Geëxecuteerd middels suïcide, de manier om van lastige VIP’s af te komen…….

Posted on May 9, 2018April 8, 2026 by Alex

‘Complottheorie Denken’ noemt men dat, wanneer men beweert dat een bekende persoon die zich gesuïcideerd zou hebben, hoogstwaarschijnlijk of (na onderzoek) zelfs onomstotelijk bewezen is omgebracht door de overheid.

‘Vreemd genoeg’ blijken de complotdenkers echter vaak gelijk te hebben of te krijgen, zo werd Martin Luther King in feite door de FBI vermoord…..* Als je alleen dat feit al in aanmerking neemt, hoe moeilijk kan het dan zijn iemand om te brengen, die regelmatig of incidenteel harddrugs anders dan, of juist in combinatie met de harddrug alcohol gebruikt?? Inderdaad een klus waar je op het eerste gezicht zo mee wegkomt: neem heroïne: er wordt eigenlijk alleen versneden heroïne op de markt gebracht. Verkoop of geef iemand zuivere heroïne en een dodelijke overdosis vindt haar weg………..

Op zeker ook dat de VS overheid, waarschijnlijk de FBI en/of de CIA een aantal ‘vervelende grootheden’ uit de 60er jaren en van latere datum hebben vermoord, artiesten/muzikanten die zich negatief uit hebben gelaten over de VS, zoals verzet tegen de smerige Vietnamoorlog, waarin de VS een paar miljoen mensen vermoordde middels tapijtbombardementen en bombardementen met napalm. Heden ten dage komen er nog Vietnamezen en mensen in aangrenzende landen als Laos om het leven door onontplofte munitie van de VS….. Zoals er nog steeds mensen overlijden door blootstalling aan Agent Orange, een ontbladermiddel dat de VS in Vietnam gebruikte op gebieden met oerwoud, een stof die net als de gebruikte napalm deels opgeslagen lag Rotterdam…..

Terug naar het onderwerp: het volgende bericht van Brasscheck TV gaat over dit soort zaken, bijzonder onwaarschijnlijke suïcides, waarvan een fiks aantal onder zeer verdachte omstandigheden…… Zoals iemand die zich tweemaal door het hoofd heeft geschoten…… Ook Kurt Cobain komt aan de orde, van wie ook een interview is te zien in het volgende artikel:

Executed by “suicide”

THE DEATH OF KURT COBAIN
AS THE ROSETTA STONE OF “SUICIDED” ACTIVISTS

THE PATTERN IS ALWAYS THE SAME

From the movie “Soaked in Bleach.”

One of our most important videos ever for understanding the mechanics of how inconvenient people are “suicided.”

“Soaked in Bleach” is the single best account of how murders are staged and then “transformed” by idiot and/or corrupt cops and the news media into “suicides.”

Other examples:

Danny Casolaro…investigative journalist who documented Bush family crimes.

Reportedly cut his own wrist 10 to 12 times in a hotel room.

Gary Webb...investigative journalist who revealed details of CIA involvement in drug dealing

Reportedly shot himself in the head TWICE

Vince Foster…a long time Clinton friend and insider who was having second thoughts about his criminal collaborations with the Clintons

Reportedly shot himself with his right hand even though he was left handed.

Aaron Swartz...possibly the most effective Internet rights activist of all time

Reportedly hung himself after his attorney assured him that a trumped up federal government case against him was weak.

David Kelly...UK weapons inspector who publicly called into question the UK government’s fraudulent “proof” of Iraq’s weapons program

Reportedly cut his ulnar artery with a bread knife, a tool unlikely to do the job and on an artery an injury to which is unlikely to end anyone’s life.

JH Hatfield…had the goods on George W. Bush’s cocaine use

Reported suicide by drug overdose in a hotel room

Mark Lombardi…successful artist who documented connections between the Bush family and the Bin Ladens

Reportedly hung himself just as he was achieving significant commercial success and media attention.

Deborah Palfrey…the “DC Madam” who had over 10,000 client records including top Washington people.

Reportedly went to her mother’s home to hang herself in her storage shed.

Frank Olson…CIA scientist and biological warfare expert who declared his intention to quit

Reportedly jumped out of a hotel window as the result of a bad LSD trip nine days before.

They all committed suicide because they were “depressed.”

Not so fast.

As this documentary on the death of Kurt Corbain shows:

The “he was depressed” story is always injected into the media narrative early and often and rarely has any basis in fact. Sometimes, in the case of Kurt Cobain, it is carefully manufactured before the suicide is discovered.

Some targets may have been under significant stress, but had resilient personalities and in some cases had no reason to be depressed at all

Police in these cases are remarkably incompetent, declarations are made far in advance of any reasonable investigation, and essential evidence – including the body itself – is often destroyed.

False suicide notes are created.

The “suicide” of Kurt Cobain shows how sloppy and/or corrupt police work and media manipulation turn obvious homicide cases into “end of story” suicide accounts.

Kurt Cobain – level headed, down-to-earth.

Does he seem like someone likely to commit suicide?

* Zie: ‘Martin Luther King jr. vermoord door de overheid, aldus rechter……..‘

Zie ook: ‘Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.: 8 wijze lessen!‘

‘J.F. Kennedy vermoord door Lyndon Johnson en z’n maten in misdaad, geheime diensten en politiek…..‘

‘John Lennon 9 oktober 1940 – 8 december 1980 Power to the People!‘

‘De langzame moord op de ideeën van Martin Luther King…………….. Ofwel: Dr. Martin Luther Kings lessen willens en wetens verzwegen….‘

‘Martin Luther King: de moord van 50 jaar geleden door de VS overheid uiterst beperkt herdacht‘

‘Nam Kurt Cobain zijn eigen leven? Niet volgens een flink aantal mensen‘

‘Georganiseerde misdaad en overheid, wat is het verschil tussen die twee? Een uiterst hilarische lezing van Michael Parenti over de moord op JFK!‘

‘Martin Luther King misbruikt door Radio1‘

‘Paul Scheffer, het media-orakel met een ‘vlijmscherpe analyse’ over het racistische optreden van de politie in de VS……… AUW!!!‘

‘Willem Post over de zegeningen van het zero tolerance beleid in de VS en ach, het is misschien ietsje doorgeschoten…….‘

PS: je zou je zelfs voor kunnen stellen dat een flink aantal journalisten niet langer durven te schrijven wat ze voor ogen komt, daar ook hen regelmatig een vreemde dood treft en dan bedoel ik in westerse landen…..

