Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Tulsi Gabbard releases ‘overwhelming evidence’ of Obama coup plot against Trump

RT | July 18, 2025

Former President Barack Obama’s administration deliberately manipulated intelligence to frame Russia for interfering in the 2016 presidential election, according to newly declassified documents released on Friday by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.

Gabbard unveiled more than 100 pages of emails, memos, and internal communications, which she described as “overwhelming evidence” of a coordinated effort by senior Obama-era officials to politicize intelligence and launch the multi-year Trump–Russia collusion investigation. She dubbed it “a treasonous conspiracy to subvert the will of the American people.”

The scandal severely damaged relations between Moscow and Washington, leading to sanctions, asset seizures, and a breakdown in normal diplomacy.

”This intelligence was weaponized,” Gabbard said. “It was used as a justification for endless smears, for sanctions from Congress, and for covert investigations.” She added: “When key internal assessments found that Russia ‘did not impact recent U.S. election results,’ those findings were suppressed.”

“For months before the 2016 election, the Intelligence Community maintained that Russia lacked both the intent and capability to hack U.S. elections,” Gabbard noted. “But once President Trump won, everything changed.”

One document — a draft President’s Daily Brief dated December 8, 2016 — stated Russia “did not impact recent U.S. election results” through cyberattacks. The report, prepared by the CIA, NSA, FBI, DHS, and other agencies, found no evidence of voting interference.

Yet Fox News reported on Friday that the document was pulled — “based on new guidance,” according to internal emails. Hours later, a high-level Situation Room meeting took place, attended by officials including DNI James Clapper, CIA Director John Brennan, National Security Adviser Susan Rice, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

According to declassified notes, attendees agreed to produce a new intelligence assessment at President Obama’s request. That report, released on January 6, 2017, claimed Russia had intervened in the election to help Donald Trump — directly contradicting earlier assessments.

Gabbard claims the revised assessment leaned on the discredited Steele Dossier — compiled by a former British spy — while sidelining dissenting views within the intelligence apparatus. “This was not intelligence gathering,” Gabbard stated. “It was narrative building.”

Confirmed as DNI earlier this year — after a contentious process — Gabbard says she has forwarded the documents to the Department of Justice. She has urged investigations into former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey, who are reportedly facing criminal inquiries. “No matter how powerful, every person involved must be brought to justice,” she stressed. “Our nation’s integrity depends on accountability.”

“The integrity of our democratic republic depends on full accountability,” Gabbard concluded. “Nothing less will restore the public’s trust — and ensure nothing like this ever happens again.”

July 18, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Russophobia | , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Tucker Carlson at Turning Point USA: Epstein Was a Mossad Agent and IDF Soldiers Should Lose U.S. Citizenship

By Kevin MacDonald | The Occidental Observer | July 15, 2025

Things are looking up for being able to be honest about Jewish issues in mainstream forums. I couldn’t be happier that this is coming out from a mainstream conservative at a major mainstream conservative conference. It’s been a long time coming, and we are still not there. But there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Carlson is much hated by the ADL which oddly has not commented on this latest faux pas. But they have lots to say about Turker’s endorsement of the great replacement “conspiracy theory.”

Carlson claimed that Epstein had “connections to a foreign government”:

“It’s extremely obvious to anyone who watches that this guy had direct connections to a foreign government.” “Now no one’s allowed to say that that foreign government is Israel because we have been somehow cowed into thinking that’s naughty.”

Lots of Jewish angst about this — and about Carlson’s statement that Jews who served in the IDF should lose their U.S. citizenship. Common sense, but since when has common sense been relevant to anything related to Jewish power. Any accusation of dual loyalty is considered anti-Semitism according to the official definition of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, so I guess Carlson is now officially an anti-Semite, along with Charlie Kirk and a whole lot of people who attended the conference.

From the Forward:

Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News host and a leader in the Republican Party’s isolationist wing, said that Americans who previously served in the Israeli Defense Forces should have their U.S. citizenship revoked over concerns of dual loyalty. At the same time, he also criticized the Trump administration for trying to deport pro-Palestinian students who engaged in anti-Israel activity on campus.are a lot of Americans who’ve served in the IDF — they should lose their citizenship,” Carlson said in a 45-minute speech on Saturday at the Turning Point USA Student Action Summit in Tampa, Florida. “You can’t fight for another country and remain an American, period.”

Carlson, who has promoted antisemitic tropes [simply for saying Zelenskyy is a dictator who has suppressed Christianity] and has been associated with white nationalists [i.e., Darryl Cooper!!], explained that his position is an “obvious recognition of the truth” and applies to all countries. He mocked his critics — “they just write you off as some sort of internet freak, hater, Nazi” — and said it is “fair to demand that the people running my country love it every bit as much as I do.”

The founder of the organization Carlson spoke to is Charlie Kirk, a conservative podcaster who has accused Jews of financing “anti-white causes.” Several Trump cabinet members and Republican officials attended and spoke at the three-day conference.

And of course, Jews in high places deny Epstein had any connections to Mossad.

From the JTA comment on Naftali Bennet’s tweet:

Carlson has long faced allegations of antisemitism, including over his promotion of white supremacist ideas while on Fox News and his hosting of a Holocaust denier on his X stream last year.

More recently, he has been at the vanguard of a different divide within the MAGA movement over foreign policy, centering on Israel. Carlson and others heavily criticized Trump’s decision to join Israel’s military offensive against Iran’s nuclear program, with Carlson accusing Trump of being “complicit” in Israel’s “act of war.”

Carlson sends out a daily email to subscribers. This is from the July 14th email and basically summarizes his points at his talk. Notice he highlights Jewish activist Ben Shapiro as wanting to move on.

It seems likely that Jeffrey Epstein worked on behalf of an intelligence service. Probably not an American one.

So which country was it? The fact that so few reporters have bothered to dig into that question could prove to be this century’s most egregious example of journalistic malpractice. How did the notorious pedophile go from being a high school math teacher with no college degree to having a private island and one of the most luxurious residences in Manhattan? Doesn’t that seem weird? What was the source of his money? Why has nobody ever really looked into it?

To anyone paying attention, the obvious conclusion is that Epstein had direct connections to a foreign government. To the Israeli government. That is true even though saying it out loud is forbidden in mainstream political discourse, but there’s nothing wrong with having the gall to do just that. It doesn’t matter what screeching shills like Mark Levin say. Telling the truth is not hateful, nor is it anti-Semitic or even anti-Israel.

Criticizing the behavior of a government agency, any government agency, does not make you a bigot. It makes you a free person. You are allowed to hold them to account because you’re not a slave; you are a citizen. That means you have the right to expect your government to act in your interest and to demand that foreign governments that suck up your tax dollars do the same. Israel using America’s most famous serial sex criminal as an intelligence asset would not fit that description.

So did it happen? A few people have asked the Israeli government that question, but they’ve received no real answers. That is unacceptable. As long as America keeps cutting generous checks to that foreign power, it should have to report to us. If it refuses, no more payments. The rules are simple.

In the meantime, we can’t help but notice a strange new talking point emerging on the Right.

“The Epstein story doesn’t even matter!” the Ben Shapiros of the world now claim. “So shut up about it already!”

That is obvious nonsense. The truth behind Epstein, his death, his connections, and how he got so rich matters a lot. The pedophile wasn’t killed during a walk down the street or even in his own home. He died in a high-security prison in the heart of America’s largest city. It was supposed to be among the most secure places in the world. That means whatever force is responsible for Epstein’s demise orchestrated the killing in among the most difficult conditions possible, and they did it while hardly breaking a sweat. Whoever pulled that off really runs our country. If they could do it to him, they could definitely do it to you, too.

Why would the Shapiro caucus not want to get to the bottom of that? You know the answer. It’s because they have something to hide

The refrain on the right is that Epstein matters because he is a window into who rules the U.S. And one would be forgiven for thinking that the reason for the cover-up is to hide the involvement of Mossad in an elaborate blackmail scheme. We also deserve to know what the deep state is hiding about the JFK assassination—another phenomenally important event in which there is good reason to think that Israel and the CIA were involved, and another incident where Trump said he would be completely transparent.


