Monthly Archives: June 2014

‘non-invasive brain control’

This is a straight-forward “re-post” of an article whose main and source links are noted below.

It is posted here without change except for the use of red ink and bold red ink in the opening two paragraphs, and with the addition of a few related links and a graphic at the conclusion of the article.

 

 

Mind Control Scientists Using Light to Alter The Brain

Monday, June 30, 2014 8:30

(Before It’s News)

Nicholas West
Activist Post

The race to decode the brain continues, and quickens by the day. The mind control of the future forgoes all pretense at indirectly altering perception through media and politics, or even mind-altering drugs and environmental toxins. The mind control of the future goes straight into direct programming and rewiring of the human brain.

These new mind control techniques are being introduced in gadgets that create a brain-computer interface, magnetic manipulation via “neural dust,”  high-powered lasers, and even the direct uploading of the contents of our brain. One must then consider the subsequent hacking of our minds as our brains enter the digital realm.

Until this point, much of the research has been focused on different forms of physical implants – no matter how small – to target the memory centers of the brain. Researchers at MIT are now unveiling a next-generation remote control system which uses light from outside the skull to affect the protein responsible for neuron activity in the brain. Their news release and video, posted in full below, are titled matter-of-factly: “Non-Invasive Brain Control.” Just in case this alone doesn’t sound ominous enough, researchers have labeled the control system “Jaws.”

This MIT video offers a metaphor likening the macrocosm of brain function to a city. Similar to a modern city under technocratic surveillance, city managers are not content with seeing only larger patterns; they’d like to drill down even further to understand all of the individual components to “see the information that is being transported.” Optogenetics is the term for “the ability to manipulate individual neuronal circuits…”

While the press release makes the familiar plea to eradicating epilepsy, neurological disorders and restoring vision, in the video neuroscience editor for Nature, I-han Chou, cites the potential for modifying behavior and personality, taking over physical control of the target organism, or giving ourselves superhuman abilities. This opens the door to ethical breaches which can only be imagined given the direction being taken by the technocratic elite. In fact, Chou does mention ethics, but only from the standpoint of self-augmentation and “enhancement.” This is at best a naive view of the far-reaching ramifications.

Press Release

Optogenetics, a technology that allows scientists to control brain activity by shining light on neurons, relies on light-sensitive proteins that can suppress or stimulate electrical signals within cells. This technique requires a light source to be implanted in the brain, where it can reach the cells to be controlled.

MIT engineers have now developed the first light-sensitive molecule that enables neurons to be silenced noninvasively, using a light source outside the skull. This makes it possible to do long-term studies without an implanted light source. The protein, known as Jaws, also allows a larger volume of tissue to be influenced at once.

This noninvasive approach could pave the way to using optogenetics in human patients to treat epilepsy and other neurological disorders, the researchers say, although much more testing and development is needed. Led by Ed Boyden, an associate professor of biological engineering and brain and cognitive sciences at MIT, the researchers described the protein in the June 29 issue of Nature Neuroscience.

Optogenetics, a technique developed over the past 15 years, has become a common laboratory tool for shutting off or stimulating specific types of neurons in the brain, allowing neuroscientists to learn much more about their functions.

The neurons to be studied must be genetically engineered to produce light-sensitive proteins known as opsins, which are channels or pumps that influence electrical activity by controlling the flow of ions in or out of cells. Researchers then insert a light source, such as an optical fiber, into the brain to control the selected neurons.

Such implants can be difficult to insert, however, and can be incompatible with many kinds of experiments, such as studies of development, during which the brain changes size, or of neurodegenerative disorders, during which the implant can interact with brain physiology. In addition, it is difficult to perform long-term studies of chronic diseases with these implants.

Mining nature’s diversity

To find a better alternative, Boyden, graduate student Amy Chuong, and colleagues turned to the natural world. Many microbes and other organisms use opsins to detect light and react to their environment. Most of the natural opsins now used for optogenetics respond best to blue or green light.

Boyden’s team had previously identified two light-sensitive chloride ion pumps that respond to red light, which can penetrate deeper into living tissue. However, these molecules, found in the bacteria Haloarcula marismortui and Haloarcula vallismortis, did not induce a strong enough photocurrent — an electric current in response to light — to be useful in controlling neuron activity.

Chuong set out to improve the photocurrent by looking for relatives of these proteins and testing their electrical activity. She then engineered one of these relatives by making many different mutants. The result of this screen, Jaws, retained its red-light sensitivity but had a much stronger photocurrent — enough to shut down neural activity.

“This exemplifies how the genomic diversity of the natural world can yield powerful reagents that can be of use in biology and neuroscience,” says Boyden, who is a member of MIT’s Media Lab and the McGovern Institute for Brain Research.

Using this opsin, the researchers were able to shut down neuronal activity in the mouse brain with a light source outside the animal’s head. The suppression occurred as deep as 3 millimeters in the brain, and was just as effective as that of existing silencers that rely on other colors of light delivered via conventional invasive illumination.

Restoring vision

Working with researchers at the Friedrich Miescher Institute for Biomedical Research in Switzerland, the MIT team also tested Jaws’s ability to restore the light sensitivity of retinal cells called cones. In people with a disease called retinitis pigmentosa, cones slowly atrophy, eventually causing blindness.

Friedrich Miescher Institute scientists Botond Roska and Volker Busskamp have previously shown that some vision can be restored in mice by engineering those cone cells to express light-sensitive proteins. In the new paper, Roska and Busskamp tested the Jaws protein in the mouse retina and found that it more closely resembled the eye’s natural opsins and offered a greater range of light sensitivity, making it potentially more useful for treating retinitis pigmentosa.

This type of noninvasive approach to optogenetics could also represent a step toward developing optogenetic treatments for diseases such as epilepsy, which could be controlled by shutting off misfiring neurons that cause seizures, Boyden says. “Since these molecules come from species other than humans, many studies must be done to evaluate their safety and efficacy in the context of treatment,” he says.

Boyden’s lab is working with many other research groups to further test the Jaws opsin for other applications. The team is also seeking new light-sensitive proteins and is working on high-throughput screening approaches that could speed up the development of such proteins.

 

 

The research at MIT was funded by Jerry and Marge Burnett, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Human Frontiers Science Program, the IET A. F. Harvey Prize, the Janet and Sheldon Razin ’59 Fellowship of the MIT McGovern Institute, the New York Stem Cell Foundation-Robertson Investigator Award, the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the Wallace H. Coulter Foundation.

 

Source:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-06/miot-nbc062714.php

 

Hat Tip:
http://www.examiner.com/article/optogenetics-noninvasive-brain-control-using-jaws-a-light-sensitive-protein 

 

Recently by Nicholas West:

Anti-Protest Drone Developed to Pepper Spray “Unruly Crowds”

Meet the Artificial Intelligence Program That’s Learning Everything

Human Brains Can Be “Modified” Using Lasers: Scientists

 

Original link: http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/06/mind-control-scientists-using-light-to-alter-the-brain-2983588.html

[See also:

 

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/optogenetics_and_jaws_brain_control_now_without_being_inside_your_skull-139566

 

http://video.mit.edu/watch/optogenetics-controlling-the-brain-with-light-7659/

 

http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2013/09/why-optogenetics-deserves-hype.html

(Did you notice the symposia at Cold Spring Harbor?)

 

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Y8VhnAd_aEg/TUUkSIZy7CI/AAAAAAAAB4o/Lun6tVeoVe4/s1600/optogenetics.png

 

“… here are a few of my personal favourites from the recent literature where optogenetics approaches have generated real and novel insights into the organisation and function of specific brain circuits:

Inhibition of inhibition in visual cortex: the logic of connections between molecularly distinct interneurons

Distinct behavioural and network correlates of two interneuron types in prefrontal cortex

Gain control by layer six in cortical circuits of vision

Distinct extended amygdala circuits for divergent motivational states

Rapid regulation of depression-related behaviours by control of midbrain dopamine neurons

Input-specific control of reward and aversion in the ventral tegmental area

Functional identification of an aggression locus in the mouse hypothalamus

Deconstruction of a neural circuit for hunger

Creating a false memory in the hippocampus

….”]

Brussels shootings; Obama & the social sciences

June 18-19, 2014 — Israel Lobby reacts negatively to Israeli press accounts about Brussels shootings

The Israel Lobby’s media operations in Europe are reacting negatively to Israeli press accounts that the two Israeli “tourists” shot to death allegedly by French national Mehdi Nemmouche at the Jewish Museum in Brussels were active Mossad agents. Nemmouche is accused by French authorities of killing two alleged Israeli tourists, Emanuel and Miriam (Mira) Riva, as well as two employees of the museum. Although Nemmouche was reportedly found with the murder weapons after traveling from Brussels to Marseille on an express bus, his lawyer claims that Nemmouche stole the alleged murder weapons, an AK-47 and a handgun, from a parked car in Brussels. Belgian police originally arrested two other men in connection with the museum shootings but later released them. Nemmouche was conveniently described by the French and Belgian media as a “lone wolf,” who was a veteran of the Islamis State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) insurgent army, which has been fighting against the governments of Bashar al Assad in Syria and Nouri al-Maliki in Iraq.

It is now being reported that Miriam Riva was anything but an Israeli “tourist” visiting Brussels with her husband. The Israeli media is reporting that Miriam Riva had served as an “attaché” at the Israeli embassy in Berlin but was actually using diplomatic cover to mask her identity as a Mossad agent. Riva had been assigned to the Berlin embassy in 2007. Emanuel Riva was identified as an agent for the Israeli agency Nativ, a specialized intelligence agency that facilitates the transfer of Jews from Eastern Europe to Israel. Nativ was very active during the Cold War when it arranged for the covert immigration to Israel of Jews from the Soviet Union. Nativ, along with Mossad and Shin Bet, report directly to the Prime Minister’s Office.

WMR previously reported that the museum attack may have been a “false flag” operation designed to discourage Europeans from voting for right-wing Eurosceptic political parties in the elections for the European Parliament. The shooting took place just before the elections and, more significantly, there were no claims of responsibility for the attacks from either neo-Nazi groups or Islamist jihadist organizations.

On June 4, 2014, WMR reported: “German police reportedly spotted Nemmouche on March 18 at Frankfurt airport after he returned from Syria where he spent a year. The French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur is reporting that French authorities, upon beng tipped off by the Germans that Nemmouche was an “S File” threat to France, which would have placed him under police surveillance, misfiled his name. Nemmouche was entered into the French surveillance system not as “Mehdi Nemmouche” but “Ammar” Nemmouche, the suspect’s uncle. The error is what allowed Nemmouche to freely travel to Brussels, according to the magazine. Moreover, police in Marseille did not arrest Nemmouche based on information that he was the museum shooter but in a random search for drugs at a Marseille bus station . . . The coolness of the shooter has led many observers to believe the murderer was a professional hit man. It is also noteworthy that within 12 hours of the attack, two transmitters of the Belgian state radio and television network, one for the Flemish VRT service at Veltem, near Louvain, and the other for the French RTBF service located at Wavre, southeast of Brussels, were targeted in arson attacks.”

Israel’s Channel 10 reported that Emanuel Riva, in addition to working for Nativ, also worked in Israeli “government service” in Germany since 2007. The term “government service” is often used in Israel to describe those who work for Israeli intelligence.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu used the museum shootings as an excuse to conflate European opposition to Israel’s policies on the West Bank and in Gaza to historical European “anti-Semitism.” Netanyahu made his comments as Pope Francis I arrived in the Holy Land.

Israeli-connected European media outlets are describing reports that the Rivas were Mossad agents, including, ironically, those from the Israeli media, as “anti-Semitic” speculation and propaganda.

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/articles/20140618 

 

[&&]{**}[##]

June 19-20, 2014 — Ann Dunham/Soetoro part of CIA social science program in Indonesia

WMR has obtained additional documents describing the Central Intelligence Agency’s role in establishing the anthropology research program in Indonesia that was later used by President Barack Obama’s mother to mask her intelligence work in the world’s most populous Muslim country. WMR obtained the CIA documents from the Harry S. Truman library in Independence, Missouri.

The Indonesian program that saw CIA-supported anthropologist descend on Indonesia was formulated as a result of the report by President Truman’s Psychological Strategy Board (PSB) member Henry M. Loomis, known as the “Loomis Report,” that recommended enlisting social scientists to carry out U.S. propaganda activities around the world. A January 16, 1952 memo states that Loomis’s work was highly classified and that he possessed Top Secret, “Q,” and OPC (Office of Policy Coordination) clearances. The PSB reported to the White House’s National Security Council and was made up of a number of veterans of the wartime Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and its successor, the CIA. Loomis, who was a later director of the Voice of America, saw many of his recommendations included in NSC directive 171/1 of November 10, 1953. The directive dealt solely with Indonesia and was mentioned in the classified Pentagon Papers released by Pentagon official Daniel Ellsberg. Loomis continued serving President Dwight Eisenhower as a member of the White House’s Commission on International Information.

NSC 171/1 also laid the groundwork for the U.S. Defense Department to begin training Indonesian military officers in Indonesia and the United States, including Hawaii. It was NSC 171/1 that established the officer training program that saw Obama’s stepfather. Lt. Col. Lolo Soetoro, brought to the East-West Center at the University of Hawaii for intelligence and military doctrine training. In 1953, the National Security Council proposed airlifting Indonesian military officers to the United States via the Military Air Transport Service (MATS) but the Pentagon balked at the idea of using MATS to bring Indonesian officers to the United States. Eventually, officers like Lolo Soetoro were flown to the United States on commercial flights.

A PSB memo, dated September 28, 1951, recommends relying on pools of talent at both Harvard and Columbia Universities to augment the work of the social science programs conducted by the Psychological Strategy Board. Obama is a graduate of both universities.

