How to Navigate Media Madness

By 2016 I had authored four New York Times best-selling non-fiction books about the U.S. government, wars and the American media.

Over this time, I had read jillions of pages of research, interviewed more than 1,000 people, met five American presidents, dined in the personal quarters of the White House, and was acquainted with numerous senators, congresspeople, mayors and other officials.

I was also a global citizen: By the time I was 22 years old, I had twice hitchhiked across the United States, traveled through 22 countries and had a fold-out addition added to my passport. By 2016 I had lived in nations around the world, ranging from Japan to the UK, from South Africa to China.

But that year, I experienced a rude wake-up call regarding the U.S. government, the American media and some people close to me. Looking back, I realize I was naive to believe that our government and media were separate entities.

The media were blaring a tale about Russian prostitutes urinating on Donald Trump in the Moscow Ritz-Carlton. Supposedly, the dastardly Vladimir Putin had tapes of the sexcapade and was blackmailing Trump.

I met Donald Trump back in 1981 and lived in New York during his media heyday of erecting buildings, and women talking on the front page of the New York Post about his erections.

In 2016, I was between books, had some free time and thought this would be a great opportunity to get a hot story. I applied for a Russian visa and booked a flight to Moscow. While I was awaiting my visa, I flew down to Washington, D.C. to meet with Ray McGovern, the ex-CIA analyst who had once provided President George H. W. Bush with his daily brief.

Ray told me that everything I was hearing from the American media was baloney, all concocted by Hillary Clinton and her Democratic Party. Having just passed through the New York and Washington airports and observed the television sets blaring the Trump-Russian prostitute story, I could hardly believe what Ray was telling me.

After our session, when we were outside his home saying good-bye, I pointed to the homes of Ray’s neighbors and asked, “What would they think about what you just told me?” Ray responded with a smile, “James, it’s only true if it’s in The Washington Post.”

The Moscow Ritz-Carlton is a splendid place. Serious-looking men, beautiful women, fine crystal, various types of caviar, a true luxury palace just down the street from the Kremlin.

Utilizing Ray’s contacts and some large tips to bellmen, front desk personnel, bartenders and waiters, I quickly concluded that Ray was correct. There was “no there there.” From my Moscow hotel room, I telephoned Mark, my lawyer-brother, and my San Francisco lawyer-friend Chris, and told them the amazing truth that we—Americans—were experiencing a targeted propaganda program meant to fool us.

At that moment, I was 62 years old, the author of four acclaimed books and I thought Lawyer Mark and Lawyer Chris would surely appreciate that I—a documented reliable source—had told them the truth. But to my slowly realized shock, Lawyer Mark and Lawyer Chris for the next five years emailed me articles from The Washington Post, The New York Times, The New Yorker and quoted luminaries like Morning Joe and Chris Matthews that I was wrong.

They said they were right. There was a Trump scandal. Russia, Russia, Russia was true because these lawyers had watched their television sets which told them it was true. The years 2016, 2017 and 2018 found me receiving ever more harebrained emails from these American lawyers—and many others—who swallowed Hillary’s bullshit hook, line and sinker.

I could hardly believe it. It was not like this was some big geopolitical puzzle. The American media were saying that prostitutes peed—urinated—on a famous man—Donald Trump!—in the Moscow Ritz-Carlton. I went to the Ritz-Carlton and discovered that did not happen. Simple. Multiple sources confirmed this to me at the hotel. Conversely, no actual proof was ever provided that the pee story was true. To me, this was the equivalent of telling Lawyers Mark and Chris, “Hey, look, there’s a blue car in your driveway.” Or, “Look, there is a deer in the woods.” This was very simple stuff. No prostitutes, no pee, no tape, no story. But I didn’t realize the hypnotic spell which our mind-control authorities had over these two lawyers.

In 2018, I had a long conversation with the late documentarian John Pilger, who was planning a project about the origins of organized U.S. propaganda. After a few minutes of comparing stories of how people were being fooled by the media, I asked, “But John, my brother Mark is a lawyer and my San Francisco friend Chris is a lawyer. Lawyers are trained to recognize facts. How is it possible they are being fooled?” John quickly replied, “James, are you not aware that the most easily propagandized people are the highly educated?”

Most headlines in our big-time newspapers and top stories on our television news programs are about the workings of our government. We think we have a government separate from our media. We imagine that government acts and then the media independently cover its actions.

It turns out that the word “government” translates as “mind control”: to “govern,” control the “ment” or mind. Our rulers are governing our minds. Mind control = government.

