Showing posts with label US. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US. Show all posts

Another Mass Shooting, Another Grab For Guns: 6 Gun Facts

October 3, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Nothing is more deplorable than hijacking human tragedy to push an unrelated political agenda. A mass murderer taking the lives of some 60 people in Las Vegas this week has nothing to do with the majority of lawful firearms owners in the United States who aren't and have no intention of ever killing another human being.


Yet the knee-jerk reaction of many emotionally-driven people in the face of an overwhelming tragedy is to shift public debate back to gun control and even banning guns altogether. 

Emotional and irrational responses in the face of overwhelming circumstances is part of human nature and require patience.

Yet another part of being human is then appealing to our ability to reason. To reason we must have facts. 

Upon examining the following 6 facts, we will see that access to firearms has no significant relationship to violence - and that violence is driven by another entire set of factors that must be addressed if we honestly want a more peaceful and prosperous world.

1. According to the FBI, more people die of barehanded assaults in the US per year than all rifle violence ("assault rifles" included) combined. In fact, homicide via personal weapons like hands and feet is more than double homicides carried out with rifles.  


Most gun homicides are carried out by handguns in some of America's most destitute communities where national and local governments have failed to keep up with infrastructure, providing education, or economic opportunities - cities like Detroit who have had their industry shipped overseas and their infrastructure left to - in some cases literally - rot.

2. According to the Small Arms Survey conducted by the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, Switzerland, the United States has the most guns per capita of any other nation on Earth at 112 guns per 100 people. Second place goes to Serbia at 58.21 guns per 100 people.

Based on this and assumptions that access to firearms equates directly to more violence, we would expect to find the United States and Serbia at the top of list regarding both homicides, and gun related homicides, yet this is not the case at all.


Wall Street Vs. Kremlin: Who Really Runs the White House?

By blaming Russia for America's most abhorrent problems and most unforgivable policies, Wall Street is given another 4-8 year free pass. 

October 1, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Perhaps the only thing more incredible than quickly expanding conspiracy theories regarding the Kremlin's influence over the White House is who is selling them and who is buying them.


Organizations popping up overnight with advisory boards lined with Neo-Conservatives who came to prominence during the administration of former US President George Bush and who became notorious for selling the 2003 US invasion of Iraq based on intentional fabrications, now find themselves building an audience of unlikely political allies - left-leaning liberals.

Who is Selling?  

The so-called "Alliance for Securing Democracy" recently accused Russia of manipulating news to target the US-based National Football League (NFL).  It claims in its mission statement that:
In 2016, American democracy came under unprecedented attack. 
The government of the Russian Federation attempted to weaken the pillars of our democracy and undermine faith and confidence in our society’s most fundamental right — the ability to choose our own leaders.
The organization's "Disinformation Dashboard" even includes a disclaimer admitting nothing about the information it presents constitutes evidence. Ambiguous terms like "Russia aligned" are never qualified. Instead, it claims (emphasis added):
Content is not necessarily produced or created by Russian government operatives, although that is sometimes the case. Instead, the network often opportunistically amplifies content created by third parties not directly linked to Russia. Common themes for amplification include content attacking the U.S. and Europe, conspiracy theories and disinformation. Russian influence operations also frequently promote extremism and divisive politics in Western countries. Just because the Russia-aligned network monitored here tweets something, that doesn’t mean everyone who tweets the same content is aligned with Russia. 

An organization that accuses Russia and in particular, President Vladimir Putin for undermining US elections, inferring Russia's responsibility for Hillary Clinton's defeat, counts among its advisory council Michael Chertoff, a Bush-era Neo-Conservative who served as President Bush's Secretary of Homeland Security.



There is also David Kramer who served in the US State Department under President Bush, served as president of the Neo-Conservative chaired State Department front, Freedom House, and currently serves as a member of the advisory council for the George W. Bush Presidential Center's "Human Freedom Project."


William Kristol, considered by many as one of the chief architects, or at least leading salesman of the 2003 Iraq War, also chairs the Alliance for Securing Democracy advisory board. He was a signatory of the Neo-Conservative Project for the New American Century and the pro-war Foreign Policy Initiative. He served the administrations of US President Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr.

Michael Morell - who recently declared interest in killing Russians and Iranians in Syria as the armed forces of all three nations fight Al Qaeda and militants of the so-called Islamic State - also serves as an adviser. He has worked in the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for over 30 years, and is currently a senior counselor at Beacon Global Strategies - an organization that appears to specialize in professional warmongering - along side other former US State Department, Department of Defense, and CIA employees.

Kori Schake is described as having assisted with policy for the White House, Department of Defense, and the State Department as well as serving as senior policy adviser for John McCain and Sarah Palin during their 2008 bid for the White House

Michael Rogers, a former US Representative for Michigan and a Republican along with Admiral James Stavridis who helped wage President Bush's wars and also serves as an adviser for the above mentioned Beacon Global Strategies help round off the advisory board.

It is safe to say that the majority of this exclusively anti-Russian propaganda organization, eagerly promoted by American liberals, consists of Neo-Conservatives many of these same liberals at one point rightfully rejected, opposed, and vehemently condemned as they sold serial wars of aggression during the Bush administration.

A similar list of Neo-Conservatives and long-time warmongers fills out the "Committee to Investigate Russia" (CIR) who recently made headlines when they hired veteran actor Morgan Freeman to appeal to audiences' emotions rather than their intellect.

CIR includes Max Boot, James Clapper, and Norman Ornstein who occupy various seats and positions at corporate-financier funded think tanks ranging from the Council on Foreign Relations to the Center for a New American Security, to the American Enterprise Institute all of which share sponsorship from big-oil, big-defense, big-banks, and big-industry - in other words - Wall Street.

Other pop-up anti-Russian fronts have similar boards of directors, representing similar interests, and are similarly and very ironically, finding fertile ground among American liberals who at one point in recent history opposed the very sort of war propaganda now being sold versus Russia.


US Missile Machinations Undoes Non-Proliferation Efforts

September 18, 2017 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - When it comes to nuclear weapons upon the international stage, the general consensus is certainly not "the more the merrier." Attempts to limit the number and variety of nuclear weapons and to take measures to avoid the use of those that do exist have been ongoing since the first nuclear weapons were developed at the end of World War 2.


Today, however, one of the several nuclear-armed nations of the world and its behavior has jeopardized the hard-fought progress made toward this goal.

America Reneged After the Cold War 

One of several treaties singed during the later stages of the Cold War included the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABMT). It limited anti-ballistic missile systems to two per country. The reasoning was to hinder anti-missile technology development and leave nuclear-armed nations open to retaliatory attacks should they initiate a nuclear first strike.

