Are You A Mind-Controlled CIA Stooge?



Do you smirk when you hear someone question the official stories of Orlando, San Bernardino, Paris or Nice? Do you feel superior to 2,500 architects and engineers, to firefighters, commercial and military pilots, physicists and chemists, and former high government officials who have raised doubts about 9/11? If so, you reflect the profile of a mind-controlled CIA stooge.
The term “conspiracy theory” was invented and put into public discourse by the CIA in 1964 in order to discredit the many skeptics who challenged the Warren Commission’s conclusion that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by a lone gunman named Lee Harvey Oswald, who himself was assassinated while in police custody before he could be questioned. The CIA used its friends in the media to launch a campaign to make suspicion of the Warren Commission report a target of ridicule and hostility. This campaign was “one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.”
So writes political science professor Lance deHaven-Smith, who in his peer-reviewed book, Conspiracy Theory in America, published by the University of Texas Press, tells the story of how the CIA succeeded in creating in the public mind reflexive, automatic, stigmatization of those who challenge government explanations. This is an extremely important and readable book, one of those rare books with the power to break you out of The Matrix.
Professor deHaven-Smith is able to write this book because the original CIA Dispatch #1035-960, which sets out the CIA plot, was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. Apparently, the bureaucracy did not regard a document this old as being of any importance. The document is marked “Destroy when no longer needed,” but somehow wasn’t. CIA Dispatch #1035-960 is reproduced in the book.

The success that the CIA has had in stigmatizing skepticism of government explanations has made it difficult to investigate State Crimes Against Democracy (SCAD) such as 9/11. With the public mind programmed to ridicule “conspiracy kooks,” even in the case of suspicious events such as 9/11 the government can destroy evidence, ignore prescribed procedures, delay an investigation, and then form a political committee to put its imprimatur on the official story. Professor deHaven-Smith notes that in such events as Kennedy’s assassination and 9/11 official police and prosecutorial investigations are never employed. The event is handed off to a political commission.
The CIA’s success in controlling public perception of what our Founding Fathers would have regarded as suspicious events involving the government enables those in power positions within government to orchestrate events that serve hidden agendas. The events of September 11 created the new paradigm of endless war in behalf of a Washington-dominated world. The CIA’s success in controlling public perceptions has made it impossible to investigate elite political crimes. Consequently, it is now possible for treason to be official US government policy.





The allegations that Russia hacked the Democratic Party are false and the US public should not be allowed to be steered away by them from the facts exposed by the leaked material, Russian President Vladimir Putin said.
A number of US officials and media outlets accused Moscow of “trying to hack” the US presidential election by using cyber-offensive operations that undermine Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and benefiting her Republican rival Donald Trump. When asked about the allegations by Bloomberg News Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait, Russian President Vladimir Putin denied Moscow’s involvement.
“I wouldn’t know anything about it. You know, there are so many hackers today and they work with such finesse, planting a trail where and when they need. Not even their own trail but masquerade their actions as those of other hackers acting from other territories, nations. It’s difficult to trace, if even possible,” Putin said.

“Anyway, we certainly don’t do such things on the state level,” he added.
Putin suggested that the debate over who hacked election-related computer networks in the US draws attention away from the nature of the leaked documents.

“The important thing here is what the public was shown. That is what the discussion should focus on. One shouldn’t draw the public attention from the core of the issue by replacing it with secondary details like who did it,” the Russian president suggested.

In the Bloomberg interview Putin implied that the individual or group behind the DNC hack must be someone with intimate understanding of how the American politics works.





Vladimir Putin sat for a 2-hour discussion with Bloomberg to discuss the U.S. presidential election and accusations that Russia was behind the recent hacking of the Democratic National Committee.  Clinton has repeatedly attempted to link Putin to the Trump campaign after he previously described Trump as a “very colorful and talented man” who wanted to move Russia-U.S. ties to a “deeper level.”  That said, Putin refused to take sides in the U.S. election accusing both candidates of using "shock tactics" while adding that playing "the anti-Russian card" was "short-sighted." 

Despite repeated denials from Russia, Clinton told Fox News back in July that she "knows that Russian intelligence services hacked in to the DNC" and went on to link Trump to the event.  Per Bloomberg:

"We know that Russian intelligence services hacked into the DNC and we know that they arranged for a lot of those emails to be released and we know that Donald Trump has shown a very troubling willingness to back up Putin, to support Putin," Clinton said in an interview with "Fox News Sunday" on July 30.


“Listen, does it even matter who hacked this data?  The important thing is the content that was given to the public.’’

“There’s no need to distract the public’s attention from the essence of the problem by raising some minor issues connected with the search for who did it.  But I want to tell you again, I don’t know anything about it, and on a state level Russia has never done this.”

