Tag Archives: Madsen

‘interesting to say the least’

‘interesting to say the least’

The book that some people are already calling nebulous because they doubt its veracity and validity is called “The Nebula”.  Its three-page foreword is written by Wayne Madsen. The author is a former Belgian NATO AWACS command post officer and NATO Air Defense Officer. The book is published by Trine-Day.


The back cover says that the book provides “deep insights into the unseen but real forces” and “exposes a cabal which controls most of the money transfers worldwide as well as the highest political authorities.”

Donald Trump is featured in the last of four parts, particularly in chapter 19. There is an index and 22 appendices totalling fifty pages. There is a 3.5-page list of acronyms and abbreviations, a 3.5-page introduction, and a bibliography that lists 85 sources.
There is an index and 22 appendices totalling fifty pages. There is a 3.5-page list of acronyms and abbreviations, a 3.5-page introduction, and a bibliography that lists 85 sources.
On page 201, in the epilogue, Walter Baeyens says “In these days of unbridled egocentric materialism, , power and money have become the only means and measure of all thingd. How they are acquired does not matter.”  In the pages preceding, he gives you a better sense of how they are acquired.

“In these days of unbridled egocentric materialism, power and money have become the only means and measure of all thing. How they are acquired does not matter.”

In the pages preceding, he gives you a better sense of how they are acquired.
The kingpin of the Nebula was identified in the ATLAS Report, which can be found in both French and English in the appendix, as well as at https://isgp-studies.com/belgium-la-nebuleuse-atlas-dossier-and-dutroux-x-files, whose author is the first reviewer at Amazon and who appears to have his underwear in a knot because his work is neither credited nor makes an appearance in Baeyens’ book, The ATLAS Report can also be found  here:  https://zionistreport.com/2016/07/commentary-classified-belgian-police-report-nebula-receives-another-look/.
The ATLAS report was triggered by serial murders, enough of them that one needs a guide and additional references to get clear on their history. One involved Andre Cools, and then there were the Brabant murders, and a range of Gladio events, and they stretched all the way back to the murder of Julien Lahaut in 1950 whose sponsor (to use Drago’s template) Baeyens alleges (page 2) also attempted to derail investigations in the late 80’s into the the Brabant kills and the child abuse cases labeled “Dossier X”.  If this is beginning to sound familiar, read the book.
The kingpin, we are told on page 10, is a Grandmaster of the Jewish Lodge B’Nai B’rith, putting to rest one of the main points by the first Amazon reviewer who claims Baeyens went on an anti-Semitic binge “two-thirds” into the book.  But the Israeli maffiya are mentioned on the very first page (and after you finish reading this book you can join the global discussion about the criminalization of free speech).



