Bitcoins are not mere drug currency.
Bitcoins are not failing.
Okay?
Are we clear about that?
Good.
The future of online commerce looks to rely less and less on the physical amount of money you have in your bank accounts and wallets and more on what you could call “digital” wallets: online reservoirs where you store money. Really, we already use some variation of a digital wallet, we just don’t easily acknowledge it. You work, you get paid via direct deposit, numbers change in your checking account, you use debit and credit cards to make transactions, you go back to work. Rinse, repeat. You hardly ever see cash unless you deliberately withdraw it from an ATM. Anymore, our money consists of strings of number values running through some computer located who knows where. We just confidently assume that all that money is actually staying or going where it should be staying or going.
While that describes our current model of commerce, it also serves as a fair portrait of Bitcoins, the emerging currency exclusive to the Internet.
If you’re familiar with Bitcoins and run an online business, how do you feel about accepting this form of currency? Cash currency has never kept somebody from getting ripped off, so what is the main hesitation for you and your business when it comes to accepting an exclusively online currency? If you’re unsteady about it right now, what would you like to see change with Bitcoins (or any type of online currency) before you were more comfortable with using it? Or, are you totally onboard with this form of currency already? Share your thoughts with us and other readers below in the comments.
Essentially, Bitcoins are an intangible currency, really no different in action than the numbers bouncing up and down in your bank account. Alternately, instead of representing sums of physical currency, Bitcoins are literally a majestic sequence of unique numbers that can be traded for goods. Instead of swapping wads of bound fibers and inks that are woven together into this germy thing we call cash, Bitcoins exist in a purely digital tapestry. It’s an experiment in decentralized currency, and while it’s been a good experiment and still has some growing to do, it doesn’t show any signs of disappearing anytime soon.
While it’s still got some time to really appreciate and grow stronger as a currency, a purely online currency will exist in one form or another. It won’t ever replace your tangible currency, but work alongside it for all of your online consumer decisions.
To find out more about the current state of Bitcoins and what will happen with them in the near (and far) future, I got in touch with Gavin Andresen, the Lead Core Bitcoin Developer, about the developments of the past year regarding Bitcoins and why this novel currency could feature prominently in the future of online commerce.
Bitcoins: A Primer
Money as an object is meaningless. It’s paper and and some inks and, thanks to people, lots of bacteria. It’s an arbitrary token that merely represents a commercial promissory value people can earn in exchange for goods or services that can then either be saved or spent on other goods or services. Dollars, euros, yen, pounds, rupees, tobacco leaves, rands – it doesn’t matter what object you invest value into, it’s the idea behind the currency that buttresses its value. The Bitcoin is no different.
The only difference is that, as opposed to physical money that you’ll stuff into your pockets and wallets, you will likely never actually hold a Bitcoin (yes, there are physical versions of Bitcoins if you absolutely must have a real version to thumb around in your palms). Just because you’re likely to never touch one, though, doesn’t mean that Bitcoins are any less valuable than the bills you have folded up in your right pocket. Instead, think of it like this: you are no more likely to hold a Bitcoin in your hand than you are to hold Pythagoras’ theorem in your hand.
What does distinguish this disembodied currency from its corporeal familiars, however, is that Bitcoins are not dependent on anything except the people who produce and use it. No governments, no banks, no organizations – just people. A truly anarchistic, peer-to-peer currency.
For a simplified explanation for how the Bitcoin market works on a consumer level, have a look at this video put together by We Use Coins.
The currency, however, doesn’t just fall into your lap like a prize from a cereal box, nor is it just magically conjured up from the imagination like the latest Internet meme. The production of Bitcoins is best explained through the simile of gold mining. Instead of boring through a mountain to unearth precious metals, new Bitcoins are generated by unlocking a mathematical sequence called a block chain and are doled out in increments of 50. The people that produce these Bitcoins, then, are known as miners (that’s actually the technical term for Bitcoin producers, too, not just a metaphorical descriptor). These miners, however, have traded in their helmets and pickaxes in exchange for loads of GPU firepower and very sophisticated software capable of deciphering the block chains. The software works in tandem across a network to solve these cryptographic proofs and the miner who is the first to solve the block chain will receive the 50 Bitcoins. Once a block chain has been unlocked, it is added to a ledger in order to prevent those Bitcoins from double-spending.
Eventually, as more blocks are solved, fewer Bitcoins will be generated because the block chains will be worth fewer new coins. Solving a block chain today is worth 50 new Bitcoins, but as of this December that reward will be reduced to 25 Bitcoins. Some time off in the future, it will be reduced again to 12.5. The gradual reduction in rewards works to mitigate the generation of new Bitcoins so as to avoid flooding the market, which would result in a devalued currency.
As more miners work to generate Bitcoins, the difficulty in unlocking the block chains increases so as ensure that a new block is generated only every 10 minutes on average. The increased difficulty of unlocking a block chain’s sequence is designed in such a way that, over time, the maximum capacity of Bitcoins that will be generated will be 21 million. Added to the multiplied difficulty of solving subsequent block chains, more and more computer power is required, which some have said could be a deterrent for would-be miners from working on the more difficult block chains. Andresen disagrees with the argument that hardware needs are becoming preventive. “Mining Bitcoins is becoming increasingly energy efficient,” he says. “Bitcoin miners want to pay as little as they can for electricity, so they’re constantly working to make mining more efficient.”
Energy requirements wouldn’t really matter in the grand scheme of Bitcoin production anyways, Andresen explains, as the Bitcoin production process is smart enough to adjust for variations in the miner work force. “The Bitcoin system adjusts itself so that the target number of Bitcoins are created about every 10 minutes, no matter how many miners there are.”
He adds, “The number of Bitcoin miners has almost nothing to do with how quickly Bitcoin transactions are processed, so it doesn’t matter to the Bitcoin system how much energy or how many miners are working – as long as there is one, the system will work.”
The production of Bitcoins isn’t infinite, though. In fact, there is a fixed amount that will ever be produced: 21 million. Although that peak Bitcoin mark isn’t expected to be reached until 2140, the number of Bitcoins generated will begin to taper off toward zero well before that, at which point miners will then be compensated with Bitcoin transaction fees. As the generation of Bitcoins decreases over time, the cost of a transaction using Bitcoins will increase, which these blocks exist to verify. In lieu of transaction fees, though, Andresen postulates that miners could also be compensated by a “more complicated arrangement between merchants that want their transactions confirmed quickly and securely.” One way or another, though, the monetary reward for generating Bitcoins will always be present.
As of this year, over 8 million Bitcoins have been generated. The first block of Bitcoins to be unlocked was completed by Satoshi Nakamoto, who could be considered the progenitor of Bitcoins. As Wired Magazine’s Benjamin Wallace covered extensively in a piece about bitcoins last year, Nakamoto might be best understood as the Tyler Durden of the Bitcoin culture. An effluvium of mystery envelopes Nakamoto as no one is certain of who he is or where he came from or, most intriguing, where he disappeared to following his last public communication near the end of 2010. It’s rumored the name was a pseudonym or that Nakamoto was actually a collective of developers. It’s even been suggested that Nakamoto was a nom de guerre for assorted bodies of the United States government. Nobody knows, and every major player in the Bitcoin industry denies being Nakamoto.
At this point, though, as the Bitcoin system is beginning to become more stabilized and the project is on the cusp of transcending any one person, does the origin of Bitcoins really matter anymore? It’s been around long enough to confidently assess that dealing in Bitcoins is likely not some kind of Faustian gamble. Besides, one of the prominent features of Bitcoins is its near-anonymity of the users who deal with it, a quality celebrated by Bitcoin proponents. If the currency users are mostly anonymous, why then shouldn’t the progenitor of Bitcoins be anonymous, too? If the shoe fits, right? We could all be Nakamoto and none of us would be Nakamoto. To obsess over the origin of Bitcoins threatens to belie the hard work that the currency’s current legion of developers are doing in order to bolster Bitcoins into a formidable, viable option for online commerce.
The Problem With Bitcoins
The Bitcoin has had a tumultuous twelve months. Perhaps its biggest mainstream debut to date happened in June 2011 when Gawker’s Adrian Chen published a piece about the underbelly of the Internet, the Silk Road, where you can buy, among other things, any fashion of drugs (drugs I didn’t even think existed anymore) one desires. Because of the anonymity that accompanies the use of Bitcoins, the Silk Road trades exclusively in the currency. As Gawker’s story was many people’s introduction to Bitcoins, the piece carelessly marginalized it as The Currency for underground drug trafficking on the Internet.
Regardless of Gawker’s oversights, Bitcoins blew up. The value of Bitcoins skyrocketed after Chen’s piece began to circulate and inspire interest in legions of new potential customers of Silk Road. Consequently, Senator Chuck Schumer called for a federal investigation into the Silk Roadin order to hopefully shut it down. Now that the Bitcoin market had attracted the attention of the United States government, the popularity of the currency continued skyward.
The boom was short-lived, though, as it was not an organic and sustainable growth. It was an artificial trend born from a sudden onslaught of sensational media attention that ballooned the value of the currency. Being at the mercy of the public’s caprice, though, the value of Bitcoins crashed back to Earth a month later. By August, it had returned to its pre-Gawker levels.
Five months after the Gawker piece, Wired was preparing the toe-tags for Bitcoins, citing the currency’s sustainability problems and increasing lack of interest in the continued production of Bitcoins.
Andresen concurs that Bitcoins were pushed out onto the main stage long before the system was ready to handle that kind of attention. “We had a press avalanche last year,” he says, “Where the first couple of mainstream articles about Bitcoin caught the attention of other reporters, who in turn also wrote about it, which then triggered even more press.”
He continues, “That was both great and terrible for the project: great because it drew a lot more technical and business talent to look at Bitcoin and start Bitcoin-related projects, but terrible because when people realized that Bitcoin still has a lot of growing up to do, the speculative bubble popped.”
It’s misleading to say that Bitcoins failed because of that popped bubble. True, investing in Bitcoins currently isn’t as profitable as it was for a brief period last year, but that kind of inflation was artificially generated and really should never have happened in the first place. More, it’s probably not the last time the Bitcoin will encounter some heavy turbulence. “I think it is very likely the same thing will happen again sometime in the next few years as other parts of the world discover Bitcoin or it is re-discovered in Europe and the U.S.,” Andresen says. “I expect the wild price fluctuations to diminish over time as Bitcoin infrastructure grows up and speculators start to get a better idea of the real value of Bitcoin.”
That’s Money 101 for you, though: the potent volatility of supply and demand working upon, for better or worse, the unpredictable engines of human interest. Adding to the uncertainty is the fact that, most obviously, people already have a form (if not multiple forms) of currency, which has likely created an erroneous impression for the laity that Bitcoins are a second-class currency.
Then again, Bitcoins were never really intended to launch like an unstoppable money-missile into the future. Nakamoto, Andresen, and other Bitcoin developers have always cautioned investors that Bitcoins should at best be considered an experiment. “I tell people to only invest time or money in Bitcoin that they can afford to lose,” Andresen says. “There are a lot of things that could possibly derail it, ranging from some fundamental flaw in the algorithm that everybody has missed (he doesn’t see this as a likely possibility at this point) to world-wide government regulation (also unlikely, he says) to some alternative rising up and replacing Bitcoin.”
In a way, the story thus far of Bitcoins as an unpredictable investment is the quintessential story of the Internet as a whole. Every prominent company that currently claims a seat among the pantheon of technology giants – Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter, IBM, et al. – has come into that position due to the rise and fall of previous online ventures. The lessons gleaned from the decline of previous companies like the Myspaces and Friendsters and Lycos is likely the only reason the current generation of tech leaders have managed to prevail for so long. In the end, the diminished presence of these companies is less a woeful tale of failure and more a triumphant testament to how resilient and efficient the evolution of ideas has been on the Internet, especially in such a short amount of time.
With Bitcoins, it remains to be seen if it will eventually be minted as a mainstay in online culture or merely serve as an early milestone in the continuing evolution of online currency. Andresen is optimistic, though, that Bitcoins are here to stay even in light of competing online currencies possibly popping up in the future. “I think to overcome Bitcoin’s head-start, an alternative will either have to have a large company or government backing it and marketing it. Or else, it will have to be radically better in some way,” he says.
“There seems to be a perception that Bitcoin is in a winner-take-all race against other currencies; either everybody in the world will be using it for all of their online purchases in 50 years or it will not exist. I think the online payment world will like our current world of currencies – different currencies used in different places. The online payments won’t be divided by geography, though it might be divided by language or culture or social network.”
As it were, the currency network’s public image may have taken a bruising last year, but the reports of Bitcoin’s demise appear to have been exaggerated.
The Currency of the Future?
For now, the Bitcoin experiment appears to have weathered the Great Media Blitzkrieg of 2011. Bitcoins’ value is once again growing at the organic rate it was intended to grow at. So… to 2140 and beyond, right?
“I’m not even going to try to predict what will happen in the year 2140,” Andresen is quick to say. His focus is more attuned to the more immediate future of Bitcoins. “In December of this year, the Bitcoin will be 4 years old and the number of new Bitcoins produced will be cut in half. I think we will learn a lot when that happens and that will give some insight into what will happen over the years as Bitcoin production slowly drops to zero.”
Like any model of currency, it’d be a risk to really put all of your eggs into the Bitcoins basket. The currency could have long-term staying power. Then again, it could exist as a prototype that ends up producing a more advanced model of online currency and eventually be supplanted by something like a Bitcoin 2.0, for lack of a better term. Either way, some version of Bitcoin will continue to grow and become a part of our future experience with online commerce.
“I think there will eventually be one dominant currency that is used for 80% of worldwide online transactions,” Andresen predicts, “but I think there will always be alternatives. The most likely outcome in my lifetime, the next 40 years or so, is most people will use their national currencies when purchasing goods and services from other people in their own countries but will use something else for international payments.”
Naturally, as Bitcoins continue to evolve, developers like Andresen are working hard at ensuring the private security of Bitcoin users. Andresen says his past six months have been spent building “multi-signature transactions” for the Bitcoin network. He explains the multi-signature security feature as thus: “They are kind of like if you took all of the paper money in your wallet and then tore it in half and put half in your safe deposit box and kept the other half in your house. A robber would have to break into both your house and your safe deposit box to steal your money.”
You’d be hard pressed to find that kind of security with your current stash of cash if for nothing else but because it would be ungodly inconvenient for the consumer, to say nothing of the ambitious thief. Andresen says that’s one of the major advantages Bitcoins will have over our current terrestrial currency: you can conjunctively store your Bitcoins in two places at once so that in order to use them, a person would need access to both storage sites. One location where you might store your Bitcoins could be a secure website run by a bank which acts as the proverbial safe deposit box for Bitcoins whereas the other could be your computer or smartphone.
“To steal your Bitcoins, thieves would have to break into both your computer or smartphone andyour bank. And, it would be impossible for anybody at the bank to steal them without first breaking into your computer.”
The infrastructure for this multi-signature security technology is still in production, he says, but he expects that by the end of this year “there will be easy-to-use, incredibly secure and convenient solutions for storing and spending Bitcoins.”
With that kind of unprecedented level of security, it’s even possible that in the future Bitcoins might become a wise means for stashing your savings.
While the security advances will likely be a strong draw for future Bitcoin investors, perhaps of equal importance to the gradual growth of Bitcoins will be its acceptance as a form of payment with more online businesses, but that’s all in due time. As the reliability and legitimacy of Bitcoins is developed over time, don’t be surprised to see more online businesses begin accepting it. For now, though, the goal is to nurse the Bitcoin economy to a level where it will persevere the next blizzard of media attention the developers anticipate in the coming years. It’s possible Bitcoins may endure another “rise-and-fall” inflation in the future, but hopefully it won’t so easily shake the faith of the masses, at least as badly as last year’s roller coaster appears to have done.
