Thursday, October 31, 2019

What we still don't know about Seth Rich

ORIGINAL LINK

The known facts of Seth Rich's murder were more or less established within hours by the local media.

"A 27-year-old man who worked for the Democratic National Committee was shot and killed as he walked home early Sunday in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Northwest Washington, D.C.," NBC Washington reported.

The shooting occurred after 4 a.m. on Sunday, July 10, 2016. Rich had been talking to his girlfriend on the phone before the shooting.

"There had been a struggle," said Seth's mother, Mary Rich. "His hands were bruised, his knees are bruised, his face is bruised, and yet he had two shots to his back, and yet they never took anything." She added, "They took his life for literally no reason."

Killers always have a reason. In the case of this young DNC programmer, the media did not want to know what that reason was.

Twelve days after Rich's death, WikiLeaks began releasing emails swiped from the DNC. Although mainstream journalists did their best to deny Rich was involved with those emails, WikiLeaks honcho Julian Assange kept making suppression difficult.

Four weeks after the shooting, Assange said on Dutch TV, "Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks. There's a 27-year-old, works for the DNC, was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington."

When the show host insisted it was a robbery, Assange corrected him, adding, "I'm suggesting that our sources take risks."

One insider who took Assange seriously was former DNC head Donna Brazile. In her 2017 book "Hacks," Brazile tells how Assange "dropped his smirk" when talking about the risks his sources took.

Rich's murder obsessed Brazile. "All I could think about was Seth Rich," she writes. She wonders whether Rich had been killed by "someone who had it out for Democrats" or whether the Russians had "played some part in his unsolved murder."

Another possibility Brazile considers is whether Rich "was murdered for being white on the wrong side of town." She mentions Rich on a dozen different occasions and dedicates the book to him.

In fact, Rich was not on the wrong side of town when killed. He was in a neighborhood where an average home price is about a million dollars. If he were providing Assange data, the Russians had no reason to kill him; and if someone "had it out for Democrats," there were a lot fatter targets than Rich.

The media, however, refused to investigate a case that alarmed even a DNC insider like Brazile because no likely result had useful political value, including Brazile's "being white" theory.

"What seems painfully obvious to his family is that Seth Rich was, instead, the victim of a botched holdup," the Washington Post insisted six months after the shooting. Yet, of course, the "robbers" took nothing.

The Metropolitan Police were still refusing to show a grainy video of the two assailants or to share Rich's comments in the two hours he lived after the shooting. As to why it took Rich nearly three hours for him to walk the 30 or so minutes from a local bar remains anyone's guess.

The police attributed their silence to fear of compromising "an ongoing investigation," but the Post editors had no excuse for failing to probe what the reporter called the "curiosities" of this case.

As an optimistic New York Times would admit in 2017, investigating Rich's death would provide "an alternative narrative to the cascade of damaging revelations about the Trump administration's ties to Russian officials who meddled in the presidential election." With the cascade selling newspapers, the Times was not about to get in the way.

Unlike the media, Robert Mueller thought Seth Rich worth discussing. The Mueller report quoted Assange at length about his insinuation that Rich was a source.

"According to media reports," Mueller's people wrote, "Assange told a U.S. congressman that the DNC hack was an 'inside job,' and purported to have 'physical proof' that Russians did not give materials to Assange."

Given his importance to the investigation, Mueller's crew should have interviewed Assange first. They did not interview him at all. Can't let that "alternative theory" go bouncing around when the fake ones do just fine.

wnd-donation-graphic-2-2019

The post What we still don't know about Seth Rich appeared first on WND.



via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

Yes, Virginia, There Is A Deep State And It's Feeding The Anti-POTUS Mob



The prepared statement of the latest UkraineGate whistle-blower is well worth the read. It tells you all you need to know about why the Deep State apparatchiks are coming out of the woodwork in a massive assault on America's duly elected president.

ORIGINAL LINK

The Militarization Of Everything



When Americans think of militarism, they may imagine jackbooted soldiers goose-stepping through the streets as flag-waving crowds exult; or, like our president, they may think of enormous parades featuring troops and missiles and tanks, with warplanes soaring overhead.

ORIGINAL LINK

A Conflicted Kimbal Musk Was Facing SolarCity Margin Calls Before Tesla's Bailout, Deposition Shows



More and more details to Tesla's bailout of SolarCity are becoming clear. And the more details we get, the uglier things look. 

ORIGINAL LINK

What In The World Is The Federal Reserve Thinking???

ORIGINAL LINK

What-Is-The-Federal-Reserve-Doing-Public

You don’t use up all of your ammunition before the battle even begins. The U.S. economy has not even officially entered recession territory yet, although many experts are definitely anticipating one in 2020. When that recession arrives, the Federal Reserve is going to want as much ammunition to fight it as possible. So I was […]

The post What In The World Is The Federal Reserve Thinking??? appeared first on The Most Important News.



via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

Wednesday, October 30, 2019

Freedom Of Thought Is Under Attack... Here's How To Save Your Mind

ORIGINAL LINK
Freedom Of Thought Is Under Attack... Here's How To Save Your Mind

Authored by Simon McCarthy-Jones via TheConversation.com,

Freedom of thought stands at a critical crossroads. Technological and psychological advances could be used to promote free thought. They could shield our inner worlds, reduce our mental biases, and create new spaces for thought. Yet states and corporations are forging these advances into weapons that restrict what we think.

To lose freedom of thought would be to lose something uniquely human. We share our basic emotions with animals. But only we can step back and ask “do I want to be angry?”, “do I want to be that person?”, “couldn’t I be better?”.

We can reflect whether the thoughts, feelings and desires that bubble up within us are consistent with our own goals, values and ideals. If we agree they are, then this makes them more truly our own. We can then act authentically.

But we may also conclude that some thoughts that pop into our heads are a force other than our own. You sit down to do your work and “Check Facebook!” flashes through your mind. Did that thought come from you or from Mark Zuckerberg?

Freedom of thought demands dignity, enables democracy, and is part of what makes us a person. To safeguard it, we must first recognise its enemies.

Was that thought yours? Or Mark Zuckerberg’s?

 Frederic Legrand - COMEO/Shutterstock

Three threats to freedom of thought

The first threat comes from advances in psychology. Research has created new understandings of what influences our thoughts, behaviours, and decision making.

States and corporations use this knowledge to make us think and act in a way that serves their goals. These may differ to ours. They use this knowledge to make us gamble morebuy more, and spend more time on social media. It may even be used to swing elections.

The second threat comes from the application of machine learning algorithms to “big data”. When we provide data to companies we allow them to see deep inside us. This makes us more vulnerable to manipulation, and when we realise our privacy is being compromised, this chills our ability to think freely.

The third threat comes from a growing ability to decode our thoughts from our brain activity. FacebookMicrosoft, and Neuralink are developing brain-computer interfaces. This could create machines that will read our thoughts. But creating unprecedented access to our thoughts creates unprecedented threats to our freedom.

These advances in technology and psychology are opening the doors for states and corporations to violate, manipulate, and punish our thoughts. So, what can we do about it?

The law can save us

International human rights law gives the right to freedom of thought. Yet, this right has been almost completely neglected. It is hardly ever invoked in the courtroom. We need to work out what we want this right to mean so we can use it to protect ourselves.

We should use it to defend mental privacy. Otherwise conformity pressures will impede our free play of ideas and search for truth. We should use it to prevent our thoughts being manipulated, either through psychological tricks or through threatened punishment.

