Unplug the Signal: The Truth Will Not Be Televised

Nathan Janes
Pupaganda
February 24, 2010

A flow of information is constantly streaming from the television set; a bombardment of words and pictures. The speed at which this information is communicated makes it easy for the signal to take control, switching the viewer’s brain to stand-by as information is absorbed without analysis or question. Today the television’s constant signal shapes the conclusions of the masses and produces the collective norm. The signal prescribes what is news and what is truth through the words of so-called experts and authorities, gelding the consciousness and independent thoughts of those subjected to it. Through television, the masses can be made to accept the most monstrous distortions of reality. The signal is a chill wind of continuous oppression over the minds of the masses. It controls the management of society and culture, creating uniformity across all subjects.

	Predictive programming is a tool used by the establishment to acclimate the public to new ideas, trends, beliefs, and threats.

The fuel for this vehicle of mass deception is a technique known as perception management where an array of psychological techniques are used to alter the truth, leading the viewer to a desired conclusion. Some call this spin or propaganda while others know it as lying. According to Joseph Goebbels, Propaganda Minister for Adolph Hitler, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it… It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Most of what can be found on the nightly news is nothing but advertisements selling more government and a false reality that benefits only those in control. Television is the dictator of information; newspaper and radio are the whisper campaign of the television’s message.

It is expected that Americans will consistently prescribe to the doctrine of the television. It is subtly communicated that one should stay within the collective and never challenge the message, for doing so may be considered an aggression towards culture. The message is, “Be a good consumer; always obey authority; you know nothing; listen only to experts; be content and never question or express new ideas.” This signal is being broadcast across millions of screens, indoctrinating the unconscious minds of those who choose this as their only reality. Self-censorship occurs when these individuals become so deeply indoctrinated that they are afraid to discuss any information outside the paradigm of television-created culture; they police their thoughts to ensure they won’t conflict with this culture. Sadly, many people’s reality today does not allow any outside information to process, instead it is written off as conspiracy or blatant lies. Our consciousness has been destroyed so much that fiction has become reality. An entire lifestyle of poisonous foods, pharmaceuticals, and fluoridated water are accepted as safe and sold to us at the cost of our health and well being.

Those of the establishment are using the incredibly powerful weapon of mass psychology as a method of controlling the minds of the masses and altering the behavior of individuals. Edward Bernays, a pioneer in the field of public relations in the 20th century, applied Sigmund Freud’s theory of psychoanalysis to manipulate the masses by engineering consent. According to Bernays, “If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it.” Advertisers and psychologists of the billion dollar culture creation industry manufacture trends through the proliferation of insecurities; and manipulating desires and emotions. These concepts are also employed to control how individuals think about politics, as well as the possibilities and limitations within society. Those welding power within our streams of mass communication market their plans into each generation as individuals adopt specific ways of thinking and never suspect that all the major events and trends within their lifetime are actually planned by an elite few before they are even born. In our society today, culture is created from the top down. Virtually all forms of culture are created by the ruling class to build a false sense of reality, ensure social compliance, and control the future course of cultural evolution.

Predictive programming is a tool used by the establishment to acclimate the public to new ideas, trends, beliefs, and threats. It is used through television by including certain situations or ideas within the plots of many fictional shows, familiarizing the viewer with these concepts no matter what they may be watching. When similar situations occur or like ideas are circulated in the world we think that these particular things are quite natural for we have unknowingly been made familiar with them through television. By viewing nearly any popular show on television, one can see the same propaganda that will be aired on the nightly news. Propaganda on a wide array of subjects has been interwoven into a great number of television shows. Just a few of these subjects include global warming, vaccinations, torture, terrorism, national security, the militarization of police, and the degradation of the family unit. Through predictive programming, television shapes culture and prevents individuals from asking questions.

Crisis’ are created on a daily basis and broadcast across the airwaves to keep individuals in a state of panic and fear. Whether it be the threat of a pandemic or terrorism, the constant state of crisis has created a form of mental illness as we are slowly acclimated into an age of crisis. By using Hegelian dialectic, the television promotes the problem, guides our reaction, and presents the solution. The problem of terrorism was exclaimed, a strong emotional response was evoked, and it was stated that our rights need be sacrificed in order to protect us from the threat. We’ve lost personal sovereignty under the guise of terrorism; we’re stopped and searched; we’re watched by cameras as we go about our lives; and we’re encouraged to spy on our neighbors. We have been trained to accept the life of a prisoner.

America is in a state of enlightened despotism where most individuals live only to satisfy selfish inner desires and remain ignorant of the state of the world around them. In most public places one can find a television transmitting propaganda around the clock ensuring the masses remain focused on trivial matters. From birth we take the world as it’s presented on television. We don’t question it and any serious criticism of TV is becoming psychologically impossible in society. Who would suspect getting born into a world where everything around you is a continuous lie? The youth of today are convinced that the experts and personalities on television are the authority of credible information while parents and older generations are foolish with dated ideas. Children are conditioned to disconnect from what is truly important to their well being and instead focus on mindless trivia, sports, celebrity gossip, and buying an array of material things. They invest their psychological worth in fantasy characters on television while ignoring or even scorning individuals contributing to the betterment of humanity. They are discouraged from getting involved in their local community and often lack the ability to think independently or to resist corruption. As their children’s minds are molded by television, there is barely a murmur from the public.

For over half a century, our society has lived under this signal of mental programming and conditioning. The message is clear: don’t be a leader, don’t engage in critical thinking, and don’t care about the people in your life. Until individuals become aware of the current information war, our standard of living and our liberties will continue to be degraded and we will continue to lose communities and meaningful relationships between people. Currently, pockets of resistance are beginning to spring up everywhere as some unplug the signal and regain control of their own thoughts. Informed individuals are canceling their cable and satellite subscriptions and instead spending time with their families and children while participating in meaningful experiences. They are seeking alternative news sources. They are reading about those who weld incredible influence over culture like Edward Bernays, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Charles Galton Darwin, Plato, Bertrand Russell, and Aldous Huxley. However, it is a continuous battle to educate the masses for the television remains our greatest threat to individual sovereignty and the largest obstacle to becoming a truly informed individual. Fortunately, unplugging from the signal is easy. The television can simply be turned off. Through doing so, you may realize nearly our entire world is now a hoax; things once known as truth are fake. We have been trained like dogs to be obedient to our television; our master has had our minds on a tight leash. Let us never forget the truth will not be televised.

Inhofe Weighs Criminal Probe of Scientists’ Climate Change E-Mails

FOXNews.com
February 23, 2010

The Senate’s top global warming skeptic on Tuesday is calling for a possible criminal investigation into the scientists accused of manipulating the data once used as the centerpiece of international climate change research.

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., is considering a request to the Department of Justice for a probe of scientists who he claims deliberately falsified data used by climate change advocates. He is also planning on grilling Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson at a hearing Tuesday morning about her decision to rely on information from the U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change to institute an endangerment finding that gives the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

Inhofe is releasing a 40-page report that will be used by Republicans to answer how she can continue to advocate for new global warming regulations even as the findings by the IPCC and the work of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit in Britain create doubt about climate science.

