Tag Archives: data

Got Food?

Got Food?

JUNE 2, 2017, 8:49 AM| Award-winning author Michael Ruhlman has been writing about food for 20 years. [Got food?] He’s collaborated with professional chefs on cookbooks and written about the basics of cooking. Ruhlman joins “CBS This Morning” to discuss his new book, “Grocery: The Buying and Selling of Food in America” and how our relationship with food has evolved.

Video [4:30] embedded at the link:



In Grocery, bestselling author Michael Ruhlman offers incisive commentary on America’s relationship with its food and investigates the overlooked source of so much of itthe grocery store.

In a culture obsessed with food—how it looks, what it tastes like, where it comes from, what is good for us—there are often more questions than answers.






From July 2016, here is a lengthy, detailed and superb down loadable publication by a sales and marketing powerhouse entitled “the revolution of grocery shopping”:

http://www.acosta.com/uploadedFiles/Content/Media_Center/Publications/the revolution of grocery shopping.PDF 

Societal shifts, technology advances and major transformations in lifestyle are forcing evolution.


From December 2016, ten paragraphs:



A Quick History of the Supermarket

The Beginnings:

Chain grocery retailing was a phenomenon that took off around the beginning of the twentieth century, with the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company (established 1859) and other small, regional players. Grocery stores of this era tended to be small (generally less than a thousand square feet) and also focused on only one aspect of food retailing. Grocers (and most of the chains fell into this camp) sold what is known as “dry grocery” items, or canned goods and other non-perishable staples. Butchers and greengrocers (produce vendors) were completely separate entities, although they tended to cluster together for convenience’s sake.


Clarence Saunders’ Piggly Wiggly stores, established in Memphis in 1916, are widely credited with introducing America to self-service shopping, although other stores (notably Alpha Beta in Southern California) around the country were experimenting with the idea at about the same time. Self-service stores came to be known as “groceterias” due to the fact that they were reminiscent of the cafeteria-style eateries that were gaining popularity at the time.

The Chain Store Explosion (1920s):

It was not until the 1920s that chain stores started to become a really dominant force in American food (and other) retailing. Small regional chains such as Kroger, American Stores, National Tea, and others began covering more and more territory, and A&P began moving toward a more national profile, operating over 10,000 of its “economy stores” by the end of the decade. Most of these stores remained small, counter service stores, often staffed by only two or three employees, with no meat nor produce departments. Some still offered delivery and charge accounts, although most chain stores had abandoned these practices.

In 1926, Charles Merrill, of Merrill Lynch set in motion a series of transactions that led to the creation of Safeway Stores, when he arranged the merger of Skaggs Cash Stores, a chain with operations in Northern California and the northwestern United States, with Los Angeles-based Sam Seelig Stores. In 1928, the new chain bought most of the west coast’s Piggly Wiggly stores, and later acquired Sanitary Stores in the Washington DC area as well as MacMarr Stores, another chain that Charles Merrill had assembled. Growth by merger became common in the late 1920s and 1930s, and led to numerous antitrust actions and attempts to tax the chain stores out of existence.

The Supermarket (1930s and 1940s):

As early at the 1920s, some chain grocers were experimenting with consolidated (albeit still rather small) stores that featured at least a small selection of fresh meats and produce along with the dry grocery items. In Southern California, Ralphs Grocery Company was expanding into much larger stores than had been seen before in most of the country. Los Angeles was also seeing the beginning of the “drive-in market” phenomenon, where several complimentary food retailers (a butcher, a baker, a grocer, and a produce vendor, for example) would locate within the same small shopping center surrounding a parking lot. These centers were often perceived by customers as a single entity, despite being under separate ownership.

In 1930, Michael Cullen, a former executive of both Kroger and A&P, opened his first King Kullen store, widely cited as America’s first supermarket, although others have some legitimate claim to that title as well. King Kullen was located in a warehouse on the fringes of New York City, and offered ample free parking and additional concessions in a bazaar-like atmosphere. Merchandise was sold out of packing cartons and little attention was paid to décor. The emphasis was on volume, with this one store projected to do the volume of up to one hundred conventional chain stores. The volume and the no frills approach resulted in considerably lower prices.

