How long shall they kill our prophets while we stand aside and look?—Bob Marley
This posting complements the recently-posted Encyclopedia of Domestic Assassinations.
Summary: This article resolves in principle the cloak-and-dagger controversy: The Controllers of the Anglosphere sideline, malign, harass, imprison, and/or execute just about anyone who imperils their plans. Our journey begins with a few random case studies of the cloak-and-dagger approach. Because such case studies fail to incontestably prove the cloak-and-dagger hypothesis, this article moves on to provide a bird’s eye view of the field of assassination research. It does so by paying special attention to background information, patterns, statistical comparisons, and predictions. This holistic approach leads to three firm conclusions:
1. The first conclusion is factual, enjoying the same level of confidence as assertions that elephants trumpet and plutonium kills: the Controllers have been smearing, incarcerating, and murdering the Anglosphere’s best and brightest at least since the days of Abraham Lincoln.
2. Despite overwhelming evidence, not one Controller or his agents throughout this period have paid for their heinous crimes: The Controllers have a license to destroy and extinguish lives.
3. The Controllers’ massive cloak-and-dagger program helped bolster their parasitism of the Anglosphere and the world.
The tragedy of historical investigations: The confirmation of diabolical hypotheses by ugly facts.”
How have the Controllers of America’s Invisible Government managed to steadily increase their power at the expense of the vast majority? How have they gotten away with recklessly risking the physical and biological foundations of life itself? Why in heaven’s name do most people cheer lead their own impoverishment and coming execution?
The answer to such questions is that the Anglosphere’s edifice of exploitation, parasitism, enslavement, perpetual warfare, and ecocide, rests on massive, mutually-supporting, pillars. One pillar involves absence of real democracy. Another pillar involves banking. This posting explores yet another pillar supporting the Controllers’ monstrous edifice: the institutionalization of Cloak-and-dagger practices.
A Few Cloak-and-Dagger Case Histories
Occasionally, a champion of the people or a bystander poses a threat to the Machiavellian system itself. In such cases, the Controllers strike back. This section illustrates a few non-lethal features of such strikes: job loss, impoverishment, humiliation, scandal-mongering, intimidation, harassment, framing, and incarceration.
The Invisible Government’s cloak-and-dagger techniques go far back in world history. Here is one 1919 illustration (Upton Sinclair, The Brass Check):
“There was a certain labor leader in America, who was winning a great strike. It was sought to bribe him in vain, and finally a woman was sent after him, a woman experienced in seduction, and she lured this man into a hotel room, and at one o’clock in the morning the door was broken down, and the labor leader was confronted with a newspaper story, ready to be put on the press in a few minutes. This man had a wife and children, and had to choose between them and the strike; he called off the strike, and the union went to pieces. This anecdote was told to me, not by a Socialist, not by a labor agitator, but by a well-known United States official, a prominent Catholic. . .
“In extreme cases they will go as far as they did with Judge Lindsey—hiring perjured affidavits, and getting up a fake reform organization to give them authority. Lindsey, you understand, has made his life-work the founding of a children’s court, which shall work by love and not by terror. Love of children—ah, yes, all scandal-bureaus know what that means! So they had a collection of affidavits accusing Lindsey of sodomy.”
Fast forward a century: The Rockefellers still reign supreme in America, and they still use the same tactics. We cannot cover even 000.1% of their vendettas, so let us just focus on prisoner number 40892-424: former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.
“Rod Blagojevich threatened to stop the state’s dealings with Bank of America Corp. over a shut-down factory in Chicago. On December 8, 2008 (the day before his arrest), all state agencies were ordered to stop conducting business with Bank of America to pressure the company . . . John Douglas, a former general counsel for the FDIC and attorney for Bank of America, called Blagojevich’s gambit dangerous.”
A day after this popular state governor stood by the people against the leeches, the federal Gestapo arrested him–for allegedly doing what most U.S. politicians do every day. According to another outlet of the Invisible Government:
“Disgraced Illinois governor [was] handed [a] stiff sentence for attempting to sell President Obama’s vacant Senate seat [and] was sentenced to 14 years in prison Wednesday, one of the stiffest penalties imposed for corruption. It took two trials for prosecutors to snare Blagojevich. While Blagojevich will likely end up at a minimal security prison, he’ll be largely cut off from the outside world. Visits by family are strictly limited, Blagojevich will have to share a cell with other inmates and he must work an eight-hour-a-day menial job—possibly scrubbing toilets or mopping floors—at just 12 cents an hour.”
Go ahead and Kill your Neighbor
Five probable murders—of hundreds documented —should help the reader see that the few people who control the USA and the Western World have a license to kill. And they are not fussy about their methods of killing: They are willing to take a planeload of people if it suits them in order to eliminate one target.
The subject of Lincoln’s defiance of the Controllers and his subsequent assassination has received the attention of many truth seekers. Here are just a few little-known details that lend support to these scholars’ suspicions of murder:
“Commanding General of the Army of the north, General Ulysses S. Grant, had been invited to see the Tom Taylor’s comedy “Our American Cousin,” together with the head of the White House (in the President’s box), but for ‘personal reasons’ he could not make it.”
