Category Archives: Psyops

Francis Boyle, Propagandist for Tamil Terrorists

Posted on by

More questions about the real agenda of leading human rights activist, Dr. Francis Boyle, recently in the news for hyping the Ebola “crisis” :

Boyle promotes the recently revived  Tamil Tigers terrorist group (LTTE) and  its propaganda.

(More here on the distortions involved in Tamil claims of genocide).

The Tigers have the support of the deeply corrupt Tamil political family of the Marans (from which former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and arch-Tamil chauvinist Karunanidhi comes).

The idea behind promoting Tamil chauvinism is to create a transnational Tamil  nation spread across Asia, funded and covertly led by the West, but fronted by the Tigers.

(Haindava Keralam has a well-researched article demonstrating that the “Hindu” affiliation of the original Tiger leaders was a post-mortem creation of the media and that the movement itself is largely the work of the Tamil diaspora in the Anglophone nations, Tamil Christian converts,  and their backers among the churches and other Western groups).

This future Tamil Nation allegedly inspired by the medieval Saivite Chola kingdom and actually backed by the strong presence of the West in Singapore, Malaysia and other more developed areas of South Asia.

It will be nuclear- equipped (thanks to Indian nuclear facilities in Tamil Nadu) and counter-posed against the northern Hindu government of the BJP, also nuclear-equipped and also in the thrall of Western money and leadership (Subramanian Swamy is said to be a Mossad operative).

Thus, once again, using local groups as front men (compare with the MEK or with ISIS), the Western powers operate to divide and conquer the rest of the world.

Boyle’s activism, you will notice, extends only to the trigger-men and the front-men of the New World Order, not to the puppet-masters behind.

As Zahir Ebrahim asks, why does Iran (or anyone else) need an American lawyer to pursue their claims in the international courts?

“Dr. Boyle’s egregious omissions are far more significant than his bold truth-telling of what’s already grotesquely apparent, and his conscionable legal advocacy for their redressal. On the surface, his legal advocacy appears fantastic and principled. But as my examination in the above letters and article demonstrate, Dr. Boyle also evidently likes to pursue the lowest order bits while ignoring the higher order ones. He pursues the effects and ignores the cause. He gets the causality wrong every time. What sort of trial attorney does that? The sort examined in my article of April 09, 2009:

“Who is more guilty of monumental war crimes – the prime-movers or trigger pullers?”

Then, there is the much-publicized attempt by FBI agents to try to get Dr. Boyle to release information about his US citizen Muslim clients.

Boyle didn’t report or pursue this clear violation of the constitutional rights of his clients, but was impressively covered in the alternative media.

A Sri Lankan paper describes the US network behind the LTTE:

LTTE Revives Its US Network:

The LTTE’s US network crippled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 2006 is being reorganized by both remnant and emerging leaders. The most prominent among them is V. Rudrakumaran, the son of a former Mayor of Jaffna. Today, Rudrakumaran runs the Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam (TGTE), one of the four factions of the LTTE. Until recently the TGTE had limited success in the US but now with external resources, Rudrakumaran is reorganizing its activities both within and outside the US. The TGTE has also started to openly display the photograph of Prabhakaran and the Tiger flag.

Using New York and New Jersey as its main platforms, the TGTE is not only reviving the LTTE in the US, but also in Canada, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. Although the TGTE is constrained from operating openly in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America, it has built and is attempting to build cells in Tamil Nadu, Mauritius, South Africa and a few other countries where it has cultivated supporters and sympathizers.

 Although the LTTE had no respect for human rights and massacred Sinhalese and Muslims, it is ironic that the main platform upon which the TGTE lobbies US Senators, Congressmen and officials is ‘human rights’. The TGTE is planning a series of ‘human rights’ meetings in the US and overseas to network with human rights bodies.

After the LTTE in Sri Lanka was militarily defeated and its leadership eliminated in May 2009, the TGTE was created by the then newly appointed LTTE leader Selvarasa Pathmanathan alias KP and the LTTE legal advisor at the time Rudrakumaran. KP was the chief of procurement of the LTTE responsible for buying and transporting weapons illegally for the LTTE.  Working with KP until the latter’s arrest and deportation to Sri Lanka on August 5, 2009, Rudrakumaran relied on the LTTE network and its overseas associates to create a committee for the formation of the Provisional Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam (PTGTE).

 Meanwhile Rudrakumaran appointed an Advisory Committee of LTTE supporters and sympathizers namely Francis Boyle (USA), Joseph Chandrakanthan (Canada),  Nagalingam Jeyalingam (USA),  Jeyaprakash Jeyalingam (USA), Karen Parker (USA), Palaniappan Ramasamy (Malaysia), Peter Schalk (Sweden), Sivanendran Seevanayagam (Australia), Nadarajah Sriskandarajah (Sweden), Muttucumaraswamy Sornarajah (UK) and Amuthu Louis Vasanthakumar (UK). Although many of them are no longer with the LTTE, a few continue to support the revival of the Tigers.”

OSINT, espionage, & sedition

Posted on by

A university researcher wrote to me a week or two ago. He asked if I would be interested in a project studying Operation Mockingbird and the CIA’s past and continuing use of the news media (and of social media).

A little research into the researcher showed that he was involved in a website promoting the use of  OSINT.

OSINT is the graceless acronym the government bestows on something called open-source intelligence.

OSINT is public information similar to what this blog uses.

Not just media reports, but links on forums,  government data,  court documents, commentary at blogs and in discussion groups, social media postings.

As long as it’s not confidential (a lawyer’s privileged conversation) or obviously private (a home phone number or medical information), it’s all fair game.

Until “national security” gets involved.

Of course, “national security” is an elastic term that seems to include everything.

The empire’s desire for full-spectrum dominance makes anything in outer – or inner – space part of “national security.”

Now, until I encountered the term OSINT in the past few days, I‘d no idea that what I was doing by chance bears a resemblance to what a whole wing of the CIA specializes in.

I do it because I’ve generally found the major media unreliable (and uninteresting) and the alternative media, while far more interesting,  ideologically biased.

But there’s a catch.

OSINT can get an un-credentialed journalist or blogger into serious trouble.

How serious?

Wikipedia on the dangers of OSINT:

“Accredited journalists have some protection in asking questions, and researching for recognized media outlets. Even so they can be imprisoned, even executed, for seeking out OSINT.

Private individuals illegally collecting data for a foreign military or intelligence agency is considered espionage in most countries. Of course, espionage that is not treason (i.e. betraying one’s country of citizenship) has been a tool of statecraft since ancient times, is widely engaged in by nearly all countries, and is considered an honorable trade.”

So, well-paid mercenaries and meddlesome bureaucrats who provoke international conflicts and break domestic and foreign laws while  spying on foreign countries are patriots, while unpaid citizen-bloggers/journalists trying to deconstruct the dense fog  of corporate-state propaganda to help ordinary people should be shot.

Very rational.

That leads me back to the curious invitation in my mail-box.

If gathering open-source intelligence can in some circumstances be seen as  treasonous, then why the invitation?

Blogging from public sources is one thing. But blogging that is intended to inform an enemy might be another.

The OSINT web-site I saw gave me a hint by referring to an open-source “revolution.“

Long-time readers of my blog will probably know  how I feel about “revolutions,” especially those led by what I call techno-utopians.

And sure enough, in the last two weeks it seems that the 45-year-old meme of “open source revolution” has been revived.