Esmond Bradley Martin, anti-ivoorhandel activist vermoord………..

Posted on February 5, 2018April 7, 2026 by Alex

In het BBC World Service nieuws van 12.30 u. (CET) vandaag, het bericht dat Esmond Bradley Martin, een anti-ivoorhandel activist is vermoord in Kenia…… Eerder werkte Martin voor de VN, waar hij zich ook met de bestrijding van de ivoorhandel bezig hield.

Esmond Bradley Martin documenteerde de (illegale) handel in ivoor, o.a. door het bezoeken van zwarte markten waar ivoor werd verhandeld in landen als Laos, China en Vietnam, waar hij onder meer in het geheim foto’s maakte en prijzen van ivoor vastlegde.

Mede door het werk van Esmond Bradley Martin heeft China de import van ivoor verboden. (onlangs had Avaaz alweer het gore lef te stellen dat dit succes, het verbod op ivoorimport in China, hoofdzakelijk te danken is aan het werk van haar organisatie……. Avaaz doet dit keer op keer als een zaak wordt verboden, waar zij als één van de vele organisaties een petitie tegen voerden……. Ach ja het is dan ook lucratief een dergelijke organisatie op te zetten, althans voor de top van die organisaties……..)

Esmond Bradley Martin is schandalig genoeg bepaald niet de eerste activist die tegen de ivoorhandel werkte en werd vermoord…….. De politie in Kenia houdt het op een ordinaire roofoverval, echter als je ziet hoeveel mensen er al zijn vermoord, die zich verzetten tegen deze barbaarse handel, rijst de vraag of de Keniaanse politie gelijk heeft met haar constatering…… ( de vraag stellen is haar beantwoorden)

Voor meer berichten over ivoorstroperij, klik op dat label, direct onder dit bericht.

Zie wat betreft Avaaz ook:
‘Avaaz valt met fake news en desinformatie ‘fake news en desinformatie’ aan…..‘ (zie ook de links in dat bericht naar andere Avaaz manipulaties)

De langzame moord op de ideeën van Martin Luther King…………….. Ofwel: Dr. Martin Luther Kings lessen willens en wetens verzwegen….

Posted on January 23, 2018 by Alex

Het volgende uitstekende artikel van Paul Street handelt over de lessen van Martin Luther King (in de VS vaak aangeduid als MLK) waarover men in de VS en de rest van het westen liever niet spreekt, dit daar in zijn visie o.a. alleen echte gelijkheid kan ontstaan in een vorm van socialisme………

Het is op 4 april a.s. 50 jaar geleden dat de staat dr. Martin Luther King liet vermoorden….. Vandaar veel aandacht dit jaar voor deze vrijheid en gelijkheidsstrijder. In de VS is 15 januari, de geboortedag van MLK, een vrije dag: ‘Martin Luther King Day’. Een uiterst hypocriet gebeuren als je het Paul Street vraagt, daar men vooral niet spreekt over de ideeën die King had over de ideale maatschappij en de vorm van bestuur die alle burgers ten goede zou komen, niet alleen de witte midden en hoge inkomens. Een wereld waarin arbeiders niet langer uitgebuit worden door en voor de ondernemers en aandeelhouders (en welgestelden in het algemeen).

Zo is echt socialisme of communisme een oplossing voor veel van de huidige ellende in de wereld. Vergeet niet dat communisme tot nu toe nooit heeft bestaan in onze wereld. Wat betreft socialisme kan je het Chili van Allende, Cuba van Fidel Castro en Venezuela onder Chavez en Maduro aanwijzen als voorbeelden (ook al was en is dit nog niet zoals het zou moeten zijn, echter wel zo goed dat de arme bevolking een veel beter leven kreeg, inclusief gezondheidszorg, een fatsoenlijk dak boven het hoofd en alfabetisering. Vandaar ook dat de VS zo haar best doet daar een eind aan te maken, wat tot nu toe al een aantal keren is gelukt, neem de uiterst bloedige staatsgreep tegen de democratisch gekozen regering van president Salvador Allende op 11 september 1973 in Chili, waarbij Allende strijdend werd vermoord…….. (betaald door- en onder regie en mede verantwoording van de CIA…..)

Momenteel is de VS naast het voeren van illegale oorlogen bezig met een economische oorlog tegen Venezuela, helaas is een heel groot deel van de Venezolaanse bevolking op de hoogte van de smerige streken die de VS het land levert (stop op leveringen van medicijnen en levensmiddelen) dat ze aan de kant van Maduro blijven staan. (dit nog naast de door de CIA georganiseerde gewelddadige protesten in Venezuela….)

De kijk van MLK op de wereld was volgens de schrijver van het volgende artikel, Paul Street, de reden waarom de overheid in de VS King alleen wil herdenken als strijder voor gelijke rechten t.b.v. gekleurde burgers……. Men leidt willens en wetens de aandacht af van de visie die King had op de VS en de wereld in het groot. Street spreekt dan ook (terecht) van een voortdurende morele en intellectuele moord op Martin Luther Kung………. (‘vreemd genoeg’ is er ook in de EU amper of geen aandacht voor de linkse kant van King….)

Zijn visie op de wereld, gecombineerd met zijn charisma is dan ook de reden waarom Martin Luther King ‘een bedreiging was’ voor de overheid en ‘wel vermoord moest worden…..’

Counterpunch JANUARY 19, 2018

Dr. King’s Long Assassination

by PAUL STREET

Photo by Ron Cogswell | CC BY 2.0

As the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s violent death (on April 4, 1968) grows closer, you can expect to hear more and more in U.S. corporate media about the real and alleged details of his immediate physical assassination (or perhaps execution). You will not be told about King’s subsequent and ongoing moral, intellectual, and ideological assassination.

