Tags, 상세검색
PJ 49CHAPTER 7
REC #1 HATONN
FRI., APRIL 24, 1992 9:06 A.M. YEAR 5, DAY 252THE OLDEST WISDOM IN THE WORLD TELLS US THAT WE CAN CONSCIOUSLY UNITE WITH THE DIVINE WHILST IN THE BODY; FOR THIS MAN IS REALLY BORN.
FRIDAY. APRIL 24. 1992
Consciousness is defined as: "aware, mentally awake or alert and intentional". This word is also one which obviously indicates "action", having changed from unawareness into awareness, etc. Are you determined to remain in ignorance while you take your physical opinions along lines of the physical while expecting to unite with the Divine? Or, shall ye lift up your vision to allow God to tell you how to unite with that divineness? Oh, I see, you went to an Ashram and someone (usually a MAN) told you how to unite with God? Did it work? Is perfection in peace overfilling thine being? So, why does not ALL MAN understand? Because you can only learn from the physical experience--how to achieve the divine. Further, if you vote-out the guidelines in order to allow the journey as YOU DESIRE IT TO BE, you have only lied to self for the ultimate judgment of readiness is made by the Divine Source.
If this all be true then why "do" anything? Because you won't know "Divinity" when you find it if you know not that for which you search and serve. If you know not what is "wrong" with your perceptions now--how will you ever find the path of lighted wisdom?
HOPI PROPHECIES
The Hopi "Human People" put forth a prophesy some years ago. It was not ready for publication but ones took it upon themselves to decide the time was ready. In it the years of action and changes were listed--but man had not studied his lessons and did not correctly decipher the messages. For instance 1992: "The earth will have its true reality formed. It will join the sisterhood of planets, the Daughters of Copperwoman, and it will create within itself all forms of all things in harmony with the everything."
Do you see "harmony"?? Have you joined other planets?? Who is Copperwoman, much less, the daughters of?? HOW WILL YOU FIND OUT THE TRUTH OF IT? Will you go forth in your own direction as led by some MAN who "claims" to know all? Or, shall ye listen for the instructions sent from God via His Hosts who have attained wisdom through their journeys? Will you be fighting over whether or not Saturday night adultery is acceptable? Or, will you be finding out what God requests that you do and be? It is up to you, students (chelas).
I see, you now say you will wait around and maybe 1993 will bring perfection showered upon you. So, 1993: "We will see a whole new way of perfection. There will be plants on this Grandmother Earth that will give life and sustenance as never before seen. Starvation on the earth--all those things will be gone."
HOW is this going to come about? WHO will bring these things into being? The Israelis, your Government, how about George Bush or de Klerk in South Africa where the multitudes are starving and dying of AIDS? WHO WILL BRING THESE THINGS UNTO YOU? ONE CALLED JESUS? WILL THE JEWS FIND THAT ACCEPTABLE? HOW ABOUT THE POPE? HE WAS CREATED AND PUT INTO POWER BY THE COMMITTEE OF 300. WHO WILL BRING THESE THINGS AND MIRACLES UNTO YOU AND HOW? THROUGH MAGIC? WELL, YOU HAD BEST GET IN TOUCH WITH DAVID COPPERFIELD AND ASK HIM TO WORK ON MORE SUPPLEMENTAL MAGIC FOR YOU CAN'T EAT THE CAPABILITY OF FLYING AND IF YOU CAN'T EAT YOU WON'T HAVE THE STRENGTH TO FLY AT ANY RATE.
Now I understand, you are waiting for year 1995 when: "The new race of humans will begin to design their new reality of life on this planet as they intended it to be when they came from the stars." Oh no, "...when they came from the stars?"But that is "extraterrestrial" or something. Well, "Satan and evil come from out there--my preacher told me so." Ah, and where might this "Jesus" form, or messiah, come from? Oh, the stars? But that cannot be--for that IS extraterrestrial! MAKE UP YOUR MINDS--WHICH IS IT? I leave it to you!! By the way--the prophecies END WITH YEAR 2000. Worse, for you who have stolen the Aboriginal terminology and call yourselves "human people" did not take time to also understand that the ancient calendars of "time" ran out on August 17, 1987! What might those pagan redmen know that you white-eyes do not? It might be good to find out.
METHODS OF HEALING
The prophecies are exactly correct--right down to having technology and knowledge to heal all disease. We have capability and it is now on your placement which can be programmed to, like a pac-man, to change any mutant cell--simply by ingesting the programmed "new" cell which is simply a crystalline (crystal) life form--also called "virus". This is created through DNA and programmed for specific targets. By the way--it is already on your place and now you can quit wondering why only the Elite Global Masters have it available.
Moreover, you who should be noting that the pharmaceutical companies are insuring that substances which associate with this new technology are being removed from your markets!
Let us just take one example in point of capability: Taking a vial of this programmed solution and putting one drop of human insulin in it, within 48 hours there will be pancreatic beta cells producing insulin. So, did the solution hold the key to life itself? No, the key to life is the DNA sequence, the genetic code sequenced by the engine of LIGHT. The insulin contained enough of the genetic information to generate the pancreatic beta cells from whence it came. THE SOLUTION WAS THE SPARK, THE CATALYST, THE BRICKS AND ENERGY REQUIRED TO GROW THE BETA CELLS AND REPRODUCE THE INSULIN.
