Wasn’t crack originally created by a low level LA dealer to make a bigger profit from the same product volume and THEN deliberately weaponized by the CIA to destroy (mostly black) neighborhoods?
Or did Snowfall take even bigger liberties with regard to historical accuracy than I realized?
So, even though keeping themselves free of blame is essential to their agency’s very existence, we’re left with what “facts” they allow to be published.
tl; dr: They’re notorious for facilitating crime while technically staying clean of criminality themselves. They may not have cooked it up in their own labs, but they clearly funded and paved the way for those that could, instead.
Ergo, much as a parent is charged in shootings by a minor (finally!)(US), they are wholly complicit at best. 🤢🤕
The conspiracy theory is that it was to keep poor people down.
The reality is that they didn’t directly sell drugs, they just protected people who did to financially support terrorists, or prevented interdiction to protect traffickers who gave them information that could be used to stop drug trafficking.
This was acceptable to them because they considered poor minority communities unimportant.
It’s kinda worse, but it wasn’t an attack on the poor. They weren’t considered important enough to attack.
They were just an acceptable loss if it meant some people had the money to machine gun Nicaraguan civilians.
I’m not sure it’s forgiving to say that they killed them out of expediency.
We have literal recordings of the motivations behind much of it, or cases where they documented the decision plainly. Poor communities don’t have the political pull to get a serious response, so directing traffickers they want to have continued funding there is a way to protect that trafficker.
The war on drugs was structured to target black people and anti-war groups.
Is it really better to say they weren’t trying to hurt them, they just didn’t view them as people so were entirely unconcerned with what happened to them?
They didn’t sell drugs on the street. But they did take over the British cash-cropping system of opium production in Asia and ran large scale trafficking operations.
The conspiracy theory is that it was to keep poor people down
Which it was, however directly or indirectly.
The reality is that they didn’t directly sell drugs
Yeah they did. Bought drugs too.
they just protected people who did to financially support terrorists
And right wing foreign governments, and right wing guerillas. And to combat left wing governments, and left wing guerillas.
it wasn’t an attack on the poor
Yeah it was. A coordinated worldwide mission to oppress the left wing is a coordinated worldwide mission to prevent the poor from rising up and taking what’s rightfully theirs from their rich oppressors.
The implication was that they sold drugs to poor communities in America to keep poor communities in America surpressed. Recasting it by saying CIA activities in opposition to anything left of Pinochet are a directed attack on the poor is both shifting it to where I don’t think the statement was intended, and also reducing the complexity of their objective.
They didn’t give a shit about poor people. They cared about supporting the power structures that employed them. Hurting poor people was just an expedient means towards that end.
Yes, the power structures they supported were largely aligned with financial means because obviously they were, this is America.
I lumped right wing dictators and guerilla groups under the umbrella of terrorism. If the shoe fits and all that.
Citation needed on the CIA directly buying and selling drugs.
The implication was that they sold drugs to poor communities in America to keep poor communities in America surpressed
They did that too.
CIA activities in opposition to anything everything left of Pinochet
Fixed it for you.
are a directed attack on the poor is both shifting it to where I don’t think the statement was intended, and also reducing the complexity of their objective.
On the contrary. I’m saying that attacking the poor was one of many goals of a multifaceted strategy, not the only one.
They didn’t give a shit about poor people.
That’s not quite true. They had no love for them, but they were not stupid enough not to fear them.
They cared about supporting the power structures that employed them.
And to do so is to actively suppress dissent from and agency of the poor
Hurting poor people was just an expedient means an absolutely crucial factor towards that end.
Fixin’
Yes, the power structures they supported were largely aligned with financial means because obviously they were, this is America.
Yet you refuse to acknowledge that this necessarily means that they were opposed to poor people, or you’re just denying their awareness of it.
Citation needed on the CIA directly buying and selling drugs.
Do you have anything more specific than a category page, or did you intend to link to a general pile of vague references that generally surmise
Their investigations have generally noted that there is no clear evidence CIA itself had ever directly engaged in drug trafficking, although there may have been instances of the organization being indirectly complicit in the activities of others.
Or from one of the journalist pieces the spurred more investigation:
In most cases, the CIA’s role involved various forms of complicity, tolerance or studied ignorance about the trade, not any direct culpability in the actual trafficking … [t]he CIA did not handle heroin, but it did provide its drug lord allies with transport, arms, and political protection. In sum, the CIA’s role in the Southeast Asian heroin trade involved indirect complicity rather than direct culpability.
