Monthly Archives: February 2014

Michael S. Rozeff on Short-Circuiting Rational Thought

The “Nation” as a Device To Create a Psychological Crowd

By Michael S. Rozeff

February 06, 2014 “Information Clearing House

One device of leadership is to control individual behavior by psychological means. Gustave Le Bon’s 1895 book “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind” outlines this phenomenon. The leader uses events to short-circuit rational thought and regress people to their unconscious and ancient fears, drives and instincts. I don’t believe, as he did, that there is a crowd “mind” but he did identify a real process by which the leader’s suggestions create a primitive, unreasoning and emotional response among many listeners, so that they become willing to follow him. They become united as a crowd in how they are reacting and as a group of followers.

The power of a leader expert in the technique of creating a crowd and who uses events as a backdrop to his appeals and stories is enhanced when he can reach millions upon millions of viewers through mass media. It is further enhanced when the media repeat over and over his messages. It is his goal to tell a simple story that frames the issue so effectively that it cuts off rational criticism and creates a mass following.

I posit that the term “nation” is a frequent trigger to create the unthinking crowd reaction. The leader wants a unified public (crowd) support for his policies, and he appeals to people’s belonging to a group, in this case, a “nation”.

George Bush’s 9/11 address is an example of how he went about creating crowd support for his policies. Over and over, his words stressed the idea that the terrorism that day was an attack on every American. He led off with “…our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack…” He went on to shape the psychological reactions that would provide the ground for his policies: “…have filled us with disbelief, terrible sadness and a quiet, unyielding anger.”

At this point he invoked the nation: “These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat. But they have failed. Our country is strong. A great people has been moved to defend a great nation.”


He was appealing to the feeling of every listener and viewer of belonging to a large group, the nation, that he suggested was under attack. He then switched to the term “America”, using it several times to reinforce this appeal. He continued to stress “we” and “our”, again saying “our nation saw evil”.

Toward the end of the message, he outlined his actions and policies. The most important two policies were radically different from one another. They appeared in two sentences. The first was “I’ve directed the full resources for our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and bring them to justice.” That policy was one of regarding the attackers or those behind them as criminals to be brought to justice.

The second approach was much more serious. “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” This was a somewhat oblique and veiled reference to initiating hostile actions, wars as it turned out, against whole countries accused of being terrorist havens.

Bush went on to say something even more serious that set off an entirely new policy and direction: “…we stand together to win the war against terrorism.” He announced a new war. In order to do this, he had first to frame the attacks as a war on the nation, on “us”, on “America”, on all “Americans” that called for going to war against the attackers and their host countries.

A second example is that of John Rizzo, a CIA lawyer who approved torture under the name of “enhanced interrogation techniques”. In an excerpt titled “I could have stopped waterboarding before it happened“, he mentions what went through his mind when he approved it. It becomes quite clear that he was laying aside the moral considerations against torture as well as the many pragmatic alternatives to torture. Why? One of the reasons: “…the nation was still in the throes of fear and dread about another catastrophic attack…” And so was he. Rationality had been laid aside. The “nation” was under attack. Bush had rallied the crowd to this view and Rizzo was just as much part of the crowd as anyone. True, he had other reasons and those in the CIA who were making this proposal had their reasons. But emotions and atavistic drives were strongly at work. The CIA interrogators were simply frustrated by the defiance of a man they had captured, Abu Zubaydah.

Presidents refer to the nation quite frequently in order to create the crowd support for their policies. In Obama’s second inaugural address, he uses the word “nation” eight times (and national once). He affirms that Americans are one group by expressing what he thinks “binds this nation together…” Over and over and over, he speaks of “we”. He speaks of what “…a great nation must care for…”

He urges “…we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.”

He speaks of “…a nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American…”

He speaks of “…its most powerful nation…”

The rhetoric of American leaders that invokes the “nation” is frequently after one thing, the shaping of simple stories that appeal to instincts and urges that are not checked by rational thought, and the shaping of individuals into a collective crowd that either remains quiescent in the face of government actions or approves them. [Emphasis by “boy”.]

One of the items in the long indictment against government is that it governs by appealing to the lowest urges, drives and instincts that human beings ordinarily keep under control, if not repress. One of the many ways government does this is by appealing to membership in a group called the nation that, in this era, is closely tied to the state, the nation-state.

Email Michael S. Rozeff 


[Or by appealing to membership in a group called the the One World, The New World Order, the one true belief, the Cosmic One, et alia ad nauseum?]

“And Now, This” (Jon Rappaport re-wrapped)

“… Elite anchors seamlessly and quickly move from blood running in the streets of a distant land to a hairdryer product recall to an unseasonal hail storm in Michigan to a debate about public policy on pedophiles to genetically engineered mosquitoes in Florida to a possible breakthrough in storing computer simulations of human brains for later recapture to squirrels gathering nuts in New Jersey.

Nothing surreal about this??

Cognitive dissonance, imprinted on minds that accept every flip and jip and fancy. Why not? It’s the news. It has to be normal.

The best of the best mind control is applied by the three major network anchors: Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, and Diane Sawyer.

They don’t do it as well as Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, and Edward R Murrow once worked their magic, but they’re fairly good practitioners of the art. Brian Williams is the current champion.

Dan Rather was an interesting case. At one time, he was quite convincing. He was a “trusted voice.” But then he faltered and stumbled over the George W Bush military-service scandal, and he went down in flames. Even before that, you could see occasional cracks in his armor. He was questioning his own faith. He was flickering a bit here and there, like a doubting priest in the Roman Church who had no one to confess to.

When the elite anchor goes on air and digs in, he’s seamless. He could be transitioning from mass killings in East Asia to sub-standard air conditioners, and he makes the audience track through the absurd curve in the road.

Then there is the voice itself. The elite anchor has a voice that soothes just a bit but brooks no resistance. It’s authoritative but not demanding. Scott Pelley (CBS) is careful to watch himself on this count, because his tendency is to shove the message down the viewer’s throat like a surgeon making an incision with an icepick.

Pelley used to look down his nose at the great unwashed. He’s been working to correct that. He’s a high-IQ android who’s training himself to be human.

Diane Sawyer wanders into sloppiness, like a housewife who’s still wearing her bathrobe at 4 in the afternoon. She exudes sympathetic syrup, as if she’s had a few cocktails for lunch. And she affects a pose of “caring too much.”

Brian Williams is head and shoulders above his two competitors. You have to look and listen hard to spot a speck of confusion in his delivery. He knows exactly how to believe his act is real. He can also flick a little aw-shucks apple-pie at the viewer. Country boy who moved to the big city.

If none of these anchors could have “pulled the country together” after JFK’s assassination, it’s in part because that country doesn’t exist anymore. America doesn’t want a Cronkite daddy.

The vocal delivery of an elite anchor has to work minor poetic rhythms into prose. Shallow hills and valleys. Clip it here and there. Give the important words a pop. Make no mistake about it, this is hypnosis at work. Not the cheesy stage act with three rubes sitting in chairs, waiting to be made into fools by the used-car- salesman type waving a pendulum. This is higher-class stuff. It flows with certainty. It entrains and conditions brains. The audience tunes in every night to get their fix.

That’s the key. The audience doesn’t really care about content. They want the delivery, the sound, the voice of the face.

Brain Williams could do a story about three hookers getting thrown out of a restaurant by a doctor celebrating his anniversary with his wife, and it would come across like the Pentagon sending warships into the Gulf.

Diane Sawyer couldn’t. That’s why Williams’ ratings are higher.

Segues, blends are absolutely vital. These are the transitions between one story and another. “Earlier today, in Boston.” “Meanwhile, in New York, the police are reporting.” “But on the Hill, the news was somewhat disappointing for supporters of the president.”

Doing excellent blends can earn an anchor millions of dollars. The audience doesn’t wobble or falter or make distinctions between what went before and what’s coming now. It’s all one script. It’s one winding story every night.

Therefore, the viewer doesn’t need to think. Which is the acid test. If the ratings are high enough and the audience isn’t thinking, we have a winner.

Corollary: the audience doesn’t notice the parameters of stories, how they’re bounded and defined and artificially constructed to omit deeper themes and various criminals who are committing outrageous crimes that aren’t supposed to be exposed.

Brian Williams, with just a bit of his twanging emphasis, can say, “Today, pharmaceutical giant Glaxo was fined one-point-nine billions dollars,” but he can’t tie all the horrendous stories of medical-drug damage together in a searing indictment of the whole industry.

The audience needs to remain oblivious to this larger story. The anchor ensures and guarantees a clueless missing bottom line. That’s his job. That’s his underlying assignment.

It’s called, in intelligence circles, a limited hangout. You expose a piece of a crime, in order to transmit the illusion of guilt-and-justice, while the true RICO dimensions are kept out of view.

Elite anchors are the princes of limit hangouts. That is their stock in trade. Sell the illusion of justice while concealing the bulk of the iceberg that is under water.

The audience can watch and listen to hours of coverage on revolutions and counter-revolutions in the Middle East, but they can’t suspect that the US and NATO are funding terrorists dressed up as freedom fighters, in order destabilize and destroy nations in that region.

“More gunfire and explosions in the capital city today…”

Then there is a little thing called conscience. The elite anchor can’t have one. He has to pretend to have one, but it isn’t real.

Every year, the anchor covers dozens of scandals that are left to wither and die on the vine and fall down the memory hole, never to be seen again, except perhaps for a much-later task-force or commission report that equivocates and exonerates the major players.