“The box where Lincoln was sitting was only guarded by one (!) person — his bodyguard Joe Parker. He did not leave the president once during the play. But when the assassin entered Lincoln’s box he was… away. Before the beginning of the third act Parker, allegedly, asked for permission to go to the theatre café. And left.”
To make our second tale a bit more convincing, I decided to ignore independent historians and “conspiracy theorists” and confine myself to the CIA media (which in turn operate under the handicap that they must appear credible to their readers).
A crime detective first asks: Who benefited from Hammarskjold’s death? Here is the British Broadcasting Corporation:
“In Congo, one issue was who should control the southern province of Katanga, rich in copper, uranium and tin. Belgium, the ex-colonial power, backed a secessionist movement led by Moise Tshombe, as did the UK and US who had mining interests in the region.
“But Mr Hammarskjold from the start backed Congo’s elected central authorities – the Soviet-backed government of prime minister Patrice Lumumba, and later, after Mr Lumumba was deposed and murdered, Prime Minister Cyrille Adoula.
“Mr Hammarskjold wanted to pursue a negotiated solution between Mr Tshombe and the central government, a goal that became even more urgent after UN peacekeepers found themselves outgunned during an aggressive operation to drive foreign mercenaries from Katanga.
“Mr Tshombe was waiting to talk to him in Ndola on the night he died.”
Parenthetically, we must remind the BBC that Lumumba was murdered by the MI5/CIA duo, assisted by their apartheid friends from Pretoria. If that duo could kill a head of state to achieve their goals, why wouldn’t it kill the head of the U.N., a Johnny-come-lately naive enough to try to torpedo these very goals?
Clearly, the Soviet Union had every reason to keep Hammarskjold alive, while the Controllers’ Akitas (US/UK) had much to gain from his death.
Next, our detective might wish to consider evidence that Hammarskjöld’s was murdered. Coverupedia tells us:
- In 2001, extensive research led . . . to the conclusion that Dag Hammarskjöld’s 1961 death “was a murder committed in part to benefit mining companies.”
- Former U. S. President Harry Truman commented that Hammarskjöld “was on the point of getting something done when they killed him. Notice that I said ‘when they killed him.’”
- Like Aldo Moro or Martin Luther King, Hammarskjold might have known in advance the risks he was running. He said: “He who wills sacrifice will be sacrificed – according to the measure of his purity of heart.”
The BBC again:
- “In 1998 South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, led by Desmond Tutu. . . suggested CIA, MI5 and South African intelligence were involved in sabotage of the aircraft.”
- “In 2005, the head of UN military information in Congo in 1961 . . . noticed a round hole in Hammarskjold’s forehead when he saw the body in the mortuary. It could have been a bullet hole, he said, and it had been mysteriously airbrushed out of official photographs.”
- “British academic Susan Williams . . . lists a variety of observations suggesting that “it is clear to her that there was a cover-up.””
Next, the New York Times:
- “Two American intelligence officers . . . were working hundreds of miles apart at listening posts in the Mediterranean. Both claim to have heard evidence that the plane was shot down, and one of them maintains that Americans were somehow implicated.”
- “A United Nations panel reviewing the case in 2013 found that there was “persuasive evidence that the aircraft was subjected to some form of attack or threat as it circled to land.””
By August of 2016, the Controllers’ U.N. and media could no longer stand aside and look:
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will propose reopening an inquiry into allegations that Dag Hammarskjold, one of the most revered secretaries-general in the organization’s history, was assassinated by an apartheid-era South African paramilitary organization that was backed by the CIA, British intelligence, and a Belgian mining company . . . The CIA has previously dismissed allegations that it was behind Hammarskjold’s death as “absurd and without foundation. . . One document, marked “top secret” describes a meeting including . . . Britain’s intelligence agencies, MI5 . . . . The documents state that CIA director Allen Dulles concurs that “Dag is becoming troublesome . . . and should be removed. . . . One of the key obstacles to finalizing the investigation is the reluctance of key powers, principally the United States and Britain, to release documents related to the case.
Would the Mafia willingly release documents related to its assassination record? If not, why should the USA and UK release them? Such reluctance, by itself, is tantamount to an admission of guilt. If they have nothing to hide, why not plead for transparency, instead of opposing it? And yet, most of our televised fellow citizens read such nonsense and fail to see the contradiction.
Anyway, after decades of studying official murders, I can comfortably commit myself to a prediction, with a 99% chance of being accurate: The U.N. Commission will dismiss allegations of MI5/CIA involvement, or, at most, state that the evidence is inconclusive. For one thing, members of that Commission would be selected for compliance—by the murderers or their descendants. For another, if you sat in that Commission, would you confront the MI5/CIA assassination squads? If these squads can get away with murdering beloved heads of state, princesses, foreign secretaries, or U.N. Secretary-Generals, what is to stop them from murdering an unknown but courageous Commission member? And then, on the other hand, the murderers can make you rich and arrange your promotion (e.g., Eisenhower, Patton, and McArthur after attacking their own starving veterans; Gerald Ford’s elevation to the presidency after his stellar performance on the Warren Commission; Reagan’s promotion following his stellar performance in the Screen Actors Guild). The only unknowns in this coming fiasco are: What kinds of strong-arm tactics, how much money, and which promotions will it take to scare off and bribe members of that so-called Commission?