The treaty helped further enhance the concept of "mutually assured destruction" (MAD).  After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, member states upheld the treaty with the United States until 2001 when the United States unilaterally withdrew from it.

The White House in an official statement regarding America's withdrawal from the treaty, would state:
...the United States and Russia face new threats to their security. Principal among these threats are weapons of mass destruction and their delivery means wielded by terrorists and rogue states. A number of such states are acquiring increasingly longer-range ballistic missiles as instruments of blackmail and coercion against the United States and its friends and allies. The United States must defend its homeland, its forces and its friends and allies against these threats. We must develop and deploy the means to deter and protect against them, including through limited missile defense of our territory.
However, the United States would spend the next decade and a half, not developing anti-missile systems aimed at stopping non-existent weapons of mass destruction launched from "rogue states," it instead spent that time encircling Russia with anti-missile systems, including those placed in Eastern Europe.

In essence, the United States has begun to fulfill the sum of all fears during the Cold War, that a nuclear armed nation would attempt to monopolize missile defense technology and use it as a means to develop a nuclear first strike capability without fear of retaliation.

Opponents of America's decision to withdraw from the ABMT noted that the move also undermined Washington's own alleged nuclear non-proliferation efforts.

Russia Reacts 
Articles like February 2017 New York Times piece titled, "Russia Deploys Missile, Violating Treaty and Challenging Trump," attempt to portray Russia as menacing the US and its Western European allies with new and potentially "illegal" nuclear weapons.


The New York Times reports:
The ground-launched cruise missile at the center of American concerns is one that the Obama administration said in 2014 had been tested in violation of a 1987 treaty that bans American and Russian intermediate-range missiles based on land. 

The Obama administration had sought to persuade the Russians to correct the violation while the missile was still in the test phase. Instead, the Russians have moved ahead with the system, deploying a fully operational unit.
The article refers to another landmark effort made during the Cold War to reduce the likelihood of nuclear war, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, signed in 1987 by the United States and the Soviet Union.

Yet despite this narrative, the New York Times itself gives away what provoked Russia's recent deployment of the missile system in the first place, stating (emphasis added):
The missile program has been a major concern for the Pentagon, which has developed options for how to respond, including deploying additional missile defenses in Europe or developing air-based or sea-based cruise missiles.
Clearly, Russia is responding to existing missile defenses the US has placed across Europe, or plans on placing across Europe in the near future.

As predicted by opponents of America's 2001 decision to withdraw from the Cold War ABMT, America has undermined non-proliferation efforts, not only inviting other nations to discard efforts to rein in nuclear proliferation and the number and variety of nuclear weapons deployed by a nation, but in fact leaving nations with no other choice in the face of America's own attempts to obtain a nuclear first strike capability.

NATO's Expansion is a Lit Fuse 

As NATO expands and as the United States digs in along Russia's borders, a proverbial fuse lit by America's withdrawal from the ABMT and its belligerence toward Russia ever since becomes shorter and shorter.

By provoking Russia into developing and deploying nuclear-capable intermediate-range missiles able to negate the possibility of a US nuclear first strike, the amount of time between launch and all out nuclear war has been significantly shortened.

Despite the US provoking this chain of events, instead of taking stock and retreating to a more sensible position, it is using Russia's predictable reaction to rush even further forward. By posing a greater nuclear threat to Russia, the United States through its own irresponsible behavior upon the world stage encourages many other nations to pursue, develop and deploy nuclear armaments as a means of defense and deterrence.

While the United States poses as international arbiter of nuclear non-proliferation, it appears instead to serve as the premier provocateur of new nuclear weapons gold rush.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.  

September 11, 2001: Questions to Ask if You Still Believe the Official Narrative

September 11, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - The attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11) left nearly 3,000 dead in NYC, Washington D.C. and over Pennsylvania. The attacks transformed America into a deepening police state at home and a nation perpetually at war abroad.


The official narrative claims that 19 hijackers representing Al Qaeda took over 4 commercial aircraft to carry out attacks on New York City's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington D.C.

The event served as impetus for the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan which continues to present day. It also led directly to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Attempts to cite the attack to precipitate a war with Iran and other members of the so-called "Axis of Evil" (Libya, Syria, North Korea, and Cuba) have also been made.

And if this is the version of reality one subscribes to, several questions remain worth asking.

1. Can the similarities between 9/11 and plans drawn up by the US Department of Defense (DoD) and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) in 1962 under the code name "Operation Northwoods" be easily dismissed? 

The US DoD and JCS wrote a detailed plan almost identical to the 9/11 attacks as early as 1962 called "Operation Northwoods" where the US proposed hijacking commercial airliners, committing terrorist attacks, and blaming Cuba to justify a US military intervention.



Far from a fringe conspiracy theory, mainstream media outlets including ABC News would cover the document in articles like, "U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba," which would report:
In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba. 

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities. 

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

A full PDF copy of the document is available via George Washington University's archives and states specifically regarding the hijacking of commercial aircraft:

An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone. 
The document also cites the USS Maine in describing the sort of event the DoD-JCS sought to stage, a US warship whose destruction was used to maliciously provoke the Spanish-American War. It should be noted, that unlike the DoD-JCS document's suggestion that airliner-related casualties be staged, the USS Maine explosion killed 260 sailors. It is likely that DoD and JCS would not risk engineering a provocation that leads to major war but allow low-level operators left alive with the knowledge of what they had participated in.

Considering that the US sought to deceive the public in order to provoke an unjustifiable war that would undoubtedly kill thousands or tens of thousands of innocent people, and that other proposals did include killing innocent people, it is worth considering that US policymakers would also be just as willing to extinguish innocent lives when staging the hijacking of aircraft to provoke such a war.

2. Why did US policymakers draw up extensive plans to reassert US global hegemony - including regime change in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen - without any conceivable pretext until 9/11 conveniently unfolded? 

In 2000, US policymakers from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) sought a sweeping plan to reassert America as a global hegemon. In a 90-page document titled, "Rebuilding America's Defense: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century" (PDF), a strategy for maintaining what it called "American military preeminence" would be laid out in detail.


Trump: Afghanistan First

August 27, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - For those who know from whence real power flows in America's political establishment, the uninterrupted continuation of America's 16 year war in Afghanistan came as no surprise. 



For those voters who believed US President Donald Trump represented the public's desire to withdraw from multiple foreign wars and entanglements and place "America first," President Trump's announcement that not only would that not happen, but that these wars would be expanded, must have come as a surprise. 

