Washington is shooting itself in the foot when it aims the gun at Putin because the CIA was created to serve the US president. The president always has an agenda; so the CIA fixes the intelligence around it!
(too old to reply)
lo yeeOn
2016-12-16 03:53:49 UTC
Raw Message
This is scary!

(I) Three (3) intelligence officials said today that Russian president
Putin "supervised" the hacking of the 2016 US presidential election.
Wow, serious stuff!

But wait a second!

(2) The White House told the public today what it believes - it
believes that Putin "was likely to have been aware of the cyber
attacks" but apparently disagreed with the intelligence officials
about Putin "supervising" the hacking. Note the term "aware of".

So there, already, Obama's White House is, besides Donald Trump,
another agnostic party to the credibility of US intelligence reports.

(3) But the worst implication of Washington's latest attempt to
squeeze V.V. Putin into a conspiracy theory about Hillary Clinton's
unexpected election defeat is this, in the words of Obama's security

"I don't think things happen in the Russian government of this
consequence without Vladimir Putin knowing about it," Ben Rhodes,
the White House's deputy national security adviser, told MSNBC.
"When you're talking about a significant cyber intrusion like this,
we're talking about the highest levels of government," Rhodes said.

Now if we would replace Russian by American, Vladimir Putin by George
W Bush, and "cyber intrusion like this" by "terrorist attack with a
magnitude like this", then a foreign country could just as easily
accuse the U.S. government of being complicit with the terrorists in
the 2001 9/11 attacks.

So, are we a "banana republic" or what?

lo yeeOn

P.S.: Right after I wrote this but before I posted it, I happened to
see Jimmy Dore's latest:

"Tweet Shows How Obama Was No Different Than Bush"

The gist is that in the beginning of the Bush administration, Cheney
ordered intelligence organizations to find links between Iraq and 9/11
and Obama now orders intelligence organizations to find links between
Russia and the 2016 presidential election.


Russian President Vladimir Putin supervised his intelligence agencies'
hacking of the U.S. presidential election and turned it from a general
attempt to discredit American democracy to an effort to help Donald
Trump, three U.S. officials said on Thursday.

U.S. intelligence agencies' conclusion that Russia tried to influence
the election by hacking people and institutions, including Democratic
Party bodies, has angered President-elect Trump, who says he won the
Nov. 8 vote fairly. Russian officials have denied accusations of
interference in the U.S. election.

Separately, a senior White House official said on Thursday that Putin
was likely to have been aware of the cyber attacks but he fell short
of accusing the Russian president.

"I don't think things happen in the Russian government of this
consequence without Vladimir Putin knowing about it," Ben Rhodes, the
White House's deputy national security adviser, told MSNBC. "When
you're talking about a significant cyber intrusion like this, we're
talking about the highest levels of government," Rhodes said.

. . .
lo yeeOn
2016-12-25 08:39:07 UTC
Raw Message
Looking at the nature of American society, we can safely say that no
American government would take secret steps to commit terrorist massacre
of thousands of its citizens on its own soil.
By "the nature of American society" do you mean to say that the US has
a free press? If so, then you'are sadly naive. Just today, Pope
Francis's aid program to Donetsk in east Ukraine was hardly reported
by any news source except RT - a news agency financed by the Russian
state. There is no question that the Russian government has a purpose
for RT. But it doesn't mean that they publish lies. So, why is the
gesture of the Catholic Church toward those Ukrainians who prefer the
Russian ties not newsworthy?

In any case, if you go to youtube, you find many postings of videos
generally dismissed by the government and the MSM as "conspiracy

And guess what? It's now known that the CIA invented the term,
"conspiracy theory", according to Ron Unz (see article attached).

Of course, not all questions among the "truthers" - and there are so
many these days, especially since 9/11 and the Iraq war - have merit.
But many were raised by structural engineers, physicists, material
engineers, and in general very intelligent people who have spent hours
after hours researching their questions.

It's not just 9/11. Who really believe that patsy Lee Harvey Oswald
was the lone assassin?

And the "government" and the MSM has a drastically different version
about the USS Liberty incident (1967) in which 34 American servicemen
were killed than what many "truthers" believe happened.

