A word to the wise. I do what I do because I’m committed to bringing one and all some home truths about what is happening in the world, not to earn money per se. That said, some modest financial assistance from readers would be welcome as that frees me up from having to supplement my (meagre) income by other far more mundane means, and allows me to concentrate on research and writing. =
That said, whatever I publish here (and there’s a lot in the pipeline) will always remains free to all (i.e. I don’t do firewalls). Hope you can help.
Stay strong, remain righteous. Best wishes to all. — GM
Preamble: Fuelled largely by its efforts amongst other things to cover up the reality it is attempting to ignite World War Three, a certain terminally militant Middle East ethno-supremacist 'democracy' is sucking up most of the oxygen in the world's 'news room'. With that in mind, it’s time to to counter some of the 'hasbara humbug' with which we're all being bombarded, a not entirely out of place metaphor given what Israel has been doing to the Palestinians for the past year (and more of course), more recently the Lebanese people, and now even to the Iranians.
Although doing so might be viewed as something of a quixotic exercise—especially given the Zionists’ iron grip on the global propaganda-fake news-disinformation industrial complex, along with its concomitant efforts to stamp out anyone who tries to throw a wrench into the works—I thought I'd throw my old yarmulke into the ring (and perhaps caution to the wind), and see if I can't get a few words in edgewise in this crowded narrative milieu. Nothing ventured, nothing gained as they say. To that end I’m reposting the first five parts of my series on Zionism, the first instalment of which was published exactly three years ago…(Included below are comments and readers feedback to my work.)
For its part, Israel has blithely and recklessly squandered its moral capital—as presumed and contrived as much as it was—since its inception. That it continues down this path to this day is evident for all but the most blind or obtuse to see and then contemplate. There are many though who, having explored then examined the well documented, less mythical yet little known events and circumstances of Israel’s creation and the lead up to it, would argue that much of said “capital” was fraudulently acquired to begin with.
In contemplating this, we can invoke Voltaire. For him, ‘appreciation’ was a 'wonderful thing' he mused; what we see as excellent in others ‘belongs to us as well’. That being the case, our ‘Hebrew’ brethren seem not to have received or read M Arouet’s memo. For his part the estimable philosopher famously held few illusions about the 'Tribe', notwithstanding their “Chosen People” status (self-proclaimed as it is). So from this alone it’s not difficult to imagine he had the Chosenites in mind when he crafted this particular pearl of wisdom. If from this we may then point to one key characteristic conspicuous by its absence from the collective mindset our imperious, insular ‘Hebrew’ brethren, it would be an “appreciation” of "The Other". That's putting it mildly!
And therein might lay a fundamental problem, of this or any previous age, going far back into antiquity. A “problem” unambiguously laid bare in the Jewish Talmud and various other bespoke dogmas, arcane laws and bizarre credos embraced by the Chosen faithful. At the same time, if we allow ourselves the space and time to contemplate it, it provides us all many insights into the age-old “Jewish Question”. (Perhaps one of the best “Jewish questions” we might posit is this: Why do we as Gentiles tolerate their racist, exploitative, duplicitous, ethnocentric, supremacist, holier-than-thou ways?)
That Israel continues further to accumulate then flaunt its influence and flex its power and privileged position within and across the geopolitical firmament—albeit one self-ascribed and based far more on Biblical mythology, legend and fable than on historical reality—and to do all this with unbridled hubris, presumption and impunity, is a given. This is largely because its chief benefactor and enabler refuses to insist upon better behaviour. Or because the US has relinquished (or more likely forfeited), its own moral capital is difficult to say. I’d aver though it’s probably a combination of the two.
Both nations then are seemingly caught in a symbiotic, counterproductive feedback loop of existentially dangerous, nay apocalyptic dimensions, a downward spiral that’s taking the rest of humanity along for the ride. Both nations—at least their leaders and policy makers, traitors to their own kind one and all—have an inflated view of their exceptional status within the geopolitical firmament...
To say that's "dangerous" hardly does it justice. If there is such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy, we’re staring into it right now. — GM
The thread below links to the first five instalments of my ongoing series of stand-alone articles focusing on Zionism, the creation of Israel, and Israel’s relationship with the US and the West in general as the central theme.
In this series I draw extensively upon the work of both Jewish and non-Jewish authors, researchers, writers, journalists, activists, commentators and historians to present a wide-ranging analysis and critique of various facets of the mythos and the reality of Israel, its history, its origins, and the ideology that birthed it. And last but not least, that special group of people some people like to refer to as “God’s Chosen”.
There are comments below from readers which will give those interested an idea for what to expect. Part Six is currently being prepared. If you like what you read, feel free to share. There are no paywalls on my Substack.
Reader Testimonials and Feedback
How some readers have responded to my work on exposing the Zionist agenda, including work published prior to this series.
🗣️👉 ‘Greg. Thanks for [this essay]. What you say about the Zionist stranglehold on the US media and foreign policy is also applicable in Australia. As an analyst and commentator myself, I know from experience that the Oz MSM would run a million miles from publishing your article, which says a lot about the problem here being identical to the US.’ — James O’Neill (dec.), human rights lawyer, geopolitical analyst.
🗣️👉 ‘As a knowledgeable, anti-Zionist activist for the past 50 years, who lived in Occupied Palestine for 5 years, I salute you!’
🗣️👉 ‘[Great] reading. The rigor of the research & objective writing it are remarkable. The citations are excellent. 🙏 so much.’
🗣️👉 ‘Greg Maybury’s article [on Israel] merits a lot of attention, re-reading, and reflection.’ — Prof. Stuart Rees. Rees established the Sydney Peace Foundation, and inaugurated the Sydney Peace Prize. One of Australia’s most respected human rights activists and high profile academics, he was co-Founder Sydney University's Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies.
🗣️👉 ‘Great piece, Greg, kudos! [You’ve] clearly demonstrated the hypocrisy that lies at the very roots of the Zionist entity.’
🗣️👉 ‘Greg for this profound and comprehensive narrative on the colonial-settler state of Zionist terrorists in Palestine.’
🗣️👉 ‘Excellent, Thanks Greg. Your article demonstrates that quite a few of us have realized for many years what is wrong with American foreign policy but to say so out loud has long been taboo. The dam is hopefully breaking and we will be able to discuss honestly and squarely the damage that Jewish power is doing to traditional liberties in the entire Anglosphere.’ — Philip Giraldi, Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest. A founding member of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). Former US Army intelligence/senior CIA officer, counter-terrorism specialist. Now columnist, geopolitical analyst and commentator.
🗣️👉 ‘Great piece, Greg, kudos! [You’ve] clearly demonstrated the hypocrisy that lies at the very roots of the Zionist entity.’
🗣️👉 ‘Greg, thx for this profound and comprehensive narrative on the colonial-settler state of Zionist terrorists in Palestine.’
🗣️👉 ‘Thank you, Greg! Very good work, and much needed!’ — Israel Shamir, Author, Masters of Discourse; Cabbala of Power; Flowers of Galilee.
🗣️👉 'Thank you, Greg, spot on. I’ll be sharing this [latest article in your series]. I’ve long had difficulty understanding how and when Israel took over our politicians with the Israel Lobby funding most all of them. Add to this the lack of education or interest of the American Public, fed Israel Propaganda and AIPAC truth on every mainstream news venue, we find the perfect means to control our politicians and citizenry, who are brainwashed. With "Antisemite" cries making laws to stop us from speaking out against Genocide our tax dollars are funding, I have little hope for change or to rescue innocents in Palestine from the wrath of murdering Zionists. We desperately need journalists like yourself to write what steps we can all take to make the Genocide and the buying off of our politicians...stop. Once again, thx.’
🗣️👉 ‘As a knowledgeable, anti-Zionist activist for the past 50 years, who lived in Occupied Palestine for 5 years, I salute you!’
🗣️👉 ‘[With this series] Greg Maybury shows the remainder of would be journalists* how to deal with the predatory, parasitical, murdering globalist Zionists. They are free to run wild globally with the approval by their shills in [the West] where they’ve infiltrated [all levels of] power, incl. in finance and media… Only the courage of the likes of Greg will start to dismantle the cabal’s hold over us, their politicians, bureaucrats and bankers so this criminal conspiracy can be bought to justice and punished for their dreadful deeds.’ — [*Disclaimer: Not a “would be” nor a wanna be “journalist”. No claims ever made in either regard.]
🗣️👉 ‘Wow. [Great] reading. The rigor and seriousness of the research and the objective way of writing it are remarkable. The citations are excellent. Thank you so much.’
🗣️👉 ‘Like all the best writers Mr Maybury is prepared to present the full picture having looked into the history of his subject. Is this what comes with being from Down Under: you do a lot of digging to get there, well I say good onya mate.’
🗣️👉 ‘Aussie writer Greg Maybury in this penetrating essay offers a highly informative, eye-opening account of the myths woven around Israel and shows the reality of this entity.’
🗣️👉 ‘Hello, Greg! Supporting you even just for your series of articles on Israel and Zionism, which I've only begun to read….You have condensed a lot of information from different sources into eminently readable posts. Thank you!’
🗣️👉 ‘…an ordinary mortal may need many lives just to fathom a fraction of Zionist lies and tricks! You are a knowledgeable writer, and you know what they have been up to…’
🗣️👉 ‘Thanks for this fine [series]. Am diving into the history of Israel…and your work highlights many points I've been wanting to elucidate in this research project I've given myself. Appreciate your sober tone very much!’
🗣️👉 ‘Great work Greg. This is coming from a life long supporter of everything Jewish who started waking up some time ago. I like your style; it is a pleasure to read whilst educating myself.’
🗣️👉 ‘Amazing article series. I encourage my Facebook friends to read and share them. [P.S. Killer title! You remember your Bible.]’
🗣️👉 ‘Thanks very much for this! I have been looking for something like this to read for a long time. This is really helping fill in the gaps.’
🗣️👉‘This series is a great primer for those yet to fully appreciate what Zionism is all about, but there is there is still plenty of insights for even more seasoned truth-seekers.’
🗣️👉 ‘Like all the best writers Mr Maybury is prepared to present the full picture having looked into the history of his subject.’
🗣️👉 ‘✋Greg! Supporting you even just for your series on Zionism, which I've only begun to read….You’ve condensed a lot of information from different sources into eminently readable posts. Thank you!’
🗣️👉 ‘I think an ordinary mortal may need seven lives just to fathom a fraction of Zionist lies and tricks! You are a knowledgeable writer, and you know what they have been up to…’
🗣️👉 ‘🙏 for this fine [series]. Am diving into [this history]…and yours highlight many points I've been wanting to elucidate in this project I've given myself. Appreciate your sober tone very much!’
🗣️👉 ’Many thanks Greg, again you have demonstrated your unique ability to voice the truth and add graphics plus links which make it easy for your readers to research for themselves your analysis…I’m totally “on board” with your presentation and clarity.’
🗣️👉 ‘Dear Greg, I found your essay [on Israel] very informative. I want to thank you for sending it to me.’
🗣️👉 ‘An excellent history lesson.’
🗣️👉 ‘I really liked the way you structured your argument and the evidence you brought to bear in support of it. Write again soon.’
🗣️👉 ‘Bravo Greg Maybury…’
🗣️👉 ‘Thanks for tagging me….You are a true repository of knowledge…am honoured that you pass that on to me. I’ll make sure I “pay it forward”.’
🗣️👉 ‘That is absolutely brilliant, Greg, and I highly recommend it to everyone. Thank you.’
🗣️👉 ‘Brilliant Greg, am sharing..thank you.’
🗣️👉 ‘Greg, Thanks for your efforts in exposing the Zionist mindset for what it truly represents. The collective self-absorption of “our ‘Hebrew’ brethren” (to use your phrase) is only one facet of that “mindset”. My message to Jews is simple: “It’s not all or always about you.”’
🗣️👉 ‘Greg, I’m afraid you are needed on the front lines. We must change the hearts and minds of everyone to have a chance against this entrenched tyranny.’
🗣️👉 ‘This is a MUST read for those of you with attention spans of more than two minutes. Brilliantly written and so damned true. Thank you!’ [Emphasis in original.]
🗣️👉 ‘Your essays are brilliantly informative and extremely entertaining…don’t change a thing… [For my part] I will continue to be obstinately objectionable and question EVERYTHING! AND you no doubt will continue researching and entertaining us with your wonderful essays.’
🗣️👉 ‘Excellent as always Greg Maybury.’
🗣️👉 ‘Great work as usual Greg, thank you.’
🗣️👉 ‘Beautiful writing Greg, brave too. It rolls along with an energy, like a sine wave, as some music does…’
🗣️👉 ‘[Hi Greg], thank you for your impressive work. Congrats! It is very valuable for me because I can use and reference it in conversations and correspondence.’
🗣️👉 ‘Brilliant wordcraft - regardless of the topic at hand.’
🗣️👉 ‘Thx for your revealing work [on Zionism]…This God they invented for themselves. The sooner the world stops believing in [the “Chosen people” myth], the sooner they lose their power.’
🗣️👉 ‘It seems obvious that all the chaos is caused by the supremacist ideology of [the Jews]…They demand laws designed to protect [them], and criminalise the rest of us. [They are] instruments of terror and corruption, allowing this on going genocide to take place. WE the living people, are the only chosen people, chosen by life and by its divine essence, to share our life in a paradise.’
For those interested, see below for a sneak peek at Part Six.
‘The Untouchable Tribe of Trial and Tribulation’.
— When it Smokes, it Burns (The Gospel According to Mel Gibson)
Throughout the overarching historical narrative, the loaded proposition that our “Hebrew” brethren have played central roles in fomenting major wars, revolutions and all manner of social tumult and political turmoil in general has been something of a recurring theme in the literature addressing the so-called “Jewish Question”.
Though almost always dismissed as an “anti-Semitic” trope by the less reflective members of the Tribe themselves and their armada of pearl-clutching non-Jewish apologists, this is one ‘shibboleth’ about which we might readily employ for the occasion a peculiarly Yiddish turn of phrase: ‘when it smokes, it burns’. This translates of course to the more familiar refrain ‘where there’s smoke, there’s fire’ ‘We’ get the drift! As we’ve seen in previous instalments, we’ll see (again) this worldview is not exclusive to Gentiles.
With the world at present undergoing massive transformations within and across the political, social, economic, demographic, and cultural spheres, especially so in Western countries—to say little of us all potentially staring into the proverbial abyss of another catastrophic global war, one that is very likely to involve the use of nuclear weapons—it is incumbent upon all of us including it needs be noted, moral minded, right thinking Jewish folks, to ponder the biggest question facing humanity: ‘How did we get here, who in the main have been the driving forces, and what is their end game.’