In the meantime and in-between time, reconsider what those figures in your bank account really mean to you. You might see dollars or whatever your country’s currency happens to be, but the reality is that what you’re using these days intrinsically isn’t so far removed from Bitcoins. The Bitcoin experiment may or may not survive to 2140 but even if the Bitcoin itself were to disappear, the very idea of it is powerful enough that the development of an online currency will undoubtedly continue.
A few thoughts on the “hacktivist” group Anonymous that came out of Josh Corman and Brian “Jericho” Martin’s keynote at theSOURCE security conference in Boston last week:
Hacktivist is a sloppy term. A small percentage of those who claim affiliation with the ideology, or movement, or brand, or whatever we wind up calling it, are hackers or activists (5 to 10 percent are skilled hackers or activists, while the lowest common denominators “don’t do much” and are “glorified cheerleaders, at best”, they said).
We need a better, more efficient Anonymous.
Before we explore their rationale for Anonymous 2.0, it’s worthwhile to know why Corman – director of Security Intelligence for Akamai – and Jericho – a “hacker turned security mouthpiece” – care, and why they think we all should.
Here’s how Jericho explained it:
"Most problems on the Internet don't affect us. With Anonymous—and we're using Anonymous as an example for this presentation, but it could be anybody: Anonymous or a splinter group [such as LulzSec] or the next [group] that comes along—almost everyone is involved. Vigilantes, 'good guys,' analysts ... with civilians stuck in the middle. Those whose information is doxed, those people are getting affected more than anyone. If you're affected, you're involved. … Look at [Anonymous's] influence. From analysts, to law enforcement, to former members, to the media, to organized crime, to foreign nation states. "
Nobody in technology, nor in business, for that matter, can get away from fighting Anonymous or other similar groups, whether the fight transpires in media or anywhere else, he said.
So that’s why they care, and why we must. Beyond our own, personal involvement, a broader concern is that much of what we lay at the Anonymous doorstep may be branded as such merely as a smokescreen.
As Corman noted, this amorphous thing we call “Anonymous” has become the perfect scape goat. Anonymous members continually drop in and out of affiliation with, or actions taken on behalf of, the group.
Any attack can be labelled with the Anonymous brand, regardless of whether it was sincerely done under activist principles or is simply branded that way to cover the tracks of, say, a nation state (sound familiar? “Suspicious attack. Must be China!”).
For all the mayhem they’ve caused, much of what “Anonymous” has “done” (I use quotes because there’s often [usually?] no way to determine actual perpetrators) is to simply exploit low-hanging fruit, Jericho said, thus erecting worthwhile signposts to cyber security flaws.
As Corman put it:
"Anonymous has held up a mirror to our defects. [They've done] nothing really hard. They've just showed us how insecure we are [with regards to] basic Internet hygiene. If they turned up the heat, it would be even worse."
In a nutshell, if we can’t deal with the worst the Anonymous-affiliated have to offer, “we’re f*cked,” Jericho said. If that word offends you, “you have to get out of the industry,” because sooner or later, in one fashion or another, you’ll likely have to deal with Anonymous.
Which leads to why we we should wish for, or even need, a better, more efficient Anonymous.
As it is, Jericho said, Anonymous are “a crude, blunt weapon”. Why not a better Anonymous? One that’s more efficient and that gets stuff done with less collateral damage? One that doesn’t dox the personal information of innocent people and put them and their families at risk?
The steps for creating what they call a “a straw man of ‘organized chaos'”:
Statement of belief, values, objectives, and first principles – i.e. WHY you have come together
Code of conduct and operational parameters – i.e. HOW you conduct your pursuit of your common goals
A plan for streamlining success, increasing potency, and mitigating risks – i.e. WHAT will make you more successful
Would such codification cause the group to splinter? Hopefully. The group needs to specialize, Corman and Jericho said. An Anonymous splinter devoted to free-speech issues would be a boon if it could devote itself to the task at hand, for example.
Does Anonymous agree with the proposals? Anonymous has no unified voice, the keynoters said, so it’s a moot question — it is, after all, a composite, rather than a singular, monolithic group, and there are any number of levels of allegiance and reasons for participating.
But some regular actors in the movement have agreed with the tenets – one plus of a codified Anonymous is the ability to disavow a given action that goes against the stated objectives of the group.
Jericho pointed to the recently announced MalSec (Malicious Security) group as an example of how new splinter groups might codify their beliefs. From their YouTube video:
"For many years we have watched as more unconstitutional laws are proposed and passed and as censorship, disinformation, and corruption have become the norm."
"In an attempt to bring these acts to a halt, we are targeting the very people that have attempted to do us harm. We do, however, fervently believe in free speech. Everyone should be able to express themselves freely, even if others disapprove. As such, we have decided never to remove the original data, when a website of an enemy is defaced."
That’s a start. That’s a statement of a belief – free speech – and a practice – refraining from removing original data. Thus the group can disavow fraudulently labelled MalSec actions.
Now, regarding the term hacktivist: I’ve used it. Lots of journalists have used it. I’m not going to use it anymore.
When Corman and Jericho polled the audience to ask how many thought that the law was winning in its fight against Anonymous, only one hand went up.
That only shows that Anonymous has won the media, Jericho said, whereas the law has failed to engage our attention.
The keynoters’ research has shown that some 184 Anonymous actors have been arrested and charged in 14 countries. Only one in three Anonymous-branded actions make the news, one in five make the news on tech sites, and only one in 30 make the mainstream news.
These are guestimates. The point is, law enforcement is making busts. They need to rattle their sabers more, and we journalists need to pay attention.
We also need a better term than hacktivist, which embodies the romantic type of Robin Hood image that Hollywood, journalists and the public adore.
“The Anonymous affiliated” is kludgy. But perhaps we won’t be able to come up with a better term until Anonymous itself draws its boundaries, making it possible for a given action to be rightfully branded or justifiably disavowed.
If you can think of a better term to use in the meantime, please share it in the comments section.
And kudos to Corman and Jericho for opening up such a thoughtful discussion about a topic that’s too easily simplified and romanticized.
The tiny town of Lakota, N.D., is quickly becoming a key testing ground for the legality of the use of unmanned drones by law enforcement after one of its residents became the first American citizen to be arrested with the help of a Predator surveillance drone.
The bizarre case started when six cows wandered onto Rodney Brossart’s 3,000 acre farm. Brossart, an alleged anti-government “sovereignist,” believed he should have been able to keep the cows, so he and two family members chased police off his land with high powered rifles.
After a 16-hour standoff, the Grand Forks police department SWAT team, armed with a search warrant, used an agreement they’ve had with Homeland Security for about three years, and called in an unmanned aerial vehicle to pinpoint Brossart’s location on the ranch. The SWAT team stormed in and arrested Brossart on charges of terrorizing a sheriff, theft, criminal mischief, and other charges, according to documents.
Brossart says he “had no clue” they used a drone during the standoff until months after his arrest.
“We’re not laying over here playing dead on it,” says Brossart, who is scheduled to appear in court on April 30. He believes what the SWAT team did was “definitely” illegal.
“We’re dealing with it, we’ve got a couple different motions happening in court fighting [the drone use].”
Repeated calls to Brossart’s attorney were not returned. Douglas Manbeck, who is representing the state of North Dakota in the case, says the drone was used after warrants were already issued.
“The alleged crimes were already committed long before a drone was even thought of being used,” he says. “It was only used to help assure there weren’t weapons and to make [the arrest] safer for both the Brossarts and law enforcement.”
“I know it’s a touchy subject for anyone to feel that drones are in the air watching them, but I don’t think there was any misuse in this case,” he added.
While there’s no precedent for the use of unmanned drones by law enforcement, John Villasenor, an expert on information gathering and drone use with the Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institution, says he’d be “floored” if the court throws the case out. Using a drone is no different than using a helicopter, he says.
“It may have been the first time a drone was used to make an arrest, but it’s certainly not going to be the last,” Villasenor says. “I would be very surprised if someone were able to successfully launch a legal challenge [in Brossart’s case].”
Villasenor points to two Supreme Court cases—California v. Ciraolo in 1986 and Florida v. Riley in 1989— that allow law enforcement to use “public navigable airspace, in a physically nonintrusive manner” to gather evidence to make an arrest.
By summertime, there may be many more cases like Brossart’s—on May 14, the government must begin issuing permits for drone use by law enforcement.
Currently, about 300 law enforcement agencies and research institutions—including the Grand Forks SWAT team—have “temporary licenses” from the FAA to use drones. Currently, drones are most commonly used by Homeland Security along America’s borders.
Bill Macki, head of the Grand Forks SWAT team, says Brossart’s case was the first and only time they’ve used a drone to help make an arrest—they tried one other time (to search for an armed, suicidal individual), but gusty weather conditions made navigation impossible.
With a population of less than 70,000, it doesn’t make sense for the Grand Forks police department to own a helicopter, but the ability to call in a drone when necessary can provide a similar purpose.
Turn the handle and leave the past behind.Image: iStock/Robert Vautour
The French poet Paul Valéry once said, “The purpose of psychology is to give us a completely different idea of the things we know best.” In that spirit, consider a situation many of us will find we know too well: You’re sitting at your desk in your office at home. Digging for something under a stack of papers, you find a dirty coffee mug that’s been there so long it’s eligible forcarbon dating. Better wash it. You pick up the mug, walk out the door of your office, and head toward the kitchen. By the time you get to the kitchen, though, you’ve forgotten why you stood up in the first place, and you wander back to your office, feeling a little confused—until you look down and see the cup.
So there’s the thing we know best: The common and annoying experience of arriving somewhere only to realize you’ve forgottenwhat you went there to do. We all know why such forgetting happens: we didn’t pay enough attention, or too much time passed, or it just wasn’t important enough. But a “completely different” idea comes from a team of researchers at the University of Notre Dame. The first part of their paper’s title sums it up: “Walking through doorways causes forgetting.”
Gabriel Radvansky, Sabine Krawietz and Andrea Tamplin seated participants in front of a computer screen running a video game in which they could move around using the arrow keys. In the game, they would walk up to a table with a colored geometric solid sitting on it. Their task was to pick up the object and take it to another table, where they would put the object down and pick up a new one. Whichever object they were currently carrying was invisible to them, as if it were in a virtual backpack.
Sometimes, to get to the next object the participant simply walked across the room. Other times, they had to walk the same distance, but through a door into a new room. From time to time, the researchers gave them a pop quiz, asking which object was currently in their backpack. The quiz was timed so that when they walked through a doorway, they were tested right afterwards. As the title said, walking through doorways caused forgetting: Their responses were both slower and less accurate when they’d walked through a doorway into a new room than when they’d walked the same distance within the same room.
This “doorway effect” appears to be quite general. It doesn’t seem to matter, for instance, whether the virtual environments are displayed on a 66” flat screen or a 17” CRT. In one study, Radvansky and his colleagues tested the doorway effect in real rooms in their lab. Participants traversed a real-world environment, carrying physical objects and setting them down on actual tables. The objects were carried in shoeboxes to keep participants from peeking during the quizzes, but otherwise the procedure was more or less the same as in virtual reality. Sure enough, the doorway effect revealed itself: Memory was worse after passing through a doorway than after walking the same distance within a single room.
Is it walking through the doorway that causes the forgetting, or is it that remembering is easier in the room in which you originally took in the information? Psychologists have known for a while that memory works best when the context during testing matches the context during learning; this is an example of what is called the encoding specificity principle. But the third experiment of the Notre Dame study shows that it’s not just the mismatching context driving the doorway effect. In this experiment (run in VR), participants sometimes picked up an object, walked through a door, and then walked through a second door that brought them either to a new room or back to the first room. If matching the context is what counts, then walking back to the old room should boost recall. It did not.
Buckminster fullerene molecules, the naturally occurring spheres made up of 60 carbon atoms, have long been suspected to have biological benefits. Now, a study that set out to establish if they were toxic when administered orally has proven quite the opposite—they almost doubled the lifespan of the rats that they were fed to.
The experiments, which were carried out at the Université Paris Sud, France, set out to assess what adverse reactions might be caused by ingesting Bucky balls orally. To do that, they fed three groups of rats differently. Along with their normal diet, one group was held as a control; a second was fed olive oil; and a third group was fed olive oil doped with a 0.8 mg/ml concentration of Buckminster fullerene.
The results, which appear in Biomaterials, took the researchers by surprise. The control group had a median lifespan of 22 months, and the olive oil group one of 26 months. But the Bucky ball group? They stuck it out for 42 months. That’s almost double the control group.
The researchers have established that the effect is mediated by a reduction in oxidative stress—an imbalance in living cells that contributes to ageing. To say these results are important is an understatement: the desire to live longer runs strong in many of us, and it’s a feat scientists have been hoping to achieve for centuries.
But while it’s a remarkable finding, it’s worth remembering that it’s just a single study. It’s going to take a hell of a lot more work before the scientific community is completely convinced that we should all be splashing Bucky-enriched olive oil on our salads, that’s for sure. [Biomaterialsvia Extreme Longevity]
PUBLISHED: 16:58 EST, 21 April 2012 | UPDATED: 17:45 EST, 21 April 2012
A weapons expert who worked with Dr David Kelly at the Government’s secret chemical warfare laboratory has been found dead in an apparent suicide.
In circumstances strongly reminiscent of Dr Kelly’s own mysterious death nine years ago, the body of Dr Richard Holmes was discovered in a field four miles from the Porton Down defence establishment in Wiltshire. It is not yet known how he died.
Mr Holmes, 48, had gone missing two days earlier after telling his wife he was going out for a walk – just as Dr Kelly did before he was found dead at an Oxfordshire beauty spot in July 2003.
Police said there were no suspicious circumstances in the latest case but revealed that Dr Holmes had ‘recently been under a great deal of stress’.
He resigned from Porton Down last month, although the centre yesterday refused to explain why.
Inevitably, the parallels between the two cases will arouse the suspicions of conspiracy theorists.
Despite Lord Hutton’s ruling eight years ago that Dr Kelly committed suicide, many people – among them a group of doctors – believe his inquiry was insufficient and have demanded a full inquest.
Some believe Dr Kelly, who kept an office at Porton Down right up until his death, was murdered. He was outed as being the source of a BBC report that Downing Street ‘sexed up’ evidence of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction to justify going to war.
Although it is not clear if the two scientists were close, one source told The Mail on Sunday that they were friendly when they worked at Porton Down in the Nineties.
At the time, Dr Holmes ran a project organising the installation of chemical protection equipment in RAF Sentinel spy planes, while Dr Kelly was head of microbiology and frequently toured the former Soviet Union as a weapons inspector.
After the first Gulf War, Dr Holmes is also thought to have worked on the production of chemical protection suits for troops. In 1991 he was the joint author of a scientific paper about an RAF chemical and biological protection system.
Yesterday, a Porton Down spokesman confirmed Dr Holmes had quit his job but declined to comment further. ‘It is not our policy to speak openly about any individual who works for us,’ she said.
Before finding his body, Wiltshire Police made a public appeal for information but warned people not to approach Dr Holmes for their own safety because they believed he had been ‘looking at information on the internet regarding self-harm and the use of toxic substances’.
Friends of Dr Holmes say this disclosure irritated his family, who questioned why a scientist engaged in chemical warfare research would ‘need to Google toxic substances’.
Dr Holmes’s widow, Susan, is a chemist who also works at Porton Down as head of business administration.
One of the Government’s most sensitive and secretive military facilities, the site has long been the focus of controversy.
Three years ago hundreds of ex-servicemen who were used as chemical warfare guinea pigs there between 1939 and 1989 were given compensation and an apology from the Ministry of Defence.
