Monthly Archives: March 2016

hiding reality

hiding reality

source of featured image:

Either by omission or by commission, the US media actively misinforms the public on crucial issues that matter. The reason they do this is because they legally can.



Either by omission or by commission, the US media actively misinforms the public on crucial issues that matter. The reason they do this is because they legally can.

My mentor and dissertation committee member, Dr. Peter Dale Scott, recently wrote on his Facebook page:

“Inadequate decently priced housing is one of America’s most urgent domestic problems, with developers vacating neighborhoods to build third and fourth homes for the one percent. It is a symptom of what’s wrong that Cynthia McKinney, one of the relatively few former members of Congress with a Ph.D., has to go to RT to discuss a crisis that is so under-reported in the US media.”

And therein lies the problem with US media: The news is so filtered and in some cases propagandized that it bears little resemblance to the day-to-day intellectual needs of the average US citizen. It fails to provide solutions, let alone information that allows US citizens to cast informed votes. Either by omission or by commission, the US media actively under-, ill-, or misinforms the public on crucial issues that matter! The reason they do this is because they legally can. Media in the US has at least one court ruling that allows them to knowingly lie to the public.

Let’s start with the First Amendment to the US Constitution that protects freedom of speech. Courts in the US have ruled on many occasions that freedom of speech also includes the freedom to lie. The rationale is that such rulings give space for unpopular statements of fact. For example, in 2012, the US Supreme Court voted 6-3 to affirm a lower court decision to overturn a conviction for lying about one’s credentials.

The lower court judge in that case wrote, “How can you develop a reputation as a straight shooter if lying is not an option?”

Washington State Supreme Court even ruled that lying to get votes, distinguishing between fact and opinion, was not something that the state should negotiate. It wrote that people and not the government should be the final arbiter of truth in a political debate.

Now, the First Amendment does not protect some types of lying: like, for instance, lying while under oath, lying to a government official, lying to sell a product. Even in defamation cases, the plaintiff has a firm threshold to overcome, especially if the person targeted is a “public person.” However, the Supreme Court has emphatically ruled that individuals have a right to lie: what about corporations and media outlets? In 2012, the Supreme Court extended First Amendment rights to organizations and corporations in its Citizens United decision.

My local newspaper, the Atlanta Journal and Constitution (AJC), ran a headline against me just days before my election that read: “McKinney Indicted.” One had to pore over the article to learn that the McKinney referred to was neither me nor my father, nor anyone related to me. But the AJC never stated that fact. It was a dirty trick carried out by the US press. And sadly, it happens all the time. I filed a lawsuit against the AJC, but had to withdraw it because of a lack of money to finance the lawsuit and, worse, the hostile environment regarding the media and anybody’s efforts to make them tell the truth. I remained powerless before the media monolith and wondered why and how they could get away with such blatant and outright lies.

Then, in 2010, ‘Project Censored’ ran a story that caught my eye: “The Media Can Legally Lie.” After having had my series of run-ins with my local media as they always failed to report the truth about me, I was drawn to this story. Project Censored is a media watchdog based at Sonoma State University in California. Its goal is to end the junk food news diet of misinformation and disinformation fed to the US public by the corporate media. It is a project of students and faculty to shine a light on underreported or unreported stories that should be of great interest to the public. The Project Censored movie tells a part of its important story.

The 2010 story centers on two journalists, hired by FOX News as investigative journalists, who became whistleblowers when they were instructed to report “news” that they knew was not true.

According to Project Censored, in February 2003, FOX News argued that there was no prohibition on media outlets distorting or falsifying the news in the United States. And skipping ahead, FOX News won on that claim! But to backtrack to provide some context, the issue was the placement of Bovine Growth Hormone, BGH, manufactured by Monsanto, into the milk stream without labeling it.

A husband and wife reporting team produced a four-part series revealing the health risks for humans in drinking milk from cows treated with BGH to boost milk production. FOX News wanted the reporters to add statements from Monsanto that the couple knew were not factual. When they refused to make the suggested edits, the couple was fired. They sued and a Florida jury decided the couple was wrongfully fired. FOX News appealed the case. Basically, the Florida Appeals Court ruled that there is no law, rule, or even regulation against distorting the news and that the decision to report honestly resides with the news outlet.

FOX News was joined in its court action by other news outlets, notably Cox Television, Inc., a sister organization to the Cox-owned Atlanta Journal and Constitution. In an incredible and chilling turnabout, the two truth-telling journalists were ordered to pay FOX News millions of dollars to cover the company’s attorney fees. The reporters were told by FOX News executives, “The news is what we say it is.”

And there we have it. Now, this Court action immediately affected the right of people in the US to know what is in the food they buy. Media consolidation in the US is such that six corporations control 90 percent of the junk food news and entertainment fed to the people of the US and around the world. And US Courts not only say that this is OK, but also decided that it’s OK for them to knowingly lie to the public.

That, in a nutshell, is why the US media lie: Because they can. And that, in a nutshell, is why the people of the US are increasingly turning to RT and alternative news outlets for information: Because they must.

Research: TV is Intellectually and Socially Dumbing Down Young Children

Phillip Schneider, Staff

Waking Times March 28, 2016

It is common for parents to feel that their children are spending too much time in front of the television set. According to a Canadian study, children who watch an excessive amount of television exhibit a multitude of negative side effects including poor language and social skills, and increased bullying.

The 2013 study was set out to determine whether or not viewing television at 29 months (about 2.5 years) was associated with school performance at 65 months (about 5.5 years).

The study, which was conducted on 991 girls and 1,006 boys with parent and teacher reported data, came to this conclusion:

“Increases in total time watching television at 29 months were associated with subsequent decreases in vocabulary and math skills, classroom engagement (which is largely determined by attention skills), victimization by classmates, and physical prowess at kindergarten. These prospective associations, independent of key potential co-founders, suggest the need for better parental awareness and compliance with existing viewing recommendations put forth by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).”

According to this study, every 1.2 hours of television viewing for children at 29 months results in poorer motor, vocabulary, math, and social skills, and even an increase in the likelihood of being bullied, as television inhibits the development of self-confidence.

The study also notes that many parents seem to be unconcerned about how long their children spend watching TV. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children over age 2 do not watch more than 2 hours per day, and that children below the age of 2 watch no TV at all. Presumes that the content is age appropriate, of course.

Also interesting is that as the AAP finds educational television to show positive effects on children, while watching non-educational cartoons, fast-paced cartoons, mainly lowers their attention span.

Viewing time as a child also indirectly affects the child, the study notes. At a time where brain growth and development are heavily dependent on external stimulation, TV viewing takes away from the time that child will spend with more creative or social activities, such as family or imaginative play time.

“The preschool years, which culminate in kindergarten entry, represent a sensitive period in the development of cognitive, sensorimotor, and socio-emotional characteristics that play a key role in eventual academic and personal success” the study says, indicating a prediction of future success in life. “School readiness should also be concerned with preparedness to adopt healthy lifestyle skills and habits because disparities in educational attainment often translate into disparities in healthy lifestyle habits, well-being, and family social support.”

However hard it can be, it is becoming ever more clear how important it is to engage young children with more intellectual and social activities, rather than just the sedative task of television watching. Perhaps encouraging them play, imagine and follow their own intuition will give them broader opportunities in life, both socially and intellectually.

About the Author

Phillip Schneider is a student and a contributing author to Waking Times.




This article (Research: TV is Intellectually and Socially Dumbing Down Young Children) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commonslicense with attribution to Phillip Schneider and It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.

source of image: 

Surviving on the Battlefield in the Information War

There is undoubtedly an information war raging. There are intentional liars, people who witlessly repeat these lies, poor research, and opinions spun to look as if it is research. To sort the ever increasing amount of information from disinformation, there are a few simple methods people can use.

But above all, people must personally dedicate themselves to following the truth no matter where it brings them, having the courage to accept a reality that may not necessarily mesh with their current perception. The inability to do this will render moot all other means of determining the veracity of any given report or piece of analysis.

Find the Original Source

This is fundamental. When anyone, anywhere makes a claim, whether it is in a historical documentary or book, or regarding current events, one must find the original source. Where did this information come from? Is it a direct quote? If so, can this quote be verified? If the quote is “alleged” or “leaked” or otherwise second-hand information or the sources never revealed, it is impossible to verify and therefore impossible to consider as verified.

Often conversations relayed by second-hand sources serve as the basis of propaganda. It is essentially the process of placing words into the mouths of people who never said anything of the sort. Media that repeatedly uses quotes that are impossible to verify may be engaged in disinformation.

If the quote is confirmed, that alone does not mean that what was said was “true.” It simply means that someone made a statement – the veracity of which must be determined through other means. Finding the source of a claim often helps shatter long-held myths. This is particularly true in regards to historical matters.

Follow the Money

All protests, political movements, and armed struggles require immense amounts of resources to start, perpetuate, and most importantly to succeed.  They also require leadership. If one finds themselves reading reports of events that do not mention funding or the names of specific leaders, either those reporting on the events don’t have these facts and should make note that such information is both missing and essential to find, or misdirection and disinformation is at play.

Omitting these facts has been done intentionally across the Western media to obfuscate Western involvement particularly in “political uprisings” and “armed rebellions” that are made to appear spontaneous and indigenous but are in fact long-planned, foreign-backed conspiracies. The so-called “Arab Spring” is perhaps the most notorious example of this, where the Western media failed intentionally and repeatedly to identify the funding and individuals involved in both street protests and subsequent armed attacks on security agencies across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region.

Had the public carefully read through reports, and followed the money, they would have found a combination of US State Department money and the Anglo-American-backed Muslim Brotherhood behind each and every “uprising” across the Middle East, with Al Qaeda forming the subsequent armed groups that overran Libya and are currently leading attempts to overthrow the government of Syria.

Look at What People Do, Not at What They Say…

There are media reports, government press releases, op-eds, analysis, and policy papers of every kind. Many times, these various sources contradict each other. How does one go about determining which is true and which is disinformation? It is quite simple, don’t simply listen to what reporters, analysts, and policymakers say, look at what they and those they have influence over are doing.

The United States claims that it is fighting the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS) in Syria. However, if we “follow the money” and realize that it is impossible for ISIS to sustain its fighting capacity within Syria or Iraq alone, and requires an immense amount of resources from abroad to continue its operations, we realize those resources are undoubtedly passing through territory the US and its allies in fact control.

That the US is not interdicting these vital supplies, including additional fighters, weapons, and cash, is proof that claims in the media and amid government press releases that the US is “fighting ISIS” are false.

Conversely, in veteran journalist Seymour Hersh’s 2007 New Yorker article, “The Redirection,” he stated explicitly, citing US and Saudi officials, that the West and its regional allies planned to use sectarian extremists affiliated with Al Qaeda to wage a regional proxy war against Syria and Iran. This also so happens to be precisely what is now playing out across the MENA region. Hersh’s analysis can be tracked down through his sources, by following the money – as only state-sponsorship can explain Al Qaeda and ISIS’ fighting capacity in Syria, Iraq, and beyond – and by simply looking at what is now unfolding across the region.

None of what the current corporate media or government press releases say can be verified in a similar manner, and certainly, none of what is said by the West currently, matches what is actually happening on the ground.

Finally, let us consider policy papers released by corporate-funded think tanks like the Brookings Institution. Such policy papers have repeatedly laid out plans for arming extremists, incrementally invading and occupying Syria, and eventually toppling the Syrian government. This too, is precisely what we see happening on the ground, though the Western media and Western representatives claim the cause is not a  premeditated Western conspiracy, but a series of coincidences and unfortunate turns of fate.

Final Thoughts 

The truth is hard to arrive at, not only because people intentionally seek to fool others, but because often, many unintentionally fool themselves. Reality can be unpleasant. Watching a nation be destroyed can be heartbreaking and the desire to insulate oneself from the pain through cognitive dissonance can be overwhelming. However, one of the greatest maxims in human conflict is to truly know yourself and know your enemy. Truth isn’t just a matter of virtue, it is a factor that will make the difference between victory and defeat.

If victory over the forces of greed and hegemony is truly our goal, then we must face the facts no matter how unpleasant. Our failure to do so will cost us everything – and those driven by greed and hegemony know. That is why they have invested so much in clouding reality and obfuscating the truth. We must invest more in seeing through this clouded reality, and discover the truth, no matter how unpleasant.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook”.×191.jpeg

Outernet: The Information War 

on a Whole New Level 

The information war can be quickly lost if one cannot get their assets onto the “battlefield.” For the US, UK or Europe, the constant din of their propaganda spread across the planet via their impressive and immense media networks has recently run into a few snags.

In nations like Russia, China or Iran, ruling governments and local industry have begun creating their own Internets, their own alternatives to US-controlled social media platforms and search engines, and in some cases, even their own hardware to run it all on. They have also taken a cue from the US and decided to put in “kill switches” and censorship measures to prevent information from abroad being piped into their nation and disseminated among their populations.

Or more accurate than saying “to prevent information from abroad,” one could say, “propaganda from abroad.”

For instance, the US State Department’s Voice of America network openly attempts to insert narratives favorable to US interests in targeted countries. So important does the US State Department see this mission, it has even attempted to construct independent communication networks by building their own towers and relay stations.

The US State Department has also spent millions of dollars on developing an “Internet in a suitcase,” or a means to create an Internet among activists even when the government of a nation targeted by the US for regime change shuts down the real Internet. Far from science fiction, the New York Times would even cover it in their article, “U.S. Underwrites Internet Detour Around Censors.”

But the problem the US State Department and the special interests that underwrite it, is that such solutions are easily overcome by other governments, and even non-state actors operating in the defense of their nation against US-backed sedition.

In order to crowdsource such a project, and have it spread prolifically across the planet, it must be made to appear altruistic, unattached to the political subversion it is actually created for, and put into the hands of unwitting, well-intentioned hackers for the purpose of building it, refining it and perpetually updating it to adapt and overcome whatever challenges it faces.

Enter the “Outernet” 

At first glance, the Outernet looks like an amazing social project by genuine people interested in empowering people with the vast amounts of free information available on the Internet. It is a satellite based broadcast, meaning it can reach anyone on Earth with a receiver. And while it talks about a “library in your pocket” and how having that information could change society, it also talks about the inability for sovereign governments to censor it. But who would want to censor a library?

At second glance, one will notice Syed Karim, the “founder” of Outernet. Karim was previously “director of innovation” at the Media Development Investment Fund (MDIF) which, surprise, funds the Outernet. And in turn, MDIF is run by former employees of Open Society, with Open Society funding MDIF.

In other words, at second glance, we see Open Society behind the Outernet through a series of carefully concealed fronts and an incestuous, tangled web of conflicts of interest. The initial nobility of the concept only further spirals into the abyss of government and corporate sponsored mass public persuasion and manipulation when one reads the archives of what has actually been broadcast already using Outernet.

Some of my favorites include “war surgery,” perfect for America’s terrorist mercenary army now operating in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Libya. There is also FEMA, WHO’s Ebola site and the Albert Einstein Institution: Advancing Freedom Through Nonviolent Action. The Albert Einstein Institution, it should be remembered, played a central role in building up the US State Department’s various networks behind so-called “color revolutions” that have since hit Ukraine, the Middle East and even as far as Southeast and East Asia.

