The New Censorship

google-censored-censorship-sopaHow did Google become the internet’s censor and master manipulator, blocking access to millions of websites?

Google, Inc., isn’t just the world’s biggest purveyor of information; it is also the world’s biggest censor.

The company maintains at least nine different blacklists that impact our lives, generally without input or authority from any outside advisory group, industry association or government agency. Google is not the only company suppressing content on the internet. Reddit has frequently been accused of banning postings on specific topics, and a recent report suggests that Facebook has been deleting conservative news stories from its newsfeed, a practice that might have a significant effect on public opinion – even on voting. Google, though, is currently the biggest bully on the block.

When Google’s employees or algorithms decide to block our access to information about a news item, political candidate or business, opinions and votes can shift, reputations can be ruined and businesses can crash and burn. Because online censorship is entirely unregulated at the moment, victims have little or no recourse when they have been harmed. Eventually, authorities will almost certainly have to step in, just as they did when credit bureaus were regulated in 1970. The alternative would be to allow a large corporation to wield an especially destructive kind of power that should be exercised with great restraint and should belong only to the public: the power to shame or exclude.

If Google were just another mom-and-pop shop with a sign saying “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone,” that would be one thing. But as the golden gateway to all knowledge, Google has rapidly become an essential in people’s lives – nearly as essential as air or water. We don’t let public utilities make arbitrary and secretive decisions about denying people services; we shouldn’t let Google do so either.

Let’s start with the most trivial blacklist and work our way up. I’ll save the biggest and baddest – one the public knows virtually nothing about but that gives Google an almost obscene amount of power over our economic well-being – until last.

1. The autocomplete blacklist. This is a list of words and phrases that are excluded from the autocomplete feature in Google’s search bar. The search bar instantly suggests multiple search options when you type words such as “democracy” or “watermelon,” but it freezes when you type profanities, and, at times, it has frozen when people typed words like “torrent,” “bisexual” and “penis.” At this writing, it’s freezing when I type “clitoris.” The autocomplete blacklist can also be used to protect or discredit political candidates. As recently reported, at the moment autocomplete shows you “Ted” (for former GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz) when you type “lying,” but it will not show you “Hillary” when you type “crooked” – not even, on my computer, anyway, when you type “crooked hill.” (The nicknames for Clinton and Cruz coined by Donald Trump, of course.) If you add the “a,” so you’ve got “crooked hilla,” you get the very odd suggestion “crooked Hillary Bernie.” When you type “crooked” on Bing, “crooked Hillary” pops up instantly. Google’s list of forbidden terms varies by region and individual, so “clitoris” might work for you. (Can you resist checking?)





2. The Google Maps blacklist. This list is a little more creepy, and if you are concerned about your privacy, it might be a good list to be on. The cameras of Google Earth and Google Maps have photographed your home for all to see. If you don’t like that, “just move,” Google’s former CEO Eric Schmidt said. Google also maintains a list of properties it either blacks out or blurs out in its images. Some are probably military installations, some the residences of wealthy people, and some – well, who knows? Martian pre-invasion enclaves? Google doesn’t say.



3. The YouTube blacklist. YouTube, which is owned by Google, allows users to flag inappropriate videos, at which point Google censors weigh in and sometimes remove them, but not, according to a recent report by Gizmodo, with any great consistency – except perhaps when it comes to politics. Consistent with the company’s strong and open support for liberal political candidates, Google employees seem far more apt to ban politically conservative videos than liberal ones. In December 2015, singer Joyce Bartholomew sued YouTube for removing her openly pro-life music video, but I can find no instances of pro-choice music being removed. YouTube also sometimes acquiesces to the censorship demands of foreign governments. Most recently, in return for overturning a three-year ban on YouTube in Pakistan, it agreed to allow Pakistan’s government to determine which videos it can and cannot post.

4. The Google account blacklist. A couple of years ago, Google consolidated a number of its products – Gmail, Google Docs, Google+, YouTube, Google Wallet and others – so you can access all of them through your one Google account. If you somehow violate Google’s vague and intimidating terms of service agreement, you will join the ever-growing list of people who are shut out of their accounts, which means you’ll lose access to all of these interconnected products. Because virtually no one has ever read this lengthy, legalistic agreement, however, people are shocked when they’re shut out, in part because Google reserves the right to “stop providing Services to you … at any time.” And because Google, one of the largest and richest companies in the world, has no customer service department, getting reinstated can be difficult. (Given, however, that all of these services gather personal information about you to sell to advertisers, losing one’s Google account has been judged by some to be a blessing in disguise.)

5. The Google News blacklist. If a librarian were caught trashing all the liberal newspapers before people could read them, he or she might get in a heap o’ trouble. What happens when most of the librarians in the world have been replaced by a single company? Google is now the largest news aggregator in the world, tracking tens of thousands of news sources in more than thirty languages and recently adding thousands of small, local news sources to its inventory. It also selectively bans news sources as it pleases. In 2006, Google was accused of excluding conservative news sources that generated stories critical of Islam, and the company has also been accused of banning individual columnists and competing companies from its news feed. In December 2014, facing a new law in Spain that would have charged Google for scraping content from Spanish news sources (which, after all, have to pay to prepare their news), Google suddenly withdrew its news service from Spain, which led to an immediate drop in traffic to Spanish new stories. That drop in traffic is the problem: When a large aggregator bans you from its service, fewer people find your news stories, which means opinions will shift away from those you support. Selective blacklisting of news sources is a powerful way of promoting a political, religious or moral agenda, with no one the wiser.

6. The Google AdWords blacklist. Now things get creepier. More than 70 percent of Google’s $80 billion in annual revenue comes from its AdWords advertising service, which it implemented in 2000 by infringing on a similar system already patented by Overture Services. The way it works is simple: Businesses worldwide bid on the right to use certain keywords in short text ads that link to their websites (those text ads are the AdWords); when people click on the links, those businesses pay Google. These ads appear on Google.com and other Google websites and are also interwoven into the content of more than a million non-Google websites – Google’s “Display Network.” The problem here is that if a Google executive decides your business or industry doesn’t meet its moral standards, it bans you from AdWords; these days, with Google’s reach so large, that can quickly put you out of business. In 2011, Google blacklisted an Irish political group that defended sex workers but which did not provide them; after a protest, the company eventually backed down.

In May 2016, Google blacklisted an entire industry – companies providing high-interest “payday” loans. As always, the company billed this dramatic move as an exercise in social responsibility, failing to note that it is a major investor in LendUp.com, which is in the same industry; if Google fails to blacklist LendUp (it’s too early to tell), the industry ban might turn out to have been more of an anticompetitive move than one of conscience. That kind of hypocrisy has turned up before in AdWords activities. Whereas Google takes a moral stand, for example, in banning ads from companies promising quick weight loss, in 2011, Google forfeited a whopping $500 million to the U.S. Justice Department for having knowingly allowed Canadian drug companies to sell drugs illegally in the U.S. for years through the AdWords system, and several state attorneys general believe that Google has continued to engage in similar practices since 2011; investigations are ongoing.

7. The Google AdSense blacklist. If your website has been approved by AdWords, you are eligible to sign up for Google AdSense, a system in which Google places ads for various products and services on your website. When people click on those ads, Google pays you. If you are good at driving traffic to your website, you can make millions of dollars a year running AdSense ads – all without having any products or services of your own. Meanwhile, Google makes a net profit by charging the companies behind the ads for bringing them customers; this accounts for about 18 percent of Google’s income. Here, too, there is scandal: In April 2014, in two posts on PasteBin.com, someone claiming to be a former Google employee working in their AdSense department alleged the department engaged in a regular practice of dumping AdSense customers just before Google was scheduled to pay them. To this day, no one knows whether the person behind the posts was legit, but one thing is clear: Since that time, real lawsuits filed by real companies have, according to WebProNews, been “piling up” against Google, alleging the companies were unaccountably dumped at the last minute by AdSense just before large payments were due, in some cases payments as high as $500,000.

8. The search engine blacklist. Google’s ubiquitous search engine has indeed become the gateway to virtually all information, handling 90 percent of search in most countries. It dominates search because its index is so large: Google indexes more than 45 billion web pages; its next-biggest competitor, Microsoft’s Bing, indexes a mere 14 billion, which helps to explain the poor quality of Bing’s search results.

Google’s dominance in search is why businesses large and small live in constant “fear of Google,” as Mathias Dopfner, CEO of Axel Springer, the largest publishing conglomerate in Europe, put it in an open letter to Eric Schmidt in 2014. According to Dopfner, when Google made one of its frequent adjustments to its search algorithm, one of his company’s subsidiaries dropped dramatically in the search rankings and lost 70 percent of its traffic within a few days. Even worse than the vagaries of the adjustments, however, are the dire consequences that follow when Google employees somehow conclude you have violated their “guidelines”: You either get banished to the rarely visited Netherlands of search pages beyond the first page (90 percent of all clicks go to links on that first page) or completely removed from the index. In 2011, Google took a “manual action” of a “corrective” nature against retailer J.C. Penney – punishment for Penney’s alleged use of a legal SEO technique called “link building” that many companies employ to try to boost their rankings in Google’s search results. Penney was demoted 60 positions or more in the rankings.

Search ranking manipulations of this sort don’t just ruin businesses; they also affect people’s opinions, attitudes, beliefs and behavior, as my research on the Search Engine Manipulation Effect has demonstrated. Fortunately, definitive information about Google’s punishment programs is likely to turn up over the next year or two thanks to legal challenges the company is facing. In 2014, a Florida company called e-Ventures Worldwide filed a lawsuit against Google for “completely removing almost every website” associated with the company from its search rankings. When the company’s lawyers tried to get internal documents relevant to Google’s actions though typical litigation discovery procedures, Google refused to comply. In July 2015, a judge ruled that Google had to honor e-Ventures’ discovery requests, and that case is now moving forward. More significantly, in April 2016, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the attorney general of Mississippi – supported in his efforts by the attorneys general of 40 other states – has the right to proceed with broad discovery requests in his own investigations into Google’s secretive and often arbitrary practices.

