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.

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.

The X-Files Soft Disclosure?

Since I belong to generation X the X-Files was very much a part of my life. I remember watching the show at night and being fascinated about all the various plots. I’ve often wondered about whether or not some of the stuff was true.

With the advent of the new show it appears the plots have thickened and become much juicer. This has led me to reevaluate the series. What I found very interesting. Approximately 6 months before the attacks of September 11th the X-Files aired a episode called Lone Gunman which alluded to attacks that sounded very much like 9/11.

Many have stated that it was because of this prediction that the show was cancelled, but obviously this is speculation. There’s a lot of disclosure in the new series first episode, but unfortunately the second one was lacking. Chris Carter didn’t write the story for the second one so that may explain it. We might have to wait until the last two episodes to see some more juicy bits of disclosure.

In response to the show the CIA released some documents on their blog(I didn’t even know the CIA had a blog…. lol). They entitled it Take a Peek Into Our X-Files where they listed the top 5 documents both Scully and Mulder would love to get their hands on.

I would also recommend reading Justin Deschamp’s article Analysis of X-Files Episode 1: “My Struggle” by Deus Nexus | The X-Files Disclosure of 2016!

Here’s a partial list of the disclosures I picked up on:

  1. UFO Sightings all around the world
  2. 9-11 was a false flag
  3. Weather Wars
  4. Military Abductions
  5. Alien Reproduction Vehicle(ARVs) built from intercepted alien technology.
  6. Free energy(Zero-point energy)
  7. Spying, surveillance systems
  8. Obama on Jimmy Kimmel who doesn’t deny the existence of UFOs and aliens
  9. Genetic manipulation and combining with alien DNA
  10. The Elite’s ultimate goal for totalitarian state(surveillance, mind control, etc..)
  11. 9/11 false flag
  12. The perpetual staged war on terror
  13. The Hegelian Dialectic – Problem-Reaction-Solution

I would also like to mention the fact that the show Lucifer was right after the show. As if to allude to the fact that the elites or powers that were are luciferians.

One thing I do know, that with all the disclosure that’s been going on lately, something big seems to be at work. The sheer amount of information this year alone really is amazing. So many things coming to the Light, so much disclosures underway. Exciting times we live in!

– Tim Frappier

By David Nova | From Deus Nexus

x-files-logoI expected some fireworks. I didn’t expect the television to blow up.

The X-Files returned to network television for a six episode miniseries. The show was created by Chris Carter, which originally aired for nine seasons from 1993 to 2002 on the Fox network. The series premiered simultaneously in Canada and the USA on Sunday, January 24, 2016.

During its run, the science fiction/horror show dealt with a multitude of conspiracies, including a U.S. government coverup of extraterrestrial visitation and the phenomenon of alien abduction. For good or ill, no other program has been more influential in raising the public consciousness on the topic of UFOs and exopolitics.

The show stars David Duchovny as FBI special agent Fox Mulder, previously assigned to the X-Files, a firm believer in the paranormal and the existence of extraterrestrial life. Gillian Anderson plays Dana Scully, a medical doctor and FBI agent previously assigned to the X-Files to overlook the validity of its cases. Scully is initially a skeptic but eventually comes to believe.

The original series often took a long and meandering, sometimes confusing, journey in revealing its central  extraterrestrial conspiracy. The show was unique for television, as it provided no easy answers and seldom gave any resolution to its stories. As a mirror to real life, it left the question of UFOs and extraterrestrials an open question.


Episode One: My Struggle

All that changed dramatically on Sunday night with the premier of Episode 1, “My Struggle.” In one hour, network television did something utterly unbelievable. The X-Files gave us full disclosure, and I’m still trying to wrap my head around it.

“Are we being lied to?” – Fox Mulder

The show began with a lengthy prologue from Fox Mulder, summing up the plot of the original series, yet providing  plenty of concise, real world information.  The program then went into a reenactment of the infamous Roswell crash, using the event as a cornerstone for the plot.

Fox Mulder and Dana Scully are called out of X-Files retirement by an internet conspiracy media celebrity, a sort of Alex Jones character (if Alex Jones owned a helicopter) who believes that 9/11 is a government conspiracy and coverup. To my knowledge, this has to be the first time a network television show openly and seriously called 9/11 a false flag event without any laughter.

“Since 9/11, this country has taken a strange turn in a very bizzare direction,” – Tad O’Malley

Tad O’Malley enlists Mulder and Scully to help blow the lid off the global conspiracy on his internet television program, which is precisely what this episode does. And to my utter amazement, this episode goes beyond its own extraterrestrial abduction mythology to present the real truth to the world, that most of the extraterrestrial abductions are not being performed by ETs, but are in fact being performed by military personnel in reverse engineered, alien reproduction vehicles using cloned alien biological entities. (This plot line was occasionally a feature of the original series, but usually presented as a double-cross, leading Mulder away from the truth. It is very explicit here.)

