Showing posts with label MK-Ultra. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MK-Ultra. Show all posts

Wednesday, 25 January 2017

John Miller




Donald Trump John Miller Audio TAPE FULL 
Trump Pretending with Wall Street Journal Reporter 

" MULTIPLE PERSONALITY ORDER 

" In the experience of the present author, the notions of the imposter and of pseudologia fantastica might well be expanded to include greater emphasis on the question of multiple personalities and multiple personality disorder. This insight derives from my own observation over a number of years of a charismatic political leader with strong tendencies toward the creation of a personality cult, somewhat on the model of Joseph Smith. 

The individual in question is Lyndon H. LaRouche. 

In the 1960s and 1970s, LaRouche was remarkable for his intelligence overview and programmatic orientation, which tended more and more to be overshadowed by a crude demand for adulation and unquestioning obedience, precisely along the lines of a personality cult. Over time, one got the impression that LaRouche had several distinct personalities –one perceptive and insightful, one raging, narcissistic, and vindictive, and yet another whimsical and nostalgic. 

Needless to say, it was the insistent and vindictive personality which employed the other selves to recruit a following and then impose on them the yoke of his personality cult. In this process, he exhibited moments of charismatic rhetorical appeal, and other moments of the most primitive infantilismHe also neglected the most elementary precautions. On the one hand, he launched campaigns of exposure and denunciation against Henry Kissinger, Jimmy Carter, Nelson Rockefeller, and other public figures of some power, while at the same time he refused to submit yearly federal income tax returns. It was this latter failing which helped to put him in jail for five years. 

On at least one known occasion, LaRouche reportedly boasted of his multiple personalities, while claiming that he had the ability to shift at will from one personality to another, according to his own psychological needs. LaRouche called this his 

“Multiple Personality Order.” 

The parallels of this syndrome to the case of Joseph Smith are evident.  "

Just Too WEIRD: Bishop Romney's Mormon Takeover of America:: Polygamy, Theocracy, Subversion
Tarpley Ph D, Webster Griffin
Progressive Press. Kindle Edition. 



 


" In her discussion of the impostor, Phyllis Greenacre also cites the case of Titus Oates (1649-1705), who was the great protagonist of the fictitious “Popish Plot” during the reign of Charles II Stuart of England. This plot was supposedly aiming at a Catholic takeover of England with the help of the Stuarts. Fictitious though this report turned out to be, its political effects were most welcome to the pro-Venetian Whig party of the English aristocracy.

Without intelligence networks interested in promoting Titus Oates’ story, he might have been relegated to total obscurity. Oates was a mythomaniac, recounting wild inventions he knew his listeners wanted to hear, all in a desperate bid to attract attention. But there were powerful political forces who found his hallucinations advantageous. 

This reminds us once again, as in the case of Joseph Smith, to always look for the interaction between the individual impostor and the organized networks which constitute and assemble the audience which the impostor so urgently desires. Some key excerpts from Greenacre:


An impostor is not only a liar, but a very special type of liar who imposes on others fabrications of his attainments, position, or worldly possessions. This he may do through misrepresentations of his official (statistical) identity, by presenting himself with a fictitious name, history, and other items of personal identity, either borrowed from some other actual person or fabricated according to some imaginative conception of himself. 

There are similar falsifications on that part of his identity belonging to his accomplishments, a plagiarizing on a grand scale, or making claims which are grossly implausible. Imposture appears to contain the hope of getting something material, or some other worldly advantage. While the reverse certainly exists among the distinguished, wealthy, and competent persons who lose themselves in cloaks of obscurity and assumed mediocrity, these come less frequently into sharp focus in the public eye. One suspects, however, that some “hysterical” amnesia is, and dual or multiple personalities are conditions related to imposturous characters. The contrast between the original and the assumed identities may sometimes be not so great in the matter of worldly position, and consequently does not lend itself so readily to the superficial explanation that it has been achieved for direct and material gain. The investigation of even a few instances of imposture – if one has not become emotionally involved in the deception – is sufficient to show how crude though clever many impostors are, how very faulty any scheming is, and how often, in fact, the element of shrewdness is lacking. Rather a quality of showmanship is involved, with its reliance all on the response of an audience to illusions. 


“In some of the most celebrated instances of imposture, it indeed appears that the fraud was successful only because many others as well as the perpetrator had a hunger to believe in the fraud, and that any success of such fraudulence depended in fact on strong social as well as individual factors and especial receptivity to the trickery. To this extent those on whom the fraudulence is imposed are not only victims but unconscious conspirators. Its success too is partly a matter of timing. Such combinations of imposturous talent and a peculiar susceptibility of the times to believe in the swindler, who presents the deceptive means of salvation, may account for the great impostures of history. There are, however, instances of the repeated perpetration of frauds under circumstances which give evidence of aprecise content that may seem independent of social factors…. 

