Secret Hearing Into Allegations Canada Illegally Spied on Environmental Activists

https://news.vice.com/article/theres-a-secret-hearing-into-allegations-canada-illegally-spied-on-environmental-activists There's a Secret Hearing Into Allegations Canada Illegally Spied on Environmental Activists By Rachel Browne August 12, 2015 | 8:35 pm A federal watchdog committee is set to begin a round of secret hearings to probe complaints that Canada's spy agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, has been illegally snooping on environmental activists working against oil pipeline projects. In 2014 the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) filed two complaints against CSIS and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) accusing both agencies of spying on environmental and First Nations groups who were organizing against the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, which would carry crude west from Alberta to BC. The groups allegedly subjected to surveillance include the Sierra Club of BC, the Dogwood Initiative, and ForestEthics Advocacy. "This kind of activity, what's being alleged, has no place in democracy. The government and its spy agencies should not be busy surveilling and gathering intelligences on citizenships who are simply living their lives and participating in their communities," Josh Paterson, BCCLA's executive director, told VICE News. "There are plenty of undemocratic countries where governments spy on people they don't agree with. And Canada should not be one of them." The BCCLA's complaints, based on government documents obtained under access to information requests, further allege the spy agency also shared their intelligence about "radicalized environmentalist" groups with the National Energy Board. CSIS has long denied the BCCLA's allegations. "CSIS investigates — and advises government on — threats to national security, and that does not include peaceful protest and dissent," a CSIS spokesperson told the CBC last year. New federal anti-terror legislation, known as Bill C-51, that recently came into force gives CSIS more powers to probe and disrupt extremist activities and has raised further worries that environmental and aboriginal groups in Canada could be subjected to more surveillance than ever before. This week, the Guardian reported on the great lengths the Conservative government has undertaken to protect two major pipeline projects — Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan — from environmental and First Nations groups. According to documents obtained under access to information by Greenpeace, the government is spending $30 million over two years on domestic and international "outreach activities" to promote the oil sands industry in Alberta. That's on top of the $22 million the government spent in 2014 on a similar ad campaign in the US. The three-day hearings held by the committee that oversees CSIS start today in Vancouver and are shrouded in secrecy — media and members of the public are barred from attending. This afternoon, Paterson will testify for the complainants. And tomorrow, witnesses from groups allegedly spied on will testify about their experiences. But it's unclear when CSIS will argue its side. As part of its disclosure ahead of the hearings, Paterson says CSIS has provided only printouts from its website and has said that a senior spy service manager, known only as "Robert," will testify at some point. CSIS did not immediately respond to a request for comment from VICE News. "It's so secretive that we likely won't know until after it has taken place and it makes this whole hearing super bizarre as an accountability mechanism. We have no ability to know what CSIS' argument is, what their evidence is, we can't respond to their arguments, our lawyers are not able to interact with what CSIS is saying," said Paterson. He added that the BCCLA is not suggesting that a hearing about spying should never be held in secret, especially if there are legitimate concerns about national security or if it would put people in danger. "But here, the government's documents have made clear that there was no threat, that there was no question that these groups were engaged in anything other than peaceful activities. And so we really question why more information can't be disclosed by CSIS about what they were doing." Last week, Alexandra Swann, a volunteer with the Dogwood Initiative, opened up about how the purported spying revelations have impacted her activism. "Finding out had a chilling effect for me. Suddenly, I was very concerned how far it had extended," she wrote on the BCCLA's website. "Was I personally named somewhere? Had they investigated my online activities? Read my emails? I realized the right to privacy was a myth in this country, and that being a decent person was no barrier to illegal scrutiny by people far more powerful than me." Paterson said that witnesses will testify that the allegations about widespread CSIS surveillance has turned many people off from community activism. "We're going to be hearing evidence from witnesses who say people are refusing to sign petitions because they don't want their names out there because they're worried about what security agencies might do," he said. "We're also going to hear evidence from a new Canadian hoping to have Canadian citizenship who also didn't want to sign a petition because she was afraid of upsetting the government. And others who were fearful of volunteering with community organizations because it might draw unwanted attention from community organizations. The BCCLA says it will consider asking the oversight committee to issue summonses to the CSIS employees listed on the documents. The committee's probe is expected to take more than a year. Follow Rachel Browne on Twitter: @rp_browne https://news.vice.com/article/theres-a-secret-hearing-into-allegations-canadas-spy-agency-snooped-on-environmental-activists ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------- ---------------------- COMMENT This is huge. Look at all the public funds that are being spent on *corporations*. Capitalists are anti communism and anti welfare, but they're happy with 'corporate socialism' - ie receiving public funds, bail-outs etc & 'austerity' is never a problem for corporations:  they get rewarded for being crooks. The Canadian government sounds like a corporate 'fascist' / totalitarian nightmare that's developing all over. It's just more and more of the same that's going on everywhere. Governments in bed with corporate interests, at the expense of the public, and governments / government agencies abusing their power. ꕤ