Content is broadcast based on “votes.” But as everyone should know, voting itself is subject to mass manipulation either of the voters’ own perception, or of the very mechanics of the vote itself. It is also very clear that content that is either well sponsored, or is put out by well organized groups, gets placed toward the top of the list including links to the Jehovah Witnesses.

Thus the “great equalizer” Karim claimed Outernet is, is in fact yet another channel of Western government and corporate propaganda, giving those who already monopolize vast territory amid the information war, yet another weapon to use against unsuspecting minds. The only real feature that makes Outernet different from cable television or the Internet, is the fact that it is broadcast from a satellite, and thus difficult to block in a targeted country, and receivable by whomever the US State Department takes pilfered tax dollars and buys receiver sets for.

Currently, however, there is also a lot of very useful information that is being broadcast, voted up by legitimate users of the system, using the system as it should in theory be used. The problem is, whenever special interests want, they can override “the vote,” and spread propaganda and sedition anywhere on Earth.

It should be noted that projects by Google and Facebook, both partners of the NSA and its information war against humanity, have similar plans to Outernet. They propose roving drones or airships that transmit the Internet all over the world like Outernet’s satellite arrangement. Again, it would be assets controlled by the US government and corporations, and potentially beyond the reach of sovereign nations targeted by broadcasts and the sedition they are there to support.

It is clear that at least one foot has been placed in space, regarding the ongoing and ever-evolving information war. Other nations are likely to follow suit, placing their own broadcasters above the West and beaming down information the West would otherwise like controlled or silenced altogether. For the hackers and enthusiasts clamoring over the idea of Outernet, they can’t be blamed. But they would be wise to look deeper into who is behind it, and think about alternatives they could create to truly realize this concept as it should be, and deny these interests yet another noble cause to hide behind, and ultimately ruin with their deceit.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The original source of this article is New Eastern Outlook

Copyright © Ulson Gunnar, New Eastern Outlook, 2015


Top German Journalist Admits Mainstream Media Is Completely Fake: “We All Lie For The CIA”


swindling spirit

swindling spirit

source of featured graphic: 



Friday, March 25, 2016

Global Financial Crisis Blaming Hackers Coming to a Bank Account near You to Steal Your Life Savings

Add one more way to lose all your life savings. Many of us have heard about the covert “bail-in laws” that already went into effect this year in Europe making theft of private bank account assets “legal” in this topsy-turvy world where chaos and high crimes rule the day. The precedent was set a couple years ago in Cyprus where private citizens woke up one day and found the money they believed was secure in their banks suddenly stolen by the banks. Despite the Treasury Department and MSM propaganda that the bailout cost taxpayers only $21 billion, it actually cost Americans trillions in lost housing wealth, 9.3 million citizens lost their homes from 2005-2014 through foreclosure or short sale along with plenty of lost retirement funds and lots of lost jobs. The untold misery and suffering of so many American people had insult added to injury when not one top financial executive ever faced charges but in fact were rewarded with obscene yearend bonuses. Already knowing the American public will not stand for another massive tax-supported bailout excusing the criminal banking cabal’s gambling addiction for misusing their money that caused the 2008 housing bubble crisis, now the $247 trillion in exposure to casino-generated debt derivatives created by those same bankster gangsters are manipulating governments to deliver deceitful backdoor thievery that will cause the next financial crisis to steal whatever savings they may still have left sitting unsecured in their bank accounts.

But this month yet another potentially equal red alert danger now lurks to steal all our money. This time it’s supposedly neither the private Federal Reserve banksters nor our federal government gangsters. It’s the criminal hacksters who gained access to central banks’ digital assets and pulled off one of the biggest bank heists in history a couple weeks ago. I’m talking about the $100 million grab of Federal Reserve money that managed to recover only $19 million of its lost assets for a grand total theft of $81 million, still making it among the largest bank robberies in history. On the day before US Empire’s 2003 invasion of Iraq, per Saddam Hussein’s instructions to his son Qusay, $1 billion was taken from the Iraqi central bank. And in 2007 Dar Es Salaam Bank guards in Iraq lifted another $282 million.

Of course these greatest bank heists pale in comparison to the conveniently lost trillions by US government officials’ looting of Iraq and US taxpayers. On the day before 9/11 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced that he and his still unaudited Pentagon couldn’t account for $2.3 trillion. Only hours later co-conspirator New York Trade Center lease owner Larry Silverstein gave the “pull it” demolition order to take down Building 7 an incredible 20 minutes after the BBC reporter prematurely announced it had already collapsed. And then of course Building 7 is where all the Defense Department financial records were conveniently housed. On top of all this, amazingly Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense at the time, has the audacity to go twice on public record pretending he didn’t even know Building 7 was destroyed on 9/11. If lying was a crime, Rummie would be sure to get the death penalty. Perhaps he and the other treasonous 9/11 conspirators in Washington and Israel eventually will get their due for perpetrating the most colossal crime of the century.

In any event here’s what we know about the latest bank robbery. An online digital typo error prevented what would have become the biggest single bank heist in history at a whopping one billion dollars! The still at large hackers managed to navigate past all the security checkpoints of passwords and ID’s to access the Bangladesh central bank’s payment transfers. Overcoming this hurdle, the online bank robbers then made three dozen requests moving money from the Bangladesh bank to entities in the Philippines and Sri Lanka. The sophisticated cyber thieves were able to successfully transfer $81 million to the Philippines but a simple misspelling of the word “foundation” as “fandation” held up the Sri Lanka transaction of about $20 million to the NGO Shalika Foundation. Bank officials say that the routing bank – the nearly bankrupt Deutsche Bank – caught the misspelling error and asked for clarification from the Bangladesh central bank which then stopped the transfer. Reuters was unable to even find any information for the hackers’ NGO Shalika Foundation that apparently isn’t listed as a registered Sri Lankan non-profit organization.

The Bangladesh central bank holds an account at New York City’s Federal Reserve for international settlements. The inordinate number of sudden requests made to transfer funds to private entities also tipped the Federal Reserve off into alerting the Bangladesh bank. It’s believed that the total number of funds requested that were successfully stopped range from $850-$870 million. A rather sobering and even scary realization is had the hacker(s) properly spelled the word foundation, perhaps a billion dollars would have been stolen before anyone in the central banking system would have even caught on that they were duped by some mysterious anonymous cyber-criminal(s) who fortunately for them flunked English spelling class.

The $81 million was deposited into four private accounts at the Philippine’s Rizai Commercial Banking Corporation. Officials of the bank were grilled by the Philippine Congress, underscoring the weak links in finance safeguards worldwide, especially since the stolen money came from a US Federal Reserve account in New York. The high profile incident also exposes liabilities in the global anti-money laundering efforts. This opens the can of worms highlighted in recent years by HSBC Bank scandal with ties to the City of London caught red-handed laundering dirty drug and terrorist money that governments and the terrorism network profit from worldwide drug smuggling operations that have netted billions if not trillions. Sinister military research part of black ops programs is largely financed the drug money that our Western governments criminally generate. The corrupt global financial system is notorious for laundering money through the central banking cabal and mob casinos all over the world. That fact alone has allowed the hackers in this case to use the Philippine bank as its launderer. Legalized criminal secrecy of shadow governments globally enable transactions into the billions to be routinely covered up.

In response to this case the Filipino presidential frontrunner Senator Grace Poe recently stated:

The trend now in the world is having bank disclosures, not bank secrecy. This is to prevent also the funneling of money down to terroristic activities, drug cartels, etc. We should be one with the international community in preventing such activities.

Somehow I very much doubt that her current counterpart in America, the Republican frontrunner Donald Trump would agree as his casinos have been linked to organized crime although he has managed to avoid indictment thus far. In any event, the Rizai Bank accepted the stolen money deposits and then sent them to the local casinos for laundering purposes knowing that the Philippine anti-money laundering law currently does not apply to casinos. In last week’s televised congressional hearing in Manila the bank branch’s customer service manager testified that he witnessed on February 5th after $81 million was deposited at the bank the branch manager loaded near a half million dollars in a paper bag and drove away with it. He also claimed that the manager attempted to bribe him with a sum of over $100,000. Meanwhile the incriminated branch manager’s lawyer said he has emails proving that senior Rizai officers from the main office approved of the money transfer to the casinos.

Back in February 2013 a Philippine senator chaired the hearing and decision that amended the Anti-Money Laundering Act applied to casinos after hearing casino lobbyists tout that their country’s casinos were rivaling other big Asian casinos and hamstringing them would only undermine the rising international competition that brought much needed revenue to the nation. So reluctantly he gave approval for casinos not to be covered by the law. Ironically that same senator is now tasked with investigating how the stolen $81 million ended up moving through the Philippine bank to the casinos and then disappeared. The scandal has opened up a so called black hole in the world’s banking security as well as bank and casino money laundering. The Bangladesh central bank governor and two deputy governors resigned last week. Meanwhile the money trail in the Philippines has grown cold once the $81 million reached the casinos as the hackers may get away with their crime. Though security researchers have attributed partial blame to malware and a faulty printer, the bigger fault clearly lies in the corrupt global financial system itself.

This business of online hackers cracking cyber security systems is anything but new. In 2015 the Russian security firm Kaspersky Lab disclosed that an estimated total of $1 billion has already been stolen by multinational hacking gangsters from up to 100 banking institutions around the globe just within the last two years. Last October a gang of cyber-criminals in Eastern Europe concocted a particularly virulent virus that infected bank records and drained £20m from UK bank accounts.

It’s becoming an increasing threat to life as we know it as louder warnings of worse calamities to come have been bombarding the Western pubic in both mainstream and alternative news media. America’s largest bank, JP Morgan admitted that last summer hackers attacked the bank records holding the names, addresses and email addresses of over 76 million households along with 7 million small businesses. That’s over a quarter of the US population’s personal information has already been compromised.

The elite of elite central banksters, the City of London policy head Mark Boleat said last fall that the next global financial crisis could make a huge bank and all its asset holdings suddenly disappear in an instant. In his words the bad guys will be:

“… Destroying bank records and changing the amounts people have in their accounts,” blowing up the financial system like a “neutron bomb” as “a bank will disappear, a national bank.”

Since virtually every major act of terrorism in Western nations is state sponsored by the Western government intelligence community as the handlers of Muslim jihadist patsies, the latest Brussels airport bombing another case in point, even more easily planned and executed financial terrorism committed by the diabolically minded ruling elite could manifest as the next sudden global crisis blaming an anonymous gang of cyber world criminals for ripping off everything we have insecurely stored as digital bytes in our local banks. We could easily wake up one morning in the very near future and find that all our life savings have just disappeared overnight, and the crime cabal elite could just say “oops, sorry but it’s just those bad guys who are apparently doing it to us again.” For years the federal government has been planning on one of these type cyber-world attacks causing the next international crisis. With their deep state secrecy, who’s to say that this incident was actually caused by some computer geek outlaws or the subhuman psychopaths that own and control the world. Regardless of “who done it,” the catastrophic outcome’s exactly the same.

Mainstream media and the banking industry are pointing the finger at a handful of hacking criminals, the lapses in cyber-security and the money laundering in the Philippines when the real culprit over and above all those smaller players is the global financial system itself. Again the banking industry is based on debt-based thievery with which the elites have enslaved the global masses for centuries, so why should so much commotion be made when a few anonymous hackers rip off America’s central bank when it’s been ripping the people off especially since 1913’s Federal Reserve Act. The crumbling bankrupted global financial system protected by its bought and paid for international crime cabal that presently governs every Western nation is the culprit behind terrorism, war, impoverishment, disease and every high crime committed in this world. Granted hackers can wreak havoc on the globe’s financial system, but clearly the bigger problem facing the citizens of this world is the tyrannical stranglehold the elite is imposing on the global masses.


Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.” It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field with abused youth and adolescents for more than a quarter century. In recent years he has focused on his writing, becoming an alternative media journalist. His blog site is at Joachim is also a regular contributor to Global Research, and 





PSYOP: Public Perception of Autonomous Machines

March 26th, 2016 by Kevin

The vast majority of robotics research is funded by the military industrial complex.

There is a lot of dancing around that fact, but the reality is that it’s governments’ desire for more, cheaper and deadlier killing machines that’s at the root of this.

Sure, the corporate drive to shrink payrolls is a large factor, but I see that as a by-product of the military work.

I found this piece interesting because it touches upon the efforts with perception management around autonomous systems; the sugar that helps the Rise of the Machines medicine go down.

With regard to the “soft fascism” described here, don’t miss the recent post on The New Mind Control, which describes an emerging, “unseen dictatorship.”

Via: The Atlantic:

The year is 2016. Robots have infiltrated the human world. We built them, one by one, and now they are all around us. Soon there will be many more of them, working alone and in swarms. One is no larger than a single grain of rice, while another is larger than a prairie barn. These machines can be angular, flat, tubby, spindly, bulbous, and gangly. Not all of them have faces. Not all of them have bodies.

And yet they can do things once thought impossible for machine. They vacuum carpets, zip up winter coats, paint cars, organize warehouses, mix drinks, play beer pong, waltz across a school gymnasium, limp like wounded animals, write and publish stories, replicate abstract expressionist art, clean up nuclear waste, even dream.

Except, wait. Are these all really robots? What is a robot, anyway?

This has become an increasingly difficult question to answer. Yet it’s a crucial one. Ubiquitous computing and automation are occurring in tandem. Self-operating machines are permeating every dimension of society, so that humans find themselves interacting more frequently with robots than ever before—often without even realizing it. The human-machine relationship is rapidly evolving as a result. Humanity, and what it means to be a human, will be defined in part by the machines people design.

“We design these machines, and we have the ability to design them as our masters, or our partners, or our slaves,” said John Markoff, the author of Machines of Loving Grace, and a long-time technology reporter for The New York Times. “As we design these machines, what does it do to the human if we have a class of slaves which are not human but that we treat as human? We’re creating this world in which most of our interactions are with anthropomorphized proxies.”

In the philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s 1807 opus, The Phenomenology of Spirit, there is a passage known as the master-slave dialectic. In it, Hegel argues, among other things, that holding a slave ultimately dehumanizes the master. And though he could not have known it at the time, Hegel was describing our world, too, and aspects of the human relationship with robots.

But what kind of world is that? And as robots grow in numbers and sophistication, what is this world becoming?

There are all kinds of reasons why engineers might want to make a robot appealing this way. For one thing, people are less likely to fear a robot that’s adorable. The people who make autonomous machines, for example, have a vested interest in manipulating public perception of them. If a Google self-driving car is cute, perhaps it will be perceived as more trustworthy. Google’s reported attempts to shed Boston Dynamics, the robotics company it bought in 2013, appears tied to this phenomenon: Bloomberg reported last week that a director of communications instructed colleagues to distance the company’s self-driving car project from Boston Dynamic’s recent foray into humanoid robotics.

It’s clear why Google might not want its adorable autonomous cars associated with powerful human-shaped robots. The infantilization of technology is a way of reinforcing social hierarchy: Humankind is clearly in charge, with sweet-looking technologies obviously beneath them.

