Close Encounters and Creepy Camouflage/A Mind-Altering Mysterious Woman

Close Encounters and Creepy Camouflage

• http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2015/08/close-encounters-and-creepy-camouflage/
•  August 17, 2015
•  Nick Redfern

One of the weirdest – and potentially one of the most disturbing – aspects of the UFO phenomenon is that which suggests aliens are not just visiting us or abducting us. They may be trying to infiltrate us. A hidden, silent army from somewhere else. One that bit by bit, and year by year, is growing in number. As for the reason, well, that’s the most important issue of all. If the scenario is true, the news may not be good. In some respects, the scenario is not unlike that presented in the 1960s TV series, The Invaders, in which hostile ETs take on human form and begin to worm their way into our civilization. Their goal: to take over the planet.
I have on record a large number of reports that strongly suggest entities from elsewhere are using camouflage to move among us. We’re talking – as bizarrely as it surely sounds – about creatures that don’t look entirely human and who wear hats, wigs, and large sunglasses to mask their true identities. If there were just a few such reports, we could dismiss them as nonsense. But, there aren’t just a few. There are dozens. And I’m talking only about the cases I have on file. Who knows how many similar reports other investigators have?

Of course, references to odd-looking people wearing hats, wigs and sunglasses – and in relation to UFOs – instantly provoke imagery of the Men in Black. The matter of the so-called Black-Eyed Children springs to mind, too. After all, the BEC are rarely seen without their black hoodies, which offer a degree of camouflage, and particularly so during night-time encounters. But the MIB and the BEC are just two parts of a much bigger mystery. Let’s take a look at a few cases and comments.
In issue 187 of Fortean Times magazine, writer Mark Pilkington reviewed the FortNite 2004 gig. He commented on some of the data revealed at the conference by the late alien abduction researcher Budd Hopkins: “…in order to better blend in with us humans, the greys have taken to wearing wigs and sunglasses…the aliens are also experimenting with growing hair on the heads of their genetic hybrid grey-human creations…they’re also developing pupils to get around those giveaway wraparound black eyes.”
Writer Eris Andys had her own run-in with one of these camouflaged ETs, in 1988, as she described in an appropriately titled 2004 article for Fortean Times: “A Quiet Invasion.” While walking down one particular street (location not stated) Andys encountered a humanoid creature with “waxy, grey” skin, “…with no pores and no hair. It looked damp. The mouth was small, the nose tiny, and the chin pointed.” She added: “The most amazing thing was the pair of glasses ‘he’ wore – made of some yellow reflective stuff, they wrapped around the sides of the head like some futuristic ski-wear.”

Going back further in time, we have the account of “Kartott.” In 1974 or 1975, south of St. Louis, Missouri, she crossed paths with “…a very pale entity, wearing a thin black coat (like a rain coat) with collar turned up to cover her neck, a heavy long haired wig, and very large black glasses. This did not entirely hide her strange face: a very pointed chin, scant lip and nose. She did not speak.”
And further back into the 1970s, there’s a story that John Keel highlighted in his classic book, The Mothman Prophecies. It’s a story I wrote about earlier this year, here at Mysterious Universe. So, for our purposes, I’ll keep the summary brief.
The odd affair surfaced in late 1971 and was focused on a woman named Shirley Cromartie. She was a mother of three, who held a security clearance in the Florida White House and who found herself plunged into a profoundly strange situation. In a Florida parking-lot, Cromartie was placed into a hypnotic state by a mysterious wig-wearing woman. Keel suggested, in his book, that the hypnotic abilities of Cromartie’s mind-altering woman amounted to “…not some small demonstration for the benefit of President Nixon.”
Check out too the odd saga of Whitley Strieber, his 1987 book, Communion, and a man named Bruce Lee.
Is all this talk of strange humanoids, wigs, hats, sunglasses, and camouflage nothing more than the results of coincidence, paranoia and modern day folklore in the making? I seriously doubt it. Something is going on. There is a pattern. It’s not a good pattern. And as I noted, I have dozens of such cases. It would be interesting to see how many other researchers have similar cases on file. And it would be very interesting to see where all this might lead.
 

A Mind-Altering Mysterious Woman

• http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2015/01/a-mind-altering-mysterious-woman/
•  January 20, 2015
•  Nick Redfern

Mention the name of John Keel to anyone with an interest in UFOs, cryptozoology, and the paranormal, and doing so will likely provoke imagery of Keel’s research into two areas he was particularly known for investigating: (a) Mothman and (b) the Men in Black.
There is, however, one case that Keel only briefly touched upon in his all-time classic, The Mothman Prophecies, but which is of such genuine high-strangeness that it is definitely worthy of further study and commentary. It was a story that surfaced in late October 1971, and reached the eyes and ears of the United States’ media. This was hardly surprising since  – in a curious fashion – it involved none other than President Richard Nixon.
The story – which Keel presents in his book, in verbatim form from a newspaper article – revolves around a woman named Shirley Cromartie. She was a mother of three, who – the press revealed – held a security clearance in the Florida White House and who found herself plunged into a profoundly strange situation.
The media began, on October 23, 1971: “A part-time housekeeper at President Nixon’s Key Biscayne retreat has testified she was put in a hypnotic daze by a stranger who told her to shoplift four dresses.”
The press continued that Mrs. Cromartie “…pleaded no contest Thursday and was given a suspended sentence after law enforcement officers and a psychiatrist testified they believed she was telling the truth. Mrs. Cromartie holds a security clearance to work in the Florida White House, according to testimony.”