Yes, 45 years. That’s how old this “cutting-edge” meme is.

Only now it’s migrated from the soft-ware community, where it began, to the intelligence community.

Going back, the term “open-source” was a spin-off from a community of “hackers” creating what was later called free software at an MIT artificial intelligence lab in 1971.

The word hacker here doesn’t mean anything criminal. It’s a positive word for people who take apart and improve on computer programs for the sheer fun of it and for the good of the public.

At least, that’s the self-portrait.

The developer of free software, Richard Stallings, later worked at Lawrence Livermore lab and won a MacArthur “genius” award.

Lawrence Livermore is a government lab devoted to science and research in the interests of national security.

The cypherpunk group, devoted to developing strong cryptography ,  was the group from which Julian Assange and Wikileaks emerged.

It  included one researcher from the Lawrence Livermore lab, as well as many senior people from Bell, MIT, and Sun Microsystems (among others).

Stallings himself is a strong supporter of free software.

He developed the “copyleft” approach to IP, which allows changes to be made to code by innovators, so long as each innovator in turn allows other users the same freedom.

Copyleft also allows people the freedom to commercialize their innovations.

Stallings is a strong supporter of the hacker collective Anonymous, seeing it as a kind of legitimate “street protest.”

You can search this blog to find my ruminations about Anonymous….

(To be continued)

FEMEN: The empire’s booby-trap

Posted on by

Update 2 (June 9, 2014):

OK. I just found the first documented direct link to Soros and the Open Society:

The Australian academic who directed the film about FEMEN in 2013, Sophie Pinkham, works for George Soros’ Open Society Institute.

Update 1:

I began this post simply to comment on Femen’s attacks on churches in recent months.

Then I found that, although CIA-backing of Femen is assumed by many bloggers, the links I came across didn’t show exactly how Soros or the CIA was tied into the outfit.

I will be updating the post with that information, as I find it.

ORIGINAL POST

The Times of Israel’s blog has a convincing criticism of one of the most visible Weapons of Mass Distraction – the annoyingly uncivilized radical “feminist” group, FEMEN, which allies itself with neo-Nazis in the Ukraine, openly spews (real) bigotry toward Muslims and Christians  and engages in breast-baring pranks, ostensibly in the service of suffering womanhood but actually in the service of the Anglo-Zionist empire.

“In support of  [Amina] Tyler, the Kiev-based feminist group FEMEN declared April 4th the International Topless Jihad Day, which consisted in white young women protesting topless against Islamist regimes at the entrance of mosques and Tunisian embassies around the globe. Because Muslim women do not have a voice of their own. They are all mute. Because Muslim women are inherently oppressed. Aha. And because the only way to liberate them all is by enforcing Western ideals upon their communities. Of course.…….

Another brilliant idea of FEMEN activists was to burn a Salafist flag in front of the Grande Mosquée de Paris. Three topless FEMEN activists started frolicking around the burning flag offending nearby worshippers. As if Parisian Muslims were responsible for the state of women rights in Islamic regimes. As if ALL Muslims were Salafists. FEMEN, congratulations for your amazing work towards perpetuating the stereotype of the Muslim community as monolithic rather than diverse. Hurrah………

In contrast to Tylor and her fellow FEMEN colleagues, who employ nudity as a tool of protest, talented Egyptian cartoonist Doaa Eladl employed her intellect to highlight issues such as underage marriage and sexual attacks against female demonstrators during the revolution. In late December, she was accused of blasphemy following the publication of one of her pieces in the Al-Masry Al-Youm. Unfortunately, her case did not receive as much attention as Tyler’s physical assets. Clearly, the media is not into pencils and brains as it is into nipples.“

Lila:

The world gives any woman plenty of choices.

But the dialectic promoted in the Western media – a propaganda tool of  centralizing money-power – herds these innumerable real choices of real women into two or three pre-determined avenues that  let those powers reap economic and political rewards in the swiftest possible way.

As for taking away attention from real activists, that is the point of such plastic activism, whether it is from the ubiquitous Julian Assange or from Edward Snowden or anyone else.

The point is to keep even politically discerning people fixated on mouth-pieces set up by the Central Controllers, so that real resistance is rendered impotent.

Notice that FEMEN’s lewd attacks and sacrilege are directed against mosques and mullahs and also against Catholic bishops and cathedrals:

Life-site News.com reports that in April 2014, Femen activists attacked the Archbishop of Madrid, chanting that “abortion is sacred.”

Notice that this attack roughly corresponds to Easter season, the time of resurrection, rebirth, and fertility.

According to another report, “Top-less activists attack Brussels archbishop again,” it was again at Easter, in April 2013, that the Catholic Archbishop of the Brussels Cathedral, a staunch traditionalist on abortion and homosexuality, was attacked by half-naked “activists,” cursing him and dousing him with water from bottles shaped like the Virgin Mary.

The Femen “sextremists” mocked Christianity, altering “agnus dei” (Lamb of God or Jesus Christ) into “anus dei” (anus god), both denigrating Jesus Christ and deifying homosexuality.

Another FEMEN “activist” posed in front of the Cathedral, a black cross over her bare breasts, simulating Jesus on the cross.

Ironically, it turns out that the master-mind behind all this oestrogen run amok is a rather unreconstructed male, Viktor Svyatskiy, who gets a kick out of pretty girls  stripping for him.

And, worse,  spends his time deriding and humiliating his charges, who, some argue suffer from Stockholm syndrome:

 “It’s his movement and he handpicked the girls,” she told The Independent. “He handpicked the prettiest girls because the prettiest girls sell more papers.”

He’s “quite horrible with the girls,” Green adds. “He would scream at them and call them bitches.” One scene in the film has Svyatski displaying utter contempt for his activists. “These girls are weak,” he says. “They don’t have the strength of character… They show submissiveness, spinelessness, lack of punctuality, and many other factors which prevent them from becoming political activists. These are qualities which it was essential to teach them.”

There you have  the left’s conflicted logic:

Denounce traditional families as hotbeds of patriarchal oppression, because a male is considered the head of the house-hold…..but fawn on a thug who uses, abuses and humiliates vulnerable young women publicly for purposes they’re too naive to suspect, let alone figure out.

The bottom line is that a pimp is paying a few  prostitutes (one activist really is a professional prostitute)  good money (2-3 times the average monthly wage in Ukraine) to spew out propaganda about female liberation.

This is the old Chicks Up- front strategy of the 1960s left.

Put attractive young women, preferably half-naked, out in front of any protest movement. That attracts attention to your message and distracts from the other fellow’s.

FEMEN members themselves have seen through this game.

Amina Sboui (Tyler), the Tunisian activist mentioned in the beginning of the this post, later denounced the group for being anti-Muslim.

She said its funding sources were mysterious and suspected they might be from Israel.

A mother of one of the Ukrainian activists, Alexandra Shevchenko, regrets letting her daughter go to Kiev to study economics:

“I work in the city center and when walking to work each morning I have to listen to many people reprimanding me what they think of my daughter’s behavior,” said Lyudmyla Shevchenko, Aleksandra’s mother. “I can’t sleep. I can’t eat. I can’t live worrying about her all the time. I and her dad tried to persuade her not to do [take off her clothes] anymore. But when she’s in Kyiv she does not listen to us. Femen leaders brainwashed girls like her.”

Actually, except for murder, FEMEN’s modus operandi sounds startlingly like the Charles Manson gang in the 1960s:

A charismatic sociopath picks  followers from among young, impressionable women and brow-beats them into promoting his political agenda….which involves promoting social strife…with the CIA not far behind.