“It is the extraordinary and continued pressure in the impostor to live out his fantasy that demands explanation, a living out which has the force of a delusion, (and in the psychotic may actually appear in that form), but it is ordinarily associated with the ‘formal’ awareness that the claims are false. The sense of reality is characterized by a peculiarly sharp, quick perceptiveness, extraordinarily immediate keenness and responsiveness, especially in the area of the imposture. The over-all utility of the sense of reality is, however, impaired. What is striking in many impostors is that, although they are quick to pick up details and nuances in the lives and activities of those whom they simulate and can sometimes utilize these with great adroitness, they are frequently so utterly obtuse to many ordinary considerations of fact that they give the impression of mere brazenness or stupidity in many aspects of their life peripheral to their impostures…. 


“The impostor has, then, a specially sharpened sensitivity within the area of his fraud, and identity toward the assumption of which he has a powerful unconscious pressure, beside which his conscious wish, although recognizable, is relatively slight. The unconscious drive heightens his perceptions in a focused area and permits him to ignore or deny other elements of reality which would ordinarily be considered matters of common sense. It is this discrepancy in abilities which makes some impostors such puzzling individuals. Skill and persuasiveness are combined with utter foolishness and stupidity. 

“In well-structured impostures this may be described as a struggle between two dominant identities in the individual: the temporarily focused and strongly assertive imposturous one, and the frequently amazingly crude and poorly knit one from which the impostor has emerged. In some instances, however, it is also probable that the imposture cannot be sustained unless there is emotional support from someone who especially believes in and nourishes it. The need for self-betrayal may then he one part of the tendency to revert to a less demanding, more easily sustainable personality, particularly if support is withdrawn. 

“The impostor seems to flourish on the success of his exhibitionism. Enjoyment of the limelight and inner triumph of ‘putting something over’ seems inherent, and bespeak the closeness of imposture to voyeurism. Both aspects are represented: pleasure in watching while the voyeur himself is invisible; exultation in being admired and observed as a spectacle. It seems as if the impostor becomes temporarily convinced of the rightness of his assumed character in proportion to the amount of attention he is able to gain from it. 

“In the lives of impostors there are circumscribed areas of reaction which approach the delusional. These are clung to when the other elements of the imposture have been relinquished…. 

“Once an imposturous goal has been glimpsed, the individual seems to behave without need for consistency, but to strive rather for the supremacy of the gains from what can be acted out with sufficient immediate gratification to convince others. For the typical impostor, an audience is absolutely essential. It is from the confirming reaction of his audience that the impostor gets a ‘realistic’ sense of self, a value greater than anything he can otherwise achieve. It is the demand for an audience in which the (false) self is reflected that causes impostures often to become of social significance. Both reality and identity seem to the impostor to be strengthened rather than diminished by the success of the fraudulence of his claims…. 

“The impostor seems to be repeatedly seeking confirmation of his assumed identity to overcome his sense of helplessness or incompleteness. It is my impression that this is the secret of his appeal to others, and that often especially conscientious people are ‘taken in’ and other impostors as well attracted because of the longing to return to that happy state of omnipotence which adults have had to relinquish….



Just Too WEIRD: Bishop Romney's Mormon Takeover of America:: Polygamy, Theocracy, Subversion
Tarpley Ph D, Webster Griffin
Progressive Press. Kindle Edition. 





John Miller: 
How are you? 


Interviewer [Female]: 
Good. How are you? What’s your name again? 

John Miller: 
John Miller. 

Interviewer: 
And you work with [indiscernible]? 

John Miller: 
Yes, that’s correct. 

Interviewer: 
John Miller. Can you sort of -- I guess we’re going to try and put a story together and we have a deadline of today because our magazine closed, well, basically yesterday but we’ll probably get something together – you know, it’s been on the cover both here and the Post. 

John Miller:
 Yeah, I saw that. 

Interviewer: 
What kind of comment is coming from, you know, your agency or from Donald? 

John Miller: 
Well, it just that he really decided that he wasn’t, you know, he didn’t want to make any commitment. He didn’t want to make a commitment. He really thought it was too soon. He’s coming out of a marriage, and he’s starting to do tremendously well financially. As you saw, he got his licenses five to nothing the other day and totally unanimous. And he’s really been working hard and doing well. And probably, as you know, there’s a real estate depression in the United States and he’s probably doing as well as anybody there is. And frankly, he wants to keep it that way. And he just thought it was too soon to make any commitment to anybody. 

Interviewer: 
So what is going to happen when -- is she being asked to leave 

or is she going to be allowed to stay? 

John Miller: 
Well, he treats everybody well. You know, you don’t know him, but he’s a - 

Interviewer: 
No, I have met him. 

John Miller: 
Have you met him? He’s a good guy and he’s not going to hurt anybody. The one article said he was going to throw her out of the apartment is total nonsense. He is going to always treat her well as he treated his wife well. I mean, he paid his wife a great deal of money. He did it in a very bad period of time and, ultimately, that was settled. There were those that say that that was even put that way. I don’t know if you heard that but that Trump became poor until he got his divorce. And then all of a sudden, he’s been doing very well and I guess you probably heard that, too. 