The anchor has to deal with this. He has to develop memory loss.

In editorial meetings at his own network offices, if someone mentions trillions in government bailouts to banks, he can frown slightly and thus impart, “It’s stale, it’s old.”

And when it comes to the elites the anchor is pledged to? CFR, Rockefeller interests, Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, government-allied Big Medicine, Globalism, and so on? Nary a damaging word will be said. Nothing to see, nothing to say. No problem.

Therefore, the viewing audience doesn’t suspect these controlling entities are doing anything wrong or, in some cases, even exist.

Conspiracy? “Aw shucks, I really do have sympathy for the people who dig up this stuff. And I’m not saying all of it is wrong, either. But you know, journalism is about plumbing for facts and verifying them. That’s the hard truth we have to face in this business. Going on the air with a possible this and a possible that is ultimately irresponsible. If we who present the news feel an occasional impulse to wing it, we have to rein ourselves in. Restraint is part of our job…”

Show these jokers a few devastating books by Anthony Sutton or Caroll Quigley and they’ll nod and say, “I did read that one in college. It was interesting but a little thin, I thought…”

The anchors project a sense they’re doing science. Gathering facts, verifying, testing, repeating the study again to see if it holds up, checking the checkers, confirming the sources, tailoring the assertions to make sure there’s no wandering off the well-researched path.

It’s part of the act.

The elite anchor has to impart the impression that he’s personally familiar with the events he’s reporting. That’s nonsense. He isn’t touching actual events with a ten-foot pole. He isn’t doing journalism himself. But the audience must think he is.

“Washington has been the scene of many battles. But the current tussle at the top of the fiscal cliff is becoming an exercise in outrage on both sides. Today, behind closed doors…”

Some anchors are managing editors of their own broadcasts. That means they sit around like newspaper editors and listen to lesser editors present the stories of the day. The anchors ask questions and pick and choose which pieces they’ll cover on the evening news, and they decide the sequence, but their hands never touch the events themselves.

It’s more illusion. A well-trained and literate high-school sophomore from Nome could go on air, with a decent haircut, and read the news.

But backed up by expert technicians, a good set decorator, and a pro make-up person, Williams, Pelley, and Sawyer will give you the kind of living fiction that has become its own genre.

The audience is delivered clues about what they are supposed to feel at every turn in the road, and they respond with their own unalloyed faith…..”


An excerpt from 


World Affairs BriefFebruary, 2010 Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen’s World Affairs Brief (


Critical analysis of current events is a complex process that is not systematized or rigid. All the information you see or gather is, generally, a combination of truth, half-truths, and error. Filtering out the truth begins with finding reliable sources, as well as critically scrutinizing sources that are known to have a specific bias.

Reliable Sources: No journalist or historian bases his writings on original material, except when relating what he or she personally experiences. This world is much too big with much too much going on for anyone to directly witness anything but a small fraction of life’s happenings. Thus, we all have to rely on sources of information. As all of my readers know, most of the world has become heavily reliant upon the establishment media. People are busy, with little time to study and analyze current events. So they scan the front page each day, or watch the TV evening news, relying on these easy, quick sound bites to “inform” them about the world.

Almost everyone who gets this minimum dose of daily news thinks that they know what is going on in the world. This is not so, even though the media rarely tells an outright lie. What writers and editors do is purposefully omit key pieces of information that would significantly change people’s opinion about what is being presented. This brings up the first rule in finding reliable sources. Search for someone who is skeptical of the official version, and who searches out key information that has been withheld by establishment sources.

It is fascinating to see how uniform the evening news is. No matter which channel you turn to, the same stories appear with the same general emphasis, even with regard to local stories. A common illusion today is that Fox News is significantly more conservative than the other big three networks. Not so. Fox is merely playing the role of the pro-government cheerleader, just like CNN did during the Gulf War, when it came out of obscurity to become an instant major player. That never happens without government ties. Meanwhile, the other three majors are doing their part. They criticize the current administration mildly, sufficient to appear as the opposition. In reality, however, they are part of the same machine designed to protect any insider administration, whether Democratic or Republican, from its strongest critics on the constitutional right. They make sure they keep the most damaging evidences of conspiracy out of the public eye.

Virtually every major metropolitan area in the US has a major liberal, establishment newspaper which promotes this hidden agenda. In turn, every state of the Union is more or less controlled by the concentration of voters in liberal metro areas. Even though most states have a sizeable body of rural conservatives, their voice is rarely heard at the polls.

The one thing you can learn from the controlled media, including arch liberal newspapers like the Washington Post, NY Times, and LA Times, is the direction in which the conspiracy against liberty is going. I spend about a third of my time watching what the opposition does.  When they start uniformly promoting certain issues in all the establishment journals (global warming, smart growth, gun control, etc.), it is obvious that there is some coordination going on. But remember, you can only learn to see through the selectively filtered news dispensed by the establishment media if you have other sources that feed you the missing pieces.

So where do you look for good alternative news sources? First off, don’t believe everything on the Internet. Just because an alternative news source appears anti-establishment does not mean it is honest or a true advocate for liberty. Some of the most pernicious perveyors of disinformation are new outfits like the EU Times, that has no physical presence anywhere, or the mysterious untraceable Sorcha Faal, a pseudonym for a disinformation outfit that claims to have Russian sources. Conservatives tend to fall for all things Russian, as if they know everything. That perhaps explains the sudden inroads Russia Today television has made into the conservative community. They love to give voice to every conspiracy that comes around and conservatives fall for it. However, all the media coming out of Russia is still controlled by the KGB, and Russia Today is no exception.

Then there are the shysters, too many to list, who make up bizzare claims out of thin air that talk with supposed first hand knowledge about secret tunnels criss-crossing the continent connecting secret bases with aliens leaders. There are those who make up stories about defeating the globalist conspiracy by claims that opposing military forces are blowing up the elites bunkers with nuclear weapons or using special financial structures to take back control from the elite. Benjamin Fulford and Lee Emil Wanta are two of the most notorious pushing these phoney claims about beating back the elite.

Many of the most well known and well funded alternative news media outlets come from a Leftist slant, such as or Oddly enough, this does not mean that these sites are the most dangerous opponents to liberty. Even though I reject the Left’s brand of socialism, many have recently become allies in the fight to ferret out useful information on the betrayal of US interests by the Bush and Obama administrations (which the left correctly believes is engaging in illegal and unconstitutional intrusions into fundamental rights. Sadly, neither of these sites will countenance any talk of conspiracy. They censored the column of Paul Craig Roberts when he tried to bring up some of the evidence in 9/11 pointing to government involvment.

Also on the Left but appearing to cater to the right is the Lyndon LaRouche crowd which publishes the Executive Intelligence Review. LaRouche wormed his way into conservative circles by attacking Jane Fonda and the environmentalists. But LaRouche’s background is socialist. He has long had ties with the Socialist International, which fronts for Moscow. I believe much of his sources for his EIR magazine come from the KGB. His wife has been a member of the Communist Party according to European sources. LaRouche worships FDR, so you know he’s no conservative. He mostly attack the US government as a representative of greedy capitalism–a typical socialist position. While there is much truth to corporate America being in bed with government, he fails to attack or see the globalist agenda that is behind this crony capitalism. Webster Tarpley is a devotee of LaRouche and is often featured on the Alex Jones show, to the dismay of his more savvy listeners. All of Tarpley’s solutions are socialist as well.

There are many that claim to be on the conservative side that are actually shilling for government. Some of them are sincere but blind, while others are manipulated by their hidden funding sources., for example, is funded in part by establishment insiders like Richard Mellon Scaife, and is predictably and unabashedly uncritical of nearly everything that President Bush did. Chris Ruddy, who runs Newsmax, should know better after publishing a book on the evidence surrounding the Vince Foster murder. But he was strangely silent about the evils and deceptions of the Bush administration. is much better, but it still puts out occasion garbage. is the site I think shows the best judgment about a broad range of issues and isn’t afraid to touch upon responsible views about conspiracy.

The Washington Times, owned by the Mooneys, is pro-Bush and pro-war to a fault, and never even allows a hint of conspiracy issues or evidence to surface in its articles. Its sister publication, Insight Magazine, seems to be a bit more independent and rigorous. Insight does some first class investigative reporting, but still holds back on criticizing the neocon agenda. I’ve always suspected that the Mooneys, with their seemingly bottomless pit of money, are fronting for a government organization, perhaps the CIA. The dark side of the US government is expert in funding both sides of the political spectrum, thus controlling both sides.

The establishment has also secretly funded or taken over most conservative talk radio stations. Rush Limbaugh was “turned” early on. He was rewarded with millions in salary increases. I knew when it happened. He suddenly switched from open discussion of conspiracy issues to deriding and denigrating anyone who called in expressing thoughts on conspiracy. Now, there are very few truly independent, conservative voices on talk radio left. Almost all radio stations in the country are owned by one of the four or five major broadcast companies like Clear Channel, Citadel, Cumulous, and Intercom. Slowly, the most hard-hitting and independent conservative talk show hosts are being pushed out or fired. Even Christian radio stations are letting go of hosts who dare challenge President a neocon Republican like George Bush or Rick Perry—the newest Bush clone sent in to fool conservatives.