And we should use it to protect thought in all of its forms. Thought isn’t just what happens in our heads. Sometimes we think by writing or by doing a Google search. If we recognise these activities as “thought” then they should qualify for absolute privacy under the right to freedom of thought.

Finally, we should use this right to demand that governments create societies that allow us to think freely. This is where psychology can help.

We need to learn about how our minds work from an early age.

 Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock

Preventing manipulation

Better understanding our minds can help protect us from manipulation by others. For example, the psychologist Daniel Kahneman distinguishes between what we could call “rule-of-thumb” and “rule-of-reason” thinking.

Rule-of-thumb thinking involves effortless and ancient mental processes that allow us to make quick decisions. The price of this speed can be mistakes. In contrast, rule-of-reason thinking is a slow, consciously controlled process, often based in language. It takes longer, but can be more accurate.

This suggests that creating speed bumps in our thinking could help improve decision making. Clicking unthinkingly on content or adverts from corporations doesn’t allow us to exercise freedom of thought. We do not have time to work out if our desires are our own or those of a puppet master.

We must also change our environment into one that supports autonomy. Such an environment would allow us to create our own reasons for our actions, minimise external controls like rewards and punishments, and encourage choice, participation and shared decision making.

Technology can help create such an environment. But whose responsibility is it to implement this?

Taking action

Governments must help citizens learn from a young age about how the mind works. They must structure society to facilitate free thought. And they have a duty to stop those, including corporations, who would violate the right to freedom of thought.

Corporations must play their part. They should state freedom of thought as a policy commitment. They should perform due diligence on how their activities may harm freedom of thought. They could be required to declare the psychological tricks they are using to try and shape our behaviour.

And we the people must educate ourselves. We must promote and support free-thought values. We must condemn those turning one of our species’ greatest strengths, our sociality, into one of our greatest weaknesses by using it as a means of data extraction. We must vote with our feet and wallets against those who violate our freedom of thought.

All this assumes that we want freedom of thought. But do we? Many of us would literally rather electrocute ourselves than sit quietly with our thoughts.

Would many of us also prefer governments and corporations do our thinking for us, serving up predictions and nudges for us to simply follow? Would many of us be happy for freedom of thought to be limited if it led to increased security? How much do we want freedom of thought and what are we prepared to sacrifice for it?

Simply put, do we still want to be human? Or has the pain, effort and responsibility of one of our signature abilities, free thought, become too much for us to bear? If it has, it is neither clear what will become of us nor clear what we will become.

Tyler Durden Wed, 10/30/2019 - 21:10

via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

Max Blumenthal Arrest Exposes Hypocrisy of Western Media and ‘Human Rights’ NGOs



Grayzone (10/28/19) reported that its editor, Max Blumenthal, had been arrested on “fabricated charge related to the siege of the Venezuelan embassy in Washington, DC.

ORIGINAL LINK

Judicial Nominees should only meet with ABA investigators if a court reporter is present

ORIGINAL LINK

President Trump nominated Lawrence VanDyke to the Ninth Circuit. (Disclosure: I worked with VanDyke on a few cases during his tenure as Nevada Solicitor General.) On the eve of his confirmation hearing, the American Bar Association gave him a "Not Qualified" rating. Among other claims, the letter stated:

Some interviewees raised concerns about whether Mr. VanDyke would be fair to persons who are gay, lesbian, or otherwise part of the LGBTQ community. Mr. VanDyke would not say affirmatively that he would be fair to any litigant before him, notably members of the LGBTQ community.

I have watched many confirmation hearings. Often a nominee is asked if he or she would be fair to a particular group. The nominee invariably replies, "I will be fair to everyone." It would be improper for a judge to single out any group for a particular treatment.

When I first read the letter, I simply assumed the ABA asked VanDyke the same question: would he be fair to people in the LGBT community? And VanDyke replied that he would be fair to everyone. But that is not what the ABA reported. Instead, the letter parsed a very lawyerly statement that is, at best, misleading. That is, VanDyke "would not say affirmatively" that he would be fair to people in the LGTB community. Would any reasonable person actually think that VanDyke said he would not be fair to LGBT people? Of course not. The "not say affirmatively" line is designed to give a false impression.

During his confirmation hearing, VanDyke emphatically rejected the insinuation in the letter. Please watch the clip. He struggles to hold back his tears:

Lawrence VanDyke brought to tears because of the shameful and false accusation by the @ABAesq that he holds animus toward the LGBT community. Thank you to @SenHawleyPress for highlighting this injustice. The ABA has lost all credibility for trying to destroy this good man's life. pic.twitter.com/4ARyHvw3Zu

— Gregory T. Angelo (@gregorytangelo) October 30, 2019

I agree with my colleague Chris Walker. The ABA should withdraw this letter immediately. The organization should be embarrassed that this smear was even released.

As a member of @ABAesq and chair-elect of one of its sections, I urge the ABA to withdraw this letter and rating and pledge to improve its process of evaluating judicial nominees to ensure the process is fair and impartial. https://t.co/3maDSS7Cza

— Chris Walker (@chris_j_walker) October 30, 2019

This letter demonstrates, unfortunately, that the ABA cannot be trusted to accurately recount the conversations that transpired. Going forward these interrogations should be treated as hostile depositions. A court reporter and videographer should be present, as well as private retained counsel to push back on unfounded accusations.

Nominees, of course, could refuse to meet with the ABA. But if a not-qualified rating is given, I think it would be far more effective to put these investigations on YouTube so that the world can see how they transpire. This process should no longer be a Black Box. Shine some light on the process.



via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

For The Second Consecutive Quarter, This Is What Americans Spent The Most Money On



As we reported earlier, Q3 GDP printed far stronger than expected, with US households going on an all-out spending spree and at 1.93%, or contributing 100% of the bottom line 1.93% GDP print, personal consumption soared an annualized 2.9%, far stronger than expected.

ORIGINAL LINK

Is the Deep State Behind the Impeachment?



OFF THE COAST OF CORNWALL – We didn’t like the look of it. The wind was howling. The sea was stirred up, battering the docks. And we get seasick just watching an olive in a martini. But it was too late to change our minds. We had our van packed. Passage had been booked weeks in advance.

ORIGINAL LINK

Is Everyone Cooking Meth Now? The Inexplicable Spike In RV Spending

ORIGINAL LINK

So for two consecutive quarters, US GDP only beat declining expectations because American consumers inexplicably surged to buy RVs? Is everyone cooking meth now?

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/Q3%20GDP%20RVs.jpg?itok=2zWbC6BR

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/second-consecutive-quarter-what-americans-spent-most-money

 

 



via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

Medical examiner: Epstein's autopsy looks more like 'homicidal strangulation' than suicide

ORIGINAL LINK

A top forensic pathologist and former New York City medical examiner is disputing the official cause of death of billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, who was found hanged in his jail cell in August.

Dr. Michael Baden, who observed Epstein's autopsy, said that based upon his examination of the evidence to date, the findings are "extremely unusual in suicidal hangings and could occur much more commonly in homicidal strangulation." Epstein's death has been officially ruled a suicide.

Baden made his revelation Wednesday on Fox News' "Fox & Friends."

Epstein was in prison at the time of his death while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges involving underage girls.

Baden said the disgraced billionaire had two fractures on the left and right sides of his larynx and one on the left side of his neck above the Adam’s apple.

