host of other Fortune 500/CFR companies joined BP, ConocoPhillips, GM and a host of other oiligarch companies as founding members of the US Climate Action Partnership whose “Blueprint for Legislative Action” became the backbone of the Wall Street-backed Waxman-Markey bill of 2009.

      It’s why the Rockefellers and Rothschilds are at the forefront of the climate hysteria.

      It’s why over 400 global institutional investors worth over $25 trillion have decided to cash in on the bonanza with their “Investment Platform for Climate Actions.”

      Heck, it’s why EDF, Engie, Air France, Renault, BNP Paribas and a host of other oiligarch companies footed 20% of the bill for the Paris conference itself (and why the French government bent over backwards to point out their “green” credentials).

      Take just one structural element of the climate swindle: the Green Climate Fund. Never heard of it? Hardly surprising. It’s just the facility through which the UN is expected to be clearing $100 billion in climate funding per year by the end of the decade. That’s right: $100 billion per year. Every year.

      The Fund was established at the 2010 edition of the UN Climate Conference (COP16) in Mexico in order “to support concrete mitigation actions by developing countries that are implemented in a transparent way,” which is UN Newspeak for “create a bottomless trough of pork for corrupt kleptocrats, bureaucrats, kakistocrats and tyrants to siphon off before funneling some loose change into some makework projects.” And it brags that it represents “a new and equitable form of global governance to respond to the global challenge of climate change” which you hardly need the globalist decoder to figure out. The Fund is headquartered in the Songdo Business District of Incheon, South Korea, because the Korean Secretary-General of the UN and the Korean President of the World Bank probably just threw darts at a map (since, as we all know, blatant political nepotism never happens at those institutions).

      GreedyCFEven the Fund’s biggest supporters are criticizing the “transparent way” it is handling its first disbursement. The Fund claims it consulted indigenous communities before approving $6.2 million for a Peruvian wetlands resilience programme, but there is no verification that this ever took place. Worse, details of the projects it has decided to fund so far have not been publicly released, only proposal documents (and in two cases, only a summary).

      But for those who still believe this money is being handled by angels with nothing but the best interests of humanity in mind, note this passage from the Nature article on the Fund’s shadiness:

      “For some, another contentious issue is that the GCF is flowing its money mainly through international organizations, such as multilateral or private banks such as the World Bank and Deutsche Bank — rather than sending it directly to institutions in developing countries where the projects are taking place.”

      For some? You mean, for people with their head screwed on straight?

      Oh, and the kicker? The Fund’s Executive Director just happens to be an ex-Citibank investment banker. Who woulda thunk it?

      Yes, the global climate swindle is well under way, brought to you by the same trustworthy folks in the banking industry and in the Fortune 500 / CFR / globalist jetset who have been steering us into the happy economic, political and environmental conditions that we enjoy today…

      …oh, wait…

      climatebankersIf there’s any bright spot in all of this it’s that so far the Fund has only managed to raise just over $10 billion in pledges from the developed countries. And even that is an inflated number which includes the $3 billion which Obama made a big show of pledging in 2014 but so far hasn’t actually delivered. It’s a long way to go to get to that $100 billion/year mark they’re hoping to reach by 2020.

      Don’t feel too sorry for the globalists, though. Their game is a war of attrition, and as long as people continue to buy into the narrative that all of this money is going to help the poor and downtrodden (by way of the UN and the World Bank and their corporate crony Wall Street financial institutions) then it’s only a matter of time before this thin edge of climate cronyism turns into the full wedge of global kleptocracy.

  2. By the way, hybridrogue1 is my nom de guerre, my real name is Willy Whitten. I like to mention this from time to time, because the National Security State already knows this – so why shouldn’t my readers know.

      • Thanks Cartier, I think I recall you from the land of truth and shadows. Not as a commentator so much as giving “likes” to threads there.

      • I don’t go there any more either!
        What are some of the sites you like Cartier? It’s okay to post links to them with a description as to what they pertain to if you wish.

      • I think an old conversation of ours once went,

        “That is a beautiful gown you are wearing in that picture.”~Myself

        “Why thank you, you are quite the gentleman.”~Yourself, McCloud

        Perhaps you also recall some of our other conversations that eventually followed–aye McCloud?

        Do burning Stars of David or Swastikas and such regalia remind you?

      • OMG! You are crazy! Yes, I do remember that one, you naughty boy. What happened to us, Willy? Hahaha! Did I know your real name then? So many men, so little time. Hahahahaha! Sorry, how could I resist?? Do you save everything from your ladies? Hahaa! Oh god, I’m screaming!

        Talk to me, Willy:P

      • My memory is often considered quite remarkable by many I have encountered Cartier.

        So I presume you might recall how our conversations proceeded there?

        Be careful of what you say on these pages “dear lady McCloud”


      • hybridrogue1 November 4, 2015 at 8:37 pm

        I should also like to explain, as I have done previously in many of my other articles on Zionism; that it has nothing to do with Judaism, in other as a cover for a political agenda. That agenda is based on the concept that “Might is Right” and promoted by, “The Ends are Justified by the Means”. This is simply a manifestation of Realpolitik. This mindset has no boundaries as far as religious or theological beliefs.

        Even the infamous ‘Protocols’ are likely not written by “Jews” in the religious sense of that term. They were ZIONISTS first and foremost as described above.


  3. A little wisdom from a man locked up for life:


    It is not possible to make a LASTING compromise between technology and freedom, because technology is by far the more powerful social force and continually encroaches on freedom through REPEATED compromises. Imagine the case of two neighbors, each of whom at the outset owns the same amount of land, but one of whom is more powerful than the other. The powerful one demands a piece of the other’s land. The weak one refuses. The powerful one says, “OK, let’s compromise. Give me half of what I asked.” The weak one has little choice but to give in. Some time later the powerful neighbor demands another piece of land, again there is a compromise, and so forth. By forcing a long series of compromises on the weaker man, the powerful one eventually gets all of his land. So it goes in the conflict between technology and freedom.

    Let us explain why technology is a more powerful social force than the aspiration for freedom.

    A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it very seriously later on. For example, consider motorized transport. A walking man formerly could go where he pleased, go at his own pace without observing any traffic regulations, and was independent of technological support-systems. When motor vehicles were introduced they appeared to increase man’s freedom. They took no freedom away from the walking man, no one had to have an automobile if he didn’t want one, and anyone who did choose to buy an automobile could travel much faster than the walking man. But the introduction of motorized transport soon changed society in such a way as to restrict greatly man’s freedom of locomotion. When automobiles became numerous, it became necessary to regulate their use extensively. In a car, especially in densely populated areas, one cannot just go where one likes at one’s own pace one’s movement is governed by the flow of traffic and by various traffic laws. One is tied down by various obligations: license requirements, driver test, renewing registration, insurance, maintenance required for safety, monthly payments on purchase price. Moreover, the use of motorized transport is no longer optional. Since the introduction of motorized transport the arrangement of our cities has changed in such a way that the majority of people no longer live within walking distance of their place of employment, shopping areas and recreational opportunities, so that they HAVE TO depend on the automobile for transportation. Or else they must use public transportation, in which case they have even less control over their own movement than when driving a car. Even the walker’s freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he continually has to stop and wait for traffic lights that are designed mainly to serve auto traffic. In the country, motor traffic makes it dangerous

    and unpleasant to walk along the highway. (Note the important point we have illustrated with the case of motorized transport: When a new item of technology is introduced as an option that an individual can accept or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional. In many cases the new technology changes society in such a way that people eventually find themselves FORCED to use it.)

    Ted Kaczynski – Unabomber

    • Thank you Mr Hazan,

      Kaczynski was definitely on to something.

      He made a rather startling mistake in “PR” however.

      Kaczynski was actually an intellectual on par with Jacques Ellul and his work, THE TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY.

  4. “Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last one of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all.” –Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 1824. ME 16:73

  5. Hello world!

    hybridrogue1 / June 1, 2009

    Ye shall know the truth. And the truth shall revolt thee.

    There is nothing more horrific than real history. History is a grimoire…


    Law is fiction. It is a fictional language. It only applies to fictitious entities, such as; corporations, states, persons, citizens, etc…

    Of course human beings are lassoed hog-tied and forced into submission to the state at birth. You even get a ‘certification’ of such!

    Government is a racket. Law is the Rule of the racketeers.

    That’s right folks; There’s no business like bullshit – it’s the only game in town.

    Prove it to yourself by a forensic framing of history and current events:

    modus operandi – motive – means & opportunity – cui bono

    . . . . . . . . . . . .



    • There is of course a Hegelian flip side to this ‘socialist’ bullshit that Hedges promotes. Both the left and the right lead to the total state. Whatever the “blowback” will be, it is a spin of the roulette wheel as to what color slot the ball lands in.

    • That still shot of them sitting at the table looks like Abby just said, “You’re playing with your dick under the table aren’t you Chris?” and he is laughing and saying, “hah! You caught me!”

  6. The Principles of Liberation

    César Augusto Sandino (May 18, 1895 – February 21, 1934), was a Nicaraguan revolutionary and leader of a rebellion between 1927 and 1933 against the U.S. military occupation of Nicaragua. He was referred to as a “bandit” by the United States government; his exploits made him a hero throughout much of Latin America, where he became a symbol of resistance to United States’ domination. He drew units of the United States Marine Corps into an undeclared guerrilla war. The United States troops withdrew from the country in 1933 after overseeing the election and inauguration of President Juan Bautista Sacasa, who had returned from exile. The re-call of the Marines was largely due to the Great Depression.

    Sandino was assassinated in 1934 by National Guard forces of Gen. Anastasio Somoza García, who went on to seize power in a coup d’état two years later. After being elected by an overwhelming vote as president in 1936, Somoza Garcia resumed control of the National Guard and established a dictatorship and family dynasty that would rule Nicaragua for more than 40 years. Sandino’s political legacy was claimed by the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN), which finally overthrew the Somoza government in 1979.

    Sandino is revered in Nicaragua, and in 2010 was unanimously named a “national hero” by the nation’s congress. Sandino’s political descendants, along with the icons of his wide-brimmed hat and boots, and influence of his writings from the years of warfare against the U.S. Marines, continue to help shape the national identity of Nicaragua.
    . . . . . .
    “It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!”~Emiliano Zapata

    Emiliano Zapata Salazar (8 August 1879 – 10 April 1919) was a leading figure in the Mexican Revolution against the dictatorship of Porfirio Díaz which broke out in 1910.

  7. Bill Gates Shows His True Totalitarian Colors

    Bill Gates has broken ranks with Silicon Valley in the stand-off between Appleand the US government, saying technology companies should be forced to co-operate with law enforcement in terrorism investigations.

    The Microsoft founder took issue with Tim Cook’s characterisation of the government’s order that Apple help break open the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone as a demand for a “back door”, denying that it would set a wider precedent.

    “This is a specific case where the government is asking for access to information. They are not asking for some general thing, they are asking for a particular case,” Mr Gates told the Financial Times.


    [White Paper]

    Forward by Lt. Gen. John N. “Jack” Shanahan
    Director for Defense Intelligence (Warfighter Support) (DDI WS), Office of the Under Secretary of
    Defense for Intelligence.
    It has now been five years since the events of the “Arab Spring,” and initial optimism about lasting
    democratic reforms and an era of lessened tensions has been replaced by fear and skepticism. Many
    countries are now experiencing greater instability and violence than before. The vestiges of Al Qaeda
    in Iraq have morphed into the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (or the Levant)—ISIS or ISIL,
    sweeping through Iraq and Syria and leaving behind much death and destruction. The growth of
    violent extremism initiated by Al Qaeda and its radical interpretation of the Islamic ideology is
    continuing. ISIL’s deft manipulation of social media to compel and mobilize individuals to act out
    violently is both remarkable and frightening.
    Research reveals important factors to consider as well as questions to ask when developing policies
    and strategies to counter violent extremism (CVE)


  9. Al-Qaeda

    What does the word “Al-Qaeda” mean ? In Arabic, “Al-Qaeda” has a different meanings, among them “Base”, “Ground”, “Norm”, “Rule”, “Fundament”,
    “Grammar”. The exact meaning is dependent on the context in which it is used.

    It depends on the word which follows “Al-Qaeda” in the sentence. “Qawa’ad
    Askaria” is an Army Base, “Qawa’ad Lugha” stands for Grammar Rules (the Bases of Grammar).
    “Qa’ada” is the infinitive of the verb “to sit”. “Ma-Qa’ad” is a chair. “Al-Qaeda”
    is the base or fundament of something. “Ana raicha Al Qaeda” is colloquial for
    “I’m going to the toilet”. A very common and widespread use of the word “Al-Qaeda” in different Arab countries in the public language is for the toilet bowl.

