Steve Pieczenik is a BS Artist

Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Steve Pieczenik is trying to take credit for the Podesta emails released by WikiLeaks. He claims that he and his pals have executed a “silent counter-coup” to overturn the Clinton Mafia’s own silent coup.

I believe that talk of such silent coups is one of the hallmarks of a charlatan in the conspiracy community. We just saw what a real coup d’Ă©tat looks like in Turkey. There’s usually quite a lot of drama, fighting, and bloodshed, with military units involved. Was Bill Clinton’s meeting with Loretta Lynch on the tarmac in Phoenix a coup? No, it was just a garden-variety bribe meeting.

Maybe Pieczenik really was the guy who set the phishing trap that Podesta blundered into. But even so, that doesn’t require an entire cabal to execute. In fact, it can be done by one guy. Nevertheless, I would be shocked to learn that it was Pieczenik.

But proof that he is unhinged is this quote of what he said to Alex Jones:

“So, what we have is a Jewish law-firm, Dickstein Shapiro, with a Jewish representative, Peter Kadzik, who is in turn going to evaluate, and investigate a corruption trial with Huma Abedin. That’s a complete farce.”

Whenever somebody starts talking about “The Jews” you can pretty much assume that you are not dealing with a serious person. According to his Wikipedia page, Pieczenik was born to Jewish parents, which makes him look even crazier.

But look back at his quote. Did Pieczenik actually say anything that makes sense? Why is it a farce? Okay, Kadzik is corrupt, and it is a farce that one member of the Clinton Mafia would oversee the investigation of another member. But everybody already knows that. So why did he throw the Jewish stuff in there? If you go back and look at the context (see the video below) there is still no rationale. It was completely gratuitous. Anybody who sprinkles their conversation with random references to “The Jews” is just an anti-Semite.

Not only that, but if you look at the Dickstein Shapiro website, you will see that the firm closed down. How could somebody so allegedly connected not know that the firm has been out of business for eight months? Perhaps Pieczenik’s point is that they are a ghost firm haunting the Department of Justice.

How does a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State become a conspiracy crackpot? Imagine that you were an astronaut, and you went to space a few times twenty years ago. Today, you are a software developer, and your job at Disney has just been handed over to an Indian H-1B scab, and you can’t find another job. One thing you could do is write a book saying that you saw UFOs in space, and that NASA muzzled you, but now you are ready to speak out. And you go into the conspiracy business, which can be quite lucrative.

The same Crackpot Track is available to people in the government who can claim to know all kinds of secret stuff.

Pieczenik’s comments come at the 3:52 market of this video. But keep in mind what I wrote about Alex Jones being a Russian spy.

New World Order Propaganda in Marvel’s Agents of SHIELD

“Borders are disappearing.” – SHIELD Agent Phil Coulson

Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is a superhero TV show about a United Nations espionage agency and is associated with The Avengers. It began its second season last night on ABC, and is a pretty good show with good special effects. SHIELD is produced by Disney, which as you know from reading my book is The Evilest Place on Earth, and anything it puts out should be scrutinized for propaganda content.

This essay contains moderate spoilers. I don’t mention the biggest mysteries of the series: Coulson’s Tahiti project, who Skye’s parents are, or who the Hydra traitors are. Also, studies have shown that people enjoy stories more when they know the ending in advance. So, quit being a baby. 🙂

SHEILD Villain Wears Crucifix

Villain in episode #2 (29:55) as her crucifix catches the light.

You might think that a global CIA/FBI type of organization like SHIELD would be preoccupied with enemy nations such as Russia, Iran, North Korea, or any of the Muslim nations that we are currently bombing. But no, bizarrely, SHIELD is obsessed with the oh-so sinister nation of Malta – a small island south of Sicily. And the other nation presented as explicitly evil is also tiny: Peru.

What do Malta and Peru have in common? They are Catholic; very Catholic. Peru is so Catholic that priests are on the government payroll. Malta is so Catholic that it was once ruled by the Knights of Malta, a Catholic fraternal organization that issues its own passports and stamps, and has observer status at the United Nations. The show has scenes in many other nations, but none other are explicitly designated as evil, or even disparaged in any way. Oddly, the show never mentions any of the world’s major intelligence agencies like the Russian FSB, British MI6, or the Israeli Mossad. In fact, only the Italian intelligence agency makes an appearance, and they are in league with the bad guys (episode 13). Italy, of course, is another Catholic country, and still got demonized even though it is a NATO member. And finally, Sicily is disparaged when a SHIELD agent telling a story says: “The Sicilian backup team, hah, a no-show of course.” (Episode 17 at 41:45).

Why would SHIELD be persecuting Catholics? See my “Jesuits vs. Illuminati – The American Power Struggle” for an explanation. There are very few religious themes in the series. In episode 9, there is brief discussion of god and hell where we learn that Agent Skye is an atheist. In episode 8, an alien Asgardian weapon is found in an Irish monastery (28:51). When Agent Ward picks it up, it brings out his inner evil and turns him into a berserker. The Catholic crosses in the background associate that evil with the church. All of the religious content of the show is anti-God and anti-Catholic.

Message from the NWO: “Catholics stand in the way of our march to global domination.

The very first character we see in episode #1 is a laid-off factory worker, Mike Peterson, who becomes a villain. His son has turned his back on him as the boy drools over Avengers action figures in a store window. Mike goes back to the factory that laid him off and roughs up his manager. Later, he is apprehended by SHIELD.

Message from the NWO:”If we send your job to China, and flood the country with cheap labor, and you can’t afford to buy toys for your children, that’s just tough. Your patriotic duty is to embrace poverty or be imprisoned. Your boy is right to idolize us and not you. Maybe he will grow up to be a TSA agent instead of a stupid factory worker.

Episode #2 is the Peruvian show. Decades ago, Peru commissioned the Nazis to build them some advanced weapons technology, and SHIELD has to disarm them.

Message from the NWO: “The Catholic/Latin world was in league with the Nazis.”

Yes, many Nazis hid in South America after World War Two, but at least they were hiding. Contrast that to Protestant America where Nazis were brought into the government, and some like Wernher von Braun were given positions of power.

Camilla Reyes of the Peruvian Army (photo above) captures Agent Coulson and tells him (at 28:29) “You stay in your borders and I’ll stay in mine.” Coulson replies: “Those borders are disappearing. Aliens descended on New York, remember? They don’t care whose colors you wear, they just care who’s in the way. We should be working together, not fighting.” But the aliens are long gone, defeated by the Avengers in a feature film.

Message from the NWO: “We don’t recognize your borders, and you might as well just surrender.

Episode #3 is the first Malta show. The agents make a show of agonizing over respecting Malta’s sovereignty, but then just invade anyway. The villain, Ian Quinn, is an American who moved to Malta to avoid government regulations.

Message from the NWO: “Resistance is futile! Even if you move to a haven, we will come for you!

In real life, champion poker player Isaac Haxton has moved to Malta so that he can play online poker, which casino moguls like Sheldon Adelson have gotten banned in the USA and other nations. Maybe Haxton should watch his back. 🙂

Agent Sourpuss never smiles.

Agent Sourpuss never smiles.

In episode #9 (at 29:10) we learn why Agent May is so glum. It seems she “accidentally” slaughtered a bunch of people in Bahrain during a Waco-type of situation, and now is filled with remorse.

Message from the NWO: “We’re terribly sorry for Waco, and we suffer each and every day from terrible guilt and remorse to the point where we are reluctant to slaughter more people.