“Those three fractures are extremely unusual in suicidal hangings and could occur much more commonly in homicidal strangulation,” Baden said.

Although that finding was not conclusive, it is rare, he said.

“I’ve not seen in 50 years where that occurred in a suicidal hanging case,” Baden, who is 85, said.

Epstein’s eyes showed traces of hemorrhages that are more common in homicidal strangulation than in suicidal hangings, he said.

“The prominent hemorrhage in the soft tissues of the neck next to the fractures is evidence of a fresh neck compression that could have caused the death,” Baden said.

He said the initial ruling of suicide “could have been a mistake. There's evidence here of homicide that should be investigated, to see if it is or isn’t homicide.”

Baden stressed his independent study was not complete. “The investigation is not completed until all the information has come in,” he said, adding, "It's not a typical hanging case.”

One piece of evidence to which Baden pointed was the sheet found around Epstein's neck that was used as a ligature to cut off Epstein's ability to breathe.

“Whoever it is would have their DNA all over the ligature. We don’t have those results yet,” he added, saying results “should be reported quickly to give an idea and lessen the speculation.”

Baden said the conditions of the jail where Epstein was held mean anything could have happened.

“It was determined that the two guards who were supposed to be working in that area of the prison had allegedly fallen asleep and hadn’t made their 30-minute rounds for more than three hours,” he said.

Famed pathologist Michael Baden says Jeffrey Epstein's death was homicide https://t.co/ze0UYT2q41 pic.twitter.com/zCRzoAR8fU

— New York Post (@nypost) October 30, 2019

Baden said he was hired by Mark Epstein, the billionaire's brother, to look into Jeffrey Epstein's death.

Mark Epstein "is concerned that if he was murdered, then other people who have information might be at risk,” Baden said. “If they think he has information, his life could be in jeopardy.”

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Medical examiner: Epstein's autopsy looks more like 'homicidal strangulation' than suicide appeared first on WND.



via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

Tuesday, October 29, 2019

They Live, We Sleep: Beware the Growing Evil in Our Midst

ORIGINAL LINK

Guest Post by John W. Whitehead

“You see them on the street. You watch them on TV. You might even vote for one this fall. You think they’re people just like you. You’re wrong. Dead wrong.” — They Live

We’re living in two worlds, you and I.

There’s the world we see (or are made to see) and then there’s the one we sense (and occasionally catch a glimpse of), the latter of which is a far cry from the propaganda-driven reality manufactured by the government and its corporate sponsors, including the media.

Indeed, what most Americans perceive as life in America—privileged, progressive and free—is a far cry from reality, where economic inequality is growing, real agendas and real power are buried beneath layers of Orwellian doublespeak and corporate obfuscation, and “freedom,” such that it is, is meted out in small, legalistic doses by militarized police armed to the teeth.

All is not as it seems.

This is the premise of John Carpenter’s film They Live, which was released more than 30 years ago, and remains unnervingly, chillingly appropriate for our modern age.

Best known for his horror film Halloween, which assumes that there is a form of evil so dark that it can’t be killed, Carpenter’s larger body of work is infused with a strong anti-authoritarian, anti-establishment, laconic bent that speaks to the filmmaker’s concerns about the unraveling of our society, particularly our government.

Time and again, Carpenter portrays the government working against its own citizens, a populace out of touch with reality, technology run amok, and a future more horrific than any horror film.

In Escape from New York, Carpenter presents fascism as the future of America.

In The Thing, a remake of the 1951 sci-fi classic of the same name, Carpenter presupposes that increasingly we are all becoming dehumanized.

In Christine, the film adaptation of Stephen King’s novel about a demon-possessed car, technology exhibits a will and consciousness of its own and goes on a murderous rampage.

In In the Mouth of Madness, Carpenter notes that evil grows when people lose “the ability to know the difference between reality and fantasy.”

And then there is Carpenter’s They Live, in which two migrant workers discover that the world is not as it seems. In fact, the population is actually being controlled and exploited by aliens working in partnership with an oligarchic elite. All the while, the populace—blissfully unaware of the real agenda at work in their lives—has been lulled into complacency, indoctrinated into compliance, bombarded with media distractions, and hypnotized by subliminal messages beamed out of television and various electronic devices, billboards and the like.

It is only when homeless drifter John Nada (played to the hilt by the late Roddy Piper) discovers a pair of doctored sunglasses—Hoffman lenses—that Nada sees what lies beneath the elite’s fabricated reality: control and bondage.

When viewed through the lens of truth, the elite, who appear human until stripped of their disguises, are shown to be monsters who have enslaved the citizenry in order to prey on them.

Likewise, billboards blare out hidden, authoritative messages: a bikini-clad woman in one ad is actually ordering viewers to “MARRY AND REPRODUCE.” Magazine racks scream “CONSUME” and “OBEY.” A wad of dollar bills in a vendor’s hand proclaims, “THIS IS YOUR GOD.”

When viewed through Nada’s Hoffman lenses, some of the other hidden messages being drummed into the people’s subconscious include: NO INDEPENDENT THOUGHT, CONFORM, SUBMIT, STAY ASLEEP, BUY, WATCH TV, NO IMAGINATION, and DO NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY.

This indoctrination campaign engineered by the elite in They Live is painfully familiar to anyone who has studied the decline of American culture.

A citizenry that does not think for themselves, obeys without question, is submissive, does not challenge authority, does not think outside the box, and is content to sit back and be entertained is a citizenry that can be easily controlled.

In this way, the subtle message of They Live provides an apt analogy of our own distorted vision of life in the American police state, what philosopher Slavoj Žižek refers to as dictatorship in democracy, “the invisible order which sustains your apparent freedom.”

We’re being fed a series of carefully contrived fictions that bear no resemblance to reality.

The powers-that-be want us to feel threatened by forces beyond our control (terrorists, shooters, bombers).

They want us afraid and dependent on the government and its militarized armies for our safety and well-being.

They want us distrustful of each other, divided by our prejudices, and at each other’s throats.

Most of all, they want us to continue to march in lockstep with their dictates.

Tune out the government’s attempts to distract, divert and befuddle us and tune into what’s really going on in this country, and you’ll run headlong into an unmistakable, unpalatable truth: the moneyed elite who rule us view us as expendable resources to be used, abused and discarded.

In fact, a study conducted by Princeton and Northwestern University concluded that the U.S. government does not represent the majority of American citizens. Instead, the study found that the government is ruled by the rich and powerful, or the so-called “economic elite.” Moreover, the researchers concluded that policies enacted by this governmental elite nearly always favor special interests and lobbying groups.

In other words, we are being ruled by an oligarchy disguised as a democracy, and arguably on our way towards fascism—a form of government where private corporate interests rule, money calls the shots, and the people are seen as mere subjects to be controlled.

Not only do you have to be rich—or beholden to the rich—to get elected these days, but getting elected is also a surefire way to get rich. As CBS News reports, “Once in office, members of Congress enjoy access to connections and information they can use to increase their wealth, in ways that are unparalleled in the private sector. And once politicians leave office, their connections allow them to profit even further.”

In denouncing this blatant corruption of America’s political system, former president Jimmy Carter blasted the process of getting elected—to the White House, governor’s mansion, Congress or state legislatures—as “unlimited political bribery… a subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election is over.”

