Showing posts with label COINTELPRO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label COINTELPRO. Show all posts

Friday, 7 October 2016

COINTELPRO 2016: The New Age of Active Measures by the Post-9/11 Police State

25 Rules of Disinformation: How to Fight Back
8 Traits of The Disinformationalist
What to Look For

The Short Version: 25 Rules and 8 Traits

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: 
The Rules of Disinformation
(Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)
by H. Michael Sweeney <>
copyright (c) 1997, 2000, 2001 All rights reserved (Edited June 2001)

Permission to reprint/distribute hereby granted for any non commercial use provided information reproduced in its entirety and with author information in tact. For more Intel/Shadow government related info, visit the Author's Web site: <http://www.proparanoid.NET>
Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here. Also included with this material are seven common traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives. The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive. People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing disinformation, so even "good guys" can be suspect in many cases.
A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are solid and conclusive, that one or more links are weak and need further development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if parallel links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in itself key) the argument. The game is played by raising issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point of breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these evaluation... to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not... or to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a level of victory is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.
It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the solution is invalid an a new one must be found... but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed solution, chain, or link, if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach. While it is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek by means of intimidation to prevent discussion in general.
It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain of evidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process. However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily led astray by these time-proven tactics. Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.
This why concepts from the film, Wag-The-Dog, actually work. If you saw that movie, know that there is at least one real-world counterpart to Al Pacino's character. For CIA, it is Mark Richards, who was called in to orchestrate the media response to Waco on behalf of Janet Reno. Mark Richards is the acknowledged High Priest of Disinformation. His appointment was extremely appropriate, since the CIA was VERY present at Waco from the very beginning of the cult to the very end of their days - just as it was at the People's Temple in Jonestown. Richards purpose in life is damage control.
For such disinformationalists, the overall aim is to avoid discussing links in the chain of evidence which cannot be broken by truth, but at all times, to use clever deceptions or lies to make select links seem weaker than they are, create the illusion of a break, or better still, cause any who are considering the chain to be distracted in any number of ways, including the method of questioning the credentials of the presenter. Please understand that fact is fact, regardless of the source. Likewise, truth is truth, regardless of the source. This is why criminals are allowed to testify against other criminals. Where a motive to lie may truly exist, only actual evidence that the testimony itself IS a lie renders it completely invalid. Were a known 'liar's' testimony to stand on its own without supporting fact, it might certainly be of questionable value, but if the testimony (argument) is based on verifiable or otherwise demonstrable facts, it matters not who does the presenting or what their motives are, or if they have lied in the past or even if motivated to lie in this instance -- the facts or links would and should stand or fall on their own merit and their part in the matter will merely be supportive.
Moreover, particularly with respects to public forums such as newspaper letters to the editor, and Internet chat and news groups, the disinfo type has a very important role. In these forums, the principle topics of discussion are generally attempts by individuals to cause other persons to become interested in their own particular position, idea, or solution -- very much in development at the time. People often use such mediums as a sounding board and in hopes of pollination to better form their ideas. Where such ideas are critical of government or powerful, vested groups (especially if their criminality is the topic), the disinfo artist has yet another role -- the role of nipping it in the bud. They also seek to stage the concept, the presenter, and any supporters as less than credible should any possible future confrontation in more public forums result due to their early successes. You can often spot the disinfo types at work here by the unique application of "higher standards" of discussion than necessarily warranted. They will demand that those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or investigative writer. Anything less renders any discussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid -- and they generally put it in exactly those terms.
So, as you read any such discussions, particularly so in Internet news groups (NG), decide for yourself when a rational argument is being applied and when disinformation, psyops (psychological warfare operations) or trickery is the tool. Accuse those guilty of the later freely. They (both those deliberately seeking to lead you astray, and those who are simply foolish or misguided thinkers) generally run for cover when thus illuminated, or -- put in other terms, they put up or shut up (a perfectly acceptable outcome either way, since truth is the goal.) Here are the twenty-five methods and seven traits, some of which don't apply directly to NG application. Each contains a simple example in the form of actual (some paraphrased for simplicity) from NG comments on commonly known historical events, and a proper response. Accusations should not be overused -- reserve for repeat offenders and those who use multiple tactics. Responses should avoid falling into emotional traps or informational sidetracks, unless it is feared that some observers will be easily dissuaded by the trickery. Consider quoting the complete rule rather than simply citing it, as others will not have reference. Offer to provide a complete copy of the rule set upon request (see permissions statement at end):
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

Example: Media was present in the courtroom (Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby) when CIA agent Marita Lorenz 'confession' testimony regarding CIA direct participation in the planning and assassination of John Kennedy was revealed. All media reported was that E. Howard Hunt lost his libel case against Liberty Lobby (Liberty Lobby's newspaper, The Spotlight, had reported Hunt was in Dallas that day and were sued for the story). See Mark Lane's remarkable book, Plausible Denial, for the full confessional transcript.
Proper response: There is no possible response unless you are aware of the material and can make it public yourself.. In any such attempt, be certain to target any known silent party as likely complicit in a cover up. In this case, it would be the entire Time-Warner Media Group, among others. This author is relatively certain that reporters were hand-picked to cover this case from among those having intelligence community ties.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.

Example: 'How dare you suggest that the Branch Davidians were murdered! the FBI and BATF are made up of America's finest and best trained law enforcement, operate under the strictest of legal requirements, and are under the finest leadership the President could want to appoint.'
Proper response: You are avoiding the Waco issue with disinformation tactics. Your high opinion of FBI is not founded in fact. All you need do is examine Ruby Ridge and any number of other examples, and you will see a pattern of abuse of power that demands attention to charges against FBI/BATF at Waco. Why do you refuse to address the issues with disinformation tactics (rule 2 - become incredulous and indignant)?

3. Create rumor mongers.  Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.

'You can't prove his material was legitimately from French Intelligence. Pierre Salinger had a chance to show his 'proof' that flight 800 was brought down by friendly fire, and he didn't. All he really had was the same old baseless rumor that's been floating around the Internet for months.'
Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. The Internet charge reported widely is based on a single FBI interview statement to media and a similar statement by a Congressman, neither of which had actually seen Pierre's document. As the FBI is being accused in participating in a cover up of this matter and Pierre claims his material is not Internet sourced, it is natural that FBI would have reason to paint his material in a negative light. For you to assume the FBI to have no bias in the face of Salinger's credentials and unchanged stance suggests you are biased. At the best you can say the matter is in question. Further, to imply that material found on Internet is worthless is not founded. At best you may say it must be considered carefully before accepting it, which will require addressing the actual issues. Why do you refuse to address these issues with disinformation tactics (rule 3 - create rumor mongers)?

