Vice President George H. W. Bush’s Deep State

Family of Secrets
by Russ Baker

“At the time, the CIA was in the process of creating plausible deniability as it began what would be a series of efforts to topple “unfriendly” regimes around the world, including those in Guatemala and Iran. Since the CIA’s charter severely constrained the domestic side of covert operations, agents created a host of entities to serve as middlemen to support rebels in countries targeted for regime change. During the early days of Dresser in Dallas — and of Zapata Petroleum — Dulles was just beginning to experiment with “off the books” operations. Eventually, by the seventies and eighties, when Poppy Bush ran the CIA and coordinated covert operations as vice president, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of such entities had been created . . .

The ‘deep state’ in the Reagan administration
by Phil Ebersole

“Bush’s team sent out special Marine and Delta Force teams to kill drug lords, Soviet agents and terrorists, based names provided by the CIA from the files of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice Department and National Security Agency—just as the Joint Special Operations Command does today.

President Reagan knew nothing of this. Neither did CIA Director William Casey, who the team regarded as reckless, uninformed and overly read to talk to the press. The press itself never caught on. The only member of Congress who was told was Rep. Dick Cheney, R-Wyoming.

“One of the team’s efforts was an abortive plot to assassinate Libya’ Muammar Qaddafi. Another was support of the Contra rebels in Nicaragua, which was forbidden by Congress.

This is what is meant by a “deep state”—a decision-making center within government that is hidden from the public, not accountable to the public, but greatly affects the public welfare for good ill.

LRB · Seymour M. Hersh · The Vice President’s Men
by Seymour M. Hersh

“There was another view of Bush: the one held by the military men and civilian professionals who worked for him on national security issues. Unlike the president, he knew what was going on and how to get things done. For them, Reagan was ‘a dimwit’ who didn’t get it, or even try to get it. A former senior official of the Office of Management and Budget described the president to me as ‘lazy, just lazy’. Reagan, the official explained, insisted on being presented with a three-line summary of significant budget decisions, and the OMB concluded that the easiest way to cope was to present him with three figures – one very high, one very low and one in the middle, which Reagan invariably signed off on. I was later told that the process was known inside the White House as the ‘Goldilocks option’. He was also bored by complicated intelligence estimates. Forever courteous and gracious, he would doodle during national security briefings or simply not listen. It would have been natural to turn instead to the director of the CIA, but this was William Casey, a former businessman and Nixon aide who had been controversially appointed by Reagan as the reward for managing his 1980 election campaign. As the intelligence professionals working with the executive saw it, Casey was reckless, uninformed, and said far too much to the press.

Bush was different: he got it. At his direction, a team of military operatives was set up that bypassed the national security establishment – including the CIA – and wasn’t answerable to congressional oversight. It was led by Vice-Admiral Arthur Moreau, a brilliant navy officer who would be known to those on the inside as ‘M’. He had most recently been involved, as deputy chief of naval operations, in developing the US’s new maritime strategy, aimed at restricting Soviet freedom of movement. In May 1983 he was promoted to assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Vessey, and over the next couple of years he oversaw a secret team – operating in part out of the office of Daniel Murphy, Bush’s chief of staff – which quietly conducted at least 35 covert operations against drug trafficking, terrorism and, most important, perceived Soviet expansionism in more than twenty countries, including Peru, Honduras, Guatemala, Brazil, Argentina, Libya, Senegal, Chad, Algeria, Tunisia, the Congo, Kenya, Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Georgia and Vietnam.

“Moreau’s small, off-the-record team, primarily made up of navy officers, was tasked with foreign operations deemed necessary by the vice president. The group’s link to Bush was indirect. There were two go-betweens, known for their closeness to the vice president and their ability to keep secrets: Murphy, a retired admiral who had served as Bush’s deputy director at the CIA; and, to a lesser extent, Donald Gregg, Bush’s national security adviser and another veteran of CIA covert operations. Moreau’s team mostly worked out of a room near the National Military Command Centre on the ground floor of the Pentagon. They could also unobtrusively man a desk or two, when necessary, in a corner of Murphy’s office, which was near Bush’s, in the Old Executive Office Building next to the White House. […]

We came to realise that the American intelligence community needed the threat from Russia to get their money. Those of us who were running the operations were also amazed that the American press was so incompetent. You could do this kind of stuff all over the world and nobody would ask any questions.’