    This name comes from the Arabic verb “Qa’ada” which mean “to sit”,
    pertinently, on the “Toilet Bowl”. In most Arabs homes there are two kinds of toilets: “Al-Qaeda” also called the “Hamam Franji” or foreign toilet, and
    “Hamam Arabi” or “Arab toilet” which is a hole in the ground. Lest we forget
    it, the potty used by small children is called “Ma Qa’adia” or “Little Qaeda”.

    Those who founded the glorious “International of Islamic Terror, Al-Qaeda,
    probably knew too little about common use of Arabic language to know that by using this name for their organization, they risked becoming the laughing stock of everybody who speaks the Arabic “public” language.

  10. “In addition to Operation Northwoods, under the Operation Mongoose program the U.S. Department of Defense had a number of similar proposals to be taken against the Cuban regime of Fidel Castro.

    Twelve of these proposals come from a 2 February 1962 memorandum entitled “Possible Actions to Provoke, Harass or Disrupt Cuba,” written by Brig. Gen. William H. Craig and submitted to Brig. Gen. Edward Lansdale, the commander of the Operation Mongoose project.[12][6]

    The memorandum outlines Operation Bingo, a plan to “create an incident which has the appearance of an attack on U.S. facilities (GMO) in Cuba, thus providing an excuse for use of U.S. military might to overthrow the current government of Cuba.”

    Even after General Lemnitzer lost his job as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Joint Chiefs of Staff still planned false-flag pretext operations at least into 1963. A different U.S. Department of Defense policy paper created in 1963 discussed a plan to make it appear that Cuba had attacked a member of the Organization of American States (OAS) so that the United States could retaliate. The U.S. Department of Defense document says of one of the scenarios, “A contrived ‘Cuban’ attack on an OAS member could be set up, and the attacked state could be urged to take measures of self-defense and request assistance from the U.S. and OAS.”

    The plan expressed confidence that by this action, “the U.S. could almost certainly obtain the necessary two-thirds support among OAS members for collective action against Cuba.”[13][14]

    Included in the nations the Joint Chiefs suggested as targets for covert attacks were Jamaica and Trinidad-Tobago. Since both were members of the British Commonwealth, the Joint Chiefs hoped that by secretly attacking them and then falsely blaming Cuba, the United States could incite the people of the United Kingdom into supporting a war against Castro.[13]

    Also see:

    “The final straw may have come during a White House meeting on February 26, 1962. Concerned that General Lansdale’s various covert action plans under Operation Mongoose were simply becoming more outrageous and going nowhere, Robert Kennedy told him to drop all anti-Castro efforts. Instead, Lansdale was ordered to concentrate for the next three months strictly on gathering intelligence about Cuba. It was a humiliating defeat for Lansdale, a man more accustomed to praise than to scorn.

    As the Kennedy brothers appeared to suddenly “go soft” on Castro, Lemnitzer could see his opportunity to invade Cuba quickly slipping away. The attempts to provoke the Cuban public to revolt seemed dead and Castro, unfortunately, appeared to have no inclination to launch any attacks against Americans or their property Lemnitzer and the other Chiefs knew there was only one option left that would ensure their war. They would have to trick the American public and world opinion into hating Cuba so much that they would not only go along, but would insist that he and his generals launch their war against Castro. “World opinion, and the United Nations forum,” said a secret JCS document, “should be favorably affected by developing the international image of the Cuban government as rash and irresponsible, and as an alarming and unpredictable threat to the peace of the Western Hemisphere.”

    Operation Northwoods called for a war in which many patriotic Americans and innocent Cubans would die senseless deaths, all to satisfy the egos of twisted generals back in Washington, safe in their taxpayer financed homes and limousines.”

    From BODY OF SECRETS, James Bamford, Doubleday, 2001, p.82 and following.
    Scanned and edited by NY Transfer News.
    Also see:

    • On 21 December, after his visit to Saigon to discuss plans for action against the
      North, Secretary McNamara told President Johnson that the situation in South Vietnam
      was “very disturbing.” “Current trends,” he declared, “unless reversed in the next 2–3
      months, will lead to neutralization at best and more likely to a Communist-controlled
      state.” Secretary McNamara saw the new government as indecisive and drifting, with no
      clear idea of how to reshape or conduct the pacification program. The province chiefs,
      most of whom were new, were receiving little or no direction. Army commanders were
      preoccupied with political matters and ineffective in directing military operations.
      Secretary McNamara also found the US mission in disarray. “It lacks leadership, has
      been poorly informed, and is not working to a common plan.” Ambassador Lodge “simply
      does not know how to conduct a coordinated administration …. He has operated as a
      loner all his life and cannot readily change now.” Lodge “has virtually no official contact
      with Harkins.” The Ambassador “sends in reports with major military implications without
      showing them to Harkins, and does not show Harkins important incoming traffic.”
      Given these circumstances, Secretary McNamara, not surprisingly, found that the
      Viet Cong were gaining ground and probably had been doing so since about July 1963.
      Earlier US reports of progress had apparently been ill-founded “because of our undue
      dependence on distorted Vietnamese reporting.” The Viet Cong now controlled very
      high proportions of the people in some key provinces, particularly those directly south
      and west of Saigon. In those provinces, the strategic hamlet program was seriously
      overextended. The Viet Cong had been able to destroy many hamlets, while others had
      been abandoned, or betrayed and pillaged, by the government’s own Self Defense Corps.
      In these key provinces, the insurgents were collecting taxes at will. The situation in the
      northern and central areas of South Vietnam was considerably better than around Saigon
      and in the Mekong Delta; but overall conditions were far from encouraging.14
      Major General Krulak spoke in the same vein of the weaknesses in the new government.
      On 23 December 1963, he reported that “operations of the governmental mechanism—far
      from satisfactory before the coup—have decelerated greatly.” The junta,
      although composed of competent military leaders, was now preoccupied with politics,
      a field in which its members were far less qualified. As a result, the South Vietnamese
      generals slighted their primary task of fighting the war. At the same time, General
      Krulak judged, the civilian element of the Saigon government was of marginal quality,
      unprepared to handle complex administration. In the provinces, officials were unsure
      of their authority, their obligations, and their tenure. The same was true throughout the
      military chain of command.15

    • Copies of NSAMs 263 and 273, and Some Primary Supporting Documents

      Contained herein are copies of National Security Action Memorandum Number 263 (10/11/63), Number 273 (11/26/63), and some of their primary supporting documents. These representations are taken from Foreign Relations of the United States, Volume IV, Vietnam August-December 1963 (Dept. of State Publication 9857), published in 1991 by the U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

      Fletcher describes his participation as one of General Krulak’s principal writers for the text that became NSAM 263 beginning on page 70, JFK Prepares To Get Out Of Vietnam: The Taylor/McNamara Trip Report of October 1963 and NSAM 263. As explained in the first paragraph of the Preface of FRUS, vol IV:
      Signed by President Johnson four days after President Kennedy’s murder, NSAM 273 was extraordinarily significant given the fact that for the first time the stated goal of the U.S. was altered to be that of helping the South Vietnamese government win the war:

      It remains the central object of the United States in South Vietnam to assist the people and Government of that country to win their contest against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy.
      This sort of wording was something President Kennedy had steadfastly vetoed when it had been proposed by some of his military advisers a number of times in the past. Thus NSAM 273 explicitly delineated the beginning of the reversal of JFK’s policy that had begun to take explicit shape with the signing of NSAM 263. This despite the fact that one of LBJ’s most common phrases after the assassination and during his 1964 campaign was “let us continue.” This breach was further obfuscated by such statements as “It remains the central object of the United States in South Vietnam . . . ” Such declarations indicated the discontinuity with events that were unfolding and being directed by President Kennedy prior to November 22, 1963.


      Prouty: That was in September of 1963. By that time General Krulak knew what Kennedy’s plans were. So that when he came back he sat down and he started writing what became NSAM 263 — otherwise known as the Taylor/McNamara Trip Report of October ’63.[1] They both are the same, although some people don’t realize that the numbered memoranda simply covers the Taylor/McNamara Report.

      But they’re the same document, and they bear the same authority coming from the White House as a National Security Action Memorandum. So Krulak was engaged writing this major report — and I was one of his principal writers — I wrote probably as much or more of that document than anybody else did. It was a very large report, profusely illustrated; we had pictures in it, we had maps in it. When it was all done, they bound it in a big leather cover that said “President John F. Kennedy from Robert McNamara and Maxwell Taylor.”

      We flew the finished report to Hawaii in a jet, gave it to Taylor and McNamara so they could read it on their way back, so that when they gave it to Kennedy they at least would know it existed. But what the report was really, was Kennedy’s own views on the Vietnam War — not anybody else’s. All Krulak did (and all I did) was write what Kennedy had told us to do.

      The agent in that was Bobby Kennedy. Krulak would see Bobby Kennedy, I guess, every day. We even slept in the office for awhile. We were working right around the clock. We had something like 16 secretaries, four every four hours, just going right around the clock like that, getting this huge report prepared. (It was before the days of word processors and things like that.)

      But when Taylor and McNamara came back and landed in a helicopter on the lawn of the White House, they gave the President this big report. The President knew exactly what was in the report because it was what he had dictated to Krulak. What Krulak had written and given to them had made the circle; it was back in Kennedy’s hands and now he could declare it to be national policy.

      About two days later, on October 11th, 1963, he signed this NSAM 263 which, among other things, said that by Christmas time a thousand military men are coming out of Vietnam, coming home. And by the end of 1965 all U.S. personnel will be out of Vietnam.

      That was very important. For instance, in the Pacific at that time we had a military publication called the Stars and Stripes. It was the old newspaper from WWII. The headline of the Stars and Stripes that day (great big headline) said: “One thousand troops being withdrawn from Vietnam by Christmas and the remainder by ’65.” Nobody missed the point. It was right there in big letters. And this is what Kennedy planned.

      Privately, Kennedy had told some of his confidants that “As soon as I am reelected, I am going to get people out of Vietnam and we’re going to Vietnamize that war; we’ll just provide support for them;” and “I’m going to break the CIA into a thousand pieces.” Those are quotables you can get from Senator Mansfield and from other intimates of the President (and that those of us working on those things day-by-day knew were exactly the sentiments of John F. Kennedy)

      • “Here is Robert McNamara’s summary of the October 2, 1963 meeting, my comment, and his description of the outcome:

        One faction believed military progress had been good and training had progressed to the point where we could begin to withdraw. A second faction did not see the war as progressing well and did not see the South Vietnamese showing evidence of successful training. But they, too, agreed that we should begin to withdraw. . . . The third faction, representing the majority, considered the South Vietnamese trainable but believed our training had not been in place long enough to achieve results and, therefore, should continue at current levels.

        As McNamara’s 1986 oral history, on deposit at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library, makes clear (but his book does not), he was himself in the second group, who favored withdrawal without victory—not necessarily admitting or even predicting defeat, but accepting uncertainty as to what would follow. The denouement came shortly thereafter:

        After much debate, the president endorsed our recommendation to withdraw 1,000 men by December 31, 1963. He did so, I recall, without indicating his reasoning. In any event, because objections had been so intense and because I suspected others might try to get him to reverse the decision, I urged him to announce it publicly. That would set it in concrete. . . . The president finally agreed, and the announcement was released by Pierre Salinger after the meeting.’

        On the day Kennedy died, the course of policy had been set. This is not speculation about a state of mind. It is a statement of fact about a decision.”~James K. Galbraith

        The record shows definitively that JFK had determined to pull the US out of Vietnam. There is simply no question about it. Those are the FACTS. Some may speculate that had Kennedy lived he would have changed his mind…that is SPECULATION.

      John M. Newman

      Newman’s argument was stronger: Kennedy, had decided to begin a phased withdrawal from Vietnam, he had ordered this withdrawal to begin. Here is the chronology:

      (1) On October 2, 1963, Kennedy received the report of a mission to Saigon by McNamara and Maxwell Taylor, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). The main recommendations, which appear in Section I(B) of the McNamara-Taylor report, were that a phased withdrawal be completed by the end of 1965 and that the “Defense Department should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1,000 out of 17,000 U.S. military personnel stationed in Vietnam by the end of 1963.” At Kennedy’s instruction, Press Secretary Pierre Salinger made a public announcement that evening of McNamara’s recommended timetable for withdrawal.

      (2) On October 5, Kennedy made his formal decision. Newman quotes the minutes of the meeting that day:

      The President also said that our decision to remove 1,000 U.S. advisors by December of this year should not be raised formally with Diem. Instead the action should be carried out routinely as part of our general posture of withdrawing people when they are no longer needed. (Emphasis added.)

      The passage illustrates two points: (a) that a decision was in fact made on that day, and (b) that despite the earlier announcement of McNamara’s recommendation, the October 5 decision was not a ruse or pressure tactic to win reforms from Diem but a decision to begin withdrawal irrespective of Diem or his reactions.