So, the Controllers’ own media discreetly solved this problem for us. We don’t need that new whitewash commission to exonerate the Controllers. We don’t need that new JFK, Diana, Dr. Kelly, or 9/11 Commission—nominated by the murderers themselves—to cover up the facts. We can read between the lines: The Controllers killed Dag Hammarskjöld.
Martin Luther King, Jr. (see also here)
This example again bypasses numerous independent investigations, relying instead on the American “justice” system.
Apart from the dubious case of Washington’s Birthday (which in some states is celebrated as Presidents’ Day), the USA has just two secular national holidays dedicated to a single individual: Columbus Day and Martin Luther King Day. Both involve brazen hypocrisy: Columbus was a merciless mass murderer while King’s courageous stand against bloodstained imperialism and needless poverty had been first smeared and then virtually erased from the collective memory.
Also erased is the incontestable fact that a civil trial implicated the American government in King’s murder:
“According to a Memphis jury’s verdict on December 8, 1999 . . . ’Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated by a conspiracy that included agencies of his own government. Almost 32 years after King’s murder . . . on April 4, 1968, a court extended the circle of responsibility for the assassination beyond the late scapegoat James Earl Ray to the United States government.”
Michael Hastings (see also here)
A privileged handful of mainstream journalists are sporadically taken off the leash and charged with exposing corruption in high (but not too high) places. They might uncover White House malfeasance, for instance, but never mention that the President of the USA is a puppet. They might expose corruption in one or another big bank, but never remind their audience that such corruption is systemic and traceable to the very existence of the Federal Reserve Syndicate. The idea behind such off-the-leash journalism is brilliant: dressing an oligarchy in democratic clothing.
It often happens, however, that such investigative journalists are unaware of their role. Here is Gary Webb:
I’d enjoyed such smooth sailing for so long hadn’t been, as I’d assumed, because I was careful and diligent and good at my job . . . The truth was that, in all those years, I hadn’t written anything important enough to suppress.”
“Hastings’ unvarnished 2010 profile of McChrystal in the pages of Rolling Stone, ‘The Runaway General,’ captured the then-supreme commander of the U.S.-led war effort in Afghanistan openly mocking his civilian commanders in the White House.” Elsewhere, Hastings accurately described McChrystal’s staff as “a handpicked collection of killers, spies . . . political operators and outright maniacs.”
“The maelstrom sparked by [Hastings]. . . concluded with President Obama recalling McChrystal to Washington and the general resigning his post.”
Hastings was critical of other powerful Generals. Here is what he said about another prominent traitor, General David Petraeus:
“He’s . . . a world-class bullshit artist . . . He essentially armed and trained what later became known as ‘Iraqi death squads.’ He . . . took the Shiites’ side in a civil war, armed them to the teeth, and suckered the Sunnis into thinking we’d help them out too . . . Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis lost their lives during a sectarian conflict that Petraeus’ policies fueled . . . The reputations of the men who were intimately involved in these years of foreign misadventure, where we tortured and supported torture, armed death squads, conducted nightly assassinations, killed innocents, and enabled corruption on an unbelievable scale, lie in tatters.”
Michael knew that he was playing with psychopaths and told a friend that “he would be hunted down and killed over [the] McChrystal story.”
So, like the late Hugo Chavez, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, and so many others, Hastings naively tried to protect himself by identifying his would-be killers. He recounted the following conversation with several McChrystal staff members:
“You’re not going to f**k us, are you?” asks one staff member.
Hastings responds: “I’m going to write a story; some of the stuff you’ll like, some of the stuff you probably won’t like.”
Another staffer then says: “We’ll hunt you down and kill you if we don’t like what you write.”
Hastings’ humanism took him to places where only few dare to tread. Thus, he was “a vocal critic of the surveillance state, referring to the restrictions on the freedom of the press by the government as a ‘war’ on journalism.”
By June 2013 Hastings was muckraking the queen of death squads (the CIA), and the king of Fourth Amendment violators (NSA), setting the ground for what he felt was his “biggest story yet.”
Such real journalism, naturally, did not endear him to the generals or spooks. By mid-June, despite the death squads’ (FBI’s) assertions to the contrary, the FBI was “investigating” and harassing him. Hastings was getting worried, and told his friends that he planned to go into hiding.
Michael’s plans of going “off the radar for a bit,” were tragically cut short. On June 18, 2013, just a few hours after the NSA learned about these plans (presumably, by illegally reading his correspondence), Michael, aged 33, died in a car “accident.”
Let it be noted here that this was a rather peculiar car “accident.” One witness said: “It sounded like a bomb went off in the middle of the night. My house shook; the windows were rattling.” Another witness said the car’s engine flew about 50 yards from the car.
Such testimonies make a mockery of the death squads’ (FBI’s) version of events, raising instead the specter of an explosion caused by a bomb placed in the car itself or hurled at it.
Sgt. Joe Biggs, Michael’s close friend, said that “something didn’t feel right” after Hastings sent a panicked email suggesting that the FBI was on his tail, adding that the story of Michael driving at high speed in the early hours of the morning was completely out of character. Hastings, Biggs added, was “very paranoid that he was being watched by the FBI.”
Biggs went public because Hastings’ other friends and colleagues who received the e-mail about going off the radar just hours before his death were “too scared” to do so. Biggs said:
“I won’t let a man die in vain because I’m too scared of what will happen to me. If I sent that email to Mike he wouldn’t rest, he would fight.”
