Category Archives: Intelligence Operations

AIDS-Fort Detrick Theory Is KGB, Stasi Disinfo

Posted on by

Hunting around to find out more about the Alan Cantwell piece about AIDS I posted earlier, which one reader suggested was disinformation, I came across this announcement from the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Studies.

It doesn’t mention the Cantwell theory, but takes aim at another widely-circulated conspiracy theory about AIDS, that it came out of bio-weapons research at Fort Detrick:

Tuesday, 28 October, 2014,

Event description: In the second half of the 1980s, the KGB conducted an international disinformation campaign accusing the US of having artificially constructed the virus that causes AIDS at the Pentagon’s laboratory for biological warfare in Fort Detrick, Maryland. On the basis of his research with scholar Christopher Nehring in the archives of the former communist secret police in Bulgaria, Germany, and the Czech Republic, Douglas Selvage will present new details about the disinformation campaign and the key supporting role played by the KGB’s “fraternal organ,” the East German Ministry of State Security, or Stasi.  Among the findings: The free media in West Germany played a central, if unwitting role, as multipliers of the KGB’s disinformation thesis; a cycle of misinformation and disinformation arose between conspiracy theorists in the US and the Soviet bloc’s secret police; and the Fort Detrick-thesis continues to circulate around the globe yet today with dire political and medical consequences.  “

Here is a bit about Douglas Selvage himself. I am not sure how far one can trust state-employed historians.

Douglas Selvage is currently Project Director in the Education and Research Division of the BStU (Federal Commission for the Records of the State Security Service of the former German Democratic Republic) in Berlin for the project “International Cooperation of the East European Security Services.” Before he joined the BStU in 2008, he served as a historian in the U.S. Department of State and as an assistant professor of history at the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach. He has published widely on German-Polish relations during the Cold War, on the Helsinki Process, U.S. foreign policy, and the history of the Soviet bloc. “

Jesus666 Site

Posted on by

Yet another anti-Christian propaganda site replete with fallacious etymologies and the old claim that Jesus (the Greek version of Yehoshuah) is really Gaze-at-Zeus and pagan.  It’s not about accepting the redemptive work of Jesus; no, apparently, if you call God Yahweh, rather than Yeh-weh, you are on the road to perdition.

Google Jesus666 and see how many sites pop up.

This is all rather typical Judaicizing anti-Christ propaganda, common in Messianic and Hebrew Roots circles.

If you cross the bridge, it doesn’t matter what you call it. You’ll reach the other side.

If you don’t cross the bridge, it doesn’t matter what you call it, you’ll stay where you are.

Cross the bridge.

 

Yeshua (Jesus) As An Anagram For Esau

Posted on by

 

 

UPDATE:

Going back, I see that I’ve used the Yeshua form myself in at least one post. I’ll correct it when I find it again.  I will make sure to use the form Yehoshua.

Note: These posts on Esau should be read as my thoughts on the subject, from varying angles. I equate Edom/ Esau with a world tyrant/super-state.

Since the only power of that dimension today is political Zionism, I equate the two.

So why do I bring up the view of some influential Rabbis of Jesus and Christians as Esau?

Because it is a history and reality that Christians need to understand.

They should also understand that this is by no means a universal view among Rabbis or Jewish scholars. Many Rabbis considered Jesus as a profound Jewish teacher. Many accepted him as the Messiah.

Also, the “Jews” of Jesus’ time (Idumeans and true Jews) did not reject Jesus en masse, by any means.

A substantial number of the earliest disciples of Christ and the most influential were Jews.

Paul himself was a Pharisee, just as Jesus well might have been. [On the contrary, this blog considers that the suggestion that Jesus was a Pharisee is a meme floated by the Hebrew Roots Movement and is subversive in intention. So also, the idea that the Pharisee Hillel “taught” Jesus or that Jesus plagiarized Hillel.  All these notions seem to diminish Jesus, which, ultimately, seems to be the goal of  the movement.]

Finally, Jesus never founded something called “Christianity.” He created a body of believers in his resurrection and atonement, who instituted a practice of commemorating his death among themselves and committed themselves to obeying his commandments – and those of no other.

He never told these believers to call themselves Christians or to call other people’s faiths false or demonic.

He just told his Apostles to take his message of “Good News” about the availability of salvation through grace to the Gentiles (a word that doesn’t mean non-Jews) and the “nations” so that they would see the light and come to it.

Everything beyond that simple teaching is actually controversial, if not controvertible.

ORIGINAL POST

The name Jesus is the Greek rendering of Yehoshua (in English, Joshua) or Yeh – hoshua or Yah (weh) saves. (Strong’s Hebrew Concordance gives it as the Lord is Salvation).

However, I’ve often seen Jesus referred to as Yeshua, especially on Hebrew Roots websites.

Hebrew Roots is a growing movement among Evangelical Christians that seeks to see the Jewish context of Jesus’ teachings. They see Jesus as a faithful Jew and not the apostate he is often made out to be in Jewish writing.

However, there is a troubling angle. These sites often go beyond pointing out how Jewish Jesus was to imposing Talmudic practices – often from several centuries after Jesus – on non-Jewish believers, thus making “traditions of men” more important than Jesus’ atonement..

On these sites you will often find the familiar Greek words from the New Testament given their Hebrew rendering, something I generally find very helpful and a needed corrective.

However, I’ve always wondered where they got the variant Yeshua from, in place of Yehoshua.