They were tested with the nerve agent sarin, but some of those involved claimed they had been told they were taking part in cold-remedy trials.
Many suffered serious illnesses after exposure to the gas, which was developed by the Nazis during the Second World War.
An inquest into Dr Holmes’s death was opened and adjourned by Wiltshire Coroner David Ridley last week. Coroner’s officer Paul Tranter said Dr Holmes’s family had grown concerned for his wellbeing after he failed to return from a walk on April 11.
A search party involving police and members of the other emergency services began combing waste ground close to his home in the Bishopsdown area of Salisbury.
Police discovered his body half a mile away in a field used regularly by dog-walkers and joggers in the village of Laverstock.
Mr Tranter said the results of tests carried out to establish the cause of death would not be known for several weeks.
He added: ‘Police do not consider this death to be suspicious in any way, nor do they believe there was any third-party involvement.’
Privacy is eroding fast as technology offers government increasing ways to track and spy on citizens. The Washington Post reported there are 3,984 federal, state and local organizations working on domestic counterterrorism. Most collect information on people in the US. (Source)
Here are thirteen examples of how some of the biggest government agencies and programs track people.
One. The National Security Agency (NSA) collects hundreds of millions of emails, texts and phone calls every day and has the ability to collect and sift through billions more. WIRED just reported NSA is building an immense new data center which will intercept, analyze and store even more electronic communications from satellites and cables across the nation and the world. Though NSA is not supposed to focus on US citizens, it does. (Source)
Two. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) National Security Branch Analysis Center (NSAC) has more than 1.5 billion government and private sector records about US citizens collected from commercial databases, government information, and criminal probes. (Source)
Three. The American Civil Liberties Union and the New York Times recently reported that cellphones of private individuals in the US are being tracked without warrants by state and local law enforcement all across the country. With more than 300 million cellphones in the US connected to more than 200,000 cell phone towers, cellphone tracking software can pinpoint the location of a phone and document the places the cellphone user visits over the course of a day, week, month or longer. (Source)
Four. More than 62 million people in the US have their fingerprints on file with the FBI, state and local governments. This system, called the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), shares information with 43 states and 5 federal agencies. This system conducts more than 168,000 checks each day. (Source)
Five. Over 126 million people have their fingerprints, photographs and biographical information accessible on the US Department of Homeland Security Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT). This system conducts about 250,000 biometric transactions each day. The goal of this system is to provide information for national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence and other Homeland Security Functions. (Source)
Six. More than 110 million people have their visas and more than 90 million have their photographs entered into the US Department of State Consular Consolidated Database (CCD). This system grows by adding about 35,000 people a day. This system serves as a gateway to the Department of State Facial Recognition system, IDENT and IAFSIS. (Source)
Seven. DNA profiles on more than 10 million people are available in the FBI coordinated Combined DNA index System (CODIS) National DNA Index. (Source)
Eight. Information on more than 2 million people is kept in the Intelligence Community Security Clearance Repository, commonly known as Scattered Castles. Most of the people in this database are employees of the Department of Defense (DOD) and other intelligence agencies. (Source)
Nine. The DOD also has an automated biometric identification system (ABIS) to support military operations overseas. This database incorporates fingerprint, palm print, face and iris matching on 6 million people and is adding 20,000 more people each day. (Source)
Ten. Information on over 740,000 people is included in the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE) of the National Counterterrorism Center. TIDE is the US government central repository of information on international terrorist identities. The government says that less than 2 percent of the people on file are US citizens or legal permanent residents. They were just given permission to keep their non-terrorism information on US citizens for a period of five years, up from 180 days. (Source)
Eleven. Tens of thousands of people are subjects of facial recognition software. The FBI has been working with North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles and other state and local law enforcement on facial recognition software in a project called “Face Mask.” For example, the FBI has provided thousands of photos and names to the North Carolina DMV which runs those against their photos of North Carolina drivers. The Maricopa Arizona County Sheriff’s Office alone records 9,000 biometric mug shots a month. (Source)
Twelve. The FBI operates the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative (SAR) that collects and analyzes observations or reports of suspicious activities by local law enforcement. With over 160,000 suspicious activity files, SAR stores the profiles of tens of thousands of Americans and legal residents who are not accused of any crime but who are alleged to have acted suspiciously. (Source)
Thirteen. The FBI admits it has about 3,000 GPS tracking devices on cars of unsuspecting people in the US right now, even after the US Supreme Court decision authorizing these only after a warrant for probable cause has been issued. (Source)
The Future
The technology for tracking and identifying people is exploding as is the government appetite for it.
Soon, police everywhere will be equipped with handheld devices to collect fingerprint, face, iris and even DNA information on the spot and have it instantly sent to national databases for comparison and storage.
Bloomberg News reports the newest surveillance products “can also secretly activate laptop webcams or microphones on mobile devices,” change the contents of written emails mid-transmission, and use voice recognition to scan phone networks. (Source)
The advanced technology of the war on terrorism, combined with deferential courts and legislators, have endangered both the right to privacy and the right of people to be free from government snooping and tracking. Only the people can stop this.
From the very first release of ‘AntiSec’ related hashtags, Anonymous king-pin Sabu was under full control of the FBI. It is clear this was a red-herring to help promote the cyber-surveillance police state currently undergoing rapid deployment.
If police officers were to file a subpoena for your Facebook information, they would receive a printout of the data from the social network. This printout would be so detailed, complete and creepy that you should strive to be a good law-abiding citizen, just to prevent it from ever existing.
We have just learned about the true nature of Facebook’s responses to subpoenas thanks to documents uncovered by the Boston Phoenix, an alternative weekly.
The data — which really did come in the form of an old-fashioned paper printout rather than as a digital file of some sort — included all of the suspect’s wall posts, photos he’d uploaded, photos he’d been tagged in, a list of his Facebook friends, and “a long table of login and IP data.” Based on a look at the actual documents, it appears the login and IP data actually lists which parts of Facebook the individual accessed — down to the photos, groups and profiles he viewed.
We work with law enforcement where appropriate and to the extent required by law to ensure the safety of the people who use Facebook. We may disclose information pursuant to subpoenas, court orders, or other requests (including criminal and civil matters) if we have a good faith belief that the response is required by law. This may include respecting requests from jurisdictions outside of the United States where we have a good faith belief that the response is required by law under the local laws in that jurisdiction, apply to users from that jurisdiction, and are consistent with generally accepted international standards.
We may also share information when we have a good faith belief it is necessary to prevent fraud or other illegal activity, to prevent imminent bodily harm, or to protect ourselves and you from people violating our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. This may include sharing information with other companies, lawyers, courts or other government entities.
If you’d like to see how the information looks, the printout of the “Craigslist Killer” suspect, who committed suicide before the trial could reach a resolution, has been posted online by the Boston Phoenix. Both the Boston Police as well as the Boston Phoenix have redacted parts of the documents. From what we can tell, Facebook doesn’t censor any data before responding to a subpoena, but we have asked the social network for confirmation.
Want more tech news, silly puns, or amusing links? You’ll get plenty of all three if you keep up with Rosa Golijan, the writer of this post, by following her on Twitter, subscribing to her Facebook posts, or circling her on Google+.
TRANSCRIPT: On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with boxcutters directed by a man on dialysis in a cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop directed the most sophisticated penetration of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world, overpowering the passengers and the military combat-trained pilots on 4 commercial aircraft before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor.
These 19 hijackers, devout religious fundamentalists who liked to drink alcohol, snort cocaine, and live with pink-haired strippers, managed to knock down 3 buildings with 2 planes in New York, while in Washington a pilot who couldn’t handle a single engine Cessna was able to fly a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corskscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground, hitting the Pentagon in the budget analyst office where DoD staffers were working on the mystery of the 2.3 trillion dollars that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced “missing” from the Pentagon’s coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001.
The DIA destroyed 2.5 TB of data on Able Danger, but that’s OK because it probably wasn’t important.
The SEC destroyed their records on the investigation into the insider trading before the attacks, but that’s OK because destroying the records of the largest investigation in SEC history is just part of routine record keeping.
NIST has classified the data that they used for their model of WTC7′s collapse, but that’s OK because knowing how they made their model of that collapse would “jeopardize public safety“.
The FBI has argued that all material related to their investigation of 9/11 should be kept secret from the public, but that’s OK because the FBI probably has nothing to hide.
This man never existed, nor is anything he had to say worthy of your attention, and if you say otherwise you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist and deserve to be shunned by all of humanity. Likewise him, him, him, and her. (and her and her and him).
Osama Bin Laden lived in a cave fortress in the hills of Afghanistan, but somehow got away. Then he was hiding out in Tora Bora but somehow got away. Then he lived in Abottabad for years, taunting the most comprehensive intelligence dragnet employing the most sophisticated technology in the history of the world for 10 years, releasing video after video with complete impunity (and getting younger and younger as he did so), before finally being found in a daring SEAL team raid which wasn’t recorded on video, in which he didn’t resist or use his wife as a human shield, and in which these crack special forces operatives panicked and killed this unarmed man, supposedly the best source of intelligence about those dastardly terrorists on the planet. Then they dumped his body in the ocean before telling anyone about it. Then a couple dozen of that team’s members died in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan.
If you have any questions about this story…you are a batshit, paranoid, tinfoil, dog-abusing baby-hater and will be reviled by everyone. If you love your country and/or freedom, happiness, rainbows, rock and roll, puppy dogs, apple pie and your grandma, you will never ever express doubts about any part of this story to anyone. Ever.
In the future, if you tweet out a photo of a hilarious, meme-tastic kitten, it might be best not to include terms like “white powder,” “dirty bomb,” or “Death to America.”
Since late January, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been asking the IT industry to help it develop an open-source social-media application that would provide a panoramic real-time picture of any “breaking event, crisis, activity, or natural disaster…in progress in the U.S. or globally,” according tostatements released by the agency. Essentially, the bureau wants to crowd-source software that would data-mine Twitter and other websites to scan for—and perhaps predict—mass uprisings, criminal activity, and terror plots.
To make something like what the FBI is looking for, a programmer would have to write a scriptto yank content from, say, open Facebook profiles and Twitter feeds. Once the data is obtained, it can be quickly searched for key terms. The next step is “geotagging“—tying individual posts to specific geographical locations. But the app would have to deal with more than just keywords. Ideally, the FBI wants a “threat index” that combines multiple metrics such as locations, links, and networks into one waterfall search engine. Think Klout, but souped-up for the NatSec establishment.
At first glance, the concept seems sensible enough. It’s no surprise the US government would want to use every resource possible to stay ahead of the news and intelligence curve in case a new crisis hits at home or abroad. And because the program would be aimed at monitoring open sources, it might not sound like a major civil-liberties tripwire, since tweets and online forums are usually available for anybody to view.
Still, the idea of Big Brother checking up on whom you’ve friended on Facebook or watching the embarrassing videos you’ve posted on YouTube might be off-putting, even if you’re not a die-hard civil libertarian. Such initiatives are probably legal, says Rebecca Jeschke, a digital-rights analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, but they’re also “creepy.”
The FBI isn’t completely oblivious to such concerns. In statement sent to Mother Jones, a bureau spokeswoman insisted that the FBI is not looking for a program that would access private data or “focus on specific persons or protected groups.” Instead, she claims, the program would hone in on “activities constituting violations of federal criminal law or threats to national security.” The FBI also provided examples of words the application would be built to single out, including “bomb,” “suspicious package,” “white powder,” “active shoot,” and “lockdown.” “Although the FBI has always adapted to meet changes in technology,” the statement reads, “the rule of law civil liberties, and civil rights, will remain our guiding principles.” (They don’talways live up to those.)
Privacy concerns aside, the efficacy of open-source data-mining applications is, at best, questionable. “It reads almost like science fiction,” Mike German, a senior policy counsel for the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office and former FBI agent, says. “The FBI has this unquenchable thirst for more data…Here they are in this day and age, thinking there is some easy solution to identifying threats against the country. But it’s often foolish for agents to take what they see online and treat it as intelligence. For instance, if you run a search for some of their key terms like ‘lockdown,’ ‘white powder,’ and ‘active shoot,’ you get over 345 million hits. That’s 345 million potential false tips.”
The government has tried this sort of thing before, without much success. The Department of Homeland Security already has several controversial data-mining programs. In 2007, a DHS program known as ADVISE was suspended following an internal audit by the department’s inspector general for dodging a required privacy review. And last September, the Government Accountability Office issued a report (PDF) that urged stronger executive oversight of DHS data-mining to ensure necessary privacy protections. The Defense Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, and Central Intelligence Agency also have well-documented histories of flirting with large-scale data-mining, with mixed, secret, and often controversial results.
In 2008, a privacy and terrorism commission backed by DHS published a 376-page report titled “Protecting Individual Privacy in the Struggle Against Terrorists” that panned the logic behind post-9/11 data-mining. “Automated identification of terrorists through data mining (or any other known methodology) is neither feasible as an objective nor desirable as a goal of technology development effort,” the commissioners wrote. “Even in well-managed programs, such tools are likely to return significant rates of false positives, especially if the tools are highly automated.”
The FBI, however, is undaunted. As of Wednesday, it’s still looking for programmers.
We speak with Jacob Appelbaum, a computer researcher who has faced a stream of interrogations and electronic surveillance since he volunteered with the whistleblowing website, WikiLeaks. He describes being detained more than a dozen times at the airport and interrogated by federal agents who asked about his political views and confiscated his cell phone and laptop. When asked why he cannot talk about what happened after he was questioned, Appelbaum says, “Because we don’t live in a free country. And if I did, I guess I could tell you about it.” A federal judge ordered Twitter to hand over information about Appelbaum’s account. Meanwhile, he continues to work on the Tor Project, an anonymity network that ensures every person has the right to browse the internet without restriction and the right to speak freely. This interview is part of a 5-part special on growing state surveillance. Click here to see segment 1, 2, 4 and 5surveillance. [includes rush transcript]
We are Anonymous, and we do not forgive. Forgiveness requires humility, humility requires dignity. We have neither.
We are void of human restraints, such as self respect and common sense.
All those who break this pact will be eliminated without hesitation. And by elimination we will put their name on an icky photo and shit in each others’ mouths.
Those who perform reckless actions or wish to harm the Anonymous will be eliminated without hesitation. Again, elimination is our word for doing very little about it.
Failure is the basis of our existence.
Enemies of the Anonymous include anyone who can point out how many times we contradict ourselves in a single sentence.
Our enemies are to be flaccidly made fun of, using the same tired photoshopped stuff stolen from someone else.
Anonymous must “work” as one. No Anonymous knows anything.
Betrayal of Anonymous is both ironic and appropriate.
Manipulation of the weak and innocent is something that the truly weak believe indicates power, as such we do it alot. Not well but, often. Once a victim is no longer commodious, they are to be eliminated. Also, the cow was slaughtered in the abattoir.
REPRODUCE. REPRODUCE. REPRODUCE. Like cockroaches and Catholics we need to make sure our stupidity is at least backed by numbers. Quantity over quality. Loud = Funny.
No man-made or natural occurance can harm the Anonymous. Except when Mom and Dad ground us from the computer. That’s pouting time.
Under no circumstances are Anonymous human. We are beneath humans and mortality.
Anonymous are not to partake in meaningless tasks….pffft Ahhh dude I’m totally shitting ya, that’s all we do.
You are legion, for we are many. That makes it easier to defend ourselves when smart people tell us to stop acting like idiots.
Anonymous is everywhere at all times, we like to loiter. we really have nothing better to do than hang out. Yet, singular Anonymous are not permitted to know everything. Which is good, because we know very little.