You might well think of this as "magic"--no, it is simply an elixir for the DNA. The directions of this one element of "insight" are totally staggering. So what is wrong? The Elite keep it from you and claim that Hatonn is an evil liar. THE INTENT OF THE GLOBAL GOVERNMENT 2000 IS DEPOPULATION OF THE PLANET TO AROUND 550 MILLION PERSONS. THIS WILL NOT BE ACCOMPLISHED IF EVERYBODY SICK GETS WELL!
I use the example of insulin production simply because a diabetic patient at this point cannot be "cured" on your planet. Herein within a few simple treatments the system will rebuild itself and in a matter of weeks the insulin system is functioning again--in perfection.
Further, this "directed" DNA form can be introduced, say, into an algae base which will both nourish the physical body to perfection and also give total perfection to all body cells along with getting rid of all mutant cells. Right now, as in cancer and AIDS, you have mutant cells which finally overwhelm a person's immune system with nothing to rebuild "from". Mutations are totally normal--but if the immune system cannot contain them all--the body dies.
You don't believe me?? Go right back to your lessons and look again at how "life" begins. Remember, the pictures of the developmental stages of the human embryo, where you began as a primitive creature looking like a skinny fish. Remember the human embryo with gill bars and a tail--called a sperm? Remember the fact that essentially all mammal embryos go through these stages? Perhaps you even studied this in your school process. Your professors would have said the descriptive phrase
for this phenomenon in point: "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny", the Biogenic Law of Genetics.
TO YOU WHO CAN'T BELIEVE IN REPLICAS
SO, WHAT HAVE WE? Imagine the goodly researchers taking apart sequenced T-RNA chains that hold primitive expressions of your ancestral heritage. Through the triplet nucleotides as a genetic remnant, imagine those genetic codes expressing themselves in the energy milieu of the solution in point, a solution that matches the energy of any specific segment of time. Picture these microscopic mobile creatures emerging from your genetic past, from the remnants of three nucleotides: intelligent, protective, a reproducing ambitious enzyme manufacturing micro-culture dedicated to preserving human life at the colloidal life level.
Could this be the discovery representing the bionic immunity of your ancestors of some millions or billions of years ago--I tell you now, it is again present upon your place! Could this be the "Methuselah" gene for which untold explorers have searched in pools, fountains and springs?--Or, are these "creatures" the actual blueprint in substance of life form itself, in this instance, "human" cells?
Oh yes indeed, future generations will know and use this wondrous knowledge--but who will come with me as we share the incredible opportunities with man of Earth. Probably not those who are so foolish and ignorant as to spend time denouncing us for we pronounce that Zionism is not Judaism. Will YOU miss the very miracle and knowledge of LIFE ITSELF because you were so narrow of consciousness that you refused to look beyond? Did the cave-man picture the rocket shuttle? As a matter of fact--yes, for the cave man was pure enough in openness to see that which was shown unto him. He did not understand it--but he drew pictures of it upon his walls within the caves for ye as "human people" were beginning your journey of learning so that you might one day again integrate within the human people among the stars.
On a microscopic level, friends, these ancestors of yours live in a highly ordered society with an intelligence and a manufacturing and engineering skill that you can only envy at this time for you refuse the gift for you assume the price is too high--a price which requires only that you live in balance within the Laws of God and Creation. Perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of this is that these little "chondriana" are "gendered"--both male and female. The male is called the chondrion and resembles the precursor "mitochondria" of your cells, thus the derivation of its name. The mitochondria of your cells is a very unique "organelle". Isn't this a bit of fun? How much of this did you already know? Why not? It is open knowledge--why do you not know?
THEREFORE, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THERE ARE OTHER THINGS WHICH ARE KEPT FROM YOU?? THANK YOU.
Yes, I know that you wish to go on with the subject in point of mitochondria and organelles, etc. But we are not, for it matters not if you cannot change of your circumstances in the world in which you exist. Those who bring this information unto you and openly share are murdered and suppressed, ridiculed and set-upon.
You can make all the little "boxes" for frequency and do all sorts of things with a so-called "Rife-Microscope" all to no avail if you do not know what you are seeing and how LIFE functions and comes into physical being. Perfection can flow only from perfection and all else is simple reproduction of errors. You will never find the perfection if ye are searching in an adultery bed on Saturday night--you search for perfection of knowledge in the places of perfection of knowledge--not hiding in the dark secret places of the human "animal" trained to have erroneous and unbalanced instincts--toward sure death and not for any semblance of eternal life form. You see, it always boils right down to intent and Truth. The "SECRET MYSTERIES" are there for the unveiling and you simply continue to pile on the additional shrouds. So be it.
Back to the CIA, please.
CIA AND CONTROL OF PRESS
CONTINUATION
Times reporter Szule states that he was not consulted about the heavy editing of his article, and he mentions that President Kennedy made a personal appeal to publisher Dryfoos not to run the story. Yet, less than a month after the invasion, at a meeting where he was urging newspaper editors not to print security information, Kennedy was able to say to the Times' Catledge, "If you had printed more about the operation, you would have saved us from a colossal mistake."
The failure of the Bay of Pigs cost CIA Director Dulles his job, and he was succeeded in November 1961 by John McCone; McCone did little to revamp the agency's policies in dealing with the press, although the matter obviously concerned him, as became evident when he reprimanded and then transferred his press officer, who he felt had been too forthcoming with a particular reporter. In McCone's first weeks at the agency, the New York Times got wind of the fact that the CIA was training Tibetans in paramilitary techniques at an agency base in Colorado, but, according to David Wise's account in The Politics of Lying, the Office of the Secretary of Defense "pleaded" with the Times to kill the story, which it did. In the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, President Kennedy again prevailed upon the Times not to print a story--this time, the news that Soviet missiles had been installed in Cuba, which the Times had learned of at least a day before the President made his announcement to the country.
According to the Times' Max Frankel, writing in the Winter 1973 Columbia Forum, there was still a feeling that the paper had been "remiss" in withholding information on the Bay of Pigs, so the Times extracted a promise from the President that while the paper remained silent he would "shed no blood and start no war". Frankel notes that "No such bargain was ever struck again, though many officials made overtures. The essential ingredient was trust, and that was lost somewhere between Dallas and Tonkin."
Then, in 1964, McCone was faced with the problem of how to deal with an upcoming book about the CIA and his response was an attempt to do violence to the First Amendment.
The book was THE INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT, by reporters David Wise of the New York Herald Tribune and Thomas Ross of the Chicago Sun-Times. Their work provided an example of the kind of reporting on the agency that other journalists might have done but had failed to do. In short, it was an example of investigative reporting at its best and, perhaps as a result, it infuriated the CIA.
McCone and his deputy, Lieutenant General Marshall Carter, both personally telephoned Wise and Ross's publisher, Random House, to raise their strong objections to publication of the book. Then a CIA official offered to buy up the entire first printing of over 15,000 books. Calling this action "laughable", Random House's president, Bennett Cerf, agreed to sell the agency as many books as it wanted, but stated that additional printings would be made for the public. The agency also approached Look magazine, which had planned to run excerpts from the book, and, according to a spokesman, "asked that some changes be made--things they considered to be inaccuracies. We made a number of changes but do not consider that they were significant."
The final chapter in the agency attack against THE INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT came in 1965 when the CIA circulated an unattributed document on "The Soviet and Communist Bloc Defamation Campaign" to various members of Congress and the press. This long study detailed the many ways used by the KGB to discredit the CIA, including the "development and milking of Western journalists. Americans figure prominently among these." The study singled out as an example of KGB disinformation a Soviet radio broadcast that quoted directly from THE INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT. The agency's message was not too subtle, but then the CIA never put its name on the document.
HELMS AND THE PRESS
When Richard Helms took over the agency in 1966, press relations changed noticeably. Helms himself had been a reporter with United Press in Germany before World War II, and he thought of himself as an accomplished journalist. He would tell his subordinates, when the subject of the press came up in the agency's inner councils, that he understood reporters' problems, how their minds worked, what the CIA could and could not do with them. He had certain writing habits (which may have originated either with a strict bureau chief or a strict high-school English teacher) which set him apart from others in the clandestine part of the agency, where writing is considered a functional, as opposed to literary, skill. For instance, he would not sign his name to any document prepared for him that included a sentence beginning with the words "however" or "therefore".
It soon became clear within the agency that Helms was intent on taking care of most of the CIA's relations with the press himself. Acutely aware that the agency's image had been badly tarnished by the Bay of Pigs and other blown operations during the early 1960's, he was determined to improve the situation. He later told a congressional committee, "In our society even a clandestine outfit cannot stray far from the norms. If we get...the public, the press or the Congress against us, we can't hack it."
So Helms began to cultivate the press. He started a series of breakfasts, lunches, and occasional cocktail and dinner parties for individual reporters and groups of them. On days when he was entertaining a gathering of journalists, he would often devote part of his morning staff meeting to a discussion of the seating arrangements and make suggestions as to which CIA official would be the most compatible eating partner for which reporter. While a few senior clandestine personnel were invited to these affairs, Helms made sure that the majority came from the CIA's analytical and technical branches. As always, he was trying to portray the agency as a predominantly non-clandestine organization.
Helms' invitations were not for every reporter. He concentrated on what the New York Times' (See, now you know WHY--they are among the Elite controlled resources) John Finney calls the "double-domes--the bureau chiefs, columnists, and other opinion makers". David Wise, who headed the New York Herald Tribune's Washington staff has a similar impression: "In almost every Washington bureau, there's one guy who has access to the agency on a much higher level than the press officer. Other reporters who call up get the runaround." Finney states that Helms and his assistants would "work with flattery on the prestige of" these key journalists. CBS News' Marvin Kalb, who attended several of Helms' sessions with the press (and who was bugged by the Nixon Administration), recalls that Helms "had the capacity for astonishing candor but told you no more than he wanted to give you. He had this marvelous way of talking of suggesting things with his eyes. Yet, he usually didn't tell you anything."
Helms' frequent contact with reporters was not a sinister thing. He was not trying to recruit them into nefarious schemes for the CIA. Rather, he was making a concerted effort to get his and his agency's point of view across to the press and, through them, to the American public--a common activity among top government officials. Furthermore, Helms was an excellent news source--for his friends. Columnist Joseph Kraft (another Nixon-Administration bugging victim) generally sums up the view of Helms by reporters who saw him frequently: "I wanted to see Helms a lot because he was talking with the top men in government. He was a good analyst--rapid, brief, and knowledgeable about what was going on." Kraft recalls that Helms was the only government official who forecast that South Vietnamese President Thieu would successfully block implementation of the Vietnamese peace accords until after the 1972 American election, and other reporters tell similar stories of Helms being among the most accurate high government sources available on matters like Soviet missiles or Chinese nuclear testing. He did not usually engage in the exaggerated talk about Communist threats that so often characterizes "informed sources" in the Pentagon, and he seemed to have less of an operational axe to grind than other Washington officials.
* * *
It becomes quite obvious that if you are among the Elite making the plans and setting the stage as well as "writing the play"--you will know the lines and how the "act" goes. If you hold power as did Helms with the blessings of the ones in the game building--you don't have to guess or even pretend "informed sources" for you are "informed".
Let us leave this writing at this point for we have other pressing duties. I believe we can make it to "Conclusions" at the next writing and then we can follow with some most interesting observations.
If you were wise enough to watch your President Bush giving away your nation and industries through free-trade last evening--you are much more insightful this day. You are going to have to be alert and search for these public "slippings". The entire speech was one incredible act of treason against your nation and I marvel that you have made it so far in total ignorance of Truth. May God walk with you patriots for your journey is most difficult indeed. This man even made sure he was dressed with a blue tie and was focused in front of "blue flags" (not the U.S. banner) which spoke more than words could ever project. He made no attempt to cover intent but spoke openly of the results of this NEW WORLD ORDER now in play--"this new world now established " He was speaking to the American States Organization including Canada, Mexico, Latin American, etc. Indeed this man fits the role set for him. What will you do, Americans?
Hatonn to stand-by.
PJ 49CHAPTER 8REC #1 HATONN
MON., APRIL 27, 1992 7:49 A.M. YEAR 5, DAY 255MONDAY, APRIL 27, 1992
CIA--CONTINUED.The source of a news leak is not usually revealed in the newspapers. Yet when Helms, or any other government official, gives a "not-for-attribution" briefing to reporters, he always has a reason for doing so--which is not necessarily based on a desire to get the truth out to the American people. He may leak to promote or block a particular policy, to protect a bureaucratic flank to a foreign government, or simply to embarrass or damage an individual. Most reporters are aware that government officials play these games; nevertheless, the CIA plays them more assiduously, since it virtually never releases any information overtly. The New York Times Washington bureau chief, Clifton Daniel, notes that although the agency issues no press releases, it leaks information "to support its own case and to serve its own purposes...It doesn't surprise me that even secret bureaucrats would do that." Daniel says, however, that he "would accept material not-for-attribution if the past reliability of the source is good. But you have to be awfully careful that you are not being used."
"'LEAKS"
In early 1968, Time magazine reporters were doing research on a cover story on the Soviet Navy. According to Time's Pentagon correspondent, John Mulliken, neither the White House nor the State Department would provide information on the subject for fear of giving the Soviets the impression that the U.S. government was behind a move to play up the threat posed by the Soviet fleet. Mulliken says that, with Helms' authorization, CIA experts provided Time with virtually all the data it needed. Commenting on the incident five years later, Mulliken recalls, "I had the impression that the CIA was saying 'the hell with the others' and was taking pleasure in sticking it in." He never did find out exactly why Helms wanted that information to come out at that particular time when other government agencies did not; nor, of course, did Time's readers, who did not even know that the CIA was the source of much of the article which appeared on February 23, 1968.
From the days of Henry Luce and Allen Dulles, Time had always had close relations with the agency. In more recent years, the magazine's chief Washington correspondent, Hugh Sidey, relates, "With McCone and Helms, we had a set-up that when the magazine was doing something on the CIA, we went to them and put it before them...We were never misled."
Similarly, when Newsweek decided in the fall of 1971 to do a cover story on Richard Helms and "The New Espionage", the magazine, according to a Newsweek staffer, went directly to the agency for much of its information. And the article, published on November 22, 1971, generally reflected the line that Helms was trying so hard to sell: that since "the latter, 1960's...the focus of attention and prestige with the CIA" had switched from the Clandestine Services to the analysis of intelligence, and that "the vast majority of recruits are bound for" the Intelligence Directorate. This was, of course, written at a time when over two thirds of the agency's budget and personnel were devoted to covert operations and their support (roughly the same percentage as had existed for the preceding ten years). Newsweek did uncover several previously unpublished anecdotes about past covert operations (which made the CIA look good) and published at least one completely untrue statement concerning a multibillion-dollar technical espionage program. Assuming that the facts for this statement were provided by "reliable intelligence sources", it probably represented a CIA disinformation attempt designed to make the Russians believe something untrue about U.S. technical collection capabilities.
PRE-PUBLICATION CENSORING
Under Helms, the CIA also continued its practice of intervening with editors and publishers to try to stop publication of books either too descriptive or too critical of the agency. In April 1972 this book [H: The one by "IMA" which I am utilizing (pub. 1974)]--as yet unwritten--was enjoined; two months later, the number-two man in the Clandestine Services, Cord Meyer, Jr., visited the New York offices of Harper & Row, Inc., on another anti-book mission. The publisher had announced the forthcoming publication of a book by Alfred McCoy called The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia, charging the agency with a certain degree of complicity in the Southeast Asian drug traffic. Meyer asked old acquaintances among Harper & Row's top management to provide him with a copy of the book's galley proofs. While the CIA obviously hoped to handle the matter informally among friends, Harper & Row asked the agency for official confirmation of its request. The CIA's General Counsel, Lawrence Houston, responded with a letter of July 5, 1972, that while the agency's intervention "in no way affects the right of a publisher to decide what to publish....I find it difficult to believe....that a responsible publisher would wish to be associated with an attack on our Government involving the vicious international drug traffic without at least trying to ascertain the facts." McCoy maintained that the CIA had "no legal right to review the book" and that "submitting the manuscript to the CIA for prior review is to agree to take the first step toward abandoning the First Amendment protection against prior censorship." Harper & Row apparently disagreed and made it clear to McCoy that the book would not be published unless first submitted. Rather than find a new publisher at that late date, McCoy went along. He also gave the entire story to the press, which was generally critical of the CIA.
The agency listed its objections to Harper & Row on July 28, and, in the words of the publisher's vice president and general counsel, B. Brooks Thomas, the agency's criticisms "were pretty general and we found ourselves rather underwhelmed by them." Harper & Row proceeded to publish the book--unchanged--in the middle of August.
U.N. RIDDLED WITH KGB
The CIA has also used the American press more directly in its efforts against the KGB. On October 2, 1971, the week after the British government expelled 105 Soviet officials from England because of their alleged intelligence activities, the New York Times ran a front-page article by Benjamin Welles about Soviet spying around the world. Much of the information in the article came from the CIA and it mentioned, among other things, that many of the Russians working at the United Nations were KGB operators. According to Welles, the agency specifically "fingered as a KGB man" a Russian in the U.N. press office, Vladimir P. Pavlichenko, and asked that he be mentioned in the article. Welles complied and included a paragraph of biographical information on the Russian, supplied by the CIA. Ten days later the Soviet Union made an official protest to the U.S. government about the "slanderous" reports in the American press concerning Soviet officials employed at the U.N.
The Times' charges about espionage activities of the Soviets at the U.N. were almost certainly accurate. But, as a Washington-based media executive familiar with the case states, "The truth of the charges has nothing to do with the question of whether an American newspaper should allow itself to become involved in the warfare between opposing intelligence services without giving its readers an idea of what is happening. If the CIA wants to make a public statement about a Soviet agent at the U.N. or the U.S. government wants to expel the spy for improper activities, such actions would be legitimate subjects for press coverage--but to cooperate with the agency in 'fingering' the spy, without informing the reader, is at best not straightforward reporting."
The CIA has often made Communist defectors available to selected reporters so news stories can be written (and propaganda victories gained). As was mentioned earlier, most of these defectors are almost completely dependent on the CIA and are carefully coached on what they can and cannot say. Defectors unquestionably are legitimate subjects of the press's attention but it is unfortunate that their stories are filtered out to the American people in such controlled circumstances.
David Wise remembers an incident at the New York Herald Tribune in the mid-1960's when the CIA called the paper's top officials and arranged to have a Chinese defector made available to reporters. According to Wise, CIA officials "brought him down from Langley (for the interview) and then put him back on ice." Similarly, in 1967 the agency asked the Times' Welles to come out to CIA headquarters to talk to the Soviet defector Lieutenant Colonel Yevgeny Runge. On November 10 Welles wrote two articles based on the interview with Runge and additional material on the KGB supplied by CIA officers. But Welles also included in his piece several paragraphs discussing the CIA's motivation in making Runge available to the press. The article mentioned that at least some U.S. intelligence officials desired "to counter the international attention, much of it favorable, surrounding the Soviet Union's 50th anniversary", which was then taking place. Publicizing the defection, Welles continued, "also gave United States intelligence men a chance to focus public attention on what they consider a growing emphasis on the use of 'illegal' Soviet agents around the world."
According to Welles, the paragraphs stating, in effect, that the CIA was exploiting Runge's defection for its own purposes infuriated the agency, and he was "cut off" by his CIA sources. He experienced "long periods of coolness" and was told by friends in the agency that Helms had personally ordered that he was to be given no stories for several months.
* * *
CERTAIN REPORTERS FAVORED
The CIA is perfectly ready to reward its friends. Besides provision of big news breaks such as defector stories, selected reporters may receive "exclusives" on everything from U.S. government foreign policy to Soviet intentions. Hal Hendrix, described by three different Washington reporters as a known "friend" of the agency, won a Pulitzer Prize for his 1962 Miami Daily News reporting of the Cuban missile crisis. This is the same Hal Hendrix who later joined ITT and sent the memo saying President Nixon had given the "green light" for covert U.S. intervention in Chile. Much of his "inside story" was truly inside: it was based on CIA leaks.
Because of the CIA's clever handling of reporters and because of the personal views held by many of those reporters and their editors, most of the American press has at least tacitly gone along, until the last few years, with the agency view that covert operations are not a proper subject for journalistic scrutiny. The credibility gap arising out of the Vietnam War, however, may well have changed the attitude of many reporters. The New York Times' Tom Wicker credits the Vietnam experience with making the press "more concerned with its fundamental duty". Now that most reporters have seen repeated examples of government lying, he believes, they are much less likely to accept CIA denials of involvement in covert operations at home and abroad. As Wicker points out, "Lots of people today would believe that the CIA overthrows governments," and most journalists no longer "believe in the sanctity of classified material". [H: I would guess that is some other kind of understatement!] In the case of his own paper, the New York Times, Wicker feels that "The Pentagon Papers made the big difference."
The unfolding of the Watergate scandal has also opened up the agency to increased scrutiny. Reporters have dug deeply into the CIA's assistance to the White House "plumbers" and the attempts to involve the agency in the Watergate cover-up. Perhaps most important, the press has largely rejected the "national security" defense used by the White House to justify its actions. With any luck at all, the American people can look forward to learning from the news media what their government--even its secret part--is doing. As Congress abdicates its responsibility, and as the President abuses his responsibility, we have nowhere else to turn.
* * *
[H: From this point on until this writing concludes are strictly the opinions of the authors of the book in point. I reach very few of the conclusions as presented herein--but then, hindsight is often perfection and this book was written in 1974 under great duress and censorship. I publish the material in the "CONCLUSION" in total for two reasons. One, I honor these writers and further know that, given opportunity to look back, the conclusions would be different. Secondly, to utilize this material without specific written permission of these authors and the CIA, I had to reprint "exactly" the material in point--without listing names as is law with non-fiction material. Further, to validate the reason for utilizing the information I have to have different "conclusions". At the end of this writing I shall clear-up all the actions and identify the authors in point. I shall also give information where you can contact the lead author and urge all who read this to get a copy of the Journal in point--through him. We have been declined information from the Dell Publishing Co.--perhaps the author and you shall have better response.
CONCLUSIONS
(FROM THE DOCUMENT OF 1974)
In the eyes of posterity it will inevitably seem that, in safeguarding our freedom, we destroyed it; that the vast clandestine apparatus we built up to probe our enemies' resources and intentions only served in the end to confuse our own purposes; that the practice of deceiving others for the good of the state led infallibly to our deceiving ourselves, and that the vast army of intelligence personnel built up to execute these purposes were soon caught up in the web of their own sick fantasies, with disastrous consequences to them and us.
Malcolm Muggeridge, May 1966
SECRECY: DISEASED WAY OF LIFE
"It is a multi-purpose, clandestine arm of power... more than an intelligence or counterintelligence organization. It is an instrument for subversion, manipulation, and violence, for the secret intervention in the affairs of other countries." Allen Dulles wrote those words about the KGB in 1963 so that Americans would better understand the nature of the Soviet security service. His description was a correct one, but he could--just as accurately--have used the same items to describe his own CIA. He did not, of course, because the U.S. leaders of Dulles' generation generally tried to impute the worst possible methods and motives to the forces of international Communism, while casting the "defensive actions of the free world" as honest and democratic. Both sides, however, resorted to ruthless tactics. Neither was reluctant to employ trickery, deceit, or, in Dulles' phrase, "subversion, manipulation, and violence". They both operated clandestinely, concealing their activities not so much from the "opposition" (they couldn't) as from their own peoples. Secrecy itself became a way of life, and it could not be challenged without fear of the charge that one was unpatriotic or unmindful of the "national security".
In the dark days of the Cold War the Communist threat was real to most Americans. Sincere men believed that the enemy's dirtiest tricks must be countered. Fire was to be fought with fire and America's small elite corps of intelligence professionals claimed they knew how to do this. The public and the country's leaders were willing to go along, if not always enthusiastically, at least without serious opposition. Consequently, clandestine operatives from the United States as well as the Soviet Union were turned loose in virtually every nation in the world. Each side won secret victories but the overall results were decidedly mixed. For its part, the CIA played some role in forestalling a Communist takeover of Western Europe, but the agency's record in the Middle East, Asia, and elsewhere in the world left much to be desired.
When the CIA's invaders were defeated in 1961 on the beaches of the Bay of Pigs, it should have been a signal to the country that something was wrong--both with the CIA and the government that directed the secret agency's activities. It should have been clear that events in the Third World could (and should) no longer be easily and blatantly manipulated by Washington. It should have been obvious that the times were rapidly changing; that the fears, following on the heels of World War II, that the "Communist monolith" was on the verge of dominating the "free world" were invalid. It should have been apparent to the American public that the CIA was living in the past.
Columnist Tom Braden, a former high-ranking CIA covert expert, reflecting on the latter-day life of the CIA, wrote in January 1973: "Josef Stalin's decision to attempt conquest of Western Europe by manipulation, the use of fronts and the purchasing of loyalty turned the Agency into a house of dirty tricks. It was necessary. Absolutely necessary, in my view. But it lasted long after the necessity was gone."
Yet after the initial public outcry over the Cuban fiasco, the personnel shake-up at the agency and the high-level reviews of its performance ordered by President Kennedy had little effect. The CIA went back to operating essentially the same way it had for the previous decade, again with at least the tacit acceptance of the American public. Not until the Indochinese war shocked and outraged a significant part of the population were CIA's tactics, such as secret subsidies, clandestine armies, and covert coups, seriously called into question. Now Watergate has brought the issue of an inadequately controlled secret intelligence agency home to us. The clandestine techniques developed over a quarter-century of Cold War have, at last, been dramatically displayed for the people of this country, and the potential danger of a CIA which functions solely at the command of the President has been demonstrated to the public.
* * *
The CIA has a momentum of its own, and its operatives continue to ply their trade behind their curtain of secrecy. They do not want to give up their covert activities, their dirty tricks.
They believe in these methods and they rather enjoy the game. Of course, without a presidential mandate they would have to stop, but the country has not had a chief executive since the agency's inception who has not believed in the fundamental need and rightness of CIA intervention in the internal affairs of other nations. When a President has perceived American interests to be threatened in some faraway land, he has usually been willing to try to change the course of events by sending in the CIA. That these covert interventions often are ineffective, counterproductive, or damaging to the national interest has not prevented Presidents from attempting them.
6 LINES DELETED
Kissinger and Nixon were concerned with what they believed to be a legitimate end--preventing a Marxist from being elected President of Chile--and the means employed mattered little to them, as long as secrecy could be maintained.
The new CIA Director, William Colby, has indicated on the public record that he intends to keep the agency functioning largely as it has in the past (while pledging to shun future "Watergates"). When Senator Harold Hughes asked him where the line should be drawn between the use of CIA paramilitary warriors and the regular U.S. armed forces, Colby replied that the dividing line should be "at the point in which the United States acknowledges involvement in such activities." Senator Hughes specifically put this answer into perspective when he said on August 1, 1973, "Mr. Colby believes that CIA-run military operations are perfectly acceptable as long as they can be concealed."
THIRD WORLD INTRUSIONS
Colby's--and the CIA's and the Nixon Administration's--view that "deniability" somehow allows the United States a free hand for covert intervention abroad (and at home) is an anachronistic hangover from the Cold War. Perhaps such actions could once have been justified when the future of the country was seemingly at stake, but no such threat now looms on the horizon.
The only two foreign powers with the potential to threaten the United States--the Soviet Union and China--have long ceased to be meaningful targets of CIA secret operations. Instead, the agency works mainly in the Third World, in nations that pose no possible threat to American security
2 LINES DELETED
The CIA is not defending our national security. It seeks rather to maintain the status quo, to hold back the cultural clock, in areas that are of little or no significance to the American people. These efforts are often doomed to failure. In fact, at least since 1961, the CIA has lost many more battles than it has won, even by its own standards. Furthermore, the very fact that the United States operates an active CIA around the world has done incalculable harm to the nation's international position. Not only have millions of people abroad been alienated by the CIA's activities, but so have been a large number of Americans, especially young people.
The time has come for the United States to stand openly behind its actions overseas, to lead by example rather than manipulation. The changeover might disturb those government officials who believe in the inherent right of the United States to exercise its power everywhere, clandestinely when that seems necessary; but in the long run non-interference and forthrightness would enhance America's international prestige and position.
Even in an era when the public is conditioned to ever expanding and ever more expensive government activities, the $6 billion yearly cost of American intelligence represents a significant slice of the national treasury. The government spends more money on the various forms of spying than it does on the war against crime and drugs, community development and housing, mass transportation systems, and even the country's overt international programs carried out by the State Department, the USIA, and the AID combined. Yet, unlike other federal activities, information on the intelligence community--how much money is being spent and where the money goes--is systematically withheld from the American people and all but a handful of Congressmen. Behind this wall of secrecy (which exists as much to conceal waste and inefficiency as to protect "national security") intelligence has grown far beyond the need of the nation.
The time has come to demysticize the intelligence profession, to disabuse Americans of the ideas that clandestine agents somehow make the world a safer place to live in, that excessive secrecy is necessary to protect the national security. These notions simply are not true; the CIA and the other intelligence agencies have merely used them to build their own covert empire. The U..S. intelligence community performs a vital service in keeping track of and analyzing the military capability and strengths of the Soviet Union and China, but its other functions--the CIA's dirty tricks and classical espionage--are on the whole, a liability for the country, on both practical and moral grounds.
But because of bureaucratic tribalism, vested interests, and the enormous size of the intelligence community, internal reform never makes more than a marginal dent in the community's operations. The people in charge like things essentially as they are and they have never been subjected to the kind of intense outside pressure which leads to change in our society. Presidents, furthermore, have not wanted to greatly disturb the existing system because they have always wanted more, if not better, intelligence; because they were afraid of opening up the secret world of intelligence to public scrutiny; because they did not want to risk losing their personal action arm for intervention abroad.
CONGRESSIONAL NON-CONTROL
The Congress, which has the constitutional power and indeed, the responsibility to monitor the CIA and U.S. intelligence, has almost totally failed to exercise meaningful control. Intelligence has always been the sacred shibboleth that could not be disturbed without damaging the "national security", and despite loud protests from a few outspoken critics, neither legislative house has been willing to question seriously the scope or the size of intelligence activities. Yet, if there is to be any real, meaningful change in the intelligence community, it must come from Congress, and, judging from past experience, Congress will act only if prodded by public opinion. The Watergate affair has, to some extent, played such a role, and the full review of the CIA's secret charter promised by Senate Armed Services Chairman John Stennis should be the first step in limiting the CIA's covert operations and cutting down the duplication and inefficiency of the rest of the community.
Congress should require the various intelligence agencies to keep it informed of the information collected. This kind of data should be routinely supplied to the legislative branch so it can properly carry out its foreign-policy functions and vote funds for the national defense. If the same information can be given to foreign governments and selectively leaked to the press by administrations in search of votes on military-spending issues, then there is no "security" reason why it must be denied to the Congress. The Soviets know that U.S. spy satellites observe their country and that other electronic devices monitor their activities; it makes little sense to classify the intelligence gathered "higher than top secret". No one is asking that technical details such as how the cameras work be given to the Congress or made public--but the excessive secrecy which surrounds the finished intelligence product could certainly be eased without in any way limiting the nation's ability to collect raw intelligence data by technical means.
As for the CIA proper, Congress should take action to limit the agency to the role originally set out for it in the National Security Act of 1947--namely, the CIA should concern itself exclusively with coordinating and evaluating intelligence. At the minimum, if clandestine activities must be continued by the U.S. government, the operational part of the CIA should be separated from the noncovert components. In the analytical and technical field the agency can make its most important contribution to the national security, but these functions have been neglected and at times distorted by the clandestine operatives who have almost always been in control of the CIA. Intelligence should not be presented to the nation's policy-makers by the same men who are trying to justify clandestine operations. The temptation to use field information selectively and to evaluate information to serve operational interests can be irresistible to the most honest of men--let alone to the clandestine operatives.
