Surveillance Society - The Emerging Police State in New Zealand (et al)
For many years now laws have been passed, in New Zealand as in all other Western countries that little by little, erode away our provacy and rights. These laws usually come in under the guise of protecting us or our security from 'terror threat' and the like.
While many dismiss concerns about these laws coming into effect as paranoia, the fact is that the legislation that is being passed has some pretty nasty capabilities if activated and not dormant.
Governments have demonstrated a propensity for always moving to utilise the full extent of capabilities that are allowed for under legislation.
“Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security”
- Benjamin Franklin
The Binge Breaker: Silicon Valley Is Addicting Us To Our Phones January 30 2017 | From: TheAtlantic
Tristan Harris believes Silicon Valley is addicting us to our phones. He’s determined to make it stop.
On a recent evening in San Francisco, Tristan Harris, a former product philosopher at Google, took a name tag from a man in pajamas called “Honey Bear” and wrote down his pseudonym for the night: “Presence.”
Harris had just arrived at Unplug SF, a “digital detox experiment” held in honor of the National Day of Unplugging, and the organizers had banned real names.
Also outlawed: clocks, “w-talk” (work talk), and “WMDs” (the planners’ loaded shorthand for wireless mobile devices). Harris, a slight 32-year-old with copper hair and a tidy beard, surrendered his iPhone, a device he considers so addictive that he’s called it “a slot machine in my pocket.”
He keeps the background set to an image of Scrabble tiles spelling out the words face down, a reminder of the device’s optimal position.
I followed him into a spacious venue packed with nearly 400 people painting faces, filling in coloring books, and wrapping yarn around chopsticks. Despite the cheerful summer-camp atmosphere, the event was a reminder of the binary choice facing smartphone owners, who, according to one study, consult their device 150 times a day:
Leave the WMD on and deal with relentless prompts compelling them to check its screen, or else completely disconnect. “It doesn’t have to be the all-or-nothing choice,” Harris told me after taking in the arts-and-crafts scene. “That’s a design failure.”
Harris is the closest thing Silicon Valley has to a conscience. As the co‑founder of Time Well Spent, an advocacy group, he is trying to bring moral integrity to software design: essentially, to persuade the tech world to help us disengage more easily from its devices.
While some blame our collective tech addiction on personal failings, like weak willpower, Harris points a finger at the software itself. That itch to glance at our phone is a natural reaction to apps and websites engineered to get us scrolling as frequently as possible.
The attention economy, which showers profits on companies that seize our focus, has kicked off what Harris calls a “race to the bottom of the brain stem.”
“You could say that it’s my responsibility” to exert self-control when it comes to digital usage, he explains, “but that’s not acknowledging that there’s a thousand people on the other side of the screen whose job is to break down whatever responsibility I can maintain.”
In short, we’ve lost control of our relationship with technology because technology has become better at controlling us.
A “Hippocratic oath” for software designers would stop the exploitation of people’s psychological vulnerabilities.
Under the auspices of Time Well Spent, Harris is leading a movement to change the fundamentals of software design. He is rallying product designers to adopt a “Hippocratic oath” for software that, he explains, would check the practice of:
“Exposing people’s psychological vulnerabilities” and restore “agency” to users. “There needs to be new ratings, new criteria, new design standards, new certification standards,” he says.
“There is a way to design based not on addiction.”
Joe Edelman - who did much of the research informing Time Well Spent’s vision and is the co-director of a think tank advocating for more-respectful software design - likens Harris to a tech-focused Ralph Nader.
Other people, including Adam Alter, a marketing professor at NYU, have championed theses similar to Harris’s; but according to Josh Elman, a Silicon Valley veteran with the venture-capital firm Greylock Partners, Harris is “the first putting it together in this way” - articulating the problem, its societal cost, and ideas for tackling it.
Elman compares the tech industry to Big Tobacco before the link between cigarettes and cancer was established:
Keen to give customers more of what they want, yet simultaneously inflicting collateral damage on their lives.
Harris, Elman says, is offering Silicon Valley a chance to reevaluate before more-immersive technology, like virtual reality, pushes us beyond a point of no return.
All this talk of hacking human psychology could sound paranoid, if Harris had not witnessed the manipulation firsthand. Raised in the Bay Area by a single mother employed as an advocate for injured workers, Harris spent his childhood creating simple software for Macintosh computers and writing fan mail to Steve Wozniak, a co-founder of Apple.
He studied computer science at Stanford while interning at Apple, then embarked on a master’s degree at Stanford, where he joined the Persuasive Technology Lab.
Run by the experimental psychologist B. J. Fogg, the lab has earned a cultlike following among entrepreneurs hoping to master Fogg’s principles of “behavior design” - a euphemism for what sometimes amounts to building software that nudges us toward the habits a company seeks to instill. (One of Instagram’s co-founders is an alumnus.)
In Fogg’s course, Harris studied the psychology of behavior change, such as how clicker training for dogs, among other methods of conditioning, can inspire products for people.
For example, rewarding someone with an instantaneous “like” after they post a photo can reinforce the action, and potentially shift it from an occasional to a daily activity.
Harris learned that the most-successful sites and apps hook us by tapping into deep-seated human needs. When LinkedIn launched, for instance, it created a hub-and-spoke icon to visually represent the size of each user’s network.
That triggered people’s innate craving for social approval and, in turn, got them scrambling to connect.
“Even though at the time there was nothing useful you could do with LinkedIn, that simple icon had a powerful effect in tapping into people’s desire not to look like losers,” Fogg told me.
Harris began to see that technology is not, as so many engineers claim, a neutral tool; rather, it’s capable of coaxing us to act in certain ways. And he was troubled that out of 10 sessions in Fogg’s course, only one addressed the ethics of these persuasive tactics. (Fogg says that topic is “woven throughout” the curriculum.)
Harris dropped out of the master’s program to launch a start-up that installed explanatory pop-ups across thousands of sites, including The New York Times’.
It was his first direct exposure to the war being waged for our time, and Harris felt torn between his company’s social mission, which was to spark curiosity by making facts easily accessible, and pressure from publishers to corral users into spending more and more minutes on their sites.
Though Harris insists he steered clear of persuasive tactics, he grew more familiar with how they were applied.
He came to conceive of them as “hijacking techniques” - the digital version of pumping sugar, salt, and fat into junk food in order to induce bingeing.
McDonald’s hooks us by appealing to our bodies’ craving for certain flavors; Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter hook us by delivering what psychologists call “variable rewards.”
Messages, photos, and “likes” appear on no set schedule, so we check for them compulsively, never sure when we’ll receive that dopamine-activating prize. (Delivering rewards at random has been proved to quickly and strongly reinforce behavior.)
Checking that Facebook friend request will take only a few seconds, we reason, though research shows that when interrupted, people take an average of 25 minutes to return to their original task.
Sites foster a sort of distracted lingering partly by lumping multiple services together. To answer the friend request, we’ll pass by the News Feed, where pictures and auto-play videos seduce us into scrolling through an infinite stream of posts - what Harris calls a “bottomless bowl,” referring to a study that found people eat 73 percent more soup out of self-refilling bowls than out of regular ones, without realizing they’ve consumed extra.
The “friend request” tab will nudge us to add even more contacts by suggesting “people you may know,” and in a split second, our unconscious impulses cause the cycle to continue:
Once we send the friend request, an alert appears on the recipient’s phone in bright red - a “trigger” color, Harris says, more likely than some other hues to make people click - and because seeing our name taps into a hardwired sense of social obligation, she will drop everything to answer.
In the end, he says, companies “stand back watching as a billion people run around like chickens with their heads cut off, responding to each other and feeling indebted to each other.”
A Facebook spokesperson told me the social network focuses on maximizing the quality of the experience - not the time its users spend on the site - and surveys its users daily to gauge success.
In response to this feedback, Facebook recently tweaked its News Feed algorithm to punish clickbait - stories with sensationalist headlines designed to attract readers. (LinkedIn and Instagram declined requests for comment. Twitter did not reply to multiple queries.)
Even so, a niche group of consultants has emerged to teach companies how to make their services irresistible. One such guru is Nir Eyal, the author of Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products, who has lectured or consulted for firms such as LinkedIn and Instagram.
A blog post he wrote touting the value of variable rewards is titled “Want to Hook Your Users? Drive Them Crazy.”
While asserting that companies are morally obligated to help those genuinely addicted to their services, Eyal contends that social media merely satisfies our appetite for entertainment in the same way TV or novels do, and that the latest technology tends to get vilified simply because it’s new, but eventually people find balance.
“Saying ‘Don’t use these techniques’ is essentially saying ‘Don’t make your products fun to use.’ That’s silly,” Eyal told me.
“With every new technology, the older generation says ‘Kids these days are using too much of this and too much of that and it’s melting their brains.’ And it turns out that what we’ve always done is to adapt.”
Google acquired Harris’s company in 2011, and he ended up working on Gmail’s Inbox app. (He’s quick to note that while he was there, it was never an explicit goal to increase time spent on Gmail.)
A year into his tenure, Harris grew concerned about the failure to consider how seemingly minor design choices, such as having phones buzz with each new email, would cascade into billions of interruptions. His team dedicated months to fine-tuning the aesthetics of the Gmail app with the aim of building a more “delightful” email experience.
But to him that missed the bigger picture: Instead of trying to improve email, why not ask how email could improve our lives - or, for that matter, whether each design decision was making our lives worse?
Harris gives off a preppy-hippie vibe that allows him to move comfortably between Palo Alto boardrooms and device-free retreats
Six months after attending Burning Man in the Nevada desert, a trip Harris says helped him with:
“Waking up and questioning my own beliefs,” he quietly released “A Call to Minimize Distraction & Respect Users’ Attention,” a 144-page Google Slides presentation.
In it, he declared, “Never before in history have the decisions of a handful of designers (mostly men, white, living in SF, aged 25–35) working at 3 companies” - Google, Apple, and Facebook - “had so much impact on how millions of people around the world spend their attention … We should feel an enormous responsibility to get this right.”
Although Harris sent the presentation to just 10 of his closest colleagues, it quickly spread to more than 5,000 Google employees, including then-CEO Larry Page, who discussed it with Harris in a meeting a year later.
“It sparked something,” recalls Mamie Rheingold, a former Google staffer who organized an internal Q&A session with Harris at the company’s headquarters. “He did successfully create a dialogue and open conversation about this in the company.”
Harris parlayed his presentation into a position as product philosopher, which involved researching ways Google could adopt ethical design.
But he says he came up against “inertia.” Product road maps had to be followed, and fixing tools that were obviously broken took precedence over systematically rethinking services. Chris Messina, then a designer at Google, says little changed following the release of Harris’s slides:
“It was one of those things where there’s a lot of head nods, and then people go back to work.”
Harris told me some colleagues misinterpreted his message, thinking that he was proposing banning people from social media, or that the solution was simply sending fewer notifications. (Google declined to comment.)
Harris left the company last December to push for change more widely, buoyed by a growing network of supporters that includes the MIT professor Sherry Turkle; Meetup’s CEO, Scott Heiferman; and Justin Rosenstein, a co-inventor of the “like” button; along with fed-up users and concerned employees across the industry.
“Pretty much every big company that’s manipulating users has been very interested in our work,” says Joe Edelman, who has spent the past five years trading ideas and leading workshops with Harris.
Through Time Well Spent, his advocacy group, Harris hopes to mobilize support for what he likens to an organic-food movement, but for software: an alternative built around core values, chief of which is helping us spend our time well, instead of demanding more of it.
Thus far, Time Well Spent is more a label for his crusade - and a vision he hopes others will embrace - than a full-blown organization. (Harris, its sole employee, self-funds it.)
Yet he’s amassed a network of volunteers keen to get involved, thanks in part to his frequent cameos on the thought-leader speaker circuit, including talks at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society; the O’Reilly Design Conference; an internal meeting of Facebook designers; and a TEDx event, whose video has been viewed more than 1 million times online.
Tim O’Reilly, the founder of O’Reilly Media and an early web pioneer, told me Harris’s ideas are:
“Definitely something that people who are influential are listening to and thinking about.” Even Fogg, who stopped wearing his Apple Watch because its incessant notifications annoyed him, is a fan of Harris’s work:
“It’s a brave thing to do and a hard thing to do.”
At Unplug SF, a burly man calling himself “Haus” enveloped Harris in a bear hug. “This is the antidote!,” Haus cheered. “This is the antivenom!” All evening, I watched people pull Harris aside to say hello, or ask to schedule a meeting. Someone cornered Harris to tell him about his internet “sabbatical,” but Harris cut him off. “For me this is w‑talk,” he protested.
Harris admits that researching the ways our time gets hijacked has made him slightly obsessive about evaluating what counts as “time well spent” in his own life.
The hypnosis class Harris went to before meeting me - because he suspects the passive state we enter while scrolling through feeds is similar to being hypnotized - was not time well spent.
The slow-moving course, he told me, was “low bit rate” - a technical term for data-transfer speeds.
Attending the digital detox? Time very well spent. He was delighted to get swept up in a mass game of rock-paper-scissors, where a series of one-on-one elimination contests culminated in an onstage showdown between “Joe” and “Moonlight.”
Harris has a tendency to immerse himself in a single activity at a time. In conversation, he rarely breaks eye contact and will occasionally rest a hand on his interlocutor’s arm, as if to keep both parties present in the moment.
He got so wrapped up in our chat one afternoon that he attempted to get into an idling Uber that was not an Uber at all, but a car that had paused at a stop sign.
An accordion player and tango dancer in his spare time who pairs plaid shirts with a bracelet that has presence stamped into a silver charm, Harris gives off a preppy-hippie vibe that allows him to move comfortably between Palo Alto boardrooms and device-free retreats.
In that sense, he had a great deal in common with the other Unplug SF attendees, many of whom belong to a new class of tech elites “waking up” to their industry’s unwelcome side effects.
For many entrepreneurs, this epiphany has come with age, children, and the peace of mind of having several million in the bank, says Soren Gordhamer, the creator of Wisdom 2.0, a conference series about maintaining “presence and purpose” in the digital age.
“They feel guilty,” Gordhamer says. “They are realizing they built this thing that’s so addictive.”
I asked Harris whether he felt guilty about having joined Google, which has inserted its technology into our pockets, glasses, watches, and cars.
He didn’t. He acknowledged that some divisions, such as YouTube, benefit from coaxing us to stare at our screens. But he justified his decision to work there with the logic that since Google controls three interfaces through which millions engage with technology - Gmail, Android, and Chrome - the company was the “first line of defense.”
Getting Google to rethink those products, as he’d attempted to do, had the potential to transform our online experience.
Snapchat’s tactics for hooking users may make Facebook’s look quaint.
At a restaurant around the corner from Unplug SF, Harris demonstrated an alternative way of interacting with WMDs, based on his own self-defense tactics.
Certain tips were intuitive: He’s “almost militaristic about turning off notifications” on his iPhone, and he set a custom vibration pattern for text messages, so he can feel the difference between an automated alert and a human’s words.
Other tips drew on Harris’s study of psychology. Since merely glimpsing an app’s icon will -
“Trigger this whole set of sensations and thoughts,” he pruned the first screen of his phone to include only apps, such as Uber and Google Maps, that perform a single function and thus run a low risk of “bottomless bowl–ing.”
He tried to make his phone look minimalist: Taking a cue from a Google experiment that cut employees’ M&M snacking by moving the candy from clear to opaque containers, he buried colorful icons - along with time-sucking apps like Gmail and WhatsApp - inside folders on the second page of his iPhone.
As a result, that screen was practically grayscale. Harris launches apps by using what he calls the phone’s “consciousness filter” - typing Instagram, say, into its search bar - which reduces impulsive tapping.
For similar reasons, Harris keeps a Post-it on his laptop with this instruction: “Do not open without intention.”
His approach seems to have worked. I’m usually quick to be annoyed by friends reaching for their phones, but next to Harris, I felt like an addict. Wary of being judged, I made a point not to check my iPhone unless he checked his first, but he went so long without peeking that I started getting antsy. Harris assured me that I was far from an exception.
“Our generation relies on our phones for our moment-to-moment choices about who we’re hanging out with, what we should be thinking about, who we owe a response to, and what’s important in our lives,” he said.
“And if that’s the thing that you’ll outsource your thoughts to, forget the brain implant. That is the brain implant. You refer to it all the time.”
Curious to hear more about Harris’s plan for tackling manipulative software, I tagged along one morning to his meeting with two entrepreneurs eager to incorporate Time Well Spent values into their start-up.
Harris, flushed from a yoga class, met me at a bakery not far from the “intentional community house” where he lives with a dozen or so housemates.
We were joined by Micha Mikailian and Johnny Chan, the co-founders of an ad blocker, Intently, that replaces advertising with “intentions” reminding people to “Follow Your Bliss” or “Be Present.” Previously, they’d run a marketing and advertising agency.
“One day I was in a meditation practice. I just got the vision for Intently,” said Mikailian, who sported a chunky turquoise bracelet and a man bun.
“It fully aligned with my purpose,” said Chan.
They were interested in learning what it would take to integrate ethical design. Coordinating loosely with Joe Edelman, Harris is developing a code of conduct - the Hippocratic oath for software designers - and a playbook of best practices that can guide start-ups and corporations toward products that “treat people with respect.”
