Monthly Archives: July 2015

weapons’ safety

weapons’ safety

“Autonomous weapons select and engage targets without human intervention. They might include, for example, armed quadcopters that can search for and eliminate people meeting certain pre-defined criteria, but do not include cruise missiles or remotely piloted drones for which humans make all targeting decisions. Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology has reached a point where the deployment of such systems is — practically if not legally — feasible within years, not decades, and the stakes are high: autonomous weapons have been described as the third revolution in warfare, after gunpowder and nuclear arms.

Many arguments have been made for and against autonomous weapons, for example that replacing human soldiers by machines is good by reducing casualties for the owner but bad by thereby lowering the threshold for going to battle. The key question for humanity today is whether to start a global AI arms race or to prevent it from starting. If any major military power pushes ahead with AI weapon development, a global arms race is virtually inevitable, and the endpoint of this technological trajectory is obvious: autonomous weapons will become the Kalashnikovs of tomorrow. Unlike nuclear weapons, they require no costly or hard-to-obtain raw materials, so they will become ubiquitous and cheap for all significant military powers to mass-produce. It will only be a matter of time until they appear on the black market and in the hands of terrorists, dictators wishing to better control their populace, warlords wishing to perpetrate ethnic cleansing, etc. Autonomous weapons are ideal for tasks such as assassinations, destabilizing nations, subduing populations and selectively killing a particular ethnic group. [Emphasis added.] We therefore believe that a military AI arms race would not be beneficial for humanity. There are many ways in which AI can make battlefields safer for humans, especially civilians, without creating new tools for killing people.

Just as most chemists and biologists have no interest in building chemical or biological weapons, most AI researchers have no interest in building AI weapons — and do not want others to tarnish their field by doing so, potentially creating a major public backlash against AI that curtails its future societal benefits. Indeed, chemists and biologists have broadly supported international agreements that have successfully prohibited chemical and biological weapons, just as most physicists supported the treaties banning space-based nuclear weapons and blinding laser weapons.

In summary, we believe that AI has great potential to benefit humanity in many ways, and that the goal of the field should be to do so. Starting a military AI arms race is a bad idea, and should be prevented by a ban on offensive autonomous weapons beyond meaningful human control.” 



Oh, look, more…!! 


Correspond as you see fit with the  SecDef and/or the Joint Chiefs of Staff

1400 Defense Pentagon

Washington, DC 20301-1400


Imagine a five-day conference with these people  … small-group panel discussions, podcasts, luncheon and dinner speakers, etc.


Subject: ‘Netwar’

Autonomous weapons will eventually change the type of warfare. It will transform the battle field from a “human space” to a “cyber or machine space”. Commonly referred to as “cyberwarfare” or “netwar”, an electronic war is initiated between two or more opponents within and among computer systems used for attacking the full range of the opposing military and civilian information systems. The attacks can be launched on the networks governing the communication and command of systems used in battle.

Cyber-attacks have long been used domestically since the wake of the information revolution. Whether for financial gains or civil-society activism, domestic cyber-attacks have proven the weakness of the current communication technology and the range of damage they are capable of.

As illustrated in a previous post, titled “Autonomous Weapons”, the communication link between the autonomous weapon systems and the remote control center as well as the communication link between the inter-connected systems are exposed to external noise. Theoretically, not only can intruders eavesdrop on the data transmitted, but also broadcast spoofing commands to the autonomous systems. This is precisely the vulnerability which makes autonomous weapons a target for future cyberwarfare. It doesn’t take a genius to imagine what a hacked robot or drone with lethal capabilities can be used for against an enemy or civilians.
Much more here, including an expandable “mind map”:

See also: 


The other day I had another one of those dreams that left me deeply embroiled in thought upon awakening. The details of the dream have long since drained away like the rainwater from a sudden thunderstorm in a dry city with a good flood control system, but the problem I ended up being zeroed in on remained behind like a steaming sidewalk: there you are, sitting in the operations center at the absolute highest level of military-intelligence command [remember ?] when suddenly all hell breaks loose.

See? You can play along at home, too.  You’ve seen that goofy movie “War Games” and probably watched such oldies as “Seven Days in May” and “Dr. Strangelove”.


But I’m not here to suggest a possible act of calumny on the part of one of the people sitting inside the op center in this future scenario.

I’m enough of a strategic thinker (albeit at the amateur level) to pre-ponder the question. I’ve played my share of military and non-military simulation games, have read my Lao Tzu and BH Liddell-Hart and John Boyd, and played the game “Diplomacy” and “Shogun” enough times to know that the question is not so much how many assets the sovereign state players have or where they are, but more the question of how they are going to be tactically deployed, and against what objective, as well as changing or restored military doctrine

And everybody reads everyone else’s after-action reports and” lessons learned” documents.

And there has to be a seat close ot the front of the op center for an economist.


“Shogun” has the ninja weapon, and “Diplomacy” is about overt and covert allegiances.

“… Israeli strategists rely on game theory models to ensure the intended response to staged provocations and manipulated crises. With the use of game theory algorithms, those responses become predictable, even foreseeable—within an acceptable range of probabilities. The waging of war “by way of deception” is now a mathematical discipline.

Such “probabilistic” war planning enables Tel Aviv to deploy serial provocations and well-timed crises as a force multiplier to project Israeli influence worldwide. For a skilled agent provocateur, the target can be a person, a company, an economy, a legislature, a nation or an entire culture—such as Islam. With a well-modeled provocation, the anticipated reaction can even become a powerful weapon in the Israeli arsenal…..”

See also


So having a button on the console with a switch that turns on an artificial intelligence component in command decision-making suddenly comes into focus.

You can easily find and chart out who in this world has deployable nuclear, space-based and other weapons and make some kind of reasonable assessment as to their reliability, functionality, success rate, etc.  Even non-nuclear, non-space-capable states have enough resources to tie up a strategic corner.×385.jpg

There are available guides if you know where to look for them; undoubtedly the most accurate are highly-classified and unavailable to you, but that’s okay; you‘re only playing the home version of this game; your spouse can “turn the letters” and get you another beer; the pros have lots of people to help them.


I do not suggest that I have enough brains, experience, wisdom, wit or humanity to sit at that table and help people make decisions.

But if we are in a world in which the small handful of great remaining powers are in a situation in which there are new alliances and allegiances [BRICS is visible and potent, and the European aide of NATO seems slightly shaky lately, and countries under extreme economic duress are looking for and finding new friends], your side has been holding numerous “exercises” and your opponents have been visibly beefing up manpower and machinery, and small “two-bit” players have been blustering, and all players have been testing their opponents with minor terrain-based moves, or space-based tests, and minor oligarchs are running around on the game-board called Earth flexing their tiny but dangerous mini-armies, and there are at least four nations with small nuclear capacity, and we’ve already arguably seen the covert use of miniature nukes and hearing a lot of talk about “dirty bombs” and EMP pulses (however specious they might be), and we have been saturated with “false flag” events and incidents involving “actors”, perhaps an extension of the use of “synthespians” in military simulations, then it is quite reasonable to expect that there will be at least one example of what serious simulation gaming experts call “wild cards”.

[See in which the “wild card” is described as “‘discontinuities’ or ‘surprising events with huge consequences’, which force a new set of expectations about what the future might contain”.]


One of those “wild cards” might be newly-developed electronic warfare weapons, though I don’t suspect tehy’d be much of a surprise t any major global player.

Another of those “wild cards” might be the use with critical timing and placement of some kind of new biological weapon, especially one that acts on the minds of those impacted, and so a backcheck of lists of weapons and capability must be cross-referenced for multiple attack possibilities. [Yes, the Zionist PNAC referenced biological weapons too.]

“… Pollard probably is still the the most harmful spy the US suffered in recent memory. Pollard was apparently cued by the Israelis to find specific intel indentified by file number by a second Israeli spy. In doing that, he gave the Israelis ‘the holy Grail’ of American intelligence-gathering: “sources and methods” i.e. how the US intelligence systems work.  In terms of effort and money needed to repair that damage we’re speaking probably about more than a decade and many, many billions.

Parts of this intel the Israelis then repackaged and traded to the Russians (America’s enemy at the time), in exchange for them letting Jews immigrate to Israel. Some ally, but if it’s good for Israel …”


Which country or countries has the ability to simultaneously deliver cyber-attacks with biological attacks with space attacks and a military stand-by component that has at least miniaturied or rapidly-deliverable nuclear-tipped shells or cruise missiles?

Which of those countries carries the possibility of duplicity?

Which of those countries has been acting on an international basis lately like a loaded loose cannon?–cUL-jjsu–/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/ihlppnr7hyzjwb1j3xmh.jpg

Perhaps having a high-speed computer that can juggle multiple variables and play out multiple scenarios in a split second would come in handy so you’ll know who to shoot first.


The commander-in-chief is always in the midst of a series of shifting events and so he can never at any moment consider the whole import of the event that is occurring. Moment by moment the event is imperceptibly shaping itself. At every moment of this continuous, uninterrupted shaping of events, the commander-in-chief is in the midst of a most complex play of intrigues, worries, contingencies, authorities, projects, counsels, threats and deceptions, and is continuously obliged to reply to innumerable questions addressed to him, all of which are in conflict with one another…. A commander-in-chief, especially at a difficult moment, has always before him not just one proposal but dozens simultaneously. And all of these proposals, based on strategies and tactics, contradict one another. A commander-in-chief’s business, it would seem, is simply to choose of one of these. But even that cannot do. Events and time do not wait. 

— Tolstoy, War and Peace


The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services has announced a change in policy regarding the oath taken by naturalization candidates:  They will no longer be required “to declare that they will ‘bear arms on behalf of the United States’ and ‘perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States.’”


Why is it in our interests to recognize citizenship for foreigners who will not “provide for the common defence”?  The Constitution was written for us, so it seems fair to ask: What’s in it for us? What’s in it for our Posterity?

It’s also fair to ask, since the whole government ostensibly was set up for us, why such a change was made without consulting us beforehand through our representatives, and asking how we felt about it? For an administration that makes such a big deal out of trying to con people into thinking we live in a “democracy,” why have the representatives of the people been bypassed on such a potentially revealing litmus test of sincerity?

With problems experienced with some foreign nationals let into this country without proper vetting and without ascertaining how their admission further secures the Blessings of Liberty, it’s also fair to wonder how many oaths are just part of a ritual needed to mask hostile loyalties.

While the USCIS policy went into effect July 21, there is still time to provide inputs, including protests, assuming you, as an Oath Keeper, have objections to this change and would like to make your views known. You have a little over a week to do that, by sending your inputs, per the Policy Manual Comment process, to The only thing I would add, assuming your Congressman and Senators are not total wastes of time, is to include them on your correspondence. 

&&]{**}[##] [&&]{**}[##]

Nick Begich

the current state of HAARP and its capabilities: profound implications for everyone (1:49:51)

He makes an incredibly important point at about the one-hour mark.


Nick Begich On His Father’s Mysterious Disappearance (10:20)



If you could have a device implanted in your brain that could bring instant nirvana at the press of a button, would you want it?

manufactured war

manufactured war

Any individual or group of individuals who wants to truly understand the forces at work underneath the surface must have, and develop rapidly a functional process for updating skills and information involved in, an understanding of the overlapping worlds of information technology, cyber-systems, computer hardware and software, etc.

I don’t.

I’m coming at the questions from the perspective of journalistic curiosity and blogging, concern as a citizen, and as a small, part-time end-user of a computer hooked up to the Internet. I have to do a lot of homework just to be sure I know how to operate the machine on my desk, and that I have effective up-to-date cyber-security systems in place.

But recent reading … i.e. the material I’ve previously posted in my three blogs .. make it very clear that the future will be decided by those who have the skills to operate within this arena, and who understand what’s afoot within the dense hyper-region in which those skills are most advanced.

One source of information — perhaps readers can suggest additional sources — is the work produced by Bill Blunden.

“Over the years Bill has worked with ERP middleware, developed code for network security appliances, and taken various detours through academia. He has also written a number of books including Cube Farm, Software Exorcism, Offshoring IT, and The Rootkit Arsenal. In the domain of the social sciences, Bill has co-authored articles related to 9/11 that have appeared in academic publications like Peace and Conflict:Journal of Peace Psychology and Aggressive Behavior. His current areas of research touch on anti-forensics and institutional analysis.”

Bill runs the web site Below Gotham Labs where his most post is of the James Bamford article in Foreign Policy about how “the NSA intercepted a phone call in March of 2000 destined for Osama bin Laden’s operations center in Yemen. The phone call originated from a line in San Diego belonging to Khalid al-Mihdhar, one of the 911 hijackers. If American spies had followed up on this lead it’s likely they would’ve unearthed the 911 plot. Only they didn’t.

Then NSA director Michael Hayden claimed that the NSA wasn’t able to geolocate the San Diego call based on technical limitations and subsequently used this explanation to help justify the NSA’s bulk collection of phone records. Former NSA senior executive Thomas Drake argues that Hayden is wrong:

“Every number that comes into that switchboard, if you’re cast-iron coverage on that switchboard, you know exactly what that number is and where it comes from.… You know exactly—otherwise it can’t get there.”

Another NSA veteran, Kirk Wiebe, notes that every phone call is transmitted with billing information:

“You know the phone numbers involved, who’s making the phone call, and who it’s going to because the billing system has to have that metadata to charge you.”

In other words, the NSA could clearly tell that Khalid al-Mihdhar was calling from San Diego. Moving forward from this conclusion raises a lot of interesting questions.”

Bill Blunden first came to my attention when I bought his book from Trine-Day.

It’s recommended reading.

Today, I dove into his pile of publications and, working up from the bottom and chronolocially back to January 2014, I wanted to present two links that will provide a baseline for your further explorations:

The first is his infographic on TransEvolution: 

“Technology empowers, but it can also enslave. In TransEvolution author Daniel Estulin focuses on the latter, a sort of Ray Kurzweil meets Karl Marx affair. The moneyed elite wish to “end history” as Emmanuel Goldstein described in 1984 using scientific innovation to amplify their control. In an effort to organize my thoughts while I processed the book I’ve created an infographic that hits most of the major ideas.”

The second is his DeepState Infographic. 

As he says in his blurb about the book,

“… America’s Deep State is busy executing campaigns of espionage and sabotage in foreign networks. U.S. intelligence agencies are embroiled in covert operations at home and abroad which have been instrumental in the emergence of a sprawling underground industry that develops weaponized malware and Orwellian mass interception tools. Proponents explain that these developments are necessary to ensure our ‘national security.’ The reality is that this decidedly offensive approach is seriously undermining our collective security…..”

All of this and much more was found here.

See also his pricey book The Rootkit Arsenal: Escape and Evasion in the Dark Corners of the System (Second Edition):


Michael Scheuer has an article atop his own blog ( posted by Michele Kearney at 4:47 PM) which enumerates twelve reasons “why most Americans would prefer to see [pictures of the US governing elite] on a bull’s eye at point-blank range”.


Visualizing the Tactical Ground Battlefield in the Year 2050: Workshop Report

« on: July 22, 2015, 10:53:20 pm »

This report describes the proceedings and outcomes of an Army-sponsored workshop that brought together a diverse group of intellectual leaders to envision the future of the tactical ground battlefield. The group identified and discussed the following 7 interrelated future capabilities that they felt would differentiate the battlefield of the future from current capabilities and engagements: augmented humans; automated decision making and autonomous processes; misinformation as a weapon; micro-targeting; large-scale self-organization and collective decision making; cognitive modeling of the opponent; and the ability to understand and cope in a contested, imperfect information environment. The workshop concluded that a critical challenge of the mid-21st century will involve successfully managing and integrating the collections, teams, and swarms of robots that would act independently or collaboratively as they undertook a variety of missions including the management and protection of communications and information networks and the provision of decision quality information to humans. Success in this aspect of command and control (C2) would depend upon developing new C2 concepts and approaches


The future battlefield will be overcrowded with robots, genetically engineered “super-humans” and a wide range of autonomous killer bots, according to a US Army Research Laboratory report.

The tactical battlefield of 2050 will surpass all expectations, since robots and super-human killers will be playing the first fiddle in the battle, according to thought leaders from the US Defense Department and the US Army Research Lab (ARL), scientists and security thinkers.

“The battlefield of the future will be populated by fewer humans, but these humans would be physically and mentally augmented with enhanced capabilities that improve their ability to sense their environment, make sense of their environment, and interact with one another, as well as with “unenhanced humans,” automated processes, and machines of various kinds,” the ARL report entitled “Visualizing the Tactical Ground Battlefield in the Year 2050: Workshop Report” stated. …. According to the report, the success in future warfare would be determined by seven specific interrelated capabilities, namely: augmented humans, automated decision making and autonomous processes; misinformation as a weapon; micro-targeting; large-scale self-organization and collective decision making; cognitive modeling of the opponent; as well as the ability to understand and cope in a contested, imperfect information environment…. Alas, according to the authors of the report given that the enhanced capabilities super humans possess will depend upon communication processes, “hacking and spoofing attacks are also an option.”

According to US expert in civil-military relations and cyber diplomacy Franz-Stefan Gady, such a bold warfare concept will require “new hybrid cognitive command architecture” to integrate and lead humans, superhuman and killer bots.

The expert pointed to obvious vulnerabilities of the future army posing a question what would happen if enemy hackers managed to seize control of US Army robots. “Could they in a Terminator-like scenario turn their weapons on their human comrades in arms?” he asked.

On the other hand, US expert Patrick Tucker, a technology editor for DefenseOne, highlights the future warfare ethical issue. Since the “dirty work” will be mostly committed by autonomous killing machines, humans will become the “referees.” The question of who would be held responsible for deaths and the damage also comes up. ….” 




Russia vs. US: Total War is the Obliteration of Reality

July 24th, 2015

By: Joaquin Flores

Joaquin Flores is a Mexican-American expat based in Belgrade. He is a full-time analyst and director at the Center for Syncretic Studies, a public geostrategic think-tank and consultancy firm, as well as the co-editor of Fort Russ news service, and President of the Berlin based Independent Journalist Association for Peace. His expertise encompasses Eastern Europe, Eurasia, and he has a strong proficiency in Middle East affairs. Flores is particularly adept at analyzing ideology and the role of mass psychology, as well as the methods of the information war in the context of 4GW and New Media. He is a political scientist educated at California State University. 

This important article discusses the increasingly dominating realm of synthetic, manufactured hyper-reality in the realm of information war and ‘hybrid warfare’, the need for only one or two decision-makers at the very top of the command structure, the use of contingencies within the strategic plan as part of the plan, the role of the new media in dissembling actual reality and the creation of a new reality (or ‘hyper-reality’) .


Watch the short video fron Anonymous here: 



{**} [8-minute audio]

“I actually take offence at being called a terrorist and I don’t identify or have any terrorist plans or agendas,” Lakehead Law Student Elysia Petrone


Jeep Security Fix Tutorial 



Palantir Technologies Raises $450 Million in New Fundraising Effort

New valuation of $20 billion would make company fourth most highly valued startup


Updated July 23, 2015 6:45 p.m. ET

Palantir Technologies, a Silicon Valley startup that focuses on data mining, has raised $450 million in a new fundraising round, the company announced Thursday in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.



Speaking of data-mining, did you know that General Wesley Clark, the fellow who recently called for the indefinite internment of vaguely-defined individuals during the ongoing endless war on terror, was — back in late 2001 — at about the same time he was campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination “had been hired as a board member and lobbyist for Acxiom, an Arkansas company that manages data collected by large businesses on millions of Americans. Weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, the company developed a computerized system that would perform instant identity checks on airline passengers. The company paid Clark — as well as other Washington lobbyists — to “use some of his connections to make sales calls to the government,” says Jennifer Barrett, Acxiom’s chief privacy officer.”

CounterPunch reported in October 2003:

“… According to the Wall Street Journal, Clark “joined the board of the Nasdaq-traded company in December 2001, as the company started to market its customer-database software to federal agencies eager to hunt for terrorists by scanning and coordinating the vast cyberspace trove of citizen information.” Fortune magazine reported that Clark “is spearheading the company’s pursuit of contracts with the federal government.….”

The CounterPunch article also noted the company’s involvement with the no-fly list and its relationship with Torch, Inc.., “a military contractor working on designing an updated version of the “Computer-Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening System” known as (CAPPS-II), one of the few programs that survived the Congressional shutdown of the “Total Information Awareness” program at the Pentagon. It is essentially a passenger profiling system. According to the Electronic Privacy Information Center, “The basic structure of passenger profiling is to use an algorithm to determine indicators of characteristics or behavior patterns that are related to the occurrence of certain behavior…..”

Check out the company’s current list of corporate”partners”.

Note the comment at the end of this NY Times article from three years ago about “the unseen cyber-Nazi”.

According to

“… In 2003, the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a complaint before the Federal Trade Commission against Acxiom and JetBlue Airways, alleging the companies provided consumer information to Torch Concepts, a company hired by the United States Army “to determine how information from public and private records might be analyzed to help defend military bases from attack by terrorists and other adversaries.”

According to the complaint, Acxiom’s activities constituted unfair and deceptive trade practices, as “Acxiom has publicly represented its belief that individuals should have notice about how information about them is used and have choices about that dissemination, and has stated that it does not permit clients to make non-public information available to individuals,” yet Acxiom proceeded to sell information to Torch Concepts without obtaining consent, an ability to opt out, or furnishing notice to the affected consumers.

The FTC took no action against Acxiom, which had responded that it had followed its privacy principles and was not deceptive in its business practices. “Torch Concepts was acting under contract to the Department of Defense in their efforts to research ways to improve military base security,” a company spokesman said. “Our policy clearly states that we ‘provide information products which include financial information, Social Security number and other related information where permitted by law,’ and that this information is ‘provided to government agencies for the purposes of verifying information, employment screening and assisting law enforcement.’”

Acxiom has a history of making it difficult for consumers to remove themselves from Acxiom’s marketing lists.