Weapons, money and corruption are identified early and often.  There is no centering exclusively on Jewish or Israeli components of the global criminal cabal; the Vatican, Wall Street, banking, the Rothschilds, the the Russian-Jewish maffiya, the old Italian mafia, crime families, the OTO, the Federal Reserve, water and power utilities and corporations, big corporations, numerous governmental intelligence agencies, the Trilaterals, the Bilderbergers and the European Round Table all get their moments in the spotlight.
French historian Annie Lacroix-Riz and her book The Choice of Defeat make their first appearance on page 38 to point out how the German conquest of Northern France at the beginning of World War Two became “a walk in the park”.  Wikipedia of course has an entry on her; many others exist on the internet but tend naturally to be in her French language.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Lacroix-Riz She is accused of being a communist sympathizer, but I guess we all have to call one another something, no?  In the world of Hegelian dialectic, in the end we’re either fascist or communist or dead or some combination thereof, Christianity and all major religions having been relegated to the trash heap of history, thought and choice by the eventual dictatorship that necessarily evolves under either choice. (Everyone is damned to pennilessness or some form of insignificance (if not death itself) if they fail to adhere to the dominant political centrality of the moment.)
In the world of Hegelian dialectic, in the end we’re either fascist or communist or dead or some combination thereof, Christianity and all major religions having been relegated to the trash heap of history, thought and choice by the eventual dictatorship that necessarily evolves under either choice. (Everyone is damned to pennilessness or some form of insignificance (if not death itself) if they fail to adhere to the dominant political centrality of the moment.)
The history of the French Cagoule is well-documented, says Baeyens on page 39, where he lays out an organizational structure for the Synarchist organization which keeps the thugs and the killers on the fourth level, the technocrats who rationalize their acts on the third level, the very wealthy politically-neutral businessmen who bribe their way into politics (taking turns to infilitrate all parties large and small) on the second level, with the ideologues at the top. He notes that the horrible crimes they commit remain unprosecuted decades after the fact speak to the depth of the cover-up.
On page 43, it is said that the absolute power structure and its particular instruments can order assassinations, start wars and terrors campaigns, and impose complete silence.
The Synarchist “conspiracy theory” comes in immediately, as does a wide range of Freemasonry lodges starting with P2. Freemasonry comes into focus on pages 45-54. ( Did you know that Lyman Lemnitzer was a 32nd degree Mason of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite?)
Adam Weishaupt and his “papers” get a moment with his mantra “the ends justify the means”, and the means include usury, blackmail, the subjugation of the press, the destruction of relgiion (especially Christianity), corruption, sedition, terror, violence and perversion (including pedophilia, child sacrifice et alia which, in this book, are only peripherally mentioned as a primary tool of blackmail and an element in the over-arching occultism that preaches that men, being divine, do not need their immoral acts forgiven.
Chapter Five (entitled Nazism to Gladio) discusses the roles of John J. McCloy, the Bank of International Settlements, the Grey Wolves, and socialism, which brings us back to Andre Cools. The cabal does not care about religion, politics or nationalism, but only about itself. Chapter Six is about Iran-Contra, Gerald Bull, Marc Rich, and 9/11. Chapter Eight details the role of B’nai B’rith, the Bolsheviks, Trotskyism, communism, the Federal Reserve, alcohol and prohibition. Harry Hopkins, the birth of Israel, Iran-Contra, the Harriman family, Maurice Tempelsman and, again and again, the famous Felix Przedborski.
Chapter Ten talks about waste criminality, Chapter Eleven tells the amazing story of Major Jordan’s diary, and Chapter Thirteen discusses what happened to the Belgian royals during World War Two. Chapter 14 is about the Nazi underground (treated in much greater detail in other sources) but which mentions that Skorzeny was contracted by Mossad for the killing of a German scientist in 1962, and goes on to mention the influence of the Nazi underground on the history and future of North Africa and the Middle East. This “Geozentrale” is treated in more detail in Chapter 15. We’re talking about the maintenance of the tools and the global export of Nazi modes of terror.
Latin America and Carlos Lehder come into focus in Chapter 16, along with Gehlen, Barbie, and the Belgian drugs-for-arms trade through Antwerp and, soon enough, Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, AIG, Goldman Sachs and the Clintons. Part of the strategy of the Nazi movement in diaspora was the creation of the EU and its binding to the UK.  The Nazi infilitration of the Stasi and the KGB are mentioned, as well as trafficking in gold, artwrok, antiques, cars, drugs, AK-47s and “visas”.  Points of contact were created through the world including Indonesia, China, Saudi Arabia and Africa, all with links back to Belgium. Eventually Costa Rica becomes a centerpeice in the network.
Chapter 18 brings the reader through the world of Nazism, Zionism, NATO, terrorism, homosexual practices, pedophilia, Yale, Skull and Bones. mind control, merceneries, mobs, and the rituals of the special operations military community. Kay Griggs is the tour guide.
Chapter 19 introduces The Donald and the threat of the Jewish-Marxist alliance as it teamed up with Freemasonry and Protestantism in their common goal of the abolition of Christianity. Roy Cohn’s role is detailed. The Order of Malta is mentioned, as well as many of its Knights (Gehlen, the Dulles brothers, Bill Casey, William Colby, Clay Shaw, and thrre members of the Bush family). Baron Giulio Cesare Andrea Evola makes a guest appearance on page 173, bringing into focus the theme of an order based on violence, hierarchy, caste, race, myth, religion and ritual.
Chapter Twenty notes Lenin and his book Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, brought into focus in the late 20th century with the reality that “the financial industry had definitely become the dominant force of global economic activity. To make a fortune, you no longer needed to start up a production plant. You simply speculated your way to riches…. Political regimes have become mere instruments of the global banking cartel.  Wherever governments failt to hand over the riches of their nation, politicians are replaced by technocrats [who] “straighten out” things in favor of the banks, while the press and the media are seeing to it that the masses remain largely uninformed and constantly entertained.”
Chapter Twenty-One is about the Muslim connection, the role of Turkic studies expert Gerhard von Mende, as well as Theodor Oberlander (aptly named.., did he date Frau Lebensraum?), who “saw great opportunities in the use of Muslim extremism for the re-unification of Germany and the re-annexation of former German territories”.  Of 9/11, Baeyens says “the 9/11 pictures, masterpieces of Hollywood propaganda, stunning and hypnotizing, were like a mix of cheap Godzilla movie scenes and a TV ad.  Being constantly bombarded with these terrible visual imprints, the public at large, as expected, soon acknowledged two basic facts. First, this was an act of war against America. Second, that Muslim extremists did it….” Further, that the new building, the creation of architect Daniel Libeskind, “could be understood as another Holocaust memorial on US soil, dedicated to the victory of money over truth” and that, post 9/11, the “uncontested state of affairs [of Pax Americana and the US as global enforcer now under attack triggering Article V of the NATO pact] made the acquiescing European nations accomplices of the planned American criminal wars in the Middle East. Finally, Baeyens cites and quotes Max Keiser on the option purchases, ABS, Buzzy Krongard, and Deutsche Bank:

“… the noise which occurred between Baltimore, New York City and Langley was interesting, as you can imagine, to say the least.”

If that’s all too much for you, find and watch this movie:



The Prize: 9/11 Truth

911 Symposium

WAYNE MADSEN, Investigative Reporter


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvUQIEjQqQY (37:04)


The Full Walking Tour Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fJmQUv-b2Q (1:57:15)


On CSPAN’s “Washington Journal” (@cspanwj) Richard Gage, founder of “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth” (@ae911truth) discusses their evidence that Building 7 was destroyed by controlled demolition on September 11th. Gage was live from MediaOne Studio 2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zY9HfwzGPg (39:58)

[Gage’s presentation is masterful.]







