Mary’s Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace: Third Edition by Peter Janney

Part 3 of 3

Joseph Trento interviewed Jim Angleton on his deathbed.  “Fundamentally, the founding fathers of US intelligence were liars.  The better you lied and the more you betrayed, the more likely you would be promoted.  These people attracted and promoted each other.  Outside of their duplicity, the only thing they had in common as a desire for absolute power.”  “…Allen Dulles, Richard Helms, Carmel Offie, and Frank Wisner were the grand masters.  If you were in a room with them, you were in a room full of people that you had to believe would deservedly end up in hell.”  “I guess I will see them there soon.”

It’s all a sociopathic game to them where lives are simple pawns in a chess game.  Anyone who seeks absolute power has suffered some great trauma where they were powerless and witnessed something horrific to either themselves or someone they loved.  What you have, in the end, is an intelligence agency with incredible power run by traumatized, narcissistic sociopaths willing to commit any crime and kill anyone to consolidate and enhance their powers.  To everyone else, they are pure evil engaged in deception and treachery and immorality, undermining our national security instead of protecting it.  To them, they are simply playing a game where nobody else matters but themselves, and the goal of the game is not to help anyone but themselves. 

* * *

The battle between the forces of peace and war seem like a classic soap opera between the forces of light and darkness, good and evil, but that is too simplistic and quite frankly, absurd and misleading.  The forces of peace, light, and good are often misguided, and all it takes is a little nudge for them to abuse their power and authority and believe that the utopian ends justify criminal and immoral means.  Cord Meyer is a perfect example of this.  At the same time, those on the side of war and ‘evil’ often believe that they are actually on the side of peace and good.  From Stalin, to Hitler, to Mao, they all believed that there was a peaceful, utopia at the end of the rainbow, but in order to get there, they had to make horrific sacrifices. 

This reminds me of Lance Armstrong.  I don’t believe for a second that Armstrong, as a kid, thought he would ever turn into such an insufferable scoundrel and liar.  He was certainly an egotistical kid who aspired to the highest levels of cycling, but it was more of a boiling frog syndrome where everyone around him supported him and applauded him, and he didn’t want to let them down.  The same goes for Elizabeth Holmes.  I don’t believe she planned to be one of the biggest scammers in healthcare and entrepreneurial history.  When they realized that something was wrong, they simply discounted it and returned their focus and attention to everything that was going well.  Armstrong, after all, was behind one of the greatest fundraisers and charities in history, Livestrong.  Through that charity, he did remarkably good things for countless people.  It must have weighed heavily on him that to come clean would let down all those people who benefitted from his charity.  It’s so much easier to ignore the warning signs then to put everything down and face the ugliness that the signs foretell.  As they say with addicts, it often takes a huge, seismic event for them to address their addiction like an intervention or a near-death experience or eluding a lengthy prison sentence. 

Again, I have an issue with the concept of evil.  It tends to encourage us to feel a hatred and bitterness toward the person who is labeled as such.  It tends to bring out the worst in us as well and in our pursuit of justice or revenge or closure, we commit equal breeches of morality and lawlessness.  Instead, viewing people as misguided and sick is more appropriate in my opinion.  I’m not saying that they caught some disease, but rather, the circumstances they are in, impacted their mental health and caused mental delusions, afflictions, and misguidance.  In other words, it caused them to believe that they were justified in committing heinous acts in pursuit of more noble goals.  In this case, they are much more willing to seek help and reform than if they were accused of being evil, wicked, malicious, or malevolent.  Nobody wants to admit to that. 

What if Lance Armstrong or Elizabeth Holmes were confronted with the possibility that their mental outlook had been compromised and they weren’t capable of seeing reality for what it was?  Might they have been better equipped to admit their wrongdoing and seek help earlier on?  The stigma and prospect of punishment we place on ‘evil’ people keeps people, early on, from confronting behavior that they may find troublesome.  For example, a bureaucrat who is compelled to hurt a citizen for threatening their agency, a corporate middle manager who is compelled to punish employees who question policy or protocols, if they find their behavior troublesome, might they be better equipped to address it if they consider their behavior a sign of sickness and not a sign of being evil and wicked?  Might they attempt to heal themselves rather than punish themselves?  Might they not want to double down but rather slow down and seek help or counseling? 

It is telling that Jim Angleton, on his deathbed, admits that he is going to hell, along with all his evil cohorts, but that only reveals his mentality the entire time.  He was doubling down on his unethical and unlawful behavior, because that was the only way of keeping his mind off the remorse, guilt, and fear of punishment.  Had he instead considered himself sick and in need of help and healing, might he have stopped earlier on?  When a journalist comes around and threatens to expose all your unethical and unlawful activities, of course, you’re going to be defensive and may even seek to harm or threaten the journalist.  But if you see your behavior as a sign of sickness and mental distress, might you be more cooperative with the journalist?  Perhaps the journalist can portray you in a manner that gains sympathy instead of contempt? 

But in our world of good and evil, a journalist uncovering your unethical or unlawful activities would only result in public contempt and legal punishment.  Is there a better way to encourage people to be good and lawful besides the threat of public humiliation and legal punishments?  When people say bigoted things, for example, they go to rehab and therapy and racial or gender sensitivity training.  And after the publicity dies down, we tend to be more forgiving of them.  Why can’t we do this for everyone? 

Of course, you’re going to argue that a child molester should never be let off the hook, and they deserve to be punished for such a heinous crime.  Getting raped in prison is applauded as justice.  But if that is the ultimate fate of a child molester, they might as well conceal their activities and never seek help.  They don’t wake up and decide whether to be a child molester or not.  It is something ingrained in their psyche, usually from being molested as a child themselves.  If this is the case, they need immediate therapy and help, but they are not going to seek it if there is such fear that if anyone knew they were seeking therapy for thoughts of molesting children, their lives would be over. 

In the 50’s and 60’s, they were even less sophisticated about psychological and mental disorders as they are today, and as such, they wouldn’t even think that going around ordering the execution of US citizens were an abnormal thing.  They would drown their feelings of remorse and guilt in alcohol as the author notes so many of them were heavy drinkers.  What if they lived in a society where it was okay to talk about mental and psychological problems and traumas?  What if they lived in a society where it was okay to go to a mental health therapist just as one might go to a physical therapist after a physical injury? 

Without doubt, millions of Americans who went to combat in World War II came back home traumatized, and they brought that trauma into whatever occupation they had whether it was construction, the corporate world, or governance.  In their traumatized minds, it would be easy to justify killing people or committing crimes in order to fulfill a greater goal.  Or they would have taken out their traumas on their families, beating their kids and wife in a drunken stupor.  Their children would have gone on to bring their traumas to work.  Traumas tend to give you a lot of blind spots, and you would have happily agreed to commit crimes and in some cases, have people killed.    

