Spy agencies listened in on Diana
Liberius
Spy agencies listened in on Diana
February 27 2000
Nick Fielding and Duncan Campbell
The Sunday Times
www.the-times.co.uk
SPY agencies in Britain and America eavesdropped on Diana, Princess
of Wales and Mark Thatcher, son of the former prime minister, as
part of a global system of monitoring communications, according to
former intelligence officials.
Calls by Diana were picked up because of her international charity
work; Thatcher's calls surfaced in the monitoring of British arms
deals with Saudi Arabia.
The officials also revealed that charities such as Amnesty
International, Christian Aid and Greenpeace were secretly spied on.
Overseas targets have even included the Vatican: messages sent by
the Pope and the late Mother Teresa of Calcutta have been
intercepted, read and passed on to Whitehall intelligence officers,
the sources say.
Codenamed Echelon, the monitoring system is part of a worldwide
network of listening stations capable of processing millions of
messages an hour. At least 10 Echelon stations operate around the
world. Canada, Australia and New Zealand participate, as well as
Britain and the United States.
Former intelligence officials have spoken out after a decision by
the European parliament to launch an inquiry into Echelon's
operations. Officially, the British and American governments
continue to deny the network's existence.
Wayne Madsen, who worked for 20 years at America's National Security
Agency (NSA) and other agencies, said last week: "Anybody who is
politically active will eventually end up on the NSA's radar
screen."
Charities operating overseas are monitored because they often have
access to details about controversial regimes. Amnesty was a
particular target in the late 1980s, sources said. According to
Madsen, "undisclosed material held in US government files on
Princess Diana was collected because of her work with the
international campaign to ban landmines".
The NSA, a former insider has revealed, has also targeted
communications concerning British military sales to Saudi Arabia in
the 1980s.
Its monitoring intercepted communications sent by Thatcher, who was
then involved in the giant al-Yamamah arms contract between Britain
and Saudi Arabia. The NSA also eavesdropped on the Panavia
consortium, which builds the Tornado fighter aircraft. British
Aerospace is one of the main partners in the consortium.
"I just think of Echelon as a great vacuum cleaner in the sky which
sucks everything up," said Mike Frost, a former Canadian
intelligence officer. "We just get to look at the goodies."
Frost, who retired in 1992 after 20 years' service, has also
revealed that Canada's equivalent of GCHQ was used by Margaret
Thatcher to monitor two cabinet colleagues. "She wanted to find out
not what they were saying," Frost said, "but what they were
thinking."
The ultra-secret operation was conducted from an office at Macdonald
House in Grosvenor Square, central London, which houses the Canadian
high commission. According to Frost, Canadian spies were asked by
GCHQ to undertake the operation because it was too politically
sensitive for GCHQ to do itself. After spending three weeks tapping
the ministers' communications, the Canadian officer who led the
operation drove to GCHQ and handed over the tapes.
Margaret Newsham, an American computer software manager who worked
during the 1980s at the giant listening station at Menwith Hill in
Yorkshire, confirmed last week: "I was aware that massive security
violations were taking place. If these systems were for combating
drugs or terrorism, that would be fine. But not for use in spying on
individuals."
Newsham says she was invited to listen in on an American senator's
intercepted phone call at Menwith Hill. Later she informed Congress
about her experiences. "It was evident American constitutional laws
had been broken," she said.
Avenues of redress for those targeted by Echelon are few. The Sunday
Times has established that a loophole in the 1985 Interception of
Communication Act means intelligence officials can put individuals
and organisations under surveillance without a specific ministerial
warrant. Section 3 (2) of the act, governing interception of
communications going to, through or from Britain, allows entire
classes of communication to be monitored.
Copyright 2000 Times Newspapers Ltd.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Aleeta
--
~A J's Fun Photos~
banana <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<65nXXAAS...@borve.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <89aei6$l3u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, posted to
> alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '06:00:38' on 'Sun, 27 Feb
> 2000', Liberius <libe...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
> >
> >
> >Spy agencies listened in on Diana
> >
> >February 27 2000
> >Nick Fielding and Duncan Campbell
> >The Sunday Times
> >www.the-times.co.uk
> >
> <sni>
>
> >The officials also revealed that charities such as Amnesty
> >International, Christian Aid and Greenpeace were secretly spied on.
>
> !
~*~*~*~*~*~*~
I don't know much about Greenpeace, but I do know this, that they cause
more problems than what it's worht and they are not highly favored around
here.(AJ)
>
> Amnesty International is an SIS front.
>
> Greenpeace is also spook-run, I am not sure by which agency. I long
> suspected it was run by German intelligence, but that may not be the
> case. Lord Melchett is from the family that controls ICI (Imperial
> Chemical Industries), and was formerly a political member of the British
> royal household. Given that it is a global-reach environmentalist group,
> links to the inner parts of the British state would be expected.
>
> Greenpeace has an extraordinarily effective intelligence network that is
> better than those of some small European states. For example when a
> bureaucrat from a small state says something at a conference, sometimes
> the first the ministry back home gets to hear of it is when Greenpeace
> contact them about it.
>
> <snip>
>
> >Former intelligence officials have spoken out after a decision by
> >the European parliament to launch an inquiry into Echelon's
> >operations. Officially, the British and American governments
> >continue to deny the network's existence.
>
> The existence of UKUSA, of which Echelon is a part, has though now been
> admitted - by the Australian government as recently as March 1999! UKUSA
> was set up in 1947!
>
> >Charities operating overseas are monitored because they often have
> >access to details about controversial regimes. Amnesty was a
> >particular target in the late 1980s, sources said.
>
> Ha ha. A bit like saying SIS keeps a close watch on the Daily Telegraph
> or the CIA on Readers' Digest.
>
> >Frost, who retired in 1992 after 20 years' service, has also
> >revealed that Canada's equivalent of GCHQ was used by Margaret
> >Thatcher to monitor two cabinet colleagues. "She wanted to find out
> >not what they were saying," Frost said, "but what they were
> >thinking."
>
> Interesting. Why didn't she use GCHQ? Which colleagues I wonder. I
> wonder if they included Jonathan Aitken, Malcolm Rifkind, or
> Nicholas 'P2' Ridley.
>
> >The ultra-secret operation was conducted from an office at Macdonald
> >House in Grosvenor Square, central London, which houses the Canadian
> >high commission. According to Frost, Canadian spies were asked by
> >GCHQ to undertake the operation because it was too politically
> >sensitive for GCHQ to do itself.
>
> As if! More like, the targets may have had ears at GCHQ.
>
> One can only speculate about the extent that Canadian and US armed
> forces and signals intelligence agencies are used in cooperation with UK
> agencies in gathering intelligence in the UK itself.
>
> >After spending three weeks tapping
> >the ministers' communications, the Canadian officer who led the
> >operation drove to GCHQ and handed over the tapes.
>
> Ha! So GCHQ *were* involved then. Hardly keeping their hands clean.
>
> Two questions are:
>
> - is the UK's participation in UKUSA/Echelon considered sufficiently
> important for the UK rulers to refuse to back down in the face of French
> and German (corporate-state) pressure to do so?
>
> (Remember that the large UK-based or largely-UK-based corporations - BT,
> BAT, Marconi, etc. - have considerable investments/involvement in the
> US.OTOH one has other large companies that are British-Dutch, e.g. Shell
> and Reed-Elsevier. Most European investment in the US comes from the UK;
> most US investment in Europe goes to the UK. Of course one also has
> Bilderberg, wherein the central rulers of Europe are very cosy with
> Rockefeller interests and have been for generations; and long-term US
> covert support for European unity of one kind or another).
>
> (And one of the departmental chiefs in the European Commission - one of
> the permanent government people that is, not one of the twerps like Neil
> Kinnock who spend a few years as a Commissioner - recently married into
> the Dutch royal family).
>
> - notwithstanding all the current UK 'punters'-arena' political rubbish
> about whether or not the UK rulers should take their country into the
> euro currency zone, is the real question not rather whether or not the
> French and German states and large corporations actually want the UK in
> the euro zone while Echelon remains a tool of US-UK corporations? If
> they told the UK rulers to keep out, it might very well be reported in
> both the UK and the continental-European press as a matter of UK
> governmental intransigence.
>
> Stuff to look for:
>
> - one hopes that more is going to break about the NSA-Microsoft
> relationship
>
> - and also, generally speaking, about the role of Microsoft in US
> corporate-state imperialism. (Microsoft was kicked out of the emergent
> industrial superpower China recently).
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
I don't think there is any connection with Microsoft and the NSA. This
story is spinning out of control. At the time when IBM took on Microsoft,
they were just a very small company. I believe it was all about promotion
and that is all. Boeing took in all IBM products long before Microsoft
ever existed and of course being that when Microsoft came into existence
that Boeing and IBM came together. What's the problem with promotion?
It's done everyday in business and Bill Gates has resigned as President of
his company to get deeper into furthering his products. Computers and
software are in it's infancy as we know it today. Bill Gates is also
dedicated to this project and both he and his wife are heavy donaters to
this area and now world wide. They completely are almost the sole donaters
to foster children and I know this because I am a foster parent. I have
learned many things about Bill and Melinda that even shocked me. I and my
foster son have reaped many benefits due to these two people and I never
even knew where it came from until just lately. I cannot bash Mr. Bill at
all and nor should the damn government. What is going on is that Mr. Bill
Clinton, wants into the back pocket of Bill Gates. This is all political
and also the jealousy of other software companies that cannot compare to
Microsoft. My message to them is to quit bitching and get with the
program. The general public has placed their monies into Microsoft and
that has given them the opportunity to do what they do best. Microsoft
stock is worth it's while. They have done nothing any different than any
other company. It is primarily the Boeing workers who invest in the best
and this has helped them a great deal.