The supermarket, as it came to be known, was initially a phenomenon of independents and small, regional chains. Eventually, the large chains caught on as well, and they refined the concept, adding a level of sophistication that had been lacking from the spartan stores of the early 1930s. In the late 1930s, A&P began consolidating its thousands of small service stores into larger supermarkets, often replacing as many as five or six stores with one large, new one. By 1940, A&P’s store count had been reduced by half, but its sales were up. Similar transformations occurred among all the “majors”; in fact, most national chains of the time saw their store counts peak around 1935 and then decline sharply through consolidation. Most chains operated both supermarkets and some old-style stores simultaneously for the next decade or so, either under the same name (like Safeway, A&P, and Kroger) , or under different banners (such as the Big Star stores operated by the David Pender Grocery Company in the southeast).

Suburbs and Shopping Centers (1950s and 1960s):

By the 1950s, the transition to supermarkets was largely complete, and the migration to suburban locations was beginning. Some chains were more aggressive with this move than others. A&P, for example, was very hesitant to expend the necessary capital and move outward, retaining smaller, outdated, urban locations for perhaps longer than was prudent. While the company tried to catch up in the 1960s, its momentum had vanished, and the once dominant chain eventually became something of an “also-ran.”

The 1950s and 1960s were seen my many as the golden age of the supermarket, with bright new stores opening on a regular basis, generating excited and glowing newspaper reports, and serving a marketplace that was increasingly affluent. Standardized designs, in use since the 1930s and 1940s, were refined and modernized, creating instantly recognizable and iconic buildings such as A&P’s colonial-themed stores; the glass arch-shaped designs of Safeway, Penn Fruit, and others; and the towering pylon signs of Food Fair and Lucky Stores.

Discounters and Warehouse Stores (1970s):

As changing tastes and zoning boards forced exteriors to become more “subdued” in the late 1960s, interiors began to compensate, with colorful designs evoking New Orleans or the “Gay 90s” or old farmhouses replacing the stark whites common to many stores of the 1950s. Other new touches included carpeting, specialty departments, and more. Kroger’s new “superstore” prototype, introduced in 1972, was perhaps the peak of this trend, with its specialty departments and its orange, gold, and green color palette.

Many shoppers, however, wondered what the costs of these amenities might be, and something of a backlash developed. This backlash was answered in the late 1960s with a new trend known as “discounting.”

Numerous stores around the country embarked on discounting programs at about the same time, most of which centered around the elimination of trading stamps, reduction in operating hours, and an emphasis on cost-cutting. Lucky Stores of California simply re-imaged their current stores and kept using the same name, while others opted for a hybrid format, with some stores operating traditionally and others (such as Colonial’s Big Star stores and Harris Teeter’s More Value in the southeast) open as discounters under different names.

A&P, as was its custom at the time, arrived somewhat late and unprepared for this party. It attempt at discounting, WEO (Warehouse Economy Outlet) was something of a disaster, plagued by distribution issues and by the fact that its numerous smaller and older stores were not capable of producing the volume required to make discounting work (but were converted anyway). This was one of several factors that preceded A&P’s major meltdown of the mid-1970s.

Upscale Stores, Warehouses, and Mergers (1980s and 1990s):

The market segmentation we see today grew out of the discounting movement as amplified in the 1980s. The middle range began to disappear, albeit slowly, as mainline stores went more “upscale” and low end stores moved more toward a warehouse model, evocative of the early supermarkets of the 1930s. Many chains operated at both ends of the spectrum, often under different names (Edwards and Finast was an example, as were the many A&P brands, from “Futurestore” to “Sav-a-Center”). Others eliminated one end of the market completely, like Harris Teeter in North Carolina, which abandoned discounting entirely.

The re-emergence of superstores, featuring general merchandise and groceries under one roof accelerated this trend. Many such stores had opened in the early 1960s, some of them operated by chain grocers themselves. Only a few survived, Fred Meyer in Oregon being a noteworthy example, and “one stop shopping” seemed a relatively new and fresh idea when Kmart and Walmart tried it again, with considerably more success, starting around 1990.

The other big trend during this time was toward mergers and leveraged buyouts. This affected almost all the major chains. A&P was sold to German interests. Safeway took itself private in 1987 to avoid a hostile takeover, and lost half its geographical reach in the process. Kroger slimmed down somewhat in 1988 for the same reasons, while Lucky was acquired by American Stores the same year. Another round of mergers in the 1990s placed American Stores in the hands of Albertsons, reunited Safeway with much of its former territory, and greatly increased the west coast presence of Kroger, making these three chains the dominant players in the industry, along with Walmart.

