SO has Capitalism Failed, or are we Actually Living in a Fascist State?

“Capitalism Has Failed”

Today, more than at any time previously, Westerners are justifying a move toward collectivist thinking with the phrase, “Capitalism has failed.”

In response to this, conservative thinkers offer a knee-jerk reaction that collectivism has also had a dismal record of performance. Neither group tends to gain any ground with the other group, but over time, the West is moving inexorably in the collectivist direction.

As I see it, liberals are putting forward what appears on the surface to be a legitimate criticism, and conservatives are countering it with the apology that, yes, capitalism is failing, but collectivism is worse.

Unfortunately, what we’re seeing here is not classical logic, as Aristotle would have endorsed, but emotionalism that ignores the principles of logic.

If we’re to follow the rules of logical discussion, we begin with the statement that capitalism has failed and, instead of treating it as a given, we examine whether the statement is correct. Only if it proves correct can we build further suppositions upon it.

Whenever I’m confronted with this now oft-stated comment, my first question to the person offering it is, “Have you ever lived in a capitalist country?” That is, “Have you ever lived in a country in which, during your lifetime, a free-market system dominated?”

Most people seem initially confused by this question, as they’re residents of either a European country or a North American country and operate under the assumption that the system in which they live is a capitalist one.

So, let’s examine that assumption.

A capitalist, or “free market,” system is one in which the prices of goods and services are determined by consumers and the open market, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority.

Today, none of the major (larger) countries in what was once referred to as the “free world” bear any resemblance to this definition. Each of these countries is rife with laws, regulations, and a plethora of regulatory bodies whose very purpose is to restrict the freedom of voluntary commerce. Every year, more laws are passed to restrict free enterprise even more.

Equally as bad is the fact that, in these same countries, large corporations have become so powerful that, by contributing equally to the campaigns of each major political party, they’re able to demand rewards following the elections, that not only guarantee them funds from the public coffers, but protect them against any possible prosecution as a result of this form of bribery.

There’s a word for this form of governance, and it’s fascism.

Many people today, if asked to describe fascism, would refer to Mussolini, black boots, and tyranny. They would state with confidence that they, themselves, do not live under fascism. But, in fact, fascism is, by definition, a state in which joint rule by business and state exists. (Mussolini himself stated that fascism would better be called corporatism, for this reason.)

In recognizing the traditional definition of fascism, there can be no doubt that fascism is the driving force behind the economies of North America and Europe.

In addition, the concept of any government taking by force from some individuals the fruits of their labour and bestowing it upon others is by no means free-market. It is a socialist concept. And, in any country where roughly half of the population are the recipients of such largesse, that country has, unquestionably, settled deeply into a socialist condition.

However, this is by no means a new idea. As Socrates asked Adeimantus:

Do not their leaders deprive the rich of their estates and distribute them among the people; at the same time taking care to preserve the larger part for themselves?

So, which is it? Are we saying here that these countries are socialist or fascist?

Well, in truth, socialism, fascism, and, indeed, communism are all forms of collectivism. They all come under the same umbrella.

So, what we’re witnessing is liberals, rightfully criticising the evils of fascism, but failing to understand it for what it is—a form of collectivism. Conservatives, on the other hand, do their best to continue to operate under their countries’ socialist laws, regulations, and regulatory bodies, whist continuing to imagine that a remnant of capitalism remains.

And so we return to the question, “Have you ever lived in a country in which, during your lifetime, a free-market system dominated?”

Such countries do exist. It should be pointed out, however, that even they tend to move slowly toward collectivism over time. (After all, it’s in collectivism that they gain their power.) However, some countries are “newer,” just as the US was in the early nineteenth century and, like the US, the governments have not yet had enough time to sufficiently degrade the economies that have been entrusted to them.

In addition, some citizenries are feistier than others and/or are less easy to convince that, by allowing themselves to be dominated by their governments, they’ll actually be better off.

Whatever the reasons, there are most certainly countries that are far more free-market than the countries discussed above.

But, what does this tell us of the future? What can be done to turn these great powers back to a more free-market system? Well, the bad news is that that’s unlikely in the extreme. To be sure, we, from time to time, have inspired orators, such as Nigel Farage or Ron Paul, who remind us what we “should” do to put these countries back on track, so that they serve the people of the country, rather than its leaders. But, historically, such orators have never succeeded in reversing the trend one iota.