I am referring to the conventional, neo-McCarthyite, and whitewashed narrative of King that is purveyed across the nation every year, especially during and around the national holiday that bears his name. This domesticated, bourgeois airbrushing portrays King as a mild liberal reformist who wanted little more than a few basic civil rights adjustments in a supposedly good and decent American System – a loyal supplicant who was grateful to the nation’s leaders for finally making noble alterations. This year was no exception.

The official commemorations never say anything about the Dr. King who studied Marx sympathetically at a young age and who said in his last years that “if we are to achieve real equality, the United States will have to adopt a modified form of socialism.” They delete the King who wrote that “the real issue to be faced” beyond “superficial” matters was the need for a radical social revolution.

It deletes the King who went on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) in late 1967 to reflect on how little the Black freedom struggle had attained beyond some fractional changes in the South. He deplored “the arresting of the limited forward progress” Blacks and their allies had attained “by [a] white resistance [that] revealed the latent racism that was [still] deeply rooted in U.S. society.”

“As elation and expectations died,” King explained on the CBC, “Negroes became more sharply aware that the goal of freedom was still distant and our immediate plight was substantially still an agony of deprivation. In the past decade, little has been done for Northern ghettoes. Al the legislation was to remedy Southern conditions – and even these were only partially improved.”

Worse than merely limited, King felt, the gains won by Black Americans during what he considered just the “first phase” of their freedom struggle (1955-1965) were dangerous in that they “brought whites a sense of completion” – a preposterous impression that the so-called “Negro problem” had been solved and that there was therefore no more basis or justification for further black activism. “When Negroes assertively moved on to ascend to the second rung of the ladder,” King noted, “a firm resistance from the white community developed…In some quarters it was a courteous rejection, in others it was a singing white backlash. In all quarters unmistakably, it was outright resistance.”

Explaining to his CBC listeners the remarkable wave of race riots that washed across U.S. cities in the summers of 1966 and 1967, King made no apologies for Black violence. He blamed “the white power structure…still seeking to keep the walls of segregation and inequality intact” for the disturbances. He found the leading cause of the riots in the reactionary posture of “the white society, unprepared and unwilling to accept radical structural change,” which” produc[ed] chaos” by telling Blacks (whose expectations for substantive change had been aroused) “that they must expect to remain permanently unequal and permanently poor.”

King also blamed the riots in part on Washington’s imperialist and mass-murderous war on Vietnam. Along with the misery it inflicted on Indochina, King said, the United States’ savage military aggression against Southeast Asia stole resources from Lyndon Johnson’s briefly declared and barely fought “War on Poverty.” It sent poor Blacks to the front killing lines to a disproportionate degree. It advanced the notion that violence was a reasonable response and even a solution to social and political problems.

Black Americans and others sensed what King called “the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same school. We watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would never live on the same block in Detroit,” King said on the CBC, adding that he “could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.”

Racial hypocrisy aside, King said that “a nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense [here he might better have said “military empire”] than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.”

Did the rioters disrespect the law, as their liberal and conservative critics alike charged? Yes, King said, but added that the rioters’ transgressions were “derivative crimes…born of the greater crimes of the…policy-makers of the white society,” who “created discrimination…created slums [and] perpetuate unemployment, ignorance, and poverty… [T]he white man,” King elaborated, “does not abide by law in the ghetto. Day in and day out he violates welfare laws to deprive the poor of their meager allotments; he flagrantly violates building codes and regulations; his police make a mockery of law; he violates laws on equal employment and education and the provision of public services. The slums are a handiwork of a vicious system of the white society.”

Did the rioters engage in violence? Yes, King said, but noted that their aggression was “to a startling degree…focused against property rather than against people.” He observed that “property represents the white power structure, which [the rioters] were [quite understandably] attacking and trying to destroy.” Against those who held property “sacred,” King argued that “Property is intended to serve life, and no matter how much we surround with rights and respect, it has no personal being.”

What to do? King advanced radical changes that went against the grain of the nation’s corporate state, reflecting his agreement with New Left militants that “only by structural change can current evils be eliminated, because the roots are in the system rather in man or faulty operations.” King advocated an emergency national program providing either decent-paying jobs for all or a guaranteed national income “at levels that sustain life in decent circumstances.” He also called for the “demolition of slums and rebuilding by the population that lives in them.”

His proposals, he said, aimed for more than racial justice alone. Seeking to abolish poverty for all, including poor whites, he felt that “the Negro revolt” was properly challenging each of what he called “the interrelated triple evils” of racism, economic injustice/poverty (capitalism) and war (militarism and imperialism). The Black struggle had thankfully “evolve[ed] into more than a quest for [racial] desegregation and equality,” King said. It had become “a challenge to a system that has created miracles of production and technology” but had failed to “create justice.”

“If humanism is locked outside the [capitalist] system,” King said on CBC five months before his assassination (or execution), “Negroes will have revealed its inner core of despotism and a far greater struggle for liberation will unfold. The United States is substantially challenged to demonstrate that it can abolish not only the evils of racism but the scourge of poverty and the horrors of war….”

There should be no doubt that King meant capitalism when he referred to “the system” and its “inner core of despotism.” This is clear from the best scholarship on King, including David Garrow’s epic, Pulitzer Prize-winning biography, Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership Council (HarperCollins, 1986)

No careful listener to King’s CBC talks could have missed the radicalism of his vision and tactics. “The dispossessed of this nation – the poor, both White and Negro – live in a cruelly unjust society,” King said. “They must organize a revolution against that injustice,” he added.

Such a revolution would require “more than a statement to the larger society,” more than “street marches” King proclaimed. “There must,” he added, “be a force that interrupts [that society’s] functioning at some key point.” That force would use “mass civil disobedience” to “transmute the deep rage of the ghetto into a constructive and creative force” by “dislocate[ing] the functioning of a society.”

“The storm is rising against the privileged minority of the earth,” King added for good measure. “The storm will not abate until [there is a] just distribution of the fruits of the earth…” The “massive, active, nonviolent resistance to the evils of the modern system” that King advocated was “international in scope,” reflecting the fact that “the poor countries are poor primarily because [rich Western nations] have exploited them through political or economic colonialism. Americans in particular must help their nation repent of her modern economic imperialism.”