A PSB memo dated October 1, 1951 reveals the names of some of the key players involved in recruiting and running social scientists, including anthropologists, in various field work. These individuals include the CIA’s Max Millikan, who established the Center for International Studies (CENIS) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). An October 23, 1951 PSB memo identifies additional members of the CIA’s social science operations, including Dr. Cora Du Bois, who would become a mentor for Ann Dunham. The memo describes Du Bois as follows:

“Dr. Cora Du Bois, director of a study for the Institute of International Education (Ford Foundation money) on the “educational needs” of foreign countries, in terms of their aspirations and ability to fulfill them. She is in the stage of planning two pilot studies in India and Syria; when they are done, this will be put on a regional basis on the following (tentative) priorities: Middle East and South and Southeast Asia; non-Arab Africa; Northeast Asia; and the Western Hemisphere.”

Like Stanley Ann and Madelyn Dunham, Du Bois was a veteran of the OSS who transitioned to the CIA. Du Bois worked for the OSS’s Research and Analysis Branch as the chief of its Indonesia section. A cultural anthropologist like Ann Dunham, Du Bois conducted pre-war research from 1937 to 1929 on the Dutch East Indies island of Alor, which would later become part of Indonesia. Du Bois conducted psychological tests of the inhabitants of Alor, which included the use of Rohrschach ink blot tests. In 1944, Du Bois published The People of Alor: A Social-Psychological Study of an East Indian Island, a tract that would become a must-read for Ann Dunham before she conducted similar “research” on the island of Java in the late 1960s, 70s, and 80s.

In 1944, Du Bois was deployed to Ceylon where she was the chief of research and analysis for the U.S. Army’s Southeast Asia Command. Du Bois helped organize the Free Thai movement against Japanese occupation forces, an assignment that put her in touch with the first OSS/CIA station chief in Bangkok, Jim Thompson, who would later be accused of involvement in pederast rings in Southeast Asia. In Ceylon, Du Bois met another OSS agent, Jeanne Taylor. Du Bois and Taylor began a long term lesbian relationship that lasted well into the 1970s. Du Bois and Taylor also became close friends with another OSS-turned-CIA couple in Paris, Paul and Julia Child. Julia Child is better known as public television’s “French Chef.”

 

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/25/2a/1b/252a1b19e62d9d3c57d27899b8095cd7.jpg 

Obama’s mother’s mentor was Dr. Cora Du Bois, OSS and CIA veteran and lesbian.

From 1945 to 1949, Du Bois was the Southeast Asia Branch Chief for the State Department’s Office of Intelligence Research. From 1950 and 1951, Du Bois was assigned to the World Health Organization. Du Bois became the first tenured female professor in Harvard’s Anthropology Department. Du Bois served as

president of the American Anthropological Association from 1968 to 1969 during the time the Beals Report, written by UCLA’s Dr. Ralph Beals, was prepared by the organization. Ironically, the Beals Report, which criticized the CIA’s use of anthropologists for intelligence activities, was issued while an ex-CIA agent headed the organization. From 1969 to 1970, Du Bois was president of the Association of Asian Studies.

Du Bois’s colleagues on the PSB included Louis Olom of the State Department’s Office of Intelligence Research. Olom, a social scientist, conducted pre-war research for the Rockefeller Foundation and during the war analyzed German and Italian propaganda for the Foreign Broadcast Monitoring Service, along with John Gardner, the founder of the liberal group Common Cause. Another Du Bois colleague was Hadley Cantril, a social psychologist and the director of the Office of Public Opinion Research at Princeton university and President of the Institute for Associated Research. Daniel Lerner of the Hoover Library Institute at Stanford was an expert on the “psychological world of the Czech people,” according to the October 23 memo.

Another PSB member, Dr. Richard Heindel, was with the Social Science Research Council but, in actuality, was a U.S. influence agent working for the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Dr. Karl Ettinger was the head of the new Propaganda Research Center, a CIA front, at the New School for Social Research in New York City. Other CIA fronts involved with social science are also identified in the memo, including the Hazen Foundation of New Haven, which handled student exchanges with India; the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Foundation at Princeton, which used Rockefeller Foundation money to fund educational exchanges with Belgium; and the Conference Board of Associated Research Councils, which selected student participants for Fulbright exchanges.

Du Bois’s and Ann Dunham’s CIA work in Indonesia were high priorities for the CIA. The major task of CIA cultural anthropologists in Indonesia was outlined in a February 6, 1952 CIA Office of Policy and Plans memo, subject: Indonesia. The number one priority as seen by the CIA was “strengthening the non-communist political orientation of the Indonesian Government.”

 

NSC171

A progress report on the implementation of NSC 171/1 cites the training of Indonesians “in almost every technical field” was the goal of the U.S. aid program for Indonesia. [Clicking on that link will download the graphic to your computer. ]Ann Dunham’s later work in Indonesia was a direct result of the importance applied to NSC 171/1 by six successive administrations: Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford.

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/articles/20140619 

 

The Phenomenon of Radicalization

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-stqHHBnDH7o/U5o-jJObh0I/AAAAAAAAErk/00RtxpV81vs/s1600/isis+2.jpg 

Picture posted by kenny at 7:27 PM  

 

The Phenomenon of Radicalization

It’s apparent that the primary ‘cat’ (Abu Bakr al Baghdadi) involved with the masked/sneakered brigade of brigands undertaking execution and crucifixion in Iraq (see Penny at 4:33 PM  and http://aanirfan.blogspot.com/2014/06/iraq )(beware the pictures of the crucifixions) works for the US.  

“In 2009, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi ‘was in a detention facility in Iraq’. In 2009, ‘Obama set him free’.” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2657231/Revealed-Obama-RELEASED-warlord-head-ISIS-extremist-army-five-years-ago.html 

The detention facility was named Camp Bucca.

“After Major General Douglas Michael Stone arrived in Baghdad in April 2007 to take command of security prisoners in Iraq, he promptly assembled his officers for some blunt talk.” Judith Miller tells readers of her digest that Stone was intent on improving things after Abu Ghraib. “‘I’m not a do-gooder. That’s not why I’m here,’ he told a group of military bloggers last fall. Detention, he says, should be seen as an integral part of the military’s counterinsurgency efforts, a vital component of what Stone calls “the battlefield of the mind.”

In a comment at http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/power-of-suggestion.html, on Saturday, September 30, 2006, Google Blogger Abu Zainab said…

Whoa, can’t put anything past the CIA. Gotta wonder if this took place at Abu Ghraib or if it is going on in Guantanamo, Camp Bucca, or any of the other secret prisons around the world. You want suicide bombers eh? No problem, coming right up, courtesy of the CIA. Like I said, can’t put anything past these guys, they won’t stop at anything. 

In this article on directed energy weapons [http://metatexte.net/ezine/archive/no.1/Thought_Police.html ] and institutionalized torture in military ops,

there is a picture of Camp Bucca. http://metatexte.net/ezine/archive/no.1/Thought_Police_files/Camp_Bucca4_small.jpg

It is probably accurate to say that no definitive statement or connection is made about the existence of mind control projects there, but it’s a pretty definitive article about the histories and technologies et al. 

Walter Pincus wrote an article that appeared on page A13 of the Washington Post on Christmas Eve 2007 entitled ‘Deprogramming’ Iraqi Detainees which details more about Marien Maj. General Douglas Stone and the RFP or bid to establish a team that will work with detainees to “de-radicalize” them. [See #4 at http://warisacrime.org/node/29989].

Jeffrey Kaye, back on July 19, 2012, 1:45 p.m., said:

I have been reporting on the U.S. torture scandal for some time. Some of this work is pertinent to the subject matter of this article.

In particular, I would suggest that the following be considered by readers at ProPublica:

“Torture Confirmed at Guantanamo; Army Field Manual Codified Abuse” by Jeffrey Kaye at Firedoglake, 1/4/2010
http://firedoglake.com/2010/01/04/torture-confirmed-at-guantanamo-army-field-manual-codified-abuse/

“Soros’ Foundation Links AFM’s Appendix M to U.S. Torture in Afghanistan” by Jeffrey Kaye at Firedoglake, 1/18/2010
http://my.firedoglake.com/valtin/2010/10/18/soros-foundation-links-afms-appendix-m-to-u-s-torture-in-afghanistan/#Respond

Obama Interrogation Official Linked to U.S. Mind Control Research” by Jeffrey Kaye at Firedoglake, 1/23/2010
http://my.firedoglake.com/valtin/2010/05/23/obama-interrogation-official-linked-to-u-s-mind-control-research/

And for those put off by the reference to “mind control research,” please note the article takes such reference word-for-word from an “instruction’ from the Secretary of the Navy (3900.39D) regarding its ‘Human Research Protection Program.’

 

A Stephen Lendman article on rendition and torture aboard naval vessels and in “black prisons” is mirrored here: http://illuminatimindcontrol.com/us-globalized-torture-black-sites/

The history of torture and its techniques as used at Guantanamo is detailed here: http://thejusticecampaign.org/?page_id=273 

A lengthy piece on mind control, loaded with links, can be found here: http://educate-yourself.org/mc/.

And the research and development continues unabated:  http://www.activistpost.com/2013/07/secret-darpa-mind-control-project.html 

The idea that a detainee, whether “de-radicalized” or “mind controlled” to become something else, is not an outlandish idea.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_former_Guantanamo_Bay_detainees_alleged_to_have_returned_to_terrorism 

and http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/obama-proxy-detention-cross-cultural-rapport-based 

and http://aattp.org/under-bush-600-gitmo-detainees-were-released-including-one-suspected-in-the-benghazi-attack-video/. That last one says: 

Between 2007 and 2009, President George W. Bush released 520 detainees from the facility at Guantanamo Bay – at least that’s how many are officially recorded. One of those detainees was Abu Sufian bin Qumu, who is a suspect in the Benghazi embassy attack.

 

And then there’s that Bergdahl matter…. : “… we should stand ready for … the continued existence of the phenomenon of radicalization….”.

More on mind control here: http://canadianliberty.com/?p=4596 

 

communication and social conflict

Music audio:

The Philarmonics – Dvořák’s New World Symphony/Largo (Jazz Version 1977)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJTAo9AexdU (4:31)

{##} {&&&} {##}

I went through the archives of some old blogs from the days when I was on Blogger’s Blogspot.  The first batch is from the first week of July, 2013, so we’re looking back almost a year.

In early July, tends of thousands were in the streets of Egypt, when Chris Floyd said:

“… the sinister machinations of the literally machine-hearted Dick Cheney and his chump of a frontman, the noted naked self-portraitist, George W. Bush. For as Fred Branfman reminds us in a powerful new piece, the Executive Branch of the United States government has murdered, maimed and dispossessed many millions of innocent people in the past few decades alone in senseless, pointless, criminal actions. It is a long and richly detailed piece, and should be read in full….”

Superiority Complex: The Reach and Roots of America’s Stasi Regime

{##} {&&&} {##}

Wayne Madsen, a former US navy lieutenant who first worked for the NSA in 1985 and over the next 12 years held several sensitive positions within the agency, named Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Spain and Italy as having secret deals with the US. http://archive.today/SdLeW 

Madsen said the countries had “formal second and third party status” under signal intelligence (sigint) agreements that compels them to hand over data, including mobile phone and internet information to the NSA if requested.

{##} {&&&} {##}

“…. The power of truth-tellers like Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and Edward Snowden is that they dispel a whole mythology carefully constructed by the corporate cinema, the corporate academy and the corporate media. WikiLeaks is especially dangerous because it provides truth-tellers with a means to get the truth out. This was achieved by ‘Collateral Murder’, the cockpit video of an US Apache helicopter allegedly leaked by Bradley Manning. The impact of this one video marked Manning and Assange for state vengeance. Here were US airmen murdering journalists and maiming children in a Baghdad street, clearly enjoying it, and describing their atrocity as “nice”. Yet, in one vital sense, they did not get away with it; we are witnesses now, and the rest is up to us.”

http://johnpilger.com/articles/understanding-the-latest-leaks-is-understanding-the-rise-of-a-new-fascism 

{##} {&&&} {##}

Kevin Flaherty, who has forgotten more about information technology than most of the rest of know, had some brilliant insights here: http://www.cryptogon.com/?p=35884

He looked back into the past as well and came up with Room 641A and the placement of beam splitters

“One of [his] long standing theories is that the NSA intercepts represent the front end of something like Synthetic Environments for Analysis and Simulation system. What are they doing with these simulations? [See next, and next.]

I would like to know more about MAIN CORE.

I’m pretty confident that realtime geolocation data from mobile phones/license plate readers/cameras/??? are being used as a sort of invisible tripwire. If people on the MAIN CORE list happen to stray too close to certain physical locations (critical infrastructure, corporate headquarters, government installations, etc.), that could trigger… shall we say, a variety of responses. This would be very, very trivial to implement.

Is there an automatic mechanism that adds individuals to MAIN CORE? Book purchases, Google searches, websites visited, movie or television watching habits, the number of firearms at a residence???

What is the nature of the quantum computing systems to which NSA has access?….”

Flaherty mentioned Main Core; in the comments at that link to his own blog, he mentioned another entry: 

http://cryptogon.com/2006_10_15_blogarchive.html#116113782172259609 (about fusion centers and more):

“…Back in 1995, the few of us who studied information warfare read this in a Pentagon document: “The Internet could also be used offensively as an additional medium in psychological operations campaigns and to help achieve unconventional warfare objectives….”

BOSTON (Reuters) – Disaffected people living in the United States may develop radical ideologies and potentially violent skills over the Internet and that could present the next major U.S. security threat, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said on Monday.

