Restoreprivacy.com lists alternative services for everything from Google Docs, iCloud, secure messengers, and search engines.
Be seeing you
Posted by M. C. on January 28, 2021
Restoreprivacy.com lists alternative services for everything from Google Docs, iCloud, secure messengers, and search engines.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: censorship, extremist | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on January 28, 2021
Americans who ventured over to Europe in the late 20th century were in for a shock. Parisians, for instance, seemed to have a very firm sense of the difference between being home and being in the museum. They presented themselves accordingly in public, in quite formal costume: skirts and dresses for women and tailored suits for men. American tourists in their short pants and Star Wars T-shirts looked like six-year-olds to them. No wonder Americans complained that Parisians condescended to them.
Even beatniks back then wore sportjackets in the Greenwich Village cafes.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/urbs/a-public-persona-in-public-space/
James Howard Kunstler
Back in the days when Americans were flying frequently—which was not so long ago—did you notice how our fellow citizens dressed for travel? An awful lot of them showed up at the airport in their jammies, sometimes even clutching pillows. This told me something: there was no longer any distinction in our society between being in a public place and being in the family room at home. Now it was all just one big mish-mash of being where you happen to be in whatever way you want to be there.
Perhaps the slovenly costumes in airports were a subconscious reaction to being treated like hostages rather than customers by the airlines—that’s how you dress if you’ve been stripped of your dignity. But surely it also had to do more generally with the condition of public space in our country, which had degenerated into little more than one big demolition derby from sea to shining sea. Much of the time spent outside the house, Americans were in their cars, that is, in little mobile privacy pods, traversing public space as rapidly as possible, say the commercial highway strip, which had little meaning, except as a sort of psychological punishment. Hence, just about every place outside the home, except wild nature, took on some repellant quality.
Having abandoned our old towns with their walkable Main Streets for the artificial wilderness of suburbia, where cars tyrannized the scene entirely, private space became aggrandized while public space was diminished—along with behavior associated with it. American houses had more bathrooms per inhabitant than any other culture, not to mention the evolution of the master bedroom to master spa, with giant Jacuzzis, elliptical trainers, and theater-grade flat-screens. The exorbitant luxury was out of this world. But outside that private bubble everything else was just a parking lot, a gray, meaningless void. Why should Americans care about their personal presentation in public places when they had none worth being in?
By contrast, in European cities daily life was still organized cognitively pretty much the old way, with very clear semiotics denoting a sharp distinction between what is public and private. Living quarters might be comparatively meager in European cities, but an abundance of cafes, bistros, and other gathering places served as public living rooms, some of them quite luxurious. So, the result was democratizing: luxury for all, at the cost of a cup of coffee. And all of this civic infrastructure was assembled in an armature of streets that were psychologically rewarding to spend time in, along with excellently designed parks, large and small, woven in through that fabric of streets and blocks.
Americans who ventured over to Europe in the late 20th century were in for a shock. Parisians, for instance, seemed to have a very firm sense of the difference between being home and being in the museum. They presented themselves accordingly in public, in quite formal costume: skirts and dresses for women and tailored suits for men. American tourists in their short pants and Star Wars T-shirts looked like six-year-olds to them. No wonder Americans complained that Parisians condescended to them.
I was similarly conditioned to a strict sense of the public and private growing up in a Manhattan apartment in the 1950s and ’60s. I was wearing a tie regularly as a teenager. Even beatniks back then wore sportjackets in the Greenwich Village cafes. Going about among a cavalcade of strangers in the streets of New York one was obliged to construct a physical persona, starting with clothing, that made a legible statement about one’s role in society, without revealing too much so as to compromise the dignity of still being a private person in a crowd. Costume was both a kind of armor against all the friction of life lived shoulder-to-shoulder with strangers, and a signal that you were a trustworthy member of that society, safe to be around.
The hippies changed that up a bit costume-wise, but mainly just to signal that coming-of-age was fabulously fun and sexy, especially in an overwhelmingly massive demographic such as the Baby Boomers, and that everybody beyond that stage of life, grinding through some mindless job that kept the old economy going, was a sad old gork to be pitied. Between then and now not a whole not changed, except the Boomers grew old and stagnated sartorially on their way to the grave in boring L.L.Bean casuals.
Now that city life is significantly diminished, if not extinguished—what with the coronavirus and a cratering real economy of street-level small business especially—we might consider what mode of personal presentation will greet the new disposition of things ahead. Already, people able to work from home are spending much of their time in jammies and slob-wear. If and when post-Covid-19 public space becomes operational again, many Americans will have forgotten what their public persona was, and what costume it required. One thing’s for sure: the standard male office rig of a suit-and-tie is finished. It began, incidentally, as a gloss on the British bird-shooting costume of the late 19th century, suggesting that the sporting-wear of one period strangely mutates into the formal wear of a later time.
We have a clue about the future of men’s costume in Antifa. More than anything, the riot has emerged as the social and sporting space du jour for the young and restless—what be-ins were to the hippies. The cafes, concerts, bars, and raves have been shuttered and the street riot is now the new meet-up space. The characteristic of this space, though, is that it’s a bit dangerous, an arena for violent games that resemble adult Cops-and-Robbers. And the personal presentation for this is paramilitary black bloc raiment.
As Henry Ford used to say about his Model T car, you can have it in any color you want, as long as it’s black. That way, everybody looks the same, of course, and the masks and balaclavas make it extra hard for law enforcement snoops to ID the players when they’re busting stuff up or setting it ablaze. Stretch-pants are the preferred street-fighting bottom-wear, with tactical hoodies above, perhaps something in breathable gore tex, for fast getaways on those drizzly Pacific Northwest nights. Accessorize with plenty of D rings for hanging stuff, and back-packs for water bottles, bear spray, fireworks, and snacks, an umbrella for fending off clouds of tear-gas, and a shield for advancing on the enemy: the defunded and declawed police. And there is your social justice get-up: anarcho-LARPwear.
