The Paranoid Origins of the FBI

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) seems to be the beneficiary of many coats of Teflon with even the criminal exposes of the 1970s and 1980s not leaving any enduring damage on its reputation. This is unfortunate since the agency was founded on absurd paranoid red menace fears which shift and shape to the present day to justify its ghastly growth.

Curt Gentry provides some early glimpses of the agency which became the FBI in his heavily researched book, J. Edgar Hoover – The Man and the Secrets. As a biography of Hoover (1895 – 1972), it also serves as a biography of the agency he headed for 48 years. Its excesses should serve as a warning to severely clip and limit its size and powers.

The Bureau of Investigation (BI) was established in 1919 as an agency of the Department of Justice as an outgrowth of World War I requirements although its seeds were planted earlier. During the war, the Justice Department partnered with the American Protective League to engage in mass dragnet raids attempting to round up spies and draft deserters. Although Hoover was a young attorney for the department, he learned these early tactics to apply them to his own operations in later years.

On June 2, 1919 a bomb exploded outside the home of Alexander Mitchell Palmer (1872 – 1936), the newly appointed Attorney General for Woodrow Wilson (1856 – 1924). The bomb did not harm the family or his famous neighbors on DuPont Circle, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt. However, it caused quite a stir, especially for Mitchell who was determined to find the perpetrators and bring them to justice.

Mitchell had assembled a team of aggressive and close minded bigots to assist him in his war against crime and terror. Francis Garvan (1875 – 1937) was assistant attorney general in charge of prosecuting radicals whom he labeled along with other foreigners as “alien filth.” William Flynn was the assistant attorney general for the BI.

Following the dictum of Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s former chief of staff, to never waste a good crisis, Mitchell and his crew used the bombing episode to forestall the post war cuts which were affecting all government bureaucracies. On June 13, 1919 they attempted to persuade the House of Representatives for an emergency 500,000 dollars in additional funding. When this effort stalled, they approached the Senate, lobbying Senator Smoot of Utah and of Smoot-Hawley fame for the additional funds. Although he and his colleagues were not particularly receptive at first, Flynn declared on July 2, 1919, without a scintilla of evidence, that the bomb was the work of “Bolshevist and Hun money.”

The trio further claimed that they had reliable information that another imminent attack was planned for July 4, an attack which the BI could avert with sufficient funding. Flush with money gained under these false pretenses, the BI began planning for a massive round-up of radicals and communists in a 12 city sweep with the goal of deporting as many as possible.

Despite the money and effort spent on locating the perpetrators of the bombs, the bombing remained unsolved. Hoover was named head of the General Intelligence Division (GID) on August 1, 1919 and began working with Flynn and Garvan in targeting the Federation of the Union of Russian Workers, the American Communist Party, and the American Labor Communist Party. The Justice Department hysterically broadcast – particular to the Congress – that the nation was under imminent threat of a labor revolt headed by sickle wielding communists who had blanketed the nation like cock-roaches, which in turn required immediate and forceful action.

The facts of the matter were quite different regarding the size of the communist parties. The best estimates reveal that the party had 25,000 – 40,000 members, many of whom had been enrolled without their knowledge by various labor groups to which they belonged. When you distribute these numbers across the 12 cities which the BI targeted for its raids, you find that each of the large cities had an average of 2,000 – 3,000 members maximum.

The raids were scheduled purposefully for November 7, 1919, the two year anniversary of the Russian Revolution. They were excessively brutal and yielded no palpable results. Since the Department of Justice could not deport anyone, it had enlisted the Department of Labor under which the Department of Immigration operated to provide legal cover for its otherwise illegal operations.

The Department of Justice also worked feverishly to rescind Rule 22 which required that those aliens investigated for deportation be allowed legal representation. The Department of Immigration refused to rescind the rule, but Hoover declared that it did, proceeding to deport people without due process. Hoover would wield this terror on a large scale through his years as director of the FBI.

The main reason for rescinding the rule was that many victims retained legal counsel who advised their clients not to communicate with the BI on the grounds that it had absolutely no evidence against them.

The playbook is exactly the same today as with the fake War on Terror. George W. Bush claimed, without evidence or subsequently finding any, that Saddam Hussein harbored weapons of mass. The same lies are being spread about Iran to justify another war of aggression by the militaristic Obama administration.

The paranoia of these early World War I era BI men is the hallmark of a provincial troglodyte mind which the American people accept in its leaders. It is an embarrassment that a nation of so many people could not produce more enlightened minds. It is also proof that cream does not rise to the top. These men may have had higher than average IQs but they were clouded by the most venal and vicious bigotry and ignorance. Lust for power knows no limits or respect for Constitutional government.

Reference
J Edgar Hoover - the Man and the Secrets, Curt Gentry

Copyright 2010-12 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

Palace Intrigue in the Nixon White House

Richard Nixon is often portrayed as a schemer, a man whose official duties were sometimes a footnote to his political machinations. This simplification does not do justice to the overly wrought schemes he hatched to further his political aims as details surrounding the Moorer espionage against the White House indicate.

Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin, in their book Silent Coup, detail a spy ring in the White House operated from 1970 – 1971 by the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), notably chairman Admiral Thomas Moorer (1912 – 2004) and his direct reports Rear Admiral Rembrandt Robinson (1924 – 1972), Yeoman Charles Radford (b. 1944), and later Robinson’s replacement Rear Admiral Robert Welander (1924 - 2005).

 The authors set the context by describing how Nixon’s untrusting and recessive perceptions led him to establish a byzantine configuration of reporting relationships which in turn fostered paranoia among his senior staff in major governmental departments and agencies, most notably the CIA, defense and state departments.

Nixon sought to establish a back channel for he and Henry Kissinger (b. 1923) to communicate with government persons without the CIA eavesdropping. This communication network was established and maintained by the JCS, a network which allowed him to bypass CIA channels. Nixon had developed deep suspicions of the CIA, especially following his loss to Kennedy in 1960, which he blamed on the agency in releasing classified information to Kennedy which he used to his advantage in the debates which many analysts cite as a signal event in the vice president's loss at the polls that November.

Nixon also harbored deeper suspicion about the CIA in connection with the Bay of Pigs and Kennedy assassination which Nixon’s former chief of staff Bob Haldeman (1926 - 1993) said Nixon referenced with the imprecise phrase, “the bay of pigs thing” – not to be confused with George Bush’s “vision thing.” This curiosity, we believe, ultimately killed the cat.

Nixon had his reasons for this secrecy, not the least of which was to protect sensitive negotiations with the USSR and the Peoples’ Republic of China both of which countries were long standing protagonists in the artificial Cold War. But these Kremlinesque maneuvers backfired in a bad way by compelling Nixon's key cabinet and military leaders to pursue alternate means of obtaining information.

Kissinger, who was despised by the military brass as a meddling, officious, academic bureaucrat, abetted their fears by cultivating their communications directly with the president rather than with the Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird (b. 1922) who was frequently ignored entirely by Nixon in key decisions.

Likewise, Nixon bypassed  Secretary of State William Rogers (1913 - 2001) in his major policy initiatives with the USSR and Communist China. Thus with each of his major policy agenda including détente, SALT, Vietnamization, troop withdrawals, and the Vietnam peace accord, Nixon circumvented the leading cabinet officers who should have been focal points in these advances. In their places was Henry Kissinger, National Security Advisor, attempting to control foreign policy through the NSC.

The back channel communications were sent through the National Security Council (NSC) which had lain largely dormant during the Kennedy and Johnson years. Through the NSC, Nixon and Kissinger could control major actions which might ordinarily be conducted through cabinet members.

The incendiary event which exposed the Moorer spy operation was started by a leak to columnist Jack Anderson about Nixon’s “tilt” from India toward Pakistan in the Pakistani civil war which resulted in the creation of the state of Bangladesh. Heretofore, the administration had claimed neutrality.