However, perhaps it is the first in a long series of hard lessons for the American public to learn - that no matter who they vote for in Washington, it is clear agendas are decided upon and pressed from elsewhere. 

The Hill, in its article, "5 takeaways from Trump's Afghan speech," touched upon several points regarding President Trump's recent speech regarding Afghanistan, where the US currently has 8,400 troops deployed, and is poised to deploy thousands more. 

The Hill reported: 
Trump is expected to send nearly 4,000 more troops, but he neither divulged a number nor said how long additional U.S. forces would spend in the country. 

"We will not talk about numbers of troops or our plans for future military activities,” Trump said. “Conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables, will guide our strategy from now on. America’s enemies must never know our plans. . . I will not say when we will attack, but attack we will.”
This is in stark contrast to his campaign promises, which The Hill noted: 
“Why are we continuing to train these Afghanis who then shoot our soldiers in the back? Afghanistan is a complete waste. Time to come home!” he wrote on Twitter in 2012.
 The Hill also claims: 
The United States has about 8,400 troops in Afghanistan now. The forces are on a dual mission of training, advising and assisting Afghan forces in their fight against the Taliban and conducting counterterrorism missions against groups such as al Qaeda and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
And indeed, that is precisely what policymakers, politicians, and military leaders have stated regarding the Afghan conflict for well over a decade and a half - spanning the presidencies of George Bush, Barack Obama, and now Trump.  

President Trump would claim that the goal was no longer withdrawal within a certain time frame, but would be dictated by conditions on the ground: 
“A core pillar of our new strategy is a shift from a time-based approach to one based on conditions. I’ve said it many times how counterproductive it is for the United States to announce in advance the dates we intend to begin, or end, military options."
The "conditions" apparently require the US-backed client regime in Kabul "to take ownership of their future," despite claims that the US is not engaged in "nation building" countries in America's "own image." They are conditions that are - even at face value - contradictory and repetitive of promises made and broken by President Trump's predecessor, former President Obama.

Flirting With Further War in Pakistan 


President Trump - like Bush and Obama before him - also threatened neighboring Pakistan, accusing the nation of undermining its military presence in Afghanistan. President Trump would ultimately warn: 
“We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars at the same time they are housing the terrorists that we are fighting. But that will have to change, and that will change immediately,” Trump vowed. 

“It is time for Pakistan to demonstrate its commitment to civilization, order and to peace.”
In reality, the US never invaded Afghanistan nor remains there today to fight terrorism. The organizations that it is allegedly fighting are not funded or directed by Afghanistan, they are funded and directed by the United States' closest and oldest allies in the Middle East - including Saudi Arabia and Qatar. 



Instead, the US is occupying Afghanistan for the same reason the British Empire invaded and occupied it multiple times - in a bid to expand hegemony over Central and South Asia.

Afghanistan conveniently borders Iran, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and even China. A permanent US military presence in Afghanistan and control over the regime in Kabul, gives the US a springboard for direct and indirect geopolitical influence - including military operations - in all directions. Evidence indicates that exploiting this strategic foothold in this manner has already long-ago begun. 


The US has sought to pressure Iran and Pakistan for decades, with long-drawn plans regarding both nations. 


Trump's Trip to Riyadh Offers Left and Right Common Ground

What liberals should really be railing against, and what Trump supporters should really know about "Sharia law." 

May 14, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - A video went viral of an aggressive American man beating his chest, grabbing his genitals, and taunting a Muslim family on a Texas beach in support of what he believed was US President Donald Trump's mission of purging America of "Sharia law" and "ISIS" (the Islamic State).


What this man was likely not aware of as he made his lowbrow political statement was that the "Sharia law" he actually fears is called "Wahhabism," and that his candidate of choice "Trump" was preparing to visit  the very source of Wahhabism - Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, the American left remains convinced that their priority should remain resisting an alleged covert alliance between Russia and the Trump administration of which no evidence actually exists. They have made this a priority at the expense of exposing and resisting a documented and longstanding alliance between the US and Saudi Arabia that has endured for decades.

There is common ground here for the American public, but only if the intentional distractions presented by the Western media from both right and left cover can be sidestepped and the truth revealed.

Wahhabism's Source Code 

If the Islamic State is a virus, its source code can be traced directly back to Riyadh and the political regime that resides there. Riyadh chops heads off of offenders, the Islamic State does too. Riyadh oppresses women, the Islamic State does too. Riyadh is arrayed against all forces beyond its and American geopolitical influence, the Islamic State does too. Riyadh promotes a divisive sectarian-driven strategy of tension to divide and conquer, the Islamic State does too.


It is no coincidence that both Riyadh and its American sponsors are fighting precisely the same enemies as the Islamic State: Syria, Iraq, Iran, Russia, and Lebanon's Hezbollah.

In essence, President Trump's visit to Riyadh represents a paradox for Trump supporters.

He's the man supposed to "save America" from "Sharia law," but is visiting Riyadh from whence the corrosive version of "Sharia law," known as Wahhabism, originated and is actively perpetuated from. Worst of all, Riyadh perpetuates Wahhabism with the explicit and long-term support of the United States, including now under the Trump administration.

For the average chest-beating, genital-grabbing Trump supporter, America's complicity in propping up Wahhabism began under US President Barrack Obama who they suspect had infiltrated American politics as a "secret Muslim." President Trump's victory at the polls was supposed to reverse this "infiltration."


Exposing the Real Deep State

March 13, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Many both within and beyond America's borders labor under the delusion that US policy is determined by the nation's elected representatives amid a careful balancing act between the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of government. In reality, the inner workings of US policy resemble nothing of the sort.


In reality, an unelected deep state controls the United States, its resources, government, and people. However, the term "deep state" has been overused and intentionally abused, particularly since the election of US President Donald Trump in an effort to continue concealing the real deep state and divert public attention away from what is becoming an increasingly obvious continuity of agenda from one presidency to the next.

Uncovering and understanding the nature of the real deep state is in fact elementary, but essential in understanding the genesis and perpetuation of US policy. It is also essential in formulating solutions aimed at reining in the unwarranted power and influence wielded by this seemingly nebulous entity.

Identifying the Real Deep State is Easy

Despite the myth of "democracy," real power is held by those who control the essentials of any given state, province, district, or community. Essentials include control over monetary instruments, essential infrastructure such as water, power, communication, and transportation, control over manufacturing, healthcare, and basic public services, as well as more obvious forms of power such as control over police and military forces.

In rare instances, such vital essentials are controlled by decentralized, grassroots organizations - and in these instances deep states are either weak or virtually nonexistent. However, more often than not, this is not the case - at least not yet.