As the industrial economy continues to go further south than anyone ever imagined, and we slip-slide into neo-medievalism with its more distinct social hierarchies and super-scarce capital, the Antifa class will likely be reduced to laboring in the fields. I’m thinking linsey-woolsey tunics, peg-legged pantaloons, and wooden clogs. With the return of town life at the human scale, the Antifa sporting wear of the 2020s becomes the formal costume of the now-tiny non-laboring class, with perhaps some Game of Thrones embellishments. Such are the prankish inversions of history. We’ll also get back to the idea of a gentleman, someone not engaged in activities of the crop row or the barnyard. Eventually we’ll run out of miracle stretch fabrics. It’ll be back to jerkins, breeches, split-hose, cloaks, calf-high boots against the noisome debris in the gutter, and wide-brimmed hats to protect against refuse heaved out the windows. Will the sword make a comeback? It could come to that. And for the ladies? Sorry to say, no more Spanx for you.
James Howard Kunstler is The American Conservative’s New Urbanism Fellow. He is the author of numerous books on urban geography and economics, including his recent work, Living in the Long Emergency: Global Crisis, the Failure of the Futurists, and the Early Adapters Who Are Showing Us the Way Forward. Follow New Urbs on Twitter for a feed dedicated to TAC’s coverage of cities, urbanism, and place.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Public Persona, slovenly | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on January 28, 2021
An honest banker should no more lend out demand deposit money than Allied Van and Storage should lend out the furniture you’ve paid it to store. The warehouse receipts for gold were called banknotes. When a government issued them, they were called currency. Gold bullion, gold coinage, banknotes, and currency together constituted the society’s supply of transaction media. But its amount was strictly limited by the amount of gold actually available to people.
Sound principles of banking are identical to sound principles of warehousing any kind of merchandise, whether it’s autos, potatoes, or books. Or money. There’s nothing mysterious about sound banking. But banking all over the world has been fundamentally unsound since government-sponsored central banks came to dominate the financial system.
Fractional Reserve Banking requires banks to keep between 0 and 10% of savings deposits on hand.
Guess who is taking the risk.
You’re likely thinking that a discussion of “sound banking” will be a bit boring. Well, banking should be boring. And we’re sure officials at central banks all over the world today—many of whom have trouble sleeping—wish it were.
This brief article will explain why the world’s banking system is unsound, and what differentiates a sound from an unsound bank. I suspect not one person in 1,000 actually understands the difference. As a result, the world’s economy is now based upon unsound banks dealing in unsound currencies. Both have degenerated considerably from their origins.
Modern banking emerged from the goldsmithing trade of the Middle Ages. Being a goldsmith required a working inventory of precious metal, and managing that inventory profitably required expertise in buying and selling metal and storing it securely. Those capacities segued easily into the business of lending and borrowing gold, which is to say the business of lending and borrowing money.
Most people today are only dimly aware that until the early 1930s, gold coins were used in everyday commerce by the general public. In addition, gold backed most national currencies at a fixed rate of convertibility. Banks were just another business—nothing special. They were distinguished from other enterprises only by the fact they stored, lent, and borrowed gold coins, not as a sideline but as a primary business. Bankers had become goldsmiths without the hammers.
Bank deposits, until quite recently, fell strictly into two classes, depending on the preference of the depositor and the terms offered by banks: time deposits, and demand deposits. Although the distinction between them has been lost in recent years, respecting the difference is a critical element of sound banking practice.
Time Deposits. With a time deposit—a savings account, in essence—a customer contracts to leave his money with the banker for a specified period. In return, he receives a specified fee (interest) for his risk, for his inconvenience, and as consideration for allowing the banker the use of the depositor’s money. The banker, secure in knowing he has a specific amount of gold for a specific amount of time, is able to lend it; he’ll do so at an interest rate high enough to cover expenses (including the interest promised to the depositor), fund a loan-loss reserve, and if all goes according to plan, make a profit.
A time deposit entails a commitment by both parties. The depositor is locked in until the due date. How could a sound banker promise to give a time depositor his money back on demand and without penalty when he’s planning to lend it out?
In the business of accepting time deposits, a banker is a dealer in credit, acting as an intermediary between lenders and borrowers. To avoid loss, bankers customarily preferred to lend on productive assets, whose earnings offered assurance that the borrower could cover the interest as it came due. And they were willing to lend only a fraction of the value of a pledged asset, to ensure a margin of safety for the principal. And only for a limited time—such as against the harvest of a crop or the sale of an inventory. And finally, only to people of known good character—the first line of defense against fraud. Long-term loans were the province of bond syndicators.
That’s time deposits. Demand deposits were a completely different matter.
Demand Deposits. Demand deposits were so called because, unlike time deposits, they were payable to the customer on demand. These are the basis of checking accounts. The banker doesn’t pay interest on the money, because he supposedly never has the use of it; to the contrary, he necessarily charged the depositor a fee for:
An honest banker should no more lend out demand deposit money than Allied Van and Storage should lend out the furniture you’ve paid it to store. The warehouse receipts for gold were called banknotes. When a government issued them, they were called currency. Gold bullion, gold coinage, banknotes, and currency together constituted the society’s supply of transaction media. But its amount was strictly limited by the amount of gold actually available to people.
