IUBio

Foresight Versus Hindsight

TRKeske trkeske at aol.com
Sun May 24 09:25:03 EST 1998


FORESIGHT VERSUS HINDSIGHT

It is a cheap shot to suggest that investigating "AIDS conspiracy"
means that one must necessarily be detracting from the
"more positive" and proactive efforts to fight AIDS.

Time for investigating biowar and AIDS origin does not 
come out of time for fighting AIDS.  It comes out of time
for lunch, time for movies, time for luxuries like sleep.
I support AIDS fundraising, conventional AIDS education,
no less now than in the years before I realized that AIDS
origin was also an issue.

AIDS is now promising a death total to surpass World War II,
the worst war in human history.  If there is any chance 
whatsoever that reckless laboratory experimentation, much
less deliberate genocide, might have any involvement in
precipitating this epidemic, then no stone should be left
unturned in investigating those possibilities.   If the mindset
of many gaynetters had its way, there would be virtually
not a single one of the many stones turned.

We need Faggots with Foresight, not Homosexuals with
Hindsight.  It would represent great progress if our community,
merely to have better insight into the present, much
less the future.

I want to give a little more personal history, to make a
point about how it is possible to succeed in correctly
perceiving the news-behind-the-news, well before
it becomes common knowledge, through a crusade
just like this one over AIDS origin.

Someone asked me why I was twice visited by the
Secret Service.  He suggested that perhaps I was
visited merely because of radical and antisocial
tendencies, and that the SS were really the 
Men in White.

No, they were really straight, white men with bad fashion sense.

My current AIDS crusade is political intrigue #6 for me.
Political crusades #3 and #4 both had nothing whatever to do
with gay or AIDS politics.  They had to do with Russia and
the CIA.  Crusade #5 was a brief obsession, having to do with
cryptography.

How did I get interested in Russia and the CIA?  It was a chance
outgrowth of political crusades #1 and #2, which I will not try to
describe, here.

It is similar to the AIDS crusade.  An issue intrudes into your
life in some way, through no intent or desire of your own.
You start looking into it, you get drawn deeper and deeper
into it.  You start getting vocal, you make some contacts.
You start getting fed information from mentors and obscure
sources who decide that you can help further their own
agenda.  As on internet, it is impossible even to know with
whom you are dealing.  You find yourself dealing with shadows.

What business did I have in Russia?  Who appoints you
to investigate AIDS?  Who appointed Danny Casolaro to
investigate Iran-Contra?   You see something, realize that
it is important, and make it your business.

When I looked into the role of the CIA in Russia, I came
to feel that I essentially had inside information that a
coup was imminent.  I was on a crusade to announce that
fact, for the best part of year.  Within a week or two after
mailing a lengthy essay to the media, the coup broke.

The Secret Service first visited me, shortly after this.
I assumed that they wanted to see me about the "coup"
package.  I was trying to get everything ready, what to
say, explain how I came about this knowledge.

Oh, no.  What they wanted to see me about was a parody
that I had made, a cassette tape mocking the White House.
It was nasty, but it was also just a collection of comic
material and blues songs that I had compiled from 
records available in ordinary record stores, and put onto
a tape cassette.  I was quietly aghast.

I think they knew perfectly well that they had no legal
basis for the visit.  I do not believe for a minute that the
tape really had anything to do with the visit.

I had well-justified resentments against the government.
I was vocal, making charges, talking about sensitive
issues.  I think that the real goal was merely to intimidate.

Crusade #4 had to do with my conclusion that there were
still Russian moles operating in the CIA.  I spent over
a year compiling material on this one.  Sometimes, I
had self-doubt.  After all, Russia was now supposed to
be our friend, and the KGB was supposed to be defunct.
Yet, I thought that I knew better, that there was still
intrigue afoot, people getting killed and threatened.

There had not been a single word in the mainstream media
about a possibility of moles, but I had faith in the little signs
and in my shadow sources.  I wrote an essay in excess of 200
pages on the subject. I mailed it to media contacts just as
Clinton was being inaugurated for his first term.  More than
a year later, came confirmation of my beliefs, more dramatic than
I ever expected to see, in the Aldrich Ames case.

My second visit by the SS was about the same.  A minor
pretext.   When I contacted the media about my "mole"
theory, I had specifically REQUESTED to speak to the
Secret Service about it, saying that I saw serious threats
lurking.  The Secret Service never spoke a single word
on this subject, only on the trivia.

Before I moved to Boston, I had been President of 
Bradbury Park condominiums, just outside of
Washington, D.C.   I was good friends with a
woman who was Vice-President, who worked for
the Agency for International Development, and whose
son also happened to be a decorated member of the
Secret Service.  I played a section of tape for her
related to these intrigues, which I had also tried to
play once to an FBI agent and to another CIA
investigator/critic.  She was suitably impressed by
it, and we talked about my contacting her son.

I never did get around to this one, but obviously,
I had nothing to hide.

Intrigue #5 had to do with cryptography.  I took up
an interest in the subject, after a friend at work 
described to me some corporate intrigues involving
encryption.

As I thought about the subject, I came to a startling
conclusion, that seemed almost crazy:  the art
of code-breaking was dead.  The government could
not control encryption or even detect its use, if you
knew what you were doing.

This seemed against the convention wisdom.  There
was so much talk about encryption not being secure
enough.  I concluded that this was an artificial issue,
merely a reflection of unreasonable limitations in
commercial packages, and a byproduct of government
regulation.

I developed a program and offered a $1000 reward on
various cryptography newsgroups, publishing the
program text, 90% of the plaintext, asking for just
a couple encrypted lines.

Newbies were ridiculed on these newsgroups, like
"AIDS conspiracy" gets ridiculed.  The stereotype
of the idiot novice, who thinks he has something
new, but is easily done in by the pros.

No one claimed the award.  So strong is the media's
obfuscation, even in technical journals, that the
death of code-breaking is still not widely understood.

I tell you about these past episodes in hopes that you
will get a better clue, that it really is possible to see
the news-behind-the-news, if you dig diligently enough.

Today's "AIDS conspiracy" will be tomorrow's
common knowledge.  It will be to your credit if you
can see it today, and not need to wait with the pack
for tomorrow.

Tom Keske
Boston, Mass.





More information about the Microbio mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net