Mainstream Media Finally Exposes CIA Drug Trafficking Conspiracy in Explosive History Channel Series

Source: The Free Thought Project

Richard Nixon, in his effort to silence black people and antiwar activists, brought the War on Drugs into full force in 1973. He then signed Reorganization Plan No. 2, which established the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Over the course of five decades, this senseless war has waged on. At a cost of over $1 trillion — ruining and ending countless lives in the process — America’s drug war has created a drug problem that is worse now than ever before.

This is no coincidence.

For years, those of us who’ve been paying attention have seen who profits from this inhumane war — the police state and cartels.

This horrendously corrupt and violent drug war has gotten so bad, that it is getting pushed into the mainstream. In an extremely rare move, A&E Networks, a subsidiary of ABC and the Walt Disney Company, will be addressing the government’s role in the drug war in a four-part documentary series on the History Channel, titled, “America’s War on Drugs.”

In this documentary, History channel promises to delve into items that, up until recently, were considered ‘conspiracy theory.’ CIA drug dealing is one of those such items. According to the description on A&E:

“America’s War of Drugs” is an immersive trip through the last five decades, uncovering how the CIA, obsessed with keeping America safe in the fight against communism, allied itself with the mafia and foreign drug traffickers. In exchange for support against foreign enemies, the groups were allowed to grow their drug trade in the United States. 

Promising to be one of the most explosive television series in recent history, the show intends to expose the CIA’s connection to the crack epidemic.

Night one of “America’s War on Drugs” divulges covert Cold War operations that empowered a generation of drug traffickers and reveals the peculiar details of secret CIA LSD experiments which helped fuel the counter-culture movement, leading to President Nixon’s crackdown and declaration of a war on drugs. The documentary series then delves into the rise of the cocaine cowboys, a secret island “cocaine base,” the CIA’s connection to the crack epidemic, the history of the cartels and their murderous tactics, the era of “Just Say No,” the negative effect of NAFTA, and the unlikely career of an almost famous Midwest meth queen.

If the CIA trafficking cocaine into the United States sounds like some tin foil conspiracy theory, think again. Their role in the drug trade was exposed in 1996 in a critical investigative series “Dark Alliance” by Gary Webb for the San Jose Mercury News. The investigation, headed up by Webb revealed ties between the CIA, Nicaraguan contras and the crack cocaine trade ravaging African-American communities.

The investigation provoked massive protests and congressional hearings, as well as overt backlash from the mainstream media to discredit Webb’s reporting. However, decades later, officials would come forward to back Webb’s original investigation up.

Then-senator John Kerry even released a detailed report claiming that not only was there “considerable evidence” linking the Contra effort to trafficking of drugs and weapons — but that the U.S. government knew about it.

Also, as the Free Thought Project previously reported, in a new book, Juan Pablo Escobar Henao, son of notorious Medellín cartel drug kingpin, Pablo Escobar, explains how his father “worked for the CIA.”

In the book, “Pablo Escobar In Fraganti,” Escobar, who lives under the pseudonym, Juan Sebastián Marroquín, explains his “father worked for the CIA selling cocaine to finance the fight against Communism in Central America.”

Going even further down the rabbit hole, the History Channel will address how US involvement in Afghanistan turned the country into a virtual heroin factory and how the drug war empowers cartels.

The final chapter of the series examines how the attacks on September 11thintertwined the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, transforming Afghanistan into a narco-state teeming with corruption. It also explores how American intervention in Mexico helped give rise to El Chapo and the Super Cartels, bringing unprecedented levels of violence and sending even more drugs across America’s borders.

The reason why the drug war actually creates a drug and violence problem is simple. And those who profit most from the drug war — drug war enforcers and cartels — all know it. When the government makes certain substances illegal, it does not remove the demand. Instead, the state creates crime by pushing the sale and control of these substances into the illegal black markets. All the while, demand remains constant.