Sound principles of banking are identical to sound principles of warehousing any kind of merchandise, whether it’s autos, potatoes, or books. Or money. There’s nothing mysterious about sound banking. But banking all over the world has been fundamentally unsound since government-sponsored central banks came to dominate the financial system.
Central banks are a linchpin of today’s world financial system. By purchasing government debt, banks can allow the state—for a while—to finance its activities without taxation. On the surface, this appears to be a “free lunch.” But it’s actually quite pernicious and is the engine of currency debasement.
Central banks may seem like a permanent part of the cosmic landscape, but in fact they are a recent invention. The US Federal Reserve, for instance, didn’t exist before 1913.
Fraud can creep into any business. A banker, seeing other people’s gold sitting idle in his vault, might think, “What is the point of taking gold out of the ground from a mine, only to put it back into the ground in a vault?” People are writing checks against it and using his banknotes. But the gold itself seldom moves. A restless banker might conclude that, even though it might be a fraud on depositors (depending on exactly what the bank has promised them), he could easily create lots more banknotes and lend them out, and keep 100% of the interest for himself.
Left solely to their own devices, some bankers would try that. But most would be careful not to go too far, since the game would end abruptly if any doubt emerged about the bank’s ability to hand over gold on demand. The arrival of central banks eased that fear by introducing a lender of last resort. Because the central bank is always standing by with credit, bankers are free to make promises they know they might not be able to keep on their own.
In the past, when a bank created too much currency out of nothing, people eventually would notice, and a “bank run” would materialize. But when a central bank authorizes all banks to do the same thing, that’s less likely—unless it becomes known that an individual bank has made some really foolish loans.
Central banks were originally justified—especially the creation of the Federal Reserve in the US—as a device for economic stability. The occasional chastisement of imprudent bankers and their foolish customers was an excuse to get government into the banking business. As has happened in so many cases, an occasional and local problem was “solved” by making it systemic and housing it in a national institution. It’s loosely analogous to the way the government handles the problem of forest fires: extinguishing them quickly provides an immediate and visible benefit. But the delayed and forgotten consequence of doing so is that it allows decades of deadwood to accumulate. Now when a fire starts, it can be a once-in-a-century conflagration.
Banking all over the world now operates on a “fractional reserve” system. In our earlier example, our sound banker kept a 100% reserve against demand deposits: he held one ounce of gold in his vault for every one-ounce banknote he issued. And he could only lend the proceeds of time deposits, not demand deposits. A “fractional reserve” system can’t work in a free market; it has to be legislated. And it can’t work where banknotes are redeemable in a commodity, such as gold; the banknotes have to be “legal tender” or strictly paper money that can be created by fiat.
The fractional reserve system is why banking is more profitable than normal businesses. In any industry, rich average returns attract competition, which reduces returns. A banker can lend out a dollar, which a businessman might use to buy a widget. When that seller of the widget re-deposits the dollar, a banker can lend it out at interest again. The good news for the banker is that his earnings are compounded several times over. The bad news is that, because of the pyramided leverage, a default can cascade. In each country, the central bank periodically changes the percentage reserve (theoretically, from 100% down to 0% of deposits) that banks must keep with it, according to how the bureaucrats in charge perceive the state of the economy.
In any event, in the US (and actually most everywhere in the world), protection against runs on banks isn’t provided by sound practices, but by laws. In 1934, to restore confidence in commercial banks, the US government instituted the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) deposit insurance in the amount of $2,500 per depositor per bank, eventually raising coverage to today’s $250,000. In Europe, €100,000 is the amount guaranteed by the state.
FDIC insurance covers about $9.3 trillion of deposits, but the institution has assets of only $116 billion. That’s about one cent on the dollar. I’ll be surprised if the FDIC doesn’t go bust and need to be recapitalized by the government. That money—many billions—will likely be created out of thin air by selling Treasury debt to the Fed.
The fractional reserve banking system, with all of its unfortunate attributes, is critical to the world’s financial system as it is currently structured. You can plan your life around the fact the world’s governments and central banks will do everything they can to maintain confidence in the financial system. To do so, they must prevent a deflation at all costs. And to do that, they will continue printing up more dollars, pounds, euros, yen, and what-have-you.
Editor’s Note: Most people have no idea what really happens when the banking system collapses, let alone how to prepare…
As we get closer to a widespread banking collapse, choosing where to put your money is crucial to ensuring it doesn’t get caught in the crosshairs.
Owning gold is essential. Gold has held its value for thousands of years. It has preserved wealth through every kind of crisis imaginable. Gold will preserve wealth during the next crisis, too.
That’s precisely why legendary speculator Doug Casey and his team just released a new video on this topic, including what the mainstream media won’t tell you about gold. Click here to watch it now.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: demand deposit, fractional reserve banking, Unsound Banking | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on January 28, 2021
In this course of its investigation, researchers at Fordham discovered that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the 138 terrorist incidents recorded in the USA between 2001-2012 involved FBI informants who played leading roles in planning out, supplying weapons, instructions and even recruiting Islamic terrorists to carry out terrorist acts on U.S. soil. Reporting on the Fordham study, The Nation reported on this scandal stating:
“Nearly every major post-9/11 terrorism-related prosecution has involved a sting operation, at the center of which is a government informant. In these cases, the informants—who work for money or are seeking leniency on criminal charges of their own—have crossed the line from merely observing potential criminal behavior to encouraging and assisting people to participate in plots that are largely scripted by the FBI itself. Under the FBI’s guiding hand, the informants provide the weapons, suggest the targets and even initiate the inflammatory political rhetoric that later elevates the charges to the level of terrorism.”