But how exactly does FEMEN connect to the CIA, Israel, and/or the Anglo-Zionist enterprise? It’s still not clear to me.

FEMEN – ORIGINS

First, the Victor Sviyatskiy connection.

Sviyatskiy quickly took over FEMEN from Anna Shevchenko Hutsol.

Hutsol is the activist who originally set FEMEN up, it is reported, to protest sex-trafficking in the Ukraine in 2008.

Later, Inna (Anna?) Shevchenko  spread her wings and became a resident of France.

(Lila: I might be confusing Alexandra Shevchenko with Inna. I’ll check and get back to this later today.)

An image of her is now the new Marianne image, the official symbol of France, on postage stamps.

Anna/Inna claims she left for France to avoid the patriarchal set-up in Ukraine, but it’s more accurate to say that she fled there, after she sawed down a Catholic cross and drew the attention of the local police.

Apropos.org.uk points out how characteristic of FEMEN such bigoted attacks are:
In a banner headline, from which we have removed foul language, Femen proclaims “Don’t Rape [us] with Your Crucifixes” , stating that, ‘For two thousand years, the supposed sacrifice of the body of Christ has been used as a tool to control women, our sexuality, our bodies, our freedom.’ This referred to their protest against The March for Life in which white crosses are carried to represent aborted children. According to Femen, ‘ Your white crosses are symbols of hate, control and fear – we will not be your sacrifice.’ As if to emphasise the Satanic nature of their protest the Femen activists who attacked Cardinal Rouco Varela in Madrid had inverted crosses painted on their backs.”
And Pravda (in Ukraine) documents that Inna’s flight had nothing to do with patriarchal oppression and everything to do with the cops:
http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2013/08/31/6997008/
(Google translation, with my edits)
Femen activists fled Ukraine
Saturday, August 31, 2013, 12:00

Femen activists left Ukraine on Friday after having been brought in for questioning.According to the press service, 30 August, Femen activist Yana Zhdanov, Anna and Alexander Shevchenko Hutsol were summoned for questioning by the investigator. This means that the activists will be transferred from the status of “suspect ” to the status of ” charged “.“Fearing for their lives and freedom activists escaped from Ukraine to Europe to continue Femen activities,” so ran the statement from the activists.“

FEMEN – FINANCING

The financing of the group has been as mysterious as its origin, with conflicting reports.

Three names recur in the reports:

HELMUT GEIER

One of FEMEN’s early donors is said to be a German, Helmut Joseph Geier, alias, DJ Hell.

DJ Hell is a disc jockey and exponent of the musical trend known as electroclash.

He popularized it in the 1980s and 1990s in his home town, Munich.

JED SUNDEN

Another figure behind FEMEN is Jed Sunden, a native of Brooklyn, New York.

In 1995  Sunden  founded the Kiev Post, the first English language paper in the area.

Sunden is the owner of KP Media, which publishes the Post.

This article in the Kiev Post in April 2010 says that Sunden was one of the first to support FEMEN, which it describes as having a five-member board of directors (the names are here):

“I confirm that I do give money to Femen,” Sunden said. “I will not state the amount. After meeting with Anna Hutsol, I was impressed with her ideas and have been a supporter. I believe Anna is a young, independent voice in Ukraine. While I do not agree with all of her positions, I believe it is important to give her, and groups like hers, support.”

BEATE SCHOBER

A third figure mentioned as a backer is a Bavarian business-woman, Beate Schober.

An interview with Schober ran in the Kiev Post in Feb 2006.

It describes her as a senior managers at Austrian Airlines and a successful relocation entrepreneur, catering to major companies.

A Berliner Zeitung article in January 2009 states that Schober had been living in Kiev for twelve years, operating her relocation business.

She was very sympathetic to the sex tourism issue raised by the activists and hosted them on her web portal.

The article  also says that fellow Bavarian and German musical entrepreneur, DJ Hell, heard of FEMEN and became interested in publicizing them.

The Swiss Sonntag Zeitung (October 2013) also reported on the funding of the group.

It mentioned that Beate Schober first supported FEMEN, but later concluded that the group was not really interested in women’s emancipation at all.

The SZ piece mentions that 40 percent of the group’s income comes from the sale of T-shirts with their images.

Friends are also mentioned as a source of funds, but no details are given.

DJ Hell is once again mentioned as a backer, but, again, there are no specific figures.

The top four FEMEN activists are reported to get some 700 euros a month  ($1000 in other accounts), which is a large sum in Ukraine.

The outfit in Paris reportedly takes $2500/mth to run.

In Kiev, FEMEN ran out of a popular cafe named after Cupid, the child of Venus (the goddess of sexuality and beauty) and Mars (the god of war).

It provided free Internet access to FEMEN’s members.

The Sonntag Zeitung piece also adds interesting details about the origin of the group.

FEMEN began at a meeting between Sviyatskiy and Anna Hutsol on a park bench in Khmeinitsky in Western Ukraine in the mid-2000’s.

The two were watching married couples at the registry when they came up with the idea.

In the only recorded interview with him, Swiatskiy says Hutsol and he had already decided on FEMEN’s media strategy by that time.

In 2009, Sophie Pinkham, an American academic who was conducting research into Ukrainian feminism,  interviewed the FEMEN chief Anna Hutsol.

She found that the “volunteer” Victor Sviyatskiy was doing most of the answering.

He was extraordinarily passionate about his mission to promote feminism and spoke eloquently about the “eroticism of the social” and his ambition to create an activist group as “cheerful” as Greenpeace.

Despite this, he remains  a shadowy figure, with no foot-print on the Internet.

The non-existent Net footprint certainly suggests an intelligence operation of some kind, but that is only speculation, so far.

In the fall of 2013, a documentary debuted at the Venice film festival- Ukraine Is Not a Brothel.

It was directed  by Australian film-maker Kitty Green, who outed Sviyatskiy as the master-mind behind FEMEN.

To sum up:

  • An American female academic calls attention to the group in 2009, only a year after its official founding.
  • Around the same time an American newspaper publisher and libertarian promotes and funds the group. He stops funding FEMEN only in 2011, because it is offending too many people.
  • Two Germans from the same town in Germany back the group. One is  a multi-millionaire corporate senior manager now in the tourism business, who has  a clientele that includes the World Health Organization. The other is a famous disc jockey. The business-woman later says she thinks they are not really feminists.
  • France quickly makes one of the lead activists its national heroine and gives her residence on the spot, to save her from the investigations of the Ukrainian police.
  • The founder and master-mind of the group is a mysterious abusive male, who admires the ultra-left environmental group, Greenpeace, and is an expert on media strategy.
  • Everyone denies this man’s involvement and he  has no trail on the net.
  • An Australian film-maker publicizes the group in 2013 and “outs” its mysterious founder, although print accounts of his involvement in FEMEN long precede her outing.

Who killed Kennedy? The Truly Unspeakable…

Posted on by

A brilliant summation of the Kennedy assassination accounts, which shows that both sides of alternative research on the subject – those who finger the CIA, on one hand, and those who finger Johnson, on the other – overlook the crucial evidence showing that Johnson was beholden to the Zionists:

“Johnson’s sympathy for the Jews, whatever its origin, does not constitute evidence of his collusion with Israeli elements in Kennedy’s assassination.

