Category: Global Affairs


The 2016 US presidential election was extraordinary – practically the entire political leadership class from neo-cons to liberals united around a single candidate. Of the leading newspapers in the US, 57 endorsed Clinton, 4 endorsed the Libertarian candidate Johnson, and only 2 endorsed Trump. While the official presidential contest is nearly always de facto restricted to a two-horse race, usually the establishment is divided among the two contestants or at least they hedge their bets. This time around we saw near unanimity under the Democratic Party’s big tent.

Clearly the pundits and politicos were wrong; Trump won. Less clear is what the consequences of a Trump presidency will be.

Some have suggested that Trump may be a harbinger of fascism. Surely central casting could not have served up a better stereotype of a fascist than Donald J. Trump himself. But what of the substance of that allegation?

Historical Fascism

The quintessential aspect of historical fascism was not anti-Semitism. Mussolini had Jews in high places in his government until pressured to remove them by his German ally. Neither was it anti-humanitarian propensities. The allied side had plenty of those such as Truman’s bombing of the civilian cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the Japanese were ready to surrender. Rather, the quintessential aspect of historical fascism was its fundamentalist anti-communism and a particular form of capitalism involving the corporatist state.

Fascism arose in Europe of the 1930s coming out of the crisis of capitalism caused by the worldwide Great Depression. In each of the European fascist countries, the political condition which led to fascism was a serious contestation for state power between capitalist parties and communist/socialist parties.

The owning classes (e.g., Krupp) would rather tolerate an authoritarian rule over their own prerogatives than risk a socialist alternative that would have threatened their class hegemony. They would not have needed fascism to ensure their class rule had not the balance of class forces included the possibility of a socialist ascendency in Europe.

Given the alternative, the owning classes accepted fascism in Spain, Germany, and Italy. Under fascism, class rule continued, but bourgeois democracy was replaced by authoritarian rule. No longer would factions within the ruling class have the freedom to contend for power amongst themselves.

Decoupling Anti-Communism from Fascism

In the aftermath of World War II and the military victory of the allies over the fascist states, the US emerged as the uncontested world superpower. The US commanded a monopoly of nuclear weapons and had demonstrated a willingness to use them.

George Kennan writing in 1948 from the Truman State Department posited the basis of US empire:

“We have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3 of its population…Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships, which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity…We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world benefaction.”

As the self-proclaimed leader of the so-called Free World to defeat communism, it was inconvenient to associate fascism with anti-communism, especially so as the US incorporated former European fascists into its national security apparatus.

De-politicizing and Psychologizing Fascism

The popular conception of fascism was made over into a personality disorder independent of historical circumstances or political content. Everyone agreed…Hitler was a “madman” – end of story.

Along those lines, Theodor Adorno and his associates at UC Berkeley developed the F-scale (F for fascist), which purported to be a psychological test for identifying fascists. Later to be published in 1950 as The Authoritarian Personality, the work has been largely discredited by mental health professionals, but served as a scientific gloss to the notion that fascism is a psychopathy.

Fascist Europe Compared to Current US

In comparison to Europe of the late 1930s, there is little to suggest that capitalist rule is imminently challenged by a socialist insurgency today in the US. In the last presidential election, the two parties of capital won about 95% of the vote, while the Libertarian Party picked up around 3% and the Greens got 1%.

Contemporary American politics are plagued by many disorders, but the threat of fascism – I would argue – is not currently one of them. The owning class can be secure in knowing that one or the other of the parties of capital will prevail.

Anti-immigrant and White Nativist Threats

Neoliberal austerity for working people, war without end abroad, and the surveillance state may have been among the incubators that have allowed such an unlikely person as Donald Trump to rise to prominence.

For those who fear Trump as a fascist yet wax nostalgic about the liberal golden age of the New Deal, remember that it was the party of FDR that imposed a reign of Jim Crow terror on its black citizens depriving them of the right to vote and then some. Virulent racism and violence are not at all incompatible with bourgeois democracy. To simply equate extreme repression with fascism is to disarm ourselves to the manifest dangers of our present system of governance.

Surely Mr. Trump has been accused of associating with any number of anti-immigrant and white nativist forces. Unfortunately, electing Democrats to office is no firewall against ethnic cleansing. President Obama has the distinction, for instance, for deporting more immigrants than all previous presidents, and nobody is accusing him for being a proto-fascist.

Democrats Rediscover the Working Class

All of a sudden the working class has been rediscovered by the Democratic Party, which of late spoke only of an all-encompassing “middle class” that incorporated everyone including the super-rich. Having made the discovery of the working class’s existence doesn’t mean that the Democratic Party is necessarily about to embrace them back into the old New Deal coalition. No, some of these folks are what Hillary Clinton called the “deplorables.”

The presumed racist white working class who voted for Trump –according to the Democrat’s litany – are defined as being poorly educated. The reasoning is as follows: the poorly educated are not as intelligent and therefore do not understand that their true interests would be to support Democrats. Informing this view of working people is a smug class bias, which confounds education, intelligence, and political understanding.

BTW, Yale and Harvard alumnus George W. Bush – the so-called village idiot according to the Democrat’s litany – lost his first political foray in 1978 in West Texas to a “good old boy” because hecame off “over-educated,” “too quick,” and too “darn intelligent that a lot of what he said went over people’s heads.” That was not a mistake that W was about to repeat, much to the miscalculations of his Democrat opponents.

Trajectory of Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism has had an unbroken trajectory moving the US ever to the right, whether under a Democrat or a Republican president. The Reagan/Bush-the-father “revolution” had its antecedents with Carter. Clinton continued the trajectory with NAFTA, ending “welfare as we know it,” deregulating banking, disassembling socialist Yugoslavia, etc. Bush-the-son followed by Obama continued the trajectory of neoliberalism lurching to the right, making one nostalgic for the reign of Nixon.

At each juncture between presidencies, the Democrats offer us lesser-evilism, touting themselves as just a little less venal than their Republican opponent. The problem with the lesser evil is that it continues the trajectory to the right without an end in sight.

Bill Clinton could “feel your pain” but inflict it anyway; Bush, not troubled by empathy, simply inflicted. In the long view, the difference between neoliberal Democrats and neoliberal Republicans is more of style than substance. Continuity – as with Obama’s retention of Bush’s Secretary of Defense Gates and Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke – has been the main trust of recent US presidential politics.

This continuity results not in each successive presidency being the same as the last, but in each moving further to the right of its predecessor. Not only did Obama fail to permanently withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, but he expanded the wars to Libya, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, etc.

Bankrupt liberals have abandoned promoting the good, promising us at best they’ll be just a little less bad. As Corey Robins explains, “today’s liberal believes there is only evil and progress is measured by the distance we put between ourselves and that evil.”

Formerly “independent” Bernie Sanders has joined the Democratic Party leadership as the chief sheep dog and token liberal. In return for membership in this millionaires’ club, Sanders gets to rail against millionaires who are not Democrats while preaching the gospel of lesser-evilism.

The lesson of the 2016 election is that supporting Democrats is precisely the wrong direction to oppose what Trump represents. Rather, the need to build a left alternative that speaks to the disaffected Trump constituency is the key take-home message.