And if we reject all these "conspiracy theories", why shouldn't we
reject the theory that Qaddafi masterminded the Lockerbie bombing too?

And things in Washington got worse since the late 1990s. But of
course few of us then realized badly the American government was

So, nobody was worried about our homeland being attacked until the
9/11 attacks took place, killing thousands.

No one is denying that the attacks took place. But like Pat Buchanan
likes to say: "Cui bono?" (Who benefits?")

The benefit for the warmongers against Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya,
Syria, Yemen, Somalia, etc is huge, once they seized the argument
that we must go to war because we have been attacked.

Those who got the bully puppet to advance their agenda to wreck Iraq
and capture the Bagram airbase in Afghanistan had more means to
accomplish their aims than we can imagine, because of government
secrecy rules, severe penalties, etc.

Who knows how much loyalty the people who have had real control over
the US in the past 16 years have for the country?

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) worries a lot of
people. Those who want to fight a war of terrorism for decades, as
former CIA director James Woolsey has clamored, don't really care
about the country. They are the ones who created and are constantly
creating more terrorism by attacking poor defenseless countries.
Further, no American government can commit such an act without an
insider spilling the beans or writing a book on it.
As mentioned above, books have been written challenging the Warren
commission findings about the JFK assassination. But they were
branded as "conspiratorial".

And again as mentioned above, many videos and articles have been
produced/written challenging the Bush administration's version of how
the WTC buildings were destroyed. They use published videos to show
the free fall of the buildings, including one which wasn't even hit by
the planes. Who dares to "spill the beans", if they have the info?
Professors lost their jobs at the minimum.

"9-11 whistle blower" and find endless more civilian testimonies as
well as courageous CIA, FBI, and MI5 names like: Thomas Andrews
Drake, Coleen Rowley, Annie Machon, Sibel Edmonds, or Morgan
Reynolds (chief economist for the US Dept of Labor 2001-2002 under
George W. Bush) - all who will never see mass media prime time ever
because the media will only tell you what to think.

Whistleblowers are heroes savagely punished by the establishment and
have their lives ruined for speaking truth to power. People will
murder for $10k. Millions or billions at risk = easily silenced. If
they were a real threat they wouldn't be for long. They fired Dan
Rather, just for questioning the "Truth" of George W. Bush's
military service.


Pearl Harbor, according to top historians, involved hundreds of people.

9/11, in contrast, could have involved fewer people.

Indeed, one could argue that it involved ONE person. Let's say -- just
as an example randomly pulled out of a hat -- Vice President Dick

Cheney was apparently in charge of the entire U.S. government's
counter-terrorism program prior to 9/11, and in charge of ALL 5 of
the war games which occurred on 9/11, and Mr. Cheney also
coordinated the government's "response" to the attacks. See this
CNN article; and this essay. Being in charge of all
counter-terrorism in the U.S., Cheney was probably the person who
moved up major war games so that they would overlap with games and
terror drills already planned for 9/11. And see this interview of
the former head of the Star Wars program and a former Air Force

And Cheney is the one who monitored flight 77 for many miles as it
approached the Pentagon and -- when a military man asked "do the
orders still stand?" -- Cheney responded affirmatively:

"The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it
got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to
the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice
president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course
the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"
Watch the video for yourself.

In addition, a former Los Angeles police department investigator,
whose newsletter is read by 45 members of congress, both the house
and senate intelligence committees, and professors at more than 40
universities around the world, claims that Cheney was in charge of
the entire military and the secret service during the 9/11 attacks,
that the secret service has its own communications system which is
parallel to and can even cut into normal military communication

Most people acknowledge that Cheney is one of the most powerful vice
presidents in history. In addition, Cheney has a long-standing
history of falsifying and manipulating facts and taking brutal
actions in furtherance of his imperial goals. For example, in the
70's -- Cheney was instrumental in generating fake intelligence
exaggerating the Soviet threat in order to undermine coexistence
between the U.S. and Soviet Union, which conveniently justified huge
amounts of cold war spending. See also this article. And the former
director of the CIA accused Cheney of overseeing torture policies.
Colin Powell's former chief of staff also stated that Dick Cheney is
guilty of war crimes. I'm not trying to be long-winded about
Mr. Cheney's resume. I'm simply pointing out that Mr. Cheney seems
to have the ability to make large U.S. policy decisions and take
sweeping actions -- and to order others to do so -- without much

Now, of course, there was probably more than one person involved in
this hypothetical example. Mr. Cheney would probably have had 1 guy
manning the secret service communications system and another guy
sitting at a computer inserting false radar blips onto air traffic
controllers' screens. But this demonstrates that you didn't need
thousands to pull off 9/11.