Read entire article

75 Reasons to be Skeptical of "Global Warming"

by Josh Fulton

Global Research, February 23, 2010

joshfulton.blogspot.com - 2010-02-21

* Carbon dioxide contributes to only 4.2 - 8.4% of the greenhouse gas effect

* Only approximately 4% of carbon dioxide is man-made

* Water vapor accounts for 90 - 95% of the green house gas effect

* 99.99% of water vapor is natural, meaning that no amount of deindustrialization could get rid of it

* There have been many times when the temperature has been higher than it is now including the Medieval Warming Period, the Holocene, the Jurassic, and the Eemian

* Increases in carbon dioxide follow increases in temperature by about 800 years, not precede them

* Phil Jones of the Hadley CRU, and key figure in the "climategate" scandal, admits that there has been no "statistically significant" global warming since 1995

* 2008 and 2009 were the coolest two years of the decade

* During the Ordovician period carbon dioxide concentrations were twelve times what they are now, and the temperature was lower

* Solar activity is highly correlated with temperature change:

* Studies show that half of all recent warming was solar

* Mars has warmed about 0.5°C since the 1970's, approximately the same that earth has warmed over the same period

* The 0.7°C increase in temperatures over the last century is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends

* The distance between Earth and Sun changes every year, affecting the amount of energy the earth receives

* Earth’s tilt oscillates between 21.4° and 24.8°, which affects the distribution of the sun's energy

* Dr. Roy Spencer has written that clouds have been a more important driver of climate than carbon dioxide since 2000

* Approximately 40% of the uncertainty in temperature projections come from uncertainty in the strength of the "feedback loop" between temperature and carbon dioxide. Recent research suggests the "feedback loop" is less than half as strong than many had presumed

* James Hansen of NASA said in a simulation of temperatures from 1880 to 2000 soot accounted for 25% of observed global warming

* Research suggests that soot could have nearly as much impact on climate change as carbon dioxide

* Antarctica has 90% of earth's ice and it is growing

* Arctic sea ice has returned to 1979 levels, which is when records began

* The Arctic ice caps have recovered from their loss in 2007

* The Arctic is now 1°C cooler than it was in the 1940's

* Polar bear populations are increasing

* Polar bears are able to swim over 60 miles continuously

* Sea level 81,000 years ago was 1 meter higher than it is now while carbon dioxide levels were lower

* A chart of sea level change over millions of years looks like this:

* According to satellite data, sea level has been decreasing since 2005

* Instead of hurting forests, the increased level of carbon dioxide has been helping them grow

* The official "record" for temperatures only goes back 150 years

* Although the IPCC may have 2500 members, only approximately 800 contribute to the scientific writing of the report

* Only 52 scientists contributed to the 2007 IPCC summary for policy makers, although diplomats from over 115 countries contributed

* Only 20% of the members of the IPCC deal with climate science

* Head of the IPCC, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri has no background in climate science. His PhD is in economics and he worked as a railway engineer before becoming head of the IPCC

* Former IPCC lead author Ben Santer openly admits that he altered portions of the 1995 IPCC report to make them "consistent with the other chapters"

* John Christy, former lead author on the 2001 IPCC report, speaks of his former co-lead authors deliberately trying to sensationalize the report

*Richard Lindzen, another lead author on the 2001 IPCC report, accused the IPCC of being "driven by politics"

* Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph, which was featured prominently in the 2001 IPCC report, was created using only portions of a data set. The red line is the graph of Mann's selected data, while the black line is the graph of all the data:

* When asked to act as an expert reviewer on the IPCC's last two reports, Dr. Nils Axel-Morner was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist"

* Until 2003, the IPCC's satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend in sea level, so they used an increase of 2.3mm in one Hong Kong tide-gauge to adjust the entire global sea level up 2.3mm

* The IPCC's claim that the Himalayan glaciers were melting was based off of a phone interview with a non-scientist. They were forced to retract the claim

* The IPCC claim that global warming was led to increased natural disasters was based on an unpublished report that had not been subject to peer-review. They were forced to retract the claim

* The IPCC's claim that global warming was going to lead to deficiencies of up to 50% in African agriculture was based on a non-peer-reviewed and non-scientific paper. They were forced to retract the claim

* The IPCC's claim that "up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation" was based on a non-peer-reviewed and non-scientific paper. They were forced to retract the claim

* The IPCC reported that 55% of the Netherlands was below sea level when just 26% of the country is below sea level. They were later forced to retract the claim

* According to the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHNC,) 90% of US climate-monitoring surface stations have been found to be "poorly situated," meaning that they have a margin of error greater than 1°C, more than the global warming in the entire 20th century. (The US surface data is generally considered the best surface data in the world):

* Many climate-monitoring surface stations are in locations that look like this:

* Temperature measurements from climate-monitoring surface stations are collected by hand. At one surface station in California, Anthony Watts found that only data from 14 out of 31 days had been completed in a month

* If a surface station is missing data for a particular day, data from surrounding surface stations is used to fill-in. Since 90% of all surface stations are poorly situated, even if a surface station itself is not poorly situated, if its data is missing for a day, there is a very good chance its temperature will be calculated using data from surface stations that are poorly situated

* In April 1978, there were 6,000 climate-monitoring surface stations. There are now about 1,200

* The vast majority of climate-monitoring stations that were lost were rural ones, which have been shown to give the most accurate data:

* The raw data is "adjusted" by a computer program. The net effect of this "adjustment" has been to increase the "adjusted" numbers over the "raw" numbers by .5°F, an increase that has been growing year by year:

* Difference between the USHCN "raw" data (in blue) and NASA "homogenized" data (in red):

* According to a leaked email in "climategate," "temperatures in Darwin [a monitoring station in Australia] were falling at 0.7 Celsius per century […]but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celsius per century. [...][W]hen those guys “adjust,” they don’t mess around."

* According to a leaked email in "climategate," computer programmer Harry Harris called the CRU data set "hopeless," and said "the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. [...]This whole project is SUCH A MESS. No wonder I needed therapy!!"