“You know how many hackers there are today?  They act so delicately and precisely that they can leave their mark -- or even the mark of others -- at the necessary time and place, camouflaging their activities as that of other hackers from other territories or countries. It’s an extremely difficult thing to check, if it’s even possible to check. At any rate, we definitely don’t do this at a state level.”




A tranche of some 2500 Internal documents, mostly Microsoft Word, Excel, and Power Point files, as well as pdf files, from George Soros’s Open Society Foundation (OSF) network of non-governmental organizations, which were obtained from the group «DC Leaks», shows that Soros and his advisers lorded over US policy toward Ukraine after the 2014 coup supported by Soros and the Obama administration ousted the democratically-elected Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych and his government. The leaked Soros documents describe how the OSF and Soros’s International Renaissance Foundation (IRF), based at 46 Artema Street in Kiev, worked with the US State Department after the 2014 so-called «Euromaidan» themed revolution to ensure that a federalized Ukraine was not in the picture.




In the following video, I examine the question, “How likely is the 2016 election to spark an armed revolt across America?” Why? Because in the article below, it does an excellent job of explaining how each side is likely to respond to the eventual outcome, but that’s just the beginning. Throughout the original article, I supplement many of the author’s points with links of my own to support both how possible, and also how likely or realistic the author's predictions actually are.

In the following video, witness George Soros exposed. In the video, Soros opens up and tells the truth for 3 straight minutes. He stated that Western Civilization is doomed and that Donald Trump will win the popular vote in the next general election, but Hillary Clinton already is a "done deal."

We heard this kind of talk before — specifically, in the months ahead of Obama’s re-election. The situation then was quite different, however, and things have escalated quite a bit with the rise of violent anti-cop groups like Black Lives Matter and the deliberate murder of police officers across the country.





While the August 9 meeting between Turkey’s Erdogan and Russia’s Putin did go a long way in unfreezing their own relations, this meeting—and the prospects of warm relations between them—has certainly put the U.S. under a lot of pressure, forcing president Obama to re-think about the U.S.’ military engagements in the region and the need to prolong them. This is quite evident from the way the U.S. has, all of a sudden, re-started fresh military intervention in Libya without any legitimate authorization. The panic the U.S. in general is experiencing is also evident from the way has Obama succumbed to his commander’s wish to maintain such a troop level in Afghanistan as to allow an open ended ‘occupation’ of Afghanistan—and use as it as wedge against Russia. Similar is the case in Syria where the battle in Aleppo has been escalated to a point where negotiations to end the crisis become meaningless and instead allow Obama and the next U.S. president to keep the “regime change” mantra alive.

Without doubt, a fully operational base in Hmeymim, which is located virtually on the Turkish border, signifies a major geopolitical decision that factors in the Russian-Turkish rapprochement and a sign that Russia may stand with Turkey against the possible creation of Kurdistan on Syria-Turkish border. Russian support against Kurdistan—an issue that happens to be Turkey’s primary concern behind its entire engagement in Syria—would suffice to provide Erdogan the much needed security against the prospects of his country’s territorial disintegration.

Although some concerns and differences with regard to the future of Assad in Syria remain, what is important to note is the way both countries have decided to enhance co-operation to end these differences. Within a day of Erdogan proposing and Putin accepting the idea of a ‘mechanism’ comprising diplomats, military and intelligence officials of the two sides to discuss the nitty-gritty of Syrian conflict, a composite Turkish delegation took off for Moscow to meet Russian counterparts on August 11.

That the U.S. has speeded the war against Russia in Syria is evident from the way U.S. supplied weapons are being used against Russia. This cannot be just a coincidence. Although Russia did not officially blame the U.S., some reports have certainly indicated that the missile that shot down a Russian helicopter had been supplied by the U.S.

Reuters pointed out that in the area in Idlib near Aleppo where the Russian helicopter was shot down, Islamic State fighters are not active, “but there are other Islamist rebel groups there, as well as moderates backed by the United States and its allies”.

And shooting down of the helicopter by groups that were once being supported by Turkey too was clearly aimed at putting some bad colour on the up-coming meeting of Erdogan with Putin. Similarly, what introduces an element of intrigue in the on-going fight in Aleppo is that the US-backed rebel offensive got under way hardly 48 hours before the trip by Turkish President Recep Erdogan to Russia to meet President Vladimir Putin on August 9.
Certainly Russia or Iran do not, at any stage or cost, stand to benefit from the fight in Aleppo. It is the U.S. and its allies who are aiming at using this scenario to escalate the war and defy a Russian-Turk deal in Syria. While this is not to suggest that Russia is gearing up for a confrontation with the Obama administration, the US, on its part, does seem to be creating new ground realities where Dennis Ross’s prognosis can become a viable action point at a future date if a future US president decides on those lines.