Monthly Archives: March 2014


Set aside the time to watch this documentary series by Metanoia entitled “Counter-Intelligence”(each of the five segments is about 90 minutes long): (The Company) (The Deep State) (The Strategy of Tension) (Necrophilous) (Drone Nation)


Medicine, monkeys, Mary and agnotology

The following is pages 265-276, verbatim, from Chapter 12 (“Guns, Drugs and Eugenics”) of Jim Marrs’ book “The Rise of the Fourth Reich”,  HarperCollins 2008.

I have internally embedded some links.

Additional links are at the bottom.




While everyone knows of the Rockefeller control of oil, most are not know the extent of Rockefeller wealth and influence over modern medicine and drugs.

According to Eustace Mullins, the last surviving protégé of the famous 20th century intellectual and writer Ezra Pound, an author of the 1988 book Murder by Injection: the story of the medical conspiracy against America, [see a 28-minute interview of Mullins on the topic via the YouTube entry here: as well as the book in pdf format here: ], the drug industry is controlled by a Rockefeller “medical monopoly,” largely through directors of pharmaceutical boards representing Chase Bank, standard oil, and other Rockefeller entities. “The American College of surgeons maintains a monopolistic control of hospitals through her powerful hospital survey committee, with members [such as]’s Winthrop Aldrich and David McAlpine Pyle  representing the Rockefeller control,” he wrote.

Winthrop Aldrich also served on the committee on the cost of medical care (cc MC), which was originated by Dr. Alexander Lambert, the personal physician to Teddy Roosevelt and a president of the AMA. According to Dr. Charles C Smith, who research the activities of the committee: “bracket Dr. Lambert] obviously was to be the needed “figurehead.” Other notable choices were Winthrop Aldrich, president of Chase national Bank; John Frey,  secretary-treasurer, AFL; William T Foster, director of the Pollock foundation in economic research; Bolan West, M.D., executive secretary, AMA; and 15 physicians +2 dentists in private practice. Five physicians from public health were chosen, and the director of research for the Milbank Memorial fund. Representatives from insurance, hospital, nursing, pharmacy sources were pointed and six members from positions. They numbered 49 in all. The full-time staff was headed by Harry H Moore of Washington, who in 1927 published “American medicine in the people’s health” while a member of the public health service. His main tenets were the need for a system to distribute medical care and insurance plan to pay for it.”

Smith noted that a minority of the committee recommended, among other things, the government competition in the practice of medicine be discontinued and that corporate medicine finance through intermediary agencies, such as health maintenance organizations (HMO), should be opposed, because they fail to provide high quality healthcare and exploit the medical profession. These recommendations were not followed. “The tenor of the open brackets see CMC]’s report was such that one can read into it the seeds of everything that led to the health care system we have today… so at last we find ourselves, as always, in a healthcare crisis,” Dr. Smith wrote in 1984. This health care crisis continues today.

Rockefeller control over the medical establishment also was exercised through the Rockefeller sanitary commission and the Rockefeller Institute for medical research, at one time headed by Dr. Detlev Brock, already named as a suspected member of MJ-12. “Rockefeller’s General Education Board has spent more than $100 million to gain control of the nation’s medical schools and turn our physicians to physicians of the allopathic school, dedicated to surgery and the heavy use of drugs,” commented Mullins.

Mullins also pointed to the knotty connections of Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK), the second largest pharmaceutical company in the world after Pfizer. The history of the big farm giant can also serve as an example of the consolidation of drug companies in recent years.

Burroughs Wellcome and Company was founded in London in 1880, two American pharmacists, and Henry Wellcome and Silas Burroughs after the postwar acquisition of other companies, including Meyer Laboratories, Glaxo moved its facilities to the United States. Burroughs Wellcome and Glaxo, Incorporated merged in 1995. The new name of the company was Glaxo Wellcome.

In 1830, John K Smith opened his first pharmacy in Philadelphia. Over the years, Smith, Kline and Company merged with the French, Richard and company, and changed his name to SmithKline and French laboratories in 1929. By 1969, the firm had spread its business worldwide and purchased seven additional laboratories in Canada and United States. In 1982, it merged with Beckman Incorporated, becoming Smith-Klein Beckman. With the 1988 purchase of its biggest competitor, international clinical laboratories, SmithKline Boeckman grew by 50%. The latest merger took place with Glaxo Wellcome in 2000, and the firm became Glaxo Smith Kline.

According to Eustace Mullins, the original Burroughs Wellcome drug firm was wholly owned by Wellcome Trust, whose director was the British Lord Oliver Franks. “Franks was ambassador to the United States from 1948 to 1952,” Mullins wrote. “He [also was] a director of the Rockefeller foundation, as its principal representative in England. He also was a director of the Schroeder Bank, which handled Hitler’s personal bank account; director of the Rhodes Trust in charge of approving Rhodes scholarships; visiting professor at the University of Chicago; and chairman of Lloyd’s Bank, one of England’s Big Five.”

Recalling the John D Rockefeller’s father, William “Big Bill” Rockefeller, once tried to sell unrefined petroleum as a cancer cure, Mullins, who spent more than 30 years researching the “Rockefeller medical monopoly,” commented, “This carnival medicine show barker would hardly have envisioned that his descendants would control the greatest and most profitable medical monopoly in recorded history.”

Mullins reported that I.G. Farben and the drug companies it controlled in the United States through the Rockefeller interests were responsible for the suppression of effective drugs until a monopoly could be established. For example, from 1908 to 1936, far been withheld its discovery of sulfanilamide, and early sulfa drug, until the firm had signed working agreements with the important drug firms of Switzerland, Sandoz and Ciba-Geigy.  In one of the largest corporate mergers in history, these two firms joined in 1996 to form Novartis.

It has been previously detailed how the support of globalists and transplanted European fascists helped put the Reagan-Bush team into power in 1980. Against this background, it is instructive to look at one the many controversial drugs now being used by millions of Americans– aspartame , an additive sugar substitute found in most diet soft drinks and more than 5000 foods, drugs, and medicines. Aspartame is found in most sugar substitutes, such as NutraSweet, Equal, Metamucil, and Canderel.

When he needed to more than 86°F – keep in mind that the human body temperature is 98.6° – aspartame releases free methanol that breaks down into formic acid and formaldehyde in the body. Formaldehyde is a deadly neurotoxin. One quart of an aspartame-added beverage is estimated to contain about 56 mg of methanol. Dr. Louis J. Elsas  explained to the U.S. Senate committee on labor and human resources: “I am a pediatrician, a professor of pediatrics at Emory, and I spent 25 years in the biomedical science[s], trying to prevent mental retardation and birth defects caused by excess phenylalanine … [I] have considerable concern for the increased dissemination in consumption of the sweetener aspartame– l-methyl-N-L-a-aspartyl-L-phenylalanine [ ]– in our world food supply. This artificial dipeptide is hydrolyzed  by the intestinal tract to produce L-phenylalanine [ ,  which in access is a known neurotoxin.” Countering claims the laboratory tests indicated little harm from small amounts of aspartame, Dr. Elsas  noted, “normal humans do not metabolize phenylalanine  as efficiently as do lower species, such as rodents, and thus most of their previous studies in aspartame effects on rats are irrelevant to the question.”