Researching the Jewish view of Edom/Esau, which traditionally is equated with Christianity in Rabbinical texts, I came across a comment on a Noahide site that YESHUA is an anagram for ESAU in Hebrew. The equation of the two is made elsewhere.

[The Islamic name for Jesus, Isa, is also said to be derived from Esau/Esav.]

Jesus is Esau in to many Rabbis and thus by extension Christianity and Christendom is Esau or Edom to them.

.

 

The Racist God-Mother Of “Family Planning”

Posted on by

In the third-world, especially, family-planning is presented as a benign, even necessary, activity.

These countries are told they are “over-populated,” and that’s why family-planning (i.e. contraception and abortion) is necessary.

But over-population is a completely subjective term.

One could as well claim that  America or Russia, for example, is under-populated.

Countries evidently suffer from congestion and over-crowding.

But that is an entirely different thing. It is a matter of excessive concentrations of population in urban areas, not of “too many people.”

Such distinctions never occur to the low-watt “best and brightest” folks who run the faculties of elite colleges from where population-control ideology emanates.

But the best refutation of the “social uplift” justification of family-planning is not semantics. It is history.

The  published words (see further down) of the founding mother of family-planning, Margaret Sanger, show that elimination of the poor, the disabled, and the dark-skinned, was the real motivation behind such programs as the Negro Project.

Packaged as necessary for the social uplift of blacks, the results today are clear for all to see:

Here is the simple truth.  The intent of Sanger’s Negro Project is firmly intact. Nearly 40% of all African-American pregnancies end in induced abortion.9 There is more access to birth control than ever before and the huge disparity in poverty rates between whites and blacks continues. Fatherlessness and poverty are rampant. Unintended pregnancy rates in the black community continue to rise. Today, the same mouthpieces for Planned Parenthood are claiming “lack of access” while black women access abortion clinics at 5 times the rate of white women. This is by design. Abortion kills more black lives (363,705)10 than all other causes of death combined.”

Sanger, who was also a proponent of female sexual libertinism, did start out opposed to euthanasia and abortion, but then went on to embrace them as permissible when needed.

From Diane Dew’s blog:

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:

“…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.”  Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilizations

On sterilization & racial purification:

Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial “purification,” couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

On the right of married couples to bear children:
Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her “Plan for Peace.” Birth Control Review, April 1932

On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was “to create a race of thoroughbreds,” she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
“More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.” Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:
“This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in the solution of marriage problems… Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable – these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation.” Margaret Sanger, Happiness in Marriage (Bretano’s, New York, 1927)

On the extermination of blacks:
“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:
In her “Plan for Peace,” Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed “feebleminded.” Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107

On adultery:
A woman’s physical satisfaction was more important than any marriage vow, Sanger believed. Birth Control in America, p. 11

On marital sex:
“The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order,” Sanger said. (p. 23) [Quite the opposite of God’s view on the matter: “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” (Hebrews 13:4)

On abortion:
“Criminal’ abortions arise from a perverted sex relationship under the stress of economic necessity, and their greatest frequency is among married women.” The Woman Rebel – No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On the YMCA and YWCA:
“…brothels of the Spirit and morgues of Freedom!”), The Woman Rebel – No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On the Catholic Church’s view of contraception:
“…enforce SUBJUGATION by TURNING WOMAN INTO A MERE INCUBATOR.” The Woman Rebel – No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

On motherhood:
“I cannot refrain from saying that women must come to recognize there is some function of womanhood other than being a child-bearing machine.” What Every Girl Should Know, by Margaret Sanger (Max Maisel, Publisher, 1915) [Jesus said: “Daughters of Jerusalem, weep… for your children. For, behold, the days are coming, in which they shall say, Blessed (happy) are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the breasts which never gave suck.” (Luke 23:24)]

“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923).”

 

 

 

 

14 Yrs Jail For UK Husbands Who Shout At Wives

Posted on by

If you had any doubts that Western societies have collapsed morally under the manipulation of feminist harridans elevated beyond their pay-grade by the Sanhedrin’s mandarins, put them away.

A legal 9-11 has devastated British men, emasculating whatever little of their manhood the gynocracy hasn’t already stripped from them.

A recent bill allows husband in England to  be jailed for fourteen years for the very loosely defined crime of “coercive control” of his wife.

Apparently, this can include such things as calling her fat, criticizing her clothes, refusing to let her spend as much as she wants, or demanding to know where she is going.

There is no mention in the bill of female abuse of men. Women never bleed men financially, abuse their families of origin, cheat on them, throw tantrums, extort them, lie, hit, or murder.

It is all one way.

Moreover, for purposes of punishment, there is no statutory limit to how far back the wife can go to produce evidence in support of her claims.

Th UK bill also does not give any weight to provocative behavior by the wife.

What if you were working day and night, taking years off from your own life,  while your well-educated wife spent her time abed or on the sofa, consuming donuts steadily.

Would a few tart suggestions to knock of the sloth and greed amount to “abuse” meriting punishment twice as harsh as what is usually meted out (when it is) in the West to bank-robber, murderers, and serial rapists?

What if this harridan also objected to your spending time with your friends and family, tried to grab not only “her half” of marital assets, but yours as well?

What if she parked her relatives in your home and expected you to pay for it all, while she kept busy gossiping, isolating you, maligning your family, and spending your assets?

Would a bleat from you now and then count for abuse while her real financial and emotional terrorism against you count as “love and support”?

We can only guess.

Fortunately, the Indian Supreme Court moved away from this insanity recently when it asserted that a woman who prevents her in-laws from entering her home is guilty of cruelty and mental abuse sufficient to be grounds for divorce.