Now, let us put this heart-rending story in context.
- Let us recall a short phrase from the death squad’s (CIA’s) 1954 Assassination Manual: “For secret assassination . . . the contrived accident is the most effective technique.”
- Indeed! And let us recall too, that by 2013, “The Obama administration . . . have openly claimed the authority to assassinate American citizens.” A number of American citizens have already been killed as a result of this policy. Is it really that crazy to suggest that Michael Hastings was merely one more victim of that doctrine?
- Next, note that most Americans know, deep down, that the CIA and FBI are in fact official death squads. How else could you explain the fact that Hastings sent his “off the radar” e-mail to many friends and yet, even though this e-mail was critically important to any impartial investigation of the case, only one person, fully knowing that he was risking his life, came forward and divulged the content of that message? What exactly were they afraid of? Muslim terrorists? Defenders of the Second or Fourth Amendments? Or the Controllers’ generals and their death squad alphabet soups (FBI, CIA, NSA . . .)?
The Astounding Tale of Jerome Daly, Bill Drexler, and Martin Vincent Mahoney (see also here)
To implement their programs of enslaving humanity, the Controllers long ago bought—or scared into submission—the vast majority of the legal profession. Thankfully, a few people are capable of casting self-interest aside.
Ellen Brown writes:
“First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Daly (1969) was a courtroom drama worthy of a movie script. Defendant Jerome Daly . . . an attorney representing himself, argued that the bank had put up no real money for his loan. The courtroom proceedings were recorded by Associate Justice Bill Drexler . . . Drexler hadn’t given much credence to the theory of the defense, until Mr. Morgan, the bank’s president, took the stand. To everyone’s surprise, Morgan admitted that the bank routinely created money “out of thin air” for its loans, and that this was standard banking practice.
“’It sounds like fraud to me,’ intoned Presiding Justice Martin Mahoney amid nods from the jurors. In his court memorandum, Justice Mahoney stated:
“’Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis . . . did create the entire $14,000.00 in money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. . . Mr. Morgan [president of the local bank] admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this.”
“The court rejected the bank’s claim for foreclosure, and the defendant kept his house. To Daly, the implications were enormous. If bankers were indeed extending credit . . . without backing their loans with money they actually had in their vaults, . . . a decision declaring their loans void could topple the power base of the world.”
Daly wrote in a local news article:
“’This decision, which is legally sound, has the effect of declaring all private mortgages on real and personal property, and all U.S. and State bonds held by the Federal Reserve, National and State banks to be null and void. This amounts to an emancipation of this Nation from personal, national and state debt purportedly owed to this banking system. Every American owes it to himself . . . to study this decision very carefully . . . for upon it hangs the question of freedom or slavery.’”
The intrepid Daly did not stop there (source: The Liberterian Forum, 1971, p. 416).
“Mr. Daly has also been active on the tax resistance front. He hasn’t paid income taxes since 1965, claiming that the income tax is unconstitutional . . . Daly also ties the claim in with the Minnesota court decision on the unconstitutionality of banks’ issue of fiat money. What Daly does is to submit an income tax return, consisting of over 40 pages of his legal claims, and suggesting that the IRS sue him for the tax in U. S. District Court. So far IRS has not sued Mr. Daly, who is now holding seminars around the country instructing people how to fill out similar income tax forms.”
So far, this is a well-known story in truth-seeking circles. Now comes the interesting part.
If you have been paying attention so far, you are in a position to make two predictions:
- Since the Controllers own the government (executive, legislative, judiciary, mass media, and assassination squads), and since banking is a central pillar of their edifice, the decision will have been overturned.
- Since the Controllers have a license to kill and destroy, and since the jury’s decision threatened their fractional reserve golden goose, they must make an example of the three main protagonists.
It only took me a few minutes to confirm both predictions.
“The bank appealed the next day, and the decision was ultimately nullified on the grounds that a Justice of the Peace [and a jury representing the American people] did not have the power to make such a ruling.”
Mahoney died at age 54, less than six months after the trial. Bill Drexler, Mahoney’s associate justice, explained in 2005:
“The money boys that run the ‘private Federal Reserve Bank’ soon got back at Mahoney by poisoning him in what appeared to have been a fishing boat accident (but with his body pumped full of poison) in June of 1969, less than 6 months after the trial.”
Cloak-and-Dagger Smoking Gun Evidence
“The West has maintained its dominance through murder and robbery on a planetary scale.”—Nikolai Starikov, 2015
It’s time to move from individual cases to a bird’s eye view of assassinations. Such a view clinches our case, relying on circumstantial, statistical, and criminological illustrations.
1.The technology of killing someone and making it look like an accident or a suicide reached a state of high art at least 41 years ago.
Here is one illustration.
The nearby photograph shows the late US Senator Frank Church displaying a Central Institute of Assassinations’ (CIA) dart gun that, depending on the poison used, either causes an immediate heart attack or a belated cancer. According to a 1975 Congressional testimony, the gun fires a frozen poison-tipped dart. The tiny dart can penetrate clothing and leaves a barely-visible pin-sized red mark where it enters the victim’s body. In the heart attack version, once in the body, the poison melts, gets absorbed into the bloodstream, and causes cardiac arrest. The poison denatures quickly, so that a routine autopsy is likely to ascribe the heart attack to natural causes.