The “war on terror” is now expanding to target a broad spectrum of the American population who would be morally resistant to the sorts of anti-human policies demanded by Great Reset Technocrats, Matthew Ehret writes.
Since it has become increasingly evident that a vast extension of the Patriot Act will soon be unveiled that threatens to re-define “the war on terror” to include essentially anyone who disagrees with the governing neoliberal agenda, it is probably a good time to evaluate how and why terrorism – domestic or otherwise – has tended to arise over the past century.
If, in the course of conducting this evaluation, we find that terrorism is truly a “naturally occurring phenomenon”, then perhaps we might conclude alongside many eminent figures of the intelligence community and Big Tech, that new pre-emptive legislation targeting the rise of a new conservative-minded domestic terrorist movement is somehow necessary. Maybe the censoring of free speech, and the surveillance of millions of Americans by the Five Eyes is a necessary evil for the sake of the greater good.
However, if it is revealed that the thing we call “terrorism”, is something other than a naturally occurring, self-organized phenomenon, but rather something which only exists due to vast support from western political agencies, then a very different conclusion must be arrived at which may be disturbing for some.
But how to proceed?
Before it was revealed that ISIS was being supported by a network of Anglo-American intelligence agencies and their allies in a failed effort to overthrow Bashar al Assad, an exhaustive 2012 study was conducted by the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School. This study provides a convenient entry point to our inquiry.
In this course of its investigation, researchers at Fordham discovered that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the 138 terrorist incidents recorded in the USA between 2001-2012 involved FBI informants who played leading roles in planning out, supplying weapons, instructions and even recruiting Islamic terrorists to carry out terrorist acts on U.S. soil. Reporting on the Fordham study, The Nation reported on this scandal stating:
“Nearly every major post-9/11 terrorism-related prosecution has involved a sting operation, at the center of which is a government informant. In these cases, the informants—who work for money or are seeking leniency on criminal charges of their own—have crossed the line from merely observing potential criminal behavior to encouraging and assisting people to participate in plots that are largely scripted by the FBI itself. Under the FBI’s guiding hand, the informants provide the weapons, suggest the targets and even initiate the inflammatory political rhetoric that later elevates the charges to the level of terrorism.”
Of course, this trend preceded 9/11 itself as we see in the case of FBI informant Emad Salem (formerly associated with the Egyptian Military) who recorded hundreds of hours of conversation between himself and his FBI handlers which were reported publicly by the New York times on October 28, 1993. Why is this important? Because Emad Salem was the figure who rented the van, hotel rooms, provided bomb-making instruction, tested out explosives on behalf of Mohammed Salamah and 15 other terrorists who carried out the February 1993 World Trade Center bombing which injured 1000 and killed 6 people.
Even though several large-scale military war game scenarios were conducted between October 2000 and July 2001 featuring planes flying into both the World Trade Center buildings and Pentagon, the incoming Neocon administration were somehow caught with their pants down when the events of 9/11 finally took place (conveniently at a moment that NORAD had suffered a total breakdown of their continental warning and response systems). When all flights were grounded over the coming several days, Cheney and his PNAC cohorts ensured that the only flights permitted to leave the USA was crammed with high level Saudi royals- including the Bin Laden family.
Why was this done?
As the declassified 28 pages from the 9/11 Commission report went far to demonstrate, the Saudis- largely coordinated by Prince Bandar Bin Sultan (Saudi Ambassador to the USA from 1983-2005 and Bush family insider) had provided the foundation for a cover story that was carefully scripted to justify the 9/11 incident.
Whether the plot was hatched by CIA-Saudi sponsored terrorists as some assume, or whether it was a controlled demolition as hundreds of architects and engineers have testified to (or whether it was a combination of both stories), one thing is certain: The official narrative is a lie and no matter how you try to explain it, two airplanes cannot cause the collapse of three WTC buildings.
Another thing is certain: Biden was happy.
Not only did Joe Biden act as one of the most aggressive voices for the invasion of Iraq in the days following 9/11, but he even bragged publicly that John Ashcroft’s 2001 Patriot Act was modelled nearly verbatim on his own failed 1994 Omnibus domestic surveillance legislation drafted in response to the first 9/11 attack and 1994 Oklahoma City bombing.
Another important outcome of 9/11 involved the re-organization of the FBI with a focus on domestic terrorist surveillance, prevention, disruption and entrapment.
In 2001, MI5’s Chief came to the USA where then-FBI director Robert Mueller was assigned the task of carrying out this new remix of U.S. intelligence that involved re-activating many of the worst characteristics of the FBI’s earlier COINTEL PRO operations that were made public during the 1974 Church Committee hearings.
A Christian Science Monitor report from May 19, 2004 cited the changes in the following terms:
“They have done a number of things to move them in the direction of an MI5,” says a person close to the changes. “They’ve created agents who are trained to have an intelligence function. They’re monitoring organizations within the U.S. that pose threats to national security … not with an eye toward prosecuting, but toward collecting and analyzing that information.”
An incredible report by investigative Journalist Edward Spannaus listed a short list of some of the most extreme cases of FBI entrapment between 2001-2013 in the USA:
“One of the most egregious of these cases is the so-called “Newburgh Four” in New York State, in which an informant in 2008-09 offered the defendants $250,000, as well as weapons, to carry out a terrorist plot. The New York University Center for Human Rights and Justice reviewed this case and two others, and concluded: “The government’s informants introduced and aggressively pushed ideas about violent jihad and, moreover, actually encouraged the defendants to believe it was their duty to take action against the United States.”
The Federal judge presiding over the Newburgh case, Colleen McMahon, declared that it was “beyond question that the government created the crime here,” and criticized the Bureau for sending informants “trolling among the citizens of a troubled community, offering very poor people money if they will play some role—any role—in criminal activity.”
In Portland, Ore., it was disclosed during the trial of the “Christmas Tree bomber” earlier this year, that the FBI had actually produced its own terrorist training video, which was shown to the defendant, depicting men with covered faces shooting guns and setting off bombs using a cell phone as a detonator. The FBI operative also traveled with the target to a remote location where they detonated an actual bomb concealed in a backpack as a trial run for the planned attack.
In Brooklyn, N.Y., in 2012, an FBI agent posing as an al-Qaeda operative supplied a target with fake explosives for a 1,000-pound bomb, which the FBI’s victim then attempted to detonate outside the Federal Reserve building in Manhattan.
In Irvine, Calif., in 2007, an FBI informant was so blatant in attempting to entrap members of the local Islamic Center into violent jihadi actions, that the mosque went to court and got a restraining order against the informant.
In Pittsburgh, Khalifa Ali al-Akili became so suspicious of two “jihadi” FBI informants who were trying to recruit him to buy a gun and to go to Pakistan for training, that he contacted both the London Guardian and the Washington-based National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms, and told them that he feared the FBI was trying to entrap him. The National Coalition scheduled a press conference for March 16, 2012, at which al-Akili was to speak and identify the informants, but the day before the scheduled press conference, the FBI arrested al-Akili, charging him not with terrorism, but with illegal possession of a firearm.
The chief informant trying to entrap al-Akili turned out to be Shaden Hussain, a longtime FBI informant who had set up two earlier terrorism cases: the above-cited Newburgh, N.Y., case for which he was paid $100,000, and another in Albany, N.Y., for which his payments are not known.”
Not Only the USA
This post 9/11 practice was not isolated to the USA, as a Canadian appeals court overruled guilty sentences handed down to an idiotic couple who were caught by the RCMP before their July 2016 jihadi plot to bomb a public venue on Canada Day could occur. Why did the appeals judge overrule their sentence? Because it became clear that every single member of the operation which radicalized the young couple, trained them to make bombs and even scripted their attack were RCMP informants!
Earlier cases of controlled domestic terrorist movements in Canada saw CSIS (Canada’s Security and Intelligence Service) erase thousands of hours of wiretaps of Sikh terrorists that detonated bombs in 1984 which lead to 329 dead in the worst act of aviation terrorism until 9/11. Despite this destruction of evidence, CSIS was absolved of its sins in 2005 by the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC). It was also this same organization that was revealed to have co-founded the white supremacist Heritage Front in 1988, and continued to finance it with tax payer funds using CSIS agent Grant Bristol as the conduit and Heritage Front controller until at least 1994.
Anglo-Canadian intelligence controls of domestic terrorism actually go as far back as the bomb-loving Front de Liberation Quebec (FLQ) of the 1960s that set dozens of mailbox bombs across the province. Not only did the RCMP Security Services get caught red handed managing FLQ cells, spreading FLQ graffiti on buildings and even supplying explosives to the group itself, but the FLQ’s “intellectual leader” (Pierre Vallieres) was also the Editor-in-Chief of the very same magazine (Cite Libre) which was run for a decade by none other than Canada’s Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau!

When major press agencies blew the whistle on the federal intelligence agencies behind the FLQ which justified months of Martial Law in Quebec in 1970, Trudeau’s right hand man (and fellow Cite Libre writer) Michael Pitfield created a new organization called the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) in 1983 as a branch of the Privy Council Office in order to continue psychological operations going under a new name.
If anyone wishes to look through the voluminous RCMP/CSIS files accumulated on Pierre Trudeau’s strange connections with the FLQ and broader Fabian Society networks during the Cold War, they would be out of luck as historians were informed in 2019 that the entire Trudeau record archive were secretly destroyed by CSIS in 1989 simply because they “weren’t interesting”.
It is important to keep in mind that the RCMP’s techniques were not specifically Canadian, but were innovated by the FBI’s Counter-intelligence Program (COINTEL PRO) which J. Edgar Hoover launched in 1956 in order to subvert “dangerous civil rights groups” then emerging under the leadership of Paul Robeson and Martin Luther King Jr. From the program’s inception until its nominal death in 1975, not only did the FBI infiltrate every anti-establishment grouping from the U.S. Communist Party (CPUSA), to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), NAACP to the Black nationalist movements throughout the 1960s, but ensured that its informants played leading roles in instilling internal conflict, radicalized groups towards violence and even set up leaders like Fred Hampton for assassination.
The strange case of Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers who enjoyed vast institutional support and protection after their time running domestic terrorism as leaders of the Weather Underground is something that should also be investigated. The fact that both domestic terrorists not only became affluent Soros-tied education reformers, and early sponsors of Barack Obama’s political career is more than just a tiny anomaly which can simply be dismissed. (1)
Where did Hoover’s FBI generate COINTEL PRO tactics?
To answer this question, we need to look further back to British Intelligence’s Camp X, established in December 1941 in Canada with the mandate to train American and Canadian spies under the control of spymaster William Stephenson (station chief for Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) in New York).
The motive for Camp X had two interconnected components:
1) Prepare the groundwork for a deeper integration of U.S.-British Intelligence in preparation for the purge of patriotic U.S. intelligence officers allied to FDR’s vision of the post-war age, and
2) Train U.S. spies in the art of “secret warfare” which included counterfeiting, psychological warfare, propaganda, counter insurgency, assassination, and infiltration of target groups.
The integration of “full spectrum” alternative warfare tactics such as MK Ultra (modelled and steered by Britain’s earlier Tavis stock clinic), media propaganda (see: Project Mockingbird) and cultural war (see: the rise of modern art and atonalism promoted by the Congress For Cultural Freedom) were but a few of the tactics that were integrated during this process, and which continue virulently to this day.
Under Stephenson’s direction and staffed with Canadian RCMP operatives, the first generation of OSS spymasters were trained; including leading figures of the FBI’s Division 5 who went onto reformulate their WWII Camp X training in the form of assassination operations such as Permindex (operated by Camp X’s Major General Louis Mortimer Bloomfield).
In Conclusion
While I could have said more about the origins of America’s Secret Police which arose under Presidents Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, or the earlier deployment of domestic terrorism by Freemasonic lodges affiliated with Albert Pike (founder of the Ku Klux Klan) in an effort to undo Lincoln’s vision for industrial restoration of the South, these stories will have to be left for another time.
For now, it is enough to state that the “war on terror” set into motion by the World Trade Center attacks of 1993 and 2001, is now expanding to target a broad spectrum of the American population who would be morally resistant to the sorts of anti-human policies demanded by Great Reset Technocrats. This dishonest effort must be exposed and rejected before those actual controllers of terrorism attain their objectives: The destruction of nation states, the imposition of a new ethical paradigm premised on depopulation and entropy.
The author can be reached at canadianpatriot1776@tutanota.com
(1) By the late 1970s, the creation of controlled terrorist movements was applied vigorously to the Middle East in the form of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s great idea of channeling money, weapons and other support to radical madrasas across Afghanistan as part of an asymmetrical warfare against the Soviet Union. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, these operations vastly expanded with the help of Saudi intelligence and Mossad involvement on the ground- always coordinated by Anglo American intelligence handlers. Islamic terrorism, just like “domestic American terrorism” always had much less to do with Islam and more to do with political agendas wishing to destroy national governments.
© 2010 – 2021 | Strategic Culture Foundation | Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture online journal www.strategic-culture.org.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: domestic terrorism, Emad Salem, FBI, ISIS, War on terror, World Trade Center | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on January 28, 2021
The warparty water carrier. He knows which side will butter his golden parachute.
https://erietimes-pa-app.newsmemory.com/?publink=04c497219
Sen. Toomey votes in favor of Trump impeachment trial
Candy Woodall Pennsylvania Capitol Bureau USA TODAY NETWORK
Sen. Pat Toomey, a Lehigh Valley Republican, voted against his party in favor of proceeding with former President Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial.
Toomey, who previously announced he is not seeking reelection, on Tuesday was one of five U.S. Senate Republicans who did not vote for a procedural effort to dismiss the trial.
In a statement, the senator said he is following the Constitution.
“There are legal and constitutional arguments both favoring and opposing an impeachment trial of a former president,” Toomey said.
“In my view, the text and context of the Constitution, the meaning of the term ‘impeachment’ to the founders, and the most relevant precedents indicate that it is constitutionally permissible for the Senate to consider the impeachment of President Trump.”
Toomey said he will consider all arguments when Trump’s impeachment trial begins Feb. 9.
The U.S. House charged Trump with one count of incitement of insurrection for the riot at the U.S Capitol. The House impeached him on Jan. 13, a week after the deadly insurrection in which five people died.
Trump is the first president in U.S. history to be impeached twice.
A conviction would require the support of all Democrats and 17 Republicans, or two-thirds of the Senate — far from the five Republicans who voted with Democrats Tuesday to allow the trial to proceed.
The other Republicans voting to hold the trial were Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Sen. Toomey, Trump impeachment | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on January 28, 2021
The purpose of the EUA process, and FDA oversight, is clear enough—to weed out poorly performing test providers. But there are big problems here: First, this assumes that FDA employees are experts at everything they are regulating, which cannot be the case. Second, if the oversight is faulty or results in unnecessary delays (as was the case with covid-19 testing), nothing happens. The FDA still has the same authority now that it had in 2019. Third, oversight with lab testing is largely meaningless without having regulators (assuming they understand the scientific basis for what’s being done) observing what’s happening in the lab.
https://mises.org/wire/fda-botched-covid-testing-2020-nothing-has-changed-then
Ah, the covid-19 test results—much maligned by some and worshipped by others! As part of the ongoing covid-19 pandemic, the results of covid-19 tests are repeatedly blasted at us from many places, often with analysis. It is easy to understand why this is the case. News media and information outlets of all types can present the absolute numbers of positive tests and data trends, which are easy to find, and many viewers can seemingly grasp what’s happening and where. And people are concerned about the spread of a novel virus and what it might do to them, their families, and their communities. In short, this is information that people demand. As such, they will get it.
It’s important to understand the basics of the two main types of tests being used to detect the virus. First, a PCR test is used to amplify and detect the presence of a DNA segment that is highly specific to covid-19. Second, an antibody test is used to detect the presence of an antigen (often a specific protein) that is present on the outside of a pathogen like covid-19. Both of these tests take biological processes and manipulate them to detect the presence of something specific—in these cases, markers of covid-19. There’s nothing magical or sacred about what’s happening. Anyone with the supplies and proper training can run these tests and report findings. And, like with any analytical procedure, there are restrictions on what can be detected. False positives and false negatives are possible, detection levels have limits, and sampling technique affects the results. All of these can be examined to better define the accuracy of the results.
And, yet, as concerns about covid-19 were rapidly increasing, many people were without this vital information that they wanted. Why was this? In the US, the Food and Drug Administration has authority over all medical testing, and in times of emergency, what is known as emergency authorized use, or EUA, can be granted so that labs around the country can begin testing. However, due to bureaucracy and red tape, the FDA took weeks, rather than days, to grant EUAs (another way of saying that it was slow to give up a little authority) so that testing could begin. It was even reported that the FDA and state authorities instructed one lab to halt their plans of repurposing existing tests for covid-19 testing. (By the way, history is already being rewritten, so it seems.) Some labs reported being ready to give results, with validated testing protocols in hand, but being forced to wait due to the FDA’s slow response time. Thus, critical time was lost; people were flying blind for weeks as fear increased.
The purpose of the EUA process, and FDA oversight, is clear enough—to weed out poorly performing test providers. But there are big problems here: First, this assumes that FDA employees are experts at everything they are regulating, which cannot be the case. Second, if the oversight is faulty or results in unnecessary delays (as was the case with covid-19 testing), nothing happens. The FDA still has the same authority now that it had in 2019. Third, oversight with lab testing is largely meaningless without having regulators (assuming they understand the scientific basis for what’s being done) observing what’s happening in the lab. Reviewing documents or protocols is largely ceremonial if the “experts” don’t have a clear understanding of the procedures and, more importantly, if they are not in the labs with the technicians performing the tests. Who knows if the tests are being administered properly, or if, following employee turnover, a new staff member is poorly trained and improperly gives the tests? This last scenario cannot ever be tracked and controlled by regulators.
These regulatory challenges would have been much better addressed with private sector testing facilities competing for customers. In order for a testing lab to be chosen by eager customers, its results have to be meaningful—those that do not provide this will not be in business for long.
In addition, a private testing system would have allowed quicker data sharing sooner (and the use of various platforms) and for testing to be conducted in a way that pleases customers. In some areas, the reporting would have been different, but ultimately it would have had to satisfy customers. And with something like a global pandemic, broader sharing of information would likely have been welcomed at first and might have changed later—the market could have decided over time. Competing evidence would even have served as an important quality control.
It’s a good bet that an approach like the one outlined here would have mediated the effects of the covid-19 pandemic. There’s no question (with the benefit of hindsight) that covid-19, and the response to it, was going to cause difficulty and suffering for many people. Lives have been lost, businesses and services derailed, and trust eroded. But, with the right information in hand, decision-making would have been improved. Trouble areas and practices could have been avoided. Personal risk could have been assessed more accurately. We could have understood what was happening sooner and worked to get through the covid-19 pandemic more quickly. Instead, we’re left with the same stagnant, bloated system that’s slow to respond—troubling because other pathogens are sure to arise in the future. We can’t afford to stumble in the darkness again. Author:
Dave Albin conducts process development research and provides technical support for a food equipment manufacturer in Iowa.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: antibody, Covid testing, EUA, FDA, PCR test | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on January 28, 2021
The authors of the study summarize their key findings as follows (I have taken three of the five key findings for brevity’s sake):
https://mises.org/wire/how-covid-crisis-exposed-absurdity-certificates-need
In August 2020, the Institute for Justice published a report entitled “Conning the Competition: A Nationwide Survey of Certificate of Need Laws.” Certificate of Need (CON) laws are a particular problem in a health crisis like we are experiencing now. However, the problem with CON laws is nothing new to readers of the Mises Institute. In 2017, Alice Salles wrote about how the government ruined US healthcare, pointing to the requirement of a certificate of need as one reason for rising healthcare costs. In the Accad and Koka Report by the Mises Institute two doctors shared their firsthand experience with CON laws. The current covid pandemic exposes some of the absurdities of CON laws in a time when politicians tout their concern for ordinary citizens. While eliminating CON laws will not solve the current pandemic, eliminating them will be a first step in reforming healthcare. The facts in this article are from the Institute of Justice report.
In a rare admission of policy failure, Congress in 1986 repealed a federal act, eliminating federal incentives for states to maintain CON programs. CONs are government permission slips that are required to enter certain industries, in this case, anything healthcare related. Basic economic theory predicts that supply is inversely correlated with cost: as you increase supply, prices should fall and vice versa. CON laws are an attempt to contradict this basic economic principle with the idea that if you restrict supply, in this case healthcare facilities and services, cost can be controlled. The mistaken belief, at this point, was that reducing supply of healthcare would reduce overall healthcare expenditures. The main idea was to eliminate costly duplication of services and increase access to quality care. The argument of wanting to eliminate costly duplication is one that is heard often when government wants to consolidate its power. However, the experiment with CON laws failed, and Congress, to its credit, repealed a law requiring states to enact CON laws. But the damage was done; before the repeal of the requirement every state except Louisiana had CON laws. Since then, states have very slowly dismantled CON laws, with Hew Hampshire being the latest (2016). Currently, thirty-five states and the District of Columbia maintain CON laws, with another three states enforcing quasi-CON requirements. In contrast, diverse states in geography, political views, and socioeconomic characteristics like California, Colorado, Texas, and Pennsylvania have done away with CON laws. Currently, nearly 40 percent of the nation’s population lives in states without CON laws with any serious negative consequences. I think this provides proof that patients and the general public will not be harmed by eliminating CON laws.
Policymakers claim CON regulation is intended to ensure adequate healthcare resources and access for rural communities plus promote high-quality healthcare. At this point, I am ignoring the absurd claim that CON will restrain the cost of healthcare services. One of the most absurd parts of CON laws is the ability of competitors to object to an application. In thirty-four of thirty-nine states with a CON program, a would-be competitor can object to the CON application. Not only is a healthcare provider required to ask the government for permission to provide a new service, expand service, change hours or location, etc., but a competitor can block their application by simply stating that there is no need. Imagine if a local ice cream shop had the ability to object to another ice cream shop opening its doors in town by simply stating there is no need for two ice cream shops in town.
A second absurd part of CON laws is the fact that application fees can range from as low as $100 up to $250,000, or in some states a percentage of the proposed project cost with no maximum. So, the more expensive the project, the more expensive the application. While some states have CON laws that are triggered beyond a certain threshold allowing existing providers some freedom to run their businesses without government interference, other states use expenditures to make sure that nothing happens without state approval, requiring a CON for any project over a certain amount. What these restrictions amount to is a covert government-run healthcare solution where healthcare administrators have to work hand in hand with the state government.
This is not the only burden an applicant faces. An applicant must also deal with time delays that can stretch for months, even years. Some application periods run two to four months, but some can last as long as a year or more. If that is not enough, the government agency considers applications sometimes not on an as-needed basis, but infrequently, such as twice a year or, as in the case of a specific regulation in Ohio, once every four years.
There are many cases of entrepreneurs who respond to a need in the community to provide a service that was previously not offered or offered at a much higher price who have had to abandon their entrepreneurial activity. Applicants have to hire attorneys and experts to present evidence for why a service is needed and go through a long legal battle to receive government approval.
All of this is contradicting what Mises wrote about the consumer being the ultimate decider of entrepreneurial success. Even more damaging is the current situation when a pandemic requires hospitals to adjust quickly to an ever-changing healthcare need. Image a hospital simply not accepting patients with covid simply because they have reached the limit of beds allowed under their certificate of need. “Luckily,” twenty-five states suspended or loosened some of the CON laws during the pandemic to allow healthcare settings to provide adequate coverage of needs. But should a healthcare provider have to worry about appeasing the government in an emergency by filing paperwork to allow for changes in the number of patient beds, increases in the number of ventilators per hospital, etc. The answer should be a clear no.
The recent report by the Institute for Justice provides a comprehensive survey of CON laws and the absurdity of most rules and regulations in them. The absurdity of CON laws is clear from the way state CON policies contradict each other in almost every aspect.
The authors of the study summarize their key findings as follows (I have taken three of the five key findings for brevity’s sake):
But now with the outbreak of the covid pandemic, CON laws and similar regulations need to be eliminated. Repealing or eliminating regulations that work like CON laws does not offer a solution for the pandemic, but the pandemic exposed the absurdity with CON laws and how they harm patients. Many states have seen the light at the end of the tunnel and suspended or loosened CON requirements, but how states responded varies again. It is time to suspend all CON requirements, not just for covid reasons but for the benefit of all patients in the long run. Author:
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Certificates of Need, CON program, Covid crisis | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on January 28, 2021
The coronavirus pandemic had manifested our inherent disposition towards truth and ultimate authority. Despite the collapse of religious belief, people continue to place complete trust in perceived truths and sources of authority higher than their subjective selves. But rather than a priest as the source, this authority is now sought out from the mainstream media, the trending page on Twitter, along with compliant politicians and medical ‘experts’.
While this phenomenon is not an argument directly in favour of Catholicism, it does imply the truth is real and can be found in something specific. This specific truth, in my submission, exists in the Catholic faith.
https://aussienationalistblog.com/2021/01/28/why-i-converted-to-catholicism/
Late last year I converted to Catholicism out of a firm belief in its truth. As such, I will below outline the logical basis for this conclusion.
Introduction
But first, a disclaimer: I only seriously began considering this field two years ago and have no particular expertise in Christian or Catholic apologetics. In evaluating the truth claims of Catholicism, as opposed to this post, it would be more instructive to read the works of those who have studied this field for decades. To this end, at the bottom of the post, I will list those books that tangentially influenced my conversion; directly influenced my conversion; and provided spiritual as well as intellectual guidance during the conversion and immediate aftermath.
This want of expert knowledge is why in parts below, rather than bungling intricate theological concepts, I simply refer to the works of expert authors for a more comprehensive explanation. This is only a personal account from a recent convert; by no means is it a claimed authority on all the good reasons in support of Catholic truth.
Also and to be sure, unaided reason is insufficient by itself for inducing a conversion. Rather, to accept the foregoing arguments at least two preconditions must be fulfilled. The first of these is an open heart; the second, an understanding that Catholicism (or religious belief more generally) can bring tangible life benefits. Absent the fulfillment of these conditions in any atheist reader, the below arguments will be most certainly dismissed.
Overview
There are three grounds on which I came to believe in the truth of Catholicism. These included:
1. There exists a monotheistic God who is the ultimate cause of all things.
2. Jesus Christ is the Son of God, Christianity is true.
3. Catholicism is the true expression of Christianity.
Below, I will set out the main points in support of these three grounds. It is submitted that these points, considered *cumulatively*, prove the truth of each ground beyond reasonable doubt. Meaning, that when all of the points under each respective ground are considered together, their collective explanatory value renders each ground true. From the fulfillment of grounds 1, 2 and 3, logical necessity dictates Catholicism to be the true religion.

1. The Five Ways:
See the rest here
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Catholicism, Christianity Today, monotheistic | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on January 27, 2021
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Be happy, Rodney Norman | 1 Comment »
Posted by M. C. on January 27, 2021
President Biden’s top coronavirus advisor, Dr. Anthony Fauci, has just announced that it’s “just common sense” that people should wear two masks. Last March he said no one should be walking around with masks on. Then he said put a mask on. Meanwhile CNBC featured a segment advising that people wear THREE masks! Is all of this “the science”? No wonder that, according to a recent study, Americans are four times more depressed and anxious than they were in 2019.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Covid Policy, Fauci, Schizophrenic, Two Masks | Leave a Comment »