 

Secret Corporate Espionage, Harassment Of Citizens

Posted on by

From Alternet.org:

Hiring cops, spooks and vets to do corporate dirty work leads to one more trend enabling corporate espionage to flourish. That is a lack of accountability or legal consequence for espionage that clearly breaks domestic law, such as stealing documents, wiretapping, etc. In France or England, where some of these same activities have come to the attention of authorities, those responsible have been prosecuted and some perpetrators have even gone to jail. Not so in the U.S.

“Hiring former intelligence, military and law enforcement officials has its advantages,” the report notes. “First, these officials may be able to use their status as a shield. For example, current law enforcement officials may be disinclined to investigate or prosecute former intelligence or law enforcement agents… In effect, the revolving door for intelligence, military and law enforcement officials is yet another aspect of the corporate capture of federal agencies, and another government subsidy for corporations.”

What Americans Don’t Know

As detailed as the Center for Corporate Policy report is, author Gary Ruskin says most of the information was obtained “by accident.” It wasn’t freely given. It was the result of lawsuits, a handful of whisteblowers, mistakes by those hired to do the corporate espionage, boasts in trade press and other somewhat random sources.

But even so, there is a dark playbook that comes into view. Nonprofits are scrutinzed for vulnerabilities. Computers are hacked. Documents are copied or stolen. Phone calls and voice mail are secretly recorded. Personal dossiers are compiled. Disinformation is created and spread. Websites are targeted and taken down. Blackmail is attempted. Just as bad, Ruskin says, the Justice Department and Congress look the other way.

“The entire subject is veiled in secrecy,” his report says. “In recent years, there have been few serious journalistic efforts—and no serious government efforts—to come to terms with the reality of corporate spying against nonprofits.”

Steven Rosenfeld covers national political issues for AlterNet.

My Comment:

This excellent article describes the rampant misuse of surveillance technology to invade the privacy of thousands of ordinary citizens, to blackmail, harass, and threaten them.

It perfectly sums up my experience since 2007:

1.  Phone-tapping, landline and cell phones.

2. Appearance of private conversations in websites, in a disguised form, recognizable only to myself or very close friends.

3.  Innuendo and slander republished by internet trolls and sometimes blogs. No facts or evidence, just reiteration of the slander, personal abuse. Cyber-stalking.

4.  Infiltrators or spies posing as clients, customers, or visitors, attempting to enter into business with me.

5. Emails deleted or blocked.  Computer trojans, spyware inserted.  VOIP conversations recorded. Blog hacking. Manipulation of Google hits. Threats to readers of the blog.  Manipulation of search results for specific posts. Monitoring via “fake” readers/commenters (they know who they are).

6. Work projects sabotaged.

7. Professional relations sabotaged.

8. At least one accident that seems to have been intentionally staged.

9. Theft of IP.

10. Using proxies to threaten, attack, or discredit through staged provocations. Street theater (paying random individuals to engage in behavior calculated to threaten/cause anxiety).

 

Debunking Sources Of “Osama 2011”

Posted on by

I will be posting links to debunk the sources cited by Michael Rozeff at Lew Rockwell.com.

(Check back for the next rebuttal, which will be post below No. 1, debunking Gunaratna)

SOURCE NO.1

Source 1 is Rohan Gunaratna, a Sri Lanka terrorism expert (and please, note I am no fan of the Tamil Tigers, who also question him):

Here is a lengthy piece questioning the credibility of Gunaratna, his flimsy credentials as a terrorism expert, his history of making exaggerated claims, and his interest in pushing for more government surveillance in Britain, Australia, and elsewhere.

Here’s a crucial excerpt:

Gunaratna’s unstinting support for the US, British and Australian governments’ foreign policy objectives was well rewarded. His contacts in US intelligence and counter-terrorist circles grew and his writings were published in several foreign policy and international security journals. But the biggest coup took place in June 2002: the publication of his book Inside Al Qaeda: Global Network of Terror, by Columbia University Press. Promoted heavily in the media, it went on to become a best seller around the world.

Inside Al Qaeda received universal media acclaim. “A remarkable new study,” enthused the Times (London), “Excellent,” declared Peter Bergen from the Washington Post, while Thomas Powers, in the New York Review of Books, called it “a careful and methodical account” that “does the work of many tomes”.

But it was not long before several of the book’s claims were vigorously challenged. The Malaysian government attacked the book’s assertions of links between the ruling Barisan Nasional party and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) of the Philippines, and through the MILF to Al Qaeda—and threatened legal action. Interviewed on Singapore television about the controversy, Gunaratna backtracked, changing his allegation to a link “between MILF operatives and a few individuals in the Barisan parties” [emphasis added].

In one of the book’s more sensational accounts, Gunaratna described in detail an Al Qaeda plot to hijack a British Airways plane on September 11, 2001, and crash it into the houses of parliament. Only the grounding of all aircraft after the bombing of the World Trade Centre supposedly prevented the London attack.

The source was an alleged Al Qaeda member, Mohammed Afroz, who had been arrested in Bombay, India in October 2001. Afroz had also allegedly claimed he had planned to fly a plane into Melbourne’s Rialto Towers. After his release by an Indian court in April 2002, New Delhi police declared the claims to be a fabrication by the Bombay police force. An investigation by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation into the alleged Melbourne plan assessed it “to be lacking in credibility.”