When the U.S. military promotes video compilations of robots failing—buckling at the knees, bumping into walls, and tumbling over—at DARPA competitions, it is, several roboticists told me, clearly an attempt to make those robots likeable. (It’s also funny, and therefore disarming, like this absurd voiceover someone added to footage of a robot performing a series of tasks.) The same strategy was used in early publicity campaigns for the first computers. “People who had economic interest in computers had economic interest in making them appear as dumb as possible,” said Atkeson, from Carnegie Mellon. “That became the propaganda—that computers are stupid, that they only do what you tell them.”

What matters, in other words, is who is in control—and how well humans understand that autonomy occurs along a gradient. Increasingly, people are turning over everyday tasks to machines without necessarily realizing it. “People who are between 20 and 35, basically they’re surrounded by a soup of algorithms telling them everything from where to get Korean barbecue to who to date,” Markoff told me. “That’s a very subtle form of shifting control. It’s sort of soft fascism in a way, all watched over by these machines of loving grace. Why should we trust them to work in our interest? Are they working in our interest? No one thinks about that.”

“A society-wide discussion about autonomy is essential,” he added.

Posted in Dictatorship, Economy, Elite, Outsourced, Perception Management, Rise of the Machines, Social Engineering, Technology, War


“… Collectivism is an ideology that exploits our inborn tendency to seek out human connection. It turns the desire for voluntary community into a sociopolitical demand for involuntary and forced community in the name of an arbitrary “greater good”. Individualism is not a product of collectivism, nor is collectivism a product of individualism. They are completely irreconcilable….” 


“… One of the primary character traits or strategies of cultural Marxists today is that they rarely if ever actually self-identify as cultural Marxists. This strategy allows them to change their colors on a whim, like a chameleon, and it prevents opponents from pinning down their world view in order to present a solid argument against them. It also allows them to disassociate from past cultural Marxists with negative reputations while holding the same beliefs as those historical figures.  The cultural Marxist denies he is a cultural Marxist, then he goes on to argue an ideology which perfectly matches what cultural Marxists have historically believed…..” 

[multiple comments which add to the dialogue]


[on snark atheism]

people’s sovereignty

people’s sovereignty

Humanity’s Cloud gets an Upgrade

Cloud robotics, limited AGI, and the future of work

Monday, 14 March 2016

Let’s face it.  Human biological evolution is very slow.  Our bodies and minds are roughly the same as they were ten thousand years ago.

That hasn’t held us back though.

Thousands of years ago, we learned an unique way to transcend the limits of biological evolution.  We learned that we can rapidly evolve as a group by gathering, storing, and sharing the experiences of individuals.


Music audio: 


Technology has accelerated this process.  It allows us to allocate an increasing percentage of our population to it (from scientists to teachers), more easily gather and store its torrents of information (computers and Moore’s law), and share it instantly across the entire globe (the Internet and smartphones).

However, all of that earlier innovation is child’s play compared to what is now possible.  With limited AGI, it will be possible to exponentially accelerate the gathering, improvement, and sharing of human understanding.  Here’s how this is done in its most basic form (currently called cloud robotics):

•An AGI learns a task or a concept through experience (this is becoming very easy to do with model free deep learning, Big Data and Big Sim as I pointed out yesterday).

•That understanding is packaged, uploaded, and stored in the cloud.

•Any other AGI can download that understanding as needed.

As you can see, in this basic form, this is a formula for radically accelerating the growth human experience.

It also provides us with significant insight into what human beings enabled by limited AGI will be doing in the future.  The future of work will be:

•Teaching AGIs everything we’ve already learned about the world.  This is a herculean task and it has the potential to keep many of us busy doing it for many decades into the future.

•Collaborating with AGIs to learn things we don’t already know about the world.  AGIs can learn how to do things without a formal knowledge of how something works.  This is where engineers, scientists, and philosophers live and work.

•Applying the understanding and capabilities of AGI to do things in the real world better and more easily than ever before.  Most of us will be working in this space.

As you can see, there isn’t a lack of opportunity for productive endeavor in the next economy.  It’s only limited by our imagination.

Have fun,

John Robb

PS: After AGIs learn through exposure to Big Data and Big Sim, they will need to refine that understanding through real world experience guided by human beings.

PPS:  Since cloud robotics is a platform, the first movers that get it right win all (both countries and companies).

Posted by John Robb on Monday, 14 March 2016 at 06:34 PM



The assault we face is driven by the exceptional appetites of a wholly new genus of capitalism: surveillance capitalism.

Google as a Fortune Teller

The Secrets of Surveillance Capitalism

Governmental control is nothing compared to what Google is up to. The company is creating a wholly new genus of capitalism, a systemic coherent new logic of accumulation we should call surveillance capitalism. Is there nothing we can do?

05.03.2016, von SHOSHANA ZUBOFF

Google surpassed Apple as the world’s most highly valued company in January for the first time since 2010.  (Back then each company was worth less than 200 billion. Now each is valued at well over 500 billion.)  While Google’s new lead lasted only a few days, the company’s success has implications for everyone who lives within the reach of the Internet. Why? Because Google is ground zero for a wholly new subspecies of capitalism in which profits derive from the unilateral surveillance and modification of human behavior.  This is a new surveillance capitalism that is unimaginable outside the inscrutable high velocity circuits of Google’s digital universe, whose signature feature is the Internet and its successors.  While the world is riveted by the showdown between Apple and the FBI, the real truth is that the surveillance capabilities being developed by surveillance capitalists are the envy of every state security agency.  What are the secrets of this new capitalism, how do they produce such staggering wealth, and how can we protect ourselves from its invasive power?

“Most Americans realize that there are two groups of people who are monitored regularly as they move about the country.  The first group is monitored involuntarily by a court order requiring that a tracking device be attached to their ankle. The second group includes everyone else…”

Some will think that this statement is certainly true. Others will worry that it could become true. Perhaps some think it’s ridiculous.  It’s not a quote from a dystopian novel, a Silicon Valley executive, or even an NSA official. These are the words of an auto insurance industry consultant intended as a defense of  “automotive telematics” and the astonishingly intrusive surveillance capabilities of the allegedly benign systems that are already in use or under development. It’s an industry that has been notoriously exploitative toward customers and has had obvious cause to be anxious about the implications of self-driving cars for its business model. Now, data about where we are, where we’re going, how we’re feeling, what we’re saying, the details of our driving, and the conditions of our vehicle are turning into beacons of revenue that illuminate a new commercial prospect. According to the industry literature, these data can be used for dynamic real-time driver behavior modification triggering punishments  (real-time rate hikes, financial penalties, curfews, engine lock-downs) or rewards (rate discounts, coupons, gold stars to redeem for future benefits).

Bloomberg Business Week notes that these automotive systems will give insurers a chance to boost revenue by selling customer driving data in the same way that Google profits by collecting information on those who use its search engine. The CEO of Allstate Insurance wants to be like Google. He says, “There are lots of people who are monetizing data today. You get on Google, and it seems like it’s free. It’s not free. You’re giving them information; they sell your information.  Could we, should we, sell this information we get from people driving around to various people and capture some additional profit source…? It’s a long-term game.”

Who are these “various people” and what is this “long-term game”?  The game is no longer about sending you a mail order catalogue or even about targeting online advertising. The game is selling access to the real-time flow of your daily life –your reality—in order to directly influence and modify your behavior for profit. This is the gateway to a new universe of monetization opportunities: restaurants who want to be your destination. Service vendors who want to fix your brake pads. Shops who will lure you like the fabled Sirens. The “various people” are anyone, and everyone who wants a piece of your behavior for profit. Small wonder, then, that Google recently announced that its maps will not only provide the route you search but will also suggest a destination.

The goal: to change people’s actual behavior at scale

This is just one peephole, in one corner, of one industry, and the peepholes are multiplying like cockroaches. Among the many interviews I’ve conducted over the past three years, the Chief Data Scientist of a much-admired Silicon Valley company that develops applications to improve students’ learning told me, “The goal of everything we do is to change people’s actual behavior at scale. When people use our app, we can capture their behaviors, identify good and bad behaviors, and develop ways to reward the good and punish the bad. We can test how actionable our cues are for them and how profitable for us”.

The very idea of a functional, effective, affordable product as a sufficient basis for economic exchange is dying. The sports apparel company Under Armour is reinventing its products as wearable technologies.  The CEO wants to be like Google. He says, “If it all sounds eerily like those ads that, because of your browsing history, follow you around the Internet, that’s exactly the point–except Under Armour is tracking real behavior and the data is more specific… making people better athletes makes them need more of our gear.”  The examples of this new logic are endless, from smart vodka bottles to Internet-enabled rectal thermometers and quite literally everything in between. A Goldman Sachs report calls it a “gold rush,” a race to “vast amounts of data.”

The assault on behavioral data

We’ve entered virgin territory here. The assault on behavioral data is so sweeping that it can no longer be circumscribed by the concept of privacy and its contests.  This is a different kind of challenge now, one that threatens the existential and political canon of the modern liberal order defined by principles of self-determination that have been centuries, even millennia, in the making. I am thinking of matters that include, but are not limited to, the sanctity of the individual and the ideals of social equality; the development of identity, autonomy, and moral reasoning; the integrity of contract, the freedom that accrues to the making and fulfilling of promises; norms and rules of collective agreement; the functions of market democracy; the political integrity of societies; and the future of democratic sovereignty.  In the fullness of time, we will look back on the establishment in Europe of the “Right to be Forgotten” and the EU’s more recent invalidation of the Safe Harbor doctrine as early milestones in a gradual reckoning with the true dimensions of this challenge.

There was a time when we laid responsibility for the assault on behavioral data at the door of the state and its security agencies.  Later, we also blamed the cunning practices of a handful of banks, data brokers, and Internet companies. Some attribute the assault to an inevitable  “age of big data,” as if it were possible to conceive of data born pure and blameless, data suspended in some celestial place where facts sublimate into truth.

Capitalism has been hijacked by surveillance

I’ve come to a different conclusion:  The assault we face is driven in large measure by the exceptional appetites of a wholly new genus of capitalism, a systemic coherent new logic of accumulation that I call surveillance capitalism. Capitalism has been hijacked by a lucrative surveillance project that subverts the “normal” evolutionary mechanisms associated with its historical success and corrupts the unity of supply and demand that has for centuries, however imperfectly, tethered capitalism to the genuine needs of its populations and societies, thus enabling the fruitful expansion of market democracy.

Surveillance capitalism is a novel economic mutation bred from the clandestine coupling of the vast powers of the digital with the radical indifference and intrinsic narcissism of the financial capitalism and its neoliberal vision that have dominated commerce for at least three decades, especially in the Anglo economies. It is an unprecedented market form that roots and flourishes in lawless space.  It was first discovered and consolidated at Google, then adopted by Facebook, and quickly diffused across the Internet. Cyberspace was its birthplace because, as Google/Alphabet Chairperson Eric Schmidt and his coauthor, Jared Cohen, celebrate on the very first page of their book about the digital age, “the online world is not truly bound by terrestrial laws…it’s the world’s largest ungoverned space.”

While surveillance capitalism taps the invasive powers of the Internet as the source of capital formation and wealth creation, it is now, as I have suggested, poised to transform commercial practice across the real world too.  An analogy is the rapid spread of mass production and administration throughout the industrialized world in the early twentieth century, but with one major caveat. Mass production was interdependent with its populations who were its consumers and employees. In contrast, surveillance capitalism preys on dependent populations who are neither its consumers nor its employees and are largely ignorant of its procedures.

Internet access as a fundamental human right

We once fled to the Internet as solace and solution, our needs for effective life thwarted by the distant and increasingly ruthless operations of late twentieth century capitalism.  In less than two decades after the Mosaic web browser was released to the public enabling easy access to the World Wide Web, a 2010 BBC poll found that 79% of people in 26 countries considered Internet access to be a fundamental human right. This is the Scylla and Charybdis of our plight. It is nearly impossible to imagine effective social participation ––from employment, to education, to healthcare–– without Internet access and know-how, even as these once flourishing networked spaces fall to a new and even more exploitative capitalist regime. It’s happened quickly and without our understanding or agreement. This is because the regime’s most poignant harms, now and later, have been difficult to grasp or theorize, blurred by extreme velocity and camouflaged by expensive and illegible machine operations, secretive corporate practices, masterful rhetorical misdirection, and purposeful cultural misappropriation.

Taming this new force depends upon careful naming.  This symbiosis of naming and taming is vividly illustrated in the recent history of HIV research, and I offer it as analogy.  For three decades scientists aimed to create a vaccine that followed the logic of earlier cures, training the immune system to produce neutralizing antibodies, but mounting data revealed unanticipated behaviors of the HIV virus that defy the patterns of other infectious diseases.

HIV research as analogy

The tide began to turn at the International AIDS Conference in 2012, when new strategies were presented that rely on a close understanding of the biology of rare HIV carriers whose blood produces natural antibodies. Research began to shift toward methods that reproduce this self-vaccinating response.  A leading researcher announced, “We know the face of the enemy now, and so we have some real clues about how to approach the problem.”

The point for us is that every successful vaccine begins with a close understanding of the enemy disease.  We tend to rely on mental models, vocabularies, and tools distilled from past catastrophes. I am thinking of the twentieth century’s totalitarian nightmares or the monopolistic predations of Gilded Age capitalism. But the vaccines we’ve developed to fight those earlier threats are not sufficient or even appropriate for the novel challenges we face. It’s like we’re hurling snowballs at a smooth marble wall only to watch them slide down its façade, leaving nothing but a wet smear: a fine paid here, an operational detour there.

An evolutionary dead-end

I want to say plainly that surveillance capitalism is not the only current modality of information capitalism, nor is it the only possible model for the future. Its fast track to capital accumulation and rapid institutionalization, however, has made it the default model of information capitalism. The questions I pose are these: Will surveillance capitalism become the dominant logic of accumulation in our time or, will it be an evolutionary dead-end –– a toothed bird in capitalism’s longer journey? What will an effective vaccine entail?

A cure depends upon many individual, social, and legal adaptations, but I am convinced that fighting the “enemy disease” cannot begin without a fresh grasp of the novel mechanisms that account for surveillance capitalism’s successful transformation of investment into capital. This has been one focus of my work in a new book, Master or Slave: The Fight for the Soul of Our Information Civilization, which will be published early next year.  In the short space of this essay, I’d like to share some of my thoughts on this problem.

Fortune telling and selling

New economic logics and their commercial models are discovered by people in a time and place and then perfected through trial and error. Ford discovered and systematized mass production. General Motors institutionalized mass production as a new phase of capitalist development with the discovery and perfection of large-scale administration and professional management. In our time, Google is to surveillance capitalism what Ford and General Motors were to mass-production and managerial capitalism a century ago: discoverer, inventor, pioneer, role model, lead practitioner, and diffusion hub.