History tells us that political leaders, in their pursuit of collectivism, never reverse the trend. They instead ride it all the way to the bottom, then bail out, if they can.

However, it is ever true that, in some locations in the world, there have always been free-market societies. Over time, they deteriorate under the hands of their leaders and, as they do, others spring up.

The choice of the reader is to look upon the world as his oyster—to assess whether he is more or less content with the country he’s in and confident that it will continue to be a good place in which to live, work, invest, and prosper, or, if not, to consider diversifying, or even moving entirely, to a more rewarding, more capitalist jurisdiction.

Editor’s Note: There are practical ways to maintain your financial freedom, even as your home country takes a dive to the bottom. Find out more in our free Guide to Surviving and Thriving During an Economic Collapse.

Read More: http://www.internationalman.com/articles/capitalism-has-failed

Grand Jury Empaneled In $10 Million Fraud Probe Involving Jane And Bernie Sanders

 

Bernie Hey Kids - You Want Some Free College

An FBI probe into a 2010 property deal orchestrated by Jane Sanders, wife of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), has escalated after a report by VTDIGGER reveals that a grand jury has been empaneled, and at least one witness has given sworn testimony in the case.

asd
Jane and Bernie Sanders

According to VTDigger, “Former Burlington College board member Robin Lloyd says she testified for about an hour on Oct. 26 before a grand jury at the federal courthouse in Burlington.”

Paul Van de Graaf, chief of the criminal division for the U.S. attorneys office in Vermont, questioned Lloyd about her role as the development chair of the colleges board of trustees during a period when Sanders was collecting donations and pledges for the purchase of a $10 million city lakefront property. –VTDigger

The Grand Jury will decide whether or not indictments should be handed down over a $10 million loan orchestrated by Jane Sanders purchase a 33 acre property for the now defunct Burlington College – allegedly obtained through a ‘fraudulent scheme.’ Mrs. Sanders is accused of having lied about funding for transaction, while the FBI has also been looking into claims that Bernie Sanders’ office pressured the bank to approve the loan.

asd
Burlington College 33-acre property

In June 2017, Politico confirmed that Bernie Sanders and his wife Jane had retained high powered DC lawyers amidst the investigation.

The original request for an investigation into Federal bank fraud was sent in a January 2016 letter to the Vermont District Attorney as well as the FDIC by Brady Toensing – an attorney and chair of Donald Trump’s Vermont campaign. The letter detailed the mechanics of the alleged fraud, which is what reportedly launched official investigations. Toensing told Politico on in June; “The investigation was started more than a year ago under President Obama, his Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and his United States Attorney, all of whom are Democrats.”

A brief history of Jane Sanders and Burlington College

In 2004, Jane Sanders left her position as her husband’s congressional chief of staff to become president of the unaccredited and struggling Burlington College – founded in 1972 and operated out of a former grocery store. When Sanders took over as a “turnaround” president, she set out to rapidly grow the college – announcing a $6 million plan to expand the campus in 2006 which never came to fruition.

Meanwhile, Sanders was rapidly earning a reputation for her “toxic and disruptive” leadership style, and in late 2008, according to a 2016 essay on the college written by a former teacher Greg Guma, “Nearly half of the students and faculty members signed a petition demanding a meeting about the “Crisis in leadership,” while Jane Sanders’ salary rose to $150,000 in 2009 amidst a tuition hike from $5,000 to $22,407 in 2011. Meanwhile, enrollment dropped by almost 25%.

In 2008, literature professor Genese Grill wrote to the school’s academic affairs committee, describing Sanders’ “harassment and unethical treatment of other faculty and staff members, many of whom have since left the college disgruntled and angry.”

And in 2010, Jane Sanders announced a plan to move the tiny underfunded Burlington college onto a 33 acre parcel of valuable lakefront real estate in Northern Burlington. “It was the last piece of undeveloped, prime property on the lake shore,” according to Guma.

The property was owned by the Roman Catholic Diocese, which was strapped for cash after recently settling over two dozen sexual abuse lawsuits for $17.76 million. The 33 acre property hit the market for $12.5 million, and the church agreed to take Jane Sanders’ offer of $10 million.