This theme is similar to the theme from the 2012 film Zero Dark Thirty where CIA agent Maya Lambert gets no joy or glory out of tracking down Osama bin Laden. I doubt that the cowboy-types who do these raids feel much remorse. For a real-life example, see the 49:20 mark of the Waco video below where an FBI agent praises a colleague as “honed to kill”:

A far cry from the Agents of SHIELD, right? But who knows, maybe they really are sorry. After all, we haven’t had any more mass slaughters since Waco. Our police are militarized, but they are still much more restrained. During Occupy Wall Street, all they did was pepper-spray people, and Cliven Bundy didn’t get so much as a slap on the wrist.

The rebel hacktivist character, Skye, is a member of SHIELD nemesis The Rising Tide, whose name is reminiscent of the Pink Tide movement that has rolled back NWO influence in South America, which is Catholic turf (see my essay linked above).

In episode 13, Agent May kills Italian intelligence officer Luca Russo by shooting him in the back. This is significant because SHIELD usually just stuns and captures the bad guys.

Masonic temple floor in episode 13.

Masonic temple floor in episode 13.

Also in episode 13, Agent Coulson captures the bad guy from Malta in Italy on a black-and-white Masonic temple floor (36:32). The Masons are infamous for having been infiltrated by the Illuminati. So, this is a symbolic ceremony depicting an Illuminati triumph over the Catholics. The bad guy, Ian Quinn is not designated as being Catholic, but his operations are on Catholic turf, and he has the Italian intelligence agency working for him. In episode 8 (27:00) we learn that an immortal from Asgard was a stone mason on Earth: “I was a mason. I broke rocks for thousands of years.” The character is kind of a bad guy, but still, the subliminal message is: masons are gods.

Two SHIELD agents endorse police-state tactics in Episode 16 (41:49) while doing a raid. Agent Ward asks Agent Garrett: “Ringing the bell and knocking?” Garrett replies sarcastically: “Knocking? Of course.” Then they just kick the door in.

In episode 20 (15:40) an American general describes a SHIELD base in Canada as being on “North American soil.” This is a little preparatory brainwashing for the forthcoming North American Union – an NWO project where the USA’s sovereignty will be subsumed in a larger political entity. Also in episode 20 (2:08) Agent Hill says: “We’re privatizing global security.” Quite a lot of the US security apparatus is already outsourced, but SHIELD prepares us for even more. While SHIELD wants us to worship a global intelligence agency, they present government agencies as less-competent than defense/security corporations.

In episode 22 (33:20), our heroes endorse torture. Agent Coulson says to a prisoner: “Your torture? That’s going to be internal.” Agent May says: “And a little bit external.” Coulson: “Sure, some of that.”

Agent Coulson, who is more like a therapist, or priest than a secret agent, tends to his flock of agents, and bad guys who he tries to turn into good guys with fatherly advice, patience, and support. Agent Coulson’s character itself is the primary element of propaganda in Agents of SHIELD – he is the personification of the NWO as they want us to perceive it. He is a likable character, but hardly realistic as a secret agent.

The last item is a moderate spoiler, so you can stop reading here if you want. In episode 12 (40:00), we learn that the orphan rebel girl of the Rising Tide, Skye, had actually been raised by SHIELD, and agents died to protect her.

Message from the NWO: “Even though you silly people rebel against us, we are like a wise, saintly grandfather secretly watching over you and protecting you until you come to your senses and realize that everything that we do is for your benefit.”

Update: In seasons two and three, I didn’t notice any blatant propaganda, so they have toned things down quite a bit since season one.

Jesuits vs. Illuminati – The American Power Struggle

Libertarians and conspiracy buffs like to say that there is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats. That both right and left are only sock puppets deployed by one grand conspiracy to effect an Hegelian Dialectic to dupe the masses during the march toward global totalitarian dictatorship. However, this view just doesn’t hold water.

I think it makes much more sense to view today’s political divisions as the continuation of the primary ideological schism of Western civilization: the long and bloody battle between Catholics and Protestants. For centuries, the Catholic church was The Man, and the Protestants were the original protestors, hence their name. The Jesuits were created and deployed as “God’s Marines” to beat back the protestors, which they did indeed do.

Then Adam Weishaupt founded the Illuminati to recruit allies in his own personal vendetta with the Jesuits at the University of Ingolstadt. The Illuminati quickly became the vanguard of the Protestant battle against the Church. However, Weishaupt was enthralled with the power of the Church, and wanted that power for himself. So he modeled his organization on the Jesuits, and both became different flavors of the same thing: authoritarian power organizations bent on global dominance. Hence the illusion that they are factions of the same conspiracy.

The Illuminati even copied the architecture of the Church. In the first nation that they seized control of, the USA, they reproduced the Womb-and-Phallic Symbol motif of Saint Peter’s Square in Vatican City:

Photo by Andreas Tille  via Wikipedia

Photo by Andreas Tille via Wikipedia.

It worked for the Church, so why not copy the same voodoo in D.C.:

Phallic Washington Monument with Capitol Dome womb.

Phallic Washington Monument
with Capitol Dome womb.

There is pretty good evidence that the Illuminati set-up at Yale University as Skull and Bones. Yale was the Protestant flagship school of the Ivy League. As late as 1970, they had rules to ensure a Protestant (WASP elite) student body.

The Jesuit flagship university is Georgetown in Washington D.C., which is famous for training America’s diplomats. That’s where Democrat Bill Clinton got his Foreign Service degree. One of the most-celebrated events of Deep Politics is when Clinton mentioned his professor, Carroll Quigley, in 1992 during his presidential nomination speech. Conspiracy buffs went wild because Quigley was known for having outed the Anglo-American, Protestant, Skull & Bones cabal in his book, Tragedy & Hope. What did it mean? Clinton was just tweaking his Bonesman opponent, George H. W. Bush.

Was Quigley a Vatican agent publishing dirt on the Illuminati enemy? Maybe. In Tragedy and Hope, a gigantic book, the word “Jesuit” appears exactly one time, on page 1,038 and it is a favorable mention:

“The large number of Catholic men’s colleges in the country, especially those operated by the Jesuits, had as their basic, if often unrecognized, aim the desire to transform the sons of working class, and often of immigrant, origins into middle-class people in professional occupations (chiefly law, medicine, business, and teaching).”

But it looks to me like the Jesuits do the exact opposite: run expensive private schools that cater to rich kids. In any case, surely the Jesuits played a larger historical role than Quigley would have us believe.

Speaking of Bonesman George H.W. Bush, he was also director of the CIA, and the CIA, having recruited numerous Bonesmen, is the ultimate expression of Adam Weishaupt’s Illuminati: a secret society with virtually unlimited resources and power. After World War II, the CIA infiltrated and superseded the Pentagon. The Bay of Pigs, the Vietnam War, Central American death squads, etc. were all CIA projects, and the CIA is still actively trying to take over the world. Weishaupt would be proud.

The Catholic/Protestant conflict has been more of a rivalry than a war in the USA, but there have been violent incidents. For example, in 1834, a Protestant mob burned down a Catholic convent near Boston during the Ursuline Convent Riots.

Quite a lot of violence occurred in the 1980s when CIA-trained death-squads in Central America killed Catholic priests and nuns. The most egregious incident was probably the November 1989 massacre of six Jesuits, their housekeeper and her daughter in El Salvador. The CIA knew about the attack, and didn’t warn the Jesuits, maybe because the CIA had ordered the hit itself.

The Jesuits extracted a measure of revenge when their Christic Institute broke the Iran-Contra scandal. While the Illuminati is far more powerful than the Jesuits today, the Jesuits can still be quite the thorn in the side.