“We now have a capability of someone to radicalize themselves over the Internet,” Chertoff said on the sidelines of a meeting of International Association of the Chiefs of Police.

{##} {&&&} {##}

Main Core is something I’ve read extensively about.  At one point, the late great Ed Encho (author of a major four-part series on the topic) riffed back and forth on the topic. He and I talked about the possibility of doing a blog jointly, but I insisted on knowing his full accurate name and address and phone number, and he was being hassled by an Internet troll, and he slipped beneath the waves inside the tubes.  He’s resurfaced as Donn Marten and holds court at http://carryingaflag.blogspot.com/ where just today he’s posted NSA Reform is Dead: Tech Companies Must Act to Protect Us Now.

{##} {&&&} {##}

Music audio:

Stan Kenton and his Orchestra (5:10)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veKsxNFatYo

{##} {&&&} {##}

http://r3.cygnuspub.com/files/cygnus/image/EMSR/2011/OCT/600×400/urbanshield2011021_10440470.png 

On the basis of those synthetic environments for analysis and simulation and the research I’d done on simulation, I simply hold up a four-card flush:

a 3D visualization interface that could enable human virtual omnipresence (http://teamcore.usc.edu/papers/2005/SS105SchurrN.pdf ); 

the Urban Shield series of exercises that have been run in a number of cities including Boston (http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/06/07/before-police-could-plan-for-terrorist-attack-real-thing-happened/ufxjb9O0RXyzVZNPFyGkiI/story.html );

the creation of a realistic 3D model of the entire Los Angeles basin (“A Real Time Visualization System for Large Scale Urban Environments”, William Jepson and Scott Friedman, UCLA Urban Simulation Team (http://www.ust.ucla.edu/~bill/UST.html but the link no longer works); 

and that famous quote:

Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.


– Henry Kissinger in an address to the Bilderberger meeting at Evian, France, May 21, 1992, as transcribed from a tape recording made by one of the Swiss delegates.

pastedGraphic.png Henry Kissinger quotes (American Political scientist. b.1923)

{##} {&&&} {##}

http://stuffpoint.com/memes/image/131554-memes-what-if-i-told-you-.jpg 

{##} {&&&} {##}

Robin Westenra at SeeMoreRocks brought us this:

Professor David Morris of George Washington University explains the psychopathy ruling our nation, and the world, at the present moment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KGfVYTxrK7Y (8:34)

{##} {&&&} {##}

There were several articles about “World War Z”, a 55-minute YouTube on the Rothschild family, and an article detailing research on the topic of Phillip Marshall and his investigation into the role that the Pinal Air Park/Marana Airfield outside of Tucson, Arizona played in the 9/11 attack. The story has now been made into a movie; there were 16 articles.

There were reviews of Radley Balko’s “Rise of the Warrior Cop” [ “a creeping battlefield mentality has isolated and alienated American police officers and put them on a collision course with the values of a free society” ][you’re keeping up with the many reports about increasing police brutality, I trust], and “Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government”

In the latter: 

“… The facts presented here expose shocking cover-ups, from the top FDR aides who threatened internal security and free-world interests by exerting pro-Red influence on U.S.policy, to the grand juries that were rigged, to the countless officials of the Roosevelt and Truman administrations who turned a blind eye to the penetration problem…..”

“… A central message of the book – never explicitly stated – is that there was an international conspiracy to, in effect, overthrow Western civilization. (The authors would never point it out, but readers of the book will notice that a high percentage of the people involved were Jewish. Readers of this review will notice, as well, that some of the key brave people sounding the alarm over this subversion were also Jewish.) Not only was the U.S. government penetrated at the highest level, but this organized Communist network also apparently controlled key positions in the U.S. opinion-molding business…..”

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig13/martin-david2.1.1.html 

 [See below…]

I also forecast my acquisition and consumption of Kevin Ryan’s Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects, and Bob Tuskin had called in on an NPR show and got cut off when he mentioned WTC7. By that time, Snowden had holed up in Moscow.

http://m.ruvr.ru/2010/03/31/1238312922/RIA-503882-Preview.jpg.1000x297x1.jpg 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminal_Man 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminal_Man_(film

Hoping to cure his violent seizures, a man agrees to a series of experimental microcomputers inserted into his brain but inadvertently discovers that violence now triggers a pleasurable response his brain. [ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072267/ ]

 

Terrence Malick, the director of Badlands, wrote to Hodges expressing how much he loved watching The Terminal Man, saying “Your images make me understand what an image is.”[3]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminal 

 

Steven Spielberg traveled around the world to find an actual airport that would let him film for the length of the production, but could not find one. The Terminal set was built in a massive hangar at the LA/Palmdale Regional Airport. The hangar, part of the U.S. Air Force Plant 42 complex was used to build the Rockwell International B-1B bomber. The set was built to full earthquake construction codes and was based on the Düsseldorf International Airport. The shape of both the actual terminal and the set viewed sideways is a cross section of an aircraft wing. The design of the set for The Terminal, as noted by Roger Ebert in his reviews and attested by Spielberg himself in a feature by Empire magazine, was greatly inspired by Jacques Tati‘s classic film Play Time.

 

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130626102131-01-moscow-airport-horizontal-gallery.jpg 

{##} {&&&} {##}

 

 

http://prorev.com/1306highpay.jpg 

{##} {&&&} {##}

You will have to decide weather or not this is pertinent to wassappenin.

One or about July 7, 2008, The Weather Channel was purchased by [GE Owned NBC] for $3.2 Billion, with Britain’s Queen as a major shareholder and by two equity firms; 1 is [Bain Capital owned by Romney and 2 Blackstone which is a big illuminati company] as the Chairman of the Board proves, he is a khazar CFR player, (probably representing Rothschilds interests) AND was managing director of Lehman Bros. Wow, a true insider.

http://tinyurl.com/politicslvelcraft 

 

Weather Services International (WSI), part of the Weather Channel, announced that it will acquire Weather Central in a deal that further consolidates the  Weather Channel’s grip on weather-related technology for both professional and consumer applications. Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

This is the second M&A deal in the last 2 months for the Weather Channel.   In July of 2012 the Weather Channel acquired Weather Underground for an undisclosed price.

The transaction is a relatively quick, and presumably profitable, deal for private equity firm E.L. Rothschild LLC, who in January 2011 bought a 70% stake in Weather Central.  At that time, Weather Central had 180 employees, including 70 meteorologists, and said it had more than 400 broadcast television clients in 21 countries worldwide, including a 46% market share of North America’s weather information delivery market for broadcast and media.

“The acquisition of Weather Central enables us to immediately expand the range of products we offer to each company’s business clients in television, wind energy, insurance and retail, as well as increase the speed at which we can develop new innovations,” said Mark Gildersleeve, president of WSI. “Our goal is to make the best products available to our collective customer base. Every broadcast customer, for example, will gain access to new tropical data, radar data, forecast models, and severe weather tracking tools within the first thirty days at no charge. In addition, we are offering a wider suite of products in the interactivity, social, news, traffic, web, mobile and video categories.”

.

Related Content:

Press Release: Weather Services International Acquires Weather Central

The Weather Channel Acquires Weather Underground

Press Release: E.L. Rothschild LLC Acquires a Majority Stake in Weather Central, LP

There was a third source for the same content but it has been taken down, but another popped up soon enough.

.

What’s your forecast? 

 

Here’s one of their advertisers: 

http://www.511tactical.com/?utm_source=AdRoll&utm_medium=banner&utm_content=300×250&utm_campaign=craft 

Gonna have to get me some of them there tactical pants and a couple of pouches and a backpack. They’ll come in right handy in the coming storms.

 

{##} {&&&} {##}

 

http://en.mchs.ru/media/img/en_logo.png 

 

You know the bidness going on currently between Russia and the US?  

On July 1, 2013, Paul Joseph Watson over at infowars.com reported:

As part of a deal signed last week in Washington DC between the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry and FEMA, Russian officials will provide “security at mass events” in the United States, a scenario that won’t sit well with Americans wary of foreign assets operating on US soil.

According to a press release by the Ministry of the Russian Federation for Civil Defense and Emergencies, US and Russian officials met on June 25 at the 17th Joint U.S.-Russia Cooperation Committee on Emergency Situations.

In addition to agreeing with FEMA to “exchange experts during joint rescue operations in major disasters,” the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry will also be providing “security at mass events” in the United States.

This suggests that events designated as “National Special Security Events” by the Department of Homeland Security, which include the Super Bowl, international summits such as the G8 and presidential inaugurations, will now rely partly on Russian authorities to provide security.

Russia immediately denied this http://en.ria.ru/world/20130702/182017287/No-Russian-Security-Guards-at-American-Mass-Events–US-Agency.html and FEMA insisted they still share information on “best practices”. 

“… Mass casualty attacks and disasters generate domestic political pressure to “do something,” and Hurricane Katrina gained worldwide attention to the apparent inability of the most advanced industrialized nation in the world to respond to natural disaster of this scope after having remade much of its emergency management after September 11 (Cooper & Block, 2006). And while most large “focusing events” can reveal a range of policy failures and prospects for learning (Birkland, 1998; May, 1992), it is important to consider whether and to what extent the “correct” lessons were learned. Two “lessons” that policy makers derived from the September 11 attacks were the putative need to create what became the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, and, once such an idea gained acceptance, the “need” for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to be a part of that agency…..” http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/wmiller/ps691/Birkland%202.pdf

I am reminded, too, of the not-widely-known secret meeting of Dick Cheney et al after the Iran-Contra affair to review the “lessons learned”.  Cheney was in charge of all drills and exercises in the run-up to and during 9/11.

“… they had a meeting after 9/11 of the people who were in, in the White House, who worked in Iran-Contra–that would be Abrams and Cheney, and there were others involved who were also in the White House and they had a meeting of lessons learned, I’m telling you literally took place. They had a meeting with a small group of people who worked for Reagan and for George Bush when he was Vice President, his father, George Herbert Walker Bush, anyway.

And at the meeting, here were some of the conclusions: that the Iran-Contra thing, despite the disasters, proved you could do it, you could run operations without Congressional money and get away with it…..”

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/03/23/cheneys-assassination-squads-and-iran-contra-and-findings/ 

{##} {&&&} {##}

North Carolina National Guard Rapid Reaction Force Civil Unrest Training Photos

July 3, 2013 in Headline

The following photos depict soldiers from the 252nd Combined Arms Battalion training in June for their role as a “rapid reaction force” capable of responding anywhere in the state of North Carolina within “four to eight hours with additional forces arriving within 24 to 36 hours.”  The same unit trained in March to respond “to an emergency ahead of federal assets by providing site security, establishing roadblocks or checkpoints, and assisting civilian authorities in controlling civil disturbances.”

The exercises depicted below were held from June 10-14 at an abandoned shopping mall and a water treatment facility in Charlotte.  Soldiers trained to suppress protesters who perform a sit-in as part of a fictional group called “The Pink Panthers.”  According to the North Carolina National Guard, the exercise at the water treatment facility tests soldiers’ “ability to use nonlethal force to disperse a crowd of aggressors.”  Photos of the exercise show soldiers operating from Be On the Look Out (BOLO) notices with the identities of specific individuals in the crowd, listed as “AIN Members,” that are to be targeted for arrest.

Photos via North Carolina National Guard and Grant Baldwin Photography.

Research Credit: HongPong

{##} {&&&} {##}

As the grills and fireworks and the Fourth were getting warmed up, we saw evidence of ‘Imperial Skyjacking’ with Evo Morales being suspected of transporting Snowden, an act which echoed recently in the Ukraine.  History shows us other assassinations by shoot-down (Yamamoto, Wellstone, and perhaps others). The National Security Archive had something on The Israel-Argentina Yellowcake Connection, and according to Zero Hedge citing china.org.cn, the Chinese and the Russians were conducting joint naval drills, and Intellihub had a good review of the laws on “accessory” as they pertain to the media cover-up of 9/11 (but those links have disappeared now too). 

There was (and still is) a YouTube video on the world’s scariest drug (scopolamine), a healthy dose of which was once recommended for me by a violinist who supported Mike Ruppert’s POV on his discussion board about “collapse”.  

{&&&}

http://fauquierfreecitizen.com/seventy-two-killed-resisting-gun-confiscation-in-boston/ 

{##} {&&&} {##}

Traveling With Bernays 

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays )

Sky Deutschland has developed technology to transfer advertisements from train windows directly and silently into commuters’ heads.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azwL5eoE5aI (1:26)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/10158311/Sky-Deutschland-to-broadcast-adverts-directly-into-train-passengers-heads.html 

{##} {&&&} {##}

Speaking of trains, the Lac-Megantic event occurred  on July 6th http://globalnews.ca/news/767745/timeline-of-events-in-lac-megantic-disaster/ and the Israeli Medical Association was called in to consult on methods of handling the hunger strikers at Gitmo. 

The Michael Hastings crash was on the minds of a few (and it still is this week ), the Bin Laden Raid Files Moved from Pentagon to CIA to More Easily Shield Them from Public Scrutiny, and the criminal probe into Jon Corzine and MF Global was dropped due to lack of evidence. Egypt and the debate about metadata both exploded, and HongPong brought us this photo:

http://hongpong.com/files/tumblr_mpmf8mqcx41s7r7rso1_1280.jpg  

 

{##} {&&&} {##}

 

Finally, when fishing around in the archives, I found this:

 

 

The purportedly “scientific” application of propaganda, terror, and state pressure as a means of securing an ideological victory over one’s enemies

“Worldview Warfare” and The Science of Coercion

by Christopher Simpson

Excerpts from The Science of Coercion, Oxford University Press, 1994

www.globalresearch.ca   23 November 2003

 

The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/SIM311A.html

 

During the second half of the 1930s, the Rockefeller Foundation underwrote much of the most innovative communication research then under way in the United States. There was virtually no federal support for the social sciences at the time, and corporate backing for the field usually remained limited to proprietary marketing studies. The foundation’s administrators believed, however, that mass media constituted a uniquely powerful force in modem society, reports Brett Gary, 28 and financed a new project on content analysis for Harold Lasswell at the Library of Congress, Hadley Cantril’s Public Opinion Research Project at Princeton University, the establishment of Public Opinion Quarterly at Princeton, Douglas Waples’ newspaper and reading studies at the University of Chicago, Paul Lazarsfeld’s Office of Radio Research at Columbia University, and other important programs.