This brings me, at last, to the biggest and potentially most dangerous of Google’s blacklists – which Google’s calls its “quarantine” list.

9. The quarantine list. To get a sense of the scale of this list, I find it helpful to think about an old movie – the classic 1951 film “The Day the Earth Stood Still,” which starred a huge metal robot named Gort. He had laser-weapon eyes, zapped terrified humans into oblivion and had the power to destroy the world. Klaatu, Gort’s alien master, was trying to deliver an important message to earthlings, but they kept shooting him before he could. Finally, to get the world’s attention, Klaatu demonstrated the enormous power of the alien races he represented by shutting down – at noon New York time – all of the electricity on earth for exactly 30 minutes. The earth stood still.

Substitute “ogle” for “rt,” and you get “Google,” which is every bit as powerful as Gort but with a much better public relations department – so good, in fact, that you are probably unaware that on Jan. 31, 2009, Google blocked access to virtually the entire internet. And, as if not to be outdone by a 1951 science fiction move, it did so for 40 minutes.

Impossible, you say. Why would do-no-evil Google do such an apocalyptic thing, and, for that matter, how, technically, could a single company block access to more than 100 million websites?

The answer has to do with the dark and murky world of website blacklists – ever-changing lists of websites that contain malicious software that might infect or damage people’s computers. There are many such lists – even tools, such as blacklistalert.org, that scan multiple blacklists to see if your IP address is on any of them. Some lists are kind of mickey-mouse – repositories where people submit the names or IP addresses of suspect sites. Others, usually maintained by security companies that help protect other companies, are more high-tech, relying on “crawlers” – computer programs that continuously comb the internet.

But the best and longest list of suspect websites is Google’s, launched in May 2007. Because Google is crawling the web more extensively than anyone else, it is also in the best position to find malicious websites. In 2012, Google acknowledged that each and every day it adds about 9,500 new websites to its quarantine list and displays malware warnings on the answers it gives to between 12 and 14 million search queries. It won’t reveal the exact number of websites on the list, but it is certainly in the millions on any given day.

In 2011, Google blocked an entire subdomain, co.cc, which alone contained 11 million websites, justifying its action by claiming that most of the websites in that domain appeared to be “spammy.” According to Matt Cutts, still the leader of Google’s web spam team, the company “reserves the right” to take such action when it deems it necessary. (The right? Who gave Google that right?)

And that’s nothing: According to The Guardian, on Saturday, Jan. 31, 2009, at 2:40 pm GMT, Google blocked the entire internet for those impressive 40 minutes, supposedly, said the company, because of “human error” by its employees. It would have been 6:40 am in Mountain View, California, where Google is headquartered. Was this time chosen because it is one of the few hours of the week when all of the world’s stock markets are closed? Could this have been another of the many pranks for which Google employees are so famous? In 2008, Google invited the public to submit applications to join the “first permanent human colony on Mars.” Sorry, Marsophiles; it was just a prank.

When Google’s search engine shows you a search result for a site it has quarantined, you see warnings such as, “The site ahead contains malware” or “This site may harm your computer” on the search result. That’s useful information if that website actually contains malware, either because the website was set up by bad guys or because a legitimate site was infected with malware by hackers. But Google’s crawlers often make mistakes, blacklisting websites that have merely been “hijacked,” which means the website itself isn’t dangerous but merely that accessing it through the search engine will forward you to a malicious site. My own website, http://drrobertepstein.com, was hijacked in this way in early 2012. Accessing the website directly wasn’t dangerous, but trying to access it through the Google search engine forwarded users to a malicious website in Nigeria. When this happens, Google not only warns you about the infected website on its search engine (which makes sense), it also blocks you from accessing the website directly through multiple browsers – even non-Google browsers. (Hmm. Now that’s odd. I’ll get back to that point shortly.)

The mistakes are just one problem. The bigger problem is that even though it takes only a fraction of a second for a crawler to list you, after your site has been cleaned up Google’s crawlers sometimes take days or even weeks to delist you – long enough to threaten the existence of some businesses. This is quite bizarre considering how rapidly automated online systems operate these days. Within seconds after you pay for a plane ticket online, your seat is booked, your credit card is charged, your receipt is displayed and a confirmation email shows up in your inbox – a complex series of events involving multiple computers controlled by at least three or four separate companies. But when you inform Google’s automated blacklist system that your website is now clean, you are simply advised to check back occasionally to see if any action has been taken. To get delisted after your website has been repaired, you either have to struggle with the company’s online Webmaster tools, which are far from friendly, or you have to hire a security expert to do so – typically for a fee ranging between $1,000 and $10,000. No expert, however, can speed up the mysterious delisting process; the best he or she can do is set it in motion.

So far, all I’ve told you is that Google’s crawlers scan the internet, sometimes find what appear to be suspect websites and put those websites on a quarantine list. That information is then conveyed to users through the search engine. So far so good, except of course for the mistakes and the delisting problem; one might even say that Google is performing a public service, which is how some people who are familiar with the quarantine list defend it. But I also mentioned that Google somehow blocks people from accessing websites directly through multiple browsers. How on earth could it do that? How could Google block you when you are trying to access a website using Safari, an Apple product, or Firefox, a browser maintained by Mozilla, the self-proclaimed “nonprofit defender of the free and open internet”?

The key here is browsers. No browser maker wants to send you to a malicious website, and because Google has the best blacklist, major browsers such as Safari and Firefox – and Chrome, of course, Google’s own browser, as well as browsers that load through Android, Google’s mobile operating system – check Google’s quarantine list before they send you to a website. (In November 2014, Mozilla announced it will no longer list Google as its default search engine, but it also disclosed that it will continue to rely on Google’s quarantine list to screen users’ search requests.)



If the site has been quarantined by Google, you see one of those big, scary images that say things like “Get me out of here!” or “Reported attack site!” At this point, given the default security settings on most browsers, most people will find it impossible to visit the site – but who would want to? If the site is not on Google’s quarantine list, you are sent on your way.

OK, that explains how Google blocks you even when you’re using a non-Google browser, but why do they block you? In other words, how does blocking you feed the ravenous advertising machine – the sine qua non of Google’s existence?

Have you figured it out yet? The scam is as simple as it is brilliant: When a browser queries Google’s quarantine list, it has just shared information with Google. With Chrome and Android, you are always giving up information to Google, but you are also doing so even if you are using non-Google browsers. That is where the money is – more information about search activity kindly provided by competing browser companies. How much information is shared will depend on the particular deal the browser company has with Google. In a maximum information deal, Google will learn the identity of the user; in a minimum information deal, Google will still learn which websites people want to visit – valuable data when one is in the business of ranking websites. Google can also charge fees for access to its quarantine list, of course, but that’s not where the real gold is.

Chrome, Android, Firefox and Safari currently carry about 92 percent of all browser traffic in the U.S. – 74 percent worldwide – and these numbers are increasing. As of this writing, that means Google is regularly collecting information through its quarantine list from more than 2.5 billion people. Given the recent pact between Microsoft and Google, in coming months we might learn that Microsoft – both to save money and to improve its services – has also started using Google’s quarantine list in place of its own much smaller list; this would further increase the volume of information Google is receiving.

To put this another way, Google has grown, and is still growing, on the backs of some of its competitors, with end users oblivious to Google’s antics – as usual. It is yet another example of what I have called “Google’s Dance” – the remarkable way in which Google puts a false and friendly public face on activities that serve only one purpose for the company: increasing profit. On the surface, Google’s quarantine list is yet another way Google helps us, free of charge, breeze through our day safe and well-informed. Beneath the surface, that list is yet another way Google accumulates more information about us to sell to advertisers.

You may disagree, but in my view Google’s blacklisting practices put the company into the role of thuggish internet cop – a role that was never authorized by any government, nonprofit organization or industry association. It is as if the biggest bully in town suddenly put on a badge and started patrolling, shuttering businesses as it pleased, while also secretly peeping into windows, taking photos and selling them to the highest bidder.

Consider: Heading into the holiday season in late 2013, an online handbag business suffered a 50 percent drop in business because of blacklisting. In 2009, it took an eco-friendly pest control company 60 days to leap the hurdles required to remove Google’s warnings, long enough to nearly go broke. And sometimes the blacklisting process appears to be personal: In May 2013, the highly opinionated PC Magazine columnist John Dvorak wondered “When Did Google Become the Internet Police?” after both his website and podcast site were blacklisted. He also ran into the delisting problem: “It’s funny,” he wrote, “how the site can be blacklisted in a millisecond by an analysis but I have to wait forever to get cleared by the same analysis doing the same scan. Why is that?”

Could Google really be arrogant enough to mess with a prominent journalist? According to CNN, in 2005 Google “blacklisted all CNET reporters for a year after the popular technology news website published personal information about one of Google’s founders” – Eric Schmidt – “in a story about growing privacy concerns.” The company declined to comment on CNN’s story.

Google’s mysterious and self-serving practice of blacklisting is one of many reasons Google should be regulated, just as phone companies and credit bureaus are. The E.U.’s recent antitrust actions against Google, the recently leaked FTC staff report about Google’s biased search rankings, President Obama’s call for regulating internet service providers – all have merit, but they overlook another danger. No one company, which is accountable to its shareholders but not to the general public, should have the power to instantly put another company out of business or block access to any website in the world. How frequently Google acts irresponsibly is beside the point; it has the ability to do so, which means that in a matter of seconds any of Google’s 37,000 employees with the right passwords or skills could laser a business or political candidate into oblivion or even freeze much of the world’s economy.