Experts Speak Out


[Embedded full 1:31:22]





COPING w-9/11 Soul-Healing, Health Pro’s

There is a whole series of stages you must go through when dealing with pain such as this. The “5 steps of grieving process” (Denial, Anger, Bargaining (Prayer?), Depression, Acceptance). We owe it to the victims. Let’s get a new, independent hearing on the real causes of 9/11, with subpeona powers. Part of the healing process, is punishment for those criminally involved in the government’s conspiracy that day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AYCcKaEDi8 (15:07)


A more long-term prize would be a massive “perp” walk.


Jimiray was right.

NATO membership expansionism

September 5-7, 2014 — NATO: How big will it get?


A re-post without change of a Wayne Madsen report


President Obama and 27 other NATO heads of state are meeting in a highly-secured Celtic Manor in Newport, Wales amid calls for NATO to expand further toward Russia’s borders. Fast-track NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, both of which began negotiations on NATO membership after George Soros- and CIA-funded street demonstrations resulted in democratically-elected pro-Russian governments being overthrown, is back on the table.

As NATO expands eastward in order to surround Russia on the east, south, and potentially, the west, Article 10 of the NATO Charter becomes a major problem for the Cold War-era military alliance. Article 10 stipulates that NATO membership is only open to “European States.”

Article 10 states: “The Parties [NATO Treaty signatories] may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America.”

As NATO expands to lands that as much a part of the Middle East and the western Asian steppes as they are part of Europe, Article 10 becomes a major issue. Furthermore, no serious geographer or cartographer would ever associate Kiev, Tbilisi, or Sofia with the “North Atlantic.”

However, Article 10 has not prevented a number of right-wing think tanks and neoconservative policy “boiler shops” in Washington from calling for NATO to ignore Article 10 and expand NATO far beyond the North Atlantic and Europe.




NATO Summit in Wales [above] bears an uncanny resemblance to the war room in the Cold War black comedy “Dr. Strangelove” [below].

The mindsets of the NATO expansion advocates to the zany war promoters of the movie are the same. 



One of the first moves by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, who overthrew the democratically-elected President Eduard Shevardnadze in the Soros-initiated and CIA-funded Rose Revolution of 2003, was to sign up for NATO’s Membership Action Plan (MAP). Saakashvili also staged a dubious non-binding referendum in 2008 that resulted in 77 percent in support of Georgian NATO membership. However, Georgia claims ownership of two self-declared independent republics — Abkhazia and South Ossetia — that were welded into the former Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic by Joseph Stalin against the wishes of their people. Fearful of NATO’s resurgence and wary of a new attempt by NATO to absorb Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia have announced the creation of a “Unified Defense Space” to counter Georgia’s and NATO’s ambitions.

Similarly, after President Viktor Yushchenko prevented the elected president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanuokjovych from being sworn in as president after the Soros operation and CIA managed to turn out protesters in Kiev’s “Orange Revolution” in 2004, one of Yushchenko’s first actions as president was to sign Ukraine up for NATO’s “Intensified Dialogue” program, which was NATO-speak for fast tracked membership. In 2010, after Yanukovych’s election (some would argue, “re-election” since he was prevented from taking office in 2004) as president after the failed Yushchenko presidency, Soros, the Obama administration neocons, and the CIA planned for another undemocratic seizure of power. After Yanukovych was ousted in the “Euromaidan” revolution earlier this year, the new government of World Bank technocrats and neo-fascists called for fast track membership for Ukraine in NATO. And NATO leaders, meeting with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in Wales, appears ready to place Ukraine on a fast track to full membership. U.S. and other NATO troops are to arrive in Lvov in late September to train with Ukrainian military personnel.

Poroshenko, who, on one hand, expressed his desire for a negotiated deal with Russia and the ethnic Russians of eastern Ukraine, was running around the NATO summit soliciting support for NATO membership for Ukraine.

The Kiev regime is plowing ahead for NATO membership even though a 2009 poll revealed that 57 percent of Ukrainians opposed NATO membership for their country. In Russian-speaking eastern Ukraine, which has declared independence from Kiev, a poll showed 74 percent opposed to NATO membership.

Taking advantage of the new Cold War that NATO, itself, initiated with the Western-led coup in Kiev, NATO planners are working with neocon and right-wing political leaders in neutral Sweden and Finland to fast-track those nations into NATO. Finland is a particular prize for NATO because of its 833-mile long border with Russia. Some Finnish rightists also yearn for the return of eastern Karelia, which was former Finnish territory ceded to the former Soviet Union after the Finno-Soviet Winter War. Recent polls show 50 percent of Swedes opposed to NATO membership. Although Finland and NATO signed a Memorandum of Understanding in April 2014 that many believe permit NATO pre-positioning of military equipment near the Russian border, polls show 52 percent of Finns being opposed to NATO membership. Former Finnish Presidents Tarja Halonen and Mauno Koivisto have warned that Finnish membership in NATO would irrevocably harm the nation’s relations with Russia.

President Obama said in Estonia that NATO is an alliance of democracies. Some of these “democracies” apparently want to rush their nations into NATO even when majorities of their people are opposed to such action.

NATO is itching to absorb as members nations that have border irredentism issues with Russia. These include Ukraine, with Crimea now a republic of the Russian Federation; Georgia, with Abkhazia and South Ossetia major issues; and Moldova, where the primarily ethnic Russian Transnistrian Republic had declared independence from Moldova.

