Saturday, May 29, 2010

We've Always Been at War with Eastasia

The Huffington Post published an article written by Congressman Alan Grayson called “We’ve Always Been at War with Eastasia” on May 29, 2010.

This was a quote from the book 1984 written by George Orwell. Interestingly, he says he has no explanation for why that has been the case. All he says is “we’ve reached the point where everyone thinks that we’ve always been at war with Eastasia.”

Given the relationship between Japan and America at the time he wrote this, this is a very interesting title for an article.

Friday, May 28, 2010

Futenma blame game in full swing

On May 28, 2010, America and Japan agreed to relocate Marine Corps Air Station Futenma along the lines of the existing plan. According to the Japan Times, the agreement only made things more difficult. There were technical problems with that agreement. In addition, the people of Okinawa did not support the agreement. The State Department tried to justify the agreement by saying that the alliance needed to move on to other issues.

“The bilateral alliance is too important to have it grind to a halt over the Futenma problem,” said Sheila Smith.

In November, Japan will hold the gubernatorial election for Okinawa. U.S. experts believe the outcome of that election will determine whether or not the relocation plan will move forward.

Some officials blamed people like Richard Armitage, Kurt Campbell, and Mike Green for the debacle. They said that America has relied too much on the advice of a small group of Japan experts to deal with issues like Futenma. They believe America needs a new approach using new people to solve the problem.

Monday, May 24, 2010

A victim of Project Artichoke

In response to the comment made by Jennifer Van Bergen, an anonymous person wrote the following.
I appreciate the above comment that answers the question: where are the survivors. However, I wish that until we do find documents supporting the existence of a Project Monarch, people would refrain from using the term. It's unclear whether or not it is disinfo.

Another answer to where are the survivors is that we are right here. We've been trying to get the media and public's attention for going on 25 years now. Some even testified before congress in 1995. Those were three who were tortured and conditioned beginning in childhood. Since it's difficult enough for people to imagine this kind of work being done on adults, there is a massive wall of denial ready for any victim who was taken as a child. Many choose to remain private after they've gone through a lengthy healing process.

I have to say that, as an activist in this area, the norm is to be marginalized, even in a compartmentalized way by friends who cannot bear to think of the torture committed in their name, in their own communities. The irony of course is that's exactly what the perpetrators of these crimes predicted would happen with disclosure attempts.

The pain of knowing, for ordinary citizens, I think, is what has kept these activities secret, more than any other force.
Actually, the last part of this comment is wrong. The reason why other people “marginalize” the victims is because they themselves are unknowingly victims of Project Artichoke. The CIA is manipulating the friends and family of the victim in order to maintain the secrecy of the program.

At the beginning of 2011, I contacted my family for the first time in five years. I would try to convince them that my government was doing something to me. Right from the beginning, my mother refused to even listen to what I was saying. The first time I tried to convince my family of what was happening to me, I sat in front of my computer, I had a bunch of newspaper articles open in Firefox, my family sat next to me, and I tried to explain what I discovered and what my government was doing to me. My mother could not even watch my entire presentation. She left my bedroom before I even finished. And although, on numerous occasions, I have asked her to read what I have written on my blog, she refuses to do so.

On the other hand, my father did listen to my entire presentation and he has read my blog (though it was a little bit of a chore to get him to do that). Of course, he doesn’t believe me. But in his case, it’s not that he believes his government is too good to do anything this evil. Instead, he believes that our government is incompetent and so they are incapable of doing the things I accuse them of. He cites the struggles America is currently going through as evidence of our government’s incompetence. What he doesn’t realize is that America is struggling partly because other countries know the truth and are using that information against us. And the people who run this nation, in an effort to save their own skin, are willing to do anything to prevent the public from learning the truth. Basically, other nations (China and Japan in particular) have us over a barrel. Furthermore, because of what our government has done, other governments do not trust us and that lack of trust ends up hurting the country as well. This is why we are in a predicament.

And a final point. The person who wrote this comment left out the reason why many of the victims maintain their silence. And that is because, using the techniques developed in Project Artichoke, the government continues to make them afraid of coming forward. Presumably, that is the reason why the person who wrote this comment did not leave their name and instead decided to post this comment anonymously.

Sunday, May 23, 2010


In the comments section of the article on Project Artichoke, an anonymous person wrote the following:
Now I know how the CIA was able to get those “mentally unstable” men to assassinate John Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy.