Aleeta
>
> - Hopefully it will come out - in the hip crypto/hacker world at least -
> that PGP and public/private key encryption are utterly insecure, because
> the NSA detects private keys when they are generated.
>
> - watch Linux and the chip that Torvalds is working on. This could be
> the new generation hardware - standard for the the supposed 'wireless
> age'.
>
>
> BTW call me a cynic but I don't see Torvalds as a hip anti-the-system
> guy at all. As I've said before, Linux does kick 4ss, but one would have
> to be very naive to think it's going to make the intelligence capability
> of the NSA crumble into the dust. (Ditto w/ PGP). Anyone got any info on
> Torvalds's big-corporate connections? Intel? What about connections with
> Nokia? In fact, where does Nokia fit into all of this?
> --
> banana
>
Bernhard Boer
banana <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> schreef in berichtnieuws
65nXXAAS...@borve.demon.co.uk...
> In article <89aei6$l3u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, posted to
> alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '06:00:38' on 'Sun, 27 Feb
> 2000', Liberius <libe...@my-deja.com> writes:
> (And one of the departmental chiefs in the European Commission - one of
> the permanent government people that is, not one of the twerps like Neil
> Kinnock who spend a few years as a Commissioner - recently married into
> the Dutch royal family).
[snip]
Names please, because I have no idea who you are talking about.
Bernhard
Nadya
I still read some of your posts once in a while and....geez.......you are
obcessed!!!......you see conspiracy EVERYWHERE!!!!
You must be a very unhappy person in real life. Why don't you relax and have
a drink.....unless you also think that the peoples running the bar are also
part of the conspiracy !!
Have a good day!
banana a écrit dans le message <65nXXAAS...@borve.demon.co.uk>...
>In article <89aei6$l3u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, posted to
>alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '06:00:38' on 'Sun, 27 Feb
>2000', Liberius <libe...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
>>
>>
>>Spy agencies listened in on Diana
>>
>>February 27 2000
>>Nick Fielding and Duncan Campbell
>>The Sunday Times
>>www.the-times.co.uk
>>
><sni>
>
>>The officials also revealed that charities such as Amnesty
>>International, Christian Aid and Greenpeace were secretly spied on.
>
>!
>
>(And one of the departmental chiefs in the European Commission - one of
>the permanent government people that is, not one of the twerps like Neil
>Kinnock who spend a few years as a Commissioner - recently married into
>the Dutch royal family).
>
>- notwithstanding all the current UK 'punters'-arena' political rubbish
>about whether or not the UK rulers should take their country into the
>euro currency zone, is the real question not rather whether or not the
>French and German states and large corporations actually want the UK in
>the euro zone while Echelon remains a tool of US-UK corporations? If
>they told the UK rulers to keep out, it might very well be reported in
>both the UK and the continental-European press as a matter of UK
>governmental intransigence.
>
>Stuff to look for:
>
>- one hopes that more is going to break about the NSA-Microsoft
>relationship
>
>- and also, generally speaking, about the role of Microsoft in US
>corporate-state imperialism. (Microsoft was kicked out of the emergent
>industrial superpower China recently).
>
Steve Reed
HIS.borve.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <89aei6$l3u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, posted to
>alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '06:00:38' on 'Sun, 27 Feb
>2000', Liberius <libe...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
>>
>>
>>Spy agencies listened in on Diana
>>
>>February 27 2000
>>Nick Fielding and Duncan Campbell
>>The Sunday Times
>>www.the-times.co.uk
>
>or the CIA on Readers' Digest.
Surveillance does not have to be hostile, of course; but, in Diana's
case, it was. Thanks to Kevin Warren, we have now seen documents which
show how concerned American agencies were about Diana's publicising the
issue of land-mines.
They warned that her influence was threatening American policy in this
area and, especially, that if a ban were introduced in Britain, the
storage of mines at US-bases here - or the transport of mines, via those
bases - could be jeopardised.
The deployment of land-mines is an important part of US military policy
- and profits - wherever there are static, hostile land-borders to be
defended, such as along the north/south divide in Korea.
The documents note Diana's contacts with politicians and her high-
profile trips to places where many children had been maimed by land-
mines. They were worried - there's no doubt of that - and they were
watching her closely. Every phone-call would have been tracked,
recorded and analysed, I assume - this would have been the case even if
she had not been so controversial, of course. Simply knowing so many
influential people would have been enough to mark HER card.
I think that Diana's impact on public opinion in the matter of land-
mines would certainly have been a factor in the decision to terminate
her, and that surveillance, through the Echelon network, was used in the
course of coming to this decision and the planning of its execution.
--
Steve Reed
Steve Reed
<ajoh...@psesd.org> writes
>
I notice that the Greenpeace op to turn back a ship laden with GM-soya
was co-ordinated with the release of NSA transcripts showing that
Clinton had pressured Blair into accepting GM-technology. Blair then
pretended that he'd been cautious about GM all along but has made no
move to scale down the huge GM research-projects now in progress here.
90% of these projects are concerned with consumer-acceptability of GM-
foods, I hear, and only 10% with environmental impact - so much for
caution!
What is really interesting is why the American agencies should be
torpedoing Blair now - didn't he lead the attack on Yugoslavia? Hasn't
he infiltrated the EU on behalf of the USA? Isn't he bombing Iraq, like
a good boy?
I think the Americans realise that Britain is going to kick out Blair -
and Brussels - before very long. They'll be working on a scheme to use
the Conservative Party in a NAFTA framework instead, I daresay.
The recent revelations about Echelon may even be part of this strategy!
--
Steve Reed
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '19:14:44' on 'Mon, 28 Feb
2000', Nadya <na...@enter-net.com> writes:
<snip>
>Why don't you relax and have
>a drink.....unless you also think that the peoples running the bar are also
>part of the conspiracy !!
Do you know why pubs sell salty foods such as crisps and peanuts? :-)
--
banana
Trevjon
--
banana <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jV5R8DAF...@borve.demon.co.uk...
> In article <EOzu4.21527$jb7.5...@carnaval.risq.qc.ca>, posted to
> alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '19:14:44' on 'Mon, 28 Feb
> 2000', Nadya <na...@enter-net.com> writes:
>
> <snip>
>
> >Why don't you relax and have
> >a drink.....unless you also think that the peoples running the bar are
also
> >part of the conspiracy !!
>
> Do you know why pubs sell salty foods such as crisps and peanuts? :-)
> --
> banana
Yes, to encourage people to drink more. Hardly a global conspiracy, more
just shrewd business acumen. Nobody forces you to eat crisps, peanuts or
pork Scratchings with your pint, it is your own personal choice. You would
be better off ranting about the high costs of soft drinks in pubs, rather
than the crisps and peanuts.
Trevjon
Aleeta
drinks.:o))
Aleeta
--
~ A J's Fun Photos ~
http://www.picture.com
http://members.delphi.com/ALEETA
http://www.familytreemaker.com/users/j/o/h/ALEETA-E-Johnson
banana wrote in message ...
>In article <EOzu4.21527$jb7.5...@carnaval.risq.qc.ca>, posted to
>alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '19:14:44' on 'Mon, 28 Feb
>2000', Nadya <na...@enter-net.com> writes:
>
><snip>
>
>>Why don't you relax and have
>>a drink.....unless you also think that the peoples running the bar are
also
>>part of the conspiracy !!
>
Steve Reed
Deja.com> writes
>
>The Wall Street Journal, March 17, 2000
>
>Why We Spy on Our Allies
>
>By R. James Woolsey, a Washington lawyer
>and a former Director of Central Intelligence.
>
>What is the recent flap regarding Echelon and U.S. spying on
>European industries all about? We'll begin with some candor from the
>American side. Yes, my continental European friends, we have spied
>on you. And it's true that we use computers to sort through data by
>using keywords. Have you stopped to ask yourselves what we're
>looking for?
Does one ask oneself what a burglar is looking for when one disturbs him
in one's house? Later, perhaps. The immediate concern is that he be
apprehended, subjected to the rigour of the law and made to pay the
price for his crime. Other considerations - including his excuses - are
ancillary. Unfortunately, some crime-bosses are virtually above the
law, so that even after they have been caught red-handed, and WITHOUT
ANY EFFECTIVE ACTION BEING TAKEN AGAINST THEM, we are obliged to listen
to their excuses - to allow them to appeal, not against conviction, but
against accusation itself. That is the humiliating situation we are in.
>
>The European Parliament's recent report on Echelon, written by
>British journalist Duncan Campbell, has sparked angry accusations
>from continental Europe that U.S. intelligence is stealing advanced
>technology from European companies so that we can -- get this --
>give it to American companies and help them compete. My European
>friends, get real. True, in a handful of areas European technology
>surpasses American, but, to say this as gently as I can, the number
>of such areas is very, very, very small. Most European technology
>just isn't worth our stealing.
>
Why Mr. "Get-this" Woolsey, even talks like a gangster. How very
appropriate. And his excuse for breaking and entering our house? "I
wasn't stealing your possessions, because you have nothing I want." Is
that so, Mr. Woolsey!
>Why, then, have we spied on you? The answer is quite apparent from
>the Campbell report -- in the discussion of the only two cases in
>which European companies have allegedly been targets of American
>secret intelligence collection.
(but surely not the only cases which COULD be cited!)
> Of Thomson-CSF, the report says:
>"The company was alleged to have bribed members of the Brazilian
>government selection panel." Of Airbus, it says that we found that
>"Airbus agents were offering bribes to a Saudi official." These
>facts are inevitably left out of European press reports.
>
Mr. Woolsey is seriously suggesting that burglary can be justified on
the grounds that evidence of wrong-doing by the householder MIGHT be
uncovered in the course of a break-in! He then repeats allegations
which are quite irrelevant to the crime in question (and which, I may
say, are supported only by evidence allegedly in his possession as a
result of that crime)
>That's right, my continental friends, we have spied on you because
>you bribe. Your companies' products are often more costly, less
>technically advanced or both, than your American competitors'. As a
>result you bribe a lot. So complicit are your governments that in
>several European countries bribes still are tax-deductible.