Danger of Fascism in the US

Trump or some other person with authoritarian tendencies is not about to will fascism on the US, when the objective political forces still allow for a thriving bourgeois democracy. In America anyone can run for president as long as they can raise a billion dollars and everyone has freedom of the press who can afford to buy one.

If a left insurgency gains momentum in the face of the looming possibility of a greater great recession coming down the road, fascism may appear to be a more attractive option to elements of the current rulers. But beware, that threat may not necessarily come in the form of a scowling Republican but from a smiley Democrat.

The present danger of being a premature anti-fascist is that:

* it disarms us into underestimating the basic perniciousness of everyday capitalism, and

* it diverts the struggle to build a good society into the unending regression of lesser evilism.

If Trump were really the Mussolini from Manhattan, the harbinger of fascism in the US, then considering uniting with the lesser evil of the Democrats might have some validity. But the real danger of Trump is that he will continue the rightward trajectory of neoliberalism. The threat is not so much that Trump will reverse Obama, but more that he will carry Obama’s policies to the next level (e.g.,privatization of public education).


Neocons Are Stealing Our Souls

By Jack Speer-Williams
Most Americans believe many popular untruths and have a resistance to unpopular truths. Too many of us are led by popular opinions, which are usually incorrect.
By the end of the Ronald Reagan administration, in 1989, the Soviet Union was falling apart. Soon America would have no enemies in the world, at least none who could seriously harm us. Such an idyllic state was, however, intolerable to the controlling Neocons (US/Israeli* dual citizens), who have long directed the disastrous domestic and foreign policies of America. *These US/Israeli dual citizens should be called Israeli citizens as their total allegiance is to Israel, the Rothschilds, and the One World government, with obvious contempt for gullible America.

The term Neocon is a misnomer as Neocons are not conservative. The word Neocon has come to mean (to those in the know) the dual-citizen Jews (US/Israeli) who are appointed to high positions in all three branches of the American federal government, including the Supreme Court, in spite of the fact that Jews comprise only about two to three percent of the US population.

Since it is politically incorrect to call a bunch of psychopathic Jews what they really are (psychopathic Jews), they are called Neocons. The Jewish-owned media has made sure that none of this can be discussed, as Americans have been trained (yes, actually trained) to feel uncomfortable whenever hearing about Jewish crimes. Even pointing out that most Neocons are Jewish is an affront to many mind-controlled Americans.

These Neocons have no place in their hearts for a better, safer, and happier world. They spend trillions of dollars on bringing about ruination, poverty, starvation, and death, but not a farthing on peace or prosperity for those other than themselves. In point of fact, five years ago Time Magazine estimated that America had spent five trillion (5,000,000,000,000) dollars on our concocted war on terror.

First of all, that cost was estimated five years ago; those costs have exploded to much higher heights since then. Secondly, who knows how much higher our war costs will go?
Thirdly, and most importantly, these war expenses are ruining our economy, causing our infrastructure to fall apart, while tent cities are springing up all across our country.

What have the Neocons given us in return for their interminable wars on terror? National security? What a joke. The United States of America and her citizens have never in history been less secure than today, with each succeeding day making us more vulnerable to nationwide disasters. The Neocons, with their control of television, have conned Americans into such a surreal existence, that few of us try to understand who we are fighting or why.

Are we fighting al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, ISIL, al-Nusra, or the Islamic State? It is all purposely made complex so we will turn a blind eye to the daily crimes committed by those who run our Department of Defense – the Neocons. You might find it difficult to believe, but the Defense Department lists sixty terrorist organizations, more than enough to keep the Rothschild-owned military/industrial complex busy, with both dead bodies and bucks piling up.How many of us even know that five trillion dollars is five million dollars times a million – an incomprehensible figure for any human being.

The Neocons have no interest in any of that money being used for practical facilities, such as desalination plants, which could make the deserts bloom and help end starvation and death in our world. There is no sane reason the Blacks of Africa have to continually suffer with starvation, disease, and genocide; a fraction of the trillions of US dollars the Neocons have spent on destruction and death, they could have used to end hunger in Africa. The Neocons have never wanted peace and prosperity anywhere, especially in the Middle East; they chose instead to make the hot, struggling lands of the Muslim people war zones of perpetual destabilization and deadly chaos.

Certainly the Rothschilds, who control the US Neocons, have a huge interest in stealing the oil and other natural resources of the Middle East, but total destabilization is their prime objective on their way to hegemonic control of the world. To accomplish their never-ending conflicts and chaos throughout the Middle East, the Neocons directed US/Israeli dark undercover agents to sow bloodshed and hatred between various sects of the Muslim religion.

Additionally, with secret funding, direction, equipping, and organization, the Neocons (who have long run the American federal government) created terrorism with religious radicals and mercenaries brought in from as far away as the nations of Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and other countries.These fledgling foreign terrorists were and are brainwashed for as long as six months with all sorts of insane and perverted “Islamic lessons” until they were and are ready to kill those who will not join their jihad. Most of these foreign terrorists are brought into countries like Syria and Libya where they are called by the Neocon controlled media moderates, rebels, or even freedom fighters who are fighting against cruel oppressive governments. This allows cover for the Neocon-controlled Western militaries to give air and supply support to all terrorists, while claiming they are only aiding freedom fighters who want and deserve our support.

Certainly you have heard the words rebels, moderates, or freedom fighters used by the Neocon’s lap-dog media dozens if not scores of times. The next time you hear those terms, just replace them all with far more correct words: CIA/Mossad terrorists. With their control of the US press and the mainstream media, these black-hearted Neocons have convinced most Americans that the terrorists hate all Americans for their freedoms. This absurdity was even repeated by the Neocon’s puppet, Little George Bush, while the freedoms Americans once enjoyed were falling away daily.

American politicians spend a lot of time lying about how we should up our war effort against terrorism, without ever saying a word about indicting, prosecuting, and convicting US/Israeli Neocon terrorists of murder, espionage, misleading Congress, perjury, public corruption, organizing and providing material assistance to terrorists, and obstruction of justice. After all, the Neocons are the real terrorists of our world.

Of course, it would be difficult for our US political leaders to prosecute the Neocons, as Israel’s Mossad has video proof of many of them engaged in sex or hiding some sort of financial crime.Moreover, most of our congressmen and senators have been elected with Jewish oligarch campaign funds, which I suspect came to them from Israel. And from whom did Israel get so much money? From American taxpayers in the form of US foreign aid.
Without these dauntingly large campaign donations, by way of the Zionists, no honest, patriotic US representative or senator can be elected.

Since WW II, America has given Israel (in non-inflation-adjusted dollars) over $125 billion. This fact, added to all the other destructive Neocon policies, has gone a long, long way in demolishing the American economy.Americans, whether they realize it or not, are giving their permission to be abused by their own government by actually paying for it. This makes Americans guilty of the murder and slaughter of millions of people around the world, with their own ignorance being at the base of their crimes.

The US crimes against humanity in the Middle East, however, did not begin in earnest until the industrial/military complex (owned by the Rothschild tribe) lost their “cold war” foe – the Soviet Union. Then in 1990, the insane, death-loving Neocons quickly whipped up a casus belli with Iraq, using our American ambassador, April Glaspie, as their instrument of war.

