Those darned Iranians with their long memories don’t appreciate our benevolence in installing a malevolent dictator for the sake of oil com….errr…..common Iranian folk.
On this day, August 19th, 1953, the CIA and MI6 orchestrated a coup to overthrow Iran’s Mohammad Mossadegh, reinstating the Shah and sparking decades of resentment. This intervention, driven by oil interests, violated Iranian sovereignty and fueled anti-U.S. sentiment. It exemplifies the blowback of meddling in foreign affairs. This affair is unknown to most Americans today, and its obfuscation continues the false narratives that drive public opinion to support bellicose policies towards Iran while ignoring legitmate grivences spawned by the policies and actions of our own government against our will.
The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania critiques this U.S. meddling, advocating for non-intervention to avoid such long-term harm. We believe respecting sovereignty prevents conflicts like the Iran hostage crisis. Let’s end imperial overreach and prioritize peace.
On this day, July 26th, 1947, the National Security Act spawned the CIA, DoD, and more, centralizing power for the Cold War. This birthed the surveillance state—everything from the NSA to mass surveillance.
The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania demands their end—decentralize power, protect liberty, and stop the spying.
“Weiner credits Sylvester with “stealing Russia’s war plans for Ukraine,” but completely ignores the role the CIA played in provoking Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.“
“Based on Weiner’s article, we now know that the US launched an intelligence war on Russia based completely on a lie. And the senior leaders of the CIA went along with it. In my view, the CIA ought to be dismantled and cast to the four winds. We need to start over with some people of actual intelligence.“
We know what happened the last time those “wind” words were used.
Foreign Policy published an article last week by Tim Weiner, author of Legacy of Ashes, with the title, When the Threat Is Inside the White House: What CIA insiders make of the MAGA moles and toadies now in charge of U.S. national security. While the intent of the article is to paint Trump and his team as a bunch of Russian toadies, Weiner unwittingly paints a picture of the CIA’s leadership as biased operators with no understanding of Russia… They still think they are engaging a communist authoritarian state.
Here’s the opening paragraph:
If our nation’s spies are the infantry of our ideology, as John Le Carré once observed, Tom Sylvester is an unknown soldier who became a four-star general. Two years ago, he was named the CIA’s deputy director of operations, in charge of thousands of officers conducting espionage, covert action, and paramilitary operations. He won the job by virtue of his role in stealing Russia’s war plans for Ukraine, warning the world about the coming invasion, and providing steadfast support to Kyiv’s military and intelligence services.
Weiner credits Sylvester with “stealing Russia’s war plans for Ukraine,” but completely ignores the role the CIA played in provoking Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The entire narrative surrounding Sylvester’s actions is constructed around the premise that Russia is a bad, evil actor and that its actions have nothing to do with Western provocations, especially the expansion of NATO to the East.
The next “highlight” from Weiner’s piece provides an excellent example of the CIA’s bias and ignorance when it comes to Russia:
In the summer of 2017, Sylvester received new marching orders from Tomas Rakusan, the new chief of the clandestine service, whose identity remained a state secret until after his retirement. Rakusan had spied on Russia since before the end of the Cold War, operating throughout Central and Eastern Europe. His hatred of the Russians was bred in the bone. His parents were Czech; he was 9 years old when Soviet troops crushed the Prague Spring uprising in 1968. Rakusan saw Russian President Vladimir Putin’s subversion of the presidential election on Trump’s behalf as the espionage equivalent of 9/11. In retaliation, he aimed to penetrate the Kremlin—among the greatest aspirations of the CIA since its foundation, and a goal never achieved.
Hatred of Russians? It is one thing to despise the Soviet Union, which was governed by a Communist ideology. But the “End of the Cold War” was marked by the peaceful overthrow of a communist government and the creation of a new Russian government that emphasized nationalism and Christianity. So how is that a threat to the United States? Moreover, during the decade of the 1990s, Russia’s military was in disarray and the society was ravaged by economic crisis, which included two periods of hyperinflation, widespread poverty among the Russian people, and a dramatic decline in life expectancy among Russian men.
This did not age well: “Rakusan saw Russian President Vladimir Putin’s subversion of the presidential election on Trump’s behalf as the espionage equivalent of 9/11.” Tulsi Gabbard’s declassification of intelligence documents and emails from various members of the CIA and other intelligence officials on Friday, shows that Rakusan either had his head up his ass or was part of the conspiracy to attack Donald Trump with a lie (or both). The memo carries the following subject line: Intelligence Community suppression of intelligence showing “Russian and criminal actors did not impact” the 2016 presidential election via cyber-attacks on infrastructure. I am sure this caught Tim Weiner by surprise. Certainly takes the wind out of his sails as he tries to portray the CIA as a saintly, honest outfit being undermined by a President who is in the pocket of Putin.