Video Link

July 15, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Ex-CIA chief could face Russiagate ‘perjury’ probe – media

RT | July 7, 2025

Former CIA Director John Brennan could face a perjury probe over his role in the 2016 “Russiagate” conspiracy, which claimed Moscow worked to undermine Hilary Clinton’s unsuccessful presidential campaign in favor of Donald Trump, according to US media.

The current chief of the US spy agency, John Ratcliffe, has claimed that senior security officials manipulated aspects of the investigation, which was commissioned by then-President Barack Obama in 2016.

Republican critics have long maintained that the final document was politically motivated and intended to damage Trump’s first presidency. Moscow has denied interfering in the US electoral process or “colluding” with Trump’s campaign.

Last month, Ratcliffe declassified an internal CIA review of the 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), which some media outlets claim proves that Brennan lied under oath during a closed-door congressional hearing in 2017. Allegations of this nature have circulated for years.

”John Ratcliffe is a genius,” a congressional source told Breitbart News in comments published on Sunday. “He just got career CIA officers to admit the 2016 ICA was corrupted and to offer up Brennan on a silver platter… The DOJ could have a field day with this.”

A second source said lawmakers were “stunned” by the contents of the internal review, claiming Brennan “knew the entire time that he was trying to wreck Trump’s presidency before it even started.”

The declassified review, released June 26, includes testimony from an intelligence official who described Brennan’s influence over the inclusion of references to the Steele dossier in the ICA. The dossier – a collection of unverified allegations linking Trump’s campaign to Russia – was compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele and funded by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

The intelligence official said Brennan “showed a preference for narrative consistency over analytical soundness.” The spy chief reportedly wrote to skeptics: “My bottom line is that I believe that the information warrants inclusion in the report.” In his 2017 testimony, Brennan reportedly claimed he had not advocated for the dossier to be mentioned in the ICA.

Senior US intelligence officials are rarely prosecuted for misleading the public, even when the available evidence appears compelling. One notable example is James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, who told Congress in 2013 that the National Security Agency was not “wittingly” collecting data on millions of American citizens.

Documents later leaked by Edward Snowden showed that the agency was doing precisely that. The former NSA contractor is facing prosecution in the US for exposing the mass surveillance program and was granted asylum in Russia.

July 7, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Vance Unwittingly Reminds Us of the Jose Padilla Case

By Jacob G. Hornberger – FFF – June 27, 2025

In mocking California Senator Alex Padilla by referring to him as “Jose,” Vice President Vance has unwittingly reminded us of the Jose Padilla case. The Padilla case showed us how government officials use “crises” to destroy the civil liberties of the people.

The 9/11 attacks motivated U.S. officials to declare a “war on terrorism,” which turned out to be a bigger racket than their Cold War racket had been. Not only did the attacks fortify and reinforce the national-security state governmental structure that had come into existence to ostensibly protect us from the Reds, they also firmly established that the national-security establishment was not bound by the Bill of Rights.

Soon after the attacks, the Pentagon and the CIA set up a terrorist prison camp and torture center at their imperial base located in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Why Cuba? Because the Pentagon and the CIA were hoping that they would have full and complete control over the base — that is, that they would not be restrained by constitutional niceties and not be interfered with by the U.S Supreme Court and the federal judiciary. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, it was an interesting mindset given the oath that national-security state officials take to support and defend the Constitution.

Things didn’t work out as planned, however, because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it had judicial jurisdiction over Gitmo. That motivated the Pentagon and the CIA to establish a separate and independent judicial system at Gitmo for prosecuting accused terrorists, one that was totally different from the federal judicial system that had been established under the Constitution.

For example, while the federal judicial system guaranteed the right of trial by jury, the Pentagon-CIA judicial system employed kangaroo military tribunals. Moreover, under the federal judicial system, officials were prohibited from torturing people into confessing to crimes. At Gitmo, torture became a regular feature of life at Gitmo.

How would it be decided which system would be used with respect to each accused terrorist? U.S. officials had the discretionary power to decide which system would be used. The difference would be night and day. For example, in the constitutional system, an accused had the right to a speedy trial. In the Gitmo system, there are accused terrorists who are still waiting for a trial after some 20 years.

Given the widespread fear among the populace of “the terrorists,” many Americans were fine with this new dual judicial system, notwithstanding the fact that it was not authorized by the Constitution. What mattered to them was that the Pentagon and the CIA were supposedly keeping them safe from “the terrorists,” just as they had supposedly kept them safe from the Reds.

Equally important, people were convinced that the Gitmo system was going to be limited to foreigners. Therefore, the violation of the civil liberties that our American ancestors had enshrined in the Bill of Rights was considered no big deal. Never mind that our ancestors intended that the Bill of Rights apply to everyone, including foreigners.

But the notion that the destruction of civil liberties would be limited to foreigners was always misguided. After all, a terrorist is a terrorist. Why would an American terrorist be any different from a foreign terrorist? And don’t forget: This was not only a foreign war on terrorism but rather a global war on terrorism.

Then along came Jose Padilla and things became clear. Padilla was initially charged with terrorism in U.S. District Court. That was the standard procedure. After all, terrorism is a federal criminal offense. That’s why there are criminal prosecutions for terrorism in federal district court.

But don’t forget: The Pentagon and the CIA now had their own judicial system for trying terrorism cases — the system they established in Cuba. U.S officials could now choose which judicial system to employ against terrorist suspects — the federal system or the Gitmo system.

Before too long, the Pentagon and the CIA yanked Padilla out of the federal system and placed him into military custody, where they proceeded to brutally torture him. They never actually sent him to Guantanamo but they could have.

Padilla was an American citizen. Deferring to the Pentagon and the CIA, the federal courts upheld his transfer out of the federal-court system and into the clutches of the Pentagon and the CIA.

Given the right “national emergency” in the future, there is no doubt that U.S. officials will employ that judicial ruling against every American who they label a “terrorist.”

Kudos to Vice President Vance for unwittingly reminding us of how federal officials used the “national emergency” of the  9/11 attacks to destroy the civil liberties of the American people.

June 28, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Subjugation - Torture | , , | Leave a comment

Trump aides pushed war on Iran with Mossad-fed intel, ignoring dissent

Al Mayadeen | June 22, 2025

The CIA and US Central Command are being used as tools by “Israel’s” Mossad to push the United States toward a full-scale war with Iran, a senior official in US President Donald Trump’s administration told The Grayzone.

According to the official, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and CENTCOM Commander Gen. Michael Kurilla regurgitated Israeli briefings, without disclosing their origin, to influence Trump directly.

The official described Ratcliffe as “Mossad’s stenographer”, arguing that Israeli intelligence shaped White House perceptions through intermediaries who bypass standard US intelligence vetting.

This manipulation completely sidelined dissenting voices, including Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and her deputy, Joe Kent, who have raised concerns about the consequences of escalation.

This April, The Grayzone published audio of AIPAC CEO Elliott Brandt boasting about his long-standing influence over Ratcliffe, calling him a “lifeline” inside the Trump administration. The recording detailed how AIPAC cultivated not only Ratcliffe but also Marco Rubio and Mike Waltz, both later appointed to key national security posts.

Waltz, according to The Grayzone, was forced out of his NSC role in May after being exposed for secretly coordinating an Iran strike plan with Israeli occupation Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The Grayzone also revealed that Rubio, now serving as acting National Security Director, holds more influence over cabinet-level operations than any official since Henry Kissinger.

Push for regime change, assassination

The Trump official also emphasized that Mossad and Israeli military briefers are singularly focused on regime change, not nuclear diplomacy. During meetings, they reportedly lobbied for the assassination of Iran’s leader, Sayyed Ali Khamenei.

The official added that Israeli briefings often emphasized apocalyptic scenarios, including unverified claims that Iran could hand off a nuclear weapon to Ansar Allah in under a week.

While Trump’s Iran envoy, Steve Witkoff, reportedly urged the president to maintain diplomatic channels, Israeli escalation strategies appeared calculated to collapse the negotiation process entirely, said The Grayzone.