We can look at the prohibition of alcohol and the subsequent mafia crime wave that ensued as a result as an example. The year 1930, at the peak of prohibition, happened to be the deadliest year for police in American history. 300 police officers were killed, and innumerable poor people slaughtered as the state cracked down on drinkers.

Outlawing substances does not work.

Criminal gangs form to protect sales territory and supply lines. They then monopolize the control of the constant demand. Their entire operation is dependent upon police arresting people for drugs because this grants them a monopoly on their sale.

However, the illegality of drug possession and use is what keeps the low-level users and dealers in and out of the court systems, and most of these people are poor black men. As Dr. Ron Paul has pointed out, black people are more likely to receive a harsher punishment for the same drug crime as a white person.

This revolving door of creating and processing criminals fosters the phenomenon known as Recidivism. Recidivism is a fundamental concept of criminal justice that shows the tendency of those who are processed into the system and the likelihood of future criminal behavior.

The War on Drugs takes good people and turns them into criminals every single minute of every single day. The system is setup in such a way that it fans the flames of violent crime by essentially building a factory that turns out violent criminals.

The system knows this too — as the very existence of the police state is dependent upon the drug war. When drugs are legal, there are far fewer doors to kick in, fines to collect, profit prisons to fill, and money to steal.

When drugs are legalized, gang violence drops too — drastically. Not only does it have a huge effect on the localized gangs in America, but the legalization of drugs is crippling to the violent foreign drug cartels too. 

This is why the Free Thought Project and other open-minded groups all advocate bringing this bloody and criminally ineffective drug war to a sudden and grinding halt.

Hopefully, the History Channel’s new documentary will push others to question drug laws. Hopefully, the documentary wakes people up the idea that legality does not equal morality and that government force, via kidnapping, caging, and killing, is no way to solve an addiction problem. Hopefully.

What We Took Away from Wikileaks’ Vault 7

Source: TruthStreamMedia

By Melissa Dykes

Wikileaks has released the first of its highly anticipated “Vault 7″… and the documents prove that the CIA not only has an enormous arsenal of lovely hacking tools and malware at its disposal, but the agency also has a fat bag of exploits that essentially allow it to take backdoor control of smart phones, televisions, gaming systems and more and turn them into live microphones. One called “Weeping Angels” is even named after a Dr. Who villain (see episode #11 here). It makes television owners think their television is off, but it’s just a false off that allows the agency to listen to anyone within earshot.

The CIA… now in your living room any time it wants.

And now for the real takeaway of Wikileaks’ Vault 7 “Year Zero” dump… incrementally acclimating people to living in a total information awareness society where the government has access and can invade your privacy any time it wants through technology.

At this rate, we’re headed for Big Brother 1984 telescreens in no time.

CIAs role in financial markets EXPOSED by documents release

Source: Zero Hedge

The CIA is under pressure from a lot of individuals and groups that question the agency’s relevance in today’s world, even Jack Ma dropped the comment at Davos that $14 Trillion was ‘wasted’ on wars over the years.  As we explain in Splitting Pennies – Understanding Forex – The CIA has been a currency manipulator and agency-employee for the banks, since inception.  Now, we have the evidence.  Due to overwhelming public pressure, the CIA released 13 Million files online which are more than 25 years old, you can search this treasure trove here:  Access CIA Crest archive by clicking here.

Bear in mind that, this is a view ‘back in time’ in an age before computers, we can only surmise based on facts and evidence how the agency is involved in FX operations today.  Notably, they were the hand twisting the Swiss arm in 2011 that led to the final destruction of the world’s only ‘real’ currency that had any value intrinsically; the Swiss Franc.  Now let’s go back to 1957 to examine our first case example:

This entire document can be seen here in PDF.  Although the operation here seems benign, the controlling of a client-state assets can be key in acheiving whatever goals set out, whether intelligence goals or economic ones.  In the case of Egypt, part of the ‘non-aligned’ movement during the post WW2 and Cold War period, in question was mostly their dealings with the Sino-Soviet Bloc, not their internal problems per se.  This is interesting as it follows a theme relevant today, that of blocking Russia’s economic success in order to gain a global advantage politically.

As explained in this groundbreaking book exposing the CIAs banking operations, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, the CIA has a simple plan to control the wealth of a nation, first sending in the ‘economists’ offering loans and various economic incentives – if that doesn’t work they send in the ‘jackals’ or CIA hitsquad and finally, when all else fails, they bomb the country into oblivion.

In this example, the CIA is ‘concerned’ that Egypt will ‘settle debts’ with ‘discounted goods’ purchased from western countries.  Sounds like a reasonable deal – but the CIA doesn’t play fair.  It’s the ‘do as I say, not as I do’ approach, it’s OK for the CIA to topple foreign leaders and seize the assets of foreign countries, but if another country does it, they are accused of ‘aggression.’  This double standard has been an old CIA trick since the days of spying and confidence tricks began.  It also was the beginning of the CIAs ‘banks not tanks’ approach to foreign policy which was used for the greater part of the last 70 years since WW2.  For example, if the CIA could control the assets of a foreign country and thus crippling them, it was akin to invading their most critical city successfully.  Although this is a no-brainer (so it seems today) in previous times such methods were not feasible to implement.  But the CIA grew and evolved in a time of modern communications leading to where we are today, in a flat world based on instant electronic communication around the world.

For a more modern example, here’s the smoking gun regarding Iraq:

A bizarre political statement by Saddam Hussein has earned Iraq a windfall of hundreds of million of euros. In October 2000 Iraq insisted on dumping the US dollar – ‘the currency of the enemy’ – for the more multilateral euro.  The changeover was announced on almost exactly the same day that the euro reached its lowest ebb, buying just $0.82, and the G7 Finance Ministers were forced to bail out the currency. On Friday the euro had reached $1.08, up 30 per cent from that time.  Almost all of Iraq’s oil exports under the United Nations oil-for-food programme have been paid in euros since 2001. Around 26 billion euros (£17.4bn) has been paid for 3.3 billion barrels of oil into an escrow account in New York.  The Iraqi account, held at BNP Paribas, has also been earning a higher rate of interest in euros than it would have in dollars.

So now that the CIA has released 13 Million files and will continue to release more every year on the Crest archive, it will provide investors, historians, authors, academics, bankers, and others the evidence they need to research and confirm what we already knew:  The CIA is an agency-employee that works for international banks first, and US Citizens second.

To get an education about how this works and more, including how to trade the FX market, checkout FC Trading Academy.  For a pocket guide to make you a FX Genius checkout Splitting Pennies – Understanding Forex book.

 

Posted in CIA.

CIA Has Interfered With Over 81 Foreign Elections in the Past Century

By Nina Agrawal, Los Angeles Times

This number doesn’t include military coups and regime change efforts following the election of candidates the U.S. didn’t like, notably those in Iran, Guatemala and Chile.

The CIA has accused Russia of interfering in the 2016 presidential election (with absolutely zero evidence) by hacking into Democratic and Republican computer networks and selectively releasing emails.

But critics might point out the U.S. has done similar things.

The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries – it’s done so as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University.

cia-has-interfered-with-over-81-foreign-elections-in-the-past-century

That number doesn’t include military coups and regime change efforts following the election of candidates the U.S. didn’t like, notably those in Iran, Guatemala and Chile. Nor does it include general assistance with the electoral process, such as election monitoring.

Levin defines intervention as “a costly act which is designed to determine the election results [in favor of] one of the two sides.”

These acts, carried out in secret two-thirds of the time, include funding the election campaigns of specific parties, disseminating misinformation or propaganda, training locals of only one side in various campaigning or get-out-the-vote techniques, helping one side design their campaign materials, making public pronouncements or threats in favor of or against a candidate, and providing or withdrawing foreign aid.