As war approached, the Rockefeller Foundation clearly favored efforts designed to find a “democratic prophylaxis” that could immunize the United States’ large immigrant population from the effects of Soviet and Axis propaganda. In 1939, the foundation organized a series of secret seminars with men it regarded as leading communication scholars to enlist them in an effort to consolidate public opinion in the United States in favor of war against Nazi Germany — a controversial proposition opposed by many conservatives, religious leaders, and liberals at the time — and to articulate a reasonably clear-cut set of ideological and methodological preconceptions for the emerging field of communication research. 29

Harold Lasswell, who had the ear of foundation administrator John Marshall at these gatherings, over the next two years won support for a theory that seemed to resolve the conflict between the democratic values that are said to guide U.S. society, on the one hand, and the manipulation and deceit that often lay at the heart of projects intended to engineer mass consent, on the other. Briefly, the elite of U.S. society (“those who have money to support research,” as Lasswell bluntly put it) should systematically manipulate mass sentiment in order to preserve democracy from threats posed by authoritarian societies such as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

One Rockefeller seminar participant, Donald Slesinger (former dean of the social science at the University of Chicago), blasted Lasswell’s claims as using a democratic guise to tacitly accept the objectives and methods of a new form of authoritarianism. “We [the Rockefeller seminar] have been willing, without thought, to sacrifice both truth and human individuality in order to bring about given mass responses to war stimuli,” Slesinger contended. “We have thought in terms of fighting dictatorships- by-force through the establishment of dictatorship-by-manipulation. 30 Slesinger’s view enjoyed some support from other participants and from Rockefeller Foundation officers such as Joseph Willits, who criticized what he described as authoritarian or even fascist aspects of Lasswell’s arguments. Despite this resistance, the social polarization created by the approaching war strongly favored Lasswell, and in the end he enjoyed substantial new funding and an expanded staff courtesy of the foundation. Slesinger, on the other hand, drifted away from the Rockefeller seminars and appears to have rapidly lost influence within the community of academic communication specialists.

World War II spurred the emergence of psychological warfare as a particularly promising new form of applied communication research. The personal, social, and scientific networks established in U.S. social sciences during World War II, particularly among communication researchers and social psychologists, later played a central role in the evolution (or “social construction”) of U.S. sociology after the war. A detailed discussion of U.S. psychological operations during World War 11 is of course outside the scope of this book. There is a large literature on the subject, which is discussed briefly in the Bibliographic Essay at the end of this text. A few points are worth mentioning, however, to introduce some of the personalities and concepts that would later play a prominent role in psychological operations and communication studies after 1945.

The phrase “psychological warfare” is reported to have first entered English in 1941 as a translated mutation of the Nazi term Weltanschauungskrieg (literally, worldview warfare), meaning the purportedly scientific application of propaganda, terror, and state pressure as a means of securing an ideological victory over one’s enemies. 31 William “Wild Bill” Donovan, then director of the newly established U.S. intelligence agency Office of Strategic Services (OSS), viewed an understanding of Nazi psychological tactics as a vital source of ideas for “Americanized” versions of many of the same stratagems. Use of the new term quickly became widespread throughout the U.S. intelligence community. For Donovan psychological warfare was destined to become a full arm of the U.S. military, equal in status to the army, navy, and air force. 32

Donovan was among the first in the United States to articulate a more or less unified theory of psychological warfare. As he saw it, the “engineering of consent” techniques used in peacetime propaganda campaigns could be quite effectively adapted to open warfare. Pro-Allied propaganda was essential to reorganizing the U.S. economy for war and for creating public support at home for intervention in Europe, Donovan believed. Fifth-column movements could be employed abroad as sources of intelligence and as morale-builders for populations under Axis control. He saw “special operations — meaning sabotage, subversion, commando raids, and guerrilla movements — as useful for softening up targets prior to conventional military assaults. “Donovan’s concept of psychological warfare was all-encompassing,” writes Colonel Alfred Paddock, who has specialized in this subject for the U.S. Army War College. “Donovan’s visionary dream was to unify these functions in support of conventional (military) unit operations, thereby forging a ‘new instrument of war.'” 33

Donovan, a prominent Wall Street lawyer and personal friend of Franklin Roosevelt, convinced FDR to establish a central, civilian intelligence agency that would gather foreign intelligence, coordinate analysis of information relevant to the war, and conduct propaganda and covert operations both at home and abroad. In July 1941 FDR created the aptly named Office of the Coordinator of Information, placing Donovan in charge. 34

But that ambitious plan soon foundered on the rocks of Washington’s bureaucratic rivalries. By early 1942 the White House split the “white” (official) propaganda functions into a new agency, which eventually became the Office of War Information (OWI), while Donovan reorganized the intelligence, covert action, and “black” (unacknowledgeable) propaganda functions under deeper secrecy as the OSS. Officially, the new OSS was subordinate to the military leadership of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but the relationship between the military and the civilian OSS was never smooth. Donovan frequently used his personal relationship with FDR to sidestep the military’s efforts to restrict the OSS’s growing influence. 35

Similar innovations soon spread through other military branches, usually initiated by creative outsiders from the worlds of journalism or commerce who saw “psychological” techniques as a means to sidestep entrenched military bureaucracies and enhance military performance. Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy, a longtime Wall Street colleague of Donovan, established a small, highly secret Psychologic Branch within the War Department General Staff G-2 (Intelligence) organization. (McCloy is probably better known today for his later work as U.S. high commissioner of Germany, chairman of the Chase Bank, member of the Warren Commission, and related posts). 36 McCloy’s Psychologic Branch was reorganized several times, briefly folded in the OSS, shifted back to military control, and renamed at least twice. The Joint Chiefs meanwhile established a series of high-level interagency committees intended to coordinate U.S. psychological operations in the field, including those of the relatively small Psychological Warfare Branches attached to the headquarters staffs of U.S. military commanders in each theater of war. If this administrative structure was not confusing enough, the psychological warfare branch attached to Eisenhower’s command in Europe soon grew into a Psychological Warfare Division totaling about 460 men and women. 37

These projects helped define U.S. social science and mass communication studies long after the war had drawn to a close. Virtually all of the scientific community that was to emerge during the 1950s as leaders in the field of mass communication research spent the war years performing applied studies on U.S. and foreign propaganda, Allied troop morale, public opinion (both domestically and internationally), clandestine OSS operations, or the then emerging technique of deriving useful intelligence from analysis of newspapers, magazines, radio broadcasts, and postal censorship intercepts.

The day-to-day war work of U.S. psychological warfare specialists varied considerably. DeWitt Poole — a State Department expert in anticommunist propaganda who had founded Public Opinion Quarterly while on sabbatical at Princeton before the war-became the chief of the Foreign Nationalities Branch of the OSS. There he led OSS efforts to recruit suitable agents from immigrant communities inside the United States, to monitor civilian morale, and to analyze foreign- language publications for nuggets of intelligence. Sociologists and Anthropologists such as Alexander Leighton and Margaret Mead concentrated on identifying schisms in Japanese culture suitable for exploitation in U.S. radio broadcasts in Asia, while Samuel Stouffer’s Research Branch of the U.S. Army specialized in ideological indoctrination of U.S. troops. Hadley Cantril meanwhile adapted survey research techniques to the task of clandestine intelligence collection, including preparations for the U.S. landing in North Africa. 38

There were six main U.S. centers of psychological warfare and related studies during the conflict. Several of these centers went through name changes and reorganizations in the course of the war, but they can be summarized as follows: (1) Samuel Stouffer’s Research Branch of the U.S. Army’s Division of Morale; (2) the Office of War Information (OWI) led by Elmer Davis and its surveys division under Elmo Wilson; (3) the Psychological Warfare Division (PWD) of the U.S. Army, commanded by Brigadier General Robert McClure; (4) the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) led by William Donovan; (5) Rensis Likert’s Division of Program Surveys at the Department of Agriculture, which provided field research personnel in the United States for the army, OWI, Treasury Department, and other government agencies; and (6) Harold Lasswell’s War Communication Division at the Library of Congress.

Dozens of prominent social scientists participated in the war through these organizations, in some cases serving in two or more groups in the course of the conflict. The OWI, for example, employed Elmo Roper (of the Roper survey organization), Leonard Doob (Yale), Wilbur Schramm (University of Illinois and Stanford), Alexander Leighton (Cornell), Leo Lowenthal (Institut fur Sozialforschung and University of California), Hans Speier (RAND Corp.), Nathan Leites (RAND), Edward Barrett (Columbia), and Clyde Kluckhohn (Harvard), among others. 39

(The institutions in parentheses simply indicate the affiliations for which these scholars may be best known.) OWI simultaneously extended contracts for communications research and consulting to Paul Lazarsfeld, Hadley Cantril, Frank Stanton, George Gallup, and to Rensis Likert’s team at the Agriculture Department. 40 OWI contracting also provided much of the financial backbone for the then newly founded National Opinion Research Center. 41

In addition to his OWI work, Nathan Leites also served as Lasswell’s senior research assistant at the Library of Congress project, as did Heinz Eulau (Stanford). 42 Other prominent contributors to the Lasswell project included Irving Janis (Yale) and the young Ithiel de Sola Pool (MIT), who, with Leites, had already begun systematic content analysis of communist publications long before the war was over. 43 Lasswell’s Library of Congress project is widely remembered today as the foundation of genuinely systematic content analysis in the United States. 44

At the Army’s Psychological Warfare Division, some prominent staffers were William S. Paley (CBS), C. D. Jackson (Time/Life), W. Phillips Davison (RAND and Columbia), Saul Padover (New School for Social Research), John W. Riley (Rutgers), Morris Janowitz (Institut fur Sozialforschung and University of Michigan), Daniel Lerner (MIT and Stanford), Edward Shils (University of Chicago), and New York attorney Murray Gurfein (later co-author with Janowitz), among others. 45 Of these, Davison, Padover, Janowitz, and Gurfein were OSS officers assigned to the Psychological Warfare Division to make use of their expertise in communication and German social psychology. 46 Other prominent OSS officers who later contributed to the social sciences include Howard Becker (University of Wisconsin), Alex Inkeles (Harvard), Walter Langer (University of Wisconsin), Douglas Cater (Aspen Institute), and of course Herbert Marcuse (Institut fur Sozialforschung and New School). 47 0SS wartime contracting outside the government included arrangements for paid social science research by Stanford, the University of California at Berkeley, Columbia, Princeton, Yale’s Institute of Human Relations, and the National Opinion Research Center, which was then at the University of Denver. 48 Roughly similar lists of social scientists and scholarly contractors can be discovered at each of the government’s centers of wartime communications and public opinion research. 49

The practical significance of these social linkages has been explored by social psychologist John A. Clausen, who is a veteran of Samuel Stouffer’s Research Branch. Clausen made a systematic study during the early 1980s of the postwar careers of his former colleagues who had gone into the fields of public opinion research, sociology, and psychology. 50 Some twenty-five of twenty-seven veterans who could be located responded to his questionnaire; of these, twenty-four reported that their wartime work had had “lasting implications” and “a major influence on [their] subsequent career.” Clausen quotes the reply of psychologist Nathan Maccoby (Stanford): “The Research Branch not only established one of the best old-boy (or girl) networks ever, but an alumnus of the Branch had an open door to most relevant jobs and career lines. We were a lucky bunch.” Nearly three-fifths of the respondents indicated that the Research Branch experience “had a major influence on the direction or character of their work in the decade after the war,” Clausen continues, “and all but three of the remainder indicated a substantial influence…. [F]ully three-fourths reported the Branch experience to have been a very important influence on their careers as a whole.” 51

Respondents stressed two reasons for this enduring impact. First, the wartime experience permitted young scholars to closely work with recognized leaders in the field — Samuel Stouffer, Leonard Cottrell, Carl Hovland, and others-as well as with civilian consultants such as Paul Lazarsfeld, Louis Guttman, and Robert Merton. In effect, the Army’s Research Branch created an extraordinary postgraduate school with obvious scholarly benefits for both “students” and the seasoned “professors.”