Gabbard and Kent, both critical of unilateral military action, have reportedly been frozen out of meetings by Chief of Staff Suzie Wiles. Ratcliffe and Kurilla now dominate the president’s briefings. The CIA director has been accused of parroting Israeli memos, while Kurilla, dubbed “Israel’s” “favorite general”, has relentlessly made the case for direct US engagement in Iran.

As of June 13, Tel Aviv launched unilateral strikes on Iran, reportedly rushing to act before Kurilla’s retirement in July. Some former Pentagon officials suggested Kurilla’s presence was a deciding factor for Israeli timing.

Hiroshima-like horrors if US joins war

As reported by The Grayzone, at a June 8 Camp David meeting, Ratcliffe reportedly used a clumsy football metaphor to argue Iran was just “one yard away” from developing a nuclear bomb. Two days later, Gabbard released a video warning of Hiroshima-like horrors if warmongers pushed the US into conflict with an allegedly nuclear-capable state. Trump was said to be enraged.

By June 20, Gabbard publicly reaffirmed loyalty to Trump, though her assessment of Iran’s nuclear capability remained unchanged, claiming that while Iran could assemble a bomb in weeks or months, it had not yet done so.

Vice President JD Vance has reportedly held parallel Iran briefings, but Trump’s exposure remains largely confined to Fox News and advisors aligned with Israeli policy, according to The Grayzone.

According to former Trump advisor Steve Bannon, Fox has effectively become “a 24/7 commercial for war on Iran,” prompting him to call for a Foreign Agent Registration Act investigation.

As Trump returns to Washington, the former official told The Grayzone, “The party is on,” suggesting the president had already decided to act on Tel Aviv’s behalf, which, in fact, materialized early June 22, with the US conducting airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

June 22, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | 1 Comment

Risk of Escalation with Russia ‘Going Way Up’ Due to Ukrainian Attacks

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | June 4, 2025

President Donald Trump’s special envoy to the Ukraine conflict said that recent Ukrainian attacks on Russian air bases have created a significant risk of escalation in the war.

“I’m telling you, the risk levels are going way up – I mean, what happened this weekend,” Trump’s envoy, Keith Kellogg, told Fox News. “People have to understand in the national security space: when you attack an opponent’s part of their national survival system, which is their triad, the nuclear triad, that means your risk level goes up because you don’t know what the other side is going to do. You’re not sure.”

On Sunday, the Ukrainian intelligence service, the SBU, launched a major attack on Russian airbases thousands of miles from the front lines. Kiev claims to have disabled one third of Moscow’s fleet of strategic bombers.

Washington and Moscow each possess the ability to conduct nuclear attacks via bombers, submarines, and land-based ballistic missiles, known as the nuclear triad. The White House claims that it was not informed of the attack by Kiev. However, the CIA is deeply tied to the SBU.

The SBU has conducted other provocative attacks in recent days, hitting Russian railways and bridges and reportedly killing seven civilians.

Trump said he spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin about the attacks on Wednesday. “I just finished speaking, by telephone, with President Vladimir Putin, of Russia. The call lasted approximately one hour and 15 minutes,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “We discussed the attack on Russia’s docked airplanes, by Ukraine, and also various other attacks that have been taking place by both sides. It was a good conversation, but not a conversation that will lead to immediate Peace. President Putin did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields.”

June 5, 2025 Posted by | War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Was the U.S. Government Involved in Ukraine’s Drone Attack on Russia?

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | June 3, 2025

As the media is reporting, Ukraine just launched a massive drone attack that wreaked major destruction deep inside Russia. Ukrainian officials smuggled the drones in trucks into Russia and launched them from inside the country. U.S. officials and the U.S. mainstream press are praising the attack as a brilliant maneuver. They are hoping that the attack will force Russia to the negotiating table with the aim of bringing an end to the war.

One thing is clear: the attack now escalates the conflict in a major way. Ukraine has now shown that it can attack military installations, towns, and cities deep inside Russia,

An important question that is not being asked is: Did Pentagon or CIA officials serve as secret advisors or directors in the drone operation? Since Congress is effectively owned by the U.S. national-security establishment, it’s a question that unfortunately is not going to be asked by any congressional committee. Given the longtime deference to the national-security establishment by the mainstream media, the question is unlikely to come from them either and even if it did, there is no doubt that the Pentagon and CIA would deny it even if they were involved.

Why is the question important? Well, think about it: The U.S. government furnishes weaponry to the Ukrainian government to use against Russian forces. But let’s assume that it goes one step further than that. Let’s assume that it also assists, advises, and directs Ukrainian officials in the use of such weaponry.

That would mean, as a practical matter, that it was the U.S. government that launched that drone attack and was simply using Ukraine as its agent — in order to preserve “plausible deniability.” It would mean, as a practical matter, that it is the U.S. government that is using its weaponry to kill and injure Russian soldiers and destroy Russian armaments, not only in Ukraine but also deep inside Russia.

Ukraine and U.S. officials are hoping that Ukraine’s drone attack will force Russia to end the war. But what they are ignoring in this calculus is the big elephant in the room — NATO. It was because of NATO’s expansion eastward and its threat to absorb Ukraine that caused Russia to invade Ukraine in the first place.

After considerable sacrifice of men, money, and armaments, how likely is it that Russia would agree to a peace treaty that leaves NATO on Ukraine’s border and ready to absorb Ukraine on a moment’s notice? I say: Not likely at all. Even if a peace treaty promised that NATO would not absorb Ukraine, everyone knows that the U.S. government cannot be trusted to keep its word. After all, let’s not forget that U.S. officials promised that NATO would not move eastward, and it broke that promise.

Thus, with NATO still in existence and still on Ukraine’s border, why would Russia be interested in settling the war, given that that’s what motivated Russia to invade Ukraine in the first place? And yet we all know that U.S. officials would not think of dismantling NATO or even just moving it back to Western Europe as part of a peace treaty.

Given these intractable positions, the war will inevitably continue, notwithstanding the fondest hopes of U.S. and Ukrainian officials. But the problem is that the longer it goes on, the more dangerous it is becoming. What if U.S. officials actually are secretly assisting, advising, and directing Ukrainian attacks on Russia? Wouldn’t this be sufficient importantly that Congress, not the Pentagon and the CIA, should decide it? Isn’t that why the Constitution places the decision to go to war against another nation-state in the hands of Congress rather than the Pentagon and the CIA?

One of the big problems with war is its unpredictable nature. How long will Russia put up with U.S. armaments being used to kill and maim Russian soldiers and destroy Russian armaments and property without attacking the armaments before they reach Ukraine, especially if Russia concludes that it is actually the Pentagon and the CIA who are waging the war using Ukraine as their agent? If Russia were to attack such armaments before they arrived in Ukraine, say in staging grounds in NATO member Poland, we all know what that would mean — all-out nuclear war between the United States and Russia. Even if the U.S were to “win” such a war, the United States would cease to exist as a viable nation.

All this is simply to show that the U.S. national-security establishment, operating through its Cold War dinosaur NATO, is getting the United States ever close to the possibility of the nuclear destruction of our nation. Would “winning” a nuclear war with Russia be worth it? Is NATO worth it? I say no. I say it’s time to throw not only NATO into the dustbin of history but also the U.S. national-security state form of governmental structure that was foisted upon our land in the 1940s to protect us from the supposed international communist conspiracy that, U.S. officials claimed, was based in Moscow.

June 3, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

The CIA’s war-before-war: From Iraq to Iran

By Shivan Mahendrarajah | The Cradle | May 13, 2025

On 11 September 2001, while smoke still rose from the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, two meetings – one in Tel Aviv and the other in Washington – put Iraq in the crosshairs. Then-Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon convened an emergency meeting of his National Security cabinet and resolved to exploit the attacks to push for war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

Embedded Israeli agents in the hawkish Bush administration were tasked with advancing this agenda. Meanwhile, former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, initiated internal discussions on targeting Iraq.

According to then-secretary of state Colin Powell’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission, “Wolfowitz – not Rumsfeld – argued that Iraq was ultimately the source of the terrorist problem and should therefore be attacked.” It was he who insisted that Iraq was the root of the terror problem. Inside the Pentagon, “Wolfowitz continued to press the case for dealing with Iraq.”