Some degree of censorship and blacklisting is probably necessary; I am not disputing that. But the suppression of information on the internet needs to be managed by, or at least subject to the regulations of, responsible public officials, with every aspect of their operations transparent to all.

Updated on June 23, 2016: Readers have called my attention to a 10th Google blacklist, which the company applies to its shopping service. In 2012, the shopping service banned the sale of weapons-related items, including some items that could still be sold through AdWords. Google’s shopping blacklisting policy, while reasonably banning the sale of counterfeit and copyrighted goods, also includes a catch-all category: Google can ban the sale of any product or service its employees deem to be “offensive or inappropriate.” No means of recourse is stated.

Corrected on June 23, 2016: An earlier version of this post misidentified singer Joyce Bartholomew.

Source: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-22/google-is-the-worlds-biggest-censor-and-its-power-must-be-regulated

BREAKING NEWS: Anti-terror censorship: France blocks 5 sites without court order

France has blocked five websites suspected of condoning terrorism and spreading hate speech, marking the first usage of new anti-terrorism powers approved by parliament last year that allow such bans without court orders.

“I do not want to see sites that could lead people to take up arms on the Internet,” French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said at a public meeting Monday.

“I make a distinction between freedom of expression and the spread of messages that serve to glorify terrorism. These hate messages are a crime,” he added. Internet service providers were given 24 hours to comply.

Among the sites that are being restricted is al-Hayat Media Center, accused of possible links with Islamic State militants, according to Cazeneuve. The ministry also says it plans to target “dozens” of other similar websites.

READ MORE: First in France: 6 nationals’ passports seized after planning Syria trip

Internet service providers have been given 24 hours to take “all necessary measures to block the listing of these addresses” under the new rules introduced in November last year.

It is the first time the new powers have been put to use to block websites without going through a court with due diligence. Visitors to the sites are now redirected to a page from the French Interior Ministry, containing a warning graphic of a big red palm, reading “the contents…incites terrorism or justifies terror acts.”

Islamic-news.info visitors are redirected to a warning.

Islamic-news.info visitors are redirected to a warning.

France is still on high alert under Operation Sentinel which mobilized over 10,000 troops on French soil to protect 682 sensitive sites across the country including religious sites, railway stations, airports, and tourist attractions in the wake of a rise in religious tensions following Charlie Hebdo attacks in January.

Source: http://rt.com/news/241333-france-blocks-terror-sites/

Target on your cyber back: DHS has a list of words deemed ‘suspicious’

US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) employees work on the Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT) operational watch floor where they monitor, track, and investigate cyber incidents (Reuters / Chris Morgan / Idaho National Laboratory)

US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) employees work on the Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT) operational watch floor where they monitor, track, and investigate cyber incidents (Reuters / Chris Morgan / Idaho National Laboratory)

The Department of Homeland Security has flagged hundreds of words as “suspect” – and while many make sense, like “Al Qaeda,” some are just plain odd. For example, the DHS may dig through your cyber life if you write something about snow. Or pork.

So, you’ve just come back from a beach holiday in Mexico and posted about it on your blog. Or maybe you’ve tweeted about skiing lessons? Updated your status, saying you’re stuck home with food poisoning?

All those things will tweak the DHS antennae, according to a manual published by the agency. The Analyst’s Desktop Binder, used by agency employees at their National Operations Center to identify “media reports that reflect adversely on DHS and response activities,” includes hundreds of words that set off Big Brother’s silent alarms.

Department chiefs were forced to release the manual following a House hearing over documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. It revealed how analysts monitor social networks and media organizations for comments that “reflect adversely” on the government.

Somehow, it remains unclear exactly how your food poisoning may reflect adversely on the government – unless you’re a civil servant that had lunch at the work cafeteria and are now blaming the tuna salad for your misfortune. It’s even less clear how natural phenomena like snow or ice reflect badly on the powers that be in Washington DC – unless, of course, they have somehow convinced themselves they can control the elements.

I’ve also wondered whether the monitoring is cumulative. Will one mention of an airplane be less worrying to the Department of Homeland Security than, say, 20 to 30 words from the no-no list? What if I’m writing the weather report? What if I blew a tire somewhere on an interstate and am sending a message for help? Both the words ‘help’ and ‘interstate’ are on the list. Does that mean I can expect men in black to come before the AAA?

It’s also hard to believe that the supposed terrorists that the DHS is on the lookout for are that stupid. Can you honestly imagine one person posting “hey, let’s go make a pipe bomb and blow up a police car this weekend” on a friend’s wall? I’d imagine people who plot terrorist acts are focusing on two things: not getting caught and getting their job done. Why on earth would they broadcast their malicious intentions online?

And so, like many of the DHS’s brilliant, thought-out programs, this one seems to be directed at the unsuspecting, innocent general public. Only now, as well as possibly being branded a terrorist for not wanting to use a credit card or buying a flashlight, you might get locked up for blogging about clouds. (Very dangerous word, cloud. Who knows what it could mean.)

I am by no means diminishing the need for domestic security. But the DHS seem to be taking the notion of prevention a little too far, and they seem to be accounting for their actions less and less. To quote a (possibly) paranoid Roman: “who will guard the guardians?”

Katerina Azarova

­
List of words used by the National Operations Center to monitor social media (taken from the DHS Analyst’s Desktop Binder)

The Internet Dark Age

This in from Jimstonefreelance.com on the NSA’s illegal surveillance of every American and the rest of the world.  WW~

internetThis is well worth a read –

This appears to be a well researched documentation of what the NSA does to steal your data. It may be 50 pages, but it’s nonstop info. Jump to page 5 or so to get the initial fluff out of the way.

Click below for the .pdf document, FULL DISCLOSURE.

Pretty good info on how the NSA hacks you, and how to have a chance of slowing them down, (you won’t stop them altogether).

TPP document confirms worst fears on Internet censorship

WW~Notes: Another late posting received in email on the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

S.O.P.A.-590x421

Yesterday, WikiLeaks published a previously secret chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The document confirms our worst fears: the TPP would force extreme SOPA-like censorship onto the world’s Internet users.

Tell your leaders to say NO to Internet censorship and oppose the TPP

Now we know why the U.S. government worked so hard to keep the TPP negotiations secret: the Obama administration claims to champion Internet freedom and openness, but they’ve been quietly pushing for draconian copyright provisions that benefit Hollywood and giant pharmaceutical companies at the expense of our basic rights and freedoms.

We told the world once that SOPA was a deal breaker. But, now monopolists have found a backdoor to pass it — the TPP. They’re doing everything in their power to make sure it gets signed. Our time to fight this is short, but there is still hope. Experts say that the TPP negotiations could still fall apart if we keep the pressure on.

The first thing we all need to do is speak out against censorship before it’s too late.

The TPP doesn’t just affect the Internet. It’s bad for the economy, jobs, the environment, food, and even access to medicine. The worst part is that it’s being debated behind closed doors, with no input from human rights advocates or technical experts, but plenty of influence from Industry lobbyists and government bureaucrats.

World leaders are meeting NEXT WEEK to continue negotiations on the TPP. Now that we know what’s in it, it’s clear we have no choice but to stop it completely. And we don’t have much time.

Click here sign the petition to stop the TPP

We spent yesterday combing through the WikiLeaks release, and we hate to say it, but the TPP is even worse than we thought. Here’s a glance of what it contains, read the full documents for yourself here:

* Shutting off our Internet connection and blocking entire websites over claims to copyright infringement — check.

* Encouraging our ISPs to spy on everything we do on the web and sharing our private data with copyright holders – check.

* Accusing people of copyright infringement without due process — check.

* Making medicine and medical care harder to get — check.

* Circumventing protections for workers and the environment — check.

* Undermining democracy and national sovereignty — check.

If that’s not the Internet and the world you want, join us in fighting the TPP. Forward this email to anyone who might help.

There is no doubt – JEWS control everything in America!

Now we have the proof in writing and in percentages.  This is remarkable considering they are only 2% of the American population.

Whitewraithe~

Source: Who Controls America

INTERNET

Who Controls E-Bay?
Summary:
Of the nine(9) eBay executives, six(6) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 67%. Of the eleven(11) eBay directors, two(2) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 18%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the eBay executives by a factor of 33.5 times(3,350 percent) and over-represented among the eBay directors by a factor of 9 times(900 percent).

Who Controls Apple?
Summary:
Of the ten(10) Apple executives, three(3) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 30%. Of the eight(8) Apple directors, five(5) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 63%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the Apple executives by a factor of 15 times(1,500 percent) and over-represented among the Apple directors by a factor of 31.5 times(3,150 percent).

Who Controls Yahoo?
Summary:
Of the thirteen(13) Yahoo! executives, eight(8) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 62%. Of the eleven(11) Yahoo! directors, five(5) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 45%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the Yahoo! executives by a factor of 31 times(3,100 percent) and over-represented among the Yahoo! directors by a factor of 22.5 times(2,250 percent).

Who Controls Google?
Summary:
Of the six(6) Google executives, five(5) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 83%. Of the ten(10) Google directors, five(5) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 50%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the Google executives by a factor of 41.5 times(4,150 percent) and over-represented among the Google directors by a factor of 25 times(2,500 percent).

Who Controls Amazon?
Summary:
Of the eleven(11) Amazon.com executives, eight(8) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 73%. Of the nine(9) Amazon.com directors, six(6) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 67%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the Amazon.com executives by a factor of 36.5 times(3,650 percent) and over-represented among the Amazon.com directors by a factor of 33.5 times(3,350 percent).

Who Controls Facebook?
Summary:
Of the three(3) Facebook executives, three(3) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 100%. Of the seven(7) Facebook directors, four(4) are Jews or partial Jews. This is a numerical representation of 57%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the Facebook executives by a factor of 50 times(5,000 percent) and over-represented among the Facebook directors by a factor of 28.5 times(2,850 percent).

