tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36121332024-03-07T04:43:27.412+00:00La'eeq Design'sPEACE and TOLERANCE, cost's us NOTHING, Lets ALL just do it. These are my View's and the Material's, that I have received from emails and when I surf the Internet. I do NOT and WILL NEVER approve of any form of terrorism (doing or promoting), In any Place on this Earth, especially in The OCCUPIED Palestinian Land.
May The Creator of ALL thing's grant us peace and Tolerance for AllAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08469222206697162450noreply@blogger.comBlogger3097125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3612133.post-60791025362832916722018-11-18T02:33:00.003+00:002018-11-18T02:58:10.982+00:00The Mysterious and Lonely Death of Joyce Vincent<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="https://www.historicmysteries.com/joyce-vincent/" target="_blank"><span style="color: black;">The Mysterious and Lonely Death of Joyce Vincent</span></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: black;"><a href="https://www.historicmysteries.com/author/jim-h/" rel="author" title="Posts by Jim Harper">Jim Harper</a></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
Skeletal remains lay on the sofa surrounded by a shopping bag and
Christmas presents that had recently been wrapped. Both the heater and
TV were on, and mail was piled up inside the door. Joyce Vincent had
been dead in her studio apartment for three years before law enforcement
officials found her. Her body was so badly decomposed at that point,
they had to use her dental imprints to identify her. How could a woman
who people described as beautiful, intelligent, and “upwardly mobile”
have been dead for three years without anyone in the entire world
knowing about it?<br />
<br />
<div class="wp-caption aligncenter" id="attachment_745" style="width: 775px;">
<img alt="joyce vincent" class="size-large wp-image-745" height="393" src="https://www.historicmysteries.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/JoyceVincentStudioPhoto-1024x633.jpg" width="640" /><br />
<div class="wp-caption-text">
A studio photograph of Joyce.</div>
<div class="code-block code-block-1" style="clear: both; margin: 8px auto; text-align: center;">
</div>
</div>
<h3>
Life of Joyce Vincent</h3>
Born
in Hammersmith, England in 1965, Joyce Carol Vincent was the youngest
of five daughters. Blessed with a beautiful face, winning smile, and a
charming personality, everyone thought that Joyce would go far in her
life. In the late ’80s she moved to London where she hung out with
musicians and producers, some of whom were very famous. Joyce had met
many famous people, including Stevie Wonder, Nelson Mandela, and Betty
Wright.<br />
<br />
<div class="wp-caption aligncenter" id="attachment_6092" style="width: 775px;">
<img alt="joyce vincent" class="size-large wp-image-6092" height="381" src="https://www.historicmysteries.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/joyce-vincent-2-1024x610.jpg" width="640" /><br />
<div class="wp-caption-text">
Image Credit: Janessa Leonski, findagrave.com</div>
</div>
<h3>
Was She in an Abusive Relationship?</h3>
Joyce’s
family told police that she had been engaged, and that she had been in
an abusive relationship. The studio apartment Joyce lived in was for
women of domestic abuse. Police searched for Joyce’s boyfriend for
questioning during the investigation, but they couldn’t find him. Had he
disappeared sometime after her death? She had distanced herself from
her friends and family little by little. Her acquaintances indicated
that she would not return phone calls, she would move from place to
place or change boyfriends without telling anyone.<br />
<h3>
Joyce Dies Mysteriously</h3>
Investigators
reported that there did not appear to be any foul play in Joyce’s
death. In November 2003, she went to the hospital because she had
vomited blood, and doctors diagnosed her with a peptic ulcer. She
remained in the hospital for two days.<br />
<div class="code-block code-block-8" style="clear: both; margin: 8px 0;">
</div>
<div style="float: none; margin: 5px 0 5px 0; text-align: center;">
</div>
Joyce
also suffered from asthma, and officials felt that she probably died of
natural causes – either from complication of the ulcer or the asthma.
About a month after returning home from the hospital she died on her
sofa.<br />
Neighbors did not report anything strange to authorities,
although when later questioned, a number of them said they detected a
foul odor. Joyce’s next door neighbor, Michael Dobbs said that including
the foul smell, “<i>Every time I opened my window I would see strange little black insects crawling through.</i>” The death of Joyce Vincent seemed to go unnoticed.<br />
<h3>
Found Dead Three Years Later</h3>
A
benefits agency was paying half her rent, so the Metropolitan Housing
Authority continued to accept partial payments on the flat. Finally,
after several attempts to collect the remaining balance of the rent that
was due, the Housing Authority issued a repossession notice to reclaim
the flat. They entered the apartment in 2006 and found Joyce’s remains.<br />
Police
contacted her sisters for questioning after they identified her body
with dental records. The sisters gave an interview to the police but
would not speak to the press. Someone leaked information that they had
hired a private detective in the past to look for her. Although the
detective had found the place where she lived, he was unable to contact
her. It appears her family thought she may have deliberately
disappeared, given her history of erratic behavior.<br />
<br />
<div class="wp-caption aligncenter" id="attachment_748" style="width: 775px;">
<img alt="joyce vincent" class="size-large wp-image-748" height="353" src="https://www.historicmysteries.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/joyce-vincent-3-1024x566.jpg" width="640" /><br />
<div class="wp-caption-text">
Image Credit: Lou, findagrave.com<br />
</div>
</div>
Joyce
Carol Vincent was found dead and alone after three years. Her life and
death remain a mystery that we may never solve. The details of her
situation – why she chose to isolate herself, how she could have died of
natural causes at such a young age, who her boyfriend was at the time,
and how not a single soul felt determined enough to find her even though
they knew where she lived – will be lost with her forever.<br />
References:<br />
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/oct/09/joyce-vincent-death-mystery-documentary" target="_blank">The Guardian</a><br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Vincent" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Wikipedia</a><br />
<a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/arts_ents/13043556.A_life_lived_alone_in_a_city_of_millions/" target="_blank">Scotland Herald</a><br />
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4906992.stm" target="_blank">BBC News</a><br />
<br />
Dreams of a Life (Documentary Movie)<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSfXh8IJEg4" target="_blank">Dreams of a Life</a><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSfXh8IJEg4" target="_blank"> - Official Trailer</a> can be seen on YouTube<br />
<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1819513/" target="_blank">IMDB</a> info about the movie can be seen on IMDB<br />
<br />
<div class="name" style="text-align: left;">
A filmmaker sets out to discover the life of Joyce Vincent, who died in
her bedsit in North London in 2003. Her body wasn't discovered for three
years, and newspaper reports offered few details of her life - not even
a photograph.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="name" style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<h1 class="name">
</h1>
<h1 class="name">
</h1>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">123456</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08469222206697162450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3612133.post-1846477522251053582018-11-18T01:42:00.001+00:002018-11-18T01:42:31.831+00:00Alarm over talks to implant UK employees with microchips <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/11/alarm-over-talks-to-implant-uk-employees-with-microchips" target="_blank">Trades Union Congress concerned over tech being used to control and micromanage</a><br />
<br />
Britain’s biggest employer organisation and main trade union body
have sounded the alarm over the prospect of British companies implanting
staff with microchips to improve security.<br />
UK firm BioTeq, which offers the implants to businesses and individuals, has already fitted 150 implants in the UK.<br />
The tiny chips, implanted in the flesh between the thumb and
forefinger, are similar to those for pets. They enable people to open
their front door, access their office or start their car with a wave of
their hand, and can also store medical data.<br />
Another company, Biohax of Sweden, also provides human chip implants the size of a grain of rice. It <a class="u-underline" data-link-name="in body link" href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/11/10/major-uk-companies-preparing-microchip-employees/">told the Sunday Telegraph</a>
(£) that it is in discussions with several British legal and financial
firms about fitting their employees with microchips, including one major
company with hundreds of thousands of employees.<br />
<br />
The CBI, which represents 190,000 UK businesses, voiced concerns about the prospect.<br />
A CBI spokesperson said: “While technology is changing the way we
work, this makes for distinctly uncomfortable reading. Firms should be
concentrating on rather more immediate priorities and focusing on
engaging their employees.”<br />
The TUC is worried that staff could be coerced into being microchipped. Its general secretary Frances O’Grady<strong> </strong>said:
“We know workers are already concerned that some employers are using
tech to control and micromanage, whittling away their staff’s right to
privacy.<br />
“Microchipping would give bosses even more power and control over
their workers. There are obvious risks involved, and employers must not
brush them aside, or pressure staff into being chipped.”<br />
Steven Northam, the founder and owner of Hampshire-based BioTeq, told
the Guardian that most of its 150 implants have been for individuals,
while some financial and engineering firms have also had the chips
implanted in their staff.<br />
BioTeq has also implanted them in employees of a bank testing the
technology, and has shipped them to Spain, France, Germany, Japan and
China.<br />
They cost between £70 and £260 per person. Northam himself and all
the directors at BioTeq and one of his other companies, IncuHive, have
been microchipped.<br />
Jowan Österlund, the founder of Biohax and a former body piercer,
told the Telegraph that his microchips, which cost £150 each, could help
financial and legal firms improve security. “These companies have
sensitive documents they are dealing with. [The chips] would allow them
to set restrictions for whoever.”<br />
Österlund said big companies, with 200,000 employees, could offer
this as an opt-in. “If you have a 15% uptake that is still a huge number
of people that won’t require a physical ID pass.”<br />
Last year <a class="u-underline" data-link-name="in body link" href="https://www.theguardian.com/money/video/2017/aug/02/olivia-solon-gets-microchipped-video">Wisconsin-based Three Square Market partnered with Biohax</a> and became the first company in the US to microchip its employees, on a voluntary basis.<br />
KPMG, one of the big four accountancy firms, said it was not planning
to microchip its employees and “would under no circumstances consider
doing so”.<br />
Fellow accounting firms EY and PwC also said they would not consider
microchipping their employees. Deloitte declined to comment.<br />
Biohax has plans to open an office in London, according to its
website. It claims 4,000 people have been microchipped, mostly in
Sweden. It is working with the state-owned Swedish rail firm Statens
Järnvägar, to allow its passengers to travel via chip implants rather
than train tickets. Biohax did not respond to requests for comment.</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">123456</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08469222206697162450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3612133.post-40379135592914886122018-09-03T09:20:00.004+00:002018-09-03T09:20:38.221+00:00The CIA Used Artificial Intelligence to Interrogate Its Own Agents in the 80s<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 class="article__dek hed-l m-b-5-xs">
<a href="https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qkvz85/the-cia-used-artificial-intelligence-to-interrogate-its-own-agents-in-the-80s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The CIA Used Artificial Intelligence to Interrogate Its Own Agents in the 80s</a></h2>
<h2 class="article__dek hed-l m-b-5-xs">
Newly declassified documents show that the spy agency had grand plans for computerized interrogation. <img class="" data-src="https://images.vice.com/motherboard/content-images/article/15515/1411418971507256.png?resize=720:*" src="https://images.vice.com/motherboard/content-images/article/15515/1411418971507256.png?crop=0.8451730418943533xw%3A1xh%3Bcenter%2Ccenter&resize=650%3A*&output-quality=55" /></h2>
<div class="article__lede__credit bod-xs m-b-5-xs">
Image: Autpilot/<a href="http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vintage_Computer_Festival#mediaviewer/File:HP_2647A_terminal.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></div>
<div class="article__body dsp-block-xs bod-m">
The CIA has <a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-cia-hacked-senate-computers-lied-about-it-and-no-one-is-getting-fired">notoriously been, well, "innovative" in developing new interrogation techniques</a> (if you consider waterboarding an innovation, at least). <a href="http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/DOC_0000619182.pdf" target="_blank">Newly declassified documents reveal that willingness to experiment</a> is nothing new: 30 years ago, the spy agency pitted one of its own agents against an artificial intelligence interrogator.<br />
The
documents in question, written in 1983 and titled "Interrogation of an
Alleged CIA Agent," describe a series of experimental tests conducted in
the early 1980s in which the CIA repeatedly interrogated its own agent,
referred to in the report as Joe Hardesty, using a primitive AI called
Analiza.<br />
The declassified document is both fascinating in its distinct
retrofuture flavour and eerily prescient nature, because the US
government is now set to use virtual entities <a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/read/oh-great-robots-are-set-to-conduct-national-security-clearance-interviews">to conduct national security interviews</a>.
It's also kind of hilarious, because the interrogation transcript reads
like a conversation with a really frustrating chatbot. Here's a slice:<br />
<b>AI:</b> You had better straighten out your attitude, Joe, or it will be a long time before you ever leave this country. <br />
<b>Hardesty:</b> What do you mean by that crack?<br />
<b>AI:</b> You know what I mean.<br />
<b>Hardesty:</b> No, I do not.<br />
<b>AI:</b> Think about it.<br />
<b>Hardesty:</b> Why?<br />
<b>AI:</b> Why do you want to know why?<br />
<b>Hardesty:</b> You made a threat and I want an explanation.<br />
<b>AI:</b> I think the message is clear.<br />
<b>Hardesty:</b> What message?<br />
<b>AI:</b> Do you work for the American Central Intelligence Agency?<br />
<b>Hardesty:</b> Hell, no.<br />
<b>AI:</b> Why do you persist in lying to me?<br />
<b>Hardesty:</b> I am not lying. You have no right to treat me like this.<br />
The intelligence on display in the transcript is clearly undeveloped,
and seems to contain a mixed bag of predetermined threats made to goad
interrogation subjects into spilling their secrets as well as open-ended
lines of questioning.<br />
According to the document, Analiza
consisted, in part, of a crude machine learning algorithm that stored
Hardesty's responses in its memory, along with a pre-set question bank
that it could draw from.<br />
"Other aspects of the program are
probing Joe's vulnerabilities," the document stated. "AI records 'focus
variables,' Joe's tendency to concentrate on various subjects, and
'profile variables' to serve as indicators of Joe's hostility,
inquisitiveness, talkativeness, and understandability, and to pose
questions about these."<br />
When your captor is a machine, there is no humaneness to be found, and, hence, no one to plead with<br />
Even way back then, the authors had a striking vision for future
virtual entities that can learn on their own, adapt, and think
abstractly. According to the document, the CIA believed it was possible
that computers could "adapt," "pursue goals," "modify themselves or
other computers," and "think abstractly."<br />
Potential applications
for computer algorithms like Analiza could include training recruits
before they head into the field and face the risk of an interrogation
with a human opponent, according to the document.<br />
The CIA, like
the field of artificial intelligence itself, has come a long way since
the 1980s, and algorithms that attempt to mimic brain processes
(referred to as <a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/read/theres-a-bit-of-a-flaw-in-the-way-artificial-intelligence-is-being-developed">Advanced Neural Networks</a>) like those <a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/google-just-bet-500-million-that-ai-can-fix-search">being developed by Google</a>
have achieved many of the goals the CIA set decades ago. The agency
itself is heavily invested in AI development today by way of its venture
firm, <a href="https://www.iqt.org/" target="_blank">In-Q-Tel</a>, which recently gave a funding boost to Narrative Science, a company developing AI that can <a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/robot-journalists-are-closer-than-you-think">glean insight from data</a> and turn it into a semi-readable news article.<br />
"Enhanced interrogation techniques" may very well take on a new,
unsettling meaning if the CIA's technological fever dream of the 80s
ever comes to fruition. AI interrogation, while presumably less violent
and repugnant than waterboarding, for example, could present its own set
of moral transgressions.<br />
When your captor is a machine, there is no humaneness to be found, and,
hence, no one to plead with. When even that small avenue of humanity is
done away with in the proceedings of state-sponsored barbarism, what is
left? Illegal detainments could continue with only slight human
involvement.<br />
Even though decades worth of development have passed
since the CIA's initial dabbling with AI interrogation techniques,
virtual entities that can converse naturally with humans are still far
off.<br />
The recent case of chatbot Eugene Goostman, which passed the Turing Test <a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/read/i-stumped-the-bot-that-beat-the-turing-test-in-about-30-seconds">through trickery rather than genuine intelligence</a>,
demonstrated this. Even so, with government agencies like the CIA,
DARPA, and powerful corporations like Google on the case, the
possibility might be closer than we think.</div>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">123456</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08469222206697162450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3612133.post-30257279801931655332018-09-03T09:17:00.000+00:002018-09-03T09:17:00.653+00:00How Much of Your Audience Is Fake? Or Are Your Ads Mostly Being Viewed by Bots? <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-click-fraud/" rel="nofollow">An article in Bloomberg by By Ben Elgin, Michael Riley, David Kocieniewski, and Joshua Brustein </a>suggests
that more and more digital ads are not seen by human eyes. "A study
done last year in conjunction with the Association of National
Advertisers embedded billions of digital ads with code designed to
determine who or what was seeing them," <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-click-fraud/" rel="nofollow">according to the article.</a> "Eleven percent of display ads and almost a quarter of video ads were 'viewed' by software, not people."<br />
Another study suggests that $6.3 billion of ad spend a year is wasted
on fake traffic, or clicks that appear to be views but are actually the
work of software.<br />
The numbers are staggering.<br />
The article also tells a narrative about ad man Ron Amram, who
recently looked at the ROI for his ad spend for Heineken USA. His
digital ad spend was only around 2 to 1, "a $2 increase in revenue for
every $1 of ad spending, compared with at least 6 to 1 for TV," <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-click-fraud/" rel="nofollow">according to the Bloomberg article.</a>
Even worse, "only 20 percent of the campaign's 'ad impressions'-ads
that appear on a computer or smartphone screen-were even seen by actual
people."<br />
Where does all this fake traffic come from? "Fake traffic has become a
commodity. There's malware for generating it and brokers who sell it," <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-click-fraud/" rel="nofollow">reads the Bloomberg article.</a>
"Some companies pay for it intentionally, some accidentally, and some
prefer not to ask where their traffic comes from. It's given rise to an
industry of countermeasures, which inspire counter-countermeasures."<br />
If fake traffic is bad for advertisers, who is good for? In some
cases, publishers. A website that has a large viewership can charge more
for their ads. And if it is difficult to distinguish between real and
fake views, publishers can make money off of their fake audience.
Sometimes this is done intentionally and sometimes it is accidental.<br />
A lot of sites buy traffic, especially when they are new or when they
are pushing out a new kind of content. There are ways for sites to buy
real human traffic through companies like OutBrain that send viewers
from one site to another with attractive links.<br />
"The traffic market is unregulated, and sellers range from
unimpeachable to adequate to downright sleazy; price is part of the
market's code," <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-click-fraud/" rel="nofollow">according to the Bloomberg article. </a>You've
seen the ads for the lower end of the market that promised 1,000 views
for $1. Other places, like Taboola might change as much as 20 to 90
cents per viewer.<br />
<a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-click-fraud/" rel="nofollow">The Bloomberg article</a>
investigates several low end traffic sellers and tries to determine
what percentage of their traffic is human. Not much, it turns out. Often
between 70% and 90% of the "viewers" on low end sites were bots. <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-click-fraud/" rel="nofollow">The article concluded that,</a>
"Ad fraud may eventually turn into a manageable nuisance like
shoplifting, something that companies learn to control without ever
eradicating." <br />
<em>image from shutterstock.com</em></div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">123456</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08469222206697162450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3612133.post-81352378750165370262018-09-03T09:12:00.001+00:002018-09-03T09:12:08.459+00:00The United States Is The Largest Prison Camp In The World<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 class="blog-title">
</h2>
<h3 class="blog-subtitle">
The Criminal Criminal Justice (sic) System</h3>
<div class="clearfix post-info">
<div class="authors">
By <a href="https://www.lewrockwell.com/author/paul-craig-roberts/?ptype=article" rel="author" title="Posts by Paul Craig Roberts">Paul Craig Roberts</a></div>
<div class="attribution">
<a href="https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/">PaulCraigRoberts.org</a></div>
<div class="date">
August 1, 2018</div>
<div class="date">
<br /></div>
<div class="date">
<br /></div>
The United States has the highest
incarceration rates in the world. The US not only has a far higher
percentage of its population in prison than allegedly “authoritarian”
governments, but also has a larger total number of citizens imprisoned
than China, a country with four times the US population. The US is by
far the largest prison camp in the world.<br />
The conditions, such as solitary confinement, in which many US
prisoners are kept are strictly illegal under international law, but
that means nothing to “freedom and democracy America.” Solitary
confinement, especially confinement inside tiny cells, is like being
buried alive. Yet, “freedom and democracy America” is subjecting more
than 100,000 citizens to this horror as I write. We hear so much about
“America’s moral conscience,” but where is this conscience?<br />
Other prisoners are used as a cheap workforce for US military and
consumer industries. Prison labor and the privatization of prisons have
created an enormous demand for prisoners. American citizens are shoveled
into the profit-making prison system regardless of innocence or guilt.<br />
<a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/lrc-cdn/assets/2018/07/Paul-Craig-Roberts15.png"><img alt="" class="size-full wp-image-686775 alignleft" height="156" src="https://s3.amazonaws.com/lrc-cdn/assets/2018/07/Paul-Craig-Roberts15.png" width="115" /></a>There
is no doubt that a large percentage of US prisoners are innocent or
imprisoned for victimless crimes, such as drug use. According to
official US government statistics, 97 percent of all felonies are
settled with plea bargains. Consequently, the police evidence and
prosecutor’s case is never tested in court. Not even the innocent want a
trial, because the jurors are brainwashed and biased against everyone
charged, and the punishments that result from trial conviction are much
harsher than those given to a compliant defendant who agrees to a plea
bargain. Despite the US Constitution’s prohibition of
self-incrimination, the US prison population consists of people coerced
into self-incrimination. There is no justice whatsoever in the US
criminal justice (sic) system. See my book <span class="a-size-extra-large" id="productTitle"><em></em>.</span><br />
“Law and order conservatives” have fantasy ideas about US prisoners
lounging around watching TV all day, playing sports in the open air, and
studying in prison libraries for law degrees—a life of leisure at
public expense. Soren Korsgaard, editor of a crime journal, tells us
what life inside an American prison is really like.<br />
<br />
<strong>The United States Criminal Justice System Violates Human Rights</strong><br />
By Søren Korsgaard<br />
The US criminal justice system has a long history, continuing to this
day, of systematically violating prisoners’ human rights and, hence,
international law. Although it has moved away from executions of those
who committed their crimes as minors, the justice system still condones
wrongful executions as evidenced by a study from 2014, published in the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in which it was
concluded, conservatively, that at least 1 in 25 of US death row inmates
is innocent of the crime for which they were sentenced to death. Even
though this figure, along with facts related to dubious executions, are
readily available for public consumption, a massive 55-60% of the US
population still supports the death penalty.<br />
Considering that such polls are conducted, it is safe to say that
most have given the death penalty some thought; however, the conditions
of US prisons are evidently a rare topic of reflection or conversation,
except that most informed citizens are, at least, somewhat acquainted
with the practices associated with the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and
other so-called ‘black sites.’ These practices, of course, include
detention without charge or trial, various methods of torture,
isolation, and indefinite imprisonment of minors in flagrant violation
of international law. What is less known is that equally criminal human
rights abuses take place in US maximum security facilities, so-called
supermax prisons, and it is therefore essential that the conditions of
these are put into the spotlight. In fact, as will be shown in this
article, these supermax prisons have been specifically built for torture
in the form of prolonged solitary confinement, which goes by many names
including isolation, administrative segregation, management control
units, protective custody, restrictive housing, and special needs units.<br />
What is solitary confinement? It is typically defined as the physical
and social isolation of individuals who are confined to their cells for
22 to 24 hours per day. According to a detailed report by Amnesty
International, the US “stands virtually alone in the world in
incarcerating thousands of prisoners in long-term or indefinite solitary
confinement,” as more than 40 states operate supermax facilities,
collectively housing over 25,000 inmates that are kept in near-constant
solitary confinement. In other prisons, an additional 80,000 inmates are
at any time kept in isolation for variable periods. Solitary
confinement has become the first resort in many prisons, and it has been
shown that even absurdities can lead to years in isolation. For
example, men and women have been placed in isolation for “months or
years not only for violent acts but for possessing contraband, testing
positive for drug use, ignoring orders, or using profanity ….. or report
rape or abuse by prison officials.” Perhaps the most absurd example
concerns a group of Rastafarian men who were placed in solitary
confinement, some for more than a decade, for refusing to cut their hair
as it was fundamental to their faith.<br />
The international community has for a long time discouraged nations
from using solitary confinement. For example, when UN’s Special
Rapporteur on torture and other inhuman punishment, Juan E. Méndez,
delivered his report before the UN’s General Assembly about solitary
confinement, he absolutely condemned the use of prolonged isolation and
equated it with torture. He added that it should only be used under
“exceptional circumstances, for as short a time as possible.” After
citing various scientific studies, which showed that “lasting mental
damage” can result from even a “few days of social isolation,” he stated
that “indefinite and prolonged solitary confinement” should be
absolutely prohibited. Méndez also urged nations to end the practice of
solitary confinement in pre-trial detention. Méndez’s recommendations
were later codified in the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules on the
Treatment of Prisoners, known as the “Mandela Rules.”<br />
Extremely harsh sentences and absurdities leading to isolation have
also not gone unnoticed by the UN, especially in the context of underage
offenders. Among others, Méndez has scolded the US for “being the only
country in the world that continues to sentence children to life in
prison without parole,” a practice which violates international law as
it is considered a “cruel and inhumane punishment” in accordance with
article 37(a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states
that “no child [below 18 years of age] shall be subjected to … capital
punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release ….”<br />
During the production of the report on torture and isolation, US
officials had openly opposed Méndez’s investigation by restricting his
access to prisons and various types of documentation; for example, the
number of prisoners in solitary confinement is an estimate as such
documentation is not available to the public or even the UN. ADX, a
supermax, was one of the prisons that US authorities did not want Mendez
to inspect and scrutinize. It is located in Florence, Colorado, and has
gained a notorious reputation, even internationally, and it is guarded
by secrecy and censorship. The former warden has described it as a
“clean version of hell,” and that “it’s far much worse than death.”<br />
Pursuant to Amnesty International’s report, “Entombed: Isolation in
the US Federal Prison System,” the vast majority of ADX prisoners are
kept in their cells for 22-24 hours per day “in conditions of severe
physical and social isolation.” The designers of ADX (as well as other
supermax prisons) had that specific purpose in mind as thick
steel-reinforced concrete walls prevent inmates from having contact with
those in adjacent cells, and “most cells have an interior barred door
as well as a solid outer door, compounding the sense of isolation.” When
prisoners are not confined to their cells for 24 hours per day due to
understaffing and other issues, they can leave their cells for a few
hours per week to “exercise” in a “bare interior room or in small
individual yards or cages, with no view of the natural world.” Cells are
equipped with a shower and toilet, minimizing the need for leaving
them. The inmates are almost invariably separated from other humans, and
even “checks by medical and mental health staff, take place at the cell
door and medical and psychiatric consultations are sometimes conducted
remotely, through tele-conferencing.”<br />
It is no surprise that under these conditions, suicide attempts,
self-mutilations, and acute psychoses are rampant among the inmates.
Amnesty International concludes that “the conditions of isolation at ADX
breach international standards for humane treatment and, especially
when applied for a prolonged period or indefinitely, amount to cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in violation of
international law.”<br />
According to the official policy of the Bureau of Prisons, mentally
ill inmates are not kept in isolation. It has, however, been profusely
documented that inmates with serious psychiatric disorders are kept in
isolation and many inmates with no diagnosis have become seriously
mentally deranged. Many of these instances have been detailed in various
lawsuits. In one lawsuit against ADX, it was detailed that many inmates
“suffer from chronic mental illness and some routinely smear themselves
and their cells with their own [feces], howl or shriek continuously or
bang their metal showers at all hours of the day or night.” This lawsuit
also detailed several specific instances of inmates deteriorating
mentally during solitary confinement at ADX, one of whom was John
Powers. He was originally placed in the Control Unit (the most isolated
part of ADX) to serve a 60-month sentence, but he was frequently
transferred to the federal medical facility at Springfield after
numerous incidents of self-mutilation. Upon being ‘stabilized’ with
various pharmaceuticals, he was promptly returned to the CU at ADX. His
medical records showed that he had lacerated his scrotum, bit off his
finger, inserted staples into his forehead, and slashed his wrists.
Originally, he was ordered to serve 60 months in the Control Unit, but
because he did not comply with the behavioral requirements, he spent an
unfathomable ten years and five months in that unit before finally being
transferred to the lesser restricted General Population Unit (GPU). In
the GPU, officials continued to deprive him of mental health care, and
subsequently he sliced off his earlobes, sawed through his Achilles
tendon, and mutilated his genitals. In 2013, he was transferred to
another high-security facility and reportedly “rammed his head into an
exposed piece of metal in his cell, causing a skull fracture and brain
injury …. [later he was found inserting] metal into his brain cavity
through the hole that remain[ed] in his skull.”<br />
The psychological effects of solitary confinement have been
well-known for decades and are not even controversial; for instance, in
the early 1990s, Dr. Stuart Grassian conducted extensive interviews with
people held in restricted housing in the Pelican Bay State Prison, the
only supermax in California. Dr. Grassian discovered that solitary
confinement “induces a psychiatric disorder characterized by
hypersensitivity to external stimuli, hallucinations, panic attacks,
cognitive deficits, obsessive thinking, paranoia, and a litany of other
physical and psychological problems. Psychological assessments of men in
solitary at Pelican Bay indicated high rates of anxiety, nervousness,
obsessive ruminations, anger, violent fantasies, nightmares, trouble
sleeping, as well as dizziness, perspiring hands, and heart
palpitations.” Considering the humanitarian aspects and that prolonged
solitary confinement is a breach of international law, it is striking
that the US continues to enforce it upon its convicts as well as those
awaiting trial. It appears that inmates are perceived as objects that
need to be dealt with in the most efficient way possible for prison
staff regardless of international regulations and recommendations.<br />
<br />
Søren Korsgaard, author of <em>America’s Jack the Ripper: The Crimes and Psychology of the Zodiac Killer</em>, is the editor-in-chief of <em>Radians & Inches: The Journal of Crime</em>. He may be contacted via Editor@RadiansANDInches.com.<br />
<br />
<div class="article-author-archives-link">
<a href="https://www.lewrockwell.com/author/paul-craig-roberts/">The Best of Paul Craig Roberts</a>
</div>
<div class="post-bio">
Paul
Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and
former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, has been reporting
shocking cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades. A new edition of
his book, , co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, a documented account of
how americans lost the protection of law, has been released by Random
House. Visit <a href="http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/">his website</a>.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">123456</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08469222206697162450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3612133.post-79762170150059709632018-09-03T09:09:00.002+00:002018-09-03T09:09:33.826+00:00Poverty is no mystery<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 class="blog-title">
<a href="https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/08/walter-e-williams/some-ideas-to-think-about/" rel="bookmark" title="Some Ideas to Think About">Some Ideas to Think About</a></h2>
<div class="clearfix post-info">
<div class="authors">
By <a href="https://www.lewrockwell.com/author/walter-e-williams/?ptype=article" rel="author" title="Posts by Walter E. Williams">Walter E. Williams</a></div>
<div class="date">
August 1, 2018</div>
<div class="date">
<br /></div>
Poverty is no mystery, and it’s
easily avoidable. The poverty line that the Census Bureau used in 2016
for a single person was an income of $12,486 that year. For a two-person
household, it was $16,072, and for a four-person household, it was
$24,755. To beat those poverty thresholds is fairly simple. Here’s the
road map: Complete high school; get a job, any kind of a job; get
married before having children; and be a law-abiding citizen.<br />
How about some numbers? A single person taking a minimum wage job
would earn an annual income of $15,080. A married couple would earn
$30,160. By the way, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, less
than 4 percent of hourly workers in 2016 were paid the minimum wage.
That means that over 96 percent of workers earned more than the minimum
wage. Not surprising is the fact that among both black and white married
couples, the poverty rate is in the single digits. Most poverty is in
female-headed households.<br />
Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign garnered
considerable appeal from millennials. These young people see socialism
as superior to free market capitalism. Capitalism doesn’t do well in
popularity polls, despite the fact that it has eliminated many of
mankind’s worst problems, such as pestilence and gross hunger and
poverty. One of the reasons is that capitalism is always evaluated
against the nonexistent, non-realizable utopias of socialism or
communism. Any earthly system, when compared with a utopia, will not
fare well. Indeed, socialism sounds good but, when practiced, leads to
disaster. Those disasters have been experienced in countries such as the
USSR, China, most African nations and, most recently, Venezuela. When
these disasters are pointed out, the excuse is inadequacies of socialist
leaders rather than socialism itself. For the ordinary person, free
market capitalism, with all of its warts, is superior to any system yet
devised to deal with our everyday needs and desires.<br />
Here are a couple of questions: Does an act clearly immoral when done
privately become moral when done collectively? Does legality or
majority consensus establish morality? Before you answer, consider that
slavery was legal; South African apartheid was legal; the horrendous
Stalinist, Nazi and Maoist purges were legal. Clearly, the fact of
legality or a majority consensus cannot establish morality.<br />
You might ask, “If you’re so smart, Williams, what establishes
morality?” That’s easy, and you tell me when I make the wrong step. My
initial premise is that we own ourselves. You are your private property,
and I am mine. Self-ownership reveals what’s moral and immoral. Rape is
immoral because it violates private property. So is murder and any
other initiation of violence. Most people probably agree with me that
rape and murder are immoral, but what about theft? Some Americans would
have a problem deciding whether theft is moral or immoral.<br />
<a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/lrc-cdn/assets/2018/07/Walter-Williams-pic4.png"><img alt="" class=" wp-image-686683 alignleft" height="180" src="https://s3.amazonaws.com/lrc-cdn/assets/2018/07/Walter-Williams-pic4.png" width="126" /></a>Let’s
first define what theft is. A fairly good working definition of theft
is the taking by force of one person’s property and the giving of it to
another to whom it does not belong. Most Americans think that doing that
is OK as long as it’s done by government. We think that it is OK for
Congress to take the earnings of one American to give to another
American in the form of agricultural subsidies, business bailouts, aid
for higher education, food stamps, welfare and other such activities
that make up at least two-thirds of the federal budget. If I took some
of your earnings to give to a poor person, I’d go to jail. If a
congressman did the same thing, he’d be praised.<br />
People tend to love a powerful government. Quite naturally, <span class="column--highlighted-text">a
big, powerful government tends to draw into it people with bloated
egos, people who think they know more than everyone else and have little
hesitance in coercing their fellow man</span>. Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek explained why corruption is rife in government: “In government, the scum rises to the top.”<br />
<div class="article-author-archives-link">
<a href="https://www.lewrockwell.com/author/walter-e-williams/">The Best of Walter E. Williams</a>
</div>
<div class="post-bio">
Walter
E. Williams is the John M. Olin distinguished professor of economics at
George Mason University, and a nationally syndicated columnist. To find
out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators
Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the <a href="http://www.creators.com/">Creators Syndicate web page</a>.<a href="https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/08/walter-e-williams/some-ideas-to-think-about/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Poverty is no mystery</a></div>
<div class="date">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">123456</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08469222206697162450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3612133.post-32978091165616126862018-09-03T09:06:00.000+00:002018-09-03T09:06:24.359+00:00Colonel Baldwin Meets Mr. Lincoln<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="entry-meta">
<span class="author vcard">By <a class="url fn n" href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/author/jmtay18/" rel="author" title="View all posts by John M. Taylor">John M. Taylor</a></span> on <time class="entry-date" datetime="2018-07-30T05:00:32+00:00" pubdate="">Jul 30, 2018</time></div>
<div class="entry-meta">
<time class="entry-date" datetime="2018-07-30T05:00:32+00:00" pubdate=""> </time></div>
<div class="entry-meta">
<time class="entry-date" datetime="2018-07-30T05:00:32+00:00" pubdate=""> </time><div class="entry-content">
<a href="http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/john-brown-baldwin.jpg"><img alt="" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-7591" height="554" src="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/john-brown-baldwin.jpg" width="568" /></a><br />
<em>This essay is Chapter 13 in Mr. Taylor’s <a href="https://amzn.to/2LUVD6a">Union At All Costs: From Confederation to Consolidation</a> (2016).</em><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<em>“I supported President Lincoln</em><em>.
I believed his war policy would be the only way to save the country,
but I see my mistake. I visited Washington a few weeks ago, and I saw
the corruption of the present administration—and so long as Abraham
Lincoln</em><em> and his Cabinet are in power, so long will war continue. And for what? For the preservation of the Constitution</em><em> and the Union</em><em>? No, but for the sake of politicians and government contractors.”</em><a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1] </a>J.P. Morgan—American financier and banker, 1864.</div>
The assertion that Lincoln genuinely attempted to avoid war has been
preached since General Lee’s surrender at Appomattox. The testimony of a
Southern peace representative who spoke with Lincoln on April 4, 1861,
in an effort to avert war provides keen insight into a side of the issue
seldom heard or taught.<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a>
Some historians dismiss the importance of the meeting between Lincoln
and Colonel John Brown Baldwin, but it is beyond dispute the meeting
happened and pivotal issues were seriously discussed. On February 10,
1866, Baldwin testified before the Joint Committee on Reconstruction in
Washington, D.C. His comments appeared in a pamphlet published in 1866
by the <em>Staunton Speculator</em> and he provided his account to a fellow Confederate in 1865 just prior to the end of the war.<br />
Reverend Robert L. Dabney, Chief of Staff to Stonewall Jackson, met
Baldwin in March of 1865 in Petersburg, Virginia, when the Army of
Northern Virginia was under siege. Baldwin told Dabney, that prior to
hostilities, he had been selected by the Virginia Secession
Convention to surreptitiously meet with Lincoln in April 1861 and
negotiate a peaceful settlement. This meeting occurred at the time the
Virginia legislature was debating the secession issue.<br />
The citizens of the Southern States were well aware of the
disadvantages they faced. The failure of the Peace Congress, rejection
of the Crittenden Amendment, and the clandestine arming of the Federal
government raised concerns in the South that war may be on the horizon.<br />
There was lingering frustration in the South resulting from the
failed compromise effort of A.B. Roman, Martin Crawford, and John
Forsyth. As sectional hostility continued to fester, further attempts at
peace became critical. Most Virginians were strong Unionists, a fact
mirrored in the make up of the anti-secession Virginia Convention.
Considering the situation dire, representatives from Virginia decided to
make another attempt to diffuse the sectional schism.<br />
William Ballard Preston, an anti-slavery defense lawyer and prominent
member of the Virginia Convention, summed up the concerns of Virginians
about the direction of the country:<br />
<blockquote>
If our voices and votes are to be exerted farther to hold Virginia in the Union, <strong>we must know</strong>
(emphasis author) what the nature of the Union is to be. We have valued
Union, but we are also Virginians, and we love the Union only as it is
based upon the Constitution. If the power of the United States is to be
perverted to invade the rights of States and of the people, we would
support the Federal Government no farther. And now that the attitude of
that Government was so ominous of usurpation, we must know whither it is
going, or we can go with it no farther.<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">[3]</a></blockquote>
Preston was disturbed about threats of coercion through federal
overreach and the possibility of destroying the voluntary relationship
of the compact. His view paralleled that of Robert E. Lee, who refused
to participate in the invasion of the seceded States.<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4">[4]</a><br />
Seward sent a messenger, Allen B. Magruder, to consult with members
of the Virginia Convention and request that they send a representative
to Washington to confer with the U.S. President. Lincoln’s preference
was G.W. Summers, a pro-Unionist from the western part of Virginia. The
Virginia group included Mr. John Janney, Convention President, Mr. John
S. Preston, Mr. A.H.H. Stuart, and others. Since this mission was of a
discreet nature, the Convention did not send Summers, but instead sent a
lesser-known representative named John Brown Baldwin. Though
Baldwin lacked the notoriety of other potential candidates, he was
imminently qualified and widely respected. Also, as the brother-in-law
of Stuart, he had strong inside support from a key convention member.
Baldwin’s credentials included graduation from Staunton Academy and the
University of Virginia combined with a reputation as a capable lawyer
and man of integrity. He was also one of Virginia’s strongest Unionists.
Though somewhat reluctant, Baldwin realized the magnitude of this
mission and dutifully accepted the role as Virginia representative.<br />
Dabney summarized Baldwin’s instructions:<br />
<blockquote>
Mr. Magruder stated that he was authorized by Mr.