In 2005 Acxiom was a nominee for the Big Brother Awards for Worst Corporate Invader for a tradition of data brokering.[

In 2013 Acxiom was among nine companies that the Federal Trade Commission is investigating to see how they collect and use consumer data….”


July 22-23, 2015 — Sinaloa Cartel chief “El Chapo” guest at 2011 Mexican governors’ confab 

PDF: Madsen on Sinaloa chief %22El Chapo%22


Liberty Movement Needs More Innovations To Counter Technological Tyranny

Wednesday, 22 July 2015 04:39 Brandon Smith

The great lesson from history that each consecutive generations seems to forget is that the tools of tyranny used outward will inevitably be turned inward. That is to say, the laws and weapons governments devise for supposed enemies abroad will ALWAYS and eventually be used against the people they are mandated to protect. There is no centralized system so trustworthy, no political establishment so free of corruption that the blind faith of the citizenry is warranted. If free people do not remain vigilant they will be made slaves by their own leadership. This is the rule, not the exception, and it applies to America as much as any other society.

The beauty of the con game that is the “war on terror” is that such a war is ultimately undefinable. An undefinable war has no set enemy; the establishment can change the definition of the “enemy” at will to any culture, country, or group it wishes. Thus, the war on terror can and will last forever. Or, at least, it will last as long as corrupt elitists remain in positions of power.

As I have outlined in past articles, most terror groups are creations of our nation’s own covert intelligence apparatus, or the covert agencies of allied governments.

ISIS is perhaps the most openly engineered terror organization of all time (surpassing Operation Gladio), with U.S. elites and purported anti-Muslim terror champions like Sen. John McCain and Gen. Paul Vallely making deals with “moderate” Free Syrian Army rebels who immediately turn out to be full fledged ISIS fighters (I’m sure they were not “surprised” by this outcome) and the Obama Administration blatantly funding and arming more “moderates” which again in turn seem to be crossing over into the hands of ISIS. Frankly, the whole idea that there is a moderate front in places like Syria where alphabet agencies reign supreme is utterly absurd.

The bottom line – our political leadership, Republican and Democrat alike, created ISIS out of thin air, and now the American people are being expected to relinquish more individual liberties in the name of stopping this fabricated threat. Apparently, the Orwellian police state structures built under the auspices of the Patriot Act, the AUMF, the NDAA, FISA, etc. have not been enough to stop events like the Chatanooga shooting from occurring. So, what is the answer? Well, certainly not a reexamination of our insane foreign policy or an investigation into government funded false flag terrorism; that would make too much sense.

Instead, the establishment claims we need MORE mass surveillance without warrants, tighter restrictions on individual freedoms, and even, according to retired General Wesley Clark, internment camps designed to separate and confine “disloyal” Americans from the rest of the population.

Remember, all of this is being suggested in the name of stopping ISIS, but the language being used by political elites does not restrict such actions to ISIS related “extremists”. Once again, the war on terror is an ambiguous war, so ambiguous that internment camps supposedly meant for those the government labels POTENTIAL Islamic extremists could also be used for potential extremists of any group. Once the fuse is lit on the process of rendition, black bagging, internment, and assassination of citizens, any citizens, without trial, there will be no stopping the powder keg explosion to follow.

I believe that the power brokers that dictate legal and political developments within our country are preparing to turn the full force of the police state machine against the American people, all in the name of protecting us, of course. I do not need their brand of “protection”, and neither does anyone else.

It comes down to this – in the face of an increasingly advanced technological control grid, either liberty movement activists and freedom fighters must develop our own countermeasures, or, we will lose everything, and every generation after us will blame us for our inaction, if they remember us at all.

Keep in mind a countermeasure must be decentralized. Bitcoin, for instance, is NOT a practical countermeasure being that it relies on a centralized and monitored global internet in order to function. It also does not encourage any tangible production capabilities or skill sets. Therefore, it does not provide for the function of a true alternative economy. It is a false solution and a useless countermeasure to a fiat currency based economy.

A real countermeasure to a controlled economy, for instance, would be a localized barter economy in which people must develop ways to produce, rather than play make believe with digital cryptocurrencies.

Countermeasures do not always have to be high tech. In fact, I am a staunch believer in the advantages of low tech solutions to high tech tyranny. As many are already aware, with the aid of Oath Keepers I recently developed a long term wearable cloak system which defeats FLIR thermal imaging, including military grade thermal imaging. Something which has never been offered on the civilian market before.

But this is only one countermeasure to one major threat. I will continue to work on defenses in other areas in which I feel I am best qualified, however, the movement needs more R&D, and we need it NOW before it is too late. I would like to suggest some possible dangers, and how people with far more knowledge than myself could create tools for defeating tyranny. I would also like to examine some simple organizational countermeasures which EVERYONE should be undertaking right now.

Community Defense

This is an amazing countermeasure for the liberty movement because it removes the monopoly of state control over individual security. Nothing pisses off the establishment more than people taking individual and community defense into their own hands. Fear is the greatest weapon of a corrupt government, and if they can’t keep you afraid because you are your own security, then they have lost considerable leverage over you.

This dynamic is represented perfectly in the Oath Keepers Community Preparedness Team model, which has been utilized successfully in places like Ferguson, MO. Today, in the wake of the Chatanooga shootings, Oath Keeper teams are volunteering across the nation to stand guard (discreetly) at military recruiting offices. The recruiters themselves, who are forced to remain disarmed by the DoD, appear to be thankful for the Oath Keeper presence. This kind of effort shows those in the military that the liberty movement is not the great homegrown monster that the government and the SPLC have made us out to be. It also throws a monkey wrench into the use of false flag terrorism or terrorism funded by covert agencies (as ISIS is) as a means to herd the masses into totalitarianism in the name of safety.

You might not be an engineer, or a tactician, but anyone can and should be organizing security teams for the places they live. Nothing could be more important.

Community Food Reserve

Am I talking about feeding your entire neighborhood or your entire town during a crisis? No, not necessarily. But, if you found an innovative way to make that possible, the rest of the movement would surely be grateful. Preppers do what they can for themselves and their families, but the bottom line is, if you are isolated and unorganized, all your prepping will be for naught. You are nothing more than an easy target and no amount of “OPSEC” is going to hide the fact that you will look well fed and healthy while everyone else doesn’t. The solution to this is to organize community defense, as stated above, but to also organize a community food reserve.

I highly suggest approaching already existing groups, like your local churches if they are willing to listen, and discussing the idea of food stores, water filtration, and shelter scenarios. If you can convince at least one community group to make preparations, you have just potentially saved numerous lives and stopped the exploitation of food scarcity as a means to dominate your local population during disaster.

WiFi Radar

Active WiFi based radar systems have been developed over the past several years which can see through walls (to a point) and potentially detect persons hiding in an urban environment. The number of radio frequency based radar projects coming out of the dark recesses of DARPA have been numerous, and each project appears to revolve around the goal of complete surveillance ability, or total information awareness. Such measures are not as effective against a technologically advanced opponent, but they could be very effective in dominating a lower tech civilian population.

WiFi radar in particular is a rather disturbing concept, and not a field that I am personally well versed. I have seen some examples of radio-wave based personnel tracking and have not been all that impressed with the visual results, but this is only what has been made available to the public. Sometimes, the DoD will present a technology that does not work as well as they claim in order to strike fear in the minds of their enemies. That said, sometimes they also use tech tools that work far better than they let on.

Luckily, radar countermeasure information is widely available to the public, and WiFi blocking and absorbing materials exist also. Liberty champions would do well, though, to look into active countermeasures along with passive, and devise methods for jamming WiFi radar altogether.

RFID Matrix

RFID chips are a passive technology but rather dangerous under certain conditions. With a grid of RFID readers in place in an environment such as a city, or a highway, a person could be tracked in real time every second of every day. He might not even know he is carrying a chip or multiple chips, the trackers being so small they could be sewn behind the button of a shirt.

This is one threat which would probably have to be solved with higher technology. I have seen RFID jamming and “spoofing” done by civilian computer engineers, mostly from foreign countries. But, this should not just be a hobby for computer experts in technical institutes. The Liberty Movement needs portable RFID jamming and spoofing capability to ensure that these chips, which are set to be ingrained in almost every existing product in the near future from clothing to cars to credit cards, can be rendered useless.

Drones Vs. Drones

The predator drone is not the biggest threat on the block anymore in terms of surveillance ability. DARPA has been working on other drone designs similar to the A160 Hummingbird and the MQ-8 Fire Scout; lightweight helicopter-style UAVs that can stay in the air for up to 24 hours and provide overwatch in a 30 mile area. And lets not forget about JLENS surveillance blimps (also ironically referred to as “ISIS” Integrated Sensor Is The Structure project) which can and are outfitted with high grade cameras and radar that can be used to track people from 10,000 feet up in the sky.

This is the future of combat operations and the lockdown of populations. Standard military units will be reduced as much as possible while UAVs will be deployed en masse. Air power has always been the biggest weakness of civilians seeking to counter corrupt governments, but this is actually changing.

While they may be lower tech in certain respects, civilian based drones are actually keeping pace with military projects, if only because military projects are restricted by bureaucracy and red tape while civilians are encouraged and emboldened by profit motive. Range and elevation limitations in the civilian market are purely legal right now, and such limitations will be of no concern once the SHTF. For the first time in history, common people now have the ability to field an aerial defense.

The DoD is well aware of this, and is already working on measures to counter enemy drones through their Black Dart and Switchblade program. The Liberty Movement needs its own Black Dart program.

Long Distance Radio And Codes

Regardless of the region they live, liberty activists should be developing their own radio code methods for secure communications. There are a few existing frequency hopping and coded radio systems out there on the civilian market, but these are short range units usually with around 1 watt of power. This makes them ideal for quick operational comms and difficult to listen in on simply because their range is so limited. That said, longer range radio communication will likely be essential for the spread of information from one region to the next, and no one should assume that regular phone and internet will be available in the future. News must travel somehow.

This means HAM radio, using mobile repeaters to avoid triangulation, and old school coded messages. The R&D portion of this issue I believe needs to be in the use of an Automatic Packet Reporting System (APRS) for the liberty movement regionally and nationwide. This is a kind of “texting” through HAM radio, and combining this with traditional low tech cipher coding may be our best bet for long range secure comms. It could also help defeat drones that intercept standard messages and use voice recognition software to identify targets.

Decentralized Internet

Information sharing makes or breaks a society. Without the web, the liberty movement would not have found the success it has today, and the alternative media would not exist, let alone be outmatching the readership ratings of mainstream media sources that have otherwise dominated news flow for decades. Unfortunately, the web is NOT a “creative commons” as many people believe. It is, as Edward Snowden’s revelations on the NSA proved, a highly controlled and monitored network in which there is essentially no privacy, even with the existence of cryptography.

The great threat to the establishment is the possibility that people will begin building an internet separate from the internet; a decentralized network. Recently, an inventor named Benjamin Caudill was slated to release a device called “Proxyham”, designed to reroute wifi signals and remove the possibility of government monitoring of digital communications. Strangely, just before the release of Proxyham, Caudill pulled all devices with the intent to destroy them, and will not be releasing the source code and blueprints to the public as planned.

Clearly, something or someone scared the hell out of Caudill, and he is rushing to appease them. We don’t know who for certain, but my vote is the NSA. And if this is the case, it means his project and others like it are a threat to the surveillance state, and must be released to the public ASAP. If Caudill doesn’t have the guts to do it, then the liberty movement must.

An alternative internet would be a holy grail in the fight against tyranny, if only to show the world that people can indeed decouple from the system and create advanced networks themselves, and do it better than the establishment.

These are just a few of the areas that require immediate attention from those with ingenuity in the liberty movement. The time for talk is over. The time for tangible action has begun. Beyond the need for immediate local organization by those preparing for social and economic breakdown, there is a desperate need for out-of-the-box thinkers to develop countermeasures to technological fascism. It’s time for the movement to go beyond mere intellectual analysis and provide concrete solutions. There is nothing left but this. 

[&&]{**}[##] had a field day yesterday with articles about

Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson and surveillance

the DOJ’s isolation of its own watchdog on the topics of wiretaps and national security letters;

“… The department’s Office of Legal Counsel issued a 68-page opinion Thursday saying that Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz’s office should not be granted access to several different kinds of typically confidential material unless there is a clear law-enforcement or counterintelligence purpose — and that the department’s lawyers, not the inspector general’s, would make that determination…..”

the private prison companies that are raising money for Hilary;

the GOP Presidential candidates booked to appear at an event hosted by Frank Gaffney’s think tank;

NBC’s “long-awaited trailer for its summer horror film about ISIS”, written by GreenwaldThe video is apparently no longer available, but see 

But the lead article as of midnight Thursday was about “el-chapo”:

“… According to leading Mexican investigative newsmagazine Proceso, the agents who arrested Guzmán weren’t Mexican at all — they were Americans, members of the Drug Enforcement Administration and the U.S. Marshals Service, dressed as Mexican marines, working alongside one or more unidentified U.S. intelligence agencies.

Government officials from Mexico and the U.S. have yet to dispute the accuracy of the story, published in the magazine’s July 18 issue, eight days after the world’s most powerful drug trafficker escaped from Mexico’s top maximum security prison, though former officials from both sides of the border expressed their doubts to The Intercept. The magazine’s special features are behind a paywall online.

The Proceso article, by J. Jesús Esquivel, a veteran reporter who has written two books on the history of the DEA and CIA in Mexico, follows anonymous claims from U.S. officials to U.S. media outlets asserting that Guzman’s escape was foretold in warnings provided to authorities in Mexico. Mexican officials have denied these claims.

Filed from Washington D.C., Proceso’s account of Guzmán’s capture is sourced to two U.S. officials whose positions in government are not revealed. Together they claim that his arrest — and much of the intelligence that led to it — was kept secret from Mexican officials until after he was apprehended.

The Mexican constitution places strict limits on the operations of foreign law enforcement, military personnel and intelligence agencies on Mexican soil. In recent years, however, joint U.S. and Mexican counternarcotics operations have pushed those constraints to the brink, with Americans more deeply embedded in the so-called drug war in Mexico than ever before. If true, the Proceso account would represent one of those operations taken to the extreme — with Americans keeping their Mexican counterparts in the dark in order to drive an armed operation to capture Mexico’s most wanted man, in potential violation of Mexican law.

According to Proceso’s sources, U.S. marshals and DEA agents had “perfectly” zeroed in on Guzmán’s “movements” through “interception systems” including satellite tracking in the three weeks prior to his arrest; they were waiting for the right moment to strike…..”

Much more, of course, at the link.


In this week’s [32-minute] Radio WhoWhatWhy Podcast, Guillermo Jimenez talks to Ioan Grillo, a journalist based in Mexico City with over 15 years experience covering crime in the country, and the author of the book El Narco: Inside Mexico’s Criminal Insurgency. In this casual conversation, they explore a range of possibilities related to this colossal “blunder.”

(For background on El Chapo and on the US government’s unusual stance toward him, see this WhoWhatWhy article and this and this.) 



“The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday passed a hotly debated measure that blocks any mandatory labeling of foods made with genetically engineered crops, including pre-empting a state law set to take effect next year in Vermont.

Dubbed the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act by supporters, but the “Deny Americans the Right to Know” or DARK Act, by opponents, the measure was approved 275-150 with 45 Democrats voting for the bill.

House passage marks a victory for food and agricultural companies that have lobbied for the bill, and a blow to opponents, which include consumer, health and environmental groups and organic food industry players.

House members had a heated debate ahead of the vote with supporters claiming GMOs are proven safe. They said mandatory labeling would burden the food industry with unwieldy and costly requirements…..”

More at the link: 




Many similar reports logged here: 



As private citizens stand guard at military recruiting centers across the nation, the Army has released a warning to its personnel and recruits, stating that armed citizens should be treated as a “security threat”.

Travis Tritten of Stars & Stripes reports:

The Army has warned its recruiters to treat the gun-toting civilians gathering at centers across the country in the wake of the Chattanooga, Tenn., shooting as a security threat.

Soldiers should avoid anyone standing outside the recruiting centers attempting to offer protection and report them to local law enforcement and the command if they feel threatened, according to a U.S. Army Recruiting Command policy letter issued Monday.

“I’m sure the citizens mean well, but we cannot assume this in every case and we do not want to advocate this behavior,” according to the Army Command Operations Center-Security Division letter, which was authenticated by the service.

Recruiters were ordered not to interact or acknowledge the armed civilians, who have been greeted by a mix of concern, indifference and gratitude by the public.

“If questioned by these alleged concerned citizens, be polite, professional and terminate the conversation immediately and report the incident to local law enforcement …,” the command advised.

As the incidents crop up around the country, police could be asked to confront the civilians with guns on the Army’s behalf.

“Ensure your recruiters clearly articulate to local police the civilian may be armed and in possession of a conceal/carry permit,” it told the centers.

The command said recruiters should also immediately fill out an Army security report. 



Sen. Mike Lee gives a look at the corrupt workings of the legislature.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) gave America a disturbing look at what happens behind-the-scenes in the legislature.  While a printer worked furiously behind him, Lee explained how the Senate was just given under 1 hour to read and comprehend a massive spending bill before the scheduled vote.

Here is Senator Lee’s message from July 21st, 2015:

LEE:  We received this bill at 3:07 p.m.  The bill is 1,033 pages long. We’re being called on to vote on it at 4 o’clock.  We’re only up to about page 500 in printing it off.  I’m pretty sure that its going to be hard to read the whole bill in its entirety and understand it in the roughly 30 minutes between now and when we have to vote on the bill.

If I don’t have time to read legislation before voting on it, my default vote is no. We received the highway bill today at 3:06 p.m., and it is over 1,000 pages long. Our first vote on this legislation is scheduled for 4:00 p.m.

Posted by United States Senator Mike Lee on Tuesday, July 21, 2015


“If I don’t have time to read legislation before voting on it, my default vote is no,” Senator Lee commented on his video. That’s a principle endorsed by Police State USA in a 2013 article, A Pro-Liberty Approach to Lawmaking.

Responsibility for the rush-to-vote ultimately lies with the Senate Majority leader, Mitch McConnell (R-KY).  McConnell reportedly had just reached a deal with Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) on six years of federal spending and wanted to ram it through with little debate and no amendments.  The schedule made it sot that effectively no one aside from the authors would know for sure what was buried in the massive bill.

It goes without saying that if the Senators themselves don’t have a chance to read a bill, then neither does the voting public have a chance to analyze it and give feedback to their representatives.  The very idea of voting on bills without debate is undemocratic and incompatible with a free society.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time we have seen egregious abuse of power from majority leaders.  Last session, House leader John Boehner successfully pushed through a federal gun-ban with only 10 (out of 435) members present!

Fortunately, McConnell’s treacherous maneuver was unsuccessful, this time.  Riled opponents rejected a motion to begin debate, 41-56.

Despite the setback, McConnell intends to pressure a vote as soon as possible, even if it means keeping the Senate in session over the weekend.  Even with a few extra days, who can realistically read, digest, and understand 1,033 pages of legalese in under a week?

When Americans correctly understand the level of corruption in the legislature, there can be no wondering about the source of the bad laws and injustices we lament so frequently on this website.  The only remedy is more exposure and political pressure, but the vast majority of voters are too wrapped up with sports and Reality TV to be bothered with political activism. 



Every student is given a “THREAT ASSESSMENT” by police and school administrators!

Schools and police are using V-STAG to assess a students threat level:

“The Virginia Student Threat Assessment Guidelines (V-STAG) is a school-based manualized process designed to help school administrators, mental health staff, and law enforcement officers assess and respond to threat incidents involving students in kindergarten through 12th grade and prevent student violence.”

The war on terror is out of control! Watch out that kindergarten kid could be a threat!

Did you know, police are giving American addresses color coded threat ratings?  And our govt. has also assigned you a threat assessment while travelling inside the U.S.

V-STAG was developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Secret Service, and the U.S. Department of Education.

Although both the FBI and Secret Service reports made a compelling case for student threat assessment, schools had no experience with this approach and there were many questions concerning the practical procedures that should be followed. In response, researchers at the University of Virginia developed a set of guidelines for school administrators to use in responding to a reported student threat of violence.”

The Secret Service has the audacity to call threat assessing of kindergarten students a safety concern. “The Final Report And Findings Of The Safe School Initiative.”

The Safe School Initiative” was implemented through the Secret Service’s National Threat Assessment Center and the Department of Education’s Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program.

Every student is being PROFILED and given a risk assessment rating, according to the Secret Services article titled “Evaluating Risk For Targeted Violence In Schools: Comparing Risk Assessment, Threat Assessment and Other Approaches.”

“We then review the three assessment approaches that have been advocated and used in some jurisdictions (profiling, guided professional judgment, automated decision-making) and demonstrate why they are inappropriate and potentially harmful in preventing planned school-based attacks.”

“In this article, we attempt to lay a foundation for developing an effective assessment approach to evaluate the risk of targeted violence in schools by addressing four issues. First, we delineate the contours of the problem of targeted violence by distinguishing the fear of this violence from its actual probability and by distinguishing targeted violence from other forms of aggression in youth. Second, we examine and critique three assessment approaches—profiling, guided professional judgment, and automated decision making…”

V-STAG is also designed to provide students involved in threat incidents with appropriate mental health counseling services, with parental involvement, and reduce the numbers of long-term school suspensions or expulsions and alternative school setting placements.

What’s really being said is police and school administrators can put your kid(s) into mental health counseling which will follow them throughout their adult lives! Oddly there isn’t any mention of the school-to-prison pipeline!

The V-STAG, threat assessment team will be used even if a student is alleged to have committed a crime and can’t be identified:

“Through V-STAG, the threat assessment team aims to prevent student violence by (1) taking immediate protective action in the most serious substantive cases (i.e., instances when there is a genuine intent to cause bodily harm or when the intent of the student making the threat cannot be clearly identified and resolved)”

Any threat that cannot be clearly identified and resolved as transient is treated as a substantive threat. Substantive threats always require protective action to prevent the threat from being carried out. The remaining four steps guide the team through more extensive assessment and response based on the seriousness of the threat. In the most serious cases, the team conducts a safety evaluation that includes both a law enforcement investigation and a mental health assessment of the student.

