A race war and a civil war are being incited by the US political establishment and Deep State opponents of Donald Trump, in order to foment violence towards Trump’s removal from the White House. The events in Charlottesville, together with “Russia-Gate” are being used as a “defining moment of crisis” and a pretext to justify Trump’s overthrow.
Turning American streets into war zones
America has never faced chaos of this nature in modern times: manufactured domestic political terrorism disguised as civil unrest, masking a coup. The stated goal of the agitators is “mass insurrection”and “all forms of violence” to make the country “ungovernable”
Just as the global “war on terrorism” is a criminality and treason disguised as “freedom fighting” and “the defense of liberty”, this war against Trump, labelled as the “new Hitler”, is part of an unfolding domestic terror operation, which ironically utilizes the propaganda techniques of Hitler and the Third Reich (Goebbels), not to mention the anarchist playbook of Saul Alinsky (and, by extension, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both of whom are Alinsky disciples)….
From the violence and propaganda brainwashing to the manipulation and destruction of culture and history (statues and monuments, etc.). what is unfolding is a repeat of familiar institutional terror.
Goals are achieved through the weaponization and mobilization of indoctrinated and deceived masses as well grassroots activists, coupled with mind-controlled authoritarian thugs.
The larger “resistance” features a toxic combination of professional paid anarchists, brainwashed “social justice warriors”, and deluded protestors who are misinformed and invariably ignorant as to who is supporting and funding the “protest movements”. There is no rational conversation to be had, no reasoning, in such an atmosphere of ginned-up hysteria.
This large-scale extortion aims to devastate the United States from within, forcing Trump out of office. An already deeply divided and confused nation with an already shredded social fabric will be torn apart.
The mainstream corporate media, the engineers of delusion and mob-manipulating propaganda, is ginning it up, creating mass hysteria and mental affliction.
What is taking place is not simple protests from supporters of a losing political faction, but a domestic terrorism operation planned and executed by the establishment majority—supported by neoliberals as well as neoconservative Republicans—in defense of their system against perceived existential threat from anti-establishment movements. Mob violence has always been a weapon of the oligarchy. It was inaccurate and tactically stupid for Trump to call this insurrection “Alt-Left”. It is in fact a mainstream establishment operation, which uses “left”, “progressive” and antifa symbols to pursue its political objectives.
This “chaos agenda”is a “color revolution”. The elites and Deep State figures behind today’s American anarchy are the same ones that funded and orchestrated “color revolutions” around the world, the toppling of Ukraine and the installation of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi Svoboda regime, unrest in Turkey, the destabilization of Syria, European refugee crisis, and the Arab Spring. What worked overseas is now being applied within US borders.
The Purple Revolution began the night Trump won the presidential election that foiled the installation of Hillary Clinton. This warfare has escalated and intensified in the months ever since, culminating with Charlottesville.
The increasingly failing Trump/Russian hack narrative is being replaced by a variation on an old theme: Nazis. “Trump is a Nazi”. Nazis must die.
Trump’s repeated denials and long history of standing against Nazis, the KKK and white supremacists, and having nothing to do with them, are to no avail….
Here’s why hillary threw a tantrum after she lost to trump. Bilderberg PROMISED her the 2016 presidency if she’d stand aside for obama in 2008:
All this was being covered in real time by infowars in 2008. While the so-called “free press” was out chasing their tails, obama and hillary attended the bilderberg meeting in virginia where this agreement was reached. All very gentleman-like, see?
Covert Action Quarterly #47
15th Anniversary IssueThe FBI Targets Judi BariBy Ward Churchill — 4Did the FBI put a bomb In Earth First! activists’ car and then try to frame them for the crime? The evidence points to Bureau guilt and fits a historical pattern set by COINTELPRO in the ’60s.
Russia in the Winter of DemocracyBy Fred Weir — 10Boris Yeltsin, savior of Russian democracy? There Is much more behind the October coup than our smug pundits and gloating leaders want us to think.Rocky Flats: The Jury That Wouldn’t Shut UpBy Brian Abas — 16When a grand jury heard the Rocky Flats horror show of nuclear pollution, they voted to Indict the corporate and government officials responsible. They didn’t know the fix was in.Trilateral Spin on NAFTABy Joyce Nelson — 22When Clinton, Ford, Carter, and Bush posed in the Rose Garden to push NAFTA. they were the tip of the ioeberg based in a powerful organization of government and corporate elites.The Federal Bureau of IntimidationBy Howard Zinn — 27The FBI Is supposed to fight theft, murder, and clvil rights violations. But for decades, the supposed enforcer has often been the perpetrator.Optimism for the ’90sBy Dave Dellinger — 32Challenging the conventional wisdom that the movement for social change died with the ’60s. a veteran activist sees widespread resistance and discontent waiting to explode.CIA Dope CalypsoBy Allen Ginsberg — 37CIA involvement in drug trafficking makes better poetry than policy. Reoent revelations that the Agency smuggled a ton of coke into the U.S. suggest we may soon need more verses.Cold War Anti-Communism ReduxBy William Blum — 38Has propaganda disseminated by the evil empire warped your mind? And just what makes the U.S. so darn evil anyway? Take this test of red (pardon the expression)-blooded patriotism.When the First is LastBy Mumia Abu-Jamal — 42When prison censors render portions of the Bill of Rights inoperative, even the founding fathers can seem subversive. A U.S. political prisoner looks for the First Amendment.IMF/World Bank: Devastation by DesignBy Walden Bello, Shea Cunningham & Bill Rau — 44If they have failed to help the Third World. why are they still around? Find the answer by asking another question: “Who benefits?”The UN, the CIA, and Evergreen AirBy Jan Williams — 48When CIA proprietaries demand favors. they find friends In the oddest places -such as in the UN where diplomats cut deals with the devil.Bag of Dirty TricksBy Louis Wolf — 53The long legacy of Agency crimes ranges from petty harassment to mass murder.Letters to the Editor — 65Front Cover: photo Rick Reinhard. Gay/Lesbian march on Washington, l993
Back Cover: Matt Wuerker
Nothing like some real history to show where we’ve been headed for the past 30-odd years and longer. The fake news aspect of the “left/right” “fascist/antifa” “ISIS/NATO” “CNN/Fox” charade comes into stark relief with a little background. But I’m sure all the kingdom’s “pharos” (“kings of denial”) will continue sucking the teat of the monster that we the clueless sheep over here have unleashed on the hapless peasants over there. At least until the “milk” turns green and glows in the dark.
God help us all.
10th Anniversary Best of CAIB – Covert Action Information Bulletin
About This Issue
When we started CAIB in 1978, we never worried about how long the publication would last. Like the overall progressive struggle of which we were a part, we worked from day to day, scrambling as each issue was published to raise the funds to put out the next.
That, as our loyal readers know, has not changed. Nor have we always been on time, to say the least; but while we staggered, we never stopped. And, we think, the magazine has become steadily better, with broader coverage, more pages, better illustrations, more excellent outside authors, and continuing revelations and exposes.
It is typical of our plight that we publish this Tenth Anniversary Issue as we near the end of our eleventh year! Still, we hope that you, our readers, will enjoy this compendium of some of our most interesting and informative articles.
This “Best of…” issue unfortunately, contains only an edited sampling of our best articles. Space constraints made it necessary to leave out many others. We urge our readers who are interested in the larger scope of our work to order our back issues. You will get interesting and valuable information and, at the same time, help us financially.
Our next issue, at which we have been hard at work, will concentrate on the personalities and possibilities of the Bush administration.
Table of Contents
Who We Are page 3
Eleven Year Perspective
by Philip Agee page 4
The CIA in the U.S.
When Myths Lead to Murder
by Philip Agee page 7
The Names of Agents Bill page 10
Naming Names page 14
The National Security Agency Exclusive Interview page 15
Executive Order 12333 page 18
Accuracy in Media
by Louis Wolf page 19
Robert K. Brown: Soldier of Fortune
by Ward Churchill page 22
The Ordeal of Leonard Peltier
by William Kunstler page 25
The CIA Abroad
Blueprint for Nicaragua
by Philip Agee page 27
Guatemala’s Terrorist Government
by Allan Nairn page 29
Massive Destabilization in Jamaica
by Ellen Ray and William Schaap page 32
U.S. Crushes Caribbean Jewel
by Ellen Ray and William Schaap page 34
New Spate of Terrorism
by William Schaap page 37
The 1981 Cuban Dengue Epidemic
by William Schaap page 39
Israeli Arms to Central America
by Clarence Lusane page 40
Libya in U.S. Demonology
by Noam Chomsky page 43
Vernon Walters: Crypto-diplomat and Terrorist
by Ellen Ray and William Schaap page 47
CIA Puppet: Jonas Savimbi
by Louis Wolf page 50
Mozambique Expeils CIA Operatives
by Ellen Ray page 51
U.S.-South Africa Destabilization
by Sean Gervasi page 53
U.S. Intelligence in Southeast Asia
by David Truong D.H. page 56
by Carolyn Turbyfill page 59
God is Phasing Out Democracy
by Fred Clarkson page 60
The CIA and the Media
CIA Relations with Media page 63
CIA Covert Propaganda
by Sean Gervasi page 64
The Grocery Store Papers page 66
The New York Times and Propaganda
by Edward Herman page 67
And more generally:
After city officials tried – unsuccessfully – to stop a “Freedom Rally” slated to take place Saturday in San Francisco, the events organizers abruptly canceled the event, telling those who had planned on attending that they feared demonstrators were being “set up” by left wing protesters intent on violently attacking them.
Joey Gibson, one of the rally’s organizers, said that his group, Patriot Prayer, had decided to cancel the event – which was slated to take place in Crissy Field near the Golden Gate Bridge – after several conversations with San Francisco police. Instead, Gibson said the group plans to hold a hastily scheduled press conference at 2 p.m. in Alamo Square Park, according to CBS.At the press conference, Gibson said he will provide more details about his reasoning for canceling the rally.
Gibson blamed the rhetoric of politicians like Nancy Pelosi and San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee for helping attract the attention of “extremists.”
“After several conversations with the police and understanding, you know, the situation of what’s going on we decided that tomorrow really seems like a setup. It doesn’t seem safe,” said Gibson. “A lot of people’s lives are going to be in danger tomorrow. The rhetoric from Nancy Pelosi, Mayor Lee, the media, all these people are saying that we’re white supremacists and it’s bringing in tons of extremists. And it seems just like a huge setup.”
He also singled out members of far-left group Antifa for trying to intimidate peaceful demonstrators.
“’These Antifa thugs, these kids who dress in all black, they constantly put police officers lives in danger, our lives in danger, liberal lives in danger if they get in their way or speak out against them’ said Gibson Friday afternoon.”
Sunday’s anti-Marxist rally in Berkeley is expected to proceed as planned, and Gibson urged viewers to attend that event as well.
From: John Richard <jric…@Essential.ORG>
Subject: NAIRN: THE CIA & GUATEMALA’S DEATH SQUADS
C.I.A. Death Squad
by ALLAN NAIRN
The Nation, April 17, 1995
(c) 1995 The Nation Co., L.P.
The U.S. government has systematic links to Guatemalan Army
death squad operations that go far beyond the disclosures that
have recently shaken official Washington. The news that the
C.I.A. employed a Guatemalan colonel who reportedly ordered two
murders has been greeted with professions of shock and outrage.
But in fact the story goes much deeper, as U.S. officials well
North American C.I.A. operatives work inside a Guatemalan
Army unit that maintains a network of torture centers and has
killed thousands of Guatemalan civilians. The G-2, headquartered
on thefourth floor of the Guatemalan National Palace, has, since
at least the1960s, been advised, trained, armed and equipped by
U.S. undercoveragents. Working out of the U.S. Embassy and living
in safehouses andhotels, these agents work through an elite group
of Guatemalan officerswho are secretly paid by the C.I.A. and who
have been implicatedpersonally in numerous political crimes and
This secret G-2/C.I.A. collaboration has been described
byGuatemalan and U.S. operatives and confirmed, in various
aspects, bythree former Guatemalan heads of state. These accounts
also mesh withthat given in a March 28 interview by Col. Julio
Roberto Alpirez, theC.I.A.-paid Guatemalan G-2 officer who has
been implicated in themurders of Guatemalan guerrilla leader
Efrain Bamaca Velasquez and aU.S. citizen, Michael DeVine.
One of the American agents who works with the G-2, a
thinblond man in his 40s who goes by the name of Randy Capister,
hasbeen involved in similar operations with the army of
neighboring ElSalvador. Another, a weapons expert known as Joe
Jacarino, hasoperated throughout the Caribbean, and has
accompanied G-2 units onmissions into rural zones.
Jacarino’s presence in the embassy was confirmed by
DavidWright, a former embassy intelligence employee who called
Jacarino a”military liaison.” Col. George Hooker, the U.S.
Defense IntelligenceAgency chief in Guatemala from 1985 to 1989,
says he also knewJacarino, though he says Jacarino was not with
the D.I.A. When askedwhether Jacarino was with the C.I.A. he
replied, “I’m not at liberty tosay.”
Celerino Castillo, a former agent for the Drug
EnforcementAdministration who dealt with the G-2 and the C.I.A.
in Guatemala,says he worked with Capister as well as with
Jacarino. He showedphotographs of himself and Capister at embassy
events and in the field.Guatemalan sources say Capister meets
regularly with Guatemalan Armychiefs. He has been seen in
meetings in Guatemala City as recently asthe spring of 1994.
When I reached Colonel Alpirez at the La Aurora base in
Guate-mala, he denied all involvement in the deaths of Bamaca and
DeVineand said he was never paid by the C.I.A. But he discussed
at lengthhow the agency advises and helps run the G-2. He
praised the C.I.A.for “professionalism” and close rapport with
Guatemalan officers. Hesaid that agency operatives often come to
Guatemala on temporary duty,during which they train G-2 men and
provide “advice and technicalassistance.” He described attending
C.I.A. sessions at G-2 bases on”contra-subversion” tactics and
“how to manage the factors of power” to”fortify democracy.” He
said the C.I.A. men were on call to respond toG-2 questions, and
that the G-2 often consulted the agency on how todeal with
“political problems.” Alpirez said he was not authorized togive
specifics on the technical assistance, nor would he name the
NorthAmericans the G-2 worked with, though he said they were
Other officials, though, say that at least during the
mid-1980s G-2 officers were paid by Jack McCavitt, then C.I.A.
station chief, andthat the “technical assistance” includes
communications gear, computersand special firearms, as well as
collaborative use of C.I.A.-ownedhelicopters that are flown out
of the Piper hangar at the La Auroracivilian airport and from a
separate U.S. air facility.
Through what Amnesty International has called “a
governmentprogram of political murder,” the Guatemalan Army has,
since 1978,killed more than 110,000 civilians. The G-2 and a
smaller, affiliatedunit called the Archivo have long been openly
known in Guatemala asthe brain of the terror state. With a
contingent of more than 2,000agents and with sub-units in the
local army bases, the G-2–under ordersof the army high
command–coordinates the torture, assassination anddisappearance
“If the G-2 wants to kill you, they kill you,” former army
Chiefof Staff Gen. Benedicto Lucas Garcia once said. “They send
one of theirtrucks with a hit squad and that’s it.” Current and
former G-2 agentsdescribe a program of surveillance backed by a
web of torture centersand clandestine body dumps. In 1986,
then-army Chief of Staff Gen.Hctor Gramajo Morales, a U.S.
protege, said that the G-2 maintainsfiles on and watches “anyone
who is an opponent of the Guatemalanstate in any realm.” A former
G-2 agent says that the base he worked atin Huehuetenango
maintained its own crematorium and “processed”abductees by
chopping off limbs, singeing flesh and administeringelectric
At least three of the recent G-2 chiefs have been paid by
theC.I.A., according to U.S. and Guatemalan intelligence
sources.One ofthem, Gen. Edgar Godoy Gaitan, a former army Chief
of Staff, has beenaccused in court by the victim’s family of
being one of the prime”intellectual authors” of the 1990 murder
of the noted Guatemalananthropologist Myrna Mack Chang [see
Victor Perera, “Where Is Justicein Guatemala?” May 24, 1993].
Another, Col. Otto Perez Molina, whonow runs the Presidential
General Staff and oversees the Archivo, wasin charge in 1994,
when, according to the Archbishop’s human rightsoffice, there was
evidence of General Staff involvement in the assassina-tion of
Judge Edgar Ramiro El!as Ogaldez. The third, Gen. FranciscoOrtega
Menaldo, who now works in Washington as general staff direc-tor
at the Pentagon-backed Inter-American Defense Board, was G-2chief
in the late 1980s during a series of assassinations of
students,peasants and human rights activists. Reached at his home
in Florida,Jack McCavitt said he does not talk to journalists.
When asked whetherOrtega Menaldo was on the C.I.A. payroll, he
shouted “Enough!” andslammed down the phone.
These crimes are merely examples of a vast, systematic
pattern;likewise, these men are only cogs in a large U.S.
government apparatus.Colonel Hooker, the former D.I.A. chief for
Guatemala, says, “It wouldbe an embarrassing situation if you
ever had a roll call of everybody inthe Guatemalan Army who ever
collected a C.I.A. paycheck.” Hookersays the agency payroll is so
large that it encompasses most of thearmy’s top decision-makers.
When I told him that his friend, Gen.Mario Enriquez Morales, the
current Defense Minister, had reacted tothe Alpirez scandal by
saying publicly that it was “disloyal” and “sha-meful” for
officers to take C.I.A. money, Hooker burst out laughing
andexclaimed: “Good! Good answer, Mario! I’d hate to think how
manyguys were on that payroll. It’s a perfectly normal thing.”
Other top commanders paid by the C.I.A. include Gen.
