Communism: The Imminent Threat

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | FEBRUARY 18, 2013

According to mainline history, Communism and its allies Marxism and Socialism ended with the fall of the Soviet Union on 26 December 1991, after the USSR was dissolved by declaration № 142-H. After the supposed dissolution, it was agreed that a Commonwealth of Independent States would enter into existence, a move that was facilitated by President Mikhail Gorbachev’s resignation, which also meant the ‘extinction’ of his position in government. All too easy to be truth, right? That is because it is not true.

None of the aforementioned ideologies disappeared back in 1991. They are still grave threats to world affairs today. In fact, what really happened back in 1991 was not the fall of Communism, but its move to an underground operation, where it’s been planning a comeback. The fall of the Soviet Union was not the end of the Communist threat, but the beginning of the next phase in world conquest by the same powers that financed and supported Marxist and Fascist regimes all over the planet. The new Marxist stronghold would no longer be concentrated in Asia. It spread like cancerous cells that are extirpated only to come back wilder and stronger.

One of the strongest centers of underground Communism and Marxism would be, surprise, surprise, the heart of the new and solitary Empire: The United States of America. That’s right. Mass nationalization of large sectors of the economy, as in government bailouts, redistribution of wealth, which incidentally hasn’t gone to the poorest people and a series of unfortunate events that began decades ago are bread crumbs left for the rise of the new global Marxist power.

Lately, a strong movement to discredit government opposition was unveiled. The move to smash those who oppose nationalization and wealth redistribution is led by government-owned main stream media — corporate media that received taxpayer funds in their own version of a financial rescue.

Political incorrectness is now called racism and vociferous opposition to government policies is equaled to terrorism. Whoever dares to challenge the government is rapidly labeled a lunatic who needs mental help. Main stream media personalities now call for the heads of alternative journalists and citizens who decided to stop watching the government-fed propaganda on cable and network news.

After faking an open war against Al-Qaeda, the U.S. government is warning about the new domestic threats: Conservatives, libertarians, religious people, veterans, pro-life and Second Amendment supporters are closely watched by the growing surveillance apparatus.

With most of the main stream media in its pocket, the U.S. government uses its spying network to exercise censorship over those with opposing views, mainly through public-private partnerships with Google, Facebook, Twitter and technology manufacturers such as Raytheon, which developed an all-seeing eye spy software capable of hoarding and analyzing large amounts of information circulating on the web. The internet as it turns out, is the government’s most powerful tool to spread lies and disinformation, but it is also its worst nightmare.

Recently, a series of mass shootings that took place all over the United States, thought to be false-flag or instigated events were used as tools for the orchestration of a countrywide psychological operation that seeks to disarm the population. Disarmament is unequivocally the last step a government takes before a repressive regime is fully installed.

It has happened before in Asia, Africa, Europe, Latin America, and only the foolish in North America believe that it can’t happen there. The U.S. government announced that Barack Obama will sign the United Nations Arms Treaty, which will ultimately yield control on firearms sales. purchases and manufacturing to the international organization located in New York City.

After a mass disarmament movement that renders the U.N., not the U.S. government or the American people as the decider, the next step is the creation of a paramilitary force, which was announced by Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign. That is not an Army or a civilian militia that would be formed by freely armed citizens, but a group of government controlled thug force.

The National Civilian Security Force that should be as large and as powerful as the U.S. Army itself will not be in place to defend the country from foreign or domestic threats, but to deal with unruly Americans. It would be something similar to the Brown Shirts.

Amazingly, the creation of Barack Obama’s National Civilian Security Force was not done directly through legislation or a presidential executive order. It was sneaked into the Obamacare legislation. According to various paragraphs of the health care law, which was given the green light by the U.S. Supreme Court, the government mandates the commissioning of officers, who, in time of a national crisis, will report directly to the president. That is what Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin calls a “constabulary force that will control the population”.

General Boykin is not the only American concerned about the advance of Marxism in the United States. People like Paul Craig Roberts, the father of Reaganomics, also wrote about the growing Police State. “The Bush regime’s response to 9/11 and the Obama regime’s validation of this response have destroyed accountable democratic government in the United States. So much unaccountable power has been concentrated in the executive branch that the US Constitution is no longer an operable document,” wrote Roberts in his piece It has Happened Here.

Roberts cites the Patriot Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the initiation of wars of aggression, the use of  torture, the indefinite detention of US citizens and consequent elimination of Habeas Corpus and due process, the creation of military tribunals and the secret legal memos giving the president authority to launch preemptive cyber attacks on any country, as proof that the United States is already an acting Police State.

“I think America is rapidly moving towards Marxism,” said Lt. General Boykin during a speech on September 11, 2012.

So what is awaiting the United States and the rest of the world if everything continues to go the way Barack Obama, Jose Manuel Barroso, François Hollande, Mario Draghi and their elitist mentors want? Let’s first understand what they planned to do and how they planned to achieve it.

Marxists always saw revolution as the way to carry out their agenda. The type of revolution they practice, however, is not one led by real ideas and real change, but one spurred by violence. Violence always needs a trigger, a drop that overflows the glass so that the people think it is good to support such violence. In the 21st century, racial and class warfare are the reflections of the plan crafted by Marxists who went underground decades ago.

As Lt. Gen. Boykin explains, Marxists planned to use their ideology to create cultural revolution that would be sustained by the most sacred teachings of radical Marxist thinkers. They also planned to introduce a messiah-like figure, who would publicly lead their revolution. Their operation would need to be well-financed to be strong and effective, so they drafted loyal and rich sponsors.

Following the teachings of Saul Alinsky, the Marxists began a strong community organizing movement, whose expansion was financed in the United States by George Soros. They understood that to change society, the transformation had to start from the bottom and grow all the way to the top. Such transformation was not necessary in every single institution or government organization, but on the minds of a few selected men and women who would work for the introduction and reaffirmation of their agenda: to have a Marxist-Socialist and then Communist regime in the United States.

For the Marxist revolution to work, the movement would need as many supporters as possible, and the best way to attract the largest masses was to promise a paradise to every member of society who had ears for their message.

– How would you like to work until you are 52 years old and then retire to live on a pension the rest of your life? Wouldn’t you enjoy having free healthcare for yourself and your family?

– Of course I would, sir. What do I have to do to get it?

– First of all, think about why does that white guy across the street and his family have it and you don’t.

– And then?

– Well, you deserve all that and more. But for you to get it, you have to demand it from government. Believe me, you are entitled to every single penny.

So, where did the government get money to pay for entitlement programs? It got neck-deep into debt. For baby boomers and others to retire and live the rest of their lives as kings, –compared to the poor– the government assigned thousands of dollars of debt to thousands of unborn and their siblings who would have to work their whole lives to pay for the socialist programs promised to the people.

This phenomenon did not only occur in the United States, but in Europe as well. Entitlement programs went from being plans to help the needy, to the largest jackpot ever created. As long as paychecks made their way to savings accounts all over Europe and the U.S., the people lived happily.

But the money dried up. Socialism had failed again. The growing list of bills coming from entitlement programs, whose reserves never existed or were burglarized by the bankers, overthrew the socialist dream that preached how government was the origin of everything good and hearty.

In Europe and other parts of the world, the birth to death ratio further enhanced the funding crisis for the entitlement programs, because in many countries the next generation will not make it in time, or will not make it at all, to continue supporting the entitlement system. In the United States, pension funds, –both public and private– savings and investment accounts were ransacked by irresponsible firms that bet high with everyone else’s money.

The impossibility to substitute the baby boomers with a new generation of debt slaves worked perfectly well for the Marxist movement, which had just the ‘right’ solution for the lack of workers: inundate the country with illegal immigrants, who according to Barack Obama’s own words, will soon become legal; either by passing ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ legislation in Congress or by the stroke of his pen.

Giving free green cards to 30 million violators of U.S. immigration laws –not 11 million– will not only guarantee that the debt enslavement of new generations composed by illegals will continue, but also that the movement will have plenty of support from the unsuspecting illegal aliens who are not capable of understanding that they are being brought to the plantation to become the future mules.

Just as in the United States the ‘majority’ will soon enough change skin color, in Europe, countries have also been invaded by North Africans and Middle Eastern immigrants who are reproducing at a rate of 5.6%; much higher than natives of the Anglo-Saxon regions of the world. Just as North Africans and people from the Middle East will overrun Europe, Latinos will take over in the United States.

What’s the problem with Latinos or North Africans taking over? Well, most of these people –both in the U.S. and Europe– come from places where they are taught to hate whites and where whites are blamed for the inequality they’ve lived in for generations. They are coming to take what they think is theirs. The minds of the new wave of immigrants are filled with what Karl Marx used to believe:

There are two classes: The workers, who have no control over anything, and the wealthy, who own it all. (Except the people who the illegal immigrants think are the wealthy, are not really so.)

Where did the middle class go? In Marx’s brain, it doesn’t exist. It is the 99% versus the 1%. For Marx and his students, this scenario is perfect, because it provides the perfect conditions for their dreamed revolution. Is there a more effective way to rally people than to tell them that it is necessary to overrun their neighbors to be like the rich 1%? It is a darn effective way to drive the masses, isn’t it?

Only the so-called liberal media, who is funded by George Soros and the U.S. Federal Government has the audacity to tell people who it is fair for the richest people to pay more taxes, because they earn more. Unfortunately, those ‘rich’ people are not the heads of corporations who live abroad and who hide their cash in tax heavens. Those guys and their corporations are grossly exempted from paying taxes, because the government says so.

Bill Gates, George Soros, Warren Buffet and others, who incidentally call for more taxes on the rich, are always free from taxation. The rich people often referenced in Marxist talking points, who need to collaborate with the massive wealth redistribution are in reality members of the middle class.

Even though the top 10 percent pays about 70% in income taxes and the top 5 percent pays around 40%, the Marxists allege that it is just for them to pay more. Remember, this top 10 or top 5 percent does not include the really wealthy, who hide and launder their monies through foundations and charities.

So why do the Marxist and their financiers support more taxes? It is simply a talking point used in their class warfare strategy to divide the people into groups and to have them fight against each other while the richest of the rich continue to hide their monopolies and wealth behind ‘kind’ initiatives.

Socialism, the other arm of the elite’s body that controls a large part of the population, was imposed on most of Europe under the lie that it was Capitalism. Countries were allowed to run a washed out version of Capitalism that was tightly controlled by government socialism. Under this scheme, the elite’s puppets distribute the wealth from the beginning, so that they do not have to face opposition when re-distributing it.

Government ‘naturally’ distributed the wealth to its accomplices, the wealthiest people, the 0.001%, who in turn steer government to do what they want. But even this Socialism dressed as Capitalism, crony Capitalism, could not stand the test of time. It has crumbled to the ground in a controlled fashion, because it, as a system of control, does not work anymore.

This form of Socialism, still practiced in places like Brazil and the United States, which normally gives way to Communism, is not the type that Karl Marx talked about back in the 1800s. It is the type of Socialism and then Communism implemented by Joseph Stalin. Stalin’s Communism is the one where everything belongs to the Party Government, not to the people. In it, the Party Government is the only and highest power. The type of social organization imagined by Marx or Lenin has never been applied.

Countries where this ideology stands today, are places where people receive what the Party Government wants to give them. In a sense, the elite uses Socialism as a launching pad, a smokescreen that hides the truth and that supports all the empty promises made by Party and Government. In its last stages, and through the transformation from Socialism to Communism, members of the elite, who are also members of the Party Government, hoard it all, including production, infrastructure, military power and of course control of Government. Cases in point: Cuba, Venezuela, China, Brazil. Little if nothing is given to the poor, who by now have been joined by the middle class in their misery.

Is it possible to see any resemblance in the way modern western countries manage themselves today? The western world is not being threatened by Marxism, Socialism or Communism, it has been taken over by it.

Democracy, Socialism, Communism, Fascism and almost any other political ideology or social movement have always been controlled by the same people and have always been used to divide and conquer, much like religion has been used to divide civilizations throughout history.

Democracy, the rule of the mob, Socialism, the rule of the Party, Fascism, the rule of the dictator and Communism the rule of the elite have something in common: They are tools used to separate the masses into small farms from where the people are controlled and made to fight against each other while the truly rich loot them all down to the last breath.

All Marxists, Socialists and Communists know how to destroy societies. Vladimir Lenin said it himself when describing his plan to destroy the United States:

“America is like a healthy body and his resistance is threefold: Its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.”

Hasn’t the job been carried out almost to perfection?

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

When does the perception of legality trump morality and ethics?

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | FEBRUARY 8, 2013

The dire consequences of having a lawyer as President of a country are well-known by now. According to many lawyers, legality, or the perception of legality trumps morality and ethics. Sometimes even in the absence of legality, immoral and unethical acts are committed and justified with little or no opposition from those who, in other cases, sustain the power of the laws when they benefit their baseless explanations.

The notion that a person or a person on behalf of a country or a group of people can award himself the power to murder others who he thinks are a threat, has no legal, moral or ethical standing. Lawyers, however will tell you the opposite. They will tell you that killing someone whose guilt is yet to be proven can be legal in some cases. They use criteria that is supposedly contained in international, constitutional and national security laws used as justification to execute someone without proving guilt or intention to commit a crime, and in doing so, the right to have due process and the benefit of being tried by a jury of peers is illegally denied.

The latest example of what I call the ‘idiocy of legalities’ is the perception expressed by Christopher Swift, Assistant Professor of National Security Studies at the University of Georgetown. During an interview where he was questioned about the legality, morality and ethics used to support the murder of Americans and thousands of innocents with drones, Swift poses that such action must be analyzed through three different microscopes. First, the legal aspect, where he stands along the murderous policies of the United States government.

In the case of Anwar al-Awlaki — an American citizen assassinated in Yemen by a drone attack — “it met international law,” says Swift, because the man was in a country which authorized the U.S. to use drones in the fight against Al-Qaeda. As we all know by now, al-Awlaki was a U.S. asset in the region. He was an agent of the U.S. government who dined at the Pentagon just days after the 9/11 attacks. He was a member of al-Qaeda, a terrorist organization created by the U.S. government back in the 1970s.

“It also meets constitutional legality,” adds Swift. He says that a U.S. president can order the death of a fellow citizen “even if he is in a foreign country that is at war.” Mr. Swift bases his assumption on the debunked claim that al-Awlaki was plotting to attack United States or an American ally. That claim comes from the same U.S. government who the cleric used to work for, in which case the people in need to be tried and or assassinated would be the members of government who sponsored, kept secret or aided al-Awlaki to supposedly carry out such attacks. In fact, there is a legal mechanism to do that very same thing when people are accused of Treason, which is what a group of hand-picked, high-level government official engage into.

Swift’s position on this issue shows three things. First, he is, at least publicly, a gullible loser who trusts his government. Second, he would kill anyone before awarding him the proper due process, just because there is a law that says so. Third, the perception of legality and constitutionality, as they were understood in the framework of the U.S. Constitution, has been changed by so-called legal experts, because while the document guarantees due process to anyone accused of a crime, those who read, study and interpret the law do not believe such right should be respected in some cases. To sum up, nowhere on the U.S. Constitution the government is allowed to capture, hold indefinitely or murder citizens without a trial, and any law created by politicians that says the contrary is simply unconstitutional. But lawyers make up laws and interpretations of the laws so that it is perceived that such actions are legal and constitutional.

“The Supreme Court upheld that it is legitimate to kill a U.S. citizen without violating the Fifth Amendment as long as it involves an imminent threat,” asserts Swift. The fact that the Supreme Court upholds the prerogative that the government gave itself to kill citizens at home or abroad does not have any legal, moral or ethical standing. Murder is always a crime and the idea that some questionable, bogus threat justifies murdering someone are really threatening to the legal pillars that sustain the United States as a Republic. Just because something is perceived or interpreted as legal, which is not the case here, does not make it constitutional, moral or ethical.

Mr. Swift then analyzed the legality of enhanced interrogations, better known as torture. In the case of the crimes committed by the previous administration, Swift does find the standing to call it illegal. “The authorization of the use of torture during the mandates of George W. Bush is completely illegal,” said Swift. It is important to remember that many of the torture sessions carried out by the United States government, which have been proven not to be useful tools to obtain relevant intelligence, ended up in the death of those who were tortured. In this sense, Swift sees murders committed by people flying high-tech toys as legal, while condemning murder by methods such as water boarding. Double standard?

When questioned about whether the Obama administration should change its strategy in its supposed attempt to fight terrorism, Swift quickly pointed out what according to him is the relevant aspect of the discussion. “The debate should not focus on the legality of drone attacks, but on its long-term effectiveness. How effective will the fight against terrorism be when done with a remote control? Not effective at all. The military success of the Army is not contributing to political stability that is what the U.S. intends to achieve in Yemen and Afghanistan.”

Clearly, Mr. Swift and the U.S. government have a lot in common. For example, they believe that the universal right to life does not exist when a person has brown skin, wears a turban and lives in a country thousands of miles away from the U.S., where he expresses hatred towards American politics. Also, legality and constitutionality are not what the founding documents of the United States say they are, but whatever lawyers say it is; no matter how badly those interpretations of what is legal or constitutional oppose the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Last but not least, legality trumps morality and ethics. One could even risk a guess and say that for people like Barack Obama, a constitutional lawyer himself, and Christopher Swift, the trait of humanity is simply meaningless if there is a legal backdoor that can be crossed to destroy it.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

CIA, Google to monitor the web in real time, predicting the future

CIA and Google are both backing a company that monitors the web in real time — and says it uses that information to predict the future.

WIRED

The company is called Recorded Future, and it scours tens of thousands of websites, blogs and Twitter accounts to find the relationships between people, organizations, actions and incidents — both present and still-to-come. In a white paper, the company says its temporal analytics engine “goes beyond search” by “looking at the ‘invisible links’ between documents that talk about the same, or related, entities and events.”

The idea is to figure out for each incident who was involved, where it happened and when it might go down. Recorded Future then plots that chatter, showing online “momentum” for any given event.

“The cool thing is, you can actually predict the curve, in many cases,” says company CEO Christopher Ahlberg, a former Swedish Army Ranger with a PhD in computer science.

Which naturally makes the 16-person Cambridge, Massachusetts, firm attractive to Google Ventures, the search giant’s investment division, and to In-Q-Tel, which handles similar duties for the CIA and the wider intelligence community.

It’s not the very first time Google has done business with America’s spy agencies. Long before it reportedly enlisted the help of the National Security Agency to secure its networks, Google sold equipment to the secret signals-intelligence group. In-Q-Tel backed the mapping firm Keyhole, which was bought by Google in 2004 — and then became the backbone for Google Earth.

This appears to be the first time, however, that the intelligence community and Google have funded the same startup, at the same time. No one is accusing Google of directly collaborating with the CIA. But the investments are bound to be fodder for critics of Google, who already see the search giant as overly cozy with the U.S. government, and worry that the company is starting to forget its “don’t be evil” mantra.

America’s spy services have become increasingly interested in mining “open source intelligence” — information that’s publicly available, but often hidden in the daily avalanche of TV shows, newspaper articles, blog posts, online videos and radio reports.

Secret information isn’t always the brass ring in our profession,” then CIA-director General Michael Hayden told a conference in 2008. “In fact, there’s a real satisfaction in solving a problem or answering a tough question with information that someone was dumb enough to leave out in the open.”

U.S. spy agencies, through In-Q-Tel, have invested in a number of firms to help them better find that information. Visible Technologies crawls over half a million web 2.0 sites a day, scraping more than a million posts and conversations taking place on blogs, YouTube, Twitter and Amazon. Attensity applies the rules of grammar to the so-called “unstructured text” of the web to make it more easily digestible by government databases. Keyhole (now Google Earth) is a staple of the targeting cells in military-intelligence units.

Recorded Future strips from web pages the people, places and activities they mention. The company examines when and where these events happened (“spatial and temporal analysis”) and the tone of the document (“sentiment analysis”). Then it applies some artificial-intelligence algorithms to tease out connections between the players. Recorded Future maintains an index with more than 100 million events, hosted on Amazon.com servers. The analysis, however, is on the living web.

“We’re right there as it happens,” Ahlberg told Danger Room as he clicked through a demonstration. “We can assemble actual real-time dossiers on people.”

Recorded Future certainly has the potential to spot events and trends early. Take the case of Hezbollah’s long-range missiles. On March 21, Israeli President Shimon Peres leveled the allegation that the terror group had Scud-like weapons. Scouring Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah’s past statements, Recorded Future found corroborating evidence from a month prior that appeared to back up Peres’ accusations.

That’s one of several hypothetical cases Recorded Future runs in its blog devoted to intelligence analysis. But it’s safe to assume that the company already has at least one spy agency’s attention. In-Q-Tel doesn’t make investments in firms without an “end customer” ready to test out that company’s products.

Both Google Ventures and In-Q-Tel made their investments in 2009, shortly after the company was founded. The exact amounts weren’t disclosed, but were under $10 million each. Google’s investment came to light earlier this year online. In-Q-Tel, which often announces its new holdings in press releases, quietly uploaded a brief mention of its investment a few weeks ago.

Both In-Q-Tel and Google Ventures have seats on Recorded Future’s board. Ahlberg says those board members have been “very helpful,” providing business and technology advice, as well as introducing him to potential customers. Both organizations, it’s safe to say, will profit handsomely if Recorded Future is ever sold or taken public. Ahlberg’s last company, the corporate intelligence firm Spotfire, was acquired in 2007 for $195 million in cash.

Google Ventures did not return requests to comment for this article. In-Q-Tel Chief of Staff Lisbeth Poulos e-mailed a one-line statement: “We are pleased that Recorded Future is now part of IQT’s portfolio of innovative startup companies who support the mission of the U.S. Intelligence Community.”

Just because Google and In-Q-Tel have both invested in Recorded Future doesn’t mean Google is suddenly in bed with the government. Of course, to Google’s critics — including conservative legal groups, and Republican congressmen — the Obama Administration and the Mountain View, California, company slipped between the sheets a long time ago.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt hosted a town hall at company headquarters in the early days of Obama’s presidential campaign. Senior White House officials like economic chief Larry Summers give speeches at the New America Foundation, the left-of-center think tank chaired by Schmidt. Former Google public policy chief Andrew McLaughlin is now the White House’s deputy CTO, and was publicly (if mildly) reprimanded by the administration for continuing to hash out issues with his former colleagues.

In some corners, the scrutiny of the company’s political ties have dovetailed with concerns about how Google collects and uses its enormous storehouse of search data, e-mail, maps and online documents. Google, as we all know, keeps a titanic amount of information about every aspect of our online lives. Customers largely have trusted the company so far, because of the quality of their products, and because of Google’s pledges not to misuse the information still ring true to many.

But unease has been growing. Thirty seven state Attorneys General are demanding answers from the company after Google hoovered up 600 gigabytes of data from open Wi-Fi networks as it snapped pictures for its Street View project. (The company swears the incident was an accident.)

“Assurances from the likes of Google that the company can be trusted to respect consumers’ privacy because its corporate motto is ‘don’t be evil’ have been shown by recent events such as the ‘Wi-Spy’ debacle to be unwarranted,” long-time corporate gadfly John M. Simpson told a Congressional hearing in a prepared statement. Any business dealings with the CIA’s investment arm are unlikely to make critics like him more comfortable.

But Steven Aftergood, a critical observer of the intelligence community from his perch at the Federation of American Scientists, isn’t worried about the Recorded Future deal. Yet.

“To me, whether this is troublesome or not depends on the degree of transparency involved. If everything is aboveboard — from contracts to deliverables — I don’t see a problem with it,” he told Danger Room by e-mail. “But if there are blank spots in the record, then they will be filled with public skepticism or worse, both here and abroad, and not without reason.”