NATO's Secret Armies, Operation Gladio and JFK

[Paul Brancato]

Why is it called the Safari Club?

[Jim Harwood]

On 8/9/2019 at 5:12 PM, David Andrews said:

Is that this?

https://apjjf.org/2012/10/12/Peter-Dale-Scott/3723/article.html

Wondering if this bit applies to Trump's anti-Mexican propaganda and implied encouragement to other racism:

Terror war in its global context should perhaps be seen as the latest stage of the age-long secular spread of transurban civilization into areas of mostly rural resistance -- areas where conventional forms of warfare, for either geographic or cultural reasons, prove inconclusive.

Blast 'em with the paranoia ray in Dayton!

President Trump is not anti Mexican and his policy for a wall is not about immigration, it has to do with sovereignty on both sides of the border. If the financiers that FDR fought and JFK fought were able to move "cheap labor" from one place to the next at their whim this would benefit them financially in a huge way. Let's take 10 million Mexicans flushed into the United States over a decade to replace Union workers and non union workers and on average their (Meican) wage is $2.50 hr less than it was before they replaced the American worker. That works out to a $25 million per hour in wage savings and $200 million per day and $1 billion per weeks and $52 billion per year, all for the bankers. Now that's terrorism, that's slavery, that's the destruction of both Mexico and the USA.  Not only that but there is this thing called remittances, where Mexican workers in the United States wire money back to their relatives in Mexico. This becomes a source of foreign exchange for Mexico to repay their illegitimate national debt owed to US and City of London bankers. And one other thing. If 28 million Mexican workers aged 22 to 55 are working in the United States then Mexico has lost a potential work force  it requires to create wealth and maintain such basic needs as food and infrastructure due to this "British East India" style game of destruction. 

[David Andrews]

11 minutes ago, Jim Harwood said:

President Trump is not anti Mexican and his policy for a wall is not about immigration, it has to do with sovereignty on both sides of the border. If the financiers that FDR fought and JFK fought were able to move "cheap labor" from one place to the next at their whim this would benefit them financially in a huge way. Let's take 10 million Mexicans flushed into the United States over a decade to replace Union workers and non union workers and on average their (Meican) wage is $2.50 hr less than it was before they replaced the American worker. That works out to a $25 million per hour in wage savings and $200 million per day and $1 billion per weeks and $52 billion per year, all for the bankers. Now that's terrorism, that's slavery, that's the destruction of both Mexico and the USA.  Not only that but there is this thing called remittances, where Mexican workers in the United States wire money back to their relatives in Mexico. This becomes a source of foreign exchange for Mexico to repay their illegitimate national debt owed to US and City of London bankers. And one other thing. If 28 million Mexican workers aged 22 to 55 are working in the United States then Mexico has lost a potential work force  it requires to create wealth and maintain such basic needs as food and infrastructure due to this "British East India" style game of destruction. 

Fine, but the fallout among the hoi polloi has left ugly scars, as in the El Paso and Dayton shootings (from having spent some time in Dayton, I suspect that shooting was more racially motivated than has been reported).  As far as sustaining wealth, well, the US has created an uncontrollable narcostate from La Pas to Tegucigalpa to Ciudad Juarez, which many Mexicans are also fleeing, and from which the US citizenry is suffering. 

I have worked a job where I dealt with seasonal Mexican labor, some on H2-A visas and some illegals, and I don't have one damned objection to them sending remittances home for their 80-hour weeks of painful, underpaid labor.  Economy, heal thyself - you're not doing a thing for me or for anyone else I know, despite the profit from the narcotics industry.  Call HRH on this, 'k?

Edited September 13, 2019 by David Andrews

[Jim Harwood]

13 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

Fine, but the fallout among the hoi polloi has left ugly scars, as in the El Paso and Dayton shootings (from having spent some time in Dayton, I suspect that shooting was more racially motivated than has been reported).  As far as sustaining wealth, well, the US has created an uncontrollable narcostate from La Pas to Tegucigalpa to Ciudad Juarez, which many Mexicans are also fleeing, and from which the US citizenry is suffering. 