The meteoric rise of Glenn Beck provided conservatives an new champion to replace the compromised Rush Limbaugh. But Beck too has been a disappointment. I don’t believe he is a government shill like Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly, who show their true colors by visiously attacking anyone getting close to the issue of conspiracy. Beck is a true conservative who loves the constitution and champions the views of my uncle W. Cleon Skousen. But Beck also has a major weaknesses. He’s got a bruising ego, he’s heresistant to correction, and has a brain that won’t slow down enough to be careful. He often goes beyond the mark which makes him an easy target of criticism. But my biggest concern about Beck is that he early on got on the wrong side of conspiracy and won’t consider all of the credible evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. That’s a bit ironic since Beck clearly believes there is a globalist conspiracy to take down American sovereignty–he just won’t consider the wider ramification of the powerful forces controlling both political parties and the media. Beck is just too bull headed to take an honest look at the best 9/11 evidence and change his mind. Neither does his cocky, shoot-from-the-hip manner lend itself to thoughtful introspection. I’m not impressed with his new internet TV channel, and especially unimpressed by his militaristic side-kicks that keep goading him in the wrong direction.

To me, the betrayal of liberty and constitutional principles by both Republican and Democratic leaders has become so open and blatant, that anyone claiming to be a champion of liberty can no longer stand with the mainstream Republicans, at least unconditionally. This is a key litmus test of whether or not you can trust sources who claim to be conservative. All of the major Christian leaders who support the mainstream Republicans unconditionally are either willfully blind or sold out to the lure of popular appeal. They know that to criticize a Republican president is to court financial disaster with their untutored congregations. Still, there are a few on the Christian right who have the courage to criticize a Republican administration that betrays principle. The most consistently insightful Christian critic of the Bush administration was Pastor Chuck Baldwin. He is still telling it like it is and worth listening to on

On the Left, the CIA directly cultivates journalists who can be relied on to publish key leaks and slanted information—a practice that is illegal but done anyway. Some journalists, I am told, are even on secret monthly retainers. One thing you can count on. There isn’t a single investigative journalist who regularly comes out with blockbuster revelations from inside government, who isn’t on the receiving end of regular, purposeful, government leaks. There are even a few legitimate conservatives on the right like Bill Gertz of the Washington Times that receive leaks from sources in government. However, these sources only leak information confirming and supporting the neocon justifications for war and intervention. It is strange that we rarely see any whistleblowers emerge from the CIA anymore. The dark side has apparently eliminated all opposition within that agency. The FBI still has a few that break ranks, but since the Justice Department refuses to give them a hearing, I think any others contemplating blowing the whistle will decide instead to remain silent or resign.

This much is for sure. No truly patriotic CIA agent or FBI agent is allowed to leak critical information about illegal government activities or conspiracy for long. Every telephone of every journalist in the world is tapped. Government always knows who is leaking to journalists. Only the unauthorized ones are hunted down and rousted out of the government, and are often prosecuted like criminals by federal agencies eager to discredit and silence them. Dozens of whistleblowing agents from all federal agencies are languishing in US federal prisons on trumped up charges.

In a similar vein, watch out for the many up-and-coming “private” intelligence sources, like or Geostrategy-Direct. When organizations with a world-wide intelligence reach suddenly appear out of nowhere, with no substantial traceable sources of funding, you can be assured they are almost always tapping into government sources. Stratfor was started by a college professor, and almost at its inception had an instant worldwide presence of top notch economic and geo-political intelligence. The analyses on that site are suspiciously skewed along lines that would mask the real motives behind world events. is run by an Israeli business journalist who openly admitted to me that his sources are all government insiders. The trouble with that kind of arrangement is that a one or two man shop, even if sincere, can’t possible check up on whether they are being fed disinformation or not. Sometimes they can tell, but usually they cannot.

Another example is the Northeast Intelligence Network (NEIN), which also claims to know too much for a group that is truly private—especially one that claims to be on the right side of the political spectrum (which is specifically excluded from true insider information). In making warnings about terrorism, this outfit claims to have analyzed thousands of telephone intercepts. No private source has access to this kind of information. Either they are making it up or they are tapping into government intelligence directly, which makes them no more private than government covert mercenary corporations like DynCorp, MPRI, and Vinelli. Yes, NEIN may have a few military types who feed them information. I too have a few who occasionally let me in on what they observe, none of which is specifically classified or illegal to disclose. However, no one in the military leaking the kind of info NEIN publishes can do so regularly without being caught—especially when NEIN has an internet presence that openly publishes these claims. In like manner, I have long warned about former “insiders” Al Martin and Sherman Skolnick. They both claimed more than they could have known without having government sources feeding them.

Insider connected corporations and wealthy individuals also control think tanks on both the right and the left. The Hoover InstitutionAmerican Enterprise Institute, andNational Review, even though they have done good research in the past, have become shills for neo-conservative globalist intervention. The Heritage Foundation used to be really conservative and hard hitting until it started to receive funding from establishment sources. Now it is relatively benign. Rarely does it criticize a Republican administration. The only exception to the corruption by funding trend has been the libertarian Cato Institute. Despite receiving major funding from establishment sources, it still resists control, and has not strayed far from its libertarian roots – except that it will never accuse the government of conspiracy. That seems to be the universal requirement for keeping an organization on the hook for establishment funding and free from establishment attacks. No one is allowed to play with the majors if they present evidence of conspiracy.

On the left, we still have with us organizations that grew out of Communist or Marxist influence within tax exempt foundations. Early on, the left targeted and gained control of the Carnegie, Brookings, and Ford Foundations. Even younger foundations like the Wallace, MacArthur, and Pew Charitable Trust are run with a liberal agenda. Some, like the Rand Corporation, Wackenhut Corrections and BCCI, are suspected of being outright government operations, dressed in civilian garb.

Then there are the traditional globalist organizations like the CFRTrilateral Commission and Aspen Institute. Although each of these organizations takes great pains to include in their membership up and coming middle-of-the-roaders, along with a few unthinking conservatives, to mask their hidden agenda, it is my opinion that these organizations are where the really dangerous people, who actively work toward the subversion of American constitutional sovereignty, congregate. Keep an eye on the top leaders of these organizations. I have noted that since the Iraq war, the media regularly calls upon spokesmen from the CFR much more frequently than in prior years. It seems the media is no longer afraid of consevatives who view the CFR as a subversive organization. It’s now very much in the mainstream consciousness of Americans and given a positive, authoritative reputation.

Education and Experience: I don’t accept anything in the news at face value without comparing it to what I already know is true. The greater the body of true knowledgethat you possess, the easier it is to see fallacies and falsehoods. The more shallow your store of “facts” and true experiences, the harder it is to scrutinize new information, especially when it falls outside your limited area of expertise or experience. Those who come from a home where learning is a continuing affair enriched by good books and alternative news, and not confined to television and establishment schools exclusively, have a head start in this process. In public schools students develop a body of “knowledge” in the social sciences and historical areas that is politically skewed and largely distorted. Because these “truths” are repeated by everyone and assumed true, even good people can sometimes become resistant to changing their minds. All of you who have tried to introduce others to evidence of conspiracy and corruption in government know what I mean.

Regardless of your background, the best way to become a critical thinker is to start reading argument-oriented commentaries on various subjects. The best source of such commentaries is transcripts of debates where contrasting presentations are given on two opposing issues, followed by a counter to each view and lastly a counter to the counter. That’s what it takes to really see error. States that publish voter pamphlets often use this format for initiatives. Also, the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) each month publishes “Ideas on Liberty,” a collection of confrontational essays directly countering bad ideas in economics, law and politics. It makes for stimulating reading, and is not difficult to understand. See on the web.

Personal experience in various aspects of life can also be an analytical tool. Often, my ability to see something false in a statement by government is due to my understanding of how government works, not only because of my political science training, but also due to my experience working in Washington, DC and in the military. The most valuable type of experience is not obvious, however. Sometimes it’s more important to be able to figure out what CAN’T be known so that you can detect sources that are lying. Having had a “top secret” clearance myself, and having also done FOIA searches to try to penetrate the wall of government secrecy (often used improperly to cover for illegal acts), I have a pretty good idea of what secrets one can and cannot get access to, without being a “deep cover” disinformation agent. This kind of experiential knowledge is especially useful in identifying gaps and falsehoods in alternative news and private intelligence analysis.

Common knowledge about how life works is also essential to see through pie-in-the-sky and too-good-to-be-true claims and schemes. One of the best ways to gain this kind of experience is to be determined to become well rounded in life, both in skills and in knowledge. You have to go out of your way to do so, as the world demands ever more specialization. Yes, everyone has to specialize in something to set themselves somewhat apart from others in the job market, but that shouldn’t stop you from using your spare time to learn a little about a lot of other things. Self learning through books is the most economical way to do this. Even if your children don’t go to college, make sure they learn enough about practical physics, electricity, chemistry, and other fields so they can make intelligent choices in life.

For example, I took several shop classes in high school as electives, and found that I thoroughly enjoyed building things and working with my hands. I knew I should pursue a different field in order to make a living, but I intuitively knew these skills were also essential in life, especially for a family man. Later, in college, I continued to expand my skills in the manual trades with classes on welding, construction, and machining. I also tried to become well-rounded in technical and professional knowledge. I studied economics, law, political science, social science, psychology and philosophy—the good and the bad in each field. The bad was what college provided; the good had to be ferreted out on my own. Most everything I learned in the social sciences in college was junk. However, being confronted with falsehoods and having to search for truth (on my own time) was invaluable.

