How to go From a Broken Taillight to 18 Months in Prison


Source: TheDailyBell.com
August 21, 2017

It is amazing the amount of “crimes” one broken taillight precipitated.

A recent court case in Massachusetts highlights the insanity of statute law, versus common law. That is, relying on laws made by politicians, rather than assessing a claim brought by a victim.

Time, money, and freedom are all poured down the drain in favor of arbitrary statutes.

It started with a guy being pulled over for having a taillight out.

He was arrested for not having a license to drive a car. Already, this is a violation of rights. Why should you be forced to pay for a license in order to travel down public roads?

Licensure does little in the way of public safety. It is a vehicle to collect more money and keep track of citizens.

So society says it is better to kidnap a man and throw him in a cage than to allow people the freedom to travel unmolested. He victimized no one but was victimized by the state.

Next, cops saw a gun muzzle poking out of the pocket in the back seat. Apparently, seeing a bit of a gun is probable cause to search. Are guns illegal? No. Ah but again, those pesky licenses! The government requires licenses to exercise rights. You have to pay in order to be free.

When they performed the search, which was based on the gun, which was discovered because no driver’s license, which was revealed because of the broken headlight, the police found he also had some drugs in the vehicle. Add another victimless crime to the rap sheet.

This guy would never have been in the crosshairs of law enforcers at all, except a statute says a car must have two working taillights. Nowhere in any of this did the suspect victimize anyone.

Judges and lawyers then spent time (and thus tax dollars) arguing over things like:

  • Should he be charged with another crime, based on whether or not the gun was loaded?
  • Was there probable cause to find out if the gun was loaded?
  • Did the defendant know the gun was loaded?

The Appeals Court decision acknowledged that “proving knowledge that a firearm was loaded will often be quite difficult,” and that the effect of the ruling will likely be that few people will be convicted under that section of the law.

But the judges concluded that because the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in an earlier case that prosecutors must prove someone knew they were in possession of ammunition, they must also prove someone knew if that ammunition happened to be inside of a gun.

Blah, blah blah, blah blah. Was there a victim? No? Let the guy go. That is how simple true rule of law is.

Unless a law protects a victim, it creates a victim. Laws are not the same thing as the rule of law. Under rule of law, mere possession of an item would not see you imprisoned.

Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Of Course, the government doesn’t abide by the rights enumerated in the Constitution, let alone implied rights.

Read More At: TheDailyBell.com

Fake Evidence Used In Oklahoma Bombing

How official “science” is deployed to advance a political agenda

TruthFact
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
August 22, 2017

The public wants to buy every official scientific claim the mainstream press pounds into their brains—whether the issue is vaccine safety, global warming, the “overwhelming success” of medical drugs, the Big Bang theory of the universe’s origin…

The notion that a political agenda underlies such scientific pronouncements is unthinkable.

So as an example, a very specific example of fake science, let’s look back at the attack on Oklahoma City.

On April 19, 1995, one-third of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City blew up, killing 169 people and wounding 680 others.

Three men were arrested and convicted: Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols, and Michael Fortier. McVeigh was put to death on June 11, 2001, Nichols is currently serving multiple life sentences without the possibility of parole, and Fortier was sentenced to 12 years (he served that term and was released).

The official narrative of the bombing stated: A Ryder truck parked at the curb outside the Murrah Building contained barrels of ammonium nitrate plus fuel oil (ANFO bombs), and their coordinated explosion occurred shortly after 9AM on the morning of April 19th.

In addition to the deaths and the woundings, the explosion impacted 324 buildings and 86 cars in the area.

(In my 1995, book, “The Oklahoma City Bombing, the Suppressed Truth,” I laid to rest the claim that ANFO bombs could have caused that much damage; and more importantly, I showed that an explosion coming out of a Ryder truck at the curb could not have caused the particular profile of damage sustained by the Murrah Building.)

The vaunted FBI lab decided that, indeed, all the damage and death HAD been caused by ANFO bombs in the Ryder truck.

But wait.

Buckle up.

Two years after the bombing, on March 22, 1997, we had this from CNN: “The Justice Department inspector general’s office has determined that the FBI crime laboratory working on the Oklahoma City bombing case made ‘scientifically unsound’ conclusions that were ‘biased in favor of the prosecution,’ The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday.”

“…[FBI] supervisors approved lab reports that they ‘cannot support’ and…FBI lab officials may have erred about the size of the blast, the amount of explosives involved and the type of explosives used in the bombing[!].”

“…harshest criticism was of David Williams, a supervisory agent in the [FBI] explosives unit, the paper [LA Times] said. Those flaws reportedly include the basis of his determination that the main charge of the explosion was ammonium nitrate. The inspector general called such a determination ‘inappropriate,’ the Times said.”

“…FBI officials found a receipt for ammonium nitrate at defendant [Terry] Nichols’ home and, because of that discovery, Williams slanted his conclusion to match the evidence.”

And with those revelations, the case, the investigation, the court trials, and press probes should have taken a whole new direction. But they didn’t.

The fake science was allowed to stand.

Therefore, other paths of investigation were abandoned. If bombs did, in fact, explode in the Ryder truck, but didn’t cause the major damage, then those bombs were a cover for other explosions of separate origin—for example, charges wired inside the columns of the Murrah Building, triggered at the exact moment the Ryder Truck explosion occurred.

Now we would be talking about a very sophisticated operation, far beyond the technical skills of McVeigh, Nichols, and Fortier.

Who knows where an honest in-depth investigation would have led? The whole idea of anti-government militia terrorism in the OKC attack—symbolized by McVeigh—was used by President Bill Clinton to bring the frightened public “back to the federal government” as their ultimate protector and savior.

Instead, the public might have been treated to a true story about a false flag operation, in which case President Clinton’s massaged message would never have been delivered.

But the fake crooked science pushed by the FBI lab was permitted to stand—despite exposure as fraud—and the story of militia terrorists trying to bring down the federal government was allowed to stand as well.

The year 1995 was rife with anti-government sentiment in America. This wasn’t merely a bunch of militias talking about insurrection. This was widespread dissatisfaction, on the part of many Americans, who were seeing federal power expand beyond any semblance of constitutionality.

As an object lesson, the Oklahoma Bombing was: “You see what happens when crazy people are allowed to own guns and oppose the government? Stop listening to anti-government rhetoric. It’s horribly dangerous. We, the government, are here to protect you. Come home to us. Have faith in us. We’ll punish the offenders. We’ll make America safe again. Let’s all come together and oppose these maniacs who want to destroy our way of life…”

The lesson worked.

Many scared Americans signed on to Clinton’s agenda.

And fake FBI science was used to bolster that agenda.

Even when exposed as fake by mainstream press outlets—however briefly, with no determined follow-up—the federal brainwashing held. The myth was stronger than reality.

If the federal government can egregiously lie about an event as huge as the Oklahoma Bombing, using fake science as a cover—what wouldn’t they lie about?

That’s a question which answers itself.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba

TruthFact
Source: ABCNews.go.com
David Ruppe
May 1, 2001

In the early 1960s, America’s top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba’s then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America’s top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: “We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,” and, “casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.”

Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America’s largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy’s defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.

“These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing,” Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.

“The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants.”

Gunning for War

The documents show “the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government,” writes Bamford.

The Joint Chiefs even proposed using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba, the documents show.

Should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, they wrote, “the objective is to provide irrevocable proof … that the fault lies with the Communists et all Cuba [sic].”

The plans were motivated by an intense desire among senior military leaders to depose Castro, who seized power in 1959 to become the first communist leader in the Western Hemisphere — only 90 miles from U.S. shores.

The earlier CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by Cuban exiles had been a disastrous failure, in which the military was not allowed to provide firepower.The military leaders now wanted a shot at it.

“The whole thing was so bizarre,” says Bamford, noting public and international support would be needed for an invasion, but apparently neither the American public, nor the Cuban public, wanted to see U.S. troops deployed to drive out Castro.