>
So you say, Mr. Woolsey, but, even if these allegations are true, they
do not provide justification. Indeed, they are irrelevant. And when we
consider the vast size of the Echelon budget, the idea that you are
spying on us merely for the purpose you allege, is anyway, quite
incredible.
>When we have caught you at it, you might be interested, we haven't
>said a word to the U.S. companies in the competition. Instead we go
>to the government you're bribing and tell its officials that we
>don't take kindly to such corruption. They often respond by giving
>the most meritorious bid (sometimes American, sometimes not) all or
>part of the contract. This upsets you, and sometimes creates
>recriminations between your bribers and the other country's bribees,
>and this occasionally becomes a public scandal. We love it.
>
It is also most unlikely that American goods are generally of better
quality than European goods or that American firms are less corrupt than
European firms. One thing IS certain, and that is that you are spying on
European business (among other things) and using the results to promote
(among other things) American business. I think we should demand your
extradition and trial forthwith!
>Why do you bribe? It's not because your companies are inherently
>more corrupt. Nor is it because you are inherently less talented at
>technology. It is because your economic patron saint is still Jean
>Baptiste Colbert, whereas ours is Adam Smith. In spite of a few
>recent reforms, your governments largely still dominate your
>economies, so you have much greater difficulty than we in
>innovating, encouraging labor mobility, reducing costs, attracting
>capital to fast-moving young businesses and adapting quickly to
>changing economic circumstances. You'd rather not go through the
>hassle of moving toward less dirigisme. It's so much easier to keep
>paying bribes.
>
In Europe, the democratically-elected representatives of the people
exercise a degree of legitimate control over big-business. In the USA
big-business controls the state. It is foolish to pretend (as you do
pretend) that the plutocracy you represent is not more awash with
bribery and corruption than any other state on earth. You boast of the
mobility of your labour as though it did not mean uprooting communities
for corporate profit. You boast of cost-reduction as though this did not
mean out-sourcing at will to Mexico or China. You boast of your
innovations, as though planned obsolescence were not the key feature of
your tawdry marketeering. And this is your defence against the
accusation that you have spent billions of dollars spying on European
individuals, politicians and companies for the last twenty years?
>The Central Intelligence Agency collects other economic
>intelligence, but the vast majority of it is not stolen secrets. The
>Aspin-Brown Commission four years ago found that about 95% of U.S.
>economic intelligence comes from open sources.
>
How are these percentage points calculated? By the numbers of words
read? Even if it were so, your statement would still be meaningless,
because it is the QUALITY of the information which counts, not the
quantity - however you calculate it; and while you struggle to keep
everyone's attention on your economic espionage, the more serious
counts of spying on individuals and organisations, for more directly
political purposes, go completely unaddressed.
>The Campbell report describes a sinister-sounding U.S. meeting in
>Washington where -- shudder! -- CIA personnel are present and the
>participants -- brace yourself -- "identify major contracts open for
>bid" in Indonesia. Mr. Campbell, I suppose, imagines something like
>this: A crafty CIA spy steals stealthily out of a safe house,
>changes disguises, checks to make sure he's not under surveillance,
>coordinates with a spy satellite and . . . buys an Indonesian
>newspaper. If you Europeans really think we go to such absurd
>lengths to obtain publicly available information, why don't you just
>laugh at us instead of getting in high dudgeon?
>
The NSA co-ordinates its activities with more than a dozen other secret-
service agencies (with a combined DECLARED budget in excess of $30
billion per annum) in order to manipulate world politics and economics
in favour of adopting, not just a distasteful, unjust and undemocratic
plutocracy LIKE yours, but YOUR distasteful, unjust and undemocratic
plutocracy, AND NO OTHER. To this end, and using your truly SINISTER
espionage-system, you set out to undermine the other regimes of the
world, however much less distasteful, unjust and undemocratic they might
be than yours. Indeed, the more popularly acceptable, just and
democratic a regime, the more assiduously you work to undermine it,
infiltrate it, suborn its leaders and threaten, torture and murder its
supporters. How many did you kill in Operation Condor? In Operations
Gladio and Catena? How many more are you killing now in operations whose
names we do not YET know?
>What are the economic secrets, in addition to bribery attempts, that
>we have conducted espionage to obtain? One example is some
>companies' efforts to conceal the transfer of dual-use technology.
>We follow sales of supercomputers and certain chemicals closely,
>because they can be used not only for commercial purposes but for
>the production of weapons of mass destruction. Another is economic
>activity in countries subject to sanctions -- Serbian banking, Iraqi
>oil smuggling.
>
The USA seeks, in the name of the United Nations, the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund, to reserve to itself the right to arm or
disarm countries, enrich or impoverish them, lionise or demonise them,
amalgamate or fragment them, to appoint their leaders, restructure their
economies, adjust their legislation and reward or punish their citizens
as it sees fit. It sells vast quantities of arms to insurgent groups
which it has itself instituted in countries it wishes to destabilize,
usually in exchange for narcotics which it peddles, via its fifth column
in organised crime, to urban populations, throughout the world. It
sells sophisticated, nuclear, biological and chemical weaponry - never
mind "dual use" technology! - under cover of embargoes which it has
imposed on everyone else, to rival countries which it wishes to see
destroy one another; and it does all this with the aid of the Echelon
System, which, Mr. Woolsey would have us believe, is dedicated only to
the odd spot of JUSTIFIED economic espionage!
>But do we collect or even sort secret intelligence for the benefit
>of specific American companies? Even Mr. Campbell admits that we
>don't, although he can't bring himself to say so except with a
>double negative: "In general this is not incorrect."
But in specific cases (by the same token) IT IS SO, and, as I say, this
is the least culpable of the multiple crimes, on a global scale, in
which the NSA is an accomplice.
> The Aspin-Brown
>Commission was more explicit: "U.S. Intelligence Agencies are not
>tasked to engage in 'industrial espionage' -- i.e. obtaining trade
>secrets for the benefit of a U.S. company or companies."
>
And that's explicit? "Not tasked"? Where is "has never once been
commissioned" or "is forbidden to involve itself in"? "Not tasked" only
means "is not specifically designed for" - and, given the range of
nefarious activities which US secret services, supported by the NSA, are
presently, and have for long been, inflicting on the world, it doesn't
surprise me at all that the NSA is not specifically "tasked" to engage
in industrial espionage! Industrial espionage it takes in its stride,
while spying, with malice aforethought, on everyone and everything it
believes may provide information which will further its evil purpose!
>The French government is forming a commission to look into all this.
>I hope the commissioners come to Washington. We should organize two
>seminars for them. One would cover our Foreign Corrupt Practices
>Act, and how we use it, quite effectively, to discourage U.S.
>companies from bribing foreign governments. A second would cover why
>Adam Smith is a better guide than Colbert for 21st-century
>economies. Then we could move on to industrial espionage, and our
>visitors could explain, if they can keep straight faces, that they
>don't engage in it. Will the next commission pursue the issue of
>rude American maitre d's?
>
You are not the first flippant, self-righteous hypocrite to act as an
apologist for an expansionist, fascist regime. Nor, probably, despite
your bright hopes, will you be among the last to be required to fulfil
this function. There is still a long road to travel before we arrive at
an equable, egalitarian association of free and democratic nations, but,
assuming that you fail to bribe, threaten, or otherwise suborn, the
commission which is investigating YOUR invasion of OUR privacy, we
shall, at least, take another step upon it.
>Get serious, Europeans. Stop blaming us and reform your own statist
>economic policies. Then your companies can become more efficient and
>innovative, and they won't need to resort to bribery to compete.
>
>And then we won't need to spy on you.
>
I don't think it is WE who are not taking this matter seriously enough;
and it is not just WE who are viewing your activities with increasing
alarm and enmity. The people of the USA are themselves awakening to the
perils of the globalist agenda, which aims to proletarianise them quite
as indiscriminately as it aims to dumb-down, down-grade and emasculate
the elective masses everywhere else. The truth is, Mr. Woolsey, you are
teetering on the brink of a revolution, in which men of goodwill are
about to throw down your plutocracy, your supranational instruments of
coercion and your accursed surveillance system, and to learn from the
MISTAKE that you and your ilk represent!
>
>--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>
--
Steve Reed
Bernhard Boer
Steve Reed <asr...@lastings.softnet.co.uk> schreef in berichtnieuws
5lIXHkAy...@lastings.softnet.co.uk...
> In message <DKGGLGAH...@my-deja.com>, liberius <liberius@my-
> Deja.com> writes
> >
> >The Wall Street Journal, March 17, 2000
> >
> >Why We Spy on Our Allies
> >
> >By R. James Woolsey, a Washington lawyer
> >and a former Director of Central Intelligence.
[snip]
A long lecture by ASR. He addresses R. James Woolsey, a man who doesn't
participate in this thread and who even doesn't participate in this NG. Some
conspiracists are very keen to ask the question "Why?" all the time. Since I
am not a conspiracist I am not very interested in the question why Steve
Reed keeps on posting of topic, unrelated reactions to posts posted
elsewhere and/or to articles in the press. But it is baffling.
Bernhard
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '13:25:41' on 'Sun, 19 Mar
2000', Trevjon <tre...@btinternet.com> writes:
>banana <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:jV5R8DAF...@borve.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <EOzu4.21527$jb7.5...@carnaval.risq.qc.ca>, posted to
>> alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '19:14:44' on 'Mon, 28 Feb
>> 2000', Nadya <na...@enter-net.com> writes:
<snip>
>> >Why don't you relax and have
>> >a drink.....unless you also think that the peoples running the bar are
>also
>> >part of the conspiracy !!