* * *

After World War II, the US found itself the heir to global dominion, taking the crown from England, along with much of England and France’s stolen wealth from centuries of global colonialism.  It had to learn quickly, and while it took a lot of guidance and advice from England, the US also took a lot of guidance and advice from the Nazis, not only in weapons technology but also intelligence, subterfuge, propaganda, covert ops, and the suppression of domestic enemies.  The CIA was not so much a copy of England’s MI6 and MI5 but rather more a copy of both the Waffen SS and Gestapo.  Like the Gestapo, US intelligence spied on US citizens and targeted and undermined, if not murdered, what they considered enemies of the state, anti-war protesters and civil rights activists. 

What would have happened had the Nazis taken over the US?  The Gestapo would have done exactly what the CIA did.  They would have infiltrated antiwar protesters and civil rights activists and murdered them.  If there were a puppet president that did not behave in the best interests of the Nazi ruling regime, they would have murdered him too.  During the Vietnam War, the US military and CIA openly murdered women, children, and old people in what they determined to be areas of Vietcong activity as well as assassinated Vietnamese civilian officials.  This is exactly what the Waffen SS would have done.  While the US did not incarcerate and kill six million Jews, they did mass incarcerate people of color for possession or sale of drugs.  And many did die in gang wars where the CIA helped supply them with crack cocaine. 

Of course, it wasn’t World War II that turned the US into an evil empire.  Before World War II, the US had imperialistic aspirations and stole Hawaii and took the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico from Spain.  They were heavily involved in undermining Latin American countries for the sole purpose of maintaining easy access to their land and resources.  World War II simply placed the US at the top of the world, and as such, the US behaved like something in between the British Empire and Nazi Germany.  Like Ernst Rohm, the CIA felt JFK was no longer useful to the regime and killed him.  Unlike the Nazis, the CIA were cowardly about admitting to its own purge and blamed it on a lone gunman.  To this day, the public views the CIA more like MI6 and MI5 and not what it really is, the modern day equivalent of the Waffen SS and Gestapo.  The brilliance is that Americans don’t know that they are being monitored and controlled by a veritable Gestapo, internal police force.

Mary’s Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace: Third Edition by Peter Janney

Part 3 of 3

Joseph Trento interviewed Jim Angleton on his deathbed.  “Fundamentally, the founding fathers of US intelligence were liars.  The better you lied and the more you betrayed, the more likely you would be promoted.  These people attracted and promoted each other.  Outside of their duplicity, the only thing they had in common as a desire for absolute power.”  “…Allen Dulles, Richard Helms, Carmel Offie, and Frank Wisner were the grand masters.  If you were in a room with them, you were in a room full of people that you had to believe would deservedly end up in hell.”  “I guess I will see them there soon.”

It’s all a sociopathic game to them where lives are simple pawns in a chess game.  Anyone who seeks absolute power has suffered some great trauma where they were powerless and witnessed something horrific to either themselves or someone they loved.  What you have, in the end, is an intelligence agency with incredible power run by traumatized, narcissistic sociopaths willing to commit any crime and kill anyone to consolidate and enhance their powers.  To everyone else, they are pure evil engaged in deception and treachery and immorality, undermining our national security instead of protecting it.  To them, they are simply playing a game where nobody else matters but themselves, and the goal of the game is not to help anyone but themselves. 

* * *

The battle between the forces of peace and war seem like a classic soap opera between the forces of light and darkness, good and evil, but that is too simplistic and quite frankly, absurd and misleading.  The forces of peace, light, and good are often misguided, and all it takes is a little nudge for them to abuse their power and authority and believe that the utopian ends justify criminal and immoral means.  Cord Meyer is a perfect example of this.  At the same time, those on the side of war and ‘evil’ often believe that they are actually on the side of peace and good.  From Stalin, to Hitler, to Mao, they all believed that there was a peaceful, utopia at the end of the rainbow, but in order to get there, they had to make horrific sacrifices. 

This reminds me of Lance Armstrong.  I don’t believe for a second that Armstrong, as a kid, thought he would ever turn into such an insufferable scoundrel and liar.  He was certainly an egotistical kid who aspired to the highest levels of cycling, but it was more of a boiling frog syndrome where everyone around him supported him and applauded him, and he didn’t want to let them down.  The same goes for Elizabeth Holmes.  I don’t believe she planned to be one of the biggest scammers in healthcare and entrepreneurial history.  When they realized that something was wrong, they simply discounted it and returned their focus and attention to everything that was going well.  Armstrong, after all, was behind one of the greatest fundraisers and charities in history, Livestrong.  Through that charity, he did remarkably good things for countless people.  It must have weighed heavily on him that to come clean would let down all those people who benefitted from his charity.  It’s so much easier to ignore the warning signs then to put everything down and face the ugliness that the signs foretell.  As they say with addicts, it often takes a huge, seismic event for them to address their addiction like an intervention or a near-death experience or eluding a lengthy prison sentence. 

Again, I have an issue with the concept of evil.  It tends to encourage us to feel a hatred and bitterness toward the person who is labeled as such.  It tends to bring out the worst in us as well and in our pursuit of justice or revenge or closure, we commit equal breeches of morality and lawlessness.  Instead, viewing people as misguided and sick is more appropriate in my opinion.  I’m not saying that they caught some disease, but rather, the circumstances they are in, impacted their mental health and caused mental delusions, afflictions, and misguidance.  In other words, it caused them to believe that they were justified in committing heinous acts in pursuit of more noble goals.  In this case, they are much more willing to seek help and reform than if they were accused of being evil, wicked, malicious, or malevolent.  Nobody wants to admit to that. 

What if Lance Armstrong or Elizabeth Holmes were confronted with the possibility that their mental outlook had been compromised and they weren’t capable of seeing reality for what it was?  Might they have been better equipped to admit their wrongdoing and seek help earlier on?  The stigma and prospect of punishment we place on ‘evil’ people keeps people, early on, from confronting behavior that they may find troublesome.  For example, a bureaucrat who is compelled to hurt a citizen for threatening their agency, a corporate middle manager who is compelled to punish employees who question policy or protocols, if they find their behavior troublesome, might they be better equipped to address it if they consider their behavior a sign of sickness and not a sign of being evil and wicked?  Might they attempt to heal themselves rather than punish themselves?  Might they not want to double down but rather slow down and seek help or counseling? 

It is telling that Jim Angleton, on his deathbed, admits that he is going to hell, along with all his evil cohorts, but that only reveals his mentality the entire time.  He was doubling down on his unethical and unlawful behavior, because that was the only way of keeping his mind off the remorse, guilt, and fear of punishment.  Had he instead considered himself sick and in need of help and healing, might he have stopped earlier on?  When a journalist comes around and threatens to expose all your unethical and unlawful activities, of course, you’re going to be defensive and may even seek to harm or threaten the journalist.  But if you see your behavior as a sign of sickness and mental distress, might you be more cooperative with the journalist?  Perhaps the journalist can portray you in a manner that gains sympathy instead of contempt? 

But in our world of good and evil, a journalist uncovering your unethical or unlawful activities would only result in public contempt and legal punishment.  Is there a better way to encourage people to be good and lawful besides the threat of public humiliation and legal punishments?  When people say bigoted things, for example, they go to rehab and therapy and racial or gender sensitivity training.  And after the publicity dies down, we tend to be more forgiving of them.  Why can’t we do this for everyone? 

Of course, you’re going to argue that a child molester should never be let off the hook, and they deserve to be punished for such a heinous crime.  Getting raped in prison is applauded as justice.  But if that is the ultimate fate of a child molester, they might as well conceal their activities and never seek help.  They don’t wake up and decide whether to be a child molester or not.  It is something ingrained in their psyche, usually from being molested as a child themselves.  If this is the case, they need immediate therapy and help, but they are not going to seek it if there is such fear that if anyone knew they were seeking therapy for thoughts of molesting children, their lives would be over. 

In the 50’s and 60’s, they were even less sophisticated about psychological and mental disorders as they are today, and as such, they wouldn’t even think that going around ordering the execution of US citizens were an abnormal thing.  They would drown their feelings of remorse and guilt in alcohol as the author notes so many of them were heavy drinkers.  What if they lived in a society where it was okay to talk about mental and psychological problems and traumas?  What if they lived in a society where it was okay to go to a mental health therapist just as one might go to a physical therapist after a physical injury? 

Without doubt, millions of Americans who went to combat in World War II came back home traumatized, and they brought that trauma into whatever occupation they had whether it was construction, the corporate world, or governance.  In their traumatized minds, it would be easy to justify killing people or committing crimes in order to fulfill a greater goal.  Or they would have taken out their traumas on their families, beating their kids and wife in a drunken stupor.  Their children would have gone on to bring their traumas to work.  Traumas tend to give you a lot of blind spots, and you would have happily agreed to commit crimes and in some cases, have people killed.    

* * *

After World War II, the US found itself the heir to global dominion, taking the crown from England, along with much of England and France’s stolen wealth from centuries of global colonialism.  It had to learn quickly, and while it took a lot of guidance and advice from England, the US also took a lot of guidance and advice from the Nazis, not only in weapons technology but also intelligence, subterfuge, propaganda, covert ops, and the suppression of domestic enemies.  The CIA was not so much a copy of England’s MI6 and MI5 but rather more a copy of both the Waffen SS and Gestapo.  Like the Gestapo, US intelligence spied on US citizens and targeted and undermined, if not murdered, what they considered enemies of the state, anti-war protesters and civil rights activists. 

What would have happened had the Nazis taken over the US?  The Gestapo would have done exactly what the CIA did.  They would have infiltrated antiwar protesters and civil rights activists and murdered them.  If there were a puppet president that did not behave in the best interests of the Nazi ruling regime, they would have murdered him too.  During the Vietnam War, the US military and CIA openly murdered women, children, and old people in what they determined to be areas of Vietcong activity as well as assassinated Vietnamese civilian officials.  This is exactly what the Waffen SS would have done.  While the US did not incarcerate and kill six million Jews, they did mass incarcerate people of color for possession or sale of drugs.  And many did die in gang wars where the CIA helped supply them with crack cocaine. 

Of course, it wasn’t World War II that turned the US into an evil empire.  Before World War II, the US had imperialistic aspirations and stole Hawaii and took the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico from Spain.  They were heavily involved in undermining Latin American countries for the sole purpose of maintaining easy access to their land and resources.  World War II simply placed the US at the top of the world, and as such, the US behaved like something in between the British Empire and Nazi Germany.  Like Ernst Rohm, the CIA felt JFK was no longer useful to the regime and killed him.  Unlike the Nazis, the CIA were cowardly about admitting to its own purge and blamed it on a lone gunman.  To this day, the public views the CIA more like MI6 and MI5 and not what it really is, the modern day equivalent of the Waffen SS and Gestapo.  The brilliance is that Americans don’t know that they are being monitored and controlled by a veritable Gestapo, internal police force.

Mary’s Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace: Third Edition by Peter Janney

Part 2 of 3

The author relays the well-known story of the CIA crop-dusting LSD on the town of Pont-Saint-Esprit in 1951 causing mass hysteria and four suicides.  It still amazes me that nothing happened of it.  No heads rolled.  That’s what happens when you’re the most powerful nation on the planet, crop-dust an ally with LSD for shits and giggles.  Undoubtedly, they used similar biological warfare in Korea and Vietnam, but we would know little of a town in Korea or Vietnam all going insane from being crop-dusted with LSD.  They would have just suffered and concluded it was just some mass hysteria from the traumas of war. 

* * *

Apparently, according to the author, Mary gave JFK LSD so it would enhance his desire for world peace and harmony.  I think it’s extremely naïve to believe that psychedelics can transform people like that.  First of all, there’s set and setting and context.  Just giving them a psychedelic will just make them feel weird and strange, as evidence in Point-Saint-Esprit.  When LSD was administered to a village in France, they didn’t all turn into peaceniks.  Many thought they were simply going insane, and four people killed themselves.  If you tell someone that taking psychedelics will make them want world peace and harmony, you’re prepping and biasing them.  What psychedelics can do is open your mind, but once your mind is open, that means someone can come in and implant a belief, attitude, or idea that will take root. 

But this can be done a number of ways besides psychedelics.  When coaches push their athletes hard, and then in the midst of great exertion tell their athletes that they are powerful, strong, and resilient, this can help the athlete gain confidence and become powerful, strong, and resilient.  Likewise, a coach can also tell an athlete that he’s a wuss, weak, and useless, and for the rest of his life, that athlete will believe that.  You can do the same with hypnosis or sleep deprivation or during an incredible artistic performance of any sort where the unconscious mind is much more receptive to influence.  Psychedelics work in part, because the user loses conscious control over the situation and hence, their unconscious minds are clear and free to absorb whatever they are experiencing which will be more lasting than if the conscious mind were analyzing and filtering everything. 

There’s a study showing chimpanzees touching a screen with numbers 1 to 10 and when they’re only shown for a split second, the chimpanzees can remember where all the numbers were better than humans.  The reason is not because chimps are smarter than humans, of course.  The reason is because the chimps are not using their conscious minds to analyze and filter the information which undermines your ability to remember where all the numbers were in a split second.  The same reason that you can’t remember people’s names a second after they tell you.  Your mind is more occupied with reading signals from the other person to determine whether they are a threat or not.   

The reason psychedelics can be a great therapy for PTSD is that it helps you escape the structured, linear world where you experienced the trauma and where it persists.  In another world, the trauma is reframed along with your ego.  If the trauma is attached to your ego, and you let go of your ego, you also let go of the trauma.  It may well have helped JFK deal with past traumas under proper therapeutic guidance, but it would not have suddenly turned him into a peacenik. 