The White House was furious with the leak but the JCS were equally furious that Nixon had sent on December 10, 1971 Naval Task Group 74 to the Indian Ocean in support of Pakistan against India, a deployment done without consultation with Laird, senior naval officials, NSC, or the Washington Special Action Group (WSAG). In their fury and frustration, it is quite likely that the JCS leaked the memos documenting the policy shift and troop movements, which in the minds of the JCS exposed the US quite unnecessarily to Soviet naval forces operating in the Indian Ocean.

The glue among Nixon, Kissinger, NSC and JCS was Alexander Haig (1924 – 2010), the man who would be instrumental in Nixon’s removal from power in the Watergate affair. Haig enjoyed a meteoric rise from the bottom quarter of his West Point class to Colonel, then Brigadier and Major General during Nixon’s presidency. He was brought to politics in 1963 by Joseph Califano, a man with CIA ties and former Secretary of the Army during the Johnson administration.

Yeoman Radford was a highly eager to please young man with a young family who readily engaged, on orders of his superiors, in theft of highly classified documents, including Eyes Only memos exchanged between Kissinger and Nixon. Radford rifled through Kissinger’s and Haig’s brief cases, burn bags, White House in and out boxes, personal contacts, and anywhere else he could find documents of relevance to the JCS. Very little was deemed irrelevant for pilfering purposes including office gossip for which daily briefings were held. Radner even managed to steal the ultra secret correspondence between Kissinger and Nixon about the opening to China and the peace negotiations between Kissinger and Le Duc Tho.

With Kissinger fuming over the breach in confidentiality, investigations and phone taps were installed against possible suspects including Radford. The investigation yielded a treasure trove of true confessions from Radford and Welander with less expressive admissions from Robinson and Moorer.

When John Ehrlichman (1925 – 1999), Nixon’s domestic affairs advisor, presented the findings to his boss, the President demurred about taking retributive action. In fact he took it rather stoically, figuring aloud how this affair could be either advantageous or detrimental to his larger goals. The president decided to bury the entire affair for at least one reason and probably two. Ehrlichman was strongly in favor of firing the admiral but obviously did not prevail with the president.

Nixon decided that a compromised admiral was of more use to him than a new unknown replacement, knowing that Moorer would henceforth owe everything to him when he reappointed him as chairman of the JCS rather than fire him or prosecute him in a court martial for spying.

The other reason Nixon buried the scandal – even possibly treason – was related to his vanity and insecurity. He feared that exposure of the spy ring would reflect poorly upon him as an administrator, leader, and manager – a man who inspires contempt and disloyalty from his subordinates. He also supposed that the spy ring could be used as fodder for his political opponents.

A more practical reason for covering for Moorer was Nixon’s need to maintain the secret back channel which the JCS had established under the sitting chairman. Thus, Moorer was a pawn in Nixon’s larger intrigues to play off and circumvent the various government bureaucracies.

The investigators did not find any culpability of Radford for leaking to Anderson despite a many months’ long wire tapping of his home ordered by Kissinger of the FBI. However, this did not stop journalism professor Mark Feldstein from reporting otherwise, which we believe was a blatant attempt to prevaricate on the subject in order to salvage the reputations of the admirals.

We believe that the refusal to discipline Moorer to avoid the recriminations which may have redounded negatively to the president was also the reasoning Nixon used to pursue a cover-up of the Watergate break in of which he was completely innocent – exposure of which created far more political casualties than a complete burial would engender.

Nixon’s direct command to the Naval Task Group may explain Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger’s (b. 1929) worldwide command to all military forces to refuse any orders from Nixon, an action of highly treasonous nature because the allegations of Nixon’s mental instability were without warrant and Schlesinger defied the oath he took to uphold the Consitution and execute the orders of the Commander-in-Chief.

Nixon’s isolation from his key staff and cabinet officers, stemming from his paranoia about them, engendered an equal and opposite reaction which resulted in this indefensible spying operation. Clearly the JCS were more concerned about bureaucratic politics than about the welfare or defense of the nation.

More dangerous to Nixon than Moorer was Alexander Haig who appeared in the background of all the critical points of the spying operation and its aftermath. Colodny and Gettlin surmise that Haig took Radford on a trip to Southeast Asia as his aide, and later assigned him as an aide to Kissinger, knowing full well that Radford would take documents from both of them in order to supply his comrades in the Pentagon with highly classified intelligence.

Admiral Moorer claimed at the time that he already knew of the China opening before illicitly receiving the Eyes Only communiqué from Kissinger to Nixon declaring a victory with Peking in 1971. If we take his word at face value – something which must be done with caution given his possible treason – we must then assume that Haig was the man supplying the information as he was the only other person besides Nixon and Kissinger privy to the negotiations stateside.

This betrayal of his boss, who was flawed in his own ways, clearly indicated on which side of the political divide Haig stood – it was with the military which, along with the CIA, had been planning Nixon’s ouster even before Watergate, proving again that military and civiilian government do not mix well for the sake of rule by law.

Reference
Family Secret, Russ Baker
Silent Coup, Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin
Nixon plot against newspaper columnist detailed [sic], msnbc.com

Copyright 2010-12 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

Is James Buckley a Murderer?

Two deaths which shocked Washington, D. C. on September 18, 1976 were the murders of Ronni Moffitt, a 25 year old American, and Orlando Letelier, the foreign minister of the Allende government ousted by a CIA coup in 1973, both of whom were assassinated in the nation’s capitol. The two murders were quickly swept under the rug by the CIA, but the reason for doing so is rather shocking. There is strong evidence that James Buckley (b. 1923), brother of former CIA agent William Buckley (1925 – 2008), and a retired federal judge, ordered and managed the murders of these two individuals.

The Buckley family has deep oil and intelligence ties converging in its Pantepec Oil Company which moved from Mexico following revolution of 1917 to Venezuelan oil fields. William Buckley, a Yale graduate who started his neo-con National Review as a means to further CIA interests, was an admitted CIA agent who maintained a very close friendship with E Howard Hunt, the infamous paymaster in the John Kennedy murder.

It is also noteworthy that both William Buckley and George Bush were close friends as one would expect of two Skull and Bones alumni.

The CIA, whose director at the time was George Bush, swung into action when DINA, the intelligence arm of the brutal Pinochet regime of Chile, informed him that it was the perpetrator of the two murders. Mark Lane reports in his book, Last Word, that Jeremiah O’Leary of the Washington Star, and William Buckley lead the misinformation campaign denying any connection between the Pinochet regime and the assassinations.

As fate would have it, new information about the case emerged from Michael Townley, a former DINA agent with CIA contacts, who admitted as part of a plea bargain that he had been a professional assassin for DINA and that he and others had murdered Moffitt and Letelier. Furthermore, Guillermo Novo, an assassin in the Kennedy murder, testified in court that Townley was a CIA contract murderer, which agency was behind the murders.

Lane also reports that the plea bargain stipulated that the Department of Justice omit any public reference to Chile and DINA in the two slayings. However, the real cover-up involved testimony by FBI Special Agent Larry Wack who described the steps which Townley took when he arrived at John F. Kennedy Airport in preparation for his assignment.

The itinerary included a stop at 500 Fifth Avenue, in New York City, on the 41st floor which was the office of a New York US senator who happened to be James Buckley. Townley and Novo were accompanied by the latter’s cousin, William Sampol. All three convicted murderers were in the presence of their employer James Buckley, yet the United State Attorney’s Office refused to follow up on the information.

We believe that the CIA drenched Buckleys both had knowledge of and primary responsibility for the murder of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt, an allegation for which criminal charges and prosecution should be pursued.

Reference
Last Word, Mark Lane

Copyright 2010-12 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

The Tyranny of Imperial American Democracy

The United States, despite its conceit and propaganda, is as brutal and menacing as any empire which has preceded it - and in some ways more so. For those Americans who think that their country is not an empire, we present some contradictory evidence and note that the republic is long dead.

Much of the information on which we draw comes from Chalmers Johnson (1931 – 2010) who wrote an unlikely trilogy of best sellers on the American empire, spurred perhaps in part due to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon by the CIA. He was professor at the University of California Berkeley and San Diego from 1962 - 1992, and was widely regarded as a leading expert on Far Eastern affairs.