Second, the common experience created a network of professional contacts that almost all respondents to the survey found to be very valuable in their subsequent careers. They tapped these contacts later for professional opportunities and for project funding, according to Clausen. “Perhaps most intriguing” in this regard, Clausen writes,

was the number of our members who became foundation executives. Charles Dollard became president of Carnegie. Donald Young shifted from the presidency of SSRC [Social Science Research Council] to that of Russell Sage, where he ultimately recruited Leonard Cottrell. Leland DeVinney went from Harvard to the Rockefeller Foundation. William McPeak … helped set up the Ford Foundation and became its vice president. W. Parker Mauldin became vice president of the Population Council. The late Lyle Spencer [of Science Research Associates] . . . endowed a foundation that currently supports a substantial body of social science research. 52

There was a somewhat similar sociometric effect among veterans of OWI propaganda projects. OWI’s overseas director Edward Barrett points out that old-boy networks rooted in common wartime experiences in psychological warfare extended well beyond the social sciences. Among OWI alumni,” he wrote in 1953, are

the publishers of Time, Look, Fortune, and several dailies; editors of such magazines as Holiday, Coronet, Parade, and the Saturday Review, editors of the Denver Post. New Orleans Times-Picayune, and others; the heads of the Viking Press, Harper & Brothers, and Farrar, Straus and Young; two Hollywood Oscar winners; a two-time Pulitzer prizewinner; the board chairman of CBS and a dozen key network executives; President Eisenhower’s chief speech writer; the editor of Reader’s Digest international editions; at least six partners of large advertising agencies; and a dozen noted social scientists. 53

Barrett himself went on to become chief of the U.S. government’s overt psychological warfare effort from 1950 to 1952 and later dean of the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism and founder of the Columbia Journalism Review. 54

It is wise to be cautious in evaluating the political significance of these networks, of course. Obviously Herbert Marcuse drew quite different political conclusions from his experience than did, say, Harold Lasswell, and it is well known that even some of the once closely knit staff of the Institut fur Sozialforschung who emigrated to the United States eventually clashed bitterly over political issues during the cold war. 55 Nevertheless, the common experience of wartime psychological warfare work became one step in a process through which various leaders in the social sciences engaged one another in tacit alliances to promote their particular interpretations of society. Their wartime experiences contributed substantially to the construction of a remarkably tight circle of men and women who shared several important conceptions about mass communication research. They regarded mass communication as a tool for social management and as a weapon in social conflict, and they expressed common assumptions concerning the usefulness of quantitative research-particularly experimental and quasi- experimental effects research, opinion surveys, and quantitative content analysisas a means of illuminating what communication “is” and improving its application to social management. They also demonstrated common attitudes toward at least some of the ethical questions intrinsic to performing applied social research on behalf of a government. The Clausen study strongly suggests that at Stouffer’s Research Branch, at least, World War II psychological warfare work established social networks that opened doors to crucial postwar contacts inside the government, funding agencies, and professional circles. Barrett’s comments concerning the Psychological Warfare Division suggest a similar pattern there. As will be discussed in more depth in the next chapter, the various studies prepared by these scientists during the war — always at government expense and frequently involving unprecedented access to human research subjects — also created vast new data bases of social information that would become the raw material from which a number of influential postwar social science careers would be built.

The CIA and the Founding Fathers of Communication Studies

Turning to a consideration of CIA-sponsored psychological warfare studies, one finds a wealth of evidence showing that projects secretly funded by the CIA played a prominent role in U.S. mass communication studies during the middle and late 1950s. The secrecy that surrounds any CIA operation makes complete documentation impossible, but the fragmentary information that is now available permits identification of several important examples.

The first is the work of Albert Hadley Cantril (better known as Hadley Cantril), a noted “founding father” of modem mass communication studies. Cantril was associate director of the famous Princeton Radio Project from 1937 to 1939, a founder and longtime director of Princeton’s Office of Public Opinion Research, and a founder of the Princeton Listening Center, which eventually evolved into the CIA-financed Foreign Broadcast Information Service. Cantril’s work at Princeton is widely recognized as “the first time that academic social science took survey research seriously, and it was the first attempt to collect and collate systematically survey findings.” 70 Cantril’s The Psychology of Radio, written with Gordon Allport, is often cited as a seminal study in mass communication theory and research, and his surveys of public opinion in European and Third World countries defined the subfield of international public opinion studies for more than two decades.

Cantril’s work during the first decade after World War II focused on elaborating Lippmann’s concept of the stereotype the “pictures in our heads,” as Lippmann put it, through which people are said to deal with the world outside their immediate experience. Cantril specialized in international surveys intended to determine how factors such as class, nationalism, and ethnicity affected the stereotypes present in a given population, and how those stereotypes in turn affected national behavior in various countries, particularly toward the United States. 71 Cantril’s work, while often revealing the “human face” of disaffected groups, began with the premise that the United States’ goals and actions abroad were fundamentally good for the world at large. If U.S. acts were not viewed in that light by foreign audiences, the problem was that they had misunderstood our good intentions, not that Western behavior might be fundamentally flawed.

Cantril’s career had been closely bound up with U.S. intelligence and clandestine psychological operations since at least the late 1930s. The Office of Public Opinion Research, for example, enjoyed confidential contracts from the Roosevelt administration for research into U.S. public opinion on the eve of World War 11. Cantril went on to serve as the senior public opinion specialist of the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs (an early U.S. intelligence agency led by Nelson Rockefeller and focusing on Latin America), of the World War II Office of War Information, and, in a later period, as an adviser to President Eisenhower on the psychological aspects of foreign policy. During the Kennedy administration, Cantril helped reorganize the U.S. Information Agency. 72

According to the New York Times, the CIA provided Cantril and his colleague Lloyd Free with $1 million in 1956 to gather intelligence on popular attitudes in countries of interest to the agency. 73 The Rockefeller Foundation appears to have laundered the money for Cantril, because Cantril repeatedly claimed in print that the monies had come from that source. 74 However, the Times and Cantril’s longtime partner, Lloyd Free, confirmed after Cantril’s death that the true source of the funds had been the CIA. 75

Cantril’s first target was a study of the political potential of “protest” voters in France and Italy, who were regarded as hostile to U.S. foreign Policy. 76 That was followed by a 1958 tour of the Soviet Union under private, academic cover, to gather information on the social psychology of the Soviet population and on “mass” relationships with the Soviet elite. Cantril’s report on this topic went directly to then president Eisenhower; its thrust was that treating the Soviets firmly, but with greater respect — rather than openly ridiculing them, as had been Secretary of State John Foster Dulles’ practice — could help improve East-West relations. 77 Later Cantril missions included studies of Castro’s supporters in Cuba and reports on the social psychology of a series of countries that could serve as a checklist of CIA interventions of the period: Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, India, Nigeria, Philippines, Poland, and others. 78

An important focus of Cantril’s work under the CIA’s contract were surveys of U.S. domestic public opinion on foreign policy and domestic political issues — a use of government funds many observers would argue was illegal. 79 There, Cantril introduced an important methodological innovation by breaking out political opinions by respondents’ demographic characteristics and their place on a U.S. ideological spectrum he had devised — a forerunner of the political opinion analysis techniques that would revolutionize U.S. election campaigns during the 1980s. 80

A second-and perhaps more important — example of the CIA’s role in U.S. mass communication studies during the 1950s was the work of the Center for International Studies (CENIS) at MIT. The CIA became the principal funder of this institution throughout the 1950s, although neither the CENIS nor the CIA is known to have publicly provided details on their relationship. It has been widely reported, however, that the CIA financed the initial establishment of the CENIS; that the agency underwrote publication of certain CENIS studies in both classified and nonclassified editions; that CENIS served as a conduit for CIA funds for researchers at other institutions, particularly the Center for Russian Research at Harvard; that the director of CENIS, Max Millikan, had served as assistant director of the CIA immediately prior to his assumption of the CENIS post; and that Millikan served as a “consultant to the Central Intelligence Agency,” as State Department records put it, during his tenure as director of CENIS. 81 In 1966, CENIS scholar Ithiel de Sola Pool acknowledged that CENIS “has in the past had contracts with the CIA,” though he insisted the CIA severed its links with CENIS following a bitter scandal in the early 1960s. 82

CENIS emerged as one of me most important centers of communication studies midway through the 1950s, and it maintained that role for the remainder of the decade. According to CENIS’s official account, the funding for its communications research was provided by a four- year, $850,000 grant from the Ford Foundation, which was distributed under the guidance of an appointed planning committee made up of Hans Speier (chair), Jerome Bruner, Wallace Carroll, Harold Lasswell, Paul Lazarsfeld, Edward Shils, and Ithiel de Sola Pool (secretary). 83 It is not known whether Ford’s funds were in fact CIA monies. The Ford Foundation’s archives make clear, however, that the foundation was at that time underwriting the costs of the CIA’s principal propaganda project aimed at intellectuals, the Congress for Cultural Freedom, with a grant of $500,000 made at CIA request, and that the Ford Foundation’s director, John McCloy (who will be remembered here for his World War II psychological warfare work), had established a regular liaison with the CIA for the specific purpose of managing Ford Foundation cover for CIA projects. 84 Of the men on CENIS’s communication studies planning committee, Edward Shils was simultaneously a leading spokesman for the CIA-backed Congress for Cultural Freedom Project; Hans Speier was the RAND Corporation’s director of social science research; and Wallace Carroll was a journalist specializing in national security issues who had produced a series of classified reports on clandestine warfare against the Soviet Union for U.S. military intelligence agencies. 85 In short, CENIS communication studies were from their inception closely bound up with both overt and covert aspects of U.S. national security strategy of the day.

The CENIS program generated the large majority of articles on psychological warfare published by leading academic journals during the second half of the 1950s. CENIS’s dominance in psychological warfare studies during this period was perhaps best illustrated by two special issues of POQ published in the spring of 1956 and the fall of 1958. Each was edited by CENIS scholars-by Ithiel de Sola Pool and Frank Bonilla and by Daniel Lerner, respectively — and each was responsible for the preponderance of POQ articles concerning psychological warfare published that year. The collective titles for the special issues were “Studies in Political Communications” and “Attitude Research in Modernizing Areas.” 86

CENIS scholars and members of the CENIS planning committee such as Harold Ina”, Y. B. Damle, Claire Zimmerman, Raymond Bauer, and Suzanne Keller 87 and each of the special issue editors” provided most of the content. They drew other articles from studies that CENIS had contracted out to outside academics, such as a content analysis of U.S. and Soviet propaganda publications by Ivor Wayne of BSSR and a study of nationalism among the Egyptian elite by Patricia Kendall of BASR that was based on data gathered during the earlier Voice of America studies in the Mideast. 89

The purported dangers to the United States of “modernization” or economic development in the Third World emerged as the most important theme of CENIS studies in international communication as the decade of the 1950s drew to a close. Practically without exception, CENIS studies coincided with those issues and geographic areas regarded as problems by U.S. intelligence agencies: “agitators” in Indonesia, student radicals in Chile, “change-prone” individuals in Puerto Rico, and the social impact of economic development in the Middle East. 90 CENIS also studied desegregation of schools in Little Rock, Arkansas, as an example of “modernization.” 91

In these reports, CENIS authors viewed social change in developing countries principally as a management problem for the United States. Daniel Lerner contended that “urbanization, industrialization, secularization [and] communications” were elements of a typology of modernization that could be measured and shaped in order to secure a desirable outcome from the point of view of the U.S. government. “How can these modernizing societies-in-a-hurry maintain stability?” Lerner asked. “Whence will come the compulsions toward responsible formation and expression of opinion on which a free participant society depends?” 92

In The Passing of Traditional Society and other texts, Lerner contended that public “‘participation’ [in power] through opinion is spreading before genuine political and economic participation” in societies in developing countries 93 — a clear echo of Lippmann’s earlier thesis. This created a substantial mass of people who were relatively informed through the mass media, yet who were socially and economically disenfranchised, and thus easily swayed by the appeals of radical nationalists, Communists, and other “extremists.” As in Lippmann’s analysis, mass communication played an important role in the creation of this explosive situation, as Lerner saw it, and in elite management of it. He proposed a strategy modeled in large part on the campaign in the Philippines that combined “white” and “black” propaganda, economic development aid, and U.S.-trained and financed counterinsurgency operations to manage these problems in a manner that was “responsible” from the point of view of the industrialized world.

This “development theory,” which combined propaganda, counter- insurgency warfare, and selective economic development of targeted regions, was rapidly integrated into U.S. psychological warfare practice worldwide as the decade drew to a close. Classified U.S. programs employing “Green Beret” Special Forces troops trained in what was termed “nation building” and counterinsurgency began in the mountainous areas of Cambodia and Laos. 94 Similar projects intended to win the hearts and minds of Vietnam’s peasant population through propaganda, creation of “strategic hamlets,” and similar forms of controlled social development under the umbrella of U.S. Special Forces troops can also be traced in part to Lerner’s work, which was in time elaborated by Wilbur Schramm, Lucian Pye, Ithiel de Sola Pool, and others. 95 Lerner himself became a fixture at Pentagon-sponsored conferences on U.S. psychological warfare in the Third World during the 1960s and 1970s, lecturing widely on the usefulness of social science data for the design of what has since come to be called U.S. -sponsored low-intensity warfare abroad. 96

The Special Operations Research Office’s 1962 volume The U.S. Army’s Limited-War Mission and Social Science Research and the well-publicized controversy surrounding Project Camelot 97 show that the brutal U.S. counterinsurgency wars of the period grew out of earlier psychological warfare projects, and that their tactics were shaped in important part by the rising school of development theory. 98 Further, the promises integral to that theory — namely, that U. S. efforts to control development in the Third World, if skillfully handled, could benefit the targets of that intervention while simultaneously advancing U.S. interests — were often publicized by the USIA, by the Army’s mass media, at various academic conferences, and in other propaganda outlets. In other words, as the government tested in the field the tactics advocated by Lerner, Pool, and others, the rationalizations offered by these same scholars became propaganda themes the government promoted to counter opposition to U.S. intervention abroad. 99

The important point with regard to CENIS is the continuing, inbred relationship among a handful of leading mass communication scholars and the U.S. military and intelligence community. Substantially the same group of theoreticians who articulated the early cold war version of psychological warfare in the 1950s reappeared in the 1960s to articulate the Vietnam era adaptation of the same concepts. More than a half-dozen noted academics followed this track: Daniel Lerner, Harold Lasswell, Wilbur Schramm, John W. Riley, W. Phillips Davison, Leonard. Cottrell, and Ithiel de Sola Pool, among others. 100

 

* Excerpts from The Science of Coercion: Communication Research and Psychological Warfare 1945-1960, by Christopher Simpson (Oxford University Press, 1994)

“Worldview Warfare” and World War II (pp.22-30)

The CIA and the Founding Fathers of Communication Studies (pp. 79-85)

Footnotes:

28. Brett Gary, “Mass Communications Research, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Imperatives of War 1939-1945,” Research Reports from the Rockefeller Archive Center (North Tarrytown, NY, Spring 1991), p. 3; and Brett Gary, “American Liberalism and the Problem of Propaganda,” Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1992. Gary’s work is the first thorough study, so far as I am aware, of the important role of the Rockefeller Foundation in crystallizing paradigms for communication studies.

