"The more subsidized it is, the less free it is. What is known as 'free education' is the least free of all, for it is a state-owned institution; it is socialized education -- just like socialized medicine or the socialized post office -- and cannot possibly be separated from political control." ~ Frank Chodorov
The New York Times to the Rescue?
A few of days ago I was listening to an early morning radio program hosted by Lee Rodgers, when I heard somebody saying something that made my blood boil. Lee was interviewing Peter Mulhern, a Washington D.C. lawyer who also writes for The American Thinker. When Lee asked Mulhern what he would do to a traitor like New York Times' editor Bill Keller, Mulhern's answer was quick: I would send a swat team to the NYT, grab him, bring him to an undisclosed location, try him, and shoot him! (I am quoting from memory, but this is very close to the letter and spirit of what Mr. Mulhern's said, and I don't think he was joking when he made his comment.)
Before going on, I would like to explain a few things about me. More than ten years ago I reached the conclusion that it is much better to be misinformed than disinformed, and I stopped watching TV and reading the mainstream media. Currently I get most of my information from books, old newspapers and magazines (when they are three or four months old, they lose almost 95 percent of their disinformation power), the Internet, and radio. I distribute my radio listening time almost evenly between a right wing local radio station (which in my mind I call Radio Berlin), and the local Public Radio station (which I call Radio Moscow), and listen to both in a very critical way. That explains why it was just two days ago I heard for first time about the brouhaha around the NYT's revelation of one of the many secret spying programs that, in order to protect us, our government is running behind our backs.
I was so upset about Mr. Mulhern's comments that I broke my promise to never call or e-mail any radio host, and I sent an e-mail to Lee telling him that, out of respect for his listeners, he should refrain from bringing Mr. Mulhern and his fascist views to his program again. But, to my utter surprise, yesterday I was listening to Rush Limbaugh (which I have never been able to listen to for more than 15 consecutive minutes), when a listener called and, talking about the NYT issue, he repeated, almost verbatim, Mr. Mulhern's words about grabbing Bill Keller and shooting him. Rush fully agreed with the caller, and told him that he was "expressing the sentiments of the American people." Apparently, Mr. Mulhern is not an isolated case, but his words reflect a growing consensus among the American people about the proper treatment of people in the press who do not follow the official government lines.
Now, some time ago I became addicted to the literature of intelligence and espionage, and I learned that one of the main principles of the profession is that things are seldom what they seem. Therefore, in the most pure James Jesus Angleton tradition, let's apply a little convoluted thinking to the NYT's latest stunt.
It is good to remember that the "prestigious" New York Times has always been the flagship of the oligarchy's controlled mainstream media--working hard in dubious, convoluted ways to advance the interests of the globalists whose ultimate goal is to destroy this country as a first step to implement in the North American continent, and eventually in the whole world, the neo-fascist nightmare they call the New World Order.
The NYT has always been on the front line of muddying the informational waters, so people can't see the enormous treason the ruling class of this country is perpetrating on its citizens. It is known that the NYT is probably the US mainstream newspaper with the largest concentration of globalist secret operatives of the dreaded Council on Foreign Relations (in July 2002, the NYT Company Foundation and the CFR joined to create a "fellowship for journalists who want to explore in-depth issues related to homeland security") and CIA agents (but I am being redundant). So, how can we explain that the NYT has committed such an egregious act of treason against its masters? Has the NYT turned against them, biting the hand that feeds it? Or was this act the result of the reckless actions of a splinter, patriotic-minded faction inside the newspaper?
You can choose any answer you want, but probably the correct one is none of the above. There is, however, an explanation more consistent with the previous behavior of the NYT's on behalf of its masters: the revelations may be part of a psychological warfare operation, the goal of which is to generate a state of opinion among the American people so they will not oppose coming government laws to repress dissidence by the systematic application of censorship. Strange as this may sound, this is actually not the first time the conspirators have used the New York Times for a psy-op.
The New York Times: A Tool of the Conspirators
Though the NYT was not the pioneer in the disinformation business--Hearst's yellow newspapers published in 1898 fabricated reports about Spanish troops harassing female American tourists in Cuba, which created a sentiment among the American people conducive for war--in modern times it has been the tool of choice of the disinformers. Probably the most important coup of this type was the publication of the Pentagon Papers, which created the myth, reinforced by Robert Redford in the final scene of "Three Days of the Condor", of brave patriots entering the liberating doors of the incorruptible New York Times, bringing damaging information against the evil Pentagon and the CIA. It happens, however, that both Robert Redford's and Daniel Ellsberg's stories are just fiction.