Although Moldova’s constitution prohibits the country from joining any military alliance, that inconvenient fact has not deterred Moldovan Defense Minister Vitalie Marinuţa from calling for Moldova to join NATO. Marinuţa, who came to power with a government sponsored by Soros provocateurs, is a former employee of the U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Florida, where he was a “strategy and policy planner.”

Moldova’s sudden interest in NATO membership has resulted in Transnistrian and Russian leaders calling for the self-proclaimed republic to be absorbed into the Russian Federation in the same manner that Crimea was united with Russia.

Another country on NATO’s list for prospective members is Bosnia-Herzegovina, a tripartite federation consisting of Bosniak Muslim, Croatian, and Serbian republics. Bosnian Defense Minister Selmo Cikotić is a leading cheerleader for fast-track NATO membership for Bosnia-Herzegovina. Cikotić is a former Bosnian military attaché in Washington and attended the U.S. Army’s Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas before being expelled following accusations that his troops committed war crimes in the Bosnian town of Bugojno. In 2007, Cikotić and Serbian Defense Minister Dragan Šutanovac traveled to a NATO Council summit in Brussels to petition for their countries to become NATO members. Šutanovac is a graduate of the George Marshall Center for Security Studies in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany, which is Pentagon funded. Although some Serbs want NATO membership, both the Srpska Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia remember with bitter memories the sustained NATO bombing campaigns against both countries that resulted in large numbers of civilian deaths.

The artificial nation of Kosovo, a NATO and European Union invention, also wants NATO membership. It hosts Camp Bondsteel, a military base used by the United States and NATO. Kosovo’s chief NATO membership promoter is Enver Hoxhaj, a former official of World University Service-Austria, a “Christian” NGO with strong Soros links. Also on track for NATO membership are Montenegro and Macedonia. However, polls show 42 percent of Montenegrins opposed to NATO membership.

NATO’s renewed march east is a far cry from the agreement made between the George H W Bush administration and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that in exchange for Moscow’s agreement on German reunification, NATO would not inch any further east. That agreement was scrapped by Bill Clinton’s Prague-born Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who eagerly welcomed her native Czech Republic, as well as Poland and Hungary as NATO members in 1997. Albright’s promises that NATO would not further expand toward Russia and never include any former Soviet republics were shown to be hollow after Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania joined NATO in 2004 after membership negotiations began under Albright’s tutelage in 2000. Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Romania also joined NATO in 2004. Croatia and Albania followed in 2009.

NATO has also been trying to wean Ireland away from its traditional neutrality. Many observers believe that NATO has a secret agreement with Ireland to use Shannon Airport as a cargo and personnel transit hub. NATO’s gambit has been to use the terrorist feat to lure Ireland into NATO, the reasoning being that Ireland would be safer from terrorism inside NATO than as an outsider. It is the same argument that has been used by the “No” campaign in the United Kingdom to keep Ireland’s Celtic brethren in Scotland from voting “Yes” for independence in the upcoming referendum. An Irish Defense Policy Green Paper released by Ireland’s Israelophile Defense Minister Alan Shatter, released earlier this year, calls for Ireland to pursue NATO membership.

The European Union has been accused of using combined EU and NATO membership for Ireland and another neutral nation, Austria, as a prerequisite for remaining a member in good standing of the EU. In May of this year, Austria inched closer to NATO membership when it became the first non-NATO country to join NATO’s Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence in Estonia.

Some NATO officials have also expressed an interest in folding Azerbaijan and Armenia under the NATO umbrella. A confidential NATO paper recently leaked to Der Spiegel calls for enhanced “interoperability” of the military forces of Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as Moldova, with NATO, and proposes “smart defense” operations between the three nations and NATO.

It is when NATO starts to eye members outside of Europe that Article 10 becomes a major issue. A recent cooperation agreement between NATO and Colombia was seen by some as a first step toward NATO membership for the Latin American nation. Some neocon think tanks have called for NATO membership for Mexico. Further neocon proposals have called for NATO to become a global military alliance and offer full membership to Israel, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Brazil, India, Singapore, and South Africa. There have even been calls for NATO to take in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Morocco, and Jordan as members.

It is clear who the NATO expansionists see as the enemies of a larger NATO: Russia; China; Muslim nations like Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, Malaysia, and Indonesia; and Latin American nations such as Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador. The question remains: Why is an alliance called the “North Atlantic” Treaty Organization interested in expanding into Asia, Latin America, and Africa?


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.”


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

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)


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


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)

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


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

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…..”


 [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.





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]




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.



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




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

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.



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: 


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.


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




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…..”


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

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”.  



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

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)


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

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:



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


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)


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.


Madsen on Obama and Russian Federation

May 19-20, 2014 — SPECIAL REPORT. Obama’s authorization for breaking up the Russian Federation

The plan by neo-conservative elements embedded in the Obama administration to seek a Yugoslavia-style breakup of the Russian Federation continues to manifest itself by President Obama’s continued commitment to the Captive Nations doctrine first enunciated by Ukrainian right-wing nationalist provocateur Dr. Lev Dobriansky.

