As early as August 1964, almost one year before the activation of the Joint U.S. Public Affairs Office (JUSPAO), General William Westmoreland told a CA and PSYOP conference that “psychological warfare and civic action are the very essence of the counterinsurgency campaign here in Vietnam…you cannot win this war by military means alone.” Westmoreland’s successor, Creighton Abrams, is known to have sent down guidelines to the 4th Psychological Operations Group that resulted in the drawing up of no less than 17 leaflets along those lines. In fact, the interest in PSYOP went all the way up to the Presidency; weekly reports from JUSPAO were sent to the White House, as well as to the Pentagon and the Ambassador in Saigon. In sum, it is a myth that the United States, stubbornly fixated on a World War II-style conventional war, was unaware of the “other war.”

During the Vietnam era, the organization of the 4th Psychological Operations Group was very different. The four battalions of the group were divided by geographic region rather than area of expertise as they are now.

* The 6th PSYOP Battalion was stationed at Bien Hoa and provided services to the tactical units, both American and Vietnamese, and to the various political entities such as provinces and cities in the area of III Corps.
* The 7th PSYOP Battalion was stationed in Da Nang and provided service to I Corps.
* The 8th PSYOP Battalion was based at Nha Trang, but it its B Company, which was its field teams, was based out of Pleiku nearly 100 kilometers away. The 8th Battalion served the II Corps area of Vietnam.
* The 10th PSYOP Battalion was stationed in Can Tho and served IV Corps.

The A company of each battalion consisted of a command section, S-1, S-2, S-3, and a Psyop Development Center (PDC). Additionally, they generally had extensive printing facilities.

The B companies consisted of the field teams that were stationed throughout their respective corps billeted with MACV teams and combat units.

The Phoenix Program had the dual aim of assassinating Viet Cong personnel and terrorizing any potential sympathizers or passive supporters.

When members of the VCI were assassinated, CIA and Special Forces operatives placed playing cards in the mouth of the deceased as a calling card. During the Phoenix Program, over 19,000 Viet Cong supporters were killed.

The CIA made extensive use of Contra death squads in Nicaragua to destabilize the Sandinista government which the U.S. claimed was communist. The CIA used psychological warfare techniques against the Panamanians by broadcasting pirate TV broadcasts. The CIA has extensively used propaganda broadcasts against the Cuban government through TV Marti, based in Miami, Florida. However, the Cuban government has been somewhat successful in jamming the signal of TV Marti.

In the Iraq War, the United States used the shock and awe campaign to psychologically maim, and break the will of the Iraqi Army to fight.

Duration : 0:11:0

Duration : 0:3:43

Duration : 0:2:33

Duration : 0:8:29

FAQs about the US Dollar Bills 9/11 message

Q: The most frequent question by far is simply, Why?

A: Though they wield much power, the top Perpetrators themselves are few in number. Their target populations must be tricked into doing much of the work of their own subjugation themselves. Salary/contracts/bribery, threats, intimidation and assassination are some of the tools of the Perpetrators. One of the most important Perpetrator tools, arguably the most important, is trickery.
Without trickery, alert and courageous civilians will not allow their rights to be taken away very easily. Without trickery, many fewer soldiers will fight. How many troops would go off to war to kill and get killed if they realized that the very Perpetrators sending them were responsible for the deaths of their own countrymen and women — possibly their own friends and relatives?

Still, why tip your hand? The seemingly counterproductive, counterintuitive, and contradictory act of Revealing your Method is part of the reason it works. However, it is a very, very high-stakes gambit and must be handled skillfully and with care.

Common reactions to seeing 9/11 forecast in the bills:
-This doesn’t look like anything at all, or it’s just a coincidence.
-The implications are so horrible that it can’t possibly be true.
-Why in the world would anyone do this? It doesn’t make any sense!
-If the forces behind this are so powerful there’s nothing to be done.

Most of these reactions constitute confusion, denial and defeat, and allow the Perpetrators to move ahead with their plans without firing a shot. This saves them much time and effort at very little expense.

Another reaction:
-The ambiguously Revealed Method message is seen for what it is, and the bluff is called. Responses can take any number of forms, active and passive.

Q: Folding can create any image desired. Isn’t this just a coincidence?

A: The actual fold involved here amounts to one of the very simplest there is. The bills are evenly split by length and width, and two of the adjacent long segments are placed side by side. That’s it.
Changes big and small from the old to the new bills make them do what they do: Reveal the Method of 9/11 well in advance of the actual event.

The changes, the measurements and alignments are VERY precise. This is NOT a likely coincidence.

Also important is context. How much is VERY wrong with the official story of 9/11 and what followed? If the Perpetrators were cruel enough to carry out 9/11, is it so far-fetched that they would Reveal their Method as a PsyOps warfare gambit?

Compare the OLD to the NEW. What do you see?

Duration : 0:5:9

Duration : 0:4:9

Duration : 0:1:16

An MoD statement to the inquiry said there are gaps in the information because IT systems are routinely wiped when returned from operational deployments. Jim Brann from the ‘Stop the War Coalition’ says that ‘cover-ups’ for mishandled operations in Afghanistan may be even worse than those in Iraq.

Duration : 0:3:13

http://www.youtube.com/RTAmerica

A new bill quietly introduced by congress last week is causing quite a stir among civil liberties groups. The brainchild of senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman, the bill would give the United States government the power to indefinitely detain terror suspects without charge or trial. It would also allow the government to interrogate them for the intelligence value and it doesnt make a distinction between US citizens and non-citizens.

Duration : 0:4:47

Social engineering is a discipline in political science that refers to efforts to influence popular attitudes and social behaviors on a large scale, whether by governments or private groups. In the political arena, the counterpart of social engineering is political engineering.

For various reasons, the term has been imbued with negative connotations. However, virtually all law and governance has the effect of changing behavior and can be considered “social engineering” to some extent. Prohibitions on murder, rape, suicide and littering are all policies aimed at discouraging undesirable behaviors. In British and Canadian jurisprudence, changing public attitudes about a behaviour is accepted as one of the key functions of laws prohibiting it. Governments also influence behavior more subtly through incentives and disincentives built into economic policy and tax policy, for instance, and have done so for centuries.

In practice, whether any specific policy is labeled as “social engineering” is often a question of intent. The term is most often used by libertarians, free-market thinkers, and traditionalists as an accusation against anyone who proposes to use law, tax policy, or other kinds of state influence to change existing power relationships: for instance, between men and women, or between different ethnic groups. Political conservatives in the United States have accused their opponents of social engineering through the promotion of political correctness, insofar as it may change social attitudes by defining “acceptable” and “unacceptable” language or acts. The right (i.e. the social conservative movement) has itself been accused of social engineering due to its promotion of Abstinence-only sex education, the English-only movement, Sodomy laws and state sponsored school prayer.

Orrin Grant Hatch (born March 22, 1934) is a Republican Senator from Utah.

Hatch is a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, where he serves on the subcommittees on Energy, Natural Resources, and Infrastructure and Taxation and IRS Oversight. Hatch is also on the Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, the Impeachment Trial Committee on the Articles against Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. (Vice Chairman/Ranking Member), and the Joint Committee on Taxation. He also serves on the Board of Directors for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Although a conservative Republican, Hatch is noted for his willingness to cross party lines to get legislation passed. He notably formed a longstanding legislative partnership with the late Edward M. Kennedy, a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts.

The Alliance for Progress (Alianza para el Progreso) initiated by U.S. President John F. Kennedy in 1961 aimed to establish economic cooperation between North and South America.

Duration : 0:10:59