Bitcoins – Coins For the Cryptocracy

People all over the political spectrum are pushing bitcoins again.

I explained earlier why I felt you should avoid them. When I did, I withheld any reasoning except the most logical and self-evident.

Short version:

You can accomplish everything that bitcoins can achieve with good old cash. And you don’t need electricity, internet, computers, devices, and security software when you use cash.

Second, if governments hate cash for its secrecy, why are they ignoring or pushing cryptocurrencies, which are supposedly even more secretive?

Makes no sense, does it?

The problem with bitcoins is they provide a solution for what isn’t a problem.

Secrecy isn’t a problem.

Secrecy can be achieved as is, if you set your mind on it.

The real problem is that every increase in secrecy augments the power of the cryptocracy – the unholy alliance of the spy agencies, criminals, and criminal financial cartels.

These are the forces that actually control our lives.

The criminal ruling class loves bitcoin because they know they have the power to exploit it fully. The ordinary chump just thinks he does.

As for Satoshi Nakamto, there’s no such person. It’s a made-up name, even though it has a meaning. A sinister one that gives the game away.

Don’t let clever people fool you into thinking it’s a real person.

They are probably being compensated for saying so.

Remember, practically every political site of any size on the web is in bed with intelligence. When they are not, they get pruned regularly.

Just see what happened to me here.

Bitcoin comes out of Israeli cryptographic research. The details I don’t know, but that’s generally accurate.

It’s not about saving anyone. It’s about enacting the kabbalist’s vision on earth.

That vision demands that the Anglo-Judaic Western powers rule the world through decentralized systems.

Those who are pushing bitcoin are on board that agenda.

I am too busy recovering from the latest body-blow from the cryptocracy to spell it out better just now.

But I will get to it.

If you want to gamble, go ahead.

But if you adopt bitcoins because you think your life will become opaque to the powers-that-be, you might want to rethink that.

The only way to hide anything done on your computer is to turn it off, smash the hard drive into metal dust, and throw it into a nuclear waste site.

But even then, there are still the servers and the other fellows’ computers.

Not to mention advances in technology or mathematics that will turn bitcoins invulnerability into mush.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alleged Trump Sex Video: From 9-11, Grosvenor Gardens

An interesting factoid:

The infamous alleged fetish video involving Donald Trump and a Russian hotel bed in which the Obamas slept (details delicately withheld on our chaste blog) turns out to have been given to US intelligence officials by none other than Senator John McCain, whose own record is so dodgy it muddies the story even more.

We think the much bigger question than Obama’s bed is Trump’s. Who’s in it? How much in hock is he to Russia?

McCain, an alleged war-hero but documented fink,  was once a POW in Vietnam and, since I just watched “The Manchurian Candidate,” that raises all sorts of questions for me about his own motivations and agenda.

Second, the file on Trump was compiled by a 20 year veteran of MI6 (the British foreign intelligence service), Christopher Steele, who from 1990 until 2009 was also a spy in Russia.

2009 was the year a lot of intel operations, including that of Wikileaks, began operating.

So what did Mr. Steele do in 2009? He opened Orbis Business Intelligence, which compiled the video. Apparently, he was funded by Republican anti-Trump operatives.

Where is Orbis located?

At the commercial site of 9-11 Grosvenor Gardens in London.

Is this another Rothschild/NWO wink or merely coincidence?

If the former,  into which realm of reality, falsity, or some mixture of both, do we consign the video?

And who is  behind it?

Insane McCain, Trump himself, his handlers, the Russians, the financial cabal, the CIA, Mossad, the FSB? Or some combination of these?

And if this is an X-rated rerun of the Manchurian Candidate, with McCain as the brain-washed trigger-man, is it Mike Pence or Hillary Clinton, who is the intended beneficiary?

My bet is the latter.

 

State Surveillance Enters The Bedroom

UPDATE(Picture: George Lawler/metro.co.uk)

I just saw this picture of George Lawlor in a “V for Vendetta” mask.

Something clicked. This is an intelligence created story to sell that “consent app” ( see below).

It’s intelligence, just like the fracas over Halloween costumes at Yale.That’s why I made those posts private.

ORIGINAL POST

Read this and weep.

At the University of Warwick in the UK, George Lawlor, a nineteen-year-old male student with the aggressive demeanor of a ba-lamb,  is in trouble with feminists.

