Sunday, September 23, 2012

CIA


Origin and Function of the CIA: The "Cult of Intelligence"

The CIA was created at the outset of the Cold War by Truman's National Security Act of 1947. That Act was a response to Yalta, and to the general pervasive fear that, after WW II, the greatest threat to world peace was the communists. The CIA was mostly formed out of the reorganized OSS (Office of Strategic Services) which coordinated espionage and intelligence activities against the Nazis. (However, anti-communism was an overarching concern for the new agency, which enlisted some of its old enemies against a previous ally: many former Nazis functionaries, such as Richard Gehlen, were enlisted into the CIA spy network in Eastern Europe.) The mission the CIA was expressly charged with was the centralization and coordination of all the data from the intelligence agencies of the government - namely, those associated with the branches of the military service; and after 1952, the National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Reconaissance Office, and the intelligence activities of the Atomic Energy Commission, State Department, Treasury Department, and Justice Department.

The CIA was also granted in 1952 sweeping "other" powers besides merely the gathering of intelligence. And despite the fact that it was created for that purpose, due to counterintelligence and countermeasures, the CIA has only been able to get minor information, mostly from serendipitous occasions, such as getting their hands on a defector that was not a "plant." Despite the glamourizations of the spy trade in James Bond movies, the truth is that field operatives can only get so much information on troop movements, weapons stockpiles, and the intentions of foreign leaders. For that reason, the CIA has relied ever increasingly on electronic techniques; but spy sattelites, wiretaps, and spy planes are subject to electronic (and other) countermeasures. It has often been demonstrated in the past that the CIA took intelligence and distorted it to support the policy inclinations of its Director or the current Commander-in-Chief, sometimes with disastrous consequences. Reams of data are collected by the agency every day, much more than anyone can ever process, and no one coordinates what to do with the humongous piles of uncracked ciphers and unprocessed intelligence.
Perhaps because of the limitations of 'intelligence,' or in spite of them, the CIA has chosen to excel in an entirely different area: covert operations. The CIA has become a secret branch of the President's foreign policy apparatus, able to act where he cannot do things openly, because the CIA does not have to answer questions from the press. All agents agree that, when necessary, they will lie to anyone, including Congressional Oversight committees, in the interests of 'national security.' This policy, called "plausible denial," goes hand-in-hand with the fact that every agent must sign a contract agreeing not to reveal anything 'sensitive' that they learned during their service without the CIA's prior consent. To the "imperial presidency", the CIA became seen as a 'can-do' agency, because unlike any other part of the government, they had full control over their own budget and operations - they answered to nobody. This is part of what Victor Marchetti called the 'theology of national security,' maintained through the 'cult of intelligence.' It is a theology of salvation through duty to country - and adherents of the ritual believe all sins may be forgiven them.
The CIA has always maintained that all its secrecy and "clandestine mentality" are part of its efforts to keep vital secrets out of the hands of America's enemies. They claim that disclosure of their activities might jeopardize agents in the field and also destroy many important efforts of foreign policy, because CIA-controlled foreign agents would be revealed as such to their own people. As far as they are concerned, freedom of the press and freedom of information take a back seat, because any secrets given up are secrets betrayed into the hands of the enemy. Of course, to many others, all this secrecy is just a way for the CIA to hide its activities from the criticism of the American people, in the name of national security. But the art of the spook trade is like a poker game: know as much as you can about your enemy while giving the least away. In a world where anybody can be working for the other side - and paranoia is never in short supply in the halls of Langeley - you can't trust anybody, and anything is fair game. "Black operations" are necessary, 'cause we gotta do it to 'em before they do it to us. That is the commandment at the heart of the cult of intelligence and its spookly apostles.
The CIA, whose chief sphere of operations during the Cold War was to be the Soviet Union and China, made much of its actual focus the developing or "Third World." It was there that the CIA flexed its political muscle, recruited its hired hands, and interfered in other peoples' business, all the while pretending to be aiming its operations against the other threatening "superpowers." Unfortunately, the KGB was as good at the game as the CIA, and for that reason the CIA was never able to score very many successes in either the intelligence or covert operations field - which is why they made the Third World, an area the U.S. has always been better at pushing around, their chief focus of activity. Most Third World nations were no real security threat to the United States, but the CIA could always claim that there was the danger of their falling into the "Soviet sphere of influence." The CIA's goals in the developing world were really based on other factors: strategic interests (military bases, listening posts, naval ports), material interests (natural resources and trade goods), and economic interests (protecting the property of multinational U.S. corporations such as United Fruit, IT&T, and Exxon.) Democracy and freedom necessarily took a back seat.
Here on Our Shores: Domestic Operations
Despite its mandate to handle 'foreign' threats, the CIA has never kept its hands off domestic groups right here in the U.S. Its policy of persecution of such groups has always been based from the belief that they are the tools of foreign manipulation. And why not? If the CIA was manipulating Eastern European organizations during the rebellions of the Prague Spring, it figured the KGB was just as likely to be behind the revolutionary groups here in the U.S. Finding those links pointing to Soviet support was a pretty hard task (because there were none), but it never kept the Agency from its dirty work. Despite the fact that some of the groups, like the Trotskyist SWP, openly eschewed Soviet communism, the CIA could never accept the fact that such organizations were "homegrown" developments of dissent and discontent. They had to be getting their financing from abroad, thought the spookmasters...

During the late 60s, the CIA frequently recruited young men to infiltrate 'subversive' (generally antiwar) groups as agents provocateurs . These infiltrators were to try and agitate the groups and get them to surrender their nonviolent tactics for more militant ones. As part of the joint COINTELPRO effort with the FBI, the CIA maintained wiretaps, 'bugging' devices, hidden tape recorders, and other gimmicks for the invasion of privacy at the premises of the meeting places of many of these groups. Files were maintained on important (but potentially 'threatening') citizens such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Tom Hayden. Anybody who was a potential troublemaker of whistleblower soon would discover how the CIA used its relationship with other government agencies (such as the IRS)... and find his or her credit rating slashed, employee record blacklisted, bank account frozen, incoming mail opened, and careers ruined. If they were authors, they might soon discover publishers avoiding them like the Plague; if they were film directors or producerers, they might find their projects suddenly 'cancelled.' You tangle with the Company at your own peril.
The groups that the COINTELPRO effort targeted primarily were the Socialist Workers' Party, the Black Panther Party, and the Young Communist League. Radical, revolutionary, militant, and communist organizations were the initial targets; but liberal, socialist, pacifist, and reformist groups (like Ralph Nader's) often found themselves under scrutiny as well. Often immigrants to the U.S. were monitored for possible ideological or other connections to 'hostile' foreign governments or to 'terrorist' organizations, and lost their right of residency (and speech) in the U.S. when they were suspected of 'un-American' sentiments. (Nixon's "plumbers" squad had some former CIA men on it, and they focused primarily on Nixon's real and perceived enemies, including columnist Jack Anderson, who received death threats.) The CIA found clever ways of discrediting organizations (such as the American Indian Movement) by 'framing' their leaders for crimes they did not commit or creating false trails to violent incidents and terrorist organizations.
"Center for International Assassination": Attempts on Poltical Leaders
The assassination attempts that the CIA made on Fidel Castro in the 1960s - including using a poisoned cigar and Cuban exile 'hit squads' like Alpha 66 - are fairly well known. But the CIA has tried to kill other foreign leaders - in direct violation of the Geneva Convention and other articles of international law - when it felt them to be a sufficient 'threat' to U.S. interests. Other attempted victims included President Nasser of Egypt and Kim Il Sung of North Korea in the 1950s. The CIA provided names of prominent members of the Communist party of Indonesia in the 1960s to paramilitary forces under General Suharto, who killed some 60,000. In a similar operation called Project Phoenix, the CIA and South Vietnamese security forces may have killed some 12,000 VietCong leaders in North and South Vietnam. Prominent terrorists, such as Abu Nidal, have been on the CIA's 'hit list' for a long time, but they are tough 'marks' for killing due to their great mobility. The reason why many of us haven't heard much of this is that the CIA is not above murdering journalists, when that becomes necessary.