Rest assured that when and if fascism finally takes hold in America, the basic forms of government will remain: Fascism will appear to be friendly. The legislators will be in session. There will be elections, and the news media will continue to cover the entertainment and political trivia. Consent of the governed, however, will no longer apply. Actual control will have finally passed to the oligarchic elite controlling the government behind the scenes.

Sound familiar?

Clearly, we are now ruled by an oligarchic elite of governmental and corporate interests.

We have moved into “corporatism” (favored by Benito Mussolini), which is a halfway point on the road to full-blown fascism.

Corporatism is where the few moneyed interests—not elected by the citizenry—rule over the many. In this way, it is not a democracy or a republican form of government, which is what the American government was established to be. It is a top-down form of government and one which has a terrifying history typified by the developments that occurred in totalitarian regimes of the past: police states where everyone is watched and spied on, rounded up for minor infractions by government agents, placed under police control, and placed in detention (a.k.a. concentration) camps.

For the final hammer of fascism to fall, it will require the most crucial ingredient: the majority of the people will have to agree that it’s not only expedient but necessary.

But why would a people agree to such an oppressive regime?

The answer is the same in every age: fear.

Fear makes people stupid.

Fear is the method most often used by politicians to increase the power of government. And, as most social commentators recognize, an atmosphere of fear permeates modern America: fear of terrorism, fear of the police, fear of our neighbors and so on.

The propaganda of fear has been used quite effectively by those who want to gain control, and it is working on the American populace.

Despite the fact that we are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack; 11,000 times more likely to die from an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane; 1,048 times more likely to die from a car accident than a terrorist attack, and 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist , we have handed over control of our lives to government officials who treat us as a means to an end—the source of money and power.

As the Bearded Man in They Live warns, “They are dismantling the sleeping middle class. More and more people are becoming poor. We are their cattle. We are being bred for slavery.”

In this regard, we’re not so different from the oppressed citizens in They Live.

From the moment we are born until we die, we are indoctrinated into believing that those who rule us do it for our own good. The truth is far different.

Despite the truth staring us in the face, we have allowed ourselves to become fearful, controlled, pacified zombies.

We live in a perpetual state of denial, insulated from the painful reality of the American police state by wall-to-wall entertainment news and screen devices.

Most everyone keeps their heads down these days while staring zombie-like into an electronic screen, even when they’re crossing the street. Families sit in restaurants with their heads down, separated by their screen devices and unaware of what’s going on around them. Young people especially seem dominated by the devices they hold in their hands, oblivious to the fact that they can simply push a button, turn the thing off and walk away.

Indeed, there is no larger group activity than that connected with those who watch screens—that is, television, lap tops, personal computers, cell phones and so on. In fact, a Nielsen study reports that American screen viewing is at an all-time high. For example, the average American watches approximately 151 hours of television per month.

The question, of course, is what effect does such screen consumption have on one’s mind?

Psychologically it is similar to drug addiction. Researchers found that “almost immediately after turning on the TV, subjects reported feeling more relaxed, and because this occurs so quickly and the tension returns so rapidly after the TV is turned off, people are conditioned to associate TV viewing with a lack of tension.” Research also shows that regardless of the programming, viewers’ brain waves slow down, thus transforming them into a more passive, nonresistant state.

Historically, television has been used by those in authority to quiet discontent and pacify disruptive people. “Faced with severe overcrowding and limited budgets for rehabilitation and counseling, more and more prison officials are using TV to keep inmates quiet,” according to Newsweek.

Given that the majority of what Americans watch on television is provided through channels controlled by six mega corporations, what we watch is now controlled by a corporate elite and, if that elite needs to foster a particular viewpoint or pacify its viewers, it can do so on a large scale.

If we’re watching, we’re not doing.

The powers-that-be understand this. As television journalist Edward R. Murrow warned in a 1958 speech:

We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent. We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse, and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it, and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.

This brings me back to They Live, in which the real zombies are not the aliens calling the shots but the populace who are content to remain controlled.

When all is said and done, the world of They Live is not so different from our own. As one of the characters points out, “The poor and the underclass are growing. Racial justice and human rights are nonexistent. They have created a repressive society and we are their unwitting accomplices. Their intention to rule rests with the annihilation of consciousness. We have been lulled into a trance. They have made us indifferent to ourselves, to others. We are focused only on our own gain.”

We, too, are focused only on our own pleasures, prejudices and gains. Our poor and underclasses are also growing. Racial injustice is growing. Human rights is nearly nonexistent. We too have been lulled into a trance, indifferent to others.

Oblivious to what lies ahead, we’ve been manipulated into believing that if we continue to consume, obey, and have faith, things will work out. But that’s never been true of emerging regimes. And by the time we feel the hammer coming down upon us, it will be too late.

So where does that leave us?

The characters who populate Carpenter’s films provide some insight.

Underneath their machismo, they still believe in the ideals of liberty and equal opportunity. Their beliefs place them in constant opposition with the law and the establishment, but they are nonetheless freedom fighters.

When, for example, John Nada destroys the alien hyno-transmitter in They Live, he restores hope by delivering America a wake-up call for freedom.

That’s the key right there: we need to wake up.

Stop allowing yourselves to be easily distracted by pointless political spectacles and pay attention to what’s really going on in the country.

The real battle for control of this nation is not being waged between Republicans and Democrats in the ballot box.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the real battle for control of this nation is taking place on roadsides, in police cars, on witness stands, over phone lines, in government offices, in corporate offices, in public school hallways and classrooms, in parks and city council meetings, and in towns and cities across this country.

The real battle between freedom and tyranny is taking place right in front of our eyes, if we would only open them.

All the trappings of the American police state are now in plain sight.

Wake up, America.

If they live (the tyrants, the oppressors, the invaders, the overlords), it is only because “we the people” sleep.



via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

Journalist Max Blumenthal Arrested, Hit With Political Prosecution Related To Venezuela Reporting

ORIGINAL LINK

Screen-Shot-2018-08-05-at-8.06.24-PM-750

Journalist Max Blumenthal was arrested on October 25 and charged with “assault” in a political case that he says is “completely false” and “manufactured” by Venezuela opposition supporters.

From April to May, supporters of Juan Guaido’s attempted coup in Venezuela surrounded the Venezuela embassy in Washington, D.C. They engaged in verbal and physical assaults that authorities largely permitted.

Blumenthal, the editor of The Grayzone, reported on antiwar and international solidarity activists, who attempted to protect the embassy from the right-wing opposition.

According to Grayzone reporter Ben Norton, “A team of D.C. police officers appeared at Blumenthal’s door at just after 9 AM, demanding entry and threatening to break his door down. A number of officers had taken positions on the side of his home as though they were prepared for a SWAT-style raid.”

“Blumenthal was hauled into a police van and ultimately taken to D.C. central jail, where he was held for two days in various cells and cages,” Norton additionally reported. “He was shackled by his hands and ankles for over five hours in one such cage along with other inmates. His request for a phone call was denied by D.C. police and corrections officers, effectively denying him access to the outside world.”

The “assault” charge filed against Blumenthal stemmed from an alleged incident on May 7 that happened more than five months ago.

Naylet Pacheco, a 58 year-old opposition supporter, told police she was “guarding” the Venezuela embassy’s rear gate. She was one of several individuals who tried to prevent food and water from being delivered to activists inside the embassy.

She apparently described Code Pink as the “activist group that support(s) Venezuelan President and [was] living illegally in the Venezuela embassy.”