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

Example: When trying to defeat reports by the Times of London that spy-sat images reveal an object racing towards and striking flight 800, a straw man is used. The disinformationalist, later identified as having worked for Naval Intelligence, simply stated: 'If these images exist, the public has not seen them. Why? They don't exist, and never did. You have no evidence and thus, your entire case falls flat.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You imply deceit and deliberately establish an impossible and unwarranted test. It is perfectly natural that the public has not seen them, nor will they for some considerable time, if ever. To produce them would violate national security with respect to intelligence gathering capabilities and limitations, and you should know this. Why do you refuse to address the issues with such disinformation tactics (rule 4 - use a straw man)?'

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

Example: 'You believe what you read in the Spotlight? The Publisher, Willis DeCarto, is a well-known right-wing racist. I guess we know your politics -- does your Bible have a swastika on it? That certainly explains why you support this wild-eyed, right-wing conspiracy theory.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply guilt by association and attack truth on the basis of the messenger. The Spotlight is well known Populist media source responsible for releasing facts and stories well before mainstream media will discuss the issues through their veil of silence. Willis DeCarto has successfully handled lawsuits regarding slanderous statements such as yours. Your undemonstrated charges against the messenger have nothing to do with the facts or the issues, and fly in the face of reason. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 5 - sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule)?'

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

Example: ''This stuff is garbage. Where do you conspiracy lunatics come up with this crap? I hope you all get run over by black helicopters.' Notice it even has a farewell sound to it, so it won't seem curious if the author is never heard from again.
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your comments or opinions fail to offer any meaningful dialog or information, and are worthless except to pander to emotionalism, and in fact, reveal you to be emotionally insecure with these matters. If you do not like reading 'this crap', why do you frequent this NG which is clearly for the purpose of such discussion? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 - hit and run)?'

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

Example: 'With the talk-show circuit and the book deal, it looks like you can make a pretty good living spreading lies.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply guilt as a means of attacking the messenger or his credentials, but cowardly fail to offer any concrete evidence that this is so. If you think what has been presented are 'lies', why not simply so illustrate? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 - question motives)?'

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

'You obviously know nothing about either the politics or strategic considerations, much less the technicals of the SR-71. Incidentally, for those who might care, that sleek plane is started with a pair of souped up big-block V-8's (originally, Buick 454 C.I.D. with dual 450 CFM Holly Carbs and a full-race Isky cams -- for 850 combined BHP @ 6,500 RPM) using a dragster-style clutch with direct-drive shaft. Anyway, I can tell you with confidence that no Blackbird has ever been flown by Korean nationals nor have they ever been trained to fly it, and have certainly never overflown the Republic of China in a SR or even launched a drone from it that flew over China. I'm not authorized to discuss if there have been overflights by American pilots.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply your own authority and expertise but fail to provide credentials, and you also fail to address issues and cite sources. You simply cite 'Jane's-like' information to make us think you know what you are talking about. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 8 - invoke authority)?'

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

Example: 'Nothing you say makes any sense. Your logic is idiotic. Your facts nonexistent. Better go back to the drawing board and try again.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You evade the issues with your own form of nonsense while others, perhaps more intelligent than you pretend to be, have no trouble with the material. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 9 - play dumb)?'

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

Example: 'Flight 553's crash was pilot error, according to the NTSB findings. Digging up new witnesses who say the CIA brought it down at a selected spot and were waiting for it with 50 agents won't revive that old dead horse buried by NTSB more than twenty years ago.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your ignore the issues and imply they are old charges as if new information is irrelevant to truth. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 10 - associate charges with old news)?'

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

Example: 'Reno admitted in hindsight she should have taken more time to question the data provided by subordinates on the deadliness of CS-4 and the likely Davidian response to its use, but she was so concerned about the children that she elected, in what she now believes was a sad and terrible mistake, to order the tear gas be used.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade the true issue by focusing on a side issue in an attempt to evoke sympathy. Perhaps you did not know that CIA Public Relations expert Mark Richards was called in to help Janet Reno with the Waco aftermath response? How warm and fuzzy it makes us feel, so much so that we are to ignore more important matters being discussed. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 11 - establish and rely upon fall-back positions)?'

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

Example: 'I don't see how you can claim Vince Foster was murdered since you can't prove a motive. Before you could do that, you would have to completely solve the whole controversy over everything that went on in the White House and in Arkansas, and even then, you would have to know a heck of a lot more about what went on within the NSA, the Travel Office, and the secret Grand Jury, and on, and on, and on. It's hopeless. Give it up.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your completely evade issues and attempt others from daring to attempt it by making it a much bigger mountain than necessary. You eat an elephant one bite at a time. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 12 - enigmas have no solution)?'

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic.  Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

Example: 'The news media operates in a fiercely competitive market where stories are gold. This means they dig, dig, dig for the story -- often doing a better job than law enforcement. If there was any evidence that BATF had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing, they would surely have uncovered it and reported it. They haven't reported it, so there can't have been any prior knowledge. Put up or shut up.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your backwards logic does not work here. Has media reported CIA killed Kennedy when they knew it? No, despite their presence at a courtroom testimony 'confession' by CIA operative Marita Lornez in a liable trial between E. Howard Hunt and Liberty Lobby, they only told us the trial verdict. THAT, would have been the biggest story of the Century, but they didn't print it, did they? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 13 - Alice in Wonderland logic)?'

14. Demand complete solutions.  Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

Example: 'Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is as innocent as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?'
Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. It is not necessary to completely resolve any full matter in order to examine any relative attached issue. Discussion of any evidence of Ray's innocence can stand alone to serve truth, and any alternative solution to the crime, while it may bolster that truth, can also stand alone. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 14 - demand complete solutions)?

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

Example: 'The cargo door failed on Flight 800 and caused a catastrophic breakup which ruptured the fuel tank and caused it to explode.'
Proper response: The best definitive example of avoiding issues by this technique is, perhaps, Arlan Specter's Magic Bullet from the Warren Report. This was eloquently defeated in court but media blindly accepted it without challenge. Thus rewarded, disinformationalists do not shrink from its application, even though today, thanks in part to the movie, JFK, most Americans do now understand it was fabricated nonsense. Thus the defense which works best may actually be to cite the Magic Bullet. 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imaginative twisting of facts rivals that of Arlan Specter's Magic Bullet in the Warren Report. We all know why the impossible magic bullet was invented. You invent a cargo door problem when there has been not one shred of evidence from the crash investigation to support it, and in fact, actual photos of the cargo door hinges and locks disprove you. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 15 - fit facts to an alternate conclusion)?'

16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

Example: 'You can't say Paisley is still alive... that his death was faked and the list of CIA agents found on his boat deliberately placed there to support a purge at CIA. You have no proof. Why can't you accept the Police reports?' This is a good ploy, since the dental records and autopsy report showing his body was two inches too long and the teeth weren't his were lost right after his wife demanded inquiry, and since his body was cremated before she could view it -- all that remains are the Police Reports. Handy.
Proper response: There is no suitable response to actual vanished materials or persons, unless you can shed light on the matter, particularly if you can tie the event to a cover up other criminality. However, with respect to dialog where it is used against the discussion, you can respond... 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. The best you can say is that the matter is in contention ONLY because of highly suspicious matters such as the simultaneous and mysterious vanishing of three sets of evidence. The suspicious nature itself tends to support the primary allegation. Why do you refuse to address the remaining issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 16 - vanish evidence and witnesses)?'