Congress, and the constitution, were at first no more of an obstacle to Bush and Moreau’s covert operations than the press. The one member of Congress who knew what was going on was Dick Cheney, a close friend and confidant of Bush’s from their days together in the Ford administration. In 1976, in the aftermath of the Church Committee’s inquiry into CIA abuses, standing intelligence committees had been set up in both the Senate and the House, charged with holding the CIA and other intelligence agencies to account. But it was understood by all those involved in the vice president’s secret team that these committees could be bypassed, even though the laws governing covert intelligence activities had been stiffened: there was now a legal requirement that all covert CIA and military intelligence operations had to be made known to the committees through a formal, written document known as a ‘finding’. But there was a big loophole in the legislation, in the view of the vice president’s men. ‘There was no requirement for a finding for merely asking questions,’ the officer said, ‘and so we’d make routine requests for intelligence assessments from the CIA through the Joint Chiefs and the National Security Council. Our basic philosophy was that we were running military’ – not intelligence – ‘operations and therefore did not have to brief Congress. So we could legally operate without a finding.’ He was describing an ingenious procedure for getting around the law: one that would be put into use again after 9/11, when Cheney, by then vice president, triggered the unending war on terror. ‘The issue for Moreau was how do we take advantage of what the CIA has to offer – its people, with their language skills and its networks and assets overseas,’ the officer said. ‘The disadvantage was if we used the CIA in an intelligence context, we had to get a finding. We decided to get around the law by using agency people in what we claimed was a “liaison capacity”.’ The next step was ‘to attach the CIA operators to military units as liaison who were working for Moreau. Casey knew his CIA was being cut out and so he became more active where he could – in Latin America.’ As a precaution, the team prepared written findings when CIA men or information were being made use of – but they were put ‘in a safe’, to be produced only if anyone in Congress found out what was going on.

“Moreau was contemptuous of Casey and ‘thought the CIA was a crazy organisation that had no concern about the consequences of its covert actions’, according to the officer. He remembered Moreau telling his subordinates on the secret staff: ‘I’m accountable to the vice president and you motherfuckers are accountable to me. The agency is not accountable to anybody – not the president, not Congress, not the American people. They will do whatever they want to support their mission, which is defined by them.’ Cutting out the CIA leadership – though using their resources where needed, partly through the good offices of Dan Murphy, who had many connections inside the agency – was key to Moreau’s operations. ‘From the beginning our philosophy was no publicity,’ the officer said. Enlisting the agency formally would involve findings, and relying on ‘the CIA’s knuckle-draggers’ – paramilitary units – ‘who were seen as too dumb and too incompetent. But by using only the military we inadvertently laid the groundwork for what we have now – a Joint Special Operations Command essentially out of civilian control.’

When will the Cold War end?

In Ike’s Gamble, Michael Doran promotes the early Cold War propaganda of a post-colonial neocon variety. It’s the rhetoric of the US being weak in foreign relations and so we need to take a tougher war hawk stance, presumably involving bombing and invading more countries along with strengthening alliances with authoritarian regimes by giving them greater funding, training, and military equipment.

The specific allegation is that Eisenhower back then, like Obama today, isn’t giving enough support to Israel. I find that strange that the elite are still trying to maintain such an old narrative, even as that narrative has long ago been disproven. There is probably no country in the world we give greater support to, especially in terms of how small the country is. Per capita, Israeli citizens probably get more US funding than do US citizens.

Doran paints Ike as having been naive about the Middle East. But the fact is that with his knowledge the CIA began a series of covert operations, including the assisting of the 1953 coup of the democratically-elected leader of Iran. Rather than naive, that was an extremely cynical maneuver. And importantly, it was a cynical maneuver taken immediately at the beginning of his presidency. He came into power like a man with a mission and wasted no time trying to geopolitically rearrange the world.