Like most wars in which the U.S. has been involved in the past and current centuries, the Vietnam War was a profitable operation concocted way in advance in the secret conclaves at the Harold Pratt House, the headquarters of the Council on Foreign Relations in Manhattan. As early as September, 1939, less than two weeks after the outbreak of WW2, some senior CFR members met with Assistant Secretary of State George Messersmith, himself a CFR member, and outlined a long-range project called the War and Peace Studies Project. The project consisted of several study groups to analyze the problems of the current war, and the eventual peace. The groups met regularly between 1940 and 1945.
Some of the groups concluded that, because of its economic and strategic importance, control of Southeast Asia was of paramount importance to the security of the United States, to the point that it justified engaging in war with any competitors. The alleged purpose of the coming Vietnam war was stated in the usual cryptic language in articles that appeared in Foreign Affairs, and in books written by senior CFR members since the mid-'50s. Then, CFR members infiltrated at the highest levels of the U.S. government, none of them elected by the American voters, and put the plan into action.
Key characters in selling the American public this extraordinary exercise on mass deception were Robert McNamara, Henry Kissinger, Walter Rostow, Averell Harriman, John McCloy, Henry Cabot Lodge, Dean Rusk, Charles Bohlen, William Bundy and his brother McGeorge Bundy, Dean Acheson, Arthur Dean, Gabriel Hauge, and last but not least, David Rockefeller. All U.S. ambassadors to Vietnam from 1963 to 1973 -- Henry Cabot Lodge, Maxwell Taylor, and Ellsworth Bunker -- were CFR members. (The fact may explain why CFR member and Kissinger proteg' Paul Bremer was the first U.S. colonial administrator in Iraq.) Far from revealing this enormous piece of deception to the American public, the New York Times collaborated with it, providing a cover of credibility to the conspirator's plans.
Concurrent with this effort to push the U.S. into a war in Indochina was the newly developed theory of "containment," advanced by senior CFR member George Kennan in an article he published in 1947 in Foreign Affairs, the official CFR publication, under the pseudonym "X". In it, he stated that, "The main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be a long-term, patient but firm vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies."
Almost immediately, President Truman made containment the basis of his administration's foreign policy. (Any resemblance to Bush accepting in toto the suggestions of the CFR-controlled 9-11 Commission is not a coincidence.) Ten years later, another CFR member, James E. King, Jr., expressed it even more clearly in an article that appeared in Foreign Affairs in 1957:
Moreover, we must be prepared to fight limited actions ourselves. Otherwise we shall have made no advance beyond "massive retaliation," which tied our hands in conflicts involving less than our survival. And we must be prepared to lose limited actions.
In a nutshell, the containment theory meant fighting wars not to win them. Actually, from a practical -- and cynical -- point of view, it makes much sense. Only long, unwinnable wars provide good profits. This explains why, as predicted in King's article, the Vietnam War was already lost before it even began. (Again, any resemblance to Bush's current war in Iraq is not a coincidence.)
Apparently President John F. Kennedy (not a CFR member) made the mistake of thinking about pulling out of Vietnam on his own, but his untimely death stopped him from doing so. Pushed by a council of hawkish "Wise Men" from the CFR, President Johnson pressed on the War. Then, CFR agents concocted the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which, like the Maine, Lusitania, and Pearl Harbor incidents was artificially created. It gave the conspirators a good excuse to escalate the war and augment the warmongers' profits.
In November 1967, the group of presidential advisors called the Senior Advisory Group on Vietnam, all of them CFR members, met with President Johnson, and all of them supported the continuation of the war. But suddenly, for reasons we cannot fathom, the same CFR guys who had created the war in the first place, decided to put an end to it. And it happened with lightning speed.
In early 1968, the very same CFR "Wise Men" who had been hawkishly pushing Johnson to continue and escalate the war, had a long meeting with the president, at which Johnson asked each of them to express his personal view about the conflict. All of them, without exception, suddenly manifested themselves against the war. The hawks had become doves overnight.
According to a witness, Johnson was "visibly shocked by the magnitude of the defection." A few days later he went on television to announce the de-escalation of the war and his decision not to run for a new presidential term. According to the New York Times, the decision was a "stunning surprise even to close associates."
Then, after having betrayed the American President, the CFR guys were ready to make more palatable their betrayal to the American people.
Super Times to the Rescue
According to common lore, Daniel Ellsberg, a young man of integrity, courage, and passion, followed his conscience and gave the New York Times a secret report -- which eventually became known as "The Pentagon Papers" -- proving the Pentagon's evil doings. The NYT published the report, and it created such explosion of rage in the American public that the government was eventually forced to pull the American troops from Vietnam. Ellsberg became a true American hero.