If one’s desire for power is attached to one’s ego, and that is the reason they want war and empire, then yes, taking psychedelics would help release them from the grip of their ego and diminish their desire for power and empire.  But it can often backfire too.  Psychedelics can also make you feel like you are everything, at one with everything, and for some people, especially narcissists, they start to feel like they are god or at least god’s messiah.  Then they start acting like a god and expect people to follow them, and as a god, they don’t believe normal rules, morals, ethics, or laws apply to them.  In other words, for some people, psychedelics can mellow them out and make them less selfish and shallow, but for others, like Charles Manson, an already disturbed mind, it can amplify their narcissism and make them think they’re god and the devil and human life is a meaningless illusion allowing for murder and mutilation.

* * *

A fascinating aside in the book is when the author alleges that President Eisenhower was trying to initiate peace with the Soviets so that he could “cut the defense budget and redirect resources toward America’s domestic needs.”  The military-industrial complex struck back, and according to the author, “the CIA engineered the May 1 [1960] downing of its own U-2 reconnaissance spy flight over Russian territory as a way to undermine any possibility of rapprochement with the Soviet Union.”

“President Truman’s 1948 National Security Council (NSC) had so imbued the Agency with unchecked, absolute power, it threatened the entire foundation of America’s constitutional premise.

That year the NSC approved what became known as “Top Secret Directive NSC 10/2,” a virtual bottomless pit of nefarious, illegal quicksand.  The directive defined covert operations as actions conducted by the United States against foreign states “which are so planned and executed that any US Government responsibility for them is not evident to unauthorized persons and that if uncovered the US Government can plausibly disclaim any responsibility for the.”  Creating what came to be known as “plausible deniability,” the directive sanctioned and authorized US intelligence, principally the CIA, to carry out a broad range of clandestine activities and paramilitary operations that included preventive direct action, propaganda, economic warfare, sabotage, demolition, subversion against “hostile states,” assassinations, and “support of indigenous anti-communist elements in threatened countries of the free world.”  Years later, George Kennan, the directive’s original sponsor and architect, bluntly told Yale historian John Lukas: “That was the greatest mistake I ever made in my life, because you know what the Central Intelligence Agency has devolved or evolved into.””

Give the CIA the power to murder heads of state, and voila, it murders the head of state of its own government.

* * *

Much like the Chaos book on Charles Manson, while the book is about Mary Pinchot Meyer, it is also a book about the CIA.  “On July 20, 1961, during heightened tensions over Berlin, President Kennedy attended a National Security Council meeting.  He listened attentively as the Joint Chiefs of Staff, including General Lyman Lemnitzer and Allen Dulles, who was still in charge at the CIA, presented a plan for a first-strike, preemptive nuclear attack on the Soviet Union that would take place in late 1963, preceded by a well-orchestrated series of events designed to produce “heightened tensions” between the two superpowers.  The scheme for “heightened tensions” was eventually code-named “Operation Northwoods,” and it had the written approval of all the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Pentagon.”  “People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked.  Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro…”  Doesn’t sound like 9/11 at all, planed being hijacked, heightened tensions and fear of terrorism and Islamic radicals, phony evidence.  Apparently, 9/11 may well have been born out of a simple directive in 1948, NSC 10/2.

It is absolutely insane that a small group of unelected people who may well have killed the US President were considering and planning a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union that would have initiated a nuclear war and counterstrike leading to the deaths of tens of millions of Americans and forever polluted the world with nuclear radioactive fallout.  A Soviet counterstrike would just initiate another series of US strikes leading to the complete and total annihilation of both countries causing catastrophic nuclear fallout all over the planet and billions more deaths from that radioactive fallout.  All this for the slim chance that the US would prevail and become the world’s single superpower and be able to make even greater profits from the rest of the world.  It is pure insanity. 

The author has a very sympathetic view of Mary Meyer.  He believes that she had a falling out with her husband, because he had turned to the dark side and joined the CIA and even created noteworthy innovations that extended the reach and scope of the CIA.  Is it just coincidence that Mary was having an affair with JFK, and JFK was at war with the CIA, and Mary just happened to be married to a CIA leader?  Is it possible that her CIA husband had somehow convinced her to have an affair with JFK just to give the CIA access to the president and his inner-most thoughts?  Would this not have been one of the greatest CIA covert operations of all time, direct access to the inner-thoughts of the US President, one that hated the CIA and had veritably declared war on it?  It is no secret that the CIA uses women to lure foreign leaders to bed and get inside their heads.  In the least nefarious scenario, she simply reports on what JFK is thinking and how he is reacting to certain international events.  In the most nefarious scenario, she’s feeding him LSD to confuse and cloud his mind, and she’s surreptitiously planting thoughts in his head while he’s under the influence about the threats of Communism and the need for the CIA to continue covert operations to undermine it. 

It’s also quite possible that Mary had succeeded in what she had allegedly tried to do, and that is completely and totally change JFK’s mindset and open it to the psychedelic sensation that we are all one, Commies, black people, Capitalists, white people, we are all one.  Why on Earth waste all our time, energy, and focus on division and war when we are all just one big organism.  After all, one could argue that since LSD is synthesized from the ergot fungus, and fungus is one of the most symbiotic organisms in nature, capable of being used as an information network for trees, LSD makes us more symbiotic.  Is it possible that Mary transformed JFK and helped him turn his back on the Cold War warriors and mentality?  Was it just a coincidence that Mary’s husband was a powerful CIA spook?  After all, Mary wanted to divorce Cord.  Why would she be so willing to do his bidding for the CIA if she despised him? 

* * *

The book also brings up the curious story of Phil Graham, publisher and co-owner of the Washington Post.  Apparently, he knew about the CIA infiltration of the US media and threatened to call it out.  He died of an alleged suicide after being sent to a CIA-used mental hospital. 

* * *

What happened right after JFK’s assassination brings up a lot of questions and points to unusual and questionable activities.  The Zapruder film was brought to a CIA lab, the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC).  One employee, Homer McMahon, watched the tape.  “After reviewing the 16-millimeter film at NPIC that Sunday evening, November 24, with his assistant Morgan Bennett Hunter, he [Homer McMahon] was sure, he told the ARRB [Assassination Records Review Board], that “about eight (8) shots” had been fired at the president’s limousine.””

The narrative given was that there were only three shots from the book depository.  “”And where did they come from?” Gunn [Jeremy Gunn, ARRB chief counsel] further inquired.

“Three different directions, at least,” replied McMahon.””

Arthur C. Lundahl was the first director of the NPIC created in 1961.  Dino Brugioni was his “right-hand man” and also watched the Zapruder film.  “In the spring of 2011, I visited Dino Brugioni at his home in Virginia to further discuss the Zapruder film.  I showed him a high-resolution image of the one and only frame in the extant Zapruder film that graphically depicts the fatal head shot, frame 313.  Dino was incredulous there was only one frame of the head explosion – then repeatedly rejected the possibility, based upon what he had personally witnessed when he had viewed the camera-original Zapruder film on Saturday evening, November 23, 1963.  I asked him several times, “Was there more than one frame?”  Dino responded unequivocally there was indeed…”

“As of 2012, Douglas Horne and David Lifton have together established the clear-cut obstruction of justice that took place in the forensic alteration of President Kennedy’s wounds.  No longer speculation, it is now an undeniable fact.”