Ike was an old general and had been involved in the actions and consequences of geopolitics for his entire career, which is why he intimately understood the military-industrial complex. He was the opposite of naive, although he did like to put on the persona of an old doddering man so that people would underestimate him. He played his cards close to his chest. That is why he preferred covert operations rather than war. He had seen too much war in his life and he wanted to avoid further war. That was based in a grim realism about military conflict.

Ike’s diary of that time was declassified in 2009-2010. In it, he admitted to knowing about the CIA-backed coup in Iran. A few years later in 2013, the US government declassified documents showing the CIA orchestrated the coup. Yet in 2016, Doran can put out a book that is old school propaganda, entirely omitting any references to this info. I did a search in his book and he only briefly mentions the Iran coup, in relation to someone having been a veteran of the CIA covert operation, but he just passes over it as if it otherwise had no significance. Meanwhile, in reviews and interviews, the corporate media takes Doran’s propaganda at face value.

When will the Cold War end? Instead of ending, it feels like we’re right in the middle of it again.

* * *

Three Kings: The Rise of an American Empire in the Middle East After World War II
by Lloyd Gardner

Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA
by Tim Weiner

The Brothers: John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and Their Secret World War
by Stephen Kinzer

Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq
by Stephen Kinzer

All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror
by Stephen Kinzer

The U.S. Press and Iran: Foreign Policy and the Journalism of Deference
by William A. Dorman & Mansour Farhang

Neoliberal Whitewash
by Leonardo Legorreta

United States foreign policy in the Middle East
from Wikipedia

CIA activities in Iran
from Wikipedia

1953 Iranian coup d’état
from Wikipedia

U.S. President Admits American Role in Iran Coup
…Way Back in 1991

by Nima Shirazi

Eisenhower Diary, October 8, 1953
by Richard H. Immerman

Ike told diary he had no regrets after 1953 coup
from Iran Times

The “Dime Novel” Hoax
How Eisenhower’s Words Were Deliberately Twisted

by Arash Norouzi

“The Things We Did Were Covert”
Pres. Eisenhower’s Diary Confession — Oct. 8, 1953

by Arash Norouzi

The Secret History of the Iran Coup, 1953
by Malcolm Byrne

Iran 1953: US Envoy to Baghdad Suggested to Fleeing Shah He Not Acknowledge Foreign Role in Coup
by Malcolm Byrne

CIA Admits It Was Behind Iran’s Coup
by Malcolm Byrne

It’s Time to Release the Real History of the 1953 Iran Coup
by Malcolm Byrne

The 1953 Coup D’etat in Iran
by Mark J. Gasiorowski

The Secrets of History: The C.I.A. in Iran
by James Risen

CIA admits role in 1953 Iranian coup
by Saeed Kamali Dehghan & Richard Norton-Taylor

The 50th Anniversary of the CIA Coup in Iran
by Masoud Kazemzadeh

America’s Role in Iran’s Unrest
by Joan E. Dowlin

U.S. Comes Clean About The Coup In Iran
from CNN

In declassified document, CIA acknowledges role in ’53 Iran coup
by Dan Merica & Jason Hanna

CIA finally admits it masterminded Iran’s 1953 coup
from RT

The C.I.A.’s Missteps, From Past to Present
by Michael Beschloss

Lies and Truth: why care?

I’m often conflicted when it comes to conspiracy theories (or whatever you may prefer to call them).  I have strong curiosity which causes me to always look at alternative views and there are many important issues that should be researched seriously, but I have limited time and energy.  Depending on the subject, I might research more or less.  I usually research any important issue at least enough to understand the relevant questions even if I don’t know the answers.   

Let me provide examples.  Two movements have formed around political issues.  Even though they’ve gained mainstream support and interest, many in positions of authority dismiss them as conspiracy theorists.   

The first example is the 2000 Florida recount.  I’ve looked into this in fair detail in the past.  I’ve thought of writing a detailed post about it, but there doesn’t seem to be much point.  The information is out there for anyone who wants to think for themselves.  The basic facts are:   

(1) Bush didn’t win the popular vote.   

(2) There were many suspicious activities going on in Florida which have been described in great detail in various articles and documentaries.   

(3) A full recount was never done.  Some claim that going by the data Bush wouldn’t have won if a full recount had been done.   

(4) Bush was made president by a court decision and not by election.   

(5) The mainstream news media in the US never did a thorough investigation of this incident, and politicians of both parties refused to state any major criticisms or strongly demand a full recount.

The only fact that some argue about is the issue of the recount itself.  Depending on how you define a full recount, it may or may not have been done.  If you define a full recount as being the act of counting all votes, then no full recount happened.  If you define a full recount more narrowly which means dismissing certain votes either because they appear “suspicious” or otherwise are deemed officially unacceptable, then a full recount did happen.   However, looking at the votes dismissed, it’s the fact that they’re dismissed that looks suspicious.  The voters who had their votes dismissed were of a demographic that mostly voted for the Democratic party.

The second example is 9/11, but I want to point out one aspect.  The WTC 7 building’s collapse is what caught my attention.  The following excerpt is representative of the type of info I’ve come across in my research. 

Chapter 5 of the FEMA report goes as follows:

The official explanations of WTC 7’s collapse are problematic for several reasons:  

  • Fire has never caused any steel-framed high-rise building to collapse in any manner, let alone with the vertical precision of Building 7’s destruction. 1   Other steel-framed skyscrapers have experienced far more serious fires than Building 7.
  • WTC 7 fell straight down, which necessitated that all of the load-bearing columns be broken at the same moment. Inflicting such damage with the precision required to prevent a building from toppling and damaging adjacent buildings is what the science of controlled demolition is all about. No random events, such as the debris damage and fires envisioned by the official reports, or explosions from fuel tanks proposed by some, could be expected to result in such a tidy and complete collapse.
  • WTC 7 fell precipitously, at a rate closely approaching the speed of gravitational free-fall. That necessitated the sudden removal of structure near ground level that would have impeded its descent.
  • The collapse of WTC 7 exhibited all of the features of a standard controlled demolition. To suppose that a cause other than controlled demolition could produce an event with all of the features uniquely characteristic of controlled demolition defies logic.

Chapter 5 of the FEMA report goes as follows:  

FEMA on Building 7

Despite the inescapable logic of the above, the official theory for the collapse, as published in  

  • At 9:59 AM (after the South Tower collapse), electrical power to the substations in WTC 7 was shut off.
  • Due to a design flaw, generators in WTC 7 started up by themselves.
  • Debris from the collapsing North Tower breached a fuel oil pipe in a room in the north side of the building. (This means the debris had to travel across WTC 6 and Vesey Street — a distance of at least 355 feet — penetrate the outer wall of WTC 6, and smash through about 50 feet of the building, including a concrete masonry wall.)
  • This, and other debris (that also made the journey across Building 6 and Vesey Street), managed to start numerous fires in the building. (Unfortunately, this event did not prompt anyone to turn off the generators.)
  • The backup mechanism (that should have shut off the fuel oil pumps when a breach occurred) failed to work, and the fuel oil (diesel) was pumped from the tanks on the ground floor to the fifth floor where it ignited. The pumps emptied the tanks of all 12,000 gallons of fuel.
  • The extant fires raised the temperature of the spilled fuel oil to the 140 degrees F required for it to ignite.
  • The sprinkler system malfunctioned and failed to extinguish the fire.
  • The burning diesel fuel heated trusses to the point where they lost most of their strength, precipitating a total collapse of Building 7.

The last point is the greatest stretch, since it asks us to believe that an event that would be expected only to cause the sagging of a floor instead led not only to total collapse, but to such a tidy collapse that directly adjacent buildings were scarcely even damaged. This is surprising behavior for a steel-framed skyscraper designed to survive fires, hurricanes, and earthquakes.

After laying out this highly improbable scenario, the FEMA report authors conclude:  

“The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.”

Unfortunately for investigators hoping to resolve this issue, nearly all of the evidence had already been destroyed by the time the FEMA report was published. 

If you want to see an overview, check out the Wikipedia article on demolition theories.  Steven E. Jones is a physicist who had a laboratory analyze material from the WTC site.  He points out that there are chemicals detected which are what one would expect with thermite or superthermite.  He also points out that video footage show that there was extreme heat which wouldn’t be found in a normal fire.  The further argument is that the way the building collapsed is only ever seen in controlled demolitions. 

I don’t know if this is true or not.  That is the problem.  For the most part, the media has ignored these theories (with CNN being a bit of an exception).  A few people have claimed to debunk these theories, and others have claimed to debunk the debunkers.  What the 9/11 truth movement wants is simply to have an investigation that actually looks at the all of the evidence.  Is that too much to expect from one’s government and from the mainstream media? 

This all brings a few questions to my mind.  Why do people believe what they do?  And why are certain topics acceptable and others not? 

For example, Bush jr constantly claimed and hinted at Saddam Hussein being responsible for 9/11.  Along with his claims about WMDs, this was blatantly false.  Essentially, our president believed in an unfounded conspiracy theory.  For the most part, the media didn’t initially challenge this false belief and so many Americans believed it to be true (and many still do).  There was an interesting research paper on why people believe false information.  The interesting part was the ability people have when it comes to doublethink. 

“There Must Be a Reason”: Osama, Saddam, and Inferred Justification     

The first surprise in our findings is that several interview respondents denied believing Saddam Hussein was linked to Al Qaeda, even though they had indicated such a belief on the survey. In the following example, a respondent denies thinking that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, despite answering that this was the case on his survey. In the interview, he first states that he did think Iraq was involved, but then corrects himself and says he had thought it was Afghanistan all along. When the interviewer shows him his survey response, he indicates that it was a mistake and he had never actually believed Iraq was involved with 9/11:RESPONDENT: So I went to watch it [coverage of 9/11 in immediate aftermath] and a little bit more on the news, watching ’em burn and all that. But I thought maybe we was gonna go to war over that.
INTERVIEWER: Who’d you think we’d go to war with?
INTERVIEWER: Yeah. You thought it was Iraq that was behind it?
INTERVIEWER: What made you . . .
RESPONDENT: Well, they’ve, they’ve kind of been hintin’ about that on the news and stuff
before that, so I just, right away I just kind of presumed it was Iraq and, or, not Iraq, Afghanistan.
INTERVIEWER: Oh right, right. Yeah.
RESPONDENT: Get things straightened up here then. But I, they’d been having a lot of trouble
over there and everything, especially the way they was treatin’ people and everything, so I
just, kind of thought we’d go to war with them right away. Well, we ended up sending off a
lot of troops over there right away. But that, for the next 2 or 3 days, that was about all that
was on the news.
INTERVIEWER: You said on your survey, if I can find it . . . You said on your survey that you
thought that Saddam Hussein had helped the terrorists.
RESPONDENT: Have what?
INTERVIEWER: You said on your survey that you thought Saddam Hussein, Saddam Hussein
of uh Iraq had helped . . .
RESPONDENT: No, what on that 9/11?
RESPONDENT: No, no. If I said that, I probably did. Just like I did right there, I meant
INTERVIEWER: Oh oh oh, ok, ok.
RESPONDENT: No, I meant Afghanistan, not Iraq. I probably, I probably did say Iraq.
INTERVIEWER: Mmhmm. It says Saddam Hussein.
RESPONDENT: Yeah, well . . .
INTERVIEWER: Well, some people say . . .
RESPONDENT: You can change that or something if you want to . . .
RESPONDENT: . . . but, yeah, no I meant Afghanistan, not Iraq.
INTERVIEWER: Mmhmm. Well, some people think he was behind it, Saddam Hussein, in
RESPONDENT: Well, I know they keep saying that and everything but they’ve never come
up with any kind of proof or something, so ’til they get some kind of proof or anything, I’m
not gonna say one way or the other. . . . But right now, the way things are right now, I think
Afghanistan was in on it all and just, just them.
This “denial” category provides one clue to the survey findings of high rates of belief in a link between Iraq and 9/11: some respondents may make a mistake on the survey because of a general unfamiliarity with the region, even if they do know the current state of the evidence. By engaging in a dialogue with the respondent, we were able to show that he had a clear sense of the state of evidence, but slipped in his more general knowledge and mental classification of Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a finding that is not possible using simple survey methods. Seven interview participants out of 49 (14.3 percent) fell into this “denial” category. This suggests that polls asking about a link between Iraq and 9/11 may overstate the true level of belief in the link.            