I have worked a job where I dealt with seasonal Mexican labor, some on H2-A visas and some illegals, and I don't have one damned objection to them sending remittances home for their 80-hour weeks of painful, underpaid labor.  Economy, heal thyself - you're not doing a thing for me or for anyone else I know, despite the profit from the narcotics industry.  Call HRH on this, 'k?

I wasn't criticizing remittances, the Mexican people or the American people. I was just describing the current system of using cheap labor by the financiers,  why they created this mess (who by the way create the narco state in Mexico) and how they benefit. To correct you it's the British who are behind the drug trade not only in Mexico but in all of it's many incarnations. It's not the USA that's behind the drug trade. 

And the El Paso and Dayton shooting are the work of intelligence networks looking to turn you liberal types into sock puppets against the President.  In short just like with JFK's murder you're being manipulated by the same people responsible for the shootings. 

It's also fitting that you and your employer would have no problem with the concept of slave labor; and seasonal at that,. You're once again proving my point. This is not an immigration issue it's about massive flows of cheap labor moving  from place to place like cattle, with no borders to stop them. 

 

[Paul Brancato]

1 hour ago, Jim Harwood said:

I wasn't criticizing remittances, the Mexican people or the American people. I was just describing the current system of using cheap labor by the financiers,  why they created this mess (who by the way create the narco state in Mexico) and how they benefit. To correct you it's the British who are behind the drug trade not only in Mexico but in all of it's many incarnations. It's not the USA that's behind the drug trade. 

And the El Paso and Dayton shooting are the work of intelligence networks looking to turn you liberal types into sock puppets against the President.  In short just like with JFK's murder you're being manipulated by the same people responsible for the shootings. 

It's also fitting that you and your employer would have no problem with the concept of slave labor; and seasonal at that,. You're once again proving my point. This is not an immigration issue it's about massive flows of cheap labor moving  from place to place like cattle, with no borders to stop them. 

 

Seriously? First of all the British do not control the drug trade. This isn’t the 19th century. You’ve swallowed Larouche’s koolaid. Second, the immigration crisis is not about cheap labor moving from place to place like cattle. It’s about people fleeing terrible conditions. Trump is not protecting the American worker from slave labor. Come on. 

[Jim Harwood]

28 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Seriously? First of all the British do not control the drug trade. This isn’t the 19th century. You’ve swallowed Larouche’s koolaid. Second, the immigration crisis is not about cheap labor moving from place to place like cattle. It’s about people fleeing terrible conditions. Trump is not protecting the American worker from slave labor. Come on. 

I must inform you Paul you're wrong on all counts. The adult Mexican population inside the United States is employed at labor sometimes skilled (construction) and sometimes unskilled at rates much lower than their American predecessors (I can see you in 1852--"Well hell man what would these negroes be doin if they was back in Africa...might as well have three square meals and a roof over your head") . The last stat I read stated close to half the Mexican population is in the USA working. And the terrible conditions you whine about are caused by the same forces that are forcing these Mexican's to flee their country to find work. And I am not as simple minded as you to describe President Trumps actions as "protecting the American worker". He is enforcing the sovereignty of the United States,exactly what you want a President to do. If he is failing it's in the area of American system economics which he could deploy at a moments notice and rebuild not only the collapsed United States but Mexico ,  as well as  the entirety of Ibero America  

PS- 'The British don't control the drug trade"  You're the koolaid drinker Paul. 

Top money laundering centers

Bahamas British

Cayman Islands - British

Grenadines - British

Nevis - British

St. Vincent Island- British

St. Kitts- British

And the #1 drug money laundering bank is British run HSBC

https://www.theguardian.com/news/series/hsbc-files

I shiver to think what would happen if the British did run the worlds drug trade.

Edited September 13, 2019 by Jim Harwood

[Michael Clark]

8 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Bump.  Important subject.  Many have no idea what the Safari Club is/was.  I've read little about it myself, how it relates to Gladio.

Ron bumped an important topic. @Jim Harwood wants to make every thread into a “The British Empire dunnit” thread. Jim, you hijack every thread that you touch.

[Jim Harwood]

19 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Ron bumped an important topic. @Jim Harwood wants to make every thread into a “The British Empire dunnit” thread. Jim, you hijack every thread that you touch.