And where did the word “media” come from? Centuries ago, there was a little kingdom in the north of what is now the country of Iran, called Medea. The rulers of Medea were proud of their system of mind control over their people. Little tricks like having the ruler speak from a raised platform behind a thick, solid lectern, so the sheep in the audience would have to look up at the ruler. Tricks like repeating simple phrases repeatedly.

It turns out that we are herd animals and if we hear “safe and effective,” “weapons of mass destruction,” “Russia, Russia, Russia,”—simple three- or four-word combinations which create fear—and we hear them from several sources, we will turn inward for the protection of the herd. If you are a gazelle and you hear several of your fellows repeat, “lion out there,” you move to the center of the herd.

Once you understand that your government and your media are just two arms of the same octopus, what can you do? You do not want to live cut off from your society. You might enjoy keeping yourself up-to-date and being informed. I certainly do. So, this is what I do to protect myself.

Phrases like “I don’t listen to the mainstream media anymore” are not going to help you, because you’ll end up throwing the baby out with the bath water. Government is now slithering into alternative media space. So, it’s often impossible to tell an independent voice from the mass of presstitutes, the corporate media whores who are paid to put out on behalf of government mind control.

The first step is to throw away your television. It turns out that, after only 20 to 30 seconds of watching your tube, your frontal cortex—the area of decision-making which protects you from danger—is mostly dimmed and pacified. The rest of the time you are watching your tube, you can be programmed emotionally. “Safe and effective” was not a logical explanation because they never tested for safety or effectiveness. It was a fear mechanism to repeat, to scare us into obedience. There were no “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq, but 80% of the American public—glued to their war-porn television programming—got programmed into supporting the American invasion of Iraq.

Oh. You do not want to toss out your television? You are clever enough to read between the lines? You will just choose some of the programs you like, watch a few football games? If you are on the blue team, you’ll watch MSNBC and never switch to FOX? If you are on the red team, you’ll watch FOX for your truth and never switch to MSNBC? You’re a genius!

So, admit like the alcoholic who is going to “stop drinking tomorrow,” you are hooked. You cannot give up your TV habit. It is an addiction. You are not a bad person. Almost everyone around you in American society is addicted to their television sets.

If you are going to continue to be programmed and pay for it, get ready for more “safe and effective” poisons and war. They call it “programming” for a reason. You are watching television programming and, if you look at history, it is obvious CBS newsman Walter Cronkite toed the warmonger’s line during the Vietnam War and never objected to the American invasion of Vietnam. Thus, he was rewarded with a long career.

On the same television network—CBS—Tommy and Dick Smothers questioned the war. One phone call from President Nixon to CBS officials and The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour was canceled despite its popularity. If you are still dreaming about the separation between the American media and the American government, please send me an email and I will forward you many, many more examples.

So now you have junked your television set. What to do in terms of your desire to stay up to date on accurate information? I developed a simple, but time-consuming, method. Purchase a notebook and label it, “Lying Liars vs. the Accurate.”

Notice that we are not seeking something called “the truth.” We are just looking to categorize the obvious liars and those who offer you information which the real world shows to you to be accurate. Inside the notebook title one section “Lying Liars” and, 20 pages later, title another section “The Accurate.” Now, all you need to do is weed out the former, stop listening to them, and pay more attention to the latter. It is a step-by-step process.

Let’s take The New York Times, for example. As someone who used to live in Manhattan, I was, of course, a long-time subscriber to The New York Times. But I asked myself the question: “Did The New York Times ever actively lie about events where an accurate observer could have told a different story?” If you read my book The China Mirage, you will see that The New York Times, Time magazine, The Washington Post and others dutifully passed on Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s big fibs about Chiang Kai-shek’s China for decades.

Chiang was proving himself to be one of the most ruthless dictators in the world, yet Roosevelt told the country that this scumbag’s China was the best example of democracy after the United States. The mind-control media parroted the message of the mind control government. So, American taxpayers gave Chiang Kai-shek more money than we spent on the atom bomb. All for a lost cause. But read my book and you will learn who profited and why.

So, the answer regarding The New York Times is that, yes, it lied about China. Then it lied about the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, Russia, Russia, Russia, “safe and effective,” and on and on. So, I canceled my subscription to The New York Times and have not looked at it in nine years.

I found jettisoning The New York Times an emotional experience. Looking back, let’s ask the question: If The New York Times was a logical, rational part of my life, why was I emotional about canceling it? It is because that is where the mind-control media grabs us. Our emotions.