Before 1980, the Federal drug administration had refused to approve the use of aspartame. FDA toxicologist Dr. Adrian Gross testified to Congress that aspartame caused tumors and brain cancer in lab animals and, therefore, violated the Delaney Amendment that forbids putting anything in food that is known to cause cancer. Aspartame also was blamed for the increase in diabetes as it not only can precipitate the disease but also stimulates and aggravates diabetic retinopathy and neuropathy, which, when interacting with insulin, can cause diabetics to go into convulsions.

Dr. Betty Martini works in the medical field for 22 years. She was the founder of Mission Possible International, working with doctors around the world in an effort to remove aspartame from food, drinks, and medicine. She gave this account of how pharmaceutical interests overcame claims of public welfare:

“Donald Rumsfeld was CEO of Searle, that conglomerate that manufactured aspartame. For 16 years the FDA refused to approve it, not only because it’s not safe but because they wanted the company indicted for fraud. Both US prosecutors hired on with the defense team and the statute of limitations expired. They were sent Sam Skinner and William Conlon. Skinner went on to become secretary of transportation, squelching the cries of the pilots who were now having seizures on this seizure-triggering drug, aspartame, and then Chief of Staff under President Bush’s father. Some of these people reached high places. Even Supreme Justice Clarence Thomas is a former Monsanto attorney. (Monsanto bought Searle in 1985, and sold a few years ago.) When [John] Ashcroft became Atty. Gen. [in 2001, Larry] Thompson from King and Spalding attorneys (another former Monsanto attorney) became deputy under Ashcroft. However, the FDA still refused to allow NutraSweet on the market. It is a deadly neurotoxic drug masquerading as an additive. It interacts with all antidepressants, L-Dopa, Coumadin, hormones, insulin, all cardiac medication, and many others. It is also a chemical hypersensitive station drugs, so it interacts with vaccines, other toxins, other unsafe sweeteners, like Splenda that has a chlorinated base like DDT and can cause autoimmune disease. It has a synergistic and additive effect with MSG. Both being  excitotoxins, BS bardic acid in aspartame, and MSG, the glutamate, people were found using aspartame as the placebo for MSG studies, even before was approved. The FDA has known this for quarter of a century and done nothing even though it’s against the law. Searle went on to build a NutraSweet factory and had $9 million worth of inventory. Donald Rumsfeld was on Pres. Reagan’s transition team and the day after [Reagan] took office he appointed an FDA commissioner who would approve aspartame.”

Searle salesperson Patty Wood-Allott  claim then in 1981 Rumsfeld told company employees “he would call in all his markers and that no matter what, he would see to it that aspartame be approved this year.”

Dr. Martini noted: “the FDA set up a board of inquiry of the best scientists they had to offer, who said aspartame is not safe and causes brain tumors, and the petition for approval is hereby revoked. The new FDA Commissioner, Arthur Hull Hayes, overruled that board of inquiry and then went to work for the PR agency of the manufacturer, Burston-Marstellar [interestingly, the same PR firm which coached the testimony of the Kuwaiti princess that helped precipitate Desert Storm], rumored at $1000 a day, and has refused to talk to the press ever since. There were three congressional hearings because of the outcry of the people being poisoned. Sen. Orin Hatch refused to allow hearings for a long time. The first hearing was in 1985, and Sen. Hatch and others were paid by Monsanto. So the bill by Sen. [Howard] Metzenbaum never got out of committee. This bill would’ve put a moratorium on aspartame, and had the NIH do independent studies on the problems being seen in the population, interaction with drugs, seizures, what it does to the fetus, and even behavioral problems in children. This is due to the depletion of serotonin caused by the phenylalanine in aspartame.” [Note as well that one of the effects of the popular street drug used at raves, MDMA (or 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine), known colloquially as Ecstasy, is the depletion of serotonin.]

Reagan’s FDA Commissioner Hayes initially approved aspartame only as a powdered additive but in 1983, just before he left his position, he approved the additive for all carbonated beverages.

Attempting to study or report on aspartame is a thankless task for the mainstream academics. Dr. Janet Starr Hull, and OSHA-certified environmental hazards-waste urgency-response specialist and toxicologist, in 1991 was diagnosed with incurable Graves’ disease (a defect in the immunization system that leads to hyperthyroidism) only to learn through our own research that she had been poisoned by aspartame. She stated: “many scientists at prestigious American universities will tell you they cannot get grants for continued research on aspartame or Splenda, or their department heads have been told to drop all discussions on the topic. Some will  say aspartame research isn’t worth the effort because they cannot get published in American scientific journals. Others claim the research centers constructed by the large corporations, such as Duke University’s Searle Research Center, were designed with managed research at a construction proviso.”

Illustrating the battle between experts in regard to aspartame was the 2005 research by Dr. Marando Soffriti,  scientific director of the European Ramazzini  foundation of oncology and environmental sciences in Bologna, Italy. Soffriti  Conducted a three-year study on 1800 rats and concluded that aspartame is a multi-potential carcinogen. His work was peer-reviewed by seven world experts, and April 2007, Dr. so Freddie received the third Irving J. Selikoff Award from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City, where he presented a more recent study that confirmed the cancer-causing potential of aspartame at even small doses.

He noted that only a small amount of aspartame can trigger cancer, and babies of mothers who ingested aspartame could grow up to contract cancer. Other research conducted in Spain, such as the “Barcelona report” by the staff of the biology department at the University of Barcelona, confirmed that aspartame transformed into formaldehyde in the bodies of living laboratory specimens and spread throughout vital organs. These studies, largely unreported in the US media, confirmed aspartame use carcinogenicity in laboratory rats.

In 2006, media reports spoke of a “new study” that countered surfer these research. This study was not new. It was actually conducted in the mid-1990s and reported that researchers could find no link between aspartame and cancer, according to Unhee Lim, Ph.D.,  a researcher at the national institutes of health parentheses NIH). Lim and colleagues worked with 473,984 men and women between the ages of 50 and 71 who participated in this diet-and-health study. In 1995 and 1996, participants were asked how much they drank of popular diet beverages–soda, fruit drinks, and iced tea. They were also asked if they added aspartame to their coffee and tea. From their answers, the researchers calculated how much aspartame they consumed on a daily basis. During the next five years, 1972 of those studied developed lymphoma or leukemia, and 364 developed brain tumors. When the researchers looked at people who consumed an average of at least 400 mg of aspartame a day–about the amount found in two cans of soda–they found no link between aspartame consumption and cancer.

Critics noted that this study was subject to “recall bias,” since those in the study were being asked to remember what and how much they drank. Open parentheses if their recollections were accurate, it compromises the findings,” said Michael F Jacobson, executive director of the Center for science in the Public interest, a consumer watchdog organization. There was also no consideration of the many other foods and additives that contained aspartame, which added to the daily intake. Yet, the few corporate mass media outlets they carried the story in 2006 introduced the €10 study with headlines such as “findings may help to alleviate concerns raised by rat study last year.”

Why such a version by the media to dealing with controversial health issues? According to the Center for Public integrity (CPI), in the past seven years the pharmaceutical and health-products industry spent in excess of $800 million to lobby legislators and government officials at both the federal and state levels. Manufacturers of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and other health products spent nearly $182 million on federal lobbying from January 2005 through June 2006. “No other industry has spent more money to sway public policy,” stated date 2005 CPI special report titled “Drug Lobby Second to None.” “Its combined political outlays on lobbying and campaign contributions is topped only by the insurance industry.”

It should also be noted that the large pharmaceutical corporations annually spend nearly twice as much money on marketing as they do on research and development. In 2004, the CPI reported that pharmaceutical direct-to-consumer advertising has grown from $791 million in 1996 to more than $3.8 billion in 2004.  Drug ads on television are now ubiquitous.