As for who the principal instigators of these events and developments are, for many that’s not a great mystery. For starters, just invite Mel Gibson down to your local pub, buy him a few drinks and then ask him (and make sure you’re packing a wire)! I’m thinking that he might have been onto something in that infamously tired and emotional roadside exchange “The Road Warrior” shared back in 2006 with one of the LA County Sheriff's Dept.’s finest.
Herein some folks might recall Gibson had earlier been detained for DUI (i.e. D&D), after which he was arrested and charged over the incident. Had he copped the rap and kept his trap shut throughout the proceedings, that would’ve likely been the end of it. Just another Hollywood bad boy behaving badly. No big deal. Good career move in most cases.
To Know Who Rules Over You, ‘Shout’ Mel Gibson a Drink or Two.
Yet our man “Mad Mel”, evidently feeling compelled to make the most of his indelicate condition by getting a few things off his Catholic chest, and in this case packing far more valour than discretion, ‘recklessly’ declared that it was “the Jews” who were ‘responsible for all the wars in the world’. Predictably all hell and high water broke loose once this news got out. It was not a good look for Gibson. If for no other reason than (to coin a phrase for the occasion) ‘hell hath no fury like an infuriated Jewry!’
With the exception of those non-Jews who had some inkling of what he was on about, for most folks the incident has long since been relegated to the Marianas Trench of their respective memories, that is even if in fact they gave it that much thought to begin with. It’s doubtful however if all that many of the Chosen Ones have forgotten the incident or forgiven him, not being as they are all that predisposed to either amnesia or absolution in such matters.
Cue then much weeping, wailing n’ gnashing of Hebrew dental hardware at Gibson’s temerity for positing such a ‘racist, outrageous, thoroughly debunked anti-Semitic conspiracy theory’.
AUTHOR NOTE: Oh irony of ironies, the cop who busted Gibson just happened to be, you guessed it, Jewish. Indeed, as something of an afterthought, Gibson then immediately capped off his now indelibly infamous remark with a classic ‘encore’ of sorts by asking the cop if he was in fact of the Chosen persuasion himself! Unlike most of his brethren in such matters, as it turned out the arresting officer was by all accounts surprisingly forgiving of the actor’s latest performance, one we might describe as “Braveheart Redux”, though in this instance not necessarily “brave” in the more generally accepted sense of the word. For the cop in question, it was more a case of ‘[it’s] just the booze talking’ or maybe an impromptu method acting demo, rather than what we can now say was more ‘in vino veritas’. Put another way, Gibson had, as it were, let his Freudian slip slip (sic) a tad too far below the hemline in public! — GM
Not unlike the eponymous central character in his earlier 2004 film “The Passion of the Christ”—which though it made a mega-motza at the box office, was subject interestingly upon its release to widespread criticism. Such negative feedback was mostly of course mustered by the “YouKnowWhos” for his (alleged) “anti-Semitism”, the present day Pharisees and their rented rabble demanding, in an art imitates life way, that Gibson be scourged if not crucified for his intemperate remarks.
Now it’s unclear if the vicious backlash to his ‘three sheets to the wind’ remarks about Jews and their reputedly wicked, warring and revolutionary ways were partly or wholly inspired by a bit of bespoke Jewish payback over TPOTC controversy. This, as much as it’s uncertain even if said “backlash” itself was inspired more by lesser motives than those publicly promulgated, said “lesser motives” being the kind the “brethren” are not altogether unfamiliar with but for reasons best known to them, prefer to keep well camouflaged.
All of which is to say, having bankrolled the highly controversial film with his own shekel after the main Tinseltown players nixed the project, it was Gibson who walked away with the lion’s share of the mega profits the film generated, along to be sure with the last laughs that usually accompany an outcome of its kind.
Now given the widely acknowledged ethnicity of the vast majority of the aforesaid “main players” in the ‘Wood, coupled with their characteristically favourable disposition toward ‘turning’ that shekel (and especially in this case having missed out on doing so even after Gibson laid it on a silver platter for them), it is a reasonable surmise many would’ve been wearing out their worry beads over the success the film enjoyed after they’d earlier passed on it.
In any event, all this is perhaps incidental: notwithstanding his stature as one of the Wood’s most successful, iconic filmmakers—and despite doing and saying just about everything to atone for his inebriate indiscretions, at least short of packin’ a yarmulke or two and schlepping his sorry tuches to Jerusalem on a penitential pilgrimage to the Wailing Wall—his career and rep tanked in the wake of the blowback, from which we can say both have yet to fully recover. From that point onward Gibson was about as popular as a bacon ‘n egg bagel served up at a bar mitzvah breakfast. Again, another telling tale if ever there was one—indeed if it was ever needed—of what happens to those angels and fools and everyone in between, no matter how big or successful they are, who dare to criticise or cross The Untouchable Tribe of Tribulation…Well might we say: ‘Hell hath no fury like an infuriated Jewry!’ 😉😙
Of course one entertainment celebrity (even a heavyweight like Gibson) veering off the reservation and riffing about Jews and their alleged role in plotting wars and the attendant mayhem is one thing; this, even taking into account that most of the folks in the film and entertainment business in general are acutely aware of which side their own bagel is best buttered.
Despite their personal views however, few would ever contemplate airing them in public. (At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, in Hollywood that’s especially a career limiting move. One can virtually count on the fingers of one hand the number of major stars who openly support Palestine and/or criticises the Israeli government’s genocidal policies.)
AUTHOR NOTE: I will say that I personally recall Gibson’s brush with the law well, though herein I’m not necessarily referring to the law exemplified by the LA County Sheriff's Dept. And although it still took me a few more years before I was better positioned to fully acquaint myself with the historical record he alluded to, doing so eventually underscored the veracity of his claims, which in turn, and in part at least, inspired this narrative.
But for more historically derived, hard evidence based declarations embracing similar tropes—some of which no doubt Gibson himself is aware of (see here for more illuminating detail on the actor’s family background; and here also)—the “historical record” throws up numerous examples of authors, historians, assorted truth tellers and the like. As frequently noted throughout this series, almost all of these folks are routinely baptised then as unreconstructed anti-Semites; their reputations are trashed, with their work dismissed as conspiracy theory at best and thereafter relegated to the margins.
Now having already done so in previous instalments, we’ll namecheck more of these brave folks directly; suffice to say the following before moving on. Someone once said history has a habit of repeating itself. I personally think that like Mel Gibson, he/she may have been on to something.
With all that said pilgrims, wanna know why history might keep repeating itself?
Look no further then as to who keeps repeating it for and on our behalf, though clearly not for our collective benefit. Present events and developments in Europe and in the Middle East as they are rapidly unfolding provide ample evidence of that reality. Perhaps now we might all show our heartfelt appreciation to Mr Gibson for having the courage—albeit of the “Dutch” kind on this occasion—to publicly alert us to one of the biggest (though best kept), secrets of our past.
By the same token, it remains to this day a great pity we didn’t appreciate it much more and much earlier. Even as far back as 2006, any widespread, collective epiphany resulting from Gibson’s revisionist historical roadside renderings and the implications embedded therein, as heretical as they were (and still are), would’ve already arrived far too late.
🗣👉 ‘None of us want to think the worst of our leaders. But we should…Sometimes a sociopath will slip through the cracks. And sometimes those sociopaths become…the President of the United States.’ — John Kiriakou, CIA Whistleblower.
🗣👉 ‘The US empire has always prioritized the expansion of its own power over the freedom and rights of others, using military, economic, and political interference to impose its will on other nations.’ — Chris Hedges, Journalist, Author.
🗣👉 ‘[America] is no longer a republic, but an oligarchy run by corporate interests, and these interests benefit from the interference in the affairs of other nations.’ — Gore Vidal.
🗣👉 ‘It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be [our] friend [can be] fatal’. — Attr. Henry Kissinger
Introduction: By and large, the long-standing Australian-U.S. alliance is considered by the majority of political, policy, and media elites on both sides of the Pacific Pond to be mutually beneficial, essential, even sacrosanct. But behind it, like many nations with economic, strategic and/or military ties to the Empire du jour, there’s a downside, one rarely acknowledged—and when it is, often rejected—in public discourse. This alliance—buttressed in 2021 by the AUKUS pact* which itself has invited even more criticism of our increasing subservience in this always one-sided partnership—is ever more fraught with existential danger for our nation. (*See here for more on AUKUS.)
Moreover, the irony inherent in such a compact should not be lost on anyone. These dangers are exacerbated in no small measure by the ‘full spectrum dominance” the U.S. continues to exert on the world stage. This is exemplified by its repeat offender interference in the affairs of other nations, and insofar as we’re concerned, its stance toward Russia and Iran, and again in particular, our largest trading partner China.
Per the central theme of this series, perhaps the least known ‘beneficiary’ of America’s well-documented regime renovation gambits was The Land Down Under. Along with questioning the presumed benefits of the alliance, Australian writer Greg Maybury unveils some of its hidden history, one which short of the US curbing its enthusiasm for aggressive great power projection, is sure to be counterproductive not just for Australia, but the rest of the world.
This then represents the second instalment in a series exploring in whatever form it takes, the history and impact of America’s interference in the affairs of other nations. Along with reminding those who may have memory holed it or not fully appreciated the implications, this project aims to bring this narrative front of mind with folks who are just beginning to grapple with the reality that all is not right with the world. And in so doing, [then] expose the role of the Anglo-American-Zionist establishment (of which Australia as a member of the “Five Eyes” intelligence/security apparatus is a key part) in creating and fomenting that milieu of global uncertainty and instability. — GM
Per the introduction, in setting out my stall I was unable to think of a better opening gambit than by highlighting a little known conspiracy theory, one which if it ever proves to be true, will doubtless rock the foundations of the Australian-US relationship to its core and beyond.
This theory concerns the “mysterious disappearance” in December 1967 of our then sitting Prime Minister Harold Holt whilst swimming at remote Cheviot Beach on the south coast of Victoria. His body was never recovered; his death ruled a ‘misadventure’ of sorts. To be sure it’s not everyday a country’s leader disappears off the face the earth, and few nations can boast of any similar event in their history. We’ll return to this little known slice of history shortly.
But before proceeding, readers might bear in mind a few key points, this in order to make the 'medicine' go down easier. The first is the ‘too-numerous-to-mention’ “conspiracy theories” that for a long time were deemed too outlandish or ‘over-the-top’ to be taken seriously—and whose advocates have been mercilessly ridiculed to within an inch of their reputations (and beyond) by assorted debunkers for so doing—yet which have since proven to be entirely true.
Such realities are particularly apposite when we examine the clandestine spook-shuffling shenanigans of the Central Intelligence Agency (the CIA, aka “The Company”). This organisation and/or its proxies ‘boasts’ of having played ‘host’ to more than its fair share of real conspiracies, all once deemed ‘loony-toon’ ludicrous, yet whose veracity is now all but a matter of public record.*
*AUTHOR NOTE: This theme is explored in depth in my series on conspiracy theories, the first episodes of which can be found here, here, and here. More will follow. Suffice to say, it’s a deep dive. Not recommended for those with time management issues, short attention spans, asthma or other respiratory pathologies.😉
Of special relevance to our narrative herein are the CIA’s myriad decade-spanning operations and projects whose primary objective was relieving avec extreme prejudice foreign leaders of the burdens of power, if not of life itself. Anyone not au fait with the CIA’s performance record in this respect can clue themselves up with the bizarre yet always entertaining shenanigans of Operation Mongoose, perhaps its most infamous gambit.
And this is without factoring in its oft-cited—well documented, and generally irrefutable—hand in the assassination of POTUS Number 35 John F Kennedy (aka JFK) in 1963. The dogged refusal ofsuccessive administrations over 60 years on to force the release of the remaining JFK Files in the CIA’s Memory Hole is all the evidence one needs to underscore this reality.
(Author Note: Considering their own later fates, that JFK and his Attorney-General brother Robert were the ones that gave the nod to the CIA to set the aforesaid “Mongoose” loose as it were, only adds to the deep layers of irony which attend the backstory herein. For another time. Curious readers can see here for more of the “Mongoose” backstory.)
Yet, despite what the conspiracy theory debunkers might think, given their own shabby track record in (knowingly or unknowingly), getting it wrong, positing such theories, albeit with suitable clarifications and caveats, is not just now more acceptable; it becomes de rigueur when investigating and analysing possible high-level corporate, institutional and/or government malfeasance and criminality.
In fact in the interests of reaching a more accurate, truthful account of our history, investigative logic alone demands that little within the realms of probability and possibility should be left off the table. Understandably, this notion is not one warmly embraced by the conspirators and plotters themselves, not their ardent defenders and/or debunkers; be that as it may, offending their sensibilities (or if now deceased, casting aspersions on their respective post mortem legacies and reputations), should be the least of our concerns**.
**AUTHOR NOTE: Worth noting is the glaring absence in the public record of those conspiracy debunkers who, having been proven so demonstrably wrong in their denials, then mea culpa-like ‘strained nerve and sinew’ to a) officially acknowledge their errors of judgment; b) publicly apologise to those folks whom they ridiculed so mercilessly; and/or c) set straight for posterity the aforesaid "record".
In the field of international relations, involving as it does as a matter of course everything from bog standard back-room subterfuge and ‘spy v spy’ skulduggery, [to] disinformation, bribery, blackmail, false-flags, sabotage, assassinations, wet work, honey-traps, coups d’état, black-ops, election fraud, forgery, currency manipulation, political destabilisation, and all manner of huggermuggery and political thuggery and the like, this might especially be the case.
With all this front of mind, positing a “conspiracy theory” about the assassination of a sitting Aussie PM involving elements from within the U.S. intelligence community—even one aided and abetted and/or covered up by our own home grown spooks and sanctioned at the highest levels of power in Washington—is all things equal, an eminently reasonable proposition. Though doubtless again, it may not be seen that way by most folks, here or Stateside.
Aussie PM Harold Holt getting “The Treatment” from LBJ. Did Number 36 give the CIA the nod to take Holt out? — You Decide!
— All the Way with LBJ (Power is where Power Goes)
If the preceding has inspired a measure of cognitive dissonance for some, then what follows is unlikely to temper it. But to chronicle it for historical posterity alone is a necessary undertaking if not a patriotic duty; folks can then decide for themselves if such a hypothesis is worthy of merit. It also sets the stage for what follows. Let’s go shopping shall we?