Scheming for loans

When Jane Sanders made the offer to the Roman Catholic Diocese, Burlington College was nearly broke – with an annual budget just below $4 million. In order to finance the property, Sanders secured a $6.5 million loan from People’s United Bank in the form of a tax exempt bond purchase, and the Catholic Church agreed to carry a $3.65 million second mortgage on the property. Sanders told both institutions that Burlington college had $5 million in likely donor pledges and $2.4 million in confirmed pledges to be used to pay off the debt.

Unfortunately, that was just for the land. Sanders apparently didn’t plan for the $6 million or so required to actually build out the campus on the property to include green space, athletic fields, lecture halls, and walkways.

Compounding an already dire situation, Sanders’ original claim of $2.4 million in confirmed donor pledges was quickly reduced to $1.2 million according to documents filed in the first fiscal year after the purchase – yet in records obtained by VTDiggerBurlington College received only $279,000. Despite hopes by Sanders and college trustees that they could boost enrollment and expand the student body, nothing changed – and the school failed at raising the money to satisfy it’s loans.

And then Jane Sanders was fired, with a $200,000 severance package.

asd

In order to try and avoid bankruptcy, Burlington college sold off pieces of the 33 acre property to a local developer – which allowed the institution to pay off some of the debt Jane Sanders had accumulated, however in April 2016 the bank called it’s loan – and on May 28th, the college closed it’s doors after 44 years in operation.

As part of its bankruptcy, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington lost at least $1.5 million and perhaps as much as $2 million on the $3.65 million loan.

asd

Enter the FBI

Politico revealed in their June report that Federal investigators and FBI agents started to pull apart the $10 million financial arrangementThey showed up at Burlington College to sift through hard drives, audit reports and spreadsheets. They began to interview donors, board members and past president Carol Moore. I was contacted and spoke with an FBI agent numerous times last spring, again last summer, Moore told Vermont Public Radio in May 2017, and recently, maybe a month ago.

With a Grand Jury now empaneled and interviewing witnesses in the Burlington College saga, one can imagine the outcome of their investigation will largely determine whether Bernie Sanders is a viable candidate in 2020should he wish to challenge Oprah Winfrey of course.

Post-Coup Ukraine – How Three Oligarchs Looted 100s Of Millions From the Country

Three Ukrainian oligarchs traded part of around $1.5bn in illicit assets traced to cronies of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich, an exclusive investigation by Al Jazeera revealed on Sunday. They did so as the war-torn country struggled to return suspected misappropriated funds to its coffers.

An unsigned contract obtained by Al Jazeera’s Investigative Unit identifies Alexander Onyschenko – the gas tycoon, former member of parliament and currently one of Ukraine’s most-wanted men – and Pavel Fuchs, a real estate tycoon who made his fortune in Moscow, as the buyers in the illegal deal.

Other documents suggest the seller was Serhiy Kurchenko – a fugitive Ukrainian gas tycoon based in Moscow who was known as Yanukovich’s “family wallet”.

The contract obtained by Al Jazeera, revealed in The Oligarchs investigation, said Onyschenko and Fuchs paid $30m, including cash and a private jet, for the Cyprus-based company, Quickpace Limited.

That company held $160m-worth of bonds and cash, which was frozen by a Ukrainian judge as they were suspected of being proceeds of crime.

The findings were “unbelievable”, said Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of the Anti-Corruption Action Centre (ANTAC).

“It sounds like an agreement between criminal bosses, you know? You can sign it with your blood.”

It is illegal in Ukraine and abroad to trade with frozen assets.

“The whole idea is I’ve frozen the asset because I think it’s the proceeds of crime,” said Jon Benton, former director of the International Corruption Unit at Britain’s National Crime Agency.

“It’s like trading in stolen goods that have been taken by the police. You’re putting the cash in the getaway car,” he told Al Jazeera.

The buyers aim to make a $130m profit by persuading a judge to unfreeze the assets.

Article 4.4 of the contract said that the buyers would cooperate in “taking action to remove the arrest from the accounts” held by Quickpace Limited.

Looted state

Ukrainian authorities froze the assets in June 2014 across numerous companies in Cyprus, the UK, Panama, Belize and the British Virgin Islands totalling $1.5bn. It is estimated that that Yanukovich and his cronies stole far more.