The cross-corporate ownership of both pharmaceutical houses, medical institutions, and the mass media, combined with the extraordinary amount of pharmaceutical advertising, might explain the media’s hesitation in reporting the deleterious effects of drugs. According to Dr. Marsha Angell,  former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, profit is the driving force behind medicine today. “In 2002 the combined profits for the 10 drug companies in the Fortune 500 ($35.9 billion)  were more than the profits for all the other 490 businesses put together ($33.7 billion),” she states. “Over the past two decades, the pharmaceutical industry has moved very far from its original high purpose of discovering and producing useful new drugs. Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co-offed every institution that might stand in its way, including the U.S. Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself.” Dr. Angell,  also author of the 2004 book The Truth about the Drug Companies: how they deceive us and what to do about it brings to focus the argument that the current power the pharmaceutical industry can be directly traced to its phenomenal growth during the Reagan years.

“The election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 was perhaps the fundamental element in the rapid rise of Big Pharma–the collective name for the largest drug companies,” wrote Angell. Dr. Angell  and a number of others took note of a strong pro-business attitude shift during the Reagan-Bush years–not just in government but within American society.

There was a time in the not-so-distant past when educated persons of class looked upon commercial businessman only slightly more kindly than they had once looked upon theater folk. They also had a slight disdain for enormous inherited wealth. Scientists, teachers, public servants such as firemen and policemen chose their careers for service and community-betterment rather than for lavish salaries and retirement benefits. But times and attitudes change. Today, the corporate mass media portrays the race for wealth as practically virtuous. The wealthy are considered winners while everybody else is a loser. “The gap between the rich and poor, which has been narrowing since World War II, suddenly begins to widen again, until today it is a chasm,” remarked Dr. Angell.

She went on to say that before 1980, pharmaceuticals was a good business, but afterward, it was a stupendous one. From 1960 to 1980, prescription drug sales were fairly static as a percentage of US gross domestic product, but from 1980 to 2000, they tripled. “They now stand at more than $200 billion a year,” said Dr. Angell.  “Of the many events that contributed to the industries grading good fortune, none had to do with the quality of the drugs companies were selling.”

The success of Big Pharma has more to do with marketing than the efficiency of its drugs. Dr. Michael Wilkes described a recent process called “disease-mongering.” This term is applied to large drug corporations’  attempts to convince healthy people they are sick and need drugs. “This is all in an attempt to  to sell treatments,” explained Dr. Wilks. “When their profits don’t match corporate expectations, they “invent” new diseases to be cured by existing drugs.” Dr. Wilkes cited these examples of medical conditions he considers disease mongering: female sexual dysfunction syndrome, premenstrual dysphoric disorder, toenail fungus, baldness, and social anxiety disorder (formally known as shyness).  he said these are but a few areas “where the medical community has stepped in, thereby turning normal or mild conditions into diseases for which medication is the treatment.”

Referring to the colossus that the pharmaceutical industry has become, Dr. Angell  remarked, “It is used to  doing pretty much what it wants to do.” Beginning in the 1980s, important new laws were passed relaxing restrictions on pharmaceutical corporations. These included the Bayh-Dole act, after its chief sponsors, Indiana Democratic Sen. Birch Bayh and Kansas Republican Sen. Robert Dole. The Bayh-Dole act allowed universities and small businesses to patent discoveries from research underwritten by the national institutes of health (NIH), the major distributor of tax dollars for medical research. It also allowed taxpayer-financed discoveries formally in public domain, to be granted the drug corporations through exclusive licenses. Dr. Angell said that today universities, where most NIH-sponsored work is carried out, can patent and license their discoveries and charge royalties. Subsequent but similar legislation allows the NIH itself to directly transfer NIH discoveries to industry. Today, “all parties cash in on the public investment in research,” she noted.

Under this system, research paid for by public money becomes a commodity to be sold for profit by private concerns. Dr. Angell  provides examples of the large consulting fees paid by pharmaceutical corporations to individual faculty members and to NIH scientists and directors, increasing the intrusion of the globalist pharmaceutical corporations into medical education and the almost complete domination of medical education, particularly when it comes to drugs. Recall that it was an NIH study that refuted peer-reviewed research linking cancer to the sweetener aspartame.

Approximately half of the largest pharmaceutical corporations are not American. About half of them are based in Europe. In 2002, the top 10 were the American companies Pfizer, Merck, Johnson & Johnson [which has suffered an annoying and embarrassing series of recalls of its products], Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Wyeth (formerly American Home Products); the British companies Glaxo Smith Kline and AstraZeneca; the Swiss companies Novartis and Roche; and the French company Aventis (which in 2004 merged with another French company, Sanafi Synthelabo, and put it in third place). “All are much alike in their operations. All price their drugs much higher here than in other markets,” stated Dr. Angell.

The lucrative connection between Big Pharma and medical schools and hospitals has brought about a definitive corporate-friendly atmosphere. “One of the results has been a growing pro-industry bias in medical research–exactly where such bias doesn’t belong,” argues Dr. Angell.

She also blasted pharmaceutical corporations’ further claims that high drug prices are necessary to fund research and development. “Drug industry expenditures for research and development, while large, were consistently far less than profits. For the top 10 companies, they amounted to only 11% of sales in 1990, rising slightly to 14% in 2000. The biggest single item in the budget is neither R&D nor even profits but something usually called “marketing and administration”–a name that varies slightly from company to company. In 1990, a staggering 36% of sales revenues went into this category, and that proportion remained about the same for over a decade. Note this is 2.5x the expenditures for R&D.”

Dr. Angell further noted that what many people see as excessive salaries of pharmaceutical  executives such as Charles A. Heimbold, Jr., the former chairman and CEO of Bristol-Myers Squibb, who made $74,890,918 in 2001. This does not count his $76,095,611 worth of unexercised stock options. During this same time, John R Stafford, chairman of Wyeth, made it $40,521,011, not counting his $40,629,459 in stock options.

Congress expressly prohibited Medicare from negotiating lower drug prices through its bulk purchasing power and, in 1997, the FDA permitted the drug industry to do direct advertising, previously restricted to physicians, to the public, with no mention of side effects except for the most serious.

The excesses of the globalists’ pharmaceutical corporations have prompted many Americans to seek price relief by traveling to Canada or Mexico to purchase drugs.

Dr. Angell concluded that only an aroused American public can rein in the power of the pharmaceutical monopoly. Noting that drug companies have the largest lobby in Washington, and they give copiously to political campaigns, Dr. Angell said legislators and the mass media corporations are now so dependent on the pharmaceutical industry for campaign contributions and advertising that will be exceedingly difficult to break their power. “But one thing legislators need more than campaign contributions is votes. That is why citizens should know what is really going on… there will be no real reform without an aroused and determined public to make it happen,” she said.



The additional sources noted by Marrs can be found on pages 402-404 of the book.


The Truth about the Drug Companies: how they deceive us and what to do about it 

See also whih contains an embedded YouTube cut from “ the story of a medical doctor and Ph.D biochemist named Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski who won the largest, and possibly the most convoluted and intriguing legal battle against the Food & Drug Administration in American history. His victorious battles with the United States government were centered around Dr. Burzynski’s gene-targeted cancer medicines he discovered in the 1970’s…”  See



Chapter 15 of Me and Lee [page 280-281] recounts the meeting on Saturday, May 11, 1963 between Dr. Mary Sherman, the author Judith Vary Baker, Lee Harvey Oswald, and David Ferrie.  [In reverse order, the four players in this vignette are: the wandering bishop noted in Peter Levenda’s “Sinister Forces”; the alleged “lone nut” patsied by the security state he worked for  and killed on live television by Jacob Rubenstein, better known as Jack “Sparky” Ruby;  the author (a youthful savant in cancer research); and an expert on bone tumors whose own strange un-investigated murder was the focus of a cover-up.