In passing: Church probably paid for his courage and for his progressive record with his life. By 1984, at the early age of 59, he died of . . . cancer.
2. Leaked internal memos clearly show that the Controllers have given themselves a license to kill. Here again is a quote from the Central Institute of Assassination’s 1954 Assassination Manual:
“The contrived accident is the most effective technique. When successfully executed, it causes little excitement and is only casually investigated.”
And here is a letter from a CIA consultant to a CIA officer:
“You will recall that I mentioned that the local circumstances under which a given means might be used might suggest the technique to be used in that case. I think the gross divisions in presenting this subject might be:
a. bodies left with no hope of the cause of death being determined by the most complete autopsy and chemical examinations
b. bodies left in such circumstances as to simulate accidental death
c. bodies left in such circumstances as to simulate suicidal death
d.bodies left with residue that simulate those caused by natural diseases.”
3. We know that the CIA and its allies routinely murder non-compliant foreigners. For instance, few researchers dispute the culpability of Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon in the assassination of the democratically-elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende. There is likewise no dispute that the American government attempted to kill Cuban leader Fidel Castro, over and over and over again. We know that the Controllers played a role in the killing of Che Guevara, Saddam Hussein, and Muammar Gaddafi. We know they imprisoned a Panamanian head of state after an unprovoked invasion of his country and the killing of hundreds of innocents.
Are we supposed to believe that murderers respect national borders?
4. Historically, oligarchs used the cloak-and-dagger approach successfully and often. Saudi and Colombian compradors routinely murder their imaginary or real political opponents, as did the CIA-installed Brazilian and Argentine oligarchs a few decades ago. One of the greatest historical accounts ever written—Thucydides’ History of the Pelopennesian War—is replete with tales of oligarchic murderousness and treachery. Another typical episode (involving the Gracchi Brothers of Rome) can be accessed here.
Are we supposed to believe that the oligarchs controlling the Anglosphere are an exception to this historical rule?
5. Now that the Controllers’ conquest of the Western World is almost complete, they are more inclined to occasionally come out of the shadows. As well, this new tentative transparency serves a more insidious purpose: They are trying to get us used to the idea that they have a right to murder (and they will surely succeed: haven’t they inured us to blood-curdling torture?). Here, a former top CIA functionary publicly issues a veiled death threat against the popular leader of a state that could turn America into a radioactive inferno:
“Thugs like Putin . . . keep going until someone takes them out — permanently — with a knockout punch. . . . If the only way to get him out of the Kremlin is feet-first, with a bullet hole in the back of his head — that would also be okay with us. Nor would we object . . . if . . . his airplane gets blasted out of the sky by some murky para-military group that somehow, inexplicably, got its hands on a surface-to-air missile.”
Closer to home, even the mainstream media now admit that targeted killing of Americans is no longer a “conspiracy theory:”
The U.S. counterintelligence program, once called COINTELPRO, coordinates tactics to use against targeted individuals. These include discrediting through psychological warfare, planting false reports in media, smearing through forged letters, harassment, wrongful imprisonment, extralegal violence and assassination, now “legal” since President Obama signed the “Targeted Killing” executive order.
6. A sixth line of evidence for the ubiquity of assassinations originates from accounts of former hatchet men and their would-be victims.
Consider the taped deathbed confession of notorious CIA hit man, E. Howard Hunt. In that recording, Hunt alleges that it was the American government and its CIA darling (or is it the CIA and its government darling?) that murdered President Kennedy. This confession is especially significant, Larry Chin correctly observes, because it corroborates “work of key John F. Kennedy assassination researchers and historians.”
Peter Janney, “a real insider,” quotes an ex-CIA cutthroat: “Anyone can commit a murder; it takes a real pro to commit a suicide.”
And here is Catherine Austin-Fitts (Assistant Secretary of Housing in the George H. W. Bush’s Administration):
“The result of saying no is physical violence directed at them or their family. . . . I was targeted, I was poisoned, I had dead animals left on my doorstep, and my home had been broken into and people trying to run me off the road. You know it was very, very violent and it went on for years. So people who try to run the government clean or run Wall Street clean are targeted, and literally have to fear for their lives.”
7. So far, we surveyed strong, yet inconclusive, evidence for the cloak-and dagger hypothesis. We are now going in for the kill: Surefire scientific proofs.
The historical record reveals an undeniable pattern: At least since the days of Lincoln, almost all influential enemies of the Controllers, people who knew too much, or people who happened to be in the way—but hardly ever the Controllers or their flunkeys—suffer or die prematurely.
This pattern is so undeniable, so strikingly consistent, so ubiquitous, that it in turn raises another question: Why is it being ignored by almost all social scientists, statisticians, criminologists, and historians?
At the moment, let me just say that, after years of studying the short or tragic lives of influential residents of the Anglosphere, I can only come up with 7 possible exceptions to this pattern: Bertrand Russell (died at age 97), Upton Sinclair (90), Pete Seeger (94), Albert Einstein (76), Congressman Wright Patman (82), Ed Asner (85, alive, and a 9/11 doubter), and Oliver Stone (still alive at 68). All 7 have been repeatedly smeared, blacklisted, ridiculed—but they have, it must be admitted, escaped the Invisible Government’s ultimate sanction.