Johnson was also well known as a Cold Warrior which probably made him quite a minority at UC Berkeley during his consulting days for the CIA from 1967 – 74. But as he considered the end of the Cold War, he realized that the much ballyhooed peace dividend would never be disbursed because those in the military industrial complex (MIC) had already set their eyes on the next contrived conflict.

We have expressed our opinions elsewhere on the nature of the MIC and its central coordinator, the CIA. We would further our observations by stating that the CIA is an independent sovereign state within a state with absolutely no accountability to official or elected government. Its branches of government are the plutocrats, the intellectuals, and the MIC. This viewpoint contradicts Johnson’s view that the agency is the private arm of the president, a view which we consider naïve in the light of its removal of at least two presidents: John Kennedy and Richard Nixon, to say nothing of its attempt on Ronald Reagan’s life. The CIA then is the servant of the plutocrats.

Johnson noted in the mid 00s that defense spending was at least 1 trillion USD, a number camouflaged by budgetary classifications, of which the Department of Defense is only a fraction of the total. For example, foreign military bases have a separate budget category apart from DOD. He also reports the number of known US bases at 737, but this too vastly understates the case since many US installations operate under foreign flags as in the case of the United Kingdom Air Force. Other bases are simply not reported on the Base Structure Report for so-called national security reasons. More than likely, the actually number of American military bases is closer to 1500 – 2000 which is indeed an enormous global foot print.

This aspect of American militarism forms the central theme of Johnson’s characterization of the American empire. For rather than being a classic example such as France or Rome, where the occupying state formally administers the political organs of government, the US exercises hegemony over the presence of its host by occupying bases in the host country which preserves a patina of sovereignty but which in fact is a delusion of the client state for domestic political purposes.

The enormous military expenditures – and they can hardly be called defensive except in the Soviet style paranoia sense of the term – have broad political support, even from erstwhile liberals such as California’s two state senators. Johnson terms this military Keynesianism because it has taken on the specter of large public works programs in which vast segments of the American population depend on it for jobs. Base closings are anathema as political suicide as much as Social Security cuts are. Thus it is highly unlikely that Americans would repudiate its empire at the ballot box.

American imperialism began in 1898 with its victory over Spain in the Spanish-American War, the splendid little war which plutocrats were anxious to start in order for America to take its proper place among the great powers. No self respecting nation with its country’s great wealth and unbridled ambitions could have any self respect without conquering foreign nations. Indeed American imperialism was an extension of Manifest Destiny which was the pretext for wiping out millions of American Indians.

Both World Wars further propelled American imperial adventures, but its big break came with the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 which left the United States the uncontested super power – not just militarily, but economically and culturally. Interestingly enough, the CIA claimed not to see the Soviet economic meltdown which, if taken at face value, would indicate that the agency was completely incompetent in all matters related to intelligence. However, its time was spent toppling foreign governments and propping up brutal tyrannies, one reason of which was to condition Americans to accept totalitarianism at home.

But for Johnson this raises one of the great paradoxes of empire – it can only exist under the aegis of militarism which perforce eliminates the possibility of freedom, civil liberties, and republican government. He points to the example of republican Rome, upon whose example the United States was conceived, as a state whose empire cost it its liberties. When Julius Caesar was murdered in a desperate attempt to preserve the republic, it spawned a series of events accomplishing exactly the opposite. The string of emperors following Augustus was brutal and barbaric in the extreme.

The cost of empire is expensive. Not only are its fiscal costs enormous but so are the collateral costs of lost good will and economic opportunity costs. Empire represents a perpetual drain on the treasury, a cost which the racist British eventually acknowledged as it liquidated its once sprawling empire in some of the most brutal acts of retrogression of any colonial power, Kenya and  the Mau Mau uprising being an egregious example. However, in the United States, the point of economic bankruptcy has not been acknowledged, and given the troglodytic mentality of the neo-cons – both liberal and conservative – retirement of the empire will never happen as they have committed to “full spectrum dominance” over the world over.

But the costs are not limited to domestic exactions as Johnson notes. He documented the criminal behavior at American bases, using an example from 1995 at Okinawa where the US keeps 27 bases with 17,000 service men and women on an island home to 1.3 million second class citizens of Japan. Two marines and a sailor abducted, beat, and raped a 12 year old girl before killing her. The Okinawans were incensed but General Richard Meyers stepped in to sweep it under the rug as a rare and exceptional event which bore no relation to the rank and file military. Unfortunately for the deceptive Meyers, this is typical behavior for there are an average of two courts martial per month at American bases worldwide related to sexual offenses.

The military’s transgressions are not limited to individuals and civilians – the US military and CIA specialize in genocide as well. Johnson reports that the aftermath of the Guatemalan coup of 1954 engineered by the CIA resulted in 200,000 Guatemalans brutally killed by the US backed dictator.

On this point Johnson concurs with Smedley Butler, on whom we have previously reported, who stated after his long and illustrious Marine career, that the military was the private enforcement arm of American corporate giants in their quests to rape foreign countries of their natural resources. In the case of Guatemala the United Fruit Company asked the CIA for the coup because of modest land reform measures proposed by Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán, the president of the country.

Of all the prosperity blossoming in the Pacific Rim, the Philippines singularly has not shared in that progress, a damning indictment of American administration and tutelage which continues down to the present time.

The various philosophical reasons advanced by American propaganda to justify its interminable foreign interventions have nothing to do with truth. The British and Americans seem to have an innate ability to weave stories about how they intervene to bring civilization, order, economic prosperity to the backward natives. And in the case of America, it stands ready with an M-16 to shove democracy down the throats of any peoples not sufficiently obsequious to the American plutocracy.

The litany of American interventions is unending – Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Cuba, Philippines (1956), Congo (1961), Vietnam (1963), Indonesia (1965), Greece (1967), Chile (1973), Laos, Cambodia, Afghanistan (1988 ff), Iraq (1997 ff), et, al. – but Americans do not understand that most of these interventions were CIA operations with untold miseries and brutal reprisals resulting in the deaths of millions of people. That anyone of these impoverished nations ever posed a threat to the United States is the most laughably arrogant and preposterous lie ever foisted outside of the Warren Commission Report.

These CIA misdeeds result in retaliation without visible cause known as blowback. Johnson cites the 9/11 attacks as a perfect example, for which there exists plausible justification. Unfortunately, he is uninformed about the true cause of the attacks, most notably the fact that a cruise missile – not an airplane – hit the side of the Pentagon, a subject which we shall address in another posting. The cruise missile attack was well beyond the capabilities of the US funded Al qaeda.

Nevertheless, Johnson is absolutely correct about the consequences of the CIA’s misdeeds. Because these incursions were stealth operations, Americans have been bewildered about why they are reviled and distrusted nearly everywhere. Furthermore, Americans are held in contempt for their dumb bunny perspicacity regarding their vast unfathomable ignorance concerning the operations of the CIA.

Johnson identifies militarism, necessarily consequent to empire, as the lethal threat to the republic. The severe unconstitutional rescission of civil liberties as embodied by the misnamed Patriot Act – an example of Orwellian doublespeak – was the casualty of militarism. General Tommy Franks approvingly warned that the next 9/11 event would result in a military coup of the US government.

Johnson opined that the disappearance of the American empire would be greeted with as many tears as were shed at the collapse of the USSR. We could not agree more. We would like to think that the CIA state would go quietly into the night, be we know that such hopes are delusional. As Lord Acton remarked, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Reference
Conversations with History: Chalmers Johnson, University of California Berkeley (interview)
Chalmers Johnson - Speaking Freely, Chalmers Johnson (video)
Chalmers Johnson - The Coming End of American Empire (video)
Copyright 2010-12 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

Why Did the FBI Brief Mr. George Bush of the CIA?

A curious memo dated November 29, 1963 from J Edgar Hoover (1895 – 1972), long time FBI director, reports that he briefed a Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency in the wake of the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963. We have a few theories for this memo which we present below.

