A leaked document from the EU, proposing new regulation, describes the most sophisticated mass surveillance machinery ever deployed outside of China and the USSR. The proposal is for a new mass surveillance system that will read private text messages, not to detect CSAM, but to detect “grooming”. It would mandate scanning of encrypted messages for CSAM material. Once you open up “machines reading your text messages” for any purpose, there are no limits. Matthew Green, renowned security expert and cryptography professor, says: “Let me be clear what that means: to detect ‘grooming’ is not simply searching for known CSAM. It isn’t using AI to detect new CSAM, which is also on the table. It’s running algorithms reading your actual text messages to figure out what you’re saying, at scale.”
$40 billion is still a great deal of money – even in the Biden Thing’s America. Except it’s not going to help Americans. Rather, the Biden Thing has taken $40 billion out of the pockets of Americans, to finance all-but-war with nuclear-armed Russia by arming and abetting Ukraine.
When the government – and the corporations that own the government – want war, they usually get what they want.
Some 108 years ago, the government of Woodrow Wilson and the arms peddlers and financial interests behind Wilson wanted war with Germany – something few if any Americans wanted as they’d be the ones paying for it, in blood and treasure. To drag them into what was then styled the “war to end all wars,” Wilson’s government colluded with Britain’s government and the interests that owned both of them to arrange a pretext. A passenger liner called the Lusitania was loaded with war materiel and provocatively sailed into the war zone. The Germans rose to the bait. A submarine fired a couple or more torpedoes into the Lusitania’s flanks and she quickly sank – resulting in the drowning of about 1,198 “innocent civilians,” which they were.
But the governments of America and Britain weren’t.
They knew that, by goading the Germans into sinking Lusitania, they could feign outrage and cause Americans to actually be outraged. Sufficiently so as to drown out any voices who might raise a hand and ask why Lusitania, a passenger liner (loaded with war material from America meant to help Germany’s foe in the war) was sailed into the war zone, right in front of German subs.
Instead, Americans were roused to blood lust over “the hun” and sent to die (and kill) in a war that was as relevant to them as a wall phone is a to a Millennial.
Some twenty years after the “war to end all wars,” another war began. The government – and corporate interests – of the United States were, once again, extremely interested in getting Americans to fight in it. But – chastened by the carnage of the prior war – few Americans were interested.
Sources say there is far too much unapproved disinformation in the world today and it’s a tremendous threat to the approved disinformers.
Official sources say there is too much unofficial unapproved disinformation. Only official approved disinformation is allowed inside sources tell alphabet news networks.
Two officials with inside knowledge of unapproved disinformation tell alphabet news networks tonight that unofficial disinformation is a threat to the official informers’ disinformation monopoly.
Intel officials say that their disinformation monopoly is being undermined by people interested in honest information being peddled by unapproved disinformation sources.
Trusted sources are saying that Intel officials are worried that sources confirm that unapproved disinformation from people interested in honest information is the greatest threat to democracy. Alongside white supremacy of course. And the MAGA people.
Official inside intel sources who are to be trusted are saying that the third greatest threat to global security, energy security, chastity belt security, and your ability to buy baby formula is Russian disinformation. It’s the venomous pit viper of the disinformation kingdom. Unpredictable, poisonous, and potentially deadly if allowed to flow through a social body without the life-saving antidote provided by approved trust and safety profiled official fact-checkers.
The most trusted sources say that intel sources say that inside sources say those official informers and approved fact-checkers are completely and unapologetically always full of shit and the Good Citizens now know it.
“The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem and very often makes the problem worse.”—Milton Friedman
You’ve been flagged as a threat.
Before long, every household in America will be similarly flagged and assigned a threat score.
Without having ever knowingly committed a crime or been convicted of one, you and your fellow citizens have likely been assessed for behaviors the government might consider devious, dangerous or concerning; assigned a threat score based on your associations, activities and viewpoints; and catalogued in a government database according to how you should be approached by police and other government agencies based on your particular threat level.
If you’re not unnerved over the ramifications of how such a program could be used and abused, keep reading.
It’s just a matter of time before you find yourself wrongly accused, investigated and confronted by police based on a data-driven algorithm or risk assessment culled together by a computer program run by artificial intelligence.
Consider the case of Michael Williams, who spent almost a year in jail for a crime he didn’t commit. Williams was behind the wheel when a passing car fired at his vehicle, killing his 25-year-old passenger Safarian Herring, who had hitched a ride.