Seward to say that Fort Sumter would be evacuated on the Friday of the
ensuing week, and that the Pawnee would sail on the following Monday for
Charleston, to effect the evacuation. Mr. Seward said that secrecy was
all important, and while it was extremely desirable that one of them
should see Mr. Lincoln, it was equally important that the public should
know nothing of the interview.<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5">[5]</a></blockquote>
Baldwin and Magruder prepared for their trip to Washington, choosing
to travel the Acquia Creek Route. On April 4, Baldwin rode with
Magruder, in a carriage with raised glasses (for maximum secrecy), to
meet Seward. Seward took Baldwin to the White House, arriving slightly
after 9:00 A.M. The porter immediately admitted him, and, along with
Seward, led Baldwin to “what he (Baldwin) presumed was the President’s
ordinary business room, where he (Baldwin) found him in evidently
anxious consultation with three or four elderly men, who appeared to
wear importance in their aspect.”<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6">[6]</a>
Though these gentlemen appeared to be very influential, it does not
appear Baldwin knew them, as he did not identify them when he recounted
the meeting.<br />
Seward informed Lincoln of his guest’s arrival, whereupon, Lincoln
immediately excused himself from the meeting, took Baldwin upstairs to a
bedroom and formally greeted his visitor: “Well, I suppose this is
Colonel Baldwin of Virginia? I have hearn [sic] of you a good deal, and
am glad to see you. How d’ye, do sir?”<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7">[7]</a><br />
Baldwin presented his credentials. Lincoln sat on the bed and
occasionally spat on the carpet as he read through them. Once satisfied
with the introduction, Lincoln conveyed that he was aware of the purpose
of the visit.<br />
Lincoln admitted Virginians were good Unionists, but he did not favor
their kind of conditional Unionism. However, he was willing to listen
to Virginian’s proposal for resolution. Baldwin reaffirmed Virginia’s
belief in the Constitution as it was written and expressed Virginia
would not subscribe to a conflict based on the sectional, free-soil
question. He told Lincoln that as much as Virginia opposed his platform,
she would support him as long as he adhered to the Constitution and the
laws of the land. To lessen the acrimony that arose from the election,
Baldwin suggested Lincoln issue a simple proclamation asserting that his
administration would respect the Constitution, the rule of law, and the
rights of the States. This proclamation should include a willingness to
clarify the misunderstandings and motives of each side. Baldwin told
Lincoln that Virginia would assist and stand by him, even to the point
of treating him like her native son, George Washington. Embellishing his
point, Baldwin added, “So sure am I, of this, and of the inevitable
ruin which will be precipitated by the opposite policy, that I would
this day freely consent, if you would let me write those decisive lines,
you might cut off my head, were my own life my own, the hour after you
signed them.”<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8">[8]</a><br />
He also suggested that Lincoln “call a national convention of the
people of the United States and urge upon them to come together and
settle this thing.”<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9">[9]</a>
Furthermore, Lincoln should make it clear that the seceded States would
not be militarily forced to return to the Union, but rather a course of
compromise and conciliation would be pursued to bring them back in.
According to Baldwin, with a simple agreement to this proposition,
Virginia would use all possible influence to keep the Border States in
the Union and convince the already seceded seven States to rejoin.
Baldwin made it clear that Virginia would never support unconstitutional
attempts to coerce the seceded States against the will of the people of
those States.<br />
The fate and direction of the Constitutional Union sat squarely on
Lincoln’s shoulders; he had the power to diffuse the situation.
Baldwin did everything he could to convince Lincoln the
secession movement could be put down, stressing that Virginia was eager
and willing to help.<br />
During the conversation, it became obvious to Baldwin that the issue
of slavery was not Lincoln’s primary concern. Digesting Lincoln’s
comments, Baldwin began to see the issue as “the attempted overthrow of
the Constitution and liberty, by the usurpation of a power to crush
states. The question of free-soil had no such importance in the eyes of
the people of the border States, nor even of the seceded States, as to
become at once a casus belli.” <a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10">[10]</a><br />
Lincoln did not like what he heard. He painted the South as
insincere, as people with hollow words backed by no action, and claimed
the resolutions, speeches, and declarations from Southerners “a game of
brag”<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11">[11]</a> meant to intimidate the Federal administration.<br />
Baldwin told Lincoln repeatedly that Virginia would not fight over
the free-soil issue. As a basic point of fact, only about six percent of
Southerners were slave owners, affecting perhaps twenty-five to thirty
percent of Southern families. Fighting over slavery made little sense,
especially given the fact slavery was already constitutionally legal.
However, Baldwin emphasized that coercion would undoubtedly lead to
further separation and likely war.<br />
Baldwin probed for the primary sticking point, leading Lincoln to
ask, “Well…what about the revenue? What would I do about the collection
of duties.”<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12">[12]</a> In response, Baldwin asked how much import revenue would be lost per year. Lincoln responded “fifty or sixty millions.”<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13">[13]</a>
Baldwin answered by saying a total of two hundred and fifty million
dollars in lost revenue (based on an assumed four-year presidential
term) would be trivial compared to the cost of war and Virginia’s plan
was all that was necessary to solve the issue. Lincoln also briefly
mentioned concern about the troops at Fort Sumter being properly fed.
Baldwin responded that the people of Charleston were feeding them and
would continue to do so as long as a resolution was in sight.<br />
Though Lincoln appeared to be genuinely touched by Baldwin’s plea for
peace, he was alarmed at the prospect of lost revenue; he did not like
the idea of the Southern States remaining out of the Union until a
compromise could be reached. His reply underscored this deep concern:
“And open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten per cent
tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?”<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14">[14]</a>
Though it was Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor where things came to a
head, lower duties would have applied and attracted trade to all
Southern ports, e.g., Richmond, Savannah, Wilmington, New Orleans,
Mobile, Galveston, etc.<br />
Lincoln’s reply to Baldwin made it clear slavery was not the central
issue. He did not mention slavery but voiced alarm at the amount of
revenue that would be lost if he allowed the Confederate States to exist
as a separate country. Import duties comprised the vast majority of
government revenue at that time.<br />
Baldwin asked Lincoln if he trusted him as an honest representative
of the sentiment of Virginia and received an affirmative response. After
confirming Lincoln’s confidence in him, Baldwin stated, “I tell you,
before God and man, that if there is a gun fired at Sumter this thing is
gone.”<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15">[15]</a>
He stressed that action should be taken as soon as possible, stating
that if the situation festered two more weeks, it would likely be too
late.<br />
Lincoln awkwardly paced about in obvious dismay and exclaimed: “I
ought to have known this sooner! You are too late, sir, too late! Why
did you not come here four days ago, and tell me all this?”<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16">[16]</a>
Another fact not revealed in the conversation by Lincoln was that he
had already authorized reinforcement of Forts Sumter and Pickens on
March 29 and the ships were preparing to sail.<br />
Baldwin replied: “Why, Mr. President, you did not ask our advice.
Besides, as soon as we received permission to tender it, I came by the
first train, as fast as steam could bring me.”<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17">[17]</a><br />
Once more, Lincoln responded: “Yes, but you are too late, I tell you, <em>too </em>late!”<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18">[18]</a> Perhaps this was the point when it sunk in as to how serious the Southern States viewed the situation.<br />
Lincoln claimed secession was unconstitutional, though it had been
taught at West Point using Rawles’ textbook, that the Union is a
voluntary coalition of States and secession was up to the people of the
respective States. Conversely, Lincoln saw nothing wrong with coercion,
which was historically considered unconstitutional in both North and
South. He felt secession automatically signaled war, when it should have
signified the opposite. Concerning the Constitution, “if followed,
civil war—the fight for control over the government—is impossible.”<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19">[19]</a><br />
Lincoln made no promises and dismissed Baldwin. Later the same day,
Baldwin engaged in a lengthy conversation with Seward. From their
conversation, Baldwin surmised that Seward preferred and desired to work
toward peace but felt conflict was very likely. Baldwin had fulfilled
his duty and returned to Virginia with the verdict. Dabney later
speculated from Baldwin’s testimony that Lincoln had succumbed to the
pro-war fanaticism of Stevens and abandoned the more sensible warnings
from Seward about the unconstitutionality of coercion.<br />
Stuart confirmed the accuracy of Baldwin’s account to Dabney. Indeed,
Stuart, along with William B. Preston and George W. Randolph, spoke
with Lincoln on April 12, 1861, and received virtually the same message
as Baldwin. “I remember,” says Mr. Stuart, “that he used this homely
expression: ‘If I do that, what will become of my revenue? I might as
well shut up housekeeping at once.’”<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftn20" name="_ftnref20">[20]</a><br />
Highlighting Stuart’s meeting was Lincoln’s insinuation that he was
not interested in war; however, the day after their meeting the very
train on which they returned to Richmond carried the proclamation
calling for 75,000 troops to coerce the seceded States.<br />
Another attempt at compromise was detailed in the April 23, 1861, edition of the <em>Baltimore Exchange</em> and reprinted in the May 8, 1861, edition of the <em>Memphis Daily Avalanche</em>.
This involved a meeting between a group led by Dr. Richard Fuller, a
preacher from the Seventh Baptist Church in Baltimore, and Lincoln.
Fuller was a South Carolina native and Southern supporter. The article
states:<br />
We learned that a delegation from five of the Young Men’s Christian
Associations of Baltimore, consisting of six members each, yesterday
(April 22, 1861) proceeded to Washington for an interview with the
President, the purpose being to intercede with him in behalf a peaceful
policy, and to entreat him not to pass troops through Baltimore or
Maryland.<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftn21" name="_ftnref21">[21]</a><br />
Fuller acted as the chairman and conducted the interview. After
Fuller’s plea for peace and recognition of the rights of the Southern
States, Lincoln responded, “But what am I to do?…what shall become of
the revenue? I shall have no government? No resources?”<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftn22" name="_ftnref22">[22]</a><br />
Former U.S. President John Tyler was intimately knowledgeable of the
situation, and he worked diligently to avoid war. With the benefit of
Tyler’s insight, Lyon Gardiner Tyler’s account echoes those of the
Virginia and Maryland representatives:<br />
<blockquote>
…the deciding factor with him (Lincoln) was the
tariff question. In three separate interviews, he asked what would
become of his revenue if he allowed the government at Montgomery to go
on with their ten percent tariff… Final action was taken when nine
governors of high tariff states waited upon Lincoln and offered him men
and supplies.<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftn23" name="_ftnref23">[23]</a></blockquote>
Lyon Tyler, as President Tyler’s son, almost certainly had inside
information about the three aforementioned meetings with Lincoln,
especially in consideration of his father’s tireless attempts to achieve
a peaceful resolution.<br />
Dabney summed up the circumstances surrounding the war by identifying
Lincoln’s reference to the sectional tariff as the tipping point. “His
single objection, both to the wise advice of Colonel Baldwin and Mr.
Stuart, was: ‘Then what would become of my tariffs?’”<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftn24" name="_ftnref24">[24]</a>
Lincoln saw a free trade policy in the South as an economic threat to
the North that could not be allowed to stand. Through Colonel Baldwin,
Virginia provided a viable option to avoid war and preserve the Union.
Referencing Lincoln’s course of action, Dabney lamented, “he preferred
to destroy the Union and preserve his [redistributive] tariffs. The war
was conceived in duplicity, and brought forth in iniquity.”<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftn25" name="_ftnref25">[25]</a><br />
<strong>Notes</strong><br />
<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a> Mildred Lewis Rutherford, <em>A True Estimate of Abraham Lincoln & Vindication of the South</em>
(Wiggins, Mississippi: Crown Rights Book Company, 1997.), 58-59. This
quote appeared on page 11 of the December 25, 1922, edition of <em>Barron’s</em>. Original source: <em>New Haven Register</em>; copied in <em>New York World</em>, September 15, 1864.<br />
<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">[2]</a>
Dr. Grady McWhiney, former Professor at the University of Alabama,
Texas Christian, etc. said: “What passes as standard American history is
really Yankee history written by New Englanders or their puppets to
glorify Yankee heroes and ideals.” (From <em>The Unforgiven</em>, 11).<br />
<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">[3]</a> Robert L. Dabney, D.D., <em>The Origin & Real Cause of the War, A Memoir of a Narrative Received of Colonel John B. Baldwin</em>, Reprinted from Discussions, Volume IV, 2-3.<br />
<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4">[4]</a> Lee referenced his West Point teaching from Rawles’ 1825 textbook, <em>A View of the Constitution of the United States of America,</em>
that the Union is a voluntary coalition and States have a legal right
to secede. Lee was duty-bound to fight for Virginia; he understood the
meaning of Article III, Section 3. Virginia’s Alexander R. Boteler,
while serving in the U.S. House of Representatives, warned the Lincoln
Administration that Virginia would secede if there was a call to invade
the Southern States.<br />
<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5">[5]</a> Dabney, 3.<br />
<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6">[6]</a> Ibid., 4.<br />
<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7">[7]</a> Ibid.<br />
<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8">[8]</a> Ibid., 8.<br />
<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9">[9]</a> “Interview Between President Lincoln and Col. John B. Baldwin, April 4<sup>th</sup>, 1861, Statements and Evidence,” <em>Staunton Speculator</em> (Staunton, Virginia: Spectator Job Office, D.E. Strasburg, Printer, 1866), 12, <a href="https://ia800301.us.archive.org/5/items/interviewbetween00bald/interviewbetween00bald.pdf">https://ia800301.us.archive.org/5/items/interviewbetween00bald/interviewbetween00bald.pdf</a>, (Accessed April 21, 2016).<br />
<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10">[10]</a> Dabney, 7.<br />
<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11">[11]</a> Ibid., 6.<br />
<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12">[12]</a> “Interview Between President Lincoln and Col. John B. Baldwin, April 4<sup>th</sup>, 1861, Statements and Evidence,” 12-13, (Accessed April 21, 2016).<br />
<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13">[13]</a> Ibid., 13.<br />
<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14">[14]</a> Dabney, 8.<br />
<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15">[15]</a> “Interview Between President Lincoln and Col. John B. Baldwin, April 4<sup>th</sup>, 1861, Statements and Evidence,” 13, (Accessed April 21, 2016).<br />
<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16">[16]</a> Dabney, 6.<br />
<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17">[17]</a> Ibid.<br />
<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18">[18]</a> Ibid.<br />
<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19">[19]</a> From a May 2013 conversation with John P. Sophocleus, Auburn University Economics Instructor.<br />
<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20">[20]</a> Dabney, 11.<br />
<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftnref21" name="_ftn21">[21]</a> Bruce Gourley, “Baptists and the American Civil War: April 23, 1861,”<em> In Their Own Words, </em>April 23, 2011, <a href="http://www.civilwarbaptists.com/thisdayinhistory/1861-april-23/">http://www.civilwarbaptists.com/thisdayinhistory/1861-april-23/</a>, (As reprinted in the <em>Memphis Daily Avalanche</em>, May 8, 1861, p. 1, col. 4), (Accessed April 21, 2016).<br />
<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftnref22" name="_ftn22">[22]</a> Ibid.<br />
<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftnref23" name="_ftn23">[23]</a> Lyon Gardiner Tyler, <em>The Gray Book: A Confederate Catechism</em>, (Wiggins, Mississippi: Crown Rights Book Company—The Liberty Reprint Series, 1997), 5. Originally printed in <em>Tyler’s Quarterly</em> in Volume 33, October and January issues, 1935.<br />
<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftnref24" name="_ftn24">[24]</a> Dabney, 14.<br />
<a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/#_ftnref25" name="_ftn25">[25]</a> Ibid.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>
About John M. Taylor</h4>
John M. Taylor, from Alexander City, Alabama, worked for over
thirty years at Russell Corporation (subsequently Fruit of the Loom),
primarily in transportation and logistics. In his second career, Taylor
is presently Assistant Director at Adelia M. Russell Library in
Alexander City. He holds a B.S. Degree in Transportation from Auburn
University and has completed nine MLIS Courses at the University of
Alabama. Taylor is married with two sons and two grandchildren.
Inspired by his late Mother, who dearly loved the South and knew one of
his Confederate ancestors, Taylor has been a member of the Sons of
Confederate Veterans since 1989, where he edited both local and State
newsletters; this includes eleven years as Editor of Alabama
Confederate. He has also supported the Ludwig von Miss Institute since
1993.
Taylor’s book, <em>Union At All Costs: From Confederation to Consolidation</em> (Booklocker Publishing), was first released in January 2017. <a href="https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Colonel Baldwin Meets Mr. Lincoln</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">123456</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08469222206697162450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3612133.post-16546469857277794362018-01-16T08:56:00.003+00:002018-01-16T08:56:49.553+00:00New Horizons<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<a href="http://www.newhorizonsstannes.com/" target="_blank">New Horizons</a>Click to go there Web Site <br />
Based in St. Anne’s-on-the-Sea,
Lancashire. Uk.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="NH_DVD_para">
As New Horizons’ regulars know, although our presentations are
informative and entertaining, quite a few are
also extremely controversial. And that’s deliberate.
We like to engage speakers who can stir the “grey matter”
a little!... and, as important, challenge the Establishment view of
the world.
</div>
<div class="NH_DVD_para">
Rock the boat!</div>
<div class="NH_DVD_para">
Obviously,
we take great care to source speakers who are respected
for their knowledge and experience, but nothing should be taken as
“gospel”. We do not promote or endorse the views expressed by
our speakers. New Horizons’ principal purpose is to encourage
debate, personal research and critical thinking about topics of
interest to all free-thinking people. Indeed, we sometimes invite different speakers
to give differing views about a topic in order
to encourage healthy debate.</div>
<div class="NH_DVD_last-para">
It goes without
saying – well, maybe not in this increasingly “Health &
Safety” crazy world! – that on matters of health, finance and
the law, it’s important to see the presentations principally as springboards
for our own thoughts, research and conclusions.</div>
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" style="width: 770px;"><tbody>
<tr><td align="left" valign="middle" width="163"><br /></td><td align="left" valign="top" width="587"><br /></td>
<td width="6"><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle" width="163">
</td>
<td align="left" valign="top" width="587">
<div class="NH_DVD_title">
<i>Be informed: be empowered!</i></div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">123456</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08469222206697162450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3612133.post-59806112552852437992018-01-16T08:50:00.002+00:002018-01-16T08:50:13.185+00:00Why would the CIA want to control science?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span class="entry-date"><a href="http://tapnewswire.com/2018/01/why-would-the-cia-want-to-control-science/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link to Why would the CIA want to control science?">Tue 7:13 pm UTC, 9 Jan 2018 </a> </span>
<br />
<div class="byline">
posted by Tapestry</div>
<div class="byline">
</div>
<div class="byline">
<div class="page" title="Page 3">
I
don’t think that is hard to answer. The government doesn’t want private
citizens or unsupervised university people discovering anything,
because that would be dangerous. Suppose they discover the next new
weapon? If they weren’t patriotic, they might try to keep it for
themselves, causing “havoc”. For this reason, we may assume that physics
was split after the war into real physics and physics for mass
consumption. The best people were culled off the top of the physics
departments, handpicked by insiders, and put to work for the military or
industry.<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
Those
with some perceived public relations skills, like those in wheelchairs
or those with good hair or those who could write salable books or those
who could speak well in public were drafted to lead fake physics. But
they were instructed to stay off-topic. Don’t do any real physics. Don’t
try to solve any real problems, even if they don’t at first seem to
have any military application. Talk about airy, unprovable things like
black holes and the first seconds of the universe and the edge of time
and strings and vacuum fluctuations. As much as possible, push physics
into sci-fi topics, since people love that stuff. Time travel and
wormholes and backward causality. Study Star Trek and Star Wars for
examples. Look at Asimov.<br />
This has the added benefit of
misdirecting those who can see through the fake physics and math. If
they spend all their time responding to the absurdities of the fake
physicists, they won’t spend any time actually solving physical
problems. This will act as insurance that they never accidentally catch
up with our boys in the military, or surpass them.<br />
This would
also explain the chorus of abuse that independent researchers run up
against. The government doesn’t want any independent research because,
again, it is dangerous. Those heckling the independent researchers don’t
really care about protecting the fake physicists, since those guys are
just a front. They are protecting the military physicists you don’t hear
about, the ones doing the real work. Again, if the independent
researchers spend their time arguing with internet trolls, they have
less time to do actual work, and it is less likely they will discover
anything our boys in the military haven’t already discovered.<br />
So
have the real physicists already discovered all the things I have
written about? Maybe. I assume that all the real brains are hidden away
somewhere—since they certainly aren’t in plain sight—so maybe they have
already unwound everything I have and more. But possibly not. These guys
are going to be kept very busy with applied physics, since it will be
thought that new weapons are more likely to come out of applied physics
than theoretical physics. In my experience, physicists pressed to create
new hardware, software, or industrial products, including weaponry, are
very unlikely to think to tear apart the old equations and start over.
It probably won’t occur to them to tear apart Newton’s Principia like an
old watch and rebuild it, as I have. It won’t occur to them to rebuild
Laplace and Lagrange, comb Relativity from the ground up, or to look for
mathematical flaws in QED or QCD. After all, I have done all that and
haven’t yet developed a better pop-gun, so what do they care? They would
say, “Give me something I can use.”<br />
If that is the case, it also
explains my freedom, and my lack of competition. The type of problems I
am working on apparently only interest scientific purists, and we are a
dying breed, it would seem.<br />
Just getting to the end of this
paper leaves me thinking, “Of course physics has been diverted by the
government. It was diverted by the Manhattan Project and never
un-diverted. How could you have missed this for so long?” Which leads me
to two other realizations. One, a lot of mid-level physicists in the
universities apparently haven’t yet had this epiphany that I just had.
It appears that only the top physicists are “encouraged” to misdirect
the field, and the field just goes along with it. This suits the<br />
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="page" title="Page 4">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
government
just fine, because it limits those they have to control. The government
controls the top, and the top controls the middle, and so on. Two, if
mainstream physics is is utter misdirection, then I don’t have to waste
any more time debating it. If you debate propagandists, you are just
falling for their tricks. After all, how can you debate something like
virtual particles? As I said before, you don’t debate physicists who
start talking about virtual particles, you boot them out of the lab as a
nuisance. I suggest the mid-level physicists at the universities do
just that. I can’t be bothered to sully my boots.<br />
Finally, I
suggest that I have uncovered a fantastic journalism project here, if
there are any real reporters left in the world. Operation Mockingbird
was eventually uncovered by Deborah Davis and Carl Bernstein and others.
This Operation Ostrich, where the biggest brains in physics are taken
permanently underground after the Manhattan Project, would be an even
bigger nut to crack. Piecing together a bunch of disparate facts like I
have done will start the stone rolling, but the theory won’t be proved
until we get what these previous reporters got: interviews or documents.
Research like that isn’t really my forté or interest, so unless someone
dumps some documents in my lap, I will probably leave it to others.<br />
*http://old.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id1415/pg2/index.html or Deborah Davis, Katharine the Great. 1979<br /> ** “The CIA and the Media”, Carl Bernstein, Rolling Stone, 1977<br />
<a href="http://milesmathis.com/control.pdf">http://milesmathis.com/control.pdf</a><br />
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">123456</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08469222206697162450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3612133.post-84364653390040023202018-01-16T08:45:00.002+00:002018-01-16T08:45:31.280+00:00100% orange juice label contains actually 10%<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span class="entry-date"> <a href="http://tapnewswire.com/2018/01/100-orange-juice-label-contains-actually-10/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link to 100% orange juice label contains actually 10%">Sun 8:22 am UTC, 14 Jan 2018 </a> </span>
<br />
<div class="byline">
posted by Tapestry</div>
<div class="byline">
</div>
<div class="byline">
Food fraud is on the rise.<br />
And it’s very poorly regulated.<br />
The result: What’s on the label is very often what you’re not getting.<br />
Who is doing something about it?<br />
Not the government, they’re cutting regulations and enforcement.<br />
Supermarkets clams to be “concerned.” And we all know what that means.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/xlYzg7gMCzY/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xlYzg7gMCzY?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
https://youtu.be/xlYzg7gMCzY</div>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">123456</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08469222206697162450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3612133.post-23966770593997306062018-01-16T08:18:00.001+00:002018-01-16T08:18:15.145+00:00NASA BLATANT FRAUD – Sea Level Has Been Adjusted<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/C8fFpd-S-D4/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/C8fFpd-S-D4?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />
https://youtu.be/C8fFpd-S-D4</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">123456</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08469222206697162450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3612133.post-36783293848163541062018-01-16T08:09:00.003+00:002018-01-16T08:14:30.526+00:00Wireless Warfare Exposed – Declassified Military Doc Proves Smart Phones Are Killing Mankind<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/WLDdS4_Qneg/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WLDdS4_Qneg?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<a href="https://youtu.be/WLDdS4_Qneg">https://youtu.be/WLDdS4_Qneg</a></div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">123456</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08469222206697162450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3612133.post-71520589779690874622018-01-16T08:08:00.003+00:002018-01-16T08:15:25.029+00:00The Common Purpose UK Army…<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span class="entry-date"> <a href="http://tapnewswire.com/2018/01/the-common-purpose-uk-army/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link to The Common Purpose UK Army…">Thu 11:16 am UTC, 11 Jan 2018 </a> </span>
<br />
<div class="byline">
posted by NPP</div>
<div class="pf-content">
The state carry on grabbing
children while Common Purpose infects the UK military. Isn’t it great
being British! C’mon all of you who want to leave your own countries,
come to our developing Marxist paradise!<br />
Published on 10 Jan 2018<br />
Brian Gerrish, Mike Robinson and Alex Thomson with today’s news update from the UK Column.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/BMtSVCDZQ2k">https://youtu.be/BMtSVCDZQ2k</a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/BMtSVCDZQ2k/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BMtSVCDZQ2k?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
START — Imprisoned Eugene Lukjanenko: hunger strike over taken child<br />
10:09 – Why is Britain suddenly exposing France…?<br />
21:05 – Dutch fake news: MainStream Media tacitly edits MP’s tweet…<br />
23:47 – ‘Stop worrying and love the EU’s security and defense agreement’<br />
26:47 – US Navy, failing in the Western Pacific, heads for Crimea…<br />
29:47 – Wall Street Journal propaganda: ‘A deadly new cold war…’<br />
31:18 – BBC: New Army adverts ‘promote emotional support’ for recruits<br />
38:37 – Anti European homogeneity man Peter Sutherland dies, aged 71<br />
40:06 – Syria: more progress in Idlib Province – false flag imminent…?<br />
44:09 – BBC: human trafficking finally news but used as advert for show<br />
46:39 – Sabine McNeil in court tomorrow after helping in abuse case…<br />
<br />
UPDATED: Sabine Mcneil remanded in custody – + HAMPSTEAD SRA ARCHIVE – 09 Dec. 17<br />
<a href="https://butlincat.com/2017/12/09/sabine-mcneil-remanded-in-custody-hampstead-sra-archive-09-dec-17/">https://butlincat.com/2017/12/09/sabine-mcneil-remanded-in-custody-hampstead-sra-archive-09-dec-17/</a></div>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">123456</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08469222206697162450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3612133.post-2893575278811522832018-01-16T08:06:00.000+00:002018-01-16T08:06:21.140+00:00Smartphones are like cocaine to children<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span class="entry-date"> <a href="http://tapnewswire.com/2018/01/smartphones-are-like-cocaine-to-children/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link to Smartphones are like cocaine to children">Thu 7:47 pm UTC, 11 Jan 2018 </a> </span>
<br />
<div class="byline">
posted by Tapestry</div>
<div class="byline">
</div>
<div class="pf-content">
<br />
Video.
The same part of the brain is stimulated by smartphone/screen play as
by drugs. The same addictive effects are observed. 10/11 year old kids
spend eight hours a day in front of screens playing. Silicon Valley
execs send their kids to non-tech Waldorf schools to keep them away from
what they know to be harmful addiction. Be smart. Keep your kids away
from so-called Smart technology.<br />
<div class="fb-video" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/HealthForAllKids/videos/301316260295203/" data-width="500">
<blockquote cite="https://www.facebook.com/HealthForAllKids/videos/301316260295203/" class="fb-xfbml-parse-ignore">
Technology is turning your kids into digital junkies.<br />
โพสต์โดย <a href="https://www.facebook.com/HealthForAllKids/">Health For All Kids</a> บน 9 มิถุนายน 2017</blockquote>
</div>
France is banning all mobile/electronic devices in schools.<br />
<div class="fb-video" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/worldeconomicforum/videos/10154976472991479/" data-width="500">
<blockquote cite="https://www.facebook.com/worldeconomicforum/videos/10154976472991479/" class="fb-xfbml-parse-ignore">
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/worldeconomicforum/videos/10154976472991479/">France is banning mobile phones in schools</a><br />
📱🚫 Read more: http://wef.ch/2nTFUN9<br />
โพสต์โดย <a href="https://www.facebook.com/worldeconomicforum/">World Economic Forum</a> บน 12 ธันวาคม 2017</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">123456</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08469222206697162450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3612133.post-9196469652612305592018-01-16T08:02:00.000+00:002018-01-16T08:02:38.839+00:00‘You will be vaccinated’! NHS suffers lowest flu vaccine uptake in its history, because it’s useless.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span class="entry-date"> <a href="http://tapnewswire.com/2018/01/you-will-be-vaccinated-nhs-suffers-lowest-vaccination-uptake-in-its-history/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link to ‘You will be vaccinated’! NHS suffers lowest flu vaccine uptake in its history, because it’s useless.">Mon 12:09 pm UTC, 15 Jan 2018 </a> <a class="speech" href="http://tapnewswire.com/2018/01/you-will-be-vaccinated-nhs-suffers-lowest-vaccination-uptake-in-its-history/#comments">1</a> </span>
<br />
<div class="byline">
posted by Tapestry</div>
<div class="byline">
</div>
<div class="pf-content">
<div class="_5pbx userContent _3576" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" id="js_3eb">
FORCED MEDICATION IN THE NHS – YOU WILL TAKE THE FLU VACCINE OR EXPLAIN YOURSELF! (it’s full of shit)<br />
NHS
bosses are writing to all 1.4 million staff to say they must have the
winter flu jab as soon as possible to reduce the risk of them infecting
patients who might die.<br />
Those who decline the jab will have to
tell the NHS trust that employs them why, and it will have to record
their reasons, as part of a bid to drive up what the NHS admits are
“disappointing” staff take-up rates.<br />
</div>
<div class="_3x-2" data-ft="{"tn":"H"}">
<div data-ft="{"tn":"H"}">
<div class="mtm">
<div class="_6m2 _1zpr clearfix _dcs _4_w4 _59ap _2bf7" data-ft="{"tn":"H"}" id="u_fetchstream_4_1a">
<div class="clearfix _2r3x">
<div class="lfloat _ohe">
<div class="_3ekx _29_4">
<div class="_6m3 _--6">
<div class="mbs _6m6 _2cnj _5s6c">
<a data-lynx-mode="async" href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fsociety%2F2017%2Foct%2F12%2Fnhs-urges-14m-staff-flu-jab-reduce-risk-epidemic&h=ATPDyKPqXOdTu4rCvx__-Lsg0PfUV0fDhrpdx6VryU15ysb8R8Qlv7o9D14FaB_3g0omWEsOTx6fcyJ6MVC3hLL7wnAN2nQlFn_Hktyp64bd2vhHTQZ-JBJ3hzEjlInQw_BcRMr5EZ9Z8ZYQvspO3KDO1JNmS2RSMZSA8adDSQGWso0GpIMJz7-kemMIcM57TaOjLjdya8gk1dHQx7_IOtwFe6euypTa2XmRNxqs5YG-V4QnLBqfelWSUn_WQfcRHhxi1Qfu7myvTrjokJigfISMmg" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">NHS urges 1.4m staff to have flu jab to reduce risk of epidemic</a></div>
<div class="_6m7 _3bt9">
Bosses write to workers saying they should get vaccinated as soon as possible – and must give a reason for refusing to do so</div>
<div class="_59tj _2iau">
<div>
<div class="_6lz _6mb ellipsis">
THEGUARDIAN.COM</div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
TAP
– Take Vitamin D6 drops, get enough sleep and most people won’t get
flu. Also Vitamin A. Bingo! Cheaper and effective alternatives.</div>
<div>
You have no need for poisonous vaccine that doesn’t work anyway.</div>
<div>
Research on Dr Mercola and many other sites covering vaccines.</div>
<div>
Vaccines are a deliberate assault on the brain with no effect on flu whatsoever.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div id="Headline">
<h3 class="entry-title">
If you’re convinced vaccines are safe, you’re not well informed… here’s the information being withheld from you.</h3>
</div>
<div class="entry-content">
<figure class="post-thumbnail"></figure> <div class="code-block code-block-1">
</div>
(<a href="https://www.naturalnews.com/">Natural News</a>)
If you’re convinced that vaccines are safe, you’re not listening to the
people who’ve lost a child after a round of vaccines was administered.
The U.S. government set up a special court to <a href="https://www.naturalnews.com/048819_vaccine_injuries_autism_US_government.html">hear vaccine injury cases</a>,
with reparation for select victims but no accountability for vaccine
makers. If you’re new to learning about vaccine risk, check out <a href="https://www.learntherisk.org/ingredients/">LearnTheRisk.org</a>, <a href="http://childhoodshots.com/">ChildhoodShots.com</a> and <a href="https://worldmercuryproject.org/">TheWorldMercuryProject</a>, three of many places where the truth is being told.<br />
As
the truth comes forth, will you laugh in the faces of the victims who
have been vaccine damaged? Sudden infant death syndrome, seizures,
allergies, brain swelling, skin conditions, eating disorders and <a href="https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-03-07-vaccine-study-peer-reviewed-study-shows-vaccinated-children-have-a-700-higher-chance-of-neurodevelopmental-disorder.html">neurological development issues are all sad consequences</a> of
failed vaccine policy in the U.S. and around the world. Every vaccine
on the market today, no matter what its intended use, will burden a
body, especially small bodies with lower blood volume and weight.<br />
Vaccines
use adjuvants to inflame the immune system and force it to respond to
pathogens. The most popular adjuvant used in vaccines are aluminum
salts. <a href="http://www.vaccines.news/2017-12-11-no-science-anyone-who-dares-mention-vaccines-contain-aluminum-is-immediately-derided-as-an-anti-vaxxer.html">As Dr. Chris Exley demonstrates</a>,
after a vaccine is administered, immune-responsive cells quickly travel
to the injection site and load up their cytoplasm with the antigen and
aluminum salts from the vaccine. The immune-responsive cells then travel
throughout the body, taking aluminum cations to unpredictable places,
including the brain. When the vesicles undergo acidification, they will
dissolve the enclosed aluminum salt. Biologically reactive A13+ aluminum
cations rupture the membrane, entering the cell cytoplasm and causing
cell death.<br />
This is the first problem with vaccines; the aluminum
that augments an immune response is traveling throughout the body and
causing cell death, inflammation, and aluminum toxicity throughout the
person. If you’re convinced vaccines are safe, you don’t understand the
toxicity of compounding aluminum cations at the cellular level and the
potential damage that occurs to the brain and immune system when
aluminum-based vaccines are injected.<br />
Vaccines use preservatives.
One of the preservatives in some vaccines is a form of inorganic
mercury called thimerosal. Researchers have studied thimerosal exposure
on mammalian brains. While thimerosal clears from the brain quicker than
organic forms of mercury, it also <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280369/">concentrates there more rapidly</a>, leading to harmful exposure amounts. A <a href="https://www.naturalnews.com/045705_flu_vaccine_mercury_heavy_metals.html">laboratory investigation</a>
of GlaxoSmithKline’s Flulaval flu vaccine found mercury at 51 ppm, or
25,000 times the legal maximum for drinking water regulated by the EPA.
Mercury is one of the worst preservatives to directly inject into the
body, bypassing the gastrointestinal filters, microbiome, and the gut
wall. When this vaccine is recommended for pregnant women, is the fetus
protected? Absolutely not. The developing infant can be poisoned for
life due to the slightest exposure to mercury in the womb. If you’re
convinced vaccines are safe, you do not understand the toxicity of
mercury or the dangers of putting a brain-damaging element into the
muscles and bloodstream without normal body filtration.<br />
Texas
researcher Dawn Richardson led a study at an Austin morgue investigating
cases of sudden infant death syndrome. They found high concentrations
of SIDS deaths at 2, 4, and 6 months, the same time the pediatricians
schedule multiple vaccine doses for vulnerable infants. Will there be an
investigation to see if these statistics replicate at morgues across
the country? If so, is SIDS just a vague term to cover up the deaths of
babies who are the victims of failed vaccine policy.<br />
Even though
polio vaccines are advertised as saving lives, the sad truth is that
polio vaccines are causing deadly paralysis in the Middle East.
Thirty-three children were crippled after receiving the polio vaccine in
Syria. Despite the <a href="http://www.vaccines.news/2017-08-30-bombshell-united-nations-admits-latest-outbreak-of-polio-in-syria-was-caused-by-polio-vaccines.html">announcement in August 2017</a>,
the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) called on more polio
vaccines to stop what the vaccines started. If you are convinced
vaccines are safe, don’t realize that an unpredictable number of
children are sacrificed just so the remaining children can supposedly be
“protected.”<br />
Did you know a consortium of vaccines contain
attenuated live viruses that can potentially revert back to infectious
form, sickening the vaccine recipient with the disease the vaccine was
supposed to prevent? Did you know that these viruses can shed for up to a
month or longer, spreading to others, especially the
immune-compromised? <a href="https://www.naturalnews.com/048925_virus_shedding_live_vaccines_measles.html">Viral shedding is a real issue</a>
caused by vaccines, especially in people who are malnourished from the
start. If you’re convinced vaccines are safe, you don’t know
how vaccines can cause the disease to form in the recipient and spread
it to the most vulnerable among us.<br />
This information is the tip of the iceberg. For more research, check out <a href="http://vaccines.news/">Vaccines.News</a>.<br />
<strong>Sources include:</strong><br />
<a href="https://www.learntherisk.org/ingredients/">LearntheRisk.org</a><br />
<a href="https://www.naturalnews.com/048819_vaccine_injuries_autism_US_government.html">NaturalNews.com</a><br />
<a href="http://childhoodshots.com/">ChildhoodShots.com</a><br />
<a href="http://www.vaccines.news/2017-12-11-no-science-anyone-who-dares-mention-vaccines-contain-aluminum-is-immediately-derided-as-an-anti-vaxxer.html">Vaccines.News</a><br />
<a href="http://www.vaccines.news/2017-12-11-u-s-now-leads-the-industrialized-world-in-infant-mortality-due-to-toxic-vaccinations.html">Vaccines.News</a><br />
<a href="http://www.vaccines.news/2017-08-30-bombshell-united-nations-admits-latest-outbreak-of-polio-in-syria-was-caused-by-polio-vaccines.html">Vaccines.News</a><br />
<a href="https://www.naturalnews.com/048925_virus_shedding_live_vaccines_measles.html">NaturalNews.com</a><br />
<a href="https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-03-07-vaccine-study-peer-reviewed-study-shows-vaccinated-children-have-a-700-higher-chance-of-neurodevelopmental-disorder.html">NaturalNews.com</a><br />
<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280369/">NCBI.NLM.NIH.gov</a><br />
<a href="https://www.naturalnews.com/045705_flu_vaccine_mercury_heavy_metals.html">NaturalNews.com</a><br />
<span class="Article-Author">Monday, January 15, 2018 by: <a href="https://www.naturalnews.com/author/ldevon" rel="author" title="Posts by Lance D Johnson">Lance D Johnson</a><br /> <i>Tags: <a href="https://www.naturalnews.com/tag/adjuvants" rel="tag">Adjuvants</a>, <a href="https://www.naturalnews.com/tag/aluminum" rel="tag">Aluminum</a>, <a href="https://www.naturalnews.com/tag/badhealth" rel="tag">badhealth</a>, <a href="https://www.naturalnews.com/tag/badmedicine" rel="tag">badmedicine</a>, <a href="https://www.naturalnews.com/tag/badscience" rel="tag">badscience</a>, <a href="https://www.naturalnews.com/tag/dangerous-medicine" rel="tag">Dangerous Medicine</a>, <a href="https://www.naturalnews.com/tag/immune-system" rel="tag">immune system</a>, <a href="https://www.naturalnews.com/tag/immunization" rel="tag">immunization</a>, <a href="https://www.naturalnews.com/tag/mercury-poisoning" rel="tag">mercury poisoning</a>, <a href="https://www.naturalnews.com/tag/neurological-disorders" rel="tag">neurological disorders</a>, <a href="https://www.naturalnews.com/tag/polio" rel="tag">polio</a>, <a href="https://www.naturalnews.com/tag/side-effects" rel="tag">side effects</a>, <a href="https://www.naturalnews.com/tag/sids" rel="tag">SIDS</a>, <a href="https://www.naturalnews.com/tag/vaccine-damage" rel="tag">vaccine damage</a>, <a href="https://www.naturalnews.com/tag/vaccines-tag" rel="tag">vaccines</a>, <a href="https://www.naturalnews.com/tag/viral-shedding" rel="tag">viral shedding</a></i></span><br />
<a href="https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-01-15-if-youre-convinced-vaccines-are-safe-youre-not-informed.html">https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-01-15-if-youre-convinced-vaccines-are-safe-youre-not-informed.html</a><br />
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">123456</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08469222206697162450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3612133.post-61920330210435172432018-01-16T07:59:00.001+00:002018-01-16T08:17:11.258+00:00The Big Data Gender Bender Agenda<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span class="entry-date"> <a href="http://tapnewswire.com/2018/01/the-big-data-gender-bender-agenda/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link to The Big Data Gender Bender Agenda">Mon 9:49 pm UTC, 15 Jan 2018 </a> </span>
<br />
<div class="byline">
posted by NPP</div>
<div class="pf-content">
The good old pension scheme,
gold watch and plaque on the wall era is over… a better financial system
without usury suggets Mark Anderson. Oh, wouldn’t it be lovely. There’a
census coming up in 2021. Would that be more paid work for Capita, the
Lockheed subsidiary?<br />
<a href="https://blog.ons.gov.uk/2017/12/14/reflecting-views-on-the-2021-census/">https://blog.ons.gov.uk/2017/12/14/reflecting-views-on-the-2021-census/</a><br />
At least I have long thought there was a relationship between Lockheed and Capita. Let’s do a random search…<br />
Met signs £90m IT deal with Lockheed-Capita-KPMG partnership<br />
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/11011252/Met-signs-90m-IT-deal-with-Lockheed-Capita-KPMG-partnership.html">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/11011252/Met-signs-90m-IT-deal-with-Lockheed-Capita-KPMG-partnership.html</a><br />
Let’s give a thought to William the Conqueror and the Doomsday Book.
Isn’t is funny how such things today, logging the private details of the
populous, are acceptable and normal.<br />
As Mark says, the big data
gender bender agenda. Hmm, that’s a title. The state wants to know about
your sexual inclination. The US consensus was originally for counting
constitutional enumerating, to count people for congressional
representation. Today it is way beyond that mandate and just another
aspect of the deep state.<br />
Mayors of Bengaluru and London come together to help cities tackle toxic air pollution:<br />
<a href="https://indiacsr.in/mayors-bengaluru-london-come-together-help-cities-tackle-toxic-air-pollution/">https://indiacsr.in/mayors-bengaluru-london-come-together-help-cities-tackle-toxic-air-pollution/</a><br />
Of course, it sounds great – mayors wanting to clean up filthy air, but
I caution you to beware of London Mayor Sordik Khant. He is a dullard
bimbo. NPP’s view, not necessarily shared by TAP.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/yLTJezLUolQ/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yLTJezLUolQ?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />
<a href="https://youtu.be/yLTJezLUolQ">https://youtu.be/yLTJezLUolQ</a><br />
<br />
Another episode of the Column anchored by the impeccably astute Mike Robinson.<br />
Published on 15 Jan 2018<br />
UK Column News – 15th January 2018<br />
Mike Robinson and Mark Anderson with today’s news update from the UK Column.<br />
START – Carillion bust: 48,500 jobs at risk, £680m pension deficit…<br />
09:08 – UK Census 2021: public consultations taking place<br />
14:44 – City agenda: Sadiq Khan meets mayor of Bengaluru<br />
21:24 – USA: award-winning journalist comes clean on media control<br />
25:41 – Media collusion in Bundy trial…?<br />
31:35 – BBC: Myanmar back on the agenda…Burmese military or ISIS…?<br />
35:15 – UNHCR: ‘Rohingya are stateless’…what are Human Rights…?<br />
38:39 – Rohingya being vaccinated: UK Aid ‘working tirelessly…’<br />
42:27 – Hawaii: fake inbound ballistic missile…testing public reaction…?</div>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">123456</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08469222206697162450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3612133.post-66133755624465991012018-01-16T07:56:00.002+00:002018-01-16T07:56:54.564+00:00The government has been manufacturing tragedies year by year for decades<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span class="entry-date"> <a href="http://tapnewswire.com/2018/01/the-government-has-been-manufacturing-tragedies-year-by-year-for-decades/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link to The government has been manufacturing tragedies year by year for decades">Sat 6:17 pm UTC, 13 Jan 2018 </a> </span>
<br />
<div class="byline">
posted by Tapestry</div>
<div class="byline">
</div>
<div class="pf-content">
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<strong>Who is Ted Bundy?</strong><br />
<strong>by Miles Mathis</strong><br />
<br />
I
was led to look again at Ted Bundy after writing my recent exposé of
the Tate “murders,” where I showed the whole thing was manufactured by
the Intelligence Agencies (FBI, CIA, DIA, ONI). Since Bundy’s alleged
killing spree started just five years later, we should ask if this
series of events was manufactured as well, and if so, for what reason.<br />
If
you haven’t read my 83-page PDF on the Tate “murders,” you are in no
position to read further here. You will find my line of reasoning
bizarre. But after you have read that paper, you will see everything in a
different light.<br />
My first clue that the Bundy murders were all
faked was discovering that, like Charles “Tex” Watson, Bundy supposedly
fathered a child while on death row. Since that is impossible, we have
an early indication that this whole thing is another charade. But what
really got me on the right track was looking at Bundy’s earlier life. In
1966, Bundy went to the University of Washington to study Chinese. Big
red flag. Those who study foreign languages in college, especially
Russian and Chinese, are disproportionately recruited by Intelligence.
In addition, we know he worked on Nelson Rockefeller’s Presidential
campaign in 1968, and of course Rockefeller was long involved in
Intelligence, including being President of the NSC and Chairman of the
PCG (Planning Coordination Group—overseeing the CIA) under Eisenhower.
Later, Bundy was a spy for Republican Governor Daniel Evans of
Washington in 1972, posing as a college student to shadow Evans’
opponent, and—amazingly—this is admitted at Wikipedia. He was then hired
as assistant to the State Republican Party Chairman. Bundy was accepted
to law school on the recommendation of Evans. Evans was also a staunch
supporter of Rockefeller, perhaps losing a Vice Presidential nomination
when he refused to endorse Nixon in 1968. We have a series of red flags
there, indicating Bundy was already an insider and spy from the
beginning.<br />
<br />
TO SEE THE PICTURES GO TO – <a href="http://mileswmathis.com/bundy.pdf">http://mileswmathis.com/bundy.pdf</a><br />
<br />
As
for his birth and life as a child, it all looks like a rewrite and
whitewash. Every story has three variations, and none of them make sense
or are consistent. His biographies read like poor fiction,<br />
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="page" title="Page 2">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
written by flunkies at Langley. So who was Bundy, really? Or I should say, who is Ted Bundy?<br />
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
I
got nowhere on that question for about a year, since I wasn’t willing
to travel to look up documents. Finally, the answer fell into my lap. We
have seen that the elite like to use their own children in their
manufactured events, since these children are available and very easy to
control. In most cases, they don’t even bother to change any names.
Think of Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, Sharon Tate, Abigail Folger, Susan
Atkins, John Phillips, and Jim Morrison. For an example beyond the Tate
event, where we saw many children of the elite used, think of John
Hinckley, Jr. Hinckley’s father was a close personal friend of the
Bushes, and the Bushes were even dining with the Hinckleys the night of
the alleged shooting of Reagan. Even that hint didn’t help me until I
started studying CIA control of art in the 1950’s and 60’s, through the
Congress for Cultural Freedom and other front organizations. In that
research, I stumbled across McGeorge Bundy, National Security Advisor
(CIA supervisor) to Kennedy and Johnson and later president of the Ford
Foundation. Before that, in 1953 he was appointed Dean of Arts and
Sciences at Harvard. He was only 34 at the time of that appointment.
That was possible only because Bundy was already CIA at the time. He had
been on the Council of Foreign Relations since he was 29. He had been
in Intelligence since 1941, when he joined OSS right out of Yale at age
22. He was born into the prominent Boston Brahmin families of Bundy,
Putnam, Lowell, etc.<br />
McGeorge’s older Brother William was also a
prominent CIA agent, being also a foreign affairs advisor to both
Kennedy and Johnson. He had a key role in planning the Vietnam War.
Perhaps even more interesting is that after his government service, he
became a historian, writing many books. The most famous is A Tangled
Web: The Making of Foreign Policy in the Nixon Presidency. We are told
that William had three children: Michael, Christopher and Carol.<br />
Bundy.
. .Bundy. Was it that simple? Had they really not even bothered to
change the names? Looks like it. Looks like they decided to make it easy
on Ted, letting him keep his name. They were so confident from past
successes, they figured they could cover up every link afterwards. They
would tell everyone Ted had been adopted, was originally named Cowell,
and so on. Mark that: Cowell. It is a little joke, since, as we have
seen, the CIA loves inside jokes. It is one letter from Lowell. We have
just seen that McGeorge’s mother was a Lowell of the famous Lowells of
Boston, and she was Ted’s grandmother.<br />
They also hid McGeorge’s
children. Notice they are not listed at Wikipedia. His family isn’t even
mentioned, and you would think he was gay or a bachelor. I had to go to
old obituaries to find out that McGeorge had four sons, Stephen,
Andrew, William, and James. If we do a websearch on those names, we find
convincing pictures of Stephen, Andrew and James, and none of them look
to be Ted. They look somewhat like Ted (enough to be brothers or
cousins), but no match. But we find no pictures of William. Was he less
well known, hence the lack of web photos, or was there a fifth brother?
This will have to be determined by further research.<br />
The fact
that they hid McGeorge’s children and his early photographs leads me to
suspect Ted is his son, rather than the son of William. But Ted could be
the son of a third unknown brother for all I know. The genealogy
appears to have been changed, so I have no paperwork to go on for this
essay. I have not uncovered documents here, since it is doubtful they
exist. I am pursuing facial comparisons, since that is my specialty.
That and photo analysis.<br />
To get started, we should first ask if
Ted is the right age to be a son of McGeorge or William. He is. William
was born in 1917, McGeorge was born in 1919 and Ted was said to have
been born in 1946. In 1946, McGeorge was 27, a probable time for a first
son. Since McGeorge didn’t marry until 1950, it<br />
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="page" title="Page 3">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
is
possible Ted was illegitimate. It is also possible they simply changed
the dates. This plays into Ted’s faked bio, since in that bio Ted and
his biographers tell several stories about finding a birth certificate
or being shown one by a cousin. He is supposed to have discovered his
grandparents weren’t his real parents, and that his sister was really
his mother. That was always beyond belief, and we now see a more likely
history for Ted. He may indeed have been a bastard, but he was William
or McGeorge’s bastard, not the bastard of some air force veteran named
Lloyd Marshall. That name is also a CIA joke, since the CIA was founded
as an introduction to the Marshall Plan in 1947. General Marshall would
be Secretary of State beginning in 1947 and then Secretary of Defense in
1950. Ted was said to have been born in 1946, when the OSS/CIA was
already forming the Marshall Plan to fight Communism in Europe. It is
also interesting that Ted was said to have been born in Vermont.
Although he is later tied to the West Coast, Vermont is of course just
above Massachusetts. Burlington is about 200 miles from Boston.<br />
All
this is admittedly speculative and circumstantial, but it is given a
very large dose of legitimacy by studying photos of the three men:<br />
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="page" title="Page 4">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
The
first two are of William Bundy, the last three Ted. I couldn’t find any
photos of McGeorge as a young man. At first I thought I had found one,
but it was mis-tagged. On further research, all of them turned out to be
William. Curious that we don’t have any of McGeorge as a young man.
Possibly he looked even more like Ted than William. At any rate, as a
professional portrait painter—hired by wealthy people to reproduce their
likenesses or the likenesses of their children—I can tell you the match
above is quite close. If not for the difference in the upper lip, these
people could be clones. Notice they have the same eyebrows, the same
jawline, the same head shape (exactly), the same size forehead, the same
eye-to-mouth ratio, the same neck size, similar ears, and very nearly
the same noses. William tends to squint (probably because of the
glasses) while Ted tends to open his eyes wide, but other than that the
eyes are the same, too. They are the same width and they tilt up the
same. Ted was probably instructed to open his eyes wide, to make him
look crazy. They gave the same direction to Manson five years earlier.
Ted and William even have the same color hair and part it on the same
side. You can see Ted’s natural part in pics 2 and 3, and it matches his
father’s. They have parted it on the wrong side for the mugshots, which
is why it is flopping over in a weird way. That is what anyone’s hair
will do when they part it opposite of the way it naturally grows or is
trained. William, McGeorge and Ted were also the same height: 5’9” to
5’10” and the same weight and build.<br />
Another indication is
provided by the fact that all three men had blue eyes with brown hair,
which isn’t that common in the US. The odds that both men would have
this mixed trait is on the order of 1 in a hundred (1/10 times 1/10). It
was common in the Bundy family however, since Stephen, Andrew, and
James also had the same trait.<br />
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="page" title="Page 5">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
That
first pic is McGeorge at about age 45. He looked very much like
William, except that McGeorge’s hairline receded much earlier. That
makes him appear to have a larger forehead and throws off the similarity
somewhat at first look. That is probably why we don’t see pictures of
McGeorge in his 20’s or 30’s online. But notice that the mouth and lip
match is much closer with McGeorge and Ted than William and Ted.
William’s lips turned down at the corners. But McGeorge and Ted both
have that nearly perfect cupid’s bow on the upper lip. Ted’s mouth
matches McGeorge’s mouth nearly exactly in length, width, and curvature.<br />
We
can now run some rough numbers on all these trait matches between the
older Bundys and Ted. The odds that two unrelated men would match at
that weight and height and hair color aren’t that that low, since after
all that is about dead average. But the odds of matching that plus blue
eyes, same jaw line, same eyes, same build, same face shape, same nose
length, same mouth width, and same last name are extremely low. Even
before the last name match, I would estimate the odds being something
like 1/100,000. With the same last name (for any stated reason), the
odds are more like 1 in 10,000,000. Stated another way, the probability
that two men with the same last name who look this much alike are
closely related is very high. Again:<br />
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="page" title="Page 6">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
In
calculating these odds, we have to take into account the closeness of
each match. For me, the eyes and jawline tell us all we need to know.
Look at how the neck meets the jawline: an exact match.<br />
Of course
this isn’t proof. For proof that would hold up in court we would have
to have documentary evidence or a DNA test. I assume all documents have
been shredded and switched out for fakes, and it is unlikely Ted will
come out of hiding for a blood test. So for now this is just being
offered here as my professional opinion, based on a hunch and on some
photo analysis. Do with it what you will.<br />
No doubt, some will
start by saying, “It can’t be. These people wouldn’t allow the famous
Bundy name to be dragged through the mud on purpose! The Lowells,
Putnams, etc., wouldn’t allow it. The Boston Brahmins wouldn’t wish for a
famous serial killer to be linked to their names in any way, but they
especially wouldn’t make it happen!” Anyone who says something like that
sounds like they are still living in the 1890’s. They should be living
in a Henry James novel. The truth is, everyone in the know already knows
Ted was used for this program, and they find it amusing. So it doesn’t
sully anything for these wealthy families. It is a point of honor, in
fact. As for what the rest of us know or think of them, they couldn’t
possibly care less. That is why they expend so little energy and time
trying to make these scenarios air-tight. They know that neatness
doesn’t count. They know most of us can be fooled by a sloppy magician’s
trick, and that is all they care for. They don’t need to fool all of
us. They only need to fool 95%. If a few fish like me swim out of the
net, what do they care?<br />
Think of it this way: say Sherlock Holmes
were alive now. Do you honestly think the wealthy families or the CIA
would have anything to fear from him? No. No one is going to hire him.
As long as no one hires him, any crime he solves will be nothing more
than an amusing novella. For it to go beyond literature, the police or
the courts would have to get involved, and that isn’t going to happen.
The police and the courts have no interest in pursuing wealthy families
or the government agencies. Only when wealthy families fight one another
do things still happen, but that isn’t what we have here. What we have
here is the wealthy families controlling the greater society, and those
families have closed all avenues of resistance against them: courts,
police, the media, Congress, and so on. All those institutions are
defunct.<br />
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="page" title="Page 7">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
The
question remains, why would Intelligence be interested in faking a
serial killer? Simple: to create instability and fear. This was one of
the prime goals of Intelligence at the time, and of course it still is.
In the 1960’s, the FBI had COINTELPRO and the CIA had CHAOS, and both
programs have been partially declassified now, enough so that we know
the one of the directives of each program was destabilization. And this
was not just destabilization of the “enemy.” This was a general
destabilization of the whole society. Since the entire society was seen
to be moving left in the 1960’s, Hoover of the FBI, Helms and Angleton
of the CIA, and many others felt that general destabilization was
necessary to maintain control. Of course they had been creating fear
since the end of WW2, but in the beginning that was mainly to keep
military expenditures high. They needed to justify continued military
spending, as well as spending to expand the Intelligence community, and
the best way to do that was to manufacture conflict and fear. The Cold
War was manufactured by both sides, since it allowed for massive
“defense” budgets both here and in Russia. The Red Scare in the 1950’s
was part of that creation of general fear. But by the late 1960’s, the
Government had domestic problems to deal with, including an
ever-increasing resistance to the Vietnam War.<br />
Communism had been
destroyed domestically—everybody knew that—so they needed a different
way to create general fear. One of the ways they decided to do that was
with manufactured bogeymen of the Manson, Bundy type.* Manson’s bogeyman
was created as a hippie in order to destroy the hippie movement, and he
was incredibly successful in his role. But by 1975 the hippie movement
was also dead, so the bogeymen no longer needed to be of that mold. They
now wished to demonize the good- looking white guy. Why? Several
reasons. First of all, the charismatic, college-educated white guy was
still the most dangerous person in the eyes of Intelligence at that
time, since in 1975 he still had the most real power. The good-looking
white guy had been the biggest thorn in their side during the hippie
movement and the war protest movement. They had been the high-profile
speakers with the most bravery, tenacity, and the greatest ability to
sway a crowd. Therefore, Intelligence wanted to recruit all the
charismatic white guys they could into their agencies, and hog-tie the
rest.<br />
Intelligence also wished to create as much sexual
dissatisfaction as they could, because they found it helped sales in all
areas. The dissatisfied bought more drugs, more liquor, more guns, more
magazines, more newspapers, watched more TV, and were generally easier
to propagandize on all issues. And this time, the focus was on women. If
Intelligence could make women fear all men—especially the good- looking
ones—they would immediately create huge levels of sexual
dissatisfaction. These women would then watch soap operas and read pulp
romances and join feminist groups, where they could be further
propagandized. They would suffer from a thousand forms of anxiety and
all the mental and physical effects of that anxiety, which would require
a million forms of drugging and therapy, legal and illegal. And as the
women went, so did the men. If the heterosexual women could be driven
nuts, the heterosexual men would be taken down with them. The sexual
relationship is like that: if you destroy one half of it, the other half
falls as well.<br />
Of course this is still the program, and it seeds
Oprah’s empire as well as half the hospitals. It seeds the
pharmaceutical industry, the porn industry, Hollywood, the cosmetic
industry, radical feminism, women’s studies, men’s studies, postmodern
art, and a thousand worthless TV channels.<br />
If you or the CIA
wonders why I am researching these things like a fiend, it is because my
life has been ruined by these programs. In previous papers you have
seen how the CIA’s (now admitted) control and destruction of art during
the 20th century would affect someone like me, but these sexual
destabilization programs are also ruinous, and I take them personally.
Like the rest of the heterosexual male population, I have been forced to
try to date these women who have been brought up on a constant fare<br />
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="page" title="Page 8">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
of
planted stories of the Manson, Bundy type. I can point to many specific
instances with real women where Manson, Bundy, or one of the other
mainstream figments was brought up in conversation as a source of their
anxieties. And it continues up to this day, with the manufactured events
we see in the papers daily, many of them aimed directly at young women. <br />
<br />
The
government has been manufacturing tragedies year by year for decades,
and we are now up to several a month, just to keep the patient properly
traumatized. It used to be that one fake serial killer every couple of
years would do the job, but in this as in everything else, the patient
develops a tolerance.<br />
After 911, the audience became more
difficult to startle. In addition to your daily dose of shootings,
maulings, rapes, suicides, crashes and molestations (most of them also
manufactured for your viewing pleasure by the Intelligence agencies),
you are now privy to at least one mass shooting or bombing every two or
three months. It was found that the serial killer story took too long to
unwind, so they ditched that. You don’t get serial killers much
anymore. It is mass shootings instead, since they happen all at once.
The American public no longer has the attention span required to follow a
serial killer. Think about that, please. Don’t you think it is
convenient that crazy murderers decided to quit the serial thing and go
in for the mass thing instead? So nice of them to change with the times,
scripting their madness to fit the demands of the media!<br />
As Ted
Bundy goes, so goes Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Kaczinski, David Berkowitz,
Richard Ramirez, Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Anders Breivik, and most of
the other high-profile murderers.<br />
*For an interesting cloaked
exposé of this phenomenon, I recommend you to M. Night Shyamalan’s film
The Village. He is telling you that your bogeymen are faked.<br />
<a href="http://mileswmathis.com/bundy.pdf">http://mileswmathis.com/bundy.pdf</a><br />
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">123456</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08469222206697162450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3612133.post-77353879001639825592018-01-16T07:53:00.004+00:002018-01-16T07:53:51.447+00:00All famous people are placed there to misdirect you – all of them.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<span class="entry-date"><a href="http://tapnewswire.com/2018/01/all-famous-people-are-placed-there-to-misdirect-you-all-of-them/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link to All famous people are placed there to misdirect you – all of them.">Mon 6:53 pm UTC, 15 Jan 2018 </a> </span>
<br />
<div class="byline">
posted by Tapestry</div>
<div class="byline">
</div>
I am now almost 51, and it took me this long to figure out how the world really works. This time last year, I didn’t know.<br />
The
truth is, I didn’t work on the question much for the first 40 years of
my life, so it isn’t really surprising I didn’t discover this sooner.<br />
I am not claiming to understand how ALL of life works. Just this one thing.<br />
This
is what I finally understood: all famous people are there to misdirect
you. ALL OF THEM. They didn’t accidentally get famous. They don’t
accidentally get on TV or in movies or in books or on CDs or on the
internet. And they certainly don’t earn their way into these positions,
as is now clear. So how did they get there? Why do you have to see them
and hear them all the time? Why do you know who they are? Because they
were placed there. They were chosen to fill that position, and they were
chosen in order to misdirect you from the truth.<br />
<br />
<b>What I Finally Understood</b><br />
<b>by Miles Mathis</b><br />
<br />
You
will say, “C’mon, Miles, that can’t be true. All of them? I mean, they
disagree with eachother. How can they all be placed there?”<br />
Look
at it this way: say you wanted to control everyone in the world. Well,
people are at different levels. They have different interests and
beliefs and levels of intelligence. So if you want to control everyone,
you have to place your guys at all these levels, on all possible paths.<br />
If
you are a football coach setting up a defense on the field, you don’t
put all your tacklers in the middle of the field, or all on one side.
You spread them out. You want to block all possible paths to the goal.
You have to defend against the run and the pass, the short ball and the
long ball.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="page" title="Page 2">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
It
is the same with government. If you want to govern people, you have to
keep them on the path you have chosen for them. That is how the
governors understand government. You may think government is about
keeping people employed and building highways and educating children,
but it isn’t. It is about “governing” them. Moving them around at will.
Think of a governess. She keeps the kids out of trouble and molds them
into the sort of adults her employer or her society requires. Same thing
with the governors. They keep you from troubling them and mold you into
someone who can make them richer. That is what our society requires,
and very little else.<br />
With that goal in mind, the last thing the
governors want is “enlightened” people or “self-actualized” people.
Those people might make money for themselves, think for themselves, and
govern themselves. People like that make very poor clients. People like
that are just trouble. So the governors have to head them off.<br />
Since
people take many different paths, the governors have to place their
blockers and tacklers everywhere. They have to have blockers for smart
people and dumb people, lazy people and ambitious people, caring people
and uncaring people, progressive people and conservative people, men and
women, young and old.<br />
And they have to have blockers and
tacklers up and down the field, on the fifty-yard line as well as on the
five-yard line. If you get past one line of tacklers, they have to have
another line ready for you.<br />
To switch the visualization, no
matter how high up the mountain you climb, they have to have some guru
on a goat-ledge positioned there to shunt you off on the wrong path.<br />
No
matter how deep down the rabbit hole you have climbed, they have to
have some bearded caterpillar waiting for you to give you bad advice in
solemn tones, recommending you eat the wrong cake or try the wrong door.<br />
I
admit it took me a while to figure this out. Over the past decade I
have lost more and more of my old heroes. I got around them and moved on
up the mountain. But then I came to another set of heroes perched up
there, and instead of learning from my past mistakes and looking at
these heroes with suspicion, I instead protected them from questions
like that. I didn’t want to lose them, so I didn’t look closely at them.
I nodded politely in the old ways and knelt down for the next lesson.<br />
But
eventually they said something that didn’t fit the script, and the
curtain was torn. I then felt like Jim Carrey in The Truman Show, when
his car radio accidentally picks up the director’s channel. I was forced
to pick up my bamboo mat and kettle of fish and move further up the
mountain.<br />
No matter how high I got, I was always met by a new expert, pointing sideways along a path and smiling knowingly.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="page" title="Page 3">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
Finally,
I figured out the game. I figured it out by noticing that all these
guys popped up there like jack-in-the-boxes, rising up from underground
tunnels dug centuries earlier by an army of evil moles. They knew I
would come eventually—me or someone like me—and they had made plans. The
entire mountain and rabbit hole had been trapped and mined, and I began
to look around for David Bowie in the Labyrinth. Like Bowie, these
pretend sorcerers gave themselves away to a keen eye, since they got
more desperate the nearer you got to the truth. The longer I stayed on
the right path, the less likely I was to be fooled by the next trap, and
they knew that.<br />
That doesn’t mean any of this is easy. Maybe the
hardest part is that you have to pass through a treacherous middle
level on the mountain. Once you pass the halfway point on the mountain,
the gurus get more clever. You already know a lot by that time, so they
have to take that into account. They have to lead the lesson by
re-teaching you a lot you already know. This makes you trust them. One
of their greatest tricks is unmasking gurus on lower levels, although
those gurus are really their colleagues. They say, “Oh, by the way, you
know that the gurus at level 42, 43, and 44 are working for the man,
right? They were trying to keep you from climbing up to this level,
because they are jealous of the view I have from here. Beautiful, isn’t
it?” Guru 45 then subtly suggests his view is superior to views from
even higher, and that you have no need to climb up further. He has to
say that in just the right way, though, at the right speed, with the
right inflections, or you remember that guru 44 just told you pretty
much the same thing.<br />
You hit another hard part when you realize
all the gurus are planted. As soon as that sinks in fully, they stop
sending you gurus. The jack-in-the-boxes stop popping up from the
mountain ledges, and you find yourself alone with the birds and the
bears. That is scary not only because you have no one to talk to, but
even more because your trick of doing the opposite of what you were told
no longer works. You can no longer wait for the guru to point left and
then move right. You have to decide on your own, without the help of
negative evidence.<br />
I know some of you are laughing, but do you
understand how hard that is? If you are a good ways up the mountain,
just think how many of your decisions were decisions of avoidance.
Compare the number of paths you refused because they looked bad to the
number of paths you chose because they looked good. If you are like me,
most of your progress has been due to the former. Given ten paths, you
chose number 7 because 1-6 and 8-10 all stank. And they all stank
because you could see lots of stinky people clogging up those paths. The
choice was easy.<br />
But once you get past the gurus, you no longer
have stinky people showing you how not to live. Up above you are only
empty paths, none of them either beckoning you or offending you. All is
silent. With the mountaintop draped in cloud, how do you know which way
to go?<br />
Let us transport ourselves back down the mountain some
ways, where the gurus are as thick as flies on a summer dunghill. At
this level, I will not find many who wish to learn my lesson. The
students are in thrall to the teachers, and do not wish to fall out of
thrall. These students will tell me that one side or the other must be
right. Given a certain question, they can’t all be wrong, can they?</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="page" title="Page 4">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
Well,
if they are all paid to be wrong, they can. This is easiest to see from
the so-called debates we watch on TV. Whether it is political debates
between candidates or manufactured debates on news programs, we always
see the question divided two ways, and the people on both sides speaking
nonsense. The truth is always avoided by both sides, as if it is a
virus. Let’s take a topic, say, gun control. This is probably the
hottest topic of the past two years. My knee-jerk reaction is to be
against gun control, if only because the governors are for it. If the
government is trying this hard to sell me something, I know it is not
worth buying. The government has proven over and over it can’t be
trusted, so I do the logical thing and refuse to trust it. But that
doesn’t mean I have gone out and bought a gun. I am not a hunter so I
have no use for a gun. I don’t really think a gun is going to even my
chances against the government. But this is exactly what the pro-gun
side seems to be arguing. And it seems to be what the audience is
hearing, since the audience is going out and buying guns like they are
about to be discontinued.<br />
Here is what you never hear in the gun
control debate from either side. This is what I would say to the
government when it sent in some stuffed shirt to promote gun control:<br />
Look,
I have no need for guns. Most of my neighbors have no need for guns,
unless they are hunters. If you want us to quit buying guns and
ammunition in such outrageous numbers, why don’t you quit scaring the
shit out of us with all these faked murders like Sandy Hook and the
Boston Marathon? Why don’t you quit arming the police with tanks and
machine guns? Why don’t you quit using the army and National Guard to
run suspicionless checkpoints? Why don’t you quit running drills in
schools and small towns, with black helicopters and live ammunition? Why
don’t you quit tasering people to death for minor infractions? Why
don’t you quit building private jails to house people who have done next
to nothing? Why don’t you quit turning the DHS into a Gestapo? Maybe if
you guys quit acting like Nazis, we would quit buying so many guns. Has
that ever occurred to you?<br />
But you never hear that. You often
hear some variation of the argument that the Constitution gives people
the right to have arsenals of AR-15’s, to protect themselves from the
government. That isn’t any more sensible than the government line. If we
are going to debate the topic (rather than just allow that what is, is
what must be), we might want to make some rational suggestions, such as
that it isn’t necessary for the government to be at war with its own
people. We got along fine as a country for 225 years without a
Department of Homeland Security, and it wouldn’t be that hard to turn
back the clock just 14 years, to before 2001. None of this is necessary,
neither the arming of the citizenry nor the militarizing of the police
force. If we got rid of a few bad people at the top, it would all end
tomorrow.<br />
As it goes with that topic, it goes with most others.
Neither side is ever telling you the truth, because they are both trying
to make a buck off of you. The gun control people are trying to get
more taxes for “Homeland Security,” while the gun advocates are hoping
to sell you a gun. Just imagine the total market for domestic arms sales
in the past five years. It boggles the mind. Which means the government
is probably playing both sides, as usual. I would be willing to bet
that most of the money spent on guns in the US since Obama took office
has gone into the pockets of the same billionaires who are profiting
from Homeland Security. It is doubtful that most folks have ever thought
of that.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="page" title="Page 5">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
Those
who haven’t should study the recent history of Smith&Wesson. Did
you know that Smith&Wesson was bought out in a hostile takeover in
2001, and that the government was involved? Remember, 2001 was also year
one of DHS. Coincidence? Did you know that the $200 million company was
bought for $15 million, and that this rock-bottom price was due to
fire-arm regulation by President Clinton? Did you know that after an
initial plunge due to the Clinton regulation, their sales have since
skyrocketed?<br />
Just a coincidence, right? Did you know that the
buyer of Smith&Wesson was a start-up company named Saf-T-Hammer? We
are told it was a maker of gun locks, but it wasn’t. It was a start-up
company with no history of making anything. “Saf-T-Hammer never
manufactured that lock independently before buying out S&W, and does
not now manufacture it separately from the guns.” This brings up the
question of who does own Saf-T-Hammer. Well the company changed names to
Smith and Wesson Holding Group, which now has 83% Institutional
Ownership. What does that mean? It means the company is owned by
institutions, mainly investment firms and banks. The two biggest owners
are the Vanguard Group and Fidelity Investments, but other owners
include the Royal Bank of Canada, ING, and Barclays. So my suspicion is
proved true once again. The billionaire investors are making money off
you both ways: they tax you for Homeland Security, which scares you into
buying guns, and the money you spend on guns also goes to them.<br />
This
list of institutional investors of Smith&Wesson rings a bell, since
the top two appear on Project Censored’s 2013 list of the world’s top
investment firms:<br />
1 BlackRock US $3.560 trillion<br />
2 UBS Switzerland $2.280 trillion<br />
3 Allianz Germany $2.213 trillion<br />
4 Vanguard Group US $2.080 trillion</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="page" title="Page 6">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
5 State Street Global Advisors (SSgA) US $1.908<br />
6 PIMCO (Pacific Investment Management Company) US $1.820 trillion 7 Fidelity Investments US $1.576 trillion<br />
8 AXA Group France $1.393 trillion<br />
9 JPMorgan Asset Management US $1.347 trillion<br />
10 Credit Suisse Switzerland $1.279 trillion<br />
11 BNY Mellon Asset Management US $1.299 trillion<br />
12 HSBC UK $1.230 trillion<br />
13 Deutsche Bank Germany $1.227 trillion<br />
The
number is managed funds. Notice that Vanguard and Fidelity are high on
the list. Blackrock bought out Barclays Investments in 2009, but
Barclays still has company assets of over 2 trillion. Note, that is
company assets for Barclays, not managed funds.<br />
Beyond that, all
of these companies have been caught up in illegal activities in the past
decade, including the gigantic LIBOR and ISDAfix scandals, in which
these people were caught fixing the prices of just about everything.
Many of them have been fined hundreds of millions of dollars, but they
still refuse to obey the laws. Most of them have been caught laundering
huge amounts of money, but again, they have just been slapped on the
wrist and gone on as before. Vanguard was prosecuted by the government
under the RICO Act for illegally investing clients’ monies in offshore
gambling sites. They bought off the court.<br />
You might also be
interested to know that Vanguard and Blackrock are invested in Sturm,
Ruger &Co., a competitor of Smith&Wesson. No matter what brand
of gun you buy, they are raking in the money.<br />
The gurus are
screwing you from both ends. The people they are hiring to debate gun
control in the media on both sides are working for the banks. The
escalation benefits them from all directions.<br />
So make a list of
all the famous people selling both sides of this argument. No, really.
Make an actual list. Write down all the people you love to hate who are
on the other side. Then write down all the people that you think are on
your side. Then ask yourself, “Are any of them speaking any sense?” Or
are they all promoting this escalation one way or the other?<br />
This is how it goes, on all topics.<br />
So
what pushed me over the edge on the greater question of famous people?
What was the AHA moment? You may laugh, but it was Lyndon LaRouche.
Someone said to me recently, “You know, what is weird is how right
Lyndon LaRouche was.” And I got to thinking. Yes, he was right about a
lot of things, and he was even right about the “out there” stuff, like
the government pushing drugs [see Dope, Inc.], laundering money,
fluoride, the financial meltdown, pedophilia, and so on. So I went back
and studied his writings across the board. Do you know what I found? A
higher-level guru, placed fairly far up the mountain to misdirect the
most avant of the avant garde conspiracy theorists. I found he was a
Marxist until he was almost 60, which of course I saw as a red flag. No
one over thirty was still a Marxist in the US in 1970, except a few
dupes and a few small-time spooks working the campuses. No true
intellectual could stomach Marx’s prose, much less his theory.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="page" title="Page 7">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
I
say that not as a champion of capitalism or of the US system in
general, but only as a champion of reason. It should now be clear that
Marxism was never anything else but a disguised replacement for
Republicanism, created to appeal to the idealistic youth of the West who
were disenchanted with their own failed institutions. That is,
Socialism was dressed from the beginning to look like a fairer sister of
Democracy/Republicanism, but it was actually a crone in poor make-up.
It was purposely created to break down immediately into fascism, the way
plastic is now made to break down when exposed to light. Marxism
borrowed the egalitarian platitudes of Republicanism, and even outdid it
in its flattering of the lower classes; but the theorists conveniently
left out any of the hard facts of government, like constitutions or
courts or human nature. And by resting the whole theory on the workers,
Marx and his buddies knowingly built their edifice on sand. Though
top-down governance is often or usually predatory, bottom-up governance
is simply a contradiction in terms. You are just as likely to
successfully run a country from workers’ cooperatives as you are to run
your house from the kids’ bedroom.<br />
I am all in favor of trade
unions and worker-owned companies; but at the same time I would not like
to see a co-op of Walmart, McDonald’s, and USPS employees running the
country. While the system we have doesn’t put the best people at the
top, Marxism wouldn’t either.<br />
But there were many other red flags
with LaRouche, including his promotion of Leibniz, Abe Lincoln,
Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, NAWAPA, SDI, and so on. It may seem
strange to say it, but LaRouche was a gatekeeper like Chomsky, placed
pretty far down the road to catch those who got too far ahead. Like
Chomsky, LaRouche was instructed to admit to a large percentage of US
and British crimes, to appeal to progressives and good researchers who
had already discovered them. And also like Chomsky, LaRouche was there
to prevent deeper truths from being discovered. Ironically, perhaps,
LaRouche was—in most ways—positioned further up the mountain than
Chomsky. LaRouche could admit to 911 where Chomsky couldn’t. LaRouche
could talk about outre crimes that wouldn’t appeal to Chomsky’s
audience. And they were instructed to blow a very different smoke
regarding Kennedy. While Chomsky pretended to be above the whole
discussion, LaRouche was instructed to tell a new variant of the Oliver
Stone story, intellectualizing it with the Yalta system and a new
player, Mortimer Bloomfield. Notice in that link that LaRouche suggests
Kennedy was killed for believing the US could win a war [“war-winning
capability”] with the USSR. You have to be kidding me! Talk about
muddying the waters with an absurdity. Do you really believe a US
President could be too hawkish for the financiers behind him? This
should only serve to remind us that LaRouche is himself a hawk, even
hungrier for confrontation and new weapons systems than his colleague (I
mean archenemy) Kissinger.<br />
Which brings up LaRouche’s web of contacts. We are told that LaRouche traveled the world, having</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="page" title="Page 8">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
meetings
with top people in many countries, including the Soviet Union. So how
did he manage that? In 1967, at age 45, we are told he was teaching at
New York City’s Free School, but there is no listing anywhere for that.
We are told a group of students from Columbia and City College came to
his classes and suddenly the National Caucus of Labor Committees was
born. But if LaRouche was charismatic enough to start this movement on
his own, why didn’t he start it earlier? Why did he wait until 1968,
when he was 46? We must ask not just why his movement caught fire then,
but how. How were all the magazines and books and travel funded? How did
LaRouche manage to schedule meetings with important people, seeing that
up to 1968 he was not one and had no contacts? Some would say I have
some far-out ideas like LaRouche had in the 1970’s. Do you think I can
use those ideas to schedule meetings with the heads of state in Europe,
Russia and Asia? Of course not. Revolutionary or non- mainstream ideas
are precisely what prevent one from doing that. LaRouche’s entire
biography is a contradiction, since we are being sold the idea that he
was attacking the mainstream leaders viciously, while at the same time
taking meetings with them.<br />
You will say I am implying that SDS
(Students for a Democratic Society) or parts of it were infiltrated by
the government, but LaRouche himself tells us that. His NCLC was
originally a faction of SDS, and although “it was originally a New Left
organization influenced by Trotskyist ideas,” it was “opposed to other
New Left organizations which LaRouche said were dominated by the Ford
Foundation, Institute for Policy Studies and Herbert Marcuse.” If you
can accept what he says—that other New Left organizations were dominated
by these government think-tanks and foundations—why not his NCLC?
LaRouche’s organization has all the earmarks of late 1960’s government
programs, including brainwashing, violence, cultism, and created
confusion, so why not ask the question?<br />
“LaRouche writes in his
autobiography that in 1971 the NCLC formed ‘intelligence units’, and the
following year started training members in paramilitary tactics.”
Intelligence units? Does that sound like the language of a Marxist
professor, or of a CIA agent?<br />
So if he is an agent, why did they
later throw him in jail? Are you sure they did? I have shown you in
recent papers that several famous people you thought were in jail
probably never were, including Ezra Pound and Charles Manson. LaRouche’s
alleged time in jail simply glosses up his resume even more in the eyes
of those who would follow him.<br />
Notice that LaRouche has always
been encouraging confrontation. In the early years we are told his
followers beat their Marxist foes with pipes and bats. I think it is
just another planted story, but the form of the story is crucial. They
want you to think there is a lot of political violence going on, even
though there isn’t; just as now they want you to think there are mass
murders every month, although there aren’t. The billionaires love a
manufactured world of fear and chaos, because fear and chaos keep all
markets brisk. In a world of love and satisfaction, all sales would
plummet.<br />
This is why we saw George Bush telling people to go out
and buy stuff after 911. They found that they had overplayed that one by
a tad, and that people were so shocked they had stopped buying. You
want to scare people just enough to make them buy stuff to decorate the
bunker, but not enough to send them down into it. They learned their
lesson there, and they keep the security level at a constant bright
orange now, instead of blinking red. At orange, most people will be at
Walmart every other day stocking up on toilet paper, baking soda, and
camouflage pants; at red they will have pad-locked the shutters, armed
the booby traps, and lit the candles.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="page" title="Page 9">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
Some
will say, “What about you? How do we know you aren’t another posted
guru, planted to misdirect us?” Well, I’m not famous, am I? I am not on
TV, am I? I am not promoted by some studio or consortium or publisher or
think-tank. No one is sending you here: if you got to these pages you
got here on your own, probably by lucking out in a websearch. That is
another difference between me and someone like LaRouche. Although most
of the US articles about him over the years have been negative, they
still wrote about him. You should find that curious in itself. Coverage
is coverage, you know, positive or negative. As they say, all press is
good press as long as they spell your name right.<br />
None of the
articles on LaRouche over the years made any sense, because if LaRouche
really were what the articles were claiming—a crazy cultist out to
defame America and England—why were they writing about him? Why would
the mainstream give someone like that the publicity? Remember, LaRouche
was right about some things, and one of the things he was right about
was the CIA’s total control of the press. We didn’t need him to tell us
that, since we got proof of it from the Senate hearings in the late
1970’s (see the Church Committee hearings). Well, given that, why would
this controlled press want to publicize LaRouche at all? Why not just
ignore him completely? That’s what they do to people they really wish to
bury, like me for instance.<br />
I don’t even have a Wikipedia page.
Go try to build a Wiki page for me, and see how long it lasts. By
contrast, study LaRouche’s Wikipedia page. Not only is it extremely
long, it is not nearly as black as you might think it would be, given
his professed stance against the mainstream. Normally, Wikipedia
blackwashes people it doesn’t like unmercifully. Although we see large
parts of his page spun negative, we see surprisingly large parts spun
positive. You will say those parts were written by his acolytes, but
that is to ignore how Wikipedia normally works. Normally, if you go on a
page of someone the institutions hate, you will find a complete
blackwash. If you try to add any positive remarks or correct the
negative ones, your comments will be deleted immediately. But we don’t
see that with LaRouche. That in itself is a sign I am right about him.<br />
I
am not saying you should trust me. You shouldn’t trust anyone,
especially someone you haven’t met in person. You should read everything
closely and make a decision based on continuity and logic, not on
trust.<br />
So how far back does this rule go, you will ask. Is every
famous person in history a plant, or just the living ones? I intend the
rule to apply to only the living ones, and the recently dead. I have
shown in recent papers that we can take the rule back to the Civil War,
but the further back we go the more exceptions there will be. My
research is limited, of course, so I can’t address every famous person
who ever lived. But any famous person from the past who is still
promoted heavily should immediately fall into your bag and ring a bell. I
saw Alan Watts being promoted in strange ways in the film Her recently,
and had I not already known he was an agent, I would have been alerted
to him in that way. Going further back, I showed in a recent paper that
Walt Whitman was being promoted in the film Kill Your Darlings. This was
one of the red flags that outed him for me.<br />
Since the broad
control of media didn’t take effect until recently, there will no doubt
be many exceptions to the rule even in the late 19th century and early
20th century. There may be some few exceptions still. But don’t make the
mistake of assuming that just because you have gone back before 1947
that the control no longer exists. It was less perfect and less broad,
but it has existed for many centuries, and perhaps forever.</div>
</div>
</div>
<a href="http://mileswmathis.com/guru.pdf">http://mileswmathis.com/guru.pdf</a><br />
<br />
TAP
– Yes even the guy whose music is selling family breakdown, drugs and
spirits. It’s all the control system working to box you in to your
confusion.</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">123456</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08469222206697162450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3612133.post-45659996640339203832016-08-01T08:46:00.001+00:002016-08-01T08:46:20.699+00:00Teen Pokemon Go players robbed at gunpoint in London park<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The teenagers were playing the game in Whittington Park in Islington on Tuesday night<br />
<br />
A group of teenagers playing <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/pokemon-go" target="_blank">Pokemon Go</a> in a north London park were robbed of their phones at gunpoint, police have said.<br />
Three young people were playing the popular mobile phone game in Whittington Park near <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/Islington" target="_blank">Upper Holloway</a> station on Tuesday evening when they were approached by three men who demanded them to hand over their smartphones.<br />
One of the suspects drew what appeared to be a handgun from his waistband and pointed it at the victims.<br />
<br />
<br />
The teenagers, <span style="line-height: 20.8px;">aged 15, 16 and 18,</span> handed over their phones and were left shaken but unharmed after the incident, which took place at around 10:30pm.<br />
Pokemon Go, <span style="line-height: 20.8px;">an “augmented reality” game which allows users to catch the cute fictional characters in real life,</span> <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/gaming/pokemon-go-down-servers-crash-nintendo-millions-try-access-game-a7140691.html" target="_blank">launched in the UK two weeks ago</a>.<br />
Politicians concerned about phone thefts urged Scotland Yard last
week to deploy community officers, dubbed “Pokemon plod”, to locations
where players gather to collect items and battle each other.<br />
<br />
Three students were robbed of their phones as they played the game in Manchester just days after its release.<br />
In America it was reported that armed robbers in Missouri were using the game to target victims in secluded areas.<br />
And <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/gaming/pokemon-go-player-calls-the-police-because-someone-stole-their-pokemon-a7142706.html" target="_blank">a player in Glouestershire</a> was criticised for wasting police time after they called 999 to report someone had “stolen their Pokemon”.<br />
Half an hour before the incident, police believe the same three
suspects robbed a 24-year-old man as he entered the park on foot.<br />
<br />
<span itemprop="name"><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/author/katie-forster" title="Katie Forster">Katie Forster</a></span><br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/katieforster">@katieforster</a><time data-microtimes="{"published":"1469869800000","display":0,"changed":"1469892211000"}" datetime="16:23, 30 July 2016"> </time><br />
<time data-microtimes="{"published":"1469869800000","display":0,"changed":"1469892211000"}" datetime="16:23, 30 July 2016">Saturday 30 July 2016</time></div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">123456</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08469222206697162450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3612133.post-71770248736868943002016-08-01T08:40:00.004+00:002016-08-01T08:40:49.199+00:00Google Offers Webform To Comply With Europe’s ‘Right To Be Forgotten’ Ruling<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
Live in the European Union and want some old, irrelevant info about
you deleted from search results? Google has now implemented a <a href="https://support.google.com/legal/contact/lr_eudpa?product=websearch#" target="_blank">search removal request mechanism</a> for people living in Europe who believe it has indexed information about them that they have a right to remove.<br />
The arrival of the <a href="https://support.google.com/legal/contact/lr_eudpa?product=websearch#" target="_blank">webform</a> — which was put online earlier this morning — for users to request data be removed follows a European Court Of Justice ruling <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2014/05/13/forget-me-not/">earlier this month</a> which
said that Google must respect a “right to be forgotten” and, at the
request of private individuals, remove “irrelevant” and outdated
information that contravenes an EU privacy directive concerning the way
personal data is processed.<br />
The ruling was triggered by a complaint by a Spanish man who was
seeking to have results related to his name and a property closure
removed from the search engine.<br />
Earlier this month, following the Court of Justice ruling, it <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2014/05/15/google-gets-new-requests-to-be-forgotten-following-ruling-plans-request-mechanism-for-germany/">emerged</a>
that Google was already receiving requests for search content removal —
albeit, the listed examples were from a convenient trio of what sounded
like unsavory types: an ex-politician looking to be re-elected and
wanting links detailing bad behavior in office removed; a doctor wanting
to erase negative reviews from patients; and a convicted paedophile
wanting details of his court conviction for possession of child abuse
images taken down.<br />
Which does rather smell like a controlled leak on Google’s part, in
an effort to generate negative publicity about the Court of Justice
ruling.<br />
The ruling is certainly controversial, though — with outspoken
critics including freedom of speech rights groups such as the Open
Rights Group, and <a href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/eu-google-ruling-wikipedias-jimmy-wales-ridicules-right-be-forgotten-1448570" target="_blank">Wikipedia’s Jimmy Wales</a>, to name a few.<br />
Wales <a href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/eu-google-ruling-wikipedias-jimmy-wales-ridicules-right-be-forgotten-1448570" target="_blank">dubbed it</a> “ridiculous”
and “very bizarre”, pointing out that it could lead to a scenario where
a newspaper can publish information but a search engine can’t link to
it. Or that a smaller search engine with no business footprint in Europe
is able to display information that a larger search engine such
as Google can’t. Censorship of information is the specter that critics
of the ruling are invoking.<br />
On the other side of the argument are the privacy rights of
individuals, which have often been trampled over by companies in the
rush to build increasingly lucrative digital businesses by amassing and
storing mountains of data about users.<br />
The sophistication of the technology tools that automatically sift
data means that personal information that might have naturally faded
into the background in previous eras, when, for instance, old copies of a
newspaper became harder to come by, ends up hanging around in the
public domain for far longer than it perhaps should. Hence the ‘right to
be forgotten’.<br />
For now, the Court ruling has sided with the latter argument — and
its judgement is immediately enforceable, explaining why Google has
needed to act quickly to put a process in place to deal with requests
made under the ruling.<br />
There is also evidently an appetite among Europeans to edit their
Google search history, with the company telling TechCrunch it has
already received “a few thousand” requests.<br />
Google’s compliance mechanism for the ruling is a <a href="https://support.google.com/legal/contact/lr_eudpa?product=websearch#" target="_blank">webform</a>
where users in the European Union can provide details about
the information they believe they have a right to remove under European
Data Protection Law.<br />
The form notes that Google will then make a judgement on whether a request meets the specification of the law.<br />
<blockquote>
In implementing this decision, we will assess each
individual request and attempt to balance the privacy rights of the
individual with the public’s right to know and distribute information.
When evaluating your request, we will look at whether the results
include outdated information about you, as well as whether there’s a
public interest in the information—for example, information about
financial scams, professional malpractice, criminal convictions, or
public conduct of government officials.</blockquote>
Google’s wording suggests it is continuing to kick against the
judgement — as it flags up the “public interest” argument, by giving
examples where “outdated information” may still be pertinent in the eyes
of the general public (fraud, malpractice, misconduct in public office
and so on).<br />
The difficulty of making such assessments also suggests the process
could become extremely unwieldy for Google if the number of information
take-down requests grows further — since, by nature, the process
requires a case-by-case approach and can’t be automated.<br />
Those requesting information removal are required to verify their
identity by submitting a copy of an identity document such as a driver’s
licence, national ID card or other photo ID.<br />
Google’s process allows for acting authorized agents to submit
requests on behalf of others provided they are in possession of the
requisite identity and authorization documents — which does open up the
possibility that a cottage industry of search removal request businesses
could spring up offering to comb through your search history and submit
requests on your behalf.<br />
In an emailed statement provided to TechCrunch, Google revealed that
as well as working with local data protection authorities in European
countries, it is creating an “expert advisory committee” to help it
navigate the judgement process. Which probably means more lucrative work
for privacy lawyers.<br />
Google’s statement follows below:<br />
<blockquote>
“To comply with the recent European court ruling, we’ve
made a webform available for Europeans to request the removal of results
from our search engine. The court’s ruling requires Google to make
difficult judgments about an individual’s right to be forgotten and the
public’s right to know. We’re creating an expert advisory committee to
take a thorough look at these issues. We’ll also be working with data
protection authorities and others as we implement this ruling.”</blockquote>
<strong>Update: </strong>Google has named the following as confirmed members of its expert advisory committee so far:<br />
<ul>
<li>Frank La Rue (UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression)</li>
<li>Peggy Valcke (Director, University of Leuven law school)</li>
<li>Jose Luis Piñar (former Spanish DPA, now an academic)</li>
<li>Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia)</li>
<li>Luciano Floridi (information ethics philosopher at Oxford Internet Institute</li>
</ul>
It’s worth emphasizing that Google’s expert committee is entirely
self selected, so while advisors are being drawn from outside Mountain
View, their views are likely to align with Mountain View’s.<br />
Or, to put it another way:<br />
<strong>Update 2: </strong><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/reding/multimedia/news/2014/05/20140531_en.htm" target="_blank">Commenting</a>
on Google’s move to comply with the Court of Justice ruling, European
Commission VP Viviane Reding noted that it was long overdue, given that
the core data protection law dates back to 1995.<br />
“It is a good development that Google has announced that it will
finally take the necessary measures to respect European law. It was
about time since European data protection laws exist since 1995. It took
the European Court of Justice to say so. The right to be forgotten and
the right to free information are not foes but friends,” she said in a
statement.<br />
“The move demonstrates that fears of practical impossibility raised before were unfounded,” Reding added.<br />
<div class="pullquote-wrap ">
<blockquote class="pullquote">
Data protection is the business model of the future.</blockquote>
<span class="pullquote-author-pos">— Viviane Reding</span></div>
She went on to emphasize that the law is about striking “the right balance” between freedom of expression and data protection.<br />
“It’s not about protecting one at the expense of the other but
striking the right balance in order to protect both. The European Court
made it clear that two rights do not make a wrong and has given clear
directions on how this balance can be found and where the limits of the
right to be forgotten lie. The Court also made clear that journalistic
work must not be touched; it is to be protected,” she said.<br />
Reding also talked up the opportunity for startups to “build strong
and innovative businesses on the basis of offering true data
protection”.<br />
“Legal certainty and empowering consumers to manage their data can
yield steady revenues and profits. Data protection is the business model
of the future. There is a whole world of business waiting for companies
wishing to seize this opportunity,” she said.<br />
by <a href="https://techcrunch.com/author/natasha-lomas/" rel="author" title="Posts by Natasha Lomas">Natasha Lomas</a> <span class="twitter-handle">(<a href="https://twitter.com/riptari" rel="external">@riptari</a>)</span></div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">123456</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08469222206697162450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3612133.post-19987486999743972892016-08-01T08:37:00.000+00:002016-08-01T08:37:11.940+00:00It’s okay for Pikachu to watch you — as long as you want it to<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Millions who downloaded the new Pokémon Go app are living in a brave,
new, augmented reality world. For the early adopters (meaning apparently
<em>everyone you know</em>) on iOS devices, it meant unknowingly granting Pokémon Go the permission to fully access their Google accounts.<br />
<br />
You’ve got to risk it all to catch ‘em all, right?<br />
Wrong. Thankfully Niantic, the company that developed Pokémon Go,
acknowledged the mistake and issued a fix. Pokémon Go modified its
implementation to request only “basic profile data” — user ID and email
address — from Google accounts.<br />
This brings me some peace of mind as my 15-year-old roams the park,
my office, the supermarket and the park again in search of furry
creatures. Yet, although the company’s <a href="https://www.nianticlabs.com/privacy/pokemongo/en/" target="_blank">privacy policy</a>
is thorough, I am left with the lingering sense of unease I feel with
almost every other app. I am okay with their treatment of my son’s data
today, but it’s up to the company if they want to change the way they
use or share his data tomorrow.<br />
Developers need to collect data from users to create apps and
experiences like Pokémon Go, but we often feel resigned to choose
between Pikachu or privacy. A University of Pennsylvania<a href="https://www.asc.upenn.edu/sites/default/files/TradeoffFallacy_1.pdf" target="_blank"> study</a> published
last year found that 58 percent of Americans have come to accept that
they have little control over what companies can learn about them, even
though they would like to be in control.<br />
It doesn’t have to be this way. Businesses must be intentional,
responsible and clear about the data they collect, and provide their
customers with real choices. Powerlessness breeds mistrust, and a system
based on mistrust benefits no one. On the other hand, earned trust
drives adoption and lasting success.<br />
There are three simple steps companies can take to earn trust:<br />
<ul>
<li>
<strong>Stay lean.</strong> Do you need to know when someone is
scheduled for a doctor’s visit? Do you need access to their 27 selfies
in front of a national monument? Focus on the data you need and leave
the rest alone.</li>
<li>
<strong>Build in security.</strong> There is no one-size-fits-all
security solution. The volume and type of data to which your company has
access will determine the appropriate security measures.</li>
<li>
<strong>Engage your consumers.</strong> Help people see the value you’re
bringing to them by using their data. Chances are they will be happy to
trade in their data for a customized experience.</li>
</ul>
This doesn’t mean consumers are off the hook. We shouldn’t just shrug
and breeze through privacy notices accepting whatever permission levels
are required. We don’t realize just how powerful we can be if we take
full ownership of our data. Replace “data” with the word “dollars” and
the value exchange becomes a lot more tangible. Indifference and
inaction toward data collection become a lot more absurd. Information is
currency.<br />
As the lifeblood of any business, consumers have a unique opportunity
to leverage their trust as a way to regain control of their data.
Opting out is the most direct path, but not necessarily the right one
for you (or the most fun).<br />
Here are a few other things people can do to take back control of their data:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Learn about and use the privacy and security settings on your computer and phone and help others to understand how they work.</li>
<li>Take it to social media and spread the word about the companies that
do great things, as well as those that do “bad things” around data.</li>
<li>Support organizations that advocate for better privacy, and use products built with a focus on privacy.</li>
</ul>
Today I am choosing to trust Pokémon Go with my son’s data, because I
have read and understood the terms. But I am just one person, and I
happen to be a lawyer. In the long term, we need a commitment from both
companies and consumers to make conscious choices about data.<br />
<br />
by <a href="https://techcrunch.com/contributor/denelle-dixon-thayer/" rel="author" title="Posts by Denelle Dixon-Thayer">Denelle Dixon-Thayer</a></div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">123456</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08469222206697162450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3612133.post-46057146929074516952016-05-29T22:46:00.002+00:002016-05-29T22:46:29.047+00:00Facebook begins tracking non-users around the internet<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 data-remote-admin-entry-id="11559289" data-remote-headline-edit="summary">
Company begins displaying cookie warnings for European users after expanding ad network </h2>
Facebook will now display ads to web users who are not members of its social network, the company <a href="http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2016/05/bringing-people-better-ads/">announced</a> Thursday, in a bid to significantly expand its online ad network. As <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-wants-to-help-sell-every-ad-on-the-web-1464321603"><i>The Wall Street Journal</i> reports</a>,
Facebook will use cookies, "like" buttons, and other plug-ins embedded
on third-party sites to track members and non-members alike. The company
says it will be able to better target non-Facebook users and serve
relevant ads to them, though its practices have come under criticism
from regulators in Europe over privacy concerns. Facebook began
displaying a banner notification at the top of its News Feed for users
in Europe today, alerting them to its use of cookies as mandated under
an <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm">EU directive</a>.<br />
"Publishers and app developers have some users who aren’t Facebook
users," Andrew Bosworth, vice president of Facebook’s ads and business
platform, tells the <i>Journal</i>. "We think we can do a better job powering those ads."<br />
<q class="center">"we have a greater opportunity than other companies."</q><br />
Targeted advertising has become commonplace across the internet, but
Facebook believes it can more accurately target non-members using the
vast amounts of data it already has on the nearly 1.7 billion people who
use the site. The company says it can use that data to make inferences
about the behavior of non-members, an approach known as "lookalike"
targeting. "Because we have a core audience of over a billion people [on
Facebook] who we do understand, we have a greater opportunity than
other companies using the same type of mechanism," Bosworth tells the <i>Journal</i>.<br />
Facebook and Google continue to dominate targeted online advertising, as a <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/18/11692228/google-facebook-web-tracking-survey-advertising">report from Princeton University</a>
showed last week, though Facebook's use of cookies has come under fire
from European regulators who say it violates consumer privacy laws. An
independent <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/31/8319411/facebook-tracking-cookies-eu-report">report</a>
from the Belgian Privacy Commission last year criticized Facebook for
tracking users who had logged out, as well as those who didn't even have
an account. (Facebook disputed the report's findings, and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/10/facebook-admits-it-tracks-non-users-but-denies-claims-it-breaches-eu-privacy-law">attributed the tracking to a bug</a>.) Earlier this year, the French data protection agency <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/9/10950768/facebook-france-data-transfer-privacy-order">ordered</a>
the company to allow users to opt-out of sharing their personal data
with advertisers, and to better inform non-users that their behavior was
being tracked when visiting Facebook pages.<br />
Facebook updated its <a href="https://www.facebook.com/policies/cookies/">cookies policy page</a> on Thursday to reflect the changes to its ad network. Users with a Facebook account can opt-out of the ad scheme by <a href="https://www.facebook.com/settings/?tab=ads">adjusting their settings</a>, while non-Facebook members can opt-out through the <a href="http://www.aboutads.info/choices/">Digital Advertising Alliance</a> in the US, the <a href="http://youradchoices.ca/">Digital Advertising Alliance</a> in Canada, and the <a href="http://www.youronlinechoices.eu/">European Interactive Digital Advertising Alliance</a> in Europe.</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">123456</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08469222206697162450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3612133.post-67879816295819967252016-05-29T22:45:00.000+00:002016-05-29T22:45:00.284+00:00Serpent-like malware targets your bank account<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="group" itemprop="articleBody">
<h2 class="subheadlines" itemprop="headline">
GozNym stays 'asleep' until you access your money. </h2>
If you think you can rely solely on your bank’s
internet security to protect you, think again. Researchers at IBM
Security have uncovered new malware that targets consumers in order to
steal money from their accounts.<br />
“We already know of $4 million that
was stolen by this malware,” said Etay Maor, an executive advisor with
IBM Security. The worst part: It's still out there.<br />
Maor led the Israel-based team that
discovered the malware, which has already been used against undisclosed
banks in the U.S., Canada and Europe. <br />
The virus, known as GozNym, is a
combination of two pieces of malware — one that infects the computer and
the other that waits silently like a serpent until the user visits the
website of a financial institution. <br />
“The criminal is sitting on the other end obtaining that info in real time,” Maor said. <br />
What’s really different about this
malware, according to Maor, is that it’s hard for researchers to even
analyze because hackers doubled the encryption. <br />
“When we first saw it, we were
saying something bad is happening here but we’ve never seen this before …
there are so many layers, we had to break in just to understand what it
was,” said Maor. <br />
It’s also much harder for anti-virus software and other solutions to detect it — leaving the end user completely in the dark.<br />
</div>
<div class="group-container ">
<div class="group" itemprop="articleBody">
Consumers' computers typically get infected with
GozNym by clicking on links in emails. (Right now, the virus appears to
be limited to PCs.) The email might be a message about a security
solution or update. If you click the link — you might think nothing
happened, but from that point on you are exposed.<br />
Maor and his team believe the hackers behind the new virus are located somewhere in Eastern Europe.<br />
“Don’t get this wrong, we are up against professional programmers … not kids," he said.<br />
While GozNym represents a new level of sophistication, viruses targeting financial institutions are not new. <br />
Just last year, 20 million financial
records were stolen by malware, Maor said. While exact losses are hard
to tally, by some estimates it could run into the billions of dollars.<br />
</div>
</div>
<div class="group-container ">
<div class="embed-container image" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject">
<img alt="551986589" height="298" src="http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/img/editorial/2015/05/21/102699258-GettyImages-551986589.530x298.jpg?v=1445941951" width="530" />
<div class="attribution">
Rafe Swan | Getty Images</div>
</div>
<div class="group" itemprop="articleBody">
</div>
</div>
<div class="group-container ">
<h4 class="subtitle">
How to protect yourself</h4>
<div class="group" itemprop="articleBody">
To guard yourself from GozNym and other viruses, do not click on links in any suspicious emails. <br />
Also, keep your operating system and
anti-virus software up-to-date. Software providers are in the process
of releasing updates that hopefully will disable GozNym. <br />
Another best practice is to avoid reusing passwords as this can let hackers into multiple accounts. <br />
You should also have two ways to
check your account balances, such as using paper statements, ATM
receipts or a mobile app in addition to online banking. <br />
The criminals behind GozNym are so
sophisticated they can change online banking websites to show full
balances even after funds have been transferred out.<br />
</div>
</div>
<div class="group-container last">
<h4 class="subtitle">
Catching the criminals</h4>
<div class="group" itemprop="articleBody">
Meanwhile, banks are working to protect consumer accounts. <br />
"The financial services industry
takes this very seriously," said Bill Nelson, president and CEO of the
Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis Center, a group set
up by the industry to share threat information, and which has 7,000
members. <br />
And while banks have tools in
place to battle against GozNym, "cybersecurity is a shared
responsibility between customers and the banks," according to Doug
Johnson, senior vice president for payments and cybersecurity at the
American Bankers Association.<br />
Law enforcement would like to bring the criminals to justice. <br />
"The FBI — along with our federal,
international and private sector partners — will continue to combat
cybercrimes, including those involving malware," a spokeswoman explained
in an email. <br />
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">123456</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08469222206697162450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3612133.post-31267523297966369052016-05-29T22:40:00.000+00:002016-05-29T22:40:44.439+00:00How to stay safe online: 15 ways to avoid being hacked<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
Every
month or so there is a new hack that affects millions of regular
people. Last year it was the TalkTalk hack. In 2016, the LinkedIn leak.<br />
Then there's malicious software, snooping eavesdroppers and small
time scammers that are targeting us on a daily basis through phones,
Wi-Fi and USB sticks. Staying secure online can feel like crossing a
minefield - and is daunting to many of us. But by mastering some simple
steps you can drastically improve your online security.<br />
<h3>
Never use the same password more than once</h3>
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/05/26/biometrics-will-replace-passwords-but-its-a-bad-idea/">Many of us are guilty</a> of having had the same password for every account for years and, even worse than that, the<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/01/26/most-common-passwords-revealed---and-theyre-ridiculously-easy-to/"> most common 25 passwords</a>
include "123456", "password", and "abc123". The best way to keep your
online accounts - from your internet banking to social media - secure is
to never use the same password more than once. <br />
<div class="htmlEmbed section">
<div class="html-embed component version-1">
<div class="component-content">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="articleBodyText section">
<div class="article-body-text component ">
<div class="component-content">
<span class="m_first-letter">U</span>se the above tips to pick a strong password that people won't be able to guess and run it through a<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/05/06/how-easy-is-it-to-guess-your-password-find-out-here/"> password tester</a>.<br />
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="htmlEmbed section">
<div class="html-embed component ">
<div class="component-content">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="articleBodyText section">
<div class="article-body-text component ">
<div class="component-content">
<span class="m_first-letter">C</span>reate a different password for each online account that you have and store them in a password manager, such as <a href="https://www.dashlane.com/" rel="nofollow">DashLane</a>, <a href="https://1password.com/" rel="nofollow">1Password </a>or <a href="https://lastpass.com/" rel="nofollow">LastPass</a>.
These services store passwords securely, save time from endlessly
typing them out when you log in, and can randomly generate keys for you.
<br />
Once you've set up a secure set of account logins make sure you don't share your passwords with anyone.<br />
<h3>
Check if you've been hacked</h3>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="articleBodyImage section">
<div class="article-body-image component " data-frz-ancestor="" data-frz-ratio="1.54" itemscope="" itemtype="https://schema.org/ImageObject">
<div class="component-content">
<figure>
<span class="article-body-image-image-container" data-frz-parent="" data-frz-ratio="1.54" style="background-image: url("http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/technology/2016/05/27/haveibeenpwned-large_trans++Ki6rltZFBXl4Naz-Z8Ky_8NXtncBiCS_RI2hsP-85oM.PNG");">
<img alt="have i been pwned web page" class="article-body-image-image" data-frz-ratio="1.54" data-lazy-loaded="true" height="207" itemprop="image" src="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/technology/2016/05/27/haveibeenpwned-large_trans++Ki6rltZFBXl4Naz-Z8Ky_8NXtncBiCS_RI2hsP-85oM.PNG" width="319" />
</span>
<figcaption>
<span class="article-body-image-copyright" itemprop="copyrightHolder">
<span class="article-body-image-copyright-label">Credit:</span>
have i been pwned
</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="articleBodyText section">
<div class="article-body-text component ">
<div class="component-content">
<span class="m_first-letter">I</span>f you're worried that you might
have been hacked or had any of your personal details compromised, it
would be wise to change your usernames and passwords immediately.
Before coming up with a string of new keys, though, you can use a
service such as <a href="https://haveibeenpwned.com/" rel="nofollow">have i been pwned</a> to find out if you have an account that has been compromised in a data breach.<br />
Enter an email address or username into the search bar and it will tell you if you've been a victim.<br />
<h3>
Stay up to date</h3>
Downloading software updates as and when they're available is a good
way to protect yourself. Software updates for computers, phones,
tablets, and other devices generally include improved security settings
and <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/03/22/upgrade-to-ios-93-now-to-protect-photos-and-videos-from-imessage/">patches that fix vulnerabilities</a>. This is also true of updates to any apps or programs that you have installed on those devices.<br />
To make sure you receive the updates as soon as they're available you
can enable automatic updates on your devices, often by looking
in Settings.<br />
<h3>
Check before you download</h3>
Before downloading apps onto your phone or software on your computer
do some research - check what it's asking for access to (look for apps
permissions in Settings), check an apps' rating in the iOS or Google
Play story, read reviews online, and <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/05/25/targeted-by-new-whatsapp-scam-heres-how-to-avoid-it/">make sure you're downloading the official version</a>.<br />
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="section videoPlayer">
<div class="js-video-player video-player component cq-dd-ooyala tmgv-bp-min-xxs tmgv-bp-min-xs tmgv-bp-max-sm tmgv-bp-max-md tmgv-bp-max-lg state-desktop-view" data-options="{ 'videoId': 'dhcWNteDrPzjTni4V5s4XO5m0x5Iaqrr', 'autoplay': false, 'autoscale': false, 'type': 'normal', 'exclusiveexpiry' : '', 'ooyalaOptions' : { 'overlayOptions': { 'share': true, 'embed': true, 'captions': true, 'fullscreen': true, 'endScreen': true, 'endScreenJson' : '/technology/technology.videos.7.json' } } }">
<div class="js-video-player__component-content component-content">
<span class="js-video-player__image-container video-player__image-container" data-frz-parent="" data-frz-ratio="null" style="background-image: url("http://17909.cdx.c.ooyala.com/dhcWNteDrPzjTni4V5s4XO5m0x5Iaqrr/promo270925339");">
<span class="video-player__image-controls-wrapper">
<span class="video-player__image-controls">
<span class="js-video-player__image-controls-title video-player__image-controls-title">Internet security: The five worst ever cyber hacks</span>
<span class="js-video-player__image-controls-play video-player__image-controls-play">Play!</span>
<span class="video-player__image-controls-duration">02:06</span>
</span>
</span>
</span>
<div class="js-video-player__player video-player__player" data-frz-aspect="1.7777777777777777" id="js-video-player-F8C3413B-2321-4C41-A780-4BFF3A33BBEB">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="articleBodyText section">
<div class="article-body-text component ">
<div class="component-content">
<h3>
Use anti-virus software</h3>
If you use a Windows computer you should protect it using anti-virus
software, such as AVG or Sophos. Make sure you regularly install the
updates and scan for malware. <br />
<h3>
Keep it private</h3>
Check the privacy settings on all of your social media accounts so
that only the people you want to share your information with can see it.
You can restrict what others see about you in the Setting sections of
your account.<br />
For example, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/03/18/five-tricks-to-take-back-your-privacy-on-facebook/">you can make your posts private on Facebook</a>, and <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/03/18/how-to-see-the-terrifying-things-google-knows-about-you/">restrict what Google can know about you.</a> Use a site like <a href="https://www.ghostery.com/why-ghostery/for-individuals/" rel="nofollow">Ghostery </a>to find out what websites are tracking you and easily block them.<br />
<h3>
Look for the padlock</h3>
When using secure online services, such as email, online shopping or
banking, and social media, always check there is a padlock symbol in
front of the URL, and that the web address begins "https://" before you
log in or register. Websites must pass certain security tests to be
accredited with the padlock, and the ‘s’ stands for ‘secure’.<br />
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="htmlEmbed section">
<div class="html-embed component version-1">
<div class="component-content">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="articleBodyText section">
<div class="article-body-text component ">
<div class="component-content">
<h3>
Watch what Wi-Fi you connect to</h3>
Make sure your home WiFi is protected with a strong password that
only you and your family know. When out and about never use a hotspot
that may be unsecured, especially when what you’re doing is personal or
private.<br />
<h3>
Beware of public mobile charging points</h3>
It's possible to <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/05/27/beware-public-mobile-charging-points---your-phone-can-be-hacked/">hack into a smartphone that is charging via USB in a public place,</a>
such as an airport, cafe or on public transport. To avoid being a
victim, only plug your phone into trusted computers when using a USB
cable.<br />
<h3>
Use encrypted messaging apps</h3>
End-to-end encrypted messaging apps such as WhatsApp, iMessage and
Telegram protect your privacy by masking the contents of your messages
from would-be eavesdroppers.<br />
<h3>
Be suspicious of your messages</h3>
Never open or forward a <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/12025831/Spot-the-scam-are-these-messages-from-banks-or-fraudsters.html">suspicious looking email</a>,
or respond to a social media message from someone you don't know. Watch
out for phishing emails and text messages that ask you to log in or
provide bank details.<br />
Companies, such as <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/05/03/iphone-owners-in-uk-targeted-with-icloud-text-message-scam/">Apple </a>and <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/05/25/targeted-by-new-whatsapp-scam-heres-how-to-avoid-it/">WhatsApp</a>, and <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/02/08/thousands-of-online-tax-returns-targeted-by-fraudsters1/">government services</a> will never email or text you to ask you to log into your account, provide bank details or download a program.<br />
<h3>
Type out web addresses</h3>
It's good practice to be suspicious of hyperlinks (particularly
shortened links) that come from outside sources, such as unknown senders
in an email. If you're asked to log into an account or provide payment
details, type out the URL yourself and go directly to the legitimate
site to make sure that you're not on a fake site that's designed to look
like the official one.<br />
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="htmlEmbed section">
<div class="html-embed component version-1">
<div class="component-content">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="articleBodyText section">
<div class="article-body-text component ">
<div class="component-content">
<h3>
Post in haste, repent at leisure</h3>
What goes online stays online so never say anything that could hurt, anger or endanger yourself or someone else.<br />
<h3>
Log off, log out</h3>
Always make sure you log out of your accounts when you’ve finished
with them and log off a computer when you’ve finished using it.<br />
<h3>
Be a clever dater</h3>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="htmlEmbed section">
<div class="html-embed component version-1">
<div class="component-content">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="articleBodyText section">
<div class="article-body-text component ">
<div class="component-content">
<span class="m_first-letter">W</span>ith <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/better/technology/what-are-the-best-dating-apps-and-should-i-be-using-any-of-them/">hundreds of thousands of us turning to dating apps every day</a> in the quest to meet potential partners, there are a few ways to make sure you don’t put yourself in a compromised position.<br />
Try to avoid disclosing private information when using online dating
sites, and take every precaution that profiles you are looking at are
genuine. Never be tempted to send or transfer money to people you meet
online, however unfortunate their story.<br />
<h3>
Use your common sense</h3>
If an email offer looks too good to be true, the prices on a website
are abnormally low or you receive an unsolicited telephone call offering
computer support, it's probably a scam.<br />
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="htmlEmbed section">
<div class="html-embed component version-1">
<div class="component-content">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="articleBodyText section">
<div class="article-body-text component ">
<div class="component-content">
<i><strong><span class="m_first-letter"><br /></span></strong></i><strong><i></i></strong>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">123456</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08469222206697162450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3612133.post-35366437988268035282016-05-29T22:35:00.003+00:002016-05-29T22:35:52.426+00:00Life under curfew for American teens: ‘it’s insane, no other country does this’<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Around 11 pm, on a temperate Friday last August, Officer Troy Owens was patrolling south-eastern San Diego. Peering through his driver’s side window into the darkness, he scanned the streets until his eyes stopped on the corner of 47th and Market. “Somebody trying to hide from me?” he wondered aloud. “Yup,” he answered, swinging the SUV around, and turning on the flashing lights.<br />Owens, who has worked for the San Diego police department for nearly 20 years, pulled toward the curb and got out of his car. As he approached, three teenagers slowly slunk out from behind an electrical box: a boy, David, 15, whose identity, along with those of other minors, is being protected, and two girls. Heads hanging, shoulders slouched, they knew they were caught. All three were soon searched, handcuffed, and put in the back of cars for the ride to the command post – a local Boys & Girls Club.<br />Were the teenagers picked up for using drugs? No. Drinking? No. Had they fled a store without paying for their goods? Hardly. Their crime: being out past curfew.<br />In San Diego, it’s illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to be out past 10pm. And, that night, Officer Owens was part of a “curfew sweep”, where teams of officers fan out and enforce the law en masse. The city runs these details roughly once a month in each of its nine districts, sometimes arresting dozens of kids a night. David and his friends said they were just walking home. But that isn’t one of the exceptions – like a school sports game or a job – so Owens read him his Miranda rights.<br />Conceived as a crime-reduction tactic, curfews were promoted during the “tough on crime” era of the 1990s. In 1996, President Bill Clinton flew out to Monrovia, California – among the first cities to claim curfew success – to publicly endorse the idea at the local high school. From there, they spread like wildfire and remain in place decades later. <br />From Baltimore, which has one of the strictest curfews in the country, to Denver, where curfew enforcement ramps up every summer, the laws are on the books in hundreds of cities across the US. According to available FBI data, there were 2.6m curfew arrests from 1994 and 2012; that’s an average of roughly 139,000 annually. Philadelphia alone reported 16,079 violations in 2014 – among the highest in the country.<br />As the curfew laws and arrests proliferated, however, the debate about their impact simmered largely out of view. Congress left curfews unaddressed in pending juvenile justice legislation and, today, the question remains: are they the best approach?<br />“It’s insane. No other country does this,” said Mike Males, a senior researcher for the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice and curfew critic who would like to see the practice come to an end. In his research, he says he hasn’t seen “any evidence” that they’re effective; instead chalking up their use to political expediency. “Curfews became this way of responding that both blamed young people and didn’t affect adults.”<br />An American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) case study of Minneapolis found the city’s curfew to be racially biased – with 56% of curfew charges coming against black youth compared with 17% for their white counterparts, despite the city being majority white. Males says that he’s found a similar pattern nationally. “They’re always racially discriminatory,” he said. “We have not found a single exception to that.”<br />Tau Baraka owns the Imperial Barbershop just down the road from the Boys & Girls Club. He’s lived here in south-east San Diego for years and views curfew sweeps as part of a broader police assault on the predominantly non-white community. “I worry,” he said, emphasizing that between curfew sweeps and gang enforcement details, “we see our youth being harassed daily.”<br />Proponents, however, argue that curfews help prevent young people from becoming either perpetrators or victims of nighttime crime. “This is an important way of helping kids stay safe and stay out of trouble,” said San Diego city council member Marti Emerald. “If we can help one child in their struggle then I think that we have to say the program is at least a partial success.”<br />When they arrived at the command post, police took down David’s name, age and contact information. Two new cadets were in charge of logging his possessions, and putting them in a bag for safekeeping. After Officer Owens filled out a police report, he swapped David’s metal handcuffs for plastic ones and moved him to a chair in the middle of the auditorium. Girls on one side, boys on the other; all waiting for a “responsible adult” to pick them up.<br />As for punishment, curfew violators are offered a diversion program, upon completion of which their case is dropped. “We try to do a proper assessment of the whole situation,” said Lt Evan Ziegler, with the department’s juvenile administration. When kids come to class, police can also connect them to social services, job training or activities that aim to keep them otherwise engaged.<br />In the south-eastern division, free diversion classes are held on Tuesday evenings and range from a juvenile judge talking about the court system to corrections officers detailing what life in “the hall” is like. The six-week course finishes with a visit from the coroner, whose slideshow from the morgue paints a grisly picture of the worst-case scenario. Parents are required to attend a separate set of classes, which are held in both English and Spanish.<br />“At least [the police] got them,” said one mom, as week two of the diversion program let out. Two of her sons were picked up for breaking curfew. “They’re with them. They’re not out there,” she said in support of curfews before rushing off to pick up her other child – a move that alludes to what can often be the complex reality of curfew violations.<br />Police have stopped three of Michelle Ruiz’s kids. One got a ride home, another was offered diversion and the third was sent to court and fined. “I understand that they’re doing it for our kids’ safety,” said Ruiz. “[But] it makes it harder for us.” She says that multiple jobs, single parenting and a myriad of other challenges can make it difficult to monitor kids’ adherence to curfews or complete subsequent diversion programs. The inconsistency has left Ruiz unsure whether curfews are having a net-positive effect.<br />Kids in San Diego seem to be conflicted about curfews as well. Even though she’s been caught twice, Ashley, 19, generally endorses the law. “What’s there out after certain times?” she asked, rhetorically. “Trouble.” But, she notes, her interactions with police were far from enjoyable and she still gets stopped sometimes just because she looks underage. “It was really kind of scary to have them treat you like a hardened criminal.”<br />Brian and his friend Demareé, both 16, are fairly indifferent. They were waiting for the trolley at about 9pm but weren’t nervous about the looming curfew. “I do my best to stay inside,” said Brian. “But, for the most part, no one really cares.” In common refrain, Demareé adds that he hadn’t even known there was a curfew law until he got stopped coming home from a party. Officers let him off with a ride home.<br />Tonight though, leniency was in short supply. “Happy hunting,” was how commanding officer, Sgt Jay Moser, kicked off the sweep at the Boys & Girls Club. By 10.13pm four kids were under arrest and six more came in throughout the night. That’s an average number, says Moser. Some nights it’s higher – the division record is about 50. Others it’s lower, especially recently. “That’s not a failure,” Lt Ziegler says of the decline in numbers, which is probably a combination of police getting the word out about curfews and kids becoming more savvy at avoiding sweeps. “Basically it means that we’re doing our jobs.”<br />Bardis Vakili with the ACLU of San Diego questions the premise that curfews, and curfew sweeps, are the best tactic. Calling the approach “very heavy-handed”, he says that it has a lasting effect on kids. “[What is does] is cite them, offer diversion programs that are difficult to complete, and ends up in involvement in the criminal justice system,” he said, suggesting expanded after-hours options for youth instead. At the very least, he would liked to see “a real dialogue” around the topic.<br />One problem is that analysis of curfews is relatively scant, and opinions often fall in the more emotional realm. “It’s a gut-level sort of response,” said Councilmember Emerald, when asked about her support for the laws. “It’s not real scientific, is it?” The data though, does exist, with the California Criminal Justice Statistics Center (CJSC) keeping detailed statistics stretching from 1980 to 2014.<br />While officials in San Diego reject the notion of racial bias in the city’s curfew law, a Guardian analysis clearly shows that it has a disproportionate impact on minorities, especially Hispanics. In 2010, Hispanic youth accounted for 59% of all curfew arrests, as opposed to 16% for white youth. Comparatively, census figures for the same year put the city’s population at 28.8% Hispanic and 45.1% white. The data also shows that diversion programs are indeed keeping more kids of all races out of the courts. In 2011, a majority of curfew cases were handled within the department for the first time in decades. That trend has continued, with only about a third of curfew cases going to juvenile probation 2014.<br />As to whether the curfew actually reduces crime, critical findings like Males’s are often countered with University of California professor Patrick Kline’s research, which concludes that “curfews are effective at reducing both violent and property crimes.” The Voice of San Diego took perhaps the closest look at the situation locally.<br />A 2012 article challenges the alleged benefits, finding that “neighborhoods without the sweeps have reported greater drops in crime in the last five years than those with them.” Males says that, again, he’s seen a similar, broader, pattern in his research. Noting that between truancy laws and curfews kids could conceivably only be allowed outside for a few hours a day, he says, “the underlying assumption [is] that most youth are criminals.”<br />For the officers and volunteers at the Boys & Girls Club, however, there’s a palpable sense of accomplishment. Packing up and turning off the lights, they head home for the night with a hope that they’ve helped “just one kid” – even if the public is more skeptical. “What are the results?” asks one agitated patron at the Imperial Barbershop. “When you come over here with a heavy police presence – a military presence – the community deserves to know.” Regardless, with summer vacation on the way, curfew enforcement is soon set to ramp up again across America.</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">123456</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08469222206697162450noreply@blogger.com0