King was a democratic socialist mass-disobedience-advocating and anti-imperialist world revolution advocate. The guardians of national memory don’t want you to know about that when they purvey the official, doctrinally imposed memory of King as an at most liberal and milquetoast reformer. (In a similar vein, our ideological overlords don’t want us to know that Albert Einstein [Time magazine’s “Person of the 20th Century”] wrote a brilliant essay making the case for socialism in the first issue of venerable U.S.-Marxist magazine Monthly Review – or that Helen Keller was a fan of the Russian Revolution.)

The threat posed to the official bourgeois memory by King’s CBC lectures – and by much more that King said and wrote in the last three years of his life – is not just that they show an officially iconic gradualist reformer to have been a democratic socialist opponent of the profits system and its empire. It is also about how clearly King analyzed the incomplete and unfinished nature of the nation’s progress against racial and class injustice, around which all forward developments pretty much ceased in the 1970s, thanks to a white backlash that was already well underway in the early and mid-1960s (before the rise of the Black Panthers, who liberal historians like to blame for the nation’s rightward racial drift under Nixon and Reagan) and to a top-down corporate war on working-class Americans that started under Jimmy Carter and then went ballistic under Ronald Reagan.

The “spiritual doom” imposed by U.S. militarism has lived on, with Washington having directly and indirectly killed untold millions of Central Americans, South Americans, Africans, Muslims, Arabs, and Asians in many different ways over the years since Vietnam. Accounting for roughly 40 percent of the world’s military expenditure, the U.S. maintains Cold War-level “defense” (empire) budgets to sustain an historically unmatched global empire (with at least 800 military bases spread across more than 80 foreign countries and “troops or other military personnel in about 160 foreign countries and territories”) even as a near-record 45 million U.S.-Americans remain stuck under the federal government’s notoriously inadequate poverty level. A very disproportionate number of the nation’s poor are Black and Latino/a.

It is obvious that the racist and white-supremacist real estate baron Donald J. Trump spoke disingenuously in tongue when he mouthed nice words about Dr. King last Monday. But what about his predecessor, Barack Obama, the nation’s first technically Black president? It was cruelly ironic that Obama kept a bust of King in the Oval Office to watch over his regular betrayal of the martyred peace and justice leader’s ideals. Consistent with Dr. Adolph Reed Jr.’s early (1996) dead-on description of the future President as “a smooth Harvard lawyer with impeccable credentials and vacuous to repressive neoliberal politics,” Obama consistently backed top corporate and financial interests (whose representatives filled and dominated his administrations, campaigns, and campaign coffers) over and against those who would undertake serious programs to end poverty, redistribute wealth (the savage re-concentration of which since Dr. King’s time has produced a New Gilded Age in the U.S.), grant free and universal health care, constrain capital, and save livable ecology as it approached a number of critical tipping points on the accelerating path to irreversible catastrophe. Thus is that one of Obama’s supporters (Ezra Klein) was moved in late 2012 to complain that a president “whose platform consists of Romney’s health care bill, Newt Gingrich’s environmental policies, John McCain’s deficit-financed payroll tax cuts, George W. Bush’s bailouts of filing banks and corporations, and a mixture of the Bush and Clinton tax rate” was still being denounced as a “leftist.”

Obama opposed calls for any special programs or serious federal attention to the nation’s savage racial inequalities, so vast now that the median of white households was 20 times that of black households and 18 times that of Hispanic households near the end of his presidency. He did this while the fact of his ascendency to the White House deeply reinforced white America’s sense that racism was over as a barrier to black advancement and generated its own significant white backlash that only worsened the situation of less privileged black Americans.

Obama made it crystal clear in ways that no white president could that what Dr. King in 1963 called America’s unpaid “promissory note” and “bad check” to Black America would remain un-cashed. This was all too sadly consistent with Obama’s preposterous 2007 campaign claim (at a commemoration of the King-led 1965 Selma Voting Rights March) to believe that Blacks had already come “90 percent” of the way to equality in the U.S.

Completing the “triple evils” hat trick, Obama – the self-appointed chief-executioner atop the Special Forces Global War on (of) Terror Kill List – embraced and expanded upon the vast criminal and worldwide spying and killing operation he inherited from Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and George W. Bush. He tamped down Bush’s failed ground wars only to ramp up and inflate the role of unaccountable special force and drone attacks in the spirit of his dashing and reckless imperial role model John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Obama’s drone program, Noam Chomsky noted in early 2015, was “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times.” It “target[ed] people suspected of perhaps intending to harm us some day, and any unfortunates who happen to be nearby,” Chomsky wrote.

In waging his deadly and disastrous, nation-wrecking and regionally destabilizing air war on Libya, Obama (unlike Bush prior to the invasion of Iraq) did not even bother with the pretense of seeking Congressional approval. “It should be a scandal,” Stansfield Smith wrote on CounterPunch one year ago, “that left-liberals paint Trump as a special threat, a war mongerer – [but] not Obama who is the first president to be at war every day of his eight years, who is waging seven wars at present, who dropped three bombs an hour, 24 hours a day, in 2016.” As Alan Nairn told Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman in early 2010, Obama kept the nation’s giant imperial machinery “set on kill.”

Meanwhile, Obama far surpassed the Cheney-Bush regime when it came to repressing antiwar dissenters, not to mention those who opposed the rule of the 1 percent – smashed by a coordinated federal campaign in the fall of 2011. “As all kinds of journalists have continuously pointed out,” Glenn Greenwald noted in early 2014, “the Obama administration is more aggressive and more vindictive when it comes to punishing whistleblowers than any administration in American history, including the Nixon administration.”

Furthermore, and to make matters far worse, Obama helped keep the planet set on burn. As Stansfield Smith noted two days before the horrid Trump’s inauguration:

Obama, who says he recognizes the threat to humanity posed by climate change, still invested at least $34 billion to promote fossil fuel projects in other countries. That is three times as much as George W Bush spent in his two terms, almost twice that of Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush and Bill Clinton put together…Obama financed 70 foreign fossil fuel projects. When completed they will release 164 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year – about the same output as the 95 currently operating coal-fired power plants in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Oklahoma. He financed two natural gas plants on an island in the Great Barrier Reef, as well as two of the largest coalmines on the planet… Moreover, under Obama, the U.S. has reversed the steady drop in U.S. oil production which had continued unchecked since 1971. The U.S. was pumping just 5.1 million barrels per day when Obama took office. By April 2016 it was up to 8.9 million barrels per day. A 74% increase.

As Obama proudly said in 2012, in the film This Changes Everything:

‘Over the last three years I’ve directed my administration to open up millions of acres for gas and oil exploration across 23 different states. We’re opening up more than 75% of our potential oil resources offshore. We’ve quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high. We’ve added enough oil and gas pipelines to encircle the earth and then some. So, we are drilling all over the place, right now.’

“Drill, baby, drill!”

Perhaps the dismal neoliberal Obama presidency – a key midwife to the Trump atrocity – was at least an object lesson on how real progressive and democratic change is about something bigger than a change in the party or color of the people in nominal power. That is certainly something King (who would be 88 today) would have understood very well had he been able to witness the endless mendacity of the nation’s first half-white president first-hand.

“The black revolution,” King wrote in a posthumously published 1969 essay titled “A Testament of Hope” (embracing a very different, authentically progressive sort of hope than that purveyed by Brand Obama in 2008) “is much more than a struggle for the rights of Negroes. It is forcing America to face all its interrelated flaws – racism, poverty, militarism, and materialism. It is exposing evils that are rooted deeply in the whole structure of our society. It reveals systemic rather than superficial flaws and suggests that radical reconstruction society of society itself is the real issue to be faced.”

Those words ring as true as ever today, with heightened urgency as it becomes undeniable that the profits system is driving humanity over an environmental cliff. They are words we never hear during official King Day commemorations.

King, it is worth recalling, was recruited by antiwar progressives to run for the U.S. presidency in 1967. He politely declined, claiming that he’d have little chance of winning and that he preferred to serve as a force of moral conscience for all the nation’s political parties.

The deeper truth, clear from his late-life writing and speeches, is that he had no interest in climbing into the power elite: his passion was directed toward a “revolution” of “the dispossessed” and a mass grassroots movement for the redistribution of wealth and power – a “radical reconstruction of society itself” – from the bottom up. Dr. King was interested in what the late radical U.S. historian Howard Zinn considered the more urgent politics of “who’s sitting in the streets,” very different from what Zinn saw as the comparatively superficial politics of “who’s sitting in the White House.”

King’s officially deleted radical record and Zinn’s clever and sage dichotomy are worth bearing in mind in coming months and years as we watch the nation’s “left” liberals try to call forth and herald a new Obama (Oprah perhaps?) in 2020. That is certainly one of the last things we need.

Help Paul Street keep writing here.

Join the debate on Facebook

JFK de moord: de macht van de geheime diensten gecombineerd met die van het militair-industrieel complex

Posted on November 4, 2017 by Alex

Het volgende artikel geschreven door Ray McGovern was nog niet gepubliceerd of Trump beloofde ook de rest van de JFK documenten vrij te geven, terwijl hij eerder onder druk van de CIA en NSA 300 pagina’s achterhield.

Daarmee was de kop van het McGovern artikel achterhaald, al moeten we eerst nog zien, of Trump kan leveren, immers de geheime diensten hebben hem bijna volledig in hun macht gekregen met de Russia-gate leugens*.

Verder een artikel met alweer toch een aantal nieuwe feiten, waaruit de conclusie bijna niet is te vermijden dat de CIA heeft meegewerkt aan de moord op J.F. Kennedy, uiteraard in opdracht en samenwerking met het militair-industrieel complex. Kennedy was van plan de aanwezige troepen uit Zuid-Vietnam terug te trekken, dat zou deze industrie een paar miljard dollar aan winst kosten…… Uiteraard was de mislukte invasie op Cuba een stevige plank aan de doodskist van Kennedy, men heeft hem nooit vergeven dat hij geen troepen stuurde naar Cuba om de gevangen genomen militairen te bevrijden, sterker nog: Kennedy ontsloeg de verantwoordelijken voor het Bay of Pigs incident…..

Truman, de ex-president plaatste een maand na de moord op Kennedy een artikel in de Washington Post, waarin hij pleitte de macht van de CIA aan banden te leggen, dit werd niet herhaald in de late editie van deze krant en werd gemeden door de rest van de reguliere media in de VS, terwijl Truman NB de CIA had opgezet in 1947……….

Lees het volgende (verder) prima artikel:

The Deep State’s JFK Triumph Over Trump

October 30, 2017 at 9:27 am

Written by Ray McGovern

Fifty-four years after President Kennedy’s assassination, the CIA and FBI demanded more time to decide what secrets to keep hiding – and a chastened President Trump bowed to their power, observes ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

(CN) — It was summer 1963 when a senior official of CIA’s operations directorate treated our Junior Officer Trainee (JOT) class to an unbridled rant against President John F. Kennedy. He accused JFK, among other things, of rank cowardice in refusing to send U.S. armed forces to bail out Cuban rebels pinned down during the CIA-launched invasion at the Bay of Pigs, blowing the chance to drive Cuba’s Communist leader Fidel Castro from power.

It seemed beyond odd that a CIA official would voice such scathing criticism of a sitting President at a training course for those selected to be CIA’s future leaders. I remember thinking to myself, “This guy is unhinged; he would kill Kennedy, given the chance.”

Our special guest lecturer looked a lot like E. Howard Hunt, but more than a half-century later, I cannot be sure it was he. Our notes from such training/indoctrination were classified and kept under lock and key.

At the end of our JOT orientation, we budding Agency leaders had to make a basic choice between joining the directorate for substantive analysis or the operations directorate where case officers run spies and organize regime changes (in those days, we just called the process overthrowing governments).

I chose the analysis directorate and, once ensconced in the brand new headquarters building in Langley, Virginia, I found it strange that subway-style turnstiles prevented analysts from going to the “operations side of the house,” and vice versa. Truth be told, we were never one happy family.