Having companies rethink the metrics by which they measure success would be a start. “You have to imagine: What are the concrete benefits landed in space and in time in a person’s life?,” Harris said, coaching Mikailian and Chan.
Harris hopes that companies will offer a healthier alternative to the current diet of tech junk food - perhaps at a premium price.
At his speaking engagements, Harris has presented prototype products that embody other principles of ethical design. He argues that technology should help us set boundaries.
This could be achieved by, for example, an inbox that asks how much time we want to dedicate to email, then gently reminds us when we’ve exceeded our quota. Technology should give us the ability to see where our time goes, so we can make informed decisions - imagine your phone alerting you when you’ve unlocked it for the 14th time in an hour.
And technology should help us meet our goals, give us control over our relationships, and enable us to disengage without anxiety. Harris has demoed a hypothetical “focus mode” for Gmail that would pause incoming messages until someone has finished concentrating on a task, while allowing interruptions in case of an emergency. (Slack has implemented a similar feature.)
Harris hopes to create a Time Well Spent certification - akin to the leed seal or an organic label - that would designate software made with those values in mind.
He already has a shortlist of apps that he endorses as early exemplars of the ethos, such as Pocket, Calendly, and f.lux, which, respectively, saves articles for future reading, lets people book empty slots on an individual’s calendar to streamline the process of scheduling meetings, and aims to improve sleep quality by adding a pinkish cast to the circadian-rhythm-disrupting blue light of screens. Intently could potentially join this coalition, he volunteered.
As a first step toward identifying other services that could qualify, Harris has experimented with creating software that would capture how many hours someone devotes weekly to each app on her phone, then ask her which ones were worthwhile.
The data could be compiled to create a leaderboard that shames apps that addict but fail to satisfy. Edelman has released a related tool for websites, called Hindsight. “We have to change what it means to win,” Harris says.
The biggest obstacle to incorporating ethical design and “agency” is not technical complexity. According to Harris, it’s a “will thing.” And on that front, even his supporters worry that the culture of Silicon Valley may be inherently at odds with anything that undermines engagement or growth.
“This is not the place where people tend to want to slow down and be deliberate about their actions and how their actions impact others,” says Jason Fried, who has spent the past 12 years running Basecamp, a project-management tool.
“They want to make things more sugary and more tasty, and pull you in, and justify billions of dollars of valuation and hundreds of millions of dollars [in] VC funds.”
Rather than dismantling the entire attention economy, Harris hopes that companies will, at the very least, create a healthier alternative to the current diet of tech junk food.
He recognizes that this shift would require reevaluating entrenched business models so success no longer hinges on claiming attention and time.
As with organic vegetables, it’s possible that the first generation of Time Well Spent software might be available at a premium price, to make up for lost advertising dollars.
“Would you pay $7 a month for a version of Facebook that was built entirely to empower you to live your life?,” Harris says. “I think a lot of people would pay for that.”
Like splurging on grass-fed beef, paying for services that are available for free and disconnecting for days (even hours) at a time are luxuries that few but the reasonably well-off can afford.
I asked Harris whether this risked stratifying tech consumption, such that the privileged escape the mental hijacking and everyone else remains subjected to it. “It creates a new inequality. It does.”
Harris admitted. But he countered that if his movement gains steam, broader change could occur, much in the way Walmart now stocks organic produce.
Currently, though, the trend is toward deeper manipulation in ever more sophisticated forms. Harris fears that Snapchat’s tactics for hooking users make Facebook’s look quaint.
Facebook automatically tells a message’s sender when the recipient reads the note - a design choice that, per Fogg’s logic, activates our hardwired sense of social reciprocity and encourages the recipient to respond.
Snapchat ups the ante: Unless the default settings are changed, users are informed the instant a friend begins typing a message to them - which effectively makes it a faux pas not to finish a message you start.
Harris worries that the app’s Snapstreak feature, which displays how many days in a row two friends have snapped each other and rewards their loyalty with an emoji, seems to have been pulled straight from Fogg’s inventory of persuasive tactics.
Research shared with Harris by Emily Weinstein, a Harvard doctoral candidate, shows that Snapstreak is driving some teenagers nuts - to the point that before going on vacation, they give friends their log-in information and beg them to snap in their stead.
“To be honest, it made me sick to my stomach to hear these anecdotes,” Harris told me.
Harris thinks his best shot at improving the status quo is to get users riled up about the ways they’re being manipulated, then create a groundswell of support for technology that respects people’s agency - something akin to the privacy outcry that prodded companies to roll out personal-information protections.
While Harris’s experience at Google convinced him that users must demand change for it to happen, Edelman suggests that the incentive to adapt can originate within the industry, as engineers become reluctant to build products they view as unethical and companies face a brain drain.
The more people recognize the repercussions of tech firms’ persuasive tactics, the more working there “becomes uncool,” he says, a view I heard echoed by others in his field. “You can really burn through engineers hard.”
There is arguably an element of hypocrisy to the enlightened image that Silicon Valley projects, especially with its recent embrace of “mindfulness.”
Companies like Google and Facebook, which have offered mindfulness training and meditation spaces for their employees, position themselves as corporate leaders in this movement.
Yet this emphasis on mindfulness and consciousness, which has extended far beyond the tech world, puts the burden on users to train their focus, without acknowledging that the devices in their hands are engineered to chip away at their concentration.
It’s like telling people to get healthy by exercising more, then offering the choice between a Big Mac and a Quarter Pounder when they sit down for a meal.
And being aware of software’s seductive power does not mean being immune to its influence.
One evening, just as we were about to part ways for the night, Harris stood talking by his car when his phone flashed with a new text message. He glanced down at the screen and interrupted himself mid-sentence.
“Oh!” he announced, more to his phone than to me, and mumbled something about what a coincidence it was that the person texting him knew his friend. He looked back up sheepishly. “That’s a great example,” he said, waving his phone. “I had no control over the process.”
Former CIA Agent Blows Whistle On Secret Shadow Government January 17 2017 | From: InformationClearingHouse / Various Why don’t more “whistle blowers” come out to expose illegal or unconstitutional secret government operations? If these activities are so illegal, why are people not coming forward to report them?
Over the last fifty years US government intelligence agencies have perfected a complex, sequential system to systematically silence or destroy any employee, including his or her family, who attempts to reveal illegal or unconstitutional activities conducted as part of secret government operations.
As a condition of employment, military and intelligence employees recruited for secret operations are required to sign a “secrecy agreement,” or “nondisclosure agreement,” before being given access to the position, which offers high pay and status in the organization.
This agreement threatens civil and criminal penalties if the employee reveals ANY information regarding the program. Thinking the agreement will only be used for legal purposes and will get them the coveted job, all employees eagerly sign it.
This secrecy agreement was originally designed to protect legitimate classified information, to protect military personnel during wartime and protect legitimate national defense information and technology.
However, because of the binding power of the agreement, government agencies began using it as a powerful tool to silence federal employees who question the legality of certain government operations. It was the perfect tool to threaten, silence or jail any whistle blower who dared to challenge the secret operations of government.
Today, the secrecy agreement is routinely used as an efficient weapon to intimidate or silence employees. Annual refresher briefings are given to remind employees of the penalties for violating the agreement.
These penalties include huge fines, termination, financial ruin and even prison – all of which mean the destruction of their lives and their families.
Most will not reveal any wrongdoing, no matter how egregious, for fear of calculated, severe retribution.
When employees sign the secrecy agreement and are cleared for classified programs, they are not told they are giving up their right to a jury trial, or to sue the agency that hired them. If they try to do so as a whistle blower, they find they have no right to be heard in federal court. Many have found this out when their case was denied; then it was too late. That is part of the system.
If the employee attempts to contact their Congressman or Senator, their representative is blocked from receiving any information about their case, because they do not have the necessary “clearance.”
When the employee attempts to blow the whistle to the Congressional intelligence committees, their response is ignored. It is made clear to committee members that they are not to touch such cases, so they refer them back to their Senator or Congressman, who cannot access information involved in their case.
If a courageous employee continues to proceed and blow the whistle, a system of personal and career destruction follows. This begins with promotions being denied, being turned down for sensitive or career enhancing assignments, and their files being flagged, ruining their reputation inside their agency.
At this point their career is over. If they go quietly, the retribution stops.
When the employee still continues their effort to report the information, their travel records, personnel records, medical records and security records are searched for mistakes or damaging information that can be used to threaten them with termination.
Their telephones and computers are monitored searching for incriminating information. If no substantive information can be found, it is fabricated and placed in their file.
Employees who refuse to back down are then subjected to internal “security investigations,” multiple, hostile “interviews,” attempting to get them to recant their information, and multiple polygraph interrogations.
In many cases, the employee is commanded to report to the internal medical office for psychological evaluation. If they comply, the evaluation labels them as paranoid, unstable, or disgruntled. This information is placed in their file and is used later to justify the agency’s action in the event of outside scrutiny.
If the employee contacts a member of the news media, they are immediately cited with violating their secrecy agreement and criminal penalties are filed against them. Several news media outlets are connected to the CIA and NSA and notify them of the employee’s contact.
Finally, the employee is forced to resign after being threatened with termination in kangaroo court meetings where the information fabricated in their files is used against them.
After termination or forced resignation, interest rates on their internal credit union loans are raised to make the payments unaffordable. The release of the employee’s retirement funds needed provide for their family are blocked (a felony). The agency black lists them from gaining employment with other government agencies or contractors, further ruining them financially.
Dehumanized, financially ruined and under severe emotional and mental pressure, the employee’s family begins to break apart. If the family’s foundation is not strong, this results in alcoholism, depression and divorce.
In some cases, it has resulted in the employee committing suicide, the ultimate goal of the program of destruction. This silences the employee permanently, obscuring the agency’s role in their destruction. It is the perfect crime.
Should the employee still have the resolve to endure this program of career and personal destruction and continues to press for release of the information, or if his family members attempt to sue the agency for the illegal activity, classified agencies will invoke the secretive State Secrets Privilege, which orders the employee and his family not to reveal the information or face prison.
If the family’s case reaches federal court, the State Secrets Privilege is invoked and the case is shut down – and sealed. Federal judges rubber stamp the censoring of the case without reviewing the case facts.
Now that the employee’s case, and in some cases their family’s case, is shut down and under seal, citing “national security,” the process of silencing the employee is complete. Many are never heard from again, fearing prison if they talk to anyone, including an attorney.
Using attractive awards of multi-million dollar contracts, the US government military industrial complex convinces private corporations that their employees must be cleared and sign secrecy agreements.
This includes employees at all levels, from secretaries to CEOs. Once they have signed the secrecy agreement, they are bound to keep all information, including potentially illegal information, quiet, being threatened with the same penalties.
To date, over five million Americans have been required to sign this secrecy agreement and now fall under the shadow of the State Secrets Privilege.
Only a few federal employees have made it through this systematic process of destruction to reveal what they know about the illegal operation they observed. Sadly, some whistle blowers have died “mysterious” deaths or committed “suicide.”
Employees in intelligence agencies are aware of penalties contained in the secrecy agreement and the huge risk in violating it, even to expose corruption. Most look the other way to protect their careers, retirements and families.
Many have observed the outward signs of the system of personal and career destruction used on others and a culture of fear exists. But, they are not fully aware of all that is being done.
The full scope of the system is only known at the higher levels of the organization and is hidden from employees, until its use is necessary.
This is why we do not see whistle blowers coming out and reporting what they have seen. This system has been used and perfected for over fifty years. It is being used because it works.
It works, unless the system is exposed, the whistle blower knows what is coming and prepares for it, and they are supported by private organizations and individuals dedicated to truth in government.
This support is essential, not only to protect the whistle blower and their family, but also to defend our Constitutional form of government from tyranny.
Facebook Knows A Whole Lot About Your Offline Life + The World's Best Security Engineers Are Working On Flappy Bird January 12 2017 | From: Digg / Inverse Facebook has long let users see all sorts of things the site knows about them, like whether they enjoy soccer, have recently moved, or like Melania Trump.
But the tech giant gives users little indication that it buys far more sensitive data about them, including their income, the types of restaurants they frequent and even how many credit cards are in their wallets.
Since September, ProPublica has been encouraging Facebook users to share the categories of interest that the site has assigned to them. Users showed us everything from "Pretending to Text in Awkward Situations" to "Breastfeeding in Public." In total, we collected more than 52,000 unique attributes that Facebook has used to classify users.
Facebook's site says it gets information about its users "from a few different sources."
What the page doesn't say is that those sources include detailed dossiers obtained from commercial data brokers about users' offline lives. Nor does Facebook show users any of the often remarkably detailed information it gets from those brokers.
When asked this week about the lack of disclosure, Facebook responded that it doesn't tell users about the third-party data because its widely available and was not collected by Facebook.
“Our approach to controls for third-party categories is somewhat different than our approach for Facebook-specific categories," said Steve Satterfield, a Facebook manager of privacy and public policy.
"This is because the data providers we work with generally make their categories available across many different ad platforms, not just on Facebook."
Satterfield said users who don't want that information to be available to Facebook should contact the data brokers directly. He said users can visit a page in Facebook's help center, which provides links to the opt-outs for six data brokers that sell personal data to Facebook.
Limiting commercial data brokers' distribution of your personal information is no simple matter. For instance, opting out of Oracle's Datalogix, which provides about 350 types of data to Facebook according to our analysis, requires "sending a written request, along with a copy of government-issued identification" in postal mail to Oracle's chief privacy officer.
Users can ask data brokers to show them the information stored about them. But that can also be complicated. One Facebook broker, Acxiom, requires people to send the last four digits of their social security number to obtain their data. Facebook changes its providers from time to time so members would have to regularly visit the help center page to protect their privacy.
One of us actually tried to do what Facebook suggests. While writing a book about privacy in 2013, reporter Julia Angwin tried to opt out from as many data brokers as she could.
Of the 92 brokers she identified that accepted opt-outs, 65 of them required her to submit a form of identification such as a driver's license. In the end, she could not remove her data from the majority of providers.
ProPublica's experiment to gather Facebook's ad categories from readers was part of our Black Box series, which explores the power of algorithms in our lives. Facebook uses algorithms not only to determine the news and advertisements that it displays to users, but also to categorize its users in tens of thousands of micro-targetable groups.
Our crowd-sourced data showed us that Facebook's categories range from innocuous groupings of people who like southern food to sensitive categories such as "Ethnic Affinity" which categorizes people based on their affinity for African-Americans, Hispanics and other ethnic groups. Advertisers can target ads toward a group 2014 or exclude ads from being shown to a particular group.
Last month, after ProPublica bought a Facebook ad in its housing categories that excluded African-Americans, Hispanics and Asian-Americans, the company said it would build an automated system to help it spot ads that illegally discriminate.
Facebook has been working with data brokers since 2012 when it signed a deal with Datalogix. This prompted Chester, the privacy advocate at the Center for Digital Democracy, to filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission alleging that Facebook had violated a consent decree with the agency on privacy issues.
The FTC has never publicly responded to that complaint and Facebook subsequently signed deals with five other data brokers.
To find out exactly what type of data Facebook buys from brokers, we downloaded a list of 29,000 categories that the site provides to ad buyers. Nearly 600 of the categories were described as being provided by third-party data brokers. (Most categories were described as being generated by clicking pages or ads on Facebook.)
The categories from commercial data brokers were largely financial, such as "total liquid investible assets $1-$24,999," "People in households that have an estimated household income of between $100K and $125K, or even "Individuals that are frequent transactor at lower cost department or dollar stores."
We compared the data broker categories with the crowd-sourced list of what Facebook tells users about themselves. We found none of the data broker information on any of the tens of the thousands of "interests" that Facebook showed users.
Our tool also allowed users to react to the categories they were placed in as being "wrong," "creepy" or "spot on." The category that received the most votes for "wrong" was "Farmville slots." The category that got the most votes for "creepy" was "Away from family." And the category that was rated most "spot on" was "NPR."
The World's Best Security Engineers Are Working On Flappy Bird
Fewer people want to engage in a modern "spy vs. spy."
Eugene Kaspersky explains hacking like it’s a bank robbery:
“Imagine you visit your bank and there are a thousand people crowding the office,” Kaspersky tells Inverse.
“There are so many of them, you simply can’t get inside. They’re just messing around asking irrelevant questions, shouting, and acting silly. Most workers at the bank won’t be able to serve you or anyone else that day. That’s a DDoS attack."
“Later that night, someone unarms the alarms, breaks into the bank, cracks the vault, and steals all the money. That’s hacking.”
Together, they spewed access requests at a DNS server - a switchboard for the internet, basically - and brought down some of the biggest sites on the internet: Twitter, Reddit, and Spotify among them. Again, merely an annoyance.
The more sophisticated attack on a server is when hackers - either lone wolves, loose collectives, or state-sponsored snoops - retrieve information from a server and release it to the public to influence public opinion and even sway elections. This scenario should be familiar to everybody by now.
The problem is, there just aren’t enough people smart enough to guard the vaults. Kaspersky would know. He’s a big deal in the world of cybersecurity.
Would a healthier cybersecurity industry have stopped the year’s biggest hacks - Wikileaks and DDoS attacks - from being pulled off?
“Protecting against these two threats requires different skills and different technologies, including the software and hardware needed,” Kaspersky tells Inverse. “To some extent, there’s an overlap of skills simply because IT security people get to learn about both threats.”