Yet it is an established fact that Johnson had been the Zionists’ choice of Democratic candidate in the primaries. And that was not new. His campaign for a Senate seat in 1948 was masterminded by Abraham Feinberg, the financial godfather of Israel’s atomic bomb.[7]

It is also on record, thanks to Arthur Schlesinger (A Thousand Days, 1965), that it was in fact Philip Graham, publisher of the Washington Post, and his most influential columnist Joseph Alsop, both friends and supporters of Johnson, who convinced Kennedy to take Johnson as his running mate, as soon as it became clear that Kennedy would beat Johnson at the Democratic Convention in Los Angeles.

Schlesinger doesn’t reveal the arguments that convinced Kennedy during his private conversation with Graham and Alsop, and rather censors himself by stating that Kennedy’s final decision “defies historical reconstruction”—a curious statement for an accomplished historian, which can be explained within Schlesinger’s refusal to come to grips with Kennedy’s Middle East policy and his battle with Zionism throughout his 872 pages.

Alan Hart has convincingly filled in the blanks in Schlesinger’s account: both Graham and Alsop were strongly pro-Israel as well as pro-Johnson, and both could exert huge influence on public opinion. So “Kennedy was forced by Israel’s supporters to take Johnson as his vice-presidential running mate.”[8]

Why would the Zionists want Johnson as Vice-President, rather than Senate Majority Leader, a much more efficient position to block anti-Israel legislation? It can only be because they saw the vice-presidency as a step to the presidency. And the sooner, the better, because the Zionists hated Kennedy as much as they loved Johnson.

They hated him because of his father’s alleged support for the Nazis: “there is a question about whether the father did not inject some poisonous drops of anti-Semitism in the minds of his children, including his son John’s”, had wondered publicly Menachem Begin’s party Herut on September 9, 1960.

Mentioning some of Kennedy’s advisers, Herut further asked: “How can the future of Israel be entrusted to these men who might come to power thanks to Jewish votes, strange and paradoxical as this may seem?” The Zionists also feared Kennedy for his pro-Palestinian stances: “his personal feeling of deep sympathy for the Palestinian refugees was a matter of record,” writes Alan Hart.

In 1956, on his way back from a trip to Southeast Asia, he had visited a number of refugee camps, and on his return, had expressed on television his deep sympathy for the “displaced” Palestinian people. In February 1958, he told a Jewish group that the refugee problem “must be resolved through negotiations, resettlement and outside international assistance.”[9]

The question that concerns us here is not: Was Johnson a Zionist mole, besides being a psychopath? The question is: Did Johnson collude with Israeli elements to have Kennedy assassinated? A clue can be found in Ruby’s own words regarding his role in the Dallas coup. Questioned by the Warren Commission, Ruby insisted to be taken to Washington, since, he said, “I am the only one that can bring out the truth to our President.” “If you don’t take me back to Washington tonight to give me a chance to prove to the President that I am not guilty, then you will see the most tragic thing that will ever happen.”

Ruby did not detail this “tragic thing,” but made it clear that it had to do with the fate of the Jewish people: “there will be a certain tragic occurrence happening if you don’t take my testimony and somehow vindicate me so my people don’t suffer because of what I have done.” He feared that his act would be used “to create some falsehood about some of the Jewish faith,” but added that “maybe something can be saved […], if our President, Lyndon Johnson, knew the truth from me.”[xciv]

Ruby seems to have wanted to send a message to Johnson, through the Commission members, a message containing a warning that he may spill the beans about Israel’s involvement if Johnson did not intervene in his favor.

That impression gets reinforced when we compare the respect he shows Johnson, referred to as “our President, who believes in righteousness and justice,” to the accusation he would make in 1967 against that same Johnson, whom he would now call “a Nazi in the worst order” in a handwritten letter.[xcv]

Ruby’s violent resentment suggests a sense of betrayal; perhaps Ruby was hoping that Johnson would get him out of jail, just like, in 1952, Johnson had managed to keep Mac Wallace away from prison despite being found guilty of first degree murder (normally a sure ticket for the death row in Texas).[xcvi]

Im17-Kilgallen

Ruby’s statement to the Warren Commission was leaked to journalist Dorothy Kilgallen and published in the New York Journal American, August 18-20, 1964. Kilgallen also interviewed Jack Ruby and boasted afterwards of being about to “break the real story” and publish “the biggest scoop of the century” in a book titled Murder One. The book was never published: She was found dead by an overdose of barbiturate and alcohol on November 8th, 1965. Her last published line said about the Kennedy assassination: “That story isn’t going to die as long as there’s a real reporter alive, and there are a lot of them alive.”[xcvii]

Surveillance Psychosis Theater

Posted on by

 

Yet another act in the ongoing theater of the International Surveillance State:  “Wikileaks names US cell-phone spy target as Afghanistan, claims Google”(h/t Wenzel@EPJ)

The protagonists are well-known by now:

Wikileaks, Laura Poitras, Glenn Greenwald, Edward Snowden,  and Paul Watson (from Infowars, Alex Jones’ site).

They’ve already established their “street cred” (credibility at the grass-roots) with their activism, so their words are taken at face-value:

Earlier this week, Pierre Omidyar’s national security blog, The Intercept, reported that the US is recording all telephone calls made in and out of the Bahamas and one other unnamed country.

The story, co-bylined by Ryan Devereaux, Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, explained that the Intercept had decided not to name that second “country X” due to the risk of increased violence in response.

As I wrote at the time, this decision prompted a furious response from former allies Wikileaks, which “condemn[ed] Firstlook for following the Washington Post into censoring the mass interception of an entire nation.”

Upping the stakes, Wikileaks also promised to name the redacted country within 72 hours.

Late last night the organization made good on its promise, issuing a statement claiming that “country x” is Afghanistan…

“Country X”! I’m surprised Greenwald didn’t put on a V for Vendetta mask and hiss “Psssst” from the bowels of a seedy bar.

As I’ve written here and here and here and here, and even back in 2005  in “Language of Empire,”  the government has been spying on all our calls and emails, without a warrant for a while now.

Even the mainstream press has reported this a long time ago.

That fearless dissident voice, The New York Times, published the following only a decade ago:

“Bush lets US Spy on Callers Without Courts,” James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, NY Times, December 16, 2005.

Let me call your attention to this line:

While many details about the program remain secret, officials familiar with it say the N.S.A. eavesdrops without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time. The list changes as some names are added and others dropped, so the number monitored in this country may have reached into the thousands since the program began, several officials said.

Except for the suspiciously low number of people the government admits to targeting,  what did this piece really hide?

Here is a leading establishment organ substantiating what activists and immigrants have known since 9-11:

Every call overseas, every email, is subject to government monitoring.

Now, I don’t know what other people take to be monitoring. But, by 2004 many immigrants like me were generally aware that the government was listening to all our calls and emails abroad.  We even joked about it.

It was in 2010, when I was browsing Cryptome’s archives, that I realized that calls and emails directed abroad were also being taped and archived.

That part, I admit, was a shock.

 

 

Vladimir Putin: The NWO’s man in Russia?

Posted on by

UPDATE:

Zahir Ebrahim in the comments questions the figure $75 billion.  Well, I used the term “apparently” because there’s not much concrete to go by, but that is the figure (or $70b) given out by critics.