I cannot speak for my fellow analysts in the early 1960s, but it never entered my mind that operatives on the other side of the turnstiles might be capable of assassinating a President – the very President whose challenge to do something for our country had brought many of us to Washington in the first place. But, barring the emergence of a courageous whistleblower-patriot like Daniel Ellsberg, Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden, I do not expect to live long enough to learn precisely who orchestrated and carried out the assassination of JFK.

And yet, in a sense, those particulars seem less important than two main lessons learned: (1) If a President can face down intense domestic pressure from the power elite and turn toward peace with perceived foreign enemies, then anything is possible. The darkness of Kennedy’s murder should not obscure the light of that basic truth; and (2) There is ample evidence pointing to a state execution of a President willing to take huge risks for peace. While no post-Kennedy president can ignore that harsh reality, it remains possible that a future President with the vision and courage of JFK might beat the odds – particularly as the American Empire disintegrates and domestic discontent grows.

I do hope to be around next April after the 180-day extension for release of the remaining JFK documents. But – absent a gutsy whistleblower – I wouldn’t be surprised to see in April, a Washington Post banner headline much like the one that appeared Saturday: “JFK files: The promise of revelations derailed by CIA, FBI.”

The New Delay Is the Story

You might have thought that almost 54 years after Kennedy was murdered in the streets of Dallas – and after knowing for a quarter century the supposedly final deadline for releasing the JFK files – the CIA and FBI would not have needed a six-month extension to decide what secrets that they still must hide.

Journalist Caitlin Johnstone hits the nail on the head in pointing out that the biggest revelation from last week’s limited release of the JFK files is “the fact that the FBI and CIA still desperately need to keep secrets about something that happened 54 years ago.”

What was released on Oct. 26, was a tiny fraction of what had remained undisclosed in the National Archives. To find out why, one needs to have some appreciation of a 70-year-old American political tradition that might be called “fear of the spooks.”

That the CIA and FBI are still choosing what we should be allowed to see concerning who murdered John Kennedy may seem unusual, but there is hoary precedent for it. After JFK’s assassination on Nov. 22, 1963, the well-connected Allen Dulles, whom Kennedy had fired as CIA director after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, got himself appointed to the Warren Commission and took the lead in shaping the investigation of JFK’s murder.

By becoming de facto head of the Commission, Dulles was perfectly placed to protect himself and his associates, if any commissioners or investigators were tempted to question whether Dulles and the CIA played any role in killing Kennedy. When a few independent-minded journalists did succumb to that temptation, they were immediately branded – you guessed it – “conspiracy theorists.”

And so, the big question remains: Did Allen Dulles and other “cloak-and-dagger” CIA operatives have a hand in John Kennedy’s assassination and subsequent cover-up? In my view and the view of many more knowledgeable investigators, the best dissection of the evidence on the murder appears in James Douglass’s 2008 book, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters.

After updating and arraying the abundant evidence, and conducting still more interviews, Douglass concludes that the answer to the big question is Yes. Reading Douglass’s book today may help explain why so many records are still withheld from release, even in redacted form, and why, indeed, we may never see them in their entirety.

Truman: CIA a Frankenstein?

When Kennedy was assassinated, it must have occurred to former President Harry Truman, as it did to many others, that the disgraced Allen Dulles and his associates might have conspired to get rid of a President they felt was soft on Communism – and dismissive of the Deep State of that time. Not to mention their vengeful desire to retaliate for Kennedy’s response to the Bay of Pigs fiasco. (Firing Allen Dulles and other CIA paragons of the Deep State for that fiasco simply was not done.)

Exactly one month after John Kennedy was killed, the Washington Post published an op-ed by Harry Truman titled “Limit CIA Role to Intelligence.” The first sentence read, “I think it has become necessary to take another look at the purpose and operations of our Central Intelligence Agency.”

Strangely, the op-ed appeared only in the Post’s early edition on Dec. 22, 1963. It was excised from that day’s later editions and, despite being authored by the President who was responsible for setting up the CIA in 1947, the all-too-relevant op-ed was ignored in all other major media.

Truman clearly believed that the spy agency had lurched off in what Truman thought were troubling directions. He began his op-ed by underscoring “the original reason why I thought it necessary to organize this Agency … and what I expected it to do.” It would be “charged with the collection of all intelligence reports from every available source, and to have those reports reach me as President without Department ‘treatment’ or interpretations.”

Truman then moved quickly to one of the main things clearly bothering him. He wrote “the most important thing was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the President into unwise decisions.”

It was not difficult to see this as a reference to how one of the agency’s early directors, Allen Dulles, tried to trick President Kennedy into sending U.S. forces to rescue the group of invaders who had landed on the beach at the Bay of Pigs in April 1961 with no chance of success, absent the speedy commitment of U.S. air and ground support. The planned mouse-trapping of the then-novice President Kennedy had been underpinned by a rosy “analysis” showing how this pin-prick on the beach would lead to a popular uprising against Fidel Castro.

Wallowing in the Bay of Pigs

Arch-Establishment figure Allen Dulles was offended when young President Kennedy, on entering office, had the temerity to question the CIA’s Bay of Pigs plans, which had been set in motion under President Dwight Eisenhower. When Kennedy made it clear he would not approve the use of U.S. combat forces, Dulles set out, with supreme confidence, to give the President no choice except to send U.S. troops to the rescue.

Coffee-stained notes handwritten by Allen Dulles were discovered after his death and reported by historian Lucien S. Vandenbroucke. In his notes, Dulles explained that, “when the chips were down,” Kennedy would be forced by “the realities of the situation” to give whatever military support was necessary “rather than permit the enterprise to fail.”

The “enterprise” which Dulles said could not fail was, of course, the overthrow of Fidel Castro. After mounting several failed operations to assassinate Castro, this time Dulles meant to get his man, with little or no attention to how Castro’s patrons in Moscow might react eventually. (The next year, the Soviets agreed to install nuclear missiles in Cuba as a deterrent to future U.S. aggression, leading to the Cuban Missile Crisis).

In 1961, the reckless Joint Chiefs of Staff, whom then-Deputy Secretary of State George Ball later described as a “sewer of deceit,” relished any chance to confront the Soviet Union and give it, at least, a black eye. (One can still smell the odor from that sewer in many of the documents released last week.)