Mrs. Cromartie said a mysterious woman met with her in a parking lot and asked if she had the time, and then ordered her to shoplift the items and bring them to her. The press added, elevating the high-strangeness to even greater levels: “Mrs. Cromartie testified she fell into a daze when the young woman released a jasmine-like scent from her left hand.”
She added: “I just sort of lost my will. It was a terrifying experience.”
The media coverage continued: “Mrs. Cromartie joined the Key Biscayne White House housekeeping staff about a year ago, according to FBI Agent Leo Mc Clairen. He testified her background was impeccable.”
She was also examined by a psychiatrist, who, the newspapers said: “…found she could be hypnotized ‘quickly and easily’ and believed she was telling the truth.”
“But it wasn’t the same when he hypnotized me,” Mrs. Cromartie said. “I couldn’t remember anything afterwards. Whatever that young woman did to me, it was like being in a sleepwalk, only awake.”
As the media continued to dig into the story, things got even more bizarre. The mysterious woman, with the mind-altering, “jasmine-like scent,” was described as being attractive, young, and…wearing a wig – the latter being something which is a staple part of certain “Women in Black” cases I have investigated (and which are the subject of a book I have almost finished writing).
Also, both the WIB and their more famous male counterparts, the Men in Black, are oddly fond of asking people the time, as Mrs. Cromartie’s mysterious woman was so very careful to do.
Metro Court Judge, Frederick Barad, said of this surreal saga: “This is all so bizarre that I’m frightened what could happen to the president.”
This latter point was something clearly on the mind of John Keel, too. He speculated in The Mothman Prophecies that the hypnotic abilities of Cromartie’s mind-altering woman amounted to “…not some small demonstration for the benefit of President Nixon.”
It’s curious that very little additional coverage ever surfaced on this genuinely weird affair. Whether officialdom – as a result of the White House connection – learned any more is a matter that, outside of governmental channels, remains unknown…

Is the New U.S. ‘Law of War Manual’ Actually ‘Hitlerian’?      ~ ya STILL "think" we beat em ...we "ob~zorb" em  Huh ???... but hey fuck it ! nobody "reads"  shit any~more  humm ..ain't that right  A,

By Eric Zuesse

Global Research, August 19, 2015

Region: USA

Theme: Law and Justice

The Obama U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has quietly issued its important Law of War Manual, and, unlike its predecessor, the 1956 U.S. Army Field Manual, which was not designed to approve of the worst practices by both the United States and its enemies in World War II, or after 9/11, this new document has been alleged specifically to do just that: to allow such attacks as the United States did on Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and in Iraq, and elsewhere.
First here will be a summary of previous news reports about this historically important document; then, extensive quotations from the actual document itself will be provided, relating to the allegations in those previous news reports. Finally will be conclusions regarding whether, or the extent to which, those earlier news reports about it were true.
EARLIER REPORTS ABOUT THE MANUAL:
The document was first reported by DoD in a curt press release on June 12th, with a short-lived link to the source-document, and headlined, “DoD Announces New Law of War Manual.” This press release was published and discussed only in a few military newsmedia, not in the general press.
The document was then anonymously reported on June 25th, at the non-military site,
http://respect-discussion.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-usa-writes-their-own-version-of.html,
under the headline, “The USA writes their own version of ‘International Law’: Pentagon Rewrites ‘Law of War’ Declaring ‘Belligerent’ Journalists as Legitimate Targets.”
That news article attracted some attention from journalists, but no link was provided to the actual document, which the U.S. DoD removed promptly after issuing it.
A professor of journalism was quoted there as being opposed to the document’s allegedly allowing America’s embedded war journalists to kill the other side’s journalists. He said: “It gives them license to attack or even murder journalists that they don’t particularly like but aren’t on the other side.”
Patrick Martin at the World Socialist Web Site, then headlined on August 11th,“Pentagon manual justifies war crimes and press censorship,” and he reported that the Committee to Protect Journalists was obsessed with the document’s implications regarding journalists. A link was provided to the document, but the link is dead.
Then, Sherwood Ross headlined at opednews on August 13th, “Boyle: New Pentagon War Manual Reduces Us to ‘Level of Nazis’,” and he interviewed the famous expert on international law, Francis Boyle, about it, who had read the report. Ross opened: “The Pentagon’s new Law of War Manual(LOWM) sanctioning nuclear attacks and the killing of civilians, ‘reads like it was written by Hitler’s Ministry of War,’ says international law authority Francis Boyle of the University of Illinois at Champaign.” Ross continued: “Boyle points out the new manual is designed to supplant the 1956 U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 written by Richard Baxter, the world’s leading authority on the Laws of War. Baxter was the Manley O. Hudson Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and a Judge on the International Court of Justice. Boyle was his top student.”
Ross did not link to the actual document. The only new information he provided about it consisted of Boyle’s opinions about it.
Though the DoD removed the document, someone had fortunately already copied it into the Web Archive, and I have linked to it there, at the top of the present article, to make the source-document easily accessible to the general public. The document is 1,204 pages. So, finally, the general public can see the document and make their own judgments about it. What follows will concern specifically the claims about it that were made in those prior news articles, and will compare those claims with the relevant actual statements in the document itself. Reading what the document says is worthwhile, because its predecessor, the Army Field Manual, became central in the news coverage about torture and other Bush Administration war-crimes.
THE DOCUMENT:
First of all, regarding “journalists,” the document, in Chapter 4, says: “4.24.2 Journalists and other media representatives are regarded as civilians;471 i.e., journalism does not constitute taking a direct part in hostilities such that such a person would be deprived of protection from being made the object of attack.472.” Consequently, the journalism professor’s remark is dubious, at best, but probably can be considered to be outright false.
The charge by the international lawyer, Professor Boyle, is a different matter altogether.
This document says, in Chapter 5:

“5.3.1 Responsibility of the Party Controlling Civilian 5.3.1 Persons and Objects. The party controlling civilians and civilian objects has the primary responsibility for the protection of civilians and civilian objects.13[13 See J. Fred Buzhardt, DoD General Counsel, Letter to Senator Edward Kennedy, Sept. 22, 1972. …] The party controlling the civilian population generally has the greater opportunity to minimize risk to civilians. 14[14 FINAL REPORT ON THE PERSIAN GULF WAR 614. …] Civilians also may share in the responsibility to take precautions for their own protection.15[15 U.S. Comments on the International Committee of the Red Cross’s Memorandum on the Applicability of International Humanitarian Law in the Gulf Region, Jan. 11, 1991. …]”

This is directly counter to what Professor Boyle was alleged to have charged about the document.
The document continues: “5.3.2 Essentially Negative Duties to Respect Civilians and to Refrain From Directing Military Operations Against Them. In general, military operations must not be directed against enemy civilians.16 In particular:

• Civilians must not be made the object of attack;17

• Military objectives may not be attacked when the expected incidental loss of life and injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained;18

• Civilians must not be used as shields or as hostages;19 and

• Measures of intimidation or terrorism against the civilian population are prohibited, including acts or threats of violence, the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population.20″

Furthermore: “5.3.3 Affirmative Duties to Take Feasible Precautions for the Protection of Civilians and Other Protected Persons and Objects. Parties to a conflict must take feasible precautions to reduce the risk of harm to the civilian population and other protected persons and objects.27 Feasible precautions to reduce the risk of harm to civilians and civilian objects must be taken when planning and conducting attacks.28”
Moreover: “5.5.2 Parties to a conflict must conduct attacks in accordance with the principles of distinction and proportionality. In particular, the following rules must be observed:

• Combatants may make military objectives the object of attack, but may not direct attacks against civilians, civilian objects, or other protected persons and objects.66
• Combatants must refrain from attacks in which the expected loss of life or injury to civilians, and damage to civilian objects incidental to the attack, would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained.67
• Combatants must take feasible precautions in conducting attacks to reduce the risk of harm to civilians and other protected persons and objects.68
• In conducting attacks, combatants must assess in good faith the information that is available to them.69
• Combatants may not kill or wound the enemy by resort to perfidy.70
• Specific rules apply to the use of certain types of weapons.71”

In addition: “5.5.3.2 AP I Presumptions in Favor of Civilian Status in Conducting Attacks. In the context of conducting attacks, certain provisions of AP I reflect a presumption in favor of civilian status in cases of doubt. Article 52(3) of AP I provides that ‘[i]n case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military actions, it shall be presumed not to be so used.’76 Article 50(1) of AP I provides that ‘[i]n case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.’”
Then, there is this: “5.15 UNDEFENDED CITIES, TOWNS, AND VILLAGES. Attack, by whatever means, of a village, town, or city that is undefended is prohibited.360 Undefended villages, towns, or cities may, however, be captured.”
Furthermore: “5.17 SEIZURE AND DESTRUCTION OF ENEMY PROPERTY. Outside the context of attacks, certain rules apply to the seizure and destruction of enemy property:

• Enemy property may not be seized or destroyed unless imperatively demanded by the necessities of war.”

These features too are not in accord with the phrase ‘reads like it was written by Hitler’s Ministry of War.’
However, then, there is also this in Chapter 6, under “6.5 Lawful Weapons”:
“6.5.1 Certain types of weapons, however, are subject to specific rules that apply to their use by the U.S. armed forces. These rules may reflect U.S. obligations under international law or national policy. These weapons include:

• mines, booby-traps, and other devices (except certain specific classes of prohibited mines, booby-traps, and other devices);38
• cluster munitions;39
• incendiary weapons;40
• laser weapons (except blinding lasers);41
• riot control agents;42
• herbicides;43
• nuclear weapons; 44 and
• explosive ordnance.45

6.5.2 Other Examples of Lawful Weapons. In particular, aside from the rules prohibiting weapons calculated to cause superfluous injury and inherently indiscriminate weapons,46 there are no law of war rules specifically prohibiting or restricting the following types of weapons by the U.S. armed forces: …

• depleted uranium munitions;51”

Mines, cluster munitions, incendiary weapons, herbicides, nuclear weapons, and depleted uranium munitions, are all almost uncontrollably violative of the restrictions that were set forth in Chapter 5, preceding.
There are also passages like this:

6.5.4.4 Expanding Bullets. The law of war does not prohibit the use of bullets that expand or flatten easily in the human body. Like other weapons, such bullets are only prohibited if they are calculated to cause superfluous injury.74 The U.S. armed forces have used expanding bullets in various counterterrorism and hostage rescue operations, some of which have been conducted in the context of armed conflict.
The 1899 Declaration on Expanding Bullets prohibits the use of expanding bullets in armed conflicts in which all States that are parties to the conflict are also Party to the 1899 Declaration on Expanding Bullets.75 The United States is not a Party to the 1899 Declaration on Expanding Bullets, in part because evidence was not presented at the diplomatic conference that expanding bullets produced unnecessarily severe or cruel wounds.76”
The United States still has not gone as far as the 1899 Declaration on Expanding Bullets. The U.S. presumption is instead that expanding bullets have not “produced unnecessarily severe or cruel wounds.” This is like George W. Bush saying that waterboarding, etc., aren’t “torture.” The document goes on to explain that, “expanding bullets are widely used by law enforcement agencies today, which also supports the conclusion that States do not regard such bullets are inherently inhumane or needlessly cruel.81” And, of course, the Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court do not think that the death penalty is either “cruel” or “unusual” punishment. Perhaps Obama is a closeted Republican himself.
The use of depleted uranium was justified by an American Ambassador’s statement asserting that, “The environmental and long-term health effects of the use of depleted uranium munitions have been thoroughly investigated by the World Health Organization, the United Nations Environmental Program, the International Atomic Energy Agency, NATO, the Centres for Disease Control, the European Commission, and others. None of these inquiries has documented long-term environmental or health effects attributable to use of these munitions.

However, according to Al Jazeera’s Dahr Jamail, on 15 March 2013:

“Official Iraqi government statistics show that, prior to the outbreak of the First Gulf War in 1991, the rate of cancer cases in Iraq was 40 out of 100,000 people. By 1995, it had increased to 800 out of 100,000 people, and, by 2005, it had doubled to at least 1,600 out of 100,000 people. Current estimates show the increasing trend continuing. As shocking as these statistics are, due to a lack of adequate documentation, research, and reporting of cases, the actual rate of cancer and other diseases is likely to be much higher than even these figures suggest.”

If those figures are accurate, then the reasonable presumption would be that depleted uranium should have been banned long ago. Continuing to assert that it’s not as dangerous a material as people think it is, seems likely to be based on cover-up, rather than on science. Until there is proof that it’s not that toxic, the presumption should be that it must be outlawed.
Finally, though the press reports on this document have not generally focused on the issue of torture, it’s worth pointing out what the document does say, about that:

5.26.2 Information Gathering. The employment of measures necessary for obtaining information about the enemy and their country is considered permissible.727
Information gathering measures, however, may not violate specific law of war rules.728
For example, it would be unlawful, of course, to use torture or abuse to interrogate detainees for purposes of gathering information.”
And: “9.8.1 Humane Treatment During Interrogation. Interrogation must be carried out in a manner consistent with the requirements for humane treatment, including the prohibition against acts of violence or intimidation, and insults.153
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on POWs to secure from them information of any kind whatever.154 POWs who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.155
Prohibited means include imposing inhumane conditions,156 denial of medical treatment, or the use of mind-altering chemicals.157”
Those provisions would eliminate George W. Bush’s ‘justification’ for the use of tortures such as waterboarding, and humiliation.
Furthermore: “8.2.1 Protection Against Violence, Torture, and Cruel Treatment. Detainees must be protected against violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, torture, and any form of corporal punishment.29

Therefore, even if Bush’s approved forms of torture were otherwise allowable under Obama’s new legal regime, some of those forms, such as waterboarding, and even “insults,” would be excluded by this provision.
Moreover:

“8.2.4 Threats to Commit Inhumane Treatment. Threats to commit the unlawful acts described above (i.e., violence against detainees, or humiliating or degrading treatment, or biological or medical experiments) are also prohibited.37”

And:

“8.14.4.1 U.S. Policy Prohibiting Transfers in Cases in Which Detainees Would Likely Be Tortured. U.S. policy provides that no person shall be transferred to another State if it is more likely than not that the person would be tortured in the receiving country.”

Therefore, specifically as regards torture, the Obama system emphatically and clearly excludes what the Bush interpretation of the U.S. Army Field Manual allowed.
CONCLUSIONS:
What seems undeniable about the Law of War Manual, is that there are self-contradictions within it. To assert that it “reads like it was written by Hitler’s Ministry of War,” is going too far. But, to say that it’s hypocritical (except, perhaps, on torture, where it’s clearly a repudiation of GWB’s practices), seems safely true.
This being so, Obama’s Law of War Manual should ultimately be judged by Obama’s actions as the U.S. Commander in Chief, and not merely by the document’s words. Actions speak truer than words, even if they don’t speak louder than words (and plenty of people still think that Obama isn’t a Republican in ‘Democratic’ verbal garb: they’re not tone-deaf, but they surely are action-deaf; lots of people judge by words not actions). For example: it was Obama himself who arranged the bloody coup in Ukraine and the resulting necessaryethnic cleansing there in order to exterminate or else drive out the residents inthe area of Ukraine that had voted 90+% for the Ukrainian President whom Obama’s people (via their Ukrainian agents) had overthrown.
Cluster bombs,firebombs, and other such munitions have been used by their stooges for this purpose, that ethnic cleansing: against the residents there. Obama has spoken publicly many times defending what they are doing, but using euphemisms to refer to it. He is certainly behind the coup and its follow-through in the ethnic cleansing, and none of it would be happening if he did not approve of it. Judging the mere words of Obama’s Law of War Manual by Obama’s actions (such as in Ukraine, but also Syria, and Libya) is judging it by how he actually interprets it, and this technique of interpreting the document provides the answer to the document’s real meaning. It answers the question whenever there are contradictions within the document (as there indeed are).
Consequently, what Francis Boyle was reported to have said is, in the final analysis, true, at least in practical terms — which is all that really counts — except on torture, where his allegation is simply false.
Obama’s intent, like that of anyone, must be drawn from his actions, his decisons, not from his words, whenever the words and the actions don’t jibe, don’t match. When his Administration produced its Law of War Manual, it should be interpreted to mean what his Administration has done and is doing, not by its words, wherever there is a contradiction between those two.
This also means that no matter how much one reads the document itself, some of what one is reading is deception if it’s not being interpreted by, and in the light of, an even more careful reading of Obama’s relevant actions regarding the matters to which the document pertains.
Otherwise, the document is being read in a way that confuses its policy statements with its propaganda statements.
Parts of the document are propaganda. The purpose isn’t to fool the public, who won’t read the document (and Obama apparently doesn’t want them to). The purpose of the propaganda is to enable future presidents to say, “But if you will look at this part of the Manual, you will see that what we are doing is perfectly legal.” Those mutually contradictory passages are there in order to provide answers which will satisfy both the ‘hawks’ and the ‘doves.’
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010,and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Copyright © Eric Zuesse, Global Research, 2015