It is pleasurable to watch our favorite television programs and read the lies from our print media. That’s a big advantage for the mind controllers in our government and a disadvantage for us who are being controlled. Suck it up. Forget your feelings. Throw away your television and cancel your subscriptions to the Lying Liars.

So, one by one, you examine the information sources surrounding you. If they have lied to you in the past, nuke them, toss them, zap them, get them out of your life. If you are going to keep your television set and your subscription to The New York Times because you are one of the educated, clever ones who can read between the lines, then you are a hopeless dope. There is not much I can do for you.

But now the issue is finding dependable sources. That is easy but also time-consuming. After you read an article by Jeremy Kuzmarov—editor of the magazine you are reading—or listen to a podcast by “Mary Jones,” wait to see if what they told you was true.

Mary told you that American B-52s devastated the Iranian nuclear program with their bombing? Then you later realize that was mind-control garbage. Toss Mary Jones into the “Lying Liars” category and stop listening to her.

On the other hand, when you realize that Jeremy told you the truth—that the bombing was ineffective and millions of Iranian youths rallied in the streets to support their leaders—then read what Jeremy writes. Don’t fall in love with Jeremy and blindly follow him. Don’t get emotional about Jeremy. This is not about “agreeing” or “disagreeing” with someone, fitting them into your existing belief system. Read or listen to Jeremy and be ready to reject him if he lies to you. So far, I have examined CovertAction Magazine for more than a decade and have not found one fib.

This simple method of stripping your life of programming and keeping a tally of “Lying Liars” versus “The Accurate” will result in your being better and more quickly informed than anyone around you.

This creates a problem: If you follow my technique, you will find yourself outside the herd, amazed at how their minds are numbed and how the mind-control authorities are leading the sheep by the nose. You can email me for that solution.

Back in 2021, Jeremy and I interviewed Ray McGovern, formerly of the CIA. At that time, I was incredulous that Ray told me the truth in 2016 about Russia, Russia, Russia and there were still programmed sheep who were not aware of the truth. Here is that tongue-in-cheek article (click on graphic):

Now it is August 2025. Jeremy, Ray and I are dumb-founded that people are surprised at the reaction to DNI Tulsi Gabbard’s belated revelations over the last few weeks. How is it possible that people are first grasping the truth in 2025 which Ray, Jeremy and I were able to discern in 2016? Here are some shocking answers.

Follow this link to the Jimmy Dore Show, in which Jimmy takes us slow-motion through Stephen Colbert interviewing Claire Danes of the Lying Liars’ TV series Homeland, Barack Obama’s favorite show which was designed to help legitmize the Global War on Terror.

(Hopefully, you are, like me, not brainwashed and you never heard of—or watched—Homeland, which is billed as an “American espionage thriller.” But, curiously, its creation sprang from a country with a powerful intelligence service with familial bonds to the CIA. It was created by Gideon “Gidi” Raff, who is “an Israeli television director and screenwriter.” Mr. Raff based Homeland on the Israeli series Prisoners of War. Homeland was produced by U.S. government propaganda outlet Fox 21 Television Studios and broadcast by U.S. government propaganda outlet Showtime.)

Colbert CUTS OFF Talk of CIA-Hollywood Connection!

Stephen Colbert: “…a surprising thing that these CIA folks told you about their jobs, or something you would need to know.”

(JB comment: As if Stephen Colbert, playing dumb, doesn’t know!?)

Claire Danes of Homeland: “Well, every year it’s different, right? We’ve been at it for a while, and the climate has changed…”

(JB comment: As if Claire Danes means, “now that the Orange Man is president, elected by the people, and the CIA—which is actually in control—does not like Trump.)

Claire Danes: “…you know, the distrust between the administration and the intelligence world and the intelligence community was suddenly kind of allying itself with journalists…”

(JB comment: Watch the video as Stephen Colbert almost jumps out of his seat—CIA control of journalists?? Time to change the subject!)

Stephen Colbert: “Which episode usually starts shooting this season?

(JB comment: So Claire Danes says there’s a distrust between the American people, the citizens of the United States, between a “community” of the CIA, presstitutes—those paid to put out—and other low-lifes to undermine the will of the people…then when Stephen Colbert jumps and signals “Claire! Shush!! You’re implicating you and me, highly paid presstitute scumbags! You and I are allied with the CIA! Look at brainless Claire…she realizes she’s done wrong by her masters.)

Thankfully, there are some Americans like Bobby Kennedy, Jr., who know what is going on:

James O’Keefe: “How is the intelligence community legally allowed to propagandize Americans?”