Inside Al Qaeda also fudged the record of its author. The book claimed he was “principal investigator of the United Nations’ Terrorism Prevention Branch”, and that after the September 11 attacks, he “was called to address the United Nations, the US Congress and the Australian Parliament”.

After the Sunday Age conducted an investigation into his biographical details, Gunaratna apparently admitted that there was, in fact, no such position as “principal investigator” at the UN’s Terrorism Prevention Branch, and that he simply “worked there in 2001-02 as a research consultant.” According to the July 20 article in the Sunday Age, “He also confirmed that, rather than directly addressing the UN, Congress, and the Australian Parliament, he had actually spoken at a seminar organised by the parliamentary library, given evidence to a congressional hearing on terrorism and delivered a research paper to a conference on terrorism organised by the UN’s Department for Disarmament Affairs.”

So concerned was the British publisher of Inside Al Qaeda about possible legal repercussions arising out of the unreliability of its assertions, that it published an extraordinary disclaimer under the heading “Publisher’s note” advising the reader to treat the book’s contents as mere “suggestions”.

“A wide range of organisations—banks, governmental and non-governmental bodies, financial enterprises, religious and educational institutions, commercial entities, transport companies and charitable bodies are referred to in this book as having had contact or dealings with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Unless such references specifically state otherwise, they should be treated as nothing other than a suggestion that the organisations concerned were the unwitting tools of those who attempted, successfully or otherwise, to infiltrate, use or manipulate them for terrorist purposes.”

SOURCE TWO is Mike Rudin, who runs the BBC’s  “Conspiracy Files,” which, if you know anything about these things, is the way that the major media co-opts conspiracy research and turns it into infotainment (see also Jon Ronson, who does something similar).

Here is a piece that might tell you what Rudin’s agenda is (hint: Popular Mechanics was the vehicle used by the CIA and by Alexander Cockburn to debunk 9/11 alternative theories  at Counterpunch).

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=168&Itemid=60

SOURCE THREE is General McChrystal.

In an entertaining example of “cognitive diversity” in action in a major propaganda outlet  (Christian Science Monitor), Eric Holder is reported to believe that Osama will only be captured dead, whereas McChrystal is said to believe he will be captured alive.

This is typical media “framing,” whereby beneath the superficial “diversity” of opinion, the underlying assumption is the same.

You can call it Propaganda 101.  It’s that basic.

As for McChrystal, this isn’t his first time venturing into psyops.

He master-minded the Pat Tillman cover-up.

Eric Holder’s lengthy history of malfeasance, including lying about Fast and Furious, should be enough to establish his lack of credibility .

SOURCE 4 is Omar Bin Laden, Osama’s son. (LOL)

No comment needed.

Source 5 is Wikileaks (More LOL)

The article is from 2010; notice that Wikileaks, which was developed in 2006-07, established its credentials with the anti-war crowd and with libertarians in 2009….and then started its disinformation in 2010.

Search  “Assange,” “Wikileaks,” “Snowden,” “Anonymous,” “Bitcoin” etc. at this blog to get the lowdown on the best psyops that a mult-billion dollar black budget can buy for the outsourced (private, corporate) intelligence community that now RUNS the US, if not a large part of the world.

Putting out a story through a dozen credentialed talking-heads (and that’s all they are) is small change for the spy agencies.

SOURCE 6: Two Navy Seals, Rob O’Neill and Matt Bissonette, who were allegedly on the 23-man team that conducted Operation Neptune’s Spear.

O’Neill claims to have fired the shot that killed Osama Bin Laden.

However, even the Independent article (November 12, 2014) in which O’Neill FIRST makes his claim cites fellow Seal, Matt Bissonette, who contradicts the claim.

Bissonette and unnamed military chiefs assert that both Bissonette and O’Neill shot “Osama” only after the fatal shot had been fired by an “unidentified point-man.”

So, what we are left with is 23 young American special forces troops, hyped-up with adrenaline and stress (they thought they were sure to die on the mission), jumping out of helicopters in a foreign country and bursting into a room in the middle of the night, where they shoot at someone who is already dead, whom they are told is “Osama.”

So that’s the great “revised standard version’ of Osama’s killing.

Lies by the government (2011).

Followed by more lies by the establishment media and Hollywood (2012).

Followed, most deplorably, by still more lies by the alternative media (Seymour Hersh, Zero Hedge, Wikileaks,  and a few evil or cowardly activists who know what they’re doing  when they lend their name intentionally to such stuff)…. and a herd of naive, lazy,  or confused folk who rush off after them.

As I said, anyone who believes this stuff, please give me a call.

I need to unload some swamp property on you.  Eric Holder has the details, Sy Hersh will co-sign your mortgage, and GPS coordinates are of course on Google view,  uploaded to Wikileaks.

[Disclaimer: The paragraph above is sarcasm. I do not own swamp property, nor would I unload it on someone if I did own it, since I am rather fond of swamps. Please do not construe this as investment advice,  counsel to commit fraud or anything else other than a lame joke arising from my despair at the credulity and corruption of the alternative media, which poses as a critic of the daylight government but is happy to serve – slavishly – as an arm of the secret government of the intelligence agencies.]

Benazir Bhutto On Osama’s Killing

Posted on by

Michael Rozeff claims that the Taliban, via Fox News, is the only source for the information that Osama Bin Laden died in 2001.

This just isn’t true. Even a glance at Wikipedia would have told Mr. Rozeff (and Mr. Hersh and the rest) just how many people think that Osama died before 2011, if not in 2001. They include Israeli intelligence, Turkish, Pakistani, and Iranian officials, US officials including Madeleine Albright, activists including Tarpley, Lendman, and Napolitano.