All have the potential to be Anonymous until they choose to drop a bag of fertilizer on their nutsack and grow a pair. Those who are not Anonymous are to be eliminated….or photoshopped into a nasty photo which ever one requires less standing and walking. Or hack a paypal account and charge PS3’s, send massive amounts of cowardly and empty death threats or, whatever weak ass “criminal” act we think will make us appear powerful.
Anonymous has no weakness or flaw. Well, except maybe getting laid. That ain’t happening. And a whole bunch of others. But besides crippling personality flaws, body odor, lack of humor, not getting laid and relying on shock value and memes to speak for us…we have only a few more flaws and weaknesses.
Laws of Nature and Man cannot restrain the Anonymous. However, an IP ban, power outage or, a light punch to the solar plexus can drop us like a bag of bad habits.
Anonymous is Zero. Feuding and argument amongst the Anonymous is both constant and unavoidable.
Anonymous is in control at all times. We just choose to waste all of it.
Anonymous has no identity. Those who are not Anonymous yet know our presence must be eliminated. Again and, I can not stress this enough people, “eliminate” means sitting on our asses all day pretending to jerk off to Goatse, while our mothers yell at us to get jobs.
Anonymous cannot be contained by mere restraints. We are far too fat to fit any normal conveyance, handcuffs or standard size airline seats.
Anonymous are all equally stupid. No one is more retarded then Anonymous.
Anonymous must obey the Code. Those who do not are to be raped with our mighty e-peens, until supper time and homework, then an hour of Gameboy before bedtime.
Anonymous worships nothing because anonymous is nothing.
Anonymous cares for nothing, but Anonymous. Our existence is vapid, myopic and limited.
Humanity is the virus; Anonymous is the open wound that invites it in.
Snopes receives funding from an undisclosed source. The source is undisclosed because Snopes refuses to disclose that source. The Democratic Alliance, a funding channel for uber-Leftist (Marxist) Billionaires (George Soros etc.), direct funds to an “Internet Propaganda Arm” pushing these views. The Democratic Alliance has been reported to instruct Fundees to not disclose their funding source.
For the past few years www.snopes.com has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the ‘tell-all final word’ on any comment, claim and email. But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com. It is run by a husband and wife team – that’s right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It’s just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby. David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research.
The reason for the questions – or skepticisms – is a result of snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the ‘true’ bottom of various issues.A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the Internet, ‘supposedly’ the Mikkelson’s claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort ‘ever’ took place. I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud Gregg’s contact phone numbers – and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec’s at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg that no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm.
Yet, snopes.com issued a statement as the ‘final factual word’ on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things – not!Then it has been learned the Mikkelson’s are very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over the Internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson’s liberalism revealing itself in their website findings. Gee, what a shock?
So, I say this now to everyone who goes to snopes.com to get what they think to be the bottom line fact ‘proceed with caution.’ Take what it says at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself. Plus,you can always search a subject and do the research yourself.I have found this to be true also! Many videos of Obama I tried to verify on Snopes and they said they were False. Then they gave their liberal slant! I have suspected some problems with snopes for some time now, but I have only caught them in half-truths. If there is any subjectivity they do an immediate full left rudder.I have recently discovered that Snopes.com is owned by a flaming liberal and this man is in the tank for Obama. There are many things they have listed on their site as a hoax and yet you can go to You tube yourself and find the video of Obama actually saying these things. So you see, you cannot and should not trust Snopes.com, ever for anything that remotely resembles truth! I don’t even trust them to tell me if email chains are hoaxes anymore.
A few conservative speakers on MySpace told me about Snopes.com. A few months ago and I took it upon myself to do a little research to find out if it was true. Well, I found out for myself that it is true. Anyway just FYI please don’t use Snopes.com anymore for fact checking and make your friends aware of their political leanings as well. Many people still think Snopes.com is neutral and they can be trusted as factual. We need to make sure everyone is aware that that is a hoax in itself.
Thank you,
Alan Strong
Alan Strong CEO/Chairman
Commercial Programming Systems, Inc.
4400 Coldwater Canyon Ave. Suite
200 Studio City, CA. 91604-5039
Two major investigations have provided fresh evidence that civilians are continuing to be killed in Pakistan’s tribal areas by CIA drones – despite aggressive Agency denials.
In a study of ten major drone strikes in Pakistan since 2010, global news agency Associated Press deployed a field reporter to Waziristan and questioned more than 80 local people about ten CIA attacks. The results generally confirm the accuracy of original credible media reports – and in two cases identify previously unrecorded civilian deaths.
In a further case, in which an anonymous US official had previously attacked the Bureau’s findings of six civilian deaths in a 2011 strike, AP’s report has confirmed the Bureau’s work.
Anglo-American legal charity Reprieve has also filed a case with the United Nations Human Rights Council, based on sworn affidavits by 18 family members of civilians killed in CIA attacks – many of them children. Reprieve is calling on the UNHRC ‘to condemn the attacks as illegal human rights violations.’
New casualties
The Associated Press investigation, authored by the agency’s Islamabad chief Sebastian Abbot, represents one of the largest field studies yet into casualties of CIA drone strikes.
AP’s field reporter interviewed more than 80 local civilians in Waziristan in connection with 10 major CIA strikes since 2010. It found that of 194 people killed in the strikes, 138 were confirmed as militants:
The remaining 56 were either civilians or tribal police, and 38 of them were killed in a single attack on March 17, 2011. Excluding that strike, which inflicted one of the worst civilian death tolls since the drone program started in Pakistan, nearly 90 percent of the people killed were militants, villagers said.
In two of the ten cases AP has turned up previously-unreported civilian casualties.
On August 14 2010 AP found that seven civilians died – including a ten year old child – alongside seven Pakistan Taliban. The deaths occurred during Ramadan prayers. Until now it had not been known that civilians had died in the attack. US officials told AP that its own assessments indicated all those killed were militants.
On April 22 2011, AP confirms that three children and two women were among 25 dead in an attack on a guest house where militants were staying. Three named eyewitnesses in the village of Spinwan confirmed that the civilians had died – two had attended their funerals.
Bureau findings confirmed
The AP investigation has also independently confirmed that six civilians died alongside ten Taliban in an attack on a roadside restaurant on May 6 2011.
Last year the Bureau’s field researchers in Waziristan identified by name six civilians killed in the attack by the CIA. An anonymous US official used the New York Times to mock the Bureau at the time: ‘The claim that a restaurant was struck is ludicrous.’
Now AP’s investigation endorses the Bureau’s findings, stating: ‘Missiles hit a vehicle parked near a restaurant in Dotoi village, killing 16 people, including 10 Taliban militants and six tribesmen.’
United Nations
In the second new report confirming civilian casualties in US drone strikes, Reprieve has filed a major case with the United Nations Human Rights Council.
The study details a dozen drone strikes in Pakistan during President Obama’s time in office. Each is supported by witness affidavits, mostly from family members of civilians killed.
For example on Valentine’s Day 2009, just weeks after Obama came to office, a CIA drone attack struck a village in North Waziristan. Between 26 and 35 people died in the attack, nine of them civilians. One of those killed was an eight year old boy, Noor Syed. The complaint to the UNHRC draws on evidence from Noor’s father:
Maezol Khan is a resident of Makeen in South Waziristan, Pakistan. In the early morning of February 14, 2009, he and his son were sleeping in the courtyard of their home when a missile from a drone struck a nearby car. As a result of the explosion, a missile part flew into the courtyard, killing Maezol’s eight-year-old son. In addition, there were approximately 30 people killed or injured in the attack.
Noor Syed Aged 8 (Photo: Noor Behram)
Another complaint reports that four civilians died on June 15 2011 when a CIA missile hit their car in Miranshah, North Waziristan.
Far from being Taliban, the men were a pharmacist and his assistant; a student; and an employee of the local water authority.
That attack so enraged local opinion that at the mens’ funeral their coffins were used to block the main highway in a spontaneous protest at CIA attacks.
Clive Stafford Smith, Reprieve’s director, said that the CIA was ‘creating desolation and calling it peace.’
The UN must put a stop to it before any more children are killed. Not only is it causing untold suffering to the people of North West Pakistan – it is also the most effective recruiting sergeant yet for the very ‘militants’ the US claims to be targeting.
Pakistan barrister Mirza Shahzad Akbar runs the Foundation for Fundamental Rights, and prepared the UNHCR submission. He told the Bureau:
‘The US needs to address the question of a large number civilian victims, and also has to respect the well established international laws and norm. The UN is the best forum to discuss drones-related humanitarian issue as well as its far reaching impact on world politics.’
“The Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) rampaging around Uganda is nothing more than a US and Mossad-backed guerilla force.
Its task is to destabilize wide areas of Africa rich in minerals like Uganda, ex-French and Belgian Congo, and Sudan.
Joseph Kony, the self-appointed leader of the LRA, ex-choir boy, brilliantly flexible break dancer, the new US terrorist poster boy, has been on the CIA’s books for years.”
Based on this analysis, the CIA is probably also involved in the million-dollar propaganda campaign to draw the American people’s attention towards Uganda, and Joseph Kony in particular, in order to secure public opinion in support of a U.S. and UN intervention in the country.
Another excerpt from Richard Cottrell’s article:
“What is going on in Central Africa is a fine old game of ping pong, the new scramble for Africa, in which western intelligence (American CIA, British MI6, Belgian intelligence, Israeli Mossad) are playing both sides of the table.
The aim is to destabilize the entire region so effectively that most of it can be effectively controlled under the disguise of the usual humanitarian mission. The vast mineral reserves (copper, diamonds, gold, uranium, and oil, for starters) can then he handed on a plate to western exploiters.
This is a direct continuation of the CIA/MI6/Belgian/Mossad promotion of the Katanga breakaway state back in the 1960′s. The western powers encouraged their local stooge Moise Tschombe to pull out of the freshly independent ex-Belgian Congo.
The prime minister of the Congolese Republic, Patrice Lumumba, was murdered in 1961 with the complicity of US and Belgian Special Forces.”
One of the CIA agents who was involved in the illegal assassination of the Congolese leader Patrice Lumumba was Frank Carlucci, who was the Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration in the late 1980s. After leaving office, he became the chairman of the infamous Carlyle Group from 1992 to 2003, a company that is linked to the Bush and Bin Laden families, as well as other nasty people.These people are not only raping and murdering Africa, but they’re raping and murdering America and pretty much the whole planet. They don’t have human empathy, they are motivated by greed and want to take total control over the populations and resources of Earth.The satanic international banksters who control the CIA, MI6, Mossad, and other Western intelligence agencies are raping, killing, and looting in Afghanistan, Uganda, Iraq, Libya, America, etc. etc. etc.
The Kony 2012 campaign is a well-funded propaganda facade to lure good-hearted Americans into backing another illegal U.S./UN intervention in a part of the world that has been raped by cynical conquerors since the dawn of time.
This campaign is not about saving the children of Uganda from a heartless and brutal monster, but about stripping the resources of Uganda and giving them to the biggest heartless and brutal monsters on the planet, who own the CIA, MI6, Mossad, and the entire Western intelligence-security machine.
“Kony’s job is to provide the USA with the perfect excuse to invade Uganda on the pretext of inciting another humanitarian mission.
Yoweri Museveni, the dictator of Uganda, is also a CIA asset.
The CIA and its friends are supporting both sides.”
If you care about humanity, and the people and children of Uganda, then you must denounce the cynical Kony 2012 campaign, and inform your friends and family members that the real killers who are massacring children across the planet control the CIA, U.S. Military, Mossad, MI6, NATO, and UN.
UPDATE: The developer of a leading open source application for encrypted online chat, Nadim Kobeissi, claims to have been detained and interrogated at the US-Canadian border yesterday. “Out of my 4 DHS interrogations in the past 3 weeks, it’s the first time I’m asked about Cryptocat crypto and my passport is confiscated,” tweets Kobeissi. The US interrogator also asked about which encryption algorithms Cryptocat deployed and they were curious about its level of censorship resistance.
According to the ACLU, the border interrogation about Kobeissi’s encryption program raises troubling questions about the government’s claimed powers at the border. The “SSSS” designation stands for Secondary Security Screening Selection and if selected you become subject to extensive searches and interrogations — for any reason whatsoever. Ironically, since overall awareness about the existence of the Cryptocat program has increased, perhaps this unfortunate detention at the US border has done some good after all.
Nadim Kobeissi, master hacker, summoned for interrogation multiple times as a teenager by cyber-intelligence authorities in Beirut, Lebanon, sat in the backyard of a restaurant in Brooklyn, astounded that he was being treated to lunch.
“Please,” he protested, “you shouldn’t pay for my omelet.”
Mr. Kobeissi, 21, now a college student in Montreal, spent the weekend in New York City with elders of his tribe, software code writers who have ambitions that do not involve making suitcases of money off clever applications for sharing photographs online.
This group was building a project called Cryptocat, which has a simple, countercultural goal: people should be able to talk on the Internet without being subjected to commercial or government surveillance.
“The whole point of Cryptocat is that you click a link and you’re chatting with someone over an encrypted chat room,” said Mr. Kobeissi, who was born in Lebanon and said he had lived through four wars. “That’s it. You’re done. It’s just as easy to use as Facebook chat, Google chat, anything.”
The Arab Spring showed that the power of the Internet and Web communications is a multi-edged blade, with activists able to organize through social media and to get their stories out, and authoritarian governments often able to target the activists by following the trail of digital crumbs.
Among the conspicuous sources of information are the chat transcripts often kept on commercial servers, making it easy to see who was talking, what they talked about, and when the conversations took place. Cryptocat and a few other services disguise the content of chat messages so that they look like gibberish to anyone who does not have the encryption key. There is nothing new about encryption technology, but it is a brain-breaking subject, and the tools for using it are tricky.
Mr. Kobeissi started building Cryptocat a year ago in his bedroom with the goal of making it simple to encrypt an online conversation. He had help last weekend from the Guardian Project, a group of developers who are trying to make mobile phones secure. They figured out a way to encrypt a chat on an Android phone by shaking it, taking advantage of the motion detectors in many smartphones. This will generate the digits that are part of the encryption process.
“You can dance with your phone to encrypt it,” Mr. Kobeissi said.
Up to 10 people can speak privately to one another at a time in a Cryptocat chat room, a feature that distinguishes it from other encryption chat services. It is not ready for use by people in life-and-death situations, Mr. Kobeissi said, but it can give people a place to avoid everyday monitoring of routine conversation.
“Cryptocat is an enabling, positive technology, and it’s an alternative,” said Jacob Appelbaum, a developer with the Tor project, which routes Web traffic in ways that help disguise sites that people have visited. “A key thing here is that it is an experiment, with valid criticisms. It’s not perfect. But it is important that we have people who are interested and knowledgeable about computer security who are working on these things, not just for money, and not just to break into people’s computers.”
The group met over the weekend at a code-a-thon organized by Julia Angwin of The Wall Street Journal, which has chronicled the spread of commercial surveillance in everyday technology in a vital series of articles and engaging online demonstrations called What They Know. A recent article in Wired magazine detailed big advances in United States government surveillance capabilities. Mr. Appelbaum and a documentary filmmaker, Laura Poitras, are holding a teach-in Friday evening at the Whitney Museum of American Art on the subject of surveillance.
The invention of powerful tools to thwart the commercial and governmental collection of personal data has been criticized as creating hiding places for terrorists and online sexual predators. Mr. Kobeissi said he had been startled by those complaints. “Evil people have been evil forever,” he said. “I don’t think they’re going to stop being evil or become more evil because of Cryptocat.”
He appears to be wide open and unguarded about himself.
“I love it when people criticize me,” he said, pausing for a second and then amending his words. “When they criticize me technically.”