Dobriansky provided the impetus behind Public Law 86-90, which was signed in 1959 by President Dwight Eisenhower and designated the third week of July as “Captive Nations Week.” The law also established the National Captive Nations Committee (NCNC), which was run for many years by Dobriansky.  In 1993, the Captive Nations lobby pushed through Congress section 905 of Public Law 103-199. The law authorized the NCNC to establish the “Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation” top operate the “Victims of Communism” memorial in downtown Washington, DC.

Obama, like all of his predecessors, continues to issue a Captive Nations proclamation every July. Last year, Obama’s proclamation stated, “Different peoples will determine their own paths.” Since Captive Nations Week is based on the original Public Law of 1959, it becomes clear what “different peoples” Obama refers to in his proclamation. Contained on the 1959 list of “captive nations” are Idel-Ural, Cossackia, and Turkestan.  Others on the list are White Ruthenia, Tibet, and Mainland China.

It was Dobriansky’s goal to seek the independence of Idel-Ural, or Volga Urals, as a Tatar republic inclusive of the former Soviet and now Russian autonomous republics of Bashkortostan, Chuvashia, Mari-El, Mordovia, Tatarstan, and Udmurtia. In testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives on August 25, 1959, Dobriansky saw Moscow and “St. Petersburg,” which was then known as Leningrad, as twin colonizers of the rest of the entire “Communist Bloc.” Dobriansky saw Moscow and St. Petersburg as being responsible for the Cold War and the subjugation of the USSR, eastern Europe (with the exception of Yugoslavia), North Korea, North Vietnam, mainland China, and Tibet. This Ukrainian nationalist’s bizarre ideas continue to be honored by the White House every July.

There are reports that while CIA director John Brennan was engaged in secret negotiations with Ukrainian coup leaders in Kiev, his deputies were meeting clandestinely with leaders of the Crimean Tatars, Muslims who have sworn allegiance to the Kiev leadership rather than the Crimean autonomous republican leaders who were authorized by referendum to unite with the Russian Federation.

It has been established that the CIA, using the same Turkish intelligence networks it uses to coordinate anti-Russian activities with Chechen, Dagestani, and Ingusheti Muslim terrorists, is now planning to carry out Dobriansky’s dream of creating an independent Idel-Ural republic. The neo-conservatives, who financially benefited from the collapse of the Soviet Union, now see a successful toppling of the Russian government in the same manner that they engineered the ouster of the democratically-elected government of Ukraine as paving the way for the achievement of Dobriansky’s grand plan of turning Russia into a patchwork quilt of independent cantons subservient to the West.  This can only be accomplished by the creation of a docile and pro-European Union regime in Moscow.

Another goal of the neo-conservatives in crushing a unified Russian Federation is to permit Georgia to assume control over South Ossetia and Abkhazia and Moldova to take over the Transnistrian Republic. Kaliningrad, the Russian enclave, will be ripe for the designs of Poland, Lithuania, and possibly even Germany, which once ruled the region as East Prussia.

Dobriansky’s daughter, Paula Dobriansky, who served as Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs during the entire Bush administration, is now leading her father’s crusade against Russia as a senior fellow at the Belfer Center (named after Robert Belfer, the Polish-born founder of the Belco Oil and Gas Company, which later became Enron Corporation) at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.  Paula Dobriansky is now using such outlets as the Voice of America to call for the ending of credits to the Russian government and Russian companies and suspending Russian firms from trading on international bourses.  Dobriansky and her friends, including Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland and United Nations Undersecretary General for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman, seek to resurrect Lev Dobriansky’s insane plans for dismemberment of Russia. Today, it is not “anti-Communism” which serves as the rallying cry for the neo-conservatives but a desire to forestall the creation of a Eurasian Union that would compete with the global banker-run European Union.

Obama’s continuing support for the Captive Nations dogma also foresees independence for seven Cossack units in the Don, Kuban, Terek, Astrakhan, Ural, Orenberg, and Kalmyk regions. Although many Cossacks support the Russian government and have even sent groups of fighters to Crimea and eastern Ukraine to support Russians in those areas, there remains some support for Cossackia from Cossack emigrés in Western Europe and North America. These diaspora Cossacks always supported the right-wing nationalism of the Captive Nations hierarchy led by Lev Dobriansky.

The third Russian region on the Captive Nations list is Turkestan. The neo-conservative ideological heirs of Dobriansky foresee breaking off Turkic parts of the Russian Federation in Siberia and either forming independent states or joining them to Kazakhstan. Captive Nations plans include an independent Tuva and the assignment of the Altai and Khakass republics and regions like those inhabited by the Shors, also known as “Blacksmithing Tatars,” to Kazakhstan, which is the largest republic within what was envisaged as a future Turkestan by the creators of the Captive Nations concept.

Another country that appears on the Captive Nations list is White Ruthenia or “White Russia.” Today, White Ruthenia is the independent nation of Belarus. It, like Russia, is on the neo-conservative list for conquest by the West and possible fragmentation. In fact, on April 22, the neo-conservative run Kennan Institute of the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington is, along with USAID, hosting a delegation of Belarusian “civic activists” to brief “Washington-based stakeholders,” code names for CIA operatives and USAID/NED agitators, on the “politics, economy, and civil society of Belarus.” The seminar is being moderated by Kenneth Yalowitz, a former U.S. ambassador to Belarus, who, like his co-ideologue, U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, adheres to the interventionist policy practiced by neo-conservative U.S. envoys. The neo-conservatives appear to be targeting Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko in the same manner in which Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was targeted.