Mr. Hoover wrote that pursuant to the State Department informing the FBI that the former feared that some rogue anti-Castro groups may interpret the change in administrations as a signal to raid Cuba, he replied that the FBI had no information of such plans. He also stated that such information was furnished orally to George Bush and Captain William Edwards of the Defense Intelligence Agency, both of whom we believe were separately briefed.

Edwards claimed in 1991 that he recalled no such briefing but said that it was plausible that he received the briefing over the phone. He disavowed knowing who George Bush was. Our suspicion is that Edwards was not briefed and that he was named as a foil to give the allusion that the briefing of George Bush was a routine procedural matter.

Although the memo in question was hotly non-denied by Bush – or perhaps denial was only by his mouth pieces – research presented by Russ Baker in his book Family of Secrets shows that George Herbert Walker Bush is the only George Bush capable of matching the name in the memo.

The Bush camp suggested that the George Bush in question was another man with the same name, but further investigation revealed this to be a farce. The other George William Bush was a low level GS-5 night clerk of the CIA working at Langley CIA headquarters from September 1963 – February 1964 – so low and restricted that he was not permitted to speak on the telephone. George William Bush stated in court deposition that he did not receive a briefing at any time from the FBI while working for the CIA.

The only other George Bush fitting the description of George Bush of the CIA is none other than the former 41st president. We know that this match fits because Bush had been involved heavily for years in covert intelligence operations for the CIA under cover of his Zapata Oil venture, a venture without profits but nonetheless capable of maintaining a far-flung presence in the most unlikely of places looking for the ever elusive oil.

Before discussing some speculative theories, we should note that it is entirely possible that the memo should be taken at face value. But as far as we can ascertain, this memorandum was for file which means that it may have served some additional paper trail purposes.

It is also possible that, since George Bush’s Zapata Oil had special operations in the Caribbean, he may have been briefed on some aspect of the Cubans involved in the assassination. Or even better, Bush may have needed to reign in some of the Cuban groups for which he was responsible who were anxious to begin an assault on Cuba under the pretext that Castro was involved in the assassination.

There may have been contingency plans to use the assassination of the President - under the aegis of Operation Northwoods - to launch an invasion of Cuba which saner heads ruled out, and were now informing the CIA through Bush to call off the attack dogs.

So for what other reasons may have the CIA briefed Bush? We present two possibilities. The first is that the FBI provided information to Bush regarding the results of their investigations, making it a somewhat routine status report. We think that this explanation is plausible but it seems less than satisfactory. Why would the FBI give Bush a one-off briefing and make a point to document it? So far as we know, the FBI had no other interactions with Bush of this nature.

Even accepting the stated purpose of the memo, one would have to conclude that Bush held a much higher rank than previously thought, or was far more engaged in CIA operations than anyone had imagined. It seems strange that a cipher agent of the CIA would be sent for a routine briefing – although the occasion was anything but routine.

Our other explanation is that Bush actually performed the briefing, in contrast with the actual wording of the memo, in which he explained to Hoover that he was dealing with a CIA operation and should avoid looking too closely in another agency’s business.

One reason for this explanation is that the CIA had pursued the murder too aggressively and was producing evidence which contradicted the lone nut theory.

One point in support of the second theory is that this briefing occurred less than 1 week after the CIA murdered President Kennedy, meaning that the FBI displayed investigative tendencies which needed to be curbed – especially in light of the establishment of the Warren Commission on 11/27/1963.

If our theory is correct, he would have warned Hoover that Oswald was the lone nut and that he should not deviate from the official storyline. Bush’s presence in Dallas on the morning of 11/22/63 is also a mystery but we surmise that he was coordinating ground spooks and relaying in person sensitive information related to the assassination.

Bush’s association with the agency was so secretive and sensitive that it was nearly invisible until the late 1980s when this memo surfaced. We believe that George Bush was more intimately involved in the murder of the president than anyone has conceived, which explains the highly elaborate steps Bush took to establish plausible deniability about his presence in Dallas on the day the CIA murdered the president.

We know that advanced and veteran JFK murder researchers have long been aware of this memo, but we are delighted that Russ Baker has brought this to a larger audience.

Reference
Family of Secrets, Russ Baker

Copyight 2010-12 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

The Perfidy of Leon Jaworski

Many Watergate aficionados may recall Leon Jaworski as a hero of Watergate who stepped into the shoes of Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox who had been fired by Richard Nixon in the famous Saturday Night Massacre. Although depicted as pillar of judicial rectitude, Jaworski was in fact a corrupt man with blood on his hands - he was an accessory to murder after the fact.

Jack Hamann, in his fascinating account of Jaworski’s corrupt prosecution of a World War 2 riot, shows a prosecutor so hell-bent on prosecution of innocent men that he traduced in the most despicable way American justice. This same man would later serve as prosecutor at Nuremburg, Warren Commission counsel, President of the American Bar Association, and political backer of George Bush.

We see that Jaworski's corrupt handling of the riot case would reveal itself again in the Warren Commission where he aided the cover-up of the murder of a President.

The case began with the lynching murder of Italian POW private Guglielmo Olivotto at Fort Lawton near Seattle, WA on August 14, 1944, whose body was discovered by Private Clyde Lomax, a white man. Jaworski, who had eyed the big time in Nuremburg stepped forward to prosecute the case as a surefire ticket to the judicial proceedings in Europe after the war.

The murder of a POW created quite an embarrassment for the White House insofar as the planned prosecution of war crimes would create a credibility problem for the Americans if it could not handle this case with utmost rectitude.

Jaworski demanded complete control of the investigation and prosecution, whereupon he promptly indicted 43 black American soldiers of rioting and 3 of whom he charged with first degree murder on October 27, 1944. He intimidated and coerced these men and other witnesses to provide prescribed answers to questions, threatening many of them with lynching if they did not cooperate.

Jaworski’s twisted case rested upon the unsubstantiated pretext that the black soldiers were resentful of the 2d class treatment they had received against the equal or better treatment of the Italian POWs.

The 43 defendants were forced to share 2 lawyers who had 10 days to prepare their cases. The 5 week trial resulted in the conviction of 28 soldiers by a 9 man panel of white officers.

The prosecutors at the time did not know the news of the egregious mishandling of the criminal investigation had triggered an investigation by the Pentagon headed by General Elliott Cooke. The scathing report resulted in the firing of the fort commander Harry Branson.

The Cooke report called the investigation “’reprehensible’” and the chief investigator, working for Jaworski, stated ‘“no part [of the investigation] was handled correctly.”’ Yet with two weeks before the trial, the report was suppressed and Jaworski charged ahead with all of his ill gotten evidence.

In 2003, Hamann finally unearthed the classified Cooke report which revealed a far different story than that of Jaworski. The white GIs were highly resentful toward the Italian POWs because of their lenient treatment including permission to attend USO dances. Many of these men, who had lost family in the North African and Italian campaigns, harbored deep grudges against the Italians, especially when they were taking their women. Fighting broke out the three nights prior to August 14 on which night soliders rioted at the fort.

The Cooke report also laid out evidence sufficient to implicate Private Lomax in the slaying of Olivotto, the former whom Jaworski called as a witness against the 43 black soldiers.

Thanks to Hamann’s book On American Soil: How Justice Became a Casualty of World War II, Congress and the Pentagon worked to reopen the case in 2005. An 18 month review by the Pentagon yielded a complete exoneration of the soldiers, honorable discharges, plus back pay with compound interest awarded on October 26, 2007. We salute Jack Hamann!

Given what we know from the Cooke report, we can only conclude that Leon Jaworski knowlingly and maliciously obstructed justice in the case of murder, and these contributed to its cover-up, making him an accessory after the fact to murder.

Reference

Justice Denied, Jack Hamann

Copyright 2010-12 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

Who Is John Dean?

For most Americans of a certain age, John Dean needs little introduction as the Watergate whistle blower who helped bring down the Nixon White House. Unfortunately the characterization of him in the press is deceitful at best and a lie at worst. John Dean is, in the words of a New York Times reviewer J. Anthony Luca, ‘”one of the sleaziest White House operatives.”’ We present his sleazy story below.