The next couple of paragraphs from Weiner paint a picture of Western intelligence ramping up against Russia, but also exposes CIA’s impotence with respect to human intelligence assets in Russia:
By the summer of 2020, CIA officers were working in close liaison with the British, Dutch, Ukrainians, Poles, Czechs, Estonians, and many other services against the Russians. “There was the strategic decision on how we would share intelligence,” Sylvester said. “We used it as an influence mechanism, in and of itself, to get governments to start cooperating with us.” This hard-won trust “allowed them to open up taps of cooperation and intelligence that they had theretofore not shared with us,” he added. The CIA and its foreign allies were cross-fertilizing intelligence, choreographing operations, and, most importantly, recruiting Russian sources.
The CIA had been able to “push back against the Russian services” largely by “working with liaison partners overseas to expose and disrupt Russian intelligence activities,” then-CIA Director William Burns told me last year. “And then what we tried to build on that, starting in the spring of 2021, was the recruitment dimension of this,” he said. “This was really, especially once the war drums started beating, a once-in-a-generation opportunity, given the disaffection in some parts of the Russian elite and Russian society” against Putin’s regime.
This quote jumped off the page for me: largely by “working with liaison partners overseas to expose and disrupt Russian intelligence activities.” That is a polite way of saying that the the CIA had no assets of its own and was relying on foreign intelligence services, with the bulk of the information coming from Ukraine.
In the coming weeks and months, it will be important to learn the history of the Syria War and Washington’s role – first and foremost its support of crazed al-Qaeda head-choppers, the “moderate rebels.”
But no one in Washington cares about Syrians, nor do their mouthpieces in the corporate press. If they are paying attention to the killing, it’s likely to prime Americans for yet another intervention.
Over the weekend, the jihadists that Washington and its Mideast partners installed in Damascus predictably began mass killing based on ethnicity.
Antiwar.com’s Jason Ditz broke down the deadly rampage:
“The fighting erupted Thursday, when the militias launched an organized attack on an HTS-run checkpoint near Jableh. It quickly escalated, and now the reported death tolls are enormous. The Associated Press is reporting over 600 killed, while the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) is saying over 1,000 deaths are believed to have happened. Currently, 125 militia fighters and 148 government forces loyal to the HTS have been confirmed killed, though those numbers are expected to rise, as the fighting continues across the region.
The majority of the deaths though, potentially the vast majority, are Alawite civilians, as HTS forces from the Defense Ministry and Interior Ministry have been carrying out revenge killings en masse in several locations. At least 745 civilians have been killed in summary executions over the past three days, though that number is expected to continue to rise as the incidents continue.”
It should come as no surprise that HTS (Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, an umbrella group of jihadist militants led by Syria’s official al-Qaeda affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra) is now killing massive numbers of Alawite civilians. Over a decade ago, the Syrian opposition adopted the slogan “Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the grave.” Alawites are now filling mass graves.
As our director Scott Horton hates to say: “It didn’t have to be this way.”
Horton and many guests on the Scott Horton Show long warned that this would be the outcome of the CIA’s Timber Sycamore program. Under the Obama administration, CIA Director John Brennan sent hundreds of millions of dollars in arms to Syria’s extremist-led opposition fighting to oust Bashar al-Assad. At the same time, Turkey allowed jihadists – many of them veterans of the war against the US occupation in Iraq and the NATO regime change against Gaddafi in Libya – crossed the border into Syria to join the “civil war.”
The obvious result of the policy was that the opposition became dominated by Syrian al-Qaeda (the group led by Abu Muhammad al-Jolani, the current leader of post-Assad Syria), as well as the marginally more radical Islamic State.
While Trump finished crushing ISIS and ended Brennan’s treasonous support for al-Qaeda, he continued an economic war to strangle Assad. By not allowing Assad, along with his Russia and Iranian allies, to eradicate al-Qaeda, he permitted al-Jolani to remain in Syria.
Joe Biden – or whoever was running the White House during his administration – seems to have returned to Obama’s policy of backing the terrorists.
Hence, for example, the phenomenon of President Nixon, thinking he knew more than anyone else about the Vietnam War and yet actually knowing less than the astute reader of the New York Times. For the CIA and other intelligence warnings of what was going on, developed by many of the lower officers, were screened out by the higher-ups, for being contrary to the President’s preferred line, i.e., that all was going well.2
Contrast the hilariously satirical, but all too perceptive account of “Parkinson’s Law” of bureaucracy. Thus, Professor Parkinson asserted that, in a government bureaucracy, “there need be little or no relationship between the work to be done and the size of the staff to which it may be assigned.”3 The continuing rise in the total of government employees “would be much the same whether the volume of the work were to increase, diminish, or even disappear.”4 Parkinson identifies two “axiomatic” underlying forces responsible for this growth: (1) “An official wants to multiply subordinates, not rivals”; and (2) “Officials make work for each other.”
