"I'm outraged by the FBI, the CIA, and computers that seemed to have catalogued our lives. Power too often is accompanied by irresponsibility."- Robert Ludlum, author of the original The Bourne Trilogy series
By analyzing a recorded event over and over again, after a while, details embedded into the intricacies of a story you have become emotionally disconnected from come to light with clarity for the first time. Indeed, as I was re-re-watching the other night Alan Pakula's "All The President's Men" it came to my attention that central elements of this monumental case of political corruption in the 1970's are the foundation for the chaotic political intrigue unfolding in front of our eyes right at this very moment.
Before we go there we must remember that a Hollywood that pretends to be very liberal turns out to be deep state affiliated. What else is new since almost every significant structure of our society is deep state affiliated. All The President's Men was a little too political for the taste of the Academy, so despite mixed reviews, the 1977 Oscar for Best Picture went to "Rocky." Sylvester Stallone is said to have wrote the script in three and a half days after watching the championship match between Muhammad Ali and Chuck Wepner. In reality, the movie is a "Somebody Up There Loves Me" knockoff, a 1956 production with Paul Newman in the leading role. Newman played a struggling prizefighter named Rocky Barbella. Stallone character's name is Rocky Balboa. The story is by and large the same and even the girl in "Rocky" is a mirror image of the character Norma in Somebody Up There played by Pier Angeli. All The President's Men would be selected by the Library of Congress to be preserved in the United States National Registry for being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant," an honor also awarded to "Rocky," which tells volumes about the current state of the American culture.
Then, of course, we have Oliver Stone's JFK. It is considered one of the best political thrillers ever, and yet the Academy decided the Oscar should go to a movie called The Silence Of The Lambs about an "intelligent" psychopath who practices cannibalism and ends up working for the FBI. Stone's JFK, however, led to the United States Congress voting a special law known as President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, or the JFK Records Act. It basically ensures all documents, all information pertaining to the assassination are kept under lock until 2029.
There is an obvious common thread linking Watergate, the Kennedy assassination and everything going on today in the political arena. That thread is the unmasking of the principal players behind our political system, the never elected, the actual masters of the show relying on groups of individuals within FBI and CIA plus a mass media they apparently have under control, something known as the deep state.
In the Watergate case some of the DNC headquarters burglars were associated with the CIA. Howard Hunt, a leading character in the plot was a White House aide and a CIA consultant. On the opposing side there was Deep Throat, the high-level source that helped Woodward and Bernstein, two reporters with The Washington Post break open the case and bring down the Nixon Administration. As it would be later revealed, the source was Mark Felt, an FBI special agent who would retire in 1973 as the FBI's Deputy Director.
In the case of the Kennedy assassination and of the ensuing cover up we have indisputable evidence of FBI and CIA participation. In his movie, Stone creates a fictional character, X, played by Donald Sutherland, so he could tell the real story of what happened and how it happened, a story based on information provided by deep background sources within the intelligence community Stone had access to. This, however, is more or less the same story behind many other significant moments in our history, from the 1941 Pearl Harbor attack and the 1947 Roswell UFO incident, to the September 11, 2001 events.
Neither the CIA, nor the FBI are homogenous organizations. Within the intelligence community there seem to be a number of groups that have pledged allegiance to different and often antagonistic entities within the hidden structures of powers. As you are going to see in A Time of Change, some of these entities are forces of good, others are forces of darkness.There are also unattached untouchable individuals who would like to see the law being upheld all the time, under any circumstances, and who are truly dedicated to serving the interest of all the people in accordance to the provisions made in the Constitution.
Washington Post would not change its political allegiances and neither fact, nor common sense seems to matter in that respect. So could anyone tell if Washington Post would have pursued the Watergate case if Nixon was a Democrat? The question was raised before and past doubts seem to become certitude today.
