Thursday, March 16, 2023

SC275-8

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2023/03/16/its-good-to-be-mean-to-war-propagandists/

It’s Good To Be Mean To War Propagandists

Sydney Morning Herald editor Bevan Shields has published an article titled “We are not above criticism but these attacks go too far“, tearfully rending his garments over criticisms his paper’s three-part war-with-China propaganda series “Red Alert” has received from former Prime Minister Paul Keating and from ABC’s Media Watch.

The whole article is Shields moaning about the way Keating raked Australian war propagandists at the National Press Club of Australia on Wednesday. He cries about how Keating told “Red Alert” co-author Matthew Knott “you should hang your head in shame” and “do the right thing and drum yourself out of Australian journalism,” mocked the intelligence of Sky News reporter Olivia Caisley for seriously suggesting that China is a military threat to Australia, and called Sydney Morning Herald editor Peter Hartcher a “psychopath” and “maniac”.

“For years, we have laughed along with Keating as he hurls his trademark barbs. But it’s not funny any more,” weeps Shields.

And you know what? Good. It’s good that these disgusting war propagandists are crying. They deserve a lot worse than a public tongue-lashing from a former prime minister.

To be clear, when I say the people Keating ripped into at the National Press Club are propagandists, that’s not just how I see them — that’s how they see themselves. They might not use that label, but they plainly see themselves as responsible for promoting Pentagon-friendly narratives, as evidenced by their behavior at that very press conference. If you watch them line up to question Keating and listen to what they are saying, over and over again you hear them trying to insert narratives like a propagandist rather than asking probing questions like a journalist.

You hear ABC’s Andrew Probyn work to insert the narrative that China is a threat to Australia by citing things like sanctions on select Australian products in retaliation for Canberra’s playing along with Washington’s attacks on Beijing over Covid, regurgitating the discredited claim of Chinese “debt diplomacy”, and babbling about China’s militarization as though the US wasn’t encircling China militarily and engaging in increasingly aggressive acts of brinkmanship.

You hear the aforementioned Olivia Casely work to insert the narrative that China is a military threat to Australia.

You hear Bloomberg’s Ben Westcott work to insert the narrative that Australia should work with the US to protect its trade from China, hilariously accidently re-enacting the famous Utopia sketch by ignoring the fact that China is Australia’s primary trading partner.

You hear The Australian’s Jess Malcolm work to insert the narrative that China building up its own military in its own country is somehow a “provocation” against Australia, which Keating immediately smacks down with appropriate disdain.

You hear the aforementioned Matthew Knott work to insert the narrative that Keating is a treasonous Xi Jinping puppet by sleazily insinuating that the former prime minister must say critical things about the “Chinese Communist Party” in order to prove his fealty.

Over and over again they line up to act like loyal defenders of the US empire, and over and over again Keating treats them like what they are: propagandists. Power-worshipping bootlickers for the most powerful empire that has ever existed.

Watching Keating tear strips off all those war pornographers was so satisfying because it showed Australians the appropriate emotional posture to have toward these depraved freaks. That’s the bare minimum level of contempt they should always be treated with. Australians who don’t want a war with China are still unclear about how to respond to this deluge of mass media war propaganda our country is being smashed with, and Keating showed exactly how to respond; he provided a solid model for us all.

If anything, Keating was too kind to those ghouls. One really can’t have enough disdain for those who peddle war propaganda professionally and pass it off as journalism to the unsuspecting public. They’re right up there with all the absolute worst human beings who have ever lived, and they should be treated as such.

Bevan Shields melodramatically refers to the public excoriation of his colleagues as “Donald Trump-like abuse of journalists doing their jobs,” but they are not journalists doing their jobs. They are propagandists. If you want to call yourself a journalist, you need to act like it. Be skeptical, question your sources and their funding, and get the story right. That’s the job. In this case the lives of nearly 26 million people are relying on you to get it right. It’s a huge responsibility and you are failing us. You deserve so much worse than to have mean things said to you by a retired politician.

These Pentagon puppets deserve more than just shame. I can’t believe they can so blithely push our country into the frontline of someone’s else’s war. How very generous of them to offer up our sons and daughters in the name of the almighty US of A.

It should enrage all Australians that a war of unimaginable horror is being shoved down our throats by the US empire, and it should enrage us that people who call themselves “journalists” are using the trust of the public to help manufacture consent for it. We need to start saying “NO” to this, and we need to whip up enough fire in our bellies to make sure that “NO” comes out with enough force to generate fear in these bastards.

Australians are not good at rage, but rage is what these actions should elicit, and our own actions need to start flowing from there. We can’t just let them inflict this horror upon our world with a signature Australian “Ah, whatever you reckon’s a fair thing mate.” The war propagandists cry about “abuse” when being put in their place by a 79 year-old ex-PM while inflicting the most abusive thing imaginable upon our civilization.

This cannot stand. We’ve got to get moving, people. These pricks will get us all killed if we don’t.

....

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/geofence_surveillance_first_they_spied_on_protesters_then_churches_youre_next

Geofence Surveillance: First, They Spied on Protesters. Then Churches. You’re Next

“I know the capability that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.”—Senator Frank Church on Meet The Press, 1975

If you give the government an inch, it will always take a mile.

This is how the slippery slope to all-out persecution starts.

Martin Niemöller’s warning about the widening net that ensnares us all, a warning issued in response to the threat posed by Nazi Germany’s fascist regime, still applies.

“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

This particular slippery slope has to do with the government’s use of geofence technology, which uses cell phone location data to identify people who are in a particular area at any given time.

First, police began using geofence warrants to carry out dragnet sweeps of individuals near a crime scene.

Then the FBI used geofence warrants to identify individuals who were in the vicinity of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

It wasn’t long before government officials in California used cell phone and geofence data to track the number and movements of churchgoers on church grounds during the COVID-19 lockdowns.

If we’ve already reached the point where people praying and gathering on church grounds merits this level of government scrutiny and sanctions, we’re not too far from free-falling into a total surveillance state.

Dragnet geofence surveillance sweeps can and eventually will be used to target as a suspect every person in any given place at any given time and sweep them up into a never-ending virtual line-up in the hopes of matching a criminal to every crime.

There really can be no overstating the danger.

The government’s efforts to round up those who took part in the Jan. 6 Capitol protests provided a glimpse of exactly how vulnerable we all are to the menace of a surveillance state that aspires to a God-like awareness of our lives.

Relying on selfies, social media posts, location data, geotagged photos, facial recognition, surveillance cameras and crowdsourcing, government agents compiled a massive data trove on anyone and everyone who may have been anywhere in the vicinity of the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Included in that data roundup were individuals who may have had nothing to do with the protests but whose cell phone location data identified them as being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You didn’t even have to be involved in the Capitol protests to qualify for a visit from the FBI: investigators reportedly tracked—and questioned—anyone whose cell phones connected to wi-fi or pinged cell phone towers near the Capitol.

One man, who had gone out for a walk with his daughters only to end up stranded near the Capitol crowds, actually had FBI agents show up at his door days later. Using Google Maps, agents were able to pinpoint exactly where they were standing and for how long.

The massive amount of surveillance data available to the government is staggering.

As investigative journalists Charlie Warzel and Stuart A. Thompson explain, “This [surveillance] data…provide[s] an intimate record of people whether they were visiting drug treatment centers, strip clubs, casinos, abortion clinics or places of worship.

In such a surveillance ecosystem, we’re all suspects and databits to be tracked, catalogued and targeted.

Forget about being innocent until proven guilty.

Although the Constitution requires the government to provide solid proof of criminal activity before it can deprive a citizen of life or liberty, the government has turned that fundamental assurance of due process on its head.

Now, thanks to the digital trails and digital footprints we all leave behind, you start off guilty and have to prove your innocence.

In an age of overcriminalization, when the average American unknowingly commits at least three crimes a day, there is no one who would be spared.

The ramifications of empowering the government to sidestep fundamental due process safeguards are so chilling and so far-reaching as to put a target on the back of anyone who happens to be in the same place where a crime takes place.

As Warzel and Thompson warn:

“To think that the information will be used against individuals only if they’ve broken the law is naïve; such data is collected and remains vulnerable to use and abuse whether people gather in support of an insurrection or they justly protest police violence… This collection will only grow more sophisticated… It gets easier by the day… it does not discriminate. It harvests from the phones of MAGA rioters, police officers, lawmakers and passers-by. There is no evidence, from the past or current day, that the power this data collection offers will be used only to good ends. There is no evidence that if we allow it to continue to happen, the country will be safer or fairer.”

Saint or sinner, it doesn’t matter because we’re all being swept up into a massive digital data dragnet that does not distinguish between those who are innocent of wrongdoing, suspects, or criminals.

Case in point: consider what happened to Calvary Chapel during COVID-19.

Government officials in Santa Clara County, Calif., issued a shelter-in-place order in March 2020, dictating whom residents could see, where they could go, what they could do, and under what circumstances.

County officials imposed even harsher restrictions on churches, accompanied by the threat of crippling fines for those that did not comply with the lockdown orders.

Then Santa Clara officials reportedly used geofence surveillance technology to monitor the concentrations of congregants at Calvary Chapel during the COVID-19 lockdowns in 2020 and 2021, using their findings to justify levying nearly $3 million in public health fines against the church for violating the county’s strict pandemic restrictions.

Despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that similar restrictions unconstitutionally singled out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment and “struck “at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty,” county officials have sought to collect millions of dollars in fines levied against churches, including Calvary Chapel, for violating the county’s mandates.

At a minimum, the use of geofence surveillance to monitor church attendees constitutes an egregious violation of the churchgoers’ Fourth Amendment rights and an attempt to undermine protected First Amendment activities relating to the freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble.

Still, the government’s use of geofence surveillance goes way beyond its impact on church members and anyone in the vicinity of the Jan. 6 protests.

The ramifications for all of us are far-reaching.

Mass surveillance has been shown to chill lawful First Amendment activities, and historically has been used to stifle dissent, persecute activists, and harass marginalized communities.

A study conducted by Roger Clarke, the famed Australian specialist in data surveillance and privacy, indicates that the costs resulting from the erosion of personal privacy are so significant that they essentially threaten the very foundation of a democratic society.

Some of the most serious harms include:

  • A prevailing climate of suspicion and adversarial relationships
  • Inequitable application of the law
  • Stultification of originality
  • Weakening of society’s moral fiber and cohesion
  • Repressive potential for a totalitarian government
  • Blacklisting
  • Ex-ante discrimination and guilt prediction
  • Inversion of the onus of proof.

In other words, the chilling effects of pervasive surveillance give rise to a constant, justifiable fear in even the most compliant, law-abiding citizen.

Of course, that’s the point.

The government wants us muzzled, complacent and compliant.

So far, it’s working.

Americans are increasingly self-censoring and marching in lockstep with the government’s (and corporate America’s) dictates, whether out of fear or indoctrination, or a combination.

In the meantime, the use of geofence warrants continues to be debated in the legislatures and challenged in the courts. For instance, while a California court found that a broad geofence search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment, a federal district judge for the District of Columbia upheld the use of geofence warrants by police in connection with the events of Jan. 6.

No matter how the courts rule, however, one thing is clear: these dragnet geofence searches are well on their way to becoming the eyes and ears of a police state that views each and every one of us as a potential suspect, terrorist and lawbreaker.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, this is how technologies purportedly adopted to rout out dangerous criminals in our midst are used to conquer a free people.

....

https://www.globalresearch.ca/warning-silicon-valley-bank-collapse-prelude-much-worse-come/5812171

Warning! Silicon Valley Bank Collapse – A Prelude of Much Worse to Come? Derivatives: “Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction”.

“Every cause has its effect; every effect has its cause; everything happens according to law; chance is but a name for law not recognized; there are many planes of causation, but nothing escapes the law.” —Kybalion

It is no coincidence that within 48 hours, two California commercial banks failed. The not much talked-about Silvergate Capital, a central lender to the crypto industry, declared on March 8, 2023, it would wind down its operations. On March 10, the Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), primary lender for tech-startups, collapsed.

SVB was immediately taken over by federal regulators. It is the largest bank failure since the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in 2008. Relatively unknown outside of the Silicon Valley, SVB was the 16th largest US commercial bank with US$ 209 billion in assets at the end of 2022.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has assured SVB insured depositors that they will have access to their full funds within the FDIC-fixed limits of US$ 250,000 per depositor.

However, the FDIC total fund covers only about 2% of the $9.6 trillion in US-insured deposits.

What happens when other banks collapse at the same time and uninformed depositors believe their deposits up to US$ 250,000 are safe? But then find out that they are not?

The failure of the SVB is the result of several converging factors. As former Deputy Treasury Secretary, Paul Craig Roberts says, one of the key reasons is the 1999 Clinton-regime repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, i.e. a large degree of banking deregulation, and because the Dodd-Frank Act (2010) allows failing banks to seize the deposits of depositors in order to have a bail-in instead of a bail-out. The legislation, especially the latter, causes depositors to withdraw their deposits on any sign of bank trouble. It is called a run on the bank.

Another reason for SVB troubles is the Fed’s rapid and substantial interest rates hikes – the largest and in the shortest period in the last at least 30 years – which also reduced the value of the SVB’s bond portfolio. Banks and businesses have difficulties to adjust to the size and pace of interest rate increases. See this.

The same may apply to other banks which are not sufficiently diversified and securely funded. Wait and see.

As if programmed and looking like a domino effect, on Sunday March 12, Signature Bank folded too. SB is a New York-based commercial bank with a big real estate lending business, as well as sizable cryptocurrency deposits. SB had a total asset base of $110.4 billion and deposits of $88.6 billion as of December 31, 2022.

It closed its doors abruptly after regulators said that keeping the bank open could threaten the stability of the entire financial system.

Are we talking about a lingering and potentially rapidly expanding domino effect?

Nothing happens by coincidence. All is connected with everything. We have to learn overriding the mainstream media narrative that points always to singular events to confuse and brainwash. When we learn connecting the dots between occurrences and events, we will realize that everything is connected with everything. See also Michel Chossudovsky’s “Ninety-nine Interrelated Concepts”.

Switching the Narrative

So far, hardly anybody has made the link of these banking failures – and potentially more to come – to the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) prophesized Great Reset.

A WEF insider has been caught boasting that the Silicon Valley Bank crash was an orchestrated plot that went to plan perfectly – and the crash will have a domino effect on the banking industry, leading to a global financial meltdown.

To what extent such a scenario will play out remains to be seen.

For more on the subject of “collapse and control”, see this, watch in particular the 11:11 min. video (below), inserted in this newspunch clip. It also features the General Manager of the Bank for International Settlement (BIS), Augustin Carsten, who already in 2020 was talking about the need for Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) for total control of who spends money for what and especially for control of cross-border transactions. He deliberately avoids mentioning “personal control”.

In a juxtaposition, the video also shows a clip of Tucker Carlson’s Fox News interview with South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem (Rep), where she explains why she vetoes CBDC and that she is joined by at least another 20 US States, so far. She confirms what many economists have been saying since the concept of CBDCs is being pushed around the western hemisphere in the last ten years.

CBDCs would be an absolute control mechanism of every citizen on the planet. Nobody wants to be controlled, and – à la Great Reset, own nothing and be happy. People like their autonomy. See this for full interview (4 min) (video is below).

The massive planned banking collapse – already announced as a doomsday scenario in the aftermath of the 2008 / 2010 banking crisis and on several subsequent occasions — may already have begun. “They”, the “doomsday-people” who also command the WEF, are running ahead of schedule, execution of Agenda 2030, because people are gradually but increasingly waking up to the WEF-planned world disaster.

Of course, the WEF with its more than willing founder (1971) and CEO, Klaus Schwab, coming from a solid Nazi background and from a family deeply embedded into the Third Reich, is more than willingly complying.

Today the WEF is backed by Big-Finance looming in the shadows, BlackRock being WEF’s major financier. The likes of BlackRock, Vanguard and StateStreet, plus a series of smaller banks, Citi, Chase, Morgan, Bank of America – and further down the ladder, Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse – all of them are controlling an estimated US$ 25 to US$ 30 trillion of assets around the globe.

In addition, they are all deeply “over-engaged” in the Derivatives Market. While nobody knows exactly what the total of this Casino Money amounts to, estimates range from US$ 500 trillion to over a quadrillion dollar. Compare this with the world’s projected GDP of US$ 112.6 trillion (2023 estimate).

According to the Economic Times, a derivative is a contract between two parties (mostly banks and other financial institutions) which derives its value / price from an underlying asset. The most common types of derivatives are futures, options, forwards and swaps. In other words, they may include short-term speculations, helped by AI, for example on exchange rate fluctuations, often in fractions of a second.

Derivatives are not real money, but under certain circumstances, they are allowed to be part of a bank’s asset base, thereby risking blowing the total volume of assets out of proportion.

Derivatives are the loose card in a house of cards. You pull it, and the house collapses. You pull a card in two or three houses and the domino effect may wipe out the entire city of cards – the entire banking system may go down the drain. Since derivatives are interconnected worldwide, the entire international banking cartel may suffer.

If one or two heavily derivative-exposed banks claim their derivative holdings from their partner bank or banks, it becomes a “derivative-run” on the banks, and the system may collapse – possibly on a worldwide basis, or at least in the western dollar-based banking system.

Derivative speculations should long be either forbidden or at least regulated. They are not, thanks to massive lobbying of Big Finance. And thanks to almost total banking deregulation by the Clinton Administration in 1999, i.e. the repeal of the Glass Stegall Act, the abolition of the separation between investment and commercial banking, as well as basically limitless lending, without mandatary asset-liability ratios. This facilitates risk and laissez faire banking.

In times of fast and substantial interest rate hikes as we experienced over the last 12 months, over-exposed banks run higher risks of failure.

Back to derivatives – which are key in the looming banking crisis. Warren Buffet calls derivatives “Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction”. He is right.

Let’s look at the derivative exposure of big banking, also called “systemically important financial institutions” (SIFI). In a better-known term, they are called Too Big To Fail Banks, and used to be eligible for government “bail-outs” with taxpayer’s money.
In an elaborate paper by Ellen Brown, Chair of Public Banking, she describes the conundrum of derivatives. As of the third quarter of 2022, a total of 1,211 insured U.S. national and state commercial banks and savings associations held derivatives, but 88.6% of these were concentrated in only four large banks: J.P. Morgan Chase ($54.3 trillion), Goldman Sachs ($51 trillion), Citibank ($46 trillion), Bank of America ($21.6 trillion), followed by Wells Fargo ($12.2 trillion). Unlike in 2008-09, when the big derivative concerns were mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps, today the largest and riskiest category is interest rate products.

SIFIs, as defined by the Dodd-Frank Act, ratified in July 2010, is requiring insolvent SIFIs to “bail-in” the money of their creditors to recapitalize themselves. This banking law is seriously flawed because it incites depositors to run-on-their-bank to withdraw their money as soon as there are rumors of a bank’s instability. As we know, such consumer panics may bring down a bank and possibly the banking system, or parts of it, through a domino effect.

According to Ellen, “Technically, the cutoff for SIFIs is US$ 250 billion in assets. However, the reason they are called systemically important is not their asset size but the fact that their failure could bring down the whole financial system.”

“That designation comes chiefly from their exposure to derivatives, the global casino is so highly interconnected that it is a “house of cards.” Pull out one card and the whole house collapses. SVB held US$ 27.7 billion in derivatives, no small sum, but it is only .05% of the $55,387 billion ($55.387 trillion) held by JPMorgan, the largest US derivatives bank.”

For Ellen’s comprehensive article The Looming Quadrillion Dollar Derivatives Tsunami, see this.

The build-up of an up to a quadrillion dollar or more of a derivative casino does not happen overnight. And it does not happen haphazardly either. Could it possibly have been planned by a long hand – and prepared to fit the WEF’s Great Reset and Agenda 2030?

Massive growth of the derivative market started with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act (banking deregulation) in 1999. At the end of 1999, total outstanding derivatives stood at US$ 88.2 trillion dollars. Today, 23 years later, it is estimated at perhaps one quadrillion US-dollars or more. Was this explosive and exponential growth planned?

Was the Clinton Administration 1999 banking deregulation / repeal of Glass-Steagall a deliberate precursor for what was planned to be part of the WEF’s Great Reseat which intends to reset, to destroy the global economy, to rebuild it according to WEF’s One World Order, directed from the shadows by Big Finance, that the deregulation has helped it to become monstruous and all-dominating?

The derivative market is internationally highly interconnected. The collapse of a Casino Bank in the US may trigger banking failures in Indonesia. It is like a financial “butterfly effect”.

All that serves global dominance, to create a well-controlled and regulated One World Order, run on Central Bank Digital Currency – CBDC – with any parallel currency, crypto or else, strictly forbidden.

It is the international pharma industry married to international banking. The former controlled by WHO, the latter by the BIS – Bank for International Settlement.  Both based in Switzerland. As we know there are no coincidences.

So far it is just a plan – a diabolical plan, that We, the People can and must stop.

No comments:

Post a Comment