In what should be a warning to China, both Tibet and “Mainland China” are on the Captive Nations list and Obama continues to proclaim both by inference as “captive nations” in the annual White House proclamation. Obama’s military pivot to Asia, along with U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s recent military-oriented visit to Mongolia, confirms that the Pentagon is, in fact, gearing up for a simultaneous two-front war against Russia and China.

Although Obama considers Idel-Ural, Cossackia, and Turkestan to be “captive nations,” other elements of the U.S. government-George Soros non-governmental organization construct of the National Endowment for Democracy, U.S. Agency for International Development, and the Open Society Institute have additional targets in mind for potential separation from Russia. These include the Caucasus republics of Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia, North Ossetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachay-Cherkessia, and Adygea and the Abazin Autonomous District; the Finno-Ugric republic of Komi; the Ugric region of Khanty-Mansi; the Sami region of Nenetsia; and the Finnic republic of Karelia and regions of Votia, Vepsia, Ingria, and Izhoria. Considering the assistance that Finland has given exiled Chechen terrorist groups, it only seems normal that it would provide directly, or through Soros and NED fronts, vital assistance to separatists in Finno-Ugric and Finnic regions of Russia.

The Soros and NED/USAID-financed “color” or themed revolutions in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Libya, and Ukraine coincided with the appearance of factory-new flags representing past regimes and irredentist and separatist movements. Concerned intelligence agencies need only track the types and number of orders for new “old” flags from flag-making factories to determine where the nation- and government-busters of Soros and the NED/USAID will strike next. Factory orders for the old Belarus white-red-white flag have likely been fast-tracked.

In the aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union, Soros and NED agitators appeared on the scene to push for the declaration of autonomous republics throughout Russia. There were declarations of autonomous republic status by Chelyabinsk, Khabarovsk, Yenissei (Krasnoyarsk), Perm, Samara, Yaroslavl, and Ural.  Just as with the new red and black Ukrainian Insurgent Army flags that appeared on Kiev’s Maidan Square during the Western-financed revolt in Ukraine, arcane and virtually-unknown factory-fresh flags appeared practically overnight from the Primorski Maritime Republic in the Russian Far East to Karelia in northwest Russia.

NED/Soros continue to be active in the regions and autonomous republics, especially in Yaroslavl, Chelyabinsk, Chechnya, Dagestan, Rostov (not coincidentally, the location of the headquarters of Viktor Yanukovych’s de facto exiled Ukrainian government), North Ossetia, Karachaevo-Cherkessia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Krasnodar, Murmansk, the clsoed town of Ozersk in Chelyabinsk, Perm, Tver, St. Petersburg, Stavropol, and the Vyborg District of the Leningrad Oblast (a town that some Finnish nationalists would like to see returned to Finnish control as the town of Viipuri.

NED and Soros’s Open Society Institute (OSI) are working arm-in-arm to agitate Finno-Ugric nationalism in northwestern Russia. The exiled Russian-Israeli oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky has been identified as working with Finno-Ugric nationalists in agitating among Soros- and NED-supported Ukrainian nationalists on Maidan Square in Kiev. NED, using USAID money, established websites for Finno-Ugric nationalists in Russia. What USAID has done in Russia is similar to the CIA front’s operations in Cuba. USAID contracted with Alan Gross to set up covert Internet networks for use by Cuba’s Jewish minority. Later, USAID used a network of contractors and CIA front companies to establish a bogus Twitter-like service, called ZunZuneo, on the CubaCel mobile phone system. It is no different in Russia.

A group of websites called “7×7 – Horizontal Russia” were established with contributions from OSI and NED in 2010. These web sites span Russia’s north and are targeted at stirring up ethnic nationalism in the Finno-Ugric republics of Komi and Mari-El, as well as the regions of Ryazan, Kirov, Murmansk, Arkhangelsk, Oryol, Kaluga, and Voronezh.  7 x 7 – Horizontal Russia activities were extended to other parts of the Russian Federation, including the Center, Povolzhye (the Volga Region), and Ural.

The Kirov oblast is a key part of the Obama Doctrine/Soros strategy to dismember Russia. The oblast sits between Komi, Mari-El, and Udmurtia, centers of Finno-Ugric nationalism, and the republics of Tatarstan and Bashkortostan, republics in the Volga region that have significant Muslim Turkic populations.

Khodorkovsky’s hands can be seen in the attempt to stir up tensions in Komi. Soros, fronting for Khodorkovsky and other Russo-Israeli interests, have staged protest meetings in Komi over alleged ecological damage brought about by the Russian oil firm Lukoil’s Komi subsidiary. Of course, Lukoil was the recipient of assets from Khodorkovsky’s former Yukos oil company, nationalized after Khodorkovsky’s conviction and imprisonment on charges of tax evasion. “7 x7” heralded a meeting in Komi by Finno-Ugric nationalists who received messages of support on the website, including those like the following:

“We, Finno-Ugric relatives from Finland and Hungary, love you, Komi people! I hope that Lukoil and Russian colonialists will not harm you! Komi and Finns — brothers!”