But DDoS attacks are ham-fisted and blunt. They don’t do much damage and often don’t keep a website down for long. What’s more dangerous are targeted attacks carried out to destroy machinery or collect information. And there aren’t enough security experts to stop those, either.
Although the United States government still won’t even address it, the destruction of uranium enrichment machinery in Iran in 2009 - the kind that could provide ingredients for a nuclear bomb - is widely seen as an American ploy. The machinery was destroyed after malware infected the program that regulated centrifuges.
It was brilliant, but it spread beyond its target of the Iran nuclear facility.
Eric Chien, an engineer at California-based security company Symantec, helped track how the weaponized code used in Iran known as “Stuxnet” worked. (Kaspersky Lab also analyzed the virus over the course of about two years.)
At a panel after a screening of Zero Days, a documentary about the attack, Chien lamented that the next wave of computer science graduates might be more interested in making freemium apps rather than uncovering international intrigue.
“We go into the office thinking about how we are going to defeat these adversaries.”
“We see a lot of people getting into things like mobile or social, and people are creating Flappy Bird and people are making millions of dollars", Chien said.
“But what we both really love about this job and why we’re super-passionate about this, is it’s unique in some sense. While we have competitors in our business - also creating security products - when we go in the office, we’re not thinking about, ‘Oh, how do we make another dollar? How do we beat our competitor?’
We go into the office thinking about how we are going to defeat these adversaries. How are we going to defeat these actors. And those actors are constantly changing.”
Bruce Schneier, a cyber security expert and author, gets it. “Young engineers might not see security as sexy,” he says. “Which is weird to me, because I think it’s the coolest ever. It’s spy versus spy.”
At a hacking competition at New York University this year, one could find a lot of students who would agree with that sentiment.
This year, students from all over the world competed in a 36-hour marathon, scrolling through endless lines of code to crack security challenges.
“The skills you learn in a CTF are exactly the type of outside-the-box thinking that is required,” says David Kohlbrenner, a Ph.D. student in security and systems at UC San Diego.
He got involved in cybersecurity “purely through CTF,” and is an original member of the Plaid Parliament of Pwning, a dominant CTF team from Carnegie Mellon that won this year’s competition.
“What the companies need are people who can solve a variety of different challenges and can approach them from different angles,” Kohlbrenner tells Inverse.
Kohlbrenner says the Mirai botnet responsible for October’s massive DDoS attack was “honestly trivial to set up,” and a continued dearth of security engineers (and, Schneier argues, a market failure to make the Internet of Things decently secure) could keep it that way in the future.
Click on the image above to open a larger verion in a new window
It’s clear companies need more manpower, whether that’s to ward off DDoS attacks or server hacks. But when it comes to recruiting, Schneier says new technology companies have the upper hand in attracting talented young programmers.
“You don’t want to work for Procter & Gamble,” he says.
"You want to work for Google, or you wanna go work for Facebook, or the next high tech startup,” Schneier says.
Nick Winter, the co-founder of a gamified coding community called CodeCombat, agrees. “No one is thinking, hmm, I’m gonna get a job at an insurance company".
Doesn’t matter if they have all these interesting technological problems to solve and tons of important data to protect. They’re at a huge disadvantage there compared to any start-up in San Francisco or even, like, a tech-focused, big tech company like Cisco.
Both Schneier and Winter’s examples are reminders that it isn’t just tech companies - from router manufacturers to dating apps - that have a lot to lose when security engineers are in short supply.
“All companies become software companies,” Winter says. “And all data becomes more important and mission critical.”
“The findings show a general shortage in full-time security staff and expert talent availability, which calls for the need for more specialists in the field,” reads a press release about the survey results.
It’s up to universities like NYU to prepare students for an ever-changing field, Kaspersky says. Server attacks in the future shouldn’t feel like bank robberies that change elections.
“The job market is changing too fast for the education system,” Kaspersky says.
“Universities are fairly conservative institutions, plus, of course, it takes considerable time to educate people.
We see that there’s a growing number of IT security programs, and more and more people are getting interested in the field, but the job market is expanding faster.”
His advice for young programmers? Learn how to prevent attacks.
“There are many skills that are in deficit that require very focused technical training” Kaspersky says.
“Intrusion detection, development of secure software, digital forensics. All these skills are in high demand, but there are not many folks who have them.”
US Deep State In Deep Trouble + A Deeper Understanding Of Technocracy January 11 2017 | From: Sputnik / JonRappoport US ruling power is in deep trouble because there are growing signs that the mass of citizens are no longer beholden to the supposed authority residing in Washington.
Once the legitimacy of would-be authorities begins to collapse in the eyes of the people, then profound political change is in the offing, as history shows us through countless empires that came and went – often ignominiously.
"The so-called American Deep State comprising the military-intelligence apparatus and its operatives in the political and media establishment has put its credibility on the line over allegations of Russian interference in the US elections."
Those allegations are threadbare, indeed baseless, despite concerted, overweening attempts by the Deep State to conjure up something of substance.
The latest high-level intelligence report from the CIA, NSA, FBI and other US spy agencies on alleged Russian cyber hacking may have “wowed” President Barack Obama, various members of Congress and the corporate-controlled news media. Not so for ordinary Americans. Among rank-and-file citizens the reaction has been underwhelming to say the least.
And that should be a matter of anxiety for the ruling establishment. If the people can no longer be commanded, then the whole foundation for power begins to erode like a sandcastle.
As a New York Times report put it:
"What’s the big deal? asks Trump’s supporters on Russian hacking report”.
Trump is quite a hit in Russia - here he is on sugar packaging in a Russian store
Among ordinary voters far removed from the Washington Beltway Bubble the consensus is one of derision towards the once-revered US intelligence community.
"Sore losers”, “sour grapes”, “crybabies” and “absurd” were just some of the disbelieving responses from ordinary folks about claims that Russian agents directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin had tipped the US November election in favor of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton."
“I don’t believe the [US] intel report,” said one man in Louisiana. “Why is everybody so afraid of Russia? I’m not against Putin.”
Another man, a retired US air force officer, added:
"From the parts of the [US intel] report I’ve seen it seems silly.”
President-elect Trump, once again, seems more in tune with the real, pressing concerns of common citizens.
He emerged from his so-called “briefing” by US intelligence chiefs last Friday and pointedly refused to join the Washington blowhards accusing Russia of “an act of war”.
Trump in fact followed up with a comment that it was only a “stupid” person would not want to have good relations with Russia.
This was not the response that the spooks wanted from Trump. The CIA and their surrogates in the Obama administration, Congress and the media were building up the US intel report like a witch-hunt against anyone who dares to dissent from the allegations of Russian cyber interference.
Unlike warmongering Congress members such as John McCain and Lyndsey Graham, Trump has not jumped on the bandwagon to demonize Russia.
"And the thing is that people beyond the thrall of the Deep State centered in Washington appear to agree with Trump.
At a time of immense social challenges from poverty, unemployment, financial indebtedness, deteriorating infrastructure and public services, and so on, a US policy of hostility towards Russia seems like an alien distraction. A contemptible waste of priority and resources, not to say a reckless drumbeat to war between nuclear powers."
The US intelligence agencies, aided by the Obama White House and mainstream media, tried to muster gravitas to play its “Russian card” against Trump.
But Trump and the popular sentiment out there are not responding in the deferential manner expected by the spooks.
In fact, despite sensationalist headlines in the mainstream media about “Putin ordering an influence campaign to help Trump win the election”, the US intelligence agencies are now in real danger of being exposed as ridiculous liars.
The collapse of the US establishment has been underway for sometime, but lately the momentum has quickened with the election of Trump and the mainstream media’s penchant for “fake narratives”.
On the latest US intel report, as well as Trump and ordinary Americans, many observers from around the world were taken aback by the amateurish dearth of evidence and generally low quality of analysis. Independent cyber security experts, including US-based ones, poured scorn on the claims against Russia.
The US spy agencies claim that they have “supporting evidence” that Russia hacked Hillary Clinton’s emails, but they say, unconvincingly, that they can’t disclose the information in order to protect “sensitive sources and methods”. Such a conjuring trick just makes the US spooks and the subservient news media look even more ridiculous.
A major giveaway was the disproportionately huge focus that the US intelligence report devoted to trying to discredit Russian news media outlets, RT and Sputnik.
If that’s the best that America’s “national security guardians” can come up with then we can be sure their case against Russia is null and void.
There was a time in the American past when shadowy, unelected elites could control society through monopolistic, servile media and servile politicians kowtowing to their supposed authority.
There was also a naive belief among people that the secret services were defending the nation’s best interests.
Not any more alas. People have got wise to the massive manipulation and criminality of such shadowy powers who orchestrate wars and regime changes all around the world for the narrow benefit of elite corporate power.
Ordinary Americans pay with their lives and livelihoods for the machinations of the ruling cabal.
"The Deep State intel chiefs may have been fawned over by Obama, Congress and the media in their outlandish claims of Russian subversion. But growing numbers of ordinary people in the US and around the world can see through the lies and blatant agenda of hostility towards Russia – an insane hostility that only serves the elite interests of the Deep State."
The once feared, and revered, US Deep State is now facing a deep dilemma and maybe even an existential crisis. For it knows deep down that its erstwhile credibility and authority are shot to pieces.
Down through history, the American rulers got away with their charade of inciting wars and conflicts through false flags and contrived catastrophes: the not-so-secret Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the fabricated Gulf of Tonkin incident that escalated the US genocidal war on Vietnam, the dubious 9/11 terror attacks and Iraq’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction, to mention just a few.
This same warmongering American ruling class want another arms race, Pentagon-pumping Cold War with Russia. But this time they have played a card that is all too evidently blank. The US spooks and their elitist establishment know that Trump, the American people, Russia and the rest of world all know that they have nothing to offer.
No credibility, no morals and no authority, the US Deep State is in deep trouble.
A Deeper Understanding Of Technocracy
Technocracy is the basic agenda and plan for ruling global society from above, so we need to understand it from several angles.
Consider a group of enthusiastic forward-looking engineers in the early 20th century. They work for a company that has a contract to manufacture a locomotive.
This is a highly complex piece of equipment. On one level, workers are required to make the components to spec. Then they must put them all together. These tasks are formidable. On another level, various departments of the company must coordinate their efforts. This is also viewed as a technological job. Organizing is considered a technology.
When the locomotive is finished and delivered, and when it runs on its tracks and pulls a train, a great and inspiring victory is won.
And then…the engineers begin to think about the implications. Suppose the locomotive was society itself? Suppose society was the finished product? Couldn’t society be put together in a coordinated fashion?
And couldn’t the “technology of organizing things” be utilized for the job?
Why bother with endlessly arguing and lying politicians? Why should they be in charge? Isn’t that an obvious losing proposition? Of course it is.
But engineers could lay out and build a future society that would benefit all people. Hunger, disease, and poverty could be wiped out. Eliminating them would be part of the uncompromising blueprint.
This “insight” hit engineers and technicians like a ton of bricks. Of course! All societies had been failures for the same reason: the wrong people were in charge.
Armed with this new understanding, engineers of every stripe began to see what was needed. A revolution in thinking about societal organization. Science was the new king. And science would rule.
Of course, for an engineered world to work, certain decisions would have to be made about the role of the individual. Every individual. You couldn’t have an air-tight plan if every human were free to pursue his own objectives.
Too many variables. Too much confusion. Too much conflict. Well, that problem could be solved. The individual’s actions would be tailored to fit the coordinated operations of the planned society.
The individual would be inserted into a pre-ordained slot. He would be “one of the components of the locomotive.” His life would be connected to other lives to produce an exemplary shape.
Yes, this could imply a few problems, but those problems could be worked out. They would have to be worked out, because the overriding goal was the forming of a world organization.
What would you do if one bolt (an individual human) in one wheel of a locomotive was the wrong size? You would go back and correct the error. You would re-make the bolt.
Among sincere technocrats, the overall vision superseded the glaring problems.
But…other people entered the game. High-echelon Globalists saw technocracy as a system they could use to control the population. Control was their goal. Period. What happened to the individual in the process was of no concern to them. The individual had freedom or he didn’t have freedom, and the Globalists overtly intended to wipe out that freedom.
Erasing hunger, poverty, illness? Nonsense.
For the Globalists, those realities would be exacerbated. Sick, weak, and debilitated people were easier to rule and control and manage.
Essentially, a vastly misguided vision of a future technocratic utopia was hijacked. Something bad was made much worse.
In a nutshell, this is the history of technocracy. A locomotive is a society? No.
That was the first fatally flawed idea. Everything that followed was increasingly psychotic.
Unfortunately, many people in our world believe in Globalism, if you could call a partial vague view a legitimate belief.
They dreamily float on all the propaganda cover stories - greatest good for the greatest number of people; no more poverty; equality of sharing; reducing the carbon footprint; a green economy; “sustainable development”; international cooperation; engineering production and consumption of goods and services for the betterment of everyone; and all of this delivered from a central platform of altruistic guides.
The collective utopia turns out to be a sham. Waking up is hard to do? Breaking up is hard to do? They must be done.
A workable technological fix is a very nice achievement when the project is a machine. But transferring that glow of victory to the whole of society is an illusion. Anything that calls itself education would tackle the illusion as the first order of business.
American Pravda: How The CIA Invented "Conspiracy Theories" January 10 2017 | From: UNZ / ActivistPost / Various
With the sudden, bizarre rise of the “Fake News” accusations throughout the entire Corporate Media megaphone and the equally bizarre and totally unsubstantiated CIA allegations that the Russians had stolen the election for Donald Trump, this topic is highly pertinent.
A year or two ago, I saw the much-touted science fiction film Interstellar, and although the plot wasn’t any good, one early scene was quite amusing. For various reasons, the American government of the future claimed that our Moon Landings of the late 1960s had been faked, a trick aimed at winning the Cold War by bankrupting Russia into fruitless space efforts of its own.
This inversion of historical reality was accepted as true by nearly everyone, and those few people who claimed that Neil Armstrong had indeed set foot on the Moon were universally ridiculed as “crazy conspiracy theorists.” This seems a realistic portrayal of human nature to me.
Obviously, a large fraction of everything described by our government leaders or presented in the pages of our most respectable newspapers - from the 9/11 attacks to the most insignificant local case of petty urban corruption - could objectively be categorized as a “conspiracy theory” but such words are never applied.
Instead, use of that highly loaded phrase is reserved for those theories, whether plausible or fanciful, that do not possess the endorsement stamp of establishmentarian approval.
Put another way, there are good “conspiracy theories” and bad “conspiracy theories,” with the former being the ones promoted by pundits on mainstream television shows and hence never described as such.
I’ve sometimes joked with people that if ownership and control of our television stations and other major media outlets suddenly changed, the new information regime would require only a few weeks of concerted effort to totally invert all of our most famous “conspiracy theories” in the minds of the gullible American public.
The notion that nineteen Arabs armed with box-cutters hijacked several jetliners, easily evaded our NORAD air defenses, and reduced several landmark buildings to rubble would soon be universally ridiculed as the most preposterous “conspiracy theory” ever to have gone straight from the comic books into the minds of the mentally ill, easily surpassing the absurd “lone gunman” theory of the JFK assassination.
Even without such changes in media control, huge shifts in American public beliefs have frequently occurred in the recent past, merely on the basis of implied association.
In the initial weeks and months following the 2001 attacks, every American media organ was enlisted to denounce and vilify Osama Bin Laden, the purported Islamicist master-mind, as our greatest national enemy, with his bearded visage endlessly appearing on television and in print, soon becoming one of the most recognizable faces in the world.
But as the Bush Administration and its key media allies prepared a war against Iraq, the images of the Burning Towers were instead regularly juxtaposed with mustachioed photos of dictator Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden’s arch-enemy.
As a consequence, by the time we attacked Iraq in 2003, polls revealed that some 70% of the American public believed that Saddam was personally involved in the destruction of our World Trade Center.
By that date I don’t doubt that many millions of patriotic but low-information Americans would have angrily denounced and vilified as a “crazy conspiracy theorist” anyone with the temerity to suggest that Saddam had not been behind 9/11, despite almost no one in authority having ever explicitly made such a fallacious claim.
These factors of media manipulation were very much in my mind a couple of years ago when I stumbled across a short but fascinating book published by the University of Texas academic press. The author of Conspiracy Theory in Americawas Prof. Lance deHaven-Smith, a former president of the Florida Political Science Association.
Based on an important FOIA disclosure, the book’s headline revelation was that the CIA was very likely responsible for the widespread introduction of “conspiracy theory” as a term of political abuse, having orchestrated that development as a deliberate means of influencing public opinion.
During the mid-1960s there had been increasing public skepticism about the Warren Commission findings that a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, had been solely responsible for President Kennedy’s assassination, and growing suspicions that top-ranking American leaders had also been involved.
So as a means of damage control, the CIA distributed a secret memo to all its field offices requesting that they enlist their media assets in efforts to ridicule and attack such critics as irrational supporters of “conspiracy theories.”
Soon afterward, there suddenly appeared statements in the media making those exact points, with some of the wording, arguments, and patterns of usage closely matching those CIA guidelines.
The result was a huge spike in the pejorative use of the phrase, which spread throughout the American media, with the residual impact continueing right down to the present day. Thus, there is considerable evidence in support of this particular “conspiracy theory” explaining the widespread appearance of attacks on “conspiracy theories” in the public media.