Put simply, highly respected US author Phillip Nelson (now sadly deceased), posits a very plausible explanation of what might have really happened to our PM.
Per the title of his essay, “The Mysterious Death of Australian Prime Minister Harold Holt (And Why LBJ Must be Considered a Prime Suspect”), the author provides a very compelling case for the prosecution. That in fact, the then sitting POTUS Lyndon B Johnson (aka LBJ; JFK’s successor), may have directly nodded the removal of Holt because he was going all wobbly on our continued support for US involvement in Vietnam. (See here, here, herefor the article in three parts.)
To be sure, regime change rarely gets more serious than when the US takes out the leader of another country, and this is particularly the case when it’s the leader of a a long-standing ally or a friendly nation. Again I concede most of my compatriots would view any suggestion that Holt met with foul play much less was offed by our chief ally, qualifies as an “outlandish” conspiracy theory, and myself as a loony-toon practitioner thereof with too much time on his hands for even positing it. Be that as it may, I ask readers to bear with me.
In his attempt to shed new light on Holt’s Houdini-like vanishing act, Nelson offered up the following as an appetiser:
🗣👉 ‘The fact that his body was never recovered added to the enigma, considering [the belief of local officials] that a body would naturally wash up to shore due to the strong surf. Those who knew him pointed to the unlikelihood of him…becoming a victim of that surf:…Holt had swam, snorkelled, skin-dived and fished there for 40 years; he’d told others that he knew those waters “like the back of my hand,” and knew when conditions were too dangerous...’ [Emphasis added].
Though Nelson conceded he could not definitively prove his thesis (and that indeed we may never know for sure), for him Holt’s fate has all the hallmarks of foul play; that it was not “misadventure” as the history books, public opinion and the official record would have us all believe. To this end Nelson sums up his findings, with those aforesaid “clarifications”:
‘Throughout my books and blogs, I try to make clear when I am citing what I consider credible research by others, or my own factually-based findings, versus the relatively few situations in which I make speculative assertions. In this case, there are very few substantive points that could be classified in the last speculative category. Thus the case against Lyndon Baines Johnson in the assassination of Harold Holt must be considered exceptionally strong.’ [Emphasis added.]
It must be stressed here that Nelson is no “loony-toon conspiracy theorist”, not by a long shot from the Texas Schoolbook Depository Bldg. To underscore this assertion, he has a reputation as a meticulous researcher with the track record of being an accomplished author, published by highly respectable imprints.
Phil Nelson’s Books of Revelation — The Complete Skinny on LBJ, The Person, the President, the Psychopath.
Full disclosure: I enjoyed a warm friendship with Phil Nelson, having worked closely with the man on two of his published books, and we ‘chinwagged’ on many a Zoom call. I’ve also interviewed him on my TNT Radio show “The No Fly Zone” in 2022. In this discussion he insisted he did not have “an axe to grind” with LBJ per se; he was simply seeking a more accurate, historically faithful portrait of one of the most consequential and controversial of modern American leaders. Not only do I believe him, but feel most objective would say he succeeded admirably.
In sum, Nelson’s insight into America’s 36th president is in my book second to none, with a visit to his website evidencing this; not for nothing does he ‘baptise’ LBJ “The Master of Deceit”. LBJ though was much, much more than a “master of deceit”; a master to be sure, but both jack and master of plying the dark arts of the Machiavellian trade. Per Nelson, with Holt’s support for our ongoing involvement in Vietnam wavering, LBJ not only had motive.
In the CIA, the president also had the means, with spy agencies having their bespoke methods of whacking those who’ve become surplus to requirements, complete with how-to instruction manuals (see here and here). LBJ also it must be stressed, ‘had form’, such that if it served his purposes, [he] would not hesitate making such a call for a moment. (Perhaps only the Clintons might rival LBJ by leaving a longer trail of dead in their political wake.)
Herein Nelson is further careful to emphasise the following. Without the nod from the “Oval”, even the CIA would give pause before interfering directly even if covertly in the affairs of an important ally, much less for that matter act unilaterally in removing the leader of that same ally from office. (It’s notable that after Holt’s disappearance, there was no further ‘wobbling’ on our commitment in Vietnam, at least not upon the part of Holt’s successors. For the then opposition Labor Party and the Aussie public, it was though another matter entirely.)
Nelson’s epic two volume work on the life and times of LBJ (see here and here) chronicles with impeccable references and citations the countless high crimes and treacheries of LBJ the man and the psychopathic nature of his personality. Indeed, Number 36 was to all intents his generation’s poster boy for political psychopathy. Nothing was “off the table” for Johnson, except perhaps for any consideration as to whether he might be caught out in the commission thereof. Which as history tells us, [this] never happened, itself another pointer for many to both the man’s impressive criminal achievements and his equally criminal audacity—his ‘evil genius’ as it were.
Per Nelson again, LBJ’s “form” embraced everything from his own hand (to be sure in cahoots with the CIA, Mossad and other players), in the 1963 murder of his predecessor (JFK) and the subsequent cover up; the assassination of Martin Luther King in 1968 and subsequent cover up; and his actions leading up to, during, and beyond, the unprovoked attack on—and attempted sinking of—the USS Liberty by the Israeli Defence Forces during the Six Day War in 1967. (See here and here for my own detailed exposition of this story.)
To say LBJ then was ‘a piece of work’ doesn't even begin to cover it; though he has ample competition, he most certainly qualifies as one of the most corrupt, deranged, criminally inclined folks ever to park his ample arse behind the Oval Desk. Without a shadow, his tenure was to be sure one of the most consequential in the modern history of the Republic, and his legacy one which for any number of reasons, remains with us all today. (See here for a deeper deliberation on the unique psychopathology of power manifested by LBJ and his ilk.)
As a coda to the preceding, I’ve spared readers a blow-by-blow of Mr Nelson’s “conspiracy theory” regarding the fate of Harold Holt; that would be spoiling the surprise. For those interested the best thing is to read what he has to say. But either way, as we’re about to see, if the removal of Harold Holt in 1967 did in fact occur under the circumstances as hinted above, it was not to be the last time the Empire du jour sought—and succeeded in—the removal of our duly elected PM from office.
AUTHOR NOTE:Although a story for another time, the most “consequential” aspects of his legacy was perhaps LBJ’s eager embrace of then bourgeoning Jewish Lobby and his unerring support for Israel. This embrace has directly led today to the Lobby being by far the most powerful, influential—and corrupting—of special interest groups ever to ‘infest’ the Deep Swamp that is Washington DC. Readers wishing to do so can see the fruits of my investigative labours in the link below. 👀🔗👇
When it comes to Australia, beyond being the first country ever to win the America’s Cup (1983), to the extent that less worldly Americans might muse on such, amongst the first things likely to come to mind are convicts, kangaroos, cockatoos, kookaburras, crocodiles and koala bears. For those who do so “muse”, few I’d aver might be aware of the significant role we play in supporting America’s full spectrum dominance geopolitical ambition, or much of the history of this alliance.
Over and above simply broadening the historical and political horizons of American readers (and perhaps to boot even a few of my fellow Aussies), I trust what follows will provide all a deeper understanding of how our respective pasts have intertwined. And for my compatriots, why given current geopolitical events and developments such an appreciation is critical to our future security, and (at least to the extent we still retain a measure of either), the maintenance of our sovereign integrity and preservation of our independence.
In so many cases this shared history has been to our detriment. Most notably, it was our regrettable involvement first in Korea and as already mentioned, around 15 years later in Vietnam, the latter commitment to which as already mentioned Harold Holt himself gave the nod.
Further commitments in varying degrees in Afghanistan, Iraq (twice), Syria, Libya, andYemen of course are more recent examples. This is without noting our varied, ongoing, and largely unquestioning support—direct and indirect—for US foreign policy vis a visUkraine,Israel,China, and Russia. Such is the nature of this relationship, we’ve not seldom been referred to as America’s 51st state, playing as it were “Tonto” to the US’s “Lone Ranger”.
Pine Gap, Alice Springs. Nerve Centre of the Imperial Panopticon Down Under. Once a “matter of contention”, now not so much!
However, our slavish commitment to the so-called ‘international rules-based order’ much favoured by the Beltway Bedlamites™️ is now being questioned more than than ever. In other words, as my fellow Aussies might say, there’s ‘movement at the station’! And as we may all be about to find out, we ignore such “movement” at our peril. Which is to say, the reality, indeed the irony, is such that our alliance with the U.S. does much more to undermine Australia’s security, increasingly so.
With this in mind, we should consider further the present and future implications of this alliance, along with again some of the history that’s brought us to this point. In a recent piece tellingly titled “Exiting Pax Americana could save our bacon”, geopolitical analyst Eugene Doyle paints a very sobering picture for the future of Australia (and his own turf New Zealand) should we continue to align ourselves with “Team America” as he puts it.
After noting that we’ve ‘little idea’ about the momentous changes headed our way, in setting out his stall, he had this to say: ‘[we’re] going to have a very difficult time in the Asian century if we do not adjust our headsets’. Said Doyle:
‘Australia has benefitted enormously from the 200 years of Western domination of world history. The West will remain strong but will no longer be the single dominant civilisation. So Australia…has got to accept that it is in a multi-civilisational world. [We] will have to adjust and adapt to Chinese power and live with that reality. It means a psychological adjustment first before you carry out your other adjustments.’ [My emphasis.]
From this point, let’s once again mosey on down into the Memory Hole™️? In keeping with the theme of this series, such “detriment” as cited earlier includes a momentous and consequential CIA-inspired gambit in 1975 that climaxed in the ousting of our then duly elected prime minister Gough (pronounced Goff) Whitlam. In short, a coup d’état, as noted in the previous episode, the wrecking ball in Washington’s foreign policy toolbox, the resort to which being a recurring theme in the playbook then and since, and the central theme in this article series.
As with the Iranian coup of 1953(for a future episode), ably backed up on this occasion by the British in the form of MI6, the CIA had their not always plausibly deniable ‘prints all over the 1975 Constitutional Crisisthat triggered the dismissal—the firing in effect—by the then Governor-General Sir John Kerr, of Aussie PM Whitlam and his entire government.
🗣👉 ‘In 1974, the US National Security Council…took jurisdictional responsibility from the State Department for America’s relationship with Australia. This was unprecedented. Why take that step? It implies that the Administration intended to intervene in the political affairs of a close ally at the highest level, almost certainly with the aim of destabilising its government to the extent it would lose office.’[Emphasis added.]
(See here for a comprehensive five part account of this turbulent period in our political history. For both history buffs and curious readers in general, it’s a trip!)
Aussie Journalist and Filmmaker John Pilger (dec.) — A Perennial Fly in the Imperial Ointment, and Gough Whitlam fanboy.
— Our Fatal Attraction
As it turns out, the history of the CIA’s clandestine interference in Australian politics is one that is well documented. But like so many of these things often are, it’s a history far from familiar to most Australians, let alone Americans. Insofar as the dismissal of Whitlam went, this was likely one of these situations where the indelible Henry Kissinger maxim prevailed:
‘…I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the [Ed. Note: insert name of offending country cum regime change target here] voters to be left to decide for themselves.’ [Emphasis added.]
Now few would argue that Australia was experiencing a “serious electoral contest” at the time of this crisis. And though perhaps not recognised by most Aussies at the time or since (nor was it of quite the type presented by the media), it was one that surely qualified as “critical” to U.S. “geopolitical interests”.
In succumbing to its meddling impulses however, whether America was justified in the covert actions it took is an entirely different matter. As is the suggestion that in whatever Whitlam might’ve or might not have been doing to incur Washington’s displeasure, it was because he was ‘going communist’. On both counts, the track record in so many other countries would lead many to suggest it wasn’t so “justified”.
As our own renowned journalist and filmmaker John Pilger (now deceased) noted in a 2014 piece eulogising the death of Whitlam at age 94, the Governor-General John Kerr was not just the “Queen’s man” in Australia; prior to being appointed as Australia’s head of state, he had “long standing ties” to both Britain’s MI6 and the CIA. ‘Quelle surprise!’…we might say.
Again, some backstory. Whitlam assumed power in 1972 amid Obama-like euphoria after twenty-three years of conservative rule by a coalition of the Liberal and then Country (now National) parties. That partnership embraced a political mindset increasingly viewed by many Aussies as too subservient to Washington, this being of course a frequent refrain in the regime renovation narrative.
For his part Whitlam felt that a foreign power shouldn’t control our resources or dictate our economic and/or foreign policies, and he tapped into the prevailing mood of the time. Such a mood was one shaped in no small measure by our highly contentious involvement in the Vietnam War in particular, and to be sure, the more widespread anti-American sentiment that infused the then Zeitgeist. This disastrous military commitment in ‘Nam on our part proved to be a key factor in Whitlam’s subsequent landslide win. Thus began the first and so far only separation between our country and the US since we originally ‘tied the knot’ in this always lopsided ‘marriage of convenience’.
Interestingly, Whitlam visited China the year prior to his election in his capacity as Labor opposition leader, the eventual aim to both recognize that country and open up diplomatic relations once in office. That said, he was scarcely a card-carrying ‘Commo”. Yet for a variety of reasons the freshly minted PM was treated at first by many in the US with no small measure of suspicion, and later, by contempt, animosity, even paranoia. This extended to the then palace intriguer nonpareil and resident regime renovator Henry Kissinger (see sidebar below) along with his boss POTUS Richard Milhous Nixon, as some would have it, a man with “suspicion”, “contempt”, “animosity” and “paranoia” to spare. [*See here for a compilation of Hank’s “Greatest Hits, Vol. One” 😉.]
Author Note: Ironically, Nixon himself would fall victim to coup of sorts the year before Whitlam was dismissed in what became known as the Watergate Scandal. That the former did so largely because of that “spare” suspicion, contempt, animosity and paranoia was even more profoundly ironic, but perhaps not in the way most folks might think or as the official history records. As with so many of history’s big events, developments and turning points, the actual truth behind Watergate is far stranger (and more plausible) than the fiction often presented as the truth by the media and generally accepted by the public at the time they occurred. As it did with the JFK Thing, in effect America ‘couped’ itself once again with Watergate. A story for another time. Suffice to say, it’s a doozy. — GM
In seeking an entente of sorts with China then, the “political visionary” Whitlam wasn’t just ahead of his time; he was way ahead of Kissinger and Nixon in playing the Great Game as it was beginning to unfold then in Asia. As history tells it, less than twelve months later both Hank and “Tricky” were making a beeline to Beijing to do same, the media breathlessly announcing Nixon’s impending trip during Whitlam’s China visit.
