[Email Reply]

Ten Predictions & Postmortem

by J. Orlin Grabbe

This is a postmortem to my Ten Predictions of March 10, 1996. But first--why make predictions anyway?

There are clearly different notions as to what a prediction is. One notion involves the image of a predetermined future as scanned by a Seer: "I looked into my crystal ball and saw a Syrian invasion of the Golan Heights." Well, this is not my approach to prediction. After all, if you wanted to make sure predictions like that would come to pass, you would be best off forecasting according to natural laws. For example, "I predict the sun will rise again in 24 hours" (which is a good prediction on Earth, but perhaps a bad prediction on some other planet). Or, "I predict this pail of water will freeze at zero degrees Centigrade."

The second notion of prediction is a simple assessment of probabilities, or likely outcomes. "The odds are 1 in 25 that this horse will win the race." "This business decision is probably better than that business decision." "I will probably make it across the street without being run over by that car." Such predictions are integral to everyday life.

But there is more to this approach than often meets the eye, particularly if an outcome has low probability. Simply making and publicizing the prediction can affect the odds. And sometimes the odds need to be changed. One is not necessarily just an observer outside the system about which one is making predictions. Political polls, for example, purport to be outside observations of the political process, but they in fact influence the focus of their attention. Karl Popper called this the Oedipus effect- -that a prediction of an event influences its outcome. Some events must be believed in to become possible.

"One of the ideas I had discussed in The Poverty [of Historicism] was the influence of a prediction upon the event predicted. I had called this the "Oedipus effect", because the oracle played a most important role in the sequence of events which led to the fulfillment of its prophecy. . . . For a time I though that the existence of the Oedipus effect distinguished the social from the natural sciences. But in biology too--even in molecular biology--expectations often play a role in bringing about what has been expected" (Karl Popper, Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography, 1976).

The third notion of prediction involves the goals one sets for oneself--the plan one is trying to achieve. "I predict that in five years I will have completed the requirements for my Ph.D." One is working to bring about the outcome, whether or not it has low probability. Some of my ten predictions were simply goals of the Fifth Column. And, despite their low probability, they were ones that, at the time I made them, appeared to be feasible. But there are no guarantees in life, and these goals were not met in the time frame I allotted. "I'm working hard to make your predictions come to pass," Chuck Hayes would tell me from time to time. And that's what much of life is about: Having goals. Formulating images of the future.

"The human race is not merely pushed by past events or present circumstances, but it is also pulled by its own images of the future into a future, which may not be the same--and in fact is not likely to be the same--as its images of it, but which is nevertheless powerfully affected by those images" (Kenneth Boulding, Ecodynamics: A New Theory of Societal Evolution, 1978).

1. Neither Bill Clinton nor Al Gore will be the Democratic nominee for President as of November 1, 1996.

This prediction was key to some of the other predictions. At the time I made it, in March, the Starr investigation was looking into the Lippo connections to Clinton. There had also been some interesting material developed regarding the President's use of cocaine. I figured that this, combined with a coming indictment of Hillary Clinton, would be enough to induce Bill Clinton's resignation.

As time passed, the odds appeared to improve. In August Robert Strauss led a delegation of Democrats to demand Bill Clinton's resignation. The delegation wanted to substitute Jay Rockefeller as the Democrat candidate. Clinton refused to accept their terms. But there was also a FEMA group looking into the National Security breaches of the Clinton administration. They were gradually tightening the screws. Toward the end of September, Clinton began saying to a few of those around him that "they have me too hemmed in--I'm going to have to resign". At that point, I had good reason to expect resignation was imminent. But the Starr indictments were delayed for rewriting, and the rewritten indictments were again run past grand juries in Little Rock and New York. However, indictments for Hillary were completed by October 18. Also by that date Al Gore had signed a document committing to not pardon Bill Clinton.

But nothing happened. Clinton pulled off something in mid-October--what, is not exactly clear. But in any event, I would still say he is nevertheless doomed to go down in the coming months.

2. Bob Dole will not be the Republican nominee for President as of November 1, 1996.

This was partly contingent on the prediction for Clinton. This prediction was made in March and was based on known financial information. Then, in June, Dole resigned his Senate position after receiving a Fifth Column financial package detailing certain financial illegalities. Dole announced he was resigning from the Senate to run full-time for President, but in fact only ran a lackluster and inept campaign. He refused to attack Clinton on the character issue, apparently because Clinton kept threatening to publicize a youthful affair of Elizabeth Dole with John F. Kennedy. There was a second Fifth Column financial package prepared for Dole, but there was no intention to use it while Clinton was still President.

3. Ross Perot will offer to support a Pat Buchanan Third Party nomination for President in 1996, but Buchanan will turn it down.

Given the political differences between Perot and Buchanan, this sounded improbable at the time it was made. But I knew that Perot's camp was making overtures to Buchanan. This apparently stemmed from Perot's desire to be "king-maker", and the fact that Buchanan was a viable third-party candidate. But it turned out Buchanan wasn't interested, so the overtures went nowhere.

4. Jackson Stephens will be indicted by Kenneth Starr for perjury relating to his stated relationship to the Lippo Group, and perhaps to a $500,000 payment to Webster Hubbell.

This was based on a Fifth-Column-unearthed contract signed among Web Hubbell, Jackson Stephens, and Lippo, which paid Web Hubbell $500,000 for unspecified legal services. This payment later became an item in the Senate Whitewater hearings when Michael Chertoff asked Hubbell about it. More recently, William Safire made much of this contract in his column--although the payment figure he used ($250,000) was too small by half. Additionally, Jackson Stephens had testified that he had no business relationship with the Lippo Group in recent years. But he had, in fact, signed a joint contract with Lippo to pay Web Hubbell for "legal work" in 1994 (what many believe was a simple bribe to Hubbell to keep his mouth shut). I would say this one is a done deal.

5. Hillary Clinton will face separate indictments in Arkansas, New York, Tennessee, and Washington, D.C., by the end of 1996.

Well, no one's waved any indictments in her face. But I have a direct witness to the signing of indictments in Little Rock in October 1996, and the testimony of someone high in the Starr investigation to the signing of indictments in New York (although the latter may be under the auspices of the state attorney general). Until Kenneth Starr chooses to make these indictments public, it's hard to prove their existence. But that's only a matter of time. In the case of Earl Brian in California, indictments were handed down in June 1994, but were not made public until September 1995. The New York indictment involves some legal work (briefly covered at the end of "Hackers vs. Politicians, Part II") Hillary did, while the Tennessee material is similar. The Tennessee evidence was "walk-in"--volunteered by a Tennessee state official. I don't know whether it has been used.

6. The role of the Mossad in the cover- up of the murder of Vince Foster will become public knowledge prior to the end of 1996.

That three Mossad agents were videotaped leaving Vince Foster's apartment on the afternoon he died is information that has been publicized both by Jim Norman and myself. It is certainly public knowledge in Washington, D.C., if nowhere else. Despite what you may have read in the January 1997 issue of Wired, I have never said (nor believed) that the Mossad killed Vince Foster. As I pointed out in "Part 35: Allegations re Vince, the NSA, and Bank Transactions Spying", the three people shown in the tape are believed to be apartment riflers, not assassins. That is, they were probably doing a clean-up of information, much as Hillary Clinton was doing when she directed the transfer of files out of Vince Foster's office by phone from Little Rock that same evening. Just as Hillary didn't want Foster's records pertaining to the Clinton's financial dealings falling into unfriendly hands, so would the Mossad have wanted to eliminate any records of their dealings with Foster. But my best guess has always been that Foster was killed by FBI and/or NSA agents. These agents may have been working with or for Hillary, or with the Mossad, or with both.

7. The names of U.S. politicians who have taken payoffs from the Cali- Medellin cartel will become public knowledge prior to the end of 1996.

The head of computer operations for the Cali cartel quit his job in the past year, prior to my March prediction, and took a copy of the files with him to another Latin American country. These files essentially detail every person whom the cartel has paid more than $100. The names of two U.S. state governors are on the list. Their Cali connections may or may not ever become public, but my sources still say the governors themselves are in the process of indictment for related reasons. I will perhaps write more about this at a future, more prudent, time.

8. The fact the FBI is an unchartered organization--and hence that FBI agents are not entitled to receive benefits--will become a matter of court record in 1996, and courts will begin to reverse convictions of persons convicted for lying to the "FBI".

This was an easy prediction, since it was already true at the time I made it. There is an attorney in Atlanta who specializes in the cases (and who is annoyed that my publicity will encroach on his own bread-and-butter business). There have been cases in three separate states that I know of. But in addition to my own writings, Chuck Hayes has publicized this fact on Capitol Hill. This, along with the FBI's own questionable actions in recent years, has inspired a piece of legislation coming down the pipeline that proposes to abolish both the FBI and the BATF. Finally, Louis Freeh has helped make the FBI's non-chartered status public, by telling people around him about the reasons for his "termination", as recorded in the payroll computer in Oklahoma.

9. Steve Forbes will incur so much campaign debt he will lose control of Forbes magazine to Ron Perelman in the attempt to raise cash to pay it off.

Even prior to Steve Forbes' foolishly-expensive presidential campaign, Perelman had already acquired control of 12 percent ownership of Forbes Magazine. Moreover, I knew that Forbes had annoyed other family members by borrowing against the assets of Forbes. So what has happened? After the campaign, many of Forbes' pledged donors reneged on their promises, so Forbes was forced to sell another 18 percent share to Perelman, bring his stake up to 30 percent. Meanwhile, Perelman has acquired stock pledges of at least another 21 percent from other Forbes stock holders, which will thus give him control of the magazine. Moreover, I know of at least one person Perelman has talked to about becoming the new editor of Forbes. So I would say this one is a done deal.

10. Jim Norman will get married in 1996, but it will not be to a Meadows (Medders) woman.

Jim Norman got married on April 12, 1996, and it wasn't to a Meadows woman. I have a witness to this, just like I have a witness to the Little Rock indictments. So I won't concern myself with any denials on the part of Norman.

December 15, 1996
Web Page: http://www.aci.net/kalliste/