Author Archives: Geoff

Project Souvenir Part Two: Anything for National Security

Posted on by
4

In this post we’ll apply the analysis discussed in part one to what is open source intelligence about Project Souvenir with the goal to decipher if this should be investigated officially based on the evidence that it may be a false flag operation carried out by elements within the national security establishment.

Sting vs. Inside Job

Many will claim Project Souvenir is a sting operation and that such an operation is not a false flag.  Sting operations are just a few steps removed from entrapment and ultimately sit on the spectrum of inside jobs.  The security establishment likes to sucker people into shades of grey.  How about we don’t embark down the slippery slope that leads to full on corruption?  There’s a reason countries like Sweden do not allow stings.  They are fraught with ethical concerns.  In this author’s opinion calling it a sting operation does nothing to deter me from the fact it is ultimately an inside job / false flag operation.  It is too easy to coerce some dumb or drugged up patsy into some illegal activity and use them as a scapegoat or cover!

Cui bono? (To whose benefit?)

Whether staged or not, it is indisputable that the agencies and departments whose programs and funding will be legitimized and/or boosted from security breaches and terrorism have a clear benefit and thus a motive to potentially create, aid and puff up threats and incidents. With Project Souvenir we see the following entities and programs taking benefit:

  • RCMP
  • CSIS
  • Canadian Border Protection Agency (CBP)
  • National Security Information Network
  • Integrated National Security Enforcement Team (INSET).
  • War on Terror
  • Domestic surveillance
  • In general, government authority

Following are five primary examples of grandstanding, posturing and directing of benefit from Project Souvenir by people in the government:

1. B.C. Premier Christy Clark took opportunity to puff up the threat:

“My suspicion is they wanted to cause as much damage as they possibly could, because they want to be able to take control of our streets, our cities, our institutions, and we will not allow that.”

We also see general tugging at the heart strings of Canadian patriotism with Clark praising the work of police investigators saying that terrorists

“will not succeed in tearing down the values that make this country strong”.

Analysis: This reminds me of post 9/11, Bush-era War on Terror rhetoric and it certainly is a continuation of the War on Terror narrative to say the least.  They hate our freedoms and our democracy everyone… let’s stand together in support of the great leadership of our “officials” and trust blindly those who operate under cover of secrecy courtesy of public funding. As well, we should not forget that John Nuttall and Amanda Korody are alleged culprits at this stage and have not been convicted!  I find it incredible that an high ranking public servant can publicly speak as if the guilty verdict has already been served.  If Nuttall and Korody are not sentenced they should certainly launch law suits at key talking heads that have clearly forgotten the common law principle of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

2. Reporting in the Economist a day following the RCMP briefing said:

So far there has not been a large-scale attack on Canadian soil. But the latest incident might jolt federal authorities into reversing some planned cuts to the police and security services.

Analysis: More funding for the guys to conduct more stings.

3. As we saw earlier, Vic Toews called for applause of the national security joint task force (INSET), as follows:

The success of this operation was due to the close collaboration of our security and law enforcement agencies, including CSIS [Canadian Security Intelligence Service].  I would like to applaud the RCMP-led Integrated National Security Enforcement Teams — known as INSET — and all of the partners for their outstanding work on this investigation.”

Analysis: Legitimizing domestic operation of intelligence agencies, domestic surveillance, and the duty of national security operations.  It also paves the way for destructive militarization of law enforcement.

4. Repeatedly, the assertion was made in the RCMP briefing that the alleged bombing was inspired by al-Qaeda. But at the same time stating al-Qaeda inspiration they further noted there were no “international linkages” and the two alleged culprits were “self-radicalized”. However, don’t forget, it’s an al-Qaeda inspired plot. Doublethink anyone?

Analysis: Force fitting the War on Terror narrative, re-emphasizing the omniscient threat of al-Qaeda.

5. Finally, RCMP Assistant Commissioner James Malizia uses the crisis to promote a homeland security program, saying,

“It is very important that Canadians remain vigilant. We urge the public to bring any suspicious activities to the RCMP’s attention through our national security information network.”

Analysis: If you see something, say something… provided it fits our narrative.  This citizen spy atmosphere, as if taken from the Stasi or Nazi SS, must be a product of the “harmonized” homeland security initiatives that have been agreed to in secret between Canada and the U.S.  “Beyond the border vision” anyone?

Consider this motive for RCMP and Public Safety

Before we look further at stronger indicators of potential corruption, let’s examine a final point on cui bono: The RCMP’s stated target for the number of times it intends on disrupting “terrorist criminal activities”. The RCMP effectively has a quota of six (6) times where they are expected to prevent terrorism in Canada in a specified period. You can see it on page 19 of the RCMP’s Report on Plans and Priorities 2013-14. You might ask: What if there aren’t incidents to disrupt? Well, clearly, we are back to having a clear motive for staging incidents and/or entrapping dumbies to achieve a certain benefit. As described in the document: 6 is the “Number of disruptions, through law enforcement actions, to the ability of a group(s) and/or an individual(s) to carry out terrorist criminal activity, or other criminal activity, that may pose a threat to national security in Canada and abroad”.

Consider the public relations opportunity

Just another point to consider, the RCMP press briefing and B.C. Premier Christy Clark’s public announcements related to Project Souvenir occurred on July 2, 2013, a day after Canada Day, Canada’s national celebration of its (supposed) independence.  On the heels of our most patriotic day, Clark’s rhetoric has an increased appeal.

Prior knowledge

Let us now turn our focus to evidence of prior knowledge.  For this, we find obvious leads in the RCMP’s own admissions during their July 2nd press briefing where Project Souvenir was first made public.

“The suspects were committed to acts of violence and discussed a wide variety of targets and techniques,” said Assistant Commissioner Wayne Rideout.

RCMP Assistant Commissioner James Malizia had other indicators in his written statement:

“These charges are the result of an RCMP investigation named Project Souvenir, which was launched in February 2013, based on information received from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.  These individuals were inspired by al-Qaeda ideology.  Our investigation demonstrated that this was a domestic threat without international linkages.  I want to reassure our citizens that at all times during the investigation our primary focus was the safety and protection of the public.  While the RCMP believes that this threat was real, at no time was the security of the public at risk.  These arrests are another example of the effectiveness of our Integrated National Security Enforcement Team who work tenaciously to prevent this plan from being carried out.  We detected the threat early and disrupted it.  On behalf of the RCMP, I want to express our appreciation to CSIS and all our partners for their tremendous support throughout this investigation.

Specific details are not public at this time, but it is clear that Nuttall and Korody were under surveillance.  When did surveillance begin?  I think it is fair to say that likely on or sometime before the February 2013 founding of the joint task force operation known as Project Souvenir, six months prior to the arrests, is when continual surveillance most likely began.  That’s a long time to have prior knowledge.

I also find it interesting that CSIS is the source on this entire investigation.  We just have to take the word of the guys who operate under total cover of secrecy and have a history of linkages to international secret societies, international criminal operations and have no real accountability to the public or elected representatives.  I’d love to investigate whether dark elements within or tied to CSIS promoted Nuttall and Korody out of some MK-ULTRA program and then tipped RCMP off to do their thing.  Evidence of handlers and mind control on Nuttall and Korody would support this working hypothesis.  (In part three of this series, we’ll look closer at Nuttall and Korody).

According to the RCMP’s narrative, let’s move on to see what they did with their prior knowledge.

Prior involvement

If there is evidence that folks from the intelligence community or law enforcement special operations units were involved in any aspect, from funding, training, aiding, cajoling, or otherwise participating, then you can start placing your bets on this being a false flag operation.

As reported by the Economist:

Investigators had apparently become close enough to the plot to render the bombs harmless.

This is somewhat eluded to in a statement by RCMP Assistant Commissioner James Malizia, as follows:

“At no time was the security of the public at risk,” said Malizia. “We detected the threat early and disrupted it.”

They disrupted it?  Well, skeptics of my analysis might say that disrupting it means they stopped it from happening when they presumably jumped out of the bushes to arrest the alleged bombers.  However, the RCMP confidently and clearly says that there was no security risk to the public, at any time!  The only way for this to be true is if undercover agents (agent provocateurs) were engaged with the improvised explosive device (IED) in advance of the arrest.  Assistant Commissioner Wayne Rideout clarifies for us with a more definitive statement:

“These devices were completely under our control, they were inert, and at no time represented a threat to public safety.”

Incredible!  “Completely under our control…”.  In order for this to be true, an undercover officer would have indeed had to have been hands on with the IED, possibly supplying it in the first place, and indeed quite close to Nuttall and Korody to gain their trust to participate in the plot.  How else could the RCMP be in complete control of the device and know it was inert?

During the July 2 press briefing, Mr. Rideout was asked about the techniques employed by undercover officers, specifically if they had acted as collaborators in the plot. Evasively Rideout said,

“I’m not prepared to go into the details of how we were able to disrupt and assure public safety, but there are a vast number of resources and specialty groups that are available to us. We employed most of them.”

Wow.  Tenacious.  Professionals.  Specialists.  High-end and sophisticated.  That’s the public relations image being projected here, but any thinking individual smells a rat and now has more questions than answers.

Conclusion

Project Souvenir has all the markings of a false flag operation. We have strong evidence (of prior knowledge and involvement) telling us there is a deeper back story here. We also have multiple and clear motives for this to be staged.  The suspects for staging such an incident have a history of employing such tactics and they are also deeply entwined with international counterparts that do as well. And we also have to factor in that the entities involved have the ability to operate with the cover of national security. As history has proven, secrecy breeds corruption.

If there is evidence of drills for a similar incident being run by local law enforcement during the time of this incident, then we have all the tell-tale signs of a false flag operation.

With deceptive tactics such as false flag operations, patsies and provocateurs regularly used by law enforcement, the intelligence community and black ops, we must not be quick to agree with the conclusions we’re being given in press briefings or shallow news reporting. We must remain healthy skeptics of government and we must investigate agencies that have a history of deception and law breaking. At this stage, I think it is obvious that the official story from the RCMP briefing must be transparently investigated by an independent third party.

In part three, we will take a closer look at Nuttall and Korody, the alleged bombers, and explore the issue of them playing patsy to this “operation”.

Project Souvenir Part One: Introduction to Critical Thinking in the Face of Government Hysteria

Posted on by
1

On July 2nd, 2013 the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) held a press conference to announce their success in thwarting an alleged homegrown terrorist attack that, according to their report, was to target the provincial legislature in British Columbia on Canada Day with an improvised explosive device (IED) made of pressure cookers. In the RCMP’s press briefing, they revealed that the proactive arrest of two alleged culprits came as a result of a 6-month joint task force investigation named Project Souvenir.

Following the press briefing, Minister of Public Safety (at the time) Vic Toews heralded Project Souvenir a successful “operation”. “The success of this operation was due to the close collaboration of our security and law enforcement agencies, including CSIS [Canadian Security Intelligence Service],” he said. “I would like to applaud the RCMP-led Integrated National Security Enforcement Teams — known as INSET — and all of the partners for their outstanding work on this investigation.” The “partners” in question were named as RCMP, CSIS and Canadian Border Protection Agency (CBP), but it is likely that Communication Security Establishment (CSE) (Canada’s NSA equivalent) would have also been involved.

From July 2nd to July 4th major news outlets like the CBC, BBC, the Economist and others published articles with consistent talking points, which were mostly parroted from the RCMP press briefing. Across the board, news reporting supported the RCMP statements without question. Mainstream news reporting also went on to mention the other recent alleged terrorist acts by Canadians that were intercepted by “authorities”, as if to paint the picture that this is a growing trend in Canada.

At this point, I suppose we should all be happy. Perhaps we should even start to get comfortable with the government monitoring our communications because that’s how this rising threat of terrorism is going to be combatted, right?

The official narrative leans us towards the conclusion that the federal government is doing its job; that the national security apparatus is efficient; that sting operations are just and a great tactic for public safety. I suppose any other line of thinking would be heretical and nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

Unfortunately, Project Souvenir stinks for several obvious reasons which will be discussed in this series. It stinks of entrapment; a type of false flag operation; a self-inflicted wound.

In this post, part one of a series, we will establish an understanding of a false flag operation and look at how security incidents in general might be analyzed to decipher the potential of a false flag. Follow-on posts in this series will provide analysis of Project Souvenir in more specific detail.

What is a False Flag?

Let’s take a quick look at the definition, characteristics and reasons of a false flag operation.

Definition

Simply put, a false flag operation is an inside job with the design to place blame on a certain entity for purposes of some gain. False flag is a military term that originated in naval warfare, and the tactic has long been used in both hot war and peace-time clandestine operations.

Characteristics

There is a spectrum of false flags. Involvement can be extremely minimal, such as taking actions certain to create conditions for another party to react a certain way, thus indirectly generating an event to be used for gain. The far other end of the spectrum is the direct involvement and carrying out of an operation while posing as the entity to be blamed for the event.

Reasons

Rooted in Hegelian dialectic, a false flag operation is essentially a crisis to be leveraged for the realization of some goal. Undoubtedly, a real crisis can be leveraged for political gain; however, a staged or created crisis is useful just the same provided the true perpetrators are not exposed and the event is understood to be manufactured.

When a crisis occurs, with the pain fresh in the mind, people are malleable; more willing to sacrifice something that they believe will be a solution to the crisis. Think about it, because we’ve all been subject to false flags – even historical crisis that occurred before our birth can have an impact on our ideological perspectives and beliefs.

Historical examples

There are dozens of examples of false flags in modern history carried out by American, British, German, Japanese and other governments. Operation Ajax has been discussed on this site. Operation Northwoods is another great example. The Gulf of Tonkin incident is another.

In Nazi Germany, Nazi leadership employed false flag operations as a precursor to advancing a police state over the domestic population and as a means to building public support for military aggression. For instance, in 1939, German public support for war on Poland was manufactured by dressing prisoners from Nazi concentration camps in German soldier uniforms, then having the Gestapo gun them down, followed by propaganda that portrayed them as German soldiers murdered by Polish aggressors. The scandal is known as the Gleiwitz incident and is a great example of how the ruling class requires consent from the sheep-like public.

Common Indicators of a False Flag Operation

Following is a brief overview of the most common and obvious indicators that an event might be staged. Look for these things and these questions the next time a security incident is presented to you.

  1. The official story increases government power – Does the incident work as a catalyst or justification for new programs? Is it being positioned for use as a reason to increase funding for a program or department? Does it legitimize programs that are unpopular, under attack and would represent a significant loss of government power if overturned?
  2. The news media carries a common meme, avoids asking tough questions – Are the major news outlets failing to look at key evidence or ask tough and obvious questions? Are there logical fallacies that if discussed would oppose the government’s official storyline? When the incident first occurred, were significant leads reported that never again received any coverage?
  3. There is evidence of cover up activities – Are whistleblowers speaking out? Are people close to the issue saying something stinks and then these same people go quiet? Are public requests for information ignored or stonewalled? Has key evidence been destroyed? Where real corruption has occurred and the truth starts to come out, things like evidence destruction, intimidation tactics and mysterious suicides or disappearances will usually be observed.
  4. There is evidence of prior knowledge – If the “authorities” knew certain details in advance then we have to ask: Was it not stopped because of incompetence? Negligence? Evidence of prior knowledge can be an indicator that a stand down occurred, which would mean complicacy and thus an inside job at some level. More than a stand down, prior knowledge can also indicate that certain internal elements were involved in carrying out the incident.
  5. Evidence of prior involvement – Includes any type of assistance, facilitation or interaction in the event. If this is determined, then an investigation must be carried out by an independent and transparent body. Were the patsies trained by those responding? Was the device controlled by those responding? Were the attackers transported by those responding?
  6. There were drills being conducted at the same time the incident occurred – Through compartmentalization, an inside job will typically be conducted under the cover of drills. In other words, useful idiot elements within the department or community are involved in executing what appear to be standard drills. During the exercise(s), corrupt elements participating in or alongside the drill will conduct or facilitate the real attack. Those carrying out the drills have no idea that they are effectively providing cover for a false flag operation.

The following diagram depicts the indicators that a false flag operation is likely:

ProjectSouvenir

Conclusion

We need to question the official narrative on Project Souvenir and think critically about the information that is provided to us by those that stand to gain.  Not every security incident is an insider conspiracy; however, more often than not such “operations” as Project Souvenir are corrupt and will be used for political gain.

In the next post we will apply our analysis against what is known about Project Souvenir to ask the question: Are elements within the Canadian government conducting a false flag operation?

The New World Order Crowd Doesn’t Play Political Football – Part I

Posted on by
2

“We shall have world government whether or not you like it – by conquest or consent.” – Paul Warburg to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee during a hearing on February 17, 1952.

When most people in Western nations talk politics, it is usually over left-right issues.  And if it doesn’t start out as a left-right debate, it usually ends up that way.  The left loves to despise the right, and vice versa.  They shift blame to the other side instead of accepting responsibility.  The major media outlets each quietly but obviously take a side.  Talking heads and political pundits spew talking points for each camp.  Unfortunately for many, the world is viewed in unsophisticated political two-dimensional glasses: red state versus blue state.

The important issues of our day are more important than topics of political football.  The real power players in the world do not concern themselves in that game, although they fund it endlessly because it serves as a great distraction.  As Dr. Carroll Quiqley, Bill Clinton’s mentor, said in Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time:

“The chief problem of American political life for a long time has been how to make the two Congressional parties more national and international.  The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.”

Think about it for just a moment.  Regardless of who is in office your country maintains a central bank that continues on with the same flawed Keynesian monetary policies resulting in bigger and bigger deficits.  Taxes go up.  In foreign policy, things are the same regardless of who holds office.  Your privacy and basic liberties are being eroded by your government, for your security.  Wherever you are, your police are likely being militarized for crowd control under the auspices of terrorism.  Your media is not critical of your government.  Not vaccinating is frowned upon.  What we see today is exactly what Quiqley called for in 1966: that key policy issues for the long-range planners continue to advance regardless of who holds office.  And the fact we see common policies advancing throughout the world is clear evidence of central planning and coordination that supersedes nation states.

As Barry Goldwater noted in his book With No Apologies:

“When we change Presidents, it is understood to mean the voters are ordering a change in national policy.  With the exception of the first seven years of the Eisenhower administration, there has been no appreciable change in foreign or domestic policy direction.”

However, keep in mind that this really isn’t a recent phenomenon, that inside baseball is what really operates key policy issues in government.  Elitists have been fooling the general public with political football for a long time.  Centuries ago, monarchies throughout Europe had operatives establish Parliamentary bodies to quell the masses and to give them protection so that they could maintain their positions safely behind the curtain.  Bismark in Germany is a great example of this.  Quigley gives us another example in Tragedy and Hope, as follows:

“When the business interests, led by William C. Whitney, pushed through the first instalment of civil service reform in 1883, they expected that they would be able to control both political parties equally.  Indeed, some of them intended to contribute to both and to allow an alternation of the two parties in public office in order to conceal their own influence, inhibit any exhibition of independence by politicians, and allow the electorate to believe that they were exercising their own free choice.”

Before moving any further, I know this sounds like paranoid, radical talk of conspiracy theories.  However, any logical mind that researches into what’s going to be discussed in this series of posts will conclude that we are talking about conspiracy fact, not theories.  Be rational in your thinking and take the time to do your own research on what’s being discussed here to really discover this for yourself.  Keep in mind, that it requires you to put aside the false paradigm of democrat/republican, liberal/conservative, blue state/red state, and focus on the bigger picture geopolitical game.

A World Government, Really?

There is indeed a subversive movement to establish a world government.  I know at first that sounds farfetched and sensational.  It’s a complex agenda that’s been in the works for generations.  There is no shortage of evidence around this.  The people behind it are elitist authoritarians.  They are not misguided or well intentioned.  Thus, our real adversary in politics is not the opposition party but a sophisticated international network that works very hard to operate without fanfare from the general public and threatens to destroy freedom worldwide.

In other posts of this series, we’ll get into details about this network and what they mean when they so often refer to a New World Order.  For the remainder of this introductory post in this series, we’ll look at a recent example of world government in action.

The Bilderberg Group

Every year but one since 1954, European royal family members have met in secret with approximately 150 select attendees whose roles range from heads of state, top leaders of the military and the intelligence community, international bankers, CEOs of major corporations, as well as the heads of regulatory bodies.  The meetings are a total secret and are conducted under high levels of tax payer funded security.  Thanks to muckraking journalists like Jim Tucker (now deceased), Alex Jones and Daniel Estulin we have been able to scratch the surface of this secretive and undemocratic confab.

Interestingly, over the years, leaks have occurred from the Bilderberg group.  Moles have reported the meeting locations, which change each year, along with snippets of what gets discussed at the meetings.

Their goal: nothing short of world government.  As long time attendee, past Chairman and current Advisory Group of the Bilderberg meetings David Rockefeller has stated in his Memoirs (page 405):

“For more than a century idealogical extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions.  Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure–one world, if you will.  If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

Until it’s time, they labor to build their lofty designs under secrecy, outside the general public’s consciousness.  The European Union and Euro currency, admitted Bilderberg designs, are great examples of this group’s power and influence.

Although the agenda for world government and the existence of the elitist network behind it are fully out in the open for those who care to look, you will not see it discussed critically in the media and it will not be found in school text books.

8 years ago, protests outside of the Bilderberg meeting location totalled maybe 15 people.  Last year, in Chantilly, Virginia, hundreds of people protested outside the gates.  This year, in Watford, UK, it is being estimated that protesters peaked at over one thousand.  More and more, people are waking up to the real power structure and are no longer being side tracked by political football.

This undesired attention will however force a reaction.  Unlike any previous year (other than maybe a back-of-the-paper one-liner mention), mainstream media outlets including BBC, AP, Reuters, the Times, the Telegraph, Channel 4 News, and others in the UK have given this year’s Bilderberg meeting major news coverage.  Unfortunately, not all of it is critical and much of the mainstream (establishment) media is doing a coordinated effort at apologetics for the Bilderbergers while at the same time painting protesters as the paranoid fringe, conspiracy theorists.  In dozens of mainstream articles here in Canada and the U.S., we are seeing a common spin: that the Bilderberg meetings are completely harmless; no decisions are ever made; policy is not being set; that these meetings are a gathering of concerned citizens that want only world peace; that their reason for secrecy is so that attendees can speak freely, without the fear of being on the record.

Do you live in a free and open society when your elected public servants can disappear on the public dime for a three-day confab with some of the richest, most influential people?  People like David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger, who have talked relentlessly over past decades about their goal to create a New World Order, such as this example stated by Rockefeller:

“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”

Are you willing to trust that they are going to do what’s best for the public when public servants meet in total secrecy with top globalists?  Should regulators be meeting in secret meetings with those they regulate?  Does their creature the European Union and it’s unstable Euro currency not meet the legal definition of conspiracy?

I suppose if you’re fine with Bilderberg and their designs then you wouldn’t have any concern with lobbying scandals or price fixing scandals like Libor.

Common sense says in no way is this acceptable and in no way is any regional or world government a good thing for free humanity.  History and human nature tell us sternly that we’d be complete fools to allow this.

Stay tuned for more posts in this series…

Your Privacy Died Over a Decade Ago

Posted on by
Reply

This is a follow-up post to my last on the topic of privacy and government surveillance.  In this post we’ll look at some government programs and technologies to prove that privacy has long been dead.  We’ll unfortunately only scratch the surface of what the total surveillance state is capable of (more posts on this topic will follow).  My aim for now is to educate those that are not yet aware of their privacy’s death.  That is, those whose minds are still in the matrix.

A good starting point

If you think it’s not possible for the government to intercept, query and rank ALL electronic communications, then let’s look at some recent admissions by public servants (aka. “government officials”) that claim this is exactly what they are doing.  (With some quick research you’ll find more whistleblowers on this.)

Just this past week, a former FBI counterterrorism agent was twice on CNN admitting that all phone calls are essentially archived and can be called up and listened to as needed. You can watch the clips of him saying this here.

Corroborating this, NSA whistleblower William Binney made headline news last year over his resignation from the NSA in 2001 because of their unconstitutional practices.  Binney was reportedly one of the best mathematicians and code breakers the NSA ever had and he worked for DoD’s foreign signals intel agency for over 30 years.  He resigned because the U.S. government began violating the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights (remember the PATRIOT Act?) by deploying foreign intelligence gathering equipment for domestic operation against the entire population.  I highly recommend viewing this 12-minute interview he did in December 2012.  Here is an incredible admission from Binney, suggesting that the government is building dossiers on each person:

Domestically, they’re pulling together all the data about virtually every U.S. citizen in the country and assembling that information, building communities that you have relationships with, and knowledge about you; what your activities are; what you’re doing.

Before going further, I want to say that in my opinion it is a criminal government that breaks the very laws it is designed to uphold.  Maintaining dossiers on law-abiding citizens is the behaviour of a fascistic, totalitarian regime.  We have a duty to resist and throw off such tyranny.

Known government programs

Let’s now look at some interesting government surveillance programs that have been made public over the years.

ECHELON – This is a massive, worldwide collection system capable of intercepting and inspecting content of telephone calls, faxes, e-mails and other data traffic globally.  It was first launched in the 1960’s and is run by the Anglo-American Establishment: Australia (Defence Signals Directorate), New Zealand (Government Communications Security Bureau), Canada (Communications Security Establishment), the United States (National Security Agency), and the United Kingdom (Government Communications Headquarters).  In the intelligence community they are referred to as the “Five Eyes”.  In 2000, the European Parliament conducted an investigation into ECHELON with a concluding report. A contact on the inside confirmed to me that the U.S. runs the satellites, the data is pulled down to the U.K., Canada does analysis of and dissemination of pertinent intelligence.  The system uses lexicons to prioritize data onto various lists and actual human analysts are required to look at certain lists (in the future we’ll look at evidence of what gets you on a list – I’m sure this blog post is flagged on some escalated list).  One final thing on ECHELON and that is the April 2012 issue of WIRED magazine had an exclusive report on the massive $2 billion NSA facility in Utah.  Could this be part of ECHELON?  I believe so.  The cover of the issue had the following to say:

Deep in the Utah desert, the National Security Agency is building the country’s biggest spy centre.  It’s the final piece of a secret surveillance network that will intercept and store your phone calls, emails, Google searches…  (Watch what you say.)

WiredUtahNSA

Total Information Awareness – In 2002 in the U.S., the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) launched the Information Awareness Office to work on surveillance for identifying and tracking “terrorists”.  It was lead by a former NSA guy (surprise, surprise).  They had a few name changes (Total/Terrorism Information Awareness (TIA)) and were supposedly shut down in 2003 after Congress cut funding.  Clearly they morphed.  The office called for intelligence gathering and analysis “among people, organizations, places, and things.”  Kind of sounds like Facebook and your smart phone doesn’t it?  It also called for biometric programs and cameras with multiple means of identity extraction (facial recognition, for example).  We certainly do see the cameras going up, and we’ll get into biometrics in a later post.  In case you’re thinking that the public servants behind this were well intentioned, here’s a picture of TIA’s loving logo:

Total Information Awareness Logo

Information Sharing & Analysis Centers (ISACs) – ISACs are not so much of a mass surveillance program, but they do indeed fit into this Orwellian surveillance scheme.  It is interesting to look at the relationship between government and private companies on this issue.  I shouldn’t exclusively focus on government because there is great evidence of corporations getting in on the fun too.  For instance, there’s a thriving secret new industry of an estimated 160 intelligence contractors that are in the so-called mass surveillance industry.  Furthermore, we know that big companies hold plenty of our personal data.  Industry analysts are now reporting that the vast majority of the Fortune 100 want to begin this year “monetizing their data”.  What does this mean you ask?  It means selling data they hold on their customers to other companies, possibly ones in foreign countries, and also to the government of course.  The government has long been in the business of working with private companies for data collection.  ISACs are just one example of this.  I’m not asserting that ISACs have anything to do with selling data to the government (we’ll get into that issue in another post), but these are great examples of the popular so-called “public-private partnerships” (read: Fascist teaming of central government with elite businesses).  From what I can tell, they operate as round tables essentially and they provide no real transparency.  I believe the FBI runs the ISACs, but it could be DHS.  There are ISACs for a dozen or so industries (health, transportation, water, etc.).  Cybersecurity threats is an obvious topic for them, but I wonder what else they discuss under the banner of “sharing and analysis”.  To show you where these folks have loyalties, here is the old logo (a new one was released in the last year) of the Financial Services ISAC (which is meeting in Toronto in late June):

Financial Services Industry Sharing & Analysis CenterAh, that loving, all-seeing eye again.  How comforting.

Analysis capabilities

We’ve established now that data collection is happening on a massive scale, and that government and corporations are in on the fun.  But just what can they do with that data?  We won’t spend much time in this post examining the correlation and analysis capabilities (referred to in the industry as “Big Data”… makes sense: Big Brother -> Big Data), but we’ll look at two quick examples so you get the idea:

GeoTime – This is an analysis software used by folks in law enforcement, intelligence and even insurance to investigate individuals and events.  It has powerful pattern detection for analyzing “patterns of life” (in Newspeak, behavior detection).  These are behavioural traits such as one’s movement and speed of travel over time, communications and transactions, interactions and meetings with others, regularities and exceptions.  You can see a few demonstrations of the software on short videos here.

Recorded Future – This is a software company financially backed by Google and the CIA that provides insights and analysis of relationships between people, places and organizations using publicly sourced data (meaning data that it obtains from scouring the World Wide Wiretap… uh, I mean Web).  In one of its many applications, it is used to predict stocks.  It is also used to track entities or movements, as you can see with this example where it was used to track and analyze the Occupy Wall Street protests of 2011, which you can view a quick demo of here.  One of the interesting but creepy things about it is its predictive analytics (it can actually generate predictions based on your history).

Conclusion

We are just scratching the surface in this post.  We didn’t talk much about remote listening, Facebook, Google, “location services”, biometrics and how the latest generation of consumer tech has face and voice recognition embedded.  Yes, from flat screen TVs in your living room or bedroom, to your digital cameras, gaming consoles and smart phones, all these cute and convenient gadgets that bring you so much entertainment and joy (and distraction) are good for harvesting data and determining what you do, what and who you know and what you believe.

BigBrother

Big Brother has incredibly powerful tools.  Big Brother is indeed using these tools.  Big Brother is however, for the time being, still wearing that velvet glove over his iron fist.

This post is not intended to chill your speech.  I believe we must hold true to our inalienable, inherent rights to privacy and freedom of expression and speech.  Knowing that they are listening, I like to frequently talk to them and remind them that what they’re doing is criminal.

There’s still lots to uncover here and future posts will get deeper into the technology so that we can truly understand the world we’re now living in.

Secure Beneath the Watchful Eye

Posted on by
1

BusCamera

With facial recognition and license plate reading cameras on every street corner, London, England is probably the most Orwellian city on the planet.  The above picture is a banner advertisement from off the streets of London, letting commuters know that Big Brother is keeping a loving, watchful eye over them.  Comforting or creepy?  Unfortunately, many people today find this comforting – a position that is completely ignorant of the dangers of government tyranny and oppression.

Canadian cities will not be outdone in efforts to misuse tax payer money for building of a pervasive surveillance grid for their host population.  A recent example is the City of Ottawa’s plan to put video cameras on every city bus.  A move that could cost up to $10 million initially, with a $1M to $3M annual maintenance cost.  The system of choice may include features to allow police to remote view from their cars; however, this is the more expensive option so it will likely not be in the initial specification.  Keep in mind though, the reality with these systems is that the government need only to run a public relations campaign for the initial implementation of the system.  In the future, various upgrades may be added; things such as, facial recognition, remote access, long-term archiving, without there being any way to know (unless learned through Access To Information).

Like with most losses of civil liberty, as well as blatant attacks on privacy, the government can only implement advances to their increases in power if the public is willing and/or ignorant.  With a complicit media that works hard to balance the demands of government against the critique of a small portion of citizens that might take notice, a little propaganda is all that’s required prior to implementing the change that further erodes basic liberty and privacy.  With a small public relations investment, government is then able to move forward without much, if any, opposition.  We’re talking about scientific methods of opinion manipulation perfected over a century ago.

Not that this statement on its own is of any particular sophistication, but here’s an example of the local media in Ottawa selling bus cameras to the citizenry:

“The sad reality is there is a need to surrender some of our privacy rights for a limited greater good that involves the safety of passengers and employees.

That is the world we live in.”

So it’s a foregone conclusion (it’s the world we live in) and the collectivist model (the greater good) trumps any individual rights and freedoms.  Never mind how governments historically have become totalitarian police states when they incrementally take liberties.  We’re supposed to chip in for the greater good and be positive about the loss of privacy because it means better security for all.  Would it surprise you if in the near future a concern about privacy could equate to a guilty conviction (of whatever) – what’s the problem if you have nothing to hide?  Isn’t that the trendy meme for such issues?

I ask you to consider the world in a generation or two.  You can bet facial recognition and other creepy technologies will be behind these cameras, with the Big Data ability to correlate your health, shopping, cell phone, social networks and other personal details near instantaneously in some government “fusion center”, courtesy of your tax dollars.

In future posts on the topic of privacy and public surveillance, we’ll get into the behind-the-scenes technologies that show what kind of power we’re allowing our governments to accumulate.  At what point do we draw the line with governments and corporations moving us deeper and deeper into a total surveillance state?

Beware the Party System in Canada

Posted on by
Reply

If you have not yet read George Orwell’s 1984 you really should.  Western society today is surpassing the police state portrayed in the novel.  In many ways, today’s technology and lawless government surveillance practices are even more outlandish.

But let’s put the issues of pervasive, warrantless surveillance aside for now because this condition can only exist if we the people allow it to become the norm in our society.  And we’d only allow it establish a foothold if we first became accepting of it.  So let’s discuss the root issue: the party system and the mass mind control mechanisms described in the novel.

The programming starts early

OBEY_Giant-Obey_Eye_Screen_Print_by_Shepard_Fairey

The manipulations used against the population detailed in 1984 are indeed employed by governments around the world today with great success, and Canada is unfortunately no exception.  In the novel, the party relied on mass mind control techniques to sustain its iron clad power position over the citizens, described as follows:

“…an elaborate mental training, undergone in childhood and grouping itself round the Newspeak words crimestop, blackwhite and doublethink, makes him unwilling to and unable to think too deeply on any subject whatever.“

Try and engage someone in a deep conversation who is heavy into sports, watches a lot of television or doesn’t ever question government or the news media and you’ll find out quickly that this “elaborate mental training” is restricting the mental freedoms of friends, family and fellow countrymen all around us.

Let’s take a closer look at these Newspeak words: crimestop, blackwhite and doublethink.

Crimestop

“Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought.  It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc [the New World Order], and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.“

Example: Someone not willing to discuss or look at the facts surrounding the collapse of WTC Building 7.  Or someone that strives to extricate government involvement.  Pick any controversial topic and the average person will not just avoid it, but will avoid you in the future.  However, introduce the recent pro sports game and they’ll be animated to discuss.

Blackwhite

“…it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts.  Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this.  But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary.“

Example: There are WMDs in Iraq as pretext for invading.  In reality, no WMDs were in Iraq.  Despite a false pretext, 10 years later the war in Iraq continues and the official narrative evolves to assert that the WMDs were secretly moved into Syria before we got there (enter Syria on the agenda).

Doublethink

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.  The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated.“

Example: Terrorists hate our free and open society; when they strike, our government must take actions that take away our liberties.  This is necessary so that government can be effective at protecting our freedom.

And consider that political correctness (a Soviet term) is the glue that maintains and propels doublethink.

Conclusion

We need to examine ourselves to detect and eradicate the “Party System” – if we awaken to the cognitive infiltration in our own mind, with some diligence, the dark cloud of mind control will dissipate.   It takes time and dedication, but is extremely liberating and an all about healthy thing.  Once free, we can begin to discern what is going on at a macro level; in our home, at work, in our cities, nation and also at a global level.  And a jailbroken mind sees a police state for what it truly is: a fraud and a threat to humanity.  Let’s be police state-aware citizens in Canada and band together against it so that our descendants can live in a free and open society.