After the meetings and greetings, the finger sandwiches and fruit compote, “Dave said, “Listen to this…  ‘Dr. Heath tells new technique. Electrical impulses sent deep into brain… (a patient)… had tiny wires implanted into precise spots in his brain. The wires were attached to a self-stimulator box, which was equipped at a push of a button to deliver a tiny, electrical impulse to the brain…” Dave paused to let what he was reading sink in. “I wonder how many brains Heath went through before he had success with these two? How long did it take to find those “precise spots” in their brains with his hot little wires?”

“Dr. Ochsner would never do such a thing,” Dr. Mary said, pouring me some tea.

“It sounds like science fiction,” Dave said. “Who knows what kind of mind control could be exerted over brain, 20 or 30 years from now?” [But see “Controlling the Human Mind – The Technologies of Political Control or Tools for Peak Performance” by Nick Begich, Jr., the son of the Congressman killed with Hale Boggs, the most vocal critic among the Warren Commission members, in an Alaskan plane crash.]

“I doubt John Q. Public will ever have a clue,” Dr. Mary replied. “They certainly have no idea they were getting cancer-causing monkey viruses in their polio vaccines,” she added bitterly. Seeing my expression of shock, Dr. Mary went on to explain that she and a few others had privately protested the marketing of the SV 40-contaminated polio vaccine, but to no avail. The government continued to allow the distribution of millions of doses of the contaminated vaccine in America and abroad.

She said she was told that the new batches of the vaccine would be free of the cancerous virus, but privately she doubted it, noting that the huge stockpile of vaccines she knew were contaminated had not been recalled. To recall them would damage the public’s public’s confidence, she explained…..”

  • * * * *   * * * * *


“In 1957 Sarah Stewart M.D. PhD of the National Cancer Institute and Bernice Eddy, M.D. PhD of the National Institute of Health discovered SE poyoma, a cancer-causing virus present in their laboratory animals. It was soon cataloged as simian virus 40 (SV40), and its origin traced to monkeys. Studies around the world soon confirmed SV 40 as a cancer-causing agent.

Upon the discovery that SV 40 was present in both of the polio vaccines produced from rhesus monkey kidney cells, a new federal law passed in 1961 mandated future vaccines should not contain this virus. However, this law did not require that SV 40 contaminated vaccine stocks already produced be destroyed, so distribution of the tainted vaccine continued until 1963. Bottom line: the Boston Globe estimated that 198 million Americans were inoculated with SV 40-contaminated vaccines between 1955 and 1963. Some critics have alleged that SV 40 remained in the polio vaccines until the 1990s. Recent biopsies of tumors found SV 40 in a variety of soft-tissue cancers, although the American government continued to dispute its causal role.

Page 281, “Me and Lee”

  • * * *   * * * *   * * *

“ Dr. Mary explained that several of the children in the polio ward at actually been crippled by the faulty polio vaccine. This was another reason Dr. Sherman was discretely engaged in polio vaccine research, and why she was so interested in the cancer-causing virus that had contaminated the polio vaccines. Dr. Ochsner’s horrific experience with the flawed polio vaccine that had killed his grandson and cripple his granddaughter put these two colleagues on the same page. Both were aware of the SV 40 contaminants still present in millions of doses of the vaccine, and both doctors realized its potential to cause an epidemic of cancer in the future.

For professional and political reasons both were publicly silent as the probe-vaccine propaganda machine churned out fresh publicity aimed at the unsuspecting citizen citizenry. They quietly search for a solution. Perhaps a benign strain of SP 40 to be used as a basis for vaccine. But as the political landscape changed, their well-intentioned covert medical project had gotten tangled up with the fanaticism and “patriotism” of the moment, and had been perverted into a biological weapon to kill Fidel Castro. We had to live with the knowledge that our government was withholding the truth about the safety of the new polio vaccine. Because I had been raised to trust my government, the shock to my young, patriotic soul was devastating.”

Page 329, “Me and Lee”


****  ****  *****

“We’ve created a galloping cancer,” [said Judyth Baker].… We are developing this weapon to eliminate a head of state. But what if we get Castro? Will they really just throw this stuff away?”

“It could be used as a weapon of mass distraction,” [said Lee Harvey Oswald] simply.

“Yes… think I’ll Hitler would have loved this, to use against the Jews in those camps. They could say a plague went through.”

“Or to eliminate Negroes in Africa,” Lee said with a cold tone in his voice.”

Page 391, “Me and Lee”

**** **** ****


My wife was born in 1950 and received her polio vaccination in 1956.  I met her in February of 1975 at a seminar and was spiritually betrothed to her on the Friday, the 14th, on which I parted from her.  She is my funny valentine. “She battled recurrent breast cancer (new lesions, one on each side) after beating the first occurrence 17 years ago.  She had a bilateral simple mastectomy, completed a’ taxoter-rific’ course of chemotherapy, underwent five weeks of weekday radiation treatments [and got second-degree burns], and another five years of hormonal treatments. She is treated by a leading veteran oncologist affiliated with Harvard, and she and I both agree, after dealing with him and his team for months, that there is something they are not telling us.

Somewhere, too, there is a reference to the fact that the fellow selected to head the Rockefeller-funded Sloan-Kettering cancer treatment programs in New York is a veteran of the US chemical warfare world.

[See the book  “A Terrible Mistake” by Albarelli; it was Merck.]

****  ****  ******

Additional information comes from the book Dr. Mary’s Monkey, written by Edward T. Haslam, published by TrineDay in 2007. The author is the son  of his father of the same name, a professor of orthopedic surgery at Tulane University in New Orleans, a commander in the United States Navy. In the foreword, Jim Marrs notes an earlier book in which Haslam “was one of the first to bring to the public the now well-documented story of how the polio vaccines of the 50s were adulterated with the cancer-causing virus derived from monkey glands. Federal certification officers were aware of the possibility of the polio vaccine being defective but were pressured into approving the vaccine by powerful medical interests, including Dr. Alton Ochsner of New Orleans.

Once the magnitude of the cancer-causing viruses in the polio vaccines became known, a massive covert effort was undertaken in an attempt to find a cure or a preventative…..”

*****  ****

In the prologue of the book by Haslam, he recalls a conversation with his father about something that had been “going on that the US PHS Hospital” in New Orleans. a description of his father and his career can be found at the bottom of page 3.

“In the late 60s, I heard about Mary Sherman’s connection to an underground medical laboratory run by a suspect in the murder of Pres. Kennedy. I was told there were using monkey viruses to create cancer. The possibility of this being used as a biological weapon was clear. The dark specter of unleashing the desired designer virus on the world haunted me. I even offered a sarcastic comment that the time: “the good news is if there’s a bizarre global epidemic involving cancer and a monkey virus 30 years from now, at least we’ll know where it came from.” …

As I poured over the official cancer statistics from the National Cancer Institute, I saw the dimensions of the massive epidemic of soft tissue cancers that had swept our country. An epidemic that had been all but ignored by our watchdog press. An epidemic that could reasonably be explained by the cancer-causing monkey viruses that had contaminated the polio vaccine of my youth.… I also noticed that names connected to the polio vaccine were names connected to Mary Sherman and to the investigation of the JFK assassination. I began to suspect that those secrets were somehow intertwined. A web of secrecy surrounding our national health. In the locking secrets that protected each other. Secrets which presented serious accountability problems for the people in power. I remember the warning my father had given me. I could see how unwelcome this news would be in many circles.”