Bobby Kennedy, Jr.: “There’s a provision of the CIA charter that says that the CIA cannot propagandize the American people. President Obama adopted something in 2016 that essentially reopened the door for a return of Operation Mockingbird, so that the CIA began once again to propagandize American people.”

James O’Keefe: “How are they doing that?”

Bobby Kennedy, Jr.: “High-level intelligence officials—or people associated with the intelligence industry—are running those journals like Noah Shachtman—who used to run Rolling Stone and who came from Daily Beast—who has deep ties to intelligence agencies. And even journals like Smithsonian and National Geographic, Nature, The Washington Post, The New York Times, appear to be compromised by the CIA. We know from the Twitter files that both the FBI and the CIA were operating portals within Twitter and Facebook that allowed them to manipulate information and to de-platform people and to silence certain people that they didn’t like. In those in the social media Operation Mockingbird was an operation to compromise American journalists. There were some 400 editors, journalists from, you know, all the largest publications, The New York Times had been compromised. The Washington Post was…”

James O’Keefe: What do you mean by compromised?

Bobby Kennedy: “The high-level people at those journals, were actually working for the agency or had signed secrecy agreements with the CIA. At CBS, ABC, NBC, after 1975 when it all came out during the Church Committee hearings, the CIA promised that it would no longer compromise American journalists. It continued the program to compromise journalists all over the world, and today, the CIA is the biggest funder of journalism in the world, through USAID.”

And here is an interview with ex-CIA agent John Stockwell who compromised many American presstitutes in his day:

Ex-CIA agent John Stockwell: “Another thing is to disseminate propaganda, to influence people’s minds. And this is a major function of the CIA. And unfortunately, of course, it overlaps into the gathering of information. You have contact with a journalist, you will give him true stories. You’ll get information from him. You’ll also give him false stories.

Questioner: “Did you buy his confidence with true stories?”

John Stockwell: “You buy his confidence and set him up. We’ve seen this happen recently with Jack Anderson, for example, who has his intelligence sources, and he has also admitted that he’s been set up by them every fifth story, just simply being false. You also work on their human vulnerabilities to recruit them, in a classic sense to make them your agent, so that you can control what they do, so you don’t have to set them up by putting one over on them. So you can say, here, plant this one next Tuesday.”

Questioner: “Can you do this with responsible reporters?”

John Stockwell: “Yes, the Church Committee brought it out in 1975. Then Woodward and Bernstein put an article in Rolling Stone a couple of years later…400 journalists cooperating with the CIA, including some of the biggest names in the business, to consciously introduce stories into the press.

If I were you, I would safely assume that Walter Cronkite, Ken Burns, Dan Rather, Stephen Colbert, Seth Meyers, Trevor Noah and John Oliver, CBS, NBC, ABC, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The New York Times—all the media which get into your living room—are CIA-influenced.

Which brings me to my latest book—Precious Freedom—about the truth in Vietnam during their “American War” and the lies in America about the “Vietnam War.” I journeyed to live in Vietnam for three years, surely I would have a book by then.

But because of all the U.S. propaganda I had been fed—from Walter Cronkite on CBS in the last century through Ken Burns on PBS in this century—it took me nearly 15 years to understand the truth of what really happened.

And here’s an excerpt from an article by Matt Smith which should alert us all: “DARPA’s Theory of Mind Warfare” by Matt Smith.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has an initiative called the Theory of Mind program. This effort is designed to give national security decision-makers the ability to model, simulate, and ultimately anticipate the intentions and behaviors of adversaries using a combination of advanced algorithms and human expertise.

At its core, the program aims to:

• Build algorithmic models that “decompose” adversary strategies into elemental behaviors.
• Use massive data—signals intelligence, open-source information, even social media—to create high-fidelity “avatars” of enemy decision-makers.
• Simulate possible responses to a range of U.S. and allied actions, exploring which ones best deter, incentivize, or nudge adversaries toward preferred outcomes
• Integrate insights from psychological profiling and machine learning to continually update these models as real-world conditions shift.

The promise is profound: a system that doesn’t just predict what an adversary might do, but actively guides policymakers toward courses of action that shape the adversary’s decision calculus—minimizing escalation and maximizing U.S. strategic advantage. [Emphasis in original.]

DARPA’s Theory of Mind program fundamentally changes how conflicts are managed.

Decision-makers can run gaming scenarios at unprecedented detail and speed, customizing incentives or deterrents tailored to both cultural and individual psychologies. Risks of unintended escalation might be sharply reduced, while opportunities to “push the line” without crossing it become clearer.