All of which brings us to the present, which is not what this site is about, so I’ll leave any further mention of big box retailers, new players like Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s, and subsequent mergers to future historians, and invite you to continue exploring the past at Groceteria.com.






• 06.13.17

The Grocery Store Of The Future Is Mobile, Self-Driving, And Run By AI

Can the Moby store bring locally controlled convenience stores to places that lack a simple place to buy essentials?


In Shanghai, a prototype of a new 24-hour convenience store has no staff, no registers, and the whole thing is on wheels, designed to eventually drive itself to a warehouse to restock, or to a customer to make a delivery.

The startup behind it believes that it’s the model for the grocery store of the future–and because it’s both mobile and far cheaper to build and operate than a typical store, it could also help bring better access to groceries to food deserts and rural areas.

“The biggest costs to have a store are the place itself to rent in a central city.” [Photo: courtesy Wheelys]

For consumers, it’s designed to be an easier way to shop. To use the store, called Moby, you download an app and use your phone to open the door. A hologram-like AI greets you, and, as you shop, you scan what you want to buy or place it in a smart basket that tracks your purchases. Then you walk out the door; instead of waiting in line, the store automatically charges your card when you leave (Amazon is testing a similar system). The tiny shop will stock fresh food and other daily supplies, and if you want something else you can order it using the store’s artificial intelligence. The packages will be waiting when you return to shop the next time. When autonomous vehicles are allowed on roads, the store could also show up at your home, and the company is also testing a set of drones to make small deliveries.


In a dense urban neighborhood with high rents, the low-cost system could make it possible for a group of neighbors to launch their own local grocery. “The biggest costs to have a store are the place itself to rent in a central city–it’s ultra-expensive–and then staff is really expensive, and we’re removing both of these at the same time,” says Tomas Mazetti, one of the founders of Wheelys, the Sweden-based startup that is developing the store along with China’s Hefei University and Himalayafy, an offshoot of Wheelys focused on the technology inside the store.

Wheelys already makes small mobile coffee carts designed to help young entrepreneurs compete with chains like Starbucks when they don’t have the funds to rent space for a standard cafe. It envisions that its new mobile markets could similarly be purchased and used by almost anyone, anywhere. The company also plans to mass-produce the stores, making them cheaper to build than traditional local construction (the company expects that it may be possible to build a store for $30,000; on top of any markup, store franchisees would also pay a small “community fee” to get support from the company on logistics). Solar panels on top of the store are designed to power the vehicle’s electric motor and all of the equipment and lighting inside.

“Now a village can team up and buy one of these stores. If the village is really small, [the store] can move around to different villages.” [Photo: courtesy Wheelys]

For the startup, the new product seemed like a logical step. Cafe customers were already beginning to ask for larger stores. “Apart from the size, the basic construction is not that much more complex than our biggest mobile cafes,” says Mazetti. “The university provides us with access and a technical edge in some areas such as self-driving tech.” In 2016, the company acquired Näraffär, a Swedish startup with technology for a staff-less store, and a staff-less (but not mobile) store operated in Sweden until the company began the project in Shanghai.

In rural areas and small towns, the design could replace main street stores that have disappeared. “I grew up in the countryside in Northern Sweden,” he says. “The last store closed there in the 1980s sometime, and after that, everyone just commuted into the city, but that takes an hour. A little piece of the village died. Now, suddenly, in a place like that, the village can team up and buy one of these stores. If the village is really small, [the store] can move around to different villages.”

When autonomous vehicles are allowed on roads, the store could also show up at your home. [Photo: courtesy Wheelys]

The system is also designed to restock itself automatically. In a city, one Moby could self-drive to a warehouse to replenish itself while another takes its place (the current model can be controlled remotely or driven by a human; the designers are still finalizing the autonomous technology, and it’s not yet legal for it to drive itself on Chinese roads). Stores could also help replenish each other, avoiding longer trips. “It’s common in stores that one store has run out of milk, another has run out of eggs, but both of them need to have a truck go back and forth to a warehouse,” he says. “We can ship these products in between, so we don’t need to go back and forth these long distances to rural areas to do this.”

While the store has a limited selection, focused on day-to-day needs, the designers think that it represents what’s coming in retail. “I think 7-11 is the store of the future, combined with online retail,” says Mazetti. “There’s no point in the things in between. Because if you need a printer, or a spare part for your vacuum cleaner, or even a turkey, it makes more sense to have that delivered.”

