Perhaps the Grandest Conspiracy of all!! Isn't it curious??

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

the US economy as well as others of the western world was not sustainable without war.

Can I add to this..

War
Drugs
Gangs
Human Trafficking's..

It all is connected and makes the world spin...

the USA democrats have learned that pandemic, and fear of same, is an excellent control mechanism.

'We're only concerned about your safety! If you don't COMPLY you are a danger to yourself and others! Submit! For your own good!'

so maybe that will be the near future equivalent of war.

never read Iron Mountain but have always been fascinated by the title. I vaguely remember hearing about it when young.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

If it wasn't "real" it certainly managed to predict our current situation rather accurately.

I've seen connections made with MK Ultra and high profile assassinations, at the time i dismissed it as fanciful, considering what we know now i should have probably given the theory more credence.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

You prompted me to finally buy a copy of my own .
It's been brought up many times in connection with various things I've looked at over the years so I'm somewhat familiar with the content. Might as well add it to the collection and see which parts I've missed out..

Just went to "a well known auction site" and got one for £3. Awaiting postman.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

If it wasn't "real" it certainly managed to predict our current situation rather accurately.

I've seen connections made with MK Ultra and high profile assassinations, at the time i dismissed it as fanciful, considering what we know now i should have probably given the theory more credence.

So did 1984....

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
So, what do we make out of all this gobbeldy-gook?

1. The Manchurian Candidate predicts an assassination on the president. Less than a year later the president is assassinated.

A number of assassinations were ordered by Eisenhower during his term, implicitly or otherwise. The book of course was published in 1959 giving the literate a head start over film-goers. I suppose that Condon was largely influenced by the perceived wisdom that the US soldiers held as POWs must have been brainwashed to say what they said about the US dropping bio-weapons and the such-like. I think it is generally accepted now though that the US did drop bio-weapons or at the very least had an arsenal in place to be used. Also, it is now generally accepted that the POWs were questioned using conventional interrogation techniques and that it was only the US who were carrying out enhanced interrogations and testing various means of further enhancing those interrogations, as well as, using their own POWs to test bio-weapons.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
2. The Pentagon Papers are alleged to be fake and are ultimately later proven to be absolutely true, and

I thought it was only denied for a short time and that numerous newspapers published excerpts?

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
3. The book Report from Iron Mountain says there needs to be war for a stable economy, and there has been ever since it was written, but it is passed off as satire.

That means that it is probably good satire, and given that the US were involved in a numerous covert actions in the years between the end of world war two and when the Report from Iron Mountain was published, it wouldn't really take a rocket scientist to work out that the US was building up to be a more belligerent force in the world going forward.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Now, remember way back at the beginning of this OP where I noted the Report from Iron Mountain left the door open for a couple of real or imagined "other" possibilities? Well, one of those possibilities was theorized to be that something like an "external menace" (i.e. 'Aliens' / Extra-terrestrials) could take the place of a war to create a common enemy. Some others were:

- A threat of global environmental concern which affects the overall well being of all society, and...
- A health epidemic of such proportion that mankind's survival could be impacted.

And what do we have before us?
1. War
2. Global Warming
3. COVID-19

How long before we find out the Report from Iron Mountain was real after all?

I wouldn't hold your breath...but your leaders do seem to have been doing their hardest to make it so.

Tell me, what's your take on the Afghanistan Papers? Or shall we wait until the Somalia Papers comes out before we admit someone a long time ago made a boo-boo and because it was kept secret, not very well in the case of the Pentagon Papers, but we all know there are others, many, y'all just keep making the same mistakes. You know that there are these things called tables and chairs. You can sit down at them - opposite other people - and ya know - talk.

Except you can't. Why is that?

Something to consider.

The End.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Also, it has just occurred to me that it is strange that when between the CIA and the FBI very few films got made without their approval or without at least some tweaks at their suggestion, isn't it a tad odd that they left the Manchurian Candidate so true to the novel? Almost unheard of at the time, of course with the power of retrospect, assuming you apply it, it is downright, glaringly obvious why.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: KKLOCO

It's interesting.

On the one hand you can consider all this stuff one great big mind f###. On the other hand, you have to wonder if there might be some truth in it.

Just today I thought about the parallels of the famed Orson Wells 1938 radio broadcast "War of the Worlds" which created a panic.

There was only radio then, but today the methods of deception are far greater. Imagine how much more effective it is today!

This creates a true dichotomy...is any of this real? Or, is it all just fake to evoke a reaction / emotion?

I just don't know anymore.

Propaganda, dude. If you are not aware of Edward Bernays I suggest the doc Century Of The Self. Goebbels learned all his propaganda techniques from him. Some crazy messed up stuff in that one. TPTB are playing us so hard it really is a struggle to see reality these days. It's a little bit of truth with a whole bunch of mind#### involved. Just enough truth to make you believe.

I'd also debate that The Manchurian Candidate relates more to RFK than JFK. Sirhan Sirhan had nothing to do with that but he was triggered by the girl in the polka dot dress. I fully believe that he was a patsy that had his mind messed with. How could a guy in front of RFK shoot him from behind?

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout

A number of assassinations were ordered by Eisenhower during his term, implicitly or otherwise.

source / examples?

I vaguely recall a Jacobo Arbenz (sp?) of Guatemala (maybe).
maybe the President of South Viet Nam, but I think his own people did that (with some CIA help?)

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I came across this book many many years ago , along with Bill Coopers book very thought provoking reads and as the old saying goes many a true thing has been said in jest !..

Same with Eisenhower;s final speech to the country about the military industrial complex then you read about Eisenhower s death cams during WW2 another head scrather is i believe this mans books en.wikipedia.org... where he talks about a war killing 100 million per year every year and the population still going upon the planet by 30-40 million every year

I think we are in the midst of a grand experiment to determine if a Keynesian economic model on steroids (i.e. the USA Federal Reserve and co-conspirator central banks) can sustain a widely peaceful geopolitical landscape, in perpetuity, or at least long enough for some new paradigm to come along (4th industrial revolution? Climatology?) and establish some sort of New World Order.

Historically, wars have been fought for any number of reasons, but one of the main culprits has been resource contention. What exactly constitutes "resources"? Geographic territory? Timber? Oil? Mineral deposits? Clean water? Sure why not. In isolated instances, we still see skirmishes break out over these things, but on a macro level, are these realpolitik concerns actually driving global tensions in the 21st century?

To put this another way: why would any country need to come to blows with another country over natural resources, when instead, they can sign a Faustian contract with the US Federal Reserve System et al, establish an international central banking presence in their sovereign nation, and sip from the golden chalice of the green printing pre$$es that seem to never stop printing?

On a certain level, it's really quite a clever proposition: why fight over national expansion when TPTB can engineer unlimited "digital" expansion, "numbers on a screen", QE, collapse of interest rates, cheap loans, lax monetary policy etc. So, instead of war, fiat currency is the fuel that keeps the global engine purring. Outstanding! Make love money, not war!

Nevertheless, there are at least two critical shortcomings that I can spot with this system.

One, nothing, certainly nothing man-made, grows forever. Non-stop inflation of the global economy based on limitless fiat currency produces structural distension in capital markets, i.e. "bubbles". Eventually, every bubble must burst. When the economic bubbles burst, there is chaos and uncertainty, and chaos and uncertainty are the seeds of conflict. The stock market collapse and financial ruin of the Great Depression are recognized as contr ibuting factors to World War II. After the bubble popped on the US mortgage market in 2008, we dodged a bullet, from the perspective of sparking large-scale military conflict. Right now, with the US FED pumping in trillions of $$$ into stock and debt markets to prop them up in the face of COVID, we are on the surface of a rapidly growing bubble. At some point, maybe next week, maybe next decade, the bubble will pop, and will we be lucky to avoid war as a consequence, as we did in 2008?

Two, and this has only been exacerbated by the pandemic, "bubblenomics", runaway Keynesian economics, has done nothing to even out disparities in wealth between different social strata in the US (and widely in the Western sphere of influence). In fact, what we're seeing now due to government responses to COVID, large-scale collapse of small businesses and consolidation of their economic output into a small number of continually growing mega-corporations, could turn out to be coup de gras for this entire economic experiment. The Amazons, Walmarts, etc are adequately provisioned to weather this storm, but just about every other business is suffering, and in so, hemorrhaging jobs. Every report I've read guestimates roughly 40% of small business in the US have closed, permanently, on account of mandatory operational restrictions, in 2020. How much longer can this go on? What if 2021 is only a continuation, or an acceleration of this trend? Will we reach a point where only a small number of mega-conglomerate companies will have a stranglehold on all employment, retail, supply and commerce in the US? Is this then really considered capitalism? What happens to the middle class then? It would seem to be heading towards a true, dystopian, "haves vs have nots" society.

Something tells me that the current bubble we're in will be bursting soon; continued economic hardship from the pandemic is the perfect needle to pop the balloon. The question is: what comes next?

Fantastic thread.

My 2 cents is the report is real and we’ve been loosely going down that path for some time.

I believe we could do fine without war - we can always find something to unify around even if that thing is just unity for unities sake.

In a way, this is why I very much think the generation of people who are 40 or younger - and certainly 30 and under - have little interest in proactive war. Defense makes sense to most of them, but in the literal sense - not in the way the term has been spun.

This is why you are more liberal policies with them. They don’t care about owning guns, they largely haven’t accumulated much wealth, they’re lived through a very peaceful period of world history and they’re more concerned about their own lives than starting wars with others.

But, for now, the MIC is thriving and will likely continue to for a number of years to come - particularly as we spend money on our space plans. Only thing we need now is a reason to materially increase space exploration/modernization/defense/force - money diverted from Earthly wars to whatever is going on over there.

OF COURSE. Those who don’t see how covid is being used and curated to be our boogeyman are too blinded by fear or absorbed in their own greed and lusts.

History will show this to be a great con from the United globalists on the people.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

And years later the so-called Afghanistan Papers showed the same established pattern of behavior.

I think your theory is most plausible.

Don't forget the film The Medusa Touch by Arnon Milchan and Peter Van Greenway. Complete with artwork, it had airliners flying into WTC.

a reply to: ElGoobero

As well as Arbenz, and of course Castro, there is also Patrice Lumumba...amongst others but I'll leave you to find those for yourself...

The 2001 report by the Belgian Commission describes previous U.S. and Belgian plots to kill Lumumba. Among them was a Central Intelligence Agency-sponsored attempt to poison him, which was ordered by U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower.[156] CIA chemist Sidney Gottlieb, a key person in the plan, devised a poison resembling toothpaste. In September 1960, Gottlieb brought a vial of the poison to the Congo with plans to place it on Lumumba's toothbrush.[157][158][159] The plot was abandoned, allegedly because Larry Devlin, CIA Station Chief for the Congo, refused permission.[158][160]

As Madeleine G. Kalb points out in her book, Congo Cables, the record shows that many communications by Devlin at the time urged elimination of Lumumba.[161] As well, the CIA station chief helped to direct the search to capture Lumumba for transfer to his enemies in Katanga. Devlin was involved in arranging Lumumba's transfer to Katanga,[162] and the CIA base chief in Elizabethville was in direct touch with the killers the night Lumumba was killed. John Stockwell, a CIA officer in the Congo and later a CIA station chief, wrote in 1978 that a CIA agent had the body in the trunk of his car in order to try to get rid of it.[163] Stockwell, who knew Devlin well, believed that Devlin knew more than anyone else about the murder.[164]

The inauguration of John F. Kennedy in January 1961 caused fear among Mobutu's faction, and within the CIA, that the incoming Democratic administration would favor the imprisoned Lumumba.[165] While awaiting his presidential inauguration, Kennedy had come to believe that Lumumba should be released from custody, though not be allowed to return to power. Lumumba was killed three days before Kennedy's inauguration on 20 January, though Kennedy did not learn of the killing until 13 February.[166]
Church Committee

In 1975, the Church Committee went on record with the finding that CIA chief Allen Dulles had ordered Lumumba's assassination as "an urgent and prime objective".[167] Furthermore, declassified CIA cables quoted or mentioned in the Church report, and in Kalb (1982), mention two specific CIA plots to murder Lumumba: the poison plot and a shooting plot.

The Committee later found that while the CIA had conspired to kill Lumumba, it was not directly involved in the murder.[168]
U.S. government documents

In the early 21st century, declassified documents revealed that the CIA had plotted to assassinate Lumumba. The documents indicate that the Congolese leaders who killed Lumumba, including Mobutu Sese Seko and Joseph Kasa-Vubu, received money and weapons directly from the CIA.[158][169] The same disclosure showed that, at the time, the U.S. government believed that Lumumba was a communist, and feared him because of what it considered the threat of the Soviet Union in the Cold War.[170]

In 2000, a newly declassified interview with Robert Johnson, who was the minutekeeper of the U.S. National Security Council at the time in question, revealed that U.S. President Eisenhower had said "something [to CIA chief Allen Dulles] to the effect that Lumumba should be eliminated".[168] The interview from the Senate Intelligence Committee's inquiry on covert action was released in August 2000.[171]

In 2013, the U.S. State Department admitted that President Eisenhower authorized the murder of Lumumba.[172] However, documents released in 2017 revealed that an American role in Lumumba's murder was only under consideration by the CIA.[173][174] CIA Chief Allan Dulles had allocated $100,000 to accomplish the act, but the plan was not carried out.[175]

en.wikipedia.org...

I did say 'ordered'...the vast majority of the CIA's covert operations during this period were failures either in the short or long term - as we should all know by now...anyway two great books...

Stephen Kinzer, The Brothers: John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles and their Secret World War (2013) and by the same author, Poisoner in Chief: Sidney Gottlieb and the CIA Search for Mind Control (2019).

Enjoy

a reply to: ElGoobero

Also, in terms of primary sources the CIA reading room is a fantastic resource, I spend days there - virtually speaking that is...here's a couple of links I keep handy...

www.cia.gov...

www.cia.gov...

...and this of course...

www.intelligence.senate.gov...

I hope that helps.

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser
Fantastic thread.

My 2 cents is the report is real

agreed.

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser
In a way, this is why I very much think the generation of people who are 40 or younger - and certainly 30 and under - have little interest in proactive war. Defense makes sense to most of them, but in the literal sense - not in the way the term has been spun.

This is an excellent point, I'm sorry I missed it before. The kids today have a really strong sense of justice despite many of the examples they have been set and the sense of impending doom that we have thrust upon them. All that effort put into over-turning 'unfriendly' regimes, fighting wars and losing lives for corporate gains, can you imagine where we would be if we had actually engaged in peace keeping and defending democracy? I think the kids can and I get why they look back at us and those behind us with disgust. I tend to join them but with a little more sympathy to my fore-fathers and mothers who didn't know any better than to do as they were told.