Syktyvkar, the Komi capital, has become a center for Soros/NED/Khodorkovsky agitation in the Finno-Ugric region of Russia. Some years ago, a source within the Finnish Security Service, Suojelupoliisi or SUPO, that Finland maintained a network of intelligence agents inside the Finno-Ugric regions even during the Soviet era. While most were assigned to the Karelian region, which was once part of Finland, some were also active in Komi, Mari-El, and Udmurtia.  Komi sends trains Finno-Ugric agaitators for the Volga-Ural republics of Mordovia, Udmurtia, and Mari-El.

Although there are few Finns left in Karelia, that has not stopped NED/Soros from targeting the republic’s Russian youth. Soros and NED operations against Karelia are baed out of Warsaw and the NED-funded Institute of Public Affairs. Polish agitation agents use the Karelian capital of Petrozavodsk as a base of operations to spread Soros propaganda about LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) rights, anti-Semitism, Romaphobia, and the Holocaust, as if Karelia has a historical or social vested interest in any of these subjects. However, it is the largely curious and Internet-savvy Karelian youth who are the target of the MED/Soros information manipulation tactics. The NED/Soros operations in Karelia are focused on wider use by Karelian youth groups of Facebook, Vimeo, YouTube, and Vkontakte.

Of the three Finno-Ugric nations, Estonia, Finland, and Hungary, Finland remains outside of NATO. However, there are calls for Finland to join the U.S.-led military alliance. If that occurs, NATO will have three members pushing for more autonomy for their Finno-Ugric kin in “KKMMU” – Komi, Karelia, Mari-El, Mordovia, and Udmurtia. It is obvious what the Obama/Soros/CIA nexus is trying to accomplish in Russia. The appearance of Yugoslavia-like small ethnic independent republics in a dissolved Russian Federation would provide NATO with potential new members and Israel with more compliant votes within the United Nations.





NED/Soros working with Finland, Estonia, and Poland to pry Finnic-Ugric republics away from Russia and into the hands of NATO.
Nordic flags have been prepared by the Soros team for prospective new Nordic NATO nations of Northern Karelia (not inclusive of Eastern Karelia, which would be ceded to Finland by a Western-controlled rump Muscovy Republic made up of fully-Russian regions) and Komi. In recent years, a number of Nordic organizations linked to Soros operations have been disseminating information on the “Soviet ethnic cleansing” of Kola. Although 89 percent Russian, there are ideas being floated to return Kola or “Northern Karelia” to the original Sami (Finnish and Norwegian) and Karelian (Finnish) inhabitants whose numbers would be supplemented by Ukrainians and Komi currently living in the region. Some plans call for Pskov and the Nenets Autonomous District to be grafted on to a North Karelian/Kola Republic, somewhat increasing the indigenous population over native Russians.




Proposed Nordic flags of post-Russian Federation North Karelia (composed of the Kola Peninsula, Archangel, and Murmansk) and Komi.
The other Finno-Ugric republic in Russia is Mordovia. It was in headlines because it was the site of the female prison that housed Soros’s and the NED’s two most famous Russian agitators, Nadezhda “Nadya” Tolokonnikova and Maria “Masha” Alekhina, otherwise known as “Pussy Riot.” The two women were jailed for hooliganism for disrupting Russian Orthodox services by performing lewd sexual acts in public. They became instant celebrities among the Soros-dominated Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International “human rights” organizations.

Pussy Riot and other Soros-funded Russian agitators ran afoul of the Russian government’s law restricting the activities of the hundreds of Soros- and CIA-linked NGOs operating in Russia. The law passed unanimously in the Russian State Duma with a landslide vote of 436-0 in 2013. The law restricts the activities of “non-governmental organizations” that “criminalize public actions” designed to “insult the religious feelings of believers.” The United States, Britain, France, Canada, Germany, and other Western nations have similar “hate crimes” legislation on the books.

The presence of Pussy Riot in the Mordovian prison led to an increase in NED/Soros activities in the republic to agitate regional nationalism. These actions were coordinated by the NED/Soros-funded Mordovian Republican Human Rights Center.


The last time Finland had plans to seize control of all of Karelia was during World War II and Finnish leader Carl Mannerheim [center] had a powerful ally. Current revanchist and irredentist activities in Ukraine and other parts of eastern Europe by George Soros and Mikhail Khodorkovsky point out that the old and mutually-treasured alliance between the Zionists and Nazis remain strong to this day.

There are links between 7×7 and the unregistered “Progress Party” of anti-Vladimir Putin leader Alexei Navalny, a frequent guest of the U.S. embassy and CIA station in Moscow during the ambassadorship of neo-con Michael McFaul.



Khodorkovsky with Komi activist on Maidan Square in Kiev.

Murmansk and Arkhangelsk are sensitive military areas for Russia and USAID/CIA involvement in those areas is akin to the Russian Foreign Ministry and SVR foreign intelligence service backing Native American and Inuit independence movements close to U.S. military bases in Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, and Idaho.


Finland, NATO, and the Obama administration/Soros/NED have the “recovery” of Karelia for Finland in their sights. It is the carrot being dangled for Helsinki in return for Finnish membership in NATO.