29. John Marshall (ed.), “Needed Research in Communication” (1940), folder 2677, box 224, Rockefeller Archives, Pocantico Hills, NY, cited in Gary, American Liberalism.

30. Gary, “American Liberalism and the Problem of Propaganda.”

31. Ladislas Farago, German Psychological Warfare (New York: Putnam, 1941). For a history of the origin of the term, see William Daugherty, “Changing Concepts,” in Daugherty and Janowitz, Psychological Warfare Casebook, p. 12.

32. Paddock, U.S. Army Special Warfare, pp. 5-8, 23-37.

33. Ibid., p. 6.

34. Anthony Cave Brown (ed.), The Secret War Report of the OSS (New York: Berkeley, 1976), pp. 42-63. There is a large literature on the OSS. For a reliable overview of the agency’s activities, including basic data on its establishment and leadership, see Richard Harris Smith, OSS (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972).

35. Paddock, U.S. Army Special Warfare, pp. 7-14; and Edward Lilly, “The Psychological Strategy Board and Its Predecessors: Foreign Policy Coordination 1938-1953,” in Gaetano Vincitorio (ed.), Studies in Modern History (New York: St. Johns University Press, 1968), p. 346.

36. Kai Bird, The Chairman: John J. McCloy (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992).

37. Paddock, U.S. Army Special Warfare, pp. 8-18; for an extended discussion, see Daniel Lerner, Sykewar: Psychological Warfare Against Germany, D-Day to VE-Day (New York: George Stewart, 1948).

38. On Poole’s role in the establishment of Public Opinion Quarterly, see Harwood Childs, “The First Editor Looks Back,” POQ, 21, no. I (Spring 1957): 7-13. On Poole’s work at the Foreign Nationalities Branch of the OSS, see (Anthony Cave Brown (ed.), Secret War Report of the OSS (New York: Berkley, 1976), chapter 2. On Leighton, see Alexander Leighton, Human Relations in a Changing World (New York: Dutton, 1949). On Mead, see Carleton Mabee, “Margaret Mead and Behavioral Scientists in World War II: Problems of Responsibility, Truth and Effectiveness,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 23 (January 1987Y On Stouffer, see now 49 Mom On Cantril, see Hadley Cantril, “Evaluating the Probable Reactions to the Landing in North Africa in 1942: A Case Study,” POQ, 29, no. 3 (Fall 1965): 400-410.

39. On Roper and on Elmo Wilson, also of the Roper organization, see Jean Converse, Survey Research in the United States (Berkeley: University of Califomia Press, 1987), pp. 171-72. On Doob and Leites, see Daniel Lerner (ed.), Propaganda in War and Crisis (New York: George Stewart, 1951), pp. vii-viii. On Kluckhohn, Leighton, Lowenthal, and Schramm, see Daugherty and Janowitz, Psychological Warfare Casebook, pp. xiii-xiv. On Speier, Contemporary Authors, Vol. 21-24, p. 829. On Barrett, Edward Barrett, Truth Is Our Weapon (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1953), pp. 31-32. After his death, the Associated Press identified Barrett as a former member of the OSS, though Barrett omitted that information from biographical statements published during his lifetime; see “Edward W. Barrett Dies; Started Columbia Journalism Review,” Washington Post, October 26, 1989. For more on the OWI, see also Allan Winkler, The Politics of Propaganda: The Office of War Information 1942-1945 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978); and Leonard Doob, “Utilization of Social Scientists in the Overseas Branch of the Office of War Information,” American Political Science Review, 41, no. 4 (August 1947): 49-67.

40. Converse, Survey Research in the United States, pp. 163, 172.

41. Ibid., p. 309.

42. On Leites and Eulau, see Wilbur Schramm, “The Beginnings of Communication Study in the United States,” in Everett Rogers and Francis Balle (eds.), The Media Revolution in America and Western Europe (Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1985), p. 205; and Harold Lasswell and Nathan Leites, Language of Politics (New York: George Stewart, 1949), p. 298.

43. Nathan Leites and Ithiel de Sola Pool, “The Response of Communist Propaganda,” in Lasswell and Leites, Language of Politics, pp. 153, 334.

44. Roger Wimmer and Joseph Dominick, Mass Media Research (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1987Y p. 165.

45. On Paley, Jackson, Padover, Riley, Janowitz, Lerner, and Gurfein, see Lerner, Sykewar, pp. 439-43. On Davison, see Daugherty and Janowitz, Psychological Warfare Casebook, p. xii. On Shils, see Lerner, Propaganda in War, p. viii.

46. On Davison and Padover, see Daugherty and Janowitz, Psychological Warfare Casebook, pp. xii-xiii. On Gurfein and Janowitz, see Smith, OSS, pp. 86, 217.

47. On Langer, Cater, and Marcuse, see Smith, OSS, pp. 17, 23, 25, 217. On Barrett, see -Edward I Barren Dies; Started Columbia Journalism Review.” On Becker and Inkeles, see Daugherty and Janowitz, Psychological Warfare Casebook, pp. xi-xii. For a fascinating early memoir of the role of psychology and social psychology in OSS training and operations, see William Morgan, The OSS and I (New York: Norton, 1957).

48. Robin Winks, Cloak and Gown: Scholars in the Secret War, 1939-1961 (New York: Morrow, 1987), pp. 43-44, 79.

49. On Samuel Stouffer’s Morale Branch, see Samuel Stouffer, Arthur Lumsdaine, Marion Lumsdaine, Robin Williams, M. Brewster Smith, Irving Janis, Shirley Star, and Leonard Cottrell, The American Soldier (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 149Y pp. 3-53; and John Clausen, “Research on the American Soldier as a Career Contingency,” Social Psychology Quarterly 47, no. 2 (1984): 207-13. On the OSS, see Barry Katz, Foreign Intelligence: Research and Analysis in the Office of Strategic Services, 1952-1945 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989): and Bernard David Rifkind, “OSS and Franco-American Relations 1942-1945” Ph.D. diss., George Washington University, 1983, pp. 318-36. On psychological operations in the Pacific theater, see Leighton, Human Relations in a Changing World.

50. Clausen, “Research on the American Soldier.”

51. Ibid., p. 210.

52. Ibid., p. 212.

53. Barrett, Truth, p. 31fn.

54. “Edward W. Barrett Dies; Started Columbia Journalism Review.”

55. Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute for Social Research, 1923-1950 (Boston: Little, Brown, 1973); and Katz, Foreign Intelligence, pp. 29ff.

70. Information on Cantril in this paragraph is from “Cantril, [Albert] Hadley,” National Cyclopedia of American Biography, Vol. 55, pp. 211-12.

71. See, for example, William Buchanan and Hadley Cantril, How Nations See Each Other (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1972), pp. 91-101; or Hadley Cantril, The Politics of Despair (New York: Basic Books, 1958).

72. “Cantril, [Albert] Hadley. See also collection of Psychological Strategy Board correspondence with Cantril, including Cantril’s oblique reference to what appears to be clandestine CIA sponsorship and editing of his pamphlet The Goals of the Individual and the Hopes of Humanity (1951; published by Institute for Associated Research, Hanover, NH) in Cantril note of October 22, 195 1; in Hadley Cantril correspondence, Psychological Strategy Board, Truman Library, Independence, MO.

73. John M. Crewdson and Joseph Treaster, “Worldwide Propaganda Network Built by the CIA” New York Times, December 26, 1977.

74. Hadley Cantril, The Human Dimension: Experiences in Policy Research (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1967), pp. 131-32, 145.

75. Crewdson and Treaster, “Worldwide Propaganda Network.”

76. Hadley Cantril and David Rodnick, Understanding the French Left (Princeton: Institute for International Social Research, 1956).

77. Cantril, The Human Dimension, pp. 134-43.

78. Cantril, The Politics of Despair; Cantril, The Human Dimension, pp. 1-5, 144.

79. Lloyd Free and Hadley Cantril, The Political Beliefs of Americans (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1967). On the question of legality, note that the CIA’s charter bars the agency from “police, subpoena, lawenforcement powers or internal security functions,” a phrase that most observers contend prohibits the CIA from collecting intelligence on U.S. citizens inside the United States. On this point, see Thomas Powers, The Man Who Kept the Secrets: Richard Helms and the CIA (New York: Pocket Books, 1979), pp. 315-17, 367-70, concerning the CIA’s Operation Chaos.

80. For an example of a similar, later technique, see “Redefining the American Electorate,” Washington Post, October 1, 1987, p. At 2, with data provided by the Times Mirror-Gallup Organization.

81. On CIA funding of CENIS, see Victor Marchetti and John Marks, The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence (New York: Dell, 1974), p. 181; and David Wise and Thomas Ross, The Invisible Government (New York: Vintage, 1974), p. 244. On CIA funding of studies, see Marchetti and Marks, The CIA, p. 18 1. For an example of a major study reported to have been underwritten by the CIA, see W. W. Rostow and Alfred Levin, The Dynamics of Soviet Society (New York: Norton, 1952). On CENIS as a conduit of CIA funds, see Wise and Ross, The Invisible Government, p. 244. On Millikan’s role, see U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Institute, “Problems of Development and Internal Defense” (Country Team Seminar, June 11, 1962).

82. Ithiel de Sola Pool, “The Necessity for Social Scientists Doing Research for Governments,” Background 10, no. 2 (August 1966): 114-15.

83. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for International Studies, A Plan for Research in International Communications World Politics, 6, no. 3 (April 1954): 358-77; MIT, CENIS, The Center for International Studies: A Description (Cambridge: MIT, July 1955).

84. Don Price Oral History, pp. 61-70, and Don Price memo, May 21, 1954 (appendix to oral history), Ford Foundation Archives, New York. The archival evidence concerning this aspect of the Ford Foundation’s relationship with the CIA was first brought to light by Kai Bird.

85. On Shils, see Peter Coleman, The Liberal Conspiracy (New York: Free Press, 1989), pp. 98-209 passim. On Speier, see, Hans Speier, “Psychological Warfare Reconsidered,” RAND paper no. 196, February 5, 1951; Hans Speier, “International Political Communication: Elite and Mass,” World Politics (April 1952 [RAND paper no. P-270], Hans Speier and W. Phillips Davison, “Psychological Aspects of Foreign Policy,” RAND paper no. P-615, December 15, 1954. Speier’s other contemporary work that has since come to light includes several studies of Soviet response to West German rearmament, Soviet political tactics involving nuclear threats, a report on the American Soldier series, and a commentary on political applications of game theory. Speier died February 17, 1990, in Sarasota, Florida; see “Hans Speier, Sociologist,” Washington Post, March 2, 1990. On Carroll, see Wallace Carroll, The Army’s Role in Current Psychological Warfare (top secret, declassified following author’s mandatory review request), February 24, 1949, box 10, tab 61, entry 154, RG 319, U.S. National Archives, Washington, DC; Wallace Carroll, “It Takes a Russian to Beat a Russian,” Life, December 19, 1949, pp. 80-86; “CIA Trained Tibetans in Colorado, New Book Says,” New York Times, April 19, 1973.

86. Ithiel de Sola Pool and Frank Bonilla (eds.), “A Special Issue on Studies in Political Communication,” 20, no. I (Spring 1956); Daniel Lerner (ed.), “Special Issue: Attitude Research in Modernizing Areas,” 22, no. 3 (Fall 1958).

87. In 20, no. I (Spring 1956): Harold Isaacs, “Scratches on Our Minds,” p. 197; Y. B. Damle, “Communication of Modem Ideas and Knowledge in [East] Indian Villages,” p. 257; Claire Zimmerman and Raymond Bauer, “The Effect of an Audience upon What Is Remembered,” p. 238; Suzanne Keller, “Diplomacy and Communication,” p. 176; and Harold Isaacs, “World Affairs and U.S. Race Relations: A Note on Little Rock,” 22, no. 3 (Fall 1958): 364.

88. Ithiel de Sola Pool, Suzanne Keller, and Raymond Bauer, “The Influence of Foreign Travel on Political Attitudes of U.S. Businessmen,” p. 161; Frank Bonilla, “When Is Petition ‘Pressure’?” p. 39; Daniel Lerner, “French Business Leaders Look at EDC,” p. 212 — all in 20, no. 1 (Spring 1956); and Daniel Lerner, “Editors Introduction,” p. 217; Ithiel de Sola Pool and Kali Prasad, “Indian Student Images of Foreign People,” p. 292; Frank Bonilla, “Elites and Public Opinion in Areas of High Social Stratification,” p. 349; all in 22, no. 3 (Fall 1958).

89. Ivor Wayne, “American and Soviet Themes and Values: A Content Analysis of Themes in Popular Picture Magazines,” p. 314; Patricia Kendall, “The Ambivalent Character of Nationalism among Egyptian Professionals,” p. 277 — all in 20, no. I (Spring 1956).