Ben Rubinstein, the brother of MintPress News journalist Alex Rubinstein, was at the embassy to help with food deliveries. Pacheco alleges Rubinstein and Blumenthal came to a rear gate and Rubinstein said, “Oh! It’s you again?” and then kicked her in the stomach. She alleges Blumenthal then kicked her in the stomach “several times.” She allegedly screamed for help.

One of the opposition supporters allegedly recorded video of Pacheco’s supposed attackers as they left. Police maintain Pacheco was able to “positively identify” Rubinstein and Blumenthal from the video.

Pacheco went to the George Washington University Hospital on May 8, but an x-ray and CT scan found no broken bones or internal bleeding.

The Washington Post published a story on May 9 that mentioned the alleged incident and quoted Pacheco. Pacheco told the Post something different. She said she was “pushed against a wall and kicked by several men.” There is no mention of being kicked in the stomach.

A quote from Pacheco that the Post published was translated from Spanish. She required a Spanish translator when she provided her account of the alleged incident to police. It is unclear if she understands or speaks English.

Ben Rubinstein told The Grayzone, “The opposition members made up these lies about Max, and I know they’re lying, and they are obviously using the government and police as tools to get revenge.”

He was charged with “assault” on May 9, and his case is still pending in the D.C. Superior Court.

Brian Becker, who is the national director of the antiwar ANSWER Coalition, was present at the Venezuela embassy to support the embassy protectors. He witnessed the conduct of opposition supporters in response to the solidarity activism of Code Pink and other groups and provided some context.

Embassy protectors were in “the Venezuelan embassy, which is the property of Venezuela, the legal owner of the building. We were there holding events in solidarity with peace and in opposition to the economic sanctions imposed on Venezuela and the attempt to steal Venezuelan national assets, including its embassy, and turn them over to an unelected group that the United States had selected to be the new governing power in Venezuela,” according to Becker.

Yet, Becker declared, “Supporters of Juan Guaido, in a coordinated way, laid siege to the building and engaged in violent assaults against the building, vandalizing the building, breaking into the building, physically attacking people who were outside the building, including myself.”

“This went on at all hours of the day and night with the obvious support and complicity of different U.S. government and law enforcement agencies, including the U.S. State Department police agencies.”

“While they were engaged in these violent assaults who had come up to stand with and support people who were inside the Venezuelan embassy, they also did everything in their power to prevent any food from being brought in from the outside to the people who were then living inside the embassy,” Becker further contended.

Alex Rubinstein tweeted, “As I was besieged in the Venezuelan embassy, my brother was arrested over bogus accusations he savagely beat an elderly woman while trying to deliver food. I knew then that it was a political prosecution. Now journalist Max Blumenthal has been arrested over the same fake incident.”

The National Lawyers Guild International Committee condemned the charge brought against Blumenthal.

“We join Blumenthal in noting that his arrest took place hours after The Grayzone issued a report on USAID funding to lobbyists for the Venezuelan opposition,” the NLG IC stated. “It also appears to be a form of retaliation practiced against both embassy protection activists and critical journalists for their opposition to the U.S.’ unlawful intervention in Venezuela, support for an attempted coup, and unilateral coercive economic sanctions directed against the country.”

Indeed, in a story by Leonardo Flores, The Grayzone reported that USAID diverted $41.9 million from aid to Central America in order to pay the salaries of Juan Guaido’s team of lobbyists working to influence U.S. foreign policy.

The NLG IC continued, “The arrest of Blumenthal is also not separate from the global policies of sanctions, suppression and regime change being pursued by the U.S. government. Unilateral coercive measures, prohibited under international law, are being imposed by the U.S. against Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, Nicaragua and other nations.

“They represent a grave risk to both national sovereignty and the international rule of law, and by imposing poverty and deprivation on entire countries, deprive millions of people of their fundamental economic and social human rights.”

The post Journalist Max Blumenthal Arrested, Hit With Political Prosecution Related To Venezuela Reporting appeared first on Shadowproof.



via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

Monday, October 28, 2019

Baghdadi Story Reveals Divided — and Broken — News Media

ORIGINAL LINK
If you have two sets of news media, you have none

via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

Three things you didn’t know about the crash of 1929

ORIGINAL LINK

Guest Post by Simon Black

October 28, 1929– 90 years ago today– is known as ‘Black Monday’ in financial circles.

The US stock market had peaked the previous month, on September 3, 1929, with the Dow Jones stock index reaching a record high of 381.

But throughout September and October, nervous investors began pulling their money out of the market.

And over a three day period in late October (including Black Monday), the market lost more than 30% of its value.

Ninety years later, I thought it would be prudent to look at three key insights from that historic crash, starting with:

1) Stocks are more overvalued today than they were in 1929

Back in 1929, the price/earnings ratio of the average company trading on the New York Stock Exchange was about 15.

In other words, investors were willing to pay $15 per share for every $1 of the average company’s profit.

That’s not high at all. In fact, a Price/Earnings ratio of 15 is completely in line with historic averages.

Coca Cola’s Price/Earnings ratio back in 1929 ranged between 15 and 18. Today it’s 30… meaning that investors today are willing to pay roughly twice as much for each dollar of Coke’s annual profit.

Coca Cola is actually quite an interesting case study.

If we just go back a few years to 2010, Coca Cola’s annual revenue was $35 billion. By 2018 the company’s annual revenue had fallen to less than $32 billion.

In 2010, Coca Cola generated $5.06 in profit (earnings) per share. In 2018, just $1.50.

And Coca Cola’s total equity, i.e. the ‘net worth’ of the business, was $31 billion in 2010. By 2018, equity had fallen to $19 billion.

So over the past eight years, Coca Cola has lost nearly 40% of its equity, sales are down, and per-share earnings have fallen by 70%.

Clearly the company is in far worse shape today than it was eight years ago.

Yet Coke’s share price has nearly DOUBLED in that period.

Crazy, right?

It’s not just Coca Cola either; the Price/Earnings ratio of the typical company today is about 50% higher than historic averages.

(This means that the stock market would have to drop by 50% for these ratios to return to historic norms.)

It’s clear that investors are simply willing to pay much more for every dollar of a company’s earnings and assets than just about ever before, including even right before the crash of 1929.

2) Stocks fell by nearly 90% in 1929… and it took decades to recover.

The ‘crash’ wasn’t isolated to Black Monday.

From the peak in September 1929, stocks ultimately fell nearly 90% over the next three years. The Dow bottomed out in 1932 at just 42 points.

42 is lower than where the Dow was trading in 1885… so the crash wiped out DECADES of growth. And it took until November 1954 for the Dow to finally surpass its high from 1929.

If that were to happen today, it means the Dow would fall to just 2,700… a level it hasn’t seen since the early 1990s. And it wouldn’t return to today’s highs until the mid 2040s.

Most people think this is completely preposterous.

And to be fair, I think the government and central bank will do everything in their power to prevent a severe crash.

The Federal Reserve has already announced that it will print another $60+ billion per month, which should be favorable for the stock market in the short term.

But just because we can’t imagine something happening doesn’t mean it can’t happen. In fact it’s happening right now in Japan:

Japan’s stock market peaked in late 1989 with its Nikkei index reaching nearly 39,000.

Within a few years the Nikkei had lost half of its value and would ultimately fall by 80%.

Even today, thirty years later, the Nikkei index is still 40% below its all-time high.