Reflecting this, the U.S. plan called for establishing prolonged military — not democratic — control over the island nation after the invasion.

“That’s what we’re supposed to be freeing them from,” Bamford says. “The only way we would have succeeded is by doing exactly what the Russians were doing all over the world, by imposing a government by tyranny, basically what we were accusing Castro himself of doing.”

‘Over the Edge’

The Joint Chiefs at the time were headed by Eisenhower appointee Army Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer, who, with the signed plans in hand made a pitch to McNamara on March 13, 1962, recommending Operation Northwoods be run by the military.

Whether the Joint Chiefs’ plans were rejected by McNamara in the meeting is not clear. But three days later, President Kennedy told Lemnitzer directly there was virtually no possibility of ever using overt force to take Cuba, Bamford reports. Within months, Lemnitzer would be denied another term as chairman and transferred to another job.

The secret plans came at a time when there was distrust in the military leadership about their civilian leadership, with leaders in the Kennedy administration viewed as too liberal, insufficiently experienced and soft on communism. At the same time, however, there real were concerns in American society about their military overstepping its bounds.

There were reports U.S. military leaders had encouraged their subordinates to vote conservative during the election.

And at least two popular books were published focusing on a right-wing military leadership pushing the limits against government policy of the day.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee published its own report on right-wing extremism in the military, warning a “considerable danger” in the “education and propaganda activities of military personnel” had been uncovered. The committee even called for an examination of any ties between Lemnitzer and right-wing groups. But Congress didn’t get wind of Northwoods, says Bamford.

“Although no one in Congress could have known at the time,” he writes, “Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs had quietly slipped over the edge.”

Even after Lemnitzer was gone, he writes, the Joint Chiefs continued to plan “pretext” operations at least through 1963.

One idea was to create a war between Cuba and another Latin American country so that the United States could intervene. Another was to pay someone in the Castro government to attack U.S. forces at the Guantanamo naval base — an act, which Bamford notes, would have amounted to treason. And another was to fly low level U-2 flights over Cuba, with the intention of having one shot down as a pretext for a war.

“There really was a worry at the time about the military going off crazy and they did, but they never succeeded, but it wasn’t for lack of trying,” he says.

After 40 Years

Ironically, the documents came to light, says Bamford, in part because of the 1992 Oliver Stone film JFK, which examined the possibility of a conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy.

As public interest in the assassination swelled after JFK’s release, Congress passed a law designed to increase the public’s access to government records related to the assassination.

The author says a friend on the board tipped him off to the documents.

Afraid of a congressional investigation, Lemnitzer had ordered all Joint Chiefs documents related to the Bay of Pigs destroyed, says Bamford. But somehow, these remained.

“The scary thing is none of this stuff comes out until 40 years after,” says Bamford.

Read More At: ABCNews.go.com

We Need A Social Revolution


Source: PeakProsperity.com
Charles Hugh Smith
August 18, 2017

In the conventional view, there are two kinds of revolutions: political and technological. Political revolutions may be peaceful or violent, and technological revolutions may transform civilizations gradually or rather abruptly—for example, revolutionary advances in the technology of warfare.

In this view, the engines of revolution are the state—government in all its layers and manifestations—and the corporate economy.

In a political revolution, a new political party or faction gains converts to its narrative, and this new force replaces the existing political order, either via peaceful means or violent revolution.

Technological revolutions arise from many sources but end up being managed by the state and private sector, which each influence and control the other in varying degrees.

Conventional history focuses on top-down political revolutions of the violent “regime change” variety: the American Revolution (1776), the French Revolution (1789), the Russian Revolution (1917), the Chinese Revolution (1949), and so on.

Technology has its own revolutionary hierarchy; the advances of the Industrial Revolutions I, II, III and now IV, have typically originated with inventors and proto-industrialists who relied on private capital and banking to fund large-scale buildouts of new industries: rail, steel manufacturing, shipbuilding, the Internet, etc.

The state may direct and fund technological revolutions as politically motivated projects, for example the Manhattan project to develop nuclear weapons and the Space race to the Moon in the 1960s.

These revolutions share a similar structure: a small cadre leads a large-scale project based on a strict hierarchy in which the revolution is pushed down the social pyramid by the few at the top to the many below.  Even when political and industrial advances are accepted voluntarily by the masses, the leadership and structure of the controlling mechanisms are hierarchical: political power, elected or not, is concentrated in the hands of a few at the top. Corporations are commercial autocracies; leadership is highly concentrated and orders are imposed on the bottom 99% of employees with military-like authority.

Social Revolutions Are Not Top-Down

But there is another class of revolution that does not share this hierarchical structure, nor does it manifest in the large-scale, top-down power-pyramids of the state and private corporations: social revolutions are bottoms-up affairs, lacking centralized leadership and hierarchical control mechanisms.

Social revolutions eventually influence the state and private sector, but they do not require the permission, funding or leadership of these hierarchies; as a rule, social revolutions drag the state and corporate sectors forward, kicking and screaming, as the social fabric and values of the populace change and the state and corporate sector cling to the status quo.

Examples of recent social revolutions include the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s, the Counterculture of the 1960s, and the gay rights movement.  The leadership of the state resisted each revolution, and was essentially forced to adapt to the new social order as it became mainstream.

Once corporations figured out ways to profit from the transformed social order, they quickly introduced new products and fresh marketing: all-Caucasian advertising, for example, gave way to targeted ethnic advertising and mixed-race national advert campaigns.

When social revolutions are suppressed by the state, they may spark a political revolution as the socially oppressed come to see the overthrow of the autocratic political order as a necessary step towards liberation.

In other cases, social revolutions may have little immediate impact on the political stage. Faith-based social secular movements–for example, the Second Great Awakening in the early 19th century– were not overtly political; their eventual political impact (temperance, woman’s rights and support for the abolition of slavery) may manifest decades later.

In summary: social revolutions may generate political waves, but they need not be overtly political to do so, nor do they rely on political, financial or technological hierarchies to transform society.

The Decline of Social Groups and the Erosion of the Social Order

Robert Putman’s 2000 book Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, documented the decline of social connections and what we might calling belonging in American society with reams of data. This erosion of social bonds is not limited to social groups such as bowling leagues; it is secular, spanning every social type of connection from family picnics to community and neighborhood groups.

If we extend Putnam’s findings to the core human bonds of family and friendships, we find the same fraying of social ties; people have fewer close friends, are more isolated and lonely, and family relationships are increasingly superficial or characterized by alienation.

The factors feeding this broad-based decline of connectedness and social capital are many: the nation’s economic mode of production has changed, requiring two incomes where one once sufficed, and globalization has increased both the demands on those with jobs and the number of adults who have fallen out of the work force.

This winner-takes-most economy has been accompanied by the rise of political divisiveness, a brand of politics that fosters us-versus-them disunity and the erosion of common ground in favor of demonized opponents and all-or-nothing loyalty to one party or cause.

The technological revolutions of broadcast television and radio homogenized the mainstream media even as they provided superficial substitutes for social engagement. The technologies of social media, mobile telephony and narrowcast echo-chambers of uniform opinion have created even more addictive forms of distraction that are not just shredding social connectedness—they’re destroying our ability to form and nurture social bonds, even within the family.

This dynamic was explored in a recent essay in The Atlantic, Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?

Any careful observer of present-day family life would add that the addictive draw of mobile telephony has also damaged the parents’ generation and the family unit itself.

Cui Bono: To Whose Benefit?

Longtime readers know I often begin an inquiry with the time-tested question: cui bono, to whose benefit? Who has benefited from the erosion of the social fabric and social capital, from the politics of divisiveness and the mass addiction to the technologies of superficial connectedness?

While we can take note of soaring corporate profits, and draw a causal connection between these profits and the modern-day “always connected to work” lifestyle of high-productivity corporate employees, it’s difficult to argue that corporations have benefited directly from the loss of social capital that characterizes American life.

Rather, it seems that the corporation’s relentless pursuit of narrowly defined self-interest, i.e. maximizing profits by whatever means are available, has laid waste to boundaries between work and home life as collateral damage.

In a similar fashion, purveyors of smartphones and the software and content that render them so addictive don’t necessarily benefit directly from the destruction of intimate, authentic social bonds, but they certainly have prospered from the feeding of the smartphone addiction. Once again, the loss of authentic social connectedness is collateral damage.

While it seems quite clear that political groups have fueled divisiveness to their own benefit, does the state (government in all its forms) benefit from the fraying of the social order? It’s difficult to discern a direct benefit to the state, though it might be argued that a fractured populace is easier to control.

But the erosion of the social order has gone beyond fracture into disintegration, and it’s hard to see how class wars and social disunity benefit the state, which ultimately relies on some measure of social unity for its authority, which flows from the consent of the governed.

It’s Time To Take Our Future Back

In Part 2: Rescuing Our Future, we focus on the self-evident truth that governments and corporations cannot restore social connectedness and balance to our lives.  Only a social revolution that is self-organizing from the bottom-up can do that.

And we detail out the specific steps each of us can and should take to develop the values and skills required to form and maintain authentic social wealth—the wealth of friendship, of social gatherings, of belonging.

It takes courage and independence to swim against the toxic tides of our economy and society. The good news is that true wealth is within reach of everyone. The steps we each need take are clear; it’s just a matter of having the will to invest the time and effort.

Do you have it?

Read More At: PeakProsperity.com

Goldman Sachs, President Of The United States

TruthFact

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
August 21, 2017

In this article, I’m not going to trace and list all the Obama and Trump appointees who have ties to Goldman Sachs. The sources are easily available. The Hillary Clinton connections are clear as well.

The point is, Goldman and its allies can exert enormous influence on the direction of the trillion-dollar casino called the stock market.

And the stock market is the universally perceived indicator of the health or illness of the US economy.

The economy is Trump’s trump card. If the stock market plummets and stays down, his credibility as president takes a hit of far more serious proportions than anything we’ve seen so far.

Keep in mind, as well, that giant pension funds all over the US and giant insurance companies (and other entities) invest in the stock market—and these organizations’ stability, as endangered as it is right now, would fracture in far more serious ways, if the stock market collapsed.

Super-banks like Goldman Sachs therefore hold the political fate of a president, any president, in their hands.

“Play ball with us. Otherwise, we can take down the market.”

What does Goldman Sachs want, aside from a free hand to wheel and deal inside and outside the law re investing and trading?

Goldman wants:

The basic survival of Globalist “free trade” (no tariffs)—the cornerstone of mega-corporate control of the world economy.

Through US military threats and interventions and attacks, the prosperity of the military industrial complex.

The continued prosperity of the pharmaceutical cartel—despite its avaricious market practices and outpouring of destructive medical drugs.

These are a few of Goldman’s top priorities.

But of course, Goldman has a Plan B, if they decide Trump’s presidency is too shaky. And now that several corporate CEOs and financiers have left Trump’s corporate council over the recent Charlottesville violence and Trump’s response to it, causing the president to disband that council, Goldman is obviously mulling Plan B.

What would that be?

Another 2008 financial debacle and yet another round of massive federal bailouts?

Or a war? Wars float all financial boats that count in the eyes of elites.

Perhaps the now-departed Steve Bannon, who used to work for Goldman, would have a few interesting points to make on these issues.

During the presidential campaign, Trump issued a number of statements attacking Goldman Sachs and claiming he was immune from their influence. That was false. Trump obviously knew the score, as did Obama, as did Hillary Clinton.

Now he is hoping Goldman will hold the stock market together for him.

At the outset of his presidency, I wrote that I supported Trump on two major counts. He was mercilessly attacking major media news, and he had stopped Hillary Clinton in her tracks. I said everything else was up for grabs.

A lot of that grabbing is being done by Goldman Sachs.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Palantir & Pre-Crime

alternative news
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
August 18, 2017

Never heard of Palantir? Well, if you’re a J.R.R. Tolkien- Lord of the Rings fan, or a fan of the movie adaptations of the fantasy trilogy, you’ll know what a “palantir” is: it is for all intents and purposes a crystal-ball that functions as a kind of communications device, allowing its users, presumably, to also see future actions.

It is also the name of a predictive program developed by Peter Thiel, and rapidly being sold to law enforcement agencies around the country, according to this article shared by Mr. R.R.T, and it’s well worth reading and pondering carefully:

Palantir: the ‘special ops’ tech giant that wields as much real-world power as Google

As the article avers, the program brings to mind Philip K. Dick’s “Department of Pre-Crime” which figured in the Tom Cruise movie, Minority Report:

Palantir, the CIA-backed startup, is Minority Report come true. It is all-powerful, yet no one knows it even exists. Palantir does not have an office, it has a “SCIF” on a back street in Palo Alto, California. SCIF stands for “sensitive compartmentalised information facility”. Palantir says its building “must be built to be resistant to attempts to access the information within. The network must be ‘airgapped’ from the public internet to prevent information leakage.”

Palantir’s defence systems include advanced biometrics and walls impenetrable to radio waves, phone signal or internet. Its data storage is blockchained: it cannot be accessed by merely sophisticated hacking, it requires digital pass codes held by dozens of independent parties, whose identities are themselves protected by blockchain.

Palantir watches everything you do and predicts what you will do next in order to stop it. As of 2013, its client list included the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, the Centre for Disease Control, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, Special Operations Command, West Point and the IRS. Up to 50% of its business is with the public sector. In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture arm, was an early investor.

Palantir tracks everyone from potential terrorist suspects to corporate fraudsters (Bernie Madoff was imprisoned with the help of Palantir), child traffickers and what they refer to as “subversives”. But it is all done using prediction.

In Iraq, the Pentagon used Palantir software to track patterns in roadside bomb deployment and worked out garage-door openers were being used as remote detonators by predicting it.

Palantir allowed the marines to upload DNA samples from remote locations and tap into information gathered from years of collecting fingerprints and DNA evidence, the results returned almost immediately.

Of course, all of this calls to mind Dick’s “Department of Pre-Crime” and the dangers it presents, and the article itself mentions them:

However, when Cruise’s character begins to question the morality of what he is doing, his superiors detect a threat to the entire pre-crime programme. In order to get rid of him, Cruise is framed for a murder by altering the data of his thought history. In the final showdown with his boss, it is explained to Cruise that sometimes the numbers need to lie for the greater good of society.

Minority Report is set in 2054, but Palantir is putting pre-crime into operation now. The Los Angeles Police Department has used Palantir to predict who will commit a crime by swooping Minority Report-style on suspects. Palantir calls its work with the LAPD “improving situational awareness, and responding to crime in real time”.

Ok, so where’s the high octane speculation.

Well, today I don’t have one, but I do have a high octane prediction. Christ, according to the Gospels, once warned that all evil ultimately proceeds from the heart and mind of man. This is where it begins; the evil action begins not just in a thought or a temptation, but by the individual will holding it, so to speak, to the mind’s attention, and contemplating it. From God’s point of view, in other words, while the wilful attention to an evil action may not result in the action itself, nonetheless it is the same in God’s eyes as if it had. But from the practical development of moral theology, it was long recognized that, from the human point of view, the action itself was far worse than the mere act of wilful (and pleasurable) attention to it. (Apologies for compacting so much into so little space!) With this in mind, here is the high octane prediction: the use of such programs will be justified by those wanting to impose even more surveillance on society precisely by such “theological” and “moral” appeals; after all, if Christ warned about the heart and mind of the individual as the beginning of the process of an evil action, then the best way to nip it in the bud is to convict on the basis of that beginning, regardless of the end result. It will be “sold”, as it were, as a very “Christian” or “pious” or “religious” thing to do. Technology will thus be sold as a “solution” to the old problem of theodicy; technology, not grace, will perfect mankind. Everyone must conform in their thinking… it will be the new manifestation of the “social gospel”, a tempting apple in the eye of its advocates.

And that of course, completely misses the other part of the problem, but I’ll leave that for the reader to think about…

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

It Takes A Village To Ruin Everything

FakeNews

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
August 16, 2017

Here is a formula for you: “smaller problem, bigger solution.”

It’s quite an elite formula, and I’ll explain it as I go along.

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” (David Rockefeller, Memoirs 2003)

In a future sea of darkness, the islands of light, toward which people desperately grope, are clusters of buildings occupied by mega-corporations and government agencies.

To achieve a measure of survival, people seek those islands and the jobs that come with them.

When you sign on and are accepted, you pledge a loyalty that knows no bounds, because there is no viable alternative. You cease worrying about the crimes your employer is committing, because you are safe, you are out of the darkness, and you want to stay there.

What would cause this future to come to pass? Many answers have been offered. I’ll add a factor to the list.

It concerns a method of problem-solving. Here is the premise: if a problem crops up, solve it by enlarging the scope of the relevant factors.

More precisely, ARTIFICIALLY enlarge the scope of the relevant factors.

This is Elite Problem Solving.

In 1996, Hillary Clinton’s book, It Takes a Village, appeared. In it, she argued that a whole community must solve the problem of raising a child. Of course, this was pretentious nonsense. It runs parallel to the idea that no entrepreneur can prosper without infra-structure that is built with public money, and therefore the entrepreneur and his output should be the property of the state.

Starting with the individual child, Clinton offers a solution that encompasses a town or a community or even a city…or who knows…maybe a planet.

But the original problem isn’t solved (if it was a problem to begin with), and the solution is an artifact designed to regulate a larger environment. To put it another way, Clinton’s model makes it necessary to put everyone under the gun because a child may be a problem.

Problem: a gaggle small fish might be wiped out by allowing water from rivers to irrigate farmland. Solution: we must consign the whole valley of farms to eternal drought.

If the free market gives birth to 12 million companies and corporations, this creates the “problem” of uninspected potential crimes. Therefore, we have to put the world under the regulatory eye and nose of agencies, whose ultimate objective is to wipe out those enterprises, or weaken them to the point at which they will be absorbed in much larger corporations—until, finally, there are 400 mega-corporations that are responsible for 80% of all international trade and production.

Then and only then can we feel safe. Then and only then can we know that government will exercise proper control over business on planet Earth.

Of course, when 400 corporations do constitute the productive engine of Earth, they will have bought off governments so they can do exactly as they like. They will partner with governments to share the spoils. Which was part of the idea in the first place.

Again, the method is: whatever the size of the original purported problem, make the solution bigger and more encompassing.

If one gun (fired by one person) killed one person, confiscate all guns everywhere.

Here is another example: if you foment and prepare and fund and supply a war between two major powers, in the aftermath you will solve the problem of reconstruction by welding those powers together as one Complex…in which case, you end up with larger unified organizations than when you started, and you control that unified whole.

In Europe, that whole is called the totalitarian European Union.

Look at the opposite strategy, which is no longer held to be viable: you create self-sufficiency wherever possible. Responsible self-sufficiency. Most people don’t have a clue what that means.

Suppose you started a small nation. You would be faced with the problem of survival. How would you solve that? You could forge all sorts of relationships with other countries in the areas of trade, loans, and purchases of material…except you know that these other nations are corrupt beyond the telling of it. Their governments are corrupt, their economies are corrupt, their leaders are criminals. Do you opt for this larger entangling solution, or do you decide to make do with what you have and innovate and work your way toward the objective of your own national self-sufficiency?

If you opt for the second choice, what happens? It has rarely if ever been tried. These days, you would be accused of isolationism and, at the very least, “exiled from the world community.”

And yet, theoretically speaking, if you could survive and prosper as a new nation, dedicated to inculcating the self-sufficiency of every citizen as a long-range goal, you would stand as a shining example to the rest of the world. You would have made the great experiment with freedom work. This was, in a way, what the original American Republic was built to achieve, before it was subverted, three or four minutes after the Constitution was drawn up.

During World War 2, members of the Council on Foreign Relations were tasked with setting out a plan for the creation of the United Nations, the grand global solution to war everywhere at all times.

As we have seen, its emerging agenda has been a covert op to control many facets of human life in all nations, under the rubric of “sustainability.”

In 1988, two UN agencies that seemed to have little power, the World Meteorological Association and the Environmental Programme, created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC went on to spearhead the drive to convince the world that man is causing so much atmospheric warming, civilization will soon end if the UN doesn’t radically reorder the behavior of all societies and individuals. And the UN mantra is: “the science is settled.”

A child in a classroom fidgets in his chair and looks out the window. He doesn’t respond immediately when the teacher asks him a question. Well, this child needs to be “solved.” For that, a school counselor is brought in, who in turn recommends a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist makes a diagnosis of ADHD, which doesn’t exist. There is no test for it. The child takes Ritalin, and within eight weeks falls into a funk. The psychiatrist diagnoses this as a new emerging condition, clinical depression, rather than an understandable reaction to Ritalin. He prescribes one of the SSRI antidepressants. Two months later, the child cuts himself. The psychiatrist, ignoring the fact that these SSRI drugs are known to cause suicide, decides to prescribe an even stronger chemical, one of the so-called antipsychotics. The parents refuse to allow this. Child Services is called in. They interview the parents and suggest that a charge of medical neglect could be brought against them, in which case the child might be taken from the home and put into state-sponsored foster care.

It takes a village. An overbearing criminal village.

An innovative but struggling company, Silk, which markets organic soy products, sells itself to Dean, a giant agribusiness corporation. Dean turns around and begins buying cheaper soy from China, rather than from the US organic farmers who were supplying Silk. Some of those US farmers go out of business. This is called “free trade,” and is justified by the claim that we’re all living in One World, and the sovereignty of nations is merely an outmoded fiction. Loyalty to one’s own country is scoffed at as “primitive.”

All over the planet, huge agribusiness corporations are bringing local farmers to their knees. These corporations are international. They owe no allegiance to any nation. They float.

Here is Richard Bell (pseudonym) (16 interviews, 132 pages with Richard in my collection The Matrix Revealed), a former financial insider: “Someday, up the road, a few of these agribusiness corporations will merge into a super-entity. Then what will we have? Is this still the free market? Of course not. The level playing field no longer exists.”

“And here’s the kicker: overall food production declines. Government pension funds and banks are INVESTED in the stock of that super-agri-entity. They want to see that stock price rise. They’ll do NOTHING to interfere with that.”

“Agriculture becomes a closed system. The whole idea is to make it look like free-market capitalism, when it isn’t. It turns out that you need separate nations to have capitalism. You need tariff protections. You need nations that figure out how to move toward self-sufficiency. You won’t learn these principles in college courses. You’ll learn just the opposite.”

We have been sold a fiction. Time and time again we have been told that no nation can exist and survive on its own. Self-sufficiency is a foul and selfish myth. Every nation needs vital resources it doesn’t have. It can only obtain them from another country.

This presupposes that the ingenuity and imagination of the human mind is limited in what it can devise. Which is the biggest lie of all.

Discrediting the notion of self-sufficiency is the cornerstone in the building of Globalism.

Why do you think we are bombarded with stories and pictures of poverty around the world? Why do you think stories of celebrities adopting babies from “The Third World” are given such wide play? Because our so-called leaders really care? This op has as its goal fostering the amorphous conviction that everyone must pitch in to help everyone at all times everywhere.

And THAT sets the stage for what? Not share and care. Not a better world. No. It sets the stage for mega-corporations and their partner governments and banks, backed up by intelligence agencies and armies and “missionaries,” to enact their Great Solution: global control, management, governance.

The celebrity, bouncing her new adopted baby on her knee, says, “I know, in the end, when all this is done, our leaders will make it a better world. I know they will. Share and care will win.”

But that’s not the plan. It never was.

You can find the elite formula in many places: “smaller problem, larger solution.”

The smaller problem leads to a grand solution that encompasses far more than the problem ever touched.

In other words, it’s a fake solution dressed up to look like the real thing.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.