* When looking at source code leaked in "climategate" used to "process" and "adjust" temperatures, software engineer John Graham-Cumming said he found at least five errors and "wouldn't trust it"

* The Hadley CRU, the institution at the center of the "climategate" scandal, threw out original temperature data because it claimed it did not have "storage space"

* In 1990, Dr. Phil Jones, the man at the center of the "climategate" scandal, contributed to a paper arguing that the effect of urban warming in eastern China was "negligible." This became a key reference source for the IPCC. It turns out that 49 of the 84 climate-monitoring stations used for this report had no history of their locations or other details. This included 40 of the 42 rural stations. Of the rest, 18 had "certainly been moved" during the study period, including one that was moved five times over a total distance of 41 km. When Jones "re-examined" data in the same area for a 2008 paper, he found that urbanization was responsible for 40% of the warming found from 1951 to 2004

* Ross McKitrick and Patrick Michaels have argued that half of the global warming trend from 1980 to 2002 is caused by urban warming

* The Hadley CRU has been accused of using data from just 25% of Russia's surface stations, deliberately overstating Russia's warming by .64°C between the 1870's and 1990's

* According to emails leaked in "climategate," when "Climate Research" published articles by global warming skeptics, Phil Jones and others urged scientists to "stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal"

* William Connolly, a Wikipedia administrator and co-founder of Realclimate.org, a website that supports the theory of anthropogenic global warming, "touched" over 5,400 Wikipedia articles, routinely omitting voices that were skeptical of global warming

* Large computer climate models are unable to even simulate major features of past climate such as the 100 thousand year cycles of ice ages that have dominated climate for the past 700 thousand years

* This is a picture of what Britain looked like in the summer of 2009 when its sophisticated climate "supercomputer" had predicted a "barbeque summer":

* The US government spends over $2.5B funding climate research every year, and over $7B when grants for technology, tax breaks, and foreign aid are included (this is while Exxon gave $22M to global warming skeptics over a 10 year period)

* Many scientist assert that government grant money is given preferentially to advocates of man-made global warming

* Bart Chilton, a CFTC commissioner, said "carbon markets could be worth $2 trillion in transaction value – [...]within five years of trading (starting). [...]That would make it the largest physically traded commodity in the US, surpassing even oil"

* The owners of the trading floor where the carbon credits will be traded, including Goldman Sachs and Al Gore, stand to earn trillions if cap-and-trade is passed

* The cap-and-trade bill allows the government police powers to come into your home and inspect it for "energy efficiency," and to fine you every day your home is not compliant

* Australian homes now have to undergo a mandatory energy-efficiency assessment - costing up to $1500 per property - before they can be sold or rented under new laws to tackle carbon emissions

* UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has called for "global governance structure" to monitor greenhouse gases, which everyone on the planet emits with every exhale

* The United Nations forecasts that the global population will rise, peak and then decline between 2050 and 2300 to just under 9 billion

* Despite proclamations that there is a "consensus" and the debate is "settled," 18% of scientists surveyed in the last poll trying to discern scientific opinion do not believe in man-made global warming

* 45% of Americans think global warming is man-made, down 9% from just half a year earlier

* In the court case Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills, a British judge ruled that there were nine "inaccuracies" in An Inconvenient Truth, including Gore's claim that sea level could rise by up to 20 ft. The IPCC's own report predicted a maximum rise of 59cm in sea level over 100 years. The Science and Public Policy Institute has taken issue with thirty five of Gore's claims in An Inconvenient Truth

* Al Gore bought a $4M condo feet from ocean in Fisherman's Wharf, San Fransisco, a city he had explicitly warned about in An Inconvenient Truth

Using Facebook or Twitter ‘Could Raise Your Insurance Premiums’

Richard Evans writes in the Telegraph:

Services such as Twitter, Facebook, Foursquare and Buzz can alert criminals when users are not home, according to Confused.com, the price comparison service. Foursquare, for example, shows that people are in a specific spot and, more importantly, that the user is definitely not at home, Confused.com added.It predicted that the new wave in social media could eventually lead to big rises in home insurance premiums.

Darren Black, the head of home insurance at Confused.com, said: “I wouldn’t be surprised if, as social media grow in popularity and more location-based applications come to fore, insurance providers consider these in their pricing of an individual’s risk. We could see rises of up to 10pc for people who use these sites.

“Criminals are becoming increasingly sophisticated in their information gathering, even using Google Earth and Streetview to plan their burglaries with military precision. Insurance providers are starting to take this into account when they are assessing claims and we may in future see insurers declining claims if they believe the customer was negligent.”

Read More: Telegraph

Big Brother Not Just Spying On Schoolchildren Through Their Laptops

Steve Watson & Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Sunday, February 22, 2010

The scandal surrounding kids being spied on at home via webcams in laptops provided by schools extends further than just schoolchildren – four years ago Google admitted that it was implementing similar invasive surveillance technologies that would target all Americans.

A school district in Philadelphia faces a class action lawsuit after it allegedly issued laptop computers to 1,800 students across two high schools and then used concealed cameras within the machines to spy on students and their parents without their knowledge or consent.

Lower Merion School District in the suburbs of Philadelphia faces charges of invasion of privacy, theft of private information, and unlawful interception for providing computers with webcams that were remotely and covertly turned on by administrators.

The suit was brought on behalf of all the students and their parents after it was revealed that the computers had been used to monitor students both at school and at home.

The story harks back to revelations of how private industry and eventually government are implementing plans to use microphones in the computers of hundreds of millions of Internet active Americans to spy on their lifestyle choices and build psychological profiles which will be used for surveillance and minority report style invasive advertising and data mining.

In 2006, Google announced that they would use in-built microphones to listen in on user’s background noise, be it television, music or radio – and then direct advertising at them based on their preferences.

“The idea is to use the existing PC microphone to listen to whatever is heard in the background, be it music, your phone going off or the TV turned down. The PC then identifies it, using fingerprinting, and then shows you relevant content, whether that’s adverts or search results, or a chat room on the subject,” reported the Register.

Hundreds of millions of Internet-active Americans will all be potential targets for secret surveillance and the subsequent sell-off of all their information to unscrupulous data mining corporations and government agencies.

The report cites the inevitability that the use and abuse of this technology will eventually be taken over by the state.

“Pretty soon the security industry is going to find a way to hijack the Google feed and use it for full on espionage,” states the article.

Google’s recent announcement that it will work with America’s most well-known spy agency, the NSA, which was embroiled in the warrantless surveillance scandal during the Bush administration, only heightens concerns that big brother will have a virtual wiretap in every home that has a computer.

The laptop spying case, Blake J. Robbins v. Lower Merion School District (PDF), was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Tuesday, February 16, 2010.

According to the filing, the actions of the school district were exposed when one of the school’s vice principals disciplined Mr Robbins’ son for “improper behavior in his home,” and used a photo taken from the computer camera as evidence.

“Michael Robbins thereafter verified, through Ms. Matsko, (an assistant principal) that the school district in fact has the ability to remotely activate the webcam contained in a student’s personal laptop computer issued by the school district at any time it chose and to view and capture whatever images were in front of the webcam, all without the knowledge, permission or authorization of any persons then and there using the laptop computer.” the complaint states.

“Additionally, by virtue of the fact that the webcam can be remotely activated at any time by the school district, the webcam will capture anything happening in the room in which the laptop computer is located, regardless of whether the student is sitting at the computer and using it.” it continues.

Nowhere in any “written documentation accompanying the laptop,” or in any “documentation appearing on any Web site or handed out to students or parents concerning the use of the laptop,” was any reference made “to the fact that the school district has the ability to remotely activate the embedded webcam at any time the school district wished to intercept images from that webcam of anyone or anything appearing in front of the camera,” the complaint also states.