There is no law that requires the stock market to go up. It can fall. And it can stay low for years… even decades.

3) Adjusted for inflation, stocks have returned just 1.7% per year since 1929.

It’s best to think long-term about any investment. Businesses take time to grow and expand, and patient investors who understand this tend to do well.

But when thinking about the long-term, it’s imperative to consider the extraordinary effects of inflation.

Every single year your money loses around 2% of its value. But over time those small bites of inflation fester into a major chunk of your investment gains.

Consider that, even according to the federal government’s monkey math, the US dollar has lost 94% of its value since 1929.

So even though the Dow is more than 70x higher than it was in mid-1929, when you consider the effects of inflation, stocks are only about 5x higher over the past 90 years.

That works out to be an average annualized return of just 1.7%.

Even over the past 20 years– if you go back to late 1999, the stock market has only returned about 2.2% per year when adjusted for inflation.

Think about all the risks and wild market swings that investors have had to deal with over the past 20 years– all for a measly 2.2%.

It’s interesting to note that, when adjusted for inflation, GOLD has outperformed stocks over the long run.

When adjusted for inflation, gold has averaged a 1.8% return since 1929 (slightly higher than stocks), and a 6.7% return since 1999– more than 3x as much as stocks.

But unlike stocks, people who own gold haven’t had to put up with the same risks. No shady brokers. No WeWork bullshit. No Enron scandal.

They earned 3x more than the stock market– with the added benefit of being able to hold their investment right in their own hands.



via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

The Fumes of Fanaticism

ORIGINAL LINK

Clusterfuck Nation
For your reading pleasure Mondays and Fridays

Support this blog by visiting Jim’s Patreon Page


Judging by the volume of intemperate emails and angry social media blasts that come my way, the party of impeachment seems to be inhaling way too much gas from the smoking guns it keeps finding in the various star chambers of its inquisition against you-know-who. You’d think that the failure of Mr. Mueller’s extravaganza might have chastened them just a little — a $32 million-dollar effort starring the most vicious partisan lawyers inside-the-Beltway, 2,800 subpoenas issued over two years, 500 search warrants exercised, and finally nothing whatever to pin on Mr. Trump — except the contra-legal assertion that now he must prove his innocence.

When you state just that, these frothing hysterics reply that many background figures — if not the Golden Golem of Greatness himself — were indicted and convicted of crimes by Mr. Mueller’s crew. Oh yes! The Russian troll farm called the Internet Research Agency was indicted for spending $400,000 on Facebook ads (and never extradited or tried in a court-of-law). Pretty impressive victory there! The hacking of Hillary Clinton’s emails by “Russia”? Still just alleged, never proven, with plenty of shady business around the search for evidence. Paul Manafort, on tax evasion of money earned in Ukraine, 2014? We’ll see about that as the whole filthy business of the 2014 Ukraine regime change op under Mr. Obama gets reviewed in the months ahead. George Papadopoulos for lying to the FBI? Stand by on that one, too; still a developing story. General Michael Flynn, for ditto? You may have noticed that General Flynn’s case is shaping up to be the biggest instance of prosecutorial misconduct since the Dreyfus affair (France, 1894-1906, which badly-educated Americans most certainly know nothing about).

To set the record straight I’m forced to repeat something that these New Age Jacobins seem unable to process: you don’t have to be a Trump cheerleader to be revolted by the behavior of his antagonists, which is a stunning spectacle of bad faith, dishonesty, incompetence, and malice — and is surely way more toxic to the American project than anything the president has done. Every time I entertain the complaints of these angry auditors, I’m forced to remind myself that these are the same people who think that “inclusion” means shutting down free speech, who believe that the US should not have borders, who promote transsexual reading hours in the grammar schools, and who fiercely desire to start a war with Russia.

That’s not a polity I want to be associated with and until it screws its head back on, I will remain the enemy of it. In fact, in early November I’m traveling to New York City, where the Jacobin city council has just made it a crime to utter the phrase illegal alien in a public place, with a $250,000 penalty attached. I challenge their agents to meet me in Penn Station and arrest me when I go to the information kiosk and inquire if they know what is the best place in midtown Manhattan to meet illegal aliens.

The volume of Jacobin hysteria ratcheted up to “11” late last week when the news broke that the Attorney General’s study of RussiaGate’s origins was upgraded to a criminal investigation, and that a voluminous report from the DOJ Inspector General is also about to be released. What do you suppose they’re worried about? Naturally the Jacobins’ bulletin board, a.k.a The New York Times, fired a salvo denouncing William Barr — so expect his reputation to be the next battle zone for these ever more desperate fanatics. Talk of preemptively impeaching him is already crackling through the Twitter channels. That will be an excellent sideshow.

Meanwhile, how is Rep, Adam Schiff’s secret proceeding going? Last week he put out a narrative that US Chargé d’Affaires to Ukraine Bill Taylor fired a gun-that-smoked fer sure in testimony. Except, of course, as per Mr. Schiff’s usual practice, he refused to issue any actual transcript of the interview in evidence, while there are plenty of indications that Mr. Taylor’s second-hand gossip was roundly refuted under counter-questioning by the non-Jacobin minority members of the House intel Committee. Mr. Schiff’s pattern lo these many months of strife has been to claim ultimate proof of wrongdoing only to have it blow up in his face. It’s a face that many Americans are sick of seeing and hearing from, and I am serenely confident that before this colossal scandal is resolved, the Congressman from Hollywood will be fatally disgraced, as was his role-model, Senator Joseph McCarthy, before him.


This blog is sponsored this week by McAlvany ICA. To learn more visit: //icagoldcompany.com/


Previously Unpublished!
From the Jeff Greenaway Series

At Ponsonby Hall, a new Hampshire prep school for screw-ups, things are far from all right.
“Audaciously hilarious”
$7.00 — Cheap! Buy!
(Read Excerpt)

 

Something Strange is going on at Camp Timahoe in Lost Indian, Vermont, summer of 1962.
Rollicking fun
$7.50 — Cheap! Buy!
(Read Excerpt)

New Paintings by JHK 2016 — 2017


Great Summer Reading… JHK’s Hippie Novel!

“Simply the best novel about the 1960s.”

Read the first chapter here (click) on Patreon
Buy the book at Amazon or click on the cover below
or get autographed copies from Battenkill Books


Now in Paperback !
Only Seven Bucks!

JHK’s Three-Act Play
A log mansion in the Adirondack Mountains…
A big family on the run…
A nation in peril…


Other Books by JHK
The World Made By Hand Series:

Book 1:
World Made by Hand
Book 2:
The Witch of Hebron
Buy World Made By Hand Signed and local from Battenkill BooksBuy World Made By Hand on AmazonBuy World Made By Hand at Northshire Books Buy The Witch of Hebron signed and local from Battenkill BooksBuy The Witch of Hebron on AmazonBuy The Witch of Hebron at Northshire Books
Book 3:
A History of the Future
Book 4:
Harrows of Spring
Signed and local from Battenkill BooksAvailable on AmazonAvailable at Northshire Books Signed and local from Battenkill BooksAvailable on AmazonAvailable at Northshire Books
Geography of Nowhere The Long Emergency
Available on Kindle Buy The Long Emergency signed and local from Battenkill BooksBuy The Long Emergency on AmazonBuy The Long Emergency at Northshire Books

Support this blog by visiting Jim’s Patreon Page

The post The Fumes of Fanaticism appeared first on Kunstler.



via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

Veterans Today | Military Foreign Affairs Policy Journal for Clandestine Services



The unpiloted plane, that looks akin a miniature space shuttle, came back to Earth on Sunday, wrapping up its 780-day-long stint in orbit. Originally built to spend up to 240 days in space, the top secret aircraft has so far conducted five missions, each spanning longer than the previous one.