Dean, a son of an affluent Ohio family, attended Staunton Military Academy in Virginia where he roomed with Barry Goldwater, Jr, a relationship which blossomed into a friendship with the Goldwater family, who were also very friendly with the Bushes.

Following graduation from the academy, Dean attended college in the Midwest, after which he graduated from Georgetown law school. He was dismissed from his first job at a Washington law firm for violating company policy against conflict of interest pursuant to negotiating a private broadcast deal while doing so for a client.

Dean then managed to get a job as chief minority counsel for the House Judiciary Committee working for Ohio representative William McCulloch. After a couple of other stints, he got a job working for Richard Kleindienst, a Goldwater protégé and Nixon Deputy Attorney General. In time, in July 1970, he managed to take John Ehrlichman’s position, through the agency of Egil Krogh, as chief White House counsel when Ehrlichman became Nixon's chief domestic adviser.

Egil Krogh is the man who ordered the break-in to Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office and who had been trying months before July 1970 to get Dean into the White House. Krogh was also the money man liaison for the CIA who paid off the Southeast Asian drug lords. Krogh also worked with Kennedy murder co-conspirator E Howard Hunt during the Nixon years. And to round out his villainy, Krogh also had associations with University of Washington law professor Roy Prosterman whose Vietnamese pacification program had close associations with the CIA’s Operation Phoenix, a program designed to murder Vietnamese civilians of which 20,000 – 60,000 were murdered in cold blood.

Dean was soon heading up his own intelligence operations in the White House, ostensibly to help re-elect the president. However, his true goal was to implicate the president in a crime resulting in his removal from power. In November 1971, Dean ordered two private investigators to do a walk-through of the Watergate Hotel where the Democratic National Convention maintained its headquarters.

In January 1972, Dean instructed G Gordon Liddy, another Krogh appointment, to set up an intelligence operation, on an unprecedented scale, which spawned Operation Gemstone, a clandestine operation to infiltrate Democrat campaigns. This operation morphed into the Watergate break-in which Dean, in April 1972, ordered Jeb Magruder to order Liddy to initiate.

When the FBI became involved in the purposefully botched break-in and its subsequent trace of the money found on the burglars, Dean attempted to coerce director Patrick Gray to drop or curtail his investigations. When he refused to do so, Dean sat in all of the witness interviews in order to control the way the story developed and to stanch any information which might tie him to the break-in and its cover-up.

Dean was quite active in the cover-up, one action of which was ordering Hunt out of the country, obviously in an effort to silence potentially loose lips, which precaution he sweetened with an offer of hush money. Dean also covered-up the fact that Gordon Strachan, a mid-level White House staffer, had pre break-in knowledge and direct ties with Dean.

Dean was finally convicted of Watergate crimes but plea bargained for a 4 month prison sentence. He wrote his autobiography and Watergate tale, Blind Ambition, to turn his intelligence espionage in the White House into big money. Bigger money awaited him when he moved to California to work as an investment banker, proving once again that crime pays.

Unfortunately, and quite curiously, though not in the least bit surprising, John Dean disavowed his book as a bit of fantasy in a 1989 interview with author Len Colodny, in which he admitted that he could not rely upon Blind Ambition, deferring instead to his sworn testimony. He also accused his publisher, Simon & Schuster of introducing fictional material into the book to make it more interesting. Alice Mayhew, an editor of the firm, completely denied that the publisher was responsible for any of the book’s content.

In addition to investment banking, Dean has an avocational interest in suing people who publish unflattering material about him. Examples include his lawsuits against Len Colodny, author of Silent Coup, and G Gordon Liddy who suggested that Dean authorized Watergate to obtain information about his call girl wife Maureen. We dismiss that allegation as a distraction from the larger story about US intelligence engaged in another executive action operation.

Dean, far from being the earnest but ambitious legal counsel for the corrupt president as he and the press portray, was one of the prime movers behind the Watergate debacle. However, we must acknowledge that higher powers than Dean were plotting the political assassination of a president.

Reference

Family of Secrets, Russ Baker

http://www.watergate.com/, Len Colodny

Copyright 2010-12 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

Did Henry Kissinger Murder Aldo Moro?

As sensational as it sounds, there are credible accusations that Henry Kissinger, while Secretary of State, ordered the murder of Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro. Can such allegations about the urbane and world wise Kissinger be true?

Daniel Estulin, a reporter whose career is devoted to exposing the Bilderberg Group, related in his book The True Story of the Bilderberg Group, that John Coleman, a former intelligence operative, reported that the murder of Moro happened under orders of the Bilderberg Group, of which Henry Kissinger is a long standing member.

The justification for murder was that Moro opposed the Club of Rome’s prescriptions for population reduction and de-industrialization of Italy. Additionally, the Bildebergers needed an unstable Italy for their plans to destabilize the Middle East.The Club of Rome is a compatriot of the Bilderberg Group.

Moro and his bodyguards were kidnapped by the Red Brigade in Spring 1978 after which they were all brutally murdered.

During the trial in 1982, Gorrado Guerzoni, a friend of Moro’s, testified that Moro had been threatened by an RIIA (Royal Institute for International Affairs) official while he was still Secretary of State. Red Brigade members who were called to testify confirmed that senior US officials were involved in the plot to murder Moro. Moro’s widow also testified that her husband’s life had been threatened by a “high ranking United States political figure.”

The widow testified that the official told her husband, “Either you stop your political line or you will pay dearly for it.” Guerzoni identified that the identity of the thug was Henry Kissinger.

The astonishing testimony was broadcast all over Europe but, as in the case of the explosive civil suit brought by the King family against Lloyd Jowers, the domestic American press was silent as a mouse. But we have explained how the CIA controls the American press so the result was not unusual.

We know from other research that Henry Kissinger is a darker figure than is commonly thought. We believe that the allegations of three witnesses substantiate the allegation that Kissinger ordered or relayed the orders to murder Moro. However, unlike the Warren Commission, we would be interested in evidence challenging the allegation.

Reference

The True Story of the Bilderberg Group, Daniel Estulin

Copyright 2010-12 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

Was Reagan Merely a Figurehead President?

Ronald Reagan suffered much derision as a cue-card reading intellectual midget who acted his way through office. After reading Reagan’s Secret War by Martin and Annelise Anderson, we believe that they have demolished this churlish and childish characterization of Reagan.

Webster Tarpley, in his book Bush: the Unauthorized Biography, in the chapter on the Reagan assassination attempt, develops the theme of Reagan’s vacuity and absence from daily management and leadership in implicating Bush in the assassination. Unfortunately, Tarpley exposes a wide credibility in his analysis, not because Bush is innocent, but because he is plain wrong about the President’s engagement in his own administration. But Tarpley is not the first or the last to advance this accusation against Reagan.

The Andersons present solid evidence from the historical record including official White House meeting minutes, press accounts, and Reagan’s diaries which show a chief executive who is not only leading his aides and cabinet officers, but who is at the forefront of policy innovations, persuading them of his positions, and, when needed, correcting their wayward tendencies.

Reagan’s abilities to establish policy and oversee its implementation are powerful proof of an active mind and healthy grasp of complex geopolitics during one of the worst times of American-Soviet relations, the subject which consumes the narrative of the Andersons’ book.

The authors point out many instances when Reagan overruled his staff, such as early in his presidency when he sent a personal letter of negotiation and diplomacy to the ailing Leonid Brezhnev in an effort to seek a resolution to the arms race. In this particular instance, Alexander Haig and his staff considered the letter too “mawkish” and sought to recast it in the stern language of the State Department.

When introducing his forward thinking Zero-Zero Policy to resolve the Soviet deployment of theater nuclear missiles in Europe, Reagan firmly corrected his truculent, obstructionist Secretary of State’s insistence on opposing the policy. Reagan insistently overrode with reason Haig’s obstinate objections.

In attempting to establish direct communication with the Soviet General Secretary, Reagan had followed the steps of John Kennedy who established similar correspondence with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev during the October Missile Crisis of 1962 in attempt to bypass his unstable and borderline psychotic generals who were hellbent on a nuclear first attack.