Who Controls Microsoft?
Summary:
Of the seventeen(17) Microsoft executives, six(6) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 35%. Of the nine(9) Microsoft directors, five(5) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 56%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the Microsoft executives by a factor of 17.5 times (1,750 percent) and over-represented among the Microsoft directors by a factor of 28 times(2,800 percent).

Who Controls Wikimedia?
Summary:
Of the seventeen(17) Wikimedia senior staff and trustees, five(5) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 29%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the Wikimedia senior staff and trustees by a factor of 14.5 times(1,450 percent).

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

MEDIA

Who Controls Big Media?
Summary:
Of the twelve(12) senior executives of the “Big Six” media corporations, nine(9) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 75%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the senior executives of the “Big Six” media corporations by a factor of 37.5 times(3,750 percent).

Who Controls Hollywood?
Summary:
Of the sixty(60) senior executives of the major Hollywood studios, trade unions, and talent agencies, fifty(50) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 83%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the senior executives of the major Hollywood studios, trade unions, and talent agencies by a factor of 41.5 times(4,150 percent).

Who Controls Television?
Summary:
Of the sixty-four(64) senior executives of the major television broadcast networks, cable networks, and production companies, fifty-seven(57) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 89%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the senior executives of the major television broadcast networks, cable networks, and production companies by a factor of 44.5 times(4,450 percent).

Who Controls Music?
Summary:
Of the fifty(50) senior executives of the major music labels and trade organizations, thirty-nine(39) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 78%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the senior executives of the major music labels and trade organizations by a factor of 39 times(3,900 percent).

Who Controls Radio?
Summary:
Of the forty-six(46) senior executives of the major radio broadcast networks and station owners, twenty-eight(28) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 61%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the senior executives of the major radio broadcast networks and station owners by a factor of 30.5 times(3,050 percent).

Who Controls Advertising?
Summary:
Of the forty-six(46) senior executives of the major advertising corporations and trade associations, thirty-one(31) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 67%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the senior executives of the major advertising corporations and trade associations by a factor of 33.5 times(3,350 percent).

Who Controls the News? (Part 1)
Summary:
Of the sixty-seven(67) senior executives of the major television and radio news networks, forty-seven(47) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 70%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the senior executives of the major television and radio news networks by a factor of 35 times(3,500 percent).

Who Controls the News? (Part 2)
Summary:
Of the sixty-five(65) senior executives of the major newspapers and news magazines, forty-two(42) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 65%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the senior executives of the major newspapers and news magazines by a factor of 32.5 times(3,250 percent).

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

BANKING

Who Controls the Economy?
Summary:
Of the sixty(60) senior officials of the U.S. Government economic, financial, and monetary institutions, thirty-nine(39) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 65%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the senior officials of the U.S. Government economic, financial, and monetary institutions by a factor of 32.5 times(3,250 percent).

Who Controls Wall Street? (Part 1)
Summary:
Of the fifty-one(51) senior executives of the major Wall Street banks, trade exchanges, and regulatory agencies, thirty-seven(37) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 72%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the senior executives of the major Wall Street banks, trade exchanges, and regulatory agencies by a factor of 36 times(3,600 percent).

Who Controls Wall Street? (Part 2)
Summary:
Of the forty(40) senior executives of the major Wall Street mutual funds, private equity funds, hedge funds, and brokerages, twenty-six(26) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 65%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the senior executives of the major Wall Street mutual funds, private equity funds, hedge funds, and brokerages by a factor of 32.5 times(3,250 percent).

Who Controls Goldman Sachs?
Summary:
Of the nine(9) Goldman Sachs executives, seven(7) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 78%. Of the twelve(12) Goldman Sachs directors, six(6) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 50%. Of the thirty-three(33) Goldman Sachs management committee members, twenty(20) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 61%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the Goldman Sachs executives by a factor of 39 times(3,900 percent), over-represented among the Goldman Sachs directors by a factor of 25 times(2,500 percent), and over-represented on the Goldman Sachs management committee by a factor of 30.5 times(3,050 percent).

Who Controls American International Group?
Summary:
Of the sixteen(16) directors and trustees of American International Group, twelve(12) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 75%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the directors and trustees of American International Group by a factor of 37.5 times(3,750 percent).

Who Controls the Treasury Department?
Summary:
Of the twenty-six(26) U.S. Treasury Department senior officials, eighteen(18) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 69%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the U.S. Treasury Department senior officials by a factor of 34.5 times times(3,450 percent).

Who Controls the Federal Reserve System? (Part 1)
Summary:
Of the seven(7) Federal Reserve Board governors, four(4) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 57%. Of the twelve(12) Federal Reserve District Bank presidents, four(4) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 33%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors by a factor of 28.5 times (2,850 percent), and over-represented among the Federal Reserve District Bank presidents by a factor of 16.5 times(1,650 percent).

Who Controls the Federal Reserve System? (Part 2)
Summary:
Of the fourteen(14) Federal Reserve System chairmen, seven(7) have been Jews or partial Jews. This is a numerical representation of 50%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews have been over-represented among the Federal Reserve System chairmen by a factor of 25 times(2,500 percent).

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

GOVERNMENT

Who Controls the White House?
Summary:
Of the eleven(11) current and former senior advisors of President Barack Obama, nine(9) are Jews, partial Jews, or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 82%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the current and former senior advisors of President Barack Obama by a factor of 41 times(4,100 percent).

Who Controls the Senate?
Summary:
Of the twenty(20) U.S. Senate Committee chairmen, eight(8) are Jews or partial Jews. This is a numerical representation of 40%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the U.S. Senate Committee chairmen by a factor of 20 times(2,000 percent).

Who Controls the Congress?
Summary:
Of the forty-two(42) U.S. House Committee chairmen and ranking members, six(6) are Jews or partial Jews. This is a numerical representation of 14%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the U.S. House Committee chairmen and ranking members by a factor of 7 times(700 percent).

Who Controls the Supreme Court?
Summary:
Of the nine(9) U.S. Supreme Court justices, four(4) are Jews or partial Jews. This is a numerical representation of 44%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the U.S. Supreme Court justices by a factor of 22 times(2,200 percent).

Who Controls the State Department?
Summary:
Of the seventy-four(74) U.S. State Department senior officials, forty(40) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 54%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the U.S. State Department senior officials by a factor of 27 times(2,700 percent).

Who Controls the Justice Department?
Summary:
Of the forty-seven(47) U.S. Justice Department senior officials, twenty-two(22) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 47%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the U.S. Justice Department senior officials by a factor of 23.5 times(2,350 percent).

Who Controls the Defense Department?
Summary:
Of the one-hundred eleven(111) U.S. Defense Department senior officials, forty(40) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 36%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the U.S. Defense Department senior officials by a factor of 18 times(1,800 percent).

Who Controls the Treasury Department?
Summary:
Of the twenty-six(26) U.S. Treasury Department senior officials, eighteen(18) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 69%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the U.S. Treasury Department senior officials by a factor of 34.5 times times(3,450 percent).

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

GLOBALISM

Who Controls the Group of Thirty?
Summary:
Of the forty-three(43) Group of Thirty members, twenty-three(23) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 53%. Jews are approximately .25% of the world population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the Group of Thirty members by a factor of 212 times(21,200 percent).

Who Controls the Bilderberg Group?
Summary:
Of the thirty-five(35) Bilberberg Steering Committee members, sixteen(16) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 46%. Jews are approximately 1% of the population of the Western world.* Therefore Jews are over-represented on the Bilberberg Steering Committee by a factor of 46 times(4,600 percent).

Who Controls the Trilateral Commission?
Summary:
Of the fifty-six(56) Trilateral Commission Executive Committee members, twenty-three(23) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 41%. Jews are approximately .25% of the world population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented on the Trilateral Commission Executive Committee by a factor of 164 times(16,400 percent).

Who Controls the Council on Foreign Relations? (Part 1)
Summary:
Of the forty-three(43) Council on Foreign Relations directors, twenty-eight(28) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 65%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the Council on Foreign Relations directors by a factor of 32.5 times(3,250 percent).

Who Controls the Council on Foreign Relations? (Part 2)
Summary:
Of the fifty-five(55) Council on Foreign Relations think tank members, thirty-one(31) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 56%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented in the Council on Foreign Relations think tank by a factor of 28 times(2,800 percent).

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

SOCIETY

Who Controls the Ivy League?
Summary:
Of the twenty-four(24) senior administrators of the Ivy League colleges and universities, twenty(20) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 83%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the senior administrators of the Ivy League colleges and universities by a factor of 41.5 times(4,150 percent).

Who Controls the Think Tanks?
Summary:
Of the thirty(30) senior executives of the major think tanks, eighteen(18) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 60%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the senior executives of the major think tanks by a factor of 30 times(3,000 percent).

Who Controls Professional Sports?
Summary:
Of the sixty(60) senior executives of the major sports leagues, talent agencies, and media outlets, forty-three(43) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 72%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the senior executives of the major sports leagues, talent agencies, and media outlets by a factor of 36 times(3,600 percent).

Who Controls the Anti-Defamation League?
Summary:
Of the fifty-three(53) executives and directors of the Anti-Defamation League, fifty-three(53) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 100%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the senior executives and directors of the Anti-Defamation League by a factor of 50 times(5,000 percent).

Who Controls the Southern Poverty Law Center?
Summary:
Of the twenty-two(22) Southern Poverty Law Center senior program staff members, fifteen(15) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 68%. Of the thirteen(13) Southern Poverty Law Center directors, eight(8) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 62%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the Southern Poverty Law Center senior program staff members by a factor of 34 times(3,400 percent), and over-represented among the Southern Poverty Law Center directors by a factor of 31 times(3,100 percent).