Ordinarily, regardless of apparent, ongoing political processes, those who actually, truly control these essentials often exist well beyond but not out of reach of politics. They include large corporations and financial institutions. Organizations, lobbyists, media platforms, think tanks, and political parties are set up and controlled by these special interests to then project their power and influence into or entirely driving any given political process.

The concept of a "deep state" is not unique to only the US. Virtually every nation and throughout all of human history, regardless of a nation's alleged political proclivities, has been ruled by wealthy and influential special interests either directly or by proxy.

Ignoring political rhetoric and charades, and focusing on where money, power, and influence truly resides, reveals the real deep state.

Unraveling the "Trump Vs Deep State" Narrative 

A cursory examination of President Trump's administration reveals that he is but one of many extensions of the real deep state. Allegedly "alternative" Breitbart News mogul Stephen Bannon who functions as President Trump's chief strategist is in fact a former Goldman Sachs banker. US Secretary of the Treasury, Steven Mnuchin, is also a former Goldman Sachs banker. Additionally, he managed funds for alleged "Trump archenemy," George Soros, and had invested in the presidential campaigns of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

US Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, is a long-time ExxonMobil executive, and the list goes on.


If one were to map the flow of US power and influence globally, tracing it back to its source, they would find themselves on Wall Street and in the boardrooms of financial institutions and corporations like Goldman Sachs and ExxonMobil. They would also find, leading out from these boardrooms, proxy news platforms like Breitbart News aimed at manipulating, distracting, and preying on the emotions of the American public.

In other words, in reality, the Trump administration, like those of previous presidencies, is the embodiment of the deep state.


Wikileaks Vault 7 Highlights Importance of Tech Self-Sufficiency

March 11, 2017 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - Leaked document clearinghouse Wikileaks has recently released an immense collection of documents detailing the US Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) vast and literally Orwellian surveillance and spying capabilities.


The International Business Times in an article titled, "What's in Vault 7? WikiLeaks publishes huge trove of CIA secrets," would explain:
WikiLeaks has revealed the contents of the long-awaited Vault 7 – a huge batch of documents allegedly detailing the hacking tools used by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The whistle-blowing organisation said it may be the largest intelligence publication in history.
It also stated that these tools were used across hacked platforms. It reported:

This includes Samsung TVs, Microsoft Windows, Apple iPhones and smartphones using Google's Android operating system. The techniques could be used to give the CIA the ability "bypass the encryption" of WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Wiebo and Confide, WikiLeaks said.
In George Orwell's classic novel 1984, TVs would surveil  the population, serving like a universal closed circuit television (CCTV) network. The incremental emergence of just such a surveillance state since the book's publication has often been described as "Orwellian." With devices such as phones, laptops, and smart TVs like those manufactured by Samsung now quite literally surveilling the public, the consequences warned of in Orwell's works have now become a reality.

While the revelations from Vault 7 suggest the US CIA and its European counterparts exploited commercial platforms to build its invasive spying network, some analysts have pointed out that many of these security exploits, backdoors and surveillance features have most likely been created with the explicit cooperation of large technology corporations.

Australia’s Financial Review revealed in 2013 in an article titled, “Intel chips could let US spies inside: expert,” that:

One of Silicon Valley’s most respected technology experts, Steve Blank, says he would be “surprised” if the US National Security Agency was not embedding “back doors” inside chips produced by Intel and AMD, two of the world’s largest semiconductor firms, giving them the possibility to access and control machines.
Corporations like Google and Facebook, the former of which created and maintains the above mentioned Android mobile operating system, openly collaborate with the United States government and the corporate and financial interests that dominate its domestic and foreign policy. It is highly likely, that in addition to assisting US special interests in the subversion of foreign nations and the facilitation of global war and instability, both corporations are also deeply involved in assisting in surveillance, spying and manipulating the public.

Decentralizing IT 

The alliance between these special interests and technology corporations, particularly in light of this most recent deluge of leaked documents, highlights the fundamental importance of decentralizing the design, development, manufacturing and distribution of information technology.


The Trump-Media Circus and Continuity of Agenda

January 12, 2017 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - As the US media expertly divides the American public into pro and anti-Trump camps over cartoonish, unfounded personal accusations aimed at President-elect Donald Trump, Trump's nominee for US Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson confirmed before the US Congress that hostilities and agitation toward both Moscow and Beijing will only expand over the next 4-8 years.


The Business Insider in an article titled, "CNN distances itself from BuzzFeed, says Trump is using the website 'to deflect from CNN's reporting'," outlined the recent rash of accusations and the political fallout in their wake, stating:
CNN distanced itself from BuzzFeed on Wednesday after the digital news outlet published a document that contained unverified claims about President-elect Donald Trump's campaign conduct and personal life.
CNN's decision is based on the fact that nothing it or BuzzFeed reported is actually substantiated with fact, with the Business Insider admitting:
"We [CNN] made it clear that we were not publishing any of the details of the 35-page document because we have not corroborated the report's allegations," the statement continued.
The fallout following the oafish, elementary lies spread by BuzzFeed, CNN, and others, represents rhetorical bait irresistible not only to Trump supporters, but to anyone with a conscience who opposes the systemic abuse that persists across the Western media. However, bait this irresistible is laid out for a purpose.

As the Public Squabbles, Continuity of Agenda Marches On

Were headlines not consumed by the crass allegations pushed across the Western media aimed at Trump, and the rhetorical backlash that predictably followed, the American public might be consumed instead by the fact that Trump's nominee for US Secretary of State just confirmed that quite literally nothing is going to change as Trump takes office in regards to US foreign policy.


Ohio Attacker: What They Really Mean by "Influenced by Islam"

November 29, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Somali immigrant Abdul Razak Ali Artan is alleged to have carried out an attack, injuring 11 until he was eventually shot dead by police.


Alleged alternative media platform, Breitbart News, immediately set to work to link the attack to "Islam" and "refugees" in articles like, "Ohio State Attacker Posted Anti-US Screed to Facebook Movements Before Attack."

It mirrors similar, cherry-picked journalism Breitbart used to cover another attack carried out by a Somali-American in Minnesota earlier this year, in a wider campaign both Breitbart, and a larger segment of the establishment's right cover are engaged in to reintroduce the Bush-era "clash of civilizations" narrative into the alternative media.

Yet neither Abdul Razak Ali Artan's status as an alleged "Muslim" nor his being a Somali refugee had anything to do with his alleged radicalization.