Despite the fact that Williams had no motive, there were no eyewitnesses to the shooting, no gun was found in the car, and Williams himself drove Herring to the hospital, police charged the 65-year-old man with first-degree murder based on ShotSpotter, a gunshot detection program that had picked up a loud bang on its network of surveillance microphones and triangulated the noise to correspond with a noiseless security video showing Williams’ car driving through an intersection. The case was eventually dismissed for lack of evidence.
Although gunshot detection program like ShotSpotter are gaining popularity with law enforcement agencies, prosecutors and courts alike, they are riddled with flaws, mistaking “dumpsters, trucks, motorcycles, helicopters, fireworks, construction, trash pickup and church bells…for gunshots.”
Then there’s the human element of corruption which invariably gets added to the mix. In some cases, “employees have changed sounds detected by the system to say that they are gunshots.” Forensic reports prepared by ShotSpotter’s employees have also “been used in court to improperly claim that a defendant shot at police, or provide questionable counts of the number of shots allegedly fired by defendants.”
The rationale behind this fusion of widespread surveillance, behavior prediction technologies, data mining, precognitive technology, and neighborhood and family snitch programs is purportedly to enable the government takes preemptive steps to combat crime (or whatever the government has chosen to outlaw at any given time).
Al-Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh was shot and killed by Israeli forces outside of Jenin. A second reporter Ali Samoodi was shot and wounded.
Samoodi, who was near Abu Akleh when she was murdered, reported they came under fire from Israeli occupation forces without warning. “They didn’t ask us to leave and they didn’t ask us to stop (filming). They fired at us. One bullet hit me and another hit Shireen. They killed her in cold blood,” he said.
In videos showing the moments after Abu Akleh was shot, both Abu Akleh and a second journalist are wearing internationally recognized bulletproof vests marked “PRESS.” The video also shows the gunmen continuing to fire on the journalists after Akleh was shot.
ith the Ukraine war expanding and the threat of nuclear catastrophe rising, Bill Clinton has written an article in The Atlantic magazine trying to defend what many see as indefensible: his administration’s support for the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in March 1999 into Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic against a pledge by the Bush administration to Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.”
Clinton had been warned at the time by Russian President Boris Yeltsin (1991-1999) that NATO expansion would result in “nothing but humiliation for Russia” and could provoke a new Cold War.
Yeltsin told Clinton: “How do you think it looks to us if one bloc [from the Cold War] continued to exist when the Warsaw Pact has been abolished? It’s a new form of encirclement if the one surviving Cold War bloc expands right up to the borders of Russia.”[1]
Boris Yeltsin and Bill Clinton at a summit in Helsinki Finland in 1997. [Source: icds.ee]
A similar warning was issued by George F. Kennan, the father of the Cold War containment doctrine.
He wrote in an op-ed in February 1997 that NATO expansion would amount to a “strategic blunder of epic proportions” and the “most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era,” as it would “inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion,” and “restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations,”[2] which is exactly what happened.
The idea of the neutral interest rate is unrealistic. The Fed attempts to establish an interest rate that corresponds to the conditions of the free market. Obviously, this is in contradiction to the free market, since in a free market there is no central bank setting the interest rate.
Given the impossible goal that the Fed tries to reach, we do not expect Fed policy makers to become wise and all knowing with regard to the correct level of interest rates. A better alternative is to leave the economy alone.
On April 19, 2022, at the Economic Club in New York, the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank president Charles Evans said the Fed is likely to lift by year end its federal funds rate target range close to the neutral range of between 2.25 to 2.50 percent. Furthermore, on April 21, 2022, Fed chairman Jerome Powell corroborated this by stating that the Fed wants to raise its benchmark rate to the neutral level.
By popular thinking, the neutral rate is one that is consistent with stable prices and a balanced economy. Hence, in order to attain economic and price stability, Fed policy makers should navigate the federal funds rate toward the neutral rate range. The Swedish economist Knut Wicksell in the late nineteenth century articulated this framework of thinking, which has its origins in the eighteenth-century writings of the British economist Henry Thornton.
One can assume that the current framework of central bank operations throughout the world is based to a large degree on Wicksell’s writings, which means the key to comprehending the rationale of central banks actions is understanding the writings of Knut Wicksell.
The Neutral Interest Rate Framework
According to Wicksell the neutral rate is (Wicksell labels the neutral rate as the natural rate):
A certain rate of interest on loans which is neutral in respect to commodity prices, and tend neither to raise nor to lower them. This is necessarily the same as the rate of interest which would be determined by supply and demand if no use were made of money and all lending were effected in the form of real capital goods. It comes to much the same thing to describe it as the current value of the natural rate of interest on capital.