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

Example: 'There were no CIA drugs and was no drug money laundering through Mena, Arkansas, and certainly, there was no Bill Clinton knowledge of it because it simply didn't happen. This is merely an attempt by his opponents to put Clinton off balance and at a disadvantage in the election: Dole is such a weak candidate with nothing to offer that they are desperate to come up with something to swing the polls. Dole simply has no real platform.' Assistant's response. 'You idiot! Dole has the clearest vision of what's wrong with Government since McGovern. Clinton is only interested in raping the economy, the environment, and every woman he can get his hands on...' One naturally feels compelled, regardless of party of choice, to jump in defensively on that one...
Proper response: 'You are both avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade discussion of the issues by attempting to sidetrack us with an emotional response to a new topic -- a trap which we will not fall into willingly. If you truly believe such political rhetoric, please drop out of this discussion, as it is not germane, and take it to one of the more appropriate politics NGs. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 17- change the subject)?'

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

Example: 'You are such an idiot to think that possible -- or are you such a paranoid conspiracy buff that you think the 'gubment' is cooking your pea-brained skull with microwaves, which is the only justification you might have for dreaming up this drivel.' After a drawing an emotional response: 'Ohhh... I do seem to have touched a sensitive nerve. Tsk, tsk. What's the matter? The truth too hot for you to handle? Perhaps you should stop relying on the Psychic Friends Network and see a psychiatrist for some real professional help...'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You attempt to draw me into emotional response without discussion of the issues. If you have something useful to contribute which defeats my argument, let's here it -- preferably without snide and unwarranted personal attacks, if you can manage to avoid sinking so low. Your useless rhetoric serves no purpose here if that is all you can manage. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 18 - emotionalize, antagonize, and goad opponents)?'

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

Example: 'All he's done is to quote the liberal media and a bunch of witnesses who aren't qualified. Where's his proof? Show me wreckage from flight 800 that shows a missile hit it!'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You presume for us not to accept Don Phillips, reporter for theWashington Post, Al Baker, Craig Gordon or Liam Pleven, reporters for Newsday, Matthew Purdy or Matthew L. Wald, Don Van Natta Jr., reporters for the New York Times, or Pat Milton, wire reporter for the Associated Press -- as being able to tell us anything useful about the facts in this matter. Neither would you allow us to accept Robert E. Francis, Vice Chairman of the NTSB, Joseph Cantamessa Jr., Special Agent In Charge of the New York Office of the F.B.I., Dr. Charles Wetli, Suffolk County Medical Examiner, the Pathologist examining the bodies, nor unnamed Navy divers, crash investigators, or other cited officials, including Boeing Aircraft representatives a part of the crash investigative team -- as a qualified party in this matter, and thus, dismisses this material out of hand. Good logic, -- about as good as saying 150 eye witnesses aren't qualified. Then you demand us to produce evidence which you know is not accessible to us, evidence held by FBI, whom we accuse of cover up. Thus, only YOU are qualified to tell us what to believe? Witnesses be damned? Radar tracks be damned? Satellite tracks be damned? Reporters be damned? Photographs be damned? Government statements be damned? Is there a pattern here?. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 19 - ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs)?'

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

Example: Jack Ruby warned the Warren Commission that the white Russian separatists, the Solidarists, were involved in the assassination. This was a handy 'confession', since Jack and Earl were both on the same team in terms of the cover up, and since it is now known that Jack worked directly with CIA in the assassination (see below.)
Proper response: This one can be difficult to respond to unless you see it clearly, such as in the following example, where more is known today than earlier in time... 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your information is known to have been designed to side track this issue. As revealed by CIA operative Marita Lorenz under oath offered in court in E. Howard Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby, CIA operatives E. Howard Hunt, James McCord, and others, met with Jack Ruby in Dallas the night before the assassination of JFK to distribute guns and money. Clearly, Ruby was a coconspirator whose 'Solidarist confession' was meant to sidetrack any serious investigation of the murder AWAY from CIA. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 20 - false evidence)?'

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.

Example: According to one OK bombing Federal Grand Juror who violated the law to speak the truth, jurors were, contrary to law, denied the power of subpoena of witness of their choosing, denied the power of asking witnesses questions of their choosing, and relegated to hearing only evidence prosecution wished them to hear, evidence which clearly seemed fraudulent and intended to paint conclusions other than facts actually suggested.
Proper response: There is usually no adequate response to this tactic except to complain loudly at any sign of its application, particularly with respect to any possible cover up. This happened locally in Oklahoma, and as a result, a new Grand Jury has been called to rehear evidence that government officials knew in advance that the bombing was going to take place, and a number of new facts which indicate it was impossible for Timothy McVeigh to have done the deed without access to extremely advanced explosive devices such as available ONLY to the military or intelligence community, such as CIA's METC technology. Media has refused to cover the new Oklahoma Grand Jury process, by they way.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

Example: The False Memory Syndrome Foundation and American Family Foundation and American and Canadian Psychiatric Associations fall into this category, as their founding members and/or leadership include key persons associated with CIA Mind Control research. ReadThe Professional Paranoid or Phsychic Dictatorship in the U.S.A. by Alex Constantine for more information. Not so curious, then, that (in a perhaps oversimplified explanation here) these organizations focus on, by means of their own "research findings", that there is no such thing as Mind Control.
Proper response: Unless you are in a position to be well versed in the topic and know of the background and relationships involved in the opponent organization, you are not well equipped to fight this tactic.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

Example: To distract the public over the progress of a WTC bombing trial that seems to be uncovering nasty ties to the intelligence community, have an endless discussion of skaters whacking other skaters on the knee. To distract the public over the progress of the Waco trials that have the potential to reveal government sponsored murder, have an O.J. summer. To distract the public over an ever disintegrating McVeigh trial situation and the danger of exposing government involvements, come up with something else (Flight 800?) to talk about -- or, keeping in the sports theme, how about sports fans shooting referees and players during a game and the focusing on the whole gun control thing?
Proper response: The best you can do is attempt to keep public debate and interest in the true issues alive and point out that the 'news flap' or other evasive tactic serves the interests of your opponents.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.

Example: As experienced by certain proponents of friendly fire theories with respect to flight 800 -- send in FBI agents to intimidate and threaten that if they persisted further they would be subject to charges of aiding and abetting Iranian terrorists, of failing to register as a foreign agents, or any other trumped up charges. If this doesn't work, you can always plant drugs and bust them.
Proper response: You have three defensive alternatives if you think yourself potential victim of this ploy. One is to stand and fight regardless. Another is to create for yourself an insurance policy which will point to your opponents in the event of any unpleasantness, a matter which requires superior intelligence information on your opponents and great care in execution to avoid dangerous pitfalls (see The Professional Paranoid by this author for suggestions on how this might be done). The last alternative is to cave in or run (same thing.)