Evidence found on Yanukovich’s abandoned property hidden outside Kiev showed one of his clan’s corporate networks. Documents obtained by Al Jazeera expose another.

They reveal how Yanukovich’s clan pumped stolen money into companies in Ukraine with bank accounts in Latvia and gradually passed it through dozens of offshore shell companies in Cyprus, Belize, British Virgin Islands and other money-laundering hotspots including the UK.

“The philosophy of money launderers is just to create a situation where the money has moved through so many different companies and so many different countries, in so many different accounts that it would be almost impossible to recreate the trail,” said Bill Browder, chief executive of Hermitage Capital.

Yanukovich’s name never appeared on any of the paperwork.

The companies bear the names of nominee directors – cut-out characters who appear to be the owner of a company, but simply act on instruction by the real owner.

Ukraine’s new authorities started to look into the corrupt schemes after Yanukovich’s removal from office in 2014.

It began a series of reforms that included the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU).

But nothing important has been achieved in terms of the prosecution of the corrupt individuals or the recovery of the stolen assets.

“Resistance is very strong from the elites who are in power now and the more we investigate, the more we face this resistance,” Artem Sytnyk, NABU director, told Al Jazeera.

“Parliament is taking steps to sideline the management of the Anti-Corruption Agency and take control.”

Nazar Holodnitsky, Ukraine’s special anti-corruption prosecutor, refused Al Jazeera’s requests for information, saying: “Until this investigation is complete, any comments, assertions regarding the existence or absence of certain documents is premature.”

Onyschenko took the position that there was nothing wrong with buying a company holding frozen assets.
“You can buy cheap and try to fix the problem to make money,” he told Al Jazeera.

Onyschenko confirmed Fuchs’ and Kurchneko’s role in the deal, but denied the deal went ahead.

“It was like normal business, but this has not happened. We didn’t buy.”

However, a Cypriot lawyer and the NABU, who worked on the deal, confirmed the sale of Quickpace went through and company documents record a transfer of ownership to one of Mr Fuchs’s companies.

Al Jazeera obtained a record of an initial payment of $2m from an account at Barclays Bank to another at a Russian-owned Latvian bank, Norvic Banka.

Currently, Quickpace is owned by Evermore Property Holdings Limited, a company based in the British Virgin Islands, which, in turn, is owned by Dorchester International Incorporated. Fuchs is its owner.

 

Read More: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/exclusive-dirty-deal-traced-ukrainian-tycoons-171217131747631.html

After Government Corruption-Driven Mistrial, Judge Dismisses Case Against Bundys

Huh, yeah, guess that’s what that was all about… “Epic Corruption.”

Bundy Ranch

 

After declaring a mistrial just weeks ago amid  ‘epic corruption’, a U.S. judge on Monday dismissed the criminal case against Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and three other men on charges stemming from an armed 2014 standoff with federal law enforcement officers over a cattle grazing rights dispute.

As AZCentral.com reported three weeks agos, Navarro cited five key pieces of information that prosecutors did not disclose: records about surveillance and snipers at the Bundy Ranch; unredacted FBI logs about activity at the ranch in the days around the standoff; threat assessments about the Bundys dating to 2012; and internal affairs reports about the BLM.

Navarro methodically laid out her reasoning for about an hour, citing legal standards and case law, before delivering her ruling.

She said the evidence that was withheld could have been favorable to the accused and could have affected the outcome of the case.

Navarro stopped short of dismissing charges against the four men. It is unclear whether the case will be retried because Navarro did not rule whether the mistrial was with or without prejudice.

Navarro is considering dismissing the case “with prejudice” and blocking prosecutors from retrying the case. Her decision will come Jan. 8, according to The New York Times.

“There were approximately 3,000 pages that were provided to us only after we started trial,” Bundy lawyer Bret D. Whipple told TheNYT.

“I personally have never seen anything like this, especially in a case of such importance.”

Navarro had set another hearing for January and had tentatively scheduled a new trial to begin Feb. 26..

And now, as Reuters reports,  she has made her decision.

U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro cited multiple willful evidence violations by prosecutors in dropping the case, saying they prevented a fair trial and amounted to prosecutorial misconduct.

It is now clear that  Cliven Bundy’s son’s  opening statement:

“The indictment and grand jury testimony is full of lies. Truth has been blocked in previous trials.