It’s hard to determine what people actually think and believe.  There are so many reasons polls can be biased.  Most people give contradictory responses because human nature isn’t essentially rational.  For example, did Bush jr actually believe his own lies?  I suspect he did to a degree.  He seemed to have convinced himself.  Sometimes a particular belief is just convenient.

Also, big lies can be more successful as propaganda than small lies.  If a politician takes a bribe or has an affair, people are less likely to have their emotions strongly polarized.  However, if one’s worldview becomes entangled with a large lie, people will go to great lengths to rationalize it.  There is also a cognitive bias I forget the name of which causes people to believe something is a majority opinion simply because they see it repeated such as by the media and the government.  But polls sometimes show extreme difference between public perception of majority opinion and actual majority opinion.  Those in power don’t need to control the majority opinion if they control the majority preception.  Basically, people want to believe those in positions of authority.

As Hitler said in the Mein Kampf:

“In the simplicity of their minds, people more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have such impudence. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and continue to think that there may be some other explanation.”

This may be why incorrect information (whether an intentional lie or not) can persist even when later it is disproved.  Here is from the conclusion of “There Must Be a Reason”:

Our study was conducted in October 2004, after almost 2 years of debate and discussion on Iraq in the public sphere. Therefore, it is possible that we are only showing that interviewees wanted to believe in this link at this late date; their original reason for believing in the link may have been misinformation. If this is the case, then our study shows not theoriginsof the belief in the link, but the reasons for its resiliencethrough the 2004 presidential election, after the administration had admitted that there was no such link.

People just need a reason and often it may not even matter what particular reason gets accepted.

In this case, when presented with the fact of a president going to war, respondents do not begin from an open-ended position, determining their own belief from first principles and available data and then comparing it with the decision to go to war. Rather, some respondents simply assumed that there was a reason why the president wanted to conduct this war; and because many respondents were either not fully informed of or confused by the actual reasons the administration gave for waging war in Iraq, 9/11 seemed to them to be the most obvious justification. In essence, by invading Iraq the administration presented the public with the equivalent of a forced-choice survey question of whether or not Saddam was responsible for 9/11; in answering this “question,”
some respondents concluded that as we had invaded Iraq, it must mean that those in a position to know had concluded that Iraq was behind 9/11. The main theoretical implication of our research is that “knowledge” as measured on surveys is partly a by-product of the attempt to resolve the social psychological problem of cognitive dissonance. The practical implication of this is that, although scholars have shown a correlation between the perception of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda and support for the war in Iraq, we cannot conclude from this correlation that misinformation led to support for the war. Rather, for at least some respondents, the sequence was the other way around: support for the war led to a search for a justification for it, which led to the misperception of ties between Iraq and 9/11. This suggests a mechanism through which motivated reasoning may bestrongestwhen the stakes arehighest. It is precisely because the stakes of going to war are so high that some of our respondents were willing to believe that “there must be a reason.”

These biases in thinking apply to everyone.  They apply just as much to politicians and news reporters.  People become polarized and personally identified with specific beliefs and views.  This can happen to whole sectors of society.  Just look at the news.  Most reporting isn’t original investigative journalism.  Reporters tend to simply repeat what others have said which often means reporters talking reporters.  Following the line of references back to a source can be difficult and so few reporters even go to the effort.  Besides this, there are a million other ways a person becomes biased and filters out what they don’t want to see.

Self-deception and biased thinking is easy to do even when one is well informed and not emotionally polarized.  Unfortunately, that is rarely the situation when it comes to important issues about morality and politics.

Worse still, various people in power are constantly trying to manipulate the public’s opinions and choices.  Advertising, of course, is highly successful.  It’s quite amazing how much research has gone into manipulating people simply for the sake of making a profit.  Then there is the manipulation done by corporations for other purposes.  Corporations create astro-turf front groups that appear to be grassroots organizations and this is an effective way of influencing public opinion.  Also, media corporations have their agendas which leads them to bias their reporting and put messages into their entertainment.  One example is that of Fox news where memos were given out everyday telling reporters what to report and how to report about it.  Roger Ailes who is the president of Fox used to work for past Republican administrations.  One propaganda technique he used was creating fake townhall meetings where the entire crowd and all of the questions were staged.