8. The next corroboration is closely-linked to the above, this time involving longevity statistics of the Controllers’ flunkeys and foes.
The methodology in such cases is straightforward. At times, scientists might examine two groups of people who are comparable in every respect except one. Let’s say the difference is that members of one group smoke agrochemical tobacco while members of the other group do not. If non-smokers live considerably longer, and if the longevity gap is so consistent and large that it could not be reasonably attributed to pure chance, scientists assert that agrochemical tobacco kills.
To support the assassination hypothesis, we can carry out precisely such an analysis, replacing tobacco with Controllers’ enmity as the critical variable.
Our first group consists of late influential Congressmen who consistently defied the Controllers. In the past 100 years or so, my fragmentary research has uncovered the following: Hale Boggs (died at age 58), Frank Church (59), Bronson Cutting (46), John Heinz (52; “staunch critic of the Fed”), John Kennedy (46), Robert Kennedy (42), Ted Kennedy (dead at age 76, after miraculously surviving two probable assassination attempts), Charles Lindbergh Sr. (65; having endured Wilson’s order to burn his book, government shadowing, bribery attempts, shots fired on his car during a political campaign, and the probable revenge-and-warning killing of his 20-month-old grandson and namesake), Huey Long (42; the most defiant, progressive, and dangerous of them all!), Allard Lowenstein (51), Larry McDonald (48; courageously accused the Rockefellers and their allies of a “plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent”), Louis McFadden (died at age 60, having survived two earlier probable assassination attempts), Wright Patman (died at 82 of natural causes), Leo Ryan (53), John Tower (65; “staunch critic of the Fed”), Jim Traficant (73; died alone in a tractor “accident,” after having suffered expulsion from Congress and a 7.5-year-long prison sentence, mostly in an isolation cell), and Paul Wellstone (58). Mean age at death for this small sample: 57.
We need to compare these victims of conscience to congressmen who were faithful servants of the Rockefellers. In his 1906 “The Treason of the Senate,” David Graham Phillips conveniently lists 21 such traitors. The average age at death of these 21 senators is 73, and this was a century ago, when Americans did not live as long as they live now. So: 73 vs. 57: Even if you choose to forget all other lines of evidence presented in this article and in numerous other studies, this one disparity should convince you that political murders are as American as apple pie.
We may note in passing that, true to form, the Rockefellers managed to have Phillips himself assassinated (aged 43)—and get away with that murder too. As well, the biographies of these 21 Rockefelleritos show that Rockefellerism in this upside-down world of ours pays—not only in longevity but also in honors and riches.
9. Wikipedia provides a government-approved list of assassinated American politicians. Despite its numerous oversights, this list is instructive. For the sake of consistency and brevity, let us focus on just one sub-group on that list: the six congressmen and ex-congressmen officially murdered since 1915. The first four challengers of the Controllers—Presidents John F. Kennedy and William McKinley and presidential candidates Robert F. Kennedy and Huey Long—are discussed elsewhere in this article, here, and in the vast assassination literature. To my surprise however, the list contained two additional names.
By now I knew to ask the right question: Were these two enemies of the Controllers too?
Alard Lewonstein was a progressive, anti-war, one-time congressman elected in 1968. By 1970, he was gerrymandered out of office. Lewonstein crossed the Controllers’ red line in 1975:
“Lowenstein was one of the most vocal critics of the unwillingness of Los Angeles and Federal authorities to reopen the investigation into the June 6, 1968 assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy.
“Lowenstein’s one hour appearance on the PBS television show Firing Line in 1975 . . . was one of the first times the American public were shown that many elements of ballistic and forensic evidence were radically at odds with eyewitness testimony and the assumption that Sirhan Sirhan alone had shot Senator Kennedy.”
He was murdered in 1980, age 51, allegedly by a madman.
Leo Ryan was also a man of conscience:
“After the Watts Riots of 1965, Assemblyman Ryan went to the area and took a job as a substitute school teacher to investigate and document conditions in the area. In 1970, using a pseudonym, Ryan had himself arrested, detained, and strip searched to investigate conditions in the California prison system. He stayed as an inmate for ten days in the Folsom Prison, while presiding as chairman on the Assembly committee that oversaw prison reform.”
Ryan crossed the line in 1974:
“Leo Ryan’s murder is seen by many as being much more sinister than the hysterical behavior of a madman. Leo Ryan had been a strong critic of the CIA and was the author of the Hughes-Ryan Amendment, which, if passed, would have required that the CIA report to Congress on all of its covert operations before they commenced. Soon after Ryan’s death, the Hughes-Ryan Amendment was quashed in Congress. The question conspiracy theorists ask is whether Ryan was killed in order to reach this objective and the massacre at ‘Jonestown’ merely a smoke screen to distract attention away from Ryan’s murder?”
Ryan was murdered in 1978, age 53, in a coordinated, highly professional, attack.
So here we go again: All 6 victims on that list were thorns on the side of the Invisible Government. By contrast, not one congressional bootlicker of the Rothschilds and Rockefellers appears on that list—even though such bootlickers far outnumber their decent colleagues.
This cannot possibly be a coincidence. If you agree that asbestos or plutonium kill, you must agree that the Invisible Government kills too.