      (3) On October 11, the White House issued NSAM 263, which states:

      The President approved the military recommendations contained in section I B (1-3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.

      In other words, the withdrawal recommended by McNamara on October 2 was embraced in secret by Kennedy on October 5 and implemented by his order on October 11, also in secret. Newman argues that the secrecy after October 2 can be explained by a diplomatic reason. Kennedy did not want Diem or anyone else to interpret the withdrawal as part of any pressure tactic (other steps that were pressure tactics had also been approved). There was also a political reason: JFK had not decided whether he could get away with claiming that the withdrawal was a result of progress toward the goal of a self-sufficient South Vietnam.

      The alternative would have been to withdraw the troops while acknowledging failure. And this, Newman argues, Kennedy was prepared to do if it became necessary. He saw no reason, however, to take this step before it became necessary. If the troops could be pulled while the South Vietnamese were still standing, so much the better.4 But from October 11 onward the CIA’s reporting changed drastically. Official optimism was replaced by a searching and comparatively realistic pessimism. Newman believes this pessimism, which involved rewriting assessments as far back as the previous July, was a response to NSAM 263. It represented an effort by the CIA to undermine the ostensible rationale of withdrawal with success, and therefore to obstruct implementation of the plan for withdrawal. Kennedy, needless to say, did not share his full reasoning with the CIA.

      (4) On November 1 there came the coup in Saigon and the assassination of Diem and Nhu. At a press conference on November 12, Kennedy publicly restated his Vietnam goals. They were “to intensify the struggle” and “to bring Americans out of there.” Victory, which had figured prominently in a similar statement on September 12, was no longer on the list.

      (5) The Honolulu Conference of senior cabinet and military officials on November 20–21 was called to review plans in the wake of the Saigon coup. The military and the CIA, however, planned to use that meeting to pull the rug from under the false optimism which some had used to rationalize NSAM 263. However, Kennedy did not himself believe that we were withdrawing with victory. It follows that the changing image of the military situation would not have changed JFK’s decision.

      (6) In Honolulu, McGeorge Bundy prepared a draft of what would eventually be NSAM 273. The plan was to present it to Kennedy after the meeting ended. Dated November 21, this draft reflected the change in military reporting. It speaks, for example, of a need to “turn the tide not only of battle but of belief.” Plans to intensify the struggle, however, do not go beyond what Kennedy would have approved: A paragraph calling for actions against the North underscores the role of Vietnamese forces:

      7. With respect to action against North Vietnam, there should be a detailed plan for the development of additional Government of Vietnam resources, especially for sea-going activity, and such planning should indicate the time and investment necessary to achieve a wholly new level of effectiveness in this field of action. (Emphasis added.)

      (7) At Honolulu, a preliminary plan, known as CINCPAC OPLAN 34-63 and later implemented as OPLAN 34A, was prepared for presentation. This plan called for intensified sabotage raids against the North, employing Vietnamese commandos under U.S. control—a significant escalation.5 While JCS chief Taylor had approved preparation of this plan, it had not been shown to McNamara. Tab E of the meeting’s briefing book, also approved by Taylor and also not sent in advance to McNamara, showed that the withdrawal ordered by Kennedy in October was already being gutted, by the device of substituting for the withdrawal of full units that of individual soldiers who were being rotated out of Vietnam in any event.

      (8) The final version of NSAM 273, signed by Johnson on November 26, differs from the draft in several respects. Most are minor changes of wording. The main change is that the draft paragraph 7 has been struck in its entirety (there are two pencil slashes on the November 21 draft), and replaced with the following:

      Planning should include different levels of possible increased activity, and in each instance there be estimates such factors as: A. Resulting damage to North Vietnam; B. The plausibility denial; C. Vietnamese retaliation; D. Other international reaction. Plans submitted promptly for approval by authority.

      The new language is incomplete. It does not begin by declaring outright that the subject is attacks on the North. But the thrust is unmistakable, and the restrictive reference to “Government of Vietnam resources” is now missing. Newman concludes that this change effectively provided new authority for U.S.–directed combat actions against North Vietnam. Planning for these actions began therewith, and we now know that an OPLAN 34A raid in August 1964 provoked the North Vietnamese retaliation against the destroyer Maddox, which became the first Gulf of Tonkin incident. And this in turn led to the confused incident a few nights later aboard the Turner Joy, to reports that it too had been attacked, and to Johnson’s overnight decision to seek congressional support for “retaliation” against North Vietnam. From this, of course, the larger war then flowed.

      • • •


      • The May conference thus fills in the primary record: plans were under development for the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam. On October 2, 1963, as we have previously seen, President Kennedy made clear his determination to implement those plans—to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963, and to get almost all the rest out by the end of 1965. There followed, on October 4, a memorandum titled “South Vietnam Actions” from General Maxwell Taylor to his fellow Joint Chiefs of Staff, Generals May, Wheeler, Shoup, and Admiral McDonald, that reads:

        b. The program currently in progress to train Vietnamese forces will be reviewed and accelerated as necessary to insure that all essential functions visualized to be required for the projected operational environment, to include those now performed by U.S. military units and personnel, can be assumed properly by the Vietnamese by the end of calendar year 1965. All planning will be directed towards preparing RVN forces for the withdrawal of all U.S. special assistance units and personnel by the end of calendar year 1965.

        “All planning” is an unconditional phrase. There is no contingency here, or elsewhere in this memorandum. The next paragraph reads:

        c. Execute the plan to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963 per your DTG 212201Z July, and as approved for planning by JCS DTG 062042Z September. Previous guidance on the public affairs annex is altered to the extent that the action will now be treated in low key, as the initial increment of U.S. forces whose presence is no longer required because (a) Vietnamese forces have been trained to assume the function involved; or (b) the function for which they came to Vietnam has been completed.

      • The Convergence of OPlAN 34A and DESOTO patrol activities in the Gulf of Tonkin

        “OPlAN 34A was a clandestine program of coastal and air raids conducted against North Vietnam and was but one of several Johnson administration initiatives designed to pressure Hanoi into abandoning its support of the insurgency in the south. It is important to this story because of its attendant SIGINT Support Plan, known as KIT KAT, and the convergence of OPlAN 34A and DESOTO patrol activities in the Gulf of Tonkin in early August of 1964.

        Once the president approved OPlAN 34A, CINCPAC directed an increase of 130 SIGINT personnel in South Vietnam to staff the KIT KAT SJGJNT support program. Intercept stations at Saigon, Phu Bai and Danang were augmented with personnel from the Philippines and Hawaii, and Army Colonel Richard Gales, the NSA representative in Saigon, set up a Special Support Group-known as the SSG-to consolidate SIGINT reflections of OPlAN 34A raids. Located in the MACV II compound on Tran Hung Dao street in Cholon, the SSG pulled together all the KIT KAT SIGINT results from the intercept sites and passed them to SOG, the joint MACV-CIA Studies and Observations Group, nerve center for OPlAN 34A operations.

        (5 eeO) By the end of July 1964, OPlAN 34A MAROPS (maritime operations) were being launched almost daily from Danang. On July 30, South Vietnamese naval commandos staged a midnight amphibious raid on the North Vietnamese islands of Han Me and Han Nieu in the Gulf of Tonkin. At the time of the assault the USS Maddox was 120 to 130 miles away, heading north into the gulf on DESOTO patrol under sailing orders forbidding her to approach closer than eight nautical miles to the North Vietnamese islands in the gulf.”

        The Pentagon Papers — Gravel Edition – Volume 2
        Chapter 3, “Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964,” pp. 160-200.
        (Boston: Beacon Press, 1971)

        11 Oct 63 NSAM 263
        Approved the military recommendations contained in the McNamara-Taylor Report; directed no formal announcement be made of implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 men by the end of 1963.

  11. Fear & Loathing in The National Security State

    “This is not America!” ~David Bowie

    “Has anybody here seen my good friend John? Can you tell me where he’s gone?” ~Dion

    (more to come~ww)

  12. “You made a claim about what “the NSAM called for,” not some unspecified “inside discussions.”
    ~Jean Davison

    Jean, You made a claim and backed it up with Kennedy’s public remarks at a press conference.

    You love to quote from JFK press conferences, from a period that Kennedy was in a life and death struggle with CIA, and he knew it. Revealing his true attitude toward CIA in public at that time would have put his life in more danger than he already knew it was in. You act as if JFK was not at least on the surface, a practical politician who understood how to play the PR game as well as his enemies did. You fail to note certain nuances in his public statements and take them at face value – despite knowing what was eventually in store for him. Hindsight is a marvelous thing for the living. Kennedy doesn’t have that luxury now, they killed the man.

    You deny that CIA was involved in the coup in Dallas, therefore you interpret all of this from that bias; regardless of the overwhelming evidence that leads to the conclusion that the assassination was in fact a coup d’etat by the National Security State and it’s corporate sponsors.

    We are all aware of your authorship of ‘OSWALD’S GAME’ – what intrigues many of us on JFKfacts is; what is Jean Davison’s Game? I think it obvious, and so do many other’s here Jean. Your “clever” rhetorical gamesmanship is not quite so clever as you may like to believe.

    The minutes to the – “inside discussions.” – meetings concerning the withdrawal from Vietnam are now public. These meetings clarify what NSAM 263 called for.
    (See Robert McNamara’s summary of the October 2, 1963 meeting)

    • For Christ sake Jean, we have all read the goddamn documents ourselves!!!
      Anyone who hasn’t has no business arguing this topic.


      February 26, 2016 at 1:20 am
      >>Who would know JFK’s policy better, author Newman or his brother Robert?<<

      "Who would be better equipped to give a serious, comprehensive answer: an experienced historian with access to a wide range of documents and sources and the advantage of being able to spend years sorting through the evidence before coming to his conclusions, or an active participant in the events with only a few months' perspective on them and who, in all likelihood, was not eager to publicly criticize the current policies of an administration he was still a member of?"

      • Willy Whitten — February 26, 2016 at 11:23 am
        Hah…I just read Bill Clarke’s remarks; the same trite and moldy comments he has been peddling for years.

        What does one expect from a dupe of mainstream propaganda, but a regurgitation of that propaganda?

        It is a fruitless endeavor to argue with the calcified mind of one blinded by the popular myths generated by the Public Relations Regime. Mr Clarke will likely sleepwalk through this engineered dream for the rest of his mortal life.

        I won’t insult with pity nor words of condolences, they wouldn’t be sincere from my quarter at any rate; I feel most people draw the lot they deserve.

        Almost all of us began with “Run Spot Run”, it is a matter of personal initiative to get to the point of using ones own mind to interpret the words put to print, rather than relying on the dictates of authority.

        Good night…and good luck.


      • I simply baffles me; is Bill Clarke a liar? Or is he really so stupid that he doesn’t realize the little numerals at the end of certain paragraphs and sentences are reference numbers to source material? In Newman’s book KENNEDY IN VIETNAM, Newman has source notes following each chapter:

        Willy Whitten — February 26, 2016 at 5:29 pm


        Bill Clarke just wrote this to you:

        “Newman might have been equipped but he certainly didn’t make good use of it. The lack of scholarship in “JFK and Vietnam” is shocking. Here is an example from Newman’s book,”JFK and Vietnam”” page322. This is the basis of the book.”

        After quoting from Newman, Clarke continues:
        “Do you not wonder why there is no reference to support this? I don’t. I know why there is no reference.”
        . . .

        In fact that is referenced:
        ‘Johnny, ‘We Hardly Knew Ye: Memories of John Fitzgerald Kennedy’ Pg. 16, by Kenneth P. O’Donnell.

        At Kennedy’s request, O’Donnell had invited Senator Mansfield to meet with Kennedy in his office, where he confided to Mansfield; “Kennedy decided to use Taylor’s and Harkin’ reports of battlefield success to justify the beginning of the withdrawal he was planning.”

        “After Mansfield left the office, the President said to me, “in 1965 I’ll become one of the most unpopular presidents in history. I’ll be damned everywhere as a Communist appeaser. But I don’t care. If I tried to pull completely now from Vietnam , we would have another Joe McCarthy scare on our hands, but I can do it after I’m elected. So we’d better make damned sure that I am elected”.”~O’Donnell

        Kenneth Patrick “Kenny” O’Donnell was an American political consultant who served as the special assistant and appointments secretary to U.S. President John F. Kennedy from 1961 until President Kennedy’s assassination in November 1963.

      • By the spring of 1963, Kennedy had reversed course completely and agreed with

        “The President told Mansfield that he had been having serious second thoughts
        about Mansfield’s argument and that he now agreed with the Senator’s thinking on
        the need for a complete military withdrawal from Vietnam.

        ‘But I can’t do it until 1965–after I’m reelected,’ Kennedy told Mansfield….

