Jesse Ventura's Banned FEMA Camps Episode

The following is an episode of Jesse Ventura's television show Conspiracy Theory. This episode only aired once before it was pulled from circulation on television. The episode is repeatedly scrubbed off of YouTube. It is presented here as one of the few places where you can still see it.

The topic of the episode are the so-called "FEMA Camps" and government "fusion centers."

SHADE (Full-length Motion Picture)

Shade exposes the true power structure embedded in our global reality, showing the true controllers their plans to Geo-engineer our planet and control the populace.

Visit http://www.shadethemotionpicture.com to order a DVD, rent or download the film.





Tweet

Syria and 9/11 According to Gen Wesley Caerk (VIDEO)

Tweet

25 Reasons the US should not go to war with Syria

#1 It will likely trigger world war III. Iran has threatened to attack israel if the US invades Syria, Russia already has warships there, and China intrinsically sides with Russia.

#2 The war is based on accusation, speculation and a youtube video, with no hard evidence such as chemical compositional analysis provided by any independent body. To risk world war III when doubt remains is risking the human race on a guess. UN says the report on the matter will take another 3 weeks.

#3 The last time there was an accusation of sarin by the Syrian government, the UN found out it was the Syrian rebels who had done it. [1] [2]

#4 The last time there was an accusation of any weapons of mass destruction by the western powers (US, UK, etc) using intelligence, it was wrong. No weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq.

#5 Most of the Syrian rebels are islamic extremists, notably al nusra, who are an al qaeda affiliated group. Supporting them would amount to supporting al qaeda.

#6 John Kerry was wrong in his estimates of the Syrian rebels. If he's wrong on this fundamental point - as the US secretary of state - what else is he wrong on regards to this? (Hypocrisy: John Kerry was an anti-war activist.)

#7 It's unpopular in the eyes of the American public. And would result in impeachment, possibly even rioting.

#8 The US in an economic debt of $16 trillion dollars! Each tomahawk missile costs $1.45 million!

#9 Even if the chemical weapons caches exist (which given the track record of Iraq, Afghanistan and the previous sarin gas being misidentified, is unlikely), blowing them up will make the chemicals spread out into the surrounding areas potentially killing however many civilians!

#10 Blowing up Syria for using chemical weapons, especially when the UK sold the components for it to Syria and the US uses depleted uranium shells and rounds, amounts to hypocrisy.

#11 The west is not the be-all, say-all and end-all, especially when one considers how it remains unaccountable for it's own war crimes [1][2][3][4][5] (hope you're happy with yourselves, military intel) and continues to persecute people, such as Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden, Michael Hastings, et alia, who expose the truth of their crimes.

#12 Syrian rebels have access to such chemicals as sarin, admitted to using it as such, and despite being affiliated with al nusra and thus al qaeda, aren't being targeted by the US. The same Syrian terrorists who will behead you if you don't convert.

#13 The Syrian rebels have a public track record of human rights abuses that are often visually demonstrated (Syrian rebel eats human heart, Syrian rebels use child soldiers, Syrian rebels kill civilians), the Syrian government on the other hand only has third hand accusations only in writing, made worse by the fact, to quote: "Rami Abdulrahman of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which is one of the opposition-affiliated groups counting the number of those killed in the uprising, stated that civilians who had taken up arms during the conflict were being counted under the category of "civilians"" (this is misleading as it makes the armed rebels look like civilians: a civilian is a non-combatant).

#14 Such a war is untrustworthy, especially given the Saudi Arabians offered the Russians control of the global oil market if they drop their issue on Syria (and threatened to use Chechen terrorists to blow up the olympic winter games in Russia if they don't comply). They even offered to fund the US invasion of Syria. The Saudi Arabians do not have the best interest of Americans at heart: only their own selfish interests.

#15 The war was preplanned by the US and UK as early as 1957, and therefore is for selfish reasons. To quote: "Newly discovered documents show how in 1957 Harold Macmillan and President Dwight Eisenhower approved a CIA-MI6 plan to stage fake border incidents as an excuse for an invasion by Syria's pro-western neighbours, and then to "eliminate" the most influential triumvirate in Damascus.". To quote further: "a special effort should be made to eliminate certain key individuals. Their removal should be accomplished early in the course of the uprising and intervention and in the light of circumstances existing at the time".

#16 The previous, non-congress approved (congress was excused baselessly) war with Libya, resulted in Libya still being in disarray. Something they're keen to keep quiet on. As well as a few posters here.

#17 It's based largely on 'rar rar' emotional rhetoric, and not on evidence, facts, or reasoning (the fact it's being rushed through before anyone has a chance to think should clue you in). The emotional rhetoric from a child about Iraq about babies being killed with bayonets turned out to be a lie as a PR stunt by a PR firm. Silence on this matter is deafening. We don't need another Nayirah PR incident. Or another WMD incident either (funny that: both fabrications).

#18 There's clearly vested interests in invading Syria, namely, oil (just two points below Libya in ranking), thus claims shouldn't be taken at face value.

#19 Every war by the US has so far resulted in disaster: Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan (1970s-1980s), US support for Iran-Iraq war (giving Iraq sarin), Gulf war (Gulf war syndrome, anyone?), Bosnia/Serbia, now Iraq, Afghanistan again (divided by sectarian tensions), US involvement in Egypt (divided by sectarian tensions, again), Libya (divided by sectarian tensions, again). Same screw-ups as those but with Syria, right?

#20 Fukushima's radioactive poisoning of the entire Pacific ocean (and possibly the world), a much bigger issue, is largely being ignored compared to Syria, which should raise questions of motives. Wouldn't it make more sense to deal with Fukushima and give that more attention?