This theory explains the divide between the USA and South America. In the 1700s, the Jesuits were running large operations (“reductions“) in South America, leaving North America open to Illuminati designs. The CIA has campaigned extensively in the Jesuit turf south of the border, but with mixed results, and recently losing ground to the Pink Tide.

Much of what the CIA does is to make the world safe for Rockefeller Oil and the Rockefeller Bank. And in Manhattan, we see the church and the Illuminati glaring at each other across 5th Avenue. On one side is Saint Patrick’s Cathedral, and on the other is Rockefeller Center. The Illuminati deploys a sculpture of Atlas, which resembles Fascist dictator Mussolini. The sculpture also brings to mind the rabid atheist, Ayn Rand, whose book Atlas Shrugged contains numerous anti-God passages. The priests across the street probably fantasize about blowing it up:

Atlas sculpture at Rockefeller Center across the street from Saint Patrick's Cathedral in Manhattan (from Wikipedia.)

Atlas sculpture at Rockefeller Center across the street from Saint Patrick’s Cathedral in Manhattan (from Wikipedia.)

So on one side, we have the Republican, fascist, right wing, conservative, capitalist Illuminati. And on the other, we have the Democratic, communist, left wing, liberal, socialist Church. The Fascists like to persecute poor people. The Communists like to persecute rich people. The Fascists would destroy the world with a rapacious, slaving, robber-baron, monopolistic economy. The Jesuits would destroy the world with an incompetent, backward, chaos of collapsing communism.

Take your pick.

Both sides relish their turn at the controls of an increasingly authoritarian system. And indeed, both work to extend the system. For example, Viet D. Dinh, who wrote the Patriot Act for George W. Bush is now a professor at Georgetown.

So, the two factions collaborate on common interests, and are similarly authoritarian, but make no mistake; these are real factions fighting each other, often savagely.

CBS’s “Under the Dome” Takes an Illuminati Turn

In the first season of CBS’s “Under the Dome” there was just a mysterious dome imprisoning the town of Chester’s Mill.


Now, in the middle of season two, the space-egg informs us that there is also a mysterious obelisk in the nearby town of Zenith:

Under the Dome - s02e07 - 39:53

Under the Dome – s02e07 – 39:53

And we learn that there is a mysterious connection between the Dome and the Obelisk. Dome’s are considered symbolic of the womb, and obelisks are phallic symbols. In the frame above, notice that the directer prominently displayed the thigh-gaps of the female characters, making sure that we get the sexual connotation of the obelisk (click image to enlarge).

This womb/obelisk arrangement is very similar to the architecture of Washington, D.C. In this photo, notice the phallic symbol (the Washington Monument) is connected to the womb symbol (the Capitol Dome) by the National Mall:


So, what were the Illuminized Freemasons (the Founding Fathers) thinking when they constructed the world’s largest obelisk, and a gigantic dome? I don’t know, but perhaps they wanted to summon dark forces and have the symbolic sexual organs create a giant baby who would grow up to be a world-dominating colossus. If so, their black magic worked.

What does this imply for Under the Dome? I haven’t read the Stephen King novel which the show is based on, but people say the show has diverted from the novel anyway. Perhaps the Dome and the Zenith Obelisk will confer super powers on one of the characters who will then invade Iraq, bomb Syria, and start a “color revolution” in Ukraine. After all, the Dome is pretty sinister, and I’m sure that it came to Earth to take over.

Another interesting aspect is that the Dome imprisons the people of Chester’s Mill, a symbol of traditional America, and the people in the Capitol Dome make laws that restrict the people of America. But the Dome sort of takes care of the people too. For example, it lets air and rain through to keep its captives alive.

Monarch butterflies are prominently featured throughout the show, and they are symbolic of Monarch Mind Control brainwashing. And sure enough, brainwashing is the theme used to launch season 3.

Note: The Illuminati stole the “womb and phallic symbol” architecture from the Catholic Church. See what I wrote here.

Charlie Sheen, Vatican Assassin – Mystery Explained

When Charlie Sheen went nuts back in 2011, one of the crazy things he said was that he was a “Vatican Assassin Warlock.” He never explained what that meant, and neither could anybody else, but I have solved the mystery. Sheen makes his Vatican-Assassin comment at the 2:42 mark of this interview:

See more US News from ABC|ABC World News

It turns out that Vatican Assassins is a book written on an Amish farm in 2001 by white separatist Eric Jon Phelps. The Catholics and Protestants have been publishing propaganda against each other for hundreds of years, and Vatican Assassins is a modern edition of that genre.

Phelps believes that WASP culture is responsible for scientific progress and freedom, having broken Western Civilization out of the Dark-Ages death-grip of the authoritarian Catholic Church. Phelps is especially outraged by the machinations of “God’s Marines” – the Jesuits – and wants to kick them out of the USA.

Phelps is hoping that a state will succeed from the union, and if one does, he wants all WASPs to move there and fight against the federal government’s attempt to reel the state back in. He pretty much wants to re-fight the Civil War, and maybe even reinstate slavery. Here is a quote from page 503 of Vatican Assassins:

“As calculated, the Emancipation Proclamation destroyed the Southern culture that generally had been a blessing to the Negroes, in contrast to their barbarism and cannibalism in Africa.”

It was Eric Jon Phelps who called Charlie Sheen a Vatican assassin. Why would he do that? Because Sheen’s father, RamĂłn Antonio Gerardo EstĂ©vez (Martin Sheen) is an activist Catholic (photos here). Martin even took his stage name from show-biz priest Bishop Fulton J. Sheen:

As a militant protestant, Phelps finds Martin Sheen to be an odious Vatican operative. But why does he call them assassins? Well, Phelps believes that the Vatican seized dictatorial control of the USA by assassinating John F. Kennedy. He also believes that that the Jesuits assassinated Abraham Lincoln. At first, that sounds crazy. However, so many Americans believed it to be true that the USA broke off diplomatic relations with the Vatican in 1867. Relations were not re-established until 1984 – 117 years later!

Jesuit history is a lot more interesting than you might expect. And seeing that we have the first-ever Jesuit Pope, you might want to do some reading on the subject. But I don’t recommend Vatican Assassins. I give Phelps an “A” for effort because the book contains an enormous amount of information and photos. But his writing style is atrocious. Half the book is comprised of quotes from other anti-Jesuit propaganda books. Many of the quotes are from Alberto Rivera, an alleged ex-Jesuit who was more likely a simple con man.

Of course, if you are a right-wing, protestant redneck, you will probably love Vatican Assassins. But before you believe anything at all in the book, you need to do your own research because the book is simply not credible.

The most absurd act that Phelps accuses the Jesuits of is founding the Illuminati. Yes, Adam Weishaupt copied the organizational structure of the Society of Jesus, but it is established fact that the Illuminati and the Jesuits were arch-enemies. See this for more.

So, when Charlie Sheen said that he was a “Vatican assassin warlock”, he was mocking Phelps. The “warlock” part was a creative flourish added by Sheen.

Note: I can’t find the reference now, but somewhere Phelps stated that he was supported for three years by an Amish family in Pennsylvania while he was writing Vatican Assassins.

Alex Jones Channels Aleister Crowley

I believe Alex Jones when he says that he despises Aleister Crowley. However, Jones often sounds exactly like him! If you are a Jones fan, prepare to be deprogrammed. In the two quotes below, we see both Jones and Crowley criticizing football (of all things) and frothing about how childish people are (emphasis mine).