Many schools also use the “Student Threat Assessment Program” to look for disruptive students.

Did you know there’s an Association of Threat Assessment Professionals (ATAP) who ironically, will be holding their conference at the Disneyland Hotel in California. How many troubling, disruptive, threatening kids will be in Disneyland?

In the conference brochure the LAPD’s Threat Management (Assessment) Unit is listed prominently because they founded the ATAP!  If you guessed the ATAP has close ties to DHS give yourself a gold star, click here & here to read more.

“The ATAP is a diverse association comprised of professionals such as law enforcement officers, prosecutors, mental health professionals, and corporate security experts.”

Is that supposed to be a joke? The people making threat assessments all stand to gain financially:

“… the increase of workplace violence incidents and terrorism has created a need to combine forces with the private sector.”

There’s also a “National Behavioral Intervention Team Association” (NaBITA) dedicated to giving  students threat assessments. It has more than 800 active members from colleges, universities, schools and workplaces.  If you guessed the NaBITA has close ties to DHS give yourself another gold star, click here & here to read more.

Threat assessments are also being given to college students, they’re just using a different name calling them ‘Campus Safety Teams.’

“While the prevention of campus violence may have been the catalyst for improving coordination and communication across campus departments with the creation of Campus Teams.” 

The creation of Campus Teams that identify and monitor students whose behaviors may be troubling is an opportunity to engage them sooner rather than later, so that they can receive needed referrals or other appropriate assistance and treatment.”

To find out more about ‘Campus Teams’ read “Balancing Safety On Campus: A Guide For Campus Safety Teams.” Some colleges like Youngstown State University have created a “Student Threat Assessment Team (STAT). ”

The NaBITA has created a “Threat Assessment Tool” with NINE levels of Aggression.

The ‘MILD’ levels allege students might be emotionally troubled if the school considers his or her debating harmful!

Doesn’t that make you feel all warm and fuzzy knowing a team of school administrators and police are profiling every student!

In general, the mission and purpose of ‘Campus Teams’ encompasses:

Gathering information about students of concern. This may specifically focus on threats with the

potential to become violent (as is the case with threat assessment teams) or a broader range of behaviors. As noted below, this may also expand to include behaviors by others on or off campus, besides students.

Assessing the information about each case in a systematic way to determine the most effective

response for that particular person and situation.

• Defining the plan/response to address the needs of both the student and the safety of the community. The plan should consider specifics about who, when, where, and how the response will occur.

• Implementing the response in a way that de-escalates a potential crisis, reduces or removes threats, and attends to the needs of the individual who is demonstrating disturbed and/or disturbing behavior. Note that for many campus teams, the actual implementation of a response may be carried out by other individuals or departments; the team itself often acts in an advisory and coordinating role.

Monitoring the disposition of the case to gauge whether any additional follow-up is needed, whether the response was effective, and what lessons may be learned for future cases, especially in terms of implications for school policies and procedures.

The dual purpose of housing these functions under one team’s purview is:

• to prevent any particular instance of disturbed or disturbing behavior from falling through the

organizational cracks; and

to connect disparate (and therefore seemingly innocuous or less troubling) pieces of information that may indicate a more serious or acute problem, in the hope of preventing a dangerous or critical outcome or event.

Colleges nationwide are using ‘Campus Teams’ to give their students sexual threat assessments, there is a “Legal Compliance and Sexual Violence Prevention Training” being held in Boston this July 27, 28th.

“This training will address the critical intersection between compliance with federal laws to address sexual and intimate partner violence, and the role that threat assessment can play in effectively addressing these issues.”

Colleges are also using,The Structured Interview For Violence Risk Assessment (SIVRA-35)” by Brian Van Brunt, Ed.D.,

Our government has been using rare on campus shootings as a justification for schools and colleges to give students risk assessments.

“After the tragedies at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University, there was a natural inclination to form Campus Teams with a specific focus on threat assessment and management.”

“Campus Teams can facilitate the flow, processing, and synthesis of safety related information, which in turn helps decision-makers identify foreseeable risks and construct and implement reasonable responses.”

Our government want us to believe that EVERY student is a potential threat and we need threat assessments to stop them.

The fact is student homicides are RARE:

With nearly 106,000 public and private schools in the U.S., there were shootings at only 0.009% of schools since December 2012. According to the National Center for Education Statistics’ 2013 “Indicators of School Crime and Safety” report, from the 1992-93 school year until the 2010-11 school year, there were between 11 and 34 homicides of youths ages 5-18 at schools each year (including attacks with weapons other than firearms), with an average of about 23 homicides per year.

Compare that to NCES’s enrollment statistics, about 0.000044% of public and private K-12 students were killed at school per year between 1992-93 and 2010-11. That’s about one out of every 2,273,000 students per year. By contrast, the odds of being hit by lightning in a given year is one out of 700,000 according to National Geographic. For more information read the “Youth Violence Fact Sheet

To find out more about how the Secret Service and the FBI are using threat assessments, read the following articles:

Threat Assessment: An Approach to Prevent Targeted Violence“.

Threat Assessment: Defining an Approach for Evaluating Risk of Targeted Violence 



“I am in the camp that is concerned about super intelligence. First, the machines will do a lot of jobs for us and not be super intelligent. That should be positive if we manage it well. A few decades after that, though, the intelligence is strong enough to be a concern.” ~ Bill Gates

AI isn’t science fiction any longer. Mainstream news doesn’t often report that artificial intelligence may be running the world. Was the Oracle in the movie the Matrix, for example, really just a renegade AI program? Even Bill Gates, the man who owns Monsanto stock and tries to push vaccines on innocent tribal children in India, has warned about artificial intelligence and the threat of smart machines.

Sometimes little snippets of what is actually possible leak through – like the recent news item touting the self-awareness of a tiny, “cute” robot.

The ability for something to be able to recognize that it is an individual, separate and with its own consciousness, is one of the classic signs of self-awareness.

Researchers at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute AI and Reasoning Lab in New York have adapted the classic inductive reasoning puzzle known as The King’s Wise Men and posed the problem to a trio of robots. One of them passed their little test.

The chairman of the department of cognitive science at the Institute, Selmer Bringsjord, programmed French robotics, namely Aldebaran’s humanoid design called a Nao robot. It is only 58 centimeters tall. The Nao robots were programmed with a proprietary algorithm called Deontic Cognitive Event Calculus, which enables the machines to carry out reasoning.

The robots were told that two of them were given “dumbing” pills which made them unable to speak, and one a placebo – even though all that was really done is a button was pushed on top of their heads.

When asked if they were given dumbing pills or the placebo, there is an awkward silence and then one robot stands up and says “I don’t know.”

What happens next is amazing. The robot then raises its hand like a child in a class room, and offers a correction: “Sorry, I know now. I was able to prove that I was not given the dumbing pill.”

Watch for yourself below. 



If a spy satellite is attacked, who will command America’s response — the head of Strategic Command or the Director of National Intelligence? If an Air Force satellite is attacked first, who would command America’s response? These questions are being hotly — but very quietly –debated at the highest reaches of the U.S. government.

Since an attack on our most sophisticated spy satellites would almost certainly be among the first sign of war it is crucial that any response be coordinated between the military and the Intelligence Community. But I hear that few military senior commanders have been willing to accept that the DNI or another senior intelligence official — perhaps the NRO director? —  might command both spy and military satellites. However, in the first minutes or hours of an attack, the IC would probably know more about what’s happening and someone would need to decide whether to move satellites or take other actions. Also, the ambiguous and often uncertain ability to discern what is actually happening to a satellite — is it being attacked by man or nature — make these decision even more fraught and their repercussions difficult to predict.

It’s not that the senior military leaders do not want the IC to command. The problem is more fundamental. Since senior American policymakers have long assumed that space would not be the center of a shooting war, we have never categorically detailed who would do what in the event of an attack in space. That is changing.

The debate appears to have begun as the Intelligence Community and the Pentagon began discussing construction of the first “joint interagency and combined space operations in which both the IC and DoD sit,” as Deputy Defense Bob Work put it on June 23 when we first learned about the center.

The highly classified command center — about which we know very few details — should be operational by the end of the year, he said.

All this has been prompted by recent Chinese and Russian efforts to build effective anti-satellite capabilities.

The Chinese have made at least two major anti-satellite tests in the last decade and the Russians are engaged in similar efforts. Air Force Lt. Gen. Jay Raymond told an overflow audience at the annual Warfighters Lunch at the annual Space Symposium that American and allied satellites were no longer safe. “Soon every satellite in every orbit will be able to be held at risk,” the head of the 14th Air Force said.

One of the other Chinese actions that prompted high-level concerns in the US was the May 2013 Chinese “science experiment,” which many senior officials and independent analysts believe was an ASAT test near geosynchronous orbit, where some spy satellites live.

“This was the first time the Intelligence Community really got a scare, because up to that time, they considered that their satellites were relatively safe because they orbit in very high altitudes. The Chinese test shattered those illusions,” Theresa Hitchens,  a scholar at the University of Maryland’s Center for International and Security Studies and former director of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research in Geneva, says.

China has claimed its test in July last year was for missile defense and noted that nothing was destroyed in the test and the Chinese have never admitted publicly that the 2013 test was connected with the military.

Faced with the Chinese and Russian work, the United States military has begun to make a fundamental strategic shift. Work outlined the changes at this year’s Space Symposium in Colorado Springs. Breaking D readers will remember — because we broke the story — that Work said in a classified speech that the US military “must be able to respond in an integrated, coordinated fashion” to attacks on US space assets and he used the charged term “space control” in making his argument. This is because space is no longer a sanctum free from war. In fact, space is considered by many experts to be where the next major war would begin.

“While we rely heavily on space capabilities, in both peace and war, we must continue to emphasize space control as challenges arise,” he said. “To maintain our military dominance we must consider all space assets, both classified and unclassified, as part of a single constellation (emphasis added). And if an adversary tries to deny us the capability, we must be able to respond in an integrated, coordinated fashion.”

But that is not how we fight now. As things stand today, the head of Strategic Command (STRATCOM) would command military space forces through Air Force Space Command’s Joint Space Operations Center (JSPOC). That is also where a small number of allied space officers work, coordinating with their national governments and with NATO.

On the military side of the fence, STRATCOM created a “Joint Space Doctrine and Tactics Forum,” which first met in February,, to create new doctrine and figure out some of these thorny issues.

I’ve tried speaking with a number of intelligence community sources since I first heard about this debate more than five months ago, but none of them were willing to address the issue.

Then the presumptive new chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Joseph Dunford, was asked this question by the Senate Armed Services Committee in the written questions submitted before his nomination hearing:

What is your understanding and assessment of the authorities and agreements which are in place to allow U.S. military personnel to carry out missions under the authorities contained in title 50, United States Code? Do you believe any modifications to these authorities are necessary?

Dunford’s response to the committee appears to signal that he is willing to let the Intelligence Community command military forces if needs be. “While I believe that our military forces are generally most effective when they operate under a military chain of command, there are circumstances in which exceptions to this general rule are appropriate; authorities and agreements exist to facilitate the granting of such exceptions,” he told the SASC.

I’ve spoken to several space experts who knew of the IC-DoD debate about command authorities and they believe Dunford is addressing this issue in his reply. He cites Section 3038 of Title 50, the law governing the Intelligence Community. That is the section dealing with the three intelligence agencies who dominate space operations: the National Reconnassance Office (NRO), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA). The NRO is the key agency in the IC in terms of command authorities as it flies the nation’s spy satellites.

Space analyst Brian Weeden, an expert at the Secure World Foundation and former Air Force officer in the JSPOC, is skeptical of the administration’s claims about an increased threat in space.

“It is difficult to determine how much of this increase in rhetoric from the US military is driven by the budget debate, and their fear about being held to the sequestration budget caps. We have some evidence of China and Russia working on ASAT capabilities, but it’s very hard to tell how serious that threat is because the US government is not being forthcoming with details,” he said in an email.

He finds it “absurd” that the Indtelligence Community might know something is happening in space and not share it with STRATCOM. “But, unfortunately, this is not a new situation, and it’s not unique to space. For example, it’s been something they’ve been struggling with in targeted drone killings,” he says.

He also notes that the Air Force has long assumed space would be a center of conflict in a war, though it’s clear from policymakers’ recent statements that they believe a fundamental shift is occurring in terms of US vulnerability to attack.

“Policymakers have NOT always assumed space would be free from conflict. When I was on crew in Cheyenne Mountain we had a crew position called the Space Battle Manager and two others called the Space Defense Director and Space Defense Analyst. That’s half of the military positions on the crew dedicated to detecting and characterize threats to US national security space systems. We had TTPs (Tactics, Techniques and Procedures) in place to train for, and response to, attacks on US space systems,” Weeden says, adding that the, “specific type of threats have changed since then, but there was always an assumption space would be contested.”

One issue that comes to mind is what the potential legal implications are of the IC characterizing Weeden sees two primary policy issues at play in the current debate. Who decides what constitutes a threat in space and who decides what should be done about those threats: the IC or the military?

“Another is the inherent conflict between the who is ‘warning’ about an attack and who is the ‘shooter’ deciding on a response. If both of those missions are given to the same entity, you have incentives for escalation,” he writes. “This is the reason that NORAD is the military entity charged with detecting and warning about attacks on North America, while USSTRATCOM is charged with the execution of nuclear forces in response.”

Here’s Dunford’s response to the SASC in full:

“Title 50 of the U.S. Code tasks the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the military departments maintain sufficient capabilities to collect and produce intelligence to meet requirements of the DNI, Secretary of Defense, CJCS, and COCOMs. Title 50 of the U.S. Code also authorizes the Secretary to use such elements of the DOD as may be appropriate for the execution of the national intelligence program functions described in Section 3038 of Title 50. While I believe that our military forces are generally most effective when they operate under a military chain of command, there are circumstances in which exceptions to this general rule are appropriate; authorities and agreements exist to facilitate the granting of such exceptions. In some cases, the Secretary of Defense may approve this exception and in other cases only the President has approval authority. I believe the current authorities strike the appropriate balance between enabling DoD to operate within its independent Title 50 authorities, providing necessary and appropriate support to other agencies of the U.S. government under Title 50, and ensuring critical oversight of sensitive operations.”

(If, dear readers, you know more about this debate and are willing to discuss it sotto voce — on background or deep background– just click here or on our Tips button at the top of the page and I will get your email.)

Topics: 14th Air Force, AFSPC, air force, allies, Bob Work, Cheyenne, Cheyenne Mountain, China, Chinese ASAT test, Deputy Defense Secretary, DNI, Gen. Jay Raymond, intelligence community, Joint Space Doctrine and Tactics Forum, Joint Space Operations Center, JSPOC, National Space Symposium, NATO, NGA NSA NRO, NRO, Russia, Space Symposium 2015, space war, STRATCOM, Strategic Command 


The Dawn of Privacy-Driven Social Networks | 17 June 2015 | Privacy concerns in the wake of Edward Snowden disclosures have prompted new social networks to offer alternatives with a focus on user privacy. These companies are abstaining from selling user data and offering encrypted apps for their customers’ communications. Manhattan-based Minds, which has run an alternative social media website for two years, just launched a lightweight social-network app for mobile…that encrypts all communications – so they are secure and anonymous (able to be read only by the intended recipient).

targeting civilians

Wesley Clark has called for the indefinite detention of disloyal or dissident people.

  “… we need to look at what self-radicalization means…”  

[Ed.: Do you think the health care plan for those folks will be an ObamaCare HMO, or will it be provided by the VA (where a third of the people in the waiting line are already dead).?]

The great pedia of the net, Wikipedia, starts the discussion.

Radicalization (or radicalisation) is a process by which an individual or group comes to adopt increasingly extreme political, social, or religious ideals and aspirations that (1) reject or undermine the status quo[1] or (2) reject and/or undermine contemporary ideas and expressions of freedom of choice. For example, radicalism can originate from a broad social consensus against progressive changes in society.

Radicalization can be both violent and nonviolent, although most academic literature focuses on radicalization into violent extremism (RVE).[2] There are multiple pathways that constitute the process of radicalization, which can be independent but are usually mutually reinforcing.[3][4] 

Radicalization that occurs across multiple reinforcing pathways greatly increases a group’s resilience and lethality. Furthermore, by compromising its ability to blend in with non-radical society and participate in a modern, globalized economy, radicalization serves as a kind of sociological trap that gives individuals no other place to go to satisfy their material and spiritual needs.[5]

[Ed.: Progressive changes? Do you mean those introduced as part of a massive centuries-long social engineering effort by a tiny (no, strike that) minuscule group of self-selected “masters of enlightenment” who meet secretly and plot like pigeons, use the Hegelian dialectic, call themselves somethign other than what they are, use religion as both masquerade and divisive tool, and destroy jobs, economices and cultures?]

Self-radicalization [according to ]is a phenomenon in which individuals become terrorists without affiliating with a radical group, although they may be influenced by its ideology and message. It usually addresses radical Islam, but there certainly have been instances of “lone wolf” terrorism from all ideologies, such as Timothy McVeigh and Eric Randolph on the U.S. right.

Self-radicalization does not mean the eventual terrorist activity never affiliates with a group, or even takes place in the country of radicalization. that Many attacks considered completely “home-grown” have had assistance, but the participants came together in the West. Mohammed Atta and three others directly involved in the 9-11 Attacks radicalized while in Hamburg, Germany, and then traveled to Pakistan. The 2005 London bombings were committed by British citizens, although subsequent investigation suggested that after radicalization, they may have obtained training from al-Qaeda, and then returned.

[Ed.:  Not even a whisper about the warehouses filled with evidence that 9/11 and 7/7conceived,  created, assisted and covered up by individuals deeply embeddded in state security agencies as “false flag terror”, or the documented history of same for the last century and more.]

After two paragraphs of disinformational bullshit, or bouncing the rubble of previous propagandistic lies, the Weekly Standard (a go-to scroll for the neo-conservative world that reads left-to-right) says:

“There is a substantial cottage industry manufacturing experts on self-made terrorists, and it’s puzzling that its practitioners are rarely asked to justify the theory, since it’s logically incoherent and factually unsubstantiated. How, exactly, does a person radicalize himself?”

My search engine starts to echo this obviously-manifactured meme through think tanks, security blogs for CNN, governmental security organs, and the media mouthoies for them. The meme is years old, as demonstrated by this piece by the Investigative Project on “the myth of self-radicalization, written by he former Deputy Inspector General for New York State Department of Corrections and author of The Fertile Soil of Jihad.

“Recent studies and statements by several government officials, including the director of the FBI and the secretary of Homeland Security, tell us that the greatest threat facing us post 9-11 is the individual terrorist.

But in looking at two specific cases of Islamic terrorist attacks we may find that definition an over-simplified version of what actually took place.

The first is the case of Mohamed Merah, the 23-year-old French / Algerian in Toulouse, France who shot three French paratroopers and four Jewish civilians, three of whom were young children.

The profile coming out initially said he was self-radicalized because of the economic poverty he grew up in. A victim of high unemployment and discrimination against an immigrant minority caused the anger that fueled the fire in him. If that is true, where did the $26,000 found on him come from? Not to mention the cache of weapons and the expenditures necessary for him to travel to Afghanistan and Pakistan? Who provided the funds, the contacts, and the weapons?

The second description said he “self-radicalized in prison.” Is that possible? Is prison a place where you can be left to yourself to evolve into something?

As someone who has worked in the criminal justice system for 26 years and a considerable amount of that time in the prison system, I can tell you emphatically that Merah’s radicalization was much more than self-induced. One does not become “self-radicalized” in prison. The constant interaction that occurs within a prison negates that. There is always a facilitator, an influence, or a catalyst. Be that literature, another cellmate, or a clergy. What was the integer in this case?…. When we say that a person was self-taught or self-motivated, we look at them in a positive light. When used in recent descriptions of Islamic terrorists it has quite the opposite effect.

It tends to triteness and absolves anyone else of complicity in the act. There is an overuse of the word, a diluting of the meaning, a deliberate misuse in an attempt to simplify the issue of radicalization.

Those who contributed to the radicalization process must be held accountable.”

<#  zxcvb #>

Cognitive Joint Force Entry

A relevant bit sourced from Public Intelligence via Blacklisted News is a “presentation from the U.S. Army Special Operations Command dated November 4, 2014 that presents an “overview of the concept of Cognitive Joint Force Entry (CJFE)” which is used to “maximize relative combat power when we consider the physical, cognitive, and moral aspects within the HUMAN DOMAIN.””

Because it’s easier and simpler to get the graphics wholly and cleanly for your consumption, I’ve taken liberty – no offenses intended to either of the sources — of cutting-and-pasting it into my own pdf uploaded here: Cognitive Joint Force Entry

<#  zxcvb #>

<#  zxcvb #>


Recently I finally knocked off an item from my personal “to do” list when I bought The Phoenix Program: America’s Use of Terror by the US in Vietnam by Douglas Valentine, an e-book from off the /forbidden-bookshelf/

Given what I’ve just recently posted from within the book “Weaponizing Maps” at society-as-the-battlefield about “Small Wars”. I was struck by the following:


“It was perfectly clear, following the terror attacks of 9/11, that America’s elite were creating exactly this kind of criminally legal social structure. Climate change, overpopulation, income inequality, dwindling resources, and other geopolitical factors are pushing the rich into gated communities in every nation in the world. The establishment is preparing for the dystopian future that lies ahead.

The 9/11 terror attacks lifted all the moral prohibitions on militaristic America, unleashing on liberalism the anger and frustrations that the country had cultivated since the Vietnam War. The government, backed by industry and the corporate media, launched the largest psychological warfare campaign ever mounted. Extralegal Phoenix-style programs cropped up everywhere, seen as necessary for protecting the American people from terrorism, and the terrorized public gratefully received them all.