On 11 September, the very same day of the terror attacks – and despite the fact that Washington immediately identified Afghanistan-based Al-Qaeda leaders as the culprits – CIA director George Tenet authorized the creation of the Iraq Operations Group (IOG), led by covert ops veterans Luis Rueda and John Maguire.

Within 24 hours, the two were drafting a blueprint for the destabilization of Iraq. Codenamed DB/ANABASIS (“DB” being the CIA’s cryptonym for Iraq), the plan was activated long before any formal declaration of war, and well before the American public was groomed to support the spurious allegation of WMDs in Iraq.

Rueda and Maguire brought deep experience in black ops from Latin America and Afghanistan. Both had failed in earlier efforts to topple Saddam – most notably with DB/ACHILLES in 1995. But now, the stage was set, the funding secured, and the political climate ripe.

The key takeaway: While the world focused on Al-Qaeda and Afghanistan, Iraq had already been chosen as the first target.

Operation DB/ANABASIS

Approved by US president George W. Bush in February 2002 and backed by $400 million, DB/ANABASIS was a playbook of sabotage, disinformation, psychological warfare, armed uprisings, and assassinations of Iraqi officials. Though the CIA is barred by law from conducting assassinations, euphemisms like “direct action operations” cloaked the intent.

The first objective was to deepen Saddam Hussein’s paranoia. By sowing chaos through subterfuge, the CIA hoped he would lash out – arresting, torturing, and executing his own personnel in a desperate attempt to root out traitors.

Maguire’s team entered Iraqi Kurdistan in April 2002, securing the cooperation of Kurdish leaders Masoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani in exchange for US guarantees. By fall, DB/ANABASIS was in full effect.

Iraq, already weakened by wars, sanctions, and a decade of no-fly zones, was being “softened up” before the invasion. The plan was not meant to replace war but to ensure a fragmented, broken state that could not resist one.

Target shift: From Iraq to Iran

In January 2002, president Bush delivered his infamous “Axis of Evil” speech, lumping Iran and Iraq together. The speech, written by neoconservative David Frum, who, like Oded Yinon – author of the “Yinon Plan” – was a disciple of Ariel Sharon.

It followed the strategic logic of the Israeli-authored “A Clean Break” report prepared in 1996 for Benjamin Netanyahu by Richard Perle, Doug Feith, and David Wurmser, among others. The original plan targeted Iraq, Iran, and Syria. To disguise Israeli fingerprints, North Korea was inserted as a decoy.

The strategy was straightforward: Take down Iraq first, then Iran. Once those fell, Syria and Hezbollah would be easy pickings.

Iraq fell in 2003. Syria has been shattered. Now, Iran remains the last domino. And the tools once used against Iraq are being dusted off and re-targeted. This is the CIA’s revised ANABASIS – but this time, it is for Iran.

Remaking ANABASIS for Iran

The principles of DB/ANABASIS are being applied in Iran today: sanctions to weaken the economy, sabotage and assassinations to create confusion and fear, and psychological operations to fracture public trust.

Iranian opposition groups are central to this new campaign. In 2012, former US president Obama removed the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) from the US State Department’s terrorism list. MEK was relocated to Albania, where it now operates from Camp Ashraf, launching cyber and terror attacks against the Islamic Republic.

The CIA also leverages Kurdish and Baluch separatists in its operations. Mossad, often in collaboration with the CIA, is suspected of orchestrating assassinations of scientists like Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, and terror attacks in Tehran (2017), Ahvaz (2018), Chahbahar (2019), and Shah Cheragh (2022, 2023). The recent Kerman (2024) attack fits the same mold.

Protests after Mahsa Amini’s death were swiftly hijacked by CIA – or Mossad-aligned operatives, armed with Molotov cocktails and firearms – a stark contrast to earlier demonstrations.

Fires in Bandar Abbas, Karaj, and Mashhad also fall within the scope of ANABASIS. These are not accidents – they are acts of economic and psychological sabotage.

The hidden war: Psychological and strategic impact

“Mr Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: ‘Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it’s enemy action’” – Goldfinger (1959).

A respected Iranian analyst described the sabotage in Bandar Abbas, Karaj, and Mashhad as “crude counter-value” strikes. That judgment understates the military and psychological impact: As in Lebanon, these acts damage infrastructure, kill civilians, and provoke panic.

Sabotage works best when it appears random yet coincides with political moments. When former speaker of parliament Ali Larijani appeared on television during the Karaj blackout, the message was clear: Your leaders cannot protect you.

Such operations trigger internal suspicion. Iranian security agencies must investigate colleagues, family members, and even friends. As they chase ghosts, trust breaks down. Counterintelligence will target security staff at affected sites, breeding paranoia. Tehran becomes obsessed with foreign infiltrators and moles.

During the Cold War, the KGB was adept at making the CIA suspect its own staff of betrayal. The resulting “mole hunts,” led by CIA counterintelligence chief James Angleton, devastated morale. The same dynamic is now being replicated in Iran.

The endgame: Collapse from within

The CIA’s strategy aims to destroy unity and morale as precursors to outright war. Washington and Tel Aviv hope that Iran, like Iraq before it, collapses from within under pressure from a disillusioned population.

Maguire once said that DB/ANABASIS was about “settling scores” with Saddam. This attitude – reducing foreign policy to vendettas – still dominates US strategic circles. Inside the Pentagon and CIA, figures view Iran through the lens of the 1979 hostage crisis and Tehran’s support for the Iraqi insurgency and Taliban.

American troops, particularly the US occupation army – which absorbed the brunt of IED attacks in Iraq – hold deep animosity toward Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). One especially deadly IED variant, the explosively formed penetrator (EFP), was attributed to Iranian design, with Israeli intelligence helpfully pointing fingers.

This animus, combined with pro-Israel sentiment and a black-and-white worldview, leads many in the Trump administration to align with Netanyahu – such as Mike Waltz, a leading advocate for confrontation with Iran. According to Foreign Policy :

[We are witnessing the] “ideological struggle between proponents of an America First ‘realist’ foreign policy, particularly regarding Iran, and an entrenched neoconservative faction that is pushing for regime change within yet another Middle Eastern country.”

Trump complains about the “Deep State,” but fails to see its true nature – a network not interested in jailing him, but in bypassing the presidency itself to advance long-standing agendas. For the Deep State and Israel alike, Iran has been the ultimate prize for decades.

May 13, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

USAID and the Architecture of Perception

By Joshua Stylman | February 16, 2025

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long portrayed itself as America’s humanitarian aid organization, delivering assistance to developing nations. With an annual budget of nearly $40 billion and operations in over 100 countries, it represents one of the largest foreign aid institutions in the world. But recent disclosures reveal its true nature as something far more systematic: an architect of global consciousness. Consider: Reuters, one of the world’s most trusted news sources, received USAID funding for ‘Large Scale Social Deception’ and ‘Social Engineering Defence.’ While there’s debate about the exact scope of these programs, the implications are staggering: a division of one of the world’s most relied-upon sources for objective reporting was paid by a US government agency for systemic reality construction. This funding goes beyond traditional media support, representing a deliberate infrastructure for discourse framing that fundamentally challenges the concept of ‘objective’ reporting.

But it goes deeper. In what reads like a Michael Crichton plot come to life, the recent USAID revelations show a staggering reach of narrative control. Take Internews Network, a USAID-financed NGO that has pushed nearly half a billion dollars ($472.6m) through a secretive network, ‘working with’ 4,291 media outlets. In just one year, they produced 4,799 hours of broadcasts reaching up to 778 million people and ‘trained’ over 9,000 journalists. This isn’t just funding – it’s a systematic infrastructure of consciousness manipulation.

The revelations show USAID funding both the Wuhan Lab’s gain-of-function research and the media outlets that would shape the story around what emerged from it. Backing organizations that would fabricate impeachment evidence. Funding both the election systems that facilitate outcomes and the fact-checkers that determine which discussions about those outcomes are permitted. But these disclosures point to something far more significant than mere corruption.