In this way of thinking, the neutral rate of interest is defined as the rate at which the demand for physical loan capital coincides with the supply of savings expressed in physical magnitudes.1 Wicksell makes a clear distinction between the interest rate that is determined in financial markets and the neutral interest rate that is set without money. While the interest rate in financial markets is determined by demand and supply for money, the neutral interest rate is set by real factors. Thus, he wrote:
Now if money is loaned at this same rate of interest, it serves as nothing more than a cloak to cover a procedure which, from the purely formal point of view, could have been carried on equally well without it. The conditions of economic equilibrium are fulfilled in precisely the same manner.
According to the neutral rate framework, the main source of economic instability is because the money market interest rate is not in line with the neutral rate. In the Wicksell’s framework, money only affects the price level. The effect of money on the price level is however not direct, as it operates via the gap between the money market interest rate and the neutral rate. The mechanism works as following: if the market rate falls below the neutral rate, investment will exceed saving implying that aggregate demand will be greater than aggregate supply.
Assuming that the excess demand is financed by the expansion in bank loans this leads to the creation of new money, which in turn pushes the general level of prices up. Conversely, if the market rate rises above the neutral rate, savings will exceed investment, aggregate supply will exceed aggregate demand, bank loans and the stock of money will contract, and prices will fall (on this topic, see this Fed working paper). Whenever the market rate is in line with the neutral rate, the economy is in a state of equilibrium and there is neither upward nor downward pressures on the price level.
If it were possible to ascertain and specify the current value of the natural rate, it would be seen that any deviation of the actual money rate from this natural rate is connected with rising or falling prices according as the deviation is downward or upward.
Wicksell held that since the supply of real capital is limited while the supply of money can be regarded as elastic, there is no reason to assume that the money market interest rate would normally agree with the neutral real rate.2 Furthermore, Wicksell maintained that to establish whether monetary policy is tight or loose, it is not enough to pay attention to the level of money market interest rates, but rather one needs to contrast money market interest rates with the neutral rate. Thus if the market interest rate is above the neutral rate then the policy stance is tight. Conversely, if the market rate is below the neutral rate then the policy stance is loose. Thus, according to Wicksell, whenever the money market rate is matched with the neutral rate the economy is in a state of equilibrium and there are neither upward nor downward pressure on the price level.
On March 10, Canada managed to get some thirty countries to sign a second, very Orwellian declaration, welcoming – in the name of press freedom – the censorship in the West of Russia Today and the Sputnik agency, two Russian public media organizations.
The first foreign fighters to arrive in Ukraine at the start of the war in February, 2022 were Canadians. The first foreign officer arrested by Russian forces on May 3 was a Canadian general. Clearly, Canada, although more than 6,000 kilometers away from Ukraine, has a hidden involvement in this conflict.
In this article, I will show that all Canadian Liberal governments have supported the Ukrainian Banderites since the beginning of the Second World War. They had it both ways during that war, fighting the Nazis, but supporting the Banderites. Worse still, the current Canadian government is composed of Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, flanked by a Banderite deputy, Chrystia Freeland.
While the CIA’s connections to the Nazis during the Cold War were not revealed until 1975 with the Pike, Church and Rockfeller Congressional Commissions, and only ended with President Jimmy Carter, the Canadian Liberal Party’s ties to the Nazis continue. Canada is the only country in the world, outside of the Ukraine, to have a Banderite minister, and what’s more, she is the number two in its government.
Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King after his meeting with Führer Adolf Hitler in Berlin (June 29th, 1937).
In 1940, when the United Kingdom was at war but the United States was not, the Canadian Liberal government of William King created the Ukrainian Canadian Congress (UCC) to help anti-Bolshevik immigrants against the pro-Soviet Association of United Ukrainian Canadians (AUUC) and the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC). Pro-Soviet libraries and synagogues were banned.
The Liberal Party of the Kingdom of Canada was not created to promote individualism against conservative ideas, but against the Republican idea [1].
During the Second World War, Prime Minister William King was well liked by his fellow citizens, but he was booed by his soldiers when he visited them in Europe. The Liberal Party always held anti-Russian positions, presenting them as anti-Soviet until 1991, and always interpreted Christianity as opposed to Judaism.
Also, at the end of the Second World War, Canada was the main refuge for Lyon Mackenzie (35,000 immigrants) and Baltic Nazis. Among them were Volodymyr Kubijovyč and “Michael Chomiak” whose real name was Mykhailo Khomiak, the editors of the main Nazi newspaper in Central Europe, Krakivs’ki Visti.