Who Controls the American Civil Liberties Union?
Summary:
Of the nine(9) executives of the American Civil Liberties Union, four(4) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 44%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the executives of the American Civil Liberties Union by a factor of 22 times(2,200 percent).

Who Controls the Defense Policy Board?
Summary:
Of the twenty-two(22) Defense Policy Board members, fourteen(14) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 64%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the Defense Policy Board members by a factor of 32 times(3,200 percent).

Who Controls Barack Obama?

Who is Behind Gun Control?

Who is Behind the Climate Change Hoax?

WW~Notes: While this tribe remains in power there will never be any positive changes in this country, only more suffering, misery, more taxation, and the complete loss of every vestige of our European heritage.  And don’t think that the alleged Native Americans and all the other minorities won’t be directly effected either, because they will.  Everything that effects white Gentiles trickles down to everyone else.  

By the time our grandchildren’s children arrive on the scene, they will have no idea where they really came from, since as we speak, American history is being rewritten, revised and subverted for Jewish control and domination.  In my mind, this is one of the most tragic travesty’s in the history of a civilized culture. 

And finally, if this is not the absolute definition of “conspiracy,” then we might as well throw out every American dictionary and begin redefining the English language to suit Jewish interests, which they just might, eventually.  

 

REVISED: Information Discoveries Vol.#1

Revised: Links to Veterans Today and Gordon Duff were deleted.

Right now, I’m staring at nearly 20 open tabs in my Firefox browser.

I have discovered that there is an overwhelming amount of information relevant to this website parked on the internet right now, and I’m probably not even aware of half of what’s available.  Unfortunately, there isn’t enough time during the day to post every single article in a separate blog.  I’ve given this problem a lot of thought.  So, when time allows the most efficient method for handling such a large amount of material is including it all in a single post with a brief description with the link.

And with the 11th anniversary of 9/11 right around the corner we’re looking at ‘information overload’.  For example, I will be including a 39-page .pdf review of Christopher Bollyn’s new book “Solving 9/11.”  This detailed review should also be reproduced en masse and distributed to everyone you know.

These information gems are vitally important and should not be overlooked or shrugged.  It is the responsibility of those awake and aware to ‘educate and inform’ before the door slams on freedom of speech.

Whitewraithe~

This first issue isn’t in date order and some of the information is several months old but I’m including it due to its importance.

1.  H.A.A.RP. and Chemtrails – It’s all about weather modification.  http://www.activistpost.com/2012/08/smoking-gun-haarp-and-chemtrails.html

2.  When history repeats…do we notice?  Since 9/11 the nation has descended into tyranny.  Here is an excellent timeline to put it into perspective.  http://www.activistpost.com/2012/06/timeline-to-tyranny.html

3.  A Louisiana parish school is not allowing “white” children the right to transfer due to a 1968 court ruling regarding segregation.  Can you imagine the outcry and media sensationalism if black children were caught in this racist legality?  Included is a picture of the letter sent to the white parents.  http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/08/03/louisana-school-choice-well-um-er-if-your-black-that-is-if-not-um-well-youre-screwed/ 

4.  Scientists tested the concrete in the alledged gas chambers at Auschwitz and guess what?  They found no evidence of gas which the concrete should have absorbed if it was present.  http://news-cottage-two.blogspot.com/2012/08/auschwitz-one-of-12-million-lies-of-jew.html

5.  New study from Harvard proves fluoride lowers I.Q. but the media isn’t reporting the evidence –  Aurora’s Police Chief Was Giuliani’s Head of NYPD Intelligence back in 2001. I find this rather interesting, myself – “Batman shooter” James Holmes’ father according to this site, “He is the lead programer that created the algorithms to calculate FICO and other risk assessments. Those algorythims traced down the top 100,000 off shore bank accounts where the Tarp money went, by name and account number.”  This is just a sampling of the information found at this blog –  http://jpaulson.blogspot.com/

6.  VIDEO: 9/11 Masterminds – Explosive Connections, Most of the material for this video was adapted from Kevin Ryan’s landmark article on who had “Demolition access to the WTC Towers”  I could study this in-depth 4 part article for days.  Here’s the link: http://www.911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p1.html

7.  Several articles included from this site; DHS is preparing for CIVIL WAR against Americans according to one of their well placed informants – http://www.beaconequity.com/we-are-preparing-for-massive-civil-war-says-dhs-informant-2012-05-03/.  A former Castro revolutionary says America is already engulfed in a Communist coup, (although he doesn’t say by who but we know it’s Jewish Zionists at the helm), because more Americans by the day are dependent on the government for FOOD.  If Washington manages to gain complete control over the food supply then it’s over – http://www.beaconequity.com/america-on-verge-of-communist-takeover-says-former-castro-revolutionary-2012-06-27/. Mainstream-journalist-gone-straight Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com posited an interesting endgame scenario to a failed globalist agenda of financial consolidation and economic repression—that is, start a war with China and just say ‘no’ to those evil Chinese creditors – http://www.beaconequity.com/u-s-seeks-war-with-china-to-stiff-investors-of-treasuries-2012-06-26/.

8.  Is the government gearing up to bail-out money-market mutual funds? http://www.cnbc.com/id/48578949

9.  We’ve been hoodwinked again – ‘Fast and Furious’ was really about taking down rival drug cartels.  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/high-ranking-mexican-drug-cartel-member-makes-explosive-allegation-fast-and-furious-is-not-what-you-think-it-is/

10. A new cyber surveillance threat has been discovered in the middle east called “Gauss.”  It can steal browser passwords and online banking credentials.  The virus was found on personal computers in Lebanon.  One of the targets disclosed to the media was PayPal users.  http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Virus+that+finance+transactions+found+Middle+East/7064009/story.html

11. Is being a good Zionist the only thing Americans think about?  Of course, one can’t be good and a Zionist.  http://mantiqaltayr.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/all-we-care-about-is-being-good-zionists/

12. Obama must be expecting a backlash against American jewry with the creation of a new office to prevent genocide.  Who else would benefit?  http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/08/12/time-to-end-the-atrocities-prevention-board/.  While at this jewish site I spied another article about attacking the jewish state online.  This guy is even re-writing known history with statements like, “the Arab war of annihilation against the nascent state of Israel in 1948…”  OMG! http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/attacking-israel-online/

13. This is the organization brainwashing America’s leaders from politics, education and academia, the media, and religion in all things – Israeli and jewish.  http://projectinterchange.org/?page_id=36

14. Mark Dankof’s America 2-part interview with Dr. Robert Sungenis is a must listen about Israel’s role in 9/11.  Part One: http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/mark-dankofs-america-july-11-2012/   Part Two: http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/mark-dankofs-america-july-25-2012/

15. Mark Dankof also interviews publisher Dr. Adrien Krieg to discuss current political/economic/foreign policy crises and the role that organized Jewish interests play in all of it.  Dr. Krieg’s assessment; America is already controlled by jews.  A caller from the Bronx in New York had some interesting comments.  http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/mark-dankofs-america-july-18-2012/ 

Link for 39-page .pdf review of ‘Solving 9/11’

16. The house passed a bill Aug. 3 eliminating Senate approval of Presidential appointments.  http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/12302-house-passes-bill-eliminating-senate-approval-of-pres-appointments

17. The chemtrail war on our skies continues unabated. Strange phenomena are being reported, such as new types of sprays, dispersal patterns and configuration techniques.  http://www.zengardner.com/massive-chemtrails-appearing/

18. Paul Craig Roberts confirms the US is ruled by a private oligarchy and we the people are “dispossessed” in our own country.  http://www.thedailybell.com/4168/Paul-Craig-Roberts-The-Dispossessed-Majority

19. Jim Fetzer interviews John Friend on 9/11 Truth: Where are we headed?  http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-john%20friend.mp3  (Right click and save as)

Random quote: The intellectually dishonest use of the terms “Racism” and “Anti-Semitism” were merely designed as verbal shields used to deflect legitimate criticism.

That’s all for now.

Dam of Lies

By J.B. Campbell STAFF WRITER

Reeling slightly from Gordon Duff’s November 25 piece on American war-mongering lies, which I only read this morning (two days later), I believe we now have a chance at redeeming ourselves. Hard truth is a real elixir, once you get your heart going again.

Disgrace and redemption. The disgrace is of course our acceptance of Jewish domination of our lives, thanks entirely to the mind control system of tax-exempt Christianity in which we are all immersed regardless of our piety, our agnosticism or our hard, heathen rejection. America is a Christian nation and that means that we have not been allowed to defend ourselves against Jews. Christianity protects Jews from being killed, which is its main purpose. That’s why it is tax-exempt.

American lies are Jewish lies. Since Jews control every important aspect of our lives through banking, finance, law, war, food & drugs and entertainment, we are literally floating on a reservoir of truth blocked by a dam of lies that keeps us from understanding anything about those several subjects, among many others. But now I’m thinking that we can break the dam that contains this reservoir, let out the truth and produce tremendous energy, which we would see in the form of anger. Anti-Jewish anger. When dams break we all need to get to high ground or be swept away. Big dams are impressive things but I think rivers are supposed to run. Truth also is meant to flow, not be dammed up by lies.

There was an old war movie I saw as a kid, in which the noble Brits figured out how to wreck a Nazi dam with an airplane dropping and skipping a bomb across the water and bouncing it to hit the critical point. Much practice and a lot of bad bounces finally produced the right formula of speed, altitude and when to drop it. I’m going by memory since I saw it in 1955. It was quite a challenge but the Brits (and Americans) love blowing up other people’s property, so naturally they finally got it right, wrecked the dam, drowning lots of enemies of the Jews, besides damaging the Nazi war effort in some important way.

But we can’t bust this dam of lies if we’re using bad equipment. For example, it has not proven possible for Christians to defend themselves from Jewish aggression, beginning with the Jewish genocide of Christians in 1917, in Russia. Some say 20 million Christians were slaughtered by Bolshevik Jews in just a few years, some say a lot more. It was a lot, whatever the actual number. What could be the reason the Jews wanted to kill so many people?

At the other end of the Christian control scale, we see more and more Jews infiltrating Christian churches, pretending to be converts, welcomed with open arms by the faithful. Do the Christians suspect that their new friends are there to observe and perhaps suppress anti-Jewish sentiments? My wife and I reluctantly attended services at a church in Carmel, California at the invitation of a new friend. We were startled to be introduced to a member of the flock who quickly identified himself as a Jewish convert to Christianity. He had overheard my wife’s mild remarks about human rights after the sermon, was obviously determined to prevent any talk about the Palestinians and he interrupted with, “I suppose you’re against the war, as well!” He was referring to Bush’s invasion of Iraq (this was in 2006). My wife replied, “Well, naturally – aren’t you?” Here we were in a Presbyterian church, a place of peace, with an aggressive Jewish “convert” suppressing a guest’s humanitarian remarks that he knew could become criticism of Israel. I piped up and asked, “What about Jesus? Would Jesus support war?” His assignment: to prevent criticism of Israel.

It’s not as extreme as the Bolshevik version, but it’s the way American Christians have been controlled for decades and it’s worked very well. By keeping American Christians tame, the Jews have ruled Russia, England, America and Palestine and much of Europe. I’m not counting the destruction of Europe by the Jewish allies of World Wars I and II – just their passive-aggressive method in “peacetime.” We only think it’s peacetime because the Jews are always at war, as they explained in the Jewish Protocols. You don’t need to read all twenty-four of them – just one. Any one. See if you think it’s “a forgery.”

Jewish mind control isn’t limited to Christians, of course. It’s just based on Christianity, which is the necessary ingredient. If it weren’t for Christian gullibility there could be no Holocaust guilt and extortion racket. That is, if it weren’t for the Old Testament there could be no New Testament. Are we really expected to believe the crazy whoppers in the Old Testament? They’re as wild as the Holocaust whopper. The New Testament people are told to love the Old Testament people, whom the Jews pretend to be, even to themselves. This is the schizophrenic nature of Judeo-Christianity. Old Testament-New Testament. Netanyahu can say that Israel’s Christian supporters are “scum” and even the Christians who heard him say it can pretend he didn’t mean it. It’s called Cognitive Dissonance, or holding conflicting ideas simultaneously. In other words, your mind’s messed up.

The Holocaust has been their main modern weapon; their license to kill. It’s what puts the sting in “anti-Semitism.” Criticism of anything Jewish is the same as the Holocaust, just to shut us up. As a Jew said to me one time – “You just want to gas us all!” The Jews claim they were killed in great numbers and so now have the right to kill in great numbers. Only President Ahmadinejad has had the sense to say, “Whatever happened or didn’t happen in Europe had nothing to do with the Palestinians.” It was after he started saying such things and questioning the Holocaust itself that Jews demanded Iran be nuked.

So far, there has been only one modern country that has tried to remove Jews from power. We know what happened to the Germans. Or do we? I doubt that most Americans will ever know what was done to them in our name. Millions killed during the war but many more millions killed by us after the war.

There was a guy in my home town, Richard Criley, who was interviewed in our local paper, the Monterey Peninsula Herald, back in the ‘80s. Criley was the son of rich parents and made some big admissions, such as that he was both a member of the Communist Party and an officer in the US Army during World War II. And, he said it was no secret. As a Party member he’d actually been recruited by the army. In fact, he admitted that Dwight Eisenhower had personally appointed him to supervise the reorganization of the Italian labor movement in the aftermath of the war. This probably helps to explain why Italian Communists were able to take over the labor unions. Like today’s opium fields in Afghanistan, they were protected by the US Army.

I wrote a letter to the editor, pointing out that Senator Joe McCarthy was ruined for trying to expose the promotion of Communist Party members as officers in the US Army but here was a local man admitting this very thing and that he had been so promoted by the Supreme Allied Commander and later President Dwight D. Eisenhower. The editor declined to run the letter, claiming Criley might sue for libel. So I called Criley at home. I told him the editor feared he’d probably sue me for libel and could I read the letter to him over the phone? He agreed to listen. When I was finished, I asked him what he thought?

“Well, it’s a very stupid letter but I wouldn’t sue over it.”

“Great. I’ll tell him.”

“You have the right to write stupid letters.”

“Uh, huh. You know, you guys really had it made back then, during the war.”

“How do you mean?”

“You know, being able to kill all those people, Eisenhower giving you the green light to run wild. He even put you in charge of Italian labor! An American Communist!”

“I suppose you think we were on the wrong side.”

“Well… yeah.”

“Well, there you have it.”

That conversation always bothered me. If you resented siding with the Communists you must be a Nazi. I probably could have handled it better. But here’s the point: we were on the wrong side in World War II. Or rather, we were the wrong side, the Capitalist-Communist side. We destroyed a country and a people that were only trying to defend themselves from the most horrific, beastly war criminals in human history: Us and our Soviet partners.

Germany was the good side. That’s the big bitter pill that Americans will someday have to swallow. Now that the vicious fairy tale known as the Holocaust has been shown to be a complete fabrication of the Jewish Allies (America, England and the Soviet Union) at Nuremberg, what exactly is there to dislike about Germany’s behavior before, during and after World War II? Those snappy uniforms? Hitler’s mustache? Rounding up Jewish declared enemies and trying to deport them?

Okay, Germany was wrong to send Khazar Jews to Palestine. Very wrong. They should have sent them to New York, where they belong. FDR wouldn’t have taken them, however.

So, it was definitely a problem.

I bring all this up so that you can feel free to criticize Jews and feel absolutely no guilt at being compared with the Nazis. As I have written, Conservatives and Libertarians are never comfortable or confident enough to criticize Jews without first presenting their “anti-Nazi credentials.” They do this hoping that they won’t be called “anti-Semites” or Nazis for their critical statements. This is always futile. Jews are certain that we hate them for the simple and unchangeable reason that they hate us. If we even refer to them as “Jews,” they know that we know.

Most people seem to sense that Jews demand total self-censorship from Gentiles and that Jews mainly want us to shut up and let them do all the talking and complaining. They see a major threat in our talking about just about anything. The fear is that we may start talking amongst ourselves about them. So, they monitor us very carefully. They can’t help doing this. It’s a compulsion with them. If a group of three or more Gentiles meets regularly for any reason, a Jew must insinuate himself/herself into the group and eventually take control of it, which wrecks whatever the Gentiles were interested in, even if they had no plan to complain about Jews.

Breaking the dam of lies. Letting the truth flow, bringing life back to the river and the land. I’m interested in the truth about all important things, because I hate being lied to, hustled or tricked. But the truth can be very dangerous – even deadly. It can put you in the nuthouse, in prison and it can get you killed. Liars have to watch out, too, because the truth can also get them killed.

Truth is breaking out in ways unintended by our government liars and their stooges in the prostitute press. After nine years of JFK-type lies about 9/11, suddenly the enormity of those lies has cracked the dam of lies. 9/11 truth is reaching the third, or “self-evident,” phase much more quickly than we could have expected. This is happening for one main reason, which is of course the Internet, and for a secondary reason, which is rising suspicion of Jews and Jewish involvement in the massacre.

Is there any sight more stomach-turning than watching Larry Silverstein’s blasé rendition of his order to demolish Building 7? This is an example of the J-factor at work. Silverstein made billions after insuring his new WTC lease a few weeks before the massacre. He had it made but couldn’t keep his big mouth shut. He had to admit – perversely – that he’d OK’d the demo job. What was he thinking? He wasn’t thinking. He was just showing off for the cameras, feeling perhaps invincible in the Jewish nationalistic fervor that sanctified anything and everything that was done that day. 9/11, if not for Larry Silverstein, would have eventually become the most important Jewish holiday (all Jewish holidays are celebrations of military victories) because it marked the day that Jews, referring to themselves as “neo-cons,” took control of the US government, openly and without any attempt at stealth, and herded the Gentiles into two Jewish wars of extermination against hated Islam.

Never have we seen such a spectacle of Jewish braggadocio as seen in the months following the massacre, beginning with Netanyahu’s gloating that evening on national television that the massacre was “Very good! Well… not very good, but it shows that we share the same enemies.” This was also the J-factor at work. The J-factor wrecks everything the Jews try to do, sooner or later. Like the Mossad agents dancing around in plain view of human beings, delirious with Jewish joy while about two hundred other humans were deliberately jumping out of the towers to be splattered like watermelons.

Most 9/11 truthers are uneasy discussing Silverstein’s J-gaff. It is too shocking for words, if one is not used to using words to describe Jewish treachery. The architects and engineers and pilots for 9/11 truth have done great work but we can bet that most of them were shocked silly watching Silverstein’s confession. Shocked into investigating the whole rotten mess. The professionals, probably good Christians, tactfully skip over the Jewish aspect of the operation and occupy themselves with the technical details, which is fine. But is there any doubt that it is well-understood all around the world that “the Jews did 9/11?” Israeli Jews and “American neo-cons.”

9/11 will be the eventual Waterloo, the bridge too far, for Jews everywhere. It will prove that the Nazis were right about the Jews, which millions of people around the world already suspect. Millions know that the gas chambers are filthy Jewish Nuremberg lies, thanks to Ernst Zundel, Robert Faurisson and other injured Revisionists, but millions more wish they weren’t.

To break the dam of lies, these things have to be thought about and talked about.

We must not try to be Nazis, of course. We couldn’t if we tried. Even Hitler said that German National Socialism was not for export; it was strictly a German response to Jewish financial crime, Jewish Communism and German suffering. But we must learn to laugh at being called Nazis. A Jewish curse which is actually a Jewish compliment – if undeserved.

