Will Pot Be a Straw to Break the Hoodwink’s Back?

For ten years I’ve been predicting that prohibition would soon fade away as fast as the Berlin Wall collapsed. All it was going to take is one state to pass legalization, just like alcohol prohibition quickly dissolved after New York State refused to recognize it.

I used to do 20-40 college debates a year against former NY DEA chief Bob Stutman. We became friends over the 15 years it lasted, crisscrossing the country together. We actually influenced each other.

I always attempted to organize a chapter of SSDP at every school I visited, and did so about half the time, although I don’t know how many actually manifested. We went to over 300 schools.

The high point on each debate came when I requested some real religious freedom in America as my use of cannabis has often been ceremonial. I also advised the students to create an annual ritual on April 20th every year, and hold a silent prayer for peace in the drug war at 4:20 PM. At first, nobody knew what the hell I was talking about, but around 2000, the plea began getting laughs and applause as the audiences were finally figuring out 420.

With the collapse of the cannabis hoodwink, maybe people might start getting mad about being fooled for so long about the imaginary dangers of cannabis, when the real danger was prescription pills.

Maybe some will even start agitating for a real 9/11 investigation, since that first one was an obvious cover-up, just like the Warren Commission report.

If you want to understand how mind control works, look no farther than the widespread belief that anyone who disbelieves the official government version of 9/11 is a deluded crackpot.

This is a view perpetuated by Noam Chumpski and all designated spokespeople for the official left-wing, who can be recognized by their frequent appearances on television, major book deals and so on.

You have to wonder why the leading influencers of the left and right all sit comfortably inside the Council on Foreign Relations, where a lot of the dialectical management takes place, and the conversations are private.

In reality, Dubya obstructed a 9/11 investigation from day one, at first refusing to appoint a commission, and then suggesting Henry Kissinger lead it. Kissinger has business relations with England, Israel, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, and if you study the facts of 9/11, you’ll quickly learn Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were providing aid to the operation, while the Mossad and British intelligence were conducting surveillance.

Any intelligent person should be howling at this point, and demands for an independent investigation should have rattled the halls of Congress. Instead we got a handcuffed investigation that never tracked into Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Israel, even though many Mossad spies were picked up immediately after the event and quickly shipped back to Israel.

The most respected Jewish newspaper, The Forward, interviewed Chip Berlet when the spies filming the Twin Towers collapse were picked up in New Jersey, in a van that tested positive for explosives, and then quickly sent to Israel. Nothing to see here, said Berlet essentially, just keep moving.

Meanwhile, I’m thinking, why is the Forward calling Chip Berlet for a quote about Israeli spies being sent back to Israel? Are they saying he’s some sort of expert on Mossad activities?

It’s really funny because Berlet first contacted me after my original JFK article came out. I’d just been contacted by Bo Gritz and Fletcher Prouty, who both thanked me for writing the article. I responded by interviewing Gritz about US involvement in the heroin trade in Vietnam. Although Gritz was the most decorated soldier to come out of that war, he became greatly disillusioned with the system after Khun Sa told him Richard Armitage (personal envoy to then President George H. W. Bush) was the biggest customer for raw opium.

Berlet soon wrote a piece titled “Right Woos Left” in regards to the fact renegade sides from the managed dialectic were slipping off the leash and sharing incriminating information about corruption inside the system in an attempt to expose the team orchestrating major crimes for profit.

Maybe you think I’m delusional for thinking such a team exists, embedded deep into the world’s oligarchies. But I don’t see how any rational person can object to an independent 9/11 investigation, since the first one didn’t even mention Building 7.  Not a single gumshoe reporter from any mainstream publication spent one day investigating the crime of the century. That can change.

And as a coda, let’s consider the interesting career of Ford-Foundation-funded Chip Berlet, who, according to Kris Millegan, was posing online right around 9/11 as Sean McBride, a person disseminating evidence of Israeli involvement in 9/11, while, at the same time, Berlet was leading the charge to brand all such accusations as antisemitic. See, that’s how you work a dialectic and create a mind control matrix.

And that is how spooks play their games.

The Sad Truth About WikiLeaks

Readers of this blog may remember I turned against WikiLeaks as soon as I heard Julian Assange was refusing to even look for documents indicating pre-knowledge of 9/11. This certainly wasn’t because such documents don’t exist. In fact, many intelligence agencies sent warnings a major operation against the US was unfolding right before 9/11–just as some politicos may have been warned not to board airplanes that week. So why doesn’t WikiLeaks even want to look under those rocks? Fortunately, Daniel Estulin, who wrote the blockbuster book on Bilderberg, now has a book out titled, Deconstructing WikiLeaks. It’s a fast read and covers more than just the origins of WikiLeaks.

I was happy to see Estulin looked into Daniel Ellsberg as a prelude to  investigating Assange. See, I always thought Ellsberg was a spy and not a true anti-war activist. Real whistleblowers get ignored, while fake whistleblowers end up on the cover of Time magazine. Ellsberg was an assistant to Henry Kissinger, and associate of Edward Lansdale, two of the most obvious Octopus players who have been orchestrating events behind the scenes for the oligarchy. He was a lifelong CIA operative who supposedly had a sudden change of heart and turned against the war and began leaking Rand Corporation studies and reports, a data dump that became known as “The Pentagon Papers” even though these papers had little to do with the Pentagon, and a lot to do with whitewashing the failure of the CIA to provide proper intel about the war and leading the country into a disaster. My theory is the CIA began fomenting many operations against President Richard Nixon shortly after he returned from a surprise visit to China. There’s even a rumor Nixon returned some of the stolen gold from WWII without CIA approval in order to buy his detente move. Turning America against the war could have been part of a CIA master plan to remove Nixon.

Supposedly, Ellsberg transformed into an ardent anti-war activist partially through a chance encounter with Noam Chomsky, another possible Octopus operative who serves as a lightning rod for the left wing. I never trusted Chomsky after I heard his ridiculous views on the Kennedy assassination. I can’t believe educated people insist we don’t know the truth: the CIA fomented the deed with assistance provided by the Texas oil cabal (Hunts and Murchison) and the Chicago Outfit. These facts are known thanks to the Sicilian men-of-honor who spoke out (Roselli, Giancana) and the Cubans who worked for JM/Wave, the CIA’s largest base outside Langley. Few from inside the government have talked, and most of those that have or tried, ended up dead pretty quick.

In 1996, an architect named John Young created a free website for whistleblowers to release secret documents. The site is still around and has over 70,000 documents downloaded. The site is called “Cryptome” and I urge you to check it out. Ten years later, Assange announces his operation and even contacts Young to get him involved in the project. Two things bothered Young immediately: 1) Assange announced he needed to raise $5 million, an outrageous amount of money, way more than necessary to actually set-up and maintain the site, and 2) Assange was taking money from two well-known CIA fronts, Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy. Another thing that tipped Young off was Assange’s relentless rhetoric. Eventually, Young wrote a scathing critique of WikiLeaks claiming it was really a money making scam, which it is.

Another suspicious thing about both operations is the way Ellsberg and Assange usually ignore the 800 pound gorilla called illegal drugs, which have played such a vital role in our wars for the last sixty years. Since the illegal drug industry produces between a half a trillion to a trillion dollars per year in tax-free profits, these operations are vital to the stability of our banking system, which uses money-laundered cash from drugs to stay afloat. Yet you seldom find Ellsberg and Assange talking much about opium, even though capturing that monopoly was one of the primary reasons we went to war in both Vietnam and Afghanistan.

So if you’re still one of those people who believe Julian Assange is a “good guy,” please take a look at this just released expose. It might just open your mind to what’s really going on.