In answer to Jennifer's good question

In response to the comment made by Jennifer Van Bergen, Susan Pease Banitt wrote the following.
In answer to Jennifer's good question: where are the survivors. They are : 1) dead, 2) labeled paranoid schizophrenics, 3) in therapists' offices trying to get well against all odds and very sophisticated mc techniques, 4) still in use by the government. That should cover it.

Let's also not forget Projects Monarch and Bluebird, at least as important as Artichoke.

There is lots of good info available on the internet but not Wiki as CIA deletes all good info/intel on mc and gov't programs abuse.
Incidentally, the CIA has “told” me that they used Project Monarch to control dictators (e.g. Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, etc.), hence the name Project Monarch. Actually, in the case of those two people, the CIA “tells” me that British intelligence controlled them. The CIA tried to create and control other dictators. At least that’s what they “told” me.

A coherent and complete telling of Project Artichoke

In the comments section of the article on Project Artichoke, Jennifer Van Bergen wrote the following:
What is needed is a coherent and complete telling of the story of Project Artichoke, perhaps through the eyes of one person (whether a perpetrator or victim), which may be impossible.

The problem with telling the story through documentation is that (as scholars) you need to stay very close to the documents, to the very words written, leaving the conclusions either unspoken or merely suggested. Some people can't follow.

And how can the real human horror be known? What is it like to be given a heroin or sedative suppository and then be subjected to painful procedures while the pain-killer wears off?

What is it like to have your mind broken and to know that even if you could describe it, nobody will believe you?

Where are the people who were subjected to these "sessions"?
I’m right here.

Cries From the Past: Torture's Ugly Echoes

Truthout posted an article about the mind control programs run by the CIA. The article was written by Hank Albarelli and Jeffrey Kaye. According to the authors, many people believe that MKULTRA was the most important mind control program run by the CIA. However, according to them, in reality the most important mind control program was Project Artichoke. In fact, MKULTRA was just a diversion the CIA used to get the media’s attention away from Project Artichoke.

Remember, back in 1975, the government was investigating the CIA through the Church Committee and several other organizations, one of which was the Rockefeller Commission. That commission completed its work on June 6. Its final report contained information about MKULTRA. But according to the authors, the report should have contained information about Project Artichoke. However, in a meeting held in June, the CIA convinced the White House suppress information related to that operation.

In that meeting, President Ford, Don Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney met with Lawrence Houston, the general counsel of the CIA. At that time, Don Rumsfeld was the White House chief of staff and Dick Cheney was his chief assistant. In the meetings, Houston told the White House that the CIA could be abolished if the public were to learn about Project Artichoke. However, with the recent revelations in the media, Houston apparently felt the government had to give the media something, and so he recommended to the White House that the government release information on MKULTRA. This effort to divert attention away from Project Artichoke using MKULTRA became known as Operation Dormouse.

According to the authors, Project Artichoke had its origins in another CIA operation, Project Bluebird, which was a program the CIA used to handle POWs returning from the Korean War.

Actually, the CIA did not conduct its mind control experiments by itself. Scientists from Fort Detrick and Edgewood Arsenal also participated in the experiments. One such experiment was conducted in the summer of 1951. In this experiment, the CIA and the military experimented with LSD, mescaline, peyote, and something called “Smasher,” which contained amphetamines and a drug similar to LSD. Apparently, these experiments did not go well. For example, in one experiment conducted in France, nearly 700 people went completely insane one morning. Four of them killed themselves.

In August of 1951, a few weeks after these failed experiments, the CIA renamed Project Bluebird. The program would now be known as Project Artichoke. The CIA was pretty gung ho about this project right from the beginning. In February of 1953, Paul Gaynor wrote the following.

“It is imperative that we move forward more aggressively on identifying and securing a reliable, ready group, or groups, of human research subjects for ongoing Artichoke experimentation. There can be no delays in this extremely important work.”

As for who would be the lab rats, the director of Project Artichoke recommended using U.S. military soldiers who were serving time in jail. In exchange for participating in a series of dangerous experiments, the government would offer to reduce their prison sentence.

The CIA had several goals for Project Artichoke. First, they wanted to determine if “effective and practical techniques exist, or could be developed, which could be utilized to render an individual subservient to an imposed will or control, thereby posing a potential threat to National Security.”

The mind control “techniques” investigated by the CIA included “covertly administered drugs, ‘Black Psychiatry,’ hypnosis, and brain damaging processes.”

Based on the rhetoric of Project Artichoke officials a few years later, it would appear the CIA was successful in developing these techniques.

“All individuals can be broken under mental and physical assaults and by such techniques as denying sleep, exhaustion, persuasion, starvation, pain, humiliation, and sickness,” said Paul Gaynor, the CIA Security Research chief, in April of 1954.