My article  “An Open Letter to Maj. Gen. Bruce Lawlor” [a full copy appears below) appeared in August 2002 and spoke to this imminent threat of fascism. As a CIA officer in South Vietnam in the early 1970s, Bruce Lawlor ran a counterterror team in one of the northern provinces. In 2002 Lawlor became the Office of Homeland Security’s senior director for protection and prevention. The Office of Homeland Security would soon evolve into “the Department of Homeland Security, with its Orwellian “fusion centers,” which are replicas of the Phoenix IOCCs and serve the same “intelligence” function.

After 9/11, the influence of Phoenix proponents like Simmons, Kerrey, and Lawlor was crucial in reshaping America’s attitude in regard to conducting murderous, illegal Phoenix-style operations against civilians in foreign nations, and against dissidents at home. Such men and women are everywhere in positions of authority, threatening the democratic institutions we hold dear.

I had warned against this development in the introduction to The Phoenix Program. As I said in 1990, “This book is about terror and its role in political warfare. It will show how, as successive American governments sink deeper and deeper into the vortex of covert operations—ostensibly to combat terrorism and Communist insurgencies—the American people gradually lose touch with the democratic ideals that once defined their national self-concept. This book asks what happens when Phoenix comes home to roost.”

Excerpt From: Douglas Valentine. “The Phoenix Program.” iBooks.”


<#  zxcvb #>

“Central to Phoenix is the fact that it targeted civilians, not soldiers. As a result, its detractors charge that Phoenix violated that part of the Geneva Conventions guaranteeing protection to civilians in time of war. “By analogy,” said Ogden Reid, a member of a congressional committee investigating Phoenix in 1971, “if the Union had had a Phoenix program during the Civil War, its targets would have been civilians like Jefferson Davis or the mayor of Macon, Georgia.”

Excerpt From: Douglas Valentine. “The Phoenix Program.” iBooks.

<#  zxcvb #> 

Flight Of The Phoenix –From Vietnam To Homeland Security


An Open Letter To Maj. Gen. Bruce Lawlor, Office Of Homeland Security

By Douglas Valentine


“The implication or latent threat of force alone was sufficient to insure that the people would comply…” –William Colby, RIP


Imagine my surprise to learn that the Bruce Lawlor is serving as the Office of Homeland Security’s Senior Director for Protection and Prevention!

I say this in a blatantly exclamatory fashion because I interviewed Lawlor for my book, The Phoenix Program, back in 1988, when he was just a small town lawyer in Vermont. Poor Bruce. He has always had big ambitions, and he had run for governor of Vermont in 1984. But, as he told me with abiding bitterness, his political opponents had uncovered evidence of his participation in the CIA’s Phoenix Program in Vietnam. The bastards had used that awful fact to launch a successful smear campaign against him. And yes, he’d lost the election as a result.

Nearly 20 years later Lawlor is still licking his wounds, and there’s no doubt that he holds a major general’s grudge against the pacifists and peaceniks who smeared him with Phoenix. So now I’m wondering, what’s he got in store for people like me?

Here We Go Again

Having former CIA Phoenix officers in important government positions is nothing new in America. I refer you to Congressman Rob Simmons, a friend of Lawlor’s, whom Lawlor describes as a “liberal”. Simmons, good liberal Episcopalian that he is, ran a CIA Province Interrogation Center in Vietnam. (See The Spook Who Would be a Congressman.)

Having potential war criminals in positions of power is nothing new, but I’m one of those people who believe that all former CIA officers–especially those involved in “extra-legal” counter-terror programs like Phoenix–should not be allowed to hold public office. I believe this, because the CIA is antithetical to democratic institutions. And that’s why I was so surprised to see, that the guy I knew as “Bruce”, is now Major General Lawlor, and a top-ranking official in the ominous Office of Homeland Security. By which I mean, he’s someone who has access to Ashcroft’s political blacklist, and he has control over the covert action teams that can be used to neutralize those dissidents.

To get right to the point, I have a sneaking suspicion that Lawlor, like Simmons, is still working for the CIA, and thus poses a major threat to democracy in America.

One of the reasons I have this crazy feeling, is that nowhere in any of Lawlor’s official looking, on-line biographies is there any mention of his CIA service. It’s like his biographers are deliberately trying to hide his CIA connection from us.

For example, The Executive Session on Domestic Preparedness, “a standing task force of leading practitioners and academic specialists concerned with terrorism and emergency management” (sponsored by Harvard’s JFK School of Government, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Justice), posted an official biography of Major General Bruce M. Lawlor. They mention that he was the “first” commanding general of the Joint Task Force Civil Support (JTF-CS) located at Fort Monroe. This is extremely important, because the JTF-CS was formed specifically to provide “command and control over Department of Defense consequence management forces in support of a civilian Lead Federal Agency (the CIA?) following a weapon of mass destruction incident in the United States, its territories or possessions (italics added).”

This sounds an awful lot like a prelude to the terror attacks of 11 September, and I’ll raise the subject of the JTF-CS in a bit, but for now I’d like to point out that nowhere do Lawlor’s friends from Harvard (he’s a graduate of Harvard’s National Security Fellows Program) or the Departments of Defense and Justice, say that Lawlor was once a CIA officer. (Please see BCSIA/ESDP.nsf/www/Contact)

Likewise, in an earlier biography posted on the Internet, Lawlor was said to be “assigned as the Deputy Director, Operations, Readiness and Mobilization within the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans in May 1998. As Deputy Director he monitors Army operations worldwide and oversees National Guard and Reserve Forces Integration efforts.”

This too is incredibly important, and relates directly to the terror attacks of 11 September, in so far as the National Guard and Reserves are integral parts of Northcom, the military component of the forthcoming Department of Homeland Security, which will manage the “pacification” of the American people. But before we get into that, let’s proceed with the problem of Lawlor’s official biographies. In this particular biography, which was posted in November 2000, it says “The General’s military service began in 1967. After service in Vietnam from 1971 to 1973, he received a Direct Commission in 1974 as an Intelligence Officer.”

Once again, and rather conspicuously, there is no mention that Lawlor was a CIA officer in Vietnam. In fact, you get the feeling that he was in the military. You might go so far as to say that the folks at Homeland Security are dissembling, in order to hide the fact that one of their most senior officers probably still is a CIA officer!

Why would Lawlor consent to this subterfuge, if, in fact, he is an honorable man?

The Phoenix Program

I first read about Lawlor in Everything We Had by Al Santoli. I was researching the Phoenix Program at the time, and Santoli’s interview with Lawlor was in a section titled “The Phoenix”. Santoli identified Lawlor as having been a CIA case officer in I Corps, from November 1971-December 1973, and he quoted Lawlor as saying that in order to win the Vietnam War, “what we had to do was get in and eliminate the ability of the VC to control or influence the people. That’s what pacification was all about. The buzzword was “root out.” We tried to go in and neutralize their political structure.”

For those who are unfamiliar with Phoenix and its jargon, “neutralize” meant to assassinate, imprison, or turn someone into a defector or double agent.

Lawlor apparently made some very provocative statements to Santoli, including this one: “We permitted the Vietnamese to corrupt the system and we did it because we basically were corrupt ourselves.” Lawlor’s position about Phoenix seemed to be that it was “an extermination program” that was “used to settle old scores.”

In an effort to find out if this was Lawlor’s position, I wrote to him and requested an interview. Lawlor agreed, and we did taped interviews, portions of which I included in my book, The Phoenix Program, between pages 407-411.

What Lawlor told me basically confirmed everything Santoli had attributed to him. Except there were some additional, startling details. To begin with, Lawlor told me that he joined the CIA in 1967, while he was getting his BA at George Washington University. The CIA hired him to work the night shift, and after he graduated, he was given the chance to become a regular CIA staff officer. He took the paramilitary course, which included instruction in weapons and military tactics, but he was also trained as a foreign intelligence officer, the kind who manages secret agents. After that he was assigned to the Vietnam Desk at Langley headquarters, where he received specialized training in agent operations in Vietnam, and took a language course in Vietnamese. During this time, Lawlor formed a rapport with the Vietnam Desk officer, Al Seal, and when Seal was assigned as the base chief in Danang, he asked that Lawlor accompany him. Lawlor, notably, was just as gung-ho about fighting the Viet Cong as John Kerrey. (See Bob Kerrey, the CIA and War Crimes.)

Lawlor arrived in Vietnam in November 1971 and was assigned as an undercover staff officer at the US Embassy’s translation section. He arrived in Danang a few weeks later, at the beginning of 1972, and was assigned to regional headquarters, in the counter-intelligence office. He worked at that job through the Easter Offensive of 1972, but then things changed dramatically. Lawlor became the Police Special Branch advisor in Quang Nam Province, in which capacity, in the summer of 1972, he did what Rob Simmons had done in nearby Quang Ngai Province; he organized the most aggressive Special Branch officers into a paramilitary Special Intelligence Force Unit that hunted members of the Viet Cong Infrastructure in the hamlets and villages. As advisor to the Special Branch, Lawlor also ran the Quang Nam Province Interrogation Center, and there got to know the CIA’s regional PRU advisor, Patry Loomis. Bored with merely filing reports, Lawlor jumped at the chance, when Loomis asked him if he’d like to out on some PRU operations. That’s when Lawlor started dressing in tiger fatigues and going out on ambushes, and traditional PRU “snuff and snatch” operations.

For those unfamiliar with Phoenix lexicon, the PRU–Provincial Reconnaissance Unit–Program was a unilateral CIA operation, formed by the CIA, paid by the CIA, and staffed by mercenary Vietnamese who worked for the CIA, often against the interests of their own government. The PRU were originally called “counter-terror teams” and, according to Nelson Brickham (the man who created the Phoenix program) their job was to go into VC areas “to do to them what they were doing to us.” Which means mutilating people, sticking their heads on poles after they were killed, killing the families of suspected VC terrorists or political chiefs, and other unconventional CIA terror tactics.

After the 1972 Easter Offensive the PRU were ostensibly placed under the jurisdiction of the Special Branch, and were renamed Special Reconnaissance Units. At this point the CIA still controlled the PRU purse strings, but it wasn’t providing as much money and as a result, it lost a certain amount of control over the PRU leadership. The top ranking Vietnamese PRU officers turned to graft, drug dealing, and shakedowns to make up the differential. Very bad things started happening. On one unforgettable occasion Lawlor walked into the Hoi An Interrogation Center and saw that a woman, who knew about the regional PRU chief’s dirty dealings, had been raped and murdered. Her body was stretched over a table. “All of a sudden,” Lawlor told me, “Mr. (Phan Van) Liem (the PRU chief) wants me to go on a mission with him, and the other PRU guys are telling me, ‘Don’t go!'”

This may seem a minor detail to the people at Homeland Security, or then again, it may be one reason why Lawlor’s resume is so lacking in CIA information. You see, all CIA Province Interrogation Center advisors were obligated to report any incidents of torture, murder, or abuse they witnessed. So, where’s Lawlor’s report?

I believe Lawlor probably filed a report. Back in those rough and tumble Phoenix fighting days he was a man of conscience. For example, when Seal was replaced as the CIA’s Regional Officer in Charge (ROIC) of I Corps, the new ROIC, Tom Flores, brought in a new staff. Having worked in the region’s counter-intelligence office, Lawlor knew that an NVA spy ring still existed in the area, and that one of these NVA agents was the girl friend of Flores’ operations chief. When Lawlor reported this to Flores, he was accused of having “gone native.” So Lawlor told the CIA’s security chief in Saigon, at which point his office furniture was confiscated and he was handed a ticket home.

“After that I became disillusioned,” Lawlor confessed. He tendered his resignation to Ted Shackley in 1974. “The agency betrayed us,” he said. “To go after the VCI, we had to believe it was okay. But we were too young to understand what happens when idealism cracks up against reality. We risked our lives to get information on the VCI, information we were told the President was going to read. Then guys who didn’t care gave it to superiors more interested in booze and broads.”

That’s what Bruce Lawlor said to me back in 1988. He was definitely embittered, but there’s something weird about him that makes him keep going back for more. When former Director of Central Intelligence William Colby heard that the Phoenix smear campaign had cost Lawlor the 1984 election in Vermont, he offered Lawlor his moral (as it was) support. Lawlor was summoned to Langley and interviewed for a job in the freewheeling Special Operations Division, which was then breaking every international law in places like Nicaragua and Afghanistan. But details of the “gone native” incident surfaced, and Lawlor was not, to his immense disappointment, rehired by the CIA.

Reprisal is the Name of the Homeland Security Game

People look for vindication in many different ways. Take, for example, the reaction of the right wing to America’s humiliating defeat at the hands of the Vietnamese. Phoenix creator Nelson Brickham compared that reaction to the frustration and bitterness of the German nation after the First World War. As we all know, that frustration and bitterness enabled Hitler to do his thing.

Since the terror attacks of 11 September, we’ve seen the same phenomena here in America. Symbolically, that traumatic event wiped the slate clean. As a result, all the moral and psychological prohibitions on the reactionary right have been lifted, and all the anger and frustrations it cultivated during the Vietnam War, and the Carter and Clinton Administrations, is poised to be unleashed under the aegis of counter-terrorism, not only on the usual suspects–foreign enemies sitting on vast oil reserves, suspected terrorists, and domestic dissidents–but on the unwitting, flag-waving American public as well.

I happen to believe that Bruce Lawlor is one of those frustrated, bitter people. And I believe that he subscribes to the fascist theories of Michael Ledeen. A former counter-terror expert in the corrupt Reagan Regime’s State Department and National Security Council, Ledeen in a 1 October 2001 article for the National Review blamed the terror attacks of 11 September on Bill Clinton, “for failing to properly organize our nation’s security apparatus.”

According to Ledeen, Clinton’s sneering lack of respect for security took “a terrible toll on the system, and (Tom) Ridge will not find it easy to instill a proper respect for proper secrecy, even in his own offices. It takes quite a while to stamp out corrupt habits of mind and action.”

Leeden’s solution to the problem of domestic terrorism is ideological. It is “to stamp out” the “corrupt habits of mind (italics added)” that are still lingering around, somewhere. In other words, the reactionary right wing, as represented by the fascist Bush Regime, with its ambitions for a military dictatorship, must impose its “proper” ideology through the institution of an official Thought Police–the current Office of Homeland Security and the forthcoming Department of Homeland Security. Stamping out, or pacification, is what is required to create the politically correct, security conscious, uniform American citizenry, marching in lockstep with their fellow flag waving TIPsters, that is necessary to win the tough eternal war on terror that lies ahead. It’s a matter of will power.

“This is time for the old motto, “kill them all, let God sort ’em out.” New times require new people with new standards,” Ledeen asserts. “The entire political world will understand it and applaud it. And it will give Tom Ridge a chance to succeed, and us to prevail.”

It’s obvious that many people with an axe to grind are jumping on the Homeland Security bandwagon. Knowing this, and fearing that Bruce Lawlor is of the Ledeen “reprisal” persuasion, I immediately tried to get an interview with him. I called his office at 202-456-5687 and spoke with his secretary. She said he would call me back, but he hasn’t responded.

I know he was angry with me after The Phoenix Program was published. He did not like how I portrayed the CIA, or him, personally. He was so upset he helped a CIA-nik write a rebuttal to my book. So I’m a little concerned, not just for myself, but for anyone who opposed the Vietnam War, and now opposes the Bush Regime’s blatantly fascist policies at home and abroad. So I’m writing this as an open letter to General Lawlor.

As far as I know, General Lawlor, we still live in a democracy. Although the Bush regime seems hell bent on using the uninvestigated terror attacks of 11 September as a pretext to turn America into a military dictatorship, we are not yet (as far as I know) under martial law. Public officials, like you, still have a responsibility to respond to our concerns. So speaking on behalf of people concerned by the gaping window of opportunity for the abuse of human rights and civil liberties presented by the corrupt Bush Regime, through its Homeland Security apparatus, here are the main questions that need to be answered:

Questions for Major General Bruce Lawlor

1) What happened in July 1995 to make you leave your law practice and go to the Army War College? Did the CIA have a role in that decision?

2) How did your education at the War College pave the way for your assignment as Special Assistant to the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, from June to October 1996? CIA officers often go by the term “Special Assistant.” Were you serving as the CIA’s liaison to the Supreme Commander?

3) In May 1998 you got the very important job as Deputy Director of Readiness and Mobilization within the office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans. Your job was managing the National Guard and Reserves around the world. Did the CIA help you get this job? How were you involved with the CIA in this position?

4) You were the first commander of the Joint Task Force, Civil Support at Fort Monroe. Your job was to work with civilians. Was this a CIA assignment? How were you involved with the CIA in this position? Was this assignment based in any way upon your Phoenix-related experiences as a CIA officer in Vietnam, and was it precisely that “Phoenix” sensibility that you brought, as your main qualification, to the job? What are your other qualifications? Who else bid for the job? Isn’t this where General Wayne Downing was assigned after 11 September, and if so, what was and is your relationship with him, and the CIA, in terms of formulating Homeland Security policy?

5) In a 24 March 2000 statement to Congress, you seemed to be preparing for the Homeland Security job you have now. In a way you predicted the calamitous events of 11 September. Did you, in fact, have any foreknowledge of those attacks?

6) In your statement to Congress you said that as Commanding General of the JTF-CS, you created Civil Support Teams to assist in case of a weapon of mass destruction incident. Formerly known as Rapid Assessment and Initial Detection (RAID) teams, CSTs, you said, “are National Guard assets, and thus can function under state or federal authority. They are equipped with sophisticated communications systems that will enable local first responders to talk with neighboring jurisdictions or link up with federal centers of expertise. CSTs are also being equipped with state of the art detection equipment that will enable them to help local first responders quickly identify potential WMD agents.” That’s what you told Congress. Would you now please tell us what role the CIA plays in CST operations? It sounds like a great CIA cover outfit to me. Are they? Is there a Civil Support team near me? Will you allow me to observe how it functions?

7) In your role as Senior Director for Protection and Prevention at the Office of Homeland Security, what is your relationship with Northcom and the CIA? In fact, what is it that you do? Is it true that the Office of Homeland Security will be strategy-making part of the Homeland Security apparatus, and that the forthcoming Department of Homeland Security will be the tactical and operational part? What is the function of the Homeland Security Council, and what is your relationship with it? Can we have organization charts of these entities, including ones that show where the CIA is hiding it covert assets?

8) Last but not least, please explain the conspicuous absence of any reference to your CIA background in your official biographies. This seems to suggest that you are still CIA. Are you? And tell us, please, if you and others like intend to use your power to seek revenge against your political opponents?

Lingering Doubts

From mid 1972 through 1973 Bruce Lawlor ran the same sort of anti-terror programs that are now in vogue. The CIA has already launched a worldwide Phoenix Program. Is that why he got the Homeland Security job? Is that why the CIA finally let him back inside the fold? Did he promise to allow the CIA to use his Homeland Security programs as a cover to repress political dissent in America? Will he become one of those corrupt officials he hated in Vietnam, and use his power to take revenge on his personal enemies? Is that what Homeland Security is really all about?

Like most Americans, those of us who oppose the Bush Regime’s fascist policies are willing to participate in our own defense, if there is in fact a threat, and if in fact the CIA didn’t manufacture the threat. We just want honest forthright leaders whose first responsibility is to defend the liberties we cherish, and not to subvert them under the aegis of Homeland Security.

Douglas Valentine is the author of The Hotel Tacloban, The Phoenix Program, and TDY, all of which are available through For information about Mr. Valentine and his books and articles, please visit his website at ___



Know Your Enemy

From Brasscheck 8-25-2

Thank goodness there are a few real journalists left…

Douglas Valentine reveals the Phoenix Program credentials of one of the leading executives in the Office of Homeland Security.

Excerpt: “Imagine my surprise to learn that the Bruce Lawlor is serving as the Office of Homeland Security’s Senior Director for Protection and Prevention!

I say this in a blatantly exclamatory fashion because I interviewed Lawlor for my book, The Phoenix Program, back in 1988, when he was just a small town lawyer in Vermont. Poor Bruce. He has always had big ambitions, and he had run for governor of Vermont in 1984. But, as he told me with abiding bitterness, his political opponents had uncovered evidence of his participation in the CIA’s Phoenix Program in Vietnam. The bastards had used that awful fact to launch a successful smear campaign against him. And yes, he’d lost the election as a result.

Nearly 20 years later Lawlor is still licking his wounds, and there’s no doubt that he holds a major general’s grudge against the pacifists and peaceniks who smeared him with Phoenix. So now I’m wondering, what’s he got in store for people like me?”

Brasscheck notes:

Lawlor ran the Quong Nam Province Interrogation Center.

In 1995, Lawlor left his law practice in Vermont and enrolled in the Army War College. From there his new career as internal security expert skyrocketed with 9-11 lifting him to new heights.

The May 2001 outing of Phoenix war criminal Bob Kerrey looks even more like a ‘desensitization’ operation to me now than it did when it was taking place.

Why after so much time and with seemingly no provocation did the normally ‘hyper-tolerant’ US news media suddenly become so concerned about Senator Kerrey’s conduct during the Vietnam War? Function. Immediately after this press event, which featured a broad mainstream defense of Kerrey and his criminal conduct, Phoenix grads started finding their way into high level Bush administration posts.


Previous Brasshcheck notes on Phoenix:

The scope of Phoenix

“By 1968, when (William) Colby was elevated to the rank of special ambassador, Phoenix was forcing 250,000 civilians through South Vietnam’s prison system, often relying on no more that the word of paid informers. This was at a time when the CIA estimated that the Communist-led National Liberation Front (NLF) totaled at most 150,000 people. Moreover, the flow of 250,000 suspects continued *annually* until 1972, when the operation shut down.”

Source: “Thy Will Be Done” by Gerard Colby and Charlotte Denett” (HarperCollins)


About Phoenix ‘Interrogation’ centers

“I never knew in the course of all those operations any detainee to live through interrogation. They all died. There was never any reasonable establishment of the fact that any one of those individuals was, in fact, cooperating with the VC, but they all died and the majority were either tortured to death or things like thrown from helicopters.”