No, we must be something new, something never seen before in the struggle against Jewish Aggression. Thanks to the Internet this is written for anyone in the world to read. But Jewish Aggression is based on American indulgence, American finance and the American military and American taxes, so it is really on us American men to accept responsibility for Jewish crimes, most of which have been done in our names and with our tacit endorsement.

The dam buster, the explosive that will break the dam of lies, is 9/11 truth. The most ghastly truth is that the buildings were hit by Jewish-controlled airplanes and demolished with Jewish explosives. This was made crystal-clear with the video-taped confession of Larry Silverstein, that greedy, grinning wolf, when he admitted that he ordered the demolition of Building 7, and of course, those dancing Israelis and their matter-of-fact admission on Israeli television that they were there to document the event.

Our first job is to tie 9/11 to the Jews. It’s already happening but we have to focus American attention on this gruesome fact of life. When it is generally clear to a good minority of Americans that 9/11 was a Jewish atrocity, then we can begin the second phase of Defense Against Jewish Aggression.

This phase will be the creation of a political party called DAJA. Party DAJA or the DAJA Party. It won’t have candidates for office or elect anyone or send anyone to Washington. It will be something to give us strength in numbers and a means to identify and communicate with others who know the score. Anyone can join the Defense Against Jewish Aggression and doing so speaks for itself. The requirements are to work for or speak for and/or support the party as one is able. Dilettantes, thrill-seekers and spectators won’t be allowed. Police, feds and Jewish spies would be dealt with as spies have always been dealt with, because we’re doing this to avoid being starved to death in the Halliburton Hilton.

DAJA would operate on three levels: education, security and action. Members would be encouraged to do what they do best. Action would be the third phase, the actual defense against Jewish aggression. That is a matter for a separate essay.

You’re thinking, this guy is a one-note Charlie, always on about the Jews. This is true. We have a serious Jewish Problem and together we must develop a means to solve this problem, which is really the only important problem that threatens us. I have proposed the basic framework of the solution, which is the elimination of the rabbinical class and its entire support system, both Jewish and Gentile. Almost anything is possible but first it has to be proposed. We have to know what we want.

The Jews have poisoned our minds for a long time, certainly for all the time that we’ve been alive. Everything we think we know, we older Americans, has been passed through a Jewish filter before it got to us. But now the filter is being by-passed and truth is available from the Internet. There is much truth on the Internet among all the garbage. You found this, right?

The rabbinical class is going to shrink as this proposal gains currency. For example, I persuaded the local rabbi in Carmel, California to leave town, back in the ‘80s. He was the former chief rabbi of East Germany and he moved to Carmel and took over the Synagogue Beth Israel. He foolishly gave an interview in the Herald, bragging how he’d celebrated Passover in one of the camps by trading bottles of wine for unleavened matzo dough which he baked in “the delousing ovens.” That was a new one on me – delousing ovens. So I wrote a letter to the editor and to him, congratulating him for bringing bottles of wine into the camp and baking matzo in a delousing oven, which undoubtedly had never been done before. A delousing oven had never even been seen before! As a gesture of friendship, I went to the synagogue and presented him with a box of matzo crackers, which I told him in a very friendly way to save for a rainy day. The dignitary quite unexpectedly left town a few days later, and never returned. His parishioners were very unhappy with me, naturally. They were not accustomed to such demonstrations of friendship, and probably misinterpreted my gift and letter.

I relate this not as a guide for future action, because it was not “action.” It was just something to do, a silly response to the unmitigated gall of a professional alien parasite coming into a town where he had no business, telling lies in the local paper to put us all on the defensive. So, I got defensive. And this was twenty-one years ago.

Defense Against Jewish Aggression is not about dicking around with rabbis, but the only means of survival available to us as the Jews increase their stranglehold on our throats through the Federal Reserve and the US Army. The rabbinical class is just the breeding ground of our Jewish Problem. They are the “party theoreticians” who give license to the more visible agents of our destruction in the Federal Reserve, the Council on Foreign Relations and in the Pentagon.

I leave you with a name to consider. It’s the name of a rabbi who was also in the Pentagon. He was in fact the comptroller of the Defense Department in the Pentagon. As such he could not account for over Two and a Half Trillion Dollars in 2001, which was admitted by Rumsfeld to Congress the day before 9/11. He also owned a “defense contracting company” (Systems Planning Corporation) that designed and produced remote control equipment for airliners, equipment which would allow the flying and landing of, say, hijacked airliners. With this equipment, a person on the ground or in another airplane could take control of an airliner from the pilots and guide it exactly where he wanted it to go. The name to consider is Rabbi Dov Zackheim, comptroller of the Pentagon, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a citizen of Israel.

The dam of lies will be broken by 9/11 truth. Then, when the truth starts flowing, we can begin to go about our business.

Source

The Myth of Inevitability, Using Our Emotions Against Us

Police Jackboots

Police Jackboots

By: Peter Chamberlin

The world is awash in news and other daily revelations that all point in the direction of an encroaching police state. The war, the ongoing economic collapse, global epidemics and collapsing environmental systems bombard us from all sides with apparent proof that the end is near and that we are all helpless to avoid it. The world’s richest men have spent a sizable portion of their vast personal fortunes to convince us that a “new order” is mankind’s only defense against the inevitable.

The finest minds available have studied the human psyche, in particular, instincts and reactions, in order to use fear as a way to preempt reason. The idea was to instill a feeling of helplessness within the minds of the people, in order to convince them to give-up, short-circuiting their innate instincts for self-defense. They are trying to make us drop our guard.

The intention was to render us into defenseless vegetables, unable to perform our Constitutional democratic duties and defend freedom against Leviathan. Leviathan, “the Beast,” cannot exist in the presence of a vigilant people. The men of limitless wealth are ultimately, all gamblers at heart. In effect, they have waged every cent they own or control, on their ability to raise-up “the Beast” system within our Constitutional Republic, without raising the defenses of the people. So far, there have been very few facts to suggest that their plan is not working.

Our great hope is in the weaknesses of the master plan, especially in the weakest link of all, the Internet. This was their greatest gamble, but it also held the greatest promise for obtaining the ultimate pay-off. The creation of their “technocratic” dictatorship required the net, but it carried with it a great inherent danger, that their enemy in the great class war, the people, would discover how to use the Internet against the would-be master race. The global technocracy will be totally dependent on cashless transfers from chip-implanted herds of sheeple, siphoning profit to the ever-gathering master class.

In the great Hegelian game plan, opposite ideas prevail over reason. This explains why players often pursue goals that seem to be contradictory to their past moves. The most devious and inhuman parts of the secret plan are not kept secret; they are released into cyber-space in controlled selective leaks. In this way, distrusted government officials can openly leak truth that cannot be hidden forever, while creating an air of scandal around it, to divert attention from more important hidden truth and to discredit the recipient of the leak. Nothing is as it seems; nothing can be taken at face value. This creates an environment of uncertainty, lubricating the fear factor.

By releasing misleading information and by discrediting truth, through selected mediums, especially through the entertainment industry, the government gives life to fantasy and myths. Hollywood, just like the news industry, leads the minds of the people down the path of hopelessness to an unnatural escapist fantasy land of cavalries, heroes, getting the girl and happy endings.

The prevailing theme imprinting everything coming out of Hollywood is hopelessness, the sublimated theme is outside salvation. People are taught to to surrender their own power, their personal thoughts of resistance, to await “the one” who will come forward, bearing salvation. This false hope extends all the way from politics and the nightly news to America’s prevailing religion, Christianity, which offers the false hope of the so-called “Rapture.”

Our hope, the great hope of the entire planet at this point, is that the American people will awaken from this artificial state of slumber that most of us have been lulled into, and reclaim our divine right to fight back. If we don’t defend ourselves against this offensive Beast, then who will? No one will; not even Jesus.

The master class understands the dangers of the Internet, as well as its potential promise. They have bet everything on their ability to read our intentions through the scientific system of dictatorship that they have created, in order to know the optimum moment to shut it down. I am here to tell everyone of you that these assholes have bet wrong. We have to ignite the fires of resistance before they say that we are out of time.

We are at war with the most powerful terrorists in the history of the earth. They have all available information and unlimited power to continue their plan to the bitter end. The seduction of the rewards and the pain of the promised retribution moves most people to accept their lot and to believe what they are told to believe. This willingness to accept the false hope that you are given and to act how and when you are told to act is the sustaining force of the consumer culture that ensnares with its “creature comforts.”

“Good citizens” are willing to invest a small portion of their hard-earned cash on “insurance,” lottery tickets, the latest electronic gadget, a new home, against their better judgment. The possibility of winning an unearned windfall is the sucker’s bait that seduces men to ignore reason. It is this illusory “dream” that continues to draw the suckers into the scam, not just in the United States, but in every nation where leaders sell their souls for their own small portion of the take. They see the seemingly perfect pyramid scheme, where every player takes a tiny commission and then passes on the burden to the next guy.

Even though the world clearly sees that the American economy has collapsed, sustained only by the most outrageous life support that the world has ever witnessed, national leaders throughout the resource-rich regions of the world continue to sign-on to the fraud and to sell-out their own people in the process. Being mere humans, these foreign leaders are subject to the same barrage of inevitability that continually bombards us each day. Perhaps their surrender comes as much from their fear of the inevitable as from their greed.

Through open and covert means, American mis-leaders wage a full-spectrum assault upon the minds of the American people and upon the rest of the human race. Every news story screams of impending doom. The terror war has provided a convenient excuse for almost any action that Obama is ordered to take. The unreasonableness of the American position in the world is taken as a “given.” According to the prevailing theme of all we know and see, there is no rational solution to any problem, our only real hope is in the power of Leviathan to stand rock firm, in order to bring order out of the chaos.