The US and its Allies Radicalized Abdul Razak Ali Artan 

"Radical Islam" is a synonym for the legions of armed terrorists and ideological extremists cultivated by the United States and its Saudi and Qatari allies since the 1980s. Forming up organizations including Al Qaeda itself and its offshoots including Jabhat Al Nusra in Syria and the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (ISIS), these terrorists and ideological extremists have fought the proxy wars of the West and their allies from the mountains of Afghanistan to the shores of Libya, and everywhere in between.


These legions of terrorists and ideological extremists have also played an integral part in justifying the construction of an unprecedented, Western-wide domestic police state that , while predicated on "fighting terrorism," has been utilized to wage war on all enemies, foreign and domestic, of Western special interests.


For Washington, Destroying Syria is a Bipartisan Agenda

November 19, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - With a new president coming into office, hopes for a break in the Syrian conflict are abound. However, these hopes are likely misplaced. Recent US designs for the destruction of Syria began unfolding, not during the administration of US President Barack Obama, but in fact during the presidency of George Bush, and were merely continued, and clearly expanded upon under President Obama.


Pundits and policymakers on both the "left" and "right" of the Western political spectrum have made arguments for continued, even expanded US war with Syria, simply behind the smokescreen of varying partisan narratives. In the end, however, the Middle Eastern nation's overthrow - and failing that - its incremental and systematic division and destruction, remains Washington's ultimate endgame.

President-Elect Trump's Surrounded by Eager Warmongers  

President-elect Donald Trump's campaign for the past 2 years or so has been openly guided by elements of Washington's political establishment often referred to as Neo-Conservatives. This includes former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director during the Bill Clinton administration, James Woolsey, an avid supporter of US war with Iran who served as Trump's adviser on national security, defense and intelligence, Politico would report.

Together with Woolsey, Trump has either invited in or courted other members of the so-called Neo-Conservative establishment including former US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, former New York City mayor, Rudy Giuliani, and former Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich.

Joining them is media personality Steven Bannon of Breitbart News, the establishment's "right cover" retrenched within what is otherwise the independent and increasingly influential alternative media.

Woolsey, Bolton, Giuliani, and Gingrich have all lobbied for years as advocates for war with Iran, including lobbying directly for US State Department-listed foreign terrorist organization, Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) as a means of propping up a capable, armed, and fanatical proxy with which to indirectly wage war on Iran, much as the US is currently using Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and proxy groups like Jabhat Al Nusra and the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (ISIS) to wage proxy war on Syria.

Syria's Destruction Plotted Under Bush, Carried Out Under Obama, a Prerequisite for War with Iran...  

In fact, war with Syria has been long determined by US policymakers as an essential prerequisite before waging war on Iran. Syria's inclusion within the Bush-era "Axis of Evil" was in fact announced by Trump-ally John Bolton under the Bush administration in 2002.


Trump's Administration: The Swamp Deepens

With Breitbart exec in the White House, Neo-Conservative John Bolton and his establishment agenda already has a foot in the door. 

November 15, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - The so-called "alternative right" is at least posing as holding its breath over the prospects of Bush-era Neo-Conservative John Bolton being appointed as US Secretary of State. However, with the appointment of Breitbart's Steven Bannon as Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor of the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump, Bolton and his Neo-Conservative agenda already has a solid foot in the door.


Breitbart News exists today as a living success story of Cass Sunstein's cognitive infiltration doctrine. It infiltrated the increasingly independent and influential alternative media, and reasserted establishment talking points under right cover. The actual alternative media focuses on issues with a perspective outside of the Western "left-right" paradigm. Organizations like Breitbart News, World Net Daily (WND), and others, have ceaselessly worked to repolarize audiences increasingly seeing through politics and identifying the bipartisan control corporate-financial special interests hold over Western society.

Bolton's Breitbart Affair 

A search on Breitbart News for John Bolton's name, reveals not only an extensive archive of articles focused on the otherwise obscure, Bush-era politician, but summaries of numerous interviews Bolton gave with Breitbart News itself.


In essence, Bolton, and many other characters brought into Breitbart News' "alternative" media coverage, aim to reassert a right-leaning tinge to what is supposed to be an alternative media devoid and outside of "left-right" bias. This successful cognitive infiltration has in fact given rise to the label "alt-right," which is essentially the establishment right retrenched within the alternative media.

Breitbart articles including, "John Bolton: U.N. Set to Elect Another 'Secular Pope': Hilary Clinton Will 'Play Right into his Hands," "John Bolton: I Wouldn't Recommend Donald Trump's GOP Critics for a Republican Adminstration 'If My Life Depended on it'," and "John Bolton: 'It Would Be an Honor to be Considered For ANy Position to Serve the Country' in Trump Administration," are not only examples of this allegedly "alternative media" platform introducing and promoting an establishment figure, but includes radio interviews with John Bolton hosted by Breitbart News' and Trump's most recent appointee to his cabinet, Steven Bannon himself.

Articles like "Trump: We are Seriously Thinking about Picking John Bolton as Secretary of State," may appear to simply indicate a possibility of Bolton joining Trump's administration, but in reality, the love affair between Bolton and Breitbart News, directly involving Steven Bannon himself, signifies the ideology and interests Bolton represents are already deeply entrenched in Trump's administration and agenda.


Trump's Worse Than Bush and Obama Because You Think He Isn't

November 12, 2016 (LD) - US President-elect Donald Trump is already lining up a tell-tale team of Wall Street and Washington insiders as well as warmongering Neo-Conservatives and sponsors of terrorism to fill his cabinet and serve in key positions within his upcoming administration. He's also openly reneging on his campaign promises, before even getting into office.


The Intercept in an article titled, "Donald Trump Recruits Corporate Lobbyists to Select His Future Administration," would reveal that:

Trump for America Inc., a nonprofit group chaired by Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J., to oversee the Trump transition, has quietly moved ahead, meeting with interest groups and reaching out to lobbyists to plan a future Trump administration. 

The group has held regular meetings at the Washington, D.C., offices of Baker Hostetler, a law and lobbying firm. 

On Thursday, the group hosted a breakfast at Baker Hostetler attended by Microsoft’s Ed Ingle and Steve Hart, two lobbyists who, according to filings, have worked to promote the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Other transition meetings have included briefings with the Financial Services Roundtable and the Investment Company Institute, two lobby groups that represent Wall Street interests, as well as with the BGR Group, a lobby firm that represents Saudi Arabia and the South Korean government.

Perhaps BGR relayed some information to Trump's team during these meetings on behalf of their South Korean clients, which is why Trump has now already announced a complete reversal regarding his alleged platform of no longer maintaining America's vast collection of protectorates around the globe - South Korea included.

Politics Over Principles: US Denies Philippines Weapons, Continues Arming Saudis

November 10, 2016 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - Perhaps the biggest challenge the US faces regarding its credibility globally is the self-inflicted damage it does to its alleged principles and values as a center of global power.