Bureaucracy is necessarily hierarchical, first because of the Iron Law of Oligarchy, and secondly because bureaucracy grows by adding more subordinate layers. Since, lacking a market, there is no genuine test of “merit” in government’s service to consumers, in a rule-bound bureaucracy seniority is often blithely adopted as a proxy for merit. Increasing seniority, then, leads to promotion to higher ranks, while expanding budgets take the form of multiplying the levels of ranks under you, and expanding your income and power. Bureaucratic growth occurs, then, by multiplying levels of bureaucracy.
The theory of hierarchical government bureaucracy is that information is collected in the lowest ranks of the organization, and that at each successive higher rank, the manager culls the most important information from his subordinates, separates the wheat from the chaff, and passes the culled information higher up, so that, in the end, the President, for example, dealing with intelligence operations, receives a two-page memo distilling the most important information gathered and culled from hundreds of thousands of intelligence agents. The President, then, knows more than anyone else, say, about foreign affairs. One problem with this rosy model, as Professor Gordon Tullock points out in his illuminating book, The Politics of Bureaucracy,1 is that the model doesn’t ask whether or not each bureaucrat has the incentive to pass the best distillate of truth on to his superiors. The problem is that bureaucratic favor, especially at the higher levels, depends on pleasing one’s superiors, and pleasing them largely rests on telling the President and the higher bureaucrats what they want to hear. One of the great truths of human history is that one tends to shoot, or at least react badly, to the bearer of bad news. “Sire, your policy is working badly in Croatia,” is not the sort of message that the President, say, wants to hear from his envoy, and, while the outcome in Croatia remains in doubt, the President and his aides want to continue to believe that their policy is doing well. Hence, the dissident is set down as a trouble-maker if not a subversive, and his career in the hierarchy is side-tracked, often permanently. In the meanwhile, the envoys or foreign service people who assure the President “things are going very well in Croatia,” are hailed as perceptive fellows and their careers are advanced. And then, if years later, the dissident is proved correct, and the Croatian policy lies in shambles, is the president or any other ruler likely to turn in warm gratitude to the former dissident? Not hardly. Instead, he will still remember the dissident as a troublemaker, and he will not blame his aides, who, along with himself, have been proved wrong. For after all, didn’t the great mainstream of experts make the same error? How common is sincere soul-searching and repentance for past errors among Presidents or other rulers?
Those bureaucrats who are shrewd analysts of human nature, then, and who understand the way rulers operate, will, if they see that the cherished policy of their President is in grave error, tend to keep their mouths shut, and let some other sucker be the messenger of bad news and get shot down.
Every human activity and institution will tend to reward those who are most able to adapt to the best route to success in that activity. Successful market entrepreneurs will be those who can best anticipate, and satisfy, consumer demands. Success in the bureaucracy on the contrary, will go to those who are most apt at (a) employing propaganda to persuade their superiors, the legislators, or the public about their great merits; and therefore (b) at understanding that the way to rise is to tell the President and the top bureaucrats what they want to hear. Hence, the higher the ranks of the bureaucracy, the more yes-men and time-servers there will tend to be. The President will often know less about what is going on than those in the lower ranks.
The rats, it seems, are very much looking for exits from the sinking, rotten ship that is the COVID scam, perpetrated since 2020 first under the naïve and trusting leadership of Donald Trump who made the mistake of listening to The Experts™ (one he hopefully has learned from) and then for four brutal years under the boot of the imminently corrupt and despotic Brandon regime.
“The C.I.A. has said for years that it did not have enough information to conclude whether the Covid pandemic emerged naturally from a wet market in Wuhan, China, or from an accidental leak at a research lab there.
But the agency issued a new assessment this week, with analysts saying they now favor the lab theory.
There is no new intelligence behind the agency’s shift, officials said. Rather it is based on the same evidence it has been chewing over for months.
The analysis, however, is based in part on a closer look at the conditions in the high security labs in Wuhan province before the pandemic outbreak, according to people familiar with the agency’s work.”
The CIA, obviously, knew from whence COVID sprang from the jump — and very likely had a hand in creating and disseminating it — which begs the question: why now?