Specifically, Google is the mothership and ideal type of a new economic logic based on fortune telling and selling, an ancient and eternally lucrative craft that has exploited the human confrontation with uncertainty from the beginning of the human story. Paradoxically, the certainty of uncertainty is both an enduring source of anxiety and one of our most fruitful facts. It produced the universal need for social trust and cohesion, systems of social organization, familial bonding, and legitimate authority, the contract as formal recognition of reciprocal rights and obligations, and the theory and practice of what we call “free will.” When we eliminate uncertainty, we forfeit the human replenishment that attaches to the challenge of asserting predictability in the face of an always-unknown future in favor of the blankness of perpetual compliance with someone else’s plan.

Only incidentally related to advertising

Most people credit Google’s success to its advertising model. But the discoveries that led to Google’s rapid rise in revenue and market capitalization are only incidentally related to advertising.  Google’s success derives from its ability to predict the future – specifically the future of behavior. Here is what I mean:

From the start, Google had collected data on users’ search-related behavior as a byproduct of query activity.  Back then, these data logs were treated as waste, not even safely or methodically stored.  Eventually, the young company came to understand that these logs could be used to teach and continuously improve its search engine.

The problem was this:  Serving users with amazing search results “used up” all the value that users created when they inadvertently provided behavioral data. It’s a complete and self-contained process in which users are ends-in-themselves. All the value that users create is reinvested in the user experience in the form of improved search.  In this cycle, there was nothing left over for Google to turn into capital. As long as the effectiveness of the search engine needed users’ behavioral data about as much as users needed search, charging a fee for service was too risky. Google was cool, but it wasn’t yet capitalism –– just one of many Internet startups that boasted “eyeballs” but no revenue.

Shift in the use of behavioral data

The year 2001 brought the bust and mounting investor pressures at Google. Back then advertisers selected the search term pages for their displays.  Google decided to try and boost ad revenue by applying its already substantial analytical capabilities to the challenge of increasing an ad’s relevance to users –– and thus its value to advertisers. Operationally this meant that Google would finally repurpose its growing cache of behavioral data. Now the data would also be used to match ads with keywords, exploiting subtleties that only its access to behavioral data, combined with its analytical capabilities, could reveal.

It’s now clear that this shift in the use of behavioral data was an historic turning point. Behavioral data that were  once discarded or ignored were rediscovered as what I call behavioral surplus. Google’s dramatic success in “matching” ads to pages revealed the transformational value of this behavioral surplus as a means of generating revenue and ultimately turning investment into capital. Behavioral surplus was the game-changing zero-cost asset that could be diverted from service improvement toward a genuine market exchange. Key to this formula, however, is the fact that this new market exchange was not an exchange with users but rather with other companies who understood how to make money from bets on users’ future behavior. In this new context, users were no longer an end-in-themselves.  Instead they became a means to profits in  a new kind of marketplace in which users are neither buyers nor sellers nor products.  Users are the source of free raw material that feeds a new kind of manufacturing process.

While these facts are known, their significance has not been fully appreciated or adequately theorized. What just happened was the discovery of a surprisingly profitable commercial equation –– a series of lawful relationships that were gradually institutionalized in the sui generis economic logic of surveillance capitalism. It’s like a newly sighted planet with its own physics of time and space, its sixty-seven hour days, emerald sky, inverted mountain ranges, and dry water.

A parasitic form of profit

The equation: First, the push for more users and more channels, services, devices, places, and spaces is imperative for access to an ever-expanding range of behavioral surplus.  Users are the human nature-al resource that provides this free raw material.  Second, the application of machine learning, artificial intelligence, and data science for continuous algorithmic improvement constitutes an immensely expensive, sophisticated, and exclusive twenty-first century “means of production.” Third, the new manufacturing process converts behavioral surplus into prediction products designed to predict behavior now and soon. Fourth, these prediction products are sold into a new kind of meta-market that trades exclusively in future behavior.  The better (more predictive) the product, the lower the risks for buyers, and the greater the volume of sales. Surveillance capitalism’s profits derive primarily, if not entirely, from such markets for future behavior.

While advertisers have been the dominant buyers in the early history of this new kind of marketplace, there is no substantive reason why such markets should be limited to this group. The already visible trend is that any actor with an interest in monetizing probabilistic information about our behavior and/or influencing future behavior can pay to play in a marketplace where the behavioral fortunes of individuals, groups, bodies, and things are told and sold.  This is how in our own lifetimes we observe capitalism shifting under our gaze: once profits from products and services, then profits from speculation, and now profits from surveillance. This latest mutation may help explain why the explosion of the digital has failed, so far, to decisively impact economic growth, as so many of its capabilities are diverted into a fundamentally parasitic form of profit.

Unoriginal Sin

The significance of behavioral surplus was quickly camouflaged, both at Google and eventually throughout the Internet industry, with labels like “digital exhaust,” “digital breadcrumbs,” and so on. These euphemisms for behavioral surplus operate as ideological filters, in exactly the same way that the earliest maps of the North American continent labeled whole regions with terms like “heathens,” “infidels,” “idolaters,”  “primitives,” “vassals,” or “rebels.”  On the strength of those labels, native peoples, their places and claims, were erased from the invaders’ moral and legal equations, legitimating their acts of taking and breaking in the name of Church and Monarchy.

We are the native peoples now whose tacit claims to self-determination have vanished from the maps of our own behavior. They are erased in an astonishing and audacious act of dispossession by surveillance that claims its right to ignore every boundary in its thirst for knowledge of and influence over the most detailed nuances of our behavior.  For those who wondered about the logical completion of the global processes of commodification, the answer is that they complete themselves in the dispossession of our intimate quotidian reality, now reborn as behavior to be monitored and modified, bought and sold.

The process that began in cyberspace mirrors the nineteenth century capitalist expansions that preceded the age of imperialism. Back then, as Hannah Arendt described it in The Origins of Totalitarianism, “the so-called laws of capitalism were actually allowed to create realities” as they traveled to less developed regions where law did not follow. “The secret of the new happy fulfillment,” she wrote, “was precisely that economic laws no longer stood in the way of the greed of the owning classes.” There, “money could finally beget money,” without having to go “the long way of investment in production…”

“The original sin of simple robbery”

For Arendt, these foreign adventures of capital clarified an essential mechanism of capitalism. Marx had developed the idea of “primitive accumulation” as a big-bang theory –– Arendt called it “the original sin of simple robbery” –– in which the taking of lands and natural resources was the foundational event that enabled capital accumulation and the rise of the market system. The capitalist expansions of the 1860s and 1870s demonstrated, Arendt wrote, that this sort of original sin had to be repeated over and over, “lest the motor of capital accumulation suddenly die down.”

In his book The New Imperialism, geographer and social theorist David Harvey built on this insight with his notion of “accumulation by dispossession.”  “What accumulation by dispossession does,” he writes,  “is to release a set of assets…at very low (and in some instances zero) cost. Overaccumulated capital can seize hold of such assets and immediately turn them to profitable use…It can also reflect attempts by determined entrepreneurs…to ‘join the system’ and seek the benefits of capital accumulation.”

Breakthrough into “the system”

The process by which behavioral surplus led to the discovery of surveillance capitalism exemplifies this pattern. It is the foundational act of dispossession for a new logic of capitalism built on profits from surveillance that paved the way for Google to become a capitalist enterprise. Indeed, in 2002, Google’s first profitable year, founder Sergey Brin relished his breakthrough into “the system”, as he told Levy,

Honestly, when we were still in the dot-com boom days, I felt like a schmuck. I had an Internet start-      up — so did everybody else. It was unprofitable, like everybody else’s, and how hard is that? But when we became profitable, I felt like we had built a real business.”

Brin was a capitalist all right, but it was a mutation of capitalism unlike anything the world had seen.

Once we understand this equation, it becomes clear that demanding privacy from surveillance capitalists or lobbying for an end to commercial surveillance on the Internet is like asking Henry Ford to make each Model T by hand. It’s like asking a giraffe to shorten its neck or a cow to give up chewing.  Such demands are existential threats that violate the basic mechanisms of the entity’s survival. How can we expect companies whose economic existence depends upon behavioral surplus to cease capturing behavioral data voluntarily?   It’s like asking for suicide.

More behavioral surplus for Google

The imperatives of  surveillance capitalism mean that there must always be more behavioral surplus for Google and others to turn into surveillance assets, master as prediction, sell into exclusive markets for future behavior, and transform into capital. At Google and its new holding company called Alphabet, for example, every operation and investment aims to increasing the harvest of behavioral surplus from people, bodies, things, processes, and places in both the virtual and the real world.   This is how a sixty-seven hour day dawns and darkens in an emerald sky. Nothing short of a social revolt that revokes collective agreement to the practices associated with the dispossession of behavior will alter surveillance capitalism’s claim to manifest data destiny.

What is the new vaccine? We need to reimagine how to intervene in the specific mechanisms that produce surveillance profits and in so doing reassert the primacy of the liberal order in the twenty-first century capitalist project. In undertaking this challenge we must be mindful that contesting Google, or any other surveillance capitalist, on the grounds of monopoly is a 20th century solution to a 20th century problem that, while still vitally important, does not necessarily disrupt surveillance capitalism’s commercial equation.  We need new interventions that interrupt, outlaw, or regulate 1) the initial capture of behavioral surplus, 2) the use of behavioral surplus as free raw material, 3) excessive and exclusive concentrations of the new means of production, 4) the manufacture of prediction products, 5) the sale of prediction products, 6) the use of prediction products for third-order operations of modification, influence, and control, and 5) the monetization of the results of these operations. This is necessary for society, for people, for the future, and it is also necessary to restore the healthy evolution of capitalism itself.

A coup from above

In the conventional narrative of the privacy threat, institutional secrecy has grown, and individual privacy rights have been eroded. But that framing is misleading, because privacy and secrecy are not opposites but rather moments in a sequence. Secrecy is an effect; privacy is the cause. Exercising one’s right to privacy produces choice, and one can choose to keep something secret or to share it. Privacy rights thus confer decision rights, but these decision rights are merely the lid on the Pandora’s Box of the liberal order. Inside the box, political and economic sovereignty meet and mingle with even deeper and subtler causes: the idea of the individual, the emergence of the self, the felt experience of free will.

Surveillance capitalism does not erode these decision rights –– along with their causes and their effects –– but rather it redistributes them. Instead of many people having some rights, these rights have been concentrated within the surveillance regime, opening up an entirely new dimension of social inequality. The full implications of this development have preoccupied me for many years now, and with each day my sense of danger intensifies. The space of this essay does not allow me to follow these facts to their conclusions, but I offer this thought in summary.

Surveillance capitalism reaches beyond the conventional institutional terrain of the private firm. It accumulates not only surveillance assets and capital, but also rights. This unilateral redistribution of rights sustains a privately administered compliance regime of rewards and punishments that is largely free from detection or sanction. It operates without meaningful mechanisms of consent either in the traditional form of “exit, voice, or loyalty” associated with markets or in the form of democratic oversight expressed in law and regulation.

Profoundly anti-democratic power

In result, surveillance capitalism conjures a profoundly anti-democratic power that qualifies as a coup from above: not a coup d’état, but rather a coup des gens, an overthrow of the people’s sovereignty.  It challenges principles and practices of self-determination ––in psychic life and social relations, politics and governance –– for which humanity has suffered long and sacrificed much. For this reason alone, such principles should not be forfeit to the unilateral pursuit of a disfigured capitalism. Worse still would be their forfeit to our own ignorance, learned helplessness, inattention, inconvenience, habituation, or drift.  This, I believe, is the ground on which our contests for the future will be fought.

Hannah Arendt once observed that indignation is the natural human response to that which degrades human dignity. Referring to her work on the origins of totalitarianism she wrote,  “If I describe these conditions without permitting my indignation to interfere, then I have lifted this particular phenomenon out of its context in human society and have thereby robbed it of part of its nature, deprived it of one of its important inherent qualities.”

So it is for me and perhaps for you:  The bare facts of surveillance capitalism necessarily arouse my indignation because they demean human dignity. The future of this narrative will depend upon the indignant scholars and journalists drawn to this frontier project, indignant elected officials and policy makers who understand that their authority originates in the foundational values of democratic communities, and indignant citizens who act in the knowledge that effectiveness without autonomy is not effective, dependency-induced compliance is no social contract, and freedom from uncertainty is no freedom. 


“… the Obama administration has drafted rules that will allow the FBI and other agencies full access to the raw data that the NSA collects without any safeguards or privacy protections…” 

“… In short, domestic law enforcement officials now have access to huge troves of American communications, obtained without warrants, that they can use to put people in cages. FBI agents don’t need to have any “national security” related reason to plug your name, email address, phone number, or other “selector” into the NSA’s gargantuan data trove. They can simply poke around in your private information in the course of totally routine investigations. And if they find something that suggests, say, involvement in illegal drug activity, they can send that information to local or state police. That means information the NSA collects for purposes of so-called “national security” will be used by police to lock up ordinary Americans for routine crimes…..” 


Edward Snowden: ‘we must seize the means of communication’ to protect basic freedoms

Renowned NSA whistleblower calls for ‘radical’ popular action to take control of information technologies

by Nafeez Ahmed

A gathering of journalists, hackers and whistleblowers in Berlin this weekend heard former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor, Edward Snowden, issue a call for citizens to find ways to take direct control over the information technologies we use everyday.

The Logan Symposium, organized by the Center for Investigative Journalism (CIJ) based in Goldsmiths University, London, also heard from Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange, and NSA whistleblowers Thomas Drake and William Binney.


Assange warned of the increasing intersection between Google, now the world’s largest media company, and the US military industrial complex, in particular highlighting Google’s escalating investments in artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics, largely for ‘national security’ applications by the US military and intelligence community.

“Google is integrating AI systems with the national security system,” said Assange. “This is a threat to mankind. We must stop feeding Google.”

He urged the public to explore alternative online services to mitigate Google’s ability to sweep up vast quantities of personal data into AI systems co-opted by the Pentagon.


The two-day conference was supported by a wide range of press freedom organisations, independent journalism outfits, and mainstream media — including the German newsmagazine Der Speigel.


“You have to actually stand for something, 

you have to actually say something, 

you have to actually risk something, 

if you want things to get better.” 


[&&]{**}[##] (Sputnik News) 

[Ed.: The Canadians want to know precisely who among us is flooding North in protest of Trump.]

who is in charge

who is in charge

source of image:

music audio: 


Thursday, 10 March 2016

A Global Robotic Transportation System is Almost Here

Here’s some thinking on the robotic transportation system that’s headed our way.  I believe it will arrive far faster than everyone suspects.

The shift to robotic transportation is already underway.  Tens of thousands of cars are self-driving already and millions more are on the way.  Millions of self-flying and self-navigating drones were sold this year alone.  This revolution is even reaching the industrial level.

The UK is testing convoys of driverless trucks on the M3 (and in the US, Nevada has already licensed a self-driving rig for highway use in Nevada) and

Rolls Royce is working on container ships that save the 40% of the cost of crewed ships.

However, there’s a problem.

All of these robotic vehicles are largely disconnected or they are using their own proprietary means of networking their activity.   In order for robotic transportation to explode, it will need a simple protocol for coordinating this network in a decentralized way.  That’s already underway, although with very little of the importance I would allocate to it given the immensity of its potential impact.  It appears to be on the right track though.  Early indications are that this standard will be as simple and decentralized as TCP/IP (any extraneous detail on it, will slow its implementation and utility).