>>
>> Do you know why pubs sell salty foods such as crisps and peanuts? :-)
<snip>
>Yes, to encourage people to drink more. Hardly a global conspiracy, more
>just shrewd business acumen. Nobody forces you to eat crisps, peanuts or
>pork Scratchings with your pint, it is your own personal choice.
Are you arguing in favour of a proposition or against one or what?
>You would
>be better off ranting about the high costs of soft drinks in pubs, rather
>than the crisps and peanuts.
I was hardly ranting. Don't they put salt into beer too? They could also
take nicotine out of cigarettes, or most of it, if they wanted to, but
they leave it in, or even add some more, because it's addictive.
Hundreds of millions are killed as a result. 'Personal choice'? - give
me a break.
--
banana
Trevjon
>take nicotine out of cigarettes, or most of it, if they wanted to, but
>they leave it in, or even add some more, because it's addictive.
>Hundreds of millions are killed as a result. 'Personal choice'? - give
>me a break.
Please reference the last time anyone ever put a gun to your head and forced
you to smoke a cigarette. Of course its personal choice.
Trevjon.
Steve Reed
<bern...@planet.nl> writes
>
>Steve Reed <asr...@lastings.softnet.co.uk> schreef in berichtnieuws
>5lIXHkAy...@lastings.softnet.co.uk...
>> Deja.com> writes
>> >
>> >The Wall Street Journal, March 17, 2000
>> >
>> >Why We Spy on Our Allies
>> >
>> >By R. James Woolsey, a Washington lawyer
>> >and a former Director of Central Intelligence.
>
> why Steve
>Reed keeps on posting of topic,
Was my article more off-topic than a discussion about salted peanuts?
It was, at least, about the Echelon-system the NSA used to spy on Diana!
The following describes other American secret-service activities in
Europe, which I believe are essential to understanding why, and how,
Diana was killed. As a result, it too is more pertinent than "salted
peanuts".
In message <LCPLCGAG...@my-deja.com>, liberius <liberius@my-
Deja.com> writes
>Cold War's CIA was seriously involved in film, literature, art
Here's a tiny glimpse of a small portion of one of the less
controversial areas of American "intelligence-service" activity as it
was proceeding thirty to forty years ago - but don't go away, I shall
try to fill in some of the huge blank which remains.
>
>Saturday, March 18, 2000
>By LAURENCE ZUCKERMAN
>THE NEW YORK TIMES
>
>Many people remember reading George Orwell's "Animal Farm" in high
>school or college, with its chilling finale in which the farm
>animals looked back and forth at the tyrannical pigs and the human
>farmers but found it "impossible to say which was which."
>
>That ending was altered in the 1955 animated version, which removed
>the humans, leaving only the nasty pigs. Another example of
>Hollywood butchering great literature? Yes, but in this case the
>film's secret producer was the Central Intelligence Agency.
>
>The CIA, it seems, was worried that the public might be too
>influenced by Orwell's pox-on-both-their-houses critique of the
>capitalist humans and communist pigs. So after Orwell's death in
>1950, agents were dispatched (by none other than E. Howard Hunt,
>later of Watergate fame) to buy the film rights to "Animal Farm"
>from his widow to make the story's message more overtly
>anti-communist.
>
>Rewriting the end of "Animal Farm" is just one example of the often
>absurd lengths to which the CIA went, as recounted in a new book,
>"The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters"
>(The New Press), by British journalist Frances Stonor Saunders.
>Published in Britain last summer, the book will appear in the United
>States next month.
>
It is hard to evaluate Saunders' work at the remove of Zuckerman's
article, especially if one does not know that the senior staff of the
New York Times are members, to a man, of the Council on Foreign
Relations - all except for its chief "book-critic", Richard Bernstein,
who is a member of the CFR's select praesidium, the Bilderberg Group.
The CFR and Bilderberg are opaque, quasi-governmental, politico-
industrial think-tanks whose aim is to recruit the world's most
influential people and form them into a world government. Most of the
west's leading politicians, financiers, industrialists, media moguls and
media-manipulators ALREADY belong to these groups, which, furthermore,
are closely linked to western intelligence-services, especially to
American and British ones, whose "Cold War", in pursuit of world-
domination, continues today more energetically, and ruthlessly, than
ever before.
It is not surprising, therefore, that someone like Zuckerman should have
been asked to examine Saunders' book, about media-manipulation by the
CIA, and to prepare the American public for it. The difficulty comes in
discerning whether Zuckerman's article is an exercise in damage-
limitation or promotion. Anything really damaging to the CIA and its CFR
controllers would either never be published ANYWHERE, or, if published
by some small rebel press, would never be mentioned in any major media
organ; but some marginally damaging material may be allowed to slip
through the net, lest the media-control mechanism become too obvious. I
think (without having seen "The Cultural Cold War", I should stress)
that this is what we are dealing with here.
>Much of what Saunders writes about, including the CIA's covert
>sponsorship of the Paris-based Congress for Cultural Freedom and the
>British opinion magazine Encounter, was exposed in the late 1960s.
>But by combing through archives and unpublished manuscripts and
>interviewing several of the principal actors, Saunders has uncovered
>many new details and gives the most comprehensive account yet of the
>period between 1947 and 1967.
>
"Don't expect anything fundamentally new", says Zuckerman, "Saunders
just gives lots and lots of details about things everyone knows
already". This may be a good sign. He seems to want his readership to
be informed about the book without any but a specialist, already
disaffected, few rushing out to buy it - so it may be quite hard-hitting
after all.
>This picture of the CIA's secret war of ideas includes cameo
>appearances by scores of intellectual celebrities like critic Lionel
>Trilling, poets Ted Hughes and Derek Walcott and novelists James
>Michener and Mary McCarthy, all of whom directly or indirectly
>benefited from the CIA's largesse. There are also bundles of cash
>funneled through CIA fronts and several hilarious schemes that sound
>more like a "Spy vs. Spy" cartoon than a historical account.
>
This too is quite encouraging. Zuckerman drops names which are well-
known only in very limited circles and then proceeds to be flippant.
Note that apologists, for current NSA-espionage in Europe, who seem to
have been caught with trousers at half-mast, adopted flippancy as their
emergency response.
>Traveling first class all the way, the CIA and its counterparts in
>other Western European nations sponsored art exhibitions,
>intellectual conferences, concerts and magazines to press their
>larger anti-Soviet agenda.
>
>Saunders provides ample evidence, for example, that the editors at
>Encounter and other agency-sponsored magazines were directed not to
>publish articles directly critical of Washington's foreign policy.
>She shows how the CIA bankrolled some of the earliest exhibits of
>Abstract Expressionist painting outside of the United States to
>counter the Socialist Realism being advanced by Moscow.
>
>In one memorable episode, the British Foreign Office subsidized the
>distribution of 50,000 copies of "Darkness at Noon," Arthur
>Koestler's anti-communist classic. But at the same time, the French
>Communist Party ordered its operatives to buy up every copy of the
>book. Koestler received a windfall in royalties courtesy of his
>communist adversaries.
>
On the other hand, it may be that "The Cultural Cold War" is itself a
"limited hangout", designed to conceal the mass of the iceberg, as it
were, by describing its tip as nothing more than a surface floe.
Zuckerman implies, by mentioning the PCF's book-buying campaign, that
"both sides were into media-manipulation IN THOSE DAYS". I wonder how
easy Saunders has made it, for him, to say this. Of course, it is one
thing for a voluntary, private association, such as the Partie
Communiste de France, to urge its members to buy out an edition of a
book, and quite another for a government organisation, such as the
British Foreign Office, to subsidise propaganda, covertly, with tax-
payers money. Again, it is hard to tell whether this crucial
distinction was lost on Mr. Zuckerman - or on Ms Saunders - or whether
he (or both of them) merely expect it to be lost on the reader.
>As it turns out, "Animal Farm" was not the CIA's only dabbling in
>Hollywood. Saunders reports that one operative who was a producer
>and talent agent slipped affluent-looking black Americans into
>several films as extras to try to counter Soviet criticism of the
>American race problem.
>
"One operative"! "Trying to counter criticism of the race problem"!
Zuckerman (or Zuckerman and Saunders) tells us this, when the detailed
engineering of a didactic Hollywood - far beyond the "statutory black"
in almost EVERY movie - has been lamentably obvious for decades. The
question remains, though: "who is doing the 'limited hangout', the
critic or both the critic AND the author?"
>The agency also changed the ending of the movie version of Orwell's
>"1984," disregarding the author's specific instructions that the
>story not be altered. In the book, the protagonist, Winston Smith,
>is entirely defeated by the nightmarish totalitarian regime. At the
>end, Orwell writes, Winston realized that "he loved Big Brother." In
>the movie, Winston and his lover, Julia, are gunned down after
>Winston defiantly shouts: "Down with Big Brother!"
>
I wonder whether revealing the institutional identity of those
responsible for the skewing of the film-versions of "Animal Farm" and
"1984" will have much impact on those who have never read the books. I
doubt it - so, evidently does Zuckerman (or he wouldn't mention it) -
but how does Saunders treat the remarkable insight these perversions
give into the thinking of the media-manipulators?
>Such changes came from the agency's obsession with snuffing out a
>notion then popular among many European intellectuals: that East and
>West were morally equivalent. But instead of illustrating the
>differences between the two systems by taking the high road, the
>agency justified its covert activities by referring to the unethical
>tactics of the Soviets.
>
Of course, there was a high road the CIA could have taken - there is,
more than ever, a high road which the CFR and Bilderberg could take NOW
- towards equable and fair international relations, but they preferred,
then, as now, to pursue a policy of covert manipulation, of lies,
assassinations, terrorism and dealing arms-for-drugs, of which their
control of the media - although vital to the success of their schemes -
is only the surface layer.
>"If the other side can use ideas that are camouflaged as being local
>rather than Soviet supported or stimulated, then we ought to be able
>to use ideas camouflaged as local ideas," said Tom Braden, who ran
>the CIA's covert cultural division in the early 1950s.
The "Soviet" or "communist" threat, as we now know, was exaggerated ten-
fold by the agencies and their controllers, in order to justify their
campaign of global expansion. Now that the USSR is no more - and to the
amazement of all, including me, who believed the propaganda of the
Reagan/Bush era - the "Cold War" goes on! Not just against Russia, but
against any state in the world which fails to comply, at once and
completely, with Washington's instructions.
The "camouflaged local ideas" to which Braden refers, are press-stories
seeded initially in compliant, foreign News Agencies, so that they could
be picked up by the American press. This method (like the partly
foreigner-operated, NSA spy-system, Echelon) has been used for decades
by American secret-services to circumvent stern provisions, in the
American Constitution, against control of the press and spying on
Americans, by the American government. These methods are becoming less
and less necessary, however, as the CFR and Bilderberg, and their ever
expanding daughter organisations, assume effective control of the media
AND the Constitutional apparatus in the USA and Europe and beyond.
> (In one of
>the book's many surprising codas, Braden goes on in the 1980s to
>become the leftist foil to Patrick Buchanan on the CNN program
>"Crossfire.")
>
A mention of P.J.Buchanan - Reform Party candidate for the Presidency
next November - may well be the real reason that Zuckerman's article was
written and published at all. Buchanan is standing as an overtly anti-
CFR, anti-Bilderberg, nationalist candidate, the first serious contender
for the Presidential Office ever to speak out so clearly against
globalism and law-of-the-jungle free-trade.
I think Zuckerman's intention here is to shock the New York Times'
predominantly "liberal" readership (which has always been suspicious of
the CIA) by depicting Buchanan as being "to the Right" of the
unscrupulous, CIA media-manipulator, Tom Braden.
The first real line of defence taken up by protagonists of the CFR
(flippancy being just an emergency ruse) is to accuse its opponents of
political extremism: Milosevic, for example, is a "Left-Wing
extremist", in their propaganda, and Buchanan, of course, will be a
"Right-Wing extremist".
Already (before most Americans are even aware of Buchanan's
Presidential candidacy - thanks to a concerted media blackout on that
specific point) articles are appearing, in minor organs, accusing him of
being "soft-on-Hitler" and "anti-Semitic". Zuckerman's quiet little
nod-and-a-wink, just here, is undoubtedly part of this campaign: when
Buchanan's candidacy can no longer be blacked out, of course, the major
organs will proceed to blacken his name with every smear they can
devise.
>An odd alliance was struck between the CIA leaders, most of them
>wealthy Ivy League veterans of the wartime Office of Strategic
>Services and a corps of largely Jewish ex-communists who had broken
>with Moscow to become virulently anti-communist.
>
As with the CIA, itself, the anti-communist stance adopted by its
affiliates was more apparent than real. Their object was, and is, to
emasculate nations, in general, by destroying nationalist governments of
left and right, almost indiscriminately, in order to extend the power of
the American (and increasingly Euro-American) plutocracy, as centred in
the CFR and Bilderberg.
The Jews, indeed, have been able to occasion all the major upsets in the
smooth, global expansion of this plutocracy by insisting that Israeli
nationalism be exempt from it, because organised Jewry is very well-
represented and highly-placed in the CFR and Bilderberg. Indeed, the CFR
and Bilderberg are arguably half-Jewish creations, at least, because
although much of their funding comes from the Rockefellers and
institutions with Nazi-connections, such as IG-Farben and the Ford
Foundation, most of the rest comes from the Rothschildts, the Warburgs,
the Lehmanns, the Morgans and the Bronfmanns, to name but a few.
A very similar consortium was the financial mainstay of Hitler's NSDAP
(Nazi Party) before the war, and received Nazi funds, towards the end of
the war, to prepare "for a post-war commercial campaign" (as Rodney
Atkinson puts it, in "Europe's Full Circle", Computaprint Publishing,
1996) "in other words, the very kind of political-industrial planning,
which this book describes as corporatist" (P87) A great deal of
"holocaust propaganda" is intended, I feel sure, to cover up this unholy
Judaeo-Nazi alliance; but I digress.
>The CIA recognized from the beginning that it could not openly
>sponsor artists and intellectuals in Europe because there was so
>much anti-American feeling there. Instead, it decided to woo
>intellectuals out of the Soviet orbit by secretly promoting a
>non-communist left of democratic socialists disillusioned with
>Moscow.
>
True enough, except that, here again, "the Soviet orbit" is an
understatement of the forces to which the CIA saw itself as opposed.
Part of this campaign (to boost social democrats and democratic
socialists) consisted of funding neo-Nazi and militant leftist
terrorists, especially in Italy, France and Germany, to cast discredit
on Right, and Left, wherever Right or Left was nationalist in character,
and to chivvy voters towards a "safe" centre composed of politicians
favourable to a federal Europe.
Atkinson, in "Europe's Full Circle" (i.e "coming full circle on to the
track of the Third Reich"!) sees this as essentially a Nazi plan to
create the Europaeische Ekonomische Gesellschaft (European Economic
Community) foreseen, in detail, by Hitler, and which, as Atkinson
convincingly shows, resembles the federal Europe taking shape today,
very closely indeed. Atkinson, however, ignores the powerful Jewish
influence which was exerted both to the benefit of the NSDAP, in the
30's and early 40's, and to the benefit of the CFR and Bilderberg, as
these two sinister bodies continued the struggle to create an EEC, after
Hitler's Germany was defeated.
Nevertheless, Atkinson's view is supported, by the fact that the CIA -
or Office of Strategic Studies (OSS) as it then was - took over and
reconstituted, almost in their entirety, the German Nazi, Italian
Fascist and Vichy collaborationist civil and secret services and
spirited away top Nazis and Fascists (who would otherwise have stood
trial as war-criminals) to safe haven in the Americas, including the
USA, itself.
Especially striking, in this regard, were the words of the US Ambassador
to Rome, Graham Martin, who was entrusted, by Henry Kissinger (a founder
member and continuing doyen of Bilderberg) on behalf of the White House,
in the 1970's, with disbursing funds to the Hyperion Language School, in
Paris (a control centre for Italian leftist terrorist groups) and to the
Propaganda Due (P2) "Masonic" Lodge, in Rome, which further distributed
funds to various neo-Fascist terror groups: Martin said (according to
the proceedings of the Congressional Committee on Terrorism, headed by
Senator John Pike) that he regarded the funds which were directed,
specifically to the neo-Fascists, as "a long-term investment"! (Pike
Report, pgs 16 and 194 et seq)
Atkinson's view of the EEC/EU as a Nazi plot to promote the domination
of Europe, by Germany, seems to be further supported by the fact that
Germany, as the EEC's largest economy - and now home to the European
Central Bank - is bound to dominate a federal Europe; but it raises the
question, why should a group of super-rich Americans, many of them
Jewish, have any interest in creating a fourth German Reich?
In truth, I don't think they have. I think the answer to this puzzle is
expressed very well by Andreas von Buelow, a former German cabinet-
minister and a long-serving member of the Bundestag's committee for
overseeing the German secret services, in his book, "Im Namen des
Staates: CIA, BND und die kriminellen Machenschaften der Gehemdienste"
("In the Name of the State: Central Intelligence Agency,
Bundesnachrichtendienst [German secret service] and the criminal
activities of secret services in general") Piper Verlag, Munich,1998.
Von Buelow points, amid a wealth of practical evidence of the CIA's
long-term, and continuing, support for terrorism, all over the world, to
a book by Zbigniew Brzezhinski: "The Sole Super-Power, America's
Strategy for Dominance", in which the author, the founder of the
Trilateral Commission - a group almost as influential as Bilderberg in
promoting "globalism" - describes how the USA will ensure that its
leadership of the world remains unchallenged. Brzezhinski makes it
quite clear that the superstates (one American, one European, one Asian
- hence "Trilateral") which are being set up under our very noses, are
intended to contain and emasculate nations which might otherwise
challenge American dominance, by lumping them together into unwieldy
federations where internal consensus - and, therefore, concerted
external action - will be impossible.
The exception to this will be the American superstate (currently
developing in the form of NAFTA) which will be so dominated by
Washington that it will not inhibit the globalist clique's freedom of
external action, at all.
This makes sense to me, as an explanation of what is going on, and has
been going on, at least since WWII, and probably long before it; and,
coming from no less an authority than one of the chief theorists and
architects of the Globalist movement, Brzezhinski himself, it is
impossible to dismiss out of hand.
>Saunders describes how the CIA cleverly skimmed hundreds of millions
>of dollars from the Marshall Plan to finance its activities,
>funneling the money through fake philanthropies it created or real
>ones such as the Ford Foundation.
>
>"We couldn't spend it all," Gilbert Greenway, a former CIA agent,
>recalled. "There were no limits, and nobody had to account for it.
>It was amazing."
>
>When some of the CIA's activities were exposed in the late 1960s,
>many artists and intellectuals claimed ignorance. But Saunders makes
>a strong case that several people, including the philosopher Isaiah
>Berlin and the poet Stephen Spender, who was co-editor of Encounter,
>knew about the CIA's role.
>
- something about the CIA's role, that is. As a sponsor of global
terrorism, using thousands of ideologically-camouflaged, surrogate,
covert armies (mostly financed by dealing in arms-for-drugs) and a vast
network of accomplices in organised crime and in political and judicial
office, extending to the White House itself, the US "intelligence"
services were, indeed, unrivalled in the world, in the 60's, and are
even more so today.