Wrecking Crew

Let's take it one step further. How many people would it have taken
to demolish World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7 with bombs?
Hundreds? Thousands?

How about 3.

. . .


So, you get the picture.
Banish the thought that the US government was part of the terrorism
committed on 9/11.
Try do a google search on the string "did anyone spill the beans on
9/11?", please. I promise you, you won't be disappointed! And at
least read Ron Unz. The guy has a lot of insight and he's not afraid
to talk about Karl Popper and other academic figures in relation to
the subject at hand. And he publishes stories the MSM suppresses on a
regular basis.

Happy Holidays.

lo yeeOn


American Pravda: How the CIA Invented "Conspiracy Theories"
Ron Unz September 5, 2016

With the sudden, bizarre rise of the "Fake News" accusations
throughout the entire Corporate Media megaphone and the equally
bizarre and totally unsubstantiated CIA allegations that the Russians
had stolen the election for Donald Trump, I've decided to republish
this somewhat related article of mine from a few months ago while I'm
preoccupied with software issues.

A year or two ago, I saw the much-touted science fiction film
Interstellar, and although the plot wasn't any good, one early scene
was quite amusing. For various reasons, the American government of the
future claimed that our Moon Landings of the late 1960s had been
faked, a trick aimed at winning the Cold War by bankrupting Russia
into fruitless space efforts of its own. This inversion of historical
reality was accepted as true by nearly everyone, and those few people
who claimed that Neil Armstrong had indeed set foot on the Moon were
universally ridiculed crazy as "conspiracy theorists". This seems a
realistic portrayal of human nature to me.

Obviously, a large fraction of everything described by our government
leaders or presented in the pages of our most respectable newspapers -
from the 9/11 attacks to the most insignificant local case of petty
urban corruption - could objectively be categorized as a "conspiracy
theory" but such words are never applied. Instead, use of that highly
loaded phrase is reserved for those theories, whether plausible or
fanciful, that do not possess the endorsement stamp of
establishmentarian approval.

Put another way, there are good "conspiracy theories" and bad
"conspiracy theories", with the former being the ones promoted by
pundits on mainstream television shows and hence never described as
such. I've sometimes joked with people that if ownership and control
of our television stations and other major media outlets suddenly
changed, the new information regime would require only a few weeks of
concerted effort to totally invert all of our most famous "conspiracy
theories" in the minds of the gullible American public. The notion
that nineteen Arabs armed with box-cutters hijacked several jetliners,
easily evaded our NORAD air defenses, and reduced several landmark
buildings to rubble would soon be universally ridiculed as the most
preposterous "conspiracy theory" ever to have gone straight from the
comic books into the minds of the mentally ill, easily surpassing the
absurd "lone gunman" theory of the JFK assassination.

Even without such changes in media control, huge shifts in American
public beliefs have frequently occurred in the recent past, merely on
the basis of implied association. In the initial weeks and months
following the 2001 attacks, every American media organ was enlisted to
denounce and vilify Osama Bin Laden, the purported Islamicist
master-mind, as our greatest national enemy, with his bearded visage
endlessly appearing on television and in print, soon becoming one of
the most recognizable faces in the world. But as the Bush
Administration and its key media allies prepared a war against Iraq,
the images of the Burning Towers were instead regularly juxtaposed
with mustachioed photos of dictator Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden's
arch-enemy. As a consequence, by the time we attacked Iraq in 2003,
polls revealed that some 70% of the American public believed that
Saddam was personally involved in the destruction of our World Trade
Center. By that date I don't doubt that many millions of patriotic but
low-information Americans would have angrily denounced and vilified as
crazy a "conspiracy theorist" anyone with the temerity to suggest that
Saddam had not been behind 9/11, despite almost no one in authority
having ever explicitly made such a fallacious claim.

