Elite Intrigues and Military Purges: It’s Not About Sex, Stupid!

The headline stories claim that CIA Director General David Petraeus resigned as head of the CIA because of an adulterous relation with his young biographer and that General John Allen, Supreme Commander of US troops in Afghanistan, was under investigation and his promotion to top commander of US troops in Europe was on hold, because, we are told, of his ‘inappropriate’ comments in the exchange of e-mails with a civilian female friend.  We are told that a ‘hard-charging’ local FBI agent, Frederick Humphries, Jr., had uncovered amorous e-mails sent by General Petraeus to his girlfriend-biographer in the course of investigating a complaint of ‘cyber-stalking’.  Out of concern that the General’s ‘adulterous behavior’ posed a risk to US national security, Florida-based FBI Agent Humphries handed the evidence over to one of Washington, DC’s most powerful Republican, Congressman Eric Cantor, who in turn passed them on to the Director of the FBI… leading to Petraeus resignation.

In other words, we are asked to believe that a single, low-ranking, zealous FBI agent has toppled the careers of two top US Generals: one in charge of the principle global intelligence agency, the CIA, and the other in command of the US and allied combat forces in the principle theater of military engagement – on the basis of infidelity and flirtatious banter!

Nothing could be more far-fetched simply on prima facie evidence.

In the sphere of tight hierarchical organizations, like the military or the CIA, where the activity and behavior of subordinate functionaries is centrally directed and any investigation is subject to authorization by senior officials (most especially regarding prying into the private correspondences of the heads of the CIA and of strategic military operations), the idea that a lone agent might operate free-lance is preposterous.  A ‘cowboy’ agent could not simply initiate investigation into such ‘sensitive’ targets as the head of the CIA and a General in an active combat zone without the highest level authorization or a network of political operatives with a much bigger agenda.   This has much deeper political implications than uncovering a banal sexual affair between two consenting security-cleared adults despite the agent’s claim that fornication constitutes a threat to the United States .

Clearly we are in deep waters here:  This involves political intrigue at the highest level and has profound national security implications, involving the directorship of the CIA and clandestine operations, intelligence reports, multi-billion dollar expenditures and US efforts to stabilize client regimes and destabilize target regimes.  CIA intelligence reports identifying allies and enemies are critical to shaping global US foreign policy.  Any shift at the top of the US empire’s operational command can and does have strategic importance.

The ‘outing’ of General Allen, the military commander in charge of Afghanistan, the US main zone of military operations occurs at a crucial time, with the scheduled forced withdrawal of US combat troops and when the Afghan ‘sepoys’, the soldiers and officers of the puppet Karzai regime, are showing major signs of disaffection, is clearly a political move of the highest order.

What are the political issues behind the beheading of these two generals?  Who benefits and who loses? …


Food for thought, and reaffirmation of how stupid they think the american people are.

No Sailors Saw Osama Bin Laden’s Alleged Burial at Sea

More than a year after Navy SEALs supposedly killed former CIA asset Osama bin Laden, a FOIA by the Associated Press has produced emails revealing that no American sailors aboard the USS Carl Vinton witnessed the terrorist’s burial at sea. …

The Defense Department previously said it did not have any photographs or video to support its claim the SEALs killed the al-Qaeda leader. It also admitted there were no images taken of Bin Laden’s body on the Vinton.

The Pentagon does not have a death certificate, autopsy report or results of DNA identification tests for bin Laden, or any pre-raid materials discussing how the government planned to dispose of bin Laden’s body if he were killed, the Daily Mail reports.

In May, 2011, the Obama administration mulled releasing photographs purportedly showing the body of Bin Laden with “a massive head wound above his left eye where he took bullet (sic), with brains and blood visible.” No such photos were ever produced.

“We are going to do everything we can to make sure that nobody has any basis to try to deny that we got Osama bin Laden,” John Brennan, Obama’s counterterrorism adviser, said following the alleged assassination. Brennan said the government will “share what we can because we want to make sure that not only the American people but the world understand exactly what happened.”

Despite a complete lack of evidence, the government and the corporate media now routinely insist Obama ordered the military to kill Osama bin Laden at a compound in Pakistan.

Former State Department official Steve Pieczenik told Alex Jones last May that the staged assassination was nothing more thanAmerican theater of the absurd” and a photo supposedly showing members of the Obama administration watching a live video feed of the assassination was fabricated….


Pentagon Can’t Find, White House Won’t Release Records of bin Laden’s Death


But hey, does it really matter if bin laden is dead or whether he really orchestrated 9/11?   If enough people believe it it might as well be true.  And since it’s a founding myth of the new american police state and global empire incorporated, many people have concluded that it’s probably a good idea to believe it in any case.    This is what passes for “freedom” in our glorious fatherland.

The Eugenic Impulse in Psychiatry

A prominent Texas doctor’s claim that many foster children come from “bad gene pools” is “a frightening throwback to some of the darkest chapters of American history” according to a national non-profit child advocacy organization.