How credible is it? No way to know for sure, but besides the Gazprom shares, Putin is said to secretly own shares in many other companies:

“While many previously state-owned industries were privatized, Putin allegedly has used his power to build large secret ownership stakes several multi-billion dollar commodity firms. His most vocal critics assert that Putin has leveraged his power to acquire a 4.5% ownership stake in natural gas producer Gazprom, a 37% stake in oil company Surgutneftegas and 50% stake in Swiss oil-trader Gunvor. Gazprom alone does over $150 billion in revenue annually, Guvnor does $80 billion and Surgutneftegas over $20 billion. Using their most recent market capitalizations, Putin’s combined ownership stakes would give him a personal net worth of $70 billion!So what evidence is there of Putin’s secret obscene fortune? Let’s start with the small stuff. Putin is known to sport a $150,000 Patek Philippe watch on most occasions and his total collection has been valued at $700,000. He also has full access to a $40 million ultra-luxury yacht that features a wine cellar, Jacuzzi, helipad and outdoor barbecue area. In terms of living accommodations, Putin has access to 20 mansions throughout the world including a lavish ski lodge and Medieval castle. The crown jewel of his property portfolio is a $1 billion palace overlooking the Black Sea that he allegedly owns through an anonymous trust. Furthermore, Putin makes frequent use of 15 Presidential helicopters and more than 40 private jets, many of which feature gold plated interiors.”

The reports are  based on an interview given by Stanislav Belkovsky to Die Welt, also described here.

Some other related links about Putin’s associations with the oligarchs:

Roman Abramovich once had close and privileged ties to Putin.

Abramovich fell out with one-time associate Berezovsky but stayed friendly with Putin.

Oligarchs like Abramovich, Fridman, and Miller are close to Putin.

The second plundering of Russia, according to Stanislav Belkovsky

More here about Putin’s business dealings.

Corruption alleged by Boris Nemtsov, Deputy PM under Yeltsin and an Opposition leader.

NOTE: I’m going to do another post about Putin because I think I might have swallowed some disinformation put out.  I didn’t realize that the $70-75b. figure only came from that interview, because I saw it repeated by another investigator, but I’m wondering now if there is some disinfo  in all this.

ORIGINAL POST

It’s been interesting to me to see the right regarding President Putin as some kind of Christian hero

Even Bill Lind has joined the chorus.

It’s certainly true that Putin says a lot of things that conservatives want to hear.

He’s outfoxed the Bolsheviks of the US State Dept.

But, as I’ve pointed out before, there’s plenty of  evidence that Putin himself is beholden to the right wing of the New World Order.

One can accept the secession of Crimea as a relatively peaceful process and an understandable reaction to the US’s own belligerent posturing and meddling in the region, but it doesn’t follow that one should then swallow the narrative of Patrick Buchanan that Putin stands for Christianity.

These are deep waters. Nothing is as it seems. Anyone who subscribes to black-and-white narratives can be easily manipulated by the powers-that-be.

A lengthy article on the Russian Orthodox church since the fall of communism argues that the Moscow Church was completely under the Soviets and acted as an agent of the KGB; that the transition to “democracy” in the 1990s was only a transition to criminality and a change in rhetoric not substance; that there is little real orthodoxy left under the Sovietized Orthodox Church; and that simony, occultism, paganism, and ecumenism reign in the present-day Russian church, not traditional belief.

The blog La Russophobe has a list of  what it calls “Putin murders” – assassinations of civil society figures – journalists and activists.

That list would be the Russian equivalent of the Clinton body count.

In India, The Hindustan Times points out that no world leader annoys America’s belligerent leadership more.

But the enemy of my enemy is…sometimes….just another enemy:

The red flags are there to see:

1. Vladimir Putin to revive Soviet Hero of Labor award (Daily Telegraph, Dec 11, 2012)

2. Vladimir Putin compares Lenin to holy Christian relics (Daily Telegraph, Dec 12, 2012)

3.  Vladimir Putin’s net worth

I am going to retract this assessment of Putin’s  net worth. The reason is that the origin of the figure comes from an interview by a Putin biographer, Stanislav Belkovsky, in Die  Welt, who claims Putin has never sued him. The estimate seems to be based on Belkovsky’s book on Putin’s finances and his research as head of a Moscow think-tank. It’s not improbable, given Putin’s career as a close associate of several oligarchs, himself a KGB chief, and allegedly involved in corrupt dealings following the death of Yeltsin, who passed on power to him.

However, I went back to look more closely and came across a retraction by the Economist of one of Belkovsky’s claims, on threat of suit.

($75 billion $40-70b, apparently from shares in companies including his 4.5% shares in Gazprom revenues). That makes him the richest man on earth

[Lila, added  on 4/8): He is said to own shares in several other companies, the total of which at market valuation in 2007 was $40b. I assume the $70-75 is accounted for by the valuation since then, but I didn’t calculate it myself.]

4. Vladimir Putin’s Jewish embrace: Is it love or politics?

QUOTE: “Putin has carefully cultivated relationships with Russia’s many subgroups and regions as a means of projecting his government’s authority.”

QUOTE: “Under Putin, harsh laws have led to a crackdown on ultranationalist groups that once had flourished in Russia.”

QUOTE: “Putin may be good for Jews, but he’s bad for Russia,” said Michael Edelstein, a lecturer at Moscow State University and a journalist for the L’chaim Jewish newspaper.”

QUOTE: “Freedom of expression has been severely restricted and politically motivated prosecutions remain widespread under Putin, according to Amnesty International’s 2013 report on Russia.”

QUOTE: “The preferential treatment of Chabad by Putin’s government “is creating a monolithic Jewish institutional life and preventing grass-roots development, which is the real key for Jewish rejuvenation,” said Michael Oshtrakh, a leader of the Jewish community of Yekaterinburg.”

5. Putin targets foes with zombie guns, which attack victim’s central nervous system

‘Such high-tech weapons systems will be comparable in effect to nuclear weapons, but will be more acceptable in terms of political and military ideology.” (Exactly the same rationale used by the CIA to justify “torture-lite,” radiation weapons, microwave weapons, etc.)

7. Putin is alleged to have been a Royal Arch Mason who trained with MI6, according to The Big Breach, a memoir by a disgruntled MI6 officer, Richard Tomlinson.

The relevant material is summarized at this blog.

8. 9/11 insider job “impossible to conceal” says Vladimir Putin (Russia Today, August 2, 2011)

Why does Putin deny that 9/11 could have been an intelligence coup?

Perhaps, because he himself came to power in just such a KGB/FSB coup and has too many skeletons in his own closet…

Perhaps, because one way to fight the opposition is to lead it….

Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble: Mt. Gox goes poof!

Posted on by

Mt Gox has gone bust.

Ahem.

We’ll take a quick bow (along with Gary North, Robert Wenzel, Bionic Mosquito, and several others).

We Bitcoin-deniers stood our ground in the face of relentless and shameless]pumping, supported by rent-a-libertarians, like the former chief editor of the Daily Reckoning, Joel Bowman and shameless other opportunists

[On rereading this, I think I want  soften my tone, since the anti-BTC’s have been proved by events.[

See the two MBP posts below:

BTC: My Comments at EPJ

Bitcoin: My Comment at EPJ and Block’s Reversal

See also the following anonymous comments at EPJ in December and November 2013:

My comments are anonymous, because I was worried that the elites might attack people who criticized BTC, just as they trashed Assange critics all over the net:

Comments at EPJ on December 3

 

  1. Anonymous (Lila )

  3. Stick with Gary North, Wenzel.

    Better the known devil than the unknown.