While inducement of various kinds is exerted, on politicians and
financiers, through the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg
Group and the Trilateral Commission, the secret services apply
persuasion of a bloodier sort by exacerbating ethnic tensions,
engineering provocations and staging atrocities. The purpose envisaged
is the same: a US-world hegemony, seamless and unchallenged, from pole
to pole.
>) 2000 The New York Times.
>
This hegemony is to be established, not for the benefit of the people of
the world, nor, indeed, for the benefit of the people of the USA, who
will become as much the serfs of the global elite as everyone else, but
for the benefit of those who are not only extremely rich, but have
allied themselves with the scheme to establish this hegemony, and are
even now beating down national boundaries, capturing the governments of
"media-democracies" and autocracies alike, absorbing indigenous
industry, shaking loose and absorbing state-assets and consolidating
global business into a mere few thousand companies.
This is what Ms Saunders does not tell you, and Mr. Zuckermann does not
want you to find out; but it is what P.J. Buchanan is liable to say if
the Bilderberg oligarchs fail to prevent him from speaking, in
nationally televised debates, during the end of the century Presidential
Election Campaign in the United States of America!
>
>--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>
We need a millennial revolution (40 weeks to go to the end of the 2nd
Millennium!) I hope to god we can obtain it through the ballot-box!
--
Steve Reed
AC
Trevjon <tre...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20000320064112...@ng-fa1.aol.com...
> Please reference the last time anyone ever put a gun to your head and
forced
> you to smoke a cigarette. Of course its personal choice.
PMFBI, but I started smoking at 14 due to peer group pressure (aka bullying
in the playground). From there I was addicted to nicotine, which most docs
accept is as addictive as any hard drug. How much of that was free choice
really? Sure, I could have refused to bend to peer pressure, but 14yo kids
are very cruel, and some people will do anything to deflect the pressure.
Such is life...
AC
Trevjon
--
AC <APC...@SANDWICHgloryboy.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8b5qio$cig$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
But haven't we all been 14 and had the same peer pressures? All my family
were smokers, and about 90% of my peers, but I decided not to smoke. It was
my own personal decision. I now find the tables have turned somewhat, and
I find I am now probably in the majority, and I can sit in a restaurant
without people smoking near me, and travel by public transport without the
need of breathing apparatus. How I love to see those little groups of
people standing out in the cold and the wet because they are not allowed to
smoke in their offices.
Gary Stone
AC <APC...@SANDWICHgloryboy.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8b5qio$cig$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>
> Trevjon <tre...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> news:20000320064112...@ng-fa1.aol.com...
>
> > Please reference the last time anyone ever put a gun to your head and
> forced
> > you to smoke a cigarette. Of course its personal choice.
>
> PMFBI, but I started smoking at 14 due to peer group pressure (aka
bullying
> in the playground). From there I was addicted to nicotine, which most docs
> accept is as addictive as any hard drug. How much of that was free choice
> really? Sure, I could have refused to bend to peer pressure, but 14yo kids
> are very cruel, and some people will do anything to deflect the pressure.
> Such is life...
>
> AC
I started smoking at 9, it was the 50's and it was cool if you smoked.All
the movie stars smoked, your parents smoked, everyone you knew smoked, so
you started pinching your Dads cigarette butts out of the tin he collected
and going up the toilets at the back for a quick puff. Next you were
spending your pocket money on them and on occasion nicking them out of your
Dads packet and praying he did not notice. Addiction is a terrible thing, I
dont smoke now but I can remember those days I'd have walked 5 miles to find
one. They should be banned by the government, but that would be like trying
to ban drugs, you just cant control something like that. People will always
find ways of getting hold of things that arn't good for them, and lets face
it the government make millions in taxes from them, why should they worry
about our health.
Geths
>
Steve Reed
Deja.com> writes
>How the CIA promoted the Post-Modern
>
>July 1, 1999
>The Times
>(Books)
>http://www.the-times.co.uk/
>
>When war grew cold, it was cultural conflict that
>took the heat, Malcolm Bradbury finds
>
>
>WHO PAID THE PIPER? THE CIA
>AND THE CULTURAL COLD WAR
>
>By Frances Stonor Saunders
>Granta, #20
>ISBN 1 86207 029 6
>
>
>This is the fascinating story of the vast postwar Kulturkampf, the
>Cold War conflict over cultural values and ideologies amid which
>several literary and cultural generations grew up. It pulled in
>books and magazines, congresses and concerts, artists and writers,
>political visions of economic growth and social progress. And it
>dawned when the United States, the one outright victor from the
>Second World War, suddenly found itself a superpower, found it had
>somehow entered history.
>
>Needing a culture to match, it stared over the wire at Russia
>(which had pursued intellectual politics ever since Catherine the
>Great) and sought worldwide intellectual admiration and support. As
>the Cold War froze and ideologies divided, the US Government
>poured huge resources into a cultural propaganda campaign. It was
>covert. As Saunders explains: "A central feature of this programme
>was to advance the claim it did not exist." Yet there was nothing
>covert about the overall enterprise: the decision to revive
>flattened Europe and develop
and manipulate media-
> democratic institutions through the
>massive programme of aid, economic, political, cultural, which has
>shaped it to this day and explains its current federalism and its
>Americanised shopping-mall culture.
>
>So came the Marshall Plan, the "Special Relationship", the Atlantic
>Alliance, the denazification
(and covert re-nazification)
> strategy in Germany and
>Austria, the long-term presence of American troops and bases.
>There was also the Fulbright Program, the US Information Agency, the
>Amerikahausen all over Germany, promoting jazz, movies and
>Saul Bellow, and the growth of an academic subject that was new
>even to Americans: American Studies.
>
>The programme was aided by the defection of many Western
>intellectuals who had been red in the Thirties. Alienation began
>with the Spanish Civil War and the Nazi-Soviet Pact; by the late
>1940s Marxism was the God That Had Failed. In cultural warfare
>America seemed at first to have small resources. "What is America
>but millionaires, beauty queens, gramophone music and Hollywood?"
>asked Adolf Hitler. Many European intellectuals felt a similar
>cultural distaste for the land of chewing gum and Mickey Mouse.
>
Still do
>Hence the Kulturkampf, which Saunders traces back to Berlin in the
>time of denazification, and to three key figures. There were
>Michael Josselin and Nicholas Nabokov, Vladimir's musician cousin,
>both emigres, now with the American Military Command and working on
>denazification and cultural policy in the Psychological Warfare
>Division. When another soldier, Melvin Lasky, urged an American
>government policy designed to win over the often passionately
>anti-American European intelligentsia, establishing the magazine
>Monat, the culture war began.
>
>In 1947 the Central Intelligence Agency was founded: in its early
>days it resembled the clubby, patrician, pipe-smoking, senior
>common room spirit of the wartime intelligence community. It had
>excellent contacts with the NCL (Non-Communist Left), the "new
>liberals", and the emigres who, having fled the Europe of Hitler and
>Stalin, had become a powerful force in the United States.
>
It also made excellent contacts with ex-Nazis, ex-Fascists, ex Nazi-
collaborators and mafiosi and handed over the real power in Europe to
them. Their successors are still at work in the military, the police,
the civil and secret services and in government and they continue to
control the drift towards a US-vassal, European federation, while
social-democratic governments succeed democratic socialist governments,
and vice-versa, in a never-ending, media-dominated, meaningless Punch
and Judy show!
>This book shows in splendid detail how CIA policy went everywhere.
>Awash with funds, the CIA turned into the covert Maecenas, the new
>crypto-patron of an age when the old private patrons had
>disappeared. Artists, writers, intellectuals, seminars, concerts,
>magazines, were now supported by "foundations". It was the age of
>While You're Up, Get Me a Grant. Scholarships, travel grants and
>exchange schemes shipped European intellectuals across the
>Atlantic for their graduate education.
>
>Meanwhile, American writers, plays, books, concerts and art
>exhibitions came in profusion to Europe. One key instrument was
>the Congress for Cultural Freedom, administered by a band of
>leading European intellectuals. It circulated ideas, ran
>congresses, aided magazines. In Britain, it published Encounter,
>which was, quite simply, the leading intellectual and cultural
>review of the day, and indispensable. By various labyrinthine
>means, the Congress and much else had CIA funding.
>
>The charge is that organisations celebrating "cultural freedom" were
>steered by America's arm of espionage, that writers who were
>attacking the trahison des clercs were themselves traitors, that a
>systematic attempt was made to intrude on intellectual
>independence. The injection of money into American intellectual
>reviews by the Ford Foundation and much else is now traceable to the
>CIA.
>
>In 1967 the edifice effectively collapsed. The Camelot Court mood,
>where American intellectuals had rallied to Kennedy, had gone. The
>Vietnam War brought massive protest, the intelligentsia was
>increasingly at odds with government and nation. When Ramparts
>magazine blew the story, it opened an era of intellectual guilt
>and embarrassment, a new kind of anti-American distrust and
>resentment, and a suspicion of much in modern intellectual life.
>
>As Saunders says, much of Western intellectual life, and many
>individual figures, were compromised. Yet the situation was, as
>she notes, filled with strange ironies. Saunders asks who paid the
>piper? But how does the piper call the tune, if you don't know who
>the piper really is?
>
He who pays the piper AND calls the tune does not have to reveal his
identity!
>Many intellectuals and artists went to America on the Fulbright
>Program, contributed to the lively and intelligent literary
>magazines, attended conferences, concerts, exhibitions sponsored by
>the many unusual foundations.
>
>In many cases, it is quite possible to argue that the CIA
>innocently
I would dispute that. Camouflaged infiltration is all part of the game -
capture ALL the markets and you can slant even the anti-American ones in
your favour.
> financed much radical, indeed anti-American, opinion, as
>well as a whole new experimental era of the arts. For writers, John
>Updike's "Bech" books best capture the atmosphere: the radical,
>unreliable American writer wanders a divided Europe on
>cultural tours, a CIA spook on one side, a Communist Party
>apparatchik on the other, looking for truth, love, literature,
>decency, the smell of independence and freedom, and maybe just a
>little irony.