ORIGINAL LINK

Sunday, October 27, 2019

Expert Panel Finds Gaping Plot-Holes In OPCW Report On Alleged Syrian Chemical Attack



Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.

ORIGINAL LINK

Forever War Propaganda: Trump and the Death of al-Baghdadi

ORIGINAL LINK

The ongoing theatrical absurdity of twisted forever war propaganda went over the top on Sunday when President Trump announced the death of the elusive leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. 

Trump announced the death (said to be by way of suicide vest) while reading from a teleprompter, a skill he has yet to master. 

“He was a sick and depraved man, and now he’s gone. Baghdadi was vicious and violent and he died in a vicious and violent way”

US President Donald Trump says the “world is now a much safer place” after the killing of IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadihttps://t.co/yePDgUsGuJ pic.twitter.com/WBB3nUjC4r

— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) October 27, 2019

There is no evidence al-Baghdadi killed himself when confronted by US Special Forces in Syria, the same as there is no evidence that Obama killed Osama bin Laden (evidence indicates Osama died in Afghanistan of natural causes in late 2001). 

Abu “from Baghdad” has died before. In June 2017, Russia said it may have killed him during an airstrike in Syria. The following month, ISIS allegedly admitted al-Baghdadi was killed during an air raid in the Iraqi province of Nineveh. 

There is scant evidence Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi existed as described by the US military and the corporate war propaganda media. 

“Reclusive even when IS was at the peak of its power, the 47-year-old Iraqi, who suffers from diabetes, was rumored to have been wounded or killed several times,” the AFP reported this past April. “His whereabouts have never been confirmed.” He was known as “The Ghost” (al-Shabah in Arabic), the invisible caliphate leader.

There is little if any reliable factual information on al-Baghdadi. “There are disputes over his career depending on whether the source is ISIS itself, US or Iraqi intelligence,” the Independent reported in 2014. 

He was born in Samarra, a largely Sunni city north of Baghdad, in 1971 and is well educated. With black hair and brown eyes, a picture of al-Baghdadi taken when he was a prisoner of the Americans in Bocca (sic) Camp in southern Iraq between 2005 and 2009, makes him look like any Iraqi man in his thirties.

The newspaper reports it “believes” al-Baghdadi “was born in Samarra, a largely Sunni city north of Baghdad, in 1971 and is well educated. With black hair and brown eyes, a picture of al-Baghdadi taken when he was a prisoner of the Americans in Bocca Camp in southern Iraq between 2005 and 2009, makes him look like any Iraqi man in his thirties.”

We are told al-Baghdadi rose to the leadership of Al-Qaeda in Iraq (Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn) after the supposed targeted murder of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, yet another elusive character who may not, in fact, have existed as described by the government and its media. 

The media, however, did report on the “Zarqawi program,” a psychological operation run out of the Pentagon. According to the Post: 

The Zarqawi campaign is discussed in several of the internal military documents. “Villainize Zarqawi/leverage xenophobia response,” one U.S. military briefing from 2004 stated. It listed three methods: “Media operations,” “Special Ops (626)” (a reference to Task Force 626, an elite U.S. military unit assigned primarily to hunt in Iraq for senior officials in Hussein’s government) and “PSYOP,” the U.S. military term for propaganda work…

The military’s propaganda program largely has been aimed at Iraqis, but seems to have spilled over into the U.S. media. One briefing slide about U.S. “strategic communications” in Iraq, prepared for Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top U.S. commander in Iraq, describes the “home audience” as one of six major targets of the American side of the war.

The Zarqawi myth was engineered specifically for the “home audience.” It was an effort to condition the American people to accept the war on terror abroad and a police and surveillance state at home. 

Prof. Michel Chossudovsky writes:

The practice of “successful propaganda” in relation to the Iraq war has gone well beyond the official boundaries contained in military manuals. Propaganda creates an “outside enemy”. Al Qaeda led by Osama and Al Qaeda in Iraq led by Zarqawi. Al Qaeda is behind most news stories regarding the  “war on terrorism” including  the suicide attacks. What is rarely mentioned is that this outside enemy Al Qaeda is a CIA “intelligence asset”, used in covert operations.

According to the official narrative, Baghdadi, aka Awwad Ibrahim Ali al-Badri al-Samarrai, was captured in Fallujah in 2004 and sent as a “civilian internee” to the Abu Ghraib and Camp Bucca detention centers. 

Major General Doug Stone, the head of Task Force 134, Detainee Operations in Iraq, told Andrew Keane Woods of Lawfare in 2016 Abu Ghraib and Camp Bucca served as “universities” for jihadi terror:

Stone had been brought in to clean things up after Abu Ghraib; at the time, he was a high-ranking marine reservist willing to take a job that many lifetime military folks wouldn’t touch.  Stone was shocked at what he found:  not just a few bad apples torturing a few prisoners, but rather a dysfunctional detention regime, one that seemingly had no purpose and was a proving grounds for young militants. 

This is a standard fallback story. It is similar to the “intelligence failures” that supposedly led to 9/11. The “detention regime” at these illegal prison facilities was not “dysfunctional,” but rather part of an operation to crank out terrorists and feed the war on terror, which is designed to last forever. 

The official explanation from the Bush administration upon revelations of torture and murder at Abu Ghraib was that the torture was “isolated” and not indicative of US policy. In fact, the opposite was true—Abu Ghraib was part of a wider pattern of torture and brutal treatment at detention centers, including those in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay (see Abu Ghraib and the War on Terror—a case against Donald Rumsfeld?).

The “enhanced interrogation” used in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay was conceived by the CIA, not for interrogation but, as the CIA’s MKUltra demonstrates, for breaking down and brainwashing individuals. The techniques used were similar to those developed by the CIA and SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape) developed by DoD and housed at Fairchild AFB, Washington, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and Fort Rucker, Alabama. SERE was based on supposed Chinese brainwashing techniques.

The truth about Abu Ghraib was revealed during the trial of Bruce Jessen and James Mitchell, two CIA “psychologists” sued by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of two former prisoners and the family of one detainee who died of extreme cold in a secret CIA prison.

“Concealed from Congress and the public, the CIA had spent the previous half-century developing and propagating a sophisticated form of psychological torture meant to defy investigation, prosecution, or prohibition—and so far it has proved remarkably successful on all these counts,” writes Alfred McCoy. “Even now, since many of the leading psychologists who worked to advance the CIA’s torture skills have remained silent, we understand surprisingly little about the psychopathology of the program of mental torture that the Bush administration applied so globally.”

The CIA program of “mental torture” was not used to gain information on al-Qaeda and the Islamic State—it is well-known torture does not work and is counterproductive—but rather to breakdown detainees, vacate their personalities, and rebuild them as terrorists and suicide bombers. The “psychopathology of the program” is designed to keep the war on manufactured terror alive and the military-industrial complex fat and happy. 