SIDEBAR: To the best of this writer’s knowledge, there’s no record of either Nixon or Kissinger publicly acknowledging Whitlam’s history-making diplomatic meisterstroke in seeking a rapprochement with the world’s most populous communist nation. It seems reasonable to suggest that these consummate practitioners of détente diplomacy and much-lauded masters of realpolitik would’ve been less than impressed that a political ‘wannabe’ from Down Under (of all places)—not even then in high office and yet himself touted as a political visionary for his initiative—had shown each of them a clean pair of heels on both counts!
In any event, as already hinted, both men were deeply suspicious of Whitlam’s broad agenda; Kissinger harboured ‘very strong negative feelings’ towards him, coming to see him as a fly in the imperial ointment, with Whitlam perhaps wearing that mantle ‘with a badge’. It needs be said though that, given the views expressed above by Kissinger himself regarding countries who might “go communist”—when in fact both men did indeed “go communist” in officially recognising China, and his undoubted role in pushing for Whitlam’s ouster later in his second term along with the primary rationale for the coup—there’s enough irony to go around herein for all but the most politically obtuse or historically illiterate. — GM
Described by Pilger as a ‘maverick social democrat of principle, pride and propriety’, amongst other things Whitlam vowed to pull the pin on the Vietnam debacle, provide universal health care, abolish university fees, and tellingly, proposed to “buy back the farm”, a term which would’ve come loaded with all manner of hidden import for many from Wall Street to Washington.
Given that more than a few observers have in the past employed a similar metaphorical framework in describing Australia’s ‘bromance’ with the U.S., as already hinted it’s not at all frivolous to suggest that this was akin to “Tonto” telling the “Lone Ranger” he was moving on and that once the silver bullets ran out and the ‘Native Americans’ began closing in on them, ‘Kemo Sabe’ was gonna be left to fight them on his ‘Pat Malone’. Kemo Sabe needless to say, was not impressed!
And as we’ll see again and again throughout this series, many a coup d’état has been inspired by such expressions of economic independence. But in the final analysis, it was another matter entirely that proved to be the main catalyst for Whitlam’s removal from office. (See here, here, and here for additional information and background.)
Whitlam & Nixon Enjoy a Fireside Chat, 1973. Whitlam wanted his “farm” back; Tricky, Hank & the Deep State Gang had other ideas.
— The Deep State ‘Does’ the 51st State
For his part Whitlam had more or less positioned himself as an Antipodean version of Guatemala’s Jacobo Arbenz Guzman or his contemporary Chile’s Salvador Allende, the latter nation being the one Kissinger was referring to earlier. Although one should add our politically ill-fated PM got off very light compared to Allende (and per our opening, perhaps Harold Holt as well). Whitlam subscribed to basic principles of sovereignty, independence and national self-determination in the management of our own affairs, with any notion of empire or hegemony, much less any outward manifestation of it, being anathema to him. Whitlam was not interested in Australia being just another imperial satrapy.
To say Australia—then as now arguably Uncle Sam’s most ‘steadfast to a fault’ vassal state—had not experienced anything quite like it before or since is an understatement. And the reason why is simple: Our politicians, especially those from the left side of politics, to their credit (dubious as such “credit” might be for many) learned their lesson well. They have behaved themselves for the duration, with there being little sign any of Whitlam’s political heirs in the Labor Party having ever contemplated repeating history.
In what many Americans I suspect will view then as a not dissimilar state of play on their own turf, there’s little daylight between the foreign policy positions of both our major parties, the de rigueur public posturing to the contrary aside. This is especially so when it comes to Australian-U.S. relations, the basis of which is ANZUS, the formal military-intelligence-security alliance. Though space again precludes a blow-by-blow of the skulduggery that attended Whitlam’s eventual downfall, for our purposes it’s instructive to at least look at part of the backstory of this prototype colour revolution.
Suffice to say that a number of ‘household’ Deep State names either played key— or made not insignificant cameos—in the long, drawn out saga, of which it has to be said was one of the most significant events in our political history. To be sure they did so sub rosa whereby it wasn’t until sometime later the true, if still wholly incomplete, nature of their roles were revealed, an all too familiar leitmotif in the annals of CIA-inspired regime change gambits. (See Sidebar Below).
At this point, it’s enough to understand the main catalyst for the coup. This requires additional insight into the history of the U.S.-Australian relationship itself. This, if for no other reason than most Americans (and again no doubt more than a few of my compatriots) might better appreciate the importance to the U.S.—indeed, to the Anglo-American alliance overall—of this long-standing, albeit one-sided, ‘marriage’.
As always with such matters, context and perspective is key.
If the alliance was a “marriage”, then it was one made less in heaven than in Washington (that is unless America’s national capital might, in an as yet unimagined alternative universe, qualify as some idyllic empyrean equivalent thereof, a ‘meditation’ perhaps only its most deluded denizens might attempt, which we can safely assume these days is no different).
As a member of the Five Eyes alliance, Australia for this reason alone, was not then, nor now, just another tin-pot, piss-ant “Third World” backwater on the butt-end of the Big Blue-Green Ball. For one thing our location, to say nothing of our sheer size, our modern socio-economic and industrial infrastructure, our political stability, our continental island nation status and its very isolation, provided then as now the near perfect locus point from which the U.S. could project power into the Asian region via the charter explicit in its ‘full-spectrum dominance’ strategy. (As in real estate, in geopolitics we might also argue it’s all about “location, location, location!”)
These considerations are even more critical now, existentially so. This is particularly considering the ascendancy of China along with more broadly that of the East Asian, and increasingly other nations. In other words, the much ballyhooed BRICS alliance.
This included the dirty, murky Iran-CONTRA scandalof the Reagan era,with whom it shares—not coincidentally—more than a few of the same dramatis personae, all engaging in not dissimilar skulduggery and huggermuggery. They comprised some of the most sinister, mercenary characters ever to don trilbies and trench-coats, such as Ted Shackley,Thomas G. Clines,General John K. Singlaub,Albert Hakim,and Richard Secord, to name a few.
Though the NHB Scandal has much relevance to the themes explored herein, space limits a deeper exploration. Suffice to say a couple of things. Readers should make the effort to read Kwitny’s book (a free download is available in the link here). It’s up there with anything the aforesaid le Carre ever wrote, in the classic “truth is stranger than fiction” kinda way. And despite the massive amount of hard evidence uncovered by a subsequent Royal Commissioninto the affair, the final report was “inconclusive” regarding the full extent of the bank's operations, and its close ties to not just Asian but international crime syndicates and U.S. intelligence. And quelle surprise!..No-one was prosecuted here as a result of the Commission's findings. Nor we might add, Stateside. (See here, here, here.) — GM
The Crimes of Patriots: An Epic Tale of Deep State/CIA thuggery, skulduggery, and huggermuggery Down Under.
— High Dudgeon in Low Latitudes
It might surprise most Americans (and once again no doubt a few Aussies as well), that one of the most vital components of the U.S. communications network is located at Pine Gap in the middle of the continent. This state-of-the-art facility forms the centrepiece of our “Five Eyes” infrastructure, and has done so going back well before Whitlam’s heyday, even being crucial to NASA’s Apollo space program.
But Pine Gap was never just about getting a man on the moon and back: Of even greater relevance for our purposes, the facility serves as the linchpin satellite reconnaissance station for spying and surveillance of friend and foe alike. Its key task throughout the Cold War was keeping a keen eye on the Soviets, essentially monitoring how diligently the then ‘gremlins in the Kremlin’ were playing ball with arms control treaties and nuclear testing agreements. The facility remains to this day an integral part of the central nervous system of the imperial panopticon.
For this reason alone, it’s worth expounding a little more on its current raison d’etre. In 2017, the 50th anniversary year of the establishment Pine Gap, along with affirming it as the most vital communications facility outside [the U.S.], performing a key role in the collection of a wide range of ‘signals-intelligence’, Richard Tanterof The Nautilus Institute of Security and Sustainability(NISS) noted that it functions in,
‘…providing early warning ballistic missile launches; targeting of nuclear weapons; providing battlefield intelligence data for U.S. armed forces; and elsewhere, critically supporting missile defence, supporting arms control verification, and contributing targeting data to drone attacks.’
In responding to this report at the time, Aussie based geopolitical analyst Binoy Kampmarkhighlighted no small measure of controversy and criticism such a milestone inevitably invited by drily noting the following,
‘…all this cut, dried and smoked material [in the NISS Report] conveys the relevance of Australia’s continued geographical role as a dry goods merchant for Washington. It supplies the isolation and the means for the U.S. imperium, as officials in Canberra keep mum about the sheer extent [to which] Pine Gap operates. It also supplies the bloodied hand that assists U.S.-directed drone strikes in theatres where neither Washington nor Canberra are officially at war…Australia remains America’s glorified manservant.’ [Emphasis added.]
That was seven years ago. Nothing has changed since that time.
As John Pilger again noted, from the off Gough Whitlam didn’t exactly go out of his way to endear himself to Washington or the wider Western security establishment. Soon after his election triumph in 1972, he ordered that his staff not to be “vetted or harassed” by the Australian Security & Intelligence Organisation (ASIO)—then, as now, a wholly owned franchise of “The Company” (aka CIA).
Moreover, when his ministers publicly condemned the U.S. bombing of North Vietnam, according to Pilger, an unnamed CIA station officer in Saigon said: ‘We were told the Australians might as well be seen as North Vietnamese collaborators.’ Such then, as now, was/is the default response of Washington to any unwelcome ‘static’ coming from their vassal states wherever they might be located.
Whitlam stretched Washington’s friendship further by demanding at one point to know if the CIA was actually running a spy base at Pine Gap. Notwithstanding its official, somewhat anodyne function as described by NISS, Pine Gap was in reality a giant vacuum cleaner, one which, as Edward Snowden later revealed, allows the U.S. to spy on everyone everywhere. ‘Try to screw us or bounce us’, Whitlam warned the then US ambassador Marshall Green, ‘[and Pine Gap] will become a matter of contention’.
As for Whitlam’s implied threats regarding Pine Gap, to say such utterances ruffled a few feathers in Washington is again an understatement, and it’s safe to say [that] from that day onwards, the PM’s political career—and Australia’s short-lived ‘independence’—entered its fateful southward trajectory. According to Pilger, in an interview with Victor Marchetti, the legendary CIA officer who later wandered off the reservation by writing a ‘kill ‘n tell’ expose on The Company and who was actually involved in setting up the Pine Gap facility, the ex-spook told Pilger personally that, ‘This threat [to close Pine Gap] caused apoplexy in the White House…[after which] a kind of Chilean [coup] was set in motion.’
— The Falcon and the Snowman
This narrative would not be complete without noting that the highly classified intelligence that Pine Gap gathered around the time of the Whitlam dismissal was deciphered and later revealed publicly by Christopher Boyce, who worked for a company called TRW, at the time a CIA contractor. Boyce was ‘troubled’ by the ‘deception and betrayal of an ally’ and this was apparently what motivated him to do what he did. This spy yarn was later turned into a film The Falcon and the Snowman(from the book of the same name).
Amongst other revelations Boyce disclosed that was the CIA had infiltrated Australia’s political and trade union elite and they actually referred to the Governor-General of Australia, Sir John Kerr, as “our man Kerr”.
AUTHOR NOTE: The irony here should not be lost on anyone: Meaning? As is the case today, the trade unions themselves were/are the foundation of the Labor Party’s political power base. The first Labor PM who succeeded Whitlam in 1983 was Bob Hawke, a former national trade union chief who kowtowed to Uncle Sam with the best of them. Our current Labor PM Anthony Albanese is no different; he’s a refugee from the union movement, and like so many never having held a real job in his life.
For his part Boyce, who later did 25 years in the Big House for selling secrets to the Soviets, in a wide-ranging 2014 SBS Australia interview, again confirmed his belief that the CIA was behind Kerr’s decision to oust Whitlam. This action was facilitated by using a little known Constitutional provision enabling the head of state (Kerr) to revoke the PM’s commission, and appoint a caretaker government. In CIA circles at the time Boyce added, ‘you couldn’t say Whitlam’s name without the spooks…looking nauseated. He was viewed as a threat to the [Pine Gap] project…’
On the day of Whitlam’s dismissal he recalled the reaction of the CIA folks whom he liaised with:
‘[There] was a party, it was jubilation. The wicked witch was dead, you know. He was gone, nothing more to worry about. And it was just a sense of relief because they really did think he was going to close [Pine Gap] down. He was going to turn off our eyes, and they were worried, you know.’
Christopher Boyce, A sort of Edward Snowden of his Day. Hobbies: Falconry, Espionage & Whistleblowing.
Again, additional history of our country demands our attention; in particular how we morphed from being at the beck and call of the British Empire to playing a similar supplicant role vis a vis the U.S. imperium. The man who again provides us a most illuminating insight into the events of 1975 is our very own John Pilger. In seeking to break free to some degree from the confines of U.S. power, Whitlam was up against as much opposition domestically as he inevitably came up against Stateside. This is not an uncommon scenario in such instances where a new ruling party in a nation seeking more autonomy and decides unwisely to test Washington’s forbearance.
And although his removal from office in such an unprecedented, unceremonious manner doubtless never figured into his trail-blazing political calculus, in Pilger’s summation, Whitlam had few illusions about what might lie ahead of him, in either the domestic or foreign policy front. Post-World War II, having to some extent by then weaned ourselves off the attachments to Britain that attended our former colonial status—the legacy of which remained intact despite the country becoming an independent Federation in 1901—Australia’s political establishment was nonetheless wedded to the notion of dependence on a Great Power alliance for its national security. Or at least we thought we needed to be.
— Going Forward Down Under (With or Without the Empire)
In reaching something of a denouement in our narrative here, the following hopefully will do the trick as it were. In 2016, a former Labor PM Paul Keating (1991-1996) threw his hat into the ring questioning the Australia-US alliance. He said it was time to ‘cut the tag’, and that ‘focusing less on the alliance between the two countries and concentrating more on relationships within Asia’ was the way forward. Keating added,
‘We’ve got to this almost sort of crazy position now where the American alliance, instead of simply being a treaty where the U.S. is obliged to consult with us in the event of adverse strategic circumstances, it’s taken on a reverential, sacramental quality. I’m not talking about the [present Liberal] Government, I’m talking about people on the Labor [opposition] side as well.’