Which still doesn’t mean it’s the truth, but it does mean that Rozeff, who apparently spent some time on this story,  either failed to do his research or is engaging in hyperbole.


[I accused Mr. Rozeff of disinformation, but withdraw that, since I haven’t known him to push any other suspect story.

The single most important source for the  story  that Osama was already dead by 2011 is  former Pakistani PM Benazir Bhutto, whose very public statement was followed by dead silence in the major media, including deletion from a BBC transcript, and then, two months later, her assassination. 

Of course, we don’t have to assume that the two events (the statement and her assassination) are connected. We don’t have to conclude that Bhutto was telling the truth.

“Osama 2001” could be disinformation too, but it is not simply or solely Talibani disinformation.

[Note: some of the forums I link to might also contain red herrings and disinformation. So again, regard them as aids, not crutches.]

What is telling for me is that Bhutto’s version reveals not whole-sale complicity  between the Pakistani government and the US government, as Hersh’s suggests (which is implausible, as I previously blogged), but the control of the ISI and the instigation of terrorist activity by sectors of Western intelligence (including CIA, MI6, and Mossad) which is not only highly plausible, it is well-nigh irrefutable.

What does that mean?

It means that encirclement, destabilization, and balkanization of the sub-continent, as I’ve blogged repeatedly, is the real target of the West in its on-going implementation of the globalist agenda of “control of populations” and “control of resources”.

These were goals specifically directed at the “third world”  and they were clearly enunciated by the head of the US Policy Planning Staff, George Kennan, decades ago, in 1948:

Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security.

Now back to the Bhutto statement.

Pravda, May 1, 2008:

[Lila: Pravda is the Russia state organ, so again, caveat lector.]

Benazir Bhutto, who was killed in a suicide attack at the end of 2007 stated in November that the Osama bin Laden, the head of the international terrorist network al-Qaida, had been killed. Bhutto claimed that she even knew the man who had killed the prime suspect of 9/11 terrorist attacks in the USA. According to Bhutto’s words, Bin Laden was killed by Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh – one of those convicted of kidnapping and killing U.S. journalist Daniel Pearl.

Bhutto released that statement on November 2, 2007 in an interview with Al-Jazeera TV channel. Bhutto spoke in English in the program titled Frost Over the World. However, no one paid any attention to her words. Speaking about the enemies, who did not wish to see her back in Pakistan, she said: “Omar Sheikh is the man who murdered Osama bin Laden.”

The video of Bhutto’s interview to Al-Jazeera can be found on YouTube (click to watch the video). The assassinated Pakistani prime minister says the words about Bin Laden’s killer during the second minute of the interview. She stays absolutely calm when she pronounces the names. More than 600,000 people have already viewed the video.

Correspondent David Frost, who interviewed Bhutto, did not even care to ask more questions about the sensational statement. Frost, who is believed to be an experienced journalist, did not even ask Bhutto when Bin Laden was killed.

Benazir Bhutto’s interview to Al-Jazeera received very little attention from the media. There was practically no newspaper in the world who published the news on its front page, although tens of thousands of people discussed the news for two months. It just so happens that even Al-Jazeera messed it up.

There was no official who commented on the information. Not a word was said from the CIA and the FBI. They did not even lift a finger to reject it. Absolute silence. But the U.S. administration promised a reward of 25 million dollars for Bin Laden’s body, dead or alive.

Benazir Bhutto is now dead. She cannot say anything about her sources of information.”

Disinfo.com has this about Omar Sheikh:

If that name, Omar Sheikh, sounds familiar it’s because he was a key figure in some huge stories between 1999 and 2002. His full name is Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, and multiple variations of those names are used to describe him including Omar Sheikh and Saeed Sheikh. Here’s how you may have heard of him:

  • In 1999, Indian Airlines flight 814 was hijacked by Pakistani nationals. In return for the hostages, the hijackers demanded India release the leaders of the ISI (the Pakistani version of the CIA) funded group Harkat-ul-Mujahideen. One of these leaders was Omar Sheikh.
  • In the months before 9/11, using the alias “Mustafa Mohammad Ahmed”, Omar Sheikh transferred at least $100,000 to Mohammad Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers.
  • Omar Sheikh was sentenced to death in 2002 for the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

– See more at: http://disinfo.com/2011/09/the-case-of-benazir-bhuttos-claims-and-osama-bin-ladens-death/#sthash.qYtMdZcL.dpuf