But did the CIA conspire to kill U.S. officials right here at home? Might they have even murdered a president? Jim Garrison's investigation of the Kennedy Assassination revealed many potential links between the CIA, Cuban exiles, and the Mafia, who all hated Kennedy for different reasons. Richard Helms finally admitted in 1974 that one part of Garrison's investigation, Clay Shaw, was indeed a CIA operative. The CIA hated Kennedy because in one of his executive orders, he issued a presidential directive to put the CIA under joint military and civilian control. In the wake of the bay of pigs fiasco, Kennedy threatened to seek detente with the USSR and Cuba, and "break the CIA into a thousand pieces." It is clear that the CIA knew Oswald pretty well, enough to be sending him money some months before November 1963; and other principals in the Garrison investigation had connections, as well. Jack Ruby may have helped the CIA run guns into Cuba on some trips there, and Guy Banister was with the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), which often worked closely with the CIA. If there was a conspiracy to kill the President, then the CIA was almost surely part of it. Some "assassination researchers" have also found curious CIA links to the King and Robert Kennedy, Jr. slayings, as well, where there are some hints of suspicious activity.
The CIA rarely dirties its own hands with something as messy and jeopardizing as assassination. Often, mercenaries and contract agents are maintained for such actions. When the CIA does get personally involved, it tries to make the death of the victim appear to be as much of an 'accident' as possible, through the use of poisons and other 'invisible' techniques. Weapons training of all kinds is standard for field operatives, but the best of the black ops are trained in the more subtle means of killing. The preferred method for killing foreign leaders is to get their own countrymen to pull off the execution - then the CIA can attempt to wash its hands of the whole matter. Thus, the CIA trains, advises, and equips many of the paramilitary 'death squads' of El Salvador and Guatemala, while claiming to have nothing to do with them. There are often very few international inquiries into the deaths of guerilla leaders, no matter how suspicious the circumstances...
The Search for the Manchurian Candidate: Mind Control Research
Ostensibly, the agency began its MKULTRA project with the search for nothing more than the perfect truth serum. Such a drug would set intelligence light years ahead, and deal with the headaches posed by defectors, spies, and double agents. In its quest for The "Truth Drug", the CIA would use in the 1950s just about every chemical that the counterculture would turn to a decade later - Albert Hoffman's LSD, Gordon Wasson's 'Magic Mushroom' psilocybin, and marijuana. It was thought that such drugs could 'destabilize' the personality enough to elicit confessions or even whole changes of belief structures (deprogramming.) Then came the revelations from Korea of American soldiers producing taped confessions renouncing "the wars of imperialist regimes" and their citizenship. A Miami Herald article written by a CIA disinformant attempted to solve the mystery of how red-blooded American boys could turn against their country. And it coined a new word taken from a Korean translation: "brainwashing."

The CIA had always used the same methods of coercion as the KGB: sexual entrapment; blacklisting; 'framing' people for uncommitted crimes; or outright physical torture.  But there was no foolproof method for assuring that confessions were true; no polygraph test was 100% certain, and even then the information could be 'planted.' Along with the technological supremacy of the United States came a belief in the omnipotence of science. So the CIA was eager to test the powers of technology in new realms. Spy sattelites and electronic bugs were great information gatherers. But the realm of 'human intelligence' still demanded more innovations. Further, new chemical agents could facilitate covert warfare: the CIA thought that "dusting" a crowd with LSD could pacify them; and they experimented with other drugs that might alter the emotions, including the hallucinogen BZ which created paranoid delusions and rage toward the nearest people. In a paramilitary situation, use of such tactics could be devastating.
For a while, the CIA thought that LSD might be the ultimate Spook Drug. They tested it on unsuspecting army privates; put it in the food of federal prisoners; gave it to people visiting prostitutes in hotel rooms; (while watching from behind a see-through two-way mirror in the next room - Operation Twilight Climax) and even put in drinking water, 'just to see what would happen.' Methods of delivery were often comical: such as the time when they tried to spray a convention of foreign dignitaries with an LSD aerosol, with little success (it dissipated too quickly.) Eventually, they found it too 'unpredictable,' but one maverick agent, Ronald Stark, may have been instrumental in getting LSD onto the street black market, and thence making it a staple for the 'counterculture' of the period. Martin A. Lee and Norman O. Solomon note the curious cultural politics of LSD in their recent book, and point out the curious connection of the CIA to some of the early acid gurus at Millbrook.
It is always the case in the echelons of national security that when the enemy is believed to have a capability that it becomes a priority to beat them to the punch. Hence, the CIA attempted to create its own Manchurian Candidate, someone who could literally be 'reprogrammed' to kill Communist leaders or even have his ideology and loyalty switched. In its search for mind control, the CIA found willing allies in the academic behaviorist psychological establishment. Tired of controlling salivating dogs, running rats, and flying pigeons, the behaviorists were beginnning to look into the possibility of controlling human behavior. J.B. Watson and his successor B.F. Skinner looked toward a Clockwork Orange world where antisocial behavior could be completely eliminated. Delgado impressed the world by stopping a bull in its tracks with a pair of electrodes and a handheld transmitter; what was on everybody's minds was... what next?
The head of the American Psychological Association, a behaviorist named Donald Cameron, was internationally recognized for his work in 'psychic driving'. He was searching for a technique of wiping the mind 'clean', making it a tabula rasa , so that new beliefs could be implanted. Originally he was only interested in using this technique to 'cure' the mentally ill. But the CIA's head of TSS (Technical Support Services), Sid Gottlieb, saw other possibilities, as did his colleague Morse Allen. Cameron used a variety of techniques ranging from sensory deprivation (also taken up eagerly by countercultural figures, including John Lilly) to electroshock, hallucinogens, isolation, and bombardment by radiofrequency waves, to 'treat' his subjects. The CIA could provide Cameron with what he was lacking: subjects. People from marginal sectors of society like prisoners, drug addicts, prostitutes, the homeless, and deviants. It was assumed that these people had nowhere to turn to and were the least possible security risk.
The irony of medical torture being used to assist a regime was not lost on Cameron's colleagues, such as neurologist William Sargant, who still remembered the Hippocratic Oath, and the statements of the Nazi doctors at the Nuremberg trials. Cameron also was unable to provide the success that the Agency wanted: he could lobotomize his patients and turn them into virtual zombies, but he couldn't manage to return them as functioning members of society with new personalities. The human spirit just remained too damn slippery for the Scottish doctor. In the post-Kennedy shakeup of 1964, Cameron lost his MKULTRA funding. LSD had slipped out of the hands of the controllers and into the uncontrollable rebellious hippies. The Agency saw the need to practice damage control in a new post-Dulles era.
MKULTRA was renamed MKSearch and placed under the control of ORD (Operations Research & Development.) The new agenda became more focused on direct brain stimulation and hypnosis. Neurologist Wilder Penfield showed that patients could recall vividly past memories when areas of their brain were stimulated. What, the Agency wondered, could they achieve if they could use electrical stimulation of the brain to cause a man to hallucinate that his beloved leader was his worst enemy? Could hypnosis create a 'sleeper' who could be 'activated' to carry out a mission five years down the road after being 'triggered' by a word or signal and perform it with no recall of his action? These experiments also met with highly limited success. A Cuban exile was hypnotized and told he would kill Castro when he heard the word "cigar." Before being brought out of the trance, he was told Castro was in the room. The hypnotist then said the word "cigar." The Cuban politely replied, "Sorry, I don't smoke." The Cuban dictator would survive yet another attempt to rub him out.
Perhaps in desperation, in the 1970s the Agency would turn to the occult. Telepaths were asked to try and read minds and even place suggestions into them. Clairvoyants and fortunetellers were consulted for their usability in intelligence-gathering. Palmists and phrenologists were asked for their techniques of personality assessment. Could easily controllable people be found by their palms? One project even looked into the links between eye color and mental illness. Victims of multiple-personality disorder or those claiming to be 'spirit possessed' were studied. In the Vacaville prison, famous for its detention of Prof. Timothy Leary, weird experiments were performed with altered consciousness which made even the king of 'trippers' worry. The Devil was alive and well and working in Langeley.
The Doping of America: The CIA and the Drug Trade
During the same period of its LSD experiments, it was well known that the CIA was involved with the drug merchants of the 'Golden Triangle' who were smuggling in much of the United States' heroin supply. Some opium was also entering the U.S. from Pakistan and Afghanistan, where the CIA at the least turned a "blind eye" toward the drug trade. The CIA has never stopped looking the other way when drug dealers have had the right politics - they also had connections with the Medellin cocaine cartel in the early 80s, who at the time where providing information on the Communist insurgency in the region. While the DEA was busy busting narco-traffickers, the CIA often kept many of them (such as General Manuel Noriega) on its payroll. Many insurgent groups supported by the CIA - including RENAMO, the Contras, and the Afghan mujaheddin - engaged in drug trafficking with the U.S., to pay for U.S.-built arms and materiel. There is some evidence to suggest that the CIA may have even been flying in the drugs for them, on their return flights to the U.S. (!) The fact that many of the 'freelance' mercenaries employed by the agency (a la Soldier of Fortune) often "part-time" to train the private security forces of the traffickers is not a complete coincidence.

