alternative news


October 24, 2014 By Joseph P. Farrell

Yesterday I blogged about the curious case involving unauthorized contracts for silencers for AK-47s, and the possibilities of a rogue group within the American intelligence community. Frankly, I have always subscribed to this view. In fact, if I were hard pressed, I would have to say that such official agencies are really nothing but fronts for a multitude of such rogue groups with their own agendas, operating under the cover that their classification and secret jobs give them. Sometimes they operate in conjunction or coordination with the national interest, sometimes they do not, but they always operate with their own hidden agendas and goals in mind. This isn't to say those agencies do not have dedicated and honest individuals both in analysis and in the "humint" (human intelligence, the professional jargon for the espionage tradecraft) fields. They do. The rogue groups only complicate and tarnish the ability of those agencies to do their job. But the real question, given these caveats, is, how widespread is the rogue phenomenon, and what, really, is its ultimate purpose?

With those  questions in mind, RT is reporting on two new movies with precisely this theme:

Decades-old CIA crack-cocaine scandal gains new momentum

As will be evident, these movies concentrate on the allegations of the late Gary Webb, who alleged some sort of CIA (or, to be strictly accurate, rogue CIA-element) connection to the international drug-trade.

There is, however, a key point in this article, and it's worth drawing attention to it:

"While Webb was also criticized for suggesting the CIA intentionally devastated African American communities with crack, he defended himself saying that was not the case.

“'It’s not a situation where the government or the CIA sat down and said, 'Okay, let’s invent crack, let’s sell it in black neighborhoods, let’s decimate black America,' Webb reportedly says in the upcoming documentary. 'It was a situation where, 'We need money for a covert operation, the quickest way to raise it is sell cocaine, you guys go sell it somewhere, we don’t want to know anything about it.''

"Following the scandal, in 1998 the CIA quietly published an internal inspector general’s report into the matter, which prior to its release was much-touted for whitewashing the agency’s reputation. Instead, it seemed to add legitimacy to the accusations, saying, “CIA knowledge of allegations or information indicating that organizations or individuals had been involved in drug trafficking did not deter their use by CIA.” At other times, the “CIA did not act to verify drug trafficking allegations or information even when it had the opportunity to do so.”

“'No information has been found to indicate that CIA informed Congress of eight of the ten Contra-related individuals concerning whom CIA had received drug trafficking allegations or information,' the report added.

In a new post on Democracy Now, a transcript from the documentary “Shadows of Liberty” reveals investigative journalist Robert Parry saying this watchdog report was even more damning for the CIA than the original story.

“'The contents of the reports, if you go into the actual nitty-gritty of them,' he said, 'what you find is that there was a serious problem, that the US government knew about, and that the Contras were far more guilty of drug trafficking and the CIA was more guilty of looking the other way than even Gary Webb had suggested.'” (Emphasis in the original article)

Now why am I bringing these things to your attention, especially in the context with yesterday's blog? You'll recall that one of my hypotheses, outlined in various recent books (most notably Covert Wars and Breakaway Civilizations) is that in the post-World War Two period, a secret system of finance for covert operations and black projects technological research was established. I have suggested, both in that book and in various blogs on this site, that the bearer-bonds scandals were intimately connected to this hidden system of finance. These bonds, you'll recall, involved "gold-backed" bearer bonds denominated in astronomical sums of money.

So what has this to do with Webb's allegations, and the even deeper implications of the statements cited in the article above, that the intelligence-drug traffic connection was or may be even wider than Webb suggested?

It's very simple, when one thinks about it. In my hidden system of finance hypothesis, I have argued that one component of this hidden system of finance was the secret use of recovered Axis loot from World War Two, both Nazi and Japanese. Vast amounts of bullion were involved with this, and one tactic that was implied by this was the deliberate obfuscation of the actual amounts of bullion in existence in the world. On occasion, I have even suggested that the range of these figures from minima to maxima might be off by as much as an order of magnitude. That said, however, even when one factors in the trillions of dollars represented by just the Spanish Bearer Bond Scandal of 2009, or the Italian Bearer Bond scandal of 2012, one is dealing with over $7 trillion dollars, an amount, if the bonds represent actual figures in this hidden system, would seem to exceed those amounts of bullion, even at today's absurdly high prices. Those bonds were reportedly "gold-backed" bearer bonds.

But as Sterling and Peggy Seagrave report in their book Gold Warriors, and as I indicated in Covert Wars and Breakaway Civilizations, the term "gold" in the murky underworld of organized crime and international drug trafficking, is code for drugs themselves. Thus, the "gold-backed" bearer bonds might be taken to indicate not gold backing, but drug backing, requiring a permanent criminalization of drugs to keep prices artificially high, and maintain the cash flow of a vast hidden system of finance for covert operations and black technology research.

And that would, indeed, seem to confirm the veiled admissions of the extent of that involvement suggested in the CIA's own quotations cited above, This would not be a secret widely known within any intelligence agency, much less the CIA, even at senior levels. It would be closely held, of course, and only by a very few. But that secret, in itself, coupled with that decision to create such a system in the first place, would mean that at some level, it was official policy.

See you on the flip side...