In the beta tests, the company will continue to test the app and staff-less tech in the store, along with online ordering, how consumers merge in-person shopping with digital orders, and other aspects of the shopping experience, such as the fact that only three or four people can fit inside the tiny store at once. It will also test the store’s ability to restock itself (it will be driven to a nearby warehouse; in the future, it will be able to drive itself farther away). The company plans to quickly add more features. “Of course there are many actors on the market with deeper pockets than us, but deep pockets can weigh you down,” says Mazetti says. “We are nimble and fast and have been able to stay ahead in this field for a year. Regardless, someone needs to lead the way, and we’re convinced that this, or a similar system, is the future of retail.”

After the beta tests in Shanghai–a city chosen because it’s a world leader in mobile payments, because Wheelys has an assembly plant ready there, and for its Bladerunner-like futurism–the company will continue to tweak the design. “It feels like we’re building the first car in the world and that it still looks a little like a horse cart,” he says. “I think we need to calibrate stuff, and get some things right, like how many people can be in a store at the same time. And what exactly we should sell–we don’t know that yet. We need to test it more.”

By 2018, Wheelys expects to be ready to produce and sell the stores, and help franchisees compete with other coming retail outlets like Amazon’s new brick-and-mortar stores. “I want these to be bought by families or groups of people, so that it’s not one person that owns every store in the world,” says Mazetti. “Instead of working at a warehouse for Amazon, you can own your own little store.”


Adele Peters is a staff writer at Fast Company who focuses on solutions to some of the world’s largest problems, from climate change to homelessness. Previously, she worked with GOOD, BioLite, and the Sustainable Products and Solutions program at UC Berkeley. More






Reflections on Whole Foods Purchase by Amazon

News & Commentary on June 16, 2017 at 5:06 am · No Comments

By Harry Blazer

How the deal helps Whole Foods and John Mackey:

a) Immediate stock appreciation.

b) Pressure re: their performance (negative store comps and negative trending sales per square foot) and lagging stock price from Private Equity and other shareholders

and market disappears.

c) John Mackey remains as CEO (for now).

d) The only national retailer of organic, natural and specialty (and arguably most well-known and respected brand) just joined forces with the most innovative, disruptive and respected international brand in online retailing – and arguably

retailing in general – not to mention one of the preeminent providers of web services and masters of fulfillment.

e) WF can now operate under the consolidated statement of Amazon (if Amazon chooses to do so) rather than having to report as a separate company and thus escape scrutiny from market and competitors re: financial performance and


f) Expansion of market share overnight by plugging into Amazon Fresh customer base.

g) Able to leverage Amazon expertise as the leader in logistics and fulfillment and one of the most significant players in data services, analytics, online technology and customer interface.

How the deal helps Amazon:

a) Early on I had conversations with Tesco N. American leadership re: their Fresh and Easy concept, which was having trouble almost from the get go. They made a number of critical mistakes (which I tried to point out) with one of the major ones being that they tried to introduce a new retail brand and launch a new concept at the same time in a fairly big way (a concept that to make matters worse was not perceived as either Fresh or Easy by the consumer). They would have been much better off to have acquired a conventional chain with a respected brand and with an

established and viable store base, learned about the differences in doing the supermarket business in the U.S. vs. other places in the world and about the U.S. consumer while leveraging their experience and prominence as conventional supermarket operators, and then used that base from which to develop and launch a new, fresh-convenience concept.

Amazon has been in the beginning stages of developing their grocery business, after a number of years of prototyping. That development has moved slower than they would have liked. Amazon came to understand that the fastest way to become a

major player in the food business was through partnerships and acquisitions – not by building that business internally and incrementally. Amazon has the ability to dominate entire retailing segments by leveraging their brand and IT, customer interface, data analytics and logistics infrastructure. Speed pays dividends – as reflected in their stock price after the WF acquisition – by which they created a larger increase in their valuation than the price they paid for Whole Foods. This shows how the market views the power and potential of this alliance and the leverage it will now bring to Amazon. Conversely, the rest of the industry lost about $40 Billion in market valuation. Equally telling.

b) Wal-Mart became the largest grocer in N. America within a decade of when it made the decision to get involved in groceries. Why did they go after groceries? Because food represents increased shopping frequency over hard and soft goods.