“Enhanced interrogation” is an Orwellian term for trauma-based techniques engineered to brainwash and control individuals. However, as should be expected, the Pentagon has a cover for its behavior. From a US Army publication:

Task Force 134’s current strategy regards detention facility operations as a legitimate part of America’s overall counterinsurgency fight. The detention facility is not just a repository for those plucked from the “real” insurgency, but a legitimate arena for counterinsurgency actions. The task force has shifted detention operations from warehousing insurgents to engaging them. The strategy focuses on touching the human spirit and aligning detainee goals and aspirations with those of a peaceful and prosperous Iraq. 

In other words, working to have the Iraqi people accept the brutal invasion of their country, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, targeting of water and agriculture resources, and the murder of a million and a half people. 

I don’t believe the US military seriously attempted this, primarily because it is virtually impossible—the Iraqi people know who is responsible for the destruction of their country and the murder of more than a million of their fellow citizens. It is absurd to believe a half-baked “counterinsurgency” program would result in forgiveness of the neocons and George W. Bush. If Iraqis invaded your city or town and began killing your family and neighbors, would you be in a frame of mind to forgive and forget? 

No, I believe the real story of Camp Bucca and Abu Ghraib is a secret Pentagon program designed to make certain conflict continues in the Middle East. The ruling elite responsible for the invasion of Iraq is not interest in the “goals and aspirations” of the Iraqi people. It is determined to balkanize and terrorize Arabs, Muslims, and especially the Shias of Iran. An endless cadre of jihadi (Wahhabi) terrorists is required to accomplish this feat and make sure the client states of Israel and Saudi Arabia are the dominant powerbrokers in the Middle East. 

creatdive commons by-sa_RGB-350x122



via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

Friday, October 25, 2019

Report: Joe Biden as senator lobbied for Hunter's interests

ORIGINAL LINK

Joe Biden twice used his position as a senior senator to boost his son Hunter's business interests, according to an investigation by the Washington Examiner.

The 2020 Democratic presidential candidate privately contacted the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department to discuss issues related to Hunter’s firm's lobbying clients, the Examiner said.

Joe Biden lately has faced scrutiny for his son's business dealings in Ukraine. Hunter Biden profited from a Ukrainian natural gas firm while his father was President Obama's point man for Ukraine policy. Joe Biden is on video boasting of threatening to withhold aid if the Ukrainian president didn't fire the prosecutor who was investigating Hunter Biden's firm. Joe Biden also backing policies that helped the Delaware-based credit card industry while Hunter was working for MBNA, headquartered in the state.

The Examiner reported government records show "strategic and highly-specific interventions that could have benefited his son to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars."

On Feb. 28, 2007, Biden reached out to the DHS to complain about proposed chemical security regulations. Eight weeks earlier, the Industrial Safety Training Council hired Hunter Biden’s firm to lobby DHS on the issue.

Hunter Biden was not registered as a lobbyist, but he was one of three senior partners of his company that ultimately was paid $200,000 for the work.

Tom Anderson of the watchdog National Legal and Policy Center told the Examiner that Joe Biden should have avoided any involvement on issues that his son's company was trying to influence.

"It's implausible Senator Biden did not know his son's firm was lobbying on this arcane issue," he said.

In 2007, Joe Biden also wrote to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales asking for a meeting with the Department of Justice to discuss expanding the federal fingerprint background check system.

"I write to request your assistance in implementing an expanded background check system for our nation's volunteer organizations," Biden wrote.

At the same same, one of Hunter's firm's lobbying clients, called SEARCH, was lobbying the federal government for a bigger fingerprint screening system.

Joe Biden eventually introduced a bill called the Child Protection Improvements Act, which created a national fingerprint background check system for volunteer groups that worked with children.

Oldaker, Biden & Belair then began lobbying for the bill on behalf of SEARCH, according to lobbying records.

Hunter Biden co-founded SEARCH but stepped away from the company after his father became a vice presidential candidate in 2008.

wnd-donation-graphic-2-2019

The post Report: Joe Biden as senator lobbied for Hunter's interests appeared first on WND.



via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

WikiLeaks Releases New Documents Questioning Syria Chemical Attack Narrative

ORIGINAL LINK
WikiLeaks Releases New Documents Questioning Syria Chemical Attack Narrative

A whistleblower with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), responsible for conducting an independent investigation into the alleged chemical attack in the Syrian town of Douma on April 7, 2018, has presented WikiLeaks with a body of evidence suggesting the chemical weapons watchdog agency manipulated and suppressed evidence

A prior official OPCW report of the investigation issued last March found "reasonable grounds" for believing a toxic chemical was used against civilians, likely chlorine. Long prior to any independent investigators reaching the site, however, Washington had launched major tomahawk airstrikes against Damascus in retribution for "Assad gassing his own people"

WikiLeks release: A statement from the panel tasked with investigating evidence from a OPCW whistleblower regarding the Douma alleged chemical attack in Syria, April 7, 2018. casts doubts on the accuracy of the OPCW final report. https://t.co/0y1MRStibG

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 23, 2019

WikiLeaks published documents based on evidence presented by the internal OPCW whistleblower to an expert review panel on Wednesday. “The panel was presented with evidence that casts doubt on the integrity of the OPCW,” WikiLeaks editor Kristinn Hrafnsson wrote.

An official WikiLeaks press release said as follows:

Kristinn Hrafnsson took part in the panel to review the testimony and documents from the OPCW whistleblower. He says: “The panel was presented with evidence that casts doubt on the integrity of the OPCW. Although the whistleblower was not ready to step forward and/or present documents to the public, WikiLeaks believes it is now of utmost interest for the public to see everything that was collected by the Fact Finding Mission on Douma and all scientific reports written in relation to the investigation.”

“Based on the whistleblower’s extensive presentation, including internal emails, text exchanges and suppressed draft reports, we are unanimous in expressing our alarm over unacceptable practices in the investigation of the alleged chemical attack in Douma,” the experts pointed out.

Panel sees evidence of "unacceptable practices" in OPCW during investigation into the alleged chemical attack in #Douma, Syria on April 7, 2018.https://t.co/ndK4sRzVES pic.twitter.com/CH2RVgBGd9

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 23, 2019

“We became convinced by the testimony that key information about chemical analyses, toxicology consultations, ballistics studies, and witness testimonies was suppressed, ostensibly to favor a preordained conclusion.”

The testimony further revealed “disquieting efforts to exclude some inspectors from the investigation whilst thwarting their attempts to raise legitimate concerns, highlight irregular practices or even to express their differing observations and assessments.”

The new information was enough to convince José Bustani, former director-general of the OPCW to conclude there is now "convincing evidence" of irregularities.

José Maurício Bustani, a Brazilian diplomat and the first director-general of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

According to a summary of the latest controversy to cast doubt on the dominant mainstream narrative related to Douma, Middle East analysis site Al-Bab noted Bustain harbored prior doubts:

Bustani was quoted as saying he had long held doubts about the alleged attack in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus. "I could make no sense of what I was reading in the international press. Even official reports of investigations seemed incoherent at best."

WikiLeaks is calling on OPCW insiders to supply leaked documents relating to the Douma chemical weapons investigation in Syria. https://t.co/mhCaZySijz

— Brian Whitaker (@Brian_Whit) October 24, 2019

Some dissenting officials as well as countries like Russia have accused the international chemical watchdog body, which operations in coordination with the UN, of being politically compromised when it comes to Syria. 

Tyler Durden Thu, 10/24/2019 - 21:35

via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK