A+ A A-

The mainstream media manipulates gullible people into worshiping criminals and incompetents - Fauci is the criminal and Tedros from the World Health Organization is an incompetent tool of his deep state masters.
Originally recorded March 25th



Published in Pandemic


the US biowarfare program is global, deadly, & constantly on an offensive footing. with liaisons in all US intelligence agencies & all branches of the military, it is able to quickly & expertly unleash biological weapons on unsuspecting populations without the resulting epidemics & suffering being traced back to Washington. coronavirus has all the hallmarks of being one of these operations. the NOT ONE CENT movement seeks to hold politicians accountable for taking money from the military-industrial complex & the state of Israel - between them responsible for the vast majority of human suffering on the planet today. any politician who takes money from these two groups is not qualified to be elected dogcatcher, let alone a seat in Congress or the presidency. find more of Vox's work at http://voxnews.com . backup channel on bitchute : helenofdestroy. videos like this are prone to disappearing without notice, so if you found it informative please like, share, & more importantly download & repost on your own site! the days of YouTube being a dependable platform for dissident content-creators are long gone, & this channel's days are numbered. share this information widely -

The US military-industrial police state has never hesitated to sacrifice the lives of Americans in order to achieve its goal of locking down control of all movement - not just in & out of the country but within the country. Bioweapons, as the Rockefeller Foundation gleefully pointed out way back in 2010, are a fantastic way to convince an already-mentally-supine population to yield control of their physical forms to the state's machinations as well. While the interview in this video was recorded in 2014 as an Ebola outbreak ravaged west Africa, Vox's observations are if anything even more applicable to 2020's coronavirus outbreak, which has set western powers salivating as China sets into motion its enviable (if you're a power-mad sociopath) state control machinery to quarantine some 50 million people behind a 'cordon sanitaire' that authorities admit has already allowed carriers of the virus to slip out ahead of its imposition - meaning this massive crackdown on free movement serves no purpose other than as a giant human experiment in what liberties a population will thoroughly trash for the fleeting illusion of security.

spoiler alert: too many. documents referenced can be found at:

Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development https://archive.org/details/pdfy-tNG7...

National Security Memorandum 200, Dec 10 1974 https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAB5...

CDC patent on EboBun (Ebola Bundibugyo) virus https://patents.google.com/patent/CA2...

content like this is prone to sudden disappearance, so in addition to clicking LIKE, SHARE, & SUBSCRIBE, please DOWNLOAD & REUPLOAD to your own channels - it is very important that this information be spread as widely as possible before it's too late & we're undergoing temperature checks to leave our homes. anyone who believes this is irresponsible speculation should spare a thought for air travel circa 1999. this video is mirrored at https://bitchute.com/helenofdestroy & at https://archive.org/details/@voxnews . more of Vox's content can be found at voxnews.com

Published in Police State USA

Article originally published in November 2011, in Global Research by Gearóid Ó Colmáin

Unknown snipers played a pivotal role throughout the  so-called  « Arab Spring Revolutions »  yet, in spite of reports of their presence in the mainstream media, surprisingly little attention has been paid to  to their purpose and role.

The Russian investigative journalist Nikolay Starikov has written a book which discusses the role of unknown snipers in the destabilization of countries targeted for regime change by the United States and its allies. The following article attempts to elucidate some historical examples of this technique with a view to providing a background within which to understand the current cover war on the people of Syria by death squads in the service of Western intelligence.[1]

Romania 1989.

In Susanne Brandstätter’s documentary ‘Checkmate: Strategy of a Revolution’ aired on Arte television station some years ago,  Western intelligence officials revealed how  death squads were used to destabilize Romania and turn its people against the head of state Nicolai Ceaucescu.

Brandstätter’s film is a must see for anyone interested in how Western intelligence agencies, human rights groups and the corporate press collude in the systematic destruction of countries whose leadership conflicts with the interests of big capital and empire.

Former secret agent with the French secret service, the DGSE(La Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure) Dominique Fonvielle, spoke candidly about the role of Western intelligence operatives in destabilizing the Romanian population.

“how do you organize a revolution? I believe the first step is to locate oppositional forces in a given country. It is sufficient to have a highly developed intelligence service in order to determine which people are credible enough to have influence at their hands to destabilize the people to the disadvantage of the ruling regime”[2]

This open and rare admission of Western sponsorship of terrorism was justified on the grounds of the “greater good” brought to Romania by free-market capitalism. It was necessary, according to the strategists of Romania’s “revolution”, for some people to die.

Today, Romania remains one of the poorest countries in Europe. A report on Euractiv reads:

“Most Romanians associate the last two decades with a continuous process of impoverishment and deteriorating living standards, according to Romania’s Life Quality Research Institute, quoted by the Financiarul daily.” [3]

The western intelligence officials interviewed in the documentary also revealed how the Western press played a central role in disinformation. For example, the victims of Western-backed snipers were photographed by presented to the world as evidence of a crazed dictator who was “killing his own people”.

To this day, there is a Museum in the back streets of Timisoara Romania which promotes the myth of the “Romanian Revolution”.  The Arte documentary was one of the rare occasions when the mainstream press revealed some of  the dark secrets of Western liberal democracy. The documentary caused a scandal when it was aired in France, with the prestigious Le Monde Diplomatique discussing the moral dilemma of the West’s support of terror in its desire to spread ‘democracy’.

Since the destruction of Libya and the ongoing cover war on Syria, Le Monde Diplomatique has stood safely on the side of political correction, condemning Bachar Al Assad for the crimes of the DGSE and the CIA. In its current edition, the front page article reads Ou est la gauche? Where is the left ? Certainly not in the pages of Le Monde Diplomatique !

Russia 1993

During Boris Yeltsin’s counter-revolution in Russia in 1993, when the Russian parliament was bombed resulting in the deaths of thousands of people, Yeltsin’s counter-revolutionaries made extensive use of snipers.  According to many eye witness reports, snipers were seen shooting civilians from the building opposite the US embassy in Moscow.  The snipers were attributed to the Soviet government by the international media.[4]

Venezuela 2002
In 2002, the CIA attempted to overthrow Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, in a military coup. On the 11th of April 2002, an opposition March towards the presidential palace was organized by the US backed Venezuelan opposition. Snipers hidden in buildings near the palace opened fire on protestors killing 18. The Venezuelan and international media claimed that Chavez was “ killing his own people” thereby justifying the military coup presented as a humanitarian intervention.  It was subsequently proved that the coup had been organized by the CIA but the identity of the snipers was never established.

Thailand April 2010
On April 12th 2010, Christian Science Monitor published a detailed report of the riots in Thailand between “red-shirt” activists and the Thai government. The article headline read: ‘Thailand’s red shirt protests darken with unknown snipers, parade of coffins’.

Like their counterparts in Tunisia, Thailand’s red shirts were calling for the resignation of the Thai prime minister. While a heavy-handed response by the Thai security forces to the protestors was indicated in the report, the government’s version of events was also reported:

“Mr. Abhisit has used solemn televised addresses to tell his story. He has blamed rogue gunmen, or “terrorists,” for the intense violence (at least 21 people died and 800 were injured) and emphasized the need for a full investigation into the killings of both soldiers and protesters. State television has broadcast repeated images of soldiers coming under fire from bullets and explosives.”

The CSM report went on to quote Thai military officials and unnamed Western diplomats:

“military observers say Thai troops stumbled into a trap set by agents provocateurs with military expertise. By pinning down soldiers after dark and sparking chaotic battles with unarmed protesters, the unknown gunmen ensured heavy casualties on both sides.

Some were caught on camera and seen by reporters, including this one. Snipers targeted military ground commanders, indicating a degree of advance planning and knowledge of Army movements, say Western diplomats briefed by Thai officials. While leaders of the demonstrations have disowned the use of firearms and say their struggle is nonviolent, it is unclear whether radicals in the movement knew of the trap.

“You can’t claim to be a peaceful political movement and have an arsenal of weapons out the back if needed. You can’t have it both ways,” says a Western diplomat in regular contact with protest leaders [5]

The CSM article also explores the possibility that the snipers could be rogue elements in the Thai military, agents provocateurs used to justify a crack down on democratic opposition. Thailand’s ruling elite is currently coming under pressure from a group called the Red Shirts.[6]

Kyrgystan June 2010

Ethnic violence broke out in the Central Asian republic of  Kirgystan  in June 2010. It was widely reported that unknown snipers opened fire on members of the Uzbek minority in Kyrgystan. Eurasia.net reports:

“In many Uzbek mahallas, inhabitants offer convincing testimony of gunmen targeting their neighborhoods from vantage points. Men barricaded into the Arygali Niyazov neighborhood, for example, testified to seeing gunmen on the upper floors of a nearby medical institute hostel with a view over the district’s narrow streets. They said that during the height of the violence these gunmen were covering attackers and looters, assaulting their area with sniper fire. Men in other Uzbek neighborhoods tell similar stories

. « Among the rumours and unconfirmed reports circulating in Kyrgyzstan after the 2010 violence were claims that water supplies to Uzbek areas were about to be  poisoned. Such rumours had also been spread against the Ceaucescu regime in Romania during the CIA- backed coup in 1989. Eurasia.net goes on to claim that:

Many people are convinced that they’ve seen foreign mercenaries acting as snipers. These alleged foreign combatants are distinguished by their appearance – inhabitants report seeing black snipers and tall, blonde, female snipers from the Baltic states. The idea that English snipers have been roaming the streets of Osh shooting at Uzbeks is also popular. There’ve been no independent corroborations of such sightings by foreign journalists or representatives of international organizations.” [7]

None of these reports have been independently investigated or corroborated. It is therefore impossible to draw any hard conclusions from these stories.

Ethnic violence against Uzbek citizens in Kyrgyzstan occurred pari pasu with a popular revolt against the US-backed regime, which many analysts have attributed to the machinations of Moscow.

The Bakiyev régime came to power in a CIA-backed people-power coup known to the world as the Tulip Revolution in 2005.

Located to the West of China and bordering Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan hosts one of America’s biggest and most important military bases in Central Asia, the Manas Air Base, which is vital for the NATO occupation of neighbouring Afghanistan.

Despite initial worries, US/Kyrgyz relations have remained good under the regime of President Roza Otunbayeva. This is not surprising as Otunbayeva had previously participated in the US-created Tulip Revolution in 2004, taking power as foreign minister.

To date no proper investigation has been conducted into the origins of the ethnic violence that spread throughout  the south of Kyryzstan in 2010, nor have the marauding gangs of unknown snipers been identified and apprehended.

Given the geostrategic and geopolitical importance of Kyrgyzstan to both the United States and Russia, and the formers track-record of using death squads to divide and weaken countries so as to maintain US domination, US involvement in the dissemination of terrorism in Kyrgyzstan cannot be ruled out. One effective way of maintaining a grip on Central Asian countries would be to exacerbate ethnic tensions.

In August 6th 2008, the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported that a US arms cache had been found in a house in the Kyrgyz capital Bishkek, which was being rented by two American citizens. The US embassy claimed the arms were being used for “anti-terrorism” exercises. However, this was not confirmed by Kyrgyz authorities. [8]

Covert US military support to terrorist groups in the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia proved to be an effective strategy in creating the conditions for “humanitarian” bombing in 1999. An effective means of  keeping the government in Bishkek firmly on America’s side would be to insist on a US and European presence in the country to help “protect” the Uzbek minority.

Military intervention similar to that in the former Yugoslavia by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe  has already been advocated by the New York Times, whose misleading article on the riots on June 24th 2010 has the headline “Kyrgyzstan asks European Security Body for Police Teams”. The article is misleading as the headline contradicts the actual report which cites a Kyrgyz official stating:

“A government spokesman said officials had discussed an outside police presence with the O.S.C.E., but said he could not confirm that a request for a deployment had been made.”

There is no evidence in the article of any request by the Kyrgyz government for military intervention. In fact, the article presents much evidence to the contrary. However, before the reader has a chance to read the explanation of the Kyrgyz government, the New York Times’ writer presents the now all too horribly familiar narrative of oppressed peoples begging the West to come and bomb or occupy their country:

“Ethnic Uzbeks in the south have clamored for international intervention. Many Uzbeks said they were attacked in their neighborhoods not only by civilian mobs, but also by the Kyrgyz military and police officers”[9]

Only towards the end of the article do we find out that the Kyrgyz authorities blamed the US-backed dictator for fomenting ethnic violence in the country, through the use of Islamic jihadists in Uzbekistan. This policy of using ethnic tension to create an environment of fear in order to prop up an extremely unpopular dictatorship, the policy of using Islamic Jihadism as a political tool to create what former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Bzrezinski called “ an arc of crisis”, ties in well with the history of US involvement in Central Asia from the creation of Al Qaida in Afghanistan in 1978 to the present day.

Again, the question persists, who were the “unknown snipers” terrorizing the Uzbek population, where did their weapons come from and who would benefit from ethnic conflict in Central Asia’s geopolitical hotspot?

Tunisia January 2011
On January 16th 2011, CNN reported that ‘’armed gangs’’ were fighting Tunisian security forces. [10] Many of the murders committed throughout the Tunisian uprising were by “unknown snipers”. There were also videos posted on the internet showing Swedish nationals detained by Tunisian security forces. The men were clearly armed with sniper rifles. Russia Today aired the dramatic pictures.[11]

In spite of articles by professor Michel Chossudovsky, William Engdahl and  others showing how the uprisings in North Africa were following the patterns of US backed people-power coups rather than genuinely popular revolutions, left wing parties and organizations continued to believe the version of events presented to them by Al Jazeera and the mainstream press. Had the left taken a left from old Lenin’s book they would have transposed his comments on the February/March revolution in Russia thus:

“The  whole course of events in the January/February Revolution clearly shows that the British, French and American embassies, with their agents and “connections”,… directly organized a plot.. in conjunction with a section of the generals and army and Tunisian garrison officers, with the express object of deposing Ben Ali”

What the left did not understand is that sometimes it is necessary for imperialism to overthrow some of its clients. A suitable successor to Ben Ali could always be found among the feudalists of the Muslim Brotherhood who now look likely to take power.

In their revolutionary sloganeering and arrogant insistence that the events in Tunisia and Egypt were “spontaneous and popular uprisings” they committed what Lenin identified as the most dangerous sins in a revolution, namely, the substitution of the abstract for the concrete. In other words, left wing groups were simply fooled by the sophistication of the Western backed “Arab Spring” events.

That is why the violence of the demonstrators and in particular the widespread use of snipers possibly linked to Western intelligence was the great unthought of the Tunisian uprising. The same techniques would be used in Libya a few weeks later, forcing the left to back track and modifiy its initial enthusiasm for the CIA’s “Arab Spring”.

When we are talking about the” left” here, we are referring to genuine left wing parties, that is to say, parties who supported the Great People’s Socialist Libyan Arab Jamahirya in their long and brave fight against Western imperialism, not the infantile petty bourgeois dupes who supported NATO’s Benghazi terrorists.  The blatant idiocy of such a stance should be crystal clear to anyone who understands global politics and class struggle.

Egypt 2011
On October 20th 2011, the Telegraph newspaper published an article entitled, “Our brother died for a better Egypt”. According to the Telegraph, Mina Daniel, an anti-government activist in Cairo, had been ‘shot from an unknown sniper, wounding him fatally in the chest”

Inexplicably, the article is no longer available on the Telegraph’s website for online perusal. But a google search for ‘Egypt, unknown sniper, Telegraph’ clearly shows the above quoted explanation for Mina Daniel’s death. So, who could these “unknown snipers’’ be?

On February 6th Al Jazeera reported that Egyptian journalist Ahmad Mahmoud was shot by snipers as he attempted to cover classes between Egyptian security forces and protestors. Referring to statements made by Mahmoud’s wife Enas Abdel-Alim, the Al Jazeera article insinuates that Mahmoud may have been killed by Egyptian security forces:

“Abdel-Alim said several eyewitnesses told her a uniformed police captain with Egypt’s notorious Central Security forces yelled at her husband to stop filming.

Before Mahmoud even had a chance to react, she said, a sniper shot him.” [12]

While the Al Jazeera article advances the theory that the snipers were agents of the Mubarak regime, their role in the uprising still remains a mystery. Al Jazeera, the Qatar-based television stations owned by the Emir Hamid Bin Khalifa Al Thani, played a key role in provoking protests in Tunisia and Egypt before launching a campaign of unmitigated pro-NATO war propaganda and lies during the destruction of Libya.

The Qatari channel been a central participant in the current covert war waged by NATO agencies and their clients against the Republic of Syria. Al Jazeera’s incessant disinformation against Libya and Syria resulted in the resignation of several prominent journalists such as Beirut station chief Ghassan Bin Jeddo[13]  and senior Al Jazeera executive Wadah Khanfar who was forced to resign after a wikileaks cable revealed he was a co-operating with the Central Intelligence Agency.[14]

Many people were killed during the US-backed colour revolution in Egypt. Although, the killings have been attributed to former US semi-client Hosni Mubarak, the involvement of Western intelligence cannot be ruled out. However, it should be pointed out that the role of unknown snipers in mass demonstrations remains complex and multi-faceted and therefore one should not jump to conclusions. For example, after the Bloody Sunday massacre(Domhnach na Fola) in Derry, Ireland 1972, where peaceful demonstrators were shot dead by the British army, British officials claimed that they had come under fire from snipers. But the 30 year long Bloody Sunday  inquiry subsequently proved this to be false.  But the question persists once more,  who were the snipers in Egypt and whose purposes did they serve?

Libya  2011
During the destabilization of Libya, a video was aired by Al Jazeera purporting to show peaceful “pro-democracy” demonstrators being fired upon by “Gaddafi’s forces”. The video was edited to convince the viewer that anti-Gaddafi demonstrators were being murdered by the security forces. However, the unedited version of the video is available on utube. It clearly shows pro-Gaddafi demonstrators with Green flags being fired upon by unknown snipers. The attribution of NATO-linked crimes to the security forces of the Libyan Jamahirya was a constant feature of the brutal media war waged against the Libyan people. [15]

Syria 2011

The people of Syria have been beset by death squads and snipers since the outbreak of violence there in March. Hundreds of Syrian soldiers and security personnel have been murdered, tortured and mutilated by Salafist and Muslim Brotherhood militants. Yet the international media corporations continue to spread the pathetic lie that the deaths are the result Bachar Al Assad’s dictatorship.

When I visited Syria in April of this year, I personally encountered merchants and citizens in Hama who told me they had seen armed terrorists roaming the streets of that once peaceful city, terrorizing the neighbourhood. I recall speaking to a fruit seller in the city of Hama who  spoke about the horror he had witnessed that day. As he described the scenes of violence to me, my attention was arrested by a newspaper headline in English from the Washington Post  shown on Syrian television: “CIA backs Syrian opposition”. The Central Intelligence Agency provides training and funding for groups who do the bidding of US imperialist interests. The history of the CIA shows that backing opposition forces means providing them with arms and finance, actions illegal under international law.

A few days later, while at a hostel in the ancient, cultured city of Aleppo, I spoke to a Syrian business man and his family. The business man ran many hotels in the city and was pro-Assad. He told me that he used to watch Al Jazeera television but now had doubts about their honesty. As we conversed, the Al Jazeera television in the background showed scenes of Syrian soldiers beating and torturing protestors. “ Now if that is true, it is simply unacceptable” he said. It is sometimes impossible to verify whether the images shown on television are true or not. Many of the crimes attributed to the Syrian army have been committed by the armed gangs, such as the dumping of mutilated bodies into the river in Hama, presented to the world as more proof of the crimes of the Assad regime.

There is a minority of innocent opponents of the Assad regime who believe everything they see and hear on Al Jazeera and the other pro-Western satellite stations. These people simply do not understand the intricacies of international politics.

But the facts on the ground show that most people in Syria support the government. Syrians have access to all internet websites and international TV channels. They can watch BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, read the New York Times online or Le Monde before tuning into their own state media. In this respect, many Syrians are more informed about international politics than the average European or American. Most Europeans and American believe their own media. Few are capable of reading the Syrian press in original Arabic or watching Syrian television. The Western powers are the masters of discourse, who own the means of communication. The Arab Spring has been the most horrifying example of the wanton abuse of this power.

Disinformation is effective in sowing the seeds of doubt among those who are seduced by Western propaganda. Syrian state media has disproved hundreds of Al Jazeera lies since the beginning of this conflict.  Yet the western media has refused to even report the Syrian government’s position lest fair coverage of the other side of this story encourage a modicum of critical thought in the public mind.

The use of mercenaries, death squads and snipers by Western intelligence agencies is well documented.  No rational government attempting to stay in power would resort to unknown snipers to intimidate its opponents. Shooting at innocent protestors would be counterproductive in the face of unmitigated pressure from Western governments determined to install a client regime in Damascus. Shooting of unarmed protestors is only acceptable in dictatorships that enjoy the unconditional support of Western governments such as Bahrain, Honduras or Colombia.

A government which is so massively supported by the population of Syria would not sabotage its own survival by setting snipers against the protests of a small minority.

The opposition to the Syrian regime is, in fact, miniscule. Tear gas, mass arrests and other non lethal methods would be perfectly sufficient for a government wishing to control unarmed demonstrators.

Snipers are used to create terror, fear and anti-regime propaganda. They are an integral feature of Western sponsored regime change.

If one were to make a serious criticism of the Syrian government over the past few months, it is that they have failed to implement effective anti-terrorism measures in the country.

The Syrian people want troops on the streets and the roofs of public buildings. In the weeks and months ahead, the Syrian armed forces will probably rely more and more on their Russian military specialists to strengthen the country’s defenses as the Western crusade begun in Libya in March spreads to the Levant.

There is no conclusive proof that the snipers murdering men, women and children in Syria are the agents of Western imperialism. But there is overwhelming proof that Western imperialism is attempting to destroy the Syrian state. As in Libya, they have never once mentioned the possibility of negotiations between the so-called opposition and the Syrian government. The West wants regime change and is determined to repeat the slaughter in Libya to achieve this geopolitical objective.

It now looks likely that the cradle of civilization and science will be overrun by semi-literate barbarians as the terminal decline of the West plays itself out in the deserts of the East.


[1] http://nstarikov.ru/en/
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l8qjX4SzBY&feature=related
[6] http://www.activistpost.com/2010/12/thailand-stage-set-for-another-color.html
[7]  http://www.eurasianet.org/taxonomy/term/2813?page=6
[9] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/world/asia/25kyrgyz.html
[13] http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4060180,00.html
[14] http://intelligencenews.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/01-828/
[15] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQtM-59jDAo&feature=player_embedded#!

ISIS - Made in USA

US efforts to kill the last remaining secular leaders in the Middle East (and ostensibly replace them with ISIS) is described by NeoCons and the mainstream media they control as “humanitarian”- but even just a basic understanding of the region indicates that if you take out a secular government, a violent Islamist government quickly fills the void.

The chilling truth is that the “rise” of ISIS is no “failure” of US policy - everything is going as planned... that is until as it always does, the plan “goes awry” and the US taxpayer is once again forced to pay the price to the usual suspects, the defense industry... whose grip on our spineless congress can only be described as criminal.

ISIS is the latest proxy terrorist group that the US and it’s client states Israel, Saudi Arabia & Qatar has unleashed onto the world scene and like most monsters they create, this one might not be so easy to get under control.

Join authors and investigative journalists Webster Tarpley & Wayne Madsen, Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern and investigative journalist Vox as they peel away the accepted narrative of “failure” - revealing the sinister truth behind the West’s latest murderous proxy ISIS. ISIS like AlQaeda represents the desperate West’s only methodology left to keep its imperial grip on the planet Earth.

Intro: ...........................0:00
Vox:............................. 1:40
Webster Tarpley........40:13
Wayne Madsen......1:11:38
Ray McGovern.......1:30:18

ISIS: Made in the USA

On Sunday May 31st at City University of New York - John Jay College - 3:40pm Room 1.105
Voxnews is sponsoring a panel of leading journalists and writers exposing the West's latest desperate
proxy terrorist force - ISIS.

ISIS is the latest methodology by Western Intelligence, (CIA and MOSSAD) its billionaire masters,
our bloodthirsty weapons industry, Israeli war mongers and our Saudi accomplices to balkanize the region,
further destabilize the world, achieve dizzying war profits and lock in the police and surveillance state here
at home that they so desperately need to keep their murderous grip on power.

US efforts to kill the last remaining secular leaders in the Middle East (and ostensibly replace them
with ISIS) is described by NeoCons and the mainstream media they control as “humanitarian”- but even just a basic
understanding of the region indicates that if you take out a secular government, a violent Islamist government quickly fills the void.

The chilling truth is that ISIS is no “failure” of US policy -,everything is going as planned...that is until as
it always does, the plan “goes awry” and the US taxpayer is once again forced to pay the price to the usual suspects, the defense industry, whose grip on our spineless congress can only be described as criminal.

ISIS is the latest proxy terrorist group that the US and it’s client states Israel, Saudi Arabia & Qatar has unleashed onto the world scene and like most monsters they create, this one might not be so easy to get under control.

The emergence of ISIS is too convenient, too advantageous, too serendipitous, for these underhanded war
profiteers for it to be yet another “failure,” of US policy. ISIS is a proxy army funded, trained and controlled by Western Intelligence and their so called think tanks of murder and terrorism.

Join authors and investigative journalists Webster Tarpley & Wayne Madsen, Former CIA analyst
Ray McGovern and investigative journalist Vox as they peel away the accepted narrative of “failure” - revealing
the sinister truth behind the West’s latest murderous proxy ISIS. ISIS like AlQaeda represents the desperate
West’s only methodology left to keep its imperial grip on the planet Earth.


The following is the bottom one-third-plus of the MLK Conspiracy Trial
Transcript, Volume 9, from November 30th, 1999, the source for which is at:

                      Testimony of Mr. William Schaap,
            attorney, military and intelligence specialization,
                   co-publisher Covert Action Quarterly,
                   on the role of the U.S. Government in
                  the assassination of Martin Luther King

                 MLK Conspiracy Trial Transcript - Volume 9
                             November 30, 1999

     Vs. Case No. 97242-4 T.D.
     November 30th, 1999
     Before the Honorable James E. Swearengen,
     Division 4, Judge presiding.
     Suite 2200, One Commerce Square
     Memphis, Tennessee 38103
     (901) 529-1999
     (901) 529-1999

     For the Plaintiffs:
     Attorney at Law
     575 Madison Avenue, Suite 1006
     New York, New York 10022
     (212) 605-0515
     For the Defendant:
     Attorney at Law
     100 North Main Street, Suite 1025
     Memphis, Tennessee 38103
     (901) 527-6445
     Reported by:
     Registered Professional Reporter
     Daniel, Dillinger, Dominski,
     Richberger & Weatherford
     2200 One Commerce Square
     Memphis, Tennessee 38103
     (901) 529-1999

     - INDEX -
     . . .
     Direct Examination
     By Mr. Pepper --------------- 1299
     24 --------------- 1265 (Collective)
     25 --------------- 1271
     26 --------------- 1275
     27 --------------- 1286
     28 --------------- 1304

     MR. PEPPER: Plaintiffs call Mr. William Schaap to the stand.

     WILLIAM SCHAAP, Having been first duly sworn, was examined and
     testified as follows:


     Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Schaap.

     A. Good afternoon.

     Q. Would you state your full name and address for the record,

     A. My name is William Schaap. My address is 143 West Fourth
     Street, New York, New York.

     Q. Could you give us a summary of your professional background,

     THE COURT: Before you do that, spell your last name.

     THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. S C H A A P.

     THE COURT: Thank you.

     A. I'm an attorney. I graduated from the University of Chicago Law
     School in 1964. I've been a practicing lawyer since then. And I'm
     a member of the bar of the State of New York and of the District
     of Columbia. I specialized in the 1970's in military law. I
     practiced military law in Asia and Europe. I later became the
     editor in chief of the Military Law Reporter in Washington for a
     number of years. And in the 70's and 80's I was staff counsel of
     the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York City.

     I also in the late 1980's was an adjunct professor at John J.
     College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York
     where I taught courses on propaganda and disinformation.

     Q. (BY MR. PEPPER) Have you also been involved in journalism and

     A. Yes, I have. Since 1977 or '78, in addition to being a
     practicing lawyer, I've also been a journalist and a publisher and
     a writer specializing in intelligence-related matters and
     particularly their relationship to the media. For more than 20
     years I've been the co-publisher of a magazine called the Covert
     Action Quarterly which particularly deals with reporting on
     intelligence agencies, primarily U.S. agencies but also foreign.

     I published a magazine for a number of years called Lies Of Our
     Times which specifically was a magazine about propaganda and
     disinformation. And I've been the managing director of the
     Institute for Media Analysis for a number of years. I also, for
     about 20 years now, I think, was one of the principals in a
     publishing company called Sheraton Square Press that published
     books and pamphlets relating to intelligence and the media.

     Q. Do you also write? Have you authored articles and works?

     A. Yes, I do. I've written, oh, dozens of articles on --
     particularly on media and intelligence. I've edited about seven or
     eight books on the subject. I've contributed sections to a number
     of other books and had -- I've -- many of my articles, of course,
     have appeared in my own -- our own publications, but I've also had
     articles appear around the world including New York Times,
     Washington Post and major media like -- like those.

     I've appeared a lot on radio and television as an expert on
     intelligence and the media. I'm slowing down a bit now because I'm
     getting older. But I used to do a lot of speaking at universities
     and colleges around the country and debating government officials
     and people connected to organizations that supported the CIA and
     the other -- FBI and the other intelligence agencies.

     Q. Have you ever testified as an expert witness in the area of
     governmental use of media for disinformation and propaganda?

     A. Yes, I have. I've -- I've testified as an expert in that field
     in both state and federal courts in this country. I've testified
     in foreign courts. I testified once before the United Nations on
     that subject and once before the U.S. Congress.

     Q. Mr. Schaap, I'm going to show you a copy of a -- of your own
     CV. It's a summary of your professional qualifications. I want you
     to confirm its accuracy.

     A. Yes, that's -- that's my CV that I prepared.

     MR. PEPPER: Your Honor, we move admission of Mr. Schaap's CV and
     move that he be accepted as an expert witness in the matter at
     hand for the issues of government use of media or disinformation
     and propaganda purposes.

     THE COURT: Objections?

     MR. GARRISON: I have no objection.

     THE COURT: All right. (Whereupon said document was marked as Trial
     Exhibit Number 28.)

     Q. (BY MR. PEPPER) Mr. Schaap, in the course of your research,
     have you had occasion to study the use of the media by government

     A. Yes, I have. I've studied many government reports on the
     subject. Many, many books have been written about it and articles.
     In fact, I've written many of those articles.

     Q. Can you give the Court and the Jury a brief summary of the
     subject indicating the extent to which this type of activity by
     government still takes place?

     A. Yes, I can. I -- I won't go into ancient history, but it should
     be noted that -- that governments around the world have secretly
     used the media for their purposes for many hundreds of years,
     probably thousands. But certainly from the 16th and 17th century
     in England on there has been a great deal of research about the
     use by governments -- a secret use of the media.

     For our purposes though, the -- particularly relating to the U.S.,
     the most significant and the first major deliberate program in
     this country was during World War I when President Wilson set up
     an organization called the Committee For Public Information under
     a public relations executive -- a man named George Creole. The
     purpose of this committee was to propagandize the war effort
     against Germany. This was created immediately after the U.S.
     entered World War I in 1917. And in propagandizing the war effort
     and war news, it was the policy of this committee to have no
     compunctions about falsifying the news whenever it was felt that
     that was necessary to help the war effort.

     Q. Can you give us an example of the type of falsification of the
     news that you're talking about.

     A. Yes. They -- the Committee For Public Information purported
     very often to release documents, supposedly genuine documents, to
     the press in order to substantiate whatever particular position
     the -- the Wilson government might have been taking at the time.
     And one of the most famous that happened early in its creation in
     1917 was a disinformation campaign to suggest that the Russian
     revolutionaries, Lenin in particular and Trotsky, were actually
     German agents being paid by the Kaiser.

     The Government and Creole's committee made up the story. They made
     up -- created phony documents. They passed it all to friends in
     the major newspapers. And almost immediately this was front page
     news around the United States and around the world.

     Q. I'm going to show you a New York Times headline of that era and
     see if that's the kind of falsification you're talking about.

     A. Yes, this is -- the rest of the text is from an article where
     that headline appeared. But that was on the front page of the New
     York Times in 1917. And later it transpired that the documents
     were -- were forgeries that had been created by Mr. Creole. And,
     of course, it was obvious by the current course of history, the
     Russian revolutionaries were hardly friends of the Kaiser.

     Q. Yes, indeed.

     A. Much less employees.

     Q. Can you continue with your summary, please.

     A. Yes. After World War I, the U.S. continued to be the -- or
     actually became the world's leader in the control of information.
     Britain had been more pre-eminent before World War I. But at the
     end of the war, the U.S. was really in control of all the world
     communication media. And disinformation was used by the government
     sporadically during the inter-war years. It was particularly used
     in the red scares of the 1920's and the creation of disinformation
     suggesting various opponents of the government were communists.

     But it wasn't a major aspect of government policy until the advent
     of World War II. And that was when deliberate disinformation or a
     structure for emitting deliberate disinformation became very, very

     Q. What happened at that point in history to bring about that

     A. Well, at the very beginning of World War II there were really
     two schools of thought competing, both of which had government
     agencies. One that was set up was called the Office of War
     Information which was a civilian organization although it worked
     closely with the War Department, as it was then called. And it was
     headed by a man named Elmer Davis who was a very famous reporter
     -- journalist.

     His philosophy was that the agency should tell the American people
     exactly what was happening -- tell them the truth. If we lost a
     battle somewhere in Europe or the Pacific, we should tell the
     people we lost that battle. If we won a battle, we'd tell them we
     won it. But he believed that in the long run we would do best by
     reporting the truth.

     But at the same time another key organization that developed
     during World War II was the Office of Strategic Services, the OSS,
     which was headed by a military man, William Donovan, who was known
     as Wild Bill Donovan, who believed the saying that George Creole
     had -- his philosophy from World War I, which was that you should
     lie to the people whenever it's necessary, whenever you think
     lying will help maintain morale and win the war.

     This struggle was taking place, of course, in the context of World
     War II. And Donovan won both with President Roosevelt and
     afterward with President Truman. His philosophy that
     disinformation was a powerful -- a valuable weapon for a country
     to have, and that the disadvantages of lying to the American
     people were outweighed by the advantages of being able to
     manipulate the media.

     So when the war was over, the Office of War Information was
     dissolved. The OSS was transformed into the CIA. And the CIA was
     now existing in peace time, mind you. World War II is over, and
     now the CIA is set up with this information as a major part of its
     work and, in fact, as most of the reports later pointed out, the
     largest single part of the CIA's operations.

     The -- within the government at least, the acceptability of lying
     to the public became very widespread and acceptable even in time
     of peace. There had been people who felt, well, it's one thing
     when you're at war. But even in time of peace it became
     acceptable, and it spread from other agencies, including the --
     the FBI which also began to engage in media manipulation in a
     very, very large way.

     Q. So in addition to being a war time strategy with respect to the
     security of the nation and the -- the promulgation of -- of
     falsehoods in times of war, this tactic started to be used in
     peace time.

     A. Exactly. That was the major difference. Certain things were --
     were much more acceptable or expected over the course of history
     in time of war and were generally supposed to stop when the war
     was over. Now, there were people who argued in the late 40's that
     the Cold War was a war just like a hot war, and that was the war
     that was on, and that was why we had to do this.

     But what really happened is there were not battles being waged
     between soldiers. There was not a hot war going on anywhere, and
     yet the -- the infrastructure that had been set up to spread
     disinformation to be able to lie became institutionalized and
     became operating at a greater and greater level.

     Q. Mr. Schaap, how is it that some individuals like yourself have
     become more aware of these kinds of practices in our lifetimes
     while the mass of the population has not?

     A. Well, it's mostly because -- by coincidence there were a number
     of factors that came together, mostly in the 1970's, leading to
     major congressional investigations of these activities leading
     some newspapers to fund serious in-depth investigative reports.
     And in the middle and late 70's there were a series -- a huge
     series of congressional reports on intelligence activities, a
     whole section of which was devoted to media activities.

     And then there were major exposes in the New York Times and the
     Washington Post. It was sort of the Watergate mentality, I guess,
     that allowed this to happen. There was a window of a few years
     when exposing government misconduct, particularly past government
     misconduct -- and as far as the government was concerned, the
     older the better. But at least there was a window of opportunity
     where this was acceptable even within the mainstream, the
     establishment press. It was not frowned upon as much as it might
     have been at other times both before and since.

     Q. Before we go into some specific instances of this and details,
     can you explain to the Court and Jury really how does
     disinformation work? And why is it so -- why is it so successful?

     A. Well, you have to understand first the target of propaganda --
     of disinformation. The consumer of the false news so to speak is
     -- in what we're talking about is the American public in general
     and sometimes the public overseas. Disinformation is almost always
     by -- by definition, about things that the average person has no
     separate personal knowledge of, otherwise it couldn't really work.
     I mean, you can't fool the people you're talking about. You can
     fool the other people who don't know about it. You're not trying
     to fool the people you're talking about.

     The simplest example is during the Vietnam War when there was a
     massive bombing campaign and the U.S. was bombing Cambodia.
     President Nixon and Secretary of State Kissinger repeatedly made
     public statements that we were not dropping bombs in Cambodia.
     Well, you couldn't fool the Cambodians who looked up and saw the
     bombs falling in their back yard. They knew you were bombing
     Cambodia. But the American people by and large accepted these
     statements as truth, and in fact that was a disinformation
     campaign that was later admitted.

     You're -- really we're talking about things that the public has no
     separate knowledge of. And it's also reinforced by the fact that
     Americans generally tend to believe what their government tells
     them, to believe that government officials on all levels generally
     tell the truth. And that -- if you have that, that absence of
     skepticism, it's a major plus for the disinformationists.

     And, also, it's very, very unusual around the world other than in
     the United States. In most other countries, particularly in
     Europe, it's much more the opposite. People tend on average to be
     very skeptical of their government. If the Italian government
     issues a statement, the average Italian on the street will say
     it's probably a lie until you can prove to me otherwise that it's
     not a lie. Because governments lie. That's what they -- you know,
     they sort of expect them to do that whereas Americans don't expect

     The average American would hear something from the government or
     hear the news on television and assumes that what they're hearing
     is the truth unless they're shown otherwise. They assume that
     almost nothing is ever a conspiracy. In Europe it's very much the
     opposite. Anything happens. They tend to think it's a conspiracy
     unless you show them that it wasn't a conspiracy.

     I mean, after all, "conspiracy" just means, you know, more than
     one person being involved in something. And if you stop and think
     about it, almost everything significant that happens anywhere
     involves more than one person. Yet here there is a -- not a myth
     really, but there's just an underlying assumption that most things
     are not conspiracies. And when you have that, it enables a
     government which has a propaganda program, has a disinformation
     program, to be relatively successful in -- in having its
     disinformation accepted.

     The other reason why it -- why it works even though as we -- as we
     know, somewhere there are people who know it's not true. Somewhere
     they know you're lying about something. But another reason it
     works is that disinformation is very, very effective over time.
     The longer that you, whoever you are, can control the spin on a
     story, the more that spin becomes accepted as the absolute truth.
     And in this country the government has a great deal of power and
     influence over that spin.

     Q. Why is it so effective over time?

     A. Well, this is an area where I had to consult with other experts
     because it turns out really to be a neurological function. And
     that was first explained to me by a -- a professor at Harvard
     Medical School. And it has to do with the way the human brain
     remembers things, the way we learn things, the way we create
     patterns and associations and reinforce -- well, I don't know how
     you -- it sort of like channels in the brain when certain things
     trigger certain collateral thoughts.

     And when you associate one thing with another over time, just the
     mention of the one brings the association of the other. What this
     will sometimes mean is that even when something is later exposed
     as a lie, if it was accepted as a truth for a long time, the
     exposure of it as a lie is not believed. It's in one ear and out
     the other.

     The best example that we know in my field is one that John
     Stockwell reported on. He was a CIA officer in Angola -- for
     Angola. But they were based -- the CIA station was based in the
     Congo. And when the Cuban troops were sent in to help the Angolans
     fight the South Africans during the early and mid 70's, the CIA's
     task was to try to discredit the Cubans and do whatever it could
     to make people around the world think it was a terrible thing that
     the Cubans were helping the Angolans.

     So Stockwell's group in Congo sat down, and one guy says to the
     other guy, let's think of something terrible to say that the
     Cubans did. And another guy says, hey, why don't we say they're
     raping Angolan women. That would be a great thing to say. The
     other guy says, terrific. And they call in their media experts,
     and they start sitting there at their desk at the CIA office and
     they start typing out these news stories about how a group of
     Cuban soldiers raped a bunch of Angolan women in some operation.
     And then they write Story Number 2 which is that the villagers got
     incensed and decided they didn't want the Cubans anymore, and they
     were going to find the fellows who did it and arrest them. And in
     Story Number 3 the villagers captured the Cubans. In Story Number
     4 they were tried by a jury of the women victims and they were
     later executed with their own weapons.

     And they made a series of about 12 newspaper stories in a row. And
     with one phone call and one visit, it went over the wire services,
     it went into Europe, it went into the United States, it went
     around the world. And for about a six-month period there were all
     these stories about the horrible Cuban rapes in Angola. And what
     that does is when you hear -- the average person hears Angola or
     Cuban, they'll think rape of the women. And if they hear rape of
     the women, they will think Angola or Cubans. And if you get
     Angola, they'll think Cubans and rape of the women.

     And these patterns build up so that that becomes the truth
     embedded in your mind. Four years later John Stockwell quit the
     CIA and wrote a book exposing it. Wrote a big piece for the New
     York Times about how the entire Cuban/Angola story was a
     fabrication. And he sat there at the desk typing it. And the day
     after that story appeared, there was still 900 million people
     around the world who thought the phony story was true.

     Because when year, after year, after year you hear that something
     was the case, one story -- one day saying, hey, the whole thing
     was a lie, and it doesn't register on their brain. It can't beat
     those -- those patterns that have been built up.

     Q. Let's go back now taking an example -- let's go back now to the
     general area of intelligence because all of this activity is
     useless unless there's a structure into which it fits and into
     which it can be put out. Can you deal with the kind of structure
     of media operations that puts out this kind of disinformation. How
     extensive is it?

     A. Yes. We can be -- we have a lot of information about the CIA.
     We have a certain amount of information about the FBI, a certain
     amount about military intelligence. And the reason for this is
     because there were those congressional investigations that I
     mentioned before. There have been reports published, particularly
     from the Church Committee in the late 70's, where they published
     volume after volume describing the extent of media operations by
     the CIA and -- and other agencies.

     They -- the exact amounts of money that were being spent were --
     were not divulged by those initial reports because that was
     considered to be classified. The intelligence budgets are always
     classified except at the same time every few weeks you'll read
     something in the newspaper where they say, the classified budget,
     which is approximately 25 billion dollars, and so on and so on and
     so forth.

     So what we -- what we have learned from these reports is that --
     the first thing was that about a third of the whole CIA budget
     went to media propaganda operations.

     Q. Well, if a third of the CIA's budget went to media propaganda
     operations, how much would that be approximately?

     A. We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars a year just
     for that. I mean, the intelligence budget -- now everything
     together is according to these -- all these reports that say it's
     secret, but it's about 25 to 30 billion dollars a year.

     Now, a lot of that is high-tech stuff. It has nothing to do with
     what we're talking about -- satellites and so on. But the stuff
     that goes to the CIA is several billion. And when you factor out
     overhead and things like that, you have got your operational
     amount. Most of the estimates suggest that -- that hundreds of
     billion -- hundreds of millions of dollars -- close to a billion
     dollars are being spent every year by the United States on secret

     Again, we have fairly good figures for the CIA because it at least
     has been admitted in the past that they did do this stuff. They
     admit they do it now except they say they don't do it within the
     United States. But they admit that that's part of what they do.

     The FBI is much harder to -- to get figures for because they don't
     generally admit to conducting media operations. And unless and
     until something gets exposed and they have to admit that
     particular operation, they -- they deny to an extent where it's
     really hard to try and estimate how much money is being used by
     the FBI and by the military intelligence agencies.

     But it's sort of clear that hundreds of millions of dollars a year
     are being spent by various aspects of the government on
     deliberately creating and spreading lies.

     Q. Before we get into the specifics of media operations related to
     the Martin Luther King case and James Earl Ray, can you give us --
     just to finish the background, can you give us some idea of the
     influence that the CIA and the FBI have had over the media.

     A. Yes. Again, this was something that very specific figures came
     out in the 70's and 80's, and we don't know the precise figures.
     Today we have no reason to think that they are significantly less
     than when they came out. But when the Church Committee reported on
     the CIA media operations, for example, beyond friends in the
     press, beyond having people who were just generally -- thought
     along similar lines, it turned out that they had thousands of
     journalists in their employ. Not merely friendly, not merely
     agents, not merely someone you could pass a story to, but people
     who might have appeared to the outside world to be a reporter for
     CBS was in fact a CIA employee getting a salary from the CIA.

     And that was repeated thousands of times all around the world.
     They also owned outright, the CIA -- about that time 250 or more
     media organizations. That's wire services, newspapers, magazines,
     radio, TV stations -- all around the world that they owned
     outright. The actual shareholder of the company turned out to be
     some CIA front.

     The Church Committee, unfortunately, did not name very many of
     these organizations because those that got named, of course, had
     to close down immediately. But it was learned that -- even things
     like the Rome Daily American, which was a major English language
     newspaper in Rome, for 20 or 30 years had been owned by the CIA.
     This was published and, of course, the paper closed the next day.

     But most people didn't realize the extent of the intelligence
     media organization. It's fairly incredible. They sort of brag
     about it. When you read the books about the history of the CIA,
     one of the heroes was the first man in charge of media operations,
     a man named Frank Wisner. And they referred to his organization as
     the Mighty Wurlitzer. And there's this image of this guy sitting
     at one of those giant organs, you know, with seventeen keyboards
     and you're playing this -- sort of like The Phantom of the Opera
     in that scene, and there was the guy running the CIA media
     operations all around the world. And he really was because every
     single city of any size on earth, he had some employee who was --
     supposedly worked for a newspaper or a magazine or a radio station
     or a wire service, and they could get stories anywhere.

     Q. Can you give just one or two more specific examples.

     A. Yes. There was one -- actually in an article that was published
     written by a former CIA officer named James Willcot, who was not
     in the propaganda division, he was in finance. But he was so
     amazed he wrote a little article about this. And he was stationed
     in Japan one time when there was a big debate raging there over
     whether nuclear power ships should be able to dock in Japanese
     ports. It's been a very touchy issue -- at least since Hiroshima
     it's been a very touchy issue in Japan -- even peaceful uses of
     nuclear power.

     And the U.S. line was to promote the docking of nuclear power
     ships because the U.S. had more and more of them. So they wanted
     the Japanese papers to editorialize in favor of this in the debate
     that was going on.

     And Jim said he looked and he saw this guy at a nearby desk sit
     down and type -- this is a CIA officer, an employee of the U.S.
     Government -- type an editorial and then wave goodbye to
     everybody, left the office. The next morning that appeared as the
     editorial -- the lead editorial in the largest newspaper in Japan.
     Now, that level -- they didn't go to a friendly publisher and say,
     gee, we would sort of like it if you could maybe do something a
     little bit favorable to this issue. They wrote the editorial, they
     handed it to the guy. And the next day in Japanese it appears in
     the paper.

     Another thing showing the influence here in this country was
     during the Vietnam War. I don't know if -- well, some people
     might. People my age will remember it. There was -- Life magazine
     that had a cover picture of a North Vietnamese stamp that showed
     the Vietnamese shooting down American planes. And it showed U.S.
     planes with U.S. markings being burst into flames and crashing and
     U.S. pilots being killed. And it was a pretty bizarre and gruesome
     set of postage stamps.

     And there was a whole story in there basically trying to give the
     line that the Vietnamese were glorifying the killing of Americans.
     And they thought it was so great to kill Americans that they were
     putting it on their postage stamps. The only thing that was later
     learned is that these were not North Vietnamese stamps. They were
     CIA forgeries. Had never been real stamps. And the CIA was able to
     have them appear on the cover of Life magazine as if they were the
     real thing.

     That level of influence is something that many people don't
     realize. And when you read the congressional reports, page after
     page after page, it's absolutely astonishing how, given the
     urgency and given that they have hundreds of millions of dollars
     at their command, they could get almost anything to appear almost

     Q. What about the FBI and domestic propaganda?

     A. Well, the FBI, there's much less documentation, again, because
     the official position is that the FBI doesn't do this. Whereas the
     official position is the CIA does do it although they tried not to
     talk about it. But what did come out in the congressional reports
     primarily is that a major FBI division that was called the crime
     reporting division was theoretically supposed to keep track of how
     federal crimes were being reported. Why that was their business, I
     don't know. But that's what its theory was.

     But in fact what it was doing was a whole division set up to keep
     track of journalists and reporters and magazines and newspapers to
     decide who could be counted on to write stories that the FBI
     wanted written, who would slant stories the way they wanted it.

     The question of whether these particular reporters were actually
     FBI employees, like so many were CIA employees, is unclear. That's
     never been admitted by the government that the FBI actually took
     its own employees and had them get a job as a correspondent on the
     newspaper, whereas we know the CIA did that in many, many places.
     There's no reason to think they couldn't have done it other than
     the fact that it hasn't yet been -- been exposed.

     But in any event, there were significant pressures available to
     the FBI to -- to use their friends. And the Church Committee
     report gives -- gives many, many examples -- copies of memos from
     Hoover on down where there would be a thing attached and say, get
     this information to our friends at the Copely News Service, get
     this information to our friends at Reader's Digest, get this to
     our friendly AP reporter and so on.

     And then, of course, they would show the clipping indicating that
     in fact someone had gotten it to their friends, and it would then
     go over the wires or appear in stories.

     Q. Let's turn now to the use of the media in this type of campaign
     against Martin Luther King, Jr. But before you do that, could you
     tell the Court and the Jury, what are the sources of -- underlying
     your testimony -- this aspect of it.

     A. Yes. I did a goodly amount of additional research and
     preparation and contemplation of appearing here. And there really
     are two main sources. The first, of course, is the various
     congressional reports that we have talked about. In addition to
     reports about the general operations or misconduct of the CIA or
     the FBI, there have been specific studies -- I don't know if they
     have been mentioned in this case, but there have been specific
     studies relating to Martin Luther King, Jr., both with respect to
     attacks on him while he was alive and also specific reports with
     respect to his murder.

     There was an entire volume published from one of the Senate
     investigations on the FBI media campaign against Dr. King. [See
     Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental
     Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities of the United
     States Senate, 94th Congress, 2nd Session, 1976, Book III, Dr.
     Martin Luther King, Jr., Case Study --ratitor] And there was a
     House Committee that published a volume investigating his
     assassination. And these, of course, are the -- the most important
     sources for what I'm talking about and what other people have
     written about because they have a great deal of government
     documentation in them which no private journalist could ever get
     their hands on.

     There are things in there that even the best of research wouldn't
     be able to obtain. But the congressional committees had subpoena
     powers and were able to amass thousands of documents, most of
     which were photocopied and attached to their reports.

     Q. For our purposes here, as well as those sources, what other
     sources have you used?

     A. Well, I've also, of course, reviewed many books that have been
     written on the subject -- hundreds of articles. And I've -- I've
     done briefcases full of clippings that were major stories written
     about Dr. King, particularly in the last few years of his life.
     And then the -- most of the coverage in the first few years of the
     James Earl Ray case. Both before and after his guilty plea there
     was intensive coverage, as you can imagine.

     And throughout the 60's and into the early 70's, there was quite a
     bit of coverage, and those clippings that I've been able to find
     I've reviewed. Some of the sporadic coverage in the 80's and 90's
     I've also been able to assemble and review, although the level of
     that coverage has decreased very much over the last decade or so.

     Q. What do the congressional reports -- if you can summarize them,
     give some instances, what do the congressional reports tell us
     about the FBI's use of the media in general but then particularly
     as it relates to Dr. King?

     A. Well, in general, the first thing they show is that throughout
     its history, the FBI has made relations with the media a key area.
     Not so much infiltrating employees as the CIA did, but cultivating
     very, very deep connections throughout the American media. They
     had the entire division of the FBI -- the crime reporting division
     was dealing solely with developing friendly journalists,
     developing ways in which you could get what you wanted to appear
     in the papers to be there and what you didn't want not to be there
     on a level that was -- nobody realized until these -- these
     reports came out.

     The crime reporting division was keeping track of virtually every
     journalist in America that wrote anything that had to do with the
     FBI. And whether everything was being classified as friendly or
     unfriendly, it -- of course, it was somewhat complicated because
     it generally meant: Did J. Edgar Hoover like what they wrote or
     not like what they wrote? And practically -- the opinion of nobody
     else at the FBI mattered while Hoover was alive.

     But he kept charts on every significant journalist as to who was
     helpful. And when you look through the reports and the documents
     that have come out, you will see statements by Hoover and his
     immediate subordinates get this information to friendly
     journalists. Get this to our friend at U.S. News and World Report.
     Get this to some friendly reporters in Memphis. And you just see
     all that sort of stuff.

     Interestingly though, this information -- it never mattered
     whether the information was true or false. That was not what it
     was about. You find FBI planting information that's true, you find
     them planting information that's false. The critical thing was if
     they had the friend at that media place, that friend was going to
     run what they wanted without investigating it.

     Q. Could you just cut through -- tell us what the Church Committee
     said about CoIntellPro reports and explain to the Court and the
     Jury what were the CoIntellPro activities.

     A. CoIntellPro was Counter Intelligence Program, and that was the
     -- the major FBI program to counter what it conceived to be
     threats to American democracy. And it was, at least in my opinion,
     rather paranoid in what it considered threats. It had divisions
     trying to operate against communists, against socialists, against
     the New Left, against the Old Left, against what they referred to
     as Black Nationalists, what they referred to as hate groups. They
     had a separate section just on the Nation of Islam. They had a
     separate section on the Civil Rights Movement. They had a hybrid
     program on CommInfil which was to deal with the possibility that
     communists were infiltrating non-communist groups.

     So they had one section trying to disrupt groups they felt were
     communist influence or dangerous, and another one trying to
     infiltrate groups or find out about groups that they thought other
     people were infiltrating.

     Basically they -- and, of course, you have to understand, "counter
     intelligence program" was really a misnomer. Because counter
     intelligence normally means you're trying to find things out.
     Counter intelligence officers in war time and in espionage are
     supposed to be finding out information. But these were active
     committees, not passive. And what counter intelligence programs
     were, were overt attempts -- sometimes very, very complicated
     operations to disrupt organizations which they felt were a threat
     regardless of whether the organizations were committing any

     I mean, the irony of this is that while the FBI theoretically was
     supposed to limit itself to investigating crimes, and federal
     crimes at that, it basically took the position that, you know,
     thinking bad thoughts was a crime. Or if you didn't like the
     current government of that day, that was a crime. And if J. Edgar
     Hoover decided the group should be disrupted, then CoIntellPro
     would sit down and figure out how to disrupt it.

     Q. Where was Dr. King in this constellation? Where did they -- how
     did they regard him? How was he targeted?

     A. Well, he was just about the top of the list in terms of J.
     Edgar Hoover for reasons that are still unclear. Many books have
     been written about J. Edgar Hoover, and I don't think anybody
     quite understands what made him tick. He hated Dr. King. He made
     no bones about it. I mean, he would -- he would send letters using
     -- referring to him as garbage, referring to him as slime.

     When Martin Luther King was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, he
     wrote a long diatribe about how that was the most ridiculous thing
     he ever heard of in his life, and in fact started a whole thing to
     disrupt the Nobel Peace Prize program. But he and the SCLC, as Dr.
     King's organization, were by themselves a major target of the FBI
     from early on. He certainly was being investigated in the 50's. It
     wasn't until the early 60's that it really intensified.

     But Hoover was much more public about Dr. King than almost any
     other individual. He would be public about "the communists" or
     "the terrorists" or whatever. But Martin Luther King he
     specifically used -- used the most horrendous language to describe
     him. And once went on a -- the only time he ever gave a press
     interview called him -- called Martin Luther King the most
     notorious liar in the history of the United States.

     Q. Okay.

     A. And he was saying that because King had had the temerity to say
     that the FBI agents in the south weren't being terribly helpful to
     blacks who were having problems with the racism there.

     Q. Can you give an example of some of the media operations that
     the FBI and Hoover mounted against Dr. King's organization.

     A. Sure. The first really significant ones were -- were to -- to
     suggest that the Southern Christian Leadership Conference was
     communist infiltrated and communist dominated. They -- the FBI had
     prepared dossiers on King and on everybody who was working with
     him and had two people who were close to Dr. King who had at some
     time in the past had some affiliations with communists.

     You should understand, because this came out later, they had no
     evidence whatsoever that either of these two people was at that
     time a communists or that either of these two people was trying to
     impose some communist line on Dr. King, but they decided to say
     that anyway.

     And they prepared dossiers on these two -- one was a white lawyer,
     Stanley Levinson, the other was a black organizer named Jack
     O'Dell. And what they did is they -- the same way, get us a friend
     at this paper, get us a friend there. They started planting
     stories. And I think I've --

     Q. Let me -- let me --

     A. -- given you one of the key ones.

     Q. Yes, let's pull up on the stand one of the stories -- screen
     one of the stories that they planted.

     A. That's the second page. I think the headline is -- right. This
     was a major story about -- about Jack O'Dell and an attempt to --
     I mean, they were attempting to discredit Dr. King and the
     organization. They were not -- they were not trying to just get
     rid of O'Dell because that would be better for the organization.
     But they spread this -- this particular clipping, I believe, is
     from The Atlanta Constitution. But it says in it that -- it makes
     reference to prior articles in the St. Louis Globe Democrat, in
     the New Orleans Times Picayune. The story which was essentially
     based on the FBI spreading this -- this information appeared all
     over the country.

     Q. Other than a general attack, is there anything -- anything else
     significant about this -- this article?

     A. Well, actually, this is a good one because it demonstrates some
     of the techniques they used. The most significant one is being
     fuzzy whenever you can. It has -- in there it talks -- it refers
     to O'Dell and says: "Has been identified as a member of the
     National Committee of the Communist Party."

     And that -- this is sort of the passive tense to avoid saying what
     -- what you know. When you say someone has been -- you don't say
     who identified him. You don't even say whether this identification
     has been confirmed. You don't say whether it's true or false. I
     mean, you know, one person anywhere can say something about
     anybody, and then you say he has been identified as a such and

     That's very important, particularly because we -- that's in the
     present tense. It says: "Has been identified as a member of the
     communist party." We know now that at the time, when the FBI gave
     this information to its friend, they knew that was untrue. Because
     they knew -- whatever might have been ten years before, they knew
     at that time that he was not a member of the Communist Party and
     yet they sent out this information saying he has been identified
     as a member of the Communist Party.

     Q. Was this a part of a broader effort on the part of the FBI to
     discredit the Black Movement and to tie the Civil Rights Movement
     to communists generally and communist infiltration?

     A. Very much so. It was one of the -- the few instances where --
     where Hoover actually testified before Congress and allowed the
     testimony to be public. He -- the line was that the -- the Black
     Movement -- the Civil Rights Movement was being exploited by
     communists. And this particular clipping is another example --
     again, this is from the New York Times -- of this program. These
     are all -- despite the fact that many of them have bylines,
     although this one does not have a byline, these are all based on
     material packets -- press packets almost that were prepared by the
     FBI and given to their -- to their friends in these -- in these

     And in this case, it's even more significant because this was part
     of a campaign that was so organized that Hoover got his friends to
     write stories about it before his testimony became public so that
     when the testimony then became public, as it did for this one,
     people would know about it. One of his very, very close friends
     was Stewart -- Joseph Alsop, who was a syndicated national
     columnist back then. And this was Alsop's column about the
     terribly sad fact that the Civil Rights Movement in America was
     totally being run by the communists.

     This, again, was based on whatever the FBI handed him and asked
     him to publish. This was just one week before the other story
     where the -- where the testimony became public.

     Q. There was an escalating battle between Hoover's FBI and Martin
     Luther King's SCLC and the Civil Rights and then anti-war
     activities. What -- how did it intensify from the standpoint of
     media operations against Dr. King?

     A. Well, the first real escalation was in sixty -- in late '64
     when I mentioned before that Hoover gave a press conference and
     called King the most notorious liar in the country. This was sort
     of a -- it was shocking that he said it, it was shocking that he
     said it in the context of a public meeting with journalists. And
     it appeared all over the country. And the whole conference was
     reprinted in U.S. News and World Report with a short response from
     -- from Dr. King.

     That was the start of -- of a campaign which continued right up
     until -- until King's death. I mentioned before that during the
     Nobel Peace Prize period of time this was in -- the nomination was
     in late '64, and he received it in January of '65. Hoover had the
     FBI do everything they could to minimize -- he couldn't stop the
     Swedish and Norwegian governments from giving him the prize. But
     he did everything that he could to try to stop it from being
     honored here.

     There was a major banquet in Dr. King's honor in Atlanta when he
     came back from receiving the prize. Hoover got the editor of the
     Atlanta Constitution personally to go around and try and persuade
     various people not to attend the banquet. There were also a series
     of articles around this time trying to show that -- that King was
     being influenced by communists which were being -- again, we
     learned this from reports.

     The FBI, as the CIA, was actually writing the articles anonymously
     and then trying to get their friends in papers to print the
     article under somebody else's name. And there were a whole series,
     some of which actually did get printed, some of which didn't.
     There were also -- I won't go -- I mean, there are big -- hundreds
     and hundreds of pages of reports detailing all the things that the
     FBI did.

     They -- one of the most outrageous was a doctored tape recording
     that was prepared that purported to -- to be a recording of Dr.
     King engaging in raucous and possibly sexual activities with
     various people. It turned out to be -- most of it was totally
     fraudulent. And what wasn't fraudulent did not have to do with
     anything torrid going on. It was all put together. And the tape --
     in fact, the tape was originally used -- and this is one of the
     things that the House Committee found the most outrageous -- in an
     attempt to try and drive Dr. King to commit suicide.

     Shortly before he went to get the Nobel Prize, the tape was mailed
     to him with a long letter basically saying, if you don't kill
     yourself, we're going to make this public. Nothing ever happened
     because he was getting so much mail that this thing that somebody
     thought was -- somebody made a tape of one of his speeches. And
     they put it in the back room, and they didn't get to look at it
     until about nine months later, long after he had come back.

     And then they saw the note trying to get him to commit suicide.
     And then, ten years later, we discover that it was the FBI who
     wrote that note and made that tape and mailed it to Dr. King.

     THE COURT: Let's take a few seconds and stretch.

     (Brief break taken.)

     THE COURT: Bring in the Jury.

     (Jury In.)

     Q. (BY MR. PEPPER) Mr. Schaap, you've described an awesome power
     that exists in government influenced and controlled, sometimes
     owned, media -- print, audio, visual media entities -- and how
     that infrastructure gets focused on opponents of the United States
     such as Martin Luther King.

     Do you see how this incredible power was brought against Dr. King
     and intensified against him during the last year of his life?

     A. Yes. I think the -- the main reason for that was very, very
     specific. There was one speech that Dr. King gave in April of 1967
     at Riverside Church in New York City where he came out against the
     war in Vietnam. And if you remember back to that period of time,
     this was a fundamental debate gripping every aspect of this
     country, the pros and cons of the involvement in Vietnam.

     And when Dr. King came out against the U.S. involvement there,
     this was immediately accepted by J. Edgar Hoover as proof that he
     was a communist, proof that he was a terrible person.

     Q. But didn't this have the effect of unifying all the forces --
     all of the intelligence forces of the United States, and so now
     just -- it was not just an FBI matter, but it -- it seemed to
     spread to military intelligence, central intelligence and other
     areas too, didn't it?

     A. Absolutely. Once Dr. King made that statement, the CIA in
     particular considered him and his movement fair game. Even to the
     extent that their operations were limited to foreign policy, the
     -- again, because of the congressional investigations, we know
     that the CIA, which people thought did not operate domestically
     within the U.S., had a huge domestic program called Operation
     Chaos which was designed to counter opposition to the Vietnam War.

     And even though they later admitted it was illegal and later
     admitted they shouldn't have been doing it, there have been whole
     books of congressional reports about all the Operation Chaos
     activity in the United States, and what they called Black
     Nationalists were a specific target of that -- that campaign.

     Q. Did this continue into 1968 in his activities with the
     Sanitation Workers' Strike in Memphis and planning for the Poor
     People's Campaign in Washington?

     A. Absolutely. The campaign against Dr. King's activities went up
     to the very last day of his life. In particular, on the -- his
     involvement with the strike in Memphis, the FBI decided at that
     point to try to spread stories that he was encouraging violence.
     One of the -- the key articles was in the Christian Science
     Monitor at the end of March of '68 and, again, gives all of the --
     the themes that the FBI wanted -- wanted planted, particularly
     about violence.

     The article uses bizarre language for something about a small
     strike in a medium-sized town that, you know, was something but
     was not like an earth-shaking event. This was the Sanitation
     Workers' Strike. And this story refers to it as a potentially
     cataclysmic racial confrontation. Not quite World War III, but
     along that kind of language.

     And stories that began to appear -- and this was just before Dr.
     King was killed -- were -- were suggesting that he was closely
     allied with violent forces.

     Q. Mr. Schaap, this Court and Jury has heard testimony from a
     former New York Times reporter who was told by his national editor
     -- Times reporters in this courtroom notwithstanding -- told by
     his national editor, Claude Sitton, to go to Memphis and nail Dr.
     King. Those were the words Earl Caldwell used in his testimony
     here. Is that the kind of thing you're talking about?

     A. Oh, absolutely. Hoover was -- you see from the memos in the
     report -- and Lord knows what we don't know and haven't seen --
     was sending people out everywhere to talk to all of their friendly
     media contacts to get King. And they would usually deliver packets
     of information, much of it false, to be used as part of the -- of
     the campaign. They also were -- used a lot of interesting tactics.

     And you see in these stories a lot of fuzzy -- I mean, the story
     that's on the screen, for example, has a sentence in it near the
     end where it says: "Many blacks have mixed feelings about Dr.
     King." I mean, this is a -- they teach you in Journalism 101 not
     to use sentences like that. What does it mean "many blacks"? Many
     -- everybody had mixed feelings about everything. If you want to
     do it, you say who has what feelings.

     But the whole thing was to try to say he's violent, he's hanging
     around with violent people, and basically the blacks in this
     country shouldn't support him.

     Q. What was this operation like -- this media blitz, this media
     disinformation campaign? What was it like after Dr. King was

     A. Well, for one thing, the attempts to discredit Dr. King --
     particularly the FBI attempts -- did not stop after his death.
     They continued to send out their little dossiers and reports and
     phony information to try and discredit his memory. They also -- in
     the beginning when, of course, the assassin had not yet been
     caught or, rather, no one yet had been caught and charged with the
     assassination, had to give the impression that the FBI was doing a
     great job.

     I mean, one of the criticisms that was unavoidable is when Hoover
     had already publicly attacked Dr. King in all these magazines and
     said he thought he was a liar and thought he was the worst problem
     facing the United States and so on, it became a problem for the
     FBI then to try and convince America that they were doing
     everything in their power to apprehend his killer. And to do that,
     they had to pull out all the stops and get all their friendly
     columnists writing story after story that they were doing
     everything they could. And also subsequently to try and add to the
     stories that they were convinced that James Earl Ray was the lone

     Q. Let me put up this article. This story relates to a Jack
     Anderson column.

     A. Yes. This is interesting for what it reveals later. This was a
     story that came out in 1975. That's actually an interesting
     example of Jack Anderson criticizing a group of people, of whom he
     fails to mention he was one at the time. It's something that
     happens often when columnists decide to clear the -- clear the

     But he was reporting at this time about how the FBI had waged the
     campaign against Dr. King, how he knew about it, how he knew about
     all these gross accusations that were being -- being handed out.
     It's -- I mean, the story is only interesting because why didn't
     he say it at the time is one's first thought. But at least he
     stayed abreast of some of it. He also was able to -- to explain
     that a number of rumors about Dr. King had been proven to be not
     true. What he didn't know at the time because the Congressional
     Report came out a little bit later -- what he didn't know is that
     even the FBI at the time they were spreading the stories when Dr.
     King was alive knew that the stories were not true.

     Q. Now, at the same time they were trying to discredit Dr. King
     and continued to discredit his name after he was killed, they were
     trying to enhance the -- the manhunt and the law enforcement work
     during that time.

     A. Yes. Not only enhance, but use hyperbole that was pretty
     bizarre. Although, of course, you can understand the pressures
     that were on them when no one had been caught. Drew Pearson, who
     was a very close friend of Hoover's, had a nationally syndicated
     column and wrote one basically designed to try and kill the rumors
     that Hoover wasn't trying hard because he didn't like King.

     And in it Pearson says he is convinced that the FBI is conducting
     perhaps the most painstaking exhaustive manhunt ever before
     undertaken in the United States. Why -- how he would know is
     beyond us, but that's clearly what Hoover told him to say. They
     also -- I don't have the clipping here. But they also had another
     one of their very close operatives, Jeremiah O'Leary, who was then
     with the Washington Star, did an article for the Reader's Digest.
     And he went one beyond Pearson and said it was the greatest
     manhunt in law enforcement history in the world. So he was now
     saying this wasn't only the greatest manhunt in America, it was
     the greatest manhunt ever, anywhere.

     There were -- there are a whole -- and, of course, when Ray was
     arrested, then there was a state of sort of self-congratulatory
     columns done by the same friends of the FBI showing what a
     wonderful job they had done.

     Q. Are there any other aspects of this coverage after Dr. King's
     death that were clearly media operations?

     A. Well, there certainly are in my opinion. At this point, once we
     get beyond the things that have been admitted in the Congressional
     Reports, I'm drawing my conclusions based on my own experience and
     expertise. But it certainly seems clear that there were media
     operations around -- not only that the FBI had done a wonderful
     job, but also on the -- the campaign to demonstrate that -- not
     only that James Earl Ray had done it, but that he had acted alone.

     Q. What are the possible operations that you actually see?

     A. Well, there -- you see in stories, again by friends of the FBI,
     statements like: It looks like the theory that there was a
     conspiracy is untrue. The FBI has exploded the theory that there
     was a conspiracy. The -- even people who had -- see, they -- they
     got caught a little bit because in the beginning they were
     planting stories that had conspiracy -- I mean, there was a story
     that the FBI planted at the very beginning saying that Dr. King
     had been killed by the husband -- by an irate husband of a lover
     of his.

     Now, later -- ten years later we saw that this was invented and
     that they had made up this story. But then they were sort of
     stuck. Because if you're saying that Ray was hired by somebody
     else to do it, that's a conspiracy. So then they had to drop that
     story because now the line was there was no conspiracy. Now
     they're saying -- and the same people. Pearson mentioned that
     story and then later on denounced the generally prevalent theory
     that the murder involved a conspiracy without pointing out that he
     was one of the people who were part of the original prevalent

     Even -- particularly, actually, after the guilty plea, when it got
     -- there was no longer a judicial proceeding going on about which
     they could feed the stories they wanted to, they still felt a
     compulsion to periodically come up with stories that there was no
     conspiracy, there was no plot. This one on the screen being
     another one of these -- these examples.

     Q. This is the continuation of the lone killer, lone nut gunman
     that was -- had to be perpetuated throughout the period of James
     Earl Ray's incarceration?

     A. Absolutely. It never -- because Ray insisted virtually from the
     day of the plea that there was a conspiracy, they felt compelled
     to -- to continue to plant these -- these stories. They -- they
     went on for a number of years at a very intense level, and then it
     sort of petered off.

     But in the first year after the plea of guilty, Anderson wrote a
     number of columns saying there just wasn't any conspiracy. Max
     Lerner wrote columns saying Ray was the killer, there's nothing to
     the conspiracy theory. And when -- another example of how they --
     they fuzzied it was even at the time of the plea, there was a
     story on the -- in the Washington Post, which I think I've given
     you a copy of, where they said: No evidence of any plot, Jury is

     Now that isn't really what the Jury was told. But if you read the
     story, it was that the prosecution was not presenting any evidence
     of a plot, which is very different from saying -- of course, they
     didn't present any evidence that there wasn't a plot either. Yet
     if you look at that headline, it looks like something has been
     said and done in court showing a jury there was no -- no plot. And
     that's not what happened. It wasn't -- it wasn't discussed either

     And they -- they -- there was a story I believe the next week in
     the Washington Post where the title of the story was: "Ray Alone
     Still Talks of a Plot." Which, again, journalistically was
     ridiculous. Because there were millions upon millions of Americans
     talking about whether there was a plot. And a story which, you
     know, tries to create the impression that James Earl Ray was stark
     raving mad and was the only person in America who thought there
     might have been a plot.

     That campaign went -- and, in fact, they then said, well, what we
     really meant was that he's the only person who is officially
     involved in the proceedings and thinks there's a plot, everyone
     else doesn't. And even that wasn't true because the next day there
     was a story in the papers that the -- the judge here -- the judge
     at the time, Judge Battle, wasn't sure and thought maybe there had
     been a plot and certainly made it clear that under Tennessee law
     if further -- if co-conspirators came up or were arrested or
     indicted, they would be subject to -- to trial.

     Q. Let me pass this article to you and ask you to look at that,
     Mr. Schaap. That's an article that appeared in the New York Times,
     Column 1 on the 17th of November, 1978, right at the time when the
     -- both Ray brothers were being questioned and examined in public
     before the House Select Committee on Assassination. And that
     article speaks of an independent investigation by the New York
     Times and the FBI and the Select Committee, into an Alton,
     Illinois, bank robbery -- an investigation which never took place
     because it's now been established.

     Is that an example of the type of disinformation that one finds in
     an attempt to train the public minds?

     A. Oh, absolutely. Given the fact that subsequently it was shown
     that they were not suspects in that robbery, it -- the first thing
     it means is that the -- the reporter is saying some things which
     had to have been simply fed to him and not checked. Because if
     you're saying something happened, which in fact very, very basic
     journalism would have proven didn't happen, you are either doing
     it on your own to spread some disinformation, which is extremely
     unlikely, or you're being asked to put a spin on something that
     you know is going to -- to be coming out.

     The -- again, I'm -- I don't know what happened in Alton,
     Illinois. But if, as I understand there's been testimony, it is
     clear that the Ray brothers were not suspects in that case, this
     story is clearly disinformation because it's designed to make it
     appear not only that they were suspects in that case but that they
     did it, and to make it appear that two investigations confirmed
     that whereas, since we know it wasn't true, it's impossible that
     either investigation could have confirmed it.

     Q. Let me ask you finally -- this has been a long road -- how you
     regard -- what is your explanation for the fact that there has
     been such little national media coverage of these -- of this trial
     and this evidence and this event here in this Memphis courtroom,
     which is the first trial ever to be able to produce evidence on
     this assassination -- what has happened here that Mighty Wurlitzer
     is not sounding but is in fact totally silent -- almost totally

     A. Oh, but -- as we know, silence can be deafening. Disinformation
     is not only getting certain things to appear in print, it's also
     getting certain things not to appear in print. I mean, the first
     -- the first thing I would say as a way of explanation is the
     incredibly powerful effect of disinformation over a long period of
     time that I mentioned before. For 30 years the official line has
     been that James Earl Ray killed Martin Luther King and he did it
     all by himself. That's 30 years, not -- nothing like the short
     period when the line was that the Cubans raped the Angolan women.
     But for 30 years it's James Earl Ray killed Dr. King, did it all
     by himself.