Bart Osborn in testimony to Congress in 1971. Cited in: “The Phoenix Program” By Douglas Valentine


Phoenix: ‘Protecting the People from Terrorism’

“Under the banner of ‘Protecting the People from Terrorism,’ US and GVN psywar teams crisscrossed the countryside using Phoenix-supplied radios, leaflets, posters, TV shows, movies, banners, and loudspeakers mounted on trucks and sampans to spread the word.”

Source: “The Phoenix Program” By Douglas Valentine

Now they just use CNN.


June 8, 2001

Phoenix Program Boss in Bush White House

Meet Richard Armitage, best friend of Colin Powell and unanimously endorsed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for his new position as Deputy Secretary of State…and major Phoenix Program operative.

Here’s just one of the things he’s up to:

“HR 19, just introduced (01/01) by Georgia Congressman Bob Barr, would repeal the Executive Orders of presidents Reagan and Carter prohibiting federal employees, including the military, from carrying out assassinations. This implies that the Bush administration plans to deal harshly with terrorists and other inconvenient persons. Richard Armitrage, who was involved in the Iran Contra deal as well as CIA covert operations in Vietnam, will reportedly head up what’s called ‘The Terrorist Elimination Act of 2001.”

That’s our new Deputy Secretary of State.

8/25/02 note:

Pre-9/11. Pre-9/11. All these guys were in motion in the Bush White House with their incomprehensible and discredited schemes pre-9/11. Now they’re mainstream. How convenient is that?

<#  zxcvb #>

“… Wesley Clark has been a military/political insider for much of his career. He was in charge of Fort Hood back when the Clinton administration decided to send them to Waco and he helped perpetrate the destabilization and subsequent destruction of the left leaning Yugoslavian government under the same Clinton regime. Both times though, his involvement was covered up at the highest of levels and the complicit media did their part to preserve his image…..”

<#  zxcvb #>

society battlefield update


18 July, 2015
Retired US Army General and the former Supreme Allied Commander of Europe for NATO Wesley Clark advocates rounding up “radicalized” and “disloyal” Americans and putting them in internment camps for the “duration” of the war on terror.

“In World War II if someone supported Nazi Germany at the expense of the United States, we didn’t say that was freedom of speech, we put him in a camp, they were prisoners of war,” Clark told MSNBC.
The difference is that World War II was a war declared under Article I, Section 8, Clause II of the Constitution whereas the war on terror is undeclared and thus illegal.
Clark is in essence advocating a life sentence for people who have not committed a crime but merely engaged in speech — often reprehensible, yet constitutionally protected — the government considers radical and in opposition to its foreign policy.
The Bush administration declared the war on terror would last a generation or more. Senior officials with the Obama administration meanwhile have said — when formulating “disposition matrix” to determine how terrorism suspects will be disposed of — they had reached a “broad consensus that such operations are likely to be extended at least another decade” or more.
The Edward Snowden “leaks reveal that the war on terror at home continues to grind on, capturing in its dragnet millions of Americans and foreigners, many of them innocent of any crime. The war on terror has become institutionalized, and the domestic costs of this war continue to mount: privacy is being eroded; communications are being monitored; and dissent is being cracked down on. The primary targets of the domestic war on terror continue to be Muslims and Arabs, though it is now clear that the sweep of the domestic war has ensnared millions of other Americans. And there is no end in sight to this domestic juggernaut,” writes Alex Kane.
Clark’s remarks reveal the mindset of the upper echelon of government. Those who disagree with the government are now to be rounded up and shut up indefinitely in political internment camps.
Mass internment of official enemies on par with Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union is now “on the table” and openly discussed as suspicious attacks and FBI orchestrated and grandstanded terror plots continue to grab headlines and build a reactionary consensus as the designed result of an incessant, decades-long propaganda campaign.
More of a different nature: 



Operation Jade Helm and Texas “Paranoia”

By Jacob G. Hornberger

“… In the midst of a real war, what are the chances that the Supreme Court is going to stand up the Pentagon and the CIA? Nil. After all, if they wouldn’t stand up to them with respect to things like torture, undeclared wars, secret surveillance schemes, and other programs that are inherent to totalitarian regimes during the U.S. government’s much-vaunted “war on terrorism,” there is no reasonable possibility they would stand up to them on concentration camps, round-ups, and incarcerations in the midst of a real war…..”

society as the battlefield

society as the battlefield

Zen Gardner has a number of posts with long videos, one a compilation, that extend the prior discusions here and elsewhere about Jade Helm, artificial intelligence, etc.

I haven’t yet mastered the art of condensing a 3.5-hour audio/video but I’ve watched the ones I’ve described as important and uploaded here. has a fifteen-minute video, a few short paragraphs of text, and then what I assume are the old videos featuring D.J. but which have been taken down. Many of the links no longer work.

Research Links:

Official US Defense Department Science Blog

DTIC News Wire 10 April 2015

Raytheon BBN Technologies

JADE Program continuation paper – Tuesday Presentation Details

Mega Data Collection – GWEN Towers

NSA Decryption Multipurpose Research Facility

Is “The Cloud” an Integral Part of the NSA Data Center and Project Bumblehive…??

Recommended viewing on the subject:

Jade Helm – An Expose-Part 2-Infiltration


But these videos remain available:

Jade Helm 15: Covert Skynet (14:59)

[very important] Jade Helm and The Tavistock Timeline (1:39:40)




[contains two important videos:

  1. the first  sixteen minutes in length about IBM’s Watson on cognitive computing, machine learning and more, and
  2. the second (2:45) about the automation of command intent. [in case you missed it]


Also in case you missed them elsewhere: 



17 July 2015

1.7 billion “anonymous” comments from 5% of the internet

A sends:

1.7 billion “anonymous” comments from 5% of the internet

All in one searchable database:

Cryptome: What will this be used for?


It depends on who the user is. Law enforcement and private investigators will use the information to try to:

1. Identify individuals based on behavioral analysis of comments, etc.

2. De-anonymize individuals and leverage this information on other platforms, i.e. checking identical/similar usernames and using the behavioral analysis to predict other (online or offline) hangouts and activities in order to build a more complete picture.

Sociologists and psychologists will use it to build behavioral models for individuals acting as individuals and for ad-hoc groups of individuals without any external organization, goal, etc.

Members of the public and historians will use it to look at and for public figures and to better understand them. More importantly, the public should use this database as a wake-up call that the driving force behind Big Data isn’t Big Brother – it’s the masses. Between this and the Dark Net Market archives and some other releases in the last few weeks, it’s becoming more apparent that the “right to be forgotten” may be recognized by some governments but private individuals and researchers, not just megacorps, remain major obstacles to it.

This is, simply put, the biggest example of open source SIGINT to date. The fact that it was done legally and openly, and not as the result of a hack or data leak, may make it seem less newsworthy – but if anything, it makes even more alarming to privacy advocates. It’s not a one-off either, it’s just one of the biggest signposts we’ve seen so far. 



Of interest to me is the Raytheon link, from which I borrowed the featured image.

Raytheon is at the epicenter of the military-industrial complex, headquartered — arrogantly, in my mind — in close proximity to the iconic history of Lexington and Concord. Bolt, Beranek and Newman was very involved in the creation of the linked simulator systems used to teach American armor tactics and strategy (TraDoc) how to fight with its new Abrams tanks and supporting equipment in a desert environment in the run-up to Desert Storm.

You can read about commander’s intent in the book “Into The Storm” by Tom Clancy and General Franks.

I wrote and circulated a proposal for the use of such technology to teach civilian mass casualty incident management “training and doctrine” to local civilian teams and, within a few days, received a call from someone at Langley; this was way back in 1981 wanting to know how I knew about that top-secret project. I pulled my source book off the bookshelf, one I found through a display in the window of the library at my graduate school in Boston — I never got the degree — and gave him the author, chapter title, book title and ISBN number.

BBN’s software engineering team broke off and formed a new company which was active in creating desktop computer-based simulation games to teach military tactics and strategy (one example was MAGTF for Marine amphibious Group Task Force) but which was dominantly focused on creating the supporting backbone or network on which virtually any military official with proper clearance could engage in such simulation gaming from the platoon level on up to grand strategy; dubbed DarWars, it was for DARPA and worked with a number of other vendors as well as training and evelopment centers in Orlando and elsewhere. I worked briefly for that company as a subject matter expert in civilian emergency management and incident command systems before that project was terminated.,204,203,200_.jpg


Currently sitting on my desk, not yet completely read and annotated, is a copy of Weaponizing Maps, which opens up the door to two previous books on the power of maps as well as War, Violence, and Population: Making the Body Count. [“,,, this book offers a spatial perspective on how and why populations are regulated and disciplined by mass violence—and why these questions matter for scholars concerned about social justice. James Tyner focuses on how states and other actors use acts of brutality to manage, administer, and control space for political and economic purposes. He shows how demographic analyses of fertility, mortality, and migration cannot be complete without taking war and genocide into account. Stark, in-depth case studies provide a powerful and provocative basis for retheorizing population geography.”]

I’ve barely cracked the book Weaponizing Maps but what I see there is at least tangentially related to the topic of what is going on with Jade Helm 15. Here are some excerpts (emphases added):

On the third page of the book (actually xv in what they call “A narrative table of contents”):

“… in what follows, we trace the links among these seemingly disparate contexts in terms of the tactics and strategies of counterinsurgency. In all of them, the US military is confronted this series of unconventional armed threats, both real and potential, post by rebel organizations, criminals, and others not content to simply bow before the demands of US security. Throughout, the US military has been at pains to define the terrain of struggle, one that too often spills off the battlefield into the forests, fields, in cities where people make their everyday lives. Under such conditions, all society becomes a potential battlefield.

Maps have long been an important means of knowing this terrain, showing the locations of towns, where people farm and obtain food, and the trails and waterways they used to move from place to place. To borrow Mao Zedong’s aphorism, the insurgent must move in this every day landscape “the way the fish swims in the sea,” But this means being intimately acquainted with it. Counterinsurgency relies on the same approach to identify threats to security and to manipulate the vulnerability of life in settings where the battlefield is everywhere.…”

Later, in chapter 7, in a description of mapping in Central America and later in Afghanistan and Iraq,” the Army incorporated this approach into its new Counterinsurgency Field Manual, compiled by Gen. David Petraeus and published in 2007. Among other points, the manual highlighted the importance of mapping the “human terrain” as a critical aspect of counterinsurgency, revising”Red Mike” Edson’s vision of the battlefield [“Small Wars Manual”, ] in the face of an expanding”war on terror”.

Having read this, I leapt ahead to page 138 to read the following: “… Field Manual 3–24 wasn’t the only thing Petraeus was overseeing during his tenure at Fort Leavenworth. There was also the human terrain system (HTS). Like the new field manual, the HTS was another response to the situation in Iraq that had been begun deteriorating in 2003. [See also the book “Weaponizing Anthropology” by David Price.] In the summer of 2004 Maj. Gen. Robert Scales testified before the House Armed Services Committee:

“… consensus seems to be building… that this conflict was fought brilliantly at the technological level but inadequately at the human level. The human element seems to underlie virtually all of the functional shortcomings chronicled in official reports in media stories: information operations, civil affairs, cultural awareness, soldier conduct… and most glaringly, intelligence, from national to tactical.”


[Petraeus, of course, was recently in the news for sharing secrets with his lady friend and is speculatively involved in the accidental death of a journalist whose car suddenly veered off the road into a tree and exploded.]


The lessons were clear, Scales insisted in his testimony, that “computers and aerial drones are no substitute for human eyes and brains,” and this led him to propose emulating the late 19th century British practice of immersing bright officers in the cultures of, for example, China (Charles George “Chinese” Gordon) or Arabia (T.E. Lawrence).

“At the heart of a cultural-centric approach to future war,” Scales concluded,”would be a cadre of global scouts, well-educated, with a penchant for languages and a comfort with strange and distant places.”…


On page 157, in a discussion of a trip made to the indigenous areas of Mexico in 2007 and 2008:

“Two staff from the Foreign Military Studies Office made the trip, as did the US State Department Geographer and a representative from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency team supporting the Army’s new reformed African Command, AFRICOM.”




“So, there you go….”, as the IBM lady said.

Point and poke.


follow-on to pathocracy

I wanted to add my personal thoughts to the additional bits of information still coming in from numerous sources on Jade Helm, a follow-on to pathocracy. While I have expressed my own concerns and alarums about what is going on in this country and specifically with regard to Jade Helm, I am but one person, never perfect, still learning, still open to ideas, information, etc., and still watchful and interested.

I am also frequently delayed and detained elsewhere with personal business and so I wanted to add these tidbits before too much time passed.


The columnist from Chicago, Stephen Lendman, wrote of Jade Helm recently:   


I wrote to a friend who lives inside the arena of the exercise and with whom I’ve exchanged thoughts and ideas and here’s what I said to him:


What they are clearly testing, IMHO, is the use of quantum computers aboard satellites interfacing with secondary re-transmittal pods in the air and on the ground.  Think one or more X-37B’s doing data teleportation through and around the earth and down to atmospheric aircraft or ones parked on the ground or other kinds of mini-units, all connecting military units on air, sea, ground and in command bunkers and running super-high-speed outcome simulations against decision trees (like the left brain talking to the right brain at extreme high-speed) and through systems that can’t be hacked but which can hack anything else. The X-37B is up now, I believe, and then there are those “spooky aircraft” as noted, and along with already-existent ground capability… presto.  So Jade Helm has little to do with the continental US; it’s simply a vast area across which can be tested these communications/computing loops in preparation for advanced warfare against Russia, China, and the invading Greys from Galaxy Q.


The bit about the Greys is a toss-away line to those who want to play the inter-stellar warfare card.  We are supposed to believe that there are people inside the security/defense apparatus who know, believe, have seen, etc. and there are arguments that all that is simply a cover for advanced weapons development. I haven’t seen any of the reports, memos, proof of extra-terrestrial intelligence, though I appreciate the argument … Drake’s Equation, etc.  I have had no personal experience to draw on.

Just because there can be doesn’t mean there is, nor does it necessarily mean hostility, or imminent hostility. We’re in the realm of science fiction here.


What has been postulated — see “War of the Worlds” by the early New World Order writer H. G. Wells — is that humanity is going to need, or is going to be told that it needs, the combined efforts of the top military minds, technologies and armaments from throughout the world (from Russia, China, the US and lesser countries, including Israel) in order to develop the superior intelligence and technologies of an advanced species.  Prima facie, we have a one world totalitarian government.

Wait, there’s a cable coming in just now from Tel Aviv

איך אתה מעז לקרוא לישראל מדינה קטנה יותר ?!


But I acknowledge that there are people who believe we are in imminent danger from something or someone, no matter what their color (today, or yesterday, or tomorrow), and it’s this kind of pathological paranoia that has created the world we live in.


As an extension of the last article on cultural Marxism, I have to add this, just found at  

Please be sure to have your entire family and village complete the survey and mail it to the White House with your comments.


[Oh, yeah, I forgot… it’s late, but there is also this, the recent release from Intercept via Snowden of the NSA file on man-hunting: 


So apparently they can teleport all that metadata?  


Nothing to see here.

Get back in those human queues and keep your eyes forward and focused on the back of the head in front of you.]



P is for Pathocracy 

<#  zxcvb #>

I have no military experience so I am not sure how this is relevant, but given the past purges of officers’ ranks and the rise of Ashton Carter (co-authored paper, “Catastrophic Terrorism: A National Policy” with Zelikow and Deutch; senior partner at Global Technology Partners, an affiliate of Rothschild North America) to SecDef, I thought maybe someone might have some coherent insight that I lack. 

<#  zxcvb #>

“… It appears that Vision Airlines is the new ‘Air America’ in support of shadowy operations around the world….”

14 July 2015

Spooky Aircraft at Grand Junction CO [updated]


<#  zxcvb #>

Much is made in these days of accelerated police action of the act of filming and photography.  In a world in which we all are — almost of necessity— citizen journalists, the act of sousveillance is on the increase. 

A blogging buddy, the late great Kenny, mirrored an article by Kingsley Davis seven years ago on new instruments or surveillance and control originally posted at; it was entitled “New Instruments of Surveillance and Social Control: Wireless Technologies which Target the Neuronal Functioning of the Brain”. Even 8 years later, it is recomemnded for your review. This is especially true if you do a lot of online gaming or play MMORPG’s extensively.  If you are a serious student of these topics, note especially the footnotes and bibliography in the piece by Davis, as well as the discussion and description of patents, who owns them, and for what purpose.

The article also uses a term introduced in 1998, that of sousveillance.  Davis, after noting that we live in a post-millennium state of insecurity, one no longer bound by the old paradigm of binary distinctions, says a “terror suspect can therefore no longer be easily identified as ‘the enemy’ which requires that all civilians be categorised in a state of ‘potential terrorist’. This is especially so since the notion of ‘home–grown terrorist’ is playing out the role of insurgency and resistance from within. This subtle shift in categorisation has seen a parallel move in the increase of the militarization of the civil sphere. By this I argue that civil space is increasingly becoming a ‘censor/sensored zone’ where security issues — surveillance, tracking, identification — are played out.” [Now we’re into Jade Helm territory.]

The term sousveillance “was coined by Mann (1998) who describes it as form of ‘reflectionism’ or as a ‘watchful vigilance from underneath’, which is a form of inverse surveillance. Yet it more than inverses the notion; it embellishes it with a self–reflective responsibility. For Mann, reflectionism “holds up the mirror and asks the question: ‘Do you like what you see?’” (Mann, et al., 2003). Also, in this form, it requires that surveillance is enacted as a form of self–control, as self–maintenance. It is the discipline of being inwardly secure; firstly vigilant towards the self; secondly towards other people/selves. This form of discipline seems to suggest that there is little room for negligence when watchfulness is the order of the day. Yet it also prompts the ‘user’ of sousveillance to be active and participate in the surrounding environment. Sousveillance, whilst it can encourage social responsibility, also suggests the need for the person to be guarded against unwanted intrusions and possible violations.”

We know that a number of people, some organized and some not, some connected to formal organizations, some connected to social media, are actively watching the events of not only Jade Helm but local police activity, some events and incidents that cocur in their vicinity, etc.

Today, Hammacher Schlemmer offers up a ballpoint pen that captures HD 720p video and streams it to an iPhone in realtime. “The pinhole-sized lens also captures still images while a microphone built into the barrel records sound yet is inconspicuous to avoid detection. Videos and images can be stored directly on a smartphone or tablet, or up to 113 minutes of video can be saved on a 32GB microSD card (not included). The rechargeable battery enables up to 30 minutes of continuous recording after a three-hour charge via the included USB adapter. Compatible with iOS 4.3 and later and Android 2.2 and later. 6″ L x 3/4″ Diam. (14 oz.)”

The paper by Davis at GlobalResearch and Kenny’s goes beyond these topics and into the broader topics of informational environments and the impact of surveillance and sousveillance on society.

I posted about sousveillance in mid-November 2013.

“In sousveillance, individuals invert the paradigm by turning their cameras on institutions, promising to document and share misbehavior and malfeasance with a potentially global audience through digital networks.”


<#  zxcvb #>

“… if you take careful steps to protect yourself, it’s possible to communicate online in a way that’s private, secret and anonymous. Today I’m going to explain in precise terms how to do that. I’ll take techniques NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden used when contacting me two and a half years ago and boil them down to the essentials. In a nutshell, I’ll show you how to create anonymous real-time chat accounts and how to chat over those accounts using an encryption protocol called Off-the-Record Messaging, or OTR.

If you’re in a hurry, you can skip directly to where I explain, step by step, how to set this up for Mac OS X, Windows, Linux and Android. Then, when you have time, come back and read the important caveats preceding those instructions…..” 

<#  zxcvb #>

Jade Helm 15 Begins Same Day Service Outages Reported Across America by Multiple Providers | 15 July 2015 | Yesterday we reported a “Major Red List” Alert, where we were made aware of planned power outages at the California-Nevada border, set to begin the very same day Jade Helm 15 was slated to start and this morning, July 15th, we awaken to the news that AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, Time Warner, and Cox are all showing “service outages,” some happening across the country. Update: Verizon link and Map have been added. Screen shots were taken Wednesday, July 15, 2015, at 9:15 am ET.

<#  zxcvb #> 

ADELPHI, Md. (Nov. 28, 2012) — Scientists at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory are pioneering data teleportation — for the real world.

When the USS Enterprise, from the hit television and movie series “Star Trek,” beamed individuals to and from the ship, the ship’s transporters were moving matter.

While fictional technology may stir the imagination, science fiction is more of an inspiration than reality. It often provides a spark of scientific inspiration that can lead to discoveries once considered unimaginable.

Today, Army scientists hope to send information from one location to another without the data being transmitted through the intervening space.

To reach this goal, Ronald E. Meyers leads a project that includes fellow physicist Patricia J. Lee and their teams that are collaborating with the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland at College Park. The groups have a 27-kilometer fiber optic connection between their laboratories.

“We use photons that go through the fiber in order to entangle the atoms at two different locations,” Meyers said.

A photon is an elementary particle and a basic building block of the universe. The team sends photons from one end of the fiber to the other. Once photons are entangled, they mysteriously respond to each other.

“The idea of entanglement is that when one photon is manipulated, the other photon will respond at a distance through a process that Einstein highlighted,” Meyers said. “What we’re going to do is to entangle the distant atoms using these photons. Once they’re entangled, then you do not need the fiber in between. You manipulate atoms here and atoms at another location will respond instantly with nothing in between.”

This effect is known as quantum teleportation using atoms and photons.

“You can communicate between these locations without information appearing to go through the intervening space,” Meyers said. “It’s mind-boggling.”

For the U.S. Army, a secure quantum communications network is a technology investment worth making. Meyers said physicists around the world are pursuing quantum teleportation research.