Of course, this option would continued to keep the CIA’s records secret and therefore advance the cover-up of the national-security establishment’s assassination of President Kennedy, but, at the same, time would confirm my thesis (and Glennon’s thesis) that the national-security branch runs the federal government and the other three branches, including the executive branch, defer to its rule.
A fascinating situation has now developed between President-elect Donald Trump and the U.S. national-security establishment with respect to the long-secret JKF-assassination-related records that the CIA has succeeded in keeping secret for more than 60 years. Despite Trump’s campaign vow to release those records, it’s not at all clear how this matter is going to be resolved. I will give my prediction at the end of this article.
There are three major factors at play:
1. During his 2024 campaign, Trump vowed that this time around he is definitely going to order the National Archives to release those 60-year-old secret CIA records. Moreover, as he told Joe Rogan, he is going to do it “immediately.” See “Trump to Rogan: If Elected, I’ll Open Remaining JFK Files ‘Immediately’” by Jefferson Morley.
Let’s place this first factor in a historical context.
The JFK Records Act, which was enacted in 1992, ordered the national-security establishment and all other federal agencies to disclose their JFK-assassination-related records to the public.
However, the law gave federal officials an out. If they claimed that the release of certain records might jeopardize “national security” in various ways, they could keep them secret for another 25 years. Yes, 25 additional years of secrecy, on top of the secrecy from 1963 to the 1990s! Taking advantage of that out, the national-security establishment, especially the CIA, continued keeping thousands of its assassination-related records secret.
That 25-year-period ran out during Trump’s first term as president. At first, Trump declared valiantly that he was going to comply with the law and permit the National Archives to release and disclose the records.
But then just before the deadline arrived, Trump was visited by the CIA, who insisted on continued secrecy of its assassination-related records.
Trump immediately buckled. While allowing some records to be released, he did what the CIA wanted him to do and ordered that thousands of other records continue to be kept secret for another few years.
When the new deadline occurred under President Biden, the CIA convinced Biden to continue the secrecy of the records into perpetuity. Thus, the CIA felt it could now sleep easy, knowing that its long-secret assassination-related records would never see the light of day.
2. There is no doubt that the CIA does not want people to see its assassination-related records that it has succeeded in keeping secret for more than 60 years. That’s undoubtedly because the records contain incriminating material — that is, evidence that points further in the direction of a national-security-state regime-change operation against President Kennedy on that fateful day in Dallas in November 1963.
In a national-security state, fear is the coin of the realm.
Today, it is safe to say that while Americans live under the most powerful government in history, they are also among the most frightened people in the world. That’s not a coincidence. The bigger and more powerful the government, the smaller and more frightened the citizenry.
In a national-security state, fear is the coin of the realm. The United States is no exception. In order to justify its continued existence and its ever-growing power and tax-funded largess, the U.S. national-security establishment — i.e., the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA — must keep the American people afraid, tense, agitated, and nervous. That necessarily means presenting us with a constant array of official “enemies,” “adversaries,” “competitors,” or “opponents” who are coming to get us.
The Cold War racket was a perfect demonstration of this phenomenon. For 44 years, Americans were inculcated with the mindset that the Reds were coming to get us, especially the Russian Reds. As the title of a popular Cold War movie put it, “The Russians Are Coming! The Russians Are Coming!” Most every American citizen was made to be deathly afraid of the Russians.
Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.
But the Russian Reds were not the only ones who were supposedly coming to get us. There was also the Chinese Reds, the North Korean Reds, the North Vietnamese and Vietcong Reds, the Cuban Reds, the Nicaraguan Reds, the Guatemalan Reds, the Iranian Reds, the Chilean Reds, and other Reds.
There were also the internal Reds who were already here. The civil-rights Reds, including Martin Luther King, the Reds in the Army, the Reds in Congress, and the Reds in Hollywood, including Dalton Trumbo. Some even suggested that President Eisenhower was a Red.
Let’s face it — the Reds were everywhere, even under our beds. And they were all coming to get us.
And then suddenly and unexpectedly, the Cold War ended in 1989. Those dastardly Russians! How dare them to put an end to the fear racket that had proven so lucrative to the U.S. national-security establishment and its ever-growing army of “defense” contractors.
No problem. Just come up with a new official enemy who is coming to get us. For the next 11 years, the daily mantra became “Saddam! Saddam! Saddam!” Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein, who was billed as the “new Hitler,” and who, Ironically, had been a loyal U.S. partner during the 1980s, was now coming to get us. Through the power of indoctrination and propaganda, Americans were made to transfer their fear of the Reds to their fear of Saddam Hussein. Saddam was now coming to get us — and with his supposed weapons of mass destruction.