A perfect example of this is unfolding in the dramatic unraveling of US-Philippine relations where any and every means of finding leverage over Washington's wayward ally is being brought to bear on Manila.

The most recent manifestation of this occurred when the US blocked the shipment of US rifles destined for the Philippines' police forces. PhilStar Global's article, "Duterte cancels rifle sale blocked by US over rights concerns," would report that:
The US State Department had earlier halted the sale of about 26,000 rifles to the Philippines when US Sen. Ben Cardin said that he will oppose it due to concerns over human right violations attributed to the government's war on drugs.
At face value, and ignoring any wider context, it would appear that the United States took a moral stand on what would have otherwise been a lucrative arms deal and would have helped draw Washington and Manila closer together politically.

However, zooming out slightly from Manila, the situation in Asia Pacific finds the US being incrementally pushed out of the region as a geopolitical power broker. As nations, including the Philippines rebuff the United States and its attempts to reassert itself vis-à-vis China, Washington has resorted to leveraging human rights issues, economic pressure and even covert political and military pressure to maintain its grip on each respective nation in the region.

Putting pressure on Manila through a humiliating political stunt, not adhering to moral convictions, is the primary factor driving Washington's decision to block its own delivery of weapons to the Philippines' police forces.

And beyond simply identifying the true motive of America's recent stunt, there is the matter of overt hypocrisy to account for.

US Cultural Colonisation in Asia Pacific

August 31, 2016 (NEO - Joseph Thomas) - Ancient Roman historian Tacitus (c. AD 56 – after 117) would adeptly describe the systematic manner in which Rome pacified foreign peoples and the manner in which it would extend its sociocultural and institutional influence over conquered lands.

(Modern day "chief's sons (and now daughters) being recruited by the empire, indoctrinated in their ways, and sent back home to culturally colonise their homelands, just as Tacitus described nearly 2,000 years ago.)
Far from simple military conquest, the Romans engaged in sophisticated cultural colonisation.

In chapter 21 of his book Agricola, named so after his father-in-law whose methods of conquest were the subject of the text, Tacitus would explain:
His object was to accustom them to a life of peace and quiet by the provision of amenities. He therefore gave official assistance to the building of temples, public squares and good houses. He educated the sons of the chiefs in the liberal arts, and expressed a preference for British ability as compared to the trained skills of the Gauls. The result was that instead of loathing the Latin language they became eager to speak it effectively. In the same way, our national dress came into favour and the toga was everywhere to be seen. And so the population was gradually led into the demoralizing temptation of arcades, baths and sumptuous banquets. The unsuspecting Britons spoke of such novelties as 'civilization', when in fact they were only a feature of their enslavement.
Compare what Tacitus wrote nearly 2,000 years ago with the United States' Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative (YSEALI). Upon the YSEALI website, a description of the programme reads:
Launched in 2013, the Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative (YSEALI) is U.S. government’s signature program to strengthen leadership development and networking in Southeast Asia. Through a variety of programs and engagements, including U.S. educational and cultural exchanges, regional exchanges, and seed funding, YSEALI seeks to build the leadership capabilities of youth in the region, strengthen ties between the United States and Southeast Asia, and nurture an ASEAN community. YSEALI focuses on critical topics identified by youth in the region: civic engagement, environment and natural resources management, and entrepreneurship and economic development.
At face value, the notion of the United States "training" the "leaders" of Asia makes little sense, considering such training would be endowing such leaders with American values serving American interests, not Asia's. Thus, their role as "leaders" is questionable. Their role as "facilitators" or "collaborators" seems like a much more accurate description.

The programme includes academic and professional fellowships to the United States.

The Academic Fellows Program is described as:
The YSEALI Academic Fellows Program brings undergraduates or recently graduated students between the ages of 18 and 25 to the United States for a five-week institute held on the campus of a U.S. college or university.

These five week institutes, held on the campus of a U.S. university or college, will include an academic residency, leadership development, an educational study tour, local community service activities, and opportunities to engage with American peers. The program will conclude in Washington, D.C., to allow for engagement with policymakers, governmental representatives, businesses, and think tanks.
This, quite literally, is the modern day version of what Tacitus described in his writings nearly 2,000 years ago, where the US is educating the youth of Southeast Asian states in the liberal arts, indoctrinating them into networks built to establish, maintain and expand American hegemony, encouraging an expressed preference for American culture, values and institutions while placing those of their homelands as subordinate.

(US "think tanks" are chaired, directed and sponsored by the largest corporate and financial interests on the planet. They represent the interests and objectives of a handful of elite interests, not the American people, and certainly not the Asian people. That the YSEALI exposes fellows to such mechanisms of US political power illustrates further just how similar this modern day programme is to what the Roman Empire did to indoctrinate and culturally colonise targeted peoples.)

It is interesting to note that "think tanks" are mentioned as part of the YSEALI experience. Those familiar with the board of directors and corporate sponsors of these think tanks will understand that it is within their halls, unelected policymakers representing immense corporate and financial interests, create foreign and domestic policy that is implemented regardless of who the American people vote into office and regardless of whether the American people agree with such policies or not, saying nothing of whether such policies even benefit the American people.

Those partaking in the YSEALI will likely believe they are at the cutting edge of "democracy," while in fact, they are instead becoming extra weight behind the bludgeoner of dictatorial corporate special interests.


US "International Court" Ruling on China Falls Short

The Philippines needs a stable Asia to prosper, not regional militarization, and certainly not a confrontation with China.

August 27, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - A recent "international tribunal" ruling regarding China's claims in the South China Sea was more than just anticlimactic - it was indicative of the United States' waning influence as well as the waning legitimacy of the many international institutions it has used, abused, and thus undermined for decades.


The New York Times in an article titled, "Tribunal Rejects Beijing’s Claims in South China Sea," would claim:
An international tribunal in The Hague delivered a sweeping rebuke on Tuesday of China’s behavior in the South China Sea, including its construction of artificial islands, and found that its expansive claim to sovereignty over the waters had no legal basis. 
The landmark case, brought by the Philippines, was seen as an important crossroads in China’s rise as a global power and in its rivalry with the United States, and it could force Beijing to reconsider its assertive tactics in the region or risk being labeled an international outlaw. It was the first time the Chinese government had been summoned before the international justice system.
Despite the NYT's claims that the case was "brought by the Philippines," it was in fact headed by an American lawyer, Paul S. Reichler, of US-based law firm, Foley Hoag. Just like the court case itself, the apparent conflict in the South China Sea may be portrayed as being between China and its neighbors, but it is in reality a conflict cultivated by the US explicitly as a means of maintaining "primacy in Asia."

Image: Paul Reichler, an American, not a Filipino, and his American-British legal team represented the Philippines in an international court case that solely benefited the US. 
Facing Threats to "US Primacy in Asia"

The corporate-financier funded and directed policy think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) published a paper titled, "Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China," penned by Robert Blackwill - a Bush-era administrator and lobbyist who has directly participated in Washington's attempts to maintain hegemony over Asia.

Blackwill's paper states clearly what interests the US has in Asia (emphasis added):
Because the American effort to 'integrate' China into the liberal international order has now generated new threats to U.S. primacy in Asia—and could result in a consequential challenge to American power globally—Washington needs a new grand strategy toward China that centers on balancing the rise of Chinese power rather than continuing to assist its ascendancy.
The CFR paper constitutes a US policymaker openly admitting that the US perceives itself as possessing and seeking to maintain "primacy in Asia," primacy being defined by Merriam-Webster as, "the state of being most important or strongest."
The notion that the United States, from an entire ocean away from Asia, should proclaim itself "the most important or strongest" nation in Asia is in itself every bit in reality a threat to intentional peace and stability as the US claims Chinese primacy in Asia would be. 

The South China Sea "Conflict" as a Pretext

More specifically, Blackwill would mention the South China Sea conflict as the primary pretext with which to further tighten American control over an Asia the paper admits is slipping away.

Confirmed: "Draw Mohammed" Contest Attackers Were Managed by FBI

UPDATE: Readers should backtrack to CNN's 2015 coverage of the Garland, Texas shooting to see just how badly they are being deceived. As readers watch CNN's video coverage and read the article, they must keep in mind that the FBI had been in contact with the suspects for years, and encouraged them to carry out the attack.

August 7, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - To some the 2015 shooting in Garland Texas at a "Draw Mohammed" contest organized by state-sponsored agitators seemed all too convenient.

The protest was meant to prove Muslims were irrational and violent, and amid the protest two armed men did indeed attack, both killed by police who were already on the scene.

The event was meant to reinforce the narrative that Islam is an irrational and dangerous ideology, that Muslims pose a danger to America and the West in general, and that both Islam and Muslims should be actively resisted culturally, politically, and militarily.

It was the culmination of years of agitation through networks maintained by Washington politicians and policymakers, particularly those who have - ironically - not only engineered America's various and unending wars begun during the so-called "War on Terror," but who have also armed and funded some of the most dangerous terrorist organizations on Earth via America's Persian Gulf allies.

Now it is revealed that not only was the protest organized by politicians and organizations associated with Washington, but the shooting was as well.

The two suspects were being directed by undercover FBI agents, one of which reportedly told one of the shooters shortly before the attack to "tear up Texas."

The Daily Beast in its article, "FBI Agent Apparently Egged on ‘Draw Muhammad’ Shooter," would report that:
Days before an ISIS sympathizer attacked a cartoon contest in Garland, Texas, he received a text from an undercover FBI agent. 

“Tear up Texas,” the agent messaged Elton Simpson days before he opened fire at the Draw Muhammad event, according to an affidavit (pdf) filed in federal court Thursday.
The Daily Beast would also report:
That revelation comes amidst a national debate about the use of undercover officers and human sources in terrorism cases. Undercover sources are used in more than half of ISIS-related terror cases, according to statistics kept by the George Washington University Program on Extremism, and civil liberties advocates say some of those charged might not have escalated their behavior without those interventions. 

This latest development regarding the 2015 incident reveals how the entire event and attack were organized by the state for the expressed purpose of creating fear, hysteria, and division within American society. It is very likely that similar attacks both in the United States and across Europe are also the work of concerted efforts by Western governments to manipulate public perception.

Image: Islamophobe Pam Geller with pro-war Neo-Con John Bolton.
The toxic climate created by a phenomenon known as "Islamophobia" is helping the West justify an increased police state at home and wider wars abroad. It is also playing a role in helping to radicalize Muslims sorely needed to fill the ranks of the West's militant fronts in nations like Syria where they are being used to target and overthrow governments obstructing American special interests.

Despite the rhetoric, there are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims on Earth today, meaning that if even 1% were truly as they are characterized by state-sponsored propaganda - as violent fanatics bent on global conquest - that would constitute an army of some 16 million strong - or in other words - an army larger than all of the military forces of the industrialized world combined.

In reality, the number of extremists is extremely low - a fraction of 1% of the total global Muslim population - and the vast majority of these extremists are indoctrinated by US-Saudi funded and facilitated "madrases," trained, funded, and armed by US and its Persian Gulf allies, and "coincidentally" waging war on all of the West's enemies - ranging from the now toppled government of Libya to the current governments of Syria and Iraq, as well as even Russia and China.

Those feeding into Islamophobia - then - are in fact aiding and abetting the cycle of violence, ignorance, and fear that keeps viable the West's use of terrorism as a geopolitical tool both at home and abroad. It is particularly ironic that the "radical Islam" many Westerners are now paralyzed in fear over, is in fact a creation of the modern Western state, springing out of Washington-based policy papers, not the pages of the Qu'ran.

America's Self-Inflicted Defense Woes

August 1, 2016 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - The United States poses as a champion against the great threats facing global security and stability, an uphill battle it claims requires equally great sacrifices, especially in terms of defense spending. It must be just a coincidence that the many policy think-tanks promoting this notion just so happen to be funded by huge multinational defense contractors.


The Atlantic Council, for instance, includes among its corporate members, Airbus, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Thales, Boeing and Northrop Grumman, just to name a few. So when Atlantic Council authors wrote about the subject of close air support (CAS) aircraft, it should come as no surprise that the development or procurement of a new system was the option of choice, this despite the fact that a brand new aircraft, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, was already supposed to fill this role.

The Atlantic Council's article, "Starting with the Answer in Procurement: The USAF's plans for new close support aircraft show an unusual willingness to move out quickly," would claim:
...after years of hearing that the F-35A would be the sort-of replacement for the A-10C, it's worth reviewing why it never could be. It's not for the gun or the armor. It's the increased threat: Russian motorized rifle brigades now run with lots of their own 30 mm guns, looking up. Missiles are now a bigger problem too. As Colonel Mike Pietrucha USAF wrote for War On The Rocks last month, the heat from that huge engine is itself a huge target for heat-seekers. Lockheed has worked hard to suppress the signature, but physics dictate there's only so much that can be done. Overall, the hundred-million-dollar jet is just too expensive to hazard to for busting tanks that way.
The projected cost of the F-35 program in total is estimated to be well over 1 trillion USD. The cost for each aircraft averages 100 million USD. That the Atlantic Council's authors deem it "too expensive" to use for one of the roles it was allegedly proposed to fill, should make US and allied taxpayers wonder just what they have mortgaged their futures for.