>
>Another irony is more obvious. American spooks could have had
>little idea of the strength of the culture they were out to
>promote. Yet they were sponsoring an American Risorgimento. This was
>the great age of American writing, music and art the age of
>Arthur Miller, Saul Bellow, John Updike, Norman Mailer, Aaron
>Copland, Leonard BernsteinJasper Johns. The culture was worth
>selling, and it was not innocent: subversive, self-critical,
>ironic, ambiguous, it caught the uneasy corruption rather than the
>innocent wonder of the American age. The CIA were, so to speak,
>the promoters of Post-Modernism, the inventors of a new culture.
>
Yes, the liberalisation process was part of the attack on social
cohesion and national sovereignty of which federalism is the expected
result. This attack is continuing more fiercely today than ever.
>The last irony is grimmer. What began as part of a high cultural
>Americanisation of Europe turned into the commercial globalisation
>of Europe, and the larger world. America Americanised itself as a
>vast franchise or global corporation, to which all Europe became
>party. The oddest truth is that the age of cultural and
>counter-cultural politics was one when literature was serious,
>tense, politically charged, morally dangerous, and mattered. Now it
>doesn't; we live in the age of the logo and the corporate
>sponsor.
>
The primrose path to the everlasting bonfire!
>How compromised was postwar American and European culture?
>Certainly there were those who enjoyed walking in the shadows with
>the devil while they seemed to be walking in the sun. There were the
>amazingly innocent and the bitterly deceived. Saunders's book
>overestimates the degree of compliance and conformism, and often
>suspects motives that were not impure. Throughout, America
>continued to be an intensely self-critical society, challenging
>its own conformities, dismayed by its own lonely crowds. Those who
>worked with government agencies often passionately challenged
>McCarthyism and defended liberals. Yet Saunders is right. This
>really is a crucial story, about the dangerous, compromising
>energies and manipulation of an entire and a very recent age.
>
And it's far from over.
>Copyright 1999 Times Newspapers Ltd.
>
>
Not much more inspiring than the New York Times, I'm afraid.
Gary Stone
Trevjon <tre...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:8b5so7$cek$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
>
>
> --
>
> AC <APC...@SANDWICHgloryboy.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:8b5qio$cig$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> >
> > Trevjon <tre...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> > news:20000320064112...@ng-fa1.aol.com...
> >
> > > Please reference the last time anyone ever put a gun to your head and
> > forced
> > > you to smoke a cigarette. Of course its personal choice.
> >
> > PMFBI, but I started smoking at 14 due to peer group pressure (aka
> bullying
> > in the playground). From there I was addicted to nicotine, which most
docs
> > accept is as addictive as any hard drug. How much of that was free
choice
> > really? Sure, I could have refused to bend to peer pressure, but 14yo
kids
> > are very cruel, and some people will do anything to deflect the
pressure.
> > Such is life...
> >
> > AC
> >
family
> were smokers, and about 90% of my peers, but I decided not to smoke. It
was
> my own personal decision. I now find the tables have turned somewhat,
and
> I find I am now probably in the majority, and I can sit in a restaurant
> without people smoking near me, and travel by public transport without the
> need of breathing apparatus. How I love to see those little groups of
> people standing out in the cold and the wet because they are not allowed
to
> smoke in their offices.
I bet you are really proud of yourself not being one of those out in the
rain!
>
>
Trevjon
--
Trevjon
Gary Stone <gary....@cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:NPuB4.1715$5K2.38194@news1-hme0...
>
> AC <APC...@SANDWICHgloryboy.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:8b5qio$cig$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> >
> > Trevjon <tre...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> > news:20000320064112...@ng-fa1.aol.com...
> >
<SNIP>
, and lets face
> it the government make millions in taxes from them, why should they worry
> about our health.
> Geths
> >
>
Surely the money raised is cancelled out by the money spent on treating
people in hospitals?
And, to a certain extent, why should they worry if people want to smoke.
They can't win can they. If they banned Smoking completely , millions of
people would be up in arms citing "civil liberties" and "human rights", but
, if they don't ban them, then they get accused of "not worrying about our
health".
Trevjon
--
Steve Reed <asr...@lastings.softnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ah$f2NAtl...@lastings.softnet.co.uk...
> In article <8b3cqr$2mir0$1...@reader4.wxs.nl>, Bernhard Boer
> <bern...@planet.nl> writes
> >
>
> Was my article more off-topic than a discussion about salted peanuts?
> It was, at least, about the Echelon-system the NSA used to spy on Diana!
> The following describes other American secret-service activities in
> Europe, which I believe are essential to understanding why, and how,
> Diana was killed. As a result, it too is more pertinent than "salted
> peanuts".
Ooohhhh Get him !! Hey, banana, I think he's having a go at you !!
> In message <LCPLCGAG...@my-deja.com>, liberius <liberius@my-
> Deja.com> writes
>
> >Cold War's CIA was seriously involved in film, literature, art
>
> Here's a tiny glimpse of a small portion of one of the less
> controversial areas of American "intelligence-service" activity as it
> was proceeding thirty to forty years ago - but don't go away, I shall
> try to fill in some of the huge blank which remains.
The only real blank that remains is the one between your ears for posting
this tosh.
Trevjon
--
Trevjon
Gary Stone <gary....@cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:cTvB4.1748$5K2.38999@news1-hme0...
>
> > >
> > But haven't we all been 14 and had the same peer pressures? All my
> family
> > were smokers, and about 90% of my peers, but I decided not to smoke. It
> was
> > my own personal decision. I now find the tables have turned somewhat,
> and
> > I find I am now probably in the majority, and I can sit in a restaurant
> > without people smoking near me, and travel by public transport without
the
> > need of breathing apparatus. How I love to see those little groups of
> > people standing out in the cold and the wet because they are not allowed
> to
> > smoke in their offices.
>
> I bet you are really proud of yourself not being one of those out in the
> rain!
No, not proud, but it fills me with a sense of well-being for all the times
I have had to sit through somebody smoking (often in non smoking areas)
whilst I was eating resulting in a ruined meal for me. Why should I, as a
non-smoker, be inflicted with someone else's disgusting habit. That is why
I like to see them in the cold and rain, which, in my opinion, is where they
should be if they want to indulge in their silly habits, and not polluting
the air that I have to breathe.
Bernhard Boer
> In article <8b3cqr$2mir0$1...@reader4.wxs.nl>, Bernhard Boer
> <bern...@planet.nl> writes
> >
> >Steve Reed <asr...@lastings.softnet.co.uk> schreef in berichtnieuws
> >5lIXHkAy...@lastings.softnet.co.uk...
> >> In message <DKGGLGAH...@my-deja.com>, liberius <liberius@my-
> >> Deja.com> writes
> >> >
> >> >The Wall Street Journal, March 17, 2000
> >> >
> >> >Why We Spy on Our Allies
> >> >
> >> >By R. James Woolsey, a Washington lawyer
> >> >and a former Director of Central Intelligence.
> >
> >[snip]
> > why Steve
> >Reed keeps on posting of topic,
>
> Was my article more off-topic than a discussion about salted peanuts?
> It was, at least, about the Echelon-system the NSA used to spy on Diana!
> The following describes other American secret-service activities in
> Europe, which I believe are essential to understanding why, and how,
> Diana was killed. As a result, it too is more pertinent than "salted
> peanuts".
You snipped the essential part of my post. This tactis is Let's see what I
wrote:
"A long lecture by ASR. He addresses R. James Woolsey, a man who doesn't
participate in this thread and who even doesn't participate in this NG. Some
conspiracists are very keen to ask the question "Why?" all the time. Since I
am not a conspiracist I am not very interested in the question why Steve
Reed keeps on posting of topic, unrelated reactions to posts posted
elsewhere and/or to articles in the press. But it is baffling."
I pointed out that Steve Reed often posts reactions to posts not posted in
this NG. It seems he mixes private emails and posts to several NG's.
Baffling and confusing. The remarks about salt peanuts came up in discussion
in THIS NG. Everybody who can read, can read who made these remarks and
when. A fundamental difference. It seems ASR doesn't understand this
difference.
Bernhard
AC
Gary Stone <gary....@cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:NPuB4.1715$5K2.38194@news1-hme0...
> you started pinching your Dads cigarette butts out of the tin he collected
> and going up the toilets at the back for a quick puff.
(chuckle) That brings back a memory or three ;-)
> it the government make millions in taxes from them, why should they worry
> about our health.
Well it's the budget in the UK tomorrow, so they'll go up by loads more
money as usual - I'm well prepared with patches for the ocassion too! ;-)
AC
Gary Stone
Good luck AC, I still smoke on occasion, when my nerves get the better of
me, but it is no longer an addiction, I believe that you are never really
get free of that, just like any junkie or alcoholic, any one thing can
trigger it off again or you are free forever as my Auntie is now, she gave
up 30 years ago, but she still thinks about them. My other Auntie is 85 and
still smokes a pack of craven A a day an a bottle of Brandy a week, no hope
of giving up for her I wager.
>
>
>
Alvin H. White
> I believe that you are never really
>get free of that, just like any junkie or alcoholic, any one thing can
>trigger it off again or you are free forever as my Auntie is now, she gave
>up 30 years ago, but she still thinks about them.
Well, I smoked about a pack a day from the age of
thirteen to thirty five and then I quit. Had wanted to
for a few years and was getting closer and closer
until a gall bladder pain that I mistakenly thought
was lung cancer put the finnishing touch on.
Never went back. Twenty three years now. I'm glad.