Michael isn't this section of this website dedicated to the assassination of President Kennedy? If the British are pertinent in my answer or input in a thread then what's the problem?  And please show me all these threads I have hijacked. Your personal preference aside, if you know how to do that.

And Michael , this thread has included the name Professor Peter Dale Scott, the all knowing anti American conspiracy buff. The dear Professor just hates our imperial system. But read his CV and let me know if he isn't likely a loyalist to the Crown playing off the USA as the imperial power while covering up for the real imperial power on this planet? But my goodness the Professor is just so British and a Lancer Award Winner.  Leave it to the JFK buffs. 😉 And I believe T.S. Eliot was MI6 agent. 

PETER DALE SCOTT: CURRICULUM VITAE

Born Montreal, January 11, 1929. Married (1) Mary Elizabeth Marshall, June 16, 1956 (divorced, 1993): three children (Catherine Dale, Thomas, John Daniel). Married (2) Ronna Kabatznick, July 14, 1993. A Canadian citizen.

Education and Teaching:

B.A. (McGill University, Montreal), 1949. First Class Honors in Philosophy, Second Class Honors in Political Science.
Studied six months at Institut d’Etudes Politiques, Paris; and two years at University College, Oxford (1950-1952).
Ph.D. in Political Science (McGill), 1955. Dissertation on The Social and Political Ideas of T.S. Eliot.

1952-1953. Teacher at Sedbergh School, Montebello, Quebec.
1955-1956. Lecturer, Department of Political Science, McGill University.
1961-1966. Speech Department, University of California, Berkeley: Lecturer (1961); Acting Assistant Professor (1962); Assistant Professor (1963).
1966-1994. English Department, University of California, Berkeley: Assistant Professor (1966); Associate Professor (1968); Professor (1980). Retired 1994.

Professional Service

Foreign Service Officer, Canadian Department of External Affairs, 1957-1961: Twelfth and Thirteenth Sessions, United Nations General Assembly, 1957, 1958; Canadian Embassy in Warsaw, Poland (1959-1961); United Nations Conference on Statelessness (Geneva, 1959); United Nations Conference on Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities (Vienna, 1961)
Senior Fellow, International Center for Development Policy, Washington, D.C., June-November 1987.

Fellowships

Canadian Social Sciences Research Council, 1956-57. Guggenheim Fellow, 1969-1970.

Honors and Awards

International Center for Development Policy, Freedom Award, 1987.
Finalist, Canadian Governor-General’s Award for Poetry, 1988.
Reed Foundation Poetry Chapbook, Dia Art Foundation, 1989.
Writer in Residence, University of Toronto, Fall 1992.
Honorable Mention, Mencken Awards, Best Book, 1992.
Sylvia Meagher Award, Coalition on Political Assassinations, 1996.
JFK Pioneer Award, JFKLancer, 1997.
Resident, Bellagio Study Center, Aug.-Sept. 1997.
Lannan Poetry Award, 2002 (with Alan Dugan).
Lannan Writing Residency, Marfa, TX, March-April 2004
Honoree at Symposium and Seminars, Open Center, New York City, March 13-20, 2010.

Two journal issues devoted to his poetry: Chicago Review, Fall 1998; Agni, 31/32 (1990).

 

 

 

Edited September 14, 2019 by Jim Harwood

[Anthony Thorne]

The Safari Club was set up in the late 70’s, post the various congressional investigations into US intel agency excesses, and brought together numerous disparate groups who had, one way or another, been shown the door during the Carter era. There’s a book on Iranian history that I looked at last year when I read a recommendation that it covered the Safari Club in some detail, and it did. I’ll try to dig up the pages, as it was an online copy.

While the Safari Club is of obvious interest to people researching Gladio, many of the same figures also joined and participated in some unusual conferences in the US through the same years. There was a lot of back and forth, and a few of those strident meetings were recorded in some detail in some books that make diverting reading now. They’re names familiar from anti-communist and anti-detente circles from the era.

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

4 hours ago, Anthony Thorne said:

The Safari Club was set up in the late 70’s, post the various congressional investigations into US intel agency excesses, and brought together numerous disparate groups who had, one way or another, been shown the door during the Carter era. There’s a book on Iranian history that I looked at last year when I read a recommendation that it covered the Safari Club in some detail, and it did. I’ll try to dig up the pages, as it was an online copy.