Listen closely – we will try to get you the truth. The truth will set me free and I’m counting on you to help me see that.”

Has been entirely vindicated.

Scattered Desert Mercenaries Now Able to Coordinate Drone Swarm Attacks on Russia from 60+ Miles Away?

Old Ben Kennobi, These Blast Marks are too Accurate for Sandpeople

Does anyone else here see a connection with the fact that the U.S. Deep State and their radical mercenaries were just expelled from Syria, and now those said radical mercenaries are suddenly able to coordinate drone swarm attacks against Russian bases from over 60 miles away, (through the desert) with a US communications plane circling overhead?

Russia Defends Syrian Military Bases From Massive Drone Attack

Russian security forces of the Khmeimim air base and Russian Naval CSS point in the city of Tartus ,thwarted  a terrorist attack “with massive application of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) through the night of 5th – 6th January 2018,” according to the Russian Ministry of Defence. The attack came just two days after an Islamic faction operating in the area launched a barrage of mortar rounds at the airbase severely damaging two planes.

As darkness fell, Russia air defense systems detected “13 unidentified small-size air targets at a significant distance” swarming towards the bases. Ten assault drones were fast approaching the Khmeimim air base, and another three were advancing towards the naval base. All attack drones had payloads of what appears to be mortar rounds.

As the drones approached both bases, Russia unleashed the Pantsir-S anti-aircraft missile and Electronic Warfare Units. Seven UAVs were destroyed by the Pantsir-S anti-aircraft missile system, and another six UAVs were hacked with radio equipment. Three of the UAVs landed in a safe area just outside the base, but the others exploded on various landing attempts. The Defense Ministry notes that the defense systems eliminated all threats with no casualties or damages.

a

It was the “first time that terrorists massively used unmanned combat aerial vehicles of an aircraft type that were launched from a distance of more than 50 kilometers, and operated using GPS satellite navigation coordinates,” the ministry said in a statement.

Read More: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-09/russia-defends-syrian-military-bases-massive-drone-attack

“A Strange Coincidence”: US Spy Plane Circled Near Russian Base During Massive Drone Attack

Shortly after, the Russian Ministry of Defense  released new information, noting “strange coincidences” surrounding the terrorist attack: these included a US spy plane spotted in the area, namely a US Navy’s Boeing P-8 Poseidon reconnaissance aircraft on patrol between the Khmeimim airbase and Tartus naval base in Syria during the time of the attack.

While the Russian Ministry of Defense consciously didn’t point any fingers when talking about the January 6 attack, it demonstratively pointed out that the technology used in the attack was telling. Advanced training in engineering in “one of the developed countries” would be necessary to program the principal controllers and bomb-release systems of an aircraft-type combat drone, the Russian statement stressed and added that “not everyone is also able to get exact [attack] coordinates from the space surveillance data.”

“This forces us to take a fresh look at the strange coincidence that, during the attack of UAV terrorists on Russian military facilities in Syria, the Navy reconnaissance aircraft Poseidon was on patrol over the Mediterranean Sea for more than 4 hours at an altitude of 7 thousand meters, between Tartus and Hmeimim.

Read More: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-09/strange-coincidence-us-spy-plane-circled-near-russian-base-during-massive-drone

Private prison demands New Mexico and feds find 300 more prisoners in 60 days or it will close

Eye of the Police State

The nation’s second-largest private prison corporation is holding New Mexico politicians hostage by threatening to close unless the state or federal authorities find 300 more prisoners to be warehoused there, according to local news reports.

“The company that has operated a private prison in Estancia for nearly three decades has announced it will close the Torrance County Detention Facility and lay off more than 200 employees unless it can find 300 state or federal inmates to fill empty beds within the next 60 days,” the Santa Fe New Mexican newspaper reported last week.

The paper said that county officials issued a statement citing the threatened closure and emphasized that every virtually every politician in the region, from county officials to state officials to congressmen, were scurrying to save jobs—as opposed to shutting a privatized prison by an operator that has been sued many times for sexual harassment, sexual assault, deaths, use of force, physical assaults, medical care, injuries and civil rights violations.

“This is a big issue for us,” Torrance County manager Belinda Garland told the Santa Fe newspaper.