One day we will have communication over worldwide distances with quantum repeaters as mediators at nodes in between,” Meyers said. “We’ll be able to teleport information globally. What we’ll have is tamper-resistant security.”

Cyber-security is a major concern for military and civilian sectors.

“This is important,” he said. “The greatest potential that a quantum communications network holds for the Army is secure communications.”

As quantum computing takes hold in the coming decades, the potential for hacking exponentially increases.

“Quantum computers will be able to easily decrypt communications that are currently secure,” Meyers said. “We’re talking decryption in seconds instead of years. That’s one reason why it’s vital for us to explore quantum encryption.”

Quantum research is building momentum, according to Lee.

“There are a lot of people worldwide who work on this type of research, and we are just a part of the community trying to make the next step a reality,” Lee said. “Our contribution is trying to set this up in a real-life. It’s very exciting.”

News reports of quantum research advances are growing.

The 2012 Nobel Prize in Physics went to physicist David Wineland for his quantum research at the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

“We would hope to have the quantum atomic memory fully going within the next year,” Meyers said. “There’s a lot of progress on it.”

The team is also striving to develop quantum repeaters.

“We can perform photon teleportation sooner, but having teleportation with quantum memory adding the atoms is really the key to massive changes in the U.S. communications system,” Meyers said. “We think that teleportation with atoms and photons is an important goal for the United States and we want to get it out of the laboratory and show that it’s possible over long distances.”

Consider a future battlefield with a Soldier, an unmanned aerial vehicle, a command and control element and access to a satellite. 

“If you put entangled atoms at each of these locations and they’re moving around, then you can teleport data between the Soldier and the satellite … you can teleport to UAVs … you can teleport to command and control headquarters,” Meyers said. “We think it’s going to be the future for military communications. Now the strategic impact … it’s possible to get information out of your location without others getting it. This is a whole new technology will one day be common.”

Meyers and Lee agree that quantum data teleportation will become a dominant technology.

“There are several important applications for quantum information,” Lee said. “For our project here, one of our goals is to build a quantum sensor. Cold atoms can be used to sense acceleration and rotation and they can make very sensitive inertial navigation systems to guide the Soldier or vehicles. That’s a really important application if we can actually develop that technology.

“It’s also going to be very important for Soldiers on the battlefield to have secure communication and computational power that will offer capabilities exceeding anything that we have access to right now,” Lee said.

Like a perpetual jigsaw puzzle, Lee said their research continues to evolve.

“There will be many ways to use this tool. A lot of them we don’t even know about — they haven’t been thought of,” she said. “New things will come up and that’s how research, technology and science evolve.”

Meyers said the Army continues to fund quantum research in academia and other research institutions.

“The fundamental physics is there,” Meyers said. “We have to learn enough of the physics and some of the engineering to implement it and to demonstrate that it can be done. I think this is an evolutionary process that will cause a huge shift in communications.

“Remember, we put a man on the moon with very primitive computers and we developed an atomic bomb without a computer,” Meyers said. “The fact is we’re going to have these very powerful quantum computers with a lot of intelligence. They’ll be able to work over long distances without being intercepted. It’s going to change the world.” 

Document created: 1 March 04
Air & Space Power Journal Spring 2004

Military Applications of Information Technologies

Paul W. Phister Jr., PE, PhD
Igor G. Plonisch*


Editorial Abstract: The information age has increased the amount of data available to all commanders. Consequently, the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Information Directorate seeks to transform military operations by developing systems that focus on unique Air Force requirements. The major thrusts include Global Awareness, Dynamic Planning and Execution, and the Global Information Enterprise. Supporting these developments are technology-focus areas, ranging from information exploitation, to air and space connectivity, to command and control.

[N.B.: Posted here without graphics and acknowledgements]


Among other reasons, warfare constantly changes because advancements in technology lead to advancements in “the art of war.” Today’s information age has produced an explosion in the amount of information that is (or will be) available to commanders at all levels. Some observers believe that by 2010 “[air and space] planners will have an incredible amount of information about the target state. They’ll never know everything, but they will detect orders of magnitude more about the enemy than in past wars. With this information, commanders will orchestrate operations with unprecedented fidelity and speed. Commanders will take advantage of revolutionary advances in information transfer, storage, recognition, and filtering to direct highly efficient, near-real-time attacks.”1 Some people believe that this scenario has already come to pass, laying the foundation for the transformation of warfare.

This transformation within the military services moves from classic platformcentric warfare to networkcentric warfare (NCW), the latter dealing with human and organizational behavior and based on new ways of thinking and applying those concepts to military operations.2 It is defined as an information-superiority-enabled concept of operations that generates increased combat power by networking sensors, decision makers, and shooters to achieve shared awareness, increased speed of command, heightened tempo of operations, greater lethality, increased survivability, and a degree of self-synchronization.3 A conceptual view of NCW would highlight some of its major elements or building blocks (fig. 1). One may also envision a networkcentric view regarding command and control (C2) in the context of previous work done for C2 concepts (fig. 2).

Critical advances in warfare-related information technology, the foundation of networkcentric operations, have their roots in military laboratories, which provide a critical service to the military by transforming basic information technologies into war-fighting applications. Although the Air Force Command and Control and Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Center at Langley AFB, Virginia, has assumed the responsibility for the Air Force’s command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) for more than half a century, the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Information Directorate (AFRL/IF) in Rome, New York, has researched and developed technologies that have helped fuel the information revolution. The electronic computer, integrated circuit, storage and retrieval, and Internet, to cite but a few obvious examples, benefited from research performed or guided by scientists and engineers located in Rome. Moreover, AFRL technologies have found and continue to find their way into both military and commercial worlds where they, quite literally, transform operations, practices, and even ways of thinking (i.e., changes in doctrine).

Because information and information technologies often mean different things to different communities, it is important to understand the distinctions that might arise. The word information is commonly used to refer to various points on the information spectrum that convert data to knowledge.4 Therefore, information has a different meaning, depending on the domain in which one operates. For example, David S. Alberts and others have identified three domains—physical, information, and cognitive—each of which describes and defines information differently.5 However, the fundamental fact remains that information is the result of putting individual observations into some sort of meaningful context. Given this distinction, information is defined according to its application or, more specifically, the domain within which it will operate. Consequently, members of the commercial and academic communities treat information differently than do their counterparts in the military community.

Figure 2. Domains of networkcentric warfare. (From briefing, Hanscom AFB, MA, subject: Information Technology for Networkcentric Warfare: An ESC [Electronic Systems Command] Integration Week Event, February 5–6, 2003.)

Aside from the domain distinction just described, there are a number of reasons why the development of information technologies differs between the military and the industrial/ academic communities. For example, the commercial market is driven by profit or return on investment, not by overall system performance. Additionally, in the commercial world, the end user of a new product has become the “beta tester.” In a combat environment, where a fault discovery can literally sink a ship, this practice is unacceptable. Similarly, although a faulty design may cause numerous reboots per day on a commercial system, such recurring faults in a military system can cause injury or death. For example, during Operation Enduring Freedom, the system used by five US soldiers to direct an incoming smart weapon rebooted and, unbeknownst to them, inserted their current location instead of the target location into the system. Consequently, the weapon vectored onto their position instead of the selected target. The bottom line is that military applications demand higher performance at reduced cycle times and cost than do nonmilitary applications. Finally, commercial technologies are more computationally based (e.g., building better calculators, computers, etc.) while military applications are based more on supporting courses of action (e.g., campaign-planning assessment and effects-based operations [EBO]). Clearly, a significant need exists for military-specific information technology, even when such systems do not meet the profitability or return-on-investment criteria of the commercial sector. At this point the value of the AFRL/IF truly comes into play.

Research Efforts in Information Technology

The AFRL/IF seeks to transform military operations by developing information-systems science and technology that focus on unique Air Force requirements. By using commercial practices, it moves affordable capabilities to Air Force ground, air, cyber, and space systems. Broad areas of investment in science and technology include upper-level information fusion, communications, EBO, collaboration environments, distributed-information infrastructures, modeling and simulation, intelligent agents, information assurance, information management, and intelligent information systems and databases. Successful outcomes from these areas provide affordable capability options required for Air Force information dominance and air and space superiority. To provide these capabilities, the AFRL/IF has three major thrusts—Global Awareness, Dynamic Planning and Execution, and the Global Information Enterprise—that receive support from seven technology-focus areas: information exploitation, information fusion and understanding, information management, advanced computing architectures, cyber operations, air and space connectivity, and C2.

Information Exploitation

Given the growing threat of global terrorism, the potential use and exploitation of readily available information technology by our adversaries make it imperative that the United States continue to invest in technologies for the protection and authentication of digital information systems for the military and homeland defense. Toward that end, the AFRL/IF conducts advanced research and development in the field of digital data-embedding technology. The directorate’s work in such areas as information hiding, steganography, watermarking, steganalysis, and digital data forensics will greatly enhance war fighters’ ability to exploit enemy systems while providing greater security to ensure that an adversary does not have access to US and allied systems.

Information Fusion and Understanding

What is going on? Who is the adversary? What is he up to? Such questions are being addressed in the emerging area of fusion 2+ or situational awareness (fig. 3). Over the past decade, the term fusion has become synonymous with tactical or battlespace awareness after hostilities have begun. As such, work has concentrated on identifying objects, tracking algorithms, and using multiple sources for reducing uncertainty and maximizing coverage. As more situations unfold throughout the world, smart, strategic decisions must be made before the deployment of limited assets. In order to assess adversarial intent and possible strategic impact, we have vastly broadened the scope of fusion to take into account strategic situational awareness and the information technology necessary to support it.

Air Force Space Command’s strategic master plan states that “the first priority is to protect our vital national space systems so they’ll be available to all warfighters when and where they are needed” (emphasis in original).6 This protection also includes the ability to repair damage caused by a wide variety of anomalies that might affect space systems in orbit. As part of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA) Picosat program, the AFRL/IF launched the world’s smallest satellite—the Micro Electro-Mechanical Systems-Based Picosatellite Inspector (MEPSI)—from the space shuttle in November 2002, thus laying the groundwork for an emerging onboard-protection and/or servicing capability for satellites. The InfoBot (fig. 4) is a robust onboard device that receives, processes, correlates, and distributes information reliably, unambiguously, and rapidly. This concept paves the way for numerous emerging capabilities, such as an onboard servicer or an onboard protector.

Space protection requires warning of possible threats (both natural and man-made) to allied space systems, receiving reports of possible attacks against satellites and US cross-cueing of other owners or operators, and directing forces to respond to a threat. To fulfill these needs, space systems must have onboard sensors to detect attacks and quickly report anomalies or suspicious events. The primary goal of these “battle bugs” (fig. 5) would be to provide a rapid-response capability to counteract impending threats that cannot be avoided by other conventional means (e.g., orbital maneuvering, shielding, etc.) in an inexpensive yet effective manner.

Information Management

The essence of the joint battlespace infosphere (JBI) (fig. 6) consists of globally interoperable “information space” that integrates, aggregates, and intelligently disseminates relevant battlespace information to support effective decision making. The infosphere is part of a global combat-information-management system established to provide individual users at all levels of command with information tailored to their specific functional responsibilities. The JBI brings together all information necessary to support war fighters and their missions and allows them to obtain and integrate data from a wide variety of sources at the touch of a screen, to aggregate this information, and to distribute it in the appropriate form and degree of detail required by users at all levels. The JBI is a true system-of-systems in that it works for users at all echelons, from the remote battle-command center down to the soldier in the foxhole. It is distinct in organization, process, and usage from the communications infrastructure on which it rides and from the user-application systems that it serves.

The JBI is a “place,” independent of fielded C4ISR systems, where information can be brought together. Past attempts to manage information have been system-based. That is, in developing a system (whether communications or user-application) to provide a given capability, developers made decisions on how to define, organize, manipulate, store, and transport information based on what was optimal for the particular system under development. These application-specific systems optimized information based on the storage and access needs of the system’s software, data stores (databases), and intended user interface. Consequently, communication systems were optimized based on routing, bandwidth, throughput, and transfer speed. Management of information based on these optimizations has proven severely detrimental to interoperability—that is, the ability of systems to exchange and use information and services. The JBI acts as an “information layer” that harnesses the discipline of information management by eliminating the current “rigid-layered” information environment and replacing it with interoperable, consistently managed, widely available, secure information spaces that encourage dissemination of information to all who need it. The JBI will provide answers to numerous important questions: Where did the data come from? Who wants it? What is their priority? Is the data “good”? Can I trust it? Does the data need to be transformed, aggregated, or integrated with other information? Who may access it?

The multidomain network manager (MDNM) system (fig. 7) allows system administrators to monitor multiple security domains (e.g., US Only, Coalition, Unclassified) simultaneously on a single set of terminals. It will provide a network common-operating picture, hierarchical views of security domains, a secure boundary device for accessing net information, and a reduced operational footprint. Estimates indicate that the system will make possible a 10–25 percent savings in manpower, will keep costs low (less than $10,000 per installation), and will allow for multilevel attack detection of information warfare as well as response capability. Within an air and space operations center, for example, the MDNM would have the net effect of significantly reducing the number of system administrators required to monitor the various security domains around-the-clock, year-round and of collectively monitoring the system for adversarial intrusions.

An application programmer’s interface, Java View (Jview) (fig. 8) is designed to reduce the time, cost, and effort associated with the creation of computer-visualization applications or the visualization interface of an application. Jview allows for the importing, displaying, and fusing of multiple simultaneous-information sources. What does this mean for the war fighter? Imagine having ultrahigh resolution within a flat screen in an F-15 or a B-2 or an eyepiece for the infantry soldier.

The new Department of Defense (DOD) doctrine for networkcentric operations requires the application of information and simulation technologies in order for the war fighter to function in a knowledgecentric universe that integrates air and space information. Mission commanders need to assimilate a tremendous amount of information, make decisions and responses quickly, and quantify the effects of those decisions in the face of uncertainty. AFRL’s research on the distributed collaborative decision support (fig. 9) environment provides an application-independent collaboration framework of integrated tools, information technologies, and adaptive collaboration services aimed at providing enhanced decision support, knowledge sharing, and resource-control capabilities. These technologies will allow geographically dispersed people, processes, and resources to work together more effectively and efficiently to create the products for distributed-defense enterprises of the future (e.g., collaborative battle management, crisis-response planning, and antiterrorism).

Timely information about enemy forces, friendly forces, and battlefield conditions is especially critical for combat aircrews whose battlefield situation changes rapidly. The common situational awareness (CSA) advanced-technology demonstration (fig. 10) is developing and demonstrating the onboard information-system architecture needed to support task-saturated crews by processing, selecting, and displaying available information. The CSA program, targeted at multiple special-operations-forces mission and aircraft platforms, will integrate information from onboard systems and exploit off-board intelligence databases and imagery products to provide a consistent battlespace picture to the aircrew. The CSA design contains three key elements: connectivity, integrated modular architecture, and a crew/system interface.

Advanced Computing Architectures

Growth of information technology in the twenty-first century will be driven by advanced computing technology brought about through the development and implementation of information-processing paradigms that are novel by today’s standards. Advances in information technology will provide tremendous benefits for war fighters who not only face the enemy on the field, but also struggle to comprehend the overwhelming amount of data coming at them from numerous sources. Future information systems will include biomolecular and quantum computing subsystems (fig. 11) that incorporate data- storage and processing mechanisms with density and performance metrics, such as power and speed, far beyond current state-of-the-art silicon technologies. These information systems are likely to be hybrid systems consisting of biomolecular/silicon, quantum/silicon, or biomolecular/quantum/silicon computing architectures. They will be able to process information faster as well as acquire new attributes that will enable progress toward even faster, more intelligent computing systems.

Current space systems utilize 1970s and 1980s technology in the form of 286/386/ 486/586 microprocessors. However, tying C2 systems, sensors, and weapons via “horizontal integration” requires the ability to rapidly process new as well as previously acquired raw imagery data. A diverse, distributed community of intelligence analysts and battlefield decision makers needs this capability so its members can take appropriate actions based upon these analyses. AFRL/IF is working with its sister directorates—Sensors (AFRL/SN) and Space Vehicles (AFRL/VS)—on the next-generation space computer (fig. 12). Imagine an onboard Cray-like supercomputer that would provide enough processing power so that up to 50 percent of a satellite’s mission ground station could be housed in a single spacecraft. This space computer will enhance a satellite’s processing capability from millions (106) of operations per second to a trillion (1012) operations per second in 2006. Mission ground stations can take advantage of up to a quadrillion (1015) operations per second in 2010. Such capability carries with it significant advantages within the space community: reduction in footprint, significant reduction in operation-and-maintenance costs, and the ability to directly view, process, exploit, and disseminate information throughout a theater of operations without reaching back to a fixed mission ground station.

Cyber Operations

Software intelligent agents make possible the controlling and “patrolling” of cyberspace. These encapsulated software entities have their own identity, state, behavior, thread of control, and ability to interact and communicate with other entities, including people, other agents, and legacy systems. Essentially “cybervehicles,” often referred to as “infocraft” (fig. 13), they would operate in the cyber domain similar to the way air and space vehicles operate in the atmosphere.

Air and Space Connectivity

Achieving a completely secure, noninterceptable operational environment requires the secure transfer of information using channels dominated by quantum effects—that is, quantum key distribution (QKD) (fig. 14). In most cases, quantum noise is key to developing a communications channel, but recent work employing quantum-limiting behavior independent of noise is making a major contribution to information assurance. In conjunction with the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, AFRL/IF is currently addressing three major problems that inhibit the establishment of a quantum channel: signal-to-noise ratio, channel control, and maintenance of usable data rates.

The timely establishment of communications-network connectivity is vital to the success and survival of US forces in modern-warfare environments. Recent conflicts have proven the need for rapid deployment and quick reaction to fast-changing scenarios. Effective and responsive decision making becomes impossible without adequate and reliable local (e.g., handheld radio, wireline and wireless data networks, and point-to-point microwave) and long-haul (e.g., high-frequency or satellite) communications both within and outside the battlespace. The adaptation of commercial-radio, local-area-network (LAN) technology now makes possible the swift establishment of high-speed Internet-protocol-based data networks in forward locations. The vehicle-mounted mobile satellite communications (SATCOM) terminal (fig. 15) is attached to an Internet protocol router that will provide Internet connectivity for a wireless LAN comprised of laptop computers in separate moving vehicles following the gateway vehicle. Over the past two years, several activities, such as the Warrior and Global Patriot exercises at Fort Drum, New York, have included demonstrations of AFRL’s mobile SATCOM terminal.

Industry-standard commercial wireless LANs, such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 family, create an important opportunity for the military to leverage widely available, low-cost technology in applications that are difficult, costly, or impossible to realize with standard wired networks or traditional military-communications systems (fig. 16). These hugely successful standards provide link speeds of up to 54 million bytes per second over distances ranging from hundreds of meters to tens of kilometers, using equipment that seamlessly integrates with the vast majority of commercial data-processing equipment currently used by our forces. In spite of the great potential of this technology, risks abound with its use since the networks operate in unlicensed frequency bands, are easily jammed, lack mutual authentication, use insecure management protocols, employ weak and flawed encryption algorithms, are easily monitored, and are void of intrusion-detection systems, just to name a few shortcomings.

At first glance, this technology seems completely inappropriate for use in critical, high-assurance environments such as those surrounding most military operations. Fortunately, it is possible to reduce or eliminate most of the risks involved in using networks based on IEEE 802.11. One such solution utilizes AFRL’s protected tactical access point, the core of which is an IEEE 802.11b basic service set that uses a commercially available access point as its centerpiece. Because client stations are also based on unmodified IEEE 802.11b hardware, one thus achieves maximum leverage of low-cost commercial technology. Several different approaches and technologies are combined to form a system in order to mitigate inherent risks and increase information assurance on this network. Also, higher-layer mechanisms such as virtual private networks, firewalls, address filtering, strong encryption, and mutual authentication supplement these bottom-layer safeguards to provide a comprehensive information-assurance solution based on defense-in-depth strategies.

The Advanced Transmission Languages and Allocation of New Technologies for International Communications and the Proliferation of Allied Waveforms (ATLANTIC PAW) project (fig. 17) is an international effort among the United States, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom to enable interoperability of multinational wireless-communications assets. The program seeks to demonstrate portability of radio-waveform software onto independent radio-hardware platforms. The approach to achieving waveform-software transportability entails the cooperative formulation of a waveform description language to capture radio-waveform functionality and a waveform-development environment to translate this description into operational radio-waveform software.

Airborne tactical data links, a key element of our C2 structure, are essential to the ability of our fighting forces to perform their mission and survive. Transforming war-fighter capabilities by exploiting networkcentric technologies requires a dramatic and affordable overhaul of this capability. The tactical targeting network technology (TTNT) program, funded by DARPA, will develop, evaluate, and demonstrate rapidly reconfigurable, affordable, robust, interoperable, and evolvable communications technologies specifically designed to support emerging networked targeting applications devised to keep fleeting targets at risk. Laboratory and initial flight testing have already indicated that the TTNT design can exceed its goals.

US space missions and services such as on-demand space-launch control and on-orbit space-asset servicing require on-demand access to the satellite to conduct real-time operations. The main bottlenecks of space support include limits and constraints on the availability, operability, and flexibility of reflector antennas that provide links between space assets and space-operation centers on the ground. A novel geodesic-dome, phased-array antenna (fig. 18) under development—enabled by low-cost, innovative transmit/receive module technology—will alleviate the bottleneck. Furthermore, it will meet Air Force transformation needs through new capabilities in multiband, simultaneous access; programmable multifunctionality; and integrated mission operation.