Canada - CSIS Illegal Spying on Enrironmental Activists - Lawsuit | Bill C-51 Gives CSIS Power to Break Law & Violate Constitution

CSIS spy exposé triggers federal hearings By Linda Solomon Wood & Jenny Uechi in News | August 12th 2015 A Vancouver Observer investigation has prompted hearings about whether the RCMP and CSIS broke the law by spying on environmental groups. The Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) began hearing arguments today in Vancouver by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) regarding the Harper government's extensive spying on groups critical of the tar sands. The spying was revealed in documents obtained by National Observer's sister publication, Vancouver Observer, in 2013. "We wouldn’t be here if it hadn’t been for the Vancouver Observer," said BCCLA executive director Josh Paterson. The Observer investigation showed the National Energy Board (NEB) coordinating with RCMP and CSIS to monitor groups opposing the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline: The federal government has been vigorously spying on anti-oil sands activists and organizations in BC and across Canada since last December, documents obtained under the Access to Information Act show. Not only is the federal government subsidizing the energy industry in underwriting their costs, but deploying public-safety resources as a de facto "insurance policy" to ensure that federal strategies on proposed pipeline projects are achieved, these documents indicate. The federal government spying and monitoring of pipeline critics was illegal and had a "chilling" effect on Canadians' freedom of expression and freedom of association, BCCLA will argue, Paterson said. The hearings opened in a cloak of secrecy. The government barred reporters from photographing people going in or out of the court to prevent them from capturing the image of a secret agent. No media were allowed to observe or report on the hearings and the public is not allowed to attend. But Paterson spoke this morning about what he expected to happen behind closed doors. "Clearly, if there were issues of national security at stake — if there were information that would compromise the safety of agents in the field — you could see why a hearing might take place in secret," he said. "What we know from government documents makes clear that there was no threat to national security, that these groups were operating peacefully. So we don’t understand why at the very least CSIS can’t make more documents public about its activities," he added. "We’re arguing that CSIS broke the law by gathering intelligence about the democratic activities of Canadians in relation to the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline. We'll see through these hearings that spies and police though surveillance intimidate people until they feel like they don’t want to participate in the democratic process." CSIS spying exposed through FOIs In November 2013, Matt Millar, then a reporter for Vancouver Observer, obtained Freedom of Information (FOI) documents that showed the NEB coordinating with RCMP and CSIS to monitor several groups, including Idle No More, ForestEthics, Sierra Club, Leadnow, Dogwood Initiative and the Council of Canadians. The FOI material revealed that the NEB was arranging police protection for Enbridge and TransCanada staff, while keeping a close eye on their critics. Vancouver Observer subsequently reported that Canada's chief spy watchdog, Chuck Strahl, then head of SIRC, had registered as a lobbyist for Enbridge. Further investigations revealed that Strahl, a former Conservative cabinet minister, had been contracted by Enbridge since 2011. The stories prompted the BCCLA to file a complaint against RCMP and CSIS for 'illegal' monitoring of peaceful activists, Paterson said. They also led to Strahl's resignation due to perceived conflict of interest. "This stems from documents that were released to the Vancouver Observer that suggested that the RCMP and CSIS had gathered intelligence and shared intelligence on citizens group," said Paterson. "These were groups that were either assisting people to participate in the process, or organizing people to protest against the proposed pipeline. That is part of the life of a democracy and that should be welcomed." "Instead, we see that the government spied on these people and shared information about the activities of environmental groups with petroleum companies. This is highly problematic, and potentially a violation of people’s charter rights," Paterson said. national energy board, CSIS, spying on environmentalists, government spying, RCMP Screenshot of email in which Rick Garber, NEB's "Group Leader of Security," discussing monitoring of First Nations pipeline critics in Prince Rupert. Hearings taking place in atmosphere of secrecy CSIS has disclosed very little information heading into the three-day hearings, BCCLA lawyer Paul Champ told the Canadian Press. Paterson said he hopes for a fair ruling by SIRC, but is disturbed by aspects of secrecy that might thwart a just process. "There’s a whole extra-secret part of the hearings that we’re not allowed to attend. Just CSIS and their lawyers will be there, and they’ll make their case in secret. They won’t even tell us when it’s going to happen. We’ll receive a redacted transcript." Yves Fortier, a member of the Security Intelligence Review Committee who was revealed to be a former TransCanada board member who still held shares in the company, will be part of the committee reviewing this case, he said. "[Fortier] himself is by all accounts an upstanding individual of impeccable reputation," Paterson said. "However, he did used to be on a board of a pipeline company whose name is mentioned in these documents. We had asked for him to step aside based on the appearance of bias." In November of 2013, Vancouver Observer broke the news that Harper government officials and spies met with industry officials in Ottawa. In the shadow of Bill C-51 In February 2014 the BCCLA filed a complaint with the review committee after media reports suggested that CSIS and other government agencies considered opposition to the petroleum industry a threat to national security. The complaint cited reports the spy service had shared information with the National Energy Board about "radicalized environmentalist" groups seeking to participate in the board’s hearings on Enbridge’s Northern Gateway project, which would see Alberta crude flow westward to the B.C. coast. The passage of government security legislation that gives CSIS new powers to disrupt extremist activity has only heightened concerns about government monitoring of environmental and aboriginal protesters who oppose oil pipelines. Paterson is adamant that Bill C-51 has given CSIS far greater powers to break the law and even to violate the constitution. "They have to get a warrant from a judge but that gives us no comfort at all. It’s not the job of judges to break the law but to protect the constitution," he said. "This motivates CSIS to go to judges and say, 'Here’s what we’re planning,' but CSIS has a long history of breaching its duty of candor." "The only thing they’re not allowed to do is violate someone’s sexual integrity, to kill someone or to subvert justice," Paterson adderd. "Short of that, they’re being given the power to break the law and violate the constitution." CSIS did not immediately respond to questions about the process. SIRC has been reached for comment, but did not respond before publication time. — with files from the Canadian Press http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/08/12/news/csis-spy-expos%C3%A9-triggers-federal-hearings CSIS = Canadian Security Intelligence Service Main national security agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Security_Intelligence_Service SIRC = Security Intelligence Review Committee supposedly independent agency to oversee CSIS inefficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_Intelligence_Review_Committee MORE ELSEWHERE There's a Secret Hearing Into Allegations Canada Illegally Spied on Environmental Activists ACTIVIST'S PERSPECTIVE Hey CSIS. If you're listening, we're going to hold your spying to account. By Kai Nagata     August 13, 2015 http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/dogwood-initiative/2015/08/hey-csis-if-youre-listening-were-going-to-hold-your-spying ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- --------------------- COMMENT Wealth of reasons not to give intelligence agencies greater powers. Canada's is shocking & the 'watchdog' (from other articles I've read), is completely toothless. More spying on those engaged in democratic activities  - ie those protesting environmental issues, in this case. Tons of information here.  And what applies in Canada, applies elsewhere.  As in, this is what happens when you give intelligence agencies unchecked power.  It's not used for the benefit of the community; it's used against the community, to further corporate interests (by look of this). Canada sounds bent. ꕤ

TRANSCRIPT - VIDEO - Noam Chomsky: You Can't Have Capitalist Democracy

TRANSCRIPT [Text emphasis added] Professor Noam Chomsky:  You Can't Have Capitalist Democracy. I started by saying that one of the relations between capitalism and democracy is contradiction. You can't have capitalist democracy, and the people who really sort of believe in markets (or at least pretend to understand them) - so if you read Milton Friedman and other philosophers of so-called libertarianism - they don't call for democracy they call for what they call 'freedom.' There is a very constrictive concept of freedom. It's not the freedom of a working person to control their work, their lives, and so on; it's their freedom to submit themselves to control by a higher authority. That's called 'freedom', but not 'democracy'. They don't like democracy and they're right; capitalism and democracy really are inconsistent. Actually, what's called libertarianism in the United States, is about as an extreme example of anti-libertarianism that you can imagine. They're in favour of private tyranny – the worst kind of tyranny. Tyranny by private, unaccountable, concentrations of wealth. When they say, “Well, we don't want government interference in the market”, they mean that. They mean - maybe they don't understand it, but if you think it through, it's pretty obvious – the kind of interference in the market they want blocked is the kind that would permit unconstrained tyranny on the part of totally unaccountable private tyrannies, which is what corporations are. It's worth bearing in mind how radically opposed this is to classical liberalism. They like to invoke, say, Adam Smith. But if you read Adam Smith, he said the opposite. He's famous for not, you know, the claim is that he was opposed to regulation – government regulation – interference in markets. That's not true. He was in favour of regulation, as he put it, when it benefits the working man. He was against interference when it benefited the masters. That's traditional classical liberalism. This, what's called 'libertarian' in the United States, which likes to invoke the history that you’ve concocted, is radically opposed to basic classical libertarian principles and it's kind of astonishing to me that a lot of young people - say, college students - are attracted by this kind of thing. I mean, you can, after all, read the classical text. So take, say, Adam Smith. Adam Smith, at the time – he's the icon, you know. He was considered to be a dangerous radical at the time, because he was pretty anti-capitalist in this pre-capitalist era that he was opposed to, and he condemned what he called the 'vile maxim of the masters of mankind': all for ourselves and nothing for anyone else. That's an abomination. Take the phrase 'invisible hand' – everybody's learnt that in high school or college – Adam Smith actually did use the term, rarely. But take a look how he used it. In Wealth of Nations, his major work, it's used once. And if you look at the context, it's an argument against what is now call neo-liberal globalisation and what he argued is this (in terms of England, of course): he said, suppose in England that the merchants and manufacturers invested abroad & imported from abroad; he said, well that would be profitable for them, but it would be harmful to the people of England. However, they will have enough of a commitment to their own country, to England (it's called a 'home bias', in the literature); they'll have enough of a 'home bias' so that, as if by an invisible hand, they'll keep to the less profitable actions and England will be saved from the ravages of what we call neo-liberal globalisation. That's the one use of the term in Wealth of Nations. In his other major work, Moral Sentiments, the term is also used once, and the context is this - remember, England is basically an agricultural country then - he says: suppose a landlord accumulates an enormous amount of land everyone else has to work for.  He says:  well, it won't turn out too badly, and the reason is that the landlord will be motivated by his natural sympathy for other people.  So he will make sure that the necessities of life and the goods available will be distributed equitably to the people on his land, and it will end up with a relatively equal and just distribution of wealth, “as if by an invisible hand”. That's his other use of the term. Just compare that with what you're taught in school, or what you read in the newspapers. And it goes across the board. Like, everybody probably has read the first paragraphs of Wealth of Nations, which talks about how wonderful it is that the butcher pursues his interests, and the baker pursues his interests, and we're all happy, so we should be in favour of a division of labour. Everybody's read that. How many people have read a couple of hundred pages into Wealth of Nations, where he has a bitter attack on division of labour for interesting reasons, and reasons that were standard in the Enlightenment in which he lived (very different from ours)? He says if you pursue division of labour, people will be directed to actions in which they'll complete the same mechanical actions over and over. They'll be de-skilled and that's the goal of management for over over 100 years: de-skill the workforce. He says that's what will happen if you pursue division of labour. He goes on to say, this will turn people into creatures as stupid and as ignorant as a human being can possibly be and, therefore, in any civilised society, the government will have to intervene to prevent any development like this. That's Adam Smith's view of division of labour. Next step – now, here's a research project.  Take the standard edition (scholarly edition) of Wealth of Nations produced by the University of Chicago Press – naturally, on the bicentennial – with a scholarly apparatus (you know, footnotes and everything else) – and take a look at the Index.  There's a scholarly index. Look up 'division of labour'. This part of the book is not referenced. You can't find it, unless you decided to read 700 pages; then you can find it. But that's his concept of the division of labour, and it continues like this – and I'm not extolling, you know, a lot of things that you can harshly criticise, like his advice to the colonies – but, nevertheless, it's a very different picture from what's called 'libertarianism' or 'capitalism' today. Capitalist democracy would self destruct - capitalism would self destruct – and that's why it hasn't been instituted. The masters understand that they cannot survive a capitalist economy – a laissez fair economy. Take a look at the history; it's pretty interesting. So the United States, when it was independent – so it could reject the rules of sound economics and develop. There were other countries that were poised for an industrial revolution and were given the same advice. Like Egypt and India. In fact, India already was the commercial and industrial centre of the world, moreso than England . Egypt was poised for an industrial revolution and it's not impossible that it might have developed as a rich, agrarian society. It had cotton – produced cotton. As I said, that's the main product (like oil today), and it didn't need slaves. It had peasants. It had a developmental government aimed that the industrial development. It could have taken off – just as India could have taken off. But they were not free to reject sound economics because they were ruled by British force. So they were forced to accept sound economics, and Egypt became Egypt, and the United States became the United States. India went through a century of de-development before it finally got independent. That's what happens when you apply laissez fair principles. In fact, that's essentially how the Third World and the First World divided. Take a look at the countries that developed. They are the countries who violated the principles. England, the United States, Germany, France, Netherlands. One country of the south. One country developed: Japan. The one country that wasn't colonised and was able to pursue the same course that the rich countries developed. I mentioned that in mid Nineteenth Century – 1846 - Britain was so far ahead of the rest of the world in industrial development that they did decide that laissez faire would be possible, so that moved to what's called a 'free trade era'. First of all, they imposed sharp constraints on it. They've cut off the Empire. India. India was not allowed. Others could not invest in India, their main possession; and India was not allowed to develop. And there were other restrictions. Pretty soon, British capitalists called the game off because they couldn't compete. By the 1920s, they couldn't compete with Japanese production so they literally closed off the Empire to Japanese exports. It's part of the background for the Pacific War of the 1940s. The United States did the same with a smaller empire in the Philippines. The Dutch did the same with Indonesia. All the imperial systems decided: no more free trade, we can't compete. So they closed off the empire and Japan had no markets, no resources, and they went to war. That's a large part of the background. The United States, in 1945, did move towards laissez fair. In fact it was an important conference (the united states was basically running the world at that point, for obvious reasons) – there was a hemispheric conference called by Washington in February 1945 in Mexico, where the western hemisphere was compelled to adopt an economic charter for the Americas, which banned any interference with market principles. The goal was, in the State Department reports, to oppose the new nationalism in Latin America, which is based on the idea that the people of a country should benefit from the country's resources. That's 'evil', we can't allow that; it's Western and US investors who have to benefit from the resources. So that was the economic charter of the Americas imposed on the countries of the southern hemisphere, with one exception – here. The United States did not follow those policies. Quite the contrary. As I mentioned, there was a massive development of a state based economy with an industrial policy – the kind that created the modern high-tech economy. You can see it right across the river. Take look at MIT, one of the main centres of this **** If you had a look at MIT in the 1950s (when I got there) it was surrounded by electronics-based high-tech firms, like Raytheon and iTech, and huge IT firms. Take a look at MIT today, take a look at the buildings, it's Novartis, Pfizer and so on. The reason's completely obvious: during the 50s and 60s, the cutting edge of the economy was electronics based, so the way to get the public to pay for it was to scream 'Russians!' and to get them to pay higher taxes for the Pentagon, and then the Pentagon would fund the research and development – like my own salary, for example (I shouldn't complain too much) – and, of course, private industry was around there like vultures to pick up the products and the research and to market. Well, since the 70s, the cutting edge of the economy has been moving towards be biology based, so funding – government funding – has shifted. Pentagon funding is declining. Funding from the NIH and other so-called health related government institutions is increasing, and the private corporations understand that. So, now, Novartis, genetic engineering firms and so on, are hanging around trying to pick up the research that you're paying for, so that they can market it and make profits. It's just transparent. It's in front of our eyes, and it takes a very effective educational system to prevent people from seeing it. It's virtually transparent. That's the way this really exists in capitalist democracy, folks. A final word about democracy then, before I have to leave. There's a major attack on democracy all the way through. But by now it's reached the point which is pretty remarkable. Take a look at one of the main topics in the mainstream political science (and we're not talking about radicals). Mainstream political science is comparing public attitudes with public policy. It's a fairly straight-forward – it's hard work but a straight-forward effort. We have the public policy so you can see it. There's extensive polling. Quite reliable generally and consistent in its results. It gives you a good sense of what public attitudes are, and the results of this are published in the major books and articles - with references, if you like. The results are very straight-forward. About 70% of the population – the lowest 70% on the income scale – are literally disenfranchised. Their opinions have no affect on policy. Their elected representatives don't pay any attention to them. That's one of the reasons why many of them don't bother voting: they're not going to pay attention to them anyway. You know, I've read the technical literature to understand it in other ways. As you move up the income scale, you get a little more influence on policy. When you get to the top (and contrary to the Occupy Movement, it's not 1% - it's more like one-tenth of 1%) - when you get to the top where the massive concentration of wealth is, they basically set policies. That's not democracy; that's plutocracy. And that's what we have accepted. The good thing about it is that it's changeable. It's not controlled by force. We are very free in that respect, thanks to victories over the centuries. It's not possible now for a corporation to do what Andrew Carnegie, the great pacifist, did in 1890. That gives a lot of options and you have to make use of them. I'm afraid I've got to leave. [17:35] APPLAUSE VIDEO - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98PSkGSk9kw&feature=youtu.be MIT = Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) private research university in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Founded 1861. --------------------- end --------------------- COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. --------------------- video credits --------------------- TITLE: A PROGRESSIVE VOICE VIDEO: Leigha Cohen AUDIO: Leigha Cohen & Cynthia Smith VIDO & SOUND EDITING: Leigha Cohen COPYRIGHT: LEIGHA COHEN PRODUCTION 2014 WEBSITE: www. leighacohen.com ---------------------  COMMENT Good talk.   Also relevant to the US free trade agreements that are going down now. Thought I'd transcribe what was said. Nearing the end, I realised someone else may have transcribed this somewhere already. Never mind.  It's a good learning tool, focusing on every word.  Or it can be.  I hope.  LOL Missing word(s) where marked.  It's something of a drama playing audio at any volume level in this place right now, so filling the gaps will have to wait.  Think it was only the one word.  This took ages, but it's heaps easier now that I've figured how to minimise, position & hold my Writer window on top of the running video window, so I don't have to flip screens. *Part re interference in market they want blocked & tyranny reads kind of funny to me.  It's the interference they want blocked so they can get away with tyranny is what he's getting at, I think.  But the sentence seems confusing (to me). *I disagree with the last part, about there not being rule by force.  We are ruled by force & there's nothing we can do.  Look what happens to protesters.  When they're not beaten, imprisoned etc, martial law is imposed and they're beaten and imprisoned if they dare break curfew, I guess.

Totalitarian Britain, CIA Lawsuit, Sacred Cows & Incongruous Libertarian Package

UK Police State Unbelievable harassment of politically active university students by the police state in Britain: Monitoring of protest groups “raw, unvarnished intimidation and activist-busting."  http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/25/police-covert-recruit-activists-spies-cambridge?CMP=share_btn_tw ......................................................... VIDEO UK Police try to recruit activist to spy on Cambridge students & political groups https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_hGQETyhXk ......................................................... CIA IS SUED CIA sued by “non-official cover” operative  “Madhouse: A Forbidden Novel of the CIA"  http://triblive.com/usworld/nation/7805012-74/cia-lawsuit-officer ......................................................... SACRED COWS & INCONGRUOUS LIB PACKAGE Snowden praised for fighting government surveillance… by group that LOVES corporate surveillance By Mark Ames  On February 20, 2015 Last Friday, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden Skyped into a Washington DC Marriott Hotel conference hall to proudly accept “The Students For Liberty Alumnus of the Year Award.”  http://pando.com/2015/02/20/strange-bedfellows/ The Gist NSA whistleblower, Snowden, accepts Students for Libery award. Peter Thiel, founder of one of NSA’s biggest contractors, Palantir Technologies Gets Students For Liberty award  "Snowden’s nemesis, former NSA chief Keith Alexander, praised Palantir’s usefulness to the spy agency"  Greenwald has characterized Pando’s criticism of him as CIA plot hatched by Thiel  Thiel Founders Fund $300k in Pando previously Students for Liberty is anything but that: awarded “Event of the Year” to anti-Marxist 'libs' at Honduras’ National University Hey, Students of Liberty: Leftists & journalists in Honduras terrorized since 2009 US-backed coup!!!!!!  Snowden  “If the government will not be stewards of our rights, we can encode our rights into our system.”   Source:  http://pando.com/2015/02/20/strange-bedfellows/ Students For Liberty  gets most of its money from Koch brothers worked closely with US govt big corporate sponsors Students For Liberty’s Board Advisors incl Prince von Liechtenstein offshore banking tax haven of global billionaires / Switzerland too transparent Students For Liberty f. 2008 Alexander McCobin (emp @ Cato Institution, neé “The Charles Koch Foundation”) 💥 Koch Alarm 💥 Students for Liberty Ron Paul + Andrew Napolitano, Cato Institution / FoxNews truther Ron Paul presidential campaign 2012 Thiel funded /Snowden & Greenwald support Sen. Rand Paul Presidential campaign 2016 funded by Thiel’s co-founder at Palantir: Joe Lonsdale (Rand Paul’s finance team) 2011 Palantir sponsored Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Pioneer Awards winners incl: >Glenn Greenwald >Laura Poitras >Tor Project >EFF co-founder Mitch Kapor >EFF Fellow Cory Doctorow Palantir & Peter Thiel   bravely fighting type of govt surveillance ably assisted by … Palantir & Peter Thiel   [LOL ... Pando] ......................................................... COMMENT Above are some of the things that caught my attention. The police attack on what is supposed to be a democratic right in Britain is disgraceful and, really, quite frightening and totalitarian, if you stop to think about what's going on.  And this is just the tip of an iceberg in Britain. More press on the CIA lawsuit would be good: The officer filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under a pseudonym, Mack L. Charles. The CIA declined to comment but did not dispute the plaintiff's former association with the agency. [1] CIA stands accused of illegally barring publishing of a novel (which isn't a first, as I recall). Finally, there's the hilarious Pando article (I love those guys).  No idea if they're really the 'bad' guys, if they're just funny bastards poking at some sacred cows, or if there is indeed something very odd about the convergence of these incongruous relationships. Trying to keep an open mind, but Koch, Thiel (NSA praise), Students for Liberty and the rest of it is a package way hard to swallow. Koch is 'cook' in German, by the way. Hmmmm ...

Four Horsemen - Documentary - Part 1

FOUR HORSEMEN - DOCUMENTARY NOTES - To:  44:22 Ruling elites seek to maintain power by controlling the 'cognitive map' / what we think. What matters is what is left undebated.  1971 USA off Gold Standard adopted: fiat = So Be It  {Latin} $, £ + € = govt fiat >only govt has power to issue fiat currency >Banks 'create' it thru lending Fiat money = currency that derives its value from government regulation or law. Adoption of fiat currency = greatest growth of supply of money in HISTORY. Who benefits: 1>those that issue $$ (govt) 2>banks 3>Also benefit: >companies & individuals who get this money early b/c spend it prior increase in prices by $$ in circulation inflated prices = increase gains for asset holders (real estate or shares) - WITHOUT improvements > 'speculative bubble' Fiat currency system just redistributes money from the BOTTOM to the TOP (the monied elite). Gulf b/w rich & poor widens. Fiat currency system + fractional-reserve banking system = compounding DEBT faster than you can produce to support debt = DEBT SLAVERY Result: > for every $1 of GDP in #USA, create something like $5.50 debt Of all the money in the WORLD today, 97% of it is DEBT!!!!!!!!!!  America has existed on the assumption that resources can be expanded. But resources limited. Cannot expand pie (like you could in early American history); must divide pie.  America not prepared. Last 40 years, capitalism has taken an extreme form. Goes back to economist Milton Friedman (Chicago School), Ronald Reagan, Thatcher etc. encouraged: >HUGE amounts of debt >privatisation >smaller 'govt' >bigger military (so bigger spending) >deregulation (esp. corporations = Gods) Milton Friedman (Chicago School) neo-classical approach beat the classical approach to economics & became framework for today's capitalism. Classical = favours less govt interference, more personal autonomy & recognition that cannot function w/out natural resources neo-classical = >dismissive of natural resources >govt to rule economy & solve social probs >free market to distribute wealth neo-classical school emerged about 100 years ago, due to vested interests desire to protect assets neo-classical mathematical models & assumptions divorced from reality vs classical models, based on what actually *is* Neo-classical models of economics, championed by Reagan & Thatcher, have been used to legitimise financialisation of the global economy. 1932 aftermath of stockmarket crash Glass–Steagall Act protection intro'd to separate ordinary high street banking from investment banking. Glass–Steagall Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Legislation 1999 Clinton repealed Glass–Steagall Act Banks could take ordinary depositors money & speculate on it = 'casino' Unfettered banker gambling resulting from 1999 Glass–Steagall Act repeal pushed global financial system to near collapse. Banks with balances & debt obligations larger than GDP of entire countries, banks had become too big to fail. West unprepared for financial meltdown. Govts reeling. Banks: you have to bail us out. What are you to do with tens of millions of ppl who have lost everything in bank accounts. Bank to govt: cautions you'll have revolution on your hands.  Urged:  borrow money. Create it out of nothing & give it back to us. $700-b needed from US Congress. 2008 banking crisis exposed Western economic system divided as: >socialism for the rich (ie govt bailing banks ...( & therefore obligating the taxpayer to pay off this borrowing to bail out banks)) & >capitalism for the poor. Taxpayer paying 4 misplaced speculation of bankers = economy not serving human = human in perpetual service 2 amoral financial organisations. $8.5 trillion bail-out. Post 9-11 Federal Reserve Head, Alan Greenspan slashed interest rates to encourage lending / bankers needed cash flowing into global pyramid scheme Newly created money entered housing market, creating unprecedented inflation. Huge home loans. Double-income a necessity. #USA Banks got together to exploit minorities /charge more for loans. Wells Fargo targeted urban minorities. Predatory lending. *Not about race; it's about PROFIT. #USA Lobbyists for banking industry amount to x5 per Congress-person, to persuade them to pass legislation favourable to financial industry. Democracy = uneven playing field: the devastated poor cannot afford lobbying equal to that of the banking industry. Ideological control, the cornerstone of Washington-Wall Street corridor: >finance good >more finance better >unregulated finance is best Q. Who controls Washington? > Lehman Bros collapse - 80% population against bail-out > Notwithstanding, Congress passed bail-out A. Banking. Not good reflection on democracy when a group of companies says 'our interests are more important than national interests'. How can corporations control Washington in a democracy? >Campaign contributions >Lobbying >American political structure = flawed democracy Fed Reserve to regulate Wall Street but ... >Wall Street has veto over who is head of Fed Reserve  >Regulators are from banking industry itself As long as this stands, this is not regulation. It is *deregulation* (but called 'regulation', using Orwellian doublethink) Democracy is 'government by the people' Plutocracy is 'government by the rich' Equal voting rights movement early 20thC abolished system where rich have more votes than poor, but lobbying negates that. Lobbying has reduced American political system to mere clearing house for the concerns of the rich. Goldman Sachs machine = >use profits to buy influence in WA >to change laws / easier to make money on Wall Street >use to buy influence WA Famous for claiming it did God's work, Goldman Sachs = one of most influential investment banks in world.  Golden sachs alumni often occupy positions of great influence in governments and central banks. 2008, 1mth prior collapse, Goldman changed GS status from investment to commercial (meaning eliglble for state protection). = socialism for the rich Riding the 'big short' (selling soured securities) in 2008, Goldman Sachs made BILLIONS of dollars & they're back BIGGER & RICHER. ***  Don't think I really know what a 'big short' is. Short selling & collecting insurance might not be the whole story? *** Short selling explained: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shortselling.asp   Money also made on insurance; so it's a WIN, WIN, WIN, WIN etc http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/24/goldman-sachs-emails-big-short_n_550547.html LINK TO DOCUMENTARY: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5fbvquHSPJU#t=319 COMMENT Other (non-banking) example lobbying: *********  Sheldon Adelson & wife spent around $70 million in 2012 trying to defeat #Obama. http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/02/cory_booker_biggest_democratic_recipient_of_pro-is.html  *********  While the world was in financial meltdown in 2008, I barely noticed.  It just didn't interest me. Watching this documentary has been a catch-up for me. Got through only about three-quarters of a hour, so I'll have to make the time to watch the rest while it's still fresh in my mind. The link to the political lobbying article above (Senator Corey Booker, Democrat with the biggest pro-Israel donation -- that mentioned $70-million spent by the Adelsons in effort to prevent Obama gaining the Presidential seat -- was just a random article that was topical today.  But it's a good fit on the subject matter of democracy, money and lobbying (even though it is outside of the banking subject). Was blown away by the amount of money the Adelsons spent. The term 'big short' isn't clear to me.  All I know is there's money to be made from lending and selling and insuring (I think).  And no matter what, it's a win-win for the banker ... especially if when it all goes belly-up, the banker is covered by a government bail-out. An article I read yesterday fits in with this capitalism gone rogue theme: The Root of all Evil "The world's richest person (Bill Gates) has a personal wealth of $78.7 billion. This is higher than the (nominal) GDP of 130 countries ..." LINK:  http://99998271.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-root-of-all-evil.html?spref=tw The details about how much the wealthy few have compared to the rest of the world are sobering. Will revisit the article and have another read, as it takes me a while to absorb information. Looked at a heap of other odds and ends, but I think this is it in relation to capitalism, currency and banking. ***** Just did a quick edit, as the lobbying link I'd placed in the documentary summary could maybe have been confused for having appeared in the documentary (it didn't).  Anyway, it's been shifted to avoid confusion. SUMMARY - PART 2 - HERE.