For not wanting to attend a “consent” work-shop intended to deter coercive sexual encounters, he has been harassed to the point that he wants to drop out of university.

Contemporary feminists of a certain sort believe that all men are potential rapists in need of training on how to comport themselves with women, hence the fury.

There does need to be discussion about sex on campus, but lecturing the men alone misses the point. Women also need some advice on how they should carry themselves in public….on why uncontrolled drinking has different impacts on men and women…. and on where they can go alone… and with whom.

Just maybe, the whole idea of mixed dorms needs to be revisited too... and how about limiting access to drugs, alcohol, and porn on campus?

Just lecturing the men seems to be a rather bigoted way of tackling the issue.

But, if that wasn’t bad enough, the article about Lawlor also cites a new “app” (software application) for sexual consent.

It lets potential sex partners  video record their consent before getting together.

That students seem to think this is a good idea tells you everything you need to know about campus today.

Everyone else knows that phone and computer technology is almost completely under government control, unless you consistently encrypt at a very high level. Even so, the equipment and operating systems themselves have enough entry-points for the government.

A “consent app” that records two people agreeing to have sex is as good as sending the agreement in the mail to the police.

As a matter of fact, that is the intended purpose of such agreements in the event of post-coital problems.

All these years, the left has been blaming those near-mythical ” Christian fundies” for dragging the government into the bedroom.

Now,  feminists have sent the police and courts a gold-embossed invitation to participate in people’s sex lives..… and people are cheering.

 

 

UK, France, On Verge Of Kafkaesque Police State

The Guardian sounds a warning about the acceleration of surveillance in the UK and France:

Two British MPs, Tom Watson and David Davis, crossed the party divide and with campaigning organisation Liberty, won a legal challenge against the rushed, undemocratic Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (Dripa), passed in July 2014.

The High Court found that Dripa was unlawful because it did not adequately ensure that access to, and use of, communications data (though not its collection) was limited to what was necessary, appropriate and proportionate for preventing and detecting serious crime.

The decision has been welcomed for, finally, recognising in the UK what a number of other countries and a slew of independent examiners have demanded: proper judicial oversight of a “general retention regime on a potentially massive scale”. Where it falls down, as do many of those reports, is in accepting, implicitly or explicitly, the euphemistic re-characterisation of mass surveillance as “bulk interception” or “bulk collection”, thus endorsing an incursion into our private lives, papers, thoughts and communications that has no precedent in the law of the land.
Advertisement

Disappointingly, however, the Dripa victory is likely short-lived. Immediately, the Home Office declared its disagreement with the High Court’s decision, pledging to appeal. And of course, the Conservative government has already made abundantly clear its intention to enact a single, comprehensive law – the so-called “snooper’s charter” – which many fear would unleash a tidal wave of surveillance at political and executive discretion.

This is where the other side of the channel comes in. Late on Thursday 23 July, in France’s highest constitutional body, the last safeguard of the rule of law fell, approving what is, by all measures, an intrusive, comprehensive, virtually-unchecked surveillance law.

A pipe-dream for two years, the French law gathered momentum in March this year in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack, and was put together in the French parliament under emergency procedures, drastically reducing discussion time and preventing any meaningful debate. The law was overwhelmingly approved by parliament in June and immediately referred to the constitutional council by nearly everyone who could do so, including François Hollande – the first time the president has deferred a law voted by parliament in the Fifth Republic.
France approves ‘Big Brother’ surveillance powers despite UN concern

The case also attracted an unheard of number of amicus briefs, many of which were made public, and most of which involved an impassioned cry about the unprecedented incursion on civil liberties that the law mandates.

And yet, despite this, the French council approved, with very few exceptions, a law that allows intelligence agencies to monitor phone calls and emails without prior judicial authorisation; to require internet service providers to install “black boxes” that filter all internet traffic, combing everyone’s metadata in order to identify deviant behaviours based on unknown parameters and provide access to the agencies; and to bug cars, homes and keyboards for images, sound and data.

All of this, of course, is discussed as being targeted at “suspected terrorists”. But all of it, equally and more significantly, touches us all; anyone and everyone who traverses the internet. The law’s goal is to improve the agencies’ tools for a large variety of vaguely stated purposes: terrorism, but also political surveillance, competitive intelligence for France’s major economic, industrial and scientific interests, the fight against organised crime, and goodness knows what else to come.”

Privacy Expert Questions Europe’s Migrant Crisis

Privacy Surgeon.com:

I’m starting to believe the so-called “migration crisis” facing Europe is little more than a tragic confidence trick. Worryingly, however, it involves dangerous consequences for the rights of every EU resident.

I’m not being heartless. Yes, thousands of refugees have lost their lives in the struggle to reach EU borders. Many more are living in a desperate plight, often at the mercy of human traffickers. That’s not my point.

Relatively few of us have genuinely got to grips with the realities of this situation. It’s a massively complex issue that goes to the heart of geopolitics and national dynamics, but intelligent people should not be sucked into the orchestrated rhetoric that is being peddled. This isn’t the first time we’ve faced such circumstances – and it certainly won’t be the last.

The migration issue is trending across the political landscape of nearly all EU countries. Emerging from the hysteria over rising numbers of asylum seekers is a mix of innovative and humane solutions. Sadly, the “crisis” is also spotlighting the very worst of Europe, spewing out a raft of reactions that defy the very basis of the values that Europe is supposed to uphold.

Instead of making an effort to find a rational way through the difficult issues, some governments have cheered on a contagion mentality which has genuinely terrified entire populations that the barbarians are at the gate. It feels like Donald Trump’s shadow has fallen across Europe.

At one level (though certainly not for the migrants themselves) the situation is nowhere near as dramatic as some media outlets are portraying. At another level, the crisis is far worse for Europe than anyone could imagine. This situation could trigger a backlash for civil liberties across the EU.

Let’s deal first with the raw figures.

At the risk of simplification, here is the top level statistic. The EU’s external border force, Frontex, which monitors the flow of people arriving at Europe’s borders, says some 340,000 migrants have been detected at EU borders since the beginning of 2015. That compares with 123,500 in the same period last year.

My response is “what’s the big deal?

[Lila: Exactly my reaction. Anyone who has actually been in populous, poor, or war-torn countries, would find the numbers nothing so extraordinary.]

…….

During World War II, refugees flooded from Germany to Switzerland, as any Sound of Music fan will remember. Between 1933 and 1939, about 200,000 Jews fleeing Nazism were able to find refuge in France. At around that time several hundred thousand Spanish Republicans fled to France after their loss to the Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War. Unlike the EU of today, nations coped with such circumstances.

It’s true that the current headline figures can look dramatic. More than 300,000 migrants have risked their lives trying to cross the Mediterranean to Europe so far this year, according to the UN. This compares with 219,000 for the whole of 2014.

Nearly 200,000 people have landed in Greece since January this year, while another 110,000 made it to Italy.

To put the current situation into a statistical perspective, imagine a town of 10,000 people calling emergency meetings and getting into a froth of paranoia because ten migrants show up at the town hall office. 

Having said that, the total population of the EU member states is just over half a billion. Is anyone seriously arguing on any basis of rationality that a region of five hundred million people can’t find a way to absorb a peak of an extra half million migrants? In the view of many observers, this isn’t so much a migrant crisis as it is a crisis of political fragility over Europe’s teetering economy and employment.

To put the current situation into a statistical perspective, imagine a town of 10,000 people calling emergency meetings and getting into a froth of paranoia because ten migrants show up at the town hall office. Most of us would condemn such a response.

In line with this reasoning, let’s try to put the situation is a historical context.

Some people might like to forget that the decade leading up to 2001 saw the one of the bloodiest conflicts of modern times – and right on Europe’s doorstep. The Bosnian and Yugoslav wars saw genocide that murdered between 100,000 and 200,000 people (depending on whose figures you accept). States that are now happily part of the European family of nations were obliterating entire communities at the time your fifteen year old child was born. Now, all is forgiven – and almost forgotten.

But at the time, there was misery and human displacement at a scale that people these days can barely understand. Vast waves of refugees poured out of the carnage and tried for a new life in Europe and elsewhere.

Europe whines about a “crisis” of having to deal with an overflow that’s equivalent to less than one tenth of one percent of its population. Compare this to what Croatia agreed to burden at the time of the conflict.

The U.S. Ambassador to Croatia, Peter Galbraith, tried to put the number of refugees in Croatia into perspective during an interview in 1993. He said the situation would be the equivalent of the United States taking in 30,000,000 refugees. The number of Bosnian refugees in Croatia stood at 588,000. Serbia took in 252,130 refugees from Bosnia, while other former Yugoslav republics received a total of 148,657 people.”