The computers were provided via an initiative funded by state and federal grants to the students at Harriton High School in Rosemont, PA and Lower Merion High School in Ardmore, PA.

According to comments by the district’s Superintendent, Christopher McGinley, the initiative “enhances opportunities for ongoing collaboration, and ensures that all students have 24/7 access to school based resources and the ability to seamlessly work on projects and research at school and at home.”

What McGinley failed to add was that it also provided the school with 24/7 access to the students and their families.

The plaintiffs also note in their complaint that “the laptops at issue were routinely used by students and family members while at home,” and that “many of the images captured and intercepted may consist of images of minors and their parents or friends in compromising or embarrassing positions, including, but not limited to, in various stage of dress or undress.”

The plaintiffs are seeking damages in respect of not only a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, but also a host of other federal and state privacy laws, including the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, the Computer Fraud Abuse Act, the Stored Communications Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, and Pennsylvania common law.

The laptop spying case is just another example of how surveillance technologies have been used for methods that amount to child abuse for years. We have reported on numerous cases of school officials installing cameras in school bathrooms which allow perverts to spy on children in various stages of undress.

Bill Gates Calls for Population Reduction

Stephen P. Fuller
Infowars.com
February 22, 2010

In a recent TED Talk, Bill Gates has put forward the theory that mankind can reach zero carbon emissions by reducing our population, services, energy and carbon output. And yes, he’s even suggested a trendy, yet totally absurd, equation to legitimatize his eugenicist viewpoint. All I can say is, “What a crackpot!” Maybe it’s because he hasn’t noticed the systematic fraud exposed in the climate-gate debacle or maybe it’s because the mathematics of his equation are so blatantly imbecilic but I can’t help myself from truncated laughter. This guy is a genius? Really?

	Bill Gates is suggesting tried and tested Malthusian population manipulation to achieve the new world order’s nominal depopulation agenda.

First and foremost, the summation equation is immeasurably misleading. No one, and especially not a world renowned computer programmer, should make the mistake of multiplying the variables of a summation. And even if you could overlook that magnitude of an inaccuracy, the number of variables that lead to a reasonable projection of a true change in any chaotic system are far more varied and complex than the four presented by Mr. Gates’ second grade presentation. Yet in typical fashion one TED attendee, Laura Trice, stated, “Bills Gates reduced the environmental CO2 issue to a simple math equation I could understand.”

So, assuming you are among the lemurs that have bought into the CO2 bogeyman storyline (during a carbon starved period of history); you still must concede that anything times zero is zero and therefore Bill Gates, even if inadvertently, called for zero human population. And though one could try to fool themselves into believing that he wouldn’t call for the expansion of the depopulation agenda, you didn’t need to wait very long to hear that directly from his own mouth. Soon into his talk he states that the world’s population is rapidly heading toward a staggering 9 billion and that, “if we do a good job on new vaccines, healthcare, and reproductive health services we could lower that by 10-15%.” Yes, you guessed it; Bill Gates is suggesting tried and tested Malthusian population manipulation to achieve the new world order’s nominal depopulation agenda.

He later states that if they can’t achieve the kind of carbon reduction necessary by their standards; then they will consider using current “geo-engineering” methods to change weather patterns and extend their timeline. But the ultimate fumble of the speech came when Gates was asked what he would say to “climate deniers”. After clumsily attempting to make a point for what seems like an eternity, Gates exclaims, “if we can make the alternatives cheaper then they won’t care anymore.” Well I for one disagree with Mr. Gates’ assertations. For one, reproductive health services is an obvious code phrase for sterilization and abortion services, as so cunningly detailed by Obama Science Czar John Holdren in his government eugenics handbook “Ecoscience”. And secondly, I refuse to take anyone serious that still considers CO2 emission standardization to be anything less than the introduction of a new highly mercenary financial exchange instrument.

However, in the typical fashion of a seasoned professional pitchman, Bill Gates does deliver one singular great point that struggles to lend credibility to all of the previously presented non-sense. The productive use of depleted uranium in a newly designed slow-burn reactor is an idea that has been long overdue. After the egregious use of DU on the battle fields of Iraq, it almost sounds like a fairytale to have the potential to steer the toxic psychosis permeated elite war mongers towards a use for DU that may actually benefit mankind. And once the perpetrators of similar War and State crimes (illegal wiretaps, illegal preemptive war, torture, etc) have been tried and sentenced; DU reactors are surly at the top of the to-do-list.

Farid’s photo is a real fake. And so is he.

Jerry Mazza
Infowars.com
February 22, 2010

Recently, Dartmouth Professor Hany Farid claimed in the Huffington Post that the famous (or infamous) backyard photo of Lee Harvey Oswald—the photo in which he holds a Communist newspaper in one hand and a rifle in the other—is not a fake. This implies that the photo was not patched together to set up Oswald as the Commie patsy and lone Kennedy gunman by the FBI, the same FBI which finances Farid’s laboratory and research. Smell a rat?

Farid chose to represent only one photo from a series of four faked photos and to deal only with the anomalies of its shadows and lighting. Oswald had said, when shown one of these photos, that it was his head pasted on someone else’s body. And the face has a square chin, not Oswald’s pointed chin; the finger tips of the right hand are cut off; and the figure is too short to be Oswald when the newspapers are used as an internal ruler. You can even see an insert line between the chin and the lower lip! But none of this impressed Professor Farid.

Farid purposely points to the fact that the lighting of the face in the photo would seem to be coming from overhead, yet Oswald’s fairly long body shadow is cast to the right on the ground and seem to be coming from an afternoon sun. The fact that logic would indicate two sources of lighting is blown away by Farid himself, who claims we as human beings do very poorly at perceiving shadows and their sources.

He even claims he himself is not good at it, even though he is an expert working in an esteemed university, underwritten by the FBI. It’s this kind of doubletalk that makes me look through his argument like the Emperor’s Clothes and see that nothing is there.

Farid’s so called proof is explained to us in a video clip, Why JFK Assassin Photo wasn’t Faked, with Farid side by side with his computer, on which there is a “simulation” of Oswald’s head next to the supposedly “real-life” but already doctored head of Oswald with a square chin. So we are already in fantasyland.

But the mystification continues as Farid lauds the quality of the shadow Oswald’s nose casts under it as well as the shadows under the eyes and his lips.

Okay, so he already told us that’s the effect of top-lighting, a light source directly overhead. But what about the shadow that slants off on the ground to the far right? That is side-lighting, presumably by the sun. Top-light would make a thin rim of shadow around Oswald’s body, either front, back, or sides, depending on how accurately the light source lined up with the body.

Try, for instance, to move your desk-light over your phone or desk object. Notice, the rim of light varies slightly as you move the top light’s overhead angle. This same desk light though does not cast a large shadow of the phone unless it is moved considerably, i.e. to the side. Farid would tell us it’s our eyes that are not working right, including his.

I would claim the body shadow comes from that sinking sun and that those light sources exist because the photo was reconstructed on a “ghost mat” that came from the Dallas Police Department. It is a blank cut-out mat of Oswald’s body, in which pieces are reinserted. Sadly for the DPD those pieces were shot with the light at various angles. That’s what causes the conflicting shadows in the backyard photos, not my or his impairment.

Even this basic concept, that angles of shadows are created by the varying positions of light sources, is violated in Farid’s “modeling by computer,” in which everything is possible. Perhaps Farid must have Photoshop 2020, which provides a look into the future of bending light to create shadows wherever you wish to them to be. We really never are told what makes Farid’s “modeling” create this unreality. But we are told his findings will be published in a journal called Perception, which will explain it all. That wouldn’t be related to Huxley’s Doorways to Perception, his journey into the use of hallucinogenic drugs, would it? That might explain why the good professor is not seeing clearly.

In the landmark book on photo fakery in the JFK assassination, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, edited by Dr. James Fetzer, McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, with a half-dozen leading scientific and technical experts, you will find an abundance of photographic “representations” of Oswald’s face and body from before and after the Kennedy assassination for the purpose of disinformation and confusion, including a veritable Oswald stand-in, so that Lee/Harvey/Oswald could be in more than one place at the same time.

Fetzer, by the way, has published more than 100 articles and 20 books on the philosophy of science, computer science, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science. He has also edited the highly acclaimed Assassination Science and Murder in Dealey Plaza, which include extensive discussion of the fabrication of evidence about the death of JFK.

Given that wealth of information, Farid references none of it, or that of any other authority. He does tell us that he works with law enforcement, which the New York Times verified as the FBI. Farid claims he has shied away from “conspiracy theorists” over the years, who have sought information from him. But this means that he comes to the table of objectivity with a bias against independent thinkers, whether they are authors, journalists, scientists or technicians.

So how objective is Farid really? Dare I say he’s a “photo patsy”? If he had considered more than one photo in the set, it would have been obvious they are faked, because they have the same face with the same expression and the same shadows across all four, which is a photographic impossibility. So Oswald had it right!

Remember, in the making of patsies, we need some kind of verifying information from so-called experts, even if they are on the government payroll, like for instance NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, who have their very own opinion of what made the Twin Trade Towers fall, which conflicts with some 1,000 architects and engineers, who submitted a petition to Congress for a new 9/11 investigation Friday, February 19, 2010, from three different cities, including New York City, where they met with press at Ground Zero at 10 A.M., the site of the 21st Century’s major crime on American soil.

Returning to the JFK Assassination, the major crime on American soil of the 20th Century, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax scrupulously documents how photographs and the entire film has been manipulated to support the government’s lone-gunman claim, according to which Oswald alone managed to kill Kennedy and seriously wound the then Governor of Texas Connally with three shots fired in about six seconds into the limousine, which witnesses reported was actually brought to a halt. The Lincoln was sent to Ford for a complete refurbishing, including a new windshield to remove a hole near its center, where one of the first shots transited en route to JFK’s throat, which otherwise would have falsified the official account.

What’s more, despite the handicap of a bolt action, WW II Italian Army, Mannlicher-Carcano mail-order rifle, and despite the fact that another bullet hit a sidewalk and that a piece of cement rebounded, slightly wounding a bystander in the cheek, we are supposed to award our complete credence to Arlen Specter’s “Magic Bullet” theory, which has one slug passing through Kennedy’s neck from the rear to enter and exit Connelly as well. My god! How low an opinion of our intelligence do our intelligence agencies have?

This brings me back to Farid and his “modeled-shadow-theory” that the backyard photo of Oswald is not a fake, a fraud, a hybrid of intelligence hacks. In fact, Farid, as a scientist, has violated the most basic scientific requirement of all: to present all available relevant evidence. I mean, we are not talking here about some triviality not worth the effort, but the purported assassination and proof of the “lone gunman” of President John F. Kennedy.

Are we to take Farid and his computer-simulated “model” on faith or as a single source flash of government-sponsored truth? Where is the proof that he bothered to read any of the research that established the photos were faked? There is no indication that the professor even conducted a search of the literature about his latest subject, including Jim Marrs’ Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy, another standard text, which Oliver Stone used as a major source for his landmark film, JFK.

Fetzer and Marrs were so concerned they co-authored The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco, published it and sent it to the President of Dartmouth. But his representative has washed his hands clean of the whole matter by claiming that this “is a disagreement among scholars, and must be settled by them.” How many professors of late have been tossed off campuses for contrarian beliefs? How many should be sacked for research as sloppy as this?

The backyard photos were and continue to be the province of noted scholars and authors. And the victim was a major political figure, whose death changed the course of national policy and perhaps of world history.

How does one man, using one photo, one anomaly (shadows), one bit of computer modeling and one unsupported theory, i.e. people don’t see shadows, get away with this hoax with such faint resistance? Has Dartmouth been compromised? Is it also working for the FBI?

These questions pass through your mind when resistance folds so quickly. This is the signature of being bought and not of thought—conscious, conscionable thought. Farid found the one questionable feature of a set of faked photographs that he thought he could plausibly “explain away”, hoping that no one would catch his sleight-of-hand.

The authenticity of the photographs was also addressed by Robert Blakey, who chaired the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). He acknowledged then that if the photos had been faked, it would not only imply that Oswald had been framed but, because of the technical sophistication involved, it would also indicate the existence of a larger conspiracy to cover up the crime, and to support the “lone gunman” scenario.

Thus, I would seriously suggest that you, dear Professor Farid, go back to your modeling board and read at least the Fetzer and Marrs books. Of course, take a look at the canon of other outstanding studies of the JFK assassination, as if you were writing a thesis for an advanced degree.

Photographic fakery undermines serious, independent scholarship. That should be one lesson you learn not to do. That’s n-o-t to do. As to the FIB—excuse me, the FBI—its business should be stopping frauds not creating them. Caveat emptor!

Is Biden’s Terror Attack Warning Related to a Possible Assassination Attempt on Obama?

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
February 17, 2010

VP Joe Biden is not worried about a concerted al-Qaeda attack against the United States. He is concerned about a lone individual. “Am I less worried about an attack? No, I’m worried. Am I less worried about a catastrophic event? Yes,” Biden told CBS News.

“We have made more progress in dismantling the hierarchy of Al-Qaeda central. … and evidence of that is, now they’re going to lone bombers as the means to get there. … I’m more worried about, and harder to detect, and I’m very concerned about a terrorist attack in the United States along the lines of the ‘Christmas Day bomber.’ You get a disgruntled student, someone who has some relationship with the United States who is — able to be recruited quickly, able to be indoctrinated quickly. And they say, basically, ‘Here’s a bomb. Go do it,’ as opposed to the kind of planning that’s needed to pull off — a very complicated 9/11,” explained Biden.

Earlier this month, top intelligence officials in the U.S. warned al-Qaeda will attack within three to six months. “Al Qaeda remains a significant threat to the U.S., the officials said, and the group’s recent evolution in tactics includes dispatching individuals who can enter the U.S. without arousing suspicion, such as the man accused of attempting the Christmas Day attack,” The Wall Street Journal reported on February 3, 2010.

MI5, infamous for creating terrorists and would-be terrorist patsies, knew Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was connected to so-called Islamic terrorists in Britain.

It is said U.S. officials did not know about the underwear bomber until he was on the plane and en route to Detroit. “U.S. border security officials learned of the alleged extremist links of the suspect in the Christmas Day jetliner bombing attempt as he was airborne from Amsterdam to Detroit and had decided to question him when he landed,” The Los Angeles Times reported on January 7, 2010.

In fact, not only did the U.S. know about an impending terror attack, it had specific details. “The US was aware that ‘a Nigerian’ in Yemen was being prepared for a terrorist attack — weeks before an attempted bombing on a US plane,” the BBC reported on December 30, 2010.

In addition, an Israeli company allowed Abdulmutallab to board the plane. “A Haaretz investigation has learned that the security officers and their supervisor should have suspected the passenger,” the Israeli newspaper reported on January 10, 2010.

The Israeli company, ICTS, also allowed the dim-witted shoe bomber, Richard Reid, to board a plane and handled security at Logan International Airport, from which two of the supposed 9-11 hijacked planes departed.

Coincidence? Ineptitude? Or a covert intelligence operation?

Earlier this week, Prison Planet’s Paul Joseph Watson warned that Obama may be the target of a staged false flag assassination attempt that will be blamed on either the “extreme” right or left, in order to silence dissent in America and blackmail Obama into launching a military assault on Iran.

The corporate media, Watson points out, and its operatives like Glenn Beck on the phony right-wing side and establishment liberals on the phony left were busy manufacturing ready-made patsies upon which the false flag would be blamed.

Beck has said al-Qaeda will “work with anybody” in order to attack America, including white supremacists and 9/11 truthers (see video below). Beck has consistently characterizes the 9/11 truth movement as a dire threat to the United States. He claims truthers are ensconced in the White House and will attack Obama.

It remains to be seen if Joe Biden’s warning is merely more hyper-inflated propaganda and terror attack mongering for political purposes. It is worth noting that he believes the next attack will be carried out by a lone wolf and not al-CIA-duh proper.

Recall Biden’s hysterical warning during the election that Obama would be tested by an international crisis within six months of becoming president. “Watch. We’re going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. And he’s going to need help . . . to stand with him. Because it’s not going to be apparent initially; it’s not going to be apparent that we’re right.”

No such international crisis occurred within Biden’s time-frame.

UN Climate Panel Admits Dutch Sea Level Flaw

Posted by bluemana on February 17, 2010

Reported via Reuters:

OSLO — The UN panel of climate experts overstated how much of the Netherlands is below sea level, according to a preliminary report on Saturday, admitting yet another flaw after a row last month over Himalayan glacier melt.

A background note by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said a 2007 report wrongly stated that 55 percent of the country was below sea level since the figure included areas above sea level, prone to flooding along rivers.

The United Nations has said errors in the 2007 report of about 3,000 pages do not affect the core conclusions that human activities, led by burning fossil fuels, are warming the globe.

“The sea level statistic was used for background information only, and the updated information remains consistent with the overall conclusions,” the IPCC note dated February 12 said.

Skeptics say errors have exposed sloppiness and over-reliance on “grey literature” outside leading scientific journals. The panel’s reports are a main guide for governments seeking to work out costly policies to combat global warming.

Read More: Reuters

Yes, WHO Faked a Swine Flu Pandemic and is Now Lying About It

Michael Fumento
Opposing Views
Posted February 15, 2010

The World Health Organization has suddenly gone from crying “The sky is falling!” like a cackling Chicken Little to squealing like a stuck pig. The reason: charges that the agency deliberately fomented swine flu hysteria. “The world is going through a real pandemic. The description of it as a fake is wrong and irresponsible,” the agency claims on its Web site.

But I’ve been documenting the hoax since before a pandemic was declared, back when the WHO was just posturing about a proclamation.

I first showed that swine flu was exceptionally mild, when by definition flu pandemics had to be severe. I later showed that the WHO changed the definition to match swine flu, which required it to eliminate severity as a factor. That in turn makes the definition of “flu pandemic” absolutely worthless.

I also explained why the WHO did it. That it wasn’t mere bureaucratic turf-enlarging, but rather first an effort to cover up yet another WHO hysteria, over avian flu, and then an attempt to bring “social justice” to the world and redistribute wealth between nations. That from the very mouth of its secretary general!

Now with a European watchdog group calling hearings on what it’s labeled a “false pandemic,” the WHO is claiming 1) that it didn’t change the definition, and 2) that there was never a definition that required severity.

These are incredibly bold lies, given that you can find the old definition on the Web and people like me tell you right where to go to find it. Like here.

READ FULL ARTICLE

H1N1- Swine Flu: A Post Mortem

Michael Werbowski
Global Research
February 15, 2010

Rarely in the annals of history have we seen such as humongous hoax as the recent “H1N1-pandemic”. What reportedly began in Mexico last spring in Vera Cruz state, at an insalubrious industrial sized pork farm was then upgraded from to a global health crisis. Nine months later it has ended with allegations of an immense imposture on a world-wide scale. A presumably fake flu scare was orchestrated and carefully coordinated apparently from within the WHO’s inner sanctum, in order to boost vaccine sales and the profits of the pharmaceutical industry. Were we all fobbed and sold of bill of goods? Was the “false pandemic” really a hoax or are accusations coming from medical experts such as Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg (www.wodarg.de/english/index.html) just conspiratorial blather?

Well let’s look at it from this standpoint. Out of a total planetary population of around 6.8 billion people, only approximately 15,613 deaths [not all of which were actually confirmed] have been directly attributed to H1N1 as of late 2009 (www.flucount.org). In 1918, by comparison the mortality level attributed to the “Spanish flu” was 50 million deaths. This was a whopping 3 percent of the total world’s population which was 1.6 billion at the time. So just based on this measurable scale the Swine flu was indeed a big dud.

Despite this epidemic’s low mortality rate, it was never the less judged by both national government’s medical experts and the UN health officials in Geneva to be a “pandemic”. This alarmist term has been used irresponsibly in a “fast and loose” manner to seemingly panic people and get them to go get jabbed to the delight of the vaccines’ manufacturers. Officials during the height of the hysteria around June, spread highly exaggerated pronouncements about the extent and virulence of the “deadly outbreak” among the populace. Of course this was designed to deliberately scare the populace and it engendered a pandemic of fear which spread further and faster than the H1N1 –Swine flu bug itself.

Misusing terminology and making misleading claims

Pandemic, of course originates from the Greek words “pan” mean all and “demos” or people. Hence an outbreak of a dreaded contagious disease in order to qualify as a “pandemic” must affect the vast majority. This was certainly not the case in Mexico . Yet at a “critical” period in late April 2009 there were 148 deaths “suspected” to be (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/27) directly related to the flu. They occurred in an urban centre with over 20 million people. The “pandemic” prompted a virtual state of emergency to be enacted, which practically paralysed the entire capital.

Not only did governments evidently over- sell the severity of this virus as if it were a great deadly plague, and in the process mislead the public, they were also apparently and willingly gouged by “Big –Pharma” which over –charged their national clients to the delight of the vaccines’ manufacturers.(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/oct/11/swine-flu-vaccine-baxter )

The H1N1 “hoax” turns into a full- fledged “fiasco”

In France the Swine flu “fiasco has resulted in millions of unused doses of the H1N1 vaccine piling up as it approached its expiry date in government warehouses. Since the mass vaccination campaign began last October, around 5 million people go the jab. The French health ministry purchased 94,000 million doses more than would cover the entire population of the country at a cost of $ 1.25 billion. The government stuck with vast quantities of doses which are decreasing in potency is frantically seeking to sell off their left –over stocks (but the manufacturers are reluctant to buy them back!). Others countries like Canada, unable to sell off the vaccines, is offloading or sending them to “needier” countries in the developing world as a gesture of their self-less generosity.

Why Google Has Become Microsoft’s Evil Twin

Robert X. Cringely
PC World
February 15, 2010

Late yesterday afternoon, Google introduced some changes it was making to Buzz via its Official Google Blog. They didn’t really change much — they just made some of the privacy features more visible, made it easier to block people from following you, and made it easier to manage which followers show up on your public Google Profile.

What they didn’t do was change the requirement for you to create a Google Profile in order to use Buzz, or change the default URL for the profile, which is the first half of your Gmail address. That’s not good.

“When you first go into Google Buzz, it automatically sets you up with followers and people to follow. … The problem is that — by default — the people you follow and the people that follow you are made public to anyone who looks at your profile. In other words, before you change any settings in Google Buzz, someone could go into your profile and see the people you email and chat with most …

“In my profession — where anonymous sourcing is a crucial tool — the implications of this flaw are terrifying. But it’s bad for others too.

READ FULL ARTICLE

The CIA and NSA Want You to Be Their Friend on Facebook

cryptogon.com
Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

Don’t break out the foil, the U.S. News & World Report article states, because the spooks are telling you up front, here we are. Oh sure. What this shit-for-brains article doesn’t explore is how many hundreds or thousands of full time, professionally run honeypots, black propaganda outlets, sock puppets/trolls/shills etc. are operational on Facebook.

See: EFF Sues CIA, DOJ, Others Over Facebook Surveillance:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation sued the CIA, the US Department of Defense, Department of Justice and three other government agencies on Tuesday for allegedly refusing to release information about how they are using social networks in surveillance and investigations.

The not-for-profit internet rights watchdog group formally asked more than a dozen agencies or departments in early October to provide records about federal guidelines on the use of sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Flickr for investigative or data-gathering purposes, according to the lawsuit.

The requests were prompted by published news reports about how authorities are using social networks to monitor citizen activities and aid in investigations. For example, according to the lawsuit, government officials have: used Facebook to hunt for fugitives and search for evidence of underage drinking; researched the activities of an activist on Facebook and LinkedIn; watched YouTube to identify riot suspects; searched the home of a social worker because of Twitter messages regarding police actions he sent during the G-20 summit; and used fake identities to trick Facebook users into accepting friend requests.

So, how many intelligence assets are operating in a covert capacity on Facebook?

At minimum, the answer is more than zero. As an upper end estimate, I would venture a guess that, because of compartmentalization, the executive echelons of spookdom don’t even know how many Facebook pages and users their various divisions, special access programs and cutouts are running.

Of course, one might argue that Facebook IS an intelligence asset, a giant sensor, that distributes analysis and archival tasks to remote nodes. In, Feds Push for Tracking Cell Phones, I wrote:

Focusing on the network operators misses the point. The beam splitters don’t discriminate; they send a copy of everything, every single bit, to Uncle. So, sure, the carriers don’t want to spend money on archiving all of that surveillance data, but what is the state doing with its copy of the stream?

The answer is: We have almost no idea, and the Obama regime is determined to make sure that it stays that way.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

What proof do I have that beam splitters are installed–on Facebook fiber–that are sending a copy of everything to Uncle? None. But consider this, from the Guardian:

The third board member of Facebook is Jim Breyer. He is a partner in the venture capital firm Accel Partners, who put $12.7m into Facebook in April 2005. On the board of such US giants as Wal-Mart and Marvel Entertainment, he is also a former chairman of the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA). Now these are the people who are really making things happen in America, because they invest in the new young talent, the Zuckerbergs and the like. Facebook’s most recent round of funding was led by a company called Greylock Venture Capital, who put in the sum of $27.5m. One of Greylock’s senior partners is called Howard Cox, another former chairman of the NVCA, who is also on the board of In-Q-Tel. What’s In-Q-Tel? Well, believe it or not (and check out their website), this is the venture-capital wing of the CIA. After 9/11, the US intelligence community became so excited by the possibilities of new technology and the innovations being made in the private sector, that in 1999 they set up their own venture capital fund, In-Q-Tel, which “identifies and partners with companies developing cutting-edge technologies to help deliver these solutions to the Central Intelligence Agency and the broader US Intelligence Community (IC) to further their missions”.

The US defence department and the CIA love technology because it makes spying easier. “We need to find new ways to deter new adversaries,” defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in 2003. “We need to make the leap into the information age, which is the critical foundation of our transformation efforts.” In-Q-Tel’s first chairman was Gilman Louie, who served on the board of the NVCA with Breyer. Another key figure in the In-Q-Tel team is Anita K Jones, former director of defence research and engineering for the US department of defence, and – with Breyer – board member of BBN Technologies. When she left the US department of defence, Senator Chuck Robb paid her 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.”

Now, consider the network analysis of Facebook that a researcher was able to carry out from the outside:

As I’ve been digging deeper into the data I’ve gathered on 210 million public Facebook profiles, I’ve been fascinated by some of the patterns that have emerged. My latest visualization shows the information by location, with connections drawn between places that share friends. For example, a lot of people in LA have friends in San Francisco, so there’s a line between them.

Looking at the network of US cities, it’s been remarkable to see how groups of them form clusters, with strong connections locally but few contacts outside the cluster.

I’m not even capable of thinking up the kinds of analysis that would be possible by having total access to Facebook data. However, again, while I’m just guessing, if U.S. Intelligence didn’t have entire divisions, roomfuls of people, dedicated datacenters and other infrastructure, etc. for dealing exclusively with network (and other types of) analysis of Facebook data, I would be very, very surprised.

But, no need for tinfoil, gentle citizen. Move along. These are just recruiting tools. Nothing to see here.

Via: U.S. News & World Report:

The online social-networking service Facebook works for finding old classmates or arranging happy hours, so why not use it to help recruit the next generation of spies? That’s what’s happening now in cyberspace, as the country’s intelligence community turns to such sites to attract a wider range of resumes.

The CIA now has its own Facebook page, as does the hush-hush National Security Agency, which vacuums up the world’s communications for analysis. Both invite Facebook members to register and read information about employment opportunities. It’s part of a larger, multiyear hiring push to boost the size of the U.S. intelligence community.

But should the country’s secret spy agency be encouraging potential hires to publicize their interest in the intelligence field? Apparently, it’s not a concern. In the first place, since the groups are not directly moderated, it is impossible to control who registers as a member. Some may enroll on the site out of curiosity. And, of course, none of those who show interest are yet officers in the clandestine service.

Even so, once they are on the CIA payroll, employees face no prohibition against keeping social-networking accounts or pages. “While agency officers are not, as a rule, prohibited from maintaining a page on Facebook, they are made aware of precautions to take if they choose to do so,” says CIA spokesman George Little.

But the Facebook posting shouldn’t necessarily cause a run on tinfoil hats. The pages aren’t designed to surreptitiously gather information about those who visit the site, as fearful skeptics allege. In reality, says the CIA, they are flashy recruiting posters, “used strictly for informational purposes.”

Comment note: The MIT page about tinfoil helmets is old and off topic. Don’t be a jackass by submitting it here. Better yet, go over to the U.S. News site and make yourself useful over there.

Internet Censorship Alert! Alex Jones exposes agenda to shut down the web

Aaron Dykes & Alex Jones
Infowars.com
February 9, 2010

The Western world, from Australia to the United States, UK and parts of Europe, are moving in a unified front toward dictatorial Internet censorship. Australia has led the way, despite outcry from its populace, by “filtering” out certain banned content. In the United States, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, in continuing his family’s tradition of oppressing free humanity, has pushed forward Cybersecurity legislation that has already passed the House. He has done so in the name of warding off ghastly cyber “attackers” conceivably fronting for al Qaeda while ushering in a means to restrict free speech and expression online for the general population.

With Obama’s support, most of the developed world has accepted plans for government-approved online activity and Pentagon-monitored internet traffic. The U.S. and UK are facilitating the hijacking of what has, until now, been a highly-democratic Internet. Overall, it has been a technological God-send for bringing together communication and strongly expressing thought outside of the mainstream information available on television and in print.

Now, people are being forced onto the corporate-dominated Internet2– once again, in the name of “security.” (Internet) Freedom sacrificed at the same false alter of (Internet) Security. Independent blogs, news sites and online businesses will all be financially disadvantaged by access fees not demanded of dominant entities. What is today outside the ‘norm’ but well within free speech will tomorrow be evaluated by politically-correct criteria that will be used to identify sites to block and users to deny access.

Already, government “blacklists” have been exposed. On its lists? The usual suspects– Infowars.com, PrisonPlanet.com, Wikileaks.org and the like. Referrals to sites like Infowars.com and PrisonPlanet.com are being denied not only in Australia, but in places like New Zealand– who have not adopted the same policies, but do share ISPs who have ordered a block. All across the world, wherever internet “filtering” and outright censorship has been phased in– via libraries, businesses, airports, and so forth, sites that are critical of government are consistently blocked first. This has been true not only of Alex Jones’ several websites, but also of sites like Wikileaks, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Cryptome and etc, etc. The common theme is not operating outside of law or of speaking in extremities, but challenging the power establishment through distribution of information and/or shedding light on its otherwise little known unscrupulous activities.

This Orwellian scheme has already been branded by the outrages of Cass Sunstein, one of the Obama ‘Czars’, who has called for governments to ban “conspiratorial theories” and identified thought-crimes including a disbelief in man-made global warming and a belief in the basic goodness of “sunshine.” In considering how to eradicate ‘outlawed’ beliefs, Sunstein posits the benefits of using bloggers to engage and counter ‘disinformation.’ A very similar version of this strategy has already been adopted by the Pentagon in its “infowars” campaign. Further, campaigns are underway to convince the public to accept “driver’s licenses” for the once-free Internet.

Alex uses his most-recent experience in an outright ban to sound a warning that the enemy is already among us. Internet censorship threatens to stifle out a recent phenomenon of free thought and widespread information that has flourished on the Internet / world wide web. Only by standing up to undue constraints on our rights and by saying no to efforts to chill speech on the web can we save a stronghold of free humanity.

– Frightening Taste Of Internet Censorship As Major Free Speech Websites Blocked

- Death Of The Internet: Censorship Bills In UK, Australia, U.S. Aim To Block “Undesirable” Websites

- Obama Information Czar Calls For Banning Free Speech

- Conspiracy Theories (Cass R. Sunstein, Harvard Law School; Adrian Vermeule, Harvard Law School — January 15, 2008)

- Proposed Web video restrictions cause outrage in Italy

- Joining China and Iran, Australia to Filter Internet

- Leaked Australian blacklist reveals banned sites

- Internet Censorship: Major Truth-Providing Websites Blocked By Asia Netcom To New Zealand Users

- New Zealand blocks two websites selectively

- Online Kiwis maybe feeling Oz censor trickledown

- Australia’s compulsory internet filtering ‘costly, ineffective’

- Australia Censors Wikileaks Page

- WikiLeaks Exposes Australian Web Blacklist

- Gates backs China in Google censorship spat

- Gates calls China censorship ‘limited’

- Microsoft’s Mundie calls for ‘internet driving licence’

- UN agency calls for global cyberwarfare treaty, ‘driver’s license’ for Web users

- Internet ‘driver’s license’? Microsoft’s Mundie wants it

- House Passes Cybersecurity Bill

- S. 773: Cybersecurity Act of 2009

- Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

- Military Report: Secretly ‘Recruit or Hire Bloggers’

- Lt. Col. Ralph Peters Calls For Military Killing Of War Journalists

- U.S. Web-Tracking Plan Stirs Privacy Fears

- AOL Time-Warner Censors Alex Jones Websites

- My ISP (Internode) has blocked infowars.com!!!

- MySpace Admits Censorship Of Prison Planet.com

- Major International Transport Hub Censors Political Websites

- ISPs to record all emails and calls

Research related links

1. Frightening Taste Of Internet Censorship As Major Free Speech Websites Blocked
2. UK House of Lords Follow China and Australia, Propose Internet Censorship Bill
3. Australia: Growing opposition to Labor’s Internet censorship
4. Internet Censorship: Major Truth-Providing Websites Blocked By Asia Netcom To New Zealand Users
5. Australia To Enforce Mandatory Chinese-Style Internet Censorship
6. You Tube In Egregious Censorship Of Alex Jones Channel
7. In Australia, banned hyperlinks could cost you $11,000 a day
8. Get Outraged And Get Active About Internet Censorship
9. Fatal flaws in Australia’s website censorship plan, says report
10. Internet Censorship Contest (13)
11. Featured Selections from the Alex Jones Internet Censorship Contest
12. UK Culture Secretary Wants Internet Ratings System, Censorship