But although the CIA appears to have effectively manipulated public opinion in order to transform the phrase “conspiracy theory” into a powerful weapon of ideological combat, the author also describes how the necessary philosophical ground had actually been prepared a couple of decades earlier.
Around the time of the Second World War, an important shift in political theory caused a huge decline in the respectability of any “conspiratorial” explanation of historical events.
For decades prior to that conflict, one of our most prominent scholars and public intellectuals had been historian Charles Beard, whose influential writings had heavily focused on the harmful role of various elite conspiracies in shaping American policy for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many, with his examples ranging from the earliest history of the United States down to the nation’s entry into WWI.
Obviously, researchers never claimed that all major historical events had hidden causes, but it was widely accepted that some of them did, and attempting to investigate those possibilities was deemed a perfectly acceptable academic enterprise.
However, Beard was a strong opponent of American entry into the Second World War, and he was marginalized in the years that followed, even prior to his death in 1948. Many younger public intellectuals of a similar bent also suffered the same fate, or were even purged from respectability and denied any access to the mainstream media.
At the same time, the totally contrary perspectives of two European political philosophers, Karl Popper and Leo Strauss, gradually gained ascendancy in American intellectual circles, and their ideas became dominant in public life.
Popper, the more widely influential, presented broad, largely theoretical objections to the very possibility of important conspiracies ever existing, suggesting that these would be implausibly difficult to implement given the fallibility of human agents; what might appear a conspiracy actually amounted to individual actors pursuing their narrow aims.
Even more importantly, he regarded “conspiratorial beliefs” as an extremely dangerous social malady, a major contributing factor to the rise of Nazism and other deadly totalitarian ideologies.
His own background as an individual of Jewish ancestry who had fled Austria in 1937 surely contributed to the depth of his feelings on these philosophical matters.
Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons.
In his mind, elite conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against anarchy or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them hidden from the prying eyes of the ignorant masses.
His main problem with “conspiracy theories” was not that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society.
So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.
Even for most educated Americans, theorists such as Beard, Popper, and Strauss are probably no more than vague names mentioned in textbooks, and that was certainly true in my own case. But while the influence of Beard seems to have largely disappeared in elite circles, the same is hardly true of his rivals.
Meanwhile, the neo-conservative thinkers who have totally dominated the Republican Party and the Conservative Movement for the last couple of decades often proudly trace their ideas back to Strauss.
So, through a mixture of Popperian and Straussian thinking, the traditional American tendency to regard elite conspiracies as a real but harmful aspect of our society was gradually stigmatized as either paranoid or politically dangerous, laying the conditions for its exclusion from respectable discourse.
By 1964, this intellectual revolution had largely been completed, as indicated by the overwhelmingly positive reaction to the famous article by political scientist Richard Hofstadter critiquing the so-called “paranoid style” in American politics, which he denounced as the underlying cause of widespread popular belief in implausible conspiracy theories.
To a considerable extent, he seemed to be attacking straw men, recounting and ridiculing the most outlandish conspiratorial beliefs, while seeming to ignore the ones that had been proven correct.
For example, he described how some of the more hysterical anti-Communists claimed that tens of thousands of Red Chinese troops were hidden in Mexico, preparing an attack on San Diego, while he failed to even acknowledge that for years Communist spies had indeed served near the very top of the U.S. government.
Not even the most conspiratorially minded individual suggests that all alleged conspiracies are true, merely that some of them might be.
Most of these shifts in public sentiment occurred before I was born or when I was a very young child, and my own views were shaped by the rather conventional media narratives that I absorbed. Hence, for nearly my entire life, I always automatically dismissed all of the so-called “conspiracy theories” as ridiculous, never once even considering that any of them might possibly be true.
To the extent that I ever thought about the matter, my reasoning was simple and based on what seemed like good, solid common sense. Any conspiracy responsible for some important public event must surely have many separate “moving parts” to it, whether actors or actions taken, let us say numbering at least 100 or more.
Now given the imperfect nature of all attempts at concealment, it would surely be impossible for all of these to be kept entirely hidden. So even if a conspiracy were initially 95% successful in remaining undetected, five major clues would still be left in plain sight for investigators to find.
And once the buzzing cloud of journalists noticed these, such blatant evidence of conspiracy would certainly attract an additional swarm of energetic investigators, tracing those items back to their origins, with more pieces gradually being uncovered until the entire cover-up likely collapsed.
Even if not all the crucial facts were ever determined, at least the simple conclusion that there had indeed been some sort of conspiracy would quickly become established.
However, there was a tacit assumption in my reasoning, one that I have since decided was entirely false. Obviously, many potential conspiracies either involve powerful governmental officials or situations in which their disclosure would represent a source of considerable embarrassment to such individuals.
But I had always assumed that even if government failed in its investigatory role, the dedicated bloodhounds of the Fourth Estate would invariably come through, tirelessly seeking truth, ratings, and Pulitzers. However, once I gradually began realizing that the media was merely “Our American Pravda” and perhaps had been so for decades, I suddenly recognized the flaw in my logic.
If those five - or ten or twenty or fifty - initial clues were simply ignored by the media, whether through laziness, incompetence, or much less venial sins, then there would be absolutely nothing to prevent successful conspiracies from taking place and remaining undetected, perhaps even the most blatant and careless ones.
In fact, I would extend this notion to a general principle. Substantial control of the media is almost always an absolute prerequisite for any successful conspiracy, the greater the degree of control the better.
So when weighing the plausibility of any conspiracy, the first matter to investigate is who controls the local media and to what extent.
Let us consider a simple thought-experiment. For various reasons these days, the entire American media is extraordinarily hostile to Russia, certainly much more so than it ever was toward the Communist Soviet Union during the 1970s and 1980s.
Hence I would argue that the likelihood of any large-scale Russian conspiracy taking place within the operative zone of those media organs is virtually nil.
Indeed, we are constantly bombarded with stories of alleged Russian conspiracies that appear to be “false positives,” dire allegations seemingly having little factual basis or actually being totally ridiculous.
Meanwhile, even the crudest sort of anti-Russian conspiracy might easily occur without receiving any serious mainstream media notice or investigation.
This argument may be more than purely hypothetical. A crucial turning point in America’s renewed Cold War against Russia was the passage of the 2012 Magnitsky Act by Congress, punitively targeting various supposedly corrupt Russian officials for their alleged involvement in the illegal persecution and death of an employee of Bill Browder, an American hedge-fund manager with large Russian holdings.
However, there’s actually quite a bit of evidence that it was Browder himself who was actually the mastermind and beneficiary of the gigantic corruption scheme, while his employee was planning to testify against him and was therefore fearful of his life for that reason.
Naturally, the American media has provided scarcely a single mention of these remarkable revelations regarding what might amount to a gigantic Magnitsky Hoax of geopolitical significance.
To some extent the creation of the Internet and the vast proliferation of alternative media outlets, including my own small webzine, have somewhat altered this depressing picture.
So it is hardly surprising that a very substantial fraction of the discussion dominating these Samizdat-like publications concerns exactly those subjects regularly condemned as “crazy conspiracy theories” by our mainstream media organs.
Such unfiltered speculation must surely be a source of considerable irritation and worry to government officials who have long relied upon the complicity of their tame media organs to allow their serious misdeeds to pass unnoticed and unpunished.
Indeed, several years ago a senior Obama Administration official argued that the free discussion of various “conspiracy theories” on the Internet was so potentially harmful that government agents should be recruited to “cognitively infiltrate” and disrupt them, essentially proposing a high-tech version of the highly controversial Cointelpro operations undertaken by J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI.
So perhaps Beard was correct all along in recognizing the respectability of “conspiracy theories,” and we should return to his traditional American way of thinking, notwithstanding endless conspiratorial propaganda campaigns by the CIA and others to persuade us that we should dismiss such notions without any serious consideration.
False Flag Terrorism: Murdering The Innocent In Order To Support The Lie + 15 Ways To Detect A False Flag Operation January 9 2017 | From: PaulCraigRoberts / ActivistPost / Various
As my readers know, I reported, factually, on the Boston Marathon alleged bombing case. I interviewed carefully the pro bono attorney, John Remington Graham, who intervened in behalf of the Russian aunt, a lawyer in the Russian Federation, in behalf of the falsely convicted younger Tsarnaev brother, Dzhokhar, the older brother having been murdered by the FBI.
Graham conclusively proved that the FBI’s own evidence proved beyond any doubt that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was innocent, which means so was the older brother.
It is clear beyond reasonable doubt that there was no real bombing at the Boston Marathon and that the alleged terrorist event, using crisis actors, was an orchestration designed to convince dumbshit Americans that they really were under a “Muslim threat.” The entire foreign policy of the United States in the 21st century is based on an orchestrated “Muslim threat.”
The orchestrated threat was also used for a practice exercise in closing down one of America’s largest cities in order to manhunt with intent to kill a young man chosen as the villain for the orchestrated event.
American citizens were forced at gunpoint out of their homes while Homeland Security, a Nazi reminiscent name from the Hitler era, disrupted the life of an entire city and its airport service in behalf of this orchestrated event that murdered American civil liberty.
The entire exercise was based on a lie, an event that never happened, like Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, Assad’s use of chemical weapons, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and so forth. Just another lie in behalf of the “exceptional people.”
A number of websites have disproved the false case against the Tsarnaev brothers. Attorney John Remington Graham has brought the case to the justice authorities, but the US Department of Justice (sic) has no interest whatsoever in justice.
Now comes forward an attorney, Mary Maxwell with a book. It is available online free. I read the first eight chapters, which was sufficient to comfirm me in my independent conclusion that there was no Boston Marathon bombing by terrorists.
I recommend to you Mary Maxwell’s account. However, I will say that I believe that she uses irony excessively and that on occasions her irony gets in the way of the factual message. Knowing this, stick with it, and read her account.
Irony is the style that she has chosen, and we must respect a person prepared to stand up to the murderous American establishment and to challenge one of the founding myths of the American Police State and Washington’s wars against the world.
Read her book Marathon Bombing - Indicting the Players here.
Any US citizen that believes the falsified case of the Boston Marathon bombing is a dangerous and direct threat to American civil liberty and to the lives of millions of people on planet Earth.
If Americans do not wake up to the orchesrations to which they are subjected, they will forfeit their freedom. The Russians and the Chinese are individually and together more powerful than Washington, and they are not going to put up with the lies with which insouciant Americans are content.
If Americans cannot take back their country from self-serving oligarchs, Americans are doomed.
A false flag formula is becoming readily apparent in the face of so many mass shootings and bombings in the US. The phenomenon has become so commonplace in the last 3 years that it’s becoming more American than apple pie.
According to ShootingTracker.com, there have been 353 mass shootings in the USA for 2015 so far. However, as scary as that number is, the good news is that you don’t have to be afraid of them like you may think. A very large number of them - and all of them with any mass media significance and attention – are false flag staged terror events.
Some have real victims, some do not, but either way, the most criminal of all institutions – the Government – is the orchestrating force behind them.
They are scripted, pre-planned operations which are definitely not the result of random gun violence. Just as Obama stated (by hiding the truth in plain sight), there is a pattern behind these mass shootings. The Controllers are following a definite false flag formula.
Below is a list of the top 15 elements of this formula, which you can now use to detect a false flag operation as it occurs:
False Flag Formula #1: Drill at the Same or Nearby Time and Place
The exercise or drill – at the same time, at the same place – has became the sine qua non or indispensable element of the recent false flag operation. Sometimes there are slight variations on this when the Government plans a drill nearby (a few miles away) rather than at the exact place, or plans a drill earlier on in the day, so it can just coincidentally “go live”.
There was a twist in the case of the recent San Bernardino shooting: the Government planned regular drills in the building where the shooting took place every month! (Think about it – what are the chances of a real mass shooting occurring in a building used for mass shooting drills?)
As Captain Eric H. May, a former US Army military intelligence officer, stated:
“The easiest way to carry out a false flag attack is by setting up a military exercise that simulates the very attack you want to carry out."
What’s the point of having a drill at the same time and place? Here are a few of its purposes:
1. Distract and remove key personnel who would otherwise be at the scene to contain and investigate it;
2. Confuse other personnel who will treat the whole event in a different way if they think it is a drill rather than a real event;
3. Slow down, reduce or eliminate an effective response, especially of police and other law enforcement, given the removal and confusion of personnel;
4. Distract and confuse witnesses, the media and the public in general;
5. Provide a great cover and period of lower defenses and security to carry out an attack, which would otherwise be difficult or impossible if defenses were at their usual or optimal operating level.
False Flag Formula #2: Foreknowledge
Another way you can tell that a mass shooting is a false flag op is if you find proof of foreknowledge of the event. As it so happens, all of the notorious and publicized mass attacks of late have had evidence of foreknowledge. Going way back in time, there was foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack of 1941 that got the US into World War 2.
False Flag Formula #3: Eyewitnesses Have Conflicting Accounts
You can also spot a likely false flag operation when you see or hear of multiple conflicting witness accounts. In the case of the Aurora Colorado “Batman” mass shooting, eyewitnesses claimed they saw an entire team of shooters, rather than the single shooter James Holmes of the official narrative.
With Sandy Hook, we saw multiple scenes of law enforcement chasing men into the surrounding forest, yet the official narrative declares the only shooter was Adam Lanza. In San Bernardino, too, witnesses stated they saw 3 white athletic men, not the 2 brown husband-and-wife team we were told did the shooting.
Conflicting eyewitness accounts can destroy the official narrative no matter what the detail is. On 9/11, various fireman told us there were bombs in the building, contradicting the official story that planes alone took down the Twin Towers. With Sandy Hook, Gene Rosen’s testimony itself was full of holes and was contradicted by that of the school bus driver and the official report.
False Flag Formula #4: MSM Quickly Name and Demonize the Patsy
Have you ever wondered how quickly the MSM (Mainstream Media) discovers the name of the patsy? They had somehow deduced that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 just hours after the attacks.
Have you ever wondered why the Government is so good at telling us who supposedly executed these attacks right after they happen, with almost no time to investigate, yet can’t seem to manage to actually stop these alleged terror attacks?
Without any evidence, the MSM endlessly repeated “bin Laden” like a crazy mantra after 9/11, despite the fact bin Laden himself denied involvement in the attacks and that in the end he was never formally charged by the FBI.
Have you ever wondered why many of the patsies, or sorry, deranged mass shooters, are Muslim? That wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the Zionist Government and MSM are trying to paint all Muslims as crazy and scary, would it? Nothing like a good dose of Islamophobia to take your freedom away …
False Flag Formula #5: Patsy Has No Military Training, Yet Shoots Extremely Fast and Accurately
Another element of the false flag formula is the skilled and lethal patsy.
According to the official narrative of false flag ops like Sandy Hook and Aurora, we are supposed to believe that skinny and non-muscular youths, without any discernible military training, were able to acquire expensive military gear (including armor, guns, ammunition and more), wear that gear without getting bogged down in speed, and shoot incredibly fast and accurately.
In San Bernardino, we are supposed to believe that a young mother was strong and skilled enough to participate in killing 14 and injuring 17 people while she was strapped up with body armor and holding heavy weaponry!
In these cases and more, the official story would have you believe that it’s no big deal or just a coincidence that the patsy can acquire all this high-end gear and use it so well.
False Flag Formula #6: Patsy Gets Killed, Drugged or “Suicided”
It is also part of the false flag formula to ensure that the patsy, who is earmarked before the event to take the fall, cannot speak out to rationally defend themselves. This is achieved in a number of ways. The simplest is to have the patsy kill himself or herself by committing “suicide”.
Another favorite way is to take the patsy out in a thrilling high speed chase, which has the added benefit of drawing clueless people in through the MSM and gushingly promoting the police state. Sometimes a patsy is killed in plain sight, just because it’s so important to suppress his testimony (e.g. Lee Harvey Oswald in the JFK assassination).
A third way is to mind control and drug the patsy to such an extent that they become a zombie vegetable unable to articulate anything, as was the case with James Holmes.
False Flag Formula #7: Shooter Leaves Manifesto
In this day and age, writing a manifesto is a strange and anachronistic thing to do. Yet, for some strange reason, shooters’ manifestos seem to crop up an awful lot after mass shootings.
Conveniently for the Controllers, these manifestos provide a perfect explanation for the official narrative, and help fill in the missing (non-existent) motive for the attack – which probably pushes those on the fence over into believing the Government’s version of the event.
While the manifesto is not an element in every false flag operation, it is present in enough of them to be regarded as part of the false flag formula.
False Flag Formula #8: Evidence Gets Conveniently Destroyed
Another element of the false flag formula is the deliberate destruction of evidence, so that the Controllers can cover their tracks.
False Flag Formula #9: No Obvious Motive for the Mass Attack
Have you ever wondered why there is no obvious motive in any of these mass shootings? Crimes are supposed to be solved on the merit of motive and opportunity, yet to hide the reality of a false flag op, the MSM just lies about the motive part, and chalks it up to a deranged shooter.
Other times we are offered the flimsiest of motives, such as people going on an all-out rampage because they had a grievance with a co-worker. In San Bernardino, we were told the young mother, with a 1-year-old child, was aggressive and psychotic enough to help kill 14 and injure 17 people – at the risk of never seeing her child again!
Meanwhile, the real purveyors of these operations profit immensely from the ensuing fear, yet somehow the majority of people don’t seem to see that motive...
False Flag Formula #10: Immediate Calls for Gun Control
Gun control is obviously one of the key agendas behind all of these false flag mass shootings, since a disarmed population is far easier to exploit and manipulate than an armed one. It is an obvious aspect of the false flag formula. Sometimes gun control is even pushed in the immediate aftermath of the event when people are still in a highly emotional and suggestible state.
Take a look at the behavior of Andy Parker, who we were told was the father of a victim killed in the Virginia mass shooting of 2015.
Within hours of hearing the news of the death of his child, Parker had already contacted and talked with the Governor of Virginia, and then appeared on TV saying he would be devoting his entire life to gun control.
In a similar fashion, Richard Martinez, the alleged father of a Santa Barbara mass hooting victim, appeared on TV right after the death angrily pleading for more gun control. In both cases, the political agenda of gun control angrily dominated their reactions, rather than grief or other emotions.
False Flag Formula #11: Fake “Victims” = Crisis Actors
The above 10 points are a useful outline of the false flag formula as it pertains to mass shootings with real victims, i.e. where real people die. However, ever since the surreal Sandy Hook event, which still contains many unanswered questions, we have entered the twilight zone of the false flag hoax.
This is a term used to describe the false flag mass attacks where no one dies – where fake bodies, fake blood and fake victims are used instead. In this way, the entire operation is more tightly controlled and less messy. A hallmark of the false flag hoax is that the authorities never produce a credible piece of evidence showing an actual dead body of a victim.
Is this the same girl crying at all three massacres - Aurora, Sandy Hook and Boston?
The following 5 points relate to false flag hoaxes, and specifically to the people employed to pull them off – crisis actors. It is truly a testament to just how utterly fake our normal world is (the Matrix) that false flag ops have now descended to the level where we have to question whether the event even happened at all.
There are organizations of crisis actors in the US (such as the IIF), and there is clear evidence crisis actors were used at Sandy Hook, Boston Marathon and many others.
Government officials have been caught using the word “actor” to describe various players in these dramas; the MSM has even resorted to calling them actors too (it was one of the buzzwords of the recent San Bernardino mass shooting).
False Flag Formula #12: “Victims” Get Killed Twice
The surreal quality of the false flag hoax reached point of absurdity when it was discovered that one of the “victims” was reportedly killed twice!
We were told that Noah Pozner was one of the victims of the Sandy Hook shooting, yet his picture was also among those killed in a Pakistan Taliban attack.
Apparently the recycling of fake victims is another part of the false flag formula.
False Flag Formula #13: Families of “Victims” Have Elite or Acting Backgrounds
Is it just a coincidence that the families of mass shooting “victims” have either elite or acting backgrounds? At the Sandy Hook event, local CEO of the Newtown bank John Trentacosta (whose house was next to the Lanzas and had a lot of unusual activity occurring there the day of Sandy Hook) was connected to the New York Federal Reserve (and thus the international banking elite).
Francine Wheeler was formerly the personal assistant of former chief Democratic National Committee fundraiser Maureen White whose husband Steven Rattner is a Wall Street investment banker and member of the Rockefeller CFR (Council on Foreign Relations)!
It was also noteworthy at Sandy Hook how acting showed up in the resumes of so many of the key players there. Gene Rosen, David and Francine Wheeler (both professional actors) and others all had a background in acting. Father of Virginia mass shooting “victim” Andy Parker is an actor (and a politician too). This fact supports the idea that another element of the false flag formula is to watch for people with elite connections and acting backgrounds.
False Flag Formula #14: Families of “Victims” Show Little to No Emotion, and Even Snigger and Laugh
Luckily for truth seekers, the majority of crisis actors used in these false flag events are poor actors who are utterly unconvincing in the roles they play. The majority display little or no emotion after an alleged tragedy like losing a family member child to a random and violent mass shooting.
It is true that humans do vary widely with emotional response and expression. However, with many of the crisis actors, judging by their reactions, it simply strains credibility too much to believe that they have just have been through a harrowing and traumatic ordeal.
Given the range of possible reactions to a tragedy like losing a loved one in a mass shooting, what are the chances that many of the “victims’” family members are so non-emotional, or so understanding, or so quick to forgive?
It’s shameful enough that the crisis actors playing these roles are perpetrating a monumental deception on the public, tugging at the average person’s heartstrings solely to trick them.
However, on top of that, these actors have the gall to actually laugh – to smile, snigger and giggle – while pulling off their atrocious stunts. The only conclusion to draw from this is that it must be pretty funny to get a paid gig like this fooling millions of people…
False Flag Formula #15: Families of “Victims” Receive Millions in Federal Payoffs
In the US, the land of the lawsuit, people are generally pretty fast to initiate a lawsuit if they feel they have been wronged. It is highly strange, therefore, that none of the alleged parents of the Sandy Hook event decided to sue the Government for negligence or to demand redress for any other grievance.
The Federal Government just gave it over to them without asking! Ask yourself: is is more likely the Government would just do this out of the goodness of its heart, or that the money was more like a bribe/blackmail/payout all rolled into one, awarded to actors playing a part in a role and being sworn to silence?
Conclusion: Use the 15 Elements of the False Flag Formula to Be More Aware
These are 15 elements I noticed forming the false flag formula. There may well be more.
Meanwhile, use the knowledge you have of the false flag formula to become more aware, wise and hip to the deception, so that the next time it unfolds (as it surely will), you will be among those that spot the fakery, rather than among those who are too scared, shell-shocked and gullible to do anything other than buy the official narrative.
Trump Confirms "No Effect On The Outcome Of The Election" Following Intelligence Briefing + Experts Reveal The Tricks Mainstream Media Uses To Brainwash And Control The Masses January 8 2017 | From: Zerohedge / NaturalNews / Various
President-elect Trump has issued a statement following his briefing with various intelligence agencies over the Russian hacking allegations, seemingly rejecting the Democrats' charges that it was the Russians alone and that it had any effect on the outcome of the election.
Additionally, Trump promised to appoint a team to give him a plan to combat cyber attacks within 90 days of taking office.
Experts Reveal The Tricks Mainstream Media Uses To Brainwash And Control The Masses
You may not know this, but intelligence agencies around the world have, for decades, infiltrated “target” countries by having their agents and operatives pose as journalists (no, I’m not an intelligence operative).
That served two purposes: 1) it provided the operative with legitimate cover; and 2) it allowed the operative’s government to use the operatives “media” position to shape public opinion in the host country.
But in truth, that kind of propagandizing and brainwashing is also done by institutional media pushing a specific political agenda. Think back to our recently concluded presidential election cycle and what the “mainstream media” did in a failed effort to get its anointed candidate, Hillary Clinton, elected.
As reported by The Waking Times, experts denote a number of techniques that are used by the establishment media to brainwash the public and create/control the daily narrative.
The Mainstream Media Are the Real Purveyors of ‘Fake News’
Edward Bernays is known as the father of modern propaganda. He was the first to use social engineering techniques spread via the mass media of the day. In the early 20th century, he laid the groundwork for what became cultural programming at the societal level by assisting in the transformation of a mostly rural, agrarian-based American society into a homogenized culture of devout statists and consumers.
The principles he developed and implemented have greatly influenced the growth of American culture, how it grew and the direction it took.
Having picked up Bernays’ torch in the 21st century, several experts on modern brainwashing, mind control and propaganda have recently given insight into their craft.
Think about what is ailing our countries today, in terms of societal problems. There is corruption of so-called “grassroots movements” that are actually funded by Left-wing billionaires such as George Soros and Bill Gates, and yet the movements are portrayed by the establishment media very often as spontaneous and locally brewed, but all are attempting to achieve a specific social and political result.
The efforts of these allegedly organic groups are amplified many times their size by the media, which gives them both credence and a megaphone with which to shout their views. And what do they shout?
America is racist, bigoted, homophobic, unfair, politically broken, etc. Never are the calls for unity or praise for our country given any attention at all.
Much of this is done via a technique known as “astroturfing.” Seasoned veteran investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson explains;
“Astroturf is a perversion of grassroots. Astroturf is when political, corporate or other special interests disguise themselves and publish blogs, start Facebook and twitter accounts, publish ads, letters to the editor, or simply post comments online, to try to fool you into thinking an independent or grassroots movement is speaking.”
Controlling Our Thoughts by Creating False Narratives
Another technique used is subliminal messaging. This is a cornerstone of mind control, and when a person is unwittingly bombarded with cleverly concealed information, an emotion can be trigged leaving a person’s intellect and better judgment subjugated in favor of a mental process like fear or sexual desire.
You may never consciously understand or realize why you begin to adopt certain behaviors, products of lifestyles, but the attraction is nonetheless real and that manifests itself through actual personal choices.
In a 2011 documentary called Programming the Nation, filmmaker, graphic artist and digital media producer Jeff Warrick, a former advertising sales rep, provided examples of how subliminal messaging and other subconscious methods are employed by ad executives and other media to create cultural ‘norms’ and social programs like consumerism, materialization of women’s bodies, health choices and the glorification of violence.
“Could such techniques really be contributing to a variety of social, political and economic problems currently present in our culture? Such as obesity, anorexia, and other eating disorders? The ongoing war on terror?
And what about the ever-increasing amounts of debt, that has tightened its grip on a growing percentage of the population?” the documentary says.
Other techniques include fake news - yes, by the mainstream media - omission (not covering an issue as though it wasn’t real or important); slanting coverage through the use of biased “expert” sources; and publishing falsified data and science as though it were legitimate.
The European Union Initiates Cashless Society Project January 8 2017 | From: GlobalResearch
A few months back The Guardian ran an article stating that “Swedes are blazing a trail in Europe, with banks, buses, street vendors and even churches expecting plastic or virtual payment” as if the cashless society was something to be celebrated by modern society.
“I don’t use cash any more, for anything,” said Louise Henriksson, 26, a teaching assistant. “You just don’t need it. Shops don’t want it; lots of banks don’t even have it. Even for a candy bar or a paper, you use a card or phone.”
Cash transactions are already outdated in Sweden. According to central bank the ‘Riksbank’, cash transactions will make up up barely 0.5% of the value of all payments made in Sweden by 2020.
Likewise and according to The Independent, Denmark has moved one step closer to becoming the world’s first cashless society, as the government proposes scrapping the obligation for retailers to accept cash as payment – because, as they say, its to do with the “burden of managing change and notes.”
Strange then that all this is happening in an environment where EUR bank note circulation is still rising.
The European Payments Council (EPC), a subdivision of the European Central Bank, are taking steps in their quest to fully eliminate all cash. The reason is not to lift the burden off retailers or to make transactions more convenient but in reality to raise desperately needed taxes.
Highly respected ‘ArmstrongEconomics‘ reports that the EPC are going full steam ahead to enable immediate payment systems throughout not just the Eurozone but the entire European Union.
The Single European Payments Area (SEPA) has been devised with the ultimate goal of eliminating ATM cash machines and force everyone to use their mobile phones or plastic cards, the project starting as early as November 2017.
In the absence of confirmed information on this point, it is likely that tourists and business people will be forced to pre-pay Euro’s onto an App if they come from a country outside the eurozone, currently made up of Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain.
“The Single Euro Payments Area (or “SEPA” for short) is where more than 500 million citizens, over 20 million businesses and European public authorities can make and receive payments in euro.
SEPA also means better banking services for all: transparent pricing, valuable guarantees ensuring that your payments are received promptly and in full, and banks assuming responsibility if something goes wrong with your payment.”
This year, meetings and conferences called “Towards a cashless society” were started to get the information transfer across to the infrastructure, supported very heavily by the banks.
It looks as though the initial battleground for banning cash will be… Greece.
“Greek banks propose a series of measures to combat tax evasion, strengthen the electronic transactions and limit the use of cash in the economy. One of the measures proposed is a special tax on cash withdrawals.
Bankers reportedly stress that cash money can easily and largely be channeled in the black economy. Therefore, a tax on cash withdrawals will drastically reduce cash transactions and by extension the black economy.”
The proposal includes reforming the tax system by introducing a revenue-expenditure system. Households and/or workers will only be taxed on the amount of income that is has not been spent. In this way, people will have a strong incentive to seek receipts for any expenditure in order to increase their expenditure and reduce the tax amount they will have to pay.
There will also be an obligation for all businesses and regardless of their size to pay electronically every salary and wage.
There is another tactic in play to push the cashless society even quicker. As Sratfor Global Intelligence reports:
“The eurozone has found a new scapegoat for international crime: the 500-euro note.
The Continent’s leaders are seriously discussing decommissioning the euro’s highest denomination, which is favored by crime groups for transferring massive sums across international borders.
Eliminating the bank note could help temper criminal activity, but in reality the implications are much broader. The idea is just the most recent step in an ongoing process moving Europe, and indeed the world, closer to an entirely cashless economy.”
None of this will go down well in both Germany and Austria who experienced periods of extreme hyperinflation after the world wars. This, along with life under dictatorships and in high-surveillance societies, has given both populations a fierce desire to protect their privacy (please note) - something that is afforded by the anonymity of using cash - and to keep wealth in physical form to avoid relying on systemic institutions.
There is another more sinister reason for forcing a cashless society. TruePublica reported last September that a deal had been signed by the administrations of the US, UK and EU when it comes to bank depositors. We said that:
“Procedures in the event of the failure of a systemically important bank clearly states that depositors are to be protected – that is, until options have ceased to exist.
Next time, the state will be last in line, not first. Depositor bail-in schemes are now a reality.”
In other words, if a big bank fails you will be unable to cause a run on a bank by withdrawing your cash.
Indeed, the rescue of Italy’s Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena, reported by all the press as imminent has one other thing in common, none of them are sure if this will be full or partial nationalisation, state bail-out or a depositor bail-in.
What the authorities want to do is avoid this nightmare scenario that happened on Britain’s streets: The Economist (Sept 2007 just before the full blown financial crisis erupted) - The queues that formed outside Northern Rock, the country’s fifth-biggest mortgage lender, represented the first bank run in Britain since 1866.
The panic was prompted by the very announcement designed to prevent it. Only when the Bank of England said that it would stand by the stricken Northern Rock did depositors start to run for the exit.
Attempts by Alistair Darling, the chancellor of the exchequer, to reassure savers served only to lengthen the queues of people outside branches demanding their money.
Bitcoin Surge Explained and The Future Of Cryptocurrencies
The run did not stop until Mr Darling gave a taxpayer-backed guarantee on September 17th that, for the time being, all the existing deposits at Northern Rock were safe.
In addition to all of this, the use of negative interest rates, never implemented in 5,000 years since the invention of money, is designed to force money out of the banks and into the economy which can be manipulated simply by changing the rate when required.
The holy grail of economic measurement is rising GDP, which has eluded the ECB policymakers since the financial crash reared its ugly head leaving wave after wave of social crisis.
Its answer was to print money and push 50% more into the economy and yet achieved an inflation rate barely above zero. Taxing cash at ATM’s or forcing it out of banks via punitive interest will be the norm in a few years.
Finally, with all money moving electronically the banks and government have another distinct advantage over you.
Eighteen months ago, there was a run on the banks in Greece so the central bank imposed capital controls, highly restricting the amount of cash that could be withdrawn daily. In the few weeks prior to those controls ¢45billion was withdrawn and stuffed under mattresses. This won’t happen again if there are no ATM’s and cash transfers have all but been eliminated.
One way to the other – in the end, you are not going to be in control of your own money in a cashless society, that’s for sure.
Diary Of A Person Of Interest & Oxford PHD Katherine Horton "Intelligence Agencies Are Attacking Me With Direct Energy Weapons!" January 3 2017 | From: Endarken / Stop007.org
Kiwi journalist and activist Suzie Dawson has been extensively targeted by Western intelligence agencies and their contractors. This video and the following one are very important. The second one more so if you want to understand the how and why of exotic microwave 'Non-Lethal Weapons'.
In the wake of several attempts on her life, she had to leave New Zealand to live in exile in Europe.
In this unique documentary, Suzie discusses what it is really like to be a target of the Five Eyes; why she was targeted, who she was targeted by, how they targeted her, what their end game is and how to try to counter it.
Suzie's original article titled 'Diary of a Person of Interest' can be found here.
Her debrief and speech notes from her 2015 talk of the same name can be read here.
The extent of the havoc wreaked by American political interests in New Zealand (particularly since 2008) is best explained by Suzie's colossal article "The Desecration of New Zealand" which can be read here:
"Hey guys, thank you for watching and sharing my first film. The events depicted in it roughly cover the period October 2011 to January 2015. Some may find the topics discussed here terrifying - but it is reality in this day and age and to change it we have to face it.
There is a lot more yet to be revealed about my story, what I did and what has happened to me since becoming exiled. So you can expect more content from me and soon. If you want to reach out, or to walk with me on my journey you can follow me on Twitter: @Suzi3D or keep an eye on my website: Suzi3D.com.
The more friendly eyes I have on me, the safer I am and the better chance I have to be able to continue my work. Please, pass this video on to anyone who you think may be a target, as the information presented here can be the difference between sanity and a breakdown, to someone going through it. Thank you so much for your support. Love, Suzie"
14 Eyebrow-Raising Things Google Knows About You December 24 2016 | From: NetworkWorld
Some are fascinating, others are frightening - but here's how to find out what Google has on you. Google may know more about me than I know about myself.
I'm not just saying that, either: I recently started poking around in Google's personal data repositories and realized that, between my wide-reaching use of the company's services and my own brain's inability to remember anything for more than seven seconds, Google may actually have the upper hand when it comes to knowledge about my life.
From face-tagged photos of my past adventures (what year did I go to Nashville, again - and who went with me to that Eddie Vedder show?) to the minute-by-minute play-by-play of my not-so-adventuresome days (wait, you mean I really only left the house once last Wednesday - and just to get a freakin' sandwich?!), Google's got all sorts of goods on me.
Heck, even my hopes and dreams (which may or may not involve sandwiches) are probably catalogued somewhere in its systems. And the data itself is only half the story: Google also compiles oodles of stats - stats that, for better and for worse, shed light onto the tech-connected habits of our modern lives. And don't doubt Apple does the exact same things either.
How many emails have you actually sent over the years, for instance, and how many thousands of web pages have you pulled up in your browser? It really is enlightening, among other things, to see your actions broken down so precisely.
And remember, too, that all this data collection is completely optional - and very much a tradeoff: By agreeing to let Google store and use your data, you're getting access to an ever-expanding array of futuristic features at no monetary cost.
But the decision is ultimately in your hands. To learn more about how Google uses specific types of data and how you can opt out of any or all areas of collection, see the "Opting out and taking control" section at the end of this story.
All of that being said, here are some of the more amusing - and maybe slightly surprising - things you might find about yourself by prodding the right parts of Google's noggin. How many of these items actually apply to you depends on which Google services you use and how exactly you use them.
To wit: Android users who take advantage of built-in features such as voice commands, location history and photo backups will almost certainly have more data tracked by Google than non-Android users.
But anyone who regularly uses Gmail, Google search, Google Maps, YouTube, Chrome and/or other Google services from any mobile device or computer will likely find at least some interesting nuggets from the following list.
1. A full history of your voice commands with any Google product - including actual audio recordings
Everything you've ever said to Google, in one convenient place. OK, Google: Remind me how silly I sound when talking to my phone (you know, when it seems like no one else is listening). If you use voice commands on Android or any other Google product (for instance, voice searches in the Google iOS app when you're logged in with your Google account), head to the "Voice & Audio" section of Google's My Activity site to see and hear a comprehensive list of everything you've ever said to that inanimate object in your pocket.
And yes, your voice really does sound like that.
2. An objective breakdown of your real BFFs (according to Google)
Data doesn't lie. Discover whom among your Google contacts you interact with the most by clicking the "Contacts" header on Google's account dashboard. Just be prepared to make up excuses if your significant other doesn't make the "Frequently contacted" list.
3. How much stuff Chrome has saved about you
Your browsing habits, broken down into indisputable numbers.
If you use the Chrome browser and typically stay signed into it, check out your account's Chrome Sync settings page to see all sorts of brag- and/or shame-worthy stats about your personal browsing habits - things like how many bookmarks you've saved, how many tabs you have open across different devices and how many websites you've typed into Chrome's address bar (since last resetting your browser's history).
Free cookie* if you guess within five points of any of your values. * A free browser cookie, that is. C'mon - what did you expect?
4. How many Gmail conversations you've had
Provided you use Gmail's archiving system instead of permanently deleting messages, you may be in for a shock: Click the aptly named "Gmail" header in Google's account dashboard, and get ready to see why your days always seem so short.
Case in point: I have 145,810 message threads in my Gmail account -- with just over 28,000 sent messages. Let me repeat that: Twenty-eight thousand sent messages. No wonder I never get anything accomplished.
File this one under "Cool Yet Creepy": Google Maps' Timeline feature contains a detailed diary of your every move -- down to the minute.
No exaggeration: If you carry an Android phone and have opted into location history, the site will show you where you were every moment of every day. And if you really want to weird yourself out, open Timeline from a desktop and click the year tab in the upper-left corner of the screen. Select "All Time," then click the red box in the lower-left corner to see an ordered list of your most visited places.
(My top four are currently my house, Target, the grocery and Barnes & Noble. What can I say? It's a wild and crazy life I lead.)
6. A full list of everything you've done from any Android device
Your smartphone is a fantastic tool for productivity-enhancing tasks like word processing, spreadsheet creation, and... oh, who the hell are we kidding? You're using the thing for mindless web browsing and meaningless game-playing, just like everyone else.You can see a detailed log of activity on your Android devices at Google's My Activity site.
Find out for sure what you're doing on your Android devices - or what someone else is doing on them, if colleagues or kiddos ever get their hands on your phone - by opening Google's My Activity site. Select the option to "Filter by date & product," then select "Android" and click the blue search icon.
Just don't let your boss see that you spent all of Tuesday's meeting "working" on Words With Friends.
7. A comprehensive collection of every site you've visited in Chrome - on any device
These days, Chrome isn't just a desktop browser - and if you're using the program from a phone or tablet as well as a regular computer, you're bound to have quite the collective history.
See where you've been on the web (while signed in to Chrome) by opening Google's My Activity page and checking "Chrome" in the filter list. You can search for specific keywords and even filter further by date -- a useful tool if you ever need to find a site you pulled up somewhere but can't quite remember.
If you're not seeing your Chrome history on the My Activity page, go to the Activity controls and make sure the Web & App Activity toggle is on and the "Include Chrome browsing history and activity from websites and apps that use Google services" box is checked. (Also make sure that you're signed into Chrome on your various devices.) Your Chrome activity will be tracked from this point forward.
As for the sites you'd rather not have recorded - well, amigos, let's just say that Incognito mode is your friend.
8. Exactly how many Google searches you've made this month
First and foremost, Google is a search engine -- so how much are you Googling? Get the skinny by scrolling down to the "Search History" header in Google's account dashboard.
Click the header to see precisely how many times you've called upon Google's knowledge from any device while signed into your Google account in the past month -- along with a breakdown of your most common search types and some of your most frequently used queries. (Again: Incognito mode. Never forget.)
9. A running count of how many Android devices you've had connected to your account over the years
Think you've been through a lot of phones and mobile devices? Calculate your official Android Geek Quotient score by pulling up Google's account dashboard and looking for the "Android" header. The big green number beneath it will tell you how many Android products have ever been associated with your account. (Hopefully yours isn't as high as my almost-silly-seeming score of 78.)
You can get more detailed info on all the devices, too -- including when each product was last used and a list of all the apps it has backed up to Google's servers -- by clicking the header. And a quick tip: If you want to get old, inactive devices out of your hair, head to the Play Store settings page and uncheck the "Show in menus" option next to any phones or tablets that are no longer relevant.
10. A running count of how many Android apps you've ever installed
Your Android app stats can be both enlightening and alarming. Trying out new apps is a great way to keep your mobile tech feeling fresh -- to a certain point, anyway. See if you've crossed the line from adventurous to ridiculous by finding the "Play Store" header on Google's account dashboard.
If you manage to top my current total of 1,191 apps, seek immediate help.
11. Some stats on your invite-accepting habits
Are you a person who tends to accept event invitations? Or do you say "no" more often than "yes"? If you're a Google Calendar user who frequently interacts with other Google Calendar users, you can find out by clicking the "Calendar" header at Google's account dashboard. That'll give you a breakdown of your accepting-vs.-rejecting activity over the past month, including a handy pie chart to illustrate your temperament in visual form. Hey, at least there's no line graph on the lameness of your excuses.
12. How many images you've stored with Google Photos
I don't know about you, but I tend to take way too many pictures -- mostly of my 22-month-old daughter (and occasionally of those damn squirrels that always run through my backyard and taunt me with their superior short-term memories).
Thankfully, Google Photos makes it simple for me to store all these images and access them anywhere -- and also to see at a glance just how absurdly large my personal photo collection has gotten. To get the lowdown on your own virtual photo box, mosey down to the "Photos" header in Google's account dashboard. And be sure to take a mental snapshot of the result.
13. A full list of all your activity in the Google Play Store
Everything you've ever searched for in the Play Store, in one centralized place.
Have you ever looked at or searched for something in the Play Store -- then tried to find it again later, only to realize your memory was worse than your friendly neighborhood squirrel's? I know I have.
So use my trick: The next time you find yourself wishing for a time machine, just scamper over to Google's My Activity page. Filter the results to "Play," and voila: You'll find a full list of every item you've viewed and every Play Store search you've made while signed into your Google account. Now if only this thing had a way to tell me where I buried my acorn the other day...
14. How many YouTube videos you've watched this month
We've all been there: You're in the middle of something extremely productive (naturally) when a single YouTube link happens to catch your eye. Watching one video seems harmless enough, right?
But then the inevitable happens: One video turns to two. Wait, what's that in the "Related" section - a clip of a bird whistling the melody to Guns N' Roses' "Patience"? Click. Watch. Repeat. Before you know it, you're 19 videos in, and the afternoon is over.
Discover just how much YouTube time-whittlin' you've done in the last month (while logged into your Google account) by visiting Google's account dashboard and clicking the "YouTube" header. And for the love of Goog, if your monthly tally is over 200, think long and hard before clicking that next cat-dancing clip.
Opting out and taking control
Want to turn off specific types of data collection or delete existing info from your Google account history? The Google privacy site is the best place to start; there, Google provides detailed information about how each type of data is used along with links to opt out of any specific areas. You can also visit Google's Activity controls page for a simple single-page list of on-off toggles.
If you're looking to clean up your history for anything that Google has been tracking, head to the My Activity site.
You can delete any individual item right then and there by clicking the three-dot icon in its upper-right corner and choosing Delete, or click the "Delete activity by" link in the left column for an easy way to erase info based on date and/or product.
Data collection controls can be also found on an Android device by opening the main system settings and selecting Google (or, if you're on an older device, looking for the standalone Google Settings app) and then tapping "Personal info & privacy."
Top 10 Most Delusional “Facts” Of The Lunatic Left-Wing Fact-Checkers December 22 2016 | From: NaturalNews
Since Facebook has announced its intention to erect a Ministry of Truth echo chamber by labeling all news it doesn’t like “fake news,” I thought it appropriate to unveil the top 10 most delusional “facts” people will be subjected to if they keep viewing Facebook, CNN, or any other news propaganda being put out by what has become the mentally ill political left today.
As anyone with a functioning brain already knows, the unhinged left is utterly clueless about the properties of “facts” or where they come from. To them, “facts” are whatever their friends keep repeating, even if they have no basis whatsoever in evidence or reality.
In essence, “facts” are whatever they believe, while “fake news” is whatever you believe. (It really is that simple in their feeble brains.)
So consider these top 10 most delusional “facts” we’ll soon see rolled out as “truth” by the newly-sprung news cartels operating inside Fakebook.
“Fact” #1: Eating Meat is Cruelty to Animals, But Harvesting the Organs of Living, Partially-Born Human Babies Isn’t Cruel at All
Somehow, the delusional left has decided that animals are conscious beings but not human babies. Yeah, it’s insane, I know. Liberalism is best defined as a kind of mental illness where a person can hold two utterly contradictory thoughts in their head at the same time while simultaneously believing them both.
To demonstrate this particular brand of lunacy, a Beastie Boy recently announced a new line of “cruelty free” sneakers with proceeds to benefit abortion providers. Yep, “no animals were harmed in the process of butchering these babies” might as well be the sicko slogan of the unhinged left.
“Fact” #2: If Not For the Burning of Fossil Fuels, Earth’s Climate Would Never Change at All
At first, they called their hoax “global warming,” but when it turned out the Earth wasn’t warming at all - funny how that works when you use actual data instead of fraudulently altered numbers - they had to roll out a more encompassing name: Climate Change.
According to Climate Change cultists - named thusly because no amount of evidence can alter their “faith” in Climate Change - Earth’s climate never changed at all until humankind came along and started burning fossil fuels.
But now - OMG! - every hurricane, flood, drought, forest fire and freezing arctic blast is automatically attributed to “climate change.” Yep, especially among young leftists who have been indoctrinated by the lies of government-run schools, they think their ancestors lived in a time when Earth was eternal Spring, with no climate variation or natural disasters whatsoever.
It’s only because you and I are using air conditioning and driving SUVs that the planet has become angry, unleashing all sorts of climatic “changes” that otherwise would have never occurred.
This explanation, you may have noticed, closely resembles the superstitions of 5th-century humans who largely believed that bad weather and solar eclipses were caused by “angry gods” seeking to punish them. In over 1000 years, we’ve learned nothing, it seems, and “progressives” have thrust us back to an era of incredible ignorance and superstition where scientific evidence is abandoned for the sake of powerful cult-like beliefs.
“Fact” #3: People with XY Chromosomes Can Instantly Transform All Their Genes Into XX Chromosomes by Declaring Themselves to be Women (the Theory of Spontaneous Genetic Transmutation…)
Ask any young liberal and they’ll tell you there are at least 30 genders, maybe even more if you count “TransUnicorn.” If you can stop laughing hilariously, ask them whether sex is determined by genetic expression or by a “choice.” They will insist it’s a “choice!”
And just like that, the delusional leftists discard centuries of scientific knowledge in genetics, sexual reproduction, phenotype expressions and physical reality. If you dare point out to them that “transgenderism is a mental illness,” they will label you a purveyor of either hatred or “fake news.”
To them, a “feeling” is more REAL than actual science, you see. And if a young man sucks down enough bisphenol-A to start “feeling” like a woman, then his womanhood is accepted as a “fact” by the deranged lunatic left. Some of them even insist that such “gender-fluid” biological males can get pregnant and have babies!
I have named this hilarious bit of leftish delusional idiocy the Theory of Spontaneous Genetic Transmutation. This theory is quite literally accepted as “fact” by nearly every liberal under the age of 30.
“Fact” #4: Media News Coverage During the Presidential Campaign Was Completely Fair to Both Clinton and Trump, But the DNC Hacks Were One-Sided, and Thus Totally Unfair
Yep, according to the delusional left, the almost universally glowing media coverage of Hillary Clinton - alongside relentless media attacks waged against Trump - were “fair and balanced.” But Trump won the election because the DNC hacks (which were actually leaks from a Bernie Sanders supporter, not hacks at all) were totally unfair because they only leaked the emails of the democrats, not republicans.
Kellyanne Conway: CIA Should Go and Testify and Stop Leaking to the Media
Hidden in that protest is an astonishing presumption that all the leaked DNC emails were true! And they reveal a deeply shocking level of collusion inside the DNC to destroy Bernie Sanders and steal the nomination for Hillary Clinton.
“Fact” #5: Hillary Clinton Should be President Because She Won the Popular Vote, But When Bernie Sanders Kept Winning the Popular Vote During the Primary, Clinton Somehow Got All the Delegates… Hmmm…
Hilariously, the Clinton campaign (and all delusional leftists in general) only believes in “popular votes” when they win the popular vote.
When they don’t win the popular vote, they believe in rigging the delegates to make sure their candidate gets the delegate votes even if they lost the popular vote. This is exactly how Hillary Clinton kept walking away with the vast majority of delegates even in states where Bernie Sanders won the popular votes (sometimes in a landslide).
Beyond all that, the presidential election is not determined by popular votes, or else Donald Trump would have campaigned heavily in places like New York City and Los Angeles.
The winner is determined by Electoral Votes, which is why Donald Trump campaigned in the areas that deliver electoral victories. (Gosh, is he supposed to be a bad person for following the rules and winning by those rules?)
Judge Jeanine: I'll tell you what hope is, Michelle
If the Clinton campaign didn’t think the Electoral College was fair, why didn’t they protest it before the results revealed Hillary to be the loser? The answer, of course, is because nearly every leftist in America was completely convinced that Hillary Clinton would win the election (because that’s what the media echo chamber told them).
Hilariously, this caused many of them to avoid going out to vote, thereby ensuring their ballot box loss. CNN’s false media narrative that Hillary was “unbeatable,” in other words, may have actually handed Donald Trump the election victory. (Such is the price of extreme arrogance.)
“Fact” #6: There’s No Such Thing as a Hate Crime Against White People
According to the lunatic left, “hate crimes” can only be committed by white people against people of color. The opposite cannot occur because white people “deserve” to be beaten, raped, or shot by people of color, you see. (For the record, I am a person of color, which means I am therefore incapable of committing any hate crime myself, you see.)
Thus, when a group of Black Lives Matter terrorists marches in the streets calling for the open murder of white people - or dragging people out of their vehicles and beating them solely because of their white skin color - they are not engage in hate crimes at all, according to the delusional left.
Instead, they are said to be engaged in “social justice.” Because, you see, violence is always called “justice” by the worst criminals in every collapsing society.
This is why the entire left-wing media censors all news about black people attacking white people, but strongly emphasizes all news about white people attacking black people. It’s all part of controlling the narrative to paint the kind of one-sided propaganda that the delusional left depends on for its very survival.
For the record, here at Natural News, we believe that there is no such thing as a thought crime. Crimes of violence are crimes in and of themselves due to their actions. Attaching a layer of “hate” to the motivation behind such a crime is a grave injustice.
Crimes should be prosecuted based on the actions of those who committed them, not on the words uttered while carrying them out. Otherwise, we are admitting that words are crimes.
“Fact” #7: Guns Are Conscious, Self-Animating Objects That Leap Out Of Their Holsters and Shoot People All On Their Own
According to delusional leftists who essentially believe in magic, guns are self-directed objects that shoot people all on their own. Leftists truly believe that a gun in a room can leap to its feet, target individuals and discharge bullets without needing to be actuated by the will of a person.
This is where the delusional left comes up with meaningless phrases like “gun violence,” placing the emphasis on the inanimate object rather than the person deploying it. There is no such thing as “gun violence” any more than there is “hammer violence” when murderers use hammers.
When Somali tribes commit mass murder against each other using machetes, the left never describes such events as “machete violence” and tries to blame machetes. Ever wonder why? Because that would sound incredibly stupid.
But when it comes to guns, the left gladly invokes the phrase “gun violence” in order to blame guns rather than people. It’s a deliberately loaded phrase that’s designed to blame guns rather than the mostly left-wing criminals who use them to commit violence against society.
Similarly, when radical Islamic terrorists used an ice cream truck to mow down tourists in Paris, the left-wing media reported the mass murder as being carried out by the truck! News reports proclaimed, “TRUCK runs over 85 people…” or “Authorities are searching for TRUCK that murdered 85…”
Somehow, it never occurs to idiotic leftists that a terrorist was driving the truck. And if trucks are such murderous instruments of death, then why isn’t the left calling for a nationwide truck ban?
“Fact” #8: Only Progressives Can Identify “Facts”… Everyone Else Doesn’t Know What They’re Talking About
This “fact” is the best one of all. According to the delusional, fringe left, only people who support left-wing policies can recognize or identify “facts.”
This twisted special sauce of circular logic is what leftists tell themselves when they proclaim their version of “facts” to be absolute and authoritative, while anyone else’s version of “facts” are nothing but lies and falsehoods.
Thus, the lunatic left believes it gets facts straight from God in a sort of “divining ritual” from which indisputable facts emerge much like a genie might appear after vigorously rubbing a brass lamp.
This “monopoly of facts” is the sole domain of liberals, you see, and they know this because so many of them agree with that supposition, thus proving it to be true by “social consensus.” They surveyed each other, you see, and now they cite the survey which states that “100% of all people everywhere participate in surveys.” This, too, is a “fact” of the delusional left-wing media.
(It’s kind of convenient for journalists at the Washington Post when they merely need to cite each other as “unnamed sources” for whatever news they happen to be fabricating at the moment, too.
Who needs actual intelligence sources when WashPost reporters can circle jerk each other for made-up quotes that get worked into their front page fabrications?)
“Fact” #9: Intentions Count MoreThan Actions
Obama is a good President and a good person. How do we know that? Because he has good intentions.
Never mind the fact that he doubled the national debt to nearly $20 trillion. Never mind the fact that his DOJ masterminded a gun-running operation to put illegal weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels (Operation Fast and Furious).
Never mind the indisputable observation that he was a race baiter who created division, hatred and distrust across America’s cultural fabric. And pay no attention to the astonishing job loss, unemployment and plummeting wages caused by the Obamacare scheme he championed as some sort of twisted, pathetic “legacy.”
Nope, you’re not supposed to consider actual reality when it comes to judging people on the left. They are all given a pass on their behavior as long as they have good intentions, you see.
This is why it doesn’t matter to the left that Bill Clinton is an accused rapist, sexual molester and repeated attacker of multiple women who have openly and publicly accused him of sexual assault.
According to the delusional left, Bill Clinton gets a free pass on all that because he’s a good liberal. He has compassion, don’t you know? He supports abortion, carbon taxes and banning the Second Amendment. Thus, according to the left, it doesn’t matter how many women he raped, abused or molested.
Facts be damned. When it comes to protecting the champions of the political left, no amount of legitimate evidence of criminal wrongdoing can overcome the left’s blind faith in their so-called leaders, even if they be pedophiles ordering sicko sessions with minors like buying pizza off a menu.
“Fact” #10: Bigger Government is Always the Answer
No matter what challenges society may face, the disconnected left believes bigger government is always the answer.
Got a problem with people drinking too much soda? We need bigger government to function as “food police” and criminalize large sodas offerings.
Are too many dementia patients forgetting where they are and wandering aimlessly across mall parking lots? We need bigger government, the left insists, to microchip and track the location of all those afflicted with “mental disorders.” (It’s true, Congress just passed the law for government to microchip citizens.)
Can’t afford your rent? Mobile phone bills? Groceries? Don’t worry, the government will create a new program to take money from all those who earned it and redistribute the funds to loyal democrat voters who consume it (while, of course, padding the pockets of the politically connected elite along the way).
According to the delusional left, there’s no problem too large that even larger government can’t solve! Their utopian economy, in fact, is a system where the free market is abolished and replaced by a centrally planned economy which values “equality” above all else.
Our world already has a system like that, by the way. It’s called “Venezuela.” And right now, all the self-righteous Venezuelans who voted for “equality” are eating out of grocery store dumpsters while having their cash criminalized and confiscated by the very same government they stupidly put into power. (Will socialists never learn?)
The Greatest “Fact” of All is the Fact That Leftists Have Increasingly Become Fact-Free Lunatics
So let’s cut the crap. Almost everything the lunatic left insists is a “fact” turns out to be a fairy tale or outright lie. Polar bears are going extinct! If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor! Raising taxes on corporations is good for creating jobs!
Hillary Clinton believes in honoring the outcome of all democratic elections… except for the ones she loses.
And if you lose an election in a democracy, the correct course of action, according to the left, is to keep threatening electoral voters with murder until you get your way.
It turns out that, for the most part, leftists are fact-free lunatics. I could lay out a hundred striking examples of the lunacy and contradictions of the delusional left, but you probably already see many of them yourself.
The left has become so deranged and disconnected from reality that their cheap tactics of race baiting and slandering their political opponents simply don’t work anymore.
The political left in America, which was once a semi-respected organization that opposed George Bush’s corporate-run wars and fought to reduce air pollution has become a twisted cabal of deranged fringe lunatics who have already crossed the threshold of mental illness.
Now, with the help of Fakebook - which has become the online equivalent of Darth Vader - they’re going to try to steamroll society with a whole new set of fabricated “facts” that will also fail miserably… just like their recent election efforts.
Facts are stubborn things. More importantly, no one has a monopoly on them.
Those who try to censor whatever “facts” they don’t agree with will only end up making the things they dispute increasingly popular for the simple reason that human beings are curious about the world around them, and they don’t take kindly to having a homogenized, sanitized worldview shoved down their throats by self-proclaimed “fact checkers” who genuinely belong in a psychiatric ward.
But don’t take my word for anything. After all, everything I’ve written here is merely my opinion. Open your eyes, explore the world for yourself, and make up your own mind.
That simple act, by the way, will make you a lifelong enemy of the left… which demands you remain blindly obedient to their “facts” even when your own direct experiences contradict them.
Remember: The ultimate goal of the radical left is to make you abandon trust in your own senses, thoughts and logical conclusions. Only then can they dominate your existence with their fabrications that any clear-headed person would instantly see right through.
Facebook To Become Left-Wing Propaganda Echo Chamber With Orwellian Plan To Label Independent Journalism “Fake” + Facebook Jumps On ‘Fake News’ Fact-Checker Train, Will ‘Roll Out’ With PolitiFact December 21 2016 | From: NaturalNews / WashingtonTimes
Facebook has announced a new plan today that will very quickly transform the social media site into an “echo chamber” of left-wing media lies and delusional propaganda (just like we’ve recently seen pushed by the Washington Post).
The new effort will rely on left-wing “fact checker” organizations like Politifact and Snopes to determine the “truthiness” of news stories, reports Business Insider. Those stories deemed by left-wing “fact checkers” to be inaccurate will be buried in Facebook users’ feeds as a form of organized totalitarian censorship.
This Ministry of Truth “news dictatorship” plan will, of course, transform Facebook into nothing more than a news “bubble” where left-wing propaganda is repeated as “fact” while independent journalism is labeled “fake.”
This means all stories that are critical of vaccines, GMOs, Planned Parenthood or Hillary Clinton will be censored out of existence. The political left, you see, doesn’t seek to win any debate at all… their goal is to ban the debate so that you never read any views other than theirs. (They can’t win any legitimate debates or legitimate elections, so they cheat.)
In essence, Facebook has now announced it’s going to become the North Korea of social media.
Facebook’s “Fact Checkers” Are Left-Wing Propagandsts Who Despise Factual Journalism
“We believe providing more context can help people decide for themselves what to trust and what to share,” the company said.
“We’ve started a program to work with third-party fact checking organizations that are signatories of Poynter’s International Fact Checking Code of Principles. We’ll use the reports from our community, along with other signals, to send stories to these organizations.”
“Facebook has announced it will introduce warning labels on stories they deem to be “fake news,” with the help of partisan “fact checking” organisations such as Snopes and PolitiFact,”reports Breitbart.com.
Business Insider reports that these organisations will include the likes of Snopes, ABC, Politifact, and FactCheck.org, all of which have records of left-wing partisanship - particularly throughout the 2016 election.
For example, PolitiFact infamously said it was “mostly false” when Donald Trump claimed in a presidential debate that Hillary Clinton wanted “open borders.” PolitiFact made this ruling despite Clinton being on the record at a paid speech saying “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders.”
Trump also said that Russia has 1,800 nuclear warheads and has expanded its arsenal while the U.S. has not. PolitiFact admitted that Trump’s claim was factual, but it rated the statement as “half true” for supposedly “missing the big picture.”
In both of these cases, PolitiFact went beyond mere fact-checking and moved the goal posts in ways that benefited Clinton’s candidacy.
This type of ideological “fact checking” went beyond parody during October’s presidential debates, with NBC taking Trump’s statement that Clinton “acid washed” her emails (a reference to the data deletion tool “BleachBit”) 100% literally and declaring the statement “false.”
It’s Time to Leave Facebook and Discover Alternatives Like Diaspora or Gab.ai
As Facebook turns into an echo chamber of mentally ill liberal whackos, informed people will look elsewhere for uncensored, independent news. One of the best alternatives for Facebook is Diaspora, a network of independent social media hubs run by independent, open source organizations like Natural News.
Our Diaspora hub is found at Share.NaturalNews.com, and it’s rapidly growing. There, you’ll receive every story we post, unlike Facebook where 99% of our posts are deliberately buried by Facebook itself.
Gab.ai is also rapidly growing, promising uncensored free speech in a social media format. You can find my articles posted in real time at these two accounts:
Join all these sources so that you can stay informed. Understand that Facebook, Google, Twitter, Yahoo and all the other internet gatekeepers are now engaged in an all out war against independent news, hoping to censor it out of existence.
(They’ve lost the narrative, and they lost the election. Now they’re desperate to destroy whatever voices they don’t control… but it will only cause them to lose their audience.)
A Mass Exodus Away From Fakebook
By censoring independent journalism, Facebook is going to lose tens of millions of users who will simply go somewhere else. The left-wing propaganda swallowers who stay behind at Facebook will simply become increasingly misinformed and mentally ill as they follow the left-wing media down the rabbit hole of delusional Russian hacker conspiracy theories and hatred against America, the Constitution and the entire male population in general.
It won’t be long, probably, before Snopes “officially” confirms that having white skin makes you a racist, or that all men are evil due to their genetics.
Politifact might throw down its own delusional “facts” that claim Donald Trump was hypnotized by the Russians as a Manchurian candidate to commit genocide against women (or whatever) whose body parts will be harvested for organ donations to gray aliens from planet Cockamamie.
I can’t wait for Snopes to confirm that people can transform XY chromosomes into XX chromosomes by declaring themselves to be transgender. Before long, everything pushed by the left - from climate change lunacy to transgender psychosis - will be rooted in sheer delusion that stands in complete contradiction to scientific reality.
Yet it will all be pushed by Facebook as “verified fact.” To the utterly insane left, “facts” are whatever they believe in, no matter how disconnected from reality they might be.
We have now entered the Orwellian nightmare we all knew was coming. The good news is that you can simply change the channel and escape the nightmare by avoiding Facebook altogether.
The social media giant’s newsroom announced that it will partner with third-party organizations to identify hoaxes and unreliable stories.
“We believe providing more context can help people decide for themselves what to trust and what to share,” the company said.
“We’ve started a program to work with third-party fact checking organizations that are signatories of Poynter’s International Fact Checking Code of Principles. We’ll use the reports from our community, along with other signals, to send stories to these organizations.”
According to Facebook, “if the fact checking organizations identify a story as fake, it will get flagged as disputed and there will be a link to the corresponding article explaining why. Stories that have been disputed may also appear lower in News Feed.”
Still, CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s company said its workforce and partners “cannot become arbiters of truth” while essentially designating them as such. One of the organizations Facebook plans on teaming up with is Snopes, which bills itself as an “essential resource” for truth.
Others groups the social media platform will work with include ABC News, FactCheck.org, PolitiFact, and The Associated Press.
Conservative commentators were quick to put forth a “who watches the watchmen” counter-argument.
“Sometimes the experts are also partisans who have an agenda. That was certainly the case with regard to Obamacare,” wrote Hotair’s John Sexton on Thursday.
“Health care wonks like Ezra Klein and Jonathan Gruber knew a great deal about the program.
They were also prepared to help their Democratic allies in government lie to the public if necessary to see it succeed. It’s not that they didn’t know the truth it’s just that they weren’t going to share all of it (except occasionally to a friendly audience).
Now imagine applying these new rules retroactively to this story. Would any story which challenged Obama’s statement be flagged as ‘fake news’ prior to 2013?”
“Two university studies show PolitiFact rates the GOP as liars over Democrats at a rate of 3 to 1 and 2 to 1 respectively. […] I once asked the head of PolitiFact to explain a university study suggesting they were biased,” Mr. Hemingway said in a series of tweets.
“He no joke told me that based on what people tell him at parties he thinks he’s fair. I could go on … but the idea of PolitiFact censoring political speech at any major social media network is horrifying.”
Facebook, for all intents and purposes, dismissed such concerns as hyperbole over a work-in-progress with good intentions.
“We’re excited about this progress, but we know there’s more to be done,” the company wrote. “We’re going to keep working on this problem for as long as it takes to get it right.”
Why Now? Tangled Webs: Google, Microsoft, Facebook, The Internet Giveaway, And The Wild, Wild West Of Information December 17 2016 | From: AmericanPolicy
The use of lies and deception, or as the new term coming into vogue; fake news, has been a standard tool of the trade for over a century by the government and their willing and/or unwilling stooges in the mainstream media.
A few examples include Newspaper owners William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, with the unspoken blessings of US President, William McKinley, spreading lies to stir up the masses enough to start a war with Spain.
This allowed McKinley to start an American empire by taking over the Philippines, Guam, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico at the close of the 19th century. In the following decades, the media has obediently followed along coving up such things as the fraudulent Gulf of Tonkin incident, the governmental attack on the Branch Davidians, 9/11, and the Obamacare fiasco.
In spite of the lies and distortions presented by the government then spread by an obedient media, there were still some journalists who were doing their job by reporting the truth.
In 1983, fifty companies controlled 90% of the American media, today it is just six multinational corporations. They are Viacom, Comcast, Time-Warner, Disney, CBS, and News Corp and these companies are working very hard to make sure that the news you hear is the news they and the government want you to hear.
From the anti-Muslim video that “caused” the killing of four Americans at Benghazi, lying about the state of the economy before the 2008 meltdown, to the massive push to promote Obamacare, the main stream media is relentless in pushing the government / corporatist agenda to its audience.
This control is the dream of every tyrannical state in history and the US government has almost achieved it.
Only, they have, like the American Army in the WWII Battle of Arnhem, pushed their power too far and too fast causing the American people to no longer trust the main stream media.
In the spring of 2016, a major poll was conducted by the Media Insight Project, a partnership of The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the American Press Institute; they found that just 6% of those polled have confidence in the main stream media for news.
The bias and outright lies have become so bad that even a 30 year insider like Sharyl Attkisson commented on it:
“There is unprecedented, I believe, influence on the media, not just the news, but the images you see everywhere. By well-orchestrated and financed campaign of special interests, political interests and corporations. I think all of that comes into play.”
“ICANN is arguably the single most powerful institution in the world” - Jeff Baron
In every format, the main stream media is losing patrons. From failing newspapers to falling television ratings, the old model is dying because of the internet.
The Internet has become the primary source for information for a huge percentage of Westerners today.
In fact, in the last 25 years the internet has transformed the world. It has completely revamped the way people do business, communicate, purchase household goods, plan vacations, find friends, look up information and just about every human activity imaginable.
Since it first became available for average people, the internet has been a way to find information the elites did not want exposed and they have been looking to shut down that freedom of information for years.
Subsequently with the support of numerous multinational corporations like Microsoft, Google, Dell, Yahoo, Amazon, and Facebook along with the blessing from globalist mouth pieces like the Council on Foreign Relations, the LA Times, NBC, the International Chamber of Commerce and Human Rights Watch, President Obama failed to renew the contract with ICANN effectively giving the control over the internet to a private company.
That company is ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) and it is a CA based nonprofit corporation. In 1998, the Commerce Department began contracting with ICANN, to take over management of IANA (The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) and the internet’s domain name system.
The US Commerce Department has, for the most part, let ICANN govern itself, but it maintained the authority to pull the nonprofit’s contract.
In essence ICANN records the numbers (easier for computers to use) using words (easier for humans to use) through DNS.
Domain name system (DNS) is basically a directory for internet-connected devices that helps translate domain names to numerical IP addresses. Without DNS it is difficult for people to access websites as it requires remembering large numbers of IP address, a series of numbers such as “184.108.40.206”.
So President Obama just ceded power over the allocation of domain names from Google.com to your church’s website without the consent of Congress and over the objections of millions of citizens.
Those supporting the transfer are quick to report that there is nothing to fear from this transfer, after all ICANN is a “private” company under a global multi-stakeholder group to oversee its Board of Directors. What can possibly go wrong with the internet in the hands of a “private” company? Plenty.
ICANN is first and foremost, a complete monopoly. It has exclusive rights to allow and renew domain names and that is a power it has not always been used benevolently.
It also has complete control over how much to charge for a top level domain such as .com, .net, .biz and several times in the past, it has abused those powers.
For instance it allowed a top level domain named .sucks to be purchased by the company Vox Populi which charges $2,500 to protect a company’s or individuals name from being purchased and slandered with a .sucks after it, then failed to rein the company in when it was running an extortion operation.
ICANN has also been accused numerous times of siding with those who have the most to pay its fees and since it costs over a million dollars to have ICANN officially look into a complaint, not many decisions are overturned.
Another troubling aspect of ICANN is that ICANN has made a fortune off of its rapidly expanding list of Generic Top Level Domain Names (gTLDs). Names like .lawyer; .google; .africa are going for at least $200,000 each and then annual fees.
The .web domain brought $135,000,000 into their coffers giving them not only a complete monopoly on issuing domains but the means to create a very monopolistic self-supporting group of elites.
Amazon, the giant online retailer, applied to register the gTLD .amazon. ICANN has written limitations that govern the sale of a domain name but since the name .amazon does not fall, into any of the categories that are forbidden there should have no problems with Amazon’s request.
Only there was, the South American countries of Brazil and Peru, through the interest group Government Advisory Committee (GAC), declared this application to be illegal, based on the fact that the Amazon River is a geographical area inhabited by some 30million people.
ICANN sided with the governments proving that the advantage of being a monopoly is that you get to make up rules as you go along. Amazon is now in the process of suing ICANN over the matter.
The exact same thing happened to the sports company called Patagonia when it filed for the .patagonia domain. The governments of Argentina and Chile objected and ICANN decided against selling the name to the company.
This trend shows that not only are rules made to be broken but governments are meant to be appeased.
This pattern is more than disturbing considering that since 1998, nations that routinely censor the internet of their citizens including Russia, China, Iran and Saudi Arabia have pushed extremely hard to place the functions of ICANN under the control of the U.N.’s Russian dominated International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and President Obama may very well have just handed them their chance.
For, as stated above, ICANN holds a COMPLETE monopoly over the World Wide Web root zone and complete monopolies in private hands are illegal in most of the world. When operating under contract with the Commerce Department, ICANN becomes a legal monopolist as it becomes an “instrumentality” of government.
As L. Gordon Crovitz points out in his article “U.S. Surrender: Internet Giveaway to the U.N.?,” once ICANN became independent, they lost that umbrella of US Government protection leaving them open to legal challenges from every despotic government on earth looking to force them under the control of the United Nations.
Hence President Obama, in another case of: “if you want your doctor, you can keep your doctor;
“Simply lied again when he pledged that ICANN would not replace U.S. control for a “government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution.”
This fact is verified on 10/14/16 When Obama gave a speech in Pittsburg, PA in which he glorified the days of the three major networks delivering the news that most people trusted.
There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard, because they just don’t have any basis in anything that’s actually happening in the world,” Obama added.
“That is hard to do, but I think it’s going to be necessary, it’s going to be possible. The answer is obviously not censorship, but it’s creating places where people can say ‘this is reliable’ and I’m still able to argue safely about facts and what we should do about it.” he added.
There should be no longer any doubt as to why Obama went against Congress and the people to give away the internet; we can no longer have the “wild-wild-west-of-information flow” out there to inform the people of what is really going on in the world.
“Look at the European parliament. There are a lot of people who are looking for simplistic solutions and are preaching simplistic solutions which are very unfriendly policies. We have them here in Europe; too, we have them in Germany too.”
“Digitization is a disruptive technological force that brings about deep-seated change and transformation in society. Look at the history of the printing press, when this was invented what kind of consequences it had, or industrialization, what consequences that had.”
“Very often, it led to enormous transformational processes within individual societies and it took a while until societies learned to find the right kinds of policies to contain this, to manage and steer this. We live in a period of profound transformation.”
Directing her ire against the Germans who are angered with her flooding Germany with Muslim invaders and massive job loss, she lashed out against PEGIDA, the anti-mass migration and counter-Islamisation movement, repeating their slogan: ‘Wir Sind Das Volk’ - ‘We Are The People’ - the chancellor said:
“The most important and noble task of politicians these days is to see that each and every person can find his place. But those who purportedly belong to certain groups say ‘we are the people, and not others’.”
In another of those frequent ironies so often dumped on the citizens, Merkel, a former (?) East German communist, now says of PEGIDA:
“At the time when we had [this saying] in the GDR [East Germany] when the people stood in the streets and said ‘we are the people’ it filled me with great joy, but the fact these people have hijacked it does not fill me with joy.”
How long will it be before other world leaders join Ms. Merkel and president Obama in demanding web censorship?
Certainly foreign media is now calling for it as Germany’s Zeit newspaper published a piece calling for controls to prevent “a German Donald Trump”, while Britain’s Independent former newspaper website published a list of “fake” news sites which they claimed may have “swayed votes towards Donald Trump”.
Even the British news outlet “The Guardian” is in on the fake news bandwagon. That list is the same list being circulated by Google and Facebook.
Consequently, now, the very instrument that has become the great equalizing force against corporatism/globalism’s control over the main stream media might now become just another weapon in their arsenal of global censorship.
Unfortunately, it is only one of several ways the internet is being manipulated for corporatist/governmental advantage. One only needs to look at the two most popular search engines and the most popular social media site to see complete censorship in action.
What kind of drug does one have to take to believe Microsoft is a friend? - Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Google, Bing and Facebook have an unbroken record of suppressing sites, postings and searches that don’t follow their world view. Of the three, Bing is certainly the smallest but being part of Microsoft, perhaps they try harder. Bing claims to be neutral and in fact, the subscriber can set the search engine to their own preference of conservative; liberal; Christian; etc. so how can they be biased?
Well the Bing headline on August 16, 2016 for the conservative bias setting in Bing featured three negative Trump articles:
– Donald Trump plots strategy on ISIS - and campaign revival (CNN)
– Analysis: Making Sense of Donald Trump’s Disjointed Foreign Policy Pitch (NBC News)
– Early Voting Limits Donald Trump’s Time to Turn Campaign Around (New York Times)
The first headline implies Trump’s campaign had stalled and needs revival. The second inferred Trump’s foreign policy was chaotic and the third noted that the early vote will give Hillary such a lead that discouraged Trump supporters won’t vote.
Microsoft, donated $650,000 to the Hillary Clinton campaign and both Bill and Melinda Gates were considered as possible Vice Presidential running mates for her Presidential campaign.
This is the Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, whose obsession with globalism and censorship is well known and on Sept. 20, 2016 at a conference in Vancouver, B.C. he openly stated that opposition to globalism is “a huge concern,” and says the underlying issues of resistance to it warrant a close examination.
This is the same Bill Gates that along with Steve Ballmer (Microsoft CEO) spoke at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in early 2015 on the critical need for immigration and more H-1B visas because of a shortage of high tech workers, and then laid off some 18,000 American high tech workers.
In 2010, China demanded that Google and Microsoft censor the results of their search engines in China.
Google resisted but Microsoft was more than willing to go along. Bill Gates even criticized Google’s decision to uncensor their search engine in China by saying:
“You’ve got to decide: do you want to obey the laws of the countries you’re in or not? If not, you may not end up doing business there.”
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer then said “If the Chinese government gives us proper legal notice, we’ll take that piece of information out of the Bing search engine.”
Chinese President Xi Jinping also stopped in for dinner at Bill Gates house in September of 2015 before meeting with the heads of Microsoft, Google and Facebook amongst other business leaders.
So great is the Bing Censorship of China that the Chinese Web anti-censorship monitoring service has gone to great lengths to show that Bing censors content in China even more than the Chinese State owned search engine” Baidu” does. But don’t worry; Microsoft’s support of the ICANN was completely in the name of a “free” internet.
Privacy is no longer a “social norm.” - Mark Zuckerberg
Facebook is just as bad. In addition to being an outspoken advocate of globalism and a liberal, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is the controlling force behind the most powerful social media platform ever created. Facebook controls the global dialogue used by over a billion people with an invisible touch that is unprecedented.
Almost two-thirds of American adults get news from social media, with 44% of them getting their news from Facebook alone.
This means Facebook’s algorithms dominate the information of almost half the American public. As Gizmodo’s Michael Nuñez puts it, “with Facebook, we don’t know what we’re not seeing.”
And he controls that platform with an iron grip.
Facebook has conducted numerous studies to better understand how information spreads in a social network. For instance, in 2010 Facebook conducted a secret experiment on 61 million unknowing people by tampering with their news feeds to find out how successfully it could manipulate the real-world voting habits of those people.
Later, Facebook released the findings and claimed that they increased voter turnout by more than 340,000 people. Facebook regularly skews the news it posts; in 2012 it manipulated the feeds on 700,000 people without their consent to make them feel sad and then published the results in the respected (?) scientific journal “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.”
The results showed fairly conclusively that Facebook had found the key to intentionally influencing people’s emotions. That year they did the same type of experiment on 1.9 million people to influence the US election. In 2014 Facebook used the rainbow flag as another experiment to get people to be more accepting of same-sex marriage.
Facebook has made an empire of selling information about every person they can. It openly manipulates the feeds and posts they allow on Facebook and the posts people are allowed to place for other members of Facebook.
Facebook is now “reluctantly” being “forced” to manipulate their algorithm to crack down on “fake” news being posted on Facebook.
Though this sounds like a noble goal, the potential for censorship is unmistakable, especially when one looks at the list of websites they plan on censoring.
The sites Facebook and Google are going to censor as “fake” was created by a self-proclaimed feminist assistant professor at Merrimack College who did not like the sites her students citing in their research papers.
Sites like Breitbart; Realfarmacy; Lew Rockwell; Zerohedge; and World Net Daily.
Though all have posted articles that have proven to be false, Facebook has no problem with posting articles from even less reliable news site like USA Today; MSNBC; CNN; BBC and the New York Times. Google is now planning on using this same list to censor content. It does not take a rocket scientist to see where this censorship is headed.
In fact, in one of the most blatant acts of “fake news” to ever hit the news media was perpetrated by the New York Times in early 1957, when a former war correspondent, Herbert L. Matthews, wrote numerous articles filled with the glories and praises of a young Cuban revolutionary named Fidel Castro.
Article after article spewing from Matthews’ typewriter glowed with tales that eventually created a Robin Hood persona for a murdering communist thug. It cannot be understated how important the “fake news” was to propel Castro into power. Yet the New York Times stands as a purveyor of honest journalism according to our Ministry of “truth.”
“We know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less know what you’re thinking about.” - Eric Schmidt
The last of the big three masters of manipulation is Google, and they are arguably the biggest of the bunch. Google CEO Eric Schmidt is about as open with his liberal bias as one could ever be. The Bilderberg attendee bankrolled a startup company called “The Groundwork” to provide technical experts Hillary Clinton needed to run her campaign. Schmidt was instrumental in getting Barack Obama elected both times as he was the main supplier of technical experts for all three campaigns.
Technology is right up Schmidt’s alley as Google is the defacto gateway to information. Google averages some 40,000 search queries every second equaling over 3.5 billion searches per day and 1.2 trillion searches per year worldwide.
Google conducts over 64% of all internet searches in the US and over 90% in some countries. Google has indexed some 45 billion web pages while Bing, its closest competitor has only 14 billion.
Of course the 45 billion web pages are only part of the Schmidt plan to control everything on earth. Schmidt has stated that privacy is an excuse to hide wrongdoing:
“If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”
In his plan to deprive you of your privacy, Schmidt has employed some of the world’s top technocrats to find ever more powerful ways to pry into every corner of your life since Google’s business is, literally, mass surveillance, and they have become amazingly good at it.
They are also a contractor to the US Government, including the NSA and several military contractors as well. When Edward Snowden revealed to the world the unimaginable world of government spying on US citizens, he also revealed that the NSA has direct access to the information stored on Google’s computers as they do to Facebook, Twitter, Bing and every other company storing online information on you.
In a US News and World Report article published on 6/22/16, contributor Robert Epstein wrote an extremely troubling article on just how powerful Google is. According to Epstein:
“When Google’s employees or algorithms decide to block our access to information about a news item, political candidate or business, it causes opinions and votes to shift, reputations to be ruined and businesses to crash and burn.
Because online censorship is entirely unregulated at the moment, victims have little or no recourse when they have been harmed.”
Epstein then exposes blacklists that Google wields like Jack the Ripper did his knives with the first being the autocomplete blacklist. This one is simple enough; it quietly guides the searcher to where the company wants you to go.
From directing away from negative articles on Hillary Clinton to pointing to negative articles on Donald Trump, there is little doubt that Google had a large impact on the recent US election. In any search you make, the algorithm is your spiritual guide.
Google maps is a stalker’s dream showing just about every house and area in the US and huge sections of the world. They did not ask for permission to film your house, they just did it.
Military installations and a few other places are excluded but chances are, your house is there.
Google’s You Tube blacklist allows users to tag certain clips as inappropriate and Google’s censors may or may not remove them.
However, You Tube is notorious for removing politically and morally conservative videos on a regular basis while never doing the same to liberal videos. They are also willing to work with foreign governments to determine which videos will be allowed to be shown in the country.
The Google account blacklist can cut people’s access to their own email account as well as You Tube and other Google products without any notice or recourse.
The Google News blacklist is insidious in every way. They are the biggest news aggregator on the planet, tracking tens of thousands of news sources daily and converting them to numerous languages.
They have been accused on numerous occasions of excluding conservative news feeds as well as certain writers and competing companies. This is an incredibly powerful and nearly unnoticeable tool to promote political, moral and/or religious agenda.
Google Adwords blacklist is how Google gets the lion’s share of its money (some $56 billion annually) by selling keywords to the highest bidders.
These keywords are how the website is found by searchers so if your site does not have them, you are going to sink. On numerous occasions, Google has simply deleted those keywords on sites effectively making them invisible and financially crushing them.
The search engine blacklist is a make or break situation for many web pages. Google, for many unknown reasons will push web page down the list of rankings effectively ruining many businesses in a very short time.
The power to “blacklist” a site is Google’s most dreaded weapon however. Google claims this power is to keep the internet free from malicious malware which, they claim is a public service. The problems with this argument are many however. Google’s crawlers often make mistakes, blacklisting websites that do not contain malware.
Because of how extensively Google crawls the web, all the other main search engines use their “blacklist” which means that once on the list, the site is effectively cut off from public access.
Google has used this power on numerous occasions on people they do not like.
Google even profits from this arrangement as they collect information from every user that accesses Google’s results and then sells it. Google has, for all intents and purposes, become the internet police man and they use this power to further their globalist agenda on a regular basis and it is now supporting the same list of “fake” news sites that the British Independent and Facebook are touting.
Google, Microsoft and Facebook have all three censored users on the behest of world governments and all three; have consistently censored users for no apparent reason. They, along with Twitter (another social media monster) sided with Obama to give away America’s right the control the internet.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” - Voltaire
Tragically, the US now finds every purveyor of media has been compromised and censored by those with globalist views. Once ICANN loses its independence to the UN, the corporatist/governmental takeover will be complete.
Controlling access to information is every tyrant’s dream and our government is no different.
The main stream media did a masterful job of concealing the 2008 economic meltdown from the masses just like they have the corruption of Hillary Clinton; the imploding Deutsche Bank; the growing threat of nuclear war with Russia; the threat of an EMP from North Korea and now the escalating violence of the Clinton supporters after the election of Donald Trump.
It was only the access of the people to alternative news sites that alerted and continue to alert those willing to listen to truth that news of these events get out at all.
Post-election America is now a powder keg awaiting a spark. The Green Party candidate for President, Jill Stein, started a fund to recount the votes in three states in hopes of overturning the election of Donald Trump and now Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton has joined her in what is only going to create a greater rift in our already shredded national tapestry.
This is only a part of the drama as now; the Washington Post has publically called the Drudge Report, Zero Hedge and former Congressman Ron Paul agents of Russian Propaganda. As if on cue, the call has come from numerous governments on the spread of “hate speech” in the US and the call to regulate it.
Which Mark Zukerberg is only too happy to oblige as he outlined a seven point plan to help stop the “spread” of “fake news” on Facebook. So convincing is this “fake news” that it fools most students a new “study” finds which of course means that our very Ministry of Truth will need to decipher it for us. In fact, the media is now calling on the FBI to investigate the “fake news” without a shred of evidence to support them.
With a growing population of closed minded bigots unwilling to even listen to opposing opinions or facts, the US is slowly returning to the Dark Ages with only a few sources controlling access to information.
Freedom loving people everywhere should all be asking themselves why this particular time was chosen for Obama to open the door for the UN takeover of an already censored internet.
It is past time to look into a ham radio and other forms of communication that cannot be controlled by the elites. Here in the Pacific Northwest we have an excellent source for information called the “Radio Free Redoubt.”
Time is of the essence as the days of the open internet are coming to a rapid close.
“Hell is truth seen too late.”Thomas Hobbes – Leviathan