Which is a whole hell of a lot of “exactly what I said”.
The cutesy correction of someone else’s words isn’t persuasive, and is nonsense when you don’t even change the meaning.
You see money as the source of an entrenched power structure. I see money as the side effect. It’s an efficient way to exert power
They don’t need cocaine to surpress the poor in America.
Hey! It’s almost Christmas and I’m tired of asking via unencrypted email drafts on a commercial client.
I need drugs and operational funding if you want the stochastic chaos, my guys. Tell the Director it’s about time to flip back to chapter 1 on the playbook, we always found the last chapter the most boring part of the re-reads.
“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people,” former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper’s writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
“You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” Ehrlichman said. “We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
To my knowledge, it was Portugal who pioneered this approach and it was championed by police forces, demanding they had more important rhings to do than chase down drug users. And it worked.
Afaik the policies in Portugal came into effect in the 00s or early 10s, while the Dutch policies to overcome the heroin epidemic was started in the 90s. I also believe they had different scopes, the Dutch policies had to do with minimizing the hinder caused by drug users (mainly begging, petty theft, home break-ins), where as the Portuguese policies were about wisely spending the available resources (money and time), like you mention. Both are good examples of healing addicts instead of criminalizing users, but i think both are two distinct things that were pioneered by different states for different reasons.
Let’s cut to the chase: those that don’t employ effective solutions like this are in the drug trade.
They put up a “fight” against drugs, etc., but only as a legitimizing façade. This is the case with pharmaceuticals in those nations as well, of course. (No, their interests don’t stop at their national borders, either.)
That’s assuming that it’s a problem that governments want to resolve.
They’d rather throw more money at law enforcement/fascist paramilitaries and make laws that criminalize everything up to and including breathing.
America was involved in that trade at one point just ask the CIA and who said they ever quit?
It’s crazy to me that “the CIA sold drugs to poor and minority communities to keep poor people down” is still treated like a conspiracy theory.
They FULLY ADMIT TO IT!
Like MKULTRA it doesn’t matter what the truth is.
To be fair, they created crack cocaine, etc., and facilitated numerous other addiction crises both in the US and abroad. 🤢🤬
Wasn’t crack originally created by a low level LA dealer to make a bigger profit from the same product volume and THEN deliberately weaponized by the CIA to destroy (mostly black) neighborhoods?
Or did Snowfall take even bigger liberties with regard to historical accuracy than I realized?
TBF, they “investigated” themselves and found no criminal acts — despite admitting in “an internal report issued by the CIA” they were “at least aware of Contra involvement in drug trafficking, and in some cases dissuaded the DEA and other agencies from investigating the Contra supply networks involved.”
While I’m sure that’s technically factual, (ie. via “classifying” anything they don’t want to reveal to the voting public), damning evidence showed that the CIA’s "Contra drug links included, among other connections, payments to drug traffickers by the U.S. State Department of funds authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras, and in some cases “after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies”
So, even though keeping themselves free of blame is essential to their agency’s very existence, we’re left with what “facts” they allow to be published.
tl; dr: They’re notorious for facilitating crime while technically staying clean of criminality themselves. They may not have cooked it up in their own labs, but they clearly funded and paved the way for those that could, instead.
Ergo, much as a parent is charged in shootings by a minor (finally!)(US), they are wholly complicit at best. 🤢🤕
ACAB, and ofc AFAB, too.
Depending on your definition of blamelessness, that could logicallymean that it never actually existed 😉
Oh, it’s not my definition, but theirs. It’s how they stay spotless and taxpayer-funded for generations now.
The conspiracy theory is that it was to keep poor people down.
The reality is that they didn’t directly sell drugs, they just protected people who did to financially support terrorists, or prevented interdiction to protect traffickers who gave them information that could be used to stop drug trafficking.
This was acceptable to them because they considered poor minority communities unimportant.
It’s kinda worse, but it wasn’t an attack on the poor. They weren’t considered important enough to attack.
They were just an acceptable loss if it meant some people had the money to machine gun Nicaraguan civilians.
I mean, selling for profit during Iran-contra, sure.
But to pretend the CIA wasn’t directly attempting to hurt working class people and furthering class warfare is far too forgiving and naive.
I’m not sure it’s forgiving to say that they killed them out of expediency.
We have literal recordings of the motivations behind much of it, or cases where they documented the decision plainly. Poor communities don’t have the political pull to get a serious response, so directing traffickers they want to have continued funding there is a way to protect that trafficker.
The war on drugs was structured to target black people and anti-war groups.
Is it really better to say they weren’t trying to hurt them, they just didn’t view them as people so were entirely unconcerned with what happened to them?
They didn’t sell drugs on the street. But they did take over the British cash-cropping system of opium production in Asia and ran large scale trafficking operations.
Which it was, however directly or indirectly.
Yeah they did. Bought drugs too.
And right wing foreign governments, and right wing guerillas. And to combat left wing governments, and left wing guerillas.
Yeah it was. A coordinated worldwide mission to oppress the left wing is a coordinated worldwide mission to prevent the poor from rising up and taking what’s rightfully theirs from their rich oppressors.
The implication was that they sold drugs to poor communities in America to keep poor communities in America surpressed. Recasting it by saying CIA activities in opposition to anything left of Pinochet are a directed attack on the poor is both shifting it to where I don’t think the statement was intended, and also reducing the complexity of their objective.
They didn’t give a shit about poor people. They cared about supporting the power structures that employed them. Hurting poor people was just an expedient means towards that end.
Yes, the power structures they supported were largely aligned with financial means because obviously they were, this is America.
I lumped right wing dictators and guerilla groups under the umbrella of terrorism. If the shoe fits and all that.
Citation needed on the CIA directly buying and selling drugs.
They did that too.
Fixed it for you.
On the contrary. I’m saying that attacking the poor was one of many goals of a multifaceted strategy, not the only one.
That’s not quite true. They had no love for them, but they were not stupid enough not to fear them.
And to do so is to actively suppress dissent from and agency of the poor
Fixin’
Yet you refuse to acknowledge that this necessarily means that they were opposed to poor people, or you’re just denying their awareness of it.
Here’s an overview
Do you have anything more specific than a category page, or did you intend to link to a general pile of vague references that generally surmise
Or from one of the journalist pieces the spurred more investigation:
Which is a whole hell of a lot of “exactly what I said”.
The cutesy correction of someone else’s words isn’t persuasive, and is nonsense when you don’t even change the meaning.
You see money as the source of an entrenched power structure. I see money as the side effect. It’s an efficient way to exert power
They don’t need cocaine to surpress the poor in America.
Operation Paperclip. Explains it all.
Oh yea we are totally still into that shit
Hey! It’s almost Christmas and I’m tired of asking via unencrypted email drafts on a commercial client.
I need drugs and operational funding if you want the stochastic chaos, my guys. Tell the Director it’s about time to flip back to chapter 1 on the playbook, we always found the last chapter the most boring part of the re-reads.
You and every other operative out there. Drumpfs been hosing us on funding
Do you guys have any of that government acid from the 60s left?
Nah we ran out during the Regan admin, Nanci was a beast!
Boooo
I would offer some ketamine but musk took all that shit too. I do have some THC gummies and a subway punch card with 7 punches.
Lookit Mr. Moneybags ova heyah
Hook. It. Up.
Daily reminder:
“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people,” former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper’s writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
“You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” Ehrlichman said. “We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
To my knowledge, it was Portugal who pioneered this approach and it was championed by police forces, demanding they had more important rhings to do than chase down drug users. And it worked.
Afaik the policies in Portugal came into effect in the 00s or early 10s, while the Dutch policies to overcome the heroin epidemic was started in the 90s. I also believe they had different scopes, the Dutch policies had to do with minimizing the hinder caused by drug users (mainly begging, petty theft, home break-ins), where as the Portuguese policies were about wisely spending the available resources (money and time), like you mention. Both are good examples of healing addicts instead of criminalizing users, but i think both are two distinct things that were pioneered by different states for different reasons.
90’s as well; I was a teen then and it was lauded throughout schools.
Regardless, if the policies worked, let’s be happy for it and strive to improve them.
But then they can’t blow up stuff and commit war crimes!
Let’s cut to the chase: those that don’t employ effective solutions like this are in the drug trade.
They put up a “fight” against drugs, etc., but only as a legitimizing façade. This is the case with pharmaceuticals in those nations as well, of course. (No, their interests don’t stop at their national borders, either.)
Oh please.
I’m sure most public officials do genuinely want to improve peoples quality of life, but “giving away free heroin” is not a good election platform.
Yeah, that’s why most politicians are capitalists that have been degrading all of society for decades.
I mean look at France, they throw grenades at kids and get them mutilated and amputated, but it’s for their own good.