If you have gained a broad generalist background in the sciences, and know how the natural world works, you can often spot flaws in the growing number of phony scientific claims that abound on the internet, like man-made global warming. Even if you can’t see through a particular suspicious claim, at least you can seek help from others more knowledgeable and usually understand their response. We are constantly bombarded by people pushing get-rich-quick schemes, free energy schemes, and bizarre scientific claims about doomsday scenarios. Recent threats about giant asteroids (Planet X) colliding with earth, or claims about the earth’s poles shifting on a certain date due to astronomical alignment of planets (causing the flooding of half the US continent) have all turned out to be bogus. What was paraded on the internet as “scientific” opinion backing up these claims turned out to be merely New Age visionaries and a few pseudo scientists who were tapping into spiritualist sources. Thousands of people get caught up in these frenzies of fear. We have enough real threats from globalist domination without getting stressed out over bogus claims. Educating yourself in all aspects of life is the best way to prepare yourself to distinguish the fraudulent from the real.

Using logic: It is not enough, however, to merely accumulate knowledge and facts like so many books on a shelf. You must also learn how to filter that information and assemble it into a realistic view of the world. Most people know how to draw a simple conclusion from a logical proposal: A = B and B = C. Therefore A must equal C. This is deductive reasoning. However, in a complex world filled with multiple layers of deception and sophisticated lies, it is inductive reasoning that you must master in order to analyze the news and put together a coherent view of modern history.

Inductive reasoning is much more difficult to master. It involves taking a wide sampling of seemingly random information or observations and picking out patterns of truth, sufficient to derive broader conclusions. There are several reasons why most people do so poorly at inductive reasoning. For one thing, few have access to a wide range of details to analyze in the first place. Much of the blame for this lies with the media and the school system, on which the vast majority of people are reliant for their information, and which systematically omits critical details. Even when more information and evidence is available, however, few people have the patience to remember the details, much less to sort through the conflicts and contradictions found in the details long enough to derive conclusions or see the patterns. Inductive reasoning takes a good memory and a lot of mental processing.

This is the essential art of thinking that allows a few to discover hidden conspiracies, especially when there is a lack of defectors from the higher echelons that could reveal the degree of collusion that may exist. People have little trouble seeing small conspiracies, which abound in criminal events, mafia activities, and drug dealings. But they have trouble seeing the larger hidden hand of control that links many of these groups together, if only peripherally. It is this larger element of control that is the key indicator of an over-arching conspiracy working against the interests of sovereignty and the Constitution to destroy liberty.

Here is some of the basic inductive evidence or patterns of details that should lead someone to suspect that a larger conspiracy exists:

1) With few exceptions, almost never do the “big boys” get caught or prosecuted for major crimes (Allied war crimes of WWII, Enron, WorldCom scandals, etc.). This trend indicates that higher authority protects these powerful people. When judges consistently deny the introduction of evidence that points to government collusion, we can also rightly suspect that judges are involved in this collusion.

2) Powerful interests in the West have consistently funded Communism, protected it from public exposure, defended Stalin by denying his atrocities, and given Pulitzer and Nobel Prizes to the worst perpetrators of violence and deception. One could hypothesize that this was due to the stupidly and ignorance of our leaders, if this pattern only rarely occurred. But after 50 years of aiding Communist revolutions, shipping atomic bomb plans and materials to Russia and allowing spies to roam the halls of government at will, one can rightly suspect these Harvard and Yale grads can’t be doing this out of mere ignorance.

Those who back the stupidity theory or the theory that the perpetrators are merely naïve liberals are of course partially correct. Many are. But stupidity theorists fail to acknowledge the experience of multiple anti-communist voices of reason, who confronted these leaders with their “naiveté and stupidity,” protesting each and every one of these sellouts of liberty as they were occurring. They bear testimony to the hostile reaction they received after confronting our leaders with this evidence of betrayal. We can track the efforts of leaders to fire the critics, bury the evidence, and in other ways protect the guilty.

When this pattern is repeated decade after decade, despite mounting evidence of the disastrous policies that were being promulgated, it becomes increasingly more difficult for the rational mind to believe that all this is merely because of stupidity and sociological predilections (at least at the highest levels).

3) Historically, there emerges over time increasing evidence of past conspiracies for control and power. As time has passed since the killing of JFK, for example, more government whistleblowers have surfaced to tell of more official government involvement, including threats if they ever reveal what they know. This is true regarding other far-reaching conspiracies as well. Whether the subject is government collusion with the Mafia, covering for Russian and Chinese rearmament, running drugs to fund black ops in the CIA, or the purposeful allowing of illegal immigration, we see a widening picture of collusion and conspiracy at the highest levels. In reaction to the charges that do surface, government leaders uniformly blame every evil on individual rogue elements in police, or law enforcement. Yet the evidence from whistleblowers is consistent: that cover-ups and suppression of dissent increases the higher they go in the appeals process. Again, this is evidence of over-arching, top-down control in conspiracy—not simply covering up to protect the boss.

The evidence for these kinds of patterns can only be found in watching and analyzing details of events stretching over years and decades of history, then forming them into a cohesive, consistent whole. The resulting picture of the world can be described, but only superficially. Those who master the skill of inductive reasoning have the ability to form their own world view, and constantly check it against the assertions of others to filter truth from deception. Those who don’t are relegated to a dependency on others for in-depth analysis, a position fraught with risk as lies become ever more sophisticated and complex.

A Correct World View: We cannot understand how this world operates if we hold to a purely secular, evolutionary, or humanistic view. Even though the spiritual spectrum is mostly hidden to man on earth, its workings can be detected if one is sensitive to truth, and if one avoids offending the source of all truth by chronic violations of conscience. You cannot, for example, really understand the following conundrums about conspiracy without contemplating the possibility of Satanic control:

· The fact that people involved in the conspiracy for global control already have more money and power than any man can use. Why should these continue to push for global control?

· The generational affect. The conspiracy doesn’t fade or alter course after the death of key people. If the driving force were only an individual or a small group of megalomaniacs, they would be incapable of controlling the direction others would take after they are gone.

· The fact that the globalists, in prepping the world for WWIII and encouraging a Russian/Chinese nuclear preemptive strike on the West, would also destroy the wealth and power of these same powerful conspirators. Why would anyone do this?

These aspects of the conspiracy cannot be explained by conventional leftist anti-capitalist jargon about greed, power and class struggle—even though these do play a significant role. The thirst for control of oil is also part of the picture, but it doesn’t explain the globalists’ plan to risk partial destruction of the West in an effort to create a Hegelian conflict out of which people can be induced to give up national sovereignty and join in a NWO.

My only theory of explanation rests upon my belief that systematic evil really does exist in the universe and is in opposition to what God is trying to do. The head of evil spiritual forces (called Satan) is actively working to destroy God’s purposes here on earth. Only Satan has the will and the motive to do as much destruction on a global scale as we have seen in the past and are destined to experience in the future. His ability to pull other men into this greater evil agenda is based, I believe, on the fact that all evil men, even when they possess wealth and power, need protection from the looming threat of God’s judgment as well as immunity from earthly prosecution.

Satan has a pretty good track record of protecting his own on earth. Even in WWII, when major conspirators allowed some of their wealth in Europe to be destroyed, it was restored to them during the Lend Lease rebuilding process. In Iraq, corporations in collusion with the globalist government agenda are also being enriched in the corrupt process of reconstruction.

None of this is meant to say that a large number of people have direct knowledge of or knowingly participate in the Satanic aspects of this conspiracy. Only the few at the top need to know, although anyone who operates within the inner levels surely knows that there is some form of hidden power structure that controls all major government moves. The lower echelon participants are manipulated through a variety of garden variety inducements like promises of future position, power and fame. Threats are used only when necessary. Liberal intellectuals are easily induced to work for the New World Order because their academic training induces them to believe they are part of an elite corps capable of bringing order and “fairness” to a greed filled competitive world. They are blind to the hidden victims of “compassionate liberalism.” Likewise, there is a growing body of conservative socialists who fail to comprehend the inherent evil behind their new-found ideas about “compassionate conservatism,” which is nothing more than socialism in another clever disguise. Perhaps the most disingenuous crowd of all are the journalists, who live in the fairly tale world of assertions that: 1) they are unbiased and neutral in their work; 2) they are free from the concerns of “greedy capitalism;” and 3) they have journalistic freedom within their news rooms. The latter is only true if they are predictable liberals. All true conservatives find themselves eventually driven out or forced to toe the official line.

The biggest fools in this world are those who view themselves as the brightest—those highly educated and smart people who proudly assert that there could never be an over-arching conspiracy because there would be too many people in the know, and that the secret would slip out. Aside from those who are actually and knowingly fronting for the conspiracy, most of these naive pundits are simply showing their lack of experience in dealing with this level of sophistication and deception. Sometimes insiders do see too much and talk, but these are quickly silenced in any number of ways ranging from subtle threats to outright elimination. The higher up in the conspiracy you go, the tighter the control system is. With a lack of direct evidence and first-hand accounts of the ongoing conspiracy, we must rely on our own abilities to gather and analyze information to formulate a reliable picture of what’s going on in the world. The more accurate that picture is, the better prepared we will be to protect ourselves from the real threats that all of us will have to face.


[Taken in toto without change or addition from ;

see the home link here: ]

Mosaica Reprise

“…  beneath the open surface of our society lie connections and relationships of long-standing, virtually immune to disclosure, and capable of great  crimes, including serial murder….  These forces are still with us, and they are not benign.”