Haslam went on to self-publish a book in 1995 entitled “Mary, Ferrie and the monkey virus: the story of an underground medical laboratory.” He could afford only print 1000 copies but did so with the hope the story might attract the publisher. Eventually 60 Minutes, the CBS-TV news show, contacted the author. They were investigating a woman who said that she had been in the underground medical laboratory I had written about in my book. That she knew Mary Sherman. That she had been trained to handle cancer-causing viruses. That she had been part of the effort to develop a biological weapon. That she knew Lee Harvey Oswald. 60 min. interviewed me in November 2000, having interviewed her and other researchers and journalists, but finally they decided not to air the story.

Three years later, in November 2003, the History Channel aired a story about the same underground medical laboratory. It was part of their series “the men who killed Kennedy”.  A week later the History Channel reversed course the episode was withdrawn from circuit circulation, and has never been aired again.

“In the field of virus research, radioactive medical experiments greatly increased the danger of an already dangerous scenario. They introduced the capability of mutating viruses or been known to be deadly, and raise the possibility of creating both new vaccines and new super diseases.

Some of the scientists involved in the field of monkey virus experiments got extremely nervous about the dangers of such experiments, and warned their colleagues in the mid-1960s that of one of these monkey viruses mutated into a more lethal form and got into the human blood supply, there could be a global epidemic which would be unstoppable, given the current level of medical knowledge!” [See Zoonoses of Primates by Fiennes, Page 149.]

Haslam notes on pages 23-26 that the Delta Regional Primate Center in Louisiana opened its doors in November 1964 with Tulane University serving as the host institution. Its $4 million per year operating budget came directly from the US government’s National Institutes of Health.

Peter Gerone had been the director for 23 years, appointed in 1971, after having left the U.S. Army’s biological warfare Center at Fort Dietrich, where he had been one of their experiments on airborne transmission of diseases, as was Frank Olson, the focus of H. P. Albarelli’s book “A Terrible Mistake”.

“In 1975 he collaborated with representatives of the Defense Nuclear Agency, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, and the U.S. Army medical research Institute of Infectious Diseases to attend an NCI-sponsored symposium on “biohazards and zoonotic problems of primate procurement, quarantines, and research.” There he presented his paper on “bio-hazards of experimentally infected primates.” [See Guillermo’s Monkey Business, page 173, as well as the article on cancer warfare by Richard Hatch in Covert Action, Winter 1991-1992 issue, age 18.]

Dr. Mary Sherman, whom we met above, was noted posthumously to be “internationally known bone specialist”; she was an associate professor at a prominent medical school engaged in monkey virus research, director of her cancer laboratory at an internationally famous medical clinic, and chairman of the pathologic committee of one of the most elite medical societies in America [the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons]. The medical articles she wrote were quoted for half a century. “So we asked the question again: what was a highly trained medical professional with impeccable credentials doing in an underground medical laboratory run by a political extremist with no formal medical training?”

“Kennedy’s White House and the CIA had very different ideas about how to stop communism, especially the expansion of Soviet influence in the Western Hemisphere. This policy dispute erupted into open conflict between the two camps. Many of the CIA’s activities worn traceable even by the CIA Inspector General. [Its] “undocumented expenditures” essentially meant that the CIA was refusing to be controlled by the White House. The situation oscillated between insubordination entries in. In 1975 when the Senate Intelligence Committee finally looked into these activities, Chairman Frank Church likened the CIA’s activities to “a rogue elephant rampaging out of control”. Actually the problem was even deeper. The question: who is running the government?” [Page 98-99]

On page 160, Haslam includes a picture of Dr. Alton Ochsner with William “Wild Bill” Donovan, both elected officers of the American Cancer Society.

Donovan, of course, was a celebrity in military intelligence circles. “He founded and directed the Office of Strategic Services, the WWII predecessor of the CIA. Much of the CIA’s Cold War leadership was recruited from Donovan’s New York law firm. Haslam had been reading Jim DiEugenio’s book “Destiny Betrayed: JFK, Cuba and the Garrison case” which noted that Ochsner was president and founder of the information Council of the Americas (INCA) which produced and distributed anti-Communist radio messages to Latin America.  Ochsner was also president of the Cordell Hull Foundation, and had as one of his patients the mega-wealthy Clint Murchison of the Texas oil family. Haslam notes that the FBI maintained a file on Dr. Ochsner which shows his long relationship with the US military, the FBI, and other US government agencies.

On page 181, Haslam notes the testimony to Congress of Adm. Stansfield Turner when he was the director of the CIA, indicating to Congress that the CIA had funded 159 medical facilities around the country for the purpose of contacting covert medical research. The funding was done in conjunction with Congress Hill-Burton fund. The CIA supplied seed money through blind third parties, and then the facility received Magic matching funds as a Hill-Burton grant. When the facility was completed, the agency had access to a portion of the hospital’s bed space for its purposes. [The author notes as his source: U.S. Congress, “Project MKUltra, the CIA’s program of research in behavioral modification”, joint hearing before the select committee on intelligence and the subcommittee on health and scientific research of the committee of human resources, U.S. Senate, August 3, 1977, especially the letter from Stansfield Turner to Intelligence Committee Chairman Sen. Daniel in a way in appendix B.]

Chapter 9, entitled “The Treatise”, in “Dr. Mary’s Monkey” is where the rubber meets the road on the issue of cancers, polio vaccine etc.

Jim Garrison, in a Playboy interview [f you don’t know who Jim Garrison is, you should bypass “Go” and its income and go directly to jail without a ‘Get out of Jail free’ card]  noted a “medical treatise” written by David Ferrie on the subject of inducing cancer virally.  Edward Haslam,  after searching for this document, received a phone call from Jim DiEugenio noting that “the treatise” had been found. It is reproduced as Document A on page 347 of the book.

The entire chapter is a superb description of what Haslam on page 22 termed “… a fermenting mash of science, secrecy, patriotism, power, paranoia, and extremism. It is not a pretty picture. It involves death, disease, covert wars, and the quiet hand of power…”

Thanks, boys.

“… Spin Control, Perception Management, Reality engineering, Operation Mockingbird, the Great Wurlitzer, whatever you call it: the strategic psychological operations designed to manipulate our media and cover-up the mega-misdeeds of flagrant corruption keep us all woefully aware of the base reality and engulfing our institutions, our history and… our future. Ignorance is bliss?


Agnotology is the “scientific study of culturally induced ignorance”: such as when intelligence agencies or other shadow players use their behind-the-scenes capabilities of media spin to conceal scurrilous activities and agendas. Gaming the system and us.

The cost of this mercenary connivance is our heritage, our liberty, our freedom, our country and… our future. For without an honest dialogue, we become puppets of rhetoric: robotics serfs in a corporate-controlled world, mere pre-programmed economic units instead of vital sovereign human beings. As has been said, “perfect slaves think they are free.”

From the publisher’s foreword (dated July 14, 2010) found in the book “Me and Lee: how I came to know, love and lose Lee Harvey Oswald”, by Judith Vary Baker, TrineDay 2010.