        After Mansfield left the office, the President said to me, ‘In 1965 I’ll become
        one of the most unpopular Presidents in history. I’ll be damned everywhere as a
        Communist appeaser. But I don’t care. If I tried to pull out completely now from
        Vietnam, we would have another Joe McCarthy red scare on our hands, but I can do
        it after I’m reelected. So we had better make damned sure that I am reelected’
        (O’Donnell, p. 16).”

        Sometime after that Kennedy told O’Donnell again that

        “…he had made up his mind that after his reelection he would take the risk of
        unpopularity and make a complete withdrawal of American military forces from
        Vietnam. He had decided that our military involvement in Vietnam’s civil war
        would only grow steadily bigger and more costly without making a dent in the
        larger political problem of Communist expansion in Southeast Asia” (p. 13).

        Just before he was killed he repeated this commitment:

        “‘They keep telling me to send combat units over there,’ the President said to
        us one day in October [1963]. ‘That means sending draftees, along with volunteer
        regular Army advisers, into Vietnam. I’ll never send draftees over there to
        fight’.” (O’Donnell, p. 383).

        Kennedy’s public statements and actions were consistent with his private
        conversations, though more cautiously expressed in order to appease the military
        and right-wing forces that were clamoring for more, not less, involvement in
        Vietnam, and with whom he did not want to risk an open confrontation one year
        before the election. As early as May 22, 1963, he said at a press conference:

        “…we are hopeful that the situation in South Vietnam would permit some
        withdrawal in any case by the end of the year, but we can’t possibly make that
        judgement at the present time” (Harold W. Chase and Allen H. Lerman, eds.,
        Kennedy and the Press: The News Conferences, New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1965,
        p. 447).

        “One day when he [Kennedy] was talking with Dave and me about pulling out of
        Vietnam, we asked him how he could manage a military withdrawal without losing
        American prestige in Southeast Asia.

        ‘Easy,’ he said. ‘Put a government in there that will ask us to leave'”~O’Donnell (p. 18).

    • Where Angels Tread Lightly: The Assassination of President Kennedy Volume 1
      April 23, 2015
      by John M. Newman

      “The first in a series of volumes on the JFK assassination, Where Angels Tread Lightly is a unique scholarly examination of historical episodes that go back to WWII, the Office of Strategic Services, and the early evolution of the CIA—up to and beyond Castro’s assumption of power in Cuba in 1959. This book is a groundbreaking investigation of America’s failure in Cuba that uncovers the CIA’s role in Castro’s rise to power and their ensuing efforts to destroy him.

      This work retraces the paths taken by many of the key players who became entangled in the CIA’s plots to overthrow Castro and the development of the myth that Castro was responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy.

      With rigorous scholarship and the brilliant insight of a trained textual records interpreter and document forensic specialist, Dr. John M. Newman sheds new light on the multiple identities played by individual CIA officers. Where Angels Tread Lightly deciphers the people and operations that belong to a large number of CIA cryptonyms and pseudonyms that have remained, until now, unsolved.”
      * * * * *
      After reading JFK AND VIETNAM, I am looking forward to reading this new series by John Newman.
      I would urge all who are interested in the JFK Assassination and the links to the Vietnam conflict to read Newman’s works. He does not disappoint.

  13. It seems that Google-owned Boston Dynamics may now be able to put a face to the future automated fleecing of America. This week the company fed the Terminator-inspired nightmares of people all over the world by releasing a video of Atlas, its new humanoid robot, which is seen completing menial factory tasks and traversing landscapes with ease.


    * * * * *
    Pretty fuckin’ awesome!!
    It is not coincidental that this machine resembles THE TERMINATOR in it’s design…


  14. The Case For Abolishing The CIA
    Op-Ed December 20, 2005 The New Republic Online

    “In his memoir, Present at the Creation, former Secretary of State Dean Acheson expressed his misgivings about the creation of the CIA in 1947. “I had the gravest forebodings about this organization and warned the President that as set up neither he, the National Security Council, nor anyone else would be in a position to know what it was doing or to control it.” In 1991 and again in 1995, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan introduced bills to abolish the CIA and assign its functions to the State Department, which is what Acheson and his predecessor, George Marshall, had advocated. But Moynihan’s proposal was treated as evidence of his eccentricity rather than of his wisdom and never came to a vote.
    It’s time to reconsider Moynihan’s proposal, or least the reasoning behind it. Al Libi’s case, combining gross incompetence with the violation of international law, shows that the problems Moynihan and others cited have, if anything, gotten worse under George W. Bush. The intelligence reform act passed last year didn’t address them; and the current director Porter Goss appears oblivious to them. These problems have for years plagued the two main functions of the agency: intelligence gathering and covert action.

    Read more at: http://carnegieendowment.org/2005/12/20/case-for-abolishing-cia

  15. In the opening sequence of Seven Beauties, spoken over World War II archival footage showing the destruction of cities and men, Wertmüller defines the object of her critique—a “particular petty bourgeois social type”.[6]

    The ones who don’t enjoy themselves even when they laugh. Oh yeah.
    The ones who worship the corporate image not knowing that they work for someone else. Oh yeah.
    The ones who should have been shot in the cradle. Pow! Oh yeah.
    The ones who say, “Follow me to success, but kill me if I fail,” so to speak. Oh yeah.
    The ones who say, “We Italians are the greatest he-men on earth.” Oh yeah.
    The ones who are from Rome.
    The ones who say, “That’s for me.”
    The ones who say, “You know what I mean?” Oh yeah.
    The ones who vote for the right because they’re fed up with strikes. Oh yeah.
    The ones who vote blank ballot in order not to get dirty. Oh yeah.
    The ones who never get involved with politics. Oh yeah.
    The ones who say, “Be calm … calm.”
    The ones who still support the king.
    The ones who say, “Yes, sir.” Oh yeah.
    The ones who make love standing in their boots and imagine they’re in a luxurious bed.
    The ones who believe Christ is Santa Claus as a young man. Oh yeah.
    The ones who say, “Oh what the hell.”
    The ones who were there.
    The ones who believe in everything … even in God.
    The ones who listen to the national anthem. Oh yeah.
    The ones who love their country.
    The ones who keep going, just to see how it will end. Oh yeah.
    The ones who are in garbage up to here. Oh yeah.
    The ones who sleep soundly, even with cancer. Oh, yeah.
    The ones who even now don’t believe the world is round. Oh yeah. Oh yeah.
    The ones who are afraid of flying. Oh yeah.
    The ones who’ve never had a fatal accident. Oh yeah. The ones who’ve had one.
    The ones who at a certain point in their lives create a secret weapon: Christ. Oh yeah.
    The ones who are always standing at the bar.
    The ones who are always in Switzerland.
    The ones who started early, haven’t arrived, and don’t know they’re not going to. Oh yeah.
    The ones who lose wars by the skin of their teeth.
    The ones who say, “Everything is wrong here.”
    The ones who say, “Now let’s all have a good laugh.” Oh yeah. Oh yeah. Oh yeah. Oh yeah.


    • “In the face of certain things one must say no.” ~Lina Wertmuller

      “A new man in in disorder is the only hope there is.” ~Ibid

  16. Willy Whitten — February 27, 2016 at 9:29 am

    What I find most troubling about Photon’s troubles is how he finds Kennedy’s dalliance with a 19 year old intern as the worst aspect of Kennedy’s activities. To be disturbed over such a trite aspect shows what a trite thinker Photon is.
    And of course Photon fails to mention that Kennedy inherited the Bay of Pigs operation from the Eisenhower regime, and had to be talked into it by the fanatic warmongers he had around him giving “military advice”.

    Both Photon and Bill Clarke seem to think it would have been so simple for Kennedy to simply fire all these maniacs, as if there were no practical politics involved in this very touchy position a brand new President was in.

    These unrealistic suggestions by Photon and Clarke give a glimpse into their puerile and jejune thinking; showing an extreme lack of sophistication in understanding the architecture of political power.

    That they misconstrue so much so constantly is what makes communication across the abyss of epistemic paradigms so difficult and baffling.

    It comes down to people who can think for themselves, verses people such as they, who can only think what they have been conditioned to think by indoctrination into the insipid gray world of conformity.

  17. It has become obvious over the half century since the JFK Presidency that John Kennedy was one of perhaps too few people who took Eisenhower’s farewell speech seriously. This is due to the fact that in many ways it was a message to the incoming President himself.

    John Kennedy did not trust the military. And the revelations over the years of his dealings with them prove that he had very good reasons not to trust them. The military leadership was (and still is) imbibed with hubris to the point of utter madness.

    That the 21st century has ended up in the dire situation of imposed “Full Spectrum Dominance” by the global military industrial complex is the big blank spot in the so-called “news” presented by mainstream media.
    Mainstream media as the propaganda service of the Global Military Industrial Complex is the missing factor in popular analysis of the political realities of the current era.

    And the proximate point of this situation is the defeat of Kennedy by covert means in the coup d’etat in Dallas, is the real meaning behind these ongoing debates here on this site.

    This in fact is a struggle against the totalitarian state, and the propagandists who support such a state. It is in fact a war, a mind-war, for freedom against slavery.

    Those who take the consequences of this lightly are doomed to relive those consequences. Only an awakening to the depth of this peril can assure a fighting chance to defeat this evil that has engulfed the planet.

  18. Willy Whitten — February 27, 2016 at 5:23 pm

    Bill Clarke quotes me thus:

    ‘There is the greatest likelihood that the Joint Chiefs under the lead of Maxwell Taylor were covertly ordering the buildup you are so convinced Kennedy is responsible for.’

    And by implication, attempts to show that the first statement is incongruent with this statement, also mine:

    ‘I did not claim that Kennedy was unaware of the “escalation” in Vietnam’

    Clarke even comes out and says so plainly:

    “Your statement that JFK didn’t know about the escalation in Vietnam was both new and exciting.”~BC

    So let me ask anyone reading this if I ever said that JFK didn’t know. I said the joint chiefs were acting covertly. I did NOT say that Kennedy didn’t know about it.

    So let us again post the question, who is it that has the reading comprehension problem here? It is either that or blatant rhetorical nonsense. On both Jean and Clarke’s part, as she attempts to defend his BS.

    Willy Whitten
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    February 27, 2016 at 6:12 pm
    Continuing my thoughts from above:

    I said the joint chiefs were acting covertly. I did NOT say that Kennedy didn’t know about it.

    Kennedy knowing about it is not tantamount to Kennedy’s approval, because this covert activity was aimed at fooling Kennedy. And this gets into the issue of what Kennedy decided to do about it – play the game back on the military, knowing their traitorous tactics and leading them into his will by using stealth also.

    Some people are so naïve that they seem to think Kennedy was playing patty-cake with these warmongers in the US military. To the contrary this was a war of wills of mortal proportions. It is not hyperbole to say that Kennedy was facing mutiny by his flag officers.

    As we all know that mutiny resulted in Kennedy’s death in a military coup d’etat.

  19. Willy Whitten — February 27, 2016 at 9:12 pm

    “All total BS. Do I need to explain “covertly” to you?”~Bill Clarke

    Mr Clarke needn’t “explain” anything to me.

    I know precisely what “covertly” means and I explained precisely what it meant in the context of my comment: It was a covert action against Kennedy.

    Mr Clarke’s attempts to reframe my arguments, are blatant and juvenile. His OPINION that my position is BS, is nothing more than an opinion.

    It is a confused opinion based on mainstream conformist information/propaganda. It is reliance on the spin of other propagandist who favor Mr Clarke’s own bias and spin.

    Take his disputing Prouty’s account. Everything he puts forth is so, as far as it goes, but it doesn’t disprove that Diem went to the plane BEFORE he went back to the palace and took the tunnel to the point where he was apprehended by his killers.

    This is a point that Mr Clarke fails to comprehend. As he fails to comprehend so much on the issues of Vietnam, and Kennedy’s determination to get the US out in his second term.

    Relitigating all of these points over and again is, as I said before, futile. Mr Clarke fails to be persuaded because his mind is locked and will not accept new information.

    He does however make it a point to fault me for changing my views when I have found new data that demands such adjustment. He frames that as my contradicting myself. And on and on he spins, complaining that I am ‘insulting’ him while insulting me in the process.

    I know my point of view “insults” Mr Clarke’s delicate sensibilities. I find that simply too bad. His opinion “insults” me equally.

    Ganders geese and a sheep that gets fleeced.

    Say “Baahh” Mr Clarke, it becomes you.

    Also see:

    John Newman’s notes and summaries for JFK AND VIETNAM


  20. The Psychopathic US Military was planning a Nuclear First Strike for 1963.

    The U.S. was far ahead in the arms race. Yet the military continued to press for a rapid build-up of strategic missiles. Curtis LeMay had asked for at least 2400 Minutemen; Thomas Powers of the Strategic Air Command had asked for 10,000. All were to be unleashed in a single paroxysm of mass annihilation, know as SIOP, the Single Integrated Operating Plan.
    SIOP was a recipe for blowing up the world, whether in a first or a second strike.