Theory of Mind Warfare Turned on the American Public in 2020

The same tools originally designed for military use were later deployed against the American (and global) public in 2020

AI-powered behavioral analytics, inspired by military-grade “theory of mind” models, were strategically employed during the COVID-19 pandemic to not just inform but actively shape public perception, sentiment, and compliance—creating a continuous feedback loop between government actions and public psychology. These systems quietly moved the world’s response from reactive to adaptive, fundamentally influencing how populations experienced and responded to the scamdemic.

How These Systems Shaped Public Minds

1. Real-Time Sentiment Analysis and Information Targeting AI-powered platforms actively monitored social media, news, and digital conversations to track shifts in public mood, anxieties, and resistance to emerging health policies. These tools analyzed tone, emotional context, and response patterns following government announcements, often providing immediate feedback to policymakers on how their messaging was being received.

2. Tailored Messaging and Adaptive Communication Insights from these platforms allowed authorities to:

• Refine government communication strategies
• Push “approved” narratives to counter “misinformation”
• Adjust messaging in real time to allay public fears, address misconceptions, or reinforce confidence in health measures such as lockdowns or vaccines

Remember this…

3, Behavioral Nudges and Targeted Interventions. Governments, aided by behavioral insights teams and AI analysts, designed “nudge” interventions—such as targeted text reminders, default scheduling of vaccine appointments, and personalized risk feedback—to increase uptake of desired behaviors. Rapid A/B testing determined which messages or policy tweaks worked best for specific populations.

4. Feedback Loops for Policy Calibration. Behavioral and sentiment data were continuously fed back into policy decision-making. If public adherence waned or opposition spiked (visible through sentiment tracking), messaging and interventions could be swiftly recalibrated to regain support or mitigate disinformation spikes.

5. Data-Driven Misinformation Management. AI-driven platforms scanned for and flagged viral misinformation. Rapid response teams could then deploy counter-messaging or media campaigns—often through the same platforms—using knowledge of which narratives resonated with hesitant demographics.

Covid Was Just the Beginning: The Theory of Mind at Work in Recent Theaters of War

Given the ambition of such strategic modelling, it’s worth asking whether this kind of “hyper-rational,” AI-enabled approach helps explain what we’ve seen in several recent, high-stakes military theaters.

So, what happened to Lawyer Mark and Lawyer Chris who allowed themselves to be fooled for years? They are still programmed, still lawyers and it is scary that people pay for their advice.

Unfortunately, Lawyer Mark and Lawyer Chris imagine themselves logical investigators of fact, but they have proved to be like most of the sheep which the mind-control geniuses manipulate: highly emotional. When I presented accurate facts to Lawyer Mark and Lawyer Chris, they both got upset and dismissed my truth as “right wing” and colored me a “Trump supporter” when I was only trying to help them break through their mind-control addictions.

Here is a great article which will help you deal with those sheep around you who want to deny the truths you will now discover using my system: “The Linguistic Kill-Switch: Inside the Modern Propaganda Playbook” by Nick Giambruno.

The next time someone sneers “conspiracy theorist,” “anti-vaxxer,” “climate denier,” “far right,” “hate speech,” “terrorist,” or the ever-popular “racist,” understand what they are really saying: stop thinking. [Emphasis in original.]

These words are a linguistic kill-switch—engineered to short-circuit thought by triggering a reflexive emotional spasm.

If you encounter someone using these words, you can be certain you are not dealing with someone interested in a good faith effort to find the truth.

These terms are precision-guided psychological weapons, fired by unseen hands to herd the public mind. Recall the CIA’s own 1967 memo coining “conspiracy theorist” expressly to silence anyone doubting the magic-bullet fairy tale that supposedly killed JFK.

Although they are a poor substitute for an actual argument, these propaganda terms unfortunately work on many people. Call someone one of these words and you no longer need to refute their ideas with facts, logic, or reason. The slur does the work like magic.

Take the granddaddy of all elastic scare-labels: terrorism.

One hundred years ago the word barely existed. Today it vaporizes civil liberties on contact.

Glenn Greenwald nailed it: the T-word is “simultaneously the single most meaningless and most manipulated word in the American political lexicon.”

The only difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is who controls the narrative.

Greenwald elaborates:

“There is this common paradox which is that the words that are most frequently used and have the greatest impact are often the words that are the most ill-defined. And therefore subject to manipulation, deceit, and propaganda.