90. Guy Pauker, “Indonesian Images of Their National Self,” p. 305; Lucian Pye, “Administrators, Agitators and Brokers,” p. 342; Alain Girard, “The First Opinion Research in Uruguay and Chile,” p. 251; Kurt Back, “The ChangeProne Person in Puerto Rico,” p. 330; Robert Carlson, “To Talk with Kings,” p. 224; Herbert Hyman et al., “The Values of Turkish College Youth,” p. 275; Raymond Gastil, “Middle Class Impediments to Iranian Modernization,” p. 325; Gorden Hirabayashi and M. Fathalla El Kbatib, “Communication and Political Awareness in the Villages of Egypt,” p. 357; A. J. Meyer, “Entrepreneurship and Economic Development in the Middle East,” p. 391; Richard Robinson, “Turkey’s Agrarian Revolution and the Problem of Urbanization,” p. 397; Lincoln Armstrong and Rashid Bashshur, “Ecological Patterns and Value Orientations in Lebanon,” p. 406 — all in 22, no. 3 (Fall 1958).

91. Isaacs, “World Affairs and U.S. Race Relations,” p. 364.

92. Lerner, “Editor’s Introduction,” pp. 218, 219, 221.

93. Lerner and Pevsner, The Passing of Traditional Society, p. 396. Emphasis added.

94. Special Operations Research Office, The U.S. Army’s Limited-War Mission, pp. 59-63, 69-77; Blum, The CIA, pp. 133-62.

95. On communications theorists’ contributions to counterinsurgency, see Special Operations Research Office, The U.S. Army’s Limited-War Mission, pp. 159-69 (Pye) and 199ff (Pool). See also Ithiel de Sola Pool (ed.), Social Science Research and National Security (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution [Office of Naval Research Project], 1963), pp. 1-25 (Pool), 46-74 (Schramm), 148-66 (Pye).

96. Special Operations Research Office, The U.S. Army’s Limited-War Mission, pp. 282ff; see also U.S. Department of the Army, Art and Science of Psychological Operations, pp. xvii, 47-53.

97. The Camelot Affair precipitated the first genuinely public discussion of the collision between the professed humanitarian values of modem social science and the actual ends to which it had been put in the world political arena. In 1964, the U.S. Army hired private U.S. social scientists to conduct a series of long-term inquiries into the social structures, political and economic resources, ethnic rivalries, communication infrastructures, and similar basic data concerning developing countries considered likely to see strong revolutionary movements during the 1960s. The project exploded when nationalist and left-wing forces in Chile and other targeted countries protested, labeling Camelot a de facto espionage operation. Camelot contractors, notably sociologist Jesse Bernard of American University, replied that the criticism was “laughable” because Camelot’s had been “designed as a scientific research project” in which me countries selected for study made “no difference.” The argument escalated from there. See House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Behavioral Sciences and the National Security, Report No. 4, 89th Cong. 1st sess. (Washington, DC: GPO, 1965); Jesse Bernard, “Conflict as Research and Research as Conflict,” in Irving Louis Horowitz, The Rise and Fall of Project Camelot, rev. ed. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1974), p. 129n.

98. Special Operations Research Office, The U.S. Army’s Limited-War Mission, pp. 282ff; see also U.S. Department of the Army, Art and Science of Psychological Operations, pp. xvii, 47-53.

99. For example, Executive Office of the President, “NSAM No. 308: A Program to Promote Publicly U.S. Policies in Vietnam” (June 22, 1964); McGeorge Bundy, “NSAM No. 328: Military Actions in Vietnam” (April 6, 1965); “NSAM No. 329: Establishment of a Task Force on Southeast Asian Economic and Social Development” (April 9, 1965); and “NSAM No. 330: Expanded Psychological Operations in Vietnam” (April 9, 1965); each was obtained via the Freedom of Information Act from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller General.

100. On Lerner, Riley, Davison, Cottrell, and Pool, see Special Operations Research Office, The U.S. Army’s LimitedWar Mission, pp. xvi, 151-59, 199-202, 282-86. On Pool, Davison, and Schramm, see Pool, Social Science Research and National Security, pp. 1-74. On Lasswell, see Harold Lasswell, World Revolutionary Elites: Studies in Coercive Ideological Movements (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1966).

© Copyright C. Simpson 2003  For fair use only/ pour usage équitable seulement.

 

Re-Post: Hillary, Weaponization, State

 

Hillary Clinton and the Weaponization of the State Department

 

On May 23, 2012, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went to the Special Operations Forces Industry Conference (SOFIC) trade show in Tampa, Florida to share her vision of “smart power” and to explain the State Department’s crucial role in extending the reach and efficacy of America’s growing “international counterterrorism network.”

First, there is such a thing as a “Special Operations Forces Industry Conference trade show.” Without some keen reporting by David Axe of Wired, that peculiar get-together might’ve flown completely under the radar—much like the shadowy “industry” it both supports and feeds off of like a sleek, camouflaged lamprey attached to a taxpayer-fattened shark.

Second, “special operations” have officially metastasized into a full-fledged industry. United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) is located at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa and, therefore, conveniently located near the special operations trade show, which happened again this year at the Tampa Convention Center. The theme was “Strengthening the Global SOF Network” and the 600,000-square-foot facility was filled with targets of opportunity for well-connected and well-heeled defense contractors.

According to the SOFIC website, this year’s conference afforded attendees “the opportunity to engage with USSOCOM Program Executive Officers, Science and Technology Managers, Office of Small Business Programs and Technology & Industry Liaison Office representatives, and other acquisition experts who will identify top priorities, business opportunities, and interests as they relate to USSOCOM acquisition programs.”

Third, Hillary’s widely-ignored speech marked a radical departure from the widely-held perception that the State Department’s diplomatic mission endures as an institutional alternative to the Pentagon’s military planning. Instead, Secretary Clinton celebrated the transformation of Foggy Bottom into a full partner with the Pentagon’s ever-widening efforts around the globe, touting both the role of diplomats in paving the way for shadowy special ops in so-called “hot spots” and the State Department’s “hand-in-glove” coordination with Special Forces in places like Pakistan and Yemen.

Finally, with little fanfare or coverage, America’s lead diplomat stood before the shadow war industry and itemized the integration of the State Department’s planning and personnel with the Pentagon’s global counter-terrorism campaign which, she told the special operations industry, happen “in one form or another in more than 100 countries around the world.”

If this isn’t entirely unexpected, consider the fact that under then-Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, the State Department fought attempts by the Pentagon to trump its authority around the globe and, as reported by the Washington Post, “repeatedly blocked Pentagon efforts to send Special Operations forces into countries surreptitiously and without ambassadors’ formal approval.”

But that was before Hillary brought her “fast and flexible” doctrine of “smart power” to Foggy Bottom and, according to her remarks, before she applied lessons learned from her time on the Senate Armed Services Committee to launch the first-ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, which she modeled on the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review. That Pentagon-style review spurred the creation of the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations to “advance the U.S. government’s foreign policy goals in conflict areas.”

According to a Congressional Research Service analysis, the initial intent of the Conflict Bureau was to replace the ineffectual Office of the Coordinator of Reconstruction and Stabilization, which was created in 2004 to help manage “stabilization” efforts in two nations the U.S. was actively destabilizing—Afghanistan and Iraq.

But the new, improved bureau does more than just react to messes made by unlawful invasions or direct costly remediation efforts in war zones—it also collaborates with “relevant partners” in the Department of Defense and NATO “to harmonize civilian and military plans and operations pertaining to conflict prevention, crisis response, and stabilization.”

This integrated relationship between State and Defense was confirmed by U.S. Special Operations chief Admiral William McRaven shortly after Hillary’s speech. When asked about the “unlikely partnership,” McRaven assured DefenseNews that SOCOM has “an absolutely magnificent relationship with the State Department” and that SOCOM doesn’t “do anything that isn’t absolutely fully coordinated and approved by the U.S. ambassador and the geographic combatant commander.”

As David Axe aptly described it in Wired, “Together, Special Operations Forces and State’s new Conflict Bureau are the twin arms of an expanding institution for waging small, low-intensity shadow wars all over the world.”

In fact, during Hillary’s time as America’s chief diplomat, the State Department embraced the shadowy edge of U.S. foreign policy where decision-makers engage in activities that look like war, sound like war and, if you were to ask civilians in places like Yemen and Pakistan, feel a lot like war, but never quite have to meet the Constitutional requirement of being officially declared as war.

The Whole-of-Government Shift

Once upon a time, “low-intensity shadow wars” were the Congressionally-regulated bailiwick of the Central Intelligence Agency. But 9/11 changed everything. However, the excesses of the Bush Administration led many to hope that Obama could and would change everything back or, at least, relax America’s tense embrace of “the dark side.”

Although the new administration did officially re-brand “The War on Terror” as “Overseas Contingency Operations,” Team Obama employed an increasingly elastic interpretation of the 9/11-inspired Authorization for Use of Military Force and expanded covert ops, special ops, drone strikes and regime change to peoples and places well-beyond the law’s original intent, and certainly beyond the limited scope of CIA covert action.

Obama’s growing counter-terrorism campaign—involving, as Secretary Clinton said, “more than 100 countries”—took flight with a new, ecumenical approach called the “Whole-of-Government” strategy. Advanced by then-Secretary of Defense Bill Gates and quickly adopted by the new administration in early 2009, this strategy catalyzed an institutional shift toward inter-agency cooperation, particularly in the case of “state-building” (a.k.a. “nation building”).

During remarks to the Brookings Institution in 2010, Secretary Clinton explained the shift: “One of our goals coming into the administration was… to begin to make the case that defense, diplomacy and development were not separate entities, either in substance or process, but that indeed they had to be viewed as part of an integrated whole and that the whole of government then had to be enlisted in their pursuit.”

Essentially, the Whole-of-Government approach is a re-branded and expanded version of Pentagon’s doctrine of “Full-Spectrum Dominance.” Coincidentally, that strategy was featured in the Clinton Administration’s final Annual Report to the President and Congress in 2001. It defined “Full-Spectrum Dominance” as “an ability to conduct prompt, sustained, and synchronized operations with forces tailored to specific situations and possessing freedom to operate in all domains—space, sea, land, air, and information.”

In 2001, Full-Spectrum Dominance referred specifically to 20th Century notions of battlefield-style conflicts. But the “dark side” of the War on Terror stretched the idea of the battlefield well-beyond symmetrical military engagements. “Irregular warfare” became the catchphrase du jour, particularly as grinding campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq exposed the reality that the full spectrum still wasn’t enough.

An assessment by the Congressional Research Service identified the primary impetus for the Whole-of-Government “reforms” embraced by Team Obama as the “perceived deficiencies of previous inter-agency missions” during the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those missions failed to address a myriad of problems created—culturally, economically and politically—by the wholesale bombing and occupation of those countries. The Full-Spectrum was half-baked. Lesson learned.

But the lesson wasn’t that the U.S. should avoid intervention, regime change or unleashing nascent civil, ethnic or religious conflicts. Instead, the lesson was that the “Whole-of-Government” must be marshaled to fight a worldwide array of Overseas Contingency Operations in “more than 100 countries.”

This Whole-of-Government shift signaled a renewed willingness to engage on variety of new fronts—particularly in Africa—but in a “fast and flexible” way. With other agencies—like the State Department—integrated and, in effect, fronting the counter-terrorism campaign, the military footprint becomes smaller and, therefore, easier to manage locally, domestically and internationally.

In some ways, the Whole-of-Government national security strategy is plausible deniability writ-large through the cover of interagency integration. By merging harder-to-justify military and covert actions into a larger, civilian-themed command structure, the impact of the national security policy overseas is hidden—or at least obfuscated—by the diplomatic “stabilization” efforts run through the State Department—whether it’s the Conflict Bureau working against Joseph Kony’s Lord’s Resistance Army in Central Africa, “stabilizing” post-Gaddafi Libya or spending $27 million to organize the opposition to Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime.

The Pass Key

The cover of diplomacy has traditionally been an effective way to slip covert operators into countries and the State Department’s vast network of embassies and consulates still offers an unparalleled “pass-key” into sovereign nations, emerging hot spots and potential targets for regime change. In 2001, the Annual Report to the President and Congress foresaw the need for more access: “Given the global nature of our interests and obligations, the United States must maintain the ability to rapidly project power worldwide in order to achieve full-spectrum dominance.”

Having the way “pre-paved” is, based on Hillary’s doctrinal shift at State, a key part of the new, fuller-spectrum, Whole-of-Government, mission-integrated version of diplomacy. At the SOFIC’s Special Operations Gala Dinner in 2012, Hillary celebrated the integration of diplomatic personnel and Special Operations military units at the State Department’s recently created Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications—a “nerve center in Washington” that coordinates “military and civilian teams around the world” and serves “as a force multiplier for our embassies’ communications efforts.”

As with most doors in Washington, that relationship swings both ways and mission-integrated embassies have served as an effective force multiplier for the Pentagon’s full spectrum of activities, particularly around Africa.

In his 2011 testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee Subcommittee on Africa, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Don Yamamoto noted that State had “significantly expanded the number of DoD personnel who are integrated into embassies across the continent over the past three years,” and read a surprisingly long laundry list of collaborative efforts between State and the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM), including: “reduction of excess and poorly secured man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS); Defense Sector Reform in Liberia, DRC, and South Sudan; counterpiracy activities off the Somali coast; maritime safety and security capacity building; and civil-military cooperation.”

It seems that “civil-military cooperation” is a primary focus of the State Department in Africa. Most notably, Yamamoto told Congress that “embassies implement Department of State-funded Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and International Military Education and Training (IMET) programs, which further U.S. interests in Africa by helping to professionalize African militaries, while also assisting our African partners to be more equipped and trained to work toward common security goals.”