The Neocons wanted to bomb a lot of human beings, with the support of a majority of the American people.

On the 5th of January, 2011, a message from the Veterans for Common Sense was released to the world. Its text is reprinted below.

A secret July 25, 1990, [US] State Department Cable [was widely] released by Wikileaks. [It] shows how US Ambassador April Glaspie told Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein the U.S. had “no position” on the Iraq – Kuwait border dispute, where Kuwait was allegedly stealing oil from Iraq [by slant drilling]. At the time, the U.S. supported Iraq’s recently ended war with Iran (1980–1988) that had ruined Iraq’s economy. On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. On January 12, 1991, prompted by a massive propaganda campaign, the U.S. began bombing Iraq, and never stopped. More than 20 years later [now 25 years] the war continues with deadly consequences for Kuwait, Iraq, and the U.S.

Based on the State Department cable, the facts are clear: in 1990, then President George H[erbert} W[alker] Bush’s administration [and Ms. Glaspie], failed to denounce Iraq’s intended military action against Kuwait in July 1990. The silence encouraged Iraqi’s Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait in August 1990. The Gulf War was left unfinished for thirteen years, with an embargo, sanctions, and “no-fly” zones.*

In 2003, then President George W. Bush lied about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction and launched a second invasion [called Shock and Awe].*It has been estimated, and later confirmed by Us Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, that our post war sanctions against Iraq resulted in the deaths of over 500,000 Iraqi children. The first US/NATO bombings of Iraq consisted of 100,000 sorties dropping an estimated 88,500 tons of bombs on Iraq and her people.

The Neocons called their second, 2003, bombings of Iraq – Shock and Awe!
Those bombings were meant to totally terrorize, paralyze, demoralize, cripple, or kill all Iraqi men, women, and their children. The incomprehensible death and destruction committed by the US military was a crime against humanity Americans will forever have to bear all because we allowed the psychopathic Neocons to control our government, as they still do.

The American crimes against Iraq have become so obvious that both of the presidential candidates of 2016 have denied they supported those wars. Hillary lied. The widely reported media use of the words smart bombs, complete with careful targeting and precision strikes was not something the Neocons ever thought Americans would believe, as only fools would believe such a rash of nonsense. The term smart bombs was used so Americans could push the crimes out of their minds, thus making us unknowingly as criminal as our government.The other spiritual trap for Americans was the Neocon’s media use of the misleading words collateral damage, which allowed many Americans to think, “Well … it’s understandable that a few good people will get killed while we’re going after the bad guys.”

Another aspect of the Neocon’s dark strategy included having their media reporters tell us (with serious voices) how few civilians were just accidently killed while US forces were defending themselves against the wild and fierce Republican Guard of the evil Saddam Hussein.

The Neocon’s Iraqi slaughter-of- human-life scenario have been played out again and again in the countries of Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria, with their hired mercenaries maintaining chaos, creating fear and starvation, homelessness, disease, and death throughout the brutally bombed and devastated nations. The prime targets, via their secret proxy terrorists, has been the horror and death they spread amongst innocent civilians.

Now the stage has been set for the Neocons in Europe and America to destroy the White Christian cultures and civilizations of both America and Europe with millions of immigrants, mostly from the sub-Saharan African continent. These immigrants are falsely called Syrian refugees by the Neocon’s media, when in actuality they are not refugees, nor are most of them from Syria. They are mostly young, ignorant, unskilled, uneducated black men, with I.Q.s that are estimated to range from 60+, with few women or children to be seen.The Neocons, however, did not set these Zionist goals; they only try to implement them. No one can prove who set the goals of destroying the Middle East, Europe, and America, but the Rothschild banking tribe ranks as high as can easily be proven.

But there can be no denying that many Jews have been and are being used to destroy, Islam, Christianity, and other religions, with both Black and White Christians ignorantly going along with it. Perhaps the world’s best known terrorist in existence is Philadelphia reared and MIT educated Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who claims to have written a book entitled Fighting Terrorism. If Bibi really wanted to defeat terrorism, he’d have Mossad stop helping the CIA to create it.

Jews the world over would be wise to speak out against the Rothschilds and their Neocons, as has researcher and writer Mr. Bernie Suarez.Below, Bernie Suarez lists 5 Master Crimes You’ll Have to Explain to Future Generations – all attributable directly to American Neocons and their cultural Marxists in government and the media:

Over a decade of geoengineering and in-your-face weather manipulation.

A generation without justice on 9/11 crimes.

Open genetic (GMO) contamination of the food supply of the species.

Tons of toxin-laced vaccines injected directly into newborns … no accountability, no proof of safety, no problem!

Choosing impractical top-down tyranny over small/self-goverance.

But what actual chance do Americans have against their foremost enemies – the Neocons?
I feel confident that Vladimir Putin of Russia understands and disagrees with the Rothschild push for world hegemony. Please tell me why else would the Rothschilds’ Western media so unjustly continue to attack Putin and his country?
The Rothschilds well know, with his growing military might, Putin and his country may actually become the hope of the world, as Edgar Cayce long ago predicted. Unfortunately, however, Neocon war initiatives could mean the physical destruction of America, especially with the warmongering, mentally unstable Hillary Clinton as our president.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts has said that Russia has bombs that are 17,000 times more powerful than the ones we dropped on Japan. And that just one of those terrible bombs could level three-quarters of the entire state of New York – killing most plant, animal, and human life for perhaps billions of years.

And yet, the Neocons want to throw dice with our futures by continually poking the Russian bear in his eyes in Syria and Ukraine. Already the US has missiles on Russia’s western border, with the ridiculous claim they are for protection against Iran. How much more will Russia take from the US Neocons? More ludicrous yet, the Neocons have been asserting that America could win a nuclear war with Russia. Is that not an idiot’s remark? Is it not a statement of provocation? It is not patriotic to support preposterous national policies or crimes against humanity – crimes against all life forms.One of these batshit crazy Neocons asked, “What’s the use of having nuclear bombs if you don’t use them?” That is insanity; deep insanity. Have these demented psychos never heard of MAD – the old doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction? Have there ever been truer words spoken or written than these?

Certifiably insane, dual-citizen terrorists are running our government and implementing its seriously dangerous policies. Please understand something of supreme importance: due to our sloth and ignorance, the US/NATO/Israeli combine have become the force of the archfiend Satan. We now all need God, and our religion, more than ever before.

May God bless and spare us.


Why the US Had to Kill the Syrian Ceasefire

There are several sound reasons for concluding that the US-led air strike on the Syrian army base near Deir Ezzor last weekend was a deliberate act of murderous sabotage. One compelling reason is that the Pentagon and CIA knew they had to act in order to kill the ceasefire plan worked out by US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

The compulsion to wreck the already shaky truce was due to the unbearable exposure that the ceasefire plan was shedding on American systematic involvement in the terrorist proxy war on Syria.

Not only that, but the tentative ceasefire was also exposing the elements within the US government responsible for driving the war effort. US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter – the head of the Pentagon – reportedly fought tooth and nail with Obama’s top diplomat John Kerry while the latter was trying to finalize the ceasefire plan with Russia’s Lavrov on the previous weekend of September 9 in Geneva.