But the CIA did not simply want to determine if these techniques were effective, they also wanted to use them. The “ultimate goal” of Project Artichoke was “the running of selected foreign nationals back into Europe for specific work for this Agency.”

As part of Project Artichoke, the CIA wanted to find some alien citizens in the United States, label them as a threat, and have them deported to a foreign country where they would perform missions for the CIA. To recruit people who would participate in this program, the CIA wanted to create a bunch of left-wing organizations. After joining these organizations, the CIA would indoctrinate them and use hypnosis on them.

Apparently, the CIA was successful because later on they referred to these “hypnotically controlled agents” as a “dangerous army.” They also called this development “mildly hair-raising.” Many who saw what the CIA was doing described the results as sheer madness.

As for what the CIA did using the techniques developed under Project Artichoke, while not saying it explicitly, the authors hint that the CIA used them to assassinate Martin Luther King Jr. As for evidence, they mention one Project Artichoke memo written in 1965 which said that someone in the CIA wanted to assassinate him.

Towards the end of their article, the authors assail the information published by Charles S. Viar. Viar claims that Project Artichoke had been developed by the Soviets, the Nazis and Western intelligence services from 1920 to 1973. Actually, I think Albarelli and Kaye are wrong here. They’re not putting two and two together.

In fact, towards the beginning of their article, they mention that when Lawrence Houston met with Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, in addition to talking about Project Artichoke, they also discussed Operation Paperclip, which involved bringing Nazi scientists to America so they could tell us their secrets. Presumably, the reason why they talked about Project Artichoke and Operation Paperclip in the same meetings was because the CIA learned about the existence of these mind control techniques from the Nazi scientists who came to America as part of Operation Paperclip.

In fact, based on my own participation in the CIA’s mind control program, I believe strongly that someone – presumably some European government – used mind control techniques in order to radicalize Adolf Hitler. That means Germany had this mind control technology before the war.1

The authors note that these Nazi scientists, after entering America, worked in Fort Detrick and Edgewood Arsenal. And the authors note that officials from Fort Detrick and Edgewood Arsenal participated in the Project Artichoke experiments. But for some reason, the authors don’t say that America was conducting these experimented based on the information they gained from those Nazi scientists.

Doesn’t it seem a little odd to you that suddenly, after the war, the CIA decides that they urgently need to investigate mind control techniques? Why would they need to urgently investigate these techniques unless they already knew they existed? And if these techniques already existed, that means some other government must have had them.

In fact, in regards to the early experiments which went poorly, my government has “told” me that the Europeans who were advising them on how to conduct mind control experiments deliberately misinformed them and that is why those experiments turned out to be disasters. The Europeans wanted the CIA to kill a bunch of innocent people because then Europe would have information which they could use to extort the CIA – the information about those experiments which went wrong.

In case you are wondering how the CIA can get away with stuff like this, in 1954, the Justice Department agreed to refrain from prosecuting CIA officials if their prosecution would expose classified CIA operations.2

The authors note that the CIA has not ended its mind control research programs. For example, recently, the CIA has been investigating a mind control drug called ETX.

And, of course, I can personally vouch for the fact that the CIA has not ended its mind control program. But it will. Soon.

History end here.

1 In fact, my government has “told” me that these mind control techniques date back centuries. They “told” me that the West tried to use these techniques in Japan during the Tokugawa period in an effort to gain control of the country. And that is why the Tokugawa shogunate banned Christianity, banned Japanese citizens from leaving Japan, and banned all Japanese citizens who managed to leave Japan from ever returning.

2 The authors note the government made this agreement soon after the death of Frank Olson and they imply that the CIA and the Justice Department made this agreement because of his death.

Friday, May 21, 2010

Do Leaders Make History, or Is It Beyond Their Control?

On May 21, the New York Times published an op-ed written by Paul Kennedy called “Do Leaders Make History, or Is It Beyond Their Control?” In the article, Kennedy questions the Great Man Theory, which argues that history has been made by a relatively small group of powerful leaders. Instead, Kennedy argues that all leaders are constrained by the circumstances they inherited, and thus cannot have the absolute impact that the theory espouses.

To argue his case, Kennedy cites the example of Winston Churchill. According to Kennedy, no leader had a bigger impact on history than him. Nonetheless, Kennedy notes that Churchill could not prevent the collapse of the British Empire.

“By the 1940s, there were deep forces at work – forces like the rise of Asia and the relative shrinking of Europe – which were beginning to change the planet’s geopolitical landscape and which are still advancing today,” said Kennedy. “The marvel is that Churchill and his relatively small island-state achieved so much, and for so long.”