    And talking about unknown devils, who is this Paul Rosenberg from Cryptohippie?

    Who owns Cryptohippie?

    Might they have connections to TOR, Wikileaks, Assange, and/or the Internet billionaires (Zuckerberg, Brin, Thiel, Omidyar)? If so, can DARPA be far behind?

    How would we know since Bitcoin is so mysterious……

    In fact, how would we know if Bernanke himself wasn’t moonlighting as an “anti-Fed” bit-coiner?

    Answer is we wouldn’t.

    Also, what reason could there be for the inventor of an invention of this magnitude (purportedly) to coyly refrain from taking any credit or recognition?

    Another question, why does Julian Assange tout it?
    These are the things which must be investigated before anyone other than fools and gamblers will go near this scheme.

    Anonymous (Lila Rajiva)

  4. Maybe they gain something personally from promoting Bitcoins? Credibility with the hacker-anarchist world, for instance. Maybe even money. How do you know?

    It takes a big person to stick to his guns, even when peer pressure might suggest otherwise.

 


 

Comments at EPJ on December 12:

 

  1. Anonymous (Lila)

  2. @anonymous

    I don’t have time to refute step by step.
    Just the obvious points.

    You claim bitcoin allows you to transfer any amount of wealth anywhere in the world almost instantly and almost free.

    Actually, you can already do that with an ACH transfer (upto 10K), wire transfer ($25 for any sum) cash (as much as you can stuff undetected into your suitcase or cash cards. You can also do hawala.

    The limits in all these cases don’t arise from the medium, but from government restriction, which could be enforced much more thoroughly through BTC than by other means.

    Second. Bitcoins aren’t “free.” They require not only a very good computer, but an excellent internet connection, encryption of a very high order not only for the connection but for the hard drive.. and considerable technical knowledge to thwart the net-savvy people who swarm around bitcoin users.

    None of that is free or widely prevalent.

    In most countries, you don’t even have good enough internet.

    Plus, all of it can be snooped on and shut down.
    That is just one objection out of dozens I could raise.

    Reply

 

1.  Nov. 25, 2013 comments at EPJ

 

  1. Anonymous (Lila)

  2. Shame on anyone who is so credulous to believe this is the “free market” at work.
    Shame on anyone who supports this kind of elaborate con played by the very cartels that anarchists are supposedly fighting.

    Bitcoin is a Rothschild-backed intelligence-funded pump-and-dump. The purpose is to destabilize the dollar and provoke demand for a global single currency.

    It is the global elite-backed “controlled opposition,” using spokesmen from the CIA-infiltrated/ hard-money or “libertarian” community. The ones pitching it will make money as the proles rush in.

    It is easily tracked, easily gamed.
    More so than the dollar or gold.

    This massive swell of interest and pumping by all and sundry is a sure sign of intel involvement.

  3. People promoting this might as well have INTEL stamped on their forehead.

  4. Or FRAUD.

 

Anonymous (Lila)

 


 

November 25, 2013 at 5:21 PM

 

@Philip, Anonymous, edward.

 

Intelligence and government are multi-layered, not unitary.

 

The right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing. Sometimes even the left hand doesn’t know. Just a finger or a nail knows.

 

Intelligence might take a while to understand the potential in something their scientists come up with. So it might take a year or two or more. Then they embrace it.

 

The MSM media is brain-washed one way – the obvious mainstream, Keynesian brainwashing.

 

The alternative media, including hard money people, are past the mainstream brainwashing, but they fall for the second-level brainwashing – they fall for Snowden, Assange, Hacktivism, Crypto-currency, Wikileaks, and all such black operations, meant to appeal to gullible, egoistic anti-govt types.

 

There are legions of agencies involved who profile dissent and come up with the red herrings that will be swallowed by the maximum number of fools and opportunists.

 

The economic dissenters trust their hard-money gurus, but that crowd is filled with two-bit cons who will fit their agenda to whatever the intelligence agencies tell them.

 

Please go back and look at when Bitcoin mania started and look at who has promoted it.

 

Be wise as serpents, my friends. Wenzel’s instincts are right. I hope he will not be dazzled by Mayer’s “expertise” and misled into supporting this con game.

 

As for sources. Do some research directly yourself and see what you find.

 

Reply

 

their ‘endgame’ …. .

 

 

Anonymous (Lila)

 

November 26, 2013 at 1:34 PM

 

@Phil McKreviss, EndtheFed,

 

There are a few libertarian (rightist and leftist) blogs where Assange and Snowden have been deconstructed thoroughly. No need to reinvent the wheel here. Let your fingers take a walk and you will see that they are both mouthpieces for the global elites.

 

Some reliable sources you could read: Cottrell, Rappaport, Creighton, Rajiva, Madison…off the top of my head.

 

China – China is a COMMUNIST country, my friends. Goldman Sachs has a big presence there.

 

End-game is control – maximum control over your assets, your money, your movements, your writing, your thoughts – so they can harvest it all for themselves.

 

The elites would be gods…and for that, they need for you to be less than men. They need for you to be little BITS of a machine.

 

Read everything critically, inwardly, not in this trusting fashion.

 

Rest assured, when something shows up on the internet, with this much fanfare, the elites approve.

 

Freedom is hard.

 

It will not come without sacrificing some time, effort and along the way, some favorite delusions and consolations too.

 

Biggest delusion is to believe that there is any quick simple remedy whereby you get to make a ton of money quicker and liberate “the world” too.
All that is Grimms Fairy Tales in a special edition for libertarians.

SAC Case: Should Be About Racketeering, Not Insider-Trading

Posted on by

Previous Mind-Body Politic posts related to Steve Cohen, in reverse chronological order (incomplete):

Rajat Gupta Trial: The other Goldman insider ring, MBP, June 10, 2012

More on Einhorn’s rumour-mongering about Lehman, MBP, April 15, 2010

Third-point, Goldman trading chiefs exist together, Madoff programmers indicted, March 18, 2010

Hedge-funds: top ten earners in 2007-2008, MBP,  January 13, 2010

Steven Cohen: third-biggest owner of Sotheby’s in 2009, MBP, Dec. 30, 2009

Secretive Steve Cohen on talk-show, discussing relationship with ex, MBP,  Dec. 27, 2009

SAC spin-offs fail, even when they succeed, MBP,  Dec. 26,2009

SAC subpoenas former SAC trader Grodin, MBP,  Dec. 25, 2009

Den of Thieves: Hedge-hogs go into SAC remote mode, MBP, Dec. 23., 2009

Sad SAC: Reuters spikes hedge story on complaints from Steven Cohen, MBP.com, December 22, 2009

Ex-Sith lady uses RICO on Sith lord? Mindbodypolitic, December 17, 2009

ORIGINAL POST

In his piece at Deep Capture, “SAC Capital (and Steve Cohen too) should be convicted”, researcher Mark Mitchell is far more sanguine than I am that Preet Bharara really means to go after the chief of the mega-hedge fund SAC,  Steven Cohen, after he puts away  various underlings, like Michael Steinberg and Indian-born Matthew Martoma.

“By fixating on the insider-trading angle in all his cases, Bharara, in my opinion, undermined the whole credibility of his prosecution and opened himself up for charges that he is merely targeting politically-viable low-hanging fruit.

Lila: As I’ve documented thoroughly at this blog, Bharara hasn’t had much credibility in his Wall Street prosecutions for at least a year now, regardless of how successful his other prosecutions might have been in some people’s eyes. I’m glad to see some main-stream voices coming around to my view.