French Presidency Has “Kill List” of People Targeted for Assassination  ~ fuck~in A , France! yer turn~in 2 U.S.

By Kumaran Ira

Global Research, August 19, 2015

World Socialist Web Site

Region: Europe

Theme: 9/11 & 'War on Terrorism', Intelligence, Police State & Civil Rights

In the name of the “war on terror,” the French state is dramatically accelerating its use of clandestine operations to extra-judicially murder targeted individuals. French President François Hollande reportedly possesses a “kill list” of potential targets and constantly reviews the assassination programme with high-ranking military and intelligence officers.
This programme of state murder, violating basic constitutional rights in a country where the death penalty is illegal, underscores the profound decay of French bourgeois democracy. Amid escalating imperialist wars in France’s former colonial empire and deepening political crisis at home, the state is moving towards levels of criminality associated with the war against Algerian independence and the Vichy regime of Occupied France.
Press reports have revealed the French state’s assassination programme—carried out particularly in the regions where France has launched military interventions supposedly to fight terrorism, in Africa and the Middle East—and applauded it.
In an article on August 8 titled “War on Terror, Licence to Kill,” news magazineLe Point asserted that the French president has the right to kill an individual who has not even been charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime. It wrote,

“The rule of law has its dark side. The president of the republic has the right to kill, despite the abolition of the death penalty. A republican monarch, the head of the army can give the thumbs-down, deciding alone and in cold blood to make a man leave the land of the living.”

Le Point added, “This right is unchallenged, as it is written nowhere. And because it is exercised without discussion, oversight, or control.”
Regarding the French president’s “kill list,” online magazine Slate wrote:

“This list includes the names of terrorists and other stated enemies whose elimination without trial the president of the Republic has authorised. This means their execution without warning, anytime, as soon as the secret services or military intelligence can locate them.”

This state of affairs points to the complicity of the entire political establishment in the establishment and the promotion of an apparatus of political killing in France. Le Point reported the existence of a special death squad belonging to France’s external intelligence agency, the General Directorate for External Security (DGSE).
It wrote,

“The human resources to launch such operations exist, with an identified and well-trained chain of command, overseeing either discreet forces like the Special Operations Command (COS), or clandestine units of the Action Service of the DGSE. Inside the latter entity, there is an even more mysterious and better-hidden unit than the others.”

This unit, known as “Alpha agents,” was created in the 1980s by General Jean Heinrich, then the DGSE’s director of operations, “to bury potential operations in the dark folds of the world of shadows,” Le Point stated.
In his recent investigative account, The Killers of the Republic, journalist Vincent Nouzille exposes the assassination programme of successive French governments. To assert its imperialist interests in Africa and the Middle East, the Elysée presidential palace secretly leads a campaign of state murder. Nouzille reveals the existence of a clandestine cell within the DGSE, whose agents and commandos are trained to carry out targeted killings or “Homo [homicide] operations,” often in or near conflict zones.
In an April interview to Sud-Ouest, he explained:

“In the mid-1980s, a mini-cell was formed inside the Action Service: the Alpha cell, with a dozen members. They were killers, the ‘killers of the Republic.’ They operate in such a way that their actions cannot be traced back to the French services. There is concurrently a rise of the special forces, who operate in conflict zones such as Mali.… Inside these forces, there have emerged mini-groups of elite gunmen who can identify and kill an individual in a few hours.”