Crowley wrote in 1904:

“Consider the popularity of the cinema, the wireless, the football pools and guessing competitions, all devices for soothing fractious infants, no seed of purpose in them. Consider sport, the babyish enthusiasms and rages which it excites, whole nations disturbed by disputes between boys. Consider war, the atrocities which occur daily and leave us unmoved and hardly worried. We are children.”

Jones said 110 years later:

“…the public doesn’t know where Syria is. The public doesn’t know Shiite versus Sunni. They don’t know the basic players. They know the football players. They know who the supermodels are. They know all this stuff that doesn’t matter. People aren’t actually stupid. Their minds and their systems of understanding complexity is in baseball scores. Men will walk up to me, anywhere, the gym, the street, and just go: “Hey, uh, such and such broke the record of the 1942 streak of blah, blah, blah” and they’ll see if I respond back, and I’m just like: “man, I tell ‘ya, I mainly focus on business and politics for factoids and stuff. I used to like baseball…” And they’re always people that don’t care about anything else themselves. Like, the whole country is going to hell in a hand basket, they have no self-preservation because they are arrested-development children whose whole world is about spectating. It’s all “my favorite movies, my favorite shows, my favorite books, fiction, my favorite sports teams” knowing all the male soap opera info. That’s all sports is, is male soap opera. Simulated combat, simulated war, with the generals on the sidelines, and the quarterback is the war chief, the platoon leader, the centurion leader out there leading the forces. They’ve got the armor on. And it’s literally been sold and pushed for hundreds of years, thousands, going back to Rome to steal your entire future.”

Aleister Crowley

Aleister Crowley

Uncanny, no? Is Alex Jones channeling Crowley? Could he be the reincarnation of Crowley? Anything is possible, but my opinion is that both Crowley and Jones are megalomaniacs frustrated by not having enough thralls in their cults of personality.

And Jones didn’t just rant like this once; he does it in almost every episode of his podcast. In fact, he sent a camera crew to the Superbowl just to ridicule football fans in person! They are there as I write. Before you Jones fanatics launch your Civil War and make Jones King of Texas, you should insist that he take a psychopathy test. I bet that he flunks.

The Crowley quote is from his Book of the Law, on page 18, which you can read on Google Books. The Jones quote is “on record” at the 1:12:35 mark of the January 10, 2014 episode of his podcast, which you can download from iTunes for free.

Alex Jones, American Royalty

Alex Jones is certainly the King of Conspiracy, but does Jones have further monarchical ambitions? Consider what he said on his podcast recently:

“My whole family goes back to the Mayflower, both sides. If there is American royalty, I’m it.”

This is especially curious coming from a self-described libertarian, Tea Party guy who regularly praises George Washington for not becoming King of America.

Does Jones aspire to be King of Texas? Or maybe the Duke of Austin? Will the second Civil War be fought by a new monarchy instead of a confederacy? Does Alex Jones have a crown and scepter hidden in his closet that he will break out at the onset of hostilities?

Jones’ claim to royalty is “on record” at the 27:01 mark of the January 5, 2014 podcast of “The Alex Jones Show”, which you can download from iTunes for free.

Alex Jones, Preventer of Knowledge

Alex Jones has sent his reporters to the west coast armed with Geiger counters to detect alleged radiation from Fukushima. But are they actually doing science? Well, consider this: Frank, a nuclear Navy tech called into the show to give his expert opinion:

Frank: “It depends on what type of particle you are detecting. There’s high-energy ones that move fast, there’s slow heavy ones. You have to figure out what it is…

I was very interested to hear what he would say next, presumably something about how that could be done and then how the particles could be traced to their sources. But Jones wasn’t having it. He interrupted:

Jones: “Exactly, and that’s not my job.

Knowledge prevented. Jones went off on one of his tirades and that was the end of it. The idea that the radiation might not becoming from Fukushima went right down the memory hole. The man has iodine to sell, after all.

Actually, the conversation is still “on record” (as Jones like to say). It begins at the 1:26:08 mark of the January 13, 2014 podcast of “The Alex Jones Show”, which you can download from iTunes for free.

Pet Serial Killers of the Elite

Why would anybody employ a serial killer? Well, a rich psychopath couldn’t be expected to get his hands dirty acquiring his own victims, right? Surely such a man should enjoy the convenience of employing a fellow psychopath of lesser means to snatch children off the street on his behalf. But we don’t need to speculate because a rather dramatic example of such a case occurred in Belgium in 1996. Here is a photo of the White March where approximately 300,000 Belgians took to the streets – that’s 3% of the nation’s population:

White March

A protest of similar proportions in the USA would number a massive 9.5 million. Why did the Belgians come so close to overthrowing their government? What were their demands? Well, unlike Occupy Wall Street, the Belgians were not the lest bit confused about what they wanted: they wanted the Belgian elite to call off their pet serial killer who was preying upon their children. The psychopathic pedophile in question was one Marc Dutroux.

In 1986, Dutroux was given a 13.5 year sentence for abducting and raping five young girls. Only three years later, a crooked judge turned him loose, and was rewarded with a promotion to a prestigious position. Shortly after that, Dutroux’s own mother sent a letter to the warden saying that she suspected that Dutroux was once again holding girls captive in his house. The letter was ignored.

Three and a half years later, police finally searched Dutroux’s house. They heard the cries of the girls coming from the dungeon in the basement, but concluded that the voices were coming from the street outside. And Dutroux was allowed to carry on with his grisly business.

Another of the numerous outrageous events occurred after Dutroux was arrested again in 1998. While being brought to the courthouse, police elected not to handcuff him, and Dutroux “overpowered” a cop, took his gun, and “escaped.”

Why was Dutroux treated so leniently? Because he wasn’t selfish. He was “sharing” his victims with members of the Belgian elite who had a taste for raping, torturing, and killing young girls. A government-owned TV station, RTBF, led the propaganda campaign to cover up the conspiracy (read more here in The Guardian).

One of Dutroux’s accomplices told police that girls were “were kidnapped to order, for someone else.” So, not only would Dutroux fetch girls for the elite, but he would do it to their specifications! He would also make snuff films to specification for rich clients – a crime very hard for the real police to detect since there is no public marketing involved.

Dutroux’s victims were used in pedophiliac parties allegedly orchestrated by prominent Belgian businessman, Jean-Michel Nihoul. Politicians, judges, cops, and other important people were invited, secretly filmed, and blackmailed. And that’s why Dutroux got such favorable treatment from the Belgian criminal-justice system, which was obviously run by criminals.

Outrageously, it appears that the photographic evidence of the case was put onto what might be called a “snuff CD” and sent out to the elite. One of the CDs was found in the possession of Belgian Cardinal Godfried Danneels.

Maybe you are thinking that this was a special case; just those crazy Belgians up to high jinks. Well, guess again. Similar cases have occurred in other countries. And while the American people have never had to take to the streets like the Belgians, there have been many suspicious events here.

For example, while George W. Bush was governor of Texas, the state mowed down 152 residents of Death Row. Only one was pardoned: the prolific serial killer Henry Lee Lucas. I reckon something was wrong with his paperwork or something… Funny thing about Lucas: when he was imprisoned in Michigan, he was sent to Ionia State Mental Hospital where he received electroshock therapy. However, the treatment seems to have changed him from a spur-of-the-moment emotional killer, into a cold-blooded killing machine. So, perhaps the electroshock wasn’t treatment after all, but rather training – MK-Ultra assassin training. After the treatment, Lucas was released early because the prisons were “too crowded.”

Serial killer John Wayne Gacy also received lenient treatment from the courts and police early on. When Rob Piest disappeared in 1978, his family wanted the police to investigate Gacy. But the Des Plaines, Illinois police had a habit of treating such missing-persons as runaways. According to David McGowan in his book “Programmed to Kill” (page 179):

“The Piest family quickly grew angry with the police over their handling of the case, and they began threatening to storm the Gacy house. In order to pacify the family and prevent them from acting on their threats, police agreed to begin surveillance of John Gacy.”

Sort of like the Belgians, right? Too bad the Piest family didn’t storm the house and find the bodies; that would have been the stuff of legend.

Like Mark Dutroux, Gacy had extensive knowledge of the sins of the local elite by virtue of having helped to facilitate many of those sins. And he was very well-connected in Democratic circles. Here he is with First Lady Roslyn Carter in May 1978:


And there’s more; lots more. McGowan’s book has a radical thesis: that the stereotypical serial killer is largely a myth designed to camouflage the work of the elite’s criminal employees.

Note: Roslyn Carter probably wasn’t in league with Gacy herself, but the photo shows how it was possible that Gacy got lenient treatment as a “pillar of the community.”

Merry Lucifermas!

Well, it’s that time of year again when Old Man Rockefeller gets a chuckle out of duping Christians into making a pilgrimage to his Luciferian art work. How does he do that? Easy, he installs a giant Christmas tree right above his statue of Prometheus in Rockefeller Center. Thousands of people come to gawk at the tree, not realizing that Prometheus is the Greek counterpart of Lucifer.

While Prometheus was a multifaceted Greek Titan, Rockefeller’s statue depicts Prometheus explicitly in his light-bringing role, and “light bringing” is the Latin translation of “Lucifer.” (click image to enlarge):


Right behind the tree is the Great Architect, the god of the Luciferian, Masonic religion of the elite. This photo shows the Great Architect as the platform for the tree is being built.


David Rockefeller is the Great Architect of the global economy. His “Great Work” was to convert American wealth into trillions of dollars of corporate profits stashed away in the Cayman Islands. Read more in my book.

Support for globalization has never been strong in the USA, and it can be easily reversed. All that is required is that the American people demand that the Rockefeller system of NAFTA, GATT, WTO, etc. be dismantled. And a symbolic gesture could be sent by boycotting Rockefeller’s Tree From Hell.

Boycott the Tree!

Also, look at this image I found on the NBC website. The Rockettes are giving the Heil-Hitler sign to Prometheus! Heil Satan!


Note: This is not a joke. Having 47 million people on food stamps is not a joke; it is the premeditated work of evil people who deliberately sent millions of jobs out of the country.

Note: You don’t have to take my word for Prometheus being a Luciferian character. The idea is widely discussed, and is the subject of a classic work of literary criticism titled “Lucifer and Prometheus” by R.J. Zwi Werblowsky.

What Would a CIA Rock Band Look Like?

No need to speculate; just watch the video below, though I can’t be responsible for damage done to your ears and eyes. This horrifying spectacle was very likely the product of a CIA psy-op directed at the American people. The “musicians” and “dancers”, or more precisely, weirdos, were likely all CIA operatives. Their mission? Keep reading below…

You probably know that the CIA used LSD in their brainwashing projects. And you may have heard that it was the CIA that injected LSD into American society. But you probably never heard why: it was to subvert the student movement protesting the Vietnam War in the 1960s by turning intelligent, informed, politically-active young people into drooling acid junkies.

What happened, apparently, was that the military-industrial complex sent their suns and daughters out to Laurel Canyon in Los Angeles to launch the Hippie movement. And since the kids weren’t very good musicians, they hired a local weirdo named Vito Paulekas to put on a freak-show, literally, to try and rope people into the clubs where the terrible bands were making their screeching noises.

Frank Zappa, the son of a chemical warfare scientist, was the den mother of the project. Jim Morrison’s father commanded an aircraft carrier in the Gulf of Tonkin false-flag operation to kick off the war, etc.

Eventually, they put some decent bands together and an army of zombie-like hippies went forth to eat the brains of students on American campuses. Maybe they prolonged the war for a few years, and helped the military-industrial complex make billions more in war profits.

That’s my synopsis of Dave McGowan’s story: “The Strange but Mostly True Story of Laurel Canyon and the Birth of the Hippie Generation.” McGowan is in the process of expanding his story into a book. However, a big chunk of it is available on numerous websites, and this site is the only one that I found that has the story with the photos, so that’s a good place to read it.

And now I am no longer mystified as to how Zappa got well-known so far out of proportion to his (alleged) musical talent: the CIA was likely twisting arms all throughout show-business to get their bands exposure.

And this amazing story begs the question: how much more of our culture has been designed by the CIA?

The 1% Strikes Back

Recently, music critics have been baffled by the onslaught of Masonic/Satanic/Illuminati symbolism in music videos. For example, here’s Ke$ha throwing up the Illuminati one-eye gang sign at the 1:01 mark of her Die Young video (note the black Illuminati pyramids in the background):


Another artist with a dollar sign in his name, Travi$ Scott, flashes a Masonic compass symbol in his Upper Echelon video (at 5:55):


And there are numerous other examples from the likes of Lady Gaga, Miley Cyrus, Beyonce, etc.

So why is this happening? My theory is that the young people of Occupy Wall Street scared the hell out of the 1%, and the 1% have instructed their media corporations to brainwash said young people into liking them. The 1% are trying to preempt future uprisings by making it cool to be an elitist, Satan-worshiping, fascist psychopath. They are trying to effect a religious conversion via mass media.

Will it work? I doubt it. Imagine that a McDonald’s wage slave embraces the Illuminati. Will her life actually be improved? Will she not participate in future fast-food strikes because she will not want to displease her dark masters? Color me skeptical.

There is little to recommend in the elite’s weird religious beliefs. I would be shocked if they were ever embraced by large numbers of normal people. On the other hand, they have already succeeded in making their Masonic black-and-white gang colors fashionable. But that isn’t really all that difficult; Lucky Strike made the color green popular in the 1930s (story here). Here’s singer Robin Thicke sporting Illuminati gang colors:


This campaign will almost certainly fail. As a I pointed out in my book, the society that the “upper echelon” has architected for us with their Masonic compass is built upon quicksand and has brought mass poverty to America. The Illuminati thinks it can make slaves love their servitude by throwing occult symbols at them in music videos and movies.

Note to Illuminati: Good luck with that.

The U.S. Flag Conspiracy

The Grand Union Flag, or The Continental Colors, was our first flag adopted in 1775. It was used until June 14, 1777 – nearly a year after the Declaration of Independence:


Looks sort-of British, right? Which is weird because we were fighting the British. So why would we adopt a British-looking flag? Seems crazy… But our first flag was almost exactly the same as that of the British East India Company (BEIC):


The BEIC used several different flags during its existence, but this is the one they were using at the time of the American Revolution. They were ruling India at the time, and it is important to remember that India’s First War of Independence was fought against the BEIC – a corporation – not the British Monarchy.

Why did the Founding Fathers adopt the flag of a corporation instead of inventing something more noble? Nobody seems to know for sure. (A very detailed discussion of the subject can be found here.) However, it does make sense when you consider that many people believe the American Revolution and the French Revolution were Illuminati/Masonic projects designed to wrest power away from monarchs and turn it over to bankers.

So, did things go wrong for the USA right from the very start? Is this why we are ruled by too-big-to-jail bankers who claim to be doing “God’s Work?” Is that what we got in exchange for not establishing a monarchy? After all, the taxes the British Monarchy put on the colonists were nothing compared to modern taxation – not to mention all the debt accumulated from bailing out the “godly” bankers.

We Americans like to show our disdain for royalty, but I’ll bet that plenty of us would vote to switch to a monarchy if we could also switch back to a 1776 level of taxation.

Ironically, the Loyalists had the last laugh in 2008 when our banking system collapsed, but Canada’s did not. There never was a Canadian Revolution and Canada is a far better-managed nation than the USA. So, who’s to say that they didn’t make the better decision?

A myth?

A myth?

Scholars seem to agree that the idea that Betsy Ross designed our flag is a myth. The Ross myth was created for the bicentennial in 1876 as an inspiration for girls. The Betsy Ross flag was real, of course, but why the creation of a myth 100 years later? As a burgeoning empire, perhaps the official history if the USA had to be punched-up a bit. After all, the colonists weren’t exactly wild about the idea of a revolution, and General Washington had to spend half of his time begging for money. A power struggle between oligarchs and monarchs isn’t terribly inspirational, now is it?

Don’t get me wrong. I love Robert G. Heft’s design for our current flag:


The way the stars and stripes march across the canvas in orderly rows, as if they just came off an assembly line, is the perfect design for an industrial nation. Of course, now that we have moved so much of our industrial base to Mexico and China, perhaps this beautiful “machined” look is not as much of a perfect fit as it used to be. And it also still looks a bit too much like the BEIC flag. So, should it be changed? Perhaps.

In response to the Great Depression, one of the things that we did was to cage the bankers with the Glass–Steagall Act. It was a great success. But like the Joker escaping from Arkham Asylum, the bankers have weaseled out from under the rule-of-law and are running rampant once again.

Over the years, we forgot how important financial regulation was, and a new cult of anarchy sprang up and deified the bankers. Now, suppose that we are able to re-cage the bankers in the coming years. What would stop us from forgetting again in a few decades? So, it would be good to have a reminder. Not just an Act of Congress, but a tangible, physical reminder that couldn’t be missed. Like a new Mount Rushmore, or maybe a new flag.

Changing the flag would symbolize an historic move away from oligarchy, and back toward the ideal of the middle-class American Dream that we achieved so briefly in the 1950s. And every time somebody looked at the new flag, they would be reminded of how our civilization nearly collapsed in 2008, and how the bankers must be kept in the asylum in perpetuity.

What would a new flag look like? I don’t know, but for some ideas, look at the 50 state flags, except for Hawaii! (click image to enlarge):


The Seychelles also have a beautiful flag:


The Illuminati is not Trying to Kill You

This is a staple in the conspiracy community: that the Illuminati is Malthusian and is scheming to kill us off, perhaps marching us into FEMA camps, or poisoning us with tainted flu vaccines. But a simple look at the facts shows that anybody promulgating this theme is a BS artist.

Since 1975, 30.8 million legal immigrants have been brought into the USA. Mass immigration is official U.S. policy, and has been for decades. They are growing the population as fast as politically feasible, and American oligarchs like Bill Gates are campaigning for even faster growth via “open” immigration.

The fact is that the Oligarchy is envious of China and India, and yearns for the day when they too can have a billion starving slaves willing to work like dogs for $2 per hour – right here in the USA. And they are making it happen; population-wise the USA is now in the #3 position with a solid lead over #4 Indonesia.

Ironically, most conspiracy guys are libertarians who support mass immigration. They are either willing pawns of the Oligarchy, or useful idiots.

The moral of the story is, acquire some actual knowledge of what is happening, and the best way to do that is to read my book: Dark Arts of the American Oligarchy. Also look at my population vs. food stamps chart in the previous post.

James Altucher’s House Conspiracy

Why did Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak have to start-up Apple Computer in the Jobs-family’s garage? Why don’t suburban American houses have workshops for that sort of thing?

Because of a conspiracy, that’s why.

Last year, James Altucher created controversy when he wrote: “Why I Am Never Going to Own a Home Again“. Said James:

“Lets spell out very clearly why the myth of home-ownership became religion in the United States. Its because corporations didn’t want their employees to have many job choices. So they encouraged them to own homes. So they can’t move away and get new jobs. Job salaries is a function of supply and demand. If you can’t move, then your supply of jobs is low.”

I don’t have any evidence for a labor-mobility conspiracy, however about 25 years ago, I read a very interesting article about the design of suburban houses. The author stated that mortgages guaranteed by the various agencies of the federal government would not be approved for houses that had workshops or pantries.

If you have a workshop, then maybe you can make yourself a nice chair instead of buying it from Sears. And if you have a pantry, maybe you can grow some food in the back yard and store it over the winter, saving on grocery bills.

American retailers frowned upon such activity, so they hired lobbyists and got rules installed to prevent the construction of houses that were too self-sufficient to their taste.

Sure, many people put workbenches in their garages, but in my suburb that was only a few feet of space. And when you consider how entrepreneurial the American people have been throughout their history, the lack of workshop space is very surprising.

In a second post, Altucher wrote:

“…it’s a fact that many early factories would often provide housing for their employees and then charge them for the ‘rent’ and deduct it from their salaries. This was a standard technique only 100 years ago.”

To this I would add that you don’t have to go back 100 years. Just last year, Hershey was housing workers in Pennsylvania. They docked the rent from paychecks such that some workers were taking ‘home’ only $1 per hour. See the post I wrote here. And only a few years ago, the garment industry housed thousands of Asian girls in squalid barracks in Saipan, which is American soil. See the post I wrote here.

Altucher’s larger point is dead-on: a good deal of our culture is shaped by the sneaky machinations of commercial interests.

Note: The world has changed since the American suburbs were built. Today, you can produce things like software, websites, and other virtual goods without a workshop filled with power-tools. So, that’s a change for the better – at least until we are all using tablets.

Note: My grandmother used to can tomatoes that my grandfather grew in their large backyard. The local supermarket lost out on a lot of Ragu sales.

Note: It was a long time ago, but I think I read that article in Chronicles Magazine.

Note: If anybody knows more about this subject, please let me know. I would ask the famous “housing historian”, Newt Gingrich, but I can’t afford the million-dollar fees that he was charging Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The Kremlin ♥ Libertarians

Did you know that the very first conspiracy book published on the JFK assassination was written by a KGB agent? Here it is:

That’s a photo of my copy. Maybe it will become a valuable collector’s item one day, but I doubt it. The fact is that the libertarian/conspiracy community fights tooth and claw to protect the Russians and their role in the assassination. So this book has been swept under the rug and will likely remain there. But if you want to buy a copy, there are a few available from Amazon.

And the Russians are still busy publishing anti-American propaganda. The Kremlin even has its own TV network now. The Wikipedia page on RT says:

“According to a variety of sources such as Der Spiegel and Reporters Without Borders, the channel presents pro-Kremlin propaganda.”

And RT loves libertarians like Lew Rockwell. Just look at this revolting display as this Rockwell buffoon lauds Russia and bashes the USA while discussing the Libyan civil war:

Is Rockwell a Libya expert? Not hardly. RT has him on because they can count on him to bash America without a script. The Kremlin just laps this up; they can’t get enough:

Rockwell “hopes” that the Russians can help with a diplomatic resolution in Libya. Can you imagine? Maybe Rockwell wants Vladimir Putin to apply the same “diplomatic” solution that he used on Georgia in 2008.

Rockwell says that President Obama is committing an “act of naked aggression.” But that is hardly the case. It was the Libyan people who started this fight, trying to throw off their dictator. Mr. Libertarian frowns upon that.

Rockwell says that President Obama is a terrorist. But Obama didn’t do anything at all until Kadafi was about to sack the rebel capital of Benghazi. Clearly, Obama only stepped in to prevent that, and reluctantly so.