I think I know a little about the Steven Cohen investigation, from my conversations with some of the principals at Deep Capture, where the investigation of Cohen began

Here’s a piece I wrote which they picked up, back in 2009:

Steve Cohen, the anti-Midas (Judd Bagley at Deep Capture):

Here are Lila’s observations on the matter:

1. The high number of SAC traders who seem to have gone off into their own businesses.

You’d think with all that money and the fund’s record as the most consistently successful in the business (only one bad year on record), their traders would stay forever. Quite the opposite.  People seem to have been leaving all the time to form their own businesses.

But SAC was also said to be a very tough environment. You produced, or you left.

So maybe that’s why Lee and Far, Grodin and Goodman, all left to found their own firms?
Could be. But I’m not convinced.

2. None of the spin-off firms seems to have been very successful.

Why not? Why couldn’t these hot-shot traders make money on their own?

The Reuters piece suggests that perhaps the SAC experience didn’t foster business ability. And that perhaps SAC traders flounder without SAC’s huge supporting cast.

But those things are likely to be true of other firms as well, not solely SAC.

Still not convinced.

Furthermore, consider this.

3. A spin-off fund that didn’t get money from Cohen ended up quite successful:

“Healthcor, a healthcare industry focused fund, had raised $3.2 billion by June 2009 since launching four years ago. The fund returned 25 percent in 2006, 18 percent in 2007, and was up 4 percent last year, when the average hedge fund lost 19 percent. In the first 10 months of 2009, Healthcor was up 7 percent.

Healthcor, founded by Arthur Cohen and Joseph Healey, opened without any financial support from SAC. In fact, soon after Cohen and Healey struck out on their own, SAC sued the pair, accusing them of breaching their employment contracts. The matter ultimately was settled. (Healthcor’s Cohen is not related to SAC’s Cohen).”

4. Even spin-offs that were doing well were shut down.

When Stratix started in 2004, it had $60 million given to it by SAC. When it shut down, in 2007, it was up 17% and had $530 million under management. Yet it shut down. Why did it shut down? Those numbers sound pretty good.

Another spin-off, Fontana Capital, started out in 2005 with $50 million of SAC money. It grew to $325 million by 2006.  But sometime in 2007, Cohen pulled out all his money. And in 2009, Fontana was down to $16.1 million, despite being down only 7.69%, compared to the average S&P Financial index loss of 57%. Again, that sounds like it wasn’t doing all that bad.

Reuters quotes someone familiar with the record of ex-SAC traders:

“So many of the ex-SAC people seem to have this model where they attract you with fantastic returns in the first year but in year two or three or four you get annihilated,” said a person who is familiar with several former SAC employees’ records.

Shades of Bernie Madoff….

Someone need to look closely at what happened to the money at these firms…

Lila:

Unlike some, I don’t think the fact that Bharara has an agenda means that Martoma is necessarily innocent, either.

I just think that even guilty as charged, Martoma is small fry.

He’s Cohen’s employee and by every account I’ve read, Cohen kept notoriously tight control of his business and tolerated no dissent.

He was not the kind of hands-off employer who can plead ignorance after the fact, even though that’s just what he did.

So Martoma might be guilty as heck, but it’s beside the point.

Insider-trading, outside the  issue of racketeering, is an irrelevant and minor side-show.

Insider-trading as part of systemic racketeering is another thing.

But Bharara hasn’t shown that, nor does he even look like he’s trying to show that.

He looks like he’s polishing his resume for a move into politics.

Anyway, here’s Mark Mitchell at Deep Capture:

Deep Capture: SAC Capital (and Steve Cohen too) should be convicted….

“During the trial of Martoma, DOJ prosecutors confirmed that SAC Capital traded on inside information provided by a doctor at the University of Michigan, which was all well and good, but as I documented in my book, SAC Capital not only traded on inside information from another University of Michigan doctor, but also profited from short selling Dendreon’s stock after multiple doctors (some of whom had demonstrably corrupt relationships with Milken) conspired to undermine Dendreon’s treatment by convincing the FDA (also corrupted by Milken and his associates) to delay approval of the treatment (which had been proven effective).

Some journalists and their Wall Street sources have argued that insider trading is an essentially harmless offense and that SAC Capital deserves leniency, but their arguments obscure the fact that SAC Capital’s insider trading has involved the wholesale corruption of the FDA and some of the nation’s most prominent doctors, all of whom have (as my book documents in detail) shown themselves more than willing not only to provide Steve Cohen and his associates, including Milken, with inside information, but also to undermine pharmaceutical companies with effective treatments while promoting companies (i.e. companies that are financed by Milken and his associates) whose treatments are actually killing people.”

Lila: Exactly. But then, in that context, Matthew Martoma is actually the lesser offender.

He was after all a portfolio manager, a trader. His employment depended on his getting an edge.

When he stopped getting that edge (illegal, as it turned out), he was fired.  Since Martoma has been attested to be very knowledgeable in his field by the doctors with whom he interacted, it follows that his competitors in the field must also have been getting their “edge” in the same way.

Industry-wide corruption of that kind isn’t best addressed by throwing the book at some representative pawn/small fish in the game.  That only makes the prosecutors’ office look biased or politically motivated.

Which it usually is.

If the nation’s top doctors were engaged in corrupt activities, why aren’t some of them being prosecuted before Martoma?

And, if Steven (don’t call me Stevie) Cohen is a racketeer, prove that.

Then give yourself a gold medal. Not before.

Note: See John Cassidy’s piece at the New Yorker, “Has Steven A. Cohen bought off the US Government?” November, 4, 2013

Birth-Control Fatwas & Oops Factors

Posted on by

denver colorado skyline

Zahir Ebrahim, author of The Poor Man’s Guide to Modernity, brings up a problem in the comment section to my previous post.

I reproduce it here as a separate post, because it’s something that has stumped me, as well.

Briefly: How to get in front of false-flags, red herrings, and black ops before they unfold, or, at least, how to derail them after they’ve begun?

How indeed.

Bloggers and activists who write as things unfold are quietly censored through Internet filtering and monitoring, (eg. Google). and content manipulation (eg. Wikipedia).

Or, we are dismissed as “conspiracy theorists” by the mandarins of the mainstream media, because we cannot reach into our pockets and come up at once with documents in triplicate with signed confessions from the Mossad and CIA to prove our claims.

Of course, some forty years hence, some appointed mouthpiece will, at tax-payer expense,  force open the requisite dusty archive where half-redacted memos, still greasy with guilt, will give the game away.

Masks will briefly slip from Olympian profiles, but until then…..

….even if activists do get heard, the media prince-lings who deign to respond, choose their place and time in ways that leave us bloodied and the issues even more bedraggled.

During the ruckus that ensues, the false-flag or black operation unfolds with the panache of an Augustan comedy….except that to those of us in the peanut-gallery it is tragedy.

That is how, as Zahir Ebrahim writes, no less than the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran fell victim to the Malthusian disinformation of the banking cartel:

“Iran under Ayatollah Khomeini introduced Birth Control through a fatwa (I haven’t seen the fatwa myself, only read or heard about it), as the population of Iran had almost doubled from the time of the Shah by the time of this fatwa in the late 1980s.

Well in the 2000s (I do not recall the year), the successor Ayatollah had to issue a new Fatwa encouraging families to have more children and not less children.