These revelations didn’t emerge from nowhere – they come from government grant disclosures, FOIA requests, and official records that aren’t even hidden, just ignored. As my old friend Mark Schiffer noted the other day, ‘The most important truths today cannot be debated – they must be felt as totalities.’ The pattern, once seen, cannot be unseen. Some may question DOGE’s methods or the rapid pace of these disclosures, and those constitutional concerns deserve serious discussion. But that’s a separate conversation from what these documents reveal. The revelations themselves – documented in official records and grant disclosures – are undeniable and should shock anyone who values truth. The means of exposure matter far less than what’s being exposed: one of the largest narrative control operations in history.

No domain is untouched – marketstechculturehealth, and obviously, media – and you’ll find the same design. Intelligence agencies are deeply embedded in each domain because shaping how we perceive reality is more powerful than controlling reality itself

Just as fiat currency replaced real value with declared value, we now see the same pattern everywhere: fiat science replaces inquiry with predetermined conclusions, fiat culture replaces organic development with curated influence, fiat history replaces lived experience with manufactured narratives. We live in an era of fiat everything – where reality itself is declared, not discovered.. And just as they create artificial scarcity in monetary systems, they manufacture false choices everywhere else – presenting us with artificial binaries that obscure the true complexity of our world. As Schiffer wrote elsewhere, reality no longer requires consensus, only coherence. But there’s a crucial distinction: real coherence emerges naturally across multiple domains, reflecting deeper truths that cannot be fabricated. The coherence imposed by perception management isn’t truth – it’s a controlled discourse engineered for consistency, not discovery. The USAID receipts now provide concrete evidence of how this manufactured coherence is built: a scripted reality where the appearance of logic is more important than actual substance.

This isn’t just pattern matching – it’s pattern prediction. Just as algorithms learn to recognize and anticipate behavioral patterns, those who understand this system’s architecture can see its next moves before they’re made. The question isn’t whether something is “true” or “false” – it’s understanding how information flows shape consciousness itself.

To understand how deep this goes, let’s examine their methodology. As Dr. Sherri Tenpenny and others have meticulously documented through FOIA requests and government grant disclosures, the pattern emerges through two primary vectors of control:

Information Control:

  • $34 million to Politico (which as Tenpenny notes, struggled to make payroll without this funding)
  • Extensive payments to New York Times
  • Direct funding to BBC Media Action
  • $4.5 million to Kazakhstan to combat “disinformation”

Health and Development:

  • $84 million to Clinton Foundation health initiatives
  • $100 million for AIDS treatment in Ukraine
  • Funding for contraceptive programs in developing nations

Cultural Programming:

  • $20 million to Sesame Street in Iraq
  • $68 million to World Economic Forum
  • $2 million for sex changes and LGBT activism in Guatemala
  • Global cultural initiatives (millions spread across LGBTQ programs in Serbia, DEI projects in Ireland, transgender arts in Colombia and Peru, and tourism promotion in Egypt)

What emerges is not just a list of expenditures, but a blueprint for global reality architecture: From Kazakhstan to Ireland, from Serbia to Peru, from Vietnam to Egypt – there isn’t a corner of the world untouched by this system. This isn’t merely a distribution of resources, but a strategic infrastructure of global influence. Each allocation—whether to media outlets, health initiatives, or cultural programs – represents a carefully placed node in a network designed to shape perception across multiple domains. First, control the flow of information through media funding. Then, establish legitimacy through health and development programs. Finally, reshape social structures through cultural programming. The end goal isn’t just to influence what people think, but to determine the boundaries of what can be thought – and to do so on a planetary scale.

For those who’ve been studying the architecture of censorship, like Mike Benz has been documenting for years, none of this comes as a surprise. It’s perfect symmetry: we knew about the censorship. Now we’re seeing the receipts. One hand feeds them talking points, the other hand feeds them our taxpayer dollars. This isn’t speculation; it’s documented fact. Even Wikipedia’s own funding database contains over 45,000 reports tied to USAID – many detailing corruption, media influence, and financial manipulation. The evidence has always been there, but it was ignored, dismissed, or buried under the very fact-checking apparatus USAID funds. These weren’t crackpot theories; they were warnings. And now, we finally have the receipts.

And it doesn’t stop at controlling information. USAID isn’t just shaping media portrayals – it’s funding the systems that enforce them. Last week, Benz broke a bombshell: USAID gives twice as much money ($27 million) to the fiscal sponsor of the group controlling Soros-funded prosecutors than Soros himself gives ($14 million). This isn’t about one billionaire’s influence – it’s about state-backed enforcement of scripted accounts. The same network that dictates what you can think is dictating who prosecutes crime, what laws are enforced, and who faces consequences.

USAID’s influence isn’t just about funding media control—it extends to direct political interference. It didn’t just send aid to Brazil – it funded censorship, backed left-wing activists, and helped rig the 2022 election against Bolsonaro.

Benz revealed that the agency waged a “holy war of censorship,” systematically suppressing Bolsonaro supporters online while bolstering opposition voices. Millions flowed to NGOs pushing leftist framing, including the Felipe Neto Institute, which received U.S. funding while Bolsonaro allies were deplatformed. USAID also bankrolled Amazon-based activist groups, financed media campaigns designed to manipulate public opinion, and funneled money into Brazilian organizations that pushed for stricter internet regulations.

This wasn’t aid—it was election interference disguised as democracy promotion. USAID used American tax dollars to decide Brazil’s future, and it likely deployed similar tactics in many other countries—all under the guise of humanitarian assistance.

And it’s not just abroad. While USAID’s defenders claim it’s a tool for charity and development in poor nations, the evidence suggests something much more insidious. It’s a $40 billion driver of regime change overseas – and now, evidence points to its involvement in regime change efforts at home. Alongside the CIA, USAID appears to have played a role in the 2019 impeachment of Trump – an illegal effort to overturn a U.S. election using the same tools of perception sculpting and political engineering it deploys abroad.

Left vs right, vaxxed vs unvaxxed, Russia vs Ukraine, believer vs skeptic (on any topic) – these false dichotomies serve to fragment our understanding while reality itself is far more nuanced and multidimensional. Each manufactured crisis spawns not just reactions, but reactions to those reactions, creating endless layers of derivative meaning built on artificial foundations.

The real power isn’t in manufacturing individual facts, but in creating systems where false facts become self-reinforcing. When a fact-checker cites another fact-checker who cites a “trusted source” that’s funded by the same entities funding the fact-checkers, the pattern becomes clear. The truth isn’t in any individual claim – it’s in recognizing how the claims work together to create a closed system of artificial reality.

Take the mRNA vaccine debate for example: The pattern manifests before the explanation – people passionately debate efficacy without realizing the entire framework was constructed. First, they fund the research. Then they fund the media to shape the narrative. Even skeptics often fall into their trap, arguing about effectiveness rates while accepting their basic premise. The moment you debate ‘vaccine efficacy,’ you’ve already lost – you’re using their framework to discuss what is, in reality, an experimental gene therapy. By accepting their terminology, their metrics, their framing of the discussion itself, you’re playing in their constructed reality. Each layer of control is designed not just to influence opinions, but to preemptively structure how those opinions can be formed.

Like learning to spot a staged photo or hearing a false note in music, developing a reliable bullshit detector requires pattern recognition. Once you start seeing how narratives are constructed – how language is weaponized, how frameworks are built – it changes the lens with which you view the whole world. The same intelligence agencies embedding themselves in every domain that shapes our understanding aren’t just controlling information flow – they’re programming how we process that information itself.

The recursive theater plays out in real time. When USAID announced funding cuts, BBC News rushed to amplify humanitarian concerns with dramatic headlines about HIV patients and endangered lives. What they didn’t mention in their reporting? USAID is their top funder, bankrolling BBC Media Action with millions in direct payments. Watch how the system protects itself: the largest recipient of USAID media funding creates emotional propaganda about USAID’s importance while obfuscating their financial relationship in their reporting.