Michael Chomiak with Nazi dignitaries.
Chomiak, who worked under the direct control of the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, never denied his collaborationist past. On the contrary, he always militated for the OUN(B). It is in this spirit that he raised his granddaughter, Chrystia Freeland, the current Deputy Prime Minister of Canada.
Communism depends on the atomization of society. Nothing must stand between the state and the individual. The family unit must be destroyed. The individual must owe his or her only allegiance to the all-powerful state and the party which controls it.
But, perhaps, most of all, Communists must destroy religion. The idea that individuals might place their fate in anything other than the all-powerful, omnipresent government is anathema. It cannot be tolerated. You must stand powerless and alone in the face of your oppressor who owns you body and soul.
The Soviets set the example in this regard. As part of their effort to consolidate power in the new Soviet Union, they destroyed churches, synagogues, and mosques. They jailed and executed religious leaders. In place of belief in a creator, they did their best to substitute scientific atheism, which amounted to worship of the state and its leaders.
Our own modern-day American Marxists have the same playbook. Under the pretext that they are fighting for reproductive rights, they are launching a war on religion. Sunday was the start of the offensive to crush the church in America.
A Molotov cocktail was thrown into the Madison headquarters of the anti-abortion group Wisconsin Family Action early Sunday. Flames were reported coming from the building shortly after 6 am. The outside of the building also was sprayed with graffiti depicting an anarchy symbol, an anti-police slogan, and the phrase, “If abortions aren’t safe then you aren’t either.”
Wisconsin Family Action’s website indicates “It is the mission of Wisconsin Family Action to advance Judeo-Christian principles and values in Wisconsin by strengthening, preserving and promoting marriage, family life and liberty.” The website shows an explicitly religious organization focused on traditional Christian teaching and working with churches in Wisconsin.
On the same day that Wisconsin Family Action was firebombed groups attempted to disrupt church services at locations all over the country. At the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles, left-wing protesters tried shutting down Sunday mass to protest in support of abortion. They were ultimately forced out by security & parishioners but not before they had entered the church in numbers and disrupted services.
In Seattle, a group of protesters attempted to force their way into Saint James Cathedral. They were ordered to leave but moved on to church property outside the church anyway. They were ultimately forced off the property by security guards.
In New York activists gathered outside the Basilica of Old Saint Patrick and attempted to disrupt services. The action included the yelling of profanities and an individual in a pink unitard jumping around with pink replicas of aborted fetuses yelling “I am killing the babies” and “God killed his son why can’t I?” The crowd accompanied the action by singing “Thank God for abortion.”
This is the British hand behind the current phase of Russiagate 5.0 which has come closer to its objectives of running an American coup than at any other moment during the past four years. This is the vision of a dystopic post-nation state world order managed by mis-anthropic technocrats who wish to lord over a technetronic feudal dark age in the 21st century and beyond.
This week, I took the time to watch a new documentary produced by Dinesh D’Souza titled ‘2000 Mules’ which utilizes voluminous geotracking and video evidence to demonstrate conclusively the scope of the fraud which occured in November 2020 which saw the elections stolen from US President Trump. The documentary focuses on a quantitative analysis of the data, but avoids speculating on those causal agencies that would have the means, intent and power to put such a coup d’etat into effect. This was the right decision, as D’Souza’s purpose was to conclusively demonstrate the scope of the fraud, not venture into ‘why’ it happened, or who dunnit.
Since 2000 Mules is going viral, I thought it prudent to re-publish an article that I had written in December 2020 in order to present the evidence of the British hand which managed the coup that saw a cultish technocratic takeover of the White House. The star performers in this drama will be a Don Quixote/Sancho Panza team of George Soros and Lord Mark Malloch Brown.
The British Hand Behind the Coup
Throughout the four-year drama of Russiagate, the hand of British intelligence has revealed itself continuously.
From the obvious role of Sir Richard Dearlove and his former MI6 underlying Christopher Steele who together played a driving role in shaping the dodgy dossier, to their involvement with Oxford Rhodes Scholar Strobe Talbott in composing, promoting and marketing the fraudulent dossier to targeted members of Congress and media, to British Ambassador Sir Darroch caught “flooding the zone” with British intelligence assets to shape Trump’s perception of the world, to the array of British entrapment operations that targeted Michael Flynn as early as 2014 in London… wherever one looks, the hand of British intelligence seems to be everywhere.