The Disinfo.com post led me to this one, at Little Country Lost. blogspot.com,
which argues that US official pronouncements after December 2001 do show some difference in tone that suggests something significant happened in that time-frame:
There are a few reports from around the world that I found that indicated that Osama bin-Laden had died. One report from a French newspaper said that Osama bin-Laden died on August 23, 2006 of typhoid fever. However, if Benazir Bhutto is to be taken at her word, this report cannot be true because Omar Sheikh has been in Pakistani police custody since February 2002 for the murder of Daniel Pearl.However, some other reports, which seem to make some sense, indicated that Osama bin-Laden died in December 2001. An Egyptian newspaper called al-Wafd published the following article (Volume 15 No 4633) on December 26th, 2001:A prominent official in the Afghan Taleban movement announced yesterday the death of Osama bin Laden, the chief of al-Qa’da organization, stating that binLaden suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and quiet death. The official, who asked to remain anonymous, stated to The Observer of Pakistan that he had himself attended the funeral of bin Laden and saw his face prior to burial in Tora Bora 10 days ago. He mentioned that 30 of al-Qa’da fighters attended the burial as well as members of his family and some friends from the Taleban. In the farewell ceremony to his final rest guns were fired in the air. The official stated that it is difficult to pinpoint the burial location of bin Laden because according to the Wahhabi tradition no mark is left by the grave. He stressed that it is unlikely that the American forces would ever uncover any traces of bin Laden.If the funeral took place 10 days before this article was published in al-Wafd and The Observer of Pakistan, this would put the death of Osama bin-Laden around the 16th or 17th of December 2001. Israeli intelligence officials also told reporters in October 2002 that they and United States officials believe that Osama bin-Laden had been killed in December 2001.If you look at a timeline of events involving Osama bin-Laden, ignoring the questionable videotapes, there is a noticeable shift in the type of communication Osama bin-Laden has with the world and the rhetoric used by Bush Administration and Pakistani officials in regards to the threat Osama bin-Laden poses starting in the middle of December 2001. Some highlights:

September 15, 2001 – President Bush says of bin-Laden, “If he thinks he can hide and run fromtheUnited States and our allies, he will be sorely mistaken.”September 17, 2001 – President Bush says, “I want justice. And there’s an old poster out West, I recall, that says, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive.’”November 7, 2001 – Pakistani reporter Hamid Mir interviews Osama bin-Laden in person.November 16, 2001 – Battle of Tora Bora begins.November 25, 2001 – Osama bin-Laden gives his last known public speech to his followers inMilawa, Afghanistan, a villagelocated on the route from Tora Bora to the Pakistani border.November 28, 2001 – Osama bin-Laden reportedly escapes Tora BoraDecember 15, 2001 – Osamabin-Laden’s voice is reportedly intercepted for the last time communicating with his fighters in Tora Bora via his shortwave radioDecember 17, 2001 – US Intelligence and Pentagon officials admit they have lost Osama bin-LadenDecember 17, 2001 – United States declares victory at Tora BoraDecember 26, 2001 – Article about Osama bin-Laden’s funeral is published in Pakistan and Egypt. The funeral allegedly takes place about 10 days earlier. The article is also discussed by Fox News.December 28, 2001 – President Bush says, “Our objective is more than bin-Laden”January 18, 2002 – Pakistani dictatorPervez Musharraf tells CNN that he believes Osama bin-Ladento be deadJanuary 27, 2002 – Vice President Dick Cheney says that Osama bin-Laden “isn’t that big of a threat. Bin Laden connected to this worldwide organization of terror is a threat.”

January 27, 2002 – White House Chief of Staff Andy Card tells CNN, “”I do not know for a fact that he’s alive. I happen to believe he’s probably alive… Our overall objective is to defeat terrorism, wherever it is around the world. And so, our objective is not to get Osama bin Laden.”

January 29, 2002 – President Bush delivers his first State of the Union address since 9/11. While he labels Iraq, Iran, and North Korea the “axis of evil”, he fails to mention Osama bin-Laden at all.

March 13, 2002 – President Bush says, “Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he’s alive at all… He’s a person who’s now been marginalized.… I just don’t spend that much time on him.… I truly am not that concerned about him.”

April 4, 2002 – Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard Myers says, “The goal has never been to get bin-Laden”

October 14, 2002 – President Bush says, “I don’t know whether bin-Laden is alive or dead”

October 16, 2002 – Middle East Newsline reports that Israeli Intelligence officials confirmed that Israel and the United States believe Osama bin-Laden was killed in mid-December 2001 during the Tora Bora bombing campaign.

This timeline, with Osama bin-Laden’s death allegedly occurring in the middle of December 2001, makes it possible that Omar Sheikh could have committed the murder. From October 2001 through January 19, 2002, Omar Sheikh was living openly in his home in Lahore, Pakistan. His positions as leader of Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (a Taliban and Osama bin-Laden partner) and ISI agent (the source of funds for Harkat-ul-Mujahideen) would also have given him means for access to Osama bin-Laden.

While it is disturbing that Benazir Bhutto may have revealed that our government has been (and continues to be) lying to us about Osama The Big Bad Wolf, the revelation that his supposed killer was Omar Sheikh raises even more questions than the obvious ‘Who the hell is making and releasing all those Osama bin-Laden videos and for what purpose?'”

The blog makes various suggestions about why both Bhutto and Pearl might have been assassinated and what the implications are if the 2001 allegation really is true, ending with this:

……… How interconnected are the ISI and CIA and could the ISI assist Osama bin-Laden, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, and the Taliban without the knowledge of the CIA?

Why does the Bush Administration want us to think Osama bin-Laden is still alive? How do they personally benefit from this deception more than they would benefit by publicly taking credit for catching Osama bin-Laden?“

Here is my answer to that question.

The Obama administration went along with the cover-up, because it gave a rationale for bombing on the borders of India, which instigates more terrorism in India (about which the Rothschild mouthpiece The Guardian is now “warning” (threatening?) ….

which will be conveniently blamed on “Hindu nationalists,” with no word about who is behind the rise of Modi.

If the CIA/Mossad/MI6 are working hand-in-glove with ISI (and elements of RAW) to provoke terrorism, then maybe the real conflict is not along the usual lines touted in the media, which are all horizontal: West vs. Russia; West vs. China; West vs. Islam).

Take a look at the list of unusual military drills I blogged recently.