And if that might not have been enough to unsettle the Beltway Bedlamites, in 2014, another of our former prime ministers Malcolm Fraser (1975-1983), gave an equally eyebrow raising interview. Fraser was at the time promoting his book Dangerous Ally, the “ally” in this case being the Empire du jour the U.S.
Here then was a former Liberal (read: “conservative”) PM no less of America’s most faithful geopolitical sidekick not simply emerging from the political closet and declaring our ANZUS alliance with the U.S. in need of a major strategic review—such opinions being anathema in political circles on both sides of the divide no matter how cautiously one advances them—but proclaiming it “dangerous” to adhere to this treaty.
Former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser — Back in the day, he used to be an Uncle Sam fanboy you Know?.
In referencing our history of “strategic dependence”—firstly on Britain, then on the U.S. after WWII—he recommended a more independent stance, free of the diktats of Washington’s war-meisters. Fraser went even further than Keating by noting that not only is conflict between China and Japan ‘possible’, but that the U.S. have ‘made it plain that they would side with Japan’ if there is such a conflict. As things stand he said,
‘[We’d] get dragged in to that conflict, when our interest would be to stay well clear of it. Now, if you’ve got those troops in Darwin being used in relation to such a conflict, and Pine Gap was being used to give direction to a variety of weapons systems, the prime minister could [not] get up and say “Oh, look, we’re not involved, we’re not complicit”. [But] we would be complicit [and] the world would know [we were]. And that means that [the US] has the power to take us to war [just] as Britain a hundred years ago had the power to take Australia to war because we were part of the Empire.’ [Emphasis added.]
What made such declarations both fascinating and anomalous at the same time was because it was Malcolm Fraser—the man succeeding Whitlam after his unceremonious ouster—who was the principal political agitator for Whitlam’s demise as chronicled earlier, and a man who thereafter became reviled by the left and more liberal/progressive elements for his efforts in creating the Constitutional crisis. That aside, fast forward ten years later, and it’s clear that no-one in political, policy or media circles took one scrap of notice of what Fraser said in respect of our fatal attraction to the Empire du jour.
Author Note: There is no evidence of which I’m aware that Fraser knew of any CIA involvement in initiating the 1975 constitutional Crisis, either before, during, or after. For his part, and for reasons best known to himself, Whitlam always publicly played the CIA factor down. One wonders as to what they might’ve talked about privately though, as they became firm friends later in life in their years of political dotage. Oh to have been a fly on that wall.
Fraser was also a Defence Minister for a period at the height of Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam War, a military commitment on our part entered into by his own party, as noted then under the prime ministership of Harold Holt), and one he later came to regret. For this writer, the fact that these men later became friends remains one of the most glaringly ironic and unpredictable developments in our own (and possibly anyone’s) political history.
And for Fraser to come out albeit many years later to declare that Australia should seek more independence from the U.S.—the very stance upon Whitlam’s part which upset Washington so much at the time and which contributed so emphatically to his political demise—is the stuff you simply couldn’t make up! Few politicians of which I’m aware have undergone such an extraordinary Damascene conversion on so many policy levels, and left so many folks including some of our sharpest political analysts and commentators scratching their heads, many as much in bewilderment and in wonderment, with unsurprisingly, more than a few less than impressed.
All up then, it has to be said then that much of this soul-searching about our relationship with Uncle Sam herein and elsewhere can be attributed to the feelings generated by America’s ill-fated and ill-judged response to the attacks of 9/11; in particular the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and the consequential blowback from such disastrous decisions, and from the so-called War on Terror in general that has been raging seemingly without end since 2001.
Like all countries, Australia has not been immune to the immense economic and strategic transformations that have taken place as a result of America’s relentless and ruthless campaign to achieve full spectrum dominance in all spheres of the geopolitical arena—one triggered by 9/11 and on which said “campaign” continues to be justified, without any serious protest thus far from its Western partners and allies—whilst countering, even aggressively pre-empting, with every resource at its disposal any real or imagined challenge from other upstart power players. Until and unless the Bedlamites who still seem to be running the Beltway shit-show begin to appreciate how disastrously their provocations and actions are impacting on global peace, security, and stability (Ukraine anyone?), we are unlikely to see any change.
The argument here in Australia for those who unequivocally support this alliance will be that this is not a good time to be second guessing it, given the increasingly precarious situation in global affairs. (One is reminded of what the philosopher and atheistVoltaire was supposed to have said when asked on his death-bed if he would renounce the devil: ‘This is not the time to be making new enemies!’)
These same folks though confuse cause and effect, and it is a specious argument. The reality is that in the pursuit of full spectrum dominance, that “peace, security, and stability” has been consistently and deliberately undermined by the U.S. ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, a project that went into hyperdrive after 9/11, with no sign of it slowing down anytime soon. The irony here is as inescapable as it is profound. We could well end up embroiled in a cataclysmic confrontation not of our own making—yet as Fraser observed rightly, one in which we’ve allowed ourselves to become “complicit”—not unlike that of the one in 1914 with the ancien regime of ‘perfidious Albion’.
All up, our continued alliance with the Empire du jour under the present arrangement is a zero-sum game for us. Those countries with similar alliances and attachments—whether in Asia or Europe—would also do well to be similarly concerned.
🗣👉‘… It has been a splendid little war, begun with the highest motives, carried on with magnificent intelligence and spirit, favored by that Fortune which loves the brave.’ — US Secretary of State John Hayin a letter to Theodore Roosevelt, July 27 of that year, musingon the 1898 Spanish-American War. This war—sparked in no small part by the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana Harbour earlier that year, in what is considered by many to have been a “false-flag” event—ushered in the American Imperium and heralded its hegemonic ambitions.
🗣👉 ‘When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it, and a moral code that glorifies it’. — Frederic Bastiat.
🗣👉 ‘What we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.’ — National Endowment for Democracy (NED) co-founder Allen Weinstein, 1991
Introduction: For those diligent students of history au fait with America’s perennial fondness for orchestrating coups and colour revolutions, ousting democratically elected leaders, and generally interfering in the affairs of other nations—to all intents the mainstay of U.S. foreign policy and the wrecking ball in its diplomatic toolbox—the recent events in Venezuela will come as little surprise. Venezuela is but one of many well-documented examples of this deja vu-infused track record.
Given the supreme ironies inherent in the political imbroglio in the U.S. that attended Russia’s alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential elections, along with America’s implacable resolve to continue seeking regime change in Russia’s close ally Iran (to say little of the events in Ukraine, themselves representing hard-core blowback from a Washington engineered coup there in 2014, the ultimate aim of which is to relieve its long-serving, much reviled president Vladimir Putin of the burdens of power), it’s timely we revisit some of this history.
As I’m fond of saying: There’s nothing like a deep dive into the memory hole in order to sharpen our perspective on the present geopolitical milieu and the hegemonic forces which have fashioned it. Doing so presents us an opportunity to view the situations in both Ukraine and Venezuela, the compulsive Iran regime change ‘addiction’, along with the never ending turmoil in and across the Middle East and elsewhere on the geopolitical landscape within a broader, more nuanced historical context. Such a perspective then should come with sure signs of the existential dangers for global peace and stability and humanity at large of allowing our leaders in the West to continue, like the proverbial bull in the China shop, traipsing down this pathway unchallenged, one that is as well-worn as it’s fraught with ever greater peril.
This is the first episode in a series that explores the history and impact of the West’s interference in the affairs of other countries. Along with reminding those who may have memory holed it or not fully comprehended the implications therein, this series aims to bring this narrative to the forefront of the minds of people who are just beginning to grapple with the reality that all is not right with the world. And in doing do, then expose the role of the Anglo-American-Zionist establishment in creating that uncertainty and instability. — GM.
Before getting into the meat of our narrative, I trust readers will indulge my opening gambit as I believe it will set out our stall well for what follows.
The Great Gonzo scribe himself, the inimitable Hunter S. Thompson, who knew a thing or three about politics and getting high on whatever was doing the rounds (to be sure regardless of whether it was his own supply or not), drew some intriguing parallels between the besetting ‘habits’ of practitioners of the darker political arts and those of us mere mortals grappling with more conventional forms of addiction.
‘Not everybody is comfortable with the idea that politics is a guilty addiction. But it is. They are addicts, and they are guilty and they do lie, cheat and steal—like all junkies. And when they get in a frenzy, they’ll sacrifice anything and anybody to feed their cruel and stupid habit, and there’s no cure for it.’ [Emphasis added.]
As practised in Washington then, and after drawing upon Thompson’s near pitch perfect analogy, it’s safe to say this: In few other areas where the “dark political arts” play out is that “addiction” more obvious, more destructive, or seemingly more incurable than in the arena of regime change.
Now I say “near” advisedly as the only quibble one might have with HST’s conclusion is his use of the word “guilty”. Yet even here one demurs slightly. Whilst he was right in labelling them “guilty” (as charged), few of us, including one supposes Thompson himself if he were still on the right side of the grass, would accuse too many of our political classes of ever willingly embracing any such angst. Some even claim bragging rights on not feeling any such pangs. [Mike Pompeo anyone? See Sidebar Below*].
With that said, let’s now return to the subject at hand, and our political classes “addiction” to it as the preferred method and means of diplomacy. Unsurprisingly for many, the recent Venezuelan elections have seen the U.S. government—which fully backed the opposition—expressing concerns over the result. As I write, the haggling continues, with the Beltway Bedlamites™️ arguing the toss about who won. Perhaps not unlike a strung out junkie accusing his ‘plug’ of burning him, the U.S. claims the vote didn’t reflect the ‘true will’ of the people, citing, sans any evidence or semblance of irony, ‘irregularities’ and ‘a lack of transparency’.
Conversely, we’ve seen widespread reports of U.S. interference in that nation’s affairs—a long-standing historical reality that as we’ll see is well-documented, though, then as now, not by the Western media—despite the fact the incumbent President Nicolás Madurowas by most independent accounts the clear winner.
When and where have we heard all this before? ‘Quelle surprise!’ we might say. Or “deja vu” all over again. Which isn’t to suggest that this dark history is common knowledge. Oh that were the case! Insofar as its history of meddling in the affairs of other nations goes, as noted America’s is a long and storied one. (This includes my own country Australia, which could well claim bragging rights as Uncle Sam’s most steadfast-to-a-fault vassal state. See 🔗 ☝️.)
In the wake of Venezuela’s recent election result, after posing the not unreasonable question as to whether U.S. politicians know the ‘true will of the Venezuelan people’ better than the people themselves, one writer replied, “Obviously not”. He added:
‘The United States has significantly increased its interference in the affairs of Venezuela and other countries, attempting to reshape their political ecology through ideology. If a US-supported candidate wins an election, it will be described as fair and free;if not, it is labeled as unfair and lacking transparency. This…is a common method used by the US…’[Emphasis added.]
The Regime Renovators™️ Greatest Hits — Volume One: Latin America
— A Cruel and Stupid Habit
“Common” indeed! For those folks with the requisite sense of irony and historical perspective, none of this will come as a surprise. Yet whilst the rivers of irony run deep and wide through Washington, any such “perspective” therein is a dried up creek bed. In this and later in future outings, we’ll return to the Venezuelan situation—in part because this particular south of the border saga will doubtless be ongoing, and also because this doesn’t even begin to tell the full backstory.
At this point though, it’s instructive to consider the role of so-called Civil Society Organizations (CSOs). These non-governmental organisations (NGOs) play a key role in advocating for political (read: regime) change in foreign countries. This is facilitated via more transparent (or overt) political, financial, and economic means running the gamut from propaganda, censorship, sanctions, boycotts, divestment and asset freezes to more sub rosa gambits such as hybrid warfare, covert action, proxy wars,colour revolutions, black-ops,psychological warfare (aka ‘psy-ops’), and other tried and true ‘family favourites’ of the cloak n’ dagger collective.
Such organisations engaging in the latter are what I’ve come to calling the “regime renovators” of the so named 'international rules-based order'. They are the geopolitical “Ghostbusters” if one likes, always at the ready to root out and exorcise the ever present gremlins, ghouls n’ hobgoblins in those nations who question or challenge the much touted, forever hallowed “order”. Their ostensible remit is ridding sovereign countries of any and all ‘undesirable’ home grown entities who are deemed to ‘threaten’ the target nation’s democracy and good governance, its freedom, its rule of law, its sovereignty and independence, and its own citizens’ presumed right to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’.
These “undesirable entities” invariably take the form of democratically elected leaders who have the chutzpah to stand up for their people’s inalienable rights and attempt to facilitate their “pursuit” thereof, and who themselves genuinely stand for greater self-determination separate from that aforesaid “order”. For the globalist overlords and their dutiful underlings in the Deep State, few “entities” scare the bejesus out of them more than those nationalist leaders who f*ck with their ‘business model’, and it’s Maduro—and prior to that his larger-than-life predecessor Hugo Chavez (who died in 2013)—who’s done just that!
Any country in particular attempting to assert economic independence by demanding more control over its own natural or strategic resources, and then seeks to distribute the derived wealth to its own citizenry in genuine nation building endeavours, places itself at grave risk of foreign intervention and from there, a complete regime makeover. This is in almost all situations the primary catalyst for these operations! Perhaps few nations exemplify this more so than Venezuela, which by most accounts holds the planet’s largest reserves of oil and gas, and the largest deposits of gold. Again, “quelle surprise!”, we might exclaim.
The primary raison d’être of these CSOs/NGOs is via the methods and means described above to create maximum economic chaos, political bedlam, and social instability in those countries that don’t ‘shake their booty’ to the tune of “Yankee Doodle Dandy”, at least until such time as they learn how to ‘dance’ to it properly. The motto of the renovators could well be: “And you will know us by the trail of dead and debt”, as that’s pretty much what usually precedes, accompanies and/or follows any given regime change gambit, whether successful or not.
Again, the above scenario encapsulates neatly—if tragically—the Venezuelan situation. Most plain folks though might be forgiven for thinking otherwise, as the establishment media almost always report only the official talking points pitched to them by the renovators and their ilk, and not the reality on the ground.
REFRAIN: 🗣👉 ‘…I’ve seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate [people]….We’ve gone there to conquer, not to redeem. It should be our pleasure and duty to make people free, and let them deal with their own domestic questions in their own way...[I] am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land.’ — Mark Twain,reflecting with uncanny prescience on the real objectives and future implications of America’s war with Spain.
Mike Pompeo — A Poster Boy for The Renovators. He Lied, He Cheated, He Stole you know? He even had training courses.
