Chapter 10 – Foreign Policy and Ending the Wars

Ted Gunderson

               A former FBI chief of Los Angeles, Ted Gunderson was hired in 1980 as a private investigator in a crime which involved satanic ritual murder.  From that time, he worked tirelessly to expose these great conspiracies.  My only difficulty with him is that he spoke confidently and made claims, but he didn’t take the time to show us the evidence.  It was all things he had seen in person, and “in his files.”  Perhaps as a former law enforcement agent, he was accustomed to maintaining files and showing them to people who can actually prosecute the crimes, not to trying cases in the court of public opinion.

As so many of his predictions have turned out to be true, I suppose they really were in his files all along.  However, I still find it hard to trust all of his other claims.  They are worth investigating. Here are a sample of claims he made through the 80’s, 90’s, and 2000’s.

  • Satanic networks have infiltrated government.
  • Satanist goals include a global government and significantly reducing the world population.
  • Kidnappers deliver children to trafficking rings where they are auctioned off in Las Vegas and Toronto, with many of the buyers being Arabs.
  • The War on Drugs provides the CIA a profitable monopoly on the drug trade.
  • Fluoridation of water harms brain function. (It concentrates in the pineal gland.)
  • Military airplanes release chemical trails that are intended to affect health or the environment.
  • After the 1993 WTC bombing, he predicted another much larger terrorist attack which would result in passing of The Patriot Act. The purpose of the first bombing had been intended to allow passing the Patriot Act, but that minor terrorism didn’t create enough fear.
  • After the Iraq War, he pointed to a list of invasion targets in the New American Century report (the neocon hit list) and said the other nations on the list would certainly follow.

The last two claims were prophetic.

The CIA drug-running has been reported on for years, for example in John Cummings’ Compromised, and in Gary Webb’s reporting.  Mr. Webb famously committed suicide by shooting himself twice in the head.

The Dhaka Tribune has translated to English a November 11, 2017, Le Monde report in which Prince Al Waleed’s wife exposed rampant Saudi child sexual slavery, including white girls.  That was on the heels of the “Saudi Coup.” With the radical social and political changes taking place, perhaps she felt it was finally safe and appropriate to speak about the barbarity.  These claims bolster Gunderson’s credibility about the child auctions, although perhaps the Saudis now find cheaper imports from Southeastern Europe.  (Only in America: Can the press corps of the mightiest nation on Earth be more useless than that of Bangladesh.)

According to Wikipedia:

“In 2008, Gunderson stated that he had tested positive for arsenic and cyanide poisoning. Gunderson’s associate, Dr. Edward Lucidi, treated Gunderson and stated that his fingers were turning black, a characteristic symptom of arsenic poisoning. On July 31, 2011 Gunderson’s son reported that his father had died from cancer of the bladder, which has been linked to arsenic poisoning in some studies.”

The press, which demands we go to war with Russia every time an anti-government Russian gets poisoned, does not bother itself with this apparent assassination.  RIP

The Foreign Policy Shell Game

The 1997 neocon hit list(pp. 63, 64) about which Mr. Gunderson warned contained North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria.  According to Wesley Clark, that list had expanded by 2001 to include Lebanon, Somalia, and Sudan.

During the 2008 presidential election, Obama hammered McCain on his desire to leave troops in Iraq, characterizing the position as endless war.  All indications were that Obama would be bringing our troops home.  The public was inspired by the audacity to hope for peace.  Who would have guessed that by the time Obama left office, the United States would be warmongering, checking off multiple nations from the neocon hit list?

When the Patriot Act passed in 2001, it was a rallying point for criticism from the left.  I don’t understand the details of the sunset provisions, but I have the impression that Obama did not significantly restore our rights of privacy and due process.  It also became a common practice to assassinate American citizens on foreign soil.

Obama started his administration with a “reset” button with Russia.  In 2011, Obama mocked Romney: “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.”  By the end of Obama’s administration, tensions with Russia were the highest since the cold war.

Are our politics a shell game?  No matter who you choose, you get the same thing?

Perhaps the leaders of both parties are loyal to a force outside of either party, whose agenda can be carried out across administrations.

To Whose End is Our Foreign Policy? 

If we were primarily concerned with nuclear weapons, we could direct the entire combined might and financial resources of western intelligence agencies to infiltrating and destroying Iran and North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs.  I feel we could do it.  Perhaps a missile strike would be necessary.  If we were primarily concerned with terrorism, we could pinch off immigration from those nations where terrorism originates.  Even an iron curtain would be less disruptive than our current warmongering policies.

If the policies don’t serve the American people, then perhaps they are being directed to serve a mafia or intelligence agency.  Who are the candidates?