During the NATO-led war in Libya to topple the regime of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, these special commando forces helped Al Qaeda-linked Islamists forces capture, torture, and summarily execute Gaddafi. “This was the case in Libya, the special forces acted in civilian clothing. They played a key role in toppling the Gaddafi regime,” Nouzille said.
It is under Hollande’s Socialist Party (PS) that the assassination programme has been intensified to a level unprecedented since the Algerian war of 1954-1962. During that war, French death squads summarily murdered hundreds of fighters of the National Liberation Front (FLN).
Under Hollande, more than a dozen “homo operations” were launched between 2012 and 2014. Nouzille said, “Never have the special forces and the Action service been used as much as today. This is because of the context, of course. Starting in 2012, there was a much more aggressive policy….”
In May, France assassinated Abdelkrim al-Targui, a Tuareg and a leader of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) in Mali, who was allegedly involved in the killing of two French journalists in Northern Mali in November 2013. An officer told Le Point: “We had to develop forces in the heart of the Tuareg units of AQMI. To understand them, find the right tracks, and wait for the favourable moment, we needed five months.”
Hollande’s assassination programme underscores the PS’s reactionary role and exposes the bankruptcy of pseudo-left organisations like the NPA, which called for voting for Hollande in the second round of the 2012 presidential elections. Having backed the war in Libya, they are totally silent on the French state’s assassination programme.
The significance of large-scale secret state murder in France can only be understood in the context of the escalating imperialist interventions of the NATO powers in Africa and the Middle East, and rising social tensions in France itself. As it seeks to recolonise its former colonial empire through naked terror, the French ruling class also fears rising discontent with the austerity policies of the European Union in the working class. The Hollande administration is the most unpopular in France’s post-World War II history.
In these conditions, there is a massive bureaucracy of murderous repression. Its targets will not only be drawn from Islamist forces, many of which have close ties to Western intelligence services, including the DGSE—as the Libyan war made clear. They also include the French people, and above all opposition in the working class.
The reports on Hollande’s “kill list” coincide with the imposition of sweeping police state measures inside France itself, including a surveillance law giving intelligence and police vast powers to spy on the entire population.

Copyright © Kumaran Ira, World Socialist Web Site, 2015

METAPLANETARY WARFARE   ~ hehe sum~thin is 'go~in'   ON  ...out there ???      Oops

• Posted on August 14, 2015
• by Ron Patton
• in Articles

METAPLANETARY WARFARE

When I was a kid, I was warned in my Sunday school class that in the times of the apocalypse there would be a war in heaven. When I was 12, George Lucas released his own version of a heavenly war as a work of fiction.
Star Wars was not a futuristic war in pace, but a war that happened a longtime ago in a galaxy far, far away.
Then in the 1980’s as I was just out of high school, the public was made aware of a program that took its name from the Lucas film.
The Strategic Defense Initiative or Star Wars program was an armed nuclear missile system that combined ground-based units and orbital deployment platforms. It was first publicly announced by President Ronald Reagan on 23 March 1983.

The controversy and conspiracy at the time was that this program would be in violation of agreements we made in the 1960’s with Russia.
Despite a 1967 agreement by the US and Russia expressly banning the use of antiballistic-missile weapons in space, the Outer Space Treaty has been largely ignored since 2002, when President George W. Bush withdrew to deploy interceptor missiles that would protect the United States from “rogue” attacks by enemy countries like North Korea.
In 2007, China angered the space community after sending a missile to blow up one of its defunct satellites, leaving a debris field of over 3000 pieces to float in space like garbage.
In 2013, they struck again, launching a rocket that reached 6,250 miles into orbit.
There are often many hardcore skeptics over the years that have harassed, and threatened me whenever I choose to talk about the secret space program. They love to jeer an cajole my efforts in bringing the information to you about the secret programs because most guests I have had on my show say that this secret space program had its beginnings before the Mercury and Apollo programs.
History tells us that the Mercury program began as far back as 1959. The quest was to put a man in orbit and eventually the program evolved and the idea of putting a man on the moon was the challenge brought forward by President John F. Kennedy.
However, the secret space program arguably had its beginnings just before the end of World War II. An especially dark corner of the rumors of the secret space program were the beliefs that the Nazis created viable flying saucer technology toward the end of World War II that was later discovered and suppressed by allied intelligence.
Many ex-Nazi scientists were brought to the United States through Project Paperclip and were hired by the various jet propulsion companies, to develop rocketry and to allegedly back engineer “saucer technologies” allegedly brought forth through occult alien contact in order to conquer space.
Russia also had their own “paperclip” type import of Nazi scientists working on various space-related projects as well.
We also can not overlook the occult aspects of the secret space program in the United States. Jack Parsons, the inventor of the rocket fuel that eventually took us to the moon was a genius in technological terms, but his strange interests in Satanic occult ritual are often overlooked in rocketry history.
Parsons began his research into rocketry at Cal Tech in the 1930s, where he and his coworkers were nicknamed the “Suicide Squad” because of the frightening explosions they were causing on campus. When World War II began, the U.S. military asked for their help in developing a way to propel planes into the air in places without adequate runways. His eccentric working group eventually morphed into the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Meanwhile, Parsons became enraptured with the writings of Aleister Crowley, and joined the Los Angeles-based Agape Lodge of Crowley’s Ordo Templi Orientis. Parsons was seen to be a potential savior of their movement, and he began donating nearly all his salary to the upkeep of his lodge brethren.
The FBI and the Air Force investigated Parsons after he was stripped of his security clearance for slipping classified documents to the newly established government of Israel.
In the Air Force report, Parsons was said to belong to a religious cult “believed to advocate sexual perversion” and that “broadly hinted at free love” and that Parsons’ Pasadena home had been described by an unnamed source as “a gathering place of perverts.”
That Parsons had been cavalier with confidential files was one thing, but that Parsons as an occultist and possible sexual deviant had been granted a Top Secret clearance to begin with was seen as being utterly beyond anyone’s comprehension.
So we see the infancy of our space program being run by ex Nazis like Werner Von Braun and Satanic occultists like Parsons.
We also are aware that Parsons along with L. Ron Hubbard conducted a sex magic ritual in the desert called the Babalon Working in 1947, where both had claimed contact with entities from outer space.