But there were only 20, lol. 

Thanks to Joshua Flynn for creating this list.






Tweet

Supermarket of The Beast, Sponsored by IBM

The mark of the beast is the sign of the Antichrist, and is mentioned in Revelation 13:15-18:

The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.

This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is 666.

Also see:

Take the Mark of The Beast or Don't Eat

And let's make sure your Obamacare is valid.

Bonus video:








Tweet

Kerry's Speech On Syria: Pounding the War Drums

It seems clear enough that if the missiles are not already in the air, a U.S. strike on Syria is imminent. The following is Secretary Kerry's full speech from today, with editorial commentary inserted among the full transcript. 

Well, for the last several days, President Obama and his entire national security team have been reviewing the situation in Syria. And today, I want to provide an update on our efforts as we consider our response to the use of chemical weapons. What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world. It defies any code of morality. Let me be clear: The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. By any standard, it is inexcusable and — despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured — it is undeniable.

We were also told that proof of yellow-cake and an Iraqi nuclear program were "undeniable." We were led to believe that Colin Powell brought some special and secret evidence to the UN behind closed doors, which the American public was not privy to. That was all a lie.

In this instance, we already have reason to doubt the veracity of the claim that chemical weapons were used because in March we were told the same thing, that Syria had used chemicals on civilians. Yet those reports proved to be unfounded.

Alleged chemical attack kills 25 in northern Syria

Kerry also starts off his speech by trying to take the moral high-ground, speaking of killing innocent civilians, while Bradley Manning rots in prison for revealing America's own moral depravity.

Collateral Murder: A Wikileaks Video of An Iraq War Atrocity

Notice too, the strategic time frame of his conviction, and his credibility among the political right destroyed by his being outed as an alleged transsexual.

And while Kerry speaks of the evils of chemical weapons, let us also not ignore the effects of American weapons systems, particularly with our use of depleted uranium munitions. Besides, at the end of the day once can hardly discern the moral righteousness of killing innocents with one weapon over another, dead is dead, and suffering is suffering.

Syrian Troops Fire On Civilians (WARNING: Graphic Video)

Syrian Rebels Behead Catholic Priest (WARNING: Graphic Video)

So while Kerry tries to make the case for America taking some moral high ground here in choosing sides, in a conflict that has indeed brought so much suffering to the people of Syria, let's also keep in mind exactly who we are going to be supporting.

Syrian Rebel Cannibalizes Corpse of Government Soldier (WARNING: Graphic Video)

The meaning of this attack goes beyond the conflict in Syria itself, and that conflict has already brought so much terrible suffering. This is about the large-scale, indiscriminate use of weapons that the civilized world long ago decided must never be used at all, a conviction shared even by countries that agree on little else.

There is a clear reason that the world has banned entirely the use of chemical weapons. There is a reason the international community has set a clear standard and why many countries have taken major steps to eradicate these weapons. There is a reason why President Obama has made it such a priority to stop the proliferation of these weapons and lock them down where they do exist. There is a reason why President Obama has made clear to the Assad regime that this international norm cannot be violated without consequences.

And there is a reason why, no matter what you believe about Syria, all peoples and all nations who believe in the cause of our common humanity must stand up to assure that there is accountability for the use of chemical weapons so that it never happens again.

If it happened, if chemicals weapons were actually used, then it certainly is cause for some concern. It is certainly possible, even likely that a chemical attack did take place.

But should it be of enough concern for the United States to act unilaterally against another sovereign state and embroil ourselves in yet another global conflict, acting as the world policeman, without even knowing which side is responsible? The consequences of US meddling are less justified than our other misadventures in the past, and the consequences are likely to be far more severe this time around.

This time, Russia is unlikely to sit idly by and has made stern warnings to the US in recent days. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has warned that US intervention would have "extremely dangerous" consequences, and that unilateral military intervention without UN Security Council approval would be “a gross violation of international law.”

Russia has not even acknowledged that a chemical attack even took place. Russian President Putin told British Prime Minister Cameron  in a telephone call that there was no evidence a chemical attack took place, much less who might have been responsible if it did.

Russia is not the only concern though. Syria has warned that if they are attacked by the United States, they will respond with an attack on Israel, in a coalition along with Lebanon, Iran, and surprisingly enough, Iraq as well. Which is really the nail in the coffin for our utter failure in a nine year war in Iraq. Not to mention the explosive potential for the conflict to suddenly flashover into WWIII.

Last night, after speaking with foreign ministers from around the world about the gravity of this situation, I went back and I watched the videos, the videos that anybody can watch in the social media, and I watched them one more gut-wrenching time. It is really hard to express in words the human suffering that they lay out before us.

As a father, I can’t get the image out of my head of a man who held up his dead child, wailing, while chaos swirled around him, the images of entire families dead in their beds without a drop of blood or even a visible wound, bodies contorting in spasms, human suffering that we can never ignore or forget.

Sure, tugging at the heartstrings never hurts when spinning war propaganda. Dead babies and the obligations of the parent are always excellent tools to incite knee-jerk reaction. But no one seemed very concerned when we armed Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons.

CIA Docs Reveal US Aided Saddam’s Chemical Attacks

Anyone who could claim that an attack of this staggering scale could be contrived or fabricated needs to check their conscience and their own moral compass. What is before us today is real, and it is compelling.

Again, Kerry tries to take the moral high road here while ignoring America's own history of atrocities and outright lies. He shames Americans into supporting a new war, without actually providing any proof, essentially telling us that seeking facts is morally bankrupt.

The videos he talks about above which he "can't get out of his head" are not proof of anything. If they were, we should have acted back in March. Either these videos were "fabricated" as he puts it, or perhaps it was the US backed opposition who were responsible then, as it is possible they are now.

Videos Show Aftermath of Possible Syrian Chemical Attack in March

So I also want to underscore that while investigators are gathering additional evidence on the ground, our understanding of what has already happened in Syria is grounded in facts, informed by conscience, and guided by common sense. The reported number of victims, the reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, the firsthand accounts from humanitarian organizations on the ground, like Doctors Without Borders and the Syria Human Rights Commission, these all strongly indicate that everything these images are already screaming at us is real, that chemical weapons were used in Syria. Moreover, we know that the Syrian regime maintains custody of these chemical weapons. We know that the Syrian regime has the capacity to do this with rockets. We know that the regime has been determined to clear the opposition from those very places where the attacks took place. And with our own eyes, we have all of us become witnesses.

This all may be true. It's quite possible that a chemical attack did take place. But just because Assad's government forces have the capacity to launch such an attack, it is hardly in their interests to do so. It is certainly not worth world condemnation and attack by the United States, simply to clear out a neighborhood in their own capital city. It also gives the rebel an excuse to abandon calls for peace talks in Geneva.

But could the rebels launch a chemical attack?

It's quite possible. Most of the Syrian rebels are foreign-born fighters, not Syrians. So whoever has been funding and arming this invasion of mercenaries are the ones who are actually responsible for the entire civil war there. The rebel army is essentially an agent provocateur to begin with, and therefore certainly quite likely to use a false-flag attack to advance their mission.They are not freedom fighters, they are a proxy force being used to carry out a plan that has been in the works since 9/11, and even before.

General Wesley Clark Says 'War on Terror' Was Planned (VIDEO)

US-Created "Syrian Opposition" Led by Big Oil Rep

Most of the rebel Army have come from, or through Libya since our bombing campaign and proxy war there.

Ten Years After 9/11, US Supports Al-Qaeda in Libya

A U.S. weapons shipment bound for Syrian rebels was caught by officials in Lebanon back in February 2012. That might have been a major embarrassment if the news ever made it to prime time. But of course you will never see news like that on your mainstream news channel, who are more obsessed with pop culture than real news. And for those that did hear something about it, they have probably long since forgotten about it. You certainly won't hear John Kerry talking about how we have been arming this terrorist army of Al-Qaeda affiliates and Muslim fanatics to topple the legitimate, sovereign, secular government of Syria.

It should also be mentioned here, that Americans have already been found embedded with and fighting alongside rebel forces in Syria. 

Americans Now Fighting Alongside Rebels in Syria (VIDEO)

With such support, it is certainly quite possible that the rebels got their hands on chemical weapons. Using them to attack Assad's forces directly would be a relatively ineffective "checkers" sort of move, while using such weapons in a false-flag attack would be a much more brilliant chess-move in order to draw the US into the war directly.

The attack on the CIA information station in Benghazi was likely a casualty of our proxy service in arming Syrian rebels, and perhaps even chemical weapons specifically. 

Back in January a hacker broke into the computer system of British defence contractor Britam. A document discovered in the hacked download revealed a US-plan, facilitated by Qatar to use Britam's Ukrainian mercenaries to carry out a false-flag chemical attack in Syria using Russian-made chemical weapons exported  from Libya. 

Now given all of this information, the possibility that opposition forces might also have chemical weapons, is very strong.

But perhaps the most compelling evidence comes from the UN. While some have questioned whether a chemical attack actually happened back in March, the UN has determined not only was the attack with sarin gas real, but that it was the rebels who carried out the attack. Not the Syrian government.

Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad’s regime: U.N. official

We have additional information about this attack, and that information is being compiled and reviewed together with our partners, and we will provide that information in the days ahead. Our sense of basic humanity is offended not only by this cowardly crime, but also by the cynical attempt to cover it up.

Who is covering what up, we may never know, and most likely not in time to stop us from going to war. We have been promised "that information" many times before.

At every turn, the Syrian regime has failed to cooperate with the U.N. investigation, using it only to stall and to stymie the important effort to bring to light what happened in Damascus in the dead of night. And as Ban Ki-moon said last week, the U.N. investigation will not determine who used these chemical weapons, only whether such weapons were used, a judgment that is already clear to the world.

Wait, WHAT?!!!

So not only has Kerry and the Obama administration already rushed to judgement without so much as an investigation, but the investigation under way does not even try to figure out who is even actually responsible?!

No wonder Assad won't let inspectors in. What's the point? No matter what they find or don't find, the US (and mot likely Britain) are going to do as they please regardless. How is it in Assad's interest to allow inspections whether or not his government used chemicals, if the US is just going to say that he did use them? Even if chemical weapons were used by the rebels, any evidence of chemicals will only be used against the Syrian government. This is essentially like the US demanding that the UN be allowed in to put Assad's fingerprints on the murder weapon.

I spoke on Thursday with Syrian Foreign Minister Muallem, and I made it very clear to him that if the regime, as he argued, had nothing to hide, then their response should be immediate, immediate transparency, immediate access, not shelling. Their response needed to be unrestricted and immediate access. Failure to permit that, I told him, would tell its own story.

So John Kerry seriously expects to call a "time-out" in the middle of a fight to the death, as if this whole situation were child's play.

Instead, for five days, the Syrian regime refused to allow the U.N. investigators access to the site of the attack that would allegedly exonerate them. Instead, it attacked the area further, shelling it and systemically destroying evidence. That is not the behavior of a government that has nothing to hide. That is not the action of a regime eager to prove to the world that it had not used chemical weapons.

It is in their interest to hide evidence that could be used against them falsely, for one thing. But as we have already established, what difference does it make what the inspectors find if they can never determine who is responsible?

In fact, the regime’s belated decision to allow access is too late, and it’s too late to be credible. Today’s reports of an attack on the U.N. investigators — together with the continued shelling of these very neighborhoods — only further weakens the regime’s credibility.

And that my friends, means that the order has already been given. War is imminent and the strikes by US Naval and air-power will commence in days, if not hours.It makes no difference what the facts are or who actually responsible. It makes no difference that America failed to act when the rebels used chemical weapons.

At President Obama’s direction, I’ve spent many hours over the last few days on the phone with foreign ministers and other leaders. The administration is actively consulting with members of Congress, and we will continue to have these conversations in the days ahead. President Obama has also been in close touch with leaders of our key allies, and the president will be making an informed decision about how to respond to this indiscriminate use of chemical weapons.

But make no mistake: President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world’s most heinous weapons against the world’s most vulnerable people. Nothing today is more serious, and nothing is receiving more serious scrutiny.

Thank you.

Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.

But she said her panel had not yet seen any evidence of Syrian government forces using chemical weapons, according to the BBC.

Just one question please Secretary Kerry. Can you spell hypocrite?

Also see:

'Mail Online' False-Flag Chemicak Attack Article Vanishes

 

US Planned Initial Phase Strike Packages Against Syria

Tweet

US Planned Initial Phase Strike Packages Against Syria

Battle plan for initial strike phase in order to disable Syrian air force.

http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/required-sorties-and-weapons-degrade-syrian-air-force

Also see:

CBS News

Tweet

Drop a Nuke!!! (Nuclear Bomb Simulator Program)

This is the third installment of the nuclear detonation simulator by Alex Wellerstein. An earlier version which is less graphic intense (smoother running for older PC's) has other features which make it still relevant. That earlier version is available on this blog's button keys in the right-hand column.

For this version you will have to be sure your Google Earth is up to date.

NUKEMAP 3D

Here are some screenshots I took when I decided to nuke NYC. These are simulated air-bursts over downtown Manhattan.

If one were to take the Metro-North Hudson Line train, north out of Grand Central Terminal to the end of the line, you would wind up in Poughkeepsie NY. That city is roughly the halfway point between NYC and the state capitol in Albany. So for these simulations, I decided to stand that far away, in order to get a sense of how large these explosions would be. By highway, it's a distance of about 85 miles from Poughkeepsie, to the foot of Manhattan at Battery Park. 

A great vantage point to see such a spectacle would be from atop the Walkway Over the Hudson, an old railroad bridge which has been converted into a public park. Most of these simulated long-distance images are taken from there.

This first shot simulates a 20 kiloton air-burst nuclear detonation over downtown Manhattan. Keep in mind here, that one single kiloton, is the general equivalent of 1,000 tons of TNT. The "Little Boy" bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima is believed to have detonated with the force of 13-18 kilotons. The "Fat Man" which was dropped on Nagasaki a few days later, was 20-22 kt. So in general, this simulates a bombing of NY about the size of what we did to Japan at the close of WWII.

This is what that same blast would look like if you were on Staten Island at the ferry docks.

And if you were flying over New York in an airliner at an altitude of 30,000 feet it would look something like this.

The following map depicts the general immediate effects of a nuclear blast. Keep in mind that there are many variables when estimating damage in a real world detonation based on the height of the burst, the specific sort of weapon that used, building materials and so forth. Weather patterns will greatly effect secondary radiation fallout patterns as well.

Effects radii for a 20 kiloton bomb (smallest to largest):

Fireball: 660 ft (0.05 mi²)Maximum size of the nuclear fireball; relevance to lived effects depends on height of detonation.

Air blast: 2,510 ft (0.71 mi²)20 psi overpressure; heavily built concrete buildings are severely damaged or demolished; fatalities approach 100%.

Radiation: 0.87 mi (2.4 mi²)500 rem radiation dose; between 50% and 90% mortality from acute effects alone; dying takes between several hours and several weeks.

Air blast: 1.17 mi (4.33 mi²)5 psi overpressure; most buildings collapse; injuries universal, fatalities widespread.

Thermal radiation: 1.52 mi (7.28 mi²)Third-degree burns to all exposed skin; can start fires.

Radioactive fallout could rain down as far away as Long Island is long.

This image simulates a 100 kiloton detonation over downtown Manhattan. This is the yield of America's most popular nuclear warhead, the W76. 8 to 12 of these warheads can be mounted on a single, submarine launched, Trident II ballistic missile in order to shower multiple independent targets. 

The "Ivy King" was the largest pure fission nuclear device ever tested by the United States. In November of 1952 it was dropped on an uninhabited Pacific atoll, and exploded with the force of 500 kilotons. (See video). This is what it would have looked like from Poughkeepsie, looking south to NYC.

This image simulates what it would look like if NYC were to be hit by one of China's Dong Feng 5 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. Their premier ICBM detonates with a yield of 5 megatons, and can strike almost anywhere on the planet except for South America due to range limitations. China's nuclear arsenal is estimated to be anywhere from several hundred to several thousand warheads. Plans to put multiple warheads on the DF-5 have met with some technical difficulty and it is not believed that any of the missiles have been deployed with MIRV capability.

At 15 megatons, "Castle Bravo" reigns as America's largest ever nuclear detonation. Unfortunately, it was an unexpected achievement, with the yield only expected to be about 4 to 5 megatons. As a result of the unexpectedly large explosion, there was significant exposure to civilian populations from radiation and fallout. The 1954 test created international concern for atmospheric testing of nuclear bombs. (See video)

For better or worse, and perhaps having learned a lesson after getting burned playing with firecrackers, the Unites States appears to have been content enough to leave well enough alone. The Soviet bear on the other hand, felt they had more to prove.

The largest nuclear detonation ever on our planet was the former USSR's Tsar Bomba. That behemoth exploded with the nearly incomprehensible force of 50 megatons. Astonishingly, this test was set to go off with only half of the yield the bomb was actually designed for, an Earth-cracking 100 megatons. The following two images from about 80 miles from Ground Zero barely capture the scope of such explosions.

Now let's do a direct comparison from about 100 miles up, in a low-Earth orbit from space. We will place the marker in Poughkeepsie as a point of reference. In this first image we see the small spot over Manhattan that is the mushroom cloud from a 20 kiloton bomb like the ones that were dropped on Japan.

And here, is the Tsar Bomba, as seen from outer space.

Keep in mind, we human beings have created an explosion that large. Finally, this is what we have built, and are capable of. The 100 megaton blast which the Tsar Bomba was designed for. First in low earth orbit, and then from high above, directly overhead.

Here are the damage maps for the 100 megaton Tsar Bomba. The fireball alone would be nearly 4 miles wide. Anyone standing outside, almost as far away as Poughkeepsie, New York would suffer third degree burns to exposed skin and anything fairly combustible like cloth, paper and leaves would ignite. Stell liquifying firestorms would be widespread. Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Jersey City would be leveled.

If prevailing winds happened to move from east to west, fatal levels of radioactive fallout would reach as far as the Rocky Mountains. Alternately, if a bomb this size were to be detonated over Colorado Springs, deadly fallout would reach as far as New York.

Tweet

6 Sneaky Ways Surveillance Changes How You Think

The following article is presented in full for a point of reference, but is not meant as an alternative to the original source. Please visit the original source through the hyperlinked article title just below.

6 Insidious Ways Surveillance Changes the Way We Think and Act

Like it or not, we’re being transformed as citizens, neighbors and human beings.

When I moved to a Czech village in 1994 to teach English, I was fascinated by the cultural difference between Americans like me and my new community. At that time, the oppressive memory of the dreaded Communist secret police, the StB, was still fresh. (Check out a haunting series of street photos snapped by agents in their heyday.) As a brash young ex-pat, born after the era of McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover, I understood little of what it felt like to live under constant surveillance.

The Czechs knew better. Several decades under the watchful eyes of the StB (and before that, the spies of the Habsburg Empire) had molded their attitudes and behavior in ways that were both subtle and profound. They were on their guard with newcomers. When you got to know them, you might sense a tendency toward fatalism about the future. Signature Czech traits included a sophisticated gallows humor and a sharp sense of the absurd, honed by a lifetime of experiencing Kafka-esque political conditions (Kafka himself was a Czech).

Then there was that subversive streak. When you gained their trust, Czechs would often gleefully show you their old smuggled rock-and-roll records or describe a forbidden radio set up in some corner of the house. These proud tales of rebellious triumph over the StB were cast against stories of horror, like a student who told me of the day her daddy disappeared after “talking to the oven” where a radio was hidden. For most Czechs, the salient lesson of the police state was an us-against-them mentality. Only sometimes you didn’t know who “they” were.

1994 was the very beginning of the Information Age, and it has turned out rather differently than many expected. Instead of information made available for us, the key feature seems to be information collected about us. Rather of granting us anonymity and privacy with which to explore a world of facts and data, our own data is relentlessly and continually collected and monitored. The wondrous things that were supposed to make our lives easier—mobile devices, gmail, Skype, GPS, and Facebook—have become tools to track us, for whatever purposes the trackers decide. We have been happily shopping for the bars to our own prisons, one product at at time.

Researchers have long known that there are serious psychological consequences to being surveilled, and you can be sure that it's changing us, both as a society and as individuals. It’s throwing us off balance, heightening some characteristics and inhibiting others, and tailoring our behavior sometimes to show what the watcher wants to see, and other times to actively rebel against a condition that feels intrusive and disempowering.
If you think about it, “ Prism” is the perfect name for a secret program of extensive watching that will shift our perspective and potentially fracture our view of each other and of ourselves as citizens. Public opinion is now sorting itself out, and we don’t yet know how Americans will come to feel about the new revelations of spying on the part of the government, private contractors, and their enablers. But whether we like it or not, surveillance is now a factor in how we think and act. Here are some of the things that can happen when watching becomes the norm, a little map to the surveillance road ahead.

1. Shifting power dynamics: When an NSA agent sorts through our personal data, he makes judgments about us—what category to place us in, how to interpret and predict our behavior. He can manipulate, manage and influence us in ways we don’t even notice. He gains opportunities for discrimination, coercion and selective enforcement of laws. Because the analysis of megadata results in a high number of false positives, he may target us even if our activities are perfectly blameless from his perspective.

As Michel Foucault and other social theorists have realized, the watcher/watched scenario is chiefly about power. It amplifies and exaggerates the sense of power in the person doing the watching, and on the flip side, enhances the sense of powerlessness in the watched. Foucault knew that knowledge is linked to power in insidious ways. Each time the watcher observes, she gains new knowledge about the watched, and correspondingly increases her power. That power is then used to shape reality, and the watcher’s knowledge becomes “truth.” Other perspectives are delegitimized, or worse, criminalized.

2. Criminal activity: Every apologist for the surveillance state will make the claim that spying on citizens protects us from things like terrorism, crime and violence. That may indeed be true. What is also true is that surveillance can be used just as easily to commit a crime as to prevent it. History shows us ample cases of governments, including our own, using surveillance to turn upon their own people in unlawful ways, in some cases launching attacks that are just as devastating as those feared from outsiders.

Surveillance also turns citizens into criminals, either by distorting laws to criminalize behavior which was once considered lawful, or in breeding hostility and rebellion on the part of the populace which can lead to crime.

Today’s private contractors also have incentives to use surveillance to commit crimes outside of any political agenda. How about a little insider trading? How about stealing business ideas? How about using collected data to sexually prey upon others? To blackmail for any purpose imaginable? To sell our information to the highest bidder? For every Snowden who balks at the use of data collected for surveillance, you can bet there are two other contractors using it to enrich or empower themselves. Unlike elected officials, there is no way for us to even attempt to make them accountable.


3. Diminished citizenship: In his article, “The Dangers of Surveillance,” Neil M. Richards warns that state scrutiny can chill the exercise of our civil liberties and inhibit us from experimenting with “new, controversial, or deviant ideas.” Intellectual privacy, he argues, is key to a free society. Surveillance protects the status quo and serves as a brake on change.

We’ve begun to see this in the places where we expect intellectual freedom to be most strongly protected. Recently, Harvard University administrators were found to be spying on the email accounts of 16 deans while trying to find the source of a media leak, an action which curtails cherished academic freedom. The U.S. government was outed as spying on journalists at the Associated Press, behavior which dampens reporters’ enthusiasm for investigating the government’s secrets and analyzing its actions.

When intellectual privacy, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are restricted through surveillance, powerful ideas about truth, values, and how we live are increasingly imposed from the top down, rather than generated by citizens from the bottom up. When Big Brother is watching, Big Brother decides what's best for us. Citizens become apathetic, disengaged, and worst of all, feel a loss of dignity in their very status as citizens.

4. Suspicious minds: Surveillance makes everyone seem suspicous. The watched become instilled with an air of criminality, and eventually begin to feel culpable. Psychological researchers have found that surveillance tends to create perceptions and expectations of dishonesty.

The growing mutual distrust between the watcher and wathed leads to hostility and paranoia. One of the key features of Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon was the notion that the inmates of an institution based on his design, such as a prison, would never be able to tell whether they were being watched or not, creating a heightened sense of unease. The tradition of secret police operatives and informants blending in with citizens prevents the watched from knowing the identity of the watcher, as does the distance of technology firms and government entities spying through computers and communication devices. All of these can breed an unhealthy social atmosphere as well as an individual sense of discomfort and suspicion. 

5. Divided society: In his book, Brain on Fire, Tim McCormacks discusses the class divisions that tend to rise between the watcher and the watched. Rights, privileges and power become distributed according to who has the most access to observation. The watcher groups categorizes people based on who most arouses suspicion, which may be based on various prejudices or political agendas.
A watcher class may emerge which protects its interests by more watching, and more punishing and control of the watched. It increasingly wields power over technology, financial and legal systems, the political realms, and military capabilities. Those who hold power may become invisible to all but a few insiders, a nightmare scenario Orwell imagined in 1984. (Maybe that’s why sales of Orwell’s book have skyrocketed in the wake of revelations about Prism).

6. Unhappiness: Finallly, though you will not hear many pundits talking about it, surveillance tends to make us unhappy. Bentham's Panopticon was designed to inflict pain on a few (those in prison) for the sake of the happiness of the many in the community. But when everyone is being watched, everyone is experiencing pain, even, perhaps, the watcher. The brilliant  German film " The Lives of Others" depicts the mental anguish of an agent of the East German secret police as he spies on his neighbors.

Some kind os surveillance may make us feel happier, at least initially.  The presence of cameras on the street, for example, may give us a comforting sense of security (even though the cameras may actually be doing nothing to stop crime). But when we discover that we are being watched in ways we never imagined, for purposes we can hardly fathom, our happiness decreases. Bosses reading our email, technology firms tracking our Internet searches, and government agencies monitoring our communications for secret purposes makes us feel anxious and resentful. Systematic surveillance may squelch our creativity as we are managed to become more conformist. We come to distrust each other and our sense of unfairness rises.

The goal of using surveillance to produce a happy and stable state may well beget, perversely, the opposite: a society of edgy, unhappy beings whose sense of themselves is chronically diminished. Not exactly a recipe for Utopia.




Tweet

East Coast Tsunami Media Blackout

TSUNAMI of 13 June, 2013 (Northwestern Atlantic Ocean)

Tsunami-like waves were observed along the US east coast during the afternoon of June 13, 2013 (day 164). The source is complex and still under review, though the coincidence at several gages with strong atmospheric pressure fluctuations indicate that it is at least partly generated by meteorological causes. The event occurred in close conjunction with a weather system labeled by the National Weather Service as a low-end derecho which propagated from west to east over the New Jersey shore just before the tsunami. It is also possible that the slumping at the continental shelf east of New Jersey played a role. The tsunami was observed at over 30 tide gages and one DART buoy throughout the Northwestern Atlantic Ocean.

A first-hand description was provided by Brian Coen who observed the event at Barnegat Inlet in New Jersey:
Around 3:30pm on Thursday June 13, 2013, Brian Coen was spear fishing near the mouth of Barnegat Inlet; just south of the submerged northern breakwater. Earlier in the day around noon, thunderstorms had moved through the area. By 3:30pm the weather was overcast with a light east wind. At approximately 3:30, the outgoing tide was amplified by strong currents which carried divers over the submerged breakwater (normally 3-4 feet deep). This strong outrush continued for 1-2 minutes and eventually the rocks in the submerged breakwater were exposed. Brian backed his boat out before being sucked over as well.

At this point, Brian noticed a large wave coming in, approximately 6 feet peak-to-trough and spanning across the inlet. The upper 2 feet of the wave was breaking. This wave occurred in conjunction with a reversal of the current such that even though the tide was going out, a strong surge was entering the inlet. This surge carried the divers back over the submerged reef and into the inlet from where they were picked up. On the south jetty three people were swept off the rocks which were 5 to 6 feet above sea level at the time. At least two were injured requiring medical treatment. There was no more strong activity after about 5 minutes.

This event produced a tsunami that was recorded at tide gages monitored by the West Coast/Alaska Tsunami Warning Center (WCATWC). Many observatories provide data to the centers; such as the NOAA National Ocean Service, the U. of Hawaii Sea Level Center, the Chilean Navy, the Japan Meteorological Ageny and the National Tidal Facility in Australia among others. Click on the site name to see a graph of the tsunami, when available. Listed wave heights are maximum amplitude in cm (above sea level). Observed Arrival time is the actual tsunami arrival time in UTC on gages where it could be determined. The Sample Interval column shows the time between data samples.

SOURCE

Tweet

NSA Scandal Distraction From Nuclear False Flag at Super Bowl?

I have heard people theorize that whisltblower Michael Snowden might not be all the he appears to be. Some people have said that he is actually still working for U.S. intelligence services, and that this scandal is actually nothing more than a counter-intel and/or public relations operation. To substantiate that though, we would have to see some evidence of why US intel agencies would want to create such a ruckus. Could this be it? Could the Snowden scandal all be a ruse in order to distract us from the following information that is being blacked out by all mainstream press?

SWITZERLAND, Zürich — For the very first time, the shocking evidence of Obama nuclear terror whistleblower David Chase Taylor’s case for Swiss political asylum will be entered into the official court record at the “Bezirksgericht Zürich” (District Court of Zürich) on June 25, 2013.

The 9:54 A.M. hearing will be a historic step in Taylor’s quest for political asylum. After 2 years of being denied access to a good-faith asylum hearing of any kind, Taylor will finally be able to declare under oath and on the record why he desperately needs and deserves political asylum in Switzerland.

Although it has not yet been confirmed, it does appear that the case of alleged NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is yet another elaborate scheme designed by the CIA to divert attention away from Taylor’s case in Switzerland. On June 24, 2013, exactly one day before Taylor’s appearance in a Swiss court where he will outline the evidence in his case for political asylum, Snowden has officially “gone missing” in Russia.
Taylor first applied for political asylum on March 8, 2011, after releasing a book entitled “The Nuclear Bible”—a self-proclaimed “work of love” aimed at preventing a nuclear terror attack in his home country of the United States.

Taylor’s book, released on January 28, 2011, claims to have caught the Obama administration red-handed attempting to conduct an act of nuclear terror at the National Football League’s (NFL) annual championship game entitled the Super Bowl, routinely the most watched television event in America. Why Taylor needs political asylum in Switzerland is not really up for debate; one look at the evidence surrounding Super Bowl XLV in Dallas, Texas, on February 6, 2011, and anyone would conclude that something was clearly amiss that cold Sunday night in Texas.

While there is an overwhelming amount of direct and circumstantial evidence asserting that the premise of Taylor’s book was in fact correct, a few unprecedented news headlines such as “Feds Warn of Disguised Terrorists at Super Bowl” (CBS News), “WikiLeaks: ‘Al-Qaida on Brink of Using Nuclear Bomb’” (Fox News), and “World ‘On Brink of Nuclear 9/11’ as Al Qaeda Plans Large ‘Dirty’ Bomb” (Daily Mail), give a brief glimpse into the sheer terror that Taylor’s journalistic endeavors apparently thwarted.

Interestingly, despite Super Bowl XLV being hosted in Dallas, Texas, hometown to life-long Texan and former Texas governor George W. Bush, the former U.S. President was curiously on his way to Switzerland, a country he never cared to visit in all of his 8 years as President. Once the nuclear terror plot was exposed and subsequently postponed, Bush immediately changed his plans and attended the game in Dallas. In the aftermath of the foiled Super Bowl XLV nuclear terror plot, the head of NFL security suspiciously resigned

Regardless of the growing evidence indicating that Taylor’s actions prevented a nuclear holocaust, the Swiss government appears to be succumbing to political pressure by the U.S. to deny Taylor political asylum in Switzerland. Whatever the reason, Taylor’s rights, privileges and protections under the Swiss Constitution are grossly being violated, untimely begging the following 10 questions:

Read more at: TRUTHER.ORG

Tweet

The Video the Pentagon Does Not Want You to See!

Tweet

DHS Preparing Schoolchildren For FEMA Camps

Public schools in cooperation with the department of homeland security are now teaching kids safety measures, and advising that they seek relief in FEMA camps in a time of crisis. But are these post disaster relief camps, or military internment camps?

Read the article from:  IntelliHub

Also see:

Pentagon Updates Regulations For Open Military Dictatorship

US Army 'INTERNMENT AND RESETTLEMENT' Manual is Chilling Find

Tweet

Secrets and Mysteries of An Underground World

It's no secret that underground places have long offered a refuge for mankind, particularly in times of trouble. The ancient underground cities of Cappadocia are a wonderful example of the lengths man will go to in order to use the Earth for protection against danger.

Derinkuyu, Underground city, Ancient Village or Ancient refugee settlement?(VIDEO)

But today we don't really think of underground cities as being part of our modern reality. Our houses have basements where we might hole up in case of a bad storm, maybe a tornado shelter out in the yard. Many of our cities do extend underground with utility tunnels and subway tunnels, but we don't really think of those places as underground cities. In places like London the stark utility corridors beneath the city did serve as a place of refuge from the bombs of enemies, but areas like that beneath our cities are not designed for permanent nor comfortable living.

During the Cold War some folks took to building actual bomb shelters in their basements and back yards. Larger buildings like schools and office buildings stocked more elaborate fallout shelters in their basements. Of course, the government had the most elaborate facilities dug below ground and under mountains. Thousands of subterranean nuclear missile silos were all answerable to what may be the world's most famous underground bunker.

Cheyenne Mountain Complex (VIDEO)

The Cold War is over now though. The mission of NORAD still exists, but has taken on a largely different more diversified role than the bunker was originally purposed for. Nuclear missile silos have been abandoned or sold off as unique real-estate opportunities. Fallout shelters have become the relics of a bygone era, sometimes tourist attractions, but mostly used to store old furniture.

Greenbrier Resort Bunker (VIDEO)

Nuclear Missile Silo Home (VIDEO)

Abandoned Missile Silo (VIDEO)

The threat of a nuclear holocaust being rained down on us from the skies above is over. The need for these underground secret and secure places appears to have passed. Or has it really?

Conspiracy theories abound of secret underground places of all sorts. Everything from new and ongoing construction, to secret bases infested with aliens, even to a theory that the Earth itself is actually hollow and an populated by a hidden civilization.

Mysterious Denver Airport (VIDEO)

Hidden Alien Base, Dulce NM (VIDEO)

Hollow Earth (VIDEO)

Hollow Earth, aliens? Well, maybe maybe not. That's a big leap, but we need less faith for other theories, especially when seeing is believing. There are rumors of a vast underground network of cities, massive storage facilities, roadways, and maybe even a supersonic underground railroad. The network is believed to span the entire continent with hubs in many major cities.

I personally have spoken with a truck driver who made numerous deliveries to a massive underground facility just outside of Albany, the state capitol of NY, which he described as being much like what we are about to see here in these videos. This was about two years ago now, and he said the facility appeared to still be under construction. He is not really the conspiracy theory sort at all, an old school hard working, simple sort of man, so I didn't really have any reason to doubt him. But of course, you can't believe everything you read on the internet, and my acquaintance did not provide me with any pictures that I could share with you. Fortunately, other truck drivers have captured glimpses of facilities like this all over the country.



Entrance to U.S. underground City and roadway system from Awakened Warrior of Truth on Vimeo






This particular branch of the conspiracy theory realm is often termed "D.U.M.B.S." or Deep Underground Military Bunkers. I believe this is a bit of misnomer though. From what we see there in those very real bits of footage it there is nothing specifically military, but rather they appear to be corporate controlled facilities. That is not to say that the military is not involved at all of course, or ultimately in charge even, but the corporate influence cannot be ignored.

The Iron Mountain company is a leading example of a relationship between government and the corporate world when it comes to underground secrets. Established on the banks of the Hudson River in 1951, the company was reformed in the 1970's and now it's most famous facility the one featured in this news report.


One curious point I note though, is the difference between what we see there in the Iron Mountain video, and what we saw in the other videos. The sheer difference in size, when it comes to the dimensions of the tunnels and passageways is curious indeed. Then of course, we also have to ask why companies and/or the government are going to such expense, a hidden expense at that, for such a vast underground network. Surely all of these facilities can't be there simply to store business documents and historical artifacts. 

And again, we have to consider that these facilities may be interconnected, all or most of them anyway. Numerous truck drivers have reported driving from one region of the country to another, completely underground. Frankly, I believe that much. The way they talk about it, certain details, just strikes me as credible testimony.The technological feat is impressive, but not impossible. The only reason I would really have to doubt it, is that there is no clear or obvious motivation for the power that be to go to all that trouble, unless of course they know something they aren't telling us. (Or, maybe this is just the way the uber-wealthy piss away their fortunes while the working stiff hovers on the edge of starvation in order to feed their corporate mechanisms.)

If we accept that this underground network of cities, facilities and roadways does indeed exist, then it is no stretch to accept the evidence of a massive facility under the Denver airport. The evidence of that is already strong anyway. But an airport right smack dab in the middle of the country would be ideal as a central transportation and distribution hub for goods to be transported by air, on land, and below it. Not to mention the fact too that the Denver airport is not very far from the Cheyenne Mountain facility in Colorado Springs, the central hub of U.S. military power outside of the Pentagon, and the one most likely to have command of U.S. forces after some cataclysmic event like nuclear war or perhaps an asteroid impact.

So all in all, it looks like some of the stuff that conspiracy theorists are admonished for, and called crackpots or lunatics, actually has some pretty common sense conclusions. Maybe we don't know exactly why they are doing this, but at the same time, it really doesn't seem any more far-fetched than a secret underground bunker for Congress under a famous resort.

Well, that's about it for now. Hope you enjoy the material. This is Captain Six reporting for the Underground, from the Underground, on the underground.






Tweet