However, the best solution would be not simply to separate the Clandestine Services from the rest of the CIA, but to abolish them completely. The few clandestine functions which still serve useful purpose could be transferred to other government departments but, for the most part, such activities should be eliminated. This would deprive the government of its arsenal of dirty tricks, but the republic could easily sustain the loss--and be the better for it.
The Clandestine Services' espionage operations using human agents have already been made obsolete by the technical collection systems which, along with open sources, supply the United States government with almost all the information it needs on the military strength and deployments of the Soviet Union and China. The truly valuable technical systems--the satellites and electronic listening devices--should be maintained, although without the present duplication and bureaucratic inefficiency. Since Oleg Penkovsky's arrest by Soviet authorities in 1962, there has been no CIA spy who has supplied the United States with important information about any Communist power, and it is difficult to justify the expenditure of over $1 billion in the last decade for classical espionage simply on the hope that another Penkovsky will someday offer himself up as a CIA agent. Assuming that the CIA's most valuable agents will continue to be volunteers--"walk-ins" and defectors--a small office attached to the State Department and embassy contacts could be established to receive the information supplied by these sources.
While the CIA has been much more successful in penetrating the governments of the Third World and some of America's allies, the information received is simply not that important and can be duplicated to some extent through diplomatic and open sources. While it might be interesting to know about the inner workings of a particular Latin American, Asian, or African country, this intelligence has little practical use if the CIA has no intention of manipulating the local power structure.
The Clandestine Services' counterespionage functions should be taken over by the FBI. Protecting the United States against foreign spies is supposed to be the bureau's function anyway, and the incessant game-playing with foreign intelligence services--the provocations, deceptions, and double agents--would quickly become a relic of the past if the CIA were not involved in its own covert operations. Playing chess with the taxpayers' money against the KGB is unquestionably a fascinating exercise for clandestine operatives, but one that can properly be handled by the internal-security agency of the United States, the FBI.
CONSTITUTION UNDERMINED
As for the CIA's paramilitary tasks, they have no place in an intelligence agency, no place in a democratic society. Under the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war, and the United States should never again become involved in armed conflict without full congressional approval and public knowledge. If "American advisors" are needed to assist another country legitimately, they can be supplied by the Pentagon. The other forms of covert action-propaganda, subversion, manipulation of governments--should simply be discontinued. These are more often than not counterproductive and, even when successful, contrary to the most basic American ideals. The CIA's proprietary companies should be shut down or sold off. The agency would have little use for one of the largest aircraft networks in the world it if were not constantly intervening in foreign countries. The proprietaries, with their unregulated profits, potential conflicts of interest, and doubtful business practices, should in no case be allowed to continue operations.
The other countries of the world have a fundamental right not to have any outside power interfere in their internal affairs. The United States, which solemnly pledged to uphold this right when it ratified the United Nations charter, should now honor it. The mechanisms used to intervene overseas ignore and undermine American constitutional processes and pose a threat to the democratic system at home. The United States is surely strong enough as a nation to be able to climb out of the gutter and conduct its foreign policy in accordance with the ideals that the country was founded upon.
* * *
I can sum up the full intent and purpose of the CIA--GLOBAL ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT PLAN 2000 WITHIN THE "NEW WORLD ORDER".
I, further, believe that the authors would now concur with me and that no magnitude of "changes" would solve the problems involved herein.
I wish to go on record right now as stating that no-one in this location has had, prior to this, nor during this writing, any connection or contact with the authors in any manner whatsoever so I, Hatonn, claim full responsibility for all writings in this series of TANGLED WEBS.
I, further, fully intend to now give great dissertations on information gleaned elsewhere which has also been censored to youthe-public but has made it to underground press releases such as in the SPOTLIGHT, etc. This is for the purpose of allowing you readers to glean information to allow discernment. Currently you must confront the truth--you are TOTAL VICTIMS OF THE LIE AND UNTIL YOU RECOGNIZE AS MUCH--YOUR VERY NATION IS DESTINED TO FALL. FREEDOM IS NO LONGER!
YOUR PRESIDENT, THIS DAY, HOLDS THE POWER OF DICTATORSHIP AND SETTING ASIDE YOUR CONSTITUTION BY THE MERE PRONOUNCEMENT OF SAME FOR THE DOCUMENTS ARE ALREADY SIGNED AND FUNCTIONING. FURTHER, IF YOU ERR AND ALLOW A FINAL CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION--YOU ARE FINISHED!
I now give honor and full respect to ones: VICTOR MARCHETTI and JOHN D. MARKS. THE CIA AND THE CULT OF INTELLIGENCE. Originally published by: DELL PUB. CO., INC., New York, N.Y.
Mr. Marchetti, however, can be reached through his own Patriot information center New American View, P.O. Box 999, Hemdon, VA 22070-0999.
I AM NOT GOING TO GIVE ALL THE INFORMATION WHICH IS IN THE APPENDIX OF THEIR BOOK FOR I SINCERELY HOPE YOU WILL HONOR THESE GENTLEMEN FOR THE SERVICE THEY HAVE GIVEN UNTO YOU AND UNTO FREEDOM THROUGH THEIR WORK, AND GET A COPY OF THE BOOK. THANK YOU.
Hatonn to clear.