While vast effort is made to downplay the British roots of the deep state by the media which tends to portray this problem from a partisan narrative of “democratic party corruption”, this sleight of hand misses the causal nexus and demands we believe that the tail truly wags the dog.
The uncomfortable truth which many are either too afraid, lazy or corrupt to admit is that since the moment John F Kennedy died on November 22, 1963, both the Democratic and Republican Parties have undergone an slow take-over by this foreign parasite. The thing that has come to be known as the “deep state” was never based on one party or another, and never emanated from anything native to the Constitutional traditions of the US government itself as I outlined in my previous article “Understanding the Trifold Nature of the Deep State”.
While the Republican party of George Bush was in power, this deep state had used its controls of computerized vote counting to rig elections in 2000 and 2004 in its favor as showcased brilliantly in the 2006 documentary Hacking Democracy. Later, when it was time for a controlled opposition to take power in 2008, it did the same thing under a different cast of characters.
While one side of the unipolar world government agenda was driven by a view that the USA should forever be the primary global police force governing a zero sum system of perpetual war, with an unelected elite managing the system from above, the other side believed that the USA should surrender its claims to sovereignty to an international global body with unelected technocrats and financiers at the top managing the zero sum system of perpetual war from above.
Notice the common denominator?
Election Theft as Russiagate 5.0
Now that it has become increasingly clear that mass election fraud has swept across the USA in an effort to accomplish what four years of Russiagate failed to achieve, yet another light has fallen upon the British hand behind Biden which aims to dissolve any nationalist spirit remaining in the embattled republic.
As I outlined in my last report, the largest private computer voting system in the USA which services 30 states and 70 million voters was shown to be at the heart of the current election theft. In that article, it was made clear that Dominion Voting Systems is a Canadian company which dominates the USA’s private computerized voting systems and is closely tied to another larger company called Smartmatic whose operating systems, and even software it absorbed during Obama’s administration.
For those still out of the loop, Smartmatic furnishes voting machines and its software (backdoor codes and all) to governments all around the world and is highly enmeshed with the Clinton Foundation, Soros’ Open Society and Nancy Pelosi’s very own Chief of Staff.
Not only that, but the key figure controlling Smartmatic is none other than Lord Mark Malloch Brown, a former vice chairman of George Soros’ Investment Funds (2007), as well as Soros’ Open Society Institute and World Economic Forum, former Vice President at the World Bank (1995-1999), UN Administrator for Development (1999-2005), UN Deputy Secretary General and UK Minister of State for Africa, Asia and the UN (2007-2009). These are just a few hats he has worn in recent years which we will explore in greater detail.
Lord Malloch Brown: Not Your Typical British Agent
Through his lifelong affiliation with Soros, Lord Malloch Brown (Knight of the Order of St George and St Michael) played the role of color revolutionary godfather and key controller of such “technocrat friendly puppet leaders” as Corazon Aquino as well as her son Benigno Aquino III of the Philippines, Georgia’s George Saakashvili and even the hapless talking ego Barack Obama.
After working through an extended “apprenticeship” under the cover of UN aid worker, and marauding journalist for the London Economist, Malloch Brown found himself working for a Washington consulting firm named Sawyer Miller in 1985. It was at this time Malloch Brown was deployed to become the advisor and speech writer to Philippine opposition leader Corazon (Cory) Aquino under the supervision of then Secretary of State George Shultz. Corazon was a darling of the western establishment but had the nearly impossible task of challenging the popular nationalist President Ferdinand Marcos who had steered his country into economic sovereignty in opposition to international financiers for since his inauguration in 1965.
Applying all of the arts of perception management and marketing, Malloch Brown took control of Aquino’s campaign transforming it into the “People Power Revolution” that was in many ways the first successful color revolution of our modern times. Knowing that votes would likely favor the incumbent Markos, Malloch Brown wrote that he drafted Aquino’s victory speech before the elections and had her deliver it before votes were even finalized- and which accomplices in the media were all too happy to project publicly fueling the mythology that Corazon had won.
Describing these events years later, Malloch Brown said: “An outstanding accomplishment during the Cory campaign was to produce an exit poll that indicated that she had won. It landed on the front page of the Inquirer and had a profound impact as it planted the idea that Aquino had won over Marcos… Marcos did not really recover after that. It was a very exciting experience to watch.”
Malloch Brown failed to mention that the “polling station results” which produced the false perception that Corazon had won were manipulated by George Shultz’s local agents survey firms Social Weather Station, and Pulse Asia which have never been held accountable for their role in the anti-Marcos coup.
MCViewPoint 