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

Example: Do a Robert Vesco and retire to the Caribbean. If you don't, somebody in your organization may choose to vanish you the way of Vince Foster or Ron Brown.
Proper response: You will likely not have a means to attack this method, except to focus on the vanishing in hopes of uncovering it was by foul play or deceit as part of a deliberate cover up.


Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven (now 8) distinct traits:

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
by H. Michael Sweeney
copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved

(Revised April 2000 - formerly SEVEN Traits)
Return to Conspiracy Page
Return to Home Page
Return to Top

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) Artificial Emotions.  An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation: 1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth. 2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command. 3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.

I close with the first paragraph of the introduction to my unpublished book, Fatal Rebirth:
Truth cannot live on a diet of secrets, withering within entangled lies. Freedom cannot live on a diet of lies, surrendering to the veil of oppression. The human spirit cannot live on a diet of oppression, becoming subservient in the end to the will of evil. God, as truth incarnate, will not long let stand a world devoted to such evil. Therefore, let us have the truth and freedom our spirits require... or let us die seeking these things, for without them, we shall surely and justly perish in an evil world.

Monday, 15 June 2015

John Judge on Racism

John Judge: I'm real sorry that Dr. Nathan Hare wasn't able to be here with us. He was to have been another panelist. And I do recommend that people try to get in touch with his work. He was recommended to me as a speaker when I first started trying to form this panel from Washington, and work on the panelists, by Samuel Yette. I don't know if you know that name, but he wrote a very interesting book back in the '70s called The Choice: The Question of Black Survival in America. Dr. Hare's specialty is reproductive control and racism, especially in terms of the Black community, the Black family, but also in general, and internationally. And the main issues we've touched on through the questions here, and what's been said so far, I think he has very specific knowledge. Among his recent works are Bringing the Black Boy to Manhood, and Endangering the Black Family. He and his wife are working on a new book, he told me, called The Crisis in Black Sexual Politics. So those are some works of Nathan Hare I'm sorry we didn't get a chance to hear him.

Racism, like any other ism, is first a set of beliefs. Racism asserts that a group, within the human community, can be distinguished, and isolated out, on the basis of skin color, and deemed inferior. And because of this assumption of, and ability to assert, inferiority, then other assertions follow. The right to exploit labor. The right to deny privileges. The right to deny full social participation. The right to disenfranchise from social opportunities, or even survival. The right to exploit and control sexuality and birth. And the right to do violence and murder.

This is not so much a question of personal beliefs, at this point in this society, as it is an ingrained social system. The privilege of White skin is established in all areas of life. Ann Braden in a recent article defined racism as "a society run by Whites, for Whites, in the American context." This is prejudice plus power. Racism is the dominant culture, and this privilege is the equivalent of violence.

I am a racist. I am raised in a racist culture. I think that most White people refuse to deal with their racism, feeling that it's enough for them to claim that they are not personally racist. But this position takes no responsibility for changing the culture or the institutions that perpetuate the racism, institutionalize it. It does nothing to end privilege. Participating day in and day out in our lives, in that privilege is racist, unless we act to end it.

I am also anti-racist. No easy task. To become anti-racist we must be aware of our own racism and contradictions. Hard work. And subtle. But we also must act to change that system of racist privilege. That starts in the home, in our personal life, in our neighborhood, but it has to go further. It has to include; our families, the organizations that we are part of, the work places where we are, the churches that we belong to, the politics and priorities that we have.

And I think we have to take responsibility to challenge that racism with other Whites. That's not the responsibility of the victims alone, to end their oppression. This is not a Black problem, or a Native American problem, or an Asian problem. I think that those being oppressed are in the best position to define their oppression, but that doesn't make them experts in some sense that they are the only ones who can, or need, to talk about racism. Whites need to talk about racism now, and stop playing dumb, and stop playing helpless. One poll I remember, of people living in Baltimore, revealed that 100% of the Whites there claimed that they were not racist but all their neighbors were. [laughter] That's the kind of denial that serves to perpetuate privilege.

The effects of that racism are deadly. Institutionalized racism becomes more apparent every day. The gains that were made by the Civil Rights movements in the 50s and 60s are being eroded. There's a constant pressure of racism in every aspect of the society that's leading, in it's result, if not it's intent, to genocide. If you consider the separate, supposed, problems I'm about to talk about, as a whole, I think you can see that: tremendous cuts in social services; the primary effect of the militarization and the wars that we've talked about; drugs, and deaths related to drugs and drug murders; military service itself, sort of paid suicidal duty; war death and maiming from that; also unemployment, and suicide itself; unsafe jobs; non-union shops; constantly low pay; poor health care; pregnancy problems and a high infant mortality rate; crime and prisons; prison life and prison death, the violence in those societies turned inward as an encouragement by the system; ongoing attacks by the police; KKK attacks and the growth of KKK and the right wing in this period, open racism; the rapes, the lynchings that continue right to this day; the murders, the cases going on in New York and in Atlanta; the disproportionate amount of Blacks that are affected by AIDS and other diseases, and the same for other People of Color; who gets health care or support; who has survival privilege; the population control policies, and where the information and the things are focused; like the zero growth movement that talks about not having to bother organizing Whites because they have a lower per capita birth rate, they have less babies, so to really make the population problem (as it's called) end, you have to go after other people's birth rates; the youth who, under the age of 18, in Black and other non-White communities, have probably the largest percent of unemployment and suicide rates; the destruction of the family itself, and the cohesiveness of any community structure from all these effects; the targeting of Black leadership and other leadership in the communities and political organization, and the threats to that leadership; and then the secret plans that exist for round-up of these populations into camps, and the concurrent genocide.

I think it's important to note that the two people who devised the massive round-up plans for Central American refugees here, in case of a US intervention into Central America, were Oliver North in the Pentagon, and a Mr. Louis Guiffreda from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Guiffreda himself had earlier drafted a plan for Black Americans at the Army War College, in 1970. And his assistant in the FEMA Mobilization Planning Office has currently gotten a job as the Director of the Selective Service System. All draft and intervention planning at this point, is based on massive mobilization scenarios, worked out, in part, by Oliver North himself, like this "Rex 84" round-up plan, to take hundreds of thousands of Central American refugees into concentration centers here in the United States.

But this is really older plans that go back in our history. We didn't have to wait for Nazi Germany to find out what a concentration camp was. We didn't have to wait for them to find out what genocide was. We had functioned by it. The technology changed, but not the purpose. And I think there have been some critical things that have happened, that point the way to how this particular horror is carrying itself out.

One of those is the COINTELPRO and CHAOS programs from the 60s, that targeted Black leadership, and wanted to get rid of what they called "Black messiahs." Or any chance for people of color to have leadership in their own communities that could go some place. And these weren't just idle plans. They were plans that were talked about and worked out at a very detailed level. The recent murders there in Atlanta, the children. And all the ridiculousness of taking this guy Wayne Williams, and even the parents knew that the murders continued after he was arrested. And hints about whether they were doing experimentation on the bodies. And information that KKK families had been involved in at least some of them. But way too many murders to be explained by one person. And an ongoing number of them.

And, I think another thing we haven't looked at closely enough, is the situation in Cameroon, where all this gas supposedly came up off of a lake. It was waiting, somehow, in a bubble at the bottom of the lake, you know, against the laws of physics, for it's chance to come up. With poison gas. First they said volcanic gas. Then they admitted no volcano. Now the world scientific community meets by the hundreds, and they can't figure out what happened there. Supposedly this gas came up off of a lake naturally. People in the area heard explosions. And the gas came up and just kills everybody, literally, for a ten mile area, or radius around the area. It's just tremendous. Everybody's dead. It's not gas, like raises with the wind, or pockets some place else, or goes here, you know like gas will. And it's a gas that's not lethal by itself, carbon dioxide, unless you're in a situation where you can't get any oxygen. And yet they say that this gas came out and murdered all these people.

But I was suspicious from the beginning of it because it looked like yet another mass death situation involving People of Color. I looked into it a little further and the investigators were the same old crew that I always see: the Center for Disease Control went, with the US Army Pathology Division. They're over there in these planes; some doctors from Israel went, and they got on the plane with Peres before the incident was known to the government in Cameroon. If you take a look at the timing, they got on to go over there to look into an incident that, at least by all official accounts, the government didn't know anything of. They leave Thursday night, and Friday morning they get the report.

And, although they were coming there (Peres and the others from Israel) to reestablish diplomatic relations that had been broken off for two years, the situation in secret was that the Cameroon military was being trained by the Israeli troops.

And, what Mae Brussell suggests is that they tested a neutron bomb. One of the reasons Vannunu was put in prison, for speaking out about the nuclear capability in Israel, was that he mentioned the neutron capability. And he's been hushed up. He's in jail, no one can get to him, there's no public recourse. Because he spoke out about what was happening there.

Not to say they developed it on their own. Probably given it by US for that testing. But in any case it was those Israeli-trained troops that then went up into the area and got there first, and did what? They did a mass burial of all the bodies, with no autopsies. Also reminiscent of earlier situations. No one is allowed back in that area to this day by the government.

There were people living up there. It's right on the border of Chad. It would not surprise me if a major development corporation goes in there fairly soon, and that there's something there. But they felt they couldn't manipulate that indigenous population to labor to get out of there, and so they just wiped them out. So they think either you control them or you move them . . . relocate them like what Richard is talking about . . . or you kill them. That's the scenario when they're ready to go for broke. And so it's an expendable population. They were outside the government control, they were living some distance off from communications. A lot of them lived communally. They had a little different society than what was down in the cities and the concentrated populations. I think they were just a group that they felt they couldn't control and so a good target population to do this. Whether it was a chemical or biological weapon, or in fact, a neutron bomb, is hard to say without the evidence. But it wasn't what the government says it is.

The same situation with all those deaths in Bhopol. With the "accidental" spill of the gas there. I mean, how much is accident, and how much is to try to see both what will kill people and secondly what will our response be? Will our continued response to mass murders of People of Color around the world be silence? Be indifference? Be not taking the time to try to even find out what happened? Or will it instead be, a response that we would have, had that been a population that we belonged to? It's the difference between Jackson State and Kent State. I mean, it's whether or not we're a human community, and whether or not all of our lives matter. This system doesn't want us to think so. This decision with Goetz, for instance, is I think, an almost open season ruling. The guy on the New York subway that was supposedly approached by these kids, and got scared, and pulls out a gun and instead of just threatening them, starts to shoot them down. And is applauded openly by the racists and the right wing. Or the violence at Howard Beach. Or against this young woman now, up in New York.

These round-up lists that they have date back into the 50s. The McCarren Act, during the McCarthy period, allowed formally, for Federal institutions, prisons and other Japanese relocation camps from WWII. It's interesting also, I mentioned to Richard yesterday, that they guy who directed one of the worst concentration camps for the Japanese, was rewarded by being given the job as the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, afterwards. See, because the pattern follows. And it's not just one group. These are techniques that you can figure out how they work.

But I've talked to GI's who've seen the round-up plans down to the neighborhood level. The isolation of people in certain parts of the community without access to the interstate highways. How certain things like gas, electricity or water can be cut off. And that's thought through on a military level. And people are forced economically and otherwise into these areas that are easy to control, easy to surround. Once we go into a martial law situation, the interstate highways become military controlled roads, with no civilian access. They will be guarded.

At the time of Kent State, I talked to Guardsmen who were setting up the water and the gas and the food, for these prison centers. And were ready to round-up, had people instead of being scared by Kent State, and backing off, had students gone into the street (we were in the middle of a nationwide strike on the campuses against Cambodian involvement) had they reacted the other way and gotten angry, the Government was ready to round them up. With the National Guard. And they had eighteen camps open. They have thirty six camps, constantly maintained now that we know about. Those things exist.

It's not impossible for them, by manipulating weather, by manipulating heat from outer space, to create droughts or famine in certain areas. And quite often those areas, after the people move out or die, are then developed. And miraculously recover. The water table comes back up. You know, and then they're a profit to the system. To the corporations and to the system that wanted to move them out.

I think another recent example that we should have had more reaction to, was the Move situation in Philadelphia. And now yet another "explosive device" has been used in Maryland. In October, in a Black community there. You remember "explosive device"? That's a police name for a police bomb. You know, a bomb dropped on a house, and a whole neighborhood burned down. People repeatedly asked the firemen to turn on the hoses, and they refused. And the only excuse given, "Oh," they said, "The people in the Move house would shoot at them, if they went out there and ran the hoses." I mean, these weren't things that you just have to stand there and hold the hose 15 feet from the house. It's all the way across the street. But they wanted the area to burn down.

And I looked into the background of the police that did it, and they were the same police that attacked the other Move house and razed it to the ground in l978. The old Rizzo cop team. They just waited until they got Green, the Mayor, out of town for a little bit, and then they went in. They went for broke.

And it was a military operation. I talked to people who knew that they were testing the helicopter and dropping the bomb on a little house down at the Army bases in New Jersey. Till they got it perfected, so they could drop it right in. Also, the Move attack represents, clearly, the militarization of police. You remember when they shot Mark Clark and Fred Hampton, one of the ways we found out what happened was that people went in the house and they put these ballistic rods through the rooms, and they figured out that 400 police bullets went in and 2 bullets went out. OK? Well, after the Move shootout, within 48 hours, a special police demolition team . . . have you ever heard of one of them? Do you have one out here in San Francisco? A police demolition team razed the house to the ground. So that there was no evidence to work with. Now that's Fascism. I mean, attack is one thing. But the Fascism is where all the evidence is destroyed.

At Jackson State, after they calmed down and stopped shooting for a few minutes, the next thing they did was to start to remove all the wall panels where there were bullet holes. All over the buildings. And the outside walls. So that they couldn't find any evidence. And everybody was picking up shells. The only way they finally got any evidence in, was that a State Trooper got mad, and didn't want the State Troopers to be blamed for all of it, so he gave them some shells, he gave the investigators some shells from the local police. So that they wouldn't get blamed. Otherwise they had all been picked up and the incident had been denied. So what, you got 6 people shot?

And, because we don't look, and because we're silent, I think that they they feel they can go on with this. These experiments we talked about, the syphilis experiments? They also tested lactose gas, because they know that a number of Black people have trouble digesting dairy products. And so they wanted to find out: what are they reacting to? can we gasify it? and can we concentrate it enough to make it lethal? And then, in their dream world, they're going to kill only Blacks. But they don't understand, that they can't get these things to kill just one group of people; and that the groups of people just aren't that different. They'd like to believe that they're that different. They'd like to believe that there's some sort of pure White genetic strain in the United States. But, the reality is, that the people just aren't that different.

They studied blood types, from the 50s on, extensive studies, of blood types. They tried to determine, ethnic differences, genetic differences in blood. So I think it's very interesting that AIDS, somehow, is a blood disease. Because this is exactly the area they looked at for racially and ethnically-oriented chemical/biological warfare.

Now they want to do some kind of early detection of sickle cell babies and abort them, once they find them. Well, sickle cell isn't always fatal. The abortion will be.

So it's not by choice except by choice of the state which babies they want born and which ones not. Which was eventually the point they came to between the wars. They had mass sterilization in Nazi Germany, but it started here in Indiana in l926. And it spread to over 30 states. So it was automatic that people with certain mental illnesses, and so-called retardation, which is often just the racist effects of the IQ test, and the tracking in the schools, that gets you into this retarded category. But those people aren't going to be allowed to have babies, because they have to "protect the gene pool."

We talked a little bit before about Grenada. Grenada's a pretty telling example (Nicaragua's yet another one, El Salvador too) of the fact that they don't want indigenous communities to have control over their own lives, over their own resources, over their own politics.

That's all they mean when they talk about "Democracy" and "Communism." Those words don't mean anything to this system. "Democracy" means we can control them, "Communism" means we can't. [laughter] That's what they mean. When the people come up to you and they say, "We want democracy and blah blah blah," they mean, "We want to be able to go in with the corporations, exploit the labor, steal the resources. Anybody against that, then that's what Communism is." That's all we're talking about. They have you believing it's some kind of great difference in systems.

Well, it is a great difference when people control their own lives; when people take back the power to make decisions about what happens to them. It's a revolutionary difference. They want us to believe that those societies where people try to do that are "Communist," and they do their damnedest to isolate them economically and break their back, and they then say, "See, it doesn't work," to you. But the reality is, that even if what's being adopted on the face of it is these societies "calling" themselves "Communist," it doesn't matter. It's not the rhetoric that matters, it's the control level that matters. Who is in charge? That's what you have to look at.

But in the Grenada thing, their going after this New Jewel movement, in the independent Black community there, and trying to crush it because they don't want it to be an example in Caribbean region. Then they set up this phoney Organization of Eastern Caribbean States under a Kissinger protege, who had headed up NATO and the Allied Intelligence in Europe, and he worked in there, and he comes in, and then we claim that we were invited by six Caribbean countries to go in and invade another Caribbean country. I mean it would be like if six of you wanted to go out back right now and beat the shit out of somebody. And you invited me along, and when the police came, I said, "I was just invited by the other six." [laughter] "You got no charge against me." What does it mean to be invited by countries to invade other countries? Some kind of neutral position?.

This little country, they're no threat to anybody. They're putting in an airport so they can deliver their spice, and we're supposed to believe, like, the minute there's an airport anywhere within an thousand miles south of us, the Soviet Union has already taken us over. So it's only purpose could have been to land big Soviet military planes, and what? Launch the invasion of the United States from Grenada? I mean, how many Soviets could fit there? [laughter] Maybe enough to take over Newark. The joke on the East coast was, "Why didn't Reagan invade Rhode Island?" It's too big! [loud laughter and applause]

But on the field, they tried to use their best Black troops, the 101st and 82nd Airborne. The traditional front line troops. But these are predominantly Black units.

Audience Member: Why?

John Judge: Why are they predominantly Black? There's a series of reasons for that. There's a predominance, first, of Blacks who go into the military in the first place, under economic impressment in the poverty draft. There's a large number of People of Color, Hispanics and Blacks, disproportionate to their general representation in the population. Secondly, there's a concentration of those people just by the tests that they do in the military are racist. They have these skills tests, called ASVAB and they route all the Black and Third World people into the dead end jobs and a lot of them into infantry. But also, I think there's a cultural matter that, within the Black community, with the few outlets that there are for somebody to sort of make something of themselves, or come to manhood, prove themselves, the military has, since the integration in WWII, been a way, for certain Blacks, to get a certain amount of prestige for themselves, to prove themselves, you know, as people, as men or women, to show that they could do something. It's a chance sometimes for somebody to advance, not many but a certain percentage do well, or at least become NCO's in the military, and can make a career out of it. And it used to be, it's much worse now, but it used to be a way to get housing afterwards, like the GI Bills, get education thought a lot of that's been stripped, away now. So there were those reasons, and the idea of sort of, the proving the manhood, I think is a piece of it, of like, being the toughest of the troops. And being the ones who can go out there. But, they knew, since Vietnam, that it was also those troops, Black and Third World troops, who were the ones that led the struggle in the field, to stop the war. Because they were the quickest to get the point, that they were going out killing people on behalf of a country, that wasn't treating them much better than the people they were attacking. And they could see that those people were living in about the same relation, with some economic differences, you know, but about the same relation they were living back home. So why go fight this war against those People of Color, on behalf of a society that wasn't going do deal with them when they came back, anyway, and never had.

The very first march against Vietnam came out of Harlem. Down into New York, and the signs were: No Vietnamese Ever Called Me Nigger. [Applause] That was the organizing point. And that slogan, you remember, "Hell no, we won't go," that was SNCC, the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee. That was their organizing slogan. All the first Vietnam stuff came out of the Black community, and they know that. And they were afraid of it because it was effective in the field. And the Blacks could organize much quicker than Whites. Whites have to build a coffee house, and have a newspaper for ten months. Over night, the Blacks could see what's coming down, and this happened, and bam! you've got an organized thing. Because they're a little more used to getting messed with so they have a little more natural response to understanding the oppression.

And then there were very bad racial situations everywhere that the Blacks were, and still, in the military, and Klan organizing and all that stuff. In any case, they were afraid, since Vietnam, and they still are, of how these troops were going to perform. And they were very wary of Grenada, because here they were sending Black troops into an English-speaking Black country, that they would refuse. And they did, they refused. We helped Corporal Al Griffin, who said "I'm not going to shoot Blacks in Grenada, I'm not going to shoot Moslems in Lebanon." He wouldn't go either place, and he was a model Marine, he'd been in the White House. And they court marshaled him. We helped to try to get him legal defense. And we talked to a lot of AWOL's coming back. And many of those units refused to fight there.

One of the things that happened out of that, is that part of the 101st, which was, again, a largely Black unit, was moved out of the situation in Lebanon. Eventually some of the ones that went to Grenada then went overseas there (they were sending the units both ways) and they flew out of there in this plane. Aero Air, was the company. It was a commercial carrier, and the plane was no good. It was bottoming out every time it tried to take off, and it did that twice, and then it crashed in Newfoundland. And you had this, about 180, if my memory's right on the figure, predominantly Black, 140? [in response to a correction offered by a member of the audience] anyway, it was a lot of people died in this crash, I don't remember the exact number, but it was quite a few, and predominantly Black troops.

At the same time, I was reading Army Times, and right after Grenada, all of the planning for the Rapid Deployment Force, (which was this idea of, taking a force, like quick as they could, somewhere in the world.) they dropped the 82nd and 101st from all the future planning for the RDF. And they went to the White division concept, and they made up these new ten thousand person divisions. In the interim they were going to use the 191st out of Dyess Air Force Base, which is a 90% White unit. And then, when I looked at the pictures of the new guys coming out of Campbell to fill up the 101st, they were almost all White, in the training units. So they wanted to change the race composition after Grenada

John Judge on Jonestown 


"The situation that I found when I looked into Jonestown, is the last thing that I just want to touch on, and one of the worst. Jones grew up in Southern Indiana, in a Klan family. His father was KKK. He grew up in a racist environment. He was not an anti-racist. He was a phoney bible-thumper preacher, fake healer, from the time he was fairly young. And he was friends, back there in Indiana, for a long time, family friends and otherwise, with an older kid, who eventually moved into a position in the police department in Indianapolis when Jones went up and did his tent healing shows in Indianapolis. And in the Sheriff's office this guy was there, his friend. And usually, you do those tent healings, and you start ripping people off, and you can get chased out of town by the law, pretty quick. But he had police cover. I think from his friend. And his friend's name was Dan Mitrione. 

Now Dan Mitrione went on to the International Police Academy, and then he was moved to Brazil to work with USAID funding, to do torture training, taking the old Nazi torture methods from WWII, and training the secret police in Central America. And one of the first places he did that was down in Brazil. And he was out of Minas Gerais, and it was during those years that a Green Beret, part of the Operation Phoenix program, and the killing in Vietnam, the genocide there, named Charles Beekman, came into Jones' temple, and his wife, back there in Indiana, and Jones suddenly had this idea that he ought to go to Brazil. And he took his family, and Beekman, and went down to Brazil, and he lived in a house down there, and the neighbors said that the cars that would come and drive him around and deliver his groceries, were from the US embassy. While he lived in Brazil. And he told the neighbors that he was working for Naval Intelligence, while he was down there. And his son, in one interview I found, said that he spent a lot of time going out to Minas Gerais and visiting with Mitrione at the CIA headquarters out there. 

Then he suddenly had a hundred thousand dollars and he came back to the United States. He told his followers that he had slept with the Ambassador's wife, and she had paid him that much for the sex. [laughter] So, I mean, you can make what you want of that story. But he came back, and he moved out to Ukiah, California, and he set up this Happy Havens Rest Home, and he didn't have a license, he didn't have a medical degree. But suddenly he got 150 children as wards of the court. He got elderly out of the homes. He got psychiatric inmates out of the institutions. He got people coming in there out of all different institutional settings. They were handed over into his care. 

I have pictures of the place: it has barbed wire, it had an electric fence, it has armed guards in black boots and black uniforms guarding the perimeters. These people were taken in there, to so-called Happy Havens Rest Home, and they began the pressure and experimentation there. 

It was during that period that the top lieutenants moved in: the Layton family, and the Blakeys eventually were to come, and Terry Buford. Now, these people were not people off the street, who just wandered in, messed up, looking for some kind of a religious ecstasy. 

Larry Layton is from an aristocratic family. His father, who was a professor, out in Pennsylvania, in the 50s, although he claimed to be a Quaker, he was appointed Head of all chemical and biological warfare research, for l956 up into the mid-60s, at Dugway Proving Grounds, in Utah. Which was also one of the places that all this radiation was blowing across, and Larry Layton's mother died of cancer, I believe from that radiation, years later, down in Jonestown. His mother, was from Germany. Her initial claim when she came and met him, was that she was a Methodist. She always told the children she was a Methodist, and then they became Quakers. But after Jonestown, she told the children a completely different story, and said that she had been a Jewish girl who had run from the Nazis, but that she didn't want to bring that up to the children. In hiding her Jewishness and hiding her escape from the Nazis. And that her parents had been on a train on the way to a death camp, but they had gotten ill on the train, so the train stopped and they were taken off, and saved by other people. [laughter] 

Now these are the stories that she was telling in the New York Times. I mean, huh!?! 

Her father, Hugo Phillips, was a stockbroker for Interessen Gemeinschaft Farben, IG Farben, the huge Nazi dye and drug cartel, that brought Hitler to power. 

Terry Buford's father was the head of Naval Intelligence at the fleet in Philadelphia, for many, many years. 

Blakey, married into the family. Debbie Layton married George Blakey when the family sent her to be educated at an upper class school in England. His parents are major investors and stockholders in Solvay Drugs which is the largest pharmaceutical subsidiary of Interessen Gemeinschaft Farben, IG Farben. 

So they came from Nazi money. They came from aristocratic wealth. They weren't from nowhere. 

Timothy Stone and his wife Grace: He was from the Justice Department. He was well placed here in San Francisco. And while Jones was in Ukiah, his best friend was Walter Headley, the head of the John Birch Society there. And he was using people in his encampment to write letters in favor of Nixon going into office, and had been right wing all along. 

Suddenly, when it was time to bring him into San Francisco, he changed the tune, and came in here as a liberal. In a political vacuum, and used the techniques that he had studied under Father Divine, a Black charismatic religious leader in Philadelphia (the techniques that I just mean in terms of the recruiting and the preaching) in order to bring people into the church here and make it seem as though it were progressive or liberal. To compromise the liberal community here, who would support him. 

But still, the vast majority of people coming to him were not, again, converts, but people who he got because Mayor Moscone put him in charge of the Housing Authority and appointed many of his people into jobs in the Welfare rolls. And it was off of those rolls, of the indigenous Black community, that they made up the bulk of the People's Temple. 