    Not some lone nut like Gen Jack D. Ripper of Dr. Strangelove; No! The entire military establishment.
    While being briefed on the US capability of a successful first nuclear strike, President Kennedy got up and walked out of the meeting, remarking in disgust, “And we call ourselves the human race.”


  21. When Kennedy was briefed by President Eisenhower in January of 1961, President Eisenhower told him about the hotspots around the world. He didn’t use the word “Vietnam” at all, he talked about Laos. Time Magazine, in all of 1960, mentioned Vietnam only six times, and four of them had nothing to do with the war. You know, Vietnam was not a hot button. Cuba was, Laos was, Berlin was, and so on. So it’s easy to forget the preface to Vietnam when you don’t remember these things.

    These events led up to the Vietnam scene much more significantly than most people want to remember. Of course, the generation gap is coming and the people coming of age now don’t remember this at all. They just know that 25 years ago Kennedy was killed. But they don’t remember the antecedents to the decisions he made about the Bay of Pigs and about Vietnam.

    This was a very interesting period. When we got this Bay of Pigs thing behind us (much to our disgust), we did move toward Vietnam. For instance, C-123 aircraft that we were using in these operations were flown to Vietnam. They became the Agent Orange spray planes, they played that part. The B-26’s that had been converted with the eight guns in the nose (what was left of them), were flown to Vietnam and became the first heavy combat aircraft over there. Helicopters that had been used in different operations in Laos were moved to Vietnam and they became the air patrol capability in Vietnam. The P-51 fighters that we had fixed up for Indonesia: they went into Vietnam. They were available — all these aircraft were available, and they scraped them all together and parked them in Vietnam. In other words, the war was going to happen whether anybody planned it or not. Everything was moving in that direction.

    So we saw the years from 1960 into ’61 and ’62 as years when a certain amount of momentum kept going. And the only command structure in Vietnam at that time was CIA. The military were in the position of being the logistics staff. We provided the equipment, we provided certain training.

    For instance, people don’t think about helicopters. In those days, for every hour a helicopter flew (a military helicopter), it had to receive 24 hours of maintenance. That was just a general rule: twenty-four hours of maintenance. Which meant we had to cover Vietnam with helicopter maintenance people. They were called soldiers. And it looked like the troop size was growing, because they were soldiers or marines or whoever — airforce people — but they were maintaining helicopters. Anytime you get a helicopter squadron together, you have to get a helicopter supply unit together.

    If you have a supply unit, you have to get a maintenance unit. So what was 400 men becomes 1200 men. You get 1200 men together, you have to have a PX, you have to have a hospital, and so on. We were creating a structure in Vietnam built upon the operation of helicopters. And all they did was to fly the Vietnamese soldiers around more or less like a police activity — transporting the Vietnamese military. The next thing you know, we had 3,000 men in Vietnam, then we had 6,000. By the end of 1963, at about the time of Kennedy’s death, there were somewhere between thirteen and sixteen thousand military (so-called military) in Vietnam.

    What was strange was that a great number of those military were really not military. They were cover military; they were involved with the CIA or other covert programs. That has a great significance. Has it ever occurred to you why, of all the wars the United States ever fought, that at the end of this war we created a League of Families for the Prisoners of War in Southeast Asia? Why did we turn the Prisoners of War program over to wives, mothers, sisters of soldiers in Vietnam? Do you know why? I was a founding advisor of that organization, by request of a general. I was retired by that time, but I was asked to come back and work on it because I knew Vietnam so well and I knew the situation so well.

    The reason I was asked to be an advisor was that we had so many men who were called “Captain So-and-so” but really were civilians with the CIA. When one got shot down, the people that captured him found his records: “Captain So-and-so.” But the U.S. Army wasn’t missing a captain, so nobody declared him a prisoner. Their records were so messed up because of the way these people were lost: out of “Air America,” the CIA airline, out of helicopter support units, out of all these other contrived units that we were putting in there which were not military. So that insurance programs, mortgage payments, all the normal things people have to take care of, were tumbling down on this group of people called Prisoners of War over there. And our own Army, Navy and Air Force couldn’t account for them. We didn’t even know they were missing.
    JFK Prepares To Get Out Of Vietnam: The Taylor/McNamara Trip Report of October 1963 and NSAM 263

    By the summer of ’63 Kennedy had made up his mind to get out of Vietnam. By that time I had been transferred from the Office of Secretary of Defense to the Office of Joint Chiefs of Staff….



      The hysteria in the chorus of voices attempting to impune Fletcher Prouty is blatant. He destroys the whole argument they make that Kennedy would not have unilaterally withdrawn the US from Southeast Asia.
      Prouty is the main target of these fascists who still want to hide the fact that Dallas, November 22, 1963 was a military coup d’etat. Because Prouty proves them wrong in certain and verifiable terms.

      The only way they have to destroy the message is to attempt to destroy the messenger. The only people who can possibly buy the scurrilous charges levied against Prouty by these fascist assholes, are people who haven’t read Prouty themselves. Just like the only people who can buy the Warren Report are those who haven’t read that tome of utter bullshit.

      The world is currently under the heel of the fascist jackboot primarily because of the coup in Dallas. Only waking up to that essential fact can give the people of the world the cognizance to reclaim their freedom.

    • JFK Prepares To Get Out Of Vietnam: The Taylor/McNamara Trip Report of October 1963
      and NSAM 263

      In ’62. But I’m talking about the summer of ’63: by that time I had been transferred. I was transferred in ’62. Mr. McNamara had approved the plan submitted by General Erskine to create the Defense Intelligence Agency. With that approval General Erskine (who had been on service for an awful long time) retired, and his office (the Office of Special Operations, where I had worked and where Lansdale was working) was abolished. Mr. McNamara suggested that the office that I was in (the Military Support of Clandestine Operations) be transferred to the JCS. We established the office there; it was the Office of Special Operations. I created it. I was its chief for the first two years, until I retired in 1964.

      During that period we watched this rise of increasingly effective military in Vietnam. At the same time, the Kennedy administration could find no real reason to continue a war there. They gradually began to rationalize that: `Look, this is a Vietnamese war, it’s not an American war. We should provide support to them but let them fight their war.’

      This rationale began to snowball into the latter part of 1963. At that time Kennedy did something that I think was quite typical of him and quite clever. General Krulak was my boss in the JCS, he was an experienced combat-trained Marine, and he was probably the closest military officer to the Kennedy family — very close to Bobby Kennedy and quite close to Jack Kennedy. He went to meetings in the White House frequently. I know because I worked right in his office.

      Kennedy sent General Krulak to Vietnam. This was more or less a nominal visit. Krulak knew an awful lot about Vietnam; he didn’t need to go. But it brought him up to date; it let him hear some briefings that were current, let him talk with some people, so that when he came back he could write, `I’ve just come from Vietnam; here’s the story.

      That was in September of 1963. By that time General Krulak knew what Kennedy’s plans were. So that when he came back he sat down and he started writing what became NSAM 263 — otherwise known as the Taylor/McNamara Trip Report of October ’63.[1] They both are the same, although some people don’t realize that the numbered memoranda simply covers the Taylor/McNamara Report.

      But they’re the same document, and they bear the same authority coming from the White House as a National Security Action Memorandum. So Krulak was engaged writing this major report — and I was one of his principal writers — I wrote probably as much or more of that document than anybody else did. It was a very large report, profusely illustrated; we had pictures in it, we had maps in it. When it was all done, they bound it in a big leather cover that said “President John F. Kennedy from Robert McNamara and Maxwell Taylor.”

      We flew the finished report to Hawaii in a jet, gave it to Taylor and McNamara so they could read it on their way back, so that when they gave it to Kennedy they at least would know it existed. But what the report was really, was Kennedy’s own views on the Vietnam War — not anybody else’s. All Krulak did (and all I did) was write what Kennedy had told us to do.

      The agent in that was Bobby Kennedy. Krulak would see Bobby Kennedy, I guess, every day. We even slept in the office for awhile. We were working right around the clock. We had something like 16 secretaries, four every four hours, just going right around the clock like that, getting this huge report prepared. (It was before the days of word processors and things like that.)

      But when Taylor and McNamara came back and landed in a helicopter on the lawn of the White House, they gave the President this big report. The President knew exactly what was in the report because it was what he had dictated to Krulak. What Krulak had written and given to them had made the circle; it was back in Kennedy’s hands and now he could declare it to be national policy.

      About two days later, on October 11th, 1963, he signed this NSAM 263 which, among other things, said that by Christmas time a thousand military men are coming out of Vietnam, coming home. And by the end of 1965 all U.S. personnel will be out of Vietnam.

      That was very important. For instance, in the Pacific at that time we had a military publication called the Stars and Stripes. It was the old newspaper from WWII. The headline of the Stars and Stripes that day (great big headline) said: “One thousand troops being withdrawn from Vietnam by Christmas and the remainder by ’65.” Nobody missed the point. It was right there in big letters. And this is what Kennedy planned.

      Privately, Kennedy had told some of his confidants that “As soon as I am reelected, I am going to get people out of Vietnam and we’re going to Vietnamize that war; we’ll just provide support for them;” and “I’m going to break the CIA into a thousand pieces.” Those are quotables you can get from Senator Mansfield and from other intimates of the President (and that those of us working on those things day-by-day knew were exactly the sentiments of John F. Kennedy).”~Fletcher Prouty

      That was very important. For instance, in the Pacific at that time we had a military publication called the Stars and Stripes. It was the old newspaper from WWII. The headline of the Stars and Stripes that day (great big headline) said: “One thousand troops being withdrawn from Vietnam by Christmas and the remainder by ’65.” Nobody missed the point. It was right there in big letters. And this is what Kennedy planned.


      * * * * * * *
      459 – The President’s News Conference – November 14, 1963

      JFK said:

      Q. Following up that, sir, would you give us your appraisal of the situation in South Viet-Nam now, since the coup, and the purposes for the Honolulu conference?

      THE PRESIDENT. Because we do have a new situation there, and a new government, we hope, an increased effort in the war. The purpose of the meeting at Honolulu–Ambassador Lodge will be there, General Harkins will be there, Secretary McNamara and others, and then, as you know, later Ambassador Lodge will come here–is to attempt to assess the situation: what American policy should be, and what our aid policy should be, how we can intensify the struggle, how we can bring Americans out of there.

      Now, that is our object, to bring Americans home, permit the South Vietnamese to maintain themselves as a free and independent country, and permit democratic forces within the country to operate–which they can, of course, much more freely when the assault from the inside, and which is manipulated from the north, is ended. So the purpose of the meeting in Honolulu is how to pursue these objectives.



      • Anatomy of an Online Atrocity: Wikipedia, Gamaliel, and the Fletcher Prouty entry

        A few short months after the creation of a Wikipedia entry in 2004 for L. Fletcher Prouty – a career military man who had briefed presidents and who was undeniably involved in the conduct of major clandestine operations at the start of the Cold War – a certain Wikipedia user under the name “Gamaliel” began editing the entry. Gamaliel would spend the next ten years systematically skewing the perspective on Prouty in the entry toward the negative, adding links to anti-Prouty websites, removing links to Prouty’s own official site over a period of years until finally getting that official site blacklisted from Wikipedia in 2011. Users outraged or frustrated at Gamaliel’s antics would be banned from Wikipedia for life. Gamaliel would highlight associations between Prouty and unsavory groups, exaggerating them until the material was moderated by other users. He even created Wikipedia entries for Prouty critics, later denying he had ties to those critics at all. You might well ask: How was this possible? Wouldn’t this kind of persistent bias and even vandalism be corrected by Wikipedia?

        The answer is, of course, no. The reason why is that Fletcher Prouty, a man who coordinated between the Air Force and the CIA from his office in the Pentagon for nine years, committed the unpardonable sin of being unconvinced by the Warren Commission’s official finding that President John F. Kennedy was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald – and Oswald alone.



        Because Elliott had met Stalin in Tehran with his father in 1943, in late 1946, Gardner Cowless, publisher of LOOK magazine asked him to go to Moscow to interview Stalin.

        Roosevelt accepted this offer and did interview Stalin there. At the end of a long interview, he turned to the Generalissimo and asked one more question, “Why is it that my mother has never been permitted to visit Moscow even though she has made three very formal applications for the trip?”

        Stalin glared at Elliott and said, “You don’t know why?”

        Elliott replied, “No!”

        Quickly, Stalin responded, “Don’t you know who killed your father?”

        Roosevelt-shocked-answered, “No.”