Note to Rockwell: How would you feel if you organized a protest down there in Auburn, and President Obama flew in African mercenaries to break it up? Sort of like this:

I know that you were looking forward to that scene being replicated on a much larger scale in Benghazi, but it doesn’t look like you will get your wish now. (End of note to Rockwell).

Of course, what Rockwell says is of no consequence. But I point it out because this is further proof that a libertarian like Ron Paul would be a disaster as a president. These libertarians simply cannot think clearly, or objectively. And they are way too eager to side with our enemies.

Circling back to JFK, on July 24, 2010, Rockwell published a story (no longer on his website) about “The Speech that got JFK Killed”. Supposedly, JFK gave a speech criticizing the CIA, and got himself killed for it. But when I tracked down the speech, and read the whole thing, instead of a few quotes taken out of context, I found that it was the exact opposite of what Rockwell was claiming.

The full text of the speech is below. I would summarize it like this: Kennedy gave the speech to The American Newspaper Publishers Association, whose members had been doing stories about various government top-secret projects. Kennedy simply said to them: “I know government secrecy is a bad thing, but could you please ease up on us a bit so we can win this Cold War and defeat the Soviets?”

You see? Kennedy was actually asking the media to help the CIA.

Not only is Rockwell a buffoon, but he has no journalistic credibility either.

Note: The claim that the book up at the top was written by a KGB agent is made by former Soviet intelligence officer Ion Mihai Pacepa. He says it was part of the KGB’s “Operation Dragon”, which also initiated the “Lydon Johnson Did It” conspiracy theory.

On April the 27th, 1961, Kennedy made the speech below to the “American Newspaper Publishers Association” at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City. Kennedy’s failed “Bay of Pigs” invasion of Cuba had just occurred 10 days prior, on April 17-19th. So, that is what JFK is referring to when he says: “events of recent weeks.”

The speech:

“Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the “lousiest petty bourgeois cheating.”

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight “The President and the Press.” Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded “The President Versus the Press.” But those are not my sentiments tonight.

It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.

If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.

It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one’s golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.

My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future–for reducing this threat or living with it–there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security–a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President–two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country’s peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of “clear and present danger,” the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public’s need for national security.

Today no war has been declared–and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger,” then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions–by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security–and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation’s foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation’s covert preparations to counter the enemy’s covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said–and your newspapers have constantly said–that these are times that appeal to every citizen’s sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: “Is it news?” All I suggest is that you add the question: “Is it in the interest of the national security?” And I hope that every group in America–unions and businessmen and public officials at every level– will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation–an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people–to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well–the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers–I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed–and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment– the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply “give the public what it wants”–but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news–for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security–and we intend to do it.

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world’s efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press–to the recorder of man’s deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news–that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.”

The Great Pipeline Conspiracy

Why, may I ask, must I be subjected to endless babbling about the Strait of Hormuz whenever something happens in Sandland? My life would be so much more peaceful if certain idiots would just BUILD SOME DAMN PIPELINES ALREADY!

Look at this map of North Africa (click to enlarge). See all those pipelines? They go right under the Mediterranean and up to Europe. Fancy that.

Map by SĂ©mhur.

That’s how civilized people do business. Say what you want about Moammar Kadafi, but the green line on the map is the Italian Greenstream gas pipeline which transports Libyan natural gas to Sicily. Nice and neat. No fuss, no muss. No pirates hijacking tankers there.

The red line is the proposed 2,500 mile Trans-Saharan gas pipeline, which will go all the way down to Nigeria. Quite a project, no?

But apparently it is impossible to build pipelines to circumvent the Strait of Hormuz. Funny how that works.

A long time ago, L. Fletcher Prouty said that the Arab-Israeli wars were orchestrated to destroy pipelines, force oil onto ships, and through the Strait of Hormuz. The more precarious the delivery system, the easier it is to stage a crisis and get the price of oil up. Was he right? I don’t know, but you have to admit, the pipelines are rather conspicuous in their absence.

But that wasn’t always the case. Did you know that there was once a pipeline that took Saudi oil up to the Mediterranean coast? The Trans-Arabian Pipeline was the largest in the world at the time, but is now shut down.

When the Israelis captured the section of the pipeline that ran through the Golan Heights in 1967, they allowed it to continue operating. According to Wikipedia, the pipeline was closed down due to bickering between Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria.

What about pipelines across Saudi Arabia to the Red Sea, or down to the Arabian Sea? Here is a story about a giant program to build no less than 5 such pipelines, and train up a Saudi army dedicated to protecting them. What became of it? I don’t know. I spent an hour googling around, but couldn’t find a single word on the subject beyond the original story which was published by DEBKAfile. Not only that, but I couldn’t find the original article on Debka’s site.

Sometimes I get the feeling that Google is hiding information.

With their nuclear reactors melting down, the Japanese need to buy even more oil from the Arabs, just when a Sunni/Shiite religious war is brewing. Pipelines, of course, aren’t invulnerable, but a few extra ones would come in handy right about now, would they not?

Socialite Spies

Media pundits have been making jokes about the Russian spies recently rounded-up by the FBI. But are such “socialite” spies really harmless?

Consider one such spy: George de Mohrenschildt. In 1962, he knocked on the door of US Navy Admiral Henry C. Bruton and told Bruton’s wife that a friend of his used to own their house. He became a friend of the family, and spent a good deal of time visiting. One day he brought a friend with him. You may have heard of him: Lee Harvey Oswald.

As you probably know, Oswald was not a “socialite” type of spy. He was more of a “shoot you in the head” type. Oswald didn’t assassinate Admiral Bruton, and didn’t pursue the contact to see what intel he could acquire for the KGB. However, this story gives a good example of how Russian socialite spies may operate: they provide contacts and logistical support for the hard-core spies.

For example, if Khrushchev had approved Oswald’s assassination of President Kennedy, de Mohrenschildt may have provided Oswald with a better rifle than the $20 piece of junk that Oswald bought himself. Or de Mohrenschildt may have assisted Oswald with a better escape plan than hopping onto a city bus as Oswald did.

And the FSB (formerly the KGB) is not done assassinating people. While they are not likely to shoot you in the head these days, they are not above injecting you with a bit of plutonium as they did to Alexander Litvinenko in 2006. Did socialite spies in London assist with that assassination? It’s a very good possibility.

Note: the dose of polonium-210 that killed Litvinenko probably cost $2-$3 million, and it is normally used to trigger nuclear bombs.

Oswald and the CIA (and the KGB)

If you believe that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for the CIA and/or FBI, then you will like John Newman’s book: “Oswald and the CIA” which is available from The book is a very thorough and detailed examination of the formerly secret files on Oswald that the government has been forced to release. The book does not contain any wild BS from the crazy people who litter the JFK assassination landscape. So, I regard it as a credible source as to what our intelligence agencies thought of Oswald.

However, I just don’t see any compelling evidence. There are a couple of CIA memos expressing “operational interest” in Oswald, but perhaps they suspected him of being a KGB agent and wanted to “double” him. And there is quite a bit of hard evidence that Oswald was, in fact, a KGB agent. For example, this note which Oswald wrote in Russian:

The translation can be found here in the Warren Commission Report (pages 183-184). The note contains instructions to Oswald’s wife, Marina, as to what she should do in the event that Oswald was captured after his attempt to assassinate General Edwin Walker.

Item #9 isn’t shown in the image above, however it read: “The Red Cross also will help you.” Oswald also wrote in his diary that he was getting money from the “Red Cross” while living in the Soviet Union.