These factors of media manipulation were very much in my mind a couple
of years ago when I stumbled across a short but fascinating book
published by the University of Texas academic press. The author of
Conspiracy Theory in America was Prof. Lance deHaven-Smith, a former
president of the Florida Political Science Association.

Based on an important FOIA disclosure, the book's headline revelation
was that the CIA was very likely responsible for the widespread
introduction of "conspiracy theory" as a term of political abuse,
having orchestrated that development as a deliberate means of
influencing public opinion.

During the mid-1960s there had been increasing public skepticism about
the Warren Commission findings that a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald,
had been solely responsible for President Kennedy's assassination, and
growing suspicions that top-ranking American leaders had also been
involved. So as a means of damage control, the CIA distributed a
secret memo to all its field offices requesting that they enlist their
media assets in efforts to ridicule and attack such critics as
irrational supporters of "conspiracy theories". . . .

But although the CIA appears to have effectively manipulated public
opinion in order to transform the phrase "conspiracy theory" into a
powerful weapon of ideological combat, the author also describes how
the necessary philosophical ground had actually been prepared a couple
of decades earlier. Around the time of the Second World War, an
important shift in political theory caused a huge decline in the
respectability of any "conspiratorial" explanation of historical

For decades prior to that conflict, one of our most prominent scholars
and public intellectuals had been historian Charles Beard, whose
influential writings had heavily focused on the harmful role of
various elite conspiracies in shaping American policy for the benefit
of the few at the expense of the many, with his examples ranging from
the earliest history of the United States down to the nation's entry
into WWI. Obviously, researchers never claimed that all major
historical events had hidden causes, but it was widely accepted that
some of them did, and attempting to investigate those possibilities
was deemed a perfectly acceptable academic enterprise.

However, Beard was a strong opponent of American entry into the Second
World War, and he was marginalized in the years that followed, even
prior to his death in 1948. Many younger public intellectuals of a
similar bent also suffered the same fate, or were even purged from
respectability and denied any access to the mainstream media. At the
same time, the totally contrary perspectives of two European political
philosophers, Karl Popper and Leo Strauss, gradually gained ascendancy
in American intellectual circles, and their ideas became dominant in
public life.

Popper, the more widely influential, presented broad, largely
theoretical objections to the very possibility of important
conspiracies ever existing, suggesting that these would be implausibly
difficult to implement given the fallibility of human agents; what
might appear a conspiracy actually amounted to individual actors
pursuing their narrow aims. Even more importantly, he regarded
"conspiratorial beliefs" as an extremely dangerous social malady, a
major contributing factor to the rise of Nazism and other deadly
totalitarian ideologies. His own background as an individual of Jewish
ancestry who had fled Austria in 1937 surely contributed to the depth
of his feelings on these philosophical matters.

Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative
thought, was equally harsh in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis,
but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite conspiracies were
absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against
anarchy or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended
upon keeping them hidden from the prying eyes of the ignorant
masses. His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they
were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their
spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of
society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively
suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of
suspected conspiracies.

Even for most educated Americans, theorists such as Beard, Popper, and
Strauss are probably no more than vague names mentioned in textbooks,
and that was certainly true in my own case. But while the influence of
Beard seems to have largely disappeared in elite circles, the same is
hardly true of his rivals. Popper probably ranks as one of the
founders of modern liberal thought, with an individual as politically
influential as left-liberal financier George Soros claiming to be his
intellectual disciple. Meanwhile, the neo-conservative thinkers who
have totally dominated the Republican Party and the Conservative
Movement for the last couple of decades often proudly trace their
ideas back to Strauss.

So, through a mixture of Popperian and Straussian thinking, the
traditional American tendency to regard elite conspiracies as a real
but harmful aspect of our society was gradually stigmatized as either
paranoid or politically dangerous, laying the conditions for its
exclusion from respectable discourse.

. . .