        Stalin rising from his chair, continued, “Well, I’ll tell you why I have not invited her here. As soon as your father died, I asked my ambassador in Washington to go immediately to Georgia with a request to view the body.” Stalin believed that if Gromyko could see the body he would confirm that the cerebral hemorrhage that had caused his death had caused extensive discoloration and distortion.

        Elliot responded that he knew nothing about that and then Stalin said, “Your mother refused to permit the lid of the coffin to be opened so that my ambassador could see the body.” Adding “I sent him there three times trying to impress upon your mother that it was very important for him to view the President’s body. She never accepted that. I have never forgiven her.”

        This forced Elliott to ask this last question, “…but why?”

        Stalin took a few steps around the office, and almost in a rage roared, “They poisoned your father, of course, just as they have tried repeatedly to poison me.”

        “They, who are they,” Elliot asked

        “The Churchill gang!” Stalin roared, “They poisoned your father, and they continue to try to poison me…the Churchill gang!”



  22. Basically, there were three kinds of US clandestine and covert operations:
    – CIA operations, which were essentially para-military in nature, and usually used some kind of a front (about which usually not really much is known until today);
    – covert USAF operations, flown by aircraft with or without US- markings (meanwhile most of such operations were well covered in different publications)
    – private enterprises, most of which worked on a smuggling for profit efforts (the history of most such operations remains to be published).

    Their relatively small volume characterized usual para-military operations organized by the CIA, with a small number of aircraft involved (except in SEA), and by their air-to-ground tasks. Types used foremost during the 1950s and 1960s were Douglas B-26 Invader and North American P-51 Mustang, which were available in abundance after the end of the WWII, and large number of which were now in storage, from where they could be removed without much attention from the public. If any kind of aerial opposition was expected, everything possible – sometimes short of engaging official US military forces – was tried in order to neutralize it early during the operation by a concentrated counter-air operation. Despite this, several times US aircraft involved in clandestine operations were engaged in air-to-air combats by local air forces, and here are the backgrounds behind such cases.

    Operation “Haik”

    Officially, this operation was never undertaken by the CIA. Until today the Agency never admitted it took place. The background of the operation might look strange at the first view: it was that the CIA obviously “felt”, that President Sukarno’s Indonesia was turning communist, and that something had to be done about that, with the best apparent solution being to bring him to fight the communists.


    Also see:
    Over twenty variants of the North American P-51 Mustang fighter were produced from 1940, when it first flew, to after the Second World War, some of which were employed also in the Korean War and in several other conflicts.

    “Helicopters don’t fly — they beat the air into submission. … The Vietnam era helicopters generally have two bladed (teetering) rotor systems while … That is, four hours of maintenance is conducted for every flight hour. …”

  23. “We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.” ~George Orwell

  24. Gary Powers Flight Was Sabotaged To Fail!

    “The Lockheed U-2 aerial reconnaissance aircraft was ordered after meetings that took place in the Pentagon between Kelly Johnson of Lockheed, Gen. Ken Bergquist of the Air Force and Gen. Charles Cabel, Deputy Director of the CIA in late 1954, and into 1955.

    An Air Force officer in the Pentagon, in the same office as I, worked with them on this special project. Therefore for all practical purposes the U-2 was an Air Force aircraft, and was covered for clandestine reconnaissance purposes by the CIA. As a result of National Security Council Directive #5412 the U.S. Military Services were prohibited from operating clandestine activities. I was responsible for providing the military support for other military aircraft in a similar, for the clandestine activities of the CIA and under CIA cover.

    By 1960 President Eisenhower’s biggest wish was to end his presidential service with a massive world around “Crusade for Peace”. For example, more than one million people had gathered in New Delhi to honor his visit to India.

    A significant step along this crusade was to be a High-Power Summit Conference in Paris on May 1, 1960 between Eisenhower, Macmillan, DeGaulle and Khrushchev; to be followed by the most massive of all meetings with Eisenhower as a guest of Khrushchev in Moscow in mid summer 1960. This was to be the goal of his “Crusade for Peace.”

    Among the “Powers that be” there were those who did not favor that close collaboration between those leaders at that time. They took action to interfere with this plan for a “Summit Conference” and for its Moscow follow-up… in the following manner.

    Sometime earlier, a CIA scheduled U-2 had made a “belly” landing near the CIA U-2 base, Atsugi, Japan. Quite “incidentally” this was the U-2 base where a young U.S. Marine, Lee Oswald, had been assigned.

    Because the U-2 had not been seriously damaged it was shipped back to Lockheed for repair in California. Later it was returned to service and it “just happened” to be one of the available U-2’s on the flight-line of the Peshawar air base in Pakistan that morning of May 1, 1960 when Captain Gary Powers was selected to fly it across the Soviet Union.

    We know now that during its preparation for this flight this U-2 had been stripped of its “TOP SECRET” Lundahl aerial reconnaissance camera. (That camera was too valuable to lose on a flight over the Soviet Union.) Furthermore, we have learned that when Captain Powers was given his pre-flight briefing and his medical exam, and other orders he then dressed in the special flight suit for U-2 pilots that had no pockets and no identifying labels of any kind. And, we now know that after his landing, yes… landing, not crash, near Sverdlovsk, the Soviets discovered, packed in his parachute, between the seat and the folded chute, all of his identification papers and such. He even had valuables ostensibly to trade for assistance if captured. (The list is too long; but he had a whole bag full of identification and other gear that is prohibited to “spy” pilots. This list with photos is available.) He was uninjured, and his plane had been only slightly damaged by a “belly” landing.”~Prouty



  25. Willy Whitten
    February 29, 2016 at 10:25 am
    As far as this issue, KENNEDY AND VIETNAM:

    If there is anyone who thinks there will be a RESOLUTION to this argument here, they are obviously daydreaming.

    This issue is crucial to the argument against a military-industrial coup d’etat. None of the four main antagonists to this view will EVER give in to the idea that Kennedy was actually pulling out of Southeast Asia, no matter how much evidence is offered that he was.

    The Warrenistas have no real motive to apply to Oswald. So they are attempting to remove the motive of the Military-Industrial-Complex. They therefore rely on the mainstream views and so-called “scholarship” to argue their points – the very same mainstream media and academia that supports the mythos of the Warren Report; despite the fact that the Report has suffered mortal rebuke in the ensuing half century since it was published.

    So the flaming round’about churns and turns and burns here.

    At the same time fruition of the full spectrum dominance of the global tyranny is at hand, and the peoples remain in trance to the insidious propaganda machine that has lulled them into the role of passive consumers of plastic widgets, high tech toys and gadgets, junk food, and mindless entertainment, and a systemic addiction to war and conquest.


    • I find the virulence against John Newman that Bill Clarke holds baffling. It is hard to believe that Clarke read JFK AND VIETNAM, in other than to skim it looking for ammunition for argumentation against it. He certainly misses the meat of Newman’s case, as well as denying Newman’s remarkable credentials as a military analyst.

      It is entirely spurious and dishonest to claim that Newman’s book is not adequately footnoted, or that his sources are suspect. He calls O’Donnell a “Kennedy sycophant” for example, with no other reason than that O’Donnell proves that Kennedy intended to unilaterally withdraw from Vietnam.

      Clarke calls McNamara a liar, for the same reasons he calls O’Donnell a sycophant; because McNamara claimed that Kennedy was intent of unilateral withdrawal. Anyone who knew that Kennedy had such plans and reveals it, such as Galbraith, Schlesinger, Prouty; is automatically framed as a “liar, or a nut, or a sycophant” as far as Clarke is concerned.

      This is the definition of delusional bias on Bill Clarke’s part.

      • No rage at Kennedy Mr Clarke?

        “Camelot shiners” – “Kennedy sycophants”

        Mr Clarke should not be disingenuous in such a blatant manner on this forum, it is “conduct unbecoming to a gentleman and officer.”

  26. List of Withheld Records – A Preliminary Report
    Note – this is a first draft – I will add more links and graphics ASAP. – BK




    “It may seem to those nourished on the exploits of James Bond ,…that journalistic activities have little to do with intelligence work. But intelligence is a mosaic. General material about background and people’s interrelationships can be both illuminating and important. Quite often missing pieces of the mosaic emerge that make a previously incomprehensible picture unexpectedly clear.” – Mary Bancroft (Autobiography of a Spy, William Morrow, 1983 p. 150)

    A nation’s history and its official secrets are often considered the Family Jewels, and America’s secret records of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy are considered the most precious secrets that the government refuses to give up, even reveal to its own citizens.

    The real Deep Political secret records never see the light of day and are Deep Sixed so they are forever gone, though occasionally one will float to the surface and be saved and placed on a shelf in a secure and temperature controlled vault where many of the nation’s most precious secrets are stored.

    Among the official archival records there is the JFK Collection at the Archives II industrial warehouse of records in College Park, Maryland. The JFK Collection was instituted by the JFK Act of 1992 – a bill passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. H. Bush. It requires all of the government’s records on the assassination of President Kennedy be released to the public by October 2017, a fast approaching date that the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) says it will meet despite the reluctance of other agencies of government.
    Mary Bancroft was also fond of quoting her uncle C.W. Barron, who often reminded her, “Remember that facts are not the truth. They only indicate where the truth may lie!”


  27. Willy Whitten — February 29, 2016 at 8:42 pm
    “I’ll give you an example from Newman’s book, page322. This is the basis of the book. I’ve posted this many times before and not once have you shown me wrong. You got anything here?”
    ~Bill Clarke

    Mr Clarke wants to relitigate this issue concerning pg 322 yet again. His argument hinges on calling O’Donnell a liar. Just as he argues that McNamara was a liar. It boils down to anyone Bill Clarke disagrees with, he calls a liar. And this is simply because he cannot deny that these people who knew Kennedy intimately, related what they themselves heard Kennedy say.

    I for one will simply not accept this disingenuous hand waving and spurious argumentation. Mr Clarke can repeat this BS to his dying day, but it won’t pass as reason, for it is only hard core bias.


    “I’ll give you an example from Newman’s book, page322. This is the basis of the book. I’ve posted this many times before and not once have you shown me wrong.”Bill Clarke

    Yes Mr Clarke has posted this same thing about page 322 at least three times too many already. He claims he has not been proven wrong. This is BS, he is making his claim by simply calling O’Donnell a liar. He has no basis for calling O’Donnell a liar but for his empty assertion.
    Repetition-Repetition is not valid argumentation, it is senseless redundancy.


    “O’Donnell and JFK were whoring around buddies. Trust him with your loss of face.”~Bill Clarke, February 29, 2016 at 7:59 pm

    Can Mr Clarke seriously consider this a valid argument?

    This is the most astonishing bullshit I have read on the blog to date__it even tops Photon’s nonsense!

  28. Gerald Ford White House Altered Rockefeller Commission Report in 1975; Removed Section on CIA Assassination Plots
    White House Aide Dick Cheney Spearheaded Editing of Report to Dampen Impact
    New Documents Cast Further Doubt on Commission’s Investigation, Independence

    National Security Archive Briefing Book No. 543
    Edited by John Prados and Arturo Jimenez-Bacardi
    Posted – February 29, 2016
    For more information, contact John Prados:
    202.994.7000 or nsarchiv@gwu.edu

    Washington, DC, February 29, 2016 – The Gerald Ford White House significantly altered the final report of the supposedly independent 1975 Rockefeller Commission investigating CIA domestic activities, over the objections of senior Commission staff, according to internal White House and Commission documents posted today by the National Security Archive at The George Washington University (www.nsarchive.org). The changes included removal of an entire 86-page section on CIA assassination plots and numerous edits to the report by then-deputy White House Chief of Staff Richard Cheney.

    Today’s posting includes the entire suppressed section on assassination attempts, Cheney’s handwritten marginal notes, staff memos warning of the fallout of deleting the controversial section, and White House strategies for presenting the edited report to the public. The documents show that the leadership of the presidentially-appointed commission deliberately curtailed the investigation and ceded its independence to White House political operatives.

    This evidence has been lying ignored in government vaults for decades. Much of the work of securing release of the records was done by the John F. Kennedy Assassinations Records Board in the 1990s, and the documents were located at the National Archives and Records Administration at College Park, Maryland; or at the Gerald R. Ford Library in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Additional mandatory declassification review requests filed by Archive fellow John Prados returned identical versions of documents, indicating the CIA is not willing to permit the public to see any more of the assassinations story than we show here. The documents in this set have yet to be incorporated into standard accounts of the events of this period.
    . . .

    Among the highlights of today’s posting:

    >White House officials of the Ford administration attempted to keep a presidential review panel—the Rockefeller Commission—from investigating reports of CIA planning for assassinations abroad.

    >Ford administration officials suppressed the Rockefeller Commission’s actual report on CIA assassination plots.

    >Richard Cheney, then the deputy assistant to the president, edited the report of the Rockefeller Commission from inside the Ford White House, stripping the report of its independent character.