It quoted Jonathan Burns, a spokesman for CoreCivic — formerly known as Corrections Corporation of America — as saying, while, “The city of Estancia and the surrounding community have been a great partner to CoreCivic for the last 27 years . . . a declining detainee population in general has forced us to make difficult decisions in order to maximize utilization of our resources.”

This is a perfect snapshot of what’s upside-down with privatization: the lack of economic opportunities and politicians who genuflect at providing jobs, regardless of the larger social implications, pushing law enforcement into the dirty business of ramping up arrests and convictions so private firms and shareholders can make more money.

The statement by county officials said that most of the 700-bed facility’s prisoners were federal inmates. Company officials in local meetings said federal sentencing reforms has led to a shrinking prisoner population.

The paper reported, “‘The company told the county it has been holding fewer federal detainees for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Garland said. ‘We’re reaching out to anybody that can help us… We hate to see this facility close.’”

CoreCivic’s 2016 corporate annual report said its revenues had fallen slightly in the final years of the Obama administration.

“State revenues from contracts at correctional, detention, and residential reentry facilities that we operate constituted 38%, 40%, and 46% of our total revenue during 2016, 2015, and 2014, respectively, and decreased 2.0% from $725.1 million during 2015 to $710.4 million during 2016,” it reported. “We own approximately 58% of all privately owned prison beds in the United States, manage nearly 41% of all privately managed prison beds in the United States, and are currently the second largest private owner and provider of community corrections services in the nation.”

The elected officials who have been asked to find more prisoners include New Mexico Democrats, U.S. Sen. Tom Udall and Rep. Michelle Lujan-Grisham. The county said the town of Estancia would annually lose $700,000 in commerce and the county would lose $300,000 in tax revenues if the prison closed in late September, the New Mexican reported.

Read More: https://www.salon.com/2017/08/04/private-prison-demands-new-mexico-and-feds-find-300-more-prisoners-in-60-days-or-it-will-close_partner/

Here’s how things would look if you REALLY lived in a free country

Think you live in a free country? Think again: If you really lived in a free country, all sorts of things around you would look much different than the way they do now.

For example, if you really lived in a free country, you wouldn’t see people being arrested for selling fresh, whole milk.

People also wouldn’t be arrested for growing their own medicine in the form of cannabis.

If you really lived in a free country, you’d be able to seek out any form of medicine you wanted, including holistic medicine. And doctors would be free to practice holistic medicine without being criminalized by the state.

If you lived in a free country, you wouldn’t see people being threatened with arrest for growing food in their own front yards!

Watch the video below to learn the truth, Neo: You are a slave living in a police state.

 

Read More: https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-12-12-heres-how-things-would-look-if-you-really-lived-in-a-free-country.html

How Government Agents Troll Online to Divide and Confuse

government-agents-trolls-hired-to-argue-and-cause-dissension-on-line

The real story of online deception isn’t about the Russians. Sure, the Russians certainly have their own programs to disrupt and steer online discourse. But how quickly the public has forgotten about the U.S. government’s own internet troll program.

Edward Snowden leaked documents used by the “Five Eyes” alliance of governments. The United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia–basically Oceania from 1984–get together to spy on each other’s citizens. That’s how they cleverly get around laws against spying on their own citizens.

The leaked documents included a presentation about how government agents should disrupt online discourse.

There is a lot of overlap between these tactics, and often more than one are used simultaneously. For example, there has been a big push by the media to convince you that the end of net neutrality is a bad thing. They are masking the true nature of net neutrality–it really gives the government power to regulate aspects of the internet. And then they repackage net neutrality as necessary for freedom and open access to the internet.

When deploying government sponsored trolls online, the agents will mimic real commenters in order to sound more believable. They gain credibility since people are more likely to trust those they perceive as similar to them.

Sometimes government agents invent a crazy story and attribute it to a movement. This discredits the movement. Think Flat Earth Theory. Those primed to believe conspiracy theories get sucked in. Then all the true conspiracies are grouped in with the bogus one.

If a true conspiracy theory comes out, they invent 100 others to obscure the real one. In order for the truth to be lost among the falsities, they invent various levels of “conspiracy theories” from the slightly believable, to the absurd.

Hillary Clinton really is a corrupt psychopath. But she is not a shape-shifting reptilian alien.

From the evidence, it seems the United States government was in some way involved in the 2001 attacks on the twin towers. But did they use holograms of the planes, and fire a laser into the towers? Probably not.

The conspiracies become too unbelievable to some, and they throw the truth out with the government manufactured lies. For those that do believe the false details of a true conspiracy, they walk away with an inflated sense of how powerful and all knowing the government really is.

This also works to the government’s benefit. The over-the-top conspiracy theories become the decoy. They can then exploit those beliefs to create cognitive stress, which is another tactic of control.

Trump is the ultimate manifestation of their tactics to control attention. Trump is a big move which does a lot of masking the small moves. The media pays attention to his tweets, not his actions. When he does push for legislation, like a repeal of Obamacare, and it fails, attention drops because that seems to be the end of that.

And every time this happens, vigilance wanes. Another tweet, another legislative failure, another snub? We get it. But do we really get it?

Repetition. By now we are so used to misconduct by government officials, we just don’t pay attention anymore. Yet when the story about Pizzagate came to light, it was grouped in with conspiracy theories. No need to investigate. We were primed to put that story into the false category. But the new cue is sexual assault, and we are primed to believe any accusation, regardless of the evidence.

In efforts to demonize Bitcoin, many of these tactics are used. I’m not saying Bitcoin is beyond criticism. But I’ve seen commenters claim it was created by the CIA. That is just silly.

More likely, the government exploits the distrust libertarians tend to have in government in order to cast doubt on the legitimacy of cryptocurrencies. That means fewer people will adopt technology that has the potential to bring down the worldwide banking cartel and free people from the shackles of government monetary policy.

White Nationalists and AntiFa are right out of this playbook. Each exploits the beliefs of the “other side.” The left is primed to assume anyone who disagrees with them is secretly a racist white supremacist. And the right is primed to believe the left is full of violent fanatics who want to implement a communist coup.

To be sure, some of these people exist in the real world. So government agents seize on this and magnify it with their own agents. By doing this, they cause unsuspecting citizens to join the fray. Behavior is influenced by our peers. So the perception that something is widespread or normal makes people more likely to follow the crowd.

Notice how they mention Cialdini in there? Robert B. Cialdini wrote the book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. I recommend reading it, not so that you can manipulate others, but so that you can prevent yourself from being manipulated.

He describes how to trigger shortcuts people use in their mental processes. For instance, a higher price usually means higher quality, so often people assume a higher priced item will be better made. But this works in many areas. People might assume a southern accent makes someone a racist, or USDA approval means healthy.
Cialdini also goes into how people are influenced by social proof, gift giving, making commitments, and a sense of inclusion. It is no surprise that the government would use these advertising and sales tactics to push their agenda online.

An Obama policy adviser, Cass Sunstein, wrote a paper in 2008 which suggests using these tactics.

Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law. The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper; the second challenge is to understand how such theories might be undermined… Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a crippled epistemology, in accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups.

Sunstein later went on to serve on the NSA review panel.

But finally, here’s the real head spinner.

The documents mention a Haversack Ruse. This ruse involves planting false information by making the enemy think you accidentally lost it. The target thinks they got their hands on your actual plans. But in reality, they acquired fake plans.

For instance, was Edward Snowden really a leaker, or was he told to drop all this “evidence” in order to distract from what is really happening?

In such a case, the intelligence officers would be laughing their asses off. They had the balls to put the Haversack reference into a fake document that was intentionally leaked as a ruse. This fits with the elite’s serial-killer-like tendency to leave hints of their true agenda in plain sight.

That means one of two things.

Either these documents are not part of a ruse and everything in them is true.

Or, these documents are part of a Haversack Ruse. But why would the government leak these damning documents which prove their lies and untrustworthiness?

Only if the truth is so much worse.

Read More: http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/how-government-agents-troll-online-to-divide-and-confuse/

Who Ya Gonna Fight? Landmark Treaty Signed To Create EU Army

The Colonialist, Globalist Eurozone Army is Born…

EU Army - What could go wrong?

EU leaders formerly endorsed the harmless sounding Permanent Structured Cooperation, or PESCO, pact on Thursday evening in Brussels. After the shock of Brexit, the goal of defence integration was revived by former military foes, Germany and France, supported by Italy and Spain, in a show of EU unity. A similar proposal was blocked by the French parliament in the 1950s (see below). Now a treaty has been signed which sees the defence union complete by 2025 in what has been described as “one of the most tangible steps in EU integration since Brexit”.

Britain, thanks to Brexit, Malta and Denmark, which has an “opt out” on EU defence issues did not sign the agreement. Standing in the front row on the left of the group photo was the President of the undemocratic European Commission, Jean Claude Juncker, who has been calling for an EU army for many years. In 2015, The Guardian reported.

The European Union needs its own army to help address the problem that it is not “taken entirely seriously” as an international force, the president of the European commission has said. Jean-Claude Juncker said such a move would help the EU to persuade Russia that it was serious about defending its values in the face of the threat posed by Moscow. “You would not create a European army to use it immediately,” Juncker told the Welt am Sonntag newspaper in Germany in an interview published on Sunday.

Back then, it was really just about furthering the European project, especially as the need for an EU army in parallel to NATO has never been adequately explained. This was Reuters commenting on the new defence pact.

European Union nations are set to achieve a 70-year-old ambition to integrate their defenses on Thursday, signing a pact between 25 EU governments to fund, develop and deploy armed forces together after Britain’s decision to quit the bloc. France’s President Emmanuel Macron said “concrete progress” had been made, and Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said the pact would make the EU more agile abroad. “This is not about replacing NATO, it is about being more flexible and using our resources better,” Rutte told reporters.

Hmmm. Meanwhile, the Reuters article has a stab at making a coherent case based on more recent events.

A bigger impetus came from failings in the 1990s, when EU governments were unable to act in the Balkan wars and relied on U.S.-led NATO to stop the bloodshed on their doorstep. In Libya in 2011, a Franco-British air campaign ran out of munitions and equipment and was again forced to turn to the United States, in what is considered an enduring embarrassment for the European Union, a major economic power.

Which sounds more like justification for NATO rather than an EU defence force. Talking of which, NATO’s secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, who attended part of the summit, warned against duplication with NATO since 22 EU countries are also NATO members.

“There has to be coherence between the capability developments of NATO and the European Union. We cannot risk ending up with conflicting requirements from the EU and from NATO to the same nations,” he told reporters. “Forces and capabilities developed under EU initiatives also have to be available for NATO because we only have one set of forces,” Stoltenberg said.

Not surprisingly, the announcement was greeted with some bravado from “rough tough” EU bureaucrats, like European Council President, Donald Tusk, who said it was “bad news for our enemies”. According to Tusk.

“More than half a century ago, an ambitious vision of the European Defence Community was created but what was missing was the unity and courage to put it into practice,” Tusk, who chairs EU summits, said of the failed 1950s attempt. “The dream was at odds with reality. Today this dream becomes reality,” he said in a speech in front of EU leaders and military personnel from each of the 25 countries involved.

Germany’s foreign minister blamed it on Donald Trump’s criticism of low defence spending by European nations.

“It’s sad that we needed Donald Trump to give us a boost, but whatever, it is the right outcome,” said former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer, who as minister backed NATO’s intervention in Kosovo in 1999 but opposed the 2003 Iraq war.

Reuters reported the irony noted by EU diplomats that UK Prime Minister, Theresa May, wants Britain to join the agreement despite leaving the EU. We had thought Theresa May meant it when she said “Brexit means Brexit”, but apparently not (quite).

“We do face a number of threats across Europe,” May said. “I‘m very clear that although the British people took a sovereign decision to leave the EU, that does not mean that we were going to be leaving our responsibilities in terms of European security,” she told reporters.

Why she would want Britain to be part of a defence force controlled by an unelected bureaucrat of the calibre of Jean Claude Juncker is a mystery (to us anyway). Speaking last month before the treaty was signed, former UKIP leader Nigel Farage argued.

The pact means a European army, navy, air force. They are already establishing their own command centre in Brussels. “They’ve got the fund, the structures set up for all of it. Already they are divvying up which country will do the helicopter work, which country will be the major naval provider. All of that is happening right now.
Mr Farage…(took the) chance to also take a dig at European Commission President Jean Claude Juncker – a key proponent of a new “functioning European defence union”. Mr Farage said: “I sat there in September – baring in mind I have seat number 20 in the European Parliament, my friend Jean-Claude Juncker is seat number 21 so I was the closest elected official to him – when he gave that speech. I thought to myself “thank goodness we are leaving!” because we are not going to be part of these European military structures any more.”