Breaking, Shaking Revelation About Missing Plane

This just in:

China Sees ‘Seismic Event’ Near Jet Path

‘Seismic Event’ Close to Missing Jet Path: China Scientists

A “seismic event” consistent with an airplane crash has been detected on the sea floor close to where missing Malaysia Airline lost contact with air traffic control on Saturday, Chinese scientists said Friday.

The signal detected by two stations in Malaysia appeared to indicate that a small tremor occurred on the floor of the sea at 2:55 a.m. about 95 miles south of Vietnam, the scientists said in a statement posted on the website of the University of Science and Technology of China.

“It was a non-seismic zone, therefore judging from the time and location of the event, it might be related to the missing MH370 flight,” said the statement. “If it was indeed an airplane crashing into the sea, the seismic wave strength indicated that the crash process was catastrophic.”

The area where the tremor was detected about 70 miles from where the Boeing 777 was last heard from, and 85 minutes after the jet carrying 239 people lost contact,according to South China Morning Post newspaper.

Satellite images from China on Wednesday appeared to show possible crash debris but it later emerged that a search of the area had found no sign of the plane, and Malaysia officials said the pictures had been released by “mistake.”

China is known to be impatient over the lack of progress in the investigation.

There has been no trace of the jet or sign of wreckage despite a search by the navies and military aircraft of more than a dozen countries across Southeast Asia.

On Thursday, the White House said that an additional search area for the missing flight may be opened in the Indian Ocean, significantly broadening the potential location of the plane.

– Reuters contributed to this report.


Re-Post: Obama Doubles Down…

Obama’s Doubles Down on BRAIN Project and Military Mind Control

Thursday, March 6, 2014 9:53

Nicholas West

Activist Post




In April of last year, Obama announced a $100 million brain-mapping project, which is being promoted as essential to unlocking the secrets behind degenerative brain conditions and kick starting job growth.

Despite a U.S. economy that is sliding ever faster toward complete implosion, Obama is doubling down on the initiative with another $100 million dollar commitment even as very little of the assertions about job growth have been proven.

In light of where the funding is coming from, it is worth re-examining the darker pay off potential.

According to the latest from LiveScience:

Under the proposed budget, released Tuesday (March 4), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will contribute an estimated $100 million to the effort; the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) will invest $80 million; and the National Science Foundation (NSF) will provide another $20 million. (Source)


The NIH plans to develop a “toolbox” of technologies to map the brain’s circuitry, measure activity in brain circuits and probe how these circuits lead to unique human cognition and behavior.

DARPA will continue to develop memory prostheses as part of an effort called Restoring Active Memory, to create medical devices that measure and stimulate neurons to ease the symptoms of diseases such as PTSD and depression, a project called Systems-Based Neurotechnology for Emerging Therapies (SUBNETS); and to develop prosthetic limbs that would restore control and sensation to amputees, known as Prosthetic Hand Proprioception and Touch Interfaces (HAPTIX).

The NSF will focus on three main areas: interdisciplinary research; new theories, models and tools to guide research; and technologies to handle huge amounts of new data. The NSF has already provided $25 million in funding to an MIT research center for “Brains, Minds and Machines,” as well as funding to support scientific collaborations.


Since this all sounds so positive, and we are apparently to believe that DARPA just wants to cure Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, we might want to re-visit some of what has been discussed previously in order to put this into proper context.

As The New American has rightly highlighted, whenever DARPA is involved, we can expect that there will be creepy military applications . . . like mind control. This mission has actually been around for some time within the halls of elite think-tanks, and now appears to be coming to full fruition. We’ve even seen the recent exposure by a whistleblower at the University of Arizona who came forward to reveal a connection to DARPA’s desire to recreate through narrative the results from Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation. In short, affecting thought patterns and, in particular, changing religious views in order to thwart the fanaticism that supposedly underpins the War on Terror.

A closer look at the area being invested in by the National Science Foundation reveals what Big Data and the merger of human and machine intelligence is really about. Please read Medical Nanobots Will Connect Brain to Cloud Computing to get a better understanding of where this part of the initiative is headed, as well as the article Big Government Seeks New Ways to Manage “Big Data” to see how heavily invested our largest federal agencies are in collecting and analyzing data in order to find ways to predict human behavior – something that is already taking shape in “predictive policing” as we see it being rolled out in Chicago. Departments such as the National Institutes of Health, Department of Defense, National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the U.S. Geological survey, and DARPA are all right there.

As government data collection ramps up, the Obama administration through the Office of Science and Technology Policy has announced a $200 million investment in taking this information “from data to decisions.” So that’s now a total of $400 million in this overall data-brain initiative. All to make our lives more prosperous and healthy? Let’s look at other possibilities….


The UK think-tank, The Royal Society (which has openly admitted to studying how to play God with the climate) kicked off a program in 2010 that revealed its multifaceted investigation into the identification of organic brain function and potential control over human behavior.

The Brain Waves project is divided into four modules, each tasked with studying the impact of developments in the field of neuroscience and neurotechnology.

The titles of the modules reflect the areas of examination:

Module 1: Society and policy
Module 2: Implications for education and lifelong learning
Module 3: Conflict and security
Module 4: Responsibility and the law

The results from these modules have been published, and clearly illustrate how this panel views the lower public masses in light of their status as the elite arbiters of human destiny. The dual approach to this investigation must be kept in mind as the U.S. government is now rolling out the BRAIN initiative as the next great thing since the human genome project. The ramifications are potentially even more momentous.

We often hear from critics that these think-tanks are an essential part of scientific discovery, and that drawing conclusions of a nefarious nature about their intent is paranoid conspiracy theory — they are only thinking, after all.  I would submit that objective scientific inquiry is absolutely necessary and that the proper role of science is to disseminate results to the public for open debate, prior to their implementation.  However, think-tanks such as the Royal Society betray, by their own language, subjective biases (and corporate connections) that have no place in true science.

The Royal Society funds over 700 private ventures, which undoubtedly are directed by findings from studies such as Brain Waves.  While their studies might be couched in scientific terminology, there is always a philosophical overlay that indicates a desire to study the sciences specifically for use toward a purpose that a relatively small group sees fit.  Furthermore, given that many developments in neuroscience are already being forced upon the public in a negative manner, the claims of open debate and “welcoming comments from the public” seem disingenuous.  Rather, what we have is a another think-tank blueprint that is merely stating the current course planned long ago, as well as what is to be rolled out in the near future under projects like BRAIN.

Just as we have seen from other think tanks such as the Project For a New American Century, Council on Foreign Relations, Brookings Institution, and a host of others; their thoughts translate to reality on a less-than-coincidental frequency, so we would do well to listen to what they have been saying.


The Project (an elite view of the brain)

As an initial aside, perhaps lending insight into their philosophical perspective: the image they have chosen to represent Module 1 of the project is “a drawing of Purkinje cells (A) and granule cells (B) from pigeon cerebellum.” Slightly odd given that their results are directed toward humans, but this would be consistent with much of elitist statements and writings from Bertrand Russell to Aldoux Huxley, Henry Kissinger, and others who literally refer to the masses as a lower form of animal.  (Are we to assume we’re viewed here as bird brains?)

Module 1 (108-page PDF) An overview for subsequent modules in “neuroimaging, neuropsychopharmacology, and neural interfaces – and discuss(es) the translation of this knowledge into useful applications . . . as well as the ethical questions and governance issues.”