Once this scalable decentralized standard is developed, it will do for air, sea, land, and undersea transportation what the Internet did for the movement of data and in about the same amount of time.  The change will be rapid as billions of robotic vehicles rapidly connect to this global grid providing things like (these are consumer examples, but you can extrapolate some military applications based on them):

• Free car transportation.  Order a self driving car on your cell phone, it’s there in less than 5 minutes to pick you up.  It will likely be free.  How so?  The value of selling services to the person in the vehicle is far greater than the cost of providing the service (electric self-driving fleet vehicle are very inexpensive).

• Drone delivery.  The local farmer delivers fresh eggs to you every day via drone delivery.  Small package delivery via drones that pick up and deliver small packages.  5 miles in ten minutes for $0.25 a delivery.   New industries explode by using this network as a platform.

• Perpetual nomads.  People live in their self-driving vehicle (RV with a twist).  They travel at night while sleeping, jumping from place to place to get a charge, enjoy the locale, and get supplies.

Embedded here is a short video to get a taste for how different a robotic transportation network would feel.  Although this video is a bit over the top, it’s safe to say that robotic transportation will be much faster, cheaper, and safer (1/10 the fatalities).   For example, with robotic vehicles nobody would have to stop at a 10×10 intersection, they could just interleave at full speed.


John Robb   Twitter: @johnrobb

PS:  Of course, all of this is for naught if the US isn’t in the lead on setting this standard and quick to implement it nationally.  If this doesn’t happen.  If the US lets the bureaucracies at the DMV and the FAA slow this effort down, the US will likely lose the entire robotic transportation industry to the place that does.  Think about this; what would the US and the Internet look like today if the FCC had allowed the telcos to crush the early Web, and it started in China or the EU instead?  How would this impact national defense?  << this is something that Bob Work needs to focus on….

Posted by John Robb on Thursday, 10 March 2016 at 04:19 PM 


Friday, 11 March 2016

Clip-on Robotics for Cars, Planes, and Ships

How does a global transportation system become a robotic transportation system almost overnight?

The answer is clip-on robots.

Robots (and their sensors) that you simply clip onto the driver’s seat of the vehicle.

It sees what the driver/pilot/captain would see, both outside and in.  It uses the same controls to control the vehicle.  It hears the same things.

Simple.  Effective.  Inexpensive.  Fast.

[Embedded here] is an example of clip-on robot that can ride a motorcycle from Yamaha. [Watch this; it could be talking about a human being as well.]

This approach gets around the need to rewire vehicle.  Rewiring, as every engineer and mechanic knows makes things difficult.  Simply, if you open up the control panel of a vehicle to modify it, the costs of installation go up exponentially and the regulatory burden (testing, certification, authorization) becomes insanely heavy.

It also gets around the problem with replacing existing vehicles with new, specially outfitted vehicles.  That will only accelerate once the value of the new transportation system is demonstrated.

NOTE:  This is very similar to how the big installed base of PCs were automagically converted “overnight” into Internet computers by simply adding a modem and some software…

This conversion will also be fairly inexpensive.  All of the tasks associated with driving, flying and sailing can be accomplished using cameras and microphones.  Although useful and increasingly affordable, complex sensors like LiDARs aren’t required due to rapid advances in deep learning (Musk and Tesla are betting on this approach).

At the rate things are going, we’ll see clip-on driving/flying/sailing systems in the mainstream within a decade  Once that happens, the costs, benefits (1,000% safer than self-driving), etc. of these systems will make them ubiquitous soon thereafter.

Have fun,

John Robb

@johnrobb (twitter)

PS:  Clip-ons are asymmetric.  For example:  Clip-ons could potentially turn any vehicle into a VBIED.  They also allow a military that is behind to catch up fast with better funded institutions (think: how wireless phones allowed countries to leapfrog over wired infrastructure). 




Saturday, 12 March 2016

Game ON: the end of the old economic system is in sight

Google is a pioneer in limited artificial general intelligence (aka computers that can learn w/o preprogramming them). One successful example is AlphaGo.  It just beat this Go Grandmaster three times in a row.

What makes this win interesting is that AlphaGo didn’t win through brute force.  Go is too complicated for that:

…the average 150-move game contains more possible board configurations — 10170 — than there are atoms in the Universe, so it can’t be solved by algorithms that search exhaustively for the best move.

It also didn’t win by extensive preprogramming by talented engineers, like IBM’s Deep Blue did to win at Chess.

Instead, AlphaGo won this victory by learning how to play the game from scratch using this process:

• No assumptions.  AlphaGo approached the game without any assumptions.  This is called a model-free approach.  This allows it to program itself from scratch, by building complex models human programmers can’t understand/match.

• Big Data.  It then learned the game by interacting with a database filled with 30 million games previously played by human beings.  The ability to bootstrap a model from data removes almost all of the need for engineering and programming talent currently needed for big systems.  That’s huge.

• Big Sim (by the way, Big Sim will be as well known as Big Data in five years <– heard it here first). Finally, it applied and honed that learning by playing itself on 50 computers night and day until it became good enough to play a human grandmaster.

The surprise of this victory isn’t that it occurred.  Most expected it would, eventually…

Instead, the surprise is how fast it happened.  How fast AlphaGo was able to bootstrap itself to a mastery of the game.  It was fast. Unreasonably fast.

However, this victory goes way beyond the game of Go.  It is important because AlphaGo uses a generic technique for learning.  A technique that can be used to master a HUGE range of activities, quickly.  Activities that people get paid for today.

This implies the following:

•This technology is going to cut through the global economy like a hot knife through butter.  It learns fast and largely on its own.  It’s widely applicable.  It doesn’t only master what it has seen, it can innovate.  For example: some of the unheard of moves made by AlphaGo were considered “beautiful” by the Grandmaster it beat.

•Limited AGI (deep learning in particular) will have the ability to do nearly any job currently being done by human beings — from lawyers to judges, nurses to doctors, driving to construction — potentially at a grandmaster’s level of capability.  This makes it a buzzsaw.

•Very few people (and I mean very few) will be able to stay ahead of the limited AGI buzzsaw.   It learns so quickly, the fate of people stranded in former factory towns gutted by “free trade” is likely to be the fate of the highest paid technorati.  They simply don’t have the capacity to learn fast enough or be creative enough to stay ahead of it.

Have fun,

John Robb

PS:  Isn’t it ironic (or not) that at the very moment in history when we demonstrate a limited AGI (potentially, a tsunami of technological change) the western industrial bureaucratic political system starts to implode due to an inability to deal with the globalization (economic, finance and communications) enabled by the last wave of technological change?

PPS:  This has huge implications for warfare.  I’ll write more about those soon.  Laying a foundation for understanding this change first.

Posted by John Robb on Saturday, 12 March 2016 at 01:12 PM | 


“. The people who have a lot to be afraid of are the ones that are being subsidized who are not productive….” – Catherine Austin-Fitts 





“Last summer, an atomic bomb detonated in a city on the U.S. Eastern seaboard, killing tens of thousands and plunging the nation into despair. As first responders and the military grappled with the aftermath, elite teams of scientists raced to analyze the blast for clues to precisely what kind of bomb had gone off and who bore responsibility for the act.

That was the premise of an exercise—the first of its kind—held in July and August 2015 to test a new network of sensors that would collect data during a surprise nuclear strike. The Mighty Saber simulation was a sobering acknowledgment of many experts’ belief that an attack on U.S. soil is more likely than ever—yet tracing responsibility would be far harder than it was during the Cold War, when the chief threat was annihilation by the Soviet Union.

“The scenario has changed,” says Thomas Cartledge, a nuclear engineer with the U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) in Fort Belvoir, Virginia. “Now, if you see a mushroom cloud go off in New York City, you won’t know who did it, or what kind of weapon they used.”Possibilities include a warhead diverted from the U.S. arsenal or smuggled into the country by terrorists, or a bomb delivered by an enemy state such as North Korea, which has threatened to nuke the White House.

The conceivable need to unmask a perpetrator and mount a response is propelling the emerging area of postdetonation forensics. “Someone’s going to get the pointy end of the stick. You want to make sure the right entity gets it,” says Howard Hall, director of the Institute for Nuclear Security at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. He and other nuclear detectives are devising new sensors, manufacturing artificial fallout to hone analytical techniques, and studying how the glass formed in the furnace of an atomic blast would vary depending on the nature of the bomb and the city where it detonated.”

[snip: the entire article is here:]

Although postdetonation forensics may well finger a bomb design, that knowledge by itself wouldn’t always unmask the perp. A gun-triggered uranium bomb, for example, could be fashioned by any of a number of terrorist outfits with modest technological expertise, such as the Islamic State group, providing they can lay their hands on several kilograms of highly enriched uranium. That’s “where intel comes in,” Hall says. But to have any chance of unraveling the details of a nuclear attack, investigators have to lay the scientific groundwork—while hoping it will never be needed.”


In case there was ever any doubt, the Justice Department declared war on Apple on Thursday.

Prosecutors demanded that a federal judge force Apple to unlock San Bernardino killer Syed Rizwan Farook’s iPhone in a brief that bristled with so much venom that Apple’s top lawyer, Bruce Sewell, said it “reads like an indictment.”

Like the legal motion from Apple that inspired it, years from now, people will look back at this brief and recall:

  1. When the DOJ said Apple got itself into this mess in the first place:

This burden, which is not unreasonable, is the direct result of Apple’s deliberate marketing decision to engineer its products so that the government cannot search them, even with a warrant.

2. When the DOJ mocked Apple for suggesting it cared about its customers’ rights:

Instead of complying, Apple attacked the All Writs Act as archaic, the Court’s Order as leading to a “police state,” and the FBI’s investigation as shoddy, while extolling itself as the primary guardian of Americans’ privacy.

3. When the DOJ accused Apple of subverting the Bill of Rights, the separation of powers, and democracy:

Apple’s rhetoric is not only false, but also corrosive of the very institutions that are best able to safeguard our liberty and our rights: the courts, the Fourth Amendment, longstanding precedent and venerable laws, and the democratically elected branches of government.

4. When the DOJ tried to belittle Apple and its supporters for being alarmist about totally irrelevant things, like privacy and security:

Apple and its amici try to alarm this Court with issues of network security, encryption, back doors, and privacy, invoking larger debates before Congress and in the news media. That is a diversion. Apple desperately wants — desperately needs — this case not to be “about one isolated iPhone.”

5. When the DOJ insisted it was being nice, and could just take whatever it wanted if it felt like it, and said it in the snidest way possible:

For the reasons discussed above, the FBI cannot itself modify the software on Farook’s iPhone without access to the source code and Apple’s private electronic signature. The government did not seek to compel Apple to turn those over because it believed such a request would be less palatable to Apple. If Apple would prefer that course, however, that may provide an alternative that requires less labor by Apple programmers.

6. When the DOJ suggested that Apple wouldn’t face all these terrible burdens if it didn’t help so many criminals and terrorists:

Next, Apple argues that the Order is unduly burdensome because, if it complies here, it is likely to face other AWA orders in the future. By accumulating its hypothetical future burdens, Apple suggests that because so much criminal evidence is hidden on its warrant-proof iPhones, it should not be compelled to assist in gathering evidence related to the terrorist attack in San Bernardino. Apple is wrong.

7. When the DOJ said the All Writs Act has never been and could never be abused because judges are so awesome:

As the decades since New York Telephone have shown, as indeed the centuries since 1789 have proven, courts’ exercise of power under the Act does not lead to a headlong tumble down a slippery slope to tyranny. That is because the Act itself — by relying upon the sound discretion of federal judges and by being subordinate to specific congressional legislation addressing the particular issue — builds in the necessary safeguards.

Sewell, Apple’s senior vice president of legal and global security, was outraged.

“In 30 years of practice, I don’t think I’ve seen a legal brief that was more intended to smear the other side with false accusations and innuendo, and less intended to focus on the real merits of the case,” he said.

“For the first time we see an allegation that Apple has deliberately made changes to block law enforcement requests for access. This should be deeply offensive to everyone that reads it.” 


Friday, March 11, 2016

Death and Extinction of the Bees



Who is in charge of destroying economies?

A dog whistle to Trump supporters.

by Jon Rappoport

March 11, 2016

Who sets that policy? Who keeps it intact, despite new legislators and Presidents exiting and entering office?

Who keeps pushing new economy-destroying trade treaties, like the upcoming TPP? Who demands that these treaties must be ratified?

A number of groups—but one group has been virtually forgotten. Its influence is enormous. It has existed since 1973.

It’s called the Trilateral Commission (TC).

In a minute, I’m going to print a stunning piece of forgotten history, a 1978 conversation between a US reporter and two members of the Trilateral Commission.

I discovered the conversation in the late 1980s, and ever since then, I’ve been looking at it from various angles, finding new implications. Here, I want to point out that the conversation was public knowledge at the time.

Anyone who was anyone in Washington politics, in media, in think-tanks, had access to it. Understood its meaning.

But no one shouted from the rooftops. No one used the conversation to force a scandal. No one protested loudly.

The conversation revealed that the entire basis of the US Constitution had been torpedoed, that the people who were running US national policy (which includes trade treaties) were agents of an elite shadow group. No question about it.

And yet: official silence. Media silence. The Dept. of Justice made no moves, Congress undertook no serious inquiries, and the President, Jimmy Carter, issued no statements. Carter was himself a covert agent of the Trilateral Commission in the White House, a willing pawn, a rank con artist, a hustler. He had been plucked from obscurity and, through elite TC press connections, vaulted into the spotlight as a pre-eminent choice for the Presidency.

To boil down the 1978 conversation between the reporter and two Trilateral Commission members, and the follow-on response:

“The US has been taken over.”

“Yeah, so?”

Many people think the TC, created in 1973 by David Rockefeller, is a relic of an older time.

Think again.

Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America. Obama appointed eleven of them to posts in his administration.

For example:

* Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary

* James Jones, National Security Advisor

* Paul Volker, Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee

* Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence

Several other noteworthy Trilateral members:

* George HW Bush

* Bill Clinton

* Dick Cheney

  • Al Gore

Keep in mind that the original stated goal of the TC was to create “a new international economic order.”

In the run-up to his inauguration after the 2008 presidential election, Obama was tutored by the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Brzezinski wrote, four years before birthing the TC with his godfather, David Rockefeller:

“[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”

Any doubt on the question of TC goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his Memoirs (2003):

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Okay. Here is a close-up snap shot of a remarkable moment from out of the past. It’s through-the-looking-glass—a conversation between reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper. The interview took place in 1978. It concerned the issue of who exactly, during President Carter’s administration, was formulating US economic and political policy.

The careless and off-hand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. It’s as if they’re saying, “What we’re revealing is already out in the open, it’s too late to do anything about it, why are you so worked up, we’ve already won…”

NOVAK (the reporter): Is it true that a private [Trilateral committee] led by Henry Owen of the US and made up of [Trilateral] representatives of the US, UK, West Germany, Japan, France and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries [which would include the US]?

COOPER: Yes, they have met three times.

NOVAK: Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize ‘this function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.’ Who are you afraid of?

KAISER: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these [Trilateral] meetings.

COOPER: Many people still live in a world of separate nations, and they would resent such coordination [of policy].

NOVAK: But this [Trilateral] committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support [for its decisions on how Trilateral member nations will conduct their economic and political policies]?

COOPER: Well, I guess it’s the press’ job to publicize it.

NOVAK: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others? After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.

COOPER: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches.

KAISER: It just hasn’t become an issue.

Source: “Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management,” ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980. South End Press, Boston. Pages 192-3.

This interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was ignored and buried.

US economic and political policy run by a committee of the Trilateral Commission—the Commission had been created in 1973 as an “informal discussion group” by David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

When Carter won the presidential election, his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, “We’ve lost. And I’ll quit.” Lost—because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.

Vance and Brzezinski were appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared. But he didn’t quit. He became Carter’s chief of staff.

Now consider the vast propaganda efforts of the past 40 years, on so many levels, to install the idea that all nations and peoples of the world are a single Collective.

From a very high level of political and economic power, this propaganda op has had the objective of grooming the population for a planet that is one coagulated mass, run and managed by one force. A central engine of that force is the Trilateral Commission.

How does a shadowy group like the TC accomplish its goal? One basic strategy is: destabilize nations; ruin their economies; ratify trade treaties that effectively send millions and millions of manufacturing jobs off to places where virtual slave labor does the work; adding insult to injury, export the cheap products of those slave-factories back to the nations who lost the jobs and undercut their domestic manufacturers, forcing them to close their doors and fire still more employees.

And then solve that economic chaos by bringing order.

What kind of order?

One planet, with national borders erased, under one management system, with a planned global economy, “to restore stability,” “for the good of all, for lasting harmony.”

The top Trilateral players, in 2008, had their man in the White House, another formerly obscure individual, like Jimmy Carter: Barack Obama. They had new trade treaties on the planning table. Obama was tasked with doing whatever was necessary to bring those treaties, like the TPP, home. To get them passed. To get them ratified. No excuses.

That’s why, months ago, when anti-TPP criticism and rhetoric was reaching a crescendo, when Obama was seeking Congressional fast-track approval of the treaty, he was in a sweat and a panic. He and his cabinet were on the phones night and day, scrambling and scraping for votes in Congress. This was the Big One. This was why he was the President. To make this happen.

His bosses were watching.

These men run US policy, when and where it counts. They don’t tolerate failure.

This is also why, after Obama was inaugurated for his first term, he shocked and astonished his own advisors, who expected him, as the first order of business, to address the unemployment issue in America. He shocked them by ignoring the number-one concern of Americans, and instead decided to opt for his disastrous national health insurance policy—Obamacare.

Why? Because he never had any intention of trying to dig America out of the crash of 2008. That wasn’t why he was put in the Oval Office. He could, and would, pretend to bring back the economy, with fudged numbers and distorted standards. But really and truly, create good-paying jobs for many, many Americans? Not on the TC agenda. Not in the cards.

It was counter-productive to the TC plan to torpedo the economy further.

It still is.

Now you have deeper background on the source of the political/media establishment’s panic and hysteria about Donald Trump. That establishment has received its marching orders. Take Trump down.

As far as the Trilaterals are concerned, it doesn’t matter whether The Donald is just blustering and bloviating about bringing jobs back to America, creating new prosperity, and “making America great again.” What matters is, he is raising the issue forcefully, out in the open. And huge numbers of people are responding. They’re confirming that the Obama economic recovery is a lie.

Trump has opened up an unprotected front in the war to sink the US economy. Suddenly, his supporters, like shock troops, are pouring through.

The censorship blocking discussion of the true state of the union has been cracked.

The genie must be put back in the bottle.

But by whom?

What Presidential candidate can now convince the people that all is well, good jobs are plentiful, and the country is prosperous again? Who can float that absurd lie and make people believe it?

If she can stop coughing, sputtering, cackling, switching accents, and grinning like a circus clown on meth, the task falls to Hillary.

Good luck with that one.

Maybe she should come right out and say: “You know me. I love wars. Put me in the Oval, and I’ll launch more wars than you can shake a stick at. And then you’ll see some goddamn prosperity. Everyone has a job in a full-bore wartime economy.” 


“… We should learn the lessons of past disasters and not repeat them,” said Ben Smilowitz, executive director of Disaster Accountability Project. “In the five years since Fukushima, we had an opportunity to prepare communities for the unexpected. More than 100 million Americans are at risk because local authorities have failed to plan accordingly.” 


Not What It Semes


Not What It Semes


mind control

The internet has spawned subtle forms of influence that can flip elections and manipulate everything we say, think and do

by Robert Epstein

This is an outstanding look at SEME, or 

Search Engine Manipulation Effect.  

I originally discovered this at but 

the paste-up there is flawed because it is duplicative.


“… Facebook’s consumer profiles are undoubtedly massive, but they pale in comparison with those maintained by Google, which is collecting information about people 24/7, using more than 60 different observation platforms – the search engine, of course, but also Google Wallet, Google Maps, Google Adwords, Google Analytics, Chrome, Google Docs, Android, YouTube, and on and on. Gmail users are generally oblivious to the fact that Google stores and analyses every email they write, even the drafts they never send – as well as all the incoming email they receive from both Gmail and non-Gmail users.

if Google set about to fix an election, it could identify just those voters who are undecided. Then it could send customised rankings favouring one candidate to just those people

According to Google’s privacy policy – to which one assents whenever one uses a Google product, even when one has not been informed that he or she is using a Google product – Google can share the information it collects about you with almost anyone, including government agencies. But never with you. Google’s privacy is sacrosanct; yours is nonexistent…..”


“… In the 2012 US presidential election, Google and its top executives donated more than $800,000 to President Barack Obama and just $37,000 to his opponent, Mitt Romney. And in 2015, a team of researchers from the University of Maryland and elsewhere showed that Google’s search results routinely favoured Democratic candidates. Are Google’s search rankings really biased? An internal report issued by the US Federal Trade Commission in 2012 concluded that Google’s search rankings routinely put Google’s financial interests ahead of those of their competitors, and anti-trust actions currently under way against Google in both the European Union and India are based on similar findings…..

the Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is making heavy use of social media to try to generate support – Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, Snapchat and Facebook, for starters. At this writing, she has 5.4 million followers on Twitter, and her staff is tweeting several times an hour during waking hours. The Republican frontrunner, Donald Trump, has 5.9 million Twitter followers and is tweeting just as frequently….”


Read the entire piece here:


Comments here: 


Oath handles its official communications through Facebook 




So the question remains…


How do we make use of the Internet, the “smart phone”, the androids of choice, for the purposes of self-empowerment, self-education, functional communication et al without becoming pawns of a rapidly-encapsulating tyranny?

peering out over the wall


“Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.” – Aristotle

When considering the cause of national apathy, Americans are evidently physiologically and socially similar to the junk food addled laboratory rat. Both tolerate repressive environments while confined against their will in a maze. In the natural desire to escape and find freedom, like the affected rat, Americans passively accept their confinement, acquiescing without struggle to a life of controlled stimulation and manipulation by all manner of drugs, tests, and mandated choice of direction. In a country objectively descending into chaos, why don’t Americans care? In recent studies at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), these same rats evidence one reason for America’s irrational disinterest in self-preservation.

In ever-more-frequent and growing worldwide protests, resistance to the American empire’s imposed maze increases. Strangely, Americans offer no similar resistance at all. The social, economic, and political problems in the USA mirror those of an empire-afflicted world, yet in the “exceptional” nation most would rather chew off their tails than find the energy to extricate themselves from their maze. Examples of exceptionally paltry public resistance and protest abound. Rarely does an American protest amount to more than a few hundred temporarily outraged souls who then quickly return to their couches when told to do so by the well-armed militia of the government they came into the streets to change.


The cause of this national apathy seems to be clear as shown in results from the UCLA study: it’s the food.Processed, adulterated, adjunct-laden, GMO-filled junk food; the preferred and almost unavoidable daily diet of Americans.

Dr. Aaron Blaisdell, a professor of psychology at the UCLA /College of Letters and Science and a member of UCLA’s Brain Research Institute, used rats to determine if a diet of poor quality processed foods resulted directly in obesity, or if the actual initial result was fatigue.

Dr. Blaisdell’s team placed thirty-two female rats on one of two diets for six months. The first received a standard rat’s diet, consisted of relatively unprocessed foods like ground corn and fish meal. As a substitute for a junk food diet the second Americanized group received highly processed food of lower quality that included substantially more sugar. As expected, “One diet led to obesity, the other didn’t,” said Blaisdell, as quoted in UCLA’s, “Newsroom.” However…

“Our data suggest that diet-induced obesity is a cause, rather than an effect, of laziness [apathy],” concluded Blaisdell. “…the [poor quality] diet causes obesity, which causes fatigue.”

The rats were given a task in which they were required to press a lever to receive a food or water reward. The rats on the junk food diet demonstrated impaired performance, taking substantially longer breaks than the lean rats before returning to the task. During repeated 30-minute sessions the overweight rats became more lazy due to their increasing obesity, taking breaks that were nearly twice as long as clean rats.

Dr. Blaisdell’s studying clearly indicates that junk food, while causing obesity, subsequently causes laziness and fatigue. Combined, the political cousin of these two symptoms is: apathy.

By all metrics, Americans consume the most quantity of the worst-quality food supply in the developed world, as such leading in obesity. In America this endemic apathy is causing Americans to have little interest in their own increasing domestic peril. In a nation of increasing authoritarian governmental control, American processed junk food may have now become the most effective US government weapon for controlling the reactions of its own population. Examples of irrational American apathy are evident every week.

Just this past weekend, on Feb 27, 2016, seventeen-year-old Abdi Mohamed, was shot three times by Salt Lake City police responding to a dispute. Not taking time to digest the situation and realize that Mohamed, who was not threatening them in any way, only held a piece of a broom stick, they opened fire within seconds of their arrival. The resulting protest of reportedly no more than one hundred outraged souls, were next met with the predicable draconian response of over one hundred cops being called to provide back-up; in force. This routine military response has one emphatic message for the protesting public, “Take your First Amendment home…and stay there.” Accepting this message, by Sunday all outrage was over. Considering this obvious example of America’s growing police disregard for life, this protest should have been in the thousands. What then?

In dozens of countries across the globe rebellion in the thousands and tens-of-thousands by outraged nationalist populations is growing despite brutal American-backed-and-funded crackdowns by their governments. This weekend alone saw huge protests which all amounted to a public rejection of the influence of the American empire on their politicians and therefore their happiness. Consider…

Just hours ago, in London, over 10,000 protested the US/NATO imposed risk to their lives of Trident submarine ICBMs. In Poland, Ukraine and South Korea equally large protests also took place against the American-controlled national policies imposed on them. In Iran and Ireland national and local elections took place peacefully, the results also showing that their citizens, too, were casting out the politicians who favor guns over food. In France, where all GMOs are still banned, thousands of French farmers have battled police due to their lives being destroyed by US-required French sanctions against these farmers exporting their crops to the once lucrative and huge Russian market. Not surprisingly, and for good reason, these protesters have had enough of the “benefits” of American empire and imposed democracy. As the military might of the empire kills scores of innocents around the globe daily, while the quality of life continues to diminish, resistance is not, for these citizens, futile. It is daily.


As for North America, Canada and Mexico have also recently produced huge protests, starting with the 2012 Montreal student protests where 100,000 angry students protested tuition fee increases. When Canada’s legislature attempted to quell the protest by passing emergency legislation allowing for new draconian anti-protest laws, this huge protest then grew exponentially to more than one million citizens. Anti- government protests in major Canadian cities have been large and frequent since. Subsequently, on November 4, 2015, the Liberal Party, led by now Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, won 184 seats, turning-out the Conservative Party, led by incumbent, ultra-Zionist/ corporatist, former Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

In Mexico City protesters hit the one million mark, also in 2012, within minutes of the announcement of the most recent presidential election results that declared president-elect, Enrique Peña Nieto, the victor. Thanks to American-madeDiebold electronic voting machines (yes, those Diebold voting machines), the results had been rigged. Mexicans knew it. They were mad as hell. They went to the streets.

In late 2014, forty-three very innocent college students were “disappeared” by Mexican government troops. That same government has been covering up the criminals involved ever since. But Mexican protests have been often, very large and unyielding to government’s demand that these anti-government protests end. The protesters will not go home.

However, back in the Homeland, where over 1300 Americans were killed by police firepower in 2015, many of whom were as completely innocent of any crime that justified deadly force, this weekend produced just onecompletely ineffective protest. When killer cops get off from prosecution scot-free, outrage generally amounts to, as seen in Salt Lake City, a mere hundred-or-so protesters. Even the anti-authoritarian spectacle of Ferguson, Missouri accomplished nothing except to showcase the futility of protest to the apathetic public watching on the TV. But it was not the fault of these sincere, passionate and legitimately outraged protesters who did put their freedom on the line at these small protests. The real problem in changing endemic domestic American abuses: enough people willing to rise to their feet and effect the true “power of the people!”

The most demonstrative recent example of the national terminal apathy of Americans was illustrated at the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The government and the local police expected big trouble. Uncle Sam knew his people had good reason to take to the streets outside the convention. Four years of Pres. Obama’s broken promises, lobbyists, high unemployment, growing authoritarian state, endemic corruption in banks, business, government and sports gave many good reasons for American outrage to hit the streets of Charlotte en masse. Just months before, the dozens of Occupy camps in major cities nationwide, as the only cohesive national protest movement, had all been closed down in the space of two very violent and draconian days at the hands of nationwide police. So, when NSA, CIA, and Charlotte police authorities publicly stated their assumption of over 100,000 upset Americans showing up to protest, their estimate seemed well founded.

Taking no chances the federal government provided Charlotte $50 million, and added $50 million more, to defend Pres. Obama from “the will of the people.” As witnessed then, this funding produced a truly awe-inspiring showcase of America’s domestic authoritarian, anti-protest arsenal. The American government was ready to take on America’s collective best shot, no matter what, at resisting Obama’s new definition of democracy.

Anyone coming to Charlotte found that walking the streets was a laboratory maze in itself. The maze was not here metaphorical, consisting of literally several miles of contiguous sixteen-foot-high, black-painted metal, crowd-proof fencing along both sides of the entire pre-selected boulevards that would be used to keep the loonies on the path. Hordes of cops by the hundreds – thirty-five hundred in total – funneled protesters back into the maze at every intersection, all dressed in full riot gear and showing different shoulder badges with insignia from police departments as far away as Austin, Texas; Chicago, Illinois; New York City and Albuquerque, New Mexico. Each cop grimaced at this arrogant display of democracy before their face masks and batons. New police vehicles were everywhere; from ATVs and MRAPs, to refrigerated trucks and golf carts. Dozens of brand new “Police” mountain bikes and motocross bikes stood in rows of twenty, some under fat cops who sat watching on menacingly. No less than four helicopters were in the air at all times. Police cars – state, federal, and local – were evident by the hundreds. CIA had commandeered a local junior college, and US Army troops maintained defenses outside the city. Just in case. These were the front lines, ready for anything an understandably outraged public of 100,000 plus might dish out.

The cops need not have bothered.

The largest protest of the six-day event was a paltry 2000 people. Almost all other protests numbered no more thanthree hundred. The protesters were always outnumbered by the cops and the press. Considering Charlotte has over 150 million Americans within a five-hundred-mile drive, why such a paltry, ineffective, impotent turnout throughout the national six-day event?


We may have found a cure for most evils; but we have found no remedy for the worst of them all, the apathy of human beings. – Helen Keller

Dr. Blaisdell’s rats expose the fundamentals of this malady. The toxic combination of engineered food leading to endemic apathy is causing a sickness infecting Americans. Apathy. If not; despair.

America’s diet is factually the worst in the industrialized world. GMO ingredients are in eighty-five percent of all processed foods, not that this processed food is of acceptable quality. In December 2013, Professor Irina Ermakova, vice president of Russia’s National Association for Genetic Safety, called for a 10-year ban on GMO foods. Ermakovaconducted GMO rat-feeding tests that showed alarming results, including extreme mortality rates. “It is necessary to ban GMO, to impose a moratorium for 10 years. It has been proved that not only in Russia, but also in many other countries in the world, GMO is dangerous,” he concluded. In 2015 Russia past new laws banning all American GMO products. China, France and the United Kingdom have similar bans.

Illustrating Dr. Blaisdell’s study, while choosing willful ignorance, American voters have defeated GMO labeling laws in state referendums in California and Oregon. This means Americans have actually voted not to know that food-borne poison is contained in what they choose to eat. Really. But taking no chances with future elections, however, this week a US Senate committee announced it is preparing legislation seeking to prohibit states from attempting to pass their own mandatory state labeling laws via the public’s constitutional right to vote in their own interests. Labeled the “Dark Act” this is a government reaction to the few successful state initiatives requiring GMO labeling, such as Vermont, New Hampshire and Connecticut.

As reported by William Engdahl, in a study on the toxicity of GMO plants associated with the plant killer, Roundup, Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff, have found additional confirmations. Their review concluded, in regard toglyphosate, the main active component of Roundup herbicide, that, “Residues (of glyphosate) are found in the main foods of the Western diet.”

Samsel and Seneff continue…


[M]any of the health problems that appear to be associated with a Western diet could be … attributed to glyphosate. These include digestive issues, obesity [emphasis added], autism, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, Parkinson’s disease, liver diseases and cancer, among others. We believe that glyphosate may be the most significant environmental toxin.

Researcher, Tim Spector, a professor of genetic epidemiology at King’s College London, bolsters the connection between junk food and apathy. Enlisting the help of his son Tom, a genetics student at the University of Aberystwyth in Wales, for a little over a week Tom ate nothing but McDonald’s Big Macs, chicken nuggets, fries, and Coke. He reported that he, “felt good for three days, then slowly went downhill, became more lethargic, and by a week my friends thought I had gone a strange gray color. The last few days were a real struggle. I felt really unwell.” Cornell University testing revealed that Tom’s gut microbes were “devastated.” He had lost about 1,400 types (or 40%) of his bacteria species, which is a red flag indicator for health issues such as obesity and diabetes.

In one week.

In Australia, further study from researchers at Deakin University and the Australian National University has shown that junk food does indeed physiologically affect the brain’s growth and development leading to poor mental health. Their findings concluded that a part in the brain – the hippocampus – has been shown to be smaller in those who consume junk food. The hippocampus is responsible for learning, memory and mental health. Researchers used MRI scanning to measure the size of the hippocampi in Australian adults between the ages of 60 and 64. Diet and other factors which could affect the hippocampus were measured and taken into account as well.

The results, published in BMC Medicine, revealed that seniors who had consumed junk food are more likely to have smaller left hippocampi. On the other hand, seniors who consume more nutrient-rich foods have larger left hippocampi. Associate Professor Felice Jacka concluded,

Recent research has established that diet and nutrition are related to the risk for depression, anxiety and dementia; however, until now it was not clear how diet might exert an influence on mental health and cognition.

Thanks to American-inspired global franchising, people throughout the world are also getting fatter on the same brand-names of poison as their American counterparts. The World Health Organization refers to the epidemic as “globesity.” Yet nowhere is the trend as pronounced as it is in the United States, where per-capita calorie consumption of the worst food on the planet rose from 2,109 calories a day in 1970 to 2,568 calories in 2010, according to the Department of Agriculture. The average man today weighs thirty pounds more than in 1960, which equals seventy-eight million people considered obese in 2012.

Americans habitually eat a lot of junk food. School children and their developing minds are affected from birth. Economically bankrupt America has created families where both Mom and Dad, by necessity are working, with the kids in daycare and the home-cooked family meal a relic of the American Dream long gone. Corporate America preys on this with a replacement of cheap, fast and processed food offerings substituted as breakfast, lunch and/or dinner. Plus snacks. The ongoing degradation of the American mind it seems, applied to Dr. Blaisdell’s laboratory rats and the UK, Russian and Australian studies, shows that growing American mental apathy is directly proportional to their extraordinarily high consumption of a very poor-quality diet.


There is, as shown globally this past weekend, a far worse result of American apathy.

It is only one indictment that Americans to have willfully allowed themselves and their nation to go to the gallows of history without a whimper. So be it. So, suffers the fool.

But in allowing an ever-corrosive America to brainwash their souls, these same apathetic Americans also allow their government to rob, via America’s historic military might, the livelihood and futures of the remaining external and innocent world.

When considered carefully, apathy – American apathy – is a serious crime. A crime against world humanity. The checks and balances by humans on Empire are permissively missing in empirical America. Americans are thus complicit in the further daily destruction of the remaining world they wish to know little about. When the dust of the oncoming rampage of history has settled over the folly of this American empire, guilt for its accumulated horrors will sit squarely on the American people’s heads, as much as the shoulders of their obviously treasonous politicians.


In tests the laboratory rat proves to be stronger of will than its Americanized human counterpart. Like the protesters in France, South Korea, Poland, Ukraine, Iran and Ireland just mere hours ago – humans who presumably do not live on an obligatory junk food diet – the rat of pure mind and conscience continues, despite its confines, to desire its freedom. And…he will bite.

Ultimately, under the bright laboratory lights, while seemingly trapped in a maze of oppression, the lab rat will do what Americans can do no longer. The rat, growing ever more desperate, will find a way to escape.

Summoning both will and courage, the rat draws the strength of will to rise-up on his hind legs, peering out over the top of the wall of the maze. His indomitable desire for freedom thus reveals the obvious: the way out.

Americans have no such remaining instinct.


Facing hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuits, the giant biotechnology companyMonsanto last year received a legislative gift from the House of Representatives, a one-paragraph addition to a sweeping chemical safety bill that could help shield it from legal liability for a toxic chemical only it made.

Monsanto insists it did not ask for the addition. House aides deny it is a gift at all. But the provision would benefit the only manufacturer in the United States of now-banned polychlorinated biphenyls, chemicals known as PCBs, a mainstay of Monsanto sales for decades. The PCB provision is one of several sticking points that negotiators must finesse before Congress can pass a law to revamp the way thousands of chemicals are regulated in the United States.

“Call me a dreamer, but I wish for a Congress that would help cities with their homeless crises instead of protecting multinational corporations that poison our environment,” said Pete Holmes, the city attorney for Seattle, one of six cities suing Monsanto to help cover the costs of reducing PCB discharge from their sewers.

The House and the Senate last year both passed versions of legislation to replace the 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act, a law that the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged had become so unworkable that as many as 1,000 hazardous chemicals still on sale today needed to be evaluated to see if they should be banned or restricted.




GMOs – Planned Sterilization of Humanity?

By Peter Koenig

March 01, 2016 “Information Clearing House” – Severe health risks of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) are not new. Studies by scientists among others in France, Germany, Austria, since at least the 1990s, pointing to several levels of health dangers to mankind abound. A recent study released by Egyptian researchers found that rats fed a GMO diet suffer from infertility, among other health issues. In the US similar studies were muzzled by Monsanto and the Monsanto staffed FDA. In a 2011 paper the Institute for Responsible Technology – IRT refers to 19 animal studies linking GMOs to mostly liver and kidney organ disruption.

In the early 2000 the first Russian studies revealed reduction in fertility and birth defects in hamsters and rats. In a 2013 Russian study, scientist have discovered that mammals that eat GMO foodstuffs have difficulties to reproduce. The study concluded that “Campbell hamsters that have a fast reproduction rate were fed for two years with ordinary soya beans which are widely used in agriculture and those contain different percentages of GMOs. Another group of hamsters, the control group, was fed with pure soya [found in Serbia, as 95% of soya in the world is transgenic].”

According to Dr. Alexei Surov, who led the study on behalf of the National Association for Gene Security,

“We selected several groups of hamsters, kept them in pairs in cells and gave them ordinary food as always. We did not add anything for one group, but the other was fed with soya that contained no GMO components, while the third group [was fed] with some content of GMOs and the fourth one with increased amounts of GMOs….. Originally everything went smoothly. However, we noticed quite a serious effect when we selected new pairs from their cubs and continued to feed them as before. These pairs’ growth rate was slower, and [they] reached their sexual maturity slowly. When we got some of their cubs, we formed the new pairs of the third generation. We failed to get cubs from these pairs which were fed with GMO foodstuffs. It was proven that these pairs lost their ability to give birth to their cubs.”

Sterilization from GMOs is not an accident. Monsanto had planned this since the 1960s. Henry Kissinger, the protégé of the Rockefeller Foundation and one of the driving forces – still today – of the Bilderberg Society, not only is the author of the infamous proclamation in the early seventies:

‘Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; and who controls money can control the world;’

he also said,

‘Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the Third World.’

This is still a (mostly unspoken) key objective of the elite, associated through different semi-secret organizations like the Bilderbergers, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Trilateral Commission, the British Chatham House, the Economic Forum (Davos), and others.

GMO Seeds

GMOs are based on two strands; one involves insect resistance, the other is herbicide resistant and more dangerous, because it is glyphosate-tolerant. Glyphosate, known under its trade name ‘Roundup’, is however absorbed in the food fibers and has devastating health effects. The herbicide is an endocrine-disruptor, a chemical that at certain doses can interfere with the hormone system of mammals. These disruptions may cause cancer, infertility, miscarriage, birth defects and full sterility by the third generation, as the Russian study clearly demonstrated.

In his eye-opening 2007 book Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation, F. William Engdahl points to food control and depopulation as the strategic key objectives of GMOs as put forward by Henry Kissinger already half a century ago. A less populated Third World will give the US and world elite easier and cheaper access to needed raw materials, allowing the ‘chosen few’ to maintain a lifestyle of exuberant luxury and resources abuse.

Ellen Brown, referring to Gary Null’s documentary Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs, quotes Dr. Bruce Lipton,

“We are leading the world into the sixth mass extinction of life on this planet. . . . Human behavior is undermining the web of life.”.

Worse is to come, if and when the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement is ratified by the US and its eleven Pacific partners. The TPP – much like the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, linking the US with the 28 EU countries) – is negotiated behind closed doors. The chief agricultural negotiator for the US is the former Monsanto lobbyist, Islam Siddique. The two monster trade agreements would deprive governments from regulating transnational corporations’ activities, to the point where the rights of corporations would supersede sovereign nations laws. Corporations would be able to set up private courts that may rule a country liable for lost profit due to legislation that may interfere with their activities.

This would particularly apply to biotech agriculture. GMOs could no longer be forbidden by individual countries. They are integral parts of the two giant trade agreements which the US is attempting to ram down the throats of their ‘partners’ – and may do so in the general realm of vassalage which has been cultivated by Washington’s threat and sledgehammer politics – “You are either with us or you are against us” – and the latter is usually punished with devastating sanctions, if not with death of errant, non-compliant leaders.

The objective of depopulation is alive and well – and being implemented under our eyes; and We, The People, are blinded by the steady drop-by-drop of propaganda that makes us believe that these trade agreements will resolve the world’s food problems, will eliminate famine. What they will eliminate after a few generations is peoples’ fertility. This, coupled with the constant and continuous wars on terror and financial assassinations of entire countries (see Greece) by the so-called Bretton Woods Organizations, IMF and World Bank, working hand-in-hand with the FED and Wall Street, may eventually succeed in drastically reducing world population – if We, The People, do not wake up.

Waking up to a new form of agriculture is crucial. Back to nature and earth-friendly farming, as well as away from globalization to the notion of ‘local production for local consumption’. Russia has a strict ban on GMOs. Russia is producing about 40% of its food by permaculture methods on simple garden plots. According to Natural Living, 80% of the country’s fruit and berries, and 66% of vegetables and about 50% of the nation’s milk are produced on dacha-type plots.

It is not too late to get away from GMOs, from planned sterility and from depopulating the globe for the benefit of a tyrant elite. But, We the People, have to wake up, take back the sovereign control of our nations from the vassal leadership which Washington has discretely, almost imperceptibly placed at the helm of the 11 TPP and the 28 TTIP nations by stolen or manipulated elections or outright ‘regime change’. The breaking up of the Eurozone and the European Union – both of which are in dire straits – might be the beginning of a new era of self-determination.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance. 


Washington, DC, February 29, 2016 – The Gerald Ford White House significantly altered the final report of the supposedly independent 1975 Rockefeller Commission investigating CIA domestic activities, over the objections of senior Commission staff, according to internal White House and Commission documents posted today by the National Security Archive at The George Washington University ( The changes included removal of an entire 86-page section on CIA assassination plots and numerous edits to the report by then-deputy White House Chief of Staff Richard Cheney.

Today’s posting includes the entire suppressed section on assassination attempts, Cheney’s handwritten marginal notes, staff memos warning of the fallout of deleting the controversial section, and White House strategies for presenting the edited report to the public. The documents show that the leadership of the presidentially-appointed commission deliberately curtailed the investigation and ceded its independence to White House political operatives.

This evidence has been lying ignored in government vaults for decades. Much of the work of securing release of the records was done by the John F. Kennedy Assassinations Records Board in the 1990s, and the documents were located at the National Archives and Records Administration at College Park, Maryland; or at the Gerald R. Ford Library in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Additional mandatory declassification review requests filed by Archive fellow John Prados returned identical versions of documents, indicating the CIA is not willing to permit the public to see any more of the assassinations story than we show here. The documents in this set have yet to be incorporated into standard accounts of the events of this period.

Among the highlights of today’s posting:

•White House officials of the Ford administration attempted to keep a presidential review panel—the Rockefeller Commission—from investigating reports of CIA planning for assassinations abroad.

•Ford administration officials suppressed the Rockefeller Commission’s actual report on CIA assassination plots.

•Richard Cheney, then the deputy assistant to the president, edited the report of the Rockefeller Commission from inside the Ford White House, stripping the report of its independent character.

•The Rockefeller Commission remained silent on this manipulation.

•Rockefeller Commission lawyers and public relations officials warned of the damage that would be done to the credibility of the entire investigation by avoiding the subject of assassinations.

•President Ford passed investigative materials concerning assassinations along to the Church Committee of the United States Senate and then attempted—but failed—to suppress the Church Committee’s report as well.

•The White House markup of the Rockefeller Commission report used the secrecy of the CIA budget as an example of excesses and recommended Congress consider making agency spending public to some degree.



By John Prados and Arturo Jimenez-Bacardi

The current controversy over drone attacks has an important backstory. During the 1970s it became known that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had plotted the murder of foreign individuals. These persons for the most part were prominent leaders or even heads of state. That the U.S. government had in any way been engaged in murder became a dark charge against the CIA, and helped inflame the political climate in a way that ensured investigations of the U.S. intelligence agencies would occur.

During those 1975 investigations, particularly those of the Rockefeller Commission and the Church Committee, allegations of CIA involvement in assassinations were among the most important lines of inquiry. President Gerald R. Ford himself had a key role in triggering the investigations, inadvertently but artlessly revealing the fact of CIA involvement in plotting assassinations during a meeting with press editors.[i]

There had already been revelations of illegal domestic activities by the CIA. These led to the creation of a presidential panel under Vice President Nelson A. Rockefeller, and committees of inquiry in both houses of the United States Congress. Ford’s January 1975 admission of CIA involvement posed a dilemma for the administration. Vice President Rockefeller attempted to head off inclusion of the subject, restricting consideration of assassinations to the question of what role Cuba might have had in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. That proved unacceptable to some members of his own commission, among them then-Governor of California Ronald Reagan. When the Rockefeller Commission took a vote on whether to include charges of CIA assassination plots in its inquiry, the group overrode its own chairman.[ii]

Rockefeller’s key opponent in the fight over investigating assassinations was the panel’s staff director, David W. Belin. A lawyer for the Warren Commission, empanelled to look into the Kennedy assassination in 1963-1964, Belin had been handpicked by Ford for the Rockefeller group. Ford, one of the Warren commissioners, was confident of Belin’s loyalty, but this time the lawyer fought hard to investigate deeply.

The investigators sought CIA documents on assassination plots conducted in its history and information on administrative routines. They also questioned key witnesses. As CIA lawyer John S. Warner admitted under questioning, the agency “certainly” had “no specific authorization” to conduct assassinations (Document 7). Warner additionally admitted he was “not clear” that a president had the constitutional authority to order an assassination, though that “might” lie within his powers.

Documents in this electronic briefing book reveal the views on the assassination reports of not only Belin but key members of his staff. At the time, in the spring of 1975, the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (the Church Committee) was just being constituted but the Rockefeller Commission inquiry was already in progress. Days after Church Committee members met with President Ford, press adviser David Gergen advised the president to say nothing about assassinations (Document 1).

The jurisdictional and procedural issues regarding whether to include an investigation of assassination plotting, so far as the Rockefeller inquiry was concerned, were fought out over this same period (Documents 2,3,4,5). White House officials, including panel chairman Rockefeller, continued a rearguard action in opposition, first to covering CIA assassination plots at all, and later to including that material in the Rockefeller Commission report. Belin continued to press for the coverage, took a primary role in interviews the commission conducted for this part of its inquiry, and became the main author of the portion of the report dealing with CIA plotting against Fidel Castro (including Operation ZR/RIFLE).

The Rockefeller Commission collected a wide array of evidence, as illustrated by a staff member’s report on what could be learned from the papers of former CIA Director John McCone, and a CIA compendium document on the ZR/RIFLE project (Documents 8, 9, 10).

As of mid-April 1975, Belin expected to have the assassination portion of the panel report complete by the end of the month. He so informed White House officials. However, the CIA dragged its feet on providing materials, and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who initially promised cooperation, provided little. Kissinger became a major actor in the struggle to suppress the Rockefeller assassinations report.[iii] When Belin scheduled a press conference to announce the panel’s assassination findings, deputy assistant to the president Richard Cheney and White House Counsel Philip Buchen, citing Kissinger’s concerns, intervened to induce Belin to cancel it.

As the Rockefeller Commission moved toward finalizing its report, panel staff concluded that the assassinations issues were going to be buried. Several recorded their objections to this course (Documents 11, 12). The Rockefeller Commission’s public affairs director, for one, observed that leaving out assassinations would make the report seem like a cover-up and cast doubt on the Commission’s entire project (Document 13). Nevertheless Belin and staff could not prevent determined superiors from holding back the entire subsidiary report that dealt with assassinations.

Meanwhile at the White House, Cheney led the way in “editing” the Rockefeller report—including suppressing the assassinations section. The final draft of the full report contained a brief passage noting that President Ford had asked the panel to investigate the assassination plots after its inquiry began, that the staff had not been able to complete the investigation, and that Ford had then asked that assassinations material be turned over to him. The Cheney edit inserted doubts by adding that it was unclear whether assassinations fell within the scope of the Commission’s mandate, thus resurrecting jurisdictional issues which had previously been resolved. The revised language also reduced President Ford to a bit player—asserting only that he had “concurred” in the panel’s decision to investigate rather than that he had revealed the existence of CIA plotting and then been obliged to modify the Commission’s terms of reference to include an investigation of the matter. White House editors also changed the original text, from indicating that records were still in the process of being turned over to the president, to the statement that it already “has been” done.

Document 19 reviews the substance of the Commission’s evidence and findings relating to assassinations. In Document 20, White House lawyer Buchen discusses the substance of the findings.

The White House “edit” (Document 15) provides clear indications of the direction of the White House’s concerns vis-à-vis the conclusions of the wider Rockefeller Commission investigation. The report had determined that various intelligence agency actions were illegal and explicitly called them “unlawful.” The edit resisted that formulation and talked instead about actions that merely exceeded agencies’ statutory authority. The Cheney-supervised edit made a single exception—the White House changed Commission language which found the CIA had exceeded its authority in the course of drug experiments to say that these had been “illegal” (p. 37).

Rockefeller investigators had probed White House-CIA relationships that landed the agency in trouble during Watergate as a result of White House instructions to provide psychological profiles of prominent individuals, disguises for White House operatives, and documents on past CIA activities. The full Commission had then approved a recommendation (number 23 on its list) which specified that a single, authoritative channel be established for all White House requests to the CIA and that this be routed through the NSC staff. Following CIA internal directives (ones that had, among other things, resulted in the compilation of the “Family Jewels”), the Rockefeller Commission made clear that any CIA employee who questioned the “propriety” of any White House order should take that concern either to the CIA director or the agency’s inspector general. The White House editors changed this directive (in renumbered Recommendation 26 of the published report). Now, employees were to be instructed only to question requests that came outside the authorized channel, and to state their concerns only to the CIA director. Improper requests came off the table, and the inspector general was not to have automatic jurisdiction.

Among the abuses that led directly to President Ford creating the Rockefeller Commission were charges the CIA had compiled dossiers on American citizens and infiltrated political groups that opposed the U.S. war in Vietnam. In this instance the Rockefeller panelists entered a blanket finding that the files and lists of citizen dissenters were “improper.” The White House edit changed this conclusion, indicating that the “standards applied” had resulted in materials “not needed for legitimate intelligence or security purposes,” and that this merely applied to “many” records gathered about the antiwar movement (see unnumbered page revising p. 41 in the report).

White House editors eliminated a Commission recommendation (number 17 in the original text) that applicants for agency positions and foreign nationals acting on behalf of the CIA be informed more clearly that they could be subjects of U.S. security investigations. The Cheney-inspired edit also added recommendations the Rockefeller panel had not voted. One (Recommendation 29 in the published report) advocated for a new civilian agency committee to be formed to resolve concerns about the use of CIA-developed intelligence collection mechanisms (overhead photography) for domestic purposes.

Another White House-originated point (Recommendation 20 in the published report) sought to increase public confidence in the integrity of the intelligence agencies by instructing them to review their holdings of secret documents periodically with the aim of declassifying the maximum amount of material. This recommendation was more honored in the breach.

In a related case, White House editors eliminated a lengthy commentary from one of the commissioners, the former solicitor general of the United States, Erwin N. Griswold. A detailed footnote quoted Griswold as saying that an underlying cause of the problems confronting the CIA was its pervasive atmosphere of secrecy, and recommending Congress consider making public the CIA budget (page 132-3, renumbered p. 15 in Document 15, footnote 2). The commission quoted Griswold in the context of a recommendation about the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. White House editors converted Griswold’s statement into part of the main text which the entire Rockefeller panel had supposedly agreed upon, and used it to buttress a recommendation to create a joint committee of the Congress to oversee the CIA and other intelligence agencies and went on to Recommendation 4 — that Congress consider making the CIA budget, to some degree, public.

Thus the White House edit both put words into Rockefeller Commissioners’ mouths and dispensed with concerns they had expressed. Apart from the substantive issues raised thereby these actions amounted to direct political interference with a presidential advisory panel. Ford may have been comfortable with his subordinates’ maneuvers, but they helped drain credibility from the Commission’s investigation, as the panel’s own staff had warned in discussions of whether to include its assassinations report (Documents 11, 12, 13, 14).

The White House strategy for releasing the Rockefeller report is detailed in talking points and strategy memoranda (Documents 16,17,18). In the end, in a complete reversal of the actual inquiry, the only assassination material to make it into the report concerned whether the CIA had conspired to assassinate President John F. Kennedy.[iv]

Richard Cheney and Gerald Ford failed in their effort to suppress the assassinations portion of the Commission’s work. Rather, the media, alerted to the issue by the president himself, kept pressing until Ford declared he would turn over the assassinations material to the Church Committee. The president essentially kicked the controversy down the road. The Commission’s files and interview records related to assassinations gave Church investigators a blueprint and a boost in their own inquiry. Senator Church’s committee moved quickly and completed its investigative report in October 1975. Along the way investigators compiled more than 8,000 pages of depositions or testimony, covering 75 witnesses over 60 days of hearings, most held in executive session. Committee staff analyst Loch Johnson, who later authored a classic account of the “Year of Intelligence,” found many revelations almost unbelievable, in some cases “requiring a suspension of disbelief few serious novelists would ask of their readers.”[v]

With the committee at the point of asking that the full Senate release its report, on October 31 President Ford wrote Senator Church to ask that the report be kept secret on national security grounds (Document 21). Several days later the committee voted to reject Ford’s demand, and Church answered his letter on November 4, writing, “in my view the national interest is better served by letting the American people know the true and complete story . . . . We believe that foreign peoples will, upon sober reflection, admire our nation more for keeping faith with our democratic ideals than they will condemn us for the misconduct itself” (Document 22). In a display of legislative strategy, on November 20 the Senate convened in a secret session to debate releasing the Church assassinations report but failed to delay or prevent its being made public, because the committee had approved the report while the full Senate took no vote on whether to enforce a rule that would have held up release.

The sordid story of CIA assassination plots came into the open most authoritatively in the Church report. Its revelations did not destroy the republic, contrary to White House and intelligence community warnings. The committee recommended that a prohibition on assassinations be written into law, even supplying language that could be used in such a statute. Their prohibition would have covered not only foreign officials but members of an “insurgent force, an unrecognized government, or a political party.”[vi]

The White House took a different tack. A steering group of officials working on the political crisis of the “Year of Intelligence,” proposed that President Ford issue an executive order (E.O.) to govern intelligence agencies and operations, and that the order include a prohibition on assassinations. Senator Church objected that anything a president set by fiat could be changed by fiat as well, by means of a future executive action. Besides, the Ford executive order, issued in February 1976, lacked the definition that would have been supplied by the Church Committee-recommended statute. President Jimmy Carter issued his own executive orders on intelligence, in a preliminary form in May 1977 and in a reworked version in January 1978. The assassination prohibition would be widened somewhat, by removing the word “political,” which the Ford E.O. had used as a qualifier (as in “political assassination”), and by extending the ban beyond government employees to anyone working for or on behalf of the United States. The Carter ban would be repeated verbatim in President Ronald Reagan’s E. O. 12333, issued on December 4, 1981. Every subsequent president has continued the ban, and the Reagan E.O. itself remains in force.

[i] See John Prados, The Family Jewels: The CIA, Secrecy and Presidential Power. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2013, pp. 160-161.

[ii] Nicolas Djumovic, “Ronald Reagan, Intelligence, William Casey, and the CIA: A Reappraisal,” Central Intelligence Agency, Center for the Study of Intelligence, April 2011, pp. 7-8.

[iii] Prados Family Jewels, pp. 163-165.

[iv](Report to the President by the Commission on CIA Activities within the United States(Rockefeller Report), June 1975, pp. 251-269.

[v] Loch K. Johnson, A Season of Inquiry: The Senate Intelligence Investigation. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1985, p. 50. A new edition of this book will appear very shortly from the University of Kansas.

[vi] United States Senate (94th Congress, 1st Session). Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. Interim Report: Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders, pp. 289-290. 


Memetic Engineering To Silence Dissent

Blacklisted News | March 1, 2016 – News has been making rounds across the internet that the FBI in collusion with the National Science Foundation has sunk nearly one million dollars into a program at the University of Indiana developed with the goal of:

“The project is aimed at modeling the diffusion of information online and empirically discriminating among models of mechanisms driving the spread of memes. We explore why some ideas cause viral explosions while others are quickly forgotten. Our analysis goes beyond the traditional approach of applied epidemic diffusion processes and focuses on cascade size distributions and popularity time series in order to model the agents and processes driving the online diffusion of information, including: users and their topical interests, competition for user attention, and the chronological age of information. Completion of our project will result in a better understanding of information flow and could assist in elucidating the complex mechanisms that underlie a variety of human dynamics and organizations. The analysis will involve studying meme diffusion in large-scale social media by collecting and analyzing massive streams of public micro-blogging data.

The project stands to benefit both the research community and the public significantly. Our data will be made available via APIs and include information on meme propagation networks, statistical data, and relevant user and content features. The open-source platform we develop will be made publicly available and will be extensible to ever more research areas as a greater preponderance of human activities are replicated online. Additionally, we will create a web service open to the public for monitoring trends, bursts, and suspicious memes. This service could mitigate the diffusion of false and misleading ideas, detect hate speech and subversive propaganda, and assist in the preservation of open debate.

Using their system, dubbed Truthy, the group intends to track and differentiate memetic content made by normal everyday users and that of ‘professional political activists’ with the goal of eliminating false or misleading political information from social media ecosystems. Other research carried out by the project varies from analyses of meme propagation in specific geographical areas to understanding the viral nature of politically secular world affairs like the ongoing migrant crisis or the Occupy Wall Street movement when the average attention span of users is lower than that of a goldfish.

Even more suspiciously, one of the stated endgame goals of the project is to share the machine learning techniques gained from Truthy with future mass social media studies carried out by government and academia.

Curiously missing though from Truthy’s online dating profile is that she’s married to the FBI and LOVES sharing your dirty online secrets with her husband and his friends in Washington. Beginning in the Fall of 2014 Truthy began databasing not only suspicious memes but also the identity of their creators where the information will remain “forever, regardless of their innocence or guilt, or their intentions.” said lead FBI agent Paul Horner.  “This database will be shared with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other agencies.”

“forever, regardless of their innocence or guilt, or their intentions. This database will be shared with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other agencies.”

Are we having fun yet? l