"Globalist" corporatists are in vanguard for bolshies, playing "good cops" for leftist, atheists

Apollonian

Guest Columnist
"Globalist" corporatists are in vanguard for bolshies, playing "good cops" for leftist, atheists

Remember something, fools: these corporations don't want "free" markets or "freedom," u idiots--THEY WANT MONOPOLY, morons--who do u think funds and controls them?--THE CENTRAL-BANK (literally legalized counterfeiting--see Mises.org for expo; use their site search-engine for expo on particular terms, like "fiat-currency," dummies), which is a criminal enterprise and a MONOPOLY, u poor, brainless scum

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


American Airlines now endorses terrorism, violence, arson and murder by encouraging employees to wear BLM propaganda buttons

08:57 - News

Link: http://www.stationgossip.com/2020/09/american-airlines-now-endorses.html

Air travel giant American Airlines (AA) has altered its company policy to allow flight attendants to wear Black Lives Matter (BLM) pins and other associated “bling” on their work uniforms.

To show its support for all the rioting, looting and other violence taking place in cities all across the country, AA is lifting restrictions that previously required its employees to remain neutral about hot-button political issues like BLM while on-duty.

In a company announcement, AA suggested that we now “live in a time where it is so important to have a dialogue about this important issue of racism in our society and try to find common ground.” And the best place for that, apparently, is while masked and in-flight.

“American is truly committed to having an inclusive culture that is welcoming to all and a reflection of our country and world,” the statement goes on to explain.

“This is why American is so committed to creating a more tolerant and diverse team. Through our partnership with American’s office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, we are continuing to work through an overall plan for addressing these issues in our workplace.”

Part of this plan is to also create an official AA symbol that supports BLM, Antifa, and other “woke” causes for employees to wear while they serve air travelers drinks and pretzels.

“In addition, the company is also working to design its own pin that will show its symbolic support of a diverse and inclusive work environment,” AA says.

American Airlines is so committed to fighting racism that it is hiring only black people to design uniform pin

Just in case these changes are inadequate, AA has decided to go a step further in the fight against racism by hiring only black people from its “Black Professional Network” to design the company’s new uniform pin.

No white people will be on the design team because white people are bad and black people are good. Only black people can lead the way into a new anti-racist world, in other words, where “whiteness” is fully extinguished, and true and pure equality takes its place.

“The airline said it is showing support for black colleagues who have experienced discrimination and injustice, not any particular organization,” reported NBC 5.

In the immediate aftermath of the George Floyd incident, AA publicly announced that “demonstrations,” aka rioting and looting, “highlight the urgent need for systemic change, because Black Lives Matter.”

Not everyone who works for AA is happy about these changes, though. One company flight attendant reportedly told the New York Post that she takes “serious offense” to the new BLM pin rule, as her husband is a law enforcement officer.

“As far as I’m concerned, all lives matter,” this individual, who has worked for the airline for many years, wrote in an email to AA’s senior management.

“I am completely disgusted at the fact that we can’t show our support for our God, our country, our LEOs but when it comes to BLM organization (which is controversial in itself), American Airlines says that’s obviously different,” she added.

Another flight attendant who goes by the name of John says that not wearing a BLM pin, under these new rules, could cause strife among employees. Those who choose not to support BLM domestic terrorism will “be ostracized and labeled as racist,” even though BLM is “a terrorist organization that promotes violence to further their agenda.”

“If this pin is sanctioned, I will wear my NYPD pin supporting the police department,” John says.
 
Re: "Globalist" corporatists are in vanguard for bolshies, playing "good cops" for leftist, atheists

Slack Got Security Robots For Its Headquarters. Now, Its CEO Is Bankrolling Groups That Want To Defund The Police

slack-ceo-stewart-butterfield

Screenshot/YouTube/CNBC
Daily Caller News Foundation logo

Link: https://dailycaller.com/2020/09/08/slack-security-robots-defund-police-black-lives-matter/

Jake Dima and Peter Hasson
Contributor
September 08, 2020
8:04 PM ET

The CEO of office messaging app Slack announced in June that he and his wife made large donations to organizations leading the “defund the police” movement, less than a year after Slack expanded its partnership with a company manufacturing robot security guards.

Slack and Cobalt Robotics announced in October that they would integrate the two products, building off a previous partnership in which Slack used Cobalt’s machines to protect Slack headquarters. Cobalt’s “robots have been patrolling the hallways at Slack offices for some time now,” the robotics firm noted in a press release.

“When Cobalt detects anything that needs escalation or further review—from an unauthorized visitor to CO emissions to a water leak—it triggers a real-time alert in a designated Slack channel,” the release said.

Slack CEO Stewart Butterfield, who co-founded the company in 2009, announced in June that he and his wife would make a $700,000 donation to Color of Change, Black Lives Matter and several other organizations in June, Protocol reported. The couple also pledged to match up to $300,000 in employee donations to those organizations.

A protester in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (KEREM YUCEL/AFP via Getty Images)

Both Color of Change and Black Lives Matter openly support defunding the nation’s police departments.

Color of Change is leading a national petition campaign demanding elected officials “defund the police, and invest in communities now!”

“Policing is a violent institution that must end,” Color of Change President Rashad Robinson said after the Minneapolis City Council voted to “dismantle” its police department.

“We imagine a country where there is enough money to educate our children, care for our sick and feed those who are financially unstable,” Robinson continued. “Defunding the police allows for this vision.”

Black Lives Matter Global Network, the national arm of Black Lives Matter, released a statement on May 30 calling for “a national defunding of police.” The organization published a video on July 6 arguing that “defunding the police is the only way to stop pouring resources into a system that doesn’t keep us safe.”

A Cobalt security robot patrols an office Screenshot/YouTube/Cobalt

Both Black Lives Matter and Color of Change have seen an explosion in donations from large corporations and celebrities since George Floyd’s death in police custody on May 25.

Polling has consistently shown that a majority of Americans oppose defunding the police. (RELATED: Alice Johnson Accosted By Demonstrators Outside White House)

Neither Slack nor Cobalt returned repeated requests for comment for this article.
 
Re: "Globalist" corporatists are in vanguard for bolshies, playing "good cops" for leftist, atheists

NBA Donates $300 Million to BLM and the Democrat Party’s Pockets — Now Wants to Set Up Polling Places Which May Be Illegal

22:06 - News

Link: http://www.stationgossip.com/2020/09/nba-donates-300-million-to-blm-and.html

Guest post by Bob Bishop

The Democrat Party is a fervent supporter of the Black Lives Matter movement and so is the NBA.

There is no room for diversity of thought in the National Basketball Association.

The Party and its 2020 candidates have never publicly denounced the associated looting, rioting, and wholesale violence. The Democratic National Committee actively uses the BLM movement to solicit for donations. BLM is the de facto wing of the party, and Antifa is BLM’s alter ego.4

The NBA has caved into the mob mentality and hyperactive player activism by becoming a promoter of the Black Lives Matter movement and is donating $300 million. The NBA collaborates with local BLM organizations and claims its actions are about non-partisan policy reform (an unlikely story).

Of course this money is going directly to the Democrat Party. Reported this first in June when we noted that donations to BLM go directly to ActBlue which is the donation site for the Democrat Party.

By donating to Black Lives Matter, many of the donors in the NBA may not realize they are really donating to the Democrat Party:

Now the latest NBA marketing strategy is to use sixteen arenas as mega polling places for early and election day voting ostensibly for social distancing.

The mega-sites’ early election will unfold with the parquet courts decorated with the Black Lives Matter logo, painted murals, and hanging BLM banners to virtue signal the NBA’s support. NBA will be doing voter promos. BLM supporters will be loitering around the arenas wearing slogan T-Shirts, carrying signs, and handing out literature. Players will be putting in appearances at the stadiums for fan selfies and autographs to get out the vote. By promoting BLM, it directly benefits the Democratic Party candidates. However, by their overt actions, the NBA teams may be violating most state election laws addressing loitering and electioneering.

In the State of Texas, the San Antonio Spurs, Houston Rockets, and Dallas Mavericks have committed to using their arenas.

The organizations must follow the Texas Election Code § 61.003 prohibiting electioneering and loitering within 100 feet of a polling place’s outside door. Sound amplification devices within 1,000 feet of the polling place are not permitted. Voters may not wear a badge, logo, or shirts, hats, and masks with emblems with political messages (i.e., BLM or MAGA). Smartphones or recording devices cannot be used within 100 feet of a voting station.

Texas teams that fail to enforce Texas Election Code § 61.003 are unlawfully influencing or intimidating voters. Each offense is subject to Class C misdemeanors and\or third-class felonies. All other states have comparable statutes.

Voting is a solemn occasion and not a raucous event. Using the tax-supported public arenas is a disgrace for promoting an anarchist and anti-law enforcement movement.

(Please check your state election laws and contest the actions of your local NBA team. Republican poll watchers must rigidly enforce the election laws at the arenas. It’s about fair elections, not about influencing the vote benefitting the Democratic Party.)
 
Re: "Globalist" corporatists are in vanguard for bolshies, playing "good cops" for leftist, atheists

Whitney: Is BLM The Mask Behind Which The Oligarchs Operate?

Link: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/whitney-blm-mask-behind-which-oligarchs-operate

by Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/08/2020 - 23:40
Authored by Mike Whitney,

Here’s your BLM Pop Quiz for the day: What do “Critical Race Theory”, “The 1619 Project”, and Homeland Security’s “White Supremacist” warning tell us about what’s going on in America today?

1.They point to deeply-embedded racism that shapes the behavior of white people

2.They suggest that systemic racism cannot be overcome by merely changing attitudes and laws

3.They alert us to the fact that unresolved issues are pushing the country towards a destructive race war

4.They indicate that powerful agents — operating from within the state– are inciting racial violence to crush the emerging “populist” majority that elected Trump to office in 2016 and which now represents an existential threat to the globalist plan to transform America into a tyrannical third-world “****hole”.

Which of these four statements best explains what’s going on in America today?

If you chose Number 4, you are right. We are not experiencing a sudden and explosive outbreak of racial violence and mayhem. We are experiencing a thoroughly-planned, insurgency-type operation that involves myriad logistical components including vast, nationwide riots, looting and arson, as well as an extremely impressive ideological campaign. “Critical Race Theory”, “The 1619 Project”, and Homeland Security’s “White Supremacist” warning are as much a part of the Oligarchic war on America as are the burning of our cities and the toppling of our statues. All three, fall under the heading of “ideology”, and all three are being used to shape public attitudes on matters related to our collective identity as “Americans”.

The plan is to overwhelm the population with a deluge of disinformation about their history, their founders, and the threats they face, so they will submissively accept a New Order imposed by technocrats and their political lackeys. This psychological war is perhaps more important than Operation BLM which merely provides the muscle for implementing the transformative “Reset” that elites want to impose on the country. The real challenge is to change the hearts and minds of a population that is unwaveringly patriotic and violently resistant to any subversive element that threatens to do harm to their country. So, while we can expect this propaganda saturation campaign to continue for the foreseeable future, we don’t expect the strategy will ultimately succeed. At the end of the day, America will still be America, unbroken, unflagging and unapologetic.

Let’s look more carefully at what is going on.

On September 4, the Department of Homeland Security issued a draft report stating that “White supremacists present the gravest terror threat to the United States”. According to an article in Politico:

“…all three draft (versions of the document) describe the threat from white supremacists as the deadliest domestic terror threat facing the U.S., listed above the immediate danger from foreign terrorist groups…. John Cohen, who oversaw DHS’s counterterrorism portfolio from 2011 to 2014, said the drafts’ conclusion isn’t surprising.

“This draft document seems to be consistent with earlier intelligence reports from DHS, the FBI, and other law enforcement sources: that the most significant terror-related threat facing the US today comes from violent extremists who are motivated by white supremacy and other far-right ideological causes,” he said….

“Lone offenders and small cells of individuals motivated by a diverse array of social, ideological, and personal factors will pose the primary terrorist threat to the United States,” the draft reads. “Among these groups, we assess that white supremacist extremists …will pose the most persistent and lethal threat.”..(“DHS draft document: White supremacists are greatest terror threat” Politico)

This is nonsense. White supremacists do not pose the greatest danger to the country, that designation goes to the left-wing groups that have rampaged through more than 2,000 US cities for the last 100 days. Black Lives Matter and Antifa-generated riots have decimated hundreds of small businesses, destroyed the lives and livelihoods of thousands of merchants and their employees, and left entire cities in a shambles. The destruction in Kenosha alone far exceeds the damage attributable to the activities of all the white supremacist groups combined.

So why has Homeland Security made this ridiculous and unsupportable claim? Why have they chosen to prioritize white supremacists as “the most persistent and lethal threat” when it is clearly not true?

There’s only one answer: Politics.

The officials who concocted this scam are advancing the agenda of their real bosses, the oligarch puppet-masters who have their tentacles extended throughout the deep-state and use them to coerce their lackey bureaucrats to do their bidding. In this case, the honchos are invoking the race card (“white supremacists”) to divert attention from their sinister destabilization program, their looting of the US Treasury (for their crooked Wall Street friends), their demonizing of the mostly-white working class “America First” nationalists who handed Trump the 2016 election, and their scurrilous scheme to establish one-party rule by installing their addlepated meat-puppet candidate (Biden) as president so he can carry out their directives from the comfort of the Oval Office. That’s what’s really going on.

DHS’s announcement makes it possible for state agents to target legally-armed Americans who gather with other gun owners in groups that are protected under the second amendment. Now the white supremacist label will be applied more haphazardly to these same conservatives who pose no danger to public safety. The draft document should be seen as a warning to anyone whose beliefs do not jibe with the New Liberal Orthodoxy that white people are inherently racists who must ask forgiveness for a system they had no hand in creating (slavery) and which was abolished more than 150 years ago.

The 1619 Project” is another part of the ideological war that is being waged against the American people. The objective of the “Project” is to convince readers that America was founded by heinous white men who subjugated blacks to increase their wealth and power. According to the World Socialist Web Site:

“The essays featured in the magazine are organized around the central premise that all of American history is rooted in race hatred—specifically, the uncontrollable hatred of “black people” by “white people.” Hannah-Jones writes in the series’ introduction: “Anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country.”

This is a false and dangerous conception. DNA is a chemical molecule that contains the genetic code of living organisms and determines their physical characteristics and development….Hannah-Jones’s reference to DNA is part of a growing tendency to derive racial antagonisms from innate biological processes….where does this racism come from? It is embedded, claims Hannah-Jones, in the historical DNA of American “white people.” Thus, it must persist independently of any change in political or economic conditions...

...No doubt, the authors of The Project 1619 essays would deny that they are predicting race war, let alone justifying fascism. But ideas have a logic; and authors bear responsibility for the political conclusions and consequences of their false and misguided arguments.”

- “The New York Times’s 1619 Project: A racialist falsification of American and world history”, World Socialist Web Site

Clearly, Hannah-Jones was enlisted by big money patrons who needed an ideological foundation to justify the massive BLM riots they had already planned as part of their US color revolution. The author –perhaps unwittingly– provided the required text for vindicating widespread destruction and chaos carried out in the name of “social justice.”

As Hannah-Jones says, “Anti-black racism runs in the very DNA of this country”, which is to say that it cannot be mitigated or reformed, only eradicated by destroying the symbols of white patriarchy (Our icons, our customs, our traditions and our history.), toppling the existing government, and imposing a new system that better reflects the values of the burgeoning non-Caucasian majority. Simply put, The Project 1619 creates the rationale for sustained civil unrest, deepening political polarization and violent revolution.

All of these goals conveniently coincide with the aims of the NWO Oligarchs who seek to replace America’s Constitutional government with a corporate Superstate ruled by voracious Monopolists and their globalist allies. So, while Hannah-Jones treatise does nothing to improve conditions for black people in America, it does move the country closer to the dystopian dream of the parasite class; Corporate Valhalla.

Then there is “Critical Race Theory” which provides the ideological icing on the cake. The theory is part of the broader canon of anti-white dogma which is being used to indoctrinate workers. White employees are being subjected to “reeducation” programs that require their participation as a precondition for further employment . The first rebellion against critical race theory, took place at Sandia Labs which is a federally-funded research agency that designs America’s nuclear weapons. According to journalist Christopher F. Rufo:

“Senator @HawleyMO and @SecBrouillette have launched an inspector general investigation, but Sandia executives have only accelerated their purge against conservatives.”

Sandia executives have made it clear: they want to force critical race theory, race-segregated trainings, and white male reeducation camps on their employees—and all dissent will be severely punished. Progressive employees will be rewarded; conservative employees will be purged.” (“There is a civil war erupting at @SandiaLabs.” Christopher F Rufo)

It all sounds so Bolshevik. Here’s more info on how this toxic indoctrination program works:

“Treasury Department …

The Treasury Department held a training session telling employees that “virtually all White people contribute to racism” and demanding that white staff members “struggle to own their racism” and accept their “unconscious bias, White privilege, and White fragility.”

The National Credit Union Administration

The NCUA held a session for 8,900 employees arguing that America was “founded on racism” and “built on the blacks of people who were enslaved.” Twitter thread here and original source documents here.

Sandia National Laboratories

Last year, Sandia National Labs—which produces our nuclear arsenal—held a three-day reeducation camp for white males, teaching them how to deconstruct their “white male culture” and forcing them to write letters of apology to women and people of color. Whistleblowers from inside the labs tell me that critical race theory is now endangering our national security. Twitter thread hereand original source documents here.

Argonne National Laboratories

Argonne National Labs hosts trainings calling on white lab employees to admit that they “benefit from racism” and atone for the “pain and anguish inflicted upon Black people.” Twitter thread here.

Department of Homeland Security

The Department of Homeland Security hosted a Training on “microaggressions, microinequities, and microassaults” where white employees were told that they had been “socialized into oppressor roles.” Twitter thread here and original source documents here.” (“Summary of Critical Race Theory Investigations”, Christopher F Rufo)

On September 4, Donald Trump announced his administration “would prohibit federal agencies from subjecting government employees to “critical race theory” or “white privilege” seminar...

“It has come to the President’s attention that Executive Branch agencies have spent millions of taxpayer dollars to date ‘training’ government workers to believe divisive, anti-American propaganda,” read a Friday memo from the Office of Budget and Management Director Russ Vought. “These types of ‘trainings’ not only run counter to the fundamental beliefs for which our Nation has stood since its inception, but they also engender division and resentment within the Federal workforce … The President has directed me to ensure that Federal agencies cease and desist from using taxpayer dollars to fund these divisive, un-American propaganda training sessions.”

The next day, September 5, Trump announced that the Department of Education was going to see whether the New York Times Magazine’s 1619 Project was being used in school curricula and– if it was– then those schools would be ineligible for federal funding. Conservative pundits applauded Trump’s action as a step forward in the “culture wars”, but it’s really much more than that. Trump is actually foiling an effort by the domestic saboteurs who continue look for ways to undermine democracy, reduce the masses of working-class people to grinding poverty and hopelessness, and turn the country into a despotic military outpost ruled by bloodsucking tycoons, mercenary autocrats and duplicitous elites. Alot of thought and effort went into this malign ideological project. Trump derailed it with a wave of the hand. That’s no small achievement.

Bottom line: “Critical Race Theory”, “The 1619 Project”, and Homeland Security’s “White Supremacist” warning represent the ideological foundation upon which the war on America is based. The “anti-white” dogma is the counterpart to the massive riots that have rocked the country. These phenomena are two spokes on the same wheel. They are designed to work together to achieve the same purpose. The goal is create a “racial” smokescreen that conceals the vast and willful destruction of the US economy, the $5 trillion dollar wealth-transfer that was provided to Wall Street, and the ferocious attack on the emerging, mainly-white working class “populist” movement that elected Trump and which rejects the globalist plan to transform the world into a borderless free trade zone ruled by cutthroat monopolists and their NWO allies.

This is a class war dolled-up to look like a race war. Americans will have to look beyond the smoke and mirrors to spot the elites lurking in the shadows. There lies the cancer that must be eradicated.
 
Re: "Globalist" corporatists are in vanguard for bolshies, playing "good cops" for leftist, atheists

New ‘Republicans & Independents for Biden’ Group Led by Same Old GOP Gun-Grabbers

By PatriotRising -
September 8, 2020

Link: https://patriotrising.com/new-repub...biden-group-led-by-same-old-gop-gun-grabbers/

biden gun groups
“It’s Time for ‘Republicans and Independents for Biden’,” former New Jersey Governor Rhino Christine Todd Whitman claims in a Thursday Inside Sources opinion piece.;

“That’s why today, I invite my fellow Republicans and right-leaning Independents to join me and the nearly 100 other current and former Republican elected officials, members of previous Republican administrations, and party leaders in forming a coalition of the decent, to elect a decent man President of the United States.”

Joe Biden is “a decent man”? According to Whitman, he’s more than that.

“Joe Biden wants to be a president for all Americans,” Whitman lies.

Of course, he does not. He does not want to be a president for Americans who oppose new taxes. He does not want to be a president for Americans who believe in the sanctity of the lives of the unborn. He does not want to be a president for Americans who see, and don’t agree with, the inevitable tyrannical cultural shifts enabled by uncontrolled “immigration” with a “Day One pathway to citizenship.” And he does not want to be a president for Americans who believe unbendingly in the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Not only does Joe Biden threaten to eviscerate all those interests, if elected, he will make sure judges are appointed to the Supreme Court and at all levels within the federal court system to reverse gains gun owners have made to date and to uphold new infringements. As far as political and “legal” means of redress go, it will be “Game over” for the Second Amendment, leaving the only options to be “Surrender or resist.”

Not that Whitman minds. Despite hollowly crowing about her “Republican” credentials and connections, she has always been part of the establishment swamp and has been betraying gun owner interests for decades.

“In 1993, gun owners once again presented intense opposition to entrenched Governor Florio, electing Christine Whitman on her promise to legislatively review the 1990 gun ban, and to support the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding firearms owners,” Gun Owners of America noted. “Gun owners contributed massive campaigning efforts on behalf of Whitman, including phone banks, fax networks, donations, and personal sacrifice well beyond any other group.”

How Whitman repaid that loyalty should be all the testament to her character, or lack thereof, anyone needs.

She signed a trigger lock law because she didn’t have the political juice to force through her favored option, “smart guns.” She “initiated” a “zero-tolerance” bill mandating “gun-free school zones” to further favor psychopaths by law. Her best friend and former campaign manager became a gun-grabber lobbyist. And after the Orlando murders, she clued us in on what she would do if she did have the power:

“From what we know now, the shooter had acquired his automatic weapon legally just days before the shooting. Who, besides law enforcement and the military, really needs a weapon designed for the battlefield [sic]? Really. It is time we look a hard look at our gun laws. We can protect the Second Amendment, which I wholeheartedly support, and the right to bear arms in a sane and balanced way.”

How many lies can you find? You read that and wonder if this woman is even capable of recognizing the truth, let alone speaking it.

That goes for the other “former Republican governors” joining Whitman in trying to turn the country over to the Democrats.

In an act of political duplicity brazen enough to make heads spin, Michigan’s Rick Snyder managed to swindle out support from both Michael Bloomberg and the NRA! He showed whose side he was really on by denying both due process and concealed carry permits to citizens that have been accused, but not charged nor been convicted of any crime. He joined Everytown in bragging about “vetoing priority legislation” for NRA.

And where do we start with Bill Weld of Massachusetts? “Republican governor” turned “Libertarian vice-presidential candidate” Weld wants to ban semi-autos and their magazines, and deny guns to citizens who appear on secret lists for unknown reasons, again without due process, and without even being charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one. Wholly unsurprisingly, he endorsed Barack Obama and then worked against Donald Trump (and his new LP BFFs) to Hillary Clinton’s advantage in 2016.

With all this deception going on, it’s fair to wonder why Whitman is expanding her anti-Trump role that she currently fills as part of the insufferable William Kristol’s “leadership” team for “Defending Democracy Together.” It’s just another front in a coordinated coalition of useful idiots we’ve seen manifest itself in collective efforts from groups and individuals like The Lincoln Project, John Kasich, and Jeff Flake & Co.

What that does is gives the DSM (Duranty/Streicher Media) fodder to inflate in headlines and further sway the election in favor of the Democrats. Just look at the Google News feed on the “new” Whitman venture and see for yourself how the public is being inundated with parroted talking points.

That’s nothing but beneficial to those intent on advancing an agenda. Does anyone think that’s coincidental?

The deliberately unstated truth in all of this is that it’s not so much about defeating Donald Trump, who in many ways is an avatar. It is about defeating the citizens he has rallied who support the platform and promises he campaigned on – and rubbing their faces in it.
 
Re: "Globalist" corporatists are in vanguard for bolshies, playing "good cops" for leftist, atheists

Social Media Influencer Exposes COVID Vaccine Pay-To-Propagandize Scheme

by Kelen McBreen
April 21st 2021, 2:35 pm

Link: https://www.infowars.com/posts/soci...ses-covid-vaccine-pay-to-propagandize-scheme/

Tax dollars being used to pay influencers to push COVID vaccine

A popular social media influencer shared a private message she was sent offering a cash payment if she promoted the COVID-19 vaccine to her followers.

“As a leading provider of the COVID-19 vaccine, (censored) wants your help in amplifying the social movement, raising awareness, and establishing a positive association for the COVID-19 vaccine,” the proposal stated.

The message continued, “The goal is to promote an overall hopeful sentiment around things people are looking forward to once they are vaccinated (eg., hugging grandparent, a night out with the girls, going to a ballgame, a concert, etc).”

Once willing social media influencers upload their pro-vaccine content, the notice says, “You’ll receive $1,300 via PayPal.”

The pay-to-propagandize scheme comes with a detailed set of instructions for how to best market the vaccine.

In “Frame 1:” the influencers are told to share their excitement about taking the jab or preparing to be vaccinated.

For “Frame 2:” the participants are ordered to share videos and images relaying what they’re most looking forward to doing after getting the shot.

“Frame 3:” gets the followers involved by encouraging them to share what activities they are hoping to engage in post-vaccination.

However, the narrative that people can get “back to normal” after more individuals are vaccinated is a total facade.

The establishment admits even after receiving the experimental mRNA gene therapy “vaccines,” everyone still needs to wear a mask and social distance.

Using social media influencers to push the vaccine on Americans is only a fraction of the propaganda campaign being waged by the Biden Administration.

Just last week, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki announced the administration invested $3 billion in a “Community Core” operation meant to “provide fact-based messages into the hand of local messengers.”

As the government spends your money to brainwash Americans, many influencers are using social media to fight back against the disinformation agenda.

For example, the following Instagram user’s video went viral after she exposed the companies producing COVID vaccines for having to repeatedly pay damages for fraud.

The billions of dollars being thrown towards propagandizing Americans shows the government is concerned We The People are not going along.
 
Re: "Globalist" corporatists are in vanguard for bolshies, playing "good cops" for leftist, atheists

Burger King Donating to Pro-Child Sex-Change Group With Every New Chicken Sandwich Sold

Chris Menahan
InformationLiberation
Jun. 08, 2021

Link: http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=62283

Did Amazon's 'White Fragility' Training Lead Worker to Assault White Woman For Her 'White Privilege'?

Burger King Donating to Pro-Child Sex-Change Group With Every New Chicken Sandwich Sold

ESPN Hires Betting Analyst Just to Fire Her For Old Tweets

FBI Possesses "Private Key" to Colonial Pipeline Hackers' Bitcoin Account, "Recovers" $2.3M Ransom Payment

Twitter Censors Nigerian President, Nigerian President Censors Twitter, Twitter Cries 'Censorship'

Burger King under the leadership of CEO Daniel Schwartz have begun donating 40 cents for every sale of its new chicken sandwich to a radical LGBT lobby group that supports child sex changes, the drugging of children with opposite-sex hormones and Drag Queen Story Hours.

"On June 3, Burger King made a cheeky tweet saying it will donate up to $250,000 of the proceeds from its new premium chicken sandwich, Ch'King, to The Human Rights Campaign (HRC)," The Hill reported. "For every hand-breaded chicken sold, 40 cents will go to the cause."

"The company emphasized that the Ch'King is available on Sunday, taking a jab at Chick-fil-A which observes the Sabbath on Sunday."

the #ChKing says LGBTQ+ rights!

during #pride month (even on Sundays ) your chicken sandwich craving can do good! we are making a donation* to @HRC for every Ch'King sold ️*
— Burger King (@BurgerKing) June 4, 2021

*6/3-6/30 with every Ch'King sold, BK will contribute 40₵ to the Human Rights Campaign (Max. donation $250k)
— Burger King (@BurgerKing) June 4, 2021

The Human Rights Campaign supports child sex changes and has a manual on their website to help guide parents through drugging and maiming their adolescent children.

The manual falsely says puberty blockers are "reversible" even though the damage they cause can be permanent. Meanwhile, they warn that if children are not drugged with puberty blockers then "physical changes, such as breast development, are irreversible or require surgery to undo."

HRC puts out their own Drag Queen Story Hours targeting children with books about kids "transitioning" with titles such as, "When Aidan Became A Brother."

#JazzAndFriends National Day of Readings shows love and support for LGBTQ children. Join us tomorrow for special readings of “When Aidan Became A Brother,” “I Am Jazz” and “My Rainbow.” https://t.co/Y8TFTWq1af pic.twitter.com/YyT2QooAuI
— Human Rights Campaign (@HRC) February 24, 2021

They promote mothers (with Munchausen syndrome by proxy) "transitioning" their innocent children with taxpayer funds:

Laura simply wants to protect her trans son, Jack, from discrimination.

If Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to SCOTUS, trans people could lose access to coverage for transition related care under the ACA.

RT to #StopKavanaugh & to join Laura & the millions that support the ACA. pic.twitter.com/O1cqLU6Ccx
— Human Rights Campaign (@HRC) September 5, 2018

HRC also promotes child drag queens and says that "queer youth are the future."

Learn how to create spaces where #LGBTQ youth receive affirmation, support and thrive at @HRC Foundation's #TimeToTHRIVE Conference.

Early bird registration is open through Dec. 11: https://t.co/dkRe8m8ixO pic.twitter.com/H9I8fRmSdi
— Human Rights Campaign (@HRC) December 11, 2018

This is what you're supporting when you buy from Burger King.

It's not just their politics which are garbage, according to BK's nutritional facts all their fried chicken products are fried in unhealthy soybean oil or other garbage seed oils, which a growing body of research indicates could be responsible for all manners of diseases.

My #ChKing had mold on the bottom bun. Thoughts? pic.twitter.com/xDT3g2Qn05
— Cory German (@corygerman) May 31, 2021

There is no way Chick-Fil-A gives a damn about BK donating to the HRC.

Chick-Fil-A CEO Dan Cathy, who took over the company from his father in 2013, bowed before the LGBT lobby many years ago and started donating to the Southern Poverty Law Center and cut off the Salvation Army for supporting Christian values.

During the Floyd riots last year, Cathy started worshiping a new god and bowed down on his knees before a rapper and started shining his shoes while insisting white Christians "repent" for the "shame" and "embarrassment" of racism.

Chick-Fil-A CEO Gets On His Knees, Shines Rapper's Shoes, Says White Christians Must 'Repent' For 'Shame' of Racism https://t.co/ENvX7AA6gK
— Chris Menahan (@infolibnews) June 18, 2020
 
Re: "Globalist" corporatists are in vanguard for bolshies, playing "good cops" for leftist, atheists

Who Owns Big Pharma + Big Media? You’ll Never Guess.

BlackRock and the Vanguard Group, the two largest asset management firms in the world, combined own The New York Times and other legacy media, along with Big Pharma.

Link: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/blackrock-vanguard-own-big-pharma-media/

By Dr. Joseph Mercola

Big Pharma and mainstream media are largely owned by two asset management firms: BlackRock and Vanguard.

The Defender is experiencing censorship on many social channels. Be sure to stay in touch with the news that matters by subscribing to our top news of the day. It's free.

Story at-a-glance:
•Big Pharma and mainstream media are largely owned by two asset management firms: BlackRock and Vanguard.
•Drug companies are driving COVID-19 responses — all of which, so far, have endangered rather than optimized public health — and mainstream media have been willing accomplices in spreading their propaganda, a false official narrative that leads the public astray and fosters fear based on lies.
•Vanguard and BlackRock are the top two owners of Time Warner, Comcast, Disney and News Corp, four of the six media companies that control more than 90% of the U.S. media landscape.
•BlackRock and Vanguard form a secret monopoly that own just about everything else you can think of too. In all, they have ownership in 1,600 American firms, which in 2015 had combined revenues of $9.1 trillion. When you add in the third-largest global owner, State Street, their combined ownership encompasses nearly 90% of all S&P 500 firms.
•Vanguard is the largest shareholder of BlackRock. Vanguard itself, on the other hand, has a unique structure that makes its ownership more difficult to discern, but many of the oldest, richest families in the world can be linked to Vanguard funds.

What does The New York Times and a majority of other legacy media have in common with Big Pharma? Answer: They’re largely owned by BlackRock and the Vanguard Group, the two largest asset management firms in the world. Moreover, it turns out these two companies form a secret monopoly that owns just about everything else you can think of too. As reported in the featured video:

“The stock of the world’s largest corporations are owned by the same institutional investors. They all own each other. This means that ‘competing’ brands, like Coke and Pepsi aren’t really competitors, at all, since their stock is owned by exactly the same investment companies, investment funds, insurance companies, banks and in some cases, governments.

“The smaller investors are owned by larger investors. Those are owned by even bigger investors. The visible top of this pyramid shows only two companies whose names we have often seen …They are Vanguard and BlackRock.

“The power of these two companies is beyond your imagination. Not only do they own a large part of the stocks of nearly all big companies but also the stocks of the investors in those companies. This gives them a complete monopoly.

“A Bloomberg report states that both these companies in the year 2028, together will have investments in the amount of 20 trillion dollars. That means that they will own almost everything.’”

Who are the Vanguard?

The word “vanguard” means “the foremost position in an army or fleet advancing into battle,” and/or “the leading position in a trend or movement.” Both are fitting descriptions of this global behemoth, owned by globalists pushing for a Great Reset, the core of which is the transfer of wealth and ownership from the hands of the many into the hands of the very few.

Interestingly, Vanguard is the largest shareholder of BlackRock, as of March 2021. Vanguard itself, on the other hand, has a “unique” corporate structure that makes its ownership more difficult to discern. It’s owned by its various funds, which in turn are owned by the shareholders. Aside from these shareholders, it has no outside investors and is not publicly traded. As reported in the featured video:

“The elite who own Vanguard apparently do not like being in the spotlight but of course they cannot hide from who is willing to dig. Reports from Oxfam and Bloomberg say that 1% of the world, together owns more money than the other 99%. Even worse, Oxfam says that 82% of all earned money in 2017 went to this 1%.

“In other words, these two investment companies, Vanguard and BlackRock hold a monopoly in all industries in the world and they, in turn, are owned by the richest families in the world, some of whom are royalty and who have been very rich since before the Industrial Revolution.”

While it would take time to sift through all of Vanguard’s funds to identify individual shareholders, and therefore owners of Vanguard, a quick look-see suggests Rothschild Investment Corp. and the Edmond De Rothschild Holding are two such stakeholders. Keep the name Rothschild in your mind as you read on, as it will feature again later.

The video above also identifies the Italian Orsini family, the American Bush family, the British Royal family, the du Pont family, the Morgans, Vanderbilts and Rockefellers, as Vanguard owners.

BlackRock/Vanguard own Big Pharma

According to Simply Wall Street, in February 2020, BlackRock and Vanguard were the two largest shareholders of GlaxoSmithKline, at 7% and 3.5% of shares respectively. At Pfizer, the ownership is reversed, with Vanguard being the top investor and BlackRock the second-largest stockholder.

Top owners of Pfizer Inc.

Keep in mind that stock ownership ratios can change at any time, since companies buy and sell on a regular basis, so don’t get hung up on percentages. The bottom line is that BlackRock and Vanguard, individually and combined, own enough shares at any given time that we can say they easily control both Big Pharma and the centralized legacy media — and then some

Why does this matter? It matters because drug companies are driving COVID-19 responses — all of which, so far, have endangered rather than optimized public health — and mainstream media have been willing accomplices in spreading their propaganda, a false official narrative that has, and still is, leading the public astray and fosters fear based on lies.

CHD Calls on FDA to Take COVID Vaccines Off the Market - Submit a Comment

To have any chance of righting this situation, we must understand who the central players are, where the harmful dictates are coming from, and why these false narratives are being created in the first place.

As noted in Global Justice Now’s December 2020 report “The Horrible History of Big Pharma,” we simply cannot allow drug companies — “which have a long track record of prioritizing corporate profit over people’s health” — to continue to dictate COVID-19 responses.

In it, they review the shameful history of the top seven drug companies in the world that are now developing and manufacturing drugs and gene-based “vaccines” against COVID-19, while mainstream media have helped suppress information about readily available older drugs that have been shown to have a high degree of efficacy against the infection.

BlackRock/Vanguard own the media

When it comes to The New York Times, as of May 2021, BlackRock is the second-largest stockholder at 7.43% of total shares, just after The Vanguard Group, which owns the largest portion (8.11%).

In addition to The New York Times, Vanguard and BlackRock are also the top two owners of Time Warner, Comcast, Disney and News Corp, four of the six media companies that control more than 90% of the U.S. media landscape.

Needless to say, if you have control of this many news outlets, you can control entire nations by way of carefully orchestrated and organized centralized propaganda disguised as journalism.

BlackRock-and-Vanguard own the media.

If your head is spinning already, you’re not alone. It’s difficult to describe circular and tightly interwoven relationships in a linear fashion. The world of corporate ownership is labyrinthine, where everyone seems to own everyone, to some degree.

However, the key take-home message is that two companies stand out head and neck above all others, and those are BlackRock and Vanguard. Together, they form a hidden monopoly on global asset holdings, and through their influence over our centralized media, they have the power to manipulate and control a great deal of the world’s economy and events, and how the world views it all.

Considering BlackRock in 2018 announced that it has “social expectations” from the companies it invests in, its potential role as a central hub in the Great Reset and the “build back better” plan cannot be overlooked.

Add to this information showing it “undermines competition through owning shares in competing companies” and “blurs boundaries between private capital and government affairs by working closely with regulators,” and one would be hard-pressed to not see how BlackRock/Vanguard and their globalist owners might be able to facilitate the Great Reset and the so-called “green” revolution, both of which are part of the same wealth-theft scheme.

BlackRock and Vanguard own the world

That assertion will become even clearer once you realize that this duo’s influence is not limited to Big Pharma and the media. Importantly, BlackRock also works closely with central banks around the world, including the U.S. Federal Reserve, which is a private entity, not a federal one. It lends money to the central bank, acts as an adviser to it, and develops the central bank’s software.

BlackRock/Vanguard also own shares of a long list of other companies, including Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Alphabet Inc. As illustrated in the graphic of BlackRock and Vanguard’s ownership network below, featured in the 2017 article “These Three Firms Own Corporate America” in The Conversation, it would be near-impossible to list them all.

In all, BlackRock and Vanguard have ownership in some 1,600 American firms, which in 2015 had combined revenues of $9.1 trillion. When you add in the third-largest global owner, State Street, their combined ownership encompasses nearly 90% of all S&P 500 firms.

Blackrock and Vanguard ownership

A global monopoly few know anything about

To tease out the overarching influence of BlackRock and Vanguard in the global marketplace, be sure to watch the 45-minute-long video featured at the top of this article. It provides a wide-view summary of the hidden monopoly network of Vanguard- and BlackRock-owned corporations, and their role in the Great Reset. A second much shorter video (above) offers an additional review of this information.

How can we tie BlackRock/Vanguard — and the globalist families that own them — to the Great Reset? Barring a public confession, we have to look at the relationships between these behemoth globalist-owned corporations and consider the influence they can wield through those relationships. As noted by Lew Rockwell:

“When Lynn Forester de Rothschild wants the United States to be a one-party country (like China) and doesn’t want voter ID laws passed in the U.S., so that more election fraud can be perpetrated to achieve that end, what does she do?

“She holds a conference call with the world’s top 100 CEOs and tells them to publicly decry as ‘Jim Crow’ Georgia’s passing of an anti-corruption law and she orders her dutiful CEOs to boycott the State of Georgia, like we saw with Coca-Cola and Major League Baseball and even Hollywood star, Will Smith.

“In this conference call, we see shades of the Great Reset, Agenda 2030, the New World Order. The UN wants to make sure, as does [World Economic Forum founder and executive chairman Klaus] Schwab that in 2030, poverty, hunger, pollution and disease no longer plague the Earth.

“To achieve this, the UN wants taxes from Western countries to be split by the mega corporations of the elite to create a brand-new society. For this project, the UN says we need a world government — namely the UN, itself.”

As I’ve reviewed in many previous articles, it seems quite clear that the COVID-19 pandemic was orchestrated to bring about this New World Order — the Great Reset — and the 45-minute video featured at the top of the article does a good job of explaining how this was done. And at the heart of it all, the “heart” toward which all global wealth streams flow, we find BlackRock and Vanguard.
 
Re: "Globalist" corporatists are in vanguard for bolshies, playing "good cops" for leftist, atheists

Microsoft admits to signing rootkit malware in supply-chain fiasco

By Ax Sharma
June 26, 2021
05:16 AM

Link: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/ne...gning-rootkit-malware-in-supply-chain-fiasco/

Microsoft has now confirmed signing a malicious driver being distributed within gaming environments.

This driver, called "Netfilter," is in fact a rootkit that was observed communicating with Chinese command-and-control (C2) IPs.

G Data malware analyst Karsten Hahn first took notice of this event last week and was joined by the wider infosec. community in tracing and analyzing the malicious drivers bearing the seal of Microsoft.

This incident has once again exposed threats to software supply-chain security, except this time it stemmed from a weakness in Microsoft's code-signing process.

"Netfilter" driver is rootkit signed by Microsoft

Last week, G Data's cybersecurity alert systems flagged what appeared to be a false positive, but was not—a Microsoft signed driver called "Netfilter."

The driver in question was seen communicating with China-based C&C IPs providing no legitimate functionality and as such raised suspicions.

This is when G Data's malware analyst Karsten Hahn shared this publicly and simultaneously contacted Microsoft:

microsoft signs malicious netfilter driver
The malicious binary has been signed by Microsoft (VirusTotal)

"Since Windows Vista, any code that runs in kernel mode is required to be tested and signed before public release to ensure stability for the operating system."

"Drivers without a Microsoft certificate cannot be installed by default," states Hahn.

At the time, BleepingComputer began observing the behavior of C2 URLs and also contacted Microsoft for a statement.

The first C2 URL returns a set of more routes (URLs) separated by the pipe ("|") symbol:

first c2 response
Navigating to the C2 URL presents more routes for different purposes
Source: BleepingComputer

Each of these serves a purpose, according to Hahn:

•The URL ending in "/p" is associated with proxy settings,
•"/s" provides encoded redirection IPs,
•"/h?" is for receiving CPU-ID,
•"/c" provided a root certificate, and
•"/v?" is related to the malware's self-update functionality.

As seen by BleepingComputer, for example, the "/v?" path provided URL to the malicious Netfilter driver in question itself (living at "/d3"):

path to malware binary
Path to malicious Netfilter driver
Source: BleepingComputer

The G Data researcher spent some time sufficiently analyzing the driver and concluded it to be malware.

The researcher has analyzed the driver, its self-update functionality, and Indicators of Compromise (IOCs) in a detailed blog post.

"The sample has a self-update routine that sends its own MD5 hash to the server via hxxp://110.42.4.180:2081/v?v=6&m=," says Hahn.

An example request would look like this:

hxxp://110.42.4.180:2081/v?v=6&m=921fa8a5442e9bf3fe727e770cded4ab

"The server then responds with the URL for the latest sample, e.g. hxxp://110.42.4.180:2081/d6 or with 'OK' if the sample is up-to-date. The malware replaces its own file accordingly," further explained the researcher.

self-update functionality
Malware's self-update functionality analyzed by G Data

During the course of his analysis, Hahn was joined by other malware researchers including Johann Aydinbas, Takahiro Haruyama, and Florian Roth.

Roth was able to gather the list of samples in a spreadsheet and has provided YARA rules for detecting these in your network environments.

Notably, the C2 IP 110.42.4.180 that the malicious Netfilter driver connects to belonged to Ningbo Zhuo Zhi Innovation Network Technology Co., Ltd, according to WHOIS records:

whois record for 110.42.4.180
WHOIS search for the IP address (BleepingComputer)

Microsoft admits to signing the malicious driver

Microsoft is actively investigating this incident, although thus far, there is no evidence that stolen code-signing certificates were used.

The mishap seems to have resulted from the threat actor following Microsoft's process to submit the malicious Netfilter drivers, and managing to acquire the Microsoft-signed binary in a legitimate manner:

"Microsoft is investigating a malicious actor distributing malicious drivers within gaming environments."

"The actor submitted drivers for certification through the Windows Hardware Compatibility Program. The drivers were built by a third party."

"We have suspended the account and reviewed their submissions for additional signs of malware," said Microsoft yesterday.

According to Microsoft, the threat actor has mainly targeted the gaming sector specifically in China with these malicious drivers, and there is no indication of enterprise environments having been affected so far.

Microsoft has refrained from attributing this incident to nation-state actors just yet.

Falsely signed binaries can be abused by sophisticated threat actors to facilitate large-scale software supply-chain attacks.

The multifaceted Stuxnet attack that targeted Iran's nuclear program marks a well-known incident in which code-signing certificates were stolen from Realtek and JMicron to facilitate the attack.

This particular incident, however, has exposed weaknesses in a legitimate code-signing process, exploited by threat actors to acquire Microsoft-signed code without compromising any certificates.

Updates:

Jun 26th 12:26 PM ET: Clarified that BleepingComputer did not see the DoD list explicitly mentioning the alleged Chinese company, contrary to the details in the researcher's report. Also reached out to Hahn for clarification.

Jun 27th, 04:58 AM ET: A previous version of the blog post mentioned another researcher @cowonaut alleging that the aforementioned company has previously been marked by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) as a "Communist Chinese military" company. However, BleepingComputer did not see Ningbo Zhuo Zhi Innovation Network Technology Co., Ltd. present on any of the DoD lists available. The claim has since been retracted from the original blog post, and we have updated our article to reflect the same.


Related Articles:

Microsoft: Russian hackers used 4 new malware in USAID phishing

Codecov ditches Bash Uploader for a NodeJS executable

GitHub's new policies allow removal of PoC exploits used in attacks

Windows 10's package manager flooded with duplicate, malformed apps

Microsoft reveals 3 new malware strains used by SolarWinds hackers
 
Last edited:
Re: "Globalist" corporatists are in vanguard for bolshies, playing "good cops" for leftist, atheists

Facebook Wants You To Snitch On Family And Friends Who Might Be “Extremists”

about 2 hours ago

Link: https://en-volve.com/2021/07/02/fac...n-family-and-friends-who-might-be-extremists/

Facebook has started sending users disturbing Orwellian ads inviting them to report friends and family members who could have become “extremist.”

Millions of Facebook users were told that they “may have been exposed to harmful extremist content” in a series of unsettling alerts, while millions more were encouraged to snitch on friends and family who they suspected of becoming “extremists.”

Of course, in Facebook’s eyes, “extremist” could refer to everyone who opposes the left-wing mainstream media narrative.

“You may have been exposed to harmful extremist content recently,” one message creepily warns. “Violent groups try to manipulate your anger and disappointment. You can take action now to protect yourself and others.”

When you click through, it takes you to a page saying, “What arguments do violent groups use to gain followers?”

“Some violent extremist groups wrongly say that for the United States to succeed, its citizens should all be of one culture. However, there are amazing benefits to diversity, and minority groups like immigrants contribute a great deal to American society,” one statement says.

“Did you know that Jewish people account for only 0.2% of the global population and do not exercise any more power or control than any other group?” says another.

Facebook is also sending messages to some users encouraging them to rat out their friends and family to the US government-funded anti-racism group “Life After Hate” and report their posts to Facebook staff who “work with law enforcement.”

From The Post Millennial:

“Life After Hate states that they are “committed to helping people leave the violent far-right to connect with humanity and lead compassionate lives.”

The group was awarded $400,000 in 2017 by the Obama administration, though co-founder Christian Picciolini, a former skinhead, said that those funds were rescinded by the Trump administration. The Trump administration’s Department of Homeland Security later funded the group with a $750,000 grant in September 2020 to “disrupt domestic terrorism.”

“Our vision,” they write, “is a world that allows people to change and contribute to a society without violence.” They go on to say that “It was these principles that guided us away from lives of hate and that drive us to help individuals exit hate groups today and to support those who have already left.”

Last month, the Biden regime called on Americans to rat out their friends and family if they detect signs of “potential” radicalization.

Mark Zuckerberg, whose social media company just passed a $1 trillion valuation, is now carrying out their bidding.
 
Re: "Globalist" corporatists are in vanguard for bolshies, playing "good cops" for leftist, atheists

Tara Reade: I thought I was a sexual assault survivor, but apparently Facebook thinks that makes me a ‘dangerous extremist’

2 Jul, 2021 18:52

Link: https://www.rt.com/op-ed/528261-tara-reade-facebook-dangerous-extreme/

By Tara Reade, author, poet, actor and former Senate aide, author of Left Out: When the Truth Doesn't Fit In. Follow her on Twitter @readealexandra

The giants of Silicon Valley have allowed hordes of trolls to brand me a liar and blocked my content, but now Facebook themselves are branding me a ‘dangerous extremist’? Big tech censorship is out of control.

In 2019, after the media began their onslaught against me, I woke up to my friend texting me she had left me a present to cheer me up outside my door. It was a copy of Anna Karenina and a note to stay away from train tracks. I smiled at the joke.

No one wants to be notorious. There is a stark contrast between being famous and notorious. One can be famous for performance, work, or art. To be notorious for something that happened to you is a cold and lonely place to reside. The advent of the internet has brought a new level of mob participation on issues; some are paid, some are earnest, and some unhinged, but they may as well be running down the street with pitchforks, as the atmosphere created by such events is the same.

Also on rt.com Tara Reade: Assange’s shameful treatment shows just how the US exploits fear to silence dissent… as I found out, too
Online social media was called the Wild West until powerful elites decided to lasso some voices that were too loud and too truthful. Tech giants like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and others started sifting through content and systematically deplatforming voices that challenged the American empire, especially after the January 6 attack on the Capitol.

The elites got nervous, apparently fearing some did not want some messy French version of democracy to spill the blood of the establishment on the streets. A fortress was erected around the Capitol, the National Guard deployed, and the media was virtually ordered to keep in lock step with establishment politicians; voices of dissent on right and left were threatened into silence. I never really understood why people wanted to defend another billionaire, Donald Trump, instead of the working class. The root of their actions that day remains a mystery.

In the aftermath of the violence, elite members of both parties lamented the lives lost and ‘domestic terrorists’ were announced to be the public enemy. Members of Congress like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (AOC) and POTUS urged people to report friends and family engaged in dangerous political extremism.

In 2019 and 2020, I came forward to reveal my history with Joe Biden and what he did to me as a staffer. I was called many names by social media trolls and Biden supporters, including ‘slut’, ‘bitch’, a ‘Russian whore making all my money on my back’, a ‘liar’, and worse. There were death threats, a chorus of trolls chanting to lock me up, work lost, relationships ended, professional credibility destroyed. I lost my house and was generally shunned like some pariah.

I pushed back by writing my book and giving interviews where the media allowed. During the election, Facebook suppressed my name as “election interference” – then when I tried to buy ads for an online book event I was not allowed, on the grounds of “interference with future legislation.” My assistant, activist, and supporter Avalon Clare tried to purchase social media ads, only to be blocked because my name, “Tara Reade,” was not allowed.

Avalon, an artist, runs my author Facebook page, as I gave up on that platform long ago – leaving it to the boomers, rabid Democrats, and scary older white women who foamed at the mouth at the mention of my name as they stridently screamed to protect Joe Biden. I was a ‘Russian apologist’, a ‘Bernie supporter’ not to be listened to or considered. I mean, Joe Biden’s campaign spent millions on public relations, so you get what you pay for like a good little capitalist, even if that is to let the powerful commit rape and walk away.

The Department of Justice seized my social media information under sealed search warrants and empaneled a grand jury. My lawyer was unable to get further information, even though it was my information, as everything is still under seal. The only reason I know about this is a lawyer from Twitter called to tell me they’d received eight attempted search warrants and had to file motions to even let me know I was under scrutiny. Edward Snowden warned us about the loss of privacy and sacrificed his freedom to release the proof. Glenn Greenwald discussed the NSA’s wide net to gather information about American citizens recently with Tucker Carlson.

Recently, one of my supporters tried to post an interview I did with Primo Podcast on Facebook.

After clicking to post, she was greeted with a warning that she may have been exposed to “harmful and extremist content” and my picture, along with a button in case she needed to “get support.”

This is not new; many political voices have been censored. Noam Chomsky’s Facebook livestream was interrupted at the Progressive Summit in 2020. In his piece for Ceasefire, Harry Halpin wrote about the abrupt deplatforming of an online event.

As the Progressive International’s spokesperson stated:“We are deeply disappointed that Facebook is blocking people coming together across borders to confront humanity’s shared problems at the Progressive International’s launch Summit. We wanted to livestream today’s public events, which include keynote speeches from Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, Yanis Varoufakis and a panel discussion about anti-democratic lawfare in Latin America. We don’t know why Facebook is preventing people watching on its platform, but we strongly urge them to reverse its decision, allow our event to take place unhindered and commit to operate its content moderation in a transparent manner.”

It never occurred to me that by simply telling the truth and discussing the sexual assault I endured at the hands of my former boss, who just now happens to be the most powerful man in the world, I would be labeled a ‘dangerous extremist’. I am not an insurgent, or even a Republican or Democrat. It is ironic that I’m considered ‘violent’ when, as an anti-imperialist, I espouse peace.

Also on rt.com Tara Reade: I told my story, but there are countless others too afraid of the Democrat protection machine to come forward
The method to silence any form of dissent rooted in truth is very old and deeply Machiavellian. Niccolo Machiavelli outlined in ‘The Prince’ (the politicians’ and oligarchs’ bible) how fear could be weaponized to coerce the masses into huddled silence. The Stalinesque cry to “report friends and family” echoes around social media, while the digital gulags wait to incarcerate any who question the status quo.

How we approach the next paradigm shift is important. We can choose to ignore these tech giants and innovate our own platforms, create our own space for voices to be heard with no corporate overlords. If we can unite our diversity to create and support, rather than destroy for profit, there may be a chance we can save our own humanity, one soul at a time.
 
Re: "Globalist" corporatists are in vanguard for bolshies, playing "good cops" for leftist, atheists

Inventor of mRNA technology removed from Wikipedia after he warned against taking COVID jabs

Dr. Robert Malone is no longer recognized by Wikipedia as being the creator of the technology used in some COVID-19 vaccines.

Mon Jul 5, 2021 - 8:31 pm EST
Michael HaynesBy Michael Haynes

Link: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/i...dia-after-he-warned-against-taking-covid-jabs

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

July 5, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Information about the inventor of the mRNA technology used in certain COVID-19 vaccines was removed from the online encyclopedia site Wikipedia after he publicly warned against giving the experimental gene therapy vaccines to young people and that there was insufficient information about the injections to give informed consent.

Dr. Robert Malone, M.D., M.S., discovered RNA transfection and, while he was at the Salk Institute in San Diego in 1988, invented mRNA vaccines. His research was continued the next year at Vical, and between 1988 and 1989, Malone wrote the patent disclosures for mRNA vaccines.

wcea twitter.png

On June 10, 2021, Dr. Malone joined biologist Bret Weinstein, Ph.D, on the Dark Horse Podcast, where Malone raised numerous safety concerns about the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, both of which use mRNA technology. He warned about future autoimmune issues caused by the spike proteins within the mRNA injections.

Malone also stated that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was aware that the spike proteins were “biologically active and could travel from the injection site and cause adverse events, and that the spike protein, if biologically active, is very dangerous.”

YouTube swiftly moved to censor clips from the three-hour podcast interview.

Then, appearing on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight some days later, Dr. Malone issued further warnings about the vaccines, the content of which is contrary to the mainstream media’s promotion of the injections. The mRNA inventor declared that there was still insufficient data for anyone to make an informed decision about receiving the vaccines.

Malone also warned against the injections being given to young people: “I have a bias that the benefits probably don’t outweigh the risks in that cohort. But, unfortunately, the risk-benefit analysis is not being done.”

Carlson described Malone as being perhaps “the single most qualified person on planet earth to discuss this subject” given his status as the inventor of the technology behind the injections now being rolled out, and in some cases mandated, to people across the globe.

However, Malone was not targeted merely by YouTube. Just days after the Dark Horse Podcast was released, the Wikipedia entry for “RNA vaccine” was changed, removing him and his role from the article, and thus potentially removing the weight that his warnings about the technology might convey.

An archived version of the site from June 14, 2021, clearly lists Malone as the creator and initial researcher into the technology.

Image
Just two days later, June 16, the site was altered to remove any mention of Dr. Malone in the text of the entry. Instead of detailing his exploits, the entry now states that mRNA technology was discovered by “researchers at the Salk Institute, the University of California, San Diego, and Vical.”

Image

wcdm twitter

The site was to undergo yet another change, and at the time of writing (July 5), the entry had undergone another substantial alteration, this time mentioning Jon Wolff, a collaborator of Malone’s in 1990, and giving him chief credit for the mRNA research experiments.

Image
Furthermore, the current Wikipedia entry now lists Katalin Karikó as “a scientist behind a key discovery in the development of mRNA vaccines.” As noted by commentators on YouTube, Karikó is, unlike Dr. Malone, a public proponent of the experimental vaccines, commenting to The Guardian in November 2020 on the mRNA vaccine: “I never doubted it would work.”

The 66-year-old biochemist is currently the senior vice president at BioNTech RNA Pharmaceuticals, having been in the position since 2013, and is the head of RNA protein replacement therapies. BioNTech is partnered with Pfizer in developing, producing and distributing the hastily developed, experimental COVID-19 injection.

A marked difference in tone toward the COVID-19 injections can be noticed between Dr. Malone and Karikó. While Malone warned that no one had sufficient information to be able to make an informed decision about taking the vaccine, Karikó hailed mRNA as a potential “a universal platform” for future drugs.

Meanwhile, the number of adverse reactions and deaths occurring after the COVID-19 injections continues to mount. The Defender reported that the latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now numbers 411,931 total adverse events after the COVID-19 injection, including 6,985 deaths and 34,065 serious injury reports.

Of that number, VAERS noted that there are 186,196 adverse events for the Pfizer/BioNTech injection, with 2,403 deaths and 16,139 serious events.

Wikipedia has faced criticism for being “a provider of inaccuracy and bias,” according to Joseph Farah, CEO and editor-in-chief of WorldNetDaily (WND). Farah noted that his own bio page was full of inaccuracies, libels, out-of-date information, and puerile insults.

So much has the website become a proponent of left-wing “propaganda” that Wikipedia’s co-founder Larry Sanger is attempting to launch an alternative. He stated that the site “completely ignores any conservative, libertarian, or critical treatment of the subject.”

While the platform did not begin with a left-leaning bias, Sanger explained that a decade ago “as liberals, or leftists made their march through the institutions, Wikipedia became one of those influential institutions. They started their march and basically took it over.”

In October 2020, Wikipedia also banned editors from displaying “user boxes” that would demonstrate opposition to same-sex “marriage” and support for traditional marriage. User boxes supporting traditional marriage were deemed to be “inflammatory or divisive” and promoting “bigotry.”
 
Re: "Globalist" corporatists are in vanguard for bolshies, playing "good cops" for leftist, atheists

How the CIA made Google

Link: https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e

Nafeez Ahmed
Jan 22, 2015 · 49 min read

Inside the secret network behind mass surveillance, endless war, and Skynet—

part 1

INSURGE INTELLIGENCE, a new crowd-funded investigative journalism project, breaks the exclusive story of how the United States intelligence community funded, nurtured and incubated Google as part of a drive to dominate the world through control of information. Seed-funded by the NSA and CIA, Google was merely the first among a plethora of private sector start-ups co-opted by US intelligence to retain ‘information superiority.’

The origins of this ingenious strategy trace back to a secret Pentagon-sponsored group, that for the last two decades has functioned as a bridge between the US government and elites across the business, industry, finance, corporate, and media sectors. The group has allowed some of the most powerful special interests in corporate America to systematically circumvent democratic accountability and the rule of law to influence government policies, as well as public opinion in the US and around the world. The results have been catastrophic: NSA mass surveillance, a permanent state of global war, and a new initiative to transform the US military into Skynet.

THIS IS PART ONE. READ PART TWO HERE. [ck site link, above, top]

This exclusive is being released for free in the public interest, and was enabled by crowdfunding. I’d like to thank my amazing community of patrons for their support, which gave me the opportunity to work on this in-depth investigation. Please support independent, investigative journalism for the global commons.

In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris, western governments are moving fast to legitimize expanded powers of mass surveillance and controls on the internet, all in the name of fighting terrorism.

US and European politicians have called to protect NSA-style snooping, and to advance the capacity to intrude on internet privacy by outlawing encryption. One idea is to establish a telecoms partnership that would unilaterally delete content deemed to “fuel hatred and violence” in situations considered “appropriate.” Heated discussions are going on at government and parliamentary level to explore cracking down on lawyer-client confidentiality.

What any of this would have done to prevent the Charlie Hebdo attacks remains a mystery, especially given that we already know the terrorists were on the radar of French intelligence for up to a decade.

There is little new in this story. The 9/11 atrocity was the first of many terrorist attacks, each succeeded by the dramatic extension of draconian state powers at the expense of civil liberties, backed up with the projection of military force in regions identified as hotspots harbouring terrorists. Yet there is little indication that this tried and tested formula has done anything to reduce the danger. If anything, we appear to be locked into a deepening cycle of violence with no clear end in sight.

As our governments push to increase their powers, INSURGE INTELLIGENCE can now reveal the vast extent to which the US intelligence community is implicated in nurturing the web platforms we know today, for the precise purpose of utilizing the technology as a mechanism to fight global ‘information war’ — a war to legitimize the power of the few over the rest of us. The lynchpin of this story is the corporation that in many ways defines the 21st century with its unobtrusive omnipresence: Google.

Google styles itself as a friendly, funky, user-friendly tech firm that rose to prominence through a combination of skill, luck, and genuine innovation. This is true. But it is a mere fragment of the story. In reality, Google is a smokescreen behind which lurks the US military-industrial complex.

The inside story of Google’s rise, revealed here for the first time, opens a can of worms that goes far beyond Google, unexpectedly shining a light on the existence of a parasitical network driving the evolution of the US national security apparatus, and profiting obscenely from its operation.

The shadow network

For the last two decades, US foreign and intelligence strategies have resulted in a global ‘war on terror’ consisting of prolonged military invasions in the Muslim world and comprehensive surveillance of civilian populations. These strategies have been incubated, if not dictated, by a secret network inside and beyond the Pentagon.

Established under the Clinton administration, consolidated under Bush, and firmly entrenched under Obama, this bipartisan network of mostly neoconservative ideologues sealed its dominion inside the US Department of Defense (DoD) by the dawn of 2015, through the operation of an obscure corporate entity outside the Pentagon, but run by the Pentagon.

In 1999, the CIA created its own venture capital investment firm, In-Q-Tel, to fund promising start-ups that might create technologies useful for intelligence agencies. But the inspiration for In-Q-Tel came earlier, when the Pentagon set up its own private sector outfit.

Known as the ‘Highlands Forum,’ this private network has operated as a bridge between the Pentagon and powerful American elites outside the military since the mid-1990s. Despite changes in civilian administrations, the network around the Highlands Forum has become increasingly successful in dominating US defense policy.

Giant defense contractors like Booz Allen Hamilton and Science Applications International Corporation are sometimes referred to as the ‘shadow intelligence community’ due to the revolving doors between them and government, and their capacity to simultaneously influence and profit from defense policy. But while these contractors compete for power and money, they also collaborate where it counts. The Highlands Forum has for 20 years provided an off the record space for some of the most prominent members of the shadow intelligence community to convene with senior US government officials, alongside other leaders in relevant industries.

I first stumbled upon the existence of this network in November 2014, when I reported for VICE’s Motherboard that US defense secretary Chuck Hagel’s newly announced ‘Defense Innovation Initiative’ was really about building Skynet — or something like it, essentially to dominate an emerging era of automated robotic warfare.

That story was based on a little-known Pentagon-funded ‘white paper’ published two months earlier by the National Defense University (NDU) in Washington DC, a leading US military-run institution that, among other things, generates research to develop US defense policy at the highest levels. The white paper clarified the thinking behind the new initiative, and the revolutionary scientific and technological developments it hoped to capitalize on.

The Highlands Forum

The co-author of that NDU white paper is Linton Wells, a 51-year veteran US defense official who served in the Bush administration as the Pentagon’s chief information officer, overseeing the National Security Agency (NSA) and other spy agencies. He still holds active top-secret security clearances, and according to a report by Government Executive magazine in 2006 he chaired the ‘Highlands Forum’, founded by the Pentagon in 1994.

Linton Wells II (right) former Pentagon chief information officer and assistant secretary of defense for networks, at a recent Pentagon Highlands Forum session. Rosemary Wenchel, a senior official in the US Department of Homeland Security, is sitting next to him

New Scientist magazine (paywall) has compared the Highlands Forum to elite meetings like “Davos, Ditchley and Aspen,” describing it as “far less well known, yet… arguably just as influential a talking shop.” Regular Forum meetings bring together “innovative people to consider interactions between policy and technology. Its biggest successes have been in the development of high-tech network-based warfare.”

Given Wells’ role in such a Forum, perhaps it was not surprising that his defense transformation white paper was able to have such a profound impact on actual Pentagon policy. But if that was the case, why had no one noticed?

Despite being sponsored by the Pentagon, I could find no official page on the DoD website about the Forum. Active and former US military and intelligence sources had never heard of it, and neither did national security journalists. I was baffled.

The Pentagon’s intellectual capital venture firm

In the prologue to his 2007 book, A Crowd of One: The Future of Individual Identity, John Clippinger, an MIT scientist of the Media Lab Human Dynamics Group, described how he participated in a “Highlands Forum” gathering, an “invitation-only meeting funded by the Department of Defense and chaired by the assistant for networks and information integration.” This was a senior DoD post overseeing operations and policies for the Pentagon’s most powerful spy agencies including the NSA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), among others. Starting from 2003, the position was transitioned into what is now the undersecretary of defense for intelligence. The Highlands Forum, Clippinger wrote, was founded by a retired US Navy captain named Dick O’Neill. Delegates include senior US military officials across numerous agencies and divisions — “captains, rear admirals, generals, colonels, majors and commanders” as well as “members of the DoD leadership.”

What at first appeared to be the Forum’s main website describes Highlands as “an informal cross-disciplinary network sponsored by Federal Government,” focusing on “information, science and technology.” Explanation is sparse, beyond a single ‘Department of Defense’ logo.

But Highlands also has another website describing itself as an “intellectual capital venture firm” with “extensive experience assisting corporations, organizations, and government leaders.” The firm provides a “wide range of services, including: strategic planning, scenario creation and gaming for expanding global markets,” as well as “working with clients to build strategies for execution.” ‘The Highlands Group Inc.,’ the website says, organizes a whole range of Forums on these issue.

For instance, in addition to the Highlands Forum, since 9/11 the Group runs the ‘Island Forum,’ an international event held in association with Singapore’s Ministry of Defense, which O’Neill oversees as “lead consultant.” The Singapore Ministry of Defense website describes the Island Forum as “patterned after the Highlands Forum organized for the US Department of Defense.” Documents leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden confirmed that Singapore played a key role in permitting the US and Australia to tap undersea cables to spy on Asian powers like Indonesia and Malaysia.

The Highlands Group website also reveals that Highlands is partnered with one of the most powerful defense contractors in the United States. Highlands is “supported by a network of companies and independent researchers,” including “our Highlands Forum partners for the past ten years at SAIC; and the vast Highlands network of participants in the Highlands Forum.”

SAIC stands for the US defense firm, Science Applications International Corporation, which changed its name to Leidos in 2013, operating SAIC as a subsidiary. SAIC/Leidos is among the top 10 largest defense contractors in the US, and works closely with the US intelligence community, especially the NSA. According to investigative journalist Tim Shorrock, the first to disclose the vast extent of the privatization of US intelligence with his seminal book Spies for Hire, SAIC has a “symbiotic relationship with the NSA: the agency is the company’s largest single customer and SAIC is the NSA’s largest contractor.”

Richard ‘Dick’ Patrick O’Neill, founding president of the Pentagon’s Highlands Forum

The full name of Captain “Dick” O’Neill, the founding president of the Highlands Forum, is Richard Patrick O’Neill, who after his work in the Navy joined the DoD. He served his last post as deputy for strategy and policy in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence, before setting up Highlands.

The Club of Yoda

But Clippinger also referred to another mysterious individual revered by Forum attendees:

“He sat at the back of the room, expressionless behind thick, black-rimmed glasses. I never heard him utter a word… Andrew (Andy) Marshall is an icon within DoD. Some call him Yoda, indicative of his mythical inscrutable status… He had served many administrations and was widely regarded as above partisan politics. He was a supporter of the Highlands Forum and a regular fixture from its beginning.”

Since 1973, Marshall has headed up one of the Pentagon’s most powerful agencies, the Office of Net Assessment (ONA), the US defense secretary’s internal ‘think tank’ which conducts highly classified research on future planning for defense policy across the US military and intelligence community. The ONA has played a key role in major Pentagon strategy initiatives, including Maritime Strategy, the Strategic Defense Initiative, the Competitive Strategies Initiative, and the Revolution in Military Affairs.

Andrew ‘Yoda’ Marshall, head of the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment (ONA) and co-chair of the Highlands Forum, at an early Highlands event in 1996 at the Santa Fe Institute. Marshall is retiring as of January 2015

In a rare 2002 profile in Wired, reporter Douglas McGray described Andrew Marshall, now 93 years old, as “the DoD’s most elusive” but “one of its most influential” officials. McGray added that “Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz” — widely considered the hawks of the neoconservative movement in American politics — were among Marshall’s “star protégés.”

Speaking at a low-key Harvard University seminar a few months after 9/11, Highlands Forum founding president Richard O’Neill said that Marshall was much more than a “regular fixture” at the Forum. “Andy Marshall is our co-chair, so indirectly everything that we do goes back into Andy’s system,” he told the audience. “Directly, people who are in the Forum meetings may be going back to give briefings to Andy on a variety of topics and to synthesize things.” He also said that the Forum had a third co-chair: the director of the Defense Advanced Research and Projects Agency (DARPA), which at that time was a Rumsfeld appointee, Anthony J. Tether. Before joining DARPA, Tether was vice president of SAIC’s Advanced Technology Sector.

Anthony J. Tether, director of DARPA and co-chair of the Pentagon’s Highlands Forum from June 2001 to February 2009

The Highlands Forum’s influence on US defense policy has thus operated through three main channels: its sponsorship by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (around the middle of last decade this was transitioned specifically to the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, which is in charge of the main surveillance agencies); its direct link to Andrew ‘Yoda’ Marshall’s ONA; and its direct link to DARPA.

A slide from Richard O’Neill’s presentation at Harvard University in 2001

According to Clippinger in A Crowd of One, “what happens at informal gatherings such as the Highlands Forum could, over time and through unforeseen curious paths of influence, have enormous impact, not just within the DoD but throughout the world.” He wrote that the Forum’s ideas have “moved from being heretical to mainstream. Ideas that were anathema in 1999 had been adopted as policy just three years later.”

Although the Forum does not produce “consensus recommendations,” its impact is deeper than a traditional government advisory committee. “The ideas that emerge from meetings are available for use by decision-makers as well as by people from the think tanks,” according to O’Neill:

“We’ll include people from Booz, SAIC, RAND, or others at our meetings… We welcome that kind of cooperation, because, truthfully, they have the gravitas. They are there for the long haul and are able to influence government policies with real scholarly work… We produce ideas and interaction and networks for these people to take and use as they need them.”

My repeated requests to O’Neill for information on his work at the Highlands Forum were ignored. The Department of Defense also did not respond to multiple requests for information and comment on the Forum.

Information warfare

The Highlands Forum has served as a two-way ‘influence bridge’: on the one hand, for the shadow network of private contractors to influence the formulation of information operations policy across US military intelligence; and on the other, for the Pentagon to influence what is going on in the private sector. There is no clearer evidence of this than the truly instrumental role of the Forum in incubating the idea of mass surveillance as a mechanism to dominate information on a global scale.

In 1989, Richard O’Neill, then a US Navy cryptologist, wrote a paper for the US Naval War College, ‘Toward a methodology for perception management.’ In his book, Future Wars, Col. John Alexander, then a senior officer in the US Army’s Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM), records that O’Neill’s paper for the first time outlined a strategy for “perception management” as part of information warfare (IW). O’Neill’s proposed strategy identified three categories of targets for IW: adversaries, so they believe they are vulnerable; potential partners, “so they perceive the cause [of war] as just”; and finally, civilian populations and the political leadership so they “perceive the cost as worth the effort.” A secret briefing based on O’Neill’s work “made its way to the top leadership” at DoD. “They acknowledged that O’Neill was right and told him to bury it.

Except the DoD didn’t bury it. Around 1994, the Highlands Group was founded by O’Neill as an official Pentagon project at the appointment of Bill Clinton’s then defense secretary William Perry — who went on to join SAIC’s board of directors after retiring from government in 2003.

In O’Neill’s own words, the group would function as the Pentagon’s ‘ideas lab’. According to Government Executive, military and information technology experts gathered at the first Forum meeting “to consider the impacts of IT and globalization on the United States and on warfare. How would the Internet and other emerging technologies change the world?” The meeting helped plant the idea of “network-centric warfare” in the minds of “the nation’s top military thinkers.”

Excluding the public

Official Pentagon records confirm that the Highlands Forum’s primary goal was to support DoD policies on O’Neill’s specialism: information warfare. According to the Pentagon’s 1997 Annual Report to the President and the Congress under a section titled ‘Information Operations,’ (IO) the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) had authorized the “establishment of the Highlands Group of key DoD, industry, and academic IO experts” to coordinate IO across federal military intelligence agencies.

The following year’s DoD annual report reiterated the Forum’s centrality to information operations: “To examine IO issues, DoD sponsors the Highlands Forum, which brings together government, industry, and academic professionals from various fields.”

Notice that in 1998, the Highlands ‘Group’ became a ‘Forum.’ According to O’Neill, this was to avoid subjecting Highlands Forums meetings to “bureaucratic restrictions.” What he was alluding to was the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which regulates the way the US government can formally solicit the advice of special interests.

Known as the ‘open government’ law, FACA requires that US government officials cannot hold closed-door or secret consultations with people outside government to develop policy. All such consultations should take place via federal advisory committees that permit public scrutiny. FACA requires that meetings be held in public, announced via the Federal Register, that advisory groups are registered with an office at the General Services Administration, among other requirements intended to maintain accountability to the public interest.

But Government Executive reported that “O’Neill and others believed” such regulatory issues “would quell the free flow of ideas and no-holds-barred discussions they sought.” Pentagon lawyers had warned that the word ‘group’ might necessitate certain obligations and advised running the whole thing privately: “So O’Neill renamed it the Highlands Forum and moved into the private sector to manage it as a consultant to the Pentagon.” The Pentagon Highlands Forum thus runs under the mantle of O’Neill’s ‘intellectual capital venture firm,’ ‘Highlands Group Inc.’

In 1995, a year after William Perry appointed O’Neill to head up the Highlands Forum, SAIC — the Forum’s “partner” organization — launched a new Center for Information Strategy and Policy under the direction of “Jeffrey Cooper, a member of the Highlands Group who advises senior Defense Department officials on information warfare issues.” The Center had precisely the same objective as the Forum, to function as “a clearinghouse to bring together the best and brightest minds in information warfare by sponsoring a continuing series of seminars, papers and symposia which explore the implications of information warfare in depth.” The aim was to “enable leaders and policymakers from government, industry, and academia to address key issues surrounding information warfare to ensure that the United States retains its edge over any and all potential enemies.”

Despite FACA regulations, federal advisory committees are already heavily influenced, if not captured, by corporate power. So in bypassing FACA, the Pentagon overrode even the loose restrictions of FACA, by permanently excluding any possibility of public engagement.

O’Neill’s claim that there are no reports or recommendations is disingenuous. By his own admission, the secret Pentagon consultations with industry that have taken place through the Highlands Forum since 1994 have been accompanied by regular presentations of academic and policy papers, recordings and notes of meetings, and other forms of documentation that are locked behind a login only accessible by Forum delegates. This violates the spirit, if not the letter, of FACA — in a way that is patently intended to circumvent democratic accountability and the rule of law.

The Highlands Forum doesn’t need to produce consensus recommendations. Its purpose is to provide the Pentagon a shadow social networking mechanism to cement lasting relationships with corporate power, and to identify new talent, that can be used to fine-tune information warfare strategies in absolute secrecy.

Total participants in the DoD’s Highlands Forum number over a thousand, although sessions largely consist of small closed workshop style gatherings of maximum 25–30 people, bringing together experts and officials depending on the subject. Delegates have included senior personnel from SAIC and Booz Allen Hamilton, RAND Corp., Cisco, Human Genome Sciences, eBay, PayPal, IBM, Google, Microsoft, AT&T, the BBC, Disney, General Electric, Enron, among innumerable others; Democrat and Republican members of Congress and the Senate; senior executives from the US energy industry such as Daniel Yergin of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates; and key people involved in both sides of presidential campaigns.

Other participants have included senior media professionals: David Ignatius, associate editor of the Washington Post and at the time the executive editor of the International Herald Tribune; Thomas Friedman, long-time New York Times columnist; Arnaud de Borchgrave, an editor at Washington Times and United Press International; Steven Levy, a former Newsweek editor, senior writer for Wired and now chief tech editor at Medium; Lawrence Wright, staff writer at the New Yorker; Noah Shachtmann, executive editor at the Daily Beast; Rebecca McKinnon, co-founder of Global Voices Online; Nik Gowing of the BBC; and John Markoff of the New York Times.

Due to its current sponsorship by the OSD’s undersecretary of defense for intelligence, the Forum has inside access to the chiefs of the main US surveillance and reconnaissance agencies, as well as the directors and their assistants at DoD research agencies, from DARPA, to the ONA. This also means that the Forum is deeply plugged into the Pentagon’s policy research task forces.

Google: seeded by the Pentagon

In 1994 — the same year the Highlands Forum was founded under the stewardship of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the ONA, and DARPA — two young PhD students at Stanford University, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, made their breakthrough on the first automated web crawling and page ranking application. That application remains the core component of what eventually became Google’s search service. Brin and Page had performed their work with funding from the Digital Library Initiative (DLI), a multi-agency programme of the National Science Foundation (NSF), NASA and DARPA.

But that’s just one side of the story.

Throughout the development of the search engine, Sergey Brin reported regularly and directly to two people who were not Stanford faculty at all: Dr. Bhavani Thuraisingham and Dr. Rick Steinheiser. Both were representatives of a sensitive US intelligence community research programme on information security and data-mining.

Thuraisingham is currently the Louis A. Beecherl distinguished professor and executive director of the Cyber Security Research Institute at the University of Texas, Dallas, and a sought-after expert on data-mining, data management and information security issues. But in the 1990s, she worked for the MITRE Corp., a leading US defense contractor, where she managed the Massive Digital Data Systems initiative, a project sponsored by the NSA, CIA, and the Director of Central Intelligence, to foster innovative research in information technology.

“We funded Stanford University through the computer scientist Jeffrey Ullman, who had several promising graduate students working on many exciting areas,” Prof. Thuraisingham told me. “One of them was Sergey Brin, the founder of Google. The intelligence community’s MDDS program essentially provided Brin seed-funding, which was supplemented by many other sources, including the private sector.”

This sort of funding is certainly not unusual, and Sergey Brin’s being able to receive it by being a graduate student at Stanford appears to have been incidental. The Pentagon was all over computer science research at this time. But it illustrates how deeply entrenched the culture of Silicon Valley is in the values of the US intelligence community.

In an extraordinary document hosted by the website of the University of Texas, Thuraisingham recounts that from 1993 to 1999, “the Intelligence Community [IC] started a program called Massive Digital Data Systems (MDDS) that I was managing for the Intelligence Community when I was at the MITRE Corporation.” The program funded 15 research efforts at various universities, including Stanford. Its goal was developing “data management technologies to manage several terabytes to petabytes of data,” including for “query processing, transaction management, metadata management, storage management, and data integration.”

At the time, Thuraisingham was chief scientist for data and information management at MITRE, where she led team research and development efforts for the NSA, CIA, US Air Force Research Laboratory, as well as the US Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) and Communications and Electronic Command (CECOM). She went on to teach courses for US government officials and defense contractors on data-mining in counter-terrorism.

In her University of Texas article, she attaches the copy of an abstract of the US intelligence community’s MDDS program that had been presented to the “Annual Intelligence Community Symposium” in 1995. The abstract reveals that the primary sponsors of the MDDS programme were three agencies: the NSA, the CIA’s Office of Research & Development, and the intelligence community’s Community Management Staff (CMS) which operates under the Director of Central Intelligence. Administrators of the program, which provided funding of around 3–4 million dollars per year for 3–4 years, were identified as Hal Curran (NSA), Robert Kluttz (CMS), Dr. Claudia Pierce (NSA), Dr. Rick Steinheiser (ORD — standing for the CIA’s Office of Research and Devepment), and Dr. Thuraisingham herself.

Thuraisingham goes on in her article to reiterate that this joint CIA-NSA program partly funded Sergey Brin to develop the core of Google, through a grant to Stanford managed by Brin’s supervisor Prof. Jeffrey D. Ullman:


“In fact, the Google founder Mr. Sergey Brin was partly funded by this program while he was a PhD student at Stanford. He together with his advisor Prof. Jeffrey Ullman and my colleague at MITRE, Dr. Chris Clifton [Mitre’s chief scientist in IT], developed the Query Flocks System which produced solutions for mining large amounts of data stored in databases. I remember visiting Stanford with Dr. Rick Steinheiser from the Intelligence Community and Mr. Brin would rush in on roller blades, give his presentation and rush out. In fact the last time we met in September 1998, Mr. Brin demonstrated to us his search engine which became Google soon after.”

Brin and Page officially incorporated Google as a company in September 1998, the very month they last reported to Thuraisingham and Steinheiser. ‘Query Flocks’ was also part of Google’s patented ‘PageRank’ search system, which Brin developed at Stanford under the CIA-NSA-MDDS programme, as well as with funding from the NSF, IBM and Hitachi. That year, MITRE’s Dr. Chris Clifton, who worked under Thuraisingham to develop the ‘Query Flocks’ system, co-authored a paper with Brin’s superviser, Prof. Ullman, and the CIA’s Rick Steinheiser. Titled ‘Knowledge Discovery in Text,’ the paper was presented at an academic conference.

“The MDDS funding that supported Brin was significant as far as seed-funding goes, but it was probably outweighed by the other funding streams,” said Thuraisingham. “The duration of Brin’s funding was around two years or so. In that period, I and my colleagues from the MDDS would visit Stanford to see Brin and monitor his progress every three months or so. We didn’t supervise exactly, but we did want to check progress, point out potential problems and suggest ideas. In those briefings, Brin did present to us on the query flocks research, and also demonstrated to us versions of the Google search engine.”

Brin thus reported to Thuraisingham and Steinheiser regularly about his work developing Google.

==

UPDATE 2.05PM GMT [2nd Feb 2015]:

Since publication of this article, Prof. Thuraisingham has amended her article referenced above. The amended version includes a new modified statement, followed by a copy of the original version of her account of the MDDS. In this amended version, Thuraisingham rejects the idea that CIA funded Google, and says instead:

“In fact Prof. Jeffrey Ullman (at Stanford) and my colleague at MITRE Dr. Chris Clifton together with some others developed the Query Flocks System, as part of MDDS, which produced solutions for mining large amounts of data stored in databases. Also, Mr. Sergey Brin, the cofounder of Google, was part of Prof. Ullman’s research group at that time. I remember visiting Stanford with Dr. Rick Steinheiser from the Intelligence Community periodically and Mr. Brin would rush in on roller blades, give his presentation and rush out. During our last visit to Stanford in September 1998, Mr. Brin demonstrated to us his search engine which I believe became Google soon after…

There are also several inaccuracies in Dr. Ahmed’s article (dated January 22, 2015). For example, the MDDS program was not a ‘sensitive’ program as stated by Dr. Ahmed; it was an Unclassified program that funded universities in the US. Furthermore, Sergey Brin never reported to me or to Dr. Rick Steinheiser; he only gave presentations to us during our visits to the Department of Computer Science at Stanford during the 1990s. Also, MDDS never funded Google; it funded Stanford University.”

Here, there is no substantive factual difference in Thuraisingham’s accounts, other than to assert that her statement associating Sergey Brin with the development of ‘query flocks’ is mistaken. Notably, this acknowledgement is derived not from her own knowledge, but from this very article quoting a comment from a Google spokesperson.

However, the bizarre attempt to disassociate Google from the MDDS program misses the mark. Firstly, the MDDS never funded Google, because during the development of the core components of the Google search engine, there was no company incorporated with that name. The grant was instead provided to Stanford University through Prof. Ullman, through whom some MDDS funding was used to support Brin who was co-developing Google at the time. Secondly, Thuraisingham then adds that Brin never “reported” to her or the CIA’s Steinheiser, but admits he “gave presentations to us during our visits to the Department of Computer Science at Stanford during the 1990s.” It is unclear, though, what the distinction is here between reporting, and delivering a detailed presentation — either way, Thuraisingham confirms that she and the CIA had taken a keen interest in Brin’s development of Google. Thirdly, Thuraisingham describes the MDDS program as “unclassified,” but this does not contradict its “sensitive” nature. As someone who has worked for decades as an intelligence contractor and advisor, Thuraisingham is surely aware that there are many ways of categorizing intelligence, including ‘sensitive but unclassified.’ A number of former US intelligence officials I spoke to said that the almost total lack of public information on the CIA and NSA’s MDDS initiative suggests that although the progam was not classified, it is likely instead that its contents was considered sensitive, which would explain efforts to minimise transparency about the program and the way it fed back into developing tools for the US intelligence community. Fourthly, and finally, it is important to point out that the MDDS abstract which Thuraisingham includes in her University of Texas document states clearly not only that the Director of Central Intelligence’s CMS, CIA and NSA were the overseers of the MDDS initiative, but that the intended customers of the project were “DoD, IC, and other government organizations”: the Pentagon, the US intelligence community, and other relevant US government agencies.

In other words, the provision of MDDS funding to Brin through Ullman, under the oversight of Thuraisingham and Steinheiser, was fundamentally because they recognized the potential utility of Brin’s work developing Google to the Pentagon, intelligence community, and the federal government at large.

==

The MDDS programme is actually referenced in several papers co-authored by Brin and Page while at Stanford, specifically highlighting its role in financially sponsoring Brin in the development of Google. In their 1998 paper published in the Bulletin of the IEEE Computer Society Technical Committeee on Data Engineering, they describe the automation of methods to extract information from the web via “Dual Iterative Pattern Relation Extraction,” the development of “a global ranking of Web pages called PageRank,” and the use of PageRank “to develop a novel search engine called Google.” Through an opening footnote, Sergey Brin confirms he was “Partially supported by the Community Management Staff’s Massive Digital Data Systems Program, NSF grant IRI-96–31952” — confirming that Brin’s work developing Google was indeed partly-funded by the CIA-NSA-MDDS program.

This NSF grant identified alongside the MDDS, whose project report lists Brin among the students supported (without mentioning the MDDS), was different to the NSF grant to Larry Page that included funding from DARPA and NASA. The project report, authored by Brin’s supervisor Prof. Ullman, goes on to say under the section ‘Indications of Success’ that “there are some new stories of startups based on NSF-supported research.” Under ‘Project Impact,’ the report remarks: “Finally, the google project has also gone commercial as Google.com.”

Thuraisingham’s account, including her new amended version, therefore demonstrates that the CIA-NSA-MDDS program was not only partly funding Brin throughout his work with Larry Page developing Google, but that senior US intelligence representatives including a CIA official oversaw the evolution of Google in this pre-launch phase, all the way until the company was ready to be officially founded. Google, then, had been enabled with a “significant” amount of seed-funding and oversight from the Pentagon: namely, the CIA, NSA, and DARPA.


---------------------[END OF PART 1; SEE BELOW FOR PART 2]----------------
 
Re: "Globalist" corporatists are in vanguard for bolshies, playing "good cops" for leftist, atheists

---------------------------[HERE'S PART 2 TO ABOVE]-------------------------

The DoD could not be reached for comment.

When I asked Prof. Ullman to confirm whether or not Brin was partly funded under the intelligence community’s MDDS program, and whether Ullman was aware that Brin was regularly briefing the CIA’s Rick Steinheiser on his progress in developing the Google search engine, Ullman’s responses were evasive: “May I know whom you represent and why you are interested in these issues? Who are your ‘sources’?” He also denied that Brin played a significant role in developing the ‘query flocks’ system, although it is clear from Brin’s papers that he did draw on that work in co-developing the PageRank system with Page.

When I asked Ullman whether he was denying the US intelligence community’s role in supporting Brin during the development of Google, he said: “I am not going to dignify this nonsense with a denial. If you won’t explain what your theory is, and what point you are trying to make, I am not going to help you in the slightest.”

The MDDS abstract published online at the University of Texas confirms that the rationale for the CIA-NSA project was to “provide seed money to develop data management technologies which are of high-risk and high-pay-off,” including techniques for “querying, browsing, and filtering; transaction processing; accesses methods and indexing; metadata management and data modelling; and integrating heterogeneous databases; as well as developing appropriate architectures.” The ultimate vision of the program was to “provide for the seamless access and fusion of massive amounts of data, information and knowledge in a heterogeneous, real-time environment” for use by the Pentagon, intelligence community and potentially across government.

These revelations corroborate the claims of Robert Steele, former senior CIA officer and a founding civilian deputy director of the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity, whom I interviewed for The Guardian last year on open source intelligence. Citing sources at the CIA, Steele had said in 2006 that Steinheiser, an old colleague of his, was the CIA’s main liaison at Google and had arranged early funding for the pioneering IT firm. At the time, Wired founder John Batelle managed to get this official denial from a Google spokesperson in response to Steele’s assertions:

“The statements related to Google are completely untrue.”

This time round, despite multiple requests and conversations, a Google spokesperson declined to comment.

UPDATE: As of 5.41PM GMT [22nd Jan 2015], Google’s director of corporate communication got in touch and asked me to include the following statement:

“Sergey Brin was not part of the Query Flocks Program at Stanford, nor were any of his projects funded by US Intelligence bodies.”

This is what I wrote back:

My response to that statement would be as follows: Brin himself in his own paper acknowledges funding from the Community Management Staff of the Massive Digital Data Systems (MDDS) initiative, which was supplied through the NSF. The MDDS was an intelligence community program set up by the CIA and NSA. I also have it on record, as noted in the piece, from Prof. Thuraisingham of University of Texas that she managed the MDDS program on behalf of the US intelligence community, and that her and the CIA’s Rick Steinheiser met Brin every three months or so for two years to be briefed on his progress developing Google and PageRank. Whether Brin worked on query flocks or not is neither here nor there.

In that context, you might want to consider the following questions:

1) Does Google deny that Brin’s work was part-funded by the MDDS via an NSF grant?

2) Does Google deny that Brin reported regularly to Thuraisingham and Steinheiser from around 1996 to 1998 until September that year when he presented the Google search engine to them?

Total Information Awareness

A call for papers for the MDDS was sent out via email list on November 3rd 1993 from senior US intelligence official David Charvonia, director of the research and development coordination office of the intelligence community’s CMS. The reaction from Tatu Ylonen (celebrated inventor of the widely used secure shell [SSH] data protection protocol) to his colleagues on the email list is telling: “Crypto relevance? Makes you think whether you should protect your data.” The email also confirms that defense contractor and Highlands Forum partner, SAIC, was managing the MDDS submission process, with abstracts to be sent to Jackie Booth of the CIA’s Office of Research and Development via a SAIC email address.

By 1997, Thuraisingham reveals, shortly before Google became incorporated and while she was still overseeing the development of its search engine software at Stanford, her thoughts turned to the national security applications of the MDDS program. In the acknowledgements to her book, Web Data Mining and Applications in Business Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism (2003), Thuraisingham writes that she and “Dr. Rick Steinheiser of the CIA, began discussions with Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency on applying data-mining for counter-terrorism,” an idea that resulted directly from the MDDS program which partly funded Google. “These discussions eventually developed into the current EELD (Evidence Extraction and Link Detection) program at DARPA.”

So the very same senior CIA official and CIA-NSA contractor involved in providing the seed-funding for Google were simultaneously contemplating the role of data-mining for counter-terrorism purposes, and were developing ideas for tools actually advanced by DARPA.

Today, as illustrated by her recent oped in the New York Times, Thuraisingham remains a staunch advocate of data-mining for counter-terrorism purposes, but also insists that these methods must be developed by government in cooperation with civil liberties lawyers and privacy advocates to ensure that robust procedures are in place to prevent potential abuse. She points out, damningly, that with the quantity of information being collected, there is a high risk of false positives.

In 1993, when the MDDS program was launched and managed by MITRE Corp. on behalf of the US intelligence community, University of Virginia computer scientist Dr. Anita K. Jones — a MITRE trustee — landed the job of DARPA director and head of research and engineering across the Pentagon. She had been on the board of MITRE since 1988. From 1987 to 1993, Jones simultaneously served on SAIC’s board of directors. As the new head of DARPA from 1993 to 1997, she also co-chaired the Pentagon’s Highlands Forum during the period of Google’s pre-launch development at Stanford under the MDSS.

Thus, when Thuraisingham and Steinheiser were talking to DARPA about the counter-terrorism applications of MDDS research, Jones was DARPA director and Highlands Forum co-chair. That year, Jones left DARPA to return to her post at the University of Virgina. The following year, she joined the board of the National Science Foundation, which of course had also just funded Brin and Page, and also returned to the board of SAIC. When she left DoD, Senator Chuck Robb paid Jones the following tribute : “She brought the technology and operational military communities together to design detailed plans to sustain US dominance on the battlefield into the next century.”

Dr. Anita Jones, head of DARPA from 1993–1997, and co-chair of the Pentagon Highlands Forum from 1995–1997, during which officials in charge of the CIA-NSA-MDSS program were funding Google, and in communication with DARPA about data-mining for counterterrorism

On the board of the National Science Foundation from 1992 to 1998 (including a stint as chairman from 1996) was Richard N. Zare. This was the period in which the NSF sponsored Sergey Brin and Larry Page in association with DARPA. In June 1994, Prof. Zare, a chemist at Stanford, participated with Prof. Jeffrey Ullman (who supervised Sergey Brin’s research), on a panel sponsored by Stanford and the National Research Council discussing the need for scientists to show how their work “ties to national needs.” The panel brought together scientists and policymakers, including “Washington insiders.”

DARPA’s EELD program, inspired by the work of Thuraisingham and Steinheiser under Jones’ watch, was rapidly adapted and integrated with a suite of tools to conduct comprehensive surveillance under the Bush administration.

According to DARPA official Ted Senator, who led the EELD program for the agency’s short-lived Information Awareness Office, EELD was among a range of “promising techniques” being prepared for integration “into the prototype TIA system.” TIA stood for Total Information Awareness, and was the main global electronic eavesdropping and data-mining program deployed by the Bush administration after 9/11. TIA had been set up by Iran-Contra conspirator Admiral John Poindexter, who was appointed in 2002 by Bush to lead DARPA’s new Information Awareness Office.

The Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) was another contractor among 26 companies (also including SAIC) that received million dollar contracts from DARPA (the specific quantities remained classified) under Poindexter, to push forward the TIA surveillance program in 2002 onwards. The research included “behaviour-based profiling,” “automated detection, identification and tracking” of terrorist activity, among other data-analyzing projects. At this time, PARC’s director and chief scientist was John Seely Brown. Both Brown and Poindexter were Pentagon Highlands Forum participants — Brown on a regular basis until recently.

TIA was purportedly shut down in 2003 due to public opposition after the program was exposed in the media, but the following year Poindexter participated in a Pentagon Highlands Group session in Singapore, alongside defense and security officials from around the world. Meanwhile, Ted Senator continued to manage the EELD program among other data-mining and analysis projects at DARPA until 2006, when he left to become a vice president at SAIC. He is now a SAIC/Leidos technical fellow.

Google, DARPA and the money trail

Long before the appearance of Sergey Brin and Larry Page, Stanford University’s computer science department had a close working relationship with US military intelligence. A letter dated November 5th 1984 from the office of renowned artificial intelligence (AI) expert, Prof Edward Feigenbaum, addressed to Rick Steinheiser, gives the latter directions to Stanford’s Heuristic Programming Project, addressing Steinheiser as a member of the “AI Steering Committee.” A list of attendees at a contractor conference around that time, sponsored by the Pentagon’s Office of Naval Research (ONR), includes Steinheiser as a delegate under the designation “OPNAV Op-115” — which refers to the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations’ program on operational readiness, which played a major role in advancing digital systems for the military.

From the 1970s, Prof. Feigenbaum and his colleagues had been running Stanford’s Heuristic Programming Project under contract with DARPA, continuing through to the 1990s. Feigenbaum alone had received around over $7 million in this period for his work from DARPA, along with other funding from the NSF, NASA, and ONR.

Brin’s supervisor at Stanford, Prof. Jeffrey Ullman, was in 1996 part of a joint funding project of DARPA’s Intelligent Integration of Information program. That year, Ullman co-chaired DARPA-sponsored meetings on data exchange between multiple systems.

In September 1998, the same month that Sergey Brin briefed US intelligence representatives Steinheiser and Thuraisingham, tech entrepreneurs Andreas Bechtolsheim and David Cheriton invested $100,000 each in Google. Both investors were connected to DARPA.

As a Stanford PhD student in electrical engineering in the 1980s, Bechtolsheim’s pioneering SUN workstation project had been funded by DARPA and the Stanford computer science department — this research was the foundation of Bechtolsheim’s establishment of Sun Microsystems, which he co-founded with William Joy.

As for Bechtolsheim’s co-investor in Google, David Cheriton, the latter is a long-time Stanford computer science professor who has an even more entrenched relationship with DARPA. His bio at the University of Alberta, which in November 2014 awarded him an honorary science doctorate, says that Cheriton’s “research has received the support of the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for over 20 years.”

In the meantime, Bechtolsheim left Sun Microsystems in 1995, co-founding Granite Systems with his fellow Google investor Cheriton as a partner. They sold Granite to Cisco Systems in 1996, retaining significant ownership of Granite, and becoming senior Cisco executives.

An email obtained from the Enron Corpus (a database of 600,000 emails acquired by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and later released to the public) from Richard O’Neill, inviting Enron executives to participate in the Highlands Forum, shows that Cisco and Granite executives are intimately connected to the Pentagon. The email reveals that in May 2000, Bechtolsheim’s partner and Sun Microsystems co-founder, William Joy — who was then chief scientist and corporate executive officer there — had attended the Forum to discuss nanotechnology and molecular computing.

In 1999, Joy had also co-chaired the President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee, overseeing a report acknowledging that DARPA had:

“… revised its priorities in the 90’s so that all information technology funding was judged in terms of its benefit to the warfighter.”

Throughout the 1990s, then, DARPA’s funding to Stanford, including Google, was explicitly about developing technologies that could augment the Pentagon’s military intelligence operations in war theatres.

The Joy report recommended more federal government funding from the Pentagon, NASA, and other agencies to the IT sector. Greg Papadopoulos, another of Bechtolsheim’s colleagues as then Sun Microsystems chief technology officer, also attended a Pentagon Highlands’ Forum meeting in September 2000.

In November, the Pentagon Highlands Forum hosted Sue Bostrom, who was vice president for the internet at Cisco, sitting on the company’s board alongside Google co-investors Bechtolsheim and Cheriton. The Forum also hosted Lawrence Zuriff, then a managing partner of Granite, which Bechtolsheim and Cheriton had sold to Cisco. Zuriff had previously been an SAIC contractor from 1993 to 1994, working with the Pentagon on national security issues, specifically for Marshall’s Office of Net Assessment. In 1994, both the SAIC and the ONA were, of course, involved in co-establishing the Pentagon Highlands Forum. Among Zuriff’s output during his SAIC tenure was a paper titled ‘Understanding Information War’, delivered at a SAIC-sponsored US Army Roundtable on the Revolution in Military Affairs.

After Google’s incorporation, the company received $25 million in equity funding in 1999 led by Sequoia Capital and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. According to Homeland Security Today, “A number of Sequoia-bankrolled start-ups have contracted with the Department of Defense, especially after 9/11 when Sequoia’s Mark Kvamme met with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to discuss the application of emerging technologies to warfighting and intelligence collection.” Similarly, Kleiner Perkins had developed “a close relationship” with In-Q-Tel, the CIA venture capitalist firm that funds start-ups “to advance ‘priority’ technologies of value” to the intelligence community.

John Doerr, who led the Kleiner Perkins investment in Google obtaining a board position, was a major early investor in Becholshtein’s Sun Microsystems at its launch. He and his wife Anne are the main funders behind Rice University’s Center for Engineering Leadership (RCEL), which in 2009 received $16 million from DARPA for its platform-aware-compilation-environment (PACE) ubiquitous computing R&D program. Doerr also has a close relationship with the Obama administration, which he advised shortly after it took power to ramp up Pentagon funding to the tech industry. In 2013, at the Fortune Brainstorm TECH conference, Doerr applauded “how the DoD’s DARPA funded GPS, CAD, most of the major computer science departments, and of course, the Internet.”

From inception, in other words, Google was incubated, nurtured and financed by interests that were directly affiliated or closely aligned with the US military intelligence community: many of whom were embedded in the Pentagon Highlands Forum.

Google captures the Pentagon

In 2003, Google began customizing its search engine under special contract with the CIA for its Intelink Management Office, “overseeing top-secret, secret and sensitive but unclassified intranets for CIA and other IC agencies,” according to Homeland Security Today. That year, CIA funding was also being “quietly” funneled through the National Science Foundation to projects that might help create “new capabilities to combat terrorism through advanced technology.”

The following year, Google bought the firm Keyhole, which had originally been funded by In-Q-Tel. Using Keyhole, Google began developing the advanced satellite mapping software behind Google Earth. Former DARPA director and Highlands Forum co-chair Anita Jones had been on the board of In-Q-Tel at this time, and remains so today.

Then in November 2005, In-Q-Tel issued notices to sell $2.2 million of Google stocks. Google’s relationship with US intelligence was further brought to light when an IT contractor told a closed Washington DC conference of intelligence professionals on a not-for-attribution basis that at least one US intelligence agency was working to “leverage Google’s [user] data monitoring” capability as part of an effort to acquire data of “national security intelligence interest.”

A photo on Flickr dated March 2007 reveals that Google research director and AI expert Peter Norvig attended a Pentagon Highlands Forum meeting that year in Carmel, California. Norvig’s intimate connection to the Forum as of that year is also corroborated by his role in guest editing the 2007 Forum reading list.

The photo below shows Norvig in conversation with Lewis Shepherd, who at that time was senior technology officer at the Defense Intelligence Agency, responsible for investigating, approving, and architecting “all new hardware/software systems and acquisitions for the Global Defense Intelligence IT Enterprise,” including “big data technologies.” Shepherd now works at Microsoft. Norvig was a computer research scientist at Stanford University in 1991 before joining Bechtolsheim’s Sun Microsystems as senior scientist until 1994, and going on to head up NASA’s computer science division.

Lewis Shepherd (left), then a senior technology officer at the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, talking to Peter Norvig (right), renowned expert in artificial intelligence expert and director of research at Google. This photo is from a Highlands Forum meeting in 2007.

Norvig shows up on O’Neill’s Google Plus profile as one of his close connections. Scoping the rest of O’Neill’s Google Plus connections illustrates that he is directly connected not just to a wide range of Google executives, but also to some of the biggest names in the US tech community.

Those connections include Michele Weslander Quaid, an ex-CIA contractor and former senior Pentagon intelligence official who is now Google’s chief technology officer where she is developing programs to “best fit government agencies’ needs”; Elizabeth Churchill, Google director of user experience; James Kuffner, a humanoid robotics expert who now heads up Google’s robotics division and who introduced the term ‘cloud robotics’; Mark Drapeau, director of innovation engagement for Microsoft’s public sector business; Lili Cheng, general manager of Microsoft’s Future Social Experiences (FUSE) Labs; Jon Udell, Microsoft ‘evangelist’; Cory Ondrejka, vice president of engineering at Facebook; to name just a few.

In 2010, Google signed a multi-billion dollar no-bid contract with the NSA’s sister agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA). The contract was to use Google Earth for visualization services for the NGA. Google had developed the software behind Google Earth by purchasing Keyhole from the CIA venture firm In-Q-Tel.

Then a year after, in 2011, another of O’Neill’s Google Plus connections, Michele Quaid — who had served in executive positions at the NGA, National Reconnaissance Office and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence — left her government role to become Google ‘innovation evangelist’ and the point-person for seeking government contracts. Quaid’s last role before her move to Google was as a senior representative of the Director of National Intelligence to the Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Task Force, and a senior advisor to the undersecretary of defense for intelligence’s director of Joint and Coalition Warfighter Support (J&CWS). Both roles involved information operations at their core. Before her Google move, in other words, Quaid worked closely with the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, to which the Pentagon’s Highlands Forum is subordinate. Quaid has herself attended the Forum, though precisely when and how often I could not confirm.

In March 2012, then DARPA director Regina Dugan — who in that capacity was also co-chair of the Pentagon Highlands Forum — followed her colleague Quaid into Google to lead the company’s new Advanced Technology and Projects Group. During her Pentagon tenure, Dugan led on strategic cyber security and social media, among other initiatives. She was responsible for focusing “an increasing portion” of DARPA’s work “on the investigation of offensive capabilities to address military-specific needs,” securing $500 million of government funding for DARPA cyber research from 2012 to 2017.

Regina Dugan, former head of DARPA and Highlands Forum co-chair, now a senior Google executive — trying her best to look the part

By November 2014, Google’s chief AI and robotics expert James Kuffner was a delegate alongside O’Neill at the Highlands Island Forum 2014 in Singapore, to explore ‘Advancement in Robotics and Artificial Intelligence: Implications for Society, Security and Conflict.’ The event included 26 delegates from Austria, Israel, Japan, Singapore, Sweden, Britain and the US, from both industry and government. Kuffner’s association with the Pentagon, however, began much earlier. In 1997, Kuffner was a researcher during his Stanford PhD for a Pentagon-funded project on networked autonomous mobile robots, sponsored by DARPA and the US Navy.

Rumsfeld and persistent surveillance

In sum, many of Google’s most senior executives are affiliated with the Pentagon Highlands Forum, which throughout the period of Google’s growth over the last decade, has surfaced repeatedly as a connecting and convening force. The US intelligence community’s incubation of Google from inception occurred through a combination of direct sponsorship and informal networks of financial influence, themselves closely aligned with Pentagon interests.

The Highlands Forum itself has used the informal relationship building of such private networks to bring together defense and industry sectors, enabling the fusion of corporate and military interests in expanding the covert surveillance apparatus in the name of national security. The power wielded by the shadow network represented in the Forum can, however, be gauged most clearly from its impact during the Bush administration, when it played a direct role in literally writing the strategies and doctrines behind US efforts to achieve ‘information superiority.’

In December 2001, O’Neill confirmed that strategic discussions at the Highlands Forum were feeding directly into Andrew Marshall’s DoD-wide strategic review ordered by President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld to upgrade the military, including the Quadrennial Defense Review — and that some of the earliest Forum meetings “resulted in the writing of a group of DoD policies, strategies, and doctrine for the services on information warfare.” That process of “writing” the Pentagon’s information warfare policies “was done in conjunction with people who understood the environment differently — not only US citizens, but also foreign citizens, and people who were developing corporate IT.”

The Pentagon’s post-9/11 information warfare doctrines were, then, written not just by national security officials from the US and abroad: but also by powerful corporate entities in the defense and technology sectors.

In April that year, Gen. James McCarthy had completed his defense transformation review ordered by Rumsfeld. His report repeatedly highlighted mass surveillance as integral to DoD transformation. As for Marshall, his follow-up report for Rumsfeld was going to develop a blueprint determining the Pentagon’s future in the ‘information age.’

O’Neill also affirmed that to develop information warfare doctrine, the Forum had held extensive discussions on electronic surveillance and “what constitutes an act of war in an information environment.” Papers feeding into US defense policy written through the late 1990s by RAND consultants John Arquilla and David Rondfeldt, both longstanding Highlands Forum members, were produced “as a result of those meetings,” exploring policy dilemmas on how far to take the goal of ‘Information Superiority.’ “One of the things that was shocking to the American public was that we weren’t pilfering Milosevic’s accounts electronically when we in fact could,” commented O’Neill.

Although the R&D process around the Pentagon transformation strategy remains classified, a hint at the DoD discussions going on in this period can be gleaned from a 2005 US Army School of Advanced Military Studies research monograph in the DoD journal, Military Review, authored by an active Army intelligence officer.

“The idea of Persistent Surveillance as a transformational capability has circulated within the national Intelligence Community (IC) and the Department of Defense (DoD) for at least three years,” the paper said, referencing the Rumsfeld-commissioned transformation study.

The Army paper went on to review a range of high-level official military documents, including one from the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, showing that “Persistent Surveillance” was a fundamental theme of the information-centric vision for defense policy across the Pentagon.

We now know that just two months before O’Neill’s address at Harvard in 2001, under the TIA program, President Bush had secretly authorized the NSA’s domestic surveillance of Americans without court-approved warrants, in what appears to have been an illegal modification of the ThinThread data-mining project — as later exposed by NSA whistleblowers William Binney and Thomas Drake.

The surveillance-startup nexus

From here on, Highlands Forum partner SAIC played a key role in the NSA roll out from inception. Shortly after 9/11, Brian Sharkey, chief technology officer of SAIC’s ELS3 Sector (focusing on IT systems for emergency responders), teamed up with John Poindexter to propose the TIA surveillance program. SAIC’s Sharkey had previously been deputy director of the Information Systems Office at DARPA through the 1990s.

Meanwhile, around the same time, SAIC vice president for corporate development, Samuel Visner, became head of the NSA’s signals-intelligence programs. SAIC was then among a consortium receiving a $280 million contract to develop one of the NSA’s secret eavesdropping systems. By 2003, Visner returned to SAIC to become director of strategic planning and business development of the firm’s intelligence group.

That year, the NSA consolidated its TIA programme of warrantless electronic surveillance, to keep “track of individuals” and understand “how they fit into models” through risk profiles of American citizens and foreigners. TIA was doing this by integrating databases on finance, travel, medical, educational and other records into a “virtual, centralized grand database.”

This was also the year that the Bush administration drew up its notorious Information Operations Roadmap. Describing the internet as a “vulnerable weapons system,” Rumsfeld’s IO roadmap had advocated that Pentagon strategy “should be based on the premise that the Department [of Defense] will ‘fight the net’ as it would an enemy weapons system.” The US should seek “maximum control” of the “full spectrum of globally emerging communications systems, sensors, and weapons systems,” advocated the document.

The following year, John Poindexter, who had proposed and run the TIA surveillance program via his post at DARPA, was in Singapore participating in the Highlands 2004 Island Forum. Other delegates included then Highlands Forum co-chair and Pentagon CIO Linton Wells; president of notorious Pentagon information warfare contractor, John Rendon; Karl Lowe, director of the Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) Joint Advanced Warfighting Division; Air Vice Marshall Stephen Dalton, capability manager for information superiority at the UK Ministry of Defense; Lt. Gen. Johan Kihl, Swedish army Supreme Commander HQ’s chief of staff; among others.

As of 2006, SAIC had been awarded a multi-million dollar NSA contract to develop a big data-mining project called ExecuteLocus, despite the colossal $1 billion failure of its preceding contract, known as ‘Trailblazer.’ Core components of TIA were being “quietly continued” under “new code names,” according to Foreign Policy’s Shane Harris, but had been concealed “behind the veil of the classified intelligence budget.” The new surveillance program had by then been fully transitioned from DARPA’s jurisdiction to the NSA.

This was also the year of yet another Singapore Island Forum led by Richard O’Neill on behalf of the Pentagon, which included senior defense and industry officials from the US, UK, Australia, France, India and Israel. Participants also included senior technologists from Microsoft, IBM, as well as Gilman Louie, partner at technology investment firm Alsop Louie Partners.

Gilman Louie is a former CEO of In-Q-Tel — the CIA firm investing especially in start-ups developing data mining technology. In-Q-Tel was founded in 1999 by the CIA’s Directorate of Science and Technology, under which the Office of Research and Development (ORD) — which was part of the Google-funding MDSS program — had operated. The idea was to essentially replace the functions once performed by the ORD, by mobilizing the private sector to develop information technology solutions for the entire intelligence community.

Louie had led In-Q-Tel from 1999 until January 2006 — including when Google bought Keyhole, the In-Q-Tel-funded satellite mapping software. Among his colleagues on In-Q-Tel’s board in this period were former DARPA director and Highlands Forum co-chair Anita Jones (who is still there), as well as founding board member William Perry: the man who had appointed O’Neill to set-up the Highlands Forum in the first place. Joining Perry as a founding In-Q-Tel board member was John Seely Brown, then chief scientist at Xerox Corp and director of its Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) from 1990 to 2002, who is also a long-time senior Highlands Forum member since inception.

In addition to the CIA, In-Q-Tel has also been backed by the FBI, NGA, and Defense Intelligence Agency, among other agencies. More than 60 percent of In-Q-Tel’s investments under Louie’s watch were “in companies that specialize in automatically collecting, sifting through and understanding oceans of information,” according to Medill School of Journalism’s News21, which also noted that Louie himself had acknowledged it was not clear “whether privacy and civil liberties will be protected” by government’s use of these technologies “for national security.”

The transcript of Richard O’Neill’s late 2001 seminar at Harvard shows that the Pentagon Highlands Forum had first engaged Gilman Louie long before the Island Forum, in fact, shortly after 9/11 to explore “what’s going on with In-Q-Tel.” That Forum session focused on how to “take advantage of the speed of the commercial market that wasn’t present inside the science and technology community of Washington” and to understand “the implications for the DoD in terms of the strategic review, the QDR, Hill action, and the stakeholders.” Participants of the meeting included “senior military people,” combatant commanders, “several of the senior flag officers,” some “defense industry people” and various US representatives including Republican Congressman William Mac Thornberry and Democrat Senator Joseph Lieberman.

Both Thornberry and Lieberman are staunch supporters of NSA surveillance, and have consistently acted to rally support for pro-war, pro-surveillance legislation. O’Neill’s comments indicate that the Forum’s role is not just to enable corporate contractors to write Pentagon policy, but to rally political support for government policies adopted through the Forum’s informal brand of shadow networking.

Repeatedly, O’Neill told his Harvard audience that his job as Forum president was to scope case studies from real companies across the private sector, like eBay and Human Genome Sciences, to figure out the basis of US ‘Information Superiority’ — “how to dominate” the information market — and leverage this for “what the president and the secretary of defense wanted to do with regard to transformation of the DoD and the strategic review.”

By 2007, a year after the Island Forum meeting that included Gilman Louie, Facebook received its second round of $12.7 million worth of funding from Accel Partners. Accel was headed up by James Breyer, former chair of the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) where Louie also served on the board while still CEO of In-Q-Tel. Both Louie and Breyer had previously served together on the board of BBN Technologies — which had recruited ex-DARPA chief and In-Q-Tel trustee Anita Jones.

Facebook’s 2008 round of funding was led by Greylock Venture Capital, which invested $27.5 million. The firm’s senior partners include Howard Cox, another former NVCA chair who also sits on the board of In-Q-Tel. Apart from Breyer and Zuckerberg, Facebook’s only other board member is Peter Thiel, co-founder of defense contractor Palantir which provides all sorts of data-mining and visualization technologies to US government, military and intelligence agencies, including the NSA and FBI, and which itself was nurtured to financial viability by Highlands Forum members.

Palantir co-founders Thiel and Alex Karp met with John Poindexter in 2004, according to Wired, the same year Poindexter had attended the Highlands Island Forum in Singapore. They met at the home of Richard Perle, another Andrew Marshall acolyte. Poindexter helped Palantir open doors, and to assemble “a legion of advocates from the most influential strata of government.” Thiel had also met with Gilman Louie of In-Q-Tel, securing the backing of the CIA in this early phase.

And so we come full circle. Data-mining programs like ExecuteLocus and projects linked to it, which were developed throughout this period, apparently laid the groundwork for the new NSA programmes eventually disclosed by Edward Snowden. By 2008, as Facebook received its next funding round from Greylock Venture Capital, documents and whistleblower testimony confirmed that the NSA was effectively resurrecting the TIA project with a focus on Internet data-mining via comprehensive monitoring of e-mail, text messages, and Web browsing.

We also now know thanks to Snowden that the NSA’s XKeyscore ‘Digital Network Intelligence’ exploitation system was designed to allow analysts to search not just Internet databases like emails, online chats and browsing history, but also telephone services, mobile phone audio, financial transactions and global air transport communications — essentially the entire global telecommunications grid. Highlands Forum partner SAIC played a key role, among other contractors, in producing and administering the NSA’s XKeyscore, and was recently implicated in NSA hacking of the privacy network Tor.

The Pentagon Highlands Forum was therefore intimately involved in all this as a convening network—but also quite directly. Confirming his pivotal role in the expansion of the US-led global surveillance apparatus, then Forum co-chair, Pentagon CIO Linton Wells, told FedTech magazine in 2009 that he had overseen the NSA’s roll out of “an impressive long-term architecture last summer that will provide increasingly sophisticated security until 2015 or so.”

The Goldman Sachs connection

When I asked Wells about the Forum’s role in influencing US mass surveillance, he responded only to say he would prefer not to comment and that he no longer leads the group.

As Wells is no longer in government, this is to be expected — but he is still connected to Highlands. As of September 2014, after delivering his influential white paper on Pentagon transformation, he joined the Monterey Institute for International Studies (MIIS) Cyber Security Initiative (CySec) as a distinguished senior fellow.

Sadly, this was not a form of trying to keep busy in retirement. Wells’ move underscored that the Pentagon’s conception of information warfare is not just about surveillance, but about the exploitation of surveillance to influence both government and public opinion.

The MIIS CySec initiative is now formally partnered with the Pentagon Highlands Forum through a Memorandum of Understanding signed with MIIS provost Dr Amy Sands, who sits on the Secretary of State’s International Security Advisory Board. The MIIS CySec website states that the MoU signed with Richard O’Neill:

“… paves the way for future joint MIIS CySec-Highlands Group sessions that will explore the impact of technology on security, peace and information engagement. For nearly 20 years the Highlands Group has engaged private sector and government leaders, including the Director of National Intelligence, DARPA, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Singaporean Minister of Defence, in creative conversations to frame policy and technology research areas.”

Who is the financial benefactor of the new Pentagon Highlands-partnered MIIS CySec initiative? According to the MIIS CySec site, the initiative was launched “through a generous donation of seed funding from George Lee.” George C. Lee is a senior partner at Goldman Sachs, where he is chief information officer of the investment banking division, and chairman of the Global Technology, Media and Telecom (TMT) Group.

But here’s the kicker. In 2011, it was Lee who engineered Facebook’s $50 billion valuation, and previously handled deals for other Highlands-connected tech giants like Google, Microsoft and eBay. Lee’s then boss, Stephen Friedman, a former CEO and chairman of Goldman Sachs, and later senior partner on the firm’s executive board, was a also founding board member of In-Q-Tel alongside Highlands Forum overlord William Perry and Forum member John Seely Brown.

In 2001, Bush appointed Stephen Friedman to the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, and then to chair that board from 2005 to 2009. Friedman previously served alongside Paul Wolfowitz and others on the 1995–6 presidential commission of inquiry into US intelligence capabilities, and in 1996 on the Jeremiah Panel that produced a report to the Director of the National Reconnaisance Office (NRO) — one of the surveillance agencies plugged into the Highlands Forum. Friedman was on the Jeremiah Panel with Martin Faga, then senior vice president and general manager of MITRE Corp’s Center for Integrated Intelligence Systems — where Thuraisingham, who managed the CIA-NSA-MDDS program that inspired DARPA counter-terrorist data-mining, was also a lead engineer.

In the footnotes to a chapter for the book, Cyberspace and National Security (Georgetown University Press), SAIC/Leidos executive Jeff Cooper reveals that another Goldman Sachs senior partner Philip J. Venables — who as chief information risk officer leads the firm’s programs on information security — delivered a Highlands Forum presentation in 2008 at what was called an ‘Enrichment Session on Deterrence.’ Cooper’s chapter draws on Venables’ presentation at Highlands “with permission.” In 2010, Venables participated with his then boss Friedman at an Aspen Institute meeting on the world economy. For the last few years, Venables has also sat on various NSA cybersecurity award review boards.

In sum, the investment firm responsible for creating the billion dollar fortunes of the tech sensations of the 21st century, from Google to Facebook, is intimately linked to the US military intelligence community; with Venables, Lee and Friedman either directly connected to the Pentagon Highlands Forum, or to senior members of the Forum.

Fighting terror with terror

The convergence of these powerful financial and military interests around the Highlands Forum, through George Lee’s sponsorship of the Forum’s new partner, the MIIS Cysec initiative, is revealing in itself.

MIIS Cysec’s director, Dr, Itamara Lochard, has long been embedded in Highlands. She regularly “presents current research on non-state groups, governance, technology and conflict to the US Office of the Secretary of Defense Highlands Forum,” according to her Tufts University bio. She also, “regularly advises US combatant commanders” and specializes in studying the use of information technology by “violent and non-violent sub-state groups.”

Dr Itamara Lochard is a senior Highlands Forum member and Pentagon information operations expert. She directs the MIIS CyberSec initiative that now supports the Pentagon Highlands Forum with funding from Goldman Sachs partner George Lee, who led the valuations of Facebook and Google.

Dr Lochard maintains a comprehensive database of 1,700 non-state groups including “insurgents, militias, terrorists, complex criminal organizations, organized gangs, malicious cyber actors and strategic non-violent actors,” to analyze their “organizational patterns, areas of cooperation, strategies and tactics.” Notice, here, the mention of “strategic non-violent actors” — which perhaps covers NGOs and other groups or organizations engaged in social political activity or campaigning, judging by the focus of other DoD research programs.

As of 2008, Lochard has been an adjunct professor at the US Joint Special Operations University where she teaches a top secret advanced course in ‘Irregular Warfare’ that she designed for senior US special forces officers. She has previously taught courses on ‘Internal War’ for senior “political-military officers” of various Gulf regimes.

Her views thus disclose much about what the Highlands Forum has been advocating all these years. In 2004, Lochard was co-author of a study for the US Air Force’s Institute for National Security Studies on US strategy toward ‘non-state armed groups.’ The study on the one hand argued that non-state armed groups should be urgently recognized as a ‘tier one security priority,’ and on the other that the proliferation of armed groups “provide strategic opportunities that can be exploited to help achieve policy goals. There have and will be instances where the United States may find collaborating with armed group is in its strategic interests.” But “sophisticated tools” must be developed to differentiate between different groups and understand their dynamics, to determine which groups should be countered, and which could be exploited for US interests. “Armed group profiles can likewise be employed to identify ways in which the United States may assist certain armed groups whose success will be advantageous to US foreign policy objectives.”

In 2008, Wikileaks published a leaked restricted US Army Special Operations field manual, which demonstrated that the sort of thinking advocated by the likes of Highlands expert Lochard had been explicitly adopted by US special forces.

Lochard’s work thus demonstrates that the Highlands Forum sat at the intersection of advanced Pentagon strategy on surveillance, covert operations and irregular warfare: mobilizing mass surveillance to develop detailed information on violent and non-violent groups perceived as potentially threatening to US interests, or offering opportunities for exploitation, thus feeding directly into US covert operations.

That, ultimately, is why the CIA, the NSA, the Pentagon, spawned Google. So they could run their secret dirty wars with even greater efficiency than ever before.

READ PART TWO [ck site link, above, top]
 

Big Pharma payola scandal erupts in Australia, takes down six corrupt officials and Australian Premier Berejiklian​

Link: https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-10-06-big-pharma-scandal-australia-berejiklian-covid-scam.html

Wednesday, October 06, 2021 by: Ethan Huff

(Natural News) More than half a dozen staff members of New South Wales, Australia Premier Gladys Berejiklian have resigned in shame over their involvement in a massive Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) bribery scheme.
Berejiklian and her comrades reportedly took tens of millions of dollars from Big Pharma in exchange for pushing lockdowns and now “vaccines,” destroying countless lives and businesses in the process.
According to a former Australian member of parliament (MP), Pfizer and AstraZeneca both paid lobbyists to push vaccine mandates on the people, ensuring a steady stream of ill-gotten profits.
Just prior to ousting herself, Berejiklian was seen on a jumbo screen at Qudos Bank Arena in Sydney telling children who were being herded in as part of a mass vaccination drive that getting jabbed for the Chinese Virus is necessary to stay “safe” and “healthy.”
Clive Palmer, head of the United Australia Party, says that Berejiklian was promised that she would not be charged in a corruption probe if she imposed a vaccine mandate. She allegedly accepted that offer, and has since resigned from her position.
Chances are this is only the tip of the iceberg, and more indictments and resignations are soon on the way – both in Australia and abroad. Perhaps an end to the jab mandates will soon come based on all these revelations.

The entire covid cabal needs to be taken down with haste​

Berejiklian claims that it was a “difficult decision” for her to resign, which came about right after a corruption watchdog group announced that it was looking into her “alleged misconduct.”
Her deputy premier John Barilaro also resigned, citing constant pressure from the media and an ongoing defamation case against YouTuber Jordan Shanks, whom Barilaro says is a “big reason” why he has officially checked out of politics.
Shanks, meanwhile, claims that Barilaro is lying and falsely accusing him of being a “racist.” Barilaro further called Shanks “a conman to the core, powered by spaghetti.”
With these two Branch Covidians gone, New South Wales (NSW) is said to be in a state of “political disarray and chaos.” Many are wondering what will happen next, and how soon the region might be able to reach “post-Covid freedom.”
In addition to Berejiklian and Barilaro, NSW has lost a senior cabinet minister and three veteran Coalition members of parliament. It is also expected that a new treasurer will be needed to replace the existing one.
Sometimes political disarray and chaos is needed to root out the snakes, and one can only hope that the same thing happens in the United States. Right now, Americans are having to contend with an illegitimate regime that was not lawfully elected, but that is trying to force the country into the same tyranny that was imposed on NSW.
With this wave of resignations down under, the hope is that it will spread all around the world to every place where Fauci Flu tyranny is sweeping the land. We the People must push for every last covid criminal to either resign or be removed – no exceptions.
“You know, when this virus thing first started and I began hearing things about ‘big pharma,’ I was skeptical,” admitted one commenter at Creative Destruction Media about how he felt in the very beginning of all this.
“But now I am fully believing this whole thing is a multi-billion dollar scamdemic. Now we are finally getting proof and insider knowledge of the corruption involved and it is VERY ugly indeed.”
The latest news about the shockwave of resignations that are likely coming as more Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) fraud gets exposed can be found at Collapse.news.
Sources for this article include:
CreativeDestructionMedia.com
NaturalNews.com
TheGatewayPundit.com
 

Epic: Australian MP Unleashes On Government For Trying To Silence Him When Mentioning Ivermectin​

Infowars.com
October 9th 2021, 2:38 pm

Link: https://www.infowars.com/posts/vide...ng-to-silence-him-when-mentioning-ivermectin/

"How dare you stand up and try and silence debate in the House because of some ideological view that you may have," says Craig Kelly.

An Australian Member of Parliament tore into the government for trying to shut him down for simply mentioning ivermectin during a speech in August.

Liberal New South Wales MP Craig Kelly began his speech discussing an amendment to the Industry Research and Development Amendment (Industry Innovation and Science Australia) Bill.


“Firstly, I’d note for anyone watching a recording of this, that I’m speaking in the Australian federal parliament, and my speech here is protected by the Parliamentary Privileges Act, which goes back to the UK Bill of Rights 1688,” Kelly said. “I have free speech to say what I’m about to say. It should not be impeached or questioned outside of this parliament, for to do so is a breach of our Parliamentary Privileges Act.”

But the Parliament soon cut off Kelly once he brought up ivermectin research, contending that subject is “outside the issues before the House.”

“You gotta be kidding,” Kelly responded. “You’ve seriously got to be kidding me!”

“Just on the relevance rule, let’s be very clear what this amendment says,” Kelly continued. “‘Condemns the coalition government for its continued failure to back Australian industry and innovation, and to deal with the challenges arising from the pandemic’…THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I’M SPEAKING ABOUT!”

Dear Prime Minister Morrison,

Our Human Rights are being abused in Australia under your watch

My Private Member’s Bill to PROTECT our fundamental Human Right of prior, free & #InformedConsent based on adequate information needs to become LAW

???https://t.co/V2xY96bhw3 pic.twitter.com/Y0PNmbYBTj
— Craig Kelly MP (@CraigKellyMP) October 7, 2021

“You come into this chamber and want to silence debate on one of the most important issues ever to face our country? Shame on you down there at the desk, Member for Fenner or wherever you’re from! It is absolutely crystal clear that what I am debating is directly relevant to this bill,” Kelly argued.


“How dare you stand up and try to silence debate in the House because of some ideological view that you may have!” he continued. “I am directly talking about the government’s continued failure to back Australian industry and innovation, and I am talking about an Australian innovation that we have let slip through our fingers. That’s what I have been talking about, which is directly 100 per cent relevant to this bill.”

Though shocking, it’s nevertheless unsurprising that the Australian government would move to censor a sitting Member of Parliament given its heavy-handed tactics in silencing and brutalizing everyday citizens for simply leaving their house in defiance of nonsensical COVID lockdowns.
 
Back
Top