Coincidentally in the same year, an alleged crash of an alien space craft took place in Roswell, New Mexico. The debate is whether or not a Nazi saucer was being tested at that time or that aliens arriving and eventually dying in the desert was a signal that the space race had to begin or else planet Earth would become a target of strange creatures from space.
The known birth of the Space Age following the Soviet launch of Sputnik came out of the confluence of two seemingly incompatible developments. From the end of World War II, the Soviets made rockets their most important military asset. By the mid-1950s, they were ready to test their first intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). In 1957, the International Geophysical Year was launched, a multinational effort to study Earth on a comprehensive, coordinated basis.
To highlight the effort, organizers had urged the United States and the Soviet Union to consider launching a scientific satellite. On Oct. 4, 1957, a seemingly routine test launch of a Soviet ICBM, now known as the R-7 rocket carried the first artificial satellite to orbit.

Sputnik’s launch had dramatic repercussions for both the Soviets and the United Sates.
After reaping the first political dividends from military rocket technology, the Soviets continued to pursue a highly classified military-industrial approach in developing its space program, while we were told through various venues of propaganda that our intentions in space were purely peaceful.
People tend to put into the cosmic memory hole what the real objective was in space and it had nothing to do with astronauts playing golf and high fiving each other in the Sea of Tranquility.
Both Russia and the United States gave primary emphasis in their space efforts to a combination of national security and foreign policy objectives, turning space into an area of active competition for political and military advantage.
The military part of NASA had priority over the civilian public relations program that the public saw when Neil Armstrong put his foot into gray regolith on national television.
Since then it has been debated that the shots of the first moon landing, even the moon landing itself was a faked public relations stunt to cover up the covert activity that included creating a space war platform, bases and observation centers on the moon, and other military training, mining and extra terrestrial affairs operations on the planet Mars.
It has been a controversial topic on Ground Zero for some time.
The response to the secret space program shows have mostly been positive, however there have been many people who take volatile issue with the subject matter, because their image of a peaceful, by the book history of space travel includes tales of heroism and ticker tape parades that today do not happen, because there is no need to sell the idea of going into space.
We have already made it and now the idea of walking on the moon no longer captures the imagination of the public. The public now is interested in extra-terrestrial contact which provides an excellent distraction from the mounting evidence that Unidentified Flying Objects we see on earth are both piloted alien spacecraft and earthly military war machines.
It seems hard for the public to understand that there exists a secret space program, an enormously complex program in order conquer the nearby solar system with manmade spaceships and to have a military advantage above planet earth and beyond using metaplanetary warfare.
In 2001, British systems administrator Gary McKinnon hacked his way into 97 U.S. military and NASA computers. He intended to find top-secret files regarding free energy but stumbled upon something bigger. McKinnon claimed to have uncovered a spreadsheet containing names and information about “non-terrestrial officers” and transfers between fleets. He cross referenced these names with a database of all U.S. Navy and military personnel but was unable to find any of the officers. McKinnon therefore concluded they were not of this world and labeled them as “Space Marines”.
In an interview with the BBC, he said he had been motivated by The Disclosure Project because “they are some very credible, relied-upon people, all saying yes, there is UFO technology, there’s anti-gravity, there’s free energy, and it’s extraterrestrial in origin and they’ve captured spacecraft and reverse engineered them.”
McKinnon was discovered just as he was examining the image of a UFO stored in a NASA computer in Johnson Space Center’s Building 8. Caught in 2002, he was facing up to 70 years in prison and several million dollars in fines. However, the U.K. never extradited him to the U.S. and McKinnon managed to avoid prison. Some say that he was able to do so because he had amassed sensitive information that he used as leverage.

Here we are some 14 years later and Gary McKinnon’s discovery has long been silenced. The United States government did not prosecute him which may have been the smartest move they could have made.
Can you imagine the publicity it would have created? It would have also generated enough discussion in the general population that the military arm of the space program would have to disclose exactly what was happening in space.
This would have led to full disclosure of extraterrestrial affairs of all kinds and the secret space military apparatus that has been above us since the 1950’s.
Now, after all of the controversy and all of the reporting of the space program and the arguable topic of whether or not these programs are real, the mainstream has now blown the whistle.
Popular Science magazine has now announced that Russia, China and the US are reportedly developing, testing and deploying sophisticated weapons in outer space in advance of a military attack that could see the first great conflict between sparring superpowers in 70 years. Popular Science is calling it “A New Cold War in the Void of Space”.
According to Reuters, Earth’s orbit “is looking more and more like the planet’s surface heavily armed and primed for war”.
At least 1,200 satellites are orbiting Earth for various uses, including navigation and communication. They are also being primed for “planetary surveillance,” Scientific American reports.
The satellites circle the globe communicating messages from the U.S. military, 80 per cent of which is done through civilian satellites.
While the US remains the “undisputed king of space technology” because now they are revealing that we are the “most heavily armed space power”, China and Russia are keen to claim their own territory, working to destroy US satellites and replace them with their own.
These destroyers go by the name of “inspection” satellites, which, according to Reuters, “lurk in orbit, possibly awaiting commands to sneak up on and disable or destroy other satellites”.
But as harmless as these “assassin spacecraft” may look, “with the proverbial flip of a switch”, an inspection satellite, ostensibly configured for orbital repair work, could become a robotic assassin capable of taking out other satellites with lasers, explosives or mechanical claws.
The destruction of these resources can come in many forms, both on the ground and off. From tampering with antennas, destabilizing orbits, or hijacking transmissions.
So powerful are these planetary satellites, its enemies are blasting co-ordinated rockets from warships and ground installations, set on a one-way collision course to destroy “enemy spacecraft”. Many people remember spending their quarters to play the video game Missile Command back in the 1980’s and now the real thing is now becoming part as business as usual in our newly announced military presence in space.