10. According to Karl Popper, the power and appeal of any real scientific theory is derived in part from its ability to bring forward falsifiable predictions. The assassination hypothesis passes this criterion with flying colors.
Indeed, assassination researchers can often answer the question “who is next?” They have learned that when anyone crosses a red line, accidentally or by design, it is just a matter of time before the Controllers spring into action.
More generally, every time I run across a historical account of an influential challenger to the Controllers’ rule and schemes, I immediately try to find out whether that person died prematurely or was made to suffer for her courage. Often, my dire guesses meet with “a success unexpected in common hours.” Likewise, every time an influential person suffers or dies prematurely (e.g., Lewonstein and Ryan, above), my first question is: Was s/he an enemy of the Controllers?
For instance, that is how I found out the tragic sequel to the case of “First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Daly” (see above). Likewise, I never heard of Bronson Cutting before, but two months ago I saw his name on the list of Congressmen who died in an airplane crash. I proceeded to look into his case—and you can check the results in this Encyclopedia of Domestic Assassinations.
Cloak-and-dagger researchers can likewise predict future events. I knew that Charlie Sheen would get into trouble after he publicly expressed doubts, on September 8, 2009, about the official version of 9/11. Sure enough, three and a half months later he was temporarily arrested, 5 months later his car was stolen and fell off a cliff, 9 months later he was sentenced to 17 days in jail, 12 months later his ex-wife was arrested, 18 months later he was fired from his popular TV show and allegedly suffered an emotional breakdown.
As the British Petroleum 2010 Gulf catastrophe unfolded, I didn’t know enough to predict the many associated deaths and disappearances. However, I was convinced that the most prominent critic of the criminal handling of that catastrophe, high-level oil industry insider Matt Simmons, would pay for his courage. In 2010, Simmons died of a “heart attack in the bathtub.”
Another landmark for me was Chokwe Lumumba, the late mayor of Jackson, Mississippi. As soon as I read about his program (in an article on June 28, 2013 that has since been partially cleaned-up), I realized his life was at risk. I unsuccessfully tried to post a warning in that publication and another local one, signed with my name as a university professor. By February 2014, Chokwe died of a “heart attack,” aged 66.
Dr. Michael I. Niman claims that he and many others predicted that Wellstone will be murdered:
“Anyone familiar with my work knows that I’m certainly not a conspiracy theorist. But to be honest, I know I wasn’t alone in my initial reaction at this week’s horrible and tragic news: that being my surprise that Wellstone had lived this long. Perhaps it’s just my anger and frustration at losing one of the few reputable politicians in Washington, but I also felt shame. Shame for not writing in my column, months ago, that I felt that Paul Wellstone’s life, more so than any other politician in Washington, was in danger. I felt that such speculation was unprofessional and would ultimately undermine my credibility. In the end, my own self-interest triumphed, and I never put my concerns into print. Neither did any other mainstream journalist, though I know of many who shared my concern.”
But don’t take our word for it. One documented prediction of the assassination hypothesis is available here.
There is little doubt that, right now, the Invisible Government is plotting the death of any influential challenger–in the Anglosphere and elsewhere. For instance, what are the odds of Vladimir Putin, Recep Erdogan, or Rodrigo Duterte reaching old age?
11. In the background of all this, there is the question of morality. Does the Invisible Government care about the sanctity of human life or is it capable of any villainy whatsoever?
Sadly, the historical record supports Starikov’s assertion that, since the creation of the Private Bank of England in 1694,
“The Anglo-Saxons have been following one rule in politics, and this rule is that there are no rules.”
Despite its self-serving pretensions of holding the moral high ground, every single action of the United States of America, since its very inception, is consistent with this view. From the Sand Creek Massacre, to African and Irish slavery, to the Ludlow and Fallujah Massacres, from Gladio to 9/11 to the Boston Marathon, from the deliberate impoverishment of working class Americans to police brutality, civil forfeiture, austerity for the vast majority and more billions for the trillionaires, the record is absolutely clear.
Here is just one more example I ran across recently:
“Fifteen years after launching its ‘war on terror,’ Washington is not only directly allied with the supposed target of that war—Al Qaeda—but is preparing to unleash upon humanity the greatest act of terror imaginable, a third world war.”
Al-Qaeda, said our Controllers, was Satan itself. And now the Controllers are openly arming their own Frankenstein Monsters? The people of Crimea voted overwhelmingly to re-join their Russian homeland and escape fascist rule, and that is a casus beli for a war that this time might be—unlike that lying war of a century ago—“the war to end all wars”.
The immorality of the Controllers is a historical fact. Although it doesn’t prove the cloak-and-dagger hypothesis, it decisively removes the objection that they wouldn’t sink so low to achieve their goals. They have demonstrably sunk even lower, not once or twice, but thousands of times throughout the past three centuries.
By moving beyond specific case studies to a more holistic, statistical, approach, this paper provides the most comprehensive proof known to me that the Invisible Government routinely sidelines, smears, harasses, incarcerates, and kills influential enemies and other inconvenient individuals.