The Andersons provide many similar examples of Reagan's active leadership in policy and negotiation, as well as his major speeches and press conferences where he proposes and defends forward thinking policy options including the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), dismissed as Star Wars, which really was a modernization of the anti-ballistic missile strategy with technological advances – an American strength and a Soviet weakness.

In taking on the USSR, Reagan’s Secret War reveals that Reagan grappled with the Soviets in a way his predecessors could not either for lack of personal presence, strategic insight, or clarity of thought. Reagan, often against his own staff’s revanchist thinking, formulated a policy of confronting the Soviets from strength using both economic and technological advantages, use of personal and negotiating strategies, and pursuit of nuclear arms elimination – not merely reduction. He also bluntly discarded the tendency of our leaders to make asymmetrical concessions in order to adapt to Soviet strategic superiority - proving that Kissinger's snarky comment, "What is strategic superiority and what does one do with it when one has it?" was as vacuous as hoover vacuum cleaner.

In the end, the USSR was unable to sustain the arms race, keep pace with technological innovation, or maintain the philosophical severity of the totalitarian system.

Some may say that Reagan always took a nap – which, if true, is not surprising or alarming. Many management consultants prescribe “power naps” and medical science provides ample justification for their usage. Douglass MacArthur, during his Pacific Campaign, always took afternoon naps, but no one has seriously chastised him for doing so. And FDR slept away half of his days during the end of his tenure due to rapidly failing health in the midst of war – yet we hear nary a peep of criticism for his patent incapacitation.

The attack from his enemies that Reagan was aloof and unengaged is simply a scurrilous and unfounded accusation.

Reference
Reagan's Secret War, Martin and Annelise Anderson
Bush: the Unauthorized Biography, Webster Tarpley


Copyright 2010-12 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

The House of Bush versus the House of Rockefeller

Most Americans are probably unaware that America is the bottle in which an epic conflict between two powerful scorpions is being fought. Though each power has the ultimate subjugation of America as its outcome, they take slightly different strategies towards its ends. The mighty protagonists are the Bush Crime Syndicate and the Rockefeller Internationalists.

Before proceeding with details, we should note that this analysis is our first attempt to identify the parties, relationships, and methods of these two camps. It is most likely that subsequent research will require us to update some of our assumptions and descriptions about how they operate. However, we strongly believe that our general thesis is correct – namely that each faction has an implacable desire to subject the United States to their control with a complete abhorrence of the nation’s constitutional legacy.

We should also note that these camps are not mutually exclusive nor at fundamental odds with each other. They may share people, relationships, and methods but they accent different aspects of strategy.

The Rockefeller cabal has been very forthright in more recent years of its intent to subjugate the United States as a member state of a New World Order of global government. Each nation would be a sovereignless state within this government ruled by elite plutocrats and their fellow travelers. Richard Gardner, writing in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) founded by the Rockefellers in 1921, stated that national sovereignty would be eliminated “piece by piece” until the United States was a subject state of world government.

The Rockefeller cabal uses its powerful networks of foundations, personalities, and politicians to advance its causes, which are generally rather furtive and low profile. One master of this approach is John C. Whitehead who has straddled both business and government to advance the NWO objective of compulsory world government. The well known Rockefeller Foundation, Carnegie Endowment, Ford Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, and a slew of other less prominent non-profit organizations collaborate on specific domains, ,with minimal publicity, to forge and implement their plans.

The Carnegie foundations focus on education and technology with the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) concerned with managing software development being a classic artifact of that work. The Rockefeller Foundation specializes in medical issues with a subspecialty in eugenics.

David Rockefeller wrote in his memoirs that he is proud to be an advocate of world government and so distinguishes his camp from the Bushes, who take a much more clandestine approach, although George W. Bush has admitted that the Constitution is “nothing but a goddamned piece of paper.” Whereas the Rockefeler camp is more urbane and polished, the Bushmen like to feign with a certain bit of western bravado.

The Bush camp has its friendly foundations such as the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, and Cato, but foundations and think tanks do not figure as prominently in their power grid. The Bush cabal, with deep roots to Wall Street just as with the Rockefellers, has used the intelligence organizations and its connections with Yale University as its vehicle for domination.

The well publicized Skull & Bones fraternity, in particular, and Yale generally, have provided an inordinate number of men to the OSS and CIA. William F. Buckley, George H W Bush, James Jesus Angleton are but a few of the famous elitists who claim Yale as their alma mater and who were elite, important, and powerful spooks.

George Bush’s connections with intelligence reach back to World War 2 where he was assigned to such a unit. They continued with the CIA linked Zapata Oil and his involvement with the murder of John Kennedy. George’s assumption of the Directorate of the CIA was simply his coming out party – not his first or last encounter with the CIA as it was portrayed at the time.

The CIA has infiltrated every single federal agency without exception, and thus provides information and control of government by the controllers of the CIA. Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, who spent many years in the Pentagon working with CIA counterparts, attested to the infiltration program during the 1950s and 1960s, stating that even in the 1950s it was virtually complete.

Thus with deep ties to the CIA, the Bush dynasty is able to exert inordinate influence over domestic and foreign politics.

Other government officials have spoken of the unseen rulers of government, with Catherine Austin Fitts being an exceptionally well connected example, relating a fine story of being overruled as Assistant Secretary of Housing and Federal Housing, not by her boss Jack Kemp or his boss George Bush, but by other invisible powers outside the government.

In the years since the first Bush presidency, that cabal’s power has grown immensely based upon George W Bush’s presidency and the many appointments Daddy Bush made beginning as vice president under Ronald Reagan.

The Bush money is Texas based – yet having deep Wall Street roots – with many tentacles reaching into military contractors such as Halliburton and the uber furtive Carlyle Group. The men within these organizations wield enormous power in their abilities, in conjunction with their CIA connections, to control and topple foreign governments at will, especially in the Middle East.

It is with this powerbase that the Bush’s seek to subvert constitutional government yet retaining a thin veneer of elected government. It gives them cover and steady financing to pursue their grander schemes of world conquest.

We still live in the Times of the Gentiles which commenced with Nebuchadnezzar of Chaldea, whose defining characteristic is conquest, something seen in every facet of these plutocrats’ lives – from John D. Rockefeller Sr.’s rapacious control of the oil industry to the Bush family’s conquest of government through its many murders.

Our prediction is that these two factions are working in concert and will merge their activities into a single power structure, but for now, they are pursing slightly different though parallel paths to accomplishing world domination.

Copyright 2010-12 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

Rockefeller Filth: The Prediction of 9/11

The filth of which we speak in connection with the Rockefellers is not their wealth but of their psychopathy. Aaron Russo gave some fascinating vignettes into the psychopathic character of this family of fabulous wealth during an interview with Alex Jones in 2007. Russo develops their connection with the attacks on the World Trade Center and the championing of equal rights. The reasons for these programs by this family are startling.

Ida Tarbell got a head start on us in exposing Rockefeller crimes and excess, however flawed her reporting may have been. Whatever her sensationalistic faults, she sensed that the Rockefellers were a profoundly evil and devious species of humans. Unfortunately the leopard’s spots have not changed in the time since her article first appeared over 100 years ago.

Aaron Russo is an interesting character in his own right as an accomplished film producer with such titles as Trading Places and Wise Guys, who later branched into politics in a run for office and made political documentaries.

Predictions of 9/11

He described his friendship with Nick Rockefeller who warned him 11 months prior to 9/11 that a significant event would erupt which would unleash an invasion of Afghanistan to run an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea, an invasion of Iraq to secure oil fields and to expand the New World Order, and the toppling of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. He predicted soldiers looking into caves for terrorists.

Rockefeller laughingly told about the War on Terror (WOT) which he said would be a giant hoax designed to coerce Americans to accept loss of freedoms. Rockefeller stated that the WOT would be an endless war because no specific enemy would be identified and the target would always change. The WOT, he said, is a farce to intimidate Americans into accepting endless war.