According to a March 17, 2017 Washington Post headline, "Russia is Trump's Watergate. Will he react like Nixon?" In the WP's opinion, Nixon's firing of special prosecutor Archibald Cox "for refusing to back off his pursuit of the White House Watergate tapes" was identical to President Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey for allegedly refusing to put an end to the investigation into an alleged collusion with the Russians. Would have been, except that, unlike in Nixon's case, there are no tapes or anything incriminating Trump, and Washington Post was unable to produce a single piece of evidence Trump fired Comey for that reason. In fact, after ten months of what was a multi-level, multi-pronged investigation that started under the Obama Administration no one could find proof such collusion did occur or that Trump has asked Comey to stop the FBI investigation into the allegations about a nefarious connection between Trump and Russia. For reasons they would have to explain historians one day, as they were trying to create the illusion that what we have here is a Watergate-like situation, Washington Post editors found it though perfectly rational to put the equal sign between a proven fact and an unsubstantiated malicious assumption.
The author of the same Washington Post article also claimed that Trump's "unfounded charge that President Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower during the presidential campaign was as scurrilous as it was unnerving." This is why many believe that if Nixon was a Democrat, Washington Post would have never investigated his illegal doings. Not only it was proved and acknowledged publicly even by Democrats that the Trump Tower was, indeed, under surveillance by the Obama Administration, as we all know it, Mark Flynn's name, an American citizen whose conversations were caught on surveillance devices was illegally unmasked by National Security Adviser and Obama appointee Susan Rice. As a result, considering that many are looking for similarities between Watergate and current events, those otherwise very contentious during the White House daily briefings grandstanding journalists should have launched an investigation into how the Obama Administration and the DNC have conducted themselves before, during and after the November 2016 Presidential elections.
In the Watergate case the Washington Post reporters were working with facts, not assumptions or declarations made over the phone by an unnamed source. Those facts were confirmed by at least three sources every time and they would be then confirmed by the way of the official findings. Among others, they revealed the existence of a slush fund of over $700.000 ran by Haldeman and used to finance the dirty-trick operations the White House and the RNC's Committee to Reelect were involved in.
There have been numerous suggestions based on substantial evidence that the Clinton Foundation acted as the Clinton family's personal political slush fund. We are talking here many millions of dollars provided by controversial donors used for political operations, and even Washington Post would acknowledge this fact in an October 28, 2016 article with a heavy headline: "How to drain the Clinton swamp." However, number one on the list of suggestions offered by WP was "Shut down the foundation or spin it off in its entirety to a respected, independent figure." Apparently, the Washington Post was not interested in conducting a thorough investigation into the legality of how the Clinton Foundation was operating, as it did in the case of the Watergate scandal. Instead, the paper would have been satisfied with the Clinton Foundation shutting down or letting everything go quietly underground under new leadership, no prosecution, no indictments, no journalistic heroics.
Is Washington Post and other major news organizations a propaganda billboard for certain groups within the intelligence community? Ironically, while some consider the press to be one of the four pillars of democracy, officially, the press is also known as the fourth branch of government. As a result, the media is actually an extension of the hidden structures of powers, reason why despite the appearance they try to create about the public having multiple choices when it comes to TV opinion shows, at the end of the day there is not much of a difference between how the conversation is framed on CNN, MSNBC or FOX News. Indeed, much of what those who unaware yet of what is going on get from mainstream media is either false or misinterpreted information, something meant to create a specific perception of reality that benefits the powers that be.
A document revealed many years ago by other independent researchers in relation to another issue of great significance for our civilization referenced in A Time of Change, quote included, in 1991 the CIA and moguls of major media organizations reached a behind closed doors agreement, and there is a signed record of it. From that moment on they were to work together to control the distribution of information, the news content that was, something supposedly, and probably to a certain extent true, done in the name of national security. The same year, a Washington Post staffer by the name of Desson Howe wrote about Oliver Stone's JFK that, "It's not journalism. It's not history. It is not legal evidence. Much of it is ludicrous." Independent historians and independent journalists beg to differ.