Their statement of intent reads as follows:


Increasing understanding of the brain . . . will increase our insights into normal human behaviour and mental well-being, as well as enabling other enhancement, manipulation, and even degradation of brain function and cognition…

The array of ‘neuro’ disciplines lend themselves to applications in diverse areas of public policy such as health, education, law, and security.  More broadly, progress in neuroscience is going to raise questions about personality, identity, responsibility, and liberty, as well as associated social and ethical issues.  The aim of the Royal Society’s Brain Waves project is to explore what neuroscience can offer, what are its limitations, and what are the potential benefits and the risks posted by particular applications. (page 1)

Similar to their discussion of weather control, this study seeks an all-inclusive approach that spans the full spectrum of society, begging the same question they asked previously regarding the implementation of scientific discovery, “Who decides?”


Module 2 (36-page PDF)  “The report authors, including neuroscientists, cognitive psychologists and education specialists, agree that if applied properly, the impacts of neuroscience could be highly beneficial in schools and beyond.”


From the summary:

The emerging field of educational neuroscience presents opportunities as well as challenges for education.  It provides means to develop a common language and bridge the gulf between educators, psychologists, and neuroscientists.

One group is conspicuously absent from this particular part of the summary: parents. Rather, we are given a small glimpse into the mindset of technocrats and scientific dictators everywhere who have a worldview of central management and social engineering as the solutions for society at large.  In this new world, it is the state and its scientists who are to hold the key for humanity’s next stage of evolution, not the individual or family unit.

Module 3 (75-page PDF)  “This report considers some of the potential military and law enforcement applications arising from key advances in neuroscience.”

From the summary:

This new knowledge suggests a number of potential military and law enforcement applications.  These can be divided into two main goals: performance enhancement, i.e. improving the efficiency of one’s own forces, and performance degradation, i.e. diminishing the performance of one’s enemy.  In this report we consider some of the key advances in neuroscience, such as neuropharmacology, functional neuroimaging, and neural interface systems, which could impact upon these developments and the policy implications for the international community.

This is nothing less than a justification for the military to become the guinea pig testing ground for what will eventually trickle down to the rest of us.  Everything from drugs to erase traumatic memories, to transcranial ultrasonic helmets, to complete computer-brain interfacing. But, remember from the press release: it’s just to cure PTSD. Sure it is.

Here is a video of the Chair of the Royal Society’s new project, Professor Rod Flower, who has some interesting things to say about how the military applications are “very, very exciting and potentially very useful for us,” as indicated by their study of neuroscience applications. For me, Brave New World comes to mind.  This video is specifically related to Module 3, but provides a good overview of the general areas of study.

Module 4 (46-page PDF) “Neuroscientists seek to determine how brain function affects behaviour, and the law is concerned with regulating behaviour. It is therefore likely that developments in neuroscience will increasingly be brought to bear on the law. This report sets out some of the areas where neuroscience might be of relevance, along with some of the limits to its application. Specific issues discussed include risk assessment in probation and parole decisions; detecting deception; assessing memory; understanding pain; and Non-Accidental Head Injury NAHI).”

From the summary:

Many questions have been asked about what neuroscience might offer for the law.  For instance, might neuroscience fundamentally change concepts of legal responsibility?  Or could aspects of a convicted person’s brain help to determine whether they are at an increased risk of reoffending?  Will it ever be possible to use brain scans to ‘read minds’, for instance with the aim of determining whether they are telling the truth, or whether their memories are false?  It has been suggested that “for the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything”(1).  This report takes a different position: that discoveries in neuroscience (or in genetics or psychology) will not completely revolutionise the theory of practice of the law in the near future; but there are already some important practical implications of recent neuroscientific discoveries, which should impact on the law, and there will certainly be many more over the next few years.

Here we see an indication of the endgame, which we already see being played out in the latest high-tech phase of the War on Terror.  Technologies like FAST are being touted as mobile lie detectors that all people will be scanned by for “malintent” regardless of any presumption of innocence.  Scientists will decide the markers, the computer will provide the reading, and a bureau of State agents will make the final threat analysis.  The only function that “law” has under this type of scenario is which prison or rehabilitation center to assign to those marked as trouble by the scientific dictatorship.

The area of brain study being conducted by the world’s most elite think-tanks poses a central problem for self-determination.  We already have seen how the establishment think-tanks dictate their policies regarding “normal behavior.” For example, the  list of new “disorders” coming from mainline medical sources are actually normal human behavior for people of sound mind and, yet, the global Orwellian initiative to declare everyone mentally ill is already well underway, as shown by the skyrocketing prescriptions given across the board to both adults and children.

The conclusions drawn by think-tanks can very easily transform the rest of society, as they are disseminated down through the institutions and private ventures that they fund, permeating outward to the general society at large.  Add to this the military and legal implications, and even a bird brain can envision where we might be heading next.    

*An important resource for background information about the Royal Society and Neuroscience is Alan Watt’s website

Who is Putin?

Not being a student of recent Russian history, or someone capable of either reading or understanding its language, I wondered the semi-obvious, given the posturing and the propaganda about the Crimean face-off: just who  — or more accurately — what, Putin is, so I did a simple introductory exercise and I did a Goggle search using the phrase “What is Putin?”  and turned up 12 links across twelve pages worthy of more than a glance. My list is heavily taken from the first few pages. Your list and findings would be different.

Given the appropriately-heightened sensitivity to knowing just who produced what one is reading, I should state that there is a distinct bias in using Google in part by understanding who Google is and how it does what it does, and who it does it for — at least in part. The obvious biases of Westernized and mainstream media also turned up quickly and obviously because — I’d assume– most of Google’s users are Westerners interested in Western perspective and interested in the mainstream of it.  Google’s own prioritization processes virtually insure that everything is pushed toward a middle that is itself pushed, pulled, prodded, constructed, crafted and otherwise made suitable for the information war in which we are immersed.

The world of modern diplomacy is premised on the belief that, saber-rattling and propaganda aside, world leaders are basically rational actors whose behaviors are subject to incentives and credible threats.

The first link was Wikipedia (naturally), and WIkipedia is well-known as a site in which its entires are carefully put through  lathe and a sanding process to make sure there are no sharp edges or sharp practices, though its own editing process has been construed as “sharp” and very biased, in which small armies are paid to become editors.

Well, we all edit, now, don’t we?  It’s part of the way our brains are constructed.


So tells us that the man is younger than I am by four years (though I have more hair, but then I wasn’t a lieutenant colonel in the KGB).

“During Putin’s first premiership and presidency (1999–2008), real incomes increased by a factor of 2.5, real wages more than tripled; unemployment and poverty more than halved and the Russians’ self-assessed life satisfaction rose significantly.[7]” [Hey, that’s the CSIS assessment. No wonder Obama is so upset about him.]

“He is currently ranked as the world’s most powerful person according to Forbes.”[16]

His father was a submariner who later served in the NKVD; a brother died in the siege of Leningrad. [How many of us can say that we have something like the Russian cultural experience of the Second World War?] His paternal grandfather was Vladimir Lenin’s cook, and “would later cook for Stalin”. Like Obama, there isn’t much in the way of an accurate family genealogy.

Putin graduated from the International Law branch of the Law Department of the Leningrad State University in 1975, writing his final thesis on international law.[24] His PhD thesis was titled “The Strategic Planning of Regional Resources Under the Formation of Market Relations” and it argued that Russian economic success would depend on creating national energy champions.[25] While at university he became a member of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and remained a member until the party was dissolved in December 1991.[26] ….