*SIDEBAR: Here we are compelled to recall the immortal words of Mike Pompeo, the CIA Director in the early part of the Trump administration and thereafter Trump’s Secretary of State. The estimable Pompeo is on record in a rare moment of candour infamously admitting that under his watch as CIA chief, presumably recalling his own regime renovation track record ‘...We lied, cheated, we stole...we had entire training courses.’
That Pompeo freely offered up this admissionwhilst laughing his ample ass off, as if recalling in his dotage some "Boy's Own Adventure" from his misspent youth with a bunch of his scaly mates down at the local pub, only served to underscore his own chutzpah and hubris and the surreal nature of mindset that prevails in the Imperium. This may also have been one of the few times in his wretched existence that the ‘addicted’ Pompeo—albeit absent any sign of “guilt” on this occasion—didn’t speak with a forked tongue.
Even taking his true confessions mo’ into account, along with nodding Thompson’s colourful metaphor as cited above, it’s uncertain to what extent he, firstly as the CIA chief and later as SoS, ‘lied, cheated, and stole’ as part of his own contribution to the destabilisation activities in the lead up to the 2019 Venezuelan election. But with a foot in both the intelligence community and the political/diplomatic realms, there can be little doubt Pompeo was/is a card carrying member of the regime renovators’ inner clique, and from there it’s safe to assume he would’ve had his dog in the fight at some point on some level. A given then. [Emphasis added.]— GM
— The Colour Revolution Will not be Televised
Outside of “The Company” (the CIA) itself, although there are many CSOs in the US and elsewhere, perhaps the preeminent* (read: most notorious), one-stop-shop Stateside for the orchestration of such gambits is the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), whose unofficial positioning statement might as well read: "In Regime Change, We Trust". As Kit Klarenburg and Max Blumenthal from The Grayzone reported recently, the NED is Washington’s go-to “regime change laboratory”. (*Another major organisation is the US Agency for International Development—AID—whose “greatest hits” we’ll cover in future outings.)
After noting its ‘lavish funding of anti-government opposition groups in countries where Washington has sought regime change’, the US government-funded NED they said, ‘earned a reputation over its four decades in existence as an “overt operator” doing the work the CIA used to do in the shadows.’In essence then, the NED is a glorified CIA ‘cutout’. A 'front company' for The Company then, in layman's terms!
They added the following:
‘Critics have long pointed to the destabilizing effects of NED’s meddling in places like Nicaragua,Venezuela,Ukraine, and Haiti, where the [NED] has systematically undermined elected governments which undertook policies seen as violating the Washington Consensus. They referenced documents demonstrating the group’s origins in the Central Intelligence Agency of Ronald Reagan, and cited quotes by NED founders and [NEDpresident Carl] Gershman himself boasting about their orchestration of coups and color revolutions.’ [Emphasis added.]
National Endowment for Democracy — The “Ghostbusters” of the International Rules Based Order
Yet as Klarenburg and Blumenthal further revealed—recently via an exclusive Grayzone report on the organisation which, much to the chagrin of its former founders and a few senior old school operatives, aired some of its dirty linen in the public square—inside the inner sanctum of the NED there’s currently ‘trouble at mill’ as it were. Whilst space limits a blow-by-blow of the argy-bargy pertaining to this factional bunfight, folks are encouraged to ‘entertain’ themselves with the backstory. If nothing else, the details promptly call forth that eye-rolling adage “you couldn’t make this sh*t up”.
It's enough to say that for those who enjoy nothing better than suckin' up the schadenfreude that comes in the form of misfortune befalling those whose very own raison d’être is visiting same on others, then I’d aver this one is for you. It’s hard to beat, even if that "misfortune" is small karma compared to what these malfeasants and mayhem merchants past and present have wreaked on their countless victims over decades; we take what we can get.
Perhaps more pertinent for our purposes herein, the internal NED imbroglio as laid bare by the Grayzone folks provides us a fascinating glimpse into this organisation, its inner workings, and its past bastardry. It further reveals key insights into the nature of Washington’s regime change apparatus and the prevailing sub rosa mindset that’s been forever and a day it seems such an integral—albeit disastrous and counterproductive—component of US foreign policy and power projection.
Moreover, this inglorious history it needs be noted has always been a largely bi-partisan project, whose principal players (the Beltway Bedlamites™️ as I've long ago 'baptised' them), all of whom would have had close ties to the NED and no doubt still do—include the notorious neo-conservatives and the so-named "liberal (or humanitarian) interventionists" amongst others. As to whether these internal ructions (none of which as it transpires appear to be directly related to the NED’s basic remit; that’s apparently not in contention), will cramp its style going forward in the pursuit of its entrenched mission objectives once the dust-up settles, is another matter entirely; only time will tell.
Given its rap-sheet and the unsavoury rep that comes with it—to say little of the "geopolitical zeitgeist" and the toxic mind virus that’s infected any remaining semblance of collective common sense in US political, foreign policy, diplomatic, intelligence or media circles—one suspects that the NED will be back in to the fray doing what it does best (with or without an internal purge) before one can shout "viva le colour revolucion".
There aren't too many things we can say are a 'dead cert' these days. But this has to be one of them. Cue more delirium in the imperium then.
REFRAIN: 🗣👉 ‘In the science of society, leadership reserved the right to lie, cheat, deceive, be generally faithless wherever advantage presented itself...and not only to do so to the enemy but to one's own if need be, a moral code well suited to a fast-moving warrior people.’ — John Taylor Gatto
— The True Colours of Corporate Coups & Revolutions
Much of course has been written about America’s and the West’s meddling in the affairs of other countries. Yet this is one aspect of the Grand American Narrative where there’s always room for another spin on the yarn. In future episodes I’ll draw upon the fine work of many who’ve taken the deep dives themselves into said said “hole” in order to chronicle this hidden-in-plain-sight history and to keep the flame of awareness burning. (N.B.: Readers will find a short list of recommended authors and their respective efforts at the end of this article.)
Insofar as looking deeper into the state of affairs in Venezuela though, for our purposes herein it is Anya Parampil’s Corporate Coup: Venezuela and the End of US Empireto which we’ll now turn. The author chronicles therein the history of Washington's relentless, multi-pronged, decade spanning regime renovation gambit against Venezuela.
In her recently released book—augmented by several follow up interviews, including amongst others with Patrick Henningsen of 21st Century Wire—Parampil examines the legacy of Maduro’s political mentor and charismatic predecessor Hugo Chávez, who passed away in 2013. She further explores the impact of “Chavismo”, the eponymous political movement he inspired—and the subsequent leadership under Maduro’s watch.
The core narrative centres on the events of January 2019, when the then POTUS Donald Trump’s Administration inexplicably recognised as the President Juan Guaidó, a little known opposition lawmaker, bypassing the actual government led by Maduro. Along with evincing Trump’s own ham-fisted, amateurish foreign policy chops and his superficial grasp of the key issues, this unprecedented, ill-judged ‘diplomatic’ gesture by the US aimed to instigate regime change by the simple expedient of declaring their preferred candidate the winner without so much as a ‘by your leave’; it failed however as the incumbent retained control.
All this took place against a backdrop of failed coups, psy-ops, endless economic sanctions and everything else they have in their playbook, all designed to bring the country to its knees and back under the jackboot of the lords of the global imperium. This remains a project that as I write, and notwithstanding the more recent election outcome in favour of the incumbent, shows no sign of easing up anytime soon. Say what you will about the regime renovators, but such has been the relentless pursuit and subsequent success of their interventionist endeavours over decades and across swathes of the geopolitical landscape, their Standard Operating Procedure might read like this: “When you’re on a good thing, stick to it!”
Parampil also provides important background on key players in the Venezuelan government, establishment and the opposition, revealing the deep connections between Guaidó’s shadow government and sundry globalist corporations. Her book is essential reading for those looking for a more accurate account of the Venezuelan situation.
More broadly then “Corporate Coup”—by showcasing Venezuela as a text-book case study—shines another disturbing light on the hyper-aggressive nature of US foreign policies, the immense, ever expanding economic and geopolitical power of the corporate and financial globalist elites, whilst revealing deeper implications for international peace, security and stability, which for those who haven’t noticed, evidences a patently clear shift towards a multipolar world and what many see as the inevitable decline of US hegemony. Amongst other things, those wishing to see up close and personal the “international rules-based order” for what it truly represents will find much within Parampil’s book upon which to chow down.
AUTHOR NOTE: Some of the finest reporting on Washington’s regime change machinations in Venezuela in 2019 was undertaken by one Ken Silverstein. Readers should go to the link here for a more detailed exposition. Beyond the reportage on Venezuela, Mr Silverstein’s aptly titled Washington Babylon—Shocking True Stories and Political Sleaze is a must visit.
— Full Spectrum Delirium (Inside the Imperium)
At this point, it’s worth recalling the pearl-clutching umbrage andrampant hysteriaover the largely evidence-free accusations by Washingtonof interference by Russia in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. For showcasingthe unvarnished chutzpah, hypocrisy, and impressive hubris of the Bedlamites, a more instructive case study is difficult to find. The double standards and lack of self-awareness characteristic of this crowd are so glaring one could easily be blinded by the light.
Which is to say, one of the manifest realities attending that infamous Beltway blockbuster soap opera is of America’s own track record of interference in the affairs of other countries, comprising as we’ll see so many instances and forms, the Venezuelan situation being the latest iteration (that we know of). I say “realities” rather than ironies here as “irony” almost by definition is infused with a measure of nuance and subtlety, neither of which could it be said were in surplus in this utterly contrived, self-serving political and media beat-up.
Yet for most folks, this reality remained out of sight and out of mind throughout. (Let’s not even talk about how much the U.S. during Bill “Slick Willy”Clinton’s singularly patchy tenure in the White House interfered in Russian politics during the years Boris Yeltsin occupied the Kremlin throne room in his own 24/7 vodka-soaked delirium. A story for a future episode perhaps. It’s a doozy.
As I write, it should come as no surprise that the Bedlamites™️ are again turning over the dog-eared pages of the same old playbook for this year’s US election, hoping they might still milk some residual fear n’ loathing from the electorate regarding such alleged interference. (See here, here, here, and here. For a further measure of just how “contrived” and “self-serving” this conspiracy theory was back then, see here, here, here, here, here, and here.)
Insofar as Russia’s much touted “meddling” in U.S. politics went back in the day and the animus that attended the hysteria, as Oliver Stone discovered at the time during an appearance on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert—itself hot on the heels of his much publicised meet ‘n greet with Russian president Vladimir Putin in which it was earlier raised—he was at pains to impress upon his host that Israel had a much bigger case to answer than did Russia.
Of course Stone was on the shekel here. The unalloyed reality of the power, control and influence that Israel exerts within and across the morally and ethically desertified landscape that is the nation’s capital is a given. The Middle East’s only ‘democratic’ settler-colonial, genocidal, apartheid regime leaves few stones undisturbed—whilst exhibiting little discretion and subtlety but revealing equal parts chutzpah and subterfuge—in how it wields then leverages that influence to its advantage and against the national interest of its principal patron and benefactor. Who would argue that that power and influence has been more evident in past years than it is now? Anything Russia may have done by way of interfering in America’s political processes pales in comparison.
But that’s clearly a narrative that doesn’t bode well in the Beltway at the best of times, and more rational, clear-eyed folks know the reasons why. For one, the establishment media, for the most part doesn’t entertain such verities. Even if they were inclined to do so, the omnipotent Israel Lobby would cut them off at the knee-caps. For his part, the ever smarmy Colbert, presumably aware upon which side his breakfast bagel is best buttered, was reluctant to take Stone’s bait, much it seemed to his interviewee’s frustration.
Beyond just interfering in U.S. politics, along with the parent Empire la perfide Albion, one of America’s steadfast partners-in-crime in the regime renovation business are the ubiquitous and iniquitous Israelis, an observation underscored by Against our Better Judgment author Alison Weir on her blogIf Americans Knew. Long targeted by Israel, for Weir, Iran especially provides an instructive example herein. With the Saudis as back-up, it is Israel—ably supported by its own Stateside Praetorian Guard AIPAC and its ilk along with its traitorous shills in Congress—that’s been the hard-core driver of Washington’s irrational animus towards all things Iran.
— Would You Like ‘Israelite Lies’ With That?
And along with underscoring Israel’s clout in Washington, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s 2015 Congressional dog ‘n pony show fiercely opposing the Iran Nuclear agreement at the time being negotiated by the Obama administration provided then and now some of the best evidence for this. Again, Netanyahu’s more recent ‘command performance’ on the Hill underscored this for those with short memories, or for those who think matters might’ve improved since then.
The nuclear agreement aside, Iran remains still a high priority on the ‘to do’ list for the Regime Renovators. (See also here, here, here, and here.) In addition to the relentless propaganda campaign pursued by Israel at the time the aim of which was to paint Iran as the existential threat du jour, despite the fact that U.S. intelligence agencies and others in the know didn’t then support the allegations about its mythical nuclear weapons program, Weir had the following eminently instructive observations to make:
‘Israel and the U.S. deployed a computer virus against Iran in what’s been called the world’s first digital weapon. Iranian nuclear physicists [were] assassinated by Israel, and the U.S. instituted a blockade against Iran that caused food insecurity and mass suffering among the country’s civilians. (Such a blockade can be seen as an act of war.) Democratic Congressman and Israel partisan Brad Sherman admitted the objective of the sanctions: “Critics of sanctions argue that these measures will hurt the Iranian people. Quite frankly, we need to do just that.”’
(That sentiment hasn’t changed since he [Sherman] expressed it. Israel’s recent assassination of a senior Hamas leader, and Netanyahu’s increasing belligerence and unceasing war mongering is evidence of that.)
Most folks then who don’t regularly dine out on the McDonald’s (‘would you like lies with that?’) media diet that is the establishment (or corporate) news are as well aware of Uncle Sam’s recidivistic predisposition towards meddling in the affairs of other nations, engineering coups and colour revolutions, and ousting their duly elected leaders as they are of the bespoke misinformation and disinformation—the ‘real’ fake news—that’s tailored to suit the official narrative that goes with it.
Along with the ongoing Syrian War, the 2014 Ukraine coup is one of the most egregious examples of this, with again Stone’s confab with Putin—along with Tucker Carlson’s more recent meet n’ greet with the Hitler du jour—providing an alternative perspective on both counts.
Yet even here the majority of Americans and others in the West would attribute the Ukraine war to “Russian aggression” and the Syrian War largely to Bashir Al-Assad’s ‘despotism’; it’s simply what they are told by the media at the time, and insofar as they’re concerned [they] have little reason to doubt this even now. Much the same goes for the Iran WMD narrative, despite the fact that we’ve heard that one before with Iraq over twenty years ago. Yet the bottom line is that behind most of this mayhem are Israel’s fifth columnists in Washington.