The United States own at least 500 satellites alone, as many as the rest of the world’s satellites combined. It is believed 100 of those U.S. satellites are used for military purposes.
It denies it is placing actual weapons in space, yet Air Force Space Command Commander General John Hyten said during a press conference last year: “We have a responsibility to defend against all threats. That’s what our job is. … There is no doubt we have seen threats appear in the last decade, and we have to be prepared to respond to those threats.
“It’s that simple.”
Russia’s interest in the space race is no big secret, we have pointed out that it was generated by the Cold War.
However, China has emerged as a universal powerhouse, launching 130 spacecrafts and satellites into orbit in recent years. These include spy satellites and plans to launch its own space platform called Tiāngōng in 2022.
So after countless arguments over a possible clandestine space program, there is a sense of vindication that while we may be mounting both an offense and defense in space – the stakes are becoming higher and that while the mainstream has been sitting on the truth about the secret space program for some time, things that don’t look right in the sky, fireballs and the various UFO stories, may just be an indication that metaplanetary war is about to begin.

‘

TWO CAN PLAY THE COVERT OPERATIONS GAME…

Posted on August 19, 2015 by Joseph P. Farrell • http://gizadeathstar.com/2015/08/two-can-play-the-covert-operations-game/

I've been constantly warning that the brinkmanship covert operations games that the USA's neo-Naz...er, neo-Cons... have been playing around the world, especially in relationship to Russia (and most likely China, though we're told much less of that), can backfire, since covert operations are a game two or more powers can play. And if there is an element of resentment within Russia about Mr. Putin's regime for the West to play with in its psychological and covert operations games, there is a festering boil of it in America for them to play with.
Now, in that context, Mr. V.T. shared the following article, and it appears, on first glance, to confirm my fears that Russia will begin playing covert "soft warfare" games against the USA in retaliation for the mess the USA has made in the Ukraine and elsewhere:
Russia hacks Pentagon computers: NBC, citing sources
Now, of course, we are assuming that CNBC and NBC's anonymous sources are telling the truth, and that (1) a cyber-attack was launched on the Pentagon, and (2) that it came from Russia (not, as the article is careful to note, necessarily the Russian government). Now, of course, these "sources" have lied before and so often that one must take any such story not just with a grain of salt, but with whole truckloads of bags of salt.
So, with this "for the sake of argument: approach in mind, then note what the article says:

U.S. officials tell NBC News that Russia launched a "sophisticated cyber attack" against the Pentagon's Joint Staff unclassified email system, which has been shut down and taken offline for nearly two weeks. According to the officials, the "sophisticated cyber intrusion" occurred sometime around July 25 and affected some 4,000 military and civilian personnel who work for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Sources tell NBC News that it appears the cyber attack relied on some kind of automated system that rapidly gathered massive amounts of data and within a minute distributed all the information to thousands of accounts on the Internet. The officials also report the suspected Russian hackers coordinated the sophisticated cyber assault via encrypted accounts on social media.
The officials say its not clear whether the attack was sanctioned by the Russian government or conducted by individuals. But, given the scope of the attack, "It was clearly the work of a state actor," the officials say.

In other words:

1. The attack was a large attack;
2. This indicated a state actor was in play
3. but then the article says it was not clear the Russian government was directly behind it, i.e., the impression is being created that the Russian government stands behind the actual hacking organization that conducted the attack;
4. the attack effected personnel on the staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff;
5. the attack was conducted by "some kind of automated system", perhaps resembling the types of systems conducting high frequency trades.

What might we be looking at for our high octane speculation? Well, for one thing, perhaps the Russians have created their own type of cyber-warfare NGO. For another, perhaps they are simply sending messages: look what we can do, and we can do far more. This, incidentally, is occurring within a wider pattern of Russian news items lately that include pointing out that CERN is doing more than just particle research, as we pointed out yesterday, but calling into question details of the Apollo narrative. If you're a dot-connecting analyst working in America's sprawling surveillance-intelligtence-national security state complex, these dots have to be causing some concern, for the implication is that perhaps we are just being shown the tip of the iceberg of their capabilities. Then too, we might be looking at something else. With the internet attacks taking place in the San Francisco bay area recently, and with these recent revelations, perhaps we are looking at a much larger operation, a kind of cyber-reconnaissance probing the networks and learning the architecture of the "cyber-defenses.
But there's a whole other line of possibilities here: and that is that this is being used as a "crisis of opportunity", to villify Russia once again, when, as the article makes clear, it is not known that Russia is behind it, but rather, the article says that the scope of the attack implied "the work of a state actor," which could be anyone from very large corporations, hidden projects, even, perhaps, the mysterious group Anonymous which is, obviously, a kind of non-government organization, or NGO.
In either case, however, one is confronted with the warning: covert operations and cyber-warfare are games two people can play, and if Russia isn't the one playing it, then that raises the stakes even more considerably.