But Kennedy stuck to his guns, so to speak. A few months after the abortive invasion of Cuba — and his refusal to send the U.S. military to the rescue — Kennedy fired Dulles and his co-conspirators and told a friend that he wanted to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds.” Clearly, the outrage was mutual.

When JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters came out, the mainstream media had an allergic reaction and gave it almost no reviews. It is a safe bet, though, that Barack Obama was given a copy and that this might account in some degree for his continual deference – timorousness even – toward the CIA.

Could fear of the Deep State be largely why President Obama felt he had to leave the Cheney/Bush-anointed CIA torturers, kidnappers and black-prison wardens in place, instructing his first CIA chief, Leon Panetta, to become, in effect, the agency’s lawyer rather than take charge? Is this why Obama felt he could not fire his clumsily devious Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who had to apologize to Congress for giving “clearly erroneous” testimony under oath in March 2013? Does Obama’s fear account for his allowing then-National Security Agency Director Keith Alexander and counterparts in the FBI to continue to mislead the American people, even though the documents released by Edward Snowden showed them – as well as Clapper – to be lying about the government’s surveillance activities?

Is this why Obama fought tooth and nail to protect CIA Director John Brennan by trying to thwart publication of the comprehensive Senate Intelligence Committee investigation of CIA torture, which was

based on original Agency cables, emails, and headquarters memos? [See here and here.]

The Deep State Today

Many Americans cling to a comforting conviction that the Deep State is a fiction, at least in a “democracy” like the United States. References to the enduring powers of the security agencies and other key bureaucracies have been essentially banned by the mainstream media, which many other suspicious Americans have come to see as just one more appendage of the Deep State.

But occasionally the reality of how power works pokes through in some unguarded remark by a Washington insider, someone like Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, the Senate Minority Leader with 36 years of experience in Congress. As Senate Minority Leader, he also is an ex officio member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is supposed to oversee the intelligence agencies.

During a Jan. 3, 2017 interview with MSNBC’S Rachel Maddow, Schumer told Maddow nonchalantly about the dangers awaiting President-elect Donald Trump if he kept on “taking on the intelligence community.” She and Schumer were discussing Trump’s sharp tweeting regarding U.S. intelligence and evidence of “Russian hacking” (which both Schumer and Maddow treat as flat fact).

Schumer said: “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you. So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he’s being really dumb to do this.”

Three days after that interview, President Obama’s intelligence chiefs released a nearly evidence-free “assessment” claiming that the Kremlin engaged in a covert operation to put Trump into office, fueling a “scandal” that has hobbled Trump’s presidency. On Monday, Russia-gate special prosecutor Robert Mueller indicted Trump’s one-time campaign manager Paul Manafort on unrelated money laundering, tax and foreign lobbying charges, apparently in the hope that Manafort will provide incriminating evidence against Trump.

So, President Trump has been in office long enough to have learned how the game is played and the “six ways from Sunday” that the intelligence community has for “getting back at you.” He appears to be as intimidated as was President Obama.

Trump’s awkward acquiescence in the Deep State’s last-minute foot-dragging regarding release of the JFK files is simply the most recent sign that he, too, is under the thumb of what the Soviets used to call “the organs of state security.”

Ray McGovern works with the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. During his 27-year career at CIA, he prepared the President’s Daily Brief for Nixon, Ford, and Reagan, and conducted the one-on-one morning briefings from 1981 to 1985. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

By Ray McGovern / Republished with permission / Consortium News / Report a typo

===============================================

* Zie o.a.: ‘Walls Closing in on Russiagate Conspiracy Theorists: Evidence Mounts That DNC Emails Provided to WikiLeaks By Inside Source‘ en: ‘WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Drops Russiagate Shell!!!‘ (video).

Zie ook: ‘Martin Luther King jr. vermoord door de overheid, aldus rechter……..‘

en: ‘J.F. Kennedy vermoord door Lyndon Johnson en z’n maten in misdaad, geheime diensten en politiek…..‘

en: ‘Georganiseerde misdaad en overheid, wat is het verschil tussen die twee? Een uiterst hilarische lezing van Michael Parenti over de moord op JFK!‘

en: ‘Newsweek erkent ‘false flag’ operatie van de VS tegen de Sovjet Unie……‘

en: ‘Kabinet ‘wil kunnen hacken’, zonder daar melding van te maken………. Hoe bedoelt u, ‘politiestaat??’‘

Zie ook de volgende links, die weliswaar niets met Kennedy te maken hebben maar die wel aangeven hoe groot de macht de reguliere VS media en vooral de geheime diensten hebben, iets dat weer eens goed duidelijk werd door de leugens over ‘Russiagate’ (alleen dat woord is al een leugen op zich en werd voor het eerst gebruikt voor de Russische oligarchen die eind 90er jaren hun geld witwasten in het westen):
‘Hillary Clinton moet op de hoogte zijn geweest van aankoop Steele dossier over Trump……..‘ (een vervolg op het bovenstaande bericht)

en: ‘Flashback: Clinton Allies Met With Ukrainian Govt Officials to Dig up Dirt on Trump During 2016 Election‘

en: ‘FBI Director Comey Leaked Trump Memos Containing Classified Information‘

en: ‘Publicly Available Evidence Doesn’t Support Russian Gov Hacking of 2016 Election‘

en: ‘Russia Is Trolling the Shit out of Hillary Clinton and the Mainstream Media‘

en: ‘CIA chef Pompeo waarschuwt voor complot van WikiLeaks om de VS op alle mogelijke manieren neer te halen……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘

en: ‘Russische ‘hacks’ door deskundigen nogmaals als fake news doorgeprikt >> Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence‘

en: ‘Rusland krijgt alweer de schuld van hacken, nu van oplichters Symantec en Facebook……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘

en: ‘Russiagate, of: hoe de media u belazeren met verhalen over Russische bemoeienis met de VS presidentsverkiezingen……..‘

en: ‘Democraten VS kochten informatie over Trump >> Forgetting the ‘Dirty Dossier’ on Trump‘

en: ‘Russia Is Trolling the Shit out of Hillary Clinton and the Mainstream Media‘

en: ‘Russische ‘hacks’ door deskundigen nogmaals als fake news doorgeprikt >> Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence‘

en: ‘‘Russiagate’ een verhaal van a t/m z westers ‘fake news…..’‘

en: ‘New York Times met schaamteloze anti-Russische propaganda en ‘fake news….’‘

en: ‘BBC World Service: Rusland heeft VS verkiezingen gemanipuleerd……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘

en: ‘Hoe Clinton en haar team de wereld op scherp hebben gezet >> Did Hillary Scapegoat Russia to Save Her Campaign?‘

en: ‘Brekend nieuws: door Rusland betaalde reclames van Shell, Calvé pindakaas, AH boerenkool en Hema worst >> doel Rutte 3 ten val te brengen!!!‘