While Sergey Lavrov and media reporters were reportedly kept waiting several hours for Kerry to finally emerge to sign off on the deal, the American foreign secretary was delayed by intense haggling in conference calls with Carter and other military chiefs back in Washington. Even days before Kerry’s diplomatic shuttle to Geneva, Carter was disparaging any prospective deal with Russia on a Syrian ceasefire.

It is well documented that both the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency have been running clandestine programs for arming and training anti-government militants in Syria since the outset of the war in March 2011. Officially, Washington claims to be only supporting «moderate, vetted opposition». However, on occasion, Western media reports allude to the deeper sinister connections between the US military and terrorist groups when it has been reported that American weaponry «accidentally» finds its way into the hands of extremist jihadist networks.

This pretense by the US – and its other NATO and Arab allies – of supporting «moderate rebels» and of having no involvement with recognized terror groups like Al Nusra and Daesh (ISIS) was being exposed by the latest ceasefire.

It is conceivable that the diplomatic corps of the Obama administration, including President Barack Obama and his foreign emissary John Kerry, may be benighted about the full extent of America’s dirty war in Syria and its systematic connections to the terrorist brigades. Perhaps, this Obama flank is gullible and venal enough to believe in Washington’s propaganda of a dichotomy between «moderate rebels» and «terrorists».

Thus, when Kerry announced the ceasefire plan with Lavrov in Geneva on September 9, the American diplomat’s calls for the US-backed «moderate rebels» to separate themselves from the terror groups may have been made out a naive notion that such a distinction might exist. How else could we explain such a futile public appeal?

Not so, though, the Pentagon and CIA. The covert warmongers in the Pentagon and at Langley know the vile truth all along. That is, that all the militant groups in Syria are integrated into a terrorist front, albeit with a plethora of different names and seeming differences in commitment to al Qaeda Wahhabi ideology. The masters of war know that Washington is a sponsor of this terrorist front, along with its NATO and Arab allies.

Anyone with an informed knowledge about the origins of Al Qaeda from CIA authorship in Afghanistan during the 1980s would not be surprised in the slightest by such a systematic American role in the Syrian conflict.

This perspective reasonably explains why Carter. and the US military generally, were making conspicuous objections to Kerry’s ceasefire plan with Russia. They knew the ceasefire was not only infeasible because of the systematic links between the US and the terror groups, but also that a failing ceasefire would furthermore expose these systematic connections, and create wider public awareness about American complicity in the Syrian war.

And, as it transpired, the apprehensions of the Pentagon and the CIA terrorist handlers were indeed founded. Within days of the Kerry-Lavrov ceasefire being implemented on September 12, the following was undeniable: there was no separation of «moderates» and «terrorists». All militant groups were continuing to violate the nominal truce in the northern battleground city of Aleppo and in other locations across Syria.

The US and Western media then began venting about the Syrian «regime» and its Russian ally not delivering on giving humanitarian aid access to insurgent-held areas of eastern Aleppo. But that rhetorical gaming could not disguise the fact that the ceasefire was being breached by all the militant groups, which made it impossible for humanitarian aid convoys to enter Aleppo. Another factor played down by the Western media was that the Turkish government refused to coordinate with the Syrian authorities in the routing of UN truck convoys from the Turkish border into Aleppo. Given Turkey’s past documented involvement in using «humanitarian aid» as a cover for supplying weapons to insurgents, the vigilance demanded by Damascus is understandable.

The floundering ceasefire was thereby providing a withering world exposure of American terrorist complicity in Syria. The US lie about backing «moderates» as opposed to «terrorists» was being shown once and for all to be a cynical delusion. Evidently, US claims of supporting a «legitimate» opposition were seen for what they are – an utter sham. That leads to an even more damning conclusion that the US government is a sponsor of a terrorist proxy army in Syria for its criminal objective of regime change in that country. In theory at least, this disclosure warrants legal prosecution of Washington and its allies for the commission of war crimes against the state of Syria.

Given the grave stakes for American international standing that the ceasefire was endangering, it is reasonable to posit that a decision was taken by the Pentagon to sabotage. Hence, on September 17, American, British and Australian warplanes struck the Syrian Arab Army elite forces’ base near Deir Ezzor,  in eastern Syria, killing over 60 personnel and wounding nearly 100 more.

The US, Britain and Australia have since claimed that it was an accident, and that their aircraft were intending to attack Daesh militants in the area. The US-led coalition claims it will carry out an investigation into the air strike. As with many times before, such as when the US devastated a hospital in Afghanistan’s Kunduz killing more than 30 people last year, we can expect a cover-up.

Briefly, a few factors for doubting the US coalition’s claim of an accident are: why did the Daesh militants reportedly launch an offensive operation on the Syrian army base less than 10 minutes after it was struck by F-16s and A-10s? That suggests coordination between the coalition air forces and the terrorists on the ground.

Secondly, it defies credibility that sophisticated air power and surveillance could mistake an army base and adjacent air field containing hundreds of troops for ragtag guerrilla units.

Thirdly, as Russian military sources point out, the US coalition had previously not been active in that area over the past two years of flying operations. The Syrian army was known to be recently waging an effective campaign against Daesh around Deir Ezzor. That suggests that the US air power was being deployed to defend the terrorist units, as the Syrian and Russian governments were quick to claim after the US-led air strike on Deir Ezzor. That is consistent with the broader analysis of why and how the entire Syrian war has been fomented by Washington for regime change.

But perhaps the most telling factor in concluding that the US and its allies carried out the massacre at Deir Ezzor deliberately is the foregoing argument that the Pentagon and CIA war planners knew that the flawed ceasefire was exposing their terror tentacles in Syria. And certainly, if any US-Russian joint anti-Daesh operations were to take place as envisaged by the Kerry-Lavrov plan, then the charade would definitely be blown apart.

In that case, only one thing had to be done as a matter of necessity. The unwieldy, discomfiting ceasefire had to be killed off. And so the Pentagon decided to make a «mistake» at Deir Ezzor – a «mistake» that has gutted any minimal trust between the US and Russia, unleashing recriminations and a surge in ceasefire violations.

The American and Western media respond in the usual servile way to aid the cover-up. The massacre at Deir Ezzor is being largely ignored as a news story, with much more prominence given to a relatively minor bombing incident in New York City on the same weekend in which no-one was killed. Or, when reported on, the US media in particular have automatically accepted without question that the air strike was an accident. CNN also dismissed out of hand Syrian government claims of it being proof of American collusion with terrorists as «absurd». A claim that would otherwise seem fairly logical.

The New York Times had this gloss to paint over the air strike:

«The United States’ accidental bombing of Syrian troops over the weekend has put it on the defensive, undercutting American efforts to reduce violence in the civil war and open paths for humanitarian relief».

The American so-called newspaper-of-record then adds:

«The United States had thought that if a deal to ease hostilities in Syria, struck by Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart in Geneva nine days ago, fell apart, it would reveal Russia’s duplicity in the war, in which Moscow has supported the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad».

How ironic. According to The New York Times, the Americans anticipated that the ceasefire deal would reveal «Russia’s duplicity in the war». Maybe, they calculated that Russia and Syria would not abide by the cessation, which they very much did during the first week, showing discipline and commitment to finding a peaceful settlement.

Far from revealing Russia’s «duplicity», it is Washington that emerged as the culprit, as the Pentagon and CIA had feared all along because of their deep complicity with the terrorist proxies.

Killing the Syrian ceasefire was like the necessity to extinguish a spotlight that had suddenly come on and begun exposing the putrefaction and bloodied hands in America’s dirty war. 

By Robert Parry

Traditional U.S. journalism and the American people are facing a crisis, as the preeminent American newspaper, The New York Times, has fully lost its professional bearings, transforming itself into a neoconservative propaganda sheet eager for a New Cold War with Russia and imposing a New McCarthyism on public debate

The crisis is particularly acute because another top national newspaper, The Washington Post, is also deeply inside the neocon camp.

The Times’ abandonment of journalistic principles has become most noticeable with its recurring tirades about Russia, as the Times offers up story after story that would have embarrassed Sen. Joe McCarthy and his 1950s Red-baiters.

Operating without any actual evidence, a recent Times article by Neil MacFarquhar sought to trace public challenges to official U.S. government narratives on world events to a massive “disinformation” campaign by Russian intelligence. Apparently, it is inconceivable to the Times that independent-minded people might simply question some of the dubious claims made by Official Washington.

Perhaps most stunningly, the Times sought to prove its point by citing the slogan of Russia’s English-language television network, saying: “RT trumpets the slogan ‘Question More.’”

So, now, presumably if someone suggests questioning a claim from the U.S. government or from the NATO alliance, that person is automatically a “Russian agent of influence.” For a major newspaper to adopt such a position is antithetical to the tenets of journalism which call on us journalists to question everything.

The Times’ position is particularly outrageous because many key claims by the U.S. government, including some used to justify aggressive wars against other countries, have turned out to be false. Indeed, the Times has been caught peddling some of these bogus claims, often fed to the “newspaper of record” by U.S. government officials or from think tanks funded by American military contractors.

Disinformation Conduit

Most memorably, in 2002, the Times pushed disinformation about the Iraqi government reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, a lie that was then cited by Vice President Dick Cheney and other senior officials to help stampede the American people behind the 2003 invasion of Iraq.


Image: The controversial map developed by Human Rights Watch and embraced by the New York Times, supposedly showing the flight paths of two missiles from the Aug. 21 Sarin attack intersecting at a Syrian military base.

Lesser known moments of the Times serving as a disinformation conduit include a discredited assertion about the 2013 sarin attack in Syria, in which the Times purported to show how the flight paths of two missiles traced back to a Syrian military base, only later to grudgingly acknowledge that aeronautical experts judged that the one missile found to be carrying sarin had a maximum range of about one-fourth the required distance.

During the 2014 Ukraine crisis, the Times accepted photographs from the U.S. State Department which purported to show Russian military personnel in Russia and then later inside Ukraine, except that it turned out that the photograph supposedly taken in Russia was actually taken in Ukraine, destroying the premise of the Times article.


Image: Photograph published by the New York Times purportedly taken in Russia of Russian soldiers who later appeared in eastern Ukraine. However, the photographer has since stated that the photo was actually taken in Ukraine, and the U.S. State Department has acknowledged the error.

Yet, the Times holds itself out as some paragon of objectivity. This delusion further underscores how out of control and indeed dangerous the Times has become as a source of U.S. government disinformation, while accusing others of spreading Russian disinformation which often isn’t disinformation at all.

In its recent article, the Times cites reasonable questions raised by Swedish citizens about a proposal for the country entering into a military association with NATO and dismisses these concerns as proof of Russian government propaganda and lies:

“The claims were alarming: If Sweden, a non-NATO member, signed the deal, the alliance would stockpile secret nuclear weapons on Swedish soil; NATO could attack Russia from Sweden without government approval; NATO soldiers, immune from prosecution, could rape Swedish women without fear of criminal charges.”

Yet, all these worries raised by Swedish citizens – and cited by MacFarquhar in the Times – are not unreasonable concerns since nuclear weapons often are stored in NATO countries, NATO members are obliged to go to war to protect allies, and there have been problems with rape cases in countries with NATO or other foreign bases.

How those realities might affect a country agreeing to a NATO military association are reasonable concerns for Swedes to raise, but instead these worries are dismissed as Russian disinformation without any evidence to support the charge.

No Evidence

MacFarquhar even concedes the point that his lead allegation lacks evidentiary support, writing: “As often happens in such cases, Swedish officials were never able to pin down the source of the false reports.”


Image: Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)

MacFarquhar then adds:

“But they, numerous analysts and experts in American and European intelligence point to Russia as the prime suspect, noting that preventing NATO expansion is a centerpiece of the foreign policy of President Vladimir V. Putin, who invaded Georgia in 2008 largely to forestall that possibility.”

Though MacFarquhar cites the Russian “invasion” of Georgia supposedly to thwart its entrance into NATO as a flat fact to support his thesis, that historical reference is a far more complicated issue since it was Georgia that launched an attack on South Ossetia, a breakaway province, and killed Russian peacekeepers stationed there.

An investigation by the European Union laid most of the blame on Georgia for initiating the conflict, with the Russians then reacting to the Georgian assault. A 2009 report on the E.U. mission led by Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini rejected Georgian claims about self-defense, finding that Georgia, not Russia, started the conflict.

“None of the explanations given by the Georgian authorities in order to provide some form of legal justification for the attack lend it a valid explanation,” Tagliavini said.

The E.U. report stated:

“There was no ongoing armed attack by Russia before the start of the Georgian operation. Georgian claims of a large-scale presence of Russian armed forces in South Ossetia prior to the Georgian offensive could not be substantiated by the mission. It could also not be verified that Russia was on the verge of such a major attack.”

In other words, Putin’s military did not “invade” Georgia in 2008 “largely to forestall” Georgia’s entrance into NATO, but as a reaction – arguably an over-reaction – to Georgia’s violent offensive into South Ossetia.

Yet, MacFarquhar cites this dubious point as some sort of indirect “evidence” that Putin is responsible for questions posed by Swedish citizens about what a NATO association would mean for them.

After acknowledging no real evidence and citing a historical “fact” that really isn’t a fact, MacFarquhar expands his conspiracy theory into more recent events claiming that Putin

“has invested heavily in a program of ‘weaponized’ information, using a variety of means to sow doubt and division. …

“The fundamental purpose of dezinformatsiya, or Russian disinformation, experts said, is to undermine the official version of events — even the very idea that there is a true version of events — and foster a kind of policy paralysis.”

The MH-17 Case

As an example, MacFarquhar cites the case of the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, claiming “Russia pumped out a dizzying array of theories.” The Times correspondent then asserts as flat fact that “The cloud of stories helped veil the simple truth that poorly trained insurgents had accidentally downed the plane with a missile supplied by Russia.”


Image: The Dutch Safety Board’s reconstruction of where it believed the missile exploded near Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17, 2014.

But, according to official investigations that have been underway for more than two years, MacFarquhar’s claim is not “the simple truth,” as he put it. Last year’s report by the Dutch Safety Board reached no conclusion about who was responsible for shooting down the plane, killing 298 people.

Indeed, the DSB’s report included a statement by Dutch intelligence (reflecting NATO’s intelligence data) that the only powerful anti-aircraft-missile systems in eastern Ukraine on that day – capable of hitting MH-17 at 33,000 feet – were under the control of the Ukrainian military. (Though an official document, this Dutch intelligence report has never been mentioned by The New York Times, presumably because it conflicts with the favored Russia-did-it narrative.)

The U.S. government, which in the five days after the crash did rush to a judgment blaming ethnic Russian rebels supposedly using a Russian-supplied Buk missile, then went silent on the issue after CIA analysts had a chance to examine the evidence in more detail.

Despite appeals from the families of Dutch victims, including the father of the one young American citizen who died in the crash, the U.S. government has refused to release its radar, satellite images and other intelligence information that presumably could establish exactly who was responsible.

Why the U.S. government would obstruct the investigation into this tragedy if indeed the evidence proved Putin’s responsibility doesn’t make any sense. Indeed, it is the kind of question that a responsible journalist would press the U.S. government to answer, but MacFarquhar and the Times take the pressure off by simply reaffirming the impression that the U.S. government wants the public to have: the Russkies did it.

In the weeks after the crash, I was told by a source briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts that the secret U.S. data points the finger of guilt at a rogue Ukrainian military operation, which would fit with the statement by Dutch intelligence. But whatever the ultimate finding, it is simply bad journalism to state as flat fact something that remains seriously in doubt, a professional failure reminiscent of how the Times and Post treated Iraq’s WMD as a certainty in 2002-2003.

More Insidious

But there is something even more insidious about what The New York Times and The Washington Post have been up to. They are essentially saying that any questioning of the official U.S. government narrative on any international topic puts you in league with Moscow in its purported attempt to “weaponize” information, whatever that is supposed to mean.

The two newspapers are engaging in a breathtaking form of McCarthyism, apparently in some twisted effort to force a neoconservative ideological conformity on the American people in support of the New Cold War.

There is also a stunning lack of self-awareness. While MacFarquhar sees a Russian desire to portray U.S. life as “hellish,” including RT’s decision to show protest demonstrations – rather than some speeches – during the Republican and Democratic conventions, he and other writers who have picked up this theme consistently present the situation in Russia in the darkest possible terms.

Relatively innocent actions, such as the Kremlin seeking to make its case to the world, are transformed into evil deeds, using buzzwords like “weaponized” information and “hybrid war.”. Yet, there is no reference to the billions upon billions of dollars that the U.S. government has invested in disseminating propaganda and funding political activists around the world.

NATO has even established what it calls a “Strategic Communications Command,” or Stratcom, in Riga, Latvia, which – as veteran war correspondent Don North has written – views “the control and manipulation of information as a ‘soft power’ weapon, merging psychological operations, propaganda and public affairs under the catch phrase ‘strategic communications.’

“This attitude has led to treating psy-ops manipulative techniques for influencing a target population’s state of mind and surreptitiously shaping people’s perceptions as just a normal part of U.S. and NATO’s information policy. …

“And, as part of this Brave New World of ‘strategic communications,’ the U.S. military and NATO have now gone on the offensive against news organizations that present journalism which is deemed to undermine the perceptions that the U.S. government seeks to convey to the world.”

In other words, the U.S. government and NATO are engaged in what psychologists call “projection,” accusing someone else of one’s own behavior. Yet The New York Times has never investigated Washington’s and NATO’s involvement in “strategic communications.” Only the Russians do such dirty deeds.

A Darker Side

But there is even a darker side to the Times’ recent propaganda barrage about Russian propaganda. On the heels of MacFarquhar’s indictment of Russia for questioning Washington’s official narratives, the Times published a vicious attack on WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, entitled “How Russia Often Benefits When Julian Assange Reveals the West’s Secrets.”


Image: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at a media conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. (Photo credit: New Media Days / Peter Erichsen)

The article portrays Assange as a participant, wittingly or otherwise, in Russia’s allegedly nefarious scheme to release truthful information, such as the Democratic National Committee’s emails confirming what many had long suspected, that some party officials were favoring Hillary Clinton over her rival, Bernie Sanders. No one has suggested that the emails aren’t real.

However, without presenting any real evidence proving that Russian intelligence was responsible for the hack, the Times and the rest of the mainstream U.S. news media have made that assumption conventional wisdom based on the opinions of some unnamed U.S. officials.

Or as the Times’ takedown of Assange wrote,

“United States officials say they believe with a high degree of confidence that the Democratic Party material was hacked by the Russian government. …That raises a question: Has WikiLeaks become a laundering machine for compromising material gathered by Russian spies? And more broadly, what precisely is the relationship between Mr. Assange and Mr. Putin’s Kremlin? …

“Among United States officials, the emerging consensus is that Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks probably have no direct ties to Russian intelligence services. But they say that, at least in the case of the Democrats’ emails, Moscow knew it had a sympathetic outlet in WikiLeaks, where intermediaries could drop pilfered documents in the group’s anonymized digital inbox.”

Though it’s nice that some U.S. officials acknowledge a lack of evidence proving an operational relationship between Assange and Russian intelligence, the fact that a high-profile journalistic institution, such as WikiLeaks, has been under that sort of U.S. government investigation should be troubling to the Times and other news organizations.

However, instead the newspaper appears disappointed that it cannot declare outright that Assange is a “Moscow stooge.” (Also note that in the last passage, the Times treats the suspicion that Russian intelligence hacked the Democratic emails as flat fact when U.S. intelligence officials say they don’t know for sure.)

Verify, Don’t Moralize

The usual rule of thumb for journalists is to accept and verify information regardless of where it comes from. While occasionally you get a selfless leaker, it’s more common to get leaks from interested parties seeking to undermine their rivals. We see that in legal proceedings when lawyers supply documents helpful to their cases and in political contests when campaigns dig up dirt on their opponents.


Image: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders. (NBC photo)

Yet, journalists don’t throw away newsworthy information because it may be self-serving. We check it out and – if it checks out – we use it. The only real problem would be if you run the material as flat fact, without caveats, and it turns out to be false, as has happened repeatedly with material that the U.S. government has leaked to the Times and the Post.

What is particularly unprofessional about how the Times is treating Assange is that no one is saying that the Democratic Party emails are disinformation; they appear to be quite real and reflect a newsworthy concern, which is: Did the Democratic National Committee seek to throw the presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton?

But the Times’ unprofessional treatment of truthful information from WikiLeaks as well as the Times’ disdain for legitimate debate about the New Cold War with Russia has contributed to another dangerous development – a McCarthyistic launching of official U.S. government investigations into people who question the official Washington narratives.

An Official Investigation

The Washington Post reported on Tuesday that

“U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies are investigating what they see as a broad covert Russian operation in the United States to sow public distrust in the upcoming presidential election and in U.S. political institutions. …


Image: The Washington Post building. (Photo credit: Daniel X. O’Neil)

“The aim is to understand the scope and intent of the Russian campaign, which incorporates cyber-tools to hack systems used in the political process, enhancing Russia’s ability to spread disinformation. … A Russian influence operation in the United States ‘is something we’re looking very closely at,’ said one senior intelligence official,”

while admitting that there is no “definitive proof” of such a Russian scheme.

The danger of this investigation – and what a normal news media would focus on – is the U.S. government taking an unfocused look at how Russia supposedly influences the U.S. public debate, a probe that could easily cross the line into questioning the loyalty of Americans who simply dispute what the U.S. government is claiming about current events.

The Post reported,

“U.S. intelligence officials described the [Russian] covert influence campaign here as ‘ambitious’ and said it is also designed to counter U.S. leadership and influence in international affairs. …

“Russia has been in the vanguard of a growing global movement to use propaganda on the Internet to influence people and political events, especially since the political revolt in Ukraine, the subsequent annexation of Crimea by Russia, and the imposition of sanctions on Russia by the United States and the European Union. …

“‘Our studies show that it is very likely that [the influence] operations are centrally run,’ said Janis Sarts, director of the NATO Strategic Communications Center of Excellence, a research organization based in Riga, Latvia.”

Yes, that is the same NATO Stratcom complex that, as Don North reported, blends psychological operations with traditional public relations. Yet, you wouldn’t know that from reading The Washington Post’s article, which cites Stratcom as a source for accusing Russia of running influence operations.

A Vast Conspiracy

According to the Post, Sarts

“also said there is ‘a coordinated effort involving [groups using] Twitter and Facebook and networks of bots to amplify their message. The main themes seem to be orchestrated rather high up in the hierarchy of the Russian state, and then there are individual endeavors by people to exploit specific themes.’

“Sarts said the Russian propaganda effort has been ‘successful in exploiting the vulnerabilities within societies.’ In Western Europe, for instance, such Russian information operations have focused on the politically divisive refugee crisis.”

In other words, any reporting or commenting on significant foreign policy issues could open a journalist or a citizen to a U.S. government investigation into whether you are part of some nefarious Russian propaganda/disinformation scheme.

This McCarthyistic investigative style has already begun to have a chilling effect on public debate in the United States where dissident views on Russia, Syria or other hot topics are quickly disparaged as enemy propaganda. Almost anyone who questions whether a new, costly and dangerous Cold War is necessary is immediately tagged as a “Russian agent of influence,” a “Putin apologist,” or a “Moscow stooge.”

In this case, the Democrats have been particularly aggressive in playing the Joe McCarthy role by denouncing Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump in such overheated terms, even suggesting his disloyalty for suggesting that he could, as President, get along with Putin.

During the McCarthy era of the 1950s, defense of freedom of thought required courageous journalists, most notably Edward R. Murrow, to stand up to the often unfounded smears against the patriotism of Americans. In 2016, however, it is the prestige news media, particularly The New York Times and The Washington Post, that have been leading the rush into the New Cold War and into the New McCarthyism.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon

The original source of this article is Consortium News

Copyright © Robert Parry, Consortium News, 2016


US: Torture Without Borders


An attorney with the State of California reports being gassed inside her home and taken to a hospital Emergency Room, following repeated incidents of electromagnetic attacks. The attacks take place during an extended court battle over her mother’s guardianship.

An anti-police corruption activist in Medford Oregon reports an aerosol attack on her dwelling which causes her to lose consciousness.

An award winning author pens a memoir concerning how the NSA tried to hack into her mind.

A former intelligence officer lines her apartment with boom boxes in order to drown out chatter of electronic voice weapons. She reports that her mission was successful and the voices have stopped.

Are these women crazy or is the US government now testing its weapons on selected civilians?

Bruised by the Iraqi war, the revelations that the US government was involved in torturing detainees hit fast and hard. What were initially some horrific photos leaked from Abu Ghraib soon become a virtual flood of accusations. Prisoners, it appeared, were being tortured by simulated drowning; their genitals electro shocked and the uncooperative were put into tiny spaces and deprived of sensory input.

In his campaign promises of 08, President Obama assured us that torture would cease and that Guantanamo would be closed. However, it is nearly eight years since Obama took office, and the prison at Guantanamo has not closed, nor have renditions to countries agreeable to torture ceased. In 2015,Al Jazeera reported that “More positively for his legacy, the NDAA imposes further restrictions on abusive interrogations and helps fulfill his (President Obama’s) original campaign promise to stop torture.”

A number of individuals with intelligence backgrounds would disagree. In fact, it appears that, as far as torture goes, some are now asserting that the intelligence agencies are using US citizens for target practice.

Electromagnetic Weapons

In former intelligence officer Julianne McKinney’s seminal 1992 report, entitled Microwave Harassment and Mind Control, she revealed for the first time a disturbing blip on the intel radar. Citing contacts with people across the US, McKinney details what amounts to covert programs to torture people through use of electronic weapons. And to do so in the targets’ (TI’s) own homes and wherever they may travel.

McKinney’s groundbreaking report cited about 25 individuals who claimed that they were being electronically harassed. It is now twenty five years later and this number has ballooned to hundreds of thousands, worldwide.

According to Wikipedia, “Electronic harassment, or psychotronic torture, or electromagnetic torture is a conspiracy theory.” Wikipedia goes on to determine that “These experiences arehallucinations or the result of delusional disorders or psychosis.”

Certainly some of the claims of TIs sound odd. ..voices being planted in their heads, being stalked by a multiplicity of strangers and sometimes, even worse.

However, a review of what is declassified in terms of covert projects reveals a number of operations involving attempts to control or direct human thought, and by consequence therefore to mold behavior. Project Artichoke was one of the subjects of scrutiny in the Church and Pike Committee hearings, which took place in the US Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively, during the seventies. A declassified 1952 memo indicates the aim and scope of Artichoke. The memo states “Can we get control of an individual to the point where he will do our bidding against his will and even against fundamental laws of nature, such as self-preservation?”

The Church and Pike hearings uncovered a multiplicity of “black” projects aimed at accessing the human mind. The surviving records concerning Project Artichoke detail forced drugging, including forced morphine addiction and dosing subjects with LSD, in order to determine vulnerabilities to direction and control under the influence. According to released documents, Artichoke was renamed MKULTRA in 1953.

The US Supreme Court has stated that MKULTRA was concerned with “the research and development of chemical, biological, and radiological materials capable of employment in clandestine operations to control human behavior.”

The Church Committee’s investigation was hampered by an order from CIA Director Richard Helms to destroy the records relating to MKULTRA. As a result of the Church and Pike Committee hearings, MKULTRA and related projects were reportedly terminated.

It is the contention of Julianne McKinney–who was an intelligence case officer with the US Army –and scores of others that the projects only went underground, in order to escape further detection and oversight.

Preston Bailey, PhD has noted the following patents for neurological weapons which could produce the sorts of effects claimed by TIs:

THE NEUROPHONE: US Patent # 3,393,279. July 16th, 1968 –a device which converts sound to electrical impulses.

SILENT SUBLIMINAL PRESENTATION SYSTEM: US Patent #5,159,703. October 27th, 1992 — A silent communications system in which nonaural carriers, in the very low or very high audio frequency range or in the adjacent ultrasonic frequency spectrum, are amplitude or frequency modulated with the desired intelligence and propagated acoustically or vibrationally, for inducement into the brain.