    >The Rockefeller Commission remained silent on this manipulation.
    Rockefeller Commission lawyers and public relations officials warned of the damage that would be done to the credibility of the entire investigation by avoiding the subject of assassinations.

    >President Ford passed investigative materials concerning assassinations along to the Church Committee of the United States Senate and then attempted—but failed—to suppress the Church Committee’s report as well.

    >The White House markup of the Rockefeller Commission report used the secrecy of the CIA budget as an example of excesses and recommended Congress consider making agency spending public to some degree.
    . . . . . .

    “Meanwhile at the White House, Cheney led the way in “editing” the Rockefeller report—including suppressing the assassinations section. The final draft of the full report contained a brief passage noting that President Ford had asked the panel to investigate the assassination plots after its inquiry began, that the staff had not been able to complete the investigation, and that Ford had then asked that assassinations material be turned over to him. The Cheney edit inserted doubts by adding that it was unclear whether assassinations fell within the scope of the Commission’s mandate, thus resurrecting jurisdictional issues which had previously been resolved…”
    . . . . . .

    Cheney’s involvement in this scandal, of course, leads us right into the modern era, the 21st Century and the continuum of deceit.

    This is truly a critically important revelation.~ww


  29. Bill Clarke Is An Outrageous Liar

    He totally misframes page 322 of John Newman’s book, JFK AND VIETNAM

    Clarke lies by saying that Newman had no source for these statements on that page:
    . . .
    By the spring of 1963, Kennedy had reversed course completely and agreed with

    “The President told Mansfield that he had been having serious second thoughts
    about Mansfield’s argument and that he now agreed with the Senator’s thinking on
    the need for a complete military withdrawal from Vietnam.

    ‘But I can’t do it until 1965–after I’m reelected,’ Kennedy told Mansfield….

    After Mansfield left the office, the President said to me, ‘In 1965 I’ll become
    one of the most unpopular Presidents in history. I’ll be damned everywhere as a
    Communist appeaser. But I don’t care. If I tried to pull out completely now from
    Vietnam, we would have another Joe McCarthy red scare on our hands, but I can do
    it after I’m reelected. So we had better make damned sure that I am reelected’
    (O’Donnell, p. 16).”

    Sometime after that Kennedy told O’Donnell again that

    “…he had made up his mind that after his reelection he would take the risk of
    unpopularity and make a complete withdrawal of American military forces from
    Vietnam. He had decided that our military involvement in Vietnam’s civil war
    would only grow steadily bigger and more costly without making a dent in the
    larger political problem of Communist expansion in Southeast Asia” (p. 13).

    Just before he was killed he repeated this commitment:

    “‘They keep telling me to send combat units over there,’ the President said to
    us one day in October [1963]. ‘That means sending draftees, along with volunteer
    regular Army advisers, into Vietnam. I’ll never send draftees over there to
    fight’.” (O’Donnell, p. 383).

    Kennedy’s public statements and actions were consistent with his private
    conversations, though more cautiously expressed in order to appease the military
    and right-wing forces that were clamoring for more, not less, involvement in
    Vietnam, and with whom he did not want to risk an open confrontation one year
    before the election. As early as May 22, 1963, he said at a press conference:

    “…we are hopeful that the situation in South Vietnam would permit some
    withdrawal in any case by the end of the year, but we can’t possibly make that
    judgement at the present time” (Harold W. Chase and Allen H. Lerman, eds.,
    Kennedy and the Press: The News Conferences, New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1965,
    p. 447).

    “One day when he [Kennedy] was talking with Dave and me about pulling out of
    Vietnam, we asked him how he could manage a military withdrawal without losing
    American prestige in Southeast Asia.

    ‘Easy,’ he said. ‘Put a government in there that will ask us to leave’”~O’Donnell (p. 18).
    . . . .
    “O’Donnell and JFK were whoring around buddies. Trust him with your loss of face.”
    ~Bill Clarke,

    February 29, 2016 at 7:59 pm

    How can Mr Clarke seriously consider this outrageous tabloid style defamation a valid argument?

    This is the most astonishing bullshit I have read on JFKfacts to date__it even tops Photon’s nonsense!

    Bill Clarke is a historian manqué

    JUNE 15, 1978
    Transcribed by Damian Turner, Jim McClure, and Leslie Sharp
    In Part III of the tape Ms A and Mr B are identified only as “HSCA Staff”
    Ellipsis [….] denote a pause, not deleted words.
    Angleton: James Angleton, former chief of counterintelligence CIA,
    Ms A: Surrell Brady, staff counsel for the Select Committee on
    Assassinations (HSCA) of the U.S. House of Representatives,
    Mr. B. James Kelly, staff investigator for the HSCA.


  31. Willy Whitten — March 1, 2016 at 1:16 pm
    “A clear yes or no would be great.”~Jean Davison

    As Dalton Trumbo said in answer to such a question at the House Un-American Activities Hearings;

    “There are certain questions that only a moron, or a utter fool would answer yes or no to.”

    Since we have discussed this countless times I will give you generally the same answer as I have given before:

    This answer by RFK is the crux of the matter:

    Kennedy: Well, we’d face that when we came to it.”
    Further I remind you and the forum that there were NEVER any ground troops to remove in Vietnam during JFK’s administration – ALL of the military personnel at that time were there in an advisory capacity.

    I will also remind you that “remaining engaged” does not equate to direct US military engagement.

    Kennedy told quite a few of his closest advisers including O’Donnell that he was determined to unilaterally pull the military out of Southeast Asia.
    I refuse to relitigate these arguments here one more time.

    Kennedy was going to withdraw from Vietnam.
    That is a FACT.

    Take it or leave it.

    Wag your tongues on this issue until your teeth rot and your faces fall off, I don’t care.


    • “As general counsel for the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in the mid-1990s, Jeremy Gunn had unparalleled access to the government’s records on the JFK assassination. Last year he gave an interesting talk about “Seeking the Truth in the Kennedy Assassination” at the Center for Global Humanities at the University of New England in Portland, Maine.”

      This is a link to that video on YouTube:


      • Jeremy Gunn certainly NOT a very good public speaker. He sputters and stutters and has a very hard time speaking a complete sentence without interrupting himself, and hums and haws continuously. It is frustrating to listen to him. Kinda a drag…because the information is really good.

  32. Interview 1147 – John Whitehead Explains the Age of Authoritarianism

    Reality Check: No Matter Who Wins the White House, the New Boss Will Be the Same as the Old Boss
    By John W. Whitehead
    February 29, 2016

    “The main problem in any democracy is that crowd-pleasers are generally brainless swine who can go out on a stage & whup their supporters into an orgiastic frenzy—then go back to the office & sell every one of the poor bastards down the tube for a nickel apiece.” ― Hunter S. Thompson

    • The Age of Authoritarianism: Government of the Politicians, by the Military, for the Corporations

      “I was astonished, bewildered. This was America, a country where, whatever its faults, people could speak, write, assemble, demonstrate without fear. It was in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. We were a democracy… But I knew it wasn’t a dream; there was a painful lump on the side of my head… The state and its police were not neutral referees in a society of contending interests. They were on the side of the rich and powerful. Free speech? Try it and the police will be there with their horses, their clubs, their guns, to stop you. From that moment on, I was no longer a liberal, a believer in the self-correcting character of American democracy. I was a radical, believing that something fundamental was wrong in this country—not just the existence of poverty amidst great wealth, not just the horrible treatment of black people, but something rotten at the root. The situation required not just a new president or new laws, but an uprooting of the old order, the introduction of a new kind of society—cooperative, peaceful, egalitarian.” ― Historian Howard Zinn

      America is at a crossroads.

      History may show that from this point forward, we will have left behind any semblance of constitutional government and entered into a militaristic state where all citizens are suspects and security trumps freedom.

      Certainly, this is a time when government officials operate off their own inscrutable, self-serving playbook with little in the way of checks and balances, while American citizens are subjected to all manner of indignities and violations with little hope of defending themselves.

      As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we have moved beyond the era of representative government and entered a new age—the age of authoritarianism. Even with its constantly shifting terrain, this topsy-turvy travesty of law and government has become America’s new normal.

      Don’t believe me?

      Let me take you on a brief guided tour, but prepare yourself. The landscape is particularly disheartening to anyone who remembers what America used to be…



      • Constitutional Corner

        Introductory Essay

        We the People

        History Section

        Before the Revolution
        Revolutionary Period
        Making of the U.S. Constitution

        Founding Documents

        The U.S. Constitution
        The Bill of Rights
        Additional Amendments to the U.S. Constitution
        Declaration of Independence
        Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom

        See more:


      • We The People

        By John W. Whitehead

        The Constitution of the United States represents the classic solution to one of humankind’s greatest political problems—that is, how does a small group of states combine into a strong union without the states losing their individual powers and surrendering their control over local affairs? The fifty-five delegates who convened in Philadelphia during the sweltering summer of 1787 answered this question with a document that called for a federal plan of government, a system of separation of powers with checks and balances, and a procedure for orderly change to meet the needs and exigencies of future generations.

        In an ultimate sense, the Constitution confirmed the proposition that original power resided in the people—not, however, in the people as a whole but in their capacity as people of the several states. To bring forth the requisite union, the people through the states would transfer some of their powers to the new federal government. All powers not reserved by the people in explicit state constitutional limitations remained in the state governments.


  33. The Damage to the Back of President Kennedy’s Head
    “For nearly half a century, we have debated the question of whether the back of President Kennedy’s head was damaged during the attack in Dealey Plaza. Numerous witnesses and nearly every doctor and nurse at Parkland Hospital, who examined the President’s head, reported seeing massive damage there.”
    Dr. Boswell himself, who is the doctor whose hand we see in the above photo. This is from his sworn testimony before the ARRB,

    A. There was a big wound sort of transverse up like this from left posterior to right anterior. The scalp was separated, but it was folded over, and you could fold the scalp over and almost hide the wound. When you lifted the scalp up, you could really lay it back posteriorally, and there was a lot of bone still attached to the scalp but detached from the remainder of the skull. And I think these parts back here probably reflect that.

    Q. Dr. Boswell, I’m sorry to jump in here, but I just want to make sure that the record is going to be clear here. And we can come back to this, and I want you to explain it the best you can. But would it be fair to say first that the diagram that we’re talking about is a drawing of the skull of President Kennedy as seen from the top? Would that be fair?

    A. Yes.

    Read more here as it is longer than the 500 word maximum:

    * * * * *
    ”[Maxwell] Taylor was soon to recommend that 8,000 American combat troops be sent to the region at once. After making his report to the Cabinet and the Chiefs of Staff, Taylor was to reflect on the decision to send troops to South Vietnam: “I don’t recall anyone who was strongly against, except one man, and that was the President. The President just didn’t want to be convinced that this was the right thing to do…. It was really the President’s personal conviction that U.S. ground troops shouldn’t go in.”[4] . . . “Robert Kennedy: His Life and Times” Arthur Schlesinger
    * * * * *

  34. I can smell the stench of Rotten Jingoberries, every time I read one of Bill Clarke’s posts on JFKfacts.

  35. Anyone who excuses the utterly unprofessional behavior and attitudes of the police and sheriff’s deputies in not securing of the crime scenes, of not securing evidence, of breaking chains of possession for evidence, is woefully ignorant of the standard protocols of crime scene investigation, or disingenuous.

    Claiming that the authorities performed in a proper and professional manner is preposterous.

    Those who have made such apologetic arguments for the DPD, seem to have the same “good-ol’boy”, lackadaisical attitude as these clowns in Dallas. It is their fault that you don’t have a solid case against Oswald. And because they were so sloppy in their purposeful staging, they gave themselves away as members of the conspiracy to frame Oswald.
    . . .
    Having escaped from the grip of enchantment of the indoctrination the system attempted to instill in me, I now see in a form of practical clairvoyance; how obvious those who parrot back the script are. They have internalized the script so deeply that they think they are their own ideas. They don’t seem to recognize that their ideas fall within a narrow range of dialectical differences. They truly believe the Left/Right divide that defines this paradigm is in fact synthetic.

    Some have come to recognize that supporting the “Lesser of two evils” – is supporting evil nonetheless. With one form of evil supported by one side, and the other supported by the other, the full spectrum of evil manifests. It manifests as the Total State of Hegel’s daydreams. Refusing to support either side is the only rational solution to this problem.

  36. The Circus in Dallas in November 1963

    Report of the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy
    Chapter 5: Detention and Death of Oswald

    “The American Bar Association declared in December 1963 that “widespread publicizing of Oswald’s alleged guilt, involving statements by officials and public disclosures of the details of ‘evidence,’ would have made it extremely difficult to impanel an unprejudiced jury and afford the accused a fair trial.” 255 Local bar associations expressed similar feelings.256 The Commission agrees that Lee Harvey Oswald’s opportunity for a trial by 12 jurors free of preconception as to his guilt or innocence would have been seriously jeopardized by the premature disclosure and weighing of the evidence against him.