Figure 18. Geodesic dome, phased-array antenna

Command and Control 

The Air Force’s commitment to meeting the challenges of tomorrow resides within many of its transformation activities. To frame these activities, the service is adopting an effects-based mind-set to air and space maneuver and warfare. Air and space strategy describes the synchronization in time and space of air and space power to achieve desired objectives. Continuing this logic, EBO orients air and space power and represents a means of articulating the joint force air and space component commander’s air and space strategy to achieve these high-level objectives using either lethal or nonlethal means. This implies leveraging air and space power’s asymmetric advantages to create the desired effects at the right place at the right time. The AFRL has initiated an advanced technology demonstration (ATD) to develop new capabilities for implementing EBO. Current processes for planning, executing, and assessing military operations utilize target- and objectives-based approaches that lack dynamic campaign assessment and fail to address timing considerations, direct and indirect levels of effect, and automated target-system analysis during strategy development. The AFRL/IF’s EBO ATD focuses on building campaign-assessment and strategy-development tools to fill existing voids.

For years the Air Force has struggled to find an approach to campaign assessment more general than the “rollup” of bomb damage assessment. The causal analysis tool (CAT), designed to perform dynamic air-campaign assessment under general conditions of uncertainty, utilizes Bayesian analysis (a statistical approach that takes prior information into account in the determination of probabilities) of uncertain temporal, causal models without requiring analysts to have specialized mathematical knowledge. CAT emphasizes support for modeling such (uncertain) causal notions as synergy, necessity, and sufficiency. Developed as a tool for the analysis of EBO-style air campaign plans, CAT is a critical piece of the strategy-development tool that allows for assessment of the effects-based plan from the plan-authoring component.

According to Lt Gen William Wallace of the Army V Corps during Operation Iraqi Freedom, “The enemy we’re fighting is different from the one we’d war-gamed against,”7 a statement that offers clear evidence of the need to pursue enhanced methods of war gaming throughout the DOD. In this era of EBO and transformation, war games must evolve accordingly to foster an adequate portrayal not only of US doctrine and systems, but also those of the enemy. War games must be adaptive, agile, and without bias. AFRL/IF is taking initial, collaborative steps to develop this new method of war gaming with the goal of both simulating victory and making it happen—faster and with fewer casualties and less collateral damage. To accomplish these goals, AFRL/IF is developing a capability for a third-generation war game (3GWG). By incorporating three additional, crucial thrusts—decision cycles, human factors, and operational effects—the 3GWG augments second-generation war games that successfully model attrition, movement, and logistics (fig. 19). Additionally, 3GWGs will help educate decision makers by assisting them in making better decisions.

Figure 19. War games for the next century of war fighters

The military commander must be able to live in the future, understanding the impact of decisions made today on the battlespace of tomorrow. The more senior the commander, the farther into the future he or she must be able to see. At all levels, commanders continually make decisions and decide upon courses of action, based on their current understanding of the world and their ability to forecast the outcomes of actions under consideration. This ability typically emerges after years of training, extensive combat experience, and a rigorous selection process. However, even experienced tacticians can consider only two or three possible courses of action for all but the simplest situations. To achieve predictive battlespace awareness (PBA), one must address numerous, complex technical issues; additionally, for the Air Force, PBA must deal with changes in culture, organization, architecture, and technology. A key ingredient of PBA includes providing a simulation capability so the commander can better visualize the potential futures resulting from military decisions. This simulation capability can take on many forms, but it has been dubbed the joint synthetic battlespace (fig. 20). The next five to seven years will witness the emergence of technology that will provide a real-world, synchronized simulation capability for the war fighter.

Figure 20. Joint synthetic battlespace


Not only has information technology improved commanders’ situational awareness, but also it has increased the complexity of the decision-making environment. Successful outcomes from these areas provide affordable capability options that the Air Force requires for information dominance and air and space superiority. The Air Force Research Laboratory’s Information Directorate remains on the cutting edge of transforming information technologies into war-fighting capabilities. The AFRL/IF is committed to the transitioning of science and technology that provide critical war-fighting capabilities in such areas as signals, imagery, measurements intelligence, information fusion, information management, advanced computing, cyber operations, and C2—the critical information-technology areas that will support the war fighter of the future. The directorate is also committed to developing information dominance that supports global awareness by moving relevant information through the predominantly commercial-based Global Information Enterprise environment for the dynamic planning and execution of the commander’s battle plan.


1. Jeffery R. Barnett, Future War: An Assessment of Air and Space Campaigns in 2010 (Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press, January 1996), xx–xxi.

2. The transition from platformcentric to networkcentric is but the beginning of a transformation to higher levels of warfare. The authors believe that the next evolutionary steps will move from informationcentric to knowledgecentric warfare.

3. David S. Alberts, John J. Garstka, and Fredrick P. Stein, Network Centric Warfare: Developing and Leveraging Information Superiority, 2d ed. (Washington, DC: C4ISR Cooperative Research Program [CCRP], February 2000), 2.

4. David S. Alberts et al., Understanding Information Age Warfare (August 2001; repr., Washington, DC: CCRP, July 2002), 16, UIAW.pdf.

5. Ibid., 16–29.

6. United States Space Command, Long Range Plan, April 1998, chap. 5, “Control of Space,” spp/military/docops/usspac/lrp/ch05a.htm.

7. Julian Borger, Luke Harding, and Richard Norton-Taylor, “Longer War Is Likely, Says US General,” Guardian Unlimited, March 28, 2003, http://www.,2763,924497,00.html (accessed January 19, 2004).


Dr. Paul W. Phister Jr. (BSEE, University of Akron; MS, Saint Mary’s University; MSEE, Air Force Institute of Technology; PhD, California Coast University) is the air and space strategic planner at the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Information Directorate, Rome, New York, where he develops the directorate’s mid-to-long-term technology-investments portfolio. A retired lieutenant colonel, he served 25 years in the Air Force, working primarily in space-systems development and operations. Dr. Phister is a recognized space expert and a senior member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, as well as a licensed professional software engineer from the state of Texas.

Igor G. Plonisch (MS, MSEE, Syracuse University) is chief of the Strategic Planning and Business Operations Division at the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Information Directorate, Rome, New York. Mr. Plonisch is a doctoral candidate in management. 

<#  zxcvb #>

The Future Costs Of Politically Correct Cultism

Wednesday, 15 July 2015 01:43 Brandon Smith 


I rarely touch on the subject of political correctness as a focus in my writings, partially because the entire issue is so awash in pundits on either side that the scrambling clatter of voices tends to drown out the liberty movement perspective. Also, I don’t really see PC cultism as separate from the problems I am always battling against: collectivism and the erasure of the individual in the name of pleasing society. Political correctness is nothing more than a tool that collectivists and statists exploit in order to better achieve their endgame, which is conning the masses into believing that the group mind is real and that the individual mind is fiction.

Last year, I covered the PC issue in my article “The Twisted Motives Behind Political Correctness.” I believe I analyzed the bulk of the issue extensively. However, the times are changing at a pace that boggles the mind; and this is by design. So, it may be necessary to square off against this monstrosity once again.

In order to better examine the true insanity of what many people now term “social justice warriors,” I must study a few aspects of that strange movement separately. First, let’s take a brief look at the mindset of your average social justice circus clown so that we might better understand what makes him/her/it tick.

Rebel Without A Legitimate Cause

I spent several years (up until 2004, when I woke up from the false paradigm madness) as a Democrat. And before anyone judges that particular decision, I would suggest they keep in mind the outright fascist brothel for the military-industrial complex the Republican Party had become at that point and remains to this day. Almost every stepping stone that Barack Obama is using today to eradicate the Constitution was set in place by the Bush dynasty, including the Authorization Of Military Force, which was the foundation for the National Defence Authorization Act and the legal precedence for indefinite detention without trial of ANY person (including an American citizen) accused of terrorism by the president of the U.S., as well as the use of assassination by executive order and the implementation of mass electronic surveillance without warrant.

But, hell, these are real issues — issues that many of my fellow Democrats at the time claimed they actually cared about. Today, though, liberal concerns about unconstitutional actions by the federal government have all but vanished. Today, the left fights the good fight against flags on the hoods of cars from long-canceled television shows and battles tooth and nail for the “right” of boys wearing wigs and skirts to use the girl’s bathroom. Today, the left even fights to remove the words “boy” and “girl” from our vocabulary. Yes, such noble pursuits as these will surely be remembered as a pinnacle in the annals of societal reform.

Maybe I realize the ideological goals of the social justice machine are meaningless on a surface level; and maybe you realize this, too. But these people live in their own little universe, which doesn’t extend far beyond the borders of their college campuses, the various Web forums they have hijacked and a trendy Marxist wine-and-swinger party here and there in New York or Hollywood. They actually think that they are on some great social crusade on par with the civil rights movements of the mid-1900s. They think they are the next Martin Luther King Jr. or the next Gandhi. The underlying banality and pointlessness of their cause completely escapes them. The PC cult is, in many respects, the antithesis of the liberty movement. We fight legitimate threats against legitimate freedoms; they fight mostly imaginary threats and seek to eradicate freedoms.

Don’t get me wrong; sometimes our concerns do align. For instance, liberty proponents fight back against the militarization of police just as avidly as leftists do, if not more so. But our movements handle the problem in very different ways. Look at Ferguson, Missouri, where anyone with any sense should be able to admit that the government response to protests was absolutely a step toward tyranny, ignoring violent looters while attacking peaceful activists. Leftists and PC cultists decided to follow the Saul Alinsky/communist playbook, busing in provocateurs from Chicago to further loot and burn down businesses even if they belonged to ethnic minorities. In the meantime, the liberty movement and Oath Keepers sent armed and trained men to defend those businesses REGARDLESS of who owned them and defied police and federal agents who tried to stop them.

The left gave the police and government a rationale for being draconian, while we removed the need for police and government entirely by providing security for the neighborhood (killing two birds with one stone). Either their methods are purely ignorant and do not work, or their methods are meant to achieve the opposite of their claims. In the end, the PC movement only serves establishment goals toward a fully collectivist and centralized society.  Their publicly stated intentions are otherwise pointless.

Your average PC drone does not understand the grander plan at work, nor does he want to. All he cares about is that he has found a “purpose” — a fabricated purpose as a useful idiot for power brokers, but a purpose nonetheless.

People Must Be Forced To Bake Gay Cakes

I personally do not care if two people of the same gender want to be in a relationship, but I do find the issue of gay marriage (and marriage in general) a rather odd conflict that misses the whole point. Marriage has been and always will be a religious institution, not federal; and I find government involvement in this institution to be rather despicable. When the Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage came down, I felt a little sorry for all the joyfully hopping homosexuals on the marbled steps of the hallowed building, primarily because they essentially were fighting for the state to provide recognition and legitimacy for their relationships. Frankly, who gives a rip what the state has to say in terms of your relationships or mine? The state is an arbitrary edifice, a facade wielding illusory power. If a relationship is based on true and enduring connection, then that is all that matters, whether the Supreme Court dignifies it or not.

The only advantage to solidifying gay marriage in the eyes of the state is the advantage of being able to then use the state as an attack dog in order to force religious institutions to accept the status of gays in the same way the government does. And unfortunately, this is exactly what the PC cult is doing.  What they do not seem to understand is that recognition by the state does not necessarily translate to recognition by religious organizations, nor should it.

Should an individual, organization or business be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason? Should the state be allowed to force people into servitude to one group or another even if it is against their core values?

PC champions desperately try to make these questions a matter of “discrimination” alone. But they are more about personal rights and personal property and less about “hate speech.” Under natural law, as well as under the constitution, an individual has every right to refuse association with any other person for ANY reason. If I do not like you, the government does not have the authority to force me to be around you or to work for you. But this line has been consistently blurred over the years through legal chicanery. As I’m sure most readers are familiar, the issue of gay cakes seems to arise over and over, as in cases in Colorado and Oregon in which religiously oriented business owners were punished for refusing to provide service for gay customers.  Keep in mind, these businesses did not refuse outright service to gays.  What they did refuse, was to make gay wedding cakes.  To do so would have been in outright conflict with their religious principles.

Punishments have included crippling fines designed to put store owners out of business and have even included gag orders restricting the freedom of businesses to continue speaking out against the orientation of customers they have refused to do business with.

In order to validate such actions, leftists will invariably bring up segregation as a backdrop for the gay cake debate. “What if the customers were black,” they ask. “Is it OK for a business to be whites only?”

My response?  Yes, according the dictates of individual liberty, yes it is okay.

First, to be clear, I am talking specifically about private individuals and businesses, not public institutions as in the argument explored during Brown v. Board of Education. Private and public spaces are different issues with different nuances. I personally believe it is ignorant to judge someone solely on the color of his skin, and sexual orientation is not necessarily an issue to me. But it is equally ignorant for someone to think that the state exists to protect his feelings from being hurt. I’m sorry, but discrimination is a fact of life and always will be as long as individualism exists. The PC cultists don’t just want government recognition of their status; they want to homogenize individualism, erase it, and force the rest of us to vehemently approve of that status without question. This is unacceptable.

Your feelings do not matter. They are not superior in importance to the fundamental freedom of each individual to choose his associations.

If a business refuses to serve blacks, or gays, or Tibetans, then, hey, it probably just lost a lot of potential profit. But that should absolutely be the business’s choice and not up to the government to dictate. And in the case of “gay discrimination,” I think it is clear that the PC crowd is using the newfound legal victim group status of gays as a weapon to attack religiously based organizations. Make no mistake, this will not end with gay cakes. It is only a matter of time before pressure is brought to bear against churches as well for “discrimination.” And at the very least, I foresee many churches abandoning their 501(c)(3) tax exempt status.  Again, marriage has been and always will be a religious institution.  The PC crowd will not be happy with government recognition alone.  They want to force recognition from everyone.

If a group wants fair treatment in this world, that is one thing. I believe a gay person has every right to open HIS OWN bakery and bake gay marriage cakes to his little heart’s content. I believe a black person has every right to dislike white people, as some do, and refuse to associate with them or or do business with them if that’s what he/she wants. I also believe that under natural and constitutional law, a religious business owner is an independent and free individual with the right to choose who he will work for or accept money from. If he finds a customer’s behavior to be against his principles, he should not be forced to serve that person, their feelings be damned.

This is fair.

What is not fair is the use of government by some groups to gain an advantage over others based on the legal illusion of victim group status. PC cultists want us to think that choice of association is immoral and damaging to the group. I have to say I find them to be far more intolerant and dangerous than the people they claim to be fighting against, and this attitude is quickly devolving into full bore tyranny under the guise of “humanitarianism.”

Gender Bending Does Not Make You Special

A man shaves his head and eyebrows, straps a plastic bottle to his face, and has his feet surgically modified to resemble flippers: Does this make him a dolphin, and should he be given victim group status as trans-species? I’m going to be brief here because I covered this issue in a previous article, but let’s lay everything on the table, as it were…

PC cultists are clamoring to redefine the scientific FACT of gender as an “undefinable” and even discriminatory social perception. No one, no matter how dedicated, will EVER be able to redefine gender, unless they have the ability to change their very chromosomes. Nature defines gender, not man; and a man who undergoes numerous surgeries and body-changing steroid treatments will always have the genetics of a man even if he gives the appearance of a woman. Take away the drugs, and no amount of make-up will hide the chest hair growth and deepening voice.

This might be deemed a “narrow” view of gender, and I don’t care. Nature’s view of gender is the only one that counts. Psychological orientations are irrelevant to biological definitions. Are you a man trapped in a woman’s body? Irrelevant. A woman trapped in a man’s body? Doesn’t matter. If we are talking about legal bearings, then biological definitions are the only scale that makes sense. I realize that gender bending is very trendy right now, and Hollywood sure seems to want everyone to jump on that freaky disco bandwagon, but there is no such thing as gender-neutral people. They are not a group, let alone a victim group, and do not necessitate special attention or government protection. There are men, and there are women; these are the only gender groups that count. Whether they would like to be the opposite does not change the inherent genetic definition. Period. To make such foolishness into an ideology or a legal battle is to attempt to bewilder man’s relationship to nature, and this will only lead to social distraction and disaster.

There Is No Such Thing As ‘White Privilege’

A person determines his success in life by his character and his choices. Color does not define success, as there are many people of every color who are indeed successful. Do you have to work harder to gain success because you are brown, or black, or neon green? I’ve seen no concrete evidence that this is the case. I know that people who identify as “white” are still around 70% of the American population, thus there are more white people in successful positions only due to sheer numbers.

I know that I personally grew up in a low-wage household and had little to no financial help as I entered the working world. Everything I have accomplished in my life to this point was done alongside people of color, some of whom had far more advantages than I did. I cannot speak for other people’s experiences, but I can say that being white was never more important in my life than being stubborn and dedicated.

I also find it a little absurd that most PC cultists who harp about so-called white privilege are often white themselves and haven’t the slightest experience or insight on what it is to be a person of color anyway.  All of their concepts of discrimination are based purely on assumption. White privilege seems to be the PC cult’s answer to the argument that racism is a universal construct. Only whites can be racist, they claim, because only whites benefit from racism. I defy these jokers to show any tangible proof that an individual white person has more of a chance at success than a person of color due to predominant racism. Or are we just supposed to have blind faith in the high priests of PC academia and their morally relative roots?

The Cost Of Cultural Marxism

Marxism (collectivism) uses many vehicles or Trojan horses to gain access to political and cultural spaces. Once present, it gestates like cancer, erasing previous models of heritage and history in order to destroy any competing models of society.  If you want to understand what is happening in America today, I suggest you research the Chinese Cultural Revolution of the 1960’s.  We are experiencing the same Marxist program of historical and social destruction, only slightly slower and more strategic.

Younger generations are highly susceptible to social trends and are often easily manipulated by popular culture and academic authority, which is why we are seeing PC cultism explode with the millennials and post-millennials. In my brief participation on the left side of the false paradigm, political correctness was only beginning to take hold. A decade later, the speed of the propaganda has far accelerated, and we now have a bewildering manure storm on our hands. The result is a vast division within American society that cannot be mended. Those of us on the side of liberty are so different in our philosophies and solutions to social Marxists that there can be no compromise.  The whole carnival can end only one way: a fight. And perhaps this is exactly what the elites want: left against right, black against white, gay against religious and straight, etc. As long as the PC movement continues to unwittingly do the bidding of power brokers in their efforts toward the destruction of individual liberty, I see no other alternative but utter conflict.



You walk into this room at your own risk, because it leads to the future, not a future that will be but one that might be. This is not a new world, it is simply an extension of what began in the old one. 


Scanning through the newly-arrived book Battlefield America by John Whitehead  — there are no surprises there, only a re-iteration of the American values in which I thought I grew up immersed, as well as an exposition about how those have been socially engineered into obsolescence by the slow invasion and infilitration of a parasitically-destructive minority for whom social rules have no meaning and a movement that keeps changing names and identities — , I found reference to an old TV show whose theme is worth riffing on.

The TV show was entitled The Obsolete Man, an episode of The Twilight Zone.

It was originally aired on June 2nd,1961.

In the episode written by Rod Serling, “society is described in which God has been ‘proven’ not to exist, in which dissenting views and opinions are rejected and those dissenters are silenced. The men and women who will not bow to the edicts of this new society are considered obsolete and are removed from this ‘enlightened’ society.”.


Words and phrases related to ‘Obsolete’

















More Thesaurus and Search Words related to ‘Obsolete’

‘Obsolete’ example sentence in quotations

* When a subject becomes totally obsolete we make it a required course. – Peter Drucker

* Either war is obsolete or men are. – Richard Buckminster Fuller

* If divorce has increased by one thousand percent, don’t blame the women’s movement. Blame the obsolete sex roles on which our marriages were based. – Betty Naomi Friedan

Click here for more related quotations on ‘Obsolete’



In the month before the broadcast, British betting parlors became legal, an aircraft was hijacked to Cuba, the minumum wage was raised to $1.25, the Freedom Fighters’ bus was fire-bombed during protests of segregation on interstate bus rides, Freedom 7 took a 19-minute ride with Alan Shephard, the New York Mets were born, Newton Minow described American television as “a vast wasteland”, and B-52’s were first introduced to the US Air Force.

Pope John XXIII released an encyclical “on the topic of “Christianity and Social Progress”. It describes a necessity to work towards authentic community in order to promote human dignity. It taught that the state must sometimes intervene in matters of health care, education, and housing.

In the last week of May 1961:

“The next phase of the Nirenberg and Matthaei experiment began at 3:30 pm as Heinrich Matthaei began the process of adding a synthesized RNA molecule sample, “consisting of the simple repetition of one type of nucleotide”, to a centrifuged sample of 20 amino acid proteins. The results were realized less than five days later on Saturday, May 27. At 6:00 in the morning, with the isolation of the amino acid of phenylalanine. “In less than a week,” it would later be observed, “Matthaei had identified the first ‘word’ of the genetic code”.[42]”

Peter Benenson‘s article “The Forgotten Prisoners” was published in several internationally read newspapers, and inspired the founding of the human rights organization Amnesty International.”

Rafael Leónidas Trujillo, totalitarian despot of the Dominican Republic since 1930, was killed in an ambush, putting an end to the second longest-running dictatorship in Latin American history. Trujillo was being driven in his car from his residence in San Cristobal to Ciudad Trujillo. Shortly after 10:00 pm local time, a sedan pulled into the path of his car, and assassins with machine guns killed both Trujillo and the chauffeur. The news was not announced to the Dominican public until 5:00 pm the next day.[46]”

“A West Virginia couple, Mr. and Mrs. Alderson Muncy of Paynesville, West Virginia, became the first American food stamp recipients under a pilot program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, being tested in eight communities. For the month of June, the Muncys received $95 worth of food coupons for their household of fifteen people, and made the first purchase at Henderson’s Supermarket.[47]

“President Kennedy formally petitioned the Interstate Commerce Commission to adopt “stringent regulations” prohibiting segregation in interstate bus travel. The proposed order, issued on September 22 and effective on November 1, removed Jim Crow signs in stations and ended segregation of waiting rooms, water fountains, and restrooms in interstate bus terminals later that same year, giving the Freedom Riders an unequivocal victory in their campaign.”