But he treated his wife well and he treated -- and he will treat Marla well. He’s somebody that has a lot of options, and, frankly, he gets called by everybody. He gets called by everybody in the book, in terms of women. 

Interviewer: 
Like who? 

John Miller: 
Well, he gets called by a lot of people. 

Interviewer: 
Yeah. Well, what about -- this Carla Bruni, I mean, how important is she right now? Is she [cross-talking]? 

John Miller: 
I think it’s somebody that -- you know, she’s beautiful. I saw her once quickly and she’s beautiful and all, but I think that he’s got a whole open field really. A lot of the people that you write about, and you people do a great job, by the way, but a lot of the people that you write about really are -- I mean, they call. They just call. Actresses, people that you write about just call to see if they can go out with him and things. 

Interviewer: 
You can’t say, like, did Madonna ever really call? 

John Miller: 
He was so set up with that. You know, Madonna called and what happened -- I mean, I don’t know if you want to listen to this. 

Interviewer: 
No, I do. 

John Miller: 
Do you? Do you have a second? 

Interviewer: 
Yeah, obviously. 

John Miller: 
What happened is it was a benefit at the Plaza Hotel which he owned for Vreeland, Diana Vrelland, or no, for Martha Graham. It was a ball benefit for Martha actually just before she passed away. And Madonna was there and she came in a beautiful evening gown and combat boots. She was wearing combat boots, and Trump was asked to go over to meet her. And he was there just for a little while to say hello and to make a speech and make like an introductory speech. 

Madonna was in the room, and so somebody from Madonna’s entourage, because she comes in with an entourage of dancers and everything else, and somebody from Madonna’s entourage came over and said, “Would you go over and say hello to Madonna?” And so he went over and said hello to Madonna and he gave his autograph to the dancers. She said, “These are fans” and all this. “Will you give them the autograph?” So he said, “Best wishes” or something. And then all of a sudden -- and that was the end. And then he said goodbye to her and that was literally the end. He’s got zero interest in Madonna. It was literally the end. 

And the next day in the newspapers, they had a story that he wanted to go out with her and everything else. Besides that, that she was sitting there with her boyfriend. I think his name was Ward or something - 

Interviewer: 
Yeah, Tony Ward. 

John Miller: 
-- and she was sitting there right with her boyfriend. So, I mean, it wouldn’t be appropriate. 

Then the next day, there was a story that Trump went to [inaudible] and Madonna was supposedly at [inaudible], and that was another total nonsense. So, somehow, there was a thing. And then she called recently about this fight and wanted to go out. You know, she’s got this PR machine that I guess you people play to very well but it really was nonsense. So, anyway. 

Interviewer: 
I don’t think we ever reported that about Madonna and Donald. 

John Miller: 
Well, she called and wanted to go out with him, that I can tell you. And one of the other people that you’re writing about -- by the way, I’m sort of new here. 

Interviewer: 
What is your position there? John Miller: Well, I’m sort of handling PR because he gets so much of it. 

And frankly, I mean, I could tell you off the record. Until I get to know you, off the record, I can tell you that he didn’t care if he got bad PR until he got his divorce finished. 

So when he got a lot of bad financial stuff, he liked it because, you know, it was good because he could get a divorce finished. And once his divorce is finished, if you noticed since then he’s doing well financially and he’s doing well in every other way. The licensing was five to nothing. And people are saying how come all of a sudden he’s doing so well? And then I guess Newsday about two weeks ago did a story on that. So I’ve sort of been put in here to handle because I’ve never seen anybody get so many calls from the press. 

Interviewer: 
Where did you come from? 

John Miller: 
I basically worked for different firms. I worked for a couple of different firms, and I’m somebody that he knows and I think somebody that he trusts and likes. So I’m going to do this a little part time, and then, yeah, go on with my life, too. 

Interviewer: 
Is he trying to -- I mean, is Marla trying to reconcile all this or is this - 

John Miller: 
Marla wants to be back with him and he wants to be with her, but he just, he just feels it’s too soon. 

Interviewer: 
What about the ring? 

John Miller: 
Well, it was never an engagement ring, because that was my first question. It was never an engagement ring. It was a ring -- I mean, he wouldn’t buy the engagement ring. Actually, he bought the ring at the Taj Mahal at Tiffany’s. The only place that Tiffany’s has that, you know, in a hotel is because of his relationship with Tiffany being the neighbor next door to Trump Tower and Tiffany decided to open up a store at the Taj Mahal. And this was a way of giving Tiffany some business in addition to getting Ivan -- geting Marla something that would be nice. 

So he did that, and as I told him and other people told him, when you want to buy a present, don’t make it a ring the next time. It was a little confusing. 

Interviewer: 
Make it a chain. 

John Miller: 
Make it anything. Anything but a ring, I guess. 

Interviewer: 
Do you think there’s any fear that Marla will spill everything at all or -- ? 

John Miller: 
It doesn’t matter to him. He truly doesn’t care. I’ve never seen somebody that’s so immune, that he gets immune to, you know, some people would say you got bad press three or four months ago. Now, he’s starting to get good press where I don’t know what you call this but this is a big press. 

But I’ve never seen somebody so immune to -- he actually thrived on the bad press initially. And once the divorce was over, he said, “We have to change this” and it’s very interesting. Frankly, if he got good press during the divorce, he’d be in court right now because she settled because she thought that she better believe the press and she settled. And now, he’s doing great and now she would like not to settle. 

Ivana, when she didn’t settle, she made a huge mistake and she’s now had a huge fight with her lawyer, Michael Kennedy, over why they made the settlement. And it’s over. He sort of laughs at everything. 

Interviewer: 
How does Donald feel about Ivana’s [indiscernible] with Barbara Walters? 

John Miller: 
Well, it was a total violation of -- I mean, I could tell you - 

Interviewer: Yeah. But then, that was -- I mean, did the judge, Phyllis What’s-Her-Name? 

John Miller: 
Gangel-Jacob, yeah, but that’s going to be -- the judge felt that when Donald got Ivana to sign that agreement, that Donald got Ivana to void her rights and that the judge was wrong because there’s so much case law on that. And what happened is the judge said -- by the way, she can take that clause out. She just said she’s not going to hold Ivana in contempt. In other words, if somebody -- if she violates and she’s not going to put Ivana in jail for violating. Okay? So she didn’t void that clause. 

Now, Donald’s got a decision as to whether or not he wants to pay her any more money because by violating that clause, he in theory doesn’t have to pay her any money. 

Interviewer: 
Being the good guy that he’s trying to be -- I mean - 

John Miller: 
I’m not sure what he’s going to do. Again, you could say that she shouldn’t have done that either. I mean, you sign an agreement, you go through months and months, and she can’t say she didn’t know this one. And what he did was smart because he got not only Ivana to sign the agreement, but he got Ivana’s lawyers to sign the agreement that she’d do it, that she speaks English perfectly, that everything in the agreement is known and studied and everything else. 

So, in theory, I think he could probably -- you know, I think that could have cost her many millions of dollars. I don’t know that he’s going to enforce it or not. 

Interviewer: 
What about that whole thing that was brought up in the news whether Marla wouldn’t sign any sort of prenuptial? Did that have anything to do with the ending of the relationship? 

John Miller: 
No, no. 

Interviewer: 
Was that true? I mean, was he trying to get her to sign anything? 

John Miller: Well, I can tell you this. Just off the record, there’s no way he gets married without a prenuptial agreement. You understand that. It was painful but worked in the Ivana case because, you know, while it was challenged, it still ended up being upheld and worked. And frankly, she got not exactly one penny, she didn’t get one penny more than what the agreement called for. So that’s that. And she spent a lot of money on lawyers and a lot of money on everything and that was the year of the circus, but they do stand up. 

I can tell you there was never any talk of marriage from Donald’s point of view. I can also say that Marla would’ve liked to get married, obviously, but it was just something he didn’t want to do. It’s just too soon. And, you know, hopefully, he’ll maintain a good relationship with Marla. [Indiscernible] but it’s just too soon. 

Interviewer: What about this Ivana thing? It says in the Newsday Trump also told friends that when he and Ivana met last week, she indicated that she would be interested in reconciliation? 

John Miller: 
Ivana wants to get back with Donald, but she - 

Interviewer: 
Really? After saying on Barbara Walters that she never would? 

John Miller: 
What is she going to say? What is she going to say? She’s going to say when he’s with somebody else and had other people lined up, is she going to say, “Yes, I want to get back. I want to get back.” You know, she’s a pretty savvy woman and she’s not going to say -- I mean, he’s living with Marla and he’s got three other girlfriends, and then, and she’s not going to say, I really want to get back, you know? She wants to get back, she’s told it to a lot of her friends and she’s told it to him, but it’s so highly unlikely. That’s off the record. He left. I mean, it was his choice to leave and he left. 

Interviewer: 
He left for Marla. 

John Miller: 
No, he didn’t leave, no. See, that’s the biggest misconception of this whole thing. The second question I asked about after the ring was the biggest misconception is he left. He didn’t leave for Marla. He really left for himself. He didn’t leave for Marla. He never left for Marla. He was going to leave anyway. Marla was there, but he was going to leave anyway. Whether there was a Marla or not he was going to leave anyway. 

So now he has somebody else named Carla who is beautiful and I guess you have something on her. I don’t know if you do or not. 

Interviewer: 
No, they won’t talk about her. He didn’t say anything about her. I mean, she’s a daughter of who - 

John Miller: 
Well, she’s a very successful model, etc., etc. But again, he didn’t leave Marla for her. He just wants [indiscernible], he does things for himself. He leaves for himself, he does things for himself. He, when he makes the decision, that will be a very lucky woman. But he’s not going to do that until he makes the decision. You know, when he makes the decision, he’s very capable of a total commitment when he makes the decision. But he felt it’s too soon. Off the record, he probably felt Marla wasn’t the right one, or whatever, but he just felt it was too soon. 

Interviewer: 
How did he meet Carla? 

John Miller: 
At the Plaza Hotel, she was doing a Carolina Herrera fashion show. 

Interviewer: 
Was Ivana there, do you think? Does she go to fashion shows? 

John Miller: 
Well she goes to them, but less so since, you know, since - 

Interviewer: 
When did he meet Carla there? 

John Miller: 
Probably a few months ago. 

Interviewer: 
Uh-huh. Have they been able to see each other? 

John Miller: 
Well, not really. And again, I heard with Carla -- I mean, I’ll give you -- this is getting to be -- this is a little different from what I normally discuss. This is I think an interesting point. Carla is a very beautiful girl from Italy whose father is one of the wealthiest men in Europe. 

Interviewer: 
Who is he? What’s the name of her father? 

John Miller: 
Her father’s name is -- her name is Carla Bruni Tedeschi. 

Interviewer: 
How do you spell that? 

John Miller: 
I don’t know. She doesn’t use the last name because it’s too complicated, you know [indiscernible]. But anyway, but her father is one of the wealthiest men in Europe. Carla is extraordinarily beautiful and didn’t want to be a model except that every time she’d go to a show, [indiscernible] to look, Ralph Lauren and various people would say, Carla, you have to be on the show, etc., etc. So she does all of the top shows and she’s always very busy and very successful, etc., etc. She was having a big thing with Mick Jagger. Did you hear about this? 

Interviewer: 
Well, I’ve just been reading about it. 

John Miller: 
What happened is she was going with Eric Clapton. 

Interviewer: 
Mick Jagger, who was married at that point? 

John Miller: 
Mick Jagger, as of three months ago she was having a big thing. [indiscernible] What she - Just doesn’t want to be in the limelight. What she was having a very big thing with Mick Jagger. And then what happened, she was going with Eric Clapton, and Eric Clapton introduced her to Mick Jagger, and then Mick Jagger started calling her, and she ended up going with Mick Jagger. And then she dropped Mick Jagger for Donald, and that’s where it is right now. And again, he’s not making any commitments to Carla either just so you understand. Interviewer: What kinds of things have they done? I mean, do they go out? [Indiscernible] 

John Miller: 
Well, they just get along very good and she’s very pretty and all of that stuff. But, you know, he doesn’t have any idea who she is, right? When he meets the right woman, it’s going to be a great relationship and it’s going to be a very, you know, because he believes strongly in the marriage concept. In all fairness, he was married for 12 years and he was happily married for 12, you know, for many of those years, I guess, and he believes in it, especially in this society today, I can tell you. But he believes in it. 

Interviewer: 
Where is he living now? I mean is he - 

John Miller: 
He lives in Trump Tower. He has the apartment at the top of Trump Tower. Interviewer: Okay. And Ivana also has an apartment at Trump Tower? John Miller: She has an apartment at Trump Tower, but the court order is that she has to leave within a period of less than a year.

 Interviewer: 
Yeah. Right. Okay. Listen, can I -

[ End of file] [End of transcript] [End of file] [End of transcript] 



“More than a medical scientific problem, AIDS is a sociopolitical IMPOSITION.” "


Thursday, 20 November 2014

Death Aid 30 - Do They Know it's Global White Imperialism..?



Of course they do. 

Well, tonight Thank God it's them instead of you...










Israel’s efforts to alleviate poverty and develop local economies in Africa is noble yet it needs to do more, Irish singer-activist Bob Geldof said at a conference on Israel and Africa held in Herzliya on Sunday.

The former Boomtown Rats front man, known for his role in fighting poverty in Africa, addressed hundreds of people at the event organized by the relief group IsraAid with the help of the Melbourne-based Pratt Foundation.

“There’s something noble about the fact that Israel, a country born in misery and suffering, aspires to assist Africa,” Geldof said. “The Israeli government needs to start spreading resources to support friends that would assist us down the road. Israel has agriculture, hi-tech and information that are needed in Africa now. They need Africa.”

Geldof said the unsolved conflicts between Israel and the Palestinians and other neighbors need not preclude the Jewish state from reaching out to the impoverished continent.

“I know we’re preoccupied with our problems in the region, but just because you’re stuck in the gutters doesn’t mean you can’t watch the stars,” he said.

Hundreds of people attended the conference, which examined the sometimes complicated ties between Israel and Africa. The participants included several prominent Israeli figures with connections to the continent.

“We had journalist Itai Engel and singer Idan Raichel, who spoke about their experiences in Africa, as well as people from [Israeli drip irrigation company] Netafim who spoke about the vast amount of cooperation and work in Western and Eastern Africa,” IsraAid head Shachar Zahavi said. “We brought our lawyer from Rwanda talking about partnership with the Hebrew University on human rights and refuge.”

Most attendees at the Daniel Hotel were too young to remember the golden age of Israel in Africa. Back in the 1950s and ’60s, the Jewish state was one of the biggest per capita providers in the world of aid to developing countries – at one point second only to France. An extensive network of Israeli technical advisers and agricultural experts fanned out across Africa, cultivating ties with new nations that, like Israel, had only just gained independence from colonial rule.

Yehuda Paz, chairman of the Negev Institute for Strategies of Peace and Development and one of the speakers at Sunday’s conference, was one of those Israeli advisers.

“Every aid project has a political element and a financial one,” the 80-year-old Brooklyn- born resident of Kibbutz Kissufim said. “These are worthy things, but that’s not why Israel got involved in Africa.

“First, it had to do with what Israel should be in the eyes of the world. It’s hard to understand today, but Prime Minister Ben-Gurion wanted to show the world we were founded on mutual aid and justice. We thought that after 2,000 years Israel will be based on values, not just interests,” Paz said.

“Second, Israel was seen as an example in the fields of agricultural and rural development.

Third, Israel was a leader in the cooperative movement with hundreds of thousands of members worldwide as well as in the labor union movement.”

In 1974, however, relations soured significantly. In the wake of the Yom Kippur War, the majority of sub-Saharan countries sided with the Arab states and severed ties with Israel. A feeling of betrayal has lingered and Israeli aid to Africa has never returned to its pre-war levels.

“It was terrible and was caused by two things,” Paz said. “First, the oil crisis; the Arabs used oil as a weapon and the prices skyrocketed to $20 [a barrel]. The Arabs promised aid to African countries, but they never fulfilled their promise. The second was the political power of the Non- Aligned countries.”

During those years, Israel also strengthened its ties with apartheid South Africa, partly as a reaction to its treatment by the rest of the continent, creating yet more tension with sub-Saharan states. Still, Israeli experts never entirely left the region.

“The now defunct Afro-Asian Institute I headed had ties with 50 countries including in Africa all that time,” Paz said. “In later years most African leaders admitted they had made a mistake cutting ties with Israel. I know several leaders of African states who not only personally expressed regret but some of them even expressed shame.”

Israel is now increasing its involvement in the continent through several projects, albeit not on the same scale as in the past.

“Africa as you know is undergoing a great boom, it is slowly accelerating its economic development although Israeli involvement there isn’t always beneficial – but that’s another issue,” Paz said. “One has to remember that less than 1 percent of Israel’s imports and less than 5% of its exports are with Africa.”

One factor motivating greater Israeli involvement in Africa is that the continent’s problems are now showing up on its own doorstep. In recent years a growing number of people from Sudan, Eritrea and other African countries have illegally entered Israel seeking work and refuge. But solving that problem might be beyond Israel’s capacity, Paz said.

“For Israel to stop migration it needs to be an impoverished nation,” he said. ”You have to understand there are a billion people in the world who live on less than a dollar a day. One person in eight is hungry. It’s not that they aren’t eating enough steak, they’re starving. They have no future, no hope for their children and they will do everything they can to give them hope.”




Bob Geldof has become the poster boy for the JNF (Jewish National Fund) by declaring that "The JNF Got it Over 100 years Ago" and that he "told everyone how the JNF & Israel understood the idea of sustainability & the importance of water - from the beginning". This is yet another strategy used by the JNF to cloak its crimes against the Palestinians. The Fund is a multi-national organisation with offices in about a dozen countries. It receives millions of dollars from donors around the world, most of which are tax-exempt.

The JNF has illegally expropriated most of the land belonging to the 372 Palestinian villages which had been ethnically cleansed by Zionist forces in 1948. The owners of this land and their descendants today constitute over half of the UN-registered Palestinian refugees. Today the JNF controls over 2,500 sq.km. of Palestinian land, which it leases to Jews only, as well as bulldozing more Palestinian villages. It also planted 100 parks on Palestinian land, especially to disguise destroyed Palestinian villages, such as the wood "God TV" planted on the village of El Araqib, which has been repeatedly destroyed in 2011-2012.

In addition, the JNF has a long record of discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel, as reported by the UN. The Fund has also extended its range by directly or by proxy operating in the occupied West Bank [including occupied East Jerusalem]. All this is in clear violation of International Law and particularly of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which forbids confiscation of property and the settling of the occupier's citizens on occupied land.

Ethnic cleansing, expropriation of property and destruction of houses are war crimes. Moreover, the use of tax-exempt donations to these ends violates the JNF is domiciled.

JNF greenwashing (by planting trees of on stolen land) must be condemned. The Fund's crimes do not deserve to be praised. This is our moral responsibility towards Palestinians who have been discriminated against and denied their basic human rights from the 1948 Al-Nakba (Catastrophe) until the present.



Friday, 29 August 2014

Sir Bernard Lovell and the Mind War

"They tried to remove from my memory the fact that they had taken me to their own defence nucleus on the Black Sea coast, because they did not want news of what they had brought back to this country."

"The pictures from Luna 9 were not released immediately by the Soviet authorities. 

Instead, the Jodrell Bank Observatory in England, which was monitoring the craft, noticed that the signal format used was identical to the internationally agreed system used by newspapers for transmitting pictures. 

The Daily Express rushed a suitable receiver to the Observatory and the pictures from Luna 9 were decoded and published worldwide. 

BBC News speculated that the spacecraft's designers deliberately fitted the probe with equipment conforming to the standard, to enable reception of the pictures by Jodrell Bank."
"They tried to remove from my memory the fact that they had taken me to their own defence nucleus on the Black Sea coast, because they did not want news of what they had brought back to this country."



In 2009, Lovell spoke of a claimed assassination attempt at the Deep-Space Communication Center (Eupatoria) during the Cold War where the Soviets allegedly tried to kill him with a lethal radiation dose. 

At the time, Lovell was head of the Jodrell Bank space telescope that was also being used as part of an early warning system for Soviet nuclear attacks. Lovell wrote a full account of the incident, to be published only after his death.

MI6 say:


"Sir Bernard led the construction of the Jodrell Bank Radio Telescope which launched in 1959 and tracked the USSR's Sputnik satellite - the first in the world.

In a TV interview Sir Bernard confirmed that the Jodrell Bank was then used as the first "early warning device" of a Soviet nuclear attack.

And he says that put him in the front line - and the Russian military used radiation to try to kill him during a visit behind the Iron Curtain in 1963.

Sir Bernard has never spoken before about the attempt on his life but says he has written a detailed account which will not be published until after his death.

Sir Bernard said: "I think I should have been prevented from going to to the Soviet Union because they obviously knew we had been used as a defence centre.

"They tried to remove from my memory the fact that they had taken me to their own defence nucleus on the Black Sea coast, because they did not want news of what they had brought back to this country.

"I was jolly glad to see the lights of London on one return journey."

Sir Bernard was asked about how he suffered radiation sickness after the visit to the USSR and told how he believes the Russians used a radio telescope to bombard him with lethal radiation.

Sir Bernard said: "It is true I was ill for quite a long time, but I recovered. It took me a month or so but I recovered.

"I think they had an extremely powerful transmitter of the type we had on the telescope for planetary research.

"The radiation from this telescope here was so dangerous that we would never use it at an elevation below about 15 degrees because of the risk of endangering people's brains.

"It was a sinister time and a lot of my compatriots who went to the Soviet Union in those days in the early 1960s never did return, or when they did return they never survived.

"I was one of the fortunate ones."

Sire Bernard revealed that he has lodged a detailed account of his Cold War exploits in Manchester's John Rylands Library.

He added: "It remains an interesting memory and I have written a detailed memorandum on the whole of that visit and my previous and subsequent visits to the Soviet Union which is now in the John Rylands Archive and I have asked that it not to be published while I am still living."


U.S. relations with Moscow through the decades have been problematic at best while the embassy itself has been the subject of spy scandals, eavesdropping and other Cold War intrigue. One of the strangest episodes was revealed in the 1970s, when the U.S. confirmed that the USSR had been beaming microwaves at the embassy for the past 15 years. 

One concern was that the Soviets were trying to inflict physical harm on the Americans working there. Famed columnist Jack Anderson wrote that a CIA file named “Operation Pandora” described the Soviets’ attempt to “brainwash” Americans. 

The level of microwaves was actually lower than what was considered safe in the U.S. at the time; another explanation is that the USSR was apparently trying to jam electronic monitoring devices located at the embassy. 

William Andreas Brown discusses the widespread concern among Americans working at the embassy at the time and their anger at the State Department for its lack of transparency on the issue.  He was interviewed by Charles Stuart Kennedy beginning in November 1998. 

BROWN:  When I first went to Moscow in 1966, after serving in Borneo and Southeast Asia, I fought tooth and nail to be assigned to study Russian, so that I could be assigned as the Sino-Soviet specialist in Moscow. For me, with the mentality of that period, this was a great challenge. This was the front line in the heart of the country of our adversaries. That’s the way we looked at things in the Foreign Service in those days.

I have to tell you what a shock it was in about 1972 or 1973 to wake up to the great, microwave scandal and to find that Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and his associates had kept from us the fact that for years we had been bombarded by microwave apparatuses, directed straight at the embassy in Moscow. 

I remember being one of a small group of officers in 1972 or 1973 when news of this development broke. We raised our voices in despair, dissent, and so forth. We were finally ushered into a room where Larry Eagleburger, Kissinger’s Special Assistant at the time, briefed us and made some sort of presentation, assuring us that steps would be taken, and so forth. 

He said that medical studies were under way, and the evidence thus far was that these microwaves had not been deleterious to our health. This was somewhat reassuring until, at the end of the meeting, Larry Eagleburger said, “Now, rip up all of your notes and give them to me. Nobody can leave with notes on this discussion.” One said to oneself: “What in the hell is going on here?”

It turned out that the Soviets had been bombarding us with microwaves, beginning in about 1964 or 1965. Why they had done this remained a mystery. How they had bombarded our embassy remained somewhat of a mystery, as well as why they had done so. Also a mystery was what was the response. We were furious. We felt betrayed by the leadership of the Department of State and by the Secretary of State himself…I’m speaking now of the microwave radiation scandal, as I would call it, of the early 1970s, which harked back to the early 1960s.

Many of us who had served in the embassy felt betrayed as people who had put so much into our efforts and who had volunteered to serve in Moscow. We probably would have volunteered anyway to serve in Moscow, even if we had known about this. However, we learned only years later that this had happened and that information on it had been kept from us. Foreign Service physical examinations routinely include a blood test. Unbeknownst to us, the Department of State was testing our blood to see what, if anything had happened to us as a result of the microwave radiation. This was a pretty jolting realization.

Now, at that stage we were assured that there was no evidence whatsoever of damage to our bodies. You know, so many people had been given physical examinations. In an atmosphere like that stories soon began to come out that so-and-so had developed cancer. There was a story circulating that a former leader of the Marine Security Guard detachment in Moscow, who was married and had children, had filed a suit against the State Department and that this suit had been settled out of court for alleged damage to one or more of his children.

Wow! Let me tell you, when I went back to the embassy in Moscow in 1977, this situation had become a matter which affected staff morale. Now I was going back, if you will, as the third-ranking officer in Embassy Moscow. I was of equal status with the Economic Counselor, but in the third-ranking position in the embassy. I had become a part of the management of the mission. By this time we had meters to measure microwave emanations.

In the interval something like summer screens had been installed on the windows. I remember once gathering a group of officers with this meter and showing them the effect of taking the screen off. The needle on the meter jumped noticeably. Then we put the screen back on the outer window, because the microwave beam was coming in directly from the front. When we did this, the needle on the meter dropped down. Not all the way, but it faded significantly. 

So I then said to them, you can see the effect yourselves, but we are now told that this radiation is less dangerous to your health than living near one of the radio stations in Chevy Chase, Maryland, or something like that.

I had just been administering the environmental agreement between the Soviet Union and the United States. I had seen studies by Soviet scientists in an entirely different field which highlighted the deleterious effects of microwave emissions, such as emissions from high-voltage electric wires.

It wasn’t long before another scare broke. It turned out that the studies of our blood samples over the years of people who had served in Moscow showed that something like six months after a person arrived in Moscow, his or her white blood counts rose significantly. Some people speculated that this had to do with the water supply. 

A team led by a doctor was sent out from Washington to look into the matter. I can’t recall his name now, but he had earlier pooh-poohed the notion that the radiation the American staff was receiving was deleterious and now he was visiting Moscow again. He announced to us that his group wanted to meet with Soviet medical authorities to discuss with them the epidemiology of the Moscow population, because we had now found significantly higher white blood counts in the blood of the Americans who served in the embassy in Moscow. The idea that the Soviets would sit down and talk with such a medical team about the blood counts of typical, Russian residents of Moscow, in epidemiological terms seemed so naive. Can you imagine the concern of Russian medical authorities about a story that Moscow was an unhealthy place to live? In fact, environmentally speaking, Moscow was an unhealthy place to live, in several ways. So the Soviets ignored this request.

All of this fermented, and the American press played it up. We had a real scare in Moscow. I raise that matter in terms of lessons learned. Lord knows what the future will bring in the Foreign Service.

Q: Before we leave that matter, was consideration ever given to our saying to the Soviets: “If you keep up this nonsense, we will close our embassy in Moscow?” 

BROWN: Or, we could say, if the Soviets kept up this nonsense, we would do exactly the same thing to the Soviet Embassy in Washington. But, oh, no, that would have been nasty, and nothing like that was done. We felt pretty strongly about this. It affected morale and assignments to positions in the embassy.

Q: What was the purpose of what has to be regarded as this campaign by Soviet authorities against the health of members of the staff of the American embassy in Moscow?  

BROWN: This takes you into realms that I’m really not qualified to discuss. I was aware of various theories and of measures and countermeasures that might be taken. However, the point is that microwave emissions were being beamed at us. This point came home to me particularly one day when a visiting technician from the State Department came with equipment and said, “Do you mind if I set this up in your office?”




I said, “Okay, but why here? Why in my office?” He said, “Because actually there are at least two beams being directed at the embassy. One comes in from the front of the embassy building, and one comes in from that great, white building over there, which is called the ‘White House.’  You know, where the Russian Parliament meets.”

“One beam comes this way, and the two beams intersect right here at your desk. So I’d like to set this up.” I thought: “My God! It makes you think.” But the Soviets weren’t turning these beams off. This was a disturbing development. As I said, it affected assignments to positions in the embassy in Moscow, as well as other things.

The Foreign Service had now a much less glamorous view of serving in Moscow. It was a dirty, unattractive, hostile city. It was difficult to persuade a middle ranking senior officer of superior quality to come back to Moscow. Over and over you encountered a whole variety of excuses, such as: “I’d love to return to Moscow. Don’t misunderstand me. However, my wife would object, or my kids’ schooling situation would be a problem.” In those days it was very disturbing to me to deal with such attitudes. I myself had not volunteered to go back to Moscow. However, once there, I threw myself into the job. So service in the embassy in Moscow was a unique experience in many ways.