They doubled the frequency of shop at their superstores when they added food. Aldi showed meteoric growth in the UK market when they added fresh and specialty food to their stores. Costco recently surpassed WF to become the largest purveyor

of organic groceries in North America. Amazon believed that by being able to offer food to their customers that it could

increase frequency as well. But just as importantly, food is a critical component in their drive to become the primary shop and first “stop” for every household – for everything!!! They now will enhance their ability to become Wal-Mart before Wal- Mart can become Amazon.

c) Amazon has been prototyping various approaches in their drive to develop their own food retailing channel – predominantly under the “Amazon Fresh” subsidiary – which has gone through several iterations as well. It now has the opportunity to develop a more coherent and comprehensive strategy, offering and branding around food, and unify, clarify and synchronize the food retailing initiatives represented by Amazon fresh, go, pickup, pantry, prime and prime now.

d) When I was working with Morrisons in the UK, I tried to convince them not to try to develop their own home delivery infrastructure to compete with the offerings of

Tesco and Sainsbury that were well established, but to partner with Amazon, who was just entering the non-grocery retail market and was also looking for a quick pathway into groceries as well. After spending substantial time and money trying to

develop a home delivery IT and logistics capability themselves, Morrisons decided to partner with Ocado, who was also supplying delivery services for a competitor (Waitrose). Morrisons paid big money for the privilege as well and missed at the time what was a natural partnership that could have made Morrisons money from the get go with Amazon in charge of home delivery fulfillment and Morrisons as Amazon’s grocery and fresh food supplier – especially since Morrisons, unlike other UK retailers, had an extensive, proprietary food manufacturing and processing

infrastructure of its own, which it maintains today. Several years later, Amazon has become the major force in retailing in the country, and a major factor in food retailing; with Morrisons as a primary supplier . In North America, with the acquisition of Whole Foods, that primary supply partnership has been defined for the future. Perhaps in the UK as well.

e) Whole Foods has about 464 locations (about 5% of which were outside the USA in Canada and UK) with some 90 in development (1/10th of Wal-Mart’s store base).

They also have 11 distribution facilities and 3 seafood processing and distribution facilities and one facility dedicated to specialty coffee. Amazon has over 60 DC’s, undoubtedly more effective than those operated by WF for the distribution of nonperishables

by the piece. Amazon is paying just under $30M per store – most of which are leased by the way, and about 17x WF’s free cash flow. Not unreasonable just as an acquisition price per se – without the strategic considerations.

f) Amazon generates about what it is paying for WF in free cash each year. If it pays cash, it will use about 50% of the value of its current cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities for the purchase. So this represents a significant investment. They are serious about becoming a major player in the food business, fast!

g) Amazon will get an insiders view of UNFI and Instacart – with whom WF currently has strategic and contractual partnerships. It is interesting to contemplate the effect on the industry if Amazon also acquired these organizations.

h) I have often told retailers I have worked with that Google, Facebook and Amazon have much more comprehensive data about their customers than they do. What these players don’t have is the in-store POS transaction data to close the loop. I have

suggested to a number of retailers that they would be much better off partnering with these players than trying to develop their own card-based loyalty program, – players who would be anxious to do so I believe for a look at their transaction data,

if nothing else. We are about to see what happens when one of the premier players in the virtual and data world gets transparency of the transactional data of one of the premier players in the retail food bricks and mortar world.

  1. The WF shopper demographic is highly skewed to urban, higher income and higher education – naturally synergistic with Amazon’s Prime and Prime variants present and aspiring customer base.

j) Amazon just added 460+ pickup locations overnight.

k) As reported by Becky Shilling re: the recent United Fresh convention in Chicago:

The future of fresh isn’t Amazon. That was the overwhelming sentiment during a panel of Gen Z Chicagoans at United Fresh’s Fresh MKT…. The idea of ordering fresh grocery

food from Amazon did not appeal to these customers, who said they felt food ordered from Amazon Fresh would be “too handled,” “not ripe,” “not the best quality” or “might

be damaged.”

The key factor to building a vibrant Fresh business is building trust. Few organizations are regarded more highly by customers than Amazon – but this is mainly around selection, speed and accuracy of delivery, and price. Fresh is a different story. So as much as customers trust Amazon to provide what they want, when, how and where they want it at a price they can afford (often the best in the marketplace), that doesn’t mean they will trust them to be their merchants for Fresh. Whole Foods has had challenges over time with trust factors and vendor relations as

well. But if you can merge the value and fulfillment proposition offered by Amazon with the food credentials of Whole Foods, and make yourself worthy of people’s trust around Fresh (customers and vendors), you can dominate the world of food

retailing. And I think that is the plan – and also the opportunity this merger represents.