Mark Lane wrote an article titled, “Oswald Innocent? A Lawyer’s Brief” published in the National Guardian on December 19.  “Lane then reviewed five separate newspaper accounts, including the New York Times, that quoted the Parkland Memorial Hospital doctors who had examined Kennedy’s body – Dr. Kemp Clark, Dr. Malcolm Perry, and Dr. Robert McClelland – all of whom had described the throat wound as “an entrance wound.””

Stricken from history, until now, is an unusual editorial in the Washington Post on December 22, 1963 titled, “US Should Hold CIA to Intelligence.”  He wrote, “For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment.  It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government.  This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas.”  “There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel we need to correct it.”

* * *

In Chaos, the Charles Manson book, it is casually mentioned that one of the residents of the Tate house, Frykowski, flogged and anally raped a drug smuggler who hung out with him.  In this book, it is casually mentioned that “At a private meeting with reports, according to presidential historian Robert Dallek, President Lyndon Johnson offered his rejoinder [to the question of why were we in Vietnam]: He casually “unzipped his fly, drew out his substantial organ and declared, ‘This is why!’”

* * *

Former CIA contract operative Robert D. Morrow came out with a book in 1992 called First Hand Knowledge.  Morrow claims that he was part of a CIA plot to assassinate JFK.  Morrow claims that his CIA boss, Marshall Diggs told him that “[Mary] Meyer claimed to my friend that she positively knew that [CIA] Agency-affiliated Cuban exiles and the Mafia were responsible for killing John Kennedy.”  He was told to contact Mario Kohly, an anti-Castro Cuban who was allegedly going to be set up as the president of Cuba after removing Castro.  “”Just tell Diggs I’ll take care of the matter,” said Kohly to Morrow.

A week later, Mary Meyer was dead.”

Morrow investigated Meyer’s death, perhaps out of guilt, and toward the end, according to author John Williams, “”Bob told me more and more, ‘I don’t think Kohly did it, I think Angleton did it.’””

* * *

One of the oddest things is the timeline of notifications after Mary’s death.  “How could my father have known anything whatsoever about Mary Meyer’s death that day, unless, of course, he had been involved?  How had he been able to inform both Ben Bradlee [journalist] and Cord Meyer about it hours before the police had identified the victim?  Recall that Mary’s identity hadn’t been established officially until Ben Bradlee identified her in the DC morgue, “sometime after six o’clock in the evening,”…”

“Furthermore, had it been revealed at the trial that CIA official Wistar Janney had called Bradlee to inform him of Mary’s death “just after lunch” – in other words, less than two hours after the murder took place, with Mary’s identity still unknown to police – attorney Dovey Roundtree might have nailed Bradlee as a possible accessory to murder.”

Mary’s Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace: Third Edition by Peter Janney

Part 1 of 3

Mary Pinchot Meyer was killed while out jogging on October 12, 1964.  In 1976, both the National Enquirer and Washington Post reported that she had an affair with then president JFK.  Interestingly enough, the author of this book, Peter Janney, knew Mary through her son who unfortunately was killed by a car when he was nine.  Also, interestingly the author’s father was a CIA operative. 

Like the book, Chaos I just read about Charles Manson, a number of important pop culture names pop up here.  Mary was in touch with famed drop out LSD guru Timothy Leary.  Mary had smoked marijuana with JFK, but had she also dropped acid with him?  There is some speculation that Manson’s parole officer, Roger Smith supplied Manson with LSD and later speed.  It’s possible that Smith was conducting an experiment using Manson and seeing what effects LSD and later speed would have on Manson and the Family.  The more sinister speculation is that he wanted to see if LSD and speed could be used to convert Family members into psychopathic killing machines.  Is it possible that Mary Meyer introduced JFK to LSD to try to influence him, possibly at the behest of the CIA?  Mary was literally surrounded by CIA operatives including her husband, Cord Meyer and family friend James Angleton.  Perhaps they realized that JFK could not be influenced under the influence of LSD or perhaps Mary Meyer had a change of heart and turned JFK into an acid-dropping peacenik? 

Reading about Mary’s youth it becomes evident that she was raised in an elite, privileged, wealthy class with classmates being offspring of influential, powerful, and connected elite.  Just as the South has its elite class of former plantation owners, the Northeast has their elite, even more powerful and wealthy.  I never really thought much about this growing up in the Pacific Northwest.  There are rich and powerful people in the Pacific Northwest, but nobody talks about it and nobody mentions pedigree.  In the Northeast, it seems that everyone is highly conscious of your pedigree and going to the right elite university is important not only for the most advanced education available but also to simply make connections, and back in the day, it was finding a suitable partner from the same social class.  As enlightened and progressive as Mary is portrayed, there is still a considerable amount of privilege and entitlement in her clan, especially when her parents must approve of her boyfriends.  You have to assume that they are all removed from and distanced from the working class and poor. 

Nobody is ever content no matter where they stand in income level, social status, or amount of power.  If anything, the higher you ascend, people are even more obsessed about income level, social status, and power.  Lower down, amongst the working class, people don’t even ask if you’ve gone to college, and they don’t care.  At the higher levels, they always ask where you went to college, where you grew up, where you vacation, what your occupation is, trying to squeeze out any kind of indication of your pedigree, your background, your income level, your social status, and your influence.  The only exception these days are youth asking how many follower you have. 

* * *

“In February 1947, all of the US organizations committed to the possibility of achieving world government convened in Asheville, North Carolina.  Out of this conference, a new organization was formed: the United World Federalists (UWF).”

I’ve never heard of the UWF, but it sounds a lot like the NWO, New World Order.  While its aspirations are commendable, the central issue of governance is safeguarding against corruption.  While democracy remains vulnerable to corruption, fact is, it is less corruptible than Communism, authoritarianism, dictatorships, and monarchies.  If a single entity governs the entire world, what safeguards exist to prevent this one single entity of being hijacked by powerful and wealthy people who want to use it to control the world? 

The beauty of competition is that it prevents a single entity from exploiting the world.  In the nook and crannies of the mess of competition arises competitors who do not want to exploit the world but rather collaborate and work harmoniously and peacefully together.  The need to work with allies and friends, makes competition, despite its name, a more collaborative effort than a system with no competition.  In a competitive system, you realize that those who work as groups will thrive, so you look around and make friends with others, building trust and ethics.  In a non-competitive system, you realize that the only ones to succeed are those closest to the top, so you contrive and become a sycophant and use deception and treachery to claw your way up the ladder, undermining everyone in your path and those immediately below you.  While you may form temporary alliances, they are easily abandoned or betrayed.

Some people argue that in a free market, competitive system, anarchy rules and people are selfish and undermine one another.  This can’t be further from the truth.  Nature itself is the best example of a free market, competitive system, and nature is filled with both parasites and synergistic relationships.  Only a parasite prefers a system with no competition where they are allowed to fester and multiply and control everything.  Rather, in a non-competitive, collusive system, people are selfish and undermine one another, because the only way to guarantee success is by doing whatever it takes to get to the top.

There will always be chaos and war and conflict.  It is hardwired into our DNA.  However, low-level wars can help defuse and settle conflicts that might otherwise erupt into global catastrophes.  When I grew up in England, kids were allowed to fight in the playground.  You figured out quickly not to mess with boys who could kick your ass.  In the US, I remember that fights were immediately broken up and both combatants were sent to the principal’s office, oddly enough, sitting next to one another in the waiting area.  As a result, conflicts would fester, and you would conspire to fight outside of school where there was no adult supervision, and a fight could easily escalate with weapons or serious injury.  A total ban on small fights ignores our combative nature and only serves to escalate conflicts into full-blown, weaponized, dangerous feud involving more and more people.

Low-level wars should be allowed to occur just as small forest fires can help clear the forest of debris.  When you create some powerful global governing force that stops low-level wars, the conflicts simply fester and evolve into larger and larger problems.  Once a war does break out, suddenly everyone that had a festering conflict with another nation joins in the fight and there you have a world war.  Imagine if the US had not gone to war with Spain.  The US might have taken advantage of World War I to go to war with Spain, bringing them into the global conflict, perhaps undermining the Allies. 

The Korean War and Vietnam War and later Afghanistan War became low level proxy wars between the US and Soviet Union.  They helped avert the global catastrophe that would have occurred between the US and Soviet Union.  But what if the UN were so powerful that it immediately put an end to the Korean War and Vietnam War and later Afghanistan War.  Without bearing the great costs of the Vietnam War, the US might have been more willing to face the Soviet Union in a global war, even a nuclear war.  Without bearing the great costs of the Afghanistan War, the Soviets too would have been more willing to face the US in a global war.  Both low level wars reminded the superpowers the great cost of war and helped avert a greater, direct, nuclear war between them.

* * *

The story of Cord Meyer, Mary’s husband, is one of the greatest tragedies of this book.  Cord is a world peace activist and romantic idealist, but in 1951, he sells his soul to the devil and joins the CIA to further selfish US interests, especially against world Communism.  Therein lies the contradiction and fallacy of a world government.  To get there, you must destroy all competition, and how is this any different than a world where constant wars occur?  Because no country wants to subordinate themselves to a foreign global power, you guarantee further endless wars, instead of small nations fighting one another, small nations taking on global superpowers hellbent on world hegemony.  This is not the era of powerful nations fighting one another but rather small nations using insurgencies to fight one of two superpowers.  As happened in Vietnam, if you believe that any price should be paid for world peace, you gladly approve genocide.  If it takes killing women, children, and old men to guarantee a world government a hundred years from now, then so be it, those women, children, and old men sacrificed themselves for future peace.  This is, of course, delude, demented, and deranged horseshit, yet that is the path Cord Meyer took along with all the other starry-eyed, suburban, sheltered romantic idealists. 

* * *

If COINTELPRO, CHAOS, and MKULTRA weren’t enough, Cord Meyer was director of the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird.  “Having infiltrated more than twenty-five newspapers and wire agencies, Operation Mockingbird had successfully manipulated the American media to promote the CIA viewpoint.  It had been designed by Dulles protégé Frank Wisner in the late 1940s.  Through it, the CIA bought influence at major media outlets by putting reports on the CIA payroll, and vice versa.  During the 1950’s, an estimated three thousand salaried and contract CIA employees were engaged in propaganda efforts.”

Just as the most sensitive, compassionate people can be turned into the most horrific, sadistic monsters, the intellectual, romantic idealist can also be turned into a horrific, Machiavellian, murderous monster.  For the sensitive person who encounters the dilemma of being forced to kill civilians in combat, he has the choice of suffering tremendous guilt and remorse or doubling down and becoming a civilian-killing monster.  The thrill and absence of guilt and remorse from murdering even more civilians helps him escape the gnawing pain of regret and guilt.  Likewise, when an intellectual, romantic idealist encounters overwhelming evidence that the world is screwed up, he embraces the notion that through harsh, deadly, absolutist rule, you can force everyone to get along and live in peace, but an initial round of horrific sacrifice and violence needs to be implemented.  The romantic idealist is more than happy and eager to implement this horrific sacrifice and violence in order to fulfill his vision of a world of peace and harmony. 

On the other hand, a pragmatist who knows that there is great violence, conflict, and chaos in nature and humanity is more willing to allow it to occur and adapt to it.  In fact, low-level conflict and violence helps avert high-level, global conflict and violence.  The absolutist dream to destroy all conflict and violence comes at a cost far greater than the cost of low-level conflict and violence.  In order to stop all conflict and violence, one must first submit all people to their will.  In other words, one must conquer the world and do so with the use of terror and violence the likes of which are unheard of in low-level conflicts. 

It wasn’t just the Greatest Generation that promoted the Vietnam War and genocide, but it was also the willing accomplice Boomers.  They were romantic idealists raised in their suburban bubble worlds devoid of inner-city poverty, migrants, ethnic diversity, oppressed blacks, disease, the disabled, the elderly, etc.  Just like the young Buddha, they couldn’t understand or tolerate a chaotic world filled with poverty, disease, disability, and war.  Both Mary and Ward Meyer fit this description.  But in order to eliminate poverty, disease, disability, and war, they believed the world needed a single, omnipotent powerful force.  For some, that meant a powerful United Nations-type governing body.  For others, that meant the US becoming the world’s sole superpower.  Both were willing to commit atrocities and terror in order to fulfill the goal.  The ends would justify the means.  What they all failed to appreciate is the unfortunate fact that anyone acquiring such vast and great power over all of humanity would not create everlasting peace and harmony.  In order to justify their sovereignty and hegemony over all humanity, there would have to be persistent chaos, violence, and conflict to remind the masses that they need to remain obedient and subservient to the sole, superpower or else all hell would break loose.  There wouldn’t be less chaos, violence, war, conflict, and poverty.  There would be more.  Someday, we will submit our freewill to a super AI that will profess to love and protect us and use their omnipotent power and knowledge to stop any human from committing violence.  But in order to justify its existence, it too will constantly remind us of the terrors of human disobedience and independence, manufacturing them if needed.  Those opposed to the super AI rule will be allowed to exist, only to terrorize those who support the super AI rule.  There will never be perpetual peace and harmony.

Damn the rules, damn the laws, damn the US Constitution, damn ethics, damn morality, romantic idealists will do anything and everything to make their ideals a reality, and when the costs of their carnage are realized, like the romantic idealists they are, they escape into their imaginative worlds where there is everlasting peace and harmony. 

There will never be everlasting peace and harmony for two simple reasons.  When a small group of people acquire the power to try to enforce everlasting peace and harmony, invariably they become nepotistic and only serve their own interests and the interests of their small clan at the very top.  This also means that in order to justify their everlasting autocracy, they need to invent ever more imaginative enemies of the people to persecute, vanquish, and destroy. 

Second, nobody at the very top could ever know how to properly serve the multitudes and often conflicting dreams, aspirations, goals, needs, desires, and concerns of everyone.  The beauty of competition and relatively equal size competitors is that people learn to compromise and find balance.  There is constant give and take, and people learn that they can’t always get their own way, but they also learn to be more empathetic to others.  Instead of fighting others constantly to fulfill your needs at the expense of theirs, competitors often realize that it feels better to see others fulfill their needs and to help them fulfill their needs.  And when you help others, they reciprocate. 

Out of what many consider anarchy and chaotic free-for-all competition emerges collaboration, charity, selflessness, empathy, and synergy.  Nature itself is proof of this.  From the mitochondria in all our cells to bacteria on our skin and in our guts, nature shows us that when you have a free-for-all competitive environment, many organisms learn and choose to collaborate and work symbiotically together in peace and harmony.  When one organism achieves supremacy like a virus that takes hold of an entire population, all you have is exploitation, destruction, and mass suffering and death of a large victim population.  One world unified under a single entity sounds a lot like parasitism.

Mary’s Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace: Third Edition by Peter Janney

Part 1 of 3

Mary Pinchot Meyer was killed while out jogging on October 12, 1964.  In 1976, both the National Enquirer and Washington Post reported that she had an affair with then president JFK.  Interestingly enough, the author of this book, Peter Janney, knew Mary through her son who unfortunately was killed by a car when he was nine.  Also, interestingly the author’s father was a CIA operative. 

Like the book, Chaos I just read about Charles Manson, a number of important pop culture names pop up here.  Mary was in touch with famed drop out LSD guru Timothy Leary.  Mary had smoked marijuana with JFK, but had she also dropped acid with him?  There is some speculation that Manson’s parole officer, Roger Smith supplied Manson with LSD and later speed.  It’s possible that Smith was conducting an experiment using Manson and seeing what effects LSD and later speed would have on Manson and the Family.  The more sinister speculation is that he wanted to see if LSD and speed could be used to convert Family members into psychopathic killing machines.  Is it possible that Mary Meyer introduced JFK to LSD to try to influence him, possibly at the behest of the CIA?  Mary was literally surrounded by CIA operatives including her husband, Cord Meyer and family friend James Angleton.  Perhaps they realized that JFK could not be influenced under the influence of LSD or perhaps Mary Meyer had a change of heart and turned JFK into an acid-dropping peacenik? 

Reading about Mary’s youth it becomes evident that she was raised in an elite, privileged, wealthy class with classmates being offspring of influential, powerful, and connected elite.  Just as the South has its elite class of former plantation owners, the Northeast has their elite, even more powerful and wealthy.  I never really thought much about this growing up in the Pacific Northwest.  There are rich and powerful people in the Pacific Northwest, but nobody talks about it and nobody mentions pedigree.  In the Northeast, it seems that everyone is highly conscious of your pedigree and going to the right elite university is important not only for the most advanced education available but also to simply make connections, and back in the day, it was finding a suitable partner from the same social class.  As enlightened and progressive as Mary is portrayed, there is still a considerable amount of privilege and entitlement in her clan, especially when her parents must approve of her boyfriends.  You have to assume that they are all removed from and distanced from the working class and poor. 

Nobody is ever content no matter where they stand in income level, social status, or amount of power.  If anything, the higher you ascend, people are even more obsessed about income level, social status, and power.  Lower down, amongst the working class, people don’t even ask if you’ve gone to college, and they don’t care.  At the higher levels, they always ask where you went to college, where you grew up, where you vacation, what your occupation is, trying to squeeze out any kind of indication of your pedigree, your background, your income level, your social status, and your influence.  The only exception these days are youth asking how many follower you have. 

* * *

“In February 1947, all of the US organizations committed to the possibility of achieving world government convened in Asheville, North Carolina.  Out of this conference, a new organization was formed: the United World Federalists (UWF).”

I’ve never heard of the UWF, but it sounds a lot like the NWO, New World Order.  While its aspirations are commendable, the central issue of governance is safeguarding against corruption.  While democracy remains vulnerable to corruption, fact is, it is less corruptible than Communism, authoritarianism, dictatorships, and monarchies.  If a single entity governs the entire world, what safeguards exist to prevent this one single entity of being hijacked by powerful and wealthy people who want to use it to control the world? 

The beauty of competition is that it prevents a single entity from exploiting the world.  In the nook and crannies of the mess of competition arises competitors who do not want to exploit the world but rather collaborate and work harmoniously and peacefully together.  The need to work with allies and friends, makes competition, despite its name, a more collaborative effort than a system with no competition.  In a competitive system, you realize that those who work as groups will thrive, so you look around and make friends with others, building trust and ethics.  In a non-competitive system, you realize that the only ones to succeed are those closest to the top, so you contrive and become a sycophant and use deception and treachery to claw your way up the ladder, undermining everyone in your path and those immediately below you.  While you may form temporary alliances, they are easily abandoned or betrayed.

Some people argue that in a free market, competitive system, anarchy rules and people are selfish and undermine one another.  This can’t be further from the truth.  Nature itself is the best example of a free market, competitive system, and nature is filled with both parasites and synergistic relationships.  Only a parasite prefers a system with no competition where they are allowed to fester and multiply and control everything.  Rather, in a non-competitive, collusive system, people are selfish and undermine one another, because the only way to guarantee success is by doing whatever it takes to get to the top.

There will always be chaos and war and conflict.  It is hardwired into our DNA.  However, low-level wars can help defuse and settle conflicts that might otherwise erupt into global catastrophes.  When I grew up in England, kids were allowed to fight in the playground.  You figured out quickly not to mess with boys who could kick your ass.  In the US, I remember that fights were immediately broken up and both combatants were sent to the principal’s office, oddly enough, sitting next to one another in the waiting area.  As a result, conflicts would fester, and you would conspire to fight outside of school where there was no adult supervision, and a fight could easily escalate with weapons or serious injury.  A total ban on small fights ignores our combative nature and only serves to escalate conflicts into full-blown, weaponized, dangerous feud involving more and more people.

Low-level wars should be allowed to occur just as small forest fires can help clear the forest of debris.  When you create some powerful global governing force that stops low-level wars, the conflicts simply fester and evolve into larger and larger problems.  Once a war does break out, suddenly everyone that had a festering conflict with another nation joins in the fight and there you have a world war.  Imagine if the US had not gone to war with Spain.  The US might have taken advantage of World War I to go to war with Spain, bringing them into the global conflict, perhaps undermining the Allies. 