Putin joined the KGB in 1975 upon graduation, and underwent a year’s training at the 401st KGB school in Okhta, Leningrad. He then went on to work briefly in the Second Chief Directorate (counter-intelligence)… From 1985 to 1990, the KGB stationed Putin in Dresden, East Germany.[30] During that time, Putin was assigned to Directorate S, the illegal intelligence-gathering unit (the KGB’s classification for agents who used falsified identities) where he was given cover as a translator and interpreter.[31] One of Putin’s jobs was to coordinate efforts with the Stasi to track down and recruit foreigners in Dresden, usually those who were enrolled at the Dresden University of Technology, in the hopes of sending them undercover in the United States. Despite this, Putin biographer Masha Gessen disputes the “KGB Spymaster” image that has been built around him and instead says that Dresden was essentially a backwater job that Putin himself resented:

[Directorate S of Dresden]’s job was to collect information about “the enemy”, which was the west, meaning West Germany and, especially the United States military bases in West Germany, which were hardly more accessible from Dresden than they would have been from Leningrad. Putin and his colleagues were reduced mainly to collecting press clippings, thus contributing to the mountains of useless information produced by the KGB

Former agents estimate they spent three-quarters of their time writing reports. Putin’s biggest success in his stay in Dresden appears to have been in drafting a Colombian University student, who in turn connected the Soviet agents with a Colombian student at a school in West Berlin, who in turn introduced them to a U.S. Army Sergeant, who sold them an unclassified Manual for 800 marks. [31]

— Excerpt from The Man Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin by Masha Gessen


Following the collapse of the communist East German government, Putin was recalled to the Soviet Union and returned to Leningrad, where in June 1991 he assumed a position with the International Affairs section of Leningrad State University, reporting to Vice-Rector Yuriy Molchanov.[29] In his new position, Putin maintained surveillance on the student body and kept an eye out for recruits. It was during his stint at the university that Putin grew reacquainted with his former professor Anatoly Sobchak, then mayor of Leningrad.[32]

Putin resigned from the active state security services with the rank of lieutenant colonel on 20 August 1991 (with some attempts to resign made earlier),[32] on the second day of the KGB-supported abortive putsch against Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev.[33] Putin later explained his decision: “As soon as the coup began, I immediately decided which side I was on”, though he also noted that the choice was hard because he had spent the best part of his life with “the organs”.[34]


  1. Isn’t it interesting to get the parallels between Obama and Putin?  Have you read of Obama’s work at BIC?
  2. Have you read Joseph Trento’s book ?  It focuses in depth on the CIA in Berlin and the high degree of counter-intelligence (or lack of it), the high degree of Soviet penetration into the West’s intelligence and counter-intelligence agencies.  Nothing about any plagiarism, though…

Vlad is an oligarch, a powerful individual who is a power broker and a political ladder climber, with deep connections to the “organs”, as both he and Solzhenitsyn call them, but putting him again in the same general history bin of Obama, who has made peace with his own oligarchy (albeit perhaps only temporarily) (as the Skull and Bones clan make it clear, we are here only for a short while and since you can’t take it with you, you might as well throw away the rules of morality and decency and keep secret allegiances though which you only increase your wealth)(right, Mr. Kerry?), and since Skull and Bones is argiuably an extension of the same secret club which once also claimed a Rothschild or two, and their actors and descendants, as well as Marx and his believers, then clearly what is going on in Ukraine is simply a battle between a handful of oligarchs over the natural resource wealth about which Mr. Putin wrote his advanced economics thesis in international law on harvesting that wealth: “The Strategic Planning of Regional Resources Under the Formation of Market Relations”. More than a few people (Kenny and Bruce Gagnon come to mind immediately) have noted the fact that most of Europe’s energy is piped through the Ukraine.


“Non-verbally, this is Gorbachev; verbally, we’re listening to Brezhnev,” he said, referring to former Soviet leaders. “In this sense his demeanor is deceptive, precisely because it doesn’t appear outwardly belligerent.”…. He bared his lower teeth — “a clear anger/threat display” — and furrowed his brow. His rate of speech sped up and he used an angry tone. …. the journalists in the room did not hide their reactions.

“[They] are riveted and show an odd mix of surprise, disbelief, amusement, and concern, reflecting both the gravity of Putin’s remarks and the post-hoc nature of his narrative”…

Well, he is a counter-espionage spook protecting his assets.


Hillary Rodham Clinton reportedly compared Russian President Vladimir Putin’s incursion into Ukraine to the behavior of Adolf Hitler.

Clinton, the former secretary of state and a potential presidential candidate in 2016, made the remarks at a private fundraiser Tuesday night in Long Beach, Calif., according to the Long Beach Press-Telegram newspaper.

“Now if this sounds familiar, it’s what Hitler did back in the ’30s,” she said at an event for the Boys & Girls Clubs, according to the newspaper.

Well, this exercise hasn’t really told me much. I’m a foreigner to things Russian, and I tend to believe only that which can be assessed through my own perceptive senses. I note that Putin has two 6th-degree black belts in judo and karate, and has been known to have a favorite Scotch.

I took a few introductory classes in aikido, and also have a favorite Scotch.

But I doubt he’ll be inviting me to his dacha for a wee nip soon.

**** (Putin’s personal web site) 


The Man Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin 

[I haven’t read the book but it resonates with the old CIA process of developing a psychological profile of statesmen, as does the NBC story at the bottom of the list. The author is an openly gay activist and “was born into an Ashkenazi Jewish family in Moscow” and “In September 2012, Gessen was appointed as director of the Russian Service for Radio Liberty, a US government funded broadcaster based in Prague.[8][9]. ] [This is the result of Google’s internal search at The Economist, that organ owned in great part by the Rothschilds.] [The Week is a publication that I perceive is designed for the 1%, or at least the 5%.] [Some old interviews here….] [A selection of articles from Spiegel Online… Hey, he is fluent in German and was posted to East Germany, where his kids (and Merkel) grew up.] [How much is Putin worth?) (87-minute documentary)(I’ll go watch this now…)

[ See for the bio of one of the experts in lying noted in this article.]

On Journalism


10 Ways Journalism Schools Are Teaching Social Media 


Three from Sam Smith @ 


Why the Barrett Brown case is important for all journalists 

Why journalism is a craft, not a profession  

150 journalism cliches 

Source of image: 


Connect the Dots … see the Big Picture

March 2nd, 2014

[ by Charles Cameron — bragging on Cath Styles and our joint game project, Sembl, via the Taj Mahal ]

Source of image: 

Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in covering conflict, civil unrest and disaster.

Introductory Paper – January 2014

By Mark Corcoran 

International Correspondent – Australian Broadcasting Corporation

“…. The challenge now for journalists and media organisations is to ensure that the technology is adopted within a clearly defined operational framework where safety, ethics and privacy are paramount.”

38 page pdf plus four pages of footnotes & lots of graphics 



** ** ** ** **

Added on March 3rd, 2014:

Barrett Brown’s Case Could Destroy Online Journalism


The majority of the time Brown faces is for sharing one hyperlink. In a chat room, he posted a link to the customer database of Stratfor Global Intelligence hacked by Anonymous. That’s it.

Links are important; they are the fabric of the World Wide Web. In 2011, a State Dept. diplomat lost his top-secret clearance because he linked to WikiLeaks. (It’s worth mentioning that Quentin Tarantino is now suing Gawker for sharing a link to a leaked script.) Brown’s case could establish a chilling precedent in the U.S., one where technology reporters are even more afraid of linking to data dumps released by hackers than they already are.


More here: