In fact, in most countries around the world, use of the herb and its components for medicinal and recreational purposes remains to be illegal. This continues, regardless of the fact that 0 people die from using the herb each year. In contrast, 30,722 die from alcohol poisoning and 38,329 from abusing pharmaceuticals annually (according to 2014 data).
Some activists, such as Rick Simpson, have suggested that the plant is still illegal in the U.S. on a Federal level because of its multitude of uses. A part of the plant known as hemp can be used for clothing, food, and industrial purposes, and components of the ‘flower’ known as marijuana can inspire creativity, free-thinking and, of course, contribute to healing.
It is an injustice that individuals are refused access to the herb considering it is 100% natural and has been cultivated for thousands of years. Additionally, at least 100 studies prove that the plant can combat one of the most frightening modern afflictions: cancer. As 1 in 2 women and 1 in 3 men are predicted to develop cancer in their lifetimes, it is past time the herb lose its stigma and Schedule I status so that citizens worldwide might benefit from its many properties.
Following are 100 studies proving cannabis to be an all-natural cancer killer:
March 29, 2017 Anybody whose has experienced a migraine headache knows they can be debilitating and painful. Moreover, the symptoms are often stubborn to pharmaceutical pain relievers. There is an effective plant-based alternative that also happens to be one of the most potent healing plants in the world.
Doctors have been treating migraines with medical cannabis since the 1840s, but U.S. marijuana prohibition has largely blocked the scientific community from doing much research on the subject until fairly recently. The reason cannabis is so effective medicinally is directly related to its ability to interact with receptors in the body which inhibit inflammation and prevent disease. Cannabis does this so well, that few drugs can compete with its level of potency which come essentially with no side effects.
In 2006, German scientists reported that the administration of oral THC significantly reduced both chronic and experimentally induced pain.
Nearly all pharmaceuticals for migraines have toxic and potentially lethal side effects in the long-term. On the other hand, Marijuana in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.
Existing research shows marijuana to be an effective general pain reliever, and new evidence suggests migraine pain frequently responds quite well to certain marijuana strains.
A 2008 study published in Neuroendocrinology Letters found that migraines are deeply connected with endocannabinoid function. The study stated that the possible cause of migraines could be an endocannabinoid deficiency, meaning cannabis could be extremely helpful in decreasing migraines by supplementing the bodies natural endocannabinoids.
CBD has been found to be very effective at treating migraines because of its anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties. THC is also helpful at relieving migraine symptoms due to its ability to reduce pain. CBD heavy strains, however, help alleviate symptoms while keeping sufferers alert.
A 1987 study described an “unknown mechanism” that caused migraine headaches to develop in some long-term marijuana users shortly after they abruptly discontinued use.
The implication was that marijuana use had been keeping migraine symptoms at bay in vulnerable individuals, Dr. Gary L. Wenk explains in a Psychology Today post.
A number of studies have since echoed those findings that marijuana appears to relieve migraine pain and frequency.
A new study published this week from Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of Colorado looked at the effects of inhaled and ingested cannabis in migraine sufferers, and the results confirmed what previous studies had begun to unearth.
The average number of migraine headaches decreased from 10.4 per month to 4.6
Almost 40% of subjects reported positive effects
19.8% of subjects claimed medical marijuana helped to prevent migraines
11.6% of subjects reported that cannabis stopped migraine headaches
About 85% of subjects reported having fewer migraines per month with cannabis
About 12% saw no change in migraine frequency with cannabis
Only about 2% experienced an increase in migraine frequency
Inhalation methods appeared to provide the fastest effects and were more likely to stop migraine headaches in their tracks. As expected, edible cannabis took longer to provide relief and was more likely to induce negative side effects like sleepiness and overly intense euphoria (which was reported in 11.6% of participants).
TOP STRAINS FOR MIGRAINE RELIEF
1. Sour Diesel
Sour Diesel, sometimes called Sour D, is an invigorating sativa-dominant strain. This fast-acting strain delivers energizing, dreamy cerebral effects that have pushed Sour Diesel to its legendary status. It is very effective in reducing migraine pain, headaches and even depression.
Candyland, a gold medalist of the 2012 KushCon. Patients turn to Candyland to relieve pain, headaches and muscle tension. Strong sativa genetics give Candyland uplifting and stimulating effect.
3. White Widow
A balanced hybrid, White Widow is a classic strain from the Netherlands. Its buds are characterized by a frost white resin that cues its potency. Reports are that it is very effective for even severe migraines with energetic euphoria which settles into full body relaxation.
Cannatonic is known for its low THC content, which is often below 6%, and its high CBD content, which is normally at about 6-17% though it can sometimes be higher. It is known for having a relaxing and uplifting quality. Cannatonic is acclaimed as one of the top medical marijuana strains because it is great at treating pain and migraines with little to no psychoactive effects.
5. Hawaiian Dream
Hawaiian Dream is known to be an uplifting sativa strain with high levels of CBD. It usually has about double the amount of CBD as it does THC. Hawaiian dream is known to be a good remedy for treating pain, inflammation, and migraines. It is also known to provide relief without any brain fog, so it is extremely helpful at treating migraine symptoms in the day.
In 2016, we saw some important cannabis research on migraines and other disorders published in top medical journals — research that flips the script on previously held beliefs and research that backs up what we’ve already seen anecdotally with medical cannabis. Aligned with this, the legalization gates sprang open as eight of the nine states with marijuana measures on their ballots voted to legalize it — four on the retail side, four on the medical side.
It is only a matter of time before more research on Cannabis makes its way to those that need it most.
First it was “No Jab No Pay”; now it’s “No Jab No Play”. Find out the link between the Aussie PM’s Big Pharma wife and Australian mandatory vaccines.
March 29, 2017
Australian mandatory vaccines
are ever closer to becoming a reality – or perhaps they already are for those needing welfare and public education. The Australian Government has decided that it’s No Jab, No Pay policy wasn’t quite fascist enough, so it has upped the ante by going one step further. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is trying to forge a policy where parents with unvaccinated children will not be able to enroll them in public school! That’s right: it’s Australian vaccine fascism. No Jab, No Pay may also become No Jab, No Play if the PM and his Big Pharma wife, Lucy Turnbull, get their way. Let’s take a further look at the push for Australian mandatory vaccines, keeping in mind the horrendous history of vaccines, which have injured, sterilized, paralyzed and killed countless people all over the world.
“Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has written to state and territory leaders to push for nationally consistent laws to protect young children from disease.
He writes: “At our next Coag [Council of Australian Governments] meeting I propose we agree that all jurisdictions implement legislation that excludes children who are not vaccinated from attending childcare or preschool, unless they have a medical exemption.
“Vaccination objection is not a valid exemption. We must give parents the confidence that their children will be safe when they attend childcare and preschool.
“Parents must understand that if their child is not vaccinated they will be refused attendance or enrollment.””
When Turnbull writes “vaccination objection” above, he refers to what is known as the philosophical or religious objection or exemption, which is the right of the individual to refuse vaccination on the grounds that it goes against his or her philosophical (or religious) beliefs.
The cute phrase No Jab, No Play was used by Australian Federal Health Minister Greg Hunt. It sounds clever, however it disguises a horribly authoritarian objective of forcing parents to make the choice between poisoning their child with toxic vaccines or getting free public education – a choice which for most families would be very difficult given the high price of private education in Australia.
Like many nations with 2-party political systems, the Australian Left (the Labor Party) doesn’t offer any opposition to the push for mandatory vaccines. It was the outspoken Pauline Hanson who criticized Turnbull for this move, but she was (predictably) put back into place by the force of the Australian Medical Association. Again from The Independent:
“Pauline Hanson was forced to apologise after she was criticised by the Australian Medical Association and others for suggesting vaccines were not safe and incorrectly claiming that parents could conduct their own tests to evaluate vaccination safety.
She told the ABC’s Insiders programme that successive governments had “blackmailed” people into having their children vaccinated because Australia has a policy of withholding childcare fee rebates and welfare payments from parents who do not have their children fully immunized.”
“The “no jab, no pay” policy has harms beyond the physical: it may unfairly deny funds to people who already suffer from hardship. While much attention is given to the half of non-vaccinators who consciously refuse, people have failed to vaccinate for other reasons such as having an ill child, or being caught up in what may be an already difficult separated family situation.
People who do not vaccinate for reasons other than disagreement and concern tend to have lower household incomes (60% have a household income less than A$50,000) and lower education levels (34% have year ten or less education). Single-parent households are also over-represented in this sub-population – 21% versus 15% of families nationally.”
Big Pharma and Lucy Turnbull
If you think the PM is pushing vaccines because he cares deeply for the health of ordinary Australians, think again. Lucy Turnbull is chairman of the pharma corporation Prima Biomed and is the PM’s Big Pharma wife. She has worked closely with Big Pharma giants GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis. The Sydney Morning Herald in 2015 reports that the Turnbulls were listed as “the third biggest shareholder” in Prima Biomed.
Australian mandatory vaccines: the agenda is afoot.
The 2 Assumptions Underpinning the Push for Australian Mandatory Vaccines
There are 2 fundamental assumptions behind Turnbull’s ploy. The first assumption is that of herd immunity. I have discussed this concept in an earlier article entitled Herd Immunity vs. Viral Shedding: Who’s Infecting Whom?, but here’s the basic point: herd immunity is based on faulty logic and numerous assumptions. It assumes vaccines work, it assumes the vaccinated don’t carry disease and it assumes vaccine-induced immunity is as good as natural immunity. As it turns out, it may in fact be the vaccinated who are spreading the disease through viral shedding.
The second assumption is that the State or the Government has the power to force you to take any medicine it deems fit for the sake of “public safety”. Of course, protecting public safety is a legitimate function of Government, but where it gets tricky real fast is that dictators, autocrats and tyrants always (almost without exception) justify their draconian acts by claiming they are protecting the public. It’s always the same excuse. How many times have we heard the hackneyed phrase national security? At a certain point we have to evaluate whether it’s more important to preserve individual rights, liberty and sovereignty – or the “rights” of the abstract “group”. Who owns your body? You or the Government?
Here’s the bottom line: forcefully medicating people without their informed consent is a drastic and extremely coercive step, even if herd immunity were a completely watertight theory and even if every single vaccine were safe and effective – two rather big, fat and rotund “ifs”. However, the entire concept of informed consent is being watered down.
Australian mandatory vaccines: Are people going to let themselves get experimented upon?
Informed Consent Under Attack
The push for Australian mandatory vaccines is more evidence that the concept of informed consent is under attack. As the Organic Prepper reports, the US Government is helping out Big Pharma in America by watering down informed consent even further. A new law was passed in December 2016 endorsing an informed consent waiver:
“A new law quietly passed last December contains a waiver of informed consent that eliminates the requirement of pharmaceutical companies to let you know if a medication or vaccine given to you or your child is experimental. Wow. One last Christmas surprise from President Obama.
Clinical testing of investigational medical devices and drugs no longer requires the informed consent of the subjects if the testing poses no more than minimal risk to the subjects and includes safeguards.
“Clinical testing” is not clearly defined. Furthermore, who the heck gets to decide what “minimal risk” is? The pharmaceutical companies? The FDA? Medical professionals? How incredibly patronizing.”
The truth is that mandatory vaccines go against the Australian Constitution, as well as ideals in the Hippocratic Oath and the Australian Medical Association’s Code of Ethics. However, those pushing the vaccine agenda have ways around this, such as by introducing fake health threats and health scares (e.g. the dreaded zika virus caused by a pesticide) to try to justify the imposition of quarantine laws:
“As a general rule, there are no diseases for which vaccination is compulsory for persons living in Australia. However … where cases of quarantinable diseases arise, quarantine officers have the power to require a person who is subject to quarantine to submit to vaccination or prophylaxis if this is considered necessary to prevent the spread of the disease or is specified in the International Health Regulations. The Quarantine Act 1908 (Cth) was amended in 2008 to meet certain requirements under the International Health Regulations (2005) for vaccinations and other health measures related to travelers.”
“With regard to healing the sick, I will devise and order for them the best diet, according to my judgment and means; and I will take care that they suffer no hurt or damage. Nor shall any man’s entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone; neither will I counsel any man to do so.”
Here is an excerpt from the Australian Medical Association’s Code of Ethics:
“Approach health care as a collaboration between doctor and patient.”
How exactly is mandatory vaccination a “collaboration”?
Conclusion: Beware of Creeping Soft Push for Australian Mandatory Vaccines
The No Jab, No Pay and No Jab, No Play are examples of creeping soft policy whereby the Australian Government is trying to coerce people into accepting vaccinations without trying to mandate it in law (which would be difficult, unconstitutional and result in pushback). So it’s using strong-handed tactics to mess with people using its services (welfare, public education) and get the vaccination rates higher through the back door. Informed consent is being constantly eroded, despite the fact it is cornerstone concept in medicine (and in law), because it recognizes the right of the individual to choose (or not choose) his own treatment. To allow governments and corporations to run roughshod over this right is to pave the way for medical tyranny. It is to allow collectivism to triumph over individualism. It is to allow third parties the legal right to dictate to you what you must put inside of your body.
Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news siteThe Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com, writing on many aspects of truth and freedom, from exposing aspects of the worldwide conspiracy to suggesting solutions for how humanity can create a new system of peace and abundance.
Newly declassified documents from the Reagan presidential library help explain how the U.S. government developed its sophisticated psychological operations capabilities that – over the past three decades – have created an alternative reality both for people in targeted countries and for American citizens, a structure that expanded U.S. influence abroad and quieted dissent at home.
By Robert Parry
The documents reveal the formation of a psyops bureaucracy under the direction of Walter Raymond Jr., a senior CIA covert operations specialist who was assigned to President Reagan’s National Security Council staff to enhance the importance of propaganda and psyops in undermining U.S. adversaries around the world and ensuring sufficient public support for foreign policies inside the United States.
Raymond, who has been compared to a character from a John LeCarré novel slipping easily into the woodwork, spent his years inside Reagan’s White House as a shadowy puppet master who tried his best to avoid public attention or – it seems – even having his picture taken. From the tens of thousands of photographs from meetings at Reagan’s White House, I found only a couple showing Raymond – and he is seated in groups, partially concealed by other officials.
But Raymond appears to have grasped his true importance. In his NSC files, I found a doodle of an organizational chart that had Raymond at the top holding what looks like the crossed handles used by puppeteers to control the puppets below them. Although it’s impossible to know exactly what the doodler had in mind, the drawing fits the reality of Raymond as the behind-the-curtains operative who was controlling the various inter-agency task forces that were responsible for implementing various propaganda and psyops strategies.
Until the 1980s, psyops were normally regarded as a military technique for undermining the will of an enemy force by spreading lies, confusion and terror. A classic case was Gen. Edward Lansdale — considered the father of modern psyops — draining the blood from a dead Filipino rebel in such a way so the dead rebel’s superstitious comrades would think that a vampire-like creature was on the prowl. In Vietnam, Lansdale’s psyops team supplied fake and dire astrological predictions for the fate of North Vietnamese and Vietcong leaders.
Essentially, the psyops idea was to play on the cultural weaknesses of a target population so they could be more easily manipulated and controlled. But the challenges facing the Reagan administration in the 1980s led to its determination that peacetime psyops were also needed and that the target populations had to include the American public.
The Reagan administration was obsessed with the problems left behind by the 1970s’ disclosures of government lying about the Vietnam War and revelations about CIA abuses both in overthrowing democratically elected governments and spying on American dissidents. This so-called “Vietnam Syndrome” produced profound skepticism from regular American citizens as well as journalists and politicians when President Reagan tried to sell his plans for intervention in the civil wars then underway in Central America, Africa and elsewhere.
While Reagan saw Central America as a “Soviet beachhead,” many Americans saw brutal Central American oligarchs and their bloody security forces slaughtering priests, nuns, labor activists, students, peasants and indigenous populations. Reagan and his advisers realized that they had to turn those perceptions around if they hoped to get sustained funding for the militaries of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras as well as for the Nicaraguan Contra rebels, the CIA-organized paramilitary force marauding around leftist-ruled Nicaragua.
So, it became a high priority to reshape public perceptions to gain support for Reagan’s Central American military operations both inside those targeted countries and among Americans.
“the planned use of communications to influence attitudes or behavior should, if properly used, precede, accompany, and follow all applications of force. Put another way, psychological operations is the one weapons system which has an important role to play in peacetime, throughout the spectrum of conflict, and during the aftermath of conflict.”
“Military psychological operations are an important part of the ‘PSYOP Totality,’ both in peace and war. … We need a program of psychological operations as an integral part of our national security policies and programs. … The continuity of a standing interagency board or committee to provide the necessary coordinating mechanism for development of a coherent, worldwide psychological operations strategy is badly needed.”
Some of Raymond’s recently available handwritten notes show a focus on El Salvador with the implementation of “Nation wide multi-media psyops” spread through rallies and electronic media. “Radio + TV also carried Psyops messages,” Raymond wrote. (Emphasis in original.) Though Raymond’s crimped handwriting is often hard to decipher, the notes make clear that psyops programs also were directed at Honduras, Guatemala and Peru.
One declassified “top secret” document in Raymond’s file – dated Feb. 4, 1985, from Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger – urged the fuller implementation of President Reagan’s National Security Decision Directive 130, which was signed on March 6, 1984, and which authorized peacetime psyops by expanding psyops beyond its traditional boundaries of active military operations into peacetime situations in which the U.S. government could claim some threat to national interests.
“This approval can provide the impetus to the rebuilding of a necessary strategic capability, focus attention on psychological operations as a national – not solely military – instrument, and ensure that psychological operations are fully coordinated with public diplomacy and other international information activities,” Weinberger’s document said.
This broader commitment to psyops led to the creation of a Psychological Operations Committee (POC) that was to be chaired by a representative of Reagan’s National Security Council with a vice chairman from the Pentagon and with representatives from the Central Intelligence Agency, the State Department and the U.S. Information Agency.
“This group will be responsible for planning, coordinating and implementing psychological operations activities in support of United States policies and interests relative to national security,” according to a “secret” addendum to a memo, dated March 25, 1986, from Col. Paddock, the psyops advocate who had become the U.S. Army’s Director for Psychological Operations.
“The committee will provide the focal point for interagency coordination of detailed contingency planning for the management of national information assets during war, and for the transition from peace to war,” the addendum added. “The POC shall seek to ensure that in wartime or during crises (which may be defined as periods of acute tension involving a threat to the lives of American citizens or the imminence of war between the U.S. and other nations), U.S. international information elements are ready to initiate special procedures to ensure policy consistency, timely response and rapid feedback from the intended audience.”
The Psychological Operations Committee took formal shape with a “secret” memo from Reagan’s National Security Advisor John Poindexter on July 31, 1986. Its first meeting was called on Sept. 2, 1986, with an agenda that focused on Central America and “How can other POC agencies support and complement DOD programs in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica and Panama.” The POC was also tasked with “Developing National PSYOPS Guidelines” for “formulating and implementing a national PSYOPS program.” (Underlining in original)
Raymond was named a co-chair of the POC along with CIA officer Vincent Cannistraro, who was then Deputy Director for Intelligence Programs on the NSC staff, according to a “secret” memo from Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Craig Alderman Jr. The memo also noted that future POC meetings would be briefed on psyops projects for the Philippines and Nicaragua, with the latter project codenamed “Niagara Falls.” The memo also references a “Project Touchstone,” but it is unclear where that psyops program was targeted.
Another “secret” memo dated Oct. 1, 1986, co-authored by Raymond, reported on the POC’s first meeting on Sept. 10, 1986, and noted that “The POC will, at each meeting, focus on an area of operations (e.g., Central America, Afghanistan, Philippines).”
The POC’s second meeting on Oct. 24, 1986, concentrated on the Philippines, according to a Nov. 4, 1986 memo also co-authored by Raymond.
“The next step will be a tightly drafted outline for a PSYOPS Plan which we will send to that Embassy for its comment,” the memo said. The plan “largely focused on a range of civic actions supportive of the overall effort to overcome the insurgency,” an addendum noted. “There is considerable concern about the sensitivities of any type of a PSYOPS program given the political situation in the Philippines today.”
Earlier in 1986, the Philippines had undergone the so-called “People Power Revolution,” which drove longtime dictator Ferdinand Marcos into exile, and the Reagan administration, which belatedly pulled its support from Marcos, was trying to stabilize the political situation to prevent more populist elements from gaining the upper hand.
But the Reagan administration’s primary attention continued to go back to Central America, including “Project Niagara Falls,” the psyops program aimed at Nicaragua. A “secret” Pentagon memo from Deputy Under Secretary Alderman on Nov. 20, 1986, outlined the work of the 4th Psychological Operations Group on this psyops plan “to help bring about democratization of Nicaragua,” by which the Reagan administration meant a “regime change.” The precise details of “Project Niagara Falls” were not disclosed in the declassified documents but the choice of codename suggested a cascade of psyops.
Other documents from Raymond’s NSC file shed light on who other key operatives in the psyops and propaganda programs were. For instance, in undated notes on efforts to influence the Socialist International, including securing support for U.S. foreign policies from Socialist and Social Democratic parties in Europe, Raymond cited the efforts of “Ledeen, Gershman,” a reference to neoconservative operative Michael Ledeen and Carl Gershman, another neocon who has served as president of the U.S.-government-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), from 1983 to the present. (Underlining in original.)
Although NED is technically independent of the U.S. government, it receives the bulk of its funding (now about $100 million a year) from Congress. Documents from the Reagan archives also make clear that NED was organized as a way to replace some of the CIA’s political and propaganda covert operations, which had fallen into disrepute in the 1970s. Earlier released documents from Raymond’s file show CIA Director William Casey pushing for NED’s creation and Raymond, Casey’s handpicked man on the NSC, giving frequent advice and direction to Gershman. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “CIA’s Hidden Hand in ‘Democracy’ Groups.”]
Another figure in Raymond’s constellation of propaganda assets was media mogul Rupert Murdoch, who was viewed as both a key political ally of President Reagan and a valuable source of funding for private groups that were coordinating with White House propaganda operations. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Rupert Murdoch: Propaganda Recruit.”]
In a Nov. 1, 1985 letter to Raymond, Charles R. Tanguy of the “Committees for a Community of Democracies – USA” asked Raymond to intervene in efforts to secure Murdoch’s funding for the group.
“We would be grateful … if you could find the time to telephone Mr. Murdoch and encourage him to give us a positive response,” the letter said.
Another document, entitled “Project Truth Enhancement,” described how $24 million would be spent on upgrading the telecommunications infrastructure to arm “Project Truth, with the technical capability to provide the most efficient and productive media support for major USG policy initiatives like Political Democracy.” Project Truth was the overarching name of the Reagan administration’s propaganda operation. For the outside world, the program was billed as “public diplomacy,” but administration insiders privately called it “perception management.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Victory of Perception Management.”]
The Early Years
The original priority of “Project Truth” was to clean up the images of the Guatemalan and Salvadoran security forces and the Nicaraguan Contras, who were led by ousted dictator Anastasio Somoza’s ex-National Guard officers. To ensure steady military funding for these notorious forces, Reagan’s team knew it had to defuse the negative publicity and somehow rally the American people’s support.
At first, the effort focused on weeding out American reporters who uncovered facts that undercut the desired public images. As part of that effort, the administration denounced New York Times correspondent Raymond Bonner for disclosing the Salvadoran regime’s massacre of about 800 men, women and children in the village of El Mozote in northeast El Salvador in December 1981. Accuracy in Media and conservative news organizations, such as The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, joined in pummeling Bonner, who was soon ousted from his job. But such efforts were largely ad hoc and disorganized.
CIA Director Casey, from his years crisscrossing the interlocking worlds of business and intelligence, had important contacts for creating a more systematic propaganda network. He recognized the value of using established groups known for advocating “human rights,” such as Freedom House.
One document from the Reagan library showed senior Freedom House official Leo Cherne running a draft manuscript on political conditions in El Salvador past Casey and promising that Freedom House would make requested editorial “corrections and changes” – and even send over the editor for consultation with whomever Casey assigned to review the paper.
In a “Dear Bill” letter dated June 24, 1981, Cherne, who was chairman of the Freedom House’s executive committee, wrote:
“I am enclosing a copy of the draft manuscript by Bruce McColm, Freedom House’s resident specialist on Central America and the Caribbean. This manuscript on El Salvador was the one I had urged be prepared and in the haste to do so as rapidly as possible, it is quite rough. You had mentioned that the facts could be checked for meticulous accuracy within the government and this would be very helpful. …
“If there are any questions about the McColm manuscript, I suggest that whomever is working on it contact Richard Salzmann at the Research Institute [an organization where Cherne was executive director]. He is Editor-in-Chief at the Institute and the Chairman of the Freedom House’s Salvador Committee. He will make sure that the corrections and changes get to Rita Freedman who will also be working with him. If there is any benefit to be gained from Salzmann’s coming down at any point to talk to that person, he is available to do so.”
By 1982, Casey also was lining up some powerful right-wing ideologues to help fund the “perception management” project both with money and their own media outlets. Richard Mellon Scaife was the scion of the Mellon banking, oil and aluminum fortune who financed a variety of right-wing family foundations – such as Sarah Scaife and Carthage – that were financial benefactors to right-wing journalists and think tanks. Scaife also published the Tribune Review in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
A more comprehensive “public diplomacy” operation began to take shape in 1982 when Raymond, a 30-year veteran of CIA clandestine services, was transferred to the NSC. Raymond became the sparkplug for this high-powered propaganda network, according to an unpublished draft chapter of the congressional Iran-Contra investigation that was suppressed as part of the deal to get three moderate Republican senators to sign on to the final report and give the inquiry a patina of bipartisanship.
Though the draft chapter didn’t use Raymond’s name in its opening pages, apparently because some of the information came from classified depositions, Raymond’s name was used later in the chapter and the earlier citations matched Raymond’s known role. According to the draft report, the CIA officer who was recruited for the NSC job had served as Director of the Covert Action Staff at the CIA from 1978 to 1982 and was a “specialist in propaganda and disinformation.”
“The CIA official [Raymond] discussed the transfer with [CIA Director] Casey and NSC Advisor William Clark that he be assigned to the NSC as [Donald] Gregg’s successor [as coordinator of intelligence operations in June 1982] and received approval for his involvement in setting up the public diplomacy program along with his intelligence responsibilities,” the chapter said.
Gregg was another senior CIA official who was assigned to the NSC before becoming Vice President George H.W. Bush’s national security adviser.
“In the early part of 1983, documents obtained by the Select [Iran-Contra] Committees indicate that the Director of the Intelligence Staff of the NSC [Raymond] successfully recommended the establishment of an inter-governmental network to promote and manage a public diplomacy plan designed to create support for Reagan Administration policies at home and abroad.”
War of Ideas
During his Iran-Contra deposition, Raymond explained the need for this propaganda structure, saying:
“We were not configured effectively to deal with the war of ideas.”
One reason for this shortcoming was that federal law forbade taxpayers’ money from being spent on domestic propaganda or grassroots lobbying to pressure congressional representatives. Of course, every president and his team had vast resources to make their case in public, but by tradition and law, they were restricted to speeches, testimony and one-on-one persuasion of lawmakers. But President Reagan saw the American public’s “Vietnam Syndrome” as an obstacle to his more aggressive policies.
Along with Raymond’s government-based organization, there were outside groups eager to cooperate and cash in. Back at Freedom House, Cherne and his associates were angling for financial support.
In an Aug. 9, 1982 letter to Raymond, Freedom House executive director Leonard R. Sussman wrote that
“Leo Cherne has asked me to send these copies of Freedom Appeals. He has probably told you we have had to cut back this project to meet financial realities. … We would, of course, want to expand the project once again when, as and if the funds become available. Offshoots of that project appear in newspapers, magazines, books and on broadcast services here and abroad. It’s a significant, unique channel of communication” – precisely the focus of Raymond’s work.
On Nov. 4, 1982, Raymond, after his transfer from the CIA to the NSC staff but while still a CIA officer, wrote to NSC Advisor Clark about the “Democracy Initiative and Information Programs,” stating that “Bill Casey asked me to pass on the following thought concerning your meeting with [right-wing billionaire] Dick Scaife, Dave Abshire [then a member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board], and Co. Casey had lunch with them today and discussed the need to get moving in the general area of supporting our friends around the world.
“By this definition he is including both ‘building democracy’ … and helping invigorate international media programs. The DCI [Casey] is also concerned about strengthening public information organizations in the United States such as Freedom House. … A critical piece of the puzzle is a serious effort to raise private funds to generate momentum. Casey’s talk with Scaife and Co. suggests they would be very willing to cooperate. … Suggest that you note White House interest in private support for the Democracy initiative.”
The importance of the CIA and White House secretly arranging private funds was that these supposedly independent voices would then reinforce and validate the administration’s foreign policy arguments with a public that would assume the endorsements were based on the merits of the White House positions, not influenced by money changing hands. Like snake-oil salesmen who plant a few cohorts in the crowd to whip up excitement for the cure-all elixir, Reagan administration propagandists salted some well-paid “private” individuals around Washington to echo White House propaganda “themes.”
The role of the CIA in these initiatives was concealed but never far from the surface. A Dec. 2, 1982 note addressed to “Bud,” a reference to senior NSC official Robert “Bud” McFarlane, described a request from Raymond for a brief meeting.
“When he [Raymond] returned from Langley [CIA headquarters], he had a proposed draft letter … re $100 M democ[racy] proj[ect],” the note said.
While Casey pulled the strings on this project, the CIA director instructed White House officials to hide the CIA’s hand.
“Obviously we here [at CIA] should not get out front in the development of such an organization, nor should we appear to be a sponsor or advocate,” Casey said in one undated letter to then-White House counselor Edwin Meese III as Casey urged creation of a “National Endowment.”
But the formation of the National Endowment for Democracy, with its hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. government money, was still months down the road. In the meantime, the Reagan administration would have to line up private donors to advance the propaganda cause.
“We will develop a scenario for obtaining private funding,” NSC Advisor Clark wrote to Reagan in a Jan. 13, 1983 memo, adding that U.S. Information Agency Director “Charlie Wick has offered to take the lead. We may have to call on you to meet with a group of potential donors.”
Despite Casey’s and Raymond’s success in bringing onboard wealthy conservatives to provide private funding for the propaganda operations, Raymond worried about whether a scandal could erupt over the CIA’s involvement. Raymond formally resigned from the CIA in April 1983, so, he said, “there would be no question whatsoever of any contamination of this.” But Raymond continued to act toward the U.S. public much like a CIA officer would in directing a propaganda operation in a hostile foreign country.
Raymond fretted, too, about the legality of Casey’s ongoing role. Raymond confided in one memo that it was important “to get [Casey] out of the loop,” but Casey never backed off and Raymond continued to send progress reports to his old boss well into 1986.
It was “the kind of thing which [Casey] had a broad catholic interest in,” Raymond shrugged during his Iran-Contra deposition. He then offered the excuse that Casey undertook this apparently illegal interference in domestic politics “not so much in his CIA hat, but in his adviser to the president hat.”
Meanwhile, Reagan began laying out the formal authority for this unprecedented peacetime propaganda bureaucracy. On Jan. 14, 1983, Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 77, entitled “Management of Public Diplomacy Relative to National Security.” In NSDD-77, Reagan deemed it “necessary to strengthen the organization, planning and coordination of the various aspects of public diplomacy of the United States Government.”
Reagan ordered the creation of a special planning group within the National Security Council to direct these “public diplomacy” campaigns. The planning group would be headed by Walter Raymond and one of its principal outposts would be a new Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America, housed at the State Department but under the control of the NSC. (One of the directors of the Latin American public diplomacy office was neoconservative Robert Kagan, who would later co-found the Project for the New American Century in 1998 and become a chief promoter of President George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq.)
On May 20, 1983, Raymond recounted in a memo that $400,000 had been raised from private donors brought to the White House Situation Room by U.S. Information Agency Director Charles Wick. According to that memo, the money was divided among several organizations, including Freedom House and Accuracy in Media, a right-wing media attack organization.
When I wrote about that memo in my 1992 book, Fooling America, Freedom House denied receiving any White House money or collaborating with any CIA/NSC propaganda campaign. In a letter, Freedom House’s Sussman called Raymond “a second-hand source” and insisted that “this organization did not need any special funding to take positions … on any foreign-policy issues.”
But it made little sense that Raymond would have lied to a superior in an internal memo. And clearly, Freedom House remained central to the Reagan administration’s schemes for aiding groups supportive of its Central American policies, particularly the CIA-organized Contra war against the leftist Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. Plus, White House documents released later revealed that Freedom House kept its hand out for funding.
On Sept. 15, 1984, Bruce McColm – writing from Freedom House’s Center for Caribbean and Central American Studies – sent Raymond “a short proposal for the Center’s Nicaragua project 1984-85. The project combines elements of the oral history proposal with the publication of The Nicaraguan Papers,” a book that would disparage Sandinista ideology and practices.
“Maintaining the oral history part of the project adds to the overall costs; but preliminary discussions with film makers have given me the idea that an Improper Conduct-type of documentary could be made based on these materials,” McColm wrote, referring to a 1984 film that offered a scathing critique of Fidel Castro’s Cuba. “Such a film would have to be the work of a respected Latin American filmmaker or a European. American-made films on Central America are simply too abrasive ideologically and artistically poor.”
McColm’s three-page letter reads much like a book or movie pitch, trying to interest Raymond in financing the project:
“The Nicaraguan Papers will also be readily accessible to the general reader, the journalist, opinion-maker, the academic and the like. The book would be distributed fairly broadly to these sectors and I am sure will be extremely useful. They already constitute a form of Freedom House samizdat, since I’ve been distributing them to journalists for the past two years as I’ve received them from disaffected Nicaraguans.”
McColm proposed a face-to-face meeting with Raymond in Washington and attached a six-page grant proposal seeking $134,100. According to the grant proposal, the project would include “free distribution to members of Congress and key public officials; distribution of galleys in advance of publication for maximum publicity and timely reviews in newspapers and current affairs magazines; press conferences at Freedom House in New York and at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.; op-ed circulation to more than 100 newspapers …; distribution of a Spanish-language edition through Hispanic organizations in the United States and in Latin America; arrangement of European distribution through Freedom House contacts.”
The documents that I found at the Reagan library did not indicate what subsequently happened to this specific proposal. McColm did not respond to an email request for comment about the Nicaraguan Papers plan or the earlier letter from Cherne (who died in 1999) to Casey about editing McComb’s manuscript. Freedom House did emerge as a leading critic of Nicaragua’s Sandinista government and also became a major recipient of money from the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy, which was founded in 1983 under the umbrella of the Casey-Raymond project.
The more recently released documents – declassified between 2013 and 2017 – show how these earlier Casey-Raymond efforts merged with the creation of a formal psyop bureaucracy in 1986 also under the control of Raymond’s NSC operation. The combination of the propaganda and psyop programs underscored the powerful capability that the U.S. government developed more than three decades ago for planting slanted, distorted or fake news. (Casey died in 1987; Raymond died in 2003.)
Over those several decades, even as the White House changed hands from Republicans to Democrats to Republicans to Democrats, the momentum created by William Casey and Walter Raymond continued to push these “perception management/psyops” strategies forward. In more recent years, the wording has changed, giving way to more pleasing euphemisms, like “smart power” and “strategic communications.” But the idea is still the same: how you can use propaganda to sell U.S. government policies abroad and at home.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).
On top of the above psychological operations scholarly stipulated above, a recently unleashed psyops is flooding the social media networks, e.g. Facebook and YouTube, today.
The Flat Earth theory is designed to verify how stupid the Sheeples have become after decades of mercury and aluminum-laced vaccination, municipal water fluoridation, and the 24/7 mainstream media fake news bombardment.
CIA Director just addressed the Council on Foreign Relations and admitted his desire to conduct stratospheric aerosol injection.
Last week, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John O. Brennan addressed instability and transnational threats to global security at a meeting with the Council on Foreign Relations. During his long-winded talk of threats to US interests and how the largely CIA-created ISIL threat is impacting the world, Brennan brought up the topic of geoengineering.
Another example is the array of technologies—often referred to collectively as geoengineering—that potentially could help reverse the warming effects of global climate change. One that has gained my personal attention is stratospheric aerosol injection, or SAI, a method of seeding the stratosphere with particles that can help reflect the sun’s heat, in much the same way that volcanic eruptions do.
Brennan went on to echo the calls from some scientists who have called for aerial spraying.
An SAI program could limit global temperature increases, reducing some risks associated with higher temperatures and providing the world economy additional time to transition from fossil fuels. The process is also relatively inexpensive—the National Research Council estimates that a fully deployed SAI program would cost about $10 billion yearly.
The extent at which Brennan talked about stratospheric aerosol injection shows that he and the CIA have likely been considering this for some time.As promising as it may be, moving forward on SAI would raise a number of challenges for our government and for the international community. On the technical side, greenhouse gas emission reductions would still have to accompany SAI to address other climate change effects, such as ocean acidification, because SAI alone would not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
On the geopolitical side, the technology’s potential to alter weather patterns and benefit certain regions at the expense of others could trigger sharp opposition by some nations. Others might seize on SAI’s benefits and back away from their commitment to carbon dioxide reductions. And, as with other breakthrough technologies, global norms and standards are lacking to guide the deployment and implementation of SAI.
“Chemtrails” have long been the talk of conspiracy theories with massive amounts of disinformation being posted all over the internet including fake studies and photos. However, several real studies show that some ‘seeding’ or geoengineering may be taking place.
A study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health is suggesting that geoengineering has already begun, and the substance being used is a toxic by-product of coal burning call coal-fly ash.
“The widespread, intentional and increasingly frequent chemical emplacement in the troposphere has gone unidentified and unremarked in the scientific literature for years. The author presents evidence that toxic coal combustion fly ash is the most likely aerosolized particulate sprayed by tanker-jets for geoengineering, weather-modification and climate-modification purposes and describes some of the multifold consequences on public health.
Also, it has been proposed that unintentional geoengineering may already be taking place as well. As Derrick Broze points out, researchers with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are suggesting contrails from airplanes may be inadvertently geoengineering the skies.
Chuck Long is a researcher with the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory at the University of Colorado in Boulder. At the recent American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, Long and his team released their paper, “Evidence of Clear-Sky Daylight Whitening: Are we already conducting geoengineering?” The analysis found that vapor from airplanes may be altering the climate through accidental geoengineering.
It may be a very long time before we know what, if anything, is actually going on in our skies. However, when the CIA, who is responsible for so much turmoil on a global scale, begins talking about geoengineering, we should listen.
Please share this story with your friends and family who think it’s only conspiracy nuts who talk about spraying things into the sky.
The part of the speech where Brennan talks about geoengineering begins at the 12:05 marker.
After it waged a veritable war against cannabis legalization in Arizona, coughing up half a million dollars for the campaign, Insys Therapeutics recently announced the ultimate victory has finally come to fruition: the DEA approved one of the company’s groundbreaking pharmaceuticals — synthetic marijuana — to be listed as a Schedule II substance.
“Insys gave $500,000 last summer to Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy, the group opposing marijuana legalization in Arizona,” the Washington Post reported. “The donation amounted to roughly 10 percent of all money raised by the group in an ultimately successful campaign against legalization.Insys was the only pharmaceutical company known to be giving money to oppose legalization last year, according to a Washington Post analysis of campaign finance records.”
That flood of cash from the pharmaceutical company with a vested interest in killing legalization probably did just that.
Now, the equally profit-motivated government has bestowed on Insys Therapeutics what is tantamount to skirting federal cannabis prohibition — despite that synthetic Syndros contains the equivalent ingredient, THC, nature provided in the first place.
This coordinated effort between a profiteering, private entity and the U.S. government to not only crush, but scoff at personal liberties sounds a quiet but resounding alarm for America’s legal cannabis industry.
The fact the cannabis plant, itself still languishes as a supposedly dangerous Schedule I substance, while Big Pharma can profit from its imitation, did not occur by happenstance — in fact, Insys’ history should have flatly nullified this government-granted windfall.
Syndros garnered approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration last summer for the treatment of the nausea, vomiting, and weight loss suffered by AIDS and cancer patients.
Now, Insys has received the green light from the Drug Enforcement Agency, which categorized the synthetic substance and its generic formulations as Schedule II — a classification placing it alongside substances from cocaine and methamphetamines, to Adderall, OxyContin, and even methadone.
Cannabis remains on the DEA’s hitlist of Schedule I dangerous substances the State vilipends as devoid of redeeming medical value, on par with heroin, LSD, ecstasy, and peyote — largely due to pressure from, if not surreptitious coordination with, Big Pharma.
Insys’ stupefyingly brash endeavor to crush cannabis legalization while attempting approval of a fabricated concoction that mimics the vilified plant must be the most astonishingly pretentious example of callous corporate profiteering in years — indeed, this loathsome hypocrisy has not escaped the cannabis advocacy microscope.
“It appears they are trying to kill a non-pharmaceutical market for marijuana in order to line their own pockets,” J.P. Holyoak, chairman of the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol in Arizona, asserted last year.
Even a cursory examination of Insys Therapeutics’ anti-pot propaganda — imbued with all the patronizing semantics characteristic of an industry too experienced in cozying up to the U.S. government — belies the inanity in Big Pharma’s naked profiteering.
In short, it doesn’t matter to Insys and the federal government that scores of patients suffering a startlingly wide spectrum of ailments find relief from a plant, cannabis, in its natural state — together with loosening laws nationwide — cannot profit Insys.
But a fabricated version of the plant — and its oh-so-helpful categorization as less dangerous than what nature managed to produce — can.
During its shameless anti-pot campaign, Insys bloviated of legalization, “it fails to protect the safety of Arizona’s citizens, and particularly its children.”
Perhaps targeting the heartstrings of family members whose loved ones use cannabis to treat childhood epilepsy and seizures, cancer, post-traumatic stress disorder, Crohn’s disease, addiction, depression, ADHD, or one of myriad other conditions, Insys deigned itself a shield between customers and the villain plant, adding it “firmly believes in the potential clinical benefits of cannabinoids,” and “we hope that patients will have the opportunity to benefit from these potential products once clinical trials demonstrate their safe and effective use.”
That socially-awkward attempt to seem compassionate fools no one — and hasn’t yet — considering Insys Therapeutics began seeking the boundless profits of synthesized cannabis more than a decade ago.
Insys predicted current staggering support for the medical and recreational use of cannabis years ago, as the company postured on the need to maintain the non-synthetic plant’s Schedule I status in a 2011 letter to the DEA, noting the “longstanding policy of the United States to disfavor domestic cultivation of narcotic raw materials because of concerns about the abuse potential from farming of this material.”
But evidence the pharmaceutical company’s hostility toward the cannabis plant pertained to profit deprived it, in actuality, came years earlier — Insys’ own words from nearly a decade ago substantiate fully the financial motivation.
As state-run RTpointed out, a disclosure filed by Insys on August 17, 2007, with the Securities and Exchange Commission proves beyond a doubt the profit-robbing factor would motivate killing legalization ten years later. Forgoing pretense, Insys asserted,
“If marijuana or non-synthetic cannabinoids were legalized in the United States, the market for dronabinol [Syndros] productsales would likely be significantly reduced and our ability to generate revenue and our business prospects would be materially adversely affected.”
Of course, given Insys Therapeutics’ penchant for flying fast and loose with the law when profits are at stake aligns perfectly with the company’s insultingly-hypocritical, patently-fictitious moralizing on public health concerns.
Insys is now under investigation for off-brand marketing of fentanyl — an opioid painkiller 50 times stronger than Schedule I-listed heroin, and one of the most addictive substances available — a route pharmaceutical companies take when a drug is either found efficacious in treating an additional condition, or when sales for the approved purpose slump.
Worse, and lending further credence to the company’s profit-no-matter-the-cost modus operandi, several Insys executives were just arrested in December for conspiring to pay off healthcare workers to recklessly prescribe the medication — even when the dangerous opioid wasn’t needed.
“Several pharmaceutical executives and managers, formerly employed by Insys Therapeutics, Inc., were arrested today on charges that they led a nationwide conspiracy to bribe medical practitioners to unnecessarily prescribe a fentanyl-based pain medication and defraud healthcare insurers,”wrote the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts in an announcement on December 8, 2016.
“As alleged, top executives of Insys Therapeutics, Inc. paid kickbacks and committed fraud to sell a highly potent and addictive opioid that can lead to abuse and life threatening respiratory depression,”stated Harold H. Shaw, Special Agent in Charge of the Boston Field Division of the FBI, after the arrests. “In doing so, they contributed to the growing opioid epidemic and placed profit before patient safety. These indictments reflect the steadfast commitment of the FBI and our law enforcement partners to confront the opioid epidemic impacting our communities, while bringing to justice those who seek to profit from fraud or other criminal acts.”
Yet, the duplicitous nature of the U.S. government’s prohibition on cannabis now has the DEA, putatively Drug Warrior Number One, transparently forking over legal protections for synthetic THC, allowing the company to profit handily, while the plant’s scheduling makes criminals out of patients legitimately using cannabis for medical reasons.
It is this skirting of legality, deceptive marketing, duplicitous propaganda, offensively direct assistance from the government, and flagrant criminality that make Insys Therapeutics the exact corporate thug paragon of a monied-interest, authoritarian Police State.
If you need a case to abolish the State, look no further than its dealings with the cannabis plant — whether or not you are a user, the miraculously beneficial weed has flourished for centuries unmolested by self-important empires, until fiat currency made it a threat to unscrupulous profiteers.
The State’s farcical war on cannabis has effectively ended for most Americans — and it’s well overdue the government catch up with the rest of us.