This institutional self-defense illustrates a crucial pattern: organizations funded for reality construction protect themselves through layers of misdirection. When presented with evidence, the fact-checking apparatus funded by these same systems springs into action. They’ll tell you that these payments were for standard “subscriptions,” that programs promoting gender ideology are really just about “equality and rights.” But when USAID awards $2 million to Asociación Lambda in Guatemala for “gender-affirming health care” – which can include surgeries, hormone therapy, and counseling – those same defenders conveniently omit the details, blurring the line between advocacy and direct intervention. The very organizations funded for social architecture are the ones telling you there is no social architecture. It’s akin to asking the arsonist to investigate the fire.

Like characters in a grand production, I watch old friends still trusting in institutions like the New York Times. Even this exposition becomes a potential node in the system – the very act of revealing the mechanics of control might itself be anticipated, another layer of the recursive theater. In my earlier work on technocracy, I explored how our digital world has evolved far beyond Truman Burbank’s physical dome. His world had visible walls, cameras, and scripted encounters – a constructed reality he could theoretically escape by reaching its edges. Our prison is more sophisticated: no walls, no visible limits, just algorithmic containment that shapes thought itself. Truman only had to sail far enough to find the truth. But how do you sail beyond the boundaries of perception when the ocean itself is programmed?

Sure, USAID has done some good work—but so did Al Capone with his soup kitchens. Just as the infamous gangster’s charity work made him untouchable in his community, USAID’s aid programs create a veneer of benevolence that makes questioning their larger agenda politically impossible. Philanthropic window dressing has long been a tool for power players to shield themselves from scrutiny. Consider Jimmy Savile: a celebrated philanthropist whose charity work granted him access to hospitals and vulnerable children while he committed unspeakable crimes in plain sight. His carefully cultivated image made him beyond reproach for decades, just as institutional benevolence now serves as a protective layer for global influence operations. The true function of organizations like USAID isn’t just aid—it’s social architecture, mind shaping, and the laundering of taxpayer dollars through an intricate web of NGOs and foundations.

This layered deception is self-reinforcing – each level of manufactured reality is protected by another level of institutional authority. These institutions don’t just dictate stories; they shape the infrastructure through which narratives are disseminated. For what it’s worth, I believe most tools themselves are neutral. The same digital systems that enable mass surveillance could empower individual sovereignty. The same networks that centralize control could facilitate decentralized cooperation. The question isn’t the technology itself, but whether it’s deployed to concentrate or distribute power.

This understanding didn’t come from nowhere. Those who first sensed this artificiality were dismissed as conspiracy theorists. We noticed the coordination across outlets, the strange synchronicity of messaging, the way certain stories were amplified while others disappeared. Now we have the sales receipts showing exactly how that manipulation was funded and orchestrated.

I know this journey of discovery intimately. When I started understanding the dangers of mRNA technology, I went all in. I connected with the incredibly talented filmmaker Jennifer Sharp and helped with Anecdotals, her film about vaccine injuries. I was ready to tether my whole identity to this cause. But then I started zooming out. I began seeing how COVID might have been a financial crime designed to usher in central bank digital currency. The deeper I looked, the more I realized these weren’t isolated deceptions – it was part of a larger system of control. The very fabric of what I thought was real began to dissolve.

What disturbed me most was seeing how deeply programming relies on mimicry. Humans are imitative creatures by nature – it’s how we learn, how we build culture. But this natural tendency has been weaponized. I’d present friends with peer-reviewed studies, documented evidence, historical connections – only to watch them respond with verbatim talking points from corporate media. It wasn’t that they disagreed – it was that they weren’t even processing the information. They were pattern-matching against pre-approved chronicles, outsourcing their thinking to “trusted experts” who were themselves caught in the same web of manufactured perception. I realized then: none of us knows anything for certain – we’re all just mimicking what we’ve been programmed to believe is authoritative knowledge.

The challenge isn’t just seeing through any single deception – it’s understanding how these systems work together in complex, non-linear ways. When we fixate on individual threads, we miss the larger pattern. Like pulling a thread on a sweater and watching it unravel, eventually you realize there was no sweater in the first place – just an intricately woven illusion. Just as a hologram contains the whole image in each fragment, every piece of this system reflects the larger blueprint for reality construction.

Consider the $34 million to Politico – this isn’t just a funding stream, but a holographic reveal of the entire system. It’s not merely that Politico received money; it’s that this single transaction contains the entire blueprint of perception management. The payment itself is a microcosm: struggling media outlet, government funding, narrative control – each element reflects the whole. This recursive system protects itself through layers of self-validation. When critics point out media bias, fact-checkers funded by the same system declare it ‘debunked.’ When researchers question official accounts, journals funded by the same interests reject their work. Even the language of resistance – ‘speaking truth to power,’ ‘fighting disinformation,’ ‘protecting democracy’ – has been co-opted and weaponized by the very system it was meant to challenge.

The COVID story epitomizes this systemic manipulation. What began as a public health crisis transformed into a global experiment in narrative control – demonstrating how rapidly populations could be reshaped through coordinated messaging, institutional authority, and weaponized fear. The pandemic wasn’t just about a virus; it was a proof of concept for how comprehensively human cognition could be engineered – a single node revealing the true scope and ambition of discourse manipulation.

Think about the cycle: American taxpayers unknowingly funded the crisis itself – then paid again to be deceived about it. They paid for the development of gain-of-function research, then paid again for the messaging that would convince them to accept masks, lockdowns, and experimental interventions. The system is so confident in its psychological control that it doesn’t even bother hiding the evidence anymore.

As I’ve documented in my Engineering Reality series, this framework for consciousness management runs far deeper than most can imagine. USAID’s revelations aren’t isolated incidents—they’re glimpses into a vast system of social design that has been in operation for decades. When the same agency funding your fact-checkers is openly paying for ‘social deception,’ when your trusted news sources are receiving direct payments for ‘social architecture,’ the very framework of what we consider ‘real’ begins to crumble.

We’re not just watching events unfold – we’re watching reactions to artificial events, then reactions to those reactions, creating an infinite regression of derivative meaning. People form passionate positions about issues that were constructed, then others define themselves in opposition to those positions. Each layer of reaction fuels the next phase of steered consensus. What we’re witnessing isn’t just the spread of manufactured realities, but the architecture of cultural and geopolitical trends themselves. Artificial trends spawn authentic reactions, which generate counter-reactions, until we’ve built entire societies responding to carefully orchestrated theater. The social engineers aren’t just steering individual beliefs – they’re reshaping the very foundations of how humans make sense of the world.

These revelations are just the tip of the iceberg. Anyone paying attention to the depth and depravity of the corruption knows that this is only the beginning. As more information emerges, the illusion of neutrality, of benevolence, of institutions acting in the public interest, will crumble. No one who truly engages with this information is walking away with renewed faith in the system. The shift is only happening in one direction – some faster than others, but none in reverse. The real question is: what happens when a critical mass reaches the point where their foundational understanding of the world collapses? When they realize that the records shaping their perception were never organic, but manufactured? Some will refuse to look, choosing comfort over confrontation. But for those willing to face it, this is not just about corruption – it’s about the very nature of the reality they thought they inhabited.

The implications are staggering not just for individual awareness, but for our very ability to function as a republic. How can citizens make informed decisions when reality itself has been splintered into competing manufactured tales? When people discover that their most deeply held beliefs were shaped, that their passionate causes were scripted, that even their cultural interests and tastes were curated, that their opposition to certain systems was anticipated and designed – what remains of authentic human experience?

What’s coming will force a choice: either retreat into comfortable denial, dismissing mounting evidence as “right-wing conspiracy theories,” or face the shattering realization that the world we thought we inhabited never actually existed. My research over the past few years points to far more nefarious activities yet to be revealed – operations so heinous that many will simply refuse to process them.

As I wrote about in “The Second Matrix,” there’s always the risk of falling into another layer of controlled awakening. But the greater risk lies in thinking too small, in anchoring ourselves to any single thread of understanding. The USAID revelations aren’t just about exposing one agency’s role in shaping reality – they’re about recognizing how our very thought patterns have been colonized by recursive layers of artificial reality.

This is the true crisis of our time: not just the manipulation of reality, but the fragmentation of human consciousness itself. When people grasp that their beliefs, causes, and even their resistance were shaped within this system, they are forced to confront the deeper question: What does it mean to reclaim one’s own mind?