But the CIA, while undermining the official policy of the DEA through its own covert policy, never lost sight of the propaganda value of the War on Drugs. That "war" allowed a much more open use of military force in Latin American countries such as Peru and Colombia, where there was virtual 'civil war' between the narco-traffickers and the government. However, the American 'foreign policy establishment' tried to portray a different picture, suggesting that it was the guerillas and rebels in those countries - such as the Shining Path or other Marxist groups - that were doing the trafficking, with the complicity of countries such as Nicaragua and Cuba, who allowed overflights of drug-bearing planes. Rather than going after the big cartels and their processing plants, the CIA has often cooperated with the Peruvian army to go after coca-growing peasant villages, suspected of being hotbeds of 'subversive' activity. It is entirely possible that many revolutionary groups are engaged in the drug trade, but the lion's share comes in from the vast organizations and distribution networks created by the drug cartel heads, many of whom are former important "agribusiness" leaders who got support from the CIA-backed Agency of International Development (AID).
One might wonder, of course, why the CIA, which is so concerned with the subversive effects of foreign influences on our great nation, assists other countries to ply their drug trade here. The answer is chilling, but any inner-city resident can tell you why: crack in in the 'hood keeps the poor killing each other (the incessant 'gang wars' over drug turf) rather than going after their real enemies - "divide and conquer." You can't demand your rights or freedoms when you're enslaved to drugs, or think about your oppression when you're strung out on crack. Many radical black groups, such as the Nation of Islam, call upon black youth to stay drug-free. It's not just for silly moralistic purposes, a la "Just Say No." They realize that drugs are a tool of the shadow government to keep people in the inner-city down and out, and also that the "War on Drugs" gives government an excuse to throw our civil liberties out the window and use police-state tactics to fight the 'drug epidemic' their own CIA brought here.
In the Name of Democracy: Covert Operations and Interventions
The CIA has never had a problem with overthrowing democratically elected governments, especially when they democratically decide to do something that the Agency considers not to be in the U.S.'s interests. Michael Manley in Jamaica, Salvador Allende in Chile, and Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala were three leaders overthrown by CIA-led insurgencies. The CIA has also provided covert support for rebel groups such as RENAMO in Mozambique, the Contras in Nicaragua, the Afghan mujaheddin , the Kurds in Iraq, and the Inkatha Zulu party in South Africa. The current president of Nicaragua, Violeta Chamorro, was also on the CIA payroll when she was publishing La Prensa , urging her people to overthrow the Sandinistas. Many of the paramilitary coup d'etats in South America were supported by the CIA, including the takeover by the generals in Paraguay and Argentina. The CIA also supported some 30,000 Meo tribe mercenaries in Laos in the 1960s, as well as other soldiers of fortune, to destabilize the existing regime. Of course, the CIA has done their best to tamper with undemocratic governments as well, but with less success - agents of the CIA were wandering through Tibet in the 1950s, doing their best in whip the Tibetans into a bloody revolt against the Chinese. And several unsuccessful invasions of Cuba have been attempted in the wake of the original Bay of Pigs Fiasco, by CIA-armed Cuban exile brigades such as Alpha 66.

But overt, naked, military force can often jeopardize the CIA, especially when it fails and their role in the action stands revealed. For that reason, they often utilize more 'subtle' methods to destabilize governments. They have stuck their fingers in many elections and 'rigged' them to produce a more 'beneficial' result. To make governments more unopopular with their people, they have also used economic sabotage - they tried to ruin a whole years' sugar crop from Cuba by coating it with an unpalatable substance; and for years in East Germany they attempted to sour milk, disrupt mining activity, sabotage factories, and ruin other productive industries. Another technique is to use propraganda and disinformation - they spread false stories about the regime, especially here in the U.S. and the presses of its allies, in the hope that other nations will stop trading with the country. The CIA also uses techniques to reduce the charisma and appeal of foreign (especially revolutionary/anti-US) leaders - at one point, they tried to make the beard of Fidel Castro fall out, as if that was somehow the source of some Samson-like power for him!
That is their "negative" policy. But when they want to support pro-capitalist or pro-United States political parties, they often use other techniques. They provide "political advice and counsel," which we might call "spin doctoring" here in the U.S., to make those parties more palatable. Sometimes they give financial assistance to those parties covertly, or subsidies to important individuals. Other times they try and support private organizations like trade unions, business firms, and "think tanks" that are willing to 'lobby' for better relations with the U.S. Occasionally there is even "private" training and coaching of opposition leaders here in the United States, and carefully crafted exchange programs. Many of the organizations who exist ostensibly to aid and support democracy and development in the Third World - like the Foundation for Democracy - are CIA fronts who really support anti-communist regimes, even if they are basically undemocratic and under military rule. Pro-U.S. regimes like ARENA in El Salvador and the PRI Nationalist Party of Mexico often receive "technical" assistance from the CIA in managing the affairs of their country - especially as regards 'unruly' peasants and the possibility of insurrection.
The irony of using undemocratic means to 'protect democracy' has not been lost on many commentators. In many cases, the leftist leaders overthrown by the CIA were elected in fair and popular elections, and were not even inclined to allowing Soviet hemispheric ambitions into their country; but the CIA did not believe that, and certainly tried to convince others that that was a real danger. The CIA feels it has some god-given right, somehow, to interfere with the affairs of other nations; while at the same time supposedly carrying out its mission of blocking such infiltrations right here at home. How would the American people react if they found out that the KGB was interfering in our democracy? They shouldn't cry foul, then, when countries protest when the CIA does the same thing in trampling on their national sovereignty. While the Peace Corps was trying to nudge the Third World toward a pro-U.S. attitude, the CIA was doing its best to turn them into the other camp by playing the "ugly American."
Keeping Company with the Company: Friends of the CIA
The CIA has many controversial friends. Over the years, it has maintained many ties with the Mafia and organized crime, and it is very likely that Mob hit men have done contract work for the CIA in the past. Another group that it has frequently been involved with has been the international arms traders, like Adnan Khashoggi. Such arms dealers have turned up in countries with very flimsy explanations as to their presence there... inevitably with some CIA equipment for sale. True to their business, the arms dealers will often sell to both sides of a conflict - for example, arming both Iran and Iraq during their long war. One tie the CIA has worked hard to maintain over the years is with the Vatican, for obvious reasons. In the world of gathering intelligence you need to spread your tentacles far; who better to pick up some juicy info then a priest hearing Confession? The CIA has many connections to the para-Jesuit order Opus Dei and also to the Sovereign and Military Order of the Knights of Malta (the order descended from the Knights Hospitaller of St. John, kicked off the isle of Malta by Napoleon's troops.) Several CIA officials, including Bill Casey, have been made honorary members of this Catholic order. Needless to say, the CIA has had no problem making friends with prominent dictators, such as Pinochet, "Baby Doc" Duvalier, Marcos, the Pahlevi Shah, Somoza, General Franco, and, until 1989, Noriega in Panama and Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

But is there really a connection between the CIA and "international fascism" as some more conspiratorially-minded individuals have suggested? It does appear that the CIA was involved in some of the shady right-wing intrigues of Europe, including the whole P2 Masonic affair in Italy. Also, the group connected to Pope John Paul II's attempted assassination, the Gray Wolves, is part of a fascist "Black International" which is linked closely to the Reverend Moon's organization and Gen. Singlaub's World Anti-Communist League, which have been known to work with the CIA. There are those who think that the CIA was part of Project Paperclip, which smuggled ex-Nazi scientists and S.S. officials into this country to spy on Russia or develop rocket technology, or that it assisted the right-wing generals in South America to hide Nuremberg war criminals from international justice in exchange for what information could be gleaned on Soviet military forces. Some U.S. far-right groups are actually as paranoid about the CIA and its 'internationalist' agenda as they are about the Trilateral Commission or the Council for Foreign Relations, so it is doubtful that the CIA works with them...
It's not always clear where the CIA stands in the shifting sands of international politics: they can and do switch sides and double-cross their "friends." The CIA supported the Kurds from 1975-79 in their war for independence from Iraq, but when the Ayatollah Khoemini came to power in Iran, he was perceived as a greater threat. Keeping Saddam Hussein in power to 'buffer' Iraq took precedence over the Kurds' rights, and they were abdandoned to his savage response. Then, when Khoemini died and Hussein invaded Kuwait, the U.S. turned against Hussein, who they had been arming for the past eight years. Following the 'liberation' of Kuwait, the U.S. invited the Kurds to rebel yet again, only to abandon them to Saddam Hussein's forces once more. Having been double-crossed twice, I am sure that the Kurds will run the other way the next time the CIA comes around with some scheme. It is not suprising that the only 'friends' the CIA has are people who are equally as untrusting of others, and untrustworthy, as it is in its affairs - mercenaries, soldiers of fortune, cutthroats, adventurers, and other spy agencies such as the Israeli Mossad.
The CIA and the KGB often get involved with complex games with each other - games so elaborate and pointless that, as one commentator has noted, it seems that they are jokes for their benefit and at our expense. In the cloak-and-dagger world of Spookland, anything is fair game. The CIA has had 'sleepers' placed in many countries - these agents often going over to live in those countries for months or even years under some cover before they are finally 'activated' to carry out some mission. In order to 'sting' KGB operatives, the CIA has often leaked all kinds of false documents to people in order to 'weed' out their contacts, even involving people who really should not be under any suspicion. What goes on in the Soviet and American embassies would almost be funny if it were not such a waste of taxpayer money. The CIA has often gone to elaborate lengths to embarass their enemies, including taking pictures of them visiting brothels or other compromising situations. Nonetheless, these games are often carried out with a spirit of comraderie. After all, the CIA and the KGB had a mutual interest in keeping the Cold War going, because it kept them in business. That made them the strangest 'friends' of all, but after all, politics does make strange bedfellows.
Cloak and Gown: The CIA and College Campuses
The nation was shocked by a series of revelations in 1967 that the CIA was connected to the National Student Association. It was revealed in a series of articles that the CIA often maintained professors as recruiting agents on college campuses who were to keep their eyes out for students who would make good potential Company cadres. As a result, many campuses moved to bar the CIA from recruiting their students; but the confidential informal networks between the administration and faculty and the CIA often remained, and were used to send more recruits the Agency's way. Some of the young agents hired in this way were used to infiltrate campus leftist groups and spy on them, or to "plant" stories in the campus newsletter, or to found Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) chapters where the CIA could easily locate future allies. Many universities discovered, to their discomfort, that CIA-connected professors were often taking a cue on their curriculum from the Agency, and saw it as threat to academic freedom. Student leftists often tried to 'out' those professors and get them fired.