PS: Kennedy en dan met name zijn broer Robert gingen ook behoorlijk tekeer tegen de maffia en volgens een aantal deskundigen zou de maffia hebben samengewerkt met de geheime dienst. Lee Harvey Oswald, die Kennedy als zou hebben vermoord, werd door Jack Ruby doodgeschoten, deze zou lid van de maffia zijn geweest of daar hechte banden mee hebben gehad………

Noorwegen krijgt permanent 330 militaire VS psychopaten binnen haar grenzen, dit om ‘de vrede te bewaren….’ ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Posted on October 27, 2016 by Alex

In tegenstelling tot wat de NAVO beweert, ‘krijgt’ Noorwegen permanent 330 VS mariniers binnen haar grenzen, zo berichtte Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten gisteren……

De Noorse regering stelde dat dit nodig is tegen ‘de Russische dreiging’, een dikke vette leugen, die het Noorse volk zand in de ogen moet strooien. Die VS militairen en reken maar dat het niet bij 330 blijft, zijn ervoor het moment dat de VS met de NAVO aan de hand, de aanval opent op Rusland…….

Twee vliegen in één klap, daar de VS hiermee Rusland, geheel ten overvloede, nog eens verder schoffeert…. Immers de VS heeft langs bijna de gehele Russische westgrens troepen gestationeerd, die in die grensgebieden met een oneindig aantal NAVO massa oefeningen bezig zijn……. Ten tweede krijgt de VS hiermee een zoveelste militaire basis buiten de VS, waar deze terreurentiteit al meer dan 800 militaire bases heeft…..*

De VS en Groot-Brittannië hebben een paar maanden geleden te kennen gegeven, dat zij een eerste aanval met kernwapens niet uitsluiten……. Intussen moet het raketschild, dat de VS op een paar plekken langs diezelfde grens bouwt, zo ongeveer klaar zijn….. Een raketschild, zogenaamd tegen raketten van Iran, terwijl iedere imbeciel weet, dat ze tegen de Russen bedoeld zijn. Deze anti-raket raketten, die bij wijze van spreken voor de deur van Moskou staan, zijn simpel om te bouwen tot aanvalsraketten met meerdere kernkoppen…….

Mensen, de VS deinst nergens voor terug: neem de oorlog tegen Vietnam, of de illegale oorlogen tegen Afghanistan, Irak, Libie en nu weer Syrië of de door de VS geregisseerde opstand en coup in Oekraïne, die ook al weer tot een oorlog heeft geleid…… Alles overgoten met een vieze dikke saus van enorme oorlogsmisdaden…….

We moeten in Europa in verzet komen tegen de grootste terreurentiteit ter wereld, de VS!! Ik snap niet, dat er niet allang demonstraties worden georganiseerd! De situatie nu is veel nijpender dan tijdens al de jaren van de Koude Oorlog, met misschien een kleine uitzondering: de Cubacrisis. Toen was Rusland zo dom, om te proberen Cuba een afschrikkingmiddel tegen VS agressie te geven, wat bijna leidde tot een kernoorlog…….. (VS agressie: er waren immers plannen voor een invasie door de VS op Cuba, één werd er uitgevoerd>> De Invasie van de Varkensbaai, die faliekant mislukte)

Nu de VS hetzelfde doet, is er van Russische zijde geen dreigement met een kernoorlog…… Wel heeft Rusland te kennen gegeven, dat mocht het worden aangevallen door het westen, men terug zal slaan, ook met kernraketten, dit n.a.v. het eerder genoemde besluit van de VS en GB een eerste aanval met kernraketten niet uit te sluiten….. Oorlogshitsers als de Wijk durven nu keihard te liegen, dat Rusland als eerste heeft gedreigd met kernwapens……..

Overigens: nog steeds wordt Kennedy gezien als de figuur die een kernoorlog met Rusland voorkwam. Ten eerste hebben de Russen toentertijd het woord aanvalsoorlog niet eens in de mond genomen, ten tweede: als Kennedy een oorlog was begonnen, had dit tot een enorm aantal burgerslachtoffers in de VS geleid….. Met andere woorden, hij had geen reden om een oorlog te beginnen!!!!!!! (uitroeptekens op het ritme van Peter Gunn door The Art of Noise, hier de link naar het volledige album ‘In Invisible Silence’, Peter Gunn is het 7de nummer van dit album)

Zie o.a.: ‘De VS heeft meer dan 800 militaire bases in het buitenland: het waarom………‘ (met video)

Voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terug kan vinden.

Norodom Sihanouk en berichtgeving door de NOS

Posted on February 4, 2013 by Alex

Vandaag wordt koning Norodom Sihanouk gecremeerd in de hoofdstad van Cambodja, Phnom Penh. Volgens de presentator van het Radio1 Nieuws van 12.00u. rouwt het hele land (dat zou ‘m zwaar tegenvallen). De verslaggever ‘ter plaatse’ steekt nog even de lof over Sihanouk en alle belangrijke feiten uit diens leven. Niets over de kwalijke feiten waar Sihanouk zich schuldig aan maakte, zoals zijn band met het gruwelbewind van de Rode Khmer massamoordenaars in de 70er jaren, een bewind waar Vietnam een eind aan maakte, waarvoor dit land door de hele westerse wereld werd vervloekt…….