As Rockefeller attempted to enlist Russo into his elite group, he would lure him with protection and comfort from the impending doom his cabal was plotting. When Russo told Rockefeller that his grand schemes were not appealing, Rockefeller asked, “What do you care about those people?” meaning that anyone outside the 1% were debris who could be discarded in any fashion without any concerns or remorse.

Rockefeller told Russo that the goal of the plutocrats’ schemes was to get everyone “chipped” so that they could control society. There was no meaning to them for wealth and power because they had it in spades. Inserting parenthetically, it reminds me of the boredom of the protagonist in The Most Dangerous Game.

Women’s Lib

Russo relates an evening at his house where Rockefeller asked him what he thought equal rights for women was about. When Russo told him that he thought it was about pay and work rights, Rockefeller laughed, calling Russo an idiot. He stated that the Rockefeller Foundation funded the women’s liberation movement of the 1960s – 70s because the government couldn’t tax half of the population and by putting women in the work force, the children would be forced into day care and schools where they could be brainwashed for control purposes. The goal was to get kids to see the schools and the state as their families rather than parents as authority and providers.

Clearly the plutocrats do not think like ordinary people but they are most successful in suborning people into their orbit with the lure of money and success. They create plausible pretexts for actions and programs which have sinister outcomes. And worse yet, many people on these elitist organizations, such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), do not realize that they are serving the ends of their masters.

We strongly urge you to watch for yourself this 10 minute segment from a longer interview done shortly before the producer's death. It supports our grand thesis that the world is not what it appears to be and that invisible forces rule this nation.

Reference
Rockefeller Reveals 9/11 FRAUD to Aaron Russo, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA


Copyright 2010-12 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

The Invisible Hand of the New World Order

The New World Order is often ridiculed as fringe fantasy, but personalities none other than Adolph Hitler and George Bush heralded its arrival with all of its 1000 points of light last century. Although the wealthy are often accused of being its authors, the truth behind who guides its evolution forces a more sophisticated model, as an article by Will Banyan makes clear.

Let there be no doubt that wealth and power are required to impose the NWO on the world, but let us also understand that very powerful and controlling personalities animate that wealth towards its designated ends. These powerful men may be of much more modest means than the creators of the fortunes impressed into its service. One such individual was Raymond Fosdick (1883 – 1972), and to a less extent, his brother Harry Emerson Fosdick, the  famous early 20th century theologian.

It is also interesting that such people often feel, like Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase, that they are doing God’s will – a trait they share with the Crusaders of the Middle Ages. Fosdick occasionally made reference to Christian motifs or justifications to foist a world government on the peoples of the earth, much as did his revered mentor Woodrow Wilson, echoing William McKinley’s 4 point justification for entering into the Spanish American War and assuming the colonies of Spain.

They are fond of employing such extreme arguments as world war, mass annihilation, and various cataclysmic disasters, much in the same way that the Red Menace and the War on Terror are used to cow people into accepting infringements on their liberties.

Fosdick became fanatically involved with the League of Nations when Wilson approached him to serve as a delegate to its functions after the first World War. Fosdick would spend a lifetime zealously advocating first the League and then the United Nations, serving for a time as one of its under secretaries between the two world wars prior to returning to his law practice.

Along the way he encountered John Rockefeller, Jr. who initially expressed misgivings about the proposed League of Nations. However, following his resignation from service in the LON in Europe, Fosdick returned to America where he had many occasions to meet Rockefeller and for whom he would serve as head of the Rockefeller Foundation.

Banyan documents, through correspondences between the two men, Rockefeller, Jr.’s evolution from an isolationist to an internationalist, with Fosdick’s perfervid pleas to his sponsor bordering on maniacal. Once he assumed the presidency of the Rockefeller Foundation and the General Education Board in 1935, Fosdick used his position to fund and promote his globalist agendas.

There were three major programmatic operations of the two organizations which sought to advance world government. The first was the Council on Foreign Relations which had been founded by the Rockefellers in 1921 and whose new goal was to shape elite opinion for the formation of world government, first through the League, and then through the United Nations. The second operation was channeled through the Institute of Pacific Relations and the Foreign Policy Association whose goal was to persuade popular opinion regarding the virtues of world government.

Fosdick also enthusiastically supported population control programs sponsored by the Bureau of Social Hygiene, a eugenics organization, whose objectives included the purification of the human race through sterilization of people and races deemed unfit for further propagation.

The third programmatic operation of the Fosdick cabal was support of social engineering, turning social science away from basic research toward research to facilitate State control of its populations. These goals were achieved through the Social Science Research Council (SSRC) whose major grant giving powers achieved the reorientation of research.

Banyan shows not just a modification of Rockefeller’s thinking about the use of wealth and the role of the United States, but he shows how that wealth was suborned into the ideas of another man, namely Raymond Fosdick, who in conjunction with his famous brother Harry Emerson Fosdick, provided the intellectual scaffolding for world government using the vast wealth of the Rockefellers, who were committed and willing disciples. Fosdick merely found the sponge to soak up his venomous ideas and to give them currency  - all by means of a conspiracy in plain sight.

Reference

The Invisible Man of the New World Order: Raymond B. Fosdick (1883-1972), Will Banyan


Copyright 2010-12 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

How the CIA Controls the News Media

William Colby (1920 - 1996), former and murdered Central Intelligence Agency director, once remarked that the CIA controlled nearly every news establishment of importance in America. Mark Lane, who was the target of many CIA smear operations, documents in his superb book, Last Word, specific CIA memos and experiences related to this control, and also names some of the CIA assets used to conduct disinformation and smear operations.

In Lane’s case, the animus of the CIA towards him stemmed from his critique of the Warren Commission Report. Why the CIA would be so disturbed about disagreement to that report is puzzling. After all, wasn’t it so intuitively obvious that a lone nut gunman murdered the president? So obvious in fact that 26 volumes were required to bury the doubts? Wasn’t the case so open and shut that a trial was not necessary – nay, would have been a nuisance to seeing the patent obviousness of it all. O, my dear good Occam, the fuss and bother should have been unnecessary

Clearly the CIA had much to hide – namely its guilt in the murder of the President. The very fact that the CIA involves itself in domestic politics – something its charter forbids – makes it a terrorist organization whose very presence is a menace to the people of the United States and its government.

Sometimes the control tactics are heavy handed, while at others they are more velvet gloved, but the effect is the same – anyone who disagrees with the lies of the CIA will be dealt a heavy blow from many directions. One technique which Lane documents is the use of talking points and language to be used by its paid and friendly authors.

One such friendly author is the British Christopher Andrew whose vocation as an historian and author is much prized by the CIA – so prized in fact that the CIA includes him on secret and select committees and provides him with highly classified information normally not available outsiders as well as many insiders. Andrew has made a career of attempting to discredit Lane with minimal success since the facts are rarely if ever on Andrew’s side. In fact he required a lie that the KGB paid Lane 500 USD in airfare to the International Association of Democratic Lawyers in an effort to discredit Rush to Judgment.

Another CIA hack is Anthony Lewis, liberal poseur, of the New York Times, who declared upon publication of the Warren Commission Report in 1964 that all of its conclusions were accurate. Lane, who spent nearly a year of 18 hour days poring over the report, asked Lewis how had managed to read and process it all within a matter of hours. Lewis did not respond.

When bald assertions fail to reach their goals, Lewis resorts to ad hominem attacks in the New York Times, calling Lane a “ghoul” and “creature” among other epithets. The disreputable Columbia University of Journalism endorses Lewis with a teaching position.

Lewis is not the only hack in the New York Times stable of CIA “assets.” Lane documents another egregious example, Pranay Gupte, but we think you get the idea of how the newspaper operates and the repertoire of its columnists. Having said all of that, Lane still reads the paper, which is a far more generous usage of its news pulp than we have in mind.

Lane reports his discovery of a secret memo, freed through a Freedom of Information Act request, from the CIA directing its assets to destroy Mark Lane, what language to use, what arguments to make, and what modes to use in achieving that end. It speaks of its “assets”, a reference which corroborates Colby’s boast presented at the top of this posting.

