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.

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.

---

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: While Rockwell’s article is gone, here is a mention of it just so you know that I’m not making this up.

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.”

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 Sémhur.

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?

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.

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 Amazon.com. 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.

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’état 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 www.prouty.org. 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.

Vietnam
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.