Peter Dale Scott, Deep Politics and the death of JFK, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1996, pages 17 and 21,  cited as one of the epigraphs for Section 5  (entitled “Magic in Theory and Practice”) in book 3 (“the Manson secret”) of Levenda’s Sinister Forces trilogy.


Music video:

Jack DeJohnette – Peace Time (1:02:07)


This and what follows are excerpted from my now-defunct blog in Google’s Blogspot universe. There has been expansion of the text with some minor re-tooling.  


A deep understanding of the mindset (“world-view”) that is explained in depth and detail in the book Perfectibilists, written by Terry Melanson, and which is spelled out in the form of a self-replicating plan that rewards greed, avarice, power-mongering and the tyranny of a group of people who forever hide their work, function furtively, lie routinely, consider life and people dispensable, and to pledge a centuries-long quest to dominate the world.

Clearly, if one reads Kris Millegan’s edited tome entitled Fleshing Out Skull and Bones: investigations into America’s most powerful secret society, the perfect masters of the enlightenment, reason, and a Machiavellian kind of destruction that would further enable their control (do you follow the news closely?) took root at Yale University and spread from there throughout the United States in the forms of placement into leadership of key cultural institutions of education, the media, politics, government and the intelligence agencies. It ran in parallel with other similarly-seeded efforts in the United Kingdom, Europe, and found fertile soil in the form of the Trilateral efforts, the Council on Foreign Affairs, etc.

On the shelf of reagents in Melanson’s laboratory are the plans for the development of numerous machine de guerre, the purposeful destruction of religious faith, the designed takedown of governments, eugenics, the Hegelian dialectic, small containers of Luciferianism, the fact that Marx was demonstratively involved, and a recurring degree of instruction for and about the use of secrecy, psychological subversion, mind control, propaganda and infiltration within the halls of power.

A short summary of the thesis behind that series of posts — almost 600 pages in typewritten length under the general moniker “Mosaica” — then, is that — through the centuries-old plan explained in those two books —  the goal and intent of apparently opposite energies and theories of socialism, communism, fascism and capitalism may be pushing us all in the same direction.  In fact, I further submit that they have been knowingly but covertly engineered by fascists, socialists, communists and capitalists — masquerading as one another and morphing as necessary.    The clues and guideposts for this journey lie in a detailed effort, historically and in terms of current events, to understand the degree of transfer of technology and glove-in-hand intelligence/counter-intelligence that has occurred, particularly with regard to nuclear weaponry and other technologies of mass destruction.  They have leant each other the tools, and found, recruited and kept the best practitioners.


My essential thesis can use an analogy drawn from the technical design and the deep inner functioning’s of an atomic (fission) bomb in which a core material — which is to be brought to criticality — is surrounded by a ring of explosives which — when triggered in functional sequence — create a compressive shock wave that results in devastating destruction.


The destruction of sovereignty at the personal level as well as the national level, and the destruction of any resistance to a vast totalitarian global system, is the purpose of the metaphorical ring of explosives. 


The ring of explosives that will bring about the global totalitarian “New World Order” consists of educational systems, media systems, vast panoptic surveillance, integrated independent militarized intelligence systems capable of small independent as well as large integrated “black ops”, previous attacks that have weakened or destroyed the governance possibility of the United States Constitution as well as other political structures and the rule of law itself, and the ignorance, apathy, or passive complicity of the people. It generates continued violence both domestically and globally, including war, military action of overt and covert nature, etc. Witness the recent and recurring shooting incidents.

The metaphorical ring of explosives has slowly been built. While it is possible to extend the time frame back in history well beyond the mid-to-late 18th-century, it is possible to see and review the extent and depth of the plan in the planning–in an English language that can be comprehended–through studies of the history of Adam Weishaupt, the German Enlightenment, the Perfectibilists, other secret societies (most notably, Yale’s Skull and Bones), the role of the occult in intelligence agencies and fascism, and more.

The wiring for the ring of explosives has been carefully constructed over the course of the 20th century, beginning with the continuation or outgrowth of the activities of independent think tanks, NGOs, “circles”,  secret societies, and the integrated, long-range planning that has been in place and working effectively since before World War I. Deeply woven within this braid of explosive wiring are the ideologies and practices of hegemony, panoptic control, Zionism, socialism/communism, the theories of central banking, capitalism, imperialism, and the intelligence and counterintelligence systems across several continents.

Critical to this braiding (it may not, in the end, be necessary to differentiate the precise roles of each ideology, each phase, each agent) is the deep, secretive, game of information and technology sharing that has gone on across sovereign lines using covert intelligence agencies and their operatives. This includes the history of the Dulles brothers in and around the end of World War I and the reshaping of the European continent’s stability and balance (including activities and around Versailles and Istanbul), Prescott Bush, Sullivan and Cromwell, Brown Brothers Harriman, the deep background activities of major financial banking houses (including, to be sure, the role of the Rothschild enterprises), the early 20th century financial baronages of the Rockefellers, the Morgan’s, Carnegie, et alia, the funding necessary for the development and fueling of the Russian Revolution, the funding of the rise of Hitler and Naziism, and the role of the OSS (including and especially the role of Dulles in  in Switzerland in facilitating the transfer of Nazi knowledge and technology, “the secret surrender”, Operation Paperclip, the purposeful mishandling of diplomatic entreaties for peace from Japan through the Bank of International Settlements, the forging of cooperative agreements between Nazi intelligence and counterintelligence agents in Europe, the forging of cooperative agreements between Jewish/Israeli/Zionist agents in Italy and elsewhere and OSS agents who would go on to become high placed officials in the CIA). The evidence appears in numerous CIA operations and gambits, as well as in the development of Israel and its intelligence methods, agencies, operations, etc. Sprinkle in some Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzeskinki in key places at key times. Note — if you can find a copy and deep and accurate references to it — the topic of Kissinger’s doctoral thesis about maintaining a balance of power, and pay attention to the play and the players within the tableau and the timeframe of his historical analysis.

In the aftermath of World War II, Jewish money and influence was critical to the creation of both the Israeli state and its intelligence and counterintelligence agencies and its nuclear capacity) and the development of “the national security state” within the United States of America. What grew out of this included a hand in-glove relationship between US intelligence and Israeli intelligence and allowed for extensive technology transfer across all major nuclear states including Russia, China, France, Great Britain, the US and Israel. The histories of NUMEC, Dimona, PROmis, Centralign, krytons, covert transfer of weaponry, deep and extensive narco-trafficking, espionage and targeting software are available to the curious.  The transfer of technology has been a focus of covert espionage for decades, but the open and slightly-covert (or occult?) transfer by major agents of government both inside and outside of intelligence agencies has been effected almost as much and to greater effect. It probably also includes the transfer of military technologies into Red China in indirect manner.


Americans (and to some far lesser extent others throughout the world) have been propagandized and Bernays’ed  into a bland hunk of pliable, moldable political tofu, to be shaped as appropriate into a force not yet designed but capable of being reshaped and redeployed into a vector in ways not yet conceived; collectively, we are a force awaiting our orders which will come through predictive programming, tele-screen, repetition, and official pronouncement carefully sculpted to be something other than what it appears to be.

Americans are the residua, depending on their age and schooling, of the stresses, media influences (real-time and, more predominately, in terms of mythic history reshaped and re-packaged) and prior manipulations of World War II, Korea, the McCarthy Red scare, the Time/Look/Luce media Wurlitzer, the Nixonian games, Dealey Plaza and its fifty years of stacked and layered ops, cover-ups, and lies, Skull and Bones Dewey-ist Prussian “dumbing down”, the 60s, drugs, assassinations, coverups, Straussian neocon games, unending warssszs, 9/11, psy-operas, more coverups, weather modification and warfare, mind control and menticide, tsunamis of disinformation, and repeated warnings about conspiracy (theories, facts, and everything in between).

Most Americans, because they don’t read more than the TV Guide or other consumerist pablum, are incapable of reading comprehension and deep thought, and cannot begin to follow the deep, embedded, long-term machinations of the elite enlightened ones (TV being far too pervasive, addictive and mind-numbing).  They cannot know who they are, what they were, or what they stand for (i.e., political, interpersonal, and moral values) without being told and they blindly choose the next path or decision (whether for what to buy or whom to vote for) on the basis of that which has been pounded into a tasteless mush of sameness.


The hands-in-gloves dual-deniability nature of intelligence/operations between the CIA and the Mossad [and which must also to include criminal narco-trafficking gangs — foreign and domestic, historic and now-being-formed), international intelligence agencies, as well as a veritable plethora of other national military or investigative intelligence agencies] extends from the present day back through 9/11, Iran-Contra, the days of the Gulf of Tonkin and the USS Liberty, Dealey Plaza, the dual birth of the US national security state apparatus and the sovereign state of Israel, the days of the OSS, Operation Gladio, the use of false flag terror by the Nazis and the Zionist/Israeli entities, the GehlenOrg, the Muslim Brotherhood, “al-Qaeda”, as well as the numerous and increasing domestic incidents of terror which include multiple shootings and other mysteries of sudden death. (I think of the schoolhouse shootings, the Beltway sniper, Jared Loughner, the Aurora shootings, Fort Hood, and General Wheeler, among many, many others almost too numerous to list, which is of course part of the strategy of tension derived from the deep covert psychological research done by Nazi scientists and Freud and Bernays and the people at Tavistock and its off-shoot institutes.]