The merger of modern psychological methodology with political science, and the development of a computer modeling system for applying this political psychology have enabled the master class to predict human behavior fairly accurately, in the face of traumatic events. The resultant program, in effect, becomes a window into the future, as well as a tool for reaching into the future and changing the outcome of ongoing events. This “sorcerer’s window,” has endowed Leviathan with a false sense of confidence that our hour of “capitulation” has arrived, that the gates to the police state can now be safely slammed shut, without fear of arousing the wrath of the somnambulized American people. Expect to see a more-or-less sudden move into the dictatorship, anything slower would carry an added danger of the people reawakening in time to stop it.

The faster we can dispel and disprove the false hope that seduces the people into surrender, the faster we can mount an effective resistance to the world war that our government is creating. Whatever calamity they have convinced the people of, we must disprove the illusion they create. The ideas of inevitability and hopelessness are the weakest of delusions, yet their power to paralyze may be the greatest threat of all. Very few things, other than death itself, are inevitable.

Hope flows from an infinite Source and can never be hidden from enlightened eyes. The eyes of God see through the soul of each man. The future cannot be set or determined by the guile or the resources of mere men, no matter how powerful those men are.

-###-

By: Peter Chamberlin peter.chamberlin@naharnet.com

Posted at: http://therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/the-myth-of-inevitability-using-our-emotions-against-us/

Get Rid of the Free Internet

Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com

OWN PartyGoogle has been losing millions since it bought YouTube, and the only reason why the Jewish owned corporation is hanging on is because they must control the platform of dissent. Access to free information by way of a small monthly fee on your Internet service has become a powerful method to awaken the masses to Jewish domination. Murdoch, Google and the rest the kosher crew simply can’t afford the simultaneous loss in revenue while people are using their very services to educate themselves about their machinations. Websites like ThePirateBay.org are also an emerging threat as more and more people use the service to deliver audio, video and text files that expose the Jewish Mafia. To say nothing of a persons ability to easily acquire software that can be used against the criminal cabal by way of making videos, graphics, music or other files.

We are not so much looking at the end of the Internet, but the end of it as we know it today. The Jewish power elite isn’t going to stand by while a bunch of angry middle class and poor people use the Internet to thwart their centuries long plan for a communist one-world government. The time to start conducting offline real-world operations, is now! Our people need to plan for being able to decimate information without the Internet, and we don’t just need to plan, we need to start doing effective real-world actions today. – Our Party is the biggest threat to crime in America. Help us stay in the fight; donate today!

Source: Guardian.co.ul

In art, as in commerce, a price tag traditionally has magical powers. With the flick of a wand, a pound sign confers desirability on an item that might be thrown away if it was handed out for nothing.

And yet for almost a decade now, quality entertainment and culture, as well as mainstream sources of news, have been freely available on the web. The arrival of the internet has seen musicians, publishers and news organisations all slowly float off together into uncharted waters.

Consumers who have grown up during the past 15 years are completely at home in a world where much of what they want to hear, see or read will cost them nothing. True, in the case of some films and TV shows, the practices involved may skirt around the law a bit. Generally speaking, though, culture has become a happy free-for-all. Now may be the time to pay the bill.

Chris Anderson, a leading American commentator on the web and editor-in-chief of Wired magazine, puts the matter concisely: “Somehow an economy had emerged around ‘free’ before the economic model that could describe it.” Anderson’s next book, Free: The Future of a Radical Price, will both celebrate and analyse the effect of all this giving-away.

The author of influential 2006 book The Long Tail, Anderson is to suggest that few of the conventional rules of commerce, such as “supply and demand” and “economies of scale”, apply any longer. While some suppliers, such as Sky Sports, might still get away with charging their audience, they would have to be pretty sure they offered a unique product.

One of the biggest players in the game last week questioned the rationale behind the current give-away culture. Rupert Murdoch, head of News Corp, even went so far as to refer to it as a “flawed” business model when he spoke to reporters in New York. The media mogul – who owns the Times, Sunday Times, Sun and News of the World in Britain, as well as Fox News and the Wall Street Journal in America – announced that he was considering charging for more of his internet sites.

“We are now in the midst of an epochal debate over the value of content and it is clear to many newspapers that the current model is malfunctioning,” Murdoch said. His volte-face followed background news that profits from News Corp newspapers were down year-on-year from $216m to $7m and that British newspaper advertising revenues were down 21%.

The upshot was, Murdoch concluded, that within a year the web would have utterly changed its financial model and his titles would be leading the pack. Earlier in the week, reports that the Guardian Media Group, the owner of this newspaper, was thinking along similar lines had ricocheted around the globe.

While GMG management have no plans to charge for content on its sites, the group’s chief executive, Carolyn McCall, did suggest that a subscription system was conceivable for some specialist areas.

For Anderson, the changes that lie ahead are more complex than simply introducing entry fees at a few gates on the web. Instead, he is predicting the twin birth of a “reputation economy” and a “time economy”, to exist alongside the battered old “money economy”. As a result, value will be assessed differently by both providers and consumers.

Free access to entertainment and in­for­mation is inevitable on the web, he argues, because there is still unlimited shelf space. Putting something up there, in a shop window, costs nothing, so the worth of the product alters. People are already making lots of money charging nothing, Anderson points out, and that is because it brings them other things they want.

The dominant force in the market, Google, has now provided so much free that it no longer has to worry whether it will make money. Free information is its very brand and that is why the advertising on its search engines is so lucrative. In some ways, it resembles the old business ruse of offering a “loss leader” or distributing complementary freebies: consumer interest grows and everybody wins.

But what about the people who are providing the content that is being given away, the artists and journalists? Do they win, too? According to Anderson, yes. He gives the pioneering example of the Prince album that was handed out with copies of the Mail on Sunday in 2007. Although the singer lost money on the deal, his follow-up London concerts sold out. The newspaper lost money, too, yet its management could put no value on the huge business advantage of being seen as pioneers on the music scene.

It is the music business that has been caught struggling in the web the longest. The decline in profits in the industry has been dramatic. In 2008, 95% of the music that was downloaded from the internet was illegal. The future, many believe, now lies in music-streaming websites such as Spotify.

Launched out of Sweden last year, the site has offered free accounts for Britons since February and now allows a million European music lovers to select from more than 2.7m tracks. Most fans choose to use it for nothing in return for receiving radio-style commercials, but the site also offers an ad-free service for £9.99 a month.

The fact that a leading site such as Spotify is still searching for traditional commercial traction is a sign of troubled times. Mike Smith, managing director of Columbia Records, believes his industry made a “fundamental error” in letting people think music was free.

“When you listen to streamed music through Spotify, somebody is still being paid,” Smith says. “These things are only free as a way of selling their site to you, or their newspaper, or their brand. Unfortunately, a mentality has grown up in our society that believes an album is free.”

It is unfortunate, Smith believes, because in the aftermath of the credit crunch the creative industries represent a key, robust hope for the British economy. “What we do now is crucial. It is crucial that we challenge the idea that these things are free and one way of doing this is to make sure we make the best-quality entertainment.”

Smith says high creative standards will lead the public back towards the pleasure of owning an original CD album, or going to the cinema to see a film. “We are doing this with the new Manic Street Preachers album, Journal for Plague Lovers,” he said. The CD has been designed around the manuscript that Richey Edwards left to his band-mates before he disappeared in 1995. “It is a fabulous thing to own and other record companies are doing the same sort of thing. God knows, though, it is not a cure for this problem on its own.”

Web evangelist Bill Thompson, who helped to design and launch the Guardian site in 1995, acknowledges the difficulty of getting music fans to pay for downloads. “I asked a group of senior media executives the other day how many of them used Spotify. Lots of hands went up. Then I asked how many of them paid and all the hands went down,” he said. Thompson believes those who can pay will pay, as long as they are getting ­something faster, better or more easily. “The paid-for business model is quite hard, though I am a fan of the TV series Battlestar Galactica and so I downloaded the US version because I didn’t want to have to wait even a short while to see it.”

Relatively wealthy customers will also pay, he argues, for the reassurance of not breaking the law, as long as the process is simple enough. Apple, for example, has benefited from making buying easy. It is done in one click. For other businesses, though, “micro-payment” remains a fiddly problem, with customers paying as little as 10p to view a page.

According to Thompson, the solution is to stop expecting web industries to match one another just because they inhabit the same medium. “It all depends what a company is doing. The motivation behind the business will dictate the right model. There is no point in, say, the news or entertainment industries diminishing their audience by charging. We really don’t need convergence.”

He feels that Murdoch’s comments betray the fact that the newspaper magnate does not understand the web. “He doesn’t appreciate the dynamic that comes from disseminating information for free and providing data that can be perfectly copied by anyone. This brings the price of content down so low that it is almost not worth charging.”

Thompson’s view is echoed by fellow web pundit Jeff Jarvis, who also sees charging as anathema. “Charging for content reduces audience, which in turn reduces advertising revenue. And putting a wall around content keeps it out of the conversation and devalues brands.” This is a danger Jarvis describes as “loss of Googlejuice”.

It is worth noting, too, that opposing political ideologies are at work here, not simply commercial forces. While the libertarian impulse to “free the web” is claimed by hippy counter-culture, it is also aligned with far-right thought. Pirate Bay, the Swedish bootlegging site at the centre of a legal storm this year, receives financial support from right-wing politician Carl Lundström.

Thompson knows the web is developing fast, but is not convinced that 2009 will prove critical. “I don’t think we will look back at 2009 and think that was when it all changed,” he says. “We might look back, though, and see that this was the moment when several senior executives realised they needed to change.”

The mechanics of the web are shifting, too, with new search engines and linking algorithms likely to make their presence felt soon. One thing is certain though: the public’s search for “something for nothing” will go on forever. In the words of the Roman poet Juvenal, one of the oldest pundits available on the web: “All wish to possess knowledge, but few, comparatively speaking, are willing to pay the price.”

Source