According to the understanding given to me on this topic, the first fatwa on birth-control had been issued because of the fears of over-population and Iran not being able to feed itself under the Malthusian construct.

(Not obvious how this fear was implanted in Iran under the Ayatollah, for he was always most wary of the Western agenda. But then again, he also fell victim to it in uncontrollably waging the eight-year war against Iraq — a war that was foisted by the West upon both the peoples of Iran and Iraq equally, and not just Iran alone ,which the people of Iran always tend to forget.)

Anyway, After the birth rate among the Shia Muslims declined drastically, while the minority Sunni Muslims (aprox. 20% of Iranians) had ignored the fatwa and had concentrated on having more and more children (Sunni Muslims do not accept Fatwas from Shia theologians, and vice versa), the demographics of Iran suddenly started to change. T

The Sunni strategy, I imagine both intellectually and financially supported from somewhere, was to come to key positions of power in Iran through the change in demographic. All legal, nothing subversive about it. In fact, it is the method that Palestinians have been employing to overwhelm their Israeli conquerors these past six decades. A most effective strategy!

This strategy, and the declining birth-rate among the middle class in the Shia households, woke up the Iranian government to the folly of the previous “ill-conceived” and “flawed” fatwa.

Now the impetus in Iran is to encourage more children — but not unsurprisingly, the next generation of the middle class and upper middle class, those whose parents or themselves grew up under the directive of the first fatwa, don’t seem to be energetically inclined towards having more children. Career paths dominate in Iran as much as they do in the West. A more detailed study of this is of course necessary. This is just the anecdotal version.

What this shows me however, is that “oops” cannot always be avoided — we are all human. But surely, as you put it: “that the ultimate source of such laws is an ideology crafted with MALEVOLENT intent by the foundation-funded think-tanks and research institutes.” can always be recognized and interdicted. No?

Provided of course that the government machinery, its media, and its intellectuals, are not already co-opted into either silence, acquiescence, or actually putting down their signatures to their own enslavement.

This is the real problem facing both India, Pakistan, and South East Asia. How to overcome our “asininity” which continually leads us to “oops” ex post facto?

Google’s “Hummingbird”: IP Theft & Mind-Control

Posted on by

Google’s new search algorithm Hummingbird adds to the company’s sinister reputation among privacy advocates.

Google’s creepy Google Glass didn’t help it either.

Now comes Hummingbird, the biggest algorithm change in the search engine in twelve years.

“Hummingbird should better focus on the meaning behind the words,” Sullivan reports. “It may better understand the actual location of your home, if you’ve shared that with Google. It might understand that ‘place’ means you want a brick-and-mortar store. It might get that ‘iPhone 5s’ is a particular type of electronic device carried by certain stores. Knowing all these meanings may help Google go beyond just finding pages with matching words.”

(“Hummingbird is Google’s biggest algorithm change in 12 years,” WebProNews,  Sept. 28, 2013)

Simply put, Hummingbird is about Google trying to find the holistic meaning behind the individual words of a search-string (the query or series of words you input into the search function),  or, in the case of websites, the overall intent behind the key-words most used.

Bottom-line: Google is trying to figure out what’s going on in your mind when you type out certain words.

That is terribly similar to an area of research dear to the defense and spy agencies – predictive software and technology.

For instance,  DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) is very interested in developing the cognitive footprints of users for identification purposes.

The goal is to bypass the need for passwords, which tend to be cumbersome for users and vulnerable to password-cracking, phishing, social-engineering, memory failures, and hardware theft.

“Software biometric modalities” are to be used to develop what it terms Active Authentication.

Anyone can see how useful the new Hummingbird algorithm would be to DARPA.

Indeed, given Google’s prior collaboration with the CIA in the monitoring of social media, it wouldn’t be surprising if Hummingbird has also come out of a joint project with the government.

The defense agencies come up with the technology to figure out what random “bad guys” are up to. Google monetizes it and returns the favor by data-sharing with the government.

The consumer might have his every need…indeed wish…met, but web-users are now going to find that Google’s “free lunch:” is not only not free, it’s not remotely cheap.

And web users are the ones footing the bill.

Here’s how.

“Google Hummingbird: Where no search has gone before,” Jeremy Hull, iProspect, Wired, October 15, 2013

“Google has updated its search algorithm many times over the past few years, but previous updates were focused on making Google better at gathering information — for example, indexing websites more often and identifying spammy content. Hummingbird is focused on the user. It’s about Google getting better at understanding what searchers really want and providing them with better answers.”

That’s Google’s stated objective, of course. But how about websites?

When you search Google for answers to questions, what website owners want is for you to go to their site to get the information.

This is not only because they might hope to sell you something and thereby earn a living.

It’s also because they hope that by giving you good information not available in the mainstream media,  they might attract you to their site and persuade you on other issues.

By offering free information, web writers hope you will find them reliable, credible, or interesting and become committed readers. That’s why millions of writers and websites, spend inordinate amounts of energy and time finding answers and giving them away to others for free.

Of course, ethics and decency demand that readers who benefit from that information cite the place they found it and give the author credit.

Not Hummingbird.

It harvests information from the net and puts it on Information cards that pop up in answer to searches.

Now, if the information is immediately given to the reader by Google, why will they visit the websites from which Google might have culled the answer?

They won’t.  That means that Google is not only stealing the private data of its users through Gmail, Google Earth, and a bunch of other programs, it’s also stealing from the websites it’s supposed to be helping.

But “Hummingbird” is not just unfriendly to websites offering information to the public, it acts to control what information is presented to you and how.

Hummingbird’s graphic is an easy way for Google to give you what Google (and very likely, the government) want you to know, rather than what you might learn if you delved into your search results yourself.

The new graphic could even give you downright misleading or inaccurate information. Just think about Snopes, the ostensibly myth-busting site that somehow manages to bust myths only in left-liberal ways.

So, Hummingbird is not only using your personal information for Google’s own commercial (and the government’s surveillance) purposes, it’s using information from blogs/websites, without their permission, for its own operations.

That’s two counts of IP theft.

Then, the whole business of trying to determine exactly what you’re thinking when you type certain things into the search function sounds awfully like mind-reading to me. In order to do that kind of mind-reading, all sorts of personal information from your web usage (even more than Google has been collecting so far) has to be collated and compared. Mapped, if you will.

That’s two counts of privacy invasion.

Finally, by manipulating access to the knowledge available on the Internet, under the guise of consumer satisfaction, by giving you pre-packaged answers before it gives you your search results, Google is actually  trying to control your thinking.

That’s one count of mind-control.

Is it any surprise that the new algorithm shares its name with DARPA’s nano flying robot/drone Hummingbird, which beats its wings like a bird?.

DARPA’s Hummingbird is a spy drone:

“The drone, built by AeroVironment with funding from DARPA, is able to fly forwards, backwards, and sideways, as well as rotate clockwise and counterclockwise. Not only does the ‘bot resemble its avian inspiration in size (it’s only slightly larger than a hummingbird, with a 6.5-inch wingspan and a weight of 19 grams), it also looks impressively like a hummingbird in flight.

But that’s not vanity — it’s key to the drone’s use as a spy device, as it can perch near its subject without alerting it.”

Google’s Hummingbird seems no less innocuous and no less insidious.

It’s more evil-doing from the Franken-SearchEngine that routinely spies for the NSA and CIA and systematically  commits Intellectual Property theft.

Read more at Entrepreneur .com