Russian President Vladimir (“Vlad the Derailer”) Putin — He Derailed Uncle Sam’s Syrian Regime Renovation Plans.
To be sure then, Uncle Sam’s “track record’ in respect of interfering in the affairs of other countries is as well documented and [as] well traversed as it’s both known and abhorred by most commentators in the alternative media space and their more enlightened readers. At the same time, it’s one subject that doesn’t raise an eyebrow much less a mention from those in the establishment ‘mediaverse’, no matter how pertinent it might be to the narrative in hand. It’s another of what I’ve come to calling the ‘no-fly-zones’ of political discourse and public debate, the real estate therein expanding at a rate of knots as we speak.
As the Praetorian Guards of the Empire’s Liar’s, the complicity of the media in promoting and facilitating the regime change agenda, and then camouflaging it as something quite different from what it really represents is, whilst reprehensible and indefensible, understandable. As we’ll continue to explore in further episodes, the “establishment” media—again largely controlled by Israel and those sympathetic to it—is defined so for a reason.
With everything that is presently transpiring in the U.S., it’s clear America’s foreign policy agents provocateurs du jour are always on the lookout for their next big fix, a reality underscored by the fact they still have Iran in their sights, with the blowback in Ukraine and Syria still a work in progress. The policy of regime change—as hitherto noted the wrecking ball in the foreign policy toolbox—continues to hold sway, permeating the rarefied atmosphere of the Imperium, with Venezuela holding pole position on the regime renovators dance-card.
It seems though that with every successive effort by the U.S. and its proxies to destabilise countries and dethrone their elected leaders, they pay less attention to disguising their real motives and covering their tracks, and more attention to ignoring their failures and, when this gambit falters, simply downplaying their disasters. That this reality should awaken more folks to the hollowness and hubris of America’s much-touted rep as a “force for good in the world” or a “beacon of freedom” is a given for those of us with a more clear-eyed view of how much chaos, destruction, bloodshed, and geopolitical instability this default policy prescription engenders and leaves in its wake.
When considering America’s role in global affairs such as they are at the present, its high time we all re-arranged the furniture in our cognitive living rooms, and further contemplated the following: nothing is going to change in the execution of U.S foreign policy, until pretty much everything else does. And it would be foolish in the extreme for anyone to think that Donald Trump if re-elected later this year is likely to change all that.
On a slightly different note to wind up, I recall vividly from many years ago an interview with the infamous beat writer/poet and unreconstructed misanthrope William Burroughs, whose view of his fellows (even on a good day) might’ve at best been described as ‘darkly pessimistic’. When asked if he held out much hope for the future of humanity at large given our seemingly inherent, implacable complacency (perhaps the root cause of our current existential malaise), his reply was an unequivocal ‘No!’
For Burroughs (like the already name checked Thompson, was no slouch when it came to addiction and viewing politics and its practitioners through a dark lens), the future was as bleak as it was straight to the point: ‘The only thing that might save humanity [from itself]’, he opined unambiguously, ‘was a good, swift kick up the collective arse’.
Seems we might be in for that “good, swift kick up the collective arse” sooner rather than later. The bad news is that “good, swift kick” up the patootie and any epiphanies that might come with it may well arrive too late for us all.
Here is a list of authors and their books that critique America's interventionist foreign policy:
William Blum
America’s Deadliest Export: Democracy – The Truth About US Foreign Policy and Everything Else
Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II
Noam Chomsky
Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance
Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy
John Perkins
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
The Secret History of the American Empire: Economic Hit Men, Jackals, and the Truth about Global Corruption
Stephen Kinzer
Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq
The True Flag: Theodore Roosevelt, Mark Twain, and the Birth of American Empire
Andrew Bacevich
The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism
America’s War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History
Chalmers Johnson
Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire
The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, & the End of the Republic
Michael Parenti
Against Empire
The Face of Imperialism
Jeremy Scahill
Dirty Wars: The World Is a Battlefield
Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army
Greg Grandin
Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism
End of the Myth: From the Frontier to the Border Wall in the Mind of America
Dean Henderson
Big Oil & Their Bankers In the Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families and Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics and Terror Network
These books provide in-depth analyses and critiques of US foreign policy, often focusing on the consequences of military interventions, economic influence, and political strategies employed by the United States across different regions and historical periods. I’ll list more in Episode Two. There’s a big menu to choose from.— GM
😱👉 The Complete, Post Modern, New Age Idiots’ Guide to the Dark, Subversive, Malevolent Forces that Shape the New World Order in Which we Live.
Friends and subscribers, what follows are some semi-serious reflections on conspiracies, conspiracy theories, and their respective devotees. And same on one of the most successful, enduring and popular PSYOPS/social engineering experiments in living memory. Now six decades in the making. Still going strong.
🗣👉 ‘There’s never been a conspiracy in this country.’ —Duane Clarridge, former senior CIA ‘black ops’ spook, exercising the Company’s bespoke prerogative aka “plausible deniability”. Pardoned by president George HW Bush for his role in the Iran-Contra conspiracy.
🗣👉 ‘When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.’ — “Sherlock Holmes”
🗣👉 ‘I have certain rules I live by. My first rule: I don't believe anything the government tells me.’ — George Carlin
Preamble: For too long the proprietary domain of the time-rich whack-job, in an age of growing paranoia, insecurity, fear, loathing, mistrust, animus, and suspicion—propelled as it is by mounting government, corporate and institutional surveillance, secrecy, treachery, incompetence, corruption, subterfuge, propaganda, censorship, maladministration and criminality at the highest levels of power—it’s perhaps time to ‘rehab’ the rep of the much-maligned “conspiracy theory”, and in particular go in to bat for and on behalf of its more dedicated practitioners past and present. We’re talking here those occasionally ‘useful nuisances’ we like to call “conspiracy theorists”.
Having secured the perimeter, dead-bolted the doors n' windows, and drawn the drapes n’ blinds, it's time to embark on what might turn out to be a quixotic quest, to wit: Compiling a post modern, new age idiots’ guide to the dark, malevolent, subversive, conspiratorial forces shaping the New World Order into which we’re slowly but assuredly being socially and psychologically engineered. With desperate times calling for even more desperate theories, in this third instalment in a series Greg Maybury breaks out the aluminum foil, of which there’s plenty to go round for all. Read on...😉|
— The Conventional Wisdom and Ignorance of Conspiracy
In one of his less sardonic ruminations on the peculiar psycho-pathology of his fellow man, Mark Twain drolly suggested that ‘Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.’
In a not dissimilar vein, the great American satirist and closet misanthrope Ambrose Bierce—author of the deliciously diabolical Devil’s Dictionary—opined that, ‘Doubt, indulged and cherished, is in danger of becoming denial; but if honest, and bent on thorough investigation, it may soon lead to full establishment of the truth*.’
‘If a conspiracy theory is simply a theory which posits a conspiracy, then every politically and historically literate person is a big-time conspiracy theorist, since every such person subscribes to a vast range [of theories]. That is, historically literate people believe organised bodies of propositions that explain alleged facts by positing conspiracies. [T]here are many facts which admit of no non-conspiratorial explanation and many conspiracy theories that are well established to qualify as knowledge. This affords us a deductive argument for the claim that it is not irrational to believe in some conspiracy theories, an argument that proceeds from premises that it is difficult to rationally deny.’ [Emphasis added]
With these thoughts in mind then, we should consider the following when examining the conspiracy theory contrivance. Although they might be in the minority, human history is ‘littered’ with the mortal remains of outliers who at first doubted then courageously defied the ‘received ignorance’ of the era and/or rejected the rigid beliefs, holy writs and entrenched prejudices and bias of their contemporaries. Then only to have the passage of time vindicate, elevate and then revere them on the one hand and—on the other—relegate their detractors and persecutors to the trash bin of that same history.
Though it’s probably fair to say he didn’t have conspiracy theories per se in mind at the time, we might say that this aligns very much with the proposition attributed to the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer: ‘All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.’
Oh what might have been for humanity and the civilised world then had the peoples of the era listened more closely to the “outliers”, and paid less attention to their detractors and defended them from their persecutors. We might safely say these “outliers” included many a derided, “loony-toon conspiracy theorist”, though they probably weren’t described as such at the time.
As a corollary to Bierce’s above rumination on doubt—a fundamental prerequisite for any budding conspiracy theorist—it is incumbent upon us to consider another key element herein: This is the courage to express that doubt and question the assumptions and received wisdom that give rise to it.The phrase “condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance” (often attributed to Einstein but whose provenance remains uncertain), serves to underscore this observation.
(*Author Note: Readers may find my feature length exploration of such themes The Psychic Dangers of our Infected Minds (With a Lie this Large) of interest here. This was written at the height of the Covid “pandemic” and attempted a deep dive into the fear, panic, hysteria and paranoia that prevailed throughout—for which there’s now ample evidence it was deliberately fomented then exploited for reasons unrelated to the protection of our public health. In other words, the whole Covid gambit was one of our biggest conspiracies, one which remains a work in progress. We’ll explore this proposition further in a future episode.)
The World’s Most Famous ‘Tuft’ of Turf (avec the Picket Fence)
Who are the real “conspiracy theorists” then? Those who believe in them because of the overwhelming evidence, or those who deny them in spite of such evidence? Whenever even the most circumspect of individuals ruminate on the possibility that official explanations for seminal historical events may not be quite what the power political elites would have us believe, for less polite folks not similarly predisposed, the first and last refuge is the evergreen Pavlovian response: “Oh, you’re just another one of those conspiracy theorists, aren’t you?”, or some variation thereof.
Yet there are studies which strongly suggest that contrary to mainstream-media stereotypes, those designated “conspiracy theorists” are saner, more rational than those who uncritically accept the official versions of events. One such study was published in 2013 by psychologists Michael Wood and Karen Douglas of the University of Kent in the UK. Titled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,”this paper compared “conspiracist”(i.e. pro-conspiracy) and “conventionalist” (i.e. anti-conspiracy) comments at various websites. Here’s what they found:
‘….among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is nowthe conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.’ [My emphasis].
However much as this may be the case, it doesn’t mean that the “small, beleaguered minority” are copping it sweet and allowing the “conspiracists” free rein over our political reality. Not by a long shot, this time from another, entirely different building, that being the one called the Texas School Book Depository! Well might we say they have come too far and worked too hard to give up the ghost now. As it is they’re fighting back, as they have been for some time, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable. Indeed, not only are they defending to their respective deaths old favourites, as we’ll see they are no slouches at inventing new conspiracies for folks to theorise about. It was ever thus.
In this respect, the estimable Paul Craig Roberts—insofar as we can gather a man not normally known for his promiscuous embrace of all things conspiratorial (theoretical or otherwise), after noting that the concept of the ‘conspiracy theory’ has undergone an “Orwellian redefinition”, and interestingly using The 9/11 Thing as his reference point—observed the following:
‘A “conspiracy theory” no longer means an event explained by a conspiracy. It means any explanation, or fact, that’s out of step with the government’s explanation and that of its media pimps. For example, online news broadcasts of RT have been equated with conspiracy theories by the New York Times (NYT) simply because RT reports news and opinions that the [NYT] does not report [on] and the US government does not endorse.’ [My emphasis]
— One Man’s Conspiracy is another Man’s Coincidence
The following perhaps presents more evidence of the ‘best form of defence is attack’ mindset of the “conventionalists”.
In 2008, professors Adrian Vermeule (Harvard Law School) and Cass Sunstein (Chicago U Law School)—the former later becoming chief of President Barack Obama‘s decidedly Orwellian White House Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs—released a paper titled “Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas”. This treatise on all things conspiratorial—later turned into a book, natch—came complete with suggestions on how the then US government might respond to their proliferation and increasing acceptance.
Vermeule & Sunstein — Self Anointed “Crippled Epistemologists of Conspiracy” (Wheelchairs not Shown)
Their proposals for managing the phenomenon—and by implication, the behaviour of conspiracy theorists and their not always small cults following—included everything from “cognitive infiltration” of pro-conspiracist groups, [to] effectively banning conspiracy theorising, and (I kid you not), levying a surcharge (tax) on those who propagate and/or disseminate such theories. One imagines this is akin to their version of a swear jar for the chronic Tourette’s Syndrome sufferer!
Now quite apart from the curiously anomalous fact that these recommendations came from a constitutional lawyer and, to boot, a mate of the then POTUS—himself a former constitutional lawyer and a president who, prior to being elected, purported to be a champion of more than one of the bedrocks of said Constitution, e.g. free speech—it seems like the paranoia, insecurity, fear and anxiety commonly associated with the “conspiracists” is now manifesting itself decidedly more so with the “conventionalists”. And how, one might add.
SIDEBAR: It may come as little surprise that Sunstein is the ‘hubbie’ of Samantha Power, who as Obama’s gung-ho, ultra-hawk UN ambassador, was part of the then White House inner circle. She was also one of the so-called ‘liberal interventionists’, those whom I’ve long dubbed the “Beltway Bedlamites”. Power and her ilk did as much as any insider to foster the conspiratorial group-think that to this day still informs Washington’s increasingly dangerous posture toward Russia. As with Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan—another of the Beltway’s infamous power couples and fully paid-up subscribers of that same anti-Russian, anti-Putin cabal—we can only speculate as to the pillow talk. Oh to be the proverbial fly on the walls therein.
Given any such development, whilst one is tempted to say “rightly so”, one is also left with more evidence—if it was required—that this president pulled off one of America’s greatest conspiratorial gambits himself by getting his ass elected from the off considering his campaign shill. It is also tempting to muse on why Sunstein and Vermeule, after making these Constitution-defying proposals, didn’t go the ‘full Monty’ as it were and advocate conspiracy theorists be clamped in the stocks in the town square sans habeas corpus, legal counsel and due process, and then have the townsfolk pelt rotten vegetables at them. And if they persisted, [then] have them tarred and feathered and run out of town! OK, I digress, but am hoping folks will forgive my sardonic sidesteps on this occasion.
Yet one of those contentious areas we might’ve expected these people to address was the following. The authors, along with the general coterie of conspiracy debunkers and denialists—especially the always compliant members of the Fourth Estate—studiously avoid any consideration of the reality that governments’, organisations’ and institutions’ general inclination towards scandal, subterfuge, and secrecy itself is the primary catalyst for conspiratorial conjecture. They are either oblivious to, or simply ignoring, the principle of cause and effect. In short, these blokes are ‘putting the horse behind the cart’ as it were.