The CIA has also used funds from its Science & Technology Directorate to subsidize academic research projects. Many academic behaviorists received those funds for their research into human-behavior control. But academic research into covert warfare technology - remember Bond's amazingly lethal devices - was also supported as well, in addition to the general DoD funding of projects such as SDI. Much of the early LSD research - in the pre-Leary era - was controlled by academics working for the CIA as well. Amazingly, there were some CIA links to the 1969 University of Colorado investigation of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs). Some UFO buffs feel that this may be because the CIA still suspects that UFOs are "some foreign power's secret air force," and they wanted to throw other people off the trail of their investigation... but others think this is because the CIA is doing research into the 'psychological warfare' aspects of utilizing UFO 'true believers' and they want to throw them off this trail as well.
Certainly, the CIA was carrying out clandestine activity at many U.S. universities in strategic locations. The University of Miami in the early 1960s was an important staging base for many of its operations against Cuba. Jim Jones, the cult leader who had his Peoples' Temple followers commit suicide in the jungles of Guiana, may have been part of a CIA operation within the University of California system focusing on psychological warfare. Even today there are people who wonder whether Jones was just crazy or if he was really following orders. Some international universities, especially those in equatorial Africa, are used for training local, native henchmen and agents, much as the KGB trains its African operatives as Patrice Lumumba Friendship University. The CIA has always felt it a priority to get the true WASP bluebloods into the Company, by recruiting the sons of "well-bred" families at Ivy League schools such as Harvard and Yale. Changing demographics and political winds have caused the Agency to focus its efforts much more on recruiting from midwestern and southern schools.
The Secret Government: Banks, Guns, and Shadow Proprietaries
The "Enterprise," as it was called, was a joint effort during the 1980s between the NSA, CIA, and DIA to go over Congress' policy in Central America. As the Christic Institute has pointed out, the 'Shadow' government behind the 'Enterprise' has been active for 25 years, and the recent Iran-Contra hearings have only scratched its surface, grabbing its more visible members such as North, Secord, and Poindexter. The "Enterprise' was to sell arms to Iranian 'moderates' in order to raise funds to support the Nicaraguan Contras, whose aid had been reduced to a minimal level in 1985. Links to the Islamic Republic were not hard to find since the 'moderate' contacts made by Reagan's "October Surprise" Team (which included Bill Casey) in 1980 were all too eager to accept our weapons in their war with Iraq. It was thought, somewhat erroneously, that these 'moderates' had some connection to the Shiite groups in Lebanon who were holding Americans hostage, and that they could obtain their release. The "Enterprise" also was involved with some attempted bombings right here in the U.S., and sabotage efforts against groups opposing U.S. Central America policy, such as the Pledge of Resistance and the Christic Institute. Bill Moyers called the Iran-Contra hearings a "Constitutional Crisis," much as some people called Watergate 20 years earlier... but they did not result in the resignation of a president.

It turns out that unscrupulous businessmen, like Stefan Halper and Harvey D. MacLean, Jr., who founded the Palmer National Bank in 1983, used deregulation in order to make loans to ex-CIA operatives involved in funding the Contras. Much of the S & L swindle, it turns out, may have turned up in the hands of the CIA. Halper, not unsurprisingly, was one of the individuals who helped set up Oliver North's defense fund. Other banks, such as Robert L. Corson's Vision Banc Savings, were involved in the 'laundering' of money connected with Noriega... and the Houston bank went under four months after Corson took ownership. The "vanishing money" in the Iran-Contra scandal went, in part, to secret Swiss accounts belonging to its principals - but at this point it intertwines with another recent scandal, involving the Bank of Commerce and Credit, International (BCCI). BCCI has been branded an 'outlaw' bank for its supports of brutal Middle East regimes, but one of its big trading partners, it seems, was the CIA, as well. Yet another banking scandal - the Banco Ambrosiano scandal, where millions of dollars disappeared from the Vatican Bank into the pockets of "G-d's Banker," Roberto Calvi, has CIA written all over it... Licio Gelli and his Italian organization may have worked with the CIA to frame the Communists in a train station bombing in Italy in 1980.
The CIA has a rather remarkable 'financial empire.' Despite the fact that it is the only government agency with a totally unmonitored 'black budget' - they can spend as they see fit (within set limits) - it is also the only one that annually turns a profit! That is because it maintains many 'shadow proprietaries,' commercial enterprises that operate "up-front" operations until the point where they are called on to do CIA business. Some of those proprietaries include major airlines, such as Pacific Air and its subsidiary Air America, and trade organizations (such as the International Trade Mart) that are really used for covert operations coordination. These shadow companies are maintained tightly and squeaky-clean (and often turn over a hefty profit) until their covert support becomes necessary. It is well known that the CIA brass reguarly invest much of the Agency's money in stocks and risky investments rather than the generally tame security bonds issued by the government. It isn't just James Bond who believes in gambling... the CIA feels that financial independence is an important key to remaining free of government oversight.
Conclusions: What Future for Shadow-Politics?
Robert Gates, who became Director of Central Intelligence recently over questions that he (like other illustrious predecessors) distorted intelligence to support policy, declared that the Agency would be taking "new directions." In the post-Cold War world, the Agency would focus on "new threats." Two new sources identified as potential threat sources were Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism in the Middle East, and economic 'warfare' on the part of ostensible U.S. 'allies' such as Germany and Japan. In addition, Bush had directed Gates to marshal the CIA's resources to curtail the proliferation of "weapons of mass destruction" - chemical, biological, and nuclear devices. (That is ironic, in light of the U.S. refusal to sign chemical weapons accords in the 1970s and its own huge nuclear arsenal.) Industrial espionage and sabotage were to be part of the new focus of the Agency - but, needless to say, the Company will probably do more than just prevent foreign powers from doing it to us: they will try to "do it to them before they do it to us." If Japan can steal our technological secrets, well, surely there must be ways the cult of intellligence can beat them at their own game? Gates seems to think so.

The founding fathers enjoined their nascent republic to constant vigilance against its enemies. There is vigilance, and then there is paranoia. One can be on guard against danger, or one can go out of their way to see enemies where there aren't any. The Pentagon has always profitting by overestimating the size and capability of American enemies, and the CIA knows the value of that game as well - lest their budget fall to the cutback axe as well! The CIA simply cannot handle a world without enemies, without people ready for a double-cross. Once you're part of the spook trade, it becomes impossible to see things any other way. And if the CIA doesn't have communism as a scapegoat, it may have to create something else to fulfill its role as the justifier of its actions, and find another sparring partner altogether in the absence of the KGB. No federal bureaucracy ever mandates itself out of existence, saying "Hey, our job's done, we can go home!" And if most small government bureaucracies are reluctant to cease their self-promotion and perpetuation, consider the Agency, which is a multibillion dollar organization with some 16,000 admitted employees...
But if the CIA isn't willing to pack its bags and go home, perhaps it is time for Congress to act. The National Security Act of 1947 should be revoked, or at least have many of its provisions changed severely. The CIA should be turned back into what it was meant to be, an intelligence-processing center with lots of number-cruching bureaucrats, like elsewhere in Washington. But Clandestine Services and Covert Operations are fossils, and should be scrapped. The "black ops" should be retired. Spying in peacetime - in the absence of a clear and present threat - should be illegal. But most certainly interference with the democratic processes of other countries should be made illegal, especially paramilitary exercises. The shadow government's covert policy has often been at open odds with the stated public policy of the elected government in many areas, putting us in the position of considerable distrust by the rest of the world. In a free society, foreign policy should be as open and democratic as domestic policy. If the President wants to aid nations that have democratic values and protect human rights, or to sanction or use military force against those countries that are true threats to the United States or its allies (and not just ruled with a form of government we don't like), let him openly ask for the support of the American people, not go behind their backs.
There will always be a need to gather intelligence about the military capabilities of other nations, and for a center to coordinate the gathering of that intelligence. Such a center would really know when a country was preparing for war or invasion, and how to plan a response. The CIA's dismal failure in predicting Iraq's aggression against Kuwait shows that it is not competent for that task. And it is not competent because since 1952 it has gained proficiency in all the "black operations" to the detriment of improving intelligence techniques. The CIA must be "broken in a thousand pieces," as Kennedy wanted, and built anew, into something that will not be a disgrace to American principles and ideals. That new agency will address real concerns to national security, and not chase after phantoms. And it will take a sea change in the government to bring about a "new" CIA; but such a sea change is well overdue.
Steve Mizrach
Related
The CIA: Criminals in Action (July 15, 2008)
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/ciafromsourcewatch15jul08.shtml

The Rockefeller File


The Rockefeller File
by Gary Allen
http://educate-yourself.org/ga/RFcontents.shtml
Published 1976

Table of Contents
1 - The Multi-Billion Dollar Myth
2 - The Saintly Sinner
3 - The Family That Preys Together
4 - Profit x Philanthropy = Power (The Power of Foundations)
5 - Yes, Virginia, There Is An Establishment
6 - The Rockefeller Mediacracy
7 - Surrender By Consent
8 - Surrender By Conquest
9 - Building The Big Red Machine
10 - The People Planners
11 - The Great Energy Swindle
12 - The Eternal Power Behind The Throne
13 - Was Nixon Watergated?
Epilogue

Introduction (1975 ) written by Lawrence P. McDonald, Member of Congress

Dear Reader:

The super rich in America enjoy power and prerogatives un-imaginable to most of us. Who can conceive of owning a private empire that includes 100 homes, 2,500 servants, untold thousands of luxuries, and untold millions of dollars? America has a royal family of finance that has known such riches for generations. It is, of course, the Rockefellers. But if the Rockefellers were content with their wealth, if their riches had satisfied their desires, this book would not have been written. And I would not be urging you to read it. Money alone is not enough to quench the thirst and lusts of the super-rich. Instead, many of them use their vast wealth, and the influence such riches give them, to achieve even more power. Power of a magnitude never dreamed of by the tyrants and despots of earlier ages. Power on a world wide scale. Power over people, not just products.

The Rockefeller File is not fiction. It is a compact, powerful and frightening presentation of what may be the most important story of our lifetime, the drive of the Rockefellers and their allies to create a one world government, combining super-capitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control. For more than one hundred years, since the days when John D. Rockefeller Sr. used every devious strategy he could devise to create a gigantic oil monopoly, enough books have been written about the Rockefellers to fill a library. I have read many of them. And to my knowledge, not one has dared reveal the most vital part of the Rockefeller story: that the Rockefellers and their allies have, for at least fifty years, been carefully following a plan to use their economic power to gain political control of first America, and then the rest of the world.
Do I mean conspiracy? Yes, I do.

I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly   evil in intent. You will find the truth-often surprising, sometimes unpleasant, always vital-in the pages that follow. Gary Allen has done a masterful job of combining the hundreds of scattered facts and hidden clues of the Rockefeller puzzle until one unmistakable pattern emerges. The picture that is revealed when The Rockefeller File is finally opened may shock you. In this book, you will learn why the Rockefellers follow the policies they do, what their goals are, where they intend to take America ... and why it is essential they be stopped. I urge you to read The Rockefeller File and to encourage your friends to do the same.

November 1975
LAWRENCE P. Mc DONALD
Member of Congress


Chapter One
The Multi-Billion Dollar Myth

``If you're thinking of colossal economic power, it doesn't exist. We have investments, but not control.''
-Nelson Rockefeller

At his Vice Presidential confirmation hearings, Nelson A. Rockefeller was as solemn and serious as P. T. Barnum swearing his freak show denizens were the real Mc Coy when he told the assembled solons:
"I hope that the myth or misconception about the extent of the family's control over the economy of this country will be totally brought out and exposed and dissipated ...There is not this network of control which is popularly conceived."
The Senators could not have been more polite. Nobody guffawed. The transcript does not indicate that they even tittered. After all, fools seldom get elected to the Senate these days. Nelson and David, as leaders of the Rockefeller Clan, are the nation's undisputed economic kings. No politician with enough savvy to be elected dog catcher laughs at a king. Guessing the magnitude of the Rockefeller financial empire has been a favorite indoor sport since the turn of the century. In a front-page story on September 29, 1916, the New York Times reported that family patriarch John D. Rockefeller's oil holdings alone were worth $500 million, and that he was America's first billionaire. Eight hours after the story appeared his oil shares had increased in value by a tidy $8 million. Not a bad return for a single day's labor, even for a Rockefeller.
The Brothers Rockefeller, inheritors of a colossal fortune, are using their massive wealth, power, and prestige to create what they call the "New World Order." Seen at right (from left to right) are David, Chairman of the Board of both the Council on Foreign Relations and the Chase Manhattan Bank; Winthrop [deceased 1973]; John D. III [deceased 1978] an advocate of people control; Nelson [deceased 1979], the "political" Rockefeller; and Laurance [deceased 2004]. After years of planning and campaigning, a brilliant coup d'etat has finally installed Nelson in the White House, without the risk of an election. About this period, however, the picture of the family's growing financial might becomes more murky. The Rockefellers began hiding their wealth from the public and the tax collector -in trusts and foundations. As reported in the Washington Post: For two generations, the great fortune passed down by John D. has been fractionated and made more complex by increasing layers of trusts and closely held companies, where no public reports are required, none volunteered, and all inquiries politely rebuffed.

The Rockefellers invented a scheme, used by the super rich today, whereby the more money you appear to give away, the richer and more powerful you become. Through the help of captive politicians, guided by some bright boys in the family law offices, legislation was written and passed which would protect the Rockefellers and other elite super-rich from the repressive taxation they have foisted on everyone else. The key to this system is giving up ownership but retaining control. For example, most people don't believe they really own something unless they retain title to it in their own name. The Rockefellers know this is a big mistake. Often it is better to have your assets owned by a trust or a foundation-which you control-than to have them in your own name.

For example, when Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis ordered Standard Oil broken up back in 1911, sly old John D. simply created some new foundations and gave his stock to them. The net effect was the same as if you took your wallet out of your right-hand pocket and put it in the left. In this case, however, Rockefeller not only managed to avoid income taxes, but also escaped the probate, estate and inheritance taxes which have ravaged the wealth of those not in the know.
So three generations of Rockefellers have been - giving away millions of dollars - giving much of it to themselves. For example, if a Rockefeller gives a million dollars worth of stock in the Titanic Oil Corporation to the Dogood Foundation, which the family controls, he is not really out one million bucks. All he has done is transfer title of the securities to an alter ego. Of course, the foundation may then give away some of the money, or, more likely, donate some of the stock's future earnings to some allegedly worthwhile cause. But, as the few investigations by Congress into this devious field have shown, in the case of the Rockefellers such bequests somehow end up increasing the Rockefeller financial or political power.

The upshot is that, through the past six decades, the public has had no way 'even to estimate Rockefeller wealth, let alone accurately measure the family's power and influence. But we can make some logical extrapolations from the few facts that are available. We know that through the magic of compound interest (as they say down at your friendly savings and loan branch), one dollar invested at the modest rate of five % per annum will double in thirteen years. This means that if the Rockefellers were earning only five % per year (a return they would find laughable), that modest $1 billion fortune in 1916 would have grown to over billion today.

The late Stewart Alsop, a reporter who had excellent sources in the Eastern Liberal Establishment (a euphemism for the financial, political, academic and media Mafia controlled by the Rockefellers), used to scoff at the usually "accepted " Fortune magazine estimate of the family's fortune at between $1 and $2 billion.

"It would not be at all surprising " Alsop concluded in his book: Nixon and Rockefeller (published in 1960), "if all the Rockefeller family assets, all the Rockefeller controlled money, as well as the Rockefeller owned money came to something like 10 billion dollars." If Alsop is correct, the Rockefeller holdings would now be a rather comfortable nest egg of some $25 billion.

In view of the fact that the past fifteen years have produced much economic growth (as well, as much inflation), it could well be that $25 billion is a reasonable, even a conservative figure.

Of course the family has never admitted being worth even a sizable fraction of this amount. When originally queried by the Senate Committee, good old' Nelson estimated his personal fortune at a paltry $33 million. After some very mild prodding by the Committee, this modest estimate was increased by 660 %.

The Vice Presidential hopeful eventually admitted to being worth a more respectable $218 million-a sum, incidentally, that is greater than the  combined wealth of all 37 Presidents in this country's history.

So great was public suspicion of the Rockefeller wealth that the family's financial adviser, J. Richardson Dilworth, was invited to testify before the House judiciary Committee. Dilworth became the Rockefeller family's key money manipulator in 1958. Prior to joining the Rockefellers he had been a partner in Kuhn, Loeb & Co., perhaps the most politically powerful international banking firm in the world. Kuhn, Loeb was, and still may be, a satellite of the immensely rich and powerful Rothschild family of Europe. Historically, the Kuhn, Loeb name has been synonymous with financial success and political intrigue, dating back to participation through senior partner Jacob Schiff in bankrolling the Bolshevik revolution in Russia.* (see None Dare Call It Conspiracy)
In the past, the Rockefellers have both competed with and cooperated with the Rothschilds. Dilworth's leaving Kuhn, Loeb & Co. to take control of the Rockefeller family purse strings was considered significant by students of the international financial and political machinations of the super-rich.

Dilworth maintains an office designated as Rockefeller Family and Associates, occupying three entire floors at 30 Rockefeller Plaza. Rockefeller Family and Associates is not a legal entity or corporation; it is simply a name to describe the organization which coordinates and manages the investments of the 84 descendants of John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

With the well-oiled assurance of a successful mortician the urbane, sophisticated Dilworth laid to rest the committee's concern over the family's financial muscle. He used five charts, crammed with statistics, to dispel the notion that the family exercises inordinate power over the nation's economy. Rocky's critics found it difficult to dispute Dilworth's bewildering collection of figures; at times they could hardly keep up with them. The whole performance was as confusing as an Eisenhower press conference, and probably as deliberate.
As one observer commented: ....
"the talk of convertible stocks, coupons and fiduciary obligations and the fact the vast holdings of The Rockefeller Foundation and other family-collected funds were not included in Dilworth's presentation left most members little more enlightened than they had been."
According to Dilworth, the 84 living Rockefellers are worth a mere $1,033,988,000. (Presumably he rounded off the figures to the nearest thousand dollars.) The bulk of the assets disclosed by Dilworth were held in two trusts, one established by John D. Jr. in 1934 for his children and one set up in 1952 for his grandchildren.

But according to many sources, the Rockefellers have as many as 200 trusts and foundations, and it is possible they have hundreds, even thousands more. Why bother with so many? For one very simple reason: So that assets can be moved, merged, and manipulated so smoothly and so quickly that the public-and just as important, the tax experts from the Treasury Department-have no way of knowing just how much money is where.

Suppose you had three buckets, one empty, two filled with water. Is there any way you could pour water from one bucket to another so quickly an observer could not tell how much water you had?

But suppose, instead, you had five thousand buckets. And a hundred persons to help pour. And you were allowed to keep all but a few buckets and a few pourers hidden behind a high wall. Would your chances be better to keep your -liquid assets - secret? So it is with the Rockefellers. All trusts are not equal. Only a handful of attorneys in the country know how to establish the type of trusts the Rockefellers have. These specialized trusts are most emphatically not the sort your friendly local solicitor can create for you. They not only can eliminate probate, cut inheritance taxes, and reduce income taxes; unlike corporations, they can achieve almost total privacy. Theoretically, trustees can, within the privacy of their directors' meetings, create more and more trusts ad infinitum With a little effort, taxes disappear. With more effort, even the value of the holdings can be completely hidden.
This explains why the Rockefellers use so many trusts. The fact is that we really don't know how many trusts the family has established. It may be thousands, or tens of thousands. Remember Nelson's explanation for the embarrassing fact that he did not pay any income tax in 1970-his trust fund managers had done a lot of shifting of investments in 1969. You can bet they moved their assets to accomplish this!

In testifying before the Judiciary Committee, Dilworth did not discuss the family's holdings by individuals, but presented them as a single package. Dilworth said he had received "unanimous permission" from the Rockefeller family to make public the total figures of their holdings. "This in itself
has been a unique experience, since it runs so completely against the grain of what we in the office consider to be one of our major responsibilities- the preservation of the separate identity and highly personal treatment of each account," he said. "Like other Americans, they value highly their right of
personal privacy."

More importantly, the privacy within the trusts can conceal whatever assets the Rockefellers decided not to make public. If the family had chosen to open up the minutes of its trustees' meetings to Congressional investigators, we might have some idea of the true financial status of the family. No such suggestion was even whispered. We really have only the Rockefellers' word for the amount of wealth they control, and they obviously have a vested interest in minimizing its size.
How about assets hidden in foreign countries? Are there Swiss bank accounts? Rocky says no, but he could be telling the literal truth, yet have foreign accounts held by trusts or other nominees, or securities"in street name (that is, in the name of a brokerage firm such as Merrill Lynch). Or assets can be held in a custodial account of a bank, such as (for example) Chase Manhattan.

All that we know for sure is the first time Rocky was asked about his wealth he swore it was a paltry $33 million; later he admitted the figure was six (6) times higher. A slight miscalculation which anyone might make.

We are supposed to swallow the propaganda that the Rockefellers are merely middle-class millionaires, not even in the, same financial ball park as Howard Hughes or those Texas wheeler-dealers. But,"Hideout Howard" and the Dallas money crowd are relative Johnny-Come-Latelys to the world of high finance. The Rockefellers have been refining oil for over a century and running banks for 75 -years. Although it cannot be proven because the evidence is hidden, few sophisticates swallow Dilworth's $1 billion figure-which does not even include any personal residential property, jewelry or other personal belongings; nor does it include Nelson's art collection, which he has valued (conservatively, we must assume) at $35 million.

Nor are the Rockefeller homesteads your basic tract bungalows. The main homes of the clan are located at Pocantico Hills in New York. Established 45 years ago by old John D., the land alone was worth $50 million in 1930. Their value today defies estimate. When opened to the press for the first time in 1959, at the time of the marriage of Nelson's son Steven, the estate, with its 70 miles of private roads, was said to be 4,180 acres in size. Earlier reports claimed 7,500 acres. In 1929 there were 75 buildings occupied by the Rockefellers and their attendants; over 100 families lived on the estate. One addition has been a $4.5 million underground archives to store family records. One wag has described the palatial Pocantico Hills as the kind of place God would have built if he had had the money.

No expense was spared by the family to remove minor blemishes on their pastoral paradise.
The senior Rockefeller gave the New York Central Railroad $700,000 to move its tracks, and $1.5 million to a small college to shove off.
Among the other chateaux owned by Nelson is the enormous Monte Sacro Ranch in Venezuela, his coffee plantation in Ecuador (the one where Juan Valdez waits for the perfect day to pick the beans), his several farms in Brazil, his 32-room Fifth Avenue duplex in New York City, the mansion in
Washington, D. C., the little hideaway at Seal Harbor, Maine, etc., etc., etc.*

In addition, at last count the Rockefellers owned seven huge ranches. Earlier this year 1975, Nelson bought 18,000 empty Texas acres for -outdoor recreation.
It is doubtful if any of the Rockefeller women will ever have to spend the night at the YWCA. The four of them have about 100 residences to choose from, including John D. III's spacious Beekman Place apartment in Manhattan, Laurance's sumptuous resorts in Hawaii and Puerto Rico, Nelson's Venezuela Finca, (large enough to swallow the entire city of New York), and David's Caribbean home.
Needless to say, it takes an army of underlings to operate these elegant pads. There are 500 full-time domestics, gardeners, guards and chauffeurs at Pocantico Hills alone, 45 at the family's Seal Harbor, Maine, retreat, and 15 in Nelson's Fifth Avenue apartment. All told, it has been estimated the Rockefeller women have at their beck and call about 2,500 servants.
Because the Rockefellers are forever on the wing-in their private jet fleets-each residence is permanently staffed, and nightly the sheets are turned down. One never knows when the boss might pop in.
Of the corporate holdings described by Dilworth, the largest, of course, is Exxon, the new name for Standard Oil of New Jersey, one of the companies formed when John D. Rockefeller, Sr. was ordered to de-monopolize the Standard Oil Company. The stock directly owned by the family (not counting that held by such family controlled entities as banks and foundations ) amounts to $156,7 millions. Number two on Dilworth's list is Rockefeller mere $98 million. Anyone who accepts this estimate of the Center's worth is probably negotiating to swap his life time savings for sole proprietorship in the Brooklyn Bridge. The Los Angeles Times observed on September 30, 1974 :
* The Congressional hearings revealed that two houses in Washington "ostensibly owned by a Rockefeller attorney" actually belong to Nelson.
Nobody but the stockholders (the four surviving Rockefeller brothers-Nelson, John D.III, David and Laurance - their sister, Abby, and the heirs of their brother Winthrop, who died in 1973, and a handful of Wall Street bankers) know its true value, but the educated guess of New York's real estate crowd is that Rockefeller Center, land and buildings, is worth $1 billion.
Next in line in the family portfolio is $85-million worth of stock in Standard of California, followed by $72.6 million worth of IBM. Companies in which the family holds $10 million or more in stock include Chase Manhattan Bank, Mobil Oil Corp., Eastman Kodak, General Electric, Texas Instruments, and Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing. Altogether the Rockefellers own a significant portion of some 50 major American companies.

So extensive are the family's holdings in securities that the Dilworth operation spreads over three entire floors at Rockefeller Center, and requires 154 full-time employees to manage the security portfolios. Working under Dilworth's supervision are fifteen top financial experts, who also double and triple in brass by serving on the boards of directors of nearly 100 corporations with combined assets of some $70 billion.

When testifying before the judiciary Committee, Dilworth's main objective was to fortify Nelson's statement that his family's reputed financial power was a - myth - concocted by evildoers. "If you're thinking of colossal economic power, it doesn't exist. We have investments, but not control," claimed Rocky.

"It should be stressed that both the family members and their investment advisers are totally uninterested in controlling anything," parroted Dilworth. "The family members are simply investors. The aim and hope of the advisers is over time to achieve a reasonable total return for our clients."   So seriously was the whole performance taken that not even a wink could be, detected in the hearing room, much less a discreet nudge under the table.

Dilworth maintained that members of the family do not coordinate their investments. Their sharply differing views on investments, social and environmental policies, Dilworth claimed, have prevented them from ever voting their stock in unison."There is no grand design or overall pattern," the
Rockefeller hireling assured the committee. Dilworth went on to say that the last time the family interfered in the management of a company was in
1928 when John D. Sr. and Jr. forced Standard Oil Company (Indiana) to remove a chief executive.

Such intervention now, purred Dilworth, is "totally foreign to this family. In the 17 years I've been on this job, I've never seen this family try to push people around."

The Wall Street Journal sprang to the defense of the family on September 25, 1974:
... "while Mr. Rockefeller is a bit modest about his economic clout, it is true that there are no individuals left in this society who are wealthy enough to alone substantially influence economic events. The wealth accumulated by John D. and the other tycoons of his era is diffused through a vast economy, controlled by foundations, trusts and the managers of large broadly based corporations. Power is diffused along with it"
In April 1958, when it was reported that J. Richardson Dilworth, the man with the most snobbish sounding name since Junius Pierpont Morgan or Jackie Gleason's immortal Reginald van Gleason, was appointed to his present position, the New York Times explained that the organization "manages and supervises" the Rockefeller family investments. The phrase "manages and supervises" suggests a coordinated effort at directing family finances. If the Rockefellers were not interested in maximizing their economic leverage, it would seem logical that each would pursue his own interests separately and retain his or her own battery of experts.
Dilworth makes it sound as if the family has widely divergent views on social, economic and political questions. Yet we have not been able to find a single significant occasion when the four sons and daughter of John D. Rockefeller, Jr. differed.*

And is it not curious that no member of the Judiciary Committee chose to grill Mr. Dilworth about the alleged disagreements which prevent the family from acting in financial unison? The New Yorker of January 16, 1965,tells us that the brothers and sister Abby "get together two or three times a year to discuss matters of interest to all of them."The purpose of the conferences is to "collide and coalesce," as one of their senior advisers described it.

Charles B. Smith, a top Dilworth, lieutenant, was a bit more forthright than his boss: "Our goal, like everybody else's, is to make wads and wads of money for the Rockefeller family." The Rockefeller family likes money. But, once you have achieved the ultimate of opulence in your standard of living
(and the Rockefellers reached that plateau decades ago), making money for its own sake becomes a fairly academic exercise.

Most people relax after they have reached the point of economic comfort and security. But, for some individuals, the ultimate ego trip has been the pursuit of power. In bygone days the rare individual with a manic desire for power seized a throne, or led conquering armies. Now that is all passé. Today, more worlds are conquered in board rooms than on battle fields. And, as we shall see, what happens on battle fields is often the result of decisions made in board rooms.

All of us can name plenty of tyrants and despots from the past. Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin - these men brought misery and death to millions of people in the course of realizing their own perverted ambitions. But because the overwhelming majority of people do not possess such a psychotic thirst for power, they find it all but impossible to recognize its presence in others.

* One subject on which the family is unanimous is furthering Nelson's political ambitions; the Rockefellers have contributed a staggering $25 million to various campaigns promoting Nelson for the Presidency.

Most Americans just want to provide decent lives and comfortable futures for themselves and their families. They are willing to work hard to achieve the necessities of life and even many luxuries. But they could no more conceive of scheming, -plotting and conniving to become economic commissars or kings than they would be interested in abandoning civilization for life as headhunters along the Amazon.

It is Mr. Average American and his family, however, who pay the price for the megalomania of the empire builders. Especially since our domestic would-be tyrants learned long ago that a political economic conspiracy can become far more powerful than a criminal one-and is far, far safer for the participants.

Whether or not such megalomania is carried by genes we do not know. What can be shown is that it has existed for at least three generations in the Rockefeller family. Despite the protests of the Rockefellers and their hirelings that they are totally uninterested in controlling anything, a survey of the evidence will reveal an all-consuming passion for control over everything and everybody.

The House of Rockefeller is not just a wealthy and successful family. Instead, it is an Empire. No other family has deliberately sought control over so many institutions which affect every facet of American life. Whether it is government, business, energy, banking, the media, religion or education, at the apex of the power structure you will find Rockefeller money and Rockefeller front men and agents. Such total persuasiveness, influencing every important aspect of American life, cannot be happenstance.
Gary Allen

Chapter 2: The Saintly Sinner

Dedication: to : Floyd Paxton - Freedom never had a truer champion - I never had a better friend. (Gary Allen ) 

SAUDI BILLIONAIRE DID HELP OBAMA INTO HARVARD


In late March 2008, on a local New York City show called “Inside City Hall,” the venerable African-American entrepreneur and politico, Percy Sutton, told host Dominic Carter how he was asked to help smooth Barack Obama’s admission into Harvard Law School 20 years earlier.
The octogenarian Sutton calmly and lucidly explained that he had been “introduced to [Obama] by a friend.” The friend’s name was Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, and the introduction had taken place about 20 years prior.
Sutton described al-Mansour as “the principal adviser to one of the world’s richest men.” The billionaire in question was Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal.
Given, the game-changing nature of this revelation when it surfaced in late August 2008, the Obama camp and its allies in the media, particularly Politico and Media Matters, shifted into overdrive to kill the story. Through a series of denials, lies and slanders about Sutton’s mental health, they succeeded.
The story, however, has come back to life. The elusive al-Mansour was a guest on the BlogTalkRadio show, “The National and International Roundtable,” Sept. 19, 2012.
In his introduction, the host openly acknowledged that al-Mansour “made news in 2008 when it was revealed that he had been a patron of President Barack Obama and had recommended him for admission to Harvard Law School.”
The host goes on to describe al-Mansour as “co-founder of the International law firm of al-Waleed, al-Talal and al-Mansour and special adviser to Saudi Arabian prince, his royal highness Prince Al Waleed bin Talal bin Abdulazziz.”
This meshed completely with what Sutton had said in 2008. According to Sutton, al-Mansour had asked him to “please write a letter in support of [Obama] … a young man that has applied to Harvard.” Sutton had friends at Harvard and gladly did so.
Although Sutton did not specify a date, this would likely have been in 1988 when the 26-year-old Obama was applying to Harvard Law School.
Khalid al-Mansour was a piece of work. Although impressively well connected, the Texan-born attorney and black separatist had not met the paranoid racial fantasy unworthy of his energy.
Several of his speeches can still be seen on YouTube. In one, “A Little on the History of Jews,” he lectures the world’s Jews, “God gave you nothing. The children from Poland and Russia were promised nothing. But they are stealing the land the same as the Christians stole the lands from the Indians in America.”
For the record, bin Talal was the very same Saudi who had offered New York $10 million to help the city rebuild after 9/11, but who had his gift refused by Mayor Rudy Guiliani. In September 2001, Giuliani was in no mood to hear even a billionaire blame America for inciting the attacks with its pro-Israel stance, no matter how deep his pockets.
For deeper background into why bin Talal might have been helping Obama, read Frank Miele’s excellent piece in the unlikely Daily Interlake of Kalispell, Mont.
Ben Smith, then of Politico, took the lead in killing the story. Shortly after the story broke, Smith ran the disclaimer that “Barack Obama’s campaign is flatly denying a story told by former Manhattan Borough President Percy Sutton.”
The Obama camp, in fact, denied that Obama even knew al-Mansour. Smith then talked to al-Mansour. At first, al-Mansour avoided contradicting Sutton’s story out of respect for Sutton, “a dear friend.” When pressed, however, al-Mansour disowned Sutton’s story. “The scenario as it related to me did not happen,” he reportedly told Smith.
A self-appointed “spokesman for Sutton’s family” by the name of Kevin Wardally put the penultimate nails in this story’s coffin with an email to Smith that read in part: “As best as our family and the Chairman’s closest friends can tell, Mr. Sutton, now 86 years of age, misspoke in describing certain details and events in that television interview.”
For Smith, even though Wardally had gotten Sutton’s age wrong by two years, this emailed slander was proof enough that Sutton’s highly specific claim was manufactured. Media Matters, meanwhile, scolded those conservative bloggers that did not accept the various denials at face value.
Independent journalist Ken Timmerman, now running for Congress in Maryland, followed up with Wardally. Unconvincingly, Wardally claimed that a nephew of the elder Sutton had retained his services.
Sutton’s son and daughter, however, told Timmerman that no one in their family even knew who Kevin Wardally was, let alone authorized him to speak on behalf of the family.
When Timmerman contacted al-Mansour, he repeatedly declined to comment on what Sutton had said and, contrary to the line from the Obama camp, claimed to know Obama personally.
With Hillary out of the race, no newsroom in America felt compelled to follow up on Timmerman’s research. At the time this story was gelling, in early September 2008, the media were doing all their digging in Alaskan dumpsters. The 89-year-old Sutton died in December 2009.
The Obama media will try to ignore this new revelation or, if not, kill it. Their best argument now is that al-Mansour was not on the air when his introduction was read. That is true enough.
Yet from the casual tone of the introduction, the listener senses that within black nationalist circles, the story Sutton told is believed to be true. If so, it should absolutely matter that a Saudi billionaire and his black nationalist cohorts have been promoting Obama from the beginning.
Ben Smith is now editor of Buzzfeed. If he ever wants to be taken seriously as a journalist, the onus is on him to follow up. If he wants to throw his peers a bone, he can report that bin Talal owns 7 percent of News Corp., the parent company of Fox News.