But Richard Wexler, Executive Director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform said the comments by Dr. Joseph Burkett, medical director of the mental health and mental retardation agency for Tarrant County (Fort Worth), Texas, “do serve one useful purpose: He said out loud what too many in child welfare really think. In the process he helped expose the racism and class bias that permeate child welfare agencies all over the country.”

In addition to denouncing Burkett’s remarks, Wexler called on one of the state’s leading child advocates, former Judge Scott McCown, to condemn Burkett’s comments and reconsider his own calls for taking away far more children.

In addition to his job in Tarrant County, Burkett served on a Child Protective Services advisory committee which called for increasing the number of psychotropic drugs that could be given to foster children.

Burkett made his remarks before a committee of the Texas Legislature, on behalf of the Texas Society of Psychiatric Physicians. According to news accounts, he said: “I should stretch and give you a little more medical perspective on mental illness. A lot of these kids come from bad gene pools. They don’t have stable parents making good decisions or else many of them, most of them, would not be in foster care.”

Burkett later said he was “not alluding to race,” but Wexler noted that all over the country, minorities are significantly overrepresented in the foster-care system.

Burkett went on to explain he meant only that “there are pretty strong genetic factors in mental illness. The comment … was really a comment about the fact that these children are in the foster care system because they don’t have normal parents making good decisions. … That’s really the connection I’m making with genetics.”

“But that’s wrong, too,” Wexler said. “It is absolutely not true that just because a child is in foster care, the parents must be mentally ill. Thousands of children are trapped in foster care for reasons that have nothing to do with a parent or other caretaker’s mental state. Often, the parent’s poverty is confused with ‘neglect.'”

Wexler cited several cases from Texas:

– In Fort Worth, in Burkett’s home county, Child Protective Services took five children from their grandmother solely because her home was in such terrible disrepair it was hazardous for the children. Volunteers had to do what CPS would not. They donated $35,000 in time and labor to fix the house – which undoubtedly is less than CPS paid to keep the five children in foster care for a year.

– In Wichita Falls, a mother lost her children, including a newborn infant, for smoking marijuana to ease the pain of labor.

– In Corpus Christi, children were taken from their mother because she has a seizure disorder and was too poor to hire home health aides.

“These cases have nothing to do with mental illness, much less anybody’s gene pool,” Wexler said. “They represent the take-the-child-and-run mindset that permeates child protection agencies in much of the country.”

“It is true, however, that if you take a child away from everyone loving and familiar and send him on a forced march through one foster home after another, you can indeed induce mental illness in that child. Burkett’s comments encourage exactly that approach.”

Wexler said that “Burkett’s comments are the latest in long, tragic history. For more than 150 years, there have been attempts to suggest that poverty itself is an `illness’ with genetic roots.”

Wexler noted that the modern American child welfare system dates back roughly to 1853, and a Protestant minister in New York City named Charles Loring Brace.

Brace founded the Children’s Aid Society, an agency that still exists. He is best known for the “orphan trains.” Between 1853 and 1929, more than 100,000 New York City children were forced onto these trains and shipped out to the south and Midwest, where they were lined up at train stations and handed to anyone who wanted them. “But many of them were not orphans,” Wexler said. “They were torn from their impoverished parents, because those parents were Catholic immigrants whom Brace hated and feared. And what made these parents so loathsome? According to Brace, they were genetically inferior.”

Such thinking did not die out in the 19th Century, Wexler said, “and neither did the idea of using the child welfare system to deal with alleged genetic inferiors. Before writing his notorious book `The Bell Curve,’ an attempt to claim that certain races are genetically inferior, Charles Murray called for using the child welfare system to warehouse poor people’s children in orphanages.” …


Even Wexler seems unaware that, according to Michael B. First, M.D., a Director/Editor of the research agenda for DSM-V, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA):

it can be concluded that the field of psychiatry has thus far failed to identify a single neurobiological phenotypic marker or gene that is useful in making a diagnosis of a major psychiatric disorder or for predicting response to psychopharmacologic treatment.


But that doesn’t keep psychiatrists from attributing kids’ emotional reactions to their historical narratives to inferior genetics and “chemical imbalances”, and prescribing toxic chemicals.   Can you see the financial conflict of interest here?  Who hires child psychiatrists and for what purpose?  There is one glaringly obvious subgroup which has long utilized psychiatry to control their children and spouses.  Children need protection from these people, as well as their hired mercenaries.

Also listen to the podcasts with Bonnie Burstow, and the interview with Peter Breggin here.

Tarpley: The Global Elite’s Plan For Mass Depopulation

A detached analysis of the mass media’s programming and resultant popular opinion, let alone the empire’s need for unfettered access to natural resources everywhere, makes it clear that depopulation is high on the global elite’s agenda. It’s already happening right here at home, via government-endorsed pseudo-food and toxic medicine specifically targetted at kids, especially poor kids.  Shall we deny it because it’s disturbing?