To make matters worse, NED/Soros is funding activist groups in the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, which is totally surrounded by NATO members Poland and Lithuania. Kaliningrad, the former German Konigsberg, capital of East Prussia, is the headquarters of the Russian Baltic Fleet. NED/Soros activism in the enclave in similar to Russian intelligence backing the Hawaiian independence restoration movement with a view toward ejecting the U.S. Pacific Fleet from its headquarters in Pearl Harbor. NED operates through its “Information and Consulting Center” contrivance in the city of Kaliningrad.

The Soros/NED “7×7” website highlighted a parade in support of right-wing Ukrainian government held in Kirov. 7×7 has called for changing the name of Kirov, named for an assassinated Soviet leader in Leningrad, Sergey Kirov. Soros activists want to change the name back to the original “Vyatka.”

In Tatarstan, NED has been working alongside Fethullah Gulen’s Turkish financiers to advance Tatar nationalism. This is especially significant considering recent U.S. propaganda calling for Crimea to be returned to the control of the Tatars, who dominated the peninsula before it fell under Imperial Russian control, then Ukrainian control, and quite recently, Russian Federation control. NED has been agitating in the Chuvash and Tatarstan republics, emphasizing the non-Russian connections of the Tatars and Chuvash to the Bulgars. Of course, this is a gambit to convince the Tatars and Chuvash that they have an ethnic connections to Bulgaria, a NATO member. It is the same operation being carried out among the Finno-Ugrics to move them closer to NATO members Estonia and Hungary, as well as to prospective NATO member Finland.

NED has been very active in the restive Caucasus region. Ingushetia, which borders on violence-ravaged Chechnya, is a favorite target of the Soros manipulators.

Another tactic of the NED/Soros activists is to target the mothers of Russian military servicemen. NED/Soros operations in Astrakhan, Pskov, and the Trans-Baikal region of Siberia.

One neocon blueprint for Russia calls for the establishment of a polyglot of republics, including a Far Eastern Republic that would be lured away from Russia by promises of free trade with Japan, the United States, and Canada in the proposed “Trans-Pacific Partnership.” This republic would be composed of Primorsky and Khabarovsk Krai, Amur Oblast, the Jewish Autonomous Region, part of the Trans-Baikal region. In the past few years, there has been a heavy influx of rabbis from Israel and the United States into the Jewish Autonomous Region of Birobidzhan (which only has a small percentage of Jews) to proselytize among the largely Asiatic population. There is little doubt that the Far Eastern Republic would be heavily dominated by Zionists, this ensuring another secure vote for Israel in the United Nations.

Other proposed republics are the Magadan Republic, consisting of Magadan, Kamchatka, Chukotka, which would also be heavily reliant on investment and trade with the TPP; Greater Yakutia, which would extend throughout the Trans-Baikal region and to Sakha’s Arctic Ocean coast; a Caucasus Republic comprising the restive Muslim republics of the North Caucasus and Stavropol and Krasnodar; the East Siberian Republic, stretching along the Yenisei River; a Siberian Federation consisting of Altai and the Kusbass; and a Greater Ural Republic, comprising Sverdlovsk, Chelyabinsk, Kurgan region, and possibly, part of the Orenburg, Kirov (Vyatka), and Perm regions; and a Volga Federation consisting of Tatarstan and Bashkortostan, as well as parts of Nizhny Novgorod.

The CIA is coordinating with South Korean intelligence the spreading of Western influence in natural resource-rich Yakutia or Sakha as it is known locally. There are a number of ethnic Koreans scattered throughout Siberia and some have become valued agents for Western economic interests eager to take over and exploit the riches of Siberia.

The CIA has used its old ally the Dalai Lama of Tibet to stir up Buddhist nationalist revivalism among the Buddhist populations of the republics of Tuva and Buryatia in Siberia and Kalmykia on the north coast of the Caspian Sea. NED/Soros have continued to press the Tuvans, a Buddhist Turkic people, to declare independence, reminding them that they were the independent People’s Republic of Tannu Tuva until Joseph Stalin annexed the country in 1944. Similarly, NED/Soros have tried to stir up nationalist feelings among the Mongol Buryats, urging them to redraw the borders of three separate Buryat regions, the Buryat Republic and Ust-Orda Buryat and Aga Buryat, and create a single Buryat Republic. The goal is to make an independent Buryat a puppet state of Mongolia, a center for USAID/NED/Soros activity directed against China and the Russian Far East.

What would be left of Russia would be relatively similar to Serbia after the dissolution of Yugoslavia. A smaller Serb Republic without any control over Serbs in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro, or Kosovo and facing a restive demand for autonomy among Hungarians in Vojvodina and Muslims in Sandzak. Without Vojvodina and Sandzak, Serbia would essentially be reduced to “Greater Belgrade.” The same future is envisaged by the NED/Soros team for Russia, with a Muscovy Republic being limited to the region around Moscow. It is a future that Russia will never accept and will threaten full use of its nuclear arsenal on Washington, London, Berlin, Paris, and Tel Aviv to avoid.

From their positions in government, academia, the military, and NGOs and international organizations, the neo-conservatives who continue to worship at the altar of Zionist idols such as Lev Dobriansky and Leo Strauss are eagerly leering at ethnic and linguistic maps of the Russian Federation. They all see a future Yugoslavia to be manipulated and subsumed by the hungry jackals of the European Union, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and NATO.