I suppose that is the type of thing we expect in our society.  We assume that businesses will do anything make a profit and outmaneuver competition.  Actually, we not only assume but we cynically expect that companies should be devious and amoral in their dealings.  We see it as the role of the news media and the government to keep companies in check.  However, news media is owned by megacorporations that have numerous interests and so we no longer can trust reporters.  But can we still trust our government?  Besides the example of Bush jr and his evil cronies, is the government overall capable of acting as a disinterested party to ensure the public good?

There is the obvious problem of the revolving door policy between big business and big government with Roger Ailes being a very clear example.  But, ignoring that, is the government able to keep itself in check which is the purpose of having separation of powers.  For example, are psychological operations truly for the good of the public or are they for the good of those in power?

The CNN and NPR Interns Incident

In the 1990s it came to light that soldiers from the 4th Psychological Operations Group had been interning at the American news networks Cable News Network (CNN) and National Public Radio (NPR). The program was claimed by the Army to be an attempt to provide its PSYOP personnel with the expertise developed by the private sector under its “Training with Industry” program. The program caused concern about the influence these soldiers might have on American news and the programs were terminated.

National Public Radio reported on April 10, 2000:

The U.S. Army’s Psychological Operations unit placed interns at CNN and NPR in 1998 and 1999. The placements at CNN were reported in the European press in February of this year and the program was terminated. The NPR placements will be reported this week in TV Guide. [23]

Toppling of Saddam Hussein Statue

Arguably the most visible image of the 2003 invasion of Iraq was the toppling of a statue of Saddam Hussein in Firdos Square in central Baghdad. While the event, at first glance, gave the impression that the act was a spontaneous action of the citizens of the city, it was actually an idea hatched by an Army psychological operations team.[27] Allegations surfaced that the group of people surrounding the statue and cheering was in fact smaller than it was made out to be in the official story, and that the group were by some accounts not local to the area but were instead brought in by the military for the specific purpose of watching and lending credence to the planned toppling.[28][29][30]

And these psychological operations dovetail with false flag operations with the most famous example in US history being the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.

As for doublethink, I found a nice blog post that references George Orwell and uses an example from Alex Jones’ documentary Terrorstorm.

The term ‘doublethink’ originates in George Orwell’s 1984 and along with ‘newspeak’ (a constant process of slimming down language in order to limit peoples ability to communicate and ultimately think) is an essential part of the ‘Big Brother’ society. In the novel, doublethink is defined as “The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”

One of the main reasons doublethink is so necessary is that it allows the masses to accept being slaves to the system and under total surveillance, while considering themselves free and independent. Party slogans from the book such as “Freedom is Slavery, War is Peace” are typical examples of this, convincing the characters that in order to have the freedom of a civilized society they are required to be slaves to their dictatorial regime. It enables Winston (the protagonist of the book) to work at the ‘Ministry of Truth’, the governments propaganda machine, doctoring old newspaper stories to support whatever the government is claiming while still believing the claims to be true.

In Alex Jones’ documentary ‘Terrorstorm: A History of Government Sponsored Terrorism’ the film-makers interview random people on the streets of London about their views on recent terror attacks and the war on terror in general. The amount of people that respond instinctively with classic doublethink-style logic is positively alarming. The most extreme example was a woman who believed “we should give up our liberty for freedom”, seemingly unaware that they are both the same thing!

In conclusion, any given incident or theory isn’t in and of itself important.  What is important is what all of this says about our society.  I want to believe that truth matters, but few people seem to care about truth.  Truth just becomes a euphemism for whatever is convenient to someone’s beliefs, someone’s particular agenda.

I often do immense research about certain issues, but what is the point?  A few people will happen upon this blog post, and what then?  If one of the few people who already values truth reads this blog post, then it will be just preaching to the choir.  And if one of the majority of people who couldn’t care less about the truth reads this blog post, then my arguments will fall on deaf ears.  Am I likely to actually inspire someone to do serious research for themselves and make up their own mind?  Why should anyone care?  Why should anyone waste their time?  The government is going to cotinue to lie and obfuscate, and the media will continue to focus on meaningless stories and do superficial investigations.