Currently for CAS, the US Air Force depends on the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II, as well as multirole aircraft like the Lockheed Martin F-16. To replace the A-10, the US plans to use F-16's more widely, that is, until a new CAS system is developed.

IHS Jane's Defence Weekly's article, "USAF considers future CAS options," reports that:
In the short-term the USAF has plans to replace some A-10s with Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcons, but in the medium- to longer-terms there are plans to procure or develop either a platform that that can operate either in a permissive environment only, or one that can operate in both a permissive and contested environment. The options are being considered under the auspices of the recently announced A-X project.

So in addition to the 1 trillion USD F-35 program, there will be an additional program to develop the next generation of CAS aircraft for the US Air Force. One wonders if the F-35's other slated roles will also require parallel defense programs to fill as the fundamental flaws of the entire program begin to unfold.


The National Endowment for Democracy: Not National and Not for Democracy

June 24, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Using a front to hide illegal or immoral activities has been a feature of human criminality since the beginning of human civilization itself. Facades, both ideological and economical, have helped criminal enterprises conceal the true nature of their activities for centuries.



In ages past, organized religion would often take systems of legitimate philosophy and spirituality, and transform them into a means of organizing the masses for the benefit of an elite few, often those heading empires, kingdoms, or nation-states. More recently, patriotism and now the notion of "democracy" have been used successfully by similar cadres of special interests to conceal their self-serving agendas behind notions likely to recruit support from large segments of a population that would otherwise be disinterested.

There is no example of this more transparent than that of the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED). According to its own website, it claims:
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is a private, nonprofit foundation dedicated to the growth and strengthening of democratic institutions around the world. Each year, NED makes more than 1,200 grants to support the projects of non-governmental groups abroad who are working for democratic goals in more than 90 countries.
"The growth and strengthening  of democratic institutions around the world" sounds noble enough. One would expect, then, that the NED would be led by a collection of some of the most notable activists involved in the empowerment of "the people." Instead, upon NED's board of directors, we find people representing corporate-financier interests notorious for instead, exploiting and subjugating "the people."


Unfortunately, for those receiving the millions upon millions of dollars the NED hands out annually to "nongovernmental organizations" (NGOs) around the world, few bother to actually check who it is underwriting their daily activities, and fewer still have the integrity to both turn down the money let alone inform the people they claim to represent just who is attempting to reach into their respective nations and subvert their political systems, and to what end.

Quite literally, each and every member of the NED's board of directors represents Fortune 500 corporations, insidious corporate-financier funded policy think-tanks, and a wide variety of other obvious conflicts of interest unbecoming of an organization truly interested in, "the growth and strengthening of democratic institutions around the world." 

The FBI, Not "ISIS," Radicalized the Orlando Shooter

June 20, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - As predicted, the FBI is revealed to have approached Orlando shooting suspect Omar Mateen in 2013 with informants posing as terrorists in an attempt to "lure" him into participating in a terrorist attack.

Image: As scary as any cartoon villain - and ironically - quite literally a manufactured villain. Marcus Robertson is not only a former US Marine, but also a long-time CIA and FBI asset. He runs an extremist website on American soil with absolute impunity and is likely one component of the FBI's counterterror entrapment pipeline. 

USA Today's TC Palm reports in an article titled, "Exclusive: PGA Village residents want answers from security firm," that (emphasis added):
The FBI launched an investigation into Mateen after Sheriff's Office officials reported the incident to the agency. As part of its investigation, the FBI examined Mateen's travel history, phone records, acquaintances and even planted a confidential informant in the courthouse to "lure Omar into some kind of act and Omar did not bite," Mascara said. The FBI concluded Mateen was not a threat after that, Mascara said.
This is in line with the FBI's practice of approaching and entrapping potential terror suspects by posing as terrorists themselves and aiding and abetting them in the planning and preparations for high-profile attacks. These undercover operations include everything from "casing out" potential targets, to the obtaining and training with actual, live explosives, to the purchasing of small arsenals of firearms including the sort of semi-automatic rifles and pistols used by Mateen during the Orlando shooting.

Image: FBI Director James Comey.
In addition to the FBI's undercover operation, it is now also revealed that Mateen frequented the website of another FBI/CIA informant, Marcus Dwayne Roberson, a former US Marine, turned bank robber, turned US government informant.

While US politicians, law enforcement officials, and media networks attempt to claim Robertson's extremist website, the "Timbuktu Seminary," was his own independent project, the extent of his association with the US government makes this difficult, if not impossible to believe. Instead, it appears to be the perfect mechanism to feed the FBI's entrapment pipeline, attracting and identifying possible suspects for the FBI to then approach and "investigate."

The National Review's article, "The Orlando Jihadist and the Blind Sheikh's Bodyguard," would report (emphasis added):
According to Fox News, Omar Mateen, the jihadist who carried out the mass-murder attack at a gay nightclub in Florida this weekend, was a student of Marcus Robertson, an Orlando-based radical Muslim who once served as a bodyguard to Omar Abdel Rahman — the notorious “Blind Sheikh” whom I prosecuted for terrorism crimes in the early to mid 1990s. 
The National Review also reported that (emphasis added):
In Robertson’s case, it is reported that he agreed to work for the government, gathering intelligence both overseas and in the United States. According to Fox, however, he was expelled from the covert informant program in early 2007 after attacking his CIA handler in Africa.

But Robertson's stint with the CIA was not the only time he would work for the US government after his service in the US Marine Corps. The National Review leaves out the fact that before his dismissal from the CIA, he was an informant for the FBI between 2004 and 2007.

The Daily Beast in its article, "Was Orlando Shooter Omar Mateen Inspired by This Bank-Robbing Ex-Marine?," would report (emphasis added):
“Plaintiff worked as a covert operator for the FBI Terrorist Task Force from 2004 until 2007, performing operations in the United Sates and internationally with and against suspected and known terrorist organizations,” Robertson says in court papers. 

Robertson remained in touch with American law enforcement and intelligence officials when he moved back to the United States, according to court papers filed by his attorney, “served as a confidential source in domestic terrorism investigations from Atlanta to Los Angeles.”
Is the American public expected to believe that a US government asset who received special training in the military and served as an informant and operative for both the FBI and the CIA would somehow, suddenly be allowed to drop off the US government's radar and be allowed to run an extremist website in the United States?