As the ever-vigilant Nick Turse recently reported, U.S. presence on the continent has only grown since that testimony was given in 2011. On TomDispatch.com, Turse identified the infamous attack on Benghazi on September 11, 2012 as the catalyst for “Operation New Normal”—the continent-wide response to, quite ironically, the political potboiler still simmering around Secretary Clinton. Whether or not Congressional Republicans find anything more than incompetence at the root of Benghazi, the U.S. military certainly finds itself in a “new normal” of increased activity in response to the forces—and the weaponry—unleashed by U.S.-led regime change in Libya. According to Turse, the U.S. is “now conducting operations alongside almost every African military in almost every African country and averaging more than a mission a day.”

Those missions are, of course, integrated with and augmented by the State Department’s Conflict Bureau which has used a variety of state-building programs and its diplomatic “pass key” in places like Libya, Nigeria, Kenya, South Sudan, Somalia, Democratic Republic of the Congo and six other African nations, all to develop a growing roster of “host country partners.”

Establishing “host country partners” is the nexus where the State Department, its Conflict Bureau and the AFRICOM meet—implementing the Whole-of-Government strategy in emerging or current conflict zones to fuse a mounting counter-terrorism campaign with stabilization, modernization and state-building initiatives, particularly in oil and resource-rich areas like the Niger River Delta, Central Africa and around AFRICOM’s military foothold on the Horn of Africa.

As Richard J. Wilhelm, a Senior Vice President with defense and intelligence contracting giant Booz Allen Hamilton, pointed out in a video talk about “mission integration,” AFRICOM’s coordination with the Departments of State and Commerce, USAID is the “most striking example of the Whole-of-Government approach.”

And this is exactly the type of “hand-in-glove” relationship Secretary Clinton fostered throughout her tenure at State, leveraging the resources of the department in a growing list of conflict areas where insurgents, terrorists, al-Qaeda affiliates, suspected militants or uncooperative regimes threaten to run afoul of so-called “U.S. interests”.

Ultimately, it became a hand-in-pocket relationship when Clinton and Defense Secretary Gates developed the Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF) to “incentivize joint planning and to pool the resources of the Departments of State and Defense, along with the expertise of other departments, to provide security sector assistance for partner countries so they can address emergent challenges and opportunities important to U.S. national security.”

Although he’s been criticized as feckless and deemed less hawkish than Secretary Clinton, President Obama’s newly-proposed Counterterrorism Partnership Fund (CTPF) is the logical extension of the Clinton-Gates Global Security Contingency Fund and epitomizes the Whole-of-Government shift.

The $5 billion Obama wants will dwarf the $250 million pooled into the GSCF and will, the President said at West Point, “give us flexibility to fulfill different missions including training security forces in Yemen who have gone on the offensive against al Qaeda; supporting a multinational force to keep the peace in Somalia; working with European allies to train a functioning security force and border patrol in Libya; and facilitating French operations in Mali.”

That “flexibility” is exactly what Hillary Clinton instituted at State and touted at the SOFIC conference in 2012. It also portends a long-term shift to less invasive forms of regime change like those in Yemen, Libya, Syria and Ukraine, and an increased mission flexibility that will make the Authorization for the Use of Military Force functionally irrelevant.

Normalizing the War on Terror

The ultimate outcome of this shift is, to borrow from Nick Turse, yet another “new normal”—the new normalization of the War on Terror. What the adoption of the Whole-of-Government/mission integration approach has done is to normalize the implementation of the re-branded War on Terror (a.k.a. Overseas Contingency Operations) across key agencies of the government and masked it, for lack of the better term, under the rubric of stabilization, development and democracy building.

It is, in effect, the return of a key Cold War policy of “regime support” for clients and “regime change” for non-client states, particularly in strategically-located areas and resource-rich regions. Regimes—whether or not they actually “reflect American values”—can count on U.S. financial, military and mission-integrated diplomatic support so long as they can claim to be endangered… not by communists, but by terrorists.

And because terrorism is a tactic—not a political system or a regime—the shadowy, State Department-assisted Special Ops industry that fights them will, unlike the sullen enthusiasts of the Cold War, never be bereft of an enemy.

http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2014/06/06/hillary-clinton-and-the-weaponization-of-the-state-department/ 

 

Appalachia coal

Music video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk5-G9XKbJE (6:38)

 

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Obamas-No-Job-Zone1.jpg 

Obama’s War On Coal Is A War On You and Your Family

Posted on June 1, 2014 by therearenosunglasses

[Another fake, hypocritical “humanitarian” effort, intended to cripple American business and to bolster the international financiers who own Obama.  This time,   Look for some disgruntled, unemployed coal-miners to squeeze-off a few rounds (or worse) at the White House.]

[snip, snip]

“We don’t have to choose between the health of our economy and the health of our children,” Obama said in his weekly address. “As president and as a parent, I refuse to condemn our children to a planet that’s beyond fixing.”

http://therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com/2014/06/01/obamas-war-on-coal-is-a-war-on-you-and-your-family/ 

 

 

Have we heard from Joe Manchin?  

Yes, a year ago: 

“It’s clear now that the President has declared a war on coal. It’s simply unacceptable that one of the key elements of his climate change proposal places regulations on coal that are completely impossible to meet with existing technology.” 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/25/manchin-obama-declared-war-on-coal/

  

A month ago, Jay Rockefeller introduced clean coal legislation. 

 

 

http://www.charlestondailymail.com/News/201206200108 

A 2012 article

“West Virginia coal operators must stop shrugging off climate change and pollution-related health problems to “face reality” about the future of coal….”

http://www.skinit.com/assets/catalog/jumbo_shot/1047209_jumbo_shot.jpg 

 

Appalachia has been under systemic attack by big business interests for a very long time. 

 

How much of this history is known to the POTUS, Mr. Earnest?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawks_Nest_Tunnel_Disaster

http://westvirginiaville.com/2011/06/hawks-nest-tunnel-disaster-west-virginia/ 

http://www.fandango.com/movie-trailer/matewan-trailer/48184

 

“… Private planes were hired to drop homemade bombs on the miners. A combination of gas and explosive bombs left over from the fighting in World War I were dropped in several locations near the towns of Jeffery, Sharples and Blair. At least one did not explode and was recovered by the miners; it was used months later to great effect during treason and murder trials following the battle. On orders from the famous General Billy Mitchell, Army bombers from Maryland were also used for aerial surveillance, an early example of air power being used by the federal government against US citizens….. Following the battle, 985 miners were indicted for murder, conspiracy to commit murder, accessory to murder, and treason against the State of West Virginia. Though some were acquitted by sympathetic juries, many were also imprisoned for a number of years, though they were paroled in 1925.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain 

“… In late August and early September 1921 in West Virginia’s Logan County as many as 15,000 armed miners, some of them allegedly provided with weapons by the United Mine Workers of America, mounted an insurrection after a series of assassinations of union leaders and their chief supporters, as well as mass evictions, blacklistings and wholesale firings by coal companies determined to break union organizing. Miners in other coal fields across the United States had concluded a strike that lasted two months and ended with a 27 percent pay increase. The miners in West Virginia and eastern Kentucky wanted the same. They wanted to be freed from the debt peonage of the company stores, to be paid fairly for their work, to have better safety in the mines, to fight back against the judges, politicians, journalists and civil authorities who had sold out to Big Coal, and to have a union. They grasped that unchallenged and unregulated corporate power was a form of enslavement. And they grasped that it was only through a union that they had any hope of winning.

[snip]

It is an old and cruel tactic in any company town. Reduce wages and benefits to subsistence level. Break unions. Gut social assistance programs. Buy and sell elected officials and judges. Fill the airwaves with mindless diversion and corporate propaganda. Pay off the press. Poison the soil, the air and the water to extract natural resources and leave behind a devastated wasteland. Plunge workers into debt. Leave them owing more on their houses than the structures are worth. Make sure the children will be burdened by tens of thousands of dollars lent to them for an education and will be unable to find decent jobs. Make sure that everything from hospital bills to car payments to credit card fees exact increasing pounds of flesh. And when workers stumble, when they cannot pay soaring interest rates, jack up rates further and deploy predators from debt collection agencies to harass the debtors and seize their assets. Then toss them away. Company towns all look the same. And we live in the biggest one on earth.

 http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_battle_of_blair_mountain_20120716# 

[Read and keep those last two articles in your mind when you consider http://www.alt-market.com/articles/2160-meet-directive-302518-granting-obama-authority-to-use-military-force-against-civilians or the use of mercenary death squads in the Ukraine.]

 

This history lends the etymological source for the pejorative term “redneck”; the miners, in order to differentiate themselves from others, tied a red bandanna around their necks. 

 

http://theweek.com/article/index/255505/appalachia-the-big-white-ghetto#axzz33QOpMqM7 [reverse racism? class warfare?]

 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeLfe1Vo0ak  (movie clip)

 

Appalachia is engaged in a civil war of sorts over coal, with min­ers and their fam­i­lies pit­ted against envi­ron­men­tal activists. The cen­tral issue is moun­tain­top removal, a rad­i­cal form of strip min­ing that has left over 2,000 miles of streams buried and over 500 moun­tains destroyed. According to sev­eral recent stud­ies, peo­ple liv­ing near sur­face min­ing sites have a 50 per­cent greater risk of fatal can­cer and a 42 per­cent greater risk of birth defects than the gen­eral population.

Perhaps the most disturbing story of anti-activist harassment is that of Maria Gunnoe. A native of Boone County, W.Va., Ms. Gunnoe once found her photograph on unofficial “wanted” posters plastered around her hometown. In another incident, last month, while testifying before Congress, Republican staffers accused her of possessing child pornography after she tried to present a photograph of a 5-year-old girl being bathed in contaminated, tea-colored water.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/09/opinion/appalachia-turns-on-itself.html 

http://www.globalsocialchange.com/2012/07/09/big-coal-business-destroying-appalachia/

 

Music video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mL9H-mQcqAE (15:30)

 

 

“Capital is the authority of the Appalachian coalfields, and has created systemic poverty and mono economies. Instead of prosperity in the commons, the mechanism of authority has spawned tragedy.

Property is theft in Appalachia. The current system is concerned with the well-being of the politically connected corporati instead of the common good – Appalachian communities. This system exists because legal privilege is granted to industry. The development of this socio-economic order is political, as opposed to free and participatory. The current authority in the coalfields, the corporate state, is illegitimate. It is far past time we transition to society free of it.

Appalachia is a region plagued with ecological destruction, where labor is on the decline and persistent class struggle exists.…

Common natural resources — water, air, land, and biodiversity — are under direct threat from industry in Appalachia. Such vital natural resources are a public good. They should be neither rivalrous nor excludable. In Appalachia, however, clean air and water are subject to exploitation. It is a privilege to have access to these resources. The coal town of Bud West, Virginia, for example, has not had clean water in over five months.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/01/29/reclaiming-the-commons-in-appalachia/ 

 

If you want to get an idea of where the rest of America is heading, just take a trip through the western half of West Virginia and the eastern half of Kentucky some time.  Once you leave the main highways, you will rapidly encounter poverty on a level that is absolutely staggering. …

Coal mining still produces jobs that pay a decent wage, but Barack Obama is doing his very best to kill off that entire industry.  After decades of decline, vast stretches of impoverished Appalachia look like they have been through a war.  Those living in the area know that things are not good, but they just try to do the best that they can with what they have…. Most of those that live in the heart of Appalachia are really good “salt of the earth” people that just want to work hard and do what is right for their families.  But after decades of increasing poverty, the entire region has been transformed into an economic nightmare that never seems to end…. In Appalachia, the abuse of alcohol, meth and other legal and illegal drugs is significantly higher than in the U.S. population as a whole.  In a desperate attempt to deal with the pain of their lives, many people living in the region are looking for anything that will allow them to “escape” for a little while.  The following is an excerpt from an excellent article by Chris Hedges which describes what life is like in the little town of Gary, West Virginia at this point…

Joe and I are sitting in the Tug River Health Clinic in Gary with a registered nurse who does not want her name used. The clinic handles federal and state black lung applications. It runs a program for those addicted to prescription pills. It also handles what in the local vernacular is known as “the crazy check” — payments obtained for mental illness from Medicaid or SSI — a vital source of income for those whose five years of welfare payments have run out. Doctors willing to diagnose a patient as mentally ill are important to economic survival.

“They come in and want to be diagnosed as soon as they can for the crazy check,” the nurse says. “They will insist to us they are crazy. They will tell us, ‘I know I’m not right.’ People here are very resigned. They will avoid working by being diagnosed as crazy.”

The reliance on government checks, and a vast array of painkillers and opiates, has turned towns like Gary into modern opium dens. The painkillers OxyContin, fentanyl — 80 times stronger than morphine — Lortab, as well as a wide variety of anti-anxiety medications such as Xanax, are widely abused. Many top off their daily cocktail of painkillers at night with sleeping pills and muscle relaxants. And for fun, addicts, especially the young, hold “pharm parties,” in which they combine their pills in a bowl, scoop out handfuls of medication, swallow them, and wait to feel the result.

Of course this kind of thing is not just happening in the heart of Appalachia.  All over the country there are rural communities that are economically depressed.  In fact, according to the Wall Street Journal, economic activity in about half of the counties in the entire nation is still below pre-recession levels… [Read the article.]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-18/vast-stretches-impoverished-appalachia-look-they-have-been-through-war 

 

 

http://media.popcultcha.com.au/media/catalog/product/imported_older/NEC26621-Hunger-Games-Belt-Buckle-Antique-Silver_3.png 

 

Music video:

“Appalachian Journey”, Alan Lomax (1991)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXh8SDp0H-E (56:25)