When he began to be exposed here, he took those people and put them in buses, he stuffed the children into the luggage racks, underneath. He drove all the way to Florida, he got on Pan Am planes, and there's a whole other history of who Pan Am is (but it's the same money and the same people that are involved in these other assassinations and things) and the Pan Am plane landed in Guyana. And I talked to the air traffic controller there, who was present at the time, and he told me every Black that came off the plane was bound and gagged. He told me that people who lived as close as 5 miles away, and I've gotten this from other sources, in the bush, did not know that there was a single Black living at Matthew's Ridge in Guyana. All they had ever seen were the Whites. Because the Whites were the only ones allowed in and out of the camp, allowed to have money; allowed to carry a gun; allowed to go into the city. 

In the city they were paying off Black and Indian women to sell their babies. Which they were taking back to the camp. And all of these people were being experimented on by Dr. Lawrence Schacht, the camp doctor, and a crew of about 40 nurses. For a population of about 1200 people, 40 nurses. And he was infamous for participating in the torture, for doing suturing without anesthetic. I believe that he is none other than the grandson of Hjalmar Schacht, the Reichminister of Economics, who moved to Houston Texas where Larry Schacht's family is from, at the end of the war. And it was Hjalmar Schacht who invented the slogan, over the gate at Auschwitz: Arbeit Macht Frei, "Work will make you free." That's the family that I think Schacht is from, and carrying on the tradition. 

The people there knew that this was a slave labor camp, a concentration camp. They were drugged day in and day out. There were enough drugs found on site, after the massacre, to drug the entire population of Georgetown, Guyana, a city of over l00000 people, for more than a year. Being used on a population of 1200 people. In one foot locker alone, there were ll,000 doses of Thorazine. The other drugs that were named on the site were the exact drugs that I have been following all through my research of CIA MK/ULTRA and MK/DELTA and MK/NAOMI. They were the mind control drugs. 

They had the drugs, they worked them 16-18 hours a day, they fed them poorly, they disoriented them, they kept them up all night yelling at them with lectures, lack of sleep, classic conditioning techniques. 

They also abused them physically: they had sensory deprivation cells, live burials, wells for the children, electric prods to torture them with, public rape, sexual humiliation in public, and any combination of techniques they could think of. 

They kept extensive notes. All those notes disappeared. I believe Schacht disappeared. His name wasn't in the first list of the dead; it only showed up later in the second list. 

There were, by all accounts, 1100-1200 people there. Original press report: 400 dead, 700 flee into the woods. Evaluation of the number of people there: 800 adults with passports, 300 children. These add to 1100. How many dead in the final count? 915 How many official survivors returned to the United States? 16. Where are the rest? Who were they? 

They were the trained guards. The sadistic torturers. The programmed killers. The ones who came to Port Kaituma and were described as acting mechanically, moving without emotion in their face, picking certain people to kill, not bothering with others; zombies was the word used to describe them. Programmed killers. Mind controlled killers. 

Phillip Blakey was putting them on boats and shipping them to Angola, for use by Joseph Savimibi in the CIA-controlled UNITA forces, as mercenaries. Afterwards, they moved to the Honduran camps of the Contras, and for mercenary work in Central America. 

The main leadership (Blakey, Stephen Jones, the son of Jim Jones, the people that were at the top, the White lieutenants), went to Trinidad briefly, stopped off in Panama and drained a Swiss bank account under the name Associacion Religioso do San Pedro, the Religious Association of Saint Peter, which I believe was one of the Vatican money front companies for Roberto Calvi, in the Panama shell companies. In a bank account there, under that name, took 5,000,000 dollars out of it, and went where? Where did they set up shop? 

Grenada. Who did they work with? Dr. Peter Borne and Sir Jeffrey Borne, the two MK/ULTRA experts from the Vietnam period. Who tested methadone in Vietnam. Who worked at the Yerkes Primate Research Center on monkeys. Who know the drugs and the techniques. Dr. Peter Borne was responsible for setting up the the methadone programs in the Black communities all over the United States. He finally got chased out of the Carter White House, briefly, because of a drug scandal. 

They were the ones that set up the medical school. They were the ones that set up the hospitals there. And the mental hospital, which was the only building bombed in Grenada. And I have the Air Force magazine reports bragging about the accuracy. It wasn't a mistake. It was the only building bombed. They even talked about pumping 40,000,000 dollars back in there to build a new one. 

And what happened to the bodies? Mass burial. Within 48 hours. No autopsies. That was the continuation of Jonestown, up in that area. 

When Dr. Mootoo came on site and found the bodies, he found 408, the vast majority, 80-90%, with a fresh needle mark on the back of their arms, without a single sign of cyanide pathology, with no hint of suicide, in neat rows, face down, calm and dead. The remainder he found were either strangled or shot. 

Over the next 5-6 days, the count went up, until it reached 915. In order to explain it ending up with 915, the Army said the Guyanese couldn't count. They said there were bodies on top of bodies. They said that families fell in piles together. Their final explanation, all those failing, was that they had forgotten to go to the back of the pavilion for 6 days, and they found 500 bodies there. 

The reason the body count went up, is that 700 did flee into the woods, but they were surrounded. They were surrounded by British Black Watch troops, the equivalent of our Green Berets, on maneuvers at Matthew's Ridge those days. They were surrounded by about 200 American Green Berets, who were not doing the body clean up, but creating the bodies. And they were surrounded by Guyanese troops, about 350 strong, that had been trained under the auspices of Dan Mitrione. 

They were murdered. They were dragged back to the camp. You can see the drag marks. You can see the shot marks on the bodies. And then they were left to rot. They were stripped of all medical tags (you can see them in the early photos because they were under experimentation) under the orders of who? Robert Pastor; taking his orders from Alexander Haig; taking his orders from Zbigniew Brzezinski in the Carter administration. 

Stripped the bodies of all identification. Even the little tags that Dr. Mootoo put on, with the help of Odell Rhodes were taken off, and then let them rot for 6 days in the sun. They claimed you can't bring more than 43 bodies back in these huge C-5 Starlifters. They dragged them off to the other end of the country to a military mortuary. 

They got an open letter, from the American College of Medical Examiners to the US Army, criticizing them because they could have done fluid autopsy on the site. Dr. Mootoo asked for help. The US Pathology Institute people, and the CDC people arrived without any autopsy equipment, or chemicals. To the mass "suicide site" of Jonestown. 

They didn't want an autopsy done. They didn't want us to know what drugs were in the bodies. They didn't want us to identify who they were and who they weren't. They wanted them dead and finished with. They murdered all of them. They came on television and told us the racist lie that Black parents squirted poison in their kids' mouths. And instead of rising up and saying, "What the hell happened there?" for the most part, we were silent. 

But we can turn these things around, if we will look at them. If we'll just use simple arithmetic, would tell you, that if you start with 408 bodies, and end up with 915, the 408 have a lot of covering to do, don't they? Especially if a third of them are children. 

These things are obvious if you will look. If you will just have the idea in your mind, that this government is killing people. It's doing genocide right now. It's doing it with your tax money. And in your name. And if you don't understand how the Germans could have let that happen, go home and think about it. "

[stunned silence followed by loud applause]