His ambitions with Cryptocat are not financial, though he is trying to raise $2,000 to cover his costs for the next year. “Money is great, money is amazing,” he said. “It’s not like money is something I don’t understand. I understand what it is. I care more about making something nice that people can use, and it’s free and it makes a difference.”
Bitcoin is not inherently anonymous. It may be possible to conduct transactions is such a way so as to obscure your identity, but, in many cases, users and their transactions can be identified. We have performed an analysis of anonymity in the Bitcoin system and published our results in a preprint on arXiv.
The Full Story
Anonymity is not a prominent design goal of Bitcoin. However, Bitcoin is often referred to as being anonymous. We have performed a passive analysis of anonymity in the Bitcoin system using publicly available data and tools from network analysis. The results show that the actions of many users are far from anonymous. We note that several centralized services, e.g. exchanges, mixers and wallet services, have access to even more information should they wish to piece together users’ activity. We also point out that an active analysis, using say marked Bitcoins and collaborating users, could reveal even more details. The technical details are contained in a preprint on arXiv. We welcome any feedback or corrections regarding the paper.
Case Study: The Bitcoin Theft
To illustrate our findings, we have chosen a case study involving a user who has many reasons to stay anonymous. He is the alleged thief of 25,000 Bitcoins. This is a summary of the victim’s postings to the Bitcoin forums and an analysis of the relevant transactions.
We consider the user network of the thief. Each vertex represents a user and each directed edge between a source and a target represents a flow of Bitcoins from a public-key belonging to the user corresponding to the source to a public-key belonging to the user corresponding to the target. Each directed edge is colored by its source vertex. The network is imperfect in the sense that there is, at the moment, a one-to-one mapping between users and public-keys. We restrict ourselves to the egocentric network surrounding the thief: we include every vertex that is reachable by a path of length at most two ignoring directionality and all edges induced by these vertices. We also remove all loops, multiple edges and edges that are not contained in some biconnected component to avoid clutter. In Fig. 1, the red vertex represents the thief and the green vertex represents the victim. The theft is the green edge joining the victim and the thief. There are in fact two green edges located nearby in Fig. 1 but only one directly connects the victim to the thief.
Fig. 2: An interesting sub-network induced by the thief, the victim and three other vertices.
Interestingly, the victim and the thief are joined by paths (ignoring directionality) other than the green edge representing the theft. For example, consider the sub-network shown in Fig. 2 induced by the red, green, purple, yellow and orange vertices. This sub-network is a cycle. We contract all vertices whose corresponding public-keys belong to the same user. This allows us to attach values in Bitcoins and timestamps to the directed edges. Firstly, we note that the theft of 25,000 BTC was preceded by a smaller theft of 1 BTC. This was later reported by the victim in the Bitcoin forums. Secondly, using off-network data, we have identified some of the other colored vertices: the purple vertex represents the main Slush pool account and the orange vertex represents the computer hacker group LulzSec (see, for example, their Twitter stream). We note that there has been at least one attempt to associate the thief with LulzSec. This was a fake; it was created after the theft. However, the identification of the orange vertex with LulzSec is genuine and was established before the theft. We observe that the thief sent 0.31337 BTC to LulzSec shortly after the theft but we cannot otherwise associate him with the group. The main Slush pool account sent a total of 441.83 BTC to the victim over a 70-day period. It also sent a total of 0.2 BTC to the yellow vertex over a 2-day period. One day before the theft, the yellow vertex also sent 0.120607 BTC to LulzSec. Theyellow vertex represents a user who is the owner of at least five public-keys:
Like the victim, he is a member of the Slush pool, and like the thief, he is a one-time donator toLulzSec. This donation, the day before the theft, is his last known activity using these public-keys.
A Flow and Temporal Analysis
In addition to visualizing the egocentric network of the thief with a fixed radius, we can follow significant flows of value through the network over time. If a vertex representing a user receives a large volume of Bitcoins relative to their estimated balance, and, shortly after, transfers a significant proportion of those Bitcoins to another user, we deem this interesting. We built a special purpose tool that, starting with a chosen vertex or set of vertices, traces significant flows of Bitcoins over time. In practice we have found this tool to be quite revealing when analyzing the user network.
Fig. 3: A visualization of Bitcoin flow from the theft. The size of a vertex corresponds to its degree in the entire network. The color denotes the volume of Bitcoins — warmer colors have larger volumes flowing through them. We also provide an SVG which contains hyperlinks to the relevant Block Explorer pages.
Fig. 4: An annotated version of Fig. 3.
In the left inset, we can see that the Bitcoins are shuffled between a small number of accounts and then transferred back to the initial account. After this shuffling step, we have identified four significant outflows of Bitcoins that began at 19:49, 20:01, 20:13 and 20:55. Of particular interest are the outflows that began at 20:55 (labeled as 1 in both insets) and 20:13 (labeled as 2 in both insets). These outflows pass through several subsequent accounts over a period of several hours. Flow 1 splits at the vertex labeled A in the right inset at 04:05 the day after the theft. Some of its Bitcoins rejoin Flow 2 at the vertex labeled B. This new combined flow is labeled as 3 in the right inset. The remaining Bitcoins from Flow 1 pass through several additional vertices in the next two days. This flow is labeled as 4 in the right inset.
A surprising event occurs on 16/06/2011 at approximately 13:37. A small number of Bitcoins are transferred from Flow 3 to a heretofore unseen public-key 1FKFiCYJSFqxT3zkZntHjfU47SvAzauZXN. Approximately seven minutes later, a small number of Bitcoins are transferred from Flow 3 to another heretofore unseen public-key 1FhYawPhWDvkZCJVBrDfQoo2qC3EuKtb94. Finally, there are two simultaneous transfers from Flow 4 to two more heretofore unseen public-keys:1MJZZmmSrQZ9NzeQt3hYP76oFC5dWAf2nD and 12dJo17jcR78Uk1Ak5wfgyXtciU62MzcEc. We have determined that these four public-keys — which receive Bitcoins from two separate flows that split from each other two days previously — are all contracted to the same user in our ancillary network. This user is represented as C.
There are several other examples of interesting flow. The flow labeled as Y involves the movement of Bitcoins through thirty unique public-keys in a very short period of time. At each step, a small number of Bitcoins (typically 30 BTC which had a market value of approximately US$500 at the time of the transactions) are siphoned off. The public-keys that receive the small number of Bitcoins are typically represented by small blue vertices due to their low volume and degree. On 20/06/2011 at 12:35, each of these public-keys makes a transfer to a public-key operated by the MyBitcoin service. Curiously, this public-key was previously involved in another separate Bitcoin theft.WikiLeaksWikiLeaks recently advised its Twitter followers that it now accepts anonymous donations via Bitcoin. They also state that “Bitcoin is a secure and anonymous digital currency. Bitcoins cannot be easily tracked back to you, and are a [sic] safer and faster alternative to other donation methods.” They proceed to describe a more secure method of donating Bitcoins that involves the generation of a one-time public-key but the implications for those who donate using the tweeted public-key are unclear. Is it possible to associate a donation with other Bitcoin transactions performed by the same user or perhaps identify them using external information?
Fig. 5: A visualization of the egocentric user network of WikiLeaks. We can identify many of the users in this visualization.
Our tools resolve several of the users with identifying information gathered from the Bitcoin Forums, the Bitcoin Faucet, Twitter streams, etc. These users can be linked either directly or indirectly to their donations. The presence of a Bitcoin mining pool (a large red vertex) and a number of public-keys between it and WikiLeaks’ public-key is interesting. Our point is that, by default, a donation to WikiLeaks’ ‘public’ public-key may not be anonymous.
Conclusion
This is a straight-forward passive analysis of public data that allows us to de-anonymize considerable portions of the Bitcoin network. We can use tools from network analysis to visualize egocentric networks and to follow the flow of Bitcoins. This can help us identify several centralized services that may have even more details about interesting users. We can also apply techniques such as community finding, block modeling, network flow algorithms, etc. to better understand the network.
Feedback
We are excited about the Bitcoin project and consider it a remarkable milestone in the evolution of electronic currencies. Our motivation for this work has not been to de-anonymize any individual users; rather it is to illustrate the limits of anonymity in the Bitcoin system. It is important that users do not have a false expectation of anonymity. We welcome any feedback or comments regarding the preprint on arXiv or the details in this post.
Energy-intensive industrial farming practices that rely on toxic chemicals and genetically engineered crops are not just undermining public health–they’re destroying the planet. Here’s how:
#1 Generating Massive Greenhouse Gas Pollution (CO2, Methane, Nitrous Oxide) and Global Warming; While Promoting False Solutions Such as Industrial Biofuels, So-Called Drought-Resistant Crops, and Genetically Engineered Trees
Evaluations of corn grown for ethanol show that whatever reduction in emissions you get from burning corn instead of oil in the gas tank is more than offset by the fact that producing biofuel from corn requires as much fuel as it could replace.
Corn production, like the production of all of the crops (corn, cotton, canola, soy, and now, sugar beets and alfalfa) that Monsanto has so successfully industrialized through its business model of selling patented GMO seeds to increase the use of its pesticides, is very fossil fuel intensive.
But that’s just the beginning of Monsanto’s contribution to agriculture’s green house gas emissions. With ever-increasing acreage, where are all those GMO crops going? They’re being fed to animals, and when you look at emissions from factory farms, you’ll wish we burned them in the gas tank instead!
Added to the greenhouse gas emissions from crop production and factory farms is the pollution related to heavily processed food and the fact that food in the U.S. travels anywhere from 1500 to 3000 miles to reach your plate and must be either cooled or frozen in transit or storage. That’s fossil fuel intensive, too.
Before we total the life cycle contribution of Monsanto’s crops to greenhouse gas emissions, we have to take several steps back and acknowledge that clearing land to grow GMO crops for animal feed is the biggest driver of forest and wetland destruction, which generates 20% of all climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases.
All told, the production and processing of Monsanto’s GMO crops, from deforestation to fossil-fuel-based pesticides and fertilizers, polluting factory farms, and fuel-intensive food processing and distribution, is estimated to produce up to 51% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
#2 Polluting the Environment and the Soil-Food Web with Pesticides, Chemical Fertilizers, and Persistent Toxins, Including Dioxin
Industrial agriculture’s heavy reliance on pesticides and fertilizers is responsible for the release of many dangerous toxins into our environment, but since Monsanto first commercialized genetically engineered crops in the 1990s, we’ve been exposed to one more than any other. It’s common name is glyphosate, but Monsanto markets it as RoundUp and has created “RoundUp Ready” crops to promote it. RoundUp Ready crops are genetically engineered to withstand endless amounts of RoundUp. The success of Monsanto’s business model has made RoundUp the most-used pesticide in the history of the world.
The trouble is, RoundUp is very toxic. It’s known to cause cancer, birth defects and infertility. In fact, some scientists are now saying it’s more dangerous than DDT.
It only took about 15 years for the RoundUp Ready technology to begin to fail, with RoundUp-tolerant super-weeds springing up across the country and farmers having to resort to more and more toxic pesticides for weed control. The biotech industry says it has a solution: replace RoundUp Ready crops with a new type of GMO, “2,4-D Ready” crops.
As dangerous as RoundUp is turning out to be, the only thing worse would be 2,4-D replacing RoundUp’s as the most popular pesticide in the world. The use of 2,4-D releases dioxin. Dioxin is what has made Agent Orange, which contained 2,4-D, a source of horrific birth defects in Vietnam to this day. Genetically engineered 2,4-D-tolerant crops would be a disaster of untold proportions.
#3 Turning Farmland into Desert, Draining Aquifers and Wetlands
In the U.S., the soil’s capability to sequester carbon has been severely deteriorated due to the enormous increase in the use of nitrogen fertilizers, mostly to raise Monsanto’s genetically engineered crops for animal feed. The soil should be a sink for excess carbon but has lost about 50% of its organic matter, making it is less than half as effective as it used to be. Many of our most productive agricultural lands have been degraded or desertified because of industrial production.
Recent studies on the University of Illinois Morrow plots (the oldest continuously farmed experimental plots in the U.S.) have shown that since 1955, when synthetic nitrogen was first used, 40-190% too much nitrogen was applied, yet yields dropped and organic matter declined dramatically. These problems on the Morrow plots are writ large on millions of acres of agricultural soils that have been degraded by synthetic fertilizer all over this country.
Synthetic nitrogen fertilizer kills soil life, including earthworms and microorganisms. In addition to reduced yields, degraded and deadened soils produce less nutritious food.
Contrary to Monsanto’s marketing claims that their business is about “squeezing more out of a drop of water,” their genetically engineered crops are notoriously thirsty. It takes twice as much water to produce a pound of a RoundupReady crop soybean plant treated with RoundUp herbicide, as it does with a soybean plant that’s not treated with RoundUp.
#4 Poisoning Drinking Water, Acidifying the Oceans
Synthetic nitrogen fertilizer is also responsible for the nitrate poisoning of two-thirds of the U.S. drinking water supply. Synthetic nitrogen fertilizer is the major cause of the 405 oceanic dead zones around the world (including the Gulf of Mexico, the Chesapeake Bay, and the coasts of California and Oregon). Monsanto’s genetically engineered corn uses more fertilizer than any other crop.
#5 Chopping Down the Rainforests for Monoculture GMO Crops, Biofuels and Cattle Grazing
Clearing land to grow GMO crops for animal feed is the biggest driver of forest and wetland destruction, which generate 20% of all climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases. In Argentina and Brazil, Monsanto’s genetically engineered soy is the main cause of deforestation.
Argentina has one of the highest rates of deforestation in the world with an average of 0.8% of the forest cut down each year, against a global rate of 0.23%. During the period 2002-2006, 1,108,669 hectares of forest were lost. That is 277,000 hectares per year, equivalent to 760 hectares per day or 32 hectares per hour. The speed with which Córdoba’s forests are disappearing is unmatched worldwide, it even surpasses that of tropical forests in poor countries. This is a ecological tragedy for the primitive forests which shelter a biodiversity found nowhere else on the planet.
In Brazil, the soy output increased 7.2 percent in 2011, causing deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon to jump sixfold.
#6 Increasing the Cost of Food, While Reducing Nutrition and Biodiversity
The business press unabashedly links Monsanto’s profits to record-high global food prices and increases in the costs of farm inputs, especially Monsanto’s patented genetically engineered seeds. Monsanto’s profits go up as hunger increases and families lose their farms to insurmountable debt.
Nowhere has the connection between Monsanto’s fortunes and farmers’ misfortunes been so clear as in India where 200,000 farmers have committed suicide since 1997. For many Indian farmers growing Monsanto’s genetically engineered Bt cotton, suicide is their only means of escaping the debt they’ve accrued to obtain the seeds and pesticides.
Monsanto has made food and farming more expensive, while reducing the nutrition and variety of food available to the average consumer. The world’s farmers are increasingly growing more of fewer number of crops (especially Monsanto’s genetically engineered corn, cotton, soy, canola, sugar beets and alfalfa). The result is that we’re eating a lot more of these few genetically engineered crops, mostly in the form of animal products, oils & fats, and sugars. The most notorious genetically engineered ingredients are high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated vegetable oils, and processed meats.
The concentration of power in the hands of a few chemical companies like Monsanto and the industrial producers who can most easily afford their products, has resulted in a global food system dominated by two extremes: on one hand, a plenitude of industrially produced junk foods, on the other, regular food shortages and drastic price hikes. This leaves a billion people saddled with obesity and diet-related disease, even as more than a billion don’t know where their next meal is coming from.