Taken together with the presence of Western troops in Nepal, for ostensible disaster relief, they give us a picture of the sub-continent entirely encircled by military –  Russia doing exercises WITH China; Russia doing exercises WITH Pakistan (ISI controlled by CIA); the US doing exercises with S. Korea, the Philippines, and Japan, all along the Pacific; the CIA and China (Rothschild-affiliated) controlling drug routes that have major headquarters in Cochin and Goa and Mumbai.

So we have a Rabbi warning of a stock market crash in September 2015; a Chinese feng-shui expert based in Malaysia warning of a crash plus assorted disasters;Rothschild mouth-piece The Guardian warning of terror attacks in India some 6-7 years after Mumbai; the Jewish Super Shemitah Jubilee cycle of seven sevens coming up for completion in 2015; an assortment of military exercises encircling Eurasia; and an exercise on the borders of the US that seems to refer to China

Now think about Hersh floating this “old story” in 2015. Why?

Could it be a distraction from these military drills?

They would include Jade Helm 15, which is nothing at all, according to the major media in the US. Nothing but right-wing paranoia.

A. J. Hillman: Intelligence Plant?

Posted on by

Now, Michael Rozeff – dang, why is he so stuck on promoting this Hersh story? – trots out A. J. Hillman, an intelligence contractor who came up with the same story about Bin Laden’s death in 2011, only with different sources.

Of course, at one shot, her “support” of Hersh undermines him completely, since it shows he didn’t break this story at all but just became the major mouthpiece for it.

That is often the case for stories “broken” by big-name journalists – they were usually broken by a whistle-blower or blogger or police detective, but the journalists have the public platform, the time and resources to write,  and they get the credit.

But, alas, Hillhouse is not any more credible than Hersh. Not only is she an intelligence contractor, with a flair for novel writing and smuggling, she too does not have a documented source:

“my understanding was there was great concern with the security guys … Everything that I’ve written on national intelligence, [that] was the first time I ever had a [former] senior member of the intelligence community signal me to basically go black … I’ve never been waved off like I was signaled to [then].”

She was strongly warned by a high U.S. intelligence official to drop the matter and say no more. She says that because of this she destroyed her notes with her sources.”

Yes, the dog ate her home-work too.

So why does a story broken in 2011 (without a source) surface again in 2015 (without a source)?

Good question. I wish I knew the answer.

It obviously serves some other purpose than the apparent one of speaking truth to power.

Author Khaled Mohammed sums up some of the problems with Hersh’s story from the viewpoint of someone familiar with Pakistani terrain.

So could Hillhouse (intelligence contractor) be to Hersh (CIA journalist) as William Binney (original intelligence official and whistle-blower) was  to Ed Snowden (intelligence contractor and supposed intelligence whistle-blower)?

But before Binney, decades before, there was Margaret Newsham, whom no one talks about at all.

The rabbit-hole goes deep.

At the risk of sounding unhinged, I suspect Hillhouse, if she is for real,  is also a disinformation agent.

And lo, the excellent posters at the blog “Rigorous Intuition” seem to have the same sense about Hillhouse:

Postby jfshade » Thu Jan 21, 2010 7:16 pm

Yes, it [Lila: the CIA] runs the government; or at least operates without any meaningful governmental oversight, or limitation on its access to public funds:

Black budget [2003]”The CIA has the unique legal ability among all US government departments and agencies to generate funds through appropriations of other federal government agencies and other sources ‘without regard to any provisions of law’ and without regard to the intent behind Congressional appropriations. Every year, billions of dollars of Congressional appropriations are diverted from their Congressionally sanctioned purposes to the CIA and DoD based intelligence agencies without knowledge of the public and with the collusion of Congressional leaders. The covert world of ‘black programs’ acts with virtual impunity, overseen and regulated by itself, funding itself through secret slush funds, and is free of the limitations that come from Congressional oversight, proper auditing procedures and public scrutiny.” The CIA black budget is annually in the vicinity of 1.1 trillion dollars – a truly staggering figure when one considers that the DoD budget for 2004 will be approximately 380 billion dollars.[12]

link

And who runs the CIA? Looks like the very corporations with vested interests in the endless war on terra have a vote:

The most intriguing secrets of the “war on terror” have nothing to do with al-Qaeda and its fellow travelers. They’re about the mammoth private spying industry that all but runs U.S. intelligence operations today.Surprised? No wonder. In April [2007], Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell was poised to publicize a year-long examination of outsourcing by U.S. intelligence agencies. But the report was inexplicably delayed — and suddenly classified a national secret. What McConnell doesn’t want you to know is that the private spy industry has succeeded where no foreign government has: It has penetrated the CIA and is running the show.
[Lila: A counter-terrorism specialist with a national reputation whom I’d consulted about my own problems told me much the same thing a couple of years ago.]
Over the past five years (some say almost a decade), there has been a revolution in the intelligence community toward wide-scale outsourcing. Private companies now perform key intelligence-agency functions, to the tune, I’m told, of more than $42 billion a year. Intelligence professionals tell me that more than 50 percent of the National Clandestine Service (NCS) — the heart, brains and soul of the CIA — has been outsourced to private firms such as Abraxas, Booz Allen Hamilton, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon.
The above is from a piece by RJ Hillhouse, who has written extensively about intelligence privatization. I sense planted disinfo by “intelligence professionals” in some of her work, but the outsourcing trend is real.
linkSo, I’m curious as to how Ron Paul thinks we should go about “tak[ing] out the CIA.” It has pretty much all the money that the banks don’t have, and is locked in serpentine embrace with the most powerful corporate warmakers.
As Sunny said:

Smashing the CIA into a thousand pieces and scattering it to the winds in 1962 or so would have been the way to go but…
jfshade
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:20 pm
Location: Chicago
Blog:View Blog (0)

Establishment Alternatives Defend Hersh

Posted on by

Michael Rozeff, who believes Hersh is accurate on the Bin Laden story, claims support from four journalists.