But here’s what they don’t want you to realize: seeing through these systems is profoundly liberating. When you understand how reality is constructed, you’re no longer bound by its artificial constraints. This isn’t just about exposing deception – it’s about freeing consciousness itself from manufactured limitations.

The jig may be up on USAID’s reality architecture operation. But the deeper challenge lies in reconstructing meaning in a world where the very fabric of reality has been woven from artificial threads. The choice we face isn’t just between comfortable illusion and uncomfortable truth. The old system demanded validation before belief. The new reality requires something else entirely: the ability to recognize patterns before they’re officially confirmed, to feel coherence across multiple domains, to step outside the crafted game completely. This isn’t about choosing sides in their manufactured binaries – it’s about seeing the pattern architecture itself.

What does this liberation look like in practice? It’s catching the pattern of a manufactured crisis before it’s fully deployed. It’s recognizing how seemingly unrelated events – a banking collapse, a health emergency, a social movement – are actually nodes in the same network of control. It’s understanding that true sovereignty isn’t about having all the answers, but about developing the capacity to sense the web of deception before it solidifies into apparent reality. Because the ultimate power isn’t in knowing every answer – it’s in realizing when the question itself has been designed to trap you inside the manufactured paradigm.

As we develop this pattern recognition capacity – this ability to see through algorithmic manipulation – what it means to be human is itself evolving. As these systems of ideological infrastructure crumble, our task isn’t just to preserve individual awakening but to protect and nurture the most conscious elements of humanity. The ultimate liberation isn’t just seeing through the deception – it’s maintaining our essential humanity in a world of tightly controlled perception.

As these systems of reality sculpting crumble, we have an unprecedented opportunity to rediscover what’s real – not through their manufactured frameworks, but through our own direct experience of truth. What’s authentic isn’t always what’s organic – in a mediated world, authenticity means conscious choice rather than unconscious reaction. It means understanding how our minds are shaped while maintaining our capacity for genuine connection, creative expression, and direct experience. The most human elements – love, creativity, intuition, genuine discovery – become more precious precisely because they defy algorithmic control. These are the last frontiers of human freedom—the unpredictable, unquantifiable forces that cannot be reduced to data points or behavioral models.

The ultimate battle isn’t just for truth – it’s for the human spirit itself. A system that can engineer perception can engineer submission. But there’s a beautiful irony here: the very act of recognizing these systems of reality construction is itself an expression of authentic consciousness – a choice that proves they haven’t conquered human perception completely. Free will cannot be engineered precisely because the capacity to see through engineered reality remains ours. In the end, their greatest fear isn’t that we’ll reject their manufactured world – it’s that we’ll remember how to see beyond it.

March 31, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , , | 1 Comment

The 1993 FBI Bombing in New York

Tales of the American Empire | March 27, 2025

The FBI often allows violent attacks on Americans “to keep fear alive” like the 1993 World Trade Center bombing in New York. A truck bomb exploded in the underground parking garage killing 6 Americans and injuring over a thousand. In this case, the FBI and its CIA ally had allowed known terrorists to enter the United States and provided them the explosive material to construct a massive bomb.

Emad Salem, a former Egyptian military officer, was recruited by the FBI to infiltrate an extremist Muslim group in New York. He helped them plan the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and provided them with bomb material from the FBI. Salem suggested that fake bomb material be used in case things got out of control, but the FBI ignored his suggestion. After Salem reported the bomb was loaded on a rented van and was on its way to the World Trade center, the FBI did nothing!

_____________________________________

“What’s the Story of WTC 1993?”; Corbett Report; Bitchute; December 16, 2024; https://www.bitchute.com/video/cPv6kX…

March 28, 2025 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | 1 Comment

JFK files: CIA contaminated sugar destined for USSR

RT | March 24, 2025

American spies contaminated 800 bags of sugar sent on a cargo ship from Cuba to the USSR in the 1960s, the newly released files on the assassination of John F. Kennedy have revealed.

One of the files analyzed by journalist and blogger Ben Norton and the Washington Post documents a “clandestine operation” by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) just months before the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.

In August of that year, the CIA learned about a cargo vessel transporting 80,000 200-pound (90 kilograms) bags of brown sugar to the USSR, according to a declassified paper sent to General Edward Lansdale, who was the Pentagon’s deputy assistant secretary for special operations at that time and had a long history of working with the CIA.

The American spies then decided to launch a special operation to contaminate the shipment. They learned that the ship in question would briefly dock at Puerto Rico for minor hull repairs and would have to offload a part of its cargo.

“Through a clandestine operation, which was not detected and is not traceable, we were able to contaminate 800 of these bags of sugar,” the paper reported. According to the CIA, the contaminated bags would then spoil the entire shipment, making it “unfit for human or animal consumption in any form.”

The plan, however, was not to poison the Soviet people but merely to sour their taste for life.

“The contaminate we used will give the sugar an ineradicable sickly bitter taste, which no process will remove,” the spies said, maintaining that it was “not in any sense dangerous to health.” Those behind the operation still believed that it would “ruin the taste of the consumer for any food or drink for a considerable time.”

If successful, the operation was expected to inflict financial losses upon the Soviet Union amounting to between $350,000 and $400,000 at that time, according to the document. The fate of the shipment remains unclear as RT could not find any relevant Soviet data related to the case.

In 1960, the US imposed its first serious embargo against Cuba, halting all sugar purchases from the country among other measures. The move came in response to the Cuban Revolution, which put an end to the rule of the US-backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista.

Washington also made its NATO allies abandon Cuban sugar imports as well. The USSR then stepped in, becoming one of Cuba’s major sugar importers.

March 24, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Stepan Bandera’s Sinister MI6 Alliance Exposed

[Source: ar.inspiredpencil.com]
By Kit Klarenberg | Covert Action Magazine | March 20, 2025

October 15, 2024, marked the 65th anniversary of Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN-B) and Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) founder Stepan Bandera’s assassination by the KGB in Munich, in then-West Germany.

The date passed without mention anywhere. This may reflect how prior public commemorations of the life and death of Nazi collaborator Bandera—widely credited as the father of Ukrainian nationalism—in Kyiv sparked significant controversy and condemnation across Central and Eastern Europe, particularly neighboring Poland.

The complicity of Bandera and the fascist movements he birthed during World War II is well-documented. His influence over modern-day ultranationalist and Neo-Nazi factions in Ukraine, such as the Azov Regiment, has also been acknowledged in the mainstream media.

Yet, Bandera’s secret Cold War bond with British intelligence has never been seriously explored by Western news outlets. Now, examination of little-known declassified CIA records by CovertAction Magazine exposes the malign contours of a long-running, ruthless conspiracy between Bandera and MI6 to destabilize the Soviet Union.

This dark handshake only expired because MI6’s fascist asset was resistant to joining forces with other Ukrainian anti-Communist forces, therefore jeopardizing plans by Washington and London for all-out war with the Soviets in Donbas. That plot, intended to ultimately collapse the entire USSR, has eerie, direct echoes of the current Ukraine proxy war. So too Britain’s willingness, then and now, to go even further than the U.S. in building alliances with the most reactionary, dangerous Ukrainian ultranationalist elements, in service of balkanizing Russia.

“Bandit Type”

MI6 first contacted Bandera while he was exiled in post-war West Germany in 1948, via Gerhard von Mende. An ethnic German hailing from Riga, Latvia, von Mende has been described as the “enthusiastic Nazi” who headed Berlin’s Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territory, or Ostministerium. Among other connivances, von Mende was charged with recruiting fifth columnists from the USSR’s Central Asian republics, to undermine and attack Communist authorities. He has been credited with influencing subsequent British and American support for Islamic extremists.

A person in a suit and tie Description automatically generated
[Source: pi-news.net]

Per a declassified CIA biography, after Nazi Germany’s defeat, von Mende was “interned as a ‘guest’” at the Agency’s Camp King, where Nazi officials and soldiers were interrogated and tortured. In some cases, inmates were unwittingly dosed with LSD under PROJECT BLUEBIRD, a forerunner to the CIA’s notorious MK-ULTRA mind-control program. Subsequently, von Mende became an asset for West Germany’s Nazi-riddled BND, the CIA, and MI6, continuing his spy recruitment in the USSR via a front company.