At the same time, knowing that people in the Middle East would ultimately retaliate, the U.S. national-security state went on a massive killing spree in the Middle East, not only with its war on Iraq but also with its deadly system of economic sanctions against the Iraqi people, which were killing multitudes of children.
The predictable retaliation came in the form of terrorist attacks, such as the bombing of the USS Cole, the bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa, the killings of CIA officials in Virginia, and others. And then the big ones came — the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
The U.S. national-security state was off to the races again,
The FBI, CIA, and Pentagon began surveilling, abusing, smearing, blackmailing, infiltrating, and destroying people and organizations who were suspected of promoting communism, socialism, leftism, liberalism, or progressivism.
The CIA also began specializing in the art of assassination —
When the Constitution was ratified, it brought into existence a limited-government republic. That meant a government whose powers were very limited — limited, that is, to those powers enumerated in the Constitution itself.
After World War II, that all changed. U.S. officials told the American people that while the Allied powers had been victorious against Nazi Germany, that did not mean, unfortunately, that Americans could rest. The United States, they said, now faced an enemy that was arguably an even bigger threat than Nazi Germany. This new enemy, they said, was America’s World War II partner and ally, the Soviet Union, which was ruled by a communist regime.
They said that there was a worldwide communist conspiracy to take over the world, including the United States. That conspiracy, they said, was based in Moscow, Russia. U.S. officials convinced Americans that, to use the title of a movie that came in 1966, “The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming.” Most everyone became convinced that the United States was in grave danger of going Red, with commies ending up running the IRS and the rest of the federal government.
In addition to this supposed threat from communist Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union, Americans were told, was the threat from communism itself, which was a philosophy that entailed having government take care of people, as compared to a society in which people take care of themselves. U.S. national-security state officials viewed communism as a political and economic narcotic that, once imbibed by people, would inevitably seduce them into wanting more.
To combine this twin treat of communists and communism, U.S. officials said, it was necessary to convert the federal government from the limited-government republic on which the country was founded to what is called a national-security state, which is a type of governmental structure that characterizes totalitarian regimes. The big difference between the two governmental structures is that in a republic the government’s powers are limited while in a national-security state they are not.
The national-security state consists of a massive, permanent, and ever-growing military establishment (i.e., the Pentagon and what President Eisenhower called the military industrial complex), a secretive agency with the power to assassinate, kidnap, detain, and disappear people (i.e., the CIA), and a surveillance agency with the power to secretly monitor people’s activities (i.e., the NSA).
The CIA and the US State Department have run dozens of color revolutions all over the world for decades.
We, the American people, did not stop them. We largely looked the other way. In doing so, we enabled them and encouraged them. Sometimes we even cheered them on.
It was only a matter of time before those well-honed skills were turned on us.
Media reports suggest that Trump’s would-be assassin is dead.
That is simply not true. Trump’s assassin is not dead.
The name of Trump’s assassin is the CIA. If it is not the CIA proper, it is some similarly vile governmental entity that operates in the shadows to undermine the interests of the American dinner table.
Trump’s assassin is not dead. They are very much alive.
Their patsy is dead. Nothing more.
Yes, their patsy is dead.
They will put tremendous effort into getting us to pay attention to the patsy rather than the real problem.
Don’t be distracted.
They will put tremendous effort into getting us to pay attention to how he was killed and the heroism of it all.
Don’t be distracted.
They will put tremendous effort into getting us to pay attention to anything rather than the real problem.
A comfortable narrative for many right now is this — harsh Democrat talking points caused this assassination attempt. Illegitimate Joe Biden is to blame some will say, or the Squad, or some media lapdog, or sore loser Hillary, or illegitimate Kamala, or some other person that it is easy to dislike. How dare they speak inhumanely about Donald Trump! They led to this assassination attempt.
Don’t be distracted.
Mean talking points didn’t cause this assassination attempt.
The CIA caused this assassination attempt.
And they bungled it.
The CIA and the US State Department have run dozens of color revolutions all over the world for decades.
We, the American people, did not stop them. We largely looked the other way. In doing so, we enabled them and encouraged them. Sometimes we even cheered them on.
It was only a matter of time before those well-honed skills were turned on us.
In 2020, they ran a color revolution on us.
The public is either so clueless or the CIA is so well practiced that at least 90% of the public has no idea that a color revolution was run on them in 2020 by their own government.
You too may have been fooled. You may have never even considered such a thing until this very moment.
Accept it. From December 1, 2019, until January 20, 2021, a color revolution was run on you by your own government that resulted in a successful coup in which the President that the voters preferred and overwhelmingly voted for was removed from power. For four years you have lived under an illegitimate regime put in power by a CIA coup.
MCViewPoint 
