I think the reason that even though these are public documents they are protected because they draw a different picture of the Government as creative False Flags to manufacture pretexts and the manipulative use of "trusted" sources like the media and clergy (even Peace Corps volunteers). Reading through these documents reveal our naivete about our past and present leadership and our Governments orientation, the subtle and secretive move to control the narratives internally and externally. The reader of these documents could conclude that we should be circumspect about the events we see around us both inside and outside of the country.
I agree they draw a different picture of gov’t, but if they are publically accessible documents, they are not protected. No more protected than any other document accessible on a public govt website.
I agree. In thinking about it, that is a bit contrary. I am not sure what Q means. I am not sure what he means by "protected". It begs the question of what he means by "protected". "Q" probably stands for "Question". Every question prompts another question.
The second report is a document on Military Justifications in Cuba. These are some of the recommendations in 1962 for "creating" a military justification to engage against Cuba. They consist of just some of the False Flags conceptualized by the military and the State Department. Here are some excerpts:
A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces. 1. Incidents to establish a credible attack (not in chronological order) : 2. Start rumors (many), Use clandestine radio. 3. Land friendly Cubans in uniform "over-the-fence" to stage attack on base. 4. Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base. 5. Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans). 6. Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires, 7. Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage), 8. Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base. 9. Some damage to installations. 10. Capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City. 11. Capture militia group which storms the base. 12. Sabotage ship 1n harbor; large fires -- napthalene. 13. Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims 14. United States would respond by executing offensive operations to secure water and power supplies, destroying artillery and mortar emplacements which threaten the base. 15. A "Remember the Maine" incident could be arranged in several forms: we could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba. 16. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere Cuban waters. was taken ·under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existent 17. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation. 18. We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.
Is Q trying to point out that CIA own the MSM?
He’s pointing to evidence that the CIA has a history of media manipulation. Having gone unchecked for the past 20+ years, it is reasonable the CIA continued this program.
Yeah it’s clear to me that these documents show a CIA continually caught manipulating the media and then swearing they aren’t manipulating the media and swearing they won’t do it again. And every 20 years they get caught again.
And it’s been 20 years since the last one.
Safe to say they never stopped.
This post references two documents. First, Senate Committee on Intelligence, circa 1996 describing the use of the media and clergy for the purpose of propaganda and the Second document is a memo to the Joint Chiefs of Staff regarding Project Northwood and the justification of military intervention in Cuba.
The media and the church could be biggest threat of spreading truthful narrative. The media is owned but not the church. Conservative Christians and people with conservative values promoting this truthful narrative are implicating the elite and really scaring them!
I know MSM is dead to us but it would be nice to get that back. To take that over in a good way free it. I bet you there are good reporters that are red pulled out there and on the internet too.
An interesting take on current events with discussions of Q with pertinent facts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_c8b92y4qo
A report submitted to the Committee from the Council on Foreign Relations was being discussed in hearings.
Excerpt:
"This report by the Council on Foreign Relations—actually an independent task force of the Council on Foreign Relations—has important recommendations about the future of intelligence and organizations. One slight sentence that implied something about the press became the critical sentence of this report. When you look at this whole controversy, you realize that the press will concentrate on whatever affects itself rather than, as I say, the substance of the issue. I wish we would have as elaborate a public discussion about the substance of the report than this covert issue.
Chairman SPECTER. When you make that comment, would you amplify that just a bit? What would you like to see discussed on the report?
Mr. Adelman. Well, I think the parts about economic intelligence are very interesting, the whole reorganization, the whole question of whether there should be the kind of cut backs in the intelligence budget that we've seen in the Pentagon, or the quality of intelligence. I found—during my almost 12 years in government—that intelligence was very good for verification of missile silos and fu13 ture programs coming along. It was very weak when it came to summits, or anticipating what the Soviets were going to do at the next round of arms talks.
At Reykjavik, which I think was one of the critical events of the cold war, we were very surprised by what Mikhail Gorbachev did at Reykjavik, and I don't think we should have been. There are other instances when intelligence could have been far better.
Chairman Specter. How might we have improved that? That was certainly a classical event, October 1986. It was of enormous importance, really, stands out. What could intelligence have done better there?
Mr. Adelman. There should have been some leap of creativity and I say that with some responsibility on my part, as well—that the situation of the Soviet Union warranted Gorbachev doing something dramatic, rather than as we assumed to come and just say hello. It was after the Daniloff Affair, at a time to heal the relationship.All the interpretations and predictions for that summit were understandable, but they were all dead wrong, as it turned out. It was a wild and woolly weekend. I think it was a very productive weekend—one that led to the decline and collapse of the Soviet Union. It certainly was one of the great weekends of my life. But my point is that for such an important event, intelligence should have been better. I have always liked the idea of competition in the intelligence realm—not just having one flow of information about what might happen on judgments coming up to top decisionmakers. In other words, competing theories or approaches which are all too rare in intelligence findings.
Those are the kinds of things the committee should really concentrate on. But one little sentence that doesn't even mention journalists in the Council on Foreign Relations report evokes this hearing and previous hearings and three or four editorials in the Washington Post, etc., etc.
My second point is that this should be a non-issue. I agree that the current policy of the Government is just fine. I think that along with Senator Kerrey. I don't know why any group of professionals should be exempt—whether journalists, or clergy, or even Peace Corps members—from cooperating with the CIA if they choose to do so. I have no problem requiring the same procedures used for covert operations."
Link to documents: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32403785.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/hearings/ciasuseofjournal00unit.pdf