So the word ‘terrorist’ for example is something that pervades countless political discussions of great significance. And we are essentially at the point, literally, where if the government points to somebody and simply utters the word ‘terrorist,’ and large numbers of citizens… will cheer for whatever it is that is done… No matter how lawless, no matter how little evidence has been presented to justify it, the mere fact that they have been labelled a ‘terrorist’ is something that will basically cause a majority of people to sanction whatever is done.

And yet what is so fascinating about the word ‘terrorist’ is that it really is a term that has absolutely no fixed meaning, it’s simply a term that means whatever the person wielding it wants it to mean.”

Greenwald continues:

“Because the word terrorism is so potent and shuts down all debate, the mere application of that label by the government, anonymously and with no evidence… has made huge numbers of people stand up and cheer the most radical power a government can seize, which is the power to target one’s own citizens for death, for assassination, in total secrecy and with no due process.

And that to me really illustrates the potency of how these propagandistic terms are wielded….

If we’re really going to vest virtually unlimited power in the government to do anything it wants to people they call ‘terrorists,’ we ought at least to have a common understanding of what the term means. But there is none. It’s just become a malleable, all-justifying term to allow the US government carte blanche to do whatever it wants.

‘Terrorism’ is really more of a hypnotic mantra than an actual word.” [Emphasis in original.]

In short, say the magic T-word and—poof—your rights, your property, your life evaporate, all without trial, all to thunderous applause.

I used the word “addiction” describing Lawyers Mark and Chris because of experiences I had separately in their homes.

In Lawyer Mark’s case, it was 9:00 p.m., after a family dinner with about 15 family members chatting. Suddenly, Mark’s wife Ann bolted from the room. I realized later that she knew what was coming and did not want to be in the room.

Mark quickly broke off from the group he was hosting, shuffled over to his television and tuned to Chris Matthews on MSNBC. Instead of excusing himself or going downstairs to watch on a different television, he turned up the sound so loud that he drowned out the conversation of all the stunned family members. I watched Mark’s glazed eyes and realized it was true that this was an emotional event for him… even though he believed himself to be a logical fact-finder.

A couple of weeks later, I was in the California home of Lawyer Chris. We spent the day with his wife, strolling among the beautiful nature. But at night, Chris and I were alone at his kitchen table. Even though he was my host—we had known each other for decades and I was visiting from my home in Vietnam—Chris turned on his television set, which was tucked to the left of the table. I was seated to his right, so Chris had to swivel back and forth, unable to maintain a conversation with me. He was addicted, drawn emotionally to his television set.

I felt sad for both lawyers. And for all my mind-controlled countrymen.

---

CovertAction Magazine is made possible by subscriptions, orders and donations from readers like you.

Blow the Whistle on U.S. Imperialism

Click the whistle and donate

When you donate to CovertAction Magazine, you are supporting investigative journalism. Your contributions go directly to supporting the development, production, editing, and dissemination of the Magazine.

CovertAction Magazine does not receive corporate or government sponsorship. Yet, we hold a steadfast commitment to providing compensation for writers, editorial and technical support. Your support helps facilitate this compensation as well as increase the caliber of this work.

Please make a donation by clicking on the donate logo above and enter the amount and your credit or debit card information.

CovertAction Institute, Inc. (CAI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and your gift is tax-deductible for federal income purposes. CAI’s tax-exempt ID number is 87-2461683.

We sincerely thank you for your support.

---

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of the author(s). CovertAction Institute, Inc. (CAI), including its Board of Directors (BD), Editorial Board (EB), Advisory Board (AB), staff, volunteers and its projects (including CovertAction Magazine) are not responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. This article also does not necessarily represent the views the BD, the EB, the AB, staff, volunteers, or any members of its projects.

Differing viewpoints: CAM publishes articles with differing viewpoints in an effort to nurture vibrant debate and thoughtful critical analysis. Feel free to comment on the articles in the comment section and/or send your letters to the Editors, which we will publish in the Letters column.

Copyrighted Material: This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. As a not-for-profit charitable organization incorporated in the State of New York, we are making such material available in an effort to advance the understanding of humanity’s problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. You can read more about ‘fair use’ and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School.

Republishing: CovertAction Magazine (CAM) grants permission to cross-post CAM articles on not-for-profit community internet sites as long as the source is acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original CovertAction Magazine article. Also, kindly let us know at info@CovertActionMagazine.com. For publication of CAM articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: info@CovertActionMagazine.com.

By using this site, you agree to these terms above.

---

About the Author