And a special comment for Solari subscribers that you probably won’t see elsewhere: It is my personal belief that the major telecom, entertainment and internet powerhouses would not be thriving unless they cooperated with the intelligence agencies as requested and in turn by default, with the Deep State. The Amazon and WF deal represents the first merging of one of the primary providers of IT and data infrastructure for the Deep State and the most highly regarded Fresh, Organic, Natural and Specialty Food retailers of national scope. Gives new meaning to the need to go local, support your local farmer and perhaps grow your own.






“This article recounts key events along a timeline that stretches from 1986 to the present. Follow the bouncing ball. 


All sorts of cards can be played from the bottom of the deck.”


When Amazon boss and billionaire Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post in 2013, he also had an ongoing $600 million contract to provide cloud computing services to the CIA. That meant the Washington Post, which already had a long history of cooperation with the CIA, renewed their wedding vows with the Agency and doubled down on the alliance.

By any reasonable standard of journalism, the Post should preface every article about the CIA, or article sourced from the CIA, with a conflict of interest admission: TAKE THIS PIECE WITH A FEW GIANT GRAINS OF SALT, BECAUSE OUR NEWSPAPER IS OWNED BY A MAN WHO HAS A HUGE CONTRACT TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE CIA.

Now Bezos and his company, Amazon, have bought Whole Foods for $13.7 billion. Whole Foods is the premier retailer of “natural” foods in America.

The degree of profiling of Whole Foods customers will increase by a major factor. Amazon/CIA will be able to deploy far more sophisticated algorithms in that regard.

It’s no secret that many Whole Foods customers show disdain for government policies on agribusiness, health, medicine, and the environment. Well, that demographic is of great interest to the Deep State, for obvious reasons. And the Deep State will now be able to analyze these customers in finer detail.

At the same time, the Amazon retail powerhouse will exercise considerable control over the food supply, since it will be selling huge numbers of food products to the public. Amazon will have new relationships with all the farmers Whole Foods has been using as suppliers.


Then there is this. The CIA has its own private company, called In-Q-Tel, which was founded in 1999 to pour investment money into tech outfits that could develop new ways to facilitate “data collection,” and service other CIA needs. In-Q-Tel, Jeff Bezos, and Amazon are connected. For example, here is a 2012 article from technologyreview.com:

“Inside a blocky building in a Vancouver suburb, across the street from a dowdy McDonald’s, is a place chilled colder than anywhere in the known universe. Inside that is a computer processor that Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and the CIA’s investment arm, In-Q-Tel, believe can tap the quirks of quantum mechanics to unleash more computing power than any conventional computer chip. Bezos and In-Q-Tel are in a group of investors who are betting $30 million on this prospect…”

Nextgov.com described the deal this way: “Canadian company D-Wave Systems raised $30 million to develop quantum computing systems. Bezos Expeditions, the personal investment company of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, and CIA venture capital arm In-Q-Tel participated in the latest funding round, the firm announced. The company’s quantum computing technology seeks to speed up data-crunching. If successful, the technology could aid automated intelligence gathering and analysis.”

Yes, automated intelligence gathering and analysis are exactly what outfits like Amazon and the CIA need for profiling the public. Other companies who have purchased products from D-Wave Systems? Goldman Sachs and Lockheed Martin. Let’s see: Amazon, CIA, Goldman, Lockheed—a formidable collection of Deep State players.

“Buy your food from the purest natural retailer in the world, the CIA.

Oops, I mean Amazon.

Oops, I mean Whole Foods.”



Speculation grows that Amazon will face a rival bidder for Whole Foods

Los Angeles Times

around dinnertime GMT-5 Tuesday June 20th, 2017

Amazon.com’s plan to buy Whole Foods Market Inc. sparked an avalanche of discussion about how the online retail giant could transform the U.S.


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 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67aTJ-1VBN4 (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 [ http://www.amazon.com/Order-Out-Chaos-Ilya-Prigogine/dp/0553343637], 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, http://williampawley.blogspot.com/2009/12/chapter-57-detente-betrayal.html. ]

“… 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

rightsidenews.com | 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