It is permanently easy to say ‘it couldn’t have been us” because the work was out-sourced. Plausible deniability on steroids… “It” of course also uses “patsies” given “legends”, false instructions,  mysterious missions, mind control and, eventually, a death sentence. The “game” centers on crazed lone gunmen, pre-papered with ‘evidence’ of ideological leanings or manifestos or pamphlets or prescriptions or diagnoses of mental illness, followed by jailhouse visitations, show trials, pleas that avoid the pitfalls of the justice system (or direct manipulation of the justice system itself).

The nature of this multi-headed, multi-armed beast is that if you suggest that it is Communist in origin, the counter-cry is to warn about McCarthy-style blacklistings, freedom of speech, etc. or to suggest that the people involved are variegated politically and have assimilated.  If you say “socialist”, the counter-cry is to list the long list of abuses of capitalism (and they are numerous). If you say Jews, or perhaps Zionists, or perhaps banksters, the counter-cry is anti-Semitism. The counter-attacks are panopticonism, hyper-surveillance, and attacks against people and organizations on lists maintained by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the US DHS and the ADL, keeping in mind that B’nai B’rith and the ADL were formed to protect the flanks while the Federal Reserve was quietly and secretively cemented into place by the same people who funded Nazism and Bolshevism to keep the weapons factories humming and the rich investors uber-wealthy.

From the beginning (at least since the formation of the Perfecibilists), the major tactic has always been to appear to be something other than what you are, and the central strategy has always been to maintain a balance of power by playing one against another, funding the weaker while making money off the profits and usurious interests and control of the second- and third-generation consequences, by infiltration, secrecy, treachery and treason, double- and triple agent espionage, arms sales, illegal cross-border trafficking of guns, drugs and people, and by foreknowledge and the ability to manipulate fiscal transactions in marketplaces by counterfeiting, data manipulation, and the more modern variants of “pump and dump”, derivatives, high-speed high-volume sales, or simply the control of investigative, media or regulatory agencies.


“… we begin to realize that the word “conspiracy” does not do justice to what is, after all, merely a group of people from similar backgrounds with similar goals, all working to a common purpose which is hidden from the world at large by virtue of a Great Wall of wealth, trustees, culture and power. We begin to see that what the rest of us call conspiracy is just business-as-usual for the people that operate above, behind and below what we know as consensus history, consensus reality. I believe that the word “conspiracy” is over-used and emotionally-loaded in this context. Let us instead, and rightly, use the word “cabal” to denote this gathering of sinister forces.”

Sinister Forces: a grimoire of American political witchcraft (Book 2:  A Warm Gun), Peter Levenda, TrineDay 2006.


The essential questions that has driven me for some time…. since probably the time I encountered significant opposition on at least four discussion boards … is the very visceral and oft-repeated process in these kinds of matters that “you” are not allowed to look here and you are not allowed to ask those questions and you are not privy to what we know and we are going to divert your attention in a variety of ways (including ad hominem attacks, banishment, intimidation, threats, blackmail, violence, even death)…: ? What is the glue or commonality that connects all the areas in which such counter-reaction is vehement, vitriolic and venomous?  What are the modus operandi in use by intelligence agencies, groups, interests and ideologies that can be demonstrated to be recurring patterns? Can there be a simple demonstration of linkage between them?

I submit there can be.


The question:

“What could still be “too dangerous” to talk about more than forty years after the fact?” [page 86, Janney’s Mary’s Mosaic]


These days, you have to make the assumptions that whatever/whomever it is you are reading (including me) is dotted with error,  lackadaisical research, submerged ideological intent, or at least the presence of a conscious or unconscious filter born of aging, cultural immersion, prior education, etc.


Crosscheck and verify major critical statements using:


  • Google or other search engines (Google and the World Wide Web ISPs,-pedias, sites offering “expertise” are, in themselves, filters and agents);
  • wide reading among ideologies;
  • deep/obscure and suppressed books; and
  • the books written by disinformation artists (even this info has to have a high degree of accuracy or resonance with truth and proven fact in order to be acceptable; though we have the added burden of figuring out which is which, this becomes easier if there is wide reading and wide dialogue);
  • hum int(Amory Lovins and a multitude of other people will tell you that to get the most meaningful information and understanding, you have to talk to people — lots of them; there’s even an ancient Chinese proverb about it); and, of course,
  • time.


Looking back over time – knowing, of course, that there are forces at work whose intent is to alter, mold, shape, erase or re-create history – allows patterns and modus operandi to emerge from the depths. Cross-reference as much as you can.

This all takes a lot of time and energy. Most people aren’t in the slightest bit interested (that’s what they count on and they facilitate with multiple levels of distraction), or don’t have the time, energy, money or sense of purpose/mission to dig deep. And remember that, in the rapid currents of today’s Prigoginal River of info/dis-info glut [], what media ecologist Robert Dobbs (page 36, Cryptoscatology: Conspiracy as Art Form, by Robert Guffy) called “software/wetware conditions”, it is very difficult for a single sentient biped (even one with access to terabytes of memory) to remember everything and see it correctly.

Ask yourself how you can get more information, how you can get more time, and how can you save or conserve resources.  Manage what is manageable, deal with definites, dig quickly for disconfirmation. Actively look for the information  that does not support your preferred beliefs or outcome options. Do source-and-assumption checks to ascertain validity of the information. Is there any contradictory information? Do an oversight and certainty check.

All this kind of work is helped by the Internet. But that is work done under the watchful surveillance of the NSA, the Federal Reserve, independent private investigators, and Homeland Security. And they will pump in more information to confuse and distract you.

The answer: That which is ongoing, that which reveals the key to understanding….



“The scholar who teaches most teach with the whole personality. This requires considerable self-awareness. One may hide from others but not from oneself. Instead, one must quite deliberately seek not the hide from oneself. The counterpoint to this need is that one also observes others with care. One must know not only, as teacher and researcher, how to ask the right question, one must know when to ask no question at all. Answers bring closure, often too soon, so that shape is given the knowledge before it should be given, so conditioning the questions that follow. One must know how to wait. A quality of quiet watching is essential.”

[page 57, Cloak and Gown: Scholars in the Secret War, Robin Winks, William Morrow and Co., New York 1991.]




“If one keeps on asking the questions, the answers will gradually begin to fit together.” [Page xii, The Man Who Kept the Secrets: Richard Helms and the CIA, Thomas Powers, Alfred Knopf 1979.]




“As a rule, counterintelligence people say, once you start looking in the right place all sorts of evidence turn up…..”[Page 71, The Man Who Kept the Secrets: Richard Helms and the CIA, Thomas Powers, Alfred Knopf 1979]



The operative concept you must perceive and identify

in your readings of Perfectibilists and Fleshing Out Skull and Bones

is “infiltration”.



“…the so-called “deep state” should not be seen as a structure, but as a milieu….”

Pawley wrote in his unpublished memoir, “Russia is Winning,” that “The whole pattern is now colored with a thin, pasty coating called ‘detente,’ a Communist tactic to prepare the trusting democracies for the kill…It can end only in surrender.”[62] [ David Price Cannon, More Ruthless than the Enemy: The Dark Diplomacy of Ambassador William Douglas Pawley, web-published, ]

“… President Kennedy was not assassinated by a marginal neglected loner who was quickly killed, but by some deep enduring force in our society, with the power to affect bureaucratic behavior. ….”


Doug Valentine: Angleton ran the CIA’s narcotics operation, in league with the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, until 1971, when Helms put it under Tom Karamessines at operations; Karamessines was the former CIA Athens chief.

I know for a fact that Angleton in the counterintelligence division of the CIA was in charge of its relations with law enforcement agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, which is one of the reasons organizationally that he ended up having relations with people like Charlie Siragusa, a high ranking official in the FBN. This is how Angleton enters into relationships with Corsican drug traffickers and uses them for counterintelligence operations.

I know this because I interviewed one of the officers who was on Angleton’s staff and who actually was his liaison to the Bureau of Narcotics. And I’ll be talking more about that in my new book, Strength of the Pack. The guy’s name was Jim Ludlum. People say he’s related to Robert Ludlum.

In 1968 the Federal Bureau of Narcotics was abolished and Lyndon Johnson’s administration created the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. Angleton and the CIA continued to have an official relationship with the BNDD until 1971, at which point Nixon declared narcotics law enforcement a national emergency and made it an issue of national security.

And at that point relations switched from Angleton at counterintelligence to the operations branch of the CIA. That’s incredibly important in understanding the history of the CIA’s involvement with drug trafficking, because now it’s no longer a function of counterintelligence, something deep inside the Agency. Now you actually have CIA chiefs of station all around the world becoming actively involved in collecting intelligence on drug trafficking. It became in 1971 a very, very big business – drug trafficking within the CIA.

Doug Valentine: One of the great untold stories of the CIA. Privatization of intelligence – as you call it, Shackleyization.

RJ Hillhouse, a blogger who investigates the clandestine world of private contractors and US intelligence, recently obtained documents from the Office of the Directorate of National Intelligence (DNI) showing that Washington spends some $42 billion annually on private intelligence contractors, up from $17.54 billion in 2000. Currently that spending represents 70 percent of the US intelligence budget going to private companies.

William Casey sort of paved the way for the downfall of the Soviet Union. The CIA officers involved in the Russia division at that time were responsible for recruiting over to our side KGB officers, intelligence officers, government officials who brought about the breakup of that republic. Those relationships still exist. And if anybody was REALLY interested in doing a history of the CIA, that particular aspect would be the most explosive story.