There is an important detail about the rosy story, however, which may give us a clue of its true meaning: its timing. It seems that Ellsberg discovered that the war was evil in 1968, the same year the CFR conspirators decided it was time to pull out of Vietnam. Coincidence? Probably not.
One of the main players behind the scenes in the Pentagon Papers incident was Anthony Joseph (Tony) Russo. Tony was an analyst and field operator for the Rand Corporation, a think tank with close ties to the CFR. Russo had worked from 1965-68 on the Viet Cong Motivation and Morale project, a top-secret psy-war study for the Pentagon.
According to Tony Russo's own story, he was the one who, in 1968, "briefed Dan Ellsberg almost daily for the entire year on the Rand Intelligence project explaining the legitimacy of the so-called enemy (the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese) and the unlawfulness of U.S. presence." It was in the context of these briefings when Russo "repeatedly and urgently exhorted Ellsberg to release the Pentagon Papers." If you are familiar with brainwashing techniques, you may recognize some of them in Russo's story.
Another "leftist" who played a role in the release of the Pentagon papers was Morton Halperin, a veteran in campaigns "against" the CIA and an apologist of totalitarian tyrannies. Halperin was a close associate of Philip Agee -- a CIA "defector" and a close friend of the CFR's man-in-Havana Fidel Castro -- who was a crusader for unilateral U.S. disarmament.
Halperin had strong support from powerful, influential people. He was a friend of Leslie Gelb, a New York Times' "left-wing" journalist who had evolved into President of the CFR. How a left-wing person can become president of one of the most reactionary organizations in this planet is beyond my comprehension, but probably there is an explanation for it.
It was Halperin and Gelb who, while serving together in the Defense Department, gave Ellsberg unauthorized access to the Pentagon Papers. Ellsberg passed the papers to some friends at the Institute for Policy Studies, a "leftist" organization heavily funded by the Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie and other CFR-controlled "philanthropic" foundations. It was the IPS folks who passed the Papers to the New York Times.
As Fletcher Prouty pointed out in his seminal book The Secret Team, not only the Pentagon Papers were not true Pentagon documents at all, but actually a carefully designed CIA disinformation exercise. Though until the very last years the Vietnam War was fully a CIA "covert" operation, and all military forces in Vietnam were under CIA command, the Pentagon Papers placed all the blame of the debacle on the military, and painted the CIA in rosy colors.
Because of his act of uncivil obedience to his CFR masters, Ellsberg became overnight the hero of civil disobedience of "progressive liberals" and "leftists" like Richard Falk, Noam Chomsky, John Dean, Jeffrey Masson, Randy Kehler, Barbara Dane, Jane Fonda, Max Frankel, Howard Zinn, Gar Alperovitz, Michael Lerner, Paul Krassner, Peter Dale Scott, David McReynolds, Senator Mike Gravel, Tom Schelling, Donna Haraway, and many others. It has been mentioned in several books how Kissinger was so upset by the action of his former Harvard student and proteg', that he pushed Nixon to take actions against Ellsberg. But there are indications that Kissinger was just acting. Had he truly hated Ellsberg so much, he would have prevented him from joining the CFR. But now Ellsberg, the man who apparently destroyed the CFR conspirators' plans, is currently a proud member of the CFR, where he brushes elbows with despicable war criminals like Robert Macnamara and Henry Kissinger. Strange bedfellows!
Another CFR psy-op?
As Rush Limbaugh told his caller, there is a growing sentiment among the American public that freedom of expression, particularly by the press, needs to be curtailed. This growing sentiment has been fueled by the New York Times' recent revelations and the criticism it has generated on the right wing media.
Now, blaming the other faction for all the bad things happening in this country has been for many years the tool of mass deception used by both factions of the Repucratic Party. If tomorrow, like in a Tom Cruise "Mission Impossible" film, President Bush appears on TV and pulls a rubber mask from his head to reveal that, during all these years, the true President of this country has actually been Al Gore, the next day Noam Chomsky will be backing the war in Iraq and Rush Limbaugh condemning it in the harshest terms. That is the dirty game the disinfomers have been playing on the gullible American people for a long time.
Unfortunately for the spin doctors of the Repucratic Party, there is a new, unwelcome player in the media game: the Internet. But, because of its own intrinsic characteristics, the Internet is a medium the conspirators cannot control. Therefore, censorship, using the same techniques already in use in China, Korea, and Cuba, is the only solution. Normally, the American people abhor all types of censorship, but after the NYT's stunt, and with the enthusiastic help of the conservative talk radio hosts, it seems that a growing portion of the population will end up asking for it.