Leaving aside the fact that Kennedy appears to bemoan the end of the European subjugation of the peoples of Asia, apparently, Kennedy wrote this article in an effort to persuade everyone – including Obama – that they should tap down their expectations of what the Obama administration might achieve. President Obama certainly seemed to take this advice to heart. But the question is, by following Kennedy’s advice, has Obama made the world a better place, or has he fucked everything up and further eroded his country’s position?

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

What is DPJ thinking?

The Asahi Shimbun published an editorial called “What is DPJ thinking?” on May 19, 2010.

“If the DPJ thinks it can survive the summer election in its present state, it has got another thing coming,” said the Asahi Shimbun.

Friday, May 14, 2010

My government is not amused

That article I sent Mr. Okumura represented a climax of sorts for my participation in the New Diplomacy. Today, my government would exact its revenge. An appeals court ruled against TiVo in its patent case against Echostar. Shares of TiVo plunged an inconceivable 42%. They went from $17.39 to $10.16.

Roshonara Choudhry stabs Stephen Timms

Roshonara Choudhry, a British Muslim of Bengali descent, stabbed Stephen Timms, a British MP. Apparently, she stabbed him in protest of his decision to support the war in Iraq.

According to the Guardian, prior to the assassination attempt, she was “everything a society could want a citizen to be.”

She was a student who excelled at King’s College in London. She spoke three languages – Arabic, French, and Bengali. She spent her weekends teaching poor Muslim students for free.

But towards the end of 2009, something changed. She began listening to the sermons of Anwar al-Awlaki which she downloaded from the Internet. Soon after, she quit going to school and in April she bought the knives she would use against Timms.

This story shows just how quickly western intelligence agencies can turn a normal person into a terrorist. I am sure the West will use this story to crack down on freedom of speech. They will probably try to use this story to regulate the Internet. But the Internet and Awlaki’s sermons did not turn Choudhry into a terrorist. The British government did that.

This will not stand.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Bureaucratic Capitalism

On May 12, 2010, I sent Jun Okumura a rather long response on how I thought the system of government in Japan and America worked. I argued that, far from being democratic, both Japan and America are run by their bureaucracies. You can read that response here. Mr. Okumura wrote his comments on my response in the margins of the document. To view those comments, you need to download the document and open it in Microsoft Word.

Thursday, May 6, 2010

Remarks by Vice President Biden to the European Parliament

Joe Biden addressed the European Parliament on May 6, 2010. In his speech, Biden referred to Europe as America’s “most important ally” and said that “a vibrant European Union” was “absolutely essential to American prosperity and long-term security.”

“We strongly support what you are about here,” said Biden.

Biden said the relationship between America and Europe was as strong as it has ever been. BAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Sorry. Sometimes I just can’t contain myself.

Biden blabbed about how America and Europe were bound together by their common heritage and certain shared values like the “right to be let alone,” the right to privacy, and the right to personal dignity. His words seem pretty ironic given what my government has been doing to me. Did I mention that the defining characteristic of the West is hypocrisy?

Not one to stop at the point of complete ridiculousness, from there Biden decided to go into full-on nutty mode and claimed that, even with our so-called shared values and common heritage, “global interests alone would inexorably bind us together.”

BAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Whoops, I did it again.

According to Biden, in the 21st century, the West would face “new challenges no less dangerous than those that came before in the 20th century.” In other words, Europe and America needed each other now more than ever. Biden said that America and Europe would deal with those challenges together.

“We are honored and grateful to be by your side in the struggles yet to come,” said Biden.

As America needed strong allies to deal with these challenges, Biden offered his support for the idea that Europe would take on more responsibility under the Lisbon Treaty. Too bad Europe didn’t offer its support for that idea.

Biden cited global warming, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda as some of the challenges that Europe and America would face.

To deal with Iran, Biden noted that America has deployed a missile defense system in Europe. The European Parliament applauded after Biden said that. Of course, missile defense doesn’t work, but I’m sure Europe will applaud every time America does something that damages its relationship with Russia. Aren’t allies great?

Biden believed America and Europe could meet the challenges of the 21st century “if we talk and listen to one another, if we are honest with one another.” For our part, America would listen to its allies, at least according to Biden. BAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Whoops, again. Sorry.

In fairness to Biden, he did decide to say a few honest things in his speech.

“We have disagreed before,” said Biden. “We will surely disagree again.”

He also said that “much has changed since 1985” and that “a terrible beauty has been born.”