RobertoMatta Galvez, former army Chief of Staff, head of the
PresidentialGeneral Staff and commander of massacres in the El
Quiche depart-ment; and General Gramajo, Defense Minister during
the armed forces’abduction, rape and torture of Dianna Ortiz, an
American nun. (SisterOrtiz has testified that a man she believes
to be North American seemedto be the supervisor of the agents who
abducted her. Gramajo said shehad sustained her 111 burn wounds
during a “lesbian love tryst.”)Gramajo also managed the early
1980s highland massacres. ColonelHooker says he once brought
Gramajo on a ten-day tour of the UnitedStates to speak at U.S.
military bases and confer with the U.S. ArmyChief of Staff.
Three recent Guatemalan heads of state confirm that the
C.I.A.works closely with the G-2. Last year, when I asked Gen.
Oscar Hum-berto Mejia Victores (military dictator from 1983 to
1986) how thecountry’s death squads had originated, he said they
had been started “inthe 1960s by the C.I.A.” Gen. Efrain Rios
Montt (dictator from 1982 to1983 and the current Congress
President), who ordered the main high-land massacres (662
villages destroyed, by the army’s own count), saidthe C.I.A. did
have agents inside the G-2. When I asked Rios Montt–afirm
believer in the death penalty–if he thought he should be
executedfor his role in the slaughter, he leapt to his feet and
shouted “Yes! Tryme! Put me against the wall!” but he said he
should be tried only ifAmericans were tried too. Specifically, he
cited President Reagan, who,in the midst of the massacres,
embraced R!os Montt and said he wasgetting “a bum rap” on human
rights. Vinicio Cerezo Arevalo, civilianPresident from 1986 to
1991 (under whom the rate of killing actuallyincreased), said
“the C.I.A. often contracts with our military and G-2people,” and
that from what he knew they “very probably” had peopleinside “who
have participated with our G-2 in technical assistance
These C.I.A. operations are, of course, part of the larger
U.S.policy. The Bush and Clinton State Departments, for example,
in themidst of a much-touted “cutoff” of military aid to
Guatemala after 1990,authorized–according to classified State
Department records–more than114 separate sales of U.S. pistols
The killing of defenseless people has been state policy in
Guate-mala for thirty years. The question is not whether the U.S.
governmenthas known–it is obviously aware of its own actions. It
is why, withovert and covert aid, it has helped commit the army’s
murders. Allan Nairn has written extensively on Guatemala and its
military since1980. Last fall in The Nation he broke the story of
U.S. intelligence collaboration with Haiti’s FRAPH.
Excerpts from “Charlie Rose,” March 31, 1995
Guests: Rep. Robert Torricelli, Elliot Abrams, Allan Nairn
… Rose: Tell me what you have found out, Allan. You’ve got a
story in the Nation magazine thats called “CIA Death Squad:
Americans Have Been Directly Involved in Guatemalan Army
Killings.” What can you add to this story before I go to Elliot
… Nairn: Alpirez is one Colonel on the CIA payroll who
committed two murders. From talking to both Guatemalan and US
operatives involved in this, its clear that there are many,
perhaps dozens of Guatemalan military officers on the CIA payroll
who’ve been involved in thousands of killings. The G-2, the
military intelligence service which coordinates tha assinations
and disappearances — their top officials have for years been
paid by the CIA. I was able to learn the names of three of them
who’ve been on the payroll, as well as General Hector Gramajo,
General Roberto Matta, two of the top officers, closest US
proteges, who’ve been directly involved in commanding massacres
in the Northwest Highlands. Furthermore, there are actual US CIA
agents who work directly inside the G-2. I was able to learn the
names of two of them, Joe Jacarino and Randy Capister. They
provide what’s called technical assistance and advice. I was able
to reach colonel Alpirez on the phone in Guatemala. He denied
being involved in the Devine and Bamaca killings, said the CIA
wasn’t paying him, but he talked rather extensively about how the
CIA essentially helps to run the G-2 with ongoing advice and
American advisers right there inside this systematic killing
Rose: You recorded this conversation?
Nairn: No, I took extensive notes on it. And its not just the
CIA. Its the Pentagon, the State Department, and the White House
as well. For example, here are some internal State Department
records which indicate that during both the Bush and Clinton
administrations after there was a supposed cutoff of military aid
to Guatemala, the State Department authorized at least 114
separate sales of pistols and rifles to Guatemala. The US
military has been planning joint maneuvers with the Guatemalan
military this spring. This is an across the board policy and you
have to hold the President accountable for that.
Rose: Elliot, you were Assistant Secretary of State for Latin
American affairs during the Reagan administration. Tell me what
you make of this story, what you know about what went on during
the Reagan administration and perhaps what you have learned about
this story since it broke.
Abrams: I may not know as many facts about this as Bob Toricelli
does but from what I can see there’s a lot less here than meets
the eye. The fact that the CIA maintains relationships with
intelligence people and military people in Central America and
throughout the world is not news. The fact that some of them are
pretty unattractive people is not news… That we had an ongoing
CIA program in Guatemala at a time there was a military cutoff,
you can’t do that without a finding, its got to be approved by
the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. So one question to
ask is: if the intelligence committee’s didn’t like this why
didn’t they stop it? Before we start jumping up and down here
and saying this is another case of the CIA out of control, here I
think I might agree with Mr. Nairn that if this was a Bush and
Clinton policy, then lets talk about the policy of the President
in both cases, and lets not start talking about a rogue CIA which
does not yeat appear to me to exist.
Rose: Let me just ask you a hypothetical question. Would you as
an assistant secretary of state for Latin American affairs, if
you found out that our government was paying a man in the
Guatemalan military after it learned that he had been implicated
in the assassination of an American or someone married to an
American , would you be outraged?…
Abrams: I would certainly be outraged in the Devine case which
looked like the cold blooded murder of an innocent American. The
notion that we would continue to employ such a person would give
him and others in the Guatemalan military the sense that we just
didn’t care about the killing of American citizens. The Bamaca
case is a different case. That guy was a guerrilla and he was not
Rose: Yeah but he wasn’t killed in battle, he was killed in
Abrams: No, but it is a different case. And the responsibility we
have is to protect above all American citizens, not Guatemalan
guerrillas. So it is a different case, different kind of level
of seriousness for the US government.
Nairn: Charlie, you asked a hypothetical: How would Mr. Abrams
react? In fact we have the historical record. We can see how he
and the other Reagan and Bush and Clinton officials have reacted.
Rose: In the State Department, or in the CIA, or both?
Nairn: Across the board. And in the face of this systematic
policy of slaughter by the Guatemalan military, more than 110,000
civilians killed by that military since 1978, what Amnesty
International has called a “government program of political
murder,” the US has continued to provide covert assistance to the
G-2 and they have continued, especially during the time of Mr.
Abrams, to provide political aid and comfort. For example,
Abrams: Uh, Charlie.
Rose: One second.
Nairn: during the Northwest Highland massacres of the [early]
’80s when the Catholic Church said: “never in our history has it
come to such grave extremes. It has reached the point of
genocide,” President Reagan went down, embraced Rios Montt, the
dictator who was staging these massacres, and said he was getting
“a bum rap on human rights.” In 85 when human rights leader
Rosario Godoy was abducted by the army, raped and mutilated, her
baby had his fingernails torn out, the Guatemalan military said:
“Oh, they died in a traffic accident.” Human rights groups
contacted Mr. Abrams, asked him about it, he wrote back — this
is his letter of reply — he said: yes, “there’s no evidence
other than that they died in a traffic accident.” Now this is a
woman raped and mutilated, a baby with his fingernails torn out.
This is longstanding policy.
Rose: I want to come to Congressman Torricelli in a moment, but
these are specific points raised by Allan having to do with your
Abrams: I’m not, I tell you, whatever Allan Nairn wants to do,
Charlie, I’m not here to refight the Cold War. I’m glad we won,
maybe he’s not. What I’m here to say is we’re talking not about
US policy in the world
Nairn: Won against who, won against those civilians the
Guatemalan army was massacring?
Abrams: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a
minute. We’re not here to refight the Cold War. We’re here to
talk about, I thought, a specific case in which an allegation is
being made that the husband of an American, in another case an
American citizen, were killed and there was a CIA connection
with, allegedly, with the person allegedly involved in it. Now
I’m happy to talk about that kind of thing. If Mr. Nairn thinks
we should have been on the other side in Guatemala, that is we
should have been in favor of a guerrilla victory, I disagree with
Nairn: So you’re then admitting that you were on the side of the
Abrams: I am admitting that it was the policy of the United
States, under Democrats and Republicans, approved by Congress
repeatedly to oppose a Communist guerrilla victory anywhere in
Central America including in Guatemala.
Nairn: “A Communist guerrilla victory!” Ninety-five percent
of these victims are civilians — peasant organizers, human
rights leaders, priests — assassinated by the US – backed
Rose: I’m happy to invite both of you, I’m happy to invite both
of you back to review Reagan and Bush administration policy.
Right now I want to stick to this point [re Alpirez scandal]…
… Nairn: Lets look at reality here. In reality we’re not
talking about two murders, one Colonel. We’re talking about more
than a hundred thousand murders, an entire army, many of its top
officers employees of the US government. We’re talking about
crimes and we’re also talking about criminals; not just people
like the Guatemalan Colonels but also the US agents who’ve been
working with them, and the higher level US officials. I mean, I
think you have to apply uniform standards. President Bush once
talked about putting Saddam Hussein on trial for crimes against
humanity — Nuremberg style tribunal. I think that’s a good
idea. But if you’re serious, you have to be even-handed. If you
look at a case like this, I think we have to start talking about
putting Guatemalan and US officials on trial. I think someone
like Mr. Abrams would be a fit subject for such a Nuremberg-style
Nairn: but I agree with Mr. Abrams that Democrats would have to
be in the dock with him.
Rose: Well, well I,
Nairn: The Congress has been in on this. The Congress approved
the sale of 16,000 M-16s to Guatemala. In ’87 and ’88
Rose: All right, but hold on one second,
Nairn: they voted more military aid than the Republicans asked
Rose: And again, I invite you and Elliot Abrams back to discuss
what he did, but right now,
Abrams: No, thanks Charlie, but,
Rose: Hold on one second, Elliot, go ahead Elliot, to repeat the
question, do you want to be in the dock?
Abrams: It is ludicrous, it is ludicrous to respond to that kind
of stupidity. This guy thinks we were on the wrong side in the
cold war. Maybe he personally was on the wrong side. I am one
of the many millions of Americans who
Nairn: Mr. Abrams, you were on the wrong side in supporting the
massacre of peasants and organizers and anyone who dared to
speak. Absolutely. And thats a crime. Thats a crime, Mr.
Abrams, for which people should be tried. Its against the law.
Abrams: All right, we’ll put all the American officials who won
the Cold War in the dock.
Rose (to Torricelli): All right. You have read this article.
Torricelli: I have read the article.
Rose: Did you find anything that your information contradicts, in
this article by Allan Nairn in the Nation magazine? You have
said its the talk of Washington, this article.
Toricelli: Every day this story has surpassed expectations of the
day before, even in Washington where people tend to be cynical on
these things. What this article suggests to us is rather than a
few Guatemalan military officers who’ve abused rights, that
indeed the entire military leadership in Guatemala may be rife
with US informants.
Rose: And also that there are disturbing connections between
American agents in Guatemala and the activities of what can be
called nothing more than killer squads. [to Nairn:] Yes?
Nairn: Yes, correct.
Torricelli: There is death squad activity in which the
intelligence communities of the United States have been deeply
involved. I don’t want to get into this debate about the
Guatemalan civil war. I only want to say this. That the United
States had no role in being this deeply involved in the
Guatemalan military, being this involved in these death squad
activities, there was no effort to separate ourselves. I think
when all is said and done we are going to find that there have
been rouge operations in the United States intelligence community
outside even the control of the Director of Central Intelligence.
Guatemala has been handled as a backwater of the intelligence
community of the United States, its own private preserve.
Rose: For what objective?
Torricelli: I think we’re headed for some very startling weeks
Rose: To learn what? I mean, tell me what it is that was at
stake here and what is going to be so startling that might be
discovered. Give me a preview of what you think is around the
Torricelli: I think that there were operations of the
intelligence community, of individuals in that community, that
were engaged in activities beyond the policies and the scope of
the United States government for a variety of purposes, thats as
much as I’m going to say, but I think we’re in for some startling
Rose: What kinds of activities? Without naming names, what kinds
Torricelli: I think there were a variety of illegal activities
Rose: This is more than giving money to people who are going out
killing Americans or spouses of Americans. You’re talking about
Americans who you believe might have been in some cases involved
in commiting the acts themselves?
Torricelli: I don’t believe that the likes of a Webster or a
Gates or a Woolsey, all directors of the Central Intelligence
Agency, would be condoning or even knowledgeable of the kinds of
activities that we’re now hearing about occurred in Guatemala.
Rose: I assume you would agree with that Elliot?
Abrams: Well I, we’ll find out, lets see if they were not aware.
Rose: That all this could take place without being reported up
the line to the Director.
Abrams: If all of this happened and none of them were aware, one
has to say: what kind of managers were they? I would urge Bob
Torricelli to stick to the facts and to avoid the kind of
crackpot theories that we’re getting from Mr. Nairn. If you
stick to the facts there may be quite enough to get people’s
Torricelli: Well, I’m trying to stick to
Rose: I, I also have to say that Allan Nairn is a distinguished
reporter who won the George Polk Award last year. So, I mean, you
know, I don’t want him characterized on this broadcast as a
crackpot. I mean, you can have a personal argument about what he
says about you specifically, but,
Abrams: Well, Charlie, Charlie, Charlie, when a guy tells me,
Rose: Go ahead.
Abrams: When a guy tells me that he thinks that the entire
American leadership during the Cold War needs to have a Nuremberg
trial, he’s a crackpot.
Rose: OK, I mean, I, I would’nt, point well taken.
Nairn: Well, its Mr. Abrams’, its Mr. Abrams’ right to say
whatever he wants, but the facts speak for themselves. And in
the case of Guatemala you have this ongoing pattern of murder
which has been public record — the Catholic Church in Guatemala
has documented it, all the human rights groups have documented
it. And on the public level, not even talking about the covert
level, year after year the US has continued to provide all
different kinds of aid to the Guatemalan miitary. Right now its
the Clinton administration thats talking about a joint maneuver
with the Guatemalan army, its the State Department that was
licensing these 114 pistol and rifle sales. The idea of a rogue
operation is really preposterous when you have this kind of
systematic, ongoing program that stretches back over years over
both Democratic and Republican administrations.
Rose: I’ve got a couple of one last questions. Robert
Torricelli, I think you know this better than anyone else. One,
what’s happened to Colonel Alpirez?
Torricelli: Colonel Alpirez remains in the Guatemalan
military. He is claiming that he never received payments from the
Rose: He said that to Allan in the phone conversation.
Torricelli: He’s threatening libel suits. I suggest that he come
to the United States, under oath, under the threat of perjury or
write to the State Department and ask that his file be released.
In fact the question of whether he received payments is not
seriously debated in Washington. But Charlie, what I think
people should know, though, of real concern about this is, this
debate that we’re having here may never be settled. As you know,
we have had informants now from the National Security Agency that
have written to me, communicated with other news media in
Rose: On NSA stationery.
Torricelli: On NSA stationery, that files and computer records
regarding army and CIA activities in Guatemala this week were
being systematically destroyed. So whether or not there was
knowledge, whether or not the activities I’m suggesting might
have occurred, the fact is we may never know and therefore never
learn any lessons about civilian control of the CIA.
Rose: Any fear you’re out too far on a limb on this?
Torricelli: From the day this began I was afraid I was out too
far on a limb and every day I wake up to find the limb has moved
way out beyond me. This is moving very quickly. But I am aware
of the fact that given the sources we may have that the evidence
may be destroyed and we may never know.
Rose: Robert Torricelli, Congressman, United States, from New
Jersey, a Democrat, Allan Nairn from Nation magazine, Elliot
Abrams, former Assistant Secretary of State for Latin American
affairs in the Reagan administration, thank you very much,
pleasure. Last word to you Elliot? Anything you want to add to
this, since you’re in Washington?
Abrams: I would just urge Bob Torricelli again, the facts may be
dynamic enough so lets just all stick to the facts and go no
further than they take us.
Nairn: This is mass murder. This country should not be
supporting it. If Americans knew about it, they wouldn’t stand
Rose: All right, thank you all.
An operation that began as a seemingly obscure academic discussion three years ago is now becoming a full-blown propaganda campaign by some of the most powerful institutions in the industrialized world. This is what rightly should be termed the War on Cash. Like the War on Terror, the War on Cancer or the War on Drugs, its true agenda is sinister and opaque. If we are foolish enough to swallow the propaganda for complete elimination of cash in favor of pure digital bank money, we can pretty much kiss our remaining autonomy and privacy goodbye. George Orwell’s 1984 will be here on steroids.
Let me be clear. Here we discuss not various block-chain digital technologies, so-called crypto-currencies. We are not addressing private payment systems such as China’s WeChat. Nor do we discuss e-banking or use of bank credit cards such as Visa or Master Card or others. These are of an entirely different quality from the goal of the ongoing sinister war on cash. They are all private services not state.
What we are discussing is a plot, and it is a plot, by leading central banks, select governments, the International Monetary Fund in collusion with major international banks to force citizens—in other words, us!—to give up holding cash or using it to pay for purchases. Instead we would be forced to use digital bank credits. The difference, subtle though it may at first seem, is huge. As in India following the mad Modi US-inspired war on cash late in 2016, citizens would forever lose their personal freedom to decide how to pay or their privacy in terms of money. If I want to buy a car and pay cash to avoid bank interest charges, I cannot. My bank will limit the amount of digital money I can withdraw on any given day. If I want to stay in a nice hotel to celebrate a special day and pay cash for reasons of privacy, not possible. But this is just the surface.
Visa joins the war
This July, Visa International rolled out what it calls “The Visa Cashless Challenge.” With select buzz words about how technology has transformed global commerce, Visa announced a program to pay selected small restaurant owners in the USA if they agree to refuse to accept cash from their customers but only credit cards. The official Visa website announces, “Up to $500,000 in awards. 50 eligible food service owners. 100% cashless quest.” Now for a mammoth company such as Visa with annual revenues in the $15 billion range, a paltry $500,000 is chump change. Obviously they believe it will advance use of Visa cards in a market that until now prefers cash—the small family restaurant.
The Visa “challenge” to achieve what it calls the “100% cashless quest” is no casual will-o’-the-wisp. It is part of a very thought-through strategy of not only Visa, but also the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, the International Monetary Fund and the Reserve Bank of India to name just a few.
IMF on Boiling Frogs
In March this year the International Monetary Fund in Washington issued a Working Paper on what they call “de-cashing.” The paper recommends that, “going completely cashless should be phased in steps.” It notes the fact that there already exist “initial and largely uncontested steps, such as the phasing out of large denomination bills, the placement of ceilings on cash transactions, and the reporting of cash moves across the borders. Further steps could include creating economic incentives to reduce the use of cash in transactions, simplifying the opening and use of transferrable deposits, and further computerizing the financial system.”
In France since 2015 the limit a person may pay in cash to a business is a mere €1000 “to tackle money laundering and tax evasion.” Moreover, any deposit or withdrawal of cash from a bank account in excess of €10,000 in a month will automatically be reported to Tracfin, a unit of the French government charged with combating money laundering, “largely uncontested steps” and very ominous portents.
The IMF paper further adds as argument for eliminating cash that “de-cashing should improve tax collection by reducing tax evasion.” Said with other words, if you are forced to use only digital money transfers from a bank, the governments of virtually every OECD country today have legal access to the bank data of their citizens.
In April, a month after the IMF paper on de-cashing, the Brussels EU Commission released a statement that declared, “Payments in cash are widely used in the financing of terrorist activities. In this context, the relevance of potential upper limits to cash payments could also be explored. Several Member States have in place prohibitions for cash payments above a specific threshold.”
Even in Switzerland, as a result of relentless campaigns by Washington, their legendary bank secrecy has been severely compromised under the fallacious argument it hinders financing of terrorist organizations. A glance at recent European press headlines about attacks from Barcelona to Munich to London to Charlottesville exposes this argument as a sham.
Today in the EU, as further result of Washington pressure, under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) banks outside the USA where US citizens hold a deposit are forced to file yearly reports on the assets in those accounts to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the US Treasury. Conveniently for the US as the major emerging tax haven, the US Government has refused, despite it being specified in the Act, to join FACTA itself.
In 2016 the European Central Bank discontinued issuing €500 bills arguing it would hinder organized crime and terrorism, a poor joke to be sure, as if the sophisticated networks of organized crime depend on paper currencies. In the US, leading economists such as former Harvard President Larry Summers advocate eliminating the $100 bill for the same alleged reason.
The real aim of the war on cash however was outlined in a Wall Street Journal OpEd by Harvard economist and former chief economist at the IMF, Kenneth Rogoff. Rogoff argues that there should be a drastic reduction in the Federal Reserve’s issuance of cash. He calls for all bills above the $10 bill to be removed from circulation, thereby forcing people and businesses to depend on digital or electronic payments solely. He repeats the bogus mantra that his plan would reduce money-laundering, thereby reduce crime while at the same time exposing tax cheats.
However the hidden agenda in this War on Cash is confiscation of our money in the next, inevitable banking crisis, whether in the EU member countries, the United States or developing countries like India.
Already several central banks have employed a policy of negative interest rates alleging, falsely, that this is necessary to stimulate growth following the 2008 financial and banking crisis. In addition to the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, the Danish National Bank adhere to this bizarre policy. However, their ability to lower interest rates to member banks even more is constrained as long as cash is plentiful.
Here the above cited IMF document lets the proverbial cat out of the sack. It states, “In particular, the negative interest rate policy becomes a feasible option for monetary policy if savings in physical currency are discouraged and substantially reduced. With de-cashing, most money would be stored in the banking system, and, therefore, would be easily affected by negative rates, which could encourage consumer spending…” That’s because your bank will begin to charge you for the “service” of allowing you to park your money with them where they can use it to make more money. To avoid that, we are told, we would spend like there’s no tomorrow. Obviously, this argument is fake.
As German economist Richard Werner points out, negative rates raise banks’ costs of doing business. “The banks respond by passing on this cost to their customers. Due to the already zero deposit rates, this means banks will raise their lending rates.” As Werner further notes, “In countries where a negative interest rate policy has been introduced, such as Denmark or Switzerland, the empirical finding is that it is not effective in stimulating the economy. Quite the opposite. This is because negative rates are imposed by the central bank on the banks – not the borrowing public.
He points out that the negative interest rate policy of the ECB is aimed at destroying the functioning, traditionally conservative EU savings banks such as the German Sparkassen and Volksbanken in favor of covertly bailing out the giant and financially corrupt mega-banks such as Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Societe Generale of France, Royal Bank of Scotland, Alpha Bank of Greece, or Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena in Italy and many others. The President of the ECB, Mario Draghi is a former partner of the mega bank, Goldman Sachs.
The relevant question is why now, suddenly the urgency of pushing for elimination of cash on the part of central banks and institutions such as the IMF? The drum roll for abolishing cash began markedly following the January 2016 Davos, Switzerland World Economic Summit where the western world’s leading government figures and central bankers and multinational corporations were gathered. The propaganda offensive for the current War on Cash offensive began immediately after the Davos talks.
Several months later, in November, 2016, guided by experts from USAID and, yes, Visa, the Indian government of Narenda Modi announced the immediate demonetization or forced removal of all 500 Rupee (US$8) and 1,000 Rupee (US$16) banknotes on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India. The Modi government claimed that the action would curtail the shadow economy and crack down on the use of illicit and counterfeit cash to fund illegal activity and terrorism.
Notably, the Indian Parliament recently made a follow-up study of the effects of the Modi war on cash. The Parliamentary Committee on Demonetization report documented that not a single stated objective was met. No major black money was found and Demonetization had no effect on terror funding, the reasons given by the Government to implement such a drastic policy. The report noted that while India’s central bank was allegedly attacking black money via demonetization, the serious illegal money in offshore tax havens was simply recycled back into India, “laundered” via Foreign Direct Investment by the criminal or corporate groups legally in a practice known as “Round Tripping.”
Yet the Parliament’s report detailed that the real Indian economy was dramatically hit. Industrial Production in April declined by a shocking 10.3 percent over the previous month as thousands of small businesses dependent on cash went under. Major Indian media have reportedly been warned by the Modi government not to publicize the Parliament report.
If we connect the dots on all this, it becomes clearer that the war on cash is a war on our individual freedom and degrees of freedom in our lives. Forcing our cash to become digital is the next step towards confiscation by the governments of the EU or USA or wherever the next major banking crisis such as in 2007-2008 erupts.
In late July this year Estonia as rotating presidency of the EU issued a proposal backed by Germany that would allow EU national regulators to “temporarily” stop people from withdrawing their funds from a troubled bank before depositors were able to create a bank “run.” The EU precedent was already set in Cyprus and in Greece where the government blocked cash withdrawals beyond tiny daily amounts.
As veteran US bank analyst Christopher Whelan points out in a recent analysis of the failure of the EU authorities to effectively clean up their banking mess since the 2008 financial crisis, “the idea that the banking public – who generally fall well-below the maximum deposit insurance limit – would ever be denied access to cash virtually ensures that deposit runs and wider contagion will occur in Europe next time a depository institution gets into trouble.” Whelan points out that nine years after the 2008 crisis, EU banks remain in horrendous condition. “There remains nearly €1 trillion in bad loans within the European banking system. This represents 6.7% of the EU economy. That’s huge. He points out that banks’ bad loans as share of GDP for US and Japan banks are 1.7 and 1.6 percent respectively.
As governments, whether in the EU or in India or elsewhere refuse to rein in fraudulent practices of its largest banks, forcing people to eliminate use of cash and keep all their liquidity in digital deposits with state regulated banks, sets the stage for the state to confiscate those assets when they declare the next emergency. If we are foolish enough to permit this scam to pass unchallenged perhaps we deserve to lose our vestige of financial autonomy. Fortunately, popular resistance against elimination of cash in countries like Germany is massive. Germans recall the days of the 1920s Weimar Republic and hyperinflation as the 1931 banking crises that led to the Third Reich. The IMF approach is that of the Chinese proverb on boiling frogs slowly. But human beings are not frogs, or?
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
The amount of devastation caused by the Depleted Uranium (DU) weaponry used against Iraq during the consecutive US led wars is historically unprecedented in modern warfare. The devastating magnitude of the complications and damage caused as a result of the use of such radioactive and toxic weapons on the environment and the human population was intensified as a result of the intentional concealment, denial and misleading information released by the Pentagon about the quantities, characteristics, and Iraqi area’s within which these weapons were used.
Information revealed about a severe illness known as the ‘Gulf War Syndrome’ which spread amongst US Army veterans who were exposed to DU while using theseweaponry, helped Iraqi researchers and Medical Doctors to understand the nature of the effect of these weapons, and the means required to investigate further into this issue.
DU is a chemically toxic and radioactive heavy metal produced as waste by the nuclear power industry. It is used in weapons because it is an extremely hard material capable of piercing armor.
The synergistic impact on health due to the 1991post-Gulf War1 economic sanctions, and DU related radioactive and toxic contamination, raised the number of casualties in contaminated areas such as in Southern Iraq.
During 2003, the invading forces used additional rounds of DU in heavily populated areas such as Baghdad, Samawa, Fallujah, Diyala, Najaf, Salahuddin, Basra and Nasiriya (again), and other cities.
The continual use of DU after-Gulf War I in 1991, then during and after the US led military operations in 2003 invasion of Iraq increased the total contamination area with DU in Iraq. Consequently, civilians in previously contaminated areas received an extra dose of radioactivity after 2003. An action that can only be interpreted as committing unseen genocide against the unarmed civilian population in these areas.
Accordingly, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have received higher doses of radioactivity than those received from standard natural sources of radiation. As a result, a multifold increase of diseases related to Low Level Radiation (LLR) exposure have been registered amongst Iraqis since 1995, including an increase of children’s leukemia, congenital malformations, breast cancer etc…
The leukemia incidence rates for instance, shifted towards younger children during these recent years, and its association with geographically distributed contaminated areas, offers strong evidence of the correlation between LLR exposure, and the resulting health damages.
Through this paper, an overview of major scientific DU conclusions will be presented, drawn from investigations and research conducted since the year 1991 by Iraqi researchers and MDs. This research was never published outside Iraq because of the comprehensive sanctions imposed on Iraq from (1991-2003). They were published only in Iraqi University peer reviewed journals and two related conferences. Schemes of the research papers can be classified into three categories:
- DU contamination detection and exploration programs.
- DU effects on human body cells.
- DU related epidemiological studies. …
Guns and Butter, KPFA Berkeley CA December 28, 2016
Christian Crusades of the late 11th century; split between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox; the War on Terror; WWI betrayal as incubator for Muslim Brother jihadists; Sykes-Picot secret agreement; Muslim Brotherhood in Nazi Germany; the CIA and the Muslim Brothers; Osama bin Laden; Azerbaijan and Chechnya; Muslim Brotherhood a death cult; T.E. Lawrence; Muslim World League as the missionary arm of the Muslim Brotherhood; indebtedness as the model for bringing down the Ottoman Empire and others ever since; Fetullah Gulen’s Worldwide Islamic Movement in the Turkic belt; Gladio networks in Turkey; color revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Tiananmen Square; CANVAS in Belgrade, Serbia; National Endowment for Democracy; the Albert Einstein Institution; Graham Fuller and the CIA; Boston Marathon bombing; undeveloped oil and gas reserves in Syria.
Originally Aired: December 28, 2016
Visit Guns and Butter at: www.gunsandbutter.org
Subscribe to our newsletter at: eepurl.com/bmg4zf