    The problem of disclosure of information and its effect on trials is, of course, further complicated by the independent activities of the press in developing information on its own from sources other than law enforcement agencies. Had the police not released the specific items of evidence against Oswald, it is still possible that the other information presented on television and in the newspapers, chiefly of a biographical nature, would itself have had a prejudicial effect on the public.”



  37. Keith Raniere is smug as a duck in the muck. One of those wannabe charismatics like L. Ron Hubberd. The ‘faux-savior’ charlatans are a dime a dozen and squat diddling their admirers in every level of society.
    Usually having a psychopathic profile, they associate with other psychopathic personalities in what are known as *poneristic power groupings.

    It is hardly surprising that Murrow, Raniere, and Stone have found each other for some group hubris huddles.

    Keep in mind however that framing these types as exclusively “right-wing” is a dangerously naïve idea.

    * Ponerism, see:
    Also: http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/Stories/2015/NOV12/bronfmanRaniere.html

  38. “It is almost impossible systematically to constitute a natural moral law. Nature has no principles. She furnishes us with no reason to believe that human life is to be respected. Nature, in her indifference, makes no distinction between good and evil.”~Anatole France

    La Révolte des Anges [The Revolt of the Angels] (1914), ch. XXVII

    • October 31, 2014 at 10:21 pm

      I think to believe is some very strange syntax like sin tax for licking forbidden objectivity. It exist to maybe almost. However there that and the other thing too can be.
      Walking to school lunch carry drive-by colorists heavy handed. Or cum into the gap drifter while harmonium is stroked by monkeys from Balfour creates strange strains of green ooze in bucket the.
      Nevertheless I don’t know howl you mean? Perhaps foreign pocket full change. Yea? Oh yea.

      “Strawberries” (she said).

      Maybe … but Duncan Roads is not a traitor to Scientology. Now is he?

      No but perhaps to the donuts that found no java to be dunked into forthwith as per gallon. And because lower than behold!!! Tahdah …. Dunky wuz ondah road!!!

      Har har har … ya know whut I mean??? Get yerself a gawldern burberry handbag to carry your fresh donuts next time – and stop yer bitchin’!

  39. In a certain sense, what I bring here is a gathering of Magi [Magus, plural]. It is that particular blend of intuition and informed rational contemplation that is our bonding principles. I don’t mean this in an occult way at all. The occult is occult because it is hidden, that is what it means. We may investigate the hidden, but we are not of it.
    But there are rituals. They may be “technological”, but they are indeed prescribed ritual. The word is simply not thought of in such a way by most. This comes from the same mind-set as those who think ‘history is over’, as if “that was then and this is now” has much real bearing on a cyclic process such as history. This attitude blinds one to amplifying the differences in human activities on trivial pretexts. A person sitting using his fingers, physical dexterity, concentration of focused attention while chipping an arrowhead is actually not substantially different, other than technological, what a person using a computer does. A great deal is just repetitive patterns, ie; rituals. Somehow, after all these eons, we are still humans locked in our moment of Now.
    When one discovers, and truly ‘groks’ that the past is with us, it has brought us to this moment, the next step of getting that the future is here as well. The past and the present define it.

    While this is easily perceived from a certain angle is beyond those who see from other angles.
    The most common is a narrow conformist view of culturally enforced lazy thinking. The majority of people don’t like thinking because it reminds them of ‘taking a test’ based on something being taught. This is the conditioning of rote instruction, the dulling of natural curiosity.

    So not only do free thinkers annoy the “well informed academic”, but also those who have been programmed to ‘feel’ that thinking is practically subversive.
    Insatiable curiosity frightens both types; who are actually two aspects of the same type, lazy thinkers. Consensus and conformity are intimate with one another.

    So now, what is this? This is a story. Nothing more than a story. But it is my story, from my perspective, They are all only stories. The point is to live your own. Gawblesmurkah
    ~Willy Whitten — September 22, 2014


  40. “Between 1985 and 1987, Freedom also published a 19-part series by Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, whose 30 years of close work with U.S. intelligence services included an eight-year tenure as chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and a similar capacity with the Office of Special Operations of the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The series provided a unique and highly informative view of the events which led up to the Vietnam War. The articles also provided seminal material for the movie “JFK,” for which Colonel Prouty also served as consultant.”

    “One of the first enemies we have in this country is usury”. ~Fletcher Prouty

  41. On November 19th 1963, President Kennedy signed the first treaty limiting nuclear testing.
    Three days later Kennedy was killed in a military coup d’tat.


  42. You Now Have a Shorter Attention Span Than a Goldfish
    Kevin McSpadden @KevinMcspadden May 14, 2015

    No longer can we boast about 12 seconds of coherent thought

    The average attention span for the notoriously ill-focused goldfish is nine seconds, but according to a new study from Microsoft Corp., people now generally lose concentration after eight seconds, highlighting the affects of an increasingly digitalized lifestyle on the brain.

    Researchers in Canada surveyed 2,000 participants and studied the brain activity of 112 others using electroencephalograms (EEGs). Microsoft found that since the year 2000 (or about when the mobile revolution began) the average attention span dropped from 12 seconds to eight seconds.

    “Heavy multi-screeners find it difficult to filter out irrelevant stimuli — they’re more easily distracted by multiple streams of media,” the report read.

    On the positive side, the report says our ability to multitask has drastically improved in the mobile age.

    Microsoft theorized that the changes were a result of the brain’s ability to adapt and change itself over time and a weaker attention span may be a side effect of evolving to a mobile Internet.

    The survey also confirmed generational differences for mobile use; for example, 77% of people aged 18 to 24 responded “yes” when asked, “When nothing is occupying my attention, the first thing I do is reach for my phone,” compared with only 10% of those over the age of 65.

    And now congratulate yourself for concentrating long enough to make it through this article.


    Not me, I hate emojis! They are puerile, childish, immature, infantile, juvenile, babyish and jejune.



    In the mid-1950s, neurophysiologist Carl Wilhelm Sem-Jacobsen built his own EEG lab at Gaustad psychiatric hospital in Norway with copious funding from the Rockefeller, Ford, and other “charitable” foundations. He soon took on multiple US government contracts from the Air Force, the Navy, and NASA for research using electrodes implanted in the brains of psych patients to carry out what many have said was unethical research on them. It is widely believed today that Sem-Jacobsen was really doing his brain research, which continued for years, under the auspices of MKUltra.


  44. Willy Whitten — March 4, 2016 at 12:08 pm


    As far as Prouty mentioning that what is publicly known about Hubbard is not necessarily the truth is based on other associations and activities of Hubbard.

    JPL now known as “Jet Propulsion Laboratory” was originally ‘Jack Parson’s Laboratory’.

    Parson’s has literally been written out of NASA history, but he was the original genius of rocket fuel design and invention.

    “In 1945, science fiction writer — and later the founder of Scientology — L Ron Hubbard moved into the Pasadena lodge. Sara took an interest in Hubbard, which made Parsons jealous. He developed a deeper interest in witchcraft and the darker side of magic, becoming fascinated by poltergeists and ghostly apparitions. In a bid to find conjure up a new lover, he took part in extraordinary rituals where he would masturbate onto magical tablets to the sound of music.”
    . . . .
    Other strange characters are associated with NASA as well. Werner Von Braun and other infamous Nazis are better known than Parsons.

    Then there is another wacko scientist/psychologist who worked concurrently with NASA and MKUltra; neurophysiologist Carl Wilhelm Sem-Jacobsen.
    As diabolical as Ewing Cameron, or the Nazi Josef Mengele. See:

    . . .
    The message is clear here; don’t think you can know everything there is to know from mainstream history and media, or academics.

    Believe it or not, governments hide things.
    Oh yea.

  45. Neocon Armchair Warhawks Panic Over Trump Foreign Policy
    by Daniel McAdams, March 03, 2016
    The neocons are renowned for their courage on the battlefield. There is no keyboard they are afraid to finger. No pen they won’t commandeer. When the battle cry is sounded, they unhesitatingly push the “on” button at their computers and saddle up for battle. Off with the loafers and under the desk! “Caution to the wind! Bring in a wine spritzer, dammit, I’m off to waaar!”

    While this Institute and this column most definitely do not take a position on any candidate and in fact your correspondent views voting itself with disdain in today’s corrupt US political system, it is impossible to avoid viewing with extreme amusement the collective neocon hysterical breakdown over the possibility that voters of the Republican Party – a party neocons crashed en masse starting in 1972 and especially 1976 – may be sending as their nominee for president a man who has committed the cardinal sins of:


    Isn’t it funny? EVERYBODY goes woowoo over this fucking shit burlesque of “Presidential Elections” … as if it has ever mattered who the fucking president was. Sure Trump is a charlatan and pretender, EVERYBODY IN POLITICS is a charlatan and pretender.

    Holy Hoots and gawblesmurkah!!


  46. Willy Whitten
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    March 5, 2016 at 5:18 am
    Nothing personal to either one but, John Butler and Jean Davison both remind me I am addressing for the most part, indoctrinated Kindergarten students.


    Jai Guru Deva … “Nothing’s gonna change my world.”~John Lennon


    Intrigue, complex and convoluted charades; these are the constructs of covert operations. What is it that makes some dismiss this reality? Is it naivety, denial? Wishful thinking for a more “innocent world”?

    There is a critical distinction between raw”data/datum” and “information”.
    . . .
    The term data refers to factual integers, especially that used for analysis and based on reasoning or calculation. Data itself has no meaning, but becomes information when it is interpreted. Information is a collection of facts or data that is communicated.
    Data are the facts or details from which information is derived. Individual pieces of data rarely have inherent meaning in themselves.

    Data — Information — Context

    Data is raw, unorganized facts that need to be processed. Data can be something simple and seemingly random and useless until it is organized. When data is processed, organized, structured or presented in a given context so as to make it useful, it is called information.

    Whether one likes it or not, what facts mean is to a certain extent, ALWAYS subjective; ultimately a matter of opinion. There is informed opinion, there is uninformed opinion, there is disinformed opinion.

    And opinions my vary.


    Standards, Ideals & Principles are obviously subjective as well. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, taste a matter for a specific tongue.
    One may hold to certain standards and principles, as I myself do. But I recognize others have different ideas on these things.

    I hold that certain unalienable rights to liberty are the natural possession of any human being.
    Liberty is not the INVENTION of Revolution. Liberty is the DISCOVERY of Enlightened Reason.

    Liberty cannot be sold or bartered, it can however be physically stolen. It depends on the strength of individual will power whether Liberty can be stolen from any particular soul. One can be bound and still have a free mind. One can be unbound and still have an enslaved mind. So freedom is a state of mind as well as a state of physical circumstance.

    There is a certain charm to the early revolutionary American motto: ‘DON’T TREAD ON ME’.


  48. “Now that I look back, I realize that a life predicated on being obedient and taking orders is a very comfortable life indeed. Living in such a way reduces to a minimum one’s need to think.”~Adolf Eichmann

  49. Brexit, And Goals And Ops Of The Deep State

    “The real job of the EU is dehumanizing people, for the sake of humanity. That’s how faceless robot-bureaucrats operate.

    The EU is an illusion of authority, in the sense that it pretends to be in exclusive possession of knowledge that will make life better for all of Europe.

    The EU built itself as a machine, a structure so maze-like, so complex that “it must be valuable.” It resembles a super-computer. “We have trillions of pieces of vital data. We can plan the future more competently than any smaller entity. Leave the details to us.”

    The EU is in all these ways a copy of the Deep Global State, of which it is a part. And now we come to the second section of this article, which I wrote first, as I was becoming aware of the result of the Brexit vote. Consider it background. The Deep State has, of course, not gone away. A much greater degree of dismantling is necessary. Technocracy itself has to be understood and defeated, because it is the leading edge of the new Globalist society…

    The State is now involved in making people into robots and robots into people.

    Behind all the technological promises and heraldry, this is what’s happening. People are already beginning to feel a fierce unshakable loyalty to machines—and a religious adoration. Up the road, robots will be wise counselors and guides and priests. This is civilization’s version of magic.”~Jon Rappoport



  50. Castle Doctrine

    A Castle Doctrine (also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law) is a legal doctrine that designates a person’s abode or any legally occupied place – e.g., a vehicle or workplace, as a place in which that person has protections and immunities permitting him or her, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend himself or herself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used.[1] The term is most commonly used in the United States, though many other countries invoke comparable principles in their laws.

    A person may have a duty to retreat to avoid violence if one can reasonably do so. Castle doctrines negate the duty to retreat when an individual is assaulted in a place where that individual has a right to be, such as within one’s own home. Deadly force may be justified and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases “when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another”.[1] The castle doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which may be incorporated in some form in the law of many jurisdictions.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s