He says generalized skepticism about government accounts is not good enough to discount the possibility of a 2011 killing, instead of the rumored 2001 killing.

Fair enough.

However, the problem for me at least is not generalized skepticism of government accounts.

My problem is generalized skepticism of alternative media mouth-pieces attacking the government’s account – I don’t place much stock in the high-profile  Mr. Hersh and his ilk.

Unlike Mr. Roberts, I don’t believe in the theory of a 2001 killing of Obama; but I also don’t believe the government’s OR Hersh’s version.

Until I study the matter at first hand, I refuse to take any account at face-value. The only thing I do believe is that there is no end to the depth and complexity of Anglo-Zionist propaganda and that anyone who goes by party-line, confession, or ideology of any kind, will not be able to untangle the web.

High-profile journalists are suspects numero uno when it comes to intelligence/CIA propaganda.

As I said, Douglas Valentine, Ann Williamson, Paul Craig Roberts, James Petras and the less-known but insightful  Scott Creighton – between them encompassing every side of the alternative spectrum – have expressed cynicism/skepticism about Hersh.

The media fanfare over Hersh’s revelations is itself a giveaway.

Now Rozeff comes up with 4 voices in support of Hersh.

Three of them published their  support on Counterpunch, which has, sorry to say, often retailed disinformation about 9/11 by none other than Alexander Cockburn.  One is published at The Nation, another establishment leftist rag that carries disinformation all the time.

Before he died, I got to know Cockburn a  little bit, with some exchanges over the phone and email. I liked the guy. He said nice things about my writing. I am grateful for that.  I also appreciated his support of India and his love of Indian culture. His Catholic background and his sharp, curious brain made him a different kind of lefty.

But lefty he was….a true believer in feminism, the state, and “the people.”

And on at least two occasions known to me a guy who retailed government spin.

One was on 9/11. The other was on the child-sex abuse scandals of the 1990s.

The latter was a personal disappointment to me, because I relied on his word and his opinion, as an elder statesman on the subject of propaganda and the CIA.

I found later he was wrong on both subjects, but not because he was mistaken.  It was because he was misleading.

I suspected a tie to the CIA. That was confirmed to me later by a senior libertarian writer who ought to know.

So, yes, Cockburn was a good guy on a number of things. A funny, insightful, even great writer.

But he also retailed spin when he felt he had to. I can’t make a judgment about why he did it. I’m just saying he did it.

So Cockburn supporting Hersh is like, well, the Washington Post echoing the New York Times.

Journalist two:

Justin Raimondo supports Hersh.

Well, he also uncritically supported Gore Vidal, Julian Assange, and Edward Snowden, about whose bona fides there are persistent serious questions that have never been answered.  If you believe in the official Snowden-Assange story, I assure you, the tooth-fairy will be visiting soon……followed by some property in the Florida panhandle.

Raimondo, alas, is still an establishment alternative.  I have nothing clear-cut against him, but I find his judgment questionable on some things.

The other writers who support Hersh, Michael Brenner and Greg Grandin, are both professors – of international relations and of history – who write for the establishment alternatives – places like The Nation and TomDispatch, whose contributors often overlap.  Both are the usual East Coast left-liberal academic, part of the mandarin industry.  I have zero trust in them.
But no need to worry about Raimondo, Cockburn and the rest. Mr. Hersh can be judged from his own words, no less (Note: this is not an endorsement of the site on which I found Hersh’ words)

Seymour Hersh has admitted that he’s nothing but a liar. It’s okay tho, he only lies when he gives $15, 000 college campus speeches or gives talks for the ACLU and that sort of thing, he assures us he never lies in print (a liar who says ‘believe me’…funny.)

In a recent interview, Hersh said the following in regards to his fibbing:

“Sometimes I change events, dates, and places in a certain way to protect people…I can?t fudge what I write. But I can certainly fudge what I say.?

and when Hersh changes names, dates, places, and the like:

?I defend that totally…I find that totally not inconsistent with anything I do professionally. I?m just communicating another reality that I know, that for a lot of reasons having to do with, basically, someone else?s ass, I?m not writing about it.?

Hersh is merely “communicating another reality” that he knows of?! Outrageous. It’s okay tho, he still stands by his practice of lying in speeches and on talk shows and such, he just promises he never lies in print (whew, and thought we were dealing with a FULL time liar here, as long as he’s only a liar 80% of the time, it’s okay I guess.)

Hersh puts it out on the table, and in doing so he let’s us all know that nothing he says can be trusted.”

So here we have a guy who makes up names and events to convey his own reality (kind of like Rumsfeld?). A guy who rides entirely on reputation for his credibility since many of his lengthy pieces contain nothing more than a single anonymous source.  A guy whom one investigative journalist told me actually squashed an important expose (of George Soros) by a colleague and then plagiarized the material.  And people take him at face-value as more credible than “the government.”

When will boobus libertarianus wake up to the fact that the “media” and the “alternative press” ARE  the government? Often they are more the government than the “government.”

But that might require something a little bit more than slogans and herd behaviour.

It might involve – heaven forfend- a little critical thinking.…