In 59% of these cases, the side that received assistance came to power, although Levin estimates the average effect of “partisan electoral interventions” to be only about a 3% increase in vote share.

The U.S. hasn’t been the only one trying to interfere in other countries’ elections, according to Levin’s data.

Russia attempted to sway 36 foreign elections from the end of World War II to the turn of the century – meaning that, in total, at least one of the two great powers of the 20th century intervened in about 1 of every 9 competitive, national-level executive elections in that time period.

Italy’s 1948 general election is an early example of a race where U.S. actions probably influenced the outcome.

“We threw everything, including the kitchen sink” at helping the Christian Democrats beat the Communists in Italy, said Levin, including covertly delivering “bags of money” to cover campaign expenses, sending experts to help run the campaign, subsidizing “pork” projects like land reclamation, and threatening publicly to end U.S. aid to Italy if the Communists were elected.

Levin said that U.S. intervention probably played an important role in preventing a Communist Party victory, not just in 1948, but in seven subsequent Italian elections.

Throughout the Cold War, U.S. involvement in foreign elections was mainly motivated by the goal of containing communism, said Thomas Carothers, a foreign policy expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

“The U.S. didn’t want to see left-wing governments elected, and so it did engage fairly often in trying to influence elections in other countries,” Carothers said.

This approach carried over into the immediate post-Soviet period.

In the 1990 Nicaragua elections, the CIA leaked damaging information on alleged corruption by the Marxist Sandinistas to German newspapers, according to Levin.

The opposition used those reports against the Sandinista candidate, Daniel Ortega. He lost to opposition candidate Violeta Chamorro.

In Czechoslovakia that same year, the U.S. provided training and campaign funding to Vaclav Havel’s party and its Slovak affiliate as they planned for the country’s first democratic election after its transition away from communism.

“The thinking was that we wanted to make sure communism was dead and buried,” said Levin.

Even after that, the U.S. continued trying to influence elections in its favor.

In Haiti after the 1986 overthrow of dictator and U.S. ally Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier, the CIA sought to support particular candidates and undermine Jean-Bertrande Aristide, a Roman Catholic priest and proponent of liberation theology.

The New York Times reported in the 1990s that the CIA had on its payroll members of the military junta that would ultimately unseat Aristide after he was democratically elected in a landslide over Marc Bazin, a former World Bank official and finance minister favored by the U.S.

The U.S. also attempted to sway Russian elections. In 1996, with the presidency of Boris Yeltsin and the Russian economy flailing, President Clinton endorsed a $10.2-billion loan from the International Monetary Fund linked to privatization, trade liberalization and other measures that would move Russia toward a capitalist economy.

Yeltsin used the loan to bolster his popular support, telling voters that only he had the reformist credentials to secure such loans,according to media reports at the time.

He used the money, in part, for social spending before the election, including payment of back wages and pensions.

In the Middle East, the U.S. has aimed to bolster candidates who could further the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

In 1996, seeking to fulfill the legacy of assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the peace accords the U.S. brokered, Clinton openly supported Shimon Peres, convening a peace summit in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el Sheik to boost his popular support and inviting him to a meeting at the White House a month before the election.

“We were persuaded that if [Likud candidate Benjamin] Netanyahu were elected, the peace process would be closed for the season,” said Aaron David Miller, who worked at the State Department at the time.

In 1999, in a more subtle effort to sway the election, top Clinton strategists, including James Carville, were sent to advise Labor candidateEhud Barak in the election against Netanyahu.

In Yugoslavia, the U.S. and NATO had long sought to cut off Serbian nationalist and Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic from the international system through economic sanctions and military action.

In 2000, the U.S. spent millions of dollars in aid for political parties, campaign costs and independent media. Funding and broadcast equipment provided to the media arms of the opposition were a decisive factor in electing opposition candidate Vojislav Kostunica as Yugoslav president, according to Levin.

“If it wouldn’t have been for overt intervention… Milosevic would have been very likely to have won another term,” he said.