Poofness - 9-23-12 ON THE ROAD AGAIN


Hello All:
                     Its not always easy figering out what poof says, but I think he is saying it is close.
                                           God Bless   Love to all Smile Red rose Red heart 
> Subject: Fwd: On the Road Again
> Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 17:26:39 -0400
> From: 2goforth@Safe-mail.net
> To: 2goforth@Safe-mail.net
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> From: 2goforth@Safe-mail.net
> To: 2goforth@Safe-mail.net
> Subject: On the Road Again
> Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 17:04:04 -0400
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AzEY6ZqkuE
>
> Harry Nilsson
> Everybody's Talking At Me Lyrics
>
> Everybody's talking at me.
> I don't hear a word they're saying,
> Only the echoes of my mind.
> People stopping staring,
> I can't see their faces,
> Only the shadows of their eyes.
>
> I'm going where the sun keeps shining
> Thru' the pouring rain,
> Going where the weather suits my clothes,
> Backing off of the North East wind,
> Sailing on summer breeze
> And skipping over the ocean like a stone.
>
> I'm going where the sun keeps shining
> Thru' the pouring rain,
> Going where the weather suits my clothes,
> Backing off of the North East wind,
> Sailing on summer breeze
> And skipping over the ocean like a stone
>
> Greetings and Salutations;
>
> Used to be, folks would just nod their and concede, I was 'whacked' talking about something economically impossible, shift the wealth of the world??? Well your daft, sir. Hrrumph Hrrumph. Now the talking heads are responding directly on broadcasts and everything. Remember, back in ez board days? I said I would slice and dice the rumors and expose them for public ridicule, to be mocked and spat upon? It ain't easy being cheesy. The best is seeing the stuff I was talking about, materializing for all to see. It's taken a while but, 'resistance is futile...stand down to be assimilated'. You see, that change is afoot is beyond question, the only debate out here has to with who's doing it. Everybody is waving their arms around, it's me, no, it's me, I got control! and you're not getting a cowpatty on a warm day, in west texas when it's raining. Or like a little girl used to say in grade school , 'you think you're hot shit on a silver platter, but, you're nothing but cold diarrhea on a paper plate'. Such cussing comin' out her mouth...must have been an interesting home life for her. But, she grew up to become stunning. Go figure. She could cuss with penache...lololol.
>
> The old folks always said, if they are talking about you in, whatever form, you're making a difference, they keep you relevant. So, Bless them and move on. I was told to tell you folks to 'stay close' despite the delay created by a socialist country in an effort to get more tax money, something that was already taken care of by it's former president. Breaking a treaty. Many behinds are being seen fully exposed to the world for all the moles and blemishes upon them. Boxers know the term 'head fake', well the bad guys got a head fake, so complete, I was getting non rumor folks saying the drops were out. I gotta fail safe method of knowing and non of my trips wires went off so, that went into file 13. If you're greedy, you will not succeed no mater what clever games you come up with. I know of a very powerful person in the east, who thought he was running the show, he got shown, he wasn't running anything but running his feet to get him to the toilet on time. This is a lot like pulling the wings off of flies and making them walk. Yea, I got a 'sick' side but watching these so-called smart guys shoot themselves in the foot for so long...it has 'effected' my good disposition.
>
> Peace be upon everybody out there who's reading this, stand by, victory is here. It may dramatic for some, others will 'see' it and walk away, only too happy to be done with it all. I'm one of them. This happens and the unbelievers will still be writing blogs or whatever, saying what a ludicrous thing this all was. As the man said, 'you can't fix stupid'. These are unusual times and your critical thinking has to adjust to it, the old grey mare ain't what she used to be. Get in the way at your own risk.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Vz5HBbRH4M lololol who's 68 now
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=Jagger+on+stage&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&prmd=imvnsfd&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=hnVfUILeCYWK8QSdi4GwBg&ved=0CCwQsAQ&biw=1440&bih=701
>
>
>
> Love and Kisses,
>
> Poofness

Dreams from My REAL Father - full length video


> Subject: Do watch this today: Dreams from My REAL Father - full length video
>
> (Mailing list information, including how to remove yourself, is located at the end of this message.)
>
> Links are generally posted at my web site http://devvy.net/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi/r/alerts/260678219410/
> ______________
>
> Gilbert makes a very strong case Barry Soetoro aka Obama is the illegitimate child of communist organizer, Frank Marshall Davis. Legally, it doesn't matter in most states. The law in almost all the states says the named father on the BC is the legal father. Soetoro owns the birth certificate he put out to the world.
>
> For Hawaii - IF - he was born there:
>
> "Paternity is at issue for a child if the biological parents of the child are not married to each other at the time of birth of a child and paternity has not subsequently been established. Birth Certificate: The Father will be shown on the birth certificate if he acknowledges paternity when or close in time to the birth, or the Court orders the birth certificate to be changed to reflect the Fathers name."
>
> No one has found any marriage license or certificate between Ann Dunham and Soetoro, Sr., if I recall correctly. Sheriff Joe's chief detective, Mike Zullo covered this in one of the most recent updates. And, that there isn't a shred of evidence Soetoro was ever in Hawaii until age 5. Zullo also covered in depth the cockamamie methods used in Hawaii back then making it a cake walk for fraud and birth certificates.
>
> Personally, I believe he was born in Kenya. If you read the mutli part series, The Obama You Don't Know, Soetoro was brought up in a privileged life. His mother was well connected. At one time she worked with Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner's father. Small world.
>
> Dreams from My REAL Father - full length video:
>
>
http://devvy.net/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi/r/alerts/572296190482/
>
>
> Every Republican in Congress, including Ron Paul, have been protecting that impostor and his criminal acts (wire transfer fraud, election fraud, forged birth certificate, forged selective service form, perjury) for four years because they're cowards.
>
> The Obama You Don't Know
>
> http://devvy.net/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi/r/alerts/700656667874/
>
>
> -- 

Federal Reserve has already started QE3


Federal Reserve has already started QE3, says investor Jim Rogers

03 September 2012
Telegraph.co.uk
By Andrew Trotman
3:00PM BST 03 Sep 2012
Mr Rogers, who co-founded the Quantum Fund with George Soros, believes that America's central bank is secretly printing money to avoid "getting egg on their face again" after previous attempts to kickstart the faltering economy with $2 trillion of QE failed.
"I do not know if they [the Fed] will announce it," he told India's Economic Times. "I know they are going to print more money. They already are. If you look at their balance sheets, you will see that something is happening, assets are building on their balance sheets and they are not coming from the tooth fairy.
"They are a little bit embarrassed because they announced QE1 and QE2, and it did not work. So they may try to discuss it. They may just continue to do it without getting egg on their face again, but they are going to print money, they are all going to print money. It is the wrong thing to do, but that is all they know how to do."
He told the Daily Telegraph: "They probably have learned how to do things off balance sheet. I have nothing to confirm this but everyone else has learned how, so they probably have too. This is just a comment on human nature."
Mr Bernanke said in his annual speech at Jackson Hole on Friday that the country's high level of unemployment - it climbed to 8.3pc in July - is a "grave concern" and that the "economic situation remains far from satisfacto
To read the rest of this article vist:http://www.telegraph.co.uk

Can I ask you a favor?----


A dear friend just sent this to me and I think this is a great idea.
Will you please join me?
Beginning tonight. And if you like the idea, pass it on to your friends.


ONE MINUTE EACH NIGHT

This is the scariest election we as Christians have ever faced, and from the looks of the polls, the Christians aren't voting Christian values. We all need to be on our knees.

Do you believe we can take God at His word? Call upon His name, then stand back and watch His wonders unfold. This scripture gives us, as Christians, ownership of this land and the ability to call upon God to heal it. I challenge you to do that. We have never been more desperate than now for God to heal our land.

This election is the scariest I remember in my lifetime. 2 Chronicles 7:14.  'If my people, which are called by my name shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.'

During WWII, there was an advisor to Churchill, who organized a group of people who dropped what they were doing every night at a prescribed hour for one minute, to collectively pray for the safety of England , its people and peace. This had an amazing effect, as bombing stopped.

There is now a group of people organizing the same thing here in America .  The United States of America , and our citizens, need prayer more than ever!!! If you would like to participate, each evening at 9:00 P.M. Eastern Time (8 PM Central, 7 PM Mountain, 6 PM Pacific), stop whatever you're doing, and spend one minute praying for the safety of the United States, our troops, our citizens, for peace in the world, the upcoming election, that the Bible will remain the basis for the laws governing our land, and that Christianity will grow in the U.S.

If you know anyone who would like to participate, please pass this along.

Someone said if people really understood the full extent of the power we have available through prayer, we might be speechless. Our prayers are the most powerful asset we have.
"Be still and know that I AM GOD for I AM with you always!"

Please pass this on to anyone who you think will want to join us.

PS: I've sent to everyone and hope there are no duplications.
--
<)))>< .. I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. -Philippians 4:13