Sounds odd, right? But it makes sense now that former Soviet intelligence officer Ion Mihai Pacepa has revealed that “Red Cross” was a KGB code word that agents used when discussing money from the KGB.

And the fact that Marina would understand what “Red Cross” meant points to her being KGB also.

Now, you could say that all of the KGB-agent type things that Oswald did were just a part of his CIA cover, but I think that is pretty long stretch. And why exactly, may I ask, would Oswald be trying to shoot a good old boy like General Walker if he were CIA?

Oswald may have indeed been a patsy in the JFK assassination, but the theory that he was a US intelligence agent seems much weaker than the case for him working for the KGB.

L. Fletcher Prouty

U.S. Air Force Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty will probably be remembered by history as one of the architects of the secret government. His job at the Pentagon was to provide the CIA with the military resources needed to carry out its clandestine operations. Prouty created a secret network of agents throughout the military, government agencies such as the FBI and FAA, and foreign governments.

Originally, all of this work was legitimate as part of US Cold War policy. And Prouty did in fact turn down CIA requests when they had not been previously approved by the National Security Council. But it wasn’t long before the monster that Prouty helped to build took on a life of its own.

After assisting the CIA with many coups d’Ă©tat around the world, Prouty was shocked to see what he considered to be the same methods applied to President John F. Kennedy right here in the USA. Prouty, who presumably did not want to work for a CIA puppet regime, resigned from the Air Force shortly after the assassination and began to write books.

Prouty’s first book, “The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World” is available to read for free on this website. His second book, “JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy” is available from Amazon. I recommend them both.

You will also find plenty of interesting things to read on My favorite page on the site is the one with the JFK assassination pictures (click the “Photos” link on the left). Prouty believed that Air Force General Ed Lansdale was the mastermind of the assassination. Lansdale was actually the CIA’s top “regime changer” and was only covered as an Air Force man. For example, in 1955 Lansdale installed Ngo Dinh Diem as dictator of South Vietnam for the CIA.

Prouty worked closely with Lansdale in the Pentagon for years, but Prouty was also a pilot. He flew many clandestine missions, some of which included Lansdale and his team. While Prouty has his critics, he was in fact a practitioner. He was there. He knew where the bodies were buried. Literally. His version of this part of the USA’s history must be taken seriously.

Lee Harvey Oswald
Prouty, not being a trained scholar, was frequently reckless with facts while striving to drive his points home. For example, while arguing that Lee Harvey Oswald was just a patsy, Prouty wrote on page 308 of his “JFK” book that at the time of the assassination Oswald:

“…was a nondescript twenty-four year-old ex-marine who was unknown to almost everyone. There is no way one can believe that these press agencies had in their files, ready on call, all of the detailed information that was so quickly poured out in those first hours after the assassination.”

In reality, Oswald was a rather notorious traitor for having defected to the Soviet Union. While he was in Moscow, American reporters interviewed him and the American press published stories on him. Not only did the media have plenty of information in their files, but Oswald was watched by several intelligence agencies, including the CIA and FBI, who had mounds of information about Oswald.

This doesn’t disprove Prouty’s assertion that Oswald was a patsy, but it does open Prouty up to criticism. Lansdale had sent Prouty off to Antarctica, literally, during the assassination, so Prouty had no first-hand knowledge of what happened. So, when reading Prouty, I trust his description of events that he participated in, but google assertions such as the one above to see if they can be verified.

Soft on Communism?
Prouty has been criticized for being soft on communism and maybe even a sympathizer. And it is true that Prouty barely even mentioned communism. One of the reasons for this is that the USA and Soviet Union were close allies during World War Two and Prouty didn’t see any reason whey the two nations should immediately become enemies. He also flew missions over Russia and saw first-hand the devastation caused by the war. He didn’t think that the Russians were in any kind of condition to launch a war against the USA.

Furthermore, at he very bedrock of Prouty’s criticism of the CIA is his assertion that the CIA’s special forces doctrine was based upon Mao’s Little Red Book. So, the CIA-trained Green Berets who were sent into Vietnam had been trained to believe that setting up a dictatorship was the most effective way to stop communism. That “exporting dictatorship” doctrine was implemented all over the world, and I doubt that many Americans are proud of it.

Prouty also did not believe that wars such as Vietnam were fought for ideological reasons, but to make profits for the military-industrial complex, and to capture markets for Corporate America. “Fighting Communism” was just a cover story.

Compared to World War Two, the history of the Vietnam War seems all fuzzy and blurry. What exactly was the problem there? Prouty’s take is very interesting: it was a CIA project to help the military-industrial complex make a lot of money. CIA puppet Diem expelled the “imperialist” Frenchmen who were operating the criminal-justice system in South Vietnam. That left the villages with no police or courts. Then Diem expelled the “communist” Chinese merchants who were just there to buy rice. That destroyed the economy of the villages. The previously prosperous peasants suddenly had no way to market their crops, and no money to by necessities such as drinking water. They turned to banditry. The CIA designated them “communists” and Huey helicopter gunships were sent in to slaughter them.

It is also interesting that the most intense “communist activity” took place in the southern part of the country. You would think that the hot spot would have been up north, with guerrillas sneaking across the border from North Vietnam. Prouty explains this mystery: After World War Two ended, CIA transport aircraft, along with US Navy ships, relocated very large numbers of peasants from North Vietnam to the southern part of South Vietnam. They became bandits too. Prouty says that CIA “psychological warfare specialists” (a.k.a. terrorists) were deployed to North Vietnam to “inspire” this mass migration. Once a large number of refugees were introduced, and the economy smashed, South Vietnam was set up to make fat profits for American defense contractors.

The Cabal
Prouty asserts that there is a grand cabal that commands governments of the world. While he has been criticized for this, he is only using Winston Churchill’s phrase. Churchill is said to have complained bitterly about the cabal in private conversation during World War Two. That was before President Dwight Eisenhower made his military-industrial complex speech. Notice that Eisenhower gave that warning during his farewell speech at the end of his presidency. Perhaps Eisenhower knew what he was dealing with better than the next president, JFK, who vowed to “break the CIA into a million pieces” while still in office.

Ancient History?
Perhaps you are thinking that this is all ancient history? But take a look at this video where former Governor of Minnesota Jesse Ventura states that he was grilled by CIA agents in 1998. What did he do wrong? He was elected by the people of Minnesota. Apparently, the CIA still frowns upon democracy.

More on the Cabal
Churchill is said to have received loans from the Rothchild banking family, so perhaps they are who he had in mind when complaining about the cabal. And before her death in 1849, Gutle Schnaper, wife of Mayer Amschel Rothschild, said “If my sons did not want wars, there would be none.”

I couldn’t google-up any formal references for these two items, so they could be phony. However, Prouty tells a similar story regarding Vietnam: Before the war, CIA agent Frank Hand sent a banker to talk to Prouty about helicopters. First National Bank of Boston then financed Textron’s takeover of Bell Helicopter and made a fortune selling choppers to the CIA. Says Prouty:

One year earlier, in 1959, Frank Hand had directed a Boston banker to my office. At that time I worked in the Directorate of Plans in Air Force headquarters and my work was top secret. Few of my contemporaries in the Pentagon knew that I was in charge of a global U.S. Air Force system created for the dual purpose of providing Air Force support for the CIA and for protecting the best interests of the USAF while performing that task. My door was labeled simply, “Team B”; yet that Boston banker knocked and entered with assurance. Somehow he knew what my work was and he knew that I might be able to help him.

So, there you have it: a modern eyewitness account of the cabal in action: a banker helping to start a stupid war just to profiteer. See the bottom of this page for Prouty’s complete story.