While the Safari Club is of obvious interest to people researching Gladio, many of the same figures also joined and participated in some unusual conferences in the US through the same years. There was a lot of back and forth, and a few of those strident meetings were recorded in some detail in some books that make diverting reading now. They’re names familiar from anti-communist and anti-detente circles from the era.

 

 

Thank you Anthony for the clarification.  Somewhere in the past I read members names in the Safari club which surprised me.  Their intentions seemed anti democratic if I remember right?  Not something JFK would have supported?

[Anthony Thorne]

In general, the Safari Club was a method for US intelligence, military, anti-communist and nastily covert circles to continue doing all the stuff they’d just been told not to by congress.

But this minute I can’t recall whether it was also a conduit for controlling the Mujahideen forces set up by Brzezinski and co as they turned the ignition on the Afghan war against the Soviets. I’ll need to check. You’ll find discussion of the Safari Club in deep political books like Peter Dale Scott’s, and also now in a handful of mainstream publications, although they both stem from the same handful of sources. 

But the gatherings of some of the same figures in the US through this period deserve equal attention as some of the participants and discussions and events raise red flags, are pregnant with implication, use whatever metaphor you want. There were some big ones every year from ‘76 to ‘79. The infamous one from 1979 is the July conference that year in Jerusalem with George HW Bush, Wolfowitz, Paul Wilkinson and something like 40 or 50 other familiar names, Safari Club members, journalists from the UK and USA, military figures, the works. Here’s the Wikispooks page on it, documenting the scant online resources about it.

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Jerusalem_Conference_on_International_Terrorism

This was where a propaganda initiative was concocted to - essentially - blame all international terrorism on the Soviet Union, and to argue that an ongoing War on Terror was required on behalf of the United States and its allies to defeat it. You can draw a straight line from that conference to Alexander Haig’s announcements at the beginning of the Reagan administration that their new foreign policy focus was a fight against terrorism. Researcher Adrian Hanni has written some great online theses about how this developed through the Reagan administration, and I notice that PDF’s of his work tend to come and go online. Hanni has his own Wikispooks page but I’ll need to hunt for where I last grabbed his essays. But he’s a good writer.

And I say ‘infamous’ as that particular conference is barely documented online or in print, although a book later appeared collecting some of the conference proceedings. The most reputable volume mentioning that conference is Lisa Stampnitzky’s book from Cambridge University Press, DISCIPLINING TERROR. And the most cited work on it is an online thesis by Philip Paull that has never appeared online and which only appears to be available if you physically visit the libraries of one or two Universities in the US.  But a number of writers have read and paraphrased Paull’s work, including Nafeez Ahmed in the opening pages of THE WAR ON TRUTH.

But I no longer find that gathering to be the most notable of that year. A much more tight-knit group of neocons and Defense intellectuals gathered together in the US at the end of 1979. At least two conferences were held within a week or two of each other, with some shared participants. One conference was devoted to critiquing the operation of US intelligence agencies and advocating the changes that would be undertaken when Committee on the Present Danger figures made their way into the Reagan administration. Roy Godson was in charge of that gathering. The second conference was devoted to advocating for an aggressive military stance through the forthcoming decade, and for urging a massive increase in military spending. I’ve read much of the transcript of the latter conference, and am tracking down the publication that outlines the first. According to at least one online thesis discussing the Godson conference, Wolfowitz chose the occasion to warn about terrorism.

Here’s the Wikispooks article on Roy Godson’s conference, run by the Consortium for the Study of Intelligence.

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Colloquium_on_Analysis_and_Estimates

But the military conference from the same period is really something. Paul Nitze was there, as were Albert Wohlstetter, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, Kenneth Adelman and others. There’s two pages of a much longer transcript where participants speculate if future ‘triggering events’ will occur to help them achieve their geopolitical goals - ‘we will not lack triggers’ - and a lecture was given where the required military build-up was viewed as being conditional on a future Pearl Harbor event. This is in 1979, some two decades before PNAC used the same phrase. The guy who was involved in both those discussions was Fred Ikle, and the conference was held at Belmont House in Maryland. That’s the tip of the iceberg for that one. I have access to pages from that book, and if there’s interest I’ll post them.