The technique employed for this type of psychological warfare operation is based on the Hegelian principle of thesis, antithesis, synthesis. It works this way: the conspirators want the people to do something the people don't want to do, because they see it as dangerous. Then, an artificial problem is created, usually implying a greater danger to the people. Then, the conspirators offer a solution to the new danger, which is very similar to what the public initially would not have chosen. But in comparison with the new, artificially created danger, it is seen as the lesser of two evils, so it is reluctantly accepted.
This technique, developed in one of the conspirators' think tanks, was tested for the first time against the American and Latin American peoples in 1948, in a secret psy-op which now is known as the Bogotazo, the riots that destroyed most of the city of Bogota, Colombia, as a reaction to the assassination of populist leader Jorge Eliecer Gaitan. The Bogotazo is such an important key event to understand recent events in the U.S. that I will explain it in some detail.
After the defeat of Germany in 1945, the conspirators needed a new enemy to fill the vacuum left by the Nazis, and justify in this way the growing military expenditures. They decided that the new bogeyman would be communist Russia (by the way, they had helped to create both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, in a similar way they created Castro's Cuba and now al-Qaeda). But after the end of a war that cost so many American lives, the American people were not ready to engage in a new conflict. So a Hegelian psy-op was planned.
In April 1948, Bogota was the host of the 9th International Conference of Latin American States. The Conference was chaired by US Secretary of State George Marshall (a CFR member), and its hidden goal was the creation of the Organization of American States as a tool to fight communism. But most of the leaders of the Latin American countries were apprehensive about it.
Then, while the conference was taking place in Colombia's Capitol building in Bogota, Gaitan was assassinated, the riots erupted, several thousand people were killed, and a large portion of the city was reduced to rubble. Immediately, Marshall blamed the Communists for the riots. The delegates were scared and informed their governments about the Communist-instigated riots. As expected, the delegates chose what they though was the lesser of two evils, and voted to approve the creation of the OAS and signed the Conference's final declaration, which contained a strong condemnation of communism. This bloody event marked the beginning of the Cold War in the Western Hemisphere.
Central in the Bogotazo psy-op was the role of agent provocateur played before and during the riots by the conspirators' recently recruited secret agent Alex (code name for Fidel Castro). Since then, they have been using him for similar psy-op operations. Among the latest ones is Castro's good job in the months previous to the September 11th events, visiting several Muslim countries where he incited their gullible leaders to start a terrorist war against the evil Americans (a full account of this is in my article "A Sad day for Fidel Castro?").
Currently, together with his sub-agent Hugo Chavez, secret agent Alex is currently engaged in another psy-op, the goal of which is to put the fear of god into the hearts of Latin American leaders, as a way of forcing them to swallow the highly unpalatable NAFTA, CAFTA, and AFTA globalist machinations. Apparently he has been highly successful. It is not surprising, though, to remember it was precisely the New York Times, through a series of articles written by CFR member Herbert Matthews, the American newspaper that played a cardinal role in selling Castro to the American people.
So, be very careful with the "patriots" at the New York Times. If, because of the growing sentiment among the American people, eventually some anti-freedom of speech laws are passed, you can bet that they will never be applied against Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Noam Chomsky, Mother Jones, the New York Times, or any other member of the CFR-controlled mainstream media. Most likely the ones to be affected are people like Joseph Farah of World Net Daily, Alex Jones of Infowars (who already was detained in Canada and interrogated for several hours when he tried to report on a secret Bilderberg meeting), George Noory of Coast to Coast AM, and many of the new media publications that don't play the deception game, like News With Views and Strike The Root.
Now, let me make a final prediction: Nothing will happen to Bill Keller, and as soon as the brainwashers realize their error, nobody will mention the issue again, and it will vanish without leaving any trace. Why I am so sure about this? Because there is a non-written rule common to brainwashers of both persuasions, and it is that all things wrong in this country are the result of either partisan politics, stupidity, or incompetence. No other option is allowed.
But with the NYT case, the brainwashers made the big mistake of breaking a big taboo, by mentioning the dreaded "T" word: treason. And once the people realize that there is such a thing as treason, some of them may think twice, reach their own conclusions, and presto! A lot of unexplainable things will suddenly become easily explainable. As you may guess, the conspirators don't want to open that mental floodgate on the brainwashed people's carefully erected mental levies.
Note: Portions dealing with the Ellsberg affairs have been taken verbatim from my article "Sheep-dipping CFR-style: The Kerry and Ellsberg Cases"