Another CIA asset is Max Holland who has made a career of attacking the “conspiracy theorists.” Yet Holland accused a team of four lawyers of a conspiracy to place the Warren Commission Report in ill repute. He should have added the House Select Committee on Assassinatiosn since it did precisely the same thing in concluding that a conspiracy had murdered the president.

Some of the directions provided by the CIA on discrediting conspiracy historians include accusing them of Communist propaganda, asserting the reputation of the Warren Commission members, and use of top secret background information supplied by the CIA against such advocates .

Lane enumerates three specific CIA memos distributed to its media assets instructing them how to refute various “conspiracy theories.” They were dated January 4, 1967; April 21, 1967; and August 2, 1966. The memos identify specific authors with means to smear and discredit them and talking points and specific language to use in counter-argument. We suppose that the recipients of the memos were of so weak a brain and the reasoning of the Warren Commission so preposterous that highly structured and pre-fabricated arguments were required in order to keep the various editorials, articles, and essays from becoming a jumbled mess of logic porn.

This set of revelations skims just the top layer of snowflakes on the iceberg of CIA lies and intimidation. When friendly persuasion fails, the CIA resorts to murder, as we are sure they did with reporter and celebrity Dorothy Kilgallen, a story which we will have to save for another day.

The main point to consider from the information presented is that the CIA controls the news writers and media organizations - not just for the perpetuation of the Warren Commission Report, but for other issues as well. Its methods are both subtle and ham fisted. It gives lie to the idea that America's journalists, especially in its marquee publications, are independent.

Reference
Last Word, Mark Lane

Copyright 2010-12 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

How the CIA Started the Vietnam War

If you are the typical American, you may believe that the Vietnam War was a struggle of freedom over oppression, right vs. wrong, or maybe in some vague way about preserving the American way of life. Unfortunately, none of these reasons is correct, and were in fact part of the brain washing scheme to ensure American support for the bloody, vicious, unwinnable war. The truth is that the CIA concocted the war out of whole cloth, whose locus provided a safe haven for committing many acts of cold blooded murder in the name of fighting the war.

Fletcher Prouty is a deceased former USAF Colonel who worked in the Pentagon and closely with the CIA during 1940s-60s and who had a bird’s eye view of the development of policy during the Eisenhower administration and beyond. He relates a sordid tale of how the plutocrats had planned the Vietnam War during the last half of World War 2, and the various phases of that war resulting in a massive American invasion of the Indochinese peninsula.

Before describing the political and military aspects of the war, it is important to outline the demographic nature of the land known as Vietnam. All of Vietnam was a tribal community based loose confederation of villages whose central cohesion was ancestral worship and tribal identity. The villages were self sustaining with each family typically engaged in agriculture, farming land that had belonged to the family for centuries. This way of life had persisted unmolested for thousands of years prior to the French arrival in the late 18th century.

Under no normal circumstance would the Vietnamese abandon this ancient way of life – not even under French tutelage. The northern region was dominated by the Tonkinese ethnic group while the southern region was identified as Cochin China. The two groups were distinct and without natural affiliation but followed similar governing customs. The southern section was the more prosperous of the two, being the rice bowl of Asia. However, in no way were these regions countries in the modern sense of the term. Vietnam was an administrative district for the French but without meaning to the native Vietnamese. But that didn’t stop the CIA from pretending that a South Vietnam existed as a fully functioning state.

By the late 19th C. there were two primary influences in the region – the French and the Chinese. The French controlled banking, constabularies, justice, and their rapacious industrial enterprises such as Michelin. The Chinese provided commercial middleman services by supplying an outside market for the Vietnamese’s excess rice production, necessary goods for living, and silver for balances owed the farmer after the exchange of rice and goods.

During World War 2, the Japanese conquered the region and imposed a brutality even greater than that of the French. But the French managed to retake the region with a few armed forces, reimposing their colonial rule. At the end of World War 2, the USA sent huge quantities of arms from Okinawa to Vietnam, ostensibly to arm Ho Chi Minh and his Vietminh forces who were trying to establish a free Vietnam – the Democratic Republic of Vietnam - and to preserve their ancestral customs and governance under the aegis of modern statecraft. However, the CIA had orders to subvert this Indochinese-American relationship in pursuit of higher Cold War aims which had been planned before the end of the world war.

The Chinese and French provided a source of stability and continuity although the French were deeply despised for their brutal methods and administration. The utter defeat of the French at Dien Bien Phu in May 1954 marked an important inflection point for American involvement in Southeast Asia.

At the beginning of the year, the CIA sent in the Saigon Military Mission headed by Philippines covert operations veteran Edward Lansdale who nominally worked for the Air Force but whose real bosses were in the CIA. The purpose of the SMM was to destabilize the region and foment war, at which task they were spectacularly successful.

The SMM was the Dulles brothers’ way of circumventing President Eisenhower’s stern and adamant opposition to placing American ground troops in Vietnam, a position he declared at a National Security Council meeting on January 8, 1954 with the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff present.

The first task of the SMM was to install a pliable leader in South Vietnam. We must remember that South Vietnam did not exist as a country except on paper and in the minds of the plutocrats plotting the next 30 years of war. As we discussed above, the native government of the region was tribal and local – not national.

The CIA installed in 1954 as president of South Vietnam the Catholic Ngô Đình Diệm who had been at times in exile in the United States or Europe. His first assignment was to expel the French and Chinese which he dutifully did. This had the very perverse and intended effect of destabilizing the inchoate nation. Without the French, the legal and administrative infrastructure disappeared, and without the Chinese the economic and commercial infrastructure vanished, leaving the farmers without a market for their rice. During Diem's rule, Vietnam sunk from being a net exporter of rice to being a net importer.

To light the fuse, the CIA arranged to transport 1.1 million people in the north to the south – a figure which even John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, confirmed – using its secret and proprietary Civil Air Transport airline company stationed in Taiwan. The expense and logistical requirements for an unprecedented migration of this magnitude were enormous but funded via the CIA. As Prouty states, this would be like transplanting 1.1 million New Yorkers overnight to Alabama with all of the social and economic upheaval such a move would inspire.

The CIA had used terroristic threats to cause the Tonkinese residents to move from their ancestral homelands to a strange one in the south. They had also offered financial assistance and inducements for these people to move. The goals were anything but humanitarian.

To the good people back home in America who were busy building bomb shelters and stockpiling food and provisions, the state controlled media reported that the peace loving northerners were fleeing the communist Vietminh. This too was a lie. Ho Chi Minh had the respect and support of his people as he fought first the Japanese, then the French, and now the Americans in order to form an independent nation of Vietnam.

When the waves of Tonkinese migrants arrived in the south, they found that there was no food, shelter, or financial assistance. In short, the CIA lied – a big surprise. In need of basic necessities of life, and out of desperation, the Northerners formed bandits to steal food. They were not motivated by ideology, doctrine, or belief – it was purely and simply a matter of survival.

So the south was now plagued with three huge problems – social unrest due to massive migrations, civil disorder due to the vacuum left by the departure of the French, and economic collapse due to the departure of the Chinese. The attacking bandits were described as guerillas and insurgents to the American people and were later transmogrified into the Viet Cong.

The CIA then organized the migrants into armies and administrators – so they in effect colonized the south and became their rulers and magistrates, creating another source of antagonism. Thus the once prosperous southerners were reduced to poverty and suffered the theft of their farms and other property by the northerners.

In order to complete the antagonism necessary for war, the CIA organized the two comingled groups into "us" and "them", which ignited a confusing and hopelessly tangled set of enemies, using a sophisticated tactic which the French had passed to the CIA from its experiences in Algeria.

Thus over a period of years beginning on September 2, 1945, the end of World War 2, US plutocrats had purposefully configured Vietnam to be the locus of an unwinnable and perpetual war – at least 30 years worth. To frame the conflict as a Communist vs Capitalist conflict is a gross fraud. At no time did the North Vietnamese ever pose a threat in any way shape or form to America’s security. We shall explore the reasons for the war in another posting.

Reference
JFK: The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy, Fletcher Prouty
Copyright 2010-12 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.