<a href="http://members.home.com/godsbrain">G.O.D.S.B.R.A.I.N.</a><br>
Aleeta
Aleeta
--
~ A J's Fun Photos ~
http://www.picture.com
http://members.delphi.com/ALEETA
http://www.familytreemaker.com/users/j/o/h/ALEETA-E-Johnson
Trevjon wrote in message <8b6718$jfn$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>...
>
>
>--
>Trevjon
>Gary Stone <gary....@cwcom.net> wrote in message
>news:NPuB4.1715$5K2.38194@news1-hme0...
>>
>> AC <APC...@SANDWICHgloryboy.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:8b5qio$cig$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> >
>> >
>> > Trevjon <tre...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
>> > news:20000320064112...@ng-fa1.aol.com...
>> >
>
><SNIP>
>
>, and lets face
>> it the government make millions in taxes from them, why should they worry
>> about our health.
Aleeta
in the states
peanuts and pretzels and or chips and often food is served for free as this
keeps the customer happy and less likely to become inebriated as quickly.
Aleeta
--
~ A J's Fun Photos ~
http://www.picture.com
http://members.delphi.com/ALEETA
http://www.familytreemaker.com/users/j/o/h/ALEETA-E-Johnson
Trevjon wrote in message <20000320064112...@ng-fa1.aol.com>...
>>I was hardly ranting. Don't they put salt into beer too? They could also
>>take nicotine out of cigarettes, or most of it, if they wanted to, but
>>they leave it in, or even add some more, because it's addictive.
>>Hundreds of millions are killed as a result. 'Personal choice'? - give
>>me a break.
>
>Please reference the last time anyone ever put a gun to your head and
forced
>you to smoke a cigarette. Of course its personal choice.
>
>
>Trevjon.
AC
Gary Stone <gary....@cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:1ryB4.3824$nj1.39027@news2-hme0...
> Good luck AC, I still smoke on occasion, when my nerves get the better of
> me, but it is no longer an addiction, I believe that you are never really
> get free of that, just like any junkie or alcoholic
Actually, I've managed before now with patches, but the trigger for me has
been alcohol. "I have a pint in this hand... errr... something's missing
from the other!"
Still, if I don't try, I die, so that's an incentive I guess... that and an
extra few pounds in my pocket!
AC
Gary Stone
Alvin H. White <GODS...@HOME.COM> wrote in message
news:7uudds4vj66642l1f...@4ax.com...
> >trigger it off again or you are free forever as my Auntie is now, she
gave
> >up 30 years ago, but she still thinks about them.
>
> Well, I smoked about a pack a day from the age of
> thirteen to thirty five and then I quit. Had wanted to
> for a few years and was getting closer and closer
> until a gall bladder pain that I mistakenly thought
> was lung cancer put the finnishing touch on.
>
> Never went back. Twenty three years now. I'm glad.
>
> <a href="http://members.home.com/godsbrain">G.O.D.S.B.R.A.I.N.</a><br>
from Geths
Gary Stone
Aleeta <ajoh...@psesd.org> wrote in message news:38d71...@huge.aa.net...
> Well let's put it this way, there is plenty of sodium in beer, but
generally
> in the states
> peanuts and pretzels and or chips and often food is served for free as
this
> keeps the customer happy and less likely to become inebriated as quickly.
>
> Aleeta
Aleeta, I worked for years in the states bartending, waitressing and
managing restaurants. The reason we put out chips and hot sauce, pretzles
and peanuts etc was because it made people drink more, these items were
free because the profit made on alcohol sales more than paid for the free
food, I know, I used to cost these things in monthly reports. It wasn't a
conspiracy, just plain common greed and the more wasted people got, the more
money clinked into the tills. The only objections to this that were ever
made was when a man got so wasted he couldnt drink anymore and then they
were unceremoniously thrown out onto the street by the bouncers or the
managers with a "come back when your sober".
Geths
Aleeta
todays world, as a matter of fact if anyone in the restaurant or bar
business serves a drunk, they shall be fined and ticketed a very large sum
of money and that goes for each and every server who makes that choice and
the bar gets closed down after three tickets. Many bars in my hometown must
issue the customer a ticket per drink and after so many tickets, the
customer can no longer be served any liquor then the bar must serve free
food and or coffee or a soda to the customer for if that customer shall go
out and drive and get into an accident that bar or restaurant shall be in
deep trouble. I too am familiar with the old tactics from hosting a private
Golf and Country Club, so I am fully aware of the laws, and part of that
entails that alcohol cannot outweigh food, thus free food is served and it
adds some protection to the establishment. Without food most people that
start drinking get instantly drunk, if one is a feather weight in
particular. I had an easier time long ago in the private club and I not
only made big tips but I also made a 10% extra profit in all sales of food
and drink and I can assure you I was the fastest server there and I was
rolling in the dough and that is how I got the name AJ Foyt.:o)) I also
kept track of all my sales and the manager would have a fit and I'd say
nobody is going to cheat me out of a dime and then I would receive big
bonuses at the years end from all my favorite customers and then we'd all go
out and party down. So the only reason why I mentioned the sodium in the
beer was an extra reply to Banana as he brought it up about salt in beer, so
this reply was to him only.
Aleeta
--
~ A J's Fun Photos ~
http://www.picture.com
http://members.delphi.com/ALEETA
http://www.familytreemaker.com/users/j/o/h/ALEETA-E-Johnson
Gary Stone wrote in message ...
Steve Reed
Buchanan Files Debate Complaint
By Laurie Kellman
Associated Press Writer
Monday, March 20, 2000; 1:01 p.m. EST
WASHINGTON -- The Reform Party and Patrick Buchanan are demanding to
be included in the presidential debates, saying the major political
parties are conspiring to rob the third party of any chance to win
the White House.
"Our political opponents are the ones deciding our fate," Buchanan
said today after filing a formal complaint with the Federal Election
Commission.
"It is, if you will, a conspiracy by the two parties to keep third
parties out of the presidential debates and therefore to maintain a
hammerlock on the presidency of the United States," he added.
"Without the debates, there really is no chance, I believe, that the
Reform Party can win the presidency of the United States, and that
is grossly unjust."
In the complaint, Buchanan and the Reform Party take issue with a
ruling by the Commission on Presidential Debates that only
candidates with 15 percent standing in five national public opinion
surveys may participate in the events. Currently, Buchanan, who has
not yet won the Reform Party nomination, stands in the single
digits.
Buchanan and Reform Party Chairman Pat Choate said the threshold is
arbitrary and skewed by the major party memberships of the
commission leaders.
"There's not a single member of the Reform Party on the commission
itself," Buchanan said.
The sample sizes and questions asked in the polls vary from news
outlet to news outlet, none of which are "hotbeds of Buchananism,"
he said.
"We think that perhaps they are not objective institutions to be
deciding whether or not I ought to be in a presidential debate," he
added.
Additionally, Buchanan said, such rules would do a disservice to the
electorate by excluding his views on such issues as immigration and
trade.
"My views, our views, Reform Party views, the views of millions, the
majority in some cases, a significant minority in others, won't get
heard in the presidential election if we're denied access to that
debate, and fairness demands it," Buchanan said.
The FEC has 90 days to respond.
---
On the Net: Reform Party site: http://www.reformparty.org
Buchanan site: http://www.buchananreform.com
Debate commission site: http://www.debates.org
FEC site: http://www.fec.gov
) Copyright 2000 The Associated Press
Buchanan fights for inclusion in presidential debates
Monday, 20 March 2000 19:31 (ET)
By LOU MARANO
WASHINGTON, March 20 (UPI) -- Promising to go the legal route "for the
time being," Reform Party presidential candidate, Patrick J. Buchanan,
filed
a formal complaint against the Federal Election Commission on Monday.
Buchanan told reporters at the Marriott Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue
that
the criteria set by the Commission on Presidential Debates is arbitrary,
unfair, unjust and un-American.
The criteria for participating in presidential debates discriminate
against third parties, Buchanan said, and represent "an illegal
corporate
contribution to the Republican and Democrat Parties."
Buchanan said the commission is not nonpartisan, as it describes
itself,
but bipartisan.
"It is a 'Republicrat' commission," he said, "with no one else
represented."
He charged "a conspiracy by the two parties to keep third parties out
of
presidential debates and, therefore, to maintain a hammerlock on the
presidency of the United States."
The commission, formed in 1987, announced in January new criteria
requiring candidates to have an average of at least 15 percent support
in
five national opinion polls one week before the first debate in order to
participate.
Buchanan named ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times and the Washington
Post
as major polling organizations.
"These institutions are not hotbeds of Buchananism," he said, "so we
think
perhaps they are not objective institutions to be deciding whether or
not I
should be a presidential candidate. And the press institutions
themselves
ought not to be making these calls."
The Reform Party hopeful alluded to margins of error of between 3
percent
to 5 percent, of samples of varying sizes, and of inconsistent questions
asked.
"Moreover, the polls ask the wrong question," Buchanan said. The proper
question before the debates is not, "Who do you want as president?"
That's
the question to ask after the debates, he said. The proper question is:
"Do
you believe the Reform Party candidate, Patrick Buchanan, should
participate
in the debates, which will determine who will be next president of the
United States?"
Buchanan accused the debate commission of setting aside the
congressional
threshold of 5 percent to receive public funding and replacing it with
its
own "subjective" threshold.
"Who decides?" Buchanan asked. The commission's co-chairmen, former
Democratic chairman Paul Kirk and former Republican chairman Frank
Fahrenkopf, have been "co-chairs for life," he said, noting that
Fahrenkopf
is also a lobbyist for Las Vegas gambling interests.
The committee is financed by Fortune 500 companies, transnational
companies and business round table companies "that I have been
mentioning
quite prominently and not altogether favorably in my campaign," Buchanan
said.
In the year 2000, the United States is too diverse a country to be
represented by the political establishments ensconced here in
Washington,
Buchanan concluded.
--
Copyright 2000 by United Press International.
All rights reserved.
--