Crushing and weakening all the nations of the Middle East is going to benefit any players that dodged the wrecking ball.  Israel and Saudi Arabia fit the bill, and both are thought to have influence on our politics.  The two are increasingly allied. Kevin Shipp named them both.  This is surely part of the story.

If the goal is financial profit, then you have American military contractors and arms manufacturers, as well as mostly European oil companies who seem to get the contracts.  Perhaps those groups are allied.  Or rather their shareholders are allied.  When you start to look at the major shareholders of corporations, you find out large banks hold a lot of shares, and that those banks can also be part owned by other banks or entities, and so on and so forth.

It seems that eight families own a significant share of major banks, oil companies, and national banks such as the US Federal Reserve Bank: “the Goldman Sachs, Rockefellers, Lehmans and Kuhn Loebs of New York; the Rothschilds of Paris and London; the Warburgs of Hamburg; the Lazards of Paris; and the Israel Moses Seifs of Rome.”  Some people focus on the Rothschilds because they are believed to be the most powerful faction.

The exact factions, and which are bigger or smaller, don’t really matter.  The point is that there are a few really rich people who own large banks and corporations, and they own the banks that print the world’s currencies.  No one knows how much money they have because they own banks in nations with secrecy laws, and they have a lot of ability to shift money around and launder money without anybody knowing.  It’s not hard to understand the concept of them getting together and forming a cartel of some sort, so that they can all profit and not be working against each other too much.  Many people believe the “bankster” cartel is at the top of the network of secret mafias, and they are able to call the shots for all western governments in the world.  Even if they’re not “the top” mafia, a cartel like that would be a significant player.

Even if everyone followed the law and was above board, wealthy cartels can direct funds into political candidates, through proxies if necessary.  A lot of times we say the presidential primaries are over before they start, because a candidate has raised too much money for the others to be able to compete.

And when they’re not above board, you have the Clinton-Sanders fiasco.  Clinton was able to control funds into the DNC.  She used that leverage to make it her personal puppet, a weapon she could use against Bernie Sanders to win the primary.  That would have been a scandal, if there was such a thing as scandal anymore.  According to the news media, Donald Trump being unable to precisely measure the exact size of large inauguration crowds by eyeball, is more of a scandal than the hostile takeover of the Democratic Party and the disenfranchisement of party voters.

What Do the Banksters Want? 

More money!  Maybe.  But why would they want more money when they already have more than they could ever spend?   When you think of aristocrats in history, and around the world, we see that they do want to maintain their wealth.  But they also tend to want more power.  Perhaps the bankers feel they own the Western world, and they, like monarchs through history, can’t stand the idea that there’s a guy on the other side of the border who doesn’t bow down to them.

H.G. Wells wrote a book about the New World Order in 1940.  President George H.W. Bush declared it inevitable in 1991.  By maintaining a cooperative structure across nations, we can avoid wars in the future.  The UN and IMF and ICC and EU are all means to this desirable end.  Open borders and ending trade barriers also support the cause.  Doesn’t that sound great?

Let’s make the bankers a deal. We’ll do this New World Order if they donate all their ownership and property to the cause.  We will generously make sure they have employment picking fruit and working at McDonald’s.  Perhaps they can be crab fisherman, or maybe they can just be prostitutes.  That’s a small price to pay for world peace, right?

Well, if they don’t go for it, it’s probably going to be fine.  The bankers are nice guys, right?  Oh crap, don’t tell me the banksters are Satanists and cannibals?  I hate Satanists!  I guess that’s what Ronald Bernard and Kevin Shipp were talking about.  What’s this about a world population of a half billion?  Hey bankers, you know that Crowley was just kidding about Nero, right?  Raining havoc and suffering on nations isn’t “necessary”!

Peace is Possible

The wearechange article includes a video interview with FSA commander Tawila, who states that he could have easily won the war if the USA didn’t throttle his access to anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons.  He believes the prolonged civil war is entirely intentional.  Perhaps the genocide of Syrian Christians and the exodus of millions of Muslims to Europe are not side effects, but intended effects of the war.

Most of the images we receive about Syrian atrocities and chemical attacks are staged by CIA funded “White Helmet” NGO’s.  Here we have a fellow who whose legs are crushed by rocks, but the actors wait for the “action” call to begin screaming and rescuing.  Afterwards, they pose for a selfie.



After the most recent “chemical weapons attack,” Russia Today managed to track down one of the boys featured in the attack.  The boy explains that people told him there was food at the hospital.  When he arrived, people started pouring water on him and scaring him.

There are plenty more where these came from.  Yet western news agencies report these staged events as though they were real.  The solution to wars was stated by  Julian Assange: “If we have a good media environment, then we will also have a peaceful environment.”




Next Chapter: MKUltra


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s