Suzan Mazur: In your book you also tie in Agency drug operations to the JFK assassination. You note that “the CIA protected its drug dealing assets in the Mexican intelligence services” and say further:

“[I]t’s possible that SDECE [French Intel] agents working for the KGB may have sent an assassin into Dallas [to kill JFK] through Angleton’s [Irving] Brown-[Maurice] Castellani drug network, or through Paul Mondoloni [a Corsican who smuggled drugs from Mexico and then from Cuba under Batista’s protection].”

You say this assassin may have been the Agency’s own QJ/WIN with Oswald as the patsy:

“The best evidence suggests that this mysterious operative [QJ/WIN] was Jose Marie Andre Mankel, as Mason Cargill (a staff member of vice president Rockefeller’s Commission to Investigate CIA Activities within the United Sates) reported in a 1 May 1975 memo. . . . According to documents contained in his 201-file, QJ/WIN was tall and thin, married (although homosexual), with many friends in well-to-do Parisian circles. He was a conman extraordinaire!”

It’s interesting, Tim Weiner says in his book that President Lyndon Johnson requested all the files on Oswald following his murder by Ruby — who you say was a Federal Bureau of Narcotics informant beginning in the 1940s — and that those files then vanished. You say further in your book:

“JFK wanted to expel Air America, the CIA’s drug smuggling proprietary airline from Laos. And, in 1962 in another attempt to curb the CIA’s drug smuggling activities in East Asia, Bobby [Kennedy] indicted Sea Supply manager Willis Bird. . . . Kennedy’s enemies ensured that the Bird prosecution was blocked, and that Air America kept its contract in Laos, and continued to fly drugs. Meanwhile, General Walker, the far-right American Security Council (including General Lansdale and Air America Chairman Admiral Felix Stump), and the Texas ultras started plotting their coup d’etat in Dallas.”

And you note that Senator Estes Kefauver’s committee investigation was kept away from a discussion of Dallas, Ruby would only tell the committee what he knew about Chicago.

“Was it to deflect attention from the Pawley-Cooke mission in Taiwan, which was funded by ultra Texas oilmen like H.L. Hunt, and which in 1951, was facilitating the CIA-Kuomintang drug smuggling operation that entered the US by crossing the Mexican border at Laredo, Texas?”

You also say that Joseph Civello ran the heroin business in Dallas with John Ormento and the Magaddino family in Buffalo and that they were linked to Carlos Marcello, Santo Trafficante, Jr. and Jimmy Hoffa – “the House Subcommitte on Assassination’s three prime suspects in the JFK murder.”

Then you note that Hunt and the other Texas oil men, including the emerging Bush dynasty, were also outraged at JFK for planning to “eliminate the oil depletion allowances” not to mention JFK’s desegregating the South…..


Doug Valentine: First of all, I don’t pretend to know who killed Kennedy. For all I know it could have been Lee Harvey Oswald. That chapter on JFK in my book is speculative, that is to say, if the CIA was involved in JFK’s assassination, how would it have been involved. And it goes back to the relationship the CIA had with the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and in particular with an agent named George White.

George White was the guy the CIA went to when they wanted to start up the MKULTRA program at Bedford Street. But prior to that, in 1947, he was head of the Chicago office and one of his informants was Jack Ruby.

Jack Ruby went to Dallas in 1948 working for White and actually infiltrated Bugsy Siegel’s Mafia drug connection with the Kuomintang in Mexico. As far as I know nobody was ever arrested. Bugsy Siegel was killed because he was getting a little out of control.

Doug Valentine: The CIA doesn’t get arrested. So you never really know. It’s an espionage organization.

The Rosenbergs in the United States were tried for espionage and given a death sentence. But this is what the CIA does for its business. It goes around the world and it gets foreign nationals to spy on their government and it has an army of Rosenbergs out there. It’s a group of mafia bosses who are getting people of foreign countries to spy on their own countries and subvert their own countries and they give them masses amounts of dollars to do it.

The CIA people who do these things are no different than the KGB people running the Rosenbergs.


Suzan Mazur: But you cite in Strength then-general counsel for the Thai Consulate in Miami, Paul Helliwell, establishing and directing a “string of drug money-laundering banks for the CIA. And you mention Vanguard Services set up as a front in 1962 “for yet another batch of CIA-financed, drug-related anti-Castro operations.”
Can you say more about these outlaw banks?

Doug Valentine: A little. Drugs again, and Nugan Hand, and Golden Triangle stuff, among other things. The Mafia connection to Trafficante and JFK. Angleton.

Paul Helliwell had been in the OSS. When Nugan died in 1980 or 1981, he had William Colby’s business card on his body. William Colby was providing legal counsel for the Nugan Hand bank and it had on its board numerous generals, retired US generals who had been in Vietnam. AND ALL THESE GUYS ARE IN IT FOR THE MONEY.

And if they can get the money selling drugs, they get the money selling drugs. If they can get the money breaking up the Soviet Union, and then cutting deals with the Mafia and robbing the Russian treasury, then they’ll do it that way.

THE CIA IS REALLY INTERESTED IN FINANCIAL CRIME. And one of their stronger suits is financial intelligence and following the money. Something they’re light years ahead of the FBI or DEA on.

The CIA was able to put together strong boxes full of $750 million dollars and bring them over to Iraq for paying off Iraqi officials in $20 bills. Where did this covert cash come from?

They’ve got a diversified portfolio after 60 years in the business: The institutions they started building up from Ford franchises in the Philippines, kickbacks from Westinghouse for helping them get contracts in Korea, deals with the Mafia, drug traffickers and arms dealers.

The CIA gets oodles of money from the arms business. Most of their income comes from criminal activity.

The Russian Mafia operates with a sort of impunity. And so does the Israeli Mafia. And one of the reasons they have this sort of impunity is that they’re sharing their profits with the CIA.

And I think a lot of CIA money is capital investments. They’re like movie producers. They want to overthrow the Iraqi government, they go to companies like Halliburton and others who are going to profit from the overthrow of Iraq. And like the executive producers of some movie, they get them to ante-up some cash. Telling them, don’t worry about it, the government contracts you get in return will cover your investment. Plus they have the old boy network – which now is so far flung.

Suzan Mazur: Plus some of the military contractors are organized crime and have had contracts since the 50s.

Doug Valentine: Exactly. Which bring us back to Barry Seal (Iran-Contra). Because in 1972, Barry Seal was to fly some arms and some explosives into Mexico. What the Brooklyn Drug Task Force found out is that this guy named Murray Kessler, who was involved with the Gambino family in Brooklyn, had an arms manufacturing company in New Jersey where the guns and the bombs came from.

Suzan Mazur: And some of these arms merchants also had security clearance during the McNamara and Clifford years of heading the Defense Department. They make weapons for the US government and some for whoever they feel like.

Doug Valentine: From my perspective, the spy industry and especially the arms industry, is the foundation on which the American empire is built. The United States has a military budget of I think $300 billion dollars and the CIA budget is like $50 billion – that’s a year. Together that’s bigger than the gross national product of any country in the world. And in the meantime we’re worried about 20 guys in Al-Qaeda.

Suzan Mazur: And the American people are largely innocent captives of this ever-turning screw.


Suzan Mazur: Which exploits of the agency do you consider the most diabolical – aside from the fact that one of its founding fathers molested two of his own children – and a reason why the CIA should have been dismantled years ago?

Doug Valentine: Your readers don’t want to know that answer. The most dastardly thing that the CIA has done is to wage this campaign of psychological warfare against the American people. Where the American people don’t see the CIA for a bunch of basically American KGB agents who are conducting criminal activities around the world. There’s a movie called The Usual Suspects with a much feared criminal named Keyser Soze. And Keyser is talking to a cop and he says the greatest trick that the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he doesn’t exist.

And this is what people like Weiner are doing with books about the CIA that don’t explain it for what it really is. They’re part of a propaganda machine that’s making the American people see the CIA in mythological terms as good guys, crusaders, as Lawrence of Arabia – when, in fact, they’re criminals. They’re part of THE GRAND LIE. 



Lenin in 1920 made an analysis of the political conditions in Germany after the failure of  the Communist (Spartacus League) uprising in 1918. The Communists had split into two rival factions. The issues facing the German Marxists were somewhat analogous to those facing the Marxist movements today especially in the industrial world.

This fact makes many of Lenin’s observations of the conditions in Germany relevant to the struggles of today both in advanced  capitalist countries such as the U.S. (where Marxist political groupings barely make a blip on the radar screen), Europe (where Marxist parties offer viable alternatives to the status …

Lenin on the Role of a Marxist Party in Relation to the People

Chapter Five of ‘Left Wing’ Communism an Infantile Disorder

by Thomas Riggins / November 13th, 2012

(Full article …)


America Is Being Systematically Transformed Into A Totalitarian Society

Posted on January 9, 2013 | Leave a comment | Jan 7, 2013

by American Cream


“The possibility of treating US citizens as foreign ’terrorists’ has been a constant objective of the government executive since the attacks of 9/11.“By the new prerogative which has been awarded him by the National Defense Authorization Act – that of being able to nullify Habeas Corpus for US citizens and not just for foreign nationals – the Obama administration has achieved what the previous government had only planned but never instituted.” 


Etzioni: “no philosophy that better describes Obama’s position than communitarianism” 

Amitai Etzioni, the high priest of communitarianism, was in Israel recently and was interviewed by the Jerusalem Post.

Here’s a short, but revealing excerpt:

Why did you call your movement “Communitarianism”?