#7 Spawning Pesticide-Resistant “Super” Bugs and Weeds, and Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria
Genetically engineered crops designed to produce insecticides or tolerate herbicides have proven a failure. Herbicide-resistant “superweeds” have increased farmers’ weed-control costs to $50/acre, as they battle weeds that can stand up to the most toxic chemicals ever invented, including RoundUp (glyphosate), 2,4-D, dicamba, atrazine, ALS inhibitors, PPO inhibitors, HPPD inhibitors and synthetic auxins. Monsanto’s Bt corn and cotton are being mowed down by resistant insectsfrom Iowa to India.
On farms raising animals for food, the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics has created a serious threat to the longevity and effectiveness of certain classes of antibiotics used to treat a host of human illnesses. Doctors concede that antimicrobial drug resistance due to use in animal feed has already cost thousands of lives. In 2006, the EU banned the use of antibiotics in water and feed, proving that raising livestock without drugs is possible.
Ban Monsanto’s RoundUp! Experts Say It’s Worse than DDT! Tell the EPA to Ban Glyphosate
Can You Imagine a World without Antibiotics? Tell the FDA to Protect Human Health and Regulate Antibiotics in Animal Feed
#8 Generating New and More Virulent Plant, Animal and Human Diseases
The following is a summary of a must-watch interview (Part 1, Part 2) that Dr. Joseph Mercola conducted with Dr. Don Huber.
The way Monsanto’s RoundUp herbicide (glyphosate) kills weeds and plants is by compromising their defense mechanisms, making them very susceptible to soil borne organisms. It’s not a direct killer, but it has a debilitating effect on the weed’s immune system, much like the human disease AIDS.
Monsanto’s RoundUp Ready gene, which enables crops to withstand glyphosate, doesn’t solve the problem of a debilitated immune system, all it does is make it possible for the plant to survive and to accumulate more glyphosate. RoundUp Ready crops aren’t killed immediately by the soil diseases RoundUp makes them susceptible to, because they’ve been engineered with genes from a resistant bacteria, but they are still more likely to succumb to disease than plants that aren’t exposed to RoundUp.
Among these disease-causing pathogens are fusaria, which causes sudden death syndrome in soybeans and is a major disease-causing organism for most of our crops. In crops sprayed with RoundUp, we find an increase of up to 500 percent in root colonization by this fungus.
While glyphosate promotes the growth of more virulent pathogens, it also kills off beneficial bacteria that might keep such pathogens in check in the soil and in the guts of animals and humans that ingest the crop.
Scientists have discovered a brand new organism in genetically engineered animal feed, an organism that has since been linked to infertility and miscarriage in cattle, horses, pigs, sheep, and poultry. We can anticipate that, with such a broad spectrum of animal species, which is extremely unusual, that humans will face the same problem, and there has been an increasing frequency of miscarriage and a dramatic increase in infertility in humans in just the last eight to 10 years.
The organism was initially identified by veterinarians around 1998, about two years after the introduction of Roundup Ready soybeans, which is one of the staple feeds. The vets were puzzled by sudden high reproductive failure in animals. While sporadic at first, the phenomenon has continued to increase in severity. Dairies are reporting rates of spontaneous as high as 70 percent.
The cause-effect relationship between high reproductive failure and this new microbial entity has been established, but the research has not yet been published. The reason for the delay is because they really do not know what the organism is. It’s not a fungus. It’s not bacteria. It’s not a mycoplasma or a virus. It’s about the same size of a small virus; you have to magnify it 40,000 times.
When the veterinarians wanted to find the source for this new organism, they went to the feed. The first place where they found high concentrations was in the soybean meal. Since it has been found it in corn and in silage, only where there is a genetically engineered crop that has had glyphosate applied to it. The organism is also found in manure when the animals have been given feeds with high glyphosate residues. When that manure is applied to pastures and cattle graze on it, we also see high infertility rates there.
The organism is found in the placenta, in the fetus, and in the sperm. In the dairy industry, it sometimes takes twice as much semen to get a conception and as many as four to eight inseminations rather than the typical 1.2 to 1.5. One bull breeder had to pull 40 percent of his bulls out of service, because of fertility.
If we continue to douse our crops with ever increasing amounts of glyphosate, we will inevitably see the same effect on human health as we’re seeing in plants and animals.
Glyphosate gets inside the plant; it cannot be washed off. Once you eat it, it ends up in your gut, where 80 percent of your immune system resides. Glyphosate can wreak havoc with your health by upsetting the healthy ratio of good and bad stomach bacteria.
Because organically-farmed fields are not doused with glyphosate, organic fields still contain beneficial soil bacteria that actually hinder pathogens in and on the food from multiplying out of control. This may be yet another reason why organic foods are less prone to be contaminated with disease-causing pathogens than conventionally-grown foods.
Pathogens such as E. coli have a high tolerance for glyphosate compared to their natural biological controls. What this means is that it may not be the presence or absence of pathogens per se that determines the safety of our food supply, but rather the presence or absence of the natural control organisms, which are effectively destroyed by glyphosate. Salmonella, Clostridium, and a lot of these disease organisms are ubiquitous. They’re everywhere. Our health is dependent on keeping them in check. If we’re eliminating that check, we’re going to see an increase in Alzheimer’s, thyroid problems, autism, Parkinson’s — any disease that has a tie with either the endocrine system or nutrient availability.
Genetically engineered crops are supposed to be nutritionally equivalent to conventional foods, but they’re not. On the contrary, they’re nutritionally inferior due to glyphosate’s herbicidal mechanism, which blocks absorption of micronutrients. Genetically engineered crops contain about 50 percent less manganese and up to 70 percent less zinc. They also contain less copper, iron and magnesium, just to name a few. This affects the overall health of the plant, and its reproductive ability, and when you eat this nutritionally inferior food, you’re not getting the micronutrients your body needs for proper function either. Animal products are similarly affected when they’re from animals raised on genetically feed.
Studies of pet rats are exposing behavioral differences in animals given genetically engineered feed, as opposed to normal food. The non-GMO-fed rats are docile. They can be pulled out of their cages and patted just like a cat. But try and reach in to the cage where the rats are being fed the genetically engineered feed. The rats are irritated. They don’t get along together. They always go off into their own little world. They do backflips. They crawl up and run around the cage. They can’t get any peace, can’t settle down. That is very typical of what you’d see with autism.
Doctors working with autistic children are noting many correlations between the rats fed genetically modified feed and autistic children. When you look at the stomachs of the GMO-fed animals, they have all of the severe allergy responses, the inflammation and the reddening. The intestinal lining is deteriorating. The smell of the intestinal contents is very rank. The biology has been drastically changed. Doctors say that’s exactly what they’re seeing with autistic children.
Another effect of the new mystery organism associated with genetically engineered crops is premature aging. Research done in Iowa three years ago showed that prime beef from a two-year old cow had to be downgraded to that from a 10-year old cow.
Glyphosate can also disrupt a number of other biological systems, including liver function, blood function, and hormonal function. Glyphosate is a potent endocrine disruptor that can affect the endocrine system, thyroid function, and pituitary function.
TAKE ACTION
Ban Monsanto’s RoundUp! Experts Say It’s Worse than DDT! Tell the EPA to Ban Glyphosate
#9 Utilizing Wasteful Fossil Fuel-Intensive Practices and Encouraging the Expansion of Natural Gas Fracking and Tar Sands Extraction (Which Destroy Forests, Aquifers, and Farmland)
The industrialized food system is responsible for more than half of greenhouse gas emissions, making Big Ag one of Big Oil’s biggest customers. We could deprive the oil and gas industry of a significant amount of income by making the shift from polluting, fossil-fuel-intensive factory farms to carbon-sequestering organic and local agriculture.
Until we do make the shift, we need to acknowledge that the old adage “you are what you eat” applies to energy and the climate, as well as the body. It isn’t just Hummers that are pushing the expansion of natural gas fracking and tar sands extraction, it’s also Big Macs.
The worst thing about agriculture’s wasteful ways that the more fossil fuels we use to produce our food, the more farmland will be destroyed in the search for new sources of that fuel.
Natural gas fracking pumps many millions of gallons of hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds, including known carcinogens and endocrine disruptors, into the ground during the drilling process, and into the air from evaporation tanks. Pollution of water, air and food from the gas drilling industry is exempt from federal pollution laws, including the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Clear Air Act, thanks to Dick Cheney’s 2005 Energy Policy Act and its ‘Halliburton Exemption.’
In upstate New York, the three million acres of superior grasslands which are currently unused are threatened by natural gas fracking. This is enough pasture land to raise local, grass-fed cattle to replace all the factory farmed beef sold in New York City.
The Keystone XL pipeline would carry toxic tar sands oil 1,700 miles from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. The pipeline would cross the massive Ogallala aquifer, which supplies drinking water in 8 US states, and irrigation for millions of acres of farmland. We’ve already seen the damage the thick tar sands oil laden with volatile compounds can do from spills in the Yellowstone River and the Kalamazoo River. The first Keystone pipeline, developed with state-of-the-art technology, has already spilled 12 times in its first year in operation.
#10 Stealing Money From the 99% to Give Huge Subsidies to the 1% Wealthiest, Most Chemical and Energy-Intensive Farms and Food Producers
The following is a summary of Donald Carr’s must-read article, “Why the 2012 Farm Bill is a Climate Bill.”
In the 2012 Farm Bill, Congress is poised to cut 7 million acres from the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The CRP is administered through the U.S. Department of Agriculture and pays farmers to keep highly erodible land out of production.
Putting land into conservation programs leads to cleaner water, healthier soil, and robust wildlife habitat, and also plays a major role in fighting climate change. According to the USDA [PDF], one acre of protected land sequesters 1.66 metric tons of carbon every year, carbon that would otherwise end up in the atmosphere. The 7 million acres about to be cut from the CRP have been putting 11.6 million metric tons of carbon into the soil every year.
The Environmental Protection Agency says that this amount of carbon is equivalent to the annual emissions of 2 million passenger vehicles. All that stored carbon will be sent back into the atmosphere if those 7 million acres are plowed under to plant more genetically engineered corn for ethanol and livestock feed.
Meanwhile lavish government payments to highly profitable mega-farms continue, and farm state lawmakers and agribiz lobbyists are working toward newer programs that could increase taxpayers’ burden, along with agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Save the Planet From Monsanto! It’s not enough to stop eating genetically engineered food. If we want a liveable planet we’ve got to boycott all factory farmed food and make the Great Transition from energy and chemical-intensive agriculture to a re-localized and organic system of food and farming. The World According to Monsanto is a recipe for disaster. Monsanto and Big Ag contaminate every link in the food chain, threatening the very foundation of life: living nutrient-rich soil, clean water, resilient crops, healthy animals, stable climates, and diverse food sources. The good news is that agro-ecological and organic methods can reverse this threat and sustain food production for future generations, but we don’t have much time to turn things around.
The pilgrimage for tin foil hat explorers to the ominous borders of Area 51 can now be undertaken without the threat of being shot at or chased off by low-flying black helicopters, as the world’s first official Area 51 museum opens in Nevada.
The actual Area 51 site at Groom Lake is still guarded by ferocious dogs, movement-detecting sensors and armed guards driving Warrior trucks, but years of research and investigation have gone into creating the ultimate Area 51 experience within the equally-interesting National Atomic Testing Museum of Las Vegas.
Since reporter George Knapp broke the story of Area 51 in the late 80s withBob Lazar‘s claims of reverse-engineering alien technology, it has been a hive of conspiracy theory and stranger-than-fiction folklore. Built originally for working on atomic weapons and testing them in the surrounding desert, Area 51 has grown massively and now even has its own runway, which is said to be the longest in the world, at an estimated 9.7km.
For years, the military refused to confirm Area 51’s existence, which contributed to the mystery surrounding it. Now however, for the first time, the facts have been laid out and presented at an exhibition open to the public. Although there isn’t a huge amount of detail about the goings-on in the depths of Area 51, visitors to the museum can expect more than scorched metal fragments in glass cases and dubious testimonies.
“This is an interactive exhibit,” the museum curator Karen Green told Wired.co.uk. “It actually takes the visitor to Area 51. Camouflaged personnel will meet the visitor and escort them into a mission room — and keep your badge on, this is top secret. You’ll be asked questions throughout the exhibit to help understand both the myth and the realities of Area 51. We want you to make up your own mind.”
No-one other than the US government, and employees flown in everyday via “Janet” flights on private planes from nearby McCarran airport, really know what is down there. Inside Area 51, or “Dreamland” as it’s sometimes known, is said to be a labyrinth of underground tunnels, containing what is claimed to be anything from advanced US aircraft to reptilian aliens. Over the years, the attention generated by the rumours surrounding the base has made it impossible for any kind of secret testing to take place as brazenly as it may once have, but the site is still massively popular amongst conspiracy theorists and curious onlookers alike.
Green explains why now is the right time to open the exhibit: “The National Atomic Testing Museum has been working on this exhibit for over three years, interviewing many of the people who worked at Area 51. Last year the name Area 51 was finally declassified by the CIA, and that opened the door for us to bring the first ever museum exhibit about Area 51 to the public. There are a number of things that are unique to this exhibit, including firsthand accounts of experiences from men who worked there, a rare look at untouched original UFO photographs from the Bigelow Aerospace Archives, and some ‘UFO artefacts’ from a crash in the Soviet Union that were given to investigative reporter George Knapp.”
Knapp, an investigative journalist based out of Las Vegas, is regarded as one of the few people who’ve approached the mystery of Area 51 with a level head, and his expertise played a major role in the construction of the museum. He told Wired.co.uk: “I’ve given [the Area 51 museum] quite a bit of input, a detailed history of the origin of the UFO stories, Lazar’s background, snippets I obtained from other witnesses and former employees, and a whole lot of post-UFO history. Area 51 is now known all over the world (…) and I helped the museum understand just how far it has spread.”
Knapp has spent decades investigating Area 51 and has spoken to many ex-employees who have been privy to highly-classified information. He claims to have seen US government documents detailing how it was more concerned about the lights in the sky than it ever let on in the public domain.
“I broadened the discussion by sharing with them some information about the larger UFO picture — secret studies by the US and Russian military, a paper trail of documents to show the subject was taken seriously behind the scenes, and some unusual objects I brought back from two perilous trips to the former USSR.”
Regarded now as the US military’s “worst kept secret”, it’s likely that Area 51 has become far too famous for it to genuinely hold any kind of world-altering secrets such as a reclaimed flying saucer or alien hybrids in glass jars, but Knapp is confident that highly advanced technology is still being tested there: “I am told the base is largely focused on UAV type technology, everything from pilotless combat fighters to invisible planes — literally — to the tiniest UAV’s, advanced machines the size of insects,” he explained.
“If there were ever any recovered saucers out there, and I do say ‘if’ — then they are long gone. Too many people have been out there looking for them, including members of Congress and major news organisations. A congressional staffer with the highest clearances once told me that if the stories turn out to be true — and he believed they were true — then it was clear the military and intelligence agencies have been lying to the public and to Congress for a long time, have been siphoning funds away from legitimate national security programs to maintain a cover-up and that if it could ever be proven, then a lot of these guys deserve to go to prison. That, by itself, is enough of a reason to maintain a cover-up as far as I’m concerned.”
So if you’re not too keen on being spirited away to some unknown holding cell a thousand floors under the desert after trying to ram-raid the main gate at Area 51, visit the museum, as it’s probably the closest you’ll ever get to the real thing.
Shaahin Cheyene is an Iranian born writer, filmmaker, lecturer and herbalist based in Los Angeles, California . For over 15 years, Cheyene has traveled extensively and worked with healers and medicine men and women from all over the world in an effort to document and preserve their medicines and traditions.
n the early 1990′s while still in his teens, Cheyene spearheaded the smart drug movement by inventing Herbal Ecstacy and over 200 other award winning products. Herbal Ecstacy became a global phenomena that sold over 300,000,000 units. Cheyene later developed the first mass market herbal cigarette brand: Ecstasy Cigarettes. Ecstacy Cigarettes became the most successful brand of herbal cigarettes in the world with over 100,000,00 units sold. Cheyene has been called the “Willy Wonka of Generation X” and compared to the likes of Bill Gates and PT Barnum.
n the late 1990′s Cheyene was the first to travel to Mexico to discover a commercial source for the shamanic Mexican plant Salvia Divnorum and to import it on a commercial scale. He authored the first book in over 15 years on the plant.
Cheyene has worked with several of the major pharmaceutical companies in an effort to bring the technologies and benefits of plant medicines to the mainstream.
In 2000 Cheyene developed a revolutionary new technology and spearheaded the vaporization movement. He invented and patented the Vapir Vaporizer and authored the definitive book on the science of Vaporization. The Vapir Vaporizer has sold hundreds of thousands all over the world.
Now a full time writer and filmmaker, Cheyene has recently completed the award winning documentary film Serpent And The Sun : Tales Of An Aztec Apprentice and written the companion book Darkness: The Power Of Illumination.
Why did Jay-Z and Beyoncé name their kid “Blue Ivy”? What was the deal with Madonna’s Super Bowl halftime show? Why did Whitney Houston die? Some people might say that “famous people are weird and sad” is the answer to all three questions. But no, the answer is: The Illuminati. Who? Allow us to explain.
Note: to best service our readers, we’ve divided this guide into two sections — first, the believer’s guide; second, the skeptic’s guide.
The Believer’s Guide
What is the Illuminati?
The Illuminati is an ancient and shadowy group of elites who control nearly every aspect of life on this planet — from finance and government to religion and culture.
Who is in the Illuminati?
The Illuminati is made up of the world’s political and financial elite, and also, rappers. Theoretically, membership rolls are kept secret, but most YouTube intellectuals agree that the following people are members:
What do the Illuminati do?
Oh, you know, conspiracy stuff. Assassinations, currency manipulation, Super Bowl halftime shows. All executed through puppet institutions and groups like the Federal Reserve, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Freemasons, and Def Jam Recordings. And all carefully controlled and hidden to ensure that their meddling in world affairs will remain secret.
This is sounding more plausible by the minute. What’s the end goal of the Illuminati?
The end goal of the Illuminati is to establish a one-world authoritarian government known as the New World Order.
…and then?
Here, theories differ. Some of the internet’s finest minds, writing on scholarly websites like Yahoo Answers, believe that forced conversion to homosexuality will be a top agenda item in the New World Order. Others claim the first order of business will be to round all non-Illuminati up into FEMA camps, possibly as part of a deal struck with aliens in Roswell. Many, if not most, experts believe that the New World Order will be a front for the rise of the Antichrist.
The Antichrist?
Yes. The Illuminati is made up of Satanists.
Even the Pope?
I can see how it’s confusing. The Pope is actually a Satanist, just like Jay-Z and the Queen of England. (He might even be the Antichrist.) In fact, the whole Catholic church is just a continuation of Babylonian paganism, didn’t you know? They keep demons trapped inside the Pentagon, which is why it’s, you know, pentagonal.
Okay. How can I tell who’s in the Illuminati?
I know this sounds counterintuitive, but prominent Illuminati members frequently flag their Illuminati connections. Like how in Lady Gaga’s “Born This Way” video, there’s that goat head-shaped star formation? Or have you ever seen Jay-Z’s video for “On to the Next One“? It has agoat skull in it. Goats, bro.
Goat heads are an Illuminati symbol?
Goat heads represents Baphomet, the goat-headed god beloved by 19th-century occultists. It’s not the only weird occult reference in “On to the Next One.” The creepy guy with the crow, Jay throwing devil horns, the, uh, actual Masonic symbol — all of Hov’s (that’s right: Hov) videos are filled with Illuminati and occult symbolism. So are Lady Gaga’s: that pink triangle and unicorn that you thought was some campy gay reference? Actually symbols of the immaculate conception of a new order of humanity. So are Kanye’s videos, especially “Power.”
But how will the Illuminati possibly pull off their plan for secret world domination if they’re constantly advertising their own existence?
Hey! Did I tell you about Madonna’s Super Bowl halftime show?
Ooh, no, tell me.
It was obviously a Satantic ritual. The color scheme was red and black. She had horns on her helmet. The show happened within 48 hours of the full moon. Her male dancers formed a pyramid, a Masonic symbol. It ended with the phrase “World Peace” — as in, “New World OrderPeace.” And LMFAO was there.
LMFAO is Illuminati?
Can you think of any other reason for their success?
But why would the Illuminati hold a Satanic ritual during the biggest television even of the year?
To celebrate the upcoming assassination of Whitney Houston.
Who else have the Illuminati killed?
Oh, you name it — J.F.K., 2Pac, Bob Marley, Michael Jackson. Heath Ledger’s death was a ritualistic sacrifice. Aaliyah was killed by Dame Dash so he could become famous.
Wow. That makes sense.
I know. And there’s stuff we haven’t even covered!
What is the Illuminati?
A defunct German secret society of freethinkers, humanists and Enlightenment academics, founded in 1776 and infiltrated and shut down by Bavarian authorities about a decade later.
There hasn’t been an Illuminati in 200 years?
Well, it’s been in use as a conspiracy theory ever since it was first founded, mostly by monarchists, right-wingers, and religious Christians looking for explanations as to why things aren’t going their way.
So who believes in the Illuminati?
Generally speaking, Ron Paul voters, people who are in militias, washed-up rappers, teenage R&B fans on Twitter, and that one guy from high school who is always posting links to Erowid “experiences” to Facebook.
That’s kind of a broad range of people, isn’t it?
Yeah. Weird, huh?
I don’t get it. If it’s this right-wing Christian conspiracy, how do rappers start believing in it?
That’s kind of the million-dollar question. Columbia professor Marc Lamont Hill says that conspiracy theories are a natural response by African-Americans to their disenfranchisement: “There have always been questions and conspiracies about the structure and nature of power by African-Americans, and naturally those questions have made their way into hip-hop,” he told the Philadelphia Weekly in 2010. “[In the 1990s] people were going to black book stores… and buying books like Behold a Pale Horse… They were talking about the Illuminati and the Rothschilds and Bilderbergs.”
So Alex Jones and Prodigy were reading the same fucked-up conspiracy books? That’s wild, man.
Dude, Prodigy is going to to vote for Ron Paul.
The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (H.R. 3523) is a bill introduced in the United States House of Representatives by Reps. Mike Rogers (D-MI) and C.A. “Dutch” Ruppersberger (D-MD) in late 2011. It amends the National Security Act of 1947 to allow private companies and US government intelligence agencies to share information regarding perceived cyber threats.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH CISPA?
1. CISPA’s language, particularly in reference to how it defines “cyber threat,” is far too broad.
The bill’s definition of a “cyber threat” is so vague that it may potentially allow CISPA to encompass a far broader range of targets and data than initially contemplated by its authors. “Cyber threat” is a critical term in the bill, and is defined therein as:
…information directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to a system of network of a government or private entity, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network from —
(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or
(B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.
Under this overly broad, vague definition, whistleblowers and leakers such as Wikileaks, tech blogs carrying the latest rumours and gossip from companies, news and media sites publishing investigations, security researchers and whitehat pen testers, torrent sites (including our beloved Pirate Bay), and of course, yours truly, Anonymous, would all be ripe targets.
Additionally, as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) notes, CISPA’s broad definition of “cybersecurity” is so vague that it leaves open the door “to censor any speech that a company believes would ‘degrade the network.’” Going one step further, the bill’s inclusion of “intellectual property” provides for the strong possibility that both private companies and the federal government will likely be granted “new powers to monitor and censor communications for copyright infringement.” (Full EFF letter here)
2. CISPA demonstrates a complete disregard for reasonable expectations of privacy protection and essential liberties by providing for unaccountable sharing of user data.
As laid out, CISPA allows a large, nearly unchecked quantity of any and all information on a target to be obtained and shared between private companies and government agencies. The bill’s text states, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a self-protected entity may, for cybersecurity purposes…share such cyber threat information with any other entity, including the Federal Government.”
Why is this problematic? As it stands, CISPA’s text allows for a slippery slope of information and data that could be shared amongst private companies and the federal government without any regard for a target’s personal privacy protections. Such information could very well include account names and passwords, histories, message content, and other information not currently available to agencies under federal wiretap laws.
In a position letter addressed to Congress on 17 April 2012, CISPA critics point out:
CISPA creates an exception to all privacy laws to permit companies to share our information with each other and with the government in the name of cybersecurity. Although a carefully-‐crafted information sharing program that strictly limits the information to be shared and includes robust privacy safeguards could be an effective approach to cybersecurity, CISPA lacks such protections for individual rights. CISPA’s ‘information sharing’ regime allows the transfer of vast amounts of data, including sensitive information like internet use history or the content of emails, to any agency in the government including military and intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency or the Department of Defense Cyber Command.
3. The broad language in CISPA provides for the uncertain future expansion of federal government powers and a slippery slope of cybersecurity warrantless wiretapping.
Of particular concern is the word “notwithstanding,” which is a dangerously broad word when included in legislation. The use of “notwithstanding” will allow CISPA to apply far beyond the stated intentions of its authors. It is clear that the word was purposefully included (and kept throughout rewrites) by the bill’s authors to allow CISPA to supersede and trump all existing federal and state civil and criminal laws, including laws that safeguard privacy and personal rights.
The fact that the sponsors and authors of CISPA claim that they have no intentions to use the overly broad language of the bill to obtain unprecedented amounts of information on citizens should be of little comfort to a concerned onlooker. As it stands, if CISPA passes in Congress and is signed into law by the President, its broad language WILL be law of the land and WILL be available for use by agencies and companies as desired. Why should our only protection against rampant cyber-spying be us trusting the government or companies NOT to take CISPA over the line of acceptable (if any) data collection?
WOW, CISPA SUCKS! HOW CAN I HELP STOP IT?
Below are some various ways that YOU can get involved in the online and real world struggles against CISPA. It will take all of us to stop this bill, but we did it before with SOPA, PIPA, and [hopefully] ACTA, and we’re confident that it can be done once more with CISPA. The voice of the People WILL be heard loud and clear, and you can help because your voice matters. It’s time to stand up for your rights because, in the end, who else will? Internet, unite!
Educate a Congressman about the Internet and pitfalls of CISPA – here
Email a Congressman directly about the bill – here
Sign and pass around online petitions – here || here || here
Spread awareness. Tweet, blog and post about CISPA. Use the hashtags #StopCISPA and #CISPA so everyone can follow. Change your profile picture to an anti-CISPA image or add a STOP CISPA banner.
Tweet to CISPA’s proponents, @HouseIntelComm and @RepMikeRogers and let them know about the pitfalls of CISPA.
Let CISPA’s sponsor, Rep. MikeRogers, know how much his bill fails – here
Check out Fight For The Future’s #CongressTMI movement in regard to CISPA – here
Join the Twitter Campaign and Contact a Representative about CISPA – here
Protest. Organise in front of Congress and let them know what happens when they try to govern the Internet and strip our liberties in the name of national security. If you organise an IRL protest, please contact us@YourAnonNews so we can facilitate spreading the word on it and helping boost attendance.
I WANT TO LEARN EVEN MORE ABOUT CISPA! TELL ME MORE!
Ok…clearly you like reading and knowing the issues thoroughly. We’re proud of your dedication and passion to better educating yourself and others about this concerning bill. Below are additional helpful resources that you can check out to get an even better understanding of CISPA and how it will affect the world of tomorrow should it pass and become law.
Full text of CISPA, including recent rewrites and Amendments – here
A brilliant series of TechDirt articles on CISPA shed some light on the bill and point out exactly where its flaws are found — CISPA is a Really Bad Bill, and Here’s Why – read
– Did Congress Really Not Pay Attention to What Happened with SOPA? CISPA Ignorance is Astounding –read
– Forget SOPA, You Should Be Worried About This Cybersecurity Bill – read
NOTE: Even Obama seems to dislike CISPA — On 17 April 2012, the White House issued a statement criticising CISPA for lacking strong privacy protections and failing to set forth basic security standards.
Few understand the American election, even those who live here. I am forced to write for an international audience, which may actually make more sense to Americans. President Obama inherited two wars, a collapsed stock market and massive debt.
We look at the market today at 13,000 plus and still wonder why our pension funds are down and our homes are impossible to sell.
We also note that rents are up, food is up, gasoline is way way up yet that 13,000 market isn’t the same one it was in 2007.
It is a different group of companies, what we call a “fix.” The old “blue chip” companies went broke, or so we are told, and we picked new ones and are pretending things are better.
We make up for it by, not only printing massive amounts of counterfeit currency for ourselves but for Europe as well.
The Funny Money Game
More honestly, it wasn’t just the currency but the ambiguity of the banking business that let trade and investment build jobs.
Money was lent that never existed, collateralized by imagination, derivatives, overvalued real estate but real jobs were the result, jobs that came with home purchases, paid taxes, people buying things, when the “phony dollar, euro and pound” died, so did our ability to supply jobs.
We are now dependent, partially at least, on a couple of ways to continue that we see and some that are highly secret. What we see are these:
Every financial prediction is that the end came years ago but we are still moving on as though things were OK. This is a magic balancing act run by Timothy Geithner and President Obama who are trying to stop the massive thievery, overtly at least, and restore revenue through taxes on the rich, something that Reagan onward ended.
We are basing our economy on wartime spending, which is financed by borrowing. The wars, the Bush “terror wars” are the most insane and dishonorable in American history.
I even have Army Intel telling me the World Trade Center towers were brought down by sophisticated miniature hydrogen bombs. Photo analysis exists of all the attacks, millions of dollars of it, like that we released of the UFO in Korea last week. We are told it can never be released and it hasn’t ten years later, not to anyone.
Continuing on this is purposeless.The Republican Party, working with Israel and the Koch brothers, using manipulated polls, gas and oil speculation and rigging food prices is trying to crash the American economy before the election.
They are afraid of President Obama and rightly so. The GOP is primarily tied to narcotics, organized crime and has its only backing from Americans that no longer are willing to believe the outlandish lies they have been told as news for a decade.
The problem, a worse one, is that, since at least 1947, our history has been rigged as well. That story is not just strange but bizarre, frightening, and “topsy-turvy.”
We will get to some of it later. Now we move into the darker aspects of our economy, if such a thing were possible.
Federales Reservistos !!
Over the past few months, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, a rogue operation even by Federal Reserve Standards, without any authorization, created $31 trillion and simply “gave it away,” pumping it into European banks, we have records as there was a partial audit done at the request of congress.
Congress, however, went silent. The reason, overtly at least, is that the foreign owned banks that represent the Federal Reserve System, really an ancient expression of 18th century “moneylenders”, had “gone under.” Their massive private debt, amounting to “qau-trillions,” imaginary though it is, has made continuation of our monetary system impossible.
Only America can illegally counterfeit the massive imaginary currency needed to float these banks while about two thirds is eventually bled off, 1/3 to organized crime and another third we can’t find at all and nobody is asking.
THREE STEPS BEYOND CONSPIRACY THEORY
"They're Heeeere!!!"
For nearly 60 years, movies and TV have slowly focused on a plotline involving secret Nazi flying saucers, alien landings, inter-dimensional travel and a future that never came.
We were supposed to be living in “Star Trek” already, having settled the moon in “1999″ as the old TV show, not even available on Netflix, told some of us.
Our “conspiracy television” tells us of flying saucer crashes, and astronauts who saw “alien spacecraft” speak up now and again.
And finally, we have recognized what has been minimally “inter-planetary” aircraft built by our own governments using technology that we have had for decades, technology that represents unlimited “free energy,” perhaps uncontrollable planetary development but worse, disclosure of some “dark secret.”
Word goes two ways: you tell folks that everything is free, free water, free electricity, and “free lunch” and we go into a population hell of “not so white” folks who worship what many Americans think might be the wrong gods.
With Romney, our Mormon candidate, his religion is based on secret inter-galactic travel, transmigration of men only into gods and the use of women as sex tools after the “brain sucking machine” finishes them off.
This really is the religion of Mormonism, this and much more. It makes Scientology look better and better.
Mormons are all Republicans. Who else would think that exploiting brain dead slaves would make you ‘godlike?”
HERE IS WHAT WE CAN TELL YOU
Senior reliable sources, by that I mean mainstream “Big Army” flag officers, have been consulted about the use of cold fusion, hydrogen/boron fusion and other “non-lethal” or “aneutronic” devices that can provide all power needed on earth at extremely low cost.
Wind and solar are considered “dead duck” technologies as fusion is both very simple physics, containable, produced not only unimaginable power but expels usable electric current without any traditional conversion required by nuclear technology.
The questions are only design and construction with working models out there already.
This technology is decades old, as is similar technology that nullifies gravity. This means that conventional rocket travel, our guided missiles, our airplanes, even our most advanced secret projects have been entirely “cover and deception.”
MORE LATER BUT SOME “DARKSIDE”
It is no secret to most of you that “bad space guys” have been visiting earth. In fact, the only crazy part is the number of films that try to depict off world or interdimensional civilizations as having any human characteristics at all.
Any “advanced civilization” could be millions of years beyond us, questions continually brought up for fans of “Dr. Who,” the British science fiction series that runs decade after decade as a demented “Scooby Doo” type show with cardboard scenery.
The “dark side” is that all this exists. The dark side is that America, seen as the representative world power, primarily at least, has decades of interaction with alien species, multiple alien species, and has “bought time” as it were through denial and through agreements that allow the seizure of humans for something far worse than the “anal probe.”
DENIAL
Lying about this while basing much of our entertainment industry on what borders on fairly full disclosure, of the threat at least, is almost a joke. Our denial comes in the cost. There is little or no sign that much in advanced technology has been passed on.
Documents outlining the relationship indicate the existence of a highly secretive and advanced committee that oversees our response which is, primarily, the divestment of technologies and resources, trillions of dollars, into programs that are meant, and this is a guess only, to allow us to defend ourselves.
The point of conjecture, based on easy to “figure out” disinformation campaigns and our decades of frozen technology, all new mobile phones and little else, is that basic concepts in physics involving both field and energy systems has created capabilities that are incompatible with a planet where stone age to iron age civilizations coexist.
We are a planet where animals are bred for food under brutal conditions and where continual warfare, too often near “UFO” level technologies used against virtually unarmed civilians are seen as acceptable by most people.
Moral and ethical concerns seem to have been systematically bred out of the most advanced societies through continual exposure to highly propagandized public education and history that barely passes for mythology.
You can add in absurdly childish economic and political systems that pontificate while, in reality, reproducing pre-feudal values, theft of resources, enslavement of the mass of population, and the defilement of the “middle” or “professional classes” within bureaucracies that foster apolitical lives or attempt to replace philosophy with dogmatic religions.
This only leaves the need to discredit or contain real creativity or advancement through a system of “branding” those who disclose truths as “whistleblower,” the genuinely talented as “elitist kooks” and the rest as “radicals” or “conspiracy theorists.”
Anyone else can be and is murdered.
When need to “manage” comes to play, appetites for perversion, buggery, abuse of power, murder and torture, satiate those who wish to prove to themselves their power is real.
Toward that end, we have seen the torture, so much of it over the past dozen years that thousands have died in secret prisons, many filmed and the most obscene acts shown to the most powerful, some members of the Supreme Court, congress and the White House.
I DIGRESS
DC Boy Toy - James Guckert/Gannon
Years ago, there were accusations made against a president by a “pimp” who organized the kidnapping and murder of children who were sold for sexual favors to leaders of our government and key industries.
The tradition, for decades, had been to supply politicians with “road secretaries, women who would provide sexual favors in lieu of normal family lives, keeping errant politicians in line and retiring with senior executive (GS 15) positions.
Some of these women held America’s greatest secrets and these relationships have glued America together, or at least did, until the middle of the Reagan administration when pedophiles, mostly homosexual, had infiltrated the government as they had the Catholic Church.
The basic accusations, kidnapping of children off the streets of America, chosen for “type” based on “requests” by the supposedly powerful and influential were quieted by groups within the FBI and intelligence agencies with dozens being murdered.
“Politics as usual,” the murder of several senators, key government scientists, FBI agents, the discrediting of dozens, imaginary street crimes, Chandra Levy, Dr. David Kelly, John Wheeler II, Vince Foster, Steve Kanga and hundreds of others, were only “safety valves.”
The only one spoken of anymore is Senator Paul Wellstone who was assassinated with his family for political reasons.
The release of the recent photograph showing Lee Harvey Oswald standing in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository at the exact second he was supposed to be shooting President Kennedy is now accepted, part of the public record, and, not only denied but defiles us in ways we are now too stupid to begin to understand as does 9/11 and the 20 square miles torture prisons in Poland and a dozen other countries, or are they prisons?
No one has ever spoken to anyone who has ever been in one, either stationed as a guard, janitor, guard, nothing. America now has more secret prisons than Nazi Germany was said to have “concentration camps, far larger, far more expensive and, unless we can prove otherwise, capable of certainly more deaths.
How strange is that? In a nation of “human rights activists, no one asks, not a word from Ron Paul or the ACLU, not the SPLC, in fact no one has ever said a word other than mild complaints but never a law or request for an investigation or any curiosity at all.
What isn’t mentioned is that these facilities are huge, entirely secretive and show no signs of funding, no one has ever met a prisoner who has been in one, no accusations or trials are arranged, no named suspects are brought up, no crimes mentioned, no plots, no imaginary terrorist acts, in fact there is no proof that these are prisons at all.
Some of these are larger than our biggest military bases. What are they? We can’t prove they are prisons, no photos emerge, no witnesses come forward, no survivors have ever made it out, the Red Cross has never inspected them yet the Red Cross visited Auschwitz hundreds of times.
The best we could hope for is that they are CIA heroin and cocaine distribution hubs but they are too big and there are too many plus, we already know that Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo is where we run our drugs and where we manage our partnership with the Albanian Mafia.
U.S. Camp Bondsteel - Kosovo
Ever wonder why we have one of our largest military bases in the world in “Kosovo,” but nobody remembers every being stationed there or why it exists?
We had touched on stories of one or more presidential pedophile. I have talked with officials during the Bush administrations that were invited to “diplomatic functions” that ended with “private parties” upstairs. They said they thought it was just cocaine, this was the cover story.
I have since learned it was not cocaine. What was done with the kids when they had been “used up?” Does anyone believe the man in prison for killing Chandra Levy really did it?
ECONOMIC SECRETS
Organized Crime's Best Friend
There are two areas of economic secrets we will mention today, at the request of others. We have available incontrovertible proof that over half the diamonds that come into the United States are tied to terrorism and organized crime.
We also know that documents proving this, scientific papers, testimony, were turned over to both the FBI and State Department by credible sources in the international law enforcement community.
Published studies show that equipment used by American customs officials have been sabotaged to allow illegal diamonds, most manufactured using a sophisticated process more difficult to detect than simple “cloning” or simply smuggling conflict diamonds.
Fifty percent of diamonds brought into the US from Tel Aviv are illegal. Both customs and the organizations involved in overseeing diamond quality for the jewelry industry are financially involved. Quantities of proof are vast, authoritative and have caused several major firms such as DeBeers to restructure and divest.
Diamonds are the primary source of both money laundering and terrorist/weapons financing in the world and the US is quite purposefully avoiding demands they quit taking part in these activities.
America does the same thing with drugs.
NEW CHINESE PLOY
China is telling the world it can use “gold tailings” to remove 40 times more gold from ore than possible before. This is untrue.
Years ago, the South Koreans developed a methodology, though expensive, to actually manufacture gold. China has very small gold reserve for a nation as wealthy as they claim. In fact, their currency is one of the worst in the world and their banking system is inherently incompetent and corrupt.
It was also rumored, several years ago, that China, upon examining gold reserves it held in Hong Kong, found nearly 1/3rd to be counterfeit.
The issues have been, of late, seeking a currency for world trade and to secure and underwrite industrial growth while the “fiat” currencies of the west, all of them, have proven to be worthless.
Down the Black Hole
The $31 trillion dollars in unauthorized Federal Reserve currency exports is proof that, in actuality, there is no world currency exchange and it is now and has been for years, nothing but an act.
China has sought more, and to advance the process of creating a parallel currency as a hedge against political instability, to continue hiding from the public their recent political collapse and economic downturn, China has licensed South Korea’s technology for producing gold.
As cover for this, China has sent groups around the world buying non-producing mines, producing offers for worthless “gold tailings” and has been loading the internet and technical publications with pseudo-science, utter fiction and deception.
What we don’t know is how much it actually costs to manufacture gold. Is it $100 per ounce or $2000 per ounce?
Where we picked up the South Korean ploy is when they let market prices fluctuate up to $150 per oz. below accepted value.
The problems are twofold:
It creates gold as a derivative of subjective value, something Korea would never have done. Thus, any currency underwritten by gold will not only eventually have no trade value but, when the public learns of the process, gold market will crash.
Diamonds, a vastly larger market, both gem quality and industrial, have been manufactured for decades. Currently, there is no accepted technology that can detect phony diamonds. This is the truth and those who say otherwise are unaware of advances in growing diamonds from much smaller “seed crystals” with individual DNA. This is far different than “cloning” and, as yet, no equipment used by any government, quite purposefully, can detect these phony stones. Thus, all world diamonds are technically worthless.
CONCLUSION
This leaves very few waysof expressing value and power.
Future Tax Collectors?
If all currencies, all debt also, are deniable, if gold can be manufactured, and we can prove this beyond question, if all diamonds are useless and governments are choosing to turn to narcotics, weapons and hydrocarbons to express both political power and value, economic systems will continue until one of the bubbles burst or we have a world war, which is a more likely scenario.
Syria is the likely basis with US expansion of missile bases into Central Europe as the initiator.
Then again, the Serbian elections and a new realignment between Serbia and Moscow would flank US efforts to dominate the Black Sea region. With Russian power west of NATO, with Turkey and Israel at odds, with India producing ICBMs, aimed at China and Israeli ICBMs from India pointed at Europe and their real enemy, the United States.
Don’t believe this, start reading the Jerusalem Star.
US attempts to control Central Asia are going to fail until and unless we are willing to follow the unwritten Obama doctrine, trading Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and India for Israel and Britain.
When the Chinese have settled into Africa, each day planeloads arrive, they will find themselves overextended and dependent on an American military presence that has moved down the west coast of Africa in relative stealth.
The continuing problems will be narco-dependency and our lack of an American currency.
Our most crippling problem is the lack of a government, particularly the ability of the Supreme Court to go “activist” and usurp states’ rights, interfere in elections, write its own legislation, that and our “money in politics” issue, primarily involving Israeli interference in the House of Representatives is likely to bring about use of emergency presidential powers after the election.
Thus far, one Supreme Court Justice is guilty of tax evasion, another tied to organized crime, both “neocon-activists.” Both face arrest.
Despite the entertaining flurry of testimony regarding our army and Secret Service and their “whoring,” we have multiple high level confirmations of an Israeli attempt on President Obama’s life, to have been staged during the visit to Colombia.
If anything, problems with Israel are problems with Netanyahu alone. He hates black people and can’t help but show it.
Despite his lack of intellectual accomplishment, this is not a particularly clever guy, he talks to Obama as though he were talking down to a slave, which is how we are told Netanyahu thinks of anyone of African background.
On the other hand, Obama, Biden and General Dempsey, though all three extremely disappointed in Netanyahu’s lack of ability and manners, he has repeatedly insulted all three, believing his “mob” connections in the US make him “bulletproof,” see the writing on the wall.
Israel has been isolated, not by Arab dictatorships but by democracies. If Egypt can get rid of its military junta, Israel will be a lost cause, leaving them only their Wahhabist friends in Saudi Arabia.
The Muslim heresy of “Wahhabism,” spreading terrorism and ignorance, is and we aren’t kidding, a deal cut between the US, Saudi Arabia and Israel to open terrorism schools in every poor Muslim area, raising kids to be suicide bombers.
Why, we might ask? If you aren’t aware that Israel has made billions in profits peddling protection from “suicide bombers” around the world, you need to catch up on the defense industry.
To keep up business, if a real suicide bomber, some poor mentally abused kid preyed on my religious crazies can’t be found, “someone” will build a car bomb anyway. Look into it, a growth industry, invest, I am considering printing up a list of companies that do it all, disease and cure.
I found a lot of graphic suicide bomber images but just too gross for a Monday morning, so we go with generic…Jim
I found a lot of graphic suicide bomber images but just too gross for a Monday morning, so we go with generic...Jim
Without the Saudi’s funding extremist movements across the Middle East in concert with Israel and friends in the US, nations such as Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan, whose elections are rated as more democratic than either those held in America or Israel, something unreported in the US press, will, as threatened, let the “sands of time” erase Zionism.
The reality, of course, is that there never was a Zionist cause. There never was a “Greater Israel” or hope of it. There is no great nuclear arsenal in Israel as there are no nuclear weapons in North Korea and very few in China.
There is only oil theft, drug running, money scams, phony terrorism and propaganda. Israel is like one of those children’s charities, where they show the poor starving child, flies around their eyes, yet your donations do nothing but buy private islands, whoring vacations and private planes.
Being honest, the only reason we mention Israel is not because they are worst, not by far, the Saudi’s leave them in the dust, it is just that their control of the press has brought the backlash they were too stupid to notice.
The Promised Land? Where is it? We’re still looking.
A few thoughts on the “hacktivist” group Anonymous that came out of Josh Corman and Brian “Jericho” Martin’s keynote at the
As Corman noted, this amorphous thing we call “Anonymous” has become the perfect scape goat. Anonymous members continually drop in and out of affiliation with, or actions taken on behalf of, the group.
Does Anonymous agree with the proposals? Anonymous has no unified voice, the keynoters said, so it’s a moot question — it is, after all, a composite, rather than a singular, monolithic group, and there are any number of levels of allegiance and reasons for participating.
More honestly, it wasn’t just the currency but the ambiguity of the banking business that let trade and investment build jobs.
Every financial prediction is that the end came years ago but we are still moving on as though things were OK. This is a magic balancing act run by Timothy Geithner and President Obama who are trying to stop the massive thievery, overtly at least, and restore revenue through taxes on the rich, something that Reagan onward ended.
Senior reliable sources, by that I mean mainstream “Big Army” flag officers, have been consulted about the use of cold fusion, hydrogen/boron fusion and other “non-lethal” or “aneutronic” devices that can provide all power needed on earth at extremely low cost.
It is no secret to most of you that “bad space guys” have been visiting earth. In fact, the only crazy part is the number of films that try to depict off world or interdimensional civilizations as having any human characteristics at all.
The point of conjecture, based on easy to “figure out” disinformation campaigns and our decades of frozen technology, all new mobile phones and little else, is that basic concepts in physics involving both field and energy systems has created capabilities that are incompatible with a planet where stone age to iron age civilizations coexist.
How strange is that? In a nation of “human rights activists, no one asks, not a word from Ron Paul or the ACLU, not the SPLC, in fact no one has ever said a word other than mild complaints but never a law or request for an investigation or any curiosity at all.
Thus far, one Supreme Court Justice is guilty of tax evasion, another tied to organized crime, both “neocon-activists.” Both face arrest.