American civil rights movement: Alabama Governor John Patterson declared martial law in the city of Montgomery after race riots broke out. Major General Henry V. Graham was given virtually unlimited power to attempt to restore order.[41]”

The show itself is still available on Hulu and Vimeo, the full script is linked below, and there’s even a Wikipedia entry. It’s generated or spun off punk rock bands, several blogs, numerous essays, and the original is still available for rent or purchase. Apparently the DVD has scenes cut from the original broadcast.

Here are three links to the replay:

The script is here:

The chancellor argues that Hitler and Stalin had the right idea, but that their mistake was that they did not push their merciless agenda far enough. 


“… This is where the lure of all of our electronic eye candy meets the singularity, where we officially become part of the Internet of Things. It has already begun. And ultimately? Further behavior modification. Further social engineering. Further dehumanization. They want to reduce our lives to the sums of our parts, to our “big data,” to be tracked, traced, and continuously analyzed and broken down in a technocratic, big brother society where privacy is a concept gone the way of the dinosaur only to be discussed in history books. The only part of human life that will be of any value is that which can be monitored, analyzed, and quantified. Schmidt attended last year’s Bilderberg meeting where one of the topics was “Does privacy exist?” just by the way. The chairman has also been quoted as saying several other very telling things: “We know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less know what you’re thinking about.” (source) “The Internet of Things will augment your brain.” (source)  ….”

Read more at:


And now you are invited to play along.. bring your own time, your own voyeurism, and your own schadenfreude.

“… Russia 2045 dubs itself a ‘strategic social movement,’ with aims to ‘evolve humanity’ and extend life towards the everlasting. The project outlines a forecast for development in the following increments:

Now: the emergence of new Transhumanist movements & parties amid the ongoing socio-economic crisis between 2012-2013; new centers for cybernetic technologies to radically extend life, where the “race for immortality” starts by 2014, the creation of the avatar (robotic human copy) between 2015-2020, as well as robots to replace human manufacturing & labor, servant tasks; thought controlled robots to displace travel needs; flying cars, thought-driven communications implanted in bodies or ‘sprayed on skin.’ By 2025, the group foresees the creation of an autonomous system providing life support for the brain that is capable of ‘interacting with the environment’; brains transplanted into avatar bodies greatly expanding life and allowing complete sensory experiences. Between 2030-2035, the emergence of “Re-Brain,” a reverse-engineering of the human brain already being mapped out, wherein science comes ‘close to understanding the principles of consciousness.’ By 2035, the first successful transplantation of personality to other data receptacles and the “epoch of cybernetic immortality begins.” 2040-2050 brings the arrival of bodies ‘made of nano-robots’ that can take any shape, as well as hologram bodies. 2045-2050 will bring forth drastic changes to the social structure and sci-tech development. It is in this age that the United Nation’s original promise of the end to war & violence is again predicted, where instead “spiritual self-improvement” takes precedent. A New Era of Neo-Humanity Dawns, according to the video.

This is textbook Transhumanism, rooted in many ancient orders and the philosophy of eugenics…..” 


Essential Questions about Dystopia:

What factors/situations combine to create dystopia?

What happens to the individual/the group in a dystopia?

Is the disappearance of the individual a bad thing?

Think of our current society – what aspects of utopia/dystopia do we have? When is it best to conform to the wishes or rules of others?

What problems are avoided when people conform?

What new problems does conformity create?

How important is it for people to have choices?

More here:

Rod Serling [see and! ] said

“Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man, that state is obsolete.”

No one could know Serling, or view or read his work, without recognizing his deep affection for humanity … and his determination to enlarge our horizons by giving us a better understanding of ourselves.

— Gene Roddenberry 

Sunday, July 12, 2015

Truth Perspective: Joachim Hagopian: US Empire’s Psychopathic Psyche Exposed

Here’s a two hour interview I did on Saturday July 11th on Truth Perspective Radio… 

Very good discussion about disinfo at alternative web sites near the end of that long podcast

U.S. military drills stoke politics of suspicion in Texas


To hear the conspiracy theorists tell it, a labyrinth of tunnels is being built under Walmart stores for military attacks on civilians, and an orchestrated financial crisis will lead to martial law, U.S. troops patrolling chaotic streets, and a dictatorship under President Barack Obama.

These and similar tales have gained currency in recent months among a small but powerful group of anti-government Texas voters in the run-up to planned military training drills in the West and Southwest, including in the Lone Star state…..

The Texas Republican Party platform has long reflected concerns over federal and international overreach, with calls for a U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations and the elimination of the Federal Reserve.

When a U.N. agency named the Alamo, the location of a famed 1836 battle in the fight for Texas Independence, a World Heritage Site earlier this month, some Texans saw the move as a prelude to an international takeover.


The U.S. Army Special Operations Command has categorically denied there is anything nefarious about the drills, saying they are training exercises, while Wal-Mart Stores Inc said there was no truth to the rumors of a tunnel network being built under its stores….. [Did you know they were the first news outlet to report on the assassination of Lincoln?]

See realtime coverage

Who Is ‘El Chapo?’: A Look at the Master of the Underground Tunnel

He’s known as “Shorty,” but perhaps “The Mole” would be more accurate. That’s because Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman lives by his underground tunnels, frustrating all those who try to catch him.

From Mexico:Mexican drug lord Joaquín ‘El Chapo’ Guzmán Does it AgainThe Yucatan Times

Trending on Google+:Huge manhunt in Mexico as drug lord Chapo Guzmán tunnels out of prisonWashington Post




When the troops land in Texas for Operation Jade Helm next week, someone will be waiting for them.

Hundreds of people have organized a “Counter Jade Helm” surveillance operation across the Southwestern states and in an effort to keep an eye on the contentious military drill that’s sparked many suspicious of Uncle Sam’s intentions.

Eric Johnston, a 51-year-old retired firefighter and sheriff’s deputy who lives in Kerrville, is a surveillance team leader in Texas. He’ll coordinate three groups of volunteers, about 20 folks in total, who hope to monitor the SEALs, Green Berets and Air Force Special Ops in Bastrop, Big Spring and Junction when Jade Helm kicks off on July 15. With media prohibited at the drills, the volunteers could be a main source of information for the highly-anticipate seven-state exercise.

But locations more precise than the towns around which troops will drill remain unknown. For the citizens’ surveillance operation, therein lies the first challenge.

“If a team member sees two Humvees full of soldiers driving through town, they’re going to follow them,” Johnston said. “And they’re going to radio back their ultimate location.”

They aren’t worried about martial law, he said, but feel like they can’t trust the government, and want to make sure the Military isn’t under orders to pull anything funny.

The Texas volunteers are just one regiment of a national effort, organized by 44-year-old former Marine Pete Lanteri, a New Yorker living in Arizona with plenty of experience on civilian border patrols. He founded the Counter Jade Helm Facebook page, with six thousand members, and he made the webpage and forum to which field reports will be uploaded.

“We’re going to be watching what they do in the public,” he said. “Obviously on a military base they can do whatever they want. But if they’re going to train on public land we have a right as American citizens to watch what they’re doing.”

He said the volunteer force includes about 200 people, with the largest group in Arizona. Many former military and law enforcement, as well as lifelong civilians have joined the cause.

More here: … 

via BlackListedNews

gullible dum-dums

Jade Helm, Terrorist Attacks, Surveillance and Other Fairy Tales for a Gullible Nation

By John W. Whitehead

July 8, 2015

The Rutherford Institute, July 06, 2015

“Strange how paranoia can link up with reality now and then.” – Philip K. Dick, A Scanner Darkly

Once upon a time, there was a nation of people who believed everything they were told by their government.

When terrorists attacked the country, and government officials claimed to have been caught by surprise, the people believed them. And when the government passed massive laws aimed at locking down the nation and opening the door to total government surveillance, the people believed it was done merely to keep them safe. The few who disagreed were labeled traitors.

When the government waged costly preemptive wars on foreign countries, insisting it was necessary to protect the nation, the citizens believed it. And when the government brought the weapons and tactics of war home to use against the populace, claiming it was just a way to recycle old equipment, the people believed that too. The few who disagreed were labeled unpatriotic.

When the government spied on its own citizens, claiming they were looking for terrorists hiding among them, the people believed it. And when the government began tracking the citizenry’s movements, monitoring their spending, snooping on their social media, and surveying their habits—supposedly in an effort to make their lives more efficient—the people believed that, too. The few who disagreed were labeled paranoid.

When the government let private companies take over the prison industry and agreed to keep the jails full, justifying it as a cost-saving measure, the people believed them. And when the government started arresting and jailing people for minor infractions, claiming the only way to keep communities safe was to be tough on crime, the people believed that too. The few who disagreed were labeled soft on crime.

When the government hired crisis actors to take part in disaster drills, never alerting the public to which “disasters” were staged, the people genuinely believed they were under attack. And when the government insisted it needed greater powers to prevent such attacks from happening again, the people believed that too. The few who disagreed were told to shut up or leave the country.

Finally, the government started carrying out covert military drills around the country, insisting they were necessary to train the troops for foreign combat, and most of the people believed them. The few who disagreed, warning that perhaps all was not what it seemed, were dismissed as conspiracy theorists and quacks.

By the time the government locked down the nation, using local police and the military to impose martial law, there was no one left in doubt of the government’s true motives—total control and domination—but there was also no one left to fight back.

Now every fable has a moral, and the moral of this story is to beware of anyone who urges you to ignore your better instincts and trust the government.

In other words, if it looks like trouble and it smells like trouble, you can bet there’s trouble afoot.

For instance, while there is certainly no shortage of foul-smelling government activities taking place right now, the one giving off the greatest stench is Jade Helm 15. This covert, multi-agency, multi-state, eight-week military training exercise is set to take place from July 15 through Sept. 15 in states across the American Southwest.

According to official government sources, “Jade Helm: Mastering the Human Domain” is a planned military exercise that will test and practice unconventional warfare including, but not limited to, guerrilla warfare, subversion, sabotage, intelligence activities, and unconventional assisted recovery. The training exercise will take place in seven different southwestern states: California, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, Texas, Utah and Nevada.

U.S. Army Special Operations Command will primarily lead this interagency training program but the Navy Seals, Air Force Special Operations, Marine Special Operations Command, Marine Expeditionary Units, 82nd Airborne Division, and other interagency partners will also be involved. Approximately 1,200 troops are expected to participate in these exercises.

The training is known as Realistic Military Training because it will be conducted outside of federal property. The exercises are going to be carried out on both public and private land, with the military reportedly asking permission of local authorities and landowners prior to land usage. The military map listing the locations that will host the exercise shows Texas, Utah, and the southern part of California as “hostile territory.” According to U.S. officials, these three areas are marked as hostile to simulate environments where American troops are viewed as the enemy. The other areas on the map are marked as permissive, uncertain (leaning friendly), or uncertain (leaning hostile).

Military officials claim that the southwestern states were chosen because this exercise requires large areas of undeveloped land as well as access to towns and population hubs. These states purportedly also provide a climate and terrain that is similar to that of potential areas of combat for the United States, particularly Iraq, Iran and Syria.

Now the mainstream media has happily regurgitated the government’s official explanation about Jade Helm. However, there is a growing concern among those who are not overly worried about being labeled conspiratorialists or paranoid that the government is using Jade Helm as a cover to institute martial law, bring about total population control, or carry out greater surveillance on the citizenry.

In the first camp are those who fear that Jade Helm will usher in martial law. These individuals believe that by designating the two traditionally conservative and Republican-dominated states, Utah and Texas, as hostile territory, while more Democratic states like Colorado and California are marked as friendly, the military plans to infiltrate the states with large numbers of gun owners and attempt to disarm them.

Adding fuel to the fire is the mysterious and sudden temporary closures of five Walmart stores in Texas, California, Oklahoma and Florida, two of which are located near Jade Helm training sites. Those in this camp contend that themilitary is planning to use the Walmart stores as processing facilities for Americans once martial law is enacted.

Pointing to the mission’s official title, “Jade Helm: Mastering the Human Domain,” there is a second camp that fears that the military exercises are merely a means to an end—namely total population control—by allowing the military to discern between friendly civilians and hostiles. This concern is reinforced by military documents stating that a major portion of Jade Helm training will be about blending in with civilians, understanding how to work with civilians, using these civilians to find enemy combatants, and then neutralizing the target.

In this way, the United States military is effectively using psychological warfare to learn how people function and how to control them.

As a study written by military personnel states, mastering the human domain, also known as identity processes, means “use of enhanced capabilities to identify and classify the human domain; to determine whether they are adversarial, friendly, neutral, or unknown.” The study later states that identity processes can be used to “manage local populations during major combat, stability, and humanitarian assistance and/or disaster relief operations.”

While the military has promised that the work they are doing is aimed for use overseas, we have seen first-hand how quickly the military’s weapons and tactics used overseas are brought home to be used against the populace. In fact, some of the nation’s evolutionary psychologists, demographers, sociologists, historians and anthropologists have been working with the Department of Defense’s Minerva Initiative to master the human domain. This security research includes “Understanding the Origin, Characteristics, and Implications of Mass Political Movements” at the University of Washington and “Who Does Not Become a Terrorist and Why?” at the Naval Academy Post Graduate School. Both studies focus on Americans and the different movements and patterns that the government can track to ensure “safety and security.”

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is also working to infiltrate churches across the country to establish a Christian Emergency Network, carry out emergency training exercises to prevent and prepare for disasters (active shooter drills and natural disaster preparedness), and foster two-way information sharing, while at the same time instituting a media blackout of their activities. As the DHS continues to establish itself within churches, a growing number of churches are adopting facial recognition systems to survey their congregations, identify and track who attends their events, and target individuals for financial contributions or further monitoring. As the partnership between churches and the DHS grows, their facial recognition databases may be shared with the federal government, if that is not already happening.

Finally, there is the third camp which fears that Jade Helm is merely the first of many exercises to be incorporated into regular American life so that the government can watch, study, and better understand how to control the masses. Certainly, psychological control techniques could be used in the future to halt protests and ensure that the nation runs “smoothly.”

It remains to be seen whether Jade Helm 15 proves to be a thinly veiled military plot to take over the country (one lifted straight out of director John Frankenheimer’s 1964 political thriller Seven Days in May), turn the population into automatons and psychological experiments, or is merely a “routine” exercise for troops, albeit a blatantly intimidating flexing of the military’s muscles.

However, as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the problem arises when you add Jade Helm to the list of other troubling developments that have taken place over the past 30 years or more: the expansion of the military industrial complex and its influence in Washington DC, the rampant surveillance, the corporate-funded elections and revolving door between lobbyists and elected officials, the militarized police, the loss of our freedoms, the injustice of the courts, the privatized prisons, the school lockdowns, the roadside strip searches, the military drills on domestic soil, the fusion centers and the simultaneous fusing of every branch of law enforcement (federal, state and local), the stockpiling of ammunition by various government agencies, the active shooter drills that are indistinguishable from actual crises, the economy flirting with near collapse, the growing social unrest, the socio-psychological experiments being carried out by government agencies, etc.

Suddenly, the overall picture seems that much more sinister. Clearly, there’s a larger agenda at work here, and it’s one the American people had better clue into before it’s too late to do anything about it.

Call me paranoid, but I think we’d better take James Madison’s advice and “take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.”


Sam Adams did NOT organize the “Sons of Democracy” in Boston in revolutionary times. Patrick Henry did NOT say “Give me Democracy or give me death”. There is NO Democracy Bell in Independence Park in Philadelphia. The word Democracy does not appear on United States coinage. The Pledge of Allegiance does NOT say “with Democracy and justice for all”. And it is absolutely certain that there is NOT a Statue of Democracy in New York Harbor.



“It’s all a demonic charade failing to hide US Empire’s true agenda to keep their fake war on terror a forever war of terror against all of humanity.  Have you ever seen the Islamic State enemy actually attacking and killing any Israelis?”

“Yet decades ago the US created Osama to defeat and help take down the mighty Soviet Empire in the “empire graveyard” Afghanistan throughout the 1980’s while trafficking in Bush-Clinton-CIA run cocaine in exchange for arming Reagan’s freedom-fighting death squad commandos butchering over 200,000 Central Americans. Supplying inner city ghettos of America with their war on drugs was a war against black Americans with which they quickly filled their privatized prisons (over half of the 2.3 million in US prisons are black mostly serving sentences for drug crimes), it also conveniently killed two birds with one crystal crack pipe stone, effectively creating a dependent US welfare state and the rise of a flourishing gangland culture all at the expense of people of color. The war on terror and war on drugs have served the globalist agenda extremely well, and though critics say America has lost both those wars, in reality from the evil psychopathic perspective, the globalists have won their New World Order with total victories on both “warfronts.”

“It all unfolded so well that their Manchurian candidate president dancing in blackface step to the globalist tune criminally facilitated power-grabbing dictatorial control with dozens of executive orders, just in time for the Jade Helm operation to go live in response to an upcoming planned false flag that delivers his excuse to declare martial law. This scripted formula’s been the plain-to-see writing on the US wall for some time. But this year the globalists are racing to pull it off before a pissed off American population finally wakes up and starts fighting back. With their backs up against the feds’ firing squad wall, in self-defense awakened US citizens are desperately trying to take back their long lost republic and once guaranteed civil liberties.

Despite controlling all six mega-media corporations that control over 90% of the news information outflow, the globalists and their DC puppets have realized no one is hardly paying attention to their propaganda disinformation lies as a growing segment of the US population increasingly seeks truth from alternative independent news media delivered by way of the internet. Enter the Trans-Pacific Partnership that in one fast-tracked swoop will take down the United States as a sovereign independent nation, take down the internet as a free and open source accessible to the worldwide masses, flood the US with more illegal aliens and outsourced jobs, and at long last cement into place the globalists’ New World Order’s one world government.”

“And now with the world stage meticulously set into place over the last century by determined globalists and their puppets, the “big bang” theory is ready to explode and become all too real. The race to Armageddon continues to manifest with unprecedented, ongoing war preparations at a never before seen scale involving a virtual majority of the earth’s nations. In addition to America’s Jade Helm 15 operating now in 10 states through mid-September and Canada’s Operation Maple Resolve joined by both UK and US militaries recently completed, now comes the July 4th through July 19th Operation Talisman Saber 15. It involves a massive joint military exercise in the Pacific Ocean with the US and Australia consisting of 33,000 troops. 21 naval ships, over 200 aircraft, an aircraft carrier and three submarines are all participating in this biennial drill that extends to Pearl Harbor, San Diego, Virginia and Guam.

With China’s enormous military arms expansion and powerful emerging presence throughout the Pacific region along with increasing tensions clashing over US Empire hegemony, in response to Talisman Saber, China gave explicit warnings not to tread near its military outposts, even specifying coordinates of its no trespass zones. China’s major military operation called Crossing 2015 just ended a week ago in western China’s Gobi Desert in its final phase of war readiness planning. Meanwhile, an ongoing prewar faceoff has been taking place in the ice-free, oil-rich Arctic Sea by both US-NATO forces as well as the Russian military. Also the NATO exercises on Russia’s doorstep, the US providing large weaponry to Ukraine and deployment of US military personnel to that war torn nation ominously threaten war in Europe. No corner of the earth including outer space seems safe from the impending world war…. The perfect storm on the geopolitics chessboard appears to be brewing…..”×2.jpg

In a move that’s prompting questions about the stockpiling of weapons by the federal government’s nonmilitary agencies, the Bureau of Reclamation wants to buy 52,000 rounds of ammunition for use in law enforcement at Hoover Dam and Lake Mead.

After learning about the purchase request, Nevada Rep. Mark Amodei vowed to inquire with the bureau about its operations, number of officers carrying firearms and how much ammunition it uses, according Brian Baluta, a spokesman for Amodei.

Department officials declined to provide specific information to the Sun regarding details of the ammunition purchase request. “We want to limit the amount of information any bad guys might have about our protection capabilities,” said Rose Davis, a Bureau of Reclamation spokeswoman.

A review of federal procurement records by the Sun shows that the Bureau of Reclamation, best known for its management of Western waterways and dams, solicited bids in June for 41,600 rounds of hollow-point ammunition along with 10,400 rounds of shotgun ammunition.

The agency declined to say how many armed officers work at Hoover Dam and how many security threats it faces each year, but according to a 2008 review of federal law enforcement, the bureau had 21 officers patrolling Hoover Dam.

The bureau’s Boulder City office oversees the agency’s operations at Hoover Dam and the Lake Mead National Recreation Area, a vacation destination that sees more visitors than Yellowstone National Park every year.

The bureau works in conjunction on Hoover Dam security with the Department of Homeland Security, Metro Police and other law enforcement officials. The bureau’s armed officers are “there for the protection of employees, visitors and the dam,” Davis said.

According to Davis, funds for the ammunition are drawn from revenues generated by utility companies that buy electricity from Hoover Dam, rather than from tax dollars.

The department’s request is likely to stir debate over the stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by nonmilitary federal agencies. The BLM faced questions last year over its role in an armed standoff with militia members supporting Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s refusal to pay more than a million dollars in back taxes and grazing fees.

Two months later, Amodei was one of 17 GOP congressmen to sponsor a bill that would have prevented certain agencies, like the Bureau of Reclamation, from using or purchasing weapons. That bill failed to pass.

The Bureau of Reclamation is not the only federal agency to have amassed weapons and ammunition — or to have faced controversy. In 2013, the Department of Homeland Security put out a bid to purchase more than 1 billion rounds of ammunition for its more than 100,000 law enforcement officials. That same year, agents from the Environmental Protection Agency inspected the offices of a mining company in Alaska while wearing body armor and carrying M16 rifles and shotguns, leading to an investigation by House lawmakers.

The most recent order is not the first time the Bureau of Reclamation has purchased large quantities of ammunition. Its last requisition was in 2013, according to federal purchasing records. Since 2008, the agency made at least 19 requests for ammunition at offices nationwide.

Hoover Dam’s most recent publicized threat was in 2012, when a man drove his truck past a security checkpoint, prompting an hourlong standoff with officials. He was later found to be unarmed.  via Dam