That’s actually an interesting story. I started a little group in 1990, and I tried to find a word to counter excessive individualism. Communitarianism is actually associated with…


Well, yes, when it first came up in the mid-19th century, it was associated with communism in East Asia. So we had a very long debate about whether to use it or not. But we just couldn’t come up with another term that would speak for community and common good. And we hoped that our kind of neo-communitarianism would succeed in becoming a kind of a symbol for this other approach. It’s a particularly key point at the moment, because there is no philosophy that better describes Obama’s position than communitarianism. But nobody wants him to label it thus, because it immediately evokes the image of East Asia, Singapore and Japan. So, it may have been an imperfect choice of a term, but now we’re kind of stuck with it.

1) He admits that Communitarianism is traditionally associated with Communism; and 2) he specifically identifies Obama’s ideology as that of Communitarianism.

If you haven’t delved into the research of Niki Raapana, I recommend that you do. I’m not sure when it was that she first labeled Obama a communitarian, but it was quite some time ago – long before the admission of Etzioni (as if we needed that anyway).

By the way, there’s a bit of subterfuge in the above excerpt. While answering the reporter’s quip about communism being associated with communitarianism, Etzioni replies with: “Well, yes, when it first came up in the mid-19th century, it was associated with communism in East Asia.” If you’re talking East-Asia, shouldn’t that have been the mid-20th century? And even if it was a mistake and he meant to say mid-20th, it would still be incorrect. Communitarianism did not “first come up” in the mid-20th.

In fact, Etzioni is well aware of exactly from whence it came. In his The Essential Communitarian Reader, p. ix, we read:

…the term itself was coined only in 1841 by [John Goodwyn] Barmby, who founded the Universal Communitarian Association. In this and other nineteenth-century usage, communitarian means “a member of a community formed to put into practice communistic or socialists theories.” [my emphasis]

Basically, yes, that’s where the term originated; but Barmby’s “Universal Communitarian Association” was originally called the “Communist Propaganda Society“!

And talk about disingenuous. Etzioni would have us believe that a loose assemblage of naive sociologists and change agents, in the ’90s, stumbled upon a unique-sounding word; liked what they heard; investigated its origins and ideological legacy; found that it was synonymous and contemporary with Owenite socialism, Fourier’s Phalanxes, Barmby’s Christian Communism, Left and Right Hegelians, and the Utopian schemes of the Saint-Simonians; decided to adopt it anyway; and that it henceforth shall have a totally new meaning and purpose!

I would like to draw your attention to another story at Niki Raapana’s “Living Outside the Dialectic” (a clever and apt title if there ever was one). I wasn’t aware of this, but it turns out that Fareed Zakaria (Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission, CFR) is quite the Communitarian as well. Now I am immediately reminded of that photo taken of Obama’s choice of literature back in the summer of 2008. 


A new Gallup Poll finds that socialism is now viewed positively by 39 percent of Americans, up from 36 percent in 2010. Among self-described liberals, socialism enjoyed a 62 percent positive rating, while 53 percent of Democrats and independent voters who lean Democratic gave socialism a thumb’s up….

In 2010, only 20 percent of conservatives viewed socialism favorably. Today, the number is 25 percent. That’s right: one-quarter of American conservatives view socialism favorably.

Among Republicans, the increase has been slightly more notable. In 2010, only 17 percent of self-identified Republicans had a positive view of socialism. Now, that number had increased to 23 percent. So if you meet four Republicans, one of them is harboring socialist sentiments.


Not really.

Socialism has deep America roots—going back to when Tom Paine used his final pamphlet, Agrarian Justice, to outline a social-democratic model for establishing a just and equitable society. Socialist communes and political movements flourished in the United States during the first decades of the republic’s history, and the advocates for those movements found a home in the radical experiment that came to be known as the “Republican” Party.

Founded at Ripon, Wisconsin, in 1854 by utopian socialists and militant abolitionists, the early Republican Party included many German-American immigrants who arrived in the United States after the European revolutions that stirred in 1848 were repressed. The man who issued the call for that meeting in Ripon, and who is to this day frequently identified as a founding figure for the Republican Party, was Alvan Earle Bovay, a veteran radical who had led militant movements for land reform that urged the poor to organize politically and “Vote Yourself a Farm.”

Among the first Republicans were many allies and associates of socialist causes, and even of Karl Marx. Among their number was Joseph Weydemeyer, a former Prussian Army officer who would continue to correspond with Marx as he rose through the ranks as a military officer during the Civil War.

Abraham Lincoln, like most of the leading Republicans of his day had read Marx and Engels in the pages of the Horace Greeley’s New York Herald Tribune (for which the two men wrote for many years as European correspondents). The sixteenth president spoke often about the superiority of labor to capital and was highly critical of concentrated wealth. Toward the end of the Civil War, the White House accepted the congratulations of Marx and his fellow London Communists after Lincoln’s 1864 re-election.

Lincoln was no Marxist. But, like a good many of the initial leaders of the Republican Party, he had been exposed to the ideas of Marx and Engels in the Tribune. In fact, Lincoln chose as one of his closest White House aides (and eventually as his assistant secretary of war) Charles Dana, Marx’s long-time editor. Famously, Dana once declared, “Everyone now is more or less a Socialist.”

John Nichols on December 1, 2012 – 7:58 PM ET 


The term “neoconservative” (sometimes shortened to “neocon”) was used initially during the 1930s, to describe American communist intellectuals who criticized Soviet ideology.[6]

^ a b Context of Late 1930s – 1950s: Neoconservative Philosophy Grows from Communist Intellectuals’ Disenchantment with Soviet Ideology

Late 1930s – 1950s: Neoconservative Philosophy Grows from Communist Intellectuals’ Disenchantment with Soviet Ideology

The philosophy that becomes known as “neoconservativism” traces its roots to leftist ideologues in New York City who, before World War II, begin sorting themselves into two camps: those who support Franklin D. Roosevelt’s economic “New Deal” policies, and more radical individuals who consider themselves followers of Soviet communism. Many of these radical leftists are Jews who, staunchly opposed to Nazi-style fascism, find themselves finding more and more fault with Stalinist Russia. In their eyes, Josef Stalin’s Soviet Union has betrayed the ideals of the original Russian Revolution, and has instead created a monstrous regime that is as bad towards Jews and other ethnic and cultural minorities as Germany’s Adolf Hitler and Italy’s Benito Mussolini. The betrayal they feel towards the Soviet Union, author J. Peter Scoblic will later write, cannot be overestimated. Seminal movement figures such as Irving Kristol (see 1965) lead a small cadre of academics and intellectuals far away from their former leftist-Communist ideology, instead embracing what Scoblic will call “an ardent nationalism” that they see as “the only feasible counterweight to the Soviet monster.” The USSR is as evil as Nazi Germany, they believe, and as committed to world domination as the Nazis. Therefore, the USSR cannot be negotiated with in any form or fashion, only opposed, and, hopefully, destroyed. During the 1950s, Scoblic will write, “these intellectuals adopted a strict good-versus-evil outlook—and a scorn for radical elements of the American Left—that was not unlike that of the ex-communists… who were defining modern conservatism.” But unlike their conservative counterparts, Kristol’s neoconservatives either espouse a more liberal social construct similar to Roosevelt’s New Deal, or care little one way or the other about the entire skein of issues surrounding economic and social policy. The neoconservatives will drive themselves even farther right during the social upheaval of the 1960s, and, according to Scoblic, will hold leftist leaders in contempt in part because they remind the neoconservatives of their Stalinist compatriots of thirty years ago, colleagues whom they have long since abandoned and held in scorn. The fact that some antiwar New Left figures will support Soviet, Chinese, and Vietnamese communism will further enrage the neoconservatives. [SCOBLIC, 2008, PP. 83-85] 

The term “neoconservative” was popularized in the United States during 1973 by Socialist leader Michael Harrington, who used the term to define Daniel Bell, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Irving Kristol, whose ideologies differed from Harrington’s.[9]

The “neoconservative” label was used by Irving Kristol in his 1979 article “Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed ‘Neoconservative.'”[10] His ideas have been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited the magazine Encounter.[11] Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of the magazine Commentary from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was terming himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled “The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan’s Foreign Policy”.[12][13] …

Neoconservatism was initiated by the repudiation of coalition politics by the American New Left: Black Power, which denounced coalition-politics and racial integration as “selling out” and “Uncle Tomism” and which frequently generated anti-semitic slogans; “anti-anticommunism“, which seemed indifferent to the fate of South Vietnam, and which during the late 1960s included substantial endorsement of Marxist Leninist politics; and the “new politics” of the New left, which considered students and alienated minorities as the main agents of social change (replacing the majority of the population and labor activists).[22] Irving Kristol edited the journal The Public Interest (1965–2005), featuring economists and political scientists, emphasized ways that government planning in the liberal state had produced unintended harmful consequences.[23]

Norman Podhoretz’s magazine Commentary of the American Jewish Committee, originally a journal of liberalism, became a major publication for neoconservatives during the 1970s. Commentary published an article by Jeane Kirkpatrick, an early and prototypical neoconservative, albeit not a New Yorker….

Many neoconservatives had been leftist during the 1930s and 1940s, when they opposed Stalinism. After World War 2, they continued to oppose Stalinism and to endorse democracy during the Cold War. Of these, many were from the Jewish[30] intellectual milieu of New York City.[31] 


“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The Communist Party must command all the guns; that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”

– Mao Zedong