The Korean War and Vietnam War and later Afghanistan War became low level proxy wars between the US and Soviet Union.  They helped avert the global catastrophe that would have occurred between the US and Soviet Union.  But what if the UN were so powerful that it immediately put an end to the Korean War and Vietnam War and later Afghanistan War.  Without bearing the great costs of the Vietnam War, the US might have been more willing to face the Soviet Union in a global war, even a nuclear war.  Without bearing the great costs of the Afghanistan War, the Soviets too would have been more willing to face the US in a global war.  Both low level wars reminded the superpowers the great cost of war and helped avert a greater, direct, nuclear war between them.

* * *

The story of Cord Meyer, Mary’s husband, is one of the greatest tragedies of this book.  Cord is a world peace activist and romantic idealist, but in 1951, he sells his soul to the devil and joins the CIA to further selfish US interests, especially against world Communism.  Therein lies the contradiction and fallacy of a world government.  To get there, you must destroy all competition, and how is this any different than a world where constant wars occur?  Because no country wants to subordinate themselves to a foreign global power, you guarantee further endless wars, instead of small nations fighting one another, small nations taking on global superpowers hellbent on world hegemony.  This is not the era of powerful nations fighting one another but rather small nations using insurgencies to fight one of two superpowers.  As happened in Vietnam, if you believe that any price should be paid for world peace, you gladly approve genocide.  If it takes killing women, children, and old men to guarantee a world government a hundred years from now, then so be it, those women, children, and old men sacrificed themselves for future peace.  This is, of course, delude, demented, and deranged horseshit, yet that is the path Cord Meyer took along with all the other starry-eyed, suburban, sheltered romantic idealists. 

* * *

If COINTELPRO, CHAOS, and MKULTRA weren’t enough, Cord Meyer was director of the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird.  “Having infiltrated more than twenty-five newspapers and wire agencies, Operation Mockingbird had successfully manipulated the American media to promote the CIA viewpoint.  It had been designed by Dulles protégé Frank Wisner in the late 1940s.  Through it, the CIA bought influence at major media outlets by putting reports on the CIA payroll, and vice versa.  During the 1950’s, an estimated three thousand salaried and contract CIA employees were engaged in propaganda efforts.”

Just as the most sensitive, compassionate people can be turned into the most horrific, sadistic monsters, the intellectual, romantic idealist can also be turned into a horrific, Machiavellian, murderous monster.  For the sensitive person who encounters the dilemma of being forced to kill civilians in combat, he has the choice of suffering tremendous guilt and remorse or doubling down and becoming a civilian-killing monster.  The thrill and absence of guilt and remorse from murdering even more civilians helps him escape the gnawing pain of regret and guilt.  Likewise, when an intellectual, romantic idealist encounters overwhelming evidence that the world is screwed up, he embraces the notion that through harsh, deadly, absolutist rule, you can force everyone to get along and live in peace, but an initial round of horrific sacrifice and violence needs to be implemented.  The romantic idealist is more than happy and eager to implement this horrific sacrifice and violence in order to fulfill his vision of a world of peace and harmony. 

On the other hand, a pragmatist who knows that there is great violence, conflict, and chaos in nature and humanity is more willing to allow it to occur and adapt to it.  In fact, low-level conflict and violence helps avert high-level, global conflict and violence.  The absolutist dream to destroy all conflict and violence comes at a cost far greater than the cost of low-level conflict and violence.  In order to stop all conflict and violence, one must first submit all people to their will.  In other words, one must conquer the world and do so with the use of terror and violence the likes of which are unheard of in low-level conflicts. 

It wasn’t just the Greatest Generation that promoted the Vietnam War and genocide, but it was also the willing accomplice Boomers.  They were romantic idealists raised in their suburban bubble worlds devoid of inner-city poverty, migrants, ethnic diversity, oppressed blacks, disease, the disabled, the elderly, etc.  Just like the young Buddha, they couldn’t understand or tolerate a chaotic world filled with poverty, disease, disability, and war.  Both Mary and Ward Meyer fit this description.  But in order to eliminate poverty, disease, disability, and war, they believed the world needed a single, omnipotent powerful force.  For some, that meant a powerful United Nations-type governing body.  For others, that meant the US becoming the world’s sole superpower.  Both were willing to commit atrocities and terror in order to fulfill the goal.  The ends would justify the means.  What they all failed to appreciate is the unfortunate fact that anyone acquiring such vast and great power over all of humanity would not create everlasting peace and harmony.  In order to justify their sovereignty and hegemony over all humanity, there would have to be persistent chaos, violence, and conflict to remind the masses that they need to remain obedient and subservient to the sole, superpower or else all hell would break loose.  There wouldn’t be less chaos, violence, war, conflict, and poverty.  There would be more.  Someday, we will submit our freewill to a super AI that will profess to love and protect us and use their omnipotent power and knowledge to stop any human from committing violence.  But in order to justify its existence, it too will constantly remind us of the terrors of human disobedience and independence, manufacturing them if needed.  Those opposed to the super AI rule will be allowed to exist, only to terrorize those who support the super AI rule.  There will never be perpetual peace and harmony.

Damn the rules, damn the laws, damn the US Constitution, damn ethics, damn morality, romantic idealists will do anything and everything to make their ideals a reality, and when the costs of their carnage are realized, like the romantic idealists they are, they escape into their imaginative worlds where there is everlasting peace and harmony. 

There will never be everlasting peace and harmony for two simple reasons.  When a small group of people acquire the power to try to enforce everlasting peace and harmony, invariably they become nepotistic and only serve their own interests and the interests of their small clan at the very top.  This also means that in order to justify their everlasting autocracy, they need to invent ever more imaginative enemies of the people to persecute, vanquish, and destroy. 

Second, nobody at the very top could ever know how to properly serve the multitudes and often conflicting dreams, aspirations, goals, needs, desires, and concerns of everyone.  The beauty of competition and relatively equal size competitors is that people learn to compromise and find balance.  There is constant give and take, and people learn that they can’t always get their own way, but they also learn to be more empathetic to others.  Instead of fighting others constantly to fulfill your needs at the expense of theirs, competitors often realize that it feels better to see others fulfill their needs and to help them fulfill their needs.  And when you help others, they reciprocate. 

Out of what many consider anarchy and chaotic free-for-all competition emerges collaboration, charity, selflessness, empathy, and synergy.  Nature itself is proof of this.  From the mitochondria in all our cells to bacteria on our skin and in our guts, nature shows us that when you have a free-for-all competitive environment, many organisms learn and choose to collaborate and work symbiotically together in peace and harmony.  When one organism achieves supremacy like a virus that takes hold of an entire population, all you have is exploitation, destruction, and mass suffering and death of a large victim population.  One world unified under a single entity sounds a lot like parasitism.