 

Edited September 14, 2019 by Anthony Thorne
Clarification

[Jim Harwood]

I believe this book was published 15 years ago

 

https://www.abebooks.com/9780306813115/Black-Prince-Sea-Devils-Story-0306813114/plp

 

[Jim Harwood]

Be quiet we don't want Michael Clark to read the word British...he considers it hijacking even if truthful. And for Paul it appears a lot of the laundered money by the Saudi's went through British owned territory the Cayman Islands-- more koolaid Paul?

 

The New York Times reported Saturday on a longstanding CIA partnership with Saudi Arabia, whose current manifestation is the joint program to arm Syrian rebels, a program that President Obama authorized in early 2013.  According to the Times account, under that secret program called "Timber Sycamore," the Saudis provided funding and purchased weapons for existing Syrian rebel factions, and the CIA trained the fighters in secret camps in Jordan.

The Times account, however, was carefully written to exclude certain known features, including the existence of the Anglo-Saudi "Al Yamamah" deal, dating back to 1985, in which the British and the Saudis used an oil-for-arms barter deal to create massive offshore "black" accounts, used to bankroll and arm a wide range of global insurgencies.  While the CIA-Saudi intelligence partnership is unquestionably accurate, it is a subsumed "junior partner" feature of the much more solid Anglo-Saudi alliance.

According to the New York Times account, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who ran Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Directorate (GID) at the start of the Syrian destabilization, purchased large amounts of weapons in Eastern Europe and provided them, with CIA assistance, to the various Syrian rebel groups, including groups that were actually al-Qaeda fronts.

Again, the Times told a half-truth.  In addition to Eastern Europe, there was a well-documented flood of weapons that went to Syrian rebels from Benghazi, Libya, in a joint British/American intelligence program that was partly exposed with the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. mission there.  Those weapons, confiscated after the overthrow and assassination of Qaddafi, were funneled through Qatari and Turkish channels into Syrian rebels, including al-Qaeda and ISIS.  Former U.S. DIA head Gen. Michael Flynn has publicly exposed the Obama Administration's own involvement in arming the Syrian rebels, despite DIA warnings that this would only strengthen the hard-core jihadists, and could lead to the creation of a caliphate in the Syrian-Iraqi border region.

When Prince Bandar was bounced as head of the GID, the program, the Times reported, was turned over to Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, the Kingdom's Interior Minister and Crown Prince. Bin Nayef was close with CIA Director John Brennan, dating back to Brennan's tenure in the late 1990s as CIA Station Chief in Riyadh.

The Times account made clear that the Saudi-CIA partnership dated back much further.  In the late 1970s, when the CIA was under intense Congressional scrutiny and restricted in its operations, the Saudis created what was called the "Safari Club," a multinational covert intelligence program, involving Morocco, Egypt and France, to carry on some of the CIA's covert operations in Africa.

During the Reagan years, as is well known, the Saudis poured money into the Afghan mujahideen, matching U.S. Congressional funding dollar for dollar.  The Saudis also, courtesy of Bandar, gave $32 million to the Contras, through Cayman Islands bank accounts. The mujahideen funding ran through CIA-managed bank accounts in Switzerland.  Those accounts were, in fact, likely part of the "Al Yamamah" program as well, which was a major source of money to the Afghan war against the Soviets.

The Times story barely mentioned the fact that the Saudis have been a major source of funding to ISIS and Nusra throughout the Syrian war, which shows how the Anglo-Saudi combine plays both sides in the conflict, to maximize the death toll and create permanent chaos.  The Times briefly cited William McCants, a former State Department counterterrorism advisor, pointing to the hypocrisy of partnering with the Saudis in any kind of anti-jihad coalition, since the Saudis are the biggest patrons of the jihadi terror. 

 

 

[Jim Harwood]

7 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Thank you Anthony for the clarification.  Somewhere in the past I read members names in the Safari club which surprised me.  Their intentions seemed anti democratic if I remember right?  Not something JFK would have supported?

Ron, there is nothing moral about a Democracy , majority rules, a lynch mob is the epitome of democracy. 

[Anthony Thorne]

Double post, sorry.

Edited September 14, 2019 by Anthony Thorne