The X-Files just went beyond the looking glass. In the space of an hour, the show covered almost every major point in Doctor Steven Greer mind-boggling 4 hour lecture on disclosure, “How the Secret Government Really Works.”  WATCH IT HERE.

I almost wonder if Dr. Greer was asked to be a consultant for this episode.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Here is a list of some of the major conspiracies that were covered in this episode:

Free energy, or zero point energy
Alien reproduction vehicles
Technolog for ARV craft invisibility
Roswell as a smokescreen
Military abductions
Implanted hybrid pregnancies
Chemtrails, weather modification
Weather wars
GMO foods and cancer-causing chemical contaminants
The Hegelian Dialectic – Problem-Reaction-Solution
9/11 as a false flag operation
The perpetual staged war on terror
Total Surveillance and formation of police state
Totalitarian takeover of the United States by the elite
American citizens in FEMA prison camps
The Illuminati
And hints about a secret space program

The episode featured information about past Presidents’ knowledge of UFOs, images linking George W. Bush to the 9/11 false flag, and a clip of President Obama on Jimmy Kimmel joking about the extraterrestrial secret.

By the end of the episode, the shadow government stops Tad O’Mally from releasing full disclosure, however this episode of The X-Flies succeeds in that respect. The question is WHY? WHY NOW?

I never thought that I would see this kind of full disclosure from Hollywood on a network television program, and without any trace of some duplicitous agenda. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by the elite in releasing this much information to the public in this form.

My conjecture is that some external force has put great pressure upon the elite to begin releasing some form of full disclosure, and this is how they have decided to do it – on a network television program notorious for concocted conspiracy theories, that is delayed in broadcast by a football game and post game show on a Sunday night when a major blizzard has brought the entire east coast of the United States to a standstill.

And yet, the event was not completely free from elite programming. The television commercials in particular caught my attention.  There were the ads for FOX’s newest TV series, Lucifer, making the devil sexy.  There were the ads for the new video game, XCOM2: “Their evolution, our extinction! XCOM2.  Join us, or become them.” And then there was another ad for Ford that ran repeatedly: “She can rage and roar and crack and storm, but mother nature can’t stop US,” which I couldn’t help but feel sounded like desperate bravado from the elite, that they think they can still stop Gaia’s ascension.

Will this X-Files episode of full disclosure have any effect upon the sleeping public?  We will just have to wait and see. I fear that most television zombies will simply need a truck to fall on their heads before they wake up from their coma of denial. They will need some kind of real world disclosure not cloaked in a television program, and even then they will struggle “to believe.”  However, this is an incredibly promising positive step in the right direction.

2016 should be a very interesting year!

Whether the new X-Files continues to feed us disclosure, or if this is a hit-and-run, one time shot across the bow, and the rest of the episodes return to a harmless dramatic narrative, we’ll just have to wait and see.


Update: The Dilemma of Disclosure

Near the end of episode one, after Mulder and O’Malley lay out the full scope of the conspiracy for Scully and the television audience, the characters engage in their typical, by now classic, debate. Mulder is Mulder, going off half cocked without wisdom or a plan. Scully is Scully, reacting with extreme caution and being overprotective. But their exchange is more than just another moment of character developement, it also seems to be an intentional dialogue about the wisdom or foolishness of full disclosure.

“You can’t say these things … it’s fear mongering,”  – Scully

Scully is addresssing the concern that cautiously awake readers ponder – Is this all just fear mongering? Is fear the subliminal purpose of this type of disclosure?

“Saying these things would be incredibly irresponsible,” – Scully

“It’s irresponsible not to say it,” – Mulder

This is not a conversation that is often had in the alternative media – those of us who are generally of the Mulder persauation, who want to push for full disclosure all at once, immediately. They don’t see the foolishness in acting rashly, or the psychological destruction full disclosure could cause, the chaos, the fear, the potential for backlash and deadly violence. Mulder usually gets himself in trouble in these instances, and its Scully to the rescue.

So there is some wisdom in going slowly, developing a plan, testing the waters, being scientific, anticipating the repercussions. But if you go too slowly, and you are too careful, you may never act at all. You might delay and procrastinate until things get even worse. Scully would hide in her lab without Mulder’s impulsiveness to motivate her. With this in mind, consider that this X-Files episode could turn out to represent a small careful step towards Disclosure with a capital “D.”