     And when that is imprinted in the minds of the general public for
     30 years, if somebody stood up and confessed and said: I did it.
     Ray didn't do it, I did it. Here's a movie. Here's a video showing
     me do it. 99 percent of the people wouldn't believe him because it
     just -- it just wouldn't click in the mind. It would just go right
     to -- it couldn't be. It's just a powerful psychological effect
     over 30 years of disinformation that's been imprinted on the
     brains of the -- the public. Something to the country couldn't --
     couldn't be.

     Q. Not only -- excuse me. Not only psychological, but weren't you
     also saying neurological?

     A. Yes. I'm not a doctor. But what I understood is that these --
     the brain's patterns of thinking are a physical aspect of the
     human brain. That's how we develop patterns of thought, how we
     develop associations.

     And then, of course, the Mighty Wurlitzer we talked about is still
     there, it's still playing its tune. And even though you might
     think 30 years is a long time, that almost everybody who might get
     in trouble is probably dead by now, that's -- that's how it works.
     People obtain influence, people make vast sums of money through
     this propaganda. Those people pass that influence on to others,
     they pass the money down the line, and all of that can be at risk
     for a very, very long time.

     There are documents from the investigation of the assassination of
     Abraham Lincoln that are still classified. Don't ask me why, but
     they were originally sealed for 100 years. And then in 1965
     President Linden Johnson said, well, it's so close to the Kennedy
     assassination, if people read the Lincoln documents, it might make
     them think funny things about Kennedy, so he classified them for
     another 50 years. So now the grand children of anybody around
     Lincoln was around are long dead, and these documents are still --
     still classified. And we're talking today about a case that's 100
     years more immediate than Lincoln. And the establishment is still
     the establishment.

     Q. Mr. Schaap, thank you very much for joining us this afternoon.

     A. Thank you.

     MR. PEPPER: Nothing further, Your Honor.

     THE COURT: Just a moment. Mr. Garrison?

     MR. GARRISON: Your Honor, I have no questions of this witness.

     THE COURT: You have nothing. Very well. Sir, you may stand down.
     Thank you very much.

     THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.

     (Witness excused.)

     (Court adjourned until December 1, 1999, at 10:00 a.m.)

     http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/MLKv9Schaap.html  (hypertext)
     http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/MLKv9Schaap.txt   (text only)
     http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/MLKv9Schaap.pdf  (print ready)

The US. Government Funded Your Favorite ‘NSA-proof’ Software.

The Snowden revelations about the NSA’s spying programs have shocked the world. While there was earlier evidence of US government spying, few thought that the NSA would try to wire-tap the entire planet. Basically, our online communications were essentially sitting ducks for curious NSA employees. Soon after the Snowden leaks, software programs were being marketed as “NSA-proof” on websites like Prism-Break. Many people believed that these software programs would make them safer. The truth however is that many of these programs were actually funded by the US government. Recently, the Associated Press published a story on USAID’s plot to fund a twitter-like app named ZunZuneo to help foment unrest in Cuba. USAID is not the only US government agency financing technology projects.

For most software projects, there are no requirements to publish their funding sources. On many of the home-pages and download pages that were visited, there was no clear indication that any of the projects received US government funding. Perhaps the exception was the Tor Project which has a sponsors page, but even that was problematic. Most people would not have known that the Broadcasting Board of Governors, SRI International, or Radio Free Asia are either US government agencies or “quasi” US government agencies. The vast majority of Tor Project’s funding continues to be through US government funding. The Tor Project’s sponsors page also lists “An anonymous North American ISP” and “An anonymous North American NGO” which perhaps leads to even more questions. Even stranger, is a mysterious “Sponsor O” that is on Tor Project’s website. “Sponsor O” appears to be a US government agency (USG is a common abbreviation) that wants to finance a secure chat program. The Tor Project website states, “The contractor shall concentrate efforts on outreach to Iranian end users and potential supporters in the technology community; to include train the trainer sessions, advertising on social networks, and interviews on radio and television stations operated by and for the Iranian diaspora.” Despite numerous requests, Tor Project has refused to reveal the identity of “Sponsor O”.

Actual organizational chart from the Open Technology Fund website.

1970386_520865104699200_905208814_nAnother software program that has recently come into vogue with the NSA revelations is Cryptocat. There is no sponsors page on Cryptocat’s home page to be found. Buried deep in Cryptocat’s blog is an annual report which shows that it received over 95% of its funding from Radio Free Asia in 2012. While Radio Free Asia is listed as a private nonprofit, it largely functions as part of the US government. The US Congress established Radio Free Asia and funds Radio Free Asia under the supervision of the US government agency, the Broadcasting Board of Governors. In addition, the Broadcasting Board of Governors appoints the president of Radio Free Asia, and the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, also serves on Radio Free Asia’s corporate board. The Broadcasting Board of Governors is not a benign US government agency; it sees itself as a strategic part of the War on Terror and part of the US government’s soft power influence abroad. The Broadcasting Board of Governors even sees itself as combatting groups like Boko Haram and al Shabaab which the US government lists as terrorist organizations. The Broadcasting Board of Governor’s even stated in their 2014 Congressional budget request that, “the United States must retain a global information capacity as part of the country’s effective soft power projection.” Radio Free Asia funds many software projects through its Open Technology Fund including Cryptocat with received $184,000 between 2012 and 2013.

Cryptocat’s main developer, Nadim Kobessi tweeted:


Open Whisper Systems has built two apps that have gained considerable popularity after the NSA revelations. TextSecure, created by Open Whisper Systems, is a popular app for securing text chats. Open Whisper System’s other Android app called Redphone promises to encrypt phone calls. The RedPhone app actually runs on VoIP (voice over internet protocol), so it uses servers. After emailing Open Whisper System’s main developer, there were some interesting responses. Open Whisper System’s developer said that he does not use any server space provided by the Open Technology Fund, but refused to say who was actually hosting users’ data. When asked why the Open Technology Fund was not listed as a sponsor on Open Whisper System’s website, the developer replied, “RFA has no influence over what we do at all.” It is also important to point out that Open Whisper Systems’ developer sits on the Open Technology Fund’s advisory council. The developer also mentioned that Open Whisper Systems accepts funding from many organizations. So who else is funding Open Whisper Systems? No one knows; there’s still no sponsors listed on Open Whisper System’s home page. The Open Technology Fund listed Open Whisper Systems as accepting $455,000 in 2013.

Mailvelope promises to be an easy tool to help users encrypt their emails. Normally, email encryption programs are either built-in or additions to an email client. Mailvelope is different, because it is actually an extension for Google’s Chrome browser. Yes, that same Chrome browser which is notorious for tracking users and collecting data. Several people have warned not to use Mailvelope. They warned that it would be easy for Google to steal the encryption keys and thus rendering all the email encryption useless. In addition, Google, the maker of Chrome, knew about and participated in the NSA’s mass surveillance programs. Mailvelope does have a very tiny thank you to “Open Tecnology Fund(RFA)” at the bottom of its blog page for sponsoring a security audit. Mailvelope has received $140,320 from the Open Technology Fund.

In perhaps a bizarre coincidence, while the US government has been allegedly trying to extradite Julian Assange of Wikileaks, the US government also has been funding a similar project. Wikileaks and GlobalLeaks have similar sounding names, but they are completely different organizations. GlobalLeaks seeks to build a secure open source platform to make whistle-blowing easier. The GlobalLeaks website leads to Hermes Center for Transparency and Digital Human Rights. The Hermes Center lists USAID Serbia and Radio Free Asia as its sponsors. Seeing USAID Serbia show up as a sponsor is extremely unusual. Back in the late 1990s, USAID Serbia was involved in overthrowing the Milosevic regime by funding protesters and opposition candidates to the tune of several million dollars; perhaps, that will be a story for another day. GlobalLeaks received $108,400 from the Open Technology Fund in 2012.

GlobalLeaks is hoping for more Open Technology Funding this year.


The Open Technology Fund also financed GSM Map by SRLabs. The GSM Map’s purpose is to find security vulnerabilities in mobile phone networks around the world with the aim to make mobile networks more secure. Most of the world uses the GSM standard for mobile phone networks: hence, the GSM Map. The financing for the project is not displayed anywhere on the website that could be found. GSM Map even asks users to download software and upload their own data for the project. Several country reports have been published on GSM Maps which shows security vulnerabilities in GSM networks such as the ability to track users, impersonate a user, and the ability to intercept data.

Open Technology Fund, a US government sponsored program comments on the “Cuban twitter” revelations. Irony?

Perhaps scariest of all is that the Open Technology Fund gave $1.1 million dollars to help build what is called a “Global Secure Cloud Infrastructure”. The Open Technology Fund’s website states that 10 internet freedom projects are now using this cloud. Which software projects are using the US government’s cloud? No one knows, because the Open Technology Fund refuses to tell anyone.

Security-In-A-Box seeks to train activists in the best methods for keeping safe online and their information secure. Security-In-A-Box is created by the Frontline Defenders(partially funded by Irish government) and the Tactical Tech Collective. Security-In-A-Box received $106,164 from the Open Technology Fund in 2013. Jillian C York, who works for the Electronics Frontier Foundation (EFF) and also sits on the Open Technology Fund’s Advisory Council, likes to recommend Security-In-A-Box to activists around the world including in the US. Cryptocat also promoted itself in the US through several hackathons(additional link). Tor Project also markets itself to activists in the US. Two Tor Project employees(additional link) even went to talk to Occupy Wall Street about how to use Tor.

When software projects receive funding from Radio Free Asia and market themselves to Americans, it might actually be illegal. The Smith-Mundt Act prohibited the US government from funding propaganda targeted at Americans. The NDAA 2013 (National Defense Authorization Act) repealed some of the language in the Smith-Mundt Act. Congress’ intent was to make news reports funded by the Broadcasting Board of Governors available on request to Americans. The partial repeal of the Smith-Mundt Act was never intended to fund and market software programs to Americans. In fact, the NDAA 2013 (HR 4310, Section 1078(c)) states, “No funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors shall be used to influence public opinion in the United States” (Smith-Mundt section).

Technology rights activist, Cory Doctorow, is a proud Open Technology Fund advisor.


If the Open Technology Fund had never published the projects that they sponsor, their true funding sources may have never been known. The most commonly used open source license still does not require any financial disclosure at all. Which ultimately leads to a question: who else is the US government funding?

Open Technology Fund’s 2013 annual report.

Published in Police State USA


In this explosive interview, Vox uncovers the chilling reality that the Ebola outbreak is a western Intelligence black operation to stymie the mineral rich West African countries economic momentum and trading with China. But more importantly to acclimatize Americans to new draconian tools for the ruling classes' toolkit of oppression and control - quarantines and curfews. Ebola is a tool of the ruling class for total control of Americans.

The documents exposed can be found here:

Rockefeller Foundation Pandemic "Prediction"

Centers of Disease Control Patent on Ebola:

US Government's spreading of AIDS among gay populations:

National Security Memorandum 200 (Kissinger depopulation plan)

Vox on ISIS

Vox analyses & unravels the origins and purpose of ISIS as the latest covert monster that Western intelligence unleashed to continue Washington's dirty war. 

Page 1 of 2
copyright 2012 vox information sciences

Login or Register



User Registration
or Cancel