Through this position, von Mende was kept abreast of UPA activities and capabilities, and maintained an intimate personal relationship with Bandera. The Ukrainian fascist ideologue’s thuggish West German network was by then hard at work killing hundreds of local citizens suspected by the CIA and MI6 of harboring Communist sympathies. While the OUN-B chief’s “ask” of British intelligence was initially judged too high, that perspective rapidly changed. By 1949, MI6 was helping Bandera airdrop his chaos agents into Ukraine.

A year later, Britain’s foreign spy agency began formally training these operatives to gather intelligence and carry out sabotage and assassinations on Soviet soil. This sinister compact was established despite stern CIA and State Department opposition. At this point, the Agency had identified a comparatively moderate alternative to Bandera’s murderous ultranationalist mob, the Ukrainian Supreme Liberation Council (UHVR). The group was led by Ukrainian-Greek Catholic priest Ivan Hrinioch, a “longtime CIA asset” and former high-ranking OUN-B operative Mykola Lebed.

During World War II, Lebed oversaw the UPA’s massacre of tens of thousands of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia. However, he subsequently disavowed this genocidal carnage, and led UHVR’s push to unite Ukrainian émigrés, who had fractured due to bloody, internecine squabbles toward the conflict’s end. Under the auspices of Operation AERODYNAMIC, for decades the Agency exploited the UHVR to foment “nationalist flare-ups” throughout the Soviet Union, “particularly” in Ukraine, and “encourage divisive manifestations among” the population, to “exert pressure on the Soviet regime.”

By this time, Bandera had fallen out of favor with many Ukrainian nationalists, and was even renounced by what remained of OUN-B’s Kiev-based leadership. This, his genocidal past, and overt anti-U.S. actions and statements due to Washington’s refusal to publicly advocate for Ukrainian independence, all deterred the CIA from employing him. However, MI6 was unperturbed and pushed ahead with its Bandera operations. This created a ludicrous situation, with London and Washington supporting bitterly antagonistic Ukrainian nationalist factions, which frequently undermined and attacked each other.

As a British intelligence memorandum on “the crisis over Bandera” noted, by 1950 Ukrainian nationalist leaders had “become aware of the fact that the British and Americans were backing rival groups,” putting the agencies’ joint anti-Soviet project at risk. It was decided to dispatch a co-signed message to UPA headquarters via Ukrainian CIA and MI6 agents parachuted into Lviv, calling for an end to “present disagreements” between opposing nationalist factions, which London and Washington professed to “deplore and earnestly hope may be resolved.”

It signed off with the now-infamous, Bandera-coined nationalist slogan, “Glory to Ukraine” (“Slava Ukraini”). The memo’s MI6 author, moreover, recalled an in-person meeting they had with Bandera in London. The spy described him thusly:

“Convincing and sincere… a professional underground worker with a terrorist background and ruthless notions about the rules of the game, acquired by hard experience, along with a thorough knowledge of the Ukrainian people… a bandit type if you like, with a burning patriotism which provides an ethical background and a justification for his banditry.”

The MI6 operative cheerfully added that genocidal mass murderer Bandera was “no better and no worse than others of his kind I have had dealings with in the past,” and “genuinely grateful for the help given to him” by British intelligence, “but at the same time is certainly trying to get all he can out of it.” The CIA begged to differ, however, commissioning a study of London and Washington’s conflicting positions on the “Ukrainian underground” and Bandera, and how to resolve this divergence.

UPA poster from the 1940s. OUN/UPA’s formal greeting is written on two of the horizontal lines “Glory to Ukraine!” “Glory to the Heroes!” The soldier is standing on the banners of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. [Source: euromaidanpress.com]

“Political Overtones”

subsequent appraisal repeatedly declared Bandera and OUN-B to be “completely unacceptable” to the CIA, “both from the political and the operational standpoints.” It proposed the Agency and MI6 take joint ownership of the UHVR and its anti-Soviet wrecking project in Ukraine, and “exchange political, operational and intelligence data resulting from these operations.” Meanwhile, the CIA would “take independent action to neutralize” OUN-B’s “present leadership,” including Bandera himself. It is unknown if this was pitched to MI6, although London’s steadfast opposition was inevitable.

The “British position,” as described in the study, was Bandera’s “importance” had been perennially “underestimated by the Americans, as a rallying symbol in the Ukraine, as leader of a large émigré group [and] as a leader favored by the homeland headquarters.” This did not conform to the reality on the ground as detected by the CIA, but MI6 had a vested interest in maintaining the fascist demagogue as an agent. An April 1951 Agency memo summarizing recent “talks” with British intelligence “on operations against the USSR” noted:

“[MI6 is] seeking progressively to assume control of Bandera’s lines… [MI6 argues] Bandera’s name still carried considerable weight in the Ukraine… [and OUN-B is] the strongest Ukrainian organization abroad, is deemed competent to train party cadres, [and] build a morally and politically healthy organization.”

By contrast, the CIA observed Soviet authorities “had been successful to a remarkable degree in transforming the mentality of the younger generation” of Ukrainians, resulting in them vehemently rejecting Bandera and his brand of rabid nationalism. While the Agency, therefore, favored “political neutralization of Bandera as an individual,” MI6 balked, as this “would lead to a drying up of recruits” and “disrupt British operations.” However, the declassified paper trail shows London eventually tired of their fascist asset.

In February 1954, a senior MI6 official who led liaison with OUN-B for two decades made a “final attempt to bring Bandera to reason” in London, due to the genocidaire’s refusal to reconcile and unite with opposing Ukrainian nationalist elements. The high-ranking British spook offered him “one last chance” to make amends with émigré leaders. Bandera “refused this suggestion with arrogant finality,” thus making “the break” between Bandera and MI6 “complete.”

All British intelligence-run Ukrainian agents who remained loyal to Bandera were duly jettisoned. MI6 informed other nationalist leaders the agency “would not resume” its relationship with him “under any circumstances.” Bandera remained exiled in Munich, West Germany, and continued to run belligerent cloak-and-dagger operations against the Soviet Union, while ratcheting up his anti-Western rhetoric. The CIA and MI6 viewed these activities as a significant problem, with no obvious solution.

As CIA records of a January 1955 “joint U.S.-UK conference” put it, despite the “unanimous desire” of British and American intelligence to “‘quiet’ Bandera,” it was equally vital the KGB was “not allowed to kidnap or kill him.” This could make Bandera “a martyr” among Ukrainian ultranationalists, a prospect to be avoided if at all possible. Hence, London and Washington kept him alive and well, while permitting West Germany’s BND to run him as an agent. Their old friend Gerhard von Mende was his handler.

West German authorities wished to punish Bandera and his in-country network for crimes including kidnapping, but von Mende consistently intervened to insulate his compatriot from prosecution. A July 1959 CIA report noted the BND’s use of Bandera was such a “closely held” secret within the agency, it was not even formally cleared with the West German government “due to political overtones.” Despite this omertà (code of silence), the BND moved to secure Bandera a U.S. visa.

It was hoped he would connect with Ukrainian émigrés Stateside, while ingratiating himself with the CIA and State Department. Per an October 5, 1959, Agency memo, the BND believed “it should be a simple matter” for the CIA “to influence the issuing of a visa” for Bandera, as “many less desirable and less ‘exploitable’ individuals” had already visited the country via Agency assistance. A formal request was submitted to Washington. Just ten days later, though, the KGB finally caught up with him.

Despite their mutual wish that Bandera not be “martyred” by Soviet intelligence, it is likely that the CIA and MI6 breathed a collective sigh of relief upon hearing of his death. The OUN-B and UPA founder’s destabilizing, disruptive influence within the Ukrainian anti-Communist underground was a significant impediment to Anglo-American spying agencies’ implementation of a far grander plan than has hitherto been tried. Namely, fomenting all-out war against the Soviet Union, using Ukrainian ultranationalists as foot soldiers.

This is the first instalment of a two-part investigation. Stay tuned.

March 21, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment