NSA – Political Blackmail Includes Everyone

snowden-recorded.jpg
Left, Edward Snowden: NSA ” even keep track of who is having an affair or looking at pornography.” 



“The ultimate goal of the NSA is total population control.” – NSA Official

But who controls the NSA?  The Illuminati bankers. 

Just as the Illuminati control their own members through blackmail, as humanity is inducted into their cult, at the lowest level, they control us in the same way.

The totalitarian template of the NWO is Cabalist Judaism, a satanic cult
on which the Illuminati is based. 








“To gain the same intimate detail for an entire country, the Stasi had to employ one police informer for every six East Germans…By contrast, the marriage of the NSA’s technology to the Internet’s data hubs now allows the agency’s 37,000 employees a similarly close coverage of the entire globe with just one operative for every 200,000 people on the planet.”


by “George Washington” 
For Zero hedge
(Abridged by henrymakow.com)



It is well-documented that governments use information to blackmail and control people. The Express reported last month: “British security services infiltrated and funded the notorious Paedophile Information Exchange in a covert operation to identify and possibly blackmail establishment figures, a Home Office whistleblower alleges.”
 
A Whistleblower Mr X,  said  [the pedophile group] was being funded at the request of Special Branch which found it politically useful to identify people who were paedophiles….”
There is widespread speculation that Pope Benedict resigned because of sexual blackmail.

And the American government has a long history of blackmailing people – including high-level officials- with knowledge of their sexual peccadilloes….FBI head Hoover was famous for blackmailing everyone … including politicians.  The New York Times reports:

“J. Edgar Hoover compiled secret dossiers on the sexual peccadillos and private misbehavior of those he labeled as enemies — really dangerous people like … President John F. Kennedy, for example.”
Alfred McCoy – Professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison – provides details:

Upon taking office on Roosevelt’s death in early 1945, Harry Truman soon learned the extraordinary extent of FBI surveillance. “We want no Gestapo or Secret Police,” Truman wrote in his diary that May. “FBI is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in sex-life scandals and plain blackmail.”
 
J. EDGAR HOOVER

After a quarter of a century of warrantless wiretaps, Hoover built up a veritable archive of sexual preferences among America’s powerful and used it to shape the direction of U.S. politics.  He distributed a dossier on Democratic presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson’s alleged homosexuality to assure his defeat in the 1952 presidential elections, circulated audio tapes of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s philandering, and monitored President Kennedy’s affair with mafia mistress Judith Exner. And these are just a small sampling of Hoover’s uses of scandal to keep the Washington power elite under his influence.
 
071222_j_edgar_hoover.jpg“The moment [Hoover] would get something on a senator,” recalled William Sullivan, the FBI’s chief of domestic intelligence during the 1960s, “he’d send one of the errand boys up and advise the senator that ‘we’re in the course of an investigation, and we by chance happened to come up with this data on your daughter…’ From that time on, the senator’s right in his pocket.” After his death, an official tally found Hoover had 883 such files on senators and 722 more on congressmen.
 
In the Obama years, the first signs have appeared that NSA surveillance will use the information gathered to traffic in scandal, much as Hoover’s FBI once did. In September 2013, the New York Times reported that the NSA has, since 2010, applied sophisticated software to create “social network diagrams…, unlock as many secrets about individuals as possible…, and pick up sensitive information like regular calls to a psychiatrist’s office, late-night messages to an extramarital partner.”
 
By collecting knowledge — routine, intimate, or scandalous — about foreign leaders, imperial proconsuls from ancient Rome to modern America have gained both the intelligence and aura of authority necessary for dominion over alien societies. The importance, and challenge, of controlling these local elites cannot be overstated. During its pacification of the Philippines after 1898, for instance, the U.S. colonial regime subdued contentious Filipino leaders via pervasive policing that swept up both political intelligence and personal scandal. And that, of course, was just what J. Edgar Hoover was doing in Washington during the 1950s and 1960s.
 
The ACLU’s Jameel Jaffer has warned that a president might “ask the NSA to use the fruits of surveillance to discredit a political opponent, journalist, or human rights activist. The NSA has used its power that way in the past and it would be naïve to think it couldn’t use its power that way in the future.” 
Even President Obama’s recently convened executive review of the NSA admitted: “[I]n light of the lessons of our own history… at some point in the future, high-level government officials will decide that this massive database of extraordinarily sensitive private information is there for the plucking.”
 
Indeed, whistleblower Edward Snowden has accused the NSA of actually conducting such surveillance.  In a December 2013 letter to the Brazilian people, he wrote, “They even keep track of who is having an affair or looking at pornography, in case they need to damage their target’s reputation.” If Snowden is right, then one key goal of NSA surveillance of world leaders is not U.S. national security but political blackmail — as it has been since 1898.
Today, the NSA tracks people’s porn-viewing habits in order to discredit activists.  The NSA also gathers and keeps nude and suggestive photos of people in order to blackmail them.

The Associated Press notes:

The stockpiling of sexually explicit images of ordinary people had uncomfortable echoes of George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” where the authorities — operating under the aegis of “Big Brother” — fit homes with cameras to monitor the intimate details of people’s home lives.
 
The collection of nude photographs also raise questions about potential for blackmail. America’s National Security Agency has already acknowledged that half a dozen analysts have been caught trawling databases for inappropriate material on partners or love interests. Other leaked documents have revealed how U.S. and British intelligence discussed leaking embarrassing material online to blacken the reputations of their targets.

FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds alleged under oath that a recently-serving Democratic Congresswoman was secretly videotaped – for blackmail purposes  – during a lesbian affair. (Other Congress members have been blackmailed as well.)

Edmonds tells Washington’s Blog that judges who are too “squeaky clean” are often not approved for nomination … while ones with skeletons in their closets are. And she says that high-level FBI managers have publicly confirmed this blackmail process.

There have been allegations of blackmail of gay activities within the U.S. armed forces for years.

220px-William_Binney-IMG_9040.jpgAnd even the raw data on American citizens collected by the NSA is shared with Israel.  This likely includes Congress members and other politicians, as well. Bill Binney, left, the NSA’s senior technical director turned whistleblower- told Washington’s Blog that the NSA’s blackmail tactics are the same as those used by the KGB and Stasi:

Binney told the Guardian recently: “The ultimate goal of the NSA is total population control.”

And Binney tells Washington’s Blog that NSA surveillance allows the government to target:

“[CIA head] General Petraeus and General Allen and others like [New York State Attorney General] Elliot Spitzer”
“Supreme Court Judges, other judges, Senators, Representatives, law firms and lawyers, and just anybody you don’t like … reporters included.”

NSA whistleblower Russell Tice (a key source in the 2005 New York Times report that blew the lid off the Bush administration’s use of warrantless wiretapping), also says: “The NSA is spying on and blackmailing its overseers in Washington, as well as Supreme Court judges, generals and others. The agency started spying on Barack Obama when he was just a candidate for the Senate.
And senior NSA executive Thomas Drake explains to Washington’s Blog that the NSA can use information gathered from mass surveillance to frame anyone it doesn’t like.

———–

Continue reading

“Inherit the Wind”- How the Illuminati Brainwashed Christians

inherit-the-wind-original.jpg(left, In the movie, Clarence Darrow, played by Spencer Tracy, interrogates William Jennings Bryan, played by Frederic March.)

The movie “Inherit the Wind” (1960) based
on the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, helped make
Americans adopt the doctrine of evolution.
James Perloff shows how Hollywood
distorted the facts to advance the Illuminati agenda.

“We are constantly, by means of our press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories… Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism.” (Protocols 2:2-3)

“Now only years divide us from the moment of the complete wrecking of that Christian religion.” (Protocol 17:2)

by James Perloff
(henrymakow.com)

Darwinism used spurious “science” (evolution) to supplant God as man’s creator.

Perhaps nothing advanced evolution so effectively as the play and movie Inherit the Wind. It depicts the 1925 “Monkey Trial.” The defendant was John Scopes, a Dayton, Tennessee schoolteacher charged with violating the Butler Act, a state law that forbade teaching that man descended from lower forms.

Leading Scopes’s defense was famed attorney Clarence Darrow. Assisting the prosecution was former Democratic Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan. The most common impression about this trial is that Darrow humiliated Bryan in cross-examination, scoring a powerful victory for Darwinism over religious fundamentalism.

Public beliefs regarding the trial are based mostly on Inherit the Wind, which portrayed a battle between enlightened evolutionists and imbecilic Christians. My book Tornado in a Junkyard compares the screenplay (the Oscar-nominated Spencer Tracy version) to the trial transcript and other records. Here are highlights. (The complete comparison is posted on my blog.)

John Scopes.jpgTHE MOVIE opens with the grim town minister and other prudes marching to the local high school. They arrest young Scopes, who is forthrightly teaching biology using Darwin.

IN REALITY, Scopes was not a biology teacher. He taught math, but had briefly substituted for a biology teacher during an illness. The ACLU recruited him to challenge the Butler Act. Scopes never taught evolution. He wrote in his autobiography, Center of the Storm: “Darrow had been afraid for me to go on the stand. Darrow realized that I was not a science teacher and he was afraid that if I were put on the stand I would be asked if I actually taught biology.”

“If the boys had got their review of evolution from me, I was unaware of it. I didn’t remember teaching it.”

IN THE MOVIE, we see Scopes in jail, a persecuted martyr. Aroused by the town preacher’s sermon, a lynch mob gathers outside the jail, burning Scopes in effigy. A rock sails through the window, injuring him.

IN REALITY, Scopes didn’t spent one second in jail. Violating the Butler Act was not an imprisonable offense. Furthermore, no bad blood existed between Scopes and Dayton’s people, who were delighted that the trial put Dayton on the map.

Darrow.jpgIN THE MOVIE, Clarence Darrow arrives, bravely taking the case singled-handedly. The local Christians boo him; a mob outside his hotel threatens a lynching.

IN REALITY, Darrow, left, brought a team of lawyers, and here’s what he himself said of his Dayton experience: “Yet, I came here a perfect stranger and I can say what I have said before that I have not found upon anybody’s part – any citizen here in this town or outside, the slightest discourtesy. I have been better treated, kindlier and more hospitably than I fancied would have been the case in the north.”

IN THE MOVIE, William Jennings Bryan is an ignorant bigot opposed to science. He says: “The people of this state have made it very clear that they do not want this zoological hogwash slobbered around the schoolrooms!” “The way of scientism is the way of darkness.”

IN REALITY, Bryan was a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. What he really said about science during the trial: “Give science a fact and it is not only invincible, but of incalculable service to man.”

IN THE MOVIE, the judge disallows any testimony from eminent scientists whom Darrow has brought. The judge declares “zoology” (which he can barely pronounce) and other sciences “irrelevant to the case.”

Bryan.jpgIN REALITY, Darrow called as a witness zoologist Maynard Metcalf, who testified at length. Bryan, left, quickly recognized that the atheistic Darrow was orchestrating a parade of witnesses to promote Darwinism. (The trial was being broadcast on radio nationwide, and reported in newspapers globally.) Bryan asked Judge John Raulston: “Will we be entitled to cross-examine their witnesses?” Raulston said they would.

This enraged Darrow, who knew Bryan would ask his witnesses embarrassing questions like “Where are Darwin’s missing links?” and “Are you an atheist?” Darrow therefore had his remaining witnesses submit affidavits. These totaled 60,000 words and occupy 54 pages of trial transcript; excerpts were read in court. The decision to stay off the stand was not made by a bigoted judge, but by Darrow himself, to elude cross-examination. Ironically, most of the “evidence” Darrow’s experts discussed – Piltdown Man, “useless vestigial organs” – are long discredited.

THE “DEBATE”

But what of that famous “debate” where Darrow supposedly trounced Bryan, symbolizing Darwinian triumph over the Bible?

It was not a debate. Darrow called Bryan as a witness. Thus only Darrow could ask questions, completely controlling the exchange. He peppered Bryan with anti-Bible questions he had spent years developing. On the preceding evening, he rehearsed his inquisition with an associate; Bryan, on the other hand, had to answer everything off-the-cuff.

Naturally, with these advantages, Darrow looked better than Bryan – but not nearly as decisively as in Inherit the Wind, which grossly distorts the event. For example, it has Bryan say that the Bible defines sex as “original sin” (nothing resembling this was said.) And when the movie’s cross-examination finishes, Bryan cracks up mentally, wildly shouting the names of the Bible’s books (another complete fabrication).

Hollywood distortions aside, why did Bryan place himself in a position where only Darrow could go on offense? The answer is simple. Darrow tricked Bryan into believing that, after this, their roles would reverse: Bryan would be able to question Darrow about Darwinism. This was important to Bryan, since he had been denied cross-examination of Darrow’s “experts.”

But the next morning, Bryan sat stunned as Darrow changed Scopes’s plea from “not guilty” to “guilty,” thus ending the trial.

Darrow’s words to the judge: “We will ask the court to bring in the jury and instruct the jury to find the defendant guilty.”

Darrow had no intention of going on the stand and letting Bryan get revenge by quizzing him on evolution. The trial had NEVER been about John Scopes’s guilt or innocence. Its sole purpose was to disseminate Darwinism and assail Christianity.

But in Inherit the Wind, Darrow fights to the bitter end for his client. The backwoods jury finds Scopes “guilty.”

Gloom falls on the defendant and his noble attorney, as “bigotry and ignorance” have won the day.

James Perloff is author of several books; his latest is Truth Is a Lonely Warrior.

 

Continue reading

Economists Sell their Souls to the Fed

economist.jpg

(Left, Economists need a crystal ball because they aren’t allowed to think for themselves)

Economists are the template for doctors

and all academic professions.

They do the bidding of the Illuminati Federal Reserve bank

directly or indirectly.



You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. – 1 Corinthians 7:23

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is to offer good men good jobs. (Apologies to Edmund Burke)

by Ryan Grim


How the Fed Bought the Economics Profession (Oct, 2009)

(Edited by henrymakow.com)

The Federal Reserve, through its
extensive network of consultants, visiting scholars, alumni and staff
economists, so thoroughly dominates the field of economics that real
criticism of the central bank has become a career liability for
members of the profession.

This dominance helps explain how, even
after the FED failed to foresee the [credit crash] the greatest economic collapse since
the Great Depression, the central bank has largely escaped criticism
from academic economists. In the Fed’s thrall, the economists
missed it, too.

“The FED has a lock on the
economics world,” says Joshua Rosner, a Wall Street analyst who
correctly called the meltdown. “There is no room for other
views, which I guess is why economists got it so wrong.”

One critical way the FED exerts control
on academic economists is through its relationships with the field’s
gatekeepers. For instance, at the Journal of
Monetary Economics
, a must-publish venue for rising economists, more
than half of the editorial board members are currently on the FED
payroll – and the rest have been in the past.

auerbach_0.jpgRobert Auerbach,left, a former investigator
with the House banking committee, spent years looking into the
workings of the FED and published much of what he found in the 2008
book, “Deception and Abuse at the FED”. A chapter in that book, excerpted here,
provided the impetus for this investigation.

Auerbach found that in 1992, roughly
968 members of the AEA designated “domestic monetary and
financial theory and institutions” as their primary field, and
717 designated it as their secondary field.

Combining his numbers with the current
ones from the AEA and NABE, it’s fair to conclude that there are
something like 1,000 to 1,500 monetary economists working across the
country. Add up the 220 economist jobs at the Board of Governors
along with regional bank hires and contracted economists, and the FED
employs or contracts with easily 500 economists at any given time.

Add in those who have previously worked
for the FED – or who hope to one day soon – and you’ve accounted for
a very significant majority of the field.

GATEKEEPERS

The FED keeps many of the influential
editors of prominent academic journals on its payroll. It is common
for a journal editor to review submissions dealing with FED policy
while also taking the bank’s money. A HuffPost review of seven top journals
found that 84 of the 190 editorial board members were affiliated with
the Federal Reserve in one way or another.

“Try to publish an article
critical of the FED with an editor who works for the FED,” says University of Texas professor James Galbraith.

And the journals, in turn, determine
which economists get tenure and what ideas are considered
respectable.

The pharmaceutical industry has
similarly worked to control key medical journals, but that involves
several companies. In the field of economics, it’s just the FED.

Being on the FED payroll isn’t just
about the money, either. A relationship with the FED carries
prestige; invitations to FED conferences and offers of visiting
scholarships with the bank signal a rising star or an economist who
has arrived. Affiliations with the FED have become
the oxygen of academic life for monetary economists.

“It’s very important, if you are
tenure track and don’t have tenure, to show that you are valued by
the Federal Reserve,” says Jane D’Arista, a FED critic and an
economist with the Political Economy Research Institute at the
University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Galbraith, a FED critic, has seen the
Fed’s influence on academia first hand.

He and co-authors Olivier Giovannoni
and Ann Russo found that in the year before a presidential election,
there is a significantly tighter monetary policy coming from the FED
if a Democrat is in office and a significantly looser policy if a
Republican is in office. The effects are both statistically
significant, allowing for controls, and economically important.

They submitted a paper with their
findings to the Review of Economics and Statistics in 2008, but the
paper was rejected.

“The editor assigned to it turned
out to be a fellow at the FED and that was after I requested that it
not be assigned to someone affiliated with the FED,” Galbraith
says.

Publishing in top journals is, like in
any discipline, the key to getting tenure. Indeed, pursuing tenure
ironically requires a kind of fealty to the dominant economic
ideology that is the precise opposite of the purpose of tenure, which
is to protect academics who present oppositional perspectives.

And while most academic disciplines and
top-tier journals are controlled by some defining paradigm, in an
academic field like poetry, that situation can do no harm other than
to, perhaps, a forest of trees.

Economics, unfortunately, collides with
reality – as it did with the Fed’s incorrect reading of the housing
bubble and failure to regulate financial institutions. Neither was a
matter of incompetence, but both resulted from the Fed’s unchallenged
assumptions about the way the market worked.

freedman1.jpgEven the late Milton Friedman, whose
monetary economic theories heavily influenced Greenspan, was
concerned about the stifled nature of the debate.

Friedman, in a 1993 letter to Auerbach
that the author quotes in his book, argued that the FED practice was
harming objectivity: “I cannot disagree with you that having
something like 500 economists is extremely unhealthy. As you say, it
is not conducive to independent, objective research.

You and I know there has been
censorship of the material published.

Equally important, the location of the
economists in the Federal Reserve has had a significant influence on
the kind of research they do, biasing that research toward
noncontroversial technical papers on method as opposed to substantive
papers on policy and results,” Friedman wrote.

Greenspan told Congress in October 2008
that he was in a state of “shocked disbelief” and that the
“whole intellectual edifice” had “collapsed.”

House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) followed up: “In
other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology,
was not right, it was not working.”

“Absolutely, precisely,”
Greenspan replied. “You know, that’s precisely the reason I was
shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very
considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.”

But, if the intellectual edifice has
collapsed, the intellectual infrastructure remains in place.

The same economists who provided
Greenspan his “very considerable evidence” are still
running the journals and still analyzing the world using the same
models that were incapable of seeing the credit boom and the coming
collapse.

continued here

Continue reading