It’s comforting to know, however, that the Invisible Government’s cloak-and-dagger savagery is taken for granted by many other observers:
President Woodrow Wilson:
“Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing . . . know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”
The Curious Case of Jim Clifton:
On February 2015, Jim Clifton, CEO of Gallup, a major American consulting firm, dared side with unjustly marginalized researchers who have proven over and over again that the Controllers put Pinocchio to shame. Indeed, they lie to us about everything—about our wars, air, water, food, health, Ukraine, Syria, economic recovery, Fort Knox gold, military spending, inflation . . .
By February 2015, Jim Clifton must have gotten tired of that circus:
“The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.”
A day later, the intrepid Clifton surfaced in the official news again:
“The numbers that come out of [the American government] are very, very, accurate. I need to make that very, very clear, so that I don’t ‘suddenly disappear.’ I need to make it home tonight.”
Jim Clifton’s sarcastic “retraction” thus provides yet another confirmation of the bankers’ cloak-and-dagger approach. In 2015, a CEO of a major research company is on record, “retracting” his statement about the lying bankers because he knows that truth-telling in America (by people who cannot be given the silent treatment) is tantamount to suicide.
Ex-Congressman Ron Paul:
“Those secret budgets have allowed the CIA to carry out some pretty shady practices over the years. Chiefly, assassinations. . . . There are certainly a lot of theories about the CIA being involved in even domestic assassinations, and they certainly are now involved in presidential directed assassinations.”
Former London mayor, Ken Livingstone:
“Everyone coming out from the political system knows: if you pose a threat to the American interest, you might be destabilized, there might be a smear campaign or you might even have a nasty accident. An awful lot of people who challenge American interest seem to die…”
Ernest Hemingway (a 20th century American novelist, from A Farewell to Arms):
“If people bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that it will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry.”
Former Congresswoman, Cynthia McKiney:
[The USA] “has had authentic, servant leaders on the national level and many of them were targeted for assassination by the State. . . . those of us who try and inject love, vision, compassion and common sense into the political discourse are quickly discredited, chewed up, and expectorated. . . . Heaven forbid if the people would actually turn off the television and think. There would be a revolution tomorrow. And the rest of the world could finally live in peace and Mother Earth could reclaim her dignity. . . . The military might of the US is being used to benefit a very small group of men and women who have the rest of humankind hoodwinked as to the true nature of what is going on. The rest of humankind can’t imagine that amount of greed and willingness to kill and so, are easily fooled and tricked.”
Lobaczewski (author, Political Ponerology: A science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes):
“Whenever a society contains serious social problems, there will also be some group of sensible people striving to improve the social situation by means of energetic reforms, so as to eliminate the cause of social tension. Others consider it their duty to bring about a moral rejuvenation of society. Elimination of social injustice and reconstruction of the country’s morals and civilization could deprive a pathocracy of any chance to take over. Such reformers and moralists must therefore be consistently neutralized by means of liberal or conservative positions and appropriately suggestive catchwords and paramoralisms; if necessary, the best among them has to be murdered.”
“If you had the privilege of creating dollars from thin air, and loaning them to government at interest, you might do anything to protect that privilege.”
Jim Douglass (author, Gandhi and the Unspeakable):
“We live in a world where assassination has become an unspeakable, nationally approved art to frustrate fundamental change.”
Stuart Jean Bramhall (author, 21st Century Revolution):
“Political power is concentrated in a wealthy elite who employ an invisible intelligence-security network to terrorize – and sometimes kill –dissidents and whistle blowers who threaten their interests.”
Is the Cloak-and-Dagger Strategy Effective in Sustaining and Strengthening the Controllers?
To see how assassinations or attempted assassinations can alter the course of history, take the example of American presidents since the days of Andrew Jackson. Jackson himself miraculously survived the Controllers’ plot to kill him–and delayed their program of world conquest by decades. They have learned their lessons well since then. Zachary Taylor died in office, and he too was perhaps insufficiently compliant. Lincoln and Kennedy really annoyed the Controllers–and we know where that got them. Garfield and McKinley might have been thorns in their sides too–and were assassinated. Franklin Delano Roosevelt served them well in office, but was still sufficiently troublesome to try to remove through a failed Nazi putsch—and he too died in office. Wilson was their yes-man to begin with, but towards the end became an outspoken critic–and he became incapacitated in office.
Again I’m beating a dead horse: Can you imagine where the USA would be now had the Controllers failed to assassinate Huey Long? Can you imagine Bronson Cutting achieving his dream of obliterating fractional reserve banking and private ownership of America’s Central Bank?
But the effectiveness of assassinations goes far beyond American presidents and senators. Might not history have unfolded in a radically different way had the Controllers:
- Abstained from routinely and openly framing, jailing, and murdering union members and leaders?
- Let influential artists like Ernest Hemingway, Richard Wright, John Lennon, Jim Morrison, Bob Marley, and Phil Ochs live?
- Not assassinated Martin Luther King and Mohandas Gandhi?
- Let Aldo Moro, Salvador Allende, Omar Torrijos, Patrice Lumumba, Slobodan Milošević, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Robin Cook, Olof Palme, and Hugo Chavez live to old age?
Like organized crime, organized finance and its allies parasitize planet Earth in part through a program of vilifications, smears, incarcerations, and murders.
Our discussion raises a painful dilemma: Can we peacefully topple the edifice the Controllers built, or must we give them a tiny bit of their own cloak-and-dagger medicine?