I am willing to bet that Biden was referring to the rise of East Asia when he said this. Apparently, with the relationship between Japan and America on the rocks, Biden felt this was a good time to try and unite with Europe to take on East Asia.


This strategy did not work out so well. Why America would join forces with Europe in a “white’s only club” when the percentage of white people in the world is sinking like a stone, when Europe is mired in a debt crisis and stagnation, and when East Asia is on its way up is beyond me.


Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Jun Okumura responds to my comment on Futenma

On May 4, Mr. Okumura finally responded to my inquiry about Futenma.

If I'm wrong, I apologize.

Apology accepted. A word of advice. Be careful about making accusations that you cannot support with any evidence. It is my experience that such acts reveal far more about the accuser than the accused. There’s an old Japanese saying, Onore wo motte hito wo hakaru (You measure others with yourself as the yardstick). .

With regard to the US bases in Okinawa, I’m not sure exactly why the PDJ decided to make that stand on the 2006 Japan-US agreement, but it certainly was convenient in drawing the SDP into the coalition for the elections. It also must have helped in Okinawa. However, the DPJ—or Hatotyama at least—seems to have underestimated the geopolitical and technical difficulties of negotiating a complete move out of Okinawa while retaining US services with regard to the nuclear umbrella and other deterrent services. Personally, I think that the existing arrangement made sense—Nago was one of the few places in Okinawa that has a positive relationship with the US military that is similar to that of the mainland. There’s now a glimmer of hope, I think, for the prime minister that the Tokunoshima authorities, if not a majority of the people of Tokunoshima, will eventually accept the helicopter base. But it will take time, be expensive—pay off for yet another group of local governments. Nago may come around some day—never say never where money is involved—but this will take much more time than Tokunoshima, if and when it happens. Finally, Hatoyama needs the consent of the US side, which they will give only if and when they have confidence that he can make the deal stick, even if, a big if, they see it as operationally viable. And the Obama administration seems to be resigned to remaining in Futenma for the foreseeable future if its actions are any indication.

All that, just for a very modest change from the 2006 agreement from the Okinawan perspective—unless you’re a dugong. It’s a huge waste of political capital. Note also that the Chinese authorities aren’t making it any easier for Hatoyama to play hardball with either, with their probing, most recently by one of their “research” vessels.
Apparently, China was threatening Japan because China didn’t want the truth known any more than Europe or America wanted the truth known.


Monday, May 3, 2010

Now Jun Okumura calls me a blithering idiot

In response to my comment on rudeness and gaiatsu, Mr. Okumura published the following on Global Talk 21:

You’re a blithering idiot. Okay, we’re even. Now, if you can leave it at that—not responding to this for a couple of days will do—I’ll do my best to respond to your comments.
Wait…who’s immature?

Notice how Mr. Okumura demanded that I keep quiet for a few days. My government wants me to believe that his demand had something to do with the negotiations between Israel and Palestine. At that time, both sides were supposed to begin indirect negotiations on a peace settlement. Perhaps Mr. Okumura believed that my comments could adversely affect the situation. Perhaps someone was not happy with the comments I made.

Boohoo. Sniffle. Sniffle.

Mr. Okumura also wrote a response to the anonymous comment about the PPO. He explained that PPO stood for Public Prosecutors Office. Apparently, the anonymous post was in reference to the complaint registered at the Committees for Inquest of Prosecution (CIP) against Ichiro Ozawa. Mr. Okumura referred to the people who submitted the complaint against Ozawa as “just a bunch of do-gooders.” By contrast, the anonymous comment implied that the prosecution of Ozawa was politically motivated. Mr. Okumura hinted that the PPO refused to charge Ichiro Ozawa because it didn’t want to risk losing a case and it didn’t want to appear to be playing politics by going after him. So instead, someone submitted a complaint to the CIP.

At the end of his comment on the PPO, Mr. Okumura wrote, “I hope this helped.”

As the anonymous comment implied, the timing of the investigation into Ichiro Ozawa could not have been a coincidence. Apparently, Japan decided to prosecute Ichiro Ozawa because of what the Hatoyama administration was doing. As I said earlier, there was a myth that Ichiro Ozawa controlled the Hatoyama administration. Perhaps the bureaucracy told America that they would cut the Hatoyama administration down to size by going after Ozawa.

Of course, in reality, Japanese politicians don’t control anything and this whole charade was nothing more than political theater. But in order for Japan to alter course, to move from the Hatoyama administration to the Kan administration, Japan wanted to provide a believable cover story on how they made the change.