HEARING SYSTEM: U.S. patent #4,877,027, 31/10/89—“Sound is induced in the head of a person by radiating the head with microwaves in the range of 100 megahertz to 10,000 megahertz that are modulated with a particular waveform.”

HEARING DEVICE: U.S patent #4,858,612, 22/8/89—“A method and apparatus for simulation of hearing in mammals by introduction of a plurality of microwaves into the region of the auditory cortex is shown and described.”

A further review of the literature uncovers dozens more such patents, including the following:


Non-ConSensual Chemical Weapons Testing

Not all the current torture allegations involve electromagnetic weapons, however. The Edgewood Test Vets lawsuit charged that the US Army tested a variety of chemical and biological weapons on soldiers, without gaining their informed consent, from the 1950s on into “at least 1976.”

According to the plaintiffs, “In this class action, the Plaintiff class seeks declaratory and injunctive relief only – no monetary damages – and redress for several decades of the U.S. Government’s use of them as human test subjects in chemical and biological agent testing experiments, followed by decades of neglect, including:

  • the use of troops to test nerve gas, psychochemicals, and hundreds of other toxic chemical or biological substances;
  • the failure to satisfy their legal obligations to locate the participants of experiments and to provide them with notice of what they were exposed to and what the possible health effects may be;
  • the failure to follow their legal obligations to provide medical care to test subjects for health problems related to the experiments;
  • the failure to release the test subjects from oaths of secrecy.”

According to multiple claims, such non-consensual experimentation is now regularly carried out on citizens. Some of the individuals claiming “torture without borders” have intelligence backgrounds. Geral Sosbee is a former FBI agent whose career with the agency apparently went sour when he objected to an arrest. He subsequently resigned from the FBI and went on to work as an attorney in El Paso, Texas and as a part time judge. He also taught at the University level. However, Sosbee states that the Agency’s vendetta against him became relentless.

Writes Sosbee: “….no attention is focused on psychological operations against a targeted person even though a growing number of persons worldwide now testify that they are targeted by ruthless and painful campaigns. No law exists that may stop the type of violent activities in which the FBI and the CIA engage regularly against their Targets, foreign and domestic.”

Sosbee has diligently and quite publicly documented his ordeal. A 2009 entry on his website.In the introduction to his report, Sosbee has detailed an extensive list of methods to torture a target, including not only electromagnetics but also other unconventional weapons. He cites repeated instances of poisonings, some apparently life threatening.

Intelligence agencies have long been known to use poisons against foreign spies. What is of note is that poisons are now apparently being used against domestic US targets.

Sosbee is not alone in his claims of chemical targeting.

Carol Warner is the daughter of former CIA General Counsel, John Warner, who was also pivotal in creating the CIA out of OSS back in the forties. Carol received a Masters Degree in Clinical Social Work from Smith College. She was working as a therapist when a woman walked into her office claiming that she had been groomed by the US government as a “presidential model” sex slave. This contact launched an avalanche in Warner’s life. In a book pending publication, Warner writes: “Sometime after I started training and working more intensively with dissociative identity disorder, I began to be aware I was under intense surveillance.” (Return to the Self, p. 135)

During the Church Committee hearings in the seventies, her father, John Warner, initially became aware of some of the CIA “black ops” programs involving mind control. In her book, Carol Warner recounts some of the discussions she had with her father at that time and comments on the impact of the destruction of MKULTRA records by Director Richard Helms. She writes: “As such, it was abundantly clear to my father and myself back then that the programs would not stop, because Congress never knew about most of them.”

Carol Warner’s soon-to-be-published book, Return to the Self, covers a wide range of issues, including ritual abuse, dreams, spirituality and a discussion of government involvement in mind altering programs. In disclosing her decision to go public about her own situation, Warner tells us that “I was not going to write about this and the many illegal and unconstitutional activities perpetrated against me since 2008, but circumstances have forced me to revise my decision. Unfortunately, as this near-fatal incident (which I will describe later) dramatically proved to me, there is no safety for me in keeping the knowledge I have gained to myself. I have been told by wise counsel that my only safety is in getting the information out. Unfortunately, it has become radically clear the powers that be do not want the information in this book out.” (Return to the Self, p. 134)

She then reveals a number of incidents in Virginia in which her house was illegally entered, one in which her alarm wiring was altered and also where she was followed and stalked. She also describes a number of murder attempts. An avid outdoorswoman, Warner reveals how she was hiking when she became aware she had been followed into a secluded area. Attempting to elude her stalker, she writes: “I kept walking, headed there with my sole focus on finding a good temporary hiding place. Then, out of nowhere, I felt a sting in my right butt cheek. To my utter dismay, I felt myself starting to lose consciousness. Whatever it was that had stung me was powerful and was quickly overtaking me. There was no doubt in my mind that I had been drugged. (CIA development of tranquilizer dart guns became public knowledge with the Church Committee investigation in the 1970s). In a flash I assessed my predicament. Succumbing to the drug was not an option—it would mean certain death.”

Warner was able to marshal her strength to survive this incident; however, the efforts against her did not stop. Other stalking incidents reveal that her movements were being monitored, as her stalkers chose to advance against her in various locations with potentially life threatening results.

Warner also reports the use of chemical agents. She details the following event, while eating out: “The soup tasted off, and I didn’t eat but a few bites of it. I started feeling horrible immediately, with gastrointestinal symptoms. I felt dizzy and fought to keep consciousness… …I didn’t make it but a few steps. When I came to, I was lying on the restaurant floor, surrounded by paramedics.”

The doctor’s verdict was chemical—not food—poisoning.

Why Torture People at All?

Torture is not a reliable method to gain confessions. Truth serum drugs obviate the necessity for using torture to gain information. In this perspective, the repeated claims by governments that torture is necessary for reasons of intelligence gathering are inadequate to explain torture as an interrogatory tool.

However, torture does desensitize and condition the perpetrator. According to McKinney, somewhere in the ball park of 15-20% of US citizens may be involved —at some level—in using others as target practice. The degradation of society and morality implicit here should not go unnoticed.

In a recent interview, McKinney stated that targets are chosen somewhat at random, although she also believes that these torture techniques are being deployed against specific individuals for retaliation. In her 1992 paper, McKinney stated that “…harassment is beginning to surface as a form of retaliation against persons who try to assist electronic ‘harassees.’ Retaliation suggests loss of control. Under the circumstances, we are not entirely confident that ‘whistleblowers’ will continue to be exempted from this type of harassment in the long term.”

McKinney now believes that these techniques have resulted in deaths. In response to the question why—why would intelligence agencies use these “torture without borders” technologies on US citizens, McKinney stated that she believes that these are training exercises to prepare the perpetrators for a coming holocaust-level event. Rather than controlling the minds of the subjects, which is a common misperception, McKinney stated that the perpetrators are being desensitized and prepared for participation in a more widespread and devastating scenario.

Her conclusions may be echoed by Carol Warner, who wrote that “If people don’t understand the surveillance state is turned on the American citizen, I hope and pray my words will help the reader reconsider. The goal is total full-spectrum control of the populace.”

Janet C. Phelan, investigative journalist and human rights defender that has traveled pretty extensively over the Asian region, an author of a tell-all book EXILE, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.