Đó là tựa một đoạn phim James Corbett mỉa mai tổng hợp lại những thông báo phanh phui tội ác, tội phạm của chính phủ nhà nước của những người công dân hiểu biết và trách nhiệm, những người đồng cảnh ngộ thân phận với quần chúng trong xã hội. Thế nhưng họ không chỉ bị bọn nhà nước tội phạm và báo chí đĩ điếm tay sai bôi nhọ, mà họ bị chính những người dân ngu ngơ thánh hóa cuồng tín vào Chính phủ, báo chính qui - chế nhạo bác bỏ họ là "thuyết âm mưu- conspiracy theory), là kẻ loạn trí, nói xấu nhà nước, nguy hiểm, và không nên gần gũi hay nói chuyện!!!
- Nhưng khi chính cửa miệng của bọn Chính trị quan chức Nhà nước chính phủ xác nhận khi những sự kiện "âm mưu" không còn dấu được nữa... thì chẳng ai dè bỉu nhạo báng là thuyết âm mưu nữa. Quần chúng những tín đồ bênh vực chính phủ nhà nước, giáo hội ... im bặt và đánh trống lảng, chuyển đề tài, coi như chẳng có chuyện gì xảy ra, chưa từng nói gì về những vấn đề này cả.
James Corbett khôn khéo sắp xếp tuần tự trình bày những đoạn phim CHỐI BỎ, LÊN ÁN NHỮNG TỘI PHẠM DỐI TRÁ NHÀ NƯỚC là THUYẾT ÂM MƯU rồi nối ngay sau đó là những sự kiện TUYÊN BỐ từ chính cửa miệng bọn chính trị gia quan chức thú nhận các sự kiện của các" thuyết âm mưu" bọn chúng từng lên án.
1- Khỏi đầu là "thuyết âm mưu" tố cáo khủng bố Al Qaeda do Mỹ đẻ ra và nuôi dưỡng ủng hộ... Thì chính thượng nghị sĩ, ngoại trưởng Mỹ Hillary Clinton thú nhận!
2- Sau đó là "thuyết âm mưu" tố cáo về một kế hoạch bí mật giệt người (bệnh yếu. nghèo thiếu và người thiểu số da mầu) giảm dân số population reduction), được gọi là Hội Đồng Thần Chết (Death Panel) quyền hạn quyết định cho ai được sống và phải chết...trong đó Bill Gates, cũng như gia đình nữ hoàng Anh v.v thành viên của nhóm Eugenicist, nhóm chủ trương thanh lọc nhân chủng kiểu Hitler, đang chủ trương dùng "thuốc chích ngừa" để giảm dân số ở các "khu vực phi châu , á châu ...bị xem là thấp kém không đáng sống"- tài liệu tố cáo này vẫn bị chế nhạo là hoang tưởng bệnh hoạn và điên loạn chống xã hội... Đến khi nhà đại tài phú điện toán Bill Gates, buột miệng lý luận trong buổi phỏng vấn trên đài C-Span rằng những người già dùng quá nhiều tiền bạc qua việc phải chăm sóc họ NÊN BỊ GIẾT ĐI và dùng tiền vào cho việc khác "hữu ích" hơn như giữ lại không sa thải thầy giáo! Và rằng vấn đề này cần thiết nhưng các viên chức cơ quan ngại không dám bàn rộng vì sợ dân chúng gọi chính sách như vậy là "hội đồng thần chết" (hội đồng tử thần) : “ Chi phí một triệu Mỹ kim cho bệnh nhân trong ba tháng cuối đời của họ, lẽ ra nên dùng để giữ lại 10 giáo viên bị sa thải và tiết kiệm được chi phí y tế... nhưng làm thế bị coi là hội đồng tử thần và bạn không được bàn luận kiểu như vậy... (spending a million dollars on that last three months of life for that patient would have been be better not to lay off those ten other teachers and make save medical cost."“But that’s called the death panel and you’re not supposed to have that discussion..”)...
Điểm này Tôi không chắc người Việt Nam, người Tầu, người Nhật , người Ấn lên án, Bill Gates . Có lẽ họ sẽ đồng thuận với Bill Gates và nhóm Eugenists= thanh lọc nhân chủng chọn giống tốt nhất mới được tồn tại, trong đó giống Hán Bành Tổ, Giống Lạc Hồng-Tiên Rồng, Giống Con Cháu Thái Dương Thần Nữ rất cao quí phải đợc trân trọng sống còn !!! Tuy nhiên Hitler và con cháu Arayen của nó và đám Do Thái "con riêng Chúa Giời" hiện nay có chấp nhận Giống Tiên Rồng, Giống Hán Phục Hi, và Giống Thái Dương Thần Nữ cao quí bình đẳng hay không lại là chuyện khác. Chưa kể thằng cha Modi, thủ tướng mới thuộc đảng Quốc Gia của Ấn Độ cũng tuyên bố giống Ấn nhĩ mãn, con cháu thần Hindi Krisna mới thông minh thượng đẳng. Coi bộ chủ thuyết thanh lọc nhân chủng Eugenism gặp khó khăn lủng củng lớn rồi đây!!!
3-Michael Ruppert, cựu sĩ quan cảnh sát bài trừ ma túy, tố cáo chính CIA và nhà nước Mỹ buôn ma túy vào nước Mỹ. Sau này Ông Michael Ruppert bỏ làm việc trở thành giảng sư và viết sách nghiên cứu các ÂM MƯU TỘI ÁC của Nhà nước chính phủ. Ông bị mỉa mai nhạo bàng lên án là "thuyết âm mưu"... vừa mới đây, sau khi về ở chung với một bà bạn đời, đã bỗng nhiên "tự tử" chết!
Tố cáo của cựu sĩ quan cảnh sát bài trừ ma túy Michael Ruppert, sau đó được chính thượng nghị sĩ (hiện nay là bộ trưởng ngoại giao Mỹ) Kerry thú nhận
4- Dân Biểu Quốc Hội Anh lên tiếng về những cuộc bàn thảo kín của...nhóm bilderbergers! Điều cũng từng bị gác bỏ cho là bịa đặt của thuyết âm mưu.
5-Zbiggnew Brezenski, cố vấn an ninh quốc gia Mỹ thời Carter, cha đỡ đầu cho Bin Laden và thành lập AlQaeda tại Afganistan - tiền thân của ISIS hiện nay, gạt bỏ những tố cáo về nhà nước làm việc bí mật ... nhưng ngay sau đó lại thòng một câu rằng: "dĩ nhiên trong hệ thống chính trị nhà nước, thì làm việc phải có cái nổi cái dàn xếp chìm"
6- Tổng thống Bill Clinton bị một công dân hỏi chặn về chính phủ gian dối lừa đảo. Clinton gặng lại và bảo "câm mồm đi -shut up)... ngay sau đó cũng chính Clinton đọc tường trình về chương trình nhà nước chính phủ Mỹ lừa dới công dân Mỹ, dùng họ vào việc thử ảnh hưởng phóng xạ bằng cách chích Plutonium và Uranium vào cơ thể họ để thử nghiệm-. Nhưng chỉ để xin lỗi qua loa, không hề lên án toàn bộ chương trình đó. Sự việc đã không chấm dứt vào năm 1972, hay sau khi Clinton ra lệnh đóng cửa, mà kéo dài đến thời "Bush Con", nói dối chích ngừa cho lính nhưng là thuốc thử nghiệm.. và có khả năng vẫn đang tiếp diễn bí mật ngay hôm nay.
Những thử nghiệm này, có Úc tay sai tham gia, ngay trên lãnbh thổ Úc cũng như có trường hợp "gửi bệnh nhân Úc đi Mỹ chữa trị" - thật ra là dùng làm vật thử nghiệm cho Mỹ (guinea pig) (tham khảo tài liệu phần cuối bài)- Đó là chưa kể cũng chính Bill Clinton phải chính thức xin lỗi về việc chính phủ Mỹ dùng người Da Đen chích vi trùng Giang Mai vào họ để thử nghiệm tại Tuskegee - bang Alabama. Tất cả chỉ là một phần nhỏ thôi, bọn quân đội, an ninh khoa học gia nhà nước chính phủ còn nhiều tội ác loại này lắm- tham khảo cuối bài.
7- Cuối cùng là vụ việc Iran Contra, tình báo nhà nước Mỹ liên qnan buôn bán Ma túy với đám Ngụy Nicaragua, trao đổi vũ khí với Iran... lời thú nhận của John Kerry khi còn là thượng nghị sĩ (Senator).
Tuy nhiên, cần phải nhấn mạnh và khẳng định rõ ràng RẰNG:
1- Những THÚ NHẬN và THỪA NHẬN trên của bọn chính trị gia chính phủ chỉ mới có MỘT PHẦN, hoặc MỘT NỬA SỰ THẬT mà thôi- mục tiêu để nhằm ra vẻ DÂN CHỦ, nhưng thật sự để đánh lạc hướng dư luận vào trọng tâm CHỦ ĐỘNG của cả một HỆ THỐNG ÂM MƯU TỘI ÁC NHÀ NƯỚC RỘNG LỚN HƠN... chứ không phải bọn chúng chân thực hay thành thật! Nên nhớ KHÔNG CÓ ĐỨA NÀO TÙ TỘI, CÁCH CHỨC hết cả. Không được ngây ngô nhầm lạc thủ đoạn này.
2- Những tội ác này, không thể xảy ra, hoặc ÍT RA không thể trầm trọng kéo dài đau khổ cho nạn nhân vô tội, nếu bọn công dân tay sai, làm NHÂN VIÊN NHÀ NƯỚC như cảnh sát , quân đội, bác sĩ, kỹ sư, không vô sỉ, ích kỷ, bất nhân phi đạo lý thực hịện tận tụy thi hành ác lệnh phi nhân bản này trực tiếp. Bọn nhân viên tay sai này luôn mở mồm chống chế: "chúng tôiKHÔNG BIẾT GÌ chỉ nghe lệnh; chúng tôi cũng phải làm để có lương nuôi gia đình chúng tôi- (như đám ngục dân Viêt Nam hôm nay vẫn hay câng câng vô sỉ nói "lương tâm" không bằng "lương tháng" ).. Những công nhân viên tay sai này, đểu là tín đồ thiên chúa, phật tử, hồi giáo v.v Vậy cái giá trị đạo đức tín ngưỡng, lương tâm con người họ ở đâu" Cái quyền nào cho họ bảo vệ no ấm bản thân gia đình của riêng họ bằng cách tàn hủy giết hại người khác??? Khi chính bản thân gia đình của họ là nạn nhân, họ sẽ làm gì? Thượng sĩ Hugh Thomson tại Mỹ Lai, Snowden, Manning họ có dùng vi phạm Tội ác cho chính phủ quân đội nhà nước với những lý cớ đó chăng?
Cho nên chúng ta đã chẳng lạ gì khi bọn người này, nhân viên, cảnh sát, lính tráng và gia đình chúng nó luôn là những kẻ chổng mông thờ chính phủ và là những kẻ to mồm nhất chỉ tay nhạo báng chê bai và lên án những người như Hugh Thomson, Daniel Elberge Snowden, Assange, Manning v.v phanh phui tội ác nhà nước và tội phạm tay sai của bản thân và gia đình họ! Nhóm người nhân viên nhà nước tín đồ giáo hội giáo phái này chính là thành trì bảo vệ, bao che tội phạm, tội ác của nhà nước chính phủ và các loại giáo hội khắp nơi trên thế giới.
Cứ nhìn ngược lại vào trong bản thân và gia đình chúng ta, hoặc nhìn thẳng những người thân quen hoặc hàng xóm của chúng ta, tất cả là ở đó!
3- Thuyết Âm Mưu ( Conspiracy Theory) là một thủ đoạn của CIA tung ra trong năm 1967, ra lệnh cho các cơ quan liên hệ và báo chí dùng gạt bỏ, bịt miệng và bôi nhọ nhựng ai thắc mắc và chất vấn bản Tường Trình Warren Report về vụ ám sát J.F. Kenney, một bản tường trình đầy mâu thuẫn lỗ hổng. Từ đó nó trở thành vũ khí biệt miệng bất cứ ai phanh phui tội phạm tội ác của các tổ chức quyền lực và nhà nước. Nhờ Edward Snowden và Wikileaks, những "thuyết âm muu" về âm mưu kế hoạch mật của các bọm nhà nước chính phủ đã thành sư kiện-CIA despatch 1035/960) ( Mathias Broeckers: In January 1967, shortly after Jim Garrison in New Orleans had started his prosecution of the CIA backgrounds of the murder, the CIA published a memo to all its stations, suggesting the use of the term “conspiracy theorists” for everyone criticizing the Warren Report findings. Until then the press and the public mostly used the term “assassination theories” when it came to alternative views of the “lone nut” Lee Harvey Oswald. But with this memo this changed and very soon “conspiracy theories” became what it is until today: a term to smear, denounce and defame anyone who dares to speak about any crime committed by the state, military or intelligence services. Before Edward Snowden anyone claiming a kind of total surveillance of internet and phone traffic would have been named a conspiracy nut; today everyone knows better.)
4- Như vậy thật sự chính bọn Nhà nước chính phủ mới là những kẻ Lý THuyết Âm Mưu, vì chính những gì báo chí chính qui và nhà nước chính phủ tung ra, giải thích hay tuyên bố v.v đều chỉ là những gian dối hư cấu tưởng tượng. Điển hình là bản tường trình Warren về vụ ám sát Kenedy cho đến AlQaeda, bản tường trình 911, Vũ khí toàn diệt Iraq, và mới đây "mối đe dọa ISIS" v.v
Tủy độc giả nghiệm chứng vấn đề này và có qui kết riêng.
nhanchu.org
=======================
Các NGUỒN THAM KHẢO:
http://www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html
CIA Document 1035-960CIA Document #1035-960
Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.
2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination.
Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active [business] addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with [?] and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
b. To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher [?] article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing that Epstein's and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission's Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.
b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent--and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason.
c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.
d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.
e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service.
f. As to charges that the Commission's report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.
g. Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died mysteriously" can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conduction 25,000 interviews and re interviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the "ten mysterious deaths" line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)
CIA and Critics of the Warren Report
The CIA’s Attitude to Critics
The CIA did not approve of those who questioned the official verdict on President Kennedy’s assassination. The publication of the first wave of critical books, such as Sylvia Meagher’s Accessories After the Fact and Harold Weisberg’s Whitewash, led the CIA in 1967 to produce an internal document which stated its concerns and suggested ways to counteract the critics.The document was released in 1977 as the result of a request under the Freedom of Information Act for access to Lee Harvey Oswald’s CIA file, no. 201–289248. The document is reproduced below.
CIA’s Use of ‘Propaganda Assets’ in the Media
The document proposes that the CIA should “discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors)” and “employ propaganda assets to … refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose.” Attached to the document were examples of the CIA’s “useful background material for passing to assets.”One of the more remarkable aspects of the JFK assassination has been the sharp contrast between:
- on the one hand, the print and broadcast media’s heavy bias toward the lone–gunman account,
- and, on the other hand, the strong rejection of that account by the general population and, perhaps even more so, by knowledgeable writers. The CIA document claimed in 1967 that “46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone.” In 1976, the figure was 81%.
The extent of the CIA’s influence over the media became clear with the publication of the Church Committee’s findings in 1976:
The CIA currently maintains a network of several hundred foreign individuals around the world who provide intelligence for the CIA and at times attempt to influence opinion through the use of covert propaganda. These individuals provide the CIA with direct access to a large number of newspapers and periodicals, scores of press services and news agencies, radio and television stations, commercial book publishers, and other foreign media outlets.For a detailed account, see Carl Bernstein, ‘CIA and the Media,’ Rolling Stone, 20 October 1977. One of the CIA’s assets, according to Bernstein, was Joseph Alsop, who telephoned President Johnson on the morning of President Kennedy’s funeral, offering advice about the best way to promote the lone–gunman account.
(Church Committee, Book I, p.455).
Lee Harvey Oswald and the CIA
The document acknowledged the danger posed by rumours that Oswald had been associated in some way with the CIA. Although there is no definitive documentary proof of such an association, Oswald’s career as a defector who was welcomed back to the USA, and his close links to both pro– and anti–Castro activists in New Orleans, provide strong circumstantial evidence that he was not the mixed–up loner that the document claims him to have been.Two connections between the CIA and Oswald did not become known to the public until many years later, and presumably were unknown to the author of the document:
- Elements within the CIA knew about Oswald’s impersonation in Mexico City a few weeks before the assassination, and possessed “a keen interest in Oswald on a need–to–know basis,” in the words of one of the CIA officers involved (see Jefferson Morley, ‘What Jane Roman Said, part 3’ at history–matters.com). The impersonation implied a sinister association between Oswald and the Soviet regime, and led directly to the official adoption of the lone–gunman theory as the only politically acceptable solution to the assassination.
- An anti–Castro group, the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil, with whom Oswald had had dealings in New Orleans immediately before the Mexico City incident, was substantially funded by the CIA. The Agency’s public–relations activities continued into the 1970s, when George Joannides, who had been in charge of the DRE project, became the CIA’s liaison with the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Joannides ensured that the HSCA did not find out about the DRE’s connection with the CIA.
Threats to Political Institutions
The CIA document claims that “the members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence. They … were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country.” In his 16 Questions on the Assassination, the critic Bertrand Russell had pointed out that the opposite was the truth. The members of the Warren Commission were drawn from a very limited section of the country, and were chosen precisely because their institutional allegiances meant that they could be trusted not to ask too many awkward questions.The document recognises that criticism of the Warren Commissioners’ “rectitude and wisdom tend[s] to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society,” and, by extension, the CIA itself.
The Church Committee reported unfavourably on the CIA’s performance in providing information to the Warren Commission, and specifically criticised the Agency’s unwillingness to inform the Warren Commission of:
- Oswald’s apparent undercover work in New Orleans,
- and the repeated attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro by an alliance of the CIA and certain mafia leaders.
About the Document
CIA document 1035–960 is available at the National Archives: NARA RIF no. 104–10009–10022.A scan in PNG format is available at http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=567348. Included are the eight background documents.
Countering Criticism of the Warren Report
To: Chiefs, Certain Stations and Bases
From: Chief, WOVIEWCLAYTON P. NURNAD
- Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy’s assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission’s published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission’s findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission’s Report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.
- This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination. Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
- Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active, addressees are requested:
- To discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
- To employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our play should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (i) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (ii) politically interested, (iii) financially interested, (iv) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (v) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein’s theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher Knebel article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane’s book is much less convincing than Epstein’s and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)
- In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
- No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attacks on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, A.J.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Van der Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)
- Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent — and hence offer more hand–holds for criticism) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission’s records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason.
- Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy’s brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.
- Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make–up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over–commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.
- Oswald would not have been any sensible person’s choice for a co–conspirator. He was a “loner,” mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service.
- As to charges that the Commission’s report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.
- Such vague accusations as that “more than ten people have died mysteriously” can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conducting 25,000 interviews and reinterviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the “ten mysterious deaths” line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)
- Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission’s Report itself. Open–minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the Report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.
DESTROY WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED
1 April 1967
(CIA no. 1035–960)
Plutonium Files: How the U.S. Secretly Fed Radioactivity to Thousands of Americans
Denver-based journalist Eileen Welsome reveals how as a reporter for the tiny Albuquerque Tribune (circulation 35,000) she uncovered one of the country’s great Cold War secrets: the U.S. government had knowingly exposed thousands of human Guinea pigs with radiation poisoning including 18 Americans who had plutonium injected directly into their bloodstream. [includes rush transcript]
In a Massachusetts school, seventy-three disabled children were spoon-fed oatmeal laced with radioactive isotopes.
In an upstate New York hospital, an eighteen-year-old woman believing she was being treated for a pituitary disorder, was injected with plutonium.
At a Tennessee clinic, 829 pregnant women were served "vitamin cocktails" containing radioactive iron, as part of their regular treatment.
No these are not acts of terrorism by common criminals.
These are just some of the secret human radiation experiments that the U.S. government conducted on unsuspecting Americans for decades as part of its atom bomb program.
In a gruesome plot that spanned 30 years, doctors and scientists working with the US atomic weapons program, exposed thousands of unwilling and unknowing Americans to radiation poisoning to study its effects.
For years, the experiments by the U.S. government and the identities of their human guinea pigs were covered up.
Then after a six-year investigation, investigative reporter Eileen Welsome uncovered the names of 18 people who were injected with plutonium in the 1940s without their knowledge by federal government scientists. In 1993, she published her finding in The Albuquerque Tribune and later received the Pulitzer Prize for her work.
Another six years later, Welsome published "The Plutonium Files: America’s Secret Medical Experiments in the Cold War." The book gives a detailed account of the unspeakable scientific trials conducted by the U.S. government that reduced thousands of American men, women, and even children to nameless specimens.
In an upstate New York hospital, an eighteen-year-old woman believing she was being treated for a pituitary disorder, was injected with plutonium.
At a Tennessee clinic, 829 pregnant women were served "vitamin cocktails" containing radioactive iron, as part of their regular treatment.
No these are not acts of terrorism by common criminals.
These are just some of the secret human radiation experiments that the U.S. government conducted on unsuspecting Americans for decades as part of its atom bomb program.
In a gruesome plot that spanned 30 years, doctors and scientists working with the US atomic weapons program, exposed thousands of unwilling and unknowing Americans to radiation poisoning to study its effects.
For years, the experiments by the U.S. government and the identities of their human guinea pigs were covered up.
Then after a six-year investigation, investigative reporter Eileen Welsome uncovered the names of 18 people who were injected with plutonium in the 1940s without their knowledge by federal government scientists. In 1993, she published her finding in The Albuquerque Tribune and later received the Pulitzer Prize for her work.
Another six years later, Welsome published "The Plutonium Files: America’s Secret Medical Experiments in the Cold War." The book gives a detailed account of the unspeakable scientific trials conducted by the U.S. government that reduced thousands of American men, women, and even children to nameless specimens.
- Eileen Welsome, Pulitzer prize-winning reporter and author of "The Plutonium Files: America’s Secret Medical Experiments in the Cold War."
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: After a six-year investigation, reporter Eileen Welsome uncovered the identities of eighteen people injected with plutonium in the 1940’s without their knowledge by federal government scientists. Eileen Welsome published her findings in a series in the "Albuquerque Tribune" and received the Pulitzer Prize for her work. It took another six years for her to complete her book called "The Plutonium Files, America’s Secret Medical Experiments in the Cold War." She joins us now in Boulder, Colorado. Eileen Welsome, thanks for joining us.EILEEN WELSOME: Happy to be here. Thank you for having me.
AMY GOODMAN: Over the years we have spoken with you, but now that we’re on this tour and you live in Denver, this is a rare opportunity to sit down and go through this story. First, how did you even get a clue that this was going on?
EILEEN WELSOME: Amy, it started, as you mentioned earlier, I was a reporter at the "Albuquerque Tribune" and I was doing some research on an air force base there, and they were doing some cleanup work. I noticed that in the document there were several radioactive animal dumps on this air force base. So I was curious about what kind of animals were in the dump and why were they radioactive? So I went over to the air force base, Kirkland Air Force Base, to what was then called the Air Force Special Weapons Laboratory. And they got out a big stack of these dusty reports for me to read on these animal studies. And so as I was thumbing through these reports, and it was horrible because they were incubating beagles and watching them develop cancers and how long they lived and charting the radiation sickness. But as a reporter, there wasn’t a story there for me. These were old experiments and as gruesome as they were, it wasn’t something that a daily newspaper would be interested in. So it was about 5:00 on Friday, I was eager to go home, but I felt like I had gone to this trouble to get these documents and I had to make my time look good. So I kept flipping through the reports. And my eye fell on a footnote and the footnote mentioned something about 18 humans who had been injected with plutonium. So I kind of reared back in my seat. I was just shocked. Shocked to think that our government had injected 18 people with plutonium. So I jotted down what I could from the citation and the next day, which was a Saturday, I went to the university library there and started hunting up reports about these scientists. So that was the beginning of it and the reason I looked at the footnote, I need to say this, is I had done a lot of financial reporting prior to that time and I know that whenever a company wants to put in the bad news, it’s always in a footnote. So that taught me to look at footnotes.
AMY GOODMAN: And so how did you begin to unravel this story?
EILEEN WELSOME: Well, here was my problem: I learned there were some scientific reports in the literature, so I got those reports. I started to cull everything I could. And I learned that there were 18 people that had been injected with plutonium, but they were known by code numbers only. So the problem for me became how to find 18 Americans that had been injected with plutonium 30 or 40 years ago in a country of millions. So I thought that — I mean, it was an impossible task, and so I started very crudely. I put these 18 code numbers on yellow sheets of paper and then as I gathered documents, I would write down what I knew about each of these 18 people. So I eventually learned their ages, the date they were injected, what kind of disease they had, if there was an autopsy or a biopsy conducted, and when they died. And then it was just a matter of continuing to do that and pick up clues.
AMY GOODMAN: Tell us about one of the 18 people.
EILEEN WELSOME: Well, I had gone off on a journalism fellowship and I had been filing Freedom of Information Act requests with the federal government. So I had a tiny folder on this experiment and when I came back and looked — I pulled out my folder and I had fresh eyes. And I looked at this document again and these documents were redacted. In other words, the names of the patients were whited out and so were the names of the doctors. And my eye fell on this line, which said Doctor so and so contacted the physician of Cal-3 in Italy, Texas. And what leapt out at me were the words, Italy, Texas. By then, I knew a lot about Cal-3. I knew he was an African American man who would have been 80 years old, who would have been — who had his left leg amputated three days after he was injected with plutonium. So given those few clues and that this person might have lived in Italy, Texas, I was determined to go there and knock on every door until I found this man.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Eileen Welsome. So tell us about your discovery, how you made contact.
EILEEN WELSOME: So I got out a map. I looked up Italy, Texas. It was south of Dallas, about 60 miles. I called directory assistance, got the number of Italy’s City Hall, called them up, introduced myself, described the person I was looking for and they said, "You’re looking for Elmer Allen, but he died a year ago. Would you like his wife’s number?" So I said, "Of course." And I wrote the number down and within minutes I was talking to Mrs. Allen.
AMY GOODMAN: And what did you say?
EILEEN WELSOME: I was very circumspect because I didn’t want to frighten her and I didn’t want to seem like a kook and I didn’t want to put words in her mouth. I wanted to know what she remembered. So I simply said, you know, I had some documents that suggested that her husband may have been involved in a government-funded study and I would like to talk with her about it. And she asked me to talk to her daughter, Elmerine Allen Whitfield. And I called her and she was very quiet on the phone. As I reeled out my story, she said, "Ok, you can come on." And so I flew to Italy, Texas, and we sat down at her kitchen table and by the end of the interview, I knew and they knew that I had found the first of these 18 people.
AMY GOODMAN: Elmer’s story?
EILEEN WELSOME: Elmer’s story.
AMY GOODMAN: What was Elmer’s story, how did he end up in a hospital being injected with plutonium?
EILEEN WELSOME: Elmer was a railroad porter. He and his wife were living in the Bay Area in the mid 1940’s. They had left Texas and gone out there to start a better life. They had two young babies. Elmer fell from the train in Chicago and damaged his leg, and that sort of put him into the medical system. That was the beginning of his participation in this experiment. And his leg did not heal and he kept going back to the doctor. Somehow he found himself in this clinic at U.C. San Francisco University of California Hospital in San Francisco, and they selected him for this radiation experiment.
AMY GOODMAN: But he didn’t know that?
EILEEN WELSOME: Oh, no, no, he absolutely did not know. He was told that he had an osteosargenic sarcoma in his knee and they would have to amputate in order to save him. There’s some question about whether he did or didn’t have that cancer and I do not know the answer to that. But three days before they amputated that leg, they injected him in the calf, intramuscularly, with plutonium.
AMY GOODMAN: Didn’t they — he describe to his wife how they put a target on his leg and they injected it in that?
EILEEN WELSOME: They eventually, with the consent of Mrs. Allen, I was able to get Elmer’s medical records from U.C. San Francisco and in those medical records, the doctors talked about putting that target on his calf prior to the injection.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, he never knew he was a subject in a U.S. government experiment, but he suspected something, is that right?
EILEEN WELSOME: Yes. He told a good friend of his in Italy, Texas, that the doctors kept flying in and out of his room practicing to be doctors. And he told his friend, "They guinea-pigged me."
AMY GOODMAN: We interviewed Elmerine Allen a number of times and she talked about how growing up her father would say that, and then when she left for college, he said, watch out, "Don’t let the U.S. government guinea-pig you." And they always thought that Elmer had some kind of, well, Elmer was kind of quirky, and he had this delusion that the government experimented on him.
EILEEN WELSOME: The sad part about and the tragic part about Elmer’s story is that nobody believed him. He went to his doctor and told him, you know, "I think I’ve been injected with something." His doctor diagnosed him as a paranoid schizophrenic at the same time that he was conversing with the atomic energy scientists in Argonne National Lab to provide them with tissue samples and —
AMY GOODMAN: Wait, wait, wait. His doctor said he was a paranoid schizophrenic at the same time his doctor was providing Elmer’s tissues to the government scientists doing the experiment?
EILEEN WELSOME: That’s correct. That’s what the medical records show. So, Elmer was not only used in 1947 when he was injected with this radioactive isotope, but he continued to be used as a guinea pig for the rest of his life.
AMY GOODMAN: Being sent for example to where, Rochester, New York?
EILEEN WELSOME: In the — the experiment had two parts. In the 1970’s, the — in the 1970’s, a second generation of atomic scientists rediscovered this experiment. So they wanted to dig up all the people who were dead, who had been injected with plutonium, and they also wanted to bring whoever survived them back into the lab for further studies. And Elmer was one of those people.
AMY GOODMAN: Under what pretext since he didn’t know, supposedly, that he was a U.S. government guinea pig?
EILEEN WELSOME: They told Elmer, and this is all documented in the medical records, that they knew he had a very serious cancer and they wanted to know where he had lived so long.
AMY GOODMAN: Eileen Welsome is our guest. Pulitzer Prize winning reporter, unearthed the names of 18 people injected with plutonium by the U.S. government. When we come back, we’re going to talk about who these scientists were. We’ll hear more of the stories. And then also the group studies, the studies of hundreds of people who were given — well, a couple dozen disabled children in Massachusetts fed radioactive isotopes in their oatmeal, hundreds of pregnant women, also, served so-called vitamin cocktails containing radioactive iron — how this all happened without anyone knowing about it until recently. Stay with us.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman. As we continue looking at "The Plutonium Files: America’s Secret Medical Experiments in the Cold War." We’re broadcasting from Boulder, Colorado and our guest is Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Eileen Welsome now lives in Denver. The lessons — let the lessons of history remind us that the best safeguard for the future is an informed and active citizenry. Let’s continue on this journey of the people who were injected, and the people who injected them. This certainly sounds a little like the Tuskegee experiments, but tell us, who ran this program?
EILEEN WELSOME: The program sounded in the Manhattan Project, the project to build the atomic bomb in the early 1940’s. Side by side with the physicists worked a group of doctors who were interested in finding out how to protect their own workers in the Weapons Complex. And also trying to figure out what these new radio isotopes did in the human body. So basically, the beginning was the fathers of the bomb project, the medical doctors and scientists that were the tier below the Nobel Laureates, below the Oppenheimers and so on.
AMY GOODMAN: Did they know this was happening?
EILEEN WELSOME: Certainly the records indicate that Oppenheimer approved the injections of these patients with Plutonium, because Los Alamos was fighting a severe contamination problem and the scientists working in those laboratories were concerned about their own health.
AMY GOODMAN: Didn’t Oppenheimer come from Berkeley, and you had Elmer who was injected in California?
EILEEN WELSOME: That’s correct. There was a large component of the atomic bomb project in the Bay area.
AMY GOODMAN: Conducted where?
EILEEN WELSOME: At the University of California at Berkeley and also at the university of California San Francisco.
AMY GOODMAN: So we’re talking about a nexus of university, military, working together?
EILEEN WELSOME: That’s exactly right. During the Manhattan Project, it was a very strange hybrid animal where you had people that were in the military working for the military, and you had people that were getting paid by universities.
AMY GOODMAN: The robbing of graves?
EILEEN WELSOME: That occurred — well, I don’t know if I would quite put it so strongly as that, but they did exhume bodies.
AMY GOODMAN: With the family’s consent?
EILEEN WELSOME: They sought the consent of the families, but they did not tell the families the true purpose for the exhumations.
AMY GOODMAN: What did they tell them?
EILEEN WELSOME: That they had been given some radio isotope or some chemical and wanted to see what it had done in the bodies of their loved ones.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, that’s true, isn’t it?
EILEEN WELSOME: Yes, but they didn’t use the word Plutonium.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you name a scientist and can you tell us what the response has been?
EILEEN WELSOME: When I did my research, most of the scientists, with the exception of Himer Fridel, who was the assistant medical director of the Manhattan Project, were dead.
AMY GOODMAN: The Manhattan Project being —
EILEEN WELSOME: The atomic bomb program. But the scientist who had conducted the more recent studies defended them. That they were important to protecting the workers in the nuclear weapons complex or that they were harmless.
AMY GOODMAN: So let’s go through the experiments. The 18 people injected with Plutonium, none of them knew that that had happened to them. But moving on, in a Massachusetts school, 73 disabled children spoon fed oatmeal that had radio isotopes in them, radioactive isotopes. What happened?
EILEEN WELSOME: In that case, this was a nutrition study and they were given radioactive calcium and other radio isotopes.
AMY GOODMAN: Every morning?
EILEEN WELSOME: In their oatmeal, it was either mixed into the oatmeal or in the milk. And these boys did not know what was being given to them, nor did their parents. And in fact, they were told that this was really something nutritious and good for them. They were asked to give blood samples, urine samples, feces samples.
AMY GOODMAN: How long did this go on for?
EILEEN WELSOME: It went on for a number of years. And these boys grew into men and did not find out what had been done to them until the 1990’s.
AMY GOODMAN: Upstate New York hospital, 18-year-old girl thinks she’s being treated for a pituitary disorder and gets injected with Plutonium?
EILEEN WELSOME: This was a young woman who like Elmer Allen wound up in a hospital at the wrong place and was injected.
AMY GOODMAN: Tennessee clinic, 829 pregnant women served radioactive iron as part of their regular treatment. What did they think they were getting?
EILEEN WELSOME: This was a study done immediately after World War II and these young women came to the clinic thinking that they were getting vitamins to drink, that this would help their babies. And in fact, what was being studied was how fast the radio iodine crossed into the placenta.
AMY GOODMAN: Where was this?
EILEEN WELSOME: At Vanderbilt University in Nashville.
AMY GOODMAN: And what happened to these women?
EILEEN WELSOME: They had all kinds of ailments, skin diseases, cancer, blood disorders, some of their offspring, their children that they were carrying at the time of this experiment died of cancer. And very strange cancers at young ages.
AMY GOODMAN: Were there any whistle blowers among the doctors and nurses?
EILEEN WELSOME: There was none whatsoever. The doctors closed ranks and considered this worthwhile science, and something they were doing to protect the country.
AMY GOODMAN: What about patients brought into the basement of the hospital and experimented on in the middle of the night, where was this?
EILEEN WELSOME: This was an experiment that was done in Cincinnati, Ohio. It was another one of these hybrid experiments that was half medical, half military. And in many cases, that’s the problem with hybrid experiments. Often times, what’s medically good for the patient is not militarily the best experiment. So these studies were done with cancer patients. They were told it would help their cancer. What the doctors were looking at was trying to figure out in the event of an atomic bomb detonation, how long could soldiers fight?
AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Eileen Welsome. Her series came out in the Albuquerque Tribune and she turned it into a book, the Plutonium Files. Your expose came out under the Clinton years. President Clinton set up an advisory committee on human radiation experiments, which did its own digging into radiation programs. Remarkably enough, the report, the final report, came out on October 3, 1995, the same day as the verdict in the O.J. Simpson case. I don’t remember seeing the results being reported.
EILEEN WELSOME: It was really unfortunate, because everybody in the country was focused on O.J. Simpson and —
AMY GOODMAN: Or was it timed right? Because let’s remember every day people were waiting to the Simpson verdict, so it clearly was not beyond the government commission to understand the attention of the nation was focused elsewhere.
EILEEN WELSOME: I hadn’t thought about that, Amy. It’s simply a possibility.
AMY GOODMAN: So the results came out anyway?
EILEEN WELSOME: The results came out anyway, and nobody paid attention to it.
AMY GOODMAN: And what were the results?
EILEEN WELSOME: Basically, they confirmed that thousands and thousands of experiments had been done on U.S. Citizens. That the victims were the most vulnerable people in our society: the young, the disenfranchised, the poor, people of color, people who did not know enough to ask questions. In other words, the subjects were not doctor’s children or friends of their doctors; they were people who were vulnerable.
AMY GOODMAN: And how many places did this happen in the United States? The school in Massachusetts, the Cincinnati test, Elmer Allen was at the University of California Berkeley, how many sites were these government scientists working in?
EILEEN WELSOME: There were hundreds of sites. There were private hospitals, public hospitals, military installations, orphanages. About any place that doctor was working where they might be able to get a grant.
AMY GOODMAN: Prison?
EILEEN WELSOME: Yes, that was a really, really ugly experiment. A group of prisoners had their testicles eradiated.
AMY GOODMAN: Where?
EILEEN WELSOME: In Oregon mostly. And the purpose was for NASA. They were interested in knowing the effects of space radiation on astronauts.
AMY GOODMAN: And what happened to these prisoners?
EILEEN WELSOME: Many of them that I interviewed were still in prison. They had all kinds of medical problems and cancers and health issues.
AMY GOODMAN: Lawsuits?
EILEEN WELSOME: Many, many lawsuits filed. Some of the families were compensated. The Plutonium patients got an average per family of $400,000. I think that was the largest. And patients at other sites around the country got lesser amounts.
AMY GOODMAN: What about today? Do you think which have learned anything? And as people listen to this, I’m sure there are many who will start to wonder.
EILEEN WELSOME: I think that the way to safeguard yourself, you as a patient or your loved ones as patients, is by asking questions. And the other way to safeguard — the other way to prevent these things from happening again is to make sure that what we do is open an available to the public. Because openness is a disinfectant and it keeps these kinds of malignant, unethical experiments from happening.
AMY GOODMAN: Yet we have entered an age of perhaps greater secrecy than ever before.
EILEEN WELSOME: That’s correct. In fact, I realized as I was doing my book, my intuition told me this was a small window that was closing and I don’t think that today I could get some of the documents that I was able to get for this book.
AMY GOODMAN: Soldiers?
EILEEN WELSOME: Thousands of soldiers were used in bomb tests in Nevada.
AMY GOODMAN: How?
EILEEN WELSOME: Well, they were ordered into the blast area within minutes after a detonation. They flew in — Air Force pilots flew into radioactive clouds. They detonated atomic bombs in the Pacific. The soldiers and sailors were then ordered in to retrieve various instruments that were contaminated.
AMY GOODMAN: And then there were not the people who were personally fed the radio isotopes, the kids at the school or the women who were given these vitamin cocktails that were radioactive. But there was the disbursing of radio activity in the air over cities, at schools?
EILEEN WELSOME: That’s correct. One of the most famous is the Green Run at the Hanford Reservation.
AMY GOODMAN: In Washington state?
EILEEN WELSOME: In Washington State in which they released radio iodine and the prairie was very hot, but that was one of the controversial findings in this committee report. They did not say or recommend that the government be forbidden from doing this. They basically said you need to have a committee and at some point the documents should be made public. I thought that was one of the worst recommendations that they came out with.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you very much for being with us. What was the biggest revelation for you in this research and looking at the Plutonium Files?
EILEEN WELSOME: The biggest revelation for me was to see how cruel and inhuman these very educated doctors were toward their patients.
AMY GOODMAN: And not telling them?
EILEEN WELSOME: And not telling them.
AMY GOODMAN: And the medical establishment today, is it backing them up?
EILEEN WELSOME: They were when I was doing my research on this book. They still defended these experiments as being important.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Eileen Welsome, thank you for being with us. The book is called "The Plutonium Files: America’s Secret Medical Experiments in the Cold War." Tomorrow on Democracy Now!, we’ll be joined by Joyce Mescus, the owner of The Tattered Cover, an independent bookstore in Denver who has been talked about by many booksellers as the one who took on the US Government when police came in to get records of someone who had bought a book in her store. She spent tens of thousands of dollars fighting this case. We’re going to talk about what this means this day and age. We’re also going to speak with a doctor who has treated soldiers coming back from Iraq.
AMY GOODMAN: Being sent for example to where, Rochester, New York?
EILEEN WELSOME: In the — the experiment had two parts. In the 1970’s, the — in the 1970’s, a second generation of atomic scientists rediscovered this experiment. So they wanted to dig up all the people who were dead, who had been injected with plutonium, and they also wanted to bring whoever survived them back into the lab for further studies. And Elmer was one of those people.
AMY GOODMAN: Under what pretext since he didn’t know, supposedly, that he was a U.S. government guinea pig?
EILEEN WELSOME: They told Elmer, and this is all documented in the medical records, that they knew he had a very serious cancer and they wanted to know where he had lived so long.
AMY GOODMAN: Eileen Welsome is our guest. Pulitzer Prize winning reporter, unearthed the names of 18 people injected with plutonium by the U.S. government. When we come back, we’re going to talk about who these scientists were. We’ll hear more of the stories. And then also the group studies, the studies of hundreds of people who were given — well, a couple dozen disabled children in Massachusetts fed radioactive isotopes in their oatmeal, hundreds of pregnant women, also, served so-called vitamin cocktails containing radioactive iron — how this all happened without anyone knowing about it until recently. Stay with us.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman. As we continue looking at "The Plutonium Files: America’s Secret Medical Experiments in the Cold War." We’re broadcasting from Boulder, Colorado and our guest is Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Eileen Welsome now lives in Denver. The lessons — let the lessons of history remind us that the best safeguard for the future is an informed and active citizenry. Let’s continue on this journey of the people who were injected, and the people who injected them. This certainly sounds a little like the Tuskegee experiments, but tell us, who ran this program?
EILEEN WELSOME: The program sounded in the Manhattan Project, the project to build the atomic bomb in the early 1940’s. Side by side with the physicists worked a group of doctors who were interested in finding out how to protect their own workers in the Weapons Complex. And also trying to figure out what these new radio isotopes did in the human body. So basically, the beginning was the fathers of the bomb project, the medical doctors and scientists that were the tier below the Nobel Laureates, below the Oppenheimers and so on.
AMY GOODMAN: Did they know this was happening?
EILEEN WELSOME: Certainly the records indicate that Oppenheimer approved the injections of these patients with Plutonium, because Los Alamos was fighting a severe contamination problem and the scientists working in those laboratories were concerned about their own health.
AMY GOODMAN: Didn’t Oppenheimer come from Berkeley, and you had Elmer who was injected in California?
EILEEN WELSOME: That’s correct. There was a large component of the atomic bomb project in the Bay area.
AMY GOODMAN: Conducted where?
EILEEN WELSOME: At the University of California at Berkeley and also at the university of California San Francisco.
AMY GOODMAN: So we’re talking about a nexus of university, military, working together?
EILEEN WELSOME: That’s exactly right. During the Manhattan Project, it was a very strange hybrid animal where you had people that were in the military working for the military, and you had people that were getting paid by universities.
AMY GOODMAN: The robbing of graves?
EILEEN WELSOME: That occurred — well, I don’t know if I would quite put it so strongly as that, but they did exhume bodies.
AMY GOODMAN: With the family’s consent?
EILEEN WELSOME: They sought the consent of the families, but they did not tell the families the true purpose for the exhumations.
AMY GOODMAN: What did they tell them?
EILEEN WELSOME: That they had been given some radio isotope or some chemical and wanted to see what it had done in the bodies of their loved ones.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, that’s true, isn’t it?
EILEEN WELSOME: Yes, but they didn’t use the word Plutonium.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you name a scientist and can you tell us what the response has been?
EILEEN WELSOME: When I did my research, most of the scientists, with the exception of Himer Fridel, who was the assistant medical director of the Manhattan Project, were dead.
AMY GOODMAN: The Manhattan Project being —
EILEEN WELSOME: The atomic bomb program. But the scientist who had conducted the more recent studies defended them. That they were important to protecting the workers in the nuclear weapons complex or that they were harmless.
AMY GOODMAN: So let’s go through the experiments. The 18 people injected with Plutonium, none of them knew that that had happened to them. But moving on, in a Massachusetts school, 73 disabled children spoon fed oatmeal that had radio isotopes in them, radioactive isotopes. What happened?
EILEEN WELSOME: In that case, this was a nutrition study and they were given radioactive calcium and other radio isotopes.
AMY GOODMAN: Every morning?
EILEEN WELSOME: In their oatmeal, it was either mixed into the oatmeal or in the milk. And these boys did not know what was being given to them, nor did their parents. And in fact, they were told that this was really something nutritious and good for them. They were asked to give blood samples, urine samples, feces samples.
AMY GOODMAN: How long did this go on for?
EILEEN WELSOME: It went on for a number of years. And these boys grew into men and did not find out what had been done to them until the 1990’s.
AMY GOODMAN: Upstate New York hospital, 18-year-old girl thinks she’s being treated for a pituitary disorder and gets injected with Plutonium?
EILEEN WELSOME: This was a young woman who like Elmer Allen wound up in a hospital at the wrong place and was injected.
AMY GOODMAN: Tennessee clinic, 829 pregnant women served radioactive iron as part of their regular treatment. What did they think they were getting?
EILEEN WELSOME: This was a study done immediately after World War II and these young women came to the clinic thinking that they were getting vitamins to drink, that this would help their babies. And in fact, what was being studied was how fast the radio iodine crossed into the placenta.
AMY GOODMAN: Where was this?
EILEEN WELSOME: At Vanderbilt University in Nashville.
AMY GOODMAN: And what happened to these women?
EILEEN WELSOME: They had all kinds of ailments, skin diseases, cancer, blood disorders, some of their offspring, their children that they were carrying at the time of this experiment died of cancer. And very strange cancers at young ages.
AMY GOODMAN: Were there any whistle blowers among the doctors and nurses?
EILEEN WELSOME: There was none whatsoever. The doctors closed ranks and considered this worthwhile science, and something they were doing to protect the country.
AMY GOODMAN: What about patients brought into the basement of the hospital and experimented on in the middle of the night, where was this?
EILEEN WELSOME: This was an experiment that was done in Cincinnati, Ohio. It was another one of these hybrid experiments that was half medical, half military. And in many cases, that’s the problem with hybrid experiments. Often times, what’s medically good for the patient is not militarily the best experiment. So these studies were done with cancer patients. They were told it would help their cancer. What the doctors were looking at was trying to figure out in the event of an atomic bomb detonation, how long could soldiers fight?
AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Eileen Welsome. Her series came out in the Albuquerque Tribune and she turned it into a book, the Plutonium Files. Your expose came out under the Clinton years. President Clinton set up an advisory committee on human radiation experiments, which did its own digging into radiation programs. Remarkably enough, the report, the final report, came out on October 3, 1995, the same day as the verdict in the O.J. Simpson case. I don’t remember seeing the results being reported.
EILEEN WELSOME: It was really unfortunate, because everybody in the country was focused on O.J. Simpson and —
AMY GOODMAN: Or was it timed right? Because let’s remember every day people were waiting to the Simpson verdict, so it clearly was not beyond the government commission to understand the attention of the nation was focused elsewhere.
EILEEN WELSOME: I hadn’t thought about that, Amy. It’s simply a possibility.
AMY GOODMAN: So the results came out anyway?
EILEEN WELSOME: The results came out anyway, and nobody paid attention to it.
AMY GOODMAN: And what were the results?
EILEEN WELSOME: Basically, they confirmed that thousands and thousands of experiments had been done on U.S. Citizens. That the victims were the most vulnerable people in our society: the young, the disenfranchised, the poor, people of color, people who did not know enough to ask questions. In other words, the subjects were not doctor’s children or friends of their doctors; they were people who were vulnerable.
AMY GOODMAN: And how many places did this happen in the United States? The school in Massachusetts, the Cincinnati test, Elmer Allen was at the University of California Berkeley, how many sites were these government scientists working in?
EILEEN WELSOME: There were hundreds of sites. There were private hospitals, public hospitals, military installations, orphanages. About any place that doctor was working where they might be able to get a grant.
AMY GOODMAN: Prison?
EILEEN WELSOME: Yes, that was a really, really ugly experiment. A group of prisoners had their testicles eradiated.
AMY GOODMAN: Where?
EILEEN WELSOME: In Oregon mostly. And the purpose was for NASA. They were interested in knowing the effects of space radiation on astronauts.
AMY GOODMAN: And what happened to these prisoners?
EILEEN WELSOME: Many of them that I interviewed were still in prison. They had all kinds of medical problems and cancers and health issues.
AMY GOODMAN: Lawsuits?
EILEEN WELSOME: Many, many lawsuits filed. Some of the families were compensated. The Plutonium patients got an average per family of $400,000. I think that was the largest. And patients at other sites around the country got lesser amounts.
AMY GOODMAN: What about today? Do you think which have learned anything? And as people listen to this, I’m sure there are many who will start to wonder.
EILEEN WELSOME: I think that the way to safeguard yourself, you as a patient or your loved ones as patients, is by asking questions. And the other way to safeguard — the other way to prevent these things from happening again is to make sure that what we do is open an available to the public. Because openness is a disinfectant and it keeps these kinds of malignant, unethical experiments from happening.
AMY GOODMAN: Yet we have entered an age of perhaps greater secrecy than ever before.
EILEEN WELSOME: That’s correct. In fact, I realized as I was doing my book, my intuition told me this was a small window that was closing and I don’t think that today I could get some of the documents that I was able to get for this book.
AMY GOODMAN: Soldiers?
EILEEN WELSOME: Thousands of soldiers were used in bomb tests in Nevada.
AMY GOODMAN: How?
EILEEN WELSOME: Well, they were ordered into the blast area within minutes after a detonation. They flew in — Air Force pilots flew into radioactive clouds. They detonated atomic bombs in the Pacific. The soldiers and sailors were then ordered in to retrieve various instruments that were contaminated.
AMY GOODMAN: And then there were not the people who were personally fed the radio isotopes, the kids at the school or the women who were given these vitamin cocktails that were radioactive. But there was the disbursing of radio activity in the air over cities, at schools?
EILEEN WELSOME: That’s correct. One of the most famous is the Green Run at the Hanford Reservation.
AMY GOODMAN: In Washington state?
EILEEN WELSOME: In Washington State in which they released radio iodine and the prairie was very hot, but that was one of the controversial findings in this committee report. They did not say or recommend that the government be forbidden from doing this. They basically said you need to have a committee and at some point the documents should be made public. I thought that was one of the worst recommendations that they came out with.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you very much for being with us. What was the biggest revelation for you in this research and looking at the Plutonium Files?
EILEEN WELSOME: The biggest revelation for me was to see how cruel and inhuman these very educated doctors were toward their patients.
AMY GOODMAN: And not telling them?
EILEEN WELSOME: And not telling them.
AMY GOODMAN: And the medical establishment today, is it backing them up?
EILEEN WELSOME: They were when I was doing my research on this book. They still defended these experiments as being important.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Eileen Welsome, thank you for being with us. The book is called "The Plutonium Files: America’s Secret Medical Experiments in the Cold War." Tomorrow on Democracy Now!, we’ll be joined by Joyce Mescus, the owner of The Tattered Cover, an independent bookstore in Denver who has been talked about by many booksellers as the one who took on the US Government when police came in to get records of someone who had bought a book in her store. She spent tens of thousands of dollars fighting this case. We’re going to talk about what this means this day and age. We’re also going to speak with a doctor who has treated soldiers coming back from Iraq.
The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.
A History Of US Secret
Human Experimentation
3-25-3
- 1931 Dr. Cornelius Rhoads, under the auspices of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Investigations, infects human subjects with cancer cells. He later goes on to establish the U.S. Army Biological Warfare facilities in Maryland, Utah, and Panama, and is named to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. While there, he begins a series of radiation exposure experiments on American soldiers and civilian hospital patients.
- 1932 The Tuskegee Syphilis Study begins. 200 black men diagnosed with syphilis are never told of their illness, are denied treatment, and instead are used as human guinea pigs in order to follow the progression and symptoms of the disease. They all subsequently die from syphilis, their families never told that they could have been treated.
- 1935 The Pellagra Incident. After millions of individuals die from Pellagra over a span of two decades, the U.S. Public Health Service finally acts to stem the disease. The director of the agency admits it had known for at least 20 years that Pellagra is caused by a niacin deficiency but failed to act since most of the deaths occured within poverty-striken black populations.
- 1940 Four hundred prisoners in Chicago are infected with Malaria in order to study the effects of new and experimental drugs to
- combat the disease. Nazi doctors later on trial at Nuremberg cite this American study to defend their own actions during the Holocaust.
- 1942 Chemical Warfare Services begins mustard gas experiments on approximately 4,000 servicemen. The experiments continue until 1945 and made use of Seventh Day Adventists who chose to become human guinea pigs rather than serve on active duty.
- 1943 In response to Japan's full-scale germ warfare program, the U.S. begins research on biological weapons at Fort Detrick, MD.
- 1944 U.S. Navy uses human subjects to test gas masks and clothing. Individuals were locked in a gas chamber and exposed to mustard gas and lewisite.
- 1945 Project Paperclip is initiated. The U.S. State Department, Army intelligence, and the CIA recruit Nazi scientists and offer them immunity and secret identities in exchange for work on top secret government projects in the United States.
- 1945 "Program F" is implemented by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). This is the most extensive U.S. study of the health effects of fluoride, which was the key chemical component in atomic bomb production. One of the most toxic chemicals known to man, fluoride, it is found, causes marked adverse effects to the central nervous system but much of the information is squelched in the name of national security because of fear that lawsuits would undermine full-scale production of atomic bombs.
- 1946 Patients in VA hospitals are used as guinea pigs for medical experiments. In order to allay suspicions, the order is given to change the word "experiments" to "investigations" or "observations" whenever reporting a medical study performed in one of the nation's veteran's hospitals.
- 1947 Colonel E.E. Kirkpatrick of the U.S. Atomic Energy Comission issues a secret document (Document 07075001, January 8, 1947) stating that the agency will begin administering intravenous doses of radioactive substances to human subjects.
- 1947 The CIA begins its study of LSD as a potential weapon for use by American intelligence. Human subjects (both civilian and military) are used with and without their knowledge.
- 1950 Department of Defense begins plans to detonate nuclear weapons in desert areas and monitor downwind residents for medical problems and mortality rates.
- 1950 I n an experiment to determine how susceptible an American city would be to biological attack, the U.S. Navy sprays a cloud of bacteria from ships over San Franciso. Monitoring devices are situated throughout the city in order to test the extent of infection. Many residents become ill with pneumonia-like symptoms.
- 1951 Department of Defense begins open air tests using disease-producing bacteria and viruses. Tests last through 1969 and there is concern that people in the surrounding areas have been exposed.
- 1953 U.S. military releases clouds of zinc cadmium sulfide gas over Winnipeg, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Fort Wayne, the Monocacy River Valley in Maryland, and Leesburg, Virginia. Their intent is to determine how efficiently they could disperse chemical agents.
- 1953 Joint Army-Navy-CIA experiments are conducted in which tens of thousands of people in New York and San Francisco are exposed to the airborne germs Serratia marcescens and Bacillus glogigii.
- 1953 CIA initiates Project MKULTRA. This is an eleven year research program designed to produce and test drugs and biological agents that would be used for mind control and behavior modification. Six of the subprojects involved testing the agents on unwitting human beings.
- 1955 The CIA, in an experiment to test its ability to infect human populations with biological agents, releases a bacteria withdrawn from the Army's biological warfare arsenal over Tampa Bay, Fl.
- 1955 Army Chemical Corps continues LSD research, studying its potential use as a chemical incapacitating agent. More than 1,000 Americans participate in the tests, which continue until 1958.
- 1956 U.S. military releases mosquitoes infected with Yellow Fever over Savannah, Ga and Avon Park, Fl. Following each test, Army agents posing as public health officials test victims for effects.
- 1958 LSD is tested on 95 volunteers at the Army's Chemical Warfare Laboratories for its effect on intelligence.
- 1960 The Army Assistant Chief-of-Staff for Intelligence (ACSI) authorizes field testing of LSD in Europe and the Far East. Testing of the european population is code named Project THIRD CHANCE; testing of the Asian population is code named Project DERBY HAT.
- 1965 Project CIA and Department of Defense begin Project MKSEARCH, a program to develop a capability to manipulate human behavior through the use of mind-altering drugs.
- 1965 Prisoners at the Holmesburg State Prison in Philadelphia are subjected to dioxin, the highly toxic chemical component of Agent Orange used in Viet Nam. The men are later studied for development of cancer, which indicates that Agent Orange had been a suspected carcinogen all along.
- 1966 CIA initiates Project MKOFTEN, a program to test the toxicological effects of certain drugs on humans and animals.
- 1966 U.S. Army dispenses Bacillus subtilis variant niger throughout the New York City subway system. More than a million civilians are exposed when army scientists drop lightbulbs filled with the bacteria onto ventilation grates.
- 1967 CIA and Department of Defense implement Project MKNAOMI, successor to MKULTRA and designed to maintain, stockpile and test biological and chemical weapons.
- 1968 CIA experiments with the possibility of poisoning drinking water by injecting chemicals into the water supply of the FDA in Washington, D.C.
- 1969 Dr. Robert MacMahan of the Department of Defense requests from congress $10 million to develop, within 5 to 10 years, a synthetic biological agent to which no natural immunity exists.
- 1970 Funding for the synthetic biological agent is obtained under H.R. 15090. The project, under the supervision of the CIA, is carried out by the Special Operations Division at Fort Detrick, the army's top secret biological weapons facility. Speculation is raised that molecular biology techniques are used to produce AIDS-like retroviruses.
- 1970 United States intensifies its development of "ethnic weapons" (Military Review, Nov., 1970), designed to selectively target and eliminate specific ethnic groups who are susceptible due to genetic differences and variations in DNA.
- 1975 The virus section of Fort Detrick's Center for Biological Warfare Research is renamed the Fredrick Cancer Research Facilities and placed under the supervision of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) . It is here that a special virus cancer program is initiated by the U.S. Navy, purportedly to develop cancer-causing viruses. It is also here that retrovirologists isolate a virus to which no immunity exists. It is later named HTLV (Human T-cell Leukemia Virus).
- 1977 Senate hearings on Health and Scientific Research confirm that 239 populated areas had been contaminated with biological agents between 1949 and 1969. Some of the areas included San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Key West, Panama City, Minneapolis, and St. Louis.
- 1978 Experimental Hepatitis B vaccine trials, conducted by the CDC, begin in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco. Ads for research subjects specifically ask for promiscuous homosexual men.
- 1981 First cases of AIDS are confirmed in homosexual men in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco, triggering speculation that AIDS may have been introduced via the Hepatitis B vaccine
- 1985 According to the journal Science (227:173-177), HTLV and VISNA, a fatal sheep virus, are very similar, indicating a close taxonomic and evolutionary relationship.
- 1986 According to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (83:4007-4011), HIV and VISNA are highly similar and share all structural elements, except for a small segment which is nearly identical to HTLV. This leads to speculation that HTLV and VISNA may have been linked to produce a new retrovirus to which no natural immunity exists.
- 1986 A report to Congress reveals that the U.S. Government's current generation of biological agents includes: modified viruses, naturally occurring toxins, and agents that are altered through genetic engineering to change immunological character and prevent treatment by all existing vaccines.
- 1987 Department of Defense admits that, despite a treaty banning research and development of biological agents, it continues to operate research facilities at 127 facilities and universities around the nation.
- 1990 More than 1500 six-month old black and hispanic babies in Los Angeles are given an "experimental" measles vaccine that had never been licensed for use in the United States. CDC later admits that parents were never informed that the vaccine being injected to their children was experimental.
- 1994 With a technique called "gene tracking," Dr. Garth Nicolson at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX discovers that many returning Desert Storm veterans are infected with an altered strain of Mycoplasma incognitus, a microbe commonly used in the production of biological weapons. Incorporated into its molecular structure is 40 percent of the HIV protein coat, indicating that it had been man-made.
- 1994 Senator John D. Rockefeller issues a report revealing that for at least 50 years the Department of Defense has used hundreds of thousands of military personnel in human experiments and for intentional exposure to dangerous substances. Materials included mustard and nerve gas, ionizing radiation, psychochemicals, hallucinogens, and drugs used during the Gulf War .
- 1995 U.S. Government admits that it had offered Japanese war criminals and scientists who had performed human medical experiments salaries and immunity from prosecution in exchange for data on biological warfare research.
- 1995 Dr. Garth Nicolson, uncovers evidence that the biological agents used during the Gulf War had been manufactured in Houston, TX and Boca Raton, Fl and tested on prisoners in the Texas Department of Corrections.
- 1996 Department of Defense admits that Desert Storm soldiers were exposed to chemical agents.
- 1997 Eighty-eight members of Congress sign a letter demanding an investigation into bioweapons use & Gulf War Syndrome.
- © 1998-2000 Health News Network
- All Rights Reserved
- http://www.healthnewsnet.com/humanexperiments.html
Revealed: US Government Program Secretly Injected Citizens with Plutonium, Uranium
In a secret program that is now admitted to be true, the United States government injected unknowing human ‘participants’ with highly toxic plutonium. It sounds like a bizarre torture scenario that you’d expect to see blamed on illegal terror organizations, but the individuals behind this crime are actually doctors working for the United States government. Disregarding the health of innocent citizens, the government testers were eager to see how unknowing participants suffered as a result of secret plutonium injection.
It began in 1945, when an employee at the Oak Ridge Nuclear Facility was in a car accident. Ebb Cade survived, but was taken in as a human participant in a disturbing study he did not consent to. It is important to note that this man was a fifty-three-year-old African American, as previous government trials have singled out African Americans and other minorities. The racist sterilization programs occurred between 1929 to 1974 under an admitted eugenics programs that officials claimed were ‘creating a better society’. Most victims were poor, black women who were ‘deemed unfit to be parents’. Individuals as young as 10 were sterilized simply for not getting along with schoolmates or being promiscuous, and many parents were misled into sterilizing their children.
Ebb Cade was taken and bound to a bed with a broken arm and leg, where doctors interviewed him regarding his current state of health. After determining he was in a state of proper health, doctors secretly injected him with 4.7 micrograms of plutonium on Aptil 10th. It is still unknown who exactly ordered the program within the U.S. government, as they have managed to disassociate themselves with the entire nefarious program. At the time of the injection, scientists were perfectly aware of the negative effects associated with radiation. With cancers and radiation sickness on the rise, these scientists knew exactly what they were doing — examining the effects of plutonium isotopes on living beings.
Prior to the tests on Cade, the scientists injected animals with plutonium and noted the severe adverse effects. In some cases, animals were even fed radioactive waste. In fact, one scientist received a face full of gas and required his stomach to be pumped along with a full face scrub in an attempt to eliminate the threat. The scientists made sure that they were given the full treatment after the exposure. Meanwhile, they were injecting individuals with plutonium.
Scientists took excretions from Cade over the next five days to see how much plutonium retained in his body. They also refused to set his broken bones until April 15th, and cut samples from the bone before doing so to examine the plutonium content in his bone tissue. Fifteen of his teeth were pulled for testing. After all of this, they never informed Cade what they were doing. One nurse said that the tortured Cade escaped in the middle of the night, and he was later found to die in 1953 of heart failure.
Sadly, Cade was not the last test experiment.
Three human experiments followed, all cancer patients seeking treatment. Instead of treatment, the patients were injected with deadly plutonium in order for government scientists to see the effects. A man in his sixties with lung cancer, a woman in her fifties with breast cancer, and a “young man” with Hodgkin’s lymphoma were all given the poison. Conveniently, the third patient’s records are not available. He was injected with fifteen times more than any other individual, at 95 micrograms.
What followed is further widespread testing. The University of Rochester joined the program, injecting patients with not only plutonium but radioactive isotopes like polonium and uranium. Other institutions like the University of California soon followed suit.
Perhaps most concerning is the fact that this disgusting disregard for human health is not an isolated incident. The Tuskegee syphilis experiment is but one example of secret government human experiments that have run rampant throughout recent history. Taking place between 1932 and 1972, Tuskegee, Alabama, the U.S. Public Health Service knowingly infected poor black men with syphillus in order to test the effects. These men thought that they were receiving free healthcare by the U.S. government.
The list goes on, targeting minorities and the disabled in particular. From forced sterilizations to incognito injections, there is a lengthy history of government testing that shows the blatant disregard for your health by the United States government and elsewhere. With this in mind, is it any wonder why the FDA keeps toxic substances like mercury unregulated among the food supply?
Google Plus ProfileAnthony is the Editor of NaturalSociety whose work has been read by millions worldwide and is routinely featured on major alternative and mainstream news website alike, including the powerful Drudge Report, NaturalNews, Daily Mail, and many others. Anthony has appeared on programs like Russia Today (RT), Savage Nation, The Alex Jones Show, Coast to Coast AM, and many others. Anthony is also dedicated to aiding various non-profit organizations focused around health and rehabilitation as well as the creator of the independent political website Storyleak- Infowars - http://www.infowars.com -
Modern British Royalty: Eugenicists, Nazis and Neo-Feudalists
Posted By MarleighJones On April 26, 2011 @ 11:05 am In Old Infowars Posts Style,Red Title Front Page,Tile | Comments Disabled
Steve Watson & Alex Jones
Infowars.com
April 26, 2011
Secrets Of The Royal Wedding Exposed
The upcoming royal Wedding of William Mountbatten-Windsor, heir in waiting to the British throne has the UK media in a frenzy of vomit inducing worship and stomach churning sycophantic fawning. Even the US media is pouring over the royals to such an extent that commentators have pointed out that had the modern day corporate media covered the Revolutionary War, it would have firmly supported the British.
The US fought a bloody war of independence against British control of its government and economy, yet the American media has fast become fascinated with an institution that represents everything America is not. This despite the fact that in a recent poll only 6% of Americans said they were at all interested in the event.
Two billion people are estimated to watch this weekend’s royal wedding. Despite the three war fronts, radioactive meltdown in Japan, the evolving 2012 presidential field and any number of other stories, the media’s collective lens will be turned exclusively on a snobbish pompous ceremony that is costing already extremely strained British taxpayers tens of billions to stage.
While the British government balks at the unfolding events in Syria and elsewhere where protests and demonstrations are being brutally curbed, those wishing to protest the antiquated old world elitist values Britain is still forced to accept as “cultural” under the monarchy will be met with stern resistance and a gargantuan police presence this weekend on the streets of London.
Meanwhile, over 40 monarchs from around the world will take their seats at the wedding, among them the dictators and ambassadors from countries with appalling human rights records such as Swaziland, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe. Though he was invited, the Crown Prince of Bahrain, whose Gulf state has violently suppressed democracy protests in recent months, has respectfully declined, in order to avoid a public relations scandal. The leaders of Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman, whose military forces have aided the vicious crackdown will all be there, however. The Libyan Ambassador to Britain had his invitation rescinded when it was recently decided that Libya should be bombed back into the stone age.
In addition, a gaggle of “celebrities” have been invited, blatantly in an attempt to whip up more media hype and place a 21st century context on what is essentially a medieval ceremonial show of power.
As London Independent writer and noted Republican Johann Hari has highlighted, the frenzy surrounding the royal family has “a subtly deforming effect on Britain’s character that the ultimate symbol of our country.”
“Our sovereign, is picked on the most snobbish criteria of all: darling, do you know who his father was? Kids in Britain grow up knowing that we all bow and curtsy in front of a person simply because of their unearned, uninteresting bloodline. This snobbery subtly soaks out through the society, tweaking us to be deferential to unearned and talentless wealth, simply because it’s there.”
The pomp and hype of this occasion is part of a deliberate ongoing social engineering campaign to rebuild celebrity and importance around a parasitic and tyrannical elite that still pulls all the strings on the world stage.
This was also emphatically emphasized during the first state visit to London by president Obama in 2009.
Prior to meeting the Queen and her notoriously racist husband, Prince Philip, Obama announced that he “loves” her and that “in the imagination of people throughout America” the queen stands for “decency” and “civility”.
How repugnantly ironic that the first black president of the so called “free world” should refer to the most entrenched prejudiced and elitist institution in Europe as an icon of “civility”!
How disgustingly deplorable that the president should call “decent” a bloodline that has for centuries declared itself as God’s appointed rulers over half of the planet, killing, torturing and maiming anyone who crosses it in order to hold on to that mantle.
Reports also circulated regarding Obama practicing bowing and brushing up on courtly etiquette ahead of the meeting.
Traditional royal protocol dictates that men do a neck bow and women do a slight curtsy — though a handshake is considered acceptable as long as the queen offers her hand first, Politco reported.
When the President met the Queen in a room used to stage audiences with foreign dignitaries, Obama bowed his head and quietly said to her: “Thank you so much for having us” before turning to the Duke, bowing once more and adding: “It’s a wonderful honour.”
Michelle Obama curtsied to the Queen, however, later on she was treasonously caught inappropriately putting her hands on the glorious Monarch. The London Telegraph even issued a report on how the move was “a departure from what is considered appropriate protocol when meeting the Queen.”
Perhaps the most revealing part of the meeting, however, came from the mouth of Prince Philip who could not contain his virulent xenophobia, even in front of the cameras and the press.
In the small talk, the Queen and the Prince asked the President and his wife about their grueling schedule since arriving late on Tuesday evening.
“The time lag,” said the Queen
“You’re just trying to stay awake!” said Philip.
Then the President told the Royals: “I had breakfast with the Prime Minister, I had meetings with the Chinese, the Russians, David Cameron…
“And I’m proud to say I did not nod off in one of the meetings.”
A guffawing Prince Philip then blurted out: “Can you tell the difference between them?”
Apparently Barack Obama replied that he had no trouble telling them apart.
Then Philip, with a wave of his hand, directed the Obamas to turn around for the camera, to which the president nervously replied “of course”.
The Obamas and the Queen managed an astonishing set of uncomfortable false smiles, while Philip didn’t even bother attempting it.
The foursome then joined other world leaders in sipping champagne and devouring canapés, including mini Cornish pasties, smoked quails’ eggs, foie gras and rolls of duck filled with melon.
Watch video of the cringe inducing exchange:
Prince Philip serves as a telling link between the modern day royal family and it’s despicable history. He has made so many racist remarks in public, that they literally fill an entire book.
In 1984 he asked a Kenyan woman “You are a woman, aren’t you?”.
In 1986 he told British students in China ”If you stay here much longer, you will go home with slitty eyes.”
In 1998, during a tour of Papua New Guinea, he told another British student, ”You managed not to get eaten then?”
While on a tour of a company near Edinburgh, Scotland, he saw a poorly wired fuse box. “It looks as though it was put in by an Indian,” he remarked.
During a small town visit in Scotland, in a brief conversation with a driving instructor, he asked, “How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to get them through the (road) test?”
In a 2002 visit to Australia, Prince Philip asked an Aborigine, “Still throwing spears?”
Also, he once told a group of deaf children standing near a Jamaican steel drum musician, “Deaf? If you are near there, no wonder you are deaf.”
The list goes on and on. While the media often laugh the remarks off as “gaffes”, they take on a more serious nature when Philip’s background and the organizations he is involved with are more carefully examined.
It is well documented that Prince Philip’s sister, Sophia, was married to Christopher of Hesse-Cassel, an SS colonel who named his eldest son Karl Adolf in Hitler’s honour. Indeed, all four of Philip’s sisters married high-ranking Nazis. The prospect of the former Nazis and Nazi sympathisers attending his 1947 wedding to the future Queen of England meant he was allowed to invite only two guests.
Two years ago, more revelations of Philip’s Nazi links emerged in a book that featured never before published photographs of Philip aged 16 at the 1937 funeral of his elder sister Cecile, flanked by relatives in SS and Brownshirt uniforms.
Another picture shows his youngest sister, Sophia, sitting opposite Hitler at the wedding of Hermann and Emmy Goering. Philip was forced to concede that his family found Hitler’s attempts to restore Germany’s power and prestige ‘attractive’ and admitted they had ‘inhibitions about the Jews’.
Philip also helped start the World Wildlife Fund in 1961 with former Nazi SS Officer Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, who is closely affiliated with the founders of the Bilderberg international power group, and Sir Julian Huxley, Aldous Huxley’s brother, who was also the President of the British Eugenics Society.
In the past, Philip has also attended the ultra secretive ritualistic meeting of elites at Bohemian Grove, where he “stole the show” with an “amusing but salty speech” in 1962, according to the Grove’s own literature (pictured below).
Philip was also trained in the Hilter Youth. His belief in Nazi ideology is clear when one looks atwhat he has said on the subject of overpopulation.
In the foreword to his 1986 book If I Were an Animal, Prince Philip wrote, “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”
Borrowing the idea from American scientists who pioneered the field in the 1930′s, the Nazis advanced the pseudo-science of eugenics and incorporated it into Adolf Hitler’s dream of the Aryan super-race. Bearing in mind Philip’s Nazi connections, his views on the subject of overpopulation are unsurprising, but shocking nonetheless.
Just last year he reiterated these views, announcing that there are too many people in the world, and attacking large families in a television interview, despite the fact that Prince Philip himself has four children and eight grandchildren.
His son, Charles, the next King of England, has continued such ideology as he tours the world in private jets lecturing about the impact of climate change and how too many people are killing the planet.
Charles, who has inherited the entire Duchy of Cornwall estate, which stretches over 135,000 acres across 23 counties mainly in the south-west of England, is also a “patron” of the genocidal Optimum Population Trust, a notorious UK-based public policy group that campaigns for a gradual decline in the global human population to what it sees as a “sustainable” level.
Charles’ fellow patrons at the OPT include Futurist and top Eco-Fascist James Lovelock, who recently called for the ending of freedom in order that an overriding global power made up of “a few people with authority” can oversee the radical stemming of the planet’s human population in order to combat climate change.
Charles and the OPT are closely affiliated with The Royal Society, a 350 year old elitist institution granted royal charter status by King Charles II. The Royal Society is also crawling with eugenics enthusiasts and depopulation fanatics.
John Sulston, currently heading a major Royal Society global population study, most famously played a leading role in the Human Genome Project, the effort to identify and map the thousands of genes of the human genome. Sulston worked under James D. Watson, a notorious eugenicist who has previously argued that black people are inherently less intelligent than whites and has advocated the creation of a “super-race” of humans, where the attractive and physically strong are genetically manufactured under laboratory conditions. Watson is also affiliated with the Royal Society, indeed, in 1993 he received the society’s Copley Medal of honour for “outstanding achievements in research in any branch of science, and alternates between the physical sciences and the biological sciences”.
All of these neo-feudal elitist groups, posing as environmental groups have made it their raison d’etre to introduce hefty carbon taxes on the populations of the developed world and to literally de-develop the industrialized world by cutting carbon emissions by over 90%. It is therefore no surprise that the royals are willing participants.
Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)
The royals’ zeal to thin the population of undesirables has little to do with so-called “green credentials,” as is fatuously argued by the corporate media.
As Alex Jones documents in his seminal documentary End Game, this mindset is endemic amongst the elite.
Skip to the bottom of this article for a vast selection of similar quotations from Prince Philip, all advocating culling the “surplus” human population.
Racism within the Royal family is not restricted to Prince Philip, however.
In early 2005 Philip’s grandson, Prince Harry, was forced to publicly apologise for donning full Nazi regalia including a badge of the German Wehrmacht and a swastika armband.
Pictures of Harry wearing the uniform were taken at a friend’s birthday party in Wiltshire, which had the fancy dress theme “colonial and native”.
In 2008 Harry was once again forced to issue an apology for referring to an Asian army colleague as “our little Paki friend” and joking with another that he “looks like a raghead”, an offensive term for an Arab.
In the same week Harry’s father and Philip’s son, Prince Charles, caused another race row after it emerged that he had been calling an Asian friend by the nickname “Sooty”.
In 2004 a rather disgusting story emerged in the U.S. media regarding Princess Michael of Kent, who is the wife of Queen Elizabeth’s first cousin. Princess Michael’s father, Baron Gunther von Reibnitz, was also exposed in the 1980s as a former Nazi party member and SS officer.
The Princess reportedly turned to a table of black New Yorkers in a busy restaurant and chided them for being noisy, adding “You need to go back to the colonies.”
When asked to explain her comments by one of the diners the Princess reportedly said “I didn’t say go back to the colonies, I said, Remember the colonies,” adding that “In the days of the colonies there were rules that were very good.”
Just think about it. A German-born British aristocrat — whose father was in the Nazi SS — in the United States telling African Americans who have been here for centuries to “remember the colonies”? The LA Times noted.
The late Queen mother was also said to be virulently racist by close aids, last year Edward Stourton, the presenter of the BBC’s flagship radio program Today, described her as “a ghastly old bigot”.
According to others, the Queen mother referred to black people as “nig-nogs” or “blackamoors”, opposed all forms of immigration, and thought black Africans incapable of running their own countries. She backed white minority rule in Rhodesia and lamented that former apartheid leader P.W. Botha got bad press.
The Queen mother also criticised Lord Mountbatten, viceroy of India, “for giving away the empire” and his wife because “her mother was half-Jewish”.
Despite all of this the media consistently referred to her the as “nation’s favourite granny”.
But it gets worse…
Before the war began the Queen Mother was a supporter of making concessions to Hitler and the Nazis, a feeling shared by a large number of British aristocrats who admired the way Hitler was dealing with the Communists.
For some 50 years royal documents were held in vaults at Windsor Castle that detailed the abdicated king Edward VIII’s relations with Hitler and the Nazis. They included captured German documents describing the Windsors’ meeting with Hitler in 1937 and plans to restore Edward, the Duke of Windsor to the throne if the Nazis won the war. Some of these documents still remain hidden from the public.
While many have described the Edward VIII and his wife as known sympathisers of the Nazis and their policies, relatives of Wallis Simpson, the American woman whom Edward had an affair with, and the reason for his abdication, have suggested that in fact Edward was excommunicated by the rest of the royal family because he wasn’t friendly enough with the Nazis.
Throughout the Twenties and Thirties, George V and George VI were steadfastly opposed to conflict with their ancestral fatherland.
The modern royal family was founded in 1840 when Queen Victoria married Albert of Saxe-Coburg, a Germany duchy, creating The House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Such was the ill-feeling towards all things German during the First World War that in 1917 Victoria’s grandson King George V – an honorary Field Marshal in the German army – thought it prudent to renounce the German name and titles and adopt that of Windsor, the name of a small town in the home counties of England.
Today many people in Britain suggest that all these facts are no long relevant because the royal family has very little power. This is a huge myth. The Queen is the head of state and as such she can simply replace the British government at any time she chooses, should she wish to do so. The royal family still owns vast swathes of land throughout Britain and the rest of the world, and the Queen still presides as head of state in Canada and Australia.
******
Prince Philip, In His Own Words: We Need To ‘Cull’ The Surplus Population
Here is a re-cap of some of the things “HIS ROYAL VIRUS”, Prince Philip has said in public concerning “culling the population”
Reported by Deutsche Press Agentur (DPA), August, 1988.
In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.
Prince Philip, in his Foreward to If I Were an Animal; United Kingdom, Robin Clark Ltd., 1986.
I just wonder what it would be like to be reincarnated in an animal whose species had been so reduced in numbers than it was in danger of extinction. What would be its feelings toward the human species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere to exist…. I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.
Press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on the occasion of the “Caring for Creation” conference of the North American Conference on Religion and Ecology, May 18, 1990.
It is now apparent that the ecological pragmatism of the so-called pagan religions, such as that of the American Indians, the Polynesians, and the Australian Aborigines, was a great deal more realistic in terms of conservation ethics than the more intellectual monotheistic philosophies of the revealed religions.
Address on Receiving Honorary Degree from the University of Western Ontario, Canada, July 1, 1983.
For example, the World Health Organization Project, designed to eradicate malaria from Sri Lanka in the postwar years, achieved its purpose. But the problem today is that Sri Lanka must feed three times as many mouths, find three times as many jobs, provide three times the housing, energy, schools, hospitals and land for settlement in order to maintain the same standards. Little wonder the natural environment and wildlife in Sri Lanka has suffered. The fact [is] … that the best-intentioned aid programs are at least partially responsible for the problems.
Preface to Down to Earth by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1988, p.|8.
I don’t claim to have any special interest in natural history, but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in the number of game animals and the need to adjust the “cull” to the size of the surplus population.
Lecture to the European Council of International Schools. Montreaux, Switzerland, Nov. 14, 1986.
The great difficulty about “life” is that we humans are part of it, and it is therefore almost impossible to study objectively…. It therefore tends to be anthropocentric and gives scant attention to the welfare of all the other life-forms which share this planet with us.
…|When the Bible says that man shall have “dominion” over God’s creation, the choice is between understanding dominion as in “having power over,” or dominion as “having responsibility for.”
“Conflict Between Instinct and Reason”
Fawley Foundation Lecture. Southampton University, Nov. 24, 1967.
The conflict between instinct and reason has reached a critical stage in man’s affairs, largely because the explosion of facts has revealed the instincts for what they are and at the same time it has undermined traditional philosophies and ideologies. The explosion of facts has effectively altered mankind’s physical and intellectual environment and when any environment changes, the process of natural selection is brutal and merciless. “Adapt or die” is as true today as it was in the beginning.
Introduction to “Exploitation of the Natural System” section of Down to Earth by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1988.
It took about three and a half billion years for life on earth to reach the state of complexity and diversity that our ancestors knew as recently as 200 years ago. It has only taken industrial and scientific man those 200 years to put at risk the whole of the world’s natural system. It has been estimated that by the year 2000, some 300,000 species of plants and animals will have become extinct, and that the natural economy, upon which all life depends, will have been seriously disrupted.
The paradox is that this will have been achieved with the best possible intentions. The human population must be properly fed, human life must be preserved and human existence must be made safer and more comfortable. All these things are obviously highly desirable, but if their achievement means putting the survival of future generations at risk, then there is a pressing obligation on present generations to apply some measure of self-restraint.
Address to Edinburgh University Union, Nov. 24 1969.
We talk about over- and underdeveloped countries; I think a more exact division might be between underdeveloped and overpopulated. The more people there are, the more industry and more waste and the more sewage there is, and therefore the more pollution.
The Fairfield Osborne Lecture, New York, Oct. 1 1980.
If the world pollution situation is not critical at the moment, it is as certain as anything can be that the situation will become increasingly intolerable within a very short time. The situation can be controlled, and even reversed; but it demands cooperation on a scale and intensity beyond anything achieved so far.
I realize that there are vital causes to be fought for, and I sympathize with people who work up a passionate concern about the all too many examples of inhumanity, injustice, and unfairness; but behind all this hangs a deadly cloud. Still largely unnoticed and unrecognized, the process of destroying our natural environment is gathering speed and momentum. If we fail to cope with the challenge, the other problems will pale into insignificance.
Introduction to “The Population Factor” section of Down to Earth by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1988.
What has been described as the “balance of nature” is simply nature’s system of self-limitation. Fertility and breeding success create the surpluses after allowing for the replacement of the losses. Predation, climatic variation, disease, starvation–and in the case of the inappropriately named Homo sapiens, wars and terrorism–are the principal means by which population numbers are kept under some sort of control.
Viewed dispassionately, it must be obvious that the world’s human population has grown to such a size that it is threatening its own habitat; and it has already succeeded in causing the extinction of large numbers of wild plant and animal species. Some have simply been killed off. Others have quietly disappeared, as their habitats have been taken over or disturbed by human activities.
Humans are the Greatest Threat to Survival
Interview with HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, in People Dec. 21, 1981 titled “Vanishing Breeds Worry Prince Philip, But Not as Much as Overpopulation.”
Q: What do you consider the leading threat to the environment?
A: Human population growth is probably the single most serious long-term threat to survival. We’re in for a major disaster if it isn’t curbed–not just for the natural world, but for the human world. The more people there are, the more resources they’ll consume, the more pollution they’ll create, the more fighting they will do. We have no option. If it isn’t controlled voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily by an increase in disease, starvation and war.
Address to the Joint Meeting of the All-Party Group on Population and Development and the All-Party Conservation Committee in London, March 11, 1987.
I do believe … that human population pressure–the sheer number of people on this planet–is the single most important cause of the degradation of the natural environment, of the progressive extinction of wild species of plants and animals, and of the destabilization of the world’s climatic and atmospheric systems.
The simple fact is that the human population of the world is consuming natural renewable resources faster than it can regenerate, and the process of exploitation is causing even further damage. If this is already happening with a population of 4 billion, I ask you to imagine what things will be like when the population reaches six and then 10 billion…. All this has been made possible by the industrial revolution and the scientific explosion and it is spread around the world by the new economic religion of development.
Address at the Salford University Degree Ceremony, July 16, 1973.
There may be disagreements about the time scale, but in principle there can be little doubt that the population cannot go on increasing indefinitely. Resources presently being used will not last for ever and pollution in its broadest sense, unless severely checked, is bound to increase with population and industrial activity.
Address to All-Party Conservation Committee in London, Feb. 18, 1981.
I suspect that the single most important gift of progress to conservation has been the development of human contraception techniques.
The survival of the “most important”
Interview with HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, in People magazine, Dec. 21, 1981 titled “Vanishing Breeds Worry Prince Philip, But Not as Much as Overpopulation.
Q: Is birth control part of the solution?
A: Yes, but you can’t legislate these problems away. You’ve got to get people to understand the need for it: the more important people, the ones who have responsibilities have got to do it because they’re at the receiving end. They’ve got to accept the measures.
The Chancellor’s Lecture, Salford University, June 4, 1982.
As long ago as 1798, Malthus explained what happens when the factors limiting the increase in any population are removed. One of the factors noticed by Darwin was that all species are capable of producing vastly greater populations than can be sustained by existing resources; populations did not increase at the rate at which they are capable was the basis for his theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.
The relevance to natural selection of this capacity for overproduction is that as each individual is slightly different to all the others it is probable that under natural conditions those individuals which happen to be best adapted to the prevailing circumstances have a better chance of survival. Well, so what? Well, take a look at the figures for the human population of this world. One hundred fifty years ago it stood at about 1,000 million or in common parlance today, 1 billion. It then took about a 100 years to double to 2 billion. It took 30 years to add the third billion and 15 years to reach today’s total of 4.4 billion. With a present world average rate of growth of 1.8%, the total population by the year 2000 will have increased to an estimated 6 billion and in that and in subsequent years 100 million people will be added to the world population each year. In fact it could be as much as 16 billion by 2045. As a consequence the demand on resources of land alone will mean a third less farm land available and the destruction of half of the present area of productive tropical forest. Bearing in mind the constant reduction of non-renewable resources, there is a strong possibility of growing scarcity and reduction of standards. More people consume more resources. It is as simple as that; and transferring resources and standards from the richer to the poorer countries can only have a marginal effect in the face of this massive increase in the world population.
Speech at the Margaret Pyke Memorial Trust Dinner in London, Dec. 14 1983.
So long as they [birth control methods] … remained taboo subjects the chances of making any impression on the human population explosion were that much more remote.
In the introduction to the IUCN Red Data Books which list all animals and plants under threat of extinction, it says that virtually everywhere the major threat to a wild species is loss of habitat to a rapidly increasing human population requiring more space in order to build villages and cities and grow more food. But starvation and poverty cannot be eradicated solely by increased food and resources at the expense of what remains of the natural world. Any increase in the provision of food and resources must be accompanied by a drastic reduction in the rate of increase in the human population.
Address on Receiving Honorary Degree from the University of Western Ontario, Canada, July 1, 1983.
The industrial revolution sparked the scientific revolution and brought in its wake better public hygiene, better medical care and yet more efficient agriculture. The consequence was a population explosion which still continues today.
The sad fact is that, instead of the same number of people being very much better off, more than twice as many people are just as badly off as they were before. Unfortunately all this well-intentioned development has resulted in an ecological disaster of immense proportions.
The Chancellor’s Lecture, Salford University, June 4, 1982.
The object of the WWF is to “conserve” the system as a whole; not to prevent the killing of individual animals. Those who are concerned about their conservation of nature accept that all species are prey to some other species. They accept that most species produce a surplus that is capable of being culled without in any way threatening the survival of the species as a whole.
A Question of Balance by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Michael Russel (Publishing) Ltd., 1982.
It is curious how many philosophers from Plato to Keynes’ time have believed in and advocated the control of society by “philosopher kings.” According to Plato, “its kings must be those who have shown the greatest ability in philosophy,” but–realistically–he added, “and the greatest aptitude for war.” Such people may exist in the imagination and occasionally someone with the necessary qualities may briefly dominate the stage of history, but it is a naive appreciation of human nature to imagine that such processed paragons can be invested with the necessary powers and not be tempted to take advantage of their situation.
Infowars.com
April 26, 2011
Secrets Of The Royal Wedding Exposed
The upcoming royal Wedding of William Mountbatten-Windsor, heir in waiting to the British throne has the UK media in a frenzy of vomit inducing worship and stomach churning sycophantic fawning. Even the US media is pouring over the royals to such an extent that commentators have pointed out that had the modern day corporate media covered the Revolutionary War, it would have firmly supported the British.
The US fought a bloody war of independence against British control of its government and economy, yet the American media has fast become fascinated with an institution that represents everything America is not. This despite the fact that in a recent poll only 6% of Americans said they were at all interested in the event.
Two billion people are estimated to watch this weekend’s royal wedding. Despite the three war fronts, radioactive meltdown in Japan, the evolving 2012 presidential field and any number of other stories, the media’s collective lens will be turned exclusively on a snobbish pompous ceremony that is costing already extremely strained British taxpayers tens of billions to stage.
While the British government balks at the unfolding events in Syria and elsewhere where protests and demonstrations are being brutally curbed, those wishing to protest the antiquated old world elitist values Britain is still forced to accept as “cultural” under the monarchy will be met with stern resistance and a gargantuan police presence this weekend on the streets of London.
Meanwhile, over 40 monarchs from around the world will take their seats at the wedding, among them the dictators and ambassadors from countries with appalling human rights records such as Swaziland, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe. Though he was invited, the Crown Prince of Bahrain, whose Gulf state has violently suppressed democracy protests in recent months, has respectfully declined, in order to avoid a public relations scandal. The leaders of Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman, whose military forces have aided the vicious crackdown will all be there, however. The Libyan Ambassador to Britain had his invitation rescinded when it was recently decided that Libya should be bombed back into the stone age.
In addition, a gaggle of “celebrities” have been invited, blatantly in an attempt to whip up more media hype and place a 21st century context on what is essentially a medieval ceremonial show of power.
As London Independent writer and noted Republican Johann Hari has highlighted, the frenzy surrounding the royal family has “a subtly deforming effect on Britain’s character that the ultimate symbol of our country.”
“Our sovereign, is picked on the most snobbish criteria of all: darling, do you know who his father was? Kids in Britain grow up knowing that we all bow and curtsy in front of a person simply because of their unearned, uninteresting bloodline. This snobbery subtly soaks out through the society, tweaking us to be deferential to unearned and talentless wealth, simply because it’s there.”
The pomp and hype of this occasion is part of a deliberate ongoing social engineering campaign to rebuild celebrity and importance around a parasitic and tyrannical elite that still pulls all the strings on the world stage.
This was also emphatically emphasized during the first state visit to London by president Obama in 2009.
Prior to meeting the Queen and her notoriously racist husband, Prince Philip, Obama announced that he “loves” her and that “in the imagination of people throughout America” the queen stands for “decency” and “civility”.
How repugnantly ironic that the first black president of the so called “free world” should refer to the most entrenched prejudiced and elitist institution in Europe as an icon of “civility”!
How disgustingly deplorable that the president should call “decent” a bloodline that has for centuries declared itself as God’s appointed rulers over half of the planet, killing, torturing and maiming anyone who crosses it in order to hold on to that mantle.
Reports also circulated regarding Obama practicing bowing and brushing up on courtly etiquette ahead of the meeting.
Traditional royal protocol dictates that men do a neck bow and women do a slight curtsy — though a handshake is considered acceptable as long as the queen offers her hand first, Politco reported.
When the President met the Queen in a room used to stage audiences with foreign dignitaries, Obama bowed his head and quietly said to her: “Thank you so much for having us” before turning to the Duke, bowing once more and adding: “It’s a wonderful honour.”
Michelle Obama curtsied to the Queen, however, later on she was treasonously caught inappropriately putting her hands on the glorious Monarch. The London Telegraph even issued a report on how the move was “a departure from what is considered appropriate protocol when meeting the Queen.”
Perhaps the most revealing part of the meeting, however, came from the mouth of Prince Philip who could not contain his virulent xenophobia, even in front of the cameras and the press.
In the small talk, the Queen and the Prince asked the President and his wife about their grueling schedule since arriving late on Tuesday evening.
“The time lag,” said the Queen
“You’re just trying to stay awake!” said Philip.
Then the President told the Royals: “I had breakfast with the Prime Minister, I had meetings with the Chinese, the Russians, David Cameron…
“And I’m proud to say I did not nod off in one of the meetings.”
A guffawing Prince Philip then blurted out: “Can you tell the difference between them?”
Apparently Barack Obama replied that he had no trouble telling them apart.
Then Philip, with a wave of his hand, directed the Obamas to turn around for the camera, to which the president nervously replied “of course”.
The Obamas and the Queen managed an astonishing set of uncomfortable false smiles, while Philip didn’t even bother attempting it.
The foursome then joined other world leaders in sipping champagne and devouring canapés, including mini Cornish pasties, smoked quails’ eggs, foie gras and rolls of duck filled with melon.
Watch video of the cringe inducing exchange:
Prince Philip serves as a telling link between the modern day royal family and it’s despicable history. He has made so many racist remarks in public, that they literally fill an entire book.
In 1984 he asked a Kenyan woman “You are a woman, aren’t you?”.
In 1986 he told British students in China ”If you stay here much longer, you will go home with slitty eyes.”
In 1998, during a tour of Papua New Guinea, he told another British student, ”You managed not to get eaten then?”
While on a tour of a company near Edinburgh, Scotland, he saw a poorly wired fuse box. “It looks as though it was put in by an Indian,” he remarked.
During a small town visit in Scotland, in a brief conversation with a driving instructor, he asked, “How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to get them through the (road) test?”
In a 2002 visit to Australia, Prince Philip asked an Aborigine, “Still throwing spears?”
Also, he once told a group of deaf children standing near a Jamaican steel drum musician, “Deaf? If you are near there, no wonder you are deaf.”
The list goes on and on. While the media often laugh the remarks off as “gaffes”, they take on a more serious nature when Philip’s background and the organizations he is involved with are more carefully examined.
It is well documented that Prince Philip’s sister, Sophia, was married to Christopher of Hesse-Cassel, an SS colonel who named his eldest son Karl Adolf in Hitler’s honour. Indeed, all four of Philip’s sisters married high-ranking Nazis. The prospect of the former Nazis and Nazi sympathisers attending his 1947 wedding to the future Queen of England meant he was allowed to invite only two guests. Two years ago, more revelations of Philip’s Nazi links emerged in a book that featured never before published photographs of Philip aged 16 at the 1937 funeral of his elder sister Cecile, flanked by relatives in SS and Brownshirt uniforms.
Another picture shows his youngest sister, Sophia, sitting opposite Hitler at the wedding of Hermann and Emmy Goering. Philip was forced to concede that his family found Hitler’s attempts to restore Germany’s power and prestige ‘attractive’ and admitted they had ‘inhibitions about the Jews’.
Philip also helped start the World Wildlife Fund in 1961 with former Nazi SS Officer Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, who is closely affiliated with the founders of the Bilderberg international power group, and Sir Julian Huxley, Aldous Huxley’s brother, who was also the President of the British Eugenics Society.
In the past, Philip has also attended the ultra secretive ritualistic meeting of elites at Bohemian Grove, where he “stole the show” with an “amusing but salty speech” in 1962, according to the Grove’s own literature (pictured below).
Philip was also trained in the Hilter Youth. His belief in Nazi ideology is clear when one looks atwhat he has said on the subject of overpopulation.
In the foreword to his 1986 book If I Were an Animal, Prince Philip wrote, “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”
Borrowing the idea from American scientists who pioneered the field in the 1930′s, the Nazis advanced the pseudo-science of eugenics and incorporated it into Adolf Hitler’s dream of the Aryan super-race. Bearing in mind Philip’s Nazi connections, his views on the subject of overpopulation are unsurprising, but shocking nonetheless.
Just last year he reiterated these views, announcing that there are too many people in the world, and attacking large families in a television interview, despite the fact that Prince Philip himself has four children and eight grandchildren.
His son, Charles, the next King of England, has continued such ideology as he tours the world in private jets lecturing about the impact of climate change and how too many people are killing the planet.
Charles, who has inherited the entire Duchy of Cornwall estate, which stretches over 135,000 acres across 23 counties mainly in the south-west of England, is also a “patron” of the genocidal Optimum Population Trust, a notorious UK-based public policy group that campaigns for a gradual decline in the global human population to what it sees as a “sustainable” level.
Charles’ fellow patrons at the OPT include Futurist and top Eco-Fascist James Lovelock, who recently called for the ending of freedom in order that an overriding global power made up of “a few people with authority” can oversee the radical stemming of the planet’s human population in order to combat climate change.
Charles and the OPT are closely affiliated with The Royal Society, a 350 year old elitist institution granted royal charter status by King Charles II. The Royal Society is also crawling with eugenics enthusiasts and depopulation fanatics.
John Sulston, currently heading a major Royal Society global population study, most famously played a leading role in the Human Genome Project, the effort to identify and map the thousands of genes of the human genome. Sulston worked under James D. Watson, a notorious eugenicist who has previously argued that black people are inherently less intelligent than whites and has advocated the creation of a “super-race” of humans, where the attractive and physically strong are genetically manufactured under laboratory conditions. Watson is also affiliated with the Royal Society, indeed, in 1993 he received the society’s Copley Medal of honour for “outstanding achievements in research in any branch of science, and alternates between the physical sciences and the biological sciences”.
All of these neo-feudal elitist groups, posing as environmental groups have made it their raison d’etre to introduce hefty carbon taxes on the populations of the developed world and to literally de-develop the industrialized world by cutting carbon emissions by over 90%. It is therefore no surprise that the royals are willing participants.
Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)
The royals’ zeal to thin the population of undesirables has little to do with so-called “green credentials,” as is fatuously argued by the corporate media.
As Alex Jones documents in his seminal documentary End Game, this mindset is endemic amongst the elite.
Skip to the bottom of this article for a vast selection of similar quotations from Prince Philip, all advocating culling the “surplus” human population.
Racism within the Royal family is not restricted to Prince Philip, however. In early 2005 Philip’s grandson, Prince Harry, was forced to publicly apologise for donning full Nazi regalia including a badge of the German Wehrmacht and a swastika armband.
Pictures of Harry wearing the uniform were taken at a friend’s birthday party in Wiltshire, which had the fancy dress theme “colonial and native”.
In 2008 Harry was once again forced to issue an apology for referring to an Asian army colleague as “our little Paki friend” and joking with another that he “looks like a raghead”, an offensive term for an Arab.
In the same week Harry’s father and Philip’s son, Prince Charles, caused another race row after it emerged that he had been calling an Asian friend by the nickname “Sooty”.
In 2004 a rather disgusting story emerged in the U.S. media regarding Princess Michael of Kent, who is the wife of Queen Elizabeth’s first cousin. Princess Michael’s father, Baron Gunther von Reibnitz, was also exposed in the 1980s as a former Nazi party member and SS officer.
The Princess reportedly turned to a table of black New Yorkers in a busy restaurant and chided them for being noisy, adding “You need to go back to the colonies.”
When asked to explain her comments by one of the diners the Princess reportedly said “I didn’t say go back to the colonies, I said, Remember the colonies,” adding that “In the days of the colonies there were rules that were very good.”
Just think about it. A German-born British aristocrat — whose father was in the Nazi SS — in the United States telling African Americans who have been here for centuries to “remember the colonies”? The LA Times noted.
The late Queen mother was also said to be virulently racist by close aids, last year Edward Stourton, the presenter of the BBC’s flagship radio program Today, described her as “a ghastly old bigot”.
According to others, the Queen mother referred to black people as “nig-nogs” or “blackamoors”, opposed all forms of immigration, and thought black Africans incapable of running their own countries. She backed white minority rule in Rhodesia and lamented that former apartheid leader P.W. Botha got bad press.
The Queen mother also criticised Lord Mountbatten, viceroy of India, “for giving away the empire” and his wife because “her mother was half-Jewish”.
Despite all of this the media consistently referred to her the as “nation’s favourite granny”.
But it gets worse…
Before the war began the Queen Mother was a supporter of making concessions to Hitler and the Nazis, a feeling shared by a large number of British aristocrats who admired the way Hitler was dealing with the Communists.
For some 50 years royal documents were held in vaults at Windsor Castle that detailed the abdicated king Edward VIII’s relations with Hitler and the Nazis. They included captured German documents describing the Windsors’ meeting with Hitler in 1937 and plans to restore Edward, the Duke of Windsor to the throne if the Nazis won the war. Some of these documents still remain hidden from the public.
While many have described the Edward VIII and his wife as known sympathisers of the Nazis and their policies, relatives of Wallis Simpson, the American woman whom Edward had an affair with, and the reason for his abdication, have suggested that in fact Edward was excommunicated by the rest of the royal family because he wasn’t friendly enough with the Nazis.
Throughout the Twenties and Thirties, George V and George VI were steadfastly opposed to conflict with their ancestral fatherland.
The modern royal family was founded in 1840 when Queen Victoria married Albert of Saxe-Coburg, a Germany duchy, creating The House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Such was the ill-feeling towards all things German during the First World War that in 1917 Victoria’s grandson King George V – an honorary Field Marshal in the German army – thought it prudent to renounce the German name and titles and adopt that of Windsor, the name of a small town in the home counties of England.
Today many people in Britain suggest that all these facts are no long relevant because the royal family has very little power. This is a huge myth. The Queen is the head of state and as such she can simply replace the British government at any time she chooses, should she wish to do so. The royal family still owns vast swathes of land throughout Britain and the rest of the world, and the Queen still presides as head of state in Canada and Australia.
******
Prince Philip, In His Own Words: We Need To ‘Cull’ The Surplus Population
Here is a re-cap of some of the things “HIS ROYAL VIRUS”, Prince Philip has said in public concerning “culling the population”
Reported by Deutsche Press Agentur (DPA), August, 1988.
In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.
Prince Philip, in his Foreward to If I Were an Animal; United Kingdom, Robin Clark Ltd., 1986.
I just wonder what it would be like to be reincarnated in an animal whose species had been so reduced in numbers than it was in danger of extinction. What would be its feelings toward the human species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere to exist…. I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.
Press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on the occasion of the “Caring for Creation” conference of the North American Conference on Religion and Ecology, May 18, 1990.
It is now apparent that the ecological pragmatism of the so-called pagan religions, such as that of the American Indians, the Polynesians, and the Australian Aborigines, was a great deal more realistic in terms of conservation ethics than the more intellectual monotheistic philosophies of the revealed religions.
Address on Receiving Honorary Degree from the University of Western Ontario, Canada, July 1, 1983.
For example, the World Health Organization Project, designed to eradicate malaria from Sri Lanka in the postwar years, achieved its purpose. But the problem today is that Sri Lanka must feed three times as many mouths, find three times as many jobs, provide three times the housing, energy, schools, hospitals and land for settlement in order to maintain the same standards. Little wonder the natural environment and wildlife in Sri Lanka has suffered. The fact [is] … that the best-intentioned aid programs are at least partially responsible for the problems.
Preface to Down to Earth by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1988, p.|8.
I don’t claim to have any special interest in natural history, but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in the number of game animals and the need to adjust the “cull” to the size of the surplus population.
Lecture to the European Council of International Schools. Montreaux, Switzerland, Nov. 14, 1986.
The great difficulty about “life” is that we humans are part of it, and it is therefore almost impossible to study objectively…. It therefore tends to be anthropocentric and gives scant attention to the welfare of all the other life-forms which share this planet with us.
…|When the Bible says that man shall have “dominion” over God’s creation, the choice is between understanding dominion as in “having power over,” or dominion as “having responsibility for.”
“Conflict Between Instinct and Reason”
Fawley Foundation Lecture. Southampton University, Nov. 24, 1967.
The conflict between instinct and reason has reached a critical stage in man’s affairs, largely because the explosion of facts has revealed the instincts for what they are and at the same time it has undermined traditional philosophies and ideologies. The explosion of facts has effectively altered mankind’s physical and intellectual environment and when any environment changes, the process of natural selection is brutal and merciless. “Adapt or die” is as true today as it was in the beginning.
Introduction to “Exploitation of the Natural System” section of Down to Earth by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1988.
It took about three and a half billion years for life on earth to reach the state of complexity and diversity that our ancestors knew as recently as 200 years ago. It has only taken industrial and scientific man those 200 years to put at risk the whole of the world’s natural system. It has been estimated that by the year 2000, some 300,000 species of plants and animals will have become extinct, and that the natural economy, upon which all life depends, will have been seriously disrupted.
The paradox is that this will have been achieved with the best possible intentions. The human population must be properly fed, human life must be preserved and human existence must be made safer and more comfortable. All these things are obviously highly desirable, but if their achievement means putting the survival of future generations at risk, then there is a pressing obligation on present generations to apply some measure of self-restraint.
Address to Edinburgh University Union, Nov. 24 1969.
We talk about over- and underdeveloped countries; I think a more exact division might be between underdeveloped and overpopulated. The more people there are, the more industry and more waste and the more sewage there is, and therefore the more pollution.
The Fairfield Osborne Lecture, New York, Oct. 1 1980.
If the world pollution situation is not critical at the moment, it is as certain as anything can be that the situation will become increasingly intolerable within a very short time. The situation can be controlled, and even reversed; but it demands cooperation on a scale and intensity beyond anything achieved so far.
I realize that there are vital causes to be fought for, and I sympathize with people who work up a passionate concern about the all too many examples of inhumanity, injustice, and unfairness; but behind all this hangs a deadly cloud. Still largely unnoticed and unrecognized, the process of destroying our natural environment is gathering speed and momentum. If we fail to cope with the challenge, the other problems will pale into insignificance.
Introduction to “The Population Factor” section of Down to Earth by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1988.
What has been described as the “balance of nature” is simply nature’s system of self-limitation. Fertility and breeding success create the surpluses after allowing for the replacement of the losses. Predation, climatic variation, disease, starvation–and in the case of the inappropriately named Homo sapiens, wars and terrorism–are the principal means by which population numbers are kept under some sort of control.
Viewed dispassionately, it must be obvious that the world’s human population has grown to such a size that it is threatening its own habitat; and it has already succeeded in causing the extinction of large numbers of wild plant and animal species. Some have simply been killed off. Others have quietly disappeared, as their habitats have been taken over or disturbed by human activities.
Humans are the Greatest Threat to Survival
Interview with HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, in People Dec. 21, 1981 titled “Vanishing Breeds Worry Prince Philip, But Not as Much as Overpopulation.”
Q: What do you consider the leading threat to the environment?
A: Human population growth is probably the single most serious long-term threat to survival. We’re in for a major disaster if it isn’t curbed–not just for the natural world, but for the human world. The more people there are, the more resources they’ll consume, the more pollution they’ll create, the more fighting they will do. We have no option. If it isn’t controlled voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily by an increase in disease, starvation and war.
Address to the Joint Meeting of the All-Party Group on Population and Development and the All-Party Conservation Committee in London, March 11, 1987.
I do believe … that human population pressure–the sheer number of people on this planet–is the single most important cause of the degradation of the natural environment, of the progressive extinction of wild species of plants and animals, and of the destabilization of the world’s climatic and atmospheric systems.
The simple fact is that the human population of the world is consuming natural renewable resources faster than it can regenerate, and the process of exploitation is causing even further damage. If this is already happening with a population of 4 billion, I ask you to imagine what things will be like when the population reaches six and then 10 billion…. All this has been made possible by the industrial revolution and the scientific explosion and it is spread around the world by the new economic religion of development.
Address at the Salford University Degree Ceremony, July 16, 1973.
There may be disagreements about the time scale, but in principle there can be little doubt that the population cannot go on increasing indefinitely. Resources presently being used will not last for ever and pollution in its broadest sense, unless severely checked, is bound to increase with population and industrial activity.
Address to All-Party Conservation Committee in London, Feb. 18, 1981.
I suspect that the single most important gift of progress to conservation has been the development of human contraception techniques.
The survival of the “most important”
Interview with HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, in People magazine, Dec. 21, 1981 titled “Vanishing Breeds Worry Prince Philip, But Not as Much as Overpopulation.
Q: Is birth control part of the solution?
A: Yes, but you can’t legislate these problems away. You’ve got to get people to understand the need for it: the more important people, the ones who have responsibilities have got to do it because they’re at the receiving end. They’ve got to accept the measures.
The Chancellor’s Lecture, Salford University, June 4, 1982.
As long ago as 1798, Malthus explained what happens when the factors limiting the increase in any population are removed. One of the factors noticed by Darwin was that all species are capable of producing vastly greater populations than can be sustained by existing resources; populations did not increase at the rate at which they are capable was the basis for his theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.
The relevance to natural selection of this capacity for overproduction is that as each individual is slightly different to all the others it is probable that under natural conditions those individuals which happen to be best adapted to the prevailing circumstances have a better chance of survival. Well, so what? Well, take a look at the figures for the human population of this world. One hundred fifty years ago it stood at about 1,000 million or in common parlance today, 1 billion. It then took about a 100 years to double to 2 billion. It took 30 years to add the third billion and 15 years to reach today’s total of 4.4 billion. With a present world average rate of growth of 1.8%, the total population by the year 2000 will have increased to an estimated 6 billion and in that and in subsequent years 100 million people will be added to the world population each year. In fact it could be as much as 16 billion by 2045. As a consequence the demand on resources of land alone will mean a third less farm land available and the destruction of half of the present area of productive tropical forest. Bearing in mind the constant reduction of non-renewable resources, there is a strong possibility of growing scarcity and reduction of standards. More people consume more resources. It is as simple as that; and transferring resources and standards from the richer to the poorer countries can only have a marginal effect in the face of this massive increase in the world population.
Speech at the Margaret Pyke Memorial Trust Dinner in London, Dec. 14 1983.
So long as they [birth control methods] … remained taboo subjects the chances of making any impression on the human population explosion were that much more remote.
In the introduction to the IUCN Red Data Books which list all animals and plants under threat of extinction, it says that virtually everywhere the major threat to a wild species is loss of habitat to a rapidly increasing human population requiring more space in order to build villages and cities and grow more food. But starvation and poverty cannot be eradicated solely by increased food and resources at the expense of what remains of the natural world. Any increase in the provision of food and resources must be accompanied by a drastic reduction in the rate of increase in the human population.
Address on Receiving Honorary Degree from the University of Western Ontario, Canada, July 1, 1983.
The industrial revolution sparked the scientific revolution and brought in its wake better public hygiene, better medical care and yet more efficient agriculture. The consequence was a population explosion which still continues today.
The sad fact is that, instead of the same number of people being very much better off, more than twice as many people are just as badly off as they were before. Unfortunately all this well-intentioned development has resulted in an ecological disaster of immense proportions.
The Chancellor’s Lecture, Salford University, June 4, 1982.
The object of the WWF is to “conserve” the system as a whole; not to prevent the killing of individual animals. Those who are concerned about their conservation of nature accept that all species are prey to some other species. They accept that most species produce a surplus that is capable of being culled without in any way threatening the survival of the species as a whole.
A Question of Balance by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Michael Russel (Publishing) Ltd., 1982.
It is curious how many philosophers from Plato to Keynes’ time have believed in and advocated the control of society by “philosopher kings.” According to Plato, “its kings must be those who have shown the greatest ability in philosophy,” but–realistically–he added, “and the greatest aptitude for war.” Such people may exist in the imagination and occasionally someone with the necessary qualities may briefly dominate the stage of history, but it is a naive appreciation of human nature to imagine that such processed paragons can be invested with the necessary powers and not be tempted to take advantage of their situation.
Article printed from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com
URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/modern-british-royalty-eugenicists-nazis-and-neo-feudalists/
Click here to print.
Copyright © 2013 Infowars. All rights reserved.
On occasion of the publication of his latest book, German author Mathias Broeckers talks about the assassination of John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963, which he sees as a coup d’etat that was never rolled back.
Mathias Broeckers, born 1954, is a German investigative journalist and the author of more than ten books, most of them related to the topics of drugs, terrorism and deep politics. He works for the daily German newspaper TAZ and the webzine Telepolis. His latest book, “JFK: Staatsstreich in Amerika” (“JFK: Coup d’Etat in America“), was published this August at Westend Verlag in Frankfurt, Germany.
Lars Schall: Mr. Broeckers, a writer who authors a book about the assassination of John F. Kennedy that does not follow the verdict of official history faces the problem of being condemned on an instant basis as a “conspiracy theorist” who engages in “conspiracy theories.” May I ask you at the beginning of this interview to explain to our readers that those critics – consciously or unconsciously – are acting exactly according to the “playbook” of the CIA?
Mathias Broeckers: In January 1967, shortly after Jim Garrison in New Orleans had started his prosecution of the CIA backgrounds of the murder, the CIA published a memo to all its stations, suggesting the use of the term “conspiracy theorists” for everyone criticizing the Warren Report findings. Until then the press and the public mostly used the term “assassination theories” when it came to alternative views of the “lone nut” Lee Harvey Oswald. But with this memo this changed and very soon “conspiracy theories” became what it is until today: a term to smear, denounce and defame anyone who dares to speak about any crime committed by the state, military or intelligence services. Before Edward Snowden anyone claiming a kind of total surveillance of internet and phone traffic would have been named a conspiracy nut; today everyone knows better.
LS: What do you see as the prime motive(s) to get Kennedy killed?
MB: To make a long story, which I elaborate in the book, short: JFK had made definitive steps to end the cold war. He had denied the involvement of the army in the Bay of Pigs invasion, which he had inherited from his predecessor, he had solved the missile crisis in Cuba through direct and secret contact with the Soviet-leader Khrushchev, he had ensured a nuclear test-stop with the Soviets, and he had ordered the withdrawal from Vietnam. All this against the will of the military, the CIA, and even against many members of his own administration.
LS: If one looks at the crime from the perspective of “motive, means, opportunity,” which groups are the most likely culprits? Some of the usual suspects may have had a motive, but neither the means nor the opportunity, right?
MB: Yes. This is a crucial point with many JFK theories. A lot of people had motives, be it the hardcore commies in Russia, China, Cuba, be it the Israelis because of JFKs dismissal of nukes in Israel, be it the Federal Reserve because of his idea for a new US dollar backed by silver, the mob because of his dismissal to invade Cuba to get their casinos and brothels back, the racist Southerners because of his engagement for civil rights… but no one of them had the means and opportunity for the murder and above all the means to cover it up over the years.
LS: Which party had the necessary components of “means and opportunity” available?
MB: Only the CIA and the military – and the FBI and the Johnson administration for the cover-up. A moment after the shootings, a policeman ran up to the grassy knoll, his gun pulled out, and stopped a man there, asking for his ID. The man showed a Secret Service card and the cop let him go. Several other men on Dealey Plaza also showed genuine looking Secret Service IDs when asked by cops – but there were no real Secret Service men placed on the knoll and the plaza this day.
These IDs were fakes but the FBI and the Warren Commission didn’t investigate this at all. Only in the 80s it came out who was responsible for the printing of Secret Service IDs and passes at that time: it was the CIAs Technical Division, headed by Sydney Gottlieb of “MK Ultra” fame. This fact alone rules out that the mob or the Russians, Cubans, Chinese or some other autonomous killers did this on their own bill. And even if these groups would have been able to fake genuine looking Secret Service IDs – the fact that this deception was not investigated, immediately brings Hoover’s FBI into a top-position of suspects.
LS: One crucial point regarding the cover up of the crime is the false autopsy report – also in connection to “means and opportunity”. Please elaborate.
MB: The ARRB (Assassination Records Review Board) established beyond any doubt that the autopsy and x-rays, which are in the National Archives, were doctored. No mobster, bankster or Cuban would have been able to do this. These fakes were done at the Bethseda military hospital, where JFKs autopsy was supervised by Curtis LeMay, the Joint Air Force Chíef and one of JFKs keenest enemies. He was at a fishing vacation when the Dallas shooting happened and flew to Washington immediately – not for any military emergency but to sit in the autopsy room – and smoking a cigar! The faked pictures and x-rays, which were presented to every investigator since then, are a main reason why the crazy magic bullet theory could hold for so long. Only the military, where these pics and x-rays were taken, was able to arrange these fakes and place them in the archives.
LS: Another important point is the tempering with the so called “Zapruder film”. Why so?
MB: Also thanks to the ARRB there is a lot of evidence that the film was tempered with on the day after the assassination. However, even the existing “original” seems to show clearly a shot from the front, the grassy knoll – so the fake wasn’t perfect. That the Warren Commission was shown only a bad black/white copy indicates that the perpetrators were aware of that. That the Zapruder film was bought by the Time/Life publishers – and kept secret to the public for years; as the Nix-film bought by UPI and disappeared – indicates the guiltiness of the media in the cover-up.
LS: Coming back to the CIA, do you think that the CIA had separated itself from governmental oversight during the 1950s and 1960s, or would it be more correct to suggest that the Agency actually was a ploy of financial interests from the outset? Or more bluntly spoken: was democratic oversight ever intended?
MB: In general, democracy and intelligence services are antagonists; democracy depends on transparency and intelligence services on the opposite. So the democratic / congressional / governmental oversight is always a quite rotten compromise. The CIA’s camouflage from the beginning was that it is a service to gather intelligence – and centralize the intelligence gathering of the different other services – to keep the president informed. The main job of the CIA were and are covert operations, and because such operations depend on “plausible deniability,” it was usual from the beginning to inform the president – if at all – only minimally. Since the CIA’s “father” Allen Dulles was a Wall Street lawyer and his brother John Foster ran the foreign policy, covert operations were a family business done by the Dulles-Brothers and their clients on Wall Street. This is what JFK tried to finish and what marked him to death.
LS: You´re citing investigative journalist Joseph Trento, saying about former CIA director Allen Dulles: “Dulles had decided not to leave the future of the Agency to Congress or the President.” What made Dulles powerful enough to risk such a decision?
MB: Dulles’ clients were bankers and big corporations, who were in big business with Nazi-Germany in the 30s and even during the war. Some of them, like Prescott Bush – George W.’s grandfather – were indicted for “dealing with the enemy”, and Allen Dulles, head of the OSS in Switzerland during the war, arranged a lot of these dealings. He arranged the secret integration of Nazi spy chief Reinhard Gehlen and some hundreds of his SS officers into the US army and the building-up of the CIA apparatus. Between 1945 when the OSS was dismantled and 1947 when the CIA was founded he did this privately – without any official position – from his office at the “Council on Foreign Relations.”
LS: Would it have been more appropriate if Dulles would have been interrogated with regard to Kennedy’s death, instead of having been the mastermind behind the Warren Commission?
MB: It’s a perfect irony, or better: huge cynicism, by the puppet of Texas-oilmen, Lyndon B. Johnson, to have Dulles masterminding the Commission. But since it worked out so well they tried it again, this time unsuccessful, to have “Bloody Henry” Kissinger masterminding the 9/11 Commission. In my opinion Dulles is one of the main suspects in the Kennedy murder and should have been prosecuted immediately.
LS: How did both the CIA and the FBI mislead the Warren Commission in various ways?
MB: The result of the Commission was clear from the beginning, the Commission didn’t do any investigations at all, and it depended on the data given by the FBI. Hoover knew about the many fingerprints of the CIA in the case, he knew that they had brought up fake evidence of Oswald’s visits in Mexico to blame him as a communist – and concluded only two days after the shooting that there was only the lone shooter LHO.
Hoover hated the Kennedys, especially his boss Robert F Kennedy, and was the main evildoer in the framing of Oswald and the cover-up of the case. The CIA arranged the false evidence for what Peter Dale Scott (“Deep Politics and the Death of JFK”) called Phase 1 of the cover-up – the “communist”-connection, which enabled Johnson – screaming of the dangers of a nuclear war – to press the commission members to take part, and to make sure Phase 2 of the cover-up and the result of their pseudo-investigation: the deranged lone nut Oswald.
LS: One usual suspect in the “JFK conspiracy literature” is the mob. In your book you’re writing that it doesn’t always make sense to distinguish between organized crime and the CIA. How did you come to this conclusion?
MB: From the “Luciano Project” in 1943 – the help of the imprisoned mob-boss Lucky Luciano with the invasion of Sicily – the mob became the tool of choice for covert CIA-operations and generating black money from the drug business. Where ever the US-military set their boots in or the CIA is doing “regime changes,” drug money is essential for financing these operations, from South East Asia in the 60s till today in Afghanistan. And since Langley can’t sell the stuff directly over their counter, they need the mobsters to do this – and get its share to finance warlords / freedom fighters / terrorists…
LS: May I ask you to talk a bit in that regard about Permindex (Permanent Industrial Exposition), please?
MB: Permindex was a front-company for CIA, MI-6 and Mossad and a straw for their money-laundering and weapons-business. They worked together with Meyer Lansky’s bank in Switzerland, which was run by Tibor Rosenbaum, who did most of the weapons-business of the Mossad.
LS: Was Jim Garrison in general heading into the right direction?
MB: He was, because Clay Shaw, the owner of the New Orleans International Trade Mart and one of the directors of Permindex, was clearly working with the CIA. That’s why Garrison’s case was sabotaged by the Washington Establishment right from the beginning.
LS: Why is it remarkable that CIA had a 201 file on Lee Harvey Oswald?
MB: John Newman (“Oswald and the CIA”) has done remarkable research on how the CIA manipulated its files on Oswald and faked a 201 personal file to present it to the Warren Commission, showing that they had virtually nothing on him before 1962. This is clearly impossible after Oswald’s defection to the USSR in 1959. The most likely cause for this manipulation is that Oswald was part of the false defector program headed by JJ Angelton, the counterintelligence chief.
LS: You are arguing if Lee Harvey Oswald would have been indeed solely responsible for Kennedy’s death that the case would have been solved beyond a reasonable doubt. Why so?
MB: From all crimes, murder is the one with the most cases solved by courts. There would have been no need for all the cover-ups since 50 years, if LHO indeed was a lone nut.
LS: Moreover, you’re arguing that Oswald would have been acquitted of the charge of having killed Kennedy, if he would have survived. Why so?
MB: Even Gerald Posener, the author of “Case Closed” – the apology of the Warren Commission’s findings -, meanwhile is saying that. There is no hard evidence that Oswald was on the 5th floor when the shooting took place; there is no evidence that the “Mannlicher”-gun, that he had mail-ordered, was fired that day; there is no hard evidence that he killed Officer Tippit, because witnesses saw two men shooting at him… and so on. Oswald would have left the court room as a free man.
LS: Why was it necessary that Jack Ruby killed Oswald? And furthermore, did they know each other?
MB: They knew each other well, and since Oswald was an asset of FBI and CIA, he had to be silenced before he could talk.
LS: There was not just one plot to kill Kennedy in Dallas, but there was at least one more planned for a visit of Kennedy to Chicago, right?
MB: Yes, there was a plot planned in Chicago with clear parallels to what happened in Dallas – with an ex-Marine as the prepared patsy, who got a job on a high rise building on the route that the motorcade was planned to take some weeks before, and who had trained with exile-Cubans like Oswald. By chance the sharp-shooters were detected by an hotelier and the Chicago visit was cancelled.
LS: Why did JFK die on November 22, 1963?
MB: JFK had made a radical change while president, from a classic cold warrior to a policy of reconciliation and peace. He had made angry enemies in the military and the CIA and when he announced to end the cold war in his speech on June 10th 1963 he finally was marked to death.
LS: Can you tell us something about the role of the Secret Service and the U.S. military in the assassination?
MB: The Secret Service men were mostly Southerners, who deeply dismissed JFKs civil rights politics. They did a very lax security in Dallas and there is a probability that some of these men were sweetened to do so. The memories of Abraham Bolden, the first Afro-American brought to the Secret Service by JFK in 1961, tells that when he tried to contact the Warren Commission to talk about the supremacist, racist attitude of his colleagues, he was indicted by corrupted false witnesses and brought to prison.
The military played a crucial role in the false autopsy & x-ray-pictures made at the Bethseda hospital in Washington DC and the testimony of the doctors. General Curtis LeMay, Joint Chief of the Air Force and one of the harshest opponents of JFKs peace politics, was present in the autopsy room in Bethseda, smoking a cigar! I think his presence was not by chance.
The military intelligence also played a crucial role in Dallas – the first interviews of Marina Oswald was not by Dallas Police but by officers of the military intelligence, which also arranged a dubious translator for her testimonies, which helped to frame Oswald in the first place.
LS: Where did the funding for the coup come from?
MB: The Texas oilmen and billionaires H.L. Hunt and Clint Murchison are the most probable financiers, even if there is no hard evidence for it. They paid for the ad in the Dallas paper the day before the visit, naming Kennedy a communist and a traitor. They hated JFK to the bones and they had LBJ in their pocket, their insurance that everything would be covered up properly.
LS: How many people lost their lives over the years related to the Kennedy assassination?
MB: A well-researched new book by Richard Belzer (“Hit List”) lists 1.400 persons with a connection to the murder and in the first three years after the assassination 33 of them came to death on unnatural causes. The probability that this happened by chance is 1: 137 billion.
LS: Was it basically the right-wing / fascist and racist mindset in the U.S. that won the coup d’etat on November 22, 1963?
MB: Yes. And in Dallas, Texas these right-wing fascists, who called themselves “patriots,” had a home game.
LS: What would the history of the “Cold War” have been if the nuclear arms race had ended in Kennedy’s second term? Would the Berlin Wall have come down sooner?
MB: After the nuclear test stop, JFK announced to his confidants that he would go to Moscow after the re-election to negotiate a peace treaty. In public he had already announced to stop the arms race in order to end the cold war. In a National Action Security Memorandum he had called for a co-operation with the Russians in space. After the exchange of secret letters with Khrushchev, which ended the missile crisis, he was on good terms with the Soviet leader, who in the Kremlin also had called for disarmament. The death of JFK encouraged the Soviet hardliners to get rid of him. With Kennedy alive, Khrushchev would have stood in power and the cold war could have been ended in the 60s.
LS: Why does the death of JFK still matter?
MB: It’s the most important crime in the second half of the 20th century, it is still unsolved and it marked in a way the end of the American Republic. Since then the financial-military-industrial complex rules and no president after JFK had the balls to challenge that. There is, in the words of Gore Vidal, “a one-party-system with two right-wings”; there are corporate media brainwashing the population 24/7 and propagating wars for global imperial dominance; there are covert operations all over the world to ensure this dominance – and this will go on and on as long the truth about the covert operation, the coup d’ état, against JFKs presidency is kept hidden.
LS: Thank you very much for taking your time, Mr. Broeckers!
The JFK Assassination Marked the End of the American Republic
Interview with Martin Broeckers, author of JFK: Coup d’Etat in America“
Mathias Broeckers, born 1954, is a German investigative journalist and the author of more than ten books, most of them related to the topics of drugs, terrorism and deep politics. He works for the daily German newspaper TAZ and the webzine Telepolis. His latest book, “JFK: Staatsstreich in Amerika” (“JFK: Coup d’Etat in America“), was published this August at Westend Verlag in Frankfurt, Germany.
Lars Schall: Mr. Broeckers, a writer who authors a book about the assassination of John F. Kennedy that does not follow the verdict of official history faces the problem of being condemned on an instant basis as a “conspiracy theorist” who engages in “conspiracy theories.” May I ask you at the beginning of this interview to explain to our readers that those critics – consciously or unconsciously – are acting exactly according to the “playbook” of the CIA?
Mathias Broeckers: In January 1967, shortly after Jim Garrison in New Orleans had started his prosecution of the CIA backgrounds of the murder, the CIA published a memo to all its stations, suggesting the use of the term “conspiracy theorists” for everyone criticizing the Warren Report findings. Until then the press and the public mostly used the term “assassination theories” when it came to alternative views of the “lone nut” Lee Harvey Oswald. But with this memo this changed and very soon “conspiracy theories” became what it is until today: a term to smear, denounce and defame anyone who dares to speak about any crime committed by the state, military or intelligence services. Before Edward Snowden anyone claiming a kind of total surveillance of internet and phone traffic would have been named a conspiracy nut; today everyone knows better.
LS: What do you see as the prime motive(s) to get Kennedy killed?
MB: To make a long story, which I elaborate in the book, short: JFK had made definitive steps to end the cold war. He had denied the involvement of the army in the Bay of Pigs invasion, which he had inherited from his predecessor, he had solved the missile crisis in Cuba through direct and secret contact with the Soviet-leader Khrushchev, he had ensured a nuclear test-stop with the Soviets, and he had ordered the withdrawal from Vietnam. All this against the will of the military, the CIA, and even against many members of his own administration.
LS: If one looks at the crime from the perspective of “motive, means, opportunity,” which groups are the most likely culprits? Some of the usual suspects may have had a motive, but neither the means nor the opportunity, right?
MB: Yes. This is a crucial point with many JFK theories. A lot of people had motives, be it the hardcore commies in Russia, China, Cuba, be it the Israelis because of JFKs dismissal of nukes in Israel, be it the Federal Reserve because of his idea for a new US dollar backed by silver, the mob because of his dismissal to invade Cuba to get their casinos and brothels back, the racist Southerners because of his engagement for civil rights… but no one of them had the means and opportunity for the murder and above all the means to cover it up over the years.
LS: Which party had the necessary components of “means and opportunity” available?
MB: Only the CIA and the military – and the FBI and the Johnson administration for the cover-up. A moment after the shootings, a policeman ran up to the grassy knoll, his gun pulled out, and stopped a man there, asking for his ID. The man showed a Secret Service card and the cop let him go. Several other men on Dealey Plaza also showed genuine looking Secret Service IDs when asked by cops – but there were no real Secret Service men placed on the knoll and the plaza this day.
These IDs were fakes but the FBI and the Warren Commission didn’t investigate this at all. Only in the 80s it came out who was responsible for the printing of Secret Service IDs and passes at that time: it was the CIAs Technical Division, headed by Sydney Gottlieb of “MK Ultra” fame. This fact alone rules out that the mob or the Russians, Cubans, Chinese or some other autonomous killers did this on their own bill. And even if these groups would have been able to fake genuine looking Secret Service IDs – the fact that this deception was not investigated, immediately brings Hoover’s FBI into a top-position of suspects.
LS: One crucial point regarding the cover up of the crime is the false autopsy report – also in connection to “means and opportunity”. Please elaborate.
MB: The ARRB (Assassination Records Review Board) established beyond any doubt that the autopsy and x-rays, which are in the National Archives, were doctored. No mobster, bankster or Cuban would have been able to do this. These fakes were done at the Bethseda military hospital, where JFKs autopsy was supervised by Curtis LeMay, the Joint Air Force Chíef and one of JFKs keenest enemies. He was at a fishing vacation when the Dallas shooting happened and flew to Washington immediately – not for any military emergency but to sit in the autopsy room – and smoking a cigar! The faked pictures and x-rays, which were presented to every investigator since then, are a main reason why the crazy magic bullet theory could hold for so long. Only the military, where these pics and x-rays were taken, was able to arrange these fakes and place them in the archives.
LS: Another important point is the tempering with the so called “Zapruder film”. Why so?
MB: Also thanks to the ARRB there is a lot of evidence that the film was tempered with on the day after the assassination. However, even the existing “original” seems to show clearly a shot from the front, the grassy knoll – so the fake wasn’t perfect. That the Warren Commission was shown only a bad black/white copy indicates that the perpetrators were aware of that. That the Zapruder film was bought by the Time/Life publishers – and kept secret to the public for years; as the Nix-film bought by UPI and disappeared – indicates the guiltiness of the media in the cover-up.
LS: Coming back to the CIA, do you think that the CIA had separated itself from governmental oversight during the 1950s and 1960s, or would it be more correct to suggest that the Agency actually was a ploy of financial interests from the outset? Or more bluntly spoken: was democratic oversight ever intended?
MB: In general, democracy and intelligence services are antagonists; democracy depends on transparency and intelligence services on the opposite. So the democratic / congressional / governmental oversight is always a quite rotten compromise. The CIA’s camouflage from the beginning was that it is a service to gather intelligence – and centralize the intelligence gathering of the different other services – to keep the president informed. The main job of the CIA were and are covert operations, and because such operations depend on “plausible deniability,” it was usual from the beginning to inform the president – if at all – only minimally. Since the CIA’s “father” Allen Dulles was a Wall Street lawyer and his brother John Foster ran the foreign policy, covert operations were a family business done by the Dulles-Brothers and their clients on Wall Street. This is what JFK tried to finish and what marked him to death.
LS: You´re citing investigative journalist Joseph Trento, saying about former CIA director Allen Dulles: “Dulles had decided not to leave the future of the Agency to Congress or the President.” What made Dulles powerful enough to risk such a decision?
MB: Dulles’ clients were bankers and big corporations, who were in big business with Nazi-Germany in the 30s and even during the war. Some of them, like Prescott Bush – George W.’s grandfather – were indicted for “dealing with the enemy”, and Allen Dulles, head of the OSS in Switzerland during the war, arranged a lot of these dealings. He arranged the secret integration of Nazi spy chief Reinhard Gehlen and some hundreds of his SS officers into the US army and the building-up of the CIA apparatus. Between 1945 when the OSS was dismantled and 1947 when the CIA was founded he did this privately – without any official position – from his office at the “Council on Foreign Relations.”
LS: Would it have been more appropriate if Dulles would have been interrogated with regard to Kennedy’s death, instead of having been the mastermind behind the Warren Commission?
MB: It’s a perfect irony, or better: huge cynicism, by the puppet of Texas-oilmen, Lyndon B. Johnson, to have Dulles masterminding the Commission. But since it worked out so well they tried it again, this time unsuccessful, to have “Bloody Henry” Kissinger masterminding the 9/11 Commission. In my opinion Dulles is one of the main suspects in the Kennedy murder and should have been prosecuted immediately.
LS: How did both the CIA and the FBI mislead the Warren Commission in various ways?
MB: The result of the Commission was clear from the beginning, the Commission didn’t do any investigations at all, and it depended on the data given by the FBI. Hoover knew about the many fingerprints of the CIA in the case, he knew that they had brought up fake evidence of Oswald’s visits in Mexico to blame him as a communist – and concluded only two days after the shooting that there was only the lone shooter LHO.
Hoover hated the Kennedys, especially his boss Robert F Kennedy, and was the main evildoer in the framing of Oswald and the cover-up of the case. The CIA arranged the false evidence for what Peter Dale Scott (“Deep Politics and the Death of JFK”) called Phase 1 of the cover-up – the “communist”-connection, which enabled Johnson – screaming of the dangers of a nuclear war – to press the commission members to take part, and to make sure Phase 2 of the cover-up and the result of their pseudo-investigation: the deranged lone nut Oswald.
LS: One usual suspect in the “JFK conspiracy literature” is the mob. In your book you’re writing that it doesn’t always make sense to distinguish between organized crime and the CIA. How did you come to this conclusion?
MB: From the “Luciano Project” in 1943 – the help of the imprisoned mob-boss Lucky Luciano with the invasion of Sicily – the mob became the tool of choice for covert CIA-operations and generating black money from the drug business. Where ever the US-military set their boots in or the CIA is doing “regime changes,” drug money is essential for financing these operations, from South East Asia in the 60s till today in Afghanistan. And since Langley can’t sell the stuff directly over their counter, they need the mobsters to do this – and get its share to finance warlords / freedom fighters / terrorists…
LS: May I ask you to talk a bit in that regard about Permindex (Permanent Industrial Exposition), please?
MB: Permindex was a front-company for CIA, MI-6 and Mossad and a straw for their money-laundering and weapons-business. They worked together with Meyer Lansky’s bank in Switzerland, which was run by Tibor Rosenbaum, who did most of the weapons-business of the Mossad.
LS: Was Jim Garrison in general heading into the right direction?
MB: He was, because Clay Shaw, the owner of the New Orleans International Trade Mart and one of the directors of Permindex, was clearly working with the CIA. That’s why Garrison’s case was sabotaged by the Washington Establishment right from the beginning.
LS: Why is it remarkable that CIA had a 201 file on Lee Harvey Oswald?
MB: John Newman (“Oswald and the CIA”) has done remarkable research on how the CIA manipulated its files on Oswald and faked a 201 personal file to present it to the Warren Commission, showing that they had virtually nothing on him before 1962. This is clearly impossible after Oswald’s defection to the USSR in 1959. The most likely cause for this manipulation is that Oswald was part of the false defector program headed by JJ Angelton, the counterintelligence chief.
LS: You are arguing if Lee Harvey Oswald would have been indeed solely responsible for Kennedy’s death that the case would have been solved beyond a reasonable doubt. Why so?
MB: From all crimes, murder is the one with the most cases solved by courts. There would have been no need for all the cover-ups since 50 years, if LHO indeed was a lone nut.
LS: Moreover, you’re arguing that Oswald would have been acquitted of the charge of having killed Kennedy, if he would have survived. Why so?
MB: Even Gerald Posener, the author of “Case Closed” – the apology of the Warren Commission’s findings -, meanwhile is saying that. There is no hard evidence that Oswald was on the 5th floor when the shooting took place; there is no evidence that the “Mannlicher”-gun, that he had mail-ordered, was fired that day; there is no hard evidence that he killed Officer Tippit, because witnesses saw two men shooting at him… and so on. Oswald would have left the court room as a free man.
LS: Why was it necessary that Jack Ruby killed Oswald? And furthermore, did they know each other?
MB: They knew each other well, and since Oswald was an asset of FBI and CIA, he had to be silenced before he could talk.
LS: There was not just one plot to kill Kennedy in Dallas, but there was at least one more planned for a visit of Kennedy to Chicago, right?
MB: Yes, there was a plot planned in Chicago with clear parallels to what happened in Dallas – with an ex-Marine as the prepared patsy, who got a job on a high rise building on the route that the motorcade was planned to take some weeks before, and who had trained with exile-Cubans like Oswald. By chance the sharp-shooters were detected by an hotelier and the Chicago visit was cancelled.
LS: Why did JFK die on November 22, 1963?
MB: JFK had made a radical change while president, from a classic cold warrior to a policy of reconciliation and peace. He had made angry enemies in the military and the CIA and when he announced to end the cold war in his speech on June 10th 1963 he finally was marked to death.
LS: Can you tell us something about the role of the Secret Service and the U.S. military in the assassination?
MB: The Secret Service men were mostly Southerners, who deeply dismissed JFKs civil rights politics. They did a very lax security in Dallas and there is a probability that some of these men were sweetened to do so. The memories of Abraham Bolden, the first Afro-American brought to the Secret Service by JFK in 1961, tells that when he tried to contact the Warren Commission to talk about the supremacist, racist attitude of his colleagues, he was indicted by corrupted false witnesses and brought to prison.
The military played a crucial role in the false autopsy & x-ray-pictures made at the Bethseda hospital in Washington DC and the testimony of the doctors. General Curtis LeMay, Joint Chief of the Air Force and one of the harshest opponents of JFKs peace politics, was present in the autopsy room in Bethseda, smoking a cigar! I think his presence was not by chance.
The military intelligence also played a crucial role in Dallas – the first interviews of Marina Oswald was not by Dallas Police but by officers of the military intelligence, which also arranged a dubious translator for her testimonies, which helped to frame Oswald in the first place.
LS: Where did the funding for the coup come from?
MB: The Texas oilmen and billionaires H.L. Hunt and Clint Murchison are the most probable financiers, even if there is no hard evidence for it. They paid for the ad in the Dallas paper the day before the visit, naming Kennedy a communist and a traitor. They hated JFK to the bones and they had LBJ in their pocket, their insurance that everything would be covered up properly.
LS: How many people lost their lives over the years related to the Kennedy assassination?
MB: A well-researched new book by Richard Belzer (“Hit List”) lists 1.400 persons with a connection to the murder and in the first three years after the assassination 33 of them came to death on unnatural causes. The probability that this happened by chance is 1: 137 billion.
LS: Was it basically the right-wing / fascist and racist mindset in the U.S. that won the coup d’etat on November 22, 1963?
MB: Yes. And in Dallas, Texas these right-wing fascists, who called themselves “patriots,” had a home game.
LS: What would the history of the “Cold War” have been if the nuclear arms race had ended in Kennedy’s second term? Would the Berlin Wall have come down sooner?
MB: After the nuclear test stop, JFK announced to his confidants that he would go to Moscow after the re-election to negotiate a peace treaty. In public he had already announced to stop the arms race in order to end the cold war. In a National Action Security Memorandum he had called for a co-operation with the Russians in space. After the exchange of secret letters with Khrushchev, which ended the missile crisis, he was on good terms with the Soviet leader, who in the Kremlin also had called for disarmament. The death of JFK encouraged the Soviet hardliners to get rid of him. With Kennedy alive, Khrushchev would have stood in power and the cold war could have been ended in the 60s.
LS: Why does the death of JFK still matter?
MB: It’s the most important crime in the second half of the 20th century, it is still unsolved and it marked in a way the end of the American Republic. Since then the financial-military-industrial complex rules and no president after JFK had the balls to challenge that. There is, in the words of Gore Vidal, “a one-party-system with two right-wings”; there are corporate media brainwashing the population 24/7 and propagating wars for global imperial dominance; there are covert operations all over the world to ensure this dominance – and this will go on and on as long the truth about the covert operation, the coup d’ état, against JFKs presidency is kept hidden.
LS: Thank you very much for taking your time, Mr. Broeckers!