Moreover, the failure or refusal of those same governments etc. and/or their successors to satisfactorily respond to the issues at the heart of the theorising—usually premised on the basis of that hoary old chestnut ‘national security’—is inevitably going to fuel even more theorising. This, not just about a particular theory, but about any event for which there are considered to be less than plausible explanations. And of the latter, from the distant past to the present, it probably goes without saying that there is no shortage.
With all this in mind, now may be as good a time as any for some slightly ‘off piste’ theorising about theorising. For that we take a step back into the literary past.
In Miguel Cervantes’ great literary epic The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha (aka Don Quixote),whenever the eponymous hero saw windmills in his travels, he boldly suggested the following to Sancho Panza, his devoted, albeit long-suffering squire: ‘Those giants that you can see over there Sancho, with long arms: [they are] giants with arms almost six miles long.’
The bemused Sancho replied: ‘Those aren’t giants, they’re windmills, and what look to you like arms are sails—when the wind turns them they make the millstones go round.’ To which Don Quixote responded:
‘It is perfectly clear, that you are but a raw novice in this matter of adventures. They are giants; and if you are frightened, you can take yourself and say your prayers while I engage them in fierce, arduous combat.’
The Don & Sancho — Another Day, Another Windmill, Another Conspiracy
With this exchange in mind, the outward adventures and the inner imaginings of Cervantes’ iconic and woefully idealistic protagonist provide us a rich reservoir of allusions to, and insights into, the conspiracy-theory construct. We might begin by viewing The ‘Don’ himself as the novel’s conspiracy theorist-in-residence, and Sancho as the conspiracy debunker (or at least skeptic). Either way, key memes and motifs evident in this hugely influential novel are useful to gaining a better understanding of any real or imagined conspiracy itself.
For his part Quixote sees corruption, decadence and un-gentlemanly conduct everywhere while others appear either oblivious or indifferent to—even defensive of—this state of affairs. He sees unwelcoming, fortified castles where people see welcoming inns; he sees monstrous, menacing giants where others see innocuous windmills. And he pursues seemingly noble, virtuous quests that, for all their drifting pointlessness, ‘predictably’ produce very little of personal worth or insight for the novel’s eponymous hero or any of the characters. Or so it seems.
At its core, Don Quixote (the novel)is at once a solemn meditation on self-delusion and disillusion, the real and the imagined, [the difference between] reality and fantasy, sanity and madness, [and] between what is genuine and what is phoney. Only Don Quixote (the character) remains constantly moral and upright (more or less), while the world around him is persistently and infuriatingly indifferent, immoral, perverse, self-serving, possibly beyond redemption.
For his part ‘The Don’ doesn’t understand the world as it is, only how he sees it should be. And “the world” returns the favour. Indeed the knight-errant might be thought too delusional—a caballero without a full suit of armour as it were. To possess such morality and idealism reveals more about the world than it does about Quixote himself, not only about the nature of truth in the world and the certainty of our place in it, but about the nature of human existence and the inherent purpose of said existence. Y’know what I’m saying here dear reader—the ‘meaning-of-life’ shit.
So much of Quixote’s view on the world is a figment of his supposedly delusional musing on the possibilities of existence and his wild-eyed imaginings, which themselves inspire his meandering adventures, his adventures in turn, doubtless fuelling more imaginings. A personality-specific feedback loop of sorts.
The descriptor “quixotic”—along with meaning idealistic, impractical, or unrealistic, also describes behaviour of someone following beliefs even though they embrace foolish or unreachable goals—is derived from the book’s character of course. (A testament to be sure of its enormous literary, cultural, philosophical and, one might suggest, ‘political’ import.)
The Don then is caught up in the romance of noble deeds and the selfless pursuit of unattainable goals; idealistic without regard to practicality or allowing for the lack of idealism in others; and undertaking adventures along the sometimes rough and rocky high moral road unaccompanied and unencumbered by a leavening sense of reality, pragmatism and obvious purpose. His commitment to living chivalrously, with honour and good intentions toward all men (although less than perfect himself, ‘natch’), and with his moral compass unerringly pointing ‘north’, forbids him to allow wrongs to go uncorrected.
What this means is that if the Mediaeval Iberians had a term for ‘whack-job’ or ‘loony-toon’, ‘The Don’ would’ve ‘made the team’ without breaking a sweat. On the face of it his behaviour is irrational to many with whom he comes into contact. His seemingly vague, elusive, at best ambiguous goals are driven by a curiously anomalous, yet inexplicable, mix of paranoia and idealism with more than a smidgen of wishful thinking thrown into the mix for good measure, his pursuits and imaginings the butt of derision by other characters in the novel.
In short, the novel’s themes and memes concerning the nature of reality, deception, personal illumination, determination, [the] courage of one’s convictions, and simply doing the right thing, are especially applicable to the conspiracy theory construct. They are also, by definition, apposite to the inherent worth to the rest of us [of] the conspiracy theorists’ own motivations, imaginings and insights. As it is to the worth of the theory itself, whatever that theory is.
As noted, ‘The Don’ is the ‘knight-errant’—the ‘do-gooder’ trying to preserve the “universal” moral code. He attempts to coerce those around him and whom he meets on his ‘quixotic’ exploits, to face their own failure to maintain—or preparedness to preserve—the ‘old school’ system of virtue, of morality, of ‘proper conduct’. To use the contemporary vernacular, we might say The Don sees the world going to Hades in a hand basket. This is what drives him forward, against all odds seemingly, no small number of which may be of his own making.
Yet as noted—and this is where the exercise gets even more interesting—Don Quixote’s ironclad (sorry) commitment to courtesy, honour, truth and justice eventually does not go entirely unnoticed by those around him—even those who formerly sneered at his behaviour or found it naive, absurd even.
Now readers who have come this far should be able to see where this is going. If he was around today, one suspects The Don would gladly cop the conspiracy-theorist rap; he’dwear it as a badge of honour. He’d see threatening giants on/in/around/behind the Grassy Knoll (with the Picket Fence), the Stemmons Freeway Overpass, the Triple Underpass, the windows of the Dal-Tex Building, the rooftop of the Texas School Book Depository and maybe even in the storm-water drains underneath Dealey Plaza—where others don’t, or won’t.
And it is here of course that we bring the discussion full circle. Are conspiracy theorists—like the Don—’tilting at windmills’, or is there something more to their ‘gameplan’? Might we all have something to learn from them, just like the Don? In essence then, this is what this exercise is all about! For it is the divide that Cervantes so symbolically and yet at once, eloquently portrayed—the gulf of perception if one likes—between believers (theorists or truth-seekers) on the one hand, and non-believers (debunkers or truth deniers) on the other, that must be at the heart of this discussion from the off.
This is particularly so if we are to better understand our history and the not-so-grand political drivers of that overarching historical ‘chronicle’ and especially the motivations and machinations of the dramatis personae that comprise the cast of those who do create our daily reality.
John Judge — “Don’t Call me a Coincidence Theorist!”
— Noble Lies and Ignoble Truths
For the not quite so polite though there are still any number of descriptors for those who disbelieve or simply question official accounts of events, and I’ll leave that for curious readers and the more prurient minded to search.
It’s notable though the now deceased John Judge, long-time stalwart of the JFK research community, was reportedly content to be called a “conspiracy theorist”. By all accounts he wore the label well. Judge, who did his share of heavy lifting in restoring a badly needed measure of credibility into research of the conspiracy phenomenon itself and into specific conspiracies, did so however by reserving the right to call those dismissing him as a “conspiracy theorist”, [as] “coincidence theorists”.
Now the humorless, indignant mindset of the righteous conspiracy ‘defilers‘ is such that Judge’s ‘backatcha’ response would hardly have registered a ripple. But for those prepared to consider that some of those official explanations may not pass the smell test, his riposte was perfectly legitimate. His distinction between “conspiracy” and “coincidence” is singularly apposite to any understanding of history’s big events, developments and turning points.
Indeed, one might posit the idea that ultimately our insight into history—and the lessons to be learned from it—is premised on whether events were driven by either design or accident, with the truth in varying cases being, likely, more or less falling somewhere in between. (This refers to the design v accident theory of history,to be discussed in future episodes).
In both cases then, there is a lot to be learned to be sure. But given the antipathy most people have towards even the most plausible of conspiracy theories, we could be forgiven for thinking otherwise. To disregard a “conspiracy” as both precursor and consequence of events is to disregard all possibilities out of hand. It is notable that it is often eminent historians, investigative journalists, self-styled truth seekers and myriad other political animals who should know better that are the worst offenders. Certainly not the Sherlock Holmes way then!
SIDEBAR: The reasons for his passing aside, one imagines “The Judge” would be more than happy for the specifics of said demise to be the subject of any future conspiracy theory more so than a “coincidence theory”, the “coincidence” presumably in his case being “dying of natural causes”. I’m sure he’d appreciate the delicious irony, to say nothing of the wry amusement his friends, admirers and family might derive from such a development in the collective remembrance of his life and legacy.
Another tangent is worth exploring herein. As one Foster Gamble has noted, conspiracies are sometimes “philosophically justified” by those who perpetrate them via the notion of the “noble lie”. One suspects though this happens only when the noble lie has eventually been indisputably outed by some intrepid theorist or investigative journalist, and is generally deemed with the benefit of such hindsight to have been less than noble after all. A text-book case-study of such might be the Iran-Contra conspiracymentioned in the epigraph, although there is no dearth of examples.
Gamble says that the term “noble lie” was coined by Leo Strauss, one of the philosophical ‘godfathers’ of the neo-conservative movement. No surprises there one supposes. This is especially so when we consider the position to where Leo’s devotees still strutting the political stage today have brought us all thus far via their unending if not always unerring secretive and subversive machinations. In short, they are no strangers to the mostly no-so-noble lie.
Leo Strauss — Father of the “Noble Lie”
For his part Strauss advocated state political propaganda and covert actions no less to “protect a society’s traditional beliefs” from “unrestrained inquiries“—or in other words—”conspiratorial theorizing.” Herein it’s safe to say the aforementioned Sunstein, Vermeule et. al. and their ilk proudly include themselves amongst the Straussian cabal of devotees. As Gamble sees it:
‘Strauss believed that scientific criticism of official accounts of important historical events, even when those criticisms were true, undermined respect for the nation’s laws and traditional beliefs. ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ and ‘regime change’ are examples of “noble lies”—untruths put forth to achieve an end goal that could not be achieved without manufactured evidence (e.g. a false-flag operation) to sway public opinion.” [My emphasis]
— Meanwhile, Back Down on “The Farm”
As we’ve already noted, the Grand American Narrative boasts a rich legacy of conspiracy and conspiracy theorising, and we’ve only scratched the surface. When it comes to all things conspiratorial, even ‘Honest’ Abe Lincoln—a man whose own murder is the subject of much entirely plausible conspiracy theorising—threw his iconic stovepipe hat into the ring. From what follows we can surmise that he may have been at least a closet conspiracy theorist, to wit:
‘When we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out of different times and places, and by different workmen...and when we see those timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house, in such a case we find it impossible not to believe that...all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan, drawn up before the first [hammer] blow was struck.’ [My emphasis]
Clearly, when speaking of conspiracy, Abe was onto something methinks. Given the circumstances of his assassination, in death then we can further assume he’d be even more inclined toward this view! Not to be outdone, one of his estimable successors Franklin D Roosevelt (FDR)—by accounts no stranger to the odd conspiracy both of his own constructand of those who might have conspired against him—felt compelled to weigh into the fray, albeit with a less enigmatic, more ‘thrifty’ (to be expected given the times one supposes) theory of his own. He had this to say:
‘In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.’ [My emphasis]
OK, I have to go now. The phone’s running hot again. That’ll be the Langley Gang calling. Can’t keep the Spy v Spy mob waiting. I’m hoping they’ll magnanimously provide some more conspiracy theories for me to digest, ponder, expand on and proliferate. Or they may just want to experiment with some new and innovative, enhanced-interrogation techniques. In this latter respect however I’m not sure that I’ll be of much assistance to them as I don’t know much about anything really, but I expect that’s unlikely to be of any great concern to them. They’d do it just for the hell of it, not necessarily because they need the practice. Though who better to “practice” on than a ‘fly-in-the-ointment’, ‘pain-in-the-ass’, “counter-subversive hypothetician” like your humble? Not that I’m volunteering mind you. I’m too old for that shit! In any event I’m sure they have bigger fish to fry.
Oh, and a couple more things. If perchance the next planned episode doesn’t materialise however, and you never hear from me again, I invite all and sundry to start spreading your own bespoke theories (hypotheses?) about my ultimate fate, regardless of what my autopsy report or death certificate says. The more outlandish, outrageous and over-the-top the better. Like John Judge I expect, for my part I’d be more than happy to leave behind a lasting legacy that was coloured and flavoured by all sorts of conspiracy theories as to the specifics of my untimely demise and the motivations of the culprits behind it. There may be better ways to achieve a measure of immortality, but as of this mo’, given all is said and done, I’m hard pressed to think of any.
On the other hand, I do urge readers though not to believe a goddamned word of anything that comes out of the mouths of the intrepid Gang down on The Farm in Virginny! We should know by now their track record for telling the truth is patchy, their moral universe pitted with black holes! Moreover, their truth in war and—now just as much it seems—in peace is almost always escorted by a Praetorian Body Guard of lies, armed to the teeth and backed up with everything from Reaper drones, Enhanced Sniper Rifles and TASER Shockwave, the threat of torture, rendition, assassination, or permanent incarceration, themselves all accompanied by more or less equal parts ulterior motive and extreme prejudice!
But still their best weapon of all is the “conspiracy theory” contrivance.
Notwithstanding then the Company’s positioning statement, “the truth shall set you free”—etched in marble as it is in the foyer of its Langley fortress so everyone gets the point—the “truth” as most of us counter-subversive hypotheticians have come to know and love it, clearly has limits. It’s either that or the CIA—and one imagines their partners-in-crime the mainstream media (MSM) along with of course their political masters past and present—long ago developed its own definition of said “truth” and is keeping that to itself for a ‘rainy day’.
Put simply, the Langley ‘farmhands’ don’t like having alternative realities to their own singularly versioned “truth” aired anywhere in the public domain. Unless of course it’s alimited hangout, but that mon cheries is a story for another episode.
See you next week (fingers crossed, and fingernails intact).
Greg Maybury, 27 July, 2024
Dispatches from the No Fly Zone is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
